Actually, I'd say it's the other way round (and I do think it's fair the compare these, as King was very obviously reworking Jackson's book early in his career; you see it in Carrie, 'Salem's Lot, and The Shining).
Well, yes, and that was a dopey comparison for me to try....I guess comparing Lovecraft and Jackson might be better for me. I love both of them, and their writing styles are totally different, and yet in a certain sense they're writing about a lot of the same things. Would I pick one over the other? Well, maybe if someone had me at gunpoint and was being reallly picky about my literary tastes, but not otherwise.
I just don't think that's good enough. I mean, by that approach writers risk becoming flavours. You might, for instance, have your Anne-Rice flavoured vampires, your PZB flavoured vampires, your Nancy-Collins flavoured vampires, ad nauseum, and sure, here are different flavours, but does that really justify an endless stream of vampire novels? I don't think so.
Hmmmmmmmm. I wish I could think of a better reply to this, but I haven't had any caffeine yet. Welll....I guess having an early background in the "Great Books" really brought home to me the belief that it's all been done already. I love those dumb little party tricks that there are only three plots, or two plots, or thirty plots, or whatever. I think good -- great -- writers can take the most hackneyed shopworn themes and turn them into gold (cf Philip K. Dick and his vision of the grail in the junk). I guess also I think there are those certain themes and tropes that resonate endlessly through our psyches and literature, and the Haunted House (aka the Bad Place) is one of them. So, sure, why shouldn't we have a lot of different books about it?
I'm not explaining myself v well, I fear. Need lattes.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: haunted
Date: 2004-11-08 04:17 pm (UTC)Well, yes, and that was a dopey comparison for me to try....I guess comparing Lovecraft and Jackson might be better for me. I love both of them, and their writing styles are totally different, and yet in a certain sense they're writing about a lot of the same things. Would I pick one over the other? Well, maybe if someone had me at gunpoint and was being reallly picky about my literary tastes, but not otherwise.
I just don't think that's good enough. I mean, by that approach writers risk becoming flavours. You might, for instance, have your Anne-Rice flavoured vampires, your PZB flavoured vampires, your Nancy-Collins flavoured vampires, ad nauseum, and sure, here are different flavours, but does that really justify an endless stream of vampire novels? I don't think so.
Hmmmmmmmm. I wish I could think of a better reply to this, but I haven't had any caffeine yet. Welll....I guess having an early background in the "Great Books" really brought home to me the belief that it's all been done already. I love those dumb little party tricks that there are only three plots, or two plots, or thirty plots, or whatever. I think good -- great -- writers can take the most hackneyed shopworn themes and turn them into gold (cf Philip K. Dick and his vision of the grail in the junk). I guess also I think there are those certain themes and tropes that resonate endlessly through our psyches and literature, and the Haunted House (aka the Bad Place) is one of them. So, sure, why shouldn't we have a lot of different books about it?
I'm not explaining myself v well, I fear. Need lattes.