What do you think?
The Philosophy of Popular Culture
The Philosophy of Horror
Sitting on pins and needles, anxiously waiting to see what will happen next, horror audiences crave the fear and exhilaration generated by a terrifying story; their anticipation is palpable. But they also breathe a sigh of relief when the action is over, when they are able to close their books or leave the movie theater. Whether serious, kitschy, frightening, or ridiculous, horror not only arouses the senses but also raises profound questions about fear, safety, justice, and suffering.
From literature and urban legends to film and television, horror's ability to thrill has made it an integral part of modern entertainment. Thomas Fahy and twelve other scholars reveal the underlying themes of the genre in The Philosophy of Horror. Examining the evolving role of horror, the contributing authors investigate works such as Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1818), horror films of the 1930s, Stephen King's novels, Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of The Shining (1980), and Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho (1960). Also examined are works that have largely been ignored in philosophical circles, including Truman Capote's In Cold Blood (1965), Patrick S?skind's Perfume (1985), and James Purdy's Narrow Rooms (2005). The analysis also extends to contemporary forms of popular horror and torture-horror films of the last decade, including Saw (2004), Hostel (2005), The Devil's Rejects (2005), and The Hills Have Eyes (2006), as well as the ongoing popularity of horror on the small screen.
The Philosophy of Horror celebrates the strange, compelling, and disturbing elements of horror, drawing on interpretive approaches such as feminist, postcolonial, Marxist, and psychoanalytic criticism. The book invites readers to consider horror's various manifestations and transformations since the late 1700s, probing its social, cultural, and political functions in today's media-hungry society.
From literature and urban legends to film and television, horror's ability to thrill has made it an integral part of modern entertainment. Thomas Fahy and twelve other scholars reveal the underlying themes of the genre in The Philosophy of Horror. Examining the evolving role of horror, the contributing authors investigate works such as Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1818), horror films of the 1930s, Stephen King's novels, Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of The Shining (1980), and Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho (1960). Also examined are works that have largely been ignored in philosophical circles, including Truman Capote's In Cold Blood (1965), Patrick S?skind's Perfume (1985), and James Purdy's Narrow Rooms (2005). The analysis also extends to contemporary forms of popular horror and torture-horror films of the last decade, including Saw (2004), Hostel (2005), The Devil's Rejects (2005), and The Hills Have Eyes (2006), as well as the ongoing popularity of horror on the small screen.
The Philosophy of Horror celebrates the strange, compelling, and disturbing elements of horror, drawing on interpretive approaches such as feminist, postcolonial, Marxist, and psychoanalytic criticism. The book invites readers to consider horror's various manifestations and transformations since the late 1700s, probing its social, cultural, and political functions in today's media-hungry society.
272 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2010
About the author
Thomas Fahy
25 books54 followersThomas Fahy is a nonfiction writer, novelist, and professor of literature and creative writing. His most recent book, The Life of the Author: F. Scott Fitzgerald, is being released in the fall of 2025. He has also published essays on everything from Paris Hilton and 1980s vampire films to contemporary television and theater. His works have been translated into several languages, and he has been interviewed by the Associated Press, Salon, and other publications, as well as radio hosts in the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia, Ireland, and Malaysia. He was recently featured in a documentary about Truman Capote’s In Cold Blood for Arte Television and on the BBC radio program “Literary Pursuits.”
When he is not writing, Dr. Fahy performs regularly as a classical pianist with the New York Piano Society and has appeared in recent concerts at Carnegie Hall, Lincoln Center, Merkin Concert Hall, and other venues in New York City.
When he is not writing, Dr. Fahy performs regularly as a classical pianist with the New York Piano Society and has appeared in recent concerts at Carnegie Hall, Lincoln Center, Merkin Concert Hall, and other venues in New York City.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
July 28, 2017
This book suffers for having a weak connection to the series that applies philosophy to various aspects of pop culture. The first essays in this collection make rather tenuous connections to philosophy, whether it be Descartes or Hobbes. But in doing that, the analyses themselves suffer for being rather superficial and offering little more than what the movie itself is clearly already communicating. For example, applying Marxist theory to Land of the Dead. While the movie itself isn't necessarily applying Marx, the class issues already embedded into the movie are merely explained a bit further here, which in the end leaves the level of insight feeling rather thin. I prefer my criticism to unveil something more unconscious or surprising. The two essays I found quite worthwhile, thus saving the collection as a whole from one star, were Lorena Russell's essay about the representation of the nuclear family in the two versions of The Hills Have Eyes, and David MacGregor's Johnston essay on kitsch and camp.
