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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 08:51:48 -0700, Scot Kamins
wrote: 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 Scott: Please choose your targets with greater care or simply ignore the thread. While I'll grant this has veered off from "collecting" to content, there is still some interest to book collectors in general and devotees of supernatural fiction in particular. Of course, Mr. Barker is a well-known loon that I no longer bother replying to and the Adams creature is in my killfile where he belongs so I haven't read all of Barker's bleatings. Ramsey's comments on the interest in a given author despite (or because of) their personal lives are perfectly on-topic and were it not for the unwlecome presence of the mad pamphleteer in this thread, the entire discussion would likely be of interest to a good many more people. As it is, I feel you've singled out the wrong party to berate for off-topicality. Cheers, John www.darksidepress.com |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
What the hell does this have to do with book collecting?
Let the boys have their fun. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
RIP Michael Norwood-History Channel Host | Bjwebb3749 | Autographs | 0 | December 14th 03 12:44 PM |