|
Post by Jojo Lapin X on Sept 19, 2018 13:10:31 GMT
Just as a matter of curiosity, what does IWA mean when talking about the Rolt-Aickman falling out? The Inland Waterways Association, their little hobby club/political action group thing.
|
|
|
Post by ripper on Sept 19, 2018 19:08:06 GMT
Just as a matter of curiosity, what does IWA mean when talking about the Rolt-Aickman falling out? The Inland Waterways Association, their little hobby club/political action group thing. Thanks for clearing that up for me, Jojo.
|
|
|
Post by ramseycampbell on Sept 22, 2018 10:27:36 GMT
Rolt and Aickman had fallen out for five years by the time 3rd Ghost Book rolled around, due to IWA shenanigans - so maybe this could have swayed his opinion of the book somewhat? We might hope Rolt wouldn't have been so petty as to dismiss an entire anthology because he'd fallen out with just one of the contributors. I wonder if he might instead have been peeved because he hadn't been invited to contribute? It certainly contains fine tales. I'd forgotten Rolt was another of our writers who made the sorry claim that his field was dead - Wakefield and Kneale were others. Some, like Susan Hill, seem to make the claim so as to hail themselves as the saviour of the field. Thank Gla'aki I don't feel the need to dismiss my contemporaries to pump up my own reputation or for any other reason either.
|
|
|
Post by Jojo Lapin X on Sept 22, 2018 15:57:50 GMT
Rolt and Aickman had fallen out for five years by the time 3rd Ghost Book rolled around, due to IWA shenanigans - so maybe this could have swayed his opinion of the book somewhat? We might hope Rolt wouldn't have been so petty as to dismiss an entire anthology because he'd fallen out with just one of the contributors. I wonder if he might instead have been peeved because he hadn't been invited to contribute? It certainly contains fine tales. I'd forgotten Rolt was another of our writers who made the sorry claim that his field was dead - Wakefield and Kneale were others. Some, like Susan Hill, seem to make the claim so as to hail themselves as the saviour of the field. Thank Gla'aki I don't feel the need to dismiss my contemporaries to pump up my own reputation or for any other reason either. But you just dismissed at least one of them. Deservedly, I might add.
|
|
|
Post by ropardoe on Sept 22, 2018 18:10:47 GMT
Rolt and Aickman had fallen out for five years by the time 3rd Ghost Book rolled around, due to IWA shenanigans - so maybe this could have swayed his opinion of the book somewhat? We might hope Rolt wouldn't have been so petty as to dismiss an entire anthology because he'd fallen out with just one of the contributors. I wonder if he might instead have been peeved because he hadn't been invited to contribute? It certainly contains fine tales. I'd forgotten Rolt was another of our writers who made the sorry claim that his field was dead - Wakefield and Kneale were others. Some, like Susan Hill, seem to make the claim so as to hail themselves as the saviour of the field. Thank Gla'aki I don't feel the need to dismiss my contemporaries to pump up my own reputation or for any other reason either. Actually, Rolt didn't make the claim that the field was dead: the title of his article should perhaps have had a question mark at the end. In fact, he specifically says: "the ghost story has a future still, of that I am convinced". As to why he disliked the 3rd Ghost Book, I wonder if it could be that he actually had fairly bad taste (despite writing some superb stories himself). For instance, he reckoned "Squire Toby's Will" was the best Le Fanu story (it's not a bad one, but surely not the best?). And when he came to his own stories, he rated as his best one which most people would put in the middle rank. As for MRJ, it's nice that he was a fan, but I'm not sure he 'got' him. This, for instance, seems like a patently and provably inaccurate statement to me: "James... performs most of his conjurations indoors".
|
|
|
Post by ramseycampbell on Sept 24, 2018 12:17:02 GMT
We might hope Rolt wouldn't have been so petty as to dismiss an entire anthology because he'd fallen out with just one of the contributors. I wonder if he might instead have been peeved because he hadn't been invited to contribute? It certainly contains fine tales. I'd forgotten Rolt was another of our writers who made the sorry claim that his field was dead - Wakefield and Kneale were others. Some, like Susan Hill, seem to make the claim so as to hail themselves as the saviour of the field. Thank Gla'aki I don't feel the need to dismiss my contemporaries to pump up my own reputation or for any other reason either. But you just dismissed at least one of them. Deservedly, I might add. I didn't think I dismissed any of them - criticised, perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by Jojo Lapin X on Sept 24, 2018 13:32:31 GMT
But you just dismissed at least one of them. Deservedly, I might add. I didn't think I dismissed any of them - criticised, perhaps? But you wanted to dismiss her! But you do not think it is a good idea to make enemies of fellow writers. My own philosophy is quite different.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Connolly on Sept 24, 2018 14:29:40 GMT
In L.T.C. Rolt's 1956 article "The Passing of the Ghost Story", he writes scathingly (and at some length) of a recent anthology. An example of his comments: "With one possible exception the masters are not here. Well-known writers who should know better fall into every pitfall which can so easily entrap whoever would succeed in this minor but most subtle and sinister art". That one exception he names as Michael Asquith's 'The Uninvited Face". From this, and with the invaluable aid of the ISFD, I've deduced that the collection in question must have been The Third Ghost Book. Although he was a great ghost story writer himself, I'm not sure what this comment says about Rolt's tastes in supernatural fiction. How could he have dismissed so summarily such stories as Laski's "The Tower" (always a favourite of mine), Aickman's "Ringing the Changes", and Hartley's "Someone in the Lift" (that story gave me nightmares when I first read it, and meant that I refused to go into a lift for several months - I was only little!). As I already had "The Tower" and "Someone in the Lift" in other anthologies, I also dismissed most of the The Third Ghost Book. I probably threw it out! As for "Ringing the Changes", while I have tried very hard to read Aickman, I always find his meaning (if indeed there is one) to be impenetrable.
