Okay, so I’ve had provocation. A discussion at the (often stimulating) Shocklines message board recently drove me crazy. It was one of those foolish “three best books ever” polls. A solid ninety percent of the people who responded listed “The Bible, The Stand and _____.” For that last entry, most of them just filled in whatever “great book” they could remember having to read in high school. “To Kill a Mockingbird.” “A Tale of Two Cities.” Whatever. Ancillary discussion uniformly dismissed numerous brilliant works for being too "difficult" or too "literary."

(What should a book be if not literary? Isn’t that like criticizing a statue for being too sculptural? Don’t get me started.)

A glut of indistinguishable titles has already choked the horror genre once … and is well on its way to killing it again. (Homogeneity is not a virtue unless we’re talking milk.) Why is this so recurrent a menace? Other genres like Science Fiction, Mystery, Fantasy all have advanced in style and sophistication. That’s what sustains a genre’s growth. Why hasn’t Horror experienced similar development? Could it be that the genre’s essential conservatism -- all those plot arcs about destroying the dreaded "other" -- dictates perpetual mediocrity? Maybe reactionary art is just too much of an oxymoron to sustain?

I don’t want to believe this.

Last year, I had the most dismaying experience. I was moderating a panel at a con when a bunch of twenty-somethings in the audience started denouncing writers whose work they didn’t care for. The list included Hemmingway, Faulkner, Steinbeck in short everyone they’d ever heard of who wasn’t a pulp hack. But what I found really disturbing was all the people nodding in agreement. "Hemmingway can’t write at all" struck me as a memorable line. (In his heyday, Papa H may have been the most overestimated writer in the world. How strange that he’s now become one of the most underestimated.) Yet those kids all think of themselves as writers ... writers who read nothing but junk.

Theres an expression: "garbage in/garbage out."

Hello?

Of course, the dumbing-down of pop culture is hardly new. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fight it. (Isn’t fighting the good fight what artists do?) I mean, there’s nothing wrong with liking a kazoo; just don’t decry the symphony for being "too musical."

Anyway -- mostly just to maintain some tenuous grip -- I started putting together a list of books I consider MUST READ works for anyone with a serious interest in creating literature.

I’d love to get some feedback. How does mine compare with yours? Is it longer? Is it …?

Wait.

Let me rephrase that.

How does this list compare to your list? (Oh come on, we all have them. It’s just that most sane people don’t write them down.) What gems have I omitted? Make recommendations. Please. I know I’ve missed things. (But if you come at me with Dan Brown or Tom Clancy, be prepared for violence.)

Obviously, I’ve tried to restrict myself to one title per author, just because the list got too unwieldy otherwise. Some are great thundering epics. Others are elegant little volumes that slip in like a knife blade. Criteria? A lot of people might say that a great book is one that changed the world. If that’s the case, all such lists would need to include works by Harriet Beecher Stowe and Sinclair Lewis (and possibly Radclyffe Hall), but in good conscience I can’t do that here. No, a book needs more than good intentions, more even than an important topic. (I added and deleted INVISIBLE MAN three separate times. No, not the Wells book. Sigh.) A truly great novel -- as far as MY list is concerned -- would be one I am personally enraptured by. Awestruck by. Challenged by. Inspired by.

Forget changing society. For the moment, I’m only interested in books that changed me. All great art is a passionate force for evolution (personal or otherwise).

Anyway, here’s mine ... in a curious order all its own.

Watch it grow.

