What makes a good horror story?

[Greenwolf103]

In your opinion, what elements of a horror story/novel are the main ingredients that make it a worthwhile read?

[maestrowork]

Scary, of course.

[LiamJackson]

There's a couple of elements that work for me.

First, you have to give me a character(s) that I really want to care about. I suppose that's true of all character-driven novles. Next, provide them with a near-infintely superior antagonist and place our heroes in hellacious mortal danger, a danger that mocks any mundane resolution. (I'm not saying the bad guy MUST be a psycho-superman, but that he/she has some distinct edge over the good guys.

Give our protag lots of choices, some good, some not so good, and some down-right disasterous. Every couple of chapters, leave the protag (and me) hanging over a cliff. Make them "think" their way around this evil miscreant.

One of the creepeist antagonists I can envision is a person devoid of any traces of humanity. A textbook sociopath-turned-serial killer. Animal-cunning, instinctively resourceful, and possessing a one-track mind; Destruction of the innocent. Kill, maim, and/or mutilate...whatever it takes, however necessary. Think of a Hannibal Lector/Michael Meyers clone.

Now, if you add a touch of the supernatural, something that further reduces the chances of a simple, mundane solution, I'm probably hooked.

[HConn]

Scary without being nauseating.

[drgnlvrljh]

The "mind job". The story doesn't have to be gorey, but if it messes with your head, or rather, your definition of "reality", it's pretty scary.

I found the movies, The Matrix and Minority Report scarier than any horror flick. Not the movies, per se, but the -concept- behind them. The Exorcist was another one that scared the pants off me (and at least it qualified as horror).

I think the whole idea of losing "control" is terrifying, I guess, so anything that has to do with someone being thought of as crazy, when they're not, or possession, or having reality as you know it challenged, will scare the bejebers out of me!

[DarkHaven80]

I agree about the mind job. Making the characters convincing helps. Also the creepy factor. Anything that makes any other genre good, but with a bit of creepiness in the subject matter.

[drgnlvrljh]

I'm more about the goosebumps and the hair standing on end, and that feeling of being followed, than I am about the "Ew!" factor!

[Nazareth]

I read this somewhere- "Throw a Grizzly in the closet"

In other words- don't have your main character simply go into his apartment and fetch the papers for his case- that's boring no matter how many great details you show in the scene. Instead, have the bad/psycho guy break into the hero's apartment- he hears a noise- almost gets caught, but makes it into the closet just intime. Now what you got is a Griz in the closet lol- The hero goes through his apartment looking for his papers without knowing that there is potential danger. Much more intense for the reader.

A great scene I just read had the murderer/psycho in their car and had a body in the back of a woman he just killed. He was going out to his usual burial spot (Unbeknownst to him, the cops had stumbled across the hillside where the bodies were buried- but they didn't know who the killer was yet) It is late at night, and he has just been through a harrowing intense time and is relishing burying th4e body. He rounds the bend & sees that the whole hillside is lit up with the police CSI's digging everywhere & he panics. He thinks about turning around, but he then thinks it might draw too much attention & look suspicious. He keeps going while one arm is over the seat and fiddling with the covering over the body. He gets up to the policeman stopping vehicles and is about to be discovered when the policeman is distracted. Absentmindedly, the cop waves him by.

Here we got two great secrets that we know but the characters don't know. We know the killer is driving the body out to the hillside that the cops are crawling over, and, we have the cops lewtting the killer go by mistake- they aren't aware that he has a body in the back. We're on the edge of our seats wondering if it's going to be the end for either the cops, or the killer (The kiler had a gun under his leg ready to kill the cop if he had to, and then to take off)

I think the key to great horror is to let the reader in on a secret that the heor isn't aware of (Like the psycho in the closet). The hero hasn't got a clue as to how close he came to dying (Say that he almost opened the closet door, but spotted the papers beside the couch just intime). Also, another key is to learn 'emotion keywords' that can heighten scenes. For horror, key words would revolve around 'anxiety, fear, horror, nervousness' etc. Using them in the right places can really help to pull a reader into the scene and give a sense of the emotion you're trying to portray.

