Can someone help me identify a book? Around 55 years ago I looked into one of those Ripley's Believe It or Not! paperbacks from some other kid, which contained an item about coffins that moved in some Caribbean locale. I'm pretty sure it was Barbados. Anyway, it seems to have stuck in my mind most of my life, and I'd like to get my hands on it. If anyone can tell me which old paperback it was, I'd appreciate it.

Was it one of those paperbacks which reprinted the Ripley's newspaper feature? (As I recall, it had 2-3 illustrated items per page). There was a whole series of these, and the Ripley's museum in San Francisco had a vending machine to dispense them. If you can recall the cover image, it shouldn't be too hard to track down.

My memory is that the book was a paperback of reprints from the newspaper feature, and that it was published by one of the familiar publishers of that time, such as Pocket Books, Signet, etc. I can't say what the cover image was. But the book was almost certainly published around 1966-1968; it couldn't have been later than the first half of 1969, and probably wouldn't have been earlier than in 1965 or so.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My memory is that the book was a paperback of
> reprints from the newspaper feature, and that it
> was published by one of the familiar publishers of
> that time, such as Pocket Books, Signet, etc. I
> can't say what the cover image was. But the book
> was almost certainly published around 1966-1968;
> it couldn't have been later than the first half of
> 1969, and probably wouldn't have been earlier than
> in 1965 or so.


Off topic, but gosh, I remember reading that column in the Sunday papers when we visited relatives in LA. I *think* it occupied the lower quarter of the next-to-last page of a 6-page comics section.

Little Orphan Annie was the top half of page 6; Dick Tracy was the top half of page 1. Our Sunday paper, The Fresno Bee, didn't carry Ripley.

It's really funny--disorienting, almost--to consider the general popular sensibilities that these strips appealed to, as compared to popular sensibilities currently.

Damned scary, if you dwell on it too long... :^)

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not sure if this helps much, but I am guessing this refers to the story of the moving coffins in the Chase Vault?

"Ripley's Believe it or Not! Ghost Stories and Plays" dates from 1968, with reprints throughout the 70s.
Here's a 1971 picture of a cover -- but I cannot verify that it is the same as the 1968 edition.
[www.isfdb.org]

isfdb describes it as a collection of 26 uncredited short stories and plays of 3 to 4 pages each.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 1 May 23 | 11:57AM by Platypus.

I useed to have that book -- I think, Platypus.

But the book I'm remembering was a collection of illustrated features, not text.

I imagine the item I'm thinking of was about the Chase Vault. It's specifically the Ripley item that I hope to identify, because it seems to have made such an impression.

There's a fairly long essay by me, "Pictures and an Inner Vision," available to be read here:

[efanzines.com]

In it, I wrote about many images that I remember from childhood and early adolescence. If I had been able to identify the Ripley item, I probably would have included it in my "gallery," which ranges from a photograph of a cobra rearing up by a human skull, to a reminiscence of a face painted by Botticelli appearing in an ad (couldn't find the source), to Schomburg's glorious endpapers for the Winston science fiction novels for kids, to a famous alluring record album cover, to a melancholy desert painting. Such things either shaped my imagination or manifested how it was already forming. Again and again, in the article I mention images that seem to have appealed to me massively and spontaneously, i.e. nobody explained to me why I should appreciate them, I just did -- images that might not have meant much to lots of other people, just as some of the pictures that were important to them would have meant nothing to me.

I can't even say that I remember the Ripley image(s). I am sure the picture(s) would have aimed for an eerie effect and would have been in black and white done in comic strip style. But whatever it looks like -- and it is out there somewhere, surely -- it interested me in a way that, so far as I know, none of the other pictures in the book did. What this suggests is that early on I was interested in the atmosphere of (certain) places. Now the picture was no doubt intended to evoke "horror," and I responded to that; but I have never liked the most stereotypical "horror" picture of all -- I probably don't even need to say what it is; we here have all seen endless variations on it: the image of a terrified glamour-model being menaced by something ghastly, such as a skeleton, a zombie, a giant lizard, a giant spider, a vampire in opera cape, etc. We might have been attracted to such paperback art because we figured the book might contain stories we would like -- and again and again those would in fact -not- have been stories about "sexy babes" being menaced by some supernatural creature. But that's what the publishers seemed to think would sell. Maybe that image -did- sell to casual readers hoping for a generous amount of semi-pornography. But I'm not sure I have ever known a fan of "eldritch horror" who seemed particularly interested in that approach. How about you? -Is- that something you like? But if you "collect" "horror" you probably have cheesy books that look like that in your collection. Or maybe you did what I would likely have done and torn the covers off. Feh!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 1 May 23 | 01:19PM by Dale Nelson.