The Horror! The Horror!

Well guys, we're on the back-end of October and Halloween is almost on top of us. With that in mind, I thought it'd be a good time to explore a topic near and dear to my heart: Horror.

Now, unlike most people I know, I didn't have a love for Horror growing up. For one, I was never allowed to watch it growing up, and other than a passing curiosity, I never cared enough to explore it. Instead, my love of the genre came in around the time I turned 20. 

At first my approach was very slow. I'd read Frankenstein and Dracula growing up, and those were a very different kind of Horror than I was about to dive into. Those books were more social commentaries than straight Horror, I think. Yes, I still consider them Horror, but those elements seems to only be a backdrop for the issues the authors wanted to explore. But I digress.

Anyway, after Frankenstein and Dracula (both wonderful books, by the way) I decided that Horror was maybe more than I'd been told all my life. If these books were any indication, the genre wasn't all mindless smut used as an excuse to show as much gore as possible. The Horror genre could be used as a vehicle to explore things that no other genre readily allows you to. As a writer, that idea fascinated me, and I couldn't wait to see what else I could dig up.

Stephen King was the next logical step for me. Again, this was a writer that my family had convinced me was not only a, most likely, devil-worshiping, goat-sacrificing, "spiritually disturbed" mess of a human being, but also just another drone in the Horror machine that perpetrated the smut I referred to earlier. First of all, not only is Stephen King a Horror writer, (even though that's how he's generally labeled) but also a brilliant Fantasy writer ... and a Pulp writer ... and Drama.... You see my point? The man writes a little bit of everything, and even though not all of it's to my taste, I admire his ability to jump from genre to genre like that. It's something a lot of writers today can't do. But, a constant theme in his work is the everyman overcoming the unspeakable evil. He likes to play with hard good and evil contrasts, whereas a lot of writers today tend to place their villains in a moral gray area. There's nothing wrong with that, but it gets a little tiresome when that's ALL you see. King's evil is the sort that makes those gray area-dwellers piss themselves, and I find that entertaining.

But, to keep things moving, I'll go ahead and move on to the main point of this post. You see, once I moved on to Clive Barker, then into Wes Craven and John Carpenter films, then the horrendous slasher cliche's like Friday the 13th, I realized that Horror was arguably the most primal, personal form of storytelling in existence. The horrific parts of the stories weren't always the blood-soaked killings, but rather the personal issues the characters were forced to face. The Silent Hill series of video games (specifically the second one) excels at this, and I'll say until the day I die that Silent Hill 2 is the single most terrifying fictional story I've ever been exposed to. Had that been a first person shooter series, the story Silent Hill tried to tell would have been impossible. You weren't a one man army slaughtering hoards of demons on mars, you were just some guy with a dark past unlucky enough to step into the fog. From there, you couldn't escape until you, literally, faced your personal demons (both literal and figurative) and overcame them.

So, for me at least, Horror is one of the most essential form of fiction we have. And yes, it gets a bad rap because of your Friday the 13th ripoffs (which were bad ripoffs themselves) but I maintain that those aren't even really Horror. Seriously, when was the last time you watched a Friday the 13th film without laughing hysterically at the repeatedly dumb decisions made by the protagonists, or the over-the-top deaths, like when Jason caught someone completely zipped up in their sleeping bag and beat them against a tree while they were stuck in it? Even Freddy vs. Jason, which is a guilty pleasure of mine, is much more comedy than Horror. With the Scream films, at least Wes Craven and company were aware of those stereotypes and poked fun at them in-film while still crafting a well done story that kept you guessing and gave you chills.

When you dissect some of the truly great Horror stories, you find things you might not expect. The easiest example would be Freddy Krueger, who represents loss and neglect, and according to Robert Englund himself in reference to the second Nightmare film, homosexual repression. And that's just the monster; try really taking a look at Nancy in Nightmare 1, 3 and New Nightmare. And so we've come full circle with that. Just like Dracula and Frankenstein, the best Horror has something to say. It can be much more subversive than those novels, but the thrills and chills, and the very nature of the Horror structure allow so much freedom for writers. Fear and Love are two of humanity's strongest drives, both of which Horror can handle like no other genre could ever hope to.

