Home » Posts tagged "nonfiction" (Page 13)

Book Review: Sleeping with the Lights On: The Unsettling Story of Horror by Darryl Jones

Sleeping with the Lights On: The Unsettling Story of Horror by Darryl Jones

Oxford University Press, 2018

ISBN-13: 978-0198826484

Available: Hardcover, Kindle edition

 

In Sleeping with the Lights On, Darryl Jones addresses the origins and evolution of horror, and provides a brief but wide-ranging, descriptive overview of the relationship of violence, taboo, and fear to culture, society, and storytelling that will provide newcomers with a readable and easy-to-understand guide to the horror genre’s major terms, critiques, subgenres, and tropes addressed in both lay and academic literature. Those more familiar with the horror genre, may be acquainted with many of the ideas and criticisms, but Jones organizes the information effectively. In his introduction, he starts by tracking the origins of horror through early literature, religion, and myth, following through to the present day and making predictions about the future of horror. He provides clear explanations of terror, horror, the Gothic, the uncanny, and the weird, citing major, primary sources for their origins and definitions, and argues that changing cultural anxieties inform the development of the horror genre. Further chapters discuss major branches of the horror genre: monsters, the occult and supernatural, horror and the body (this includes transformation and cannibalism as well as body horror), horror and the mind (focused on madness, doppelgangers, serial killers, and slashers), and mad science.

In each of these chapters, Jones explores the breadth of the topic by first addressing the general concept (monstrosity, in the chapter on monsters) and then getting more specific and discussing critiques and analyses of how their representations and meanings  have changed with the times, through a more specific examination (in this case, of the representation of cannibals, vampires, and zombies in society, culture, history, and literature). Although he is able to address these only briefly, it is clear that his knowledge is deep as well as wide.

An afterword discusses post-millenial horror and Jones’ predictions for the future of horror. Noting that one of horror’s defining characteristics is its existence on the margins and manipulation of boundaries, he observes that its recently gained respectability in academic circles and the way it is now marketed to mainstream popular culture may be compromising its transgressiveness. Jones coins the term “unhorror” to describe movies that use horror tropes, sometimes exaggeratedly, and using computer-generated effects, without actually being horrific (he seems to be focused on recent kaiju movies, which do definitely differ in tone depending on who is making them. I don’t think anyone can say that Shin Godzilla is “unhorror” despite its CGI, though) and introduces “Happy Gothic”,  which uses a Gothic mode but in a romantic, whimsical way.

Jones also notes that recent storytelling in the genre is rooted in cultural anxieties about economic, ecological, racial, technological, and political horrors, all of which are very real parts of people’s lives right now, as well as a return to “old-school horror”, but that Asian and Hispanic horror are also having a major impact on the genre, as well as television, podcasts, and Internet memes such as Slender Man. Jones concludes that horror is expanding past the page and movie screen directly in front of our faces, to include new voices and new fears in ways that, at this time, we can’t even imagine.

As this is a short book, it really isn’t possible to cover everything, and I feel like Jones maybe stretched himself a little too far in trying to include as much as he did, especially in his afterword. He devotes just a few sentences to YA horror and paranormal romance(entire books have been written about this), and a few to the “Happy Gothic”, without really elaborating or providing examples (I have never heard of this and now I am curious). His attempt to describe “unhorror” was fragmented as well. He just didn’t have the space for everything I think he would have liked to have said, so the end felt a little unfinished.  I was also a little frustrated with the index. While it lists authors and titles of books and movies cited, movies were not always identified by the date (there are a number of movies titled Godzilla, for example) and terms defined in the text were not always included (abjection, taboo, and sublime, for instance). This is less of a big deal if you have a paper copy that you can just flip through, but doing that on the Kindle is more difficult. The “further reading” section was also difficult for me to read, and I would have liked a little space between citations. These are minor quibbles, though.

This is a great book for anyone looking for background on the genre or arguments for its validity, or who is just interested in the topic, and especially for newcomers seeking a good overview of the horror genre in literature and cinema. Highly recommended.

 

Posted on February 9, 2019 by , Reply

Book Review: Making the Monster: The Science Behind Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein by Kathryn Harkup

Making the Monster: The Science Behind Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein by Kathryn Harkup

Bloomsbury Sigma, 2018

ISBN-13: 978-1472933737

Available: Hardcover, paperback, Kindle edition, audiobook, MP3 CD

 

 

The primary takeaway I got from Making the Monster: The Science Behind Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is that Frankenstein really truly is science fiction. There are things implied in the book that science today still isn’t able to accomplish! I think in today’s world we don’t really have the ability to imagine the time that Mary Shelley was writing, when the way people saw the world was in flux, with alchemy only very reluctantly ceding its way to the barely understood beginnings of chemistry, biology, and physical science, and the materials for experimentation not easily available. The potential of science to change what makes us human, as exciting and mysterious as it was, also activated anxieties and fears that, while they have changed in specifics, still affect us today. The mystery of what science could accomplish, though, was so profound at that time that Shelley’s novel of an ambitious, obsessive scientist has so little actual science in it, and so little of the text actually devoted to creating the monster itself.

