|
Post by weirdmonger on Nov 13, 2008 22:58:29 GMT
I'm sure this can be eased somewhat if the 30 last posts feature is not the only default way to navigate. >> In many ways the 30 latest is what gives the forum a humanity. I frequent another site similarily set out which is far less welcoming because the subjects feel more remote in their respective boxes. What interests me is that pretty much this subject got broached about 4 months back and it's still causing unresolved. ade The best way in my view is a list of 'new posts since I last visited' which applies on many other sites - then you can choose the Pan topics (eg) rather than the writing exercises in the Workshop (eg).
|
|
|
Post by allthingshorror on Nov 13, 2008 23:31:45 GMT
This is Vault of Evil A.D. 2007, still aka K. C. and the Sunshine Crabs, still a shrine to vintage pulp horror novels, anthologies, any ghastly books you care to mention, e.t.c., but now ALL NEW (some of it)!!! >>
What is exactly misleading? Vintage horror , anthologies and ghastly books - check. The ALL NEW doesn't mean NEW works of fiction but that it's Version 2 of VOE ( hence the NEW comment). what Edge book was the shittest (sorry can't stand Westerns!)LOL!! I was gonna ask what's the shittest PAN book of Horror ! ade Shittest Pan Horror book? Without a doubt - 22 or 24. Much of a muchness. Oh - 30's pretty bad as well....
|
|
|
Post by H_P_Saucecraft on Nov 13, 2008 23:54:25 GMT
I Know I'm guilty of not posting a great deal, but it's not just here, I've got a bit lax on posting at any forum I belong to. I do regularly read vault though & have been a lurker since the old board. I usually end up not posting much, through convincing myself I've got nothing worth saying, though I shall make an effort to post more & please tell me if I'm talking shit. I greatly enjoy Vault & despite having a reasonable knowledge, have found out far more from here (being born in 77, there were plenty of books I wouldn't have found out about just through my own delving). I feel only up to 1979, would be a bit restrictive, as there were still plenty of books in the spirit of the 70s pulps coming out into the 80s (e.g. Hamlyn nasties) & it's still nice to be made aware of the few modern titles that fit the bill. I admit a lot of modern horror doesn't do much for me, my local library seems to full of paranormal/vampire romance in the horror section & I'm not going near it with a rotting zombie arm (I went for some Edward Lee books instead - not read any of his, but said to be fairly nasty, just what i like). Hope I haven't made it sound like I'm just for new horror, That's certainly not the case, though I don't want to shut myself off to it completely, even if most of it does need a good kick up the arse. I certainly love the old pulps (was glad to find so many that like Eat Them Alive, on Vault) & almost feel I was born at the wrong time (might well have been easier & cheaper to buy a lot of them had I been around then). Anyway, I'm rambling now, so I shall wrap up by saying I shall vote in the polls, but of course the decision is ultimately up to Demonik & I will respect whatever he decides. I've always found this a pleasant forum & hope it remains so, keep up the good work. Last note: as for the 30 newest posts feature, I don't tend to use it, I go through the boards & find what I'm interested in (don't know if this helps as feedback) Dave.
|
|
|
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 troo on Nov 14, 2008 6:22:13 GMT
Tum te tum.
I've been happily participating in this forum in areas other than the Independent / Small Press board (where, incidentally, exists the only place to discuss indie publications, and from which any Panties pimping hasn't spilled out from). Apparently my participation, which while not awe-inspiring or vastly voluminous, just isn't as memorable as about ten whole posts about Pantechnicon. That's fine. I didn't set out to "make a mark" on the board. I found a community which I believed to be about enjoying the classics and having fun at the same time, and apparently fun is no longer on the agenda.
State your case as eloquently as you like, but the moment people start sniping because change happens and they don't like it because it ain't what it used to be are just deluding themselves. You want a group that's full of the old guard? Start a private forum and don't allow newcomers. You want to fling insults at people just because they have a different perspective on things than you? That's nice, but how long exactly are you going to have the same conversations about the same books?
I've happily bought books recommended by other Vault users. I've used my magazine to try and bring this love of the classics, the pulps, the shlocky page-turners and blood-soaked movies of yesteryear to a wider audience (yes, absurdly there are people other than Vaulters who read it).
Life's too short for this.
Allthingshorror, I'm sorry you're having a sucky life right now. I wasn't intending to Oprah, I was simply pointing out that there's a reason I've not been able to post here in the past few months. I hope everything turns out well for you.
