Monday, April 26, 2010
My first outing as a token woman
Two years ago I made a new years' resolution not to internet-search myself, and I've pretty much managed to stick to it. This has been good for my mental health, but it does mean I can be a bit behind if someone else points me towards something. Here's something interesting: in February, the science fiction magazine SFX featured an all-horror issue which, as this blogger points out, had some serious lapses in its gender balance: naming few prominent women in its features and interviewing thirty-four people about their favourite 'hidden treasures', all of them male, and generally presenting a very male-heavy sheet.
(I am well behind the times commenting on this; here the blogger follows up, for those who would care to be more up to date than my late hide.)
I'm reluctant to attribute this to deliberate malice, though I quite agree with the blogger that it's a big mistake, and one very easy to avoid. SFX certainly don't exclude women entirely - they've reviewed my work before (and I'm not just trying to give them the benefit of the doubt because they reviewed it positively), and of the reviewers that I've met, one was female (a nice lady I encountered at a BSFA panel I'd been invited to speak at), and the other is my husband, who's occasionally written reviews for them, is male, but doesn't have anything against women - in fact, a fair proportion of the authors he reviewed were female. I do agree with the blogger, though, that this really is an oversight, and one that would be artistically as well as politically good to avoid. Horror has a long history as a male genre, but that's precisely why keeping one's eyes open for female examples of it is important, because in genres with lots of boys, female exemplars can bring a new and fresh perspective - not that women have ever been absent from it, as Mary Shelley can testify. It's a great shame to miss the opportunity, and any horror compendium that mentions me and leaves out Shirley Jackson really needs to re-evaluate its priorities.
Because yep, they mentioned me. I was the only female novelist who made it in.
Which is, of course, interesting to me for personal as well as feminist reasons. SFX interviewed thirty-four artists (all male) and asked them to name their favourite obscure or under-appreciated work, and one of them mentioned Bareback, my first novel.
This is notable in itself, as it's not the first time lately that I've shown up on a list of under-appreciated authors. This is the kind of compliment that tends to give you mixed feelings, having a certain air of 'I think you're great, isn't it a shame no one else does?' for which the complimenter cannot be blamed at all, but on the other hand, the fact that it's happening in lots of different places is rather promising. I seem to have gone from 'moderately successful new author' to 'creator of under-appreciated gems'; from there, perhaps the giddy heights of 'really successful' might be the next step. Recommendations are certainly a fine thing, and recommendations as someone who ought to be more famous than she is do carry a certain cachet. Remember, my friends, if you buy lots of copies of my book now, you might just be buying boasting rights of 'I always liked her even before she got so big'!
But to return to the point. That all the rest of them mentioned male works is something I'd blame more on the selection of people interviewed than on the interviewees themselves. The majority of my most beloved authors are female, and I'd expect most men to have male favourites likewise, not out of prejudice but simply because a book that speaks out of our own gender's experience may resonate with us more; a more balanced group might have produced more balanced suggestions. But somehow I managed to slip under the wire, meaning that Bareback has now, finally, got the set, having been classified as literary, science fiction/fantasy, crime, and now horror as well. (Romance, war and Western are probably out, but I'm not giving up hope.)
Given that I tend to shrug off genre, this broad spread pleases me no end. But I'm rather pleased and interested to note my inclusion as a horror author.
The first reason for this is that, I hope, it shows someone responding more to the spirit of the book than the superficial content. Bareback isn't exactly a traditional horror plot - nothing's hiding under the bed - but I would certainly classify it as social horror. It's a book primarily interested in the interactions between the structures of society and the psyche of the individual, in how your position in the world changes you, and particularly in how your exposure to horrors makes you more capable of horrors yourself. The heroine, if you can call her that, is exposed to werewolves, but more important is that she's exposed to a world where, at least as she experiences it, you can be sued for self-defence, you spend childhood nights unprotected from the abuses of your supposed friends, and you can be defined as a monster for trying to live the role that your society has imposed on you against your will. Lycanthropy is as much a metaphor as a trope in the book: for the heroine, the majority can turn a wolfish face towards you, and it's being a majority that makes it wolfish as much as any nocturnal shenanigans. As a result, it's a first-person narrative from a flawed narrator who is herself capable of turning a blind eye to torture, and sometimes even taking a kind of bitter satisfaction in the concept: the physical reality tends to distress her, but she's highly susceptible to the notion of the boot being on the other foot for a change. All of this takes place within a plot that involves few spooks hiding in the mirror or gateways to Hell opening up, but what you see in the mirror isn't comfortable and Hell is diffused throughout nonetheless.
