Should scary stories have explanations?

[ThisAdamGuy]

Stephen King was once quoted saying "Nightmares exist outside of logic, and there’s little fun to be had in explanations. They’re antithetical to the poetry of fear."

Do you agree? The most famous thing HP Lovecraft probably ever said was that fear is the strongest emotion, and the strongest type of fear is fear of the unknown. So the best way to scare your readers is to give them as little information as possible, right? It makes sense on paper, but I feel like it needs to be done in a very specific way in order to work as intended. In my experience, a story that doesn't explain anything usually comes across as lazily written. Maybe it's because I'm a fantasy writer, and so the rules of worldbuilding are practically carved into each of my blood cells, but to me if there's no rhyme or reason to the main antagonistic force whatsoever, the story is going to end up feeling contrived and amateurish. Even King doesn't follow his own advice. Can you think of a single one of his stories where he doesn't go into a buttload of detail explaining the monster's backstory?

Anyway, what're you guys' opinions on this?

 

[NotaNuffian]

Stephen King was once quoted saying "Nightmares exist outside of logic, and there’s little fun to be had in explanations. They’re antithetical to the poetry of fear."

Do you agree? The most famous thing HP Lovecraft probably ever said was that fear is the strongest emotion, and the strongest type of fear is fear of the unknown. So the best way to scare your readers is to give them as little information as possible, right? It makes sense on paper, but I feel like it needs to be done in a very specific way in order to work as intended. In my experience, a story that doesn't explain anything usually comes across as lazily written. Maybe it's because I'm a fantasy writer, and so the rules of worldbuilding are practically carved into each of my blood cells, but to me if there's no rhyme or reason to the main antagonistic force whatsoever, the story is going to end up feeling contrived and amateurish. Even King doesn't follow his own advice. Can you think of a single one of his stories where he doesn't go into a buttload of detail explaining the monster's backstory?

Anyway, what're you guys' opinions on this?

If it can bleed, it can die.

And one way to make it bleed is knowledge.

Also, we don't fear the unknown, we fear our lack of ability to deal with it aka lack of firepower.

 

[ShrimpShady]

I tend to love horror more the less it's explained. It takes a way a lot of the magic for me once I can see the nuts and bolts.

I can't even begin to tell you how many times a NoSleep story has gone from "Huh, that's cool and ominous" to "Yeah, okay, another skinwalker story". I'm not saying that horror writers should leave audiences completely in the dark, but to me, the more I know about the big scary thing, the more it feels like I'm gaining a bit of control over the situation. And to me, the lack of control is what makes horror great.

This is why, even over a decade later, P.T. is my favorite horror story. The only thing you can glean about it is that there's a ghost woman and a fetus in the bathroom sink, and also some crime being reported over the radio that seems to be related to the situation at hand. If they explained exactly what was going on, I think P.T. would be a lot less haunting. Like, maybe it'd be a more coherent story, but it certainly wouldn't have stuck with me and many others for so long.

 

[ThisAdamGuy]

If they explained exactly what was going on, I think P.T. would be a lot less haunting.

We already have an explanation: Hideo Kojima is on all of the drugs.

 

[Tempokai]

Not everyone has the same fear. Not really. What can be horrifying to someone with lack of description can be not horrifying for someone else. Horror is yet another language game that uses emotion of fear to make the impression on the reader.

What proper horror storytellers do is that they make an outline of the horror, not the horror itself. The imagination of the reader makes the horror real inside their heads. Not have enough description, and it crumbles because you're essentially told to fear something. Have too much, and now this is the call to arms on how you can defeat it in your mind.

Horror storytelling wise is a tightrope between TMI and "WTF is happening" of the author giving enough context to make it real enough to fear it, not enough to defeat it.

 

[Hans.Trondheim]

Also, we don't fear the unknown, we fead our lack of ability to deal with it aka lack of firepower.

Kinda like that time I played FEAR for the first time, and I can't shoot Alma.

100/10 won't play it again. lol

 

[StoneInky]

Not everyone has the same fear. Not really. What can be horrifying to someone with lack of description can be not horrifying for someone else. Horror is yet another language game that uses emotion of fear to make the impression on the reader.

What proper horror storytellers do is that they make an outline of the horror, not the horror itself. The imagination of the reader makes the horror real inside their heads. Not have enough description, and it crumbles because you're essentially told to fear something. Have too much, and now this is the call to arms on how you can defeat it in your mind.

