Printable View
Yeah, I'll agree. Lovecraft does not belong to the "great" group if that group contains authors that have been mentioned. Still, I consider Lovecraft great, just not one of the Greats. I don't know. Probably putting a bit too much importance on adjectives. That, and I was trying to hold on to a futile argument. :)
For the most part, horror stories are not in the mainstream. What I mean by mainstream are stories taught in college or stories that are part of "the canon." Please don't ask me what the canon is. If you are at all familiar with the great works of literature then you are familiar with the canon. If you still have no idea what the canon is, take some college literature courses. You will learn what the canon is right quick.
I know about the debatable and ambiguous canon. You're right, though. I just usually associate mainstream with whatever is big in popular culture.
The canon ignore genres.
Surely, there must be a few genre pieces in the canon? What about Shelley's Frankenstein and Stoker's Dracula (at least for horror)?
What is the genre of Frank? Science fiction or horror,
anyways , the canon ignore genres. Works who enter there can be from any genre, even becaause is millenar and those genres have a few centuries only.
Oh, okay. I thought you meant genre fiction didn't get into the canon.
And, I'd say, personally, I'd consider Frankenstein 60% Horror, 40% sci-fi, lol.
My opinion is Frankenstein is science fiction, Dracula is horror. Horror deals with the supernatural. There may be elements of horror in Frankenstein but looking at it objectively, it is science fiction.
In 1965 (he actually died in December of that year) W. Somerset Maugham was feted as, variously, "The most famous living Englishman" and "the most famous writer in the world". Oh the blank faces I see now when I cite Somerset Maugham as my favourite writer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
I actually think JK Rowling could easily be a "who?" in 20 years time.
Well said. I think I'll add another thought piggybacking on that: Who's to say Shakespeare won't be forgotten in a century or two? Seems unikely now, but with things shifting more and more toward TV and movies with the incoming generations, I think it's perfectly possible for the great writers to be remembered, if at all, by the movies based upon their works, and not their actual works. And of course, movies are rarely as good as the stories they're based on.Quote:
Originally Posted by themiddleprince
Nah horror is actually more of a mood if anything. Hence any content from the supernatural to a psychotic killer to monstrous aliens roaming about a spaceship depending on how it's done can be horror.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jassy Melson
Shakespeare was famous (in London and his home town) in his day, but it was over a hundred years after his death that he got a memorial in Poets' Corner at Westminster Abbey. He was basically rediscovered when a revitalised theatre industry needed material that fitted all sorts of political and cultural criteria at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by moonbird
As you rightly say, he can submerge again, particularly under the mass of material now available.
I don't think King will be popular in a hundred years, but I still think he'll be read, just like Rowling in 20. The idea that he will no longer be remembered at all, by anyone is what seems unlikely.Quote:
Originally Posted by themiddleprince
There'll certainly always be some small dedicated group of readers (such as Lovecraft readers still seem to insist they are!).Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
Borges, someone which knowledge and understanding of literature was not ridiculous suggested that Shakespeare, Voltaire, etc will be forgotten and only religious and philosophical texts remembered, because they are the true great ideas.