[arrowqueen]

The disconcerting feeling that normality is merely a thin veneer over something else entirely.

And the veneer is cracking...

[Dev]

Some of you might remember the "Splatterpunk" movement in horror writing in the late eighties-early nineties. John Skipp, Craig Spector, David Schow...those guys never held back on grossing us out, but it was still good, scary stuff. I'm not saying it was scary because it was visceral, I'm just saying it was good horror material and it was visceral. It just takes a balance...IMHO.

[Liam Jackson]

We've discussed the Splatterpunks from time to time, on the AW site. The concensus seems to be Skipp and Spector created a fad that turned out to be far better suited to film.

Whatever your personal opinion of the gruesome twosome, I think they certainly presented a unique method of graphic horror writing. Their Light at the End is still one of my favorite stories.

[Anatole Ghio]

I read this somewhere- "Throw a Grizzly in the closet"


I think the key to great horror is to let the reader in on a secret that the heor isn't aware of (Like the psycho in the closet). The hero hasn't got a clue as to how close he came to dying (Say that he almost opened the closet door, but spotted the papers beside the couch just intime).

The correct term for giving the reader information that is not also shared by the principle character, is called priviledged perspective. It occurs when the readers are one up in some way; it is also the main ingredient to suspense.

In Francois Trauffout's book on Hitchcock, Hitchcock defined the difference between suspense and surprise as hinging upon priviledged perspective. If the reader doesn't know there is a boogeyman in the closet, when the closet door is opened and the boogeyman jumps out, we are suprised by the outcome.

If the reader already knows the boogeyman is in the closet, every moment before the closet is opened can be exploited for the possibility of finding the boogeyman. So the reader knows something bad may happen to the protagonist if the closet is opened and because the artist prolongs this possibility, the reader is held in suspense waiting for the outsome.

While this emotion is essential to a work reliant upon the element of suspense, horror can and does utilize surprise quite effectively. The most cliche use of it in the movies is to have a character go toward an open window where a strange noise was heard, and then have a cat jump through... a surprise because the viewer had no awareness of the cat before the character.

Watch the Japanese version of the Ring for the entire first sequence. The director deftly mixes in elements of suspense throughout the middle part of the picture, which helps it to continually up the tension throughout the film without having to rely upon constant danger to the characters; yet he uses surprise in the begining and end, where the more horrific scenes are, to establish the tone of a horror film. Througout the opening scene, we (the viewer) have no priviledged perspective and are shocked as the scene keeps escalating in a way out of our normal reason (she gets the phone call... is it something sinister on the other end?; the television turns on by itself, so she turns it off and returns to the kitchen, it turns on again, she looks back to see what caused it and...).

Yes, suspense can provoke an immediate response and help increase the drama in a scene, but I don't think it's actually a part of what makes something horrific... I think it's the lack of knowing what the danger is that makes something horrific. The scene of the haunted room in the Shining has no priviledged perspective, but is one of the scariest in the book. We are given some foreshadowing, with Danny going catatonic after visiting it, and the sordid history of the room, but when Jack goes in, we as the reader have no information that he doesn't posses himself... this lack of knowledged makes the scene even scarier in my opininion, since we have no way to rationalize what is happening as we read it.

- Anatole

[Nazareth]

Thanks- that was good advice- will have 5to read it over better tomorrow to digest it better. My eyes are too lazy tonight :) but I get what you're saying mostly.

[Nazareth]

now that I think about it- what I suggested lends itself more to suspense than it does to horror

[MacAllister]

Ah--but horror and suspense have sooooo much in common. Which actually raises a question: How DO we define horror? What separates the genre from other, closely-related genres?

Why is Psycho a horror flick, and Silence of the Lambs, a thriller?

