|
Post by benedictjjones on Sept 25, 2009 9:24:49 GMT
i quite enjoyed 'bull running...' but personally i reckon meloy should have taken it. 'Islington Crocodiles' was simply brilliant.
|
|
|
Post by pulphack on Sept 27, 2009 15:43:12 GMT
surely the point is that you write primarily to please yourself, and if others like it, then that's a bonus. and if you do please yourself then you think other people might like to read it, and so you try to get it out, and then you try to get it noticed, and what's wrong with any of that?
if you sell it for cash, you're lucky. even if you DELIBERATELY write for a market, you're still lucky if you sell it. chance is 99% of success. look at dan brown (as he was mentioned) - not a great writer, but does have a knack of making accessible some notions that he has - frankly - nicked from previous writers. i liked the comparison between DB and RAW - Wilson's "problem" in hard sales terms was that he was too clever in the sense that ideas and styles flew about so fast in his work that the references and the notions were hard to grasp for a casual reader... and that's what most people are, because that's the way they read. and nothing wrong with that, but that's why a more general, less specific style sometimes gets a wider audience.
john peel once said oasis were huge because noel gallagher's lyrics dealt in generalities and not specifics, so they were easier to grasp for a wider and more casual audience: an analysis you could apply to any kind of art. might not be right all the time, but it seems a reasonable place to start.
any piece of work succeeds or fails only on its own criteria, and only the writer knows what they are. once its out there, then the reader brings their own baggage and personality to it. for that reason, success in terms of sales, influence, awards, anything is a lottery. as long as you're hapy with what you've done, you just have to live with the rest, i guess.
nice to see des back to have a bit of a crow, though. pity he doesn't come back more often for other reasons, as his review of allyson's book was perceptive. and he's right - the flaws in a writer's work can often highlight the strengths, and indeed can work in favour of the work. i haven't read her book, and to be honest given how annoying i found her 'look at me' antics on here last year - bafflingly inappropriate in this place as they seemed to me - i couldn't read it objectively. but lots of people rate her, so she she's doing something right.
by the same token, if johnny thinks its rubbsh, then why shouldn't he say, qualified or not? it's said on here and other places about dead writers, so why not the living?
at the end of the day, i suspect she might have won partly because of her lobbying and self-promotional powers, but it's worked for her, and it would seem the book has something to recommend it. so maybe there's a lesson there?
|
|
|
Post by allthingshorror on Sept 27, 2009 16:40:32 GMT
An interesting thread here - www.britishfantasysociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=2151.0And Paul Campbell has made it onto my 'funniest man alive' shortlist. Funny thing is - there has been a mention of sour grapes. Really? Why would I have sour grapes about a book I didn't enjoy reading? Am I suffering from sour grapes because I never wrote it? Oh please give me a break. Is it, as Caroline has pointed out, a hangover from last year? No - any feeling of being annoyed at her ended after she left. We met at one of those BFS open nights a while after, and the whole thing was briefly talked about then, and one would assume, put to bed. This, in my mind has been judged on the book she has put into the public domain. There are no sour grapes involved. I just didn't like Allybird's book. End of. It was sloppily written and poorly executed - the stories, bar one just didn't work for me in any way shape or form. It was (in my mind) a poor collection which has subsequently been given an award, and in the process has opened the door to authors with a smattering of talent, winning awards that should go to far better authors, (whose work has been quite frankly laughed at on this occasion) - through heavy self-promotion and jolly back scratching. So no sour grapes. Just sadness that a genre I love with all of my heart as taken another hit.
|
|
|
Post by weirdmonger on Sept 27, 2009 16:49:15 GMT
Thanks, pulphack. I do watch these boards. I love all the covers etc. Nostalgia galore.
I just came on to this thread because someone baldly called a book 'shockingly bad'. A book I reviewed and rated. I think I have done that and I feel there is no further point in me extendng the debate from my side.
Johnny, the accusation of alleged 'sour grapes' expressed elsewhere was for Mark's comments, not yours, I feel.
