How do you really scare your reader?
- Thread starter xYinxx
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2013
- Messages
- 388
- Reaction score
- 12
Um, sir, am I in trouble? ;-; Just wondering, because I saw the pm that you sent me. All I was trying to do was get critique on my story, I don't want to write too much since I'd have to revise most of it and it'd be a big mess. I'm sorry..
Well, that's just a bit vague. Asking "how do really scare your reader" is a lot like asking "how do you use the bathroom" because everyone's got a different method evern though the basic principles are the same (some stand, some sit, some cross their legs, some hold with this hand or that one, etc., etc.).
Here's the real deal - what scares you? Use that and write it to the best of your ability and keep on writing it until you succeed.
Here's the real deal - what scares you? Use that and write it to the best of your ability and keep on writing it until you succeed.
Read some horror. Read a -lot- of horror. Watch some horror films. Do some self-analysis and find out what scares you. Do some analysis and find out what scares other people.
Write it.
Problem for me is that at my age, reading horror does not scare me like it did in my early years. That does not mean I don't enjoy a good story, I just don't get scared from reading horror, compared to watching a good horror movie...
Horror stories do not scare me, anymore than a western scare me. I don't write to scare readers, I write to give them a good, entertaining tale.
If I really wanted to scare readers witless, I'd write nonfiction about how the world really is.
If I really wanted to scare readers witless, I'd write nonfiction about how the world really is.
We all get jaded over time, Thothguard. The trick, I think, is to vary your reading tastes and to wander back every now and then to things you really enjoy instead of just staying with the same old thing.
I got tired of reading King awhile back, but then I read From A Buick 8 and Under The Dome. I loved From A Buick 8 (still do - I've read it cover-to-cover at least 8 times), but got sick of him again after UTD. I used to read Koontz a lot, loved Phantoms, Midnight, Watchers, Darkfall, Odd Thomas, The Taking, and Seize The Night. Since then I've become jaded. He's gotten sloppy and sappy.
From A Buick 8 and Mile 81 (a short story from the same universe) will have you looking at your car a bit, um, differently...
I got tired of reading King awhile back, but then I read From A Buick 8 and Under The Dome. I loved From A Buick 8 (still do - I've read it cover-to-cover at least 8 times), but got sick of him again after UTD. I used to read Koontz a lot, loved Phantoms, Midnight, Watchers, Darkfall, Odd Thomas, The Taking, and Seize The Night. Since then I've become jaded. He's gotten sloppy and sappy.
From A Buick 8 and Mile 81 (a short story from the same universe) will have you looking at your car a bit, um, differently...
I will have to get these from the library and read them, thank you for the recommendation.
Good horror, I mean REALLY good horror has a lot of tension in it. Salems Lot, I didn't sleep for a couple of years after that, of course I was a teenager at the time I read the book so we're talking nearly 36 years ago now.
Good horror, in my opinion,isn't just about blood and gore which too many lean on these days. It's a combination of tensions and uncertainties that draw the reader in and then scares the absolute crap out of them when least expected! Turns out I'm really good at this sort of thing and I don't even like horror films/stories.
I'm not familiar with horror at all but I remember reading that the art lies in letting the reader know something terrible will happen, but not letting them know exactly when it will happen. The suspense of when is what compels the reader to keep reading.
I don't know where I read that. Perhaps in Steven King's On Writing.
If I want to scare my reader, I write about something that scares me. I figure if it scares one person, it probably scares a decent amount of people.
I don't think it's a vague question, at all.
It seems to me that young writers and some not-so-young writers confuse the word "scare" with "shock." For example, walking into a room to find someone lying their with their guts strewn everywhere is shocking. It's graphic. But it's only scary when the reader and the person in the story realizes that the killer could still be in the house! That's where the scare factor comes into play.
Alas, most young writers I've read go for the jugular, thinking that people being eaten or torn apart or turned into zombies (a genre I've grown to dislike immensely) is the epitome of horror. And, for some reason, they usually throw in a very graphic sex scene, too. None of that is horror, it's just shock. To me, horror is usually rooted in the supernatural. Possession by the devil is scary because you don't know what the person is capable of, and the idea that the devil might actually be real is another notch on the scare-meter. Ghosts are scary. You can't beat a haunted house story, if it's done well. And again, I don't mean ghosts that rip people apart or eat their brains or screw the most nubile of the household. If you want to get an idea of scary, watch some good, solid horror movies. I'd recommend The Haunting (the original only), The Changeling; Curse of the Demon; Let's Scare Jessica to Death; The Innocents; and The Uninvited. Those are all classics and done beautifully.
