|
Post by Michael Connolly on Sept 28, 2020 13:16:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Michael Connolly on Sept 29, 2020 13:00:10 GMT
It is stated on p.197 that some of MRJ's tales were originally published in Ghosts and Scholars magazine before they were collected in 1931! This confirms my suspicions.
|
|
|
Post by Jojo Lapin X on Sept 29, 2020 14:18:22 GMT
It is stated on p.197 that some of MRJ's tales were originally published in Ghosts and Scholars magazine before they were collected in 1931! Sounds plausible to me, but I am very gullible.
|
|
|
Post by helrunar on Sept 29, 2020 20:00:38 GMT
Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, Stephen King and ... Joyce Carol Oates??? I must have that wrong.
I know I am a fussy old queen but honestly, I do not consider King's work to fall under the rubric of "the Gothic." The writing, what I have seen of it, is too workmanlike and banal.
Elizabeth Hand's Cass Neary novels are marvelous examples of a current writer composing harrowing yet exquisite Gothic tapestries with elements that mingle the up-to-date with the retarditaire... which means I really like what she writes.
G.
|
|
|
Post by ramseycampbell on Oct 1, 2020 9:04:40 GMT
Oh dear! I can live with how wrong it gets my name, but it cites one of my worst novels. Still, I come off better than Lovecraft. One of his central themes was lycanthropy? He wrote "The Rats in the Wall"? Chambers wrote a play?
|
|
|
Post by Dr Strange on Oct 1, 2020 10:26:06 GMT
OK, you've convinced me to download it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Connolly on Oct 1, 2020 11:26:06 GMT
Oh dear! I can live with how wrong it gets my name, but it cites one of my worst novels. Still, I come off better than Lovecraft. One of his central themes was lycanthropy? He wrote "The Rats in the Wall"? Chambers wrote a play? I haven't read those bits yet. More importantly, did you contribute to the pre-1979 Ghosts and Scholars?
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Oct 1, 2020 13:21:56 GMT
Sure he did. But it was only performed once ...
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Oct 1, 2020 13:23:56 GMT
OK, you've convinced me to download it. Did you also got a warning for trojans when looking for it?
|
|
|
Post by Dr Strange on Oct 1, 2020 14:01:10 GMT
No - no problems with the link in the first post.
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Oct 1, 2020 19:45:33 GMT
No - no problems with the link in the first post. thanks. My old Laptop had no problem with it.
I read a few entries. For such an undertaking it got an astonishing number of facts either wrong or takes a strange viewpoint. Since when is Lucy Westenra an "offensively aggressive feminist"? The Lovecraft entry is just nuts. And Peter Weiss' play "The Persecution of Marat" is Grand Guignol theatre? No, it is not.
|
|
|
Post by helrunar on Oct 2, 2020 3:43:25 GMT
That "encyclopedia" sounds like a joke. A bad one.
H.
|
|
|
Post by ramseycampbell on Oct 2, 2020 7:53:59 GMT
Oh dear! I can live with how wrong it gets my name, but it cites one of my worst novels. Still, I come off better than Lovecraft. One of his central themes was lycanthropy? He wrote "The Rats in the Wall"? Chambers wrote a play? I haven't read those bits yet. More importantly, did you contribute to the pre-1979 Ghosts and Scholars? I don't think so!
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Oct 2, 2020 9:12:50 GMT
That "encyclopedia" sounds like a joke. A bad one. H. I wouldn't go so far. I browsed a bit and it is rather a work which sees most (or all) of the featured works through a political lens. As it is 15 years old, it is mostly feminism and - which I thought rather strange - the anti-Catholicism of a lot of Gothic classics. I guess one could see Lewis' The Monk as an anti-Catholic tirade, but in this work it is cited very often and with a kind of off-handed insistance which has IMHO no place in an encyclopedia. Especially as this thesis is - as far as I read some entries, maybe I saw the wrong ones - absolutly divorced from the background of the writers and their times. This is a short-sighted approach which in the conclusion is untrue.
It is kind of obvious - at least in my opinion - that the writer had no real knowledge or first hand experience of the genre past WWI. And no affinity. Not a bit.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Connolly on Oct 2, 2020 12:50:49 GMT
That "encyclopedia" sounds like a joke. A bad one. H. I wouldn't go so far. I browsed a bit and it is rather a work which sees most (or all) of the featured works through a political lens. As it is 15 years old, it is mostly feminism and - which I thought rather strange - the anti-Catholicism of a lot of Gothic classics. I guess one could see Lewis' The Monk as an anti-Catholic tirade, but in this work it is cited very often and with a kind of off-handed insistance which has IMHO no place in an encyclopedia. Especially as this thesis is - as far as I read some entries, maybe I saw the wrong ones - absolutly divorced from the background of the writers and their times. This is a short-sighted approach which in the conclusion is untrue.
It is kind of obvious - at least in my opinion - that the writer had no real knowledge or first hand experience of the genre past WWI. And no affinity. Not a bit.
While I think your opinion is correct, I'm still skimming through the Encyclopedia. There is nothing about M.R. James that is gothic apart from his use of the word "gothic". As for Sherlock Holmes, there are gothic elements in "The Speckled Band" and The Hound of the Baskervilles. However, linking that novel with lycanthropy is ridiculous. While "Of the Origin of the Hound of the Baskervilles" by Barbara Roden deals with a lyanthropic solution, the original does not even slightly imply lycanthropy. I don't think that this cover by Frank Frazetta is about Sherlock Holmes.
|
|