Home » Discussion Forums » Blog Post Discussion » Deerskin
| Deerskin [message #42780] |
Tue, 21 June 2011 20:03  |
|
Deerskin
Smooshes!
|
|
|
| Re: Deerskin [message #42783 is a reply to message #42780 ] |
Tue, 21 June 2011 22:39  |
 |
 Krystolla
Messages: 80
Registered: October 2008
Location: Columbus Ohio |
Member |
|
|
I'm a horror wimp too, though I've read a few. Usually, accidentally stumbled upon, followed by a few weeks of reading nothing but "my dog is awesome" stories to reset my brain.
The book that really creeped me out was "House of Leaves", which I still haven't finished. No rape or murder or torture (as far in as I got), but walls moving in the house were enough that I had to put it down. (I'll go back to it someday, maybe.)
IMHO, you could write a horror story about watching someone eat a taco, it's all in the presentation.
Personally, I don't think Sunshine or Deerskin presented as horror stories. They were all about recovering from the terror, not about how terrible the terror was -- adrenaline rush and panic. Horror stories don't cover much of the recovering part (the zombies are re-dead, now what?).
If you're going through hell, keep going. -- Winston Churchill
|
|
|
| Re: Deerskin [message #42784 is a reply to message #42780 ] |
Tue, 21 June 2011 22:50 |
AnguaLupin
Messages: 11
Registered: May 2011 |
Junior Member |
|
|
| Quote: |
The line between fairy tales and horror for me—and for a number of you who have posted or commented or tweeted to this effect—is that fairy tales tend to be about working through your traumas, your horrors, your fears, your great big insurmountable obstacles.
|
As a rape survivor, it's this that keeps me coming back to Deerskin. My husband, who has supported me through so much of the recovery process, has asked me several times why I've read a book that features a rape so prominently so many times that the cover fell off; my response has always been that Deerskin is not about rape, it's about healing. Lissar survives and learns that there is more to life than simply survival; she emerges at the end as someone who is strong enough to move forward with her life, which I think is the ultimate goal for all rape survivors.
I'll admit I find it baffling that the rape in Deerskin would tip it over the line into "horror" for some people, especially because that certainly doesn't seem to be true for other fantasy books that involve rape -- I was actually discussing, earlier today, the prevalence of rape in GRR Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series, a series which I am not overly fond of. Martin uses rape as an atmosphere builder to create the "realistic" world he is trying to portray, a trope which is not at all uncommon among fantasy writers trying for "realism", and I've never heard that anyone tries to recategorize Game of Thrones or similar novels as "horror". I'm not exactly sure where the double standard between ASoIaF et al. and Deerskin lies, but it's there somewhere.
|
|
|
| Re: Deerskin [message #42785 is a reply to message #42780 ] |
Tue, 21 June 2011 22:54 |
hearthrose
Messages: 27
Registered: September 2009
Location: SoCal |
Junior Member |
|
|
While I never particularly thought of Deerskin as "horror", I must politely disagree that "horror isn't something you deal with in real life".
The most un-re-readable book I have is the third in the CS Lewis "fantasy" series, which is un-re-readable not because I do not LIKE the characters, the author, or the side action, but because the central line of plot sends me screaming "don't do that!" "Don't go in that room" "Nooo!!!". No axe murdering involved, the very slight gore could be easily played on American TV during prime time. But the horror! Egads. And it's not the fantasy bits that are horrible, it's the dreadful character-ruining decisions and sheer evil that frighten me. (I think the second book is quite scary too, but it's not horror IMO because the protagonist is fighting back the whole time, not slowly oozing into complicity).
Then again, I stay away from the horror shelves, they don't do much for me.
|
|
|
| Re: Deerskin [message #42786 is a reply to message #42785 ] |
Tue, 21 June 2011 23:12 |
 |
blondviolinist
Messages: 1070
Registered: October 2008
Location: Midwestern United States |
Senior Member |
|
|
| hearthrose wrote on Tue, 21 June 2011 22:54 |
The most un-re-readable book I have is the third in the CS Lewis "fantasy" series, which is un-re-readable not because I do not LIKE the characters, the author, or the side action, but because the central line of plot sends me screaming "don't do that!" "Don't go in that room" "Nooo!!!". No axe murdering involved, the very slight gore could be easily played on American TV during prime time. But the horror! Egads. And it's not the fantasy bits that are horrible, it's the dreadful character-ruining decisions and sheer evil that frighten me.
|
::shudder:: I do re-read that book on a fairly regular basis, but I'm completely with you on the horror aspects of that book. (Though I would say the book ends with a great deal of gore. The Banquet at Belbury chapter gives me the heebie jeebies if I think about it too much.)
