The Paradox of Horror

While reviewing Freud and his psychoanalytical theories at the beginning of yet another psychology class I started to see similarities between his views on dreams and Carroll’s Paradox of Horror. According to Freud, a person’s dreams are representative of the unfulfilled or repressed wants, needs, and anxieties of the person. They present themselves to us in our unconscious state, sometimes in a symbolic way as to not disturb the person. Horror films like nightmares can be attractive and repellent to the viewer/dreamer in that we are observing our repressed anxieties and fears from a safe viewing distance. We are confronting our fears while staying safe on our couch, or our unconscious mind. By viewing our fears we feel that we have gained control over them and can now put them into a rational perspective. Our fears felt towards what we find scary, be it aliens, serial killer, or monsters, and may derive from a deeper fear from our repressed anxiety and/or psychosexual desires. But like all of Freud’s theories this is untestable, and not all monsters and fears are repressed anxieties or sexual desires.

Moving away from Freud, I believe that horror genre has been attractive to the generations for so long because of the curiosity it elicits and attention it commands. While watching a scary movie you may find yourself scared to death, covering your eyes because you feel you cannot handle what comes next. However I know as I am doing this, I am usually peaking through my fingers because I HAVE to know what comes next. I am curious to see if the jock can out run Michael Myers, or how a person will make it out of Jigsaw’s latest torture device. While watching The Strangers like April had mentioned in a previous blog post, everyone in my living room had comments to make at Liv Tyler as she is screaming in terror giving away her location to the bad guys, saying things like ‘why would you do that’ ‘you’re stupid, you deserve to found’. It is easy to say what we would do when watching someone else in that situation. It gives us a feeling of superiority over those in the movie. We feel that by watching these movies we will know what to do in a situation like the ones the characters are faced with.

Finally, it comes down to what is horror? It is different for every person, but I feel there are certain themes to what constitutes as a good scare. First, is that of the supernatural. This includes things such as alien invasions like the movie War of the Worlds, or ghosts like in the latest hit Paranormal Activity. Finally that or the undead, this is where Dracula and Carmilla fit in. The second theme is psychological, where things seem to be playing tricks with your mind, like plot is more like a puzzle. I feel Steven King books fit into this theme. Finally there is the biological scare, or scare from nature. More recently there have been movies where science has gone wrong and humanity suffers as a result, examples including I am Legend, and The Happening. No matter the type of scare that will jolt your nervous system horror films allow one to confront their fears while in a safe secure environment.

The Burial of the Rats

The Burial of the Rats is a story that Stoker wrote while on his honeymoon with his wife in Paris. The story takes place in the “dust heaps” of Paris, which seems to be some sort of junk yard where soldiers from the French Revolution convene. The man in the story wanders around exploring Paris and comes upon this village of dust heaps, soldiers, and an old woman. The old woman tells him a story about going into the sewer and finding rats that eat people, and he realizes that her plan is to feed him to the rats and steal his expensive rings.
The man leaps for escape, and a large chase ensues. These people were very set on capturing him for some reason. In the end, the man finds help from some police men and they go in search of the thieves who had been trying to murder him. They find the old woman dead; her bones picked clean by the rats. The rats had also killed one of the thieves.
The rats in the story fit the bill of the horror monster because they are both terrifying and disgusting. Rats do not normally eat people unless they are threatened or starving and desperate. This story would be a fantastic marvelous story because the flesh-eating rats were real and there was no supernatural explanation given for their disgustingly abnormal eating habits!

The "Fantastic" stories: Dominick’s Bargain and The White Cat of Drumgunnoil

“The Fantastic”, a literary genre as defined by Tzvetan Todorov, describes literary works in which the characters’ experience events that can have both scientific and supernatural explanations. It is often left to the reader to decide whether the explanation is natural or supernatural. Tordorov states that, “…the text must oblige the reader to consider the world of the characters as a world of living persons and hesitate between a natural and a supernatural explanation of the events described.” J.S. Le Fanu’s Sir Dominick’s Bargain and The White Cat of Drumgunnoil are both stories which leave the reader to decide between natural or supernatural explanations and can therefore be categorized as literature of “The Fantastic” genre.

Sir Dominick’s Bargain is the story of Sir Dominick, a man who, in an immense state of desperation, made a deal with the devil to have unlimited riches for seven years. At the end of these seven years he would then serve the “Evil One”. The deal is taken and at the end of the seven years, the Evil One comes to claim his end of the deal. When Sir Dominick attempts to evade him, the Evil One then smashes Sir Dominick’s head against a wall leaving a blood stain that cannot be removed.

The tale of Sir Dominick is told by a seventy year old man sitting near the stained wall. Belief in the story of Sir Dominick relies solely on the credibility of the seventy year old man who did not experience it first hand, but was told by his grandfather. The reader oscillates between the natural and supernatural when choosing to believe the old man’s story or pass it off as misinformation. It is said of the stain on the wall that, “That’s a splash of brains and blood. It’s there this hundred years; and it will never leave while the wall stands.” The reader is then forced to decide whether the blood stain is ingrained in the rock wall by some scientific physical means, or whether it is a supernatural mark that will truly never disappear. The presence these real and supernatural explanations are criteria which categorize this story in “The Fantastic” genre.

The White Cat of Drumgunnoil is the short story of a family which is plagued by many deaths. In the days preceding their death, a person encounters a white cat with green eyes which walks near their feet growling. It is believed by the family and other members of the community that this white cat is an omen of death and appears when the end of life is imminent. “It is the messenger simply of death. And it’s taking shape of a cat-the coldest, and they say, the most vindictive of brutes-is indicative of the spirit of its visits.”

