PROPOSAL: alt.books.thomas-ligotti
Jonathan Padgett
PROPOSAL
I would like to create a newsgroup dedicated to the fiction of one of
the most skilled, unique, and talented writers alive today: Thomas
Ligotti.
JUSTIFICATION
There have been numerous postings on many different newsgroups about
(the rather mysterious) Thomas Ligotti and his work; it is time his
readers had a place to post messages specifically about him. Moreover,
within the last year Mr. Ligotti's latest collection, _The Nightmare
Factory_, has won both the Bram Stoker Award and the British Fantasy
Award for best anthology, and "The Red Tower" also won a Bram Stoker
Award for best novella.
For many critics and readers alike, Thomas Ligotti is one of the most
important writers living today. He has been compared favorably with
both Edgar Allan Poe and H.P. Lovecraft, though his work has a quality,
style, and content which are unique.
Not only would a newsgroup be a welcome source of information and
entertainment for those that read Ligotti, but it would also serve to
expose the author's remarkable work to a wider readership.
PURPOSE
The group, alt.books.thomas-ligotti , will serve for discussion of those
things of and relating to both the author and his stories. Moreover,
the newsgroup will be a place where Ligotti's readers can generally meet
each other and discuss, chat, or debate with each other.
Thank you for your time and consideration and please post any comments,
suggestions, or opinions on the alt.config newsgroup.
Truly,
Jonathan Padgett
Jason Thompson
Jonathan Padgett (jona...@lionheart.net) wrote:
: I would like to create a newsgroup dedicated to the fiction of one of
: the most skilled, unique, and talented writers alive today: Thomas
: Ligotti.
I love Ligotti, but frankly I can't imagine the traffic on such a newsgroup
getting too high. What about just creating 'alt.horror.fiction'? That'd
separate from the current 'alt.horror' newsgroup, with its constant films,
Italian horror flicks, and slaughter/splatter chatter, from the new group.
And there'd be a certain amount of discussion of King, Barker, etc. along
with the Ligotti and Lovecraft, but at least FACES OF DEATH wouldn't be
in-topic. ;) Ligotti is excellent, but I think his own newsgroup would be a
bit of a jump.
Sorry for turning your proposal into my own counter-proposal,
Jason Thompson
Knygathin Zhaum
tarantula
Jason Thompson (ja...@sonic.net) wrote:
I agree with Jason. I believe he has a good idea.
--
Roger
_____________________________________________
"Put that whip down and put those boots on."
Antonio in NIGHT EVELYN CAME OUT OF THE GRAVE
james ambuehl
How about alt.horror.cthulhoid fiction?
-- Jim
Vegard
In article <6a9cgq$v...@bolt.sonic.net>, ja...@sonic.net (Jason Thompson) writes:
>Jonathan Padgett (jona...@lionheart.net) wrote:
>: I would like to create a newsgroup dedicated to the fiction of one of
>: the most skilled, unique, and talented writers alive today: Thomas
>: Ligotti.
>
>I love Ligotti, but frankly I can't imagine the traffic on such a newsgroup
>getting too high. What about just creating 'alt.horror.fiction'?
I agree with this. I'm not sure there'd be enough traffic to sustain a
group for Ligotti alone. A lot of the alt.books* groups are virtually
dead.
Vegard
cl...@columbia-center.org
In article <6a9cgq$v...@bolt.sonic.net>,
> : I would like to create a newsgroup dedicated to the fiction of one of
> : the most skilled, unique, and talented writers alive today: Thomas
> : Ligotti.
> I love Ligotti, but frankly I can't imagine the traffic on such a newsgroup
> getting too high. What about just creating 'alt.horror.fiction'? That'd
> separate from the current 'alt.horror' newsgroup, with its constant films,
> Italian horror flicks, and slaughter/splatter chatter, from the new group.
> And there'd be a certain amount of discussion of King, Barker, etc. along
> with the Ligotti and Lovecraft, but at least FACES OF DEATH wouldn't be
> in-topic. ;) Ligotti is excellent, but I think his own newsgroup would be a
> bit of a jump.
I agree with you Jason, but -- I think the best proposal would be for a
new group called rec.arts.horror.written (which would thus parallel
rec.arts.sf.written).
This would be a big eight group, so would be carried by more servers, and
"written" is better than "fiction" for our purposes ("hey! lots of FACES
OF DEATH was faked, so it's on-topic!").
If my news server hadn't crashed *again*, I might be doing a little bit
to promote this idea. But I hate the DejaNews posting hassle. So I'm
letting it wait.
---------------------------------------------------
Dan Clore
The Website of Lord Weÿrdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/index.html
Welcome to the Waughters....
The Dan Clore Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
Because the true mysteries cannot be profaned....
"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!"
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Ken Luther
ja...@sonic.net (Jason Thompson) wrote:
>Jonathan Padgett (jona...@lionheart.net) wrote:
>: I would like to create a newsgroup dedicated to the fiction of one of
>: the most skilled, unique, and talented writers alive today: Thomas
>: Ligotti.
>
>I love Ligotti, but frankly I can't imagine the traffic on such a newsgroup
>getting too high. What about just creating 'alt.horror.fiction'?
I think that's a better idea. I don't mean to dump on Jonathan's
idea, but it shows a "modern Usenet" where people seem to think
each topic has to have it's own separate niche. It used to be
that new groups weren't created until an existing newsgroup became
clogged or nearly unreadable due to the volume of posts regarding
a certain subject - at that point, a new newsgroup would be spawned.
(Witness the branching of rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jordan from
r.a.sf.w, purely for self-defense purposes :-).
Until alt.horror becomes clogged with posts about any one particular
author, there's really no need to start subdividing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Ken Luther klu...@indiana.edu | Host of THE VOID |
|School of Public & Environmental Affairs | (Heavy Metal Radio Show) |
|Indiana University |1-3AM, 2nd & 4th Thurs. nts.|
|http://php.indiana.edu/~kluther/ | WFHB, 91.3FM, Bloomington |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
L. Dexter Theobald
I believe what Mr. Padgett is intimating
(and rightly so) is a keen sense of a literary prodigy & formidable
talent in the
field of the weird in the mysterious Thomas Ligotti. If we weren't
talking about
a weird author whose books are winning prestigeous awards & critical
acclaim--if Ligotti's The Nightmare Factory wasn't a triumph but another
addition to the pile of unimaginative formulae fright fiction & thus
more rubbish to burn, I'd say you're all right in believing a newsgroup
devoted to Ligotti studies is superfluous or even silly. One reading of
Ligotti's "The Frolic" will have you hammering at the door of
alt.books.thomas.ligotti--if only not to
shudder alone!! Ligotti is a horror author
of the first water.
Let's not make the same mistake we
Americans made with Poe, and have Ligotti discovered by the French!
Yrs. Most Sincerely,
L. Dexter Theobald, Gent.
Providence, R.I.
(currently residing in
North Conway, N.H.)
Gregory Loren Hansen
In article <6abnll$gij$1...@newsd-124.bryant.webtv.net>,
L. Dexter Theobald <Theob...@webtv.net> wrote:
>I believe what Mr. Padgett is intimating
>(and rightly so) is a keen sense of a literary prodigy & formidable
>talent in the
>field of the weird in the mysterious Thomas Ligotti. If we weren't
>talking about
>a weird author whose books are winning prestigeous awards & critical
>acclaim--if Ligotti's The Nightmare Factory wasn't a triumph but another
>addition to the pile of unimaginative formulae fright fiction & thus
>more rubbish to burn, I'd say you're all right in believing a newsgroup
>devoted to Ligotti studies is superfluous or even silly. One reading of
>Ligotti's "The Frolic" will have you hammering at the door of
>alt.books.thomas.ligotti--if only not to
>shudder alone!! Ligotti is a horror author
>of the first water.
I won't deny Ligotti is a worthy author. I've never read him, but he
seems to have brought up strong feelings in those who have. But I'll have
to agree with... someone, forgive me for not remembering your name...
Let's consider making a Ligotti newsgroup when discussions of Ligotti
become heavy enough to clog up alt.horror.cthulhu. There's no reason to
start another newsgroup that will see five messages per week.
--
"And don't skimp on the mayonnaise!"
Jordi Espunya
Greetings, mere mortals 8)
cl...@columbia-center.org wrote:
>In article <6a9cgq$v...@bolt.sonic.net>,
> ja...@sonic.net (Jason Thompson) wrote:
>> Jonathan Padgett (jona...@lionheart.net) wrote:
>
>> : I would like to create a newsgroup dedicated to the fiction of one of
>> : the most skilled, unique, and talented writers alive today: Thomas
>> : Ligotti.
>
>> I love Ligotti, but frankly I can't imagine the traffic on such a newsgroup
>> getting too high. What about just creating 'alt.horror.fiction'? That'd
[...]
>I agree with you Jason, but -- I think the best proposal would be for a
>new group called rec.arts.horror.written (which would thus parallel
>rec.arts.sf.written).
I agree with Dan. It would be a nice idea to have a NG like that under
the rec.arts hierarchy. If that could not be possible, it would be
acceptable alt.horror.written, but alt NG system of spreading
throughout Internet would mean lots of us would not ever see any
posting at all of that NG.
Sorry for the great crossposting, I think this time was appropriate.
Jordi. Lurker at a.h.c
---
/The fate that came to Useneth: Jordi Espunya >> j_es...@redestb.es \
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn. No, it's not ROT13!
\Use our special Hounds-of-Tindalos beta software to deal with spammers/
Ivan Graves
Actually, alt.horror.fiction has been proposed via alt.config, and the
proposal should still be there. There are actually several people who wish
to see a more fiction specific newsgroup.
--
Ivan S. Graves
Editor: FrightNet Online Magazine
http://www.frightnet.com
isgr...@frightnet.com
"Open your eyes and let the fright shine in!"
Jason Thompson <ja...@sonic.net> wrote in article
<6a9cgq$v...@bolt.sonic.net>...
> Jonathan Padgett (jona...@lionheart.net) wrote:
> : I would like to create a newsgroup dedicated to the fiction of one of
> : the most skilled, unique, and talented writers alive today: Thomas
> : Ligotti.
>
> I love Ligotti, but frankly I can't imagine the traffic on such a
newsgroup
> getting too high. What about just creating 'alt.horror.fiction'? That'd
> separate from the current 'alt.horror' newsgroup, with its constant
films,
> Italian horror flicks, and slaughter/splatter chatter, from the new
group.
> And there'd be a certain amount of discussion of King, Barker, etc. along
> with the Ligotti and Lovecraft, but at least FACES OF DEATH wouldn't be
> in-topic. ;) Ligotti is excellent, but I think his own newsgroup would be
a
> bit of a jump.
