|
|
Post by Knygathin on Mar 22, 2012 20:54:37 GMT
Is there a defining difference between "horror stories" and "ghost stories"? Is it called "horror" when you show something concrete and shocking to the eyes?
To which category does the biggest lot belong of great supernatural stories, and writers, being discussed on this forum? To "ghost stories" or "horror stories"? Which kind is generally regarded the best?
I have recently over the last few years become acquainted with a bunch of supernatural writers, recommended to me as the finest there are:
Sheridan Le Fanu
M. R. James
E. F. Benson
Walter de la Mare
Oliver Onions
Robert Aickman
...etc.
These all seem to be "ghost story" writers. I have not been recommended any "horror story" writers. Or, perhaps the above mentioned writers could also be called "horror story" writers?
|
|
|
|
Post by cauldronbrewer on Mar 22, 2012 21:18:46 GMT
Is there a defining difference between "horror stories" and "ghost stories"? Is it called "horror" when you show something concrete and shocking to the eyes? To which category does the biggest lot belong of great supernatural stories, and writers, being discussed on this forum? To "ghost stories" or "horror stories"? Which kind is generally regarded the best? I have recently over the last few years become acquainted with a bunch of supernatural writers, recommended to me as the finest there are: Sheridan Le Fanu M. R. James E. F. Benson Walter de la Mare Oliver Onions Robert Aickman ...etc. These all seem to be "ghost story" writers. I have not been recommended any "horror story" writers. Or, perhaps the above mentioned writers could also be called "horror story" writers? Now, there's a can of worms. The answer seems to depend on whom one asks. For example, H. P. Lovecraft titles his essay on the genre, "Supernatural Horror in Literature," whereas M. R. James offers "Some Remarks on Ghost Stories" (as well as some scathing comments on stories that don't fit his conception of what a ghost story should be). As for Robert Aickman, I've read that he preferred to call his works "strange stories." And then some commentators distinguish between tales of "terror" and tales of "horror." Personally, I've always favored using "ghost stories" to refer specifically to stories about ghosts--rather than, say, vampires, werewolves, yeti, or zombies. Then again, many reasonable people evidently prefer otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by noose on Mar 22, 2012 22:08:54 GMT
one name: Charles Birkin 'nuff said  |
|
|
|
Post by Dr Strange on Mar 23, 2012 9:11:11 GMT
"Ghost story" = a story with a ghost, or in which the characters in the story at least believe they may be dealing with a ghost.
"Horror story" is a bit trickier, though I'd be inclined to say that a key feature must be the intention of the author to produce a particular emotional response in the reader.
A ghost story isn't necessarily a horror story - it could be humorous, for example. And a horror story doesn't have to involve the supernatural at all - some horror stories are about madness, or sadism, or serial killers, or aliens, or plagues, or etc.
I don't think it makes sense to try to classify authors as being exclusively "horror" or "ghost" story writers - I'd say those you've listed have written both ghost stories and horror stories.
|
|
|
|
Post by Knygathin on Mar 23, 2012 12:18:43 GMT
Yes, it probably won't do to try to sharply categorize between "ghost story" and "horror story", and divide by border. Supernatural literature is a wide field, with many free-ranging subjects, and often flowing borders of content.
However, I still find it meaningful to see what area of content mostly dominates stories; of the most readable worthwhile writers.
(Perhaps it makes more sense to speak of "ghostly elements". Instead of " ghost story", which rigidly defines all of a story's content.)
In some cases, for me, the difference is obvious. "Ghostly elements" work on the spiritual level. "Horror elements" are more concrete manifestations, like monsters, and bodily sensations (including psychological experiences of the brain) and fears. Lovecraft for me would be typical "horror" (with very small elements of the "ghostly"). Poe is "horror". Frankenstein is "horror". Werewolves and Dracula is "horror", although the vampire (and to some degree the werewolf) could also be said to represent a disoriented spirit. In movies, The Creature From the Black Lagoon is 100% "horror", and likewise is Alien 100% "horror" in a science fiction setting.
Arthur Machen works within the "ghostly" spiritual realm, but also very much in "horror" with his culturally rooted contents, "little people", etc.
Algernon Blackwood writes of the "ghostly", but his great genius and some of his divinely talented supernatural explorations, are beyond me to analyse!
Anyhow, most of the writers recommended to me, that I listed in the post above, are mainly "ghostly" I would say. One exceptional talent after another. Good "horror writers" though, seem more rare to come by! Lovecraft and his monsters totally dominates it for me. Clark Ashton Smith is also good. But otherwise, I don't really know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jojo Lapin X on Mar 23, 2012 12:52:43 GMT
As recommended earlier, try Sir Charles Birkin. It will provide some perspective.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr Strange on Mar 23, 2012 12:53:22 GMT
Sheridan Le Fanu M. R. James E. F. Benson Walter de la Mare Oliver Onions Robert Aickman ...etc. Those are also all very much in a particular "tradition" - for a start they are all British, but there's also little more than 100 years between the death of Le Fanu and the death of Aickman (108 years, actually), and the direct influence of one of those authors on another is clear in many cases. If you haven't already got them, then I can recommend to you The Oxford Book of Victorian Ghost Stories, The Oxford Book of English Ghost Stories, and The Oxford Book of 20th Century Ghost Stories - all edited by Gilbert & Cox and featuring those authors (and others in the same "tradition"). |
|
|
|
Post by Knygathin on Mar 23, 2012 13:44:46 GMT
... (including psychological experiences of the brain) and fears. And that heightened level above "horror". . . "terror" of course. |
|
|
|
Post by Knygathin on Mar 23, 2012 13:53:20 GMT
Never heard of Charles Birkin before.
“The stories of Charles Birkin, however, are not for the squeamish. Be warned, if you are at all sensitive, leave him well alone. He deals unflinchingly with such subjects as murder, rape, concentration camps, patricide, mutilation and torture.”
—Hugh Lamb
Perhaps too terrible for me. There needs to be an aesthetic vision to give pleasant chills. The above sounds like pornographic violence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr Strange on Mar 23, 2012 14:14:06 GMT
Never heard of Charles Birkin before. “The stories of Charles Birkin, however, are not for the squeamish. Be warned, if you are at all sensitive, leave him well alone. He deals unflinchingly with such subjects as murder, rape, concentration camps, patricide, mutilation and torture.” —Hugh Lamb Perhaps too terrible for me. There needs to be an aesthetic vision to give pleasant chills. The above sounds like pornographic violence. I haven't read much Birkin - but the quote from Hugh Lamb and your reaction to it shows how "horror" can be completely divorced from any notion of the supernatural. |
|
|
|
Post by Jojo Lapin X on Mar 23, 2012 15:09:41 GMT
There needs to be an aesthetic vision to give pleasant chills. Those of us who enjoy Birkin obviously do not find his works unpleasant. A large part of the enjoyment is astonishment that somebody would actually write things like that. They are very elegantly written, completely unsubtle stories of pointless nastiness. I find that reading one now and then has a sort of refreshing effect on the mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Knygathin on Mar 23, 2012 15:49:41 GMT
... A large part of the enjoyment is astonishment that somebody would actually write things like that. They are very elegantly written, completely unsubtle stories of pointless nastiness. I find that reading one now and then has a sort of refreshing effect on the mind. That sounds great. I am almost tempted to read him. |
|
|
|
Post by monker on Mar 23, 2012 16:16:24 GMT
Never heard of Charles Birkin before. “The stories of Charles Birkin, however, are not for the squeamish. Be warned, if you are at all sensitive, leave him well alone. He deals unflinchingly with such subjects as murder, rape, concentration camps, patricide, mutilation and torture.” —Hugh Lamb Perhaps too terrible for me. There needs to be an aesthetic vision to give pleasant chills. The above sounds like pornographic violence. I haven't read much Birkin - but the quote from Hugh Lamb and your reaction to it shows how "horror" can be completely divorced from any notion of the supernatural. However, why should horror be the only 'genre' divorced from the very term? Why is 'horror' the only genre (apart from the dubious notion of the 'love' story) to be based on an emotion, and if so, why restrict yourself to just one? The only thing I agree with for sure is that a 'horror' story should never be benign but by the same token, there are subtle forms of malignancy that you couldn't really call 'horrific'. In essence, I'm more interested in non-horrific supernaturalism than I am in 'horror' as a specific emotion. Horror fiction, as I see it, has more to do with a slightly more sophisticated version of that fantastic 'childhood' fear than it has to 'appreciating' that I might develop a terminal illness or be obliterated in an atomic war. I'm not interested in nastyness for its own sake, I'm interested in strangeness. |
|
|
|
Post by cw67q on Mar 23, 2012 17:08:10 GMT
You have to count me among the non-fans of Charles Birkin. I have the first Midnight House collection (superb cover) which purports to be a selection of his best work and it didn't do much for me. I never picked up the second volume even though I saw it on sale at a reduced price on a num,ber of occasions and it is one of only two MH volumes that I lack.
- Chris
|
|
|
|
Post by Shrink Proof on Mar 23, 2012 19:48:52 GMT
However, why should horror be the only 'genre' divorced from the very term? Why is 'horror' the only genre (apart from the dubious notion of the 'love' story) to be based on an emotion, and if so, why restrict yourself to just one? The only thing I agree with for sure is that a 'horror' story should never be benign but by the same token, there are subtle forms of malignancy that you couldn't really call 'horrific'. In essence, I'm more interested in non-horrific supernaturalism than I am in 'horror' as a specific emotion. Horror fiction, as I see it, has more to do with a slightly more sophisticated version of that fantastic 'childhood' fear than it has to 'appreciating' that I might develop a terminal illness or be obliterated in an atomic war. I'm not interested in nastyness for its own sake, I'm interested in strangeness. Certainly one key element is the inexplicable. Developing a terminal illness or being vapourised in a nuclear attack are certainly nasty, but they nevertheless make some sort of sense, at least on some level. One of M R James' five key ingredients for a good ghost story is "no explanation of the machinery", although I'd extend this to the horror genre generally. The sense of things happening that are not just malign but also happening for no readily apparent reason gives them a kind of relentlessness that increases the feeling of threat. BUT... A sense of things hanging together in some way as well as a sense of being able to exercise a reasonable degree of control over events (and hence that there's at least the possibility of influencing them) are both pre-requisites for mental equilibrium. If these are removed, particularly by something malign & threatening for no reason at all, then some very existential emotions can emerge. What shrinks term "psychotic anxiety", namely the thoughts & feelings related to the fear that the very fabric of reality (external &/or internal) is dis-integrating. And that's where Horror is... |
|
