Thomas's comments (member since May 06, 2009)

Thomas's comments from the Literary Horror group.

I think I agree with Rob -- the renaissance of the '90s, now that I think about it, involved bringing in a lot of gonzo elements from outside horror, as exercised by Joe Lansdale, Doug Winter, Poppy Z. Brite, David J. Schow, Skipp & Spector, Norm Partridge, John Shirley, etc. But even that was a movement among the illuminati, not so much the mainstream of horror readers. And while elements were very experimental, the storytelling still tended to be relatively straightforward. And whenever I read the stuff that predated that movement, or originated it, the horror from the '80s, I think it's usually pretty straightforward. Maybe I'm contradicting myself here. I think I'd need to actually pore through a box or two of books to get a sense of what I really think, and sadly who has the time...

But as you say, Barker -- he was influential, but within the market proper he was kinda anomalous I think.

It just occurred to me that I should refrain from using the term "blockheaded," since my girlfriend is one of the ones who absolutely despises it. So it'd be more politic to say "resistant to stylistic innovations like second-person, present-tense narration, or any kind of narrative timeline trickery unless it's in Memento or involves Hermione Granger."

Michele, I do second-person narration quite frequently and while it works in erotica, in any other field it never fails to alienate a certain number of readers. I guess people really are that blockehaded. But then, in the literary world, outside of genre fiction, the technique has been influential. I think this is just a case of genre readers tending to want the same thing over and over again. Now if I could just get modern literary readers to stop thinking that including plot and maybe a character or two is some kind of sin against Art, maybe I'd get somewhere...

I'm trying to think of an influential work within horror that's told in second-person, and I am drawing a blank.

Personally, I love it -- it completely messes with my perceptions, as does non-linear narration...

Hey, while we are on this topic, I have been kicking this question around with a couple of friends: would you agree that innovation tends to be more accepted in short fiction, and that with less short fiction being published fiction in general gets less innovative? I am definitely feeling that in my own writing... trying to focus on novels means I totally avoid any radical storytelling games.

I personally just find it hard to stay interested in a book-length narrative if it isn't told in some messed-up way.

Yeah, I hate that. I get complaints most frequently over second person narration and present tense, neither of which I consider particularly innovative but hey, maybe I am gauging things by the Borges yardstick (or micrometer). I did once write a story in second-person future tense, which brought a chorus of Scooby Sounds from the peanut gallery... but hey, how else does one tell a story about Ragnarok?

Interesting point, Robert, I and I agree. horror readers can be pretty conservative when it comes to style issues. Maybe some of the innovation of the horror renaissance of the '90s was actually about simplifying storytelling.

I read many books that have inconsistencies and sloppy plot arcs. Almost none of them feature non-linear narration. It doesn't take a stylistic innovation or experiment to write a crappy book; it also doesn't mean a book with non-linear storytelling is going to be any more likely to be sloppy. I believe that in considering stuff like that it's important to remember that what makes a great book first and foremost is what engages the writer enough that the finished product will engage the reader. There are many other elements in play -- plenty of writers have written books I'm sure they just looooooved that I despised -- but the first ingredient, and one that can rarely be faked, is the author being grabbed by the work. If stylistic innovations make the story more interesting or compelling to the writer, then it is a good bet that she or he can make it function effectively, given sufficient talent and work. And in that case, the work may also end up being something more innovative than would otherwise be the case.

That said, as someone who is fond of writing in second person, present tense, and engaging in other unusual stylistic variations, I can tell you that lots of readers get way alienated by anything out of the ordinary. Editors are a mixed bag -- they can be more audacious and willing to give an unusual stylistic format a chance, but can also be completely freaked out by anything not completely predictable.

Personally, I'm fond of using every messed-up stylistic trick possible to make a book interesting, but then... I've also seen works where it didn't come together. When non-linear narration works in horror, it works really really well in my opinion. Repeated reads-through will definitely help you hone it!

I spent a lot of time in my life not doing any work at all because somebody told me the work I wanted to do wasn't something people would want to read. People who will rail vocally against the idea of "thou shalt nots" in art are often the same people who will look at you blankly the moment a work takes any effort to get through because of innovation. I confess to being guilty of that myself -- because I like challenging works when they go right, I can be impatient with them when they go wrong; mea culpa.

I believe it's better to do the work as it grabs you to do it (even early in your career -- *especially* early in your career) and then beat it into submission after the fact. Once the work is written you have a starting point. I've also rewritten stylistically challenging stories to be more traditional, and in at least a few cases it worked great -- retained the excitement I had when experimenting, but was easier for people to "get."