>
Ivan Graves
Whatever comes out of this debate, I hope that NewsAdmin people can
perhaps come up with something. It is obvious that as these debates go on,
and continue to create alternate threads, the need is evident to branch out
of the alt.horror just a bit. However this is done, through alt or rec is
not the matter. But I have also heard and support horror moving to rec and
having more branches.
--
Ivan S. Graves
Editor: FrightNet Online Magazine
http://www.frightnet.com
isgr...@frightnet.com
"Open your eyes and let the fright shine in!"
cl...@columbia-center.org wrote in article
<885560705....@dejanews.com>...
> In article <6a9cgq$v...@bolt.sonic.net>,
> ja...@sonic.net (Jason Thompson) wrote:
> > Jonathan Padgett (jona...@lionheart.net) wrote:
>
> > : I would like to create a newsgroup dedicated to the fiction of one of
> > : the most skilled, unique, and talented writers alive today: Thomas
> > : Ligotti.
>
> > I love Ligotti, but frankly I can't imagine the traffic on such a
newsgroup
> > getting too high. What about just creating 'alt.horror.fiction'? That'd
> > separate from the current 'alt.horror' newsgroup, with its constant
films,
> > Italian horror flicks, and slaughter/splatter chatter, from the new
group.
> > And there'd be a certain amount of discussion of King, Barker, etc.
along
> > with the Ligotti and Lovecraft, but at least FACES OF DEATH wouldn't be
> > in-topic. ;) Ligotti is excellent, but I think his own newsgroup would
be a
> > bit of a jump.
>
> I agree with you Jason, but -- I think the best proposal would be for a
> new group called rec.arts.horror.written (which would thus parallel
> rec.arts.sf.written).
>
> This would be a big eight group, so would be carried by more servers, and
> "written" is better than "fiction" for our purposes ("hey! lots of FACES
> OF DEATH was faked, so it's on-topic!").
>
> If my news server hadn't crashed *again*, I might be doing a little bit
> to promote this idea. But I hate the DejaNews posting hassle. So I'm
> letting it wait.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Dan Clore
>
> The Website of Lord We˙rdgliffe:
Ivan Graves
This is part of the reason alt.horror.fiction is so badly needed.
Alt.books, to be quite honest, is simply too general, and therefore lacks
in the interest of those who go there. You have to wade through the the
Danielle Steele's, and the Louis L'Amour's to find a smidgen of a King or
Barker.
Thusly, alt.books, and even alt.books.horror, misses one very
important side to the horror genre in the fictive sense. The short story.
Alt.horror.fiction would allow the discussion of horror both in books, and
short form.
--
Ivan S. Graves
Editor: FrightNet Online Magazine
http://www.frightnet.com
isgr...@frightnet.com
"Open your eyes and let the fright shine in!"
Vegard <veg...@kjemi.uio.no> wrote in article
<6a9mds$htu$8...@ratatosk.uio.no>...
> In article <6a9cgq$v...@bolt.sonic.net>, ja...@sonic.net (Jason Thompson)
writes:
> >Jonathan Padgett (jona...@lionheart.net) wrote:
> >: I would like to create a newsgroup dedicated to the fiction of one of
> >: the most skilled, unique, and talented writers alive today: Thomas
> >: Ligotti.
> >
> >I love Ligotti, but frankly I can't imagine the traffic on such a
newsgroup
> >getting too high. What about just creating 'alt.horror.fiction'?
>
William Allison
In article <6a9cgq$v...@bolt.sonic.net>,
ja...@sonic.net (Jason Thompson) writes:
> Jonathan Padgett (jona...@lionheart.net) wrote:
>: I would like to create a newsgroup dedicated to the fiction of one of
>: the most skilled, unique, and talented writers alive today: Thomas
>: Ligotti.
>
> I love Ligotti, but frankly I can't imagine the traffic on such a newsgroup
> separate from the current 'alt.horror' newsgroup, with its constant films,
> Italian horror flicks, and slaughter/splatter chatter, from the new group.
> And there'd be a certain amount of discussion of King, Barker, etc. along
> with the Ligotti and Lovecraft, but at least FACES OF DEATH wouldn't be
> in-topic. ;) Ligotti is excellent, but I think his own newsgroup would be a
> bit of a jump.
>
>
> Jason Thompson
> Knygathin Zhaum
Here's a counter-counter proposal, use alt.books.ghost-fiction.
Here's an excerpt from the Charter/FAQ:
-----------------------
Charter: "Dedicated to the discussion of the very
best supernatural fiction, focusing especially on
--but not limited to-- the literature growing out of the
classic English ghost stories of the Victorian and
Edwardian periods."
Authors discussed will include early ground-breakers
such as J.S. LeFanu, M.R. James, and William Hope
Hodgson through modern day greats such as Robert
Aickman, Ramsey Campbell and Thomas Ligotti.
------------------------
As you can see the group is not limited to just ghostly
fiction, just good supernatural/horror fiction. Of the
six authors mentioned in the excerpt, only LeFanu and
James are really "classical" ghost story writers. Feel
free to stop in and talk Ligotti (or Hartley, Matheson,
Benson, Etchison, de la Mare, Beaumont, Wakefield, etc).
Not all ISP's are carrying the group yet so you may have
to bug yours to carry it, or use Deja News to access it.
Best,
Bill
jona...@lionheart.net
In article <6abnll$gij$1...@newsd-124.bryant.webtv.net>,
Theob...@webtv.net (L. Dexter Theobald) wrote:
>
> I believe what Mr. Padgett is intimating
> (and rightly so) is a keen sense of a literary prodigy & formidable
> talent in the field of the weird in the mysterious Thomas Ligotti. If
> we weren't talking about
> a weird author whose books are winning prestigeous awards & critical
> acclaim--if Ligotti's The Nightmare Factory wasn't a triumph but another
> addition to the pile of unimaginative formulae fright fiction & thus
> more rubbish to burn, I'd say you're all right in believing a newsgroup
> devoted to Ligotti studies is superfluous or even silly. One reading of
> Ligotti's "The Frolic" will have you hammering at the door of
> alt.books.thomas.ligotti--if only not to
> shudder alone!! Ligotti is a horror author
> of the first water.
>
> Americans made with Poe, and have Ligotti discovered by the French!
>
Many thanks, Theobald! Of course, your voice and mine are the only ones
who have been raised in active support of this newsgroup. I understand
everyone else's trepidation about alt.books.thomas-ligotti not being used
enough. It is important to bear in mind, however, that while Ligotti's
popularity is not widespread, it has been my observation that he has a
dedicated and voracious (and verbose) following. Once the word spreads
about the newsgroup I am sure that there will be quite enough activity
every day to justify its existence. Ligotti is not a fly-by-night
author, and I am certain that this newsgroup will be used much more than
a number of you have indicated; his fan base has been significantly
underestimated imo.
Ligotti is an extremely important author, and a newsgroup devoted
exclusively to his work is necessary (and, in any case, inevitable).
Truly,
Jonathan Padgett
H. West
William Allison <wall...@epix.net> wrote in article
<6agme1$mjm$1...@news1.epix.net>...
> In article <6a9cgq$v...@bolt.sonic.net>,
> ja...@sonic.net (Jason Thompson) writes:
> > Jonathan Padgett (jona...@lionheart.net) wrote:
> >: I would like to create a newsgroup dedicated to the fiction of one of
> >: the most skilled, unique, and talented writers alive today: Thomas
> >: Ligotti.
> >
> > I love Ligotti, but frankly I can't imagine the traffic on such a
newsgroup
> > getting too high. What about just creating 'alt.horror.fiction'? That'd
> > separate from the current 'alt.horror' newsgroup, with its constant
films,
> > Italian horror flicks, and slaughter/splatter chatter, from the new
group.
> > And there'd be a certain amount of discussion of King, Barker, etc.
along
> > with the Ligotti and Lovecraft, but at least FACES OF DEATH wouldn't be
> > in-topic. ;) Ligotti is excellent, but I think his own newsgroup would
be a
> > bit of a jump.
> >
> > Sorry for turning your proposal into my own counter-proposal,
> >
> > Jason Thompson
> > Knygathin Zhaum
Maybe alt.horror.weird.fiction.
Dan Norder
In article <885824733...@dejanews.com>, jona...@lionheart.net wrote:
> Many thanks, Theobald! Of course, your voice and mine are the only ones
> who have been raised in active support of this newsgroup. I understand
> everyone else's trepidation about alt.books.thomas-ligotti not being used
> enough. It is important to bear in mind, however, that while Ligotti's
> popularity is not widespread, it has been my observation that he has a
> dedicated and voracious (and verbose) following. Once the word spreads
> about the newsgroup I am sure that there will be quite enough activity
You're kidding, right? I'm sure you honestly believe that, but, take a
look at alt.books.clive-barker sometime. Next to no traffic, what little
there is is mostly spam, and the rest mostly ho-hum. And that's for a
wildly-popular horror writer/director.
Thomas-excuse me-Ligotti?
But, hey, there's a lot worse newsgroups already out there, and even more
that probably should be active but aren't, what's one more to add to the
mix.
Dan
Jonathan Padgett
Dan Norder wrote:
> You're kidding, right? I'm sure you honestly believe that, but, take a
> look at alt.books.clive-barker sometime. Next to no traffic, what little
> there is is mostly spam, and the rest mostly ho-hum. And that's for a
> wildly-popular horror writer/director.
>
> Thomas-excuse me-Ligotti?
I don't doubt that the traffic on the newsgroup will not compare to, for
instance, alt.horror.cthulhu, but I believe it is needed nonetheless.
What I am saying is that even if there *are* only an average of say ten
posts a day, its existence is justified. Barker's popularity may be
widespread, but I haven't met many readers who think Barker's work is
very important in the big scheme of literature. He is read by many, but
these Barker readers, for the most part, aren't likely to analyze and
discuss his work to the extent that Ligotti's readers are. Clive
Barker's writing simply does not (imo) have the depth of Thomas
Ligotti's. Sorry for offending any Barker fans out there -- imo he is a
*good* writer but not a particularly important one in the big scheme of
things. This is all my opinion, in fact, but I believe a newsgroup
devoted to Ligotti's work is needed and will be wanted once the word
gets out. More importantly, the Ligotti readers on the internet will
*use* this resource, and more of the curious who have never read his
work will be drawn to it by the discussions on this newsgroup.
>
> But, hey, there's a lot worse newsgroups already out there, and even more
> that probably should be active but aren't, what's one more to add to the
> mix.
