Book Review: "Gothic: 400 Years of Excess, Horror, Evil and Ruin
Jodi
Davenport Hines
Some time ago this book was mentioned on the group and I said I’d do a
review when I got round to reading it. As always, this has taken a
geological time frame, but here it is!
This is distinctly not an academic book. I’ve read dozens of academic
tomes on the gothic, which makes me uniquely qualified to assure you
this is nothing of the sort. Broadly speaking this is a Good Thing,
except that sometimes I found it a little light on analysis, in that the
reader has to take the author’s word for the generalisations he makes,
rather than being presented with his train of reasoning. It’s a
beautifully presented volume, with lots of black and white illustrations
and a set of colour illustrations in the centre.
As the title indicates, Hines is arguing that "Gothic" is something that
has been in the European (and American) cultural consciousness for the
last 400 years and shows no signs of going away. This makes a
refreshing change from the academic texts that claim that nothing
written since the age of Radcliffe is gothic. Hines’s definition of
gothic is difficult to pin down, but it comes down to that current in
the culture that does not accept that "progress", and things of the
everyday world, are everything or enough. The closest one-liner is:
"Gothic served as an incessant reminder that humankind cannot be
liberated from fear". Hines’s gothic is an inclusive and flexible
concept.
Hines places the start of this Gothic sensibility around the eruption of
Mount Vesuvius in 1631 and the consciousness that the city of Naples
always lived in the danger of being destroyed by the volcano. Italian
artists took to depicting Vesuvius and Naples, and particularly the
English couldn’t get enough of this. This sublime, terrifying landscape
was the inspiration for the painter Salvator Rosa, who painted scenes
inspired by it. The English, who were starting to travel in Italy in
large numbers at this time, were fascinated, and generations were
influenced by his work.
This chapter is followed by one on the ensuing fashion in England for
gardens to create a domesticated version of this sort of landscape. So
far this is pretty standard stuff for history of the rise of gothic, but
this is the most extensive account I’ve encountered. The first chapter
about Naples and Rosa was very interesting and full of things that were
new to me. The second more extensive chapter on gardens I could well
have done without.
He progresses on to gothic revival architecture and its political
implications, which again was interesting and full of things that were
new to me. Admittedly, I usually skip the architecture bits in "history
of gothic" books but the Scottish and Irish Gothic Revival castles
presented here are downright fascinating. Finally, about a third of the
way through the book, Hines arrives at _The Castle of Otranto_. From
here to the things move much more quickly; from the first stirrings of
gothic revival through the influences of the French Revolution,
vampires, the changes in gothic architecture, American gothic,
Darwinism, Freud, gothic in films, up to the present day.
In some ways it’s all a bit arbitrary and random. More space is given
to authors who Hines believes to have led "gothic" (i.e. interesting)
lives, so there is a long biography of Horace Walpole and virtually
nothing about Ann Radcliffe. This is also a welcome departure from
"standard" texts on the subject. I like Hines’s reading of _Otranto_ -
he sets out convincing arguments that it’s *meant* to be burlesque,
which I’ve always felt to be the case. Despite this, it still has a
serious message about anxieties about misappropriated inheritance and
the nature of power. One of Hines’s repeated points is that Gothic is
only truly memorable when it is presented in conjunction with real ideas
(such as Frankenstein and de Sade) rather than just played for effects
(erm - lots of forgettable titles which none of you have probably heard
of, stuff like Varney the Vampire.).
Much of the content here is in any standard history of gothic, but there
is enough that is new even to me to make this book more than worthwhile.
For instance, there is a large section on Goya’s works about Spain in
the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars which I’ve not come across in this
context before. I didn’t know that one of Goya’s sketches from Los
Caprichos was the basis for Hollywood’s Frankenstein monster, but the
plate is reproduced and it’s very convincing. Hines’s presentation of
de Sade actually comes close to convincing me that his works have some
philosophical worth and gothic effect. Close, but not quite.
