The Tedious Brief Wails Of Barbara Roden
Zarok
Zarok
> Roll up, roll up, read all about it!
>
> http://hauntedriver.co.uk/ghost_story_society
This is from an email sent by Barbara Roden:
"I wondered how long it would take you; you haven't disappointed. You
clearly have far too much time on your hands; if Christopher and I
have built up a substantial enough body of work for you to feel
compelled to attack, it's in part because we don't waste time on
childish and frankly pathetic vendettas.
Christopher has written to your ISP complaining about the libellous
nature of your comments, and asking that they ensure they are taken
down by Monday 28 January. You can, of course, save yourself
embarrassment by taking the comments down yourself before then.
If the material is not removed by Monday 28 January we will be taking
legal action for libel against both you and your ISP. Bear in mind
that we have cached previous libellous material about us that has
appeared on your website; we have also fully documented your criminal
activities regarding the All Hallows discussion group in November, all
of which material forms a satisfyingly thick file which we are
prepared to forward on to the Norfolk County Constabulary, accompanied
by charges of harassment, cyber-stalking, and identity theft. Please
believe me when I say that we are in deadly earnest.
Barbara Roden"
I too have papers and evidence to call upon: the Rodens' membership of
two malicious Yahoo groups whose sole purpose was to stalk and pester
me; several defamatory comments made by them both in said groups; a
signed statement from a UK solicitor which contradicts a libellous
claim they made about me in usenet along with his legal opinion that
they had libelled me; further evidence / statements that I chose not
to disclose at this stage; proof of their stalking me into other
people's discussion groups; proof of their sympathizing with a man who
stalked me to my home in real life; their close friendships with
people who have used sock puppets to post malcious personal abuse and
who have had ISP accounts for lying and behaving abusively; etc etc. I
can't call it a file as such, but it can all be collated into one.
The bottom line is that the Rodens are bullies who are just
embarrassed at being shown up as devious hypocrites.
Zarok
Another missive from Barbara Roden:
"Please remove the contents of my personal message to you from
alt.books.ghost-fiction immediately. You did not have permission to
disseminate material that remains in my copyright.
BR"
Rather grandly, Mrs Roden believes that her emails are copyrighted
under international law, even though the content is hardly
controversial. Indeed, it is curiously trivial and insignificant. My
understanding is that law varies country to country, and that if one
wishes an email recipient not to forward or copy an email, he or she
should explicitly request that in the sent email. But even then there
are no guarantees that copyright law can or will be upheld. The safest
thing would be not to send the email.
It would be down to an injured party to take out a private action if
they wished to seek resolution. To the best of my knowledge, the only
cases where this has resulted in someone being held to account for
'leaking' unauthorised emails of a sensitive or controversial nature
have been employees by their employers, where they have been found to
have breached a workplace rule.
I wonder how the law stands with regard the making of libellous and
defamatory statements in a discussion group where some 200 people can
read and potentially repeat elsewhere the comments made? Or even the
publication of emails in those groups without the sender's permission?
I rather suspect that this - the former at least - does constitute
unlawful activity (in the civil sense of course; these are not
criminal issues). At the very least it is hypocritical.
I wonder how the Rodens can find the time to stalk me around the
internet into other people's discussion groups and then bombard my web-
host with ridiculous complaints just because I publicise their
unpleasant antics on my website. Don't they have proper work to do?
Zarok
> Roll up, roll up, read all about it!
>
> http://hauntedriver.co.uk/ghost_story_society
Scratch that. I have decided to post the piece here rather than have
it take valuable space elsewhere:
The Tedious Brief Wails Of Barbara Roden
Who, or perhaps more accurately what, is a Barbara Roden? Well, a
'Broden' is one half of the Ghost Story Society double-act - a self-
appointed oligarch of a society which purports to be 'owned by its
members'. The two Rodens (I am unsure which is the male and which the
female) cast off the shackles of formal employment several years ago
to concentrate on building up their own small publishing business: to
this end, they set up an Arthur Conan Doyle fan club and took over the
GSS. To complement this they then started publishing books in both the
detective and ghost story genres, in small runs of about 250-500
copies per edition.