DHALGREN – Samuel R. Delaney
CALL IT SLEEP – Henry Roth
AS I LAY DYING –William Faulkner
THE GOLEM – Gustav Meyrink
MOBY DICK – Herman Melville
MISS MACINTOSH MY DARLING – Marguerite Young
NADJA – Andre Breton
THE MASTER AND MARGARITA – Mikhail Bulgakov
AGAINST NATURE – J. K. Huysmans
NAKED LUNCH – William Burroughs
NOSTROMO – Joseph Conrad
GO TELL IT ON THE MOUNTAIN – James Baldwin
TROPIC OF CANCER – Henry Miller
ON THE ROAD – Jack Keroac [Truman Capote's famous disdain notwithstanding.:]
TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT – Ernest Hemmingway
ULYSSES – James Joyce
AT SWIM – TWO-BIRDS - Flan O’Brien
AT SWIM, TWO BOYS – Jamie O’Neill
TO THE LIGHTHOUSE – Virginia Woolf
THE GOOD SOLDIER – Ford Maddox Ford
THE GOLDEN BOWL – Henry James
THE MARBLE FAWN – Nathaniel Hawthorn
THE LONGEST JOURNEY – E. M. Forster
DIFFICULT DEATH – Rene Crevel
POINT COUNTER POINT – Aldous Huxley
LOLITA – Vladimir Nabokov
A HANDFUL OF DUST – Evelyn Waugh
RAZORS EDGE – Somerset Maugham
THE MINISTRY OF FEAR – Graham Greene
SONS AND LOVERS – D. H. Lawrence
CONFESSIONS OF A MASK – Yukio Mishima
WUTHERING HEIGHTS – Emily Bronte
DELTA WEDDING – Eudora Welty
THE DOLLMAKER – Harriet Arnow [Okay, I know. People will scratch their heads over this one. But if one test of a great book is that it had a profound effect on the reader at an impressionable age, then this absolutely qualifies. So do THE CATCHER IN THE RYE and THE GRAPES OF WRATH.:]
THE GOLDEN NOTEBOOK – Doris Lessing
MIDNIGHTS CHILDREN – Salman Rushdie
COUSIN BETTE – Honore de Balzac
IN SEARCH OF LOST TIME – Marcel Proust
A SENTIMENTAL EDUCATION – Gustav Flaubert
EXTINCTION – Thomas Bernhard
DEATH SENTENCE – Maurice Blanchot
THE BOOK OF DISQUIET – Fernando Pessoa
THE CASTLE – Franz Kafka
DELIVERANCE – James Dickey
THE MAGUS – John Fowles
CLOSER – Dennis Cooper
GOING NATIVE – Stephen Wright
BLOOD MERIDIAN – Cormac Mccarthy
THE DWARF – Par Lagerkvist
THE OGRE – Michel Tournier

The whole point of this Group of ours is – at least to my mind – that standards of excellence should be the same for Horror. (And a lot of those titles qualify at least on some level as Horror.) Don’t be swayed merely by remembered pleasure. All too often pleasure = entertainment = narcotic reading = the very opposite of what I’m advocating here. Great literature, like great sex, requires some effort. If you’re going to just lie there, then …

I think maybe I’d better abandon that metaphor. Here’s some more titles (more genre specific).

ON WINGS OF SONG – Thomas Disch
WE HAVE ALWAYS LIVED IN THE CASTLE – Shirley Jackson
THE EDGE OF RUNNING WATER – William Sloane
CONJURE WIFE – Fritz Leiber
THE CELL – David Case [A trio of themed novelettes, I know, but must we quibble?:]
THE LITTLE FRIEND – Donna Tartt
DEEP NIGHT – Greg F. Gifune
THE MALTESE FALCON – Dashiel Hammet
THE WORM OUROBORUS – E. R. Eddison
THE WOOD WIFE – Terri Windling
MYTHAGO WOOD – Robert Holdstock

Oh did I mention it was all different genres? Sorry.

Jeez, I’m all out of breath here. The problem with a list like this is ... how do you stop?

PART II

Do I not mention Lawrence Durrell? And it seems weird not to include F. Scott Fitzgerald. Or at least Zelda. How about Henry James and Edith Wharton? Iris Murdock or Muriel Spark? Penelope Fitzgerald or Elizabeth Bowen? (Especially Elizabeth Bowen. But it’s not "body of work" I’m looking at here.) How about Paul Bowles and Don DeLillo? Paul Theroux or Robert Creeley? Malcolm Lowry, Saul Bellow, John OHara, John Dos Passos, John Cheever? What about Pynchon? Irving and Updike? Heller? McMurtry? Flannery O’Connor or Willa Cather? (And can I get into trouble for not really liking Toni Morrison all that much?) What about Marge Piercy? Doesn’t it all nourish the inner writer?

Okay, let me just keep going until smoke starts coming out of my ears.

One last push. Top of my head. Bottom of my soul.

ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF SOLITUDE – Gabriel Garcia Marquez
HOPSCOTCH – Julio Cortazar
THE MAN WITHOUT QUALITIES – Robert Musil
THE AGE OF WONDERS – Aron Appelfeld
DARKNESS AT NOON – Arthur Keostler
THE WAY OF ALL FLESH – Samuel Butler
THE MOVIEGOER – Walker Percy
ANGLE OF REPOSE – Wallace Stegner
LOVING; LIVING; PARTY GOING – Henry Green
A BEND IN THE RIVER – V. A. Naipaul
THE RECOGNITIONS – William Gaddis
ASK THE DUST – John Fante

Okay, that’s it for now. No, wait.

