No, I did not alert anyone. The rumor will doubtless surface again, as such things do.

Supernatural fiction, just like all art forms adapts to the needs of its readership, the social mores/stresses of the time in which it is written. We are currently glutted with a lot of fiction that will doubtless not be of any interest to anyone a generation or more from now; but I think there is quite a bit of good work being done at present, mostly in the shorter forms. What may not seem of Gold to us now may be treasured by those not distracted by current societal concerns and market forces. Mozart and Bach had limited fame during their lifetime; Le Fanu and Machen could barely make ends meet throughout their troubled lives.


Jim

To put my two cents' worth in on both points: There is some overlap in the volume and the previous collections mentioned; but this is mostly in the chapters on Campbell, Schow, and Machen, and in the latter two cases, such repetition is only a small portion of what he has here. Likewise, the Campbell chapter has material not included in earlier volumes. In other words, you have a total of roughly 20-25 pages where there is a certain amount of overlap, though not identity; the rest (save for general statements here and there) is not reproduced from any of the previous collections.

On Campbell: Though I must admit that I have an enormous amount of his work still to read, nonetheless, I have sampled work from various periods, and I can't at all agree that he is simply repeating himself either in form, substance, or technique, save to the degree that any writer is likely to do, no matter how able or ingenious. Has he written work that doesn't succeed? Undoubtedly. Has he even written hackwork on occasion? I'd say yes. But the majority of what I have read continues to impress me with his abilities to evoke a genuine sense of the numinous and of gradually increasing suspense and terror or horror -- not at all the same thing -- with a remarkably fine hand. I recently read his Needing Ghosts and, while initially I found it very irritating, gradually I came to the conclusion that his approach there was precisely what was needed for what he was attempting; and in the end I found the tale a superb tour-de-force (to use a much abused term). The very openness of the ending's interpretation reflects back on everything within it, increasing the effect retrospectively; something which I find only grows with repeated readings. I've not yet read his Darkest Part of the Woods, The Overnight, or The Grin of the Dark, but I have them set aside for a reading at my earliest opportunity. (As I have remarked elsewhere, I'm involved in a very lengthy reading project which, frankly, takes up all the precious little reading time I have... at least for the next couple of years or better.) But, having glanced through them, I find no lessening of his abilities with the language, imagery, or evocation of atmosphere, so I don't expect I'll be terribly disappointed....

Just to demonstrate to you how easy it is, I have amused myself by composing an ultra-short Campbell-esque vignette, which in a single sentence captures what Campbell is all about. Let us see if you do not agree! I was unable to think of a title for it, but here goes:

Of course they could not really be faces.

Amusing, but hardly accurate. Campbell is someone who often deals with those "spaces between" concerning our perceptions, yes; but then, that is true of so many who have written the supernatural tale, and can be found in instances in Le Fanu, M. R. James, Russell Kirk, Thomas Ligotti, Vernon Lee, and so forth. Nor is he restricted to this type of thing, by any means.

No, Campbell has his faults, certainly; but he cannot be reduced to such a simplistic statement any more than Melville's Moby-Dick can be reduced to "a story about a really big fish", or Le Fanu's "Carmilla" can be reduced to a "lesbian vampire tale" -- there is some truth in each, but it is very limited.

Suffice to say that I find Campbell to be a modern writer working in something of the same vein as many of the more memorable writers of the Victorian and Edwardian weird tale, and a worthy addition to such company.

Jojo Lapin X Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just to demonstrate to you how easy it is, I have
> amused myself by composing an ultra-short
> Campbell-esque vignette, which in a single
> sentence captures what Campbell is all about. Let
> us see if you do not agree! I was unable to think
> of a title for it, but here goes:
>
> Of course they could not really be faces.


Very good XD

Campbell is very good though... the last short story of his I read, 'The Interloper' in Demons By Daylight, is an absolutely exquisite tale of terror. The Grin of the Dark, the last novel of his I read, was also very stong indeed. Yes, Campbell has his own little stylistic signitures which I guess could be singled out for parody (one somewhat tiresome recurring motif in The Grin of The Dark is a clownish grin slapped chillingly on some ordinary person's lips - it's used far too frequently in the novel), but he's still a master. One must remember that Lovecraft is a very easy authour to take-off as well, but most of us appreciate his brilliance.

