What makes for good horror?

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

I'm particularly intersted in seeing that old horror, Ravenus' thoughts on this, but All Are Invited.

What is it that makes for a satisfying horror tale in your opinion? What is it that you look for, and what do you avoid?

I find my own answers very hard to decide upon. On the one hand, I do not really like stories where the source of horror is a twisted human being - on the other hand, Patrick Susskind's Perfume, with its very, very twisted but human mosnter is a favourite. I suppose I take it on a story by story basis, rating each tale on the vividness of imagination, sense of atmosphere and how much it scared me, subjectively.

Actually I don't know if horror really scares me so much as disturbs me pleasurably, the pleasure lying in the knowledge that is only a story - isn't it?

Hmm. Maybe I'll post more once I get my thoughts more in order. In the meantime, over to you...

 

[Brian G Turner]

Horror has different shades - namely based in two camps:

1. the unknown
2. things that should have stayed unknown

To myself, horror that plays on the unknown, and forces people to face the unknown, can be the most artfully brilliant - I refer to the "Color out of Space" by HP Lovecraft as a great example of this - the characters in the book were incapable of comprehending what was happening to them, and with that, how to face it and therefore conquer it. They remained in a victimised state and the horror was based not simply in the helplessness of it all - but also the fact that like all good horrors, it never entirely leaves us.

This, to myself, is the power behind the word "horror".


2. The form of "things that should never be known" is where the artist tries to shock us. Unfortunately, far far too much of this side of the arena has us completely desensitised. The grotesque usually comes in this form - put a walking rotting corpse in a 1920's movie and the audience would have been horrified - see one in a modern movie and you reach for popcorn and expect a laugh. There is also the "horrific background" - ie, characters who have done unimaginable harm to other people can invoke a sense of horror in this area, and to myself, this is where horror can also really really work brilliantly. For anyone who's read Watchmen it's not the sight of those graphic pages near the end that get you, but the short speech that announces it "...do you really think I'm some form of Republican Serial villain, telling you all this so that you can stop me? I did it 20 minutes ago".


So, overall, "horror" is about making us face things we should rather not, and using it to manipualte our emotions - fear, revulsion, disgust, abhorence. The best horror will always leave that feeling with us, even if some part of the human spirit finally overcomes some part of it. The greatest horror, in my mind, is beyond defeat - and that makes it all the more horrific.

A short ramble for a good subject.

 

[ravenus]

What is it that makes for a satisfying horror tale in your opinion? What is it that you look for, and what do you avoid?

Actually I don't know if horror really scares me so much as disturbs me pleasurably, the pleasure lying in the knowledge that is only a story - isn't it?

Well I doubt if I have any definite answer in this regard as to what makes a satisfying horror tale...all I can think of saying is that a well-written story in the horror genre makes for a satisfying horror tale. Not much of an answer, is that?

Personal preferences: Although it's in no way a pre-requisite, I do have a weakness for the supernatural stories of the 19th and early 20th century. I love the writing style of that period, also they're less likely to have the gross-out stuff which I generally dislike in books and try to avoid. I like horrors that play out in small towns preferably at an individual/small group level. Like in any other genre, I like stories that have nicely fleshed out (or at least written well enough for you to fill in the gaps) characters who you can care about (although in a perverse vein I've so far avoided reading Lord of The Flies because I felt It'd be too disturbing ). I prefer the horror to play out mainly at the psychological level, with characters being forced to wonder if they've lost their minds.

 

[fungi from Yuggoth]

I too have a love for the late Victorian/early Edwardian shorts by such masters as James, Machen, Blackwood, Hope Hodgson et al. The delight and unabashed simplicity with which these tales approach the unknown, the leisurely and methodical build up of tensions through subtle and adept descriptions and events, the conversational, often primly rational approach the protagonists adopt to matters beyond their conception, only to see them dashed to shreds in the face of an unspeakably violent negation of all that they thought they knew - all these qualities make up the heady wine of prime horror literature.

Of modern authors, with the exception of Ligotti and Campbell, I find far too much emphasis is placed upon gore, shock tactics, the dreaded twist, or some equally material scare without taking the time to adequately build the emotional and intellectual heights to which the old masters reigned supreme. I don't think it's possible to create good horror without engulfing the reader in the events and characters which compose it; stories that involve bad things happening to another poor hapless person cannot evoke horror in me unless I can imagine myself in their place. Though I suppose such stories can be satisfying in a schadenfreude fashion, they do not really leave me with that lingering feeling of unease that the very best horror shorts can do.

