True confessions
Barbara Roden
while I was away and didn't have e-mail access for most of the time, but it
strikes me we're missing a wonderful opportunity to talk about ghost fiction
(remember that?). Specifically, what works for you in the genre, and what
doesn't, and why? In order to show willing, I'll go on record as saying that
while I can appreciate Robert Aickman's contributions to the genre, and have
more or less enjoyed some of the stories of his which I've read, he wouldn't
make it on to my top ten list of favourite ghost story writers, and might
even be hard pressed to make it into the top twenty (sorry, Mr A.).
Now, there are people who I count as friends, and whose literary judgement I
would take to the bank, who love Aickman, who wax enthusiastic about him at
every opportunity, who would quite possibly assign him more than one spot in
their list of top ten favourite ghost story writers. Frankly, he just
doesn't appeal to me, and my taste in ghost stories, the way a good many
other authors do. Does this mean that I'm an ignoramus who doesn't recognise
a good - nay, great - ghost story writer when I see him? Or does it mean
that my good and worthy friends and acquaintances are sadly mistaken,
hoodwinked, suffering from a bad case of Emperor's New Clothes?
With respect, I'd suggest neither. It simply means that I have one opinion,
other people have theirs, and that's the way it goes, with no one falling
into the 'wrong' or 'right' camp. Some people love Earl Grey tea, others
can't stand it; some people think IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE is a brilliant film,
while others would mutter 'Sentimental tosh' under their breath; there are
probably even people who'd be prepared to argue (with examples) that BARNABY
RUDGE is Dickens's greatest novel. What it comes down to in the end is
personal preference; what works for one person leaves another cold. So it is
with Mr Aickman and me.
Anyone else care to come out in the open and confess which writer of
supernatural tales they've just never got on with, or seen the point of? I
can't guarantee that no one will attack you, or try to convert you to the
cause, but it might be fun to talk about ghost fiction for a little while.
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net
>
> Anyone else care to come out in the open and confess which writer of
> supernatural tales they've just never got on with, or seen the point of? I
> can't guarantee that no one will attack you, or try to convert you to the
> cause, but it might be fun to talk about ghost fiction for a little while.
>
For me it's Ramsey Campbell. I love his Mythos and Lovecraftian
fiction, both old and new --- the latest being his novel *The Darkest
Part of the Woods* --- but I cannot get into his other works. They are
too psychological, too surreal for my tastes, most of the time I just
cannot follow the plot or visualize the action. There are exceptions,
such as "Napier Court" and "Cat and Mouse", but I freely confess that I
have read little of his short stories and none of his novels (except
*Woods*) since I read *The Height of the Scream* back in the eighties.
The stories in that collection just did not seem to have a point to
them, and the dozen or so stories that I have read over the years
seemed to reinforce this impression.
Now I also freely confess that the fault most likely lies within
myself, rather than in Ramsey's writing. I am not a subtle person, and
so subtlety often goes right over the top of my head. But as Barbara
pointed out, my reaction is just a matter of taste. I simply prefer a
different kind of story to what Ramsey seems to prefer to write. Also,
I do not let my personal preference dictate my opinion of the quality
of a writer. Too often I've read people denigrating a writer for
reasons of preference only. In my opinion, Ramsey Campbell is a
crackerjack writer and deserves the accolades and rewards he receives.
I personally just wish he would write more of the kinds of works that I
would like to read.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Mark Dillon
True confessions? Okay.
Kevin L. O'Brien wrote, in reply to Barbara Roden:
> Anyone else care to come out in the open and confess which writer of
> supernatural tales they've just never got on with, or seen the point of?
> For me it's Ramsey Campbell. I love his Mythos and Lovecraftian
> fiction, both old and new --- the latest being his novel *The Darkest
> Part of the Woods* --- but I cannot get into his other works.
I had the opposite problem.
I read every Campbell collection up to DARK COMPANIONS -- and then,
in 1982, I stopped reading him. I had to stop: he was too damned good.
At the time, I was struggling to write ghost fiction, struggling to find
my own voice, and it seemed that all roads led to Ramsey Campbell.
He seemed, in my opinion, to have synthesized the perfect style
for modern horror. His nouns of decay and ruin, his animistic
verbs, his paranoiacally subjective points of view, seemed
inevitable to me, and the most effective approach I had yet
discovered for describing the uncanny. He had devised techniques for
establishing mood and setting that made my own efforts seem not
only inadequate, but redundant. By the time I was eighteen years
old, it seemed to me that Campbell had developed the Final Word
on how to write ghost fiction, and my only options were to give up
writing, or to give up reading Campbell. For me, it was a question
of survival.
I put Campbell aside, went back to previous supernatural favourites
like M. R. James, Clark Ashton Smith, Machen and L. P. Hartley;
discovered Le Fanu, de la Mare, Aickman and other spectral
craftsmen as comparatively powerful, as brilliant, in their own way,
as Campbell, yet far less imposing to me creatively, for definite
reasons: after all, Le Fanu and James wrote of the past; Smith
wrote of worlds lost and out of space, out of time; Hartley and Aickman
wrote of social milieux as foreign to me as any Jamesian cathedral
town; de la Mare, with his private concerns, seemed a voice from an
alternate universe. I could learn from their technical expertise without
feeling threatened by their proximity to my own time and to my own
social environment. Reading as widely as I could outside the field
seemed equally safe, as did reaching into the past, to Jacobeans,
Elizabethans, the classical Greeks (sadly, in translation). I studied
(without much competence) other languages, read Hoffmann
in the original German and discovered an approach to dark fiction
wholly new to me; read symbolists, decadents, proto-surrealists in
French and discovered that I was now in my forties.
Today, if I were asked to cite my Gods of ghost fiction, I'd mention
Hoffmann, Le Fanu, Hartley and M. R. James (primarily for his
technique). I suspect that I'd value Ramsey Campbell highly, too, if I
had the courage to try him again... but I'm not there yet; I still have
much to learn about writing, and a lingering lack of confidence in
my creative ability.
Mark Dillon
Quebec, Canada
Rick Kennett
> while I can appreciate Robert Aickman's contributions to the genre, and have
> more or less enjoyed some of the stories of his which I've read, he wouldn't
> make it on to my top ten list of favourite ghost story writers, and might
> even be hard pressed to make it into the top twenty (sorry, Mr A.).
By and large I like Aickman. I like the fact that his stories are never
quite understandable. Full comprehension is just fascinatingly out of
reach. Having said that though, I hate "The Hospice" mainly for its
utterly wishy-washy main character. I'm disproportionally annoyed by
him wandering through a story that doesn't seem to do anything or go
anywhere, with a wound in his leg which he seems to forget is there. I
kept thinking, "What about this injury? Is it bleeding? Is it
festering?" No, it was just forgotten. I wish the bogeyman had ripped
this guy's head off on page one. Though no doubt he would've continued
wandering through the story, ignoring the fact that he no longer has a
head.
Never understood the hoo-haa over Clive Barker. Read some of the Books
of Blood stories when they came out, but didn't think them all that
great. Someone (was it Joshi?) once described them as standard Pan
horror series type stories. So why all the leaping about? Beats me.
Rick
Gary Fry
unsettling - that muddy feeling you get from real life horrifying events,
and for this reason I'm not particularly compelled to read him.
Ramsey's effects are deliciously disturbing: exactly what I want my horror
fiction to achieve.
Am I a wuss? I don't like Cronenberg or Lynch, either, for the same reason I
dislike Aickman.
I love Barker - the later Books of Blood are wonderful, though the earlier
pieces seem like a great writer trying to find his voice: they're
occasionally rather artless, though unforgettably audacious.
Gary
"Rick Kennett" <ken...@visto.com> wrote in message
news:1125189375.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
"Having said that though, I hate "The Hospice"....."
There are a small handful of Aickman tales that I dislike and this too
is one of them. In some of his tales, Aickman betrays not just the
morbid eroticism that he is renowned for, but an unpleasant sexual
agenda. In 'The Hospice' something very sexually unpleasant - rape is
clearly implied - is inflicted upon Cecile.
In my opinion, the way that this is depicted is gratuitous and ugly.
The sexual molestation of Phyrnne in 'Ringing The Changes' stays on the
right side of the moral and artistic line because of the morning-after
smile she sports, which signifies, or at least implies, that she was a
willing partner. But the rape in 'The Hospice' is non-consensual, and
for me, that gives the story a very unpleasant flavour.
If Aickman had been advised by an editor or publisher to alter this
section, by perhaps referring to consensual sex or even just vague,
ambigious eroticism, I think the story would have been improved
considerably. Indeed, there are perhaps a half dozen Aickman tales
which should have been edited more robustly, to try and weed out the
occasionally overly repulsive imagery.
Of course, the majority of Aickman's tales are word-perfect. But most
short story collections have their stocking-fillers, and Aickman's are
no exception. In fact, the later collections possessed far more than
the earlier ones.
CB
Randy Money
> Rick Kennett wrote:
>
> "Having said that though, I hate "The Hospice"....."
>
> There are a small handful of Aickman tales that I dislike and this too
> is one of them. In some of his tales, Aickman betrays not just the
> morbid eroticism that he is renowned for, but an unpleasant sexual
> agenda. In 'The Hospice' something very sexually unpleasant - rape is
> clearly implied - is inflicted upon Cecile.
I'm not convinced it was rape; sex, most probably, but not necessarily
rape. The story doesn't have to be read that way for it to be effective.
Whatever was inflicted upon Cecile was a real experience, probably
sexual. To me, the hospice is a hothouse for people, no one there
experiences anything outside certain parameters of sensation, though all
seem to strain a little for something beyond those parameters. Everyone
of its inhabitants who has something like a real-life experience while
our narrator is there, comes away bruised if not bloody. When Cecile
with her sheltered sensibility had a real sensual encounter, she was
incapable of coping, unprepared for the intensity.
It needn't have been rape, under the circumstances, to have that effect
on her. Open the doors of the hothouse and see what the outside air does
to those oh so carefully cultivated orchids. My reading of the story is
that it's not about people as people, but about class and politics. It
appears to me a satire and criticism of, I think, a certain set of mind
Aickman attributes to the upper classes in his society.
That said, I find a little Aickman goes a long way. Like Gary I
appreciate his abilities, I admire his craftsmanship, but reading a
couple of stories at a time satisfies me for quite awhile.
My weakness: I seem to have a hole where my appreciation for H. R.
Wakefield should be. I've enjoyed the stories of his that I've read, but
they don't make me think he was among the best ghost story writers I've
read. I would certainly have Aickman in that list, though.
Randy M.
nomis
> My weakness: I seem to have a hole where my appreciation for H. R.
> Wakefield should be. I've enjoyed the stories of his that I've read,
> but they don't make me think he was among the best ghost story writers
> I've read. I would certainly have Aickman in that list, though.
Ha! I've got you all beat: I don't find MR James all that impressive.
Before you start hurling things, I plan to give him another go when the
new Joshi-edited Penguin collection is released. I'm hooping my opinion
changes then.
Please, don't tell anyone my secret.
--
nomis
aycorn
> On 2005-08-29 11:53:16 -0400, Randy Money <rbm...@spamblock.syr.edu> said:
>
> > My weakness: I seem to have a hole where my appreciation for H. R.
> > Wakefield should be. I've enjoyed the stories of his that I've read,
> > but they don't make me think he was among the best ghost story writers
> > I've read. I would certainly have Aickman in that list, though.
