why isn't horror respectable
Chris Ringler
this question plagues me and i wonder if anyone has any thoughts on it.
sure there is a lot of sleaze in horror, a lot of bad, but look at
comedies, or actioneers. at least horror has heart, and loyal fans. and
it just seems funny that it is always the scape goat, and there is
rarely a good word said of the genre. hmmm.
Chris
nickle
Horror suffers from it's own explotation. There's just been too many bad
movies where a bunch of teenagers get together to be ripped apart by some
meanie or other. But horror is in fact a very good genre in that it has no
bounds, and where the effort is made to do an itelligent horror movie, it's
well worth the effort.
Movies like The Haunting, Rosemary's Baby and The Changling, The Exorcist,
even the first Friday The Thirteeth and things like Fright Night, some high
class, some just good scary fun, are increasingly rare. Junk, like the kind
Full Moon pours out on video, poorly produced, poorly written, violent just
for the sake of violence, hurt horror in that explotation eventually takes
it toll. Non-horror audiences see this kind of thing and think it
respesents horror as a whole, and they are turned off. The public gets sick
of being ripped off. The same is true with books. There's too many boring
books being written by super star writers, like King and Koonts, and the
audience is being driven away.
What happened to respectablility? It was sold... sold out to explotation.
Criswell
Fripp
Chris Ringler wrote:
>
> this question plagues me and i wonder if anyone has any thoughts on it.
> sure there is a lot of sleaze in horror, a lot of bad, but look at
> comedies, or actioneers. at least horror has heart, and loyal fans. and
> it just seems funny that it is always the scape goat, and there is
> rarely a good word said of the genre. hmmm.
>
> Chris
Stick around here, you'll hear plenty of good words about it.
For my words on Horror, check out my site below.
--
Cat's foot, Iron claw...neurosurgeons scream for more...at paranoia's
poison door...
Last Page on the Left at http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Lot/5160
-------------==== Posted via Sexzilla News ====------------------
http://www.sexzilla.com Search, Read, Post to Usenet
-------------==== With A Whole Lot More ====------------------
A sicboy
jes...@tir.com (Chris Ringler) spake thusly:
> this question plagues me and i wonder if anyone has any thoughts on it.
sure
> there is a lot of sleaze in horror, a lot of bad, but look at comedies,
or
> actioneers. at least horror has heart, and loyal fans. and it just
seems funny
> that it is always the scape goat, and there is rarely a good word said
of the > genre. hmmm.
Horror's concerned w/ elicititing an emotional response rather than an
intellectual one. Critics hate that.
Horror is always about death, & doom, & unpleasant things generally. Shiny
happy people hate that.
Horror is vulgar. A lot of it is ugly, a lot of it is silly, a lot of it
is stupid. Intellectuals hate that.
Horror is like pornography. It's about everything you can't or won't admit
to. It's all that sludge at the back of brain & all the questions you
can't answer. None of which is particularly respectable.
I think this is a good point to mention that i -like- horror. I just don't
think it can ever be respectable. & as annoying as that can be (& it has
annoyed me quite often) i don't think it can be otherwise.
There are horror films, books &c, that are considered 'Art', & there will
always be, but more in spite of being horror than because of it. I don't
believe horror as a genre will ever be accepted, nor do i think it needs
to be. It's never going to go away.
_______________________________________________________________
Never bet the Devil yr head. Pointless & dull? Quite.
(http://members.aol.com/Asicboy/home.html)
_______________________________________________________________
Jonathan Broadfield
nickle (g6l...@msn.com) wrote:
: Horror suffers from it's own explotation. [ ... ]
: [ ... ] The same is true with books. There's too many boring
: books being written by super star writers, like King and Koonts, and the
: audience is being driven away.