A good point, and one that I completely agree with. There are
newsgroups all over usenet that have very little worth, imo. As I have
repeatedly stated, I believe Thomas Ligotti's work is important (and
anything but vulgar or "trashy"). Why not create the newsgroup? Even
if only a few people post messages every day, it will be worth it, and
it is my belief that it will grow (just as Ligotti's reputation will
continue to grow).
Truly,
Jonathan Padgett
oliver1
Dan Norder wrote:
>
> In article <885824733...@dejanews.com>, jona...@lionheart.net wrote:
> > Many thanks, Theobald! Of course, your voice and mine are the only ones
> > who have been raised in active support of this newsgroup. I understand
> > everyone else's trepidation about alt.books.thomas-ligotti not being used
> > enough. It is important to bear in mind, however, that while Ligotti's
> > popularity is not widespread, it has been my observation that he has a
> > dedicated and voracious (and verbose) following. Once the word spreads
> > about the newsgroup I am sure that there will be quite enough activity
> > every day to justify its existence. [...]
>
> look at alt.books.clive-barker sometime. Next to no traffic, what little
> there is is mostly spam, and the rest mostly ho-hum. And that's for a
> wildly-popular horror writer/director.
>
> Thomas-excuse me-Ligotti?
>
> that probably should be active but aren't, what's one more to add to the
> mix.
one more.
oliver1,
the mad newgroupper,
nemesis of the anti-oliver group,
nemesis of all things idiotic,
holiday well-wisher, fuckmonkey magnet,
pain in the ass, with a god-complex,
banned from geocities, banned from tripod. <---
"...anger is an energy..."
use it wisely.
Gregory Loren Hansen
In article <34CDFC...@lionheart.net>,
Jonathan Padgett <jona...@lionheart.net> wrote:
>Dan Norder wrote:
>> You're kidding, right? I'm sure you honestly believe that, but, take a
>> look at alt.books.clive-barker sometime. Next to no traffic, what little
>> there is is mostly spam, and the rest mostly ho-hum. And that's for a
>> wildly-popular horror writer/director.
>>
>> Thomas-excuse me-Ligotti?
>
>instance, alt.horror.cthulhu, but I believe it is needed nonetheless.
>What I am saying is that even if there *are* only an average of say ten
>posts a day, its existence is justified. Barker's popularity may be
Ten posts per day? I hate to say this, but I think you're pretty
optimistic.
Just talk about Ligotti, here if you like and cross-post it to other
relevant newsgroups. See how much Ligotti traffic there actually is
(besides talking about Ligotti's own newsgroup), and satisfy your need to
talk about him at the same time. Why do you want a Ligotti newsgroup when
he's on-topic in existing groups and they can handle the traffic?
Or just find out how to create newsgroups, and create an alt.ligotti.
I've tried to find out, but all the smug Unix weenies say "If you need to
ask, you're not ready to know" and send me instructions for petitioning
through official channels. Books are pretty much the same, and I haven't
taken the trouble to dig for the information. But it's obviously fairly
easy, since we have newsgroups like alt.sex.aluminum.baseball.bat and
alt.babs.bunny.boink.boink.boink. I'd say a Ligotti group has at least as
much right to exist as those two.
Jonathan Padgett
Gregory Loren Hansen wrote:
> Ten posts per day? I hate to say this, but I think you're pretty
> optimistic.
>
I'll probably post ten per day myself, so I don't think that's a
problem!
> Just talk about Ligotti, here if you like and cross-post it to other
> relevant newsgroups. See how much Ligotti traffic there actually is
> (besides talking about Ligotti's own newsgroup), and satisfy your need to
> talk about him at the same time. Why do you want a Ligotti newsgroup when
> he's on-topic in existing groups and they can handle the traffic?
Because I think that there should be a newsgroup *specifically* for his
work (just as alt.horror.stephen-king is a newsgroup specifically for
King, though writing about him in just about any of the alt.horror
newsgroups would be appropriate). I think the man's work warrants a
newsgroup dedicated to him.
>
> Or just find out how to create newsgroups, and create an alt.ligotti.
> I've tried to find out, but all the smug Unix weenies say "If you need to
> ask, you're not ready to know" and send me instructions for petitioning
> through official channels. Books are pretty much the same, and I haven't
> taken the trouble to dig for the information. But it's obviously fairly
> easy, since we have newsgroups like alt.sex.aluminum.baseball.bat and
> alt.babs.bunny.boink.boink.boink. I'd say a Ligotti group has at least as
> much right to exist as those two.
I think I'd have better luck trying to create alt.books.thomas-ligotti.
I'm not certain, but I believe creating newsgroups directly off of alt
has a better chance of being rejected...
As for this creation process, I am about to attempt just that.
According to everything I've learned, it is a good idea to propose the
newsgroup to alt.config, wait a week, and then create the group.
Tomorrow will be one week...
Thanks for the comments.
Truly,
Jonathan
oliver1
Gregory Loren Hansen wrote:
>
> In article <34CDFC...@lionheart.net>,
> Jonathan Padgett <jona...@lionheart.net> wrote:
> >Dan Norder wrote:
> >> You're kidding, right? I'm sure you honestly believe that, but, take a
> >> look at alt.books.clive-barker sometime. Next to no traffic, what little
> >> there is is mostly spam, and the rest mostly ho-hum. And that's for a
> >> wildly-popular horror writer/director.
the "ho-hum" factor is not relevent.
> >> Thomas-excuse me-Ligotti?
> >
> >I don't doubt that the traffic on the newsgroup will not compare to, for
> >instance, alt.horror.cthulhu, but I believe it is needed nonetheless.
> >What I am saying is that even if there *are* only an average of say ten
> >posts a day, its existence is justified. Barker's popularity may be
>
> Ten posts per day? I hate to say this, but I think you're pretty
> optimistic.
we have moved beyond "pretty" and far into the realm of "cluelessly".
> Just talk about Ligotti, here if you like and cross-post it to other
> relevant newsgroups.
be sure to remove alt.config from your list.
> See how much Ligotti traffic there actually is
> (besides talking about Ligotti's own newsgroup), and satisfy your need to
> talk about him at the same time. Why do you want a Ligotti newsgroup when
> he's on-topic in existing groups and they can handle the traffic?
>
> Or just find out how to create newsgroups, and create an alt.ligotti.
that would get even more objections, as it would create a new 2nd-level
hierarchy.
[note to the clueless : read the faq's.]
> I've tried to find out, but all the smug Unix weenies say "If you need to
> ask, you're not ready to know" and send me instructions for petitioning
> through official channels.
you know, us unix weenies take offence at clueless fuckmonkies talking
shit. you sir, can go take a flying nawk at a crontab.
> Books are pretty much the same, and I haven't
> taken the trouble to dig for the information.
stnad back ! idiot overload !
> But it's obviously fairly
> easy, since we have newsgroups like alt.sex.aluminum.baseball.bat and
> alt.babs.bunny.boink.boink.boink. I'd say a Ligotti group has at least as
> much right to exist as those two.
when you get around to reading the faq's, you'll understand how stupid
that comment was.
have a wonderfully fucked-up day.
oliver1
Jonathan Padgett wrote:
>
> Gregory Loren Hansen wrote:
>
> > Ten posts per day? I hate to say this, but I think you're pretty
> > optimistic.
> >
>
> problem!
that makes one of you.
> > Just talk about Ligotti, here if you like and cross-post it to other
> > relevant newsgroups. See how much Ligotti traffic there actually is
> > (besides talking about Ligotti's own newsgroup), and satisfy your need to
> > talk about him at the same time. Why do you want a Ligotti newsgroup when
> > he's on-topic in existing groups and they can handle the traffic?
>
> Because I think that there should be a newsgroup *specifically* for his
> work (just as alt.horror.stephen-king is a newsgroup specifically for
> King, though writing about him in just about any of the alt.horror
> newsgroups would be appropriate). I think the man's work warrants a
> newsgroup dedicated to him.
>
> >
> > Or just find out how to create newsgroups, and create an alt.ligotti.
> > I've tried to find out, but all the smug Unix weenies say "If you need to
> > ask, you're not ready to know" and send me instructions for petitioning
> > through official channels. Books are pretty much the same, and I haven't
> > taken the trouble to dig for the information. But it's obviously fairly
> > easy, since we have newsgroups like alt.sex.aluminum.baseball.bat and
> > alt.babs.bunny.boink.boink.boink. I'd say a Ligotti group has at least as
> > much right to exist as those two.
>
> I think I'd have better luck trying to create alt.books.thomas-ligotti.
> I'm not certain, but I believe creating newsgroups directly off of alt
> has a better chance of being rejected...
>
> As for this creation process, I am about to attempt just that.
> According to everything I've learned, it is a good idea to propose the
> newsgroup to alt.config, wait a week, and then create the group.
> Tomorrow will be one week...
>
> Thanks for the comments.
just so you know, rmgroups are not subject to the same one-week waiting
period.
vonj...@hotmail.com
In article <34CE57...@lionheart.net>,
jona...@lionheart.net wrote:
> As for this creation process, I am about to attempt just that.
> According to everything I've learned, it is a good idea to propose the
> newsgroup to alt.config, wait a week, and then create the group.
> Tomorrow will be one week...
Well, then I should cast myself into the fray.
> Gregory Loren Hansen wrote:
>
> > Ten posts per day? I hate to say this, but I think you're pretty
> > optimistic.
> >
> I'll probably post ten per day myself, so I don't think that's a
> problem!
I admire your enthusiasm -- but honestly, what are you going
to say? I love Ligotti as well, but I don't think there's that much
interest in him to warrant traffic, and keeping it up artificially
seems almost dishonest.
But I think it comes down to one reason:
> Because I think that there should be a newsgroup *specifically* for his
> work (just as alt.horror.stephen-king is a newsgroup specifically for
> King, though writing about him in just about any of the alt.horror
> newsgroups would be appropriate). I think the man's work warrants a
> newsgroup dedicated to him.
Couldn't the same be said for M. R. James, Clark Ashton Smith,
Lord Dunsany... There are a helluvalotta really good horror and fantasy
authors out there who people admire. There are also a lot of bad
authors out there who people admire. Do all of them "deserve" their own
newsgroup? And what about alt.books.daniel-harms?
I don't agree with this for the same reason that I'm always against the
alt.horror.cthulhu spinoffs we propose occasionally. Why have another
newsgroup which we have to propose, gather up the votes for, get carried
on all the servers (my local provider doesn't carry alt.necronomicon,
ferinstance) -- and then what? Fewer posts on both newsgroups. Besides,
not having the newsgroup raises the number of converts. Whereas people
who read a.h.c. and alt.books.ghost-fiction might be intrigued by Ligotti
and want to read him when they see the posts, nobody's going to read
alt.books.thomas-ligotti on a whim.