>
> Ha! I've got you all beat: I don't find MR James all that impressive.
>
> Before you start hurling things, I plan to give him another go when the
> new Joshi-edited Penguin collection is released. I'm hooping my opinion
> changes then.
Does this mean that Joshi will now be the Absolute and Final Authority
On All Things Even Remotely Related to M.R. James in Any Way, Shape or
Form, as he already is on HPL?
Sorry, cheap shot. Joshi just gets under my skin.
As to Aickman. Well, my reading project for the year has been to
(finally) go all the way through "Collected Strange Stories," and I
just finished "Tales of Love and Death." So here's my 2 cents: Aickman
is a fine writer. It's easy to see why other writers admire him - his
writing is clean and meticulous. His best stories pack a real punch,
and I will remember them for a long time to come (or already do - I was
not new to Aickman - I'd read the readily available stuff ["Painted
Devils," "Cold Hand" etc] before).
But he isn't perfect. Few, if any, writers manage to produce a
substantial body of work and bat .1000 all the time. Aickman can be
fascinating, or just obtuse. Where some of his stories have knocked me
out, some others I have met with a shrug. I wouldn't attempt to read
all of his stuff at one shot; aside from the fact that the microscopic
print would probably cause brain damage, the sameness of themes,
settings, characters, atmosphere etc would get numbing after awhile
(this, however, is probably true of ANY author, and not a slam at
Aickman).
I think Aickman is a case where the man is so highly-lauded that it's
almost unfair. A very fine writer, to be sure. But not the only one,
and not above criticism, to be sure.
aycorn
> On 2005-08-29 11:53:16 -0400, Randy Money <rbm...@spamblock.syr.edu> said:
>
> > My weakness: I seem to have a hole where my appreciation for H. R.
> > Wakefield should be. I've enjoyed the stories of his that I've read,
> > but they don't make me think he was among the best ghost story writers
> > I've read. I would certainly have Aickman in that list, though.
>
> Ha! I've got you all beat: I don't find MR James all that impressive.
>
> Before you start hurling things, I plan to give him another go when the
> new Joshi-edited Penguin collection is released. I'm hooping my opinion
> changes then.
Does this mean that Joshi will now be the Absolute and Final Authority
aycorn
> On 2005-08-29 11:53:16 -0400, Randy Money <rbm...@spamblock.syr.edu> said:
>
> > My weakness: I seem to have a hole where my appreciation for H. R.
> > Wakefield should be. I've enjoyed the stories of his that I've read,
> > but they don't make me think he was among the best ghost story writers
> > I've read. I would certainly have Aickman in that list, though.
>
> Ha! I've got you all beat: I don't find MR James all that impressive.
>
> Before you start hurling things, I plan to give him another go when the
> new Joshi-edited Penguin collection is released. I'm hooping my opinion
> changes then.
Does this mean that Joshi will now be the Absolute and Final Authority
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
Of course, Cecile's scream is open to interpretation, but bearing in
mind that she does not appear next morning at breakfast whilst at the
same time a death is announced, I fear the prognosis is not good. Then
there is the narrational description of the sexual encounter:
"Then, from somewhere within the house, came a shattering, earpiercing
scream, and then another, and another. It was impossible to tell
whether the din came from near or far; still less whether it was male
or female. Maybury had not known that the human organism could make so
loud a noise, even in the bitterest distress. It was shattering to
listen to; especially in the enclosed, hot, total darkness. And this
was nothing momentary: the screaming wnet on and on, a paroxysm, until
Maybury had to clutch at himself not to scream in response."
Clearly something extremely unpleasant and traumatic is being inflicted
on someone. If it's sex, then it surely has to be violent and
terrifying.
"....the screaming stopped on a ghoulish gurgle: perhaps the sufferer
had vomited immensely and then passed out."
(Note the strange Aickman language: earlier we had '...Maybury had not
known that the human organism could make so loud a noise..' where
anybody else might have written '....Maybury had not known that a
person could make so loud a noise....'; here he treats us to
'...perhaps the sufferer had vomited immensely...' instead of
'...perhaps the victim had vomited copiously...')
Perhaps the sufferer has died? Certainly a death is reported next
morning, and a coffin taken out of the premises. But regardless of
whether or not the unknown sufferer has shuffled off the mortal coil,
Aickman quickly implies who the victim might be:
"...at Bannard's return, the dark room had filled with perfume; the
perfume favoured, long ago, it seemed, by the lady who had been so
charming to Maybury in the lounge."
Granted Bannard's suggested intimacy with Cecile could be purely
coincidental, but this is Aickman, and such coincidences mean
something. In this case a disturbing liasion is ambigiously referred
to. Bearing in mind that subverted eroticism underpins many classic
Aickman tales, with rape appearing in one or two others (the imagery in
THE SWORDS being a strong example), then I believe it reasonable to
conclude that the rape and possible murder of Cecile is deliberately
implied, and as such, is the most probable explanation for the events
which occur.
A more interesting issue is *why* Aickman employed this device and
theme. If he was writing automatically, trying to stay try to a weird
nightmare, then what was going on in his subconscious? Alternatively,
if he deliberately and coldly plotted the story, then why use a
harrowing (albeit implied) rape as the focal drama?
I agree with another poster further down the thread: Robert Aickman
should be no more placed on a pedestal than M R James. Some of
Aickman's work is extremely good, but there are aspects of certain
tales which deserve criticism and possibly condemnation, both from an
artistic and a moral perspective.
CB
Randy Money
> Randy Money wrote:
>
[...]
> Of course, Cecile's scream is open to interpretation, but bearing in
> mind that she does not appear next morning at breakfast whilst at the
> same time a death is announced, I fear the prognosis is not good. Then
> there is the narrational description of the sexual encounter:
I agree Cecile died. I don't agree that it *had* to be rape and murder.
I will not catagorically deny that it was not rape and/or murder, merely
that such a reading runs counter to the context Aickman took great pains
to provide, and deprives the story of any meaning literary or, in this
case, social meaning.
The inmates of this particular (and apparently self-chosen) hothouse
have been sheltered for years from the emotional and physical extremes
of life in the outside world. They have been cultivated in a luxury
unknown outside, buffered from the emotional stress and physical
bruising real life provides. In this context, Cecile is a "hothouse
woman," eager for a sensation she hasn't had (or hasn't for some
unspecified time) but unprepared for the consequences of it; perhaps
she's raped and what they hear is terror, but in the *context* Aickman
provides, I'm not convinced anything that extreme is needed to provoke
the same reaction. Within the confines of Aickman's pounding home how
sheltered and sensitive these people are, Cecile could easily have been
overwhelmed mentally and emotionally by the intensity of a true sexual
encounter; what may not be violent by standards outside her chosen
hothouse could still be brutal *to her*; insofar as intensity of
sensation was beyond Cecile's experience, she was unprepared for it and
incapable of supporting and enduring it.
> "Then, from somewhere within the house, came a shattering, earpiercing
> scream, and then another, and another. It was impossible to tell
> whether the din came from near or far; still less whether it was male
> or female. Maybury had not known that the human organism could make so
> loud a noise, even in the bitterest distress. It was shattering to
> listen to; especially in the enclosed, hot, total darkness. And this
> was nothing momentary: the screaming wnet on and on, a paroxysm, until
> Maybury had to clutch at himself not to scream in response."
>
> Clearly something extremely unpleasant and traumatic is being inflicted
> on someone.
Traumatic, certainly, but unpleasant? Maybe, but not definitively, and
Aickman's phrasing doesn't support a supposition of rape as strongly as
it simply implies orgasm, unpleasant or other.
Nothing there indicates whether the scream was of distress or euphoria
-- as you note, Aickman's phrasing is odd, distancing the event:
"Maybury had not known that the human organism could make so loud a
noise, *even*in*the* bitterest*distress*..." But Aickman does not asign
a clear emotion -- not even distress -- to it from Cecile's point of
view. All we "see" is from Maybury's point of view -- he is distressed,
certainly -- and a large part of the meaning in this story seems to stem
from how very like the inhabitants Maybury already is: they all seek a
safe, sheltered life, at least outwardly, and Maybury, at the beginning
of the story, is wishing for just such a life. Aickman grants his wish,
sort of, dramatizing the consequences of flight from life. This is,
essentially, class satire, illustrating that the creation of barriers
between one and the harshness of life is doomed to fail, that dodging
the worst of life leaves you unprepared to cope with its inevitable
arrival at your doorstep and even with life's pleasures when they
arrive. Further, being Aickman, he has to point out at the end that
either road -- the rough-and-tumble or the sheltered -- lead to the same
end: death.
> If it's sex, then it surely has to be violent and terrifying.
>
> "....the screaming stopped on a ghoulish gurgle: perhaps the sufferer
> had vomited immensely and then passed out."
And this quote does, indead, suggest Cecile died. From the gurgle, I'd
suspect heart failure: and wouldn't that be rather symbolic, given the
story?
[...]
> Granted Bannard's suggested intimacy with Cecile could be purely
> coincidental, but this is Aickman, and such coincidences mean
> something.
Agreed: Bannard and Cecile make out. But within the parameters Aickman
establishes, I believe she's overcome by something the rest of the world
would see as no more than an ordinary, daily event. (Daily in terms of
the world at large, not necessarily of any one individual in that world,
natch. :)
> In this case a disturbing liasion is ambigiously referred
Disturbing? Let me suggest that the coupling is merely coupling, it is
the outcome of it that is disturbing: cross-pollinating may be a bad
idea in this hospice.
> to. Bearing in mind that subverted eroticism underpins many classic
> Aickman tales, with rape appearing in one or two others (the imagery in
> THE SWORDS being a strong example), then I believe it reasonable to
> conclude that the rape and possible murder of Cecile is deliberately
> implied, and as such, is the most probable explanation for the events
> which occur.
I have no problem with rape in fiction if it has a reason for being
there, but the presence of it in other of his stories is not conclusive
of it appearing in this one. Again, sheltered, "hothouse people" are
bruised easily: an observation from life, that, not from my reading.
Given her environment, Cecile needed only what the outside world would
consider normal sex to reach a morbid outcome.
> A more interesting issue is *why* Aickman employed this device and
> theme. If he was writing automatically, trying to stay try to a weird
> nightmare, then what was going on in his subconscious? Alternatively,
> if he deliberately and coldly plotted the story, then why use a
> harrowing (albeit implied) rape as the focal drama?
Sex is integral to a great deal of fiction. It's part of our daily life,
so it shows up again and again. Sometimes we can detect patterns of its
use in an author's work, sometimes it's far too hazy to discern a
distinct pattern. In this case, the incidents in and set up of *the
story* do not insist on it being rape; in fact, the overall story
suffers if you interpret the coupling as rape, the story losing any
point and becoming a needless exercise in brutality. But the very
craftsmanship apparent in the creation of setting and atmosphere argue
against such a slipshod use of an event.
> I agree with another poster further down the thread: Robert Aickman
> should be no more placed on a pedestal than M R James. Some of
> Aickman's work is extremely good, but there are aspects of certain
> tales which deserve criticism and possibly condemnation, both from an
> artistic and a moral perspective.
Chris, I find the use of "moral" suspect. I get especially prickly about
its use in literary criticism when I suspect the work being pointed at
and accused of not being moral has another, and stronger, reading if the
accuser takes the time and energy to pursue it. Indeed, this is one of
my pet peeves with so many readings of Mark Twain's _The Adventures of
Huckleberry Finn_, in which some observers are so obsessed with a word
that they can't see how the story works against the connotations of that
word.
