Talk:Ramsey Campbell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Well done Nareek - a more balanced piece.

Puff[edit]

  • "mature, highly distinctive sty;e" - Campbell's style is highly distinctive, i.e. not much like anyone else's. It is mature in the sense that he has used it for most of his career.
  • "characterised by an intense psychological focus -- often centred on a disturbed or even distorted consciousness -- a rich use of metaphor to vivify imagery and evoke atmosphere and setting, and sly misdirection" - Campbell's style is, indeed, characterised by such a psychological focus, such a use of metaphor, and such misdirection.217.45.227.250 12:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is by me, should it matter to anyone.PhilipC 20:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war[edit]

It's not helpful to call editors that we disagree with vandals or call for them to be banned. There was quite a bit of potentially controversial material added recently; I suggest that we revert the article back to my toning down of the Butterworth edit, and then reintroduce the new material piece by piece so we can hash out specific problems rather than accepting or rejecting the changes wholesale.

If there are notable critics of Campbell, we should include them, but they need to be sourced. And if most critics like Campbell's writing, we should cite sources for that too, rather than asserting how good his writing is ourselves. Nareek 14:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that both praise and criticism should be fully sourced. However, its important to note that any such comments should come from reliable sources (i.e., literary critics writing for notable publications), not simply unknown reviewers ranting on blogs or obscure fanzines. I've attempted to reduce/remove the article's perceived POV problems. I have left the "unsourced" tag at the top of the article for now, but if others agree that the article is pretty much fine now, it should be removed.-Hal Raglan 01:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And while on the subject of "puff," maybe consider cleaning up some truly puffed up entries, like that for "Reggie Oliver," if you're so concerned. [unsigned]

  • I agree with Nareek. Some of the notes on his style do lapse into POV, though as noted above I think it's valid to give some idea of the style when, as here, it happens to be a distinctive feature of the writer under discussion. PhilipC 10:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the accusations being thrown back and forth about hidden agendas, I think most of us here are just trying to edit an encyclopedia. Nareek 12:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took unsigned's advice and tried to clean up Reggie Oliver--it was pretty bad. Take a look and see if it merits removing the tags. Nareek 16:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few additional changes to the Oliver article myself. I think the tags can be removed but I'll leave it to others to do so if they are in agreement.-Hal Raglan 18:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original entry was horribly sycophantic and has been - finally! after much pathetic squabbling - sculptured into something more factual and objective. well done to Nareek and Hal Raglan for restoring some mature and rational balance.

