Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

While that does make sense, surely the kind of adverse criticism* you (the creator of the object in question) get is more important than the critic.

*If it's actually helpful in fixing a problem the creator wasn't aware of. Not the sort of two sentence long web review that amount to to either Yes or No.

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

Thank you.

I have some sympathy with the notion that the critic is there to protect an idea of literary standards, but it seldom seems to work that way. I suppose, in the end, it's just one of the hazards of the job. You can't expect criticism always to be fair or helpful. But as a writer, I think you're within your rights to complain about it. Also, I think another part of the job of critic (especially in a 'review') is to give a very vivid idea of what the book is like, to help readers make up their own minds if they don't share the reviewer's tastes. I recall an essay in which Burroughs says that critics can lay a curse on a book by writing the review in prose that conjures up no vivid images, thereby creating an association in the mind of the reader with dullness. Having said that, these are merely message boards, and comments here are, of course, not in the way of being official reviews, so I think we should treat it more as conversation, really.

Very true.

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

I think anyone should be able to write a review in public on the internet - as I have been doing a lot recently.

The question is who judges the judges?

Perhaps we should write reviews of reviews, as someone did recently on my review of 'Teatro Grottesco'! :)

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

I agree with that, that as long as both reviews are of a decent standard. I have a slight dislike of big review coloums and the like giving extremely, short sweeping reviews without really explaining the good or bad points in any depth. If its a choice between a one of the above or a well thought out review from Random Internet Poster then I'd probably more likely to listen to Random Internet Poster's.

Notes on the Writing of Reviews? Reviewing reviews sound an interesting idea. I supose you could allways create a frame work for reviews on specific sites though it would limit creative discourse some what.

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

Reviews are not necessarily critical but descriptive / interpretative / evaluative in that order.
Some people are made to be reviewers and have no skill in creating what they review - and some writers have not the skills to review. So I think that question may be spurious.

Of course, I am good at writing and reviewing. ;)
des

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

In theory it should be able to go on as long as there is something constructive to be gained from evaluation. In practise it's probably going to stop once veryone gets board and wanders off. Pardon the overt cynicism.

Of course, where may I ask did your review of Teatro Grottesco appear?

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

A ratcheting review with many hands...
An intriguing concept.


Thanks for the interest. It is here:
http://weirdmonger.blog-city.com/tea...as_ligotti.htm

And it was in turn briefly reviewed here:
http://grimreviews.blogspot.com/2009...s-ligotti.html

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

Thanks Nemonymous, I'll check it out in a second.

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

A possible source of difficulty in these discussions is that we are using a pre-digital era literary vocabulary – rightfully so, but what we're talking about is the Internet. It's important to remember that a blog or a forum posting is not a review. A review has been submitted to the editor of a journal, accepted and published. It exists in a context that is not the world of the Internet. What we're talking about on this thread is not reviews: it's something actually much closer to a phone call or a conversation over a table than a published review.

One of the long-recognised conventions of reviewing is that it is not interactive. An author has right of reply if the review contains factual inaccuracies or is in some other way grossly misleading. But in the culture of literary journals, very few authors would write letters to say "I don't like it when people criticise my work" or "I think my work deserves more praise" – and no editor would publish such a letter. But because Internet forums allow direct and informal dialogue, the expectations of 'right of reply' are much greater.

Even in the world of pre-digital publication, there is a major exception to this convention: the fields of journalism and academic writing, where the book and the review are essentially both part of an ongoing discourse between peers. In that context, 'right of reply' is necessarily a given. My favourite example (from my student days) is Ernst Gellner's splenetic review of Paul Feyerabend's book Science in a Free Society. Gellner, a right-wing scientific 'realist', treated the left-wing social constructivist views of Feyerabend with scorn and contempt. Feyerabend, in a long and hugely entertaining response, took on Gellner's review point for point. His letter included the observation: "It's a shame you didn't read my argument more carefully or get someone to explain it to you." That comment still delights me more than two decades later.

My work has received many hurtful reviews over the years, but so far I've never attempted to take issue publicly with a reviewer. If someone were to express a negative judgement of my work on this forum, I hope (but can't guarantee) I'd maintain a discreet silence. But as I've said already, an opinion posted on a forum is not a review. Let's endorse (wholeheartedly) the right of forum members to express their literary opinions honestly and clearly, and let's endorse (more guardedly) the right of authors to argue back if they feel they have to. This is a forum, not a literary journal. The only rules are the ones we invent.

