Carroll: Keep Feeling Fascination? More Than a Feeling!

In his book ‘Philosophy of Horror: Paradoxes of the Heart’, author Noël Carroll answers, what he calls, the ‘paradox of horror’. This paradox of horror is the question of why individuals read or view horror fiction even though they are cognizant of its frightening properties. Before truly beginning let us make one main supposition, the author of this article shall ascribe to what is known as the though theory—a Carrollian theory which assumes that art-horror is driven by readers, listeners, and viewers believing themselves in the frame of mind of characters within the work of fiction, but not so far as actually believing in the factuality of the work. Carroll has two theories for this phenomenon: the universal theory and the general theory, yet these theories seem vague and underdeveloped in that they lack any real evidence as to why audiences continue to read, listen, or view works of horror.
Firstly, the universal theory according the Carroll assumes fear, disgust, revulsion, etcetera causes a ‘fascination’ that draws us to works of horror—these feelings are undoubtedly a result of the fictional monster in the work. Secondly, the general theory assumes that our pleasure, therefore boosting our ‘fascination’, is derived from plots. Carroll supposes that we enjoy these works for those reasons, but then says that the art-horror feeling we get is the “price we pay” for the “pleasure of fascination”.

Carroll’s theories are broad so as to cover the paradox of horror in literature, art, radio, and film. The universal theory covers any form of fiction in which a monster can be seen—because it assumes we are art-horrified by the sight of the monster. The general theory covers literature, film, and radio in that Carroll assumes people are drawn to horror films for their intricate plots.
One must take this theory with a grain of salt. These theories hinge upon one word with many meanings, fascination. What does fascination mean to Carroll? After flipping through many pages, one cannot find a single attempt to define this word, yet he uses it to describe a very integral theory to the overall philosophy of horror fiction. According to Carroll, after a careful reading, we read, watch, look at, and listen to horror because of fascination. Vagueness is often a way to sidestep a very unclear concept, so Carroll’s theory begs the question—is there really a solution as to why we continue to read, view, and listen to horror?

Bungee jumping, skydiving, roller coasters, and horror films; these are all channels to the release of adrenaline. There is a physiological reason as to why audiences clamor to see the newest horror film in theatres. People use horror films as a conduit to adrenaline and terror—those who scream, tremble, or hold the person next to them will not admit their pleasure in art-horror, but they enjoyed the resulting rush. This physiological theory is flawed because it focuses only art-horrification via film, but let’s expound upon it in terms of literature, art, and radio. For those who experience art-horror via mediums other than film, art-horror is derived from their ability to imagine events if they were to actually be—therefore they are subject to similar bouts of terror like those felt by horror filmgoers. Because they too experience art-horror, then they are susceptible to the same physiological experiences, in which they will take pleasure.