Can horror in literature be nonsupernatural?
 

Dear Ligottians,

After some heated discussions on another forum over the definition of “horror in literature” I decided to come here to ask you, as my friends and devoted horror fiction fans, the following question:

Can a work of literature be regarded as horror even though it doesn’t contain any overt supernatural manifestations?

If yes, can we say that nonsupernatural horror forms part of the horror genre?

I am looking forward to discussing this subject.

yrs,
Slawek

Re: Can horror in literature be nonsupernatural?
 

Interesting subject.
But how do we define 'supernatural'?
A dream is quite real but can be quite bizarre and non-natural seeming.

Re: Can horror in literature be nonsupernatural?
 

Yes, sure, anything can be regarded as horror.

In my opinion, it would fall under that sub-genre if the author is attempting to elicit that horror reaction, but not if the horror is the byproduct of a much larger, higher level attempt within the literature that has a greater overall impact on the reader. A lot of novels, etc. have aspects that are horrific, but they also have a grander, more compelling theme that leaves a more intense impression on the reader. To me, a case like that would fall into the category or genre of that "larger, higher level attempt", although I do hate to categorize so absolutely. It is often the hardest works to categorize that are the most worthwhile.

I suppose that like all of these questions, a lot depends on the reader's interpretation. I have a particular fondness for movies that have a good dose of the horrific, but are not attempting to be genre movies, and a lot of the allure is the hidden, secret horror being carried to the masses in the 'trojan horse' of a work.

Hidden horror movie of the week: Picnic at Hanging Rock. Full of happy girls, sunlight, and inevitable doom.

Re: Can horror in literature be nonsupernatural?
 

Great question.
Lets say that supernatural is simply something that goes against the laws of nature or cannot be scientifically explained.

Now, dreams are very tricky. On the one hand, we still haven't grasped their purpose, whilst on the other we can't say that they are supernatural like for instance ghosts.

I'd say that it depends on the context. Of course, all such paranormal phenomena related to dreaming as mutual dreaming and precognitive dreams ect. are supernatural. Now how about any other weird experiences in dreams?

Re: Can horror in literature be nonsupernatural?
 

Absolutely Slawek and sometimes Poe is a great example of that. Stories like The Tell -Tale Heart give you the creeps and it's all about madness. Nothing supernatural. Another good example that comes to me is the "The Yellow Wallpaper" by Charlotte Perkins Gilman. Madness again. Horror again.

Re: Can horror in literature be nonsupernatural?
 

marx_1, Ligeia, so far your reaction to this subject is just like mine. "Picnic at Hanging Rock" and Gilman's "The Yellow Paper" are great examples, btw.

However, apparently there is a belief among some groups of critics and readers of horror literature that the element which distinguishes horror from other genres such as drama, psychological drama, suspense and thriller is the element of the supernatural.

This means that such books as "The Trial" by Kafka or "Psycho" by Bloch and countless other novels, short stories you may have considered as part of the genre are not horror. I wonder what is your reaction to such theory.

Re: Can horror in literature be nonsupernatural?
 

I'm afraid that the followers of the theory you mention leave out a great deal of writing..And if you ask some of them they will probably tell you that "horror" isn't literature at all..And if horror was only supernatural then we would all probably led lives free of horrific experiences and moments.

Re: Can horror in literature be nonsupernatural?
 

I know Ligeia and this is what bothers me. However from their pov I simply must suffer from the complex of ghettoization of the genre.

Apparently this is not the case. According to such way of thinking horror is a genre but simply limited to works of fiction, which contain an element of supernatural. When I tried to argue that horror is an emotion, and this specific emotion should characterise the genre one person went so far as to say that horror is a genre but not an emotion!:D

Re: Can horror in literature be nonsupernatural?
 

There is no doubt that horror can be attributed wholly to the Supernatural. The natural world contains horrors aplenty, entirely explainable but horrific nonetheless.

