unnecessary descriptions of child molestation in an odd subplot that is completely inessential to the narrative... sort of makes me question the author's motives. overall, an incredibly overrated piece of crap. however, taken by itself, "giant human/rat monsters who are obsessed with sex" is sort of an amusing concept. the description of a pair of these fellows earnestly double-teaming their landlady was certainly a first for me.richard laymon inspires intense debate! (view spoiler)[if you feel like reading what follows, know that there are two "marks". there is me - lowercase mark (in honor of my idols kd lang and ee cummings) - and then there is a second Mark who is certainly not me, in any way. only messages relevant to the debate are included.]message 445: by markChris wrote: "mark, really? Have you actually read the recent novels by both King and Koontz (recent being, say, the last 10 or so books)? Laymon, not so obvious, but it is there..."hmmm....well although i am a flaming liberal with a few reactionary tendencies, i do tend to consciously avoid even recognizing political themes in novels. i find political themes to be dull & limiting and they are often just the surface layer anyway, thematically speaking. king & koontz may be on opposite sides of the political spectrum (particularly in who they cast as their villains or who they choose to deride)....but they both share two central things that, to me at least, are more interesting & important:......now as far as laymon is concerned...he's a freak! a cracked nut. and certainly no humanist. message 446: by KasiaLike you said, your opinion.. An author that I'm friends with said he met Laymon a few times and he was the nicest guy ( Koontz says the same thing too), so just because you read a few books by him doesn't mean you have him all figured out. message 456: by marki have no problem with him being the nicest guy a person could met. lots of folks are. and that doesn't mean i won't have a problem with what they choose to express either. nor do i think it will mean that simply because i judge a person's works, the reasons they choose to focus on certain themes & ideas, and their overall ability....that doesn't mean i'm judging the whole person. what human truly knows every side to any fellow human anyway? but i do feel free to judge not just an artist's work but the representation of themselves that they are expressing through their work. and from that perspective, in my opinion, laymon is an entertaining pulp writer with striking ideas and expertise at writing page-turners, capable of strong execution, but having poor technical writing skills, an inability to develop realistic characters, and a highly problematic engagement with child abuse & molestation & perhaps women in general. overall, a compelling writer in many ways. message 457: by KasiaHow astute of you... I doubt Laymon wrote his books with hopes of making the most realistic characters ever, you know what you’re getting when you pick him up so if you keep reading him don’t be surprised with what you find. There is plenty of serious fiction you can turn to if you crave that sort of depth. message 463: by Mark One thing, to me, that hasn't been considered is that most of what us horror fans read is FICTION. Sure, once in a while, a writer's personal opinions may seep into a character he or she created, but in a way, saying that an author's character's are a mirror image of the author himself is like saying any actor who plays a character IS that character. All the folks who played Nazis in Inglorious Bastards - are they real Nazis? One even won an Academy Award for his performance it was considered so realistic. Sometimes, what an author writes has nothing to do w/ his or her personal feelings on a matter. Sometimes, they just create characters and let them "live". message 465: by mark you raise a good point and one that should always be brought up. to use your acting analogy: while i can't say that an actor who plays, say, a flamingly gay villain is therefore a flamingly gay villain in real life (that would idiotic), i can judge both (1) his actual acting ability and (2) the decision by the actor and director to play a gay villain in a stereotypical or offensive way. meaning, i can judge the content & the craft AND the reasons they choose to create a character in this way. i am not judging what they are doing in their personal lives; i'm looking with a critical eye at the choices and decisions & meaning that they are bringing to whatever they choose to display publicly. be it acting, writing, sports, whatever. message 466: by Branden I would say that is right, Mark, but you cannot then go on to judge how these individuals are in real life like you have with Laymon, saying that the man, the individual, has "a highly problematic engagement with child abuse & molestation & perhaps women in general". I'm an actor, and I have played countless roles. If I played a serial killer who kills women and children, it was because I was cast in the role (if in undergrad) or the money was good, not because I have a problem with women and children. Is this what you are saying? So, one of your critiques of the actor who plays a flamingly gay villain would be that the actor himself, based on his choice, is (insert whatever commentary on the actor you want here)? That is wrong