|
Post by pulphack on Nov 26, 2008 19:09:23 GMT
absolutely - that beeb version and their mr james adaptations are probably more responsible for my exploring victorian and edwardian horror than even Hammer!
it does seem an odd selection in some ways - the Ingoldsby Legends are something i've tried many times to plough through, but as john says, the style is a little long winded. probably best taken in anthology form. i love the comparison with dennis wheatley - it had never dawned on me before, but i guess he was a direct descendant of the 'this is so very awful and now i'll tell you why' school of moral storytelling. the modern day equivalent of which can still be seen in NOTW and Daily Mail style journalism (and all the better for it if you have the right sense of humour).
|
|
|
Post by pulphack on Nov 26, 2008 11:38:57 GMT
more great stuff, johnny. i've never been a big fan of mr h, but i do like his attitude. write what you want, do it the max, and screw the cliques - they don't pay the mortgage. readers do.
nice to see that twenty years haven't dimmed the man who once graced kerrang! in a battered leather singing the praises of iron maiden and contributing a nicely daft rock horror tale. wish i still had that issue - bet you know which one it is! if anyone does, put me out of my misery!
there were also some good comments on cross-genre writing, too. however its dressed up, a story is all about keeping the reader turning the page. there are a lot of 'lit' writers who could do with remembering that, yet are praised while the likes of mr h are derided. not that it looks like he gives a toss. but credit where it's due, after all...
|
|
|
Post by pulphack on Nov 26, 2008 11:31:13 GMT
i think we had a very similar discussion to this over on the old board, a couple of years back, and in many ways the same things apply then as now. i think it's partly due to the increase in 'new' media (some of which is now old!) that has taken over the function of pulp, and partly because of publisher's behaviour. the old mid-list covered pulp paperback territory - quick turnover shelf stackers that had a certain sale then move on. triuble was, increased advances on the big name writers meant that greater resources were piled into them, and bye-bye mid-list. there were also odd decisions - axeing of westerns and war titles, for instance (johnny's shaun hutson interview reminded me of this) for no other reason than publishers thought there was no market, even though library and import sales only proved that it was a little smaller.
in this country, we're a bit behind on the increased reading trend. there are still more titles than ever being publishd, but in smaller runs. and a lot of it is celeb or other media fronted.
but i agree with what's being said about the new forms as gateways and complimentaries to novels. this is the way ahead, and there has always been a market for this kind of writing. always will be. it might be smaller than before, but it can be as a compliment to other media rather than a spin-off.
some publishers are looking at this - baen in the usa, and harper's new angry robot imprint are examining this - but when you say 'hey writers, are you listening?' about series, neil, bear in mind that it's not writers who are the problem here - it's publishers who have had the blinkers on about this for some time. hopefully these are attitudes that are changing.
|
|
|
Post by pulphack on Nov 14, 2008 1:19:51 GMT
ah, there's nothing like being blunt to get people's backs up. good. rancour? i suppose so, but it's noticeable that the 'pimpers' (can we change that? insulting to pimps) have come out of the woodwork. supporting the board by coming on and talking about yourself? bollocks. ridiculous. plenty of places to do that elsewhere. des, your small press ark was invaluable as it filled in gaps on the history of the periods covered by this board that were lacking. how many times, morons? read the headings. (sorry, dem, you'll hate me being so blunt, but like private eye's taxi driver this is the only language they understand) this was supposed to be about old shit. end of. yes, some of us have lives and don't post that much, however much we'd like to doesn't mean we need to have the board filled up with 'me me me' stuff. the point, for those of you too dim to grasp what i was getting at, is that the period defines the work. it has a certain feel. that's what we talk about here. that's the joy of the internet. you can have special interest groups. i wouldn't dream of talking about the stuff i've spoke about on other forums because... wait for it... IT'S NOT RELEVANT TO THEM. that's why we talk about it here. for fucks sake, how difficult is that to grasp. and if some bright spark is going to say ' but that's really exclusive of you' then YES OF COURSE IT