intro to gothic literature: horror vs. terror

Today we are continuing our introduction to gothic literature. Yesterday, we took a look at the elements found in gothic fiction and how gothic fiction was received by critics. Today, we will be taking a look at the terms horror and terror and finding the distinction between the two.

horror vs. terror

No discussion of gothic literature would be complete without defining the distinction between horror and terror. That’s because gothic fiction combines horror, terror, and mystery in an attempt to reach the sublime. We use the words “horror” and “terror” in our everyday language, but what exactly is the difference between the two?

Oftentimes terror is described as the fear and anxiety that something horrific is about to happen. It’s something you experience mentally, a state of mind where you know something horrific is about to happen to you.

“Lewismonk” by Cop 663 – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lewismonk.png. Licensed under Public Domain via Commons – https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lewismonk.png#/media/File:Lewismonk.png

Horror also involves fear, but it’s in reaction to something instead of in anticipation of it. Horror is more of a physical repulsion. You feel terrified about what could happen. You feel horrified about what just did happened. You feel horrified about the body you found. You feel terrified when you realize the killer is coming for you next.

Writers of gothic fiction tend to blend the two together, but some writers explored the terror side of fear (Anne Radcliffe’s The Mysteries of Udolpho), while others explored the horror side of fear (Matthew Lewis’ The Monk). With terror, there’s a sense of mystery and wonder, an anxiety and fear from suspense–the emotion is psychological and comes from within. With gothic horror, the reader is confronted with mutilated bodies, rape, and other appalling subjects that cause a more physical reaction of revulsion and disgust. We see this distinction today in modern horror films–some rely more heavily on psychological terror (The Sixth Sense), while others rely more on physical horror (Scream).

Stephen King adds the word “revulsion” to the conversation of horror and terror. I tend to think of revulsion as a part of being horrified, but King puts a distinction between the two. King refers to revulsion as the gore you’ll find in horror fiction. Unlike horror, revulsion isn’t so much about the fear you experience as it is about grossing out the reader/viewer.

from The Shining. Image from Adam Polselli at https://www.flickr.com/photos/polselli/2172893968

Terror is often viewed as the finest of these fears. Stephen King remarks that he strives to terrorize readers first and foremost:

I recognize terror as the finest emotion and so I will try to terrorize the reader. But if I find I cannot terrify, I will try to horrify, and if I find that I cannot horrify, I’ll go for the gross-out [revulsion]. I’m not proud. — Stephen King

Anne Radcliffe would agree, noting in her writings:

Terror and Horror are so far opposite that the first expands the soul, and awakens the faculties to a high degree of life; the other contracts, freezes and nearly annihilates them …. And where lies the difference between horror and terror, but in the uncertainty and obscurity that accompany the first, respecting the dreading evil?

It’s the sort of notion that the fear of evil is worse than the evil itself, but more than that, the feeling of terror is something that awakens your soul and allows a sort of transcendence that can’t be experienced when one is horrified because horror freezes the mind rather than unlocking it. In last week’s post, I mentioned that we enjoy haunted houses because it allows us to experience the high of fight or flight, while also giving us a moment where we’re forced to be in the here and now, releasing us from the worries and stress of the everyday life. It’s a feeling that is sublime. That’s the experience gothic fiction strives to achieve — a feeling of terror that opens you up to something you wouldn’t be able to experience otherwise.

Next week, we’ll take a deeper look at what gothic writers were referring to as the sublime.

your turn

When you feel in the mood for something creepy to read or watch, do you tend to gravitate towards psychological terror (Sixth Sense) or horror (slasher films)? Do you prefer scary movies with a lot of gore or movies that leave you more in suspense? Why is it you enjoy one more than the other? Or perhaps you enjoy gothic parodies such as The Addams Family or Scooby Doo. Or would you rather just leave the scary movies and books alone? Leave me your terrified thoughts in the comments below.

intro to gothic literature: elements and criticisms of gothic literature

Last week, we looked at fear and why we enjoy being scared. Yesterday, we began our introduction to the gothic novel by looking at the literary landscape at the end of the 18th century. We left off with Horace Walpole and his motivation behind writing what is now considered to be the first gothic novel, The Castle of Otranto. Otranto is our jumping off point for gothic fiction, with many of its elements used in the gothic fiction we know of today. So what are the elements of gothic literature and how was this new exploration of romanticism viewed by critics?

elements of gothic literature

When we go about defining gothic literature, it’s usually with a set of elements that may or may not be present in the work. Most works of gothic fiction have at least a few of the following:

• set in a castle, mansion, dungeon, or other large, dark and decaying place
• supernatural monsters such as ghosts, vampires, zombies, etc.
• damsels in distress
• romance
• dark, gloomy atmosphere
• curses and prophesies
• passion-driven villain, or villain-hero
• horror or the threat of something horrific
• intense emotion
• frame narrative

I would argue, though, that it’s the feeling of terror or horror (and there is a difference between the two) that makes the gothic genre what it is. The above elements are tools used to evoke that sense of terror/horror/mystery in order to attempt to reach the sublime.

“Kenilworth Castle England” by Tilliebean – Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons – https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kenilworth_Castle_England.jpg#/media/File:Kenilworth_Castle_England.jpg

criticism of gothic literature

I mentioned previously that in the preface of the second edition, Walpole revealed himself as the author of The Castle of Otranto and upon that second edition, critics went from praising Otranto to dismissing it. When critics thought Otranto was a work that was ancient, they viewed it as a brilliant find. When they realized Walpole wrote it himself, they saw it as sensationalism.

The criticism, though, didn’t stop other writers, such as Anne Radcliffe, from writing Gothic fiction. Anne Radcliffe’s stories are known for containing the supernatural elements of Walpole’s Otranto, but one major difference was that Radcliffe provided a natural explanation for all the supernatural events.

Explanation for the supernatural?
(image from Musgo Dumio_Momio at https://www.flickr.com/photos/30976576@N07/6036011967)

Her critics, though, still accused her of exploiting horrifying topics to terrorize her readers. In other words, gothic fiction was often looked upon as cheap or sensational fiction. Some would even go as far as to say gothic literature was ruining literature. Such critics believed the 18th century novel had some pretty exciting things going on, and then gothic novels waltz in to their dark, soul-stirring music and cheapen all the intellectual and artistic works that were being done. Today, we would refer to it as “selling out.” Pretty much how people talk about Twilight. Gothic writers weren’t real writers. Gothic literature wasn’t real literature. Can you see how much I’m rolling my eyes right now? They’re rolling all over the place. Somebody catch my eyes and put them back in my head because they are threatening to roll right out the door into the cold, dark world where everything is doom and gloom because they just love the doom and gloom but don’t judge my eyes too harshly–they’re just trying to avoid a migraine.

I’m gonna goth it up better than Horace Walpole.                   “Ann Radcliffe”. Licensed under Public Domain via Commons – https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ann_Radcliffe.jpg#/media/File:Ann_Radcliffe.jpg

But gothic fiction led to some very interesting conversations concerning horror and terror, and using terror to experience something sublime. After all, people weren’t reading gothic literature to torture themselves like the characters of the novels they were reading. Obviously, readers were enjoying something and reaching that something was an art itself. Tomorrow we’ll look into the difference between horror and terror, and then later we’ll look into the sublime.

your turn

How do you view gothic fiction? Do you feel it is a low form of fiction that uses cheap tricks to keep the reader’s interest? Or do you think there’s something more behind gothic fiction? If so, what do you think it is that makes gothic fiction an important part of literature? Share any gothic thoughts you’re having below. Also, gothic farts.