• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Colin Wilson

B

Bilderberger

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
591
I am fascinated by Colin Wilson. Before developing a taste in Forteana, I was aware of him through reading The Outsider, A Criminal History of Mankind and his autobiography - all of which are exceptionally intelligent and erudite books.

Once my interest in the world of the unusual had developed, I was shocked to see that he has written so many books on the subject. I immediately read his latest forays into the subject (Atlantis Blueprint, Alien Dawn, From Atlantis to the Sphinx) and was surprised at what I was reading. Here was a man whose intelligence and scholarship I have great respect for, entering into the fringes of history/science. Not only that, but he seemed to have lost a certain amount of judgement in what he is prepared to believe at face value.

Other readings of more recent Colin Wilson books struck me as just being regurgitations of other people's work. Whole chapters would be based on the research of another with little analysis of the subject itself from Colin Wilson. It was as though he had become a sponge/filter for other people's work.

He also appears to fall into the trap of believing that because maverick ideas in the past have become acceptable at a later date, then that means that most maverick ideas have, by reference to their novelty, credence that the evidence does not neccessarily provide.

I still do have the greatest respect for Colin Wilson and he is, undoubtedly, a great man. I was just wondering what other people think of him and the development of his writing career. Am I missing the point of his more recent work or has he got a bit lazy? I would love to read a serious work by Colin Wilson on a Fortean subject but I feel he lets himself down slightly.

No offense intended - he is more intelligent than I could ever dream of being and, on the whole, has been a great contributor to the world of ideas in the late 20th century.

What do you think?
 
Both "The Occult" and "Mysteries" by him are among the most interesting books I have ever read, and probably a major factor in my interest in things Fortean. I'm not saying they are all correct, by any means, but they are amazingly interesting. Well worth reading both.
 
Colin Wilson's Approach

I'm always glad to find another book by Colin Wilson and always enjoy reading them, whether they're hard-headed and erudite or somewhat credulous and uncritical. He's consistently interesting and always worth a look. Further, I suspect his "overview" sort of books, in which he presents material largely from other works, are meant more to get those points into the public discourse in a more concerted manner, rather than to present any original point of his own. When he does focus on expounding his philosophy or analyzing Forteana, though, he's remarkable.

Be advised, too, that he publishes compendia, often with his son Damon. These are interesting as well, but much closer to watching a TV documentary than reading a Colin Wilson book.
 
I have read one of the compendia type books (co-written with his son) and totally agree with your summary of their genre.

Have just checked the Unconvention schedule and seen that Colin is being interviewed on the Saturday - which is the day I will be attending!

Fantastic news - will be great to see him talking over a wide range of subjects rather than just Atlantis (or whatever of his many interests he chooses).

Have you (or anyone else) ready any of his novels? I haven't and was wondering if they are worth a read.
 
Wilson's Novels

Yes, indeed, his fiction is excellent, both as compelling, suspenseful reading, and for the philosophical discussions his characters often indulge in. I've read several, from The Space Vampires -- don't let the title put you off, it's actually a thoughtful fictional treatment of empaths - to The Philosopher's Stone, The Glass Cage, and others.

Recommended.
 
I would agree with your assessment, Bilderberger. I always recommend that my friends read his book "Poltergeist! A Study in Destructive Haunting".
 
I too am a great Colin Wilson fan, although I spend more and more time the older I get argueing with his conclusions!

It has always seemed to me that Wilson, coming from a working class background, has an understanding of writing as a job. It seems to me that he often writes to pay the rent etc, which finances other, less popular projects.

Before anyone jumps on me, especially Colin, I don't see anything wrong in that! It's just we have massive expectations of Wilson, something that dogged him from his first book onward. I hope to meet him at Uncon, just to shake his hand and say thanks, he's been an abiding inspiration, even if he and I would possibly disagree on quite a few points. That would be one disscussion I would love to have!
 
Colin Wilson is an excellent true crime author. Therefore, I found it very surprising when, in a book by another author about an infamous US serial killer, he postulated that the killer was possessed. Um, no.

What makes a serial killer is usually the parents, and in this case, this was no exception.
 
Like others, I found Wilson's books 'Mysteries' and 'Poltergeist' fascinating introductions to Forteana. I can't agree that his novels have any literary merit whatsoever.

However, what has always disturbed me about his writings is his attitude towards sexuality. Sexuality in Wilson's world seems a very male preserve, and a heterosexual male one at that. I always got the impression that he made the mistake of assuming that his sexuality was common to all other males, whereas I would hope that there are many straight men who would find something chillingly repellent about his assumptions. Whether or not my impression is true, I have of course, no way of knowing, but it is an abiding one.

