Do you think....

I also like to know where they came from. I think when you have a real-world situation with 'creatures' involved, the reader is going to be naturally curious. That's why I tend to use ghosts and demons, because I don't have to explain where they came from; they've been around forever, everyone knows where they'd be from. Same with vampires and werewolves. But I think if you introduce a completely new creature, there has to be an explanation.

But if you have an alternate world setting (like The Gunslinger by King), you can get away with strange creatures (Lobstrosities) without explanation.

Another thought: if the book is all about conquering these creatures, then the characters can do that and you can leave them wondering where they came from and if there are any survivors. Sequel!

Tremors

Well, they do sort of give an explanation in tremors, but it was kind of lame. When the series began, however, we learn they were created by the government.

Jamesaritchie said:

Well, they do sort of give an explanation in tremors, but it was kind of lame. When the series began, however, we learn they were created by the government.

Click to expand...

To be more specific, they were the by products of years of Nuclear testing in the desert. Seems that's a going theme as the recent "The Hills have Eyes" is based on the same premise.

I have a one short I leave the reader guessing as to where a monster comes from, but its a bit more complicated and I leave it open ended for a sequel, so perhaps I can show the why's and how's at a later date.

Kerry

No. Not at all.

Koji Suziki’s “Ringu” novel never once explained where the evil kid came from, and the movie versions ... well, I don’t remember. (Years since I read the book, so perhaps my memory there is faulty, too.)

In any event, part of the fun of such stories is experiencing the strange and part of it is figuring out the mystery behind the strangeness. All too often the revelations are simply common and disappointing, but sometimes they sing. H.P. Lovecraft’s stories did both, depending on which ones you want to look at. In many cases he set up weird events and left us wondering about their origins because those origins were not explained. In still other cases he went on to explain them and we’d end up with things like, “Well, these people regressed evolutionarily till they’re these white ape-like critters living under the graveyard...”

I expect, however, that there may be far more “explanatory” stories than not.

I love the backstory: NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET versus some stupid "boogieman gonna jump from around that dark corner, oops now the nekkid cheerleader's dead" that tells you nothing?

Horror is in the context, and in the Mythology to me ... (just my personal taste, of course) ...

And often the MESSAGE a horror story contains is in the ORIGIN OF THE EVIL mostly. "What did we do wrong that got us in this mess?!" etc.

To me, the joy of the Cthulhu Mythos is in the mythology ... not in the creepy (now-done-to-death) purple atmospherics.

Also, knowing the evil's origins really helps foreshadow its defeat, its motives, the NATURE of its evil ...

Backstory

I want an explanation of some sort. If you want me to believe the story, then tell me why I should.

I think with horror, part of the 'fun' is how the menace came to be. Why waste an opportunity to layer the story with a mythology? It can make for a great 'fireside' scene, when the tale is told, whether in flash-back or just dialogue. Also, it can inform on how to get rid of the monster.

It's an interesting problem, you can do it either way. I think it depends on the antagonist, in Jurassic Park they had to explain why there were Dinosaurs roaming about because we know about dinosaurs and need an excuse for them to be alive.
But if you consider something like, say, The Descent (The superb film, not the mediocre book) the presence of the crawlers isn't explained, but enough information is dribbled around for the audience to piece it together.
The result is that the audience members who work it out feel smart and better about themselves and you don't have to shoe-horn in an exposition sequence trying to justify your story.

At least, thats the way it seems to me.

I can guarantee most editors will look for one as it's considered to be part of the "payoff" in any book, whatever the genre.

Some writers have gotten away with leaving one out, but not often in a first novel.

Perhaps you can have characters trying to explain things to themselves and making intelligent guesses. Most people want to know WHY *bleep* happens. Soon as they survive something bad, they speculate, analyze, question the questions.

It's even better if they're running like hell at the time.


----(watches a LOT of Dr.Who)

My favorite part is the explanation.

Actually, I think it depends on the situation.
If your characters are scientists in a lab trying to work out what it/they are and where they came from, then by all means have them exposition their little socks off.
But, if your characters are hikers trapped in a cabin, or hiding in a cupboard and you have them reel off the creature/beastie/thingy 's history it tastes like lazy writing.

At least, that's way it seems to me.

Bmwhtly said:

Actually, I think it depends on the situation.
If your characters are scientists in a lab trying to work out what it/they are and where they came from, then by all means have them exposition their little socks off.
But, if your characters are hikers trapped in a cabin, or hiding in a cupboard and you have them reel off the creature/beastie/thingy 's history it tastes like lazy writing.

At least, that's way it seems to me.

Click to expand...

They don't have to reel it off. The writer can be smart and have the character work to discover who, what, where, when, and why. The viewer/reader learns as they do.

Lazy writing is usually leaving an explanation out because you don't know what it is, or how to put it in if you do know.

I think an explanation is every bit as important in movies as in books, and most do have an explanation, even if many viewers miss it. Sometimes, especially in horror movies, the explanation is as simple as "It Came From Hell," even if hell isn't specifically mentioned.

I think many miss explanations because they almost expect them to be reeled off, rather than explained in a subtle manner, and often by symbology, or previous knowledge the viewer should have through life and reading.

I think the most important factor is what is the motivation of the creature/ monster/antagonist. We don't have to understand where they came from or what or who created it - but it is necessary for us, as readers, and to have a satisfying read - to understand why they are doing what they do. Albeit, we don't have to agree with the why.
My 2 pennies. . .

Well, there's this book THE RUINS, where the turistas are trapped up on this hill by the VERY BAD THING.

And it's got your suspense, and your horror, and ... well, it reads like it wants to be a movie, really.

SPOILER WARNING:

But the big gap (imo) the big empty hole is: we never find out anything about where It came from, or Why, or ... any damn thing.

And I couldn't suggest it to anyone as being a killer read, mainly for that problem: it struck me as lazy. Author couldn't bother to explain the hard part to us.

I read a murder mystery, I wanna know MOTIVE. I see a Monster, I wanna know "where the hell did that thing come from?"

Sometimes, that alone defines the GENRE, right?

"It's a demon" = Horror.
"It came outah that space ship" = Science Fiction.
"It's a terrorist plot" = political thriller.