What do you think?
Rate this book
The Spectacle of the Void
The world has been swallowed by strangeness. A new reality—a "horror reality”—has taken hold. David Peak’s The Spectacle of the Void examines the boundaries of the irreal and the beyond, exploring horror’s singular ability to communicate the unknown through language and image. It is also a speculative work that gazes unflinchingly at the inevitable extinction of mankind, questioning whether or not the burden of our knowing we will someday cease to exist is a burden after all, or rather the very notion that will set us free.
104 pages, Paperback
First published December 2, 2014
8 people are currently reading
622 people want to read
About the author
David Peak
24books270followersDavid Peak is the author of The World Below (Apocalypse Party), Eyes in the Dust and Other Stories (Trepidatio Publishing), Corpsepaint (Word Horde), and The Spectacle of the Void (Schism). He lives in Chicago, where he is working on his next novel.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews
May 29, 2020
This is philosophy the way I like it: succinct, less jargon-ridden than many philosophical treatises I’ve read, and the referent examples are things I am either familiar with, can easily find online, or contextualized in such a way that I can fill in gaps in my own knowledge/experience.
The Spectacle of the Void is a short work, with only 96 pages of actual text. Its vocabulary is only as complex as it has to be, yet Peak gets his points across with exactitude. You don’t need a PhD to understand it, but a Bachelor’s degree helps. And I love that the examples used are from such things as the work of , , and Junji Ito manga. Laymen’s sources? Sure. Well, except Evenson, who is a thinking man’s writer. But you’ll occasionally need to dip into the dictionary, as Peak doesn’t water down his thoughts, either.
I’d like to ask the question “what is the gist of the book?�, but there are several sub-theses going on here. Peak poses, as his primary thesis, that horror, at its heart, is about communication, or lack thereof. Whether it is our inability to communicate what we know, see, and feel properly or the fact that language simply cannot encompass the breadth of what we experience, particularly in those numinous moments when we sense something “beyond� what is communicable, we all suffer when communication is cut off, whether by us, by another, or by our circumstances. It’s an interesting take that plays out quite well through Peak’s facile use of examples that we either all know or can easily access with a little effort.
The examination of the thesis and corollary sub-theses was great. But what I drew the most from this was a number of notes in my ɰٱ’s notebook that got me thinking about how I construct stories and the thematic elements that make them ring or make them fail. I believe that, as a result of reading and understanding this work, I can be more engaging to potential readers. I can now more deliberately examine what aspect(s) of horror (internal or external, for example) affect my characters and determine, much more clearly, why they are affected by them. This is one of the best books about writing (that is not about writing) that I’ve ever read.
The section on extra-dimensionality is outstanding and makes clear something that has been in the back of my mind (in a pocket dimension?) for some time, but Peak makes it explicit. I'm surprised, though, that he did not reference House of Leaves as an example.
I love the idea, briefly touched on in relation to the movie , that the closer we try to examine something from a distance, the blurrier it gets. That is good insight that one must keep in mind when constructing horror.
The section on "Transformers" (no, not those Transformers) draws upon my favorite Junji Ito story "" to demonstrate how this content hole can be extrapolated into the general frisson of one's experience of time's passage, where we are constricted and reshaped in our inevitable journey toward death. Peak’s examples are extremely helpful, in that they are scalable � one can extrapolate a larger meaning from the specifics of a story, and Peak is very good at showing the reader the way.
I will have to revisit this book again and again and set it I use for writing. Like any good philosophical text, it has caused me to think deeper about the subject. While the (and sometimes ) focus of the book can sometimes be draining, overall, I have been energized by the read and return to this one again and again.
The Spectacle of the Void is a short work, with only 96 pages of actual text. Its vocabulary is only as complex as it has to be, yet Peak gets his points across with exactitude. You don’t need a PhD to understand it, but a Bachelor’s degree helps. And I love that the examples used are from such things as the work of , , and Junji Ito manga. Laymen’s sources? Sure. Well, except Evenson, who is a thinking man’s writer. But you’ll occasionally need to dip into the dictionary, as Peak doesn’t water down his thoughts, either.
I’d like to ask the question “what is the gist of the book?�, but there are several sub-theses going on here. Peak poses, as his primary thesis, that horror, at its heart, is about communication, or lack thereof. Whether it is our inability to communicate what we know, see, and feel properly or the fact that language simply cannot encompass the breadth of what we experience, particularly in those numinous moments when we sense something “beyond� what is communicable, we all suffer when communication is cut off, whether by us, by another, or by our circumstances. It’s an interesting take that plays out quite well through Peak’s facile use of examples that we either all know or can easily access with a little effort.
