• HOME
  • CONTACT / FEATURE
  • FEATURES
  • FICTION REVIEWS
  • FILM REVIEWS
  • INTERVIEWS
  • YOUNG BLOOD
  • MY LIFE IN HORROR
  • FILM GUTTER
  • ARCHIVES
    • SPLASHES OF DARKNESS
    • THE MASTERS OF HORROR
    • THE DEVL'S MUSIC
    • HORROR BOOK REVIEWS
    • Challenge Kayleigh
    • ALICE IN SUMMERLAND
    • 13 FOR HALLOWEEN
    • FILMS THAT MATTER
    • BOOKS THAT MATTER
    • THE SCARLET GOSPELS
GINGER NUTS OF HORROR
  • HOME
  • CONTACT / FEATURE
  • FEATURES
  • FICTION REVIEWS
  • FILM REVIEWS
  • INTERVIEWS
  • YOUNG BLOOD
  • MY LIFE IN HORROR
  • FILM GUTTER
  • ARCHIVES
    • SPLASHES OF DARKNESS
    • THE MASTERS OF HORROR
    • THE DEVL'S MUSIC
    • HORROR BOOK REVIEWS
    • Challenge Kayleigh
    • ALICE IN SUMMERLAND
    • 13 FOR HALLOWEEN
    • FILMS THAT MATTER
    • BOOKS THAT MATTER
    • THE SCARLET GOSPELS
GINGER NUTS OF HORROR
horror review website ginger nuts of horror website

IN DEFENSE OF HORROR BY DUNCAN RALSTON

24/9/2014
IN DEFENCE OF HORROR
I realize I'm preaching to the choir here, defending horror on a website devoted to it, but stick with me for a minute.

Recently I found myself in a heated debate with someone who claimed to dislike horror. "What did you think of Silence of the Lambs?" I said, having heard this claim a dozen times before.

"That's not horror," the supposed horror hater said.

"Okay. Well, did you like Misery?"

Same answer. Misery. Not horror. A book/film written by the most famous horror writer in the world, Stephen King, in which a maniacal nurse kidnaps her favorite author and psychologically and physically tortures him into resurrecting her favorite literary character. Not horror. Annie Wilkes and Thomas Harris’s Dr. Hannibal Lecter, two the most frightening characters of all time—clearly monsters, right? But they're not quite horror enough for our horror hater.

And neither, it seems, for today’s rabid horror fan.

Somehow in the past ten years or so, with the addition of countless subgenres of horror (eg. Apocalyptic, new weird, bizarro, dark fiction, extreme, gothic, magic realism—to name a few), we horror fans got the idea that for something to be truly considered "horror" it has to contain bizarre creatures, ghosts, telekenisis, extended torture scenes and/or buckets of gore.


Don't get me wrong, I love a good jump scare (a good one; don't throw a cat in front of me and expect me to wet myself in terror).

 I love a spooky atmosphere. I love a good cheesy monster movie, so long as it’s got something more than CGI/makeup effects to offer (see: Pumpkinhead, Child’s Play, and yes, even Clive Barker’s bizarre Nightbreed). I love vampires and zombies and werewolves and aliens and kids who can blow shit up with their minds. But why should we limit what horror can be to these same old tropes used in the same old tired ways?

Is Se7en's John Doe any less frightening a monster than Freddy Kreuger, Chucky or Pinhead? What makes Bram Stoker's "Dracula" an exemplar of horror and Bret Easton Ellis's "American Psycho" not?

Why do we, as horror fans, feel the need to pigeon-hole horror and our tastes for it? Are we scared to let it spread its wings, to grow into something larger and more meaningful? 
Are we truly so afraid of allowing metaphor and theme and subtle menace creep into our horror that we have to recycle the same old chainsaw maniacs and possessed children and mindless zombies?


There are countless articles posing these same questions. And why? Because we fans won’t let horror branch out, like the limbs of Deadite-possessed trees. There seems to be an anti-intellectual snobbery among some horror “purists” who believe it shouldn’t or can't have any aspirations other than to scare the balls off the viewer. As if any “pretension” to art will somehow sully (or in this case, gussy up) its grisly reputation.