Where this books departs from most works containing the above
information, is that he doesn’t stop here. In fact, comparatively
little of the book is about the usual "canon" of gothic literature and
art. He follows gothic to its development on the other side of the
Atlantic, where, he notes, gothic becomes family-centred. We’re not
talking family values here, but rather, family-based decay, misery and
destruction (Obvious to anybody who’s read The Fall of the House of
Usher or virtually any Poe ). Hines’s reasoning for this has a lot to
do with Puritan culture, but I think it has a lot to do with geography -
a lot of families were very isolated in the early days in America.
Closely following on gothic’s move into the home, comes the most
important change in the gothic locus: with increasing fear of mob power,
disbelief in the devil as a reason for evil and crime, and the Puritan
culture of introspection, late in the nineteenth century terror comes to
be portrayed as coming from within the individual rather than from
external supernatural forces. He talks a lot about gothic in film in
both Europe and America, and the difficulties of gothic in the post-war
period. The makers and consumers of contemporary gothic in literature,
art and music are called "die-hard reactionaries against these
progressive family-centered pieties". I like that.
Most of what he has to say about what we think of as "goth" is pretty
stereotyped. He uses the works of The Cure as the best example of
"modern gothic" art. On the good news front, he states "its hallmark
was intelligent cynicism"; "they presented a continuous revolt against
hippy shit.". He includes a quote from Mick Mercer saying that goth has
both serious and non-serious sides (Mercer getting it right for once
shocker). I think he gets it pretty close to right, and at any rate is
very positive about the whole thing. And no, he doesn’t claim that
early 80s goths claimed a descent from gothic art and literature, etc.,
just that it was a new manifestation of reaction against the mundane
that has been around for a long time. He uses Poppy Z. Brite rather
than Anne Rice as the main example of contemporary literary gothic.
One of the most important things Hines does is point out that the
emotions and subjects dealt with in gothic, in less tasteful
circumstances, turn into soap-opera or the infantile talk-show circuit
"society is responsible for everything" world where nobody takes any
responsibility for their own actions, but is at pains to point out why
neither of these is gothic: In the case of soap-opera, intelligent
gothic has ironic restraint, an air of holding back. Purveyors of
soap-opera on the other hand, "are so emphatically committed to
sensationalism that they constitute an annihilation of intelligence".
I’m not sure this is a good introductory book for the novice. Although
nothing seemed particularly challenging to me, I have the background to
fill in any blanks that might have been there without even noticing it.
What I found its particular strength was the new perspective Hines gives
to old subjects - it’s suggested whole new aspects and questions in my
mind. There are parts I disagree with - for instance, I don’t see
public fascination with serial killers as having anything to do with
gothic. But overall I think this book was worth the hefty cover price,
and it’s quite possibly appeared in paperback by now.
Jodi
--
as a matter of fact, I do own the dance floor
Alexander
>_Gothic: 400 Years of Excess, Horror, Evil and Ruin_ by Richard
>Davenport Hines
My first thought upon seeing the Subject was: "Bloody hell... what are we being
blamed for now?".
>As the title indicates, Hines is arguing that "Gothic" is something that
>has been in the European (and American) cultural consciousness for the
>last 400 years and shows no signs of going away.
A good start then; at least goth is being acknowledged as having a modern
basis.
>He uses Poppy Z. Brite rather
>than Anne Rice as the main example of contemporary literary gothic.
Sounds like brain is well engaged then; he seems to have figured that whilst
certain aspects of vampirism come into play in the idea of gothic, Vampirism
isn't just another word for Gothic.
>One of the most important things Hines does is point out that the
>emotions and subjects dealt with in gothic, in less tasteful
>circumstances, turn into soap-opera or the infantile talk-show circuit
>"society is responsible for everything" world where nobody takes any
>responsibility for their own actions, but is at pains to point out why
>neither of these is gothic: In the case of soap-opera, intelligent
>gothic has ironic restraint, an air of holding back. Purveyors of
>soap-opera on the other hand, "are so emphatically committed to
>sensationalism that they constitute an annihilation of intelligence".
