Ron Clinton wrote:
>
> Bob Toomey wrote:
>
> > Hardboiled is
> > grounded in a skeptical, cynical, unsentimental
view of the world.
> > Horror is the polar opposite -- romantic,
sentimental, emotional.
>
> Perhaps if by "horror" one means those bodice-ripper
Gothics that were
> popular decades ago or the ghost stories of the 19th
century and early 20th
> century. Or today's Mary Higgins clones. But if
you're suggesting that the
> horror of the last two decades is limited to
"romantic, sentimental,
> emotional" prose, you may want to sample a Lansdale,
Laymon, Schow, Bloch,
> Ketchum, Garton, McCammon, King, Koontz (okay, maybe
you're right about
> him), Campbell, Brandner or a host of other horror
luminaries who would
> savage your view into hardboiled, cynical,
unsentimental, bloody ribbons by
> the end of the first chapter.
I've read all these guys and like their stuff, with the
exception of Brandner. King, McCammon, Koontz and Campbell I
would score pretty high on the romantic, sentimental and
emotional scale. Laymon is more hardboiled, but there's a
strong streak of romantic sentimentality in his work. Maybe
all the blood in your eyes is blinding you to those elements.
Ketchum is harder still, but can you honestly say that a book
like JOYRIDE isn't romantic in its basic outlook? As for
Garton, LIVE GIRLS strikes me as pretty romantic, and his
BLOOD & LACE (as Joseph Locke) is even more so. Even an
extreme piece of work like Poppy Z. Brite's EXQUISITE CORPSE
is highly romantic, sentimental and emotional at its core.
All of these writers are straight out of the Gothic tradition
-- ask them, they'll be happy to tell you that.
BobT
-- # To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to majordomo@icomm.ca. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 09 Feb 2000 EST