Fortunately this prejudice only seems to apply to movies and TV. Horror novels and short stories seem to be mostly immune, likely because reading is an inherently intellectual exercise. Even if you're reading the Twilight saga, you still have to fill in visual details with your imagination, while also, likely, thinking ahead to figure out what's going to happen next (if whatsername will end up with the werewolf or the vampire, say). Watching is predominantly passive. Reading is active. Reading requires you to use your brain to interpret ideas, to wear the skin of its characters (a bit like Buffalo Bill), while movies and television, with the exception of mysteries and thrillers, ask you to turn off your brain and let the images and sounds happen to you. The protagonist is your surrogate.

Stephen King is quoted as having said he writes horror to exorcise his own fears and demons. I write it (and read/watch it) for a similar reason: to understand the things that terrify me, that horrify and shake me, to deconstruct them, to diminish and contain them, while also hoping to tell/read/see an entertaining story. (Please don’t think I’m in any way comparing my efforts to the Master of Horror’s. I can only hope my stories could be as good as his most mediocre ones.)

I do enjoy horror for the sake of horror. I want to be scared, shocked, titillated, mortified. But if that's the only thing a movie or book has to offer, why bother? Why not just go bungee-jumping? Or pick a fight? Or sit in on a murder trial?

The best horror, in my opinion, attempts to tell an oft-told tale in a fresh, interesting and often gruesome way. The best horror doesn't just frighten, it challenges. It illuminates the darkened corners in the minds of others, of ourselves. Think of Stephen King's The Shining. It's as much a tale of a haunted house and a boy with powers as it is the real life terror of alcoholism and child abuse. Robert Louis Stevenson’s The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is as much about a man possessed by his own vices as it is the world's first "werewolf" story. In Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” the true horror is unchecked scientific advancement, not Frankenstein’s curiously verbose monster. Compare the film versions to the books, and their themes are virtually unidentifiable. Is that because we don't want meaning in our horror movies, or because Hollywood thinks so little of us they don't think we'll get it? 

I realize I'm going to be accused of snobbery myself, but stick with me a minute longer. I've always loved horror. But lately, at least as far as the movies go, it can be reallydifficult to defend. I feel like Chris Rock struggling to find reasons to endorse post-‘90s hip-hop despite its rampant misogyny. Modern horror movies tend to have a similar problem: the “final girl” trope, in which the female lead has to be the only character surviving the events of the film, forcing what used to be thought of as a predominantly male audience to identify with a female protagonist, has become so prevalent that it’s accomplishing the opposite. We root for the girl to die, if only to subvert our expectations. We revel in her various tortures.

Something like Haute Tension comes out, or You're Next, or The Purge, and we praise them for their originality, perhaps rightly, even though they're hitting all the same markers as every other slasher flick before them. These are probably the freshest examples of the slasher/home invasion subgenre (I'll include Triangle and Funny Games, though the twist in the former is pretty laughable, and the latter plays games with the audience as much as its characters); there are plenty more that don't even bother to tweak the formula.

There's an even bigger evil facing horror movies these days: it's dirt-cheap to make, and too many wannabe auteurs believe it's an easy first step into the industry. So, for everyHalloween and Evil Dead and The Last Exorcism there are two Hostel movies, two Human Centipedes, and a half a dozen Paranormal Activity sequels. For every first season of The Walking Dead there's any other season of The Walking Dead. (Survivors/The Hoarde: please send your hate mail to @userbits.)

Because it’s so cheap to make and the profits can be (relatively) enormous, there’s very little innovation—let alone a decent script—required. We get warmed-over anthologies like V/H/S and The ABCs of Death, with maybe five decent shorts out of twenty-six. We get infinitely more found footage—which can, and has, been done well, but hasn’t since Matt Reeves’s Cloverfield. Even Bobcat Goldthwait’s eagerly anticipated found footage bigfoot movie, Willow Creek, was a well-acted disappointment.


We get another slasher/rape/torture porn movie with characters so blatantly stupid it's impossible to care. Another teen vampire melodrama/abstinence PSA. Another zombie franchise.

In spite of all the bad horror flooding the market, taking advantage of our undying love for the genre like a rock star humping and dumping his groupies, there are still gems to be found. Scouring Netflix you can easily discover a lost classic from the ‘70s or ‘80s, like Richard Matheson’s The Legend of Hell House, Burnt Offerings, or Dreamscape. And occasionally something new surprises us with unexpected twists on the genre--Let the Right One In, for instance, Cabin in the Woods (a spectacularly underrated horror flick, in my opinion, from its wild concept to its flawless execution and balls-to-the-wall ending), and the intimately horrifying Sinister (Insidious’s far more interesting cousin). It’s movies like these I’ll point to when someone asks me why I love horror.

