My attempt to introduce horror to a general literary audience

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

I was asked, on a literary fiction forum, to weigh in with my viewpoint on the horror genre and its evolution. Here was what I came out with:

For me, reading (and writing) horror is basically a quest for the moment when the numinous is evoked - generally the bad numinous, in a horror story. That moment when the scale shifts and something approaching awe is conjured. I'm less interested in fiction as story as in magic, it seems, and good horror writing, or even some bad horror writing, can work a deep, dark magic of its own.

I'll quote a contemporary horror writer I admire who expresses this better than I just have: 'What appeals to me most are not stories of horror but stories of awe -- even if that awe emanates from the dark. Horror writing allows me to explore that dark ineffableness, and try to then convey it to the rational world.' (Simon Strantzas).


Because of its gestation through the Gothics and the stamp placed on the genre by Poe, a brilliant man and a visionary, if given to emotional hyperbole and the use of an excessively inflated vocabulary, and Lovecraft, who picked up much that was good and bad from Poe, there is a lot of horror that is written luridly and hysterically, seeking to achieve effect through excess. The reason I still admire Lovecraft is because much of what he wraps up in his excesses, if they are at all to be taken as such, resonates so well. His theoretical framework for horror, explicated in the essay 'Supernatural Horror in Literature' is still, I think, a powerful text that does a lot to explain the appeal and nature of the genre. Modern horror owes as m uch to Ambrose Bierce, who had a far more dry, sardonic style than Poe and brought in a more earthy, grounded approach from which to build towards the horrific. Nathaniel Hawthorne's ventures in this genre bring in a sense of pre-ordained doom and moral engagement.

Writers like Fritz Leiber and Ramsey Campbell worked from a Lovecraftian starting point to bring wider conceptions and more subtle literary values to the genre. Shirley Jackson brought greater values of character development and a strong, eerie sense of place to the table. Then the Horror Boom unleashed a lot of debris; splatterpunk, which had a valid aesthetic premise, but few talented practitioners and all the various Writers Who Would Be King. Stephen King is a surprisingly good critic of horror fiction, and openly admits that his first aim is to achieve the sort of awe-tinged horror I've referred to above; unfortunately, if he cannot do this, he just as openly admits that he is willing to 'go for the gross-out'. Still, some of King's work resonates because he is fundamentally an honest storyteller; he always reaches into his own darkest fears to find fuel for his story-machine.

Then there's the English ghost story tradition, which might seem like a cozy, fireside gesture but contains much of the truly weird, in stories by writers like J. Sheridan Le Fanu and MR James and attracted contributions by prominent literary figures like Dickens and Henry James. This strand of supernatural fiction was broadened by writers like Arthur Machen and Algernon Blackwood, men with deeply-held mystical beliefs who have helped shaped the treatment of the weird in literature as much as the atheist Lovecraft (who knew and admired their work).

I tend to favour short stories over novels in horror; I have to admit there are very few horror-story concepts that benefit from the extended treatment possible in a novel, or at least very few horror writers who can bring it off well. Ramsey Campbell has written some very good horror novels, but on the whole his short fiction is more effective.

I think that horror fiction is in a very healthy condition today, with numerous talented authors regularly releasing work, including Thomas Ligotti, perhaps the most significant weird fiction writer since Lovecraft, and Laird Barron whose noir-tinged horror fiction is as different from Ligotti's austere, cryptic fiction as possible, and just as effective. As long as we crave anything from the safe shudder induced by a fictional monster to something, anything, that will evoke a context larger than the quotidian, horror has a place and a role.

 

[dlsevern]

I was asked, on a literary fiction forum, to weigh in with my viewpoint on the horror genre and its evolution. Here was what I came out with:

For me, reading (and writing) horror is basically a quest for the moment when the numinous is evoked - generally the bad numinous, in a horror story. That moment when the scale shifts and something approaching awe is conjured. I'm less interested in fiction as story as in magic, it seems, and good horror writing, or even some bad horror writing, can work a deep, dark magic of its own.

