|
Post by ian on Aug 16, 2009 16:59:45 GMT
A valid question I think.
Discuss.
|
|
|
Post by Dreadlocksmile on Aug 16, 2009 17:05:30 GMT
Will horror books every sell again? A valid question??? More like a question that doesn't make any sense!!! And don't go changing it now to make me look stupid...
|
|
|
Post by shaun on Aug 16, 2009 17:18:16 GMT
Horror is a subjective term. Many books are horror but they linger under another guise, such as thriller. As to whether horror books will ever sell again, when did they stop selling?
|
|
|
Post by Vaughan on Aug 16, 2009 17:24:19 GMT
Horror is perennial. Tis the beauty of the thing.
I know I bang on about early cinema.... but some of the earliest examples of film were horror based. Fantastic stuff.
Horror films have recently gone through a resurgence - with certain elements of it perhaps petering out.
What might be missing in horror is creativity. Which is saying something from someone who0 has written three stories, one of which is a tribute to an real old-school idea. Not to mention, my novel outline is a Creature Feature!
I have been to my local bookstore - and the shelves are filled with Vampire tales. Stacked. And bad Vampire stories. Lame rubbish. I don't know what's going on.
Horror fans don't go away - but the publishers have such a knee-jerk reaction to the market......
f*ck it - I'll write that creature feature one day. And if no-one publishes it, I'll put it up on the net. It's not like I'm expecting big money! --LOL--
|
|
|
Post by Vaughan on Aug 16, 2009 17:32:48 GMT
You know - this is a hotly debated subject in the movie arena. Is Silence of the Lambs a horror film, or a thriller? For me there is no question - it's a thriller. It's not horror. It might be horrible, it might contain some tension, but it's not horror. To consider it as such is to generalize far too much. If something is a great thriller, why not just call it as such? Why does it have to be a horror?
Denis Gifford considered that a horror story ought to have a sense of the fantastic about it - something other-worldly. I agree with that.
Serial killers are horrible, even terrifying, but in terms of entertainment, they're not horror movies unless you use the very broadest definition. Which seems a tad desperate and simply a way to grab more audience...... The blurred line was created by a marketing department somewhere, looking to grab a bigger demographic. Gore isn't horror either. If we blur the lines too much, what do any genre's matter?
Take the movie, Mean Streets, as an example. Memorable wise, that has one of the nastiest scenes I can recall in it. Someone gets shot in the neck while driving a car. Is it horror? No. It's not.
For me anyway.
Sorry, I like my horror movies, and feel passionately about them. ;D
|
|
|
Post by shaun on Aug 16, 2009 19:34:52 GMT
Denis Gifford considered that a horror story ought to have a sense of the fantastic about it - something other-worldly. I agree with that. I disagree with that. To me, horror is anything that scares, unsettles or horrifies. When I sold my serial killer novel to Leucrota Press, they told me that they only accepted genre fiction: horror, fantasy and sci fi, so what qualified my novel as horror? Here was the answer I gave: To answer that question I guess you would have to ask what horror fiction is. Some people believe that it has to have a supernatural element, revolving around witches, zombies, vampires and their ilk. While that is certainly true, I believe it’s also anything that elicits fear, and nothing elicits that feeling more than real life horrors: hate, murder, cruelty. There have been many, many stories about serial killers that are classed as horror. Some linger in the grey area between thriller and horror, and others are just pigeonholed into what might be perceived a more acceptable genre. I believe that at its heart, The Kult is a horror story as it deals with ordinary people being forced into real life horrors over which they have no control. Ordinary people. People like you and I. It’s a story about the decisions people take in life, and the terrifying repercussions that happen as a result. The serial killer in The Kult is an unfeeling monster who delights in peoples suffering and fear. The real monsters are all around us. Being able to spot them is the problem.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Aug 16, 2009 20:17:10 GMT
Tht's easy Shaun they look like this
|
|
|
Post by shaun on Aug 16, 2009 21:55:37 GMT
Tht's easy Shaun they look like this You see, I was right. They are everywhere and people just don't realise. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Vaughan on Aug 16, 2009 22:11:33 GMT
That's exactly what I mean - that's a very generalized definition of horror. War movies, based on this, can be horror films. The Wizard of Oz has moments of "fear" in it. That's not horror either.
It's easy to blur the lines, as you can see, and as such many many things are therefore horror. Single White Female taps into a basic feeling of dread and horror - but it's not horror either, it's a thriller. We ought to be careful not to confuse a genre definition with simple emotions illicited. That's a different thing altogether.
In fact, for me, that's exactly why we have a genre called "thriller" - to have a line between one type of story and another. What's the difference between a 50's sci-fi movie and a thriller about a serial killer? Nothing? For me, the difference is obvious.
