Clive Barker

[Gerald]

According to his Twitter last April he did his first convention since recovering (his coma was in January 2012), which was Texas Frightmare Weekend, but I can't find nothing on Youtube from his appearance. And usually these kind of things get filmed.
He did some appearances after his coma, in which the effect of it clearly showed, but I can't find something recent, how he is now.

 

[Gerald]

Actually when you look at his bibliography he was already slowing down before the coma. There were longer gaps in between books before 2012:

Chronological Bibliography: Clive Barker

But it would be nice if there was a recent video with him. It seems they wanted the Texas Frightmare Weekend to be one of those exclusive (read 'expensive') events, so that's probably why there is no video of it.

 

[Gerald]

It's too bad his work has a hard time finding its way to the screen, despite some obvious big successes (Hellraiser, Candyman). Very regularly projects get announced, but a lot of them don't materialize in the end (a Weaveworld series was just announced and it seems in limbo already and now the focus has shifted towards a Nightbreed series). It's hard to say why that is, but I suspect it has to do with a combination of his work being graphic (both in terms of sexuality and violence) and having to involve a lot of (expensive) effects work.
It's also strange how despite all the wonderful works he made, only Hellraiser really seems to stick to the audience at large. Only Candyman managed to come relatively close to it, but a lot of the other things (Nightbreed, Lord of Illusions, Midnight Meat Train) remained cultfilms and didn't click with the audience in the same way. This probably is also a contributing factor to a lot of projects not materializing.
I'm really not sure why Hellraiser does so much better than the others, but it probably has to do with a certain iconography going on in horrorfilms. A lot of horrorfilms that are successful and go on to have sequels/remakes/reboots are centered around a central iconic character -it's a tradition that clearly goes back as far at least as the Universal horrorfilms. It's hard to say why some characters achieve that iconic status and others don't. A lot seems to have to do with the actor portraying them (along with the make-up/special effects or CGI that are used), which makes these characters truly unforgettable for audiences. I suppose the less successful Barker adaptations lack such an iconic performance, at least to the audience at large.
It's too bad a lot of the success of horrorfilms hinges on this iconography, because while Nightbreed is a bit messy overall, certainly Lord of Illusions and Midnight Meat Train are excellent films that deserved much better.
I know Barker regrets the situation, but at least his work truly shines in comics. The Great and Secret Show is probably my favourite comic adaptation of a novel ever - the drawings suit the story incredibly well and make you long so much for a film adaptation. But also the more recent comics like Next Testament and the new Nightbreed comics have been incredibly good, and rank among his best work.

 

[ghost19]

It's too bad his work has a hard time finding its way to the screen, despite some obvious big successes (Hellraiser, Candyman). Very regularly projects get announced, but a lot of them don't materialize in the end (a Weaveworld series was just announced and it seems in limbo already and now the focus has shifted towards a Nightbreed series). It's hard to say why that is, but I suspect it has to do with a combination of his work being graphic (both in terms of sexuality and violence) and having to involve a lot of (expensive) effects work.
It's also strange how despite all the wonderful works he made, only Hellraiser really seems to stick to the audience at large. Only Candyman managed to come relatively close to it, but a lot of the other things (Nightbreed, Lord of Illusions, Midnight Meat Train) remained cultfilms and didn't click with the audience in the same way. This probably is also a contributing factor to a lot of projects not materializing.
I'm really not sure why Hellraiser does so much better than the others, but it probably has to do with a certain iconography going on in horrorfilms. A lot of horrorfilms that are successful and go on to have sequels/remakes/reboots are centered around a central iconic character -it's a tradition that clearly goes back as far at least as the Universal horrorfilms. It's hard to say why some characters achieve that iconic status and others don't. A lot seems to have to do with the actor portraying them (along with the make-up/special effects or CGI that are used), which makes these characters truly unforgettable for audiences. I suppose the less successful Barker adaptations lack such an iconic performance, at least to the audience at large.
It's too bad a lot of the success of horrorfilms hinges on this iconography, because while Nightbreed is a bit messy overall, certainly Lord of Illusions and Midnight Meat Train are excellent films that deserved much better.
I know Barker regrets the situation, but at least his work truly shines in comics. The Great and Secret Show is probably my favourite comic adaptation of a novel ever - the drawings suit the story incredibly well and make you long so much for a film adaptation. But also the more recent comics like Next Testament and the new Nightbreed comics have been incredibly good, and rank among his best work.