The forum ate my reply to last night's blog, which is probably ok, since what little I had to say was said better by other forum members. I don't perceive Deerskin and Sunshine as horror books, but then I stay far away from horror books, so what do I know. (I had to give up on Garth Nix's admittedly excellent Abhorsen novels because I couldn't take the zombies. I'm a wimp, and I'm ok with that.)
"Purity of heart is to will one thing." Kirkegaard
|
|
| | |
| Re: Deerskin [message #42790 is a reply to message #42780 ] |
Wed, 22 June 2011 00:25 |
 |
basipayna
Messages: 6
Registered: March 2011
Location: Georgia |
Junior Member |
|
|
Oh, goodness. I too do not think Deerskin is horror. I have read enough horror, though I'm not a big fan of it, and Deerskin just doesn't have that flavor. It is difficult and horrible, but it's also very much about healing and indeed horror rarely has that aspect. As Robin said, it is a very real book and I agree with her statement that horror has a distinct artificiality to it.
Deerskin was my first McKinley book, and I'm a bit of a wimp too. If I thought it was too much like horror I probably never would have read any of her other books. The realness of the story drew me in, and is part of what makes it such a great book. It's horrible, yes, difficult, yes, and maybe even scary, but it's just not horror. I think the healing and the journey are far more important aspects to the story than anything else. And the dogs, but I'm a softie for dogs in stories. I just loved Ash and the puppies.
|
|
|
| Re: Deerskin [message #42791 is a reply to message #42780 ] |
Wed, 22 June 2011 02:17 |
 |
falwyn
Messages: 4
Registered: October 2008
Location: Southwest Desert, USA |
Junior Member |
|
|
I wonder whether the tweet that Robin was originally responding to was more meaning that "if she can write about something so horrible as rape [and in such a vivid and upsetting way] then why would she be unable to read horror books." But even then, I think it does come down to the purpose of the fiction. Stephen King talks about horror in the book Danse Macabre better than I can, certainly, but it seems like in the "horror genre," the purpose is to be horrified, to horrify (or creep out, or terrify, or gross-out, King has a quote about those levels). It seems like if you love to read horror, you are looking for that emotional reaction (maybe not just for the sake of the horror itself, but for the catharsis/relief afterward), and even though other books, many other books, including Deerskin, may include horrible things, it is not the main response evoked in the reader, and certainly not *meant* to be the main response evoked in the reader.
All that to basically say, I agree with HorsehairBraider, a "regular" horror fan would feel cheated in picking up Deerskin, if it were shelved with horror, if they were expecting it to be a horror novel.
Now Sunshine... Sunshine deals with vampires, which are of course classical horror monsters, but again, I'm not sure it would be right to shelve it with the horror novels. More right than Deerskin, but still... not really right. Stupid labels. 
|
|
| | |
| Re: Deerskin [message #42795 is a reply to message #42780 ] |
Wed, 22 June 2011 06:02 |
 |
shalea
Messages: 781
Registered: October 2008
Location: Raleigh, North Carolina, ... |
Senior Member |
|
|
My gut reaction is that of course Deerskin is not horror, but I was having a hard time pinning down my reasons.
But then I read a couple of people state that there's a difference between "horror" and horrible, and from there I've arrived at the following:
Horror as a genre is, in my opinion, the modern ghost story. Maybe it's not about ghosts, but it's about the intrusion of horror into everyday, normal life and intends to instill a fear that the listener/reader could actually encounter the object/situation. Which is why some of us leave the light on afterwards or read non-horror for weeks to regroup.
Fairy tales (and modern "dark fantasy") are not horror because the fantastic setting allows the reader to distance themselves. They might still be drawn into the world of the story and scared, but they come back to the real world after and so the fear is not personal. (This is, incidentally, where I would - if pressed - categorize Sunshine.)
Deerskin is neither of these things. It may be shocking and it may wake the echoes of a personal trauma, but the intent is obviously not to inspire a fear that we might experience that trauma again. The intent is obviously (to me anyway) that the character suffers this trauma, but this is what happens next.
|
|
|
| Re: Deerskin [message #42797 is a reply to message #42780 ] |
Wed, 22 June 2011 12:56 |
 |
Angelia
Messages: 389
Registered: October 2008
Location: Southwest Missouri, USA |
Senior Member |
|
|
I don't consider horror a genre. There are very scary fantasy books and very scary realistic books. I like very scary books, but I prefer the fantasy type (Dracula, Frankenstein, etc.).
Deerskin is my favorite McKinley book, and while parts of it may be scary, that isn't the point of the book. The point is the story and the healing of the character from a very scary world she was forced to live in for a while.