I am a person who admires Ligotti's fiction, and I understand the
impulse to want to do something in return. But there are better ways
of doing it. Tell people about his work. Send him a fan letter.
But we already have over 30,000 newsgroups on Usenet, and an alt.
books.thomas-ligotti will get lost in the crush quickly.
Yrs.,
Daniel
Gregory Loren Hansen
In article <34CE57...@lionheart.net>,
>> Or just find out how to create newsgroups, and create an alt.ligotti.
>> I've tried to find out, but all the smug Unix weenies say "If you need to
>> ask, you're not ready to know" and send me instructions for petitioning
>> through official channels. Books are pretty much the same, and I haven't
>> taken the trouble to dig for the information. But it's obviously fairly
>> easy, since we have newsgroups like alt.sex.aluminum.baseball.bat and
>> alt.babs.bunny.boink.boink.boink. I'd say a Ligotti group has at least as
>> much right to exist as those two.
>
>I think I'd have better luck trying to create alt.books.thomas-ligotti.
>I'm not certain, but I believe creating newsgroups directly off of alt
>has a better chance of being rejected...
>
>As for this creation process, I am about to attempt just that.
>According to everything I've learned, it is a good idea to propose the
>newsgroup to alt.config, wait a week, and then create the group.
>Tomorrow will be one week...
I am by no means an expert here. But I do know if you want to go through
official channels you should write up a proposal, being very specific
about what the newsgroup is to be about and why it should exist. Then a
call for votes is made, and if some percentage like greater than 50% vote
yes, the newsgroup is officially formed.
It's up to the individual server to decide if they want to carry a group.
But an official group will probably be carried, while a fly-by-not alt.*
group might not be.
I still have the instructions in a text file that a smug Unix weenie sent
me, if you want to see it.
Gregory Loren Hansen
In article <34CE65...@ici.dont.believe.you.net>,
>> Just talk about Ligotti, here if you like and cross-post it to other
>> relevant newsgroups.
>
>be sure to remove alt.config from your list.
I'm pretty sure horror fiction is not on-topic in alt.config.
>> See how much Ligotti traffic there actually is
>> (besides talking about Ligotti's own newsgroup), and satisfy your need to
>> talk about him at the same time. Why do you want a Ligotti newsgroup when
>> he's on-topic in existing groups and they can handle the traffic?
>>
>> Or just find out how to create newsgroups, and create an alt.ligotti.
>
>that would get even more objections, as it would create a new 2nd-level
>hierarchy.
Then I'm glad you're here to set us straight.
>[note to the clueless : read the faq's.]
The alt.horror.cthulhuy faq didn't have much to say about creating a new
newsgroup.
>> I've tried to find out, but all the smug Unix weenies say "If you need to
>> ask, you're not ready to know" and send me instructions for petitioning
>> through official channels.
>
>you know, us unix weenies take offence at clueless fuckmonkies talking
>shit. you sir, can go take a flying nawk at a crontab.
Woah, who pissed in your Wheaties this morning?
>> But it's obviously fairly
>> easy, since we have newsgroups like alt.sex.aluminum.baseball.bat and
>> alt.babs.bunny.boink.boink.boink. I'd say a Ligotti group has at least as
>> much right to exist as those two.
>
>when you get around to reading the faq's, you'll understand how stupid
>that comment was.
So alt.sex.aluminum.baseball.bat and alt.babs.bunny.boink.boink.boink was
discussed in alt.config, voted on, and approved? Or did you mean to say
it isn't easy to create an alt.* newsgroup?
>have a wonderfully fucked-up day.
What a weenie.
L. Dexter Theobald
David Skogsberg
In article <6am7ih$bda$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
Gregory Loren Hansen <glha...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>In article <34CE65...@ici.dont.believe.you.net>,
>oliver1 <oli...@ici.dont.believe.you.net> wrote:
>>Gregory Loren Hansen wrote:
>
>>> Just talk about Ligotti, here if you like and cross-post it to other
>>> relevant newsgroups.
>>
>>be sure to remove alt.config from your list.
>
>I'm pretty sure horror fiction is not on-topic in alt.config.
Considering some of the proposals that must be floating around there,
maybe not.[1]
>>> But it's obviously fairly
>>> easy, since we have newsgroups like alt.sex.aluminum.baseball.bat and
>>> alt.babs.bunny.boink.boink.boink. I'd say a Ligotti group has at least as
>>> much right to exist as those two.
>>
>>when you get around to reading the faq's, you'll understand how stupid
>>that comment was.
>
>So alt.sex.aluminum.baseball.bat and alt.babs.bunny.boink.boink.boink was
>discussed in alt.config, voted on, and approved? Or did you mean to say
>it isn't easy to create an alt.* newsgroup?
Actually, what I think he meant was that they were created without discussion
and thus aren't carried by all that many servers, are subject of frequent
rmgroups, et cetera.
A discussion in alt.config about the creation of alt.horror.weird would
probably be better - it would not be limited to Ligotti, but could be used
for, e.g. Clark Ashton Smith's Zothique and Hyperborean tales.
cd
--
"And it has come to pass that the Lord of the Woods, being ...Seven
and Nine, down the onyx steps ...(Tri)butes to him in the Gulf, Aza-
thoth, He of Whom Thou has taught us marv(els)..." -H. P. Lovecraft
cd skogsberg | d97...@dtek.chalmers.se
Jonathan Padgett
Gregory Loren Hansen wrote:
> I am by no means an expert here. But I do know if you want to go through
> official channels you should write up a proposal, being very specific
> about what the newsgroup is to be about and why it should exist. Then a
> call for votes is made, and if some percentage like greater than 50% vote
> yes, the newsgroup is officially formed.
>
> It's up to the individual server to decide if they want to carry a group.
> But an official group will probably be carried, while a fly-by-not alt.*
> group might not be.
>
> I still have the instructions in a text file that a smug Unix weenie sent
> me, if you want to see it.
I would be most appreciative for that, although I think this website:
http://www.cs.ubc.ca/spider/edmonds/usenet/good-newgroup.html
has all the information I need for creating a newsgroup. As I
understand it, the alt hierarchy does not require votes in order for
newsgroups to be created. Moreover, you are correct that it is up to
the individual news administrator to decide whether or not their
individual server will let the newsgroup be created (though many servers
apparently automatically accept cmsg requests). Thanks again for your
suggestions and help...
Truly,
Jonathan
Jonathan Padgett
vonj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Well, then I should cast myself into the fray.
>
> > Gregory Loren Hansen wrote:
> >
> > > Ten posts per day? I hate to say this, but I think you're pretty
> > > optimistic.
> > >
> > I'll probably post ten per day myself, so I don't think that's a
> > problem!
>
> I admire your enthusiasm -- but honestly, what are you going
> to say? I love Ligotti as well, but I don't think there's that much
> interest in him to warrant traffic, and keeping it up artificially
> seems almost dishonest.
>
Yes, I was exaggerating with the ten posts comment, though there are
quite a number of individuals on newsgroups throughout the usenet that
write far more than ten posts a day to a given newsgroup (and I am a bit
miffed about your suggestion that to do so might be dishonest in some
way). I appreciate your "appreciation" of my enthusiasm, but I hardly
believe that posting messages with substance would be a breach of
integrity (and despite some people's personal opinions) I don't believe
I will be the only one writing. I will not go into the particulars of
my education (as I feel this is a rather obnoxious action on any public
forum), but suffice it to say that I enjoy writing indepth analyses of
great literature. I have quite a bit to say on the subject of Ligotti's
work, specifically on each of his stories. You might as well say what
on earth could you write about Lovecraft or Poe's works. Not only can
the stories by analyzed, compared and contrasted, but other readers will
discuss these works with each other -- the process is proven to work,
and the usenet is potentially a wonderful forum for this kind of
learning. The newsgroup will undoubtedly be comparatively small, but
even if two people consistently have discussions on the forum, it will
be worth it (and there will be far more than two posting individuals,
imo).
At any rate, I disagree about the general lack of interest in Ligotti.
I am not the only one who will be posting to the group, as I know I'm
not the only one on the internet with a keen interest in Ligotti's work
(or even, believe it or not, the most zealous). His popularity is not
huge, but this is hardly a reasonable requirement for creating a
newsgroup (and certainly not a rule that has been followed).
> But I think it comes down to one reason:
>
> > Because I think that there should be a newsgroup *specifically* for his
> > work (just as alt.horror.stephen-king is a newsgroup specifically for
> > King, though writing about him in just about any of the alt.horror
> > newsgroups would be appropriate). I think the man's work warrants a
> > newsgroup dedicated to him.
>
> Couldn't the same be said for M. R. James, Clark Ashton Smith,
> Lord Dunsany... There are a helluvalotta really good horror and fantasy
> authors out there who people admire. There are also a lot of bad
> authors out there who people admire. Do all of them "deserve" their own
> newsgroup? And what about alt.books.daniel-harms?
Actually, any of the above mentioned authors could have a newsgroup
dedicated to them, but I believe this to be an irrelevant point. The
fact is that (1) alt groups do *not* go through a voting process in
order to be created (you're thinking of rec and others) and (2) there
are many popular newsgroups out there that have not a fraction of the
relevance that alt.books.thomas-ligotti would have imo.
There are, in fact, many authors that +do+ deserve newsgroups. The only
reason these and others don't is because they lack a few people with the
drive to propose and create the newsgroup.
>
> I don't agree with this for the same reason that I'm always against the
> alt.horror.cthulhu spinoffs we propose occasionally. Why have another
> newsgroup which we have to propose, gather up the votes for, get carried
> on all the servers (my local provider doesn't carry alt.necronomicon,
> ferinstance) -- and then what? Fewer posts on both newsgroups. Besides,
> not having the newsgroup raises the number of converts. Whereas people
> who read a.h.c. and alt.books.ghost-fiction might be intrigued by Ligotti
> and want to read him when they see the posts, nobody's going to read
> alt.books.thomas-ligotti on a whim.
They will if someone (me, for instance) occasionally draws attention to
it on other newsgroups and webpages... You are also assuming there are
no other Ligotti readers out there that might be looking for a place to
discuss his work. Moreover, I disagree with your assertion that Ligotti
is merely a spinoff writer -- his work is truly literature in the best
sense of the word (that is why I believe he belongs in the alt.books
instead of the alt.horror hierarchy -- his work is not genre bound,
imo).
The bottom line: if the newsgroup ends up being a failure, then I'm sure
it will fade away into obscurity -- no harm done. I believe that
Ligotti has a larger following than you believe, personally, and I guess
we'll see whether or not this little experiment works. As for the
proposal, it's already been created (thoroughly): see the message that
began the discussion one week ago.
