|
|
Post by dem bones on Dec 29, 2008 20:51:31 GMT
Ramsey Campbell (ed.) - Superhorror (W. H. Allen, 1976: Star, 1980 as The Far Reaches Of Fear)  Cover: Don Grant
R. A. Lafferty - Fog In My Throat
Daphne Castell - Christina
Joseph F. Pumilia - The Case Of James Elmo Freebish
David Drake - The Hunting Ground
Manley Wade Wellman - The Petey Car
Robert Aickman - Wood
Ramsey Campbell - The Pattern
Fritz Leiber - Dark WingsInside cover blurb: Ordinary, everyday life. Sunshine and normality.
But then, like lightning strikes into the calm, comes the ghastly spectre of Superhorror to fix its claws into a suddenly awakened, awe-struck imagination.
Evening quiet but a glow in the light of the ruined belfry presages strange disappearances and gory finds – The Hunting Ground by David Drake.
The little girl in a sun-streaked afternoon garden looks for her kitten, but her search takes another turn in the night – Christina by Daphne Castell.
A retired tax inspector marries an undertaker's daughter and finds his father-in-law has a novel device to make him a real member of the family – Wood by Robert Aickman.
A woman writes a children's story, her husband paints, but echoing screams and a watcher in the trees turn their comfortable cottage into a home for horror – Ramsey Campbell's own story, The Pattern.
Stories like these, none of which have been previously published, show why Superhorror is called just that. Here are no monotonously gloating descriptions of human maltreatment and sadism – what the editor calls 'pornography without sex'. Instead, this is an anthology of pure terror, made even more frightening by the knowledge it brings that Superhorror can invade your life at any hour in any place.
Other contributors to this book include Manly Wade Wellman, Brian Lumley, R. A. Lafferty, Joseph F. Pumilia and Fritz Leiber. Ramsey Campbell in the 'seventies I must have read, and mostly enjoyed, this collection a number of times now but the only stories that have stuck in my mind are Wood, The Pattern and, most of all, Brian Lumley's The Viaduct, the most conventional of the stories if memory serves, concerning two lads who torment the local village idiot and which they hadn't. Campbell's introduction struck a chord as it demonstrates the old trad, Pan-style horror/ new horror 'debate' was going on even then. "Some horror anthologies have contained little more than monotonously gloating descriptions of human maltreatment and sadism. I believe this is pornography without sex - or rather, pornography whose label "horror fiction" the reader can use to reassure himself he isn't really perverse. The characters are incredible puppets: the writing is immature and unskilled - much as in most pornography. It may be healthier to supply such fiction than to force the reader to seek solace elsewhere. But it's presumptuous to claim that it's horror fiction." Actually, I reckon it's equally presumptuous to claim that 'it' isn't, but this was 1976 and i'm wondering if Ramsey's views on the subject have undergone a change in thirty plus years?
|
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Dec 29, 2008 21:37:45 GMT
Heh, today it made the transfer from the page to the screen, makes millions and is called torture porn  The more things change ... I treated myself the excellent Hammer Films - the Elstree Studio Years by Wayne Konsey for christmas, and the writer included snippets of correspondence between the studio and the censors. They complained about blood on Draculas lips and of course nudity. That was forty years ago, and I truly wondered what those blokes would have said about a movie like Hostel or Saw. |
|
|
|
Post by carolinec on Dec 29, 2008 22:33:06 GMT
That photo of Ramsey in the 70s really made me laugh! Still, I guess a lot of men had hair like that in the 70s, but I just never imagined Ramsey ever having looked like that!  |
|
|
|
Post by dem bones on Dec 29, 2008 23:15:18 GMT
The more things change ... They complained about blood on Draculas lips and of course nudity. That was forty years ago, and I truly wondered what those blokes would have said about a movie like Hostel or Saw. Toward the end of the 'eighties, Robert Bloch was murmuring darkly about horror in literature and film. "What's going to come out of those people who think that Night Of The Living Dead isn't enough[/i]? I recently read an interview with him in an old issue of Fear and, while it was very clear that he was genuinely appalled that so much horror - in his opinion - panders to sadism, i don't think i'd bother reading so much of the stuff if i knew in advance that all i was going to get was a morality play every time. Still, I guess a lot of men had hair like that in the 70s .... What do you mean, "a lot of men had hair like that in the seventies"? Mine's more of a state than that now. But i'm much slimmer than he was even then.  |
|
|
|
Post by carolinec on Dec 30, 2008 11:39:19 GMT
Still, I guess a lot of men had hair like that in the 70s .... What do you mean, "a lot of men had hair like that in the seventies"? Mine's more of a state than that now. But i'm much slimmer than he was even then. Ooops, put my foot in it there, didn't I?!  .. while it was very clear that he was genuinely appalled that so much horror - in his opinion - panders to sadism, i don't think i'd bother reading so much of the stuff if i knew in advance that all i was going to get was a morality play every time. Just to add to this discussion, I think the thing is "different strokes for different folks", roughly translated as "different people like different things". While a little horror for the sake of it - particularly if done in a comical way - is quite fun in my opinion, I, personally, make no apology for preferring the kind of stuff which does have a sort of morality tale to it. I suppose that's what some of you folks call "intelligent horror" or the "pretentious" stuff? But as long as folk respect that different people prefer different things, there's no problem. I mean, I haven't been kicked off this board yet, have I ...? LATER EDIT: But I must add, I'm not in favour of any form of censorship though! Thought I'd better make that clear, before anyone thought I was one of those awful "it shouldn't be allowed" types!  |
|
|
|
Post by PeterC on Dec 30, 2008 13:40:31 GMT
Superhorror is a fine collection and, yes, I prefer the more restrained 'literary' type of horror story. The best kind of tale, restrained or not, is one where you can't guess the ending, or even where the narrative is taking you.
