[Long-time friend of the press, S.L. Edwards has a new collection, Whiskey and Other Unusual Ghosts, out now via Gehenna and Hinnom. When S.L. was making the rounds doing interviews to promote it, I decided put on my J. Jonah Jameson mustache and demand pictures of Spider-Man and/or 5,000 words on the influence of Robert Bloch’s work on Edwards’ own. He took the easy way out and delivered on the Bloch challenge. It’s something Sam and I have discussed in private and I was excited to hear him address it in long-form. Take a gander and make sure to pick up everyone’s favorite Texan’s debut collection HERE. -Ed.]
So, let me start this with a warning: I’m not sure I’m doing the right thing here, writing this. First of all: I am not convinced a writer can be a reliable assessor of their own work. Obviously, most writers have an intent when they tell stories. But there is a risk of misrepresenting yourself, of trying to look at yourself through rose-colored lenses and make yourself seem like a better writer (and person) than you are. There’s the flipside of this risk too: bringing yourself down, deconstructing your work to the point where it seems bad in your eyes. To the point you have nothing to say nothing nice to readers.
And that’s…that’s not good for selling books.
Which begs the “second of all:”
Who the fuck am I? I’ve just debuted my very first short story collection, Whiskey and Other Unusual Ghosts. As I write this, I’m not sure what the reception to the book will be. Honestly, I’m quite nervous and I hope readers like it. Prior to that, my claims to fame were my involvement in Borkchito and the use of memes to make myself known on what I call “horror writer Facebook.”
This feels a little unearned. It certainly may look that way. I wouldn’t blame any of you out there, scoffing and shaking your heads at what no doubt appears to be navel-gazing nonsense. Because it is, without a doubt, exactly that.
But when Benjamin Holesapple made offered to host a piece like this, I couldn’t resist.
I’ve been through a gamut of interviews recently, and there’s nothing quite like a whole slate of interviews that forces you to slow down and look at your own work critically. I’ve been interrogated a lot about my love for Russian literature, I think because it’s not too common that you have a horror writer involved in a comic about a talking dog who enjoys Tolstoy. But a writer who I have spoken of quite frequently, and yet have not discussed much at all, is Robert Bloch.
To return to the “second of all:” Who the fuck am I? I’m not a Lovecraftian. I’m not a Weird Fiction scholar or historian. I’m not an “established” writer, who once personally knew all the old greats who were long gone by 1991. There are plenty of those, who lead their valuable voice to keeping weird classics relevant and interesting. I am not one of those people. There is a lot of Robert Bloch I have not read. I haven’t read his biographies. I don’t have his complete filmography memorized.
I didn’t encounter Bloch that way. I encountered him, as I suspect the majority of people reading this have, through Lovecraft. I am not sure what anthology I found “A Notebook in a Deserted House” in, but I do remember the story making me think that the book had been closed on Lovecraft pastiches. That the peak had been reached. And while I am delighted to report that I was wrong, the story remains my go-to example of what good Lovecraft pastiche can be.
So if I don’t really play in Lovecraft’s playgrounds all that often, if I’m not a Weird Fiction historian, who is Robert Bloch to me? Why do I keep citing him? And, furthermore, where is he in my own fiction?
In these pieces I’m going to try to answer that, I am going to take a step back and try to discuss a few stories that had early influences on me, as well where they link up in my own fiction. I’ll spend a little time on the man on himself too, focusing in particularly on a piece written before Bloch’s death in 1994 that showcases that he is extremely relevant to current discussions taking place in weird fiction. Through doing this, I hope I can not only allow readers and my fellow writers an insight into my own work, but the work of a writer who’s technical skill I find unrivaled and underappreciated.
Irony and Invention:
Readers normally come to Bloch through one of two avenues: Lovecraft or Psycho. Bloch was the youngest member of the “Lovecraft circle,” and sold his first story at 17. But Bloch lived far longer than Lovecraft, and in doing so left a large (though less memorialized) footprint that Lovecraft did not.
Bloch not only in producing hundreds of stories and novels, but was also involved in the Twilight Zone and Alfred Hitchcock Presents as well. And these shows were good fits for him, as Bloch seemed more preoccupied in walking in the footsteps of O’Henry and Saki that those of Lovecraft.
Take a look at, for instance, the final lines of Bloch’s “Bedposts of Life:”
“He, of course, was a vampire.”
“And she had AIDS.”
This is only one example of Bloch’s cruel irony. And there are, to be clear, far less cruel instances. In “The Cloak,” a man becomes a vampire and attempts to seduce a woman, only for her to reveal herself to be a more powerful vampire. In “Enoch,” a District Attorney attempts to make a man into a cold, calculating murderer, only for him to confirm the man’s seeming ravings about a creature that lives in the back of his head. In “A Sorcerer Runs for Sheriff,” a Sorcerer is undone by his own spells. In “A Bottle of Gin,” a man accidentally drinks a djinn.