>
> I am a person who admires Ligotti's fiction, and I understand the
> impulse to want to do something in return. But there are better ways
> of doing it. Tell people about his work. Send him a fan letter.
> But we already have over 30,000 newsgroups on Usenet, and an alt.
> books.thomas-ligotti will get lost in the crush quickly.
>
I have done all of the above already, and the newsgroup is my next
goal. I really do appreciate everyone's suggestions and comments (at
least the ones that are not overtly insulting and vulgar), but I am
quite determined to create this newsgroup and to try to make it work.
As I've said before, it may fail miserably, but it also might fill just
one more void that I feel is present in the whole of 30,000 or more
newsgroups.
Truly,
Jonathan
Joshua Kramer
In article <6am7ih$bda$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
glha...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory Loren Hansen) wrote:
>In article <34CE65...@ici.dont.believe.you.net>,
>oliver1 <oli...@ici.dont.believe.you.net> wrote:
>>when you get around to reading the faq's, you'll understand how stupid
>>that comment was.
>
>So alt.sex.aluminum.baseball.bat and alt.babs.bunny.boink.boink.boink was
>discussed in alt.config, voted on, and approved? Or did you mean to say
>it isn't easy to create an alt.* newsgroup?
It's easy to create any given group, but hard to create a successful group.
From the FAQ's for alt.config you refuse to read:
If the best argument you can give for your group is a comparison to
poorly named groups, that says something, dosen't it?
--
Joshua Kramer, Student, Swarthmore College.
Gregory Loren Hansen
In article <jkramer1-280...@d100.mary-lyon02.swarthmore.edu>,
Bleah. From the message you're responding to, which you refused to read,
I was giving an argument AGAINST the Ligotti group. At the end I conceded
that it has at least as much right to exist as those poorly named groups,
and I thought the existence of those poorly names groups suggests it's
easy to create a newsgroup.
So exactly which point do we disagree on?
vonj...@hotmail.com
Johnathon wrote:
>Yes, I was exaggerating with the ten posts comment, though there are
>quite a number of individuals on newsgroups throughout the usenet that
>write far more than ten posts a day to a given newsgroup (and I am a bit
>miffed about your suggestion that to do so might be dishonest in some
>way).
My apologies.
> I will not go into the particulars of
>my education (as I feel this is a rather obnoxious action on any public
>forum), but suffice it to say that I enjoy writing indepth analyses of
>great literature. I have quite a bit to say on the subject of Ligotti's
>work, specifically on each of his stories. You might as well say what
>>on earth could you write about Lovecraft or Poe's works. Not only can
>the stories by analyzed, compared and contrasted, but other readers will
>discuss these works with each other -- the process is proven to work,
>and the usenet is potentially a wonderful forum for this kind of
>learning.
I'm not debating that Ligotti's stories have literary merit,
but let's look at the record. I went to Dejanews' Interest Finder
and looked for several authors. The only one who had a newsgroup
dedicated to him was Shakespeare. Ernest Hemingway, William Faulkner,
Geoffrey Chaucer, T. S. Eliot, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Joseph Steinbeck,
Jose Luis Borges, Edgar Allan Poe, etc., do not. For the most part,
Usenet seems to cater to fans of genre fiction rather than literary
critics, and I doubt the Ligotti group will be any different.
>At any rate, I disagree about the general lack of interest in Ligotti.
>I am not the only one who will be posting to the group, as I know I'm
>not the only one on the internet with a keen interest in Ligotti's work
>(or even, believe it or not, the most zealous). His popularity is not
>huge, but this is hardly a reasonable requirement for creating a
>newsgroup (and certainly not a rule that has been followed).
but then you say...
> The
>fact is that (1) alt groups do *not* go through a voting process in
>order to be created (you're thinking of rec and others) and (2) there
>are many popular newsgroups out there that have not a fraction of the
>relevance that alt.books.thomas-ligotti would have imo.
Agreed on both counts. But why not a rec.* group? You need to have
a hundred more "yes" votes than "no", and a 2/3 majority of "yes"es.
Such a group would be more likely to be picked up by the site
administrators. While creating an alt.* group may be easier and quicker
from your perspective, I think that you should at least try to get a
vote on its placement in the *.rec hierarchy -- if nothing else, it will
help you see how many and what kind of posters you may get.
>There are, in fact, many authors that +do+ deserve newsgroups. The only
>reason these and others don't is because they lack a few people with the
>drive to propose and create the newsgroup.
See above. There's more going on than that.
>They will if someone (me, for instance) occasionally draws attention to
>it on other newsgroups and webpages...
But how many casual readers will it pick up? And how many people
out there know or would be willing to try to get the group on their
site if they don't get it?
> You are also assuming there are
>no other Ligotti readers out there that might be looking for a place to
>discuss his work.
You're assuming that there are, and you haven't yet given a reason
why such discussions aren't appropriate for the existing groups.
> Moreover, I disagree with your assertion that Ligotti
>is merely a spinoff writer -- his work is truly literature in the best
>sense of the word (that is why I believe he belongs in the alt.books
>instead of the alt.horror hierarchy -- his work is not genre bound,
>imo).
When I said "spinoff", I was referring to a.h.c. newsgroup spinoffs,
and I don't include Ligotti in this category.
>The bottom line: if the newsgroup ends up being a failure, then I'm sure
>it will fade away into obscurity -- no harm done.
It may be around longer than any of us. That, at least, should
give us caution.
> I believe that
>Ligotti has a larger following than you believe, personally, and I guess
>we'll see whether or not this little experiment works. As for the
>proposal, it's already been created (thoroughly): see the message that
>began the discussion one week ago.
I still fail to see how your assertions that 1) Ligotti has many
fans on Usenet, and 2) that you can't possibly ask for a vote on a
rec.* group and must create an alt.* group on its own, go together.
>I have done all of the above already, and the newsgroup is my next
>goal. I really do appreciate everyone's suggestions and comments (at
>least the ones that are not overtly insulting and vulgar), but I am
>quite determined to create this newsgroup and to try to make it work.
>As I've said before, it may fail miserably, but it also might fill just
>one more void that I feel is present in the whole of 30,000 or more
>newsgroups.
One final comment on my part. In _H. P. Lovecraft: A Life_, Joshi
suggests that one of the main reasons that Lovecraft hasn't become
accepted critically is that Derleth rushed to publish Lovecraft through
Arkham House. Whether or not this is true, it seems to me that Derleth's
efforts kept Lovecraft alive, but at the same time kept his work isolated
among a small community of uncritical fans rather than bringing it to the
attention of literary critics and the mainstream. According to some
commentators, an analogous situation occurred when bookstores started
separating out "horror fiction" from the mainstream. Creating
alt.books.thomas- ligotti, in my opinion, will help to set him off from
both horror and mainstream fiction alike, and thereby make it less likely
that anyone will notice him.
Wolf
> > > Sorry for turning your proposal into my own counter-proposal,
> > >
> > > Jason Thompson
> > > Knygathin Zhaum
>
> Maybe alt.horror.weird.fiction.
--
|\-/|
<0 0>
=(o)=
-Wolf
wo...@parrett.net
http://www.parrett.net/~wolf
http://www.parrett.net/~wolf/ttm.htm
All views expressed in the above message are copyrighted
(C) 1998 wo...@parrett.net and any editting or quoting will be
promptly replied to.
Jonathan Padgett
vonj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> I'm not debating that Ligotti's stories have literary merit,
> but let's look at the record. I went to Dejanews' Interest Finder
> and looked for several authors. The only one who had a newsgroup
> dedicated to him was Shakespeare. Ernest Hemingway, William Faulkner,
> Geoffrey Chaucer, T. S. Eliot, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Joseph Steinbeck,
> Jose Luis Borges, Edgar Allan Poe, etc., do not. For the most part,
> Usenet seems to cater to fans of genre fiction rather than literary
> critics, and I doubt the Ligotti group will be any different.
>
You may be right. I plan, however, to give it a try. It has been my
experience that Ligotti's following may be relatively small, but the
ones there are out there are dedicated (he has been described as having
a "cult" following). The group might get more posts if it was an
offshoot of alt.horror, true, but I believe that the decision to put the
group in alt.books is truer to his work.
> > The
> >fact is that (1) alt groups do *not* go through a voting process in
> >order to be created (you're thinking of rec and others) and (2) there
> >are many popular newsgroups out there that have not a fraction of the
> >relevance that alt.books.thomas-ligotti would have imo.
>
> Agreed on both counts. But why not a rec.* group? You need to have
> a hundred more "yes" votes than "no", and a 2/3 majority of "yes"es.
> Such a group would be more likely to be picked up by the site
> administrators. While creating an alt.* group may be easier and quicker
> from your perspective, I think that you should at least try to get a
> vote on its placement in the *.rec hierarchy -- if nothing else, it will
> help you see how many and what kind of posters you may get.
>
The whole point of the alt hierarchy, imo, is to provide a place for
newsgroups to be created that wouldn't normally get the votes
elsewhere. I simply do not agree with the rationale that a big
newsgroup constitutes a good newsgroup. Moreover, as long as a group is
seeing use (however small) every week, then it is worth it (if the
subject matter is valid and there are people interested in it). I
believe that the alt hierarchy is the place for Ligotti's newsgroup for
the forseeable future.
> >There are, in fact, many authors that +do+ deserve newsgroups. The only
> >reason these and others don't is because they lack a few people with the
> >drive to propose and create the newsgroup.
>
> See above. There's more going on than that.
>
I disagree. Interest in a subject is indeed needed to create a
successful newsgroup, and there are quite a good number of individuals
on the internet that I know +personally+ that will post messages to the
TL newsgroup. However, creating a newsgroup is anything but a simple
procedure, and finding the information/software to do so is both time
consuming and difficult.
> >They will if someone (me, for instance) occasionally draws attention to
> >it on other newsgroups and webpages...
>
> But how many casual readers will it pick up? And how many people
> out there know or would be willing to try to get the group on their
> site if they don't get it?
>
I believe more people than you think will. It is easy to forget that
Ligotti's work has been given high acclaim internationally (and his work
has received one British Fantasy Award and two Bram Stoker Awards). I
don't expect everyone who is interested in alt.books.* will pick up his
work, but I do expect that perhaps some will (and even if those are few,
I believe it will be more than worth it for them).
> > You are also assuming there are
> >no other Ligotti readers out there that might be looking for a place to
> >discuss his work.
>
> You're assuming that there are, and you haven't yet given a reason
> why such discussions aren't appropriate for the existing groups.
<sigh> I regret that I have not made myself clear over the past week.
