Truegho
Devils Coach Horse
Posts: 135
|
Post by Truegho on Apr 12, 2009 14:21:42 GMT
The Rats is the greatest horror book I have ever read!
|
|
|
Post by funkdooby on Apr 25, 2009 12:32:24 GMT
Lol . Yeah but Hutson said it would have to be a huuuuuge amount of money thrown at him to write another slugs. damn shame . Nevermind. I would love to see a huge amount of something thrown at Hutson - preferable wet cement
|
|
|
Post by vaughan on Aug 7, 2009 15:03:29 GMT
What in the world can you say about a novel such as Rats? It’s iconic, a defining moment, a modern classic of horror literature. As such it’s been pawed over, nibbled at, and devoured by millions of people. Rats – the novel - it seems, is impervious to poison, traps, the warbling sound of dissent, and the gaseous moaning of critics. Rats just IS.
So maybe I shouldn’t be writing anything about Rats. What exactly is the point? We all know its reputation, and most of us have read it so know what’s in it. A plot synopsis is redundant for a start.
Which is probably the worse way to begin a review, as such, because I’m holding my hands up right away and stating that I have no amazing insight into the novel, I have no unique feelings about it, you’ll learn nothing here and can probably skip over these remarks without a feeling a loss. Oh well.
But I’m writing anyway, because if nothing else Rats is worthy of at least a mention. You know?
The Rats is a short novel, just 187 pages long. It was first published in 1974, and has had many reprints since (with the cover art getting worse and worse as time went on). Let’s face it, The Rats will ALWAYS been in print. It’s part of a literary history that transcends the horror genre. It’s the kind of book that people who don’t usually read horror books know about, even if only by word of mouth.
And why would that be? Perhaps it’s because it was genre breaking. Perhaps it was because it set a formula in place that was copied without shame? Perhaps it was because, ingeniously, rats are an animal that makes everybody curl up.
I’ve read quite a bit about how genre breaking the book was, setting a new formula in motion. It’s undeniable really, if you read other “animal attack” novels then you’ll well know how familiar things become. However, to be honest, I do feel that there is a slight amount of untruth involved. Animal attack has long been a staple of the movies, for instance; All the way back to Nosferatu (F.W. Murnau, 1922) where rats, and plague, played a key role in frights and scares – animals have been terrorizing people and the world we live in. Add in the 50’s cycle of giant monster movies (Ants, Spiders, forest critters, dinosaurs, scorpions) and the idea of nature running amok could hardly have been called new in 1974.
Original? No. Yet The Rats is important. And most of all, it’s entertaining. In fact, it’s such a fun read, once you’ve read it once, another go around wouldn’t be amiss.
Is it perfect? Well, no. There are a couple of things that occurred to me during my recent re-read. Firstly, there are two characters that are singled out for extended biographies. One is a homeless lady, the other an under-secretary for the government. I’ve read comments elsewhere that have applauded how well these characters are “fleshed out”, and that’s fair enough. On the other hand, it is odd that only these two get the treatment – and neither have a radical affect on the story, nor are prime characters. After reading pages and pages about the homeless woman, she’s immediately killed. What was the point, exactly? Well, I suspect the formula simply wasn’t fully formed yet.
The other is a perhaps a more interesting point – what price did we pay for the formula many of us love? Those 50’s sci-fi monster movies followed the same formula, changing location and monster. But everything else was essentially the same – nuclear bomb, scientist no-one listens to, military, and love interest. BAM BAM BAM. Animal attack novel copied Herbert’s formula relentlessly to good affect. The question is, if they hadn’t, what kind of novels would we have gotten? Not that I dislike what we have, but to what extent did the formula stunt the development of this interesting sub-genre? It seems clear that the direction things took was largely down to economic reasoning – The Rats made money, so give us more of things like this! Of course, this whole thing isn’t easy to conclude, though interesting to think about.
But you know, the thing is, The Rats is just a very very good novel. Not only that, there are two sequels (I’m reading The Lair as I write this). Herbert let his imagination run riot as they went on: The Rats 189 pages, The Lair 244 pages, Domain 421 pages. Rat tails (sic) are growing.
I won’t comment on The Lair yet, I’m only 60 pages in – however, what is clear is that above and beyond the subject matter, the point is that Herbert can WRITE. He’s entertaining, it’s reading without feeling like reading, at least at this time of his career. That’s worth the price of admission.
And so I end having done nothing but state the obvious, and ask questions to which I have no answer. Oddly I won’t recommend The Rats, or try to convince people to read it (or not). This novel is immune. You HAVE to read it. And why not, it’s terrific in every way we care about. Having read it again, it loses little over time. Which says a lot.
Erm. It’s good.
