A collecting forum. CollectingBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » CollectingBanter forum » Collecting newsgroups » Books
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Michael Adams Officially Declared "Troll"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old September 20th 03, 11:39 AM
Chris Barker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I agree with you on this one. People should just ignore those posts that
don't interest them. Spam or obscenity might merit a strong verbal
reprimand, but otherwise "live and let live" should be the operative policy.

And whilst I'm posting - I don't much care for the silly "He's a troll, oh
no he isn't, oh yes he is" routine, as being currently applied to Michael
Adams. Who cares? Those who bang on about someone's trollness have obviously
got too much time on their hands, and are reading far too much into things.
Everyone has the propensity to trollery just as they have the ability to
post pro-actively. It's a hugely subjective issue, and I find it odd that
people spend so much time discussing it, as though they will ever find a
definitive solution.



"Ramsey Campbell" wrote in message
...
Scot Kamins wrote in message

...
In article ,
(Ramsey Campbell) wrote:


snip

What the hell does this have to do with book collecting?

Please take this off-line and handle it through e-mail. If you think
that others are interested in this discussion, set up a mailing list.

Scot Kamins


By gum, that should get rid of me. I wasn't here too long for
everybody, was I? Regulars will know whether Mr Kamins often throws
his weight about if what other people are discussing doesn't interest
him. Myself, if I didn't find a thread interesting I would simply
ignore it, but I expect his method works.

Ramsey Campbell



Ads
  #32  
Old September 20th 03, 12:17 PM
Chris Barker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

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

in
message ...

(a great deal)


Huffily,

Chris Barker

Dear me, what a torrent! I wish you had taken the time to calm down
and respond to the points I made rather than ones you imagine I did.

Ramsey Campbell



Hardly a torrent. I simply endeavoured to respond to each of your points

in
a thorough fashion. You prefer to clip posts, and often only to respond

to
the less trickier points. In fact, one perspective might be (mine,

perhaps)
that I dealt competently with your queries, hence your branding it a
'torrent' by way of dismissive evasion. Whatever the truth, I think it
unjust of you to berate me simply because I had the courtesy to respond

to
all your comments.

All this really means is that I think you are evasive, and you think me
verbose. Hardly life-or-death I grant you, but I am glad that it has

been
civilised after what has gone on before.

This rec.books is on the whole a pleasant group and I don't wish to

spoil
the party for others. If you do wish to respond to my post properly, do

feel
free to email me direct. In the meantime, I rhetorically hope that you

did
receive my forwarded email validating that G&S were in fact offered a

review
copy, but that they opted not to take it up?

Chris Barker
THE HAUNTED RIVER

Over Five Years Selling At ABE
www.abebooks.com

Small Press Publisher
www.users.waitrose.com/~hauntedriver

Review of "The Dreams Of Cardinal Vittorini" by Reggie Oliver (Published
July 2003)

"This, the first collection by the playwright nephew and biographer of
Stella Gibbons, could almost be a lost book from the days when the

English
ghost story was generally restrained yet contained nuggets of horror.

The
style is urbane and witty, the authorial personality cultured and

observant,
and the roots of the tales are in the great tradition of the genre."

Ramsey Campbell


True enough, I snip material I'm not replying to, since I assume
people who are interested in the entire discussion can read the
thread. If you'd like me to take up every point you made in your reply
to me, I'll be happy to oblige. Here are a couple of points to be
going on with. I wonder why you find it odd that I associate pederasty
with molestation, since your own web site still gives the definition

"pederasty: sexual relations of a male with a male, esp. a boy"
(Chambers English Dictionary)

which certainly sounds as if it could be under age to me; in any case,
the 1993 edition of the Chambers dictionary puts it more bluntly:

"pederasty: sexual relations, specif. anal intercourse, between a man
and a boy"

On the same web site you declared you wouldn't be sending GHOSTS AND
SCHOLARS (or ALL HALLOWS) a review copy of the booklet on the grounds
that 'these organisations have stifled adult speculation about M. R.
James and his work because of their vested business interests. Their
relation upon James as the foundation stone for their very existence
has undermined objective critical assessment in these important
areas.'
If you subsequently thought better of one of them, so be it. I'm
afraid I haven't seen the email you say you forwarded to me to prove
it. I feel bound to point out that ALL HALLOWS published a very
substantial and balanced review of the issue of your journal WEIRDLY
SUPERNATURAL.

I fear I can't accept your invitation to "respond properly" offline to
your original posting, since by "properly" I think you mean in a way
you and only you are allowed to judge acceptable - much as you
describe my disagreement with you over Kim Newman as my not being
"willing to see sense". Strange, really, since I wasn't arguing for or
against Kim's view this time - just reminding you that you described
it as a ploy to sell more DVDs. What were you saying about evasiveness
again?



I find the insistence of some people to keep refering to anal intercourse
rather odd. I have stated how I interpret the word, both in my article and
on my website. If you want to keep dragging bottom sex into the argument,
then so be it.

Ditto for molestation. I perceive molestation to imply some degree of force
or exercise of power. This is why I am uncomfortable applying the word in
this instance. Yes, there is much evidence to suggest that harboured cruel
and violent fantasies of a sexual nature, but in life, I suspect he was very
much as Reggie Oliver portrayed him in A WARNING TO THE ANTIQUARY e.g.
coquettish and shy with his juvenile paramours, perhaps roused to anger when
spurned.

So, if you and the Chris Roden's of this world wish to interpret my claim
that James fostered (and quite probably consumated) romantic and sexual
desires for his youthful charges as branding him an "evil bum penetrating
monster", then do feel free to do so. I am not sure why you wish to do this,
perhaps it is simply a wrathful attempt to undermine my claim.