And there you have it. That's what Horror is to me. I hope I covered all my bases well enough and didn't make any of that too confusing. I'd also like to hear from everyone else about what Horror means to them.

Until then, it's Halloween guys. Read some Clive Barker, watch some Wes Craven, and have fun. It'll be a real scream!

A Slave To Interpretation

I came across an interesting article tonight (well, technically it's morning) where a columnist was listing their 10 (from best to worst) Stephen King movie adaptations. I saw before I clicked over to the main article that The Shining was listed at #1, and immediately thought "Well, surely they're talking about the miniseries SK did in '97", but I was wrong. For some reason I couldn't fathom, they had not only put the Kubrick movie on the list, but at #1, above every other adaptation.

So, after reading the entire list, I went back to the top and re-read the description, which I'll just quote here:

"Stephen King famously hated Stanley Kubrick’s adaptation of The Shining. His major grievance with the Kubrick film is his feeling that the director downplayed the supernatural element of the story as much as possible and emphasized the psychological origins of main character Jack Torrance’s madness. He also suggested, probably correctly, that casting Jack Nicholson in the role would diminish the effect of an otherwise normal man descending into derangement, as Nicholson had mostly played unstable characters up to that point. However, I think what is so powerful about The Shining is its open-endedness and the idea that we may never know exactly where our demons are coming from. It would be easy enough to blame Torrance’s meltdown on some external evil entity but the film is much more compelling because that is not made explicit. All of this aside, Kubrick is a visual master and a director whose vast attention to detail and style give this film its unique and stunning look. This is my number one Stephen King adaptation because it transcends King himself and is not only one of the best thrillers ever made, but one of the best films ever made"

Well, that's....

I'm sorry, but doesn't "best adaptation" imply that it's the most faithful to the source material? Am I missing something here?

The main part of that whole spiel that bothers me is the last line: "...because it transcends King himself and is not only one of the best thrillers ever made, but one of the best films ever made." So, in a roundabout way, it seems like the writer of this article is implying that King's beefs with the so-called adaptation are unfounded, which is wrong, in my opinion.

Anyway, after re-reading the description a second time, I decided to hit the comments and see what other people were saying about it, and the first couple of comments gave me hope, with people saying thinks like:

"Shawshank Redemption is one of the best movies of all time so it should be number 1 without a doubt. Kubrick’s self indulgent butchering of the story in The Shining should make it a choice on the worst list."

"The Shining was one of King's best novels. The movie was outstandingly bad and I can't believe anyone who rates the movie highly even read the book. Stanley Kubrick is/was one of the world's most over-rated directors. The television mini-series version of "The Shining" was a vast improvement over the cinematic version."

"The Shining #1????? That was the most pathetic adaptation of a Stephen King book on record! Shawshank Redemption should have been #1 with The Mist a lot higher than it was ranked. The rest of the list is pretty well spot on."

But then I read further down and found comments like:

"" This is my number one Stephen King adaptation because it transcends King himself and is not only one of the best thrillers ever made, but one of the best films ever made." Agreed. Stephen King is my hero but I do agree that the movie was done well. It wasn't what he envisioned, but obviously it resonated with readers, and they have the book (as well as his own Shining movie series) for his idea. Besides, a major part of writing is begin interpreted in endless ways." 


And there were a few others who agreed with this person which, as a writer, really bothered me.

Now, I don't claim to know everything about writing (which is part of the excitement that keeps me going) and I can't speak for every writer, but there are certain ways I NEVER want my work to be interpreted. If I feel it's a complete bastardization of the work I lovingly cultivated over months or years, then I have every right to fight against it, in my mind. The idea of a novel "transcending" the writer in a way the writer is vehemently against is something that should never happen, and yet it happens everyday.

Exhibit A: Alan Moore

Moore has been very outspoken over the years about not wanting his work, saying, "They were written to be impossible to reproduce in terms of cinema. So why not leave them as a comic, in they way they were intended to be?"

