What makes it horror?

Maiden.

I am no expert, but for months I worried about what my book was. I wanted it to be horror but I thought it was way too fluffy for that. I think that most books do the cross genre thing nowadays.

But it really got me stressed out. So I think that anything outside the realm of normal thinking. Could be sick and twisted, bloody and gory or it could just mess with a person's mind. Richard Laymon's The Night in Lonesome October is a good example of horror, but it's more bizarre than anything else, nothing especially gross or even twisted by it. It's just about a kid who starts to wander the streets at night and then he sees what happens. There's some creepy stalker guy that pops in, in one of the last chapters he and his night friends have to take out, but again. Not gorey.

I guess I didn't help you too much, but maybe just a little.

I'm cross-genre, too, Maiden. My first ms. has elements of horror, fantasy, and speculative fiction. Horror because I torture my MC, rip to shreds everything she believes, and make her look over shoulder at every step. Fantasy because she goes on a journey with a couple of friends, like a fantasy. Spec fic because it takes place in a post-apoc dystopia. :shrug: When I was querying it, I tailored the genre to the agent I was querying.

But I also like shlock horror--stuff that doesn't actually scare me but is a good romp with monsters or zombies or other supernatural critters.

So, yeah, I guess it depends on where you want to pigeonhole it at any particular moment.

Ready for a drink now?

Maiden said:

Now I know there is a genre description so this isn't a tech. question. But I was wondering what everyones personal opinion on the horroe genre is. What do you think makes a book horror? WHat in your personal work defines it?

Click to expand...

I love giving personal opinions!

To me "horror" is an emotion more than a genre. A "horror" story is one that fills the reader with dread of something that a normal person has no chance against.

"Suspense" is a character who might get killed by a man with a knife.

"Horror" is a character who WILL get killed because,
... the man with the knife is an unstoppable psycho
... the victim is tied up in said psycho's basement
... the man with the knife is a supernatural being bent on destruction


etc.

The reason most horror involves supernatural creatures is that it is the power of such unknown, uncomprehendable beings to move us beyond fear into what I'll call "horrific dread"

RichardB said:

The reason most horror involves supernatural creatures is that it is the power of such unknown, uncomprehendable beings to move us beyond fear into what I'll call "horrific dread"

Click to expand...

That is a great explanation Richard! Good work~ wish I'd thought about it.
I like learning new things!

For me, horror doesn't have to scare or be frightening. It can be anything that horrifies a person. Horrifying is a broad term, I know, but think about it. Read a book or short story from a child's PoV about their wild imaginings, the monster in the closet perhaps, and even though it's not scary to you, the character makes you feel the terror and horror that they feel. Read another from an adult PoV where the world has gone mad and everyone has become cannibals but that one character and yeah, I'm pretty horrified.

In my works, it's all about the way I write the story. I can turn as simple a thing as a girl playing tea party with her dolls into something horrible, if I so desire. It's all in the focus and what gets put in and even more of what gets left out. Take the tea party idea. Imagine if it was written without the word doll. For example:

Amber poured tea into each cup for her little friends. They never drank, only sat and stared with wide eyes and open mouths, a perfect circle of agony. When one slumped, she gave each tiny body a swift punch in the stomach.

"Sit up straight, you silly girl," she snarled. "The queen doesn't like lazy maids."

Now, that in its self isn't horrifying, but what if it went on to describe how each "friend" was missing an eye or a finger, an arm with chunks missing or marred and scarred by tiny teeth? You can turn a tea party into something very horrible indeed. It's all about delivery and what you choose to say or not say. You may guess that Amber's friends are only dolls, but there's always that question, isn't there? And even if they are, what could have happened to any young girl to make her treat her beloved babies in such a manner? Or, even, what if Amber isn't a little girl at all? What if she's a thirty year old woman? Makes you wonder wtf a grown woman is doing having tea parties with dolls or perhaps even dead children. Delivery is the most important thing. Anything can be horror. It's how you write it that makes the difference.

With any form of writing, each word has a purpose. It's there for a reason and what is missing is not there for a reason. It's precision and placement. Horror can be nothing more than a stroll in the park, but how you go about that stroll is what can make it horrible or not. I hope this isn't actually as confusing as it sounds, so I'll stop there. I tend to ramble.

Peace and love
~Ellen

I think it's only definable for the individual, not for everyone as a whole. Essentially, it's what scares you, holds you in suspense, gets you breathing harder or your heart beating faster, etc., etc., etc.

Not everyone is scared by the stuff King writes. I often find his stuff more suspenseful than scary. Not everyone finds that Koontz's writing is scary, etc., etc.

Everyone's definition of what scares them or horrifies them is different. What horrifies me might not horrify you or anyone else. What horrifies you I might laugh at.

