Re: Robert Aickman
 

That is a very good question! I only met Elizabeth Jane Howard once, and I wish I'd asked her. But for some years, the only friends of his who could have been asked knew him AFTER World War Two.

There are scant records of his activities during the war. I seem to recall that in the archive there were a couple of items that suggested he travelled to a couple of country houses (which was odd, because movement was restricted due to rationing of petrol, etc.) But he was hard at work at Panacea.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

I am sure that snobbery often plays a part, but there is a point to sub-categories of literature. "Strange" or "Aickmanesque" fiction does mean something different to straightforward "horror". I've always preferred what I think of as "psychological horror", because spewed guts and monsters simply don't interest me. To use an analogy that Machen might have favoured, there is a great difference between fine wine and a glass of beer. Both are alcohol, and both have their place, but we all have our own tastes. (I like a Guinness when I go to the pub, but on a sunny afternoon even I can see the point of a cheap, fizzy lager.)

Re: Robert Aickman
 

'The Same Dog' and 'Ringing the Changes' would fit the horror bill for me, but something as quiet as 'Into the Wood' or 'The Next Glade' wouldn't, despite them being eerie. Some stories, such as 'Wood' or 'The Stains' just about make it as horror for me due to their endings. I prefer describing his stories as 'ghostly' or 'gothic', but I think 'horror' is often valid.

I'm jealous you got to meet EJH. 'Perfect Love' is an unsung masterpiece, and 'Three Miles Up' is the classic it is held as. 'Left Luggage' and 'Mr. Wrong' are fine tales also.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

For me, it largely defeats the purpose of reading for entertainment. I'm okay with the basic marketing categories, to get an idea of the tone of a writer's work. But I find the idea of increasingly specific "subgenres" and so on more than a little ridiculous.

After all, a major part of the pleasure of reading comes from not knowing how the story develops, when it's granted the freedom to work solely on its own terms. The appeal of "horror" for me lies exactly in its broadness and imprecision.

Ideally, it should be the description of the individual work itself that draws or diminishes a prospective reader's interest, I believe, rather than a set of predetermined generic guidelines. The writing should be given as much room as possible to surprise the reader, even (or perhaps especially) if that means a greater chance of "unpleasant" surprises.

OK, done ranting. I guess I should acknowledge that another of my favorite genre writers, Charles L Grant, preferred the label "dark fantasy" and wanted to popularize it as a way to describe quieter forms of horror. Personally, I think it would have done his work a disservice.


I stand corrected on matter of Aickman's "pacifism" (and more than a little disappointed). However, whatever means he used to avoid WWII service, I figure it was probably for the best. I doubt that any contribution he could have made to the war effort would have been worth the high risk of losing him so early--even if he had only been looking after a few cows.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

There's nothing wrong with a well-reasoned rant!

I suppose that one of the delights of mainstream literature (I refuse to use the term "literary fiction", which implies that "genre" isn't "literary") is that it is stuffed full of fantasy, horror, romance, SF, etc, which takes the reader by suprise, (only, the authors and publishers are too snobbish to use a genre label.) :)

Re: Robert Aickman
 

I think Strange and Weird sound broader and less precise than Horror, so I thought you'd prefer them based on that Cannibal?

Re: Robert Aickman
 

I think Des suggested that horror wasn't a genre so much as a quality that permeates all fiction to a greater or lesser degree. Where it isn't explicit it's often implicit, or always present as a potential. And then there's that famous line of Douglas Winter's: horror isn't a genre, horror is an emotion.

I'm sympathetic to these ideas, and to work that supports them. A lot of mainstream fiction I've enjoyed could have been marketed as horror without losing anything (except a healthy dose of critical "respectability", I suppose). The Glister, by John Burnside, is a good example I enjoyed recently.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

Well, my interest is largely horror in its broadest sense, as a literature of fear or of frightening things. "Strange" was Aickman's term to try to distinguish his stories from horror, and today the "weird" label seems to be increasingly used for the same purpose. Plus, in common usage today,they can mean pretty much anything, so as labels or general descriptions I find them next to useless.

Horror used to encompass everything from the highbrow to the low, from the generic to the unique, from the subtle to the coarse. That's the way it should be, I think.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

Honestly, I'm happy about the distancing effect. Less serial killer stories, domestic unpleasance and King-clones to wade through but I understand we all came to Horror for different things.
Weird worked for me, now I have to try to popularize other genre labels to get more outlandish fantasy and monsters in the mix.

Re: Robert Aickman
 

Stephen King described 'terror' as the finest sort of literary fear. When unable to attain that level, the writer usually succumbs to 'horror', which has more the effect of chock, by explicitly showing something revolting to the reader, such as a monster or splattering blood.