When reading of these feline encounters, the reader is forced to choose between natural and supernatural explanations of events. It may be a mere coincidence that the cat appears before the death of an individual, or the cat may truly be the embodiment of a death omen. Another conclusion that a reader can draw is that the cat is infected with a sickness which is then contracted by the family member upon encountering the cat. The reader is left to theorize as they please or believe the theories of the characters. There is no final revelation that the cat in fact is a supernatural being. This oscillation between natural and supernatural explanations of events categorizes The White Cat of Drumgunnoil as “Fantastic” literature.

Why? Why? Why?: The Paradox of Horror

Why are some people so naturally drawn to such a spectacle that is otherwise so displeasing to our senses? The horror genre is one of these things to which we seem morbidly and despicably drawn. Theoretically the horror media should not exist. In theory the following scenario should unfold: A horror book or movie comes out, the public is repulsed by the idea of what the book or movie is about, it receives no fan base, and fades out without so much as a single reader or viewer. However, this does not happen, this class of media maintains a relatively large fan base and has movies such as The Exorcist that grosses nearly $750,000,000. As we can see not only does this genre have a fan base but it flourishes.

A philosopher that tries to explain this phenomenon is H.P. Lovecraft. Lovecraft's theory is that in our psychology we are somehow hardwired to enjoy horror. However, to be enabled to enjoy it you must be sensible to unknown forces and beings. While we know that in reality these beings are not real, we have to have something in our minds that tell us if only for a second that there is a possibility that these things could be real. While Lovecraft has his theory on why we enjoy horror, I prefer to adopt Burke's theory on the sublime and use it to describe the paradox of horror. Burke's theory on the sublime is that we can find something that is threatening beautiful/fascinating because we can gaze at it from afar and not be immediately in danger because of it. For example: if we go outside and look out into the sky and see a tornado off in the distance we are compelled to look in awe at it, but if that same tornado becomes too close and begins to cause destruction around us we immediately forget the beauty of the tornado and hit fear mode. Like storms I feel that we are drawn to horror stories for the same reason. We are instinctively intrigued by these things that are deemed undesirable. As long as we can stay well away from harm, we maintain a fascination with it.
In conclusion, while we do not know for sure why the exact reason we find horror so fascinating, something about us is simply drawn to the rather undesirable spectacle. Simply the idea of horror dumbfounds the mind, but we cannot get enough of it. While there are some theories to explain why we like such a thing, we may never fully understand why, but who cares! This is something that people enjoy and one day we may know the real reason why are drawn to this type of media, but until then I say "Bring on the Horror!".

An Authentic Narrative of a Haunted House

“Neither have I made any inquiries respecting either the antecedents or subsequent history of the house in which we made so disturbed a sojourn. I was content with what I knew, and have here related as clearly as I could, and I think it a very pretty puzzle as it stands.”

These are the final words in LaFanu’s story An Authentic Narrative of a Haunted House. This story reads much different than any of the other stories we read in that he merely states the events as they happened. LaFanu describes the occurrences of the ‘ghosts’ or what some servants believed to be robbers. He describes all oddities witnessed by the different occupants of the house as they stated and adds nothing, no thought as to what is behind the odd events that have been happening since the family has moved into the ocean front house. Events ranged from a flickering candle with an unexplained shadow, numerous sightings of unfamiliar beings, and the reoccurring presence of a very sickly looking woman often seen searching around both inside and outside the house. All events lead up to the discovery of a human jaw in the backyard of the house.

The family soon after moves from the house and the conclusion of the story is that stated above. All events of the story are left unexplained, the reader is never told whether all events were supernatural, or actually that of robbers. Also the discovery of the human remains was never concluded, we are not told who they belong too or how they got there. LaFanu masters the art of horror in this story by playing on the reader’s imagination. By leaving everything up to debate, the story is in a sense as terrifying as the reader wishes it to be. The story is ‘a very pretty puzzle as it stands’.

Paradox of Horror

The Paradox of Horror is very contradictory to Freudian ego defense mechanisms, which are said to protect our mind and self from anxiety and provide a shelter from a situation where originally someone could not cope. Situations like getting robbed, kidnapped, scared etc...our body naturally has this mechanism to help us get through these traumatic situations and experiences...So why would we PUT ourselves in a situation knowing it is going to terrify us?...because of that feeling...that rush our body goes through.

I recently watched paranormal activity with some friends and it gave me the most nauseating feeling and made we start thinking about why I put myself through this. I have watched several horror films but this one has been the creepiest. I believe it is because it can really happen and that you hear stories all the time about people who have demons or ghosts in their house. I find this type of "horror" film scarier than those made with all gore and killings because it is surreal...you can not see or explain exactly what is going on and the thrill of trying to figure out is captivating. It gives our body an adrenaline rush which we enjoy. I am sure that is not the only reason people watch these kinds of movies but that would be my best guess. We enjoy the rush. It is similar to wanting to sky dive...why in the world would anyone want to jump out of a plane....sounds crazy to me... but I am the type of person who enjoys that rush and would do something like that... just like watching a horror movie...I want to be freighted enough to jump, hide behind the covers, try to look away...but can't...My defense mechanisms are working at their best to calm me down and that is what drives me to watch these type of movies.