The examination of the thesis and corollary sub-theses was great. But what I drew the most from this was a number of notes in my ɰٱ’s notebook that got me thinking about how I construct stories and the thematic elements that make them ring or make them fail. I believe that, as a result of reading and understanding this work, I can be more engaging to potential readers. I can now more deliberately examine what aspect(s) of horror (internal or external, for example) affect my characters and determine, much more clearly, why they are affected by them. This is one of the best books about writing (that is not about writing) that I’ve ever read.
The section on extra-dimensionality is outstanding and makes clear something that has been in the back of my mind (in a pocket dimension?) for some time, but Peak makes it explicit. I'm surprised, though, that he did not reference House of Leaves as an example.
I love the idea, briefly touched on in relation to the movie , that the closer we try to examine something from a distance, the blurrier it gets. That is good insight that one must keep in mind when constructing horror.
The section on "Transformers" (no, not those Transformers) draws upon my favorite Junji Ito story "" to demonstrate how this content hole can be extrapolated into the general frisson of one's experience of time's passage, where we are constricted and reshaped in our inevitable journey toward death. Peak’s examples are extremely helpful, in that they are scalable � one can extrapolate a larger meaning from the specifics of a story, and Peak is very good at showing the reader the way.
I will have to revisit this book again and again and set it I use for writing. Like any good philosophical text, it has caused me to think deeper about the subject. While the (and sometimes ) focus of the book can sometimes be draining, overall, I have been energized by the read and return to this one again and again.
October 18, 2019
Situating horror narrative within a philosophical framework is no easy task. And when a fundamental assumption in one's premise is the failure of language to facilitate communication, then it almost becomes a futile exercise. Perhaps that is why this tract is so slim, or perhaps Peak considered that writing at any greater length on the subjects he broaches here might put off all but the most tenacious readers. At any rate, I found myself taking more notes while reading than I have in recent memory. For someone so resolute about the failings of language, Peak writes with remarkable clarity and eloquence:
In the very act of living, we are being transformed into something that will eventually render us unrecognizable to ourselves.While the subject matter here is necessarily weighty and bleak, I did not find the text as a whole to be permeated with the kind of relentless pessimism that emanates from Thomas Ligotti, who has covered related ground. Peak seems to have found the proper level of distance—his enthusiasm for the topic, while muted, still filters through in his prose. Ultimately the book affirms the power and ongoing necessity of horror narratives, rooted as Peak asserts they are in our compulsion to share our dread with others. And so, even if the worst is yet to come, writers will continue trying and failing to communicate our approach toward it to those around them. Our tools may be crude but they are the only ones we have.
March 8, 2017
Horror, then, is the permission to speculate beyond our own limitations as a species, including the inherent failure of communication, and to truly understand the concept of being without thought.
This slim volume is a speculative realist take on the abject and what is described as a horror reality. Peak asserts that humans are cursed with faulty communication and yet possess the ability to imagine a reality beyond the present, including what is described as a world-without-is. This pondering of limitations, unfriendly infinity and an erosion of sense-making is a fertile ground for the horror genre. A shorthand would reveal a twinning of Heidegger and Lovecraft.
Peak cites dozens of literary and cinematic examples to further this point. He does appear somewhat reluctant on theoretical matters, sticking to Nietzsche and Schopenhauer with contemporary points made by Kristeva, Graham Harman and Quentin Meillassoux.
This is an intriguing premise, one which I look forward to exploring.
This slim volume is a speculative realist take on the abject and what is described as a horror reality. Peak asserts that humans are cursed with faulty communication and yet possess the ability to imagine a reality beyond the present, including what is described as a world-without-is. This pondering of limitations, unfriendly infinity and an erosion of sense-making is a fertile ground for the horror genre. A shorthand would reveal a twinning of Heidegger and Lovecraft.
Peak cites dozens of literary and cinematic examples to further this point. He does appear somewhat reluctant on theoretical matters, sticking to Nietzsche and Schopenhauer with contemporary points made by Kristeva, Graham Harman and Quentin Meillassoux.
This is an intriguing premise, one which I look forward to exploring.
March 29, 2015
This is one of a growing (metastasizing?) body of recent works that articulate a philosophy of horror. These works differ from those by, for example, Noel Carroll, Judith Halberstam, and Jeffrey Jerome Cohen (all of which are fantastic) in a number of important ways, largely because they are pitched toward a general audience of enthusiasts as opposed to an academic audience of specialists. What they may lack, strictly speaking, as polished scholarly performances, they make up with lyrical intensity. These are prison letters, passed between inmates: the name of the prison is BEING and its lowest durance is EARTH. The most crucial distinction for me, then, is that works like _Spectacle of the Void_ fully assume the burden of their subject, rather than inspect it at arm's length: these are works (and I'm including here Thacker's trilogy, Shipley & Connole's True Detective anthology, _Hideous Gnosis_, _Slime Dynamics_, _Cyclonopedia_, and so on) in which horror is not a genre or set of tropes but an expression of basic ontology. It's not that they lack analytical rigor, then, but that they've opted instead for rigor mortis, a contemplation of death, extinction, and nullity, meeting the gaze of the Abyss, as Nietzsche would say, without blinking.