So, your question about how do you scare your readers isn't vague to me--but you must ask yourself what you really want to do. If it's to be like the majority of young writers today, writing about the "zombie apocalypse" or some such junk like that, they you're going for shock. If you want to scare, then do the quiet scares. They're the most effective!
It seems to me that young writers and some not-so-young writers confuse the word "scare" with "shock." For example, walking into a room to find someone lying their with their guts strewn everywhere is shocking. It's graphic. But it's only scary when the reader and the person in the story realizes that the killer could still be in the house! That's where the scare factor comes into play.
Alas, most young writers I've read go for the jugular, thinking that people being eaten or torn apart or turned into zombies (a genre I've grown to dislike immensely) is the epitome of horror. And, for some reason, they usually throw in a very graphic sex scene, too. None of that is horror, it's just shock. To me, horror is usually rooted in the supernatural. Possession by the devil is scary because you don't know what the person is capable of, and the idea that the devil might actually be real is another notch on the scare-meter. Ghosts are scary. You can't beat a haunted house story, if it's done well. And again, I don't mean ghosts that rip people apart or eat their brains or screw the most nubile of the household. If you want to get an idea of scary, watch some good, solid horror movies. I'd recommend The Haunting (the original only), The Changeling; Curse of the Demon; Let's Scare Jessica to Death; The Innocents; and The Uninvited. Those are all classics and done beautifully.
So, your question about how do you scare your readers isn't vague to me--but you must ask yourself what you really want to do. If it's to be like the majority of young writers today, writing about the "zombie apocalypse" or some such junk like that, they you're going for shock. If you want to scare, then do the quiet scares. They're the most effective!
You know I've always been intrigued by this category. I love scary movies. Not sure if I've read something categorized as "horror novel." I write dark suspense and I have come across writing scenes (that I think are so scary) and wind up scaring myself. Like spookin' myself out right? Looking behind my shoulder if I'm alone, hoping when you pick your head up you won't see anything. But I don't think I would classify my own writing as "horror." My one short novel coming out next year may be considered horror though. It's super suspenseful as the MC is thrown into 24 hours of shear hell through the book. Waking up in blood in an abandoned farm house not knowing whether or not the killer is still there. I think scare factors work well in mystery/suspense. Now, graphic, blood and guts horror, I think is cheesy after a while.
There are two kinds of Horror, in my opinion:
The Un-Thinkable, something mentally horrible and the Un-seeable, something tangibly horrible.
For Prose Fiction, I believe writers do better to stick with the Un-Thinkable Horror. In Danse Macabre, Stephen King described a deleted scene from Salem's Lot. A character is sighting the main antagonist and attempts to go into the basement, but the stair had been ripped away. He falls through the air and thuds down hard against the ground. He pats around through the darkness and his hand falls on something furry. A Rat! But, it's not just one rat, or two, or four, or eight, or even sixteen. Hundreds of rats are scurrying through the darkness and they're hunger...
That was The Un-seeable. You don't want to think about that man being eaten alive by rats. With a movie, you look away for a few seconds... at least until he stops screaming. With a novel, you might put the book down.
In Black House, a town sheriff is chasing a serial killer, one that cannibalizes children. We've know him for a while, seen him admire a landscape painting. He's a good-hearted guy. He's not exactly the smartest man, but he's good at his job. He comes home and askes about his ten-year-old son. His wife says the sheriff's son is coloring in the kitchen. He goes in to say hello, but his son isn't there. The back door is open. The sheriff's mind goes straight to the serial killer. The sheriff was chasing the killer and killer stole his son out of revenge. He runs into the backyard and cries his son's name, but he can barely get the name out of his mouth. His son comes running to him. He was just swinging on his swingset.
With the Un-Thinkable, you want to look away, but you love this character. You're powerless to do anything to help them, but you can, at least, stay with them.
Sorry about this being so long. I just enjoy talking about horror.
The Un-Thinkable, something mentally horrible and the Un-seeable, something tangibly horrible.
For Prose Fiction, I believe writers do better to stick with the Un-Thinkable Horror. In Danse Macabre, Stephen King described a deleted scene from Salem's Lot. A character is sighting the main antagonist and attempts to go into the basement, but the stair had been ripped away. He falls through the air and thuds down hard against the ground. He pats around through the darkness and his hand falls on something furry. A Rat! But, it's not just one rat, or two, or four, or eight, or even sixteen. Hundreds of rats are scurrying through the darkness and they're hunger...
