(no subject)
Looks like good news on the job front. Originally I was hired as a visiting lecturer, which means I just got paid for the work I did, nothing else. Now, the pay was extremely good, but it did mean that I didn't get any money for holidays like Christmas, Easter, and this long, long summer, during which I haven't been able to secure any temp work and have had to rely on my final wage pack (which was good, fortunately) and the pathetically small amounts this government hands out to people who are unemployed. God knows how people live on £56 per week long term. The government reckons that this is enough to survive on, but really, it's not.
Anyway, I went into work yesterday to sign my new temp contract (which would've been more hours and more money) and was told that they're probably going to fast track a new permanent position for me. Yay! It'll take away the financial pressure because it means I'll be paid all year round instead of just for the hours I've worked. True, it's more responsibility, which is scary, but it's so much more stable for me.
Anyway, back to my reading journal. I've written an Introduction to Horror Literature, which basically goes into what horror is, etc, and talks about a Clive Barker story, 'Rawhead Rex' as an example. Hope anyone who reads it finads it interesting :-)
Introduction to Horror Literature/Writing
What does the Horror genre encompass?
Firstly, some definitions, with regard to what Horror might mean:
1. Horror: 1. extreme fear; terror; dread. 2. intense loathing; hatred. 3.(often plural) a thing or person causing fear, loathing etc. 4, (modifier) having a frightening subject, esp. a supernatural one.
2. Fear. 1. feeling of distress, apprehension, or alarm caused by impending danger, pain, etc. 2. a cause of this feeling. 3. awe, reverence, e.g. for God. 4. concern, anxiety.
3. Terror. 1. great fear, panic, or dread. 2. person or thing that inspires great dread.
4. Dread. 1. to anticipate with apprehension or terror. 2. to fear greatly. 3. Archaic. To be in awe of. 4. great fear, horror. 5. an object of terror.
(Taken from Collins English Dictionary, 1994.)
All of these elements crop up in Horror Fiction in one form or another, even if they are present as nebulous emotions rather than obviously horrific monsters/events.
Why are people (myself included) interested in the Horror genre, and why does something whose subject is inherently unpleasant still flourish? Why are people simultaneously horrified and entertained by things they know do not really exist - although, deep down in the human psyche, there is always a persistent fear of the unknown and the awesome (i.e., that which inspires dread and awe).
Possible reasons for this continued interest may include the following facets:
1. The 'Cosmic Fear' Factor: a proposal from HP Lovecraft's essay 'The Supernatural in Literature'. The horror story (monster) produces a sensation of awe, creating an almost religious experience in the reader - 'almost' in the sense that religion is supposed to offer hope and rebirth, whereas Cosmic Fear offers despair and destruction. It releases the instinctual fear of the unknown on a cosmic level (Hence, presumably, Lovecraft's mythos of the Old Ones, which will be examined more closely later).
2. The 'Relief Effect' - the 'thank God it's not me' syndrome. We can experience the fear in safety, knowing it isn't happening to us, and because the subject is fictitious, we know it isn't likely to. Noel Carroll in The Philosophy of Horror derides this concept, saying it is ridiculous (yet fails to give solid reasoning for this ridicule), but other theoreticians have claimed its veracity, and I am inclined to agree that this is an element that makes people inclined to read horror fiction.
3. The 'Good versus Evil' effect - often, in Horror fiction, the monster is destroyed by the protagonist, which rebalances the cosmos's status quo. The reader can once again believe that good is stronger than evil. As mentioned in Point 1, this becomes linked with religion; the monster is often representative of despair, rather than hope. It becomes the object of a quasi-religious experience: mysterium tremendum fascinams et augustum. The object of said experience is often tremendous, inducing a feeling of impotent helplessness in the protagonist, who is terrified to the point of paralysis. Take this to the ultimate point, and the reader becomes, through the experiences of the protagonist, ultimately useless, at least until the object of awe and dread is destroyed. There is a sense of awe, of mystery and astonishment, and the terror of facing the previously unknown. The 'numen' is wholly other. Often, the monster is unclean or impure in some way, to emphasise its evilness, or 'otherness'.
