I picked up a Dean Koontz book the other day - because I was ill, and wanting something undemanding and attention grabbing.
Now, I have never read one of his before, and I thought I was getting an ordinary detective thingy - but I find it is a horror book!
I read one other horror book years ago, something or other by Stephen King, and loathed it. But I finished it, and I may finish this. (Hmmmmm..........) I certainly will not be buying another of its ilk.
So - my question is, what do people read horror books for? - (or see horror films for, too, I guess).
I cannot quite put my finger on it, but I find them very repellent and their production disturbing - their focus on pain and suffering and sadistic and revolting detail worrying. I know there is a word like schadenfreude for a reason - and I used to read mystery novels (no longer, normally) so I know I have not a leg to stand on, really - but there is something about the avid consumption of these books, and hence the enjoyment of and focus on such material, that gives me the yucks.
What do other people think? What gives some of us more of an appetite for horror than others? (I know we all have it to some extent and this is not meant to be critical of people who love these books - I am just fascinated with the whole process of it.) Why can I read mystery novels with less of a revolted reaction? (I have a few ideas about this, which I will share later, if this thread takes off.)
I note, of course, that I shall probably finish the current book - laughs at self!
I really don't like horror films or books and can't stand Stephen King.
Some horror films or books are so slooooow. You are thinking oh for goodness sake open the smegging fridge and find the severed head will you - and hurry up .. .
others have such a poor story line with so many holes in it - yeah right - go on back into the spooky gloomy house alone ...
0 Replies
dlowan
1
Reply
Fri 18 Jul, 2003 05:00 pm
What repels you about King, Vivien?
0 Replies
sozobe
1
Reply
Fri 18 Jul, 2003 05:03 pm
I was thinking about this shortly after 9/11, when I was still well and truly spooked. I was watching TV, flipping channels, and some scary movie came on that I'd seen but enjoyed -- "Silence of the Lambs", perhaps? I started watching and it was just too... awful. It wasn't thrilling, like increased heart rate, adrenalin, that kind of thing, it was just sickening. I'd had my fill of naturally-occurring adrenalin.
Same idea as how wartime and depression-era movies are treacly and sweet. We like escape, but "escape" varies according to what real life is like.
0 Replies
Vivien
1
Reply
Fri 18 Jul, 2003 05:05 pm
the sheer nastiness and lack of good reason for it, the weak story line (I know this is going to get an angry response from his fans but i just can't stand them!) What plot there is seems to be just enough to pad out the bits between the violent/spooky/nasty bits - wow this is first rate literary crit eh?!!!!
0 Replies
dlowan
1
Reply
Fri 18 Jul, 2003 05:07 pm
Hmmm - indeed - then horror stuff might be big when our lives are a little too safe for our physiological/psychological design specifications?
Would more bored people read more of them?
That whole serial killer "thing" belongs firmly in the horror genre, does it not? A thing made more obvious in the mawkish and grand guignol sequel to "The Silence of the Lambs".
0 Replies
dlowan
1
Reply
Fri 18 Jul, 2003 05:09 pm
"the sheer nastiness and lack of good reason for it,"
You just about summed up my feelings about this genre right there, Vivien!
0 Replies
Vivien
1
Reply
Fri 18 Jul, 2003 05:13 pm
It is a little off track, but allied to the tone of sozobe's and dlowans conversation - I always feel that the vandals and yobs of peace time are often the heroes of wartime - in peace they have nothing to do with all that aggression and energy - in war they channel it - they may still not be 'nice' people but they win medals/kill the enemy.
0 Replies
dlowan
1
Reply
Fri 18 Jul, 2003 05:18 pm
Hmmmmm....
0 Replies
ehBeth
1
Reply
Fri 18 Jul, 2003 05:49 pm
I've got my own weird thing going on with mysteries and horrors. I don't like horror - on film, or in books. I've often said it was because I get enough of that every day at work. There are many days when I'm seeing photos of decapitated bodies, trying to figure out if that's brain matter I can see on the bumper in that other photo, looking at horrible wounds (sometimes photos, sometimes in person) that aren't healing properly a couple of years post-mva. So, I have no need to add horror to what's going on in my head.
On the flip side, and totally perverse of me, is my love of mysteries - particularly of the Dorothy L. Sayers variety. I say it's because it's what I do - figure things out - try to spot patterns in things ...
Can that be right? I love one thing that I do for work, and hate the other. When it comes to work, I appreciate both sides of the job. I don't hate looking at the photos and scars and wounds. I do love the pattern identification part of things.
I was hoping to be able to say I liked mysteries because they give me something to do other than just read, but I read other fluff.