Also, people do not like the unknown so we try and analyze it and piece things together to figure out exactly what is going on. Even in the movie I watched, the boyfriend, disregarded all the warnings from the psychic, did exactly what he shouldn't to try and aggravate the entity. He went as far as getting the Ouija board and trying to communicate. Not to mention, I was enjoying the fact that he was doing everything he was told not to because I wanted to see the entity and what it was capable of. I feel like if I was in that same situation...I would have done the same thing. He, also, was trying to figure out the unknown in his own way, which is exactly what we try to do while we watch any kind of movies. We all put ourselves in the character’s situation try and learn what to do and what not to do in every situation.

Dracula and the Paradox of Horror

Dracula is a really great example to Noel Carroll’s idea of the “paradox of horror.” The “paradox of horror” states what is horror is and why people like it. One of the first items that Carroll mentions on his ideas of the paradox of horror is that this paradox comes from the emotional responses to fictional characters, which generate a paradox and that allows people to respond to what is going on. People generally don’t look for things repulsive or anything that tends to harm them. This is why they turn to books and movies. They do this because it’s other people, not themselves, that are being harmed. Also, audiences start to use the illusionist theory, which states that people think that the story could happen, and because of this people forget what they are watching isn’t real.

There are many parts to the idea of Carroll’s paradox of horror and what makes a horror story art-horror. One of the first aspects of a horror story is that it has to have a monster. In the story of Dracula, Dracula would be considered the monster. The monster is said to be disgusting! The monster has to have characteristics that are not of the norm. These characteristics of the monster include that the monster has to be fearful, threatening, and disgusting to both the natural and social order. Dracula, the character, fits all of these characteristics. The character of Dracula is feared throughout the story of Dracula. These characteristics include Dracula’s looks (dead/undead), his teeth, blood-sucking, transformation, the crawling on the outside walls of the castle, the place where he lives, and the eerie control he had on people. All these aspects made the story horrifying and follows the idea of Carroll’s paradox of horror closely. Dracula is also seen as a threat, because he can take the lives of individuals by biting them and he can even control the mind‘s of people, like he did with Mina near the end of the book.

Carroll also mentions that there are several types of monsters in the horror genre. There are four types of monsters and the book Dracula uses three of them. The first category of being a monster is fission. Fission is “the divid[ing] of characters in time…Here the characters become symbols for categorically distinct or opposed elements” (Carroll 47). In Dracula, Dracula is able to change into many different species and elements. He can change into a bat, a wolf, and mist. He is able to do these things at will, because the gypsies gave him that power.

Another category that the story Dracula has is fusion. Fusion, “contradictory elements are fused or condensed or superimposed in one unified spatiotemporal being whose identity is homogeneous” (Carroll 46), plays a key role in the story Dracula by making the characters think on the idea of Dracula being dead or undead. This is a key concept for the book, because the whole book is trying to determine if Dracula is alive or undead. They have to decide if it is possible that a dead individual can come back to life. The story is all about this concept and this is the whole mystery throughout the book. Finally, the last category that Carroll mentions is masses, which is a large amount of something causing havoc for the world. Some great examples of this would be tons of birds or spiders attacking the world. In Dracula, there is one scene in the book where there is a mass of something terrorizing the characters. The mass was of thousands of rats coming out of Dracula’s house in London, supposedly 138 Piccadilly Circus. Also, if there was a mass of vampires, which could have happened if they didn’t stake Dracula and Lucy, the world would be in chaos and full with vampires.

Dracula also has a very horrifying plot, which Carroll in his "paradox of horror" calls a complex discovery plot. The first part of a complex discovery plot is onset. The onset of a complex discovery plot starts in the beginning of the story where the characters don’t know that there is a “monster out there“, but the audience knows. After the onset occurs one character or characters discover that there is something out of the norm going on (a monster causing a problem). In the story Dracula, Van Helsing discovers that there is a problem going on in London and figures out there are vampires in the world (Lucy and Dracula). The next stage is confirmation, which is where a character tries to confirm their beliefs on others, but some of the characters find the idea of a monster skeptical. Van Helsing, in Dracula, tries to confirm that Lucy is a vampire and that vampires exist. Dr. Sewards, Quincey, and Arthur are skeptical at first because they don’t believe that Lucy could be a vampire (there is no such things as vampires). The next step in the complex discovery plot is confronting the monster. Van Helsing takes the three men who were skeptical to “vampire” Lucy. He was right and because he was, he had to confront Lucy. The four men had to stake her, so she would not be apart of the undead. After confronting this monster they decided that they would do everything they could to make sure that what happened to Lucy, vampirism, never happens again. This leads to all the characters searching for Dracula. The men, with the help of the Harkers, were able to defeat Dracula in the end by staking him. They knew if they staked him it would bring social order back into the world.

In the end, the story of Dracula fits Carroll’s idea of “paradox of horror” very well. The characters, plot, and disgust in Dracula will never be forgotten, but will be remembered because the book is well written, has a great monster, and is a great example of art-horror.

The Rambling Man

The thing I found the most interesting while in London and Dublin that related to the class was was walking around the streets that these two authors would have journeyed through daily. The Victorian-Gothic architecture in London drew me in right away, when you take the time to look at the buildings in both of these two cities, although they have changed in the last 100+ years, you begin to get a sense of the settings the authors had in mind when writing their stories. Before my visit to London, I read Dracula, when reading the book I began to envision a setting much different from what it was intended. The setting I created was a few gigantic buildings among a seemingly simple town of small building that had thatched straw roofs, much like that seen at the Globe Theater. After studying abroad I realize may time line was far off.