If anyone wishes to validate the Campbell Vs Hutson contretemps they need only refer to Shaun Hutson entry. If anyone wishes to validate that the 'Shadow' quotes are 100% accurate and truthful then the magazine can be scanned and linked to in the article. Certain people DO court controversy - to argue that they do not is a rather sinister perversion of factual history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.188.194.184 (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added the factual correct and verifiable sources for the quotes in addition to mentioning that some fo tehse facts are corroborated by Shaun Hutson's own Wiki entry. NB. I note that Mr Hutson is quite happy for people to have added less than flattering comments about some aspects of his career but that in stark contrast Mr Campbell would appear to favour a Stalinist approach i.e. whereby he controls everything to ensure that no unflattering comments are added. Perhaps Mr Campbell would do better to amend his entry openly under his real name, and to balance the unflattering aspects of his past rather than aggressively deny them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.188.194.184 (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant and notable criticisms of individuals should be included in wikipedia articles. However, familiarize yourself with some of Wikipedia's basic guidelines before continuing to edit articles here: Biographies of Living Persons, Neutral point of view, and Reliable sources. Your continuing insistence on inserting unsourced negative commentary, much of it simply editorializing on your part, into the article may be construed as vandalism by some. I'm unsure why you believe an exchange in a small circulation magazine from forty years ago constitutes a controversy that needs to be included here. As far as the Campbell/Hutson "feud" is concerned, that can certainly be included here if its written in a NPOV manner and properly sourced. Meanwhile, any BLP-violating material you continue to place into this article will be removed.-Hal Raglan 23:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to take a look at WP:SELF as well; "this is discussed in greater detail in Hutson's Wikipedia entry" is not admissible in a Wikipedia article. Deor 03:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First you say that the SHADOW quotes need provenancing, then you come up with another objection when the are. Meanwhile you are perfectly happy to allow Ramsey Campbell's reference to a letter he received from an Arkham editor which you have not seen to remain unchallenged, even though that is over forty years old. But putting that aside for one moment, the references to the SHADOW exchanges between Campbell and Keith Walker, who was the BFS founder, are perfectly legitimate given the fact that a) they involve RC and KW, b) they reference Lovecraft (who is already mentioned in the article), and c) they can be proved and sourced. I am therefore concerned at your attempts to ensure that Lovecraft is only allowed to be mentioned if it flatters Ramsey Campbell (who you clearly admire). If RC is on record as criticising Lovecraft, claiming to be a better writer than Lovecraft was himself, it is very great importance, and is not the trivial or unimportant issue you seek to portray it as. By all means tinker with the wording to make it neutral, but less of the Orwellian censorship please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.214.46.29 (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(After edit conflict with message above:)
Mr. 172, undoing good edits (like my blockquote formatting and heading styling) in your stubborn insistence on reverting to your preferred version of the article is unacceptable behavior. And repeatedly adding contentious, unsourced material without gaining a consensus of editors on the Talk page is likewise unacceptable. You were trying to add the same stuff last December, and you finally agreed—in an unsigned comment above—that a version without it had been "sculptured into something more factual and objective" by Nareek and Hal Raglan. What's making you persist in readding it now? It's very difficult to get a dynamic IP range, such as you edit from, blocked; but if you continue to edit disruptively here, be assured that I will do my best to do so. I strongly recommend that you carefully read the WP policies and guidelines to which you have been directed above, along with the Manual of Style, before you edit further. Deor 19:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do your worst "Deor". This is a ridiculous storm in a teacup. The bottom line is that you oppose references to RC's views on Lovecraft if they don't flatter RC, but that you happily facilitate them when they do. For that reason your position is unjust. You can quote Wikipedia goobledeegook all you like: I am very well read and I am not unintelligent. The comments re RC's SHADOW boasts are wholly valid and you cannot be much of an impartial observer let alone a researcher if you can't see that. The SHADOW quotes ARE sourced and truthful; whether or not you think they are immaterial is neither here nor there. However, bearing in mind that reference is made to Lovecraft in the opening sentences of the paragraph, and that the SHADOW quotations come for the same point in history and are wholly relevant to Campbell's first book, your bizarre quest to ensure they are erased from history seems little more than biased sychophancy. So, by all means, please do attempt to block me from Wikipedia; clearly I pose a monstrous threat to civilisation as we know it, what with my heinous attempts to inject a healthy editorial balance into articles which are puffed or inaccurate. But before you do, please have a look