Horror Aficionados discussion
Horrorpedia
>
defining the integral elements of the horror genre
message 51:
by
William
(new)
Dec 18, 2009 12:10PM
Horror is what I say it is. End of argument.
reply
|
flag
Sorry for the double post of this, but I missed the point where "genre erosion" split off into a separate "define horror" thread. I'm cannibalizing my post from that thread for the salient parts (which Gary beat me to posting, but which I reiterate below):Well, Gary pretty much beat me to it - Horror is any work/story in which the *overall* intent (but not always the *only*) of the author is to elicit a feeling of fear, dread or disturbance in the reader.
Yes, that makes many many things horror, but that's fine, they can also be many other things as well (FRANKENSTEIN - horror, sci-fi, gothic, yes, all three, no problem). Genres are made by humans and so are imperfect and porous. Technically, they've always been half-marketing tool anyway.
I have no problem considering TWILIGHT and stuff like it paranormal romance, if that means I don't have to look at it - but I could just as easily call it Dark Fantasy (bad, or reductive Dark Fantasy, but still) - in that it uses dark fantastic elements to enliven its story, but the point of that story is not, on the whole, to scare or disturb (although I would add the addendum that the further back you go historically, the more leeway you have to give to what writers found - and thus expected their audience to find - scary or disturbing. Up to a certain point, the mere *appearance* of a ghost was terrifying, even if it was benign).
I don't think it has to have an unhappy ending either, although that happens a lot because it enhances the overall intent.
Stories in which people suffer straddle the line between horror and the conte cruel, which is an offshoot of Decadent literature. It matters how much the dwelling on the suffering is sustained and to what purpose, and eventually this overlaps with some of the tougher forms of crime fiction like noir.
It's really all about intent not content, and focus not features.
Or at least, that's what I use as my yardstick.
Oh, I did forget another interesting idea - I'm slooooowly making my way through Collapse v. 3 Philosophical Research and Development (although the one I want to reference is Volume IV, but I can't get that link to come up, it's the same editor) which is a philosophical journal. Volume 4 focuses on horror (or the idea of concept horror) and even though it's sold out you can download the entire thing as PDF online. Anyway, the very first article, in an argument that eventually stretches off into Lovecraft and Zoroastarism and Aryan professors and other minutia - but the article starts with the contention that the only singularity that all forms and versions of horror share is that of the victim - the existence of a victim (not necessarily a dead one, but in some way a victim) is the constant that defines horror. It's a pretty heady read but worth the time.
Huh? My brain hurt after readin your dissertation, Shawn. LOL Kidding. Good stuff, man.
I bet Shawn's an English major. We always make people's brains hurt.
I'm afraid that I'm not an English major (nor lamentably...an english minor)...hope that I can still hold my own in these lofty exchanges...Interestingly, when I first posed this question to both the horror and fantasy groups, I had anticipated that the fantasy groups would be much more involved in dissecting the integral elements that make these genres so wonderful...they have remained aloof, while the horror group has participated with great interest...so much for preconceived notions!
One thing we're not is aloof. Even though you're not an English major or minor, please contiue to join our conversatsions. We always need some new blood around here. And most of these psychos majored in other things. Some even math and science. Ewww.
Hey, don't forget us that didn't major at all. :)
Hey, everyone's welcome here. HA wouldn't be the same without you, Lori.
What's more, you don't really want to get me started on the notion that you can actually teach creativity anyway...that topic could get bloodly. The ultimate point of this type of discussion is that people should not only have fairly developed ideas about what they like...they should have well developed ideas about why they like what they like! Who knows, delving deep into the waters of those questions might even provide a measure of insight into your own personal nature...So saying "I don't know why I like it...I just do." is probably a major cop out.
I have to disagree that all horror has to have the ending in which evil wins. My least favorite kinds of stories. I believe that horror can have happy endings. I do believe that the tension needs to be sustained until the very end, but evil should be vanquished. It's a philosophical thing for me. I have profound distaste for subject matter with evil winning and prevailing over good. No offense to anyone meant.
Again, I find myself agreeing with Danielle...if every horror story required a triumph by evil to qualify as a legitimate horror story...it would be a genre for manic depressives and the suicidal...If i want unrelentingly bleak outcomes...I can just watch CNN.
I don't think they have to have a downbeat ending, but the story is usually more powerful if it does. Happy endings run the risk of being schmatlzy.
George, I can't always put into words why a certain horror book struck me in a profound way while I only enjoyed another horror book. I enjoyed some of Ed Lee's books, but they have never struck a chord with me like, say, Michael McDowell's books have. The writers both add a southern flavor to their stories, but there's just something extra special about McDowell's books that Lee could never top. Could be style. I just don't know.
