Can horror stories be literature?

Obviously, Henry James thought so. So did Jane Austen and Edith Wharton. So did William Faulkner and Elizabeth Bowen. And Charles Dickens. For that matter, so does Joyce Carol Oats. The list goes on and on. Extraordinary writers have flourished in the genre, artists of the caliber of Ray Bradbury and Shirley Jackson, Algernon Blackwood and Oliver Onions.

It doesn't have to be pulp.

It’s only in recent years that the genre has become so debased, relegated to the bottom of the literary barrel along with Romance. The onslaught of semiliterate zombie novels and vampire erotica has all but driven serious literary practitioners right out of the genre. But a few brave souls still labor in the horror mines. And sometimes they unearth … treasures.

I'd love this forum to be a place for us all to appreciate and discuss great books of the past, so many of them sadly neglected, as well as a place for us all to exchange recommendations of contemporary work, the best of it just as often unfairly obscure.

Your thoughts folks?
~ Rob

I agree. Let's see what other people think...

Thanks, Charles. I'm looking forward to it.

I don't think pulp is a bad thing. I think an exploration of the base and the raw is an asset to horror. The problem is predictable pulp, canonical pulp, the kind of pulp that does not realize how outlandish flesheating ghouls were Romero made Night of the Living Dead or how novel the alternative theologies of Lovecraft were. I would like to point out that pulp can be literature too, provided its exploratory and not safe. That's one of the reasons I've felt at home in the Bizarro movement. Bizarro seeks to explore and provoke, just as first generation pulp did and just as cult film does. I'd like to recommend the work of Jordan Krall for those who think pulp/Bizarro/low art can't be as exploratory and interesting as literary horror. Krall's Piecemeal June is as scatological as a Dali painting, as weird as early Clive Barker and on the surface quite base, but it's one of the best stories about love, desire and sexual expectation I've read in some time. It's comedic, eerie and horrific at the same time and it's beautiful. I'm not trying to lecture you or unfairly call you out, I just feel like clarifying the potential of pulp and take note that it is still some very fertile soil if outside the hands of hacks.

I agree as well, Robert.

i think it can absolutely be literature and, further, the only horror fiction worth my time strives to be.

You're right, of course, Garrett. And I don't disagree at all. The pulp of one generation becomes the underground classic of the next. Samuel R. Delany, one of the most amazing writers I've ever come across, started his career with "pulp" science fiction novels. (Those crumbling paperbacks are being studied in grad schools now.) I'm not heralding pretension here. Raw energy, raw talent -- it's often quite rude. Brilliantly so. And so it should be. And it should always be appreciated.

But let's not get bogged down in the terminology. You know the kind of work I'm talking about. A penny dreadful is a penny dreadful, no matter what you want to call it. A lot of the drivel choking the genre is barely literate, let alone literary. And no one thinks it's art, not even the so-called writers who grind it out like sausages.

But I don't want this to be a forum for decrying what's wrong with the genre. I want it to be a platform for sharing our appreciation of good writing within this genre I think we all love.

I think one of the most literary, interesting horror writers out there today is Joe Hill. Blasphemous though it might be to say it, I think his short fiction surpasses his father's. I wasn't too crazy about Heartshaped Box, but Twentieth Century Ghosts should serve as a good example of what horror fiction should and can be, strange, textured, diverse, smart and fun. What I've read of Locke and Key also impressed me, in spite of the story seeming kind of conventional.

i would tend to disagree with 'most literary, interesting' but that may be just a difference in taste.
i do agree that hill's best short work far outclasses his father's best short work.

"Interesting" is a matter of taste. But "literary"? Really?

Look at a story like Pop Art or his Kafka homage, or something as deep and layered as the Cape. It's very Kafkaesque, going back to the foundations of 20th century horror. He combines pulp sensibilities with strong, surreal imagery.

it's not that i don't think he's literary.
it's really just the 'one of the most' i disagree with.
but, really, i don't want to argue the point because i think it would just go way off track if i did.

Ah, okay. I misinterpreted. I thought you had qualms with the adjective instead of my applying a superlative. I must admit that I don't read as much contemporary horror fiction as I should, although that's often for the same reason I don't go to the movies as often as I should and that's because I cannot find all that much that tempts me out of my dollar. I read Cemetery Dance and look over Year's Best, but I know that's just scratching the surface of who's out there right now.

my fault, i should have been more clear.
are you familiar with conrad williams' work?

No. Can't say that I've read of his stuff.

I read Heart Shaped Box and wasn't too thrilled over it. Haven't picked up 20th Century Ghosts because I thought I'd be disappointed with that as well.