The list goes on.
But through the 1940s-1960s Bloch had a perfect opportunity to enshrine “the twist” into nearly all manifestations of horror. His horror drifted away from Lovecraft’s cosmic influence and into more character-driven horror. His characters were despicable, heroic, desperate or stupid. And the predicaments they got themselves into were at once patently ridiculous and terrifying. This fits rather well with “horror-as-a-cautionary-fable.”
“Don’t be cruel, lest the monsters come for you” seems to be the one central lessons, repeated loudly and often across Bloch’s fiction.
Whiskey and Weirdness:
Revisiting my Bloch collections, “The Early Fears” and “Flowers from the Moon and Other Lunacies,” has been a startling experience. I first read these stories some Christmases ago, in my earlier twenties. Both collections have since gone out of print, and I now understand why Bloch is not widely read outside an older generation who personally knew the man. His short work is difficult to find, both in ebook and paperback.
Citadel’s “The Complete Stories of Robert Bloch,” in paperback is hardly complete. Not only this, but all but the first book are out of print. “Mysteries of the Worm,” which collects most of Bloch’s Mythos fiction, is still available from Chaosium. But Bloch has yet to get the electronic omnibus format which has allowed Lovecraft, Poe, Blackwood, and Machen’s fiction to proliferate. No publisher has yet undertaken the task of creating a truly complete Bloch series, such as Night Shade has done for Clark Ashton Smith (lovely books, those).
As such, much of Bloch remains beyond the access for new readers. We can encourage them to, of course, go to their local libraries, but Bloch’s fiction has fallen victim in large part to collectors. This will not be the first time in this series that I plead for some publisher to reissue Bloch’s short stories (at least his horror and weird fiction) in some hardcover series. I’ll even write an introduction for you!
But I say the experience has been “startling,” because I am beginning to see improbable, forgotten influences along my own fiction. I had, for example, thought the “cat horror” of “And the Woman Loved Her Cats,” was completely original to me, only to revisit the story “Catnip.” To be fair, cats have had long and reoccurring appearances in horror and weird fiction.
But there are a few other stark reminders of my own work.
“Golden Girl” and “Movie Magic” alike both fixate on entertainment in horror; Golden Girl on a puppet show and “Movie Magic” on a particularly unnerving film. Bloch wrote with a lot of animus towards Hollywood, particularly in the Psycho sequels. While I can’t say these stories directly speak to that animus, I also can’t say they would exist without Twilight Zone.
Then there is Bloch’s ability to write what we might call “Fairy Tale Horror,” a sort of fantasy-laden vintage Weird Tales style of terror that is both difficult and less common these days. I think of “The Mandarin’s Canaries” as the peak example of this, and certainly that tone influenced my story “We Will Take Half.”
And of course, Bloch’s emphasis on cleverness echoes into my own writing. Enoch, if we take the creature as a conceit for mental illness, would be just at home with the unnamed monster of “I’ve Been Here A Very Long Time.” Both stories rest on an ominous, yet-unfulfilled promise; promises which the protagonists force. I could say the same of “We Will Take Half,” where the protagonist is bound by the promises of his parents to a race of changelings, that they will earn half of whatever he makes.
The irony, deliberate attempts at “cleverness” certainly appear in my own work. But I think, if I am to pin down where Bloch’s influence is the strongest, it would be in the titular tale of my collection, which I had been rewriting when I first encountered Bloch’s writing. In one of the most familiar, permanent monsters of western culture:
Deals with the Devil:
The titular story of my collection is “Whiskey and Memory.”
For those poor sods following all of my interviews, you’ll know that I try to get a strong emotional reaction out of myself when it comes to characters. I need to love them. To be afraid of them. Or to hate them.
I loath John.
The protagonist of “Whiskey and Memory” as an irredeemably bitter man. He’s a misogynist. He’s psychologically abusive. An alcoholic. He’s afraid of women. He hates women. He derives a pleasure from being above them. He takes pleasure in domineering over them.
He’s awful. And deserves everything coming to him and more.
The catalyst for the story begins when John bumps into a woman just outside his sight. She hands him a bottle of whiskey (the name of the bottle itself inspired by Bloch’s “De Vermis Mysteriis”) which he has never seen before. After one drink, he stumbles upon a bar he’s never seen once, on all his walks in the city.
The shadowy woman is not clearly the devil. She doesn’t kill John, doesn’t make him a deal or set him on a new course. She just gives him a vehicle to take him to his final destination faster.
