Rare Weird Texts - Free On Website
Chris Barker
the collected supernatural short stories of R Murray Gilchrist, Dick
Donovan's novella 'The Shadow Hunter' and the short stories of Uel Key. Two
R R Ryan novels will also be featured - 'Freak Museum' and 'Devil's
Shelter'.
'The Crimson Weaver' and 'The Lover's Ordeal' (the latter first discovered
by The Haunted River in 2001) by Gilchrist are the first to be made
available.
More details at:
www.users.waitrose.com/hauntedriver/rareweirdtexts.htm
TTFN,
Chris Barker
The Haunted River
www.users.waitrose.com/~hauntedriver
John Pelan
This is exceedingly wonderful! Despite past animosity, you've shown
yourself to be helpful to the weird fiction community in general with
this action. This is a most laudable public service, though perhaps an
oversight has occured and you've neglected to provide links to the
sites where people can buy these fine works in hardcover:
R. Murray Gilchrist - http://www.ash-tree.bc.ca/The%20Basilisk.htm
Uel Key's complete Arnold Rymer tale will be offered by Midnight
House at www.darksidepress.com Of course our edition will include
the rare novella THE YELLOW DEATH and two additional tales, the
existence of which is known only to myself and a handful of scholars.
We will also be publishing the R.R. Ryan novels that you mention, and
it's very kind of you to save me the time and trouble of scanning the
texts myself.
I'm afraid that the Dick Donovan piece that you mention will be left
out of our edition of THE SHINING HAND, as it's not really
supernatural in nature.
In light of the kindness shown by your publicizing not only some of
my recent editorial projects, but my entire publishing house, I would
have to say that hostilities are at end.
Shall I return the favor by putting Ape's Face up on the web?
Cheers,
John
Christopher Roden
> by The Haunted River in 2001) by Gilchrist are the first to be made
> available.
It is acknowledged that Mr Barker came across 'The Lover's Ordeal' in
a copy of LONDON MAGAZINE, and that he announced his 'find' on this
very group, shortly afterwards.
However, unless he can show conclusively that his posting to abg-f
preceded the listing of the story on the internet in the pages of the
Fiction Magazines Index, it is ridiculous to claim that the story was
'first discovered by The Haunted River', simply because the story had
not been reprinted or collected, or at least discovered to have been
so.
Christopher
Chris Barker
dared contradict my claim that it was unknown. I had referred to Richard
Dalby, David Tibet, Robert Eighteen-Bisang and certain other well known
authorities - no one had ever heard of it and all agreed it was a new
discovery. Indeed, when I mentionned it here two or three years ago, neither
Pelan nor yourself disagreed with the claim.
It was only a long time later - when you had decided to snaffle the project,
in point of fact - that you dug up this mysterious reference to the story
having been discovered by someone else. But who? When?
No, the simple truth is that in pinching this project from me you must have
faced the terrible dillema of having to accredit me with the discovery (the
same dilemma suffered by Ray Russell at Tartarus Press). And we couldn't
have that, could we? A demonised figure who queries the ethicals practises
of small publishers, discovering important rare stories - my, how you must
have deliberated.
Hence the new claim that it was disovered at some vague, misty time many
years ago. Well, your claim is as preposterous as it false. Indeed, it is a
lie.
"Christopher Roden" <ash...@ash-tree.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:aa7a193e.03072...@posting.google.com...
Chris Barker
perpetuate the ruination of this site, as sought by Messrs Pelan, Anderson
and Roden wish to pursue.
The facts relating to this issue are available at:
http://www.users.waitrose.com/~hauntedriver/ghostlychat.htm
TTFN,
Chris
Christopher Roden
credit for 'discovering' this story in the pages of THE LONDON
MAGAZINE, where it had remained unread by the multitudes since the
last time someone looked at it. Let's also give credit to the indexers
of the Fiction Mags Index, for correctly indexing the reference to the
story under 'Murray-Gilchrist, R' (hyphenated, as it appeared in THE
LONDON MAGAZINE), rather than under 'Gilchrist, R. Murray' (as anyone
searching for a Gilchrist entry would likely have looked).
Let's also give him credit for not knowing about the supernatural
content of Gilchrist's LORDS & LADIES collection, which had also been
ignored by certain other well-known authorities.
Or does he now propose to tell us that he did, indeed, know of those
stories, and in fact owns a signed first edition?
Christopher
Barbara Roden
> Apologies to the group. I should not have replied since it will only
> perpetuate the ruination of this site, as sought by Messrs Pelan, Anderson
> and Roden wish to pursue.
Nice one! No, really, you have to admire this; post your screed, then once
it's been sent do a follow-up saying oh, sorry, shouldn't have done that
folks. Kind of like the sleazy lawyer who'll mention some point or other he
shouldn't in court, knowing he'll be ruled out of order; but not before the
jury has heard what he has to say. . . .
> The facts relating to this issue are available at:
I think it would be more accurate to say 'my side of the story' is available
at. After all, you can spread what muck you like on a website and no one
else has any right of reply or way of correcting errors. Funny, though: a
visit to the Ash-Tree, Tartarus, and Midnight House websites don't reveal
any sections devoted to smearing others. Wonder what this says about all
concerned? I'm sure anyone browsing these sites can make up their own minds.