Right now I'm in love with Larry Brown's Father and Son. While it's more southern fiction than horror, it certainly could be both. Has anyone read it?

hi all, one of the things i enjoy a lot about stephen king is his scholarly treatises about literary horror fiction. i've always gotten a kick out of his frequent references to classic literature and in the next breath to pulp fiction. here is a man who is the all-time best selling american author who recognizes both the value of classic literature and the fun of pulp horror. my kind of guy...

ha, i hadn't heard of joe hill. guess i've been out of touch for a while. now i discover he is stephen kings son. guess i shouldn't be too surprised although i am. the reviews are pretty good so i will have to check out his stuff.

I don't know Larry Brown or Conrad Williams. Can you(se) tell us some more about them? I'm intrigued.

~michellependergrass wrote: "I read Heart Shaped Box and wasn't too thrilled over it. Haven't picked up 20th Century Ghosts because I thought I'd be disappointed with that as well.

Right now I'm in love with Larry Brown's Fat..."

The stories are vastly better. Not commercial horror at all. I also haven't read any Larry Brown. S.j- By Southern Fiction, do you mean like Faulkner or do you mean like Joe Lansdale?

conrad williams is, simply put, one of the most outstanding writers of literary horror alive.
his 'the unblemished' is one of the most important horror novels since campbell's 'midnight sun.'

Garrett: Forgive me. I couldn't make it through the one Faulkner I picked up and I've also never read Lansdale. I'm afraid I'm not much help, eh?

Conrad Williams sounds like he's worth checking out. Thanks.

Michelle:

I actually missed your name on the post first time I read it. Terribly sorry. The question was addressed to S.J, while the comment on the short stories being superior to the novel was addressed to you.

So is Conrad Williams Southern fiction as well? I thought that question was addressed to me because I said Larry Brown wrote Southern fiction.

Bleh! The Larry Brown question was also for you. I thought I was replying to one post by you and one by someone else, but it was your post that mentioned Larry Brown. Sorry, eyes and brain fry a little from reading MSes over too much.

No worries! I'm a huge Southern fiction addict and thought if there was someone I was missing, I should totally be reading him!

Michele, you don't like Faulkner?! You're shocking me!

I think you just picked up the wrong book. Find a copy of THE BEAR. It's a novella, and perfectly terrifying ... as well as being brilliant. (Also his short story A ROSE FOR EMILY is classic Southern Gothic.)

Yeah, I think I did pick up the wrong one, I'm willing to give it another shot. I started As I Lay Dying and just couldn't get into it. I'll get The Bear. :)

Oh God, that's a wonderful book -- but an easy read it ain't!

I have to admit, it was awhile ago and sometimes I think I might like it more now. Except I'm reading a lot of Richard Russo right now, so I need to get out of that phase first. LOL

http://www.enotes.com/short-story-critic...

I found a link to a very interesting essay about THE BEAR. I had no idea it was part of a larger work. (Not that this is horror, but there are certain components ...)

Hi Everyone,
Hope your all doing great today.
Hummmm, The first name that comes to mind to me when I think of old wonderful horror is:
Edgar Allen Poe
His works were magnificent and alluring.
The Raven, The Sleeper, The Tell- Tale- Heart.
Though most would say he was a poet, I think he was one of the finest horror writers out there in his error. This gentleman was a true genius in any time frame.
Of course to me horror is naturally in the eyes of the beholder. What one might conceive as scary another might think was humorous. A good horror to me must capture my imagination in any time frame. While I must admit I do steer away from the zombies, and some of the vampire novels, I'm sure there are writers out there today who have managed to rewrite the imaginative ways of these stories.
Today I channel to Koontz, His works are never boring and often quite odd. I like odd.
While some would say Kings, The Stand was not horror, to me it was horror of the worst kind because the imagination can really adapt to the story line actually happening.
I hate most of today’s horror movies, always a woman screaming in the corner and waiting for the boogey man. That is sooooooo boring.
An excellent version of today’s up and coming authors of horror is:
Mark Chevalier and his book Mausoleum
you can read the review on my site and also download a copy at Lulu.
This gentleman has a style of his own. If you like horror this book will definitely impress you.
The Shinning, Bates Motel, all those never really impressed me. I took more to Hitchcock The Birds, etc.
I guess I enjoy reality horror more.
I think most of today’s authors problems are finding the time to write. We can not as done many years ago just go into the night and get lost until we have that best selling book. We have families, and Bills, did I say bills, oh yes, I did. The responsibilities of today have grew and the economy does not help so we get, shall I say interrupted when we have that excellent idea pop into out heads at that soooo inappropriate time. lol
I have to write and read most times in the wee hours of the night. Which I must admit I think my best work comes to me when I am tired. I guess I don't take the time to analyze it to death. lol
I believe no matter what you write, vampires, zombies, weird, old, up to date, as far as horror is concerned their is always a reader out there for you.
It's hard for me to separate what is considered a great horror novel because we all have our own unique taste.
As you can see, I am a simple writer, I like to write easy to read, fast paced books for today’s busy readers. And my poor brain can't spell these days, lol so I try to use as few big words as possible. lol
My opinion on this is no matter what you write be true to your self, don't ruin your books by trying to be something you are not. The only way a book impresses the reader is the story line coming from your heart, soul, and imagination, that is your own.
My thought for today is:
Always keep your dreams alive and the spell checker close. lol
Yall have a great day.
I hope I did not go off topic here, but for me, Horror is horror, no matter when it was written. lol
Patricia
http://www.freewebs.com/blessedbeps
Feel free to visit anytime.
Patricia

