[ SECRET POST #4250 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4250 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.
[Abraham Benrubi on Parker Lewis Can't Lose]












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 05 secrets from Secret Submission Post #608.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

NA

I mean, if it doesn't have some kind of non-realistic element, should we really call it horror in the first place?

Why on earth not? Horror is a genre, not a setting.

Some people may find it interesting, though, that Gothic fiction that now gets all lumped together as "horror" used to have a very strong divide between "horror" and "terror." Horror was explicit, grotesque, focused on shock; terror was about suspense, uncertainty, and the threat rather than the fact of something awful happening. Both were about creating emotional response, and specifically fear, but they had very different approaches towards it. And horror was strongly (but not exclusively) associated with the "male Gothic," which was usually unambiguously supernatural, while terror was strongly (but not exclusively) associated with the "female Gothic," which often presented potentially supernatural events only to later reveal that they had mundane but no less fear-inspiring explanations. So in that sense, King is very much horror in that he's very in-your-face, and non-supernatural horror is comparatively very rare within the genre.

[(Anonymous)]

Why on earth not? Horror is a genre, not a setting.

IDK. I mean, I think most people would expect the existence of non-realistic elements as a reasonably definitive norm for science fiction & fantasy as genres. Although of course there are marginal examples that violate that.

Which is probably a good broader point - genres really aren't the kind of thing with bright, definitive lines drawn around them in the first place anyway and it's not really useful to think of them that way.

(The stuff about terror v horror is very interesting also!)

[(Anonymous)]

Most people don't expect the existence of non-realistic elements as a reasonably definitive norm for horror as a genre. They expect to be horrified.