Barbara
paghat
ash...@ash-tree.bc.ca (Christopher Roden) wrote:
To claim discovery of anything that is in (a) a periodical that is fully
indexed, (b) is commonly available in many bound serial collections & on
microfilm, & (c) has the author's name attached -- well that is a pretty
darned strange claim, to have been first-discoverer of something neither
lost nor missing from the indices. Reminds me of a one-sided fight I saw a
few years ago in which an F. Marion Crawford fan claimed to be the first
person to discover an uncollected ghost story that was in a very common
magazine indexed for a hundred years, a story that was in many periodical
hunters' files for thirty to fifty years, for a great many Crawford
fanatics had a copy long before the self-proclaimed discoverer fell upon
it late in the game. Yet that come-lately concluded he was the only person
in the world to use basic indices & photocopy machine to fetch a tale from
an old serial publication easily accessed at many a university library, if
not purchased outright in the vintage magazine marketplace. This odd sod
seriously believed that because he was first to mention it in a fanzine he
should've been cited thereafter as the discoverer of a lost treasure. He
made an ass of himself with indignant claims of having been robbed of
essential recognition. The tragic thing was, the guy probably did at one
point or another do some minor little thing of merit in which he might
take a more justifiable pride, but by insisting in a lunatic manner that
he be given continuous recognition for what amounted to a delusion meant
he could not be taken seriously by anyone. I wasn't involved in that
exchange, but I read the exchanges after-the-fact in the fanzine where
this disagreement erupted, & my immediate thought was, "Sheesh, that
story's been in my files for twenty years!"
Now Jack Adrian really does find lost things that are in (1) unindexed
magazines which (2) are accessible only through journeys to major holdings
since they have never even microfilmed & not many of them survive as bound
serials, & which were (3) published pseudonymously or anonymously, so that
additional research was required to identify the author. Now THAT's
something to toot one's horn about, but oddly enough, real achievement
finds plenty of OTHERS to do the tooting in his behalf, & does not require
delusional rantings about one's self-importance being hindered by foes.
Anyone who has even moderately good relations with other researchers well
knows that all this research is being done by many people independently
all around Canada, England, & the United States, & none of us own it, &
there is not much we can find that someone or another sharing our
interests hasn't also seen. One "first" would be first to get round to
re-introducing it to the public, as having it "under our hat" in our
personal file folders in no way qualifies as an achievement. I had a copy
of a color-illustrated periodical with Howard Pyle's werewolf yarn in my
magazine collection YEARS before Charles Waugh reprinted it in a regional
anthology. Should I have written to him demanding I receive recognition
because it's in my files too?? Should he have to document that he'd had it
in his file longer than I had it in mine? Do we have to make weird excuses
for while the dozens of Pyle researchers who'd read the story before
either of us don't qualify because they cared about his illustrations not
his story? How loony this desire to be a "discoverer" of discovered things
must perforce become! How much more basically healthy & intelligent not
to indulge in such wish-fullfillment delusioins.
Many never-collected stories amidst my magazine collection & photocopy
files for 20+ years, such as those from California periodicals, have of
late been turning up in this very newsgroup posted by Otzichim who has
been reading & scanning all the same periodicals I read & photocopied. But
could I claim to have discovered them before Otzochim & therefore deserve
some sort of recognition? Or should we have to visit the
special-collections of Sam Moskowitz's xerox files, and call ourselves the
discoverers only if we can discover SaM failed to get a copy of something
Otizichim or I obtrained. "Original" "Research" then boils down to
figuring out who of many people was first to drop a dime in a xerox
machine. Such unmitigated nonsensicality beggars insanity.
Or -- I copied a shitload of weird tales out of All-Story Weekly, which I
read off microfilm reels, cost 25-cents per page to print those tales.
Turned out a friend & correspondent had been making print-outs from the
very same reels (with special focus on the Tod Robbins pieces that I think
are now in the Ash-Tree backlog of eventual books). If Anderson & I were
batshit crazy we'd be at each others' throats claiming the other stole our
important research, & if we were sufficiently paranoid we'd drop hints on
UseNet or at vanity websites about every story we ever read, so that we
can cite the allusions later as proof of our exclusive self-importance &
discoverer status. We may be a rarified lot, but we're not unique. Just
about every motion any of can make has been made by other devottees before
us, the majority of whom never do anything with their private files of
vagrant tales.
The very idea that any of us are "first" to find something -- especially
when restricted to the use of extant indices to obtain vagrant writings of
favorite writers -- well, inflating the importance of our ability to use a
photocopier is so divorced from the rational that none of us can quite
conceive of such preposterousness. I think most of us have, though, felt
pangs of dissapointment when we discover someone else has lit upon the
very same author we are interested in. But that's the breaks when dealing
with public domain material. I really wanted to be the first to present
Spofford's "Moonstone Mass" to the public -- nothing I could claim to have
discovered since it was in a well indexed & popular magazine, but no one
had ever reprinted it, & I was going to be first to deliver it into the
hands of a modern public. But Professor Alfred Bendixen beat me to the
draw. My stomach sunk a moment, sure, but to imagine I'd been done an
injury would have been abnormal. Other pieces in my selection had never
been shown to a modern public, but it was "Moonstone Mass" that was so
outstanding that being even first to collect it would've been so nice. But
instead of hostility toward one another for daring to share an interest,
Alfred admitted to changing his opinion on a couple of points because my
own assessments were convincing, & he helped me by perusing my own
compilation's introductory monograph & providing some very helpful
insights. All that is the sort of thing rational people do with
compatriiots who share each others' interests, rather than jump at the
throats.
