Post by Vaughan on Aug 7, 2009 15:02:06 GMT
What in the world can you say about a novel such as Rats? It’s iconic, a defining moment, a modern classic of horror literature. As such it’s been pawed over, nibbled at, and devoured by millions of people. Rats – the novel - it seems, is impervious to poison, traps, the warbling sound of dissent, and the gaseous moaning of critics. Rats just IS.
So maybe I shouldn’t be writing anything about Rats. What exactly is the point? We all know its reputation, and most of us have read it so know what’s in it. A plot synopsis is redundant for a start.
Which is probably the worse way to begin a review, as such, because I’m holding my hands up right away and stating that I have no amazing insight into the novel, I have no unique feelings about it, you’ll learn nothing here and can probably skip over these remarks without a feeling a loss. Oh well.
But I’m writing anyway, because if nothing else Rats is worthy of at least a mention. You know?
The Rats is a short novel, just 187 pages long. It was first published in 1974, and has had many reprints since (with the cover art getting worse and worse as time went on). Let’s face it, The Rats will ALWAYS been in print. It’s part of a literary history that transcends the horror genre. It’s the kind of book that people who don’t usually read horror books know about, even if only by word of mouth.
And why would that be? Perhaps it’s because it was genre breaking. Perhaps it was because it set a formula in place that was copied without shame? Perhaps it was because, ingeniously, rats are an animal that makes everybody curl up.
I’ve read quite a bit about how genre breaking the book was, setting a new formula in motion. It’s undeniable really, if you read other “animal attack” novels then you’ll well know how familiar things become. However, to be honest, I do feel that there is a slight amount of untruth involved. Animal attack has long been a staple of the movies, for instance; All the way back to Nosferatu (F.W. Murnau, 1922) where rats, and plague, played a key role in frights and scares – animals have been terrorizing people and the world we live in. Add in the 50’s cycle of giant monster movies (Ants, Spiders, forest critters, dinosaurs, scorpions) and the idea of nature running amok could hardly have been called new in 1974.
Original? No. Yet The Rats is important. And most of all, it’s entertaining. In fact, it’s such a fun read, once you’ve read it once, another go around wouldn’t be amiss.
Is it perfect? Well, no. There are a couple of things that occurred to me during my recent re-read. Firstly, there are two characters that are singled out for extended biographies. One is a homeless lady, the other an under-secretary for the government. I’ve read comments elsewhere that have applauded how well these characters are “fleshed out”, and that’s fair enough. On the other hand, it is odd that only these two get the treatment – and neither have a radical affect on the story, nor are prime characters. After reading pages and pages about the homeless woman, she’s immediately killed. What was the point, exactly? Well, I suspect the formula simply wasn’t fully formed yet.
The other is a perhaps a more interesting point – what price did we pay for the formula many of us love? Those 50’s sci-fi monster movies followed the same formula, changing location and monster. But everything else was essentially the same – nuclear bomb, scientist no-one listens to, military, and love interest. BAM BAM BAM. Animal attack novel copied Herbert’s formula relentlessly to good affect. The question is, if they hadn’t, what kind of novels would we have gotten? Not that I dislike what we have, but to what extent did the formula stunt the development of this interesting sub-genre? It seems clear that the direction things took was largely down to economic reasoning – The Rats made money, so give us more of things like this! Of course, this whole thing isn’t easy to conclude, though interesting to think about.
But you know, the thing is, The Rats is just a very very good novel. Not only that, there are two sequels (I’m reading The Lair as I write this). Herbert let his imagination run riot as they went on: The Rats 189 pages, The Lair 244 pages, Domain 421 pages. Rat tails (sic) are growing.
I won’t comment on The Lair yet, I’m only 60 pages in – however, what is clear is that above and beyond the subject matter, the point is that Herbert can WRITE. He’s entertaining, it’s reading without feeling like reading, at least at this time of his career. That’s worth the price of admission.