: What happened to respectablility? It was sold... sold out to explotation.
horror, in the entertainment industry seems to no longer be an
exploration of the self and the world but rather a buzzword, a gimmick to
sell schlock.
and you left out the fact that writers like Stine, King et al., are doing
the most damage to the genre by giving the children who read their books
what i think is an improper mindset for approaching horror. by watering
it down, cushioning, even by drawing it out over several hundred pages
(or several night for your viewing pleasure/sweeps), it becomes something
of a mockery (especially stine where all is pleasant and good again by
the end, except for protagonist's terrible new secret).
the belief is that if you scare the child you will scar him/er. this
belief is then backed by the lawyers who are looking for an angle to sue
the multimillion dollar industry lawyers for damaging their clients' kids
... but (ahem*) i digress.
little has been put out lately that aggressively thrusts the reader or
viewer into the mind and horror of the hero. little is put out that
brutally portrays the horrible aspects that the mind can concieve. not
just gore. i mean looking into what -really- scares us. the movies now
cover those moments up with the Witty One-Liner(tm).
i don't know what it would take, but i hope it's not too far away.
-jb
Daniel J. Harvey
Good points. Only three movies - "Lost Highway", "Seven" and "Jacob's
Ladder" have given me that sublime, anxious feeling that was casaually
evoked time and time again in the seventies. Very few books. I
definitely feel it has as much to do with the current quality of product
as the fact that I've aged, learned, grown. There is a growing
mediocrity in *all* genres and all media spurred by bottom-lining
corporate clones who could care less if they're selling toilet paper or
art as long they're selling a whole lot of it. Fortunately a few
artists fight it - Lynch, Kubrick. Not so many big name horror
novelists that I can see. There are some fine, terrifying, disturbing
books availbable too but the bookstores have nowhere to fit them between
fifty copies of every book by Koontz, King and Rice. I don't think any
of them are bad writers but they should chill out their egos awhile and
give back to the genre that made them great - make a real effort to
promote younger authors of their choosing. King used to do this
willy-nilly, slapping his name on peoples' work to sell it, and that's
not quite the approach I'm talking about it. You have to be more
selective, more discriminating. The editors and agents don't seem to
want to take risks - can't really blame them - so I feel big-name,
multi-millionaire authors could do much more in the name of pushing
their medium forward.
But that's all just opinion<g>....
D. Jonathan Harvey
To back up my claims, here's a few horror books by less well known
authors I found to be excellent:
THE NIHILESTHETE by Richard Kalich (artsy and disturbing)
WALKING WOUNDED by Robert Devereaux (emotional and erotic)
THE NINTH CONFIGURATION by William Peter Blatty (not a less known
author, really, but *too* well known for THE EXORCIST. I suggest
re-reading LEGION, too, for some very disturbing concepts about the
human mind. And there's a movie of 9th CONFIG on tape - not so
horrifying but brilliantly funny and surreal)
MASTER OF LIES by Graham Masterson (author of THE MANITOU among other
things; the opening to this one sickened and depressed me - but I *like*
that<g>)
Anything by Poppy Z. Brite. She is becoming a big name in horror as we
speak but most bookstores only have a copy or two of her novels. I find
her work not so much frightening as moody and beautiful. She can make a
disembowelling as hot as morning sex.
I can only recommend what I've read - there are many, many other worthy
works out there that don't get huge publicity campaigns. It begins with
us - the fans - to start developing new blood. When the publishers and
editors study their little demographic and profit/loss charts and find
new names popping up then they'll throw money at the new thing. It's
the only way to get their attention<g>...not that they ain't good
people.
Chris
Ted McCoy <mc...@math.ohio-state.edu> wrote in article
<5lhu5m$pp0$1...@mathserv.mps.ohio-state.edu>...
> In article <01bc61b9$a610e3a0$1afe2299@default>,
> nickle <g6l...@msn.com> wrote:
> >Non-horror audiences see this kind of thing and think it
> >respesents horror as a whole, and they are turned off. The public gets
sick
> >of being ripped off. The same is true with books. There's too many
boring
> >books being written by super star writers, like King and Koonts, and the
> >audience is being driven away.
>
> That's not true -- or else those "super star writers" would no longer be
best
> sellers. But written horror and movie horror have always appealed to
somewhat
> different audiences, so let's not make too much of this parallel.
I'm sorry, I MUST add my 2 cents here. I have to agree with the
statement:
"The same is true with books. There's too many boring books being written
by super star writers, like King and Koonts, and the audience is being
driven away. "
Stephen King could write a cookbook and it would become an INSTANT
bestseller. It's the name that sells the product!