September 13, 2021
'Nodding my head approvingly at the DEEP RED assessment'
I think this David Peak fellow knows his stuff. Great extensive and insightful look at the catharsis of horror through the motions of a writer.
I think this David Peak fellow knows his stuff. Great extensive and insightful look at the catharsis of horror through the motions of a writer.
May 18, 2017
“Considering the central importance of language in our lives what other choice do we have? It's difficult to argue that anything more significant, more destructive than language has ever been, or possibly could be, inflicted upon the human race. Everything beyond this realm is the void.�
“And what is possession if not the invasion of supposedly evil spirits, miscarrying an abomination, something uninvited that is animating the body in unwanted ways? In this sense, writing horror is
something of an exorcism. And we exorcise these demons, these creatures we hide away and nourish, in an effort to possess or infect others filling that vacuum in space to essentially share
with others that which fills us with dread.�
The book makes the case that horror can go places philosophy can’t, maybe it could, but it doesn’t.
It’s an amazing read for people who are fascinated with horror. Short musings on why we turn to horror and when. What evokes this real sense of dread some of us crave and search for and find only in a handful of narratives.
Peak brings up some more “obscure� movies and even comics that stuck with me through the years. It’s refreshing to see that maybe there are rules to genuine horror. It’s not all in the eye of the beholder when it comes to terror and dread.
Peak ties things together nicely in the end. It feels coherent and that it has a real case.
“And what is possession if not the invasion of supposedly evil spirits, miscarrying an abomination, something uninvited that is animating the body in unwanted ways? In this sense, writing horror is
something of an exorcism. And we exorcise these demons, these creatures we hide away and nourish, in an effort to possess or infect others filling that vacuum in space to essentially share
with others that which fills us with dread.�
The book makes the case that horror can go places philosophy can’t, maybe it could, but it doesn’t.
It’s an amazing read for people who are fascinated with horror. Short musings on why we turn to horror and when. What evokes this real sense of dread some of us crave and search for and find only in a handful of narratives.
Peak brings up some more “obscure� movies and even comics that stuck with me through the years. It’s refreshing to see that maybe there are rules to genuine horror. It’s not all in the eye of the beholder when it comes to terror and dread.
Peak ties things together nicely in the end. It feels coherent and that it has a real case.
October 2, 2018
In order to understand the self, we must look within—collapse the internal into the external—in order to see beyond. In other words, dissolve the self into something bigger, something infinite and without thought. This is what we mean when we refer to the spectacle of the void. After all, to exist is to be both imprisoned in a limited comprehension of the universe and ‘privileged� with the burden of consciousness. To exist is to collapse the internal into the external, to come face to face with horror. It is this very fact that fuels our desire to create speculative images and texts of horror, to draw spectators into the web of our own misery, to spread the miasma of our dread to others.�
February 18, 2022
With some stunning writing and fascinating insights, David Peak examines the link between horror and philosophy. This book gave me a lot to think about and I imagine I'll view future horror books a bit more thoughtfully. I highly recommend this to horror fans, especially those with particular interest in cosmic horror.
May 24, 2016
A very exciting read, which rendered some philosophical concepts I'd previously struggled with in an engaging and accessible way. Academic writing doesn't have to be obtuse or annoyingly dense and in fact I prefer it not to be, but there's a ridiculous and unfortunate amount of it out there. Thankfully, Peak's work is far from that. His writing is passionate and engaging without dumbing anything down, and he references a number of works - both fiction and non - that I'm either familiar with or eager to consume next.
Some sections/ideas could have benefited from a little more depth; the examinations of films and fiction were great as examples of whatever Peak was talking about at the time, but often ended after a short plot description. The connection wasn't confusing in any way but I would have liked to have been taken just a little deeper. Perhaps focusing on a smaller number of these, with longer on each, might have worked better. Either way, it still presents a very interesting perspective on the horror of philosophy.
Some sections/ideas could have benefited from a little more depth; the examinations of films and fiction were great as examples of whatever Peak was talking about at the time, but often ended after a short plot description. The connection wasn't confusing in any way but I would have liked to have been taken just a little deeper. Perhaps focusing on a smaller number of these, with longer on each, might have worked better. Either way, it still presents a very interesting perspective on the horror of philosophy.
