|
Post by dem bones on Nov 3, 2007 16:04:54 GMT
Stephen Jones (ed.) - The Mammoth Book Of Best New Horror #18 (Robinson, Oct. 31st 2007) Les Edwards Stephen Jones - Horror In 2006
Al Sarrantonio - Summer Ramsey Campbell - Digging Deep John Gordon - The Night Watch Christopher Fowler - The Luxury Of Harm Mark Samuels - Sentinels Elizabeth Hand - The Saffron Gatherers Mark Morris - What Nature Abhors Lynda E. Rucker - The Last Reel Jay Lake - The American Dead Peter Atkins - Between The Cold Moon And The Earth Gene Wolfe - Sob In The Silence Nicholas Royle - Continuity Error Michael Bishop - Dr. Prida's Dream-Plagued Patient Mark Chadbourn - The Ones We Leave Behind Joel Lane - Mine David J. Schow -Obsequy Don Tumasonis - Thrown Caitlín R. Kiernan - Houses Under The Sea David Morrell - They F. Gwynplaine MacIntyre - The Clockwork Horror Richard Christian Matheson - Making Cabinets Geoff Ryman - Pol Pot's Beautiful Daughter (Fantasy) Glen Hirshberg - Devil's Smile Kim Newman - The Man Who Got Off The Ghost Train
Stephen Jones & Kim Newman - Necrology: 2006 Useful Addresses A little embarrassed to start with these (or at least, I would be were I not entirely shameless), but they looked two of the safest bets in a collection Jones doesn't seem to think includes much by way of traditional, no-frills horror. Mark Samuels - Sentinels: You'll like Inspector Clay. "He planned to lose himself in some cheap and trashy horror paperback from his little collection. The TV had broken down months ago and instead of replacing it he found that he had got into the habit of reading musty book relics from the '60's and '70's, with their yellowing, brittle pages and lurid covers. Gray fancied himself something of a connoisseur when it came to the covers, in fact he felt himself in opposition with the old maxim about never judging a book by them. He harboured the conviction that those featuring a weird photographic composition were invariably superior to those that had artwork depicting the tired cliche-symbols of horror ...." Clay, mocked by his police colleagues for his laudable taste in reading matter is investigating the disappearance of tube train driver Adam Drayton who abandoned his vehicle in the tunnel between Camden and Kentish Town. Drayton was the author of Clay's favourite current read, the Secret Underground, a book of supposed urban legends relating to the city beneath the city. Clay believes he's seen the original of the trog-like, bony hairy on the cover hanging around Kentish Town. His exploration of the 'ghost' station with disquieting engineer Heath quickly takes a turn for the nightmarish ... Very much my type of thing, this. There's a potentially rewarding thread to be had from these Death Line/ Creep style stories. Christopher Fowler - The Luxury Of Harm: The narrator persuades Simon, his old school friend and partner in mayhem, to attend a Horror Convention at Silburton, Somerset. This year's theme is "Murderers On Page And Screen" and our man makes sure the conversation turns toward who in the room would make the most likely serial killer. There's a lovely pop culture moment in this one, too. "And through the mist I gradually discerned a splendor figure, his head lolling slightly to one side, one arm lower than the other, like the skeleton in Aurora's 'Forgotten Prisoner' model kit, or the one that features on my copy of The Seventh Pan Book Of Horror Stories." That reference to the Pan's is apt: this would have suited one of the Van Thal's just so. John Gordon - The Night Watch: Dr. Martin Glover has been granted the freedom of Norwich Castle to conduct his researches, spending much of his time consulting records in the gloomy dungeon. Running late, he encounters Jack, a shabbily dressed fellow of malicious disposition he takes to be the night watch. As they traipse around the castle Jack's loaded comments become more disquieting until they arrive at the disused prison and the condemned chamber. Somehow a shadowy crowd have gathered to enjoy the execution. Three stormers so far but can this Mammoth keep it up?
|
|
|
Post by eddempster on Apr 14, 2008 23:05:21 GMT
I've just ordered this one and #17, from Amazon, for the purpose of market research as much as anything else. I read one of the reviews stating this is a weak collection, with many of the stories being 'situations' rather than stories.
I guess I'll find out for myself whether it's any good soon enough, but did you ever get to the end of the collection, and if so, what did you think of it?
|
|
|
Post by dem bones on Apr 15, 2008 5:16:04 GMT
I don't think I've ever completed a Mammoth Best New Horror, Ed. In the case of #18, it didn't help that, at the launch, Mr. Jones promoted it as "a horror anthology containing no horror stories" or words to that effect, which may appeal to some but does nothing to inspire my confidence.
Having said that, the three I've mentioned are very enjoyable and Sentinels is just about as trad. horror as they come. Maybe I'll return to it .....
|
|
|
Post by eddempster on Apr 15, 2008 8:28:42 GMT
It's a strange idea to put together a horror anthology that contains no horror, isn't it? Suggests to me that the editor might have tired of the genre and is looking for something more literary. I recently bought BASS 200? edited by Steven King, thinking that it would contain thinly veiled genre stories, or at least something to indicate the credentials of the editor. Needless to say, I was bitterly disappointed Perhaps Mr Jones is going the same way (God, I hope not).
|
|
|
Post by dem bones on Apr 15, 2008 10:49:13 GMT
I wish I could give you a direct quote, but what I think he was getting at was that this time the stories would be equally at home in a Mammoth Best New Crime/ Fantasy/ Mystery/ or SF collection, which translates to me, at least, as horror is going through one of it's clever and grown up "exploring new boundaries" phases again .... Don't get me started!