Bloomin ada... Goth 1, Ricky Lake 0
>But overall I think this book was worth the hefty cover price,
>and it’s quite possibly appeared in paperback by now.
Sounds like it's well worth hunting down.
--
~Alexander : "Oh bugger, I've been stabbed" - ICQ: 6165829
Malice Underground: http://www.gossips.co.uk/malice.html
Personal homepage: http://www.alexander.darkwave.org.uk/
MElston
> _Gothic: 400 Years of Excess, Horror, Evil and Ruin_ by Richard
> Davenport Hines
>
> Some time ago this book was mentioned on the group and I said I'd do a
> review when I got round to reading it. As always, this has taken a
> geological time frame, but here it is!
>
<snip>
Nice one, Jodi ! I didn't know ukpg was actually interested in anything as
cerebral as books :p
Good to see the Cure and Poe getting the recognition they deserve, even if
Poe (together with Stephen King) is still classed as a horror 'hack' by most
critics.
Sounds like it's well worth hunting down, so have you got the ISBN +
publisher anywhere ?
Jodi
>Good to see the Cure and Poe getting the recognition they deserve, even if
>Poe (together with Stephen King) is still classed as a horror 'hack' by most
>critics.
>
>Sounds like it's well worth hunting down, so have you got the ISBN +
>publisher anywhere ?
Yup; It's published by fourth estate and the ISBN is: 1-85702-498-2. I
got it last year with my Christmas money from my parents - it cost 20
quid from a local bookshop. It's probably cheaper over the net. I
don't know if there's a paperback version out there, but this is one
book I feel it was well worth paying for the hardcover.
Orfeo
> cerebral as books :p
well i bloody am. i've been reading gothic novels a lot longer than i've
been doing the whole goff thing.
me and miriam started a fairly long debate a few months ago... and i
seem to remember one on welsh mythology...
> Good to see the Cure and Poe getting the recognition they deserve, even if
> Poe (together with Stephen King) is still classed as a horror 'hack' by most
> critics.
king IS a hack.
poe, however, is not.
so there. :P
> Sounds like it's well worth hunting down, so have you got the ISBN +
> publisher anywhere ?
most waterstones have it... try the on-line store, or amazon...
-orfeo
--
"... rose some strange glamour of eternal,
deathless things that took no account of killing..."
-Algernon Blackwood, 'The Trod'
Remove the Faerie Arrows to reply
Orfeo
> review when I got round to reading it. As always, this has taken a
> geological time frame, but here it is!
wahey! cool.
> This is distinctly not an academic book. I’ve read dozens of academic
> tomes on the gothic, which makes me uniquely qualified to assure you
> this is nothing of the sort. Broadly speaking this is a Good Thing,
> except that sometimes I found it a little light on analysis, in that the
> reader has to take the author’s word for the generalisations he makes,
> rather than being presented with his train of reasoning.
but it's not meant to be in-depth, so i kinda expect that....
> only truly memorable when it is presented in conjunction with real ideas
> (such as Frankenstein and de Sade) rather than just played for effects
> (erm - lots of forgettable titles which none of you have probably heard
> of, stuff like Varney the Vampire.).
of course i've heard of varney. it's up there with wager the wer-wolf on
my list of trash books i must read.
> de Sade actually comes close to convincing me that his works have some
> philosophical worth and gothic effect. Close, but not quite.
>
but he ~has~...
> "modern gothic" art. On the good news front, he states "its hallmark
> was intelligent cynicism"; "they presented a continuous revolt against
> hippy shit.".
heeeh... i liked that bit.
> both serious and non-serious sides (Mercer getting it right for once
> shocker). I think he gets it pretty close to right,
as close as you can ever get, which is not very, i suppose... but it was
a good attempt, yes.
> And no, he doesn’t claim that
> early 80s goths claimed a descent from gothic art and literature, etc.,
> just that it was a new manifestation of reaction against the mundane
> that has been around for a long time.
indeed... a wise point to be made.