In this case, I've read little of Aickman, so I can't talk about him
over a broad base of his work; but if the sexual encounter in this needs
to be rape to support a view of Aickman as sexually perverted, I believe
the critic needs to find support elsewhere in Aickman's ... er ...
corpus. Certainly sex is there, but rape is provisional: what does rape
do to support the themes in "The Hospice"? Nothing. If anything, such a
reading undermines what Aickman set up at the beginning of the story.
I believe all we have here is sex, probably a normal sexual encounter in
contest of those living outside the Hospice, but made emotionally and
even physically unbearable by the conditions of life within the Hospice.
And, much as she desired the sensation of sex (also set up near the
beginning of the story), Cecile could not withstand its rigors.
Randy M.
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
I very much enjoyed reading your original and well-argued post.
I remain unconvinced about the 'sheltered hothouse' notion. My reading
of the text is that these people are, for some inexplicable reason,
trapped. This is reinforced by the chains which bind them to the dining
tables. Then there is the forceful insistence that they eat copiously.
(In a strange way, this reminded me of that Nugent Barker tale 'The
Curious Adventure Of Mr Bond' and also the classic folk tale about the
Gingerbread Cottage). I formed the impression that the inmates were
being fattened up for some unstated purpose. Also, when Cecile begins
to talk intimately to Maybury after the meal, the guard-cum-chaperone
watches over them in a vaguely menacing way, more like a prison warder
than a gardener or servant.
You make the point that Cecile screams out not in terror but for some
other reason, arguing (I think) that she has suddenly experienced a
powerful emotion, amplified by her secluded 'hothouse' nurture.
(There's an interesting idea for a story title: The Scream Of The
Orchid.) Yet in this same discussion with Maybury, she nestles her head
onto his lap and refers to Vincent's (the guard) sexual impotence.
Clearly she is not a blushing virgin.
Inevitably we must return to the screaming - which I personally
interpret to signify trauma - as witnessed by Maybury. If we are to
accept Maybury's claim that it was terrifying, we have to question his
integrity and perception. I believe he meets the criteria required for
a reliable narrator; indeed, the horror in many a strange tale comes
from this verisimiltude. So although Aickman does occasionally (in
fact, rarely) employ unreliable narrators (as in THE STAINS), his
typical 'modus operandi' is to place a trustworthy,
semi-autobiographical character at the heart of the matter to
faithfully document the weird goings-on.
As an aside, one of the most fascinating aspects of Aickman's prose is
how non-questionning these key characters are. Very weird things happen
to them but they still try to muddle on through, living their normal
lives. Few have mental breakdowns. In contrast, people are frequently
driven mad or hysterical in a typical ghost story. Aickman's characters
often just suffer some 'slight discomfort' or 'moderate inconvenience'.
It's almost as though they accept the rules of nightmare as everyday
life.
In terms of factual evidence, we have the screaming, Cecile's confident
sexuality, the whiff of perfume on Bannard's pyjamas and her dead body
next morning. I can see how you arrive at your own conclusions - and
the beauty of Aickman's work is that they often defy precise
interpretation - but when I first read it, I reasonned that Cecile had
been punished in some way for talking to Maybury. I also interpreted
the screams to be harrowing, uttered by one in great distress, and
believe the perfume on Bannard's clothes to be a signpost for sexual
congress. Now, the screams and the sex *may* signify intense joy, but
given Maybury's perception of them (as an otherwise reliable narrator),
I believe they signify something else.
You ask whether I wish to argue if Aickman was sexually perverted? That
was not my intention, I merely sought to examine the tale. However, I
do believe that Aickman was privy to strange sexual thoughts; whether
or not this means he was a 'pervert' is a completely different matter.
Besides, that whole issue revolves around what society deems the norm.
Anyone can be tormented / afflicted by / enjoy weird sexual fantasies,
and my personal belief is that we should not condemn others (or
ourselves) for this. As to writing them down, well, I respect and
applaud those who explore these issues in a responsible, artistic and
even erotic way (as Aickman usually does), but I deplore the gratuity
as employed by (for example) Edward Lee and John Pelan. The third level
(where thought and expression are the first two) is perhaps the only
one where the status of 'pervert' may properly applied: real-life
enactment of the fantasy.
Using this as a template (my own template, though I wouldn't be
surprised if it is mirrored elsewhere), I would not describe Aickman as
a pervert under society's definition of the word, because I doubt very
much that he engaged in any of the sexual 'derivations' described or
alluded to in his books. I think he was a brutally honest and fearless
writer who committed his dreams and nightmares faithfully to paper,
possibly failing to even question them, just as many of his central
characters fail to question the weird goings-on they are subjected to.
As a very brief aside, there *is* some evidence indicating that M R
James may have started to act out his fantasies in real life. He
actively flirted with young boys, as personally observed by Antony
Powell, and was, according to many contemporary accounts, an
enthusiastic and sociable host to them at his home. At the very least,
this suggests a Lewis Carroll-like fascination for pre-pubescent
children, at worst, the ugly new word 'grooming'.
So no, I don't believe Aickman was a pervert, not by my own dynamic
standard nor by society's less flexible one. I've been told that Ramsey
Campbell that has written quite extensively on flaggellation: does that
mean he should necessarily be branded a pervert? Every case is
different and should be treated accordingly.
CB
John Pelan
of an author may be deduced by the words or actions of their fictional
characters... That word is 'jackasses'."
Cheerio!
John
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
about serious business. Besides, couldn't your time be better
employed............?
Randy Money
> Randy Money wrote:
>
>>Carnacki The Ghost-Finder wrote:
>>
>>>Randy Money wrote:
>>>
>>
[...]
> I very much enjoyed reading your original and well-argued post.
Thank you.
> I remain unconvinced about the 'sheltered hothouse' notion. My reading
> of the text is that these people are, for some inexplicable reason,
> trapped. This is reinforced by the chains which bind them to the dining
> tables.
That's the image that started my interpretation. They are arranged
rather like plants -- rather like triffids minus the sting -- in rows
and being fed and cared for.
I'm trying to think of anything that indicates they could not leave the
hospice when they desired, and all I recall is that their actions are
guided while in the hospice.
> Then there is the forceful insistence that they eat copiously.
> (In a strange way, this reminded me of that Nugent Barker tale 'The
> Curious Adventure Of Mr Bond' and also the classic folk tale about the
> Gingerbread Cottage). I formed the impression that the inmates were
> being fattened up for some unstated purpose. Also, when Cecile begins
> to talk intimately to Maybury after the meal, the guard-cum-chaperone
> watches over them in a vaguely menacing way, more like a prison warder
> than a gardener or servant.
Protectors can seem menacing when their protection goes against your
desires.
> You make the point that Cecile screams out not in terror but for some
> other reason, arguing (I think) that she has suddenly experienced a
> powerful emotion, amplified by her secluded 'hothouse' nurture.
> (There's an interesting idea for a story title: The Scream Of The
> Orchid.) Yet in this same discussion with Maybury, she nestles her head
> onto his lap and refers to Vincent's (the guard) sexual impotence.
> Clearly she is not a blushing virgin.
Not necessarily. What she knows and what she's experienced are different
things -- afterall one of the nearest men has proven unable to give her
the sensation she desires, which is apparently one reason she still
desires it.
> Inevitably we must return to the screaming - which I personally
> interpret to signify trauma - as witnessed by Maybury. If we are to
> accept Maybury's claim that it was terrifying, we have to question his
> integrity and perception. I believe he meets the criteria required for
> a reliable narrator; indeed, the horror in many a strange tale comes
> from this verisimiltude.
He's a limited observer, and the events are filtered through his
sensibilities. I want to stress the word, "filtered," there. The events
that initiate the story show he's already keen on a life somewhat like
the inhabitants of the hospice have, and now he's getting to see the
logical, if extreme, conclusion of that kind of life. He's not
'unreliable' in the same way a pathological liar is unreliable, but his
frame of reference is limited and, dare I hazard, veddy, veddy
stereotypically British for its time. But stereotypically middle-class,
I believe.
[...]
> As an aside, one of the most fascinating aspects of Aickman's prose is
> how non-questionning these key characters are. Very weird things happen
> to them but they still try to muddle on through, living their normal
> lives.
Again, what I've seen of that in his work seems satire of the
"stiff-upper-lip" Englishman, or at least the Englishman who refuses to
acknowledge not all is status quo.
[...]
> In terms of factual evidence, we have the screaming, Cecile's confident
> sexuality,
You color it by saying "confident"; I'd believe coloring it as "curious"
is more accurate.
> the whiff of perfume on Bannard's pyjamas and her dead body
> next morning. I can see how you arrive at your own conclusions - and
> the beauty of Aickman's work is that they often defy precise
> interpretation - but when I first read it, I reasonned that Cecile had
> been punished in some way for talking to Maybury.
The behavior of those who run the hospice is less like warders than like
nannies. I reasoned Cecile, seeing Maybury as a loss, found another
partner. Note M.'s reaction to sex: he seems appalled by the messiness
of it and its potential consequences. But he comes to that from
experience -- a wife, a child -- while Cecile is greatly curious,
possibly from ignorance of the consequences.
> I also interpreted
> the screams to be harrowing, uttered by one in great distress, and
> believe the perfume on Bannard's clothes to be a signpost for sexual
> congress.
As I said, I agree Cecile and Bannard coupled. Maybe even fiercely. But
I'm unconvinced by rape, since I see no way to apply rape into a reading
of such an intricately fashioned story without destroying its resonance
with the real world.
> Now, the screams and the sex *may* signify intense joy, but
> given Maybury's perception of them (as an otherwise reliable narrator),
> I believe they signify something else.
I believe they signify something, too, just not that. And with M. having
a rather limited imagination and a conventional mind, it is possible
that whatever intense emotion C. is experiencing is beyond M. ability to
interpret. Or, since he's already shown great timidity concerning sex,
his reaction to her screams could easily be attributed to his fear of,
or at least intimidation by, intense passion.
And maybe that's the better word: passion. The people in the hospice are
guarded from passion, from intense emotional reaction, and Maybury
demonstrates that he is fearful of it.
> You ask whether I wish to argue if Aickman was sexually perverted? That
> was not my intention, I merely sought to examine the tale.
From here is the stuff of turning this thread into one of *those*
threads, and, thanks, but I think I'll sign off on it. I'd rather stick
to an examination of the one story.
Randy M.
aycorn
indifferent or disliking Aickman is a sin, no matter how much he is
lionized among "ghost fiction" aficianados. All writers are subject to
criticism and none of them is brilliant or perfect all the time. I am,
however, personally uniniterested in condemnation from a moral
perspective, and equally uninterested in attempted in-depth
psychonalysis of an author based on his work.
But for those who like that sort of thing -- have fun.
John Pelan
<haunte...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The pig's bladder suits you admirably. But do run along, Fool, we are
>about serious business. Besides, couldn't your time be better
>employed............?
>
Oh, I don't know anything about pig's bladders; is this one of your
new fetishes? Have you tired of being peed on?
I suppose my time could be better spent on proofing one of two books
I've written, but I do have a fairly generous deadline.... If you're
kindly inquiring after our domestic state, the housekeeper is doing a
bang-up job and all is well on this front. We've shipped some 700
books this week between our Clark Ashton Smith, Harvey Jacobs and
Clifford Simak titles.
