Is it Horror?

Laurawrites said:

None of them contain supernatural elements whatsoever.

Click to expand...

Are supernatural elements a requirement for horror?

I think their is plenty of room in the genre in order to include many different stories under 'horror'.

I think the key is if it creates that (good) sense of dread, fear and terror that we expect from horror films and books.

A girl being chased by an axe-wielding maniac and a couple being terorrized by spirits ina house both fall under horror. Theoretically, if done properly, even a story featuring two regular people sitting in a room and talking can be labeled horror.

Horror is a wide genre that can encapsulate thriller and suspense. But horror can most easily be defined as death, preferably multiple. Obviously, all death isn't horror but you cannot have horror without death. Supernatural isn't a horror requirement but merely an often added element. Horror doesn't need reason (or plot for that matter LOL). Horror goes after the shock value, elevating tension and stress.

I found thriller defined as "a race against time" where the goal is not only difficult but has a dead line, i.e. a race to save someone. Death is usually an issue but doesn't have to be.

Suspense was said to be "a constantly increasing conflict." Story intensity continues to elevate until the ending. Like a threat all the time coming closer.

These simplistic descriptions can be applied across a variety of plots and often intermingle.

A plane diving toward a crash with the ground could be thriller. Several planes crashing toward the ground with ever growing causes could be suspense. Many planes hitting the ground time and time again, killing all on board (except one ) could be horror. This horror could contain both the thriller and the suspense. The suspense could contain the thriller. The thriller wouldn't have to have elements of horror or suspense.

I think another element of horror would be we need to know the characters that are dying. That wouldn't be so important in a thriller or suspense. There we would need to know the protagonist who would likely live anyway. In the thriller we would have to know and care about the character at risk, but in the suspense I think it could be more general where the main issue is the problem(s) and we don't need to be too familiar with the risk, i.e. many planes may be crashing but our attention is on the last one containing our beloved character. In the horror version we would need to know and care about someone that died on nearly each and every plane.

IMHO

Delarege said:

Horror doesn't need reason (or plot for that matter LOL). Horror goes after the shock value, elevating tension and stress.


IMHO

Click to expand...

Not any horror that I enjoy. I don't consider shock value or lack of plot as horror, it's just schlock, and too often passes for horror, especially in truly bad movies.

Laurawrites said:

I thought of this from the thread on the horror directors. I would like to ask how many horror fans feel the genres are a little deceptive when it comes to movies versus books. When you query for a novel, you must know precisely what genre you've written in, yet when you rent a movie, the lines become blurred. This really gave me some grief when I began writing.

Click to expand...

Actually, if you're really stuck on what genre it is, you could just say something like "my novel, with the working title, is ...." and not catagorize it. The query itself will give the editor or agent an idea of what genre it is. And you could say it's horror, they'd say it's a thriller, but it wouldn't matter as much if they like the query and then ask for sample pages or a full.

Laurawrites said:

All supernatural and horror books are lumped together on a shelf labeled, "weird."

Click to expand...

Hmmm... New genre. That would be great on a query. "My novel is weird." LOL!

Jamesaritchie said:

Not any horror that I enjoy. I don't consider shock value or lack of plot as horror, it's just schlock, and too often passes for horror, especially in truly bad movies.

Click to expand...

Nor I, James. And perhaps my description was simplistic but that was my intent. I would think the horror you frequent is more a cross genre. Intelligent people demand more from a story. Thus, I would expect your taste to be more toward the diligent plot and less toward gross and mindless slaughter. But gross and mindless slaughter is certainly horror. Am I wrong in thinking horror can be defined simply? Isn't the death of several appreciated characters horror at its most primitive level regardless of plot?

There was also a comparison of book and film. I think intelligent people enjoy reading and dumbdumbs just go to the movies. It would stand to reason that there would be a higher level of complexity in books and less demand on story in film (referring to low budget horror). Some just like the blood and guts.

I think schlock is raw horror. Anything you and I appreciate are going to have definable elements of many of the other genres. Just because the story is shallow (or missing) doesn't remove it from the horror aisle.

Laurawrites said:

Many of the more serious horror writing resources warn authors against relying on gratuity or "shock" in that sense.
.

Click to expand...

