Sci-fi and Heroic Fantasy discussion
General SF&F Chat
>
What Differentiates Fantasy from Horror?
date
newest »
newest »
Hm, it's an interesting question because I come at it from two different ways -- one more emotional/intuitive (does it "feel like" horror to me?) and one technical/structural (what are the defining elements?). Going structural, I'd argue that fantasy at base comes down to using elements of the supernatural or fantastic, making most horror a subset of fantasy. (Which leads me to ask: is there non-supernatural horror? I can think of films like the Saw series or slasher films that don't necessarily have supernatural elements. Is there much "slasher" fiction -- and does it typically get shelved as horror versus, say, mystery? Are fictitious diseases supernatural de facto, or only those that seem particularly nature-defying in their manifestation or transmission?)
Ash's "deliberately scary" idea comes close to my "feels like horror" sense, but when it gets down to individual cases, I think we'd call things in different ways: Frankenstien & Interview with a Vampire both feel like horror to me. Calling Frankenstein sci fi or fantasy but not horror is like calling The Handmaid's Tale literature but not sci fi. Having something philosphical to say can't preclude something from being horror: Night of the Living Dead might have something philosophical to say about race & class, but there's no doubt it's horror. & Lovecraft must surely count as horror, no matter the fantasy.
I don't read or watch a lot of horror; the kind I like most is the philosophical/intriguing kind. (& frankly, I find some of the scariest philosophical fiction reading I do is "hard sci fi," often those that deal with "the singularity" or the nature of consciousness) The kind of horror I like least is the gorey, blood-soaked kind, which seems designed to elicit disgust as much as fear -- & disgust seems to be at play or being played with in many of the works where horror & romance or erotica mix.
Hillary wrote: "Which leads me to ask: is there non-supernatural horror?"I was thinking about that, and yes. I mean the movie Psycho was pretty darn creepy and it was just a crazy guy. But maybe a lot of the non-supernatural horror might be "psychological thriller" instead? Wonder if slasher stuff translates well to the written form or maybe it's a visual genre. Not something I'd either watch nor read so don't know what's out there.
Randy wrote: "I'm not sure there's any correct answers here,"
Definitely no right answers because it all comes down to what scares you personally.
I was noticing how most post-apocalyptic stories are flagged as horror but dystopias generally are not, though some dystopias can be pretty horrific. So is The Stand considered horror because it is post-plague or because they're up against some kind of anti-christ character? Frankly it was the plague bit that gave me the creeps and I'm ok with the supernatural aspect of the tale.
Ash wrote: "Anne Rice's novels are historical romances with elements of horror
Agreed on the Vampire Chronicles not being horror but I did get the creeps from her Mayfair Witches...though maybe that was just all the incest and creepy births...Basically ghosts scare me, vampires don't.
It's an issue of tone. The difference between any genre can be pretty subtle at the best of times, where it is not outright arbitrary. Think Shakespeare and the difference between comedy and tragedy: The former ends in death, the latter in marriage. (Did I mix up the order? ;-) ) So it is with horror and fantasy, especially "Urban Fantasy" or "Dark Fantasy": You see a lot of the same plot points, but the mood of the scene will be much darker/hopeless in horror.
Ash wrote: "Horror is fiction that is deliberately scary."I think I agree with this. A lot of authors deliberately set out to write a "horror novel" and then they do so. Where it gets tricky is when an author writes a story with horror elements that might not fit conveniently within the confines of the genre. Is Frankenstein horror or fantasy? It's certainly not hard SF, right? Reanimating the dead isn't generally considered to be a fantasy trope, yet you have the white walkers in George RR Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire and the Nazgul in Lord of the Rings.
Hillary wrote: "Which leads me to ask: is there non-supernatural horror?"
I think most slasher/serial killer horror is usually categorized as "suspense/thrillers" or crime. But here again the intent is to scare - we're just missing the supernatural element that is considered a hallmark of the genre. For example, Freddy Krueger in the Nightmare on Elm Street movies (yes, I am a child of the 1980s) returns from the dead to haunt the dreams of the children of his tormentors. Are these types of stories a progression of childhood fears of a bogeyman or monsters under the bed that couldn't harm us as long as we remain resolutely under the covers?
Andrea wrote: "I was noticing how most post-apocalyptic stories are flagged as horror but dystopias generally are not, though some dystopias can be pretty horrific."