THE RETURN OF JEEVES – P. G. Wodehouse [Because I figure if you’ve read it more than twenty times, it belongs somewhere on your list.:]
LUCKY JIM – Kingsley Amis [See above.:]
SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY COMES – Ray Bradbury [And again. In spades.:]

Okay at least that’s a start.

For now. In the meantime, additions, anyone? Objections?

But if even one person so much as mentions Danielle Steele ...

It might not be a novel, but I'd like to add Howl. Most of the poems in it are not particularly horrific, but Howl itself is full of paranoia and hearkens back to German Expressionism with the lunatics running the asylum and the Lovecraftian cries off "Moloch!" Every kind of chill is present in Howl. I'd also like to add Dante's Commedia. A master of dark imagery in love with language and genuinely curious about the human condition. Don Quixote is still important for writers today, particularly for genre writers. Quixote wanders through the conventions of a genre showing at once why it's noble and why it's ridiculous. A brilliant way to change literature. Every genre writer needs to look at the absurdities as well as the noble, beautiful things about their genre. I hate to mention something that's not a novel again, but I have to heartily recommend the Theater and It's Double by Artaud. The intro can make any writer of scary stories a bit better. Lastly, the Great Gatsby.I defy anyone to find me a better last page not written by Joyce.

Oh, and Winesburg, Ohio by Sherwood Anderson. I like his work much better than I like Hemingway's.

HOWL is a wonderful addition. And I adore WINESBURG, OHIO. Don't think Anderson/Hemingway is an either/or call.

I would add:
The Last Good Kiss - James Crumley
Hunger - Knut Hamsun

and a book each by Tim Powers, Charles Willeford, Fredric Brown and Jim Thompson.

I loved the Crumley book. And Jim Thompson! Oh yeah!

My favorite contempory genre writer is a guy named Greg Gifune. (Well worth checking out if you don't know him.) Every time a critic compares his work to Thompson, I want to cheer. Amazing! Sometimes they actually get it.

I will definitely check him out. I have both the Bleeding Season and Deep Night somewhere at home.

Both are amazing books! (I think I've got reviews for both of them posted here on Good Reads. I forget where the reviews appeared originally.)

Not to brag or anything (much) but Gifune actually did the introduction for my new collection. I'm insufferably pleased with myself about that.

Robert wrote: "Not to brag or anything (much) but Gifune actually did the introduction for my new collection. I'm insufferably pleased with myself about that."


Braggart. ;)


I look forward to checking it out. Whenever I can get my nose out of a textbook.

Well, the trick is to hide the horror book inside the text book ...

How about House of Leaves by Mark Danielewski and China Mieville's elegant Victoria splatterpunk, Pediro Street Station, and The Iron Council?

(Sorry if this shows up twice, the first time I tried to post the darn thing dissapeared on me as I was typing it. I have several theory's on this, but they all involve other worldly origins and I'm sure you would not find them all that interesting)

I will echo the shout on House of Leaves, it was a fascinating read.

I would like to add A Boy's Life by McCammon to the list as well as all of Greg Gifune's novels.

Finally, I would also submit Martyrs & Monsters, a new release by some guy named Robert Dunbar. This one will not only chill your blood and put hair on your spine, it will have you up all night chanting "...there, but for the grace of God...".

(Shameless plug time): There will be a far more articulate review in June's Review Section of Horrorworld.

Last item, maybe its just me, but I am becoming very disappointed in all the bashing of contemporary literature, including horror. What readers enjoy is subjective, and blanket statements about how horrible the new releases are in any genre seems to me to be a bit self serving. What I would rather read about, and enjoy reading, would be recommendations of books by readers. That is one of the things I really enjoy about this site, that there are some great suggestions given out here.

T.

Thanks, Tony -- I'm glad you enjoyed M&M. I'm very proud of that book.

And,yes -- House of Leaves -- bewildering, exasperating, fascinating novel.

First, I want the names of anyone who disrespected Steinbeck. At the very least, tell me what Con it was so I can stake it out and hunt them down.

There are a lot of non genre books I think everyone should read, and especially people who want to be writers. I do think that if you want to be a horror writer regardless of whether you are shooting for the stars or the gutter, you need to read Poe, Shelly, Stoker, and Lovecraft.

I don’t disagree with anything on your list, though there are at least a dozen I haven’t read (yet).

I would like to add some to the list. I understand your desire to focus on works of literary quality. You may not agree all of my suggestions meet that definition, but I feel some mainstream works need to be read because of their impact on popular culture.

