Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

I rarely buy books on the basis of reviews, but life's too short to wait for friends to tell me what to buy. I mostly buy new books based on what I've already read in magazines and anthologies, or where I already appreciate past books by the same author. But in recent years I've prioritised work from the past rather than the present, to fill gaps in my reading. Ars longa vita brevis.

It's my personal belief that a time will come when attributing the success of Joe Hill's books to his father's status is recognised to be as daft as assuming that Robert Aickman was only well-regarded because his grandfather was Richard Marsh. People who knew Joe Hill in the past knew that he wanted to keep his parentage quiet so that his work could be judged on its own merits, therefore they respected his wishes in that regard.

I was knocked out by Joe Hill's stories, especially 'Twentieth-Century Ghost' and 'The Black Phone', for years before I knew who who his father is. I think he's arguably a better writer than his father, and he's certainly more literary and less commercial. His recent story 'Thumbprint' is a particularly brave foray into political allegory. I look forward to his future work. Being the sons of famous authors did nothing for Justin Leiber and Richard Christian Matheson (though the latter's work has achieved some limited recognition, that has not been in excess of its own merits). I'd rather read a new Joe Hill story than a new Stephen King story, these days.

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

Respectfully I disagree. These days we will be seeing more and "proper" reviews (by named critics and writers) on websites and online fanzines.A well thought out review published on the internet is as much a review as a well thought out review published in a literary journal.


True but I would aply that maxim to opinions in print as well.

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

In self-mitigation I have no gripe with JH; I've previously expressed sympathy with his having a famous father, which must obvious create problems. No, my concern was that the reviewer in question failed to decline to review JH's book, or to declare his conflict of interest.

Obviously JH's work will be judged on its own merits over time. Frank Lampard may have a famous footballing father, but he's proved that despite having started from a position of priviledge, he is a brilliant footballer in his own right.

I have a vested interest in believing Reggie Oliver to be a better writer than JH, which I've always been happy to openly acknowledge. However, I think it's fair to say that JH has received more attention because of of who he is than RO has (or indeed, many other talented Brit writers). Yes, JH is a very good writer, but he has undoubtedly received greater attention than he would otherwise have done because of who he is.

I take on board your comments re Aickman and Marsh (which could also apply to RO and Stella Gibbons), but the influential multi-millionaire Mr King Snr is very much alive and well and writing, and review praisers may have one eye on this important difference.

JK

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

Evens – if the review has been submitted to a creditable editor, accepted and published online, yes. If it has simply been posted without mediation, then NO.

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

Julian, our postings crossed. I take no major issue with your comments.

Evans, apologies for mistyping your name. I'm too tired to go on posting.

Goodnight, folks.

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nemonymous (Post 22332) Quote: Originally Posted by Evans (Post 22324) In theory it should be able to go on as long as there is something constructive to be gained from evaluation. A ratcheting review with many hands... An intriguing concept.

It acures to me that it would soon evolve from a review of a story into discourse on criticism itself.

No problem

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joel (Post 22366) Evens – if the review has been submitted to a creditable editor, accepted and published online, yes. If it has simply been posted without mediation, then NO.

Then surely the nature of reviews would boil down to the taste and agenda of of the editors who support them? I'm sorry to sound so combative (I really am) but that does rather encourage a degree of literary pomposity in the nature of reviewing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian Karswell (Post 22365) I take on board your comments re Aickman and Marsh (which could also apply to RO and Stella Gibbons), but the influential multi-millionaire Mr King Snr is very much alive and well and writing, and review praisers may have one eye on this important difference. JK

While I agree with that to some extent it must prove as much a curse as well as blessing for Hill. I can't imagine someone so closely related to a famous writer could go about the same carrier with out a certain degree of paranoia. If it were me I couldn't stop myself wondering whether people were praising my work for what it was or for who wrote it.

I'm very much in accord with that statement.

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

I have always embraced this attitude, but I would never have taken a chance on Thomas Ligotti if it were not for the roar of a small crowd in a big room.

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

For what it matters I looked into Ligotti because a few of my friends spoke highly of him. I knew he was well liked critically but I didn't take that as an indicator of whether I would like his fiction or not.

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

I hardly read reviews. When I buy a book I think that there are neither good nor bad books. All opinions are subjective judgments.

Whether a book was published by a small press like "Ex-Occidente Press", "Ash-Tree Press", or sold a million copies, I couldn't care less. Most of the writers, nowadays, have a few examples of their art online. That's my only judgment. If I like the story I buy the book, else I don't. If the writer has no online example, well, too bad.

I always recommend the books I liked to my my friends. Not the ones I didn't. There is a book by Samuel Delany, "The Einstein Intersection", that apparently had bad reviews. This a perfect example to show that I still like this book independently of the reviews it had. And I don't need to explain why I liked it.

I have three horror writers that I admire to some extent, namely: Thomas Ligotti, Jeffrey Thomas, and Wilun Pugmire. I confessed that I am not a "connoisseur" but and avid reader.

Personally I didn't read much by some of the writers that gently expressed their opinions on this thread. However, following their comments, I know which ones I will never read. I very much enjoyed Joel Lane's comment, and the next opportunity I have I will gladly buy a book from you, or if you have a copy you may as well inscribe it for me, and my family.

I keep saying that there are no writers without readers (I'm not saying buyers but readers). A member of this list no long ago said that he was tempted to buy several copies of a book as an investment only. What great honor is this for the writer whose book was bought as an investment?

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

One more post then sleep... preferably a lot of sleep.

On the nature of selling the books themselves I rather like the some what artistic approach Ex Occidente Press have taken in there descriptions of their collections. There is a certain amount of subjectivity involved but I must admit I find them more compelling that an actual deconstructive review. I really hope The Man who Collected Machen is still in stock by next month so I can get hold of a copy. If only I can scrape the money together I will go for the Reggie Oliver collection as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russell Nash (Post 22373) This a perfect example to show that I still like this book independently of the reviews it had. And I don't need to explain why I liked it.

No but it is interesting for others to hear why you liked it incase they might like it for the same reasons.