Re: Can horror in literature be nonsupernatural?
 

I agree. This is what Thomas Ligotti writes about in "Consolations of Horror". Even though in this essay he focuses on supernatural horror he doesn't exclude any form of art that has a profound effect on the reader.

I just wonder what is the point of forcibly excluding works of literature from the genre. Just for the sake of a model which would define clear boundaries?

Re: Can horror in literature be nonsupernatural?
 

Thanks Jimmy! Good point.
But works of literature involving animals attacking or disgusting people are thrillers!
That's what the theory in question clearly indicates (In fact this was already discussed.)

Not my opinion though.;)

Re: Can horror in literature be nonsupernatural?
 

I've previously mentioned both Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" and Thomas Ligotti's "The Bungalow House" - in the same breath - as horror - albeit in a completely different context. Both stories are superb examples of "Nonsupernatural Fiction." Both avoid the traditional trappings of so-called "Supernatural Horror" (ghosts, grimoires, etc.) yet achieve an undeniable horrific impact upon the attentive reader.

Re: Can horror in literature be nonsupernatural?
 

Yellowish Haze,

I define nature as "everything".

I've been confused about the common definition of supernatural for a while. I wasn't sure whether people usually meant something like 'something beyond nature', or 'an extraordinary occurrence within nature', when speaking of the supernatural.

I consulted a few of the online dictionaries, and they seem to agree that the common definition of the supernatural is close to 'something beyond nature'. From Thefreedictionary.com: "1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world."

It occurred to me that the word preternatural might be more appropriate in many cases where the word supernatural is used. Thefreedictionary seems to agree in one of the definitions listed for preternatural: "2. Surpassing the normal or usual; extraordinary". The other definitions listed find it more or less synonymous with supernatural.

Since I define nature as everything, I don't believe in the supernatural if it is defined as 'beyond nature'. Or, I think the supernatural is impossible according to my definition. If something exists, it is a part of nature.

This conclusion depends on my own definition of nature. If someone else defines nature differently, then I can see how they would consider the supernatural quite possible. It seems to come down to a matter of personal preference.

That doesn't answer your question(s) though.

I guess I would say that, yes, a work of literature can be regarded as horror even though it doesn’t contain any overt supernatural manifestations.

I think a case can be made for 'the sense of the supernatural' in horror literature, though.

I think Ligotti mentioned this in an early draft of CATHR, using the example of a car accident.

I know that death is a natural event. I know that car accidents happen. "These things happen". But when it happens, as the car is skidding out of control over black ice, I think "this can't be happening". Death asserts itself in spite of me.

This is supernatural horror for me. The thought "this can't be happening", and the simultaneous realization that it is, in fact, happening.

Re: Can horror in literature be nonsupernatural?
 

I would suggest that the finest examples of non-supernatural horror fiction tend to approximate a state of unreality; that is, as a protagonist in one of these tales falls deeper into dread, he moves towards uncertainty, into the hazy, ambiguous region bordering the uncanny. To illustrate this, recall "The Bungalow House." When we first encounter the dark figure wearing "a long loose overcoat and hat," we register a shift in the nature of events. The figure is not only menacing in his silence, but he is strange: he seems to be an embodiment of something sinister, rather than a real man. The corporality of the silhouetted figure is in question. Of course, we realise that the figure is a projection of sorts, a manifestation of the protagonist's unhealthy impulses, a last ditch attempt made by an unravelling mind to protect itself against an unendurable revelation. But even as we acknowledge this, the atmosphere surrounding the events has become ambiguous and weird: we are under the spell of the uncanny, while at the same time we understand that the protagonist is suffering from a profound, and very human, alienation--alienation from his surroundings, from other people, and from himself. Thus in "The Bungalow House" Ligotti has skillfully penned a tale which approximates the uncanny in its atmosphere while remaining faithful to psychological reality. It is truly a weird tale of non-supernatural horror (and it is my long-time favourite).

On the other side, it is well-known that successful tales of the supernatural often introduce an element of ambiguity, usually through a character of questionable psychological health, thus causing the reader to doubt the authenticity of the uncanny: A Turn of the Screw is a fine example of this.

