![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Sep. 5th, 2002
So, the Alumni Association promised us lunch at the meeting today. We'd been meeting for years, literally, about getting a good online community started for alums (as opposed to the piece of crap they have now). I doubt it'll ever really get off the ground. But they moved the meeting today to lunchtime, and when we got there, instead of pre-packaged sandwiches, we had menus from the Houson Mill House (which has a damned fine catering kitchen) to order from. So I had a nice grilled tuna on focaccia sandwich, with a side if shoestring sweet potatoes.
And then afterwards, to think us for putting in so much time on the project (which is our job, and it's not like these are external clients or something), they gave us really beautiful Alumni Associate pens. As an alum, I don't even have to feel guilty when I use it.
So, all in all, a productive meeting. Even if we're all certain nothing is ever going to get off the ground.
And then afterwards, to think us for putting in so much time on the project (which is our job, and it's not like these are external clients or something), they gave us really beautiful Alumni Associate pens. As an alum, I don't even have to feel guilty when I use it.
So, all in all, a productive meeting. Even if we're all certain nothing is ever going to get off the ground.
(no subject)
Sep. 5th, 2002 11:17 pmSo, I'm reading Bentley Little's latest, The Return, and I realized one more reason why I enjoy him so much more than most other contemporary horror authors.
(aside -- yes, I know he's schlock and not high literature, okay?)
Supernatural horror, in general, deals with The Other as antagonist. There may well be a human cause, of course -- at least half of the genre is based on Man Messing With Something He Should Not Mess With -- but in the end, it's Man Vs. Nasty Thing. Everything from Preston and Child's The Relic to the first two Alien movies fit this bill. The Other is often symbolic, of course (both in the good stuff and in the pretentious crap), but it's still an external force.
On rare occasions, the supernatural horror is internalized as well. Blatty's The Exorcist (aside -- can someone tell me how the movie is supposed to be even watchable if you haven't read the book?), and King's The Shining and Christine all come to mind. But for the most part, in these books, the Other targets one person, and uses that person as a conduit for its attack on the characters.
Little, for the most part, writes books where entire groups of people are targeted by the Other for internal assault. In The Mailman, The Store, and The Association, it's mostly psychological (not that the supernatural isn't there, but there's no possession, per se). In University, The Town (one of his worst, but a good example), Dominion, and others, the supernatural possesses the majority of folks. In all cases, the heroes are those who manage to resist the Other, even when facing it under the same conditions that causes their friends and family to succumb. I like this. I don't like protagonists who are the hero because the killer simply forgot to pick them off, or because they've got dumb luck. I like people who might be tempted by evil, but who in the end find themselves stronger than the Other.
Few other authors seem able to write this sort of tale. King's Tommyknockers and Laymon's One Rainy Night rank amongst the worst either author has written (King was unable to even let his heroes be strong -- they were pure dumb lucky bastards). Even fewer try.
And no, that's not the only reason I like him. I love the fact that he's one of the few horror authors with a political agenda that actually pervades the subtext of his books (unlike King, who grafts on a comment or two establishing that he's a liberal, without letting it affect the nature of the book itself). I love his stance on religion. I love the fact that he actually managed to publish a short story about a man having sex with a mutant potato. That takes balls (and other equipment). But I hadn't really noticed this theme until tonight.
Oh, and yes, I realize that The Ignored, his best book by far, doesn't fit into this category (nor does The House, his worst book).
Anyway, back to reading.
(aside -- yes, I know he's schlock and not high literature, okay?)
Supernatural horror, in general, deals with The Other as antagonist. There may well be a human cause, of course -- at least half of the genre is based on Man Messing With Something He Should Not Mess With -- but in the end, it's Man Vs. Nasty Thing. Everything from Preston and Child's The Relic to the first two Alien movies fit this bill. The Other is often symbolic, of course (both in the good stuff and in the pretentious crap), but it's still an external force.
On rare occasions, the supernatural horror is internalized as well. Blatty's The Exorcist (aside -- can someone tell me how the movie is supposed to be even watchable if you haven't read the book?), and King's The Shining and Christine all come to mind. But for the most part, in these books, the Other targets one person, and uses that person as a conduit for its attack on the characters.
Little, for the most part, writes books where entire groups of people are targeted by the Other for internal assault. In The Mailman, The Store, and The Association, it's mostly psychological (not that the supernatural isn't there, but there's no possession, per se). In University, The Town (one of his worst, but a good example), Dominion, and others, the supernatural possesses the majority of folks. In all cases, the heroes are those who manage to resist the Other, even when facing it under the same conditions that causes their friends and family to succumb. I like this. I don't like protagonists who are the hero because the killer simply forgot to pick them off, or because they've got dumb luck. I like people who might be tempted by evil, but who in the end find themselves stronger than the Other.
Few other authors seem able to write this sort of tale. King's Tommyknockers and Laymon's One Rainy Night rank amongst the worst either author has written (King was unable to even let his heroes be strong -- they were pure dumb lucky bastards). Even fewer try.
And no, that's not the only reason I like him. I love the fact that he's one of the few horror authors with a political agenda that actually pervades the subtext of his books (unlike King, who grafts on a comment or two establishing that he's a liberal, without letting it affect the nature of the book itself). I love his stance on religion. I love the fact that he actually managed to publish a short story about a man having sex with a mutant potato. That takes balls (and other equipment). But I hadn't really noticed this theme until tonight.
Oh, and yes, I realize that The Ignored, his best book by far, doesn't fit into this category (nor does The House, his worst book).
Anyway, back to reading.