But I see echoes of this story and two of Robert Bloch’s, “The Fiddler’s Fee” and “That Hell Bound Train.” The latter story is one of Bloch’s most famous, rightfully so. In it, a down-on-his-luck homeless man makes a bargain with the devil, that he’ll be able to stop time for a single moment. A moment of his choosing. A moment that he is happy.
The quest for this moment propels the man to professional and personal success. He falls in and out of love, and manages to ruin everything he gained. Unlike many of Bloch’s stories, the ending is not particularly tragic. Remarkably it ends on an optimistic note, despite being bound for hell.
“The Fiddler’s Fee,” however, remains in my opinion one of Bloch’s finest and most overlooked. Here, I will actually spoil the ending. So beware.
The story features the very real violinist, Paganini. In his lifetime, Paganini was accused of having made a deal with the devil. And though we never actually encounter the devil in the story, it is very clear that they are real. The main character is brought to the devil by Paganini to his master, and is granted talent. But, characteristic of Bloch’s other stories concerning the devil, the bargain does not bring him happiness.
In a particularly brutal series of events, the protagonist orchestrates the death of his rival’s wife, driving the man insane. The rival in turn makes his own bargain with the devil. And that bargain proves fatal for everyone involved.
Revenge. Cruel Irony. These are the staples of Bloch.
The devil in “Whiskey and Memory” is very close to that of “the Fiddler’s Fee.” We never clearly are able to discern them, but very clearly they are at least real enough to move the story forward. And all they do is add fuel to a burning fire. John cannot blame the devil for his misfortune, nor can the characters in “Fiddler’s Fee.” Remarkably, it seems that the devil has even less agency than these characters.
John is told, towards the end of “Whiskey and Memory” that there were many points for him to set himself straight. That there were points to escape his cycle of violence and to be a better person. That he could have avoided all of this.
But he didn’t.
Stigmas and Psychos: Addressing the Controversy in Your Own Work
Without a doubt, Bloch’s most popular and known character. Norman has inspired a franchise of Hollywood movies, haunted houses, television shows and remakes. In each iteration, Norman is a victim of his mother, who sought to control every aspect of his life. What he read. Who he dated. Keeping him bound to a dying Hotel as the highway moves a lifeline of travelers around the town of Fairvale.
And, in each iteration, the final scene of this story is nearly always the same.
Norma dead. Norman, screaming high-pitched and shrill with a knife on his hand.
Wearing a dress.
The scene, justifiably, has come under attack as transphobic. If Norman wearing a dress is indeed designed to inspire terror, then it inarguably the definition of transphobia. In the film version, this problem is exacerbated when a character explains with some horror that Norman is a transvestite. But the film is largely Hitchcock’s story, just as The Shining is largely that of Stanley Kubrick.
The ending of the novel, however, is much darker and more ambiguous. Yes. Norman killed his mother. Yes, he wore the dress. And yes, the story ends with the “Mother” personality assuming the dominance of Norman’s mind.
However, whereas in Hitchcock’s version the viewer is left thinking that “Mother” is conniving, feigning innocence in order to escape, treats the reader to a sample of “Mother’s inner thoughts.” She explains that she had to take over Norman, because his was the murderous personality. If true, this means that Norman never wore a dress to kill. It was merely deflection, an act to fool himself and potential investigators. It also lends considerable doubt to Norman’s version of events, and hints at a darker dynamic that existed between himself and his mother. Was Norma the controlling, domineering one, or was it Norman? Was Norma jealous, or was it Norman, who was so threatened by his mother’s lover that he poisoned them both? What, exactly, was the abusive dynamic within the Bates Household?
The books sequels,’ notably Psycho II do the allegations of transphobia no favors. Norman escapes his insane asylum by killing and dressing up as a nun. A copy-cat killer fixates on the infamous “shower scene,” and readers are made to understand this is because his mother was raped and killed as a child. The cover of the first addition features more men in more dresses.
From his introduction, “The View from 1993,” to The Early Fears, it appears that Bloch was at least somewhat aware of this:
“Nonetheless, at least a dozen of the stories which follow…are not what is presently termed ‘politically correct.’”
I’ll admit that returning to Bloch, I was surprised to find this.
Every new horror writer learns rather quickly about the robust debate regarding Lovecraft, his racism, and what to do with it. The debate has gone on for some time, and will continue as long as racist norms persist. I wondered then, if an awareness about this debate had affected Bloch in 1993, when he was writing the introduction as his health quickly deteriorated as a consequence of a long battle with cancer.
But there’s more:
“Such matters [political correctness] didn’t concern me or my colleagues in times past; our chief aim was to avoid the drooling of prurient censors sniffing out sex rather than the shrillings of paid activists, professional spokes-persons, self-appointed leaders, agitators, protestors, demonstrators and assorted supporters. But today it’s the in thing to be outraged, and there’s much here to fuel the fuminations of the indignant indigent, the religious right, gays, feminists, liberals, teen-agers, the mentally-disturbed, the physically disadvantaged, the medical professional, the clergy, the devout Satanists, Egyptians, African-Americans, Haitians, Europeans, Asians and just about every ethnic group except the Eskimos-whom, I strongly suspect, don’t allow anyone to call them Eskimos anymore.”