So why do you love horror? Let me know on Twitter @userbits.
DUNCAN RALSTON AUTHOR PICTURE DUNCAN RALSTON
Duncan Ralston enjoys scaring the bejeezus out of people. In the 2nd grade, he came to class dressed as the Devil for Hallowe'en. The teacher rolled his eyes and said, "How appropriate!"

He has worked behind the scenes in television for ten years. In 2011, his period comedy-drama, "The Valley," won 1st place in the Fresh Voices TV Pitch Contest. He lives with his girlfriend and their dog in Toronto.

His collection of short stories, novelettes and novellas, "GRISTLE & BONE," is available on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, iTunes and Smashwords, in all formats, including the elusive paperback.

LINKS:

www.duncanralston.com

www.facebook.com/duncanralstonfiction 

Twitter @userbits

Amazon shortlink: http://amzn.com/e/B00F23Y41Q

DUNCAN RALSTON GRISTLE AND BONE Picture
When successful restaurant owners Jim and Leanne Taymor confess to a grisly series of small town murders, their neighbor learns the gruesome truth that led them to kill. A young couple discovers the secret of a tourist town's prosperity may lie in its sinfully delicious cuisine. Gonzo pornographers learn a brutal lesson following a tragedy they caused when life imitated "art." Disgraced soldier Dean Vogel returns to his hometown and confronts the bullies, and a traumatic event, from his past. A reporter uncovers what really happened to the latest internet sensation, a troubled girl who disappeared on camera. 

Gristle & Bone includes the novella, Scavengers, 4 novelettes, and 2 short stories. 

Cannibalism, monsters, vengeful spirits, the apocalypse--chock-full of blood, mayhem, psychological horror, and good old fashioned gross-outs, Gristle & Bone is a tasty treat for horror fans!

Purchase Gristle & Bone: Stories from this link

THE HEART AND SOUL OF UK HORROR WEBSITES 

Kit Power link
24/9/2014 14:07:04

GREAT article, Mr. Ralston.

A couple of observations: firstly, I think the issues you talk about with regard to horror cinema have a wider application to cinema in general. The mammoth growth of the 'franchise' means that so much output now is either retelling of past glories (whether remakes or comic book adaptations or sequels) or milking of any original IP until it cries with shame. I mean, I really dug Final Destination. Maybe even the first 2. But 5 movies?!?!

That's not new, exactly - those 80's franchises we all loved all ran for similar ridiculous lengths, with predictable attendant quality issues, but it seems all-prevalent now, especially when coupled with this obsession with remaking anything that was any kind of hit, no matter how long ago.

The studio system is hell on writers, but one of the interesting side effects of this is more and more talented writers are abandoning movies for TV, where they often have more autonomy, and also a fighting chance of something they write actually reaching the screen with more than a passing resemblance to their intentions. Clearly we hold divergent opinions on The Walking Dead (I genuinely enjoyed the slower pace of S2, and think the last two seasons have been belters), but even allowing for that, TV writing in general have made huge leaps of sophistication and quality in the last 30 years, even as Hollywood has taken a commensurate dip in the same areas (a fact I do not regard as a coincidence). In our chosen genre, I hear marvellous things about Hannibal, Dexter was rather popular, and (taking your point about quality items not being labelled horror just because there' no zombies) I'd argue True Detective was, if not straight horror, certainly very dark fiction, that deserved every bit of praise it got. Fallen Skies, whilst a bit bubbly for my taste, has had some wonderful moments of genuine body horror along the run.

I think the anti-intellectualism runs both ways, incidentally. Whilst I don't doubt there are some meat-headed horror fans (as there are in any genre) at least as often the resistance to the label comes from the artists or studios or publishers who see something disreputable about 'brand horror'. It's one of the reasons we should all be grateful for Stephen King - his full throated defence of and embracing of the term has really flown the flag for saying horror can be smart - indeed, I would argue has to be smart, if it's to be really good.

Anyhow, again, really good piece, I look forward to reading more form you.

