Horror Story - Fun or Psychopathology?


Recommended Posts

Horror Story - Fun or Psychopathology?

In the essay "What is Romanticism?" (found in The Romantic Manifesto), Ayn Rand had some harsh things to say about horror stories. She flat out stated they did not belong within the field of aesthetics, but instead, within the field of mental illness....

Aristotle's whole emotional throughline in tragedy is that a hero has to start out provoking pity in the audience (by being in an unfortunate situation), then provoke mounting fear (generally through danger). When this gets unbearable, a climax resolves the reason for the fear (and any other tension) and these negative emotions experienced by the audience are purged in a process called catharsis.

Now for the obvious question. Are terror and pity the only emotions in a horror story? Hell, didn't Rand learn about catharsis? Isn't the pleasure of relief an emotion for her? That's definitely part of the horror aesthetic. It's not like this idea was absent in Hollywood in her fiction-formative years. And I won't even go into the emotion of hope.

Of course she knew this stuff. She just didn't apply it to the Horror Story for whatever reason.

And how did she miss child play? The sight of kids horsing around about gory stuff is ubiquitous, even in her time. Wherever there are kids, you see this.

I'll give her a pass on missing the theme of grace under terrible circumstances, but not much of one. She was certainly intelligent enough to see it if she wanted to. I won't give her a pass on missing the theme of good and evil, though. That would be ridiculous for someone like Rand and condescending to boot.

One has to identify something correctly before one can evaluate it correctly. I contend Rand missed by a mile on identifying in this case. I can't take her evaluation of Horror Story seriously. She's evaluating something to fit a theory, not what actually exists--neither the motives of the audience nor how the emotions play out.

Horror stories are not a proper form of fiction not because the author may or may not be a psychopath; the main objection is that it serves no such purpose which can be properly ascribed to a work of art. First of all, metaphysically impossible, and in that, not an impossibility which shows some connection to human values(like in some good fantasy), but of negative values such as the primitive, baseless fear which Rand appropriately calls it. Second, it has no aesthetic function. Aesthetic value of a work of art lies in its beauty. I don't know who claims that horror is something aesthetic and hence beautiful. But if some people find entertainment from it, that doesn't make it a work of art. There are thousands of such things which are entertaining but which cannot be called an art. And finding pleasure in portrayal of ugly and impossible distortions, showing man not as he should be or even as he is, but such depravity which lowers things to such a depth that it is impossible in reality. Horror is not any kind of representation of reality, or even anything which has to do with reality, but a projection of mental fear in its worst form; fear for something which doesn't exist at all.

And for god's sake, don't apply concept of Catharsis to horror. When Aristotle talked about fear and pity, he talked about different kind of fear and pity and not a primitive fear and projection of mental illness. He was even very specific about which kind of a hero can arouse fear; he knew very well that every kind of fear is not a proper fear and everything cannot arouse it. A tragic hero should be virtuous but not flawless, because if he is not a very good man and just some depraved person, we will think he deserves the tragedy befallen on him. And if he is too flawless then we won't be able to relate to him. So a question of a hideous monster who is not even something like a human, leave aside a hero, or a victim in some horror story haunted by some distorted creatures who don't even exist is the last thing Aristotle was talking about when he talked about fear and pity. Fear and pity implies fear caused by something which really exists or has some connection with reality. Horror is just an exaggeration of the most depraved negative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two types of horror stories: fiction and non-fiction. Fiction belongs to esthetics. Questions of taste and morality belong elsewhere. Esthetics has room for taste and morality, but not proscription. Rand muddied the waters.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MSK's initial post bothers me deeply. If Rand were alive and saw the depravity of modern horror, ubiquitous porn on demand, and nightly urban gang war, she'd pronounce our society dead and gone, way past the point of discussion.

Surging Crime, Soaring Suicides, Overwhelmed Food Banks "And The Worst Is Yet To Come"

Bakken oil companies declare bankruptcy

Sabine Files Chapter 11, Analysts Predict More to Come

Most Americans have less than $1,000 in savings

"A hollowing out of the middle class ... workers are competing with people in China for jobs.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And for god's sake, don't apply concept of Catharsis to horror. When Aristotle talked about fear and pity, he talked about different kind of fear and pity and not a primitive fear and projection of mental illness. He was even very specific about which kind of a hero can arouse fear; he knew very well that every kind of fear is not a proper fear and everything cannot arouse it.

Alexander,

In other words, we should just stick to heroes who kill their fathers, screw their mothers and gouge their own eyes out? After all, Oedipus Rex was the work Aristotle analyzed as the highest form of tragedy in The Poetics. Oedipus was his kind of hero. His John Galt, so to speak.