IS!!!! do i go on shocklines and talk about AJ Alan? do i go the BFS and talk about Peter Saxon? no, of course bloody not. because it's not RELEVANT to the FORUM. yes, i am annoyed. out of all proportion, frankly. but only because i've seen this place hijacked by the 'me' people (bye, troo, you got the point, at least). if this goes to rack and rooney, then i won't bother. no great loss in the great scheme of things. except i'm sick of seeing things i like hijacked by egos... ones that, in this instance, that want to talk about their zine rather than why lionel fanthorpe was shit at ending stories. people are nice on here 99% of the time. i have been (i hope) until now. but really, too much niceness gets stuff fucked up. time to not be nice for a moment and say please fuck off unless you're actually going to talk about the stuff this board is supposed to be about. the 'all new' bit at the top refers to what ade said, work it out, you ain't stupid, any of you. ade. john , frankilin, justin, dem... you get what this was supposed to be about. where are sev, steve/x and rog when we need them? or curt, come to that? lobolover gets it, for gods sake. yep, it's late and i'm probably wasting my time as the likes of allyson, caroline and des get their knickers in a twist. if you don't get it, fine. just look at how the post numbers rise and the content goes down and then wonder. please, fuck off and talk about yourselves elsewhere. i'm not saying you shouldn't, don't you see? just that you shouldn't where we want to talk about kenneth robeson and guy smith. it doesn't matter that you haven't read or don't like them. but if you haven't... WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE? ?
|
|
|
Post by pulphack on Nov 14, 2008 0:48:47 GMT
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.
|
|
|
Post by pulphack on Nov 13, 2008 15:42:51 GMT
actually, it's people like me who are the problem, cos i was moaning to dem about it yesterday and hadn't bothered posting, so blame me.
it's not about 'new horror' per se. it's about people like - lets name names - troo and truegho and allyson bird who only ever seem to come on here to plug themselves. and yes, i know i posted about the varneyjack blog three (?) times, but i felt guilty about that and wish i hadn't.*
because the traffic of the above named and their like has meant that things have become bogged down in acres of 'look at me!'. and that wasn't what this was about. i've got no problem with people plugging themselves on things like shocklines - in fact, you HAVE to do that to get noticed these days - but this is not the place. this is about talking about old shit. sorry caroline, you're missing the point. you wanna talk about new small press writers? that's cool - there are plenty of places to do it. not so many to talk about old stuff, though, which is why some of us are pissed off with the way it's gone lately and have lost a bit of interest. we - well, me - don't want to to stop you talking about new stuff and yourselves - it's just that you've got LOTS of places to do it. (am i repeating myself? good. take the point.)
the vault should be about what it says on the tin. simple as that.
pimping per se isn't bad - wordsworth et al are worth it because its the old stuff they're publishing. this is the right place for them to announce it. it's not relevant for new writers and small presses, because they're NOT what the site says in the headings. how difficult is that to grasp? form and function, for gods sakes.
*charles, you're not included for two reasons. one: you never pimp the black books, just announce them, and you also contribute across the board. two: a lot of the first one seems to have stemmed from early vaulters anyway, and as such its like a house publication. nothing wrong with plugging an in-house project. you didn't join just to pimp. big difference (he says spelling it out in big letters so he doesn't get misunderstood in any way by those he has named and shamed).
go on, hate me then. those of you that would aren't worth the bother.
that as strong as i expressed it yesterday, dem? you're not taking the flak alone, old son. i'll just put the kettle on...
|
|
|
Post by pulphack on Nov 12, 2008 16:03:57 GMT
ooh, i have this one. picked it up earlier this year. like a oto of this kind of anthology, if you have a few you'll find overlap (i had several at one time - sacrificed to the great god space clearance), but this is as good as any.
i knopw you're not big on crime, dem, but give some of the crime stories a go - there's some goodies in there.
|
|
|
Post by pulphack on Nov 12, 2008 15:55:53 GMT
hello derek - thanks, and i'll mail mark direct, as he suggests.
hello mark, i heard last week that you were in spain - better than ilford, that's for sure. i'll PM you about the papers. ta.
