[Erebus]

When you read a horror story/book, are you more inclined to be frightened (if at all) by graphically described scenes, or, do you prefer to get your chills from a well-written, suspenseful scene that gradually draws you into an unexpected conclusion?

I guess I prefer the later. Sometimes it's all in the suspense that the writer can build, rather than just being shocked with buckets of blood or graphic violence. The old less is sometimes more philosophy.


[This message has been edited by erebus (edited September 09, 2001).]

[Cadfael]

I guess I do lean more towards 'in yer face' horror, but I am not into pulp horror, and I do like to made to 'think'.

One of the most graphic, and disturbing horror books I have read was Wolves at the Door, by Tabitha King (the wife of Stephen King). She really paints a very intense picture. Some of the issues she dealt with made me think... but the horror was definitely in your face.

One novel that hit my 'shudder spot', was Stephen Kings Gerald's Game, the description of the escape from the handcuffs really made me cringe...

##########SPOILER##########
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
She slit her wrist to lubicate her hand, and slipper her hand through the cuff....

##########End SPOILER##########

I think I shall go and throw up now! http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif

[Erebus]

Gerald's Game is actually one of my favouritre King books! I liked it especially when the dog could no longer control his hunger!

[Cadfael]

I think Geralds Game was one of his best as well. I also like the way he ties it in with other books, but totally different stories taking place around a lake during an eclipse of the sun... at the same time that Jessie is reliving the eclipse with her father... Dolores Claiborne, is murdering her husband across the lake... yet we only get a passing reference in each book to the other tale. There is another book that does this... but I am having my usual attack of brain fade http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif

[lior]

dennizm, are you referring to a King book?
He did a similar thing with Desperation and The Regulators.

[AuntiePam]

It isn't the way the scene is written that frightens me, it's whether or not I've come to care about the characters.

So whether a scene is graphic or understated doesn't matter -- what matters is whether I've become attached to whoever's in danger. And it doesn't matter if the attachment is positive or negative.

However, I don't like it when the ewwwwww factor overshadows everything else. If the only time a writer uses an adjective is to describe eyeball gouging, then he isn't doing his job.

I guess I like understated better. Jeepers Creepers (the movie) was an example. Very little explicit gore, but there were several times when I wanted to puke.

[NeoXP]

I totally agree with Auntiepam; the reader must feel attached with the character in the story to feel afraid. Furthermore writer's should induce fear by building an atmosphere in which the main character is seemingly helpless (not by pikaboo scenes popularized by movies or by spilled guts and popped eyeballs).

[Penumbra]

Personally I prefer the suspenseful sojourn where a horrific denouement is anticipated, the more unpredictable the better. King wrote a novel where Randall Flagg, the antogonist of The Stand was ressurrected, though he meant it to be a precursor. I think it was called The Eye of the Dragon. In that story, the suspense was artfully calibrated for my taste. Anyone remember it?

[Cadfael]

Indeed I do, it is one of my favourite King books. In fact I think any book with Flagg in it is brilliant. He did really handle the suspense well in 'Eye of the Dragon'.

[Erebus]

Thanks very much for all your feedback and comments, guys. Looks like we're all pretty much in agreement with this topic: Skillfully created suspense is more effective than buckets of blood when it comes to horror!