tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37410885.post322023227712870373..comments2023-07-30T05:57:48.256-04:00Comments on Gospel of the Living Dead: The Decline of Literary HorrorKPaffenrothhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02323273575993522455noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37410885.post-75884108834644337722008-05-21T08:42:00.001-04:002008-05-21T08:42:00.001-04:00Simmons, is actually incorrect. "Horror" vanished...Simmons, is actually incorrect. "Horror" vanished from bookshelves because it became too successful. Barnes and Noble found that people were embarrassed by looking for their King or Rice book in an obscure corner of the bookstore. So it was folded into mainstream literature so King could share a shelf with Borges, Tom Wolfe, Thomas Pyncheon, and others.<BR/><BR/>Anything that is successful enough will be moved out of its genre gutter and into the mainstream. Where do you find Harry Potter at your local book store? Not fantasy, that's for sure.John Goodrichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04193512490180575763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37410885.post-25720582286598206972008-05-20T00:32:00.000-04:002008-05-20T00:32:00.000-04:00To call something a "genre" should mean something ...To call something a "genre" should mean something other than a marketing distinction. A "novel" is a genre distinct from a "play," distinct from an "limerick." If "horror" is just a mood or subject matter, it's not a genre. At least, that would be my reaction to the question that I've heard many times now.KPaffenrothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02323273575993522455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37410885.post-16822609092553941802008-05-19T23:51:00.000-04:002008-05-19T23:51:00.000-04:00"horror is not a genre at all"? Okay, I'll bite. I..."horror is not a genre at all"<BR/>? Okay, I'll bite. I'm not sure what that's all about. Sounds like an interesting discussion I've been missing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37410885.post-40991018060355449372008-05-19T11:34:00.000-04:002008-05-19T11:34:00.000-04:00Good observations, going in the direction from lit...Good observations, going in the direction from literature to film. I have been seeing it in the other direction, where aspiring horror writers try to replicate scenes on paper that they've seen on film, with limited success, when they should be focused on what literary horror offers that film doesn't - getting inside characters' heads being the most notable difference, I think.KPaffenrothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02323273575993522455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37410885.post-61477176594803741922008-05-19T11:23:00.000-04:002008-05-19T11:23:00.000-04:00"what's scarier or evocative on film (e.g. graphic..."what's scarier or evocative on film (e.g. graphic violence) isn't necessarily what's scary on the page"<BR/><BR/>Lovecraft would be a good example of this. His writing often leaves you chilled and horrified, but when you try to describe it afterward (or put it on film) it utterly fails to be frightening. As someone else has observed, "I defy anyone to tell what any of his stories are about." And yet they abound with good, working horror.<BR/><BR/>He also transcends genres (is he horror, sci-fi, what?) which may add to the point that there may not actually be a "horror genre."Allen's Brainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15017088126061040113noreply@blogger.com