alt.books.ghost-fiction

Christopher Roden  (June 28, 1998)

Despite what M.R. James chose to call the stories he wrote, the vast majority weren't *ghost* stories.

Discuss.

Christopher Roden

oOo

 
 

lance  (June 28, 1998)

i suppose this hinges on the definition of ghost which, according to webster's, reads a little like this: 'the soul of a dead person, a disembodied spirit imagined as wandering, often in vague or evanescent form, among the living and sometimes haunting them.' a number of MRJ's antagonists would seem to be entities not connected with any person who ever lived/died. they aren't walking souls but rather 'unleashed forces.' even the "oh, whistle" 'being' is not a ghost by that definition. maybe. or maybe *not*.

that's a start, at least.
 

lance

oOo

 
 

John Pelan  (June 28, 1998)

And to further confuse the issue, what are we to make of the Grand Guignol stories of  Level, Villiers, & Birkin (among others) that have little or no supernatural content at all, yet have the "feel" of belonging within the genre?

So, is there a difference between "ghost" stories and "horror" stories, and if so, how would we define it?

John Pelan (Cheerfully opening another can of worms, and retiring to read some Edward Lucas White...)

oOo

 
 

castaigne  (June 28, 1998)

John Pelan wrote:
> So, is there a difference between "ghost" stories and "horror" stories, and
> if so, how would we define it?

An interesting question.  A suggestion: the story should feature a supernatural entity (or at least something "supernatural"; a place, as in Jackson's _Hill House_, would count) which behaves in the same manner as a traditional ghost, ie. "haunts" or otherwise does nasty things (such as generally persecute and menace them) to the persons in the story, as ghosts tend to do in ghost stories.  This would make most all of James' stories ghost stories since they are in the spirit of such.  If there are no supernatural elements (they get explained by natural means), then the events which transpire should behave in the same way as a ghost.  A supernatural entity which, for example, rapes, tortures, mutilates and kills, would make the story a "horror" story rather than a "ghost" story.  However, if the entity is in fact a ghost, it can behave as "gorily" as it wants; the story's still a ghost story.  Does that make any sense?

Yrs.,
Henrik

oOo

 
 

John Pelan  (June 28, 1998)

Indeed... yet what are we to make of James' supernatural entities that seem prone to tearing folks' faces off?  That would seem to put a least a couple of his tales squarely in the realm of "horror stories".

It's for this reason I've tended to consider "horror stories" anything which instills a sense of awe or unease that gives one a shudder.  I enjoy the work of Aickman, Cowles, Birkin, and James; though all four have very different approaches in their work. "Horror" as used by mass-market publishers is a term sullied by its tie-in to slasher films which do very little to make one shudder.  I think Doug Winter had the right idea when he defined "horror" as an emotional reaction TO something rather than a genre...

Cheers,

John Pelan (wondering what label will be affixed to the story he's working on today...)

oOo

 
 

castaigne  (June 28, 1998)

John Pelan wrote:
> Indeed... yet what are we to make of James' supernatural entities that seem
> prone to tearing folks' faces off? That would seem to put a least a couple of
> his tales squarely in the realm of "horror stories".

Each case will have to be studied specifically, but if the loss of face (hehe!) is the result of a man being haunted and generally beset by "ghost-like" entities, the story would most likely classify as a ghost story with very horrific elements.  But still, mainly, a ghost story.

> "Horror" as used by mass-market publishers is a
> term sullied by it's tie-in to slasher films which do very little to make one
> shudder. I think Doug Winter had the right idea when he defined "horror" as
> an emotional reaction TO something rather than a genre...

Let's see if we can come up with good definitions of the following terms: weird, horror, ghost, and dark fantasy stories, and examine the differences and similarities between them.  Anyone?  I myself feel that horror aims for the visceral; weird aims for unease; ghost for creepiness (a bit like ghost stories, granted).  And dark fantasy? Well, I have an idea about that (sorry for digressing so much from the subject of the group).  Why not define dark fantasy as a story which can use fantastic elements, is not necessarily realistic in nature, and which can both make the reader feel unease, awe, and produce a gut reaction at the same time?  I won't include examples of authors who might have achieved this since I've read far too little contemporary fiction.  What I'm trying to say is that the authors could band together, make their own definition of dark fantasy (and turn it into something else than a mere marketing label), and add a spark of imagination to a genre of fiction which is much too riddled with cliches and engulfed in realism to make it worth reading.  Then we wouldn't have to drag around that rather negative word, "horror", any longer.  Just a thought.