Initially, Moore was content to just take the money for the film and keep his mouth shut, then he stopped taking any royalties at all and insisted that his name be stricken from the titles. And I can see why after so many of his stories were outright ruined by Hollywood, even before Watchmen. For some reason, even with Moore's constant protests, studios continue to gain access to movie rights due to his publishers' moneygrubbing.
____

Now, I consider it different when a writer is closely involved with the filming process, like O'Barr was on The Crow. This was an instance where the writer personally signed off on everything the director wanted, and was pleased with the final product. In cases like this, if the writer has any complaints after filming, it's really their own fault.

Anyway,  I guess the main thing that irked me about the article was the fact that people (most of whom didn't even seem to have read the book) were running to the defense of a pitifully-done adaptation of a great work. If the movie had been called anything other than The Shining, I probably wouldn't have any problems with it, in all honesty, but when you use the name, you're making certain promises to the viewer, and I felt that those promises were broken by Kubrick.

If you'd like to check out the article for yourself, I'm leaving a link below, so feel free to check it out. And if you get a chance, please comment and give me your opinions on this. Should a writer always be a slave to unwanted interpretation?

Stephen King's Books Turned to Films, From Best to Worst

Top 10 Authors of All Time

Now, before you say "Hey, you presumptuous prick! You forgot to put [Insert Author's Name Here] on your list!", please know that this list is entirely opinion-based and, quite frankly, I don't care if you think it's wrong, nor do I want a list of reasons why you think it's wrong. 

So, without further ado, here we go.


10.) Ray Bradbury

 Bradbury impresses me not just because of his several works of fiction that have had a definitive and lasting impact on the literary world, but because he suffered through years of rejection letters before even getting a single short story published. 

Now, that's not to take away from his contributions to literature. Fahrenheit 451, The Illustrated Man, The Martian Chronicles, Something Wicked This Way Comes, and so on. And those aren't even counting his short stories. I highly recommend you watch the video embedded below, as it gives great insight into what kind of man Ray Bradbury really was and why he was so impressive.

9.) C. S. Lewis  

This is probably the part where you expect me to mention The Chronicles of Narnia being Lewis's masterpiece, and his greatest contribution to our society. Well, if that's what you were thinking, you'd be wrong. 

In truth, while I do like and respect the Narnia books, I don't consider them Lewis at his best, and they're certainly not what influenced me the most. The Screwtape Letters, A Grief Observed, The Problem of Pain, and even the Space Trilogy all outdo Narnia in my eyes. Even if you don't consider yourself spiritual in any manner, Lewis's Mere Christianity is still a thought-provoking and insightful read, and I recommend anyone looking to dive into his "Spiritual Essays" start either there or with Screwtape.


8.) Joss Whedon

Joss finds his way onto this list mainly because of his way with dialogue. Yes, he writes compelling stories, but let's be honest: if it wasn't for his way with dialogue and character interaction, half of us probably wouldn't keep reading/watching his work.

To be honest, the fact that he's even on this list is kind of a cheat. I made it a point not to include filmmakers, but seeing as Joss had a stint on Astonishing X-Men, among a few other comics, he is technically eligible, but just barely (especially since his best work with characters and dialogue is onscreen).


7.) Dante Alighieri

What can I say about Dante that hasn't been said at least a million times before? Probably nothing, so bear with me as I state the obvious.


Dante was the genius who, above all else, made us all look at hell in a very different light. Although Dante makes many references to God and the bible, his version of hell is very different than the one described in the christian texts. Dante's hell isn't one of fire and brimstone, but instead one of darkness and anguish, and all the nightmares we try our hardest not to think about. The "Circles of Hell" have been a mainstay in our culture ever since, referred to not only in casual conversation but used in numerous works of fiction over the years, and I don't see them going anywhere anytime soon.

Yes, Inferno was Dante at his best, but don't do like so many other people and stop after that. Inferno is only the beginning of The Divine Comedy, followed by Purgatorio and Paradiso, and none of them are worth missing.


6.) Alan Moore

And here we have our true oddball on the list. The man has only written comics, but I consider comics just as equal in merit as any novel, and sometimes they do their job better than a novel can.

Moore has always been influenced by the great poets of ye olden times and a ton of classic literature in general, and you can tell that in his writing. Even though he writes comics, his stories feel noticeably different than anyone else in the business, and they've felt that way since he took over Swamp Thing at DC in the mid 1980's.

