Are horror fans in denial about real life horror?

[Julian Karswell]

In my opinion horror fiction broadly falls into two camps: that which is supernatural and that which is non-supernatural. The former concerns itself with illusory issues, the latter, the fictional depiction of plausible realism.

Ostensibly tales of supernatural horror are macabre fairy tales (putting aside matters of spiritual belief for one moment), and stories of so-called 'realistic' horror, typically depicting the antics of sadists and serial killers, provide escapist thrills. [Obviously there are exceptions to the rule.]

Given this - given the fact that most horror stories concern themselves with imagined reality, heightened pschological tension and morbid atmosphere - are horror fans withdrawing from reality, and in doing so, are they abbreggating responsibility for helping to resolve true-life horror such as war, starvation, terrorism, violence, etc?

People write for many reasons. Some seek to exorcise personal demons, some to entertain, others to enlighten and inform; some authors seek to arouse, anger or incite their readers. Quite rightly we celebrate and champion our best writers, particularly the mainstream ones, and particularly the ones who warm our hearts or heighten social awareness about serious issues. Yet when I cast an eye over the horror genre, I personally find the sight less than edifying. The romantic gothic novelists were truly inspirational and I greatly admire them; arguably the torch was passed to the decadent subversives who pushed artistic boundaries in the 1890s. But with the advent of WW1 and WW2, horror stories became increasingly redundant, polarising into either cruel sardonic sadism or the cheery radio ghost story. In my opinion they have never regained their importance or prominence, excepting of course via the visual medium of film and television. However, even then, a sizeable proportion of the adaptations are either culled from the Victorian era anyway, or are tedious variations upon the serial-killer motif.

In the last twenty years we have seen appalling human rights abuses in Africa (Rwanda), Europe (Yugoslavia) and Asia (Iran, Iraq etc). HIV has killed millions. Several super-powers have taken it upon themselves to police the world, often employing hideous tools of warfare to wreak maximum carnage. Terrorism is commonplace. Planes explode, towers topple and people get blown to bits on the trusty old red British bus. Yet who is writing about these things - horror writers? No, they are cocooned inside their cosy little bubbles of fake stylised horror. Instead we leave it to the dry pen of the journalist and politician.

Are horror writers scribbbling while Rome burns?

JK

[Evans]

In the last twenty years we have seen appalling human rights abuses in Africa (Rwanda), Europe (Yugoslavia) and Asia (Iran, Iraq etc). HIV has killed millions. Several super-powers have taken it upon themselves to police the world, often employing hideous tools of warfare to wreak maximum carnage. Terrorism is commonplace. Planes explode, towers topple and people get blown to bits on the trusty old red British bus. Yet who is writing about these things - horror writers? No, they are cocooned inside their cosy little bubbles of fake stylised horror. Instead we leave it to the dry pen of the journalist and politician.

Are horror writers scribbbling while Rome burns?

JK

I can only speak for myself on this matter.

While most these things are true and very unpleasant in themselves, I find them of little interest to read about for amusement. (With the best will in the world I can do little else in the matter unless you've got a superpower going spare) I like reading supernatural horror mainly because the former epithet tallies with my interests and the latter suites my cosmic view.

Put it this way - if I wasn't reading supernatural horror I would be more likely to reading supposed accounts of supernatural events or books of occult matters than details of world politics which I find detestable.

[starrysothoth]

Seems like it's difficult to frame these events in a new way in horror or science fiction. That is, in something that wouldn't just be a fictional knock off of the real world dripping with moralistic overtones or certain political biases. I think political/real world horror really reached its apex in the great dystopias of Brave New World and 1984.

Orwell and Huxley more or less described the final destination of the modern nightmare, regardless of how it gets there. It is just my opinion, but I think most of Western (and a good deal of Eastern) society is imitating this form of art a little more every year, while also bringing in some wonder technologies even these authors failed to imagine. I saw just the other day that the top intelligence organizations are hard at work on an information system that will allow them to perform a 3-D real time internet-like search of reality--ideally, anywhere, anytime. Who needs telescreens and other glaringly visible apparatuses of dystopian surveillance when you've got something like that?

[Ascrobius]

As Tom Ligotti might say, "Literature is entertainment or it is nothing."
He might also say, and I tend to agree, that everyone is in denial about everything, all the time. We just deny our denial. It is the hallmark of being human. I think few if any people would be interested in reading horror stories that are analogs of the "real-life horrors" we are all surrounded by every moment of every day we are alive. CNN, NBC, ABC, FOX and the various and sundry other media pimps will provide the backdrop and narrative for the global carnage and bloodshed, and in living, bloody color, to boot. I think that generally people are looking for a temporary escape from such "real horrors" by engaging in the relative suspension of disbelief that's necessary to fully appreciate the inherently escapist act of immersing one's self in literature and distracting themselves with it.

Rome will burn whether horror writers are chronicling it or not. They are much more likely to leave that business to the historians.


