Over the years, I’ve read a good handful of stories by Dennis Etchison, a writer of primarily short horror stories, and someone praised to the rafters by the likes of Stephen King, Peter Straub, Karl Edward Wagner, and so on. That good handful of stories I’ve read has never blossomed into a full Etchison habit, however, because Etchison strikes me as the American version of Ramsey Campbell, at least as far as they affect me personally, in that both men garner immense respect from their peers, but leave me a bit cold, and slightly confused as I try to work out what, precisely, is the big deal.
.
As with Campbell, I don’t actively dislike Etchison, and in fact have fond memories of the first Etchison story I read, called “Talking in the Dark”, from his collection Red Dreams. That one is a horror story about horror fiction, which is something that always intrigues me, and it’s also, as I remember, fairly pulpy and demonic, which are two words I’ve since learned not to associate with Etchison’s fiction. More typical would be a story like the oft-anthologized “The Dog Park”, another of my early Etchison reads; that one (again, as I remember), is almost all mood, all strangeness. Which is great! It’s just that I’ve never felt like Etchison’s writing chops were at the level everyone else claimed they were. He often writes at the level of pulp, but with an eye towards Robert Aickman-level strangeness. This can be an odd mix.
.
For today, I read two stories from Etchison’s collection The Death Artist (which also contains “The Dog Park”, for those interested, though as I implied it’s hard to buy an anthology of modern horror fiction that doesn’t have that story). The first story, “No One You Know”, is told mainly through dialogue, and as it’s only about fourteen pages anyway, this is a bit of a speed-read. It’s also not a supernatural horror story, or even the kind of terrestrial horror that so many modern writers have chosen to explore, by which I mean it’s not about a serial killer. No, this one is more about human cruelty, specifically male cruelty, and its overall impact has the feel of something Neil Labute might have written, before he shifted gears and became a journeyman Hollywood director.
.
There’s not much to say about “No One You Know” that it can’t say better for itself. It’s almost all told through phone conversations, between Michael and Jeannie, the girlfriend he’s just cheated on, or Jeannie and her friend Mara, or Michael and Mara, whose connection you can perhaps guess. What pushes this beyond, or at least away, from and ordinary love triangle is the fact that Michael keeps threatening to shoot himself if one or another of the two woman doesn’t take him back, or take him in, depending on who he’s talking to. As a quick shot of a story, “No One You Know” works well enough, with one of those slow-dawning climaxes that has you thinking about, and then remembering, the story longer than you initially believed you would. No, it’s the other story I read, the one with the apparently hideous title “Deadtime Story”, that is really the one to talk about, as it’s the more typically Etchison-esque of the two, the one that really illustrates my pulp/Aickman comparison from earlier.
.
“Deadtime Story” is very odd. It’s the story of a young college student named Shaun who works at a convenience store, doesn’t really have any friends, doesn’t have much of anything. As the story begins, Shaun is just showing up for work, and his boss warns him about personal calls on the store phone. Apparently, someone has been calling for him. Shaun tells his boss not to worry, he’ll take care of it, while idly wondering who might have been calling. He finds out soon enough when, after he's alone in the store, the phone rings again, and the man at the other end not only says that he knows Shaun, but that Shaun knows him, and that it's time Shaun paid up. .
As with Campbell, I don’t actively dislike Etchison, and in fact have fond memories of the first Etchison story I read, called “Talking in the Dark”, from his collection Red Dreams. That one is a horror story about horror fiction, which is something that always intrigues me, and it’s also, as I remember, fairly pulpy and demonic, which are two words I’ve since learned not to associate with Etchison’s fiction. More typical would be a story like the oft-anthologized “The Dog Park”, another of my early Etchison reads; that one (again, as I remember), is almost all mood, all strangeness. Which is great! It’s just that I’ve never felt like Etchison’s writing chops were at the level everyone else claimed they were. He often writes at the level of pulp, but with an eye towards Robert Aickman-level strangeness. This can be an odd mix.
.
