Monthly Newsletter #1 January 2017

Hello, horror freaks! If you are reading this, then you are reading the inaugural monthly Robert Essig horror author newsletter. No, I'm not asking for your email address or anything - not yet at least. I'm going to kick off this newsletter here on my blog/website. Down the road, if demand merits, I will offer an email newsletter. You can expect to find info on new and forthcoming releases, a suggested book title that I have recently read, maybe a pic of recent thrift store book finds, and who knows what else. I'm sure it will take a few newsletters to dial in exactly how I want to format the letter. So, here you go. Enjoy!




News

The big January news is that my next novella BROTHERS IN BLOOD is scheduled to be released as an ebook from Grand Mal Press. The release date hasn't been set yet, but the novella is being edited. I will be updating as the publication date grows nearer. I'll say this: BROTHERS IN BLOOD is kind of like HG Lewis's GRUESOME TWOSOME meets Rex Miller's SLOB.



If you would like to know where the title for this novella came from, well, I was struggling to find something catchy. My working title sucked, whatever it was. At the time, I was listening to Anthrax's Persistence of Time album a lot at work. "Blood" is one of my favorite tracks off the album. I was thinking about the story one day and the chorus just seemed to pop. I had my title.



 Cool Read

Last month a I read I WILL ROT WITHOUT YOU by Danger Slater. I had heard an interview with Danger on the Bizzong! podcast, which piqued my interest. On top of that, there has been some buzz about the novel. I really didn't know what to expect since I'm not inclined to read much bizarro, but

the interview and the buzz sold me. I WILL ROT WITHOUT YOU is surreal and intense, and Danger has a way with words that is inspiring. His style is psycho poetic, gripping, and wild. There were moments when the story went so far off the rails of sanity that my interest wavered, but, like certain Richard Laymon novels, I couldn't stop reading no matter how preposterous the plot seemed. If you're into bizarro, this one is a no-brainer. If you like the weird and unusual, give it a shot.



Featured Fiction

In December my story "Hank R. Chief" was published at DarkFuse.com as Horror D'oeuvre #61. This piece of flash fiction is an intimate look at an unusual murderer fixated on a certain aspect of the kill. I mean, what can I say about a five hundred word story without giving it away? If you are a subscriber, follow the link and you can read this story, as well as "Inflatable War", which was published in 2015. If you aren't a subscriber, consider it. DarkFuse provides new fiction weekly. It's well worth the price of admission.


Thrift Store Finds

I'm big on going to thrift stores, primarily looking for books and music. It's kind of an addiction, but I'm no hoarder. I do need a larger book shelf, though. Here are a few pics of some recent finds.

 










Closing Words

So there you have it. You've survived my debut news letter. Feedback is always appreciated. I would like to hear what you think I'm doing right or wrong, what you love or hate about the newsletter. Like I said in the intro, I will be making adjustments in the coming months. This is kind of an experiment, really. I hope you tune in for the February installment. Thanks for perusing!

The Last Horror Fan to Watch It Follows?

I'm late to the party, which isn't unusual for me, but I finally watched It Follows, and what follows are my thoughts on the film and some examination of the themes. There are spoilers aplenty, so if you haven't yet watched this fine film, refrain from reading on (and do yourself a favor--watch It Follows!).

I like to go into a movie with no expectations. I prefer not to see the trailer, read any reviews, or even look at the synopsis if I can help it. Not such an easy thing to do with people posting their thoughts on Facebook and Twitter and whatnot. I've learned the fine art of ignoring (which, consequently, is also great for cat memes and political nonsense). That being said, I had seen a lot of posts about how good It Follows was, but I didn't read about the film any further than that.

A few days ago my wife and I watched It Follows and we loved it, plain and simple. Better than Babadook, Cabin in the Woods, all the gross-out horror films from the past decade and just about anything I've watched in recent years. That's my opinion. You may disagree.

