Have you ever experienced discrimination from others for liking/reading horror?

Most of the time when I tell people I read horror I get "I don't like horror" in a tone of voice that says that it is an awful thing to like. Then I get the feeling they are looking at me as though I am about to go stab someone. O.o

Uhm, it might just be paranoi but have you ever experienced something like this?

Not very often, no. Generally, I've had people tell me that they didn't like horror in the same tone that they use for romance, mysteries, etc.

Some people are horrified (sorry!) at my choice of reading material; but these are the same people who deride science-fiction and fantasy as genres.

People who read mysteries don't use them as reference materials for how to commit crimes; I don't see why people would assume that people who read horror are using it as a 'how-to' guide.

I agree about the genre thing. I’ve seen opinions that you should read X number of books a year, but if they are genre books they don’t count. Kind of snobby if you ask me.

But I do get a similar reaction when asked what I’m reading. Never apologize for what you read (not that you are). You’re allowed to choose whatever material you enjoy. I’m well aware of my choices and horror is one of them. Other genres aren’t. I can’t get into fantasy or science fiction. But I do love horror, crime/noir and westerns. My wife likes the female oriented comic mysteries. I wouldn’t read them, but I hear her snickering as she reads them while I’m snickering at my latest zombie read.

Is it maybe the people you're hanging around with, instead of what you're reading?

#2: That's how the group Literary Snobs is on here towards horror and other genre fiction readers.

They should be happy people are still reading; I grew up around people (fortunately, NOT my family) who were PROUD that they hadn't opened a book since high school...

I find Horror is more accepted than Science Fiction.

As someone who organised Science Firciton conventions I took great delight at rasing it as a topic of conversation at work and watching reactions.

I think the most common term used in reference to genre fiction was, "that sort of thing".

#7: *giggles at the statement of "that sort of thing" what the heck lol

I have recieved lots of snide remarks over the last 30 years about some of my reading choices. What I have found however, when I start speaking about writing styles of various authors and the issues they raise, and ask the people making the comments what they think, I usually find that they don't read at all. Or worse yet, they don't read anything that Oprah didn't reccomend. F**K em. I read almost everything, and I learn something from most of them. I know good writing from bad, but sometimes bad writing is good for a laugh. I love horror and sci-fi(in all it's various forms). I have read some horrible crap over the years, but I don't think that was wasted time. How do you recognize brilliance if you haven't been exposed to garbage?

#9 How do you recognize brilliance if you haven't been exposed to garbage?

That reminded me of a poster, sorry, a lithograph*, on the spoof guru website, despair.com, the website for the promotion of demotivation.

The "lithograph" has a picture of a ship sinking. It is stern-down in the water and only the front half of the boat is above water.

Underneath the picture is the phrase, "You It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others."

* The website defines a "lithograph" as the same as a poster, only posher!

Horror is a really vague category. It doesn't make sense to me that Jaws, Queen of the Damned, and Flowers in the Attic are all considered the same genre.
I think when you say "horror" people automatically assume vampires, zombies, and low budget slasher films (which all have their merits, but they don't define the genre).

#11 todd13 (Welcome to LT)

I try to stay away from genre definition in any detailed way. "Genre" categories have their uses for marketing people, for frameworks to facilitate discussion, for laying out books in a bookshop or library, for whatever; but books do not necessarily have an inherent genre.

This is true for any genre, and any genre transcending works seem to cause great and, to my mind, unimportant discussions on which genre do the works fall into. Any sort of novel can have "horrific" elements. Any horror novel could have fantasy, science fiction, or crime fiction attributes.

Is Dark Matter not only a horror book but also a travel book? :-)

I agree that people have preconceived views on what constitutes a given genre and this causes the type of reactions that have rise to this thread.

However, I think a book is a book first. If it happens to fall into what someone wants to categorise as a genre, I won't lose sleep...

I appreciate that writers wishing to make a living will need to focus on their market and produce a product that fits into a given, tried and tested, category, (and this is an example of the "marketing" use of genre) but I wouldn't exclude books from a given genre that they fit into because they appear to fit into more than just the one category.