My fourth DARKSIDE anthology hits the stalls in the UK next week, it's
chock-full of some of your favorites; including Ramsey Campbell,
Jessica Amanda Salmonson, Glen Hirshberg, and myself. Do see if Selma
will front you a couple of quid for a copy?
Cheerio,
John
John Pelan
Randy:
I thin you've analyzed the tale in a masterful fashion and with
Aickman, teh only certainty is that what we tke for granted can (and
should) be disrupted in an often appalling fashion. What I read into
"The Hospice" is that once we (humans) have accepted such a benign and
orchid-like protected existence, we cease to have the mettle necessary
to survive reality. Our poor Cecile did nothing more than induldge in
what to a normal person would be a pleasurable intercourse and (at
least in my mind) died of the sensation. Perhaps I'm reading too much
between teh lines, but that's what I got out of it. I think Aickman
was trying to convey a LARGE thought; and as is often the case with
his fiction succeeded only in conveyng an intriguing ambiguity for
most readers, (I fully realize that the preceding statement is
incredibly arrogant, as I never met Aickman and never got the chance
to say, "Just what the hell were you up to?"
On another note, this weekend I'll have a chance to ask one of the two
greatest prose stylists that the genre has ever produced anything you
might like about his work... Anyone interested in what Michael Shea
has to say?
(Oh yeah, in case anyone wants to know who the other is... It's
Ramsey.)
Cheers,
John
Randy Money
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 17:40:05 -0400, Randy Money
> <rbm...@spamblock.syr.edu> wrote:
>
[...]
> Randy:
>
> I thin you've analyzed the tale in a masterful fashion
Thanks, John. I appreciate that.
"The Hospice" interests me because of the handful of Aickman stories
I've read it is the only one in which the clockwork of story, character
and incident seems visible to me, creating discernable thematic concerns.
> and with
> Aickman, teh only certainty is that what we tke for granted can (and
> should) be disrupted in an often appalling fashion. What I read into
> "The Hospice" is that once we (humans) have accepted such a benign and
> orchid-like protected existence, we cease to have the mettle necessary
> to survive reality. Our poor Cecile did nothing more than induldge in
> what to a normal person would be a pleasurable intercourse and (at
> least in my mind) died of the sensation.
Rather than say, "read into," lets say, "read from." That's an
impossible task, of course, but there are degrees. Otherwise, you've
summarized my view more concisely than I have.
And I have no problem with Chris disagreeing with me in part because,
"... of the handful of Aickman stories I've read this is the only one in
which the clockwork ..." which makes me suspicious of any reading that
appears cemented, and in part because Aickman is one of those rare genre
writers -- insofar as he was genre at all -- who was a conscious artist
(as opposed to a conscious craftsman), who is more Jamesian, Henry, than
Jamesian, Montague Rhodes: the smallest detail, the nuance of tone in a
bit of dialog, can alter an interpretation of a given story. He
apparently strove for a level of complexity which most genre writers
find inimical to paying their bills.
> Perhaps I'm reading too much
> between teh lines, but that's what I got out of it. I think Aickman
> was trying to convey a LARGE thought; and as is often the case with
> his fiction succeeded only in conveyng an intriguing ambiguity for
> most readers, (I fully realize that the preceding statement is
> incredibly arrogant, as I never met Aickman and never got the chance
> to say, "Just what the hell were you up to?"
I don't think "succeeded" is quite right, either. I think he, like James
the Henry valued the small nuance and detail, not so much relying on the
reader's powers of observation, as demanding that the reader be alert
enough to find it and interpret correctly. That's arrogance, but the
kind of arrogance you see in writers who think of themselves as artists,
I believe. And, as with ol' Hank, he was quite capable of cobbling
together a more straight-forward story if he wished, but where's the
challenge in that?
If I ... um ... read Aickman correctly, his was an attitude and
accomplishment that I usually find less emotionally than intellectually
involving. It's enjoyable to try and tease out the possible meaning(s)
in such work, but with rare exceptions it doesn't have the emotional
impact of some less complex work. Except, with Aickman, it often does:
that disquiet is palpably there.
> On another note, this weekend I'll have a chance to ask one of the two
> greatest prose stylists that the genre has ever produced anything you
> might like about his work... Anyone interested in what Michael Shea
> has to say?
Hmmmmmmm... thinking about this. Wish I had read more by him.
> (Oh yeah, in case anyone wants to know who the other is... It's
> Ramsey.)
Do you ever try factoring Peter Straub into your pantheon?
Randy M.
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
"Oh, I don't know anything about pig's bladders; is this one of your
new fetishes? Have you tired of being peed on?"
I've been meaning to haul you up on this bizarre, recurring theme of
yours for some time now. All these dark little comments about
perversion and watersports. What the hell are you on about?
Your disgusting sexual practises do not concern me and have no place in
this forum. Put them in your foul little stories by all means, but
please don't inflict your depraved and projected fantasises onto your
betters.
CB
(Ughing at even slight contact with so unpleasant a character as Pelan.)
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
the tale. Whilst there is no evidence that Cecile found the probable
rape 'pleasureable', there are hints that she found it terrifying. Your
mad certainty that there was nothying untoward happening is Foolish in
the extreme.
It astounds me that you accord yourself the status of an expert in the
genre. You are naught but an interloping oaf who is busily engaged in
trying to stash his hoarde of sadistic pornography under the bed.
CB
PS. I'm flattered that once again you've pinched one of my ideas e.g.
the orchid analogy. Originality isn't exactly your strong point.
John Pelan
insult Randy (who was far more pleasant to you than you deserve) or me?
Or are you just rolling on the floor spewing venom in all directions
hoping to stain someone's shoes?
I don't recall ever according myself the status of "expert", I'm
certainly a student of the genre and it would seem that my opinions
hold some small value with a large number of publishers and editors.
Now I see that you keep banging on about orchids, don't you know that
"orchid" comes from the ancient Greek word for "testicle"? Just what
are we to make of this?
Cheers,
John
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.books.ghost-fiction/msg/f11d53c3a6ebd1e3
John Pelan
the matter further, I'm merely alluding to comments about you made
elsewhere...
Cheers,
John
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
So, you *are* talking nonsense, and are merely projecting or fantasing
about me?
Now, why doesn't that surprise me, you depraved little monster? You
might 'get off' by talking about perversions various, but I lead a very
normal and sheltered life, and don't much care to be associated with
your coke-fuelled drpravity.
CB
PS. Hey, I thought you waltzed off to Horrabin Hall to speculate about
this sort of nonsense? Why do you keep returning to ABGF? Your unique
brand of abuse isn't popular with anyone here. You also have 'Bad Mr
Toad' to play with, your even more obsessive Yahoo group. Remember 'Bad
Mr Toad'? You lied to your attorney by telling him you'd be closing it
down only last month. (Can't wait to launch the new website - I must
have a dozen concrete examples of Pelan telling lies.)
Talking of which, it's a pretty sad state of affairs when you have to
call in favours by asking an aspiring writer and editor who is a
qualified attorney at law to do your dirty-work, on the cheap as it
were, presumably in the expectation of getting published.
Some folk might think this was nepotistic, manipulative and tawdry -
and they would be right. You *are* a manipulative, nepotistic
cheapskate. A lying one to boot! (As in my boot.)
John Pelan
that you're not allowed out of the house without supervision?
I hate to shatter your delusions, but no one talks about you at
Horrabin Hall, you simply aren't that interesting.
Why do I keep returning? Hoppy dear, I never left... I was one of the
founding members of this group if you'll recall.
I did not lie to my attorney, I said I would close down "Bad Mr Toad"
if you behaved in a civil manner. Obviously, you have not done so, thus
the group remains and you remain the butt of a good many jokes.
Now why don't you toddle down to the cop-shop with your evidence that I
used illegal drugs twenty years ago, perhaps they'll bundle this into
the great sock-puppet investigation that we've heard tell about? If
nothing else, perhaps they'll give you an ice-cream and let you sound
the siren when they drive you home...
Oh yes, good luck finding the discussion group where your antics are
being speculated on (I'll give you a hint, it's UK-based). Based on the
absence of any journals or diaries providing evidence to the contrary,
one can only suppose that you've destroyed such documents to avoid the
truth coming out... Isn't that how it works, Hoppy?
Have a lovely day, Hoppy
John
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
"I did not lie to my attorney, I said I would close down "Bad Mr Toad"
if you behaved in a civil manner. Obviously, you have not done so, thus
the group remains and you remain the butt of a good many jokes."
First up, your attorney is Hank Schwaeble, a writing friend with whom
you have business dealings, lest anyone really think you obtained
independent third party legal advice.
Secondly, it is very unclear whether you paid him. Did you pay him for
his services? Or was this a favour he did to a friend, perhaps hoping
that you might help get him into print?
Thirdly, after I told Mr Schwaeble (with whom I have no disagreement)
that I would persist in branding you a liar after he offered up a
distinctly implausible excuse for your lying about owning stock in
ISOMEDIA, I heard nothing more. This suggests that not only am I right
- you ARE a liar - but that you are too cheap to actually shell out for
legal costs in progressing the matter further.
But to return to your odd claim that you would only close down your
obsessive little fan club upon certain conditions....yet again you lie.
Your unpaid 'attorney' made the offer on a 'without strings' basis. He
claimed it was a gesture of goodwill. His exact words were:
"I have asked Mr. Pelan to disband it for no other reason than to
remove an apparent source of perceived provocation. He has agreed..."
Now, the truth of the matter is that you reneged upon your gesture of
goodwill when you realised I wasn't going to be intimidated by your
Simpsons-like attempt to threaten and cajole me, thus embarrassing your
attorney in the process, who was left speechless by your agreeing one
thing and then doing another.
"Oh yes, good luck finding the discussion group where your antics are
being speculated on (I'll give you a hint, it's UK-based)."
The fact that you are involved in yet another obsessive fan-club
dedicated purely to me should not surprise anybody, nor should the fact
that you apparently speculate in a depraved - and quite frankly, odd -
manner about my private life.
I challenge you and your cronies openly and in my own name. I have no
need to scamper off into the fetid undergrowth to connive maliciously
and to gorge on hatred or envy. None of us doubt that the sewers seethe
with disgusting organisms, but few so us wish to venture there.
Apparently you do....unless, or course, you are lying again?
CB
John Pelan
arrangements are none of your business, and I count Hank as one of my
best friends. He's also a very talented writer who requires no help
from me to make his mark.
Mr. Schwaeble actually told you far more about my business dealings
than you need to know and the fact that the concepts of mutual funds,
investment groups, and rather complex stock portfolios are beyond your
grasp should come as no surprise to anyone.
Now that you know I have more than adequate representation, I'd take a
good look through your website if I were you and make sure to remove
any copyrighted material. Certainly wouldn't do for you to be chastised
and brought up on charges, would it?
As to your other speculations, I didn't say that I was involved in any
such group, merely that there was one...
BTW: Did you ever get that camera removed from your computer?
Cheers,
John
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
But you did lie about owning ISOMEDIA stock....you also lied to your
'best friend' cum attorney about closing down your odd little 'Bad Mr
Toad' club....and now you're lying again about pursuing litigation
against me.
Mr Schwaeble's new eye-brow-raising claim that you were in fact part of
a syndicate which bought stock in an ISP company which had a *similar*
sounding name to your own was so full of holes that I could sense him
squirming in embarrassing over the ether waves. For starters, he said
that ISOMEDIA *never* sent you any emails confirming your ownership of
ISOMEDIA stock. Yet Kevin O'Brien claimed on many occasions in this
very forum that you had....