Nightbreed series? I'd love to see that. Cabal is such a good book. Weaveworld is one of the most complicated books I've ever read but I did enjoy it.

 

[Steffen]

Nightbreed series? I'd love to see that. Cabal is such a good book. Weaveworld is one of the most complicated books I've ever read but I did enjoy it.

No kidding. Weaveworld was a book I enjoyed immensely, but it's so darn dense I'm intimidated by the thought of re-reading it.

Barker's work is so much dark and macabre fantasy, it really begs for the cable TV treatment. It's only a matter of time before someboy wises up and adapts his stuff for television. However, I still maintain that one of the best ever stories written for children - The Thief of Always - is ripe for a film treatment.

 

[Gerald]

Nightbreed series? I'd love to see that. Cabal is such a good book.

Me too. But the way his projects fall through all the time, it's hard to believe it will really happen. The script for the Weaveworld series was sent (written by Josh Stolberg), but now it's suddenly all about Nightbreed.

But, like I said, if you want to enjoy his work in visual form, the comics are really good. It's possible to make good films or series from his work, but I think it's difficult to get the tone of his work right: his work is both highly visual, but also very philosophical. And very graphic in terms of sex and violence (when you read some of the things going on in his books, it's almost laughable people make such a deal out of the sex scene near the end of IT). It's a difficult package altogether.

 

[Gerald]

I was thinking about this iconography of horrorfilms I was talking about. It's actually already there before the Universal horrorfilms, this idea of a charismatic actor playing a monster in unique looking make-up, for example Max Schreck in Murnau's Nosferatu (1922), but I think Universal really used it as a way to present and sell their films: the idea that in a horrorfilm the monster (and thus the actor playing it) is the star as opposed to the actors playing the human parts as with other genres. Of course later on Hammer followed on in this tradition.

However, despite Universal's approach (which was successful), I think in the end it's rather the audience picking out their horror icons. Barker didn't mean for Pinhead to take on the life he did. He wasn't even called Pinhead (he was just called 'lead Cenobite' in the script) and if I remember correctly from the novella, there he spoke in a high, female-like voice. Yet the audience picked him out, nicknamed him and made him an icon (I must say the fact that he is on the poster may have contributed to this too).
But you can't force these icons on the public, hence Mahogany, the Subway Butcher from Midnight Meat Train (played by Vinnie Jones) didn't become an icon.

And this tradition of picking out horror icons exists also among the people who didn't grow up on Universal or Hammer films, so it's something that's inherent to (at least a significant part of) the audience for horrorfilms. Of course merchandise and further sequels, remakes and reboots play into it, but it's really the audience picking them.
The thing seems to be that if a monstrous or villainous character is charismatic in some way the audience will pick him out and make him their kind of twisted hero. The idea seems to be that it's okay to be bad, or to kill, or to do monstrous things, but you have to do it in a charismatic way and you have to have a charismatic personality. If you have that, what would be bad and criminal and objectionable if done by a plain person, suddenly becomes cool. The horror icons represent a kind of perfected and idealized form of the dark side of the human psyche.

 

[Gerald]

...I have enjoyed everything I have ever read...which is a considerable amount-he blends erotica, horror, comedy and lots of other ingredients well....the only thing I ever took issue with, is he was a bit to English-centric in some of his staging...familiar turf for him, but not to us Colonial Barbarians....