--
Chris
weav...@iconn.net
Visit my website
http://www.iconn.net/weavewld
Vincent Pereira
Cfisher wrote:
> It isn't intellectual. Horror can be thoughtful but at base
> horror is about fellings- the feeling of being scared. This kind of
> emotional response is not popular among the types that annoint films
> respectable, they want films (and you've heard this alot) that "make you
> think". I do too but I'm also willing to let loose and just feel. This
> pairs with the fact that, simply, many folks don't want to be scared.
If many folks didn't want to be scared, then horror wouldn't continue to
be one of the most enduring literary genres. I think you're right in
saying why CRITICS don't like horror, but as far as I'm concerned, fuck
'em. CINEMA is supposed to be about feeling, and evoking a response
through filmic means, and if critics can't appreciate that, then that's
their loss. There's a great little book called THE CRITIS WERE WRONG
which shows just how retarded movie critics can be- it's filled with
excerpts from negative reviews for such films as THE GODFATHER II,
LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, 2001... etc, etc. And a lot of these guys aren't
nobodies- they are well known, respected critics.
Horror is one of the few truly cinematic genres out there- whether a
horror film works or fails is almost entirely dependant on the sound,
the shot composition, the editing, the lighting... if critics REALLY
looked hard at all of the great horror films (and there is no fewer a
percantage of truly great horror films then there are great films in any
other genre), then they would see the true artistry of it all. And lest
we forget who's opinion really matter when it comes to film- filmmakers
themselves, and many of the greats (Martin Scorcese and Quentin
Tarantino among them) name horror films as being among there favorites,
as well as major influences. I really got a rush listening to the
commentary track on the TAXI DRIVER laserdisc and hearing martin
Scorcese saying, "I love horror movies a great deal..." and talking
about the influence of Mario Bava's films in his career. These are the
people who, ultimately, matter, not some stuffy old dork who seems to
know what is wrong with every film ever released, but probably couldn't
direct a half-way decent film himself if his life depended on it.
The horror genre in all its facets has not only served to frighten, but
has INSPIRED generation after generation of artists, writers, and
filmmakers, and will continue to do so. And that, my friend, is why
horror will continue to endure.
O=======================================O
O VINCENT PEREIRA O
O vper...@monmouth.com O
O Vinkie...@hotmail.com O
O http://www.viewaskew.com/vincent.html O
O O
O Official motivator/technical guru O
O VIEW ASKEW Productions O
O O
O writer/director/editor O
O A BETTER PLACE O
O O
O Co-Producer O
O BIG HELIUM DOG O
O (production start 10/97) O
O O
O=======================================O
R.G.
I couldn't agree with you more, Vincent. The stuffy proclamations of
bonehead experts who reject the horror genre--whether in film or
literature--with a sniff and a wave are endless, but empty. They
continue to be proven wrong year after year, decade after decade.
The best horror gives us believable and interesting characters who are
thrown into frightening circumstances...and then proceeds to scare the
pants off us. Truly *great* horror does that...and also manages to use
horror to comment on the human condition--or sometimes, more
specifically, political trends, social trends, etc.--in ways that no
other genre can manage. When it's done correctly, horror can illustrate
points that make a lasting impression on the viewer or reader.
Horror will never go away. It's been through some down times (most
recently, in fact), but it always comes back. Because human beings, as
strong and perservering as they may be, are always afraid...of
*something*. And horror helps us deal with those fears.
Ray Garton
Neil Zawacki
On 16 May 1997, Chris Ringler wrote:
> this question plagues me and i wonder if anyone has any thoughts on it.
> sure there is a lot of sleaze in horror, a lot of bad, but look at
> comedies, or actioneers. at least horror has heart, and loyal fans. and
> it just seems funny that it is always the scape goat, and there is
> rarely a good word said of the genre. hmmm.
>
> Chris
This is a problem I have found with schools today and it bugs the hell out
of me. I'm in college right now and last year I was in a creative writing
class with a definite #$%@! for a teacher. In essence, he did not
consider horror to be a valid genre at all, and when people wanted to
write horror stories for the class he told them they couldn't unless they
wanted to get bad grades. He said it was way too overdone and blasted the
genre on several occasions. He also didn't consider science fiction
or fantasy to be valid genres either, by the way. People had to write
straight fiction, and *his* way. Basically, the guy was a dark blotch
on the sea of humanity who needed 'cleaning', and if I ever get into
teaching, I'm going to make sure I at least have an open mind about
things.
