|
|
Post by weirdmonger on Dec 28, 2010 18:33:47 GMT
[I always feel responsible if I've initiated a thread topic, especially if it's one that I feel may court controversy, which is why I would always think twice before doing so. Anything else would smack of immaturity Controversy always bad? Maybe. There are some reviews in the new edition which will certainly raise a few eyebrows, not to mention hackles, which may prove interesting. But stuff like that's healthy now and again. Helps to keep the interest there. David |
|
|
|
Post by Craig Herbertson on Dec 28, 2010 18:37:06 GMT
I know I'll probably regret getting involved but can't resist the compulsion to a try and pick a few bones out of all this. First bone - and seemingly one of some contention, though for the life of me I can't really see why - is this business of Dem's signature. I've no intention of trying to put words in Kev's, or Christine Campbell Thomson's, mouth but my understanding of the quote in question is that it's not saying that there's anything wrong with 'literature' as such. Simply that for her own purposes, Campbell was more interested in a good creepy yarn than something more 'literary'. She was simply meeting what she saw as a need. After all, as she says; "For those who wanted something high-brow there was plenty". This could be viewed as an 'anti-intellectual' stance in some respects but it's certainly not sneering. In fact, it doesn't make any kind of judgements at all. It merely, as I read it, states a personal preference. Bone #2 is this from Andy; Here on the other side on the channel most of the discussion about genre literature is just an exercise in rose-coloured nostalgia... done by a few over 40s mostly on the internet. Quite honestly, Andy mate, I'm not sure things are so very different 'over here'! At least, that's exactly why I signed up to Vault however many years ago it was. That, and it was friendly, and fun, and never took itself too seriously. I've always thought "an exercise in rose-coloured nostalgia, done by a few over 40s" was a great idea. I did back then and I still do. Do I have sufficient time, energy, moments of sanity/clarity, to properly devote myself to such a board? Sadly no, I don't. I'm too knackered and too unstable to be of much use here any more but that doesn't stop me loving the place. Obviously, if other people are looking for a discussion with a bit more depth than I am, then good luck to them and I'm not so sure that you can't find that here as well if that's your thing. There's no shortage of very knowledgeable people contributing to Vault. And to finish... I was looking at my bookcase just now - and picked five titles out at random with my eyes closed. They were Zoltan Hound of Dracula, Boot Boys, Inseminoid, Blight, Crossroads: A Warm Breeze (yup the one with Benny in it)... That says it all for me really. Blight? Is that the one with the rampaging mutant moths? God bless you, Mr Noose. And Boot Boys... and Crossroads novelisations... Vault isn't just about having an interest in this stuff and coming together to bang on about it, it's about having a passion for one thing and talking about it here and, through the very act of being here and sharing and participating, learning to love all kinds of other lovely old shite. It's going into a decrepit bookshop looking for that old horror anthology you're missing and coming out with a carrier bag full of Confessions books and Art of Coarse whatever it may be books and a biography of Ed 'Stewpot' Stewart... and, well, if you don't understand what I'm talking about there's really not much more I can say. Is Vault anti-intellectual? The board taken as a whole? No, of course it bloody isn't. It's precisely what people on this thread have been saying the horror genre is. Namely, a broad church. Are there people here who have no interest whatsoever in intellectualising their passions? Yes, it seems to me that there are. It's not a stance, it's just a personal thing. If any dividing lines have been drawn I suggest that they've been drawn around Vault and not from within. And that's fine, you know. Some of the labels that have been attached to us in the past may have been crass and frankly uninformed - and, personally, I'm as anti-crass stupidity as I am anti-intellectual - but the day Vault starts to worry what people think of it will be a very sad day indeed. Now, where's me tablets? Great post |
|
|
|
Post by marksamuels on Dec 28, 2010 19:43:47 GMT
I know I'll probably regret getting involved but can't resist the compulsion to a try and pick a few bones out of all this. First bone - and seemingly one of some contention, though for the life of me I can't really see why - is this business of Dem's signature. I've no intention of trying to put words in Kev's, or Christine Campbell Thomson's, mouth but my understanding of the quote in question is that it's not saying that there's anything wrong with 'literature' as such. Simply that for her own purposes, Campbell was more interested in a good creepy yarn than something more 'literary'. She was simply meeting what she saw as a need. After all, as she says; "For those who wanted something high-brow there was plenty". This could be viewed as an 'anti-intellectual' stance in some respects but it's certainly not sneering. In fact, it doesn't make any kind of judgements at all. It merely, as I read it, states a personal preference. Bone #2 is this from Andy; Quite honestly, Andy mate, I'm not sure things are so very different 'over here'! At least, that's exactly why I signed up to Vault however many years ago it was. That, and it was friendly, and fun, and never took itself too seriously. I've always thought "an exercise in rose-coloured nostalgia, done by a few over 40s" was a great idea. I