"Chris Barker" wrote in message ...
"Ramsey Campbell" wrote in message
. ..
"Chris Barker" wrote in
message ...

I do rather object to being told that your view is the right one,
and that I must mean what you say.

At the risk of appearing to go off topic or of otherwise alienating
people - Chris, may I invite you to consider how you participate in
discussions? You often answer a point you think or prefer to think was
made rather than the one that actually was, and you also have a
tendency to accuse whoever you're addressing of having done something
you have in fact done yourself. I'd give our various exchanges over
Kim Newman on this thread as an example. I don't know if these are
debating techniques or if you are unaware of them, but in either case
they aren't productive of much. I do hope you'll give this some
thought.

Ramsey Campbell

But.but.but surely you yourself are now doing precisely that? You are
dropping an argument that you did not wish to pursue (for whatever reason)
and have instead sought to take the discussion off into new territory.

You originally said:

"If you'd like me to take up every point you made in your reply to me, I'll
be happy to oblige."

Well, I have twice asked for responses to specific queries and you have
twice not actually answered them. Magnanimously I sought to make light of
this a post or two ago, citing the likely fact that whilst you viewed me as
verbose, I viewed you as evasive, but alas in the light of your most recent
post, this specific issue needs to be untangled if the thread is to get
anywhere.

I suggest the following resolution: you answer the queries I verbosely
believe you have evasively ducked, I then repay the courtesy by answering
any queries you in turn proffer.

In the interests of clarity and expediency, I should like a response on
these issues if I may:

1) I did in fact send Rosemary Pardoe an email dated July 23rd 2003,
although it was subsequently ignored (copies of which have been forwarded to
you and RP). Will you please acknowledge that I did in fact offer a gratis
copy of P&P to the editor of Ghosts & Scholars?
2) Plagiarism & Pederasty: why are you unwilling to accept that I authored
my essay based upon the dictionary definition as quoted to you, and not upon
any more lurid definition that you have since enterprisingly dug up?
3) Molestation. I don't recall mentioning 'molestation' in the essay. You
brought this word into the arena. The word implies the application of
physical force, possibly even rape. No one has ever suggested that James was
a rapist. Why do you wish to portray me as having accused James of
molestation?
4) John Pelan has made the claim that because I speculate about James'
interest in male adolescents, I might abuse my own children; also, he has
set up an abusive site at Yahoo which serves no other purpose than to make
abusive comments about me and my publications. What is your opinion about
these two issues?
5) Julia Briggs and various other sources (both literary critics and
Jamesian acquaintances) have documented their concerns about M R James'
homosexual interest in younger men / adolescents, especially given his roles
at public schools and colleges. Why are you unwilling to acknowledge that my
concerns about James are legitimate conclusions based upon the foundations
suggested by others?
6) You've criticised aspects of my booklet P&P but do you not agree that
there are startling similarities between A D Crake's THREE BLACK CATS and
James' THE ASH-TREE? And if you agree that James appears to have copied
Crake's work, whilst elsewhere attacking Bram Stoker and Arthur Conan Doyle
for doing the same, why are you unwilling to acknowledge that this hypocrisy
reveals a darker side to his personality? (No evasion here please: the old
"every writer subconsciously borrows an idea or two" argument is unjust. The
similarities between the two tales are very striking indeed. James was not,
unlike many other writers, a 'pasticheur'.)
7) Reference Kim Newman and the DVD sleeve notes. Rosemary Pardoe and Julia
Briggs (to mention just two parties) have gone on record as saying that they
perceive James' tale OH WHISTLE to have no sexual overtone, yet your friend
Mr Newman argued that the twisted bedsheets in Jonathan Miller's adaptation
must represent an erect penis. You have subsequently taken continual offence
to my claim that the sleeve notes were therefore 'sexed-up' to help shift a
dry product. You argue that because I find sexual imagery in other James
tales, that ergo, I should also find sexual imagery in this one. Please
would you explain why the twisted bedsheet *must* be a phallic symbol, and
why I am not entitled to believe otherwise?

If you respond honestly and without evasion, I'll respond in kind to
anything you care to ask.

Sparringly yours,

Chris Barker

I think you've just demonstrated exactly the traits I described. If
I'm wrong I'm sure that will be apparent to other readers of the
thread. Sorry, Chris, but whatever you care to say about me now, I
don't have time to keep repeating points. I'll take your earlier
advice and get a life. Just one uncontentious observation: I don't
know where you sent the copy of your email to Rosemary, but I haven't
received it. Still, it's beside the point now.

Ramsey Campbell