That was The Un-seeable. You don't want to think about that man being eaten alive by rats. With a movie, you look away for a few seconds... at least until he stops screaming. With a novel, you might put the book down.
In Black House, a town sheriff is chasing a serial killer, one that cannibalizes children. We've know him for a while, seen him admire a landscape painting. He's a good-hearted guy. He's not exactly the smartest man, but he's good at his job. He comes home and askes about his ten-year-old son. His wife says the sheriff's son is coloring in the kitchen. He goes in to say hello, but his son isn't there. The back door is open. The sheriff's mind goes straight to the serial killer. The sheriff was chasing the killer and killer stole his son out of revenge. He runs into the backyard and cries his son's name, but he can barely get the name out of his mouth. His son comes running to him. He was just swinging on his swingset.
With the Un-Thinkable, you want to look away, but you love this character. You're powerless to do anything to help them, but you can, at least, stay with them.
Sorry about this being so long. I just enjoy talking about horror.
There's another element of horror to consider: comeuppance.
It's okay in horror to rip out all the stops psychologically and physically to over-react and punish an obnoxious character for something annoying that out in real life everyone just has to put up with. Whether that's for real tragedy and crime or just over tired rudeness, that always works in horror. Something makes the victim unsympathetic.
The horrible thing happens to a domestic abuser. The story sets out with his wife leaving him and fearing for her life, then something supernatural happens to put him in the state of fear she's lived with all those years. The minimum wage worker at McDonalds who was rude and messed up your order gets eaten by zombies. Examples of both the "really deserving" and the "way mildly deserving overreaction" trope.
Both work. But it does make for an interesting approach to starting a horror story because no one's perfect. Whoever you are, someone hates you for your religion, your race, your ethnic background, your gender, your personal habits and manners. Everything about you is vile to someone and in horror the brakes are off for that kind of overreaction. Like handing that domestic abuser the keys to a demon that lets him bully anyone he wants including his lousy boss...
It's okay in horror to rip out all the stops psychologically and physically to over-react and punish an obnoxious character for something annoying that out in real life everyone just has to put up with. Whether that's for real tragedy and crime or just over tired rudeness, that always works in horror. Something makes the victim unsympathetic.
The horrible thing happens to a domestic abuser. The story sets out with his wife leaving him and fearing for her life, then something supernatural happens to put him in the state of fear she's lived with all those years. The minimum wage worker at McDonalds who was rude and messed up your order gets eaten by zombies. Examples of both the "really deserving" and the "way mildly deserving overreaction" trope.
Both work. But it does make for an interesting approach to starting a horror story because no one's perfect. Whoever you are, someone hates you for your religion, your race, your ethnic background, your gender, your personal habits and manners. Everything about you is vile to someone and in horror the brakes are off for that kind of overreaction. Like handing that domestic abuser the keys to a demon that lets him bully anyone he wants including his lousy boss...
Well, first I'd suggest reading some horror. There are a few places to read short stories online, even flash fiction horror, then there's novels and so on.
After you read a few good Horror stories you could also check out a book on how to write Horror, like one of these. Then go back and read more horror, paying attention to how it works with what you got out of the book in mind.
Then write some. Put it in SYW and see if it works. Write some more, etc.
After you read a few good Horror stories you could also check out a book on how to write Horror, like one of these. Then go back and read more horror, paying attention to how it works with what you got out of the book in mind.
Then write some. Put it in SYW and see if it works. Write some more, etc.
You won't get better at writing without actually writing. I do agree that some level of reading/study helps, but at some point you've got to start writing, revising, and then writing something else.
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2011
- Messages
- 7,212
- Reaction score
- 974
- Location
- Massachusetts, USA
- Website
- www.facebook.com
Here's another vote for reading horror and also reading about horror. Read stories, watch movies, take note of what scares you in those books, stories and movies. Think about the what and why. Then go back, with optional how-to reference texts, and figure out what the authors did that succeeded in giving you a fright, thrill, chill, whatever. The goal, imo, is to figure out what kind of effect you want to achieve and learn it by experiencing it.
I'm like Thothguard in that I'm pretty hard to scare. I've literally spent my whole reading life reading horror (among other things, of course), so I'm kinda used to it. When something comes along that actually scares me, I glom onto it with delight to figure out exactly what the creator did. I also study horror that fails to scare me, especially if it has a rep as being scary with a lot of other people. I want to see what the creator did that didn't work for me.
