Lovecraft and Lon Chaney

[Ramsey Campbell]

On 23 May 1926 C. T. Nash wrote to Lovecraft 'At your urging I recently viewed the moving picture of The Phantom of the Opera. You mentioned that you fell asleep several times during the picture, and I have to inform you that you must have been describing your own dream of the conclusion rather than the finale which appears on the screen. I assure you that no “nameless legion of things” welcomes the Phantom to his watery grave. I am glad that they at least remained nameless in your mind. No dream ought to be named, for words are less than dreams.'

There's a fine Image DVD of the film (see http://www.silentera.com/video/phantomOfTheOperaHV.html) but none of the versions in the set includes the finale Lovecraft said he saw. Has anyone seen it?

[John Whelan]

Ramsey Campbell wrote:
> On 23 May 1926 C. T. Nash wrote to Lovecraft 'At your urging I recently
> viewed the moving picture of The Phantom of the Opera. You mentioned
> that you fell asleep several times during the picture, and I have to inform
> you that you must have been describing your own dream of the
> conclusion rather than the finale which appears on the screen. I assure
> you that no “nameless legion of things” welcomes the Phantom to his
> watery grave. I am glad that they at least remained nameless in your
> mind. No dream ought to be named, for words are less than dreams.'

Is this the same Ramsey Campbell who once howled in outrage "Don't
call me a liar, Mr. Whelan", when I (without calling him a liar)
declined to take him seriously?

I seem to recall Ramsey quoted C.T. Nash to me before. I did him the
courtesy of believing him then (there was nothing obviously fake about
the quote). He never clarified.

This seems to be his schtick. Frank Belknap Long once removed a fake
"John Dee" epigraph from his story "The Space Eaters" for fear that it
might mislead. Ramsey seems to have a different philosophy

> There's a fine Image DVD of the film (see
> http://www.silentera.com/video/phantomOfTheOperaHV.html)
> but none of the versions in the set includes the finale Lovecraft
> said he saw. Has anyone seen it?

But the link to the DVD is at least genuine, and, in all likelihood,
you can indeed purchase it. So this is genuine product-promotion
spam. It is only the Lovecraft connection that is fictional.

[Ramsey Campbell]

No, it isn't.

[John Whelan]

Ramsey Campbell wrote:
> No, it isn't.

[shrug] Call it what you want. The source is "The Correspondence of
Cameron Thaddeus Nash" by Ramsey Campbell, in BLACK WINGS: NEW TALES
OF LOVECRAFTIAN HORROR, ed. S.T. Joshi (PS Publishing, 2010).

I think most reading it would consider it an attempt at horror-comedy,
in the form of an epistolary short story. The Internet Speculative
Fiction Database labels it a "novella". But if you insist on its
serious intent, I suppose it could, in theory, be regarded as a
ridiculously poor attempt at a hoax.

It's falsity is not quite as obvious when quoted in fragments on the
internet. Hence, it is only fair to warn innocent members of the
public, reading this NG, not to trust information relayed to them by
Mr. Campbell.

[Magister]

Den lördagen den 27:e april 2013 kl. 11:31:40 UTC+2 skrev Ramsey Campbell:
> On 23 May 1926 C. T. Nash wrote to Lovecraft 'At your urging I recently viewed the moving picture of The Phantom of the Opera. You mentioned that you fell asleep several times during the picture, and I have to inform you that you must have been describing your own dream of the conclusion rather than the finale which appears on the screen. I assure you that no “nameless legion of things” welcomes the Phantom to his watery grave. I am glad that they at least remained nameless in your mind. No dream ought to be named, for words are less than dreams.'
>
>
>
> There's a fine Image DVD of the film (see http://www.silentera.com/video/phantomOfTheOperaHV.html) but none of the versions in the set includes the finale Lovecraft said he saw. Has anyone seen it?

Alas, no. I have intended to read Leroux' novel for a very long time, but other things have kept on crowding it out of my reading schedule. However, I know that C. T. Nash, for all his faults, was a pretty astute critic, and in this case it is quite possible that he caught HPL in a mistake.

