Revealing slip of the tongue?

In article <1069636370.956089.TakeThisOut@r02.usenetserver.com>,
"Todd T" <tttNOSPAM.TakeThisOut@megapipe.net> wrote:

 > Chris, you do yourself a disservice. If you would let the review stand,
 > readers would be attracted to the book by it. By taking jabs at it, you are
 > defending against attacks no one else can see or care about and thus
 > creating more qualms than you dispel. A grammatical error in the review
 > does not mean anything: 1) Standards for grammar in a review and copyediting
 > of a collection of stories are not the same, 2) even this one sentence were
 > a sign of hypocrisy in Jim, that would not invalidate any of the criticisms
 > you are affronted by, and 3) it is clearly just a goof, and alluding to it
 > as a possible tactic sounds goofy. I don't mean to cast aspersions at you,
 > but perhaps to dissuade you from doing more damage to yourself than Jim's
 > review does.

I'm with Todd on this one.

nomis

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.oozingbrain.com" target="_blank">http://www.oozingbrain.com</a>

home to _Withered Spirits: The Works of Terry Lamsley_
and _The Big F Webpage_ (diehards unite!)<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Revealing slip of the tongue? 

"Chris Barker" <hauntedHIDEOUSDEATHTOSPAMMERSriver.TakeThisOut@waitrose.com> wrote in message news:<fJudnYxQ7dpRo1yiRVn-sQ.TakeThisOut@brightview.com>...
 > Must dash off to fix some things elsewhere for a few days - and besides, I
 > am disinterested in anything members of the nepotistic Inner Room Cabal
 > might have to say anyway

just a word in passing here, lovey. . . . i'm afraid 'disinterested'
doesn't mean what i think you think it means. it actually means
'unbiased, without a vested interest' as opposed to 'not interested
in'. you made the same mistake in your recent supernatural tales
story by the way. . . . sort of thing i thought the editor might have
picked up on. but then again, he did let another one through the net
in your first supernatural tales story, where you had a stream
'dissecting' a path, as opposed to what i guess you really meant,
'bisecting' it. or was the stream actually carrying out some sort of
surgical intervention? could happen, i suppose.

i'll snip the various 'intentional' misspellings you make elsewhere in
the piece, if you don't mind. . . . at least i'm assuming they are
intentional.

k23e<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Revealing slip of the tongue? 

nomis wrote:
 > In article <1069636370.956089 DeleteThis @r02.usenetserver.com>,
 > "Todd T" <tttNOSPAM DeleteThis @megapipe.net> wrote:
 >
 >
  >>Chris, you do yourself a disservice. If you would let the review stand,
  >>readers would be attracted to the book by it. By taking jabs at it, you are
  >>defending against attacks no one else can see or care about and thus
  >>creating more qualms than you dispel. A grammatical error in the review
  >>does not mean anything: 1) Standards for grammar in a review and copyediting
  >>of a collection of stories are not the same, 2) even this one sentence were
  >>a sign of hypocrisy in Jim, that would not invalidate any of the criticisms
  >>you are affronted by, and 3) it is clearly just a goof, and alluding to it
  >>as a possible tactic sounds goofy. I don't mean to cast aspersions at you,
  >>but perhaps to dissuade you from doing more damage to yourself than Jim's
  >>review does.
 >
 >
 > I'm with Todd on this one.
 >
 > nomis

Me, too. I thought Todd stated it well. Thing is, Chris rarely lets a
perceived slight die away without comment when getting angry about it
and making a self-righteous stand can do himself more harm. This has
been true pretty much since he first started posting on abgf, which I
think was not long after (or maybe not long before) I started. Frankly,
a lot of the bad blood here would have been avoided if Chris had ever
learned to shrug off criticism and walk away from pointless arguments;
unfortunatly, he combines this anti-skill with the further anti-skill of
instinctively knowing how to incite others into the same behavior. It's
an fascinating combination of abilities but I just don't see a market
for them.

Randy M.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Revealing slip of the tongue? 

