Henrik's comments (member since Jul 17, 2008)

Henrik's comments from the Supernatural Fiction Readers group.

Thanks for the plug-in on my behalf, Jim. That is very kind of you. (Btw--the book can also be purchased via Amazon.com.)

Also thank you, Werner.

I apologize for my somewhat e-silence these days, but having a child, and being totally new at this parenting thing, takes up a considerable amount of time.

Ron, what I really enjoy with the Harry Potter series is that the characters evolve. Okay, not from childhood to becoming old, of course, but in a believable manner we see how the characters learn (somewhat) and meet new obstacles--also pertaining becoming teenagers and no longer being "just kids".

The first couple of books are juvenile, yes, but the last ones are much darker and, well, more grown up. (To an extent, of course.)

IUHoosier. Hah! That's essentially a matter of taste, isn't it?:-D For whatever it's worth I will say that even though HP is a favourite of mine, and one I will probably reread with a few years interim, I'd rate LOOTR as a better story. Also more literate, if you will. Tolkien really knows how to weave words intricately (erh, or something); Rowling knows how to weave words too--but not as delicately.

(Isn't it funny, btw, that LOOTR was published as a trilogy purely for publishing reasons, and not for story reasons, and the trilogy has since been the norm more than anything else in the genre; a phenomenon all in itself?)

I join the choir of praise and congratulations:-) It is indeed a fine tale. Thanks for letting me have a look at it a little while ago, Werner. And best of luck selling it via Lulu.

Werner, I didn't think you did, but your note made me curious;-)

Yes, absolutely, as a person HPL advocated strict ethics, while at the same time knowing they had no transcendent basis; that they were "simply" human rules.

He also understood that genuine & effective horror doesn't need to have scores upon scores of blood etc. Absolutely, Werner. HPL was quite an intelligent man and had a lot of interesting things to say about the genre as a whole; things we can learn much from even today.

To bring this post back to the subject of this thread--Christianity--it is interesting to note that HPL's best stories deal with awe as part of the ultimate horror element (of course with a focus on the latter and not the former). Awe is often linked with religion, right? Would you say that it is often an element of the so-called Christian supernatural fiction?

I once read a thesis reading HPL's stories as sort of Christian stories, actually. Quite fascinating...

Werner wrote: "A lot of fiction/drama that goes by the term "horror" presupposes that the universe is meaningless, that evil is destined to triumph, and that virtue exists only to be corrupted or slaughtered..."

While it is true that quite a chunk (ahem) of so-called horror stories do include these three elements, I hope you don't think they walk hand in hand per se, Werner. For instance, to say that the universe is meaningless (as e.g. Lovecraft did) is not to say that "evil is destined to triumph"--since it is, to quote Nietzsche, beyond good & evil. Beyond virtues too.

I agree with you, Jim; I also felt a large chunk of one of the later books was "aimless wandering."

That said, I think Harry Potter is a wonderful Series. In my opinion it improved (aforementioned wading aside) in later books. Rowling simply became a better writer; and I personally appreciated that everything turned darker. It also added to the realism--what with all those dark things going on and turning up volume.

A detail I admire is Rowling's various ways of "recapping" earlier books. This is a typical tactical move--demanded by editors, I am sure--in Series, and too often it ends up being a weird "add-on" early in the story, without any relation to the story we are reading at the moment. Rowling manages to do it in a varied way, seaming it into the volume in a natural flow. Kudos to her.

Hm, I am currently reading Robert Bloch's Strange Eons, a hardcover I recently bought on Abebooks (it's long out of print). It's a nice yarn where Bloch uses his mastery of the psychological pulp-thriller (is that really something you can say?:-P) to create his own Cthulhu Mythos story. Clearly an homage to Lovecraft and the whole Mythos sub-genre. While not technically a supernatural tale, it does have elements, since the story includes people believing or disbelieving magic and, of course, supernatural beings in some guise or other. At present I am reading about a--perculiar--church gathering where "magic is being created.":-D

Yes, welcome, Jennifer. Always good to see another member join our ranks;-)

This is a good group, since--as Werner said more eloquently--there is acceptance of a fairly broad definition of "supernatural". I, for instance, lean more to the dark, horror-inspiring side of the genre, which is not for everyone's taste.

Makes for great discussions:-D

Thanks for your replies, Werner and Jim. As always, I learn something from you:-)

Unfortunately I now am a little short of time, so more elaborate comments from me will have to wait. But Werner--"The White Ape" was titled "Facts Concerning the Late Arthur Jermyn and His Family" by Lovecraft himself. He was furious when it was published under another title; as he said in a letter "If I wrote a story with such a title ['The White Ape':] you can bet there would be no white ape in it!" (Or something along those lines.) His point of course being that the title gives away everything.

It has been published with the correct title ever since... And I thought all publications did so. Reading your comment shows me that's not the case, heh. What publication do you have?