Can't I just let the beauty and awe of a good story wash over me like I do when I'm viewing a painting? I've never had to explain to people why I like Van Gogh's Crows Over a Wheatfield.
Danielle, a trend now in horror books and movies is to have them end bad for our heroes. While that's OK I also agree that horror books can have happy endings without losing effect.
Tressa, I think that's why I am liking less and less modern horror, because of the tendency for bleak endings. I tend to read the noir supernatural fantasy, which has the horror elements, and a satisfyingly upbeat, if not happy per se, ending.George, I agree with you about the desire to avoid bleak endings. I am an escapism reader. In real life, bad stuff happens all the time. I like to read books where bad stuff might happen, but it works out in the end. Can I say that I don't watch the news for that very reason? Yes, I am the proverbial ostrich with her head buried in the sand.
Tressa I also agree that it's hard to sometimes say why some stories resonate and others don't. I know in general what kinds of themes and stories I like. Some authors just have a power in their writing, that will have me loving a theme I generally hate. That's a job well done.
The 'Evil Must Win' rule was originally one of Sam Raimi's Rules for horror; interestingly enough all his horror movies end on a negative note but I really wouldn't say any of them are depressing. Horror movies and books are a form of escapism and if the story ends on a downbeat note it doesn't necessarily make the viewer/reader feel down, I think that depends on the person themselves. Not all horror stories should have an unhappy ending, this is true, but sometimes we root for the bad guys.
Hollywood has always been averse to the downbeat ending and often force a happy ending onto films, (it happened to Sam Raimi on Army of Darkness now that I think of it) which is why I said; sometimes I wish the ‘evil must win’ rule is true. ‘The People Under the Stairs’ springs to mind, I really like the movie but the happy ending is plain embarrassing to watch.
Ultimately, you can’t come up with 100% accurate rules for horror because a large part of horror is about breaking rules and taboos. If you say, ‘you can’t do this’ or ‘you have to do this’ in a horror story, well that’s just a challenge.
Downbeat endings feel more genuine to me.
Scott wrote: "Downbeat endings feel more genuine to me."Yeh me too, but it does depend on the book/movie. Sometimes if the story is particularly intense you need the good guys to win.
I just feel that in real life, they wouldn't, especially against a supernatural force.
Scott, this is what bugs me about a lot of horror stories. The little guy is going to beat an ancient supernatural force? But there's something in me that is always a little glad when the good guy wins, even when it's not believable.
It depends on your religious beliefs. Some religious beliefs always dictate that the person of faith has power to prevail over evil. That's my philosophical issue, that my faith tells me good does prevail over evil. I'm not trying to start a religious discussion, so no offense to anyone.
On the flipside, Evil always winning get's old really quickly as well. If I wanted evil to win all the time I'd continue to watch the news or I'd watch Avatar or District 9 for a lecture on us evil humans!
This is posted on the other thread, sense their both more or less alike I thought i'd post it here as well."The effect of genre erosion on the horro genre."
Shawn wrote,("It's poor judgment, said grandpa, to call anything by a name. We don't know what a hobgoblin or a vampire or a troll is. Could be lots of things.You can't heave them into categories with labels and say they'll act one way or another. That'd be silly. They're people. People who do things. Yes, that's the way to put it. People who *do* things."
It seems to me the consenus is that there is no right or worng way to write a horror book. Well i'm going to stick to my guns in saying there are rules for vampires. Hell, the next thing i'll find out is that werewolves can change whenever they want, morning, noon, and night. Oh and they don't even need the moon. M O O N that spells bullshit!
Shawn in the story "The Man Upstairs" did he turn out to be a vampire? And as much as i like that quote how would any story sound if it read, "Well today some people went out to *do* something. Some went on a killing spree at the post office. Some other people grew fangs and drink some other peopls blood. They were trying to find something to *do*." How boring!
I really think they (whoever they are) need to give that kind of writing it's own place. It's not fair to real horror writers, & it's not fair to the others. Don't you all think Stephenie Meyer and other writers like her deserve their own place on bookshelves everywhere? I for one do!
Well I've said all I care to on this subject. Good luck to all who come after!
I think another element that divides quality horror from schlock would be the inclusion of empathy in the story...the development of characters and story detail to the point where the reader actually invests some emotional interest in the characters in the story...it's what separates the shining examples of the genre (such as you selection of the month - ghost story) from material such as jason goes to New York, Jason goes to space and Jason goes to the Zoo. I guess this stuff has a place...but it's very difficult to write a memorable piece of fiction if you fail to evoke character empathy.
I agree with you about empathy, George. I have to care about the characters, and feel for them, or what's the point. For me, that's true for any genre.Jerrod, I could not agree with you more.
Tressa I do agree that it certainly isn't always necessary to define your every action and to like things just because you do... sometime we like things that don't even make sense...I like KFC even though I am fully aware that eating too much of the stuff will gum up the ticker not to mention that the chickens are treated abominably and I generally feel sorry for chickens...but will eating the stuff anyway...perhaps I don't want to look too closely at that motivation...it's strictly an exercise in self-analysis and not really necessary...mind you...if you get a warm, fuzzy feeling from watching someone have the top of their head taken off by a power saw or their spleen perferated by a titanium drill bit makes you feel amorous, perhaps a bit of self-analysis is in order
On the flipside, Evil always winning get's old really quickly as well.I like a mix of different endings. I read a lot of horror and sometimes the good guy wins and some times evil wins. I'd stop reading them if they all ended happily ever after or all broke the hero.
George, I do not ever get a warm fuzzy feeling from watching someone have the top of their head taken off. Some movies I refuse to watch and some books I won't read because I know my limits.
People who exclaim how cool all this torture porn is scare the hell out of me.
Well I have to admit I do indeed get a warm, fuzzy feeling when someone gets their head taken off (joke). I feel no sympathy for chickens... All hail Sate-hen!
Aw, I feel sorry for little chicks. Especially when I read some were thrown into grinders for disposal.
Tressa wrote: "Aw, I feel sorry for little chicks. Especially when I read some were thrown into grinders for disposal."Aw, that's just upsetting :(
I often wonder if the P.E.T.A. ever dressed chicken in holocaust outfits complete with Star of Davids and put them in barb wires. That would do much to cut down on hypocritical vegetarians who 'only eats chickens.' and squiggled their eyes self righteously at me whenever I bite down on a nice juicy steak.
Patrick wrote: "I often wonder if the P.E.T.A. ever dressed chicken in holocaust outfits complete with Star of Davids and put them in barb wires. That would do much to cut down on hypocritical vegetarians who 'onl..."I think it's funny that over 90% of the animals PETA 'saves' are euthanize. Based on that stat, I could 'save' plenty of animals at bargain basement prices too, no donations needed.
I don't think it's funny, if that's even true. If they save even a few animals, isn't it worth it?
Scott wrote: "I don't think it's funny, if that's even true. If they save even a few animals, isn't it worth it?"It's comedy because they advertise that they are saving animals from the very death they deliver. Death is death no matter if it's at the hands of animal abuser or a loving vet giving an injection. Better off giving it to a animal shelter were the survival rate is much better.
statistically, they'd do better, only 70% of shelter animals are euthanized, if that was a medical stat, people would be taking the other treatment.
as an animal lover who frankly hold animals in a higher regard than people as a species...we have now touched on a topic of genuine horror that is far more tragic, terrifying and awful than any hacks boogey man ever could be...the treatment of animals by humans...the horror doesn't get much darker than that.
Scott wrote: "I don't think it's funny, if that's even true. If they save even a few animals, isn't it worth it?"No...not if I have to put up with all the other bullshit they spew!
George wrote: "as an animal lover who frankly hold animals in a higher regard than people as a species...we have now touched on a topic of genuine horror that is far more tragic, terrifying and awful than any hac..."Give me a break.
George, I've had the privileged to know a wonderful American soldier who's career has mostly been spent doing black ops... the horror goes much deeper and darker than mistreating animals. It was our fault for domesticating some of them anyway.
I hate mistreatment of humans and animals. Well, all humans except pedophiles--who were innocent children once until they were defiled. What a vicious circle of depravity.Back in my twenties I belonged to PETA. But they sort of went off the deep end. There are better organizations involved in animal welfare who genuinely try to house and help abused and neglected animals. And they're not attention whores.
I used to be a member as well, many years back. It was through them I became aware of a lot of things, and that there were alternatives, so I'll always have to give them credit for that.
Over the decades PETA just became too radical and couldn't focus on helping animals like they did at one time. Wasn't there a big scandal a few years ago about PETA members euthanizing hundreds of strays instead of them even attempting to find them homes? I can't remember the exact details but it was something very un-PETA-like.
I think they really need to take a look at how they are perceived by the outside if they want to be taken seriously again. A lot of their recent stunts and demands, like the "sea kittens" thing, are beyond silly and don't help anyone.
horror elements to the pros and cons of peta...what a segue...did I inspire this with the mere mention of the fact that i feel occasionally sorry for chickens?...also willaim the slasher...give me a break indeed mighty moderator..spoken with the true grace of someone who'd willingly hang themselves with a moniker like slasher!
Horror Aficionados
Books mentioned in this topic
Frankenstein (other topics)Dracula (other topics)
Collapse (other topics)
The Mist (other topics)
The Girl Next Door (other topics)
