|
Post by jkdunham on Jul 12, 2008 15:43:52 GMT
Thought I should start a new thread for this discussion rather than risk taking Sean's excellent 'SF Anthologies' thread off topic; Broadly speaking the topic here, for anyone who might have missed it, is why 'genre' books (we were talking particularly about Science Fiction/Fantasy but I suppose it could apply pretty much right across the board) don't seem to be as interesting as they used to be somehow. i don't see that now (though i wonder if it's getting older - like with music where the kids love bands cos it's new to them, and i just think 'that's very 1978' as i remember it first time around... ...yet if this is the case with sf, and its rigidity has killed my interest, how come i've read four sexton blakes this past fortnight, when they're all basically the same... ...most people do want escapism, and why not? All good points. I think the reason I don't have a great deal of interest in most of what winds up on the shelves today is a combination of some of the things you mention. I've got nothing against a bit of escapism up to a point (although I do believe that sometimes you need to tackle the world head on and no amount of f**k**g about with a lightsabre is going to change that) and I love a good dollop of trash as much as anyone else here, but I do prefer my escapist trash to be well-written, contain at least the odd half-decent idea, and display a certain intelligence and facility for original thought on the part of the author. You (Pulps) were saying on another thread about the difference between reading a Jack Trevor Story, or a John Burke, and something by some of the other SBL writers. Also Noah mentioned something similar when he posted on what you might expect from a western by Terry Harknett or Laurence James, and what Sean Hutson can muster up when he has a go. It's all good stuff as far as it goes but, you know, some animals are more equal than others as dear old George had it. I also think that, when it comes to writing derivatively, the further on in time you get from your source material, the less interesting something will be unless you can start to add something of your own and broaden the scope a little. For example, I'll generally enjoy any of those 'When Animals Go Postal' books which appeared in droves around the late 70s and early 80s. Very few of them really compare with The Rats or Guy N. Smith at his best but they'll still make for a fun read. Would I want to read one somebody had just written? Not really, no. They were of their time, fun for a while but, well, all good things and that. Another recent thread mentioned Laurence James' advice to a certain young writer about mixing your genres. It's something he often did himself to considerable effect. His books are often a great example to any aspiring scribbler; a good helping of action, a little bit of history, a spot of social commentary (but nothing too overbearing) and always something of himself. And this is the man who dubbed himself 'Superhack'. The point being that you can hack it out relentlessly but still keep things interesting for yourself and the reader. But how many jobbing writers today do that? Anyway, as far as I'm concerned there's really only so much you can say about spaceships and androids and cyberspace, hyperspace or any other kind of space (and, yes, the same does also go for vampires, zombies, werewolves in my book i.e. the one I'll never write). Without original thought, eventually it gets to a point where you're just meeting word requirements. The result may be worth a read in your lunch hour or it may not be worth the paper it's printed on. Each to their own, I'll take a healthy mix of original vintage pulp, spirited attempts to jump on the bandwagon, and commercially suicidal experimentation. That'll do me nicely.
|
|
|
Post by Craig Herbertson on Jul 13, 2008 0:22:49 GMT
Could be we don't recognize the genres. Previous genres; the western, sf, horror formed part of the margins of social thought. Some genres revitalize themselves periodically, others might fade and die to be replaced by things we no longer recognise just as cultural forms adapt evolve change and some times simply disappear...
sorry, its late, I'm tired and this is probably a species of bullshit better reserved for my dreams
|
|
|
Post by killercrab on Jul 13, 2008 0:48:29 GMT
For example, I'll generally enjoy any of those 'When Animals Go Postal' books which appeared in droves around the late 70s and early 80s. Very few of them really compare with The Rats or Guy N. Smith at his best but they'll still make for a fun read. Would I want to read one somebody had just written? Not really, no. They were of their time, fun for a while but, well, all good things and that. >>
Are there many books like this written these days to even compare with the vintage I wonder? I see alot of quick buck American movies that plow the crazy critters field still - this seems to be the new venue if you like for the fare. I was dawdling in my local secondhand emporium the 'tuther day and overheard a conversation in another aisle which went something like this:
" Have heard about them white slugs?" " No .." " They've got teeth!!" " Ugh that's disgusting" " Yeah slugs usually eat vegetables , but these eat worms"
" Ughhh that's disgusting ...."
So who says the market is plowed out - just dormant I say. I nearly piped up - anyone want a copy of Shaun Hutson's Slugs - there's one here for 99p?!
You couldn't make this shit up...
ade
|
|
|
Post by jkdunham on Jul 13, 2008 12:30:49 GMT
You couldn't make this shit up... I think you've hit the slug squarely on the head there, Ade. Nobody seems able to make this shit up anymore... more's the pity.
|
|
|
Post by dem bones on Aug 29, 2008 21:15:07 GMT
Perhaps they can and do but no mainstream publisher will touch 'em. Then again, outside of bookstores, high street or specialist, where do you see non-chart paperbacks these days?