See, I feel a little out of my element. I do find a lot to enjoy in more classic, or classically styled works. But I love the crude genre works as well. Yeah, there's a lot of trash and half-arsed attempts in horror today. The genre is parasitic and over blown. Everyone wants to be the next big writer and writers are selling only to other writers. The casual reader is being ignored, save by the main stream presses, which is why part of why King, Barker and Keene are on top and have yet to be toppled by up and comers.

I don't read King, because I don't like his rather long winded style. Hearing so many people compare Hill to King has thus far made me avoid his work too.

Michele,
Why would you feel out of your element here. Actually, I do agree with you that King, does over do his descriptions a lot.
As authors though the next best seller is all of our goals, and dreams. We could not strive forward without the desire to write a really great book.
I'm not sure I understand why you said the casual reader is being ignored. You really have my interest there. If you would explain to me why you feel this way, I think it would be a great asset for the knowledge bank as we write for the readers.
That was an amazing remark you made there and has really sent my poor brain into overdrive. lol
The casual reader can really give a lot of input to what makes them a casual reader.
This is very interesting.
Thank you for your input.
Patricia
Always Keep Your Dreams Alive
http://www.freewebs.com/blessedbeps

Michele--you'd probably like Heart Shaped Box. It seems like old King. In fact, that's probably why I don't like it because I'd much rather read new King. I love Lisey's Story and Duma Key (and Bag of Bones, but that was a bit further back.)

I haven't read Barker or Keene either.

Actually, the only people I seem to read IN the genre are King and Gary Braunbeck. I do read a lot of short horror stories, but I don't like many of them.

I feel just a tad out of my element here as well. Number one: I'm a reader, not a writer. Number two: Out of all of the books/authors Robert mentions in the other thread, I think I've read two. I tend to seek out stories I find interesting based more on the plot itself than the writer's reputation as being good or bad. All that being said, I enjoy good writing, but I guess my tastes are somewhere in the middle between pulp and literature. I don't like to read utter crap, but I'm not too concerned with award-winning writing either.

Does anyone else feel that if a book is TOO literary, it stops feeling like horror? I'm not saying that's good, bad, or indifferent per se. Take Dan Simmons' The Terror. Very well-written, it's categorized as horror, but the "horror" aspect is pretty much downplayed for most of the book. The supernatural horror aspect anyway.

By the way Robert- Bravo on The Little Friend mention.

Rob wrote: "I feel just a tad out of my element here as well. Number one: I'm a reader, not a writer. Number two: Out of all of the books/authors Robert mentions in the other thread, I think I've read two. ..."
I feel like the author is overcompensating and doesn't treasure the genre for what it is from time to time. I feel that way about House of Leaves. It feels like somebody using experimental fiction to apologize for horror instead of to advance it. I think people need to stop using words like "literature" and "art film" as these only lead to embattling genres and creating writers and filmmakers who keep their tails between their legs and worry that if people enjoy themselves too much they're not producing great art. This is one thing that hurts the genre and prevents innovations. This is not the time to write works that sweep popular culture and pulp heritage under the rug or to sweep horror under the rug. Art can be entertaining. Entertainment can be art and anybody who thinks otherwise should recognize that the stick up their ass is there so they can be yanked around by snotty critics and insecure, joyless literati. Too many writers fail to notice that the vampire story and the zombie apocalypse mean nothing if they aren't being used to say anything, which is not about being literary or an artiste (the e makes a big difference, people) but about being a decent writer. When we remove these assumptions and we remove shame and fear, we produce better horror and are better people.

Hmmmm. I think I agree with that. There's a movie group here on Goodreads that could sure use more people with this outlook. I attempted to get that point across many times, but could never come up with the right way to say it.