I'll quote a contemporary horror writer I admire who expresses this better than I just have: 'What appeals to me most are not stories of horror but stories of awe -- even if that awe emanates from the dark. Horror writing allows me to explore that dark ineffableness, and try to then convey it to the rational world.' (Simon Strantzas).


Because of its gestation through the Gothics and the stamp placed on the genre by Poe, a brilliant man and a visionary, if given to emotional hyperbole and the use of an excessively inflated vocabulary, and Lovecraft, who picked up much that was good and bad from Poe, there is a lot of horror that is written luridly and hysterically, seeking to achieve effect through excess. The reason I still admire Lovecraft is because much of what he wraps up in his excesses, if they are at all to be taken as such, resonates so well. His theoretical framework for horror, explicated in the essay 'Supernatural Horror in Literature' is still, I think, a powerful text that does a lot to explain the appeal and nature of the genre. Modern horror owes as m uch to Ambrose Bierce, who had a far more dry, sardonic style than Poe and brought in a more earthy, grounded approach from which to build towards the horrific. Nathaniel Hawthorne's ventures in this genre bring in a sense of pre-ordained doom and moral engagement.

Writers like Fritz Leiber and Ramsey Campbell worked from a Lovecraftian starting point to bring wider conceptions and more subtle literary values to the genre. Shirley Jackson brought greater values of character development and a strong, eerie sense of place to the table. Then the Horror Boom unleashed a lot of debris; splatterpunk, which had a valid aesthetic premise, but few talented practitioners and all the various Writers Who Would Be King. Stephen King is a surprisingly good critic of horror fiction, and openly admits that his first aim is to achieve the sort of awe-tinged horror I've referred to above; unfortunately, if he cannot do this, he just as openly admits that he is willing to 'go for the gross-out'. Still, some of King's work resonates because he is fundamentally an honest storyteller; he always reaches into his own darkest fears to find fuel for his story-machine.

Then there's the English ghost story tradition, which might seem like a cozy, fireside gesture but contains much of the truly weird, in stories by writers like J. Sheridan Le Fanu and MR James and attracted contributions by prominent literary figures like Dickens and Henry James. This strand of supernatural fiction was broadened by writers like Arthur Machen and Algernon Blackwood, men with deeply-held mystical beliefs who have helped shaped the treatment of the weird in literature as much as the atheist Lovecraft (who knew and admired their work).

I tend to favour short stories over novels in horror; I have to admit there are very few horror-story concepts that benefit from the extended treatment possible in a novel, or at least very few horror writers who can bring it off well. Ramsey Campbell has written some very good horror novels, but on the whole his short fiction is more effective.

I think that horror fiction is in a very healthy condition today, with numerous talented authors regularly releasing work, including Thomas Ligotti, perhaps the most significant weird fiction writer since Lovecraft, and Laird Barron whose noir-tinged horror fiction is as different from Ligotti's austere, cryptic fiction as possible, and just as effective. As long as we crave anything from the safe shudder induced by a fictional monster to something, anything, that will evoke a context larger than the quotidian, horror has a place and a role.

I'm sorry but I have to say this. The Splatterpunks were some of the most inventive and poetic writers of their time and still are. You called John Skipp & Craig Spector, Joe R. Lansdale, Richard Christian Matheson, and David J. Schow debris, like it is so much rubbish that should be swept under your mental rug. I love subtle horror just as much as the next guy but I can't stand when someone shrugs off some of the best horror writing their ever was.

 

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

I said: 'Then the Horror Boom unleashed a lot of debris; splatterpunk, which had a valid aesthetic premise, but few talented practitioners and all the various Writers Who Would Be King.

This describes two categories of debris: the many untalented practitioners of splatterpunk and, a far larger group, the King-imitators.

Please take the time to read what has actually been written before (a) block-quoting it, wasting everyone's time and (b) reacting to a strawman you've just constructed.

Also, it's 'there', not 'their'.

Cheers.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

An excellent essay, JP.