Wishing you all a Happy and Peaceful New Year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnlprobert on Dec 30, 2008 15:01:57 GMT
Superhorror is a fine collection and, yes, I prefer the more restrained 'literary' type of horror story.
What worries me is that I should prefer the more literary type of horror story, I really should. And I should prefer the more classic writers as well but it's just not happening. I'm reading the collected Ambrose Bierce at the moment. I've never read him before but from what I had heard I had assumed I would like his bleak cruelly witty style, but some of the stories are so oblique I can't be bothered to work them out because the answer is going to be 'it was a ghost' anyway.
But instead of marvelling at the prose or the cleverness my eyes keep straying to the bookshelf for something with some really horrible murders in it. Maybe it's just Xmas taking its toll. I also think that reading the Robert E Howard 'Right Hand of Doom' a little while ago has made me realise how much I truly love well-written good pulp. Maybe I'm just not the literary type.
|
|
|
|
Post by dem bones on Dec 30, 2008 15:17:31 GMT
I suppose that's what some of you folks call "intelligent horror" or the "pretentious" stuff? But as long as folk respect that different people prefer different things, there's no problem. I mean, I haven't been kicked off this board yet, have I ...? People have joined, left (in droves) and generally come and go as they please, but nobody's ever been "kicked off" this board. All that "death to brainy horror!" stuff was ever so slightly tongue in cheek (and as pulphack correctly argues, it's demeaning to suggest that what, say, Guy N. Smith and Laurence James write/ wrote takes less 'care' and 'intelligence' than name-your-trendy-critically-acclaimed horror-author). I'd been at the Mammoth Best New Horror #18 launch when Stephen Jones made some announcement to the effect that he was "proud" this particular volume didn't contain any horror stories. Terrific - and i'd just bought a copy! Fortunately, Mr. Jones is perhaps a little prone to exaggeration and Vol. 18 contains one or two very decent horror efforts thank you very much, but his remarks stayed with me because, not only did they scream of there being something shameful about liking horror, I'd kind of prefer a book calling itself the years "best horror stories" not to contain loads of fantasy stories by the author's mates. And there seemed to be a lot of it about at the time. If the next (?) Black Book Of Horror turns out to be full of goblins and elves and people reminiscing about their boring holidays, that's fine, but i'd prefer Charles changed the title to The Black Book Of Goblins and Elves and People Reminiscing About Their Boring Holidays so we knew what we were forking out for. Incidentally, I don't want to kick-start the 'it's the end of Years Best New Horror!' panic again, but there's certainly an absence of forthcoming horror-interest titles in Robinsons' Jan-July 2009 catalogue. |
|
|
|
Post by weirdmonger on Dec 30, 2008 16:42:16 GMT
People have joined, left (in droves) and generally come and go as they please, but nobody's ever been "kicked off" this board. . I was only glancing at this Board just to post the review of the Small Press Ark, and I noticed the statement above. For some, I'm sure it felt like being kicked off by what some active members were saying at the time. 'Constructive dismissal' if not officially done. |
|
|
|
Post by carolinec on Dec 30, 2008 16:46:37 GMT
... but nobody's ever been "kicked off" this board. ... aw, but don't I deserve a spanking though, Dem - just a little one! Anyway, to continue with this discussion which I seem to have inadvertently got going again, I guess it all depends on what you mean by "literary". If it's just well constructed, flowery words with no story then it's of no interest to me. The story's the thing. If it's a good story - restrained or unrestrained - then I'm happy with it! BTW I think the Black Book of Goblins and Elves sounds rather good - a book about the evil doings of goblins and the even more evil doings of generally very nice little elves! I'd certainly buy it anyway!  |
|
|
|
Post by carolinec on Dec 30, 2008 16:49:54 GMT
For some, I'm sure it felt like being kicked off by what some active members were saying at the time. 'Constructive dismissal' if not officially done. Having been hanging around here, and participating a little, ever since, I honestly don't think that was the intention of anyone here, Des. |
|
|
|
Post by Craig Herbertson on Dec 30, 2008 17:36:29 GMT
what worries me is that I should prefer the more literary type of horror story, I really should. And I should prefer the more classic writers as well but it's just not happening. I'm reading the collected Ambrose Bierce at the moment. I've never read him before but from what I had heard I had assumed I would like his bleak cruelly witty style, but some of the stories are so oblique I can't be bothered to work them out because the answer is going to be 'it was a ghost' anyway.
