Vampire/Zombie books

[power 0wns]

I would say if you like vampires read Darren Shans vampire series, they are great and go into deep detail of the vampires way of life, a good read and highly recommended =]

[malko]

I've read a dance in blood velvet, never knew it was rare,
had a really annoying character who didn't want to be a vampire,
I'd just ignore them for a few centuries 'til they wised up


'Bloodshift' was pretty good, lots of action, less moonlight and soft furnishings.

'Walking Dead' and 'Red Tide' are top level graphic novels. One new, one older.
Red Tide has a gay vampire in it but it is about as far from Anne Rice as can be.
'Preacher' is another comic with a vampire main character,
with vampirism represented as part of a heavy drinking lifestyle.
also 'Marvel Zombies' is a short laugh starring an all zombie cast.

Shaun Hutson has plenty of zombie action at novel length.
Usually because of pagan gods.

Generally I think that there is more provision of vampire books on the market.
I can't think of a solid main character who is a zombie
outside of comics like 'The goon'.

I wanted to make a small movie about a group of zombies
trapped in a house by a mob of humans.
Slowly the zombies are picked off,
until only one remains, head in hands, surrounded by flames.

[Ice fyre]

Yup The David Wellington books mentioned earlier are the best examples of self aware zombies you will find. The books are online at his website which you can read for free. He has also one or two other books at that site one a plauge novel ala Cell and 13 bullets a vampire novel. Think its david Wellington.com.

[D_Davis]

Charlie Houston's Joe Pitt books (there are three out, of a planned five book series) are absolutely incredible. They are short, powerfully written, and absolutely teeming with interesting characters and incredible situations. I am not a fan of 99.999% of all things Vamp, but these books just rock. Imagine if Raymond Chandler's or Dashiell Hammett's hard-boiled detective yarns featured a vamp P.I. Houston's prose is drop-dead amazing. Rarely do I see such awesome writing in what amounts to modern-day pulp. I wouldn't have a problem mentioning Houston in the same sentence as Joe R. Lansdale - he's that good.

And speaking of Lansdale, you simply must read Dead in the West. Lansdale is a national treasure. I think he is one of the most interesting, consistent, and masterful American writers working today. He constantly blows me away with skill. I think he possesses the best qualities of Mark Twain, mixed with only the good qualities of Stephen King. He's just a freaking bad-ass mofo at telling entertaining stories, with fascinating, endearing characters, caught in amazing situations. And he does it all with brevity, and a master's eye for detail and atmosphere.

[Killbane]

Under The Fang -Collection of short stories
They Thirst-Robert McCammon
Necroscope-Previously mentioned.
World War Z-Max Brooks

[Connavar]

Originally Posted by D_Davis

Charlie Houston's Joe Pitt books (there are three out, of a planned five book series) are absolutely incredible. They are short, powerfully written, and absolutely teeming with interesting characters and incredible situations. I am not a fan of 99.999% of all things Vamp, but these books just rock. Imagine if Raymond Chandler's or Dashiell Hammett's hard-boiled detective yarns featured a vamp P.I. Houston's prose is drop-dead amazing. Rarely do I see such awesome writing in what amounts to modern-day pulp. I wouldn't have a problem mentioning Houston in the same sentence as Joe R. Lansdale - he's that good.

And speaking of Lansdale, you simply must read Dead in the West. Lansdale is a national treasure. I think he is one of the most interesting, consistent, and masterful American writers working today. He constantly blows me away with skill. I think he possesses the best qualities of Mark Twain, mixed with only the good qualities of Stephen King. He's just a freaking bad-ass mofo at telling entertaining stories, with fascinating, endearing characters, caught in amazing situations. And he does it all with brevity, and a master's eye for detail and atmosphere.

I have heard good things about Huston's Pitt books. For me it sounds like a dream with blend of two of my fav subgenres in Hardboiled and urban fantasy.

By the way i dont like the modern-day pulp thing. I seen that alot in reviews,synopsis. There is no such thing IMO cause Pulp is something from the past. Usually they call Hardboiled/Noir crime books pulp fiction which i dont like because why not call it Hardboiled or Noir which was they are ?

