Jojo Lapin X Wrote:
> Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the idea of
> reprinting these works must originate with the
> Wordsworth editor studying the Ash-Tree catalog
> carefully.


I'd be hesitant about going that far. It seems a distinct possibility, even probable -- but hardly proven beyond a doubt (unless you have more information to support this claim, of course). There has been an upsurge in interest in the "classic" supernatural or weird work, as can be seen from the increased comments (as well as sites) devoted to such on the internet. If they have a series editor who is fairly knowledgeable about the field, there is no reason why such collections or anthologies could not be the result of their own knowledge and work.

The difference, of course, lies in how close the two editions are; not only in contents (after all, if it's a reprint of a long out-of-print book, they'd be much the same anyway) but in additional material; or, in anthologies, if the choices are exceptionally similar. While I'm inclined to accept Scott's assertion, I've not done the research to be certain at this point; hence my stating "if they've been simply reprinting the contents" (emphasis now added).

On the subject of the limited versus popular cheap editions... I don't see any reason why these should be limited to either, as there is certainly a market for both. The problem would seem to be in taking work done for the one and using it in the other without acknowledgment or pay. There will likely always be a market for such limited editions for the hard-core collector or afficionado, while those with more limited resources or who are casual readers interested in the field will benefit from the lower-priced and more easily obtainable format. And, to me, the important thing is to make the material available, while remaining ethical in doing so.

> Could you give an example, as I am not sure what
> you are referring to? The Wordsworth collections I
> own are, as far as I remember, all of them
> reprints of books that had had earlier editions
> before, in applicable cases, Ash-Tree reprinted
> them. That is, in these cases Ash-Tree did not
> collect stories scattered in different
> periodicals, but simply reprinted earlier
> collections. An example is the Sir Andrew
> Caldecott omnibus.

The most egregious example is their collection of R. Murray Gilchrist, which contains not only the same stories from THE STONE DRAGON (which is to be expected), but the same selection culled from Gilchrist's rare magazine work culled (in the same order these are presented in the Ash-Tree edition) AND (as if that were not obvious enough) created an appendix for the same two selections from Gilchrist's dialect stories set in the Peak District.

All they have done, apparently, is dispense with the introduction and change the title. Except for the page numbers and missing introduction, their table of contents is identical to the Ash-Tree.

Jim

jimrockhill2001 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The most egregious example is their collection of
> R. Murray Gilchrist, which contains not only the
> same stories from THE STONE DRAGON (which is to be
> expected), but the same selection culled from
> Gilchrist's rare magazine work culled (in the same
> order these are presented in the Ash-Tree edition)
> AND (as if that were not obvious enough) created
> an appendix for the same two selections from
> Gilchrist's dialect stories set in the Peak
> District.
>
> All they have done, apparently, is dispense with
> the introduction and change the title. Except for
> the page numbers and missing introduction, their
> table of contents is identical to the Ash-Tree.

Thanks! Clearly this is objectionable behavior, but does anyone know if this sort of thing might constitute a violation of copyright?

I doubt seriously that it is a violation of copyright, unless the stories themselves were under copyright protection, and the rights were assigned exclusively to Ash Tree Press by the copyright holder. Since Gilchrist died in 1917, however, it's difficult to see how that could be the case. My area of law when I practiced was not IP, however, so I claim neither expertise nor certainty, here.

If that's the most egregious example of Wordsworth's behavior, then I will certainly not hesitate to patronize them. As I mentioned, I have far more problems with small presses that create needless luxury editions of over-priced hardcovers in limited editions for the express purpose, it seems, of pandering to the collectors' market. To each his own sense of ethics, I suppose....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 9 Sep 08 | 05:17PM by Kyberean.

>>"I can't vouch for it's quality or it's "weird status," since I only know of it by hearsay, but it certainly sounds like there might be something to it. Someone told me it's like Harry Potter but good!)"

Another book in the "like Harry Potter but good" category is Peter Straub's early eighties novel, Shadowland. I can't recommend it enough. (Although I like Harry Potter!)

I'm still looking for an affordable edition of X.L./Julian Osgood Field's The Devil or Nothing. Guess it'll forever remain a dream, like the beebee-gun that the kid wanted in A Christmas Story.

>>"The problem with the Wordsworth series is that many of their volume are essentially pirated editions of small press books. issued w/o creditting the source."

Sounds a lot like Mosher's Bibelot series early in the 1900's, which pirated a lot of English decadent and pre-Raphaelite writers/poets.

Gavin Callaghan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Another book in the "like Harry Potter but good"
> category is Peter Straub's early eighties novel,
> Shadowland. I can't recommend it enough.

