|
Post by horrorwatch on Sept 29, 2009 19:17:28 GMT
Horror Watch thinks the problem with carolinec is that not only is she an intolerant hypocrite but she probably has undeclared vested interests in protecting Allyson Bird's work from critcism.
Observe how her praise and defence of both the BFS and Ms Bird is rational adult comment whereas those who hold alternative opinions are sick, juvenile, envious etc.
Horror Watch thinks if you take the people out of the equation then the issues that remain represent legitimate grievances, which is why those who support the BFS and Ms Bird are keen to keep things as personal as possible.
Was Bird's collection better than her rivals? The consensus seems to be no (except among her friends).
Are awards processes fair and meritocratic? The consensus seems to be no (except among those who win awards).
Should some people be allowed to shout down those who oppose the flawed status quo? The consensus seems to be no (except among those who wish to preserve the status quo).
Earlier this evening Horror Watch conducted a completely unscientific and unobserved experiment. Using a planchette and a ouija board, Horror Watch contacted the late spirit of Douglas Adams, and asked him for his take on things. What was his answer to these knotty problems?
His answer: 42.
|
|
|
Post by franklinmarsh on Sept 29, 2009 19:21:59 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. That's your prerogative Caroline, and I salute you for trying. I don't think anyone here thinks 'it's new horror, and therefore it's crap'...it's just that there's so much old stuff out there, many haven't the time (or the cash) to look into the new stuff, unless it's recommended by someone who's judgement you trust, or you stumble across it by mistake (and second hand). In an incredible avalanche of irony, I joined the BFS Forum in an effort to enquire about a new horror book that sounded good to me - I heard about it at a Vault gathering at a BFS (2008) Awards showcase. A very friendly person gave me the info, but I haven't had the finance or opportunity to do anything about it. I think the reception I received yesterday spoke volumes.
|
|
|
Post by weirdmonger on Sept 29, 2009 19:40:58 GMT
I can't recall if you were treated badly Franklin yesterday. (Normally the BFS Forum is very quiet and polite compared to others I attend.).
I think we are all confused who is whom and arguing for what now!
In my mind the situation is clear, however. But I won't keep repeating myself.
|
|
|
Post by carolinec on Sept 29, 2009 20:11:28 GMT
Horror Watch thinks the problem with carolinec is that not only is she an intolerant hypocrite but she probably has undeclared vested interests in protecting Allyson Bird's work from critcism. Observe how her praise and defence of both the BFS and Ms Bird is rational adult comment whereas those who hold alternative opinions are sick, juvenile, envious etc. I'm not quite sure why I'm even bothering to engage in a conversation with you, Mr Watch (though I did laugh at this: "Using a planchette and a ouija board, Horror Watch contacted the late spirit of Douglas Adams, and asked him for his take on things. What was his answer to these knotty problems? His answer: 42."), but I can assure you I have no vested interest in either defending Ally nor the BFS. I'm not a member of the BFS (I was for a year, but I didn't renew my membership as it didn't seem worth it at the time). I've not bought or read Ally's book (I did hear her read "The Caul Bearer" at a BFS open evening - does that damn me to hell? ). Just wanted to clear that one up ... And, Franklin, I'm sorry if you feel you were badly treated on the BFS forum. I must say, I didn't notice it myself either. It could just be an "anti Vault backlash" after all this. This isn't doing anyone any favours. Like I've said here, or elsewhere (can't remember where I'm posting now), this is all very sad. We really should just be getting on with enjoying what ever horror we're into, not engaging in silly squabbles like this.
|
|
|
Post by horrorwatch on Sept 29, 2009 20:20:50 GMT
What we should be doing is tolerating the views of others.
[Cut to view of all the members of the various horror boards linking arms to sing "All we are saying.....is give Peace a chance."]
|
|
|
Post by mattofthespurs on Sept 29, 2009 20:39:52 GMT
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. Harry reckons Crouch up front but how the hell do you leave out a guy that's just banged in four the previous Saturday? That's why it's never boring being a Spurs supporter.
|
|
|
Post by mattofthespurs on Sept 29, 2009 20:42:17 GMT
What we should be doing is tolerating the views of others. [Cut to view of all the members of the various horror boards linking arms to sing "All we are saying.....is give Peace a chance."] Fuck peace. Let's give war a chance.
|
|
|
Post by clinician on Sept 29, 2009 20:49:16 GMT
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 ... Samuels vs Bird - yes great,turn up the heat. 'New' vs 'Old' - now that is slightly more interesting... Remember it was Johnny Horror who first ripped open this tasty can of worms with his enthusiastic fangs. So, Sir John is apparently soon bringing out this retro book on Pan and featuring original contributions from some of the pulpmeisters. I'll be intrigued to see how the olde tyme geezers strut their stuff in 2010. The inevitable question arises: how the hell will their work be judged against the offerings of today? Bearing in mind what's happening here at the moment, I predict more hot controversy on the way. As a West Ham supporter, I say bring it on... And Demonik,babe - you surely must agree that the current postings are a bit more lively than cover scans.