1984 is frightening, intentionally so of course, but we don't classify it as horror. There's definitely overlap here but is the thin line drawn at the supernatural element? If the Earth suffers as a result of Big Brother it's different than a zombie apocalypse.
Darren wrote: "Think Shakespeare and the difference between comedy and tragedy: The former ends in death, the latter in marriage. (Did I mix up the order? ;-) )"No, I think you got it right. :)
Most horror is fantasy. Fantasy (and sci fi) describe a setting, horror describes a mood.
I think that's where people got surprised when The Graveryard Book was rejected as a selection for this group. It is fantasy but with a horror mood.But we don't we reject comedic fantasy like Discworld. It too is fantasy with a mood filter applied to it.
One just happens to be a positive mood, the other a negative one. And both horror and comedy have their own sections in the bookstore, but in my store both The Graveyard Book and Discworld are in the fantasy section, while the Gunslinger was under horror :)
Andrea wrote: "And both horror and comedy have their own sections in the bookstore, but in my store both The Graveyard Book and Discworld are in the fantasy section, while the Gunslinger was under horror :)"I'm guessing that is in large part due to the reputation of the respective authors for those books. King is known as a "horror" writer, Gaiman is known as a "fantasy" writer. God forbid they ever leave their designated zones. :)
Some writers of dark fiction dont like the "horror" label because to them horror denotes an emotion rather than a literary genre and use labels like "dark fantasy" instead.All genres are fairly fluid with crossovers that are generally only issues when it comes to what shelves to put things on or what awards books are eligible for... well that and what books people are drawn to read. I am in some horror book groups as well but they do not seem as attached to what genre something is rather the more simple is it dark/scary/interesting.
For a mainstream Fantasy/SF group straying too far to the darker side could just leave some readers not enjoying the selections.
Ben wrote: "For a mainstream Fantasy/SF group straying too far to the darker side could just leave some readers not enjoying the selections."I agree with that. Lately there's been quite a bit of dark stuff being selected like The Passage and The Handmaid's Tale (it's not categorized as horror, and I've never read it to comment, but the cover of my edition has a woman's face with her lips sewn shut...so I'm guessing it won't be exactly cheerful), even The Dying Earth is centered around unpleasant characters coming to unpleasant ends. I personally wouldn't mind something lighter, but our group is the one that nominates and then votes on them, so I'm if these darker books are being picked it's what people want to read, and if people are not enjoying the selections they should participate in the nomination process more.
After all, straying too far to the light doesn't fit everyone's tastes either. For example I was ok with Discworld because my purpose of joining this group was to be exposed to new stuff but I honestly didn't get why so many people think it's the greatest thing ever. My tastes are darker (though not horror dark), and I tend to get annoyed when things are too silly.
But I think both extremes have a place, and can't reject one without rejecting the other :) Though rejecting because we've had X number of the same thing in a row is another story and I can definitely accept that.
NekroRider wrote: "When talking about books like Frankenstein though, I think they should again be considered within the time they were written"It's known that Frankenstein came into being when Mary Shelley and company challenged each other to come up with a ghost story, so if we're talking author intent, then it's gothic horror as you pointed out.
NekroRider, I agree it seems to come down to author intent. So what do we do about those authors who intentionally toe the line and try to avoid classification? I remember when I was in college I wrote about small local and regional bands and musical artists, and they all HATED the question: "how would you classify your music." Each and every single artist I spoke with thought their music was so original that it defied classification (even those who were clearly ripping off Van Halen or U2). I think many authors are the same way and avoid labeling their output so as not to limit their audience (someone who likes fantasy might not want to read a horror book, and vice versa).
By the way, I'm not sure I agree that dystopian fiction is a different genre than science fiction. I think dystopian fiction is a sub-genre of science fiction, although it's more focused on societal commentary instead of robots and spaceships. It's discussions like these that lead many authors and fans to prefer the label "speculative fiction" rather than "science fiction." Of course, that begs the argument of whether ALL fiction isn't necessarily speculative by definition. Maybe we need a discussion topic for that too!
NekroRider wrote: "Part of that depends on the author's intent...."
If author intent mattered, we'd have to give out Hugo Awards daily.
If author intent mattered, we'd have to give out Hugo Awards daily.
This seems like kind of a huge tangent from the topic.
I think the tangent occurred because all these genres kind of blur together and it is hard to tell them apart and they all end up being discussed. It started with what is horror vs fantasy/sf to pointing out that post-apocalyptic tales are usually categorized as both sci-fi and horror, and dystopia, while even if the setting is quite horrific, is rarely marked as horror (but almost always SF) but not clear whyAnd something can be post-apocalyptic & dystopian & horror & sf all at the same time.