So who is lying? Your attorney? No, I very much doubt that. It has to
be you or O'Brien....or the both of you.
By all means, start your action against me. I confidently look forward
to proving you a liar, a fraud and a manipulative bully in any UK
court. You will be thoroughly discredited and your professional career
will be ruined. After all, it's only what you deserve.
CB
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
1. Kevin O'Brien claimed to have received emails from ISOMEDIA denying
that they had ever liaised with me whilst confirming that John Pelan
did indeed own stock in ISOMEDIA.
2. When ISOMEDIA gave me permission to publish an email denying that
they had ever communicated with a Kevin O'Brien, O'Brien chanaged tack,
and claimed that the emails from ISOMEDIA had been sent to Pelan
direct. Pelan did not deny this and publicly supported O'Brien. O'Brien
said Pelan had copied them to him.
3. No such emails ever existed. The only emails that exist were sent to
me, confirming that Pelan had lied about owning stock in ISOMEDIA, and
that he had been warned not to repeat the false claim.
4. Pelan's attorney Hank Scwaeble later emailed me to say that John
Pelan had never owned stock in ISOMEDIA but thought he had owned stock
in a different company with a similar sounding name (a decidely dodgy
claim that can be disproved anyway).
5. In making this admission, Mr Schwaeble unwittingly revealed that
ISOMEDIA had not sent the emails to John Pelan that Kevin O'Brien
claimed existed.
6. When I first publicised this damning new evidence several weeks ago
- that Pelan's own attorney had unwittingly exposed his client and
O'Brien as a liar - O'Brien suddenly announced he had cancer and would
be withdrawing from public life.
7. O'Brien is still around. Both he and Pelan have yet to provider an
explanation for this newly proven lie.
John Pelan
demonstrated over and over again, you're just too dim to understand.
The only action I will take against you is if I catch you with
copyrighted material on your site. If you think for a second that
you'll get the benefit of the doubt in court, considering that you've
been publicly chastized for the same sort of behavior previously, you
really have a poor understanding of the law.
My professional career ruined? By you? Barker, you ignorant twit;
you've probably helped me sell more books than any one distributor.
However, thanks for your concern, I've just signed for a couple more
anthologies, can I assume that we won't be getting a submission from
you?
TTFN,
J
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
If no one has lied, how do you explain Kevin O'Brien's oft-repeated
claim that you had received emails from ISOMEDIA, confirming that you
owned stock in their company?
Yet your very own attorney Hank Schwaeble said you never owned stock in
ISOMEDIA.
That's two damning condemnations of you as a liar. Once by your very
own ISP, then inadvertently by your own attorney.
So come on Pelan, please do try and salvage your credibility. Tell us
how you managed to show Kevin O'Brien emails from ISOMEDIA saying you
owned stock with them, when your attorney subsequently revealed that
you never had.
John Pelan
(or is it croaking) up the wrong tree again. I see nothing here that
indicates anyone lied about anything, certainly not to the extent of a
crooked publisher lying to prospective customers about binding
practices...
Why don't you run along now, I'm sure there are sockpuppets busily
putting salt in your sugar bowl and tieing your shoelaces together.
Perhaps you should trot down to the local? You seem to have had a very
trying day...
Cheers,
John
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net
>
> Sorry, just to clarify one issue for other people's benefit:
>
The following statements made by Barker clarify nothing, except that
they show he is willing to lie through his teeth in an attempt to
change history to his favor. But considering his probable mental
state, this should really be no surprise.
>
> 6. When I first publicised this damning new evidence several weeks ago
> - that Pelan's own attorney had unwittingly exposed his client and
> O'Brien as a liar - O'Brien suddenly announced he had cancer and would
> be withdrawing from public life.
>
Yes, I have cancer; no, I never said I would withdraw from "public
life".
>
> 7. O'Brien is still around. Both he and Pelan have yet to provider an
> explanation for this newly proven lie.
>
Untrue. I told John in a public email that the psychologist who is
counseling me encouraged me to keep up with my other interests,
including posting to this group.
By the way, that psychologist spent a few weeks reading your posts,
both current and past. She advised me today that you probably suffer
from narcissitic personality disorder or some form of similar disorder.
Based on what I've read about it on the Internet and in the
literature, I believe she may be right.
So all your bluster about me being a pathological liar and mentally
unbalanced is just more projection. Figures.
She also suggested I ignore you as a consequence. I shall take her
advice. This will be my last about or to you on any public forum.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
"I've never claimed to have shown e-mails to anyone. You're "barking"
(or is it croaking) up the wrong tree again. I see nothing here that
indicates anyone lied about anything."
Ah, but Kevin O'Brien claimed you had, and you refused to deny the
claim on numerous occasions:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.books.ghost-fiction/msg/cdc175fd2de55de4
You're only 'coming clean' now because your own attorney Hank Schwaeble
unwittingly revealed that O'Brien had lied, when he emailed me to say
that contrary to your boasts, you never owned stock in ISOMEDIA.
There are few sights as unpleasant as that of a rat turning on its
brethren. Trapped in a corner, you have no choice but to turn on
O'Brien, exposing him as a liar in a cynical attempt to save your own
skin (or should that be fur?). But we are still left with the
disturbing fact that you assisted O'Brien in his lie for several months
by keeping quiet, implying the lie was true, and this makes you
complicit in the deception.
Let this be a warning to everyone: John Pelan is both duplicitous and
disloyal. He will encourage his friends to lie for him, and then stab
them in the back when they have served their use.
My work on this issue is done. Two scalps have been taken. Pelan has
been branded a liar by his own ISP and, unwittingly, by his attorney;
and O'Brien has been hung out to dry by Pelan.
The next time that anyone tries to identify what are the prime causes
of acrimony in these forums, they would do well to reflect upon the
fact that Kevin O'Brien and John Pelan have polluted discussion for
months at a time with their cheating, lying ways.
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
Attacks Rat' thread. Pelan now denies ever having shown you any emails.
PS. The notion that you've printed out my emails and showed them to
your imaginary oncology consultant, who in turn has expressed a medical
opinion about my own health, is outrageously implausible. Michael
Jackson is saner than you are.
smee
> My work on this issue is done.
I wish I could believe this...
Yrs,
Michael
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
Yes, and in a perfect world Pelan and O'Brien wouldn't poison
newsgroups with malicious personal abuse which is based upon lies.
I've said it so many times that I really should patent the offer: once
Pelan and O'Brien own up to the lies that have been so transparently
exposed, we can all move on.
However, Pelan's ego is too bloated for that. He gets his attorney
friend to email me the ludicrous offer that he will stop harrassing me
*if* I apologise for branding his client a liar even though...um, his
client told a lie. (Pelan's remarkable new defence is that he bought
shares in an ISP which *sounded like* ISOMEDIA.)
Thus we have a scenario in which one person harrasses another because
he has exposed him as a liar. Oddly, you appear to side with the liar.
Michael, if we hand the internet over to the rogues and bullies who
peddle lies as second nature, then we've sunk to a pretty low ebb
ourselves.
By all means post an evasive putdown on a slightly different issue, but
you can't get away from the fact that, tedious though this matter be,
it *is* important that people who set themselves up as genre
professionals, peddling this or that book, holding office as a
'Trustee' with a genre organisation, tell the truth.
If Pelan is prepared to lie about his financial affairs and encourage
others to lie for him, it deserves to be discussed in this forum. If he
wants to keep using this forum after having lied in it, then he should
apologise; if he doesn't want to apologise, he deserves to be chased
out each and every time he returns.
TTFN,
CB
jac...@hotmail.com
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder wrote:
> I've said it so many times that I really should patent the offer: once
> Pelan and O'Brien own up to the lies that have been so transparently
> exposed, we can all move on.
>
But shouldn't we all move on regardless? This has nothing at all to do
with ghost fiction and has been such a bore for so long. Also, it seems
that you are the only one openly concerned with this business, so
you're as much of a polluter as anyone else.
With my best intentions,
JCV
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
For the reason outlined in my earlier post, no. I don't think we should
just turn a blind eye to these things. For a newsgroup to work, it
needs to self-moderate itself. If a small number of folk think they can
get away with malicious abuse and lying, then the group should condemn
those practises. Now, if you don't want to stand up for that principle
that's your business. However, I don't doubt that should you ever find
yourself on the receiving end of similar abuse, as others have, you
will almost certainly appeal to me for help (as others have).
John Pelan lied and then encouraged O'Brien to lie on his behalf. They
did so in this forum. Worse, they did so to validate personal abuse.
All you need to do is swing by their 'Bad Mr Toad' group at Yahoo, and
do a quick search for sock puppets in this very forum, to see proof of
their malicious behaviour.
I may be irritatingly tenacious, but as a 'crime', that pales into
significance against the lies that have been told, and the abuse that
has been heaped.
Wouldn't it be nice if, just for once, the fence-sitting liberal
'lurkers' demanded that John Pelan and Kevin O'Brien own up to their
obvious lies and then verbally reprimanded them, before directing the
group to get back on with its business? But that won't happen. Pelan
and KLOB will go on spewing lie after lie, whilst continuing with their
campaign of personal abuse, while the majority of you sit round
grumbling about what it could be like.
Do something pro-active, for godsakes! The lies can and have been
proven, now its up to 'the group' to acknowledge the fact and take such
action as it sees fit.
almight...@gmail.com
am I expressing a lack of concern for your feelings. I would like to
say, however, that the topics being raised are extremely questionable,
and at times, downright offensive. May I ask, please, that you take it
back to your personal area, where it belongs? I don't believe a public
forum is the best place to air one's laundry. I signed up, and have
been thoroughly enjoying, references to random ghost books, stories
(which I immediately google to learn more) and even off topic books.
However, attourneys, orchids, cocaine, splatterporn (I have no idea
what this is, nor would I like to) is certainly not a list of subjects
I signed up to read about. Forgive me if I'm overstepping my bounds by
bringing this to your attention, but I also feel you are overstepping
yours by filling my email box with this.
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
As an aside, you could always access the newsgroup via an interface
like www.groups-google.com/group/alt.books.ghost-fiction. That way you
could pick and read just the threads that interest you without having
to actually download lots of tirseome messages into your PC's mailbox.
CB
John Pelan
<haunte...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>John Pelan wrote:
>
>"I've never claimed to have shown e-mails to anyone. You're "barking"
>(or is it croaking) up the wrong tree again. I see nothing here that
>indicates anyone lied about anything."
>
>Ah, but Kevin O'Brien claimed you had, and you refused to deny the
>claim on numerous occasions:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.books.ghost-fiction/msg/cdc175fd2de55de4
Wrong again, Hoppy. The link merely discusses Kevin's correspondence
with a Mr. Maulding. You're wrong again. Now why don't you be a nice
toad and go have yourself a fat, juicy fly.
Liar. Plagarist. Fraud. Thief. Quite a healthy resume you have there.
Cheers,
John
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
"Wrong again, Hoppy. The link merely discusses Kevin's correspondence
with a Mr. Maulding."
But they don't. O'Brien was asked by someone else why he didn't publish
emails which allegedly cleared you of lying, and he replied thus:
"..those emails were sent to John Pelan. Without his permission I
cannot publish them."
So, will you please advise whether ISOMEDIA ever sent you these emails?
Kevin O'Brien said they did. Your attorney says they didn't. There is
an obvious, glaring contradiction. Who is telling the truth, Hank
Schwaeble or Kevin O'Brien?