Finally, let's keep in mind the fact that one good book is worth more than all the Internet postings ever shot into cyberspace.

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

Above all, critics need to be knowledgeable, opinionated and insightful. By default, such skills can only be acquired by wide-reading, passion for the subject and - within certain exceptions - a healthy mix of wisdom and maturity. Any fool or wiseacre can be a pedant; it doesn't take much talent or skill to spot a typo or split infinitive. Yet writers (whether they be poets, playwrights or novelists) continually 'break the rules' that the guardians of pedantry seek to uphold. We are "taught" (for example) that alliteration, repetition and ambiguity is "bad", and that conventions of grammar should be correctly followed. Utter nonsense. Don't the guardians know that God is Pooh bear?

A judge in a court of law is not dissimilar to a good reviewer. He or she has to carefully and knowledgeably sift through evidence and experience to arrive at a reasonable and accurate conclusion. Admittedly a reviewer has greater leniency and is permitted to judge things from a personal and opinionated subjective perspective. I'm less concerned with the length or depth of a review than I am with the following concerns:

1. Reviewer inexperience. Although any graduate is capable at 21 of highlighting grammatical failings or deviations, I don't think any reviewer under the age of thirty has sufficient experience and maturity to critique professionally.

2. Reviewer bias. I've witnessed many examples of reviewer bias. Some writers take delight in savaging their enemies; others will puff the work of a friend or crony to order, regardless of the quality of the work. For example, All Hallows, the Ghost Story Society, the BFS, Ramsey Campbell and his message board chums. Some argue that the genre is so small that it's impossible not to have conflicts-of-interests, some that there is no such thing as Incestuous Reviewer Syndrome. Well, I disagree. We are each of us responsible for our own ingerity, and the number of people who work, read, write and publish in the genre is far larger than the number of MPs sitting in the House Of Commons. There are no excuses for not being able to critique the work of our peers professionally, other than those trotted out by who benefit from the 'status quo' and wish to see it perpetuated.

3. Reviewer Laziness. Some reviewers don't familiarise themselves with the work they are reading. They read hastily and fail to undertake the same level of research that writers often engage in. Yet if they seek to judge a writer who has spent weeks working on a book, the least they can do is read the book thoughtfully and check out any facts or claims.

4. Revewer renumeration. Journals that review books should not only furnish a reviewer with a gratis copy of the book, but they should pay good reviewers as much as they pay the writers.

5. Declaration / conflict of interest. Reviewers who critique the work of friends or cronies should openly declare their interest. I remember being appalled to learn that Ramsey Campbell not only knew who 'Joe Hill' was [Stephen King's son] when giving his debut collection a massive plug in All Hallows a couple of years ago, but that he had failed to mention this in his review. As he quite probably knows Mr King Snr and - without wishing to be unkind - might wish to ingratiate himself with such an influential person in the horror genre, it casts his eulogic review in a different light. In any other line of business this would be deemed a blatant conflict of interest, yet for some reason both the reviewer and the editrice believed that it wasn't, and that their readers and potential book-buying customers didn't need to know about it. In my opinion, the best reviewers are either top quality writers themselves, or else shrewd scholars who put aside personal concerns and focus purely on the work in hand.

The reviewers I personally dislike the most are those who use a review as a platform for launching their own odd proselike tirade. I apologise again for referencing Ramsey Campbell - who I am sure has learnt from past mistakes and youthful naivety - but some of his reviews in early 70s fanzines are classic text-book examples of this. In one brash, arrogant sentence, he would dismiss the entire life's work of this or that author, and then proceed to devote a lengthy review to how better a writer he or she would have been had they only done it his way. Tonight driving home I listened to Bowie's last great album ['Scary Monsters'] which has the wonderful line 'As ugly as a teenage millionaire pretending it's a whizz-kid's world', and this could apply in this case. For example, perhaps the worst thing that ever happened to Ramsey Campbell was that he had his first collection published by Arkham House. And perhaps the worst thing that has happened to several cronies of RC's is that he has heaped praise on them which was not actually merited. Where is the balance and honesty let alone wisdom? In the long run readers will prove the best critics. Great books are often overlooked in the short term but rarely are over the course of time. In contrast many eagerly-hyped works quickly fall by the wayside, damning their champions with tainted association.