this is a cracking selection. for me, it's a pity there's no gwyn evans (seventy years gone but only just, i think), but seeing as how you're looking to run from the time blake gained a definite identity through to the golden age, i can see that GE can come later.
although the Union Jack era of the 20's is the 'golden age', there is much to be admired on the earlier work, and the shorter UJ form suited a lot of the writers far better than the novel-length library. this should give readers with no idea about blake a good notion of the kind of territory the character could cover, and set the stage nicely for subsequent volumes.
and it avoids repition with the jack adrian book mentioned above. nicely side-stepped. although, to be honest, including two tales by the astounding GH Teed (a man of mystery and adventure in his own right) wins me over right away!
|
|
|
Post by pulphack on Oct 30, 2008 11:45:17 GMT
I've heard about this via the London Old Boys Book Club. As I heard it, it's between the wars Blake, which was really his golden age. Although I do hope the selection has changed from the initial one, which was too similar to Jack Adrian's 'Sexton Blake Wins' - an excellent selection but still fairly readily available second-hand. It'd be nice if anyone whose interest is piqued by the forthcoming book could then delve further via a quick google.
However, with the redoubtable Mr DSD at the helm, it should be a good anthology.
Concerning Mark Hodder - could you please pass on a message and ask him to return the papers he has in his possession to the LOBBC Sexton Blake Library. He's had them over two years, and it's really about time they were returned for other borrowers. I've tried to mail him, but have received no reply. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by pulphack on Oct 27, 2008 19:50:17 GMT
as it happens, goulart is a perfect example of the kind of writer sometimes derided as a cynical hack, but who truly loves his work and cares about it, just has few illusions.
the truth is, most 'hacks' work on other peoples property - series fictions of all kinds - because it's hard to get your own thing going. and when you do, you have to keep worjking at a day job because it's going to be a while before you build an audience bog enough to financially sustain you. if at all. unless you're lucky.
lots of variables there. but most of us don't earn that much, we just swap job satisfaction for big bucks, and as long as we can scribble we're happy. a lot of pulp hacks have wanted to write something else other than what they do, and sometims they get the chance. but writing is more fun that an office or a building site, and so what if we have to use other people's characters? we can still put all our own stuff into it, as long as we keep to some kind of guideline.
and it's true that the notion of slapdash is bollocks - as you say, dent and ernst worried at their work, and when they had to have subs take on the load they worried about them, too. john creasey is another example. about 600 books in his career, as in the early days he figured that he would have to write one a month in order to support his family. as sales increased, he didn't have to do this, but he felt obliged to his readers. he also used to revise old titles when they were republished and he felt he could improve them. does anyone care now? of course not, they were only cheap paperbacks to most people. but he wanted his work to be the best it could be, regardlesss. writers like peter leslie and mike avallone were the same - they might not revise old work, but they did every job to the best of ther ability. latter day writers like LJ were the same.
sometimes hack writers look like they don't care as they're not actually very good (pierce nace, anyone?). but i bet they do - you can always spot it. it' why barbara cartland was so popular while other romane writers came and went. same for catherine cookson. neither of them great stylists, byut by god they loved their work - they were hacks to begin with (BC only took it up as a divorce left her with two sons and no income, despite her posh roots, while CC was dirt poor and determined to make a better life), but they didn't HAVE to keep it up when they got successful. fact is, they loved it.
i suspect most hacks aren't as cynical as they make out - it's a shield against generations of Leavis influenced critics laughing at them.
and how many people did the Leavis' ever entertain, i wonder?
|
|
|
Post by pulphack on Oct 27, 2008 19:24:09 GMT
excellent interview, even if the old sod does skirt round a few issues. again, as with justin's work, getting these guys to record anything of their experiences before they all fall off the peg is invaluable given that it's only very recently that popular fiction has been treated with any seriousness. it may not be 'lietrature' but its social influence - as somethign that was read by so many at the peak of the paperback - cannot be underestimated.
