Horror Stories

[theprestige]

Horror stories, for their effect, depend of course upon a certain superstitiousness on the part of the audience. A certain willingness to admit that--while never proven--something else may very well be out there, lurking in wait for us all.

So. Who here among the sceptics, the least superstitious of us all, nevertheless appreciates a good horror story, and why?

[Humanzee]

I'm sure not to add much to this conversation but - I really do enjoy a good Lovecraft story. A rational protagonist stumbling across a truly bizarre and insane reality and having to deal with it. A "what if the universe really was that strange" thing.

And Dracula.

Because the victorian sex themes are hot.

Alright. Back to lurking. Thanks for the post.

[Bikewer]

I've been a fan of good horror fiction for many years. Lovecraft, Bloch, King, many others.

We had a collection some years back called Dark Forces which was excellent from cover to cover.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that over the last decade the genre has gone downhill a bit in overall quality. Sheer bloody spatter instead of actual horror.

I'm not bothered by supernatural elements; rather enjoy them. 'Tis fiction, afterall....

[wexer9]

I can always enjoy a good King novel.

[chillzero]

Horror stories, for their effect, depend of course upon a certain superstitiousness on the part of the audience. A certain willingness to admit that--while never proven--something else may very well be out there, lurking in wait for us all.

So. Who here among the sceptics, the least superstitious of us all, nevertheless appreciates a good horror story, and why?

I not only prefer the horror genre, I write in it too.

Good fiction requires the suspension of belief, because writing about normal everyday things would be boring. It's called fiction because it requires no belief in order to enjoy it - it is unreal by definition.

The best horror (imo) doesn't actually depend on any superstition or belief from the readers, but takes something familiar and places it in an uncomfortable setting. Again, no belief or superstition required.

[Marduk]

I can always enjoy a good King novel.
after reading Richard Laymon I am hard pushed to even name a good King novel
:D

[timhau]

Horror stories, for their effect, depend of course upon a certain superstitiousness on the part of the audience. A certain willingness to admit that--while never proven--something else may very well be out there, lurking in wait for us all.

... to the same degree that enjoying Tolkien depends on a certain willingness to admit that stuff like Hobbits, Wizards, the Nâzgul, and magic rings may be or may have been out there at some point in history.

So. Who here among the sceptics, the least superstitious of us all, nevertheless appreciates a good horror story, and why?

I certainly do. With the exception of Cujo and The Tommyknockers, I enjoy all of Stephen King's works up to and including the first half of The Dark Half. And Peter Straub's Ghost Story is one of my all-time favorite novels.

[realpaladin]

I still like H.P. Lovecraft, mostly because he let's your imagination do the painting of the picture (as I grow older these become more gruesome indeed).

Although the whole 'unspeakable' thing gets on your nerves when you read too much at one sitting.

[timhau]

I still like H.P. Lovecraft, mostly because he let's your imagination do the painting of the picture (as I grow older these become more gruesome indeed).

Relying on the reader's imagination is perhaps the most important thing that separates good horror writers (e.g. early King, Straub when he's in the genre) from the hacks (like, say, Dean Koontz). One of the most common sins of the hack is the belief in linearity -- if a story with one demon is scary, a story with five demons has to be five times scarier.

[Tiktaalik]

I have to admit, reading "The Fall of the House of Usher" directly before bed was a mistake...

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

My theory- a good story makes you believe in something if only for a few minutes and even if it all vanishes the instant the story is over.

Even when the theme isn't supernatural or paranormal- Pride and Prejudice makes you believe that Lizzie and Mr. Darcy exist are they really are in love and have these problems, for the few hours that you read it.

So a good ghost story makes you believe ghosts exist and makes you believe it enough to scare you, even if you have zero belief in actual ghosts. A skeptic can be frightened in vampire stories, ghost stories, demon possession movies, alien movies, etc. in the same way he/she can be scared at Arnold or some other action hero falling off a cliff or getting shot at, Tom and Becky being lost in the caves or a mad slasher killing 12 teenagers- after all, the mad slasher or adventure in the forest or Tom Sawyer and his adventures aren't any more real or any more possible than Dracula or Frankenstein.

You can argue they aren't possible but they aren't impossible by virtue of breaking all known laws of the universe. That may be so- but consider that Norman Bates has a fictional disorder, Jason's mother behaves inconsistently with any elderly woman in the universe (she can overpower a grown man and string him from a doorpost in one scene but is unable to win a catfight with a tiny teenage girl in another) and if Arnold were a real person, he'd be exhausted, in shock, would have been shot several times over already and would have grown a long beard from 12 days in the jungle.