May 12, 2016
While generally an interesting and well-considered anthology, only two essays here concern me: ‘Through a Mirror, Darkly: Art-Horror as a Medium for Moral Reflection,’ by Philip Tallon, and ‘Shock Value: A Deleuzean Encounter with James Purdy’s Narrow Rooms,’ by Robert F. Gross. Tallon’s ‘Mirror’ expands a bit on Carroll’s Horror/Enlightenment speculation: in addition to violating cultural understandings of ‘Nature,’ Horror served as a moral warning against the Enlightenment’s veneration of reason. According to Tallon, one of Horror’s lessons is that reason and its associated modes of intelligence, when uncoupled with a more restrictive and conservative kind of moral wisdom, can create new kinds of problems that we aren’t prepared to address. As such, Horror becomes a kind of complement to Hubris. As cultural values have shifted from the pursuit of rationality to an emphasis on relativism, though, Horror’s role has likewise shifted from antithesis to thesis: Horror attempts to create the kind of moral grounding that postmodernism would deny. For an evil to be compelling, it must be presented against shared values, and so Horror necessarily reinvigorates our senses of moral order. Taken together, these two modes of Horror mark it as a genre opposed to extreme viewpoints of both optimism (as expressed through hubris) and pessimism (in the form of absolute relativism).
Gross’ ‘Shock Value’ is implicitly opposed to both Carroll and Tallon, inasmuch as it challenges the reductive assumptions of each, as marked by their respective kinds ‘interpretosis.’ In place of reductive interpretations and ‘molar’ beings, Gross explores Narrow Rooms as a ‘molecular’ site of complex multiplicities and anti-binary becomings. In the nature of his exploration is a resistance to cross application - there is not much in his close reading of the relationships in Narrow Rooms that could apply to those in The Babadook, for instance - but the method is no less exciting for that. This essay is something that I would very much enjoy using as a model. One of the things that I can take from this model, however, is the way that personal relationships in Narrow Rooms become more intense and affective through impersonal elements, and its treatment of the ways relationality is alternately enabled and foreclosed.
Gross’ ‘Shock Value’ is implicitly opposed to both Carroll and Tallon, inasmuch as it challenges the reductive assumptions of each, as marked by their respective kinds ‘interpretosis.’ In place of reductive interpretations and ‘molar’ beings, Gross explores Narrow Rooms as a ‘molecular’ site of complex multiplicities and anti-binary becomings. In the nature of his exploration is a resistance to cross application - there is not much in his close reading of the relationships in Narrow Rooms that could apply to those in The Babadook, for instance - but the method is no less exciting for that. This essay is something that I would very much enjoy using as a model. One of the things that I can take from this model, however, is the way that personal relationships in Narrow Rooms become more intense and affective through impersonal elements, and its treatment of the ways relationality is alternately enabled and foreclosed.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 27, 2017
Very thought provoking, especially the essay comparing zombie social dynamics to Marxist theory
September 27, 2026
★★★☆☆ | 3.0/5
The Philosophy of Horror — Thomas Fahy (editor)
ESPAÑOL
“As a genre, horror doesn’t like you.”
«Como género, el terror no te quiere».
Puedo aceptar que el terror no me quiera. Me cuesta un poco más aceptar que un libro sobre terror me aburra.
The Philosophy of Horror tiene ideas muy interesantes, pero llegar a ellas exige atravesar pasajes de filosofía dura —no muchos— que debilitaron mi entusiasmo. Sigo pensando que la filosofía importa y que puede enriquecer nuestras conversaciones sobre lo que leemos y vemos. También pienso que saber mucho sobre algo y saber explicarlo son habilidades distintas. Aquí, más de una vez, me interesó la premisa pero me agotó su desarrollo.
Dos ensayos hicieron que la lectura valiera la pena.
El que aborda Psicosis y Los pájaros propone una distinción que me gustó especialmente: el terror como amenaza que surge desde dentro y desde fuera, respectivamente. La violencia humana y las aves ya pertenecen al mundo que conocemos; ninguna de las dos películas necesita inventar una especie nueva para inquietarnos. Lo que cambia es nuestra relación con aquello que creíamos conocer.
Esto conecta con otra idea del libro que me parece valiosa: el terror nos recuerda nuestra vulnerabilidad y cuestiona la imagen de un mundo seguro que construimos para poder funcionar. Vivir suponiendo que todo puede hacernos daño sería insoportable. El género se permite examinar esa posibilidad durante un rato, ofreciendo una alternativa necesaria a nuestra tendencia a dejarla fuera de la conversación.
