I think, therefore I post
May. 26th, 2002 11:28 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
incandescensBack in the 1790s, Ann Radcliffe, the most popular author of Gothic fiction during its heyday, proposed a distinction between horror and terror. "Terror and horror," she wrote, "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."
So what are we trying to achieve in horror rpg writing? Horror rather than terror, presumably. We're interested in expanding and awakening the minds and faculties of our players (and, to an extent, our GMs) rather than paralyzing and freezing them. A certain amount of fear is necessary, but presumably not true terror.
In that case, what is true terror, as opposed to "mere" fear? We see characters in horror films paralysed by their fear, frozen in place or lying quivering on the ground. (We also usually boo them noisily and claim that we would have done better than them, but that's a different point entirely.)
Interesting thoughts. I recall that Kenneth Hite discussed different types of fear in Nightmares of Mine. Must reread.
And now this, just because I like it.
"Why," said Boyne, "I should have thought that a rascal could pretty well profess any religion he chose."
"Yes," assented the other; "he could profess any religion; that is he could pretend to any religion, if it was all a pretence. If it was mere mechanical hypocrisy and nothing else, no doubt it could be done by a mere mechanical hypocrite. Any sort of mask can be put on any sort of face. Anybody can learn certain phrases or state verbally that he holds certain views. I can go out into the street and state that I am a Wesleyan Methodist or a Sandemanian, though I fear in no very convincing accent. But we are talking about an artist; and for the enjoyment of the artist the mask must be to some extent moulded on the face. What he makes outside him must correspond to something inside him; he can only make his effects out of some of the materials of the soul. I suppose he could have said he was a Wesleyan Methodist; but he could never be an eloquent Methodist as he can be an eloquent mystic and fatalist. I am talking of the sort of ideal such a man thinks of if he really tries to be idealistic. It was his whole game with me to be as idealistic as possible; and whenever that is attempted by that sort of man, you will generally find it is that sort of ideal. That sort of man may be dripping with gore; but he will always be able to tell you quite sincerely that Buddhism is better than Christianity. Nay, he will tell you quite sincerely that Buddhism is more Christian than Christianity. That alone is enough to throw a hideous and ghastly ray of light on his notion of Christianity."
(_The Dagger With Wings_, GK Chesterton)
So what are we trying to achieve in horror rpg writing? Horror rather than terror, presumably. We're interested in expanding and awakening the minds and faculties of our players (and, to an extent, our GMs) rather than paralyzing and freezing them. A certain amount of fear is necessary, but presumably not true terror.
In that case, what is true terror, as opposed to "mere" fear? We see characters in horror films paralysed by their fear, frozen in place or lying quivering on the ground. (We also usually boo them noisily and claim that we would have done better than them, but that's a different point entirely.)
Interesting thoughts. I recall that Kenneth Hite discussed different types of fear in Nightmares of Mine. Must reread.
And now this, just because I like it.
"Why," said Boyne, "I should have thought that a rascal could pretty well profess any religion he chose."
"Yes," assented the other; "he could profess any religion; that is he could pretend to any religion, if it was all a pretence. If it was mere mechanical hypocrisy and nothing else, no doubt it could be done by a mere mechanical hypocrite. Any sort of mask can be put on any sort of face. Anybody can learn certain phrases or state verbally that he holds certain views. I can go out into the street and state that I am a Wesleyan Methodist or a Sandemanian, though I fear in no very convincing accent. But we are talking about an artist; and for the enjoyment of the artist the mask must be to some extent moulded on the face. What he makes outside him must correspond to something inside him; he can only make his effects out of some of the materials of the soul. I suppose he could have said he was a Wesleyan Methodist; but he could never be an eloquent Methodist as he can be an eloquent mystic and fatalist. I am talking of the sort of ideal such a man thinks of if he really tries to be idealistic. It was his whole game with me to be as idealistic as possible; and whenever that is attempted by that sort of man, you will generally find it is that sort of ideal. That sort of man may be dripping with gore; but he will always be able to tell you quite sincerely that Buddhism is better than Christianity. Nay, he will tell you quite sincerely that Buddhism is more Christian than Christianity. That alone is enough to throw a hideous and ghastly ray of light on his notion of Christianity."
(_The Dagger With Wings_, GK Chesterton)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2002-05-27 10:12 am (UTC)I'll try to paraphrase.
Apprehension - The killer is out there, somewhere. It is awareness, without the ability to pinpoint.
Terror - The killer is in the house, coming down the hall toward you. Awareness and pinpointing.
Horror - The killer just knifed your friend in front of you. Awareness, pinpointing, and (oft-violent) immediacy.
The author went on to put forward that horror is the easiest thing to do -- they form a kind of continuum. The best writing, the most potent, comes from how far you can get away from the easy thing -- something you don't see directly (as in apprehension) can grow much larger and more terrible in the mind than the actual thing.
no subject
Date: 2002-05-27 01:38 pm (UTC)Hite's Comments
Date: 2002-05-27 06:06 pm (UTC)Dread is the horror you create for yourself from what is not seen. "The essence of dread is the direct transference, from artist to audience, of the emotionof fear with no overlays and no distractions. The most effective horror is that which we conjure up in our own imagination; somethign so scary that we can't even name it ourselves"
In contrast, gore is purely visceral. It is a response to awful things, whatever form they take. He provides a nice defense of it, pointing out that it has a lot of kick, it just fails in common use, because there is an assumptionin moviemakers (or whoever) that if one gruesome murder is scary, 10 gruesome murders will be 10 times as scary.
Terror is somewhere between the two, and is primarily about tension and release. SOmethign jumps out, you flee - the fight or flight instinct is triggered up. ALternately, soemthign is too creepy and you just grow more and more tense.
ANyway, Had the book on hand. :)
Re: Hite's Comments
Date: 2002-05-27 06:21 pm (UTC)For the two Amber scenarios I will be running shortly, I think that one is going to be Dread shading into Terror (nothing like being stalked through the forest and finding out that someone plans to carry out the Sacred King rite using you as a proxy) while the other will be Dread modulated by Gore (murderer stalking Amber, killing relations, hele, conceale, never reveale, etc). I'm playtesting both this coming weekend, so it'll be interesting to see how they work out in practice. (My Amber DRPG scenarios always seem to depend on dark secrets, hidden knowledge, incestuous relationships, and so on. Can't think why.)
Thanks again.