The most influential part of the journeys around town we partook in was the walk down Picadilly Street looking for the house that Count Dracula "resided" in while in London. From this spot, the Count planned his invasion of London and from London to the entire world. Picadilly is consitered to be the workers part of London and I think this busy street begins to give you a real feel for how things used to be in the late nineteenth early twentieth century, apart from the Hard Rock Cafe and all of the embassies located here. Within the first block of the street you see tall buildings that seem to always be connected. The amazing thing about this street is that, to me at least, it seems to have had little modification to the exterior of the buildings which preserves the style of the buildings which helped me to form a better setting for the book.

In conclusion reading a book like Dracula can bring one to a journey to London, but a trip to London, where you are able to visually observe the setting of the book. When one is able to put themselves physically into the setting of the book it brings a new aspect to the book when reading it.

The Paradox of Horror

Last night, a few friends and I had a dinner party at Lindsey's house which ended with us watching a "scary movie", The Strangers. This movie got me thinking about the paradox of horror, and why we actually watch these scary movies. I, for one, do not watch scary movies all that often. I don't enjoy having to go home and try to fall asleep without thinking of ghosts, demons, or aliens attacking me at night.
The movie The Strangers does not involve supernatural villains, but villians who are other humans. The villians, for no apparent reason, attack a couple living in the middle of the woods. Watching this movie made me realize that I don't find horror movies scary unless the villians are supernatural, and this brings me to the paradox of horror.
I think that people watch horror movies for many different reasons, because everyone is different. It is hard to pin down one answer that will encompass everyone's behavior and motivation for enjoying the horror genre. My best guess, which involves my own personal motivation, is that people subject themselves to horror because we want to experience new situations. The situations in horror movies are sometimes things that could happen to us in real life and sometimes things that are unlikely to happen or that people have only claimed to have happened. Watching the horror movies helps us be prepared to experience new situations. We can run through what we would have done, had we been the character in the movie. While the six of us were watching The Strangers last night, we had a running commentary involving things like, "Why doesn't she just give up and let them kill her?" and "She should just shoot them, she was right there!" It's almost like playing a video game.
In psychology, we learn about people that we deem "sensation seekers". This type of person doesn't have very high arousal in the average state. They are always looking for new experiences that will increase their arousal. They're characterized by risk taking, spontaneity, and being outgoing. I would predict that another motivation for enjoying horror is that some people use it to increase their arousal! Those that are low in sensation seeking might still enjoy scary movies, but they may enjoy it for other reasons, such as practicing for a zombie invasion!

The Conundrum of Horror

The “Paradox of Horror” as spoken of by Noel Carroll and discussed throughout this blog simply asks “Why do we enjoy reading and viewing ‘horrible’ subject matter, when in reality we do not wish to encounter such things?” While studying in London and Dublin our class had the unique opportunity to discuss many different theories amongst ourselves (affirmed horror enthusiasts). There are of course many answers to this question. I would like to present three of my own to share and discuss.

First, we enjoy horror novels, movies, etc. because it is one of the only mediums by which we can experience grave and gory situations without feeling guilty or remorseful. For example, when one drives past a terrible accident on the interstate they cannot help but stare at the shattered remains of the vehicles and attempt to view as much as possible. However, after passing the site, feelings of guilt for having stared and empathy for those involved arise. Yet, we seem to have no problem viewing a far worse accident in a movie theater. Murder, decapitation, even animal cruelties are all things we have read and seen in the horror genre, but would be discomforted to speak of in any real life context. It allows one to say “If it’s fake, it’s ok”. Because, isn’t it?

Secondly, the horror genre is one of the few ways to experience fear with no threat of real danger. It is our jack in the box to wind and wind again, then put away whenever we desire. While fear is a very commonly felt emotion (e.g. fear of failure or loss), “horrific” fear in real life comes with the threat of imminent danger. Through horror films and books one can easily be transported to the most dangerous of places in the safety of their own home. The human tendency to desire the things of less abundance may also be applied to this horrific type of fear. It is enticing to us because we do not feel it very often. The horror genre provides the ideal and safe venue to indulge this desire.

Finally, we enjoy horror because we like to see how other human beings will react in horrific situations. We then compare these reactions to how we ourselves would have reacted. “Don’t go in there!!!!.........(Shaking head) I told her not to go in there.” We are often left wondering what we would do in the same terrible situation. Because we do not often have to make “life or death” choices, to watch others do so is appealing. It is tempting to feel as though we are actually learning how to survive these horrific situations by reading and watching others experiences. While we may never have to drive a stake through a vampire, one may feel as though they are more prepared to escape a desolate cabin after watching a few horror flicks. Viewing the reactions of others in horrific situations causes us to explore and question ourselves. We are again drawn to horror by placing ourselves in horror.

Comparing Dracula and J.M.W. Turner's Paintings

One of the most interesting parts of the trip was the visit to the Tate British Museum. On this trip, the class got to compare J.M.W. Turner’s work of the sublime with the story of Dracula. Before going to the museum, Dr. Langguth asked the class to consider the idea that Bram Stoker used Turner’s works to make some of the descriptive scenes throughout Dracula.

