Repost of Horror Poll
Chua HakLien
thing lying around. Reposting it for your pleasure....
>>>>
I asked readers of the newsgroups alt.horror, rec.arts.books,
rec.arts.sf.misc and rec.arts.sf.written for what they considered
to be the three best horror novels and short stories. The votes
ranged from Hardy's _Jude_The_Obscure_ to the Alan Moore issues of
_The_Swamp_Thing_.
There were 65 voters, and some voted for only 1 or 2 from each category.
For the Lovecraft story, "At The Mountains Of Madness", 4 people voted for it
as the best short, and 3 voted it as best novel. Going with the majority, I
placed it in the best short story category. Your mileage may vary.
Below are the final tallies:-
Novels ( Out of 179 votes )
===========================
1. _The_Stand_, Stephen King [17]
2. _It_, Stephen King [14]
3. _The_Shining_, Stephen King [12]
4. _Dracula_, Bram Stoker [10]
5. _The_Haunting_Of_Hill_House_, Shirley Jackson [8]
6. ( Tie ) _Interview_With_The_Vampire_, Anne Rice [7]
_The_Silence_Of_The_Lambs_, Thomas Harris
7. _Frankenstein_, Mary Shelley [6]
8. _Swan_Song_, Robert R. McCammon [5]
2 votes or more
================
_Carrion_Comfort_, Dan Simmons
_Conjure_Wife_, Fritz Leiber
_The_Damnation_Game_, Clive Barker
_The_Doll_Who_Ate_His_Mother_, Ramsey Campbell
_The_Exorcist_, William Peter Blatty
_Ghost_Story_, Peter Straub
_The_Great_And_Secret_Show_, Clive Barker
_Hell_House_, Richard Matheson
_I_Am_Legend_, Richard Matheson
_Midnight_Sun_, Ramsey Campbell
_Necroscope_, Brian Lumley
_Salem's_Lot_, Stephen King
_Something_Wicked_This_Way_Comes_, Ray Bradbury
_The_Strange_Case_Of_Charles_Dexter_Ward_, HP Lovecraft
_The_Pet_, Charles L. Grant
_The_Vampire_Lestat_, Anne Rice
_Watchers_, Dean Koontz
_WeaveWorld_, Clive Barker
Short Story ( Out of 139 votes )
================================
1. ( Tie ) "At The Mountains Of Madness", HP Lovecraft [7]
"The Midnight Meat Train", Clive Barker
"The Tell Tale Heart", Edgar Allan Poe
2. ( Tie ) "The Call of Cthulhu", HP Lovecraft [5]
"The Lottery", Shirley Jackson
"The Monkey's Paw", WW Jacobs
3. ( Tie ) "The Pit And The Pendulum", Edgar Allan Poe [4]
"The Rats In The Walls", HP Lovecraft
"The Shadow Over Innsmouth", HP Lovecraft
2 Votes Or More
===============
"The Boogeyman", Stephen King
"Tha Black Cat", Edgar Allan Poe
"The Colour Out Of Space", HP Lovecraft
"Dread", Clive Barker
"The Dunwich Horror", HP Lovecraft
"I Am The Doorway", Stephen King
"In The Hills, The Cities", Clive Barker
"In The Penal Colony", Franz Kafka
"The Masque Of The Red Death", Edgar Allan Poe
"The Night They Missed The Horror Show", Joe R Landsdale
"Pickman's Model", HP Lovecraft
"The Outsider", HP Lovecraft
"The Raft", Stephen King
"Rage", Stephen King
"Scars", Richard Matheson
"The Whimper Of Whipped Dogs", Harlan Ellison
"Who Goes There", John Campbell
Thank you all for voting.
Chua
=======================================================================
"Is Death that woman's mate?
/Her/ lips were red, /her/ looks were free,
Her locks were yellow as gold:
Her skin was white as leprosy,
The Night-Mare LIFE-IN-DEATH was she,
Who thicks man's blood with cold."
- The Ancient Mariner, Samuel Coleridge
========================================================================
sublime
The STAND? C'mon! A 1500 page monster which concludes with the "hand
of God"? One of the biggest let downs in all of King-dom.