 

[j d worthington]

Indeerd it is, JP.

One point about the splatterpunk movement: I don't think anyone is denying that there was some good stuff to come out of it; but, like so many movements (especially in genre literature), the vast bulk of it was, frankly, self-promoting, pretentious dreck. Those who were among the truly talented often had a very ambiguous relationship with the movement, and were more interested in going off along their own path, exploring their own themes in the best manner they were able. That's what the best artists (literary or otherwise) tend to do....

JP... just as side note, I tend to use the term "dark numinous" in my own references to this aspect of horror, partly just to differentiate between it and the usual sense of the numinous, but also as a sort of sonic reminder of "dark[ly] luminous", as it tends to cast a dark, spectral light on aspects of the human condition and the universe which is nonetheless beautiful, rich, and awe-inspiring. As HPL put it at the end of Supernatural Horror in Literature: "Yet who shall declare the dark theme a positive handicap? Radiant with beauty, the cup of the Ptolemies was carven of onyx".

 

[Fried Egg]

Jayaprakash Satyamurthy

You say that this was your attempt to introduce horror to a wider literary audience. How successful was it. What was their response?

 

[Nesacat]

It's a fine essay JP and like Fried Egg, I too am curious as to the response. I've made similar attempts here but it's not always been a success since the general preference seems to be for whatever horror is currently on the bestseller lists. I am therefore rather curious about how your efforts are going.

 

[GOLLUM]

That's as very fine summary indeed JP.

I really enjoyed reading that as it has probably helped me further elucidate in my own mind why I enjoy this Genre

Thank you for posting.

 

[dlsevern]

The splatterpunks was really not a movement at all, it was a joke term coined by David J. Schow and which of these writers would you call pretentious: Clive Barker, Poppy Z. Brite, Jack Ketchum, Joe R. Lansdale, Richard Laymon, Robert McCammon, Richard Christian Matheson, John Skipp, Craig Spector, and Ed Lee, none of whom are untalented or King-imitators. Grant it, I imagine there were several who claimed to be splatterpunk but were just wannabees. The only reason I pointed this out is because from your writing it appears that you are sidestepping them more than they should be. At least mention some of the names of the more prolific splatterpunks, the ones that were truly creative and excellent writers. I understand that perhaps you don't feel that way but many do and reading your statements many of them would more than likely assume that you are a pretentious hipster who thinks that what you have to say is all important and therefore they would not finish reading it. I don't believe that is what you want, criticism is a good thing and that is all I was doing. I am not attempting to start an argument and I do think that the majority of what you wrote was excellent.

What are you the word nazi, lol. So I misspelled a word, it doesn't happen often.

 

[Connavar]

Horror i think are literary strong at its finest, i adore the classic style of both british,american style. King, Barker type isnt my preferred horror, not literary strong enough, awe,atmosphere enough.

I wish horror writers of today that isnt old masters like Matheson and co were more known. Ligotti and co are invisible here books wise. Laird Barron forget about it.

Acclaimed horror today is apparently tiny outside thier country....

 

[dlsevern]

You also might want to explain that even though the term "splatterpunk" may be off-putting, as Paul M. Sammons wrote, "they were attempting to fuse extreme violence and horror (the "splatter") with a confrontational social sensibility (the "punk") to provide a countercultural, more streetwise take on our collective fears". The psychology mindset of the characters were more important than the gore.

 

[dlsevern]

I believe that King and Barker should be considered literary, the same goes for Straub, Simmons, and Skipp. All to me are literary writers and personally I believe they should be discussed right along side Lovecraft, Poe, Machen, Onions, or Blackwood.

 

[Fried Egg]

I believe that King and Barker should be considered literary, the same goes for Straub, Simmons, and Skipp. All to me are literary writers and personally I believe they should be discussed right along side Lovecraft, Poe, Machen, Onions, or Blackwood.

Really? You really think that it will help the cause of bringing horror to a wider audience to hold up the likes of King and Barker as being of as high as standard (in literary terms) as the likes of Lovecraft, Poe, etc?