> Cheers,
>
> John Pelan (wondering what label will be affixed to the story he's working on
> today...)

Best regards, Henrik (whose mind is a bit muddled after spending the day listening to Liszt's _Dance of Death_; please forgive my incoherence)

oOo

 
 

rbadac  (June 28, 1998)

Awwww, I've only got ten more minutes on this computer !!!!

I'll be back.  Thanks for the hand grenade, Chris !  Thanks also to youse guys commenting so far.  This is a good one.

Actually, I had already loaded up in a similar vein in case anybody disputed my claim of Edgar Allan Poe's being a ghost story writer, since I put him on a list of that description.  But 'M.R. James: Ghost or NO Ghost?' seems equally if not more appetizing for discussion.
 

rbadac, who's off to read John Metcalfe to the strains of Rachmaninoff's 'Isle Of The Dead'

oOo

 
 

Robert Suggs  (June 29, 1998)

rbadac wrote:
> Actually, I had already loaded up in a similar vein in case anybody disputed
> my claim of Edgar Allan Poe's being a ghost story writer, since I put him on
> a list of that description. But 'M.R. James: Ghost or NO Ghost?' seems
> equally if not more appetizing for discussion.

If I'd been here, you bet I would have argued placing Poe on a ghostly list.  James, yes, Poe, Noe. Yes, Poe is ghostly at times, and nearly every ghost story writer following him (and that's been most of 'em) has learned from him in style.  But his concerns are almost totally psychological--which is half the equation.  There still needs to be a sense of terrible awe about the "out there," and when you consider Poe's canon that's not what it's about for the most part.  Now, taking individual stories, it's a different matter. "The Black Cat" I've always considered a great ghost story (primarily about guilt, being that it's Poe).  But there are simply too many other major, central stories like "The Pit and the Pendulum" and "The Cask of Amontillado" which are non-supernatural.  Hey, this is just me.  JAMES, on the other hand, is considered a ghost story writer by everyone.  His ghosts are just a bit, well, material.  They're ghost stories whether or not the ghosts could pass Spectre Inspection.  What we come down to with this whole thing is something like the judge who said, "I can't give you a definition of pornography, but I know it when I see it!"  That's what we say when we read James (though no one ever talks about "Poe's great ghost stories").

Rob
taking cover behind his hard drive

oOo

 
 

rbadac  (June 29, 1998)

Robert Suggs wrote:
>
> If I'd been here, you bet I would have argued placing Poe on a ghostly
> list. James, yes, Poe, Noe.
> Rob
> taking cover behind his hard drive
>

I'll deal with you later...

r.

oOo

 
 

StoOdin101  (July 8, 1998)

> rbadac, who's off to read John Metcalfe to the strains of Rachmaninoff's
>'Isle Of The Dead'

Argh! Don't do that! How can you get the full effect of one while reading the other? Use Alvin Lucier or Erik Satie, since they wrote music DESIGNED for background use. But not great Sergei R.!
 

"...there is, as they say, a special science against gunshots --- ballistics.  But against the RADIO scientific thought seems to be blind." --- Mikhail Zoshchenko, _The Anti-Noise Campaign_

oOo

 
 

Reed Andrus  (June 28, 1998)

John Pelan wrote:
> Indeed... yet what are we to make of James' supernatural entities that seem
> prone to tearing folks' faces off? That would seem to put a least a couple of
> his tales squarely in the realm of "horror stories".

Dammit, just when I was winning a debate over in alt.religion.fanatics.hooha about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.  (The number is 42, by the way; Douglas Adams concurs; and no, angels don't qualify as ghosts.)

To my mind, horror is a way of treating a subject, rather than a subject itself (that statement ought to cause collective cries of outrage.)  When a ghost tears someone's face off, it's still a ghost story with horrific treatment.  Dean Koontz has been doing this with science fiction for years.

I'll postulate that you have to split a ghost story into two distinct parts: the causal, which provides the information pertaining to the haunting; and the reaction, which defines the treatment as horror, weird, or psychological.

Causal can be further subdivided into categories like: mystery, historical, psychic trauma (rbadac knows about this differentiation; I got it from a history professor twenty years ago) which then can be applied to genres.  I greatly prefer ghost stories based on mysteries (ala THE CHANGELING), and horror/grue is acceptable if not carried too far.