>He uses Poppy Z. Brite rather
> than Anne Rice as the main example of contemporary literary gothic.
which is good, as it avoids gothic being associated totally with
vampires... brite only wrote one vampire novel, and that wasn't really
vampires, just clockwork orange with fangs. never a bad thing.
> One of the most important things Hines does is point out that the
> emotions and subjects dealt with in gothic, in less tasteful
> circumstances, turn into soap-opera or the infantile talk-show circuit
yes... i read that... well put.
> I’m not sure this is a good introductory book for the novice. Although
> nothing seemed particularly challenging to me,
not to me, eiter... i'm hardly a novice, but i'm not expert, either.
faerys, however... now THAT i'm an expert on. ;)
> it’s suggested whole new aspects and questions in my
> mind. There are parts I disagree with - for instance, I don’t see
> public fascination with serial killers as having anything to do with
> gothic.
same as the orginal gothic fascination with vampires? not, of course,
suggesting that goths are more likely to be serial killers...
>But overall I think this book was worth the hefty cover price,
> and it’s quite possibly appeared in paperback by now.
not yet. but i'm waiting...
-orf
MElston
> > I didn't know ukpg was actually interested in anything as
> > cerebral as books :p
>
> well i bloody am. i've been reading gothic novels a lot longer than i've
> been doing the whole goff thing.
>
Hmm. I can tell I'll have to dig up my wife's old literarature stuff...
> king IS a hack.
[in pantomime fashion]
Ohhh no he isn't !
Admittedly he has produced some real dross, but the characterization he
introduces in some of his better novels (e.g. Firestarter) actually enables
you to identify with the characters enough to suspend disbelief. And, he
uses some fine imagery + seems to structure some books very well.
Not something usually associated with hacks, and I fear he's about the
closest to a fine, easily accessible writer we're likely to get. Especially
since Conrad and Orwell are frowned upon now (if I've understood PC school
syllabi properly).
> poe, however, is not.
> so there. :P
>
'Again ! Hark! Louder ! Louder ! Louder ! LOUDER !'
- Poe, The Tell-Tale Heart
It'd be good if a few more literary types had the same attitude...
Miriam McDonald
> Sounds like it's well worth hunting down.
A friend (Robin, for Bathonians) lent it to me a while back, and then when I left
MacFormat they bought it for me as a leaving gift. Parts of the book are very
good, and part are very bad. Hines' theory that Gothic is subversive is definitely
open to argument, and he leaves out the whole swathe of 19th Century Gothic
revival art and architecture in Britain, the US and beyond. It doesn't fit in with
his theory of Gothic, but nonetheless, even if the spirit is missing, the shell is
there in Victorian gothic revival. You can't look at the Houses of Parliament and
say "That's subversive", but you can say "that's Gothic architecture". Hines
weakens his position by ignoring things which go against his theory - I'd have
preferred him to introduce them and dismiss them (if he could).
Still, as Jodi says, it does raise aspects and questions in the reader. As long as
readers take their brains along when they read it and are prepared to question it,
it's a good book. There's not really enough on music or film for my liking, and
what there is is very US-centric, but that's a personal gripe.
Mim
Miriam McDonald
> > (erm - lots of forgettable titles which none of you have probably heard
> > of, stuff like Varney the Vampire.).
>
> of course i've heard of varney. it's up there with wager the wer-wolf on my
> list of trash books i must read.
Good luck - the last printed edition that I was able to find reference to was
as part of a series of Gothic books edited by Sir Devendra Varma, the great
Gothic literature scholar. That was hardback, and about 30 years ago. They
might have copies in copyright libraries which you could read on-site, but as
it wasn't published in the UK, that's not definite. Chapters get published
here and there - I've got one chapter at home.
> >He uses Poppy Z. Brite rather
> > than Anne Rice as the main example of contemporary literary gothic.
>
> which is good, as it avoids gothic being associated totally with
> vampires... brite only wrote one vampire novel, and that wasn't really
> vampires, just clockwork orange with fangs. never a bad thing.
He's too fond of Brite... she's the only modern writer who gets a look-in. He
abandons American gothic in the 19th Century, ignoring such classics as
"Whatever Happened To Baby Jane" (book and film). He also ignores writers
like Angela Carter. Still, as you say, it's good that he hasn't taken up
Rice's cause (writer of turgid religious propaganda that she now is, imo).
> >But overall I think this book was worth the hefty cover price,
> > and it’s quite possibly appeared in paperback by now.
>
> not yet. but i'm waiting...
Feel free to nick my copy for a while.
Mim
Orfeo
> here and there - I've got one chapter at home.
>
i've read a few chapters of it somewhere... can't remember where though.
still i thought with this vampire fad someone would've brought it out...
> abandons American gothic in the 19th Century,
> Rice's cause (writer of turgid religious propaganda that she now is, imo).
indeed, she is.
> > not yet. but i'm waiting...
>
> Feel free to nick my copy for a while.
i would, if i didn't have loads of stuff to read already... about
half-a-dozen new faeries books, namely.
Orfeo
> good, and part are very bad. Hines' theory that Gothic is subversive is definitely
> open to argument,
oh, i agree that's subversive... IMO, gothic&romantic was a backlash
against materialism and church dominance, like the lost generation, poe,
theosophy, etc was in the 20's.
> say "That's subversive", but you can say "that's Gothic architecture".
i would say that gothic architecture is subversive in the modern day...
ie, it contrasts with, and embarresses, newer buildings... just take a
look at the natural history museam for an example of what i mean.
Jodi
>Orfeo <orf...@ELF-SHOTvirgin.net> wrote :
>> king IS a hack.
>
>[in pantomime fashion]
>
>Ohhh no he isn't !
Yes he is. A quality hack, much better than most, but still a hack.
Jodi
>of course i've heard of varney. it's up there with wager the wer-wolf on
>my list of trash books i must read.
One of my friends was forced to read Varney for part of her MA
dissertation. It's bad. It's terrible. It was like torture. Or so
I'm told.
Speaking of bad, unmemorable gothic, The Gothic Society printed a volume
called "Tales From the Gothic Bluebooks[1]" a few years ago. Most of
the tales therein are truly appalling.
Jodi
[1] Think it's out of print now, as they had a clearing-out of all their
stock last year.
PIPALUKI
>>He uses Poppy Z. Brite rather
>> than Anne Rice as the main example of contemporary literary gothic.
>
>which is good, as it avoids gothic being associated totally with
>vampires... brite only wrote one vampire novel, and that wasn't really
>vampires, just clockwork orange with fangs. never a bad thing.
>
Agreed. I assume you mean "Lost souls" here... Althought I think thats fairly
feeble next to "Exquisite corpse" which is perhaos the sickest book ever
written.
Rice though. A bit of an enigma. How someone could write a book as powerfull as
"interview with the vampire" and then go on to write such turgid dross as "the
violin" and "Queen of the Damned" beggars the imagination. Actually, she gets
worse- I;ve read some of her erotic fiction and it's frankly laughable,
particularly the "Beauty" saga which is just embarrasing.
Still, she's a real celebrity. During the making of th neil Jordan
"Interview..." film she did more U Turns than a parisian motorist on Crack.
So votes for now go to Poppy.
Filthy Rikky
PIPALUKI
>king IS a hack.
>poe, however, is not.
>so there. :P
Hmmm. debatable.. my fashionable literary bones urge me to conform to this
statement, but frankly I don't think I willa s I rate "The shining" and "The
Dark half" really quite highly but maybe thats just me. "It" is total toss
however.
Filthy Rikky
Orfeo
Well, i didn't say to be a hack was a bad thing, did i?
one might enjoy many of king's novels while also admitting that they are
wholly free of intellectual lierary content; not every author can be a
joyce or a kafka. personally, i enjoy brian lumley and charles de lint
for good stories without 'weight'.
Orfeo
>
> One of my friends was forced to read Varney for part of her MA
> dissertation. It's bad. It's terrible. It was like torture. Or so
> I'm told.
wow, how cool!
i have this guilty passion for crap like this, you see.
> called "Tales From the Gothic Bluebooks[1]" a few years ago. Most of
> the tales therein are truly appalling.
mmmm, trash!
MElston
> On Mon, 13 Dec 1999 00:14:10 -0000, MElston wrote:
>
> >> king IS a hack.
> >
> >[in pantomime fashion]
> >
> >Ohhh no he isn't !
>
> Yes he is. A quality hack, much better than most, but still a hack.
>
once upon a time.
They both flew in the face of what was (at their times) considered 'good',
but in so doing created new literary genres.
I would argue (but not for very long) King has done that, since his books
usually transfer to the big screen with relative ease (usually by leaving
out the unnecessary-for-Hollywood characterisation), whereas lots of
latter-day 'good' writers' works become boring / unintelligible trash
without major reworking. He has created the novel-screenplay !
Also, it could be argued (but not by me) that he rescued the novella as a
literary genre, with his stories such as the 'Shawshank Redemption'.
Once King dies, he may miraculously be elevated to the status of literary
genius, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see...
Miriam McDonald
> Rice though. A bit of an enigma. How someone could write a book as powerfull as
> "interview with the vampire" and then go on to write such turgid dross as "the
> violin" and "Queen of the Damned" beggars the imagination. Actually, she gets
> worse- I;ve read some of her erotic fiction and it's frankly laughable,
> particularly the "Beauty" saga which is just embarrasing.
It's quite simple. You write one very good novel fairly soon after the death of
your tiny daughter. Then you stop writing for a few years, gain a cult following,
and realise you're on to a winner, so begin turning out at least a book a year.
Halfway through you also rediscover Roman Catholicism and preach horrendously at
your readers.
If Rice gives up writing for another decade and gives up the religious rubbish,
she might regain her former spark, but so far she's given every indication of
being a one-trick pony.
> So votes for now go to Poppy.
Angela Carter! Angela Carter! Angela Carter! Hasn't *anybody* else here read "Wise
Children" or seen "The Company of Wolves"?
Mim
Miriam McDonald
> Jodi <jo...@gene13.demonspam.co.uk> wrote :.
> > On Mon, 13 Dec 1999 00:14:10 -0000, MElston wrote:
> > >Orfeo <orf...@ELF-SHOTvirgin.net> wrote :
> >
> > >> king IS a hack.
> > >
> > >[in pantomime fashion]
> > >
> > >Ohhh no he isn't !
> >
> > Yes he is. A quality hack, much better than most, but still a hack.
> >
> Also, it could be argued (but not by me) that he rescued the novella as a
> literary genre, with his stories such as the 'Shawshank Redemption'.
Then there's the original serial publication of "The Green Mile", which he
wrote as Dickens would've done - to a set word count each month, with only a
rough idea when he began of where the story would end. He's the only writer of
any talent to try this in the late 20th Century, and it worked incredibly
well.
Miriam
Fiona
Miriam McDonald <miriam....@futurenet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:385611A4...@futurenet.co.uk...
> Angela Carter! Angela Carter! Angela Carter! Hasn't *anybody* else here
read "Wise
> Children" or seen "The Company of Wolves"?
but ISTR she did lots versions of tales which were true to the original
(i.e. the hero/heroine got eaten/murdered etc) cf. Company of Wolves?
Fiona
pengu...@my-deja.com
pipa...@aol.com (PIPALUKI) wrote:
> "Exquisite corpse" which is perhaos the sickest book ever
> written.
You obviously haven't attempted '120 Days of Sodom' have you? Or
anything at all by Peter Sotos for that matter...
AP
NP: Allied Vision - Demon Sect
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
pengu...@my-deja.com
orf...@ELF-SHOTvirgin.net wrote:
> Well, i didn't say to be a hack was a bad thing, did i?