I don't think they are of the same high literary standards and even if I did, it would do the cause no favours to proclaim them as amoung the best horror has to offer. Surely, non horror fans will already be aware of authors such as King and Barker, will have formed their prejudices of what horror is all about based on their understanding of authors such as these. If they know about these authors and still don't like horror, then it makes sense to focus on the more obscure, literary authors of horror who they might not already be aware of.

Lord knows there is no shortage of people clamouring to heap acclaim on King and the other more well known horror authors. What is needed to bring a wider audience to horror is bring more attention to it's other, more neglected aspects. To show that it is a far broader genre than they might otherwise think.

Of course, that is not to say that King, Barker and others are not worth reading, even if they are less literary than others.

 

[j d worthington]

A) Let's keep things civil, shall we? No name calling, please.

B) dlsevern: I would by no means put Barker and King in that company. Literarily, they are at the opposite end of that spectrum, by their own intent. They are not only professional writers, but popular professional writers, even in light of their own aims. King's well-known comment about going for the "gross-out" is plenty of indication of this. Such may sell, but it has no merit beyond that; literarily, it is vacuous and meritricious, nothing more. To be on the same literary plane as the other authors you describe, one would only use such as part of a much more complex mixture of responses, not aim for it in itself. Grand Guignol tactics in literature are simply without any save the most shallow and ephemeral value -- what shocks or grosses out one generation is simply blase to the next (or at least the one following) -- whereas aiming for a more penetrating, incisive, and multilayered emotional resonance is much more likely to produce something of lasting value for generations to come.

This is not to say that King and Barker are not capable of such -- inherently, they are able to do this, and scattered passages and, occasionally, entire pieces show their abilities in this respect. But they are also far too prone to verbal flatulence... not simply verbose as considered from the standpoint of word-count, but given to excess verbiage which often doesn't actually contribute in any way to what they are doing. It is simply fat. One of the best ways to tell which is which is to wait a while and reread a piece one enjoyed originally, this time reading it with one's critical abilities in full swing. If you find passages which don't carry along the narrative flow, don't add any important coloring, don't give subtle shifts to mood or characterization or significance of action... then what you're looking at is unnecessary wordage. Nearly all writers are prone to this to some degree, but most popular writers do it in staggering amounts. King is, frankly, one of the worst in this regard; and Barker isn't far behind.

As far as the list you mentioned: Clive Barker I've already given my views; yes, Poppy is one I would say is pretentious in the extreme... which is a pity, as I would like to like her work, and always go into it with hope, but so far...; Jack Ketchum is, I think, variable: capable, but often given to ridiculous excesses of all sorts; Joe R. Lansdale: ditto... again, a pity, as at his best I really like Joe's work, and, having met and talked with the man I am impressed with his sincerity; Laymon I have read too little of to pass judgment; McCammon is, in my view, nearly a sheer pulp hack; Richard Christian Matheson: agani, variable; Skipp and Spector I'd put in the same class as McCammon. (Don't misunderstand: pulp can be fun, it can be enjoyable... but it ain't art; not even streetwise art); Ed Lee -- again, I've read too little to pass proper judgment, though I have a piece or two by him set aside to read in the (fairly) near future.

In order to appeal to a wider audience, horror must do more than shock or titillate (and the latter, more than the former, is actually what most of splatterpunk tends to do in reality); it must, as must all serious art, probe what it means to be human, especially under extreme conditions; it must do so honestly, with (as the phrase goes) "clean hands and composure"; it must speak to our deepest emotions... not just fear (and certainly not just repulsion or "horror", in the true sense), but awe, wonder, longing, the feeling of the numinous and mysterious in life and the universe; and our dreams, as well as our nightmares. Unless a writer does this with his work, all he will remain is "a horror writer", and all such horror will ever be is simply a cheap, sadistic form of titillation, bereft of any loftier or worthier goals than to glut a morbid taste for sensationalism.