;)
Tim

[Judge Holden]

I don't know why denial would be unique to horror writers or readers and I wonder that it should even matter. The Plague and a disastrous hundred year war are on the periphery of Chaucer's works. Just barely. I doubt he was in denial. Rereading the Canterbury Tales recently, it occrured to me that Chaucer probably knew more about the middle east than your average 21st century American. Now I want to say thats denial, but when so many baubles and gew gaws are demanding our consumerist attention, well, its understandable...not to me, but apparently to a lot of people...

[Mr. D.]

Art has never been concerned with reality. Even what is called "realistic art" (novels, plays, paintings, etc.) follows its own concerns and exists for its own reasons. Even the cheesy, pulpy novels and the loud, special effects overloaded movies that supposedly deal with these subjects do so in a way that is so artificial that no one taks them very seriously. Even acclained works, like the movie an/or television series "Traffic" is divorced from reality. I've been in the drug interdiction business for 19 years and the only thing that I can say is that the movie is even more contrived than the television series. Neither relates to anything I've ever lived or heard.
If you watch television you begin to suspect that the United States is a nation of serial killers and nothing else. Matt Dillon was an official serial killer. None of the popular arts have anything to do with reality. Even reality tv is fake. Does anyone really believe that Jerry Springer's guests are the people that they pretend to be and not actors playing roles?
The art of horror is to create something horrific and terrifying. That means that it has to SEEM real. Real terror is prosaic boredom followed by a few seconds of sheer pandemonium. Then it's over. The bomb goes off, but it's a surprise. The gunman fires, but it, too, is a surprise. There is no story and that is what readers want. As Alfred Hitchcock once said, (quoted from memory) " If you have a man and a woman sitting at the kitchen table and all of a sudden a bomb goes off that is merely surprise. However, if the audience knows that there is a bomb under the table and the man and woman don't, then you have suspense. They go about their business, talk about the weather, have another cup of coffee, and we show the bomb with the hands on the clock getting closer to the detonation time. That's how you build suspense." This is what readers want in a story of any kind. the suspense has to build.

[Odalisque]

are horror fans withdrawing from reality, and in doing so, are they abbreggating responsibility for helping to resolve true-life horror such as war, starvation, terrorism, violence, etc?

I wonder how we might, in any significant way, help to resolve true-life horror such as war, starvation, terrorism, violence, etc?

I attempt to live a good life and, if everyone else did that, the only one of those that might still be a problem would be starvation. (Though there are probably few places where politicians abandoning their corrupt ways, and seeking to live good lives, would not allow everyone to eat.)

Saying that I have a responsibility to help with these things seems to imply that I have the ability to do so. I can't be alone in feeling powerless, or can I?

I would be interested to know what the amiable Mr Karswell is doing to resolve the problems of the world.

[qcrisp]

I think it might actually be distasteful to use the events of 7/7, for example, as material for a 'horror' story, since a horror story, in its intention to horrify, has limited itself to being entertainment. If it wanted to be something other than entertainment, it would not begin from the intention to horrify.

What I think horror writers/readers are often in denial about is to do with the question of whether they are wild and crazy or just deeply conservative people with no desire to broaden their horizons. But then, personally, I find I'm increasingly impatient with genre boundaries. They seem like some kind of deranged anachronism to me. Why do people want to write/read the same story again and again and again without variation?

[Sam]

Speaking purely as a reader, I don't think this question applies any more to horror fans than to anyone else. There are some committed activists and groups who literally work day and night, year after year, to ameliorate our shared real-world horrors, and I applaud them. I also support them when I can. But like most people, my own life is a balance between selfishness and altruism, the inward and the outward.

I read a number of things that keep me well informed on the unfortunate state of the world. Four different news magazines and various websites, as well as cheery books like "Armed Madhouse" by Greg Palast and "Silk Road to Ruin" by Ted Rall (I can't seem to get through "The Shock Doctrine"), take up a good deal of my time, and help me figure out where to direct my energy and actions in the outside world.

This is balanced with purely personal pursuits that help nothing except my own sense of well-being. I read fiction, watch movies and some television, play video games, and discuss intellectual concepts on internet message boards. None of these things does one whit of good for the world at large, but they keep me sane enough so that I may be involved in other endeavors that do.

I don't feel as if I am denial about real-life horror. It is always present, and will never, ever not be there. I also choose to not let it become the focus of my life, for good or for ill.

[paeng]

I remember one point raised in an introduction to a Lovecraft anthology regarding the prominence of horror movies and stories in magazines right after the Great Depression and throughout WWII. Perhaps what is happening now mirrors that.

