I know horror is dived in disgust, the horror itself, and shock. But is it really horror when I write about a guy who cracks an alien head with an axe like a nut? I mean maybe this looks good in a movie, but do it look good in a book? I find it a little bit ridiculous and childish in written form. Because … you know: “He grabs an axe and hits the alien’s head. Everywhere is blood. The head itself splashing like a spout.” Is that really horror?
What makes great horror?
- Thread starter Phoenix_Writer
- Start date
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, horror is in the imagination of the reader.
How a scene is written will determine whether, and to what extent, it triggers the reader's sense of horror.
But everyone's sense of horror is probably different.
Write for your chosen group of readers.
How a scene is written will determine whether, and to what extent, it triggers the reader's sense of horror.
But everyone's sense of horror is probably different.
Write for your chosen group of readers.
Last edited:
Agree with Bufty. Horror is different things to different readers. To me, horror isn't really about gore, it's about fear. You can take a murder mystery and really describe the gore of the murder but that doesn't make it a horror story. But make the murderer a clown that lives in the basements and the sewers and it's become a horror because of some peoples fear of clowns, creepy dark places, etc.
To answer your question of what makes great horror? I think the answer is being able to put the reader in a position where they feel they are truly experiencing what's being described as opposed to feel like they are watching it happened to the MC. JMO.
To answer your question of what makes great horror? I think the answer is being able to put the reader in a position where they feel they are truly experiencing what's being described as opposed to feel like they are watching it happened to the MC. JMO.
I like re-imagined views of the classics. For example, the vampire/Dracula concept is re-worked a lot. The Lost Boys (movie) was a great, at the time, new way of telling the story.
I think it's more in the suspense. Conveyed with the correct mood, getting the student loan bill in the mail can be the most frightening experience in the world.
I agree with Bufty and DanMorrison: Identify your target audience and write to their tastes. (And that's really true of any genre.)
For me, successful horror taps into the most mundane things and situations of everyday life and creates a previously unimagined terror so profound it causes a lasting effect. For example, the release of the movie "Psycho" in 1960 caused a national phobia about taking showers. To this day, I can't take a shower without first making sure every window and door in the house (including the bathroom door) is locked. Even then, I catch myself stopping to listen and constantly watching the bathroom door. It's funny, but it's true.
For me, successful horror taps into the most mundane things and situations of everyday life and creates a previously unimagined terror so profound it causes a lasting effect. For example, the release of the movie "Psycho" in 1960 caused a national phobia about taking showers. To this day, I can't take a shower without first making sure every window and door in the house (including the bathroom door) is locked. Even then, I catch myself stopping to listen and constantly watching the bathroom door. It's funny, but it's true.
The monster eats half the characters, they say "f..k" a lot, and there's gratuitous sex that has nothing at all to do with the plot!
LOL!
One of my bylines, of course.
Seriously, to me, horror has to be fun. Period. I don't care what, it has to be FUN. It also has to have a payoff. There has to be a reason to get to the last page and I should be able to close the book with a smile on my face, even if I've had chills, thrills and spills between A and B. Maybe redemption would be nice in some degree, but most of all, fun. To me, that's the whole point of sitting down and taking the time to go off in la la land in the first place. Not to get bummed and depressed. Scared, sure, but also with a safety net in the end. Humor is essential, at least to some degree to break up the tension, and the pacing needs to be steady. I hate for it to drag.
That's my take. Probably not with the crowd, but oh well. Never was one to go along with the crowd anyway.
LOL!
One of my bylines, of course.
Seriously, to me, horror has to be fun. Period. I don't care what, it has to be FUN. It also has to have a payoff. There has to be a reason to get to the last page and I should be able to close the book with a smile on my face, even if I've had chills, thrills and spills between A and B. Maybe redemption would be nice in some degree, but most of all, fun. To me, that's the whole point of sitting down and taking the time to go off in la la land in the first place. Not to get bummed and depressed. Scared, sure, but also with a safety net in the end. Humor is essential, at least to some degree to break up the tension, and the pacing needs to be steady. I hate for it to drag.