There were many parts of Dracula that resembled scenes from Turner’s works. One of the first paintings that resembled a scene from Dracula was Snowstorm (1842). This painting resembles one of the boat storm scenes that happens in Dracula. It resembles Dracula in several ways. The viewpoint of the storm narrowing into where the boat is in the storm could remind a viewer of a “red” eye looking towards the boat. Also, the eeriness of the storm in the paintings looks like what Stoker wrote in his book. The scenery (the eeriness), which consisted of darkness, mist, and danger of the waves, makes the book visual and descriptive. The colors used were very fascinating as well. The black used in the painting showed the pure darkness of the storm. Also, the blend of the white and black shows that the movement of the storm and the use of gray helps the viewer visualize that there is mist or even a storm going on. Because of these effects that Turner used in his paintings, it was easy to visualize the story of Dracula and make it come to life.



Another Turner painting that resembled the ship scene in Dracula was a painting entitled Fishing Boats Bringing a Disabled Ship into Port Ruysdael (1844). One of the first features that will catch the viewer’s eyes is the landscape of the painting. The landscape that is produced in this painting is of a storm in the ocean with ships in it. The ocean, which is a part of the storm, is controlling these little ships. The ocean is putting these ships in danger and it seems like there is nothing these ships can do because the waves are to destructive because of the wind. This could remind a viewer of the storm that occurred in Dracula. The scene in Dracula says, “One of the greatest and suddenest storms on record has just been experienced here….The waves rose in growing fury, each overtopping its fellow, till in a very few minutes the lately glassy sea was roaring and devouring monster” (Stoker 85, 87). Also, the features of “white-crested waves” and the mist, which the captain of the boat in Dracula talks about in his notes, used in the painting makes the story of Dracula seem more real and visual. It seems as if Stoker could have used this particular scene to talk about the dangers of the storm that is written about in Dracula.



There is also a Turner painting that is very comparable to the scene in Dracula where Mina pastes a story from a newspaper called The Dailygraph about a sunset that occurred before the storm . The painting is called Scarlet Sunset (1832). This scene seems like a perfect resemblance to what the newspaper said about the sunset. The book says, “Before the sun dipped below the black mass of Kettleness, standing boldly athwart the western sky, its downward way was marked by myriad clouds of every sunset-colour - flame, purple, pink, green, violet, and all tints of gold….” (Stoker 86). The colors used in Dracula are the same as those in the painting by Turner. The clouds are red (flame), purple, there are some that are pink, green, violet, and some that are gold. Because there is such a strong resemblance, it can be inferred that Stoker most likely used Turner’s work to detail his stories.



Finally, another painting that caught my eye was not in the Turner exhibit gallery, but in the regular gallery at the Tate, it was a comparison of a Turner painting, Sunrise, a Castle on a Bay: `Solitude‘ (circa 1940-5), and another painter named Claude Gellée who painted The Enchanted Castle (1664). The paintings are very similar, but Turner made his more eerie. It is believed that Turner used Gellée’s painting to produce his own picture of the sublime. Both pictures display a castle, which seems like a “Transylvanian” or Dracula owned castle. Gellée’s picture seems very colorful and looks towards a happy surrounding, but the same cannot be said about Turner’s similar painting. Turner’s painting looks exactly like a scene portrayed in Dracula. The scene is of a castle hiding in the mist. The trees and landscape make the painting more horrifying and eerie. When looking at the picture, it would probably make a reader think of John Harker approaching Dracula’s estate and him being afraid of going there. With this painting, a viewer can look through the eyes of Harker and what he saw instead of hearing him talk about it. For most people it is easier to see things than to hear about them. Thanks to Turner, a viewer is able to see and picture things that Stoker would have drawn if he could have drawn it in his writings.





In the end, it can be concluded that Stoker could have used Turner’s paintings to make the visual scenes that are produced in Dracula. The scenery, landscapes, and colors that Turner used brought the story of Dracula to life If Stoker was asked to use illustrations in the book, he would probably have used the paintings of Turner to make his story come to life.

Johnathan Barry, Irish painter of the sublime!

While in the Writer's Museum in Dublin, a few of us came upon some interesting artwork by an Irish man, Johnathan Barry, who paints scenes from literature. Some of his works that caught my eye were prints from Alice in Wonderland and Peter Pan, but some of his other prints were less carefree and childish. There were many prints from stories that were aimed more at adults, such as The Lord of the Rings, and even Dracula.

Seeing these paintings from a man born and raised in Dublin made me think about what we were studying, namely the atmosphere and settings that inspired Bram Stoker and Sheridan LeFanu. While it is quite interesting to see the things that inspired the horror writers of the late 19th century, it made me realize that Stoker and LeFanu have inspired many people who have come after them, Johnathan Barry possibly being one of them.

Barry has prints that depict scenes from both Carmilla by LeFanu (below, right) and Dracula by Stoker (below, left). He also has artwork, such as that depicting Mount Doom from the Lord of the Rings exploding, which is obviously influenced by the sublime painters like Turner that we saw in the Tate Gallery in London. It is pretty safe to say that Barry was influenced by Stoker and LeFanu as is shown through his artwork. It is interesting to not only understand who and what influenced our Irish and English horror writers, but who and what they influenced as well (insert Twilight reference here...).

Highgate Cemetery Videos

This morning I discovered some fascinating YouTube videos featuring one of our destinations for next week, Highgate Cemetery. The cemetery is believed by many Dracula scholars to have been Stoker's main inspiration for the one in which the newly undead Lucy Westenra was entombed, and where she is subsequently confronted and destroyed by her former suitors and Van Helsing. Additionally, there was a period of time in the 1970s during which rumors were spread of an actual vampire running about in Highgate. The videos are actually quite spooky, so consider yourself forewarned. You can read more about Highgate cemetery and its famous vampire by following the links posted above. Click on the highlighted text to view the videos.

Plot and the Emotions

A short follow-up to yesterday's thoughts on Dracula. Are you caught-up in the story yet? What is the "hook" that pulls us into the story and makes us want to learn more? Carroll's "erotetic" (question and answer) understanding of plot maintains that questions are posed early in the novel that we expect to be answered later on. In horror stories, the question at the heart of the narrative is often "is the supernatural being or event proposed by the story going to turn out to be real?". Such stories can be thought of as dramatizations of a conflict between a "supernatural" and a "naturalistic" interpretation of the story. If the narrative leaves us suspended between the two, the genre is called, following Tzveton Todorov, "the fantastic." An example would be The Turn of the Screw by Henry James, in which we cannot be quite sure whether there was an actual haunting/possession taking place or simply the imaginings of an unhinged mind. In "pure" horror tales, the monster ends up being real. Todorov calls that type of story the "fantastic-marvelous", and the type in which the purported supernatural event or being is explained naturalistically the "fantastic-uncanny." The "fantastic" itself offers no resolution at all. Do you think that it would be possible to interpret Dracula as an instance of the fantastic? That is, is there any evidence that Count Dracula was in fact not a vampire? Compare the narrative structure of Dracula with Arthur Conan Doyle's The Hound of the Baskerville's, a Sherlock Holmes story in which an allegedly supernatural being (a spectral dog) ends up being explained by Holmes as a murderer's plot. By the way, Doyle and Stoker knew one another, and there is a Holmes story that seems to have been based on Dracula ("The Illustrious Client"). We may look in on Holmes and his faithful companion Dr. Watson while in London.

Some Preliminary Thoughts on Bram Stoker’s Dracula and the Horror Genre

 Dracula was published in 1897, and was written by Bram Stoker. Stoker was born in Dublin but spent much of his life in London. We will, of course, be visiting many Stoker sites in both cities on our upcoming trip. See the above links for more information on Stoker's life and works.

  Along with Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1817) and Robert Louis Stevenson’s Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Dracula is one of the most influential horror novels of all time. But what is horror, and, perhaps more to the point, what accounts for its longevity as a genre? What is the aesthetic appeal of a genre so steeped in mayhem, supernatural terror, gruesome death and dismemberment, etc.? The second question that I have raised here is referred to by Carroll as the “paradox of horror”, and is one of the central questions of our course. We will return to it later. The first question has been addressed in a preliminary way in my last post, in that Carroll supplies us with a definition of the horror genre that highlights the centrality of monsters and the emotion of “art-horror.” For Carroll, a work falls into the horror category if, and only if, it features a monster that is both fearsome and disgusting. A “monster” is any entity that is taken not to exist by contemporary science. Some monsters, like those in Jurassic Park once existed but no longer do, others have never existed. As we have seen, not all monsters horrify us, and so not all fictions containing monsters are works of horror. Star Wars, as Carroll points out, is full of monsters but is quite obviously not a horror film.

 

Dracula as a Paradigmatic Horror Novel

 

It is fairly clear that, as an undead being, the Count is more than qualified to be a monster in the broader sense of a being that is not supposed to exist. According to contemporary science, the dead stay dead and are not to be found strolling about in Piccadilly or menacing picnickers on Hampstead Heath. If he exists, Dracula is a monster in the more general sense. In order to qualify as a proper horror monster, Count Dracula must be found to be both threatening and disgusting in addition to being impossible. For Carroll, it is from the attitude of the characters in the work of fiction that we take our cue with respect to the proper attitude toward a given monster. If the characters are afraid and disgusted, then Dracula is a fearsome and disgusting being. Notice that, for Carroll, the reader, or viewer, of Dracula need not herself be disgusted or afraid of the monster; it is enough that it is established in the fictional world of the narrative that Dracula has the relevant properties. Here are a few passages from Dracula that might serve to establish that Count Dracula is indeed fearsome and disgusting from the point of view of the characters who are not themselves monsters or monstrous.

 From Chapter 4: Jonathan Harker is attempting to escape from Castle Dracula and discovers the Count in an indeterminate state, neither alive nor dead, in the vaults of the castle:

 “I shuddered as I bent over to touch him, and every sense in me revolted at the contact.”

 Another example of Dracula being viewed as fearsome and disgusting comes in Chapter 2, in which Harker sees the Count move like “a lizard” down the walls of the castle. Harker reports that he “feels the dread of this horrible place overpowering me.” There are many such references to Dracula’s fearsome and disgusting nature scattered throughout the novel, establishing beyond reasonable doubt that Dracula is a horror monster.

 Plot

 Carroll is going to argue that a large part of the solution to the “paradox of horror” (why do we like being frightened and disgusted by beings like Dracula?) has to do with our interest in the plots of horror narratives. Such narratives, for Carroll, often center on the alleged existence of monsters. We will discuss plot and its role in sustaining our interest in works of horror in greater detail later. For now, try to think of the way that the plot (the order of events in the narrative) helps to engage our interest in the novel. Carroll analyses plot in terms of a question and answer structure. Events that occur early in the story set up questions that are answered by later events. For example, the first chapter puzzles about who or what Dracula is set up the expectation that later events will answer that question.

 

Questions

 

Please respond to my post with some questions and/or observations of your own about Dracula. That way, we can get a discussion going about the novel. I have also posted some links to other websites relevant to our course, or to the trips that we will be taking.