Where to begin?
This certainly does not read like anything resembling an apology. And it seems persistently timely. Today, in the age of Donald Trump, terms like “the politics of outrage,” “identity politics,” are repeated with frequency and intensity. Social media has, to an extent I don’t think anyone suspected, only deepened divisions even further. And it has heightened the consequences and costs for writers, especially when they put forward racist, homophobic or otherwise prejudiced opinions.
All of this is to say, I don’t think Bloch would have gotten away with that statement if he posted it on twitter. At least in my reading, it comes across as arrogant and deriding, dismissive of the very real concerns faced by marginalized and persecuted populations. To his credit though, Bloch’s statement does read with some self-mockery. And he certainly seems to be saying that he is an equal opportunity offender.
He goes on to explain once more for the reader:
“The sole purpose of my work was to entertain rather than exacerbate. And when these stories first saw print the beliefs and attitudes expressed were quite typical of those held by most authors and readers throughout the world. I trust new readers will keep this in mind and view a story’s text within the context of its time.”
Again, the eternal Lovecraft debate is screamingly relevant here. And Bloch does not appear to be asking for forgiveness, so much as understanding. He is asking readers to be entertained, rather than offended. He explains that in his time he was viewed as radical, dangerous and subversive. Sexual themes, themes of violence, these were on the cutting edge at the time. AC comics. The remarkably poignant social commentary of “The Twilight Zone.” Bloch was, in his own way, a sledgehammer to an oppressive and puritanical cadre of editors, overbearing parents and pearl-wringing, torch-carrying politicians.
At the very least, he seems to think he was.
There are interpretations upon interpretations, and I have no doubt that scholars could write one thousand compelling pieces arguing over the jack-assedness or virtuousness of Bloch’s self-assessment. It’s my opinion that Bloch was drawn to the idea of non-binary villains because he specifically wanted to invoke psycho-sexual terrors. Could he have done this in a way without making a non-binary individual a monster? Did Norman need to wear a dress? Would the story have been just as effective if instead the reader is granted the sight of Norma’s corpse, a screeching Norman behind her without the dress?
I don’t think you can have Psycho without Norman thinking he’s his mother. But beyond that, Bloch could have been more responsible. Did he know how? Did anyone at the time? And did he care to? Those are questions better answered by historians, queer scholars, and other individuals who are far more learned in the subject matter than I am.
But the matter of Bloch’s reflection (for all the “so much for the tolerant left” that it invokes) does make me think about my work. What aspects are problematic? What can I do about them? Is there anything I would do different?
Shortly after coming on the weird fiction scene, I wrote a story entitled “Skins,” for Ravenwood Quarterly’s second issue. I have always been fascinated by werewolves, and have a whole werewolf mythology that I am extremely reluctant to come back to.
The concept of “Skins” was supposed to be relatively novel. How does the experience of being a werewolf affect a person’s psychology? Their character? Would these changes persist after the curse was lifted? The main character was supposed to begin feeling a nostalgia for her experience. Once she was “cured” there was to be a sense of relief. Of peace and hope. But slowly we were supposed to see a longing. A desire for the wildness that came with an unstoppable rampage. That the physical transformation came with a mental and moral one.
But, I took an easy out. I made the character someone who was bipolar and manic. And, I did that simply so I could explain blackouts and long disappearances. I did not need to do that. And, I believe the story would have been better had I began with a different sort of characters.
One reason I do not talk about my own depression is that it comes with a stigma. Especially now, it seems every time there is a mass shooting there is a tendency to dissect the killer’s mental illness. And, in the process, there is a tendency to blame the illness rather than the person for violence. And then you become concerned with your co-workers depression not because you care about them, but because you’re worried they’ll “shoot up the place.”
This fear does no favors for those struggling with mental illness.
So, for “Skins,” I am sorry. I used mental illness as an easy out, a crutch. And I regret it. As of now, I am unsure of what to do with the story. I want to rewrite it one day, because I think the core concept of the lingering werewolf is one worth exploring. But it won’t be collected in its present form. Nor will it be reissued in such. Perhaps, one day, the second issue of Ravenwood will become a collector’s item precisely because of this admission (and an incredible story from Russell Smeaton entitled “The Street.”).
The theme of mental illness, however, does manifest in “Whiskey:” most notably in the story “When the Trees Sing.” In this story, a man returns home from the Vietnam War to his wife and young daughter. He struggles with PTSD and depression, ultimately becoming so depressed and distant that his wife commits suicide. His daughter then wonders into the woods, and the two revisit him, and he flees. Ultimately, the guilt of running away from these ghosts haunts him more than the ghosts himself.