Firstly, the assumption that there are not any other Thomas Ligotti
readers using the internet that would like to discuss and post about his
work is wrong (*not* opinion). Do a search on one of the major engines
for Thomas Ligotti and you'll see what I mean. Every month there are
more hits, and every month more people are discovering his work.
As I have repeatedly stated, Thomas Ligotti's work transcends the
typical horror genre. I am not the only one who believes this. His
work has been described as dark fantasy, absurdist, and gothic (to name
a few). Truth to tell, his work is not easy to confine in one single
genre, and though he owes much to Lovecraft and Poe, he owes at least as
much to Kafka and Beckett.
I never stated that discussion of Ligotti in any other newsgroup is
inappropriate -- in fact, I am all for it! Yet I believe that a
newsgroup where his works are the primary focus of conversation would
provide a valuable resource of information and networking for and
between his readers.
>
> > Moreover, I disagree with your assertion that Ligotti
> >is merely a spinoff writer -- his work is truly literature in the best
> >sense of the word (that is why I believe he belongs in the alt.books
> >instead of the alt.horror hierarchy -- his work is not genre bound,
> >imo).
>
> When I said "spinoff", I was referring to a.h.c. newsgroup spinoffs,
> and I don't include Ligotti in this category.
>
See my comments above. I'm not sure I understand why you believe
Ligotti being included in the alt.books.* category is wrong.
> >The bottom line: if the newsgroup ends up being a failure, then I'm sure
> >it will fade away into obscurity -- no harm done.
>
> It may be around longer than any of us. That, at least, should
> give us caution.
>
That's really up to the individual news administrator. Many of them
weed out the newsgroups that receive no posts on a weekly basis. It is,
in any case, their responsibility to decide what is to stay and what is
to go. In any case, I am sure that the Ligotti newsgroup will not
become postless.
> I still fail to see how your assertions that 1) Ligotti has many
> fans on Usenet, and 2) that you can't possibly ask for a vote on a
> rec.* group and must create an alt.* group on its own, go together.
>
See above comments for replies to both of these.
>
> One final comment on my part. In _H. P. Lovecraft: A Life_, Joshi
> suggests that one of the main reasons that Lovecraft hasn't become
> accepted critically is that Derleth rushed to publish Lovecraft through
> Arkham House. Whether or not this is true, it seems to me that Derleth's
> efforts kept Lovecraft alive, but at the same time kept his work isolated
> among a small community of uncritical fans rather than bringing it to the
> attention of literary critics and the mainstream. According to some
> commentators, an analogous situation occurred when bookstores started
> separating out "horror fiction" from the mainstream. Creating
> alt.books.thomas- ligotti, in my opinion, will help to set him off from
> both horror and mainstream fiction alike, and thereby make it less likely
> that anyone will notice him.
>
I completely disagree, but your Derleth analogy is an apt one. I am one
of the believers that Lovecraft's work would be taken much more
seriously and eventually be just as widely read as Poe's work if it were
not for Derleth's meddling. Derleth is in large measure responsible for
the creation of so many bad Lovecraft parodies; thanks to him, Lovecraft
is only now breaking out of the hack, horror writers mask he has been
forced to wear these many years.
Your assertions that creating alt.books.thomas-ligotti will somehow
damage Ligotti's readership is incorrect, imo. He is already an
established and very well respected writer, and he is in no danger of
his readers turning their backs on him simply because he has been
identified as a writer outside of the horror genre. In fact, I know
quite a few individuals that love his work *despite* the fact that his
books are found in the horror instead of fiction sections.
Do you actually believe that Ligotti is still an unknown or terribly
obscure writer that may be damaged by the inclusion of a newsgroup in
the alt.books instead of alt.horror category? If so, you need to read
what many readers and critics have been saying about him and his work
for the past ten years. It means much more to me that Ligotti's work
has literary integrity and is read and respected by those that
appreciate him -- these same people will give his stories the respect
and analysis they deserve a century from now. Ligotti is one of the
great authors of our time, and I simply want to create a newsgoup which
concentrates upon his work sooner rather than later.
Truly,
Jonathan
H. West
Wolf <wo...@parrett.net> wrote in article
<01bd2c70$0090f0a0$fae41ece@the-ox>...
> > > > Sorry for turning your proposal into my own counter-proposal,
> > > >
> > > > Jason Thompson
> > > > Knygathin Zhaum
> >
> > Maybe alt.horror.weird.fiction.
> More accurately, alt.horror.fiction.weird
alt.horror.fiction.weird.".
Jason Thompson
Jonathan Padgett (jona...@lionheart.net) wrote:
: As I have repeatedly stated, Thomas Ligotti's work transcends the
: typical horror genre. I am not the only one who believes this. His
: work has been described as dark fantasy, absurdist, and gothic (to name
: a few). Truth to tell, his work is not easy to confine in one single
: genre, and though he owes much to Lovecraft and Poe, he owes at least as
: much to Kafka and Beckett.
and playwrights whose works -- while rarely if ever classed as 'horror' --
often invoke fear, awe and nihilism. He's almost certainly identified by
most people as a horror writer, though, for better or worse. (I would be
interested to see if Ligotti could be marketed outside of the genre by his
publishers... hmmm.) And for that matter, I wouldn't mind discussing Beckett
and Kafka in a newsgroup under the 'alt.horror' label -- I tend to sling
the term 'horror' liberally on anything frightening and depressing,
recognizing that genre boundaries are necessarily indistinct, and not seeing
any stigma in the word. ;) 'Alt.books', 'alt.horror..' the latter does
vaguely indicate Ligotti's subject matter, though in that case
'alt.books.stephen-king' should really be 'alt.books.horror.stephen-king'.
For me, it just comes down to how many newsgroups I can remember to read.
Ligotti is worthy of one, but so are many of writers who don't have
newsgroups. I'd like to read 'alt.fiction.surrealist-absurdist', too, but I
don't know how often I'd bother to do so. (Artaud, Bond, Beckett, Ionescu,
Borges, Ligotti, Svancjmajer, Harry O. Morris... whoa!)
If you think you can get the audience for an 'all Ligotti, all the time'
newsgroup, go for it and good luck; but when there's not even a single
central place for discussion of horror/weird/dark fantasy/gothic/whatever
fiction, I have mild doubts about more author-specific newsgroups. (Though I
guess 'alt.books.stephen-king' and 'alt.horror.cthulhu' do all right.) ;)
Jason Thompson
Knygathin Zhaum
vonj...@hotmail.com
In article <34D09B...@lionheart.net>,
jona...@lionheart.net wrote:
vonj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Agreed on both counts. But why not a rec.* group? You need to have
>> a hundred more "yes" votes than "no", and a 2/3 majority of "yes"es.
>> Such a group would be more likely to be picked up by the site
>> administrators. While creating an alt.* group may be easier and quicker
>> from your perspective, I think that you should at least try to get a
>> vote on its placement in the *.rec hierarchy -- if nothing else, it will
>> help you see how many and what kind of posters you may get.
>The whole point of the alt hierarchy, imo, is to provide a place for
>newsgroups to be created that wouldn't normally get the votes
>elsewhere.
You haven't tried to get the votes.
>I simply do not agree with the rationale that a big
>newsgroup constitutes a good newsgroup.
Agreed, but a small newsgroup isn't necessarily good either.
Besides, a large group is more likely for news admins to carry
(and thus more likely for people to find), and is less likely to be
swamped by pointers to "GREAT SEX!!!" and the like.
> I
>believe that the alt hierarchy is the place for Ligotti's newsgroup for
>the forseeable future.
No offense, but I think you're going in circles here. And what
if Ligotti does become huge and you want to move into rec.arts.books.
thomas-ligotti?
>I disagree. Interest in a subject is indeed needed to create a
>successful newsgroup, and there are quite a good number of individuals
>on the internet that I know +personally+ that will post messages to the
>TL newsgroup.
Get them to vote.
>However, creating a newsgroup is anything but a simple
>procedure, and finding the information/software to do so is both time
>consuming and difficult.
Getting together a group might make this easier. I'm sure there's
Ligotti fans who have the know-how and who can help speed the process.
>I believe more people than you think will. It is easy to forget that
>Ligotti's work has been given high acclaim internationally (and his work
>has received one British Fantasy Award and two Bram Stoker Awards).
Many other authors have won greater prizes. Most are forgotten.
Few have their own newsgroups.
> I
>don't expect everyone who is interested in alt.books.* will pick up his
>work, but I do expect that perhaps some will (and even if those are few,
>I believe it will be more than worth it for them).
But why not reach out to more?
>I never stated that discussion of Ligotti in any other newsgroup is
>inappropriate -- in fact, I am all for it! Yet I believe that a
>newsgroup where his works are the primary focus of conversation would
>provide a valuable resource of information and networking for and
>between his readers.
All the better reason to make that resource available to as
wide a group as possible.
>See my comments above. I'm not sure I understand why you believe
>Ligotti being included in the alt.books.* category is wrong.
Less people will read it. It may be more appropriate than alt.
horror.* , but it lacks the rec.arts.books.* appeal.
>That's really up to the individual news administrator. Many of them
..weed out the newsgroups that receive no posts on a weekly basis. It is,
>in any case, their responsibility to decide what is to stay and what is
>to go.
Many of them keep all groups on their machines, no matter what.
Some of them even recreate the group if it is removed. It will be
around for as long as Usenet.
>> I still fail to see how your assertions that 1) Ligotti has many
>> fans on Usenet, and 2) that you can't possibly ask for a vote on a
>> rec.* group and must create an alt.* group on its own, go together.
>>
>See above comments for replies to both of these.
Your reasons were that a Ligotti group wouldn't get the votes,
and that big group might not be good. I don't think either can be
said for sure until you try.
>Do you actually believe that Ligotti is still an unknown or terribly
>obscure writer that may be damaged by the inclusion of a newsgroup in
>the alt.books instead of alt.horror category?
I would be equally opposed to its placement in either. A new
group to read is a new group to read, and if it's in the alt.*
group, it's just as unlikely to get picked up. If it's worth doing
(and you're slowly convincing me that it is), it's worth doing right.
Frankly, I'm getting more and more uneasy about this. I'm a
huge Ligotti fan, but if we're going to make a Ligotti newsgroup,
it would be much more of a tribute if it came about through a
concerted effort of Ligotti fans to create the best possible forum,
rather than the work of one person who wants to put up a newsgroup
immediately, and who will do so whether he gets the rest of us
behind it or not. Please hold back and let some of us catch up first.
Jonathan Padgett
Gregory Loren Hansen wrote:
>
> In article <34CE57...@lionheart.net>,
> I am by no means an expert here. But I do know if you want to go through
> official channels you should write up a proposal, being very specific
> about what the newsgroup is to be about and why it should exist.