-- Neil Z.
terry w. luster
In article <5lhas8$gqf$2...@ratatosk.uio.no>, Vegard <veg...@kjemi.uio.no> wrote:
>Horror is by *defintition* not respectable. If it was respectable, it
>would lose its attraction. Surely, what horror is all about' is the
>unknown dark side of ourselves, humanity, the universe -- the taboos?
>
>
>V.
Tell it like it is! I agree that horror is generally not intended
to be universally respectable. Many of us *want* to be shocked,scared,
offended,aroused,and above all....entertained! Different films for
different expectations.
T.Luster
Mrblack794
Horror isnt necessarily "not respectable." Its true that horror reveals
the true face of enigmatic human evil, but that doesnt mean that it isnt
respectable.
It IS respectable, but it ISNT respected.
DepttyBob
Here again with another overintellectualized response is our commentator,
Deppity Bob. Bob?
Thanks, Bob. I had recently responded to someone about horror (an ongoing
e-mail conversation), and I thought it would be fair and appropriate to
put my comments here...
Horror, I guess, is maligned because it's visceral and supposedly not
cerebral at all. The popular understanding of horror is the girl going
into the house and not turning the lights on: "Bobby? Bobby, is that you?
This isn't funny, Bobby! >GAAK<" But that isn't good horror, it's just
cheap shlock. One of the great horror moments is in, of all things,
Godzilla, after the beastie has gone back beneath the waves in the dark
and you see that flash of light...just enough to make you ask, "What the
HELL was that?"
Roger Ebert said something recently on his show about long, static shots
requiring an involvement by the audience; but that films are mostly geared
to quick edits and jumps in continuity now, giving the audience little
time to reflect on what they've just seen, limiting them to brainlessly
following where the movie tells them to go. Remember those long, quiet
moments in 2001, and how they asked you to really consider what was
happening on the ship and in the universe entire? Well, good horror does
the same thing. Some of the moments in The Shining (movie), The Haunting,
The Thing (original), Alien, and even Jaws are like that: quiet,
reflective moments that give us, the audience, time to absorb the impact
of what we have seen, chew on it a little, try to sort it out in our
heads--just the same as the characters on-screen do. Failing to give us
that time, I think, is what makes for "shockers" rather than "chillers."
(I can't help but think of that marvelous, marvelous scene in Alien when
it is just it and Ripley alone in the shuttle, and she is singing softly
to herself while the thing slowly unfolds itself from its hiding spot. I
don't think I have seen a more horrifying moment in film, because it gives
you a moment's breath for you to realize the intelligence of the creature,
the will of such a killer, and the fact that in all likelyhood Ripley is
totally screwed. If your heart didn't plummet into your gut during that
scene, see a doctor and get your pulse checked.)
Horror is misunderstood in that way--that because it goes for the
visceral, it is not cerebral in any way. Nonsense. In the sequel,
"Aliens," was the dissolve of Ripley's face onto the Earth just
coincidence? Not at all--Ripley *is* Earth Mother. Even in "action" films
like this, you can see James Cameron telling us his deep thoughts about
motherhood and womanhood and their responsibilities and fears. And if you
wish, you can look at Psycho differently: not as the story of a crazy man
who wears a dress, but as a portent of an uncertain generation at war with
itself, of looming and inevitable self-destruction engendered by
irresponsibility and repressed rage over the actions of the previous
generation. (At least, that'll get you a B+ on your final thesis in Modern
Film Studies 201.)
Horror needs to be studied in accordance with its generation, because
every new generation gets its own horror to reflect its own fears. Once it
was the monsters of myth (vampires, ghouls, werewolves); it became the
unknown nuclear threat (Godzilla, Them!, etc); now that we KNOW they do
not exist, horror reflects modern terrors such as genetic manipulation
(The Fly) and mind control (Videodrome).
And, of course, REALLY big snakes. : )
Dep
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Until next week, scratch glass...turn blue...but most importantly of
all... DON'T! GET! CAUGHT!!"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jeremy R.