My position is simplistic, and if pushed, I could probably make a stronger case.  As for definitions of ghost, horror, weird, and dark fantasy, that's too tough for this post.

Wonder where Jessica is on all this.  She's probably laughing her butt off.

... Reed

oOo

 
 

Dan Clore  (June 29, 1998)

Christopher Roden wrote:
> Despite what M.R. James chose to call the stories he wrote, the vast majority
> weren't *ghost* stories.
> Discuss.

The issue is an ambiguity in the term "ghost story".  The term usually refers to a genre that was developed (largely from the earlier Gothic tale) in the mid-19th century.  Since a lot (perhaps most of them, in the early period) of these tales did in fact include ghosts while other genres normally did not, the genre was named for this element.  But the term would seem to simply refer to any story with a ghost in it, at least as an important element.  Hence the confusion.

Dan Clore

oOo

 
 

Randy Money  (June 29, 1998)

I probably wouldn't have developed the nice rationale, but Dan's conclusion, "the term [ghost story] would seem to simply refer to any story with a ghost in it, at least as an important element", is what I would have said earlier if I'd been around to say it.  And here I am thinking of specific works, like "Supper at Elsinore" and even "A Christmas Carol" which are ghost stories but not really horror stories.

To compress a couple of replies into one post, I tend to think of sf, fantasy and horror in terms of a Venn diagram: each overlaps the other but isn't entirely within another's domain.  I think the same could be said of ghost, horror, weird and dark fantasy stories -- although I have trouble myself of differentiating the latter two.  Maybe it would be easier to spot their domain's if we put a couple of stories in each category?  How about,

Horror: "Eumenides in the Fifth Floor Lavatory" by Orson Scott Card (a story with similarities to Card's, "The Upper Berth" by Crawford would probably overlap with Ghost); "At the Mountains of Madness" (which overlaps with sf)

Ghost Story: "The Judge's House" by Bram Stoker

Weird: "The Wendigo" by Algernon Blackwood

Dark Fantasy: most Clark Ashton Smith Stories; some Lord Dunsany
 

Anyone want to challenge this?  Add titles, try to define these better?  Or, conversely, anyone want to challenge that such categorization is too restrictive?

Randy

oOo

 
 

rbadac  (June 29, 1998)

Christopher Roden wrote:
> Despite what M.R. James chose to call the stories he wrote, the vast
> majority weren't *ghost* stories.
> Discuss.

Oh boy.  Is everyone sitting down?  I'll worry about Poe later.

Christopher has a stunningly good point, and I will now lead you down my own personal labyrinthian take on this.

There are two terms I would select to denote the true ghost in James' stories.  They share a common factor- that of *human origin*.

GHOST: The most important distinction to make, and for it I would like to use the definition, 'the spirit or soul of a dead person which may appear to the living in bodily likeness'.

For the purposes of discussion within James' work, I will tend to use this term for those ghosts which are not necessarily amplified by special evil, for which I will use the term 'revenant'.

REVENANT: Strictly speaking, according to my dictionary (Webster's Ninth New Collegiate, yeah I know, it ain't no world beater but I lost my magnifying glass for my Oxford!), 'one that returns after death or a long absence'.  Pretty wimpy definition, lacking any of the connotations I've come to associate with it, so I'm appropriating the term to use for ghosts which are distinguished by particular motivations of evil or revenge.

With these two terms, we leave the domain of human origin (the 'ghosts proper' in my estimation), and enter the realms of other supernatural forces, for which I have assigned the following terms, once again tending to reflect an unintentional but curiously apt (for James) 'black & white'  view of possibility:

DEMON: An evil spirit.  If not of human origin, it must be inferred to be diabolic, or possibly chaotic evil personified.

GUARDIAN: A supernatural entity assigned to a specific task.  In contrast to the 'Demon', it is not necessarily evil, but probably has its genesis in some operation of magic (see 'magic' below).

Then there are two other terms which may be useful in categorizing supernatural phenomena in James' stories, which can't really be considered actual 'ghosts', but which often perform in similar fashion:

GHOST ITEM: Any item (a picture, a room, etc.) which has supernatural qualities above and beyond its normal appearance *whether real or not*.

MAGIC: Supernatural effect brought about by magical intent.  This includes witchcraft, curses, possibly overlaps with features of the 'Guardian'.