So I'm happy to put on the horror hat. The other reason for this is that, while I don't really consume things by genre, as genres go, I rather like horror. As is the case in any niche genre, there's a lot of rubbish out there, but still, if you blindfolded me as said, 'Okay, pick a story: we've got one science fiction, one fantasy and one horror [to pick the categories I'm usually classed as]', I'd pick up horror every time. If literary were in there too I'd probably pick that up instead, but I don't see literary as a genre in quite the same way: if one ignores the assumption, made by genre snobs on both sides of the literary/genre divide, that something must be sci-fi or whatever instead of literary if it's got sci-fi elements - one of the silliest assumptions in the world - it's more a classification by quality than by content, and quality is a lovely thing to behold. But if, as I said, I had to pick a genre piece, horror is generally my choice.
Why is this? I think the simplest way of putting it is this: horror is a genre that, whatever its faults, always tries to invoke passion.
You can, of course, invoke passion in any genre. But in horror it's pretty much an essential: if you don't frighten the audience, you aren't working. And fear, while a simple emotion, is also a primordial one. In attempting to touch it, artists can produce images and phrases that have a kind of transcendent newness to them. And newness - not just novelty, but real, different, drawn-straight-up-from-the-well newness is a thing to love in any work of art.
Horror doesn't always do this, of course. For a genre that lives to surprise us, it's also frustratingly fond of recycling tired old tropes, especially in the movies; I'm thoroughly disgusted with Hollywood's current round of let's-remake-anything-and-everything-from-the-seventies, and not in the good, horrified-disgust way. (Do we really need another Texas Chainsaw Massacre? They did it right the first time. Do we really need another Last House on the Left, for goodness sake? Why remake a gurning mutant of a film whose main interest was in going so nastily, lollopingly far that it pretty much exists to question whether a film like itself should exist in the first place, never mind the second?) Reheated horror is boring, and that's something horror should never be. But on the other hand, at least reiteration is understood to be a problem in horror, not just at the conceptual level but at the visceral: if it's too familiar to scare the audience, it ain't working. Horror tends to go in cycles, and while that brings with it a limping brood of shoddy imitations, it also allows for the sweeping entrance of a totally new and profoundly frightening blast of cold air from outside.
As with all genres, freshness rather than imitation is where we get the really fine work. The two horror writers I love best are M.R. James and Shirley Jackson. There are, of course, many differences between the two. James's ghastly creations ('stained-glass monstrosities', in the perfect encapsulation of author Poppy Z. Brite*) creep half-invited into a world of oak-panelled cosiness where Jackson prefers to tilt the domestic at a mild, dizzying angle from the start and send us all staggering downhill. Perhaps more crucially, James was primarily an academic who wrote ghost stories to amuse his students while Jackson was more seriously dedicated to the art of fiction: James wears his genius lightly where Jackson plunges into hers with passion. But there's genius in both of them, and it comes from the same place: beginning in the world - the real world, the tactile where we all live, not the conventional world of a thousand shaken-together old tales - and looking at this world of ours with newly affrighted eyes.
If science fiction and crime are intellectual genres, horror is visceral. I think one of the reasons I love it - or at least, retain high hopes of good things despite the rubbish - is that in a way, you can classify horror in the same way you can classify literary fiction: by a qualitative rather than a content approach. If literary fiction is literary because it's well written and shows a degree of sophistication, which is basically my definition, horror fiction is horror because it frightens you. Crime is a genre of structures: there has to be a crime committed and engaged with somewhere in the plot. Science fiction is a genre of ideas: it takes a concept and bases a story on that. Fantasy is, loosely speaking, a genre of stuff: magical powers or supernatural creatures or imaginary settings or whatever props the author chooses to pull out of the cupboard or cobble together out of their own imaginations. Nothing wrong with any of those things; heck, I do all of them myself to some extent. But horror is a genre of emotion, of mental states, of passion in the author and/or the audience, and at its best this leaves room for a tremendous flexibility of thought combined with a genuine depth of feeling.
