|
Post by dem bones on Sept 17, 2008 8:13:51 GMT
.... And if anybody posts "I put my tick in the worst decade but really I meant to put it in best", I'll scream!
|
|
|
Post by corpsecandle on Oct 6, 2008 16:43:06 GMT
00's for me.
This is mainly down to Anne Rice books and an obssesion with Zombies which is now becoming a tierd old game. The 2000's have also seen a further shrinkage in the amount of horror that's on the shelves there really is little choice in main high street outlets today.
I think the written horror genre is at it's lowest ebb in terms of the mainstream,over this decade I have seen places like Waterstones,W.H.Smith completely delete their horror section and even forbidden planet once a bastion of horror books now only dedicate two or three shelves to horror.
The one bright spot is the small press in this country which is not only healthy but slick in presentation and hordes a great deal of talent.
|
|
|
Post by dem bones on Oct 6, 2008 17:25:01 GMT
Three years ago, i'd have agreed with you mr. candle, but i've slowly come around to the noughties, and have actually bought more new books in the past few years than i have since the late 'eighties. I've particularly enjoyed recent/ish books by Christopher Fowler, John Probert, Michael Marshall Smith, Neil Davies, Shaun Jeffrey, Charles Black's Black Book's Of Horror, the late Peter Haining's Mammoth Book Of Haunted Houses, Stephen Jones' Summer Chills, etc, etc. We'll soon have a GNS revival upon us by the looks of things, there's been some wonderful new fiction in Filthy Creations, and Wordsworth's 'Mystery & The Supernatural' series - rare and out of print titles at a few quid a throw - is cause for celebration alone. The fact that much of the above is independently published doesn't matter - it's just good that it's being published at all. There's still plenty of stuff around that doesn't do it for me, but am learning how to avoid it!
I lazily voted for the 'nineties, but i'm sure if i looked hard enough, i'd find plenty of stuff to commend about that, too.
|
|
|
Post by funkdooby on Oct 6, 2008 18:35:18 GMT
The noughties, definitely. It's been utterly dire over the past seven or eight years
|
|
|
Post by corpsecandle on Oct 6, 2008 19:26:25 GMT
Three years ago, i'd have agreed with you mr. candle, but i've slowly come around to the noughties, and have actually bought more new books in the past few years than i have since the late 'eighties. I've particularly enjoyed recent/ish books by Christopher Fowler, John Probert, Michael Marshall Smith, Neil Davies, Shaun Jeffrey, Charles Black's Black Book's Of Horror, the late Peter Haining's Mammoth Book Of Haunted Houses, Stephen Jones' Summer Chills, etc, etc. We'll soon have a GNS revival upon us by the looks of things, there's been some wonderful new fiction in Filthy Creations and Wordsworth's 'Mystery & The Supernatural' series - rare and out of print titles at a few quid a throw - is cause for celebration alone. The fact that much of the above is independently published doesn't matter - it's just good that it's being published at all. There's still plenty of stuff around that doesn't do it for me, but i'm learning how to avoid it! I lazily voted for the 'nineties, but i'm sure if i looked hard enough, i'd find plenty of stuff to commend about that, too. The thing is I think the indie horror scene has always been strong the net is a massive boon to the small presses but in the 70/80's there was a healthy fan-zine press,there still is now but it's mostly given way to internet printed magazines (not that the difference is huge). My main grip with this current decade is that only "Blockbuster" type novels get shelf space and there is precious little room for the new writer...and I mean about half a shelf even in some of the U.K's biggest book shops. However I think like the comic industry in this country the small press will show the way back to better days. I actuley think this session of recess is a good thing because it let's fresh writers learn thier craft and become even better when they get exposer.
|
|
|
Post by severance on Feb 27, 2009 16:56:15 GMT
Was intending having a rant at the so-called horror section in my local Waterstones this morning, but discovered this thread instead so the last decade gets my vote. It's tended to be almost exclusively King, Koontz, Laymon and Rice in there in recent years - but now even these are being squeezed out in favour of this Stephanie Meyer type paranormal romance drivel - wall-to-wall Laurell Hamilton, Karen Chance, Charlaine Harris, Carrie Vaughan, Patricia Briggs, Christine Feehan etc.... I felt like asking the assistants why they had no horror in their horror section! - god it was depressing. Still, I picked up a copy of Keeping the British End Up for £3-50 so it wasn't a dead loss.
|
|
|
Post by David A. Riley on Feb 27, 2009 16:59:24 GMT
now even these are being squeezed out in favour of this Stephanie Meyer type paranormal romance drivel - wall-to-wall Laurell Hamilton, Karen Chance, Charlaine Harris, Carrie Vaughan, Patricia Briggs, Christine Feehan etc....
I know what you mean. I had the very same feeling when I last went to our local Borders. They had put all these books in one big section at the very beginning of the shelves, pushing any true horror books to the end - almost like an afterthought.