> one might enjoy many of king's novels while also admitting that they
are
> wholly free of intellectual lierary content; not every author can be a
> joyce or a kafka. personally, i enjoy brian lumley and charles de lint
> for good stories without 'weight'.
We had this discussion on alt.horror.cthulhu some while back. King IMHO
is Disney horror - it presents (usually) threats to schmaltzy mid-west
America and its Family Values only to reaffirm them and make the reader
complacently happy about not thinking. I can't abide it personally.
AP
NP: Allied Vision - Spreader (instrumental)
pengu...@my-deja.com
Miriam McDonald <miriam....@futurenet.co.uk> wrote:
> Angela Carter! Angela Carter! Angela Carter! Hasn't *anybody* else
here read "Wise
> Children" or seen "The Company of Wolves"?
Yes! She gets the penguin vote.
AP
PIPALUKI
>anything at all by Peter Sotos for that matter...
"120 Days..." isn't so much of a book though as a rambling old load of
mastabatory tosh. Extremely deviant admittedly but rarely getting to the
(excuse the bon mot here) bones of the matter in the way ms brite does. IMHO of
course.
Filthy Rikky
(who always thought "justine" was better anyway)
PIPALUKI
>We had this discussion on alt.horror.cthulhu some while back. King IMHO
>is Disney horror - it presents (usually) threats to schmaltzy mid-west
>America and its Family Values only to reaffirm them and make the reader
>complacently happy about not thinking. I can't abide it personally.
>
Hmmm... aren't his stories largely set in New England ?? /pedant/
Filthy rikky
Miriam McDonald
> We had this discussion on alt.horror.cthulhu some while back. King IMHO
> is Disney horror - it presents (usually) threats to schmaltzy mid-west
> America
Maine is not Mid-West America. It's a relatively poor rural New England
state.
> and its Family Values only to reaffirm them and make the reader
> complacently happy about not thinking. I can't abide it personally.
I don't think his work is based on threats to society. Much of it is based
around individuals - see Misery, The Dark Half, Rita Hayworth and The
Shawshank Redemption, The Long Walk, The Shining... What about Needful
Things? Consumer desires bring about the destruction of a town. It's a
fairly funny/sad indictment of the American dream. King doesn't appear to
like society in most of his novels, but he's not going to pretend it's
something it's not, or that he's ever going to be able to change it.
An awful lot of horror does raise threats only to see them off. Dracula,
for example (book & films), and The Thing, Nosferatu and Aliens. None of
it's any the worse for that. It's not supposed to make you think, it's
supposed to make you scared. Often it deals with matters in society at
large - women's and foreign nations' growing independance in Dracula,
corporate greed in Aliens, the fact that you never know who could be
complete nut in Misery - but these are incidental and easily missed. These
threats still remain at the end of the book/film. At the end of Needful
Things, the shop has relocated. At the end of Carrie, a woman writes to a
relative explaining the funny way her little daughter moves marbles around
without touching them. King doesn't reaffirm the values that cause so much
trouble in his novels. He just knows people repeat their mistakes, because
greed and stupidity are part of human nature, and doesn't make a song and
dance about it.
Miriam
Jodi
>Hmmm. debatable.. my fashionable literary bones urge me to conform to this
>statement, but frankly I don't think I willa s I rate "The shining" and "The
>Dark half"
The Shining is excellent. Salem's Lot scared me but that could be
because I was reading it alone in my dorm room at Uni. and someone burst
in without knocking.
A lot of King's early stuff is pretty appalling though. Carrie,
Firestarter, The Dead Zone, and Christine never did anything for me.
> really quite highly but maybe thats just me. "It" is total toss
>however.
I'd have to take issue with you there - "it" is probably my favourite of
all the King books I've read (admittedly not anything since The
Tommyknockers. Or Needful Things, whichever came last).
Jodi
Orfeo
> Agreed. I assume you mean "Lost souls" here...
indeed i do. neither EQ or drawing blood featured vampires... luckily.