Harkup breaks her topic down by first summing up the life of Mary Shelley to the point at which she wrote Frankenstein, and then, about 80 pages in, addressing the specific aspects of science and experimentation described in the text. She does a good job of recreating the gruesome aspects of science at that time, and the enthusiasm scientists had that sent them past the point of what we would consider ethically acceptable. She covers some fascinating people and ideas, such as anatomist John Hunter (evidently the model for both Dr. Doolittle and Dr Jekyll); foundational chemist Antoine Lavoisier; serial killers William Burke and William Hare, who sold the bodies of their victims to anatomy schools; and Luigi Galvani and Alessandro Volta, the major players in the debate on the role of electricity in animal and human bodies, among others. Bodysnatching, graverobbing, transplants, preserving body parts in jars, the creation of batteries, chimeras, body decomposition, electroshock therapy, acromegaly, transfusions, feral men, Lamarck’s theory of genetics, all are covered in the pages as the flotsam surrounding educated (and not as educated) people at the time, often simultaneously as entertainment and education.

Making the Monster is interesting, even compelling at times, but there were some stretches that took me a long time to get through. I got impatient when Harkup moved too far into the past or too close to the current day, and much of what she said about where Shelley got her ideas was farfetched supposition. That is, not that Mary couldn’t have encountered these ideas and people, but that she might have encountered (for example) John Hunter’s ideas because of a one-time encounter between Hunter and her father. Despite it running only 274 pages, I ended up picking it up and putting it down several times.

As it’s the 200th anniversary of the novel, this is a good addition to a Frankensteinia collection, and some of the stories about the science of the times make for interesting reading if you are interested in the history of science in the 1800s. Making the Monster is a mostly enjoyable read, but outside of the specific applications of science that tie into the novel, it treads some pretty familiar ground, so it’s not an essential item for most collections.  Recommended for large public library collections and Frankenstein lovers.

 

 

Posted on December 12, 2018 by , Reply

Musings: “We Have Always Been At War With Eastasia” : Future-Proofing The News

         

 

The Monster Kid tells me he is writing a dystopian alternate history, beginning in 2012, where there is perpetual war.  “You know, like in the book where we have always been at war with Eastasia but then they change the news.”

In case you aren’t familiar with it, this is a reference to George Orwell’s 1984, in which the main character works in the “Ministry of Truth,” destroying or rewriting past news that doesn’t reflect the current reality the government wants people to buy into (in this case, an ongoing war with Eurasia ends and a new one with Eastasia begins, and history has to be rewritten to erase the war with Eurasia). Creepy, but in a fictional way, right?

Reality is so much worse. In M.T. Anderson’s YA biography of composer Dmitri Shostakovich, Symphony for the City of the Dead: Dmitri Shostakovich and the Siege of Leningrad, Anderson has to return to the reader again and again, to explain that there is no good way to untangle the contradictions in the stories about Shostakovich’s life, even the ones he told himself, because of the contortions the truth had to go through to be acceptable to the Stalinist regime and prevent him from suffering a truly horrific ending. Reading this, I realized that 1984 is a pale shadow of the reality of repression and brutality under the Soviet regime and its effects on the arts, literature, and the press, especially under Stalin (and that doesn’t even begin to cover the horrors of the siege of Leningrad). I can’t recommend this book highly enough– it’s an outstanding, if horrific, book for both older teens and adults.

In The Infernal Library, Daniel Kalder asserts that dictators have not only repressed the press and the arts,  in some places they even managed to completely erase history. Many of the little provinces and countries that were drawn in to the U.S.S.R. at the beginning of the 20th century had a limited number of literate people, and when the U.S.S.R. dissolved, the president of Turkmenistan completely invented a history and religion for his country, complete with his own cult of personality, and with no press and few additional books available for comparison (I don’t recommend this one for purchase, but the chapters on dictator literature from some of the lesser-known dictators are fascinating, so see if your library has it. Did you know Saddam Hussein wrote romance novels?)

So how can we keep this erasure and rewriting of history from happening, especially in our era of  “fake news”? Honestly, it’s pretty hard to do. History usually gets written by the winners, and, just like in 1984, it’s not that difficult to destroy and rewrite the version you want, or to make it impossible to report on anything that could make you look bad.  In Future-Proofing the News: Preserving the First Draft of History, Kathleen Hansen and Nora Paul report that even when nobody is deliberately trying to prevent the news from being accurately reported, time and environmental conditions can destroy it.  Many of the formats news has been recorded were ephemeral or are now obsolete. Newspapers and magnetic tapes get brittle, hyperlinks break, devices used to record and play back break down. And there is such a quantity of news that many places are unable to store it or make it accessible. Just as a concerted effort needs to be made to repress the press, concerted efforts need to be made to save the news of the past for the present and future. If you are a historian, journalist, archivist, librarian, or otherwise interested citizen, this is worth reading.

We can’t guarantee that primary sources will always be accurate in their reporting. Both in the past and present there have been a multiplicity of sources and points of view, although I’d say that’s truer today than ever before. But sometimes there is only fear shaping the reported facts, as was the case under Stalin, or there is nothing there at all, as in Turkmenistan, and that is terrifying. The free press is not an enemy: it is essential to keeping civic discourse, the arts and literature, and democracy, alive. When you vote tomorrow, keep that in mind.

 

And please, do vote. Regardless of what you think, your vote matters.

 

Posted on November 6, 2018 by , Reply
First « 1112131415 » Last