I'm almost tempted to start a thread about how anything set in the future, so long as there is no magic involved, is automatically science fiction, even if it's not speculating about new technologies/aliens/wormholes/dimensions, but it's just the future. Post-apocalyptic tales often results in the setting being even more backwards technology-wise....ok will stop here because that is going even more off tangent.
Haha, You guys all make very valid points, whether off topic or not, lol...I definitely see a lot of books that are, in my opinion, miss labeled from genres. I absolutely agree that Horror is with the intent of freaking the hell out of the readers. I would hate to grab a book that is labeled as horror, and find it not horrific at all. Lucky for me, I am not a fan of Horror, but Fantasy, I will devour about anything fantasy, especially if it has dragons as leading characters. Dragons could be fantasy, Horror or Sci-fi so I would say it all depends on the way the author writes the story and how the reader portrays it, but that's also why it can vary.
Honestly, I'm reminded of my literary theory course, at 7:30 in the morning, that I so infrequently showed up to. Genre is a difficult subject compounded by the various different lenses of distinct approaches to literature in general. I saw aforementioned that the intent of the author is a matter of some concern, but there are some approaches that don't consider the intent of the author whatsoever.So to be honest, anything I say will be of questionable value.
Fantasy is actually a pretty broad brushstroke. It can cover a fairly wide chronology and it can also cover circumstances that have never existed in history. What seems functional for fantasy is that it be a fantasy, and there's very little else. In this aspect, it's very likely for all fiction to fall into the category of fantasy, but I would imagine there's a second defining criterion. Not only should it be a fantasy, it should also detail events which labor under mechanics that at least we believe not to exist, or at least in that form.
Horror generally deals with matters of the human condition. It can range anywhere from unwanted but deep-seated questions about one's own moral quality all the way to the fear of insects. I think it generally includes horrors that call into question that validity of the body but also the self. In that light, Frankenstein's monster could well be considered an aspect of horror as it is literally reanimated flesh, what should not exist. It's sort of like a doll. You have to question whether or not it actually possesses feelings or a soul. And questioning the validity of this creature makes you call into account your own. That's how I would put it, at least.
Randy wrote: "Is Frankenstein horror or fantasy? It's certainly not hard SF, right?"It's based on the cutting edge science of its day, namely the recent discovery that applying electric current to the legs of dead frogs made them twitch as if alive.
She recounted how she had listened to a lively discussion of the matter, gone to bed, and dreamed of a scientist reviving a man on the same principle, scaring her out of her wits.
And once she collected them, she realized that what scared her would scare others so she started on the idea. Which would make it Horror.
But also Science Fiction. A lot of critics are willing to cite it as the first work of actual SF instead of being a precursor.
Ben wrote: "Some writers of dark fiction dont like the "horror" label because to them horror denotes an emotion rather than a literary genre and use labels like "dark fantasy" instead."There are those who say that the difference is that in dark fantasy there are rules to the universe, just different than you expect (and darker, which differentiates it from other fantasy) and in supernatural horror, rules have broken down (thinking of Lovecraftian horrors, no doubt).
Probably not a good definition.
NekroRider wrote: "I'd rather consider dystopian fiction as a sub-genre of speculative fiction. I think there are very distinct differences traditionally between dystopian fiction and science fiction. "Oh, there's a long history of dystopias in SF, down to the pulpiest of pulp SF.
Mary wrote: "It's based on the cutting edge science of its day, namely the recent discovery that applying electric current to the legs of dead frogs made them twitch as if alive.She recounted how she had listened to a lively discussion of the matter, gone to bed, and dreamed of a scientist reviving a man on the same principle, scaring her out of her wits.
And once she collected them, she realized that what scared her would scare others so she started on the idea. Which would make it Horror.
But also Science Fiction. A lot of critics are willing to cite it as the first work of actual SF instead of being a precursor."
I would agree with this. It extrapolates on then-current science, and uses this to tell a story about humans. That's what makes the best SF in my opinion.
About the opening question: I don't see that there's any need to differentiate fantasy and horror. To me, if something is written to scare people then it's horror, whether it has elements of the supernatural or not. So you can have books that are fantasy/horror, or thriller/horror, or fantasy/something else.
