|
Post by profquatermass on Aug 11, 2009 18:50:08 GMT
Forgive me if this topic has been covered before, I'm new to the forums! It always struck me as rather odd that the bottom so comprehensively fell out of the British horror market in the mid-1980s. By the 1990s arrived even established names like Herbert and Hutson were starting to struggle. Meanwhile dear old NEL had been sold to Hodder & Stoughton and was struggling to keep a toe-hold in the market. What went wrong? Was the trend for nasty fiction simply a product of the relaxation of censorship in the late-seventies/early eighties which also led to the rise of the video nastie? Or did the formula simply run its course? This ignores the fact that some authors (inspired by Ramsey Campbell) did try to go in a different direction. Heck, even James Herbert tried it. It must have been appalling for the John Halkins of this world to see how the market dried up. Ironically, all this happened as horror stateside was going stratospheric. Now even the old favourites have gone or reinvented themselves (Peter James once hailed as the UK's answer to Stephen King is now the UK's answer to Jeffrey Deaver, or so it seems). Only Shaun Hutson keeps at it, although, for me, his recent stuff doesn't have the chutzpah of his earlier novels. Anyone have any insight into what the heck went wrong?
|
|
|
Post by carolinec on Aug 12, 2009 11:45:00 GMT
I wonder if it was the publishers telling us what they thought we should be reading? The mainstream publishers at some point seem to have decided what the "horror market" wanted to read, and also that there wasn't a very big market for horror at all. Hence, the lack of horror books on the shelves, with it being restricted to just a few authors (King, Herbert, Hutson).
If you think about it, authors like Ramsey Campbell, Stephen Gallagher, et al used to have their books on the horror shelves in all major bookshops - now, they have to rely on the small presses to get published. It isn't that their writing isn't any good any more (far from it!) - in my opinion, it's simply that the mainstream publishers decided their stuff wouldn't sell any more.
Or, it could really be that the book-buying public stopped buying them? I'm just not sure ...
|
|
|
Post by Dr Strange on Aug 12, 2009 13:25:26 GMT
I don't know, but I think it unlikely that many book publishers would simply turn their backs on a lucrative customer base - if they decided to stop publishing, then it was most likely because they weren't selling enough (by their own standards, of course). Again I'm just guessing really, but I think it's pretty clear that sales of genre fiction is very much driven by general cultural trends and fashions... Look at what has happened to the market for Westerns in the last 30 years or so if you want to see how bad things can get - compared to that, you could argue that horror is doing OK. On the other hand, it just takes one "breakthrough" book to re-ignite a genre - or to start up a whole new sub-genre (e.g. the ubiquitous "supernatural romance" stuff that seems to have taken over horror sections in book shops everywhere).
|
|
|
Post by Dr Strange on Aug 12, 2009 15:16:16 GMT
I had a look to see if I could find any hard numbers on horror sales (quiet day in the office!), but couldn't. But I did find a 2-year old article from the Independent predicting that "horror writing will be big in 2007" (!), so here's a link if you're interested - tinyurl.com/qp6lfxI also found an article from Publishers Weekly (July this year) on the rise of zombie-related fiction - www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6670427.htmlSomething that occurs to me from reading these is the link between trends in the cinema and in books - maybe the recent crop of decent horror films (playing to packed cinemas in my experience) will give a bit of a boost to sales of horror books.
|
|
|
Post by dem bones on Aug 12, 2009 15:56:48 GMT
Hi Prof Quatermass Thanks for joining and posing such an interesting question. My guess would be that there were a number of factors involved in the decline of the nasties. The demise of the pocket paperback in the face of the 1000 page paving-slabs that proliferate to this day. The Dark Fantasy "movement", as promoted in Chris Morgan's reactionary introduction to his anthology of the same name, "No Slime, No Chainsaws". Morgan was not alone in trying to disassociate himself from this frightfully juvenile 'nasty' stuff and favoured a more thoughtful, "literary" horror. Dark Fantasy/ Quiet Horror had its moments, but it also led to the rise of the pretentious git. There's also the probability that, in terms of mega-sales, the formula had probably run it's course and scared off the mainstream publishers. Needless to say, there's not a shred of evidence to support any of the above and i'm sure some of our more savvy members will come up with a better explanation.