and a poor judge of character. If I am misunderstanding you, I apologize.message 471: by Mark Other Mark, I agree you have the right to question why authors and screenwriters choose to portray a character in a certain way, or include certain repulsive scenes. But I still think it's a stretch to claim Laymon had a possible child abuse fetish. Horror movies and novels have always been reflections of their time and when Laymon began publishing, kidnapping and serial murder were becoming big stories on the nightly news. Even small towns were no longer immune. I was very small at the time, but I still remember hearing reports about these new items back then. I remember being told never to take rides from strangers, run and scream if someone I didn't know tried to grab me - all of this and I lived in a tiny town where almost everyone knew everyone else. I think this sort of thing is what Laymon was pulling from. The cruelty of humanity - not the cruelty within himself. I know several of you don't care for Laymon's writing style, the words "shlock" and "pulp" being mentioned, but I have to disagree with that assessment. I've been a pulp magazine fan for the last several years and have read extensively within each decades and each genres writers. Granted, many of the authors who wrote for the pulps wrote too fast, wrote too sloppy, and didn't engage in the most extensive character development. But, the pulps also birthed Dashiell Hammett and Raymond Chandler, to name but two; names that have had a huge influence on the way modern prose is composed. Hammett and Hemingway began their experiments in stripped down, minimalist writing techniques at about the same time and these writers are who I think Laymon most resembles. message 475: by mark- at no point did i say that that laymon had a possible child abuse fetish...egads! i have no clue about that and would not presume to weigh in on that or in regards to his personal family life. i literally have clue about what he is all about on a personal level. what i DID say is that he has a "a highly problematic engagement with child abuse & molestation & perhaps women in general". i am talking about laymon as a WRITER, not as the whole human being, certainly not as someone that i actually knew on a personal level. as a writer, laymon consistently include scenes of child abuse & molestation, sexualization of children, etc....as a reader, i find this preoccupation to be disturbing because these scenes are sometimes unnecessary and sometimes written in a way that i see as salacious or at the very least, insensitive. therefore i do find that he has a troubling engagement with depicting scenes of child abuse & molestation. i could say, similarly, that hemmingway has a troubling engagement with women in general. i am only judging what i read and i am only judging the author insofar as he is allowing me to judge him by consistently engaging with certain topics in a troubling way within his novels. i am critiquing laymon the author, not laymon the actual person who i've never met. i have no idea what his fetishes were!regarding use of the word "pulp": to me, this is not an insult, it is simply a description. laymon reminds me of the many pulp writers i've read who are short on technical skills but long on imagination and the ability to provide propulsive, exciting narratives. there are many, many writers that i respect who are clearly pulp writers. philip k dick comes immediately to mind. so does robert howard. as do your own examples. i like pulp! i may critique technical skills, or at least point out the lack of them, but for me at least, i enjoy so many things about writing and being able to write at a certain level is only one of those things. characterizations, basic ideas, atmosphere, world-building, etc are all things that i enjoy equally to ability to be a "good writer". message 476: by mark branden:i do not think it is wrong, nor do i think it is being a poor judge of character. yes, i am judging a real side of a person, so in a sense, i am judging a part of their character. but i am not judging the whole person. that point really needs to be clear. i may judge a politician on the legislation he puts forward, that may be a character judgment because i may find he has poor engagement with something i care about, i may speak negatively about this side of him...but what i am absolutely not doing is judging him as a father or husband or philosopher or whatever. i am judging him in his role as a politician, just as i am judging laymon on his role as a writer. people don't just get off scott-free with me simply because they are doing a job or writing a novel for entertainment or just following orders. and they also don't get judged let alone condemned in their entirety because i am unaware of the entire person. i'm only aware of what they've put out for me to see and anyone should feel free to judge an artist's representation of themselves on a consistent, public basis.back to the acting analogy, and the gay villain analogy as well....if there was an actor who consistently played only gay villains and who only played them as stereotypically & offensively as possible...then yes, i should feel free to judge that person as an actor and in particular the choices they've made when engaging in their art. i'm not saying they should be criticized for