Bryan wrote: "I don't see that there's any need to differentiate fantasy and horror.."There being overlap doesn't necessarily mean it's not useful. At the very least you want to be able to distinguish non-horror fantasy from horror. There being people who really don't like horror.
Mary wrote: "Bryan wrote: "I don't see that there's any need to differentiate fantasy and horror.."There being overlap doesn't necessarily mean it's not useful. At the very least you want to be able to distinguish non-horror fantasy from horror. There being people who really don't like horror. "
What I meant was those terms are not mutually exclusive, so there's not one thing that differentiates one from the other. Of course that doesn't mean you can't specify whether something is horror or not.
Bryan wrote: "What I meant was those terms are not mutually exclusive, so there's not one thing that differentiates one from the other...."
Most genre designations are orthognal scales. I can imagine a scifi/fantasy/horror/western/mystery. Where you shelve it depends on which element dominates (in the opinion of the publisher, usually.) It's only an exclusive choice in Libraries and brick & mortar bookstores.
Sometimes the author's reputation or a simple reaction to content persuades. Zombies? Must be Horror, even though neither World War Z nor The Girl with All the Gifts struck me as horror. (I suspect the upcoming movie version of the latter may well be Horror, though.)
I never thought of Frankenstein, the book, as horror (though most of the movies tend that way. I mean, it's got a "monster", so it must be horror, right?) To me it's a scifi story of a science not thinking through the implications of what he's doing. (BTW, except for his faulty lab containment protocols, I'm on Dr. Frankenstein's side. :)
Question: If I re-wrote Tolkien's The Return of the King, with Frodo & Sam sneaking through Mordor, but replaced "orc" with "zombie", would it then be Horror?
Most genre designations are orthognal scales. I can imagine a scifi/fantasy/horror/western/mystery. Where you shelve it depends on which element dominates (in the opinion of the publisher, usually.) It's only an exclusive choice in Libraries and brick & mortar bookstores.
Sometimes the author's reputation or a simple reaction to content persuades. Zombies? Must be Horror, even though neither World War Z nor The Girl with All the Gifts struck me as horror. (I suspect the upcoming movie version of the latter may well be Horror, though.)
I never thought of Frankenstein, the book, as horror (though most of the movies tend that way. I mean, it's got a "monster", so it must be horror, right?) To me it's a scifi story of a science not thinking through the implications of what he's doing. (BTW, except for his faulty lab containment protocols, I'm on Dr. Frankenstein's side. :)
Question: If I re-wrote Tolkien's The Return of the King, with Frodo & Sam sneaking through Mordor, but replaced "orc" with "zombie", would it then be Horror?
Tolkien dabbled in horror in both the Hobbit and LoTR. Giant spiders, lake-dwelling tentacled horrors, swarms of monsters within the mines. They break up the pacing and change the mood whenever the book begins to get dull. He was pretty good at writing horror, and these are some of the most memorable and iconic scenes in the novels.Doesn't make the books horror, but I think other writers who insist on writing doorstopper fantasies should take notes about how effective the shift in mood is at breaking up long slogs.
Brendan wrote: " Giant spiders, lake-dwelling tentacled horrors, swarms of monsters within the mines...."
i think that leads to the same question, though... is it the creature? Are slimy tentacles & giant spiders almost by definition Horror?
The creature in the lake (or a couple its tentacles, at least) 'appears' for less than a page. It serves the plot as a way to prevent any thought of retracing step (and disposes of poor old Bill.) It never struck me as a horror scene, though. Would it be less so if it was a horde of orcs charging after the Fellowship? Or, a lake dragon?
Now, Shelob, on the other hand, gets some tension built up, what with Gollum's mutterings and the webs. Besides, spiders are creepy even when they're small :)
i think that leads to the same question, though... is it the creature? Are slimy tentacles & giant spiders almost by definition Horror?
The creature in the lake (or a couple its tentacles, at least) 'appears' for less than a page. It serves the plot as a way to prevent any thought of retracing step (and disposes of poor old Bill.) It never struck me as a horror scene, though. Would it be less so if it was a horde of orcs charging after the Fellowship? Or, a lake dragon?
Now, Shelob, on the other hand, gets some tension built up, what with Gollum's mutterings and the webs. Besides, spiders are creepy even when they're small :)
G33z3r wrote: "Would it be less so if it was a horde of orcs charging after the Fellowship? Or, a lake dragon?"In my opinion, yes, it would be less of a horror scene. If horror is a mood, then certain elements can go further for "setting the mood", if you will. As a bed of roses sets the mood for an amorous love scene, so a tentacled monstrosity can go a long way towards setting the mood for a horror scene.