Every writer--HPL, CAS, REH, Blackwood, Ligotti, King, Bradbury, Dr. James, whoever--has their own stylistic peculiarities that lend themselves to parody, and Campbell is certainly no exception. Ramsey has produced a lot of work that frankly leaves me cold. (So did Algernon Blackwood, but is anyone arguing that "The Willows" or "The Wendigo" were flukes?) However, when he is "in the zone," which is IMO most of the time, he is astonishingly scary. It took him awhile to find his metier in the novel; some of the early ones are frankly very weak. His recent work, especially THE DARKEST PART OF THE WOODS, THE GRIN OF THE DARK, and NAZARETH HILL, are all first rate pieces of work, and I admire ANCIENT IMAGES, MIDNIGHT SUN, and THE HUNGRY MOON very much as well. Ramsey's work, like Aickman's, emphasizes ambiguity: one is never quite certain just what happened in a lot of his work. Sometimes this ambiguity is resolved at the end, but usually the reader has a choice of possible explanations, none of which are exactly comforting. I think that he is probably the finest writer working in the field today, and considering some of the talent out there--Reggie Oliver, Glen Hirshberg, Laird Barron, Gary Fry, Joel Lane, Tim Lebbon, Neil Gaiman, etc.--that's pretty impressive.

Scott

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

> Of course they could not really be faces.


Brilliant: A career in flash fiction beckons! :)

jimrockhill2001 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ligotti is also excellent... Klein's work... the novellas he wrote up to the
> publication of DARK GODS; ...I would rank the still too-little-known
> Reggie Oliver the best.



Scott Connors Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> ...considering some of the talent out
> there--Reggie Oliver, Glen Hirshberg, Laird
> Barron, Gary Fry, Joel Lane, Tim Lebbon, Neil
> Gaiman, etc.--that's pretty impressive.




Stephen King?... Dean Koontz?... Peter Straub?... Clive Barker?...

I am not familiar with these writer's work, except for King's. Out of curiousity, why are these names so seldom mentioned on this site, when presenting one's taste? Highbrowism? Embarrassment? Pride? I understand they write mainstream litterature, with all its crowd-pleasing inflated fillings. But how is the quality of their handling of weird and supernatural elements?


I never can be tied to the strictured contents of raw, new thrads...

Knygatin Wrote:


>
> Stephen King?... Dean Koontz?... Peter Straub?...
> Clive Barker?...
>
> I am not familiar with these writer's work, except
> for King's. Out of curiousity, why are these names
> so seldom mentioned on this site, when presenting
> one's taste? Highbrowism? Embarrassment? Pride? I
> understand they write mainstream litterature, with
> all its crowd-pleasing inflated fillings. But how
> is the quality of their handling of weird and
> supernatural elements?
>
>

I should have mentioned Straub's name, he is indeed worthwhile, and a real gentleman as well. Koontz is a very successful commercial writer, but he fails to impress me. I like a lot of Barker, and I like him personally from the few times we've met, but his work for the last ten years or so strikes me as self-indulgent, and anyway I am really not a fan of gore for its own sake, so I don't rank him as highly as the others. I haven't read any King since NEEDFUL THINGS, although I have JUST BEFORE SUNSET and understand that there's at least one really good story therein. I don't begrudge Koontz or Barker or King their success, and in King's case I understand that it has come at a rather high personal price, but I think that there are other writers, such as Campbell, who are just as deserving. YMMV.

Scott

I agree with everything Scott has written about Barker, King, Koontz, and Straub. I liked several of the stories and novellas in Barker's early books, but have not cared for any of the novels.

As I wrote earlier, I think it is too early to claim the present is not an extension of the Golden Age of weird fiction or another Golden Age. A glance at the fiction published in such magazines as F&SF, Interzone, Supernatural Tales, etc., or the contents of many of the original anthologies edited over the past few years by the Rodens of Ash-Tree Press, Danel Olson, Ray Russell and Rosalie Parker, Ellen Datlow, Marvin Kaye, and a number of others reveals a wealth of excellent stories in a variety of shapes, sizes and approaches. Scott's list could be doubled several times over.

