The best horror prose writer

[dlsevern]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

His prose is often undistinguished, flat, affectless; there is far too much fat (e.g., his inclusion of enormous amounts of inessential mundane detail -- an overabundance of "product placement" mentions, character actions which contribute nothing to moving the narrative forward nor to building an atmosphere nor, for that matter, truly creating a memorable charcter, etc. -- which goes far beyond that necessary to establish verisimilitude), and so forth.

And, despite the claims of various people for his originality or creativity, I find that an enormous amount of his work is actually very derivative of older and better writers -- not simply hommage, but a rehashing of the materials without actually adding anything particularly notable to the mix.

Again, this is not entirely the case, and when he is good, he can be very good; but these are the faults I've found with his work, which I describe by the term "pedestrianism". Fact is, I would like to like King more -- certainly he's someone I'd have no problem sitting down with over a beer, and I admire his work ethic -- but critically speaking, I've found myself less and less impressed the more I've read, both of his own work and that of others. He just doesn't stand up in comparison to so many others, certainly not when it comes to the verbal magic of good prose....

F.E.: I think my hesitation when it comes to Blackwood is that he can, at times, be quite angular and awkward with his actual prose; sometimes even in his best work, and at these times he, too, lacks that verbal magic. Yet, oddly, he is certainly often one of the best for creating a truly weird atmosphere ("The Willows", "The Wendigo", Incredible Adventures, "A Psychical Investigation", "Episode in a Lodging House", etc.); and at times yes, his prose genuinely sings. But then, he also was so incredibly prolific, that a fair amount of his work -- especially later in his career -- has a strong journalistic tinge to it, so that it, too, is flat and flavorless....

Oh, and I meant to include in my list of modern writers: Caitlin R. Kiernan. She isn't always at the top of her form, but when she is, her prose is quite superb....

Look man, no offense, but I just do not agree with you on any of your exhausting explanations, seriously, I didn't realize our answers should be in the form of essays.

[Toby Frost]

Ok, here's a short answer: Clive Barker in Books of Blood and The Hellbound Heart. Barker strikes a spot-on balance between the workmanlike prose of some modern writers and the overly florid writing of many older horror novelists. Read the opening page of "Rawhead Rex" to see what I mean.

Also, Ramsey Campbell, who in his better work uses unsettling description to depict the world, discomforting the reader while providing fresh and original images. Also, Campbell's use of flawed, sympathetic characters and mundane settings makes his horrors all the more shocking.

[dask]

I don't agree with everything J.D. says either but you can learn a lot from his essays.

[D_Davis]

It makes me sad that in this day and age, especially on a forum about reading books, that people think more than a few paragraphs is an essay.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by dlsevern

Look man, no offense, but I just do not agree with you on any of your exhausting explanations, seriously, I didn't realize our answers should be in the form of essays.

De gustibus....

Dask: Thank you... and, to me, that's the point of such discussions: to make one's arguments as clearly as possible, in order to aid communication and find just where we agree or disagree; we may not come to an agreement, but (in my experience) it generally leads to more thoughtful answers on everyone's part, with a corresponding rise in respect for each other as they hone their arguments. Besides, such debates can lead to a refinement of one's own views; sometimes leading to a change in those views; sometimes reconfirming them, but from a more informed perspective....

[D_Davis]

I love King. He's one of my favorite living authors. Few authors write stories that I enjoy more than King when he's on.

However, I agree with most of JD's analysis of his style, as it were.

I would probably describe his style as workman-like. It gets the job done.

Where I think he excels is, like I said, at writing about things that get under a lot of people's skin. He's good at writing about the things that scare people in general. That's why he's so popular.

In many ways, it's because of his workman-like style that he is so popular and successful. He has a very broad audience, and he doesn't alienate people with his approach.

[dask]

I don't know if there is a major difference between fiction and nonfiction for a professional writer but his writing in DANSE MACABRE left me breathless with admiration. Come to think of it, so did "The Mist." Maybe there isn't a difference, I dunno. "The Gunslinger" as it first appeared in F&SF is mindboggling good. Can't help but wonder with someone who is capable of writing stunningly good that when he gives us something we don't care for, whose fault is it really?

[Toby Frost]

I think Danse Macabre may be one of his best books. It makes an excellent companion to On Writing. In particular the analysis of selected novels in the second half is really good.

That said, I think both Salem's Lot and The Shining are very good.

[D_Davis]

King is actually a very good non-fiction writer, and I think the difference is that his non-fiction work isn't 800 pages long. His articles in EW are awesome, and On Writing is great, and I think them being short has a lot to do with it.

King's short stories are almost always better written, with better prose, than his novels are. He actually excels in the short format.

[dlsevern]

Sorry that I sounded so chippy j.d., I had some b.s. going on here at home and I let it seep into this forum. I still do not agree with anything you said but I shouldn't have been snippy with you, I did ask you to explain yourself after all, lol. My apologies mate.

[Grunkins]

Tough to argue against Poe.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by D_Davis

King is actually a very good non-fiction writer, and I think the difference is that his non-fiction work isn't 800 pages long. His articles in EW are awesome, and On Writing is great, and I think them being short has a lot to do with it.

King's short stories are almost always better written, with better prose, than his novels are. He actually excels in the short format.

I think I'd agree with this in the main. His short stories are (necessarily, of course, but nonetheless...) tighter, more controlled, and the prose is more compact and each sentence carries more weight; more information is concentrated into a shorter space, making the impact (generally) more intense. Even when you're dealing with a story such as "It Grows on You", which seems to ramble and digress terribly, there is very little wasted space -- nearly every detail plays into creating the actual situation, which is never explicitly stated but is really quite admirably hinted at. (It is a theme which he has used more than once; a version of it is at work in The Shining, for instance; while a more directly related version was also put to use in the television production Rose Red.)

And yes, his nonfiction tends to be, generally speaking, leanly written in comparison to his novels (though there are of course exceptions in the latter category, where the novel was also written without a great deal of excess).

On my point about his tendency to be derivative... for a couple of examples (out of several): the rain of stones in Rose Red and Shirley Jackson's The Haunting of Hill House; or the quite stereotyped handling of the vampire theme in 'Salem's Lot. There is precious little original going on there, when you look at it. And that is where I find it disappointing, because he can be original, even when using older materials -- Needful Things, for instance, uses the same theme, essentially, as Benet's "The Devil and Daniel Webster", and the novel itself bears a striking similarity in basic situation to Bradbury's Something Wicked This Way Comes, save that the latter was a carnival as opposed to a shop... yet he gives it his own stamp of originality nonetheless. It isn't his best work, but it nonetheless shows that he can use older materials without being completely hackneyed about it....

[D_Davis]

As far as originality goes, IMO that trait is highly overrated. There just aren't that many stories to tell, and I value execution over originality.

For a King example, take his short story "The Jaunt." He is building off of a concept coined (I think) by Alfred Bester, but King turns the concept of jaunting into one of his very best short stories; and an all-time great horror short story, at that.

[Fried Egg]

I don't mean to be rude but I really didn't want this thread to turn into a general debate on the qualities of Mr. King as a horror writer.

I want to see people talking about great prose in the horror field, particularly about those authors that I haven't read before...

[j. d. worthington]

Hadn't meant to turn the thread so much in that direction; this (to me, at any rate) was simply a digression within context, looking at King in particular in comparison to other writers, pro and con; just as it is likely such a discussion might arise concerning Poe, Lovecraft, or any of the others mentioned....

However, this particular digression probably has gone on a bit too long and, though I have a response to DD's most recent comments, that had best be reserved for another place and/or time....