What do we want in the Vault?

[carolinec]

Linked in with Dem's "how do we save the Vault" post, here's a rough poll to see if members really DO feel the Vault has been sidetracked by NEW horror ..

[alansjf]

I voted for a mix. It seems to me that the key is getting the mix right.

[H_P_Saucecraft]

I've voted for a mix too, I wouldn't want to completely ignore the new, as there are still some titles that come out that I feel fit in with the spirit of Vault, & you don't often hear about them on other sites. I'm certainly not suggesting that we keep expanding the description to include everything (paranormal/vampire romance can just sod off), but I feel some good books could be overlooked otherwise.

I think Vault is great, obviously as this issue has come up, there is some concern amongst members here. I think a mix is fine, but it's as alansjf says, "getting the mix right".

[killercrab]

Ha ha we've been hijacked by the new! I like that and that's my vote! Seriously though I don't read much new horror at all - bypass the anth stuff and ignore the twenty thousand page novels - though with Ghostwriter publications bringing out Maneater and Boar .. things might change.

KC

[Craig Herbertson]

I like dem to be the boss of the vault and ditch topics when he feels like it. I vote no to any democracy.

The vault has become Dublin City - once old, quaint and charming; now becoming clean with rubber vampires, promotional materials (including my own) and strangers on every corner. A sense of anonymity has crept in to its once snug rooms. This is only a faint sense and doubtless counterbalanced by the many new fun people with but...

The intrinsic character still exists, new members are a testament to its success.

dem should just lob anything out he feels is instinctively wrong. The sort of crap, cheap. lurid ghastly and pulpy things which attract most people in here are not known by the money they cost or their grandly literate plot. They are known by by their tackiness and their occasional brilliance. Dem is a connoisseur of the elusive characteristics that go to make up the various genres here...

[pulphack]

christ caroline, you're nice but dim sometimes... dem started this site but wants to disown leadership - he doesn't believe in leaders - however, your democracy is based on a spurious idea...


how many times. it';s not about old versus new per se, it's about people plugging themselves and clogging things up. and the reason we (the old gits you depsise) don't post that much sometimes is because we have other things in our lives that take up more time than the old books we like (unfortunately) and time at the pc.

the point is that people have been using the forum for things other than what it was set up for. and we'd like to steer it back there.

if you want to plug yourself, there's plenty of space for that elsewhere.

[benedictjjones]

^that arguement doesn't really work though does it? (the one about 'some of us are busy') WE ALL HAVE LIVES (at least i hope so...). So the newbies are as busy as the oldies really it just suits people to use that as an excuse of why theyre not posting. the simple fact is once you get rid of the new peopel etc. you might get a couple of posts a week. why would the 'old guard' who can't be arsed checking for new threads now bother posting more then?? they should be posting now and proving what kind of site this is.

[carolinec]

Nov 14, 2008 10:58:17 GMT benedictjjones said:

the simple fact is once you get rid of the new peopel etc. you might get a couple of posts a week. why would the 'old guard' who can't be arsed checking for new threads now bother posting more then?? they should be posting now and proving what kind of site this is.

Oh so true ...
*sighs*

I also resent the suggestion (by Smilemime ... er, sorry ... I mean Pulphack ) that I've been "plugging myself", but I won't dwell on it. If "people have been using the forum for things other than it was set up for", then WHAT IT WAS SET UP FOR needs to be made clear to anyone who visits the board. In this case it wasn't. There are a large number of us here (regular posters) who thought it was about ALL types of horror. If it isn't, then that needs to be spelled out. That's the only solution to this problem.

Oh and I set the polls up just to give a rough indication of the way people were feeling about these things. I know it's all up to Dem, and he has no need to take any notice of the polls if he doesn't want to. Once again, I was just trying to be helpful and ended up getting insulted for doing so. Ah well, c'est la vie!

[killercrab]

There are a large number of us here (regular posters) who thought it was about ALL types of horror. >>


Can I ask folks what they percieved the group being about? There seems to me an obvious confusion going on. My personal understanding is that it's a forum that celebrates vintage pulp literature dating back to pre war or earlier and ending roughly around the early to mid eighties ( Hamlyn Horror time).Subjects akin to this , like films / adaptions falling under the remit. Fanzines and magazines of similar vintage or talking about the subject too. That's basically my personal outline - not gleaned from a header or written document - just based on the overwhelming number of topics and yes my length of active service here ( apologises if that's contensious).