SHADOWLAND is a shameless ripoff of John Fowles's THE MAGUS---the author has even admitted this. If you are familiar with Fowles's book it is impossible to get any enjoyment out of the Straub novel. Since you therefore have to choose between them, I suggest going with THE MAGUS, as it is much better.

One of the best works of weird literature is David Lindsay's A Voyage to Arcturus, published in 1920.

I just received the Wordsworth edition of THE WITCH OF PRAGUE & OTHER STORIES (or THE WITCH OF PRAGUE AND OTHER TALES, as it is called on the actual title page) by F Marion Crawford. I wish to share with you the following passage, concerning the story "The Upper Berth," from David Stuart Davies's introduction:

Quote:

The plot concerns some supernatural being, never clearly seen but horribly felt, which haunts the upper berth of a fated steamship.

Now that is an odd way of putting it.

Yes, it is. It's been quite a while since I last read "The Upper Berth", but while I remember the thing being largely in shadow or seen vaguely, I also recall a rather good description of it.

On the example provided above (the Gilchrist) -- I'd say that answers my question. While such may not be illegal, it would certainly be unethical. I hope that, with the new editor, such practices have now stopped; but it does indeed taint the series. A pity.

I'd also like to mention Barry Pain, whose tales seem to be once more receiving a bit of attention. I've yet to come across a copy of the (from what I understand) horrific but non-supernatural Octave of Claudius, but other tales have been appearing in anthologies recently.

There is also Amyas Northcote, colleague of M. R. James, whose collection In Ghostly Company is well worth perusing....

jdworth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, it is. It's been quite a while since I last
> read "The Upper Berth", but while I remember the
> thing being largely in shadow or seen vaguely, I
> also recall a rather good description of it.

I was thinking of the expression "the upper berth of a fated steamship."

And let us not forget Munby, author of "The Alabaster Hand" and other tales. He was an antiquarian scholar in the M. R. James mold, though closer in time to us: his ghost stories were composed in large measure while he was a prisoner of war in WW II.

JBP

Jojo Lapin X Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I was thinking of the expression "the upper berth
> of a fated steamship."

My apologies.

On the subject of those who wrote supernatural tales in the Victorian and Edwardian eras, one shouldn't forget Sarah Orne Jewett, either. And as mention of Vernon Lee has come up (who indeed wrote some superb tales), mention should also be made of Charlotte (Mrs J. H.)(Charlotte) Riddell, Rhoda Broughton, Elizabeth Gaskell, and the like. While often rather stereotypical (at least, from our point of view), no few of these are full of fine touches, and generally well-written. Oliver Onions also wrote a goodly selection of fine tales, which have once more been brought back into print.

If you've not done so, you might be interested in checking out Montague Summers' The Supernatural Omnibus, Edward Wangeknecht's Fireside Book of Ghost Stories, and/or Alexander Laing's The Haunted Omnibus. For that matter, if you can find a copy of Tales of Terror or And the Darkness Falls, edited by Boris Karloff, they are well worth a look. (There has been some doubt as to his actual role in this, but from my understanding he did do the actual selection and editing, though having a collaborator who knew considerable about the field and provided many suggestions on possible tales for inclusion.)

All of these are good choices, and the anthologies are very good places to start. Marvin Kaye's anthologies contain a number of rarer gems - the great Belgian writer Jean Ray for instance - and two of the standard anthologies Wise and Frasier from Modern Library and Hartwell's DARK DESCENT are full of great stories by familiar and unfamiliar writers.

There are a number of lists of favorite/essential/great-but-unknown supernatural fiction in the archive of the Google list alt.books.ghost-fiction. You just have to make sure to go back a few years, because the list is now mostly the province of trolls. Any of the lists by late lamented rbadac are worth pursuing.

One of the founders of the list, William Allison, still has a very useful and informative FAQ for the site, full of links, lists, and valuable information -
[home.epix.net]

Jim

To the classic anthologies, I would add a recommendation for Hugh Walpole's marvellous Second Century of Creepy Stories. To the list of opinions, I would add that I found Jean Ray's Malpertuis to be hugely disappointing.

Very good suggestions there, as well. Marvin Kaye has done some marvelous anthologies, and Walpole's remains something of a landmark in the field.

Mention has been made of Hugh Lamb's anthologies earlier, and I'd recommend them to anyone interested in looking beyond the "old reliables", for he brought back to light numerous tales long forgotten, and helped modern readers (and other anthologists) to realize what a goldmine of supernatural and weird fiction there was remaining largely untapped.

As for the Wise and Fraser (or, as it is given these days, Wise and Wagner)... even though the majority of things in that volume are available elsewhere, if one had to choose a single anthology of weird, supernatural, and terror tales, I think they'd be hard-pressed to surpass this one. There's a reason this has seldom (if ever) been out of print since its first publication in the 1940s, and it remains one of the most prized volumes in my library....