Hi Garrett,
You wrote:
Entertainment can be art and anybody who thinks otherwise should recognize that the stick up their ass is there so they can be yanked around by snotty critics and insecure, joyless literati.
LOL, You my friend are too much. LOL I needed that laugh. Now you got me wishing I had bought stock in
Preperation H. LOL
Have a good night
Patricia

There's nothing wrong with pop writing. Some of it is excellent. That's not the problem. It's this knee-jerk hatred of actual art that's killing the genre. (If you haven't read anything besides Stephen King, then you haven't read anything.) No matter how it's disguised (usually as anti-intellectualism) it's still fascism. There's a control factor, powerfully at work.

So Horror isn't allowed to be GOOD? It MUST be populist hokum?

No, I just don't think so.

(Rob, you're a Donna Tartt fan? I think she's a genius.)

>>Michele, Why would you feel out of your element here.

To begin with I don't think I've read any of the books on Robert's list. Not that I don't want to, just that I haven't. That said:

>>So Horror isn't allowed to be GOOD? It MUST be populist hokum?

No way! It doesn't have to stay in the gutter punk underground to be horror. Perhaps punk is the right analogy, because much like the music, there seems to be this demand in horror that you write for the die hard fan boys and writing anything more is "selling out".

Admittedly I think the horror genre feels the disrespect of other "artists" more keenly than SF/F (maybe even more than romance) so this might be a reactionary attitude. But as my husband says, ALL books are technically literary.

>I'm not sure I understand why you said the casual reader is being ignored.

The casual reader picks up scary stories from a bookstore and that's it. They don't hang out on Shocklines or snap up small press limiteds. They don't know these things exist. There are people who just want to read horror, which is why King and Straub and Barker etc are successes. Others, like Kealan Patrick Burke for example, write just as well, but their books are only reaching the center of die hards (many of whom are writers as well) and aren't getting out to the casual reader.

In fact, if you ever get on horror sites like Shocklines you'll see that everyone appears to be a writer or aspiring writer, and over the last year or so it seems like more and more people who have been struggling decided to open their own magazine or press. This happened in the romance book world too, and that genre is now known for a huge slew of failed business that after the fact turned out to have been publishing the owners under a lot of pen names. Some of those presses had up to 20 pen names that were just the owners publishing their own work. I don't think this will happen like it did in romance, but there is the sense that fans turn to aspiring writers and then when they can't break in they turn into editors and publishers and their contributions to the genre are typically (but not always) limited to the books like those they are capable of writing. Often steeped in the pulpiest forms of the genre because the writers either don't know how or aren't comfortable writing outside that. Or they simply aren't interested in horror being more than zombies and slashers.

Robert wrote: "There's nothing wrong with pop writing. Some of it is excellent. That's not the problem. It's this knee-jerk hatred of actual art that's killing the genre. (If you haven't read anything besides Ste..."

I definitely agree with you regarding antiintellectualism. I'm not saying that horror isn't allowed to be GOOD, merely that, as you have said about the trash end of things, a lot of horror writers at the other end of the spectrum are losing their way as well. Horror is meant to be intellectual and organic, visceral and soulful at the same time. I think the genre has suffered so much persecution and been ghettoized so much that overcompensation is happening both ways, writing sterile, dull literary horror that does not reflect life and writing sterile, dull trash horror that says nothing. Writers at both ends of the spectrum are too afraid of their imaginations. There needs to be a meeting point, which comes from understanding that NOBODY should be making trash regardless of what story they're trying to tell and that writers should not be so afraid of people's reaction to the "horror" they're writing that the horror is taken out. For example, thanks to Let the Right One In, we have a smart vampire story again, which hasn't occurred more or less since Salem's Lot. We could have smart zombie stories again if they weren't resigned to the ghetto of trash horror. The smart slasher is definitely not impossible, but goodness, me, all that blood...anti-intellectual, anti-mystical,anti-human, anti-fun, anti-terror, anti-sex, anti-courage, anti-art. A lot of ailments. To rescue horror we as writers need to sit down and think what we love about the genre and if we have to sacrifice any of it, look into our hearts and know we're doing the wrong thing for ourselves and our readers. A book can be funny, irreverent, terrifying, weird, human, scary and deep at the same time. It is not beyond us. It was not beyond Burroughs in Naked Lunch, it was not beyond Romero making Night of the Living Dead or beyond Poe, Lovecraft, Bloch, Chambers or Robert E. Howard. I'm not saying horror can't be good, I'm saying it can be everything and should be and neither end should be compromising or afraid of what people will think.