[The Black Ferris]

Isn't this all supposed to be a metaphor anyway? Call me crazy, but I really believe that "only a fool fails to realize that the world is made of symbols".
If I am going to influence the world, it will not be through some screaming protest, but through a quiet spell and subtle manipulations of the opinions of those around me. No one would listen to me otherwise.
But then, I understand the coming of the Doll People is upon us and the 'human' race is approaching the finish line.
How should I protest?

http://www.foxnews. com/story/ 0,2933,532492, 00.html?test= latestnews (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,532492,00.html?test=latestnews)

[The Black Ferris]

should I protest the premeditated murder and corpse control of these millions of innocents?

http://www.foxnews.com/story0,2933,532511,00.html

[Julian Karswell]

are horror fans withdrawing from reality, and in doing so, are they abbreggating responsibility for helping to resolve true-life horror such as war, starvation, terrorism, violence, etc?

I wonder how we might, in any significant way, help to resolve true-life horror such as war, starvation, terrorism, violence, etc?

I attempt to live a good life and, if everyone else did that, the only one of those that might still be a problem would be starvation. (Though there are probably few places where politicians abandoning their corrupt ways, and seeking to live good lives, would not allow everyone to eat.)

Saying that I have a responsibility to help with these things seems to imply that I have the ability to do so. I can't be alone in feeling powerless, or can I?

I would be interested to know what the amiable Mr Karswell is doing to resolve the problems of the world.

Supporting local charities and posing thought-provoking questions in cyberspace.

JK

[Julian Karswell]

I think it might actually be distasteful to use the events of 7/7, for example, as material for a 'horror' story, since a horror story, in its intention to horrify, has limited itself to being entertainment. If it wanted to be something other than entertainment, it would not begin from the intention to horrify.

What I think horror writers/readers are often in denial about is to do with the question of whether they are wild and crazy or just deeply conservative people with no desire to broaden their horizons. But then, personally, I find I'm increasingly impatient with genre boundaries. They seem like some kind of deranged anachronism to me. Why do people want to write/read the same story again and again and again without variation?

Well, on the one hand you have Barbara Cartland, who supports your contention that repetition is wrong, but on the other, P G Wodehouse, proof positive that some formulaic writing has great merit.

I regularly re-read favourite books and I've lost count of the number of times I've watched Kind Hearts & Coronets, The 39 Steps and Withnail & I. I feel no shame in confessing that I take pleasure from familiar comforts; similarly, I chose vacuum cleaners, diswashers and tumble-dryers because of the sound they make, and often switch them on just to fall asleep.

A part of me supports, respects and admires innovation, but an equally important part craves for childish comforts.

JK

[qcrisp]

Well, on the one hand you have Barbara Cartland, who supports your contention that repetition is wrong, but on the other, P G Wodehouse, proof positive that some formulaic writing has great merit.

I regularly re-read favourite books and I've lost count of the number of times I've watched Kind Hearts & Coronets, The 39 Steps and Withnail & I. I feel no shame in confessing that I take pleasure from familiar comforts; similarly, I chose vacuum cleaners, diswashers and tumble-dryers because of the sound they make, and often switch them on just to fall asleep.

A part of me supports, respects and admires innovation, but an equally important part craves for childish comforts.

JK

With such an authority as Barbara Cartland to support me, still you dare to question my assertions - very daring indeed!

I basically think that all artists - if they're any good - have their own way of doing things, and that might be a repetitive, formulaic way. I mean, Lovecraft was formulaic, and he's one of my favourite writers.

However, a particular bugbear of mine - and perhaps it's futile to harp on about it - is the way that people stay so consistently within what often looks to me like an incredibly, uncomfortably restricted comfort zone. I have the impression, again and again, of a majority or readers (or film-viewers, for instance) who don't so much say, "Oh, I've tried that, and didn't like it", as, "I haven't tried it and have no intention of trying it, thank you very much!" It reminds me of the traditional (now hopefully outdated) British attitude of those who "don't hold with abroad". Have you been there? is the obvious question to ask. Are you mad? was the perennial reply - and still is when the question is of reading rather than where to spend one's holidays.

All this might seem generalised to the point of meaninglessness, but it is something that I seem to encounter again and again.

So, I'm not talking about re-reading favourites - something that I also enjoy, and which therefore must be wholesome. What I'm talking about is reading always exactly the same story (under different titles and by different authors) and wishing never to read anything else. Refusing to do so, even. Of course, it is absolutely the choice of the individual to do that; I just happen to think the prevalence of such an attitude makes the world a worse place. For me.

[qcrisp]

I feel like I should add that before I'd ever had anything published, I would have considered myself a fan of horror fiction and horror films. The more familiar I become with how attached publishers and readers are to the limitations of genre, and, often, to one exclusive genre, outside of which, for them there is nothing but void, the more problematical I find the idea of being a fan of horror.

I still love the same texts and the same films I always have, but however intense I felt about it, my god was never a jealous god. I don't understand the need to find one 'genre' and shut out the rest of the world forever-and-ever-amen that so many seem to feel. As I say, it's probably futile to complain about this tendency, but it is true that it irks me deeply.