And there again, are easy outs. “The man was clearly insane.” “Maybe he killed his family.” Certainly, the reader could be forgiven for thinking that was my intent. But to be perfectly clear, as I attempted to be in my story notes that follow in Whiskey: my intent was not to create a character who could have imagined the whole thing. The intent was not to make the character’s PTSD the central feature of the story.
Rather, the centerpiece is guilt.
Guilt at having participated in the atrocities of Tiger Force (a quick google search gets you the stuff of nightmares, be warned). Guilt at becoming distant from his wife. Guilt at getting angry at his daughter. And yes, there is room enough in the story for mental illness. But something horrible, supernatural and evil can take place alongside mental illness. The existence of one does not wipe out the possibility of the other.
One need look no further than Bloch’s story “Enoch,” as to how such a thing could be accomplished. In it, a man clearly somehow disturbed claims to have a small creature named “Enoch” who lives on the back of his head. Enoch demands sacrifices, and often describes his preferred victims. When the main character refuses to kill for him, Enoch threatens and bullies him into carrying out the killings. The man is ultimately arrested, and discloses the existence of Enoch to a psychiatrist. The district attorney, in an incredible abuse of power, attempts to trick the man into testifying that Enoch does not exist. I will not give away the ending of the story. Suffice to say, Enoch is revealed to be very real. This, despite any “unreliability” on part of the narrator.
All of this is to say that “When the Trees Sing,” was an attempt to be more responsible with the feature of mental illness than “Skins” was. Mental illness is a part of life, as are other potential stigmas. Bloch wrote more than once about sex workers, probably because he was drawn to taboos but also because he was drawn to the weird intersection of humor and horror. Modern writers such as William Tea have made great strides in responsibly featuring trans individuals, as well as sex-work, in their stories. I would argue then, that the integration of a diverse cast of characters into horror without making diversity itself the villain (see Dracula, see Innsmouth, see the “seductive foreigner” trope) is not only possible but essential.
And again to his credit, Bloch’s short fiction is nowhere near as problematic as his predecessors. There are no descriptions of “the other” as a shambling dark man (see “Herbert West: Reanimator”). There are no descriptions of utopias as “socialist-fascist” (see “Shadow out of Time”). Bloch does seem, and did seem, more preoccupied with the novelty and irony of a thing than social commentary. Like Rod Serling, he was fixated first and foremost on “the twist.” And perhaps this is what led to the infamous dress in Psycho. The exacerbation of psycho-sexual violence that is “Psycho II.”
None of this is to excuse Bloch, or prejudice at all. But reading those words did give me pause, and made me wonder as to authors might admit to their mistakes. How they might try to address the problematic aspects of their own fiction. Because life itself exists on the margins. We cannot ignore the suffering of those who are forced to live on the periphery. Nor, do I think, authors should rush away from a good story. But we might try to tell them carefully, to pause with a bit of reflection and ask how our words might exacerbate already existing problems. We might think of potential “damage control,” or we may even invite other authors to read our stories before we attempt to publish them. Because certainly running away from a problem is not solving it. I cannot ignore my depression. Nor can my fiction. But certainly, I could stop and pause and critically self-assess.
The View from 2019:
There are writers, other than myself, who seem to be channeling Bloch. Russell Smeaton is able to work humor and horror quite well together, and with a certain Blochian inventiveness at that (see his story “Balls” in Test Patterns to see what I mean). Sean M. Thompson’s characters always manage to be very funny, even in some truly terrifying circumstances. Betty Rocksteady’s work isn’t exactly humorous, but there’s a bit of absurdity to it. How could one not at least smirk at the concept of loving a spider? Max Booth III’s Carnivorous Lunar Activities also shows us a writer with an incredible capacity for simultaneous horror and humor. And of course, there’s Jonathan Raab’s Cecil Kotto, who is just begging for his own Netflix adaptation.
Beyond literature, the coupling of horror and humor is alive and well.
Twilight Zone has been rebooted, this time at the helm of Jordan Peele, who I’m not sure anyone expected to become one of the genre’s favorite sons. “Get Out,” was both absurd and socially poignant. “The Santa Clarita Diet,” was also bizarrely funny while being visually and thematically grotesque.
Lovecraft and his shadow remain as relevant as ever. Despite what many hypothesized to be a “Cthulhu-exhaustion,” there are still anthology calls for more Mythos and more unique takes on it. And while there has been renewed interest in other “classic” weird fiction writers (Nightscape’s Nox Parodelia makes reference to Robert Aickman, and Pickman’s Press is putting together at least one anthology about Clark Ashtom Smith) the field still seems most defined by Lovecraft.