El otro ensayo que destacó para mí compara Las colinas tienen ojos con su remake y examina la maldad como una posibilidad latente incluso en quienes se consideran buenas personas. Me interesa esa incomodidad: pensar que nuestra conducta depende de las circunstancias mucho más de lo que nos gusta admitir. Resulta fácil confiar en nuestra superioridad moral cuando nada la ha puesto a prueba. Estas películas permiten preguntarse qué queda de esa confianza cuando aparecen los ingredientes adecuados para desarmarla.
Ahí es donde el libro me ganó: cuando el análisis me dio una forma interesante de volver a mirar películas que ya conocía. Me habría gustado que más de la lectura tuviera esa claridad y esa conexión con ejemplos concretos.
Lo recomendaría a quienes disfrutan el terror y tienen paciencia para la escritura académica. Para quienes buscan una entrada más accesible a la no ficción sobre el género, no sería mi primera opción. Me dejó buenas ideas, pero también me hizo revisar varias veces cuántas páginas faltaban. Las tres estrellas reconocen ambas cosas.
──────────
ENGLISH
“As a genre, horror doesn’t like you.”
I can accept that horror doesn’t like me. I’m a little less willing to accept that a book about horror might bore me.
The Philosophy of Horror has some very interesting ideas, but reaching them means working through passages of dense philosophy—not many—that dampened my enthusiasm. I still think philosophy matters and can enrich our conversations about what we read and watch. I also think knowing a great deal about something and knowing how to explain it are different skills. More than once, the premise interested me, but its development wore me out.
Two essays made the reading worthwhile.
The discussion of Psycho and The Birds offers a distinction I particularly liked: horror as a threat emerging from within and from outside, respectively. Human violence and birds already belong to the world we know; neither film needs to invent a new species to unsettle us. What changes is our relationship with something we thought we understood.
This connects with another idea I appreciated: horror reminds us of our vulnerability and challenges the picture of a safe world we construct so we can function. Living on the assumption that everything could hurt us would be unbearable. The genre allows itself to examine that possibility for a while, offering a necessary alternative to our tendency to leave it out of the conversation.
The other standout essay compares The Hills Have Eyes with its remake and examines evil as a latent possibility even in people who consider themselves good. That discomfort interests me: the thought that our behavior depends on circumstances far more than we’d like to admit. It’s easy to trust our moral superiority when nothing has put it to the test. These films let us ask how much of that confidence remains when the right ingredients come together to dismantle it.
That’s where the book won me over: when the analysis gave me an interesting way to revisit films I already knew. I wish more of the reading had offered that clarity and that connection to concrete examples.
I’d recommend it to readers who enjoy horror and have patience for academic writing. For anyone looking for a more accessible introduction to nonfiction about the genre, it wouldn’t be my first choice. It left me with good ideas, but it also had me checking how many pages were left. The three stars acknowledge both.
The Philosophy of Horror — Thomas Fahy (editor)
ESPAÑOL
“As a genre, horror doesn’t like you.”
«Como género, el terror no te quiere».
Puedo aceptar que el terror no me quiera. Me cuesta un poco más aceptar que un libro sobre terror me aburra.
The Philosophy of Horror tiene ideas muy interesantes, pero llegar a ellas exige atravesar pasajes de filosofía dura —no muchos— que debilitaron mi entusiasmo. Sigo pensando que la filosofía importa y que puede enriquecer nuestras conversaciones sobre lo que leemos y vemos. También pienso que saber mucho sobre algo y saber explicarlo son habilidades distintas. Aquí, más de una vez, me interesó la premisa pero me agotó su desarrollo.
Dos ensayos hicieron que la lectura valiera la pena.
El que aborda Psicosis y Los pájaros propone una distinción que me gustó especialmente: el terror como amenaza que surge desde dentro y desde fuera, respectivamente. La violencia humana y las aves ya pertenecen al mundo que conocemos; ninguna de las dos películas necesita inventar una especie nueva para inquietarnos. Lo que cambia es nuestra relación con aquello que creíamos conocer.
Esto conecta con otra idea del libro que me parece valiosa: el terror nos recuerda nuestra vulnerabilidad y cuestiona la imagen de un mundo seguro que construimos para poder funcionar. Vivir suponiendo que todo puede hacernos daño sería insoportable. El género se permite examinar esa posibilidad durante un rato, ofreciendo una alternativa necesaria a nuestra tendencia a dejarla fuera de la conversación.