For today, I read two stories from Etchison’s collection The Death Artist (which also contains “The Dog Park”, for those interested, though as I implied it’s hard to buy an anthology of modern horror fiction that doesn’t have that story). The first story, “No One You Know”, is told mainly through dialogue, and as it’s only about fourteen pages anyway, this is a bit of a speed-read. It’s also not a supernatural horror story, or even the kind of terrestrial horror that so many modern writers have chosen to explore, by which I mean it’s not about a serial killer. No, this one is more about human cruelty, specifically male cruelty, and its overall impact has the feel of something Neil Labute might have written, before he shifted gears and became a journeyman Hollywood director.
.
There’s not much to say about “No One You Know” that it can’t say better for itself. It’s almost all told through phone conversations, between Michael and Jeannie, the girlfriend he’s just cheated on, or Jeannie and her friend Mara, or Michael and Mara, whose connection you can perhaps guess. What pushes this beyond, or at least away, from and ordinary love triangle is the fact that Michael keeps threatening to shoot himself if one or another of the two woman doesn’t take him back, or take him in, depending on who he’s talking to. As a quick shot of a story, “No One You Know” works well enough, with one of those slow-dawning climaxes that has you thinking about, and then remembering, the story longer than you initially believed you would. No, it’s the other story I read, the one with the apparently hideous title “Deadtime Story”, that is really the one to talk about, as it’s the more typically Etchison-esque of the two, the one that really illustrates my pulp/Aickman comparison from earlier.
.
.
It turns out that Shaun does know what this is about, though the reader is left in the dark. It has something to do with:
.
That bored night at the Club, looking for something, anything to give the edge back to his life; the ones he had met there, the beers outside, then the game, and the promises -- the pact. In the morning it had seemed like a bad dream. He had hoped it would go away. But now he knew that it would not.
.
That plain, cliche'-heavy prose is typical of Etchison, but the effect he's going for ultimately is something else again. The rest of "Deadtime Story" involves Shaun wondering around town, trying to figure a way out of the debt he owes. He goes back to the Club (which in daylight is much more drab and sagging then it had apparently been on the night Shaun made his mistake) and is told that without ID he can't be helped, or speak with anyone. On the bus, he finds himself surrounded by homeless people, one of whom tries to sell him a self-help book. Early in the story, before the mysterious phone call, a few pages are given over to Shaun asking his boss for more hours. Later, several pages are given over to his plan to ditch out on cab fair. Then there's the strange eleven-year-old who's having a party with her friends and wants Shaun to come over.
.
The only other story/work of art I can quickly think to compare to "Deadtime Story" is Scorsese's film After Hours. While it's not a great comparison, both are strangely ominous, feature much that is inexplicable, encounters with odd strangers, and take place over a compact period of time. Still, while I have little doubt that someone, somewhere has argued that After Hours is a horror film, it's obviously not, and "Deadtime Story" obviously is. But it has the same sense of pinball randomness as the Scorsese film, less urban than suburban, maybe, though this difference strikes me as not entirely relevant.
.
If After Hours can be simplified as a dark night of the soul, but funny, then "Deadtime Story" can possibly be simplified as a dark night of the soul, but not funny at all. An argument over how much, or how little, hope is offered at the end of Scorsese's film, as Griffin Dunne's character finds himself back at work, but no such argument would ever get off the ground in relation to "Deadtime Story" -- Shaun has a greater relation to his fate than Paul does in that film, so perhaps God is more merciful with Paul. Either way, most of the events in both After Hours and the Etchison story can be explained away as a bunch of random shit that just happens. So be careful. And for God's sake, try not to be bored.
10 comments:
I think his writing is quite a bit better than pulp-level quality. It tends to minimalism, but, even in his earlier stories, I've found, it's usually a minimalism heavy with the weight of things unstated, as opposed to the lightness and relative simplicity of the pulps. I would say Etchison is much closer to a writer like Robert Aickman in sophistication than, say, Richard Laymon, but probably the best point for comparison would be Richard Matheson, always one of the best horror writers at using less to suggest more (though, of course, pretty uneven at times, too--like just about every genre writer with a sizable body of work, I guess).
