If China Mieville is my literary dad and Clive Barker is my literary partner, then John Shirley is rapidly becoming my literary crazy uncle who shoutsIf China Mieville is my literary dad and Clive Barker is my literary partner, then John Shirley is rapidly becoming my literary crazy uncle who shouts at rainstorms and shows me his collection of severed wasps heads. The previous book of his I read, A Splendid Chaos, was an acid-trip nightmare of an alien world. Transmaniacon meanwhile feels like an acid-trip nightmare through post-war America, although given current world events, that fiction is starting to look like possible reality.
[image] INSERT POLITICAL SATIRE HERE!
Transmaniacon puts us in the shoes of Ben Rackey, a professional criminal whose main job is that of an Irritant - basically someone who seeds crowds/ideological groups and manipulate them to the purposes of his employer. Rackey is hired by a secretive benefactor to acquire a device called 'The Exciter', which amplifies human emotions, driving them to extreme behaviours. But Rackey decides he wants the Exciter for his purposes. And he'll travel all across a post WW3 America to see things done.
Basically, what starts as a heist shifts in a novel-length road-trip as Rackey travels across an America cut off from the rest of the world, divided into nation-states that can best be described as absolutely nutter-butters and navigating through things like mercenary terrorist groups, cybernetic freaks, Satanic bikers and fascist dolphin overlords.
[image]
I think I've cracked Shirley's literary style. I call it the 'Pile-On Method'. The dude will pile on crazy on crazy and when something isn't working, he keeps piling. Shirley's work has been described as 'proto-cyberpunk' and I believe it. Rackey's trip takes him across various places across the former US and each place has it's own quirks and eccentricities and when a version of Las Vegas where 'gambling for your life isn't a metaphor' is tame, you know you're in for some weird shit. Each city-state is distinct and engaging but doesn't stick around for long enough for you to get bored with it which is a plus because such a formula would get stale after too long. The pacing is pretty brisk with dialogue written sharp and characters not mincing words, events playing out like a snowball sliding downhill and conclusions often ending with destruction of public property. And given the constant referrals to classic rock artists, it feels a very apt approach.
But this fast frenetic style and pace does come at a price. Given how vast the world of Transmaniacon is and how short comparatively the book is, a lot of backstory and history of the world and characters is left to the dreaded 'infodump' where Shirley has characters - Rackey mostly - explain world events to other characters not in the know, particularly Gloria, one of the bikers who pick Rackey up for the initial assignment and becomes the audience surrogate for most of the book. And on the note of Gloria, the characters are a mixed bag too. Most of them come and go at the drop of a hat and those that stick around are either fleshed out just enough to be interesting or 'meh' enough to be of little care when they're gone. Gloria spends a lot of the story flipping back and forth between awe at the world and apathy and it can be difficult to nail down her character. Carlton Fuller - the closest thing Rackey has to a nemesis - comes and goes as the plot demands of him and never really rises above a psycho thug. Hell, even the main villain of the story - Rackey's employer - never really comes to the foreground until the end of the novel and only then do we get a sense of who they are.
And while I'm whinging myself inside out, some aspects of the plot feel either like filler or struggle to make sense. Not every place Rackey visits in equal in terms of writing quality. Some are more interesting than others and some places feel like Shirley was struggling to get the plot moving along and just had Rackey and Gloria stumble into whatever he needed to kick things over the cliff. Not to mention that Shirley's writing style can be quite descriptively dense and some sections end up getting so stuck up their own arse, that it can take a couple rereads to get your bearings. The ending is particularly egregious about this, what with multiple events and revelations all getting flung at the wall like chimp shit in the monkey house until the story ends in a damp squib.
That being said, I still think highly of this book. If there is one thing that elevates Transmaniacon up over its flaws, its that like any good rock album, it puts the pedal to the floor and just doesn't stop. It's a fun, crazy ride and sometimes that's enough.
So while I grew up with and love the works of Stephen King, not all of them are created equal in my eyes. I personally reckon that oftentimes his shorSo while I grew up with and love the works of Stephen King, not all of them are created equal in my eyes. I personally reckon that oftentimes his short stories are better than his novels because his novels often exaggerate all his worst tendencies as a writer: his obsession with pointless details, his need to flesh out every character, his messy endings, his focus on human melodrama at the expense of the plot/pacing. He's a good writer, but he's not nearly as godlike as some treat him as.
But what about his novellas? That sweet spot between short stories and novels? What about them? Well I finally got around to reading them - or rather listening to celebrities read the audiobook - and my thoughts are.....mixed. So lets get going with:
[image]
The red-eye flight from LA to Boston hits a snag when most of the crew and passengers disappear, leaving a skeleton crew of people aboard who are forced to land in Bangor, Maine. Except this place is empty, lifeless. One of the passengers is going insane. And time is running out...