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Aug 12, 2009 17:54:37 GMT
Interesting question. Well, I guess it was the changing times. The western died approx. at the same time. The last survivor was EDGE, who had started it all on the british western front. Same thing with horror. Surely there were a lot of factors. How many books about rampaging animals or insects can you read till you get bored? The advent of the doorstopper novel, the rise of video games and movie nastys - why read if you can watch? -, therefore fewer reading teens. Climbing prices for books and a shrinking audiance. Of course it couldn´t have been helpful that movies and tv pushed always the boundaries of sex and violence. As far as I gathered british tv is rather sex i.e. nakedness free, but can you imagine a series like CSI could have been shown on free tv in the 80s? The cartoony violence of the cop or PI show has been replaced by the "scientific" parade of opened bodies and the lovingly reconstructed bullets cutting through entrails. Even horror series like Buffy had less gore than your average Law&Order or CSI. You don´t need to read about it
|
|
|
Post by dem bones on Aug 12, 2009 23:51:51 GMT
. How many books about rampaging animals or insects can you read till you get bored? Yeah, but you could say the same thing about vampire novels with equal justification and they seem to always pick up an audience and have done from the day the dreaded Anne Rice first darkened our doorsteps. They're virtually a genre in themselves and i'll bet there have been times over the past twenty years when they've well outsold horror, just as Paranormal Romance seems to be doing now. With the rise of 'new horror', or whatever you care to call it, came this awful vogue for "tasteful" covers which make the (horror) books look ashamed of themselves, like they were trying to blend in with the other genres. John Halkin and Richard Lewis were never going to find that an easy one to pull off. Of course it couldn´t have been helpful that movies and tv pushed always the boundaries of sex and violence. As far as I gathered british tv is rather sex i.e. nakedness free, but can you imagine a series like CSI could have been shown on free tv in the 80s? The cartoony violence of the cop or PI show has been replaced by the "scientific" parade of opened bodies and the lovingly reconstructed bullets cutting through entrails. Even horror series like Buffy had less gore than your average Law&Order or CSI. You don´t need to read about it i've been engrossed in the current (for us) series of The Wire shown on BBC2 three nights a week and last nights episode featured a kicking to death that is quite probably the most brutal act of violence i have ever seen on TV, by far more disturbing than anything in, say, A Clockwork Orange, because there was nothing in the slightest bit camp or escapist about it.
|
|
|
Post by jamesdoig on Aug 13, 2009 1:53:24 GMT
I agree that the main reason is the big publishers consolidated production around a few big names - you know who they are! Talented mid-list authors disappeared or moved on to other genres.
In the old days, I think, publishers took a chance - the profits they made from the big bestsellers went back in to support talented authors who didn't have the big sales (and something like 80% of titles produced every year are commercial failures!). In the '80s and '90s the old publishing houses were bought up by big conglomerates and the only interest they have is profit.
Luckily there are lots of small presses around to take chances, but they're all struggling at the moment.
James
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Aug 13, 2009 6:58:35 GMT
I don´t know who said it first (Warren Ellis?), but Vampires ARE the Star Trek of horror. As in Star Trek isn´t real science fiction at heart.
I really don´t know how the success of vampires came to be. Anne Rice wasn´t an overnight success. Maybe all those advocates of Dark Fantasy were right in trying to jump on the mainstream train, a lot of sales sure proved them right. Of course it targeted woman as an audience, and I think that the average "nasty" back then was firmly in the boy´s domain.
(Of course one of the ironies is that a lot of Paranormal Romances have more explicit sex scenes than Shaun Hutson and Guy Smith combined. The times sure changed)
I would argue that most of the vampire books are not true horror. They are watered down monster books based on popularized established themes. In most of these successful series you can spot elements from role playing games, vampire tv-shows, and Anne Rice. It is much divorced from a straight and short horror novel of the 80s.
Most of those vampire fans would never read a novel like Garton´s Live Girls or a Slade or the early Herbert.
|
|
|
Post by allthingshorror on Aug 13, 2009 7:26:55 GMT
The Wire is one of the greatest series bar none that's ever been on the telly - and while it's never flinched away from acts of violence, you're right about your man getting his head caved in. That was some really gnarly shit, and some invisible line has been reached and breached - it could open up telly to try and up the gore stakes even more than it has already?
But back to the books...
Going back to Prof Quatermass' original thought by saying that even Herbert and Hutson were struggling - the mark for Hutson, I think was Lucy's Ghost (1995) and for Herbert, even earlier with Portent (1992) which is particualry sad, because that came straight after I tihnk one of his best books, Creed.
But, until it closed, my John Menzies had a whole wall that was dedicated to horror. Unfortunately, that wall was full up with Stephen King, SHaun Hutson and James Herbert. Three copies of each book. Drowning out everything else.
