Several points here:
Quote:Kyberean
Stephen King?... Dean Koontz?... Peter Straub?... Clive Barker?...
I am not familiar with these writer's work, except for King's. Out of curiousity, why are these names so seldom mentioned on this site, when presenting one's taste? Highbrowism? Embarrassment? Pride? I understand they write mainstream litterature, with all its crowd-pleasing inflated fillings. But how is the quality of their handling of weird and supernatural elements
For my part: I find King (generally speaking) considerably more flaccid than Campbell has ever been; there is quite often an enormous amount of fat to his writing, which could stand some trimming. Excess verbiage abounds. I am not referring to the use of extra space which serves some purpose, but rather to his tendency toward mundanity, a sort of extremely dull reportage rather than verisimilitude which, on analysis, doesn't truly add anything to character, in no way increases the atmosphere of a piece, and in general is simply flat, uninspired blabbing. At his best, King can be quite good; the problem is that his best is, in my experience, far too little. A pity, as I rather like King himself, from what I know of him, and there are things to like about his work, as well; but I find that he isn't someone I can read much of without wanting to throw the book against the wall, in most cases, and I can very seldom revisit one of his pieces without finding myself chipping tooth enamel forcing myself to finish.
Barker is uneven: about half of what he has written is quite good to brilliant; the other half needs some serious rethinking before it gets published, as it shows signs of not being thought through very well at all, not to mention (again) being overly verbose. I haven't kept up with his work, but from what little I've dipped into it lately, this seems to have become a recurring problem.
Straub -- I'll be honest and admit I've read very little, but what I read, again, was rather variable. Again, at his best, very good; but otherwise competent, but little more.
Koontz bores me to tears; I can't finish any of his work, as it simply strikes me as the horror version of Harold Robbins. I find it atrociously written, and have no patience for it.
As was said above, I begrudge these writers none of their success; writing is a poorly paid profession at best in most cases; for those who can make a success of it, more power to them. But that doesn't mean I have any regard for their work if I find it lacking.
On this bit:
Quote:You just answered your own question So long as these writers publish in editions of 300 or so at a price of $40-$50 apiece, very few, indeed, will read them. I sometimes wonder whether that is perhaps the intention?
Most likely, in many cases, it is the reluctance of mainstream publishers to take a chance on such unconventional material in a field which has had wildly fluctuating fortunes concerning sales. And, of course, this isn't helped by the lack of publicity when one of them does pick up such a writer for a reissue (as happened with Ligotti on occasion), making it even less likely they'll take a chance in the future without some pretty solid evidence they'll not lose their money.
Quote:As for Campbell's much-praised style, what others call a tantalizing, ambiguous evocation of the numinous (Aside: How annoying it is to read Rudolf Otto's term bandied around here so carelessly), I call a cheap evocation of mystery by deliberate lack of clarity, and the Emperor's New Clothes. Ligotti's work suffers from this, as well, I think.
There is a certain tendency to overdo it on occasion, yes. I'll agree with that. But I also think this is in the minority of cases, rather than the majority. As for the use of Otto's term... I had in mind more much earlier writers on the subject, such as Burke, Aiken, and the like. And, as I said, Campbell seems to be developing, in modern terms, many of the same ideas and approaches used by writers of that period (and those fairly close to it). I would argue that he is actually quite precise, in most cases, in giving just the right amount to direct the reader toward a very particular image, idea, or interpretation, while nonetheless retaining a thin veil allowing a disquieting uncertainty on whether that vision is really the truth or not. That takes considerable skill and care, and is anything but a mere "lack of clarity".
Incidentally, I am not particularly given to following anyone's authority myself, though if I have read enough of their work and come to respect their opinion, then a favorable comment from them is likely to make me somewhat more prone to investigate a writer or work than I might otherwise be. However, I also have no problem in taking issue with them if I feel their judgment is in error in such a case, either.
I also can't agree with the classification of Joshi's comments as "blind idolatry" of Campbell. That he admires the man's work enormously, yes. But that is a far cry from idolatry. He has, on more than one occasion, taken Campbell to task for some of the very points you raise, for instance.
But perhaps we have different ideas of the meaning of the term....
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 28 Jul 09 | 11:17PM by jdworth.