Gore and More discussion

This is a bit of a rant, please bear with me.

I was reading a few book reviews dealing with the horror genre and noticed quite a few complaints about too much gore or violence. In general some readers felt that the gore and violence truly bore no purpose other than shock value, and somehow this was an offense to their gentle sensibilities. Could it be they are reading the wrong genre? Should horror writers tone down their level of shock to accommodate those who truly have no business reading horror?

It almost seems as if these pure and gentle souls read horror just so they have a venue to vent their frustrations, a podium to stand upon and shout at the world "hey, look at me". Then there are those who come across as frustrated writers who vent due to inner jealousy.


Horror is all about the shock value, the more shock, the more I value the read. Edward Lee has made quite a good living on pure shock value and I'm quite sure there are those who wish they could reach his level of success, but simply cant so they vent with bad reviews.

I no longer read the one star reviews, especially when they are attached to a book I know is quite good. I simply chalk it up as another frustrated author, or just another gentle soul reading the wrong genre.

Enjoy your horror folks, don't let the bad apples ruin your gory, bloody, scattered body parts read.

I certainly don't think that horror writers should tone it down because some readers are offended; they should write what they want to write. And it's always possible that people who write such reviews are not reading their ideal genre, but I think it's also possible that some readers who complain about the gore/violence are trying to expand their horizons. Therefore, I'm not so sure that the response you're giving here - putting down those who disagree with you and are not fans of it - is particularly productive.

I'd also argue that there's more than one way to enjoy horror. For you and for lots of other readers, it is "all about the shock value," but for other readers who genuinely do enjoy horror, it might not be so. There are multiple types of horror, after all.

(I'm also a little confused by your frustration with those readers who say the gore/violence serves "no purpose other than shock value" when you argue that the shock value is the point in a later paragraph, but that may be just an issue of clarity.)

(I'm also a little confused by your frustration with those readers who say the gore/violence serves "no purpose other than shock value" when you argue that the shock value is the point in a later paragraph, but that may be just an issue of clarity.)


I'm completely confused by your statement.

I simply suggest that there are those who feel that gore and violence are only used for shock and not to enhance the story. My view is completely different, hence I defend the gore.

My statement is not aimed at every horror reader, just a limited few.

I appreciate your comment's and your opinion is valued, but being the way of the world we simply don't have to agree.

No, we don't have to agree. I just thought you seemed to be making a much harsher statement than necessary.

Just to clarify, though, on the part of my comment that confused you. I was confused because it seemed like you were saying that the shock value was the whole point of horror for you while also criticizing others for saying (in a more negative tone) that the gore seemed to be only for shock value. Given the way you defined horror as being all about the shock value, it doesn't seem like their identifying the gore/violence as for shock value alone would be a problem. In other words (sorry for being wordy - it's been a long day), it's not clear to me in your original post that you think the gore/violence serves a larger purpose.

I thank both of you for your thoughts on this subject.

Obviously this discussion has drawn some attention rather quickly.

Christy,
As stated in my first post, this was just a bit of a rant. I was critiquing a limited few, and these few tend to repeatedly bash the horror genre. In turn my critique was critiqued as was expected.

Yes, my initial statement wasn't an in depth review but a mere jab at the those who seem to be reading the wrong genre (they cant find a good book in this field), so perhaps it is easy to misinterpret what I was saying.

I'll try to clarify my point.

In general some readers felt that the gore and violence truly bore no purpose other than shock value, and somehow this was an offense to their gentle sensibilities.

In other words the story holds no value once the gore is removed.

Horror is all about the shock value, the more shock, the more I value the read. Edward Lee has made quite a good living on pure shock value and I'm quite sure there are those who wish they could reach his level of success, but simply cant so they vent with bad reviews.

I simply point out that many writers use gore as the focal point, and this isn't a bad thing, the gore, blood and entrails are the horror, they add to heighten the thrill of the read, and yes a story does exist under all the blood and gut's, it just seems some of the readers cant get beyond the gore to find the story.

When I read quiet horror I don't complain about the lack of gore, I accept it for what it is.

In any case, it would be nice to see more comment and thought's on this subject.

I think that in part that is what defines the horror genre compared to say a dark thriller. I feel that if a reader is offended by what they read then don't read that author again. I personally like horror for the fact they can do things in a book that they can't/wont do in a movie of the same genre.

I'd like to see some specific reviews you came across, Kevin. The only reason why a horror reader would complain about graphic descriptions of gore and violence that makes sense to me is if they were expecting a more straight forward thriller. Or, yes, they were frustrated by own lack of success.
And for the record--no writer owes any reader anything. The best writers IMO make no apologies for their work, and readers can take it or leave it. *Most* authors (I hope!), are not holding their readers at gun point. If the story's not for you, chuck it and pick up another one. There's plenty out there... If you're one of those people that insists on continuing to read a novel that repulses you... I think what you're criticizing in the end is your own self--you hate that you like something so dark and twisted. And that's just tragedy.

And it's tragic to misuse "tragedy" in a properly grammatical sentence.

Damn straight it is, Paul.

Paul wrote: "And it's tragic to misuse "tragedy" in a properly grammatical sentence."


Hi Paul,

Thanks for responding to the post. You will notice my first post states that this thread was created as a rant. I speak of no specific review, but I do speak of a specific type of reviewer. A general perusal of reviews on any number of horror books or authors will undoubtedly unearth the kind of review I speak of.