Sorry. Just felt unbearably indignant. :)
-norm
"It? I should have called it SHIT." - S. King
philip marlowe
You think so? I consider it one of the Great American Novels, Dickensian
in its scope and popular appeal.
marlowe
------------------------------------------------------------------darkpark BBS
pmar...@noncomf.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca (philip marlowe)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
breadner ken u
Gee, you know, I wonder if Norm is an atheist...
How else would you have ended that novel, Norm? This I gotta hear.
I have to agree with Mr. Marlowe, here...King has written many good
novels, but only three GREAT ones which, in my opinion, transcend the
horror genre and really ought to be considered as Literature (whatever
that is): The Stand
The Shining
and Dolores Claiborne.
I think the latter exhibits a "novel" technique as well as one-of-a-kind
storytelling.
My only gripe with the uncut Stand (and not the circumcised edition) was
that the updating was shoddy in spots.
Larry Underwood is presented as a very seventies character living in the
nineties; that is, there is no change in him from one edition to the next.
He's almost a hippie sort of character, and it's difficult to believe such
a character would exist in 1990. Easier to picture him ten years before,
though.
--
Ken Breadner |Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Canada
brea...@mach1.wlu.ca |"Life is what happens when you're busy making other
(the BREADbox...) |plans" --John Lennon
Disclaimer: you mean somebody's taking something I said SERIOUSLY?
sublime
Well, in scope yes, it is one of King's more ambitious works. But
the ending, which reflects King's personal faith, in my opinion makes
the first 1--- pages of sweat and blood seem . . . inconsequential.
I think in most of King's works there is a disappointing lack of
character drive -- the protaganists are usually only victims or
spectators to whatever happens to or around them, eager to just "get
on" with their ordinary lives. I think he concentrates too much on
man's reflexive fear, discounting the "perverse" desire for wonderment
(a reason why most people read the genre), however dark, which some
authors like Barker eagerly investigate.
As for the second response, why yes, I do seem to have a glaring
lack of appreciation for the Christian faith. Yet if you ask yourself
about The Stand, why not have God come down and just end the novel at
page 12, save the world there instead of making us go through a
thousand and a half pages of text? I suppose that would sort of
dampen the suspense, but it would save a lot of time.
Basically, if you're going to include God in a book, you'd better
include the Devil too. It balance things a bit, don't you agree?
VHE (Very Humbly Expressed)- shit, what do I know? -
norm
breadner ken u
>
> Well, in scope yes, it is one of King's more ambitious works. But
>the ending, which reflects King's personal faith, in my opinion makes
>the first 1--- pages of sweat and blood seem . . . inconsequential.
>
that specific ending for the first 1200 pages? As I said before, this I
gotta hear.
By the way, this is open to anyone who can think up a more appropriate
ending to THE STAND. And please, folks, don't say that THE STAND should
never have been written in the first place, which seems to be norm's
implication.
> I think in most of King's works there is a disappointing lack of
>character drive -- the protaganists are usually only victims or
>spectators to whatever happens to or around them, eager to just "get
>on" with their ordinary lives. I think he concentrates too much on
>man's reflexive fear, discounting the "perverse" desire for wonderment
>(a reason why most people read the genre), however dark, which some
>authors like Barker eagerly investigate.
There's a word for this: realism. When something truly terrible happens to
you, do you (a) stare in wonderment and embrace it; or (b) run screaming?
I suspect for most of us the answer is in fact (b). I figure the (a)
sayers may be people like Jeffrey Dahmer...
>
> As for the second response, why yes, I do seem to have a glaring
>lack of appreciation for the Christian faith. Yet if you ask yourself
>about The Stand, why not have God come down and just end the novel at
>page 12, save the world there instead of making us go through a
>thousand and a half pages of text? I suppose that would sort of
>dampen the suspense, but it would save a lot of time.