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Connavar

By the way i dont like the modern-day pulp thing. I seen that alot in reviews,synopsis. There is no such thing IMO cause Pulp is something from the past. Usually they call Hardboiled/Noir crime books pulp fiction which i dont like because why not call it Hardboiled or Noir which was they are ?

Have to disagree with you there, Connavar. There is very much such a thing as modern pulp, just as there is modern gothic (whether it be the "gothic romance" or another type of tale in the gothic tradition). Brian Lumley, for example, is often very much "pulp" in his writing -- the same earmarks of excess, verve, sometimes slipshod in construction, given to many of the pulp conventions, very much larger than life, tending toward bold, even crude, strokes rather than subtlety and intimation, etc. While "modern pulp" isn't identical with the original pulps (any more than they were identical to the penny dreadfuls or shilling shockers), it is very much in the tradition of, and thus it's a perfectly applicable cognomen.

[Connavar]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

Have to disagree with you there, Connavar. There is very much such a thing as modern pulp, just as there is modern gothic (whether it be the "gothic romance" or another type of tale in the gothic tradition). Brian Lumley, for example, is often very much "pulp" in his writing -- the same earmarks of excess, verve, sometimes slipshod in construction, given to many of the pulp conventions, very much larger than life, tending toward bold, even crude, strokes rather than subtlety and intimation, etc. While "modern pulp" isn't identical with the original pulps (any more than they were identical to the penny dreadfuls or shilling shockers), it is very much in the tradition of, and thus it's a perfectly applicable cognomen.

Im not saying there arent modern pulp but i think its wrong using on modern Hardboiled/Noir crime. I have read Westlake and many modern crime writers that have nothing to do with pulp conventions but are mentioned as pulp fiction. I hate reading that. Everyone thats different from police procedural,suspense,cosy or another type mainstream crime is suddenly pulp.

Im talking in relevance to crime fiction. Not other genres.

[j. d. worthington]

I'd say you have a point there. Certainly, I wouldn't count Westlake as pulp, for instance. Off-hand, I can't think of a truly "pulp" writer currently in the crime/detective/mystery field, but I would imagine that's more my limited knowledge of the genre rather than there not being any. However, you are right in that reviewers -- I refuse to call them critics, as most seldom use much in the way of critical acumen or genuine knowledge in literary matters -- are far too lazy and indiscriminate in their use of such terms. If they can actually give reasons for putting it in that category, then fine. Otherwise, don't pigeonhole a writer or their work, either in general or specifically....

[Connavar]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

I'd say you have a point there. Certainly, I wouldn't count Westlake as pulp, for instance. Off-hand, I can't think of a truly "pulp" writer currently in the crime/detective/mystery field, but I would imagine that's more my limited knowledge of the genre rather than there not being any. However, you are right in that reviewers -- I refuse to call them critics, as most seldom use much in the way of critical acumen or genuine knowledge in literary matters -- are far too lazy and indiscriminate in their use of such terms. If they can actually give reasons for putting it in that category, then fine. Otherwise, don't pigeonhole a writer or their work, either in general or specifically....

I read alot of crime more than any genre really thanks to Westlake/Stark,Chandler and co.

Modern or Post Chandler Noir is very different in style,content from the pulpy days. Just because crime pulps was huge back in the day every new good Noir book must be pulpy....

Which is stupid im a huge fan of Westlake/Stark and his style is very lean,fast paced. In writing style i think Frederick Forsyth is the closest i have read. The Day of The Jackal could have written by both in the same way. Many crime books of the subgrenre is written like that. I have yet to read a new Chandler, someone good with crime parts and with poetic like prose in modern Hardboiled.

[j. d. worthington]

Another is coming out from Elder Signs Press. I know nothing about it beyond what it has here, but for those interested in the subgenre:

» Pallid Light

[Lobolover]

Are there realy any good undead books out there-from the 18something's-1930's or so?

[j. d. worthington]

Do you mean on the subject of Zombies (if so, rather rare, I'd think) or vampires (in which case there are a few), or the undead in general....?

[Lobolover]

well,I mean "zombies",but both categories would go I guess.Though,things concerning Alraunes or golems would also be rare,what?

[BookStop]

The Magic Island WB Seabrook The Magic Island
HP Lovecraft does a couple short stories, right - ..something like The Vault is one I've read recently
Frankenstein is sort of undead fiction