I love Horror

Evans, T. (2005). ‘A Last Defense Against the Dark: Folklore, Horror, and the Uses of Tradition in the Works of H. P. Lovecraft’, Journal of Folklore Research, vol.42 no. 1. Retrieved May 5th, 2009, from Project Muse database.

Timothy Evan’s article is about the integration of traditional and folkloric elements found in horror literature, specifically H.P. Lovecraft’s works. Examples of J.R.R. Tolkien as “anti-modernist” and William Morris “socialist” in style are meant to explicate the “folklore-bearing cultures [which] are often situated in opposition to threatening and ‘inauthentic’ others, such as an imperialist regime, mass culture…” (Evans, p. 99). Folklore is used to ideological ends because legends and myth become powerful symbols and “horror writers often evoke ‘tradition’ and ‘the past’ in order to explore a perceived loss of tradition in the present” (Evan, p. 99-100). Evans explains H.P. Lovecraft is an example of a horror writer who drew on his own insecurities “brought about by social change” concerning a common way of life being under assault “by forces beyond our control” (Evans, p. 100). Lovecraft “sought out survivals of Colonial European cultures” because he was concerned with a dying simpler life and a “moral system in conflict with its time” (Evans, 101-02). Evans argues Lovecraft’s peers were “arguably folklorists and antiquarians” (Evans, p. 101).

Both folklorists and Lovecraft agreed with the importance to preserve a vernacular culture, and arguably, Hantke is making a similar argument for the support of preserving and studying a popular culture in academia (Hantke, p. 199-200). A common thread of literary and film criticism in both Evans take on horror in fiction and Hantke’s take on horror in film relies on the dual concept of invention and convention. Evans argues for the success of convention because Lovecraft was a successful author both stylistically and ideologically because he brought in elements of tradition, myth, and beliefs which he considered dying or in danger of a current moral system. He also notes Lovecraft’s eventual integration of hybrid art forms (Evans, 101-02). Hantke’s argument supports that film critics push more for invention than convention, though there are conventional characters, plot twists, and stylistics. The bottom line paradox of horror, in my opinion, does not come down to “why horror?” but instead “how horror?” If the aesthetics are so charged in difference of criticism and analysis, there is a problem with the study of horror. The problem is wanting something novel (which will sell at box offices) and something traditional (which relates most commonly with a collective human psyche). A horror film or book as to be just different enough to not be the same as the “oldies” but be similar enough to respect the conventions and traditional aspect of horror aesthetics throughout history. It is a double standard and a catch 22 in the end for creators of horror narratives. Folklore requires borrowing, commercial horror requires flashy new catch lines.

Hantke, S. (2007). ‘Academic Film Criticism, the Rhetoric of Crisis, and the Current State of American Horror Cinema: Thoughts on Canonicity and Academic Anxiety’, College Literature, vol. 34 no. 4. Retrieved May 5th, 2009, from Project Muse database.

Steffen Hantke writes about the concerning decline in quality of horror films in relation to the rising quantity of mediocre and even dismissive remakes of classic films that eventually will leave no more films to remake. Hantke breaks down the most recent academic arguments and sentiments concerning film criticism, and though the overall census is negative and bleak, a few filmmakers such as M. Knight Shyamalan provide “a few rare exceptions to the general malaise” (Hantke, p. 193). The supported argument made concerned film critics’ with the “consensus about the current crisis in horror film” is countered by Hantke’s questioning of critics focusing too narrowly on the inauthenticity of film and lacking “meta-awareness” (Hantke, p. 195). Therefore horror film writing is affected by the drive and motive of novelty. Despite its potential decline, Hantke argues there may be a process or “story of the birth, death, and rebirth of the genre [of horror film]” (Hantke, p. 195). Hankte discusses the destabilization of academic legitimacy in the study of horror film and also the reluctance of authors and publishers to broach the study of popular trends, but Hantke argues there are larger “trends in academic discourse” concerning the study of popular culture which may signal a forward moving motion in horror film studies.

“Serious, career-minded academics might have always suspected that they were studying something that was ultimately too frivolous, garish, and sensationalistic to warrant serious critical attention” (Hantke, p. 195). The popularity of horror film warrants study, not necessarily its merit according to Hantke. I think Noel Carroll and his article “Why Horror?” broaches the question in finding merit in horror genre in general. Carroll draws the comparison between the tragedy Aristotle gave significance to and the modern horror interests (Carroll, p. 277). This is interesting because if horror is like tragedy and there is a cathartic and visceral reaction with both, then certainly there is merit in horror much like tragedies long studied. I see a common issue approached by both Hantke and Carroll concerning the canon of criticism of horror which may rely too heavily on the “golden oldies” and require too strictly the new, unpredictable, and novel twist, which is always problematic because they are held in relation to the narratives of founding films and written works in the genre of horror.