Which brings me to something this thread reminds me of. Yesterday I watched "The Bad and the Beautiful" for the first time. 1952 Vincent Minelli movie with Lana Turner, Kirk Douglas, just about everyone else in Hollywood, a drama about an unscrupulous movie producer. Excellent movie, not horror. But early in the MC's story, he starts out producing low-budget B horror and action movies on a studio contract (meaning he didn't get to pick his own projects). He has an epiphany when struggling with the incredibly stinky assignment of "Duel of the Cat-Men." Talking/complaining about it with his director friend, he realized that nobody was going to be scared by extras in cat costumes. So what then are people afraid of? Answer: The dark. People are afraid of what's out there in the dark. They're afraid of being unprepared, exposed, lost, etc. He realized they didn't need to show the Cat-Men. They only needed the growling in the dark, the bird found torn to death, the little girl lost in the woods, reflective eyes glowing from the shadows. By the time the dude in the cat pajamas hit the screen, the audience would already be scared enough. (Be careful of this, though. Too cheap a reveal will anger a willing audience. I'm still not over a certain giant space spider. I mean, seriously? A spider??)
So if you ask how do we scare readers, my personal view is that the set-up is all important. In horror, the set-up is at least as valuable as the reveal, probably more so. A dead body is a just a dead body. A dead body properly presented is a reality-breaking horror.
I'm like Thothguard in that I'm pretty hard to scare. I've literally spent my whole reading life reading horror (among other things, of course), so I'm kinda used to it. When something comes along that actually scares me, I glom onto it with delight to figure out exactly what the creator did. I also study horror that fails to scare me, especially if it has a rep as being scary with a lot of other people. I want to see what the creator did that didn't work for me.
Which brings me to something this thread reminds me of. Yesterday I watched "The Bad and the Beautiful" for the first time. 1952 Vincent Minelli movie with Lana Turner, Kirk Douglas, just about everyone else in Hollywood, a drama about an unscrupulous movie producer. Excellent movie, not horror. But early in the MC's story, he starts out producing low-budget B horror and action movies on a studio contract (meaning he didn't get to pick his own projects). He has an epiphany when struggling with the incredibly stinky assignment of "Duel of the Cat-Men." Talking/complaining about it with his director friend, he realized that nobody was going to be scared by extras in cat costumes. So what then are people afraid of? Answer: The dark. People are afraid of what's out there in the dark. They're afraid of being unprepared, exposed, lost, etc. He realized they didn't need to show the Cat-Men. They only needed the growling in the dark, the bird found torn to death, the little girl lost in the woods, reflective eyes glowing from the shadows. By the time the dude in the cat pajamas hit the screen, the audience would already be scared enough. (Be careful of this, though. Too cheap a reveal will anger a willing audience. I'm still not over a certain giant space spider. I mean, seriously? A spider??)
So if you ask how do we scare readers, my personal view is that the set-up is all important. In horror, the set-up is at least as valuable as the reveal, probably more so. A dead body is a just a dead body. A dead body properly presented is a reality-breaking horror.
Last edited:
Oh definitely, the set-up is everything. The reveal is the last twist but it's like the punch line of a joke, it sits on the set up and is meaningless without it.
On not scaring easy, there are times I don't either. A lot of scary things don't scare me, or gross things gross me out for that matter. I was the kid that looked at the bloated half rotted dead dog losing its hair to see the interesting color changes on its balding skin and its anatomy, figure out what kind of dog it was, remember what it smelled like if I needed a dead dog in a story.
So I base it on what I would tell other kids at a Halloween party that'd scare them, if I get a horror idea and I'm not the one scared. It works. I don't have to scare myself in order to make the story work, I just need to know what scares some people if it's not one of my fears. THat and remember what it felt like to face the things I was really scared of. It wasn't the dead St. Bernard.
That one couldn't hurt me. The live one that chased me and once got me by the head and shook me because it was trying to pull my jacket off to steal it for a toy, that was the one that scared me. Running, the dog inexorably catching me anyway because I limped and couldn't outrun it the way other kids did. That was a thing that scared me.
The severed hand of the guy in the movie that went around being the Five Finger Beast strangling people did not scare me. IT was too much like Thing in the Addams Family and it was funny, and it also just did not have the weight and leverage to do a good job of strangling. Seriously, you'd have to be asleep for something no bigger than a squirrel to strangle you even if it's got fingers.