There's so much to like about It Follows. Like any great horror film, you're pulled into the plot right from the get-go and the movie doesn't let up until it's done with you. The credits roll and you're thinking, shit, that was crazy. I was left thinking that I'd finally seen something new that made me feel what I'd felt after watching horror films when I was a kid, what made me fall in love with the genre. Even movies I've enjoyed in the past decade or so leave little impression. Yeah, Strangers was good, but I don't remember a damn thing about the plot. Was that the one with people terrorizing a couple in a house? Were the killers wearing masks? Was it that one? Yeah, I liked Sinister, but I don't really remember the plot. Was that the one with the people who hanged themselves in a tree in the backyard? Does it have something to do with reel to reel film? I can't remember, because the impressions were so faint. It Follows, however, left a fucking pothole on my mind, and that's a damn good feeling. That's what great art is all about.

I found myself thinking about It Follows while at work the day after watching it. I have so many questions about so many elements of the story that weren't tied up and pretty like a Christmas present. And I like that. Why should all the elements be so neat? Life isn't neat? We die with things unwrapped, undone, unfinished, so why should a movie have to be so goddamned neat? The other night over drinks my wife and I had a great discussion on the film and we came up with some interesting speculation on potential themes.

To put it in a nutshell, so to speak, It Follows is a metaphor for sexually transmitted disease. I don't know that the writer took that into consideration while dreaming up this idea (it did originate from a dream, but I'll get into that later), but it's fairly obvious when you think about it. The person being followed can only stop the thing from following by having sex with another person who then carries the burden of being the one followed; however, if the current person being followed is killed by the follower, the follower goes after that last person and will continue down the line, killing all who have been infected. There's no beginning, no one knows where this thing comes from or why, it's just there, and it can only be transmitted through sex. And it will find you no matter where you run to. It's worse than AIDS. Kind of makes you wonder if wearing a condom would prevent it from being passed along.

Another element of the story that intrigued me was the time frame. My wife and I were both confused as to what decade this film was supposed to be in. I assumed, while we were watching, that it was intentionally filmed to have no recognizable era, kind of like Donnie Darko and Blue Velvet. It's a method that can be jarring at times, but also charming. My wife did a quick search and found out that the director purposely blended generations to give the film an ambiguous, dreamy sort of feel. You watch and wonder why the car is an old station wagon, why the characters are always watching black and white sci-fi movies on an old television, and what kind of reading device the one girl has that is shaped like a sea shell compact (the director said that he was inspired to create the so-called shell phone from a shell shaped makeup compact that was popular in the fifties). The director also said that the idea was inspired by recurring dreams of random people following him for no apparent reason. He wanted to preserve that dream-like theme and general ambiguity of the villain by creating a familiar world that doesn't really exist, and I think he achieved that. Well done!

There's also an element of paranoia at play, which is best shown in the character who passes on the, for lack of better term, disease in the beginning of the film. When the afflicted girl tracks him down, he's shifty and frightened about everyone around him. That's the beauty of the bizarre permutation that stalks the infected. You never know who it is and you have to assume it can be anybody. This element of the story creates a sort of viewer paranoia. I found myself watching the background and wondering, is that the follower? Is that? By the end you're kind of mentally exhausted, but in the best possible way.

I used to have quite a collection of horror movies on VHS. I still have a lot of them, but my collection has been thinned out over the years. I still have a VCR and I still watch movies on it. I will until it breaks. That's just the way I am. I love old horror films. I'm a sucker for sixties and seventies horror film, but don't discriminate the good ones from any generation. That being said, as I get older, I like what I see much less. As I mentioned above, most of the films I've seen in the past decade are ultimately forgettable, even the good ones, and I certainly don't get that feeling I used to get that causes me to want to buy a movie and watch it over and over again. Part of this is due to getting older and having a shit-load of responsibility that prevents me from sitting on my ass and watching old movies all night, but it also has to do with lost interest.

I'm going to buy It Follows. It will be the first modern horror film I've bought in a loooong time, but hopefully not the last.

-Robert

How I Got Into Horror--Origins of a Disciplined Madman

Some people think that horror authors are nestled at the bottom of the literary barrel with the discarded bones, residual muck and furry mold. People who don't "get it" often ask: "Why horror?" as if we have a choice. Like maybe we woke up one day and said to ourselves, "You know, maybe I should write something. What genre should I choose? Hmmm... I know! I'll write horror."

