… seen them now? Good. I’ll continue.
All three of the above are great examples of horror well done. It doesn’t matter for this part that they’re films, it’s about the misconception.
Whether it’s a monster, a dream or hell itself, these films are there to scare. They are dark, intense and atmospheric. So how can we ruin that?
I think that all writers have done it, and to be honest, in the realms of the finished article, the stories turned out the way that we wanted. They may be good stories, they may be great, but what’s wrong with them? Take these two brief scenarios (clichéd that they may be):
Driving down the windy road (night, raining, lightening of course) the car containing male A and female B breaks down. The broken down car in besieged by twenty or so hungry vampires, and much swinging of crosses and gnashing of teeth ensues.
Misconception 2: Blood, gore, guts and horribly and graphically described sticky deaths.
It needs to about your ability to stir emotions in the reader, emotions that they may not want, but will turn the page until you are ready to take them away.
Don’t get me wrong, there is a place for gore, graphic violence and torture porn, but it’s not in horror fiction when you are replacing scary (or the story completely) with it – only when it’s there to nurture it – and it’s unlikely you’ll need it… not if your story is scary.
So the conclusion here is: Hordes of anything is unlikely to be scary in a story, and, ripping the throat out of someone maybe necessary, but if it takes you 500 words to do it, and your thought on the finished article is, “that’ll terrify them,” you’re most likely wrong.
Continuing in Part 2: Why should I care… if you die?
These are my own opinions, and should only be taken as a guideline.