 

 

 

           

 

 

A Philosophy of Horror

Welcome to The Spectral Symposium. This post pertains to Noel Carroll's work on the philosophy of horror. Those of us going to London and Dublin to study gothic horror fiction will be using Carroll's work to provide a philosophical framework for our discussions of Bram Stoker and Sheridan Le Fanu.

Noёl Carroll's The Philosophy of Horror

Carroll’s account of horror is modeled on Aristotle’s classic study of tragedy in the Poetics. Carroll analyzes the horror genre, broadly construed to include literature, film, theater, and painting, in terms of the “emotional effects” it aims to evoke in its audience. The primary such effect, according to Carroll, is an emotion that he calls “art-horror.”

Art-Horror

Carroll makes an important distinction between ‘natural horror’ and ‘art horror.’ The former is the sense of ‘horror’ captured in the statement “I am horrified at the idea of taking a summer class,” while the latter is the sense of ‘horror’ operative in statements like “ Nosferatu is the greatest horror film ever made.” 

The following excerpt from Carroll's book illustrates the way in which he is using the term "art-horror."

“Art-Horror”, by stipulation, is meant to refer to the product of a genre that crystallized, speaking very roughly, around the time of the publication of Frankenstein—give or take fifty years—and that has persisted, often cyclically, through the novels and plays of the nineteenth century and the literature, comic books, pulp magazines, and films of the twentieth. This genre, moreover, is recognized in common speech and my theory of it must ultimately be assessed in terms of the way in which it tracks ordinary usage.” (The Philosophy of Horror, 13).

The Monster as a Necessary Condition of Art-Horror

Carroll argues that in order for a given work of art to be a member of the set of all works of art-horror it must feature a monster. Having a monster, however, is not a sufficient condition for inclusion in the set of the art-horrible (Puff the Magic Dragon is not a work of horror).It is the hallmark of the art-horrible that it aim to produce a specific emotional effect. The monsters in a work of art-horror, then, must be regarded by the other characters in the work (and by the audience) as both fearful and hideously unnatural or revolting. Compare: Chewbacca and the Wolf-Man. The first is a monster but not an art-horror monster (Carroll remarks that Chewbacca is "just one the guys").Carroll contends that it is from the emotional reactions of the characters in the work that we take our cue as to the ‘violation of nature’ on display in a given monster.

Fear and Revulsion

Carroll argues that the ideal art-horror monster is both fearful and revolting. Consider the following excerpt from H.P. Lovecraft's At the Mountains of Madness:

“We had expected, upon looking back, to see a terrible and incredibly moving entity if the mists were thin enough; but of that entity we had formed a clear idea. What we did see—for the mists were indeed all too malignly thinned—was something altogether different, and immeasurably more hideous and detestable. It was the utter, objective embodiment of the fantastic novelists “thing that should not be”; and its nearest comprehensible analogue is a vast, onrushing subway train as one sees it from a station platform—the great black front looming colossally out of infinite subterraneous distance, constellated with strangely colored lights and filling the prodigious burrow as a piston fills a cylinder."

Lovecraft here perfectly illustrates Carroll's point about the "unnatural", fearsome and disgusting nature of art-horror monsters: the entity encountered by the novel's protagonists is a "thing that should not be", it is fearsome, and it inspires disgust in those who glimpse its form (or formlessness).

DRAG ME TO HELL

Drag Me to Hell is a new release I viewed Friday night; I wasn't too impressed with the film, but it did have a lot of good horror elements to it. It was a Complex Discovery Plot with a horror monster, and has a few jumpy moments.


In the onset we see a boy brought up to a woman's house who is haunted by a demon, when the woman tries to exorcise the demon, the boy is thrown from the room, the floor opens up and demons drag the boy into the fiery abyss. The movie then jumps to years later where we meet our main character Alison who is a loan officer at a Los Angeles bank. An elderly, repulsive looking woman comes in to get an extension on her loan, and when Alison rejects her she begs her, but is dragged out by security. The woman yells, "You shame me!" and lunges at Alison. When Alison goes to her car that night the old woman's car is parked in front of Alison's. In comes the bus technique; As Alison gets in her car the old woman's handkerchief flys on to the windshield startling Alison. As she watches the handkerchief blow by she turns to see the woman sitting in her back seat; the woman attacks Alison trying to get revenge for the loan. Alison fights back, but the old lady doesn't leave until she rips a button off of Alison's coat and hexes it and then returns it to Alison. That night the discovery occurs very Alison experiences the rath of the demon the woman unleashed on her, and realizes that there is something supernatural going on. The confirmation comes when she tries to convience her boyfriend that what happened to her was supernatural and she visits a psychic who tells her he sees very dark forces within her. She learnes that the demon that is huanting her will torture her for 3 days, and on the forth day it will kill her, or drag her to hell. The first confrontation occurs when she and the psychic visit the lady who tried to help the boy in the beginning; they summon the demon and try to pass the spirit into a goat so they can kill it releasing the hex. This fails, and the lady trying to help her dies. The psychic then tells her there is one other way she can get rid of the demon is to formally give the hexed button as a gift to someone. She chooses to return it to the old woman, who had the same night she attacked Alison, so she digs up her grave and shoves it in the woman's mouth. What she doesn't realize is that when she was in the car with her booyfriend her button fell out of her purse onto his car floor. The next day, Alison and her boyfriend are leaving on a train when he shows her the button and tells her he found it. Terrorfiied she stumbles backwards, falling onto the train track, where the demon proceeds to drag her to hell!!!