But, Bloch’s own shadow continues to grow. More and more writers are getting asked, and asking themselves, about the responsibility they have when telling controversial stories. The field is expanding and with it we are fortunate to hear voices who have been excluded for the better part of (at least) two centuries. And these voices are saying things wholly unlike any other.
It’s a refreshing time to be a writer. And I’m young. I hope that I live a long, good life, and that the friends I am making now will be with me well until the end of my life; where like Bloch I will no doubt try to account for my own controversies to the reader (I promise to try and be a bit better about it).
Despite Bloch’s enormous role in horror, despite him being a contemporary of Bradbury and Matheson, his short fiction remains difficult to collect. Psycho and his Mythos remain the most cited of his works. My hope is that this piece might encourage the interest of an editor or publisher. I would be thrilled to see a Bloch-inspired anthology, or the recollection of all of his weird fiction into a series of volumes. And, furthermore, I would be elated to see more readers and authors use Bloch’s work as an opportunity to reflect on the history of the genre. Both the history that has passed, along with Rod Serling and Twilight Zone, and the living history of “Get Out” and Jordan Peele.
I hope this self-reflection, both for readers and writers alike, continues well past 2019. I hope that horror becomes increasingly bolder, scarier, and human as more and more voices are welcomed into the fold.
So far the view from 2019 looks good, perhaps even better than the view from 1993.
Writer Julie Chiron recently read Camp Ghoul Mountain Part VI: The Official Novelization and had some questions for the author, Jonathan Raab. Their conversation, like the conspiratorial threads of the book’s narrative, stretched into sprawling, high-strange territory…
When we spoke earlier, you mentioned kayfabe, a term that stems from professional wrestling. What are you willing to reveal about how much kayfabe constitutes your latest work?
The book’s been out for a while now, so I’m willing to break kayfabe. It was fun to present the book as an “official novelization,” and act like the film series is real. I don’t think many readers fell for it, but a few people online saw the marketing and asked about the film series.The novel has some auto-biographical sections about the writing of the book. I’ll let the readers guess what parts are real and what parts aren’t. That’s part of the fun.
Is Ben Holesapple a real person?
Ben is a real person (or a person played by a Deep State actor that I have met before), and very interested in all the subjects in the book. He recruited me for an anthology, Turn to Ash Volume 2: Open Lines, a few years back after reading my second novel. I ended up writing his character Chuck Leek, a late-night conspiracy theory call-in show host (see a pattern developing?) as he took “calls” (the calls being the stories submitted by the other authors) on one fateful night.
Is Lucas Gabriel a real person, and if not, is that story based on anything?
He is based on real-life alien abductees. His story is a prototypical abduction account, heavily influenced by Whitley Strieber’s Communion and The Travis Walton Experience (Fire in the Sky) by Walton himself.
Did you become a Christian as an adult? What prompted the conversion and how did you justify that with being a horror novelist?
I did convert from agnosticism in college, but I wasn’t exactly a “good Christian” by any traditional measurement. I returned to my Catholic faith but eventually left the church because of theological and social issues (the ongoing child abuse scandals). After a years-long immersion in Reformed theology I’m back to the drawing board and without a church home.
I know it sounds like a liberal cop-out, but if you’re not on a spiritual journey in trying to seek the truth of God–if you’re rigid in your beliefs and not open to the absolutely bizarre and seemingly contradictory mysteries of the biblical accounts–I’m not sure you’re paying attention. Tension, discomfort, and bafflement are part and parcel to faith. Genesis 32:24 and all that.
I’ve told other Christians that horror is the most Christian of the genres, in that it acknowledges evil (particularly supernatural evil) in a way that other modes often do not. Most of my work has a strong spiritual component–usually broken people seeking spiritual fulfillment in all the wrong places. This is an explicit theme in Camp Ghoul Mountain Part VI, as the puppet masters in both the narrative and those implied in the behind-the-scenes segments worship that most insidious of idols–power, and America itself.
Depicting evil and demon worship doesn’t mean I endorse it. Quite the opposite. The Bible is a pretty lurid read, after all.
How did the idea for this story evolve? Did it start as straight-up horror fiction and take a left turn at Roswell? And how did the concept of artifacts enter and influence your narrative?
I was watching one of the Friday the 13th films (Part V, which is a film I initially disliked but have grown to love) when I realized I wanted to write a slasher, but the form and deconstruction of the form had been done to death. So I landed on the idea of an adaptation of a movie that doesn’t exist, complete with the behind-the-scenes history and some autobiographical paranoid ramblings. I’m surprised no one had done it before, although meta-novels like Stephen Graham Jones’ Demon Theory paved the way. Most of my writing contains “high strange” elements, as I find real-life mythology endlessly fascinating. A slasher/secret society/UFO/metafiction mash up felt pretty natural. Ben and I have an affinity for behind-the-scenes trivia and ephemera, so getting some “artifacts” created for the book was a no-brainer.