:smile:

It gets worse once you start digging.

You can paraphrase a tirade against horror based on Rand's writing in The Romantic Manifesto, but if you try base it on Aristotle, you will get into all kinds of logical trouble.

There's a reason Rand never appealed to Aristotle in developing her aesthetic opinions, especially her artificial psychological component called "sense of life." (It was a clever idea and a good try, but ultimately, no cigar.) She used Aristotle for other areas of philosophy, but for art, she stepped away from him. I don't even recall her using the term "catharsis." Not once.

As to pity (Aristotle's pity and fear), she had Roark get the willies when he felt pity for Peter Keating--the scene where Roark analyzes Keating's paintings. (btw - That scene is a perfect representation of Nietzsche's thinking about pity. I can dig up some of his quotes on pity if you like.)

If you truly want to understand catharsis, I suggest a book called The Moral Molecule: How Trust Works by Paul J. Zak. It's an easy read written for the layperson.

The US Department of Defense, through DARPA, has been developing a project about story in order to try to figure out how to weaponize storytelling. Zak is one of the people who who has contributed to that project. Another is a guy named Kendall Haven. (There are several others and I have made a mini-hobby of trying to track these folks down.)

These people show how story works--in a repeatable manner under scientific control constraints--on a basis far deeper than speculations about the nature of art based on a made-up theory of the subconscious. Zak even takes blood samples as part of his work to measure oxytocin, testosterone, adrenalin, etc.

Rand was very good about explaining conscious reasoning. And she was an excellent artist in using the elements of the subconscious. She could get you turning pages in suspense just as much as Dan Brown. When it came to her explaining the subconscious, though, she didn't do too well.

A tone of certainty is not the same thing as fact. It can seem like it the way Rand does it, but it isn't.

Where you are at in your aesthetic reasoning (basically repeating Rand's opinions about what is "proper" based on the justifications she gave) is where I was at many moons ago. Frankly, this is one area I wish I had not swallowed Rand's thinking whole. It held me back as an artist for decades.

In other words, Rand was a great writer but a lousy writing instructor for creative writing. She did better (but still not great) at teaching nonfiction writing.

I suggest some serious study and premise checking here. Especially if you are interested in producing art. If you like, I can recommend a series of really good books that make you think and will ultimately stimulate your creativity.

Or, keep repeating Rand's opinions on art so you can condemn and gush about the very things she did. Then see what happens when you try to do them yourself. It's your choice.

Incidentally, I happen to like Rand's heroes a lot more than the ones Aristotle admired. But in storytelling theory (and art theory), I like the idea of catharsis a hell of a lot more than sense of life. Oddly enough, Rand was a master of catharsis when she wrote fiction. :smile:

Michael

EDIT: I do have to give credit where credit is due. Although I find Rand's concept of sense of life seriously flawed, her discussion of it where she talked about normative versus cognitive abstractions is where I developed my own idea of cognitive before normative reasoning when fully engaging volition.

Nowadays, I find the whole idea of normative abstractions problematic. Ironically, to the chagrin of Rand's epistemology critics, when you get into neuroscience, every is does imply an ought :smile: . So it's all one thing with differing focuses rather than two different things.

But the division of abstractions into cognitive and normative is useful as a virtual division because then it can be used for developing routines for training the mind, somewhat like the idea of the triune brain. (Even for Rand's idea of rewiring the emotions in the subconscious through conscious control--which actually can be done in part by purposely doing cognitive before normative identifications and introspection, although it doesn't work for the whole enchilada.) After all, you don't need to know about things like dopamine, serotonin and cortisol triggers in order to practice a skill with full mental focus and become proficient.

Or to let go and react viscerally to a horror movie as you stuff your face with hot buttered popcorn and have a lot of fun. :smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus Christ had one of the best media teams ever assembled...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incidentally, the vast majority of horror stories are perfect morality tales of good and evil, with the good hero beating the evil monster in the end.

Good almost always wins out. A tough fight, granted, but good saves the day.

So, you Rand repeaters against the horror genre, stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

:smile:

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incidentally, the vast majority of horror stories are perfect morality tales of good and evil, with the good hero beating the evil monster in the end.

Good almost always wins out. A tough fight, granted, but good saves the day.

So, you Rand repeaters against the horror genre, stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

:smile:

Michael

Fine as far as that goes, Michael, still I dunno about how often the hero vanquishes evil conclusively - several I've seen, in variants, have that coffin lid cracking open in the last second of the movie. The film makers can't have you sleeping peacefully!

No, the main point is metaphysical, that such a world of arbitrary horror could 'exist' in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the main point is metaphysical, that such a world of arbitrary horror could 'exist' in the first place.