>Althought I think thats fairly
> feeble next to "Exquisite corpse" which is perhaos the sickest book ever
> written.
oh, it's good, but not the sickest. nowhere near the sickest. for real
sickness i'd probably have to go with burrough's naked lunch, or maybe
jude the obscure. maybe.
> Rice though. A bit of an enigma. How someone could write a book as powerfull as
> "interview with the vampire" and then go on to write such turgid dross as "the
> violin" and "Queen of the Damned" beggars the imagination.
well, i agree with miriam on this one... but i think the vampire lestat
was also very good... queen of the damned spoilt it though.
-orfeo
Orfeo
> for example (book & films), and The Thing, Nosferatu and Aliens. None of
> it's any the worse for that. It's not supposed to make you think, it's
> supposed to make you scared.
maybe because it's 'seen off', that why these examples arn't so
horrifing? because in the end they satisfy our sense of right- kind of
like turning on the lights after a scary story when you were a kid, or
waking up after a nightmare?
arg. going off into the pretentious metaphor deep end.
Greg Anderson
> >You obviously haven't attempted '120 Days of Sodom' have you? Or
> >anything at all by Peter Sotos for that matter...
>
> "120 Days..." isn't so much of a book though as a rambling old load of
> mastabatory tosh. Extremely deviant admittedly but rarely getting to the
> (excuse the bon mot here) bones of the matter in the way ms brite does.
> IMHO of course.
You have to keep in mind that "120 Days of Sodom" was written in prison
and De Sade was running out of paper. Hence only the first quarter or so
is written properly and the rest of the book were only notes to remind him
what he planned towrite up properly later. As he was unexpectedly released
when the Bastille was stormed in 1789, the manuscript was lost for a very
long time and never written up fully.
I much prefer "Florville and Courval" myself, it has such amusing irony
and bitter twists in it.
Banshee
-----Greg Anderson-...@csv.warwick.ac.uk-----
"You still don't know what you're dealing with,
do you? A perfect organism. It's structural
perfection is matched only by it's hostility."
---------http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~lssan/----------
MElston
> > An awful lot of horror does raise threats only to see them off. Dracula,
> > for example (book & films), and The Thing, Nosferatu and Aliens. None of
> > it's any the worse for that. It's not supposed to make you think, it's
> > supposed to make you scared.
>
> maybe because it's 'seen off', that why these examples arn't so
> horrifing? because in the end they satisfy our sense of right- kind of
> like turning on the lights after a scary story when you were a kid, or
> waking up after a nightmare?
>
But, that's part of what makes King so popular with Hollywood - lots of his
books have a nice blockbuster-esque ending where all the loose ends are tied
up in the midst of many pyrotechnics. If he didn't do this, his work
wouldn't have made it to the big screen because most ppl (annoyingly) like
nice tidy endings.
Even Christine (one of his direst novels) takes on a much more disturbing
edge if you ignore the slasher-pic climax in the last couple of chapters.
Richrd Feilden
>Yup; It's published by fourth estate and the ISBN is: 1-85702-498-2. I
>got it last year with my Christmas money from my parents - it cost 20
>quid from a local bookshop. It's probably cheaper over the net. I
>don't know if there's a paperback version out there, but this is one
>book I feel it was well worth paying for the hardcover.
£18 in hardback from BOL. Bound to be able to do better elsewhere...
RikF
Greg Anderson
> Good luck - the last printed edition that I was able to find reference to was
> as part of a series of Gothic books edited by Sir Devendra Varma, the great
> Gothic literature scholar. That was hardback, and about 30 years ago. They
> might have copies in copyright libraries which you could read on-site, but as
> it wasn't published in the UK, that's not definite. Chapters get published
> here and there - I've got one chapter at home.
Varney the Vampire is available to read/download at
http://www.comclin.net/humphrey/varney/varney.htm
It's also available to buy online at SCRY for around 52 dollars (US) plus
postage
http://www.scry.com/ayer/gothic/4413927.HTM
Orfeo
> http://www.comclin.net/humphrey/varney/varney.htm
how cool.
ta.
-orf