Re: Can horror in literature be nonsupernatural?
 

I can't see horror literature as a simple label for "supernatural & scary"...

Quoting the Horror Writers Association from their page "What is Horror Fiction?" :

Re: Can horror in literature be nonsupernatural?
 

And if you ask some of them they will probably tell you that "horror" isn't literature at all..

What i mean is that sometimes critics, even readers, have the tendency to separate "horror" literature from "serious" literature. For them, is sacrilegious to say that "The Trial" belongs to the horror genre where everyone is writing supernatural bull####! So that distinction is critical to them. They need it to answer the question "What are you reading now?" (Serious stuff not stories with ghosts and monsters!)

Do i make any sense???:p

Re: Can horror in literature be nonsupernatural?
 

Perhaps this is even more felt in southern Europe. Since the XIX century there is in the Italian culture a strong aversion to anything that is not realistic.

Re: Can horror in literature be nonsupernatural?
 

To my way of thinking, any work of literature that elicits a fear response from the reader, or even seriously disturbs the reader should rightfully be identified as horror. Perhaps thrillers could be regarded as a branch of horror literature?

A few examples of novels and short stories I would consider as falling within the domain of horror:

(i) Johnny Got His Gun... Dalton Trumbo
(ii) "The Killers"... Ernest Hemingway
(iii) And Then There Were None... Agatha Christie
(iv) A few of Ambrose Bierce's Civil War stories like "One of the Missing"
(v) The Three Coffins... John Dickson Carr
(vi) "An Illusion in Red and White"... Stephen Crane
(vii) A few of Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories like "The Adventure of the Devil's Foot" and "The Adventure of the Lion's Mane"
(viii) "The Town Where No One Got Off"... Ray Bradbury

I'm sure several works of drama, poetry, and non-fiction would fit the horror label.

Re: Can horror in literature be nonsupernatural?
 

That couldbe the point - and a valid one at that, since one sometimes has to make distinctions. Nevertheless, that certain distinction can always be argued.

I tend towards not having any definite criteria. I like the idea that it's the readers' reaction towards the material that defines the genre, but clearly, this ain't so. The intent of the author (or, "the "intent" of "the author" to satisfy certain members of the community ;)) clearly has something to say too.

I usually don't become particularly horrified by most horror literature, and I don't think horryfing is the true intent of horror literature - that is mostly a by-product of the general sense of displacement, which I think characterises horror literature better (there's also, of course, the horror literature which doesn't frighten simply because it's bad. And then there's the horror literature which frightens, but isn't reallyof any literary quality; the only quality is the stimulus from the horror).

I think Bleak&Icy's post is quite to the point, but there are pitfalls in that approach too: weird fiction (that is the term you're advocating for, right?) may be too broad a genre, too all-encompassing. By using that term, we can include Gogol, Bulgakov, the oft-mentioned Kafka, Bruno Schulz and so on and so on. This certainly gives the genre more literary merit than is usually assigned to it.
But, apart from the general sense of displacement (and literary quality), they don't have exceptionally much in common with "pure" horror writers such as Ligotti, et.al.

There is also the danger of relegating "pure" horror writers to literary inferiority compared with the more mainstream-accepted writers by using such a term as weird fiction.

However, "horror", supernatural or not, is too narrow a term, since a lot of writers outside the genre definitely have horrific passages and a general sense of displacement, in spite of not being "pure horror".

And, also, to get horror out of the ghetto (with regards to that, one should remember that the ghost story and the supernatural modes were quite dominating modes in the 19th century, before being relegated to genre fiction), "horror" becomes too narrow a term.

And then there's the writers who work on the fringe of horror and the weird, such as Aickman.

One should really also make a distinction between horror and the ghost story.

(I also think that it would be very worthwhile to incorporate China Míevilles distinction between the hauntological and the weird from Collapse vol. 4 into all of this).

There, now - I think I've just made distinctions more blurred than they were before. How come these discussions always come up when I'm hung over? Not thatit would really make more sense when I'm not, I'm afraid.

Which is why I completely understand the need for for distinctions, and to try and keep fiction in boundaries, however fluid these boundaries may be.