Wow. I like the way you think, Garrett. I LOVED Let the Right One In. Possibly the best horror novel I've read in years. And it IS a smart book. The writing style might not blow anyone away and there's not much "reader interpretation" needed, but the story is touching, disturbing, sad, frightful, and, at times, quite gross. I FELT this book with my heart, while admiring the story and it's themes with my mind at the same time. Wonderful.

Got a little off track there, but I echo Garrett's sentiment. Not to get too political, but the last eight years have seemed to be a kind of Golden Age for anti-intellectualism. Maybe things will change a bit now.

I'd consider T.E.D. Klein to be another "smart" horror writer. His novella collection 'Dark Gods' is very well-written, yet still packs a visceral horror punch. In fact, it's some of the creepiest stuff I've ever read.

Garrett: A smart slasher film, huh? Have you ever seen Inside?

Rob wrote: "Wow. I like the way you think, Garrett. I LOVED Let the Right One In. Possibly the best horror novel I've read in years. And it IS a smart book. The writing style might not blow anyone away an..."

No, I didn't catch Inside, but I've seen my share of inspired slasher movies.

"No, I didn't catch Inside, but I've seen my share of inspired slasher movies."

Ah. I guess I didn't catch the sarcasm in your original statement.

Robert: Tartt is wonderful. I think I liked The Secret History even better than The Little Friend, but both are great. I wonder if she's stopped writing? That would be a shame if so.

<<Not to get too political, but the last eight years have seemed to be a kind of Golden Age for anti-intellectualism. Maybe things will change a bit now.>>

Rob, you've put your finger on something there all right -- a trickle-down effect that's been blighting every aspect of our culture. Maybe the reactionary attitudes will ease up a bit now, but this won't happen automatically. The lunatics have been running the asylum for far too long: They won't give up without a fight.

Garrett, I love your passionate intelligence and enthusiasm for the genre. But "dull, literary horror" is responsible for the contempt the literary community at large feels toward horror?

On this planet?

The genre (and this includes entrenched hacks, publishers and -- to some extent -- fans as well) has earned its current lack of respect through a relentless veneration of trash. Go to any book store. If you can even find a Horror section, it won't be stocked with "dull, literary" work. It will be glutted with indistinguishable by-the-numbers tripe.

<<everyone appears to be a writer or aspiring writer, and over the last year or so it seems like more and more people who have been struggling decided to open their own magazine or press.>>

An extremely perceptive analysis, Michele. If you ever decide to run for president of HWA, you're totally got my vote.

Robert wrote: ">

Rob, you've put your finger on something there all right -- a trickle-down effect that's been blighting every aspect of our culture. Maybe the reactionary attitudes will ease up a bit now, but..."
I did not completely blame dull, literary horror. It might not be the majority, but it's out there. It is merely engaged in a tug-of-war with uninspired trash that won't do anybody any good. I'm stating that the two must meet somewhere. There needs to be more work that combines showmanship with intellect. The two don't need to be mutually exclusive as some authors seem to believe. Conservativism can hurt a genre. Look at all the uptight, unreadable hard sci-fi that's out there. Fluidity is key, but compromise is the enemy. I mean no ill will toward literary horror but narrowmindedness and horror that holds back and tries harder to be dry, realist lit fic than horror can hurt us. If horror turns into "Mailer with possible ghost" nobody wins either.
I definitely agree with Michele that too many people start presses because they can't sell work instead of because they have a distinct vision. Starting a press should be done with a thesis not out of egotism. Strong small press work should also be embraced for originality instead of declared the work of a vanity press or somebody who isn't a real author. The fact is that a well-run small press will have higher, more distinct standards than a larger press that can afford to publish more material. Eraserhead Press is a good example of this. Anybody who says that it's too easy to get a manuscript past Rose O' Keefe and Carlton Mellick is sorely mistaken. James Chapman's Fugue State Press is another great example. Until the bigger presses expand their minds and stop focusing their energy on zombies and other brand X horror, the need for multiple small presses will not disappear but unfortunately neither will self-published chaff.

Garrett wrote: "I don't think pulp is a bad thing. I think an exploration of the base and the raw is an asset to horror. The problem is predictable pulp, canonical pulp, the kind of pulp that does not realize how ..."

I agree 'Piecemeal June', bu also like Garrett Cook's "Murderland" and there are many fine horror-nodding gruesome lovelies in the Bizarro genre, I'm just getting into. Those writers pull no punches!

Rob:
There's ten years between Donna Tartt's first book and her second. If she sticks to that schedule, the next will be out in 2012. I'd pre-order now if I could.
R