Makes sense, Jim.

However, why do you like the stories you do like? Because they actually hit that "chord" in some way?

I am curious. Very curious:-)

Hi again, everyone...

I started this thread--and, goddarn!, more than 6 months have gone already since then????

I too reads supernatural fiction "just because I enjoy it." It is quite interesting, though, that most (perhaps all?) the stories that have made the greatest impacts on me seem to have something "deeper" going on than simple, pure enjoyment. And whenever I talk with people about the subject that is something that seems the case for them as well.

I don't think that "Why do you read what you read" needs an answer but I admit to enjoying entertaining thoughts about it--thoughts about what could be a more profound reason for reading whatever one reads. In my case that's with a focus on the horror genre--and preferably (but certainly not exclusively) on the genuine dark side of that genre, as examplified by e.g. H. P. Lovecrafts major works and Thomas Ligotti (probably the greatest modern writer of dark weird fiction).

One of the reasons for this could be that much of the worldview presented in their stories holds ideas that strike a chord within me, whether awakening something lying dormant or something I already am aware of. I am not the stout defender of materialism that both HPL and Ligotti are (if in somewhat different ways), but I do think that the universe is metaphysically meaningless and that it is up to us as mortal individuals to create meaning, if nothing else then to at least "get by" while we live.

Does that seem bleak? Sure. But genuine horror literature is just as bleak, right? And to say that one enjoys it "simply because I enjoy it" is close to sounding almost like a contradiction to me. Or like a weird kind of sadomasochism, anyway, hehe;-)

I could rant on a lot more, but I will stop for now, and see what the rest of you think of this, loosely described, idea?

Elizabeth, as I understand Jim's question it is not a matter of interlinking religious belief with paranormal belief as such, but merely a matter of him treating the subjects generally the same way--since they are both non-rational and, hence, beyond argumentation (cf. the Asimov quote).

I think you're right, Elizabeth, that all kinds of people tend to believe in something paranormal. Humans seem to like the idea of "something more" etc., but that, of course, is not the same as it being true;-)

I recently watched I Am Legend starring Smith. I was, to say the least, unimpressed by the CGI, but I was pleasantly surprised to see a Hollywood movie that actually took its time telling the story without constantly throwing in action scenes and love scenes.

As for it being far from Matheson's novel... I try to see a film on its own merits. But of course, if it strays too far from the original then there's no need for the film to claim being an adaption of the novel.

Speaking of adaptions: Have anyone here seen What Dreams May Come starring Robin Williams, and also based on a Matheson novel? I personally find that movie very good--depressing, but good and very aesthetic--but I haven't read the story. Is it fairly representative to the original story?

Jim wrote: "... No sense of humor."

ROFLOL! I'll share that one with my wife!:-) I have a suspicion she will react much in tune with your wife, Jim:-P

Congratulations, Pamela. That is great news!:-)

I read it not long ago and liked it tremendously (if curious, check out my review, which contains a few spoilers, btw).

I will not be reading the story for this "monthly reading", but it's still so vividly in my mind that I hope it's okay that I chime in with a word or two when the discussion starts;-)

I recently read Ghost Story, and as I wrote in my review I find it a superb story. So I throw in a vote for that one too:-)

Thanks, Werner & Jim. Yes, people keep telling me having kids is one hell of a rollercoaster ride... But who doesn't like rollercoaster rides?;-)

I am reading it these days, and I quite like it. I'll post a review when I have finished it.

In any case I don't think I will be much up for a discussion of any books come late December-January. We're having a baby (our first), so I have a distinct feeling that I will be quite caught up with other things for a while;-)

I am playing on memory here, since I haven't read it for this particular sitting, but here's a brief summary of why I like Interview as well as Louis:

It is essentially a story dealing with moral issues, trying to do "the right thing", figuring out what the right thing is and suchlike--as well as with what makes a character human... Even when being a vampire;-)

Since I don't much appreciate the whole concept of "vampires" as such, I need more bait (or, if you will, meat or blood:-P) in a story where vampires play a central role. Interview meets that expectancy on my part quite well; especially since it does deal with the more "soft" elements of what a "humane vampire" life would probably be like. And it does portray Lestat and what he represents (fleshed out--pardon the pun--in later stories), as seen from that perspective. Realistically so, IMO.

I concur with several of Werner's critical points, but still think it's better than what many here have said, in part for these reasons.

Werner, here's my suggestion to an answer to your question:

Although a vampire can be sustained for a (relatively short) period of time, in the long run it doesn't really "do the job" (sating your basic hunger, truly filling up your stomach and giving you the "nutrition" you need as a vampire). Hence, in the long run it is hard to "stay on rats"--even if you're ethically against feeding on human beings;-)

Just a suggestion. It's been a while since I read the story.