I liked this story. I'm a big fan when you get into rules that demons or devils and angels have to follow, and how they either try and be successful within the rules and then fail (like the Yattering) or how they try to manipulate the rules or trick people with rules to their benefit. You could probably throw genies/djinn and efreeti into that as well, but I prefer the Hell-based creatures like the Yattering. As a minor demon, the Yattering was a very well-done creature. Going to or being from Hell is supposed to include suffering, and even though the Yattering is the predator here, you can tell its not all fun and games for him. He is suffering more than his victim, which is a really cool twist. The idea of the psychosomatic leprosy that the lower demons were susceptible was a very neat weakness and really helped round out the Yattering as a character. I loved the idea of the academy and of teaching the rules of Hell through beatings, the fear he had for even talking to Beelzebub, and the "obscenities of the ear" method of terrorizing victims. There was a good deal of world-building in this short story and I am a big fan of that, especially when it can be done so seamlessly in the overall story.
I was not quite as sold on Jack. The idea of him knowing what was going on and waging his own war back the the Yattering was cool. But what bothered me about it is that we have no idea how Jack got the knowledge he had of all of this. How did he know the Yattering was there in the first place? How did he know the rules of Hell so well? Who taught him? Why was he taught? His daughters were like normal people, why wasn't he? I don't mind that he wasn't freaked out and was able to wage the battle in a way that not even the Yattering realized his opponents knowledge, but without telling me anything at all about how he got that knowledge and/or why he has it, I lose some amount of trust with the author. Once we learned that he knew all about the Yattering, and there was no explanation for it, I felt cheated.
This story definitely had the "add some humor to the horror" vibe going for it, and I think it served as a good example as to how to do that. Conversely though, I don't know that I would actually classify this as horror. It wasn't scary at all, and the blood and gore was relegated to animals. Maybe I don't fully understand the definition of horror? But in any event, the humor in this one worked. The turkey dance was way cool, and I loved the three Freddys.
This was one of the best things we read in class. I have to say that I am glad to have been exposed to Clive Barker. I'm going to have to read more of him... when I get a chance to pick my own reading material again.. someday... ;)
I also felt cheated when it came out that Jack knew what was going on and was ultimately playing the little guy. I am not sure if I lost trust in Barker though. I think I just felt whatever connection I had built with Jack from the start was cut off, like the ribbon during a grand opening. I wanted to know more of his background in the same regards to what you're saying. I also wanted to know more about his mother and this demon hierarchy system.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to this being horror, it is definitely horror. Horror covers the whole rang of everything that falls under the emotion of fear. From discomfort to torture, it is not all about scary. Somethings are scary to one person and not another. We try to really get deeply inside fear of people, whether that is done through a phobia to a disturbing image put in the reader's head to make them think. There is a lot of psychological torture going on in this story, as well as the idea of demonology. Demons are mostly in horror and its sub-genres to my knowledge. (I could be wrong and welcome anyone to tell me.)
I just finished the last novel for this course a week and a half ago. So, now I have time to chunk what I can out of the giant book stack in my room. Also, I have been revising the beginning of my manuscript and I feel much less stressed about our story assignment by being ahead. But, I work at a desk all day answering phones and emails. It is our slow time because the semester is well in for the institution I work at, so I just got lucky with that LOL.
I hear what you're saying about horror, but I still don't think I agree that this is horror. I'm probably wrong... the story is in a horror collection for a reason. But a book about fear is not horror. A book that makes you feel fear is. Or at least that's how I look at it. You said there is a lot of psychological terror going on, but I didn't feel that. Perhaps the Yattering had some of that. Fear of his boss and punishment for not succeeding. But Barker didn't focus on that at all. And we don't actually get to see that punishment first hand. Beelzebub didn't scare at all. We knew to fear him only because we were told the Yattering did. Most of the psychological torment you describe came from the Yattering's frustration with not being able to affect Jack. So? That's not fear. It's not horror. Its frustration. Its almost the equivalent with an insurance salesman being frustrated with his job. Swap out insurance salesman for minor demon and you have this story. (Wait, insurance salesmen ARE minor demons... my bad!).
ReplyDeleteThere was the time when one of Jack's daughters looked like she went insane. Okay, maybe some torment there. But Barker didn't focus on that too much. He focused on a silly turkey and a Christmas tree.
Just because I didn't find it a good example of horror doesn't mean I didn't like it. It was great. But I saw far more frustration and futility than fear. If I was describing the story to a friend, I might start by saying that you'd think it was a horror story, having demons and Hell and all, but it was really a comedic tragedy.
hi Shoe,
ReplyDeletegreat comments. I think that this was definitely the lighter end of Barker's spectrum and represented his "dark fantasy" take on horror. The demonic stuff was still there as well as pain and suffering but its used to comedic effect. Its more Twilight Zone territory and if I recall correctly, this story was adapted as an episode of the TV series "Monsters". For me, this was Barker displaying as very dry British sense of humor within the genre he works in. The POV shift was a little problematic as a "reveal" but the piece may not have been as funny if it had been longer and more involved with more explanation of all the goings on.
I think it's interesting that you said you lost trust in Barker because we didn't learn how Jack knew about demons. I had a couple qualms with the story, but that wasn't actually one of the things that bothered me. While I did wonder how he knew what he was up against, I was willing to accept it as part of the premise of the story, especially so much of the initial setup was through the Yattering's POV. The thing that bothered me more was the actual switch from the Yattering's POV to Jack's—so I guess it's not so much that I wanted more of Jack's backstory as it is that I wanted less! I'm not sure the story could have worked that way, though, since the whole point is that the Yattering doesn't discover Jack's secret until it's too late... so maybe we could have started switching POV's sooner. A little glimpse into Jack's mind at the very beginning, with an ambiguous hint that he might know *something* is afoot... A la Reverend Lowe in the Cycle of the Werewolf, I suppose. Never thought I'd refer back to that story as an exemplar of anything, but here we are!
ReplyDelete