Worst Books You Have Ever Read

Cold Print includes some superb stories, such as The Voice of the Beach. I just find his early 'Cthulhu Mythos' tales too hollow in their emulation of Lovecraft's style. With some I could almost imagine him having the original Lovecraft tale he was copying lay open alongside him as he was writing.

I don't mind that Campbell has written so much, as it means I still have more of his wonderful work left to read, although it does get in the way of him being appraised correctly. People like M.R. James had a more focused body of work that is easier to digest critically, whilst with Arthur Machen people tend to ignore almost everything he did after the 1890s. Campbell has been going strong for decades, and his work is still of a high quality, even if I prefer that more oblique, experimental period of the early 70s.

Funny you find Aickman's work forgettable. I envy you. I wish I could forget his stories, so I could read them for the first time again. Thankfully, his best tales are so mysterious that every encounter does feel like a first reading.

[wingsofwax]

Quote Originally Posted by Frater_Tsalal

I've said this many times, but I've long felt that Campbell's greatest flaw is prolificacy. I think that S.T. Joshi has made this same point, which, simply put, is that the man has written too much (I'm not just talking about novels, I'm also talking about short stories: I think he has hundreds upon hundreds of them). The problem with such writers is that after awhile things start to blur and it's hard for each individual book to take on its own identity and stand out. It also makes things daunting for neophytes who are approaching the author for the first time.

I haven't read that many of his stories, but the above fits my impression of his work very well. His (otherwise clever) mix of social realism and Lovecraftian horror seems like something a writer can riff on endlessly, but also something that perhaps isn't that exciting every time.

[New Devilry]

I'll go ahead and add Demons by Daylight and Cold Print to my reading list. Thanks everyone.

[miguel1984]

The New Annotated Dracula by Leslie S. Klinger; it was a real missed opportunity and a huge disappointment.

Klinger decided to treat Dracula as a fact-based story and not as a work of fiction, meaning that, to him, the story Bram Stoker told really happened, based on documents Jonathan Harker, to whom he was acquainted, gave him.

According to Klinger, the Harker papers did not tell the whole story and Dracula did not die at the end. To him, Dracula survived and somehow put pressure on Harker and Stoker to lie in order to protect that fact.

So, many of these annotations are stupid speculations about how parts of the text are lies and deliberate omissions; it is all very boring and infuriating at the same time. Also, the book has an introduction by Neil Gaiman, in which he states that the annotations were possible because Dracula is a flawed work of fiction. I am sure he thinks he could have done a better job than Stoker.

In mi view, these annotations only lessen Dracula as a work of fiction and also destroy this annotated edition as a credible work of academia.

[Robert Adam Gilmour]

Wasn't Stoker toying with the idea of a sequel?

[Frater_Tsalal]

I haven't read Klinger's New Annotated Dracula but I have read his New Annotated H.P. Lovecraft and wasn't all that impressed... even worse are his annotations to Gaiman's The Sandman. I found many of his annotations to be very banal and commonplace, and he missed some pretty obvious allusions: for example, the Philip Sitz character in the serial killer convention story is obviously modeled after the writer Peter Sotos, not so much in terms of physical appearance but due to the fact that both edit fanzines that worship serial killers and Nazis (Chaste in the case of Sitz and Pure in the case of Sotos). They even have the same initials! Having said that, I doubt that Gaiman ever read Pure himself, and most likely only knew of Sotos through the interview with him that appeared in Apocalypse Culture (the interview where Sotos refers to women as dogs, whereas Sitz compares them to insects).

[miguel1984]

I only read the introduction by Alan Moore, which was great.

Also, I shudder at the thought that Klinger's annotated Frankenstein will be released next year.

[miguel1984]

This book, for various reasons I will detail later, since I don't feel like doing it right now:

[Frater_Tsalal]

Heretic! Blasphemy!

[miguel1984]

Come on. Morrison may be a good writer, but that book is utter crap, but not because it is badly written, but because some hideous things he expresses in it and some glaring and deliberate omissions. In fact, I quite enjoy some of the stuff Morrison published.

I will expand this commentary/review tomorrow, since I am spent and this will require some time and dedication.