Ask that on the christian newsgroups and you will get a variety of
responses, most having to do with trial, tribulation, and faith, which
just coincidentally is what our lives comprise. Faith, by the way, need
not be in God. I am not a Christian myself, but I can appreciate the
philosophy behind the religion, which is something King uses frequently.
> Basically, if you're going to include God in a book, you'd better
>include the Devil too. It balance things a bit, don't you agree?
Who was Randall Flagg? "The last magician of rational thought, gathering
the tools of technology against us" (if I have my Glenn Bateman right).
Mother Abagail called him Satan's Imp. That's close enough to the devil
for me.
sublime
Realism in this genre? A contradiction, I think. What is written,
the reactions of "screaming in terror", are all hypothetical. You
have an element of the supernatural, which you try to relate with what
is natural. But I think realism is a word we must throw out once we
turn the first page.
In fact, throw me in with Dahmer; I quite frankly find fiction where
the horrors are embraced (and yes, there are people out there, and
stories to convey this "twisted" desire) much more exciting and fresh.
If you want realism, I suggest you pick up a Dickens novel, or any
other book which falls under real "L"-iterature, as you put it. The
very fact that you say The Stand "transcends" the horror genre is
getting to my point: why transcend it? Why not embrace it? Is being
catergorized as Big "L" literature so wonderful? I see a bunch of
old, withered scholars sitting round a table saying, "Why yes, I think
Steve has finally made it to the big league. Let's take him seriously
now." Who the fuck are these people, anyway?
The main opinion I was trying to express is just that King's
protaganists never move the book: it's always the dog, or the psycho
lady, or the clown, or the vampires.
I think Barker's novels are much more exhilarating, by the fact that
his characters push the plot by their own actions; they WANT what
happens; they have ambitions, and desires, as well as fears. Unreal,
you might say? I think the opposite.
And please, I don't want fundamentalists on my case about religion.
I just think that using Biblical references is sort of a
cop-out, imagination-wise. If you're going to set a novel in
Christianland, then lots of questions get answered before they're
asked; little is left for the reader to decide.
I think there is a big difference in King's novels, and let's say
Barker's because of personal faith. There are things which you just
don't do if you believe in heaven, things which I believe deserve
attention. All right, I'll stop myself before I get too deep.
VHE,
norm
philip marlowe
>
> Well, in scope yes, it is one of King's more ambitious works. But
> the ending, which reflects King's personal faith, in my opinion makes
> the first 1--- pages of sweat and blood seem . . . inconsequential.
>
> As for the second response, why yes, I do seem to have a glaring
> lack of appreciation for the Christian faith. Yet if you ask yourself
> about The Stand, why not have God come down and just end the novel at
> page 12, save the world there instead of making us go through a
> thousand and a half pages of text? I suppose that would sort of
> dampen the suspense, but it would save a lot of time.
>
> Basically, if you're going to include God in a book, you'd better
> include the Devil too. It balance things a bit, don't you agree?
>
> VHE (Very Humbly Expressed)- shit, what do I know? -
>
> norm
You missed the point. King isn't a Christian -- his explaination of The
Stand's end was that, when all's said and done, populist monstrosities
like Hitler and Randall Flagg are "straw men". Big and bad on the
outside, rotting, impotent wimps on the inside.
philip marlowe
>
>
> Realism in this genre? A contradiction, I think. What is written,
> the reactions of "screaming in terror", are all hypothetical. You
> have an element of the supernatural, which you try to relate with what
> is natural. But I think realism is a word we must throw out once we
> turn the first page.
Wrong-o. Without realism to provide foil to the weirdness, the whole
project just becomes masturbation and floats away.
>
> In fact, throw me in with Dahmer; I quite frankly find fiction where
> the horrors are embraced (and yes, there are people out there, and
> stories to convey this "twisted" desire) much more exciting and fresh.
> If you want realism, I suggest you pick up a Dickens novel, or any
> other book which falls under real "L"-iterature, as you put it. The
> very fact that you say The Stand "transcends" the horror genre is
> getting to my point: why transcend it? Why not embrace it? Is being
> catergorized as Big "L" literature so wonderful? I see a bunch of
> old, withered scholars sitting round a table saying, "Why yes, I think
> Steve has finally made it to the big league. Let's take him seriously
> now." Who the fuck are these people, anyway?