Using the above criteria, I will classify James' oeuvre in a subsequent post, since my hour is almost up.

rbadac, who needs a subsidy

oOo

 
 

Robert Suggs  (June 29, 1998)

[James, Aickman, Spooks]

I'm just not altogether certain about treating ghost stories as a science rather than an art.  It's a semantic argument, and ultimately one person's semantics against another.  Yet it's worth doing because it hopefully helps us think about the ghost story and what makes it what it is.  The father of the modern ghost story is always said to be M. R. James--yet technically, as it's often pointed out, those aren't card-carrying spooks popping out of his crypts and uncommon prayer books.  The foremost mid-century exponent of the ghost story is often said to be Robert Aickman, and it seems to me that many of his tales don't involve classic ghosts, either.  As we've also pointed out, he often selected stories like  J. P. Brennan's "Levitation" (from Nine Horrors and a Dream) for his explicitly labeled ghost anthologies.  Yes, he called his work "strange stories" but he doesn't seem to have defined others' ghost stories too narrowly.

All this to make the point that a ghost story is about atmosphere.  Since the time of Le Fanu, an English/American tradition of ghost stories has developed and progressed.  It has taken several turns, but it's still a characteristic, identifiable tradition with, of course, a certain amount of margin or gray area.

"Let us, then, be introduced to the actors in a placid way; let us see them going about their ordinary business, undisturbed by forebodings, pleased with their surroundings; and into this calm environment let the ominous thing put out its head, unobtrusively at first, and then more insistently, until it holds the stage."  That's one (partial) description of a ghost story, put forth by M. R. James, who never, as far as I know, drew a distinction between his tales and ghost stories.  It's what we call "a distinction without a difference."  On the other hand, can you fit Poe into James' above template?  Tougher.  James' preferences for a story are not canonical, but he felt ordinariness was a preference for the lead characters.  Poe was of a more gothic bent (and sometimes he was pretty bent).  James and Aickman find the world strange and foreboding.  Poe finds the mind so.  He did create much of the same atmosphere we look for in a ghost story.  Perhaps he's the crucial link between the gothic and the modern ghost story.  As such, I see him on the fringes and not within the tradition itself.

But hey, what do I know?

Rob

oOo

 
 

rbadac  (June 30, 1998)

Robert Suggs wrote:
> Perhaps he's the crucial
> link between the gothic and the modern ghost story. As such, I see him on the
> fringes and not within the tradition itself.

Quite true.  I'd given up on trying to put him there- at least not as a Ghost Story Writer as such; which seemed odd, as he is probably the most haunted writer who ever lived.  But his stories aren't concerned with ghosts, they're concerned with Death.  He probably thought ghosts dissipated the finality of it.

Then when he seeks to rage against Death in the stories themselves, he does so not with ghosts but with * reincarnation *, a significantly different approach, although one might argue that Morella's child was 'haunted' by her, or the narrator's second wife was likewise haunted by Ligeia, or the second Black Cat by the first.

rbadac

oOo

 
 

rbadac  (June 29, 1998)

[M.R. James: "Ghost or No Ghost?", con't.]

rbadac wrote:
(yeah, yeah, we SAW all that, he's lost his mind, what else is new?)

Uhh, where was I?  Oh yeah, TERMS.

Anyway, my point is, if it falls under the heading 'ghost or 'revenant', it's a GHOST STORY.  If not, it's something else, probably horror or terror, but please NOT 'Dark Fantasy'!

The terms once again:

Ghost, Revenant  = ghost story  Demon, Guardian  = horror story  Ghost Item, Magic  = supernatural story  (okay, they're ALL supernatural, dammit !  Bear with me, I'm on a roll here !!!)
 

Canon Alberic's Scrap Book	Demon
Lost Hearts	Ghost
The Mezzotint	Revenant/Ghost Item
The Ash-Tree	Magic/Demon spiders
Number 13	Magic/Ghost Item (room)
Count Magnus	Revenant/Demon
Oh Whistle and I'll Come To You	Demon (despite the 'bedsheet' ghost !)
The Treasure of Abbot Thomas	Demon/Guardian
A School Story	Revenant
The Rose Garden	Ghost
The Tractate Middoth	Revenant
Casting The Runes	Magic
The Stalls of Barchester Cathedral	Magic/Ghost Item/Demon
Martin's Close	Ghost
Mr. Humphries and His Inheritance	Revenant
The Residence at Westminster	Magic
Diary of Mr. Poynter	Demon (as hair !)
An Episode of Cathedral History	Demon/Magic
A Story of a Disappearance and...	Magic/Ghost Item (Punch &  Judy)
Two Doctors	Magic
The Haunted Doll's House	Ghost Item/Demon
The Uncommon Prayer Book	Ghost
A Neighbor's Landmark	Ghost
A View From A Hill	Ghost Item/Magic
A Warning To The Curious	Guardian/Revenant
An Evening's Entertainment	Magic
There Was A Man Dwelt By A Churchyard	Revenant
Rats	Revenant
After Dark In The Playing Fields	Ghost/Talking Owl (wait a minute, that's not a term...)
Wailing Well	Demon (skeletons)