Thanks for the suggestions. My original post of PROPOSAL:
alt.books.thomas-ligotti contained the above mentioned information.
> Then a
> call for votes is made, and if some percentage like greater than 50% vote
> yes, the newsgroup is officially formed.
>
Not with the alt hierarchy. As I understand it, there is absolutely no
voting process, which means that alt is a home for the groups that would
probably not exist elsewhere on usenet.
> It's up to the individual server to decide if they want to carry a group.
> But an official group will probably be carried, while a fly-by-not alt.*
> group might not be.
Again, this is completely up to the individual. From what I've learned,
newserver owners/administrators weed out the groups they want and don't
want with varying degrees of leniancy in each case. I figure this is
worth the effort whether the group succeeds or not.
>
> I still have the instructions in a text file that a smug Unix weenie sent
> me, if you want to see it.
>
Thanks. If you don't mind, send me a copy via email. My sources are
obviously different from yours, and I would like to learn all that I can
about the process.
Jonathan
Jonathan Padgett
I'd like to see newsgroups created on the authors you've mentioned as
well (especially Beckett and Ionescu and Artaud [who were all insane and
brilliant]). My only response is that we need to start somewhere, and
it occurred to me recently that I'd love to see a Ligotti newsgroup.
This newsgroup, btw, could discuss many of the authors you mentioned and
still be well within subject (these would be especially relevant, of
course, to Ligotti's work). I don't care where the newsgroup is,
actually, as long as there is one and it is more specific to the work of
Ligotti (who's work is unique enough for his own niche). Thanks for
the commments!
Jonathan
Jonathan Padgett
vonj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> In article <34D09B...@lionheart.net>,
> jona...@lionheart.net wrote:
>
> vonj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >> Agreed on both counts. But why not a rec.* group? You need to have
> >> a hundred more "yes" votes than "no", and a 2/3 majority of "yes"es.
> >> Such a group would be more likely to be picked up by the site
> >> administrators. While creating an alt.* group may be easier and quicker
> >> from your perspective, I think that you should at least try to get a
> >> vote on its placement in the *.rec hierarchy -- if nothing else, it will
> >> help you see how many and what kind of posters you may get.
>
> >The whole point of the alt hierarchy, imo, is to provide a place for
> >newsgroups to be created that wouldn't normally get the votes
> >elsewhere.
>
> You haven't tried to get the votes.
Ok, you're right about that -- I haven't tried to get the votes because
I assumed (given the results of my proposal last week) that there
wouldn't be nearly enough support at this point for a rec group. I
doubt seriously that we *could* get the votes, but if you think we could
do it, let's do it.
>
> >I simply do not agree with the rationale that a big
> >newsgroup constitutes a good newsgroup.
>
> Agreed, but a small newsgroup isn't necessarily good either.
> Besides, a large group is more likely for news admins to carry
> (and thus more likely for people to find), and is less likely to be
> swamped by pointers to "GREAT SEX!!!" and the like.
Well, there we are. I can't help it that Ligotti is not hugely popular
and unlikely to be a hugely popular newsgroup subject, but since he is
my favorite living writer, I would really like to see a newsgroup
dedicated to him. Period.
>
> > I
> >believe that the alt hierarchy is the place for Ligotti's newsgroup for
> >the forseeable future.
>
> No offense, but I think you're going in circles here. And what
> if Ligotti does become huge and you want to move into rec.arts.books.
> thomas-ligotti?
I think *we* are going around in circles (no offense taken [or
intended]). The reason I am being redundant is that everyone who is
complaining is repeating the same problems they have with the newsgroup
again and again. I would remind you that I'm the one who brought up
this subject in the first place; I've tried to answer everyone's
problems with the newsgroup as thoroughly as possible. At any rate, I
think it would be only fair to point out that you and I have +both+
repeated ourselves a number of times in the last few days.
If Ligotti ever becomes huge I will be delighted. I think
alt.horror.cthulhu and other popular alt groups prove that rec doesn't
have a corner on the market for popular newsgroups.
>
> >I disagree. Interest in a subject is indeed needed to create a
> >successful newsgroup, and there are quite a good number of individuals
> >on the internet that I know +personally+ that will post messages to the
> >TL newsgroup.
>
> Get them to vote.
There are no votes in the alt hierarchy (#1) and secondly, I have only
just very recently (within the last day) written a number of people to
ask for their support in the matter. Whether or not they post is, of
course, their choice. I didn't intend this conversation to become a
formal voting process, but I am interested in ideas (including yours).
>
> >However, creating a newsgroup is anything but a simple
> >procedure, and finding the information/software to do so is both time
> >consuming and difficult.
>
> Getting together a group might make this easier. I'm sure there's
> Ligotti fans who have the know-how and who can help speed the process.
I would be happy for any support I could get in the matter. Volunteers
come forth! Let's do it.
>
> >I believe more people than you think will. It is easy to forget that
> >Ligotti's work has been given high acclaim internationally (and his work
> >has received one British Fantasy Award and two Bram Stoker Awards).
>
> Many other authors have won greater prizes. Most are forgotten.
> Few have their own newsgroups.
What is your point? Do you think I should abandon this idea altogether
because others have failed in the past? I prefer not to.
>
> > I
> >don't expect everyone who is interested in alt.books.* will pick up his
> >work, but I do expect that perhaps some will (and even if those are few,
> >I believe it will be more than worth it for them).
>
> But why not reach out to more?
I'm doing my best -- I'd appreciate any help I could get in spreading
the news. You know, ever since I picked up _Songs of a Dead Dreamer_
about seven years ago I've told everyone I've known about his
exceptional talent and work. I am not alone in doing this, I know, but
it is rather discouraging that most of the replies I've gotten have been
almost exclusively complaints and criticisms. I know there are others
who are willing to take action in this matter -- I'd welcome it.
>
> >See my comments above. I'm not sure I understand why you believe
> >Ligotti being included in the alt.books.* category is wrong.
>
> Less people will read it. It may be more appropriate than alt.
> horror.* , but it lacks the rec.arts.books.* appeal.
>
I'm game if you are. Does anyone else think the
rec.arts.books.thomas-ligotti is worth a show of votes? I really never
considered it would work, but I hope that I have been wrong all this
time.
> >That's really up to the individual news administrator. Many of them
> ..weed out the newsgroups that receive no posts on a weekly basis. It is,
> >in any case, their responsibility to decide what is to stay and what is
> >to go.
>
> Many of them keep all groups on their machines, no matter what.
> Some of them even recreate the group if it is removed. It will be
> around for as long as Usenet.
>
Still, I'm not going to take responsibility for someone else's server.
If they don't choose to clean it up, it's their business. Besides,
there are worse things to be floating around out there than a Thomas
Ligotti newsgroup (which I'm sure even in the worse case scenario would
be occasionally used by a number of people).
> Your reasons were that a Ligotti group wouldn't get the votes,
> and that big group might not be good. I don't think either can be
> said for sure until you try.
>
Ok, I'll try -- but not without a little more show of support here for
the idea...
> >Do you actually believe that Ligotti is still an unknown or terribly
> >obscure writer that may be damaged by the inclusion of a newsgroup in
> >the alt.books instead of alt.horror category?
>
> I would be equally opposed to its placement in either. A new
> group to read is a new group to read, and if it's in the alt.*
> group, it's just as unlikely to get picked up. If it's worth doing
> (and you're slowly convincing me that it is), it's worth doing right.
Ok, let's get moving on this.
>
> Frankly, I'm getting more and more uneasy about this. I'm a
> huge Ligotti fan, but if we're going to make a Ligotti newsgroup,
> it would be much more of a tribute if it came about through a
> concerted effort of Ligotti fans to create the best possible forum,
> rather than the work of one person who wants to put up a newsgroup
> immediately, and who will do so whether he gets the rest of us
> behind it or not. Please hold back and let some of us catch up first.
You know, your *criticism* is getting a little disturbing to me. I
*proposed* the idea -- before this post you were dead set against any
Ligotti newsgroup whatsoever, and now you're complaining that I'm not
going about this with the force and effort of a group. I posted the
proposal to this group in the hopes that I would get constructive ideas
and support. Most of what I've gotten so far are "we don't need another
newsgroup -- use the ones we have." Pardon me, but it is difficult to
take action as anything but an individual when practically no one who
has replied even wants the newsgroup in the first place!
Daniel, I appreciate your intelligent thoughts, opinions, and comments,
and I absolutely agree with your plan of bringing Ligotti readers
together and brainstorming about what can be done, but I am finding the
atmosphere of this subject a bit on the hostile side lately. I am not
seeking praise or any other sort of lauding of my initial proposal, but
constructive criticism that we can work with would be most appreciated.
In this last post you have in part done this, but please refrain from
treating my ideas as if they were a burden or an annoyance to you
(referring to me in the third person "he" doesn't make the air any
friendlier, btw). Let's give credit where credit is due.
Jonathan
vonj...@hotmail.com
In article <34D1F7...@lionheart.net>,
jona...@lionheart.net wrote:
<big snip>
>Daniel, I appreciate your intelligent thoughts, opinions, and comments,
>and I absolutely agree with your plan of bringing Ligotti readers
>together and brainstorming about what can be done, but I am finding the
>atmosphere of this subject a bit on the hostile side lately. I am not
>seeking praise or any other sort of lauding of my initial proposal, but
>constructive criticism that we can work with would be most appreciated.
>In this last post you have in part done this, but please refrain from
>treating my ideas as if they were a burden or an annoyance to you
>(referring to me in the third person "he" doesn't make the air any
>friendlier, btw). Let's give credit where credit is due.
Your ideas are not an annoyance or a burden to me at all. If
a Ligotti forum did exist, I would probably be one of the first people
to go there. My objection to it was that you seemed to be acting
quickly on your own initiative. On Usenet, that's not necessarily a
bad thing, as it often takes some gumption to get it going, but it's
always best to try to get a feel for what the other people involved
want to do first.
Case in point. Way back in 1994, I think it was, we decided to
start a Lovecraft discussion group. Everyone was for the idea, but
we needed a leader. A guy named Dru Smith (who isn't around here any
more) said he would do it. Then he found out that he didn't have the
time, so he passed on the mantle to me via e-mail. I posted to the
newsgroup and said that I was running the discussion group. I
experienced the Internet equivalent of an entire football team jumping
on me. (That's actually how I met Donovan; he was one of the people
on top of the pile.) A little while later, Dru came out and told everyone
that it was all right, but it took everyone a little while to recover.
And let's not forget, everyone on the newsgroup thought the discussion
group was a good idea.