Besides, didn't Undercliffe write something about this? Nash's description is reminiscent of something that Undercliffe would write.

Yrs
Martin

[John Whelan]

Magister wrote:
> Besides, didn't Undercliffe write something about this? Nash's
> description is reminiscent of something that Undercliffe would
> write.

General members of the public, who happen to be perusing this NG, may
wonder who "Undercliffe" is. Such persons are of course not welcome
on this NG. This NG is only for fans of the Great Ramsey Campbell.
Merely by asking who under this question, one proves that one are not
a fan of the Great Ramsey Campbell, but perhaps of some lesser
hack ... such as H.P. Lovecraft.

[Ramsey Campbell]

That is indeed the source of the quote, but the Lovecraft connection is not fictional.

[Ramsey Campbell]

Why on earth should anybody not be welcome here? Unless they behave badly, of course.

[John Whelan]

Ramsey Campbell wrote:
> Why on earth should anybody not be welcome here?

There are many sins. One is to question the canonical pronouncements
of Ramsey Campbell. What Ramsey declares to be true, is true, and
not to acknowledge this is heresy.

> Unless they behave badly, of course.

Exactly.

[John Whelan]

Ramsey Campbell wrote:
> That is indeed the source of the quote, but the Lovecraft
> connection is not fictional.

Possibly so. Sometimes, when the boy cries wolf, there really is a
wolf.

[Ramsey Campbell]

On Sunday, 28 April 2013 09:42:08 UTC+1, John Whelan wrote:

>
> There are many sins. One is to question the canonical pronouncements
>
> of Ramsey Campbell. What Ramsey declares to be true, is true, and
>
> not to acknowledge this is heresy.

Do show us the evidence.

[Kishin]

He won't. He's renown for making bold declarations and accusations, and
then providing no reliable evidence. At best, you can expect him to post
a quote from you, heavily edited so that it supports his argument. I
don't know why you even bother communicating with him.

--

Kishin

[John Whelan]

Ramsey Campbell wrote:
> Do show us the evidence.

I'm not really sure. It is possible that the real sin is not having
read all the works of Ramsey Campbell, and therefore not being in a
position to know when he is serious as opposed to joking. Presumably,
the attitude is that such persons are beneath contempt, and that it is
therefore funny when they are misled.

But why ask me? I'm just guessing. Tell us what you think
constitutes "behaving badly". Evidently this does not include
spreading disinformation and product-spam on the NG.

[Ramsey Campbell]

If you've no evidence, why make the comment?

[Ramsey Campbell]

On Sunday, 28 April 2013 01:27:39 UTC+1, John Whelan wrote:

I should be surprised if anyone using this group thought Lovecraft was a hack. Certainly I don't know of any users of the group who do.

[jwjbw...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, April 28, 2013 4:27:44 PM UTC-4, Ramsey Campbell wrote:
> If you've no evidence, why make the comment?

Okay Ramsey, I confess. I do not really believe what I said. I do not really believe that it is a sin not to regard the fictions of Ramsey Campbell as of equal or greater canonicity than reality, or even than fiction of H.P. Lovecraft, or even than those of any other author whose fictions I happen to prefer. I do not really believe that one is obligated to be familiar with the works of Ramsey Campbell in order to participate in this NG. When I said otherwise, I was engaging in a device known as "sarcasm" or "irony".

To be blunt: I have read very little of your work, and what little I read I did not care for. I am sure that others enjoy your work, and that is fine. It just so happens that I am not one of them. I do not intend to read any more of your work, as there are many other things on my reading list. I am afraid I do not feel guilty about this at all. It may be that I am missing out on many excellent pieces; that I would have enjoyed greatly had I read them. But that's just the way things go. Life is short.

If you, and others, choose to discuss your fiction in this NG, I obviously have no problem with that either. You have written mythos & hpl related fiction, so such is certainly on topic, as are the works of Frank Belknap Long, Robert Howard, August Derleth and many others. I would prefer to stay out of discussions of your works, as they do not concern or interest me.