In the Vincent O'Sullivan volume is a story that appeared only in an Irish
magazine under a pseudonym. I was the first to ever mention it in print, &
still thus far the only person to collect it. But discovery belongs to
Alan Anderson who possessed original correspondence between editor and
author in which the editor suggested the pseudonym so that more than one
thing of Vincent's could go in that issue. Alan's kindness in pointing me
to this story when he learned of my project is what serious collectors &
researchers tend to do for one another. Another story in that book, in a
never-indexed magazine that was censored and destroyed, for which there
appear to remain only two copies surviving in the world, was known to
exist only because Vincent alluded to it in a memoir as having caused the
censorship row. It was the last story for which I was able to obtain a
copy. I was ALMOST certainly the first person to read it in a century, &
as it turned out, it really was a lost work of sinister genius. Obtaining
it had been a real adventure. Yet these adventure-filled salvage &
recovery jobs do not constitute "discovery," though greater claims of
discovery can be made when one is doing research to identify pseudonyms or
anonymous works (such as by pooring through pay-records rather than
indices others have prepared for our use), or reading through collections
of unpublished original manuscripts in private & public collections.
Feeling proprietory toward public domain material is simply not healthy or
wise. It will never do to scream "Dibs!" on public domain material then do
nothing with it for years & years then build up further delusions & plans
for revenge when someone capable actually does something the "Dibs!"
screamer never got round to. If shouting dibs is all it takes, I right now
claim "Dibs!" on the several still-unpublished Mark Twain fragments &
manuscripts -- I may even FINISH the fragments & become to Twain what
Derleth was to Lovecraft, oh my immortal self! Ah, but you just wait, in
this unfair world full of cliques full of evil people trying to ruin my
life and steal all my best ideas, some dumbass academic with nothing but a
degree in Twain studies is going to do my book & not even credit me as the
originator! But I'll have the proof right here on UseNet that I screamed
"Dibs!" long before dumbasses stole all my Mark Twain projects!
Let's imagine my ego so putrified that I would hold grudges against, oh,
let's say, Ash-Tree Press for imaginary slights. I could take a certain
'slanted view' of things that have happened & build them up in my mind
until they become hugely consequential. For example: Richard Dalby turned
in a book to Ash-Tree which was a straight reprint with Intro added. This
prompted me to dig through my files & send along an extra story never
collected, & I was thanked profusely & told I'd get an acknowledgement in
the book. I do get a kick out of seeing myself acknowledged even as mere
helper. Yet when the book came out, I was not acknowledged -- my
extravagant & god-like kindness in digging out a photocopy was snubbed in
the acknowledgement! I was intentionally belittled! My assistance
demeaned! The whole book should've been credited to me! Who is this Dalby
scoundral compared to me? And the publishers! Rotters! Thieves!
In reality I figure it all balances out as I've frequently been
acknowledged in books I never realized I had the slightest part in. But if
I'd been holding my breath for my whole life's one-&-only Public
Acknowledgement, imagine how I could have wrapped a crippled mind around a
feeling of having been intentionally overlooked & abused, me, the saintly
helper & originator of all life. I never bothered to ask Richard about it
but I it's actually possible my "help" was a nuisance because I did not at
the time know he was planning a second volume by the same author, just of
the uncollected material, & here I'd sent along to Ash-Tree an extra story
slated for a Sarob volume. Were that the case, & if HE were bugnuts, he'd
now hate me for prematurely revealing HIS discovery-of-the-century so that
that extra story is now in the wrong volume altogether.
Fortunately even though many of us are eccentric, we're in the main not
crazy, & our fondness for one another, & for one another's projects,
outweighs any silly wish that we be given credit for everything, earned or
not.
paghat the ratgirl
--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/
paghat
pag...@netscapeSPAM-ME-NOT.net (paghat) wrote:
> In article <aa7a193e.03072...@posting.google.com>,
> ash...@ash-tree.bc.ca (Christopher Roden) wrote:
>
> > "Chris Barker" <haunte...@waitrose.com> wrote in message >
> > > 'The Crimson Weaver' and 'The Lover's Ordeal' (the latter first discovered
> > > by The Haunted River in 2001) by Gilchrist are the first to be made
> > > available.
> >
> > It is acknowledged that Mr Barker came across 'The Lover's Ordeal' in
> > a copy of LONDON MAGAZINE, and that he announced his 'find' on this
> > very group, shortly afterwards.
> >
> > However, unless he can show conclusively that his posting to abg-f
> > preceded the listing of the story on the internet in the pages of the
> > Fiction Magazines Index, it is ridiculous to claim that the story was
> > 'first discovered by The Haunted River', simply because the story had
> > not been reprinted or collected, or at least discovered to have been
> > so.
> >
> > Christopher
[clips]
[clips]
Oh damn, I shouldn't rely on my enfeebled old memory, I do have an
acknowledgement in that book, but it's not important enough for me to
rustle through some things trying to remember which book with which
publisher I should've dredged from memory instead of that one for a
comical & extremist exaggeration of unreality.