4. The Psychological factor - 'wish fulfilment' of transgressive/perverted desires (as in Fantasy Notes) can be applied to certain monsters e.g. vampires, werewolves. Freudian sexuality theories. Heimlich/unheimlich - the 'homely' and the 'not-homely'. A way of exploring pain, rage, death, and phobias through literature, and to explore subconscious; fears regarding sex and sexuality, and familial relationships.
5. As a result of the above point, monsters/representations of horror can be seen to act as metaphors for real life - possibly the manifestations of these elements represent something deep in the individual's psyche, and horror narratives, perhaps more than any other kind, touch these subconscious elements.
6. The 'Subversion' factor as suggested by Rosemary Jackson in her text Fantasy - The Literature of Subversion. Subversion of the 'norm' in society and culture gives vicarious pleasure to readers and writers. Also, sci-horror (nuclear threats, cloning, etc) and cultural horrors (e.g. urban decay and the violent society) can be extrapolated from present society and transformed into horror literature.
7. The 'Enjoyment' factor - the flight/fight response, the adrenaline rush that is a purely biological response to excitement. Reading/watching horror gives us an extended adrenaline rush. We are in a state of constant excitement/dread for the duration of the entertainment. Instead of running away from or fighting the dreaded object, we allow it to frighten us; in fact, we expect and want it to do so. We know it is not real, so no harm can be done to us (linked with Point 2).
None of the above fully encompasses the questions posed, but put them together and there is a complex set of criteria to take into account when considering the horror genre. Carroll tries to find one single common criterion to define the horror genre, but does not convince me that there is a single reason for the continued rise in the purchase of horror fiction. Horror is a complex emotion, and this is reflected in its literature, whether literary horror or pulp fiction written for the masses.
Does this horror have to be overt? Do we have to have a monster or gallons of blood in order to have these needs satisfied? I believe not. There is 'soft' horror and 'graphic' horror, and even dark fantasy, which is often sinister enough in content to be included within the horror genre. All have their place, depending on what effect the author/reader is looking for. Sometimes the monster is within ourselves. Noel Carroll calls this effect 'real horror' as opposed to 'art horror', and seems dismissive of the idea, but I think that emotion in and of itself can be equally horrifying if presented in certain ways, and can be just as destructive as any monster.
Likewise, he seems to disregard the serial-killer/suspense type of horror as not being encompassed by his theories, and again, I would have to disagree with him. We all feel horror at what the killer does; we all want to see him or her caught/destroyed. We can also feel dread and awe at what the killer does to his/her victims, and we certainly feel safe and reassured that we are not the killer's chosen victims. Unfortunately, 'real horror' happens every day - somehow the safety element seems dispersed here - perhaps 'real horror' is more purely horror than fiction?
As for the motives of writing horror - for me, this relates perhaps more to Points 4, 5, and 6 above, since it becomes an outlet for my own inner 'horrors', and also, if a happy ending is forthcoming, it maintains a sense of hope. I tend toward the less graphic, perhaps what should more accurately be called Dark Fantasy, where horror is suggested rather than explicitly shown, although I recognise there are times where this is necessary to illustrate certain acts within the text.
Sources: Noel Carroll - The Philosophy or Horror. Paradoxes of the Heart.
Rosemary Jackson - Fantasy - The Literature of Subversion
(Note: For full bibliography details see Study Details - separate sheet)
Weekly Reading: 'Rawhead Rex' - Clive Barker; Books of Blood Volume 3
Synopsis: On a farm near the village of Zeal, Thomas Garrow ploughs a field which has been unused for generations, because he has run out of land to use on his farm. He comes across a deep-rooted rock, which gets in the way of his plough, and decides to uproot it. The rock is very difficult to shift, and as he works, Garrow has a growing feeling that it shouldn't be disturbed, but decides to finish the job anyway. When he finally uproots the rock, he sets free Rawhead Rex, a vicious Green Man type of creature who was imprisoned by the Christian villagers under the rock several centuries before.