Don't blame you for saying this, Todd. But if you had been on the receiving
end of as much Roden vomit & vitriol as I have - I think it is right to say
that he set about savaging every single thing I / we have ever produced,
that is, when he isn't busy stealing it - then your blood might be up too.

The thing that annoys me most is that Roden's initial splenetic outpourings
on the VITTORINI book - which, I would remind you, were all pre-
publication - are all meticulously detailed in Rockhill's review. I wasn't
able to see past those issues. You see, reviews very rarely dwell upon such
matters with such obsessive bitterness.

It also surprised me that not one person has had the courage or resolve to
call Reggie's story A WARNING TO THE ANTIQUARY a refreshing if controversial
take on the Jamesian homage (which it is). We are fooled into believing that
MRJ is some of great big loveable teddy bear, and that Jamesian homages
should be cosy and sentimental variations upon that theme, when in actuality
James' stories are terrifyingly violent and betray both misogyny and
homosexual yearnings.

Damn their eyes. (Or pens.)

TTFN,

Chris


"Todd T" <tttNOSPAM.DeleteThis@megapipe.net> wrote in message
news:1069636370.956089@r02.usenetserver.com...
 > Chris, you do yourself a disservice. If you would let the review stand,
 > readers would be attracted to the book by it. By taking jabs at it, you
are
 > defending against attacks no one else can see or care about and thus
 > creating more qualms than you dispel. A grammatical error in the review
 > does not mean anything: 1) Standards for grammar in a review and
copyediting
 > of a collection of stories are not the same, 2) even this one sentence
were
 > a sign of hypocrisy in Jim, that would not invalidate any of the
criticisms
 > you are affronted by, and 3) it is clearly just a goof, and alluding to it
 > as a possible tactic sounds goofy. I don't mean to cast aspersions at
you,
 > but perhaps to dissuade you from doing more damage to yourself than Jim's
 > review does.
 >
 > - Todd T.
 >
 >
 > "Chris Barker" <hauntedHIDEOUSDEATHTOSPAMMERSriver.DeleteThis@waitrose.com> wrote in
 > message news:fJudnYxQ7dpRo1yiRVn-sQ@brightview.com...
  > > Must dash off to fix some things elsewhere for a few days - and besides,
I
  > > am disinterested in anything members of the nepotistic Inner Room Cabal
  > > might have to say anyway (not Nomis, btw) - but I couldn't resist
drawing
  > > people's attention to this wonderfully illuminating insight from Jim
  > > Rockhill's All Shallow review:
  > >
  > > "Thankfully, although offering only an occasional distraction from the
  > > quality of the stories, they do suggest some carelessness on the part of
 > the
  > > publisher, whose otherwise warm and informative introduction reinforces
 > this
  > > impression by misusing the word 'desserts' and straining the meaning of
 > the
  > > word 'eponymous' to the point of confusion."
  > >
  > > "Thankfully ..... they do suggest carelessness?" Yes, I don't mind
betting
  > > that Rockhill and Roden were *extremley* thankful to find fault.
  > >
  > > Either this slip-of-the-tongue unwittingly discloses the real agenda or
it
  > > suggests that once again Jim Rockhill has committed the very same error
 > that
  > > he seeks to publicly chastise others for. It really is beyond the pail
for
 > a
  > > reviewer to knit-pique trivial typos and vagaries of meening when he
 > Himself
  > > makes even bigger blunders in the said review.
  > >
  > > There are good reviewers out there but it is my considered opinion that
 > Jim
  > > Rockhill is not one of them. He might become one one day but as things
 > stand
  > > he needs to hone his skills a great deal more. The key problems are that
 > he
  > > doesn't check his facts properly and that he makes clumsy, hypocritical
  > > errors at very inappropriate junctures e.g. in complaining about a typo
he
  > > makes a spelling mistake himself. I also believe he panders too much to
 > the
  > > whim of his editor, but that is more open to debate.
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
 >
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Revealing slip of the tongue? 

"Chris Barker" <hauntedHIDEOUSDEATHTOSPAMMERSriver.TakeThisOut@waitrose.com> wrote in message news:<pYmdnTLmfbq9_l-iRVn-vg.TakeThisOut@brightview.com>...