Therefore, as a courtesy, not only to me, but to other members of the public who might read the information posted in this group (potentially for many many years to come), it would help to stop tailoring your posts for the narrowly-defined in-crowd of your fans and special friends. It would help if you stopped presenting your own fictions in contexts where there is no clue what you are talking about, and where context seems to indicate you are talking about HPL's fictions, or about real life. As you know, you have not done this. Instead, you have done everything you can to muddy the waters; which you seem to find amusing. What your motives are, I honestly don't know. But neither can I see that it serves any legitimate purpose.

Now, if you can find it in your heart to forgive me for not being a fan of Ramsey Campbell, then I am perfectly happy to have discussions with you about other subjects ... as one HPL fan to another ... in other words, as equals.

[jwjbw...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, April 28, 2013 4:29:31 PM UTC-4, Ramsey Campbell wrote:
> I should be surprised if anyone using this group thought
> Lovecraft was a hack.

Well I would not expect them to SAY so, since most here are seeking to profit from his legacy in one way or another (nothing wrong with that). But perhaps, if you truly appreciate his fiction for its own sake, you will some day condescend to have a discussion about his fiction, without trying to twist the discussion into one about your fiction.

[Ramsey Campbell]

Otherwise it looks as if nobody would.

[Kishin]

I'm don't believe that would be a bad thing. It's nice to see a bit of
activity in the group, but when the one responsible for it has alienated
every other member of the group, I have to wonder whether it's worth it.
If everyone killfiled him, he could blather on to his heart's content
without the rest of us having to see it.

--

Kishin

[Ramsey Campbell]

If it's the consensus of the majority of the group that I should behave as you direct I'll be happy to do so.

[Ramsey Campbell]

To come back to the original subject, does anyone have any information about the mysterious Chaney scene other than Lovecraft's own account of it?

[John Whelan]

Ramsey Campbell wrote:
> If it's the consensus of the majority of the group that I should behave
> as you direct I'll be happy to do so.

The "majority" of "the group"?? No mind of your own?

Very well. If you think your behavior is funny (or whatever), then
carry on. As long as the little gang is cheering and snickering, why
not?

I'm just letting you know, I have no interest in discussing your
works. If you let folks know (at least when asked) that you are doing
so, I will be permitted to avoid such subjects. Which is probably for
the best. Do whatever you think is right.

[Ramsey Campbell]

On Monday, 29 April 2013 14:26:52 UTC+1, John Whelan wrote:
> Ramsey Campbell wrote:
>
> > If it's the consensus of the majority of the group that I should behave
>
> > as you direct I'll be happy to do so.
>
>
>
> The "majority" of "the group"?? No mind of your own?

Whereas I would be showing I had one if I did as you dictated, you mean?

[Ramsey Campbell]

On Monday, 29 April 2013 14:32:53 UTC+1, Ramsey Campbell wrote:
> On Monday, 29 April 2013 14:26:52 UTC+1, John Whelan wrote:
>
> > Ramsey Campbell wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > If it's the consensus of the majority of the group that I should behave
>
> >
>
> > > as you direct I'll be happy to do so.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>

No mind of your own?

I confess I find that a little disturbing. When I used to disagree with her my mother would level exactly that accusation at me. Folk who know the background may guess my thoughts now.

[John Whelan]

Ramsey Campbell wrote:
> Whereas I would be showing I had one if I did as you dictated, you mean?

It is neither what I said nor what I meant. But fine. Think about it
that way if you want.

[Kevin Blackburn]

On 29/04/2013 12:42, Ramsey Campbell wrote:
> If it's the consensus of the majority of the group that I should behave as you direct I'll be happy to do so.

Ramsey, I find your posts interesting and a good addition to the
newsgroup. I have John Whelan kill filed - only seen when quoted by
others. Please reach the obvious conclusion.

To any accusation of being a fanboy, to my slight shame I can't remember
the tales I read of yours many years ago, merely that I found them
effective horror tales at the time, and in some cases having a
Lovecraftian vibe. I'm not a great reader these days, and my interest in
Lovecraft is in his style and ideas for use in games.

