This is entirely a rambling thread, to state that one of the first ever authors I began reading prolifically was James Herbert. 
When I was 15 or 16 I think it was Bridlington we had our family holiday that year - and at some point we went to a shop and I bought "The Rats".
Enjoyed it enough to buy "Lair" and "Domain", the two sequels.
And then simply bought up all of his novels up to and including "the Magic Cottage".
In comparison to King, there is none - King writes about American culture and postulates "what if's" as to how it could go wrong - ie, what if...a rabid St Bernard trapped a family; what if...vampires took over a small town; what if...
James Herbert writes about English people moving through dark realities. That, by the way, does not mean I therefore rate him as the better author. In judgement, King's skill with evoking "America" and daily life probably sets him far ahead. What James Herbert was able to do fairly well was to bring the distinctly grotesque forward to the reader.
King never really does that to the same extent (though he did to some degree with Pet Sematary) and he isn't gratuitously grotesque as Clive Barker seems to be.
James Herbert was good at taking an idea and developing it in sinister ways:
"The Spear" is a great example, where the very spear that supposedly pierced Christ's side is to be used for powerful dark magic;
"The Jonah" was where a man was continually haunted by the twin that never survived (think King's "Dark Half" but with less mystery and more "yuck!" factor;
"The Shrine", "The Dark", and even the "Fog" - not to mention the "Rats" series itself, all demonstrate his aptitude here.
Of course, he was able to digress into more harmless works. Surprisingly, the novel "Fluke" - which was about a man at death immediately being re-incarnated into a dog - seems to be generally agreed to have been one of his best works. That, despite, no real horror content.
However, it must be said that one of his great weaknesses was "Deus Ex Machina". Simply put, sometimes he invoked powers far too dark for any earthly power to combat - and far too often his novels were concluded by an indistinct light - sometimes "cross-shaped" - that cleared everything up after the protagonist was found unable to match the dark powers of the universe that Herbert exposed and developed for his writing.
His strength included the ability to use "real-life" in his scenes. Like King, Herbert could use every-day occurrences in his writings and make them work. However, unlike Stephen King, James Herbert always seemed to twist them in a particularly unique work.
"The Magic Cottage" provided a typically open-ended "full of loose ends" finish (not unlike King, actually). I'd grown tired of this mixed with Deus Ex Machina, and so I moved on and have never read anything else by James Herbert since.
I had fun reading his writings, and they taught me a few things about how to use information for particular effect. Importantly, it also taught that there should be no real taboos in writing. At the end of the day, though, it suited my tastes as a teen, and I had fun with the books.
If you'd like to read any James Herbert yourself then "Fluke" remains the best. The "Rats" series is noteworthy, and perhaps "The Shrine" is the most disturbing. I probably won't recommend "The MAgic Cottage" though.
- Brian
When I was 15 or 16 I think it was Bridlington we had our family holiday that year - and at some point we went to a shop and I bought "The Rats".
Enjoyed it enough to buy "Lair" and "Domain", the two sequels.
And then simply bought up all of his novels up to and including "the Magic Cottage".
In comparison to King, there is none - King writes about American culture and postulates "what if's" as to how it could go wrong - ie, what if...a rabid St Bernard trapped a family; what if...vampires took over a small town; what if...
James Herbert writes about English people moving through dark realities. That, by the way, does not mean I therefore rate him as the better author. In judgement, King's skill with evoking "America" and daily life probably sets him far ahead. What James Herbert was able to do fairly well was to bring the distinctly grotesque forward to the reader.
King never really does that to the same extent (though he did to some degree with Pet Sematary) and he isn't gratuitously grotesque as Clive Barker seems to be.
James Herbert was good at taking an idea and developing it in sinister ways:
"The Spear" is a great example, where the very spear that supposedly pierced Christ's side is to be used for powerful dark magic;
"The Jonah" was where a man was continually haunted by the twin that never survived (think King's "Dark Half" but with less mystery and more "yuck!" factor
;"The Shrine", "The Dark", and even the "Fog" - not to mention the "Rats" series itself, all demonstrate his aptitude here.
Of course, he was able to digress into more harmless works. Surprisingly, the novel "Fluke" - which was about a man at death immediately being re-incarnated into a dog - seems to be generally agreed to have been one of his best works. That, despite, no real horror content.
However, it must be said that one of his great weaknesses was "Deus Ex Machina". Simply put, sometimes he invoked powers far too dark for any earthly power to combat - and far too often his novels were concluded by an indistinct light - sometimes "cross-shaped" - that cleared everything up after the protagonist was found unable to match the dark powers of the universe that Herbert exposed and developed for his writing.
His strength included the ability to use "real-life" in his scenes. Like King, Herbert could use every-day occurrences in his writings and make them work. However, unlike Stephen King, James Herbert always seemed to twist them in a particularly unique work.
"The Magic Cottage" provided a typically open-ended "full of loose ends" finish (not unlike King, actually). I'd grown tired of this mixed with Deus Ex Machina, and so I moved on and have never read anything else by James Herbert since.
I had fun reading his writings, and they taught me a few things about how to use information for particular effect. Importantly, it also taught that there should be no real taboos in writing. At the end of the day, though, it suited my tastes as a teen, and I had fun with the books.
If you'd like to read any James Herbert yourself then "Fluke" remains the best. The "Rats" series is noteworthy, and perhaps "The Shrine" is the most disturbing. I probably won't recommend "The MAgic Cottage" though.
- Brian
