Within the general definition of horror fiction, including weird fiction, what do people think of the differences between supernatural and non-supernatural horror? Do you have a preference? Do you have particular novels/stories or writers who focus on one or the other? Do you prefer fiction where you don't know whether the supernatural provides the explanation, like in The Shining. Do you like ambiguity?
I prefer non-supernatural horror....horror that has its basis in reality. I also prefer short stories, because I can finish them. Like the stories of Henry James, The Willows, by Algernon Blackwood. And.....The Whimper of Whipped Dogs, by Harlan Ellison. And many others. The Turn of the Screw, Henry James, although I haen't read it all the way through, has a major bit of ambiguity. I have also written short stories, and do enjoy ambiguity. I am glad to leave supernatural horror, either written or on screen, alone.
Nope, as long as it is written and executed well, it doesn't matter. Clive Barker. Haven't really read any other authors in the genres. Though I find King to be bland and boring so I never really could get into his type of Horror. Ambiguity is kinda a big theme in Horror. Fear of the unknown is always a good way to play on themes and even monsters. Though from what I have heard making the monsters/creatures more bizarre and surreal can play to your advantage too.
Would you count Lovecraft as supernatural horror and do you like him at all? I'm like you about short stories. I'm no novel fan. I like a good story that can be read in a single go.
Keep it up. I don't think I've seen your name in the horror section. Do you post your stories anywhere?
I agree, good execution is more important. I also agree about King, but you have to be careful not to be executed for disliking him.
Supernatural horror doesn't frighten me at all, because I don't believe that anything that happens within supernatural horror can actually happen in the real world. On the other hand, non-supernatural horror can be terrifying, because there is always the possibility that what you are seeing on screen could actually happen to you.
That's a good point, but does it depend on the kind of story? Some can be closer to fantasy than realism. And what about when it's ambiguous, and unexplained? For example, Lovecraft requires a certain suspension of belief, but classic ghost stories are often left more to the imagination, using the unexplained to create tension and fear, without committing to the supernatural. The best stories of M R James, for example.
I used to get frightened by horror, when I'd see it on the screen. The Premature Burial was one. Watching the guy open the casket to be choked by a the had of the corpse quickly rising out f the casket really got me. Another was Carrie, in the theater, when the girl knelt at Carrie's grave and you heard soft music and then the hand shot out of the grave. So quickly, I thought back then. I got frightened when saw I something I didn't expect. Reading horror dosn't frighten me, though. Reading horror stories fascinates me. te me, and I am caught up by them until the story ends. Or, in the case of the Lottery and others like that, until after the story ends. The stories of authors like M. R. James and Henry James.
If the story were set in a world where those things were feasible, then I personally could feel a degree of fear on behalf of the character. But nothing like the fear I feel if I watch or read something frightening which could really happen in the world in which we actually live. Yeah, if it's unexplained then it's scary, because the possibility is there that what is happening can be easily explained as a natural occurrence, which means it could actually happen. But in that case, for me, it's the possibility that it's not supernatural that is frightening. As soon as it's revealed that the events are supernatural, I stop feeling frightened.
Supernatural horror has no grip on me. There's just no way for me to believe in it, so it doesn't link to anything real in me. Movies that employ it will only get a reaction out of me during cheap "startle moments", which don't have a parallel in books; thus, books based on supernatural horror are often, to me... it's like they're written in a code that I sorta' get, but it's like that moment in A Christmas Story when Ralphie sits down to decode the message he's just heard on the radio and it turns out to be "Be sure to drink your Ovaltine." It's like, really? That's it? I waited all this time for that? I've read everything Clive Barker has written. His "horror" books are just a particular tone or flavor of fantasy for me. I was never horrified. In truth, the only horror film or book that ever flipped my horror switch was the original ALIEN film (1979).
@Wreybies Interesting that you mention Alien. I find most of the Alien movies terrifying. But, nothing in them is supernatural. The are about a horrific predatory life-form killing people. That is perfectly natural, and frightens us on a very fundamental level.
Do you have similar reactions towards supernatural elements in other genres? Personally speaking, I can't relate to that. When I consume fiction I feel for the character rather than insert myself into the story—assuming the filmmaker or author earned my investment in their character(s). I agree with you on Alien though; it's a perfect horror film imo.
ALIEN - Fuqing horrifying nightmare. ALIENS - Thrilling military adventure (Vazquez...) Alien3 - Deeply self-conscious film, head right up its arse. Alien Resurrection - French Nuff said. Alien vs Predator - Cash grab. AVP Requiem - Sooooo lamentable. Prometheus - Had potential... Alien Covenant - ... which was squandered on the cast from Pinnaple Express. wtf?
Depends on what is the intended effect. I consume scads of books and films that contain supernatural elements, magic, what-have-you. I was a sobbing, snot-bubble mess when Frodo kissed Sam goodbye in the last of the films to feature those two. I absolutely felt their loss and the pain of knowing I was leaving a friendship like no other. But horror... horror is very specific. It's limbic. It belongs to my lizard brain. I was certainly able to empathize with the kids from the reboot of IT, but to feel personally horrified and on the edge of my seat or shrinking into the seat with my sack drawn tight (fellahs, you know what I'm talking about)... no. That particular reaction is very hard to get from me, and next to impossible when the invoking substrate is supernatural in origin.
I'm currently reading (finally) Cujo by Stephen King, and I'm kinda pissed off that he's cramming supernatural elements into it. The story can stand on its own without the dog being the avatar of whatever ancient evil stalks Castle Rock, and there's enough story to the characters to give them motivations for their unease without invoking any sort of telepathic connections. Not to say that I don't enjoy supernatural horror at times, but this post and that book are hitting in perfect sequence.
Hmmm. That's interesting I guess, though I've always found it the other way round. If there's the possibility that's it's something inhuman or ghostly, then it's even more scary than a guy in a ski-mask. Lovecraft said: "The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown." I guess were're all different though.
I understand the Barker point. It's horrible but never really scary or even creepy. I love creepy. I must say, though, that a whole lot of modern supernatural horror, both in movies and literature, is not creepy. But the really good stuff is. There's a classic M R James BBC adaptation called Whistle and I'll Come To You (1968) which is a masterclass in creepy. Free on Youtube. I love Alien too.
I think the only book that ever really got inside my head and fucked with me for a while was Psychlone by Greg Bear. I'll wrap it for spoilers. Spoiler It's science-ish fiction, scientists discover and manage to film a soul leaving the body (one of the researchers. IIRC it was a timed assisted suicide so all the lab equipment would be in place, but I read it thirty years ago, so I may be mixing it with something else on this) Anyway, the West Coast of the US starts getting hit by these horrible psychic storms that cause everyone to kill each other and themselves. Souls naturally go on, but they can be destroyed by the force of a nuclear explosion, and the ones that aren't destroyed outright can be... damaged. The damaged souls of the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have made their way, at a walking pace, across the Pacific to seek revenge on the USA. Sounds like a SyFy plot, I know, but it was really well done.
I found Cujo lacking lifelike characters, too sentimental and soap-opera like, with loads of stuff that has nothing to do with the central point (the dog). The supernatural element is like an after-thought which he tried to stick in after writing, but it fails entirely to make sense.
Yeah. Of course, he was so coked-up and drunk that he's got no memory of writing it, so it may not have gotten the full second draft and editing process...
Though the details are vastly different, I can feel an underlying similarity to his Darwin novels. Something hiding underneath, always there, ready to replace us when the time is ripe.
But which of those things do you think is most likely to actually do you harm? I can understand why the unknown is frightening. But Lovecraft lived in a time when so much was unknown. Now, a lot is known. And I think the things we now know are more frightening than the ones we don't know.
But fear of the unknown is not the same as fear of harm. It's irrational and inexplicable. I don't think science has helped. The more we learn, the more we reveal new questions.