Wilson seems to equate sexuality with possession, a position which I'm afraid I consider not only misguided but dangerous. Iits sadly obvious that Wilson, whatever his merits, failed to adapt to a post-feminist world, and I suspect that this will make him seem increasingly dated.
 
I wouldn't be surprised if Colin Wilson wasn't most people's first foray into Forteana. What he does (and does rather well, really) is bring together other people's ideas, notions and theories, into one book, which is handy for research purposes. It's on the actual putting forward of original theories that he tends to fall down. This is not intended as a criticism - he writes what people want to read, which is basically a collection of paper clippings and magazine articles bound together with a fairly common theme. I have several of his books - buying one of his tends to save on buying another 6, cus most of them will be in his! It's a shame he completely omits a bibliography - that would be interesting.
 
i must say i agree with bilderburgger here...... but when a teenager i used to seek out his fiction books too, i now realize the error of my ways. i was largely driven by testosterone and read them hopeing to find dirty bits and rereading them now i find them a bit boreing and shallow. ... Mysteries and Ocult are indeed classic books recent pot boilers are...well rubish realy
 
When We Read & How & Why

Ever consider that maybe your reading of Wilson's fiction was callow due to your youth? Then again, matters not.

Also please realize that most if not all people fascinated by fringe topics are hiding their heads and diverting their awareness from actual problems in order to avoid having to do anything about them. In the grand scheme, not one fringe topic matters a whit.

Of course, the philosophic among us have a higher vantage, they claim, and insist on the importance adhering to abstracts.
 
Re: When We Read & How & Why

FraterLibre said:
Ever consider that maybe your reading of Wilson's fiction was callow due to your youth? Then again, matters not.

Also please realize that most if not all people fascinated by fringe topics are hiding their heads and diverting their awareness from actual problems in order to avoid having to do anything about them. In the grand scheme, not one fringe topic matters a whit.

Of course, the philosophic among us have a higher vantage, they claim, and insist on the importance adhering to abstracts.
Click to expand...


humm yes... i was young then and driven by lust and now im older but not wiser but i have read many more books in the meantime. Some of them not even a bit sexy. And to me Our Colin seems obsesed with his idea of the "Right Man" (basicly im important and you dont realise it so im going to throw my toys out of my cot)...

I disagree the center always fightes the peripherie. tho the edge is where the crativity oringinates and they feed off it (tho indirectly)

And of cousre the Philosophic always claim that.. Cos to a lot of people if u can exclude some one u have won...
 
Sidecar of Cole Slaw Please

Sidecar John - You have raised an excellent point here. Colin Wilson's novels are almost always written to delineate or expatiate upon his philosophical ideas. They are not written the way normal novels are written, nor are they meant to be normal novels.

What you respond against mostly is his insistence on driving his philosophical ideas forward in the fiction, rather than allowing living characters the chance to solve their own dilemmas, etc.

This is precisely what makes Wilson's novels unpalatable to many who otherwise enjoy a good chunk of fiction. It is also a good reason to excuse them from standard assessment. The criteria applied to fiction written in the usual way don't apply.

So think of his novels more as thought experiments and object lessons -- extensions of his nonfiction, really -- and don't expect from them what you'd want from, say, the latest Ken Follett or Stephen King. That way you'll not be disappointed.

And yes, the philosophically inclined do tend to subsume one's subset rather too easily, don't they? LOL
 
i dont realy see then as driveing forwards, posibly i read them out of sequance.. generaly i can read Follet et all.. they realy are dire!..

And i'd say once a novel is released for public consuption everyone has the right to judge it in any way they want... no speciel pleading can be enetered into...

yes well thats what ur into i sopose... subsets or not
 
A Book Is No Better Than It's Reader

No special pleading intended or necessary, they stand on their own and fall with what each reader brings to them, as with all works of art.
 
Has anyone read "The Strength To Dream:Literature and the Imagination" by Wilson? (Abacus, London, 1976) There is a very telling statement as to Wilson's approach to fiction in the introduction

"The problem can be simply stated. The novel is an impersonal form, developed by men who wanted to entertain. The twietieth century writer usually has an intensely personal viewpoint to express. The struggle lies in uniting the two."p16

Also

"...in every writer who possesses intensity of imagination, the imagination is closely bound up with his sense of values - that is to say, ultimately with his notion of the meaning and purpose of human existence." p11

To put this into practice on Wilson's own work, what does his work say about how he sees the meaning and purpose of human existence?

