Michael Brown: "I tried to make it different than anything else
that was out there. I wanted old and new stuff that was not out there
already. When you read the majority of interviews that see print,
people always seem to be asking the same old questions in regards to
his books and films. There seemed to be nothing new and nobody seemed
to be asking questions past the last movie...
"The thing with Pandemonium is that it has the play in there, which is rare, and the interviews are not your typical class, where you have somebody interviewing Peter Atkins or Doug Bradley and they keep asking them the same things over and over. These interviews concentrate on Clive's early days and how everyone first met. They go into more detail than any of the interviews that I've read. The majority of the pictures come from very close friends. The end result is that Pandemonium has a very nostalgic feel to it."
By [ ], World of Fandom, Vol 2 No 15, Spring 1992
Jeff Holland: "Pandemonium is an eclectic mix of essays,
interviews, illustrations, photographs, reviews and a special
attraction [History Of The Devil]... which is designed, I guess, to be
the ultimate fan compendium.
"Does it succeed? well, yes and no. On the one hand, there's a lot of really neat shit in this book... Now on to the problems. In the section on his films, we get a picture, credits and maybe a paragraph or two about the movie. THAT'S IT!!! Granted, we get information on the two short films he made in the 70's, but we don't get much information...
"All in all, it's a pretty decent book. I think it's worth the twenty bucks just to read The History Of The Devil."
Clive Barker - Pandemonium
By Jeff Holland, Coenobium, No 6, 1991
Stephen Jones: "My opinion of Pandemonium is that it is basically a glossy looking
fanzine and that they are aimed at two totally different audiences.
The quality of the material in the book operates more on a fanzine
level. It does not report to be anything more than that. It is
something to sell to the comic stores and trade off the Barker name.
That's not to say it denigrates any of the material in the book. It's
basically aimed at the casual buyer.
"My book [Shadows In Eden] is over five hundred pages long, hardcover, expensive and aimed at the serious horror reader and Barker collector. I'm sure we'll lose some of the younger comic book fans, who maybe discovered Barker through the Hellraiser and Nightbreed comics. I'm not bothered about that because there are enough people out there to make both books a success. That's what's great about Clive's material, it has this appeal to such a wide audience."
Clive Barker's Shadows In Eden
By [ ], World of Fandom, Vol 2 No 15, Spring 1992
Jon Gregory: "The first of a glut of books on Barker, Pandemonium
offers a great deal for the discering fan. Unlike the one-off hardback,
Shadows In Eden, it appears to be intended as a regular bookshelf
contender, with a request for reader feedback for a second issue...
"Definitely worth seeking out, if only for the play and the amazing collection of stills/posters from Barker's theatre days (and unseen films), and the portfolio of Books of Blood comic adaptations by the inimitable John Bolton. It should be a potent voice for Barker fans in the years to come."
By Jon Gregory, Hellraiser, No 2, 1991
glossy assembly of articles and interviews grew out of Michael Brown's
Dread newsletters and, after initial plans to produce the book with
HarperCollins foundered, Eclipse became home for what was planned as
the first in a series of 'further explorations into the worlds of
Clive Barker' (a tagline that seemed oddly reminiscent of Coenobium's
'explorations in the further regions of Hellraiser...').
"The first volume was an intriguing collection of previously published articles and photos together with brand new interviews and never-before-seen photos. With the exception of a couple of more general sections, the book aimed to fill in the gaps in everyone's knowledge of the pre-Books of Blood days. To its credit, it succeeds in explaining as much about Clive's schooldays and the plays years as Shadows In Eden does, with far fewer resources. Never as serious a critical work as Stephen Jones's collection, Pandemonium nevertheless benefited greatly from its concentration in one main area. Securing History of the Devil was a major coup (Brown also secured publication of A Clown's Sodom for Dread). The interviews lack some bite but are generally instructive and informative.
"The limited edition was a beautiful hardcover that allowed Pandemonium to step above a 'fanzine' level and into being a justified collectable.
"The mystery of Pandemonium 2 remains to this day. Several sources reported in 1992 that volume two was almost ready for release, set to include information on Hellraiser III and Candyman. Some said that Colossus was to be included in its entirety although Michael Brown himself reported that the centrepiece of the collection was to be the complete text of Frankenstein in Love. Michael - drop us a line sometime please, the old 'Breed would love to hear from you."
By Phil and Sarah Stokes, March 2002
Michael Brown: "This is not a biography. This is a book created
by people who admire Barker's work for people who admire Barker's work.
These pages may provide insights into Barker's character, but not an
expose of Barker's personal life.
"Instead, in essays by Barker himself, he reveals his early influences and shares his thoughts on the fantastique."
Introduction to Pandemonium
By Michael Brown, Pandemonium, 1991
John Bolton: "I've just painted a portrait of [Barker] crucified.
I have his decapitated head, with the arms coming from the temples,
nailed to a crucifix...
"I've been doing a number of portraits lately, and I have to try to get inside the person, and convey that in the image. With Clive, I felt I had to corrupt it. Which is really what Clive is about; here is a nice guy, but obviously for him to do what he's doing he has to be twisted in some way. I wanted to cature that in the painting.
"The thing about Clive crucified is that it's on a black background. I could have put any number of religious totems there, but ultimately that dilutes the central image. It may have given you more detail, which sometimes can be relevant, but this had to stand up on its own. I wanted the impact of a direct, positive image, and not to clutter it."
By Stan Nicholls, Speakeasy, No 117, February 1991