Integrity, integrity and integrity: to be respected, a reviewer should cultivate and practise integrity.

A while ago I obtained copies of papers appertaining to anthologies edited by Dorothy Sayers and Marjorie Bowen; although it was obvious that M R James was, via his publisher Edward Arnold, less than keen to grant these fine female authors permission to use his work (James preferred dealing with men), they nevertheless tenaciously ignored James' fussy prejudices, believing that his work was of such a high standard as to merit inclusion in books they were putting together. For me this is a good example of professionalism. In contrast, when I cast an eye over horror anthologies currently in print, the vast majority of contributors are cronies of the commissioning editor, and as obvious are the omissions, inclusive of many fine stories which were overlooked because of petty unprofessionalism. Personally, I never read reviews, because I don't trust reviewers. I've even heard of one case of an All Hallows reviewer being dropped because he failed to praise the fictional debut of the maqazine editor highly enough. As a consequence the only books I buy are those based upon word-of-mouth recommendations from trusted, shrewd friends.

JK

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.

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

Yes, that's true. The internet supplements and complements hard print in a way that is fluid, edgy, sometimes dangerous - but that's what life is like. There can be as much erudition in some internet reviews as printed ones. It comes back to who judges the judges? An editor of a magazine choosing to run a particular review can be just as specious (or not) as an individual posting his own review of a book on his own blog. We should not be hidebound by traditions, even though we still respect traditions.
des

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

Ligotti is a good example of a writer who has maintained a strong presence in magazines and anthologies over the years. I started reading his work in the small press magzines of the early 1980s – most notably Nyctalops and the BFS journal Dark Horizons. More recently, a run of brilliant stories in Weird Tales alerted me to his continued development as a writer – without that, I might have assumed that he was still writing the Noctuary kind of stories, which I liked rather less.

I have to admit I don't value Internet presence or online reputation, or read fiction online. I blame the Internet for the destruction of the bookselling and book publishing trades, and regard its impact on the quality of our literary culture and our lives as a catastrophe. The fact that I regularly visit forums like this is a contradiction that reflects my lack of conflict resolution skills, but I'll spare you introspection on that theme.

If we no longer have magazines and anthologies to give writers a means of building and renewing their reputation, we will no longer have a weird fiction genre. I'm not wholly averse to the concept of online publication, but I have to keep reminding people that BLOGGING IS NOT, REPEAT NOT, PUBLICATION. If I read something down the phone to a friend, that is not publication. It may or may not be an enjoyable phone call for them, but that's another question.

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

Doesn't 'publication' mean making it 'public'?'

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

No offence meant but how are people who don't have a hugely literary circle of friends supposed to find about any of these writers or publications? Even with the internet it is hard enough to tract things down. I understand your complaint about the internet reducing the productivity of things like small scale magazines but without it a huge number simply will not have heard of many of these things.

Without the internet how would many people hear of publishers such as Ex Occidente Press and the like?

While that may be true the internet has massively increased the sheer number of books easily available to the public. People have a far wider variety to chose from these days. Without the internet I would never have been able to read Thomas Ligotti or Mark Samuels simply beacuse I don't think I would have been able to get the books otherwise.

Very well but that will have to cut across the board. If S.T Joshi (I'm just using Joshi because he is the critic I know most about) releases a review online then it should be as much discounted from being a review beacuse of its medium as anyone elses. It might be more read and taken seriusly but the no reviews on the internet rule would have to apply to it as well.

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

Hi Evans.

I've never actually relied on friends to recommend books to me. I rely on finding good stories by new or established writers in magazines and anthologies, which I buy because they serve that purpose. Both Ligotti and Samuels came to my attention by that route.

Also, I'm not saying publication on the Internet is not publication. I'm just saying that blogging is not publication of any kind. If I phoned you up to say something, that would not be a published statement. There are indeed valid Internet publications, but they are not blogs. They are edited online journals. It's not the same thing.

My sense of fandom (or connoisseurship, to be a little more poncey about it) is rooted in the experience of going to a specialist bookshop every week or two and buying new magazines and anthologies, then collections and novels of those writers who look good. I read reviews only to see what the current level of opinion is regarding books I have read. I try not to read reviews of books I haven't read. The eclipse of specialist bookshops and bookshops in general, along with literary magazines, can be blamed on the Internet. And I do blame it thus. With bitterness and rage.