[Evans]

However, a particular bugbear of mine - and perhaps it's futile to harp on about it - is the way that people stay so consistently within what often looks to me like an incredibly, uncomfortably restricted comfort zone. I have the impression, again and again, of a majority or readers (or film-viewers, for instance) who don't so much say, "Oh, I've tried that, and didn't like it", as, "I haven't tried it and have no intention of trying it, thank you very much!" It reminds me of the traditional (now hopefully outdated) British attitude of those who "don't hold with abroad". Have you been there? is the obvious question to ask. Are you mad? was the perennial reply - and still is when the question is of reading rather than where to spend one's holidays.

All this might seem generalised to the point of meaninglessness, but it is something that I seem to encounter again and again.

So, I'm not talking about re-reading favourites - something that I also enjoy, and which therefore must be wholesome. What I'm talking about is reading always exactly the same story (under different titles and by different authors) and wishing never to read anything else. Refusing to do so, even. Of course, it is absolutely the choice of the individual to do that; I just happen to think the prevalence of such an attitude makes the world a worse place. For me.

(Apolgoies for the post clipping)

While there is something in what you there Quentin I think the danger of the other extreme is underated at present.I like reading fiction (and factual) books mainly for differing forms of enjoyment and/or enlightenment. I don't care if its a new or old idea as long as I feel I can get something from it.

What I have a marked dislike of are the (to my mind deeply unpleasant) sort of critics who continuously rant and rave and howl when they encounter something that isn't “on the edge and modern” then. Theres something horribley depressing about that notion for me.
I can't read the work of certain well known literary critics with outsuffering an insane desire to read (and occasional write) something completely unoriginal in the vague hope that I am in some small way rejecting that whole attitude.

[Julian Karswell]

Well, on the one hand you have Barbara Cartland, who supports your contention that repetition is wrong, but on the other, P G Wodehouse, proof positive that some formulaic writing has great merit.

I regularly re-read favourite books and I've lost count of the number of times I've watched Kind Hearts & Coronets, The 39 Steps and Withnail & I. I feel no shame in confessing that I take pleasure from familiar comforts; similarly, I chose vacuum cleaners, diswashers and tumble-dryers because of the sound they make, and often switch them on just to fall asleep.

A part of me supports, respects and admires innovation, but an equally important part craves for childish comforts.

JK

With such an authority as Barbara Cartland to support me, still you dare to question my assertions - very daring indeed!

I basically think that all artists - if they're any good - have their own way of doing things, and that might be a repetitive, formulaic way. I mean, Lovecraft was formulaic, and he's one of my favourite writers.

However, a particular bugbear of mine - and perhaps it's futile to harp on about it - is the way that people stay so consistently within what often looks to me like an incredibly, uncomfortably restricted comfort zone. I have the impression, again and again, of a majority or readers (or film-viewers, for instance) who don't so much say, "Oh, I've tried that, and didn't like it", as, "I haven't tried it and have no intention of trying it, thank you very much!" It reminds me of the traditional (now hopefully outdated) British attitude of those who "don't hold with abroad". Have you been there? is the obvious question to ask. Are you mad? was the perennial reply - and still is when the question is of reading rather than where to spend one's holidays.

All this might seem generalised to the point of meaninglessness, but it is something that I seem to encounter again and again.

So, I'm not talking about re-reading favourites - something that I also enjoy, and which therefore must be wholesome. What I'm talking about is reading always exactly the same story (under different titles and by different authors) and wishing never to read anything else. Refusing to do so, even. Of course, it is absolutely the choice of the individual to do that; I just happen to think the prevalence of such an attitude makes the world a worse place. For me.

I agree with what you say. Indeed, although I think it's something of a cardinal sin to talk about one's own work, I very deliberately put the stories together for my forthcoming Ex Occ Press collection so as to vary style, form and genre. This was at the forefront of my mind at all times. [But others shall be the judges, and they may think differently.]

Although I greatly admire the likes of M R James, E F Benson, A M Burrage et al, the stories in their respective collections are much of a sameness. In contrast Robert Aickman and John Connolly (for example) clearly strove and (in JC's case) continue to strive to push boundaries by mixing things up.

It helps if you read or have read widely outside of the genre. Too often horror writers start writing in their late teens or early twenties after having nurtured themselves on little else but modern contemporary horror. Little wonder they produce bland, derivative prose. Those that persist gradually become conscious of their immaturity, and often then fall into the trap of discovering and then emulating genre worthies such as James or Lovecraft (more recently they have stumbled into Aickman and Ligotti). In my opinion they usually only succeed in creating pale imitations of more fashionable and highly regarded authors.