The ghost story books were issued under the 'Ashtree Press' byline.
They would then favourably review their own books in the journals of
the fan clubs they owned and edited (or rather task sycophants to
review the books favourably for them). As one former GSS reviewer
confided to me, the day he decided not to give a good review to a
piece of Broden was the day that his relationship with them ended. The
Rodens sent him a terse email demanding that he explain himself,
before curtly informing him that his services would no longer be
required (the man in question now reviews for a rival genre
organisation).
Many might argue that overseeing your own reviews poses a serious
conflict-of-interest: not so the Rodens. They ascribe themselves
godlike status, believing themselves to be benevolent patriarchs
(although there is precious little 'matriarching' going on).
Then there is the small matter of word meaning. Is a tightly
controlled fan club owned by two people with vested business interests
allowed to call itself a 'society'? Societies are usually governed by
nominated leaders via democratic elections, for example, building
societies. For the organisation owned by the Rodens to call itself a
society is therefore something of a serious misnomer. Indeed, it could
be said to be a grossly misleading claim. I purposely chose to invest
my savings in a building society just as I deliberately chose to spend
my money in John Lewis - because I want it going to democratic
organisations where the frontline stakeholders benefit, not some tiny
clique of 'fat-cat' shareholders.
Have the members of the Ghost Story Society ever seen the accounts for
their organisation let alone be allowed to vote officials in or out?
The answer is a very clear "no". The Rodens may like to market the GSS
as being an entity 'owned by its members', but it is an illusory
ownership which conceals a dictatorial, possibly fraudulent reality.
Another less than honest practise is the Roden trick of creaming off
the best short story submissions for All Hallows (the printed journal
of the GSS) to place in books which they then sell for profit via the
Ashtree Press. In theory the paying members of the GSS should be
entitled to read them for free because they were submitted to the
society, but in practise the Rodens lucratively siphon them off to eke
out a little bit more profit for themselves.
Obviously the Rodens do not like people asking awkward questions about
these issues, just as their friend Ramsey Campbell does not like to be
quizzed about his fat-cat status as the British Fantasy Society, where
he enjoys a Lifetime Presidency without having actually been elected
by the grass-roots BFS members. Effectively a pope appointed by loyal
cardinals with overlapping business interests, Campbell's modern day
reputation rests largely upon his proud boast to be the BFS President
and his not insubstantial BFS awards haul. However, he doesn't like it
when you ask how large his expenses package is for attending the
annual Fantasy Convention, because it is a secret, and just like the
Ghost Story Society, the BFS doesn't feel obliged to publish detailed
accounts for its subscribing members to scrutinise.
The Rodens and Campbell cry foul when challenged about these things.
They call upon their friends and sycophants to help them isolate and
demonise those who are threaten to upset their apple-carts. The BFS
and GSS are no more societies than Russia and China are democracies:
they are private fiefdoms where all the power resides in the hands of
a select few.
A particular bone-of-contention with the Roden Double Act is linked to
their having founded their ghost story empire upon that leading
proponent of the vintage ghost story, M.R. James. Clearly they thought
this was a shrewd business move. They thought that all they needed to
do was poke some pliable genre crony with a sharp stick to get him to
call other classic ghost story collections 'Jamesian' and Bob's your
uncle, they could rush a new edition out and capitalize upon the
interest in the thankfully absent MRJ.
As part of this marketing ploy they opted to call their publishing
company the 'Ashtree Press' after James' famous ghost story of that
name. They then threw in their day-jobs to concentrate on the GSS and
the Ashtree Press. They seized upon James' dubious ability to author
'pleasant terrors' as a key selling point, following up with similarly
inappropriately-named projects, including anthologies called
'Acquainted With The Night' and 'at Ease With Dead'. Surely the object
of reading a ghost story is to be frightened and not comforted or
pleasurably excited? M.R. James clearly believed so, and would
probably have viewed attempts to sanitize the ghost story into a thing
of comfort with disdain.