Regarding what I look for in horror, I certainly think that the style and setting the author uses is an integral part of my enjoyment (if that's the right word) of a piece. Poe and Lovecraft's lyrical, finely honed style enthralls me from the instant, Blackwood, and Hope Hodgson's bleak isolated settings form the quintessential stage for the weird, MR James' deceptively dinnertable manner contrasts so well with the grisly creatures that inhabit his tales. The modern world just seems far too ordinary, far too known, to really invoke the power of the unknown that is so powerful in the wilder, less explored world of a century ago. Of course, this means that when done well it can be fantastic, for the very same reason that made writers like Lovecraft such a resonant force in weird literature seventy years ago.

What turns me off? Any book with the words 'King' and 'Stephen' on the garish front cover.

 

[lazygun]

Found a good bit of the Old Testament quite disturbing,does that count?....

 

[Circus Cranium]

I like my horror paranormal. In other words, no serial killers, rapists, no reality. Gimme ghosties and goblins and I'm happy.

 

[fungi from Yuggoth]

I also think that horror benefits from an exotic setting. That can be the ubiquitous ruined city, bleak wilderness, isolated house; it can equally be something so simple as a monkey's paw or a yellow sign, in other words something which hints at the exotic. This, of course, equates to the unknown, and the unknown equates to fear. But it also equates to adventure. My favorite horror pieces don't simply scare me from the off, they lead me on a journey, a promise of some prize or discovery at the end of it all. I'm engaged along the way, maybe in a perverse sense enjoying myself. 'At the Mountains of Madness,' 'The Wendigo,' 'The Boats of the Glen Carrig;' all have that element of exotic adventure which makes them so engaging, the horror so much more acute.

Of course, not all horror has to be like this. And not all horror which I've enjoyed has been like this. But I do find, on the whole, that the pieces I enjoy most have that certain camaraderie to them - which, in due course, is broken up. Going from a state of normalcy to a state of isolation (both mental and physical) represents a deep fear for me, or at least a deep emotion which nevertheless keeps me coming back for more...

 

[Paul Darcy]

I find the disturbing and insidious best, ala Lovecraft, much more entertaining than gore or the obvious chainsaw raving luney.

With that said, has anyone read any Caitlin Keirnan? I read "Silk" and found it pretty good, creepy, disturbing and subtle, yet effective. And King, don't much care for King - Way Too Obvious.

 

[Mors Profundis]

Anybody know the work of Robert Aickman, or Kathe Koja's 'Skin'?
My late wife, God rest her soul, couldn't go to sleep at night when she was reading 'Skin' unless she put a rock on top of it.
What happened to Kathe Koja?, she was very, very good, then she was very, very gone, poof, like your fist when you open your hand.

 

[kyektulu]

For me I there has to be some crucial elements in to make a horrah good,.

First I dont like all the teenybop slasher stuff, way too overdone and, lets face it, are not scary what so ever.

I like a good element of the unknown in a horrah too, I dont like films that you can guess what is going to happen next all the way through!

My fave kinds of horrah films are supernatural ones.

 

[Mors Profundis]

I have several favorite horror devices.
The Message in a Bottle-an account of something very nasty, discovered long after the fact.
The Rabbit Hole-protagonist stumbles into the mystery/peril by some mishap or innocent curiosity.
The Dingus-a book or object leads to destruction.
And the ever popular but seldom used today, Fireside Tale at the Club, where an adventure is rememberd and told to friends.
I love these.

 

[j d worthington]

Seems to be that the consensus is: something which unsettles one's perceptions of reality/the world, and which one can go back to repeatedly, finding new levels of meaning. I'd agree. I can understand the attraction for the gore and such, but feel it's far too easy and, frankly, flat. It's something that, yes, could happen and does, but it's a strictly physical horror. Something that really gets in and infects one's view for a lifetime is much more effective, in my book.

Speaking of Kiernan, no, I've not read Silk, but I did read Threshold; I like the book for its evoking of atmosphere, but I wish she'd stop the creation of faux-words; a certain amount of word-melding can be colorful and add a slightly skewed feel; but far too often what she ends up with is the verbal version of a very bad train wreck. Aside from that, I quite like her style and ethereal feel.

For those who like the late 19th-early 20th century horror, there's a collection of John Buchan's supernatural tales that's come out a few years ago (mine's copyrighted 1997); it has -- supposedly -- all his stories along those lines. And there's Gerald Biss' Door of the Unreal, which has been put out in pb by Ash-Tree Press. You might look for books by Tartarus Press, Ash-Tree Press and Durtro Press, though they're pricey, and a library may be the best bet. Also, Hippocampus Press, here in the States, has reissued Blackwood's Incredible Adventures, a collection of M. P. Shiel (including The Purple Cloud), and is due to reissue a few others of the period in the next year or so, and they're much more affordable. And for fans of Hodgson, Night Shade Books is putting out a 5-volume complete weird fiction, four have already been released (vol. 1 is now out of print but you may be able to find them in some shops), the fifth is due out -- I believe -- later this year.

