Modern Good Reads discussion

If horror, by definition, is about exploring taboo subjects, creating fear, and making the reader experience something visceral, then is there a such thing as crossing the line?

Subjects such as rape, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and cruelty to animals and children are hot-buttons. Look at most submission guidelines and you'll find most or all of those topics listed under subjects that are not acceptable for submission.

Now, I'm not arguing that they should be! However, I'm curious about your opinions as readers and writers of horror fiction. Where do you draw the line?

Where should society draw the line? Or should it?

Does horror need to constantly push the boundaries in order to produce that shock and fear so many of its readers want?

I cross the line at all of those. You can imply rape through intimidation but don't actually go through with it.

I think the only real line is the one between a good piece of horror fiction and something that does little more than toss blood or violent acts at the reader.

Don't get me wrong I have no qualms with reading splatterpunk but if the story isn't that well written or the events don't match up to what's been written about the characters, or even if the characters aren't realistically reacting to those events that's when I walk away from the book.

This is especially true with sexual violence. I've read far too many books lately where rape can be turned into a commonplace thing that the characters endure with little reaction. That's just not going to happen. There's going to be a response of some sort. Vengeance, sadness, weeping anything other than "Oh I was raped and then I went back to taking care of my garden. It was terrible but I had things to do." Gah!

I really don't think anything crosses the line so long as it advances the story in a meaningful way and is not just added for shock value. There are a few topics I would never describe, not because I think it's something readers can't digest, but because I can't stomach to write about them.

Though not a horror fan (saw to much horror in my life to see the point) I'm with Jason. Lines are crossed when what is written makes bad literature. Porn isn't always dealing with sex.

Some very thoughtful responses! I'm impressed!

My personal belief is that nothing should really be considered "off limits" if it's handled well and makes sense for the story. I understand that some people are sensitive to certain issues, but to me it feels like a cop-out when the punch is constantly pulled.

I think every artist and reader has to define their own limits, but I agree with the majority here that the depiction has be responsible and make sense for the story.

I want to add my voice to tthat. One ought to be able to write about virtually anything, but it really requires competence and awareness. Context can be important too. I hate it when rape is exploited for mere shock value or when it devalues the victim.

Michelle wrote: "I want to add my voice to tthat. One ought to be able to write about virtually anything, but it really requires competence and awareness. Context can be important too. I hate it when rape is exploi..."

Thanks, Michelle! I am curious about your last point. Do you see that happen often? In most of the fiction I read, rape is sometimes threatened, but is always stopped before it can happen.

*cries and laughs at the same time* Yes. I have seen it a couple of times and it ruined the books for me.

I can handle reading about rape and violence. I have written about them. Human darkness interests me and some recent favorite books like "Northman'" by J D Hughes included it. However, sensitivity to the victim and awareness of the situation are musts.

Michelle wrote: "*cries and laughs at the same time* Yes. I have seen it a couple of times and it ruined the books for me.

I can handle reading about rape and violence. I have written about them. Human darkness i..."

Absolutely. Well said, Michelle!

Times they are a changing. A kid getting murdered in a movie used to be almost unheard of in the 80s, a taboo. Although it's generally not glorified (thankfully), it is much more commonplace today.

I think rape as sexploitation was more common in older horror movies, though it still rears its ugly head from time to time.

I read a horror novel, or started to, where the main character was taken under hostage. The vampire then proceeded to rape her not once, but twice, in the span of the three chapters. Graphically. Threw and deleted that book. Made my insides sick. That's not necessary to convey your point to readers :/

When delving into controversial themes that revolve around sex: rape and other taboos, the intent of the scene and its use in advancing the story/plot is what makes all the difference.

And in horror especially, rape is to be utilized horrifically. It should not titillate. And anyone can tell when they read that scene what was the author's intent, by the way it was written.

Used properly, dramatic-horrific events can shape a character and story with a lot of intensity.

Travis wrote: "When delving into controversial themes that revolve around sex: rape and other taboos, the intent of the scene and its use in advancing the story/plot is what makes all the difference.

And in horr..."


Aaaand this is why I like your writing, Travis.

@Heather--that is the kind of book that gets thrown at the wall.

Travis wrote: "When delving into controversial themes that revolve around sex: rape and other taboos, the intent of the scene and its use in advancing the story/plot is what makes all the difference.

And in horr..."

Yup. Well said.

I agree if the author portrays that in the book description before a reader picks up the novel. The description seemed more a heroine taken by a bad guy to rescue her kid.. Not some yucky I'm going to rape you because I can and you'll like it novel. That turns me off from that author forever. Her writing was nice, which sucks. I think an author has an obligation to correctly genre their novel. It was not suspense, lol. Just my rotten two cents :) I've never run into such a violent book miscatogrized before.