But instead of marvelling at the prose or the cleverness my eyes keep straying to the bookshelf for something with some really horrible murders in it. Maybe it's just Xmas taking its toll. I also think that reading the Robert E Howard 'Right Hand of Doom' a little while ago has made me realise how much I truly love well-written good pulp. Maybe I'm just not the literary type. That's it John!. If I look up at my shelves I can see Kafka, Hesse, Grass, Strauss; loads of academic books on ancient history and anthropology. Mixed in with innumerable pulps, sf, fantasy, horror is a fair bunch of the 'classics' I also just finished Solomon Kane and, in a nutshell - I just really enjoyed it. Because I am broke and far from easy access to charity shops I am often forced to read and reread books. Quite often I'll pick up Somerset Maughan or James Joyce and start plodding through the thing. And then after a bit I just think ' I'm not enjoying this. Next minute I'm reading something with a tacky cover and no big words - happy again. |
|
|
|
Post by bushwick on Dec 30, 2008 18:35:32 GMT
Just because one is clever, it does not follow that one should like 'clever' stuff. The trouble is, we are all very intellectual guys with the weight of the world on our shoulders. If we absorb clever stuff on top of all this, it will be too much for our brains to absorb...
I reckon decent pulp is HARDER to write anyway, it's plot-driven and you can't fanny around for thousands of words pontificatin' and philosophisin'...
|
|
|
|
Post by pulphack on Dec 30, 2008 21:09:11 GMT
i agree with that last statement - though i always fanny around far too much as i can't help myself - as in some respects it is harder to stick to a plot and keep it focused down that line for 100,000 words. it's also hard when your editor tells you to add some thing like a character disappearing two weeks before the book is due and you have to rewrite the ending to make him vanish plausibly after NO PRIOR INDICATION WHATSOEVER... i bet martin amis never has that problem...
at the risk of repeating myself from previous discussions, i like both but prefer the MR James kind of story for the most part, which is nothing more than personal preference. you can't beat a good bit of visceral horror for the sake of it, but i like the morality play elements of most genre fiction. i was thinking about this last night in relation to john creasey and his crime novels, where the story is always driven by the characters wish to make a better world, at least for the people they aim to help, which is the character as relection of creasey's own worldviews. i have a huge interest in this kind of fiction, and i think this colours my own preference in horror. but not exclusively. if it's written well - ie to achieve the aim of the writer and achieve the intended effect in the reader - then all is good.
concerning mr campbell himself - what he said about a certain type of horror being pornography, i was thinking - is this necessarily a bad thing? there are lines in such material over which none should step, but they're sometimes debateable sometimes not - and we won't go back there as it's been covered elsewhere - but the question of the function of pornography occurred to me (and i mean it, for clarification, in the broadest sense of the word).
doesn't pornography exist because it fulfils a function? allows us to vicariously visit some areas that we feel we should otherwise not go? and is this not a safety valve in any civilised society, allowing us to explore the darker elements of out characters without risking real harm to ourselves or others? i know its an argueable statement, but i feel it has a purpose, and for mr c to dismiss it out of hand... well, maybe we shouldn't let personal preference get in the way of the bigger picture? to say you don't want that in your collection because you don't like it and why is fine; to more or less say it shouldn't be allowed is a poor piece of judgement in my view.
last word (thank fuck) from me on mr c - is it me, or does he look like kim newman in that photo? as for dem - nik fiend meets nick cave, if you ask me... (and that's a compliment in my world, lord help you)
|
|
|
|
Post by carolinec on Dec 30, 2008 21:27:32 GMT
.. to say you don't want that in your collection because you don't like it and why is fine; to more or less say it shouldn't be allowed is a poor piece of judgement in my view. Yep, that just about sums up my thinking on the matter - whether it's pornography, any kind of horror, etc, etc. It's personal preference - we all like different things. But to say no-one (adults, that is) should be allowed to see/read certain things is crazy. last word (thank fuck) from me on mr c - is it me, or does he look like kim newman in that photo? That's just what I thought! |
|