I think it wasn't the publishers who decided that this stuff wouldn't sell, you're missing the next link in the chain, but could it have been the distributors, people who buy for the shops - seeing the numbers that authors such as King was moving, over-ordered, drowned everyone else out, and then when the public had over-indulged and turned their backs on even the safe bets, that horror has struggled to find ANY sort of mainstream footing in the high street stores.
For bad or for good, horror is recovering, and it is a weak, watered down version of the balls-out stuff that we grew up with, but this in turn could influence the present wave of kids to be the next wave of horror writers and publishers out there - and there's always the hope they will delve back to see what made their parents tick. Hopefully a kid will be up in the loft and discover a box of nasties.
But it happens time and time again, all it needs is one book to do well, one spark, and the whole landscape changes yet again.
|
|
|
Post by bushwick on Aug 13, 2009 9:44:03 GMT
This doesn't answer the question, but I just thought of it...hear me out!
What happened to film tie-ins? Because, more visceral horror films have been popular at the box office over recent years - Hostel, Saw et al - and also truly pulpy mens-adventure movies like 300, Beowulf etc. The filmic equivalent of a lot of the books from the 70s/80s.
What surprises me is that there have been (as far as I know) no tie-in novels associated with these books. Surely a novelisation of 'Hostel' would fly off the shelves in Borders. If these sold well, would they not lead to similar stand-alone, non-movie associated novels being written, to capitalise on sales?
If you extrapolate this theory down the line a few years, you should see a bookshop full of tales of horrible torture, brave barbarians, even monster stuff like 'Cloverfield'. If it's popular on film, why not on paper?
There's been loads of candidates for the pulp treatment in the last couple of years, off the top of my head "Doomsday", "Rise of the Footsoldier". "Death Race", "Eden Lake"....many more as well. This could rejuvenate pulp writing/publishing, by the back door, as it were?
Thoughts? Anyone who knows more than the naff-all I know about current publishing trends/practice?
|
|
|
Post by carolinec on Aug 13, 2009 10:40:49 GMT
If it's popular on film, why not on paper? I think the answer there, Bushwick, is probably that youngsters don't read any more. They'll go and see a film, but will they read a book? I doubt it. Look at Harry Potter (if I don't get myself lynched for even mentioning that name in the Vault! ). I bet there are far more kids who've seen the films than have read the books.
|
|
|
Post by carolinec on Aug 13, 2009 10:46:38 GMT
I think it wasn't the publishers who decided that this stuff wouldn't sell, you're missing the next link in the chain, but could it have been the distributors, people who buy for the shops - seeing the numbers that authors such as King was moving, over-ordered, drowned everyone else out, and then when the public had over-indulged and turned their backs on even the safe bets, that horror has struggled to find ANY sort of mainstream footing in the high street stores. Ah, yes, Johnny. I think you're right there, and I was probably oversimplifying by suggesting it was the publishers themselves. The publishers will have taken their measure of what the market for horror was like from the big store book-buyers, and that could have distorted the market, as you say. Trends tend to go full circle though, and the small presses are certainly starting to fly the flag high for horror again (no matter what "type" of horror you prefer), so I have no doubt it will come back into fashion at some point. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Dr Strange on Aug 13, 2009 10:55:03 GMT
Actually "novelizations" seem to be quite popular - provided the films are. Haven't seen any for "Saw" or "Hostel" - but have seen them for the more obviously teen-orientated stuff like "Hellboy" and "Van Helsing". And there are some which run to long series of books - like "Resident Evil" and "Underworld". All of which suggests that it isn't the teenagers who have given up on reading... maybe it's folks like us that are not buying enough new books? Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Aug 13, 2009 15:42:35 GMT
Thoughts? Anyone who knows more than the naff-all I know about current publishing trends/practice? Well, I know next to fuck all about current publishing trends and practice so I'm not sure if that qualifies me or not. A few thoughts anyway. Dr Strange has mentioned this but I'd like to expand a bit if I may (might seem like I'm going off topic but bear with me, eh?) As far as film/TV novelisations, tie-ins and spin-offs go, yeah, they do still exist - but only for certain types of stuff. US TV series of a broadly SF/fantasy-type nature have loads of books based on them, you only have to pop into your local Forbidden Planet. Not something I do often, I must say, but I have this mate who got very into Stargate when he was depressed a while back (long story) and I went in looking for a present for him. Not only can you get Stargate novels, you've got Battlestar Galactica, X Files, Buffy, Charmed, all that stuff. They even do things like Lost and 24. There's a long established tradition of Star Trek books going back as long as I can remember which shows no signs of letting up - alongside all your 'Classic Trek', Deep Space what-have-you, and The Next Whatever, there's also a novelisation of the latest film I notice. So there's, you