It is my opinion that writing a truly horrifying story doesn't depend on the perfect monster alone. No, anything can be made into a monster if described in enough fear-inspiring terms and placed in the right environment. Naturally, the monster must be threatening and somewhat unnatural, but the scariness of the story does not hinge solely on this monster factor.
Both stories we have read so far are decently frightening. They have some differences and some similarities that affect how the reader feels as he or she reads the last ominous words.
In Leiningan vs. The Ants, the reader encounters millions upon millions of normally harmless creatures slowly dominating(and eating) the humans of the story. Ants are not normally feared very much, but when presented as superior to the human mind they are transformed into a monster that is both sinister and horrifying. The sheer massification of the ants also makes them much more threatening. Where on Earth would you find miles of ants?? This brings up another possibly important factor of horror story writing: location and environment. In Carl Stephenson's era, Brazil was a mysterious country. Who knew what kinds of creatures dwelled there and what they could do to a sensible European?? The idea of risk and vulnerability was a bit lacking in this story, but the Brazilian setting added to that sense of risk needed to make it scary.
Alternatively, in H.G. Wells' story The Sea Raiders, he presents the "monster" as something much more unknown and mysterious. Not only does he create these ficticious man-eating squid, but he also utilizes the environment tactic. Again, in the time of the author, the deep ocean was something dark, mysterious, and very unexplored. The fact that it still is rather unexplored made the story a bit more frightening for me. Perhaps there are man-eating creatures down there...who knows... Ultimately, the reader experiences vulnerability when faced with something clearly threatening yet unknown. H.G. Wells also colors his story with dramatic vocabulary, something I found to be lacking in Carl Stephenson's story. Many of the adjectives Wells uses are words associated with fear or disgust. "...ghastly-looking creatures...their tentacles coiled copiously on the ground...large intelligent eyes gave the creatures a grotesque suggestion of a face..." You get the idea.
What really makes a monster is it's threatening nature and how well it is described by the author. The environment of the story also makes a very significant difference depending on the story. If you replaced Brazil with Texas, and the depths of the unknown ocean with the Ohio river, the dynamic of the story is altered. True, it might still be scary, but it won't leave the reader feeling vulnerable due to lack of knowledge about the environment. Similarily, a lack of description and colorful vocabulary doesn't instill a sense that the monster should indeed be feared. What would be more frightening? "A tall greenish man with a metal bolt connecting his head to his neck walking towards him." Or. "A looming creature, reaching foward with a sickly green hand, living eyes staring out of a rotting head attached to the neck by a rusty bolt as it lumbered towards him." The monster may be horrible, but the true horror is in the words.
2 comments:
Great point! The descriptions used by Wells are absolutely terrifying. It's easy to shudder when he describes his sea creatures. That being said, the ants have their fair share of horrifying descriptions too!
I feel like there is a great deal of vulnerability and risk shown in Leiningen vs. the Ants because he goes to this foreign country, after being warned of its dangers, and he faces millions upon millions of ants with methods that prove virtually useless. I do, however, agree that the setting added a significant amount of risk!
Yeah, in the end it's all about *how** the story is told. I don't know about everyone else, but in reading "The Most Dangerous Game" I was struck by how much better written it was than the last two. (Although so much of that is simply personal preference.) I've long thought that you could see this in Stephen King. I think a lot of his books are good, but when you strip out his writing and just leave the plot it becomes pretty horrible (and not in the fear for your life kinda way). The movie versions are many times laughable just because of this.
Post a Comment