• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

FT317

I've just noticed this thread is in 'Chat'.

It looks a good issue.
 
FT 317

It's here!

Slender man killings, part two of the Rollo Ahmed article, proof that Cthulhu enjoys a midnight snack of great white shark, plus lots of other stuff I haven't got to yet.
 
Re: FT 317

Heckler20 said:
It's here!

Slender man killings, part two of the Rollo Ahmed article, proof that Cthulhu enjoys a midnight snack of great white shark, plus lots of other stuff I haven't got to yet.

Sounds good.
 
It does look good, apart from the editorial which repeats the nonsense made-up story that Richard Dawkins wants to ban fairy tales. I suppose it was only a lead-in to the cover story, but a misstep right at the start of the issue was a pity. Get Mythconceptions on to it!

The rest of it which relates the Fortean Traveller fiasco was more entertaining. Liked the annual coverage of weird book titles, but does the winner, How to Poo on a Date, allow the date any say in the matter?
 
I'd like them to continue giving random article numbers to Fourtean Traveller now. Just for the lark.
 
gncxx said:
It does look good, apart from the editorial which repeats the nonsense made-up story that Richard Dawkins wants to ban fairy tales. I suppose it was only a lead-in to the cover story, but a misstep right at the start of the issue was a pity. Get Mythconceptions on to it!

At no point does the editorial repeat the claim that the Dawk wants to "ban fairy tales". Are you trying to create your own Mythconception here?
 
Dr_David_Sutton said:
gncxx said:
It does look good, apart from the editorial which repeats the nonsense made-up story that Richard Dawkins wants to ban fairy tales. I suppose it was only a lead-in to the cover story, but a misstep right at the start of the issue was a pity. Get Mythconceptions on to it!

At no point does the editorial repeat the claim that the Dawk wants to "ban fairy tales". Are you trying to create your own Mythconception here?

Excellent!

Meta Mythconceptions!
 
Dr_David_Sutton said:
gncxx said:
It does look good, apart from the editorial which repeats the nonsense made-up story that Richard Dawkins wants to ban fairy tales. I suppose it was only a lead-in to the cover story, but a misstep right at the start of the issue was a pity. Get Mythconceptions on to it!

At no point does the editorial repeat the claim that the Dawk wants to "ban fairy tales". Are you trying to create your own Mythconception here?

Yebbut you briefly mention it was misattributed according to Dawkins then spend the rest of the editorial treating the story as if it wasn't.
 
What I don't get is that dude dressed up as the Joker that killed some people with his wife. Apparently he liked to dress up as Slenderman.

Doesn't that just mean he wore a suit?
 
That's what I like about FT - always introducing me to something new that I've never heard of before!
 
I'm the author of the review of Neil Spring's The Ghost Hunters in this issue. I was amused and dismayed in equal measure to see that my highly critical review - in which I lambasted the author (or the book's editor) for not having picked up on various anachronisms, typos and inconsistencies - was itself rendered inconsistent and flawed by editorial intervention.

Although it does make me look a bit of a tw*t, there is certain amusing sense of "the biter bit" or of "touché!" about this. Perhaps Mr Spring has a team of mischievous editorial imps ready to be unleashed for such occasions?

Anyway, and by contrast, I thought the Rollo Ahmed articles (which I also wrote) were superbly handled - layout, illustrations, editorial additions, the lot.
 
Sifaka317 said:
I'm the author of the review of Neil Spring's The Ghost Hunters in this issue. I was amused and dismayed in equal measure to see that my highly crtical review - in which I lambasted the author (or the book's editor) for not having picked up on various anachronisms, typos and inconsistencies - was itself rendered inconsistent and flawed by editorial intervention.

Although it does make me look a bit of a tw*t, there is certain amusing sense of "the biter bit" or of "touché!" about this. Perhaps Mr Spring has a team of mischievous editorial imps ready to be unleashed for such occasions?

