Hi! I think that we certainly know that the hero of the poem was in conflict with that creature. If the matter was ordinary, then it wouldn't be written. Why should he write a large poem expressing his thoughts and feelings if there wasn't a unique, strong and debatable thing behind it. Its obvious that the raven, according to the poem, didn't want to leave his room for a certain reason; it was in a big psychological conflict with the hero of the poem, that may turn physical. As if of a spiritual power that kept the raven glued to his place, paralyzing the heroes movements. We conclude that Poe's "raven" was not the ordinary raven that you've talked about. Besides, If you don't like the great writer Poe, then its a matter of taste, but that doesn't deny that millions of great experienced writers around the world, do consider him as one of the greatest writers of all time. I join them with this. Again everyone has the freedom to like a certain person or not. It's a matter of personal taste, and there is no problem in it.
The psychological conflict the narrator of 'The Raven' has is with himself. That's the whole point, the raven in the poem doesn't do anything beside watch the narrator talk at it, it's a way for the narrator to vicariously search his soul. Notice that the poem relates the raven all these demonic qualities while at the same time showing these qualities are just what the narrator is projecting onto the bird. 'Tell me what thy lordly name is on the night's Plutonion shore'. It's an allusion to Virgil and the river Styx, while also pointing out later in the poem that the bird might have had a 'master' to who 'unmerciful disaster' lead him to teach the bird such a melancholic word. Obviously the bird is not a lord or a subordinate at the same time, it's a bird - what it represents is entirely different. Remember what the narrator is doing before the raven shows up, he's sitting in a chair reading arcane literature, heart-broken for his lost lover. Obviously, whatever he was reading wasn't doing anything for him. The raven gives him something, but it's still a raven, as well as a symbol. In poetry this must always be kept in mind. Also, I said I like Poe. I just don't think he's one of the greatest writers ever. Placing Poe on the same level as Homer, Virgil and Milton is something I just can't do.
Again, if you don't want to place him among the greatest writers in the world, that's a matter of taste. As to others he is. Again, no problem. As for the analysis, Poe mentions the following sentence, "there stepped a stately Raven of the saintly days of yore" this indicates that the raven was not an ordinary one. According to mythology, pluto was the Roman God of the underworld. It is obvious that raven was answering the hero of the poem after the latter was finishing his questions, or words. Besides what would let the hero say at the end: "And his eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming, And the lamp-light o'er him streaming throws his shadow on the floor; And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor Shall be lifted - nevermore! if raven was as the one you've described?! Here the hero describes the creature as not as an ordinary one. And as for the sentence that says: that his soul was lifted nevermore. we conclude that there was a spiritual power that hindered the hero from lifting his soul. HE COULDN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THE RAVEN; HE COULDN'T GET HIM OUT . Furthermore, how could a reader feel the horror if doesn't seek it, in any of it's forms or types. The raven, ladies and gentlemen, represented a living soul that the hero was ion conflict with. The narrator, from the beginning explains that he was in front of an unnatural phenomena. Now, How deeply he was involved in its meaning interpreting it, that's something else, but as described, it was a new thing to him, certainly, a strange phenomena. Now, this is our explanation regarding the matter, and we respect all others explanations. The poem is great. We love it.
Again, the raven is just a bird. It displays all the characteristics of a normal bird, and doesn't do anything extra-ordinary or supernatural. What it represents, and how it is handled in the poem is separate from what it is. Poetry is far more complex than that. The raven could be interpreted to be a psychopomp, but it is also just a bird. It's important in poetry to remember the difference between what something is and what something does as a metaphor. I had pointed out that the bird is described in demonic terms, but that is the narrator projecting onto it - again as I said. This is why the poem is in the first person narration. It's a technique called 'Unreliable narrator'. If you want to believe the raven has a spiritual power then that's fine, shows that the poem is a good one, but it is also a raven that behaves and acts in a way a normal raven would. It can say one word, can answer a 'call', and can sit on a bust of a Greek god and watch a fool shout at it from the advantage of a safe height. These are all very normal habits of a bird, especally a raven. And the poem does not need to be read with any utterly overt supernatural reading, Poe was better than that.