Beowulf –
Dead Souls- Nikolai Gogol
Anna Karenina – Leo Tolstoy
Canterbury Tales - Geoffrey Chaucer
Fahrenheit 451 - Ray Bradbury
Catch 22 - Joseph Heller
We – Yevgeny Zamyatin
East of Eden – Steinbeck
Oliver Twist – Charles Dickens
Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde – Robert Louis Stevenson
Don Quixote – Hawthorn Levin

For my review in Horrorworld on Robert Dunbar's new release, please click on the linc below. It's the third review.

http://www.horrorworld.org/reviews.htm

Thank you.


Robert wrote: "Thanks, Tony -- I'm glad you enjoyed M&M. I'm very proud of that book.

And,yes -- House of Leaves -- bewildering, exasperating, fascinating novel."

Though I am hesitant to jump into a conversation full of books I hope to eventually read in my lifetime :), I have a few books that changed me. There are other books, mainly by authors previously mentioned, but I did not want these to go unnoticed.

Crime and Punishment
I Am Legend
The Picture of Dorian Gray and Other Writings
Cat's Cradle

<<
Beowulf –
Dead Souls- Nikolai Gogol
Anna Karenina – Leo Tolstoy
Canterbury Tales - Geoffrey Chaucer
Fahrenheit 451 - Ray Bradbury
Catch 22 - Joseph Heller
We – Yevgeny Zamyatin
East of Eden – Steinbeck
Oliver Twist – Charles Dickens
Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde – Robert Louis Stevenson
Don Quixote – Hawthorn Levin
>>

I love all of these (though I'm not sure Beowulf counts as a book), except for the Zamyatin book, which almost killed me.

<<
Crime and Punishment
I Am Legend
The Picture of Dorian Gray and Other Writings
Cat's Cradle
>>

Now that's an eclectic list! (All wonderful of course.)

T. wrote: "For my review in Horrorworld on Robert Dunbar's new release, please click on the linc below. It's the third review.
http://www.horrorworld.org/reviews.htm
Thank you.
>

And it's a wonderful review, beautifully written. Thank you so much.

See, more classic works are just as hit and miss as modern ones to me. I liked existential plays, and Shakespeare, Hawthorne and Plath. But I hated Joyce with a passion and The picture of Dorian Gray was very, very disappointing to me. Of course, I didn't like the Watchmen graphic novel either.

I guess it all depends on what I want. Sometimes I want to think, and I want to be changed (My favorites for this recently have been Sacred book of the Werewolf by Victor Pelevin and Sharp Teeth by Toby Barlow) and sometimes I want to go on a journey and escape. I want fluff sometimes (and gory fluff too. Speaking of which that's why I really like Wrath James White, because there is this feeling that the gore and violence is just a distraction from the deeper meaning.)

More and more the dark works out there aren't being labeled as horror because horror has come to mean Jason and Jigsaw... I mean vampires and werewolves aren't even horror beasts anymore. It's been cut down to the bone of violence, extremeism and gore.

And I have to point this out. I, for a short time, worked for Dark Recesses. I suggested and pushed for expanding the definition of horror to include some mystery, thrillers, sf, f and especially many of the urban fantasy books that I read that are really dark. With very few exceptions my points were shot down, with a "don't you get your peanut butter in my chocolate" argument. The people in small press horror have exceedingly strict views of what is and isn't horror and often times refuse to read outside that familiar ground. Despite some pretty hard core, and truly beautiful urban fantasy and SF books (and I'm not talking Anita Blake here) being mentioned and discussed all SF was dismissed as preachy space opera and all urban fantasy and dark fantasy were dismissed as vampire porn.

I whole heartedly consider Neil Gaiman a horror writer, but so many people don't, not just because horror has a certain image, but because core audience of horror refuse to admit him into their circle. Chelsea Quinn Yarbro is the same way. She has been a huge presence in horror, but a lot of modern readers never think to mention her. Suzy McKee Charnas, also, wrote a dark, literary-ish novel about a vampire (I didn't care for it, mostly because I didn't like the vampire) but The Vampire Tapestry wasn't horror-embraced, it was adored by the SF community. Having read it, I think it has merit to both genres, but why it's not included in horror confuses me.

That's an interesting post. I don't know if I totally agree with it, but interesting.