Unfortunately, much of this appears in small press publications, or from presses with little circulation beyond its native shores; hence some of the authors already listed by Scott and me have had a considerably smaller audience than they deserve, and even an entertaining mass-market publication like the witty and chilling fusion of fact and fiction in Brian Showers' THE BLEEDING HORSE is barely known outside Ireland.

People on this list have mentioned Arthur Machen, but how many here have encountered the work of a contemporary writer whose work most closely follows Machen's aesthetic - Mark Valentine? And note that I use the word aesthetic, not themes or characters or style or any of the other more obvious features copied by the pasticheur. Valentine's work has a spiritual depth and sensitivity to language that is rarely seen in supernatural fiction outside the work of Machen at his peak.

Scott and I both mentioned Reggie Oliver, but how many here have had a chance to read even one of his excellent collections?

Sturgeon's Law still holds true (I would even say he was an optimist); but in case anyone had not noticed, there is a lot of horror fiction being published today, and if most of it is crap, the dunghead is vast enough to hide quite a few diamonds.

Jim

Jim wrote:

Quote:

[H]ow many here have had a chance to read even one of his excellent collections? [...] Unfortunately, much of this appears in small press publications, or from presses with little circulation beyond its native shores.

You just answered your own question. So long as these writers publish in editions of 300 or so at a price of $40-$50 apiece, very few, indeed, will read them. I sometimes wonder whether that is perhaps the intention?

Regarding Campbell: De gustibus. For me, what is "pallid" is Campbell's sad and flabby body of work. I know you're working hard to join the club and become part of the "in crowd", wilum, so I don't expect you to do other than praise the other club members, publicly.

I should add that I really could not care what the "Oxford Dictionary of Anything" thinks. Such "argumentation" by appeal to authority is on the level of "So-and-so celebrity likes such -and-such after shave, so it must be good!". I don't bow reflexively when I hear a brand name--and that includes the likes of Campbell.

As for Campbell's much-praised style, what others call a tantalizing, ambiguous evocation of the numinous (Aside: How annoying it is to read Rudolf Otto's term bandied around here so carelessly), I call a cheap evocation of mystery by deliberate lack of clarity, and the Emperor's New Clothes. Ligotti's work suffers from this, as well, I think.

That said, I actually hate to "pile on", as Campbell seems to be a very nice fellow, and he deserves enormous credit alone for having made The Hole of the Pit--an infinitely superior work to anything Campbell has written--available, once more. But Campbell's print leaves me cold, and--to return to the subject of the original remark--Joshi's blind idolatry of Campbell not only makes him suspect as a critic, but actually ridiculous, on occasion.

P.S. Re. Peter Straub as a "gentleman": It's too bad that Richard Laymon is dead, as he could offer the basis for a rather different opinion.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 28 Jul 09 | 10:02PM by Kyberean.

Several points here:

Quote:

Kyberean
Stephen King?... Dean Koontz?... Peter Straub?... Clive Barker?...
I am not familiar with these writer's work, except for King's. Out of curiousity, why are these names so seldom mentioned on this site, when presenting one's taste? Highbrowism? Embarrassment? Pride? I understand they write mainstream litterature, with all its crowd-pleasing inflated fillings. But how is the quality of their handling of weird and supernatural elements

For my part: I find King (generally speaking) considerably more flaccid than Campbell has ever been; there is quite often an enormous amount of fat to his writing, which could stand some trimming. Excess verbiage abounds. I am not referring to the use of extra space which serves some purpose, but rather to his tendency toward mundanity, a sort of extremely dull reportage rather than verisimilitude which, on analysis, doesn't truly add anything to character, in no way increases the atmosphere of a piece, and in general is simply flat, uninspired blabbing. At his best, King can be quite good; the problem is that his best is, in my experience, far too little. A pity, as I rather like King himself, from what I know of him, and there are things to like about his work, as well; but I find that he isn't someone I can read much of without wanting to throw the book against the wall, in most cases, and I can very seldom revisit one of his pieces without finding myself chipping tooth enamel forcing myself to finish.

