![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Further thoughts on the horror genre: is horror even the right word anymore?
Dead Air 2: The Genre on the Doorstep by Nicholas Kaufmann
http://irosf.com/q/zine/article/10599 ,
the second part of his interview/discussion with Jack M. (Haringa LJ user mssrcrankypants), is now online at The Internet Review of Science Fiction Web site.
My own thoughts: while I often rant about my loathing of such phrases as "literary horror" and "psychological horror," I have to reluctantly agree that some phrase that distinguishes the more intellectually-challenging variety of horror might be necessary, as the images which have come to be frequently associated with horror as a genre do service to neither the genre nor its more discerning fans. The increasing prevalence of torture, gratuitous gore, sadistic and ever-less-likely methods of slaughter, and (an element which was not mentioned in the article but which I maintain has become more rampant in the genre) the victimization of women and children: these are the features of contemporary horror which I spend a lot of time and effort attempting to sift through in order to get to "the good stuff," namely, horror stories which use the tropes and conventions of horror to reflect upon the shadowy spaces of our modern world, our sense of reality, our own psyches.
One thing which strikes me is that, unlike fans of science fiction, fantasy, mystery, and other such genres, many horror fans such as myself seem to be expressing a certain ambivalence toward the very name used to signify the genre. How can I resent the reluctance on the part of publishers to put the word "horror" on a book when I have to agree with them that it is likely to turn off a large number of potential readers who are not interested in the level of gore and violence which currently runs through the genre? (Refer to Deb LeBlanc's comments about describing her books as "horror" to potential readers in this interview
http://jonathanmaberry.com/still-scary-after-all-these-years ).
I'm not talking about being transgressive here, something which I have always loved about horror--I'm talking about the way most horror at this point seems to merely go for the gross-out and the buckets of gore. If I read one more story where the big surprise is supposed to be that the protagonist is a cannibal *yawn*. Or twins *yawn*. Or cannibal twins (okay, I haven't actually read one of those stories yet).
The point of many of these stories seems not to be to present things like a moral, a theme, or even a new and interesting insight into the human psyche and its sense of reality , no, the big idea of many of these stories seems merely to be able to shock, to go one step further than previous incarnations of the same story, and basically, I believe the true sensation of shock requires making an intellectual, emotional, or psychological connection. People whose sole aim is to be intentionally offensive or shocking are, in my mind, rarely creative, just good at pressing all the buttons until they get a reaction. Do they have anything new or interesting to say? No. Do they have any point in what they're doing, other than their own vicarious amusement? No. Are they transgressive in the sense of changing or challenging the status quo? No. So what's the point?
My point is: I want my horror fiction to have a point. I want to get to the end and have the desire to go back and examine how the good parts fit together, how it says something about human nature, how it provides commentary and/or variation on what's come before. Basically, how it takes for granted that I, as a reader, am an intelligent and curious reader who is knowledgeable about the genre and is expecting--or at least hoping for--something original.
http://irosf.com/q/zine/article/10599 ,
the second part of his interview/discussion with Jack M. (Haringa LJ user mssrcrankypants), is now online at The Internet Review of Science Fiction Web site.
My own thoughts: while I often rant about my loathing of such phrases as "literary horror" and "psychological horror," I have to reluctantly agree that some phrase that distinguishes the more intellectually-challenging variety of horror might be necessary, as the images which have come to be frequently associated with horror as a genre do service to neither the genre nor its more discerning fans. The increasing prevalence of torture, gratuitous gore, sadistic and ever-less-likely methods of slaughter, and (an element which was not mentioned in the article but which I maintain has become more rampant in the genre) the victimization of women and children: these are the features of contemporary horror which I spend a lot of time and effort attempting to sift through in order to get to "the good stuff," namely, horror stories which use the tropes and conventions of horror to reflect upon the shadowy spaces of our modern world, our sense of reality, our own psyches.
One thing which strikes me is that, unlike fans of science fiction, fantasy, mystery, and other such genres, many horror fans such as myself seem to be expressing a certain ambivalence toward the very name used to signify the genre. How can I resent the reluctance on the part of publishers to put the word "horror" on a book when I have to agree with them that it is likely to turn off a large number of potential readers who are not interested in the level of gore and violence which currently runs through the genre? (Refer to Deb LeBlanc's comments about describing her books as "horror" to potential readers in this interview
http://jonathanmaberry.com/still-scary-after-all-these-years ).
I'm not talking about being transgressive here, something which I have always loved about horror--I'm talking about the way most horror at this point seems to merely go for the gross-out and the buckets of gore. If I read one more story where the big surprise is supposed to be that the protagonist is a cannibal *yawn*. Or twins *yawn*. Or cannibal twins (okay, I haven't actually read one of those stories yet).
The point of many of these stories seems not to be to present things like a moral, a theme, or even a new and interesting insight into the human psyche and its sense of reality , no, the big idea of many of these stories seems merely to be able to shock, to go one step further than previous incarnations of the same story, and basically, I believe the true sensation of shock requires making an intellectual, emotional, or psychological connection. People whose sole aim is to be intentionally offensive or shocking are, in my mind, rarely creative, just good at pressing all the buttons until they get a reaction. Do they have anything new or interesting to say? No. Do they have any point in what they're doing, other than their own vicarious amusement? No. Are they transgressive in the sense of changing or challenging the status quo? No. So what's the point?
My point is: I want my horror fiction to have a point. I want to get to the end and have the desire to go back and examine how the good parts fit together, how it says something about human nature, how it provides commentary and/or variation on what's come before. Basically, how it takes for granted that I, as a reader, am an intelligent and curious reader who is knowledgeable about the genre and is expecting--or at least hoping for--something original.