posted
I wanted to post this into the thread 'Charging Up Charlie' in Short stories section but I decided to put it here instead.
I usually don't read horror, simply because it is horribly written. The thing that the writer of a horror story attempted to be scary is just stupid to me.
I'm planning on writing a story that my friend evaluated as a horror story. I was surprised, mainly because he's a big horror movie fan and I'm not. Naturally it got me thinking: what gives a horror story the horror factor? And how to do that good? Can anyone suggest a really good horror story?
posted
I feel that "horror" as the name of a genre is pretty stupid actually. Any story meant to evoke fear can be considered "horror."
However in practice it seems bookstores and publishers tend to call almost anything "horror" when they cant find another niche for it. Especially if its in a modern setting and has supernatural elements that arent clearly "high fantasy" elements moved into a modern setting.
So its not really safe to assume (strangely) that something labled "horror" is meant to be all that scary...because often thats just the only "genre" that many things will fit into.
As far as recomendations theres Lovecraft's stuff for "horror" thats almost more like wonder at the unknown...Stephen King's stuff is good and while everything he writes is called "horror" a lot of it isnt...theres a lot of good horror anthologies out there, like Descent into Darkness.
Im on my way to work now but later tonight I'll try and provide some more recomendations.
posted
As for good horror, I would suggest the earlier Stephen King stories. The problem with horror is that writers often think that it means blood, guts and gore, but that is way off. The best horror stories have very little of that because they don't need it. The defining element of horror, it seems to me, is suspense. Stephen King often claims that he doesn't write horror, but rather writes suspense, and I would agree, at least for his earlier work.
As a somewhat divergent, but related thought, there are a lot of similarities between fantasy, science fiction, and horror stories, and that's why you see them shelved closely together at the book store. Many of the elements are the same in all three, but each have their defining focus thing--the thing that makes people place them into one genre or the other. Fantasy usually seems to focus more on characters, science fiction on a scientific element, and horror on suspense. Whatever comes to the surface the most seems to define a story, no matter what else it has.
Because of these similarities, it isn't uncommon at all for an author to write a story, thinking it fits into one genre or the other, only to find out it's one of the other two in most reader's minds. That's not to say you can't have suspense and be considered Fantasy or Science Fiction, just that the overwhelming focus on a horror story I would think would be that edge-of-the-seat kind of writing.
As for what makes good horror. I think that exploring the dark places within us all, and coupling those fears with the elements of a good story. I don't nescessarily have to be in constant suspence as long as I walk away still thinking aout it, and it stirs at least one nightmare afterwards.
posted
This post reminded me of OSC's introduction to Maps in a Mirror, which as far as introductions go, it is one that I always remember...
He discusses the most potent tool of storytellers: fear. This can be broken into three kinds: dread, terror, and horror (let me grab the book off of the shelf).
1. Dread is the strongest type of fear; "It is that tension, that waiting that comes when you know there is something to fear but you have not yet identified what it is."
2. "Terror only comes when you see the thing you're afraid of."
3. "Horror is the weakest of all. After the fearful thing has happened, you see its remainder, its relics."
OSC says that he doesn't write "horror" stories; however, I think the genre is broad to include all types of fear. To me, Stephen King is hit or miss, but at least he understands that extreme violence is not necessary in writing for the genre. My favorites of his are probably The Stand, The Shining and Misery. I'm no expert on the craft, but I am in agreement with OSC that Horror is the weakest of all the above-mentioned. Going through the blockbuster shelves for movies is just one pointless gorefest after another.
posted
I'm not much on reading horror but am very much aware that some novels can be considered more than one genre.
Probably the closest thing I've read that could be considered horror would be Jim Butcher's Harry Dresden series. Dresden's a wizard who investigates anything involving the supernatural in Chicago. I ran across the series in the Science Fiction/Fantasy section of Border's but found it in the horror section at my favorite used bookstore. Some parts of this series is very graphic. I'm not much on blood and guts and can't watch any kind of horror movie that's along these lines (It gives me too realistic nightmares), but Butcher handles it very well. I guess I should add that it's not overly done in his books either, and I consider the Dresden series some of the best fantasy I've ever read.
posted
A deep POV is also critical, I feel. You have to play within the character. I have read and listened to many great horror stories written in fist person, for this reason, I suspect. Not to say that is the best route to go. A close third person will also work well.
Posts: 1888 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Horror has one advantage over Sci-Fi and Fantasy, it sells better. Stephen King knows that, thats why you never see any of his books in the sci-Fi section of the bookstore. Michael Creighton knows that as well. Somehow, he managed to get his books set in the regular old fiction section, even though evrything he writes is clearly Sci-Fi. Although I agree that Sci-Fi is superior to horror, economics is a big enticement to get your stuff classified scary.
