Horror- serious literature or not?

[Kyriakos]

I am wondering what you think of this. Is horror literature to be taken as part of serious literature, or is it something which you have arguments for it to be presented as a lesser genre?

Personally i am of the view that a really good horror story is at least equally hard to find as the one of its analogous worth in any other genre. Maybe even rarer, since one has to suppose that, in theory, the horror writer has to produce inside the mind of his reader emotions not only strong and relevant to the work, but also of a particular kind; fear, anxiety, horror.

Some of my own stories are in the horror genre, although it is always a psychological horror (eg fear of madness). I have never included anything which has to be seen as supernatural, but i am not against that in principle, but only if the writer is aware that then the story makes an impression due to symbolism.

Perhaps most modern horror story writers do not create their pieces by examining the symbolic balances that would make the work cause fear to an audience. Maybe most of them write out of instinct, which is not to say that their work is insignificant, but it is not the product of an analytic procedure, merely the outcome of a burst of inspiration.

I could write some more things on topic, but i will first see if there is any interest. Looking forward to reading your own reflections on this matter :)

[PeterL]

Some horror is serious literature, while other examples are not. E. A. Poe, h. P. Lovecraft, and Fritz Leiber all wrote horror that was great literature, and all of them wrote some stories that were wastes of ink, but what writer hasn't written something that just didn't make it? Conjure wife was one of the best novels of the 20th century, and it was horror, but I don't that many people took it as much when it was first published. and it still hasn't been made into a decent movie - only three failed attempts.

[Charles Darnay]

"The Shining" for me is the best example of good horror lit: it is both a good book and a horror story.

I think there is some great literature - such as Poe and James - who people no longer consider horror due to the changing definition of what horror is. Even something like "Mysteries of Udolpho" was once considered horror and is not just lumped under Gothic.

[Calidore]

IMO, writing is writing. People will always make excuses why something they don't like shouldn't be liked by anyone else. Genre fiction is a frequent victim of this attitude. There's literary-quality fantasy, sci-fi, horror, detective--whatever you like, there's plenty of great stuff out there, old and new. The advantage genre fiction has, in my mind, is that even if a work it doesn't qualify as great literature, it can still be good and entertaining as what it is. On the other hand, works that aspire only to be literary and fail are just empty.

[cafolini]

Serious literature is serious only because the people buy it or otherwise acquire it. A best seller in any genre is serious literature.

[Drkshadow03]

IMO, writing is writing. People will always make excuses why something they don't like shouldn't be liked by anyone else. Genre fiction is a frequent victim of this attitude. There's literary-quality fantasy, sci-fi, horror, detective--whatever you like, there's plenty of great stuff out there, old and new. The advantage genre fiction has, in my mind, is that even if a work it doesn't qualify as great literature, it can still be good and entertaining as what it is. On the other hand, works that aspire only to be literary and fail are just empty.

I like your points a lot.

[Mr. Bergstrom]

I hate it when some people dismiss horror is not literature. I think it's a bit of snobbery when people turn their noses up at a particular genre they don't like.

[Desolation]

I've always been a little bit shaky on what exactly constitutes "horror."

Is it a work written explicitly as part of a genre, or can its meaning be expanded upon a bit. For instance, could Dostoevsky, Faulkner, Kafka, or Beckett be considered "horror" for their bleak and often terrifying vision of man's everyday existence?

Either way, yes...I do think that horror can easily be considered serious literature.

[Darcy88]

Just waiting until this devolves into a "is Stephen King literature?" war.

[Kyriakos]

On Stephen King, i think he has some skills as a writer, being far from perfect. But i have one book of his (the collection of stories titled The Night-shift) and a couple from there i actually liked :)

That said it does appear that King is writing by instinct, and not through examination of the sensation of horror. Unlike Lovecraft or Poe, who i consider to be high literature (Poe more so)

[Dark Muse]

I had a similar conversation with my sister on the subject because she is writing a piece of horror, and yet does not like to admit it to people because she thinks there is a stigma against horror and people will not take it seriously.