The important thing, at the end of the day, are the Horror fiction works that to be written (to be future's nostalgia) - and I hope none of this has upset anyone sufficiently to alter that.
|
|
|
Post by allthingshorror on Sept 27, 2009 16:52:32 GMT
Johnny, the accusation of alleged 'sour grapes' expressed elsewhere was for Mark's comments, not yours, I feel. Des, my apologies, misread it wrong but my comments still stand. I could have been accused of being jealous.... Now go and post on other threads!
|
|
|
Post by Craig Herbertson on Sept 27, 2009 19:29:10 GMT
Very well put pulphack. Expressed an awful lot of what I feel and I take the points about Dan Brown. The problem I have with it is it seemed so blatant. I suppose in musical terms its the equivalent of Take That covering King Crimson.
At least a book lIkr Holy Blood Holy Grail or whatever it was,explored new and interesting angles with the same material and the guys who wrote it strung some decent sentences together.
On the other hand I love pulp fiction because its a craft. Just reading Conan at the moment. Brilliant stuff.
I have indeed become a grumpy old man...
|
|
|
Post by samheath on Sept 28, 2009 16:35:05 GMT
I've read some of Allyson Bird's stories -- they are OK but not award winners. Strikes me, they are in need of better editing. It's amazing that Fantasy and Science Fiction, probably the best fantasy mag out there, is continually overlooked. I also read some of D'lacey's book -- he won best newcomer. Sorry, just can't see it.
|
|
|
Post by weirdmonger on Sept 28, 2009 17:58:19 GMT
I've read some of Allyson Bird's stories -- they are OK but not award winners. But if you read the book as a whole the stories do interact in a special way - as I mentioned earlier in this thread...and the award was for the book, not for any individual story.
|
|
|
Post by samheath on Sept 28, 2009 18:58:54 GMT
I started reading a story, gave up and moved on to the next. They just were not polished enough for me. Maybe the book as a whole has a theme -- but obviously I didn't get to see it.
I also read Bird's latest chapbook -- set on Coney Island. The first 75% is not bad (still needs better editing). The last part, I think, is far too rushed and confusing. Sorry Ms Bird.
|
|
|
Post by justin on Sept 28, 2009 20:31:51 GMT
Just checked out the thread on the BFS and I thought it a bit OTT- especially the bit describing the Vaulters as "juvenile baying pigs" but I don't think it's healthy or a good use of time to enter into a slanging match with another board.
I think Johnny's post raises two issues- What's the line between a fan who offers "honour amongst thieves" type feedback to a fellow fan, and a punter who has paid good money for a book?
If Johnny paid good money for the book, then shouldn't he be allowed to voice his feelings? If I went out for a bite to eat and felt the quality wasn't at the same level as the price I would speak up. Especially if the restaurant was an award-winner.
Same applies to a pair of trousers. Anything you can buy. Maybe the assumption is that a fellow fan shouldn't be so outspokenly critical of a fellow fan trying to build a career, but if you're coming at it as a consumer who has shelled out their cash then it's fair game to my mind.
Secondly the BFS Awards. I had always assumed they were an equivalent to an Oscar, chosen by a select band of critics, so I was surprised to find out if was done on votes. Making the issue non-book specific as I haven't read the book in question, it strikes me as the equivalent of an Oscar being given to Napoleon Dynamite, not because it deserved critical acclaim but because it was a cult film that would have attracted a hardcore following that would have voted en masse.
I would always see an Oscar nomination as a cast-iron guarantee of a quality film, and would have thought a BFS Award should be the same. It undermines the value of the award otherwise. Having read Johnny's comments I would hesitate to purchase other books which won a BFS award moving forward as I would no longer see it as an indication of quality.
|
|
|
Post by franklinmarsh on Sept 28, 2009 21:12:35 GMT
I don't think it's healthy or a good use of time to enter into a slanging match with another board. Agreed. I'm afraid I wasn't happy to read 'infantile', 'juvenile baying of pigs', a couple of BFS members being told they were above this place (one of whom disagreed and the other who had presumably only joined to reply to Jonny's post) and 'disparaging comments' being made in a review of a book thought to be the kind of thing no one here would read, published in a BFS publication. Kudos to Johnny for speaking out, and Des for being a voice of reason - at both places.