[maestrowork]

Was Psycho really considered "horror"? I'm not sure. I think most Hitchcock's films were categorized as "suspense"?

I'm confused with the distinction also: horror/suspense/thriller... even spilling over to mystery... and mix in sci-fi... these genres cross over so much sometimes it's hard to peg them.

I mean, is "Alien" sci-fi, thriller, suspense or horror? Or all of the above?

[Spookster]

I think Psycho was concidered horror in it's original era. When it was released (was it 60's or 70's) the gore factor (shower scene) catagorized it as horror. In this age, it would lean more toward the drama/suspense genre.

Combonation of genres allows for a fuller storyline. I would classify Alien as sci-fi/horror. I think, in order to aply genre to most movies/books with multiple genre lables, you have to determine which genre holds the most impact to the storyline.

In Alien, there is a combonation of sci-fi, horror, and suspense. Which holds the majority of the storyline? sci-fi (aliens/futuristic setting) and horror (monster killing humans). The suspense is a bi-factor of the horror storyline.

[Nivvie]

The horrors that have stayed with me usually involve children.
Stephen King knows how to use a child as in Salems Lot, and I was on edge throughout Sixth Sense and The Ring. In fact, anything with a child pulls on my parental heart strings.

I watched The Exorcist years ago, and thought it was scary, but that was all. I watched it after having a child, and the thought of what you would actually do if there was a demon squatting inside your child terrified me.

[jdkiggins]

Psycho came out in 1960. I saw it, at a drive-in theater no less, when I was eight years old. It scared the heck out of me. I watched it a few nights ago and it certainly didn't have the impact on me that it had forty-five years ago. In the 60's that was considered horror. Now, I would call it a thriller. And to be honest, compared to what's out now, it's sort of boring.

Times have changed; look at the nightly news.

I'm still having a difficult time determining where the line between horror and thriller is drawn. For me, horror, thriller, suspense with a touch of mystery all fall in one great big category.

Joanne

[MacAllister]

I guess, for me, horror requires an element of the supernatural/inexplicable--done believably.

[triceretops]

I think something that messes with my head can have a horrific effect. I call it understatement. Jaws used some understatement with music when it couldn't get Bruce the shark to work properly, so they hyped up the atomosphere and mood.

For some reason I thought the Butterfly Effect was done very well without an over-abundance of slashing and blood-letting.

Tri

[Anatole Ghio]

I guess, for me, horror requires an element of the supernatural/inexplicable--done believably.

Yes, I agree 100%. Without the inexplicable, it becomes a thriller or suspense. Anything about a mass murderer, for me, fails to be a work of horror unless the murderer is presented in some way which still maintains the unknown. We, the audience, must be alienated in some way from the central events in order to be horrified. If we are brought in close to the event in some which diminishes the unknown, it is no longer about how we make sense of the inexplicable, and about how we make sense of the unusual.

- Anatole

[BlueTexas]

I'm in the mess with your mind crowd. If it has a bit of the supernatural, so much the better, as long as there's not a lot of gore. If there is gore, it has to be done well--really well. Like the hobbling in Misery. *shivers*

[Jonathon Michaels]

If there is gore, it has to be done well--really well. Like the hobbling in Misery. *shivers*

Very good example. Some of my favorite "gore" scenes involve not seeing the gore at all. My mind can do much more damage than any film-maker.

Horror to me isn't really a strict definition. Yes, supernatural or other-worldly aspects can add to the horror. These can be great while watching them but there has to be an element of reality for me to be really scared, which is probably my best definition. Horror scares me. Thrillers keep me on the edge of my seat, but don't necessarily have the same impact. I love both.

One of my favorite movies that combines elements of both is The Hitcher. Not a great movie by today's standards maybe, and many from that time didn't like it much either. I thought it was excellent.

