What makes a good horror story?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Greenwolf103

In your opinion, what elements of a horror story/novel are the main ingredients that make it a worthwhile read?
 

LiamJackson

There's a couple of elements that work for me.

First, you have to give me a character(s) that I really want to care about. I suppose that's true of all character-driven novles. Next, provide them with a near-infintely superior antagonist and place our heroes in hellacious mortal danger, a danger that mocks any mundane resolution. (I'm not saying the bad guy MUST be a psycho-superman, but that he/she has some distinct edge over the good guys.

Give our protag lots of choices, some good, some not so good, and some down-right disasterous. Every couple of chapters, leave the protag (and me) hanging over a cliff. Make them "think" their way around this evil miscreant.

One of the creepeist antagonists I can envision is a person devoid of any traces of humanity. A textbook sociopath-turned-serial killer. Animal-cunning, instinctively resourceful, and possessing a one-track mind; Destruction of the innocent. Kill, maim, and/or mutilate...whatever it takes, however necessary. Think of a Hannibal Lector/Michael Meyers clone.

Now, if you add a touch of the supernatural, something that further reduces the chances of a simple, mundane solution, I'm probably hooked.
 

drgnlvrljh

The "mind job". The story doesn't have to be gorey, but if it messes with your head, or rather, your definition of "reality", it's pretty scary.

I found the movies, The Matrix and Minority Report scarier than any horror flick. Not the movies, per se, but the -concept- behind them. The Exorcist was another one that scared the pants off me (and at least it qualified as horror).

I think the whole idea of losing "control" is terrifying, I guess, so anything that has to do with someone being thought of as crazy, when they're not, or possession, or having reality as you know it challenged, will scare the bejebers out of me!
 

DarkHaven80

I agree about the mind job. Making the characters convincing helps. Also the creepy factor. Anything that makes any other genre good, but with a bit of creepiness in the subject matter.
 

drgnlvrljh

I'm more about the goosebumps and the hair standing on end, and that feeling of being followed, than I am about the "Ew!" factor!
 

Nazareth

I read this somewhere- "Throw a Grizzly in the closet"

In other words- don't have your main character simply go into his apartment and fetch the papers for his case- that's boring no matter how many great details you show in the scene. Instead, have the bad/psycho guy break into the hero's apartment- he hears a noise- almost gets caught, but makes it into the closet just intime. Now what you got is a Griz in the closet lol- The hero goes through his apartment looking for his papers without knowing that there is potential danger. Much more intense for the reader.

A great scene I just read had the murderer/psycho in their car and had a body in the back of a woman he just killed. He was going out to his usual burial spot (Unbeknownst to him, the cops had stumbled across the hillside where the bodies were buried- but they didn't know who the killer was yet) It is late at night, and he has just been through a harrowing intense time and is relishing burying th4e body. He rounds the bend & sees that the whole hillside is lit up with the police CSI's digging everywhere & he panics. He thinks about turning around, but he then thinks it might draw too much attention & look suspicious. He keeps going while one arm is over the seat and fiddling with the covering over the body. He gets up to the policeman stopping vehicles and is about to be discovered when the policeman is distracted. Absentmindedly, the cop waves him by.

Here we got two great secrets that we know but the characters don't know. We know the killer is driving the body out to the hillside that the cops are crawling over, and, we have the cops lewtting the killer go by mistake- they aren't aware that he has a body in the back. We're on the edge of our seats wondering if it's going to be the end for either the cops, or the killer (The kiler had a gun under his leg ready to kill the cop if he had to, and then to take off)

I think the key to great horror is to let the reader in on a secret that the heor isn't aware of (Like the psycho in the closet). The hero hasn't got a clue as to how close he came to dying (Say that he almost opened the closet door, but spotted the papers beside the couch just intime). Also, another key is to learn 'emotion keywords' that can heighten scenes. For horror, key words would revolve around 'anxiety, fear, horror, nervousness' etc. Using them in the right places can really help to pull a reader into the scene and give a sense of the emotion you're trying to portray.
 
Last edited:

arrowqueen

RIP, our sarky besom
Requiescat In Pace
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
2,653
Reaction score
722
Location
Scotland
The disconcerting feeling that normality is merely a thin veneer over something else entirely.

And the veneer is cracking...
 

Dev

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
94
Reaction score
2
Some of you might remember the "Splatterpunk" movement in horror writing in the late eighties-early nineties. John Skipp, Craig Spector, David Schow...those guys never held back on grossing us out, but it was still good, scary stuff. I'm not saying it was scary because it was visceral, I'm just saying it was good horror material and it was visceral. It just takes a balance...IMHO.
 

Liam Jackson

Heathen Horde Elder
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
6,876
Reaction score
663
We've discussed the Splatterpunks from time to time, on the AW site. The concensus seems to be Skipp and Spector created a fad that turned out to be far better suited to film.