I realize that booksellers use the labels to organize their stores, but they often get in the way. Another of my favorite authors is Jonathan Carroll, but to try to tell someone where to find him in a bookstore is nearly impossible (horror, fantasy, magical realism???). I recently had trouble finding Shirley Jackson in the bookstore--she is spread all over the place!
|
|
| |
| Re: Deerskin [message #42810 is a reply to message #42780 ] |
Thu, 23 June 2011 01:45 |
 |
danceswithpahis
Messages: 380
Registered: October 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
| Quote: |
But the horror of DEERSKIN is the rape. The rest of it is straightforward fantasy. There are no zombies or vampires, and the toro is just a great big animal. And rape is real. I hate the idea—and let me reiterate I’m not saying DEERSKIN’s readers do this††, only that this is my reaction to the suggestion that DEERSKIN might be classified as horror—that anyone reading it could, as it were, get out of it by putting it in their minds with the zombies and the vampires. Rape is real.
|
Absolutely. I'm reading through the "Wicked Lovely" series now since you mentioned these recently, and I noticed when I was reading the second book that I can cope with all manner of things that the Dark King does or the actions his people much better than I can cope with Leslie's brother. I can't say for sure whether the world of Faery exists in a real way outside of our imaginations; I can say for sure that people like Leslie's brother DO, and that's much worse. And it can't just be written off like dark faeries can. Not that the actions of the Dark King are so much better, because at times, to be honest, he does things that are much worse. But we don't see it onstage, so to speak, and we see him actually caring about someone. Leslie's brother, not so much.
"Oh good! My dog found the chainsaw!"
-- Lilo ("Lilo and Stitch")
|
|
|
| Re: Deerskin [message #42819 is a reply to message #42780 ] |
Thu, 23 June 2011 11:54 |
BurgandyIce
Messages: 73
Registered: May 2010
Location: Damascus |
Member |
|
|
†† Although . . . I’ve told you before that I still get hate mail for DEERSKIN. Rape is an ‘unsuitable’ subject and I have betrayed my audience, etc. This is some of where the violence of my loathing for genre labels comes from—genre as a form of cheap safety^—and for the kneejerk labelling of, in this case, me, as someone who, since she wrote BEAUTY, will always and only ever write books like BEAUTY for the rest of my working career. Uh. No. And I’ve told you I get a fair amount of . . . if not quite hate mail then abusive mail . . . about SUNSHINE. They don’t like my morals and they don’t like my language.^^ Blah blah blah blah blah.
I guess this bothers me enough to complain. I read Beauty when I was younger and totally fell in love with your writing. I devoured many of your books immediately, but I have enough brains to do a little research before diving into things willy-nilly and I read that Sunshine & Deerskin were "adult" and I knew I could read and couldn't (rather wanted to and didn't) and I WAITED.
It's relevant to admit that I paused in a moment of panic while reading Sunshine the first time to remember YOU had written the book and I could HOPE Rae would come out alive - even triumphant! - at the end. Because you don't throw your main characters to sudden deaths. Which I really appreciate, living fully in the character while I read it. Which "horror" might actually do.
So hate mail seems wrong to me, like someone didn't take responsibility for their own actions and wrong assumptions. I don't suppose you can tell "them" that, though.
[Updated on: Thu, 23 June 2011 11:56]
|
|
| | | | | |
| Re: Deerskin [message #42853 is a reply to message #42780 ] |
Fri, 24 June 2011 11:36 |
|
*grin*
It's also worth reading the start of the blog entry that FOLLOWED that one, and imagining the consternation that ensued at Robin's publishers (I have a lovely mental image of several marketing people sitting there going :-
"YOU email her"
"No! YOU do it!"
"No, you..."
"Okay - Rock, paper, scissors.....")
Don't worry about the dust bunnies, they're just here to guard the treasure.....
|
|
|
| Re: Deerskin [message #42870 is a reply to message #42780 ] |
Fri, 24 June 2011 22:27 |
mick
Messages: 2
Registered: April 2011
Location: United States |
Junior Member |
|
|
Well answered, Madam McKinley!
As a rape survivor myself, I find it kind of appalling to think of Deerskin as horror *because* of the rape scene. Certainly it's an appalling thing to undergo, but not *horror*, like many other authors. I like the book because it is about growth, which horror rarely includes.
As for Sunshine, it never even occurred to me that this might be horror. Vampires certainly do appear on the horror shelves with remarkable regularity, but the they are thankfully breaking free of that stigma...though I still find myself compelled to point those who are wading through 4 gigantic books of why-vampires-now-appeal-to-us to Sunshine instead, and am overjoyed to have found some converts.
|
|
|
| |
  |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu May 23 10:05:40 EDT 2013
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.16337 seconds |
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