It took all of those unwritten lines that you just don't cross in the movies and drew them in the sand. Then it went right up to the edge and backed off, just like a movie is supposed to do. Then it completely blew past it and drew another line and did the same.

The best is the scene with the girl tied between the semi-truck and the trailer. They very seldom killed off a main character in a movie, so when C. Thomas Howell and Rutger Hauer are in the cab you know she'll be fine. True to form, they go to the edge and appear to back off for a second. Then he drives away. In the original they don't even show her, you just know she's there and she just got ripped apart. Excellent, and good for a couple of shivers and a jaw-drop.

Also playing on elements from (or during) childhood work wonderfully. I seldom had nightmares as a child. I was the type of kid Bill Cosby talks about, running to the doorway and jumping onto the bed from across the room. (Demons can't reach you if you jump and then get under the covers.) I then proceeded to bury myself under the covers, back myself into the corner of the bed and the wall, and go to sleep as quickly as possible.

I was a young teen when the original A Nightmare on Elm Street came out. Um, yeah. Linus just lost his security blanket. I didn't sleep for days...

[BlueTexas]

Very good example. Some of my favorite "gore" scenes involve not seeing the gore at all. My mind can do much more damage than any film-maker.


I was a young teen when the original A Nightmare on Elm Street came out. Um, yeah. Linus just lost his security blanket. I didn't sleep for days...

I saw the original in my friends basement when I was 9. My mother says that's when I quit taking baths and started taking showers. To this day, I truly dislike these films and will flip the channel as soon as I see any image of it....perhaps that's why I don't like gore!

[Kevin Yarbrough]

To me horror would be anything that has a supernatural essence. Something that we know is not real and never could be. Anything that can be real, ghosts, ESP, serial killers, etc would fall into the lines of thriller or suspense. If there are demons, goblins, devils, etc. then it would be horror, at least it would be in my opinion.

Kevin

[Fractured_Chaos]

I saw the original in my friends basement when I was 9. My mother says that's when I quit taking baths and started taking showers. To this day, I truly dislike these films and will flip the channel as soon as I see any image of it....perhaps that's why I don't like gore!

I have to say, the first Nightmare movie was a very original idea, and positively terrifying!

I mean...when are you most vulnerable? When you're asleep, right? What could be more frightening than to have some psycho attack you in your dreams? And what could be more horrifying than to be the one awake, and watching your friend being attacked in her dreams, and not be able to do a damn thing about it?

It was gorey, I agree. But it was done fairly well.

Man! I forgot just how much that movie scared me when it came out! :scared:

[Torin]

I saw the original in my friends basement when I was 9. My mother says that's when I quit taking baths and started taking showers. To this day, I truly dislike these films and will flip the channel as soon as I see any image of it....perhaps that's why I don't like gore!

Good thing you didn't see Psycho at the same time. You'd have had to rely on sponge baths. :D

Torin

[MacAllister]

Heh. You want a good horror story? I'm remodeling my kitchen this week. Wiring isn't nearly so hard as it seems like it ought to be. Laying tile well and getting the grout perfect? It's much trickier than it seems like it ought to be.

(Sorry--thinking about tubs and showers reminded me that the upstairs bath gets done NEXT week...)

[jdkiggins]

Oh Mac, I feel for you. I remodled my kitchen just before Christmas. What a fiasco. After that, I decided the rest of the rooms would just get a new coat of paint. :)

[MacAllister]

Heh--maybe I should switch to nonfiction, and write a "Fix it Yourself for Single Chicks" manual...

[jdkiggins]

I'll go along with that! :)

[venom]

Hi, this is my first time visiting this site, but I must admit reading what you all had to say about 'what makes a good horror' was very useful to me. I'm a writer myself, not yet an author, but I'll hopefully get there some day. Anyway, my latest novel which is only about 1/4 way finished is mostly based upon the horror genre. What many of you people said can be found inside the manuscript, which is promising for me but now I've got a question for you all (seeing's as I think you would be the best to ask).