The monster of the movie was the repulsive old woman along with the demon; everytime the demon attacked, the old woman's "ghost" was present as well. The woman was very disgusting with one blind eye that was all glassed over and a different color, she had rotted jagged teeth, filthy rotten finger nails, and she tormented Alison even after her death. The demon was some kind of goat demon that killed after the third day of torture, torture that was horrorifying in its self.



The movie was PG-13, but it was still a successful horror film; however the ending was disappointing. The film also had a comedic feel to it in some aspects, which also made it more entertaining. I would recomend the film, just be prepared to want more in the ending.

The Devil's Backbone

The film starts out with Carlos being delivered to an orphange. When Carlos sneaks out to get water from the kitchen he comes across Santi the ghost but ends up getting scared. Carlos keeps going back to the ghost trying to overcome his fear to figure out what Santi wants. Carlos finds out that Santi wants revenge on his killer Jacinto. In the end, Jacinto sets fire to the orphange and everyone ends up dying besides some of the boys and Jacinto himself. The boys end up killing Jacinto and taking him to Santi and Santi gets his revenge.

I think based on Noel Carroll's stipulations on horror films that he would not consider The Devil's Backbone a horror film. Carroll states that the horror film requires a fearsome and disgusting monster. In the beginning of the film the ghost of Santi scared Carlos but to me even Casper the ghost scares people. In the film, the ghost of Santi was there to warn the boys but not to scare them. The film to me has a vibe of making ghosts seem nice and there to look out for you rather than scare you. Although the film may not be considered a work of horror, I think that it would be considered a work of art-dread.

I think the film is a work of art dread due to the fact that it shows a battle between good and evil. Evil is represented through Jacinto and good represented through Santi. Santi does good by warning the other boys about Jacinto and wanting revenge to take the evil out of the world. Dread is an emotional response in a horror film where something threatening is going to happen. Jacinto burning the orphange is a threat from Jacinto. The audience feels dread toward this threat.

The Devil's Backbone stands out more as a work of dread instead of horror. People feel that since it contains a ghost it is considered a horror film. Carroll shows us that the monster in the film needs to contain certain qualities to make it a horror film and the ghost in The Devil's Backbone does not contain these qualities. Dread is a better way to describe this film.

Horror

To me, horror films were just scary movies about serial killers. I had no idea that there were so much criteria needed to be considered a horror movie. I took this class because I thought it would help me get over my fear of horror films. I’m not a big fan of the scenes when the killers pop out of no where and scare the crap out of you. I did enjoy the classic films from the early 1900’s. Mainly because they were more funny than scary.
I don’t understand the fascination people have with horror films. Why would you purposely put yourself in a situation that you know is going to frighten you and leave you with nightmares? I am still trying to figure out why people get scared of creatures that you know don’t exist. Is it the way they look? Is it the thrill of being scared? I think it is mainly the suspense that keeps everyone coming back to see this movies. They enjoy getting scared. It is the same for people who ride roller coasters. That is what gets these people off, pure suspense.
The monster in the film plays the most important role. They way the monster looks can make or break the movie. If the monster is too fake it could ruin the entire movie. No one will be frightened if they can’t even imagine this monster to be realistic. To me, there a couple of factors that each monster should have. One, it doesn’t have to be real, but it has to appear realistic. These monsters that never die and get cut in half and still come back are kind of ridiculous. They must be able to eventually die. They can’t live forever.
One of the best scary films I have seen is Halloween. When I first saw it, it scared the crap out of me. They chose the best mask for Mike Myers to wear. Something about it was just creepy. It only cost $325,000 to make, and as of 2008 has grosses 150 million. That is insane how well it has done.
Carroll has three main things that make a movie considered an art-horror film. The first one is that you have to be physically agitated by the movie. Screaming would count for this. The screaming would have to be because you were scare by the thought of the monster as a real being. The monster has to appear to be impure, and you will have no desire to touch the monster. I think if these requirements were put into any horror film, it would make a pretty scary monster.

Michael Myers A Monster?

After reading Carroll's analysis of what exactly a horror monster consists of, I would argue that according to Carroll, Michael Myers is not, in fact, a true horror monster, therefore making Halloween (1978) not a true horror film. I recall in the first week of class after Carroll's theory was introduced that there were several arguments from classmates against such a restricted definition of a horror film. In these arguments, Hannibal Lecter and Silence of the Lambs was brought up for debate. The argument was that by any other standards, Hannibal Lecter would be considered a monster for what he did and the monstrous murders he committed. The rebuttal was that Hannibal Lector was a human regardless of what horrible acts he committeed. We can picture Hannibal as a child, being born of human parents and having a seemingly typical childhood. I belleve that this same sort of logic applies to Halloween, therefore rendering it in the thriller or even slasher genre - but not a horror movie by Carroll's standards.

As we can see in the beginning of the film, Michael enters into his sister's room on Halloween night and proceeds to kill her. Grant it, this was a brutal act for a small child to commit, but we see him in his true, human form and a child nonetheless. This scene here is enough to convince us that Myers is not "out of this world," from another planet, created in a lab, or something that science would consider to be "out of the ordinary." He is human and belongs to a family.

Throughout the film, Myers committs several murders, but nothing that would render him a title of being more than the typical serial killler. The only thing that would lead us away from the fact of his humanity is reflected in the many sequals to Hallloween in which Myers returns time and time again after his supposed "deaths" - much like we see in the Frankenstein series. In my opinion though, applying Carroll's theory solely to the first Halloween movie would give no indication to Myers being more than a serial killer and therefore not a horror monster.