That's your point of you regarding this great poem. And I said other people may look at it from a different perspective. But, this there is a spiritual moral behind it. Spiritual MORAL, spiritual events that are above the normal beings' understandings, that are represented by great talented words from the heart of art and reality. WE took it from that perspective. We respect your opinion, and your thread. we guess that that we've moved away from the subject of the thread. God bless you all.
I think horror is just as difficult, if not more, than humor. Blatty's The Exorcist will probably remain the scariest book of all time in my opinion. However, if you do not find demonic stuff scary, you will inevitably disagree with me. Much like the movies Airplane and Holy Grail; I come from a long line of smart-asses and don't find Woody Allen funny at all.
Going back to the question you've asked ... I would also suggest picking up a few volumes of Best New Horror edited by Stephen Jones. This will give you a good view of what is going on in the field now, be it commercially as well as small press. There's some mighty fine writers in these volumes, from your Kings to your Campbells to your Gaimans, but more often it's your unknowns who provide the biggest surprises in these collections.
There's also Richard Matheson, his I am Legend is a very clever and witty novella that pretty much started the whole 'Zombie' thing. Yes, I'm aware I am Legend is about vampires, but George A. Romero admitted for Night of the Living Dead he ripped Matheson off. A lot of people do not get the humor in the novel either, which is a shame, because it's there - it's dark, and only comes when it's needed, but it is there. Actually, I can vouch for a lot of Matheson. He's pretty good.
Yeah, I Am Legend is a classic one in the genre, regarded by some corners as the book that started the modern horror. I'd agree with that one. (Though I think you've got Stephen King on the brain! Richard Bachman is King's pseudonym; Richard Matheson is the one to blame for I Am Legend!)
Haha! I didn't notice that. I guess I do have King on the brain, I've just read one of his short stories. Yeah, I mean Richard Matheson. (Now I've seriously looked at the word 'Matheson' it just looks so weird to me right now :/)
Very interesting thread. I think will give a try to Clive Baker. Personally, I read few novels of H.P. Lovecraft and I would recommend it. The texts were very visual and also pretty original. I always complain about horror stories setting their plot on catholic belief. Anyway, I always wonder if the famous Necronomicon of H.P. Lovecraft really worth it. Someone has read it?
If you mean the mammoth collection of his works published by Gollanz, get it - seriously, it's a great collection, as is the companion piece. If you mean the Simon Necronomicon, no, it's bollocks.
I just read 'The Haunting of Hill House' by Shirley Jackson and-- Wow. If you want, horror, terror, and a healthy dose of Possession you need to check out that one. It's incredibly well-written, and Stephen King called it one of the most important horror novels of the twentieth century.
I chuckled when I read The Shining. Lost as to how that is frightening. I have never been particularly scared by a book, as I have a tendency to dissect what I read. If a line is passed off that is not to my liking, it detracts from my experience and I am no longer in the rhythm of the book. If I do not like the writing, it does not affect me. Stephen King I have simply found to be boring in many cases. The most tension I have felt in a novel was the last thirty pages of Lord of The Flies, and even before all goes wrong, tension slowly ramps up, and you feel it doing so. The closest I have ever been to horror. The Exorcist, well, that is one I do truly loathe.
Some of Stephen King's best are short stories (Apt Pupil) - check out the collection Different Seasons. Other suggestions: Demonica by Will Davis - a short(ish) story. Meat by Ian Watson. Nemesis by Shaun Hutson. Anything by James Herbert. Hope that helps
I guess I had picked it up as horror. Stand by me (forget the novella title) was just standard old school King with a bunch of kids on a journey of discovery (I remember It being my favourite of his novels as a kid for the same reason), this was the strongest story for me by a country mile. There was the decapitation one which just appealed to my horror sensibilities, and Apt Pupil as a kid had some forbidden fruit feel about it. I remember finding Shawshank a little tedious. As I say I was pretty young though, and Shawshank is one of my favourite films of all time.
'The Body' the novella of Stand By Me was called. 'Breathing Method' was a weird little surprise for me, I didn't know anything about it going in to it, like I did with the other two, and I enjoyed it. It was slightly (rather) pretentious though.