Of the four, The Langoliers is probably the most well-known if only because of the mini-series, with its terrible CGI monsters and Bronson Pinchot hamming it up as Craig Toomey.
[image] Scaring the little GIRL?!
But of the four novellas, I'd say this one is surprisingly one of the weakest. The plot is pretty interesting - utilizing time travel, cosmic horror and psychological horror - but so much of it wrapped up in King's worst tendencies. For starters we have over ten characters to track and most of them are barely fleshed out enough to feel interesting, with others only getting a few lines to define them apart from others, while others exist as exposition dumps. Don Gaffney and Rudy Warwick for example don't amount to much and Bob Jenkins acts as a Holmsian info-dumper to explain all the weirdness. It also means that the story's pacing can be slow at times, dragging things out far longer than needed. That said, when shit does hit the fan, King's writing shines. The moments with Craig Toomey, the arrival of the Langoliers - these moments are great and part of the reason I've gone back to this novella again. It's just a shame that it's wrapped up is so much fluff. Also, Willem Dafoe's narration of the story is hit and miss. Overall, he puts in a lot of work and Craig Toomey's scenes are solid. But his rendition of Nick Hopewell is some weird amalgam of British stereotypes and Bethany Simm's comes out as a nasally whine.
Next up, we have: [image]
Mort Rainey is a writer struggling with writer's block who one day is confronted by John Shooter, a man who claims Rainey stole his story and published it under his own name. In a desperate attempt to prove his innocence, Rainey starts delving into his back catalogue, all the while being menaced by Shooter. But things aren't so simple.
Narrated by James Woods - I know, shut up - this feels like a far more personal story for King, especially since to my knowledge, he has been accused of plagiarism himself, although usually from crazed dipshits with no real meat to their claims. The focus is almost completely centered around Mort and his deteriorating mind as he desperately tries to prove his innocence, with Shooter constantly shifting about in the background. I think this works far better than some of King's other stories, if only because while all his worst tendencies are here, they're far more focused and defined because they're all centered on Mort and his descent into madness. Mort is fine as a character. He's not some goody two-shoes, but a flawed, broken man with darkness in his heart and Shooter as a villain is decent, albeit his characterisation is a little thin, but given the ending that feels very much intentional. Not a favourite, given that the plot is very basic and the ending can feel a bit familiar, but definitely worth the time.
Onward we have: [image]
Sam Peebles goes to the local library for a book on public speaking, where he meets Ardelia Lortz. The woman provides him with the book, but warns him to return it on time otherwise she'll sic the library policeman on him. Sam thinks the library policeman is just a joke, but he's about to discover its very real and very dangerous...
I'll be honest. I didn't go into this one expecting much, but I came out of it with this one being my favourite of the four novellas. The cast is small for starters which works to King's strengths, allowing for time to focus and build on the characters we do meet. The plot has a decent number of twists and turns and surprisingly delves into some weighty topics like childhood abuse, overcoming suffering and repressed memories, and all of it was handled with a deft, humanistic touch. Meanwhile Ardelia as the villain is suitably vile and unsettling, representing the evil that lurks in plain sight in a way that is quite horrifying, especially given that her victims are children. Definitely the most recommended of all four.
And lastly we have: [image] Kevin Delevan gets a Sun Dog camera for his birthday, but the thing is bugged. It only creates photos of a black dog. A black dog that moves with each snapshot taken. That's getting closer. That's very hungry...
This one has a bit of the old Tales from the Crypt vibe. We're never really given much explanation as to the nature of the dog and the camera and for some, that'll be a deal breaker. I was willing to go along with it, but I do think some of King's bad habits reared their ugly head. Pop Merill is more or less the main villain outside of the Dog and his attempts at selling the camera once he acquires it do drag out the pacing. Kevin is okay as a MC, but he is kind of bland and spends a decent chunk of the story kind of sitting in the background until he realises whats going on. The climax however is suitably nasty and the ending is foreboding in all the right ways.
So overall, I'd say of the four, the Langoliers is the weakest, with the Library Policeman sitting at the top and the other two somewhere in the middle. None of them are bad, but they do all still suffer from King's writing tendencies and while for some like The Library Policeman and Secret Window, Secret Garden, it's a plus, for The Langoliers and The Sun Dog, its a minus.
Straight down the middle I'd say, but still fun and engaging. King as his most King-iest....more
In order to discuss this novel, I'll need to spoil some plot elements and rather than just put a spoiler tag over the whole review, I'm letting you thIn order to discuss this novel, I'll need to spoil some plot elements and rather than just put a spoiler tag over the whole review, I'm letting you the reader, decide for yourself what you wanna do. We good? Good.