Please be honest telling me what you really think.

Although I won't tell my whole story (for security reasons), please tell me what you think about:

At first it seems like a supernatural horror, then becomes a thriller, before the reader discovers that the killer is dead and had been all along.
I also incorporated the 'watcher in the woods' idea for those of you who know the teenage film 'watcher in the woods.' Although my novel is very much adult.

[MacAllister]

Venom, honestly? :) An idea is only as good as the writer who handles it. You can give ten writers the same idea, and they'll write ten different stories.

You might also want to visit the Learn Writing With Uncle Jim (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6710) thread, in the novel writing forum (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)--there is a wealth of information there. Jim Macdonald is a well-respected writer, with a treasure trove of knowledge that he generously shares.

[venom]

Thanks MacAllister, the thread you referred me to was useful.

[MacAllister]

already? Wow--you're fast.

[arrowqueen]

Sounds good to me, venom. Good luck with it.

[__VeNoM__]

Cheers Queen

[Fractured_Chaos]

Welcome aboard, Venom. Always glad to see another horror writer in the midst! :D

[__VeNoM__]

Thanks drgnlvr, good to be aboard.

[jdkiggins]

welcome aboard, Venom.

[__VeNoM__]

Thanks people. Better head off, got a short story to write. Comp coming up soon so I've got some work to do.

[Blackcat248]

Greetings, I'm a person you guys have never met before, anyways Horror should chill the bones of both reader and author, of course I'm stictly speaking about books because I've never been one who could handle horror films, however it's not a horror story with just the bone chilling sensation it has to make the reader, even if for a brief moment, fear the dark and jump at little sounds, and as discussed earlier letting the reader know more than the characters, especialy in certain moments like the antagonist hiding in the closet example :) I'm trying to write a story with horror elements but I don't think it will turn out too well...

[FOTSGreg]

Alien is scifi/horror as it is, essentially, a haunted house story set in space.

Aliens is military scifi/thriller with a dash of survival horror as it is, essentially, a military unit led by a survivor trying to survive on an alien planet.

Alien3, ugh, is scifi/suspense as most of the movie's focus is on what's going to happen to Ellen Ripley and the prisoners are just bit (sometimes lots of bits) players.

Alien: Resurrection is scifi/thriller as it is, essentially, an adventure story with a clock ticking in the background as the band of merry men (and women) try to fight their way out of the station on a crash course for Earth.

Somewhere around here I've got a copy of the Wiliiam Gibson original script fir Alien3. It is immensely better than the dreck that reached the screen.

Defining horror is a matter, largely, of personal perspective. What scares me will not necessarily scare you. But most horror has elements that everyone can relate to,

1) It must create a rising sense of psychological suspense both in the character's and the reader's minds,
2) It must create a rising sense that the characters are in some sort of mortal or mental peril and this must be felt by both the characters and the readers,
3) It must create a sense of palpable fear in the characters that the readers can sense and identify with,
4) It must have characters that the readers can identify with on a psychological level and for whom they grow to care about on some level,
5) It must give the readers the sense that the characters have some way out, some way to win against their adversary and it must stretch the character's abilities in ways they never could have been at the start of the story if they are to win,
6) If the story demands that (5) above be dashed, then it must be done so in a manner that is both fitting to the story and to the characters in a manner that has been previously laid out in the story (ie if you kill everyone it better make sense),
7) Gore for gore's sake is okay so long as it advances any part of (1-6). If it doesn't advance one of these it probably isn't needed in the story.

These are my rules, not that even I always follow them, but I think they go a long way to satisfying the definition of what is a horror story.

[Feidb]

Geez,

You guys and gals are getting way to deep about this for me. Give me monster (icky bug) = horror. Give me ghost or supernatural icky bug, still = horror. If the hero dies, it sucks.

