The Philosophy of Horror

#leftcontainerBox {
float:left;
position: fixed;
top: 10%;
left: 70px;
}

#leftcontainerBox .buttons {
float:left;
clear:both;
margin:4px 4px 4px 4px;

padding-bottom:2px;
}


#bottomcontainerBox {
height: 30px;
width:50%;
padding-top:1px;
}

#bottomcontainerBox .buttons {
float:left;
height: 30px;
margin:4px 4px 4px 4px;
}


by Noel Carroll — and I have no clue how to make his umlat. And, only took me this long to read it (it's cited everywhere, is maybe the only of its kind) is because it was lodged in my head as being written by Noel Coward. Which never made sense. But, finally dug it up, peeled through it, and it's solid. My favorite: The majority of horror stories are, to a significant extent, representations of processes of discovery, as well as often occasions for hypothesis formation on the part of the audience, and, as such, these stories engage us in the drama of proof. My boldface, yeah. But, for years now I've been casting around, trying to figure out why my novels tend to be shaped like they are. I always wanted to call them 'epistemic'-something or another, but nothing would ever stick (and who am I to call my own stuff anything, yeah; this was all just in my head, though, if that helps). But it's so often about one dude (or dudette) encountering something 'off,' then following that off-ness into layers of lies surrounding something awful they finally have to face. What that is, though, it's Carroll's "drama of proof." That's exactly what and why I write, I think, and . . . horror. I used to always think I wrote it because I loved it, and of course I want to write what I like to read. Made sense. And's maybe not wrong. But, too, as Carroll describes the narrative shapes  . . . → → →