However, most of the sticking points in this argument come down to how Simmons views Collins. Factually I think he'll probably come out on top. Simmons is a good writer and doesn't shy away from research.
So I would have said before this. But from what is said in the excerpt above, I'd argue that at least some of his statements go completely against anything I've ever seen from any Collins scholars, many of whom research the man and his milieu for decades....
And one doesn't have to "go hunting"; just as a personal example, I began running into Collins' tales in anthologies -- both supernatural tales and mysteries/suspense stories -- at an early age, and I can't recall ever being in a bookstore that didn't have at least one or two of his titles on hand, frequently more. This was
without me being particularly interested in looking him up -- as I said, both Collins and Dickens are less to my personal taste than many other writers -- but merely noting which writers were included in such volumes or at the stores... or at least, those whose names I had begun to recognize because they were made so familiar by constant representation.
However, you have a certain amount of justice here, as those who are occasional readers, or are mainly readers of contemporary fiction laced with an occasional foray into older writing (the "odd book here or there"), are less likely to be familiar with Collins (or any of the other notable writers of that period, for the matter of that), as the names we become familiar with through exposure to them in school make up a very tiny number of even the best writers of
any period. But I repeat: this is a
very long way from his work being "forgotten".
And Paladin: You're quite right, and this is one of my problems with such presentations. What I see here is a very
subjective view of Collins and his work,
given the appearance of authority, a false comparison of Dickens and Collins with an agenda that raises the one at the expense of the other; and such as that can color how a writer is viewed for a very long time. Most people still have in mind the picture of Poe presented by Griswold, and that was exploded a very long time ago. But it is more
sensational than the reality, and that tends to tickle people's fancy more than the much more complex, nuanced man that Poe was. The same is true with interpretations of Lovecraft and Howard, and has been done at times with Dickens, Maturin, and Mary Shelley as well. And frankly, I find such an approach to be disingenuous at best....
However, before going further with this conversation, I'd best get a copy of the book and read it, as so far I'm going on the comments made outside of the novel itself. I have little doubt that Simmons has written an entertaining and even thought-provoking novel; my point of contention is this one aspect, and the novel itself may leave a different impression....