Supernatural Fiction Readers discussion

As I re-examine my category for my own recent supernatural-themed work, I wonder if it isn't Action-Adventure but rather horror.

I wrote it to mimick the pulp style, and made it clean enough for young adults. The main point of it is over the top adventure, and it features supernatural good guys and bad guys.

But it isn't scary.

That is, the characters might be scary, but the reader isn't being scared. I went more for horrifying, horrible, than scary.

What do you think- does Horror have to be scary?

It does sound more like action adventure, or just Young Adult. Horror should be honestly trying to scare the reader.

I suppose to qualify as truly horror, a work has to include something unsettling, or put its readers in an awkward position, which can admittedly be difficult because horror tends to be a reaction predicated upon some form of visual stimuli. Books such as Dracula are considered horror, perhaps not so much due to terrifying things described, but as readers accessing the world through Harker's point of view, we get a sense of atmosphere and his unease by proxy.

One more question.... Where does horrifying violence fall into the equation?

I watch a lot of movies, and things likr friday the 13th, Saw, etc don't strike me as scary in the least. Yet they're classified as horror?

Does the same rule hold true for novels? Can horrifying violence make it horror? Wouldnt it be closer to horror than suspense/thriller?

Violence often detracts from the horror element, IMO. It's often a resolution, a known, if ugly ending. Not knowing is often more horrifying.

If done right, horror is found in the build up before violence, and in the discovery of the results of violence. This was the type of horror that one could argue that the Friday the 13th series was going for...although movies like Halloween did it so much better.
The movies that I always wonder if they are mislabeled as horror are the Saw movies.

I agree, D.

I also question most zombie movies being labelled as horror. Only really scary ones for me are 28 Days Later and its sequel 28 weeks Later.

C.e. wrote: "I agree, D.

I also question most zombie movies being labelled as horror. Only really scary ones for me are 28 Days Later and its sequel 28 weeks Later."

I'm not sure that a lot of zombie movies really ARE horror, and I'm saying that as a "zombie writer." I think a lot of them fall more under action/thriller. It's kind of like the difference between Alien and Aliens. The first was a horror movie that had a a frightening creature in what amounted to a haunted house in space...the second is often called horror but it was really a shoot-em-up with marines, aliens, flamethowers, and explosions.

Personally, I tend to equate the concepts "horror" and "scary" --although Boris Karloff, in his preface to Tales of Terror, distinguishes between horror, which has an element of revulsion, and "clean terror." In the context of the book trade today, I think when a book is labeled or marketed as "horror," readers do expect it to be scary.

"Horrifying violence," as exemplified by the movies mentioned above (which I haven't seen, but know of by reputation), would certainly deliver Karloff's element of revulsion, and I think most vendors and viewers would classify them as "horror." In terms of the scare factor, though, for creation of a mental atmosphere of mounting unease and fear for the characters' safety, I agree with some of those who've commented above that directly-described violence can actually detract from it. It can be effective as a resolution; but fear comes from the element of the unknown, the buildup, and the visible aftereffects of violence.

While the fiction of the supernatural obviously CAN be horrific, it isn't necessarily so; and "horror" can also be evoked by purely natural causes (such as, in the above examples, sadistic mass murderers and serial killers). That's one reason why I named our group "Supernatural Fiction Readers," not "Horror Fiction Readers" (my taste focuses on the supernatural element, whether it's "scary" or not). Another reason is that I think defining a type of fiction by its subject matter makes more sense, and yields more objective results, than defining it by its supposed emotional effect. As the discussion above indicates, what's horrific and scary for one person might not get the same reaction at all from somebody else!

C.e., I don't know whether any of this helps you with planning the marketing for your book, but I wish you all the best with that!

This is a tricky one. The recent trend with 'horror' is more of a supernatural theme but also mainstream and very watered down, IMHO, in terms of the scare factor. As I read more and more horror fiction, I find that many authors create a world that's creepy or unsettling but true "scariness" is rarely created effectively (or even purposefully?). So my point is I would argue you have latitude. That said, I am VERY disgruntled when I read a book that has been marketed as 'horror' and to elicit fear to only find out it doesn't deliver. So be clear about your intent.

Alex- an excellent point.

For my novels I want the reader to be horrified by the super-violence in the same way a terrible car crash horrifies passerby. But because it is pulpishly over the top I don't think the reader will be scared- unless they're scared for the characters in the novels.

Horror must be scary, just as candy must be sweet.

Oh, rats, somebody just gave me some Sourpatch suckers...

There goes another paradyme in the making.

(I think for the good stuff that's not scary to exist and be enjoyable, we tend to need the stuff that is to dominate.

There are other considerations... I didn't find Monster Hunter International to be "Scary" more suspensful and thrilling and, wonderfully humorous.

Surely "Scary" is and should be the norm of a genre labled "Horror," having said that, if we're talking "genre" then, surely there is room for other things that have similar components and tell the tale in a different way?)

I reckon that's why it's "horror" and not "terror"

I would say that it should at least evoke unease to be called horror. The reality is that not every person will be scared by the same thing, so most horror won't be called scary by every reader.

I don't like ultra-violence. I especially avoid horror that centers around graphic violence, such as slasher movies or even serial killers. I find it disturbing in a bad way. I'm not going to enjoy reading this book or want to recommend it. I certainly don't enjoy being shocked or revolted. Whereas, if I read a really scary book that keeps me on my toes and I enjoy it, I will recommend it to everyone. Especially nowadays, it's harder for a book to be genuinely scary without resorting to shock value. Again, that is my own view of horror. It may be different for another reader.

There's an interesting article about this here:
www.teemingbrain.com/2013/01/21/in-pr...

It discusses the difference between the emotions that the 'horror' genre often evokes now - unfortunately horror isn't one of them. Disgust often replaces it.

Great article, Jim; thanks for sharing it!

It really hit home for me, Werner. I just finished reading a 2 volume collection of Karl Edward Wagner's horror stories. The first one, Where the Summer Ends: The Best Horror Stories of Karl Edward Wagner, Volume 1, was fantastic & had his very best. The stories were scary & full of actual horror elements.

Walk on the Wild Side: The Best Horror Stories of Karl Edward Wagner, Volume 2 had the rest in the order they'd been published. As KEW's drinking became heavier, his horror got more rank sex & other disgusting elements, although still showed flashes of his old mastery. It's interesting on that basis alone.

Great article, indeed, Jim. Oh MR James nailed it with the term "a pleasing terror." Honestly, that's why I enjoy a good, old-fashioned scare. I also agree with where he wrote, "It is easy to be nauseating."

That's why I always go back to classic works of horror. They knew how to unsettle a reader.

I will use those titles he listed as a reading list.

We watched the first episode of "The Following" last night. Great actors & well done - too well done for me. True gruesome horror - not a pleasing terror. It's so believable that I don't want to watch any more.
:-(

My mom and sister were watching it during dinner. I was trying not to watch it. That is not for me!

Personally, I think rounded, three-dimensional character development is as important in a work that's intended for horrific effect as it is in any other type of tale. There are various ways to achieve that kind of development; I think humor can be one of them, and that comic relief can be a needed stress reducer in some cases. Obviously, it takes skill to strike the right balance with such disparate elements; but it can be done.

One thing I appreciate in horror is what I call the "Coolness Factor." Like when the chest bursting scene happened with Alien. It was gross but not particularly scary, but it sure was cool.

I agree, Charles. I like the characters to be scared/horrified, but not me- i like new, original ways to terrifyncharacters more than anything else, and the chest-burster definitely fit the bill.