In hindsight you can say that the Roden's citation of M.R. James in
their company name was dreadfully naïve. Not only should they have
been more cautious about putting most of their eggs in one basket, but
they clearly hadn't bothered to familiarize with the appropriate
literary criticism, because if they had, they would have swiftly
realized that there are dark sexual undercurrents in both James' life
and in the ghost stories, undercurrents which they are clearly very
uncomfortable with.
Anyway, fast-forward a few short years, and along I come to
unwittingly upset the apple-cart (or should that be derail the gravy-
train?). I originally thought that M.R. James' ghost stories were
powerful, well-written but not particularly controversial in nature.
However, as I started to acknowledge the historical importance of
James' contribution to the supernatural horror genre, I decided to
seek out literary criticism. Gullibly, I started with Ghosts &
Scholars, quickly absorbing the large volume of mostly irrelevant
information gathered by a small number of James Idolators, but soon
grew both tired and suspicious of the gaping holes in their knowledge,
and of their cheery, breezy Women's Institute style of fawning
reverence. M.R. James was a frightfully good egg, everyone kept
saying, and it was simply untrue to call him a misogynist. And so what
if mainstream critics had spotted a promisingly rich vein of
psychological revelation in his stories, ripe to plunder? People like
that weren't welcome at Ghosts & Scholars, and nor were their
disgusting speculations.
Thus I discovered that Something Odd Was Going On. I realized that
whereas most mainstream intellectuals had identified sinister
undercurrents in many of the ghost stories, the two most prominent
James fan clubs - that is to say, the GSS and Ghosts & Scholars - were
going out of their way to ignore, deny and suppress these unwelcome
opinions. The fan clubs had placed Monty James on a pedestal (which,
ironically, he would have despised), and worshipped him
enthusiastically through rose-tinted spectacles. Like some Elvis
Presley and Michael Jackson fans, they aggressively defended their
hero from all perceived attacks. You need only glance over the
outrageously amusing "FAQ" section on the Ghost & Scholars website,
where bizarre questions like did Monty like women are answered with a
cheerful but wholly misleading 'yes' to realize that these people are
a tad obsessed.
The Rodens argue that people who see powerful images of repressed
sexuality in James' work have 'dirty minds', much as Carrie's mother
sought to deny her daughter's sexuality in Stephen King's novel of the
same name (she would refer to her daughter's breasts as 'dirty
pillows'). However, they are careful not to engage people with
reputations larger than their own on the issue, preferring instead to
target people like me for quoting these mainstream figures. The last
thing that these 'Opus Dei' clones want is to have someone like
Jonathan Miller turn around and savage their fragile belief system.
Unfortunately for the Rodens and the Pardoes many writers and critics
have registered concerns about the sexual undercurrents in James' body
of fictional work. Some of these people even knew the man, so their
insights are especially important. This is undoubtedly the reason why
the Rodens and Pardoes shy away from consulting them, an omission
which stands in stark contrast to their conducting exhaustive
investigations into less interesting - but far safer - areas.
Colin Wilson noted that the imagery in James's work pointed towards a
powerfully repressed homosexual urge; Nigle Kneale wrote that James'
work provided 'rich and promising material' for the psycho-analyst, in
addition to expressing the view that it must have been 'hard to be
Monty James'; Nathaniel Wedd claimed that in books like The Five Jars
(Monty's homage to Lewis Carroll's Alice), James was lifting the lid
off his mind to reveal its 'repressed workings'; Jacques Barzun
suggested that 'It is impossible to judge whether at some deeply
repressed level he was aroused by small boys'; Anthony Powell, a
former associate of James, recalled when reviewing Michael Cox's
biography An Informal Portrait that James' 'affairs (with boys) were
fascinating to watch'; etc etc.
When Lawrence Gordon Clark adapted Lost Hearts for the BBC in the
1970s he faithfully portrayed Mr Abney as a predator who preys upon
vulnerable pre-pubescent children. The drama is by today's standards
uncomfortable to watch, serving as an obvious metaphor for grooming
and sexual abuse. Little wonder that Christopher Lee balked from
providing his planned introduction to a recent repeat, or that The
Observer newspaper described it as a 'bleak' tale of 'child abuse'.