That is with regard to writing (story). Genre doesn't consider story, just events. Basic horror is when people you don't want to die do. It doesn't care how or why beyond it's purpose to alarm or shock or disturb. What we consider good horror, I think, resides largely in other genres with horror elements. If people die in alarming ways we consider it horror but horror doesn't get us to that point. The story that delivers us there is likely thriller, suspense, or even mystery or romance or all the above. The more I think of it the more I believe horror to be a very narrow genre with few basic elements; characters that we didn't dislike die disturbingly, unnecessarily and deliberately at the hand of someone or some living thing.

Horror ... theory 1.0

Horror is about what it does to the reader and less about what it does to its characters. Oh but that can be said about any fiction, now, can’t it? So here’s the caveat: horror does not merely create a horrifying moment in a story, or even a string of such moments, but rather attempts to achieve an atmosphere of horror, and to sustain it.

Thus when it comes to movies -- any story, for that matter -- it seems that the ones which most effectively sustain this atmosphere, even in the most mundane of scenes, are those which are most purely horror. Otherwise any movie featuring a scene of shocking death would be horror, though the emotional effect of the entire work may be something entirely different.

Thus Alien creates for us a mood in which we expect mysterious, even frightening things, to happen. They do. The situation worsens. The dread of inescapable doom hangs over much of the movie. But is it horror? By the theoretical definition offered above, perhaps more so than not. Been a while since I’ve seen it, but I recall long scenes inside a spaceship in which nothing happens. The effectiveness of the scenes is that we expect something to happen, all right, and we expect that it will be terrible.

Jaws, too, seems more so than not. Any movie that keeps beach goers out of the ocean on a hot day must have touched something deep in the heap of primal fears.

Same for Psycho. Something’s going on with that shower scene that is not merely the product of a caper story turned murder story.

What’s going on is psychological horror, and that’s a different kind than supernatural ... which now looks like this is turning into an opportunity to discuss the taxonomy of horror. I’ll merrily skip it for now.

As far as what's considered horror on film vs. horror in a novel, it's not an easy question to answer. Cabin Fever and Hostel, for instance, if written as novels, given the lack of plot and emphasis on gore / shock, would probably wind up being splatterpunk, which is often seen as a sub-genre of horror.

As far as "neglecting" horror in the media, I think a lot of creative artists neglect the genre. Too many people think making a good horror movie or writing a good horror story is entirely different from just making a good movie or writing a good story. Like "well, it's just horror, so it doesn't need much character development, or much in the way of a sensible plot or basic logic." Just because you have supernatural elements (which, in my opinion, isn't required for horror) and the crutch of gore to fall back on doesn't mean you can sacrifice other basic elements to good storytelling. But I think that's lost on many people creating horror, so you get a lot of subpar products (especially as far as films go) being released, and the genre's respect takes a hit. So some rental places won't have a horror section (all the Blockbuster's I go to do, however) & some bookstores won't either (although Borders and Half-Priced books do, as do others).

If there's no supernatural element then I don't consider it (books and movies) horror, as cited earlier in the thread here. Yeah, a serial slasher is horrible, but if I can find it in the real world, then it ain't got that swing.

horror

JAK said:

If there's no supernatural element then I don't consider it (books and movies) horror, as cited earlier in the thread here. Yeah, a serial slasher is horrible, but if I can find it in the real world, then it ain't got that swing.

Click to expand...

I like supernatural horror myself, and I like Frankerstein type horror, but whatever it is, if there's no strong plot, and no real character development, then what you call it doesn't matter, it's still bad writing.

I totally agree with the OP. I consider myself a hardcore horror fan and I am constantly disappointed that rarely does someone come out with a film I would actually consider horror. It makes it terribly confusing, especially trying to figure out what belongs in horror versus crime/thriller.

However, I find the same problem across the board as to genre. Romantic Suspense, Women's fiction, Romance. Everything seems to contradict itself and it seems to me that it's almost as if a book/story is placed in a category because that's where the agent/publisher/director says it goes.

Genre is terribly confusing to me because it all seems based on an individual opinion rather than a strict set of guidelines for that particular genre.

I'm going to stand by my earlier comments. Genre can be defined simply, even though stories cannot generally be easily placed within a single genre definition.

But this is just my nature. Find the black and the white and then it's easier to understand the grays between.