Those are all the rules I need. Even though I'm a writer, I don't necessarily need a lot of words to say it. Maybe my explanation is too simple where FotsGregs is too complicated. (I think you make some great points, by the way) Just thought I'd throw it in the mix.

[FOTSGreg]

Fred, I do tend to over-analyze things sometimes...

:)

[Feidb]

Greg,

Hah! No more than I tend to underanalyze them!

I think honestly that if the writer gets too hung up on the what ifs, they'll lose their muse and end up with a mess. They should just write the damn thing and see what they get in the end, then figure it out.

I'm always afraid someone will end up as the lady that would pick apart a sentence and make it perfect before going on to the next one. I could never write a novel like that. I'd forget what I was writing about long before I got to the end of the first paragraph.

[Pike]

Hey Horror Hounds! Long time no see. thought I'd swing to say "Hi" and that I'm still writing but at a very reduced level (ya know, with crayons on the backs of junk mail and safeway ads).

Miss these threads. Everyone here has an idea of what makes for a good horror read and but for me it's "how do I translate this idea to paper?" That's my stumbling block most of the time.

Pike

[Rhoda Nightingale]

Oooh, old thread.

It's hard to say what makes a good horror story without context. I can think of individual examples and tell you why they upset or disturbed me personally, but true horror tends to be subjective. Not everyone is scared of the same things.

I think it comes down to getting across the emotions of your characters and what they're afraid of, making your readers feel what they feel.

[Kelkelen]

Question: do you think good horror must scare the reader in their immediate surroundings? Can a horror book just psychologically 'disturb' or must it also make you jump at noises in the dark? I've been working on a YA horror story, but it seems like more of an adventure/escape story than horror, aside from the vampiric element. Or would that be fantasy? Horrific things happen to the main character, but they aren't the sort of thing that the average reader would have to worry about ever experiencing.

[FOTSGreg]

Kelkelen, in a word, No. I can honestly say that I've read book's which left me shaking, but that doesn't mean I was jumping at every little shadow or creak in the floor. A story which is psychologically disturbing can often be far more entertaining than one that makes you jump at noises in the dark.

One of the best things about horror (not to mention just about every other genre) is that the characters routinely experience things that the reader never will or could and remain alive and sane. No one's really a Jason Bourne or a James Bond or a Doctor Who or a vampire hunter or a mighty warrior champion of light. Most of us would run away in fright if confronted by a vampire, a werewolf, a zombie, or even a real gun for that matter.

That's why we read and why writers write.

[AlienGirl]

The size of the threat. Whether the character is currently scared or not, I have to believe the MC has a damn good reason to be scared. I think horror is very tricky for this reason. I think it's actually a lot easier in books than it is in movie form, though. In books the reader can imagine whatever he/she is scared of the most. But in movies monsters and paranormal creatures can end up looking plain ridiculous instead of scary and the character being terrified doesn't change anything for me at that point. Even if the acting is good, which, let's face it, it so rarely is.

I think the jump in the dark horror should be called something different than the more psychological horror. They're distinct enough to not just be called the same genre.


One of the best things about horror (not to mention just about every other genre) is that the characters routinely experience things that the reader never will or could and remain alive and sane. No one's really a Jason Bourne or a James Bond or a Doctor Who or a vampire hunter or a mighty warrior champion of light. Most of us would run away in fright if confronted by a vampire, a werewolf, a zombie, or even a real gun for that matter.

That's why we read and why writers write.

That's what makes fiction so great, it's inspiring. It makes everyday concerns look so tiny. So while I know I couldn't pull this stuff off like the main character, the main character being too hero-like destroys the appeal for me. The ultimate bad-ass fearless hero only really works in movies for me (special effects and a sense of awe, something you won't get from a book). In books the main character better be realistic or there's no point, because if I can't imagine the main character being realistic than I sure can't imagine anything else in the book being true. Realistic not in terms of ability, but in terms of his reactions. If he just goes around casually knocking off bad guys left and right it doesn't make an interesting read.