People queued up to raise concerns about this aspect of James'
subconscious psyche on the Anglia TV documentary 'A Pleasant Terror'
made some 15 years ago. Laurence Staig, Jonathan Miller, Julia Briggs
- all wondered what motivated James to write such harrowing tales of
supernatural horror. They all agreed that he had a fear of physical
contact, was most likely deeply misogynistic, and very much part of an
effete, waspish scholarly clique. They asked why he was like this, and
speculated about what conclusions we should draw about this. Yet
fifteen years later, after hundreds of issues of GSS and Ghosts &
Scholars journals, neither the Rodens nor the Pardoes have taken the
matter any further forward. The documentary provided the appropriate
signposts but the James Idolators quickly backed up and drove in
completely the opposite direction, motivated by ignorance, fear and
self-interest. They've seen what psychological analysis has done to
the image of Lewis Carroll, and they want no part of it, even if it
does mean that in doing so they are denying a basic freedom of speech
and expression.
The Rodens are obviously at pains to suppress speculation along
certain lines for fear of where it will lead. They are worried that
M.R. James will be outed as a homosexual rather than the asexual
celibate they prefer him to be. This is strangely homophobic given
that James was clearly homosexually-inclined. Indeed, it is both
homophobic and disrespectful. Homosexuality may have been illegal when
James was alive, but it is not now, so there should be no shame in
being gay.
However, the Rodens are far more worried about James' attraction to
young boys. They fear that this will tarnish the reputation of their
'cash cow' deity, and thus impact upon both their livelihoods and
integrity. When challenged about Anthony Powell's observation that
James flirted with and romanced his young male pupils, they angrily
point out that Powell referred to them as platonic relationships, and
then rush off to Yahoo to set up a privately-owned discussion from
which I am excluded. That's all very well, but it hardly addresses the
key issue, which is that James was attracted to young boys. Besides,
Powell may have just been exercising diplomacy by stopping short of
accusing James of engaging in physical relationships with his pupils:
Monty is still a revered figure at Eton and Cambridge, and to tarnish
his memory would be to tarnish both institutions now. These
institutions have skilfully covered-up any number of scandals
throughout their long and illustrious histories, whether financial,
scholarly or sexual, thus putting Powell's comments into some
perspective. Indeed, it is highly likely that James was sexually
attracted to the boys he romanced: why else would his own friends
refer to the repressed inner workings of his mind? He clearly wasn't
repressing platonic love for his pupils because he was quite open
about it.
The Rodens know that they sitting on a time-bomb which threatens to
explode anytime. However, they don't know how to resolve the
situation. Moreover, they are too old to start new careers, having
spent the best part of twenty years throwing their lot in with M.R.
James, arguing that he was a terribly nice chap with no dark secrets
to hide. They have nowhere else to go, no escape plan, which is why
their only option is to keep sitting on the bomb. This explains why
Rodens have gone to quite extraordinary lengths to try and suppress
speculations about the psycho-sexuality in the work of Monty James.
As stated earlier the Rodens have - along with Ramsey Campbell, the
Pardoes and a small band of sycophants - persistently tried to
demonise me because of my views. Their tactics are as obvious as they
are stereotypical. Preposterously, they suggest that I must be
projecting my own obsessions and interests onto their hero. (In
typical coward-fashion, they don't accuse Colin Wilson, Nigel Kneale,
Julia Briggs, Jacques Barzun, Anthony Powell or Michael Cox of doing
this, even though I am simply building an argument based upon their
observations.)
Well, let me set the record straight on that one. While it is actually
documented that M.R. James did have romantic affairs with young boys,
I have been married for fifteen years, have three young children, and
have never been accused of romancing young boys. Indeed, my own
experimentation with the 'love that dare not speak its name' in my
youth proved to me that not only am I genetically predestined to be
heterosexual, but also that I have little in the way of prejudice
against those who prefer the homosexual option. So, the notion that I
am trying to project my own repressed homosexuality onto M.R. James is
patent nonsense. In fact I would go further: it is nothing more than a
tawdry accusation employed by desperate people who have no real
argument.