taking particular kinds of roles - unless those kinds of roles are consistently offensive, whether in their conception or their execution. gay villains are awesome! but a gay villain or a black villain or whatever that is rendered stereotypically and crudely and offensively is not so awesome (unless there's some level of irony involved). and the actor who consistently takes offensive roles and/or plays them offensively is, in my opinion, an ass.and again, this does not mean that i am judging them for what they do in their private life....i'm commenting on what they've chosen to present in their public life, work life, whatever kind of life that has connected with my life. as an actor, that person would be an ass to me but i would not presume to weigh in on them as a whole person. message 478: by KasiaThats a lot of words.. You make the author sound like an actor, ok I'm done, this gave me a headache message 481: by Mark mark: I think the problem I have is in an earlier post you said "[Laymon:] is a freak. a cracked nut." then said "he has a highly problematic engagement with child abuse & molestation & perhaps women in general", which changed to "depicting scenes ...". There's a big difference between being occupied w/ something and being allegedly occupied w/ depicting something. Yes, it's semantics, and you may've meant the writer and not the person, but I feel that the way it was worded, and having made the "freak" retort earlier, it seems more like an indictment on the man himself. I'm glad to hear you like pulp, too. The reason I thought you meant Laymon's writing being "pulpish" as an insult is because you married "pulp" with "having poor technical writing skills" while discussing Laymon earlier today. To me, saying someone has poor technical skills is insulting. And I disagreed w/ the idea that they're technically poor because, to me, they are reminiscent of Hemingway, Hammett, and even many of the minimalist short story writers who published throughout the 1980s and went on to influence writers like Palahniuk. Many people dislike this writing style, but it was featured in many of the Best American Short Story anthologies since it's inception and re: Hemingway and Hammett, influenced every writer that came after them to a lesser or greater degree. Given that, I wouldn't necessarily call that writing style "poor". It's, of course, your prerogative to like or not like it, but I think it's a bit of an overstatement to claim the writing to be technically poor when it's indicative of two influential schools of writing. message 495: by markah! well that makes sense. it's funny in a way because this is rather a misunderstanding. when i called laymon a freak, a cracked nut, i really didn't mean anything by it. if anything, that's just a funny way, to me, of expressing how unusual he ise. i enjoy the company of freaks, am one myself, and enjoy reading their works. hell everyone's freakish or nutty in one way or another. and i can see how you can connect that to my genuine critical viewpoint in regard to "problematic engagement with blah blah blah". however, they are not supposed to be connected. imo, laymon's a freak because he writes crazy stories with nutty characters and bizarre narratives. also imo, he has a "problematic engagement blah blah blah".....but the former is really not caused by the latter. even if his novels didn't include a single scene of child abuse, i'd still say he was a freak because of his crazy novels. and that's neither a good thing or a bad thing. it just means he's unique.i'm still going to have to disagree with you re pulp & technically polished writing, and i love pulp. to me at least, a pulp writer does not usually have the sophistication or technical ability of a non-pulp writer. that doesn't mean i'm dismissing them or that they won't eventually get to that level of writing - or that they even need to try to get to that level. message 497: by mark Kasia wrote: "Thats a lot of words.. You make the author sound like an actor, ok I'm done, this gave me a headache"golly, i thought this was a group for people who read! have i somehow stumbled upon the BiffBangPowWoweeMcWowClubForFolksWhoAlwaysAgree,Yahoo!!! group?you know kasia, i'm so very sorry that you can't deal with critical comments about your hero laymon. i don't consider this a fan club, it is a discussion group. i have not personally attacked your hero, i have critically analyzed his writings. which i should be free to do without any inane commentary re "this gave me a headache" and "a lot of words". feh! message 498: by Mark I think Kasia is under the same impression I was: that your authorial critiques were spilling over into personal critiques. So to her, it DID feel like you personally attacked Laymon. I will let her tell you whether he's a hero, or an author she enjoys.You have to admit: you even said it was a lot of writing ["boy i'm talkative today":], remember? :D message 500: by Maciek I don't think Laymon was a freak. Since he was a horror writer, he propably decided to put as much stuff into his books as possible - including sluttish women and lots of gore. message 502: by Aloha It's actually pretty fun, popping up into hilarious and strange situations, like popping into this forum at just the right time when Branden is confused about the Marks. I can sympathize with Branden. LOLIt's