-paghat
woolrich
> Yes, very curious that. I announced my discovery of the story and no one
> dared contradict my claim that it was unknown. I had referred to Richard
> Dalby, David Tibet, Robert Eighteen-Bisang and certain other well known
> authorities - no one had ever heard of it and all agreed it was a new
> discovery. Indeed, when I mentionned it here two or three years ago, neither
> Pelan nor yourself disagreed with the claim.
>
> It was only a long time later - when you had decided to snaffle the project,
> in point of fact - that you dug up this mysterious reference to the story
> having been discovered by someone else. But who? When?
>
> No, the simple truth is that in pinching this project from me you must have
> faced the terrible dillema of having to accredit me with the discovery (the
> same dilemma suffered by Ray Russell at Tartarus Press). And we couldn't
> have that, could we? A demonised figure who queries the ethicals practises
> of small publishers, discovering important rare stories - my, how you must
> have deliberated.
>
> Hence the new claim that it was disovered at some vague, misty time many
> years ago. Well, your claim is as preposterous as it false. Indeed, it is a
> lie.
Christopher Roden
wrote:
>
>
>http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/6552/marxidiot.wav
Ooops! Looks as if that's Woolrich headed for Barker's Ghostly
Shit-Shat page (for those in the know!)
Christopher
Chris Barker
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> John
>
Yes, pray do. Pray do return the favour. We are all "agog".
I predict that within the given seven days, you still won't be able to
follow through on your threat. I predict that by the 4th of Aou0t, you still
won't have managed to post the text of APE'S FACE online anywhere.
Because you are a fraud, a blagger, a sad-ripe, a dirgeface, a mokeslagger.
A slurgigger. A blotte on the Face of Humanitie.
On the eighth day I will post the text you 'threatenne' to post. Because I'm
not in it for the money, or the kudos, or the ego. And because I can.
Chris
www.users.waitrose.com/hauntedriver
Christopher Roden
<haunte...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>Because you are a fraud, a blagger, a sad-ripe, a dirgeface, a mokeslagger.
>A slurgigger. A blotte on the Face of Humanitie.
>
Golly, your kids must think you're a God. Such perception, such a way
with words (what was it tonight? an on-line thesauraus?)
Actually, John's a rather nice guy. Mr Barker merely misrepresents the
situation as usual. Obvioulsy practising his fiction-writing again. As
we can see, he has a long way to go.
CR
Christopher Roden
>On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 03:01:29 +0100, "Chris Barker"
><haunte...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Because you are a fraud, a blagger, a sad-ripe, a dirgeface, a mokeslagger.
>>A slurgigger. A blotte on the Face of Humanitie.
>>
Let us carefully observe the animal operating in his native habitat.
What began two days ago as an announcement of an action which will be
of enormous benefit to mankind (that's Barker as benefactor of the
race) has degenerated into this sad outburst in response to a
perfectly reasonable question. Once again, Barker speaks for itself.
I think we should accept your offer, Barker. There will be an on-line
text of APE'S FACE in the files at Horrabin Hall within the allotted
seven days. Pity you won't be able to access it - but then, you won't
need to: you'll be able to curl up by the side of your cauldron with
your signed first edition, won't you?
CR
John Pelan
<haunte...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>> Shall I return the favor by putting Ape's Face up on the web?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>
>> John
>>
>
>Yes, pray do. Pray do return the favour. We are all "agog".
Ah yes, the Lycian clown comes back to stir the mud...
>
>I predict that within the given seven days, you still won't be able to
>follow through on your threat. I predict that by the 4th of Aou0t, you still
>won't have managed to post the text of APE'S FACE online anywhere.
What, pray tell is the "4th of Aou0t"? Didn't your parents tell you
not to play on the Internet after you've been drinking? Are you
attemping to ape the style of of bad Lovecraftian pastiche and
introducing random gibberish into your sentences?
Very well. You're right. I won't get around to posting it until I get
back from Pulpcon, a week from Monday. I'd accomodate this weekend,
but I have two stories to finish and some notes on Violet Hunt to whip
into shape. However, when I get back, I'll be happy to put the text of
APE'S FACE on-line in the files section of Horrabin Hall.
>
>Because you are a fraud, a blagger, a sad-ripe, a dirgeface, a mokeslagger.
>A slurgigger. A blotte on the Face of Humanitie.
Oh, how cute... You've found one of those random insult generators. If
I actually thought that you had the knowledge or wit to know what any
of those terms meant I might respond. As it is, this isn't very nice
talk coming from someone that I'm trying to do a favor for. What's the
matter, Hoppy? Don't you love me any more?
>
>On the eighth day I will post the text you 'threatenne' to post. Because I'm
>not in it for the money,
Considering the sales figures on your offerings, this is probably a
good thing...
>or the kudos,
Considering the reviews of your work this is probably a good thing...
>or the ego.
Well, you've certainly no shortage of that.
>And because I can.
Can what? You can't sell your bloody scribblings, no one wants your
catalogs, your research lacks any pretense of credibility and has made
you a laughing-stock, and the only reason you're the "exclusive UK
distributor" of your publications is that no one else will bother with
your rubbish. I'm sorry old bean, but your legacy is to be thought of
(if thought of at all) as an amusing grotesquerie with literary
pretensions. Mad as poor Stenbock, but without the talent.
TTFN,
John
woolrich
Oh, the horror, the horror, consigned to the "wall of shame"! I try
to give Chris Barker a break whenever possible, but this latest
"chronology of a feud" he's put online has just reduced me to complete
chuckles of mirth. It's very much like something a grade-school kid
would pull off: here are all the dorks I don't like from my Mrs.