Doing something like this often gets a better hearing if there's
a group of people who want to do it. It also helps in coming up with
different ways of doing it which might be more acceptable, such as a
rec.* group, a discussion group on a larger newsgroup (such as the
hopefully-soon-to-be-revived Shadow over Usenet), a newsgroup intended
for general literary discussion or for horror or weird fiction in
general, and so forth. I was bothered that you didn't seem to have
tried to think of any of these options, and were dead-set on creating
a Ligotti group on your own even if no one else wanted it. Even if you
set out with the best of intentions, that's likely to create bad blood.
Let me make a suggestion: hold off on creating the alt.* group
for a while. In the meantime, let's try to get some Ligotti fans
together and talk about what the options are. Afterward, we can come
up with our best ideas and put them before everybody. Even if we
do decide to create an alt.* group, we'll at least have a number of
people behind us to help decide what such a group would be about,
what would and wouldn't be appropriate there, come up with a charter
and an FAQ, and so forth. I'd be happy to work on this.
Fiona Webster
'Not sure of the attributions, but various people said:
>> > > Sorry for turning your proposal into my own counter-proposal,
>More accurately, alt.horror.fiction.weird
I love weird fiction, so my first thought is to be in favor of such a
subdivision, but there are a couple of potential problems with it. One
is that one of the best known practitioners of weird fiction--H. P.
Lovecraft--already has a newsgroup: alt.horror.cthulhu.
The other problem is one of definition. Depending on whose definition you buy
(S. T. Joshi's _The Weird Tale_ and the new Clute & Grant _Encyclopedia of
Fantasy_ have different definitions, for example) weird fiction can be
seen as overlapping quute bit with ghost stories, occult fiction, and
supernatural horror fiction. Ramsey Campbell, for example, is viewed by
Joshi as our greatest living writer of weird fiction, but he writes stories
all across the horror fiction map, including whole horror novels (e.g., _The
One Safe Place_) that have no supernatural or fantastic elements.
So, before we get into more alt.books.* groups for horror writers
(Stephen King and Anne Rice already have their own groups), I think
we need a newsgroup for horror fiction in general.
And this has already come up: A few weeks ago, we were discussing (on
alt.horror) the fact that the traffic on the group is so overwhelmingly
focused on movies, the people who want to talk about fiction have a hard
time "finding" each other.
The suggestion was made that since alt.horror gets a lot of traffic
now, that (1) what is now alt.horror split into three newsgroups--one for
movies, one for fiction, one for miscellaneous (art, comic, etc.), and
(2) that the alt.horror.* groups be moved up to the rec.arts hierarchy.
And *then* more subdivisions of rec.arts.horror.fiction could be created.
What do people think? Should we go for #1 before trying to do #2?
Or is it time to try to move to the rec.arts hierarchy?
--Fiona Webster
Horror Fiction Reviewer
http://www.oceanstar.com/horror
THE DRAGON
William Allison
In article <6arh7i$3...@bolt.sonic.net>,
ja...@sonic.net (Jason Thompson) writes:
>
> If you think you can get the audience for an 'all Ligotti, all the time'
> newsgroup, go for it and good luck; but when there's not even a single
> central place for discussion of horror/weird/dark fantasy/gothic/whatever
> fiction, I have mild doubts about more author-specific newsgroups. (Though I
> guess 'alt.books.stephen-king' and 'alt.horror.cthulhu' do all right.) ;)
>
> Jason Thompson
> Knygathin Zhaum
This is just the reason alt.books.ghost-fiction was created, rather than
alt.books.m-r-james or alt.books.robert-aickman. It gives a wider focus
which makes it easier to bring in postings. The group, as stated in the
charter, does not limit itself to just ghost-related stuff, this serves to
open up the topic-base (we had a nice post the other month about Fritz
Leiber and OUR LADY OF DARKNESS for instance). Despite this strategy,
posts trickle in at the rate of about two per day, and this for a group
that's been around for over four months. Creating a group is one thing,
getting people to use it and have it be worthwhile is quite another...
Just $.02 from someone who has been there...
Best,
Bill
Scott Promish
In article <6b13mr$jqg$1...@news.smart.net>, f...@oceanDELETETHISstar.com says...
>The suggestion was made that since alt.horror gets a lot of traffic
>now, that (1) what is now alt.horror split into three newsgroups--one for
>movies, one for fiction, one for miscellaneous (art, comic, etc.), and
>(2) that the alt.horror.* groups be moved up to the rec.arts hierarchy.
>And *then* more subdivisions of rec.arts.horror.fiction could be created.
>
>What do people think? Should we go for #1 before trying to do #2?
>Or is it time to try to move to the rec.arts hierarchy?
There's already rec.arts.sf.written, so why not have one for horror?
I say go for number two.
Dan Clore
In article <6b13mr$jqg$1...@news.smart.net>,
f...@oceanDELETETHISstar.com (Fiona Webster) wrote:
> So, before we get into more alt.books.* groups for horror writers
> (Stephen King and Anne Rice already have their own groups), I think
> we need a newsgroup for horror fiction in general.
Damn straight.
> And this has already come up: A few weeks ago, we were discussing (on
> alt.horror) the fact that the traffic on the group is so overwhelmingly
> focused on movies, the people who want to talk about fiction have a hard
> time "finding" each other.
> The suggestion was made that since alt.horror gets a lot of traffic
> now, that (1) what is now alt.horror split into three newsgroups--one for
> movies, one for fiction, one for miscellaneous (art, comic, etc.), and
> (2) that the alt.horror.* groups be moved up to the rec.arts hierarchy.
> And *then* more subdivisions of rec.arts.horror.fiction could be created.
> What do people think? Should we go for #1 before trying to do #2?
> Or is it time to try to move to the rec.arts hierarchy?
We should go for rec.arts.horror.written *now* (I have reasons for
preferring this exact name). I'd be trying to get the group created if my
damn news server hadn't broken down *again*. The grind through DejaNews
is too much. So, Fiona, I hereby place you in charge of this matter.
Let me know if you need any help with the process, let me know and I'll
try to give a guiding hand.
---------------------------------------------------
Dan Clore
The Website of Lord We˙rdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/index.html
Welcome to the Waughters....
The Dan Clore Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
Because the true mysteries cannot be profaned....
"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!"
Jonathan Padgett
Fiona Webster wrote:
> The suggestion was made that since alt.horror gets a lot of traffic
> now, that (1) what is now alt.horror split into three newsgroups--one for
> movies, one for fiction, one for miscellaneous (art, comic, etc.), and
> (2) that the alt.horror.* groups be moved up to the rec.arts hierarchy.
> And *then* more subdivisions of rec.arts.horror.fiction could be created.
>
> What do people think? Should we go for #1 before trying to do #2?
> Or is it time to try to move to the rec.arts hierarchy?
Hi, Fiona! Upon reflection, I must agree with Daniel and several others
who have posted over the last week and a half on a number of points. I
think we should try to move the discussion of horror and weird fiction
to the rec hierarchy. I'm in favor of #2 -- as suggested in past
postings, if we can get the votes to create a new group there, we should
reach an even larger number of people than we do on alt. Moreover (and
as you mentioned), the creation of this group (or groups) would be more
specifically geared toward literature rather than movies and other
media.
This isn't to say, however, that any of the alt.horror newsgroups should
or will be abandoned. These are established groups, and I don't think
they will suffer badly from the formation of one or more rec.art.*
newsgroups.
Let's drum up the support and vote on it. The name of the newsgroup
such matters are voted on eludes me at present? What is its name?
Anyway, I'd like to thank everyone for their comments and interest; I
think that this thread has turned out to be useful and quite
enlightening for me, personally. While I still hope that a Ligotti
newsgroup can be created at some point in the not too distant future and
though I still have reservations about placing the "horror" appellation
upon all of the writers that will generally be discussed, these are
problems to be brought up in the future. I sincerely hope that we can
consolidate our ideas and mobilize them into the creation of a mutually
agreed upon newsgroup.
Truly,
Jonathan
William Allison
In article <34D5DE...@lionheart.net>,
The group you are wondering about is news.groups, this is where rec.*
groups are proposed and voted on. Another group to check out for FAQ's
and procedural matters is news.answers. I highly recommend that you
lurk around in news.groups for several weeks to get a feel for how things
are done. You can then see what objections others are running into and
try to avoid them on *your* go-round. Also read any and all FAQ's that
seem pertinent and follow their recommendations to the letter. This may
seem like a pain, but will pay off as the folks in the Big 8 (which
includes rec.*) are if anything, more "orthodox" than those in alt.*.
I realize if you have 500 people lined up to vote for the group you could
just bulldoze it through, but I'd say do everything "by the book" just to
put the odds as far in favor of the group being created as possible.
It is a lot of work, but if the group is created it will be worth it.
Best,
Bill
jor...@europa.com
In alt.horror Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
: We should go for rec.arts.horror.written *now* (I have reasons for
: preferring this exact name). I'd be trying to get the group created if my
: damn news server hadn't broken down *again*. The grind through DejaNews
: is too much. So, Fiona, I hereby place you in charge of this matter.
Well since I usually hang out in the alt.books.stephen-king group
and have only just now visited alt.horror I can see why change is needed.
What a mish-mash of topics! I agree that we need rec.arts.horror.written,
but I would also propose the following:
rec.arts.horror.written
rec.arts.horror.movies
rec.arts.horror.lovecraft (sure there's cthulhu and Necronomicon,
but remember Lovecraft has the whole dream sequence series of stories
too!)
rec.arts.horror.comics (would encompass Evil Ernie and E.C. but
would also give a unique forum rather than rolling it into .written)
rec.arts.horror.stephen-king
rec.arts.horror.clive-barker
rec.arts.horror.anne-rice
rec.arts.horror.dean-koontz
and I'm sure I'm forgetting some. If the comic book groups and the
sci-fi groups are allowed to be so compartmentalized on rec.* then I don't
see why horror should be confined to alt.horror. I'm sure lots of people
are turned away by the sheer chaos going on in that group.
- Jordan
jor...@europa.com
****************************************************************************
* "Happy is he who causes scandal..." - Salvadore Dali *
****************************************************************************
Scott Promish
In article <6bjq5r$dss$3...@news4.ispnews.com>, jor...@europa.com says...
> Well since I usually hang out in the alt.books.stephen-king group
>and have only just now visited alt.horror I can see why change is needed.
>What a mish-mash of topics! I agree that we need rec.arts.horror.written,
>but I would also propose the following:
> rec.arts.horror.stephen-king
> rec.arts.horror.clive-barker
> rec.arts.horror.anne-rice
> rec.arts.horror.dean-koontz
I'm pretty sure all of the above already have ngs devoted to them, either
under alt.books or alt.fan..