50
Used, New, and Out of Print Books - We Buy and Sell - Powell's Books
Cart |
|  my account  |  wish list  |  help   |  800-878-7323
Hello, | Login
MENU
  • Browse
    • New Arrivals
    • Bestsellers
    • Featured Preorders
    • Award Winners
    • Audio Books
    • See All Subjects
  • Used
  • Staff Picks
    • Staff Picks
    • Picks of the Month
    • Bookseller Displays
    • 50 Books for 50 Years
    • 25 Best 21st Century Sci-Fi & Fantasy
    • 25 PNW Books to Read Before You Die
    • 25 Books From the 21st Century
    • 25 Memoirs to Read Before You Die
    • 25 Global Books to Read Before You Die
    • 25 Women to Read Before You Die
    • 25 Books to Read Before You Die
  • Gifts
    • Gift Cards & eGift Cards
    • Powell's Souvenirs
    • Journals and Notebooks
    • socks
    • Games
  • Sell Books
  • Blog
  • Events
  • Find A Store

PowellsBooks.Blog
Authors, readers, critics, media − and booksellers.

Original Essays

We Eat Our Own

by Kea Wilson, August 29, 2016 10:54 AM
We Eat Our Own by Kea Wilson

I think I started the process of becoming a writer watching Night of the Living Dead, 10 years old and scanning cable movie channels past midnight. I should give some credit elsewhere: I loved reading and writing before I found horror movies, had a privileged childhood with Friday-night Borders visits and teachers that assigned exercises in rhyming poetry on wide-ruled paper, not to mention near-unrestricted access to the electric typewriter in the basement. But there’s a difference between telling a story and that moment when the skin of a story splits open in front of you and you look inside. You realize, with some shock, just how much is in there: blood and bones and organ systems that make the whole thing move. It’s a mess, and there’s an unseen animus to it that you can’t quite dissect your way down to yet, but it doesn’t make you sick, exactly. For some reason, you want to look deeper and see how it all joins together.

A novel, to me, has always felt less like a creature with removable parts than like some miraculous egg, whole and unbreakable and probably excreted all at once. I couldn’t fathom writing one. Last House on the Left, Invasion of the Bee Girls, Scream, though — these felt like something I could tackle. If how we learn a language is repetition, I had this one down cold: the in-media-res opening, the first kill, the synthesizer screech that signals the title credits. I taught myself how to predict the Jeep full of teenagers laughing towards the fateful beach or cabin in the woods or school-dance-soon-to-be-bloodbath. I grew new instincts: I could feel the build to the jump scare, the hinge between the second and final act, the little clues of camerawork and staging and style that signaled what the kill would be. 

And then I learned the real thrill of realizing that my instincts were wrong: that a director had torqued the formula just enough to do something more than shock. I found good horror films (though I still love the bad ones, too): the ones that lured you with a scare, but once the blood had been spilled, used the space to speak something painful into truth. I needed — I still need — bloody movies to show me the basic anatomy of narrative, and how that anatomy can be dismantled: spectacularly or quietly, with a flamethrower or the millimeter’s click of a vice grip.

My first novel, We Eat Our Own, is based loosely on a film that manipulates its own formula probably better than any horror film I’ve ever seen. I watched Cannibal Holocaust when I was around 16, probably in some friend’s basement, probably over an open pizza box and the noise of eight kids heckling the screen. Since it was shot in 1979, it’s become the kind of horror film that’s served as a dare for fans: a movie so graphic that it was banned in multiple countries, kills so real that the Italian director was brought up on murder charges, the rumors of how many countries and how many real kills inflated and warped as the movie gained infamy overseas and over 20+ years. I remember I watched it on a VHS tape with a masking tape label. I remember how I felt when the gorefest I’d come for changed its tack, when I felt the movie point back at me and asked me why, exactly, I wanted to watch these people in grass skirts commit a slaughter. 

I’ve been asked why I like horror films more times than I can count. I’ve asked others why they don’t like them, and those answers usually come quickly. They don’t understand why anyone would pay money to feel scared or upset; an irresponsible babysitter exposed them to a Hitchcock film once as a kid and it haunts them; they just don’t “like” violence. 

I don't “like” violence, either, but what I have a hard time explaining to the non-horror fan is that I don’t find horror films particularly violent — at least not in the sense that this non-horror fan finds them, and swears off the whole genre for good. The assumption that all depictions of violence are explicitly intended to traumatize is fair enough — we live in an awful world and, in particular, in a country where the news cycle often evinces this idea. But part of the guilty pleasure of a movie like Phantasm II (1998) is that the violence, for once, is relieved of the weight of any implication: there is virtually no grief in horror films, virtually no PTSD, no justice system that fails the victims, no epilogue at all. And let’s be serious: a girl with feathered bangs getting her head exploded by a laser (Chopping Mall, 1986) isn’t exactly the kind of violence that requests a solemn witness; a man getting mauled by a sentient soda machine (Maximum Overdrive, 1986) doesn’t summon a candlelight vigil. These deaths are performed by consenting actors, stylized to the point of unreality, laced with humor as much as with horror. This is what I think we mean when we say that horror films can be cathartic: they let you stand safely outside of the billion ways a human body can be disassembled, adrenaline-rushed but totally intact. 