|
|
|
Post by franklinmarsh on Sept 29, 2009 21:10:32 GMT
[ you surely must agree that the current postings are a bit more lively than cover scans. Depends on the scan. Forget my preciousness, I should be better prepared. It's almost tempting to go to the World Horror Convention, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by mattofthespurs on Sept 29, 2009 21:22:01 GMT
I miss the scans.
|
|
|
Post by allthingshorror on Sept 29, 2009 21:34:18 GMT
It's almost tempting to go to the World Horror Convention, isn't it? Well, I'm sure that it will be fun...
|
|
|
Post by marksamuels on Sept 29, 2009 22:13:22 GMT
I support Crystal Palace. You know, I'm really worried that Spurs are going to come in and make a bid for Victor Moses during the January transfer window.
Mark S.
|
|
|
Post by vaughan on Sept 29, 2009 22:23:05 GMT
carolinec: I think you've got me wrong too. I wasn't around last year when the "incident" you refer to took place (a debate about old and new, I guess?) Sorry to hear you feel like this isn't really the place for you - but I don't know what went on in the past.
But reading that thread over on BFS it's clear a certain vocal individual would ridicule someone like myself because I like old horror novels (and Crab books). And that is what prompted my post.
I'd like to read about new horror, because I might be guided to books that I *would* like. But left to my own devices I'm back in the old days.... it's a natural progression for me. I'm not hurting new horror at all.
The criticism of new horror - in my experience - has come from current authors. And I'm making the leap that it's largely because they want to SELL. Personally I'm not all that interested in what sells, only what I ENJOY. If you enjoy something totally different then that's absolutely fine. I'd never criticize you for not liking a Crabs book - believe me, I can see the faults (which is half the fun) as well as anyone else.
I don't know anything about the BFS. I'm learning now. I'm not a member on the board over there. I don't recognize many names over there either. But the impression I'm getting after visiting it is that it's most definitely a place where I wouldn't feel welcome.
While claims - equally as juvenile as anything I've read in this thread - have been made over there, there is one key difference. This is an INDEPENDENT BOARD. It has a focus, a topic if you will. It is - as far as I know - run for the love of it, for fun, as a hobby of sorts. The members here are simply fans. It doesn't represent anything other than a love of a subject. There's no board, no-one truly in charge, just administrators. And I'll tell you, as a relative newbie here, I've found some members to be truly generous of the time and books.
The BFS though......... isn't that pretending to be a representative ORGANIZATION? As such, acting as they are is shameful, and just one more reason I think I'd better stay away. If the level of discussion and angst over there - because someone deemed a winning book to be, for want of a better word, rubbish - is anything to go by, it's just another gentleman's club protecting the honor of a lady.
Who am I? No-one. No-one at all. I read everything from Guy N. Smith to Graham Swift, Ian McEwan, JG Ballard, and tomes on film theory, silent cinema and on. Lots of things. Here I discuss pulp horror. My introduction to the BFS has been eye-opening, and I really think they need to take a good hard look at themselves. I don't think, based on this, they're fit for purpose. Who'd want to be associated with such things?
Beats me.
Good luck on your endeavors, and I hope you find lots of great things to read. It's unlikely any one board will address every need and desire - you know? You've always seemed reasonable to me, sorry to see you stay away.
Click-Click-Click.
|
|
|
Post by carolinec on Sept 29, 2009 22:57:22 GMT
I think you've got me wrong too, Vaughan - I haven't said anything aimed at you. Your posts have been, for the most part, very sensible.
Let me make this clear, I like old horror. I love the Pans (I was weaned on those), Poe, MR James, etc, etc. I also enjoy newer stuff - Ramsey Campbell (well, he must surely class as both old and new as he's been writing long enough), Steve Gallagher, Mark Morris, Pete Crowther, DF Lewis, etc. They're all favourites of mine. I've seen bad old horror (eg. GNS) and bad new horror (eg. Shaun Hutson). Those are my opinions. I'm entitled to them.
I think you've got the BFS wrong too. The folks on that forum (who aren't necessarily representative of the BFS - they're just folks on a forum, same as this one) are simply making their points too. They feel (as I do too) that the vitriol aimed at Ally from this board has been - for want of a better word - disgusting. OK, some people don't like her book and they didn't like her marketing tactics, but what I've see here from some people is nothing short of bullying.
End of sermon. Think of me what you will. Dem, kick me off the forum if you like. But I still feel the same about this. This whole business is shameful.
|
|
|
Post by Craig Herbertson on Sept 29, 2009 23:23:10 GMT
CarolineC. Can I say that I think your positive contributions to the vault have often cheered me up but in this case I think you're mistaken on a key point.
The vaultofevil from my understanding is not about all horror. There may be peripheral discussions but its essence is surely far better summarized by someone wonderfully clever who made me laugh and whose name I've lost in this long thread
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
I do go on the BFS forum but rarely contribute for a variety of reasons none of them particularly sinister. I'm glad both forums exist. If they were both the same there wouldn't be much point in having two.
|
|