Is Vault of Evil anti-intellectual?

[David A. Riley]

Dec 26, 2010 17:01:11 GMT weirdmonger said:

I don't think being anti-intellectual can be equated with creaming-on-publicity. But I recognise that this thread has got itself a bit entangled in debates on both.

But I didn't equate being anti-intellectual with any such thing, Des. In fact I refuted the allegation that regular members of the Vault are anti-intellectual. What I went on to say was that what members were angered or annoyed by were people who have come on here for no other apparent purpose than self advertising. Thankfully that's become a thing of the past.

There is room on here for discussion of all sorts of genre fiction. It strikes me, in fact, as being a broad church, with room for everything, both well written and downright awful - both of which, oddly enough, can be enjoyed in their own way.

[weirdmonger]

I agree. But I thought that this thread had got entangled with the two together.

[David A. Riley]

I notice, Des, that you have started this same discussion on a number of sites, including shocklines and the www.knibbworld.com/campbelldiscuss/messages/1/4392.html?1293447824 From there, I spotted a comment from Joel Lane, who made some good points but ended:

"On the bright side, we don't see novels about human-munching crabs, praying mantises or rabid ferrets on the horror shelves any more. Nothing in the genre now is anywhere near as crude and illiterate as Guy N. Smith."

Now, I must admit I have never read a Guy N. Smith, but on the other hand, perhaps a few books of this type being published now might actually have been beneficial for the horror genre. Its lack doesn't seem to have boosted sales of other horror novels or have given publishers faith in our genre. Perhaps its stuff like this that the broader readership needs, on the back of which the rest of the genre's writers might benefit.

Just a thought.

[weirdmonger]

I don't think such books on the shelves (or not) would make any difference. Books in general are now probably a busted flush with kindles and ipads. We can all get our formula or template of bespoke fiction geared to our personal needs now at a flick of a switch.

PS: I had 2 threads (as well as continuing this one) to link to the Laird Barron interview as I knew many would be interested but in different places.

[Craig Herbertson]

I read my Guy N Smith down to recommendations on the vault and to be honest there is some magical quality about it. 'Crude and illiterate' doesn't quite fit for me but I appreciate that in a general discussion terms might be vaguer. I find it hard to describe Smith. A combination of absurdity, strange realism and sometimes some quite clear and effective writing. Enjoyable hokum.

[David A. Riley]

Dec 27, 2010 11:36:29 GMT weirdmonger said:

I don't think such books on the shelves (or not) would make any difference. Books in general are now probably a busted flush with kindles and ipads. We can all get our formula or template of bespoke fiction geared to our personal needs now at a flick of a switch.

PS: I had 2 threads (as well as continuing this one) to link to the Laird Barron interview as I knew many would be interested but in different places.

I have a feeling that the impact of kindles and ipads is nowhere near as massive as some people would like to make us think.

[noose]

I also feel as far as Guy N Smith is concerned, and to a large extent people like Richard Allen (James Moffat) and August Derleth, that they were churning out these books week after week to pay the bills - so it's quite clear there was going to be a dip in form and you can't sustain erudite, clear horror all the time. John Burke tells me about the times he had to write novels in a week - he's not proud of them, but they paid for his kids clothing...

But certainly for all of the faults that some of Guy's books have it's balanced by immense charm, wit and when they do deliver the horror, it's in bucketloads. I think people who dismiss the pulpier end of the horror market (if you want to call it that) - are doing them selves a disservice and the genre a disservice - these books have been loved and cherished by a great many readers of all sorts of backgrounds and to profligate them with an almost literary snobbery is a sad state of affairs.

Have I got the wrong end of the stick? It's a nice end if I have, anyways...

[marksamuels]

Guy N. Smith was actually a pseudonym for Ethel Loveby, a feminist author whose career was dedicated to delineating the destruction of the environment by pollution and the rapacious nature of free-market capitalism. The "crabs" are purely symbolic, and represent the solidarity of the struggle of the female against male-oppression, phallocentricism and the neo-liberal hegemony.

So that makes it all right.

Mark S.

[David A. Riley]

Mark, you've made my day!

[Craig Herbertson]

Dec 27, 2010 13:38:19 GMT marksamuels said:

Guy N. Smith was actually a pseudonym for Ethel Loveby, a feminist author whose career was dedicated to delineating the destruction of the environment by pollution and the rapacious nature of free-market capitalism. The "crabs" are purely symbolic, and represent the solidarity of the struggle of the female against male-oppression, phallocentricism and the neo-liberal hegemony.

So that makes it all right.

Mark S.

Yes, Mark. I noted that subtext after a reread. In the first few pages of 'Killer Crabs' Smith (Loveby) signals her intent when the farmer says ''But this is no ordinary crab, captain'.