Good for marketing, good for grabbing a larger potential audience, but good for nothing else. In my opinion of course. My wife is an avid reader, far more than I am. We have 15 of those Billy bookshelves from IKEA, and they're stacked (some DOUBLE stacked) with books. She likes crime novels, serial killer novels and such. And they're VERY different from what I'm reading. I'm reading horror. She's never crossed over into horror, because she's into something different. And for me it's clearly different.
This isn't a comment about The Kult, since I've never read it. But if it's a serial killer novel, then that's what it is. There is nothing wrong with that. But I wouldn't personally sell it as a comedy, I'd not sell it as a romance, and I'd not sell it as a horror novel. There is a well defined genre for it, and that's where it belongs. It doesn't have to be something else too.
Trust me, I'm not trying to put anything down (your book or the work of others), but it is what it is. Genre and categories exist so we can find our way to things we like and enjoy. There's no reason to blur the lines, imo. I feel you're confusing an emotion for a definition of horror. Genres aren't about simple definitions of emotions, or emotions felt in a context.
One of my fears is drowning. As such, Titanic is pretty frightening and horrific. Being on a big ship, having it go down, perhaps having to sacrifice yourself for others. Horrific for me, indeed. But it's not a horror movie. It's a romance/thriller film.
It might (or might not) be "good". But that's beside the point. When my wife goes into a bookstore to buy something, she goes to the "Crime" section, because that's what she likes, and that's what she wants. She would never, ever, go to the horror section. I'm the say, I go to horror, I'm not going to the Crime section. Having a book placed in both because... well, because of some broader definition, wouldn't draw me in. I'd read the back, see it's a serial killer book, and put it back. It's just not what I'm looking for. I'm smart enough that, if I wanted such a thing, I'd go to the Crime section and look for it. I think most others are too.
You mention and others are just pigeonholing. I call it CATEGORIZING. I'm looking for a certain type of thing I like, and it helps guide me. Putting a crime novel amongst horror novels won't get me to buy it - because the cover copy will tell me what it is.
Of course some things are nearer the line than others, but for me an element of the fantastic is required for horror. It's not optional. Being horrific, and being horror, is something different.
|
|
|
Post by shaun on Aug 17, 2009 7:03:12 GMT
That's exactly what I mean - that's a very generalized definition of horror. War movies, based on this, can be horror films. The Wizard of Oz has moments of "fear" in it. That's not horror either. It's easy to blur the lines, as you can see, and as such many many things are therefore horror. Taking something like The Wizard of Oz as an example is stretching the point as obviously any film can contain moments that make one feel afraid, etc, but obviously the feelings have to be taken in context. Under your definition, films like Saw would not be horror, but that's what they're marketed as. I guess we will have to beg to differ on this one, but that's why I check all the shelves when I'm looking for books, as I wouldn't like to think I was restricted to one section for my particular sense of what horror is
|
|
|
Post by shaun on Aug 17, 2009 7:06:21 GMT
P.S. it's nice to have a discussion on these things. It's also nice that everyone can have a different opinion, as that's what makes a discussion worthwhile, and you do make some valid points.
|
|
|
Post by Vaughan on Aug 17, 2009 7:12:13 GMT
Saw is completely fantastical. Not an element of realism in it. Strangely - and you'll find this funny - I started reading a new novel last night, Maniac by Stuart Friedman. It appears to be a serial killer novel, published by Leisure as "horror" ;D Taint nothing like punching a hole through your own logic, huh?
|
|
|
Post by shaun on Aug 17, 2009 7:20:17 GMT
Saw is completely fantastical. Not an element of realism in it. Strangely - and you'll find this funny - I started reading a new novel last night, Maniac by Stuart Friedman. It appears to be a serial killer novel, published by Leisure as "horror" ;D Taint nothing like punching a hole through your own logic, huh? Lol. Well, I hope you enjoy it anyway. If not, there's always The Kult. (I'm never one to miss an opportunity)
|
|
|
Post by shaun on Aug 17, 2009 7:21:42 GMT
It would be nice to gather some other opinions. Ian, you started the thread. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Vaughan on Aug 17, 2009 14:57:18 GMT
Here's the problem Shaun - we'd likely never be able to agree on a definition of horror. And without an agreement on something like that, the debate is endless. You know? There'll always be grey areas.
Unlike you, I don't often stray into other categories in bookstores. I generally only do the following:
Go to the media section and look for books on film.
Go to the horror section.
Go to the General Fiction section and se if there are any new imprints of JG Ballard titles.
Leave.
Crime, Romance, Sport, Health, Action..... I never go there.
|
|