David
|
|
|
Post by dem bones on Feb 27, 2009 17:19:48 GMT
Which brings us back to what was said on the Wordsworth thread just yesterday. Audience. Robinson's have pushed Mammoth Books of Vampire, Paranormal and - the name escapes me: Edwardian Mystery? - Romance books in recent months, and why? It sells well. From their catalogue: "Paranormal romance is currently the fastest growing new fiction genre - vampire romance is its most popular form." I'm not sure if it's a blip, but the only straight horror i noticed in their current catalogue is Best New Horror #19. Usually you could rely on at least a few Stephen Jones titles of the Mammoth Book Of Monsters - New Terrors variety and maybe a Peter Haining to go along with the annual BNH, but not this time.
|
|
|
Post by David A. Riley on Feb 27, 2009 17:35:05 GMT
There has been some debate elsewhere that No 20 may well be that last of that series too. Things could be getting even worse. It may not be long before the only source for modern ghost and horror short stories will be via the small press. A sad state of affairs.
David
|
|
|
Post by Johnlprobert on Feb 27, 2009 17:39:18 GMT
I did a JLP rant at a FantasyCon panel a few years ago about how the tiny bookshop back in Abergavenny where I grew up used to have a horror section filled with King, Herbert, Guy N Smith, Pan & Fontana books and lots of sub-Crabs sleaze and now all it had was Laurel Hamilton bollocks. I got black looks from a lot of goth ladies present but I can't help but feel that behind those kohl-lined eyes they were really wondering what I looked like without my velvet jacket on.
But who is actually to blame? Market research has shown that girls aged between 15-24 make up a huge percentage of the reading demographic, especially for horror, so you can't really blame publishers for loading their books with stuff that will appeal to this group. So we get books filled with sulky broody 'hot' guys, pages and pages of angst about kissing, and a little bit of blood to suggest mild peril, instead of giant praying mantises tearing the tits off adulterous 30 year stunnas who have done a prolonged striptease and then had obscene sex for half an chapter before they meet the kind of gruesome death forensic pathologists dread having to empty out of the body bag onto the post mortem bench.
Because that stuff used to be read by a market demographic (ie young lads) that now spends its time drinking WKD and playing XBox/ PlayStation/Wii and fighting.
And I know that's a sweeping generalisation, but horror as a popular genre will always be one of those two extremes depending on who's buying the books, with a tiny bit of shelf space for the MR James reprints. But at least as long as even 'My Hunky Vampire Lover of Darkness' is selling in shops it maintains horror's profile and that can't be a bad thing.
|
|
|
Post by pulphack on Feb 27, 2009 17:59:54 GMT
er, what JLP said... except i've never had kohl-eyed ladies wondering what i looked like without my velvet jacket. well, i haven't got one, for a start... you lucky man, Lord P...
but i reckon you're spot on about the reason horror angles have changed from a publishing point of view. to get a bit academic, is now different from when Stoker's boys were ousted by the likes of Marie Corelli?
and i agree - i might not like the paranormal romance lark, but at least it keeps a horror section when there wouldn't otherwise be one. and who knows, maybe some of the goth girls will try a wordsworth classic on the same shelf with a cool cover and discover another world...
well they might!
|
|
|
Post by Johnlprobert on Feb 27, 2009 18:09:47 GMT
That's not as daft as it sounds though. For me, pulps like Guy N Smith & James Herbert led me to Pan Horror and then to the classier stuff. Popular horror movies led me to seek out Robert Bloch and then Lovecraft, Clark Ashton Smith et al. Surely someone could read Laurel Hamilton and then move onto Poppy Z Brite or Lisa Tuttle and then onto Ramsey Campbell, Aickman et al if they were turned onto it?
And with the internet it's actually a lot easier than it was in 'them days'. The only thing that's a bit sad at the moment is that there's no real way for boys to get into horror, although people I know with sons used to go on about RL Stine's 'Point Horror' series so maybe those are still around in the children's sections of bookshops.
|
|
|
Post by Dr Terror on Feb 27, 2009 19:43:24 GMT
Was intending having a rant at the so-called horror section in my local Waterstones this morning, Sev, you should have!
|
|
|
Post by Dr Terror on Feb 27, 2009 19:47:47 GMT
A lot of the names of previous owners in my old anthologies are female...
|
|
|
Post by carolinec on Feb 27, 2009 20:07:43 GMT
A lot of the names of previous owners in my old anthologies are female... Absolutely, Charles! What's all this? I turn my back for a few hours and we have rampant sexism going on in the Vault?! The generalisation that girls like the paranormal romance stuff and boys like the "real" horror is nonsense, surely? Either that or I'm very gender-confused myself. I always preferred the Pans, etc to any "girly" stuff (mind you, I also played with toy cars and guns .. ). But in answer to this: .. but I can't help but feel that behind those kohl-lined eyes they were really wondering what I looked like without my velvet jacket on. .. how did you know, John?
|
|