"I remember one of the hot horror writers of the '80s once bragging to me with a smug little grin that he had never read THE HAUNTING OF HILL HOUSE. I think that was when I began to realize what I disliked about a lot of modern horror fiction: too many of its authors are far more influenced by movies and TV than by literature. They haven't read the classics of their own genre, let alone any other classics, and don't consider it important or even necessary to do so."
which is interesting, i think, because i've long thought that the speculative fiction genre and its authors have become more and more influenced by movies and tv. this is a pretty broad statement, naturally, and for every one incident i can think where it is true, i can think of one where it isn't, but to my liking, that's a bit too much, this fifty fifty business. i'm not even removing myself entirely from this equation: my allandros and balor stories are a mix of influences, from fritz leiber's mouser and fafhrd, old faerie lore, and the sergio leone eastwood westerns. it's all jammed together, mixed in, an equal influence, but the leone films are there--and indeed, you could ask why not be influenced by eddison, and other writers that came before? but i'm getting side tracked, and will twist back to what brite said, and leave it pretty much at that.
occasionally, however, i think that some authors are influenced this way because they want to sell the rights to their novels and get them made into films, where more money and more fame awaits. (or, in some cases, a perceived in on writing scripts.) those books are always bland, generic affairs, and get made into bland generic films.
at the moment, prose is not subject to rating, outside pornography and a few novels, like american psycho. you can put things into prose that'll never make it into a film or tv show.
i keep waiting for people to say that more often.