Horror Aficionados discussion

Hi Everyone,
This is a thought that keeps popping up every now and then.
Are there many novels, short stories, authors (within the genre) that deliver the "goods" in terms of a good "scare", tension or suspense and yet do not reply on violence and gore? (as far as authors go, Charles L. Grant comes to mind.)

T.M. Wright

Michael McDowell, a late, great Alabama author.

Richard Matheson is not very graphic, IMO. Or Peter Straub.

Gary Braunbeck does not rely on violence or gore but still creates the right mood.

I second Michael McDowell. Great stuff!

HP Lovecraft.

Erica wrote: "I second Michael McDowell. Great stuff!"

I agree about it being great stuff. Just wonder what he could have written if he hadn't died so soon. :-(

Charles Grant

Good starting novel for Mr. McDowell ?

Elementals. I enjoyed his Michael McDowell's Blackwater I: The Flood series. Katie is my favorite, but it's a little more graphic than his others, thought not totally just blood and guts. It's an eerie story.

Elementals is fantastic.

Elementals is great, Matheson is good old school and Shirley Jackson too.

Loved how The Elementals slowly built up the tension, and how the families stayed too long there. Pretty frightening; claustrophobic.

Peter Straub and H.P. Lovecraft came instantly to mind.

I'd second H.P. Lovecraft. I think that Joe Hill is a genuine talent as well!

Horns has become one of my favorite books of late. Read it and listened to it on audio. Just a fantastic story from beginning to end.

20th century ghosts was great

Oh, yeah, I liked that one, too. Some of the stories were better than others, of course, but "Best New Horror" was great.

I loved Horns. That book brought out an emotional reaction in me that most books can no longer do. I read it about a year ago, and want to reread it again sometime soon. I haven't yet read 20th Century Ghosts. Hopefully soon.

I was surprised at how much emotion there was in Horns. I thought it was gonna be just another horror story, but it's much more. Very satisfying story.

What surprises me is *dare I say it?* how much better Hill is than his father. His books are very literary, but they're also creepy and, like you said, full of emotion.

How was the narrator for Horns, Tressa? Was he any good?

I wouldn't say he's a better author than his dad but that he learned at both his parents sides and thus developed his own more subtle style.Rather than being a better author he's another type of author altogether. He has his own voice which is quite nice :)

How can you guys compare someone with only three published novels to someone who's been writing for decades and is embodied in both culture and consciousness of generations?

I did read Joe Hill's Heart Shaped box, and found it dreadful, I'd even venture to call it rubbish. Maybe his other novels are better, but this one left a really bad taste.

Jason, the narrator for Horns is excellent. You should give it a listen if you can.

Let's just say I like Hill's style better. And if I do, does it matter if he's written little in comparison to his dad's extensive and also large body of dreadful novels?

Maybe when Hill has been writing for decades and just runs out of ideas and the ability to write a tight novel, I'll turn on him to. Who knows what the future will bring?

Well, I guess it does, if you aim to discredit a man's entire career by comparing his work with only three works of another, which most likely will be forgotten in the next decade or so. I'm not a King defender, but there is no doubt that he will be remembered among the greats in years to come. Can't say that about mr. Hill, basing on what I've read.

I agree with Tressa regarding McDowell. You may want to start with his first book, Amulet, which is a very good first novel. It sounds like what you're looking for are writers that create atmosphere (which is what I prefer when it comes to horror). Old school writers that come to mind are Lovecraft (of course), M.R. James, Algernon Blackwood, all of whom wrote short stories. T.E.D. Klein's Dark Gods is considered essential reading by many. Lately (over the last few years) I've noticed that there's practical renaissance of horror writing going on, at least in the short form. One new writer I really like is Laird Barron. His The Imago Sequence and Other Storiesand Occultation and Other Storiescertainly delivered the goods for me. I would consider him to be of the Lovecraft school. Caitlin Kiernan's novel The Red Tree was very creepy, but it did have some explicit sex scenes in it. But it's slow buildup of atmosphere was as good as it gets. She also is a Lovecraftian. As far as King vs. Hill. I don't know. From what little I've read of Hill, I do think he's the more literary of the two (I liked Heart Shaped Box). But what does that mean? I definitely think Straub is more literary than King, but I've enjoyed King's books more over the years. But that's not to say that King hasn't written crap -- and often. I have a complicated reading relationship with King that ranges from 1 to 5 stars. You have number of fine suggestions in this thread. Good luck and good reading.