Once freed, RR goes on a killing spree - he is a man-eater, untouched by civilisation and culture, driven by instinct. He is the last of a dead race of such creatures, which bred on human women and ate human men. The only things he fears are menstrual blood and fire; menstrual blood because - as many ancient and some modern cultures believe - it holds female power, and fire because it kills and purifies.
He goes to the church, and the verger - who is a weak individual - becomes in thrall of RR, who is desirous of slaves and territory. The verger is the mediator between RR and the human world, and by converting the verger to his will, RR manages to subvert the church, his hated enemy. RR desecrates the church by urinating over it, and makes the verger drink his urine. He murders the vicar, who unsuccessfully tries to defend his church.
More slaughter ensues; Barker shows RR's lust for killing and blood in graphic detail, which certainly horrifies, but it seems right that Barker should take this approach. Anything less graphic would not convey RR's primitive power, or his lust for human flesh.
Naturally, the villagers - who are of course better equipped to deal with RR than their ancestors - manage to kill RR with fire, using the added ingredient - petrol. By killing RR, the status quo is restored, and RR - dead - cannot again threaten it.
Interpretation:
1. Rawhead Rex is the numen - he not only inspires terror, but also awe and fascination. His name suggests 'King' - he was once king of a race of monstrous creatures. His 'raw' head is perhaps indicative of the raw horror his victims experience when they see him, just as his power is 'raw' and primal. His victims are paralysed with terror when they encounter him; he is the epitome of mysterium tremendum fascinams et augustum. 'Thomas Garrow stood and watched. There was nothing in him but awe. Fear was for those who still had a chance of life. He had none.' 'Rawhead Rex' p 42.
2. Rawhead Rex is the embodiment of impurity i.e., he is not only terrifying, but also physically repellent and unclean. He marks his territory with 'foul' urine. He is surrounded by the stench of putrefaction - this could be metaphorical of the death he always brings with him.
3. The story of Rawhead Rex induces Lovecraft's idea of cosmic fear - an encounter with the creature is akin to meeting a vengeful god. Indeed, one of the characters - the verger in the church, in fact - goes as far as worshipping the beast, allowing RR to urinate on him, the ultimate sign of territorial ownership. He also procures a victim for him - the vicar of the church. RR is beyond humanity and the status quo; he represents something wholly alien that we cannot understand.
4. RR represents the 'evil' in the Good vs. Evil conundrum. Seen metaphorically, RR is a representation of the 'time before man' and thus civilisation. He is a force of nature. Therefore, the binary opposition of Nature vs. Culture - introduced at the beginning of the narrative with the 'invasion' of Zeal by city types, who destroy the village's natural life - is observed and continued with the coming of RR. More specifically, RR represents the 'evil' pagan religion (despite his instinctual cruelty, he is a kind of Green Man figure - and even his bloodlust seems to demand sacrifice rather than killing for the sake of it), in contrast to the 'good' Christianity. This is reiterated because some of the action takes place inside the village church, which RR desecrates, emphasising this evil. However, in the end, civilisation, and thus the Church, is victorious and the 'evil' pagan religion - the original religion Before Christ - is defeated.
5. Rawhead subverts culture's status quo, from the Church to the Police Force, and is thus a threat to authority. He is a force for Chaos. As stated above, however, the status quo is returned to normal upon his death.
Observations - My first foray into examining horror has been a concretion of ideas for me. The theories of the genre and what they represent confirm my own thoughts, for which I had not yet formulated specific ideas. These things seemed instinctual to me, and I am pleased - and a little surprised - to have my beliefs backed up by authoritative texts. I have been able to read some parts of these texts and decide if I agree with them. If I do not agree, I have been able to decide why.