Splatterpunk occupies a very divisive niche in the horror genre. It's sort of the red-haired stepchild that readers begrudgingly acknowledge exists but won't publicly admit to, like they'll end up being lumped into the same group as goatse.exe (don't look that up).
But Splatterpunk is a genre that's near and dear to me. And Duncan Ralston's Gross Out feels like a love letter to all the things I love about it, while at the same time skewering the ever-loving shit out of it at the same time. Because despite its namesake and Ralston's past works, this isn't a straight horror novel.
The setup takes place at a local horror convention and follows the exploits of a group of con-goers who, through their own flaws, failings and fuckups, commence to turn the convention into one that will live on in infamy and horror, for all the wrong reasons. So what we have is by and large an ensemble cast with an ensemble cast of stories that all intersect at various points to meet at the end in a climax that is chaotic, shocking and appropriately disgusting.
So at it's core, the story is very much a black comedy horror satire, taking the piss out of the horror community, its fans and writers, the nature of fame and what it does to some people and where splatterpunk exists in the current day and age with social media. And for the most part it works surprisingly well. A lot of the characters are given enough time to breathe and live between the pages, going beyond the baseline archetypes into being fleshed out characters, although some do suffer for a lack of screen time.
In no particular order we have: - Clay, a burgeoning novelist who's grossout story from last year caused him to be publicly shamed/cancelled, reminding me of Eric LaRocca or Isabel Fall. - Moira, another novelist from Wales and Clay's love interest, who's trying to break into the horror industry, an industry which - let's be honest - is male dominated. - David Ennis, a washed up horror writer, whose struggles with alcohol have lead him to writer's block. - Tyler, a jilted fan of David's who has plans for his former idol. - Archie, a part-time writer whose grossout story last year got him saddled with a humiliating nickname. - Anderson Ackerman, a bigtime writer who's scummy behaviour evokes images of Harvey Weinstein. - The Critic Crew, a pack of online critics whose extreme progressive politics lead them to conflict with David, a failed writer they mobbed online, and a pack of raunchier wannabe horror writers.
And a host of others who get roles of mixed importance. Of those who get the most screentime, they're interesting enough to hold my attention. But on the flip side, some of those who get smaller screentime feel underutilized. Kendra Pleasance - Moira's idol - is propped up as a big influence on Moira and the women at the con, but her time in the book is very thin and feels like a wasted opportunity. Anderson Ackerman is little more than a deviant and a creep that gets his comeuppance in a very vile, but suitable way, but he's still just a scumbag for the audience to gloat over.
But on the subject of Ackerman, that brings me to satire. In my opinion, a good satire works when it doesn't blatantly shove a message in the reader's face. If I wanted a message, I'd go listen to someone on a pulpit or running for office. A good satirist should skewer themes/concepts/ideas while still being entertaining. And for the most part, Ralston succeeds. Not a single section of the book doesn't at least have one section that takes the piss out of some toxic element of the literature/critic/social media communities including: - People being cancelled by online mobs - whether justified or not - The toxic use of social media - The nature of splatterpunk in the wider horror community - Celebrity worship and those who protect said celebrities - The nature of writing - High art vs. Low art - The writer vs. the critic (especially online critics)
And several more that I can't think of, off the top of my head. Now I don't know how many of these are by accident or design, but most of them do come off decently, although there are others that do just feel like Ralston is getting on a soapbox. In those moments, the satire becomes just Ralston shouting at clouds. Also, some elements of the book do feel like they were put in just so Ralston could shout at clouds. Seriously, who (the Critic Crew) would attend a Splatterpunk convention if they were looking to spend the day being offended?
But this is a splatterpunk book and when the splatter does it the fan, it leaves drippings down the walls. Most of the splatter is bodily fluids and if you don't have the stomach for that stuff, don't bother with this. It's not worth the barf bag. But for the most part, a lot of the violence is done with a cheeky wink (and probably a wank too), and oftentimes crosses over so far into absurdity that I was laughing and squirming as opposed to reaching for the toilet bowl.
As for other issues, there are some areas I would've cut. The trip to the strip show and the fake suicide attempt by one of the con-goers add nothing to story and feel like padding. Some of the characters are so underused that it feels like they would've been better just getting the axe. And the ending does seem to come to a close that feels a little anticlimactic, which is weird for me to say, given what happens.
Splatterpunk isn't for everyone. I would even hazard to say it's not for most people. Hell, look at the reviews on this website, on Reddit, on Youtube. Most people hate this shit. They think it's tacky, it's misogynistic, it's cruel and it's pointless. But Splatterpunk isn't that to me. I don't need all my horror literature to be high art. I don't need all my literature to be evocative award winners. Sometimes, horror just needs to be fun and silly and ridiculous. And Gross Out fits that niche to a tee. It's silly, it's playful, it's gross at times, but it's also got heart. There's genuine love here for the horror genre and it's the sort of thing I like to see from authors.