Barker is uneven: about half of what he has written is quite good to brilliant; the other half needs some serious rethinking before it gets published, as it shows signs of not being thought through very well at all, not to mention (again) being overly verbose. I haven't kept up with his work, but from what little I've dipped into it lately, this seems to have become a recurring problem.

Straub -- I'll be honest and admit I've read very little, but what I read, again, was rather variable. Again, at his best, very good; but otherwise competent, but little more.

Koontz bores me to tears; I can't finish any of his work, as it simply strikes me as the horror version of Harold Robbins. I find it atrociously written, and have no patience for it.

As was said above, I begrudge these writers none of their success; writing is a poorly paid profession at best in most cases; for those who can make a success of it, more power to them. But that doesn't mean I have any regard for their work if I find it lacking.

On this bit:

Quote:

You just answered your own question So long as these writers publish in editions of 300 or so at a price of $40-$50 apiece, very few, indeed, will read them. I sometimes wonder whether that is perhaps the intention?

Most likely, in many cases, it is the reluctance of mainstream publishers to take a chance on such unconventional material in a field which has had wildly fluctuating fortunes concerning sales. And, of course, this isn't helped by the lack of publicity when one of them does pick up such a writer for a reissue (as happened with Ligotti on occasion), making it even less likely they'll take a chance in the future without some pretty solid evidence they'll not lose their money.

Quote:

As for Campbell's much-praised style, what others call a tantalizing, ambiguous evocation of the numinous (Aside: How annoying it is to read Rudolf Otto's term bandied around here so carelessly), I call a cheap evocation of mystery by deliberate lack of clarity, and the Emperor's New Clothes. Ligotti's work suffers from this, as well, I think.

There is a certain tendency to overdo it on occasion, yes. I'll agree with that. But I also think this is in the minority of cases, rather than the majority. As for the use of Otto's term... I had in mind more much earlier writers on the subject, such as Burke, Aiken, and the like. And, as I said, Campbell seems to be developing, in modern terms, many of the same ideas and approaches used by writers of that period (and those fairly close to it). I would argue that he is actually quite precise, in most cases, in giving just the right amount to direct the reader toward a very particular image, idea, or interpretation, while nonetheless retaining a thin veil allowing a disquieting uncertainty on whether that vision is really the truth or not. That takes considerable skill and care, and is anything but a mere "lack of clarity".

Incidentally, I am not particularly given to following anyone's authority myself, though if I have read enough of their work and come to respect their opinion, then a favorable comment from them is likely to make me somewhat more prone to investigate a writer or work than I might otherwise be. However, I also have no problem in taking issue with them if I feel their judgment is in error in such a case, either.

I also can't agree with the classification of Joshi's comments as "blind idolatry" of Campbell. That he admires the man's work enormously, yes. But that is a far cry from idolatry. He has, on more than one occasion, taken Campbell to task for some of the very points you raise, for instance.

But perhaps we have different ideas of the meaning of the term....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 28 Jul 09 | 11:17PM by jdworth.

Scott Connors Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I like a lot of Barker,... but his work for the last ten years or so
> strikes me as self-indulgent, and anyway I am
> really not a fan of gore for its own sake,..


I read the first volume of Barker's Books of Blood long ago, and I would probably call it brilliant, or at least very promising. Gruesomely creepy, and imaginative. (One of the stories was very similar to The Colossos of Ylourgne.)
It was also explicitly sexual (perhaps a premonition of the later "self-indulgence")... there was something of egotism over it all, lack of humbleness, that made for a harsh atmosphere I did not wish to return to.

No use of the word numinous I have seen used lately violates Otto's intent.

From Wikipedia (as a handy reference): "According to Otto the numinous experience has two aspects: mysterium tremendum, which is the tendency to invoke fear and trembling; and mysterium fascinas, the tendency to attract, fascinate and compel. The numinous experience also has a personal quality to it, in that the person feels to be in communion with a wholly other."

Secondly, the citation from Oxford was not the basis for my entire argument.

Fat in Campbell? Probably in the novels - decidedly not in the short stories, which have always been characterized by their leanness of language. So far, Kyberean's pronunciations on this topic have been characterized more by the solemnity with which he presents his opinions than by the quality of evidence he has used to bolster it.