Imagine this: That guy you've read about since you were a kid? You know, the one that got turned into a plant-creature but retained his humanity? Well, what if all of that was completely wrong? What if, instead of a man trapped inside a monstrous body, trying to do good, it had been a plant with delusions of grandeur the whole time? Yeah, that plant only THOUGHT it was the guy that had been killed in the swamp. Pretty trippy, right?

Little things like that are what Alan Moore did to revolutionize an industry that had fallen into complacency. He later went on to write a little book called Watchmen, the first comic to ever make the New York Times Bestseller List, and it even got attention from Time magazine, another rarity at the time.


5.) Luo Guanzhong

The Romance of the Three Kingdoms might not be a name that resonates with you, but it certainly does with me. Not only is the Three Kingdoms period of Chinese history in-depth and fascinating, but it turned into the springboard for a number of really cool "subtle" embellishments when Guanzhong decide to novelize the story.

Some of the characters in Romance are larger than life, and that's perfectly all right. There are a few things Guanzhong gets outright wrong when compared to true history, but he knew he was telling a story first and foremost, and allowed himself certain luxuries. Truly, he was among the earlier Historical Fiction writers; a concept that was fairly foreign until later years.

Now, there is speculation that Guanzhong was not the sole writer of Romance, just the man to compile everything into one cohesive story, but there's no proof either way, so you can believe whatever you want. I always refer to Guanzhong as the sole writer because it's easier to credit that way.


4.) Homer

If I have to tell you who Homer is and what he wrote, you've probably been living under a rock your whole life and can't even read the text in front of you. That's just how well-known the bugger was.

Personally, the Odyssey is what sticks out in my mind, above the Illiad and all of his other poems. When I was 11 years old, I read it for the first time and was completely blown away. It was the first Epic Poem I'd ever read, so initially the style confused me, but once I got into the story I just couldn't put the book down.

Almost any time someone sees a new story of adventure, intrigue, sailing, armies, betrayal ... they can recall a moment in the Odyssey that closely resembles it. 

It's funny though, if you looked at the "proper" way to write a character in popular fiction today, Odysseus would most likely be considered a bad example. He's smart, handsome, athletic, steadfast, courageous, and expert marksman/swordsman, fierce warrior and tactician, and all around near-perfect. But somehow, his struggle is still compelling. We watch the people all around him fail and fall, but somehow this one guy is still standing, all because he wants to make it back home to his wife and son.

I think the character of Odysseus resonates so strongly with people simply because we can all imagine the suffering we would endure for our loved ones, and we'd like to think that our resolve would be as strong as his, even in similarly dire situations. I could discuss this theory all day, but if I do we'll never get to....


3.) Stephen King

The Master of Horror, or so he was branded in his early days. Now, he's the Master of Whatevertheheckhefeelslikewritingatthetime.


King's strength isn't in his ability to write massively-long fiction (although God knows he can do that just fine), but in his characters and the settings/situations that define them. By now he's written everything from Horror to Fantasy, and I'm not convinced the man hasn't written Harlequin under a pseudonym, but no matter what he writes, his characters are very much human and relatable. They make mistake after mistake, like the underdogs they are, and you can't help but root for them against whatever force of evil they find themselves up against.

And that's another unique thing about Stephen King: although he's claimed in the past that the villain of a story is much more interesting when they're in a sort of moral gray area, you find that a lot of his stories are clear-cut good and evil. Take Pennywise for instance; there are absolutely no redeeming qualities about that character, aside from the fact that Tim Curry played her (yes, Pennywise is a female entity) in the film. Throughout the story you're rooting for the Losers, and just waiting for them to rip the heart out of the creature that's been terrifying them the whole book. And it's very satisfying when "It" is finally dead.


2.) Neil Gaiman

Neil Gaiman first grabbed my attention with The Sandman graphic novels. What started out a Horror very quickly turned into Dark Fantasy (a genre that was new to me at the time) and I loved every page of it. I honestly can't thing of a single negative thing to say about the series outside of one or two artists I didn't care for, and the fact that it ended.

Gaiman understands how to weave believable elements of modern storytelling in with the reckless wonder of the classics. It's a brutal balancing act most writers today just aren't capable of, but Gaiman nails it every time he sits down with his notebook.

