|
Post by dem bones on Mar 19, 2010 7:00:17 GMT
The only thing I can think of which would count against him is that, as far as I'm aware, he didn't actually write that many supernatural stories. Wordsworth might struggle to put together a decent sized volume unless they put him on a double bill with someone else. having now checked his dates, Cram won't be legit until 2012, but that's not too long to wait. As the slimline Black Spirits & White appears to collect all his work in the genre, i reckon you're spot on, a double bill is the way to go, and i'd suggest his fellow Gothic Revival revivalist James Platt's six story Tales Of The Supernatural as the other half. well i'd buy it! i promised Derek an update on our list of demands (with a link to this thread so he can proportion blame). Of course, there are sure to have been suggestions on other threads, so if i missed any, please remind me, but this pair are definitely do-able: Michel Parry (ed.) - The Reign Of Terror Omnibus Maurice Level - Tales of Mystery and Horror (possibly expanded to include the infamous Night And Silence and his short novel, Those Who Return).
|
|
|
Post by cw67q on Mar 19, 2010 9:45:31 GMT
I wouldn't have any problem with the page count of a collection e.g. Cram, particularly not at Wordsorth prices. I would have suggested another architect, TG Jackson, but another pb publisher has already brought out his stories recently: www.amazon.co.uk/Collected-Supernatural-Jackson-Six-Stories-Two-Novelettes/dp/1846778492/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268991523&sr=8-1I am lucky enough to have the Ash-tree edition "Six Ghost Stories". Not knowing anything about TGJ, I would probably have overlooked this particular collection if it hadn't fallen into my lap (so to speak) on ebay a while back. I'm glad I picke it up as I found it a very readable collection. Well worth a look and back in print as above. - Chris
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Mar 19, 2010 19:23:40 GMT
I wouldn't have any problem with the page count of a collection e.g. Cram, particularly not at Wordsworth prices. Neither would I, Chris, don't get me wrong. I just get the impression that Wordsworth, quite understandably, want to be seen as representing really good value for money, not just to the committed enthusiast but also the more casual browser - look at their recent 1000+ page Varney for £2.99 or the Castle of Otranto/Vathek/Nightmare Abbey 3-for-1 at the same price which Dem looked at recently. The likes of us would be more than happy to stump up three quid for long out of print collections such as those we're talking about here but I'd imagine, ideally, Wordsworth are looking to cast their nets a bit wider. And while we're on the subject of "Wordsworth prices", I happened to wander into our local Waterstones the other day and was more than a little disappointed to see what was going on in there. Not only have all the proper horror books been stuffed into a corner to make way for a ghastly new 'Dark Fantasy' section but the few Wordsworth Mystery & Supernaturals they had in stock were being sold for £4.99 a time. Maybe increasing their profit on each copy will encourage Waterstones to stock more Wordsworth titles rather than the more expensive Penguin Classics or whatever they seem to favour at the moment. Or maybe it'll mean less sales in shops (as potential customers go elsewhere such as Amazon) and even less of a presence for Wordsworth on the High Street. Fair play to the discount book chain over the road who'd presumably picked up on the fact that there might be some interest in Solomon Kane with this new film and were knocking out copies of The Right Hand of Doom for two quid and some change. Waterstones haven't even bothered to stock it.
|
|
|
Post by jamesdoig on Mar 19, 2010 21:03:54 GMT
The Wordsworth Aylmer Vance: Ghost Seer is really skinny - not much more than 100pp. You could argue that scarcity is as much a criteria of value for money as size - so O'Sullivan's Book of Bargains and Stenbock's Studies in Death would be good to do, perhaps in a single volume. Tartarus did an edition of Cram a few years ago, and Ayer before them, but they're long out of print.
|
|
|
Post by jamesdoig on Mar 19, 2010 23:34:38 GMT
Actually, having said that guff about rarity, it's pretty clear size does make a difference, eg the recent David Stuart Davies omnibus Holmes volume, the two Dr Nikola novels in one volume, as well as the giant Varney etc. The number of people who would know that Wordsworth is doing them a favour and making a rare book available at a budget price is pretty tiny I'd say.