A genre is simply an adjective for desribing a book. It could have many attributes worthy of inclusion in its description and definition of where it fits.

pgmcc- you make a lot of good points . Who cares what genre a book falls into if it's a good read. What I find interesting is how books are categorized. Take for example The Road. Since Cormac McCarthy is a respected, literary author the book is usually found in the literature section. If Stephen King wrote the same book it would be in the horror section. If David Drake wrote the same book it would be in the science fiction section. The fact is, this book fits into a lot of genres, so where should it go.

However, when I go to the library or book store, I may have a taste for something. I may want a good horror story or some hard sci-fi. I want to be able to find this without sifting through all the shelves. My wife, an ex-librarian completely disagrees with me. I usually agree with her....

#13 tjm568
I usually agree with her....

I know how you feel. :-)

I have not, but I think it says more about the people I socialize with than anything else.

My wife reads a little bit of everything and does not look down her nose at horror.

My mother-in-law is a true crime junky. There are so many true crime books and other morbid subject matter floating around that house that whatever you pick up, you are likely to be horrified.

My sister-in-law reads whatever the fad is at the time. She's gone through 'The Girl Who', Harry Potter, The Hunger Games, The #1 Ladies' Detective Agency and now she's started the Ice and Fire books (which annoys my wife who's cherished that series since it was first published and doesn't want it to be trendy).

Brother-in-law reads Tom Clancy and was working his way through Anne Rice's vampire stuff (which is something I've so far avoided).

Most of my friends aren't readers and the ones who are tend to love things like D&D fiction and other fantasy.

Coworkers that I've seen reading seem hooked on books with titles like Finger Lickin' Fifteen or John Sandford and his endless 'Prey' books.

Really, looking at the stuff others read, I don't feel so bad reading horror.

jseger - I have read most of that stuff too, with the exception of the d&d and (shudder) finger lickin fifteen and Anne Rice (actually I read Interview many years ago and thought it stunk and have never dipped back in that pool). Oh yeah, I haven't read the detective agency books either.

I read a lot of everything, so I don't normally look down my nose at what other people read, although I might raise my eyebrows at an adult reading finger licken fifteen, especially if it was in the work place ( I am a high school teacher). I have certainly experienced condecening looks and attitudes about what I am reading, but that's okay. For the most part I am just happy to see people reading at all. Especially kids. Strangely enough, at least to my way of thinking, most people don't read for pleasure. I often tell my students that it doesn't matter what you read, just READ. I love horror and many other genres. I laugh when someone gives me grief when they see me reading a book with fangs on the cover, or a depiction of classic space opera. Typically it is someone who might have read two books in the last year. Who are they to judge.
By the way The Girl Who books were awesome. I resisted for a while but finally gave in, and they were great. I thought they were "chicky Oprah type books" but I was wrong. I really enjoyed them. I read all three in about ten days. Can't reccomend them enough.
And I don't feel bad reading horror either. :)

#16 - it doesn't matter what you read, just READ.

Amen.

I might raise my eyebrows at an adult reading finger licken fifteen, especially if it was in the work place

Out of curiosity, why? I haven't read those books, but they swept through the office I work in a while ago. Everyone seemed to be reading those books.

I'd just assumed they were similar in style to A is for Alibi, Monk or Moonlighting. Light detective fiction.

Edit: Oh! I just got your joke!

Yeah, I've been called sick and various other things. People become even more appalled and offended if you tell them that you write these stories as well, I can tell you.

I write a lot of short horror stories and I once said to another author "This thing I'm writing is pretty good for a horror story." He then looked at me and said "Is a horror story not supposed to be good?"
I'm the guy writing it, and I still feel that stigma of "horror is second rate literature." I blame Hollywood.
I think the common element in horror is some sort of fear. I know fear can be worked into other types of literature, but that element is front and center with horror. Often the fear comes from a monster or subject matter, but sometimes something as real as Cormac McCarthy's The Road can illicit real fear. That was one of the scariest books I've ever read.
Is that weird to like fear?

