When is it horror...and when is it just gross?

[[deleted user]]

Just finished The Troop, but I found it went more for the gross-out than for straight up horror.

My question is, why is so much horror just gross? The Friday the 13ths, the Saws, the Hostels...they revel more in the the gross and the bloody.

For me, the horror is the stuff that the writer ignites between your ears, the one that fires your imagination instead of laying it all out on the page, wallowing in every detail of the disgusting.

Thoughts?

[Julian]

It's a tough one, Tobin! My view is that commercialism took over to a large degree, and when the shock factor of gore movies made a bit of money, the formula was replicated endlessly for monetary gain and no-one involved cared about the inevitability of one film having to "better" the last one. Before you knew it the whole industry was lost in a bloodlust fuelled sea of body parts that it couldn't get back from, all driven by the need to satisfy the accountants and the shareholders.

The result, inevitably, was desensitisation of the audience and the relegation of what you and I would consider "real" horror to the "psychological" thriller shelves. I think that's where we're at. The gore side of things has its place because it seems to be here to stay, but it has taken on (so far as the commercial side of the industry is concerned) the role of primary definer of horror and primary money-maker for anything labelled as horror. Horror = Gore, and even though the discerning people of the Goodreads Horror Groups know that isn't the case, the money men don't.

This is why Indie writers in all genres are the key to keeping things balanced. As a reading public we should not be subjected to an endless diet of what makes money, with sequel after sequel coming out and the words "horror franchise" being used as if that denotes some sort of amazing success - (for the record it doesn't, it just shows a merciless "cash-in", a shackle for the poor writer who penned it in the first place (if not the bullet in favour of more corporate friendly servants) and the death-knell for creativity). The indie market ensures a wide spread of different textures within all genres and that is a good thing for the reading public, despite some people trying to label it a slush-pile outlet, because it means that with some pleasurable internet navigation (coffee in hand) and an e-reading device, readers need never be beholden to heavily-pushed sub-genre offerings, and will always have the freedom to choose from a much bigger horror banquet.

There, you've got me on my high-horse now! Time to get down and splash my face with cold water, I think!!

[Gordon]

Here's one definition that I think does a great take on the concept of horror by the Horror Writers Association: http://www.horror.org/horror-is.htm

Lovecraft's take on defining horror and his essay which heavily focus' on the supernatural (not Psycho or Silence of the Lambs):
"The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown."
http://www.hplovecraft.com/writings/t...

I would also suggest Stephen King's Danse Macabre for some potential definitions of what horror might be:
"On top is the "gross-out" level..." p. 4
"But on another...the work of horror is a dance..and what it's looking for is the place where you...live at your most primitive level."

I think it comes down to the individual, but these are starting places if you're really interested in knowing the "meaning" of Horror.

[[deleted user]]

Hey gbcjr, I've actually read (and enjoyed) the HWA and HPL definitions of horror. I mostly agree with both of them, though I don't believe horror has to come from the supernatural like Lovecraft. His cache is the fear of the unknown and nothing is more unknown than the supernatural.

So, yeah, while it can get a little gross, it is much more scary psychologically, or emotionally, or mentally.

And I also read King's excellent Danse Macabre. He has two good quotes about terror/horror/gross out:

“I recognize terror as the finest emotion and so I will try to terrorize the reader. But if I find that I cannot terrify, I will try to horrify, and if I find that I cannot horrify, I'll go for the gross-out. I'm not proud.”

“The 3 types of terror: The Gross-out: the sight of a severed head tumbling down a flight of stairs, it's when the lights go out and something green and slimy splatters against your arm. The Horror: the unnatural, spiders the size of bears, the dead waking up and walking around, it's when the lights go out and something with claws grabs you by the arm. And the last and worse one: Terror, when you come home and notice everything you own had been taken away and replaced by an exact substitute. It's when the lights go out and you feel something behind you, you hear it, you feel its breath against your ear, but when you turn around, there's nothing there...”

To me, I'm pretty clear on the meaning of horror. Horror causes a feeling of dread, a feeling that something bad is coming, or it's already here, but you just can't see it.

And I understand that a little gore, a little of the gross out needs to be there. Things will get hurt, things will be maimed, things will suffer, things will die. That can't be bloodless or it's just boring.

But there's indicating it, and there's rubbing your face in it.

For me, it's the difference between the shower scene in Psycho and any of the ridiculous deaths in any of the Friday the 13th movies (as an example). The first is scary, the second is excessive.

I don't know, maybe it's just me (well, me and Julian) but less is more. Giving us a taste of the gore, as opposed to ramming the entire length of intestine down my throat will work better.