Funny you should mantion Dickens. He was the Steve King of his time,
writing, big, accessable, popular books that were not in vogue among your
stuffy old men.
Why should horror try to be more than JUST horror? Because horror is
such a LIMITED genre, too often relying on severed heads (slasher movies)
or nifty atmosphere (H.P. Lovecraft) as a crutch to avoid dealing with
any REAL issues. Human fears become, in Clive Barker's words, "metaphors
made flesh", and are attacked in the abstract. Leading one to ask the
obvious question "why not deal with the problem at its source?".
>
> The main opinion I was trying to express is just that King's
> protaganists never move the book: it's always the dog, or the psycho
> lady, or the clown, or the vampires.
> I think Barker's novels are much more exhilarating, by the fact that
> his characters push the plot by their own actions; they WANT what
> happens; they have ambitions, and desires, as well as fears. Unreal,
> you might say? I think the opposite.
Barker's an interesting writer who's done some good stuff, but his
biggest weakness is the one you seem to like. The man's characters are
flat and unbelievable, and he seems to be more interested in the horror
than the humanity which must endure it.
"Hellraiser" is, I think, Barker-ish to the tenth power, with all of his
skills and problems made very obvious. Note how Kirsty, the
quasi-protagonist, is as empty as empty can be.
sublime
>96...@williams.edu (sublime) writes:
>
>>
>> protaganists never move the book: it's always the dog, or the psycho
>> lady, or the clown, or the vampires.
>> I think Barker's novels are much more exhilarating, by the fact that
>> his characters push the plot by their own actions; they WANT what
>> happens; they have ambitions, and desires, as well as fears. Unreal,
>> you might say? I think the opposite.
>
> Barker's an interesting writer who's done some good stuff, but his
>biggest weakness is the one you seem to like. The man's characters are
>flat and unbelievable, and he seems to be more interested in the horror
>than the humanity which must endure it.
Flat and unbelievable are better words to describe the "monsters" if
you will, in King's novels. They fall into the cliche of being
incarnations of pure evil, unleashing their awesome fury on the middle
class of America. It's all black and white, clear cut as to who's the
good or who's the bad. Essentially, I find King's protaganists to be
simply too boring. A foil to the weirdness? Yes, but a predictable
foil, one which leads to predictable endings.
What Barker does is shift the "weirdness" onto his protaganists,
and the humanity onto the supernatural, something King would never do, for
fear his audience might get confused or not know who to root for. It
may be unbelieveable, but that depends on what you believe.
VHE,
norm
Grizabella
>include the Devil too. It balance things a bit, don't you agree?
>
I thought he did a very good job of portraying the Devil-- remember Flagg...
I happen to think The Stand is perhaps the best book I have ever read-- and
that says alot. I know it's my favorite King book, and I've read all of them
except Delores Claiborne. I also read many other types of literature,
including classics like Les Miserables by Victor Hugo, Which I would consider
my second favorite book-- well, whaddayaknow, it's over a thousand pages
long too... and both of them I read in less than a week! :)
Meow...
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
" All the world's a masquerade || /~\ |~\ | ~~/
made up of fools || | __ |_/ | /
and philosophers." --Extreme || \_/ | \ | /__
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
----Grizabella---.aka.---Misti D. Jordan-----...@cs.tulane.edu----
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
breadner ken u
>
>
> Realism in this genre? A contradiction, I think. What is written,
>the reactions of "screaming in terror", are all hypothetical. You
>have an element of the supernatural, which you try to relate with what
>is natural. But I think realism is a word we must throw out once we
>turn the first page.
Now we are getting somewhere. At last.
I would suggest that the relation between the supernatural and the natural
survives on realism, for most readers. True, our reactions when exposed to
"the shape under the sheet" are all hypothetical. But for a story
incorporating these reactions to succeed with me, the hypotheses must be
believeable, a term I find synonymous with realistic.