|
|
|
Post by Johnlprobert on Apr 15, 2008 11:29:08 GMT
New boundaries are fine, as long as the story still does what it says on the tin. Sadly a lot of them don't
I think it was BNH 8 that almost put me off horror for good at one point. That and an Ellen Datlow 'horror' anthology about cats that had less scares than 'The Uncanny' (I think this was 1997).
|
|
|
Post by eddempster on Apr 15, 2008 19:42:40 GMT
I don't see that there are many new boundaries to explore where horror is concerned. To me, the definition of a horror story is one that elicits feelings of horror, fear, revulsion, terror, foreboding, etc., in the reader. If it doesn't do that, then it isn't a horror story, is it? What's to explore?
|
|
|
Post by Craig Herbertson on Apr 15, 2008 19:55:28 GMT
I suppose the argument might be that the boundaries of what is horrific, change. Last decades horror story becomes this years laugh. I think the werewolf might have been scary years back but now its a guy with a face like a teddy.
Then again there are some old horror stories which still punch you in the gut
|
|
|
Post by Johnlprobert on Apr 16, 2008 10:55:30 GMT
"I think the werewolf might have been scary years back but now its a guy with a face like a teddy. Then again there are some old horror stories which still punch you in the gut "
Some werewolf movies still can as well, mind. Decades after the teddy bear antics of Lon Chaney 'The Howling' still worked bloody well.
It's still a really interesting point (to me if no-one else) because I think it's those monsters and concepts that have been easy to transfer to film, and more importantly had the piss taken out of them on film, that have lost their power. No-one ever did Abbott & Costello Meet MR James so his stories still work.
The more I write this the more I realise it doesn't really hang togetter but I'm going to post it anyway ;D
|
|
|
Post by carolinec on Apr 16, 2008 11:02:05 GMT
I'm going to put the cat among the pigeons here and suggest that this might really be a debate about "gorey horror" versus "brainy horror", for want of better expressions to describe them! If you're looking for a gorefest, then BNH isn't really the place to go. I've only read 4 of the stories so far (I tend to pop in and out of collections/anthologies depending on which is closest to me on the desk at the time), but in those we have necrophilia, the aftermath of child abuse, vampires and being buried alive - all sound like good horror themes to me! But none of them have gratuitous violence or gore in them. My feeling is, if you enjoy the more "cerebral" horror, then these anthologies are for you. But if you want something more gorey, it's not the place to look. The stories chosen reflect the preferences of the editor after all, and Jones seems to go for the more cerebral stories - which is fine by me as that's my preference too! Right, gloves off for a fight. Which of you gorefest freaks are going to have a go at me for being too "cerebral"? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Craig Herbertson on Apr 16, 2008 11:33:25 GMT
johnl, isn't that the strange thing. i understood you...
|
|
|
Post by dem bones on Apr 16, 2008 11:58:58 GMT
New boundaries are fine, as long as the story still does what it says on the tin. Sadly a lot of them don't I think it was BNH 8 that almost put me off horror for good at one point. That and an Ellen Datlow 'horror' anthology about cats that had less scares than 'The Uncanny' (I think this was 1997). What did for me was when, somewhere around the late 'eighties/ early nineties - the 'superiority complex years' as I now think of them - you'd have seemingly every author insisting that what they wrote was so much more literary and intelligent than moronic old 'horror stories' and you must refer to their stuff as "dark fantasy" or they'd cry. My response was somewhere along the lines of "get over yourselves" and it's only recently - thanks to meeting people on this board, in fact - that I've bothered with any new horror whatsoever. The early Mammoth Year's Best Horror volumes co-edited with Ramsey Campbell are far and away the most consistently entertaining of those I've read (or attempted to read!) to date. I'm not sure I ever encountered #8, but I know there was one around the same time where virtually every story seemed to crawl up its own pretentious arse. Before I'm done with sweeping generalisations, I'm wondering if the Mammoth Year's Best Horror's hold more appeal for authors than they do common or garden readers? There must be a great sense of achievement in having your work showcased in one or more of these - pretty much an award in itself - and they're certainly useful for gaging the "state of the art". P.S. Death to Brainy Horror!
|
|
|
Post by weirdmonger on Apr 16, 2008 12:08:22 GMT
Death to Brainy Horror! If I were brainy I wouldn't be writing brainy horror. The Ark or Baser Pulps stuff pretty honestly up front HORROR with no braininess at all, perhaps. ;D
|
|
|
Post by franklinmarsh on Apr 16, 2008 12:38:57 GMT
These weird new genres - Quiet Horror, Brainy Horror - and lets assume Gorey Horror = Non-Brainy Horror. It's difficult to analyse them ('specially if you're as dim as I am ) but , in cinematic terms, I've always found stuff like The Others or Haunted much more frightening than, say Friday 13th. Bookwise I'd rather go for pulp.
NB Who's up for writing an Abbott & Costello Meet M R James spoof? The Treasure of Aaaabbbbboooottttttttttttt!!!!!! Thomas.
|
|
|
Post by weirdmonger on Apr 16, 2008 12:43:47 GMT
I've always found stuff like The Others or Haunted much more frightening than, say Friday 13th. Bookwise I'd rather go for pulp. That's an interesting point. The most frightening film is usually one without any gore. But, generally, with books and films, I think eclectic is the (brainy?) word! I wouldn't rule anything in or out. des
|
|