None of this, needless to say, is directed against you or Des or anyone else who finds the benefits of the Internet to outweigh the harm it does.

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

I don't think I would claim that. I'm just accepting the inevitable and making the best of it.
It's like Television. I hate most of it. But I do try to wring meaning from even the worst of it.

I think a blog is a publication just as much as, for example, Terry Lamsley's early books were publications. Some blogs will be good. Others bad. But they all are publications, ie making universally public and accessible some material (that a private phone call doesn't do).

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joel (Post 22419) Hi Evans. I've never actually relied on friends to recommend books to me. I rely on finding good stories by new or established writers in magazines and anthologies, which I buy because they serve that purpose. Both Ligotti and Samuels came to my attention by that route.

In my opinion the good thing about book references from friends is that they can not only tell you if the book itself is good but whether it would suite your tastes or not. I'm certain there are many, many books in the world that are critically very good but just wouldn't suite my reading tastes

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joel (Post 22419) Also, I'm not saying publication on the Internet is not publication. I'm just saying that blogging is not publication of any kind. If I phoned you up to say something, that would not be a published statement. There are indeed valid Internet publications, but they are not blogs. They are edited online journals. It's not the same thing.

I would view a phone conversation as a closed discussion about a book between two people. An online review (particularly a blog) could be seen as a sort of open, self replicating debate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joel (Post 22419) My sense of fandom (or connoisseurship, to be a little more poncey about it) is rooted in the experience of going to a specialist bookshop every week or two and buying new magazines and anthologies, then collections and novels of those writers who look good. I read reviews only to see what the current level of opinion is regarding books I have read. I try not to read reviews of books I haven't read. The eclipse of specialist bookshops and bookshops in general, along with literary magazines, can be blamed on the Internet. And I do blame it thus. With bitterness and rage.

Fair enough. I can only say I don't really have much experience with those kind of book shops to judge.
I tend to buy books and magazines off the internet as matter of necessity than any particular preference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joel (Post 22408) None of this, needless to say, is directed against you or Des or anyone else who finds the benefits of the Internet to outweigh the harm it does.

Don't worry I didn't take it that way, I'm sorry if I came across overly antagonistic about things.

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

Thanks for some very interesting comments about reviews, criticism, et.al.

Back on topic:

Bloody Baudelaire by Ray Russell and The Terrible Changes by Joel Lane are shipping. My copies arrived today. Bloody Baudelaire is the best looking EO book so far.

The Reggie Oliver collection should be down to its last copies. I recommend it very much.

I finished reading the Jean Ray volume some days ago. I don't have time for writing anything more detailed at the moment, but anyone who has a love for Machen, Blackwood and Stevenson with a touch of the contes cruel and a kindly/good-humoured-sardonic (I think that fits Jean Ray very well) tone in the narrator's should give it a chance. Very peculiar, and much recommended.

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

I'll take heed of the tactful nudge back on topic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadsPLP (Post 22832) Bloody Baudelaire by Ray Russell and The Terrible Changes by Joel Lane are shipping. My copies arrived today. Bloody Baudelaire is the best looking EO book so far.

On the subject of Bloody Baudelaire it was mentioned in the nice little leaflet that came with the my Tartarus Press purchase. I hope it gets reprinted. The description on Rusell's website makes it sound really gothic. (strange way of enthusing about something but that was the impression it gave me)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadsPLP (Post 22832) The Reggie Oliver collection should be down to its last copies. I recommend it very much.

Curses! I was really hoping to get an Oliver collection but I don't think I'll be able to make it for this one. Any idea if Mark Samuels's collection is nearing full pre-order? If so I'll go for that now instead of The White Hands.

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

Oh, actually it wasn't really to necessarily get things back on topic. I did think it was some very interesting comments, and I definitely got something - quite a bit - out of reading them.

None of you should hesitate from discussing this further.

Bloody Baudelaire hasn't sold out yet. However, Putting the Pieces in Place by Ray Russell has sold out. Something for which one should be happy, since it was a great collection, which definitely has staying power. But still, it is sad that it has already sold, since I think a great many more people than what the print run allows would like it.

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

Ah that's ok I seem to have an uncanny ability to accidental derail topics.

Am I right in thinking the author of Bloody Baudelaire is the same R Russel as the co owner of Tartarus Press?

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

Has anyone had trouble getting their books?