>
> In fact, throw me in with Dahmer; I quite frankly find fiction where
>the horrors are embraced (and yes, there are people out there, and
>stories to convey this "twisted" desire) much more exciting and fresh.
Understood and accepted. I guess my love of horror just doesn't run THAT deep.
>If you want realism, I suggest you pick up a Dickens novel, or any
>other book which falls under real "L"-iterature, as you put it. The
>very fact that you say The Stand "transcends" the horror genre is
>getting to my point: why transcend it? Why not embrace it? Is being
>catergorized as Big "L" literature so wonderful? I see a bunch of
>old, withered scholars sitting round a table saying, "Why yes, I think
>Steve has finally made it to the big league. Let's take him seriously
>now." Who the fuck are these people, anyway?
Assholes, for the most part. The point I was trying to make had very
little to do with the intrusion of King into some sort of scholarly canon.
Perhaps King writes not in the horror genre at all, as you would see it,
at least: perhaps he writes in the borderland. I've read some of Barker's
work and find it interesting, on a hypothetical level, but all in all I
find King's work eminently more plausible, and thus (to me) scarier.
>protaganists never move the book: it's always the dog, or the psycho
>lady, or the clown, or the vampires.
I think this illustrates a basic mindset on life and our relation to it as
human beings: that very little is actually within our control. I accept
this idea wholeheartedly.
> And please, I don't want fundamentalists on my case about religion.
>I just think that using Biblical references is sort of a
>cop-out, imagination-wise. If you're going to set a novel in
>Christianland, then lots of questions get answered before they're
>asked; little is left for the reader to decide.
I now understand your point, which I had misinterpreted. Thanks for the
clarification.
john ferejohn
> Flat and unbelievable are better words to describe the "monsters" if
>you will, in King's novels. They fall into the cliche of being
>incarnations of pure evil, unleashing their awesome fury on the middle
>class of America. It's all black and white, clear cut as to who's the
>good or who's the bad. Essentially, I find King's protaganists to be
>simply too boring. A foil to the weirdness? Yes, but a predictable
>foil, one which leads to predictable endings.
Let's not overgeneralize. Not all of King's stuff is as clear cut as
The Stand or It. Particularly the early stuff. Specifically I point to
the first two Bachman Books(Book s King wrote under the pen namme Bachman),
Rage(or Getting it On) and The Long Walk. The characters in this certainlt
are not clear cut good or evil...
I agree that the end of The Stand was something of a cop out tho...
But, then, find me one Steven King novel(like 200+ pages) with a good ending.
I think It wins for the silliest ending...
spoiler follows!
I mean, this ultra powerful bad thing has a physical body you can just walk up
and kill?
Silly.
-Chris
KOH YEN LING
Personally I feel King wins on the "reality" (whatever that means in
horror fiction) side. His settings are believable. His horror comes
from the a source both ordinary and sometimes unexpected, eg the sewers
in It, and a shop in Needful Things. That's where his genius lies.
Barker depends on too much fancy stuffs, IMHO, which is one main reason
I consider him more of a fantasy than a horror writer. I feel a lot of
dread in King's novels. Barker only fills me with images not unlike
those from a B-grade slasher movie. The horrifying parts of his stories
come from any typical fantasy novels describing the dark armies, which I
frankly don't find terrifying at all. I was disappointed with
Weaveworld probably coz' I read it after Cabal and the basic plot and
premises in both novels were the same. The fantasy people which men
fear were actually good, while the ones men respected were really
supposed to be evil.
I don't know what King's religious convictions are (would be most
interested to know), but I don't see what the fuss over the ending of
The Stand is all about. In It, the giant turtle (who died after drowning
in its own puke) was supposed to have created the physical universe as
we know it, but does that mean that the Christian god is a turtle? The
Tommyknockers refer to a unintelligent force as similar to god. The
descriptions of Catholics and Baptists in Needful Things aren't very
flattering. Nah, I think the ending in The Stand is just right for such
a novel of armageddonic proportions. My sensitivities regarding
religion may not like it, but I can't think of a better conclusion
myself.
