Very cool. And I agree with you about the corruption of various genres. There's a lot that can be done with the "cannibal zombie" sub-genre (especially considering that the Zombie appears to be the cultural archetype du jour), but with rare exceptions (World War Z, Shawn of the Dead), those possibilities remain unexplored.
On the subject of children and horror, I wish I'd gotten a copy of my story "Clown Balloons" to you last year. Are you still reading non-invitational submissions for your collections? And if not, how could I bring my work to your attention? My newest published story, "Ravenous," appears in the current issue of Weird Tales magazine, but I don't know which venues you're reading these days.
Hi Phil, Yes, there of course the occasional great zombie story (and movie)--John Farris's story from a couple of years ago was excellent (and I chose it for YBFH), and there are others...but most of the stuff I'm seeing is about blood and gore and not storytelling...but unfortunately, that's something I see in all of horror far too often.
I usually approach the writers I want for my original anthologies and don't ever post to public market reports. I don't have time to read slush and can't afford to hire a reader. I DO read WT so I'll be seeing it. I see most mags/anthos/collections out there.
ellen, so glad to see the subject of short stories come up in your interview--as, of course, they invariably would. hopefully your live journal will continue to explore the subject, as you did way back when w/ the Stephen King entry (sept) and w/ the horror awards entry (oct.--tho, that entry unfortunately led to some of the most embarrassing--and essentially unrelated--public bickering I've ever seen in a comments field).
your interview comments cause me to ask why the short story isn't a viable way to earn a living as a writer? This is why, I presume, many authors turn away from short stories. I know that novels are generally easier to write, and yield a bigger paycheck to boot, but why don't short stories pay better? Why don't collection sell very well? why have readers fooled themselves into thinking a short story collection--written by someone who knows how to write a collection (Ligotti, Aickman, A. Carter, etc.)--is less satisfying than a novel? in part, I think its because the short stories that do reach a large audience--those in the New Yorker, for example--are often tepid and forumlaic. There's not enough complex--but fun!--short fiction reaching big audiences. It's a shame, for example, that Shepard's Dagger Key--so very readable yet rich, with fully developed characters and a sense of style--is such an expensive collection, and won't be found on the shelves of your local B&N.
And how can we repeat the flukes--the excellent short story collection that does reach a big audience--The Two Sams, Stranger Things Happen, or Doerr's The Shell Collector? Other than their excellence, why did those books make it through, when Terry Lamsley's brilliant Conference of the Dead can only be bought--at a steep price--in speacialty shops?
And do you think anthologies lead people to collections/new short story authors? Obviously, the value of an Inferno or YBF&H is in part getting the stories of authors like Shepard and Lamsley into the hands of readers who might not otherwise see their fiction. Does that ever translate to getting the collections of such authors into the big shops?
sorry to go on like this... it's a subject that interests me particularly. thanks for addressing it so well in your interview!
Hi Adam, Not to bust your bubble but The Two Sams while published by a trade publisher, did not reach a very wide audience. I have no idea how many copies were printed but I know that it didn't sell all that well which is why Glen's second collection was published by Earthling. The reason that Kelly's Stranger Things Happen did well (and of course it was published by Small Beer, a small press) is that Kelly and Gavin drove all over the country to universities flogging it in readings. Publishers do minimal advertising or publicity for collections--unless readers know they exist (like with any book novel or nonfiction) they won't buy it. Did Doerr's The Shell Collector sell well? I'd like to see the figures on that.
I feel badly that this is so and I'd love to see it change but I have no idea how to do so.
I think that sometimes stories in anthologies lead readers to pick up work and look for it by contributors...there are avid readers of short fiction and I cherish them. Will they ever be huge amount of readers? I doubt it. Why? I don't know.
It doesn't exactly burst my bubble. I guess I ought to define my terms better--by wide audience, I mean, much wider than, say, Dagger Key, which is published like a collector's item, whereas I walked into a mainstream bookstore and bought The Two Sams for a price I've come to expect to pay for new hardcovers. Was Stranger Things Happen reprinted by Harcourt, or was that only Magic for Beginners? And Doerr's book was a Penguin paperback, so even tho it wound up in remainder bins across the nation... well it was in remainder bins across the nation! People could/can actually buy it! That's a big difference from a title published in an edition of 500 or 1000 at $50 a pop. It's tough. There are so few collections that are great, and so many are published in such a way that the average reader will simply never hear of them. The Wavering Knife. The Star Cafe. Etc., etc. So when I see a title that's excellent, such as The Two Sams, actually on the shelf in a Barnes & Noble, I consider it a success. And I wonder why there aren't more worthwhile titles on the shelf.