Nope. Doesn't work that way. Not for me, and not for most authors in our field. It's a passion that, for many of us, started when we were youngins. Some authors dabble in many genres, but many of us who write horror have no choice. I've started so many dramatic stories with the intention to stay away from the gruesome stuff and every time, by the end of the story, someone died, blood was shed, or it became horrific in one way or the other. It's in my DNA.

So how does one get into horror? I blame Fangoria and my good friend Jon, both of which were catalysts for what became my passion for horror and the macabre. Also, good ol' video stores. I didn't get into reading until I read Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery" in Jr. high, but I was a fan of horror long before that.

On the playground at school my buddy Jon would tell me about Freddy Kruger. He'd seen several of the Nightmare on Elm Street movies and he would tell me all about them. It would be a while before I saw A Nightmare on Elm Street, but I couldn't wait. Back in those days my mother would pick me up from after school day care and sometimes stop by the market on the way home. I hovered over the magazine rack while she shopped, face planted firmly in the latest issue of Fangoria. I went home with horrors in my head, bouncing around the ethers of my mind. Sometimes after dinner I would go out in the backyard and wander around, thinking about the gruesome stuff I'd seen in Fangoria, making up my own stories for Freddy and Leatherface.

Little did I know, that at that young age, I was creating. Yes, the stories in my mind were "fan fiction" based on characters of which I had never actually seen on screen, but they were stories nonetheless. My mind was something I used a lot, being an only child. I came up with all kinds of stories, some of which I have actually written all these years later.

As a young teen I pretty much rented every movie in the horror section at our several video stores along 2nd Street. Favorites included Hellraiser, Dead Alive, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Evil Dead, Halloween, The Toxic Avenger and many others. I watched all the sequels, the crappy direct to video releases and even the older cult classics, which eventually became my preference. I'm a sucker for sixties and seventies horror cinema.

Once I discovered the written word via Shirley Jackson, HP Lovecraft, Stephen King and Clive Barker, I was hooked. What once was a cinematic gorehound had quickly become a voracious reader. I only wish there had been someone there to lead me to some authors other than the bestsellers. I wish I'd been a more diverse reader back then. But that's another subject for another blog post.

Those are my horror origins condensed into a few paragraphs.

Mother's Day (2010)

Just saw this flick last night. Back in 2009 or so when I heard they were remaking the goofy classic I was a bit off put, as I usually am when it comes to remakes. They're rarely any good, usually quite shitty, and often a complete waste of time. Like the remake of such similarly themed classics as Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Hills Have Eyes, and Last House on the Left, my guess is that the producers wanted to bring this story to a generation that may not have rented Mother's Day at their local video store that way I did when I was a youngin. Of the aforementioned films (all of which I am a huge fan of the originals), Mother's Day was probably my least favorite. I always liked that film, but it is pretty kitschy.

Going into the 2010 version of Mother's Day I was a apprehensive. I think we missed the first five or ten minutes (we certainly missed the credits sequence) so I was already confused since the story didn't really match the story in the original about three girls going on a annual trip and being ambushed in the woods. No, it wasn't anything like that, and the story was better for it. In fact their were so many changes that, at first, I thought they'd have been better off making it an original film, but as I watched and became engrossed in this brutal horror film I realized that, for a change, this one was spot on.

The plot was not only updated, but more believable and intense than the original, which was off-key and even silly at times, more of a black-comedy-horror. That they took the idea of a mother who rules her psycho family with an iron fist and made it into a terrifying and violent horror film was brilliant. This is what I want to see in a remake. It didn't feel like they were remaking the film just to cash in on the name (I mean can you really cash in on a cult film title like Mother's Day? Don't think so.) In the world of remakes and do-overs, this one was not only justified (unlike such terrible remakes as Psycho, the Haunting, and A Nightmare on Elm Street, all of which should have been left the fuck alone), but done quite well. Yes, I like the original, but just a day after watching this psychotic display of brutality, I want to watch it again. Coming from me, that's a pretty big compliment for any horror film this day in age, much less a remake. I'm very opinionated and not a big fan of modern horror film, preferring more classic horror films of the early eighties and older (not that there weren't great horror films in the 90's or 00', but they're getting worse as time goes on).

I highly recommend this to any fan of horror and even fans of the original. I give it a solid 5/5 stars.