On Fri, 16 May 1997, Neil Zawacki wrote:
> This is a problem I have found with schools today and it bugs the hell out
> of me. I'm in college right now and last year I was in a creative writing
> class with a definite #$%@! for a teacher. In essence, he did not
> consider horror to be a valid genre at all, and when people wanted to
> write horror stories for the class he told them they couldn't unless they
> wanted to get bad grades. He said it was way too overdone and blasted the
> genre on several occasions. He also didn't consider science fiction
> or fantasy to be valid genres either, by the way. People had to write
> straight fiction, and *his* way. Basically, the guy was a dark blotch
> on the sea of humanity who needed 'cleaning', and if I ever get into
> teaching, I'm going to make sure I at least have an open mind about
> things.
Well, Neil, at least your teacher distinguishes the genres of horror,
sci-fi, and fantasy as seperate entities. See, I have a writing prof who
shares the attitude of yours, but *he* lumped those three genres under the
label of---get this---science fiction! It's as if he couldn't take the
small amount of time to acknowledge that even though the three
classifications often cross, they are in fact their own areas.
I'm not against writing what you call "straight" fiction. In fact, by
doing so, I've found it *helps* my horror fiction by giving me practice on
composing realistic situations, which in turn only inhances the effect of
the horror IMO.
Oh well. I say don't whore your writing for a grade. Write the story---not
just horror, but *any* story---and don't dwell on the percent you get.
Later!
Jeremy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grampa:"I'm an old man. Nobody listens to me!"
Lisa:"I'm a little girl. Nobody listens to me!"
Homer:"I'm a white male, age 18-49. *Everybody* listens to me, no matter
how stupid my ideas are!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian John Wright
Horror - well, *good* horror, at any rate - is respectable
to *me*. That's plenty enough for me; the academicians can choke
on their Jane Austen (who gives me the bloody hives). (getting
my English degree in a year...I know this is gonna come back to
haunt me)
-Brian
plonkey
Perhaps because "most" people don't consider it entertaining. Forcing
people to deal with fear and death is not likely to make people happy,
and when you're dealing with entertainment, it would seem that people
want to escape their problems and see something refreshing and
life-affirming. These aren't my views personally, but projections,
rather.
I have always loved horror movies, or stories, ones that make me stop and
think and wonder. I find it fascinating and engrossing. To a certain
degree, elements of horror ARE respectable. Look at writers like Robin
Cook who wrote Coma--that's certainly horrific. Other mainstream writers
such as Crichton (sp?) use elements of horror in their work. But when you
get down to murder and dismemberment, some people just find it stomach
turning and would rather think happy sunny thoughts. A friend of mine is
a horror writer and journalist. He's always asking me the same question,
why isn't horror more respected? And he has a hard time deciding which
vein to follow. I say find out what you do best, and what you're most
comfortable with and which gives you the most joy. Cliche ending?
ANYthing is as respectable as you consider it.
Good luck completing your degree.
plonkey
(PS: Horror? have you tried reading "Jude The Obscure?")
Erma Arthur
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_01BC68E1.C0328D40
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I think horror is becoming more "mainstream". When you look on the
bestseller lists, you are going to find, King, Koontz, Saul, etc. I think
horror is like every other genre. You have excellent books, good books,
fair books, and dreadful books. I'm not so sure that what is "horror"
today, might not be classic in 100 years. There is much more to the horror
genre that gratuitous violence, although that is found is the poorer works.
It is often a struggle for survival against all odds and, to me at least,
that makes good reading.
Erma Arthur
Brian John Wright <bjwr...@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca> wrote in article
<5m6rbu$t...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>...