I still tend to agree with Lovecraft: "The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown." To me, that includes finding that which we know so well we really don't know at all, nor can.

 

[NorseDude]

In movies, I prefer knowing something isn't alright and you can't really do anything about it. "Tremors" is strangely a great example. Although not a scary movie, I like it when the characters are stalked or hunted by something unknown they can't fight. Basically they are snack and knows it, yet they can't do anything about it. "Phantoms" is another great example. Everyone in town have disappeared, but how? And why? And do the characters risk the same fate? Blood, gore and weird things jumping out of dark places usually doesn't work, but "They" somehow did. Man, that's a scary movie!

As for books, it's a bit harder since we don't have the visual effect to help the scare. Still, it's very doable. Lovecraft is a great example how to write good horror. It kinda creeps up onto you, and before you know it you are stuck sleeping with your lights on. Just like it should be.

Computer games are hardly ever scary, but "Silent Hill" on playstation certainly made it. The camera angles are enough on their own, but the intro where you just "know" something is wrong also works great. Then there's a broken radio that gives you weird sounds when something is close, and yet with the tick fog you don't have a clue what it is until it's too late. And armed with nothing but a broken pipe or a wooden board, you're screwed. It's hard to explain why it's so scary, so please just play it and see for yourself. A PS1 game, yes, but you'll be scared. Oh yes. You will be...

 

[Wiggum]

"Tremors" is strangely a great example. Although not a scary movie, I like it when the characters are stalked or hunted by something unknown they can't fight.

I think this statement illustrates the idea wonderfully.

For me, probably the "scariest" book I've ever read is Tommyknockers, by King.

I can hear two groups moaning in disapproval; those that don't like King and those that do and think Tommyknockers isn't any good. Lol.

For me at least, this book created a great green lit forest ambience, near zombies, dogs being used as batteries....any description I give it will come up short, but for the first three hundred pages, it has you listening to noises outside of your bedroom at night to figure out if they will grow feet or not.

It's an unknown, combined with a possibity, coupled with a chance reality.

That's what makes horror.

 

[dustinzgirl]

Michael Myers always scared me, because he was just born evil. He had no real objective (in the first Haloween, anyways). He was just a killer. Killers with no motive scare me, because there is no why, there is no response, its just violence and death. Most killers have a justification, screwed up families, opening the gates of hell, mental disorders (dr. giggles always made me grin) Krueger even had a reason. Its the ones without a reason...or a reason so obscure (He was just BORN evil--the good seed, the good son) that freak me out.

 

[Wiggum]

But in horror, there's a certain regulated chaos element that must be applied.

The unknown, to me, must be known on some level.

 

[j d worthington]

That's an interesting statement. I'm not quite sure it's strictly true. I think a better term may be "apprehended" rather than "known". Its presence can be felt, but not understood -- like the chromatic entity(?) in Lovecraft's "The Colour Out of Space" -- we don't even know if it's truly an entity, a mindless force, or anything else -- all we see are its effects, and we feel its presence; but everything else remains completely unknown. Is it evil? We have no reason to believe so. As Joshi says, it may just simply be that what happens to those poor people and the area around them is simply the natural result of its environment in contact with ours -- no malice; they may not (assuming they're a form of intelligence, or even a "they") even be aware of our existence -- quite likely, in fact, that they aren't. (Or it isn't.) It's the very devil of a task to pull off, as it relies on very vague, nebulous impressions rather than outright description or exposition, but this I think is what makes the most successful horror (or "terror") that sticks with you; because it remains "apprehended" but "unknown".

 

[dustinzgirl]

Exactly JD...

Good horror is never defined. If Stephen King had never ENDED IT, we would all be talking about how scary that was. The concept of the giant spider just made it cartoony, well sort of. I have an INSANE fear of spiders, so it actually gave me nightmares. But, it was still silly. Go figure.

 

[isacked]

I think good horror should not have too much visual gore, because that simply grabs you without actually leaving a deep sense of the unease that truly good horror writers like Lovecraft do.

I have problems with many of Stephen King's works because I don't care for descriptions of mutilated bodies and at the end of the novel, the horror is forgotten. Lovecraft and Poe actually leave this creepy feeling in you.

 

[BookStop]

I think every individual will have vastly different things they would define as good horror. Think about what scares you in the middle of the night when house creaks and a shadow slips across your wall. That's what will make a good horror story for you. Fear of the unknown is what gets me. Things heavy in folk lore - ghosts, hell, black magic.