Opinion:Is horror in trouble?

I was poking around a few blogs the other day, and I came across one (not naming names) that was decrying the end of horror as we know it. According to this blog writer, thanks to books like Twilight, and TV shows like True Blood or The Walking Dead our monsters are no longer monsters, but sad, soggy glittery reflections of what they once were.

See, the problem with this argument is that A/ you need to believe Twilight is horror, and B/ you're concentrating only on the mainstream.

A version of this argument has actually been raised on this blog before by Tom, and I completely agree with him that Twilight is insipid, boring and uninspiring, and that the "paranormal" phenomena it sparked has been detrimental to our general ability to source horror fiction in our local book store. I also agree with Tom (and the original blog author) that the vampire, in all it's creepy sexual glory, was de-fanged by Stephenie Meyer and the wannabes who followed her lead.

However the original blog author I wanted to discuss took this a step further and basically suggested this was a sign that horror was dead. This is what I contest. They suggested that Stephen King's latest book was "mainstream," that The Walking Dead failed because it stated that the zombies were "people too" and that shows like True Blood are the standard fair for horror cinema and TV now.

I'll start with the Twilight issue. I do have a genuine concern that Twilight has tampered with vampires so much that it will be difficult for young audiences to ever accept them as anything other than glittery heartthrobs. However, Stephenie Meyer isn't writing horror, and neither she, nor her audience, are under any illusions that she is. That's why this paranormal banner was created, because these books take monsters and typical horror elements and romanticise them for teens and 40-something stay at home mums. Is it encroaching on horror's turf? It sure as hell is, several of our nearest book stores are lacking a horror section completely while the paranormal section takes up several aisles. However, I highly doubt our beloved horror writers are about to give up the ghost and start churning out paranormal fiction, nor are the paranormal readers ever going to pick up a horror book, because let's face it, it is not their cup of tea.

So while we're discussing authors, let's get onto the Stephen King thing. Stephen King is a favourite author of mine, and his horror books are hard to beat, but he is not, nor has he ever been, strictly a horror novelist. Every short story book I've read of his has been a collection of horror, science fiction, fantasy and general fiction. The Green Mile and Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption are phenomenal tales, but horror they ain't. The Gunslinger is one of the most prolific series in existence, and it ain't horror either. Sure he's best known for his horror, and he doesn't hide the fact that he delights in horror (and hates Twilight yippeee!) but that doesn't mean that his release of a thriller is proof that horror fiction is in it's death spiral.

Onto The Walking Dead. Now, I haven't seen the latest series, and I never finished the graphic novels because, personally, I never thought they were that great. However, I've just spent the past year learning everything there is to know about zombies and film and literature (and am about to launch into a Phd in the subject) and I can assure you the whole OMFG THEY'RE JUST LIKE US bit is crucial to the success of the zombie. The basic fear of zombies is very similar to the sci-fi fear of robots taking over, it relies heavily on the uncanny valley and the connection we share. If they were simply zombie cats or lions or even dinosaurs, no one would give a shit. But your dear old granny, the one who baked you pies and sang to you every night, coming back and trying to tear your flesh from your bones? TERRIFYING! Films have begun to take this a little too far (see: Warm Bodies) and are destroying the subtle complexity of the relationship between zombie and human, but it's a concept that has always been around. It was present in the zombie films of the 1920s and 1930s, and Romero (i.e. The Grandfather/Godfather of zombies) had characters often stating things like "they're us," and who could forget the end credits scene in Night of the Living Dead?

Finally, True Blood. I watched the first two seasons and it was enjoyable enough, but I got a little bored of the whole thing myself. However, once again, I don't think anyone is suggesting it's a horror TV show. Horror themes, yes, horror genre, no. This isn't new, TV, film and literature has been borrowing from horror's playpen of monsters and creating comedies, dramas or romances for decades. Popular though this style may be right now, there are also countless bone-chilling, stomach-churning, heart-racing films, books and TV shows being released right now. TV is a difficult one, but I've heard good things about American Horror Story (how much horror it contains I'm not sure), and shows like Dead Set show that it can be done. As for film, sure they may not be playing at your generic cinema multi-plex, but there are horror films being released every week that will scare the pants off cinema-goers. Martyrs, The Woman, Insidious, Trollhunter, Paranormal Activity, and Helldriver are all films I've seen recently that I enjoyed the crap out of. Meanwhile, new authors like John Ajvide Lindqvist are hitting home runs over and over with their phenomenal new takes on the horror genre. If anything, there seems to be an increase of horror available, perhaps thanks to the rise of cheap video recorders and YouTube.

Monsters have never belonged purely to the realm of horror, they frequent fantasy, science fiction and now "paranormal" and romance. Books like Twilight may have pushed horror further into the outskirts, but let's be honest, horror is used to that location. It has surged forth and become more prominent and popular from time to time, but the best horror has always been made in the shadow of the mainstream. In a place where film-makers, authors and artists have the freedom to manipulate, torment and twist their work into creation. For every Twilight made, there is also a Daybreakers. For every Warm Bodies, there is a Helldriver and a REC. For every bizarre desire to remake Evil Dead, or Carrie there are countless original films coming into existence. It's all a matter of knowing where to look, and loving horror enough to search. Also, maybe (just maybe) we should start telling our book stores how much we hate that they no longer have a horror section. Maybe if we start showing outward enthusiasm for the genre, the businesses will respond by supplying to our demand.

Opinion: The Twilight Phenomenon

"Twilight is about how important it is to have a boyfriend."

- Stephen King

I'm going to make a concession that many horror fans would drive a stake through my heart and shove garlic down my throat for making: there is an acceptable circumstance in which you are allowed to read and enjoy the Twilight series*. This requires you to be a) a girl, and b) between the ages on 12 and 15. It's OK to like crappy things when you're a kid. I used to like the band Korn when I was that age. It's embarrassing but I grew out of it . No one has impeccable taste in their early teens. I send my blessing out to all the 12-15 year old girls in the world to giggle and fart over Edward and Bella and Jacob, role-play their confused, sick, little sexual fantasies with their newly pubescent friends, and create an unrealistic expectation of romance that with follow them through the multiple divorces they will have in their lifetime. Sure, the character of Bella is a shitty role-model for girls this age (feminists can burn all the bras in the world and it won't undo the damage this series has done) but so was Korn's frontman Jonathan Davis, and I like to think I turned out alright despite his influence.

However, you don't become a phenomenon by appealing exclusively to 12-15 year old girls. And this is where I find myself standing stalwartly next to my fellow Twilight haters. Outside of that narrow demographic, there is no excuse to like these stories. And I mean that beyond a 'romance is icky' kind of way. I like plenty of romantic stories. The on-screen romance (probably helped by the off-screen romance) between Jeff Goldblum and Stewart Little's mum in The Fly not only made it the greatest romantic film ever, but one of the greatest films ever. Twilight fans will often praise the dedication of the series' lovers had for each other. Bullshit. Did Bella stick with Edward even after he decayed into the hideous Brundlefly? Would she have pulled the trigger and ended Edward's life after he accidentally spliced himself into a hybrid of man, insect and machine? No, she would have curled up and cried, like she did every time something didn't go exactly the way she wanted it to.

So no, my problem isn't the romance**. It's the wider ramification that the series might have or potentially has had on horror. Some academics argue that Michael Jackson's Thriller can be attributed as the catalyst in the decline of zombie films in the 80s. The logic was that his version of the 'zombie' became the default cultural perception of what a zombie was. This resulted in zombies becoming a gimmick and fading out of popularity until director's learnt how to make them scary again in the early 2000s (just ask Kayleigh. She wrote a thesis on it). And if we are using this little girl as a barometer***, then we are already too late people.

Sex in vampire mythology have been around since Bram Stoker (or John William Polidori if you really want to go back). But the interesting thing to me about the attraction to vampires in fiction is that it happens in spite of the fact that they're an undead creature that sees us as little more than prey. Seduction is one of the weapons of vampires, an allegory of how sexuality can be used to assert power. Succumbing to its charms is to assure yourself a fate worse than death, and something that you fight against as it attacks you on a primal level. It's not about being a hot high school teen forever. And yes, there are plenty of themes about sexuality in Twilight, but they deal with sexual frustration and restraint rather than any of the things that vampires are good at exploring. Bella grinds and gyrates in front of Edward, begging him to feed off her for the best part of three books, taking Count Duckula's title as worst vampire ever. Please no hate mail from Duckula fans, but you have to admit, he wasn't very good at being a vampire. An interesting point of comparison: both Edward Cullen and Count Duckula are vegetarians, but at least Count Duckula was taking the piss.

But these concepts seem to be aloof to Stephanie Meyer. In her own words:

"I don't think my books are going to be really graphic or dark, because of who I am. There's always going to be a lot of light in my stories."

Then why did she use vampires? It's the exact opposite what she would have used if she didn't want to explore dark or graphic themes. How would she feel if I wanted to explore the theme of domestic violence in a novel using characters from Mormon bible stories?

My book store doesn't have a horror section any more. It has a 'Paranormal Romance' section. I struggle to track down novels by Clive Barker or Richard Matheson, yet am overwhelmed by Twilight rip-offs trying to cash in on the fad, devoid of all originality and value. Perusing this wall, the only two authors I recognise are Stephanie Meyers and Anne Rice. The only exposure I've had to Anne Rice's work is the film Queen of the Damned, the score of which was written by Korn's Jonathan Davis. See a pattern?

* Many people opt to call Twilight a 'saga' rather than a 'series', but I find this disingenuous. Google defines 'saga' as 'A long story of heroic achievement.' While it is very true that the Twilight saga is long, it's hardly fair to describe crying yourself into a catatonic state because you were dumped and getting knocked up as 'heroic'

** OK, so I don't have a traditional sense of romance, but there is usually a tenderness to Cronenberg movies

*** We shouldn't. It's probably illegal