Take any of the following: leeches, tapeworms, spiders, snakes, flesh-eating streptococci...horror ABOUNDS in nature, if the circumstances are right. I myself find a fascinating horror blooming when I closely watch a wasp or hornet. Ever closely observe one? I don't even mean one that is trying to sting you, or even being pursued by a swarm--though both instances are fearful, and anyone who says pursuit by an angry swarm of single-minded, poison-stingered hymenopterae who are intent on one thing alone, which is KILLING you...well, anyone who says they feel no dread in such an instance, I say quite simply that they are either hopelessly mad or simply lying--but watching just one, going about it's waspy business. Their abdomens pulse rhythmically as they sit there, and the sight of that evokes some primal fear within me.

I realize you were inquiring about literature, and not my personal opinions. A story that would fit into the category using the natural world is Leinengen Versus the Ants, by Carl Stephenson.

For another horror story that I think could be argued is not supernatural, Chambers' The Repairer of Reputations.

-Jimmy

Re: Can horror in literature be nonsupernatural?
 

YHaze,

I think many people arguing the other side of your point are more interested in categorizing literature by cause, not effect. In other words, they are counting the 'pieces parts' used, not the intent or actual effect on the reader. To me, it seems much more important to assess the result of the interaction of writer/story/reader than to quantify the types of words used to arrive at that conclusion.

I had forgotten about "The Yellow Wallpaper", yikes!

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.

Re: Can horror in literature be nonsupernatural?
 

Of course, I am not saying that boundaries don't make sense. My problem with the theory that there has to be a supernatural element in a given piece of literature for it to be considered as horror is that this allows no fluidity at all. This implies for instance that you can't say that Psycho is a successful marriage of horror and thriller, because (as far as I remember) there are no supernatural elements in Bloch's novel.

If someone proposes such theory I think he should take into account that there can be exceptions to this rule.

(I have to stress that I mention Bloch's novel because it is just an example which is always considered as problematic when it comes to classification. I don't like that book that much, so I don't actually care for it myself ;))

Re: Can horror in literature be nonsupernatural?
 

Oh, I'm sorry - another of my rants which ran away from it's author.

I didn't mean to imply that you (or anyone else for that matter) said that boundaries didn't make sense - sorry if I gave you that impression. The words ran in a different direction than my head wanted them to run to.

Basically, I agree completely with your post above (also the part about Psycho).

I think one must distinguish between supernatural horror and non-supernatural horror. However, this distinction is mainly important when one is dealing with a story which is on the borderline of the two cases , when the supernatural phenomena is somehow blurred in the story.

When it's either this-or-that, that distinction becomes of less importance.

Re: Can horror in literature be nonsupernatural?
 

I do not believe that the supernatural is a necessary element of a horror story. As you mentioned, Psycho is a perfect example. I remember listening to Ramsey Campbell make the distinction between weird fiction and horror fiction. He cited Dunsany as someone who wrote weird fiction but not horror fiction, and Thomas Harris, at the other extreme, who writes horror fiction with no weird or supernatural elements.

The two passages below are from two separate Ligotti interviews where he weighs in on the subject. I like his "sense of the supernatural" idea. Perhaps depicting certain incidents, in a nightmarish way, that are so horrific that they are outside of our range of comprehension, so much so that they would distort our perception of reality, thus creating a sense of unreality or the uncanny, could still be classified as weird fiction despite no "true" supernatural elements.


"Joseph Conrad said that he shunned the supernatural because it wasn’t necessary to depict the horror of existence. I wish he hadn’t. Because the supernatural is the metaphysical counterpart of insanity—the best possible vehicle for conveying the uncanny nightmare of a conscious mind marooned for a brief while in this haunted house of a world and being slowly driven mad by the ghastliness of it all. Not the man’s-inhumanity-to-man sort of thing, but a necessary derangement, a high order of weirdness and of desolation built in to the system in which we all function. Its emblem is the empty and inexplicable malignity that some of us see in the faces of dolls, manikins, puppets, and the like. The faces of so many effigies of our own shape, made by our own hands and minds, seem to be our way of telling ourselves that we know a secret that is too terrible to tell. The horror writer has the best chance of expressing something of that secret. It’s really a lost opportunity, or perhaps a blessing, that so few take advantage of this potential that lies in horror fiction."
-Thomas Ligotti