I haven't read many of the authors you cite, but I think this "horror snobbery" might stem from the fact that so many horror topics and icons (vampires especially) have been transformed into YA fodder and bodice-rippers. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but just because there's a vampire or werewolf in the story doesn't mean it's horror...to me anyway. I think horror is supposed to elicit a certain emotion from the reader...dread, fear, what have you. A lot of the things that would have elicited these emotions in the past are now seen as corny, trite, or even funny by many people. People are a lot more cynical and hard to impress these days and authors realize this. Thus the proliferation of "hard horror" books out there and the satirizing of traditional horror themes. A lot of people who don't even care for "traditional" horror are reading vampire books these days. I only pick on the vampire because it's the most visible and prolific example.

There's also a lot of cross-genre pollination going on these days which makes it harder to define exactly what IS horror, sci-fi, etc. You've got to draw the line somewhere, don't you?

Rob wrote: "You've got to draw the line somewhere, don't you? "

Of course. There's nothing wrong with that, I just thing that horror is sneaking into more things rather than staying in its own genre, but instead of giving a change to expand and find new corners a lot of people are outright excluding things that have merit.

Why horror fans are so stubborn and refuse to read outside their genre I don't know, but in my experiences the most successful writers (and outwardly, actors, producers, etc) are the ones who are either trying new things themselves or open to seeing what others are trying.

Now that I think of it it's only in the horror and romance communities that I've seen or heard people saying we should buy books, even if we don't like them, even if they aren't very good, to support the community and writers. I don't think I've ever heard people in SF/F/elsewhere say that kind of thing.

"Now that I think of it it's only in the horror and romance communities that I've seen or heard people saying we should buy books, even if we don't like them, even if they aren't very good, to support the community and writers."

I don't know about romance, but in the horror community I've heard something like that. In the cases I've experienced, it's been because people are afraid horror (plain ol' unadulterated horror) will see a big decline like it did in the 90's. The popularity of horror seems to come and go in waves, and when it goes, it's damn near impossible to find a halfway decent new movie or book. Remember when Scream was just about the only game in town? Or when Stephen King was pretty much the only readily-available horror author? Things might be different now because of the Internet, but....

I will agree that horror fans in general can sometimes be a very rigid bunch. I can't explain it, but I do think a fear of total censorship or of a "watering down" trend might account for some of that.

It could be, and honestly horror is what I have the most community experience with. So maybe I just don't see it elsewhere.

I haven't heard anyone pushing for people to purchase books even if they aren't that good just to support small press, but it doesn't surprise me. The thing I have found is that there are more quality anthologies and novels from small press than I have budget that I don't need to buy something questionable.

While each magazine out there may have a tightly defined range of what they will take, there are enough print and ezines to cover the spectrum with the exception of horror/sci fi since Apex stopped (sniff, sniff).

As for small press book publishers, many take multiple genres and I really don't care how a publisher defines my work as long as they agree to publish it.

Is there some horror snobbery out there? Sure, but I think at least some of it stems from the treatment of horror by others. There is a SciFi/Fantasy section in every Barnes and Noble, but horror is buried in literature. Then there is the average person on the street and their reaction when you tell them you write horror. If you said SciFi, you may get and interested smile and some respect as you were automatically linked to Science and what is seen as a legitimate pursuit. Even if they don't read SciFi (and let's face it, most people don't read....anything), they assume a person that writes SciFi is intelligent. Fantasy elicits different stereotypical opinions, but most are not negative.

Tell them you write horror, and the look is almost always the same. You might as well have said "Yeah, I eat baby mice for lunch." THe most often asked question I get is "Why?". Do SciFi writers get the why question that often? I doubt it.

So I understand why horror writers have a bit of a chip and even though I have only been doing this for three years, I am starting to develop one of my own. I am fighting against it, but it is hard when someone dismisses your work with a look of distaste.

It's a complicated issue all right. In any other genre, a call to uphold literary standards would be lauded. In horror -- at least in its current market incarnation -- it's seen as snobbish. Worse: anathema.
In many ways, we deserve our place on the bottom rung. We've earned it.

Generally people don't directly say "You should buy it even if it's not good". What I've seen is a divide between "I think you all (readers) will really like it" and "You should buy it to support the small press/author". I guess, maybe I'm overly suspicious, but it seems like some writers aren't enthusiastic about their own product, they're just trying to sell it.

As a reader I have to ask, why should I buy it if you don't seem to be proud of it, or even like it?

By the way, horror isn't the only genre to get those dirty looks. Romance gets a lot of reactions like this too. A lot of women are told they're too good or too smart to read romance, and a lot of romance readers are assumed to be stupid.