Riddell's algebra class, all the rumors I've been able to scrape up
about them, and my own incredibly one-sided depiction of events.
(Nyah, nyah, nyah!--tongue protruding and eyes crossed) Plus, he's
just...misguided on copyright law and research re: public domain
materials. Let me guess: he will go next and pull out copies of the
1840 edition of Poe's TALES OF THE GROTESQUE & ARABESQUE from the
stacks of the nearest large literary holdings then draft a "cease &
desist" letter to Patrick F. Quinn about his Library of America volume
that incorporates the text of this volume.
I know he's miffed he couldn't get the R. Murray Gilchrist volume he'd
been planning for two years to press first...but no one has "dibs" on
a certain author, just because they say so. Nor do they have dibs on a
public domain volume of fiction, regardless of where they may plant
their literary banner. Nice try, Captain Scott, but you were second
place for the South Pole! However, this business about reprinting all
of the Gilchrist tales he has in his possession online as an apparent
means of retaliation could replace the sad tale of Aesop's infamous
fox in the next edition of the FABLES.
BTW, anyone who couldn't click through on my sound bite I linked can
copy and paste the path in their browser window and it should work.
Same old Geocities nonsense!
Bongolation
<haunte...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>More details at:
>www.users.waitrose.com/hauntedriver/rareweirdtexts.htm
This is a dead link.
Hasn't anyone noticed?
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
E-mail: bongolation<AT>mail.md - Change <AT> to @ symbol to reply.
See COMPLETE headers for more info. Headers are good - view them.
Christopher Roden
Ho, ho, ho, Woolrich, me lad. Ye just check out that ghostly shit shat
page, and yo'll be there, aright, matey.
[Voice changes to David Bellamy]:
Examine the animal in his natural habit - alt.books.ghost-fiction -
the place to which he has returned following the moderator's note on
yahoogroups/ghost stories that future postings will be monitored.
Where else can his voice be heard now?
[Voice changes to [the late] Leo McKern as Rumpole of the Bailey]:
He thinks, m'laud, that unless he does this, he will have no audience.
His ghostly shit-shat site is reviled in the manner that it should be
by all right-thinking people, and being the attention-seeking little
twit that he is, Barker is left with little alternative but once more
to prove his worth.
[Action changes to Donald Pleasence as Septimus Harding in The
Barchester Chronicles. We see a darkened room. We see a figure
crouched in a corner, apparently fingering and bowing a cello. . . . .
Or is he?]
[Action changes to alt.books.ghost-fiction, Sunday morning. We read
another blather, blather, blather, blather, and more insanity from the
beast of Besthorpe. 'Yah, booh, sucks . . . Peter Haining and TED
Klein think I'm marvellous; David Rowlands thinks I write like Walter
De La Mare; Everybody in the world is buying my books, and it's not
true that my ceiling is sagging under the weight of undistributed
catalogues and books in my attic . . . And another thing, I really am
going to publish Ape's-Face in a yellow-back page on my web site. So
there. I will do it. I can.'
[Action changes. Without coffee, the early Sunday morning reader is
left with but one option. The index finger reaches towards the
'Delete' key. A quiet click is heard, and the Haunted River trickles
away along its drought-drained bed, trickle, trickle, dribble,
dribble, until no more than a single drop of water is left to reach
the great ocean, lying, waiting at its end. The ocean is starved. The
world mourns the lack of wisdom from the Haunted River.]
Christopher
On 26 Jul 2003 22:50:15 -0700, grand_g...@hotmail.com (woolrich)
wrote:
Christopher Roden
(Bongolation) wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 19:28:29 +0100, "Chris Barker"
><haunte...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>
>>More details at:
>
>>www.users.waitrose.com/hauntedriver/rareweirdtexts.htm
>
>This is a dead link.
>
>Hasn't anyone noticed?
But this is Barker we're dealing with. Master of incompetence, master
of the typo, master of mistranscription, master of discovery.
Of course you wouldn't expect him to be able to type in links to his
own web page correctly.
He'll be back on the porch croaking in the morning, and no doubt he'll
manage to try again. Who knows? He may even get it right next time.
Christopher
Paula Hunter
Paula C. Hunter
--
lance
posted materials. I hadn't planned on buying the R. Murray Gilchrist
because I'm unfamiliar with the author's work. But if I have something
to read, it just may be another Ash-tree title I'll have to pick up.
Lance
woolrich
> left with but one option. The index finger reaches towards the
> 'Delete' key. A quiet click is heard, and the Haunted River trickles
> away along its drought-drained bed, trickle, trickle, dribble,
> dribble, until no more than a single drop of water is left to reach
> the great ocean, lying, waiting at its end. The ocean is starved. The
> world mourns the lack of wisdom from the Haunted River.]
>
> Christopher
Gad, that was hilarious.
...But, at last, I think I have the right handle on this.
It's very simple actually.
CHRIS BARKER = the ANDY KAUFMAN of weird fiction
Of course, he has a longstanding feud with a wrestling fan.
Of course, he has a fondness for hoaxes and convoluted stunts that can
go on for months or years.
Of course, I find myself half struck with some of the skewed genius of
his behavior and half wanting to cringe at his latest antics all at
the same instance.