Every one keeps talking about good horror or good suspense. I put 'good' under story, not genre. Writing is good or bad but it isn't genre. If you get away from the opinion aspect, what defines genre?

Laurawrites said:

Maybe there are just too many genres? That seems to be a underlying factor in it all. And the fact that there are so many differing opinions on it. Many people seem to gauge genre based upon feelings or reaction instead of any concrete criteria.

You mentioned romance and that is another confusing genre. Many dramas are labeled romance and vice versa. There isn't a definate line separating the two. Harlequin has a line called Intrigue, a suspense romance. But, from the guidelines, it sounds much more like suspense where romance is just an element.

I am very much a hardcore horror fan...lol. I started liking horror before I started elementary school. I live in the Appalachian mountains so ghost stories, spirits, and all arre plentiful. Every family has their own tales. I had two teen-age sisters when I was very small so I was exposed to Friday the 13th and things like that long before it was appropriate. I would sneak and watch, get scared to death, and do it again.

Anyways, I started reading King and Koontz when I was 13. It's a lot like a staple in life at this point

Click to expand...

Heh..you sound like me! I read my first Koontz book around that age, but he was using the pen name Liegh Nichols at the time. I love being scared and I am always on the prowl for a way to achieve it. My brother and I often go haunted house hunting just for kicks. I feel totally immature doing it but hey! It's nice to be out with my bro

Genre is very confusing. I have started to adopt the idea that if I feel an agents description of work they are looking for meets mine, then I submit, even if the genre they name it isn't what I would call it.

As much as I like horror, I am trying to broaden my horizons and learn to write it. Good horror, that makes the hair on the back of your neck stand up, makes you want to close your closet door at night and has you listening for strange knocks on your window, is very hard to find, but oh so good when it comes around!

To me horror is about being scared. It isn't specifically supernatural.

For instance, one of the all time great horror movies was Psycho. Nothing supernatural about it.

Delarege said:

If you get away from the opinion aspect, what defines genre?

Click to expand...

Where writers are concerned, publishers and bookstores always define genre. Where readers are concerned, the individual can define it however he wishes.

Jamesaritchie said:

Where writers are concerned, publishers and bookstores always define genre. Where readers are concerned, the individual can define it however he wishes.

Click to expand...

Genre shouldn't mean a lot to a writer beyond placing his work with professionals. I think we've burned too much brain power on this, here. With relation to readers, if you're not quite listed where they expect you, I doubt that it would affect much. They'll still read it.

Regarding submissions, isn't close enough, close enough?

I can't recall any particular "authoratative" source that definitively states horror must contain a supernatural bent or element. ("Authoratative" may be equally hard to define.) I do think the supernatural angles are prevelant in horror because it's so easy to wrap a scary story aorund the "unknown/unfathomable."

In the end, writers can define a work any way we choose. Ultimatley, marketing issues, identified by publishing houses and book sellers, will deternine what section the book settles into, and readers will deicde the actual genre by majority vote.

Exactly. I think back to my favorite episodes of the Twilight Zone and how they are tame by today's standards yet still contained some fabulously creepy horror stories. How about the Bill Shatner episode when he and his wife were trapped in a small town, deathly afraid to leave on the persistant warnings of a fortune-telling clown stationed on a restaurant table. There wasn't any gore or supernatural elements and yet the feeling of dread they experienced was so oppressive you worried about them as they finally left the town.

Horror has many labels to help define the stories for reader's taste. Whether it's splatterpunk or supernatural or futuristic (remember Alien?) stories written to scare the pants off of you are horror.

Close enough

Delarege said:

Regarding submissions, isn't close enough, close enough?

Click to expand...

Yes, but the issue is determining just what is close enough?

I tend to think it's better to skip the label, and just describe what happens and how it happens. The agent or editor can then make a determination, and may well take the novel on, even if they don't think it's horror.

Just because the novel you think is a horror novel isn't horror in teh way an agent or editor would define it shouldn't mean it won't sell, and just because the novel you think isn't horror is considered horror by an agent or editor still doesn't mean it shouldn't sell.

And if they get to decide where it fits, an agent might well take it on, and so might an agent. But if you call it horror upfront, and they don't think it is. or the other way around, from the way the query reads, you might get a rejection.

It's late, I'm terribly sleepy, and I'm not sure what I wrote above made the least bit of sense.