March 25, 2016
Definitely akin to the Eugene Thacker book, but I enjoyed this more. Breezier writing style, and less emphasis on trying to contextualize the influence of Lovecraftian cosmic horror within the philosophical realms (though everyone seems to still love Schopenhauer and other nihilistic philosophers like Emil Cioran - thanks True Detective!) - but instead within the genre. Long story short (too late) I much more enjoy explications of Prince of Darkness (sooooo underrated) and In the Mouth of Madness (which I agree with Peak goes off the rails once we start seeing the creatures) because I am not a philosopher.
As the ontological relationship between the world we know, the world we think we know, and the world without us grows in discussion, I wonder why neither Peak nor Thacker brought up Alan Weisman's scientific thought experiment The World Without Us (which I admittedly have yet to finish) which provides a Ballardian exploration of what happens when humans are removed from the equation. Admittedly Peak and Thacker are more concerned with the cosmic other rather than the plausible other, but the third leg of their table is literally the same title of Weisman's book.
Anyway, it seems to me that like Philip K. Dick, Lovecraft's contribution to the genre are so significant that he furthers the conversation of literature beyond mere genre exploration. As others have already noted, Dick was writing about our perceptions of experience, as was Lovecraft - though Lovecraft's fetishes were much more base than Dick, as fear and horror are more base than what-if.
Also, it seems with both Thacker's books and Kier-La Janisse's great House of Psychotic Women, Martyrs, Antichrist, and Irreversible, are quickly becoming transgressive film classics on a par with Salo, Viva La Muerte, and Possession - about the limits of human experience and when the human becomes inhumane. I think their extremity allows their comparisons to similarly extreme works - Story of the Eye also comes up quite a bit - in the fearless examination of the darker sides of humanity. In this politically charged year (Anyone else remember the Passion of the Christ debacle in election year 2004? It was so great to hate your neighbors on idealogical grounds that year, might as well do it again.) it seems that Americans are yet again forgetting what power over others really looks like - it's interesting that films that graphically depict slavery and torture - Django Unchained, 12 Years a Slave - are not typically included in these surveys. There's definitely a sexuality to the brutality in Salo and Martyrs missing from Django and 12 Years, and Tarantino somewhat sands the edge off his social critique with his ironic pulp remove, but I digress.
I still hold out that one of these books really delves into the dark music end of the Lovecraftian horror - isolationist & dark ambient, noise, drone, doom on top of black metal. The void of which Peak speaks has been chronicled in the nighttime noises of Lustmord, Main, Final, Lull, Rapoon, Helm, Nurse With Wound, for the last 40 years - going back to Miles Davis, Tangerine Dream, Eno/Fripp, and the Eraserhead soundtrack. These are the alien landscapes mirrored in the movies of Dreyer, Tarkovsky, Antonioni, John Carpenter, Alien....
Enjoyable. I read Laird Barron's "Procession of the Black Sloth" soon after and will seek out some of the other stories and novels Peak mentions. The acknowledgement of the quality of these stories and films - similar to Lovecraft's own Supernatural Horror in Literature which lead me to Arthur Machen and Algernon Blackwood - thus sending readers off to explore other depictions of dark worlds, seems to me to be an ultimate goal of these tomes: To be Guides through the darkness.
As the ontological relationship between the world we know, the world we think we know, and the world without us grows in discussion, I wonder why neither Peak nor Thacker brought up Alan Weisman's scientific thought experiment The World Without Us (which I admittedly have yet to finish) which provides a Ballardian exploration of what happens when humans are removed from the equation. Admittedly Peak and Thacker are more concerned with the cosmic other rather than the plausible other, but the third leg of their table is literally the same title of Weisman's book.
Anyway, it seems to me that like Philip K. Dick, Lovecraft's contribution to the genre are so significant that he furthers the conversation of literature beyond mere genre exploration. As others have already noted, Dick was writing about our perceptions of experience, as was Lovecraft - though Lovecraft's fetishes were much more base than Dick, as fear and horror are more base than what-if.
Also, it seems with both Thacker's books and Kier-La Janisse's great House of Psychotic Women, Martyrs, Antichrist, and Irreversible, are quickly becoming transgressive film classics on a par with Salo, Viva La Muerte, and Possession - about the limits of human experience and when the human becomes inhumane. I think their extremity allows their comparisons to similarly extreme works - Story of the Eye also comes up quite a bit - in the fearless examination of the darker sides of humanity. In this politically charged year (Anyone else remember the Passion of the Christ debacle in election year 2004? It was so great to hate your neighbors on idealogical grounds that year, might as well do it again.) it seems that Americans are yet again forgetting what power over others really looks like - it's interesting that films that graphically depict slavery and torture - Django Unchained, 12 Years a Slave - are not typically included in these surveys. There's definitely a sexuality to the brutality in Salo and Martyrs missing from Django and 12 Years, and Tarantino somewhat sands the edge off his social critique with his ironic pulp remove, but I digress.
