Ramsey Campbell, Probably

May I ask any readers of the Haunted River web site to take the
comments about my piece in the next ALL HALLOWS with a generous
helping of salt? Chris Roden did not give me the job of reviewing Mr
Barker's M. R. James booklet; I chose to do so and then submitted the
completed piece to Barbara Roden, the editor of ALL HALLOWS. It's the
latest instalment of my column RAMSEY CAMPBELL, PROBABLY, which now
appears there. The column previously appeared in NECROFILE and online
at www.thespook.com, and I should have written the instalment
containing the review in exactly the same way for either. The oddest
thing is that Mr Barker knows the truth of the matter, and must surely
have expected his comments to be challenged. I told him last July that
I would be reviewing the booklet in ALL HALLOWS, and he seemed happy
with the prospect then.

Ramsey Campbell

ramsey.RemoveThis@ramsey-campbell.com (Ramsey Campbell) wrote in message news:<e49424.0401130631.714ad2ca.RemoveThis@posting.google.com>...
 > May I ask any readers of the Haunted River web site to take the
 > comments about my piece in the next ALL HALLOWS with a generous
 > helping of salt? Chris Roden did not give me the job of reviewing Mr
 > Barker's M. R. James booklet; I chose to do so and then submitted the
 > completed piece to Barbara Roden, the editor of ALL HALLOWS. It's the
 > latest instalment of my column RAMSEY CAMPBELL, PROBABLY, which now
 > appears there. The column previously appeared in NECROFILE and online
 > at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.thespook.com," target="_blank">www.thespook.com,</a> and I should have written the instalment
 > containing the review in exactly the same way for either. The oddest
 > thing is that Mr Barker knows the truth of the matter, and must surely
 > have expected his comments to be challenged. I told him last July that
 > I would be reviewing the booklet in ALL HALLOWS, and he seemed happy
 > with the prospect then.
 >
 > Ramsey Campbell

With respect, I do not recall your telling me you would be reviewing
the booklet for ALL HALLOWS. As we have only ever communicated by
letter and email, this should be very easy to clear up. Please do
forward me a copy of any email in which you mention that you will be
reviewing the booklet. To the best of my knowledge, there isn't one.

In contrast, I can prove that I twice offered review copies to
Rosemary Pardoe, but for reasons known only to Mrs Pardoe, she opted
to ignore the offer, instead procuring a copy covertly elsewhere, and
then downgrading its status on her website bibliography as an article
rather than the book(let) that it quite obviously is.

If the self-appointed expert on Jamesian matters bends over backwards
to avoid reviewing the booklet, or even in accepting a gratis copy,
then not only does it support my contention that those with a vested
interest in M R James want to snuff out unflattering Jamesian
speculation, but small wonder that I don't care about soliciting
reviews elsewhere.

Finally, a comment about reviews in general. As you are no doubt
aware, I actively welcome reviews. I cannot understand why you think I
would possibly object in principle to your reviewing the book. I
don't, and have never done so.

However, I do have serious reservations about the proposed review for
the following reasons:

a) the review was discussed by the owner of ALL HALLOWS recently in a
conversation where the booklet was denigrated to the status of a
'screed' and a 'pamphlet'. You were mentioned in that conversation.
That hardly bodes well for an objective review, does it?

b) you have made it abundantly clear that you regard Mr Roden as a
close friend. You will obviously be aware that Mr Roden went to quite
extraordinary lengths to denigrate our booklet when it first came out,
here in this very forum. He exhibited much sour grapery by posting the
Crake tale online to try and 'spike' our sales along with making an
embarrassing gaffe about the word 'sheath'. (I wonder whether these
aspects will find their way into your review.....no, of course they
won't.) But again, these factors bode ill for objectivity in any
review.

c) when you and I were discussing the Kim Newman DVD sleeve notes, I
was surprised by your inability to understand my stance on the issue
of errors in those sleeve notes (errors that were spotted by your own
friends elsewhere). I concluded that you probably did understand my
viewpoint, but that you did not want to acknowledge it out of regard
for your friend Mr Newman. Again, this odd behaviour bodes ill for any
review.

If you were obstinately unwilling to acknowledge that Kim Newman had
made basic factual errors in his sleeve notes e.g. he dated MRJ's
debut collection as 1905 instead of 1904, then I fail to see how you
can possibly review our booklet fairly, given the high profile scorn
poured upon it by Chris Roden and Rosemary Pardoe, who are also your
friends.

At the risk of making a bad joke, one has to ask "Will Ramsey
Campbell's review be influenced by such nepotistic factors?" The
answer has to be "Probably."


* * * * * *

But these are peripheral issues. Review away, by all means. The
important matter for us to clear up here and now is your reference to
me as 'odd' and your reference to the 'truth of the matter'. Please
forward me the email in which you say that you will be reviewing the
booklet for ALL HALLOWS so that we can indeed get at the truth of the
matter (a quick look at the email headers will prove it either way).

Please also advise why you believe I object to the idea of a review in
principle.

Chris Barker
The Haunted River
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.users.waitrose.com/~hauntedriver" target="_blank">www.users.waitrose.com/~hauntedriver</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->