You bring up a good point that I think is worth discussing. I would love to know if this is more common in horror that other genres.

I am just as guilty as anyone in not supporting my own stories, even if I love them. I think many writers are critical of their own writing, but most wouldn't submit them if we didn't feel at the time that they were ready. Yet I know quite a few horror writers that don't sell their own stories.

They want people to read an like them, but they don't want to brag. Some in fact are incapable of saying "Read this, it's really good!". I bust my buns on a quarterly horror magazine and my own writing, and once they are out, I forget about them and look forward to the next issue or next story or next novel.

Not sure what my and other writers hang ups are, but it is hard for me to crow about whatever I put out.

R. Scott wrote: "Some in fact are incapable of saying "Read this, it's realy good!"

Sadly, most have the opposite problem.

Robert wrote: "R. Scott wrote: "Some in fact are incapable of saying "Read this, it's realy good!"

Sadly, most have the opposite problem.

"
I don't know that many people in the industry. The writers I have become friends with are all around my level, which is just about or just recently had our first novel published by a small press publisher. Our attitudes need to change somewhat, because we need to market our own work, but I hope none of us go overboard and become zealots.

I have noticed a disturbing attitude across all professions. The idea that talent is finite. If one person has a great project, then somehow their project may not be so great, as if they were all drawing water from the same bucket. It's the only way I can explain some peoples need to attack other peoples work effort. It's too bad there can't be more open mutual support.

After you've endured the relentless self-marketing a countless "writers" who haven't bothered to learn their craft, you may become a tiny bit less supportive. Ego is easy. Art is hard.

I have gotten Facebook and email messages begging me to "support a new writer who is broke and needs sales" and it irritated me that there was nothing at all in their whiny message about the story being good. And I've also seen, as R. Scott pointed out, authors blaming some mystical talent pool for their lack of sales.

Thank goodness neither are typical, but I still see it too often.

I think the best marketing in the world is writing a good book that you are proud of.

Now that I'm on the other end of the promo boat I find myself zipping lips so that I'm not those authors that relentlessly self-flog. I keep most of my squeeing to my blog, where my audience is there to read about me any way LOL.

It's work to try to get people to care, and yet not bash them over the head with promo. For example, while I have a lot of great buzz on Twitter and Facebook and in other areas on Shocklines no one seems to care, despite some pretty big names blurbing the book. So which one is more trustworthy? I mean, I have to wonder does this mean I need to do more promo or that's the buzz is good?

And furthermore, how do I whip up more excitement without becoming the poster who bumps their own threads and promos their stuff every time someone else mentions their work? (You know those people on Shocklines.)

I also wonder (because I've read some pretty atrocious books so far this year) if the people putting out the truly horrible stuff really think their work is pro level?

my shit rocks.

Michele:
I just (finally) saw the cover for your new book. What fun! Congratulations -- I hope it sells a million copies for you.
~ Rob

LOL A million copies? I can only dream! The buzz has been real good so far, with Kim Paffenroth, Kealan Patrick Burke and Jeff Strand all blurbing it. I only hope that people buy it and are just as pleased.

"my shit rocks."


Haha. That's the best self-promotion I've ever read.

Michele wrote: whole heartedly consider Neil Gaiman a horror writer, but so many people don't, not just because horror has a certain image, but because core audience of horror refuse to admit him into their circle. Chelsea Quinn Yarbro is the same way. She has been a huge presence in horror, but a lot of modern readers never think to mention her. Suzy McKee Charnas, also, wrote a dark, literary-ish novel about a vampire (I didn't care for it, mostly because I didn't like the vampire) but The Vampire Tapestry wasn't horror-embraced, it was adored by the SF community. Having read it, I think it has merit to both genres, but why it's not included in horror confuses me.

Yes! Yarbro has been/is a presence in Horror and is overlooked by many because her vampire is the good guy. She herself calls those works "historical horror" because it's humans being horrific, not the vampire. At the very least, her books are of a literary standard and are politically interesting. And the series is up to 24 books now, longest running vampier series ever (so Tor must like them for their midlist).

And Charnas' vampire is nasty nasty. Did you know that Yarbro and Charnas wrote a short story with both their respective vampires in it?

>>And Charnas' vampire is nasty nasty. Did you know that Yarbro and Charnas wrote a short story with both their respective vampires in it?

Did they? I did enjoy one section of Charnas' vampire book, the section where he actually connects with a human therapist. But the other sections didn't capture me at all.

But I love Saint Germain.

authorsden.com/stevenrage for rocking shit.