by the way, for the record i've never read Worms, and was merely adding to the 'who is adrian/lowder/etc' debate. having said that, i wouldn't be surprised if he's either forgot, or has chosen to forget because of something other tha the book itself.
but if it isn't him, then who is it? there were actually only a small number of writers working in paperbacks in the UK at that time, after all...
|
|
|
Post by pulphack on Oct 27, 2008 19:10:38 GMT
well steve, i have nothing to add to that... i agree completely about the problem with perception of the blues being based entirely upon the sixties blues boom taking chicago blues as its model. i love howling wolf, john lee, etc, but the rigidity of the instrumentation takes away a lot of the scope that was in that broad church you mentioned.
and the fact that many of the blues boom brit musos produced better stuff when they went 'progressive' (in the dictuionary sense, not as in prog necessarily) just shows that you break out of a formula then you start to get inventive. m'lord, i take as witness for the prosecution mr john mayall.
the only album of his i ever really liked was 'bare wires' where he has a whole load of jazzers in the bluesbreakers and produces an album that stretches instrumentally beyond his limnited songwriting. that same band (minus mayall and mick taylor) broke away to become Colosseum, and then recorded the stretching out 'For Those About To Die' album before really letting loose with 'Valentyne Suite', which had bugger all to do with blues as it had been in british bands up to that point (even the track 'Buttys Blues' starts conventionally then veers off).
colosseum (back to lower case) are a prime example of your theory in action.
if we cross the pond, i need only say Captain Beefheart...
meanwhile, Caroline - Ten Years After! love the decca albums - the cd issue of the first one has a great version of them doing woody herman's 'woodcutters ball', and stonedhenge is very palyful and tuneful. but can i posit the idea that woodstock made them commercially but killed them musically? after 'going home' all anyone wanted was fast boogie with lots of soloing. later albums are really tedious and to be honest it seems a relief when alvin threw in the towel. first thing he was a gospel album, for god's sake (...). ten years later sounded like a tax bill that needed paying as it was by numbers boogie, and after that? well, apart from the abortive '89 reunion, i think it's significant that he has nothing to do with the version of TYA that gigs now, and his last album went from django rheinhardt jazz to rockabilly picking and had bugger all to do with what made him famous.
they're one of those bands who were really great, but had that sad inverse ration of success to creativity. the early stuff, though... i think i'm just off to pick out the first album and stonedhenge and play them now, actually...
|
|
|
Post by pulphack on Oct 27, 2008 18:56:45 GMT
yep, scunny - the train goes through doncaster shortly before jack gets off, and the two towns are very close - and hate each other, as attendance of any scunthorpe/donny rovers game will show you. i don't know for sure, but i suspect that the film was moved to newcastle as the topography of the town and surrounding area was better suited to spectacle, but without losing any of the grittiness. scunny is... well, it just sort of is...
|
|
|
Post by pulphack on Oct 19, 2008 10:28:23 GMT
Thanks for bringing this up, Steve - I've not read any of the Goularts, but have a couple of early Avengers - Justice Inc (no1), and Murder On Wheels (no13). This latter introduces Cole Wilson, whose presence is ambivalent for at least half the book. You're not sure what side he's on to begin with, and this adds a nice edge to what is a fairly simple plot. In this one, Benson's face and hair return to normal, too, after an electric shock (if memory serves - a few years since I read it). I don't know if they took him back to being the ice-faced wonder after, but I would hope so, as it was a great piece of schtick: I always loved the way he could rearrange his facial muscles when they were paralysed, and so assume new identities.
The first book gave its title to the DC comic version in the 70's, which is where I first encountered The Avenger, and also The Shadow (until I hit my twenties, I always thought they were comic characters and had no idea they were old pulp heroes). Benson and The Shadow faced off in about the tenth issue of The Shadow's comic, and soon after that I found Justic Inc lurking in a local newsagent. The first issue followed the first book, and was ok but a bit lacking. The next three were incredible (I never saw one after #4, sadly), as they were written and drawn by Jack Kirby during that insane DC period that also saw him doing OMAC and Kamandi. Mad art deco lines and that chunky, kinetic Kirby style, where everyone has huge muscles and granite jaws. An acquired taste, admittedly, but nothing has ever hit me like Kirby's art did at that time. I prefer the likes of Jesus Blasco these days (my Steel Claw fetish), but my God, Kirby's work jumped off the page.
