Worst horror book?

[Lobolover]

Well,its not worst as in horrible for me,but "The necromancer or the taleof the black forest" by Teuthold.Its not bad,its just common,for a gothic piece-and you have to admit that in a two volumes book series ENTITLED "the necromancer",calling necromancy a "cheat,cheats,cheater,cheaters,fake,fakes" for over 60% of the whole-one fourth first book-WHOLE second book-seems dum,if you can also only come up with "he masked himself as a ghost",though the descriptions by the people were actualy given with acuteness-which means that it tells us no one who ever says he sees a dead man is to ever be trusted and whatever they say,
they just didnt notice make up......

most disapointing would have to be "The house among the laurels" by Hodgson from his "Carnacki" colection-such potential WASTED ,explaining it with "wires".

[j. d. worthington]

Carnacki is a varied volume (just as Hodgson was a varied writer); and sometimes went for a very disappointing "naturalistic" explanation, while at other times remaining very much in the realm of the supernatural. Overall, a fine collection, but at times....

And yes, The Necromancer was one that I found to be interesting, but not particularly good. Horrid Mysteries I found to be much worse, though... that one I had to literally grit my teeth to get through large sections.... I can, however, see why Ms. Austen included these titles in her Northanger Abbey....

[Lobolover]

(could you point out the supernatural stories so I wont waste my time with the other stuff?)


Ah,youve read it,first person I found who did.Well,I bought it cause they said it had "a diyzing plot which almost defies comprehension"-in the words of the youth-"BULLSH*T",thats exactly what Melmoth does,only,he names the diferent naratives-and "one of the weirdest horror novels ever writen"

And to Horrid Mysteries-never read it,and hopefully wont,not on the not.But god,having something about anarchists as a GOTHIC novel ?

[j. d. worthington]

Walpole aside, the Gothic novel's origins were as much in the novels of sentiment and the beginnings of the Schauerromantik as they were the supernatural tales; and, given the views of the later 18th century and early 19th... yes, anarchists would definitely fit the bill when it comes to terror. Combine that with a society which uses the irrational to undermine the very fabric of society, and again you come very near the epitome of terror for the people of the time.

Frankly, the majority of the Gothic novels didn't actually deal with the supernatural, but rather with that borderland where our rationality breaks down in the face of the unknown. Certainly this is the case with Mrs. Radcliffe, who only wrote one novel with truly supernatural events (Gaston de Blondeville), and it was quite possibly her weakest -- weaker, in some ways, even than The Castles of Athlin and Dunbayne. Yet she achieved some marvelously terrific effects with her novels, with a very deft and light touch.

Also, keep in mind that -- with English letters at least -- much of the movement was influenced by such things as Edmund Burke's essay "A Philosophical Enquiry into the origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful", which I'll link you to here (along with its introductory essay "On Taste"):

Burke, Edmund. 1909–14. On Taste. Vol. 24, Part 1. The Harvard Classics

Burke, Edmund. 1909–14. On the Sublime and Beautiful. Vol. 24, Part 2. The Harvard Classics

As for which of the books HPL suggests in his sections on the Gothic, which don't actually involve the supernatural:

The Recess, by Sophia Lee
all of Mrs. Radcliffe's novels with the exception of Gaston de Blondeville
Ormond, Arthur Mervyn, and Wieland, by Charles Brockden Brown (though you'll be missing some very powerful moments by skipping either Radcliffe or Brown, especially the former's Romance of the Forest and Mysteries of Udolpho and the latter's Wieland)
The Fatal Revenge, by Maturin
Horrid Mysteries, by von Grosse
The Children of the Abbey, by Maria Regina Roche

Zofloya does, toward the end, as do Shelley's essays into the form, but all these are also guilty of plagiarizing much from earlier writers of the novel of terror, and are only suggested if you form an unusually strong liking for the school....

On Udolpho: I strongly recommend this not be taken in large doses, but read at a relaxed pace, and not looking at it just as novel of terror, but rather as a novel in the larger sense, as it has a little bit of everything in it, and is often both charming and thought-provoking in its own right....

[Lobolover]

(Hmm-I meant the stories in Carnacki,but okay)


Hmm,I think itl be a long time if I ever read Radcliffe.

[Lobolover]

Uhm,"Horrid Mysteries" WASNT writen by a "Von Gross",but by Peter Will-its only subtitled "A Story From the German Of The Marquis Of Grosse" (a minor error in HPL's essay)

[j. d. worthington]

There seems some debate about whether or not Will wrote or translated the thing, actually. If you look at the early English editions, you may see why:

http://www.lib.virginia.edu/small/ex...ges/horrid.jpg

At any rate, Grosse is listed as the author in most editions, Will as translator; and, given the fact that I've seen no evidence of scholarship indicating otherwise, I'm doubtful this is an error on Lovecraft's part....

[Lobolover]

however,when I searched for a "von gross" with the book title,It didnt show me anything substantial.

[j. d. worthington]

That's the danger of relying on the internet for your information, if you're truly interested in being a scholar; it can indeed be a helpful tool, but nearly all sources taken from the 'net should be checked against more authoritative sources, if at all possible. All printed sources I've seen claim it as having been written by von Grosse (with one possible exception which I only very vaguely recall) and translated by Will. Montague Summers has it as such in his bibliography of the Gothic tale; and Joshi (ASHiL, p. 85, n.1) notes "Among von Grosse's other works are Der Dolch (translated as The Dagger)".

Incidentally, here's another source for things Gothic:

http://members.aol.com/gothlit/gothicbib.html

Part of the problem with Horrid Mysteries is that the translation is simply horrendous: repetitive, with awkward sentence structure and poor word-choice, which often leads to completely nonsensical sentences, etc. As I recall, Varma had some comments on this aspect of it, concerning Will... but I could be misremembering here, as it's been at least 10 years since I read his comments on this novel.

[Lobolover]

well,from what Ive read,it couldnt have been translated by Will,could it-cause his translation of "the necromancer"-also from German-seems rather-fluid.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Lobolover

well,from what Ive read,it couldnt have been translated by Will,could it-cause his translation of "the necromancer"-also from German-seems rather-fluid.

Eh? It wasn't Will that translated The Necromancer; that was Peter Teuthold....

[Lobolover]

actualy,the Valancourt books edition says that Teuthold was a pseudonym of Will's.

[j. d. worthington]

That's the first I've ever heard of that... and certainly the style seem antipodally different. Teuthold's was a bit awkward here and there, but overall flowed smoothly. Will's was... well, let's just say I think I chipped a fair number of teeth in gritting them to get through the thing....

In fact, the only other book I can think of that I had to force myself through with that much effort was the Malleus Maleficarum....

[Lobolover]

Nevr heard of that one-whats it about?

And it was said so in the 2007 edition-it was even mentioned in a contemporary german lexicon.

[j. d. worthington]

I take it you have a copy of the Valancourt edition? The reason I ask is that I don't see anything on this on their site....