I still hold out that one of these books really delves into the dark music end of the Lovecraftian horror - isolationist & dark ambient, noise, drone, doom on top of black metal. The void of which Peak speaks has been chronicled in the nighttime noises of Lustmord, Main, Final, Lull, Rapoon, Helm, Nurse With Wound, for the last 40 years - going back to Miles Davis, Tangerine Dream, Eno/Fripp, and the Eraserhead soundtrack. These are the alien landscapes mirrored in the movies of Dreyer, Tarkovsky, Antonioni, John Carpenter, Alien....
Enjoyable. I read Laird Barron's "Procession of the Black Sloth" soon after and will seek out some of the other stories and novels Peak mentions. The acknowledgement of the quality of these stories and films - similar to Lovecraft's own Supernatural Horror in Literature which lead me to Arthur Machen and Algernon Blackwood - thus sending readers off to explore other depictions of dark worlds, seems to me to be an ultimate goal of these tomes: To be Guides through the darkness.
January 15, 2018
Peak's book is an excellent overview of various themes of the "new horror" that has arisen in recent years that not only defines the genre of film and literature but the horror of existence in our post-modern culture. I am only beginning to become acquainted with the ideas that Peak touches on from Ligotti and Thacker, but luckily my background in philosophy gives me an edge here.
The idea that humanity faces our own extinction is not new and comes specifically from the horror of "the bomb" and how we can quite effortlessly wipe out all life on earth. What Peak is examining is how horror has become more and more defined by this fact, leaving behind some of its more well-known tropes. No longer does horror look to "what was" in ghosts and other artifacts of decades gone, horror instead recontextualizes itself with humanity coming to the realization that we will *never* know everything and we will never *know* all there is in the universe.
Peak does an excellent job bringing in the heavy hitters in this line of thought, including Thomas Ligotti and Eugene Thacker as well as Lovecraft of course. He incorporates various films as well as John Carpenter's Apocalypse trilogy that was begun by THE THING. Even if you haven't seen the films, he pulls out the events that are necessary to understanding his point in a concise enough manner that it does not take anything away from his points.
All in all, I believe this to be a must read of any horror genre enthusiast who is looking for some theory behind the genre and wants a quick synopsis of some of these more broad topics in literary/film criticism and theory.
The idea that humanity faces our own extinction is not new and comes specifically from the horror of "the bomb" and how we can quite effortlessly wipe out all life on earth. What Peak is examining is how horror has become more and more defined by this fact, leaving behind some of its more well-known tropes. No longer does horror look to "what was" in ghosts and other artifacts of decades gone, horror instead recontextualizes itself with humanity coming to the realization that we will *never* know everything and we will never *know* all there is in the universe.
Peak does an excellent job bringing in the heavy hitters in this line of thought, including Thomas Ligotti and Eugene Thacker as well as Lovecraft of course. He incorporates various films as well as John Carpenter's Apocalypse trilogy that was begun by THE THING. Even if you haven't seen the films, he pulls out the events that are necessary to understanding his point in a concise enough manner that it does not take anything away from his points.
All in all, I believe this to be a must read of any horror genre enthusiast who is looking for some theory behind the genre and wants a quick synopsis of some of these more broad topics in literary/film criticism and theory.
February 14, 2016
After the success of "Conspiracy Against the Human Race" and "In the Dust of This Planet" it's somewhat inevitable that a bunch of books that meld philosophy and horror will pop up the problem is that what Ligotti and Thacker do so absolutely well is explain difficult philosophical concepts using narrative and specifically the exemplary narrative of horror. Peak's problem is that he obviously is well read in the horror cannon and seems to have a strong background in literary studies but the central concern of his work (what does it mean to think in the face of annihilation which is the subject of both conspiracy and dust to some degree) is absolutely lost in his enthusiasm for explaining the plots of John Carpenter movies and the plot of a Laird Barron novel. This isn't bad per se but weighing the aim of this book against the accomplishment it could have used much better engagement with the question at hand and to use examples more sparingly or more intuitively as more so than "gazing unflinchingly at the inevitable extinction of mankind, questioning whether or not the burden of our knowing we will someday cease to exist is a burden after all, or rather the very notion that will set us free" is a heady and solid question and a quarto of talking about Italian 1970s cinema did not held addressing this or even staying on topic. Which is the problem with attempting this: there is a difference between actually caring about literature (specifically horror literature) and producing a good argument. And more than is necessary, the argument is lost in the enthusiasm for horror.
October 31, 2016
I could not put this book down! I recommend for anyone who enjoys the horror genre (especially those who enjoy Lovecraftian themes). This book does a fantastic job of trying to define cosmic horror. Highly recommended.