CB
"None but a fool or madman could deny that Mr. Pelan made statements
contrary to fact in 2004 about his relationship with Isomedia."
Mike Tice, April 2005
"In fact, YOU, Kevin L. O'Brien, are the one who lied, and, for some
strange
reason, cannot own up to it."
Aaron Vanek, April 2005
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net
like trying to escape from quicksand. Yes, I am breaking my promise to
ignore Barker, and no doubt he will crow about how he's caught me in
another lie, but his continued despicable and hate-filled lying leaves
me no choice. Please continue to delete our exchanges.
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder wrote:
>
> John Pelan wrote:
>
> "Wrong again, Hoppy. The link merely discusses Kevin's correspondence
> with a Mr. Maulding."
>
> But they don't. O'Brien was asked by someone else why he didn't publish
> emails which allegedly cleared you of lying, and he replied thus:
>
> "..those emails were sent to John Pelan. Without his permission I
> cannot publish them."
>
> So, will you please advise whether ISOMEDIA ever sent you these emails?
>
> Kevin O'Brien said they did. Your attorney says they didn't. There is
> an obvious, glaring contradiction. Who is telling the truth, Hank
> Schwaeble or Kevin O'Brien?
>
The emails I was referring to were the emails Isomedia first sent to
John after you reported to them that he claimed he owned stock in
Isomedia. These are the emails you claimed had reprimanded John for
lying and had demanded that he stop making claims of stock ownership.
These were the emails that Mr. Maulding copied and sent to me to prove
that in fact he never reprimanded John for lying and that he only asked
John to ignore you from then on. Since these emails were originally
sent to John by Mr. Maulding, Mr. Maulding asked me not to publish them
on any public forum because their contents were confidential. Mr.
Maulding gave me permission to paraphrase the contents but not to
publish them. At no time did I say that John sent me any emails. At
no time did I say that I received any other emails from Isomedia except
those mentioned above and the replies Mr. Maulding made to my
inquiries. The email you posted in which Mr. Maulding supposedly
denied making any denials was deliberately altered by you; according to
what Mr. Maulding said to me at the time what he realy wrote in that
email was a demand that you stop harrassing him and leave him alone.
I doubt John's attorney denied that John received those emails. Are
you now claiming that Isomedia never sent those emails to John?
Because if you are, then that makes YOU the liar.
Kevin L. O'Brien
silv...@earthlink.net
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder wrote:
> You've been thrown to the wolves by Pelan, old chap. Check out the 'Rat
> Attacks Rat' thread. Pelan now denies ever having shown you any emails.
>
>
> PS. The notion that you've printed out my emails and showed them to
> your imaginary oncology consultant, who in turn has expressed a medical
> opinion about my own health, is outrageously implausible. Michael
> Jackson is saner than you are.
>
>
My name is Susan Anton and I am a staff psychologist attached to the
Oncology section of the hospital in Denver where Mr. O'Brien is
receiving his treatments. Mr. O'Brien did not provide me with copies
of your emails. He did not even ask me to read them. I chose to do so
on my own. His oncology specialist was concerned that his outside
activities might have a detrimental effect on his recovery and
recommended that he cease them. I disagreed, unless any of these
activities might put undue physical and/or emotional stress upon him.
The first day we met, I asked him if he thought any of his other
interests might do so, and he mentioned his membership on this forum.
When I asked why he felt that way, he mentioned you, among other
concerns. We discussed his relationship with you at some length, and
his description of your posts intrigued me. I asked if he would mind
if I read his exchanges with you. He said no and showed me how to
access the Google archive.
Based on what I read, I believe it is a strong possibility that you
suffer from some sort of personality disorder, narcissism being one of
several possibilities. Of course this cannot be considered a medical
diagnosis, in part being as I am not a medical doctor. The exact
diagnosis is not terribly relevant though, the signs of a serious
disorder are clear. For example, I found your belief that Mr. O'Brien
is faking his condition, and that therefore I am 'imaginary',
significant. Mr. O'Brien also warned me that you would claim my letter
was actually from him, which is indicative of a number of personality
disorders, especially narcissism. As well, the nature of the treatment
I would give you were you in my care would be almost the same
regardless of your exact condition. My concern is not for your precise
condition, but instead is for my patient, Mr. O'Brien, and in small
part for your own well being. I strongly urge that you seek
professional help, Mr. Barker, because these kinds of disorders, if
left untreated, may lead to a breakdown.
In the meantime, let me assure the other members of this forum that Mr.
O'Brien is quite well-adjusted, more so than most patients in his
condition. Were he as unstable as Mr. Barker and a handfull of others
have claimed, his condition would have caused a breakdown. I also
believe that, provided he ignores Mr. Barker in future, his
participation in this group will help maintain the positive attitude he
needs to benefit his recovery.
Ollie
>I doubt John's attorney denied that John received those emails. Are
>you now claiming that Isomedia never sent those emails to John?
>Because if you are, then that makes YOU the liar.
>
>Kevin L. O'Brien
For god's sake, shut up and piss off, the three of you.
Robin Low
<some...@gmail.com> writes
>
>For god's sake, shut up and piss off, the three of you.
>
>
assaults on one another to newsgroups is the only way they can achieve
full erections.
(Well, I can't think of any other sane reason for their obsessive
posting.)
--
Robin Low
almight...@gmail.com
them delivered to my email box in one nice tidy stack is beneficial to
me, and saves me from having to sort, click, back button, click, sort,
etc. I simply scroll down. Honestly, I have no sides in this argument,
it is a *personal issue* and not one that you have any right to ask us
for assistance in. This is a good group, please let it stay that way
without your constant table pounding. I truly enjoy the intelligent,
broad discussions we get into, and the spectrum of books covered.
However, I am very regretful in saying that if I must mix my books with
these tirades, I feel I must find a different group. I am not the only
person asking you to stop, sir. In fact, I'm not asking you to stop at
all, I'm asking you to take it to private messages and out of my hair.
Surely you gentlemen are above the schoolyard squabbling by now.
Kylie
John Pelan
<haunte...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>John Pelan wrote:
>
>"Wrong again, Hoppy. The link merely discusses Kevin's correspondence
>with a Mr. Maulding."
>
>But they don't. O'Brien was asked by someone else why he didn't publish
>emails which allegedly cleared you of lying, and he replied thus:
>
>"..those emails were sent to John Pelan. Without his permission I
>cannot publish them."
>
>So, will you please advise whether ISOMEDIA ever sent you these emails?
>
>Kevin O'Brien said they did. Your attorney says they didn't. There is
>an obvious, glaring contradiction. Who is telling the truth, Hank
>Schwaeble or Kevin O'Brien?
>
>CB
>
You poor mad thing... I realize that you are in fact mentally ill and
will likely (sooner or later) be carted off to the laughing academy
where you'll spend your days making sculptures out of your own
excrement. Until this occurs, I'd strongly suggest that you query a
specialist about increasing your medication. Sadly, there's no cure
for your condition, but the proper amount of tranquilizers may render
you a bit more docile.
Best of luck to you!
John
Franklin Hummel
"Robin Low" <ro...@celephais.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:oSDutqBmwNGDFwS$@celephais.demon.co.uk...
>>
> They have been asked several times to piss off, but posting off-topic assaults on one
> another to newsgroups is the only way they can achieve full erections.
Ewwww! As a gay man, I did NOT appreciate the image that put in my head!
> (Well, I can't think of any other sane reason for their obsessive posting.)
Who thinks they are sane?
EWWWWW!!!
-- Franklin Hummel in Boston, Massachusetts
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
Typical evasion. Count Fosco was equally eager to try and stifle
embarrassing revelations by labelling the person who could threaten him
as mad.
All you had to do is answer one simple question, but clearly you
realised that if you did so, you would brand your new 'disciple' Kevin
L. O'Brien a liar. This is a pity because I would have been content to
resolve the issue here.
Now I shall launch a new website - devoted entirely to you and Mr
O'Brien, and nothing to do with my existing Haunted River one -
detailling the facts of this case, so that your peers, colleagues and
potential clients can be warned about your cheating, lying ways. As you
know, I have bona fide emails from both ISOMEDIA and your attorney,
together with your own archived claims, communications which can be
scrutinised and authenticated by my web-host. Indeed, Mr Maulding of
ISOMEDIA has agreed to confirm my version of events to any official
third party, so there is nothing whatsover you can do to stop me.
I have tired of your lies and evasion, and few people here wish to
watch you dance on and on like a pig stuck on a stick. So unlike you, I
don't need to scurry off into the fetid undergrowth to gossip
maliciously, because I am telling the truth, and can expose you as a
devious liar on a public dedicated website because I have the evidence
to back it up.
It doesn't matter if you and KLOB come clean about the issue now. I've
given you dozens of chances and you've tried to bullshit your way of
every one. Well, now you're just going to have to live with the
humiliating consequences, and if it leads to very expensive litigation
on your side, that's not my concern. Indeed, I would welcome it: in
particular, I look forward to a judge reading through any statement
issued by ISOMEDIA, damning you as a liar.
I would like to apologise to anyone who has been bored or irritated by
this argument. I had hoped to resolve it in the fora where it
originated, but it would appear that some people are just too arrogant
and abusive to apologise for the trouble that their lies cause.
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
dedicated to you and Pelan, and I'll publish my emails from ISOMEDIA
branding you both liars there. As ISOMEDIA will happily autheticate
them, there isn't a damn thing you can do to stop me.
In contrast, if you ever get round to publishing the emails you claim
ISOMEDIA sent you and Pelan - emails which don't exist and were never
sent - then ISOMEDIA will have you both hauled up in court.
This is an issue that can only be resolved by complete brinkmanship.
Forget all of the talk, let's get down to actual evidence and let that
speak for itself.
I'll have my emails as evidence, you and Pelan have .......nothing.
TTFN,
CB
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net
>
> In contrast, if you ever get round to publishing the emails you claim
> ISOMEDIA sent you and Pelan - emails which don't exist and were never
>
If as you now claim Isomedia never sent any emails to John, then you
lied when you claimed they branded him a liar and ordered him to stop
misrepresenting himself as an owner of Isomedia. Just as Mr. Maulding
confirmed to me.
>
> I'll have my emails as evidence, you and Pelan have .......nothing.
>
Emails that you will have to fabricate, considering this new revelation
of yours.
So publish and be damned.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
No, illness-faker, I'll publish and *you'll* be damned. With the
evidence I've got, you both face professional ridicule.
I don't know why I didn't do this before - it's a win-win situation.
Neither of you can sue me because I *am* telling the truth, but if you
do try to sue me, it'll cost you both shed loads of money, and you can
only lose, because .....well, because you're both lying.
Really, it is quite, quite staggering that after John Pelan's very own
attorney confirmed that he never, ever owned stock in ISOMEDIA, you
persist in standing by the claim that you have seen emails from
ISOMEDIA stating that not only does he own stock, but denying that they
told me the opposite. As Mike Tice said:
"None but a fool or madman could deny that Mr. Pelan made statements
contrary to fact in 2004 about his relationship with Isomedia."
And *you* are presumably the madman he refers to.....
So let's stop all this silly argument, shall we? I'll launch a website
and publish my evidence inclusive of emails from ISOMEDIA's leagl
counsel, and then we'll all sit back and see what you and Pelan do
about it.
Seriously, it's time to shut up. I'll go away and do what I have to do,
you and Pelan can take legal advice.