Also, it has shown me that Horror as a genre does have much more depth than some literary snobs might assume it has - it is a branch of Fantasy that has been derided as too populist (as if that is a bad thing), and I am heartened to see that some critics do take it seriously.
Anyway, I went into work yesterday to sign my new temp contract (which would've been more hours and more money) and was told that they're probably going to fast track a new permanent position for me. Yay! It'll take away the financial pressure because it means I'll be paid all year round instead of just for the hours I've worked. True, it's more responsibility, which is scary, but it's so much more stable for me.
Anyway, back to my reading journal. I've written an Introduction to Horror Literature, which basically goes into what horror is, etc, and talks about a Clive Barker story, 'Rawhead Rex' as an example. Hope anyone who reads it finads it interesting :-)
Introduction to Horror Literature/Writing
What does the Horror genre encompass?
Firstly, some definitions, with regard to what Horror might mean:
1. Horror: 1. extreme fear; terror; dread. 2. intense loathing; hatred. 3.(often plural) a thing or person causing fear, loathing etc. 4, (modifier) having a frightening subject, esp. a supernatural one.
2. Fear. 1. feeling of distress, apprehension, or alarm caused by impending danger, pain, etc. 2. a cause of this feeling. 3. awe, reverence, e.g. for God. 4. concern, anxiety.
3. Terror. 1. great fear, panic, or dread. 2. person or thing that inspires great dread.
4. Dread. 1. to anticipate with apprehension or terror. 2. to fear greatly. 3. Archaic. To be in awe of. 4. great fear, horror. 5. an object of terror.
(Taken from Collins English Dictionary, 1994.)
All of these elements crop up in Horror Fiction in one form or another, even if they are present as nebulous emotions rather than obviously horrific monsters/events.
Why are people (myself included) interested in the Horror genre, and why does something whose subject is inherently unpleasant still flourish? Why are people simultaneously horrified and entertained by things they know do not really exist - although, deep down in the human psyche, there is always a persistent fear of the unknown and the awesome (i.e., that which inspires dread and awe).
Possible reasons for this continued interest may include the following facets:
1. The 'Cosmic Fear' Factor: a proposal from HP Lovecraft's essay 'The Supernatural in Literature'. The horror story (monster) produces a sensation of awe, creating an almost religious experience in the reader - 'almost' in the sense that religion is supposed to offer hope and rebirth, whereas Cosmic Fear offers despair and destruction. It releases the instinctual fear of the unknown on a cosmic level (Hence, presumably, Lovecraft's mythos of the Old Ones, which will be examined more closely later).
2. The 'Relief Effect' - the 'thank God it's not me' syndrome. We can experience the fear in safety, knowing it isn't happening to us, and because the subject is fictitious, we know it isn't likely to. Noel Carroll in The Philosophy of Horror derides this concept, saying it is ridiculous (yet fails to give solid reasoning for this ridicule), but other theoreticians have claimed its veracity, and I am inclined to agree that this is an element that makes people inclined to read horror fiction.
3. The 'Good versus Evil' effect - often, in Horror fiction, the monster is destroyed by the protagonist, which rebalances the cosmos's status quo. The reader can once again believe that good is stronger than evil. As mentioned in Point 1, this becomes linked with religion; the monster is often representative of despair, rather than hope. It becomes the object of a quasi-religious experience: mysterium tremendum fascinams et augustum. The object of said experience is often tremendous, inducing a feeling of impotent helplessness in the protagonist, who is terrified to the point of paralysis. Take this to the ultimate point, and the reader becomes, through the experiences of the protagonist, ultimately useless, at least until the object of awe and dread is destroyed. There is a sense of awe, of mystery and astonishment, and the terror of facing the previously unknown. The 'numen' is wholly other. Often, the monster is unclean or impure in some way, to emphasise its evilness, or 'otherness'.