Anyway, Dem, I'm afraid I must apologise and leave. I meant no disruption by coming here, and got the impression that I was actually welcome. I hope you get what you want from the site, and that things calm down soon.
|
|
|
Post by mattofthespurs on Nov 14, 2008 8:25:54 GMT
Can't say I've been coming here long enough to have a valid point of view on this but bollocks I'll post one anyway. The reason I was attracted to this site in the first place was the Pan books. What kept me here was the discussion of books pre 1980. I have picked up some wonderful volumes that I never knew existed thanks to this site and it is that dank, mouldy, brown papered feel to it that I like. I don't really care for new horror fiction. I bought the Best new horror volume and it does nothing for me. Of the stories I have read from that and previous volumes it seems to me that the authors have forgotten what makes a good horror story. It should be scary. Too many are trying to be clever. The authors of many tales like this are practically screaming 'look at me! I can use big words! I can make a complex tale about the mind! Aren't I clever!'. To me those stories in volumes such as 'Best new Horror' are more about the authors and not about the tale itself. So for that reason I'm out on the new stuff. In terms of people pimping their wares on here I'm not bothered. I'm a poor excuse for a writer myself but I find that if I have written something then there are other, more suitable places to pimp my wares. Having said that I have sent off one story due to a post on here but I'm certainly not going to make a song and dance about it, but I'm also tolerant and adult enough that I can skip those posts if they do not interest me. So I'm happily in the 'old books' camp. I have no interest in westerns, skinheads books or anything of that ilk (although I do have a fondness for 50's and 60's sci-fi) so despite the posts about them I will happily skip over them and onto something that does interest me. As far as I am concerned this board is not a democracy. Someone owns it and runs it and they can do whatever the hell they want to do with it. If I don't like what happens to it then I won't come back, it's as simple as that. I'm a firm believer that the board gets the posts and the posters that it deserves and if that doesn't sit well with the owner then he needs to make some changes. No argument, no discussion, just do it. If it ain't fun anymore then either change it or don't do it. That may sound too simple but hey ho I'm a simple kinda guy. I look forward to being banned in the near future.
|
|
|
Post by weirdmonger on Nov 14, 2008 8:37:48 GMT
ah, there's nothing like being blunt to get people's backs up. And possibly to diminish a board to a core. That's fair enough if thats what demonik wants. there are two sides to every story and I think I've covered some of the evidence of the victims of the ambush. Not that I see myself on any side, as I tried to make clear with my empathy with the ambushers. But perhaps others are the ambushers and the Vault of Evil core is the wagon train being surrounded? Thanks. But the soul of this board (as quoted in its heading that was quoted in this thread) radiates much further than that. You seem to want to stunt that radiation. Fair enough, as I say, if that's what demonik wants. BTW, I think some of your comments have been hurtful rather than just rancorous. Fair enough, as I say, if that's what demonik wants. I do. . You are polarising things dramatically. Look who started ths thread: vaultofevil.proboards75.com/index.cgi?board=naughtynoughties&action=display&thread=1468 (Calenture). Rog is a friend of mine, but maybe he won't be after this polarisation exercise. I do not see myself as getting any knickers in a twist, if you look at my posts on this thread. I empathise with the core mission of this site. I share it, too. des
|
|
|
Post by allthingshorror on Nov 14, 2008 9:01:34 GMT
Second post on this - and two too many for my liking...
Maybe this thread should be deleted and all irrevelant sections and items should be gotten rid of too. Those who are upset or don't see the place as one for them won't return.
Its just as the old phrase says -seperate the wheat from the chaff.
Maybe there could be a sub-forum ran by Dem or even someone else but still under the Vaults watchful eye that caters for new stuff - but thats written or produced in the tradition of the good old days. So essential readings like Charlie Blacks and JLP's are not lost.
While this website is many things to many people - what shouldn't be overlooked that this site is not only a great place to those who partake - but it is also an invaluable teaching guide to many people who don't join the site.
Mary Danby even mentioned this place when she was looking something up not that long ago. I was very proud to tell her that I belonged to it.
This place, in my mind is a rightful institution and is keeping alive books and ideas that would have been long forgotten about if it wasn't for our nerdy ways. Who gives a shit if this doesn't reach a global audience? When I see someone post a cover that makes me literally shiver with excitement - I thank fuck that the Vault is here. I would be gutted to see it go. I would rather it just be bare bones than dust.