Sorry for wasting bandwidth but I simply couldn't resist. 8)
Alison
sublime
>Ooooh goodie! We're heading towards another King vs Barker.
>>
Gina
brea...@mach1.wlu.ca (breadner ken u) writes:
>
[stuff deleted]
>> Basically, if you're going to include God in a book, you'd better
>>include the Devil too. It balance things a bit, don't you agree?
I suggest you read "Tarot" by Piers Anthony. (It's a triology, also
published as one complete volume.) This book is more of the fantasy
genre as opposed to horror, but it deals with the god/devil stuff
quite well.
As I am a non-religious anti-christian, I recommend this book
*especially* to born-agains.
--Gina
Gina
I'm a big Barker fan. I've never read King, and really have no
desire to. (IMHO) his movies, with the exception of The Shining,
are crap.
I think Barker does a very good job with character development.
Many of his stories are gory, sure, but I don't think the gore is
there simply for shock value (like in a slasher movie), but rather
to increase the intensity of the situation.
I also think that Barker is quite original and imaginative. I can't
remember him ever repeating any ideas or storylines. He also veers
away from strict horror, and delves into fantasy, as demonstrated
with Imajica.
Of course, King fans, this is all IMHO so be gentle with me.
--Gina
Ashraf Ghebranious
>you will, in King's novels. They fall into the cliche of being
>incarnations of pure evil, unleashing their awesome fury on the middle
>class of America. It's all black and white, clear cut as to who's the
>good or who's the bad. Essentially, I find King's protaganists to be
>simply too boring. A foil to the weirdness? Yes, but a predictable
>foil, one which leads to predictable endings.
>
> What Barker does is shift the "weirdness" onto his protaganists,
>and the humanity onto the supernatural, something King would never do, for
>fear his audience might get confused or not know who to root for. It
>may be unbelieveable, but that depends on what you believe.
>
>VHE,
> norm
Man o man, where the hell do you come from? Read Pet Semetary, and try to
tell me what moves the story there, or The Shining, or even Christine or
Carrie. Horror, by definition, is supposed to scare you, not make you
orgasim and beg for more. I really can not attack Mr Barker's work as I have
not, IMHO read enough of his work to get a true picture of what it is he is
trying to say. I have watched a few movies based on his work's and in most
of these, the hero/anti-hero is quite often had to distinguish. This would
not be so bad if was not so predictable that he would do it that way.
In most of King's stories, the Stand included I think, he never moralizes
or ends a story with a "see what happens if your naughty boys and girls".
All he does is narrate a story, tell you what the characters are feeling
and ties in an event that bonds all the characters together. In most
cases, the people would have never met or gotten to know each other if
not for the event. This could be a car accident (The Dead Zone) to a major
world crisis, (The Stand). The event is not the drive in the stories,
it is what happens to those people leading upto it or because of it.
They are scared, they get scared, and King gives you a look into their
minds as well as their lives. This is horror.
There is nothing wrong with making horror more horrifying; it is when it
starts to be glorified that the plot is very quickly thrown away. It is not
the evil presence of whatever indian god that roams the Pet Semetary that is
the scary part, it is the fact that main characters lives are heading into
invariable disaster because of the effect it is having on them. There is
nothing horrid about been able to see the future that is scary, it's what he
sees that scares him. It is the effect of this "Gift" on his life, his
health, and his death that is horror. Look mum.... no gore. This is what
Mr King can do with his words. Any fool can describe gore.
**********************************************************************
"Jesus woman! I dont give a f___!" Rhett Butler (slighty paraphrased)
Ashraf Ghebranious axg...@cscgpo.anu.edu.au
Australian National University
**********************************************************************
Chua HakLien
[ No, you certainly didn't waste bandwidth.. this newsgroup has been
in the doldrums for a while... =) ]
While Barker is the more imaginative of the two, with his creations being
in a more fantastic/romantic vein ( the pleasure / pain Cenobites... ),
King's monsters and creatures are closer
to home. Even Flagg is your demon-in-a-human-body, while the thingie in _IT_
goes around in a clown suit. It's probably the reason why King appeals
more to the mass market; his horrors can be more easily related to, and
Barker's creations seem remote in comparison.