Back to M.R. James. A few short years ago I published a small booklet
entitled Plagiarism & Pederasty: Skeletons In The Jamesian Closet. In
this I showed how James had cribbed the idea for his tale 'The
Ashtree' from a writer called Augustus Crake, in addition to weaving
together various strands of evidence and psychological analysis to
conclude that James was in fact a pederast. To say that the Rodens
were incandescent with rage is not an understatement: they poured
gallons of furious invective upon my head, objecting to what they saw
as my accusing Monty James of child abuse. When I pointed out that the
booklet did not accuse James of sexual congress with young boys - that
what it actually did was argue that James' stories suggest that he
fought hard to repress a sexual attraction to his pupils - they very
worryingly started throwing unpleasant phrases around, such as 'anal
intercourse with children' and 'anal penetration of minors' etc etc.
Indeed, such was their anger that I started wondering myself whether
they were getting rather too excited by the whole matter, if you get
my drift. Excitable prudes are often in denial about their own
sexuality.
Anyway, the Rodens clung stubbornly to my use of the word 'pederasty',
claiming that my use of the word 'pederasty' meant that I was accusing
their hero of raping young boys. Apparently they have contemporary
dictionaries - lots of them, in fact - which say that this is what
pederasty means. Their argument is therefore that I must mean what
they want me to mean.
But the fact is that I did mean something else. I used the word
'pederasty' in the classical and historical sense. You need only click
on the link below to read the Wikipedia article to see what I mean:
pederasty is about the relationship between an older male mentor and a
younger male pupil, and while it may include sex, it has traditionally
been seen first-and-foremost as a romantic relationship. Indeed, as
the article makes abundantly clear, the word 'paedophilia' is
specifically associated with sex, not pederasty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty
Interestingly, the above Wikipedia article highlights that pederastic
relationships were very much the norm in public school environments
during Monty's era. Indeed, Eton is specifically mentioned, the very
school that James attended. C.S. Lewis is quoted as saying that
pederasty was a way of life, and reference is made to James' former
master Oscar Browning, a man who became notorious not because he was a
pederast, but because he was so flamboyantly one that he drew
attention to himself and the authorities which he was supposed to
represent. Thus pederasty openly existed and James was firmly in the
centre of that movement, engaging in romantic affairs with younger men
like James McBryde, and flirting openly with his pupils. The sex issue
is peripheral, for this is pederasty and not paedophilia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty#Victorian_England
Of course, we can deduce quite easily from James' stories that whilst
he wanted to consummate his relationships with young male adolescents
and that he struggled to hold his emotions and desires in check. It's
all there in disturbing imagery which so obviously comes from dreams
and the subconscious.
Unfortunately the Rodens can't quite grasp these issues.
Intellectually they just aren't up to the job. This why they keep
trying to reduce an argument about pederasty down to one of
'penetrative anal sex', and why they fail to adequately summarize
James life and work in a succession of bland articles and reference
books. They aren't really interested in the things that most literary
critics are interested - the things that make writers tick, the
influences and interests that shape them as artists - no, they are
motivated solely by a desire to protect their own business interests
and reputations.
So obsessive have the Rodens become that Barbara Roden - wonderfully
fictionalized in a tale that I am prevented from formally identifying
- turned up at a discussion forum called 'Shocklines' to once again
pelt me with her prejudices. (Admittedly she has been a member for
quite some time, but since I joined, the number of posts she has made
has very dramatically increased, and almost all of them were directed
at me.)
http://shocklinesforum.yuku.com/topic/1942/t/Goodbye-all.html
As you can see from the link above, Broden appears to have swallowed
several dictionaries, and is now belching out unpleasant graphic
images like there's no tomorrow. This pursuit is hypocritical: if
elsewhere the Rodens make a big show of publicising that I have been
excluded from their horrible little discussion group 'All Hallows' at
Yahoo on the grounds that I am a 'troublemaker', why on earth do they
then trek me across the internet to engage in dialogue? The answer to
this is that they want to control opinion about M.R. James and they
think that can be best achieved by trying to demonise me personally.
