(no subject)

[yendi]

So, 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.

Comments

[catalyxt.livejournal.com]

This actually made me think of vampire-centered fiction, how, even in a horror setting the Other is positioned both as antagonist and seducer; both what the Self fears and desires, often in mirror image. The fight becomes resisting the 'dark' and animalistic sides of oneself, psychologically and otherwise, played out in a larger arena than one's skull....Interesting to ponder.

[yendi]

*nod* In any horror where the Other is seductive (and that's not necessarily sexual -- see any possession tale), it becomes a fight between the Self's own internal desires, with the Other as instigator. Little's work merely takes this to a much great level (as most horror is personal).

[edie22.livejournal.com]

what does schlock mean?

[yendi]

Dude. Your husband needs to make you more Jewish or something. It means low quality. It's also the name of a character in Sluggy.

Re:

[edie22.livejournal.com]

I've been begging him to make me more Jewish for a while.

[britgeekgrrl.livejournal.com]

Have you tried James Herbert? He's a fun horror author - as far as such things can be considered fun.

His mid-career stuff is best. The early career stuff (The "Rats" trilogy, The Jonah, The Fog) is usually "mutant creature/monster/supernatural whatsit shreds innocents for 250 pages" and his two most recent books were just off the deep end (awful narrative, boring plot - avoid "'45" and... I forget it's name, but it's about some omen heralding the end of the world or something)

"Moon" "The Magic Cottage" and "Sepulchre" (alt title: "Neath") are my faves by Herbert, and I think he's pretty well distributed in the U.S, but far more popular in the UK.

Everyone's gotta have brain candy... :)

[yendi]

I've never read him -- for a while I got him confused with Frank Herbert, and thought it was Worm Horror or somesuch. I'll add him to my list of folks to check out. Thanks!

[rollick.livejournal.com]

I've never understood why people hate King's "Tommyknockers" so much. Many, many fans seem to think it's the worst book he's ever written, and I don't see why. To me, it's one of his better-characterized books. The scene of the alcoholic poet getting distracted during his reading, and then passing it off in a charming enough manner that his audience relaxed again – I loved that scene. Overall, I found it a lot more solid and confident and less self-indulgent than a lot of King books, especially the later ones. The weakness and luck of the main characters didn't bother me at all – I don't necessarily need my heroes to be any more confident and capable than I am.

[yendi]

I think part of what bothered me about Tommyknockers was the potential. Sort of like King's own The Phantom Menace. Many of the characters were interesting, but they never came together in any way that worked for me, and many of the flaws seemed artificial. Worse, the Tommyknockers themselves just seemed uninteresting. To be fair, I read the novel when it first came out, which was when I was in high school, so I can't remember many details (such as the scene you're describing). If anything, I remember it as the book where King Jumped the Shark -- before that, most everything was golden, but after that, for every Bag of Bones there seemed to be three Rose Madders.

[phantom_wolfboy]

Tommyknockers was, to a large extent, a re-work of The Shadow over Innsmouth. I liked it, though.

And I was gonna ask about "jumped the shark", but I remembered in time. :)

[yendi]

Oh, and flawed characters don't bother me (it's what I like about Little, and most other decent authors). Actually, folks who can do no wrong are the most boring characters I can imagine. Whatever else I'll say about King, he's never tried to write lily-white heroes when he had the chance to give us someone interesting instead.

[piratejenny.livejournal.com]

I so loved that potato story. It something that I can honestly say never occurred to me. I have to thank you for starting me on Little.

[yendi]

Heh. I'm such an enabler when it comes to cheesy fiction. :-)

[piratejenny.livejournal.com]

That's fine, considering I'm a book pimp. :-)

The Jury is still out...

[alphafem.livejournal.com]

I read and totally loathed The Revelation. I found it very predictable. I do have The Collection in my TBR pile and will read it with an open mind. I'm also interested in getting my hands on a copy of The Association. There's a discussion going on on my HorrorLit egroups about The Walking and not many people seemed to like it.
With King, my absolute least favourite book was Rose Madder. For me, he began his downward slide there, sinking to a new low with the Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon. That one was very obviously written with an eye towards deadline. The Green Mile redeemed him, as did Bag of Bones, but then Dreamcatcher let me down again. I always view a new book from him with a mixture of dread and expectation.

Re: The Jury is still out...

[yendi]

The Revelation was his first book. Although not his worst, it's not where I'd tell someone to start with him. His four-book "series" that he wrote in the '90s (The Mailman, University, The Store, and The Ignored) is the peak of his career. It's not a series per se (other than a few King-like references to imply they're in the same universe, there are no common ties), but all the books are tied together thematically.

The Association was fun, but a let-down at the end. But as with The Store, I like it on principle. :-) And I like the Walking, although it's not a truly frightening book. Just a nifty take on zombies.

Are you also on Horror-l?

Re: The Jury is still out...

[alphafem.livejournal.com]

Nope... just on HorrorLit on yahoogroups. Vas is this Horror-l of which thou speakest?

Re: The Jury is still out...

[yendi]

It's actually just called Horror, but since it's been around since the old days (at least 1994), some folks still call it horror-l, since that was the standard for listservs then. There's a website at http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~mlperkin/horror.html

Re: The Jury is still out...

[alphafem.livejournal.com]

I'll look into it... thanks!