 

[dlsevern]

All of the authors I have listed including several that I didn't mention all at one time or another have inspired awe, wonder, longing, the feeling of the numinous and mysterious in life and the universe; and our dreams, as well as our nightmares for me and I am not in the minority. To not call their writing high art is doing horror no favors. They are of the highest art and should definitely be included in the ranks of Lovecraft, Machen, Blackwood, etc., who I do agree should be the main focus as far as literary works go but for the love of God don't exclude the aformentioned just because they have been known to go for the gross out. In the near future, authors such as King and Straub will be read in high school classrooms because of their literary qualities. Just because YOU don't feel this way doesn't make it not so. What cause are you talking about? Stuffy intelectual types like yourselves are not doing horror literature any justice by excluding these writers in your so-called cause.

 

[j d worthington]

All of the authors I have listed including several that I didn't mention all at one time or another have inspired awe, wonder, longing, the feeling of the numinous and mysterious in life and the universe; and our dreams, as well as our nightmares for me and I am not in the minority. To not call their writing high art is doing horror no favors. They are of the highest art and should definitely be included in the ranks of Lovecraft, Machen, Blackwood, etc., who I do agree should be the main focus as far as literary works go but for the love of God don't exclude the aformentioned just because they have been known to go for the gross out. In the near future, authors such as King and Straub will be read in high school classrooms because of their literary qualities. Just because YOU don't feel this way doesn't make it not so. What cause are you talking about? Stuffy intelectual types like yourselves are not doing horror literature any justice by excluding these writers in your so-called cause.

Once again, you are bordering on becoming personally abusive. I advise you to watch that approach, especially as you are trying to present a valid argument in favor of writers whose work you like.

Now, on to your statements about the value of these writers themselves. First, no, I don't think we're going to see much of King, Barker, et al. being read in literature courses; they lack a great deal of what is needed to fit into the (so-called) literary canon. It has taken HPL seventy years and more to be accepted there, for Pete's sake, and his aims and achievements were generally much, much higher than most of the writers you mention above.

Nor am I alone in viewing most of them in this light. Popular reviewers aside, the actual critical works on the field tend to take a dim view on them as being, essentially, often sloppy writers whose works are full of literary faults which mar the achievement of their apparent intent. Don't make the mistake of confusing honest critical judgment with a like or dislike of a writer's work -- the two may be poles apart. For example, I happen to enjoy a fair amount of Brian Lumley's work, yet critically I cannot but condemn it as among the pulpiest of the pulp (generally speaking; there are exceptions). Likewise with Barker: I have a great deal of fondness for some of his work, but the critical side of me simply will not allow his literary faults to go without comment, either. (You'll see I do the same thing where A. Merritt is concerned, in another thread.)

I do not argue (at least in most cases) that these do not have talent, but rather that they far too often lack the rigor to use that talent well; instead going for the easy out and prolificity, as well as a calculative catering to popular taste -- itself a near-certain death-knell to any honest literary endeavor, as popular tastes change quite rapidly. What sells stupendously today is more likely than not going to end up on the ash-heap of literary history, which is littered to the skies with writers who sold by the bushels, most of whom are not only names mentioned as literary curiosa.

And as far as doing horror favors or not... it is far better for any generic field (itself prone to suspicion from those outside the field) to be cautious in embracing popular writers unless their writing actually measures up in critical terms to the best that literature (not just literature within that field) has to offer. If it fails on any of these counts, then such is not the way to win new friends for the genre or that particular writer.

When it comes to evoking the things mentioned... I've yet to run across much mention of that from either critical or popular reviews on their work, which pretty much jibes with my own impressions, I'm afraid....

 

[D_Davis]

Really? You really think that it will help the cause of bringing horror to a wider audience to hold up the likes of King and Barker as being of as high as standard (in literary terms) as the likes of Lovecraft, Poe, etc?

I do.

I actually enjoy King and Barker a great deal more than Lovecraft, and I think they're better writers and story-tellers.

Personally speaking, there are only two authors that have ever made so emotional that I've cried - Olaf Stapledon, and Stephen King. King is a horror author of the highest order, simply because he connects so well with the human spirit. This is something that I think Lovecraft completely lacked. Lovecraft had no empathy, he was very cold, and unemotional. Horror is a very primal and powerful emotion, and King is a master at tapping into that. Lovecraft put his characters in harms way because he hated humanity, whereas King used horror to show how powerful humanity can be. Perhaps it is because of our different backgrounds in terms of things like worldview, or religion, but I greatly - in all regards - consider King the better of the two, and if there was ever an author who could show the non-initiated the power of the horror genre it is Stephen King, because he focuses on the human side of the horror.

And like you've said JD, the critic in me does not, and never will, let King get away with the bad stuff. He has written some absolute garbage; hell, even he'd agree with that! But, for my money, when King is on, he's one of the very best in the field.

 

[D_Davis]

Even though I like his stories a lot, I do sometimes wonder why Lovecraft is held in such high esteem, at least regarding his prose. He was very, very creative, and his imagination was boundless. However, personally I think he was a pretty terrible writer, and his prose is often borderline-laughable. Try reading some of his dialog and metaphors out loud; so much of it is cringe-worthy.

With authors like him, I tend to separate the ideas from the writing. Because while I love Lovecraft's ideas, I'm just not a huge supporter of his writing skills. So yeah, the modern critical appraisal of HPL does tend to baffle me, even if I do like his stories.

 

[D_Davis]

Out of curiosity, if each of you was tasked to pick five works of horror (think as broadly as you would like) to give to someone (perhaps someone who has voiced a disagreement with horror) as an introduction to the genre as a whole, what would those be, and why?

 

[Fried Egg]

D_Davis

I actually enjoy King and Barker a great deal more than Lovecraft, and I think they're better writers and story-tellers.

It think a lot of things that should be seperate, are becoming conflated in this discussion. There are many writers who I really enjoy, on a very straightfoward, down to earth level. They spin a great yarn, as it were. For instance (to go outside of horror if I may) Edgar Rice Burroughs, Robert Howard, Robert Heinlein, E. E. Doc Smith, etc. They're all great writers, in their way, and on some levels more effective than their more literary counterparts. But on other levels there is much lacking from their writing (I refer to J.D. for elaboration on this).

Perhaps it is because of our different backgrounds in terms of things like worldview, or religion, but I greatly - in all regards - consider King the better of the two, and if there was ever an author who could show the non-initiated the power of the horror genre it is Stephen King, because he focuses on the human side of the horror.

Let's consider again the purpose of the essay in the O.P. It is an attempt to convince a "literary" audience that horror can too have literary merit. An audience that probably looks down on horror because of it's preconceived ideas about what horror is. Preconceptions based most likely on their experiences with the likes of King, Barker and other big names in the field. The the wider public, King may well be (and often is) the kind of author who will most likely turn people on to horror, but that's not what's under consideration here.

Out of curiosity, if each of you was tasked to pick five works of horror (think as broadly as you would like) to give to someone (perhaps someone who has voiced a disagreement with horror) as an introduction to the genre as a whole, what would those be, and why?

When I am introducing people to a genre, I try as best I can to target what I recommend as closely as possible to what I know of their reading habits. Consequently, if I walk in to a bunch of serious "literary" readers who look down on horror as they understand it, I'm not going to start throwing King, Koontz and other such recommendations at them. And, despite what you said here, I doubt you would either. Surely you'd recommend the likes of Ligotti and Cisco over King even if you personally enjoy the latter more?

My horror experience is still in it's infancy really but if I found myself in the position of having to offer up five books of horror to a literary audience in an attempt to convince them the genre has merit, it would look something like this:

"Ancient Sorceries & Other Stories" by Algernon Blackwood
"The Dead of Night" by Oliver Onions
"Call of Cthulhu & Other Stories" by H. P. Lovecraft
"Cold Hand in Mine" by Robert Aickman
"Teatro Grottesco" by Thomas Ligotti