This is why I often chose the pseudonym 'Julian Karswell' when posting
to discussion groups. It's my little joke at their expense.
Poor Broden spent several weeks trying to secure my attention in
Shocklines. As I mentioned to a mutual friend a whole ago, she seemed
eager to antagonize me, partly by way of perpetuating her vendetta,
partly because she was worried that her friends on the All Hallows
board would realize that I am actually a very normal down-to-earth
person. I ignored the creature for a long time but she succeeded in
starting a conflict by resorting to cheap tactics i.e. she trundled
the old 'if you can see horrible things in the ghost stories of M.R.
James then you must have a dirty mind' argument again. And what did
the old fraud base her argument on? She posted a string of selective
and feverishly culled dictionary definitions which apparently prove
that I have been accusing M.R. James of buggering little boys. This is
exactly what she said:
"I admit, I got intrigued here: I love words, and their changing
meanings, and decided to investigate further.
From the Concise OED: 'Pederasty: anal intercourse between a man and a
boy.'
From the New Shorter Oxford: 'Pederasty: Sexual relations between a
man and a boy; anal intercourse with a boy as a passive partner.'
From the Canadian Oxford Dictionary: 'Pederasty: sexual relations
between a man and a boy, esp. anal intercourse.'
From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: 'Pederasty: literally, lover
of boys; one who practices anal intercourse especially with a boy.'
From the Compact OED: 'Paederasty: unnatural connexion with a boy;
sodomy.' The earliest citation is dated 1613; all citations given
refer to sodomy. So no mention of mentoring anywhere."
Well, she may pretend to love words and their changing means, but it's
simply not true. What she loves doing is obsessing about specific
words, and focusing on how they are used now. Personally I prefer to
look at the issue from a wider perspective, as discussed here in
Wikipedia's entymological discussion about the word and its changing
meaning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty#Etymology_and_usage
Despite such evidence, Broden persists in trying to tell everyone that
I think M.R. James liked to sodomize little boys because I dared to
call him a pederast. Yet I haven't ever said this about him. Indeed,
the Rodens are the only people who seem to be interested in the
buggery of little boys (and draw your own conclusions about that, dear
friends). I have always referred to the classical interpretation of
pederasty. Indeed, I deliberately avoid using the word 'paedophile'
because I think that this quite definitely suggests sexual congress
whereas 'pederast' doesn't. And as the Wikipedia article makes
abundantly clear, this is the right stance to take.
It is rather pathetic that Barbara Roden - a woman who has repeatedly
made a fool of herself by leaping to a succession of wrong conclusions
about her enemies and opponents - tries to impose a modern, woefully
abbreviated dictionary definition upon events which occurred one
hundred years ago in a school environment she has zero experience of.
Pederasty famously flourished at Eton and Cambridge in the late 1890s,
and it was called pederasty at the time. It is therefore entirely
justified to speculate about James' likely pederasty given the
published comments of thoroughly respectable scholars like C.S. Lewis
and Anthony Powell. Indeed, the existence of the so-called Uranian
Poets is proof-positive that classical pederasty was very much in
vogue at Eton and Cambridge at the same the time M.R. James was
himself in residence.
Barbara and Christoper Roden are classic examples of small-minded
bigots. They oppose balanced scholarship because they have perverted,
twisted agendas to promote, agendas which involve safeguarding
business interests and protecting reputations (their own and M.R.
James). It is a cliché to accuse puritans and zealots who excitedly
vent their spleen about deviant sexuality to actually be in denial
about their own libidos, but in this case I think it may be merited,
given the gravity of the issue. Why are the Rodens so very keen to
argue that James didn't have sexual urges? And more disturbingly, why
do they keep conjuring up graphic images of child abuse whilst trying
to project it on others? I'm not saying that they abuse children
themselves, but they seem incapable of discussing James' attraction to
young boys without getting very angry and excited. To be honest, I
would rather not pry into the hidden and murky depths of the Roden
mind. Suffice to say that I think them Very Odd People.