the Mark vs. Mark in the Matrix. The battle is on! :oD message 516: by Phil I really liked The Cellar but the peodophile stuff in it stops me from recommending it to people. I do think it's pretty dodgy. message 517: by Chris Again....it was PART of the story...whatever...incidentally, Phil, I recall the scene you speak of and thank you for mentioning it...but for chrissakes'...it is HORROR...sometimes the horror portrayed is REAL, as in not supernatural and I don't think Laymon was at all glorifying such a heinous act. Like what Ketchum did with TGND, takes a lot of guts to "go there." message 520: by Kasia Mark wrote: "Kasia wrote: "Thats a lot of words.. You make the author sound like an actor, ok I'm done, this gave me a headache" golly, i thought this was a group for people who read! have i somehow stumbled u..." He’s not my hero, I simply like his writing but personally I don’t think it’s fair for you to hint that he’s some psycho and secret child molester or something, besides he’s not even around to defend himself.. I think you’re pissed because you spend all that time writing things and I didn’t reciprocate with an effluvia of words, you can certain feel what you want but you say that someone is a nut and is crazy then five minutes later you say it doesn’t mean anything, that its just fun talk, then I guess nothing means anything if we don’t mean the things we say.. You wrote some comments and I responded to them, you want to have the freedom to analyze his writing and post things about him yet you don’t want me to comment on it that I have a headache, well then don’t give me one, mmkay? message 521: by PhilChris wrote: " Again....it was PART of the story...whatever...incidentally, Phil, I recall the scene you speak of and thank you for mentioning it...but for chrissakes'...it is HORROR...sometimes the horror port..." Jeez Chris I didn't say Laymon was glorifying anything. But thanks for assuming the worst :P I agree on the HORROR thing though, if you're gonna read or watch horror you have to expect to be horrified every now and again. Still, even if someone says they like horror, there's still stuff you have to be careful of recommending, imo. message 548: by mark Chris wrote: "I have been reading Laymon novels since 1987. Other than teen-agers having SEX--which, ahem, they DO--NONE of his books portray child abuse...." then you have not actually read his novels, my friend! or you are from opposite world. The Cellar and Island both have extended scenes of child abuse, unnecessarily presented in one case and salaciously presented in the other. apparently child abuse is also present in Darkness Tell Us, Beast House, and The Traveling Vampire Show, although i cannot attest to that personally. Continued Below! (hide spoiler)]
Some people dismiss the late Richard Laymon as a hack horror writer.Those people should go f**k themselves.An originator of the early splatterpunk movement, Richard Laymon was an unsung artist who made the job of “novelist” look easy with his literary virtuosity and prolific output.But, like Rodney Dangerfield, Richard Laymon got no respect. He never found a big American audience for his work during his lifetime. He pumped out thrillers alongside Dean Koontz, Peter Straub, John Saul, and Stephen King, but never achieved the fame and fortune of his contemporaries. Critics dismissed his work as too sexiest and/or too violent. Laymon was an “underground favorite” who had a hard time finding American publishers for his novels.Fortunately, Laymon found an audience overseas. His sales in England and Australia during the ’80 and ‘90s kept his literary career alive. He was able to eek out a living, feed his family, and keep a roof over their heads.This alone qualifies him as a literary hero.Things improved for Laymon in the late ‘90s. Leisure Books published his back catalog to great success. Laymon’s American fan-base grew.But — because life is as random and violent as … well, a Richard Laymon novel — Richard Laymon died of a massive heart attack in February 2001.The Cellar (1980) is Richard Laymon’s first published novel, and one of his best (rivaled only by 1988′s Resurrection Dreams). It’s the first volume in The Beast House Series, and showcases Laymon’s lean writing style, penchant for fast-paced plots, and masterful use of dialogue.The Cellar is a blend of creature-feature and crime thriller, like From Dusk ‘Til Dawn. A mother and daughter flee an abusive boyfriend just released from prison. But their car breaks down in remote Malcasa Point, home of a strange tourist attraction called The Beast House. According to local legend, several gruesome murders occurred in the The Beast House, committed by “demonic beasts” that allegedly still haunt the place.Mom and Daughter cross paths with a Monster Bounty Hunter, a Creepy Old Man, and The Creepy Beast House Homeowners before Psycho Ex-Boyfriend makes the scene, and fireworks fly.But things really go ass over teakettle when The Beasts show up, hellacious gargoyle-like creatures sporting enormous, gnarled erections. Creepy, indeed.The true gem of The Cellar is its epilogue. Laymon’s crafts a twist(ed) ending using only dialogue that is one of the best endings in any novel ever. Period.Long live. Richard Laymon! I am humbled by his greatness!Miss you, Dick
What do You think about The Cellar (2006)?