19 todd- Buck up man! It doesn't matter what you're writing as long as it's good. You don't have to apologize for what you write. You may have to apologize if you suck as a writer, but that's a whole different matter. And the fact is, if you suck as a writer, most houses won't publish you. I think Stephen King is a great word smith, even if he gets diareah of the pen from time to time. Dan Simmons puts together some of the most beautiful sentences I've ever read. Both got their start in horror. Both have branched out into other genres, but tend to be labled as "Horror Writers".(Not as much Simmons). If you can write and get published, the least of your worries is the "stigma" of being labled. Being labled as a horror writer certainly hasn't hurt King.

Oh yeah.... Don't blame anyone for anything. Hollywood is not ruining good horror writing.

WARNING: DIATRIBE TIME

Why is The Road literature and The Stand popular fiction? I read a lot and know the background of both authors. What I don't understand is the mindset of the Powers That Be on deciding what is "Literature" and what is not. Why is Cormac McCarthy, no matter what he writes, considered literature? Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed The Road (alright, maybe not enjoyed), but I didn't think it was fantastic writing. It was adequate. I don't think that anything in that book really stood out as great writing. Yeah, I felt like crap when I finished it, and I know that was how I was meant to feel, but I don't know that that's much of an accomplishment.

#20 tjm568

Why is Cormac McCarthy, no matter what he writes, considered literature?

Hear! Hear!

I read No Country for Old Men on the recommendation of friends who seem to think McCarthy had invented writing. I found it an OK thriller, but no better than the type of thing you get on a television series. There was nothing special in it.

My review of The Stand will demonstrate that I agree with you about Stephen King and his diareah of the pen .

Simmons; yes, I always enjoy his writing, even when I have doubts about the raison d'etre of the story he's written, as in the case of Drood.

#20 - Why is The Road literature and The Stand popular fiction? Why is Cormac McCarthy, no matter what he writes, considered literature?

Because he won a national book award before he wrote The Road and No Country for Old Men. Fans of literary fiction enjoyed The Road. They don't enjoy science fiction or horror, therefore The Road must be literature.

The same goes for Jonathan Lethem, Michael Chabon, Kurt Vonnegut and Ray Bradbury.

#22 and probably Margaret Attwood.

>22 jseger9000:

That's exactly it, in a nutshell.

#22 Because he won a national book award before he wrote The Road and No Country for Old Men. Fans of literary fiction enjoyed The Road. They don't enjoy science fiction or horror, therefore The Road must be literature.

Isn't that silly. You enjoy a story, and there are other stories that you might enjoy that are similar, but because it is in a different section of the store, you won't touch it. People baffle me sometimes.

#25 He has crossed over to the "Dark side"!

Wow, what a great subject – sorry I didn't see this thread sooner!

As the only reader in my family, I'm already looked at strangely. However, I argue that some horror can be quite literary and deep -- much of horror delves into psychology either on a surface level or by use of certain archetypes.

I have an English degree (please don't throw stones) and I remember when my Recent American Fiction classmates were selecting contemporary authors to research and write about. Someone wanted to do King. Most classmates howled at the unfortunate soul. I promptly accused my classmates of being literary snobs ignoring the fact that even most commercial books require good craft (something many aspiring artsy writers ignore – they're all about their pain/love/art and forget that it is actually work and craft as well).

So here's to all that good "commercial" fiction out there!

#27 PJGraham much of horror delves into psychology either on a surface level or by use of certain archetypes

Is there a "surface level" where psychology is concerned?

:-)

#28 – With a few writers? Yes, it can be treated at a surface level. :)

However, I agree - I would say most horror has significant psychological aspects. And it's so darn fun!

#27 PJGraham
even most commercial books require good craft (something many aspiring artsy writers ignore – they're all about their pain/love/art and forget that it is actually work and craft as well).

What exactly are "commercial books"? Does this mean books that are meant (hoped for, dreamed for, wished for, Please God Let it Please Happen) to eventually make some money for the author?