did back then and I still do. Do I have sufficient time, energy, moments of sanity/clarity, to properly devote myself to such a board? Sadly no, I don't. I'm too knackered and too unstable to be of much use here any more but that doesn't stop me loving the place. Obviously, if other people are looking for a discussion with a bit more depth than I am, then good luck to them and I'm not so sure that you can't find that here as well if that's your thing. There's no shortage of very knowledgeable people contributing to Vault. And to finish... That says it all for me really. Blight? Is that the one with the rampaging mutant moths? God bless you, Mr Noose. And Boot Boys... and Crossroads novelisations... Vault isn't just about having an interest in this stuff and coming together to bang on about it, it's about having a passion for one thing and talking about it here and, through the very act of being here and sharing and participating, learning to love all kinds of other lovely old shite. It's going into a decrepit bookshop looking for that old horror anthology you're missing and coming out with a carrier bag full of Confessions books and Art of Coarse whatever it may be books and a biography of Ed 'Stewpot' Stewart... and, well, if you don't understand what I'm talking about there's really not much more I can say. Is Vault anti-intellectual? The board taken as a whole? No, of course it bloody isn't. It's precisely what people on this thread have been saying the horror genre is. Namely, a broad church. Are there people here who have no interest whatsoever in intellectualising their passions? Yes, it seems to me that there are. It's not a stance, it's just a personal thing. If any dividing lines have been drawn I suggest that they've been drawn around Vault and not from within. And that's fine, you know. Some of the labels that have been attached to us in the past may have been crass and frankly uninformed - and, personally, I'm as anti-crass stupidity as I am anti-intellectual - but the day Vault starts to worry what people think of it will be a very sad day indeed. Now, where's me tablets? Great post Agree 100%. Mark S. |
|
|
|
Post by cw67q on Dec 28, 2010 20:54:38 GMT
There are plenty if threads on this message bioard dealing with the likes of Robert Aickman, Oliver Onions, Arthur Machen etc. All of which I would consider to belong to the more cerebral wing of horror.
There are also many threads about authors who belong to the quieter type of horror without necessarily being highbrow literature.
Sure there are plenty of threads dealing with authors that have brows that sit a little lower.
But I find it difficult to imagine anyone claiming that the vault is anti-popular (?) /lowbrow horror due to presence of threads dealing aickman et al. And I find it difficult to accept the condemnation anti-intellectual of a board that enthusiastically discusses the likes of Aickman.
This site caters to a broad taste. I notice that many members have much broader tastes within this genre than I do myself. I simply don't bother following the threads I'm not interested in other than browsing the thirty latest (In fact this thread would be a prime candidate for being ignored if it hadn't wiped everything else of the top 30).
- Chris
|
|
|
|
Post by Jojo Lapin X on Dec 28, 2010 21:09:12 GMT
Reading and writing are intellectual activities. (Text messaging is not, though.) The true anti-intellectual would never be caught doing such things. I think the answer is right there. You are all forgetting that most people never read anything, let alone Guy N Smith novels.
|
|
|
|
Post by weirdmonger on Dec 28, 2010 21:17:01 GMT
Yes, I regret entitling it with that rhetorical question. And I regret its prominence on the 'last 30 messages' device. It was originally started as a genuine question. Exepcting the answer NO. This followed a comment by the Board's Moderator: I know the horror intelligentsia would have it that we should judge a book on its own merits, regardless of any opinion we've somehow arrived at concerning the author, and i agree with them 100%, but i am far from intelligentsia material and can't find it in me comply. But some people have stirred it up since. I hope I haven't but please let me know if you think I have. I agree that the Board majors on Pulp. And the most viewed thread on the site is the one I set up with Small Press Covers from the Nineties. I do however think this thread should now take its bow as something I hope has been of interest and slight provocation. |
|
|
|
Post by David A. Riley on Dec 28, 2010 21:22:24 GMT
I wouldn't worry, Des. You got the adrenalin flowing, which is no bad thing in the dull grey doldrums between Christmas and New Year.  |
|
|
|
Post by weirdmonger on Dec 28, 2010 21:56:37 GMT
I wouldn't worry, Des. You got the adrenalin flowing, which is no bad thing in the dull grey doldrums between Christmas and New Year. Thanks. I feel I've been through a wringer of aberrations.   |
|
|
|
Post by jamesdoig on Dec 28, 2010 22:29:05 GMT
Some great zines there, Des - you're truly the horror archive.
|
|
|
|
Post by weirdmonger on Dec 28, 2010 22:40:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesdoig on Dec 29, 2010 0:14:14 GMT
Love the binding of Gothic Light, but surely nothing beats the shiela with the rat on her face.
|
|
|
|
Post by marksamuels on Dec 29, 2010 0:30:23 GMT
Love the binding of Gothic Light, but surely nothing beats the shiela with the rat on her face. This does!   Mark S. |
|
|
|
Post by jamesdoig on Dec 29, 2010 5:52:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Dec 29, 2010 12:19:00 GMT
You just know what the model thinks: 'Don´t let her pee, don´t let her pee!' |
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Dec 29, 2010 12:22:00 GMT
|
|