When I was a young teenager I discovered the work of James Herbert, Whitley Streiber and Stephen King, but I was also reading Agatha Christie, P G Wodehouse and James Herriott. Then at about 14 or 15 I progressed to Stoker and Le Fanu - Herbert and King seeming childish by comparison - while elsewhere I put aside Christie and Herriott and moved to Orwell, Kafka and Kerouac. That's why my advice to anyone who wants to write in any specific genre is to read widely outside of the genre before even thinking of picking up a pen. I don't believe in child prodigies - they are arrogant freaks of nature, and almost always come a cropper - but I do believe that you can create an original voice - or at least a subtle juxtaposed one - if you read widely elsewhere and then take the plunge. By all means cultivate an interest in "horror" alongside other genres, but it is a dangerous mistake to plough one solitary furrow.

I think we basically share the same viewpoint (although you express yours more succinctly and with greater eloquence). I don't think it is snobbish or arrogant to urge aspiring authors to read more widely, rather, it is good practise worth encouraging.

My other current bugbear about contemporary horror writing is a more controversial one. As income streams for many small presses have dried-up, the proprietors have quite deliberately launched new careers as writers. Now, I personally think this is very cynical in addition to being something of an affront to 'genuine' writers who have been honing their craft for many years. Undoubtedly most of these former publishers have enough genre knowledge to cobble a few half-decent tales together, to say nothing of ready access to the old-school-tie network, but this doesn't hide the coincidence that they only wanted to be taken seriously as writers after the publishing took a nose-dive. There are too few platforms for genuine, dedicated writers as it is without greedy eagle-eyed entrepeneurs swooping in for easier pickings just because their own food source has begun to run out. Besides, there's something more than a little bit patronising about people who think they can turn their hand to anything, especially writing.

Of course, having published two books myself, I am a monstrous hypocrite. I'm a writer (or would like to be) and I thought I could also be a publisher, but I quickly realised that I loathed much of the work involved (in fact, I only enjoyed the editing and design aspects). It'll be interesting to see which of the new wave of publishers-cum-writers are still writing in five years; few, if any, I should imagine.

JK

[Evans]

Of course, having published two books myself, I am a monstrous hypocrite. I'm a writer (or would like to be) and I thought I could also be a publisher, but I quickly realised that I loathed much of the work involved (in fact, I only enjoyed the editing and design aspects). It'll be interesting to see which of the new wave of publishers-cum-writers are still writing in five years; few, if any, I should imagine.

JK

Out of interest had you written anything before you decided to become a publisher? (no offense intended but I'm assuming you hasn't taken any special courses in publishing or anything like that. How does one become a small press publisher any how)

Did you want to be an author before that?

[MadsPLP]

My other current bugbear about contemporary horror writing is a more controversial one. As income streams for many small presses have dried-up, the proprietors have quite deliberately launched new careers as writers. Now, I personally think this is very cynical in addition to being something of an affront to 'genuine' writers who have been honing their craft for many years. Undoubtedly most of these former publishers have enough genre knowledge to cobble a few half-decent tales together, to say nothing of ready access to the old-school-tie network, but this doesn't hide the coincidence that they only wanted to be taken seriously as writers after the publishing took a nose-dive. There are too few platforms for genuine, dedicated writers as it is without greedy eagle-eyed entrepeneurs swooping in for easier pickings just because their own food source has begun to run out. Besides, there's something more than a little bit patronising about people who think they can turn their hand to anything, especially writing.

Of course, having published two books myself, I am a monstrous hypocrite. I'm a writer (or would like to be) and I thought I could also be a publisher, but I quickly realised that I loathed much of the work involved (in fact, I only enjoyed the editing and design aspects). It'll be interesting to see which of the new wave of publishers-cum-writers are still writing in five years; few, if any, I should imagine.

JK

I don't really think that all the small presses earned a fortune before their income streams, allegedly, dried up. And I doubt that writing books in print runs of 300 is motivated by greed.

Actually, I doubt that ANYONE writing fiction - apart from the hacks and the Barbara Cartlands of this world - would have greed as their primary motivation for writing. There isn't really any winning formula for having a bestseller.

I can't really see the patronising side of it either. If it's got merit as literature, I can't see why whatever odd jobs the writer may have or have had anything to do with it.

I know that a lot of fiction writers - at least in Denmark, and I doubt the situation is different in other places - work freelance as editors of other writers' books. Would that be patronising too? Or rather, could it - apart from the fact that one's got to survive - also be a learning process?

[Julian Karswell]

Of course, having published two books myself, I am a monstrous hypocrite. I'm a writer (or would like to be) and I thought I could also be a publisher, but I quickly realised that I loathed much of the work involved (in fact, I only enjoyed the editing and design aspects). It'll be interesting to see which of the new wave of publishers-cum-writers are still writing in five years; few, if any, I should imagine.

JK

Out of interest had you written anything before you decided to become a publisher? (no offense intended but I'm assuming you hasn't taken any special courses in publishing or anything like that. How does one become a small press publisher any how)

Did you want to be an author before that?

Yes and yes.

I've been writing stories since I was twelve - the vast majority utter tosh - and I destroyed a very naive attempt at a novel in my early 20s. I only started writing properly in my late 20s but it wasn't until my mid 30s that I began to write in a style I thought worthy of publication. In every job I've ever held I have always gravitated towards writing, whether it be policies, guides, contracts or reports.