CB
Barbara Roden
"Carnacki The Ghost-Finder" <haunte...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125782338....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> So let's stop all this silly argument, shall we? I'll launch a website
> and publish my evidence inclusive of emails from ISOMEDIA's leagl
> counsel, and then we'll all sit back and see what you and Pelan do
> about it.
Please tell us this means that the whole business will be confined to a
website somewhere and the rest of us won't have to be bored to tears with it
any more. . . .
Barbara
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
Yes, it does. But we'll always have your views about M R James to fall
back upon if it gets too exciting. Then if we want to go off-list for
some *real* tear-yawns, we'll always have NORTHWEST.
Having said 'yes, it does', I rather think that perhaps 'no, it won't'.
Your associates Pelan and O'Brien show little signs of mending their
ways, so for as long as they continue to lie and abuse others, I
predict the boredom to go on.
CB
smee
> I predict the boredom to go on.
I, too, predict the boredom will go on and on and on!
Yrs,
Michael
smee
> I would like to apologise to anyone who has been bored or irritated by
> this argument.
I can't speak for others, but I find these occasional "apologies" one
of the more irritating aspects of all this ISOMEDIA kook screed. It's
as though the participants truly expect us to believe that (a) they're
going to cease pestering us with this off-topic nonsense, and (b) they
give a damn what the rest of us think. I'd much rather they avoid the
pretense of contrition and just continue raking their fingernails
across the blackboard surface.
Yrs,
Michael
smee
> Dear Mr. Barker -
>
> My name is Susan Anton and I am a staff psychologist attached to the
> Oncology section of the hospital in Denver <snip>
Let me see if I've got this straight.
You're telling us that you're an actual mental health professional. And
that in your capacity as therapist for a certain patient and as a
representative of a supposedly reputable hospital, you have taken it
upon yourself to make a diagnosis of a third party whom you have never
met and who has never requested your services; and, further, having
made this shrewd diagnosis -- all based on a bunch of Usenet postings
-- you have elected to publicly trumpet it about the Internet.
My, my, my. What a sad little circus this forum has become.
Yrs,
Michael
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net
>
> Really, it is quite, quite staggering that after John Pelan's very own
> attorney confirmed that he never, ever owned stock in ISOMEDIA, you
> persist in standing by the claim that you have seen emails from
> ISOMEDIA stating that not only does he own stock, but denying that they
> told me the opposite.
>
I never said Isomedia told me John owned stock in their company, as a
search of the Google archives will demonstrate. What I said was
Isomedia told me they could neither confirm nor deny that John owned
stock, since as they admitted it was possible John could own stock
through a third party such as a mutual fund or a retirement account. I
also said that Isomedia sent me copies of the emails they sent to John
and in them they not only did not reprimand John for lying, they also
did not deny that he owned stock. If you claim I said anything else on
your website you are lying.
>
> So let's stop all this silly argument, shall we? I'll launch a website
> and publish my evidence inclusive of emails from ISOMEDIA's leagl
> counsel, and then we'll all sit back and see what you and Pelan do
> about it.
>
There are in fact many things we could do about it, but I for one will
not. At some point in the future people will ask me just how
unbalanced you really were; I can point them to your website, among
other places, and it will show them how far gone you are.
>
> Seriously, it's time to shut up.
>
Thank god. Now maybe you'll stop incessantly polluting this newsgroup
with your vitriol. As long as you stay silent, John and I will have no
reason to refer to you ever again, but if you bring this subject back
up again, we will not hesitate to respond to your despicable lies.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Otzchiim
Date: 30 Aug 2005 19:09:46 -0700
Local: Tues, Aug 30 2005 10:09 pm
Subject: Re: True confessions
Just for the record, my point was only that I don't think being
indifferent or disliking Aickman is a sin, no matter how much he is
lionized among "ghost fiction" aficianados. All writers are subject to
criticism and none of them is brilliant or perfect all the time. I am,
however, personally uniniterested in condemnation from a moral
perspective, and equally uninterested in attempted in-depth
psychonalysis of an author based on his work
Generally I would agree, though I will admit that with the
number of times that Aickman stories have failed to quite make sense, I
have wondered if that was deliberate and for the sake of surrealistic
artiness, or if his mind did not quite make sense either.
Mark Owings
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net
>
> I can't speak for others, but I find these occasional "apologies" one
> of the more irritating aspects of all this ISOMEDIA kook screed. It's
> as though the participants truly expect us to believe that (a) they're
>
John and I are merely defending ourselves, so if Barker ever stopped
talking about it, so would we. It isn't we who keeps bring this
subject up, so if the "boredom" does keep going on, it will be because
Barker won't let it go.
>
> . . . and (b) they give a damn what the rest of us think.
>
Neither John nor I are under any illusions about that; it's Barker who
believes anyone else really cares. But John and I will continue to
exercise our free speech rights and defend ourselves whenever Barker
starts attacking us again.
Kevin L. O'Brien
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net
>
> Let me see if I've got this straight.
>
> You're telling us that you're an actual mental health professional. And
> that in your capacity as therapist for a certain patient and as a
> representative of a supposedly reputable hospital, you have taken it
> upon yourself to make a diagnosis of a third party whom you have never
> met and who has never requested your services; and, further, having
> made this shrewd diagnosis -- all based on a bunch of Usenet postings
> -- you have elected to publicly trumpet it about the Internet.
>
What Ms. Anton said, which you cut out:
"Based on what I read, I believe it is a strong possibility that you
suffer from some sort of personality disorder, narcissism being one of
several possibilities. Of course this cannot be considered a medical
diagnosis. . . ."
Would you like to rethink your rather hasty criticism there?
Kevin L. O'Brien
Barbara Roden
"Otzchiim" <Otzc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1125804434.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Generally I would agree, though I will admit that with the
> number of times that Aickman stories have failed to quite make sense, I
> have wondered if that was deliberate and for the sake of surrealistic
> artiness, or if his mind did not quite make sense either.
Or if it's a case of the connections and nuances being clear in the author's
mind - he after all knowing what he's trying to say or what effect he's
aiming at - but he doesn't put in enough pieces of the puzzle for those not
privy to his thought processes.
There's also the arrogance possibility; Hugh Lamb recalls asking Aickman
what precisely he meant in his story 'The Fetch', which Hugh anthologised,
and got what he told us was a very dismissive, contemptuous response along
the lines of 'I shouldn't have to explain it' (with a subtext, apparently,
of 'Why are you wasting my time').
Barbara
huw....@gmail.com
Huw
Robin Low
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net writes
>Thank god. Now maybe you'll stop incessantly polluting this newsgroup
>with your vitriol. As long as you stay silent, John and I will have no
>reason to refer to you ever again, but if you bring this subject back
>up again, we will not hesitate to respond to your despicable lies.
For heaven's sake, the guy keeps posting (or at least following-up
posts) because you guys keep replying. Ignore him.
You may feel you have to respond, but for those of us who have no
interest in or understanding of the issue all the posts merge into one
annoying whole.
You don't have to defend yourself. The guy comes across as a standard
Internet nutcase and will be thought of as such. Replying to him just
makes you part of the problem.
--
Robin Low
smee
> What Ms. Anton said, which you cut out:
<snip>
> Would you like to rethink your rather hasty criticism there?
I cut nothing that merited repetition; my comments were not made in
haste; and no.
(If you wish to further pursue this nonsense, please cease polluting
the newsgroup and contact me directly via e-mail.)
Yrs,
Michael
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
I hate to say "I told you so..." but, well, I did warn everybody about
this.
O'Brien has been pulling these stunts for years in alt.horror.cthulhu.
No one believes him there, but they are often left speechless by the
sheer breath-taking gall of some of his antics. He's even quoted from
non-existent communications he claims to have received from other
people's lawyers. I know because I read through his posting history
when he first tried to snare me in one of his silly lies.
Quite a number of people leapt on me in ABGF when I first raised
concerns about the timing and nature of O'Brien's alleged cancer (but
oddly no one did in AHC....they know O'Brien too well). Well, I can
live with that, because I'm confident that O'Brien is lying to
everyone. Besides, I think its despicable to fake an illness that
touches upon many people's lives. It's like looting a burning city or
vandalising a grave. Only the lowest of the low engage in activities
like this.
Anyway, I'm cross-posting this to AHC so that they can see what new
depths O'Brien has stooped to.
CB
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
Point taken.
But I intend to try very hard to desist from commenting on this whole
ISOMEDIA issue. Seriously. No progress has been made in trying to get
at the truth via discussion, so it really is time to put-up-or-shut-up.
So I'll publish a website, post my evidence and claims there, and sit
back to see what Pelan & O'Brien try to do about it. I doubt it'll end
the personal acrimony, but it should put an end to this specific
argument in this forum.
CB
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net
>
> For heaven's sake, the guy keeps posting (or at least following-up
> posts) because you guys keep replying. Ignore him.
>
Except that never works with him. A search of the Google archive shows
that he always, ALWAYS, brings up the same issues a short time later,
thus initiating a fresh round of acrimonious discussion. Even if we
ignore him, he keeps bringing them up again, again, and again. If he
stopped doing this, the acrimonious discussion would stop as well.
But he won't stop, because his narcissistic personality disorder
demands that he be the center of attention, and these acrimonious
discussions are his method of achieving that.
Kevin L. O'Brien
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net
The first is that personality disorders affect people's lives in
specific ways that leave clues as to their nature that allow competent
therapists to make a tentative diagnosis that can then be confirmed or
refuted by further analysis. This is really no different from what a
medical doctor does when confronted by a set of symptoms: he or she
makes a tentative diagnosis that then determines what additional tests
need to be made to pin down the diagnosis.
The second is that Barker stated publicly, in a newsgroup that Ms.
Anton was reading, that she did not exist. It should be no surprise
that she decided to demonstrate her reality by posting to the group.
And being as Barker's statement is indicative of a narcissistic
personality disorder, it is also no surprise that she mentioned it, not
out of malice as you supposed, but out of genuine concern for Barker's
well being; that's the kind of caring person she is. Whatever the
exact nature of his disorder, she believes it is obvious that Barker is
disturbed and that he needs professional help. I am curious to see
what she will make of Barker's brouhaha over ISP addresses.
As for myself, since Barker has made my own mental health an issue, I
do not feel it is inappropriate to question Barker's own mental state,
especially given the opinion of a mental health professional.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Lesmond
So why do you continue to indulge him?
--
Even now in Heaven there are angels carrying savage weapons.
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net
>
> I cut nothing that merited repetition. . . .
>
On the contrary, you cut out the very part that refuted your
(definately) hasty criticism.
And you should cut out your own pollution before requiring others to
cut out theirs.
Kevin L. O'Brien
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net
>
> So why do you continue to indulge him?
>
He needs no encouragement me. Even when people ignore him he just
keeps bringing up the same issue over and over again.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Robin Low
kevi...@clare.ltd.new.net writes
It would still reduce the overall number of posts, and the people who
have kill-filed him won't have to kill-file you too in order to avoid
his.
--
Robin Low
smee
> [T]here are probably even people who'd be prepared to argue
> (with examples) that BARNABY RUDGE is Dickens's greatest novel.
Surely _Great Expectations_ or perhaps _Bleak House_. But _Barnaby
Rudge_? Yikes. ;)
> Anyone else care to come out in the open and confess which writer of
> supernatural tales they've just never got on with, or seen the point of?
