Because Frankenstein was about 70 years earlier - Mary Shelley was Regency period (she was born at the end of the 18th century), and Stoker was a Victorian Irishman.

Oh, okay. Maybe I'll read Franky first, then.

JohnSweden totally with you. The novella was far superior to the novel in my opinion. Ditto with Orson Scott Card's Lost Boys.

P-C, they're both brilliant, but also definitely period pieces.

Gar, that answers that. Perfect! Thanks.

To me, it comes across as her writing thinly-disguised RPF porn that hits all her kinks AND managing to get paid for it. Yes, Poppy, we know. Yes, you're fascinated by serial killers. You really, REALLY want to be a queer Asian man in his 20s. That's nice. Now write about something else.

Oh, dear. That was kind of the impression I'd gotten from the except had had read, but I had hoped that the book would delve off into better waters. (Wow, that's a mixed metphor.)

I remember I caught the excerpt off a website she shares (shared?) with a couple of other writers -- I read a book called "Silk" and rather liked it, but I can't remember the last name of the writer. Caitlin C-something. Gosh, that was a couple of years ago -- I can't remember if it was explicitly about vampires or more about psychic vamps.

Does anyone know what I'm talking about?

Any thoughts on Dan Simmons' Carrion Comfort? I much preferred the novella and found it ineffably cool and vital. The novel seemed a bit padded, compared to the economy of the shorter form, but maybe I should read the novel again now and see if it fares any better.

Don't bother re-reading the novel. The novella is the better version.

When I was a college freshman, instead of standard freshman English, we all had little seminars with 5-15 students, lots of writing and discussion, and quirky individualized topics. Mine was "The Fairy Tale and 19th Century Gothic Literature." We read lots of fairy tales in their pre-sanitized versions, and then went on to The Castle of Otranto, Frankenstein, Dracula, and Wuthering Heights.

This discussion is taking me back to 1989, and discussing the stories and books around the table with a handful of other earnest 17- and 18-year-olds and a professor who loved her work. I adored that class, even while having no idea how unusual it was and how lucky I was to be there.

-- I read a book called "Silk" and rather liked it, but I can't remember the last name of the writer. Caitlin C-something.

Caitlin Kiernan, maybe? I read that: it creeped me out and I adored it.

I read a book called "Silk" and rather liked it, but I can't remember the last name of the writer. Caitlin C-something. Gosh, that was a couple of years ago -- I can't remember if it was explicitly about vampires or more about psychic vamps.

Silk, by Caitlin R. Kiernan. No vampires, but plenty spooky due to manifestations of urban spider spirits. (twitch, twitch, twitch)

Caitlin is an *exceptional* writer; the only quibble I ever have with her work is that she is completely incapable of writing anything "happy". Creepy, evocative, spooky, delirious? Yes. Happy? No.

That's it! Thanks.

I know I don't have that book anymore; I think I lent it to my sister. I'll have to find it again.

I read the novel "Carrion Comfort" awhile back. I remember thinking it would have been a much better book if it had been edited down by at least a quarter. I'll have to look up the novella. Can anybody tell me where I might find it?

I like Poppy Z. Brite, but found "Exquisite Corpse" too icky for me. It seemed that she delved into the depths of depravity just for the sake of shock. Maybe that was the point, but I didn't find the story gripping, which probably means she didn't do her magic and make me identify with gay Asian youth and serial killers. So I never re-read it, and that book went off to the used bookstore with a lot of unloved other books.