And then when I see mediocre, boring short story collections out on the main display table I can't help but think: it's your fault! No one wants to read short stories because of you!
But maybe I'm wrong.
No, you didn't burst my bubble. There's no bubble. Maybe a half-blown saliva bubble.
Ah. I see what you mean and agree. Lucius's work was being published by Thunder's Mouth Press, which was killed by the PGW debacle. I don't believe he's tried to sell his collections to non-specialty houses lately.
A large, commercial publisher did want to buy Stranger Things Happen but Kelly and Gavin decided not to do it as they were making more money selling it on their own. It IS Magic for Beginners that Harcourt bought.
Ellen, I found the issue touched upon in the interview about horror and childhood rather interesting. It's something I've mulled over a lot.
I think most horror is entrenched in childhood experiences. At that point we have little control and an incomplete comprehension of how the world works. A great deal of the world is scary - why your parents fight, why the bully down the street picks on you, why Great Aunt Agatha smells that way, the weird conversations adults have that go over your head - you know you are missing something, but it's just out of reach.
This powerlessness combined with an active imagination invents monsters that haunt us - the awful darkness under the bed, the closet door that will not stay shut, the tree by the window that casts weird shadows, etc. The world is mysterious, barely understood, and there is a great deal out there that can hurt us. These experiences are so strong that even when we are adults, and have a better, rational understanding of the world, certain events can throw us back into those childish moments of horror: being alone in a house after watching a horror movie, etc.
I suspect that Horror always circles around the issue of powerlessness, and truly gripping horror explores that issue and discovers a way for the protagonist to regain his/her power.
Hi Maura I'm often asked in interviews "why do you love horror"? and I don't really have an answer. I've been reading it since I was a kid.
You may have something there. Certainly most horror does depend on the "powerlessness" of at least one of the characters. Whether it comes from being children or just the human condition I don't know.
Anyone else have opinions on why horror affects those of us who love it?
If I ever finish Clute's The Darkening Garden then surely I will have all the answers :)
When I read horror, I expect one or the more of the following emotional responses: dreadful suspense, fear, or revulsion. The emotions I'm most likely to experience are dreadful suspense and/or revulsion.
I think it's fine to not really have an answer for why you love horror. At best, all one could do is describe what one enjoys about horror. At worst, one could visit a therapist for the truth :)
While this would not be appealing to many authors, I would suggest that showing actors reading books would be helpful.
Humans are social animals and are given to imitative behavior. The visual acceptance of book reading and the resultant conversations would build a readership.
Or even if the books aren't actually read, would lead to additional sales.
And how would authors "get" actors to advertise their books by seeming to read them? Actors cost money to hire (a LOT of money). Not very practical. The only books publishers would pay actors to advertise are those that don't need the boost--the bestsellers that already exist. Publishers spend a teeny bit of money for promotion of most books.
All over our library, but particularly in the community room where our SF bookgroup meets, are posters of mostly actors but some musicians and other famous people with books and a phrase or two of why they read. It's not really helpful for the bookgroup, but a lot of other groups meet in the community room and people spend time in the library.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
On the subject of children and horror, I wish I'd gotten a copy of my story "Clown Balloons" to you last year. Are you still reading non-invitational submissions for your collections? And if not, how could I bring my work to your attention? My newest published story, "Ravenous," appears in the current issue of Weird Tales magazine, but I don't know which venues you're reading these days.
Thanks for posting the interview! :)
From:
no subject
Yes, there of course the occasional great zombie story (and movie)--John Farris's story from a couple of years ago was excellent (and I chose it for YBFH), and there are others...but most of the stuff I'm seeing is about blood and gore and not storytelling...but unfortunately, that's something I see in all of horror far too often.
I usually approach the writers I want for my original anthologies and don't ever post to public market reports. I don't have time to read slush and can't afford to hire a reader.
I DO read WT so I'll be seeing it. I see most mags/anthos/collections out there.