March 21, 2021
Although I would have trouble shelving this in a "correct" section of a bookstore, it is profoundly disturbing, revelatory, and just plain good.
Providing a great quick tour of recent writing on the subject and providing wonderful summaries of recent narratives as well, Peak's work adds the human disaster of imperfect language to the discussion, while also elucidating other aspects of philosophy and art and bending them to his analysis.
While dark and horrifying, I nonetheless feel a little less lonely in the world, regardless of how I speculate the end to come.
Providing a great quick tour of recent writing on the subject and providing wonderful summaries of recent narratives as well, Peak's work adds the human disaster of imperfect language to the discussion, while also elucidating other aspects of philosophy and art and bending them to his analysis.
While dark and horrifying, I nonetheless feel a little less lonely in the world, regardless of how I speculate the end to come.
June 20, 2017
I think I came to the conclusion that was more about writing in the spirit of so called "new wierd", than being "new wierd" itself. This little pamphlet by David Peak roughly fits the same description.
While offering a couple of reading suggestions, Peak doesn't really add much to what has already said (or written). And even if I do feel inspired and have been given perhaps a little more insight in the overall thematic of "new wierd", I also feel the disillusionment of someone who has tried to glimpse into the void, only to realize it was all cardboard and piano wire.
Or was it?
Hm... Maybe I should take another peek?
While offering a couple of reading suggestions, Peak doesn't really add much to what has already said (or written). And even if I do feel inspired and have been given perhaps a little more insight in the overall thematic of "new wierd", I also feel the disillusionment of someone who has tried to glimpse into the void, only to realize it was all cardboard and piano wire.
Or was it?
Hm... Maybe I should take another peek?
May 22, 2018
If you took away retellings of other books, stories or movies, you'd have probably less than half of what is left of original work in this book. Even then it comes off as pretentious.
Maybe it's 2deep4me. Pseudo-intelligent wordplay while endlessly repeating and quoting and repeating quotes from other authors or source materials and of itself with no real movement or "conclusion" (knowing this isn't the type of topic to get a "conclusion" out of, it seemed to go absolutely nowhere.)
Maybe it's 2deep4me. Pseudo-intelligent wordplay while endlessly repeating and quoting and repeating quotes from other authors or source materials and of itself with no real movement or "conclusion" (knowing this isn't the type of topic to get a "conclusion" out of, it seemed to go absolutely nowhere.)
March 17, 2024
Peak has presented an excellent structure throughout this, each of the 4 parts deep diving into aspects that pertain to Horror and speculation within, that in the conclusion you can see how it all fits and comes together -- no page, no words, or reference misplaced to lessen value. Genuinely, I cannot over state this.
However, my lower rating is mainly due to wanting more of Peak's observances, ideas, and musings, which felt limited in many aspects throughout this. My physical copy at 100 pgs, I'd easily say was around 70 percent of the content was obtained through other books, films, some pages just being complete recaps of the aforementioned (there is 4 pages of the bibliography tacked onto at the end) - I understand this usage, as it's a way to communicate the point, which Peak does but only a few paragraphs, or intermittent sentence or two throughout.
With all the quotes, recaps, scene descriptions of films, articles referenced, I felt like I was being provided face value knowledge. If they were perhaps shorter or less, or more focused speculations on one or two books/films, and used the rest of the time to truly reflect on what we're presented with, I maybe could have enjoyed this more.
Caveat being I've only read and seen around half of what was mentioned and explored, it easily could of applied my slight negative filter on this reading experience. There's no doubt that I've come out of reading this with an exceptional list of books/articles and movies to get into. When I do, I can't wait to revisit this small gem and experience this more closely.
Last I'd like to say - I'm happy I finally picked this up. It's been sitting on my shelf for probably too long, I felt intimidated by it when I discovered that it is philosophical based around horror and human nature to horror, and not a fiction novella (as improperly displayed at my local Powell's), and I came away with LOTS more to read and watch and a gleeful sentiment towards "Horror."
However, my lower rating is mainly due to wanting more of Peak's observances, ideas, and musings, which felt limited in many aspects throughout this. My physical copy at 100 pgs, I'd easily say was around 70 percent of the content was obtained through other books, films, some pages just being complete recaps of the aforementioned (there is 4 pages of the bibliography tacked onto at the end) - I understand this usage, as it's a way to communicate the point, which Peak does but only a few paragraphs, or intermittent sentence or two throughout.
With all the quotes, recaps, scene descriptions of films, articles referenced, I felt like I was being provided face value knowledge. If they were perhaps shorter or less, or more focused speculations on one or two books/films, and used the rest of the time to truly reflect on what we're presented with, I maybe could have enjoyed this more.