> Horror - well, *good* horror, at any rate - is respectable
> to *me*. That's plenty enough for me; the academicians can choke
> on their Jane Austen (who gives me the bloody hives). (getting
> my English degree in a year...I know this is gonna come back to
> haunt me)
> -Brian
>
>
------=_NextPart_000_01BC68E1.C0328D40
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html><head></head><BODY bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><p><font size=3D3 =
color=3D"#000000" face=3D"Times New Roman"><b>I think horror is becoming =
more "mainstream". When you look on the bestseller =
lists, you are going to find, King, Koontz, Saul, etc. I think =
horror is like every other genre. You have excellent books, good =
books, fair books, and dreadful books. I'm not so sure that what =
is "horror" today, might not be classic in 100 years. =
There is much more to the horror genre that gratuitous violence, =
although that is found is the poorer works. It is often a struggle =
for survival against all odds and, to me at least, that makes good =
reading.<br>Erma Arthur<br><br><br><br>Brian John Wright <<font =
color=3D"#0000FF"><u>bjwr...@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca</u><font =
color=3D"#000000">> wrote in article <<font =
color=3D"#0000FF"><u>5m6rbu$t...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca</u><font =
color=3D"#000000">>...<br>> 	Horror - well, *good* horror, at =
any rate - is respectable<br>> to *me*. That's plenty enough =
for me; the academicians can choke<br>> on their Jane Austen (who =
gives me the bloody hives). (getting<br>> my English degree in a =
year...I know this is gonna come back to <br>> haunt me)<br>> =
	-Brian<br>> <br>> </p>
</font></font></font></font></font></body></html>
------=_NextPart_000_01BC68E1.C0328D40--
Fiona Webster
the mystery machine wrote:
>I think the saddest thing about the horror fiction
>market right now is that White Wolf/Borealis is putting
>out the best novels, and they're all reprinted from
>years ago. Even the new authors from England they're
>pushing (three cheers for Simon Maginn! Hip hip hooray!)
>have had these same novels in print for a number of
>years.
I agree that Simon Maginn is a great writer, but not that
White Wolf is the only publisher putting out great horror
novels. What about the terrific recent novels by Ramsey
Campbell, Patrick McGrath, and Jack Cady -- just to name a
few?
--Fiona
P.S. For my horror book reviews, see
http://www.oceanstar.com/horror
Dr.Killgood
On 25 May 1997 12:03:08 GMT, "Erma Arthur" <ermaa...@msn.com> wrote:
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
>------=_NextPart_000_01BC68E1.C0328D40
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>I think horror is becoming more "mainstream". When you look on the
>bestseller lists, you are going to find, King, Koontz, Saul, etc. I think
>horror is like every other genre. You have excellent books, good books,
>fair books, and dreadful books. I'm not so sure that what is "horror"
>today, might not be classic in 100 years. There is much more to the horror
>genre that gratuitous violence, although that is found is the poorer works.
> It is often a struggle for survival against all odds and, to me at least,
>that makes good reading.
>Erma Arthur
>
Not to mention all the movies! And watching teen lovers getting hacked
to pieces or supernatural forces that do cool stuff.(like bring
antique cars to life and suck little girls inside TV's) And what
about resurrecting you favorite dead pet..hmmm?Or even old victorial
houses the yell,"GET OUT!.....GET OUT!" at you. Yep, horror is pretty
cool. :-)
Martin Nike
terry w. luster (ts...@midway.uchicago.edu) wrote:
: >would lose its attraction. Surely, what horror is all about' is the
: >unknown dark side of ourselves, humanity, the universe -- the taboos?
: >
: >
: >V.
: Tell it like it is! I agree that horror is generally not intended
: to be universally respectable. Many of us *want* to be shocked,scared,
: offended,aroused,and above all....entertained! Different films for
: different expectations.
: T.Luster
:
Horror is respectable: shakespeare, Golding, Ballard and most
other authors use it. They're respectable. Stephen King is
even respectable, in a slippers and bored sort of way.
It seems, in the UK at least, that a small minority are never
happy unless they're complaining and trying to ban something.
--
Martin Nike
Correct Systems Research Group,
Dept. Of Computer Science, University Of Sheffield, England
"I drove my tractor through your haystack last night" -- Wurzels
Mark Gibson
I haven't been around to read the previous articles in this thread so
forgive me if I go over old ground. I am just offering my own speculations
in response to the question posed by the subject line in the header.
Horror isn't respectable because it has been defined for historic reasons
as a non-respectable genre. Horror fiction in the modern sense largely
arose out of Gothic fiction, an aspect of the romantic revival of the 18th
and 19th century. Gothic fiction had plenty of critics right from the
start and it did get a reputation for attracting second rate aithors, many
of them hacks, who turned out novels that just permutated on the same
themes again and again.
Horror fiction in the modern sense could be said to have had its start
from Bram Stoker's "Dracula", a novel heavily influenced by the Gothic
tradition but which added a dimension of intentional "spookiness" or
"creepiness" which marked the beginning of a new genre. However original
the book may have been it never achieved a good reputation. This was
partly because Stoker himself had a poor reputation and was widely
regarded as a second-rate hack writer and something of an oddball to boot.