Of course, he walks a tightrope between trying to win over his
audience and antagonize them to the point of rancor.
At any moment, I half expect to hear: "That's right...I'm from
Norfolk, and you're all MORONS. THIS is a bar of soap. You should
learn how to use one RIGHT AWAY, you stupid gothic rednecks. You call
those PRESSES? What don't you pick up one of my books and see how they
get published, YOU IDIOTS."
When can we expect to see him show up in a neckbrace then throw hot
coffee at John Pelan amidst a volley of curses?
When will he fake his own death? (It worked for rbadac & Elvis.)
**More importantly, when is E.H. Visiak going to press at Midnight
House?
**When is Ralph Adams Cram being released by Ash-Tree (on good
behavior)?
**How far along is Antonio Monteiro with translating the second MH
Jean Ray?
**Where in the world is the first edition of William Hope Hodgson's
collected fiction I ordered 2 1/2 weeks ago?
**Why is the HTML coding for my new website going so badly?
lance
Resolved the typo for the address (a tilde was missing). Turned out to
be very good stuff. Ordered my copy from ATP a few minutes ago and am
looking forward to it.
Christopher Roden
Our thanks to Mr Barker for helping sell yet another copy of THE
BASILISK. He will understand, however, that no agent's commission will
be forthcoming in this instance.
I really must remember to check his website to see how accurate his
transcription of the texts is . . . accuracy isn't a strong point with
the Beast of Besthorpe.
Christopher
Christopher Roden
<ash...@ash-tree.bc.ca> wrote:
>
>I think we should accept your offer, Barker. There will be an on-line
>text of APE'S FACE in the files at Horrabin Hall within the allotted
>seven days. Pity you won't be able to access it - but then, you won't
>need to: you'll be able to curl up by the side of your cauldron with
>your signed first edition, won't you?
>
A PDF file of APE'S-FACE is now available for download from the files
section of the Horrabin Hall discussion group's site at
Yahoogroups.com
I believe this is the first time that the Fox's novel has been made
available since its first edition was published in 1919, certainly
none of the copies I've come across has been other than a first
edition.
The seemingly-now defunct WEIRDLY SUPERNATURAL (or was it supposed to
be biennial, rather than biannual?) did print a couple of extracts in
its only published edition, but anyone referring to that particular
text should beware: the prelude to the novel, as printed in that
publication contains some twenty errors of transcription, and cannot
be relied upon. Twenty errors in so short a piece is a figure which
speaks for the quality of the publication and the expertise of its
editor.
Christopher
Christopher Roden
I have noticed that in my posting about the PDF of APE'S-FACE I dated
its first publication to 1919. I should, of course, have typed 1914.
Covering my face with shame . . . .
Christopher
Paula Hunter
Paula
--
Chris Barker
> A PDF file of APE'S-FACE is now available for download from the files
> section of the Horrabin Hall discussion group's site at
> Yahoogroups.com
>
I note that it is only available for a 'short' period of time. We'll have to
rectify that our end, by making it permanently available. Plus it will need
a proper introduction, putting the novel into some sort of historical
context.
A writer's individual perspective perhaps, rather than the derivative views
of a 'jack-of-all-trades' publisher.
> I believe this is the first time that the Fox's novel has been made
> available since its first edition was published in 1919, certainly
> none of the copies I've come across has been other than a first
> edition.
>
You've come across "several" copies? I *very* much doubt that. I have
discussed Fox with many a collector and very few have succeeded in tracking
down even one copy, let alone multiple copies. Besides, it doesn't take a
genius to guess that you have simply uploaded the text I myself typed up -
and was so foolish as to share with Ray Russell a year or two ago. No doubt
you cross-referenced that to a hard copy, hence the quick turnaround. Though
I don't expect you to offer thanks, just as with the Gilchrist tale I
alerted you too. You go ahead and take the credit by implying that you alone
were responsible for finding the book and typing it up. It's totally in
character, and you obviously crave the kudos.
By the way, you have (once again) misjudged the situation if you thought
that I was going to reprint 'Ape's Face'. After your purloinment of my
Murray Gilchrist project a few months ago, I obviously refocused my
publication projects, but decided to leave misleading details on my website
so as to put you on a false trail (it amused me to reflect upon the
ambiguity of the word 'fox'.). You won't know about the projects I am
working on until they hit the stands. Others will (do in fact), but you
won't.
In goading you and Pelan to upload the Fox novel, I wanted to:
a) prompt you into committing several hours of unpaid work for altruistic
purposes (lets call it 'making you put something back in'); and
b) to find out whether or not Ray Russell was assisting you e.g. it would
take you a few short days with his help, much longer without (because you
would have to scan it from scratch).
I knew I couldn't get an essay or original thought out of you, no matter how
often I tried (no surprise there); and although I could have uploaded Ape's
Face myself last week, or indeed anytime in the last year or two, I really
wanted to set you or Pelan to work on the matter - even if it was only to
spell-check and justify paragraphs. Though you still took the lazy way out -
you've listed a pdf file that requires zero web-editing. Had you listed it
on a website, you would have had to re-format.
So thanks. Thanks for *finally* doing something ghostly for free. It's a
first! You've made my weekend!
(Back to computer chess after an amusing diversion.)