Out of curiosity, what is "literary" about Heart Shaped Box?

Maciek wrote: "Well, I guess it does, if you aim to discredit a man's entire career by comparing his work with only three works of another, which most likely will be forgotten in the next decade or so. I'm not a ..."

I am not trying to discredit a man's entire career. I prefer Hill's style already. My opinion only.

I know you don't. I was referring to Jason and Steve, who both said that he's a more "literary" author. Of course it's an opinion, but it interests me why they think that way, since I don't share it.

I've been reading king for roughly 31 years now and have read just about everything he's done. I'd classify him as my favorite writer. that doesn't mean that there haven't been books that I haven't like-there has, but in a long career that happens. He's one of the very few writers that I look forward to reading
Joe Hill, I enjoyed his 1st novel but I thing he excels (at least so far)in short stories. Haven't read Horns.
King's other son is a writer also and got much acclaim for his ss collection.
and of course mrs KIng has done some good stuff.
I must say what a family

Steve wrote: "I agree with Tressa regarding McDowell. You may want to start with his first book, Amulet, which is a very good first novel. It sounds like what you're looking for are writers that cr..."

definitely give Blackwood and James a read

Tabitha King's books that I've read are very good. I agree: what a family. A literary dynasty, lol.

I agree that Hill has slightly more of a literary touch than King. It's not as apparent in HSB, but in Horns and his short stories, it's there. I think "literary" is a hard word to explain when you're trying to explain just what raises one story above another one.

People keep using the word "literary" to either justify their reading tastes or to put them above those of other people. I know none of you do, so that's why I asked.

For me, King has gone a long way: from writing short fiction on a borrowed typerwriter in a laundry room to a versatile author, with style and stories few can math. Harlan Ellison once summed him up perfectly "His writing is like Fred Astaire's dancing - it's so smooth you don't notice that it's there".

Throughout his fiction, from "Salem's Lot" to epics like "The Stand" and "IT", collections like "Different Seasons" and "Hearts in Atlantis", and the monumental achievement that is "The Dark Tower" there is a visible sense of progress, and these titles are all different and as literary as fiction can be. I've no doubt that people will read him in a hundred and two hundred years; I don't think I can say that about Joe Hill.

Maciek wrote: "People keep using the word "literary" to either justify their reading tastes or to put them above those of other people. I know none of you do, so that's why I asked.

For me, King has gone a long ..."

well said, Maciek

King is one of THE greatest storytellers in book history; I'll give him that. And I agree that people will be reading him for a long time to come, not sure about two hundred years from now, though. He might seem as outdated and dry as some of the old writers I (try to) read.

Who knows how long a writer's book will stand. Harper Lee wrote one book and it's still being read and studied forty plus years later. I don't think it matters how prolific a writer is. I'm enjoying Hill at the moment, and I ain't dead yet. So that's as far into the future as I'm willing to looking.

I don't think he will be too outdated. In fact, people might be interested in reading him even more, to see a pretty accurate account of the old times. Years ago, people lived in one place all their lives, traveled far less than we do today. There was no immediate medium like television and the internet. Correspondence took months to arrive, so people wrote 20-30 page long letters, encompassing these months; that's why books were written the way they were written. People enjoyed a lot more detail and description to help them visualize the places they've never been and people they never meet.

King's work from the beginning of his career is still widely read today. "Salem's Lot", "The Shining", "The Stand" - all have been published in the 70's. Does that speak for something? I think it does. I'm not trying to diminish anyone's enjoyment of Joe Hill's work - let us all read what we want.