|
|
|
Post by monker on Mar 20, 2010 3:00:37 GMT
What exactly is "Dark Fantasy" anyway? The term is a surprisingly old one as far as I'm aware and when I first encountered it, I took it simply as an alternate to the word 'horror'. It seemed to be coined simply to appease the market - potential buyers and publishers perhaps having visions of bloodier versions of the old Universal Monsters, but the general content remained the same. It now seems to have taken on a new life by people who read too much into everything and create things out of hints that were not there in the first place. Has it now morphed even further to mean teen based horror with a romantic element? At the risk of sounding like I have answered my own question, is there more to it and why was Arthur Machen's name once brought up with trepidation in relation to the term?
|
|
|
Post by Craig Herbertson on Mar 20, 2010 11:34:24 GMT
That's a toughy for me. Particularly as I called my own novel - a pale and incompetent version of Gormenghast without any characters - a dark fantasy. My idea in doing so was that the story was a bit grim and fantastical. I have a huge problems with these categories - steampunk, gothic. I always felt that you instinctively know what a novel is - horror, fantasy, sf, Gothic or the like. The need to categorize it is merely an adjutant. I generally prefer the categories 'good or shit'
|
|
|
Post by Dr Strange on Mar 20, 2010 12:27:41 GMT
What exactly is "Dark Fantasy" anyway No offence intended to anyone who describes their own work this way - but for some around here (me included), it's often used as a (very mild) insult. I would characterise "dark fantasy" as having some of the outward trappings of the horror genre (usually some supernatural component), but as having a rather different aim in terms of how the reader is supposed to react. In other words, it's not supposed to scare or disturb the reader. So - it's for people who are to wussy to read horror. Or it's for kids. In particular, anything involving "good" vampires, "good" werewolves, "good" ghosts, "good" magick, etc. has probably crossed the line into dark fantasy. Looking forward to reading what others think...
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Mar 20, 2010 12:40:16 GMT
What exactly is "Dark Fantasy" anyway? The term is a surprisingly old one as far as I'm aware and when I first encountered it, I took it simply as an alternate to the word 'horror'. It seemed to be coined simply to appease the market - potential buyers and publishers perhaps having visions of bloodier versions of the old Universal Monsters, but the general content remained the same. It now seems to have taken on a new life by people who read too much into everything and create things out of hints that were not there in the first place. Has it now morphed even further to mean teen based horror with a romantic element? At the risk of sounding like I have answered my own question, is there more to it and why was Arthur Machen's name once brought up with trepidation in relation to the term? I think you nailed it pretty good. It was a term designed imho as a cosmetic to avoid the nasty word horror as a failed market category - and it failed after the attempt to cash in on the continuing success of King by establishing whole lines of horror novels. Dell Abyss anyone? And as it is such a nice and cozy and flexible term that it can be anything, even today´s vampire porn.
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Mar 20, 2010 13:05:47 GMT
. I have a huge problems with these categories - steampunk, gothic. I always felt that you instinctively know what a novel is - horror, fantasy, sf, Gothic or the like. The need to categorize it is merely an adjutant. I generally prefer the categories 'good or shit' You are right of course. A novel is either good or shit. But as a publisher you have a problem if you can´t categorize. And so many novels especially of the fantastic have sunk without a trace because they were published in the wrong line or because they were a genre-hybrid which couldn´t find its audience. Just take a writer like Jeffrey Ford. Wonderful novels, wildly imaginative, highly regarded. But how do you market books like that? It is not SF, it is not fantasy, it is not a historical, it is not mainstream. On what shelves do you place such works in the book market?