 >
 > It also surprised me that not one person has had the courage or resolve to
 > call Reggie's story A WARNING TO THE ANTIQUARY a refreshing if controversial
 > take on the Jamesian homage (which it is).

I didn't say so because it isn't one. What I said is in my review on
the adjacent "Review: Cardinal Vittorini" thread.

We are fooled into believing that
 > MRJ is some of great big loveable teddy bear, and that Jamesian homages
 > should be cosy and sentimental variations upon that theme, when in actuality
 > James' stories are terrifyingly violent and betray both misogyny and
 > homosexual yearnings.
 >
Some are violent; many are not. Terrifying, certainly, and more power
to them. In any case, why on earth should horror tales not be both? I
must say I would be surprised if Penelope Fitzgerald's Jamesian tale
or my tale "The Guide" were to be described as cosy and sentimental.

I think your other points above have yet to be demonstrated too.

Ramsey Campbell<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Revealing slip of the tongue? 

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:58:49 -0000, "Chris Barker"
<hauntedHIDEOUSDEATHTOSPAMMERSriver.DeleteThis@waitrose.com> wrote:


 >It also surprised me that not one person has had the courage or resolve to
 >call Reggie's story A WARNING TO THE ANTIQUARY a refreshing if controversial
 >take on the Jamesian homage (which it is). We are fooled into believing that
 >MRJ is some of great big loveable teddy bear, and that Jamesian homages
 >should be cosy and sentimental variations upon that theme, when in actuality
 >James' stories are terrifyingly violent and betray both misogyny and
 >homosexual yearnings.


To put this particular comment into perspective, let's examine Reggie
Oliver's thoughts on the story, as conveyed to me in an e-mail,
following my comments on reading CARDINAL VITTORINI:

<Yes, 'A Warning to the Antiquary' is a difficult concept. It is based
on a remark I found in an article by Anthony Powell on James, about
his "affairs" with boys being "fascinating to watch." Of course they
were Platonic, but there is nothing in my story to suggest that they
weren't. The "incident in the library" was probably no more than a
hand on a shoulder which the hypersensitive Charlett took amiss. That
was my intention anyway. (Honi soit qui mal y pense!) I am however
saying something about the pre-adolescent vein of cruelty that you
find in some stories, e.g. the deeply disturbing (to me) "Wailing
Well". That satirical stuff at the beginning of the story about
drowning boys is taken by some as "hilarious black comedy" (note in
your excellent Ash Tree James). To me there is something rather creepy
about it, not quite grown-up, in the way that some schoolmasters -
particularly bachelor ones - are not. What I was doing was taking this
trait in James and heightening it for fictional purposes. I offer this
not so much as a defence as an explanation.
But you have raised an interesting and valid point as to how far one
should take a real life person and offer a fictional interpretation
which is heightened and - yes, to be frank - exaggerated. "A
Warning..." can be taken on two levels. On one as a parody and jeux
d'esprit - spot the number of references: only a reader of the Ash
Tree James will garner a full complement - and as a critique of James
whom of course I admire inordinately, but this side Jacobolatry. >>>

So:
'Of course they were Platonic'
'Honi soit qui mal y pense'
'was probably no more than . . .'
'heightening it for fictional purposes . . .'
'yes, to be frank, exaggerated . . . '


<when in actuality
 >James' stories are terrifyingly violent and betray both misogyny and
 >homosexual yearnings.>

Really? In light of the above analysis from someone actually wrote the
story and whose opinion can be respected far more than can yours?

Christopher<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Revealing slip of the tongue? 

I do think that you should obtain Reggie's permission before quoting him,
especially when elsewhere you claim that it is wrong to do this. And you
should bear in mind that someone might temper their viewpoint when they know
they are corresponding with an inmflexible Jamesian defender of the faith. I
can see that you are trying to distort what he has said to make it seem like
he agrees with you, but I can assure you that this is a silly tactic.