I certainly didn't intend the *old guard* moniker to polarise - maybe I should of said *early members or founders* ( though I came just after the founding fathers) - but that sounds just as bad. New voices are good - it's called lifeblood because guess what - us older lags run out of steam sometimes. Maybe we've talked up the vintage subject to exhaustion? Maybe some of want to come by the group to hear fresh views on our beloved subject.Is it so wrong to hope that we'll find the 30 LATEST full of likeminded posts? Using the 30 LATEST is also a quick way to check in and contribute without trawling - don't knock using the facility please - it's not a dumb or lazy act .

Honestly I'm as exhausted as everyone else on this debate and can't understand why the topic of classic anthologies and paperbacks isn't the only thing on the lips of folks who join this group...


ade

[benedictjjones]

^i thought it was exactly that BUT i also thought when i joined that there was room for discussion on other types of horror (there are sections for it after all). i think the problem is that the more knowledgable memebers simply don't post that much but are talkign a good game in terms of complaints.

[killercrab]

i think the problem is that the more knowledgable memebers simply don't post that much but are talkign a good game in terms of complaints. >.

But the point is they used to. But I think as Pulphack said - any posts of depth on the vintage subject get ransacked by *my latest* projects posts! You have to realise that many people do use the latest posts feature and can be disuaded away by stuff that is peripherary at best to the core topic which is vintage literature. I agree that the modern topic areas are to blame - but they were set up I hazard to make new members who were talking about new stuff more welcome. Thing is at the heart of it that's not what the group was originally about and now it's a general horror literature site. I'm as guilty as the next man of not mentioning this sooner - but the writing was on the wall a year back - you can guage a group by how many regulars fall off and it was happening more and more. I'm glad of new blood but dammit what's the topic about these days ? If it's general horror then I'm out - I'd rather we start again and concentrate solely on what VOE *used* to be about .

ade

[benedictjjones]

^as i've said i wouldn't be adverse to that and WOULD still check the vault but i think that what has got a lot of peoples backs up is that theyre being attacked for doing something they weren't told not to by people who don't use the forums very much (and i take your point that they would if it weren't for the chaff).
BUT why can't there be a happy medium? where the 'core' actually posts... and shows newbies what theyre missing by not checking the old stuff. does it really have to be exclusive and cliquey?
oh and in my opinion people who ONLY post about themselves should be 'had a word with'

[David A. Riley]

but i think that what has got a lot of peoples backs up is that theyre being attacked for doing something they weren't told not to by people who don't use the forums very much

I agree. Just as a hate the way in which some people were attacked. There is and never was any need for some of the comments made, which disgusted me.

I am disappointed in what has gone on in the Vault and this, for quite some time, if at all, will be the last time I post here.

David

[carolinec]

Nov 14, 2008 13:26:55 GMT David A. Riley said:

... and this, for quite some time, if at all, will be the last time I post here.

Now that is very, very sad. It's people like you, David, who I thought were the lifeblood of this forum. This is why I'm waiting to see now how this all pans out. If I, and others, have been wrong in our assumptions about what the board covers then, once it's spelled out to us what it does actually cover, we can either join in (if we're able) or not, as the case may be. Let's have some clarification on this please ...

[justin]

The thread seems to be getting distracted by minutae such as whether people should be using the last 30 threads option, rather than focussing on the crux of the matter.

Which to me was and is- Vault is losing its identity and that few of the posts contain any real substance about the core subject of the board. And there's too much plugging of people's own material.

A few people seem to think the description at the top of the Vault is a legally binding set of terms and conditions. It is not! This is a site set up someone with a love of the genre as a hobby, you're not buying a car or a tin of beans from him and exchanging money for goods or services.

The selection of FMs paperback covers in his post summed up to me what made the board so special- eclectic, irreverant, off-the-wall, slightly dangerous and sexy. And the board hasn't felt like that for a while.

This is not an attempt by the old crusties to keep the board as a secret club. There's no doubting that it did feel like the Pulp Brains Trust when we first got together and maybe there was an ego thing about feeling as if you were involved in something a bit special. But if someone totally new came on board tomorrow with knowledge and opinions on 70s pulps then he/she would be welcome with open arms. Johnny Allthings horror being a prime example.

Everyone is welcome to my mind, no-one is being chased off the board. But you have to add value or bring something to the party. Please participate and post, but if you don't that's OK. Read and enjoy and learn, try some new books and then come back with an opinion. That's all I'm asking.

Some of the strength of reaction is good to see as it displays passion, but some of it also comes across as a bit "methinks the lady does protest to much" (and I'm not being gender specific despite the quote) in terms of people realising the impact of their actions.