![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
H.P. Lovecraft's Magazine of Horror
Within the pages of the magazine it's argued horror is either on the edge of a horrendous implosion or on the cusp of a golden renaissance. I think that's about right. Horror literature itself is a fairly shallow field. Widespread, but shallow. It makes half-hearted attempts every ten years or so to break out and become more mainstream, but often the impetus behind these efforts dies out and the genre, at least as far as fiction goes, lapses into senescence for another decade.
I suppose it's because horror is so visceral, that's why it works so well in film. To be sure there are classic horror novels that not only helped shape modern science fiction but, I would argue, modern fantasy as well, if not most other genres. Horror is by far the oldest form of storytelling. The first storyteller, I'm willing to bet, didn't tell a story about happy people and golden love around that Neanderthalic camp fire. It was a story of woe, fear, darkness, angst. You know, horror.
So it was with some, well, not trepidation but not exactly optimism, either, that I opened this magazine. I am happy to report I stumbled upon a little treasure myself.
I've talked to other writers about this and many agree horror, good horror, is very difficult to write. If you doubt me go to the horror section of your local bookstore, pick up a book at random, and read the first page. Nine out of ten times it'll be crap.
But horror based on H.P. Lovecraft's stories is even more difficult to write, and on the face of it you might think it's damn near impossible. No one writes like Lovecraft except Lovecraft, and despite all the attempts since his death, no one ever has come close.
But, fortunately, the stories in this issue don't try to imitate Lovecraft. They use his work as a springboard. That gives the authors enough creative room to do some real broken-field running. There wasn't a clinker in the bunch. Which is not to say some stories were not better than others. The centerpiece of the magazine was an interview with Brian Lumley followed by his story, "The Man Who Killed Kew Gardens." The interview was awesome, the story less so. Lumley makes the awful mistake of trying to scientifically ground the reason behind his horror. Okay, we can live with that, but does it really have to come from the old hoary idea of a meteorite from outer space? C'mon. Lumley's better than that, and he seems to know it, too.
The other stories were good, standouts being "Daddy," a reprint by the late Earl Godwin, and the deliciously satiric "The Paramount Importance of Pictures" by Lynne Jamneck. An in-depth review of Japan's horror boom rounds out the memorable issue.
All in all, I highly recommend you check out this magazine. The layout is good, the tone is perfect, and the fiction ain't half bad. I think you'll like it.
impressedI suppose it's because horror is so visceral, that's why it works so well in film. To be sure there are classic horror novels that not only helped shape modern science fiction but, I would argue, modern fantasy as well, if not most other genres. Horror is by far the oldest form of storytelling. The first storyteller, I'm willing to bet, didn't tell a story about happy people and golden love around that Neanderthalic camp fire. It was a story of woe, fear, darkness, angst. You know, horror.
So it was with some, well, not trepidation but not exactly optimism, either, that I opened this magazine. I am happy to report I stumbled upon a little treasure myself.
I've talked to other writers about this and many agree horror, good horror, is very difficult to write. If you doubt me go to the horror section of your local bookstore, pick up a book at random, and read the first page. Nine out of ten times it'll be crap.
But horror based on H.P. Lovecraft's stories is even more difficult to write, and on the face of it you might think it's damn near impossible. No one writes like Lovecraft except Lovecraft, and despite all the attempts since his death, no one ever has come close.
But, fortunately, the stories in this issue don't try to imitate Lovecraft. They use his work as a springboard. That gives the authors enough creative room to do some real broken-field running. There wasn't a clinker in the bunch. Which is not to say some stories were not better than others. The centerpiece of the magazine was an interview with Brian Lumley followed by his story, "The Man Who Killed Kew Gardens." The interview was awesome, the story less so. Lumley makes the awful mistake of trying to scientifically ground the reason behind his horror. Okay, we can live with that, but does it really have to come from the old hoary idea of a meteorite from outer space? C'mon. Lumley's better than that, and he seems to know it, too.
The other stories were good, standouts being "Daddy," a reprint by the late Earl Godwin, and the deliciously satiric "The Paramount Importance of Pictures" by Lynne Jamneck. An in-depth review of Japan's horror boom rounds out the memorable issue.
All in all, I highly recommend you check out this magazine. The layout is good, the tone is perfect, and the fiction ain't half bad. I think you'll like it.