From:
short stories
your interview comments cause me to ask why the short story isn't a viable way to earn a living as a writer? This is why, I presume, many authors turn away from short stories. I know that novels are generally easier to write, and yield a bigger paycheck to boot, but why don't short stories pay better? Why don't collection sell very well? why have readers fooled themselves into thinking a short story collection--written by someone who knows how to write a collection (Ligotti, Aickman, A. Carter, etc.)--is less satisfying than a novel? in part, I think its because the short stories that do reach a large audience--those in the New Yorker, for example--are often tepid and forumlaic. There's not enough complex--but fun!--short fiction reaching big audiences. It's a shame, for example, that Shepard's Dagger Key--so very readable yet rich, with fully developed characters and a sense of style--is such an expensive collection, and won't be found on the shelves of your local B&N.
And how can we repeat the flukes--the excellent short story collection that does reach a big audience--The Two Sams, Stranger Things Happen, or Doerr's The Shell Collector? Other than their excellence, why did those books make it through, when Terry Lamsley's brilliant Conference of the Dead can only be bought--at a steep price--in speacialty shops?
And do you think anthologies lead people to collections/new short story authors? Obviously, the value of an Inferno or YBF&H is in part getting the stories of authors like Shepard and Lamsley into the hands of readers who might not otherwise see their fiction. Does that ever translate to getting the collections of such authors into the big shops?
sorry to go on like this... it's a subject that interests me particularly. thanks for addressing it so well in your interview!
From:
Re: short stories
Not to bust your bubble but The Two Sams while published by a trade publisher, did not reach a very wide audience. I have no idea how many copies were printed but I know that it didn't sell all that well which is why Glen's second collection was published by Earthling. The reason that Kelly's Stranger Things Happen did well (and of course it was published by Small Beer, a small press) is that Kelly and Gavin drove all over the country to universities flogging it in readings. Publishers do minimal advertising or publicity for collections--unless readers know they exist (like with any book novel or nonfiction) they won't buy it. Did Doerr's The Shell Collector sell well? I'd like to see the figures on that.
I feel badly that this is so and I'd love to see it change but I have no idea how to do so.
I think that sometimes stories in anthologies lead readers to pick up work and look for it by contributors...there are avid readers of short fiction and I cherish them. Will they ever be huge amount of readers? I doubt it. Why? I don't know.
From:
Re: short stories
And then when I see mediocre, boring short story collections out on the main display table I can't help but think: it's your fault! No one wants to read short stories because of you!
But maybe I'm wrong.
No, you didn't burst my bubble. There's no bubble. Maybe a half-blown saliva bubble.
Thanks as always for your answers!
From:
Re: short stories
A large, commercial publisher did want to buy Stranger Things Happen but Kelly and Gavin decided not to do it as they were making more money selling it on their own. It IS Magic for Beginners that Harcourt bought.
From:
no subject
I think most horror is entrenched in childhood experiences. At that point we have little control and an incomplete comprehension of how the world works. A great deal of the world is scary - why your parents fight, why the bully down the street picks on you, why Great Aunt Agatha smells that way, the weird conversations adults have that go over your head - you know you are missing something, but it's just out of reach.
This powerlessness combined with an active imagination invents monsters that haunt us - the awful darkness under the bed, the closet door that will not stay shut, the tree by the window that casts weird shadows, etc. The world is mysterious, barely understood, and there is a great deal out there that can hurt us. These experiences are so strong that even when we are adults, and have a better, rational understanding of the world, certain events can throw us back into those childish moments of horror: being alone in a house after watching a horror movie, etc.
I suspect that Horror always circles around the issue of powerlessness, and truly gripping horror explores that issue and discovers a way for the protagonist to regain his/her power.
Well, it's a theory... ;)
From:
no subject
I'm often asked in interviews "why do you love horror"? and I don't really have an answer. I've been reading it since I was a kid.
You may have something there. Certainly most horror does depend on the "powerlessness" of at least one of the characters. Whether it comes from being children or just
the human condition I don't know.
Anyone else have opinions on why horror affects those of us who love it?
From:
no subject
When I read horror, I expect one or the more of the following emotional responses: dreadful suspense, fear, or revulsion. The emotions I'm most likely to experience are dreadful suspense and/or revulsion.
I think it's fine to not really have an answer for why you love horror. At best, all one could do is describe what one enjoys about horror. At worst, one could visit a therapist for the truth :)
From:
no subject
Humans are social animals and are given to imitative behavior. The visual acceptance of book reading and the resultant conversations would build a readership.
Or even if the books aren't actually read, would lead to additional sales.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I could expand my point and say that it's all about having persons/media of influence catching on and promoting.
I mentioned actors in the earlier post.
It's fair to suggest that this is beyond the realm of possibility but I mention it as who knows what will come of the suggestion.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject