|
Post by andydecker on Sept 29, 2009 17:21:33 GMT
Loved the HW article. Frankly I wasn´t aware about the controversity. Ah, well everywhere it is the same with the gulf between writers and "writers" *fg, those who can and those who want. I wouldn´t go so far that all horror art is horrible, but it sure isn´t very good either. Maybe it is because publishers don´t want to publish horror. Horror may be bloody and controverse, and modern mainstream publisher don´t want controversy. (Can you imagine someone publishing anything like Moffat today? as massmarket?) So put a nice and inoffensive cover on it and call it Dark Fantasy.
|
|
|
Post by mattofthespurs on Sept 29, 2009 17:21:55 GMT
In fact Horror Watch wonders why writers don't spend as much time writing as they do bitching. Because it's nowhere near as much fun.
|
|
|
Post by horrorwatch on Sept 29, 2009 17:37:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dem bones on Sept 29, 2009 17:45:26 GMT
almost as much fun as starting an Anti-BFS blog, not having the guts to post the link on there but trolling here instead.
Now fuck off.
|
|
|
Post by horrorwatch on Sept 29, 2009 17:57:31 GMT
Horror Watch holds all of the official genre organisations in equal disregard.
Your posting manners provide a useful indication as to your intellect and perspective.
[Horror Watch resists the temptation to post a link to a Youtube video of Eric Idle and John Cleese asking Graham Chapman "How shall we fuck off, my lord?"]
|
|
|
Post by mattofthespurs on Sept 29, 2009 17:58:17 GMT
almost as much fun as starting an Anti-BFS blog, not having the guts to post the link on there but trolling here instead. Now fuck off. Harsh but fair.
|
|
|
Post by pulphack on Sept 29, 2009 18:18:00 GMT
pulphack likes the way that horror watch refers to itself in the third person, and as pulphack thinks this is kinda cool, then pulphack may adopt this...
anyway, nice to see the footy fans come out. and it's so true - when i was being scolded for being rude last year (which i suppose i was in a way, but didn't care) i did wonder what some people would make of the millwall forum (though not the pink lions one, which makes them REALLY brave in my view). that sort of handbags back then - as well as now - shows that we're all basically bookworms who don't get out enough.
i haven't read any of the bfs stuff as i can't be arsed so am only going on what's said here, but still can't work out what's wrong with only liking old horror - new writing that i like just doesn't fall in that genre is all. get over it. i think the main difference between us and them is that we're a bunch of blokes (mostly) with borderline aspergers about paperbacks and we know it's unimportant in the scheme of things, whereas they seem to take what they do terribly seriously and think it is important. which i find a bit odd.
so basically, what is your fahking problem you caahhnt (oops, sorry, football forum speak)... no, really what is their problem? we do our thing, they do theirs, and who actually cares?
it is funny, though...
|
|
|
Post by horrorwatch on Sept 29, 2009 18:20:26 GMT
The BFS board wouldn't suffer a post which criticises them or any of its associates to remain. They oppose free speech (which is odd for an organisation which celebrates writers).
Horror Watch posted a link to the blog from this forum because some members of this forum were being falsely maligned elsewhere. Vault Of Evil was itself being maligned. Hell, everybody who doesn't praise the BFS and its awards recipients gets maligned.
It's a little known fact that the BFS, HWA and GSS maintain a secret list of 'Most Wanted Critics' and are carefully and systematically eliminating them one-by-one. It's called 'Swindlers List' and those aspiring to genre awards can earn valuable brownie points for bumping off named criminals.
Putting Mark Samuels in a mental hospital by lacing his beer with LSD will earn you a 'Best Short Story Of The Year' award. Placing an article in the Guardian which condemns Shaun Hutson as a misogynist bigot will grant you the rights to stage the next Fantasy Convention. And making Chris Barker disappear forever will earn you a Lifetime Achievement Award.
|
|
|
Post by carolinec on Sept 29, 2009 18:37:14 GMT
Well, I tell you what, if some people on the BFS board thought the Vault was "juvenile" before, they sure as hell will now that Horrorwatch is on board.
Pulphack, I think you and a few others are missing the point (again - it happened last year too) about "new" versus "old". Simple fact is, horror readers should feel comfortable on a board talking about whatever kind of horror they like - not be made to feel uncomfortable when their views on horror don't accord with the vocal minority (or majority) on a board. Personally, I'd like to see a board which encompasses all kinds of horror. At one point, I thought this was that board, but it appears it isn't ...
|
|
|
Post by pulphack on Sept 29, 2009 18:44:40 GMT
as it happens, i think you're missing the point of what i said there. like old or new horror, i don't care. up to you. and there's talk about new horror on here now which is fine (see one eye grey thread for instance). back then i didn't like the self-promotion. and in this instance i can't see why some people are still making it an us-versus-them debate: that's what i mean by get over it. i remember you didn't get what i was saying last year - i'm not actually disagreeing or trying to argue with you, you just seem to misunderstand what i say consistently, which may be just because we're different people.
|
|
|
Post by mattofthespurs on Sept 29, 2009 18:54:41 GMT
So to summarise;
Someone voiced an opinion that a book was not very good.
Someone else voiced an opinion that awards ceremonies are partly down to nepotism.
Someone else opined that opinions are like arseholes in that everyone has one.
And more importantly, no one has mentioned "The Crabs".
Think of the children.
|
|
|
Post by carolinec on Sept 29, 2009 18:58:14 GMT
as it happens, i think you're missing the point of what i said there. like old or new horror, i don't care. up to you. and there's talk about new horror on here now which is fine (see one eye grey thread for instance). back then i didn't like the self-promotion. and in this instance i can't see why some people are still making it an us-versus-them debate: that's what i mean by get over it. i remember you didn't get what i was saying last year - i'm not actually disagreeing or trying to argue with you, you just seem to misunderstand what i say consistently, which may be just because we're different people. Right, I do seem to be misunderstanding you then, Pulphack (maybe it's because they say men and women can't communicate with each other properly - remember the book "Women Are From Venus, Men Are From Mars"?). To me, what seems to be coming out here (if we ignore the juvenile Horrorwatch) is a view of "it's new horror, therefore it's crap". That's the message I took away with me last year, and that's the message I feel is being put across now. And that's the reason why I haven't participated much here since then. I've tried to enjoy giant crabs, honest I have, but I just can't. Fact is, there's good "old" horror and bad "old" horror, there's rubbish "old" horror and rubbish "new". We're all individuals, we like different things - why the hell can't people recognise that, instead of sneering at those who like different things to them?
|
|
|
Post by carolinec on Sept 29, 2009 18:59:02 GMT
Ha! We were posting at the same time, Matt. I've just mentioned crabs!
|
|
|
Post by mattofthespurs on Sept 29, 2009 19:00:21 GMT
Ha! We were posting at the same time, Matt. I've just mentioned crabs! Damn those crabs! Now I'm itchy all over again!
|
|
|
Post by pulphack on Sept 29, 2009 19:17:21 GMT
fair enough, caroline. from my point of view, i don't actually read much modern horror as i don't even like that much OLD horror - it was the exploitation pulps and crime stuff that bought me here. but i don't like self-promoters who plug themselves rather than the work, which was what last year was about for me. also, i have read some modern horror (shock!) and I LIKED IT!!! see the one eye grey thread (though not if you're ben...)
glad we've cleared that up, as you seem a nice sort, and i don't want you to be offended by something i haven't actually said.
meanwhile, bugger the crabs, matt (hey - there's one guy missed!) - the real question must be who's going to start up front with defoe on saturday - keane or crouch? i always liked that harry, even if he does look like bagpuss and was a shammer.
|
|