Re: Robert Aickman
 

Aickman's views diminish the purpose of reviews. By assiging virtue to positivity and ignominy to negativity, he misses the point. The virtue of reviews resides strictly in their honesty, accuracy, and authenticity.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

OK, I’ll buy that.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

But having said that, I think reviewers should choose to review works that they have an instinct of love about. Often such instincts work out. They seem to do so... with the books I get.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

Has it been confirmed that Robert Aickman read Lovecraft? And did he comment on the quality of Lovecraft's writings?

The two were very different writers, but it would still be interesting to hear Aickman's opinion given his undisputed awareness of high standards in literature and art.

The mainstream critic elite tend to see Lovecraft as a 'bad writer', but these self-proclaimed experts are too dull-witted to be self-aware of the fact that they hold that negative opinion simply for political reasons. They are mentally closed off from Lovecraft's exceptional literary talent.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

Aickman spoke disparagingly of horror stories and I suspect he would have found Lovecraft's work too lurid and tasteless.
However his tastes were sometimes surprising. He preferred Night of the Living Dead to The Leopard Man.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

I wouldn't be too surprised if that is so. They had different perspectives and aesthetic preferences, Lovecraft being more direct and overtly physical in his approach.

Anyhow, some say that "Ringing the Changes" appears to be a homage to "The Shadow Over Innsmouth".

M. R. James is another writer, ... who had a low opinion of Lovecraft.

I have high respect for all three writers.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

Aickman thought The Music of Erich Zann was the only good Lovecraft story. Definitely not a fan. There are a lot of great British writers of supernatural fiction who either disliked Lovecraft's style or never mentioned him. As a Lovecraft fan I am fine with this. Clive Barker isn't a Lovecraft fan, and I think he's the equal of him as a horror writer.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

Yeah, that's what I meant by authenticity, I guess. Approaching the material in good faith, with a solid understanding of the form it represents, and a willingness and a capacity to appreciate all it has to offer. But without inherent bias towards positivity or negativity, as well.

Someone should have pointed out to Bob that criticism that only praises isn't criticism. It's PR.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

Blanket rules are useless, but I think a danger of 'negative' reviewers who market themselves as such for their 'brand' is that it often seems as if the critic is a competitor trying to 'beat' the work they're reviewing rather than actually trying to engage with it properly, often scoring own-goals in the process of rushing to find fault where there isn't one. This was my issue with S. T. Joshi's review of the Southern Reach trilogy and my general feeling regarding a lot of internet critics, such as that Nostalgic Critic person.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

Analysis leading to praise is my optimal goal, assuming the book itself allows, as I would expect from any book I choose to get.