PS. Wintermute I agree with your comment on Wilson's view of women and sexuality. A friend and I have spent many hours thrashing out the implications of what he states and whether they hold true today, if ever. I'm afraid that his views are all there in his first book "The Outsider", along with their sources. Reading "The Outsider" again you realise the extent to which Wilson has absorbed the attitudes and outlooks of generations of male writers and thinkers before him. I'd love to debate it with you, but I think that's maybe a subject for a different thread.
 
Personally, I would love to read the debate between the both of you [Markbrown and Wintermute], and I think this is the PERFECT thread/forum for it to happen in! I've been interested in what I have read so far, so kick it!

I like Wilson. His books do seem a bit out of date though, he very often refers to incidents that have since been challanged [his take on DD Home, for instance], and I would tend to agree a bit with Wintermute on his take on sex [he is a child of his generation, after all], and I have to say that I think his fiction is awful! Despite having some relative worths that may or may not be inherent in them simply because Mr. Wilson wrote them from an "informed" point of view, because they are presented "as fiction" I think that they can and should be judged as one would judge any other writer's fiction.

As a source material though, his non-fiction is gold!
 
[takes off jacket, watch, and glasses ]

Always up for a little 'debating'.

And like wulfloki says, if we can't argue about CW here, where else!

BTW

In the grand scheme, not one fringe topic matters a whit.
Click to expand...

So - if;

People can be possessed by demonic entities;

There is life after death;

Your house could be invaded by malevolent forces chucking your ornaments about;

Aliens exist, and they're here;

this would make no difference to anything?

Sorry, but I think this is total nonsense. I don't happen to believe any of the above are true, but I realise that if its proved I'm wrong, we're all going have to do some pretty fundamental reassessments.
 
Rephrased

Not one fringe topic discussion matters a whit.

Proving one to be true -- and don't hold your breath, folks -- might impinge upon us in some way, true.

Now, beyond such semantic quibbles, is there any reason to believe that it matters to us that, say, ET is here? If ET is here, and all the UFO and abductee stuff is really happening in a physical way, then I'd say it proves we're pretty much at their mercy, since we've never even been able to demonstrate their reality, let alone reproduce their actions and abilities.

Say there really is life after death, what ever the hell that means to anyone, does this improve the communication? Does it even prove it's BETTER or WORSE there? Does it even say one thing about what sort of state it may be?

That's why they're fringe topics. They are the popcorn and candy in the movie of life. They don't matter as long as we don't choke on them.

Oh, and on the off-chance any given one of us is being directly affected by, say, ghosts, or poltergeists, or UFO abduction, or corn circle mutilations, or levitating pet Corgies, then would proof it's all real -- aside from perhaps relieving one of psychiatric bills -- change anything? After all, most experiencers act as if it's real, anyway, and remain ineffectual. How would ocnfirmation of the reality change things for them?

I can't think it would.
 
FraterLibre, you are aware this is the Fortean Times forum, aren't you? Concerned entirely with the fringe topics that you care so little about.

You seem to have mistaken it for the "Post-Structuralist Monthly" site, or something similar.
 
Everywhere, Signs

I've no clue what post-structuralist is intended to mean, but I am an enthusiastic Fortean.

The topic I addressed was the importance of discussions of such things, and the position I take is that such exchanges mean little, if anything.

How you then come up with me not caring about the very unimportant fun things I so delight in is a mystery on par with post-structuralism, it seems.

Perhaps you have mistaken what you managed to read with what I actually wrote?

No, that'd be too semiotic, wouldn't it?
 
If I remember correctly, and it is a while since I was at uni, this:
No special pleading intended or necessary, they stand on their own and fall with what each reader brings to them, as with all works of art.
Click to expand...
is a classic post-structuralist statement.

Alright, I will admit that the discussions are pretty much whimsy, but beyond the semantic quibbles there is every reason to suggest that some of these topics are of value to us. If any of the proofs you mentioned could exist they would prove the majority of people wrong. Humanity, especially the scientific establishment, needs that humility. And some of the "weird science" type topics could prove to be world-shaking if they make it into common usage (cold fusion, free energy and friends.)

In the end, we see the world through a filter, and even discussion of these topics can change that if only slightly.
 
Apples & Oranges, Anyone?

You're quite right, any number of weird science breakthroughs would potentially transform even everyday life, if they turn out to be real or practicable.