--
Kevin Blackburn ke...@fairbruk.demon.co.uk

[John Whelan]

My goodness! That does not sound self-absorbed at all!

Has it occurred to you did not need to hide behind a gang in order to
disagree with me? That you could have done so entirely on your own
steam?

As for your mother, I don't know the background. But, of course, you
are addressing only those who do. I'm sure these elite cogniscenti
will chime in any moment; and a scintillating conversation about
Ramsey's grievances against his mother will ensue. The rest of us,
excluded from the conversation, will only be able to stare in through
the outer windows, blue with cold and green with jealousy. Please
carry on!

[Ramsey Campbell]

I've no grievances at all against my mother.

[John Whelan]

Ramsey Campbell wrote:
> I've no grievances at all against my mother.

I'm certainly glad to hear it. What do I know? Only the Elite
Cogniscenti may guess your thoughts. God Bless your mother!

[Benoit Meulle-Stef]

>
> Alas, no. I have intended to read Leroux' novel for a very long time, but other things have kept on crowding it out of my reading schedule. However, I know that C. T. Nash, for all his faults, was a pretty astute critic, and in this case it is quite possible that he caught HPL in a mistake.

Dear Martin
YOu should read it, the funny part of the novel, if I may say, it's that NO movies had ever gave the real phantom's death! And barely 2 gave the real explanation of Erik's deformity... But I will not spoil your pleasure ;-)

Cheers
Benoit

[Ramsey Campbell]

Without spoiling it, Benoit, is it possible that Lovecraft could have mixed that ending up with that of the film (maybe while dreaming)?

[Benoit Meulle-Stef]

I have about 7 versions of the Movie in DVD and the book as well... Phantom Acquisition syndrome?

Benoit

[jwjbw...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 8:21:40 AM UTC-4, Ramsey Campbell wrote:
> Without spoiling it, Benoit, is it possible that Lovecraft could have
> mixed that ending up with that of the film (maybe while dreaming)?

Is there a non-fictional reason to believe that HPL mixed up the ending of the film? If so, please provide a quote or a reference, so folks know what you are talking about.

[Ramsey Campbell]

Before his letter (presumably now lost) to Nash he wrote about the film to his Aunt Lillian on 18 September 1925.

[Benoit Meulle-Stef]

Dear Ramsey:
Is there any transcription of what he said in the letter?

Cheers
Benoit

[John Whelan]

Ramsey Campbell wrote:
> Before his letter (presumably now lost) to Nash he wrote about the film
> to his Aunt Lillian on 18 September 1925.

What did he say about it? How about stating your source? ("Selected
Letters", Joshi's bio, or whatever your source might be)

[Ramsey Campbell]

There is indeed.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Lovecraft-Letters-Volume-York/dp/1892389371

[Benoit Meulle-Stef]

Thanks, that a book considering buying!

Cheers

Benoit

[Benoit Meulle-Stef]

On Thursday, May 9, 2013 10:30:36 PM UTC+2, Ramsey Campbell wrote:

Actually you can do a book search, it's page 195...

Cheers
Benoit

[Ramsey Campbell]

I'm inclined to conclude Nash was right in his assumption.

[jwjbw...@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 10, 2013 6:59:31 AM UTC-4, Ramsey Campbell wrote:
> I'm inclined to conclude Nash was right in his assumption.

I'm not sure why. The Phantom is indeed grabbed from behind by obscure shadowy beings, shortly before falling to his watery doom. Most viewers, perhaps, would assume that these are members of the mob, and that the scene is merely murky, but if HPL saw it otherwise, it hardly proves that he was asleep and dreaming.

Perhaps your Mr. Nash saw the alternate ending.

[blackw...@gmail.com]

Surely he was dreaming or hallucinating...

[blackw...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, April 28, 2013 4:42:08 AM UTC-4, John Whelan

> There are many sins.
>One is to question the canonical pronouncements

... And there goes another actual conversation.
*sigh*