Going to Wilco bit a monster chunk out of my budget, so to my chagrin, there are a few things I wish I could post about sooner that will have to wait until I get paid this Wednesday and can afford to put my hands on the relevant materials.
1) I still need to get Blackest Night #8. Then I'll do an overview of the whole shebang--what I loved and what I didn't care for quite so much. Overall, I'm glad I took this ride, and I suspect time will only make me more fond of it. Just backing off for a while from my intensive initial coverage of it has already gone a long way toward softening some of my harder feelings toward a number of aspects I considered disappointing at first blush. Anyway, more to come . . .
2) Before I get to the next post in my "Imagination vs. Art in Horror" series, I've learned of another book I'd like to read, which is directly relevant to the specific subject of that next post, and which will mean a long drive to the nearest university library (i.e. gas money I ain't got) to get it.
One thing I'll say about this series--when I said I intend to get to the bottom of the question at hand, I wasn't fucking around. It's going to be very long and technical, and each post is likely to present only one step in an argument, the conclusion of which will in turn serve as only one step in my larger argument. There's a lot of big stuff I'm trying to get right here once and for all, so I don't mind being patient and putting in the extra work. No cutting corners on this project for me.
What's funny is that the question of whether showing or suggesting a monster is more effective in a work of horror sounds like small potatoes--a fairly nitpicky and parochial question that could only interest horror fans--but really "getting to the bottom" of it will take us to the bottom of a lot of much huger issues of much more general interest. Like what is imagination, how did it evolve, how does it work, why does it work the way it does, what can it do, what are its limits, . . . ?, etc. Refracting the question across the various media of film, comics, and literature will also require answering some big questions about those media and their differing strengths and weaknesses in provoking emotional responses. We'll also end up with something pretty close to a definitive and comprehensive understanding of horror. I don't care how cocky it sounds for me to say that--it's fucking true. Stick around and see if it isn't.
3) I still have a lot of circus stuff I need to get to, and hope to start back in on that soon. Actually, this has nothing to do with lack of funds, but it is something I'd moved to the backburner that I'd like to bring to the front again. Josh Simmons is mostly to blame for the holdup here, as I scratch my head and rack my brains to figure out what the fuck to say about his circus comics.
Fortunately, while I wait to get paid, I have plenty of other stuff sitting around that I can maybe post about. Stay tuned, and stay groovy!
2 comments:
Some lofty goals, there, Curt. I hope you're not tilting at windmills. There's so much that's subjective about this topic.
I think someone commented on one of your posts that the hard-hitting effectiveness of "Alien" would have been diluted w/o the reveal of the Giger-designed titular character. And while I agree whole-heartedly, the punch of the reveal was considerably strengthened by the several teases - the obscured, shadowed glimpses - of the creature prior to the reveal. The effect was further augmented by the graphic shock of the "chest-burster" scene, and the several scenes of crewmembers' deaths at the hands of the thing - all of which instilled in the viewer a dread of the alien's savage and outre destructiveness. Add in the tried-and-true "spam in a cabin" setting (a spaceship in this instance) and you've got many of the common ingredients for classic horror. It's not all about seeing or not seeing the actual horror. You've got to take into account the delivery.
Think about it - would the film have been half as effective had it been helmed by a lesser director than Ridley Scott? "Alien" is an example of what would typically be a B-movie that was instead given the "A" status of a big budget (for a horror film) and name talent - including the director. Would the film have the regard it does today had it not? And please don't take this to mean that I think great horror films are predicated on big budgets and accomplished artisans - the genre is largely populated by examples to the contrary.
Don't get me wrong, Curt, I'm not trying to imply that the intent of your series is in any way misguided. Your writing is certainly adding to my (and all your readers') understanding of the genre - and I'm all for anything which accomplishes that. I'm just saying that there's all kinds of gray out there.
I'm eagerly looking forward to your future installments, and applaud you for undertaking the challenge.
Don't worry, Geo--I'm good for it. ;-)
Post a Comment