Heather wrote: "I agree if the author portrays that in the book description before a reader picks up the novel. The description seemed more a heroine taken by a bad guy to rescue her kid.. Not some yucky I'm going..."

I agree with you, Heather. It really irks me when a book or movie is promoted as one thing and then turns out to be completely different.

Jason wrote: "Times they are a changing. A kid getting murdered in a movie used to be almost unheard of in the 80s, a taboo. Although it's generally not glorified (thankfully), it is much more commonplace today...."

Strange, I find it more common to kill kids in 70s and 80s horror,I fel that most play it too safe these days.

I hate safe horror. I want to be shocked, disgusted and thrown to the wolves when I read horror. Sadly, it happens all too rarely (with movies too).
I remember in the olden days, when Dean Koontz dared go for your throat and heart, all in one swipe. Now he plays it so safe, that I almost cry in frustration. *SPOILERS FOR THE ODD THOMAS SERIES* In the first Odd Thomas book, the main character's girlfriend dies, very sad and unexpected. Since then, there has not been an Odd Thomas book where one of the main characters died, unless it was the bad guys. In the latest, Deeply Odd, not ONE of the good guys dies *END OF ODD THOMAS SERIES SPOILERS*
If it takes to kill kids and dogs, if it takes rape, incest, torture, and necrophilia to make me feel something, then so be it. I can choose not to read it if I don't want to, but horror SHOULD be about feeling helplessness and despair. I don't want anyone to tell me what I can and can't read. It becomes boring when you KNOW that the kid and the dog is safe and that you know from chapter one who will survive and who won't.

Danjal Jannik wrote: "I hate safe horror. I want to be shocked, disgusted and thrown to the wolves when I read horror. Sadly, it happens all too rarely (with movies too).
I remember in the olden days, when Dean Koontz d..."

Interesting perspective, Danjal! Thanks for joining in!

Danjal Jannik wrote: "I hate safe horror. I want to be shocked, disgusted and thrown to the wolves when I read horror. Sadly, it happens all too rarely (with movies too).
I remember in the olden days, when Dean Koontz d..."

Tell ya what, you want some shock value horror, pick up any book written by Richard Laymon.

If CPS social workers had read his novels, they would have confiscated all his children on the principle that any man who could write such things must be extremely unbalanced.

Danjal Jannik wrote: "I hate safe horror. I want to be shocked, disgusted and thrown to the wolves when I read horror. Sadly, it happens all too rarely (with movies too).
I remember in the olden days, when Dean Koontz d..."

And did you read Koontz's Frankenstein series? He went a little off the deep end with that one.

Travis wrote: "And did you read Koontz's Frankenstein series? He went a little off the deep end with that one."

Yes. They were almost as extreme as something by Bryan Smith. I was surprised, because, as has been said, his later works have been weaker in the 'shocks' department. But the first couple of books in the series were collaborations, so I'm not so sure about who was responsible for what.

Travis wrote: "Danjal Jannik wrote: "I hate safe horror. I want to be shocked, disgusted and thrown to the wolves when I read horror. Sadly, it happens all too rarely (with movies too).
I remember in the olden da..."

I read a Laymon once, but can't remember a thing about it, so apparently it didn't do anything for me. It's not just shock for shock's sake, that gets old fast. But I wanna feel the dread and like nowhere/noone is safe.

Travis wrote: "Danjal Jannik wrote: "I hate safe horror. I want to be shocked, disgusted and thrown to the wolves when I read horror. Sadly, it happens all too rarely (with movies too).
I remember in the olden da..."

Yes, I liked part 1+2, though definitely not scary or gross or unsettling in any way. Part 3 was downright stupid and boring, nothing happened and the cute banter got on my last nerve. I got 20 or 30 pages into part 4, before I decided that the Frankenstein series had run its course for me.

Danjal Jannik wrote: "I read a Laymon once, but can't remember a thing about it ..."

The one I read was "The Woods Are Dark", And it had some really good creepy vibes. Loads of extreme/insane/unpredictable behavior by this inbred/backwoods group of nutjob cannibals that prey on a nearby community and are given sacrifices of unfortunate travelers who happen to stop at the nearby diner off the highway.

Group sex, teenage gang-bang rape, cannibalism, loads of gore and savagery. A real shocker smorgasbord.

Definitely a "nowhere/noone is safe" kinda vibe. Lots of occult stuff too.

And at the end of the book, there was an excerpt for another book by Laymon. It started off with a private investigator watching/participating in a voodoo orgy in order to snag this missing girl he'd been hired to track down.

And this stuff was published in the 60's-70's-80's. Richard Laymon is a wicked man (he's dead now).

Richard Laymon's graphic violence scenes may not be the most extreme I've read, however imho they are remarkable for the unapologetic gratuitousness.