If you have a bed of roses with a tentacled monstrosity, you are in a different genre entirely.
And all that sort of comes back to what triggered this discussion which was The Graveyard Book by Neil Gaiman not being appropriate for this group because it is horror...but it is also tagged as "Childrens" by Goodreads, so how scary can it really be? Is it like the zombies in LotR example? People shelved it as horror simply because it has ghosts, or is it really that terrifying?
Andrea wrote: "And all that sort of comes back to what triggered this discussion which was The Graveyard Book by Neil Gaiman not being appropriate for this group because it is horror...but it is also tagged as "Childrens" by Goodreads, so how scary can it really be? Is it like the zombies in LotR example? People shelved it as horror simply because it has ghosts, or is it really that terrifying?"I wonder exactly the same thing. I don't think Gaiman writes anything but fantasy, but he does have a macabre side (see: Coraline) like a literary Tim Burton.
Ah, Coraline . His editor thought it too scary for children, and suggested it be brought out as an adult book. After a bit, she agreed to have her kids test it, and if they weren't scared, it could come out as a children's. So she read it to them, they said they weren't scared, and it came out as a children's book.Somewhat later, he mentioned this to one of those children, and she said that she had been terrified, but knew if she told her mother so, her mother wouldn't have let her finish the book.
Mary wrote: "Ah, Coraline . His editor thought it too scary for children, and suggested it be brought out as an adult book. After a bit, she agreed to have her kids test it, and if they weren't scared, it could..."I must admit the movie creeped me out, what with the button eyes and all.
Gaiman's The Ocean at the End of the Lane was horror as well, and also terrorizes children (though not intended as a children's book.) The suspense is mitigated slightly by the fact that it's told as a memory of the adult version of the child, so his survival seems assured.
I haven't been following this thread closely since I don't have much opinion on genres, but it seems to have smacked me on the nose, anyway. I'm slogging through Flights: Extreme Visions of Fantasy, a fantasy anthology that features some of my favorite authors & have been highly disappointed so far. Most of the stories seem pointless. When they're not, they have huge logic holes or some other major disappointment. Most of the few good stories have had a strong enough horror element that I would have put them in a horror anthology, not a fantasy one. It's part of my disappointment, albeit one of the lesser ones. While I'm not a huge fan of the genre, I don't mind it occasionally. When I read fantasy, I don't expect a preponderance of horror elements, although Randy has a point with 'dark fantasy' & such.
I think the early posts of this thread were correct in dividing horror into the supernatural & mundane. It certainly is for me. There are too many mundane things that are not suspenseful or thrilling, just horrible. There's enough truly horrible stuff going on in the world now, so I generally avoid that sort. The fantastic element is often far less horrifying simply because of the disconnect from reality.
Reviving this thread since we've had another *cough* incident in the March 2018 contemporary nomination thread :)------------------------------
Tooth and Claw contains dragon cannibalism, should that be considered horror? I'm assuming Silence of the Lambs is supposed to fall under horror.
The problem with horror, is that it's subjective, because what scares one person doesn't scare another. For me, if you put ghosts in it, it's scary. If you put vampires in it, no problem. The Stand, The Passage were actually kind of boring, whereas I had to squirm a bit in Library of Mount Char as there were entrails hanging from the ceiling and children being roasted alive only to be resurrected to do it all over again. Though I wasn't "scared" so much as "grossed out" so maybe that is indeed not horror? It's not like I thought David was going to come and get me or anything like that...
Horror is not so much as genre as it is a tone. You can write horror fantasy/SF/romance/mystery/regular fiction, it's not independent of the other genres.
I basically don't trust GR shelving either, since each person makes up his own category. I'm betting The Passage is horror because it has "vampires" in it. Just like Pern is fantasy because it has "dragons" in, even though on nearly every page McCaffrey tries to bang the SF aspect into the reader's heads. And that prologue, which is repeated in *every* book, was forgotten by everyone who had read the books before. The Handmaid's Tale has nothing "science" about it whatsoever, but many people think dystopia == SF.
I thought of a silly vampire book called "Undead and Unwed" and 28 people shelved it as horror while 56 people shelved is as humour, and 66 as comedy. Can horror be funny? Or did 28 people go "vampires == horror" blindly?