Dem, you're doing a sterling job, and keep up the good work. It's people such as yourself that makes the day to day drudgery a little bit more bearable.
And hey - I've made many friends on here. I hope to make many more in the future.
cheers,
Johnny
|
|
|
Post by weirdmonger on Nov 14, 2008 10:19:58 GMT
I agree with some of the thrust of Johnny's post below. The site is a great archive for the core mission. I know that is its essence. It's also whether one believes a core is a core or whether we should find a way to spread that core by feeding that core as well as feeding off it - perhaps widening it on other ring-fenced threads without the quite useless and too-convenient-to-use-and-get-the-wrong-impression nature of the 'last 30 posts' facility for someone who visits less frequently. PS: I still complain at the way people have been hurt here and made to feel guilty because of some mixed messages (that those people (including me) have interpreted). Perhaps it would be better to delete the thread, as Johnny suggests, for that reason. But if that fact can be recognised, I'd prefer the thread to stay. Second post on this - and two too many for my liking... Maybe this thread should be deleted and all irrevelant sections and items should be gotten rid of too. Those who are upset or don't see the place as one for them won't return. Its just as the old phrase says -seperate the wheat from the chaff. Maybe there could be a sub-forum ran by Dem or even someone else but still under the Vaults watchful eye that caters for new stuff - but thats written or produced in the tradition of the good old days. So essential readings like Charlie Blacks and JLP's are not lost. While this website is many things to many people - what shouldn't be overlooked that this site is not only a great place to those who partake - but it is also an invaluable teaching guide to many people who don't join the site. Mary Danby even mentioned this place when she was looking something up not that long ago. I was very proud to tell her that I belonged to it. This place, in my mind is a rightful institution and is keeping alive books and ideas that would have been long forgotten about if it wasn't for our nerdy ways. Who gives a shit if this doesn't reach a global audience? When I see someone post a cover that makes me literally shiver with excitement - I thank fuck that the Vault is here. I would be gutted to see it go. I would rather it just be bare bones than dust. Dem, you're doing a sterling job, and keep up the good work. It's people such as yourself that makes the day to day drudgery a little bit more bearable. And hey - I've made many friends on here. I hope to make many more in the future. cheers, Johnny
|
|
|
Post by benedictjjones on Nov 14, 2008 10:46:23 GMT
well i stumbled across the site after buying a couple of pans and not knowing much about them. i'm as guilty of posting 'irrelevent' posts as most (about my writing and attempting to get a collection of victoriana together etc.) but at no time has this been said before. in the end it IS DEMS SITE and he can do whatever he likes with it so i'd like to another post from him in response to the last 4 pages - he is our glorious vault leader after all the only way the site is going to 'go back to what it was' as far as I can see is to delete a tonne of the sections. i wont be able to post about trying to pop to the zardoz pulp fair or the BFS open night if you get rid of channel 9, get rid of the sections for the 90's and noughties and we can't post about them. see it's easy. if changes like that go ahead i'll still check the board and have a read but won't post much to be honest as im still finding my way with the pulps. also by cutting off so much people who mightve come for the mammoth book of monsters will no longer stay and learn about the pans and nels... do you really want yourselves to bethe last generation of people to read these wonderful books? (it seems from some posts that do - keep it exclusive and all that) i'll wait and see how all ths turns out. oh and p.s. i can't see why anyone would look at the 'last 30 posts', thats a pretty stupid way of navigating the forum i just scroll down and check any thread that intrests me since the date of my last posting, but then i check the forums and post with some regularity (not just to 'whore' myself but to learn more about books that were published before i was born) unlike most of the complainers...
