J-Horror: Japanese Narratives of the Supernatural

I would like to think I'm already fairly familiar with J-Horror. I've seen The Ring (which makes me an expert, right?) and have read the full body of works by Junji Ito (not at all for the faint of heart, but Uzumaki and Gyo are nice places to start if you haven't read either) among other authors and movies. I had read Kafka on the Rocks by Haruki Murakami back when I was pretty obsessed with anything that had anything to do with Franz Kafka (which, as it turns out, had nothing to do with him) but A Wild Sheep Chase was new to me. On a relative note, it reminded me quite a lot of Franz Kafka's work, in the sense that it dealt with a character who has no identity who becomes more and more estranged with the strange, initially awful world around him. But it just becomes so surreal that it breaches that realm entirely and just becomes... nigh-esoteric. Or, perhaps it wasn't at all. But if the story wasn't arbitrary, then I feel like I missed something important (probably because I'm not, nor have I ever been, Japanese).

All the same, this I felt was in interesting choice to have listed as the primary piece of reading for J-Horror week, since it didn't at all read as a traditional horror novel, withholding many elements visible in the previous readings. It feels maybe more like a fantasy novel, but I suppose it lurches between the two realms. Tacking on in that fashion, and as the title implies, it's something of a mystery novel too. On the other hand, it was rather dark and... rather morose in a number of ways, so I suppose it must qualify as horror. The writing style reminded me a lot of his Kafka on the Shore piece, so I'm glad I had that inadvertant introduction. It beckons me to read whatever else has been translated, as my Japanese is about as good as my Klingon. I've never watched Star Trek. As an aside, I really loved the humor in this and his other novel. Dry, cheap laughs. My favorite.

UPDATE: Sorry I missed class this day. I was genuinely too ill to stick around. I feel like I must have missed something wildly interesting and sincerely wish I could have made it.

Vampires

I've never been a HUGE fan of Anne Rice. Until now, I assumed I hadn't been missing out on anything in particular (after all, the hype associated with her work is comparable to a certain other contemporary vampire fiction writer whose infame precedes her, and whose name isn't worth actually writing out). But boy-oh-boy, I was wrong. I can understand why people get so caught up in her works. Religious spectacles aside, Rice is a phenomenal writer who develops genuinely interesting characters with genuinely interesting stories. Even the outline for the rather lengthy first book in this series, 'a vampire is being interviewed,' is a wonderfully unique approach to a piece of fiction (and that theme is expanded upon rather uniquely, itself). I love that she plays up the dynamic between the Loius and Lestat, giving them an almost uncomfortably developing relationship that saws back and fourth, and the involvement of what I picture as a surrogate child (who is burned alive! in a wonderfully edgy and probably controversial move on her part).

I wonder, reading this, what sorts of deviations were made from original vampiric myths (a quick Google search yields many results about origins and myths, so I really couldn't say without more research), but I would love to know. My proposing this stems from the earlier Frankenstein reading, and having seen before hand how that had grown and mutated. At what point did vampires go from being ugly and sort of bat-like, unable to enter doors without permission, to being sexually confused (clearly, in this book) beautiful objects of desire, to glittery unicorn wannabes with psychic/unique powers? (Don't get me started.) I'm thankful she didn't decide to include were-wolves in this. But I digress. Rice resigns the writing with a cliffhanger, which entices me to go on to her next piece of work, but I shan't. Not until I've got a bit more free time, I don't think. All the same, I do see I have been missing out on a fantastic body of work that has earned its' keep in the world of fictional vampire writings (as opposed, as I'm sure you're very familiar with, to non-fictional vampire writings). Haha.

The vampire pictured is neither of the protagonists. I felt like drawing someone cooler than Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise. Someone like Count Orlok. So yeah.

Monsters and Zombies

I'm just going to start with this: Ho-ly-shit. What a great read. This is the first zombie-themed writing I've really immersed myself in (I did, however, enjoy Max Brooks' Zombie Survival Guide, and I'm sure I'd love his World War Z book too) but this blog-style book really drew me in, particularly with its' leading zombie character, Gary. Yes, it was simple writing, yes it was almost (almost!) predictable in many ways, but I loved the tension and the fear Wellington manages to bring to his writing. He has an interesting attention to detail, and the incorporation of the female Somalian soldiers and the almost out of place mummy theme was interesting (Africa certainly crawls into America one way or another). Disregarding that, I felt the ending was as appropriate as possible, the looming onset of zombie-dom taking over our until recently quite humble protagonist, while he scripts his tragic memiors to a captive audience (at least, I was captivated). Beautiful. I wonder if all zombie novels are written to be as epic as possible (it makes sense, certainly) but I know a lot of them just... fall short? Pride and Prejudice and Zombies seemed gimmickey and I really hate every zombie movie I've ever seen, aside from Shaun of the Dead and Zombieland. Though, honestly, I don't know how many zombie fliques I've seen in the grand scheme of things.

I would love to know how the next two books pan out. Dekalb and all the characters of real interest are dead (or undead), and I'm almost itching to read what comprises a sequel. So few people are left in the world as it stands, it would be interesting to see how the story develops. But at the rate of reading a book a week in this class, I'm probably going to just stick those on the back-burner for now. This weeks reading felt more like a horror to me than did last week's Frankenstein, though the content is much the same, in that the 'bad guys' are either reanimated or scientists. Or, in the one case, both. I'm still not quite over Gary's general awesomeness.

Classic Goth

I had seen Young Frankenstein many years back, and my first question after reading this piece is, "where the Hell did Igor even come from?" Also, why is Dr. Frankenstein in college as a student and not an old, crazy scientist? Anyway. I suppose before I read Mary Shelley's version, I just assumed the story to be... timeless? What a concept; man makes monster. My better guess has always been that it had always existed in concept. This was a beautiful book (or, rather, ebook for me), and I thought the development of humanity was entirely interesting, particularly since it isn't as played up in various spin-offs. The use of the captain as a framing device was also novel to me. Clearly the story has been so warped and contorted from telling to telling that it has somewhere along the lines lost all semblance of what it once was. I am glad, to say the least, that I did read the first telling.

It's interesting how the Frankenstein monster (not "Frankenstein," contrary to popular belief) was devoid of description. He is larger than the average man and indeed a composite of varying human parts, but no stitches across the forehead, no bolts in the neck, no flat head, no none of that. It's sort of just left up to the imagination. Also interesting is that the monster isn't a bumbling beast, but rather quite sentient, rivaling the good doctor (hardly, haha) in philosophical matters. From a piece of philosophy and conjecture, it becomes a piece about revenge and significance, and from there it resumes philosophy with a macabre and dread that can only be represented in horror works. However. This piece doesn't really otherwise read as a horror. It's a piece that really makes the reader think. It's not something filled with dread, gore, and the like (... for the most part!), but rather, focuses on the story itself. It's more of a piece of art than it is the stupidity of what I know as horror (I flat-out refuse to watch the new Piranha 3D movie) or the silliness I've known as Frankenstein (Mel Brooks only, of course). All-in-all, an interesting foray into the world of what is to come.