<<sigh>>
I don't understand.
0 Replies
dlowan
1
Reply
Fri 18 Jul, 2003 05:59 pm
Hmmmm - well, for me, the difference with mysteries is, while some have nasty bits, that there is usually an underlying sense of social order and meaningfulness to it all - even the cynical ones. It is IMPORTANT that someone is dead - there is an effort to understand motive and psychology - people, and what happens to them, is noteworthy.
With much horror - I think it is like Vivien says: "sheer nastiness and lack of good reason for it" - and, for me, also the FOCUS on this - the loving detail of it - and no meaning.
I am like you, Beth, too, in that I hear unspeakably awful things at work, and SEEM, at any rate, to cope with them (presumably because I am there for another person, and the focus is on helping them heal) - but if somebody wants to tell me a horrible story that I do not need to hear in private, I can't bear it - I will be haunted by images and such. If there is a good reason for me to hear it, though, I can cope.
0 Replies
farmerman
1
Reply
Fri 18 Jul, 2003 07:16 pm
The beauty of the genre is, horror, like scifi, can take any plot or time period or setting, and make a yarn.
Stephen King has been one of the best modern horror story tellers, lhis biggest problem has been the fact that he is derivative of himself. His later books rely on capturing elements from previous books. His short stories , however, are some of the best horror since HP Lovecraft and the Cthulu myths.
I like any story about supernatural evil and its manifestations. Its not for everyone , clearly. When I was a high school student I read the exhorcist one evening. Couldnt put it down . Epinephrine rush, is all I can say was the result. since then I got hooked on Lovecraft and some Poe, Doyle, Barker.Cook. I never really stuck to Koontz,.
0 Replies
dlowan
1
Reply
Fri 18 Jul, 2003 07:22 pm
So - it is the "rush", Farmerman?
I read Lovecraft and such - could never really "get" it, though I shared a house, at the time I was reading it, with someone who adored Lovecraft, so it was not for lack of trying.
Poe, I think, is different - he is a real artist, and his work relies on much more than the horror.
0 Replies
Craven de Kere
1
Reply
Fri 18 Jul, 2003 07:22 pm
Which Koontz book?
0 Replies
dlowan
1
Reply
Fri 18 Jul, 2003 07:24 pm
I have realized that I enjoyed reading "Jurassic Park" - and the film, so I am far from consistent...something about the realization of dinosaurs, and I was aware of Bakker, and his ilk's, changing the way we viewed them, re speed and such.
0 Replies
dlowan
1
Reply
Fri 18 Jul, 2003 07:26 pm
Latest one - "The Face".
I realize I tolerate horror better when I learn something! Especially about nature/science. Hmmmmmmmmm. Not that I consider Crichton an authority on dinosaurs, and such - his latest, "The Swarm", I read with interest because of the stuff on nano-technology. Terribly written book, though.
0 Replies
dlowan
1
Reply
Fri 18 Jul, 2003 07:27 pm
Do you have a little alarm set to go off whenever Poe is mentioned, Craven? Snorkle!
0 Replies
Craven de Kere
1
Reply
Fri 18 Jul, 2003 07:36 pm
Hmm, I haven't been keeping up with Dean. My take on him is that he is a horrible writer at times yet he can sometimes hit moments of brilliance.
His best stuff is more about human nature than horror.
Look for Strage Highways (a collection of short stories) and in that book read Kittens. It's a very short story but one of the best there is.
Another short in Strange Highways is "Twilight of the Dawn". It's can almost drive an atheist to theism.
"Fear Nothing" is a good quick read and is less "horror" than others. I think it's the second part with "Seize the night" being the first.
Most of his books are quickly put together. He doesn't plan much. The one time he did he had to take a break from writing for a while afterward. That book was "Dark Rivers of the Heart" pretty good except for a horribly cheesy ending.
But IMO his best horror books were "Cold Fire" (the scariest book I have read. Caveat: being homeless and high helped) and "Winter Moon".
I have read almost everything he has written. I am not a big fan so to answer your question about why: because the damn books are ubiquitous and they are quick reads. I think he does well with dialogue even though his plots are paper thin.
0 Replies
Craven de Kere
1
Reply
Fri 18 Jul, 2003 07:37 pm
I just noticed the Poe. Poe had many talents beyond writing, it's unfair to Koontz to compare. It's even unfair to Lovecraft.
Koontz is better at humor and banter than at horror.
0 Replies
dlowan
1
Reply
Fri 18 Jul, 2003 07:46 pm
So - what is good about quick reads then? And why those quick reads? I like them - quick reads - too, often. Mind candy? Better'n TV?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace