Differences between supernatural and non-supernatural horror

I don't think I agree with this. We have evolved to fear the unknown because of our ancestors' experiences. If you don't know what is lurking in a bush, then there's the possibility that whatever it is can harm you. Think of it this way. You are told to reach into a box into which you cannot see. In one condition, you are told that the box will contain either a venomous spider, or a £50 note. You'd be afraid, because of the possibility that the unknown contents of the box could harm you. If, however, you were told that the box would either contain a £10 note or a £50 note, then you wouldn't be afraid of this unknown, because you know that neither outcome could harm you.

I think fear of the unknown is totally rational. If you head straight into the unknown without being cautious, you risk coming to harm.

That I do agree with. Though I think it is helpful

 

They're certainly linked, but fear itself is irrational. For example, phobia. You can have a phobia of so many things, no matter how much you know it is safe. Fear of the dark. You could be in a locked room, which is 100% safe, but with the lights out, the imagination can plays tricks. Fear when suddenly startled. That can't be rational, because the mind doesn't have time to rationalise. But yes, many fears can be triggered by rational thinking too.

 

No it isn't. It is a perfectly rational and normal emotion which we have evolved for a reason, namely to compel us to fight, flee or freeze in a situation where we are likely to come to harm. There are times when it is irrational not to be afraid. If a lion is chasing you and you don't feel fear, that is irrational.

Phobias are examples of fears which are irrational. But that doesn't mean that all fears are irrational.

This is quite rational actually. If you can't see what's there, then there could be something harmful there. Lots of animals have evolved to be active during the day when they can see what is around them, and stay still and hidden (i.e. asleep) at night.

Well yeah, this is one example of a potentially irrational fear. But again, this doesn't mean all fears are irrational.

It is arational, not irrational. But the fear response to being startled is certainly sensible.

This kind of disproves your initial comment that "fear itself is irrational". If fear can be triggered by a rational thought (which it obviously can) then that fear is by nature rational.

 

I'm glad you're an evolutionist! I certainly agree that fear evolved for a reason, but that doesn't make it rational. It evolved long before we became rational. Animals have fear, but they are not rational. A deer doesn't think: oh there comes a lion, he might hurt me, I'd better run because I know what lions are like. The fear is an automatic physiological response.

All of our instincts evolved for a reason. But anger, losing your temper, violence, hate, love, the desire to do dangerous things like bungie jumping, these are all instinctive, not rational. Rational is when we say: that bungie jumping looks dangerous, so it's better not to take the risk. Or: I hate that person for hurting me, but hate might not achieve what is best for me.

I would say fear itself is a single emotional response and does not have different types. There any many causes, but only one emotion.

 

I generally prefer realism with my horror but there are occasions where I love the supernatural stuff - especially things like It and It's A Good Life and I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream.

 

I like realism too. Fantasy type horror just doesn't draw me in, although Lovecraft is borderline fantasy, and great.

 

Ok, I see your point. The emotion itself is arational because it does not require rational thought to arise. But as a response, fear is often sensible, so can probably be described as rational after the event. Hopefully that makes sense

 

I like supernatural horror because the supernatural can be genuinely scary.

Humans can be very, very unpleasant, but they aren't scary. People are just people, with all the inherent weaknesses and limits that that implies. They can be fought and overcome with relative ease. A man with a knife is a threat, but he can be dealt with.

Non-corporeal entities, on the other hand, are a different mess of tentacles entirely.


As far as authors go, I love the likes of Lovecraft with his ancient, forbidden knowledge unearthed in musty libraries and Hodgson, whose spectres drift out of the mist on the high seas.

 

I guess you mean William Hope Hodgson. He was good. I love The Voice in the Night and its disturbing fungus.

 

Yup. That story comes back to haunt me every time a tangerine goes off in the fruit bowl.

 

Yeah, imagine wanting to eat that tangerine.

 

Supernatural horror doesn't do it for me. The biggest reason being there's usually no logic behind it. The writer can pull anything out of thin air and be able to justify it. Can the villian teleport? Sure. Can it fly? Why not? It takes me out of the story. Why would this mysterious being be momentarily scared off by another person with a flash light walking in, but be fine with killing ten people stuck in a well-lit room later? This unlimited freedom actually hinders creativity in a lot of cases.

 

Best if you stick to the rules laid down by folklore or mythology for supernatural horror.

 

That's a charge that gets laid at Fantasy's doorstep quite often. Sometimes it's justified, others not. One of my complaints with the Harry Potter series (I only read the first book, but caught all the movies at some point or other) is how woefully unprotected Hogwart's is from magical attack. The older Weasley brothers were able to disrupt final exams (IIRC) by flying their broomsticks through the exam hall, fer crying out loud. However, when the writer sits down (as I'm trying to do now) and maps out what their magic system (or ghosts, or ghouls, whatever supernatural things apply) can and cannot do and why they can or cannot, it can make for a good story. Same goes for SF, which in many cases is basically Fantasy with a different name on it (Cracked pointed out a few years ago that in Hollywood, "hackers" are basically wizards). The Enterprise needs dilithium crystals to run its engines. What's dilithium? How exactly do the warp drives work? Dunno, but the presence or absence of the crystals can provide a powerful plot driver.

So yeah, that got long. To each their own, but a horror novel with a well thought-out set of rules for its supernatural characters can be great, but as you mentioned, a writer who uses "unlimited freedom" to cobble together a whole bunch of ad-hoc abilities and vulnerabilities is going to end up disappointing a lot of readers.

 

Fantasy is split between hard and soft, and both can work well if done right. Having hard rules for a supernatural villain could work for a thriller or action story, but to me, good horror is more focused on how the reader feels in the moment, not so much what food for thought it gives them. I'm a lot more forgiving with fantasy because it has other things going for it besides the magic. Characters, setting, plot, etc. I think horror is different from other fiction in its goals. I don't care so much about the character's interpersonal relationships. I want to feel utter dread while reading it.

 

I prefer supernatural horror. I get lots of non-supernatural horror just by watching the news. Sure, I can be eaten alive by a bear. Sure I can be hit by a train. Sure these are both scary ideas. And one day I'll die, no matter what.
I know this already. I want something more. Something beyond this plane of existence. Something that makes me forget the real horror out there, while still pondering it through the comfortable* lens of supernatural.

* "Comfortable" as long as you don't believe it exists, that is.

 

The Shining is a good example of how supernatural and real horror can overlap, because it's not the ghosts you're afraid will kill people, but they're still an everpresent danger. I think I actually like psychological horror the best, which isn't something anybody has brought up yet. It kind of treads the line between the two. I like the uncertainty of whether anything that's happening is actually real of not. Horror has a lot to do with feeling trapped, being stuck in a situation that you desperately don't want to be in. Being trapped in your own mind is one of the scariest things that could happen.

Honestly, I don't understand this sentiment. A lot of supernatural horror has people being killed by animals or trains, but it's indirectly caused by some supernatural thing. Or the villian is just some guy with powers and it's really goofy. Either way, I don't know why somebody would want horror to be comfortable. Watching the news isn't the same actually being in that situation, which fiction gives people a taste of.

 

I collect horror from the 80s usually Zebra horror (it's a publishing company.) For me the difference between supernatural horror and 'regular' horror is based on known versus unknown or sketchy elements. The unknown can be spiritual ghosts, possessions, cursed lands /houses, fate, demons, abilities, voodoo etc. And the 'regular' horror usually features unbalanced people, dangerous animals, nature, organizations, sickness.
I'm not a fan of paranormal ghost stories. They don't seem anchored to anything - they don't take spiritual laws from the Bible, or any one source instead they kinda borrow from everything then blend into a secular slurry that allows anyone to defeat all by anything they chose. Not scary. And it's that inability to set down rules that really fizzles a lot of horror. How can you feel for the character if you don't know the extent of damage the entity can do or what exact power it holds, and what the character can do to defeat it?
Bram Stoker was smart he laid down some rules.
The only supernatural stories I like are cursed/spooky house/object stories maybe cause they're a hoot and I don't take them seriously. But if I had to choose my favorite is unbalanced people -- psychological horror -- you're your own worst enemy.

 

I still don't really get how human antagonists can be considered real 'horror'. They're just boring old people with knives and stuff. My job is taking down people like that, so they're not horror stories; they're work.

 

Well I suppose when they get up there in years, they forget the motivation
for plunging a knife (or whatever) into people until they die.
I miss the good old days when killers were demented, but now they all have
dementia.

 

Until the bad guys are just doing their jobs, following orders. Or you're too young and mommy doesn't believe her new boyfriend is a Bad Man....

 

Yeah, I have some experience in both those, um, genres of non-fiction, as it were? Damned unpleasant, I'll give you that and the reason I'm currently on sick leave, but still not 'horror' as such.

 

Very, very good points.
In my WIP (Gaslamp/Historical Fantasy) there are only two seats of power: God and Satan. Now you can make some adjustments in the character of the two men; God isn't quite the God you read about in the Bible, nor is Satan, and neither are as predictable as we'd like to believe. But you do need to stick to some basics.

 

Hello friend.

Well, both types of horror have their place. I believe they are just written in a way to distinguish the horror genre. Between the kinds of horrors, you mentioned both have their interesting aspects. But my favourite type of horror is psycological horror. It doesn't require much of the gore aspect; but ambiguity, doubt and questioning. While I can't give a specific book of this type of horror, it comes to my mind the video game. Silent Hill, specially tghe 1/2|/3. While It's psychological because this game shares some disturbing and gore images, it isn't the focus of the story. It is psychological because it messes with your mind all the time, and that already makes good horror.

Another type of horror that I like is cosmic horror, here of course comes the famous writer H.P. Lovecraft. While he explores the fear of the unknown, I found it fascinating just imaging of actually his beasts and old gods were real, what could happen. How would I react see if I see the same creates as the characters see in the books.

 

That's just bad supernatural horror, which is most of it. And a similar argument can be made for non-supernatural - that things happen which are not convincing and often very silly.