know, your 'Cult TV', and not just American series either - they're still doing Doctor Who and Torchwood too. You want film tie-ins? You've got 'em. As much bloody Star Wars as you can eat, but also Aliens is still going strong, then there's Indiana Jones (never read these but they must be pulpy as all fuck in a Doc Savage sort of way, surely?), Terminator (Terminator Salvation has a novelisation and has started a spin-off series like T2 before it), Transformers (similar deal to Terminator), it goes on. Dr Strange also mentions Resident Evil and Underworld. Couple more points here. Resident Evil started as a series of video games, highly succesful it was too so, next thing you know it's a series of films, action figures, whatever you like really... series of novels? Yeah, why not. Likewise Underworld has a whole franchise going on, alongside the novels there are comics, a video game. It may seem surprising to people who see computer games and comics as being partly to blame for a decline in overall standards of literacy, particularly amongst the young, that popular games like Halo and, Lord help us, World of Warcraft have a whole series of spin-off books based on them. Come to think of it, maybe it's actually these books that are to blame for a decline in overall standards of literacy. Resident Evil and Underworld could also be seen as significant as they're both examples of a genre which can perhaps be described as action-horror. You could say (as with the highly popular teen vampire-romance Twilight series and the more adult Paranormal romance books already mentioned) that this isn't 'proper' horror but their popularity does seem to indicate a continuing interest in at least certain elements of the horror genre. As I see it there are two main markets for all this stuff, with probably a fairly big overlap in the middle - teens and 'fandom'. Now, as well as watching films and DVDs and too much television and playing computer games, these people obviously still find time to read a bit. At least they buy books, which is the important thing from a publishing point of view. But would these same people necessarily be interested in, say, Guy N. Smith or the old school Hamlyn-type British nasty and NEL horror? What would they make, for example, of something like Dracula and the Virgins of the Undead or Maggots? I don't know, but I think the perception of publishers at present is that they probably wouldn't be in any hurry to snap that stuff up. If something is already established in other media - TV, film, games - there's a ready market there, it's a low or no risk investment. Where's the obvious market for a reprint of Eat Them Alive? There may well be one but would you like to draw up a business plan with projected sales figures? This perception of the market would seem to be what it's all about when it comes to publishing. Which sort of brings me back to Prof. Quatermass's original question. I read an interview from a few years back with either Angus Wells or Laurence James, both of whom started as editors (Wells with Sphere, James with NEL) and went on to write hundreds of genre fiction paperbacks between them, anyway whichever one it was related a story which seems relevant here. A publisher's rep is driving round the country plugging his company's latest paperback titles and he goes into a newsagents in the provinces somewhere (this is back when newsagents all had book stands and did a brisk trade in paperbacks) and he's having trouble shifting a few copies of the new title in their latest western series. "There's no call for 'em anymore," the newsagent's telling him. This only has to happen a couple of times and the rep's going back to the office and reporting that westerns are on the way out. Maybe it was just a slow week. Maybe the rep was just having a bad day, but the publisher's perception is that the market has dried up. Paperback publishing was, probably still is, a fickle business, you went where the money was - whatever was selling well that month. So it only takes the word to get round that sales of your latest James Herbert knock-off are down and publishers get jumpy, print runs are reduced, titles put on hold or cancelled and before you know it, you've got a self-fulfilling prophecy on your hands. The ship may not actually have been sinking but the rats have buggered off anyway. Talking of James Herbert, although he could be seen as the one who, more than anyone else, started the whole '70s/'80s British nasty thing, he actually started distancing himself from it (give or take the odd sequel) fairly early on. I mean you've got The Rats and The Fog but within a couple of years he was doing stuff like Fluke. Not sure what sort of sales figures Herbert is notching up these days but I believe they're respectable enough for him still to be considered a 'bestselling' author. What sort of numbers were the bulk of the Hamlyn and the like horror paperbacks shifting back in the proverbial day? Tens of thousands maybe - not huge figures necessarily but a nice little return for the publisher until something else came along. Why hasn't the worldwide commercial success of films like Saw, Hostel and what have you translated into a rebirth of the classic British nasty? Maybe the perception amongst mainstream publishers is that the audience for that kind of stuff aren't big readers. Maybe they're right. Maybe at some point we'll see that 'breakthrough' book that Dr Strange talks about, or the 'spark' that Johnny mentions, and bookshop shelves will once more be filled with titles like Bloodthirst, Pestilence, Parasite, Slime, Squelch, and... Tricycle.
|
|