The use of 'farmer' as the expositor of this quite remarkable symbolic signpost by Loveby is a clear allusion to the masculine roles of 'breeder' or 'cropper'. We can all make the immediate connection here of course: Breeding - the gross objectification of women as mere animals useful only for procreation and of course 'copper' the cutting or diminished of the female by the masculine.

When Larsen is told the crab is 'big' note how Loveby states immediately the reaction of Larsen (symbol of the failure of masculine ideals).

I quote: 'Larsen's strength seemed to return' (my italics.

[weirdmonger]

If you can crack the code of a book that easily, it wasn't done very well, I'd say!

[Craig Herbertson]

Dec 27, 2010 14:44:01 GMT weirdmonger said:

If you can crack the code of a book that easily, it wasn't done very well, I'd say!

Sorry to raise this appalling work again but I have a kind of obsession with Moby Dick. The critiques of Moby Dick, a supposed classic, are absolutely rife with spurious analysis. Take any string of words, search for appropriate references, make large statements, add them to statements by the previous pile of critics with copious notes.Suddenly the author wouldn't recognise his own book.

There's also a virtue in simplicity though. Some great works are capable of varying interpretation because of their appeal to very deep things. It's a book I didn't really much like but 'Johnathan Livingston Seagull' is a type that could be usefully analysed without lambasting it.

[weirdmonger]

Each fiction one reads is like a different type of instrument that one needs to play on its own merits in the smoky jazz club of your mind.

[andydecker]

Dec 27, 2010 11:30:46 GMT David A. Riley said:

"On the bright side, we don't see novels about human-munching crabs, praying mantises or rabid ferrets on the horror shelves any more. Nothing in the genre now is anywhere near as crude and illiterate as Guy N. Smith."

You know, as much as I can enjoy a writer´s writer work which is read by a small minority, it is remarks like that which send me running into the anti-intellectual corner.

No crude and illiterate writer manages to write and sell (!) 80 plus novels. So this is just a dumb and snobish judgement. But if you want to describe Smith as crude etc, just for the sake of argument, it is downright uniformed to say that nothing in the genre is as crude anymore.

Just take your average Paranormal Romance or Vampire novel which rehashes the same plot over and over again, writing the same book again and again, adding not one new idea to the canon, but doing it at thrice the lenght of a typical Smith.

If there would be a writer like a Smith of our times with his success, the genre would be a overall better place then it is.

[Craig Herbertson]

Dec 27, 2010 18:53:44 GMT andydecker said:

Dec 27, 2010 11:30:46 GMT David A. Riley said:

"On the bright side, we don't see novels about human-munching crabs, praying mantises or rabid ferrets on the horror shelves any more. Nothing in the genre now is anywhere near as crude and illiterate as Guy N. Smith."

You know, as much as I can enjoy a writer´s writer work which is read by a small minority, it is remarks like that which send me running into the anti-intellectual corner.

No crude and illiterate writer manages to write and sell (!) 80 plus novels. So this is just a dumb and snobish judgement. But if you want to describe Smith as crude etc, just for the sake of argument, it is downright uniformed to say that nothing in the genre is as crude anymore.

Just take your average Paranormal Romance or Vampire novel which rehashes the same plot over and over again, writing the same book again and again, adding not one new idea to the canon, but doing it at thrice the lenght of a typical Smith.

If there would be a writer like a Smith of our times with his success, the genre would be a overall better place then it is.

To be fair Andy 'crude and illiterate' might not be the terms one would use about Paranormal Romance or modern Vampire novels. I'd be searching for something like 'predictable, dull, unimaginative and inane'. I'm basing my opinions here on flicking through bits and pieces in airports mind you so for all I know I could have missed some ground breaking gem and be forever sad. Again I'm struck with the feeling that its generally a matter of taste or lack of it and the argument always founders when one camp tries to convince the other of some quality they have missed in their assessment.

As an example I am a huge Jack Vance fan. I read very little else at the moment really. My brother whose been collecting genre books with me since we were nine and eleven respectively and shares a lot in common with my reading tastes, just finds Vance utterly dull. He says its all 'whimsy'. I laugh and laugh at Vance. My brother would fall asleep. On the other hand we were both equally dumbfounded and thrilled by the recent film 'Red Cliff'.

When the other party is even further from your Milieu than your brother its likely you'll find their tastes beyond incomprehensible.

It's one thing I like about the vault. I often find that I don't like the specific tastes of others here but overall there are so many times I just get a good feeling reading reviews or recommendations or the general chat. You just know the people here would push you aside at the book stall to get the book you wanted yourself.