at the work I have done on articles discussing ghost stories, Dennis Price, Robert Aickman and Joan Aiken, just to satisfy yourself than I pose a greater threat to Wikipedia peace than Russian or Chinese attempts to bring the internet down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.156.31 (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Campbell made critical remarks regarding Lovecraft forty years ago, those comments possibly could be incorporated as notable criticism into the Lovecraft article. Hasn't Campbell made many negative assessments of other writers (and filmmakers) during his lengthy career as a critic? Unless a genuine controversy ensued from his remarks, the material has no place here. Your belief that Campbell's criticisms constitute a major controversy appears to be in your mind only. I've reverted your edits once again. Also you need to refrain from hurling insults at other editors, as you did w/your most recent edit summary. This violates wikipedia's No personal attacks policy.-Hal Raglan 00:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no overwhelming objection to 172's latest edit (as of the timestamp on this message), save that I think the word controversially to be unnecessary, but WP:V explicitly states, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. 'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Since no library in my part of the world seems to possess a run of the British fanzine Shadow—I doubt that many libraries in the world happen to have 40-year-old issues of fanzines—and since 172 clearly has access to the issue(s) he's drawing his information from, I'd like him to supply a direct quotation (on this page, not in the article itself) of the passage(s) in which Mr. Campbell declares himself to be a better writer than Lovecraft. There's no other way for readers to check whether 172's characterization of Campbell's statements is accurate. Deor 18:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten the anonymous editor's addition to better conform to wikipedia's NPOV standards. The multiple IP-using editor needs to source the claim with the required ref details (date, issue #, page number, article name). Without this information, and if he/she does not provide the requested quote so other editors can determine the accuracy of the edit, the detail should be deleted from the article.-Hal Raglan 13:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the Shadow citation is that 1969 is not when he was writing his early work that was heavily indebted to Lovecraft--that was five years earlier, which is a long time in that stage of a person's life. It would fit in better with the passage about Demons in Daylight being consciously written to distinguish himself from Lovecraft--I believe he writes about this in the introduction to that book. Nareek 14:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My copy of Demons by Daylight has no introduction, but in "Chasing the Unknown" (in Cold Print) Campbell writes: "Now began my struggle to leave Lovecraft behind and write like myself - a struggle that caused me to write an article, 'Lovecraft in Retrospect', condemning his work outright (when what I was really condemning was my own dependence on him)." I'm not sure if this is the same as the Shadows article, so I've put in a couple of quotes where he praises Lovecraft and his influence. Hope that's helpful. PhilipC 18:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article 'Lovecraft In Retrospect' is indeed the one concerned. The piece first appeared in SHADOW in 1969 [Issue No. 8]and prompted Keith Walker (along with several others) to write in to complain about Campbell's immorality in 'stab[bing]' Lovecraft in the back [in Issue No. 9]. Although SHADOW was only a fanzine it did feature the likes of Alan Moore, Jack Adrian and Eddy Bertin as contributors, not to mention various useful bibliographical pieces on (for example) William Hope Hodgson, which later paved the way for larger and better known studies. (The editor David Sutton and the contributors Keith Walker and Ramsey Campbell all played a part in the subsequent formation of the British Fantasy Society.) Campbell has subsequently tried to play down his arrogant and brash criticisms of Lovecraft but it is obvious from the SHADOW letters page that the piece was originally perceived as a savage condemnation of the man who had originally inspired him. Another contributor (David Riley) wrote that Lovecraft's work "...cannot be dismissed the way Campbell does." Eddy Bertin complained: "Campbell is going too far when he puts down almost all HPL's work." (This was in response to Campbell's arguing that "whatever impression he [Lovecraft] left on the genre has faded, except as preserved by a few admirers...") Another letter writer accused Campbell of 'despising' Lovecraft. Etc etc. So whatever Campbell may argue now, and no matter how disingenuously, the fact remains that he *did* savagely attack Lovecraft at the time. If Campbell really was only condemning his own reliance upon HPL rather than attacking HPL as a writer, then not only did he fail to make that clear, but he would appear to have misrembered the actual facts as documented at the time.