4. The Psychological factor - 'wish fulfilment' of transgressive/perverted desires (as in Fantasy Notes) can be applied to certain monsters e.g. vampires, werewolves. Freudian sexuality theories. Heimlich/unheimlich - the 'homely' and the 'not-homely'. A way of exploring pain, rage, death, and phobias through literature, and to explore subconscious; fears regarding sex and sexuality, and familial relationships.
5. As a result of the above point, monsters/representations of horror can be seen to act as metaphors for real life - possibly the manifestations of these elements represent something deep in the individual's psyche, and horror narratives, perhaps more than any other kind, touch these subconscious elements.
6. The 'Subversion' factor as suggested by Rosemary Jackson in her text Fantasy - The Literature of Subversion. Subversion of the 'norm' in society and culture gives vicarious pleasure to readers and writers. Also, sci-horror (nuclear threats, cloning, etc) and cultural horrors (e.g. urban decay and the violent society) can be extrapolated from present society and transformed into horror literature.
7. The 'Enjoyment' factor - the flight/fight response, the adrenaline rush that is a purely biological response to excitement. Reading/watching horror gives us an extended adrenaline rush. We are in a state of constant excitement/dread for the duration of the entertainment. Instead of running away from or fighting the dreaded object, we allow it to frighten us; in fact, we expect and want it to do so. We know it is not real, so no harm can be done to us (linked with Point 2).
None of the above fully encompasses the questions posed, but put them together and there is a complex set of criteria to take into account when considering the horror genre. Carroll tries to find one single common criterion to define the horror genre, but does not convince me that there is a single reason for the continued rise in the purchase of horror fiction. Horror is a complex emotion, and this is reflected in its literature, whether literary horror or pulp fiction written for the masses.
Does this horror have to be overt? Do we have to have a monster or gallons of blood in order to have these needs satisfied? I believe not. There is 'soft' horror and 'graphic' horror, and even dark fantasy, which is often sinister enough in content to be included within the horror genre. All have their place, depending on what effect the author/reader is looking for. Sometimes the monster is within ourselves. Noel Carroll calls this effect 'real horror' as opposed to 'art horror', and seems dismissive of the idea, but I think that emotion in and of itself can be equally horrifying if presented in certain ways, and can be just as destructive as any monster.
Likewise, he seems to disregard the serial-killer/suspense type of horror as not being encompassed by his theories, and again, I would have to disagree with him. We all feel horror at what the killer does; we all want to see him or her caught/destroyed. We can also feel dread and awe at what the killer does to his/her victims, and we certainly feel safe and reassured that we are not the killer's chosen victims. Unfortunately, 'real horror' happens every day - somehow the safety element seems dispersed here - perhaps 'real horror' is more purely horror than fiction?
As for the motives of writing horror - for me, this relates perhaps more to Points 4, 5, and 6 above, since it becomes an outlet for my own inner 'horrors', and also, if a happy ending is forthcoming, it maintains a sense of hope. I tend toward the less graphic, perhaps what should more accurately be called Dark Fantasy, where horror is suggested rather than explicitly shown, although I recognise there are times where this is necessary to illustrate certain acts within the text.
Sources: Noel Carroll - The Philosophy or Horror. Paradoxes of the Heart.
Rosemary Jackson - Fantasy - The Literature of Subversion
(Note: For full bibliography details see Study Details - separate sheet)
Weekly Reading: 'Rawhead Rex' - Clive Barker; Books of Blood Volume 3
Synopsis: On a farm near the village of Zeal, Thomas Garrow ploughs a field which has been unused for generations, because he has run out of land to use on his farm. He comes across a deep-rooted rock, which gets in the way of his plough, and decides to uproot it. The rock is very difficult to shift, and as he works, Garrow has a growing feeling that it shouldn't be disturbed, but decides to finish the job anyway. When he finally uproots the rock, he sets free Rawhead Rex, a vicious Green Man type of creature who was imprisoned by the Christian villagers under the rock several centuries before.