Maciek wrote: "People keep using the word "literary" to either justify their reading tastes or to put them above those of other people. I know none of you do, so that's why I asked.

For me, King has gone a long ..."

Although I like Joe Hill's books a lot, I agree with Maciek that King is getting the short shrift here. King's ability to write a "literary" novel is unquestioned (take a good look at The Green Mile, Duma Key and Bag of Bones as more recent examples). King's writing is so fluid that you never focus on the writing itself and just get lost in the story. It's an amazing feat and one Hill, as good as he is, has not accomplished yet. Maybe he will someday, and it's not fair to compare the two because there are many differences between them and I enjoy both of their styles. You can like Hill better than King, that's fine and it's a matter of taste. But to say Hill is more "literary" than King is, IMO, a puzzling position.

Maybe we're giving Hill too much credit and he's not as literary as we think he is. Maybe I can't explain what it is about his style--so far!--that I like so much better. And if he weren't King's son, I wouldn't be comparing/contrasting them. And that's not to say that I don't think their works shouldn't be judged individually, but comparisons are going to be made. I'm sure I'm in the minority about the two.

But, sorry, as good as The Green Mile is--and it's somewhat literary--Bag of Bones is not, IMO. It's a really good story but one that didn't stick with me for long and also could have used with some editing.

And I don't think anyone is short-shrifting King. He has already gone down in publishing history as a man who can tell a great story (although, IMO, not always executed as well as it could be), keep fans for decades and pick up new ones everyday, and is a bottomless pit for ideas.

I didn't say you had to like Bag of Bones or Green Mile but I think they are written in what is generally considered a "literary" style (although I hate the word because of the negative connotations it unfairly raises). I've read plenty of "literary" books I didn't like. It's the style I was referring to, not the quality.

I didn't say you said I had to like them, did I? *scratches head furiously*

Your comment was "But, sorry, as good as The Green Mile is--and it's somewhat literary--Bag of Bones is not, IMO. It's a really good story but one that didn't stick with me for long and also could have used with some editing." I took that as a criticism of the quality of the book rather than whether or not the book was "literary". To me, a book can be considered "literary" whether or not you like it. That was my only point. Sorry for the confusion.

I threw in that IMO so you wouldn't do a beat down on me.

I would never beat ya down for expressing your opinion on a book's quality. But I will beat ya down if "The Summer I Died" sucks! Cost me a whole $2.99! LOL

Oh, shit. The pressure's on. Give me a chance to get the $2.99 to ya before you break my kneecap.

Ah! I didn't mean to start an argument with my Hill being better than King comment. LOL

Let clarify a little. :) I also wasn't trying to discredit King's career. If anything, I was giving Hill a massive compliment to what I think he's accomplished so early in his career. I do think that he's a better writer than his father. But that's saying something! His father is a monster of a writer who has accomplished what most other writers will never be able to. King is also the writer of some of my favorite horror novels of all time.

But Hill's characters, his prose, the overall creepiness in his novels strikes me as so much more than King. Maciek is right, though. It's still early in his career. So, who knows where he'll go. But I trust him after the two books and some of the short stories I've read by him. We could end up parting ways down the road, but for now, I'm head over heals...

Yeah, what Jason said.

Thank for the comment Jason, appreciate it. Guess it's just a matter of taste. I thought that Heart-Shaped Box was one of the worst books I've read last year. It was like a bad Dimension straight-to-video film, and I love bad straight-to-video films! It was so awful I considered not finishing it. I don't think that Mr. Hill has not used a cliche he didn't like. The writing was godawful, the characters were pathetic and the story was just so damn booooring and unoriginal. Everyone praised it so much that when I finally got around to reading it I was so disappointed.

Maciek, maybe you just expected too much from all the praise. I have found I like books much less and am much more critical when I don't think they live up to the hype, and it may not always be the book's fault. I know I really liked Box and read it without the benefit of any reviews.

I really liked Heart-Shaped Box, but I thought Horns was terrible.

I really loved Horns, but thought Heart-Shaped Box was OK.