Question - is grimdark fantasy == horror? (This isn't rhetorical, I'm actually curious)
A theme of death, a focus on violence (as versus it being part of the story) and/or gore, or an overall tone of fright and horror are what constitute the genre in my mind. Books focusing on undead or serial killers usually fall into this category although they can be present in non-horror books of course.I would not consider The Ocean at the End of the Lane horror because I don’t feel that it fits any of the above (not to argue the matter, just my own opinion, and I can see how it fits with another definition).
It is definitely subjective! Personally, I think that if a book is classified by a large number as both horror and either fantasy or science fiction, then it should be eligible for nomination and voting.
Andrea wrote: "But the no horror rule appeared before Mount Char then was relaxed for that one, then came back. Don't recall if Graveyard Book (rejected) was before the Passage (accepted), it might have been..."I wouldn't classify The Library at Mount Char as horror, although it contained some horror elements (and some horrifying scenes, which is not the same thing...). Also, three times as many GR readers classified LAMC as Fantasy, which you can see on the right side of the book page. If that is the rule we are using in terms of which nominations will be accepted, that's fine. But in the case of The Graveyard Book (the book whose rejection for nomination as a contemporary read was the inspiration for this thread) the Fantasy classifications outweigh the Horror classifications on the GR book page by about 8 to 1, So I think Silvana would like to know how we will decide if a given book is "horror" or "fantasy."
Randy wrote: "So I think Silvana would like to know how we will decide if a given book is "horror" or "fantasy." Agreed, we not only need to be consistent in applying the no horror rule, but also need a clear definition of what horror is. Though I dislike using the GR shelving for reasons I mentioned before, at least that's a piece of information we can all see as a "fact", whether we debate the accuracy of it or not.
So in the Passage we have people living inside enclosures to avoid some vampire-like creatures which you become if you are bitten is considered horror but roasting a child alive over and over again and making a bunch of other kids watch (Mount Char) is not?
What makes the Passage so much more horror (even in GR shelves) than Mount Char, I must be missing something :) The Stand I guess I could see, if you are afraid of demon/devil incarnate characters, but he's only really around in the last third or so of the book.
Maybe an uncontrolled plague that affects all characters (Passage/Stand) is more horrifying than one specific character performing graphic torture on a specific group of characters? Maybe because in the first case it could happen to you, but in the second, if you're not one of those kids, you know you're safe? Even if I'd much rather become one of the vampires in the Passage than be one of the kids in Mount Char?
Andrea wrote: "So in the Passage we have people living inside enclosures to avoid some vampire-like creatures which you become if you are bitten is considered horror but roasting a child alive over and over again and making a bunch of other kids watch (Mount Char) is not?"Good point. But I didn't think LAMC was a story based around the idea of roasting kids (and of course, these weren't really "kids" as much as demigods or gods-in-training or whatever). It was one horrifying scene that was meant to be horrifying. Just because it had lions in it didn't make it a nature documentary either. But I think you're saying what Silvana is saying, which is: where is the line drawn?
Andrea wrote: "roasting a child alive over and over again and making a bunch of other kids watch (Mount Char) is not?"At least, in true Monty Python style, they got better.
I know that Weird books aren't allowed to be nominated around here so I don't even bother. It doesn't bug me as this isn't really a democracy, despite the appearance of a vote. More like a constitutional monarchy, but we can leave for another country (group) if we don't like the benevolent tyrant's decisions. I don't feel the need for clearer guidelines beyond "know it when i see it."
This inevitably boils down to "the vibe" (for the benefit of any other Australians taking part), just the same as the division between SF and fantasy. Some books are obviously SF, some are obviously fantasy, and some are obviously horror. Their authors set out to write in that genre and they observe the tropes of that genre throughout.However there are massive grey areas of overlap, and everyone has their own definition that they use. Some people consider space sufficient for something to be SF, vampires sufficient to be horror, and dragons fantasy. Others have rules around how sciencey science fiction has to be, or what the author's intention was for horror, etc.
With such a massive range of opinions and no agreed definition, it's not surprising that the discussion keeps coming up again and again in the nomination threads - the mods have a definition as does everyone, and inevitably they all differ around the edges.
I've tried using GR genre ratios as a guide and it seems the grey area lives between the 3 or 4 fantasy:1 horror rating - Coraline, London Falling, The Library at Mount Char all fall in here. Frankenstain and The Graveyard Book are both definite outliers (since both were mentioned previously) at about 1:2 and 7:1 respectively.