For me that writer would probably be Clark Ashton Smith (CAS). As best
I can recall, I first encountered CAS in the late 60's/early 70's as
(fairly or unfairly) one of the "HPL circle". I dimly recall enjoying
most of his tales, but, to be honest, back then I was fairly
undiscriminating in my reading -- I was, in essence, a sort of literary
vacuum cleaner. Unfortunately, in re-sampling a few CAS yarns in more
recent years, I find I am almost invariably disappointed. This isn't,
by any means, a blanket condemnation. "The Seed From the Sepulchre",
for example, still works extremely well -- especially the finale; and
"The Return of the Sorceror" is a tolerable HPL pastiche. On the other
hand, I now wonder what I ever saw in "Ubbo-Sathla"; or "The Colossus
of Ylourgne" (one of the Averoigne tales), which reads to me like a
plodding quasi-fantasy clunker written with thesaurus at side.
(Apologies in advance to those on the list, John Pelan and Mark Dillon
included, who admire "Colossus".)
I should note that this post is not intended as a gripe so much as a
plea for guidance. I've occasionally thought that I'd like to give CAS
another shot (and may actually have time this fall/winter to do so).
Perhaps my recent choices have been, by chance, poor ones. I still have
lying boxed up somewhere all or most of my old Panther CAS paperbacks.
So where to start? Comments? Suggestions?
Yrs,
Michael
Barbara Roden
"smee" <cookmicha...@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1125878281.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Barbara Roden wrote (in part):
>
> > [T]here are probably even people who'd be prepared to argue
> > (with examples) that BARNABY RUDGE is Dickens's greatest novel.
>
> Surely _Great Expectations_ or perhaps _Bleak House_. But _Barnaby
> Rudge_? Yikes. ;)
I would (and have) re-read most of Dickens's work, but BARNABY RUDGE is one
that I have never been tempted to return to. Once was enough. Ah well, not
everything an author writes can be an enduring classic, and Chuck gave us
far more hits than misses. I'd argue that HARD TIMES should be right up
there with his greatest hits, and would even be inclined to rate OUR MUTUAL
FRIEND higher than BLEAK HOUSE. It's just a pity that Dickens wimped out in
the end with the characterisation of Noddy Boffin; his slide into miserdom
and hard-heartedness was originally intended to be for real, rather than an
elaborate ruse. And don't get me started on the ending of GREAT
EXPECTATIONS, which SHOULD be the bleak original one, judging by Pip's tone
throughout (he's telling us his memoirs, after all, so why so gloomy
throughout if he knows that he and Estella are destined to be together?).
Barbara (apologising because this has nothing to do with ghost stories, and
isn't slagging anyone off)
Christopher Roden
wrote:
>elaborate ruse. And don't get me started on the ending of GREAT
>EXPECTATIONS, which SHOULD be the bleak original one, judging by Pip's tone
>throughout (he's telling us his memoirs, after all, so why so gloomy
>throughout if he knows that he and Estella are destined to be together?).
>
>Barbara (apologising because this has nothing to do with ghost stories, and
>isn't slagging anyone off)
Oh, so you wouldn'/t argue that Miss Haversham had spent her life
imposing her will upon Estella, and continued to do so after her
death. How disappointing!
CR
Christopher Roden
Ooops! That should have been 'Havisham'.
CR
smee
> I would (and have) re-read most of Dickens's work, but BARNABY RUDGE is one
> that I have never been tempted to return to. Once was enough. Ah well, not
> everything an author writes can be an enduring classic, and Chuck gave us
> far more hits than misses. I'd argue that HARD TIMES should be right up
> there with his greatest hits, and would even be inclined to rate OUR MUTUAL
> FRIEND higher than BLEAK HOUSE. It's just a pity that Dickens wimped out in
> the end with the characterisation of Noddy Boffin; his slide into miserdom
> and hard-heartedness was originally intended to be for real, rather than an
> elaborate ruse. And don't get me started on the ending of GREAT
> EXPECTATIONS, which SHOULD be the bleak original one, judging by Pip's tone
> throughout (he's telling us his memoirs, after all, so why so gloomy
> throughout if he knows that he and Estella are destined to be together?).
Yeah, one of the problems I sometimes have with Dickens was his
tendency to "wimp out" when it comes to the endings of his novels. The
problem is, as you note, acute in _Our Mutual Friend_, an otherwise
fine novel. In part, that's why I admire _Great Expectations_; in spite
of its altered, more upbeat ending, in my opinion it still remains more
thematically unified than, say, _David Copperfield_ (Dickens' favorite
of his "children"). I always liked Shaw's comment that _Great
Expectations_ should be regarded as "an apology to Mealy Potatoes".
No ghostly content, I'm afraid!
Yrs,
Michael
Mark Dillon
smee <cookmicha...@satx.rr.com> wrote, in reply
to Barbara Roden:
>> Anyone else care to come out in the open and confess which
>> writer of supernatural tales they've just never got on with, or
>> seen the point of?
> For me that writer would probably be Clark Ashton Smith (CAS).
GASP!!!!! ; )
> As best I can recall, I first encountered CAS in the late 60's/early
> 70's as (fairly or unfairly) one of the "HPL circle". I dimly recall
> enjoying most of his tales, but, to be honest, back then I was fairly
> undiscriminating in my reading -- I was, in essence, a sort of literary
> vacuum cleaner.
Not a bad thing to be, given the sheer number of stories in the world
and the wide variety of subjects, techniques and styles. I certainly
wish my tastes were as broad as they were thirty years ago, but I
seem to have lost aesthetic flexibility over time. There are many
good fiction writers that I just can't read anymore: their prose gets
in the way.
> Unfortunately, in re-sampling a few CAS yarns in more
> recent years, I find I am almost invariably disappointed. This isn't,
> by any means, a blanket condemnation. "The Seed From the Sepulchre",
> for example, still works extremely well -- especially the finale
For the most part, I find his pure horror stories less interesting
than his fantasy; "The Seed from the Sepulchre" is a notable exception.
> and "The Return of the Sorceror" is a tolerable HPL pastiche.
I must admit, I've never liked it.
> On the other hand, I now wonder what I ever saw in "Ubbo-Sathla"; or
> "The Colossus of Ylourgne" (one of the Averoigne tales), which reads
> to me like a plodding quasi-fantasy clunker written with thesaurus at side.
> (Apologies in advance to those on the list, John Pelan and Mark Dillon
> included, who admire "Colossus".)
To put it mildly! But you've no need to apologize: no two people
will enjoy a writer's work in quite the same way, and some will not
enjoy it at all. I could fill a notebook with the titles of highly-regarded
novels and stories that have done nothing for me. It's not that they're
bad, by any means; it's that they've somehow never spoken to me.
> I should note that this post is not intended as a gripe so much as
> a plea for guidance. I've occasionally thought that I'd like to give CAS
> another shot (and may actually have time this fall/winter to do so).
> Perhaps my recent choices have been, by chance, poor ones. I still
> have lying boxed up somewhere all or most of my old Panther CAS
> paperbacks. So where to start? Comments? Suggestions?
Try a few opening paragraphs, see what strikes your fancy, and dig
in.
I'd recommend the fantasies over the strictly horror and "scientifiction"
stories, many of which are good, even very good, but not as distinctively
great (pardon my bias!). Just about anything set in Averoigne,
Hyperborea, Poseidonis or Zothique is well worth investigating.
When you find your old Panthers, post their titles here; I'm sure
that Jim Rockhill, John Pelan and Yours Truly will have quite a
bit to say about them.
I sincerely hope you find a great deal to enjoy. But if you don't,
there's no harm done; it might just mean that Smith is not to
your taste.
Mark Dillon
Quebec, Canada
Carnacki The Ghost-Finder
You live in the same house and you still post messages to each other?
Is there something we haven't been told.............?
Jim Rockhill
>> and "The Return of the Sorceror" is a tolerable HPL pastiche.
>
>
> I must admit, I've never liked it.
In my opinion, this is one of his worst. Sadly, I suspect most people first
encounter CAS via Lovecraft and hence this wretched tale.
Yep. I would recommend trying "The Dark Eidolon", "The Death of Malygris",
and "The Weird of Avoosl Wuthoqquan" before writing off CAS entirely. If you
like any of these, proceed with other titles in the cycles they represent,
i.e. Zothique, Poseidonis, and Hyperborea respectively.
Jim
smee
>>> and "The Return of the Sorceror" is a tolerable HPL pastiche.
>>
>> I must admit, I've never liked it.
>
> In my opinion, this is one of his worst. Sadly, I suspect most people first
> encounter CAS via Lovecraft and hence this wretched tale.
Yep, that would be me. First encountered in one of Derleth's old
anthologies. Ironically, since I'm the one who seems to be castigating
CAS, I still find "Return" a workmanlike story (tolerable, as I said
before). But perhaps I'm viewing it through rose-colored glasses --
when I first read the story way, way, way back when, I'm sure I thought
it was the bee's knees.
Thanks to both Jim and Mark for their input and advice!
Yrs,
Michael
Mark Dillon
More thoughts on Clark Ashton Smith, for the benefit of Michael....
Jim Rockhill wrote, in reply to my reply to Michael (Smee):
>>> and "The Return of the Sorceror" is a tolerable HPL pastiche.
>> I must admit, I've never liked it.
> In my opinion, this is one of his worst. Sadly, I suspect most
> people first encounter CAS via Lovecraft and hence this
> wretched tale.
I think it's unfortunate that many people arrive at Smith by way
of Lovecraft; it might set up false expectations. Despite a few
shared influences (Poe, Bierce, Dunsany, Beckford), Smith was
actually more akin to French decadents, symbolists and
proto-surrealists like Baudelaire, Huysman, Schwob, Nodier,
Ducasse, de Lisle and so on. I could almost say that Smith was
a French author writing in English: translate his work into
French, place it on the shelf beside stories and poems by
these francophone writers, and it would seem all of a piece
with its Gallic neighbours. So many details in Smith that might
give an anglophone reader pause are both appropriate and
desirable in the context of French decadence: the intensified
sensory detail; the esoteric yet precise vocabulary; the
detached, sardonic narration; the cruelty; and above all, the
"borderline-depraved" inventiveness (to borrow a phrase from
Randy M).
I'd argue that Smith took the fantastic and macabre elements
latent in French decadence, emphasized them, and pushed
them farther than the French had attempted to (with the possible
exception of Ducasse, a jaw-droppingly "extreme" writer by just
about anyone's standard).
Had Smith actually *been* a French writer of the 19th century,
he'd probably have a world-class reputation by now... a little
twist of fate that would most likely have made the real Smith
laugh with ironic appreciation.
Mark Dillon
Quebec, Canada
jr...@locallink.net
point that it is often the first (or even only) exposure many people
have with Smith's work is that it gives the impression that Smith, like
many of Lovecraft's other correspondents, was merely a Lovecraft
wannabe. Marketing of Lovecraft has kept some the work of some authors
alive, which otherwise would have sunk into pulp oblivion decades ago,
but it has also done authors like Smith a disservice. Obsession with
the so-called Cthulhu Mythos has given "The Return of the Sorcerer"
much greater exposure than it deserves. It is no better or worse than
most of Lovecraft's own second-rank work, yet Lovecraft owes his
burgeoning reputation not to the tales reprinted in DAGON, but those in
THE DUNWICH HORROR. Imagine Oliver Onions's reputation if he the
demand for werewolf stories meant that his mediocre lycanthropy tale
"Master of the House" were more frequently encountered than the superb
ghost story "The Beckoning Fair One".
Jim