There's a difference between telling a story and that moment when the skin of a story splits open in front of you and you look inside.
More to the point, horror films let you stand outside of the many justifications humans use for dismantling one another — and the ways that we contribute to the destruction of other human bodies even if we never take up a chainsaw, an ice pick, a railroad tie. Without spoiling the ending, Cannibal Holocaust was one of the few horror films I’d ever seen that was not just violent, but seemed to ask questions about violence. It lures you in with tropes and dares and promises of the most controversial film ever made in dripping letters on the poster, but then it jerks you to a halt and pins you down. It asks the questions that horror films don’t usually ask, that our culture doesn’t always manage to ask: about who usually commits violence and why, if not some paranormal bogeyman without an ethic.

It doesn’t always ask those questions well, and it doesn’t do it without contradiction. The production — an on-location shoot in the Colombian rain forest, indigenous actors who may not have fully understood this bloody thing they were a part of — amplifies those hypocrisies. The town where the film was shot — an outpost for the trans-continental drug trade, run by an American expat — adds another wing to the echo chamber. 

But the film did something to me as a 16-year-old, and does something to me now: it made me look at myself, a middle-class white girl with a DIY haircut in a finished basement an hour north of Amish country and an hour south of Cleveland, jeering at a man losing his life on a TV screen in a jungle a world away. It makes me look at myself now, an adult who wants to be a good person, who tries to be a part of dismantling systems of white supremacy and violence, who reads Michelle Alexander and bell hooks and has stood in the ranks of the Ferguson protesters — and is, without a doubt, still very much a part of a vast killing. 

Cannibal Holocaust made me ask questions I’m still asking, and that I hope We Eat Our Own asks of readers. Why do we watch horror films, and why do we make them? Why do we enact horrors, even if we don’t recognize them as horrors — even if we are sure that a certain act of violence is moral, or politically necessary, or merely unavoidable? How are we complicit in violence, even if we aren’t the ones with the weapon in our hands? And what does it do to us: the act of violence or the image of it, the trauma or the wound or the buzz of weird pleasure when you step out of the darkness into the theater lobby? How does it change us, and who are we now? 
÷ ÷ ÷
Kea Wilson received her MFA from Washington University in St. Louis, where she lives and works as a bookseller. We Eat Our Own is her first novel.



Books mentioned in this post

We Eat Our Own

Kea Wilson
{1}
##LOC[OK]##
{1}
##LOC[OK]## ##LOC[Cancel]##
{1}
##LOC[OK]## ##LOC[Cancel]##

Most Read

  1. Best Books of 2022: Fiction by Powell's Staff
  2. The Big List of Backlist: Books That Got Us Through 2022 by Powell's Staff
  3. 25 Books to Read Before You Die: 21st Century by Powell's Staff
  4. Powell's 2023 Book Preview: The First Quarter by Powell's Staff
  5. 7 Essential Authors Recommend Their 7 Essential Sci-Fi and Fantasy Books by Powell's Staff

Blog Categories

  • Interviews
  • Original Essays
  • Lists
  • Q&As
  • Playlists
  • Portrait of a Bookseller
  • City of Readers
  • Required Reading
  • Powell's Picks Spotlight

One Response to "We Eat Our Own"

bare-lee-ablemann September 3, 2016 at 08:33 PM
Hullo Kea, You ask some good questions. And I know many like the genre of horror films, just as we like roller coasters and free-basing (cliff jumping) and other things that take us to the brink. On one level we are just junkies for cheap thrills. On another level we know we are never more alive than when we are facing our own imminent demise. What was missing in my life? I think I have some of those answers now. But I want to be brief. I did like you tying together our public violence (drones,mma,abortion,animal slaughter,etc) with our need or desire to consume graphic imagery and film stories. Personally, 99% of those things do not do a thing for me, but I was particularly terrified by a film called, "The Ruins", I believe. Not a lot of blood and gore, but very scary, none the less. Like Moby Dick, when only one person survives to tell the tale, a story assumes even more piquancy. What I would decry about the genre is that it is so lacking in any great themes. The gratuitous violence was foretold by Antonnioni's 'Blow-up'. Like the change from b&w tv to color tv, it becomes entertaining merely to allow the visual colors to dazzle us. But shouldn't we seriously ask ourselves if we risk becoming more callous to violence in general and like the Romans, in need of higher doses to assuage our habit. But you may be on to something if you can make the connection between the increasing mechanization and depersonalized violence and our appetite to view senseless and seemingly random acts of mayhem. The danger of all of our media is that we become more disconnected from reality. If you were a homesteader who slaughtered your own livestock, you may be less fascinated with the physical act of that instant of violence and more cognizant of how the wheel of life and death rolls over all of us eventually. I welcome any response you may have. Thank you for the opportunity to respond.

Result(s) 1

Post a comment:

*Required Fields
Name*
Email*
  1. Please note:
  2. All comments require moderation by Powells.com staff.
  3. Comments submitted on weekends might take until Monday to appear.
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Pinterest
  • Instagram

  • Help
  • Guarantee
  • My Account
  • Careers
  • About Us
  • Security
  • Wish List
  • Partners
  • Contact Us
  • Shipping
  • Transparency ACT MRF
  • Sitemap
  • © 2023 POWELLS.COM Terms