I also draw cartoons and have compiled several story-boards of comedy sketches and ideas, some surreal in a broadly Gilliamesque style. Indeed, as a child I would compose comedy skits and encourage my siblings and tolerant friends to act them out with me. Today I have several similar things 'on the go' including a couple of comedy projects and a serious film script. Three or four years ago I narrowly missed out on the BBC radio drama department commissioning a script for a dark supernatural drama set at the Glastonbury Festival when the producer who had expressed interest in it moved to a new job (the prose version of this story appears in the forthcoming Ex Occ Press collection).

So yes, I've always been a writer, and agree with the notion that some people are driven by an uncontrollable urge to commit words and ideas to paper. I certainly am. My forays into publishing were illuminating but less than enjoyable though I greatly enjoyed the creative side of things. Indeed, I often overstepped the mark, suggesting substantial revisions to Reggie Oliver's earliest stories, not because they needed improvement, just because I found myself so caught up in and excited by the tales that I couldn't help thinking like a writer rather than an editor. For example, in The Black Cathedral RO originally conceived that the virtual world of the cathedral be silent, but I suggested adding sound, in particular certain types of sound, sounds which heightened the horror experienced by the reader; in Lapland Nights, I suggested excising a lengthy closing scene and ending it on a sudden disturbing climax; in A Nightmare Sang, I thought the narrator's getting carried away by a black mass was more powerfully communicated by having him violently attack another character whilst becoming sexually aroused by the diabolical service; etc etc; , and he very decently agreed to this. However, this input has been equal and reciprocal - RO has assisted me in similar fashion on my own stories - but the point I have been slowly and tediously leading up to is this: I think that you need to think like a writer to achieve this level of input. The vast majority of editors simply dot the i's and cross the t's.

As a writer you can write what you one like but as a publisher you also have to suck up to people or risk the establishment 'closing ranks' to 'freeze' you and your writers out. It gets all very political and parochial. On the one hand, you don't really care about trinkets and reviews, since the genre is quite heavily stitched-up, but on the other, you feel you owe it to your author(s) to champion their cause. Now I've stepped back from publishing with a view to just writing I am much, much happier, because I couldn't care a hoot about the various awards and awards panels. The readers, independent critics and one's peers are the only judges whose opinion matters.

Hopefully this exhaustive (and exhausting) reply will make it clear where I stand on this issue. I would far rather discuss the work of others or impersonal issues and so would respectfully request that you contact me direct in private if you would like any clarification on any specific matter.

[sara]

I’ve always admired Barbara Cartland’s style – I’ve not read any of her books yet but I’d imagine they’d be pretty good.

I became an avid reader of horror fiction from a young age as a result of trying to make sense of what to me were terrifying dreams and experiences growing up –I was surrounded by adults telling me it’s all in your mind, you’re over imaginative etc which, though probably true, just made things worse! It was comforting to read and therefore enter into some kind of ‘dialogue’ about things which seemed similar to what I was going through – even though many of those books were labelled as fiction and dealt with ‘fantastic’ or ‘otherworldly’ themes. Which begs the question – what counts as real life horror?

[Steve Dekorte]

Are horror writers scribbbling while Rome burns?


Perhaps if we were made aware of all the real horror in the world, it would destroy us. Or we would destroy it.

YouTube - HORRIBLE! "My Daddy Ate My Eyes" (California father accused of biting out his 4-year-old son's eyes)

[Sam]

There is definitely something to what you say, and as such, I refuse to click on that link.

I figure that if I can imagine a horrible scenario, it has probably transpired at least once already, somewhere at some time. Indeed, "There is nothing new under the sun."

And now, thanks to the death of television journalism and the rise of sensationalistic shock TV that passes for news these days, I can have all of my anti-human prejudices confirmed on a daily basis if I so desire. Wonderful.

[Evans]

I sometimes wonder (and this is probably a terrible thing to say) but do such things still terrify us? I feel repulsed and saddening by many of the things I hear in the news and read in papers but I don't actually feel scared by much of it.

I feel much of this maybe youthful cynicism though...

[otaku]

I try to limit my news intake these days everyday life can be terrifying enough let alone all the additional horror brought on by the news should horror writers deal with things that are actually happening sure and I'm sure examples of this exist and I think an entertaining story can still deal with an important issue when it comes to dealing with political/social issues it seems to me that science fiction has dealt with it quite a bit more

[Steve Dekorte]

Real life horror tends to be more confused than fiction -real humans can look like monsters while the real monsters often look quiet normal.

YouTube - Alien Man - Shoutouts (Tsim####is)

YouTube - Hijacking Humanity Final Cut - Part 5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AznmsfngQd0#t=0m39s)

[Cryptic]

In my opinion horror fiction broadly falls into two camps: that which is supernatural and that which is non-supernatural. The former concerns itself with illusory issues, the latter, the fictional depiction of plausible realism.