Discussions here by the laity are meaningless in bringing such breakthroughs about, is my point.

We are talking at cross purposes, cheese & chalk, I suspect.

As for the post-structuralism, I've never even heard of it and suspect it's some academic scam to provide tenure fodder. You say my statement is a classic example of it. Could well be, I've no idea what constitutes post-structuralism.

However, you wield this term in the pejorative, as if merely labeling a statement post-structuralist invalidates it. This is nonsense.

My statement you cited is: "No special pleading intended or necessary, they stand on their own and fall with what each reader brings to them, as with all works of art."

The first phrase is literally true, as I was offering no special pleading and no work of art needs any such defense. Existing is enough.

The second phrase, that works of art stand on their own, is an adjunct of this stance. Merely existing suffices to "validate" any work of art.

Third phrase: that works of art stand or fall with what each brings to it, seems self-evident. Confront a barbarian with, say, a Baroque fresco, and he will grunt, scratch his ass, and smash it with his club. He brings no ability to appreciate it with him, and so, for him, the art fails.

Now show that same fresco, magically restored, to Johann Sebastian Bach, or to a scholar of the Baroque arts. They will not only appreciate the art, but be able, most likely, to explicate its many features and subtleties. For them it stands as art.

So indeed each form of art depends for its "success" upon what each experiencer of that art brings to it. And it can offer only what they can grasp, whether it has more to offer or not.

Thus I think my statement, whether it's post-structuralist or pre-Lego, is a reasonable statement.

I'm sure to be disabused of this delusion if I'm in any slightest way wrong, I suppose, but might I ask that you brainy academic types be a bit gentle, at least?
 
Fringe Topics

Its a cliche, but a true one, that 'stones falling from the sky' was once a 'fringe topic'. Would anyone argue that, despite the fact that very few people are directly affected by meterorite strikes, it wasn't an important step forward when we found out stones do fall from the sky?

As for the idea that a final, unequivocal, positive answer to the question thats obsessed humans for thousands of years; 'Is there an afterlife?' ; wouldn't have a drastic effect on the culture - if that didn't, what would?

And whats this got to do with Colin Wilson
:confused:
 
I'll Buy That Pig in a Poke

LOL - yeah, I'd argue that figuring out stones do fall from the sky isn't that important an "advancement".

Confirming an afterlife would kill many, but the majority would want it explored, maybe colonized, so they could continue being the same Homers over there that they are over here.

Same with anything, really. People don't change. History shows this.

This thread relates to the Colin Wilson thread in that it branched off from it, that's all.
 
Discussions here by the laity are meaningless in bringing such breakthroughs about, is my point.
Click to expand...
But what we do have, intentionally or not, is a network of people all interested in these topics. Between us we will have read a huge amount of information on the area and our discussion may not aid any breakthroughs, but we may find patterns or reflections that any individual studying the area could not make. This is a bit of a bizarre analogy but think about the Open Source movement- if a piece of Open Source software sucks, other members of the community will pick up on this and find a solution. If a piece of closed source software sucks the only people who can sort it out are the owners of the source code. The ideas, events and experiences here are far less tangible than software but with a group like this I believe there can potentially be real gains in discussing these topics.

And if I switch off random idealistic mode, I would suggest that the biggest gain is that life is a little more interesting for it. I know I learn from and am intrigued by stuff here very regularly, I think that's true of most of us. The fringe stretches a whole lot further than I realised before I started visiting here regularly.
 
D'accord, Mon Ami

Breakfast - I'd agree with what you said, yes. Good points. But there is a difference between entertainment -- making life more interesting -- and making genuine advances, which simply doesn't happen in open forums of discussion for some reason.

You're quite right, the wide variety of people, and their knowledge, makes places such as this wonderful as a marketplace for trading ideas and insights. It also expands our awareness, no question.

We're probably talking at cross purposes. What I'm trying so clumsily to say is that it's the individual researcher who almost always finds a new tidbit of information, or comes up with a new way of doing things, or finds a connection between things or people that illuminates a new course of research, etc. Message boards are pleasant company, for the most part -- and you exceptions know who you are, eh? LOL -- but they aren't the place to seek anything genuinely new.

Although, if it's new to me, that can suffice, eh?
 
And you didn't think it new that we found the real Mothman?:D :D

Certainly pleasant company here though, and I'm always finding new angles on things here.
 
To the Flame

I'm new here myself, and hadn't seen the "real" Mothman unmasked. Where does one find this grand tidbit?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top