Anyway, and by contrast, I thought the Rollo Ahmed articles (which I also wrote) were superbly handled - layout, illustrations, editorial additions, the lot.

I really enjoyed the Rollo articles. Perhaps you would publish the full text of the review here?
 
Cheers Ramon. That's not a bad idea; I will check to see how long it is (oo-err missus). That was, I suspect, the source of the problem: my original text was too lengthy and had to be edited down, perhaps in a hurry so as to meet their deadline.
 
This is what I originally submitted; maybe was too much to fit on one page:

'The Ghost Hunters' by Neil Spring
London: Quercus, 2013
Paperback, 522 pp., 20 cm., illus., footnotes, bibliography. ISBN 9781780879758. £7.99 UK.



'The Ghost Hunters', Neil Spring’s first novel, is based on the life of ‘ghost hunter’ Harry Price, and his investigation of “the most haunted house in England,” Borley Rectory. This reader was gripped by its sense of supernatural menace, and gradual revealing of mysteries and secrets – notwithstanding the numerous typos, dialogue anachronisms, plot implausibilities and factual errors scattered amongst its pages.

The plot centres on a turbulent twenty-year relationship between Harry Price and his secretary, Sarah Grey (loosely based on the real-life Lucy Kay). There are signs that Spring intended to structure his novel around a love triangle composed of Price, Grey and the journalist Vernon Wall, but the character of the younger, more attractive Wall serves mainly to show what Grey has missed by throwing her lot in with Price.

It was difficult for this reader to understand why an attractive 22-year-old former photographer’s model (incidentally, a most unlikely occupation for a respectable middle-class young woman in the 1920s) would have been so besotted with the 45-year-old Price, whose “yellow teeth” are referred to more than once. Perhaps we are meant to infer that for Sarah Grey, Price is a surrogate father?

Spring has certainly done his background research, amassing a good deal of factual detail about Price’s life and investigations, which he deploys in the narrative - but some startling chronological errors detract from the novel’s overall credibility. Revealing Price’s links with Nazi Germany, Wall tells Grey “there are signals from Germany that Hitler is taking a special interest in psychic phenomena” – yet this conversation is stated as taking place one evening in May 1945!

A recurring memory of the heroine is of her father, weeping over an opened letter, in 1914. Subsequent events suggest we are meant to understand this as his fear of the call-up. But conscription in Britain did not begin until 1916.

Price’s headquarters are stated as being at Queensberry Place, SW7 from the 1920s through to the 1940s, but the real-life Price moved his National Laboratory of Psychical Research to nearby Roland Gardens in December 1930. His lease had been terminated by the London Spiritualist Alliance (who owned the building), owing to their exasperation with a man they had come to regard as an enemy of the Spiritualist movement.

Spring acknowledges that he is aware of the change of address in his author’s note at the end of the book. But he doesn’t mention the reason why Price was compelled to move, which could have been a useful detail with which to address Price’s quixotic nature, throughout his career shifting position from sceptic to believer and back again –something which, elsewhere, Spring does make good use of. Like Price and Grey, the reader’s perspective constantly shifts from a sceptical position - in which attestations of inexplicable phenomena at Borley and elsewhere are the result of credulity or outright fraud - to one which accepts the reality of the supernatural, and back again.

But there is a curious inability on the part of the heroine to consider the possibility that whilst some phenomena are faked, this does not discredit the entire corpus of evidence. Grey appears to view the question in binary terms, either ‘fake’ or ‘genuine’. This is odd, because at one point in the narrative, she herself suggests that a genuine medium may be compelled to resort to trickery if physically or mentally tired.

Price’s infamous photograph of the medium Rudi Schneider in the séance room, with one arm free and having apparently evaded ‘control,’ makes an appearance. For Grey, the ensuing doubt discounts the possibility that any of Rudi’s phenomena had been genuine. Similarly, she accuses Price of having faked the entire Borley happenings, despite the impossibility of his being implicated in having produced phenomena reported during the Bull occupancy in the nineteenth century.