Ostensibly tales of supernatural horror are macabre fairy tales (putting aside matters of spiritual belief for one moment), and stories of so-called 'realistic' horror, typically depicting the antics of sadists and serial killers, provide escapist thrills. [Obviously there are exceptions to the rule.]

Given this - given the fact that most horror stories concern themselves with imagined reality, heightened pschological tension and morbid atmosphere - are horror fans withdrawing from reality, and in doing so, are they abbreggating responsibility for helping to resolve true-life horror such as war, starvation, terrorism, violence, etc?

Yet who is writing about these things - horror writers? No, they are cocooned inside their cosy little bubbles of fake stylised horror. Instead we leave it to the dry pen of the journalist and politician.

Are horror writers scribbbling while Rome burns?

Note: I have taken certain parts of the original post out of the equation that I deem irrelevant (that is, things mentioned that do not influence my response).

My main point that I wish to address first is that you seem to draw an extremely distinct line between these two camps when, in reality, there aren't such lines. As an "aspiring" (I use that almost sarcastically) writer I feel that the fantastic, these imagined realities are merely a way of expressing reality as perceived by an author. Readers intuitively grasp this, as shown in many criticisms by readers of authors, where the criticism is usually directed against the author rather than where it should be: the fiction. It tends to be that readers have an innate capability of combining these two 'worlds' and forming a, sometimes, more broad structure and grasp of reality.

I should clarify that last point because it may be extremely confusing and I may not have made it clear. When children listen to others experiences with the world they take that information and incorporate it into their own, broadening their grasp on reality, and broadening their knowledge base. This exact behavior could be seen throughout much, if not throughout all, of our lives. It's one of our more complex learning (and survival) mechanisms. Fiction is a similar tool, I think, and we, as a species, have always held a fascination with story; especially that of the supernatural. We use these stories to teach our children about the world, about reality, about how the world works and how people should (or shouldn't) behave.

A second point I'd like to address is your claim that horror writers are "cocooned inside their cosy little bubbles of fake stylised horror." I think a better, and far more accurate statement, would be that writers have a unique way of perceiving events. As humans we are all affected by the tragedies that invade our senses and with that invasion there will be perceptions that will be developed. It is how a person deals, interprets, and translates the experience that will differ by a large degree.

The third point that I have is that writers have no obligation to deliver news. That is the journalists' and politicians' job. A writers job is separate from either of these. Many of the events that you mentioned and that impact a great millions of lives are very difficult for most readers to, not only relate to, but to deal with. In a way, writers act as a sensitive medium to which a reader can feel comfortable in digesting the event (in fictionalized form, yes, but still in a form and it still remains the event). Writers are a sort of medium into realities readers may not understand, relate to, or be able to deal with is my conclusion.

Now, the questions that I have yet to answer, and don't have the capability of answering, is that of the role of the reader and the responsibilities that they hold. Obviously, the role of the reader has changed dramatically over the years and the obligations and responsibilities that were once felt are no longer felt as intensely. What are writers to do about it? What are readers to do about it? A vast amount of questions can come from it.

I hope that was a clear post. This was written after a long day of cleaning and it's 2:30 a.m. (Yes, that will be my excuse! But I will clarify if need be. Tomorrow though).

[Mr. D.]

Writers are more concerning with writing and other writers than they are with what might be called current events. It takes a completely different way of seeing the world to face the horrors of life. I'm in law enforcement and the intelligence that we get about gangs, terrorists and the like just scares me to death. Somehow I've remained a human being but the I've developed a hardness that isn't just a protective shell. It goes all the way through me. Staring into the abyss is not a game.As far as writers and their writings goes, I have written 7 screenplays (none of which were ever made into a movie, though I came close twice) and two novels (which didn't sell). I think that, though I am a good writer, my career has made me into a person very different from other writers. The things that interest me don't seem to interest anyone else. Because of some of the things I've seen and experienced at work I was never able to take Hollywood Producers very seriously - and they could sense it. When you've seen the depths of human misery and desperation on a regular basis it's hard not to laugh at the puffed up egos of the Hollywood elite. (This attitude didn't help my career any.) Anyway, I keep writing. I like what I write. I'm frustrated that I don't write even better, but that comes with practice. Maybe someday I'll write something that connects, but it's already a couple of decades too late for me to have my head turned by something like that.

[Steve Dekorte]

LiveLeak.com - Policeman 'cut in half' after accident talks to camera man *VERY GRAPHIC*

Real horror.

[Sam]

Yeah, that is real horror all right. Posting a link to something like that with a little warning would almost certainly be appreciated by some of us who read this forum over breakfast while at work, and/or have no desire to see mutilated bodies.

[gregjames]

My own take on this is not incredibly helpful as I don't think it's a question that can be resolved with ease. One person's definition of horror is as different from another's as your phobias might be from mine. I think the same can be said to extend to real life horrors as the definition would be affected by a person's social, spiritual and political attitudes.