Even into the late-'nineties, there were horror paperbacks on sale in many of the newsagents local to me and I'd buy new titles by Chris Fowler, RC, Bloch, even the later Fontana Ghost books which seemed to hang around for ages after the series ended. The bargain bins had plenty of US horror from the likes of Leisure (89p a time, if I remember) and I'd pick up all these "a new experience in horror!" trash outs with titles like Scream Play, South Paw, The Bargain and Vessel purely on the strength of whichever covers most tickled my fancy. None of these places stock books anymore. I doubt i'm any less inclined to experiment these days, but it's reached a point where it's become a prohibitively expensive luxury to do so.
Not to knock the small presses, but PS and Ash Tree's admittedly gorgeous hardcovers are not cheap to begin with, limited editions (meaning that, after a year, when the run has sold out, unscrupulous dealers can charge whatever they like for the copies they snapped up and held back) and often only available online. Who can blame us for spending a few quid on that tried and trusted dog-eared GNS paperback from the car boot sale rather than fork out £30 on a new author's debut you think you might enjoy?
If some reckless soul were to attempt what Wordsworth are doing with the Victorian-Edwardian stuff, launch a bunch of similar budget (£2.50-£2.99) paperbacks featuring contemporary authors, I think we'd soon have horror/ sf/ fantasy pulp up and running again. As it is, the vast majority of modern paperbacks don't even look right. Too bulky to fit into a duffle bag let alone your pocket, "tasteful" cover designs that look like someone's wallpaper being sick, etc. It's as though they strive for blandness; "nice" looking books, contrived for the sole purpose of not making your visitor's think you're weird.
Anyway. Don't get me started.
|
|
|
Post by Johnlprobert on Aug 29, 2008 22:08:21 GMT
Now there's a challenge.
I agree that most modern books (particularly horror) look wrong. A few years ago the Gollancz series of SF Masterworks inspired me to start reading SF for the first time. Part of that was that the covers of the first few were what I thought decent SF should be about (these were The Forever War, I Am Legend with some decent vampires, Cities in Flight with a massive fuck off spaceship and Do Androids Dream...with - er- an android on it). Horror book covers by comparison are bloody dreadful and seem to have been created by people who don't understand horror for people who don't like it anyway.
Some of my earliest scary memories are of Pan & Fontana covers in Woolworths. This just doesn't happen now. What horror (and we) need are covers that scream THIS BOOK IS SCARY! IT IS NOT A "MILDLY ENTERTAINING HANNIBAL LECTER KNOCK OFF" TO READ ON THE BEACH! THIS IS THE REAL THING! IT'S GOT BLOOD AND SEX AND A RIDICULOUSLY IMPROBABLE REASON FOR AT LEAST ONE OF THESE THINGS POPPING UP ON EVERY PAGE! AND IF YOU'RE TOO FUCKING WET TO COPE WITH THAT THEN THE DAN BROWN BOOKS ARE OVER THERE!
|
|
|
Post by dem bones on Aug 29, 2008 22:40:09 GMT
You are so, so right, yer worship! I can't really comment on Dan Brown's literary prowess but I do get a "designer books" vibe off of many of the best sellers. Just the right size to look frightfully impressive on ones coffee table and give the impression that one is a deep and intelligent individual when really one is too busy to find time to read and would much prefer waiting for the blockbuster movie in any case.
Actually, i've decided that when the Arts Council realise what a national treasure Vault is and throw a nice juicy grant this way, once i've squandered the bulk on an almighty session, i'm gonna compile a list of improbably sleazy titles, commission a certifiably deranged artist to come up with some real lurid paintings, then rope in a pulphack of my acquaintance to whack off a novel around each of 'em: the Supernatural Stories approach, in other words, but with lashings of kinky sex and violence!
|
|
|
Post by benedictjjones on Aug 29, 2008 23:02:09 GMT
for me it's about the fact that the 'mainstream publishers' (read big 'uns) have subverted the traditional markets.
-horror now means a vampire detective dealing with a zombie killed by a werewolf...with an erotic twist!!!!(as unsettling as my daughter burping at me)
-science fiction seems to be more science than story. my brother in law who is very intelligent and up on science loves em still but i like a bit ofpure story with space ships and blaster pistols (and strabgely large chested venutians)
-fantasy. for me gemmell was the last word for british fantasy. some of my favourite books ever then he repeated himself in half hearted facsimilie for the last 10 years.
well that's my tuppence anyways (blame the strongbow)
|
|
|
Post by Johnlprobert on Aug 30, 2008 9:15:06 GMT
I'll do a couple! Under suitably daft pseudonyms like 'Nick LeStrange' or 'Harley Grondville'. But I'll do the one about the giant mutant hamsters that the hero traps on the London eye at the end so that they scamper around, trapped forever while at the same time providing the UK with a wondrous new energy source under my own name. Because that's too good an idea not to take credit for.
|
|
|
Post by eddempster on Aug 30, 2008 9:35:36 GMT
I like stories that explore original concepts - things that tickle your brain - the 'what if?' element.