As a prose stylist, Etchison is much better than Laymon, because so is everybody else. Matheson, in his heyday, was minimalist but very smooth. Etchison too often uses cliches, or just has no life at all. None of these people are close to Aickman.
But Etchison can still be very effective, because his imagination is skewed just enough.
I read Red Dreams in high school and had the same kind of confusion about what was going on in some of the stories; your comparison to Campbell is perfectly apt. Still, I'd like to get a hold of a copy again for a review. I recall liking two anthologies Etchison edited, Cutting Edge and Metahorror.
It's been a while since I looked at any of Etchison's work, but his writing always struck me as some of the best horror has to offer, really sharp and clear but with a touch of menacing vagueness, intimations of not quite rightness that only gradually resolve into something tangible. Maybe not quite in Aickman's league, but much closer to it than most of his contemporaries (and just about all of his successors, probably).
Have you read "The Late Shift"? (It's in, among other places, Kirby McCauley's Dark Forces anthology.) I still figure, on a sentence by sentence level, it must rank high among the best horror stories I've read. Not a word wasted (or lacking), not an offkey note sounded in the whole thing, no matter how dark and bizarre things get in it.
A little like Campbell, he generally portrays a slightly off-kilter reality, a world where even the most ordinary details acquire a touch of strangeness that can sometimes get feeling a little heavy-handed, and some of his endings verge on being too oblique for their own good. But, for just handful of his better short stories, I'd easily rank him in the top tier of horror writers, modern and classic, whose works I've enjoyed.
Will - I'm not really complaining about the confusion in Etchison's stories. That's clearly on purpose, and sometimes I think it works. It's just his prose.
John - You call it clear and sharp, but I'd say it's clear and soft. There's almost never a memorable turn of phrase, or anything like that. It's what HAPPENS in his stories that sometimes make them interesting, but I get nothing much from his prose.
I can't remember if I've read "The Late Shift" or not.
With Etchison, the early stuff is much better. "The Late Shift" is terrific, as is his first collection, "The Dark Country." Diminishing returns from there, unfortunately. On a trivial note, he wrote the novelization of "Videodrome" under a pseudonym.
There's almost never a memorable turn of phrase, or anything like that.
That's pretty much his style, stripped-down, not drawing much attention to itself, almost taciturn in effect. I figure at his best it's a perfect match for Etchison's moody, enigmatic stories.
Generally, I tend to think minimalism suits horror better than more advanced styles. The stark, lingering final image conjured up with a few skillfully chosen words, free of explanation or embellishment, is the crux of a lot of good to great horror stories. Very few horror writers (eg, Aickman, M.R. James) have proven capable of producing fine writing AND a powerful horror story at the same time. Writers like that are very much the exception to the rule, in my experience.
And I agree with anonymous, the early stuff is much better. But that seems to be the case with all the "Big Names" of modern horror.
But minimalism does not mean "an absence of style", which is too often what I get from Etchison.
"The stark, lingering final image conjured up with a few skillfully chosen words"
That sounds great to me, but "skillfully chosen" is not what I'm seeing. I'm seeing dashed off. I read a story last night, for today's post, that I thought was absolutely superb -- I think it's close to what you're describing, but which I rarely get. More on that later.
"The Late Shift!" Holy crap, I read that one years ago (probably in Dark Forces) and it's stuck with me. I just looked it up and confirmed that it is indeed the story I thought it was. I don't recall the plot, just the atmosphere. Neon and fog and nighttime nowhere places.
I'm sucker for that milieu -- fluorescent lights and 24-hour markets and industrial parks after dark. When I was a kid, we used to hop fences and wander around golf courses after hours. There's something so appealingly artificial and surreal about those places at that hour...anyone recall the scene in THE INSIDER at the driving range?
Our tastes are probably closer than you imagine, John.
Post a Comment