Better that, than some authors who put out mediocre shit for a paycheck. Or authors who keep fans hanging for years on years with promises of books that never arrive.
Seriously, what sort of author would be so dickish to their own audience?...more
I'm somewhat familiar with John Shirley's work. I've read a couple of his short stories, know he wrote the Bioshock t[image]
I think I need a tissue...
I'm somewhat familiar with John Shirley's work. I've read a couple of his short stories, know he wrote the Bioshock tie-in novel and also had his espionage work loosely adapted for a Sly Stallone movie. But this is my first full-length novel by him and if there's one thing I know about his work, it's that when he busts out the creative chops, he flies so far over the line, you'd think he was using a ski-jump.
The set-up only takes a couple pages. Martin - AKA Zero - and his chums stumbled upon what looks like a outdoors rave in a tent in the middle of the city. Except its not. Turns out to be an organic spacecraft which whisks them and those caught inside to the nightmarish world of Fool's Hope, overseen by an unknowable hive-mind known as the Meta. And for Zero and co, their problems are just starting.
The first thing that pops out to me is just the sheer visuals of Fool's Hope. Shirley said that he wanted to create a literary surreal nightmare and I think it's safe to say he knocked that fucker out of the park. The sheer amount of descriptive designs for the world is both a blessing and a curse. It creates a rich vibrant world which puts you on edge all the time.
Fool's Hope is WEIRD! Nothing is what it seems, the world makes zero consistent sense by human standards and what might look familiar very quickly isn't. And Fool's Hope isn't just home to humans. The Meta have been nicking other alien races from around the galaxy as well and they're just as incomprehensible as the rest of the world. But this descriptive feast is both a blessing and a curse. While it creates for a wild environment to explore and immerse yourself in, sometimes it becomes a lot of a lot. The number of times I found myself skimming setpieces because it just became too much to process after a while got a bit under my skin. It wasn't a dealbreaker and I'm sure more attentive people will lap it up, but for me I did have my limits.
It does help though, that the plot itself is pretty straightforward. After the first half establishes Zero on the world, trying to acclimatize to things, the second half becomes a quest plot, with Zero and a small group of survivors traveling to a 'Progress Station', where the Meta leave behind useful tech for survival. Kinda like Roadside Picnic but with more Shoggoths.
But what's a story without conflict? And in A Splendid Chaos, the conflict comes in the form of Fiskle, a sociology professor who was caught in an planetary anomaly called 'The Current', which twists and mutates living creatures into warped exaggerations of themselves. So naturally Fiskle develops a God Complex, establishes a cult and attempts a takeover of the planet. And Zero and co are in his crosshairs....
Which brings me onto characters. Overall, it's a mixed bag. Shirley doesn't spend a lot of time at the start developing the characters. Only enough to give them names and basic character traits before he dumps on the planet. And the same applies to the rest of the cast. The named characters of the human settlement are basic bitches with basic traits. Here's the tough lesbian, here's the former cop, here's the naive poli-sci student who thinks democracy will work. The same applies to Fiskle's cult. Here's the gibbering sycophant, here's the gender-swapped bloodthirsty sexpot, here's the heavies who function as preachers. It's all pretty by the book. Even Fiskle himself is something of a one-note dude, being given just enough traits for you to know he's a shifty prick before the Current warps him into a megalomaniac with a god-complex.
But when the characters do work, Shirley makes them work. Zero functions as an audience surrogate, lost and confused, stuck with existential dread but over time develops into someone you could call heroic. One of Fiskle's cult starts to have doubts and develops empathy for the humans. Hell even two of Zero's group - two aliens from different races - are given solid characterization, even if only to establish how different they are from the human cast.
And the gore!
[image]
One thing I know about Shirley is that his gore is very visceral and very nasty. And while he uses it sparingly here, when he commits to it, he goes full on. The scene where Fiskle and his cult deal with a traitor is goopy and horrifying and given how casual the whole scene plays out, it's a visual nightmare.
A Splendid Chaos for me is a mixed bag in all the right and wrong ways. Shirley did succeed in creating a surrealist nightmare, but I would say he sacrificed familiarity a bit too much to get there. The characters vary from bland to solid enough to keep the story going. The plot is basic but doesn't overstep its boundaries as to be alienating and the visual spectacles on display can be both amazing in terms of gore and beautiful or the equivalent of this:
[image]
It's still a recommend from me, because despite all my gripes, its something I seek from any piece of fiction. It's original, it's distinct and it's interesting.
Just...don't take any mushrooms beforehand. Or do. I'm not your dad....more
Loading...