However, in terms of writing something that is actually scary, I find both
of them wanting. They may make one go 'Yucks' ( eg: The toilet blowing up
while this guy was sitting on it in _It_ ), but not
make one rush out and buy a night light or check under
the bed. I suppose the modern day horror reader is more interested in
novelty, than in actually getting a good scare. Witness Koontz, whose
one plotline has seemed to work well for over 18 books... =)
Chua
+==+
Dennis Chavis
Dennis
Gina
chavis@thumper..bellcore.com (Dennis Chavis) writes:
>I am new to this could someone tell what "IMHO" stands for.
>
>
>Dennis
"In My Humble Opinion"
--Gina
Dennis Chavis
KOH YEN LING
>While Barker is the more imaginative of the two, with his creations being
>in a more fantastic/romantic vein ( the pleasure / pain Cenobites... ),
>King's monsters and creatures are closer
>to home. Even Flagg is your demon-in-a-human-body, while the thingie in _IT_
>goes around in a clown suit. It's probably the reason why King appeals
>more to the mass market; his horrors can be more easily related to, and
>Barker's creations seem remote in comparison.
I wouldn't say King is less imaginative. It takes a lot of effort
setting a story close to reality without becoming too fantastic. I can
appreciate the horrors in King's stories better because they're more
plausible.
Barker's creatures will definitely work better on the screen. His
stories are also filled with more blood and gore. Unfortunately I don't
find anything frightening in his books. However I still dread finishing
Pet Sematary, it's so eerie.
>However, in terms of writing something that is actually scary, I find both
>of them wanting. They may make one go 'Yucks' ( eg: The toilet blowing up
>while this guy was sitting on it in _It_ ), but not
>make one rush out and buy a night light or check under
>the bed. I suppose the modern day horror reader is more interested in
>novelty, than in actually getting a good scare. Witness Koontz, whose
>one plotline has seemed to work well for over 18 books... =)
>
Well, I did dread using the bathroom at night, especially using the
sink. I had this nagging fear that I might "hear" voices coming out
from it. 8)
The only King story (actually it's a novella) that I'm disappointed with
is "The Library Policeman" from Four Past Midnight. The creature was so
similar to the one in Peter Straub's Ghost Story. "The Langoliers" was
simply brilliant though.
>Chua
>+==+
>
Alison
sublime
>Chua HakLien (chu...@ocf.berkeley.edu) wrote:
>I wouldn't say King is less imaginative. It takes a lot of effort
>setting a story close to reality without becoming too fantastic. I can
>appreciate the horrors in King's stories better because they're more
>plausible.>
>Alison
>
IMHumbleO, King is no less imaginative WITHIN the bounds of reality,
which is why many people seem to sympathize with the human element.
But it is in the realm of the 'unreal' which he is somewhat lacking,
both in originality and depth. He seems to have no qualms about
rehashing old tales (vampires, werewolves), where the rules are
already set. His creations also seem to lack the depth of his human
characters (some may see no problem with this); they are incarnations
of pure evil (whatever "evil" may be, though the obvious "moral" rules
seem to apply) without purpose except to terrorize mankind. It seems
that all there is to describe is the fear (again, no big deal).
But oft times I wonder, after reading any novel of the
'fantastique' genre: what happens to the world afterwards? After the
vampires are slain, or the clown banished, etc. -- what happens to the
characters, the heroes and heroines? In many of King's novels, they
return to what is left of their lives, and at best they will lead
normal ones. But I think most of them are 'static' people; they will
try to forget what has happened, and continue on, which may make for a
happy ending.
But what of the world they live in? A lot is left unexplained, and
perhaps purposely, to heighten the mystery and suspense for fear. But
I think this is where King falls short imaginatively.
A big exception to this is his Gunslinger series, which I feel is
his most ambitious and imaginative work. It may be less plausible,
but hey, who wants plausibility here? (probably lots of people. . .oh
well. :))
VHE,
Norm
Chua HakLien
>I wouldn't say King is less imaginative. It takes a lot of effort
>setting a story close to reality without becoming too fantastic. I can
>appreciate the horrors in King's stories better because they're more
>plausible.