I'm just getting sick of this seeming oneupping that seems to be the trend now. I'm currently reading a Stoker-nominated horror novel that's simply graphic sex and violence. And a lot of the reviews talk about how much it pushes the envelope. To me, it's only pushing a shitty story that never would have been published if it didn't try and titillate and gross the reader out...all at the same time.

Just pisses me off.

[Stacey]

I put it down. I could not read it. Horror doesn't bother me but when it's a 3 page detail of the torture of an animal I'm done. What a waste of my time!

[Dawn]

That was my reaction to this book as well. I felt the author was trying to be as gross as possible as a substitute for writing anything scary. I HATED all the animal cruelty and I skipped the part with the kitten, and most of the part with the turtle. You don't need that to make a book scary.

[Katherine]

Agreed. Just gross. Not horror.

[Jason]

I didn't find it gross at all. I also don't think it was horror. I found the book to be slow and boring.

[Jaksen]

I read it and found it interesting, somewhat gory, and definitely horrible. (Check out my age; I'm old, hehe.) But to each his or her own. I will say I don't like the really gross horror flicks; I prefer the slow suspense and Hitchcock's films are among my favorites. (Seen Vertigo, the Birds and Rear Window multiple times.) But, as with every genre, and with every reader, if you don't like a book, put it down. There's books of every kind out there and horror comes in a wide range of 'goriness,' or not. And for those who really don't like horror at all there's always romance.

I can't believe I wrote that last sentence! :D

[[deleted user]]

And hey, what do we all know? The Troop just won the first Herbert award. Over Bird Box, a much better book.

[Lianne]

To be honest, I didn't find this book anywhere near as good as people say it was. It went for gross-out instead of more the creeping horror. I couldn't understand all the raves.

[Gene]

Wow, I just finished this a couple of days ago and posted the review here basically saying the exact same thing. Wondering what the hell did I just read and why. This book was nothing more than the shocking fact and gore of kids being killed by the worms or each other. Not a light spot in the entire thing. I was actually shocked that it even made it to print - that's how dark it was, with absolutely no redeeming quality to it whatsoever.

[Jerry's]

I felt the same way. I wouldn't classify this as horror but just plain gross. I couldn't eat noodles for a week. I liked the story, the writing was just fine, the characters were just fine, the book was just gross. It took me, I kid you not, 3 to 4 months to finish just because I didn't want to invest a lot of time in it. I actually found myself nearly almost throwing up a couple of times. If you take out all the gory details, this book is just that, just fine. Nothing special about it, no wow factor, just ordinary.

[Jaksen]

And I loved it but I am old.

[[deleted user]]

Jerry's wrote: "I felt the same way. I wouldn't classify this as horror but just plain gross. I couldn't eat noodles for a week. I liked the story, the writing was just fine, the characters were just fine, the boo..."

I found the writing okay, but Cutter doesn't simply get inspiration from Stephen King, he tends to steal blatantly. For this one, he cribbed from Carrie, stealing the informational journal-style narrative to provide information. In his next piece of crap (that I couldn't finish), he stole from The Shining. He also has each story hinge on someone doing something incredibly stupid (like bringing a kid in to help autopsy a body).

But no, no wow factor at all, and yet, somehow, still an award winner. Go figure.

[[deleted user]]

Jaksen wrote: "And I loved it but I am old."

I'm only ten years behind you, Jaksen. For me, I don't think age is a factor. For me, it was just cheap gross-outs that pissed me off.

[Jaksen]

I don't think he steals so much as reuses tropes that have been around for a while. It's how one uses these old tropes that makes a story good.

Anyhow, someone mentioned age in this thread, which is why I tossed it in there. I just read Cutter's 'Little Heaven,' and it's similar in style, as in describe, describe and when you feel the descrip. deep in your throat, it finally stops. Or maybe it doesn't!

[[deleted user]]

I won't waste another second or another dime on Cutter's crap.

[Evan]

Yeah just finished it. Not really horror at all, just gross. I get asmr tingles when its horror, I did not get that in this book. Still a decent book I thought.

[Tim]

I think it was a great horror story but I absolutely respect those who were uncomfortable. For me it was the ultimate exploration of body horror, of knowing your body is rebelling, that what is happening will kill you, the disbelief of seeing what is happening to you coupled with the dread of knowing what is coming, at least for characters who saw what is going to happen.

It is also an exploration of what happens when all civilization is removed (sort of Lord of the Flies) but also knowing you are doomed, that the real you for a time comes out. Do you give in the horrible urges that the parasites encourage? Do you remain you? Can you still do good? Or are your worst impulses coming out?

To me great horror's central question is "what is fear and how do you deal with it?" Fear can include also horror. I think this book was a great exploration of it.