My attempt to introduce horror to a general literary audience

How exactly was I on the borderline of being personally abusive? Because I called you stuffy, intelectual types? From everything that I've read from you, that is exactly what you are going for. The real abuse is that I stated a critical opinion on what was written about the "splatterpunks" and I get bombarded with all of you trying to tear me down. It was criticism, that is all and even you have to admit that any critism should be welcomed criticism in order to become better at your art.

I absolutely believe that King, especially some of his short works, will be read in class rooms because like D Davis said "he connects so well with the human spirit." Whether you believe it or not, I know it to be true. No other author has brought out the surplus of emotions in me than King. Many of the "literary" authors works are bland and boring, the only emotion they bring out in me is "please let this end so I can move on to something more worthwhile and entertaining!"
 
Fried Egg said:
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?
Click to expand...

I'd recommend:

1. Different Seasons - Stephen King
2. The October Country - Ray Bradbury
3. Some of Your Blood - Theodore Sturgeon
4. Dark Harvest - Norman Partridge
5. The Exorcist - William Peter Blatty

I think Ligotti, Blackwood, Lovecraft, and Cisco et al., would be better served to come to with some more general experience with the genre. I think these are the deeper cuts, to cop a musical term.

Of course, perhaps we should define what we consider a "general literary audience." Is this someone who only reads the classics, or the popular non-genre bestsellers (Life of Pi, The Kite Runner, etc)? Maybe I misunderstood the audience the OP was trying to convince.
 
Conversely, I think it is the rejection of King by the more "literary minded" that screams loudest for my strong recommendation. In my experience, people have a preconceived notion about him that is completely wrong, a notion that is often shattered when something like "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption" or 'Salem's Lot, or The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon are read.
 
Here are my five:
"The Breathing Method" by Stephen King
"The Damnation Game" by Clive Barker
"The Ceremonies" by T.E.D. Klein
"Deadlines" by John Skipp & Craig Spector
"Shadowland" by Peter Straub
 
I chose "The Breathing Method" because it has a subtle horror to it that many of the literary minded would enjoy, but still remains entertaining.

"The Damnation Game" was chosen because of its Faustian overtones.

"The Ceremonies" is notable for the insidious way in which the narrator's responses to the works he is reading (including those of Arthur Machen, Charles Robert Maturin, Ann Radcliffe, Monk Lewis, Le Fanu, Bram Stoker, Robert W. Chambers, Lovecraft,and Shirley Jackson) are conflated with his impressions of the supernatural threat it also takes up and elaborates upon some of the mysteries of Arthur Machen's story "The White People".

I chose "Deadlines" because of its complete originality, a collection of terrific stories enveloped in a seamless novel.

Finally, "Shadowland", because of its poetic prose and elements of fantasy and magic.
 
I've never even heard of "Deadlines" by John Skipp & Craig Spector, but I'll make sure to check it out now.
 
I decided to look up what the term literary actually means so that we can all understand what works can be suitably qualified as literature. This is what I found.

"Literary works are primarily distinguishable from other pieces of writing by their creative, or artistic intent. It appeals, not to a particular class of readers only, but to men and women; and in part because, while the object of the treatise is simply to impart knowledge, one ideal end of the piece of literature, whether it also imparts knowledge or not, is to yield aesthetic satisfaction by the manner of which it handles its theme. We instinctively associate the term "literary" with characteristics such as artistic merit, creative genius, and the expression of mankind's noblest qualities."

So can you really argue with me that King and Barker are not literary writers? I think not.
 
You should do that Davis, I suggest their other titles as well. They are truly original.
 
Let me illustrate, in another way, why I don't regard King to be literary. Let me first just re-iterate that this is only my impression from what limited King I have read.

When I read King, it often feels like I'm almost reading a screen play. It made me see why so many of his books have been turned into films, they just translate to screen so easily. On the other hand, reading the likes of Lovecraft, Aickman, Ligotti I couldn't imagine how they would be adapted to the screen at all without their essential essence being lost. They have something to their writing that is unique to the literary form, that requires the literary form to carry it, that cannot be easily expressed in other forms.

This is not to denigrate King as a story teller. Personally I don't care much for his writing but I can appreciate that he has a powerful emotive effect on others. Perhaps King occaisionally had his moments, that one might truly regard as literary, but I don't believe it is the norm for him. And why recommend King to someone looking for good literary horror, when they would have to plow through tons of non literary (and to my mind wooden) story telling in order to find those rare moments of brilliance?
D_Davis said:
I think Ligotti, Blackwood, Lovecraft, and Cisco et al., would be better served to come to with some more general experience with the genre. I think these are the deeper cuts, to cop a musical term.
Click to expand...
More general experience with regards to reading or writing it? Seems to be a strange remark in either case since, from what I've read, Lovecraft and Ligotti are both extremely well read in the genre (don't know about the other two) and they've all (Cisco aside) written quiet a large volume of work in the genre.
 
I agree with you FE about recommending the writers with strongest writing ability, i would recommend classic horror writers,stories mostly. Maybe not HPL personally whose prose gets in the way for many readers and i dont see his greatness writing,stories wise so far than other imagination, creating certain type of stories.

I would never recommend King, Barker type to lure in new reader. I like King's urban fantasy,supernatural thrillers but his horror has never impressed me.

I agree what you said fav writers with their faults, i think Howard is classic horror writer, with strong prose style but i would not say other than him at his best that he is among the best horror writers alà Poe.
 
Connavar said:
I agree what you said fav writers with their faults, i think Howard is classic horror writer, with strong prose style but i would not say other than him at his best that he is among the best horror writers alà Poe.
Click to expand...
Indeed, as far as telling a straight story is concerned, Howard is probably the top of the class (of any genre) that I have read. A masterful story teller but I would not recommend him as a literary writer.
 
Fried Egg said:
Indeed, as far as telling a straight story is concerned, Howard is probably the top of the class (of any genre) that I have read. A masterful story teller but I would not recommend him as a literary writer.
Click to expand...

I dont like the literary writer talk, its literary snobs that talk like that and genre ghetto talk. You can say some writers are literary stronger than others but every writer is literary since thats his craft,field.

Even the trashiest work.

Howard is not literary genius ala Poe,Lord Dunsany, Vance with amazing writing ability in every department. He is more than just great storyteller, he has at times great prose style but since he was so young when he died you can see his faults that he didnt grow out of. His early works are more generic pulpy writing than his later works.


Him being a master in Fantasy,horror,historical is enough for me as a literary hero that i would recommend to anyone who likes those stories.

I hate the literary writer talk, thats for generic mainstream mags that think non-genre is always brilliant and every classic genre authors is trash.....
 
Connavar said:
I dont like the literary writer talk, its literary snobs that talk like that and genre ghetto talk. You can say some writers are literary stronger than others but every writer is literary since thats his craft,field.

Even the trashiest work.
Click to expand...
You are probably right; there is not a categorical distinction to be made, it's only a question of degree.
 
Fried Egg said:
You are probably right; there is not a categorical distinction to be made, it's only a question of degree.
Click to expand...

Yeah we can be critical and judge the different degrees of literary ability in any writers we read but "literary writer" i hate seeing that word. Even genre fans use that and automatically put down alot of amazing writers by claiming with that word that they are not writers.
 
I guess my question is, do we really want the "literary" and "close-minded" types to find an interest in horror? I believe that the horror genre is doing just fine without them. The horror genre, in my opinion, is a genre that continually needs to cross boundaries and "literary" types are the kind of people who don't like boundaries to be crossed.
 
dlsevern said:
I guess my question is, do we really want the "literary" and "close-minded" types to find an interest in horror? I believe that the horror genre is doing just fine without them. The horror genre, in my opinion, is a genre that continually needs to cross boundaries and "literary" types are the kind of people who don't like boundaries to be crossed.
Click to expand...
I don't know about "close-minded" types. But there are (I would like to think) a lot of people out there who like reading, and would enjoy some of what horror has to offer were they made aware of it. They may have preconceptions about horror based on their awareness of only some of the popular names in the field and if they can be convinced that horror has more to offer the discerning reader, they might well give it a try.

I don't regard myself as one of the "literarty" by any stretch of the imagination but I used to think until fairly recently that I didn't like horror. My understanding of what horror had to offer was based on my limited reading of the likes of King and Barker (plus a few others such as Guy N. Smith). I didn't realise there were many other aspects to the genre, aspects that would appeal to me greatly. I'm sure there are many others like me.

Sure, there will always be narrow minded sorts who would never want to be seen reading a genre book, whatever it's literary merits. But there are others who are looking for subtlety, depth, complexity and a richness of writing that, quite frankly, King is rarely able to deliver. I think these sorts of people are worth trying to reach. Well, I would, because I was until recently one of them.
 
Lol, I guess we will just have to disagree about King because I have read damn near everything the guy has written and he does have subtlety, depth, complexity, and a richness of writing in great abundance.
 
Fried Egg said:
More general experience with regards to reading or writing it? Seems to be a strange remark in either case since, from what I've read, Lovecraft and Ligotti are both extremely well read in the genre (don't know about the other two) and they've all (Cisco aside) written quiet a large volume of work in the genre.
Click to expand...

More experience from the reader - I think those authors are more like deep cuts, and can be more fully appreciated with a basic groundwork in horror fiction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Guttersnipe Another Attempt at a Horror Story-A Clown at Midnight Critiques 4
SaintJzearuth Drawing from available science to attempt to create a realistic framework for psychic powers in a science fiction universe Science & Nature 9
D Attempt number 2 at submitting. Publishing 15
H Super-intelligence children (Nazi experimentation) buy salt caves from the BLM in western US and I think attempt to render nuclear weapons useless. Book Search 8
T First attempt at intro scene Critiques 18

Similar threads


Back
Top