While I have no wish to rub my enemies' noses in defeat, I think
Broden's unwelcome obsession with me merits my referring again to an
incident which occurred a few weeks ago, an incident which proves that
she and her husband have anything but healthy motivations. In the All
Hallows discussion group before Christmas they openly encouraged GSS
members to help sabotage a Times ghost story competition. I believe
they were motivated by several less than flattering factors. For
example, they are unhappy that their crony Ramsey Campbell has never
succeeded in winning the competition, presumably because it goes some
way to supporting the view that outside of a very sycophantic genre,
few people rate the work of their prize columnist. They were also
unhappy with competition judge Susan Hill's potted history of the
ghost story, labelling it ignorant. (Ironically the Rodens have just
published a new collection of ghost stories by Reggie Oliver; ironic
because Reggie's introduction focuses upon the same classical sources
that they disparaged Hill for referencing.)
Let's put this in context here. Susan Hill authored the novel The
Woman in Black which directly spawned the hugely successful West End
play and ITV drama of the same name; she has also written two other
supernatural novels in addition to editing several ghost story
anthologies which deck the shelves of high street bookshops. In
contrast the Rodens exert dictatorial control of a Ghost Story Society
which has a membership base of some 450 - a society which would
probably vote them out if they were ever minded to hand control over
to its members. Furthermore what little they do know about the ghost
story has been gleaned from the various experts who have brought
projects to them. They don't actually have much knowledge themselves,
it is all bought in.
In a supreme display of hubris the Rodens and their cronies also
seriously considered sending an open letter to The Times criticising
the newspaper, the competition and the awards judges. They even tried
to justify doing so by claiming that it would help raise their own
profile if they could stir up a little controversy.
This extremely unprofessional behaviour occurred behind closed doors.
Chances are that the relevant posts will be quietly deleted at some
stage in the future, if they haven't already. However, it is little
relevance: the posts were copied and forwarded to both Susan Hill and
The Times. There is even a rumour that Private Eye have been tipped-
off about the fraudulent and hypocritical way that the Rodens and
Campbells of this world manage the genre from which they make their
livings.
For the reasons outlined in this article I confidently predict that
the future will judge the Rodens and their friends to be neither
credible critics nor respectable scholars.
Christopher Barker
2008
ram...@ramsey-campbell.com
Campbell's modern day reputation rests largely upon his proud boast to
be the BFS President
> and his not insubstantial BFS awards haul. However, he doesn't like it
> when you ask how large his expenses package is for attending the
Well, let it remain secret no longer. I receive no expenses for
attending the convention. I pay a BFS member's membership and the cost
of the hotel room and all other incidentals, banquet included.
redburn...@googlemail.com
Has that always been the case?
There was a discussion in the BFS forum which raised the issue of your
expense package. One of the BFS officials confirmed that your expenses
were paid. Food, accomodation and drink.
Which is true - her statement then, or yours now?
Lesmond
>
>
>On Jan 26, 9:37 pm, Zarok <hauntedri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Roll up, roll up, read all about it!
>>
>> http://hauntedriver.co.uk/ghost_story_society
>
>Scratch that. I have decided to post the piece here rather than have
>it take valuable space elsewhere:
No, you mean that no one read it and now you're getting deperate. Still, no
one going to read it.
--
If there's a nuclear winter, at least it'll snow.
Lesmond
wrote:
>
>
>On Jan 30, 10:03Â pm, ram...@ramsey-campbell.com wrote:
>> On Jan 30, 12:58 ¿ pm, Zarok <hauntedri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Campbell's modern day reputation rests largely upon his proud boast to
>> be the BFS President
>>
>> > and his not insubstantial BFS awards haul. However, he doesn't like it
>> > when you ask how large his expenses package is for attending the
>> > annual Fantasy Convention, because it is a secret...
>>
>> Well, let it remain secret no longer. I receive no expenses for
>> attending the convention. I pay a BFS member's membership and the cost
>> of the hotel room and all other incidentals, banquet included.
>
>Has that always been the case?
>
>There was a discussion in the BFS forum which raised the issue of your
>expense package. One of the BFS officials
Which one?
confirmed that your expenses
>were paid. Food, accomodation and drink.
>
>Which is true - her statement then, or yours now?
Provide a cite.