|
|
|
Post by weirdmonger on Nov 14, 2008 10:57:28 GMT
It's irrelevant what I think, but I agree with every word below. des well i stumbled across the site after buying a couple of pans and not knowing much about them. i'm as guilty of posting 'irrelevent' posts as most (about my writing and attempting to get a collection of victoriana together etc.) but at no time has this been said before. in the end it IS DEMS SITE and he can do whatever he likes with it so i'd like to another post from him in response to the last 4 pages - he is our glorious vault leader after all the only way the site is going to 'go back to what it was' as far as I can see is to delete a tonne of the sections. i wont be able to post about trying to pop to the zardoz pulp fair or the BFS open night if you get rid of channel 9, get rid of the sections for the 90's and noughties and we can't post about them. see it's easy. if changes like that go ahead i'll still check the board and have a read but won't post much to be honest as im still finding my way with the pulps. also by cutting off so much people who mightve come for the mammoth book of monsters will no longer stay and learn about the pans and nels... do you really want yourselves to bethe last generation of people to read these wonderful books? (it seems from some posts that do - keep it exclusive and all that) i'll wait and see how all ths turns out. oh and p.s. i can't see why anyone would look at the 'last 30 posts', thats a pretty stupid way of navigating the forum i just scroll down and check any thread that intrests me since the date of my last posting, but then i check the forums and post with some regularity (not just to 'whore' myself but to learn more about books that were published before i was born) unlike most of the complainers...
|
|
|
Post by allysonbird on Nov 14, 2008 11:24:58 GMT
When I joined the board I thought NEW HORROR was welcome as there is the section 2000 and beyond but it seems that some members want Troo, Caroline, Des and I to leave. I though that new writers were welcome to have threads - individual threads (like Whispers of Wickedness). I never use the last 30 posts – I go right in and look down the dates and read many fascinating posts that send me off to seek books but I rarely comment on them because I didn’t think that I had to. I’m not going into all the details of my publisher’s illness but like Troo I can’t do everything. I been working full time marketing and promoting my book (not only for myself) but for Steve who is still ill and ticking over - keeping the press going somehow. I don’t have the budget that the larger small press houses have. My book helps fund the next book out by Screaming Dreams (Different Skins by Gary McMahon) in 2009 which might not come out as quickly unless I keep selling and Steve finds some more money etc. I’d have thought a section regarding NEW HORROR or about the small presses would be essential to the genre and welcome on most horror boards.
Troo has left the board. Caroline has just been called dim by Pulphack and I’ve had enough of the insults in the last 24 hours. I’ve looked back over the thread that was set up for me for BRFG (thank you Rog for helping me and the small press survive! and Martin the publicity coordinator of the BFS who set up the banner to help) but I’ve only posted on my thread for 12 individual days since the 4th August – one or two ended up in conversations which obviously takes up a little of the 30 recent posts talking about me, the BFS or a ghost story evening I was organising.
I appreciate the support you gave me. Eventually there will be no small presses like Screaming Dreams (Humdrumming has just gone) and the only books available will be celebrity books and if horror makes a come back next year – it will be picked off by celebrities too..
|
|
|
Post by carolinec on Nov 14, 2008 12:01:23 GMT
This is all dreadful. I'm deeply saddened that the Vault has ended up as just another place to insult people who don't like exactly the same things as certain "core members", if that's what you want to call yourselves.
I fully believed that discussion of ALL horror was welcome, and that's why I'm here. Now, I'm not going anywhere just yet (in fact, I could do with lessening the amount of time I spend on forums anyway and get on with some real work!), but if Dem confirms that the Vault IS solely about pre-1979 horror and deletes all the other sections, then I'll probably hang around but not be able to post very much (like someone else said too - was it Ben?). I've learnt a heck of a lot here about things I didn't know much about. That's been invaluable and I think it would be a great loss if you took that opportunity - to spread the message about great horror works - away from people who might visit the board.
Dem, we need your thoughts on all this - it's you're board - you know what you want it to be ...
|
|
|
Post by benedictjjones on Nov 14, 2008 12:07:43 GMT
^agreed, it's all down to what dem wants.
i'm not going anywhere just yet as that seems to be the aim of some people posting in this thread to drive out us accursed newcomers (with insults and the like). i've enjoyed my time here, met some really top people and will continue to but if dem wants to return to the sites original directions that's fine and my previous comments about posting a bit less etc. stand.
|
|
|
Post by allysonbird on Nov 14, 2008 12:53:07 GMT
And with great irony I have some of Robert Aickman's books, also 'Half in Shadow' by Mary Elizabeth Counselman, The True Ghost Stories of Edith Wharton on my desk right now - sat on top of the more modern books in my massive eclectic TBR pile. I enjoy scouting around the old bookshops - found Klein's The Ceremonies that way. I think that much has been said about many of the precious finds that hunters have rooted out on this board and I've enjoyed reading the posts, looking for them and then reading them. I didn't know that it was mandatory to post about them. Sometimes people surely come to this forum to read up on them and enjoy them for themselves.
|
|