Because - and this is the other reason horror occupies a special place in my heart - it's also a genre that lends itself to the numinous. Good fiction needs some kind of line to the subconscious: there be dragons, and also vivid images, deep waters, new thoughts; the subconscious is the alchemical cauldron from which genuine art arises. And the subconscious needs fear: if we're in actual danger, our survival depends on reacting as fast as possible, and the fastest way to react is to fire straight from the subconscious without routing through all the complex upper wiring; that's why people find themselves primed for flight before they've consciously worked out that the bang was or wasn't a gunshot.
Likewise, one of the best ways to freshen one's writing is to reach back into childhood, the newness and strangeness and unignorable realness of the world that appears when we look at it through a consciousness still working hard to sort and separate the tangible from the conceptual, the seen and understood from the unknowable and the illusory. And not coincidentally, childhood is also the time of greatest fear. The monster lurking under the bed, the flickering spook in the mirror, the bad stranger who might hurt you? These are childhood terrors, primal nightmares that horror artists recreate. Children is the time of waking dreams - I still remember the terror I felt at four years old where I saw, I swear I actually saw, the green-skinned, black-nailed, vampiric hand placed with a climber's firmness at the foot of my bunk bed - and that sense of fractured reality, when you can't quite be sure that there won't be a grinning skeleton behind your bedroom door if you open it or that your parents won't suddenly bare bloody fangs and devour you, can be seen in the dislocated wrongness that haunts many horror stories where the ghost has gotten out of its grave and reality may waver at any moment.
So horror, at its best, has an ability to connect directly with the imagination, not just as thought but as sensation and emotion and direct experience. It's for that reason, more than any other, that leaving women out of it is a bad mistake: the sensations and emotions and direct experiences of people are distinct to them as individuals, but the sensations of a female body, the direct experiences of a woman in a gendered society, are not the same as the sensations and experiences of a man. The more we reach into ourselves, the more we need to hear from a multiplicity of selves. Horror can be beautiful, and the more diverse, the more kinds of beauty we will be able to see.
*Quoted from her introduction to The Nightmare Factory by Thomas Ligotti.
A whole post, by a pregnant person no less, on the unique perspectives women can bring to horror... And no mention, either approving or disapproving, of Rosemary's Baby?
I'd really like to hear your perspective on that one...
Regarding Bareback not being classified as romance; Amazon must have had it classified in that paranormal romance subgenre, because for weeks after ordering it they kept suggesting the kinds of books where the woman with the tattoo on her lower back showing on the cover sleeps with vampires. It amuses me because the tone of Bareback couldn't be more different, but the heroine *does* sleep with a werewolf.
@Dahne -- I think it's more the "kickass loner heroine" vibes than anything romantic that's pulling up those suggestions.
Kit, one of my more frustrating professional duties is to choose the one -- and ONLY one -- genre to assign as "primary" on various fiction titles.
As I've said before, I usually look at the marketing cues for this decision -- if it's got a clinch on the cover, it's a romance; if it's got a spaceship, it's sf; and so forth.
Due to the recent "romanticization" (in the modern sense, not the traditional literary history sense) of so many horror tropes (sexy vampires! Noir werewolves! Funny zombies! ) it's a lot harder to do that with horror.
I don't put horror labels on a lot of books, but when I do, it's usually because the book passes what I privately call "the Nietzsche test": when the characters stare into the metaphorical Abyss, does it stare back?
I don't know whether you'll be pleased or not to know that BENIGHTED received a "Horror" sticker in our library.
(And I've really got to give up the habit of posting long tangential ruminations in your comments that more properly belong in my own journal...)
[verification word: "enceivol" -- a traditional French country dance based upon the odd ski-like gait peculiar to late-term pregnancy]
(And I've really got to give up the habit of posting long tangential ruminations in your comments that more properly belong in my own journal...)Post a Comment
Please don't, not on my account! I like interesting ruminations. :-)
July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010