Secondly the idea of a novel written intentionally to shock was considered
bad taste by the literary critics of the day, who valued moderation and
control rather than emotional excess.
Horror actually had a wave of semu-respectability at the end of the
19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. Writers like Ambrose
Bierce, Algernon Blackwood and Arthur Machen were seen as at least
respectable authors, even if not the pinnacle of literary prestige. Bierce
in particular has always had his admirers among 'serious' critics. H.G.
Wells, one of the most prodigiously inventive and original authors of all
time had an almost unparalelled series of successful novels beginning in
1895 with "The Time Machine" and including "The Island of Dr. Moreau",
"The War of the Worlds" and "The Invisible Man"--all of which certainly
have a dimension of horror about them. While not all critics like Wells,
very few would deny his status as a major writer.
Horror fell back out of respectability in the post-World War I era. The
growing influence of high literary modernism (T.S. Eliot, James Joyce,
Ezra Pound, etc. ) marked a rejection of fantasy in favour of an attempt
to capture experience and feeling through the use of imagery derived from
everyday life (though often rearranged in complex and demanding ways). In
this climate horror became the province of "pulp" magazines, of which
"Weird Tales" is probably today the best remembered. In their efforts to
attract the popular readers they sought (mainly teenaged boys) the pulps'
editors encouraged a lurid, over-the-top and often deliberately crass
style which revolted the 'serious' critics when they took notice of the
pulps at all.
H.P. Lovecraft was in a way the most characteristic of the pulp-era
writers, although he was more talented than most. While his personal
tastes ran more towards the romantic-Gothic fantasy of the 19th
century (Lord Dunsany, Poe, etc. ) and to the 'neo-classical' style of the
18th century he was willing to adopt the wildly overdone purple prose the
pulps expected of their authors. That this was not Lovecraft's natural
style can be seen by his letters, which are free from the wild excesses of
most of his published stories. Nevertheless it was the style of the pulps
and it was practiced with even less sophistication by other pulp authors
like August Derleth, Hazel Heald, Clark Ashton Smith, etc. and has its
imitators even today.
Horror fiction never really recovered from the bad reputation it
aquired in the pulp era. The simple fact was that litaeray fashion changed
and left horror behind.
Perhaps with the growing influence of 'postmodern' literary theories,
with their renewed interest in fantasy, the grotesque and the supernatural
we may see horror fiction attracting the efforts of more sophisticated
and talented writers, able to engage the attention of the 'serious'
critics in the way no modern horror writer has. Only time will tell.
MSG
stt
> Horror fiction never really recovered from the bad reputation it
> aquired in the pulp era. The simple fact was that litaeray fashion changed
> and left horror behind.
I think the change in cinema horror is important to note as well. The
horror film has gone through an interesting and significant evolution -
art house status in 1920's German Experssionism, the commercially-
oriented but still effective Universal chillers, drive-in teen fare,
slasher films, gore fests. With each passing decade, the horror film
has been (IMHO) effectively "dumbed down" to reach a wider, less
driscriminating audience. Horror films will only gain respectability
once again when film studios believe that there is a market for
intelligent, well-written horror films that can be appreciated by an
adult audience.
Given the current demographics in the movie industry, I do not see this
happening anytime soon.
GoJoeMoe
stho...@tdi.com wrote:
>With each passing decade, the horror film
has been (IMHO) effectively "dumbed down" to reach a wider, less
driscriminating audience. Horror films will only gain respectability
once again when film studios believe that there is a market for
intelligent, well-written horror films that can be appreciated by an
adult audience.<
Interesting...
Here's a question:
How can one explain why horror films are so weak today, when they are
presumably being created by directors who were born and raised (and
admittedly love) the classics. I mean, the current "genre specialists" are
of a generation that were fed on original Famous Monsters of Filmland, and
Universal, Hammer, etc. Why do they seem to foresake the elements that
originally inspired them the most, and opt for cheap sensationalism. Is it
simply big business? Hmmmmm.....
Cheryl
Yes that's exactly what it is. Money. People sell what people will buy.