Tony,

That's not much of an argument.

After all, the unicorns Ayn Rand loved enough to use in her course on fiction writing don't exist. Fantasy and scifi, anyone? She was all for it.

Or, how about Bob's favorite complaint about a perpetual motion energy generator (the on in AS) being impossible in this reality because of the second law of thermodynamics?

The whole problem of using the metaphysical existence argument to bash art one dislikes is that it is true in all cases except for the times it isn't. People who use this argument use it quite arbitrarily--that is if existence is the standard.

:smile:

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As if the world of Maxfield Parrish "could 'exist' in the first place"?

Your "main point" is no point at all.

--Brant

Up to you how much you immerse yourself in the artist's created world**. But I think one misses the good along with the bad if one keeps it at an incredulous armslength. Not 'real', yes. But it's how an artist sees existence, his opinion, values and premises. It's important to him, and his opinion of existence should be treated as important - at least briefly. And one isn't the only one watching it, you know. There's a powerful subconscious influence on a society's culture, for good or bad.

**[Roger's "microcosm" would work well].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MSK's initial post bothers me deeply.

Yeah, you have a tendency to have lots of little feelings and to be ruled by them.

If Rand were alive and saw the depravity of modern horror, ubiquitous porn on demand, and nightly urban gang war, she'd pronounce our society dead and gone, way past the point of discussion.

Indeed, Rand is known to have been emotionally over the top and to have made some quite irrational judgments. Like you, she was sometimes incapable of distinguishing between reason and her emotion-driven opinions. I think it's one of the main reasons that Objectivism and Objectivists are laughed at. Instead of working on fixing Objectivism and purging it of the frantic kookiness, it seems that every year a new batch of nutty followers comes along to promote the kookiness as loudly as they can.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... still I dunno about how often the hero vanquishes evil conclusively - several I've seen, in variants, have that coffin lid cracking open in the last second of the movie. The film makers can't have you sleeping peacefully!

Tony,

Come on. This is pure capitalism at work.

Instead of telling you a complete story, they make it clear that you just saw an episode of a larger story.

With the opening coffin lid at the end, they prepare an almost guaranteed audience for the following episode. That's a teaser. (The technical terms for this in storytelling are reveal and reversal--btw - those are Aristotle's terms.)

And you object to this? You got something against making good money in a free marketplace or something?

:smile:

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Horror stories are not a proper form of fiction not because the author may or may not be a psychopath; the main objection is that it serves no such purpose which can be properly ascribed to a work of art. First of all, metaphysically impossible, and in that, not an impossibility which shows some connection to human values(like in some good fantasy), but of negative values such as the primitive, baseless fear which Rand appropriately calls it.

Showing "negative values such as the primitive, baseless fear" would allow it to qualify as art by Rand's criteria.

I think what you're doing is confusing your own personal tastes, expectations and aesthetic limitations with what Rand called "esthetic judgment." Her view was that the artist's task is to present his view of existence, not yours. His work doesn't cease to be art just because you don't like it or agree with what you interpret it to represent or mean.

Second, it has no aesthetic function. Aesthetic value of a work of art lies in its beauty.

No it doesn't. Beauty is not the only possible aesthetic element or effect. A work of art need not be beautiful to be expressive, including the expression of great values. The field of aesthetics is not limited to beauty, and beauty is not necessary for a work to be considered art.

I don't know who claims that horror is something aesthetic and hence beautiful. But if some people find entertainment from it, that doesn't make it a work of art. There are thousands of such things which are entertaining but which cannot be called an art.

Based on what standard? They can't be called art by whom and to whom? The fact that they don't affect you on whatever level you require to classify them as art doesn't mean that they don't affect others on that level.

And finding pleasure in portrayal of ugly and impossible distortions, showing man not as he should be or even as he is, but such depravity which lowers things to such a depth that it is impossible in reality.

Another possibility is that you're misunderstanding others' responses and imposing false assumptions on them. It sounds as if you're not really interested in investigating the issue, and actually listening to others' views and understanding them, but that you're merely thrilled at the opportunity to mimic Rand and look down your nose at some imaginary enemies.

Horror is not any kind of representation of reality, or even anything which has to do with reality, but a projection of mental fear in its worst form; fear for something which doesn't exist at all.

That's your limited take on it. Not all people are limited to seeing and experiencing in art what you are limited to.