I am a horror aficionado, I love horror in all forms of art and I do think that people that don't "get" horror, have a tendency to devalue it and not understand the intellectual worth it truly can have. Not all horror is just a cheap thrill, but horror can and often is about so much more. Works within the horror genre often do impart criticism and observations about society, and serves as an exploration of our innermost troughs, explores the dark psyche of the mind, and holds a mirror up to us to see who we really are at the roots our soul. In this way I think horror can be a very serious.

As someone else stated, it really is not a question of "genre" but it is a question of the quality of the individual piece of writing what determines just where it ranks within the literary food chain so to speak. There is absolutely amazing horror, classical horror, inventive mind boggling horror which challenges our perspectives, and there is campy, b-rated horror that people like me enjoy the way some people enjoy cheap romance novels.

I think that horror is truly far more complex and full of subtleties than most people don't give it credit for.

There is also the question as proposed by another, as to what truly constitutes horror? Is horror determined by the writer/creator or by the reader/audience? Can a work be a brilliant piece of horror because the reader perceives it to have horrific elements regardless of the authors intentions? Or must a piece of horror be something that was created explicitly for that purpose?

[Paulclem]

I agree that a book has to be taken on its merits and not judged in relation to the genre it is a part of. The trouble is though that there has been a lot of really crap horror which has seemed to devalue the genre.

There are plenty of good exponents to support it as literature, but there are also lots of rubbish. I spent a good part of my teens reading horror which was often pulp rubbish which tried to evoke horror with graphic description. (It went along with an increase in violent depiction in films too in the 70's). The problem with gore-horror is that once you've read about or watched a head being severed, it loses all its shock value, and you are left with substandard writing.

I now rarely read horror, but I do read fantasy, though not as much as sci fi. Sci Fi seems to offer opportunities to present horror in many forms - dystopian, alien, robot based, space opera. It also enables the writer to comment upon current trends and ideas and extrapolate them to a fictional outcome. As a genre I find it offers much much more than horror.

[Dark Muse]

I agree that a book has to be taken on its merits and not judged in relation to the genre it is a part of. The trouble is though that there has been a lot of really crap horror which has seemed to devalue the genre.

Cannot that be stated about just about any genre?

[cafolini]

I agree that a book has to be taken on its merits and not judged in relation to the genre it is a part of. The trouble is though that there has been a lot of really crap horror which has seemed to devalue the genre.


What's the alternative? Would you like to devalue the people who buys them? Ridiculous.

[Paulclem]

Cannot that be stated about just about any genre?

Yes, but I think it is particularly the case in horror, and I think that's why there are sniffy attitudes to the horror genre.

[Paulclem]

What's the alternative? Would you like to devalue the people who buys them? Ridiculous.

Of course I don't devalue the people who buy them. You're putting words in my ridiculous mouth. As I said, I bought them once upon a time.

In my own case it was an important step in my reading. You can learn from bad examples as well as the good ones. You begin to discern standard plots, the reliance upon gore for suspence, see the lack of depth of character and the use of stereotypes to establish a character type etc. I think the same criticism can be levelled at films.

Having said that, I agree with lots of the positive views of horror too. There are some good Stephen King novels - The Shining has been mentioned, and then there's Peter Straub, Stoker, Shelley etc.

I've just downloaded The castle of Otranto by Walpole onto my Kindle. Should be good.

[Calidore]

I've always been a little bit shaky on what exactly constitutes "horror."

Is it a work written explicitly as part of a genre, or can its meaning be expanded upon a bit. For instance, could Dostoevsky, Faulkner, Kafka, or Beckett be considered "horror" for their bleak and often terrifying vision of man's everyday existence?

Either way, yes...I do think that horror can easily be considered serious literature.

Or the other way around: When I read A Confederacy of Dunces, I felt horror that that book was considered serious literature. And Pulitzer-worthy, no less. :ack2:

Eye of the beholder.