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.207.172.68 (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So will you supply the diect quotation I asked for above, and the bibliographic details that Hal Raglan requested? Deor 13:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have - see above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.207.172.68 (talk) 13:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you still haven't quoted a passage in which Campbell "referred to himself as a better writer than Lovecraft." Deor 13:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, what is your problem? Have you expended anywhere near as much energy validating Campbell's various self-praiseworthy claims? No, you have not. There is no simple handy-sized quote where Campbell says "I am a better writer than Lovecraft". However, there is a very brash and arrogant essay in which he explains at great length why Lovecraft was such a bad writer and why he himself could never possibly make the same mistakes. Indeed, the *whole* article is a vilification of Lovecraft. What is so difficult to understand about that? Then, in the subsequent issue, everybody - and I mean everybody, every single letter writing contributor - pours scorn on Campbell for his dismissive arrogance, which in turn led to Campbell sending in a very long letter to the next issue after that, attacking every one of the letter writing contributors. It's like something out of a genre farce: Campbell manages to get his first book published by copying Lovecraft's style, then he publishes a withering attack on HPL whilst helpfully explaining where HPL went wrong, only to be accused of stabbing his idol in the back by several third parties, whereupon he (Campbell) then accuses others of conducting a hate campaign against him! Oh, the irony of it. Campbell conducts a hate campaign against HPL but the complains when anybody questions his morals. Really, Deor, either you are very cautious or else harbour a far too rosy picture of Mr Campbell. Undoubtedly the truth is somewhere between his praise for and his criticisms of HPL, but from a point of historical accuracy, we - the readers of Wiki - need to know about both perspectives to form a valid judgment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.40.124 (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why the anonymous editor holds such obvious seething hatred against Campbell, but to help bring this all to a close I've rewritten the details as we have them in a factual, non-POV manner with refs. If the editor could update the Shadow ref with the essay's pg number(s) in the issue, as previously asked, this would be much appreciated.-Hal Raglan 18:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what "various self-praiseworthy claims" is the anonymous editor grumbling about? I see none in this article.-Hal Raglan 18:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one has a 'seething hatred' of Campbell. To dismiss someone's opinion with such terms is a classic example of political distortion, especially as the prime intention in all of this has been to create an objective, balanced article, as opposed the sycophantic one which self-confessed Campbell fans like Hal Raglan would prefer. Indeed, Mr Raglan is something of a hypocrite. Were anyone to describe Campbell's criticism of Lovecraft as a 'seething hatred' he would waste little time in branding such a claim as a non-factual POV. If Mr Raglan wishes to familiarise himself with any one of Campbell's numerous claims of self-worth then he need only open his eyes: they are extremely plentiful both in print and elsewhere. Indeed, to use 'indeed' again, one need only glance at the various issues of SHADOW to discover that in John Ramsey Campbell we do not have a precocious talent but rather an incredibly outrageous example of someone holding himself in unwarrantably high regard. For example, in a review of a Lovecraftian anthology, he starts by boldly stating that it would be wrong of him to review his own Lovecraftian contribution to the volume, but then proceeds to dedicate the entire first paragraph - by far the longest in the piece - to doing just that. So unintentionally amusing is all of this that it can only be a matter of time before a more able writer uses Campbell as the template for a novel...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.143.3.69 (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful - you need only quote the relevant words, source them and, if any dispute arises, show that they are relevant content for an encyclopaedia article. Similarly, if you believe that the article as it stands is unbalanced or sycophantic, you need only excise the relevant parts and, if a dispute arises, show on what grounds the excised words are not relevant content for an encyclopaedia article. PhilipC 17:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and if you could avoid slinging epithets like "blind fool" and "hypocrite", you might come across a bit less seething, as well.PhilipC 21:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E. K. Leyton[edit]

Dracula's Daughter and The Wolfman are also available under the name E. K. Leyton, along with The Creature from the Black Lagoon, which Campbell apparently didn't write. What does this mean, and does it matter? PhilipC (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awards[edit]

The awards sections lists Ancient Images as a winner of the Bram Stoker novel (1989). This is in disagreement with the Wikipedia page for the award, and the HWA's list of awards http://horror.org/awards/stokerwinnom.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2CEC:2B20:E47A:9ECD:C4E3:3F27 (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since that entry, unlike most of the others, had no source citation, I've removed it. Anyone who can come up with a reliable source is welcome to reinstate it. Deor (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually this, which I think bore the Stoker name for a while: http://thedraculasociety.org.uk/the-children-of-the-night-award.html

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ramsey Campbell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ramsey Campbell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ramsey_Campbell&oldid=1200575507"