the thing that always disturbed me the most about Richard Laymon was his author's photographs. I didn't like the fact that to me he looked like the mad sex-crazed knife-wielding predators that he wrote about so well. the thing about Laymon's books are,even though not necessarily literary masterpieces they keep you reading,they go further than a lot of horror writers dare to go,and you pretty much get what you want from a horror book. one quote that I remember being on lots of his books was “Richard Laymon,like Stephen King without a conscience!"I don't know anything about his private life other than he died over ten years ago of a heart attack,I don't know what he was doing at the time and don't want to know. no other horror writer,except maybe Shaun Hutson,has made judge the authors own sanity. you shouldn't judge a book by its cover,but can you judge an author by his books? whether or not he was a secret psycho or just a fantastic horror writer will not change the fact that I can't stop reading. so what does that make me?
—Matthew
Well, this was my first Laymon book, enjoyed his writing style after I got used to it. He writes with a more choppy style, short, quick and to the point sentences, doesn't overly explain any ideas, leaves out unnecessary details. A fairly quick read for me, around three days, while I can't say I enjoyed the book, it did have a certain like ability, after you read a little lighter over the rape anyway. The idea for this book was interesting and Laymon took it all the the way to the end with a different approach than most authors would've used, would've liked to seen more development in the characters, they felt unrealistic sometimes, not up to their full potential. The Cellar was my first step into Richard Laymons mind and while I didn't like everything I saw, there were times in the book when I found myself completely caught up in the story. Definitely an author I'll look for again, mabey not anytime soon though.
—Alissa
This is the first in a series of novels, of which I have read only the first and second. "The Cellar" was my first experience at reading Laymon's works and I have to say, I wasn't overly impressed. The book wasn't terrible and it was quite a quick read, however I was left feeling unsatisfied and a bit perplexed at all of the attention this book receives. The book has an interesting start, and builds up some suspense at first. The concept of the beast house is enthralling enough. The idea of some terrible monster living over 50 years and eating random trespassers seems like a good enough plot. The problem does not lie in the concept, but with the execution of the story. The main problem is in the characters and their completely black and white stereotype personalities. The bad guy is revoltingly bad, and we are forced to sit through his sickening behavior on repeat as he murders people, and rapes a child over and over again in appalling detail. Too much time is spent on him and not enough time is spent on either giving him a motive for his behavior or defining him as anything other than the epitome of evil. Then we have the "good guys." A mother and daughter team who are running from the evil child rapist. The daughter's age (based on her behavior) seems to vary between 10 and 18, though my guess is that she's supposed to be about 14. The mother, dimwitted as apparently most female characters in Laymon's novels seem to be (based on this novel and its sequel) is running for her life from a man trying to kill her, and yet in less than 24 hours she manages to forget all about him and fall madly in love with a stranger. Instantaneous love is another thing that happens quite often through the Beast House series. The man she falls in love with is an assassin of some sort who is out to kill the beast for an old man who was one of the only survivors of one of the Beast's attacks. The four of them spend the next couple of days just hanging out until the evil bad ex-husband shows up... this is when the story should have hit an amazing climax... but it really didn't. When it's all over you close the book without a sense of satisfaction, left with more one of puzzlement. To be honest once the beast makes its appearance... too much description is wasted on a specific part of its body and not enough is placed on the rest of it... I really had a difficult time picturing what it was supposed to have looked like. In fact, after reading the second novel I've no clearer picture in my head. This is not a terrible book... it's just simply not a "must read" if you have it on your bookshelf and have an extra few hours of boredom ahead of you.. go ahead and read it. But I wouldn't tell anyone to rush right out to the store and buy it.
—Kristen