|
|
|
Post by Craig Herbertson on Mar 20, 2010 14:02:13 GMT
Equally tough - does it not end up usually as 'speculative fiction' - Ballard's preferred choice of nomenclature
|
|
|
Post by dem bones on Mar 20, 2010 16:19:55 GMT
What i find interesting about the 'Dark Fantasy' 'Movement' (as it was then referred to) was that it was the authors themselves, or at least, a number of them, who insisted on the categorisation. i've recycled much of what follows from an old Laymon thread on Vault MK I, and, although, as Andy mentions, it's mutated to include vampire & paranormal romance over recent years, this is what i understand by 'Dark Fantasy' and why i still use it as a derogatory term. Can't give you the precise dates but change was already in the air when Chris Morgan penned his ever-so-slightly reactionary introduction to the Dark Fantasies collection (Legend, 1989) - No Slime, No Chain-Saws. "Some authors - I don't have to mention their names - seem to be vying with each other to see who can describe the most disgusting, most nauseating events possible. There is clearly a market for such things, with considerable numbers of readers rejoicing in lavishly gory descriptions of chain-saw massacres or attacks upon humans by giant invertebrates of all kinds. These so-called 'graphic' horror novels sell well, and the occasional one is even well written, though they tend to sicken many other readers - who are put off horror fiction entirely."[/color] I would have thought the only type of horror fiction this would have put anyone off was the easily avoidable stuff with giant crabs, slugs, devils coach horses and maggots on the covers, but Mr. Morgan's response was to join a "counter-movement ... at the opposite end of the spectrum from graphic horror, there is 'dark fantasy' [whose] impact comes from two sources, atmosphere and realism." There's much more to it than that (it's an excellent introductory essay) but that gives you the gist and, for a time, horror seemed to be split into two main rival factions. Those who wanted to go further out than ever (the Splatterpunks) and the Quiet Horror/ Dark Fantasy brigade whose standard bearers included Charles L. Grant and his Shadows anthologies ("shadowpunk" as Karl Wagner mischievously dubbed them), and, if I remember David Schiff's Whispers. Horror had grown up. No longer cheap art for the masses, it was taking itself very seriously indeed! During his long stint as editor of DAW's Years Best Horror Stories, the late and very great Karl E. Wagner kept an eye on horror trends, noting with amusement that he'd been granted founding father status by both the - apparently - sparring Splatterpunk and Dark Fantasy "movement"s which, he argued, just goes to show how stupid all this labelling is. "Splatterpunk ... was originally coined as an inside joke and seems about as lasting as the fad for Nehru jackets. Nonetheless, all of this has spurred considerable tempest in a teapot between advocates of 'New Horror' and those of (I suppose) 'Old Horror'. ... Then adds that actually, his stuff' is actually "Acid Gothic". and this from YBHXV (DAW, 1987) There seems to be a great deal of hair-splitting and hair-pulling in recent years over definitions and distinctions throughout the various genres and sub-genres of science fiction and fantasy. The term 'horror' seems to offend some readers and writers. The word tends to conjure grotesque and overplayed images and concepts. Outdated and unsubtle. Time for something new, more upscale. ("No dear --- I don't write horror. I write dark fantasy, don't you know."). Or maybe something with a harder edge to it. ("Piss off and die! I'm a New Wave writer!"). . That "No dear --- I don't write horror. I write dark fantasy, don't you know." sums it all up for me.
|
|
|
Post by jamesdoig on Mar 20, 2010 22:16:45 GMT
Recently picked up the Wordsworth Dr Nikola Master Criminal. It contains the first two books in the series, A Bid for a Fortune and Dr Nikola, with an intro by Mark Valentine.
|
|
|
Post by pulphack on Mar 21, 2010 14:15:17 GMT
well, the whole dark fantasy and splatter punk thing is a bit of a red herring, isn't it... a deceptively simple question that covers a number of issues; each faction using the terms for their own ends.
ultimately, when it comes to wandering into a shop, mr decker is spot on. the people on here who have worked in bookselling or publishing in any 'professional' capacity know what the general public doesn't (and - rightly - couldn't care less about). categorising fiction, which initially was a useful shorthand for guiding the public to the type of book they fancied that day, became a marketing tool in the rush to find shelf-space. creating little niches is massively important in guiding the casual punter's eye to a new title, especially if you can find a way of racking it with something they may know and like. and so these sub-divisions become a valuable marketing tool.