But it was scary and my sister could not bear to look at that scene in the movie. She liked the movie but she'd shut her eyes when it was on screen scuttling around.
Fears are personal, different for everyone, but it's a rare person who doesn't feel fear at all. Those people have a hard time in life living with a medical condition that leads to poor judgment of everything from hot stoves to driving on ice. They have to think things through to compensate. Most people want the thrill and the book to be so mesmerizing they can't put it down.
It's a roller coaster and it's designing the roller coaster. It works just as well to sit there wickedly designing it for someone else as long as you know what makes that scary thing work for them.
On not scaring easy, there are times I don't either. A lot of scary things don't scare me, or gross things gross me out for that matter. I was the kid that looked at the bloated half rotted dead dog losing its hair to see the interesting color changes on its balding skin and its anatomy, figure out what kind of dog it was, remember what it smelled like if I needed a dead dog in a story.
So I base it on what I would tell other kids at a Halloween party that'd scare them, if I get a horror idea and I'm not the one scared. It works. I don't have to scare myself in order to make the story work, I just need to know what scares some people if it's not one of my fears. THat and remember what it felt like to face the things I was really scared of. It wasn't the dead St. Bernard.
That one couldn't hurt me. The live one that chased me and once got me by the head and shook me because it was trying to pull my jacket off to steal it for a toy, that was the one that scared me. Running, the dog inexorably catching me anyway because I limped and couldn't outrun it the way other kids did. That was a thing that scared me.
The severed hand of the guy in the movie that went around being the Five Finger Beast strangling people did not scare me. IT was too much like Thing in the Addams Family and it was funny, and it also just did not have the weight and leverage to do a good job of strangling. Seriously, you'd have to be asleep for something no bigger than a squirrel to strangle you even if it's got fingers.
But it was scary and my sister could not bear to look at that scene in the movie. She liked the movie but she'd shut her eyes when it was on screen scuttling around.
Fears are personal, different for everyone, but it's a rare person who doesn't feel fear at all. Those people have a hard time in life living with a medical condition that leads to poor judgment of everything from hot stoves to driving on ice. They have to think things through to compensate. Most people want the thrill and the book to be so mesmerizing they can't put it down.
It's a roller coaster and it's designing the roller coaster. It works just as well to sit there wickedly designing it for someone else as long as you know what makes that scary thing work for them.
For me it's more than just the 'scary' actions. It's as much about the build-up. the atmosphere and the mood of the story get me to a place where is the author can make me uncomfortable that will often translate to scary in my book.
I try to do this when I write. Someone said there is a difference between 'shock' and 'scare.' I think we could all easily write a shocking scene in about 20 minutes. To really get a scare, there needs to be a build-up so that when you get to the point of delivering the scary part, the reader is already in an uneasy uncomfortable position the scare is easy at that point.
I try to do this when I write. Someone said there is a difference between 'shock' and 'scare.' I think we could all easily write a shocking scene in about 20 minutes. To really get a scare, there needs to be a build-up so that when you get to the point of delivering the scary part, the reader is already in an uneasy uncomfortable position the scare is easy at that point.
As far as I can tell, there are two basic techniques horror authors tend to use:
1. The reader doesn't expect it, or has been expecting something else: it frightens them because it seems to come out of left-field. (This method sometimes has a habit of being funny rather than scary; but when done properly it works very well)
2. The reader has been expecting it the entire time: When done properly it builds suspense, since the reader knows what is going to happen; but not when. The man has a axe in his hand and so you know he's going to use it, but that doesn't necessarily mean the fact that he has had an axe for the past 20 pages can't be terrifying.
Either way, it's all about the build-up. Either make them expect it, or make them not expect it at all. Both methods can send a shiver down the reader's spine.
1. The reader doesn't expect it, or has been expecting something else: it frightens them because it seems to come out of left-field. (This method sometimes has a habit of being funny rather than scary; but when done properly it works very well)
2. The reader has been expecting it the entire time: When done properly it builds suspense, since the reader knows what is going to happen; but not when. The man has a axe in his hand and so you know he's going to use it, but that doesn't necessarily mean the fact that he has had an axe for the past 20 pages can't be terrifying.
Either way, it's all about the build-up. Either make them expect it, or make them not expect it at all. Both methods can send a shiver down the reader's spine.
Last edited:
- Status