|
|
|
Post by jonathan122 on Sept 28, 2009 21:19:31 GMT
Secondly the BFS Awards. I had always assumed they were an equivalent to an Oscar, chosen by a select band of critics, so I was surprised to find out if was done on votes. Making the issue non-book specific as I haven't read the book in question, it strikes me as the equivalent of an Oscar being given to Napoleon Dynamite, not because it deserved critical acclaim but because it was a cult film that would have attracted a hardcore following that would have voted en masse. I would always see an Oscar nomination as a cast-iron guarantee of a quality film, and would have thought a BFS Award should be the same. It undermines the value of the award otherwise. Having read Johnny's comments I would hesitate to purchase other books which won a BFS award moving forward as I would no longer see it as an indication of quality. Sorry to disappoint you, Justin, but Oscars are voted on, by members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, or whatever it's called. All past nominees are automatically members, so this means that (for example) Elton John's thoughts about what constitutes Best Editing in a movie are widely sought after. I remember seeing an interview with Omar Sharif once, in which he went through the voting process - basically (and I paraphrase a bit), "I don't know how to distinguish which film has the best use of sound effects, but I've worked with X before, so I'll vote for him". Personally, I gave up on the Oscars as a guarantee of quality long ago - have you seen "A Beautiful Mind"?
|
|
|
Post by vaughan on Sept 29, 2009 0:46:38 GMT
I hold the Oscars up as an example of the WORST kind of awards ceremony. It's lots of back-slapping, self-serving, politically correct posturing. It's also a good measure of what NOT to watch. It's about not rocking the boat, keeping the status quo, and celebrating each other.
Sure, every once in a whole a decent film gets an award of some kind - but blimey, 99.9% of the time it's a disgrace.
As for the Oscar show - bad music, naff presenters, and women prancing around in borrowed clothing and jewelry. It's so spineless.
Makes me nauseous even thinking about it. BAD.
|
|
|
Post by dem bones on Sept 29, 2009 12:24:32 GMT
I don't think it's healthy or a good use of time to enter into a slanging match with another board. Agreed. I'm afraid I wasn't happy to read 'infantile', 'juvenile baying of pigs', a couple of BFS members being told they were above this place (one of whom disagreed and the other who had presumably only joined to reply to Jonny's post) and 'disparaging comments' being made in a review of a book thought to be the kind of thing no one here would read, published in a BFS publication. i've read to the most recent post, (as i type it's 'I Am A Canadian's ill-advised attempt at humour, bottom of page 3) and the one tiny consolation is that up until now the thread on here is in no way as painfully f**k**g embarrassing as the one on there. having no interest in the book or its author - even less in giving it any more publicity - and confident that Mark can deal with the awards business (i am in sympathy with his views but thank and respect Lord Froggy here and Stephen Theaker here (second down) for what i felt were even-handed and considered responses to his criticism), i'll cut to mr campbell's comments about vault. campbell's initial gripe is that we received a cursory mention at the fag end of a 550 page book That was very kind of the editor but we sure as hell didn't ask for one and personally, i prefer that people stumble across Vault by accident - it's worked pretty good for us up 'til now. the feedback i receive tends to suggest one of very few likable things about Vault is that we're a small, off-radar concern just doing our own thing. anything approaching mainstream would kill us stone dead. To FM, and those who were genuinely upset at the BFS members comments, i truly sympathise, but i must have been AWOL when we suddenly become answerable to mr campbell. When did we start explaining or - God help us - defending Vault? on a FORUM? People either get off on it or they don't. We don't need converts. The pity of it is he was quite capably hanging himself (all that lovely stuff you mention: plus the ""trawled the site for several months or so last year" smirk inducer.) and it would have been better to leave him and our erstwhile/ prodigal son members to it. Mr. Campbell can't put anyone off this forum, only those of us who write for it can do that. His remarks may even have made a few people curious to look us up. They might hate what they see, they might be pleasantly surprised. They might at least come away wondering if the random thread he so fortuitously selected (this one) is truly "representative" of what we do day in day out.
|
|
|
Post by horrorwatch on Sept 29, 2009 12:32:55 GMT
|
|