Posts: 3072 | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
My definition of horror includes the intent to scare or horrify readers with direct or implied gruesome, morbid, frightening, or suspenseful supernatural imaginative premises, themes, or motifs.
I'm not much for horror in general. Rarely am I able to maintain the level of emotional stimulation that I see fans of the genre have. The Amityville Horror 1977 by Jay Anson was a bestseller. Only one story has ever intruded into my nightmares and that's Armor by John Steakley, published as science fiction, but it fits my definition of horror.
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited July 02, 2008).]
posted
Horror seems to have vanished from most bookstores as a separate set of shelves...those that still have those shelves fill them with large chunks of King and Koontz plus a few classics...originals don't seem to matter much in the scheme of these things.
Horror seems to be alive in other genres...for example, vampire romance novels seem quite popular (if not very horrific)...and it thrives in low-budget movies.
(You want horror? I'm reading a non-fiction book about the end of the Pacific part of World War II, Retribution by Max Hastings, which details what happened to these soldiers (all sides so far) in combat and out of it. That's where the horror is.)
posted
Paraphrasing King from DANSE MACABRE: his first (and I believe, by implication from what he said, noblest) goal is to terrify readers (which I take to mean he tries to scare them), then he descends a bit to trying to horrify them (including some shock and awe, of sorts), and finally, if he can't do the other two, he gives up and just "goes for the gross-out."
Northrop Frye has a list of kinds of stories ("modes"). First there is what I think I remember him calling "mythic" which are stories about gods. Then there's "heroic" which are stories about larger-than-life characters who can be demi-gods, or just superheroes. Next is "high-mimetic" (mimetic refers to imitating "real life") which involve royalty or other very powerful people--politically, or wealthy, and so on (still "larger-than-life" to some extent, but also believable). After that is "low-mimetic" which means ordinary people in ordinary situations. Finally there is "ironic" which means people in situations that they can't win (Kafka's work fits here for the most part).
I submit that fantasy tends to fit in the mythic or heroic categories (mimetic means real life, so it doesn't really include fantasy, though fantasy can be written in a "mimetic" mode). Science fiction tends to be heroic to some extent, though it, too, can be written in a "mimetic" mode. Horror tends to be in "ironic" mode, though. At least, that might be argued to be how it's perceived.
posted
I don't think using an emotion for a genre name (and, thereby also basically sorting things into that genre based on if they are trying to evoke that emotion) was really a very good idea. Its usually more effective to sort genres by content (or as effective as it can be. I'm not that fond of the concept of genres to be honest). Usually, when people think "fantasy" they think either "High Fantasy" (Lord of the Rings) or "Sword and Sorcery" (Conan). Which is to say, primarily, pre-industrial settings and levels of technology, mythical monsters (dragons, elves, fairies, goblins, griffins etc) and the presence of magic, generally along with actual people that can command magic (wizards, witches, priests etc). The magic is, generally, relatively prevalent, and its something most people accept as a part of the world. Also it usually has variety...there’s good, bad and indifferent magics, monsters etc. Now lately especially there are definitely exceptions to this…”modern fantasy” and all, like the Dresden stories. But usually the main difference there is that its set in modern times, and magic is only known to a few. Science Fiction, of course, is defined by the fact that the crazy stuff that happens is (supposedly) not magic. There are either real-world scientific explanations or at least plausible speculative scientific explanations. However I think this is the area with maybe the most exceptions. In that theres a lot of stuff (especially in movies and TV) that wear a sci-fi exterior, but are fantasy inside. Like Star Wars, and Babylon 5. Horror could be divided into LOTS of categories if you include any story meant to evoke fear. High Fantasies for instance often have particular elements that are meant to be scary even if the whole isn’t. Basically I think you have your Supernatural Horror and your Thrillers. Supernatural Horror (which is what I think most people think of when they think horror) usually involves a modern setting, basically real world where the only magic is the generally evil/negative/antagonistic supernatural forces the story centers on. Generally there are no or nearly no people who can use magic to counter whatever that force is. You get your ghosts and haunted houses, and often supernatural nasties that have no real names or preexisting templates. To me, Thrillers are the ones like Pyscho…intended to be scary, but without supernatural elements. Then theres stuff like Lovecraft’s work, which gets called horror, but is really a genre of its own.
A couple of recommendations: Algernon Blackwood’s “The Willows” is considered classic, though I don’t remember it that well. Theres a story called “The Hospice”…I wanna say Robert Aickman? Theres Matheson’s “Born of Man and Woman
Printer-friendly view of this topic