> The seemingly-now defunct WEIRDLY SUPERNATURAL (or was it supposed to
> be biennial, rather than biannual?) did print a couple of extracts in
> its only published edition, but anyone referring to that particular
> text should beware: the prelude to the novel, as printed in that
> publication contains some twenty errors of transcription, and cannot
> be relied upon. Twenty errors in so short a piece is a figure which
> speaks for the quality of the publication and the expertise of its
> editor.
>
> Christopher
It's odd that you can't see how hypocritical and prejudiced your stance on
this issue is. Several other publishers have been held up on projects for
longer than we have delayed over the second issue of Weirdly Supernatural. I
believe that Tartarus have been promising for several years the Machen /
Waite 'Hidden Light' book - presumably that causes you the same degree of
curtain-twitching concern? (Delays like this don't bother me in the
slightest.) Ditto for several Durtro projects, planned reissues of their GSP
catalogue. Presumably DT's delays cause you similar consternation? (They
don't give me the slightest of concerns.) Why, you have delayed various
projects yourself. So why are *my* delays of such major importance to you?
Is your life really that empty?
Your criticisms betray much hypocrisy, bitchiness and prurience. It's very
odd that you can't see this. Fair enough if your post comes late, or the
garage takes an extra day over fixing your car, but does the delay of
someone else's book - a book that you have already decided to dislike on
principle - really upset you that much?
In fact, distilled down, my criticisms of you seem to revolve around
*finished* products, based upon evaluation of your product. Your criticisms
of me revolve around surmises, guesses, and speculation about things to
come. Why, your twenty or so posts about THE DREAMS OF CARDINAL VITTORINI
were mostly made *before* you had even seen the book. This is terribly
unhealthy: it suggests a deeply-rooted prejudice.
On, and thank you for your ungenerous accreditation: we did indeed
significantly raise awareness of Marion Fox's Ape's Face. Few people knew
about the book until the article featured in Weirdly Supernatural (as per
various communications we received at the time).
As for your predictable claim about twenty errors, it is completely
prejudiced nonsense, just as your silly concern about the delay of WS2 is.
List all twenty to prove your case. But do remember that an editor is
entitled to correct obvious grammatical errors or spelling mistakes,
especially when the author is dead.
Christopher Roden
<haunte...@waitrose.com> wrote:
[some predictable garbage snipped for brevity]
>>
>
>You've come across "several" copies?
Where did I say 'several'? You know, I'm beginning to feel sorry for
you - this, and your inablility to read anything anyone writes without
twisting it, suggests that you may be dyslexic. That's an illness I
have a great sympathy for.
I *very* much doubt that. I have
>discussed Fox with many a collector and very few have succeeded in tracking
>down even one copy, let alone multiple copies.
For Heaven's sake, you silly little boy, don't you ever use libraries?
>As for your predictable claim about twenty errors, it is completely
>prejudiced nonsense, just as your silly concern about the delay of WS2 is.
>List all twenty to prove your case. But do remember that an editor is
>entitled to correct obvious grammatical errors or spelling mistakes,
>especially when the author is dead.
I assure you there are twenty errors of transcription. If you're so
interested in proving that's wrong, go ahead and post a comparison of
the two texts. Yes, editors are entitled to do a lot of things. But
you're not an editor, are you? You've proved it again.
Christopher
Christopher Roden
<ash...@ash-tree.bc.ca> wrote:
>
>For Heaven's sake, you silly little boy, don't you ever use libraries?
>
And before you bother with any more clap-trap, here are the
identifying features of the Library of Congress's copy of APE'S-FACE
(the one used in this exercise):
Title page has LC pin-pricked on title page, with the base of the 'C'
falling 3mm above the internal black frame of the titling device.
Verso of title page has the Call Number in top right hand corner, and
appears thus:
PZ3
.F8337
A
There is a further handwritten entry halfway down the page, though
partly illegible:
Gift
????
D.2844
and the pin-pricked LC of course appears in reverse, just above the
printer's identification: 'The Anchor Press Ltd., Tiptree, Essex.'
Any other significant features? Well, the first few signatures are
pretty tightly bound.
and
The Library of Congress Control Numbr is 14019363
All of that information is, of course, completely verifiable.
However, if you don't have time to check a copy in Washington, I
understand the British Library has one too - along with a load of
Ash-Tree titles, funnily enough. The shelf mark for the BL copy is
NN.2337
Anything else you'd like to know? I'll ask Jack Adrian to check out
the Bodleian Library's copy and give you a run-down on that, if you'd
like.
Christopher
Barbara Roden
> I note that it is only available for a 'short' period of time. We'll have
to
> rectify that our end, by making it permanently available. Plus it will
need
> a proper introduction, putting the novel into some sort of historical
> context.
>
> A writer's individual perspective perhaps, rather than the derivative
views
> of a 'jack-of-all-trades' publisher.
What writer would that be? You? Ah, not a writer then.
If you were at all familiar with Ash-Tree books, you'd know that Christopher
and I rarely write the introductions. So are you dissing Mike Ashley, Jack
Adrian, Hugh Lamb, Jessica Salmonson, John Pelan, Chico Kidd, David
Rowlands, Ramsey Campbell, Stefan Dziemianowicz, Jim Rockhill, Steve Duffy,
Richard Dalby, and Nicholas Royle? Yes, I can see how none of these people
would be able to bring a 'writer's individual perspective' to anything they
wrote. . . .