 

So, what's the score?  Out of 30 stories, counting half points in split categories, and ignoring the fractions, I have:

Ghost /Revenant     13 points
Demon/Guardian     9 points
Ghost Item/Magic     8 points

or something like that, anyway.  (Whaddya mean my hour's up again?)

Oh well, this list ought to at least provoke discussion.

rbadac, who has FAR too much time on his hands...

oOo

 
 

Robert Suggs  (June 30, 1998)

Too bad it's not a tie.  Sudden Death would have been appropriate.

What you're telling us, if I understand this correctly (and I seriously doubt I do), is that M. R. James provides 21 ghost/revs or ghost items out of a possible 30?  Is it fair to conclude that?  That would tend to confound this whole point that James' creatures "usually" aren't ghosts.  Browsing through, it would look as if the most popular stories are the demons or guardians, thus tempting that non-ghost conclusion, and as for the rest, he deals with ghosts in some atypical or un-cliched ways.  But he does write, it would appear, about "ghosts" in some technical sense two thirds of the time.

Hmmm.

You're crazy for taking the time to do that. You know that, of course.  This looks like the makings of an All Hallows article.  Anyone listening?

Hee, hee.

Robenant

oOo

 
 

Randy Money  (June 30, 1998)

Hmmmmmm....  Maybe this all proves that catagorizing too stringently means no one writes ghost stories?

Just a thought.

Here's another thought:  a lot of the collections that these folks published had titles like _Spook Stories_; often the title included words like outre, macabre, uncanny.  I suspect that the ghost was often times incidental to the type of story they were writing:  E. F. Benson wasn't against writing about vampires, afterall, or killer caterpillers (say it out loud; it's lovely).

Maybe the source, as J.C. Oates might have it, is the Gothic strain in fiction, of which "ghost story" is a subset that overlaps with "horror story".

Randy
(muddying up the waters, as usual)

oOo

 
 

rbadac  (June 30, 1998)

Randy Money wrote:
> Hmmmmmm....  Maybe this all proves that catagorizing too stringently means no
> one writes ghost stories?
>
> Just a thought.

Damn!  I didn't want to say that, Randy, but...wait a minute, I mopped that section of floor.  The door is all the way across the room.  How do I get out?  Help!  HELP!!

> Here's another thought: a lot of the collections that these folks published
> had titles like _Spook Stories_; often the title included words like outre,
> macabre, uncanny.

Actually, I keep all those titles on my bookshelf together:  Uncanny Tales, Uncanny Stories, Tales of the Uneasy, etc.  They seem to be happier like that.

> Maybe the source, as J.C. Oates might have it, is the Gothic strain in
> fiction, of which "ghost story" is a subset that overlaps with "horror
> story".
>
> Randy
> (muddying up the waters, as usual)

Hey, if it's okay with Oates, it's okay with ME.  Any ghosts in THE NIGHT-SIDE?

rbadac

oOo

 
 

Randy Money  (June 30, 1998)

rbadac wrote:
> Hey, if it's okay with Oates, it's okay with ME. Any ghosts in THE NIGHT-SIDE?

Oof.  Another one I haven't read, yet.  However, I do believe I've heard of ghost or near-ghost stories in _Haunted_.  I'd also strongly recommend her essay at the beginning of the anthology, _American Gothic Tales_.  It's pretty good; even when arguable, it's thought-provoking.

Randy

oOo

 
 

rbadac  (June 30, 1998)

Robert Suggs wrote:
> What you're telling us, if I understand this correctly (and I
> seriously doubt I do), is that M. R. James provides 21 ghost/revs or
> ghost items out of a possible 30? Is it fair to conclude that? That
> would tend to confound this whole point that James' creatures
> "usually" aren't ghosts.