It's our job as an audience to let them know what we will pay for and
what we won't. As long as there are 13 year olds with pockets full of
money who want to see poodles explode in microwavs (nothing against "The
Willies" one of my fav flicks) that's what they are gonna give us. It's
not a game of them producing what they love (a few exceptions here) but
a game of money production. Really you can't blame them...thats how they
live..selling...can't sell many ice cubes to eskimos, and even producers
gotta eat.
--
NIGHTMAREZ CAFE BBS (916) 722-3586
AND WEBSITE http://www.nightmarez.com
PRESENT:
A HALLOWEEN EXTRAVAGANZA
"CARNIVAL OF HORRORS"
California State Fairgrounds
Sacramento California
October 25th and 26th 1997
Gates open 11 am!
**********
MEET LIVE AND IN PERSON!
KANE HODDER *"JASON"*
FRIDAY THE 13TH
____________________________________
CAREL STRUYCKEN *"LURCH"*
THE ADDAMS FAMILY AND ADDAMS FAMILY VALUES
___________________________________
DICK WARLOCK *"MICHAEL MYERS*"
STAR OF "HALLOWEEN 2"
____________________________________
GUNNAR HANSEN! *"LEATHERFACE!"*
STAR OF "TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE!"
______________________
REGGIE BANNISTER *REG*
STAR OF "PHANTASM!"
____________________
VAMPI THE VEGETARIAN VAMPIRE!
**********
93 ROCK will broadcast live! meet The Rise Guys!
For the scare of a lifetime, Nightmarez Cafe
is proud to present Mike Williams and Jace Witman's
FRIGHTMARE HOUSE
An orgy of terror, NOT for the squeamish!
CAN YOU HANDLE IT?
Included free with admission!
Horror movie extavaganza! NON STOP screenings
of horror movies! The fun never stops in our own
theatre of fright!
The same movie will NOT be played twice!
Featuring movies your parents warned you
about: Nightmare Castle, Dementia 13,
The Brain That Wouldn't Die! The Corpse Vanishes!
All day both days! A classic exravaganza of terror!
Free with admission!
CARNIVAL MIDWAY OF HORROR
WIN WIN WIN!
T-shirts, Posters, Jewlery
Macabre, and Many other cool and unique items of horror....
YOU CAN WALK AWAY A WINNER BIGTIME!
Face Painting - we do scars, bruises and gashes!
MUCH MUCH MORE!
Check out the Cal Expo CANTINA BY THE LAGOON for:
Incredibly Monsterish Munchies! Micro Brews, and more!
Tickets are $12 at the door KIDS 12 AND UNDER FREE
must be accompanied by an adult!
How to contact us:
Nightmarez Cafe
P.O Box 2872
Citrus Heights, Ca 95611-2872
BBS (916) 722 3586
WANT IN *FREE* ?
DONATE 6 HOURS OF YOUR TIME..BE A MONSTER, A CELEBRITY HELPER, MANY
AREAS! IN EXCHANGE FOR 3 FREE TICKETS + A FREE NIGHTMAREZ CAFE T-SHIRT!
CONTACT US TODAY!
All scheduled events and guests are subject to last minute changes
Rod Williams
GoJoeMoe wrote:
>
> stho...@tdi.com wrote:
> >With each passing decade, the horror film
> has been (IMHO) effectively "dumbed down" to reach a wider, less
> driscriminating audience. Horror films will only gain respectability
> once again when film studios believe that there is a market for
> intelligent, well-written horror films that can be appreciated by an
> adult audience.<
>
> Interesting...
> Here's a question:
> How can one explain why horror films are so weak today, when they are
> presumably being created by directors who were born and raised (and
> admittedly love) the classics. I mean, the current "genre specialists" are
> of a generation that were fed on original Famous Monsters of Filmland, and
> Universal, Hammer, etc. Why do they seem to foresake the elements that
> originally inspired them the most, and opt for cheap sensationalism. Is it
> simply big business? Hmmmmm.....
I wouldn't say that this problem only lies with horror films. I just saw
THE FIFTH ELEMENT today, and while it was much better received by the
audience than THE DAFT or, worse, THE RELIC, more discerning viewers
were left shaking their heads at yet another production team who were
obsessed with recreating the comics they read as children.
-RoD