> In goading you and Pelan to upload the Fox novel, I wanted to:
Act like a little child, perhaps? Honestly, the more I read from you, the
more I realise that your behaviour resembles that of a small child. 'Does
not mix well with others'.
> a) prompt you into committing several hours of unpaid work for altruistic
> purposes (lets call it 'making you put something back in');
Ah, but it was fun! And hey, it's nice to make a correct text available,
which is more than some would.
> b) to find out whether or not Ray Russell was assisting you e.g. it would
> take you a few short days with his help, much longer without (because you
> would have to scan it from scratch).
Actually, if you know how to type (which Christopher does, more than
competently), setting something as short as APE'S-FACE doesn't take long;
and it's much more accurate than scanning, which tends to import all sorts
of weird and wonderful errors. And since typesetting books is part of our
job, it wasn't all that time-consuming or difficult a task. By the way, we
did not obtain any text, in any format, from Ray; so bang goes another
theory.
> I knew I couldn't get an essay or original thought out of you, no matter
how
> often I tried (no surprise there);
So where are all your original thoughts and essays? Oh, I forgot, you've
stapled them together and are charging £8.50 for them. So this is a case of
'Do as I say, not as I do', then, is it?
> I really
> wanted to set you or Pelan to work on the matter - even if it was only to
> spell-check and justify paragraphs. Though you still took the lazy way
out -
> you've listed a pdf file that requires zero web-editing. Had you listed it
> on a website, you would have had to re-format.
Ah yes, the fallback of the person who doesn't know anything about editing;
The Spell-Checker!!! What a wondrous device that is, to be sure: why, just
run a spell-checker over your text and Bob's your uncle, you don't need to
do anything else! And here we've been proofing back to original texts line
by line and then reading through the text once more all these years to
eliminate mistakes, when all we needed to do was use a spell-checker. More
fool us.
> It's odd that you can't see how hypocritical and prejudiced your stance on
> this issue is. Several other publishers have been held up on projects for
> longer than we have delayed over the second issue of Weirdly Supernatural.
Yes, but I can't think of an instance where they took money in advance for a
project and then failed to deliver. Issue one of WS came out - when - two
years ago? That's a long time for folks to be hanging on. ALL HALLOWS may be
a few weeks late on occasion, but we promise folks three issues a year, and
deliver. Seems only right when you're taking their money up front.
> believe that Tartarus have been promising for several years the Machen /
> Waite 'Hidden Light' book - presumably that causes you the same degree of
> curtain-twitching concern? (Delays like this don't bother me in the
> slightest.)
Unless Tartarus has taken payment for this book in advance, I'm not
bothered.
> Ditto for several Durtro projects, planned reissues of their GSP
> catalogue. Presumably DT's delays cause you similar consternation? (They
> don't give me the slightest of concerns.)
See above. And I'm sure that Durtro's plans to reissue several of their GSS
titles must give you cause for great concern; weren't you railing against
this very practice yourself some time ago? Words to the effect that these
small presses that reissue their earlier titles are misleading the
customers, who were led to expect only a certain number of copies to be
printed and are therefore being hoodwinked, and their first print runs
devalued? Hey, tell that to our customers who, despite our reprintings, are
searching for first Ash-Tree editions of LADY STANHOPE and THE ALABASTER
HAND, because they'll only be content with a true first.
But this is from the man who believes that all these small press editions
devalue the first editions. Tell that to the person who paid more than £400
for a first edition without d/j of RANDALLS ROUND at the Andrew Stevens
auction, at the same time that the Ash-Tree edition, with d/j, photos of the
author, and an introduction by Richard Dalby, could be had for £20. Gee, our
edition sure caused the bottom to drop out of the Scott market, didn't it?
> As for your predictable claim about twenty errors, it is completely
> prejudiced nonsense, just as your silly concern about the delay of WS2 is.
Ah, of course, we made up (or perhaps we imagined) the twenty errors; a
variation of the 'it was all a dream' plot device.
> List all twenty to prove your case. But do remember that an editor is
> entitled to correct obvious grammatical errors or spelling mistakes,
> especially when the author is dead.
These weren't corrections, they were errors. But you've changed your tune,
haven't you? I thought you were arguing the other day that a writer's prose
was sacred text, and that editors have no business interfering in the texts
of someone not alive to argue the point. In fact, you said the following on
28 July (and I quote):
>>>>3. How can he justify making corrections and text amendments?
Brodie-Innes
never approved Pelan as editor. Furthermore, Brodie-Innes is a competent
professional writer. Additionally, collectors won't be happy buying an
abridged or revised text.<<<<
Hoist by your own petard, I think. . . . But at least it shows you're
willing to learn from those who know better.
Barbara
Chris Barker
> For Heaven's sake, you silly little boy, don't you ever .....(insert
anything)?
>
Now that's creepy. I am a thirty-something father of three.
*Very* creepy......what next? Will you suggest I need a good smacking?
Jim Rockhill
> "C Roden" <ash...@ash-tree.bc.ca> wrote
>
> > For Heaven's sake, you silly little boy, don't you ever .....(insert
> anything)?
Such as the original phrase "use libraries", for instance?
>
> Now that's creepy. I am a thirty-something father of three.
>
> *Very* creepy......what next? Will you suggest I need a good smacking?
Indeed, it is very creepy of you to equate a visit to the library with
sadomasochistic behavior, especially while attempting to blame someone
else for such an aberration.