Thing is, that's getting evermore difficult for writers to do, because we're all so worldly wise these days. A lot of the concepts and technologies that used to wow readers and audiences forty years ago are either old hat by now, or have made the leap from sci-fi to reality.
Mainstream publishers seem to run something like the old studio system, where they'd get themselves a star actor that they'd put in a series of formulaic releases and then flog them until people were sick of it. At which point they'd try and drum up another dog and pony show.
I don't think there's anything scientific about it. I think they probably try things out with audiences, ask them if they liked it, and then try to emulate the things they appeared to like. A lot like fishing, really.
If you're looking for good and potentially popular fiction, I think you stand a better chance of finding it with the small presses - with those editors who love the genre they work in.
|
|
|
Post by Calenture on Aug 30, 2008 9:40:02 GMT
If some reckless soul were to attempt what Wordsworth are doing with the Victorian-Edwardian stuff, launch a bunch of similar budget (£2.50-£2.99) paperbacks featuring contemporary authors, I think we'd soon have horror/ sf/ fantasy pulp up and running again. As it is, the vast majority of modern paperbacks don't even look right. I wonder if it might really be this simple - once books used to be spontaneous "impulse buys". I still have paperbacks in good shape which originally sold for 2/6d pre-decimal. I think that's 12.05 new pence. I first noticed prices being jacked-up when Watership Down was switched from Puffin (1974, 40p) to Penguin imprint, and the price doubled. Surprisingly, the NEL paperback prices remained pretty steady from Salem's Lot in 1976 at £1.25 through The Shining the following year at the same price, until Futura's Firestarter in 1981 at £1.95. Then within another few years, books were more "considered" buys at £3, or £5 for the large format stuff. I think you're right. Wordsworth definitely have the right idea. I would certainly have them publish a collection of my stories if they wanted to. Unfortunately I doubt if anyone outside the Vault knows I exist! Obviously I agree about the covers today. Looking at books in Morrisons is a study in banality. People used to say the Seventies was the age that good taste forgot. Possibly, but it sure as hell wasn't bloody tedious!
|
|
|
Post by benedictjjones on Aug 30, 2008 10:50:30 GMT
^give em a try rog, you never knw =O)
|
|
|
Post by redbrain on Aug 30, 2008 15:51:28 GMT
I wonder if it might really be this simple - once books used to be spontaneous "impulse buys". I still have paperbacks in good shape which originally sold for 2/6d pre-decimal. I think that's 12.05 new pence. When I was first buying horror paperbacks some of them did cost me (new) 2/6d. That included my original copies of Third Ghost Book, Frankenstein, and Ray Bradbury's The October Country. The Pan books of horror stories were more expensive -- 3/6d each, but (in fairness) they were fatter books. While it is true that 2/6d = 12.5p, you need to bear in mind that it had a lot more purchasing power than 12.5p in 2008. When you could buy 2/6d paperbacks, alternative ways to spend 2/6d included: 1.5 pints of mild in a pub. A fish and chip lunch (fish, chips, tea and bread and butter to eat sitting down in a chip shop cafe). 7.5 cups of tea in a cafe. 5 cups of coffee in a cafe.
|
|
|
Post by weirdmonger on Aug 30, 2008 17:16:20 GMT
While it is true that 2/6d = 12.5p, you need to bear in mind that it had a lot more purchasing power than 12.5p in 2008. When you could buy 2/6d paperbacks, alternative ways to spend 2/6d included: 1.5 pints of mild in a pub. A fish and chip lunch (fish, chips, tea and bread and butter to eat sitting down in a chip shop cafe). 7.5 cups of tea in a cafe. 5 cups of coffee in a cafe. I now know why you were making all those notes in that Morecambe pub all those years ago!
|
|
|
Post by redbrain on Aug 30, 2008 22:59:49 GMT
While it is true that 2/6d = 12.5p, you need to bear in mind that it had a lot more purchasing power than 12.5p in 2008. When you could buy 2/6d paperbacks, alternative ways to spend 2/6d included: 1.5 pints of mild in a pub. A fish and chip lunch (fish, chips, tea and bread and butter to eat sitting down in a chip shop cafe). 7.5 cups of tea in a cafe. 5 cups of coffee in a cafe. I now know why you were making all those notes in that Morecambe pub all those years ago! Farsighted of me, wasn't it?
|
|