Chomu Press

[qcrisp]

Quote Originally Posted by Sand

Actually, Baron Corvo is an excellent example. I suspect that you and I would both much prefer the politics of, say, Jack London to those of the Baron. But in artistic terms it was the Baron who took risks, with his wonderfully macaronic, elaborate, archaic, obscure prose, while Jack wrote good old plain journalistic fare that took no risks at all. My point is that we shouldn't equate what is imagined to be provocative content with the riskiest, edgiest end of literature: actually, risk comes more from form and style. To return to Chomu Press, specifically, there is really nothing rad or daring about a book on flesh-eating: as I said, Lautreamont covered all that many years ago. The real question is: does the book take risks in form and style, compared with the prevailing norm? Maybe it does.

Mark, why don't you comment on a book you've actually read or even seen?

[qcrisp]

Quote Originally Posted by Sand

Breach of etiquette, qcrisp: I believe it is good manners to refer to people by their name here; the fact that I have once used my given name doesn't authorise its wider use. I don't believe I claimed to have read the book in question: I was exploring what another poster meant by the expression "sharp edges" and making the entirely philosophical point that we should not take for granted where those edges might be. I conceded that a book on flesh-eating might be at the edge in stylistic terms, but that the content itself was no guarantee of that. But hey my interest also helps to keep Chomu Press at the top of the TLO list: is that a bad thing? anyway, I'll shut up now and let other topics take priority. I think a discussion of snowballing yaks would be good.

The etiquette breach was foolish. It was also foolish of me to attempt to address imaginary concerns regarding the press. Anyone who has any actual concerns can, of course, write to the address on the website.

[brendanconnell]

Sand: Not to be argumentative, but unless you have actually read any of these books it might be hard to say how “edgy” they are. When I said “sharp edges” I did not mean “edgy” anyhow though. I certainly never meant that flesh eating was either sharp or dull. I was talking about style. Rhys Hughes and D.F. Lewis are very interesting writers in my opinion. I have not read Justin Isis’ book yet, but I plan to—based on some short fiction he sent me which I consider to be very good. But, again, this was never meant to be an argument. It was simply my take—my expression of excitement about what this press is doing. And, if we are going to talk about Baron Corvo: the texts they are publishing are by writers much closer to Corvo than London. Corvo had huge problems publishing his books and died frustrated and neglected. And poor. Should we all have to share the same fate? Should we push up our noses and dive into the nearest canal just because a book is POD?The book Chomu is publishing of mine I could have sold to someone else as a limited edition. But my goal in this brief life is not to be read by six men with thin fingers or to be condemned to writing ghost stories to frighten morbid bachelors which are published in editions of twenty and fifty on cream colored paper and used to heighten the chairs of midgets.The best way to judge these books is to read them. When my own book comes out, I’d be happy to offer you a copy at my own expense. You might very well hate it, but at least you would be talking from first hand experience.

[brendanconnell]

Sand: Let’s just forget it. I don’t comment often on threads, and this is why. Too easy to argue. I have read something by every author Chomu is publishing but one. I have been back and forthing with them for months over my own book. I have dealt with probably over 100 editors since I began getting published. Chomu has impressed me. That is all. It is ugly to see authors arguing with each other on-line or elsewhere. I bow out and, with a kindly wave of my hand and a subdued smile on my lips, leave the field to you.

[qcrisp]

Quote Originally Posted by Sand

It's a discussion board: it's for discussion. There's nothing ugly about that, indeed it's one of the defining characteristics of the human race that we discuss things and don't just, say, eat each other. But certainly yes, if you didn't want a discussion, but just wanted to make an unchallenged pronouncement, you're in the wrong place. You need to take out a paid advert.

This is completely disingenuous, as all your posts on this thread have been.

I don't know if you've ever seen How To Get Ahead in Advertising, with Richard Grant. There's a scene where someone is reading, with outrage, extracts from a newspaper on a train. There's an article that the outraged man is reading about some kind of debauchery, obviously meant to instil the reader with a sense of the nation's moral decline, etc. The man reads out, "The bag may also have contained heroin."