Evasiveness: I said you were evasive because you were. (You still are about
John Pelan: what do you think of his claim that I must be a child abuser
because of my views on M R James?) But I have never been evasive about Kim
Newman's sleeve notes. I expressed a forthright view at the time, and have
at least twice sent you long and detailed responses via email when you asked
for clarification. The sleeve notes for OH WHISTLE *were* sexed-up by Kim
Newman to make the product look more appealling to the average buyer.
Newman's claim that this specific tale has strong sexual overtones is
nonsense. Others do, this one doesn't.

But don't just take my word for it:

"In 1967 Jonathan Miller made a televsion film of the story, in which
Professor Parkins - "one of whose principal characteristics was pluck",
according to James - is transformed into an evidently neurotic personality
who might be inclined to imagine almost anything in his bedclothes. James
would have been disconcerted by this effort to explain what happened to
Parkins in terms of his inner disturbances. The original story makes no
allowance for such a rationaliztion."

Julia Briggs, Penquin Encyclopedia Of Horror & The Supernatural


Which neatly dovetails with my first comment: whilst you insist on viewing
James' desire for adolescent love as meaning forceful bottom rape, Kim
Newman imagines a linen ghost to be a metaphor for an erect penis. I dispute
neither your right to hold such an opinion nor question your arrival at
same, but I do rather object to being told that your view is the right one,
and that I must mean what you say.

This is all so silly. If this were Thomas Hardy or Shakespeare, theories
such as mine would have been established decades ago. On the rare occasion
when someone with the appropriate literary credentials does step into the
genre - Julia Briggs being a perfect example, or Anthony Powell - then they
seem to quickly form similar concerns about James repressed sexuality e.g.
its violence and its orientation. I really don't care a fig for what the
diehard Jamesians think: Elvis fans refuse to believe he was overweight or
ever popped a pill; that sort of defensive reaction is perfectly
commonplace.

I think James an excellent ghost story writer. His suppression of a dark
sexuality gives his tales a dark edge. In no way does this mean that those
who enjoy his stories are complicit in his sexuality. But it does help us
towards a better understanding.


  #33  
Old September 20th 03, 12:18 PM
Chris Barker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Actually, it isn't. "Paghat The Ratgirl" was suggesting that there was no
evidence. I showed that there is.



"Randy Burns" wrote in message
...
I think that's what Paghat just said. Great quotes though, keep up the

good
work.

Randy

--

"Chris Barker" wrote in
message ...

The case for arguing that James was sexually attracted to boys is very
strong. It's perfectly obvious that he was. Whether or not he consumated

his
affairs is less certain. But even if he didn't, the powerful imagey in

his
tales suggests that he wanted to.





  #35  
Old September 20th 03, 06:54 PM
Scot Kamins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
John Pelan wrote:

As it is, I feel you've singled out the wrong party to berate for
off-topicality.


OK. I yield.

Scot Kamins
--
Collecting the Modern Library 1917-1970
Modern Library Collecting Website at:
http://www.dogeared.com
  #36  
Old September 22nd 03, 05:43 AM
Martin Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

What the hell does this have to do with book collecting?



Let the boys have their fun.


  #37  
Old September 23rd 03, 04:56 PM
Ramsey Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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
  #38  
Old September 24th 03, 01:07 AM
Chris Barker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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








  #39  
Old September 24th 03, 04:34 PM
Ramsey Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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
  #40  
Old September 25th 03, 10:25 AM
Chris Barker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

And for my part, you've fulfilled my expectations by being evasive again. I
suspected that your earlier offer to answer specific queries was a
platitude. This is why I put to you the offer to you e.g. we both respond
head-on to the issues the other wants answered. It is a great pity that you
have declined this offer. If you change your mind in the immediate future,
the offer still stands.

When pinned down to a specific, you appear to panic. You seem to favour
lurking, making the very occasional post, usually about one aspect of one
selective issue. But often when someone tries to engage you in direct
dialogue about an issue or an agenda not of your own design, you scamper off
back into undergrowth. (Or should I say underhill? Joke!) This isn't a
criticism, rather an observation. Some writers do prefer to live in their
own worlds, on terms of their own making. I've worked in many varied
environments and can see that different styles are required for different
tasks.

So in the spirit of your asking me whether I should reflect upon my debating
skills, I do hope you won't take offence by my suggesting that you might do
the same? Discussion groups may require more input than you are currently
willing to give if they are to fulfil their purpose (which is to stimulate
discussion, surely). Too much deference is shown to lurkers or occasional
posters. Lurkers seem to take a great deal but give very little. People who
post regularly should be accorded the greater respect (provided they post
pro-actively). By the very nature of their increased efforts, regular
posters expose themselves to greater criticism, which is why they should be
'cut more slack'. Lurkers ('snipers' or 'nitpickers' might be more
appropriate) often contribute very little by way of daily maintenance and
their occasional input could be viewed as unconstructive if it is not of a
positive nature.

The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from our unsatisfying
exchange is that whilst I still believe you are still being evasive, you no
doubt still believe that I am being verbose. Live and let live.

Chris Barker
The Haunted River
www.users.waitrose.com/~hauntedriver

PS. I sent an email to Rosemary Pardoe in late July and then twice forwarded
this to both of your different AOL addresses. I respectfully suggest you
therefore liase with Rosemary Pardoe because although we have been obliquely
discussing the fact that for some unknown reason your copies appear to have
gone astray, the key issue is actually whether or not she received an email
in July. According to my records, she did, and you have not yet disputed
this. In the meantime, I will forward a copy email to you once more, this
time to the third email address I have for you.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RIP Michael Norwood-History Channel Host Bjwebb3749 Autographs 0 December 14th 03 01:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CollectingBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.