In his author’s note, Spring does acknowledge that:

“It is the legend of Borley rather than its historical detail that I have sought to re-imagine. This novel is certainly not a faithful retelling of Harry Price’s association with the house, but a fictional representation of what might have happened.”

Fair enough, but perhaps this note would have been better placed prior to the start of the narrative, rather than at the end, so that Price or Borley train-spotters such as myself might not have found themselves becoming increasingly hot under the collar during their reading of the novel.

Dialogue is mostly convincingly appropriate for the early twentieth-century period, but there are several jarring modern-day anachronisms, such as Wall expressing a desire for “closure”, Grey cautioning another character “good luck with that”, or, most notably, Price’s announcement to place Borley Rectory under “lockdown.”

There are various typos, including, at one point, an incorrect chapter heading (ch.8). These may not be the author’s fault, but suggest careless copy editing (or perhaps the lack of a copy editor, in these financially straitened times). A good editor might also have spotted the anachronistic dialogue elements, and other oddities.

Nevertheless, there’s a growing sense of tension and menace in the second half of the book, as the ‘Borley Curse’ is revealed. Whilst the motive for the curse is questionable, Sarah Grey’s mounting fear and dread is well-handled, despite over-reliance on the “But what I could not have known then...” type of chapter ending. The figure of a spectral nun is central to the curse, drawing upon the ‘real’ Borley, as does the well-realised character of Marianne Foyster, whose real-life equivalent, tempestuous and unconventional, is a gift to writers.

Another real-Borley element is the St Ignatius medallion (found on the real-life Price’s body at his death) which makes repeated appearances throughout the novel – a striking visual device which would work well on screen. Indeed, in his author’s note, Spring expresses the hope that “dramatic adaptations” of his characters Harry and Sarah be realised, and we are told that television rights have already been secured. One way or another, then, the legends of Borley and of Price will hopefully be reaching a new audience as a result of this engrossing, if flawed, novel.


If you’re a Borley or Harry Price obsessive, be warned. But if you want a chilling English ghost story, this may be for you – if you’re able to ignore its various gaffs. 6 / 10
 
Sifaka317 said:
There are various typos, including, at one point, an incorrect chapter heading (ch.8).
Oh the irony! The 'Cool' smiley on FTMB is created by typing 8 followed by ), which is what you've done. (It often happens - I've done it myself!)

To produce the number 8 in brackets, you have to fudge it with a space between the 8 and the ), like this: (Ch. 8 )
 
Irony indeed rynner - Mr Spring's imps are still working their mischief against me I see :oops:
Thanks for the tip.

As far as the original vs edited review goes, what got my goat most was my original:
'Revealing Price’s links with Nazi Germany, Wall tells Grey “there are signals from Germany that Hitler is taking a special interest in psychic phenomena” – yet this conversation is stated as taking place one evening in May 1945!'

being altered to
'...in 1945!'

This renders an impossible scenario (Hitler having, as is well-known, topped hisself on April 30th) into an improbable one - it is, I suppose, possible that Hitler's thoughts may have turned to psychic phenomena during the first 4 months of 1945...although the notion that in 1945 he would have been preoccupied with finding a suitable home for Harry Price's library in a German university is, I think, unlikely :p (in reality, these exploratory discussions between Price and German academia had taken place during the 1930s).

Anyway, maybe I'm being too pedantic. It was nice to have a review in print for the first time.
 
Received this issue the day after I received the current issue. Where has it been for the past month? :spinning :spinning
 
DrWhiteface said:
Received this issue the day after I received the current issue. Where has it been for the past month? :spinning :spinning

Abducted by aliens. Because they read FT too. 8)
 
Of course they read Fortean Times! How else would they know whom to abduct and probe?!
 
Back
Top