Whatever your personal opinion of the gruesome twosome, I think they certainly presented a unique method of graphic horror writing. Their Light at the End is still one of my favorite stories.
 

Anatole Ghio

Ironic Paranormal
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
205
Reaction score
15
Nazareth said:
I read this somewhere- "Throw a Grizzly in the closet"


I think the key to great horror is to let the reader in on a secret that the heor isn't aware of (Like the psycho in the closet). The hero hasn't got a clue as to how close he came to dying (Say that he almost opened the closet door, but spotted the papers beside the couch just intime).

The correct term for giving the reader information that is not also shared by the principle character, is called priviledged perspective. It occurs when the readers are one up in some way; it is also the main ingredient to suspense.

In Francois Trauffout's book on Hitchcock, Hitchcock defined the difference between suspense and surprise as hinging upon priviledged perspective. If the reader doesn't know there is a boogeyman in the closet, when the closet door is opened and the boogeyman jumps out, we are suprised by the outcome.

If the reader already knows the boogeyman is in the closet, every moment before the closet is opened can be exploited for the possibility of finding the boogeyman. So the reader knows something bad may happen to the protagonist if the closet is opened and because the artist prolongs this possibility, the reader is held in suspense waiting for the outsome.

While this emotion is essential to a work reliant upon the element of suspense, horror can and does utilize surprise quite effectively. The most cliche use of it in the movies is to have a character go toward an open window where a strange noise was heard, and then have a cat jump through... a surprise because the viewer had no awareness of the cat before the character.

Watch the Japanese version of the Ring for the entire first sequence. The director deftly mixes in elements of suspense throughout the middle part of the picture, which helps it to continually up the tension throughout the film without having to rely upon constant danger to the characters; yet he uses surprise in the begining and end, where the more horrific scenes are, to establish the tone of a horror film. Througout the opening scene, we (the viewer) have no priviledged perspective and are shocked as the scene keeps escalating in a way out of our normal reason (she gets the phone call... is it something sinister on the other end?; the television turns on by itself, so she turns it off and returns to the kitchen, it turns on again, she looks back to see what caused it and...).

Yes, suspense can provoke an immediate response and help increase the drama in a scene, but I don't think it's actually a part of what makes something horrific... I think it's the lack of knowing what the danger is that makes something horrific. The scene of the haunted room in the Shining has no priviledged perspective, but is one of the scariest in the book. We are given some foreshadowing, with Danny going catatonic after visiting it, and the sordid history of the room, but when Jack goes in, we as the reader have no information that he doesn't posses himself... this lack of knowledged makes the scene even scarier in my opininion, since we have no way to rationalize what is happening as we read it.

- Anatole
 
Last edited:

Nazareth

Thanks- that was good advice- will have 5to read it over better tomorrow to digest it better. My eyes are too lazy tonight :) but I get what you're saying mostly.
 

Nazareth

now that I think about it- what I suggested lends itself more to suspense than it does to horror
 

MacAllister

Tired and worried.
El Jefe
Administrator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
VPX
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
22,039
Reaction score
10,839
Location
Out on a limb
Website
macallisterstone.com
Ah--but horror and suspense have sooooo much in common. Which actually raises a question: How DO we define horror? What separates the genre from other, closely-related genres?

Why is Psycho a horror flick, and Silence of the Lambs, a thriller?
 

maestrowork

Fear the Death Ray
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
43,746
Reaction score
8,654
Location
Los Angeles
Website
www.amazon.com
Was Psycho really considered "horror"? I'm not sure. I think most Hitchcock's films were categorized as "suspense"?

I'm confused with the distinction also: horror/suspense/thriller... even spilling over to mystery... and mix in sci-fi... these genres cross over so much sometimes it's hard to peg them.

I mean, is "Alien" sci-fi, thriller, suspense or horror? Or all of the above?
 

Spookster

Maiden of the Blade
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
870
Reaction score
117
Location
Waaaay down south
I think Psycho was concidered horror in it's original era. When it was released (was it 60's or 70's) the gore factor (shower scene) catagorized it as horror. In this age, it would lean more toward the drama/suspense genre.

Combonation of genres allows for a fuller storyline. I would classify Alien as sci-fi/horror. I think, in order to aply genre to most movies/books with multiple genre lables, you have to determine which genre holds the most impact to the storyline.

In Alien, there is a combonation of sci-fi, horror, and suspense. Which holds the majority of the storyline? sci-fi (aliens/futuristic setting) and horror (monster killing humans). The suspense is a bi-factor of the horror storyline.
 

Nivvie

Rejections, She Wrote.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
314
Reaction score
70
The horrors that have stayed with me usually involve children.
Stephen King knows how to use a child as in Salems Lot, and I was on edge throughout Sixth Sense and The Ring. In fact, anything with a child pulls on my parental heart strings.

