![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Title: Books of Blood: Volumes 1-3
Author: Clive Barker
Published: New York: Berkeley Books, 1998 (1984)
Rating: 2 of 5
Page Count: 507
Total Page Count: 88,225
Text Number: 253
Read Because: interest in the author, borrowed from the library
Review: In three volumes, Books of Blood is a collection of 15 horror stories: tales of hauntings, unnatural acts, women with terrifying powers, men born of monsters, and demonic beings. It could be a cavalcade of horrors, but the stories rely on unusual premises and simple brutality instead of atmosphere, suspense, or psychological motivation—and so for this reader, they were largely a disappointment. Most short story collections are a mixed bag in terms of quality, but Books of Blood has an average success rate of just one story per volume. These successful stories ("Pig Blood Blues" in volume one, "Dread" and "Jacqeline Ess" in volume two, and "Scape-Goats" in volume three) vary themselves in quality, sometimes within the same story: "Dread" and "Scape Goat" both begin marvelously but end on low notes that echo weaknesses in the rest of the collection. But what makes these selections stand out is an intriguing, often frightening premise (a talking, man-eating pig; a woman who can alter flesh with a thought) combined with atmosphere, suspense, and/or psychological underpinning. The result is a story that intrigues, holds the reader captive, and submits him to sights of horror and dread—for in this collection, Barker never shies from the worse sort of violence.
Many of these aspects may seem to be fundamental to a horror story, but too often the short fiction in Books of Blood is missing them. Instead, the stories rely on simple brutality to drive their horror. The loosened bowels, hanging entrails, and devilish visages would be horrific in a visual medium where they would shock and disgust, but Barker's descriptions are more factual than evocative and a reader (like this one) not given to mental images may find that they fall flat. Meanwhile, the subtleties of atmosphere, suspense, and psychology are often incomplete or absent. As a result, the sometimes-clever, intriguing, frightening concepts are lost in hasty revelation and undercut by a lack of emotional depth: too many stories float by on the fact that hell is supposed to be scary, and too few stories explore the impact of hellish powers on the human mind. A slight overemphasis on humor turns the subtlety of dark humor blatant and flat, and further degrades the horror. I applaud Barker's willingness to indulge in outlandish concepts, brutal violence, and the other extremes of the horror genre—there's potential there for the sort of horror that disgusts even as it gives a pleasant chill. But such bare bones are not enough, and execution of the stories in Books of Blood leaves much to be desired. Horror is,however, a particularly personal genre: frightening concepts and successful execution varies between readers, and one with a more vivid, active mental eye may find an ideal horror story in this collection of short fiction. I, however, found too few worthwhile stories in Books of Blood to justify trooping through all the rest, and I can't in good faith recommend the book.
Review posted here on Amazon.com.
I'd been tempted to pick up Barker for a while now, but had been putting it off because I didn't know where to begin with his large body of work. Since I never found a good answer to that dilemma, I settled for this book, which is his first and was waiting on library shelves—but as you can see, it wasn't a successful experiment. So I turn to you: Does anyone on my flist read Barker? Do you think I should keep trying? Best of all, do you have a recommendation for me—a book of his which I may actually enjoy, and through which appreciate whatever it is that's made him so successful?
I generally avoid series, and (as obvious) I need some sort of depth to my horror, in atmosphere or in psychology; horror built purely on big violent visuals does nothing at all for me.
Author: Clive Barker
Published: New York: Berkeley Books, 1998 (1984)
Rating: 2 of 5
Page Count: 507
Total Page Count: 88,225
Text Number: 253
Read Because: interest in the author, borrowed from the library
Review: In three volumes, Books of Blood is a collection of 15 horror stories: tales of hauntings, unnatural acts, women with terrifying powers, men born of monsters, and demonic beings. It could be a cavalcade of horrors, but the stories rely on unusual premises and simple brutality instead of atmosphere, suspense, or psychological motivation—and so for this reader, they were largely a disappointment. Most short story collections are a mixed bag in terms of quality, but Books of Blood has an average success rate of just one story per volume. These successful stories ("Pig Blood Blues" in volume one, "Dread" and "Jacqeline Ess" in volume two, and "Scape-Goats" in volume three) vary themselves in quality, sometimes within the same story: "Dread" and "Scape Goat" both begin marvelously but end on low notes that echo weaknesses in the rest of the collection. But what makes these selections stand out is an intriguing, often frightening premise (a talking, man-eating pig; a woman who can alter flesh with a thought) combined with atmosphere, suspense, and/or psychological underpinning. The result is a story that intrigues, holds the reader captive, and submits him to sights of horror and dread—for in this collection, Barker never shies from the worse sort of violence.
Many of these aspects may seem to be fundamental to a horror story, but too often the short fiction in Books of Blood is missing them. Instead, the stories rely on simple brutality to drive their horror. The loosened bowels, hanging entrails, and devilish visages would be horrific in a visual medium where they would shock and disgust, but Barker's descriptions are more factual than evocative and a reader (like this one) not given to mental images may find that they fall flat. Meanwhile, the subtleties of atmosphere, suspense, and psychology are often incomplete or absent. As a result, the sometimes-clever, intriguing, frightening concepts are lost in hasty revelation and undercut by a lack of emotional depth: too many stories float by on the fact that hell is supposed to be scary, and too few stories explore the impact of hellish powers on the human mind. A slight overemphasis on humor turns the subtlety of dark humor blatant and flat, and further degrades the horror. I applaud Barker's willingness to indulge in outlandish concepts, brutal violence, and the other extremes of the horror genre—there's potential there for the sort of horror that disgusts even as it gives a pleasant chill. But such bare bones are not enough, and execution of the stories in Books of Blood leaves much to be desired. Horror is,however, a particularly personal genre: frightening concepts and successful execution varies between readers, and one with a more vivid, active mental eye may find an ideal horror story in this collection of short fiction. I, however, found too few worthwhile stories in Books of Blood to justify trooping through all the rest, and I can't in good faith recommend the book.
Review posted here on Amazon.com.
I'd been tempted to pick up Barker for a while now, but had been putting it off because I didn't know where to begin with his large body of work. Since I never found a good answer to that dilemma, I settled for this book, which is his first and was waiting on library shelves—but as you can see, it wasn't a successful experiment. So I turn to you: Does anyone on my flist read Barker? Do you think I should keep trying? Best of all, do you have a recommendation for me—a book of his which I may actually enjoy, and through which appreciate whatever it is that's made him so successful?
I generally avoid series, and (as obvious) I need some sort of depth to my horror, in atmosphere or in psychology; horror built purely on big violent visuals does nothing at all for me.