Actually, I don't count 'ghost item' stories as ghost stories.  I'm giving him 13 out of 30.

> Hmmm.
>
> You're crazy for taking the time to do that. You know that, of course.
> This looks like the makings of an All Hallows article. Anyone
> listening?
>
> Hee, hee.
>
> Robenant
>

They'd NEVER buy this.  I'm not sure I buy it myself.

rbad

oOo

 
 

Bill Barnett  (June 30, 1998)

rbadac wrote:
> Anyway, my point is, if it falls under the heading 'ghost or 'revenant', it's
> a GHOST STORY. If not, it's something else, probably horror or terror, but
> please NOT 'Dark Fantasy'!

I proclaim that the term "Dark Fantasy" is hereby replaced by the term "Fantasy Noir."  Better?

> The terms once again:
>
> Ghost, Revenant  = ghost story Demon, Guardian        = horror story Ghost Item,
> Magic  = supernatural story (okay, they're ALL supernatural, dammit ! Bear
> with me, I'm on a roll here !!!)

Widening the scope beyond MRJ, I feel the need to add some terms to your list:

Beastie
     giant slug
     giant caterpillar
     giant snail
     giant rat
     anything with tentacles
     other
Elder or Younger god
Man-beastie (lycanthrope)
Bogey
Goblin
Ha'nt
Spook
Disembodied spirit
Zombie
The Devil Himself
Doppelgänger
Fabulous creature
     kelpie
     banshee
     siren
     harpy
     fetch
     other
Visions
     across time
          past
          future
     across space
          earthly
          divine
          infernal
          other
Elemental
Reincarnation
Fantastic engineering
Etc.

Now talk amongst yourselves; I'll give you a topic: Ambrose Bierce's THE DEVIL'S DICTIONARY was neither the devil's nor a dictionary.  Discuss.

Bill B.

oOo

 
 

rbadac  (June 30, 1998)

Bill Barnett wrote:
> I proclaim that the term "Dark Fantasy" is hereby replaced by the term
> "Fantasy Noir."  Better?

Hee hee.  I could get into CINEFANTASTIQUE with that one...
 

> Widening the scope beyond MRJ, I feel the need to add some terms to your list:
>
> Beastie
>      giant slug
>      giant caterpillar
>      giant snail
>      giant rat
>      anything with tentacles
>      other
> Elder or Younger god
> Man-beastie (lycanthrope)
> Bogey
> Goblin
> Ha'nt
> Spook
> Disembodied spirit
<snip, etc.)

No fair !  'Giant slug' and 'giant snail' have the same number of hit points !!!
 

> Now talk amongst yourselves; I'll give you a topic: Ambrose Bierce's THE
> DEVIL'S DICTIONARY was neither the devil's nor a dictionary.  Discuss.
>

DICTIONARY, n. A malevolent literary device for cramping the growth of language and making it hard and inelastic.  This dictionary, however, is a most useful work.

(The Devil's Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce, Albert & Charles Boni 1911)

rbadac

oOo

 
 

Dan Clore  (June 30, 1998)

Bill Barnett wrote:
> I proclaim that the term "Dark Fantasy" is hereby replaced by the term
> "Fantasy Noir."  Better?

No: this is a horrifying abomination. The term is "Fantaisie Noire".

(As a matter of fact, the French genre called "le fantastique" (the fantastic) is pretty much what is called horror in English. -- And nevermind what Todorov said....)

Dan Clore

oOo

 
 

rbadac  (June 30, 1998)

Dan Clore wrote:
> (As a matter of fact, the French genre called "le fantastique" (the
> fantastic) is pretty much what is called horror in English. -- And
> nevermind what Todorov said....)
>
No kidding !!!  Now THAT guy is crazy.

rbad

oOo

 
 

John Pelan  (June 30, 1998)

[Mary Molesworth]

I included Mrs. Double M on the [Core Reading] list primarily for some degree of stylistic diversity, her fiction (at least the little I've read), seems very straight-forward and almost sparse, sort of the Anti-Aickman as it were... I'd check out a couple of stories before ordering the Ayer/Arno book...

Cheers,

John Pelan (Wondering when "contranatural" will be brought up on the "dark fantasy" thread...)

oOo

 
 

rbadac  (June 30, 1998)

I'm avoiding that thread like the Plague...not because there aren't worthy works being discussed on it, but because I'm in enough trouble as it is with the furshlugginer term 'ghost' !

ooOoo