I watched The Exorcist years ago, and thought it was scary, but that was all. I watched it after having a child, and the thought of what you would actually do if there was a demon squatting inside your child terrified me.
 

jdkiggins

Troubled-Talks with animals.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
9,798
Reaction score
1,225
Location
The "Dead Zone" in PA. (The state.) All lit up and
Website
home.comcast.net
Psycho came out in 1960. I saw it, at a drive-in theater no less, when I was eight years old. It scared the heck out of me. I watched it a few nights ago and it certainly didn't have the impact on me that it had forty-five years ago. In the 60's that was considered horror. Now, I would call it a thriller. And to be honest, compared to what's out now, it's sort of boring.

Times have changed; look at the nightly news.

I'm still having a difficult time determining where the line between horror and thriller is drawn. For me, horror, thriller, suspense with a touch of mystery all fall in one great big category.

Joanne
 

MacAllister

Tired and worried.
El Jefe
Administrator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
VPX
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
22,039
Reaction score
10,839
Location
Out on a limb
Website
macallisterstone.com
I guess, for me, horror requires an element of the supernatural/inexplicable--done believably.
 

triceretops

Banned
Flounced
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
14,060
Reaction score
2,755
Location
In a van down by the river
Website
guerrillawarfareforwriters.blogspot.com
I think something that messes with my head can have a horrific effect. I call it understatement. Jaws used some understatement with music when it couldn't get Bruce the shark to work properly, so they hyped up the atomosphere and mood.

For some reason I thought the Butterfly Effect was done very well without an over-abundance of slashing and blood-letting.

Tri
 

Anatole Ghio

Ironic Paranormal
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
205
Reaction score
15
MacAllister said:
I guess, for me, horror requires an element of the supernatural/inexplicable--done believably.

Yes, I agree 100%. Without the inexplicable, it becomes a thriller or suspense. Anything about a mass murderer, for me, fails to be a work of horror unless the murderer is presented in some way which still maintains the unknown. We, the audience, must be alienated in some way from the central events in order to be horrified. If we are brought in close to the event in some which diminishes the unknown, it is no longer about how we make sense of the inexplicable, and about how we make sense of the unusual.

- Anatole
 

BlueTexas

Back from self-exile land.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
1,159
Reaction score
220
Location
Aledo, TX
I'm in the mess with your mind crowd. If it has a bit of the supernatural, so much the better, as long as there's not a lot of gore. If there is gore, it has to be done well--really well. Like the hobbling in Misery. *shivers*
 

Jonathon Michaels

The Elvis of Webmasters
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
77
Reaction score
26
Location
Illinois
Website
www.raggededgepublishing.com
BlueTexas said:
If there is gore, it has to be done well--really well. Like the hobbling in Misery. *shivers*

Very good example. Some of my favorite "gore" scenes involve not seeing the gore at all. My mind can do much more damage than any film-maker.

Horror to me isn't really a strict definition. Yes, supernatural or other-worldly aspects can add to the horror. These can be great while watching them but there has to be an element of reality for me to be really scared, which is probably my best definition. Horror scares me. Thrillers keep me on the edge of my seat, but don't necessarily have the same impact. I love both.

One of my favorite movies that combines elements of both is The Hitcher. Not a great movie by today's standards maybe, and many from that time didn't like it much either. I thought it was excellent.

It took all of those unwritten lines that you just don't cross in the movies and drew them in the sand. Then it went right up to the edge and backed off, just like a movie is supposed to do. Then it completely blew past it and drew another line and did the same.

The best is the scene with the girl tied between the semi-truck and the trailer. They very seldom killed off a main character in a movie, so when C. Thomas Howell and Rutger Hauer are in the cab you know she'll be fine. True to form, they go to the edge and appear to back off for a second. Then he drives away. In the original they don't even show her, you just know she's there and she just got ripped apart. Excellent, and good for a couple of shivers and a jaw-drop.

Also playing on elements from (or during) childhood work wonderfully. I seldom had nightmares as a child. I was the type of kid Bill Cosby talks about, running to the doorway and jumping onto the bed from across the room. (Demons can't reach you if you jump and then get under the covers.) I then proceeded to bury myself under the covers, back myself into the corner of the bed and the wall, and go to sleep as quickly as possible.

I was a young teen when the original A Nightmare on Elm Street came out. Um, yeah. Linus just lost his security blanket. I didn't sleep for days...
 

BlueTexas

Back from self-exile land.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
1,159
Reaction score
220
Location
Aledo, TX
Jonathon Michaels said:
Very good example. Some of my favorite "gore" scenes involve not seeing the gore at all. My mind can do much more damage than any film-maker.


I was a young teen when the original A Nightmare on Elm Street came out. Um, yeah. Linus just lost his security blanket. I didn't sleep for days...

I saw the original in my friends basement when I was 9. My mother says that's when I quit taking baths and started taking showers. To this day, I truly dislike these films and will flip the channel as soon as I see any image of it....perhaps that's why I don't like gore!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.