El otro ensayo que destacó para mí compara Las colinas tienen ojos con su remake y examina la maldad como una posibilidad latente incluso en quienes se consideran buenas personas. Me interesa esa incomodidad: pensar que nuestra conducta depende de las circunstancias mucho más de lo que nos gusta admitir. Resulta fácil confiar en nuestra superioridad moral cuando nada la ha puesto a prueba. Estas películas permiten preguntarse qué queda de esa confianza cuando aparecen los ingredientes adecuados para desarmarla.
Ahí es donde el libro me ganó: cuando el análisis me dio una forma interesante de volver a mirar películas que ya conocía. Me habría gustado que más de la lectura tuviera esa claridad y esa conexión con ejemplos concretos.
Lo recomendaría a quienes disfrutan el terror y tienen paciencia para la escritura académica. Para quienes buscan una entrada más accesible a la no ficción sobre el género, no sería mi primera opción. Me dejó buenas ideas, pero también me hizo revisar varias veces cuántas páginas faltaban. Las tres estrellas reconocen ambas cosas.
──────────
ENGLISH
“As a genre, horror doesn’t like you.”
I can accept that horror doesn’t like me. I’m a little less willing to accept that a book about horror might bore me.
The Philosophy of Horror has some very interesting ideas, but reaching them means working through passages of dense philosophy—not many—that dampened my enthusiasm. I still think philosophy matters and can enrich our conversations about what we read and watch. I also think knowing a great deal about something and knowing how to explain it are different skills. More than once, the premise interested me, but its development wore me out.
Two essays made the reading worthwhile.
The discussion of Psycho and The Birds offers a distinction I particularly liked: horror as a threat emerging from within and from outside, respectively. Human violence and birds already belong to the world we know; neither film needs to invent a new species to unsettle us. What changes is our relationship with something we thought we understood.
This connects with another idea I appreciated: horror reminds us of our vulnerability and challenges the picture of a safe world we construct so we can function. Living on the assumption that everything could hurt us would be unbearable. The genre allows itself to examine that possibility for a while, offering a necessary alternative to our tendency to leave it out of the conversation.
The other standout essay compares The Hills Have Eyes with its remake and examines evil as a latent possibility even in people who consider themselves good. That discomfort interests me: the thought that our behavior depends on circumstances far more than we’d like to admit. It’s easy to trust our moral superiority when nothing has put it to the test. These films let us ask how much of that confidence remains when the right ingredients come together to dismantle it.
That’s where the book won me over: when the analysis gave me an interesting way to revisit films I already knew. I wish more of the reading had offered that clarity and that connection to concrete examples.
I’d recommend it to readers who enjoy horror and have patience for academic writing. For anyone looking for a more accessible introduction to nonfiction about the genre, it wouldn’t be my first choice. It left me with good ideas, but it also had me checking how many pages were left. The three stars acknowledge both.
November 23, 2021
Quite a few very differing essays which was helpful as I’m just starting out some reading for my thesis - I’ve referenced from Nickel’s essay before concerning horror and the consumer’s morality. My favourite readings were Nickel’s “Horror and the Idea of Everyday Life” whose philosophy I think can be broadly applied when analysing texts other than The Birds and Psycho; Morris’s debate in “The Justification of Torture Horror” which was well-rounded with room for further research; Fahy’s essay about In Cold Blood and Russell’s “Ideological Formations of Nuclear Family in The Hills Have Eyes” which I really enjoyed being familiar with both of these texts. Most chapters in the former half make reference to Noel Carroll’s “The Philosophy of Horror, or Paradoxes of the Heart” a lot - a confusingly similar title. I don’t watch zombie movies so it was a bit biased of me to not be that invested in the Marxist chapter. I’m interested in modern horror pop culture, especially in relation to morality, so this was a valuable read for me as this anthology has some diverse thinkers.
July 2, 2023
The author did an excellent job here and covered the fascinating subject from all angles: horror and the idea of everyday life (Psycho and The Birds), horror as a medium for moral reflection, torture horror, violence, the ghost hunter phenomenon, vampires, the nuclear family as in The Hills Have Eyes, urbanoia, zombies, gothic elements, Shining (the nightmare of history), the grotesque, shock values, the idea of making monsters (Frankenstein), camp fire horror... this is an outstanding trip into the vast field of horror. You are guided by some single photos. Wonderful, intriguing read I can highly recommend!
July 7, 2018
Partly boring, but definitely informative.
June 12, 2016
The Philosophy of Horror presents some Great essays on the horror genre, forcing us to look at classic and contemporary masterpieces In new and dynamic ways. This is one of the best I've read from the philosophy of popular culture series of books.
Read
January 1, 2018Great collection that stirs and feeds my desire to teach a course about the relationship between religion/theology and horror.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews