You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Unknown – Footnotes to the Craft of Horror in Fiction (1 of 3)
True. I've never found gore frightening (whether we're talking about guts or the former US vice president). Hitchcock is often more frightening and there is little blood. I'm not just talking about Psycho, which for all it's strenghts suffers from the prolonged exposition at the end.... Where the monster is explained. I find Rope far more frightening. Thr killer did it because he fucking wanted to, and can we know what he might do to the others while arranging his vignette around the victim's grave? There are plays within plays, but then there is the play within Rope that was written by a monster. Now we are living inside the black square.
Nicely put! Interestingly, the least we know about the “monster”, the more it can make us feel dread (even if such monster is just a human). Normally, fiction tries to portray characters as thoroughly as possible. However, horror follows a different set of rules. When we don’t know what to think of the object of horror (be it a cosmic beast or a creepy child), we start to fill out the blanks. And we fill them with what we find most terrifying. In other words, when we don’t know what a character in fictional horror will do (in the sense that we cannot decipher or understand his motives), we just assume it will do the worst thing we (at an intimate and subjective level) can imagine!