Charles H. Fort's Books

BaronVonHoopla

Abominable Snowman
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
554
Likes
6
Points
34
#1
Hello all,

So I have been reading Charles Fort's book "The Book of the Damned" this afternoon on the internet, since it has been impossible to find here in Toronto, and I've been finding it a bit odd. And not in the way I expected.

Has anyone else read it? I find it a bit difficult to read, there seems to be no flow. Was he basically just recounting stories, a bit like Keel?

-Fitz
 

Jerry_B

Antediluvian
Joined
Apr 15, 2002
Messages
8,056
Likes
40
Points
129
#2
Fort had some interesting ideas but was pretty bad at putting it all across to the reader. He was not a good writer, I'm sorry to say.
 

Anome

Bibliomancer
Joined
May 23, 2002
Messages
5,490
Likes
484
Points
164
Location
Left, and to the Back
#3
Sadly true. A lot of interesting ideas not particularly well expressed. And a few odd statements about his personal philosophy that I don't really care for.

Still the books are a fundamental record of an otherwise scarcely looked at part of history.
 

BaronVonHoopla

Abominable Snowman
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
554
Likes
6
Points
34
#4
Re: THE BOOK OF THE DAMNED

Resologist said:
In my opinion, Fort's books are much better than Keel's books, especially since Fort only half-believed in his speculative ideas.
I've always found that Keel seems to keep an open mind about weird things, at least, that's always been my impression.

I'm glad to see its not just me with Fort's writing. Don't get me wrong, I am enjoying, and the information is great, it just seems sometimes like I'm reading his pointform notes more than I am a manuscript. No Biggie.

-Fitz
 

Philo_T

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jun 10, 2002
Messages
1,216
Likes
14
Points
69
#5
I always viewed Fort as being one of those scientific "stamp collectors" that gathers and collates data (in this case the dammned data) that someone else comes along and uses to build a theory around. Like Tycho Brahe to some future Kepler.

Fort does spin some possible theories based upon his data, but never really seems to take any of them seriously. Or hold on to them to tightly.

Anyhow, given the period that he's writing in, and the fact that he's cataloging orphaned anecdotal evidence, it's somewhat understandable that his writing can read like a phonebook.
 
Top