[chillzero]

So a good ghost story makes you believe ghosts exist and makes you believe it enough to scare you, even if you have zero belief in actual ghosts.

I disagree.
It can make you suspend your disbelief enough to enjoy the story ... but nothing can make you believe in what you don't believe in - by clear definition. That doesn't even make sense.

[laca]

Horror stories, for their effect, depend of course upon a certain superstitiousness on the part of the audience. A certain willingness to admit that--while never proven--something else may very well be out there, lurking in wait for us all.


The most gruesome horror movies I've seen were the ones that did not rely on superstitiousness, i.e. those that were real-life based.

[Aepervius]

Horror stories, for their effect, depend of course upon a certain superstitiousness on the part of the audience. A certain willingness to admit that--while never proven--something else may very well be out there, lurking in wait for us all.

So. Who here among the sceptics, the least superstitious of us all, nevertheless appreciates a good horror story, and why?

Suspension of belief. or maybe I should say suspension of disbelief.

The same way a physicist can enjoy "The Core" without cringing at all physic errors (well maybe that's a bad example :P) or a doctor can enjoy a doctor show withotu cringing at how doctor are misrepresented. Etc...

Yeah, I toroughly enjoyed Harry PÜotter. So what ? I did not start believe in magic after that...

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I disagree.
It can make you suspend your disbelief enough to enjoy the story ... but nothing can make you believe in what you don't believe in - by clear definition. That doesn't even make sense.

That's what I meant. Maybe I expressed myself badly but I meant "temporary belief/suspension of disbelief".

[patchbunny]

Horror stories, for their effect, depend of course upon a certain superstitiousness on the part of the audience. A certain willingness to admit that--while never proven--something else may very well be out there, lurking in wait for us all.

So. Who here among the sceptics, the least superstitious of us all, nevertheless appreciates a good horror story, and why?

I love good horror. Shame there's so much bad horror out there.

Can't describe it beyond that I like being scared.

[autumn1971]

I don't think that reading horror means that one has to abandon their rationality in order to be effective. It only has to convincingly place the reader in a position in which the characters, acting as rational agents, get seriously scared.
None of us (I hope) are whale hunters, yet Moby Dick effectively makes us, as readers, concerned by the actions of Ahab, and worried for Ishmael. Were I in Ishmael's place, as the story places me, I would share his feelings. This is why it is effective literature. If a horror story convincingly invokes empathy with the characters, the reality of the situation is irrelevant.

[wackyvorlon]

I enjoy the odd ghost story. Favourites include stories about the wendigo, and the screaming tunnel outside Montreal. They're complete humbug, but generally amusing.

Oddly, there is something unique about ancient egypt that I find particularly creepy...

[drlamont]

I don't think one needs to suspend disbelief as much as one must be able to react to the horror the supernatural elements invoke. We might not believe in werewolves, but we can still shudder at the thought of being devoured.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Also, while we may be skeptics and not believe or be very doubtful of the paranormal rationally, we are human beings and our minds are made to instinctively believe these things and fear them, irrationally.

You may not believe in ghosts but do you fear the dark? Yes, on some level, you do. There's not a person on Earth who would not at least mind spending the night alone in an ancient castle, a former dungeon or in the forest. No one who would actually enjoy it even if they could survive it.

[wackyvorlon]

There's not a person on Earth who would not at least mind spending the night alone in an ancient castle, a former dungeon or in the forest. No one who would actually enjoy it even if they could survive it.

I'm suspicious some would enjoy it - the variability in humanity is astounding.

As for myself, make that the great pyramid at giza.... Just the thought of it gives me the willies.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

There was an episode of Is It Real? where the evidence for and against hauntings was discussed. There was an experiment where a group of people, some described as skeptics in ghosts and some described as openminded on the subject, were to spend the night in an allegedly haunted castle after being told about the deceased owners and their sad ends.

The idea was to show what power of suggestion, fear of the dark, fear of old places, being alone and hearing scary stories before bed can do, namely produce the experience of being haunted.

The two self described skeptics backed out, they said due to a family emergency. I don't blame them; I was at home and I was creeped out.