And if you'd like more insight as to why Gaiman is so awesome, here's a video.

1.) Robert Jordan

And now we get to a hero of mine. This is the man who inspired me to write fiction. When I was 15 and read The Eye of the World for the first time, I felt like my whole world had been turned upside down. I couldn't believe that I hadn't read this series sooner (even though I probably wouldn't have been able to absorb it at any younger age). All the emotions it stirred up inside me made me realize for the first time that fiction was nothing short of magic, and I couldn't wait to start casting my own spells.

The thing that set Jordan apart from most Fantasy writers were his characters. Yes, his world and customs were unique as well, but the characters are the friends you're going to be hanging out with for 14 books (15 if you include the prequel), so they're better be likeable. And that's the beauty of it; you and your friends will probably all like different characters, then halfway through the series, after the characters go through their changes, you might switch favorites.

The world of Robert Jordan's The Wheel of Time is a world of change. It is not the beginning, because there are neither beginnings nor endings to the turning of the Wheel, and Ages will come and go. The world you see in The Eye of the World is non-existent by the time A Memory of Light rolls around.

I can't praise Jordan's work enough, and if I don't stop myself now I'll be here all day. Let me just say that no other author has had the impact on me that Robert Jordan has had, and if the man were still alive, I'd beat down his door just to shake his hand and tell him thanks.


Honorable Mentions

It would be impossible to cram every I wanted to onto a list, and it wasn't easy to trim this one down to what it is. So, I don't think I can leave without at least mentioning some of the people that ALMOST made it on the list.



 J. R. R. Tolkien

Yeah, I'm sure some of you are wondering why both Lewis and Jordan made it over Tolkien. Well, that's because, while I love Tolkien, and I consider him a great world-builder and linguist, his storytelling isn't on par with a lot of other writers of his time. It's not bad by any means, but compared to Lewis's it certainly seems that way at certain points.


Mervyn Peake

I'd be remiss not to mention the writer of the fantastic Gormenghast series. At the time, the Gothic style of Gormenghast was a drastic departure from typical fantasy, and the series is often cited as the first Fantasy of Manners.


Tad Williams

I was first introduced to Tad Williams through a church yardsale when I was 16. Yeah, someone had donated a copy of Caliban's Hour to be sold, and my mom worked at the church during the week, so one day when I had nothing to do, I decided to crack open the book in the bin with the most interesting cover, and that happened to be Caliban's Hour.

Before I knew what had happened it was a few hours later and I was at the end of the book. I knew I had to find more stuff from this guy, so I hit the library and looked for anything I could find by this guy. I found The Dragonbone Chair first, and it was awesome. Then I found Tailchaser's song, and even though I don't like cats, the story got it's hooks in me.

To this day I look forward to any new series Williams starts, and hopefully there's another around the corner.


Amy Hennig

It broke my heart not having her on this list. Her stories have been with me since I was a kid, playing video games during the PS1 era. Her work on the Legacy of Kain series has had a huge impact on my writing style, and I stole a theme or two from her work when I wrote Electus.

Her way with characters and bitter, complicated relationships makes her probably the best writer in the video game industry right now. Since Legacy of Kain (where she developed one of my favorite characters of all time, Raziel) she's moved on to other great works like the Uncharted series.

Hennig is unique in the video game industry because she believes that focusing too much on graphics in a game can inhibit it (something series like Gears of War could stand to learn). She has said that once game writers start focusing on creative expression, video games will greatly improve, and I'm 100% with her on that.

Also important is Amy's writing style. Take Uncharted for example: Nathan Drake is the main character, and rather than allude to his past all through flashback cutscenes, Hennig puts Drake with a multitude of different characters that highlight different aspects of his personality and past.  Raziel and Kain in Legacy of Kain are much like this as well, as you get to watch how they each interact with some of the same characters at different times, and their actions tell you a lot about them. To me, it means more to actually see how a character reacts than to tell me how they would react, or how they acted in the past.

I love Amy's style, and I hope to God she branches out into novels one day. I'd love dive into her stories without always having to devote countless hours to a series of games every time I want to relive one.