"To me, reading a horror story should be very much like dreaming and the more dreamlike a story is, the more it affects me. I’m not the first to say that the nightmare, not the morning newspaper is the ideal model for horror fiction. Even the supernatural element of a story is expendable. Nonetheless, what remains crucial is the sense of the supernatural, the feeling of something dreadful and marvelous beyond all analysis, a feeling that may very well be inspired by something usually considered to be "natural" such as insanity or death. (Poe does this with incredible effect, especially in " The Tell-Tale Heart", where a merely gruesome vignette is used to evoke all the potential strangeness, mystery, and spiritual horror of death and madness). And the sense of the supernatural is something that arises from the confrontation of a reader with a story, not something that is dependent upon a division within the story between the real and the unreal. Of course, levels of fictional reality are fine and useful, but they are not necessarily a source of horror."
-Thomas Ligotti

Re: Can horror in literature be nonsupernatural?
 

I just thought of another horror tale that is not supernatural, though it seethes with the numinous: Poe's "A Descent into the Maelstrom".

And they can't say it's merely a thriller, or adventure. If they do, they

a) obviously haven't read it

or

b) have no real sense of what is or isn't horror.

-Jimmy

Re: Can horror in literature be nonsupernatural?
 

Ben, thank you for these examples. I think you might be referring to this interview (still haven't checked whether it's true):

http://www.trashotron.com/agony/inde...view_index.htm

(Ramsey Campbell Part 1 & 2)

And here is an article on that subject:
http://www.trashotron.com/agony/colu...3/01-27-03.htm

EDIT:
looks like it's not that interview. Well worth listening to anyway.

Re: Can horror in literature be nonsupernatural?
 

Certainly, but it may require varying views of "horror." For example, one can find the idea that life isn't horrific horrific and thus be frightened by works like Conrad's (mentioned earlier) or even Hardy's Jude the Obscure. Sometimes, even a work that may be considered supernatural may offer the same view. For example, what one may find frightening in a work like Kafka's Metamorphosis isn't the fear of turning into an insect but the fear that it will never happen.

Re: Can horror in literature be nonsupernatural?
 

Travesty by John Hawkes is a novella-length exposition of this theme—a very exciting read in a very odd way.

Intriguing. Could you elaborate on this?

Re: Can horror in literature be nonsupernatural?
 

Many thanks for the quotes.

In spite of me possibly sounding like I've been inspired by formalism, I would like to add that there should be made a distinction between supernatural horror fiction and supernatural fiction.

Little boxes...chop, chop, chop...

Re: Can horror in literature be nonsupernatural?
 

Gregor's initial reaction after the metamorphosis is notable, as well as questions raised by his family about the insect's identity, Gregor's double about his own identity as he eats rotten food coupled with his fear of no longer being able to support his family financially, his adventures around his room, and the intriguing ending of the story.

It's a fantastic parable because it's meant to provoke readers who exist in the same bureaucratic milieu. They sometimes wish they could run away from such a milieu but can't. Thus, one can argue that if there's anything more frightening than turning into an insect, it's the fact that one can't.

Re: Can horror in literature be nonsupernatural?
 

paeng, a fine illustration of the frustration of being damned if you do and damned if you don't... ;) and :eek:

Re: Can horror in literature be nonsupernatural?
 

Is the short story "Frolic" by T. Ligotti, a horror story? If the answer is yes, which I believe it is, then a horror story does not need to contain any supernatural elements at all. Most stories by E. A. Poe are also horror stories, and not supernatural either. So let me add this question: Why are we so attracted to the supernatural, if it cannot be proved, and almost with certainty it does not exist? I could go from beginning to end in my life and affirm without lying that I never encountered any supernatural fact that could not be explained scientifically. So why are we so attracted to it? For example, the story "What was it?" by Fritz O'Brien is an excellent story about something that we know that cannot exist. However, why is it that we still read this story again and again?

Re: Can horror in literature be nonsupernatural?
 

I believe it's the fear and curiosity of the unknown that create this attraction to anything supernatural..And some hope that is more than this cruel reality we are living..

Re: Can horror in literature be nonsupernatural?
 