And the stories were mental - basic adaptations of the novels, and as mad as the Shadow issues. Aftre the heat of pulp invention, other comics started to read very dull.
Speaking of manic white heat of invention (which we were, sort of), consider that Lester Dent, Walter Gibson and Paul Ernst were writing at a rate of 15,000 words a week. Edgar Wallace and Erle Stanley Gardner did more, perhaps, but they dictated. John Creasey did the same, in longhand. Gibson wore out typwriters. They did this week in, week out, with little rest between. Now, when circumstance has dictated, I've worked at that pace for a couple of months at a stretch, but by then have needed a break as the writing and revision is mentally exhausting (which may be because I'm not as naturally quick or good as they were). They didn't have that luxury. Which makes it astounding to me that these guys kept up such a consistent quality. A lot of people (not necessarily on here, mind) moan about the inconsistencies of high-turnover writers - but given the pace, it always astounds me that they can keep ANY level of consistency!
But back to the Avenger - is it worth searching out the later ones, then? How do they compare to Goulart's other work?
|
|
|
Post by pulphack on Oct 19, 2008 10:07:55 GMT
Blodwyn Pig albums are pretty easy to get hold of on CD, Caroline - I've seen 'em going for £3 in Fopp, which is a kind of warehouse clearance store (or seems like it, anyway). Not sure if it's just London based or national, but a quick whizz round Amazon should turn 'em up cheap.
MIck Abrahams' solo stuff is a bit of a curates egg - a lot of it was for acoustic guitar oriented labels, and as suchfalls into the scholarly approach to picking that can get a bit dull if you're not a fellow picker.
Odd thing about Tull and Pig is that he formed both bands, was the early leader, then found himself ousted - Pete Banks, ex-of Yes and about to form Flash (if my chronology is right) was drafted in as guitarist by the others after Mick was sacked! Not sure if this line-up ever recorded anything, but probably best to check before buying any Pig.
'This Was' is something I've never really thought of as a Tull album, really. Tull is Anderson, and 'This Was' is almost purely Mick - which may be why it's one I prefer to any other Tull I've heard part from 'Songs From The Wood'. I'm not really much of a fan of Mr Anderson, but 'Songs...' has something I don't hear in his other work.
SteveX - interesting point about brit blues boom. The more 'authentic' a band or player was, the more dull they're likely to be to me. For instance, I don#t like the first couple of Savoy Brown albums, but when they start to get heavy and move away from 'pure' blues, I really like them. Similarly, anything on the Blue Horizon label is dull to me, yet Peter Green taking Fleetwood Mac into new areas is exciting still; and Chicken Shack are deadly dull to my ears until Stan Webb goes heavy and signs to Deram. I suppose you could argue this means I like heavy rock not blues, and it's a fair point - but I think it's because they stop copying and become something of their own at those points. To me, the best brit blueser is Tony McPhee - and that's because he's like his hero John Lee Hooker to the extent that he takes the form and uses it to his own ends rather than as a formula. The Groundhogs still, to this day, sound nothing like a 'blues' band even though they are, and no-one has ever written songs like McPhee (or made up their own weird chords for them, as Captain Sensible - a big 'Hogs fan - once pointed out).
Which may seem a long way from Tull, but ultimately that's what Mr Anderson did when he ousted Mick Abrahams - the next couple of Tull albums are tight, riffy little numbers that take the blues ostinato and warp it around M Anderson's own take on blues songwriting, incorporating his jazz and pop influences.
Incidentally, Mr X , it occurs to me while I'm writing this that your preferences in this kind of music echo what you were saying about pulp - bringing some new and personal twist to the form to spice it up (he said, grossly simplifying for speed). Tastes may not coincide exactly, but I think in essence this is what I'm looking for when I pick up a book or shove on a CD, too.
|
|