That's my take. Probably not with the crowd, but oh well. Never was one to go along with the crowd anyway.
Hi. From what I've read, the horror genre is not only limited to the type of physical horror you're thinking of; it also includes stories with psychological horror.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horror_fiction
Last edited:
I've found that in movies, video games and books alike, the horror that gets to me is the kind with strong contrasts of content. A scary ghost in a scary dungeon is actually not nearly as sinister as a creeping thing in the middle of a woman's beautiful dressing room. An insane nurse in an asylum is not as terrifying as someone's best friend's face cracking off in the middle of game night. Atmosphere is great, but truly scary things happen as an escalation of the atmosphere, not a continuation of it.
Just my two cents ^^'
Just my two cents ^^'
Horror that works visually is often underwhelming when translated to written form, but there is also a lot you can do with language, pacing, word choice, etc that cannot be done on screen.
I'm currently reading a lot of Stephen King and the one I found most terrifying, without doubt, was Pet Sematery.
(SPOILERS IF YOU HAVEN'T READ IT)
It wasn't so much the zombies or the 'thing' that lived in the woods (can't remember its name), but the fact that, even knowing what would happen, the main character still allowed it to happen to his son, his wife, etc. THAT horrified me.
(SPOILERS IF YOU HAVEN'T READ IT)
It wasn't so much the zombies or the 'thing' that lived in the woods (can't remember its name), but the fact that, even knowing what would happen, the main character still allowed it to happen to his son, his wife, etc. THAT horrified me.
I believe that true horror is psychological horror, not gore. It's easy to disgust and shock people with scenes of characters being eaten alive by zombies (I hate most stories about zombies). Horror is not about what you see, but what you can't see. You know there is something terrifying awaiting you, yet what scares you the more is the fact you have no idea what it is. Still, you press forward, you are curious, almost fascinated. You want to know. I think a good horror story also appeal to your curiosity, and make you love being afraid.
Even if the metaphorical or physical monster you are about to face is a terrible sight to behold, you want to know. But terror begins in the expectation of the confrontation.
Even if the metaphorical or physical monster you are about to face is a terrible sight to behold, you want to know. But terror begins in the expectation of the confrontation.
I like tension, gore, and emotional roller coasters. I think it's the tension and the wide range of emotions horror can bring that really draw me to it.
I have watch K-horror movies, and there also some who leans toward psychological like Epitath, A tale of two sisters, Arang, The eye, Into the mirror, Whispering corridors. Not as much as Japanese or Thai perhaps, but there are some.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 39,307
- Reaction score
- 17,490
- Location
- Non carborundum illegitimi
- Website
- www.aliceloweecey.net
Hoorah! I'm not the only one who didn't like A Tale of Two Sisters! I thought it was 100% predictable and don't understand its appearance on nearly every "best of" list.
I'd answer that in two parts:
- more basic answer. Shock value. Thrusting the bestial nature of human beings forward, like, throwing it in the face of the viewer/reader. Like a show of force, or a powerful demonstration involving physical domination. It immediately speaks to us, out of everything in a horror movie, all 1hr45min of it, people will come out of the cinema saying 'you saw that when he splits the guy in HALF ?!!'
- the not basic answer. Philosophy meets darkness. Horror is at its best when it's psychologically subtle, and powerful philosophically. Thought-provoking ideas that couldn't really exist in other genres, are made possible in the realm of horror.
- more basic answer. Shock value. Thrusting the bestial nature of human beings forward, like, throwing it in the face of the viewer/reader. Like a show of force, or a powerful demonstration involving physical domination. It immediately speaks to us, out of everything in a horror movie, all 1hr45min of it, people will come out of the cinema saying 'you saw that when he splits the guy in HALF ?!!'
- the not basic answer. Philosophy meets darkness. Horror is at its best when it's psychologically subtle, and powerful philosophically. Thought-provoking ideas that couldn't really exist in other genres, are made possible in the realm of horror.