Curiosity, maybe not, because one could have "scientific curiosity" which is not supernatural.
Fear, I agree with you in some degree.
I believe that our attraction to the supernatural is more a vestige from ancient magic. For instance, bones of dragons that resulted to be bones of ancient dinosaurs, real creatures of our past, and bones of unreal or supernatural creatures. Some illiterate men still believe in evil eye. Can you believe that eyes, mostly liquid substance, have evil powers? In fact, does evil exist?
It is specially transmitted through religion. I'm trying a theory with my 4 year old son. I'm not teaching him the concept of God. Let me ask, when he is 16, would he believe in the supernatural? Or, like his father, would he try to find a scientific answer?
Finally I don't think that Good or Evil exists beyond our minds. Where are they, if not? This world is as cruel as we are.
And we also are attracted to it because life is otherwise too boring, too ordinary.

Re: Can horror in literature be nonsupernatural?
 

My favorite novel is Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy. (Hence my username.) It is sold as a western, but, it is in my opinion the greatest horror novel ever written. In fact most of what he writes I would label as horror. I also believe it is a non-supernatural evil that is present and active throughout the story. However, on a metaphorical level, the chief antagonist, known as The Judge, is an archetype of many supernatural demons and demigods and sometimes interpreted as the incarnation of Lucifer himself. There are also many things regarding the Judge's actions in the book that are not explainable by empirical measures.

I do not think we can divorce evil entirely from the realm of the supernatural. Mainly because of the very nature of language. We are dealing with fuzzy terms to begin with. For instance how small in circumference does a raindrop have to be in order to be redefined as mist? That has not been determined. Yet we all "know" the difference when we walk outside on a cloudy day between rain and mist and fog.

What then can clearly be defined as natural? What then is determined to be outside or above that sphere if we can only know it by our natural minds? Is some element of our psyche supernatural? Is there a soul? I believe there is, but I cannot prove it. It would take someone independent of that "natural" sphere to enter into it and communicate to those who are integral to that nature, and reveal what the "other" consists of. This is why I presuppose, or believe by faith, in the incarnation of Christ. It creates a basis for the supernatural by defining a realms of angels, demons, departed souls, and God himself.

One could say also that all emotions, unless we can break them down into chemical compounds, are in fact abstract and supernatural. What is the chemical formula for hate, love, fear, anger, or envy?

Just my two cents.

And I would also like to add that I am glad I found a forum for other fans of Ligotti.

Re: Can horror in literature be nonsupernatural?
 

Blood Meridian is actually the kind of novel I was thinking about when I mentioned nonsupernatural horror fiction.
McCarthy is by some considered to be a horror writer, because a couple of his novels are truly horrifying (which imho is a very good reason).

This is what Fiona Webster says about McCarthy:

Source: FW: Why You Should Read Cormac McCarthy

Re: Can horror in literature be nonsupernatural?
 

Oy gevalt, I have put ye bulk of my comments before your name & thus they are in ye shaded area with yr own comments. Now you know why I have chosen my signature, which refers only to myself. Perhaps someday, in the dim haunted future, I shall learn how to stagger through this eldritch electric realm. --HOPFROG

Re: Can horror in literature be nonsupernatural?
 

And yet most straight fantasy fiction contains elements of dark supernatural horror.

Re: Can horror in literature be nonsupernatural?
 

This is a fascinating concept. I love tales in which the narrator "embraces" the horror, i.e. ye ending of "Shadow over Innsmouth."

Re: Can horror in literature be nonsupernatural?
 

Perfect sense. As readers and writers of weird fiction, we are often mocked for our interest in the genre. When H. Warner Munn (who, in his youth, used to drive Lovecraft to various New England sites in his car) once took me to a gathering of poets (Munn had just publish'd a book-length poem honoring Joan of Arc), one woman actually came up to me and asked, "Why do you write fantasy? Is it that you're trying to escape reality?" Her question contained her own answer, her own certainty that her view was the only view. Nothing I could have answered would have persuaded her from her prejudice. There occurs, in some of my stories, the image of some dead soul with their face in a pool of vomit -- and this is not some supernatural escape from reality but rather a memory of the cruel and chilly reality that has been my experience of love. So a pox on yem wankers who dismiss us as mental/emotional children.

Re: Can horror in literature be nonsupernatural?
 

"Supernatural horror" is dark phantasy that depicts scenes outside of reality. I often write tales of what I call "the impossible narrative," first-person narrative tales told by a person who dies at the end of the story. This is pure phantasy, for such a tale could never be "told".