Speaking personally, I don't think people are in denial when they indulge an interest. If people did not do so, I think the world would likely be in a much sorrier state. Everyone needs a breather and to let off steam now and then whether it be through horror, action movies or schmaltzy romance.

Also, I have been through phases in the past of facing real-life horrors such as when I read nothing but accounts of the holocaust. Such an exercise, I think, validated a quote that I believe came from T.S. Eliot. We can only handle so much of reality.

To sum up, I would say most people are not in denial. They are aware of what's going on in the world and how horrific much of it is but they also have their own insurmountable concerns and worries that limit what can be done by way of solution. I'm sure many would like to do more but are stymied by various factors. In such a context, I would say horror fiction is a healthy release for people rather than an active means of denial and avoidance.

[Aeron]

I tend to blur the line between real life horror and fantasy horror in my art, literally. If you look at some of the characters in my art in The Imaginary Museum, you'll see what I mean. Some of my greatest inspiration comes from pictures such as these.. Ventrilville (http://www.ventrilville.blogspot.com/)

That said, I think it's important to not dwell on real life horror so much, all fiction should be illuminating, but always serve as escapism to some extent. We live and we will die, everyone we know and love will turn to dust, far sooner than we'd like to imagine. People die in horrifying, sad, cruel, torturous ways every single day. An old man was beaten to death and caught on fire a mere block away from where I'm typing, but to focus on these things serves no purpose but to drive you insane. Better to dream and take in the awe of the human imagination than to stew in the horrors of reality.

[Julian Karswell]

Yeah, that is real horror all right. Posting a link to something like that with a little warning would almost certainly be appreciated by some of us who read this forum over breakfast while at work, and/or have no desire to see mutilated bodies.

I'm not normally a prude, but I agree with you.

JK

[Joel]

Indeed. But sometimes when you post a link to a film clip here, the software decides to post a still instead. That's happened to me.

I would have thought the film clip was almost certainly a hoax – note the co-ordinated arm movements, the ability to grip, indicating an apparent lack of shock trauma or spinal damage. And the apparent full consciousness: possible for a few seconds maybe – but for five minutes? The severed legs and strangely bloodless entrails look prosthetic to me. But what do I know?

[Steve Dekorte]

Yeah, that is real horror all right. Posting a link to something like that with a little warning would almost certainly be appreciated by some of us who read this forum over breakfast while at work, and/or have no desire to see mutilated bodies.

I'm not normally a prude, but I agree with you.

JK

I apologize for the content but the purpose was to get a response that provided a case in point to the answer of the original question. Simply that, generally, "horror" fans are not interested in real horror any more than those of us that play war games are interested in the horrors of real wars. Both are amusements. Of what being amused by such things says about us as human beings, I leave to your judgement.

[Jayaprakash]

I used to watch the odd gore flick, especially a few years back when ostensible 'classics' of the genre such as THE HILLS HAVE EYES and TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE were being remade. I stopped after I was unable to sit through HOSTEL, but loved THE DEVIL'S REJECTS to the point where I watched it several times over.

I think the difference was that HOSTEL and its ilk are deadly serious about their gore-games, while THE DEVIL'S REJECTS, for all its brutality, defused itself with its infusion of unexpected humour and even pathos in the depiction of the psychopathic family whose antics it follows.

I wasn't comfortable with what that said about me - that I would enjoy a film about depraved killers, if they were funny enough. On the other hand, my revulsion for HOSTEL et. al. convinced me that there was in fact something repugnant about this kind of horror that I was unable to ignore in its more unadorned form. In fact, I had to ask myself whether I was in denial, not about real life horror, but about fictional horror and that serial-killer narratives were essentially playing to a very sick vicarious sadistic instinct in me instead of merely being 'a bit of fun' (a common justification for enjoying entertainment that we suspect is somehow unworthy). It was an unhealthy craving that I could indulge if my ego was given sops like the campy humour in the Rob Zombie film while my id sat back and enjoyed the gore on the most base level. Or if it was something with trappings of Lovecraftian or supernatural horror like the films of Lucio Fulci (I have to say I still think the ending of THE BEYOND is a very fine moment irrespective of the frequently incoherent schlock that precedes it).

I had to conclude that continuing to consume sadistic serial-killer horror would not be a healthy choice.

But this only answers a part of the original poster's question. What of my fascination with other kinds of horror? Very briefly I would have to say that it is because I would like to somehow feel at least temporarily that there is some kind of magic other than the secular magic celebrated by Dawkins in UNRAVELLING THE RAINBOW but my world-view is gloomy enough that I can only readily accept the bad numinous, rather than a tale of wonder. In other words, it is a purely aesthetic preference, and neither informs not impairs my ability to apprehend and abhor real life horror.

Still, while art is not documentary, it is a question worth asking.