Caveat being I've only read and seen around half of what was mentioned and explored, it easily could of applied my slight negative filter on this reading experience. There's no doubt that I've come out of reading this with an exceptional list of books/articles and movies to get into. When I do, I can't wait to revisit this small gem and experience this more closely.
Last I'd like to say - I'm happy I finally picked this up. It's been sitting on my shelf for probably too long, I felt intimidated by it when I discovered that it is philosophical based around horror and human nature to horror, and not a fiction novella (as improperly displayed at my local Powell's), and I came away with LOTS more to read and watch and a gleeful sentiment towards "Horror."
July 28, 2019
This is a speculative realist take on (to use Kantian terms...) the conditions of possibility of horror: both conceptualizing it and recognizing it. It hinges on the distinction of the "world-for-us" (the world as it is now, with us) and the "world-without-us", the world without humans. We recognize this imminent extinction, this world-without-us, now more than ever perhaps. Loosely summarizing at the chance of getting things wrong: Peak posits that the "spectacle of the void" is where not only horror and the enjoyment of it derive, but perhaps something more can be derived from it. To me, I could not see any immediately "practical" use.
But that is fine, because it works well as a concise tome on horror from a literary/film theoretical perspective. Other than Harman, Thacker, and Brassier, Peak also seems influenced by Blanchot, Bataille, and of course H.P. Lovecraft and John Carpenter. Kristeva pops up a couple times for the "abject" references.
But that is fine, because it works well as a concise tome on horror from a literary/film theoretical perspective. Other than Harman, Thacker, and Brassier, Peak also seems influenced by Blanchot, Bataille, and of course H.P. Lovecraft and John Carpenter. Kristeva pops up a couple times for the "abject" references.
November 5, 2017
David Peak seems to have come to Speculative Realism from horror fiction, and I came to it from Emil Cioran and John N Gray (and also horror helped of course). But our conclusions are remarkably similar. Speculative Realism's champion literary genre (most schools of philosophy seem to have one) is undeniably weird fiction. From Harman to Thacker, it gets thrown out there quite a lot. Peak brings in greats in the filmmaking side of things as well, most importantly (for me) Dario Argento.
Peak tells the story of horror stories, so to speak, and how they reflect conundrums we have. As conventional horror gives way more and more The Weird this opens up the opportunity to see horror as liberation rather than oppression. And you know, I did always see something bizarrely triumphant in the unrepentant works of say, Thomas Ligotti and Laird Barron.
Peak tells the story of horror stories, so to speak, and how they reflect conundrums we have. As conventional horror gives way more and more The Weird this opens up the opportunity to see horror as liberation rather than oppression. And you know, I did always see something bizarrely triumphant in the unrepentant works of say, Thomas Ligotti and Laird Barron.
March 15, 2016
David Peak explores the link between philosophy and horror. Using modern horror as its vehicle, Peak demonstrates the ways in which the stories we tell ourselves are really reflections of the deeper philosophical preoccupations within modern thought. For this reason, the stories that we tell ourselves “it’s just a story� may in fact be the ones that have the most to say -- they serve to say the things we know are true but wish desperately to deny.
January 6, 2018
"to be human is to be both imprisoned in our limited comprehension of the universe and "privileged" with the burden of consiousness."
Great insightful essay, made me understand horror in a new way. The division between the-world-for-us and the world-without-us is central to his argument, linking to speculative realism.
Great insightful essay, made me understand horror in a new way. The division between the-world-for-us and the world-without-us is central to his argument, linking to speculative realism.
May 5, 2023
The whole "also a speculative work that gazes unflinchingly at the inevitable extinction of mankind" thing on the back cover copy had me worried this would be some sort of overwrought philosophical pessimism thing, so I was pleasantly surprised and in fact delighted that it wasn't that at all, just sharp and breezy art criticism! A few occasional observations that strike me as a bit obvious (I'm thinking about the reading of the cracks in the walls in Polanski's The Tenant), but obvious observations are better than plainly incorrect ones, which I'd say this book has precisely none of (although I think "horror reality" is a somewhat clunky phrase for an extremely applicable concept).
February 16, 2024
"Realty is not what it used to be---this has never not been true."
Language creates our world. Positive is as equal as fear. Fear is mankind's first emotion. Horror can explain the world just as religion does. When the spectacle becomes the void existence can become extinct.
Language creates our world. Positive is as equal as fear. Fear is mankind's first emotion. Horror can explain the world just as religion does. When the spectacle becomes the void existence can become extinct.
Read
October 18, 2024Nick hated it but I had fun. An interesting attempt at combining philosophy with horror, or horror analysis. Some general conclusions I agree with. The method to arrive there is probably weak, but I did enjoy it.