And so I end having done nothing but state the obvious, and ask questions to which I have no answer. Oddly I won’t recommend The Rats, or try to convince people to read it (or not). This novel is immune. You HAVE to read it. And why not, it’s terrific in every way we care about. Having read it again, it loses little over time. Which says a lot.
Erm. It’s good.
So maybe I shouldn’t be writing anything about Rats. What exactly is the point? We all know its reputation, and most of us have read it so know what’s in it. A plot synopsis is redundant for a start.
Which is probably the worse way to begin a review, as such, because I’m holding my hands up right away and stating that I have no amazing insight into the novel, I have no unique feelings about it, you’ll learn nothing here and can probably skip over these remarks without a feeling a loss. Oh well.
But I’m writing anyway, because if nothing else Rats is worthy of at least a mention. You know?
The Rats is a short novel, just 187 pages long. It was first published in 1974, and has had many reprints since (with the cover art getting worse and worse as time went on). Let’s face it, The Rats will ALWAYS been in print. It’s part of a literary history that transcends the horror genre. It’s the kind of book that people who don’t usually read horror books know about, even if only by word of mouth.
And why would that be? Perhaps it’s because it was genre breaking. Perhaps it was because it set a formula in place that was copied without shame? Perhaps it was because, ingeniously, rats are an animal that makes everybody curl up.
I’ve read quite a bit about how genre breaking the book was, setting a new formula in motion. It’s undeniable really, if you read other “animal attack” novels then you’ll well know how familiar things become. However, to be honest, I do feel that there is a slight amount of untruth involved. Animal attack has long been a staple of the movies, for instance; All the way back to Nosferatu (F.W. Murnau, 1922) where rats, and plague, played a key role in frights and scares – animals have been terrorizing people and the world we live in. Add in the 50’s cycle of giant monster movies (Ants, Spiders, forest critters, dinosaurs, scorpions) and the idea of nature running amok could hardly have been called new in 1974.
Original? No. Yet The Rats is important. And most of all, it’s entertaining. In fact, it’s such a fun read, once you’ve read it once, another go around wouldn’t be amiss.
Is it perfect? Well, no. There are a couple of things that occurred to me during my recent re-read. Firstly, there are two characters that are singled out for extended biographies. One is a homeless lady, the other an under-secretary for the government. I’ve read comments elsewhere that have applauded how well these characters are “fleshed out”, and that’s fair enough. On the other hand, it is odd that only these two get the treatment – and neither have a radical affect on the story, nor are prime characters. After reading pages and pages about the homeless woman, she’s immediately killed. What was the point, exactly? Well, I suspect the formula simply wasn’t fully formed yet.
The other is a perhaps a more interesting point – what price did we pay for the formula many of us love? Those 50’s sci-fi monster movies followed the same formula, changing location and monster. But everything else was essentially the same – nuclear bomb, scientist no-one listens to, military, and love interest. BAM BAM BAM. Animal attack novel copied Herbert’s formula relentlessly to good affect. The question is, if they hadn’t, what kind of novels would we have gotten? Not that I dislike what we have, but to what extent did the formula stunt the development of this interesting sub-genre? It seems clear that the direction things took was largely down to economic reasoning – The Rats made money, so give us more of things like this! Of course, this whole thing isn’t easy to conclude, though interesting to think about.
But you know, the thing is, The Rats is just a very very good novel. Not only that, there are two sequels (I’m reading The Lair as I write this). Herbert let his imagination run riot as they went on: The Rats 189 pages, The Lair 244 pages, Domain 421 pages. Rat tails (sic) are growing.
I won’t comment on The Lair yet, I’m only 60 pages in – however, what is clear is that above and beyond the subject matter, the point is that Herbert can WRITE. He’s entertaining, it’s reading without feeling like reading, at least at this time of his career. That’s worth the price of admission.
And so I end having done nothing but state the obvious, and ask questions to which I have no answer. Oddly I won’t recommend The Rats, or try to convince people to read it (or not). This novel is immune. You HAVE to read it. And why not, it’s terrific in every way we care about. Having read it again, it loses little over time. Which says a lot.
Erm. It’s good.