Besides, I didn't say that Reggie's story was the extent of my argument
about James. You seem to say this. Oddly. My argument is actually detailed
in the SKELETONS chapbook and the forthcoming issue of WEIRDLY SUPERNATURAL.

However, Reggie's story DOES cast James in a wholly original light that is
pretty closely aligned to my own perspective e.g. sexual interest in
adolescents and a propensity for cruelty.

Besides, wasn't it you who flew into a terrible rage after reading Reggie's
tale, accusing him of portraying James as a child molester? It was. You
change tack at every turn.



"Christopher Roden" <ashtree.DeleteThis@ash-tree.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:g616svogra9530tc539i11tm1u5efkoskf@4ax.com...
 > On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:58:49 -0000, "Chris Barker"
 > <hauntedHIDEOUSDEATHTOSPAMMERSriver.DeleteThis@waitrose.com> wrote:
 >
 >
  > >It also surprised me that not one person has had the courage or resolve
to
  > >call Reggie's story A WARNING TO THE ANTIQUARY a refreshing if
controversial
  > >take on the Jamesian homage (which it is). We are fooled into believing
that
  > >MRJ is some of great big loveable teddy bear, and that Jamesian homages
  > >should be cosy and sentimental variations upon that theme, when in
actuality
  > >James' stories are terrifyingly violent and betray both misogyny and
  > >homosexual yearnings.
 >
 >
 > To put this particular comment into perspective, let's examine Reggie
 > Oliver's thoughts on the story, as conveyed to me in an e-mail,
 > following my comments on reading CARDINAL VITTORINI:
 >
 > <Yes, 'A Warning to the Antiquary' is a difficult concept. It is based
 > on a remark I found in an article by Anthony Powell on James, about
 > his "affairs" with boys being "fascinating to watch." Of course they
 > were Platonic, but there is nothing in my story to suggest that they
 > weren't. The "incident in the library" was probably no more than a
 > hand on a shoulder which the hypersensitive Charlett took amiss. That
 > was my intention anyway. (Honi soit qui mal y pense!) I am however
 > saying something about the pre-adolescent vein of cruelty that you
 > find in some stories, e.g. the deeply disturbing (to me) "Wailing
 > Well". That satirical stuff at the beginning of the story about
 > drowning boys is taken by some as "hilarious black comedy" (note in
 > your excellent Ash Tree James). To me there is something rather creepy
 > about it, not quite grown-up, in the way that some schoolmasters -
 > particularly bachelor ones - are not. What I was doing was taking this
 > trait in James and heightening it for fictional purposes. I offer this
 > not so much as a defence as an explanation.
 > But you have raised an interesting and valid point as to how far one
 > should take a real life person and offer a fictional interpretation
 > which is heightened and - yes, to be frank - exaggerated. "A
 > Warning..." can be taken on two levels. On one as a parody and jeux
 > d'esprit - spot the number of references: only a reader of the Ash
 > Tree James will garner a full complement - and as a critique of James
 > whom of course I admire inordinately, but this side Jacobolatry. >>>
 >
 > So:
 > 'Of course they were Platonic'
 > 'Honi soit qui mal y pense'
 > 'was probably no more than . . .'
 > 'heightening it for fictional purposes . . .'
 > 'yes, to be frank, exaggerated . . . '
 >
 >
 > <when in actuality
  > >James' stories are terrifyingly violent and betray both misogyny and
  > >homosexual yearnings.>
 >
 > Really? In light of the above analysis from someone actually wrote the
 > story and whose opinion can be respected far more than can yours?
 >
 > Christopher
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Revealing slip of the tongue? 

"Todd T" <tttNOSPAM.DeleteThis@megapipe.net> wrote in message
news:1069778909.393262@rh9cache...
>
> > 'Honi soit qui mal y pense'
>
> Please help the lingually challenged. What does this (French?) phrase
> translate to? What is its source? Thanks.

'Evil be to him who evil thinks', although shame would be more accurate than
evil. It's the motto of The Most Noble Order of the Garter.

Barbara
 >> Stay informed about: Revealing slip of the tongue?