May 15, 2017
What a great read!! I couldn't put it down. I read it in one day while I ran around my city in a bus.
August 10, 2024
Not what I expected. I had to drop it because it was just rehashing a bunch of movies and books. Some of which I havent read or watched yet but wanted to and now it’s all spoiled for me.
May 24, 2016
I feel extremely conflicted and deeply frustrated about this book: I find it very difficult to agree with many of its assumptions and findings, but its scope and argumentation cover a lot of really interesting and provocative ideas. Peak is very deeply enmeshed in the Linguistic Turn - he articulates both the human condition and the origin of horror in terms of communicative impossibility - going so far to say that ‘horror reality� is exemplified by two kinds of narrative: inarticulate lucidity (having something to say but being unable to say it) and articulate confusion (being able to say something but being unable to parse circumstances). In phenomenal terms, Peak takes noumena and phenomena to be at eternal conflict, which conflict is mediated by the eternal failure of language. I mention this as a translation of terms deliberately: Peak seems continually to be engaging with phenomenological issues while only acknowledging them as such infrequently, preferring instead the terms and conclusions of analytic and linguistic philosophy. At all times, sensory data is given only as it can be ‘digested� in the mind through language. If I am to be charitable with Peak, as I very much want to be because he is so interesting and infuriating, then I would say that he is using analytic and phenomenological philosophies to pick each other apart, and then occupy the space that is created as one of horror. This, I hope, would be appropriate, because he is very much focused on the idea that any experience beyond known dimensionality is a horror experience.
This type of experience, he says, is unthinkable, yet it is frequently seen, not least because of our need to look (which he understands as an extension of the need to articulate and speak). Perceiving the unthinkable (that which exists outside of understood and accepted realities) is an experience he terms the ‘spectacle.� Implicated in the spectacle are distance, memory, imagination, and giving in (relinquishing control and embracing death / alterity). The other half of the title, the void, is understood as the consummation of mind/body dualism (phrased as decapitation) and the associated non-sensation. The void is found by piecing together disparate elements of reality and experience in such a way that they lose the ability to be thought, which unthinkability then reaches out and infects thinkable reality and thereby reveals it to have always been unthinkable (a ‘hole within�) and thus horrific.
‘Horror Reality,� then, is a thing of four parts: faulty understanding/communication, a necessary truth of sense data, the interconnection of sense-truths which produces unthinkability, and dissolution into speculative and unknown inhumanity.
Again, this is a really interesting formulation and I really want to be able to engage with it, but it depends on experience as fundamentally linguistic, not to mention a very simplistic surface reading of the apparent cultural conflict between science and religion. As such, this is the most provocative book I’ve read in a long time, due to it also being the most frustrating. It consistently feels one-degree-off, which is frequently to its advantage, as that one-degree-off-ness itself becomes illustrative of the horror it describes. Lots to chew on here, including some politically irresponsible (at best) story summaries.
Peak is deeply indebted to Carlo Michelstaedter, Henri Bergson, Quentin Meillassoux, Roger B. Salomon, Maurice Blanchot, Eugene Thacker, Ray Brassier, and Thomas Ligotti.
This type of experience, he says, is unthinkable, yet it is frequently seen, not least because of our need to look (which he understands as an extension of the need to articulate and speak). Perceiving the unthinkable (that which exists outside of understood and accepted realities) is an experience he terms the ‘spectacle.� Implicated in the spectacle are distance, memory, imagination, and giving in (relinquishing control and embracing death / alterity). The other half of the title, the void, is understood as the consummation of mind/body dualism (phrased as decapitation) and the associated non-sensation. The void is found by piecing together disparate elements of reality and experience in such a way that they lose the ability to be thought, which unthinkability then reaches out and infects thinkable reality and thereby reveals it to have always been unthinkable (a ‘hole within�) and thus horrific.
‘Horror Reality,� then, is a thing of four parts: faulty understanding/communication, a necessary truth of sense data, the interconnection of sense-truths which produces unthinkability, and dissolution into speculative and unknown inhumanity.
Again, this is a really interesting formulation and I really want to be able to engage with it, but it depends on experience as fundamentally linguistic, not to mention a very simplistic surface reading of the apparent cultural conflict between science and religion. As such, this is the most provocative book I’ve read in a long time, due to it also being the most frustrating. It consistently feels one-degree-off, which is frequently to its advantage, as that one-degree-off-ness itself becomes illustrative of the horror it describes. Lots to chew on here, including some politically irresponsible (at best) story summaries.
Peak is deeply indebted to Carlo Michelstaedter, Henri Bergson, Quentin Meillassoux, Roger B. Salomon, Maurice Blanchot, Eugene Thacker, Ray Brassier, and Thomas Ligotti.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.