That's true. I should have said that King is more careful about putting
his horrors onto paper. He's not less imaginative, just more careful,
possibly because he's writing for readers who want their horror stories
closer to home, the type where one exchanges over a campfire. On the other
hand, Barker writes more to please himself than others. He lets loose
and comes up with the most ingenious and strangest creations this side
of Hell. Weird, but not really scary.
If horror were defined in the same way as classical music, King would
be a Classicist, and Barker a Romantic.
[ studd deleted... ]
>The only King story (actually it's a novella) that I'm disappointed with
>is "The Library Policeman" from Four Past Midnight. The creature was so
>similar to the one in Peter Straub's Ghost Story. "The Langoliers" was
>simply brilliant though.
I found the _4_past_midnight_ collection inferior to _Different_seasons_,
his previous anthology of 4 novellas. The Langoliers seemed kind of dumb,
IMHO, because King struggled with a psuedo SF premise which didn't work for me,
and I never made it through _TLP_ from boredom.... =)
Other writers I suggest you try would be Lovecraft and possibly, Koontz
and McCammon. Koontz rarely gets scary, as his novels are so workmanlike
you can see the bolts, but his ideas are good. As for McCammon, try
_Boy's_Life_, the recent World Fantasy Award winner. It is remniscient
of King's _The_Body_ ( the novella on which the movie _Stand_By_Me_
was based ) and _IT_, as well as Dan Simmon's _Summer_Of_Night_, but
is still well-worth reading.
>Alison
Chua
+==+
Karl Johnson [CONTRACTOR]
I believe this shows the greatest understanding of King's style of any of
the articles I've read here so far.
Karl Johnson
ODD FROG
I do agree it was a bit of a shit ending but the content made more than up
for it.
Does anyone here read James Herbert????
If they do what is his new book like?
CU
Mark M Mavroudis
>In article <1is61q...@savoy.cc.williams.edu>,
>96...@williams.edu (sublime) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan11....@nuscc.nus.sg> isc2...@nusunix1.nus.sg (KOH YEN LING) writes:
>>>Ooooh goodie! We're heading towards another King vs Barker.
>>>>
>> Uh oh; where are all you Barker fans?
>
>I'm a big Barker fan. I've never read King, and really have no
>desire to. (IMHO) his movies, with the exception of The Shining,
>are crap.
>
I don't think you should judge King's books by any of the movies
you have seen. The movies tend to be the director's interpretation
of King's books (or in the case of The Lawnmower Man, completely
different stories).
Many King fans hate the movies also. I recommend giving the books
a try before dismissing King.
>
>Of course, King fans, this is all IMHO so be gentle with me.
>
>--Gina
Was I gentle enough?
Mark
--
Mark Mavroudis - Santa Clara, CA - ma...@shell.portal.com
Chris Long
> Funny you should mantion Dickens. He was the Steve King of his time,
> writing, big, accessable, popular books that were not in vogue among your
> stuffy old men.
Except that Dickens could actually write well.
--
Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ 08807-2618
Score: 0, Diff: 1, clong killed by a Harvard Math Team on 1
philip marlowe
> In article <1ci6wB...@noncomf.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca>, philip marlowe writes
>
> > Funny you should mantion Dickens. He was the Steve King of his time,
> > writing, big, accessable, popular books that were not in vogue among your
> > stuffy old men.
>
> Except that Dickens could actually write well.
What makes you say that? People liked him then, and people like him
know. I doubt if many authors that either you or I read will have such
longevity.
> --
> Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ 08807-2618
>
> Score: 0, Diff: 1, clong killed by a Harvard Math Team on 1
marlowe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"An old, mad, blind, despised, and dying King;
Princes, the dregs of their dull race, who flow
Through public scorn, -- mud from a muddy spring;
Rulers who neither see nor feel nor know,
But leechlike to their fainting country cling
Till they drop, blind in blood, without a blow."
-Percy Bysshe Shelly