at the same time, the authorial factions have their own agenda. disassociation from elements in your genre you might not like, or the wish to associate with those you do. plus, writers aren't total mugs - if you have trouble describing your work to get attention in the first place, let's see if you can somehow manoeuvre it into a convenient existing short-hand. this can be self-defeating, but in an expanding market place with a shrinking readership, it may deem itself necessary.
plus, if you can be somehow nebulous and mysterious about it, then you can define the supposed 'intellect' of your work. splatterpunk may have started as an in-joke, but as a term it's refreshingly clear about its intent. whereas dark fantasy is, by its very choice of wording, elusive and allusive. there are things i've done that i figure fit those words, but no way are they as arty or serious as many of those writers who sought to identify with the term. they're just a bit dark and not realistic: in a very literal sense the term fits, though not in those other, more meta manners.
because it's allusive, that's why it's hung around, i reckon. it can be all things to all people. which is why it's confusing,and why it can be twisted from MR James to arty tossers to vampire romance without actually being inaccurate in any of those areas(which is one hell of an achievement, really). add to that the fact that language is mutable and terms change vernacular use over the years, and no wonder we all get confused and a little pissed off by it... even though it can be the only term that you can really apply at times!
on other matters, i suspect KEW was joking with 'acid gothic', but it's a crackingly funny gag... dracula grooving to the (aptly enough) grateful dead comes to mind.
and that Dr Nikola cover... it's an evocative design and i love it, but is it on the right book, really? more appropriate for a Henry James collection, surely?
and i've just edited this because my typing doesn't get any better...
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Mar 21, 2010 16:06:13 GMT
...creating little niches is massively important in guiding the casual punter's eye to a new title, especially if you can find a way of racking it with something they may know and like. and so these sub-divisions become a valuable marketing tool. ...dark fantasy is, by its very choice of wording, elusive and allusive ...because it's allusive, that's why it's hung around, i reckon. it can be all things to all people. which is why it's confusing,and why it can be twisted from MR James to arty tossers to vampire romance... Quite so, Pulps, and I don't really have a problem with Dark Fantasy or anything else as a marketing tool. My problem, as a customer, was simply that nothing on that particular shelf in Waterstones - in fact it was two great big fuck-off floor to ceiling bookcases which just goes to show you how much of this stuff they must be shifting at the moment - looked like it would've been of any interest to me. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not averse to any sort of old toss. I don't, for example, look down on people who enjoy a bit of romantic fiction, supernatural or otherwise. Similarly, if teenagers are reading again that can only be a good thing as far as I'm concerned. However, all this stuff was taking up shelf space at the expense of books which I might have been interested in buying (had they not been significantly overpriced) but which have been all but squeezed off the shelves between Dark Fantasy on one side and Fantasy/SF on the other. I've always loved Westerns - bear with me - but people don't buy them any more. They used to buy lots of them but not any more. Other types of Historical fiction still sell well but not your Western. Do you know one of the main reasons why no one buys Westerns anymore? Because nowhere fucking sells them! You can get them from the library and lots of people still do. They're very popular in libraries, just like Mills & Boon. The big difference between Westerns and Mills & Boon though is you'll never see one in a supermarket. My point then, and I do have one, is that given the potentially all-encompassing nature of the term 'Dark Fantasy' - and given also that 'Dark Fantasy' (whatever it may be) seems to sell by the cartload while 'Horror' (whatever that may be) seemingly doesn't - why not, as Pulps almost hints at in his post, stock the likes of M. R. James alongside Twilight or Erotic Tales of the Supernatural or whatever it may be. Like vampires and ghosts and shit? Feeling a bit Gothic? Why not try Edgar Allan Poe or H. P. Lovecraft (you've heard of him, haven't you?) and Bram Stoker (he wrote Dracula you know) and this bloke's good, Sheridan Le Fanu - he does lesbians and everything. My only issue with Dark Fantasy is when it's used by people as a way of distancing themselves from something they look down on or view as somehow distasteful. It's the snobbery, the pomposity and the conceit that I can't be doing with. As a way of selling books it's fine by me. Call it what you like, just don't let horror books go the way of the western.
|
|