Horror storytelling wise is a tightrope between TMI and "WTF is happening" of the author giving enough context to make it real enough to fear it, not enough to defeat it.

Best explanation ever.

You wanna juggle between enough context to let readers know it is scary...but not enough that they know how to handle the threat.

 

[JayMark]

This is my input:

We don't fear the unknown until it encroaches.

Pain, loss, and death are the true fear.
What causes them are mere representatives.
Some can be dealt with.
Others can't.

Can it cause pain?
Does it cause pain?
Can it cause loss?
Does it cause loss?
Can it cause death?
Does it cause death?
Can it be percieved as threatening such?

If we anser yes, it can be feared.
Perception trumps truth, only the answer matters.
And it will be feared even if it can be killed, because as long as it exists, it can still inflict pain, loss, and death.
When the threat is approaching, fear.
When the threat is imminent, terror.

But these are rules for the participant, not the observer safely behind the wall.
To make the observer fear, one must get inside their head.
And to get inside their head, one must craft.

 

[CharlesEBrown]

It really depends on the nature of the story. Sometimes you do need that background, sometimes it kills the horror.
And sometimes it adds to it.
For examples of all three, read Dean Koontz. Really - the guy has some stories where finding out what is going in REALLY IS the horror (Midnight), and some where it kind of undermines everything (Lightning - though possibly the best novel of his I've read, the worst HORROR novel of his I've read) and some where it helps but is not really needed (Watchers). Though, honestly, they're all pretty much the same story (Woman who discovers an inner toughness she never knew she had, an Innocent who brings her together with Damaged Man who Heals because of her and the Innocent; all three of them face something that seems supernatural but is really Science Man Was Not Meant to Tamper With) with different paint jobs, the nature of the horror does differ.

 

[StoneInky]

This is my input:

We don't fear the unknown until it encroaches.

Pain, loss, and death are the true fear.
What causes them are mere representatives.
Some can be dealt with.
Others can't.

Can it cause pain?
Does it cause pain?
Can it cause loss?
Does it cause loss?
Can it cause death?
Does it cause death?
Can it be percieved as threatening such?

If we anser yes, it can be feared.
Perception trumps truth, only the answer matters.
And it will be feared even if it can be killed, because as long as it exists, it can still inflict pain, loss, and death.
When the threat is approaching, fear.
When the threat is imminent, terror.

But these are rules for the participant, not the observer safely behind the wall.
To make the observer fear, one must get inside their head.
And to get inside their head, one must craft.

My fav horror story is about a man going down the street. He sees lights turning on the stairs of a building. They turn on extremely fast, one floor per second, which is a scientifically impossible speed to go at. Then he squints and notices they're turning on cuz of a woman crawling down the stairs on her back.

Similar stories like living on the 13th floor but having your window knocked on. Or just seeing a bunch of red shoes appear closer to your bed every night, and throwing them away doesn't work.

Technically these stories did not cause any pain, loss or death, and we do not know if they will. Yet they are somehow still scary.

In comparison, jaywalking or cancer has a bigger chance of causing loss or harm. Yet people do not classify them as horror.

 

[ShrimpShady]

jaywalking

AAAAH SO SCARY

 

[BigBadBoi]

Stephen King was once quoted saying "Nightmares exist outside of logic, and there’s little fun to be had in explanations. They’re antithetical to the poetry of fear."

Do you agree? The most famous thing HP Lovecraft probably ever said was that fear is the strongest emotion, and the strongest type of fear is fear of the unknown. So the best way to scare your readers is to give them as little information as possible, right? It makes sense on paper, but I feel like it needs to be done in a very specific way in order to work as intended. In my experience, a story that doesn't explain anything usually comes across as lazily written. Maybe it's because I'm a fantasy writer, and so the rules of worldbuilding are practically carved into each of my blood cells, but to me if there's no rhyme or reason to the main antagonistic force whatsoever, the story is going to end up feeling contrived and amateurish. Even King doesn't follow his own advice. Can you think of a single one of his stories where he doesn't go into a buttload of detail explaining the monster's backstory?

Anyway, what're you guys' opinions on this?

Horror in text is much harder to get right. You need to have a good mix of ambiance and descriptive storytelling to fire up the reader's imagination. You can include details on what it is but you must try not to describe weaknesses to be exploited. This is why SCPesque horror stories don't work most of the time. Most of the time there is a well documented method to not die. Still entertaining but not really horror for me.