#30

books that are meant ... to eventually make some money for the author?

HaaHaaHaaHaaHaaHaa!

tjm568, you have such funny ideas.

#27 - Someone wanted to do King. Most classmates howled at the unfortunate soul...

And right after Dickens death, the opinion on his work was Not much of Dickens will live, because it has so little correspondence to life... If his novels are read at all in the future, people will wonder what we saw in them.

even most commercial books require good craft...

Have you ever read King's speech to the National Book Foundation when he was awarded for Distinguished Contribution to American letters?

Here's some of my favorite bits:

Now, there are lots of people who will tell you that anyone who writes genre fiction or any kind of fiction that tells a story is in it for the money and nothing else. It's a lie.

I salute the National Book Foundation Board, who took a huge risk in giving this award to a man many people see as a rich hack.

There's another writer here tonight who writes under the name of Jack Ketchum and he has also written what may be the best book of his career, a long novella called The Crossings. Have you read it? Have any of the judges read it? And yet Jack Ketchum's first novel, Off Season published in 1980, set off a furor in my supposed field, that of horror, that was unequaled until the advent of Clive Barker. It is not too much to say that these two gentlemen remade the face of American popular fiction and yet very few people here will have an idea of who I'm talking about or have read the work.

You can read the whole speech here: http://www.nationalbook.org/nbaacceptspeech_sking.html

The fact that King champions Ketchum so much is always endearing. I will say, one nice thing about e-books and Kindles is that I don't attract attention in public when I whip out some horror book. Now I just look like a pretentious hipster ;-)

It's human nature to want to categorize things. It's like our brains can't fathom something transcending 'genre' expectation. Even King is constantly pigeonholed into horror and I've stopped counting the number of times I hear: "Wait, Stephen King wrote Shawshank? I thought he only wrote about ghosts and stuff."

I ran into this problem with my "supernatural thriller." Half of it is about an extramarital affair and the destructive power of deception in families, and half is about a haunted painting and its twisted history, and they both overlap. I, personally, consider it a suburban psychological thriller with supernatural elements. Some of my friends simply say: "Oh, it's horror," because the painting comes alive at night.

Labeling stuff horror, or Fantasy, or even Christian writing conveys a lot of simple expectations that are, often, rather incorrect or perhaps outdated. Sometimes it can even make a writer very famous by going against them. Stephenie Meyer and her twinkling vampires, for example. Now you can't go near vampires lit without it being (a) set in high school (b) set in the bayou (c) dealing with angst, isolation, and tough *emotional* issues that are very important to the modern 14 year old girl.

#31 pjmcc- I was always the class clown, and now as a teacher I have free reign.

#33 heydrew- Now you can't go near vampires lit without it being (a) set in high school (b) set in the bayou (c) dealing with angst, isolation, and tough *emotional* issues that are very important to the modern 14 year old girl.

Bullshit. There are plenty of readers out there who still want their vampires as viscious monsters who just want to tear out throats. These genres go through fazes, and some of those fazes suck. That doesn't mean that some author can't steer the boat back in the right direction. Or write stories that don't give in to the current trend. Guillermo del Toro is already doing that. (Check him out if you haven't already. I hope you have.)

As far as your "supernatural thriller". I haven't read it, but who gives a crap what your freinds lable it as. You can call it whatever you want, but it will be judged and labled by the readers. If they think it's horror, it's horror. Why does that bother you? If you write a story that people want to read you are in a rare minority. You should just embrace it. If people interpret your story differently than you intended so what? If you are producing a work of art, it is open to interpretation.

#33 - ...one nice thing about e-books and Kindles is that I don't attract attention in public when I whip out some horror book.

I don't know if it is still true, but I heard for a while the fastest selling genre on Kindle was romance. People were very happy to get their genre back without anonymous bus/subway riders looking down at them.

I want to say that it is a shame. People should enjoy what they read, blah, blah, blah. But honestly I have sort of covered my book covers before. More likely with westerns than horror for me. But nonetheless, I feel their pain.