"Yes. Or peanut butter. The bag may also have contained peanut butter."

He goes on to explain that he works in advertising and he knows precisely what tricks are used, and the key here lies in the word "may". Using this word the writers of the article can place any thought they like in the mind of the reader.

This is, of course, also the form that all of your posts here have taken.

Despite what you say, balance is the very last thing that you are concerned with. You are of course, free to go on saying that the bag may contain heroin, but you should not expect this to be an unchallenged pronouncement.

I'm also sure that people who actually want to discuss things here will find no trouble in doing so.

[Nemonymous]

After 12 years heavily involved in discussion forums on the internet, I find there are differing protocols, misinterpretations, slippery slopes to arguments - and very little point in inviting people to other threads, as that tends to put them off. Face to face is always different and invariably more communicable of feelings. Here, as Sand points out, we are Nemonymous, qcrisp etc. Sitting round the table we'd be Des, Quentin and Mark etc. Internet is not the best place to have heartfelt debates. And this is a heartfelt debate.
I return to my personal example of POD earlier on this thread, and God forbid, that cliche, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. POD can be better than non-POD and often is. The podding here, from the evidence so far, is very promising, I say, with part of that evidence being the people involved from face to face as well as by reputation.
Meanwhile...

[qcrisp]

Any readers of this thread interested in the discussion that Sand advocates are encouraged to buy copies of I Wonder What Human Flesh Tastes Like, read the contents, and comment here on both the contents and the production of the book.

http://chomupress.com/our-books/i-wo...h-tastes-like/

[Nemonymous]

Quote Originally Posted by Sand

...but not to accuse me of being in some way insincere in raising my reservations.

In fear of extending this 'slippery slope' (for Yaks, or otherwise), I'd say that the tea-bag in http://www.ligotti.net/showpost.php?...6&postcount=87 was a red rag.
I don't think anyone has said you were insincere, though, Sand.
des

[qcrisp]

Quote Originally Posted by Sand

Neither you nor brendanconnell, qcrisp, have explained what exactly it is you object to about me discussing aspects of Chomu Press under a thread headed, ur, Chomu Press. I'm assuming that neither of you would want this to be a thread which simply carries announcements about the press. It follows that in discussing the press some of us will say we like the press and are - as brendanconell is - excited about it, while some of us (equally legitimately) will say we are not quite so enthusiastic about some aspects of the press: in my case, p-o-d; and some of us will want to learn more about the press' claims, or those of its enthusiasts, as I did in wanting to understand what was meant by "sharp edges". It is unkind and unwarranted to accuse a poster of being "disingenuous" (a fashionable cant word for "deceitful") simply -as far as I can see - for not being deliriously complimentary. But as for discussion, I have also started a thread on a Ligotti theme and am about to start another, and have begun one too on the most interesting theme of rolling yaks. If you are here to discuss, rather than just advertise, why not join in?

The reason I used the word 'disingenuous' was two-fold. First of all, because when one loop-hole for negativity was closed, you immediately looked for another, repeatedly. Secondly, because all of this was conjectural negativity. However, if my impression has been mistaken, then I apologise.

There's also the question of whether one should accept a statement merely because it is negative. Apparently you were not happy to accept negativity merely because it was negative (and you should "take it on the chin") in the case of Peter Tennant's review of your book. Surely it depends upon the content of the statement whether you sit back and accept it or not.

As to joining discussions, please feel welcome to join the thread I started on Karel Capek's War with the Newts.

[Nemonymous]

"The meaning of a word is its use". Discussion point. I've always seen ingenuous as innocent / naive. And disingenuous the opposite of that. It could mean astute in some books.
But seriously, I don't think anyone intended to call you 'morally fraudulent' and if they did it was qcrisp calling Sand that, not Quentin calling Mark that.
As to the tea-bag debate. All is context. And intention. Which brings me neatly to the Intentional Fallacy....