You define what is or is not horror by your own individual preferences and experiences. Trying to define it for everyone as a whole is essentially tilting at windmills.

Well, Greg, the OP did ask for personal opinions...

I can't tell you. As some politician once said "I can't tell you, but I know it when I see it." I know horror when I see it. I know what's horrible to me and what's not. Most horror these days is far less horrible than real life.

Take, for example, the tale of a group of people trapped in a small town in which there's been the outbreak of a horrible disease. The Army's sealed off all exits and there are armed patrols combing the hills trying to keep everybody in. That's the basic premise for at least one book I've read in the last 10 years.

Now, consider that you're a tourist in Mexico City. The swine flu has just broken out and you're feeling a little down in the mouth. The city is being sealed off, every country on the planet is isolating the entire country by stopping air transit, and you're an American citizen who's got the flu. There are people dying of this thing right now. You can't get out and Mexico's medical facilities probably aren't the best compared to what you might have available if you could only get home.

Which situation is more personally horrible?

Personally? Neither, really, unless the writing makes it horrible. I see what you mean now, though. You make a valid point. Horrible to me is not horrible to you or may not be and vicey-versey. I still stand by my delivery makes the difference opinion, but I get where you're coming from.

I've read books that weren't 'scary', per se, but disturbed me and stayed with me long afterward. Cujo was one. I felt so bad for the dog because part of it was written from his point of view.

A movie that one wouldn't consider horror, but disturbs me still when I think about it, was Open Water. I remember feeling hollow in my chest and stomach for weeks after I saw that movie, and would actually cry sometimes.

No one considers The Sopranos horror, but the last episode with Adrianna and Silvio--another gut-wrenchiing scene that stayed with me for days and made me want to cry.

I think imagining what Adrianna and the couple from Open Water felt, putting myself in their place--just really ... horrified me.

My husband, on the other hand, was bothered a little by Open Water, but not the same way I was.

Just one question...

EFCollins said:

Amber poured tea into each cup for her little friends. They never drank, only sat and stared with wide eyes and open mouths, a perfect circle of agony. When one slumped, she gave each tiny body a swift punch in the stomach.

"Sit up straight, you silly girl," she snarled. "The queen doesn't like lazy maids."

Click to expand...

What happens next?

Hmm. The "friend" falls out of the chair, which has dire consequences. Damn it, now I want to write it... flip a duck. I'll have to write it now just for kicks.

Maiden said:

Now I know there is a genre description so this isn't a tech. question. But I was wondering what everyones personal opinion on the horroe genre is. What do you think makes a book horror? What in your personal work defines it?

Click to expand...

Horror is a sort of unsettling tragedy. It has the cathartic release of tragedy, but also produces a lingering sense of disquiet or discomfort. It's also cousin to the thriller in that it uses a growing sense of menace, and makes heavy use of suspense.

To produce that, I think it needs:

• A through-line in which the familiar or the trusted is perverted, inverted or exaggerated to the point of menace and/or revulsion
• A through-line in which someone is either seduced or engulfed by danger
• A through-line in which someone is made helpless and dependent
• A plot laden with suspense, and a growing sense of doom
• Vivid imagery and stark contrasts
• Shocks and unpredictability
• A cathartic release -- either overt or implied

As far as I can tell, if it misses one of the above criteria it doesn't produce the disquiet by which I normally recognise horror. It may be shocking or uncomfortable to read, but not necessarily horrific. There are plenty of works marketed as horror but I consider them merely wry, repulsive or perverse.

http://www.horror.org/horror-is.htm

I like this definition best.

rsmccoy said:

I like this definition best.

Click to expand...

Except that it's an undefinition. It's not even a description.

The same argument can be used in all category fiction: fantasy isn't a genre because you can apply whimsy to whatever purpose you like, from dream sequences to the surreal and magical realism; romance isn't a genre either because romantic relationships can appear in any fiction; science fiction isn't a category because science can permeate thrillers, mysteries and even some romance stories. But thriller can't be a genre either because a thrill is an emotional effect; and mystery is a state of ignorance and confusion which applies to readers throughout most if not all novels.

If it were indeed true that horror just 'depends on who you are' then there would be no mass market for it, because horror writers couldn't reach a broad target audience. Mary Shelley, a pioneer of the horror novel, had no difficulty meeting the brief 'write something scary', and neither has any other successful horror writer. Moreover while there are overlaps (as indeed there are in all fiction categories) the average reader can easily tell the difference between a novel written principally for its horror, and a novel written for mixed or other purposes.

Personal fear is a matter of taste and psyche certainly, but mass market fear -- the stuff capitalised on by authors -- resides in our shared humanity and our shared culture. That's why horror is indeed category fiction. It's also why critics who seek to mystify the genre are doing nobody any favours in understanding what is really a well-established if open-ended craft.