One of the joys of this Stephen King project is that I'm not just reading the "regular" novels. While the sequence of Carrie, 'Salem's Lot, The Shining, The Stand, The Dead Zone, and Firestarter is a fine illustration of King's early career, one cannot get a complete picture without the inclusion of the Bachman books and other less-than-standard fare. By 1981 that expands to include the first of just a few non-fiction works such as Danse Macabre, our featured book, and will go on to add collaborations, original novella collections, and something called "The Dark Tower" sequence. Loyal readers of the blog know we've had Bachman interruptions since almost the beginning, but now we're entering a phase where all these new projects get into the hopper as well. In 1981 alone two works got stuffed in between Firestarter and Cujo and 1982 has no "regular novel" as we will see in the months ahead here.
Danse Macabre touts itself as an overview of the horror genre, which makes it sound way more academic and tedious than it really is. In some ways it is more fair to think of it as On Writing written during the height of King's drug and alcohol binge days. With six novels under his belt (plus three more he wasn't admitting to just yet), he was a well-known author at this point, but with a reputation of being a writer of "pulp" and strictly confined to the horror genre. This book represents his opportunity to both embrace the genre and refute the critics. He does this fairly deftly and really the only thing that holds this book back is its age (more about that at the end). He tackles horror from all angles: the movies, the literature, television (pre-1981 television, mind you), and even radio. For the most part he confines discussion from 1950 to 1980, essentially from his earliest personal memories to the present day.
To get the ball rolling he steps back in time a bit. After a preliminary chapter about "the hook" which sets the parameters for what constitutes horror, he identifies three horror classics from well before the time period he is to discussion: Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, Bram Stoker's Dracula, and Robert Louis Stevenson's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Taken together they form the "tarot" by which all other horror spawns: the Thing Without a Name, the Vampire, and Apollonian/Dionysian Split Personality. Henry James is a bonus unofficial card as The Ghost, for his novel Turn of the Screw, but King routinely downplays the centrality of The Ghost to the others.
The movie discussion is divided into two chapters, which he admits from the outset is nowhere near enough ink to plumb the depths of the genre on film. I must say that he brings up a lot of truly awful movies in this section, with the second chapter even calling them out as "junk food" in its title. It seems like the main engine was the notorious AIP, the studio that handled the bulk of the Roger Corman oeuvre. That should give you an idea of what level we are working with. For the most part the first chapter says we shouldn't settle for only high-quality films, but then the second part cautions against a diet of pure junk food when it comes to movies.
The television and radio stuff was kind of a blur, as radio horror was pretty much DOA by 1960 and television even by the 1980's was nowhere near what we now come to expect in the heady era of "Peak TV". This takes us to a monster chapter on horror fiction, which is really where I make a point of listening more closely to what King has to say. Rather than attempt to cover a lot of material at a very shallow level, he uses some exemplary titles to illustrate horror fiction during this thirty year window. Some authors are no surpise: Shirley Jackson, future co-author Peter Straub, and Ira Levin. Others are a bit odd for being better known in other genres: Anne Rivers Siddon, Ray Bradbury, and Harlan Ellison. He also devotes some space to two authors I've never heard of: Ramsay Campbell and James Herbert, both British and very much entrenched in the genre. It is here though that King makes a tripartite distinction in fiction. You have literature, genre, and pulp. Exclusive readers of the first consider all the rest to be mere "genre" (using the term derisively), but King points out there is a middle ground for true non-derisive genre fiction, above what he calls "pulp" but not up in the pretentious heights of "literature". Throughout the book I kept in mind that as of 1981 much of the world considered King genre-phenomenon at best and the notion of him writing a non-fiction work seemed a bridge too far. Therefore I see this book as King's way of both proving his chops to those above, but also a platform for attacking the critics who see no value in genre or pulp. It is a bit of a tightrope act for King not to accidentally for to one side or the other. On one hand he seems to like to name drop a lot of required reading books, but almost in the same breath he lashes out with pride that he writes "genre" books.
In Danse Macabre, we hear Stephen King in his own voice, something previously relegated to prefaces and forwards of his earlier novels. Also, for this particular edition of the book there is a 40-page introduction called "What's Scary?" and this makes it pretty clear King is a much snarkier writer now than he was in 1981. However the preface is essential reading for anyone reading the book now, as it is your only chance to let King update his discussion on movies, moving past the state of the genre in 1981. Not to get too spoiler-ish, but he will challenge you with his take on The Blair Witch Project 2.