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Aug 7, 2009 16:54:10 GMT
I’ve read quite a bit about how genre breaking the book was, setting a new formula in motion. It’s undeniable really, if you read other “animal attack” novels then you’ll well know how familiar things become. However, to be honest, I do feel that there is a slight amount of untruth involved. Animal attack has long been a staple of the movies... Add in the 50’s cycle of giant monster movies (Ants, Spiders, forest critters, dinosaurs, scorpions) and the idea of nature running amok could hardly have been called new in 1974. Interesting post, Vaughan. What you say is true but I don't really see The Rats as a successor to the monster movies of the 50s. Giant ants cavorting about the Nevada desert or mutant leeches in the Florida swamps or what have you, was one thing - rats eating babies and attacking pensioners around a block of flats in 70s London was quite something else. Guy N Smith's Night of the Crabs (or even The Slime Beast) although touted as being "in the tradition of The Rats", owes much more to the B-movies. The Rats represented a new kind of visceral British contemporary horror. Yes, it spawned many a cheap knock off (some of them cracking books in their own right) for years afterwards, but it owes its impact much more to style and setting than to subject matter.
|
|
|
Post by vaughan on Aug 7, 2009 22:03:08 GMT
I certainly don't intend to take anything away from Herbert, as I stated earlier, this book is iconic and stands very well on its own.
And I agree, the British setting adds a dimension to things, although largely that surely comes from "writing about what you know" rather than out of any necessity. The style is all Herbert!
On the visceral front though, I don't quite see it as you do. Horror cinema in the years leading to publishing of this book had also taken a more visceral approach, with the gore of the mid to late 70's forming at good pace.
If I can mention but two examples in order to illustrate what I mean - 1972 (two years prior to the books original publication) Wes Craven and Sean Cunningham had directed and released Last House on the Left. While this isn't a monster movie it definitely pointed to a new approach in horror, more punchy, graphic, and indeed visceral. By 1974 (and I'm obviously missing out some gore titles in between) we saw the release of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
Both of these films still pack a punch today (TCM was banned in the UK outright for a good time). Both pointed to a new attitude to horror, sounding the Deathbell (it's always a good time to throw in some GNS!) for the likes of Hammer, which had itself once rode a wave of being groundbreaking in its explicitness, but by the early 70's looking quite sedate.
So overall I say Herbert was riding that initial wave in the horror movement, a wave that took the quaint, cosy, predictability of what shocked us, and turned it up a few notches.
Again, I must say I'm not taking anything away from him. Your point about the visceral nature of Herbert's novel and those 50's sci-fi movies is well taken. The movies were of their time, after all. However, looked at another way, there are many similarities. Usually only mild threats are turned into BIG problems, the authorities are slow to respond and when they do they are initially deliver an ineffective response. Science rules the day, and finds love while doing it. Cities are trashed, people flee, society breaks down, etc. I think the basic formula was already there, add in the gore and a nice British setting, and you have most of the ingredients you need to write a book about killer rats.
Not that many people could have written one quite as good as this!
|
|
|
Post by dem bones on Apr 14, 2014 7:47:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by David A. Riley on Apr 14, 2014 8:23:06 GMT
Anyone going out hunting these with airguns is going to need something bigger.
Isn't it coming up to the 40th anniversary of the first Rats book as well? It's timely that Pan MacMillan have just announced their James Herbert Horror Writing Award!
|
|
|
Post by pulphack on Apr 14, 2014 9:30:38 GMT
Life always imitates art... or something like art...
|
|
|
Post by ripper on Apr 15, 2014 16:50:30 GMT
Not sure if this is correct but I seem to remember reading that there was also a scare about rats over-running the country back in the 70s--resistance to warfarin. Doomwatch (Tomorrow, the Rat) in 1970 and Beasts )During Barty's Party) in 1976 also used similar concepts of rats becoming a threat to man's dominance.
|
|
|
Post by erebus on Apr 16, 2014 13:44:16 GMT
And according to yesterdays Daily Star, spiders are getting in on the act too.
|
|
Truegho
Devils Coach Horse
Posts: 135
|
Post by Truegho on Jun 5, 2014 0:23:57 GMT
I don't what it was about Domain, but somehow it didn't quite grip and entertain me as much as The Rats and Lair did.
|
|
|
Post by dem bones on Jul 10, 2014 15:42:29 GMT
Pan recently published a "special 40th anniversary edition" in a special boring black and gold cover with two page foreword by Neil Gaiman. Cheers, Pan. Meanwhile ... Vermin versus Youth Club
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2014 18:49:25 GMT
Pan recently published a "special 40th anniversary edition" in a special boring black and gold cover with two page foreword by Neil Gaiman. Cheers, Pan. I did approach Pan and put forward an edition of THE RATS which would have been the ultimate tribute, but, as always, they weren't listening and instead brought out one of the sloppiest designed books I've seen for a long, long time.
|
|
|
Post by erebus on Jul 11, 2014 11:43:04 GMT
James Herbert could be the modern day Nostradamus. Where I live there is a huge park that has now had to be supervised at all times as the rats have started ganging up and attacking Ducks and Swans , sometimes whilst people are feeding the birds. Folks have watched while they are tore to shreds before their horrified eyes.
|
|
|
Post by dem bones on Apr 15, 2016 14:47:21 GMT
|
|