Duncan link
24/9/2014 16:22:11

Thanks for your reply, Kit! Couldn't agree more. TV is really going through a Renaissance right now, and not just with horror. Some of the best writers, directors and actors are working on the small screen, even the internet.
My intent was to address both sides of the anti-intellectual/intellectual debate, because there definitely is a fair amount of horror so esoteric and pretentious you can hardly tell what you're reading let alone what genre it's in. A larger point I only touched on is that taste is relative, but quality is quality. You can have great cerebral horror like True Detective (I agree, it should at the very least be considered "dark fiction," which I'd categorize as horror, particularly with how close it came to touching real Lovecraftian moments at some points), and great mindless entertaining scary-as-hell horror like Nightmare on Elm Street or Halloween. Whether you like them or not is up to the individual.
Sorry if this seems like a disjointed rant but I'm writing it from the bus--talk about horror!

Stuart Young
25/9/2014 00:43:03

Nice article.

Just a quick(ish) thought on the "That's not horror" idea. Obviously a lot of stuff is deliberately not called horror in an attempt to make it reach a wider audience. But on occasion the reverse is also true. Most of the horror fiction I've read recently, be it new stuff or old school, could quite easily be described as SF, Fantasy or crime fiction that just happens to have been marketed as horror.

I have a theory -- well, not really a theory, more of an idle musing -- that after a certain point genre ceases to exist. Once you get past the genre trappings of vampires, starships, elves, wisecracking private eyes etc what separates different types of story is tone. How funny is the story? How scary? How romantic? All stories contain elements of light and shade, the trick is to blend the different moods and tones effectively, have them bleed seamlessly into each other. Learn to master different tones and you can write whatever you want.

Or to put it more succinctly: Fuck genre, just tell me a decent story.

Duncan link
25/9/2014 10:34:04

Very true, Stuart.

Genre is only beneficial when you're looking for something to watch/read and want a certain tone or mood, as you say. I can't tell you how many times I've shouted at Netflix (it never shouts back--yet) to allow me to search by genre.

(Apparently "horror" is now a search field, at least on mine. Maybe Netflix is listening to us after all...?)

"Dark fiction" is a better blanket term, if we have to impose a genre at all, that covers many horror/sci-fi/fantasy/crime stories. It also conveys a mood/tone.

Duncan link
25/9/2014 10:34:12

Very true, Stuart.

Genre is only beneficial when you're looking for something to watch/read and want a certain tone or mood, as you say. I can't tell you how many times I've shouted at Netflix (it never shouts back--yet) to allow me to search by genre.

(Apparently "horror" is now a search field, at least on mine. Maybe Netflix is listening to us after all...?)

"Dark fiction" is a better blanket term, if we have to impose a genre at all, that covers many horror/sci-fi/fantasy/crime stories. It also conveys a mood/tone.

Duncan link
25/9/2014 10:34:19

Very true, Stuart.

Genre is only beneficial when you're looking for something to watch/read and want a certain tone or mood, as you say. I can't tell you how many times I've shouted at Netflix (it never shouts back--yet) to allow me to search by genre.

(Apparently "horror" is now a search field, at least on mine. Maybe Netflix is listening to us after all...?)

"Dark fiction" is a better blanket term, if we have to impose a genre at all, that covers many horror/sci-fi/fantasy/crime stories. It also conveys a mood/tone.

party slashers link
30/9/2014 11:36:53

I think horror is a lot more ubiquitous then people (especially horror haters) think. It's simple to write off a great movie like Silence of the Lambs as "not horror" but it terrifies us, and maybe more so than other horror stories, because this type of person is very capable of having a real-life counterpart.

I think genre is necessary because many people identify their fears with common archetypes (vampires/zombies/etc.), and horror is too broad a category for many, to where they don't want to sift through tons of gore films, vampire films, psychological horror films to get to paranormal films.

Also maybe horror haters don't like horror because those type of movies are much more effective on them.

Duncan link
13/10/2014 15:05:31

Good points!
When you're looking for psychological horror and all you get are creature movies, I could see how that would be frustrating.


Comments are closed.
    Picture
    https://smarturl.it/PROFCHAR
    Picture

    Archives

    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013

    Picture

    RSS Feed

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmybook.to%2Fdarkandlonelywater%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR1f9y1sr9kcIJyMhYqcFxqB6Cli4rZgfK51zja2Jaj6t62LFlKq-KzWKM8&h=AT0xU_MRoj0eOPAHuX5qasqYqb7vOj4TCfqarfJ7LCaFMS2AhU5E4FVfbtBAIg_dd5L96daFa00eim8KbVHfZe9KXoh-Y7wUeoWNYAEyzzSQ7gY32KxxcOkQdfU2xtPirmNbE33ocPAvPSJJcKcTrQ7j-hg
Picture