I've stopped counting the number of times I hear: "Wait, Stephen King wrote Shawshank?" Yeah, Stand By Me gets that reaction too. Subconsciously they are saying "That can't be King, because I enjoyed it and everyone knows his books are cheap horror crap."

Now you can't go near vampires lit without it being (a) set in high school (b) set in the bayou (c) dealing with angst, isolation, and tough *emotional* issues that are very important to the modern 14 year old girl.

I blame Anne Rice for the sorry state of vampires. Stephanie Meyer is just bowdlerized Anne Rice, removing the two things that might tempt me in to reading one of those vampire books: 1)kinky sex and 2) violence

But like tjm568 says, there are still some good vampire tales available. They are just buried under the Lestat/Twilight knock-offs.

#34

Good point. Of course a writer can steer a boat in any genre direction he or she wants, but public expectation and fads can also redefine what is considered marketable, and what is considered a vampire. It's the whole "zombies don't run" debate. And yes, I've read (listened to) the first two of the Strain books and quite enjoyed them, even though they felt like expanded versions of the vamps Del Toro created for Blade 2. I'm glad he & Chuck Hogan, and others, are moving vampires away from the sparkly faerie element.

#35

Maybe King just sort of transcended that by selling so many damn books his name became household. People may not know or approve of the book, but they know the name.

#30 tjm568 -- commercial fiction probably wasn't the best term to use, but most contemporary literary fiction -- as in highbrow stuff -- doesn't make much money. Many such authors have other jobs as teachers, lecturers, or such. Genre authors can often make a living at writing, though it's a pretty tough one for most writers.

37-PJ

So do those authors who write contemporary literary fiction not make money because people don't want to read them or because publishers see that Twilight is selling like gangbusters and, wanting to tap into that market, only publish stories of that ilk, regardless of quality?

I honestly think that the vast majority of readers don't recognize bad writing. Two writers that immediately spring to mind are Dan Brown and John Grisham. I should add the caveat that I have not read any new Grisham in years, maybe he has gotten better. And understand, I think the stories they have written have some appeal and interest, I just don't think they are well written. That hasn't stopped them from selling millions. The fact is most people either don't care or don't recognize it. Often I don't care. I recognize that a writer like Ted Bell has some work to do to get to the level of writing of even an early Grisham. The same could be said of Clive Cussler. I don't care. From time to time I am in the mood for that kind of story that takes very little thought. Brain candy as it were. I would argue that according to their sales, the majority of readers want this type of book. If publishers stopped printing these types of books and focused on the "highbrow" stuff I don't think you would see an increase in the literacy of readers. I think you would see a decline of readership.

Snack on the commercial fiction and sustain yourself with the contemporary literary fiction if that is to your tastes. Personally, I have to admit I am a bit adicted to the junkfood. I eat the gourmet stuff too, but mmmmmm, a Big Mac tastes so good once in a while.

#38 tjm568: I think it's pretty clear that "literary" fiction has a limited audience. If I mention Toni Morrison or Raymond Carver (I know, he died in the 80s, but he's not to the "classics" category yet), most people give me a blank stare. Though Oprah helped Morrison get some recognition. And I don't bother mentioning poets.

I think most people look to fiction for a little escapism – genre fiction or blockbusters usually fit the bill better. Myself included. And I agree with you, most people don't recognize poor writing – I couldn't read Brown's The Da Vinci Code due to how the man mutilates the language. When I told some friends this, they were like "Huh?" Depending on the level of the problem, I can sometimes read poor writing anyway.

Myself, I like a diet with variety, though I tend to overindulge in horror and mysteries. :)

I don't recall any overt discrimination, but I still laugh over the time a coworker caught me reading Lovecraft and said, "Oooooh, reading that kind of stuff at work?" Lol. She totally thought I was reading romance novels.

#40: LOL Lovecraft is so far from romance it's not even funny!!

Maybe given 'love' and 'craft' she thought it was a sex manual.

#40: You didn't bother to correct her did you?