Horror or Thriller?

Personaly, I think its whatever the reader takes it as. I mean, a horror for one person could be a thriller for someone else. and vice versa.

It all depends on what your idea of horror and thriller are.

Good question. I sat thinking about it for a few minutes. I guess the labels are relatively meaningless. The Relic I would consider a thriller (excuse me, I read it ten years or so ago), but I wasn't able to put my finger on why I have this impression of it. It strikes me now that you've got me thinking.
In my mind, supernatural elements coupled with the intention to scare the reader qualifies a book as horror, whereas the more human antagonists (serial killer thrillers etc.), I seem to classify as thrillers. But even having said that I can think of plenty of exceptions to this very soft rule. I'll be interested to hear people's thoughts on this one, especially if there is a certain standard in the publishing community.

In an 1826 essay, "On the Supernatural in Poetry," Gothic novelist Ann Radcliffe made a distinction between "terror" and "horror" (I'll get to "thriller" in a moment). She said that terror "expands the soul and awakens the faculties to a high degree of life" and that horror "contracts, freezes and nearly annihilates them." To her, they were opposites, and she preferred "terror" (but her writing is not always consistent in this). Devendra Varma picked up on her thesis in his book, The Gothic Flame (1966) and calls terror "awful apprehension" and horror "sickening realization."

In other words, "terror" says, "Hey, there's a really creepy noise coming from my closet and my heart is beating a bit faster and my breathing is much more stertorous. "Horror" says, "That's because I now see a two-headed monster with fangs rushing toward me! Aarrgghh!!!"

As far as the horror genre, it should blend both ideas. Terror gives you the willies, horror gives you the uh--uncontrollable bowel movements.

When I think of "thriller" I think of "thrill-ride" (I hate rollercoasters) which, I think, falls under "terror." Ultimately, there may be many blurs in trying to distinguish "Thriller" from "Horror." A subjective observation on my part: While personal safety is threatened in both genres, the protagonist in the typical thriller, I think, faces death. In horror, s/he faces more than death. I think there is something a bit more cosmic and primordial in horror, but let's chat some more.

Here is how I see it.
Horror and thriller are both emotions.
The emotions that horror elicit are fear or making the reader afraid of something.
Thriller is as Cathedral Goth pointed out - is a thrill ride. You take the reader along the peaks and valleys.
I think they can be used almost interchangebly and provide a larger reader base for authors.
I think the term horror was overused in the 80's and now (thanks to movies) makes us think gory, bloody. Which isn't the case at all. If you think about it the term 'thriller novel' didn't become coined until after the 1980's - when horror was no longer considered popular.
Anyway, another interesting part to this question is...
Can horror also be fantasy, sci-fi or other?
My answer is yes. As I said before horror is an emotion. Fantasy and sci-fi are setting. Look at the romance industry (Yeah, I know... just bear with me on this) - they've successfully intermingled romance with just about every setting imaginable.
Thoughts?

Uh, I asked this question over in the thriller forum a while ago.

Take a look at some of Tom Clancy's books and you see technothriller, right?

Now consider what makes it a thriller--travel in pursuit of a remedy to a threat of global proportions.

Now read Bram Stoker's Dracula.

Now tell me if there is a discernible difference in how these books grab the reader and move him along to the desired conclusion. Don't think about vampires, think about "threat of global proportions".

See, what I mean?

Regards,
Scott

Yeah, I wonder if that's the biggest difference: the scope or scale. Horror is very intimate. It affects one person at a time.