What was your problem with his staging?
What I like about his writing style and what makes it different from other writers is that he originally started out writing plays. Maybe this is what you're referring to?
He seems to always have maintained this playwright approach to his novells, but I don't know if I find it that noticeable because of his staging. It's most apparent to me in his dialogue - he writes his dialogue quite different than most novelists. The dialogue often consists of a lot of short sentences back and forth between characters, which achieves the quality of a play, where dialogue is the main means of dramatization.

If by staging you refer to the way characters move through the storyline and have their entries and exits, I don't find that all that different from other novelists. Although he tends to make his chapters much shorter than most writers, but this is not something that reminds me of a play, which usually consists of a number of longer scenes rather than lots of short ones. Usually his books, even the longer ones, consist of a large amount of short chapters.

 

[GNTLGNT]

What was your problem with his staging?
What I like about his writing style and what makes it different from other writers is that he originally started out writing plays. Maybe this is what you're referring to?
He seems to always have maintained this playwright approach to his novells, but I don't know if I find it that noticeable because of his staging. It's most apparent to me in his dialogue - he writes his dialogue quite different than most novelists. The dialogue often consists of a lot of short sentences back and forth between characters, which achieves the quality of a play, where dialogue is the main means of dramatization.

If by staging you refer to the way characters move through the storyline and have their entries and exits, I don't find that all that different from other novelists. Although he tends to make his chapters much shorter than most writers, but this is not something that reminds me of a play, which usually consists of a number of longer scenes rather than lots of short ones. Usually his books, even the longer ones, consist of a large amount of short chapters.

....I had no problem with his characters or dialogue, having read many English born authors over the years.....hard for me to explain, other than some of the places/phrasing took me a while to assimilate.....that's what I'm referring to....

 

[Gerald]

....I had no problem with his characters or dialogue, having read many English born authors over the years.....hard for me to explain, other than some of the places/phrasing took me a while to assimilate.....that's what I'm referring to....

That's strange, especially if you're used to English born authors. By places you mean, the actual settings?

I've read him mainly in Dutch (apart from his plays, which didn't come out translated here), but I've never had issues with anything, where it took me a lot of time to understand something. He's among the writers that I kind of understand instinctively anyway.

 

[GNTLGNT]

That's strange, especially if you're used to English born authors. By places you mean, the actual settings?

I've read him mainly in Dutch (apart from his plays, which didn't come out translated here), but I've never had issues with anything, where it took me a lot of time to understand something. He's among the writers that I kind of understand instinctively anyway.

....yes, settings would be the best way to describe it.....I managed, just had to work a little harder.....

 

[Gerald]

....yes, settings would be the best way to describe it.....I managed, just had to work a little harder.....

But it surely must be the otherworldly settings rather than those in our world, because it is usually as clear with him as with SK where his stories are set. There are always names of towns and places mentioned, either in Britain, the US, Canada, Eastern Europe etc.

I suppose because of the breadth of his imagination the otherworldly settings can be more challenging to readers. I suppose that is what you mean?

 

[GNTLGNT]

But it surely must be the otherworldly settings rather than those in our world, because it is usually as clear with him as with SK where his stories are set. There are always names of towns and places mentioned, either in Britain, the US. Canada, Eastern Europe etc.

I suppose because of the breadth of his imagination the otherworldly settings can be more challenging to readers. I suppose that is what you mean?

...we'll go with that.....

 

[Gerald]

...we'll go with that.....

I don't know if it's a good comparison, but SK said about Lovecraft 'you get from him, what you bring to him'. Could that be true about Barker too? He requires a strong visual imagination and a willingness from the reader to imagine the most outrageous things. I suppose that's just not for everybody.

For me Lovecraft is pretty much the king of that kind of otherworldly imagination. With many Lovecraft stories I feel like I've actuallly went to another place and I have almost to adjust returning to the real world again. But I suppose that requires a strong imagination on the part of the reader as well - simply not everybody can imagine those kind of things even when a writer is good at describing them very clearly and vividly.

