horror vs. dark fantasy

[scalem X]

absolutely (and great quote). But now comes the hardest part:
-how can we get magazines to understand the difference and to make them ask for terror if they want it and not just say: "we want horror," because they always have used that phrase?

Why does 'terror' seem to have the whole 17th, 18th century thing around it?

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by scalem X

Why does 'terror' seem to have the whole 17th, 18th century thing around it?

Bluntly: because the readers and writers who made the distinction tended, on the whole, to be more aware of the subtle gradations of emotion and thought on the written page than we are today, after the entire "kill your darlings" ideas of Hemingway et al. combined with pulps, which often went for the lowest, least literate reader's reaction (and attention span), and then the blunting of our sensibilities by the increasingly graphic nature of film and television and the dumbing-down of the audience (automatically going for the "gross-out" rather than expecting the audience to be able to catch on to subtler points... which eventually becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy).

The writers of that period, especially, were much more given to examining subtleties of thought and emotion, delving into the fine shadings and associations; now, most writers (and readers) go for the simplest, coarsest grade of communication -- it's easier, it's simpler, and it doesn't take much thought, insight, or ability to discriminate. (This is by no means true of all writers or readers; the fact that we have such as Ligotti, Campbell, etc., who have rising or established reputations, proves there's still room for the subtler approach. But it is less prevalent in accepted literary norms than it used to be, where before it was relegated to the literary underbrush such as the penny dreadfuls, shilling shockers, tabloids, pulps, and comic books.)

I'd argue, too (just to be pedantic) that it's more the late 18th and early 19th centuries, as the 17th didn't see much fiction as such..... But there have been 20th century writers who kept to the older standards and dealt with the subtler, more finely-grained distinctions: Lovecraft, Tryon, Styron, Cabell, Dunsany, to name only a very few. Part of the problem is that, while we have more people reading, the level of literacy (in the sense of being well-informed, educated, having a broader and deeper appreciation of) has fallen. Too often, it's the "make it march" idea, rather than an attempt to truly understand the implications of a thing, what it means or is saying, that predominates... resulting in a much shallower, less emotionally satisfying experience, something lacking the genuine resonance of deep human emotions or experience in favor of shallower entertainment -- fun, but no more emotionally nourishing than a ghost train. As Robert Aickman (himself one of the best modern examples of subtlety in "strange stories" as he described them -- whether ghost stories or otherwise) put it: "Not to be able to phrase things finely, is, in general, not to be able to feel them finely" (The Attempted Rescue, p. 133).

I'm afraid that far too many on both ends of the creative liaison of writing/reading have become unable to do either.....

[lin robinson]

Why does 'terror' seem to have the whole 17th, 18th century thing around it?

I dunno...seems to me "terror" has a sort of "all over the headlines every day" sort of thing going on.


So... is there "Dark Horror Light"? You know, for people who want to be scandalized but not completely horrified?

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by lin robinson

I dunno...seems to me "terror" has a sort of "all over the headlines every day" sort of thing going on.


So... is there "Dark Horror Light"? You know, for people who want to be scandalized but not completely horrified?

Um.... "scandalized"? Or "scared" ("creeped-out", "frightened", etc.)? (And I rather like the "Dark Horror Light"... just don't let the Budweiser people get hold of it, or they'll be using it for their ad campaign come Hallowe'en.....

[ragnarblackmane]

Well, when I think of Lovecraft, I think of Cosmic Horror. Also, try contemplating what it would be like if the Cthulhu Mythos was factual. Does it seem a bit more horrifying now? To be aware that purely alien, ruinuous deities watch over mankind hungrily, and that there is no way in which we can truly stop them. Thats how I see Lovecrafts horror clearly.

[lin robinson]

Actually, I just wrote one of those. But I don't think HPL mags would be into it because it's completely stripped down and contemporary, no rotting old manses and ruins and such.

I don't know how much of a market there is for that.

I got a kick out of the update Cthulu got in the "Illuminatus' Trilogy.

[j. d. worthington]

I wouldn't be too sure about that, Lin. There's the new H. P. Lovecraft's Magazine of Horror and the new Weird Tales, both put out by Wildside Press... from what I've seen, they run the gamut on types of "horror"....

Magazines

I'm not sure how far they're backlogged with submissions right now, but you might want to give them a try.....

[KSeriphyn]

hmm... good question and excellent comments. Personally, I find vampire action stories something to the lines of dark fantasy (Underworld). Horror, to me, is The Night of The Living Dead. Guts galore and screaming chics

[bradHart]

Originally Posted by scalem X

But here he goes:
How unsettling does your dark fantasy story have to be, before it crosses into the horror border? How much blood has to flow?



Any thoughts on this?

My advice is quit labeling crap and write your damned story. Readers and editors will put labels on it for you regardless of what you tell them it is.