Still strange that a book that won an award specifically for SFF was not allowed though.Having read Graveyard book I found nothing of horror in it at all, any more than any mystery or thriller.
If it was me I would have said no to LAMC though
Rachel wrote: "Still strange that a book that won an award specifically for SFF was not allowed though."That's the tricky part. A book can be SFF and Horror at the same time. SFF is the setting, the tech, the worldbuilding, the creatures, but horror is a tone. If a ghost is gentle like Caspar, it's a child-friendly fantasy. If you're talking of The Haunting of Hill House it's a adult-horror fantasy. The Aliens movie is SF but also horror.
Randy wrote: "Good point. But I didn't think LAMC was a story based around the idea of roasting kids (and of course, these weren't really "kids" as much as demigods or gods-in-training or whatever). It was one horrifying scene that was meant to be horrifying."
Exactly, in my first post I did question whether "gross/gore" is the same as "horror" and LAMC was probably more gross than scary (what with the scenes of entrails hanging from the ceiling, or David having crushed so many hearts over his head that the blood had hardened into an impenetrable helmet, it's not *just* roasting kids). What makes this different from a gross/gory slasher movie?
But if I've been convinced that LAMC is not horror, what makes The Passage horror, since I found it so much milder? This was really what I wanted to get at, not to force the horror category on one or the other, but to wonder why one has it and the other doesn't. What is it that makes these two books different? Or is it just a plain simple post-apocalypse == horror case?
And just for fun, here's some "vampire horror" - The Vampire Who Came for Christmas which just illustrates how silly it is to label a genre based on some single aspect of the book such as what "monster" it contains.
Andrea wrote: "That's the tricky part. A book can be SFF and Horror at the same time."You're right. Take the movie Alien for example. A Sci-Fi classic, but is it really any different from the movie Halloween?
Anyone belong to a good horror group here on GR? Any recommendations? I'd be interested in a group that focuses on classic reads as well as some modern stuff, preferably with a literary touch.
First of all, as has been noted many times above I think, the two overlap and overlap constantly and like, so what? That's awesome. For me, the bottom line with horror is that it's supposed to scare you. One important difference between horror and fantasy is that with horror, the supernatural seems to be the outlier in our known natural world, the ghost/monster/demon what have you, defies the known laws of physics. A book is fantasy when that warping of the natural world is more of the norm. Say, magic is cool in The Lord of the Rings but it's not unexpected. You've got entire races of beings that defy the laws of nature as we know them. Whereas in The Amityville Horror when there are an usual number of flies in a given window or there's the ghost(?) of a pig with red eyes it's cause for an underwear change.
Yeah, that's a good difference. Of course, it would lead to endless arguments about whether something breaks the rules or shows that the rules are different (and darker) than they seem.
Mary wrote: "Yeah, that's a good difference. Of course, it would lead to endless arguments about whether something breaks the rules or shows that the rules are different (and darker) than they seem."Hopefully, no rules.
My first thought was urban fantasy is basically "hey you normal people out there, there's tons of magic stuff going on behind the scenes and you don't even know it", but then most of those books are from the POV of someone who is part of the magical world, and thus is aware of the rules, so not quite the same.So I do like that description, where something that happens that is not just unusual that exposes some underlying thing we were previously unaware of, but it also has to somehow feel inherently *wrong*, not just unknown.
Harry Potter discovered the rules weren't as he expected, but there was a rightness to that discovery, so not horror, but the dementors were scary because there's a wrongness to them.
:) Which still means Cronin's The Passage doesn't fit, it is a plague which is bad but it doesn't have gut-wrenching wrongess to it. On the other hand there are moments in The Stand with Flagg and his minions and the visions that does meet that description.
Sci-fi and Heroic Fantasy
Books mentioned in this topic
The Amityville Horror (other topics)The Lord of the Rings (other topics)
The Vampire Who Came for Christmas (other topics)
The Graveyard Book (other topics)
The Library at Mount Char (other topics)
More...
Here's some related questions I've always wondered about.
Is Dracula horror or fantasy? What about Frankenstein (which could also be called science fiction I suppose)?
Where is the line drawn between fantasy and horror? Is it about author intent? Or the types of critters in the story (ghosts and demons instead of elves and dwarves)?
Is Lovecraft fantasy or horror?
I'm not sure there's any correct answers here, so everyone's opinion would be welcome.