 

[GNTLGNT]

I don't know if it's a good comparison, but SK said about Lovecraft 'you get from him, what you bring to him'. Could that be true about Barker too? He requires a strong visual imagination and a willingness from the reader to imagine the most outrageous things. I suppose that's just not for everybody.

For me Lovecraft is pretty much the king of that kind of otherworldly imagination. With many Lovecraft stories I feel like I've actuallly went to another place and I have almost to adjust returning to the real world again. But I suppose that requires a strong imagination on the part of the reader as well - simply not everybody can imagine those kind of things even when a writer is good at describing them very clearly and vividly.

...well said and it is a good comparison......

 

[Gerald]

...well said and it is a good comparison......

I always felt the popularity of SK has to do with the fact that while his works are fantastical, they still deal with main subjects that are very relatable to people: a bullied girl, a deserted hotel, a car, a dog, a clown, the flu, deceased pets. And they take place mainly in settings that people recognise.
He takes the ordinary and gives it a dark twist, but it always remains relatable to people. Even the Dark Tower which is way more fantastical, still takes place in the familiar setting of a western.
It's like people can go along easier with outrageous, fantastical ideas when it has a familiar element to it for them.

 

[Neesy]

I always felt the popularity of SK has to do with the fact that while his works are fantastical, they still deal with main subjects that are very relatable to people: a bullied girl, a deserted hotel, a car, a dog, a clown, the flu, deceased pets. And they take place mainly in settings that people recognise.
He takes the ordinary and gives it a dark twist, but it always remains relatable to people. Even the Dark Tower which is way more fantastical, still takes place in the familiar setting of a western.
It's like people can go along easier with outrageous, fantastical ideas when it has a familiar element to it for them.

Like time travel in 11/22/63, aliens in the Tommyknockers or telekinesis or psychic phenomena in Carrie or the Dead Zone.

I even liked the weirdness that was in Rose Madder and Lisey's story plus I did not mind the ending of Revival, even though that was a very dark book.

 

[Gerald]

And still, writers like Barker and especially Lovecraft give you a strong sense of time and place. In a Lovecraft story, no matter how strange the environment, you usually know exactly where the character is and what the setting looks like (what a lot of Lovecraft stories consist of is a character trying to describe as accurately as possible what's happening to him). That's probably also why he is quite often adapted to videogames and his stories work quite well as videogames. Actually, when I read some of his work back after having played many videogames, it almost feels like a videogame at times.

Now, whether you can imagine Lovecraft's monsters is another matter, but he usually gives a glimpse of the monster rather than showing it in full, so that's what SK probably means with 'you get from him, what you bring to him' - if your imagination is not that strong the monster won't be very scary.

 

[Gerald]

Like time travel in 11/22/63, aliens in the Tommyknockers or telekinesis or psychic phenomena in Carrie or the Dead Zone. .

I would say these are the twists he gives to the ordinary, rather than the ordinary itself. Indeed there have been so many stories and films about time travel, aliens or psychic phenomena that they seem familiar, still few people (if any at all) have experienced them for real.
What makes it relatable is that it happens to ordinary people in recognisable settings.

I think if there is no human element to a story people won't relate to it. All of the stories about strange and unexplained phenomena and events, are about those phenomena and events in relation to human beings. A story about an alien that thinks and acts completely unlike humans would probably not appeal to anybody - sooner or later it has to have an element of familiarity to it to appeal to people.

 

[GNTLGNT]

I always felt the popularity of SK has to do with the fact that while his works are fantastical, they still deal with main subjects that are very relatable to people: a bullied girl, a deserted hotel, a car, a dog, a clown, the flu, deceased pets. And they take place mainly in settings that people recognise.
He takes the ordinary and gives it a dark twist, but it always remains relatable to people. Even the Dark Tower which is way more fantastical, still takes place in the familiar setting of a western.
It's like people can go along easier with outrageous, fantastical ideas when it has a familiar element to it for them.

....exactly!....well written.........