How typical is it for horror fiction to be so specifically rooted in an actual place (like Evergreen CO)? Are there any special challenges in doing that?
My stories are frequently set in either upstate New York (where I grew up) or Colorado, so it’s natural that I bring those places into my horror fiction. I actually haven’t spent a lot of time in Evergreen, but it’s local to me and seemed like as good a place as any to set the “real-life” scenes. I think it’s pretty common to write what you know.
Slasher movies are kind of low-brow in the genre, what redeems them for you? Why the love letter?
My love for the subgenre stems from my view of them as a kid and young teenager: they were horror in the 1980s and 1990s. Freddy, Michael, Jason–those guys replaced the Universal/Hammer pantheon of the classic gothic monsters. Sure, the majority of slasher movies are trash, but sometimes they are fun trash (the Friday the 13th films), and many are legitimately great works of art (Scream, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween, Stage Fright, House by the Cemetery, Opera, etc.). Slashers are often primal in their depiction of the young in peril, and reflect the subconscious anxieties of a society that views teenagers and young people as both dangerous and disposable in economic and military contexts.
The line “Lights above become the lights below”–where does that come from? Sounds familiar.
That’s a reference to the occult phrase “As above, so below,” or the Christian phrase “On earth, as it is in heaven.” It usually means you have a spiritual view of the world, or that you’re doing the will of a higher power.
You make reference to the Hart Research Library, which is at the History Colorado museum. Can you really find UFO-related material there?
I was working at the Colorado State Historical Society (History Colorado) when I was writing the novel, so it was fun to reference the library. The librarian in that scene is based on a friend who gets really excited about bizarre and off-kilter research requests, especially of the more grisly variety. As far as I know, the real library doesn’t have any material on UFOs, but it might, considering this state’s history of sightings and cattle mutilations. When I was working in historic preservation, I advocated for getting the site of the Snippy/Lady the horse mutilation listed in the State Register of Historic Properties, but leadership wasn’t too receptive to the idea, I’m afraid.
Have you heard about “Contact in the Desert” in May in Joshua Tree? (I’ve had some interesting experiences practicing Greer’s CE5 protocol BTW.)
I have, but I tend to be extremely skeptical about Greer and his work. He orients contact with ET around himself and his for-sale program. If anything, I endorse Monty Blackwood’s warnings against making contact with the divine space brothers, which he (and I) suspect are anything but. Messengers of Deception by Jacques Vallee outlines the dangers posed by UFO cults and their prophets, and was a huge influence on Camp Ghoul Mountain Part VI. I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in the subject of contact and spirituality. Be careful out there.
Has anyone approached you for the rights to make Camp Ghoul Mountain Part VI? Who would you want to play Penny and Rhonda?
I think we need to sell a few more copies before that kind of offer materializes! To be honest, I consider the novel unfilmable. Someone with a lot of passion and imagination would have to adapt it, especially considering that there’s three narratives coiled together in the book. The cast would have to be young, but with a lot of emotional depth and maturity that belies their stock-character first impressions.
One of your main characters, Monty Blackwood, has a wild arc from filmmaker to drug-addled guru. Who were your inspirations for his character and why?
Blackwood is a stand-in for the frustrated, underappreciated filmmakers of the era like John Carpenter and Tobe Hooper. A lot of films that we consider classics from the 80s (like John Carpenter’s The Thing) were widely panned and performed poorly at the box office, only to reemerge on cable on home video rental racks as late-blooming successes with cult appeal, just like the fictional Camp Ghoul Mountain Part VI.
Blackwood is more overtly political than most horror film directors of the period, and he morphs into a conspiracy theory lightning rod. That phase of his life drew on real-life 90s-era law enforcement/cult violence, particularly the FBI’s murderous raid at Waco and the ATF’s entrapment-turned-siege of the Weaver family at Ruby Ridge.
Blackwood’s final years are very much inspired by William Cooper, the author of the hugely influential Behold a Pale Horse, which was the defining conspiracy theory book of the early 90s, without which we wouldn’t have shows like The X-Files. Cooper’s life ended tragically at the hands of overzealous law enforcement, but his own paranoia was what put him in that position to begin with. That Blackwood’s fate is tied to the drug war is just one more plank in the book’s anti-authoritarian themes.
Julie Chiron is a writer and editor living in Colorado. She grew up in the era of 1980s horror films and regularly imbibed. Her writing has appeared in Wired, Mother Jones and Outlaw Biker Tattoo Revue.
