It is well understood that a few books, particularly coming out of the Victorian era, are the great classics of horror
and suspense. Novels such as Frankenstein, Dracula, The Phantom of the Opera, The Island of Doctor Moreau, the writings of
Poe and Lovecraft, and The Picture of Dorian Grey. I have read, or at least tried to read, all of these works. They're supposed
to be more creepy and enduringly disconcerting than scary in the "BOO!" kind of way.
But are they. Are they really? Tonight on a very special Jelly Pufflemur exclusive, we ask the question: Are your scary
books really scary? And is the water they drink tainted with lead and child molesters. Child molesters that have shrunk themselves
down. And are flying around in the water (and possibly in your child's bloodstream!) in little submarine thingies. Like in
that movie innerspace. Only with child molesters. And lead.
Anyhow, we're not going to ask any of those questions except the first one. So, let's get to some reviews of a selection
of some of the best horror literature of all time. Many of these titles, are available at this site http://www.dagonbytes.com/thelibrary/ which, like some of the novels, tries very hard to be scary and gothic.
Frankenstein:
Mary Shelley, not to be confused with Percy Blyse Shelley, wrote a book and called it Frankenstein. It was actually frightening
back in the Victorian era because people did this. Scientists dissected living animals and such (as we'll see later) and they
especially liked to play with corpses, though not in the manner that Ahnold Schwazenegah recently outlawed. They conducted
all manner of experiments on ex-men and women, usually for the good of science, though it's not known if anything was ever
actually learned from this.
There's no doubt that some scientists tried to re-animate the recently dead, or cut them up for spare parts for experiments.
So you can see that in the 1800s Frankenstein was likely to be constructed on the street near your house if you chanced to
live in London or Manchester or such cities. The climate of the time was what it really relied on for its creepiness, but
that's passed away. We can create life pretty easily now and it looks a lot more pettable than Frankenstein and has more practical
implications. For instance, cloning a cow gives you twice the beef, but making a Frankenstein gets your house torched.
The tale of creating something and having to then decide to destroy it is kind of interesting, but more of a moral question
than suspense or horror. Frankenstein's prose is just a bit too flowery and drawn out to be really worrying as well, so it
gets rather low marks, but not by far the worst.
Dracula:
In the days of Bram Stoker, people from Britain who were out on business had to travel through from frightening places
to go abroad. No doubt one of the most forboding was southeastern Europe, above Greece. The other most forboding thing they
might see would be a copy of Bram Stoker's Dracula. With its endless blabbering about nothing and its complete and total lack
of anything resembling horror or suspense, Dracula more resembles the diary of two silly twits than anything even remotely
worrying.
Stoker builds up some kind of horrible villain in Dracula with the talk of the villagers, and Dracula never quite lives
up to the hype. Then inexplicably the story switches viewpoints for some reason and just becomes a confused mass of nonsense.
But nonsense with vampires and chicks and vampire chicks. I've read scarier things from Doctor Seuss, and it didnt take me
a week just to read "The Lorax" halfway through. I finished "The Lorax" but after some endless jaw jabbering and not nearly
enough teeth sinking I gave up on Dracula.
The Phantom of the Opera:
Gaston Leroux is a name most have probably never heard. It's unfortunate because he's a marvelous writer. The Phantom of
the Opera, despite all its adaptations, is an absolute masterpiece. The characters are well wrought, the villain despicable,
the heroine wonderful, and the hero just and yet conflicted. The story is fairly believable and all of the characters come
out as being flawed and human, and yet very sympathetic, even the villain.
There are moments when we suspect the hero may become the villain, especially since the phantom is not definitely introduced
for a while. The novel begins on a very dark note and as we get to know the characters we dread what is said may happen to
them and are in suspense about how it will happen if it does. There are some flaws. The "Torture Chamber" fails to frighten
since it's just a hall of mirrors with a heater in it. Now that I think about it thats really the only flaw. A very marvelous
and suspenseful book!
The Island of Doctor Moreau:
So, H. G. Wells wrote a great many books that are well recognized as the first great examples of sci fi along with those
of Verne. Wells however liked better to introduce elements of suspense and warfare and even horror, as he did in the Island.
This book was turned into a movie which was pretty well unfaithful to the book, and was also based on actual occurences. Vivisection
was common in Victorian England, and I'm sure its easily guessed what it means.
Wells tastefully avoided graphic descriptions, but he did bring across the terrifying nature of hte thing, and moreover
there were strong messages about religion and society that are very accurate and topical and thought provoking even today.
The idea of creating human like animals is also still something that tingles spines, since it might now be a real possibility.
I respected Wells a great deal for War of the Worlds and other books of his, and that respect grew greatly after reading this
one.
Edgar Allen Poe:
Poe wrote some decent poetry, but none of it was truly scary or believable. It's only used because it can, in a short time,
create a dark and frightening mood. Poetry however has little place in the realms of horror literature and many of his stories
fall flat and lack characterization, motive, etc. Insanity isn't always it's own reason. The Cask of Amontillado, for instance,
would be terrifying if there was a bloody point to the thing!
H. P. Lovecraft:
Along with Stoker I'd have to place him as being the most over-rated. I've read some of his work. There are more effing
words in his books than in the Oxford dictionary, and none of the words are scary. In one of his short stories, Nyarlahotep,
some idiots just follow some old egyptian guy to an undisclosed purpose. In another, the call of Cthulu, there are a whole
bunch of words that go on forever and ever and never get eerie. In what I think to be one of the simplest and sanest "horror
tales" a couple of old people kill a cat, and then some cats eat them. The irony would be stunning, for a small child. But
as long as the story was drawn out, and since a gypsy put a curse on them for killing cats, I think all other readers were
already prepared for it.
Some of his stories, such as The White Ship were quite decent, but never scary. When he forgot about writing a hundred
thousand sentences about nothing he could really write. His most noted quote, "That is not dead which may eternal lie, and
in strange aeons even death may die" is taken from, I believe, his book, "The hidden city". It's not a very good book, and
in a world full of authors who are remembered for catchphrases inferior to their other writings, Lovecraft is a standout.
His most noted quote really is the best thing he ever wrote.
The Picture of Dorian Grey:
I make no secret that I am a great fan of Oscar Wilde. To be as wicked and nonconforming as he was, to be as witty, to
be as skillful, and to be as scandalous and yet also so loved despite his enemies, is something I and all other artists aught
to aspire to. That said, I found some serious fault with Picture. It really starts out well with ideas of immortality and
youth and age and ethics, as well as upper class witty people being witty and upper class, which is the staple of Wilde's
works.
I found Dorian's character to be poorly explained. His evil seems to take shape for no reason he can give. It could be
said that it came from his immortality and his lack of fear of judgement, but thats not how the book felt. Instead it is simply
the author writing something autobiographical and ramming his own issues up his characters arse. Which really got him in trouble
later, but not with one of his characters.
Not to say anything bad about that though. First of all I don't care who rams what up who's ass as long as that ass isn't
mine, and second of all I hold nothing but respect for Oscar Wilde, even if the ass he was ramming WAS mine. I'd just politely
ask him to stop and then try not to laugh awkwardly when he made a humorous pun on my words and my situation of being buggered
up the ass by himself.
Regardless of all ass buggering, Dorian Grey does get kind of creepy as we watch this man descend into evil, much of it
not even named, and finally to murder and then the end of the book which I'll not give away, but suffice to say it does not
end in Dorian happily buggering someone up the arse.
So there you have it, a complete guide to what books are good, what books are bad, and what books want to bugger you up
the arse.
