Characters: Tannhäuser. Our lead knight, and most prominent character. A life of sexually based sinfulness led him to Venus, but it appears even debauched true love can get a bit repetitive.
Venus. The goddess of Love who's up for anything. Yes, even that. Maybe especially that.
The Court of Venus. Venus' court is packed full of courtiers who each represent their own rarified kink. None of them have much character beyond that, but what they lack in depth, they make up for in volume.
Is it good?: Well, let's get one thing out of the way. This is not a horror book. I bought it at a horror convention, but that's apparently not a genre-indicative element. I decided to include it anyway, because the only real rule of this endeavour is you read it where it lays, whatever mistakes might be made beforehand. What it is is erotica, and the question of what makes good erotica is a very different question than what makes good horror, at least under most circumstances. Victorian artist and generally admirable weirdo Aubrey Beardsley wrote the first half of this in chunks; John Glassco finished the second half. It was virtually unpublishable in Beardsley's own times, and the chunks that were published were often censored, or banned. It's also questionable that Beardsley would have finished the story by choice, given his late in life conversion to Catholicism. At any rate, I bring up the dual nature of the story's composition because there is a break in style between Beardsley and Glassco; Beardsley's half is definitely the half with the more inventive sexcapades. Glassco does pretty well in reaching Beardsley's style, and doing so in a way that goes through the paces of the myth in full (more on that later) but the sexual part gets a little more rote in terms of scenarios. It may be a deliberate choice, given that's the point where the Chevalier is becoming disillusioned with the court, but it does mark a downshift. And frankly, the first half has some stand out moments, but it's not exactly high level either. Thanks to the 18th c and modern reproductive technologies graduate seminar I audited in Master's program, I know a little more on the subject of pre 20th c prose erotica than most, and, well, this is no Fanny Hill. Still, it's amusing in kind of an outrageous way, which is what I think its authors were going for.
Is it Spooky? Oh gosh, no. As I said, it's not a horror story. It'd be possible to get to something spooky or disturbing from the premise, and a lot of books exploring the “place of debauchery” concept go that route, starting from more innocent acts to descend into more questionable ones. But this story keeps more or less the same tone throughout. And in general, I think I'm grateful for that; light and breezy is fine. Even Tannhäuser's decision to put himself out of his misery is presented as farcical—but not darkly farcical—as a result of the pageantry Venus' people make out of the event.
Is it Halloween? Basically, this category is asking, is it spooky and also fun? Well, as a I said, it's not spooky. But is it fun? As a roundabout way of answering, our copy of the book came thoughtfully with a clipped newspaper review of it from the 1966 Montreal Star. And in the review, they defend the book against accusations that it's not funny, or rather, “not witful”: “Still, whether a person reading this kind of book is looking for wit is debateable, but it is certain that lust has no sense of humour. In fact, it seems to me that this kind of criticism is dishonest; it implies that one must be able to provide literary justifications for reading erotica. Who is he kidding?” I'm with them on the point that erotica doesn't need literary justification, or at least that its erotic aims is literary justification enough. But the idea that lust has no sense of humour is fundamentally off to me. Sex is funny, in all of its incongruous indignity and weirdness, the mix of earnest desire and artifice, the elaborate social conventions and posturing. It doesn't have to humourous, and lust doesn't have to be humorous, but to say that it just straight out has no humour at all feels like cutting off a major part of human experience. Of course, “sex can be funny” is a long way from the question at hand, “Is Under the Hill funny?”. But ultimately, I think the answer to the latter is still yes. It's not outrageously funny any more than it's outrageous by modern standards, but it's lightly amusing, in the extremities of its sexual acts, in Tannhäuser getting gradually bored of extreme sex, and in his wrongheaded attempts to overdramatically set things right. It even ends on a punchline that I think Glassco lands. So yes, it is partially Halloween, while still lacking a pretty big part.
Quote: (From ch 8, in which Venus “cares for” her pet unicorn: “'You mustn't come in with me, Adolphe is so jealous,' she said, turning to the Chevalier, who was following her, 'but you can stand outside and look on; Adolphe likes an audience.'”
Random Thoughts: I appreciate that the falling out between Chevalier and Venus isn't that he sees the light so much that he gets tired of 24-7 kink fests. Cake is great, but you don't want to eat it all the time.
--I think some of the contemporary charm of the book would be the way that it combines 19th century elevated language with pornographic imagery; it adds to the sense of quaintness behind the story. I'm not sure whether Beardsley intended that, but Glassco definitely did.
--Of Venus' entourage, my favourite is Mrs. Marsuple, an older woman who acts as Venus' aide, maid, and whatever else might be needed, always there to give a thrust or a tug to help with the overall experience. She's not the star, but she's there for the team.
--Somewhere in the second day, the Chevallier dresses up as a woman, in a dress as elegant as Venus's. This isn't frequently referenced for the rest of the day, but it never states that he gets out of the dress, so I assume he's wearing it throughout the festivities.
--There's a scene where Tannhäuser spends some time writing out all of his sins, then hands it over to a Catholic priest to be absolved. First, I appreciate a lot that the story makes clear he's not just some innocent corrupted by Venus (and, in fact, if there's any message behind the story, it's that innocence/corruption is entirely the wrong binary; in defiance of the Church, joy/self-deprivation would be closer)—he had his own history that started a long time before he came across her. And second, I love that the priest takes a look at this list and goes, actually, this is above my paygrade. You better go to the Pope.
Verdict: 3 courtiers discreetly rogering each other behind the throne out of 5