If you’re lucky enough to be attending Necronomicon 2019 (August 22-25 in Providence, RI), be sure to track down Jonathan Raab, author of Camp Ghoul Mountain Part VI: The Official Novelization in the dealer’s room and grab a copy of CGMVI and all of the fine wares his Muzzleland Press has to offer.
If you can’t make the pilgrimage, pick up Camp Ghoul Mountain Part VI: The Official Novelization HERE.
“The elevator pitch for Camp Ghoul Mountain Part VI by Jonathan Raab would probably sound something like, “What if Stephen Graham Jones was hired to write Cabin in the Woods but specifically for late-era slasher sequels?” But that logline, while descriptive enough, is also unnecessarily reductive. It leaves out the particular affinity that Raab has for high strange weirdness, for ufology, for apocalyptic conspiracy theories, dire warnings about the American Nightmare and “tragedy in Babylon.” Without that affinity, this could feel like a pastiche, but with it, the book transforms, sometimes subtly and sometimes not-so-subtly, into something else altogether.” – Taken from Orrin Grey’s review of CGMVI.
Camp Ghoul Mountain Part VI: The Official Novelization- Now available in print and Kindle editions HERE.
Now Available worldwide through The Big A – Camp Ghoul Mountain Part VI: The Official Novelization by Jonathan Raab.
Too horrible to be true, too weird to be fiction!
80’s slashers! UFOs! Insidious cults! The Military Industrial Complex! High Strangeness!
Print book available NOW, ebook coming soon.
Turn to Ash is proud to present Camp Ghoul Mountain Part VI: The Official Novelization. A novel from Jonathan Raab. Pre-orders are open now and the book will ship in late December.
The first 25 copies will be signed by the author, so make sure to order soon!
Here’s a description of this unique offering from the author, himself:
Hey, everybody! I’m very pleased to finally announce that late this Summer, Turn to Ash will be publishing Jonathan Raab’s new novel, Camp Ghoul Mountain Part VI: The Official Novelization. A title like that obviously bears a little explanation and, indeed, even the explanation will bear a little explanation and, even then, I’m not entirely sure how much sense it will make when… How about I just lay out, in rough chronological order, how this project came to be and you can make of that what you will? Here goes…
Late last year, I received a letter (excerpt below) from a film company seeking a micro-indie horror publisher to begin working on the novelization of, arguably, the most misunderstood of the entries in the Camp Ghoul Mountain series. I was floored. CGM VI is a legendary, if not controversial, treasure of underground horror cinema. When I was a kid, not even the laxest of parents would let us watch this movie at their house. Everyone believed it was too violent and promoted drug use and/or Satanism. Or something. Despite these parental concerns, all the lucky teens in the neighborhood who had seen it assured us that the movie actually sucked. It was too weird and strayed too far from the rest of the series. It went off on strange tangents that your average slasher fan was confused by and uninterested in. Because of its bad rep, it sank into relative obscurity. By the time I finally watched it, I’d dropped enough, shall we say, life experience, to feel a certain kinship with the batshit events that unfolded on the screen. But those weird, wild days are long behind me and I’ve never been a vocal champion of the flick, so I had no idea why the film company was reaching out to me. I was excited to be invited to such a project, but I was more than a touch confused.
I called Jonathan up and explained that while the stunt was cute, I didn’t appreciate getting my hopes raised and dashed like that. He rather curtly dismissed my complaint and explained that he was not terribly amused that I had called him several times over the previous couple of weeks, always in the middle of the night, and left, long, mostly silent voicemails (audio clips below). He also suggested that I lay off the sauce and get to bed at a decent hour like a decent person. I explained that I hadn’t been placing those calls and that is was possible that my phone was malfunctioning and that I’d get it checked out. Furthermore, I continued to explain, I was drinking responsibly and sleeping quite well, thank you very much. Eventually, after far too much explanation, tempers cooled and we chatted for a while about Castlevania, living mansions, and UFO disclosure for a bit and then said farewell. I decided it must be someone else in our little community, probably Breen or Edwards, having a laugh at our expense with the Malthus thing and didn’t give it another thought. Until I got my phone bill.
That evening I got an email from Phillip O’Leary – the same supposed man from Malthus who’d supposedly sent me the letter – telling me that he looked forward to working with me on CGM VI and that he’d reached out to “some friends” and taken care of my billing issue. I logged into my account and, sure enough, back to normal. I called Raab again.
Have a great weekend everybody! Get weird and Halloween it up, wherever and whatever you are. We’ll be doing the final spit and polish on Vol. 3 this weekend so that we can get it – our biggest, weirdest issue yet – out into the wild ASAP.
Anywho, to tide you over, here’s another piping-hot review from our man (a HUMAN, not A SWARM OF LOUD, BUZZING THINGS ALWAYS JUST OUT OF SIGHT) on the street, S.L. Edwards. Click anywhere below. I dare ya.