Pulp Horror: All Review's Special

[dem bones]

Available now (arrived 25 minutes ago):

Justin Marriott [ed] - Pulp Horror: All Review's Special (Paperback Fanatic, Jan. 2020)

Front cover painting Josh Kirby

Blurb:
130 reviews of vintage horror paperbacks, comics and pulps. 115 pages black-and-white, fully illustrated with many covers. Movie tie-ins, natures-run-amok, occult detectives, possessed teenagers, punk rock werewolves, Cthulhu mythos and much more.

Reviewers: Ben Boulden, James Doig, Andreas Decker, Kev Demant, Jeff Popple, Jim O'Brien, Penny Tesarek, Tom Tesarek, Simon Ruleman, Justin Marriott.

Am*z*n. uk

Am*z*n

[dem bones]

Of last year's several House of Fanatic publications, it's the Men of Violence: All Review Special I consult most often, so am delighted that Justin has now compiled a Pulp horror equivalent. You know you've come to the right place when an initial flick through turns up an appraisal of Dean Owen's scandalously sexed up Reptilicus novelization, which our friend James Doig sagely advises is "Not one for lit-twits but has everything for fans of horror."

It is perhaps for the best that there is no attempt at defining 'pulp horror' - it's taken for granted those interested know it when they see it - which leaves the door open to some fascinating interpretations. Is, say Nicholas Royle's Darklands anthology 'Pulp horror'? Or Ramsey Campbell's (brilliant) Ancient Images? How about Alex Hamilton's Beam of Malice - I'm not sure many of us would think of his work in such terms. And what of the anonymous Dracula Sucks? Can a porno be pulp horror? Does it even matter? Of course not, and the fact Justin casts his net so wide makes for a far more interesting read than would be the case if he'd gone for a glorified GNS-Hutson-Herbert retrospective. The blessing and the curse is that so few of us will have anything like a full house of the featured paperbacks, magazines, etc., it means yet more titles scribbled down on the 'wants list' that knows no sanity.

Best of all, there is LOADS to dispute. Are Eric MacKenzie Lamb's Labyrinth and Peter Haining's Zombies (the pre-Romero, old-school 'Dead Men working in the Cane Fields variety) so poor as to be deserving of a damning one star apiece? Is Beam of Malice worthy of a full house? A mere two awarded to RAWL's Magazine of Horror?

Justin strongly hints in his introduction that, depending on the reception, there could well be a follow-up issue. Let's see if we can help make it happen.

[dem bones]

"#1 New Release in Horror & Supernatural Literary Criticism"

[rob4]

cheers, instant buy

[humgoo]

Feb 2, 2020 17:27:44 GMT dem bones said:

Reviewers: Ben Boulden, James Doig, Andreas Decker, Kev Demant, Jeff Popple, Jim O'Brien, Penny Tesarek, Tom Tesarek, Simon Ruleman, Justin Marriott.

Just to say thanks for pulling together this book. Excellent production and most enjoyable. Certainly deserves a place in the Best References thread.

[kooshmeister]

I'll need to get a copy of this!

[humgoo]

You will love it, I'm sure. Its eclecticism and unpredictability make it very enjoyable. There's the When Animals Attack books and many vampire novels, but there's also entries like Gordon Honeycombe's Neither the Sea nor the Sand. It's like reading the Vault, only on paper. (Some great covers too, although only in black and white.)

[humgoo]

There's no lockdown in my region (not every government values the lives of their people, obviously) so I still have to work everyday and All Reviews Special proves a perfect commute companion. I don't know how many years I haven't read a magazine really (come to think of it, I haven't seen people reading magazines on trains or in buses for ages), and it feels so refreshing to flick through one, while everyone else has their eyes glued to a tiny screen. It also somehow feels right to read Pulp Horror while wearing a medical mask.

It's also interesting to recognise the "voices" of the Vault contributors in it. (Perhaps all the contributors are actually Vaulters? Have no idea.) Like I said above, it's like reading the Vault, only on paper.

So far the only piece I don't like is the one about Jules de Grandin (unlike other entries which concern either a book or a particular issue of a magazine, it is a general review of the series), which sounds apologetic ("[...] But I think to dismiss these stories on such grounds is to misunderstand just what it was that the average pulp reader was looking for when they plunked down their 25 cents—a sense of escape." The reviewer also uses words like "subtext" and "existential despair". I don't know what they mean.) I really don't think Monsieur and friend Trowbridge need any defending!

Very much looking forward to another issue.