Keep in mind, without readers there are no sales, the author therefore owes his audience his life's blood.

I understand what you mean, Kevin. And you're evolving the point. I believe if an author manages to build a relationship with an audience, yes, a certain responsibility comes into play. Even though I'm not a particular fan of Clive Barker's "art trilogy," I admire that he committed to finishing a story over the span of 3 books. To never wrap up what he started in The Great and Secret Show would have been a colossal slap in the face to his fans.
But for an author to try to predict and play to people's tastes? That's something else entirely.

Paul wrote: "I understand what you mean, Kevin. And you're evolving the point. I believe if an author manages to build a relationship with an audience, yes, a certain responsibility comes into play. Even though..."

I understand where you coming from. No author should be a slave to pop culture, or any given trend.

Different readers have different reasons for not liking gore. Some people truly are too sensitive and they should know better than to read graphic material in the first place.

Some people have dealt with blood, guts, people dying messily and horribly in real life and might find it's presence in fiction to be gratuitous.

There are some types who seem to be horrified by the things that disgust them whereas other readers fail to see the horror and are simply grossed out. It should be easy to distinguish these two groups; the former will all go look at a fresh puddle of vomit and the latter will avoid the puddle.

There are some, like myself, who are just a little jaded and looking for some new thing to scare us; blood and guts just aren't scary.

I’m not offended by blood and guts and I read horror, but I can understand seeing it as gratuitous in some cases. There’s a quote from Stephen King about writing. He says “I recognize terror as the finest emotion and so I will try to terrorize the reader. But if I find that I cannot terrify, I will try to horrify, and if I find that I cannot horrify, I'll go for the gross-out. I'm not proud. ”

I think that sums it up. :) I can also agree that if someone is genuinely offended by the gross out then they should not read books that may contain said gross out! Be responsible for your own choices.

I couldn't agree more with you, Kandice.
Indeed, that King quote does sum it up.
Now, as a reader I usually prefer the supernatural instead of blood and guts. Not that I dislike it, though. I think it's a shame people complain so much about this stuff... Everyone is entitled to his opinion, but the truth is that gore is a part of the genre, folks.

Ditto to Kandice. Everyone has a point when it goes too far and it's up to us to determine where it is, and not cross it. An author shouldn't hold my hand. I'm adult, I can stop reading anytime I want.

If we let others decide on what is too much then a lot of the horror writers would be out of jobs. My sister can't stand horror at all, she'd physically puke if she read some of the books that I do, and I don't read stuff half as bad as I could. If she policed the genre it would simply disappear, she'd take it out of all shops.

The beautiful thing about the horror genre is that there is something for everyone. Stephen King opened the door for the vast majority of horror lovers. For many, he still is the gold standard and rightfully so. From there, many of us have branched out to discover other authors that fit our particular tastes. Clive Barker provided us with a more visceral brand of horror. This opened the door for many of the old "splatterpunk" moniker - Richard Laymon, David Schow, Robert McCammon, Edward Lee, Jack Ketchum. These pioneers led to our current band of writers that have a love for the red stuff - Bryan Smith, Jonathan Janz, Brian Keene, James Newman, Alan Ryker, Brian Moreland, Glenn Rolfe, Tim Curran, Ray Garton, Kealan Patrick Burke, Gord Rollo, and so many more. Others prefer quiet horror, like the brand Charles L. Grant made famous. We have authors that are noted for their contributions in the vampire sub-genre, like Brian Lumley and Anne Rice. Are cryptozoology monsters your thing? It's hard to do better than Hunter Shea for that. Do you crave a more cerebral surrealistic horror? Look no further than Greg Gifune.

I could go on and on, but the point is that no matter what your taste is in horror, there is someone out there that's delivering it in spades.

I'm with ya, Scott. I think many new authors use the red stuff to try and disguise a thin plot and unfleshed characters. Some readers want a mind-numbing read with characters that are disposed of like cannon fodder. For me, if I am truly invested and sympathetic towards a well fleshed-out character, then that's when it's like a kick in the gut when they meet an untimely demise.

Ken wrote: "I'm with ya, Scott. I think many new authors use the red stuff to try and disguise a thin plot and unfleshed characters. Some readers want a mind-numbing read with characters that are disposed of l..."

I think many of the self published, unpolished, and unproven authors may take a blood and guts slant over quality. I wouldn't say most new authors use that mind set. There are plenty of proven authors who use gore gratuitously, but many good stories can be found beneath the blood and guts. Actually this argument shifts the conversation away from the point I was originally making. I was not making a point on horror and gore perse, but reviewers who tend to continually bash the genres because blood and gore offended them.

There are different kinds of Horror and different ways of using gore and violence. I can't imagine a good werewolf story for example without some very nasty gore scenes, but I can appreciate that some stories seem to be written just to shock and those can be pretty boring plot wise. Occult and supernatural Horror use it less, although sometimes the psychological effects are a result of seeing someone horribly mutilated. I suppose it takes a good author to make it fit the story.

This isn't entirely true I don't feel horror is just about shock value. It's like any other genre it need's structure, plot, setting, characters, direction, purpose, etc. So if people are complaining things are just being thrown in to add shock value and they have no connection or serve no purpose to the plot or story then they have a legitimate point. I myself like some good gruesome gore and shock in my horror but if it's simply thrown in just for value and to get people scared and talking then I usually see through it and check off that the book is scary and horror but some elements are just to intensify a plot that didn't need it.