I was thrilled about the new press, so I figured that I would start with the Reggie Oliver collection and the Jean Ray.I placed an order for both at the end of March, and asked that they be sent together in a box (I asked this before I placed the order). In May, I get a padded envelope with a somewhat banged up Jean Ray, but no Reggie Oliver. I wrote to Dan and explained the situation, and he said that he would send out replacements within 2 days. Wonderful!

Well, a month has passed, and no books. I wrote to Dan on Friday and again on Monday (when I read that the Reggie Oliver collection was down to a few copies), and no response.

So now I am more than a little frustrated about the situation (and not to mention that the Ray Russell and the Mark Valentine collections have sold out in the meantime, which is a shame).

Am I being too impatient? Should it take a month for the books to arrive to New York from Bucharest? Is Dan away on holiday?

Best

DocGriffinStone

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

Dan had a bout of illness recently, which slowed him down, but he should be back up to speed shortly.

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

It's always worth enquriing again, if it's taken a whole month, I'd say.

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

Out of interest are the covers of All God's Angels Beware, Trenumborus Tales (apologies to Julian for very probably spelling his collection wrong) and The Man Who Collected Machen definately the same as those on the site? I just though it best to ask since some of them had cover art not yet finalized and I wanted to unleash positive plague of those images on the Horror Cover thread.

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

This should not be mistaken for "The Trembler on the Tenebris Malgraph Axis" by Peter Crowther, James Lovegrove, and Tanith Lee. I am always happy to help when I can.

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

Well, 'Tenebrous Tales' certainly is. They'll be a different illustration by the same artist (Kerry Buck) by way of a frontispiece. KB has created illustrations for mainstream books in the past.

The book title derives from Barry Humphries' introduction to Robert Aickman's 'Night Voices'. BH and I share a similar interest in weird fiction; I just hopes he likes the artwork as much as I do. I'm currently working on another project that BH may be involved in after he's finished his US tour.

I understand that Dan Ghetu spends a lot of time travelling across Romania from his home to consult with his printer re his various projects, and that the complexities of artwork are just one of the issues discussed. Bearing in mind that he is also raising a young family and undertakes most of the publishing work himself, I am surprised that he manages to achieve as much as he does.

People often don't realise that small press publishers scratch by on very modest incomes which in turn keeps the cost down. The average new badly- and cheaply-made hardback in Waterstones usually costs circa £15 - 20 but probably only costs £2-3 to produce. In contrast, you pay a tenner more for a sewn limited edition book printed in small runs because it costs £10 more to produce.

The small presses that have been going for a few years are obviously more efficient at despatching their books but every new small business experiences teething problems in the early stages. Anyone who thinks they can do better should give it a try.

I'm sorry if it offends those who have been waiting X number of weeks for this or that book, but I think that new small presses should be cut quite a lot of slack. People who are prepared to work so hard for so very little return, ostensibly because of passion for the subject, deserve some patience and forbearance.

Having said that, I would clearly differentiate between the delays experienced by the Ex Occ Presses of this world, and the out-and-out fraud committed by vanity presses who deliberately dupe both writer and customer, or the antics of certain publishers formerly based in Seattle, who still refuse to pay writers or refund customers several years down the line whilst maintaining a lucrative sideline in book sales on Ebay. Dan Ghetu is no John Pelan, he is simply someone struggling to cope with a very large workload (and coping very well, on the whole).

JK

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

Right thats Mr Samuels book ordered.


Apologies, I only looked at the Tenebrous Tales page a while ago and miss read it. I allways assumed it was derived from Tenebrarum (again; not sure of spelling) so it would be read as "Dark Tales". I've never read any of Robert Aikman's stories so I didn't get the referance.

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

I can speak for my own collection here and say that the image currently at the site is very probably not the final image. All God's Angels, Beware! is currently going into the layout etc. stage of production, so these things should be finalised soon.

Just thought I'd say that I agree with this. I only have two of the Ex Occidente books so far - Putting the Pieces in Place and Madder Mysteries, but even to have given the world these two volumes is an acheivement. And, of course, the press is giving the world even more.

I do hope any teething problems that might exist do not cause too much distress either on the publishing or the buying side.

Re: Ex Occidente Press
 

I'm afraid I don't know. When it came to the cover of my book, I left the matter entirely up to Dan. His judgement is sound.

However! I remember he asked me for a frontispiece, but I wasn't keen on having a big photo of my ugly old mug plastered inside.

Mark S.