Once freed, RR goes on a killing spree - he is a man-eater, untouched by civilisation and culture, driven by instinct. He is the last of a dead race of such creatures, which bred on human women and ate human men. The only things he fears are menstrual blood and fire; menstrual blood because - as many ancient and some modern cultures believe - it holds female power, and fire because it kills and purifies.
He goes to the church, and the verger - who is a weak individual - becomes in thrall of RR, who is desirous of slaves and territory. The verger is the mediator between RR and the human world, and by converting the verger to his will, RR manages to subvert the church, his hated enemy. RR desecrates the church by urinating over it, and makes the verger drink his urine. He murders the vicar, who unsuccessfully tries to defend his church.
More slaughter ensues; Barker shows RR's lust for killing and blood in graphic detail, which certainly horrifies, but it seems right that Barker should take this approach. Anything less graphic would not convey RR's primitive power, or his lust for human flesh.
Naturally, the villagers - who are of course better equipped to deal with RR than their ancestors - manage to kill RR with fire, using the added ingredient - petrol. By killing RR, the status quo is restored, and RR - dead - cannot again threaten it.
Interpretation:
1. Rawhead Rex is the numen - he not only inspires terror, but also awe and fascination. His name suggests 'King' - he was once king of a race of monstrous creatures. His 'raw' head is perhaps indicative of the raw horror his victims experience when they see him, just as his power is 'raw' and primal. His victims are paralysed with terror when they encounter him; he is the epitome of mysterium tremendum fascinams et augustum. 'Thomas Garrow stood and watched. There was nothing in him but awe. Fear was for those who still had a chance of life. He had none.' 'Rawhead Rex' p 42.
2. Rawhead Rex is the embodiment of impurity i.e., he is not only terrifying, but also physically repellent and unclean. He marks his territory with 'foul' urine. He is surrounded by the stench of putrefaction - this could be metaphorical of the death he always brings with him.
3. The story of Rawhead Rex induces Lovecraft's idea of cosmic fear - an encounter with the creature is akin to meeting a vengeful god. Indeed, one of the characters - the verger in the church, in fact - goes as far as worshipping the beast, allowing RR to urinate on him, the ultimate sign of territorial ownership. He also procures a victim for him - the vicar of the church. RR is beyond humanity and the status quo; he represents something wholly alien that we cannot understand.
4. RR represents the 'evil' in the Good vs. Evil conundrum. Seen metaphorically, RR is a representation of the 'time before man' and thus civilisation. He is a force of nature. Therefore, the binary opposition of Nature vs. Culture - introduced at the beginning of the narrative with the 'invasion' of Zeal by city types, who destroy the village's natural life - is observed and continued with the coming of RR. More specifically, RR represents the 'evil' pagan religion (despite his instinctual cruelty, he is a kind of Green Man figure - and even his bloodlust seems to demand sacrifice rather than killing for the sake of it), in contrast to the 'good' Christianity. This is reiterated because some of the action takes place inside the village church, which RR desecrates, emphasising this evil. However, in the end, civilisation, and thus the Church, is victorious and the 'evil' pagan religion - the original religion Before Christ - is defeated.
5. Rawhead subverts culture's status quo, from the Church to the Police Force, and is thus a threat to authority. He is a force for Chaos. As stated above, however, the status quo is returned to normal upon his death.
Observations - My first foray into examining horror has been a concretion of ideas for me. The theories of the genre and what they represent confirm my own thoughts, for which I had not yet formulated specific ideas. These things seemed instinctual to me, and I am pleased - and a little surprised - to have my beliefs backed up by authoritative texts. I have been able to read some parts of these texts and decide if I agree with them. If I do not agree, I have been able to decide why.
Also, it has shown me that Horror as a genre does have much more depth than some literary snobs might assume it has - it is a branch of Fantasy that has been derided as too populist (as if that is a bad thing), and I am heartened to see that some critics do take it seriously.