[chillzero]

The two self described skeptics backed out, they said due to a family emergency. I don't blame them; I was at home and I was creeped out.

If that was the UK based on ... the one I am thinking of then yes - they backed out due to a family emergency. What's to blame them for?

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

My BS detector tells me they were lying about the whole thing or seized upon a handy excuse to get out of there.

Of course, my inner lie detector isn't by any means foolproof and isn't evidence.

[chillzero]

My BS detector tells me they were lying about the whole thing or seized upon a handy excuse to get out of there.

Of course, my inner lie detector isn't by any means foolproof and isn't evidence.
Again, if it's the one I'm thinking of - it was in the UK last year, yes? - then yes, the woman had a family emergency that she and her partner had to leave to attend to in a hurry.

I'm intrigued as to why you would think the skeptics, not believing in ghosts, would be spooked at all, let alone feeling so afraid as to leave - before anything 'happened' and then needing to make up lies about it. There was nothing for them to fear in a house that people claim to be haunted when they do not believe in such matters. They had an emergency and had to leave and I don't find that to be something to judge them on. I mean, good grief, there were probably enough stupid self-righteous smug believers sitting smugly affirming to themselves and others that of course the skeptics were spooked by something actually happening and had to lie about it, without having other ... 'skeptics' claiming the same.

Your claim that skeptics would never be able to stay at a supposed haunted location for a night due to excess fear is without merit. If you feel too afraid of the dark and strange places, that's fair enough, but I would have no qualms about staying somewhere, nor would many skeptics I know - including the couple in that program (one of whom many of us here know).

[chillzero]

hmmm... time flies.

It wasn't last year, it was July 2006!
http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=337

The post you are interested in is 55:
http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showpost.php?p=5096&postcount=55

... and for your additional information, see post 61, which explains that even the show's producers didn't cast any aspersions on Teek's situation, and were sorry to lose her.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

If that is so, it was a honest error on my part.

However, the way the episode was edited and presented, one would think that the two skeptics bailed. It's been a long time since I saw the episode but that was how it came off. First there was a shot of the whole group looking scared and worried and then two people rushing off (or at least that's how I remember it). The producers (no doubt unintentionally) gave the (wrong, it seems) impression.

I had no idea who the two people were (what a coincidence it turns out it was a member of this forum I sorta know) and naturally assumed that they were just two Joe Schmos the producers picked.

Still, I contend that even skeptics can be at least creeped out by being left alone in an unpleasant place where someone died located in the middle of no where, despite themselves.

I probably could spend a night in a cemetery or in a haunted castle, too, but can imagine my imagination running a little wild at times, despite "knowing better".

Edit: Also, the voiceover on that show is often very subtly sardonic and sarcastic in a dead pan way...so when the narrator reported the two had bailed, I might have read more into it than was meant.

Edit 2: I had to register on the UKSkeptics forum to be able to see your links (and I still can't see them, apparently you need more) and, oddly enough, found a thread discussing the same subject:

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=3439

Edit 3: Was the show even Is It Real? Or some other National Geographic show?

[chillzero]

Still, I contend that even skeptics can be at least creeped out by being left alone in an unpleasant place where someone died located in the middle of no where, despite themselves.

You can contend it all you like. There is a difference, in my opinion, between being 'creeped out', and running away' in fear' of something you don't actually even believe in.

[Soapy Sam]

Never did like the horror genre, or "Swords & Sorcery" style fantasy in general. I find both too silly to be able to do the suspension of disbelief thing- though I've read a great deal of SF with enjoyment- but it always seemed just credible enough for me to accept the fictional reality for the duration of the tale. Some was not- I tended to lose patience with Heinlein for example.

I also find some 20th century horror unnecessarily sadistic and disgusting.

There's enough true horror in the world. We don't need to imagine more.

[chillzero]

There's enough true horror in the world. We don't need to imagine more.
Possibly true.

I'm not sure why I've always loved the horror genre, but I do know that in writing it in my later years it has been a coping mechanism.

That doesn't explain why I loved reading and writing ghost stories as a kid and teenager though - although to touch on your point about enough horror in the world, I was reasonably sheltered from a lot of it growing up, so it was possibly escapism into something really fantastical (to me).

[a_unique_person]

"The Monkeys Paw" isn't bad.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

You can contend it all you like. There is a difference, in my opinion, between being 'creeped out', and running away' in fear' of something you don't actually even believe in.