|
|
|
Post by Dr Strange on Sept 24, 2018 15:45:32 GMT
As for "Ringing the Changes", while I have tried very hard to read Aickman, I always find his meaning (if indeed there is one) to be impenetrable. Me too, a lot of the time, but I think Ringing The Changes is one of his best - and more readily penetrable than most of his other stories. As straight horror it's a mash-up of folk horror (weird local festival) and zombies. But there's also all that Freudian stuff going on, with the older man and his much younger new bride, and their doubts and anxieties about themselves and each other.
|
|
|
Post by cauldronbrewer on Sept 24, 2018 19:36:58 GMT
As for "Ringing the Changes", while I have tried very hard to read Aickman, I always find his meaning (if indeed there is one) to be impenetrable. Me too, a lot of the time, but I think Ringing The Changes is one of his best - and more readily penetrable than most of his other stories. As straight horror it's a mash-up of folk horror (weird local festival) and zombies. But there's also all that Freudian stuff going on, with the older man and his much younger new bride, and their doubts and anxieties about themselves and each other. Agreed--I found "Ringing the Changes" one of his more accessible, and enjoyable, stories. I think "The Inner Room" is similar--it works as a sinister doll house story and as a relatively straightforward exercise in the Freudian themes he seemed to favor. Likewise "The Swords," which has a creepy magic act with some none-too-subtle symbolism (what's the word you used--right, "penetrable"). On the other hand, I think the first story I read by Aickmen was "The Hospice," which I liked even though it baffled me. Ditto "The Trains" and "Wood."
|
|
|
Post by Dr Strange on Sept 24, 2018 19:53:06 GMT
To be honest, most of his stories baffle me - sometimes that's fine, but sometimes I'm just not in the mood for bafflement. My other favourite of his is Pages From A Young Girl's Journal, though I think some Aickman connoisseurs might dismiss it for being a bit too straightforward.
|
|
|
Post by ramseycampbell on Sept 25, 2018 11:33:34 GMT
I didn't think I dismissed any of them - criticised, perhaps? But you wanted to dismiss her! But you do not think it is a good idea to make enemies of fellow writers. My own philosophy is quite different. "But you do not think it is a good idea to make enemies of fellow writers." Sorry, that's ignorant nonsense. In the specific case of Susan Hill, I simply think (as I've said elsewhere) that The Woman in Black is an effective pastiche that I certainly don't rate as highly as the work of (say) Reggie Oliver or Adam Nevill or Terry Lamsley, to name just three. And I fear her own opinion of her significance in my field is somewhat inflated. Is that dismissive enough for you?
|
|
|
Post by ropardoe on Sept 25, 2018 11:44:55 GMT
But you wanted to dismiss her! But you do not think it is a good idea to make enemies of fellow writers. My own philosophy is quite different. "But you do not think it is a good idea to make enemies of fellow writers." Sorry, that's ignorant nonsense. In the specific case of Susan Hill, I simply think (as I've said elsewhere) that The Woman in Black is an effective pastiche that I certainly don't rate as highly as the work of (say) Reggie Oliver or Adam Nevill or Terry Lamsley, to name just three. And I fear her own opinion of her significance in my field is somewhat inflated. Is that dismissive enough for you? Can't disagree with any of that.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Connolly on Sept 25, 2018 12:26:27 GMT
"But you do not think it is a good idea to make enemies of fellow writers." Sorry, that's ignorant nonsense. In the specific case of Susan Hill, I simply think (as I've said elsewhere) that The Woman in Black is an effective pastiche that I certainly don't rate as highly as the work of (say) Reggie Oliver or Adam Nevill or Terry Lamsley, to name just three. And I fear her own opinion of her significance in my field is somewhat inflated. Is that dismissive enough for you? Can't disagree with any of that. Same here. The play of The Woman in Black is better than the original novel. The cinema film version is worse.
|
|
|
Post by Jojo Lapin X on Sept 25, 2018 12:47:22 GMT
Is that dismissive enough for you? Getting there, certainly! Thanks.
|
|