Sigh. Lighten up.

They gave the unfortunate impression they were running away. That's how it looked. That's not how it was but that's how it looked and you can't blame a few viewers at home for thinking so.

[chillzero]

Nothing to do with that show. Before you even mentioned it you were making assertions that nobody - not even skeptics could bear staying in an old house or forest overnight. I say again: There is a difference, in my opinion, between being 'creeped out', and running away' in fear' of something you don't actually even believe in.

There's not a person on Earth who would not at least mind spending the night alone in an ancient castle, a former dungeon or in the forest. No one who would actually enjoy it even if they could survive it.

Guess what? Everyone would 'survive' it, because there's nothing there (at least not in old castles - it depends on the wildlife outside) and there's no reason many of them wouldn't enjoy it. Having spent plenty of time out in forests at night - even alone - I still contend that it is silly to claim that people would be frightened of something they do not believe in.

[Brainster]

I don't see why skeptics should be any different in terms of their ability to enjoy a good horror thriller. How many people really believe in vampires versus those who will shiver at a vampire movie? I read graphic novels which feature superheroes in spandex, but it's not because I believe they really exist.

BTW, Koontz is entertaining as hell, but I started with one of his absolute best thrillers, Lightning, so I'm prejudiced.

[Psi Baba]

I'm sure not to add much to this conversation but - I really do enjoy a good Lovecraft story. A rational protagonist stumbling across a truly bizarre and insane reality and having to deal with it. A "what if the universe really was that strange" thing.
Excellent assessment of Lovecraft. This is exactly why many people don't get Lovecraft. The horror in his literature is not in the creatures, or the strange people, or the weird places; the horror lies in what they imply. Lovecraft himself was a very scientific individual (he published his own astronomy journal for a while), and he was a skeptic--he often wrote scathing criticism of astrology, for example. And as you pointed out, most of his protagonists are skeptical until faced with incontrovertible proof that the world is not how they thought it was, which tends to have profound psychological impacts on them.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Guess what? Everyone would 'survive' it, because there's nothing there (at least not in old castles - it depends on the wildlife outside) and there's no reason many of them wouldn't enjoy it. Having spent plenty of time out in forests at night - even alone - I still contend that it is silly to claim that people would be frightened of something they do not believe in.

By "survive" I obviously meant survive mentally, as in "not go to pieces". Nothing about being assaulted by a poltergeist or anything like that.

No, it's possible to be frightened despite yourself, if just momentarily, and to be afraid of something you would know wasn't real if you were able to think rationally.

Maybe it's the reverse, actually- if someone is afraid (be it cause they are cold, lost, lonely, understandably creeped out or other), they can start thinking magically, though they are a non believer.

Maybe I'm confusing "fear of the dark", "fear of the unknown", "fear of strange places", "fear of being alone", etc. with "fear of ghosts" but, in most cases of alleged hauntings, that's exactly what the "ghost" is.

These conditions can produce a "haunting" even in someone who isn't usually superstitious and, as the researcher on Is It Real? pointed out, the experience of being haunted is actually real but the ghost is not.

[dudalb]

Gotta put in word for EC Comics. Best Horror comics ever.
Heh...heh...heh, as the Cryptkeeper would say.

[dudalb]

Clive Barker has been in free fall for some time as far as the quality of his work goes, but his early stuff..."The Book Of Blood" in particular...is about as good as anything written in Modern Horror.

[I Ratant]

That's what I meant. Maybe I expressed myself badly but I meant "temporary belief/suspension of disbelief".
.
As long as the at-odds-with-reality elements in the story hold together, without any jarring leaps-of-credulity demanded, most good fiction makes good reading.
Sadly, when good fiction gets moved to the movie screen, too many "improvements" make the story ridiculous, or just too awful.

[I Ratant]

...
I also find some 20th century horror unnecessarily sadistic and disgusting.

There's enough true horror in the world. We don't need to imagine more.
.
YES!
Too many "Friday the 13ths" and others of that ilk disturb me, in that they're -popular-!
WTF!
Disgusting way-too-graphic dismemberments and gratuitous violence just to tittilate.

[I Ratant]

...
However, the way the episode was edited and presented, one would think that the two skeptics bailed. It's been a long time since I saw the episode but that was how it came off. First there was a shot of the whole group looking scared and worried and then two people rushing off (or at least that's how I remember it). The producers (no doubt unintentionally) gave the (wrong, it seems) impression.
...

.
I have every reason to believe the producers -intentionally- presented that impression, as they of all people have to know that they're selling nonsense and crap.

[Humanzee]

Precisely :D Phrased better than I could have myself.

And I have to agree with the Fall of the House of Usher, Tiktaalik. I received a copy at 11 for christmas. A scary story oddly made warm by my mom and I reading it together next to the christmas tree! Can't smell pine without hearing the scrap of fingernails on a coffin :D

[Brainster]

Gotta put in word for EC Comics. Best Horror comics ever.
Heh...heh...heh, as the Cryptkeeper would say.

Did you know that the Cryptkeeper was copied from Raymond, the announcer for the Inner Sanctum Radio Show? Right down to the horrible puns about "Boys and ghouls."

Twisted Tales by Pacific Comics in the 1980s was a worthy successor to EC, although it didn't last long. "Banjo Lessons" is definitely one of the sickest stories I've ever read.

[tomwaits]

I'm a big fan of Stephen King, but I have to admit that I prefer his "urban fantasy" books rather than his horror books. I love It, which starts as a horror and starts drifting towards fantasy as the book progresses.

[pakeha]

I'm sure not to add much to this conversation but - I really do enjoy a good Lovecraft story. A rational protagonist stumbling across a truly bizarre and insane reality and having to deal with it. A "what if the universe really was that strange" thing....
Here's another Lovecraft fan.

The horror genre also has some brilliant spoofs-
Jane Austin's
"Northgranger Abbey", going on for 200 years old, is still one of the best, in my opinion.

[Cavemonster]

Did you know that the Cryptkeeper was copied from Raymond, the announcer for the Inner Sanctum Radio Show? Right down to the horrible puns about "Boys and ghouls."

Twisted Tales by Pacific Comics in the 1980s was a worthy successor to EC, although it didn't last long. "Banjo Lessons" is definitely one of the sickest stories I've ever read.

Apparently the puppet version from the later TV show was based on Irving Haines, who I had as a freshman design Professor at RISD.

[Greg_in_CO]

Ann Radcliffe was a popular writer of Gothic Novels in the late 18th, early 19th centuries. It was interesting that her status was such that Jane Austen was able to reference/parody some of it in her novel Northanger Abbey.

[MysteryMammal]

Horror stories, for their effect, depend of course upon a certain superstitiousness on the part of the audience. A certain willingness to admit that--while never proven--something else may very well be out there, lurking in wait for us all.

I'm dating a guy who loves horror movies. I like reading a good horror story every now and again. I read Stephen King's [u]From a Buick 8[u] this spring and really enjoyed it. It's odd, because I'm not a big fan of his novels (but I do love his short stories/novellas.)

I think fiction would be a very boring place if the supernatural and the impossible didn't run rampant through it. Then again, I keep thinking what the Disc World series would be like without magic, gods and the Death of Rats. No Unseen University? No thank you.

[asmodean]

Jack Ketchum. Offspring, Off Season, The Girl Next Door... Not a shred of supernaturalism in any of them, and damn good horror reads IMO.

I also enjoy Ed Lee, Richard Laymon, Bentley Little and Stephen King.

[Marduk]

I don't see why skeptics should be any different in terms of their ability to enjoy a good horror thriller. How many people really believe in vampires versus those who will shiver at a vampire movie? I read graphic novels which feature superheroes in spandex, but it's not because I believe they really exist.

BTW, Koontz is entertaining as hell, but I started with one of his absolute best thrillers, Lightning, so I'm prejudiced.

me either, I would challenge anyone to watch the opening scene from "an american werewolf in london" and then go for a walk on white horse hill when the mist blankets it on a cold night

I was terrified, I don't believe in werewolves, I knew that the film starred actors and features special effects, what I didn't know of course was that the movement I could hear (even sense) around me was sheep, until one bumped into my other half, I believe the resulting cacophany could be heard in buckinghamshire
:D

Koontz I found very formulaic, his stories always feature a male hero a second main character who is hopeless and a third character who is always a dog or a small child.

;)

[funk de fino]

Clive Barker has been in free fall for some time as far as the quality of his work goes, but his early stuff..."The Book Of Blood" in particular...is about as good as anything written in Modern Horror.

I agree. Some of his work was stunning. I like the Lumley stuff too.

Not a great King fan but think the Dead Zone is a good book and a great film.