Um, maybe think about doing some independent, critical thinking rather than parroting Rand while not quite yet understanding her. "Depravity, depravity, depravity! That's not man as he might and ought to be!" Ugh.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, Like I was saying about immersion. One wholly accepts the filmmaker's standards in his film and voluntarily suspends judgements to gain the most out of it - as you'd do with reality - until later. I think even the most inauthentic characters: spirits and goblins etc. are subconsciously personified by a viewer. If they are designed to be, and they behave and are perceived, as 'evil', then it is that view of the random horror of existence that remains in one. Consciously, the mind can't identify 'monsters' since there's no referent to them in reality - except in the 'reality' of previous horror fables - which allows for the mystic idea of Dark Forces conspiring against men to enter as replacement. So yeah, a metaphysically bleak universe and epistemic confusion, it's got it all. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Horror stories are not a proper form of fiction[...]

Note that Rand always named Dostoyevksy as a favorite author, and described reading him as going through "a chamber of horrors, but with a powerful guide". But her absolute favorite was Victor Hugo, and I suggest you read his preface to the play Cromwell, it's regarded as his artistic manifesto. I think you'll change your mind about a few things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consciously, the mind can't identify 'monsters' since there's no referent to them in reality...

Tony,

You are joking, right?

If you are not, I respectfully say bless your stars that you live in the modern age where others deal with monsters. In earlier times, I fear you would no longer be in the human gene pool.

But you would have been an excellent dinner for a big wild beast or fish.

:)

What do you think one of those things look like in the dark?

What do you think the amygdala evolved to handle, anyway? Flowers and fruit?

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

heh, Michael: We are still on the subject of art and filmic art - um - aren't we? It's the invented 'supernatural monster' I meant. And you'll have to take my word I've seen something of real human monsters.

Not to make too fine a point, or belabor it. I began by saying there's some merit to Rand's thoughts of horror, and I still think there is. I'm not going to paint myself into a corner on this one, though. There have been some great horror films (to me, more like intelligent thrillers with a few gruesome parts). Then, those which have the most disturbing "opinions" or view of man's puny life in a dark and uncertain existence. You know what Rand meant when you see that sort of thing and the effects on you. But I think the genre is too scattered to assess it all under one type.

Rand could be a bit of a mother hen worrying over her brood, I think. Any semblance of attack on man's consciousness she responded to with all guns blasting, which was fully proper. However, with anything like strong minds (like here), we take our "horror" with a pinch of salt. As I mentioned, it still leaves the question of how other weaker minds are able to deal with it, and they we have to live among.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I mentioned, it still leaves the question of how other weaker minds take it, and they we have to live among.

Tony,

I used to use the term "weaker minds" for a discussion like this, but I've grown to respect the masses more than before.

I am interested in how things become a fad, though, like zombies and vampires (to stay within the horror theme).

Notice that people use these for sheer entertainment and there is no real fear running anymore in many uber-popular stories and series like there should be with horror stories. Vampires have become sexy forbidden lovers and zombies have become like wild predator animals in an adventure story in the jungle or woods.

I think there is a subconscious thing going on at a metaphorical level. When you are exposed to craploads of covert persuasion messages a day, which the human mind never had in this overwhelming number until very recently, it can feel like someone sucking your spiritual blood. When you see large groups of people doing stupid shit all of a sudden because they are obviously manipulated by these messages, the herd can seem like they are all brain-dead, but still walking around--wanting to eat your brains, too, at that.

So vampires and zombies emerged as pop icons. There is more to it, but I think there is a lot to this idea.

I don't resonate so much with vampires and zombies, but I also grew up at a time when an electric typewriter and color TV were just being invented. And you only had 3 main TV channels. Cable didn't even exist and the Internet was still a DARPA brainstorm. My brain in my formative years could tune out easily from the covert message bombardment. I had time to myself without the temptation of endless electronics.

I am aware I don't know what it feels like to have my brain develop during formative years under 24 hours a day nonstop covert manipulative messages in constant streams from different sources like the younger people today.

But I do think, had this happened to me, it would have made me appreciate vampires and zombies a lot more than I do now.

:smile:

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A weaker mind. A mind that is not much its own, so I'm clear. Not a lot to do with IQ or education, as far as I can tell. You said that accurately about zombies in our culture - for one, it shows that art reflects as well as shines. When people and films make vampires and zombies 'normal', another (im)moral standard bites the dust. Might that be post-modernism, to a 't'?

The "masses"? The more I know of them, the more I love about individuals.

:smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "masses" doesn't/don't exist. There is nothing to "know" about it/them except conceptually as what Rand, for instance, called "social ballast," but her reference was to little thinking individuals who went along to get along. The communists loved if not still love "the masses." This freed them to act on their behalf. It is self-justifying moral and practical, even genocidal, elitism. If you are a left-winger you are an elitist. A right-winger, much less so, especially if you leave "God" out of it. That's why I don't object in all cases to "God." Hit the communists with everything you can.

Now the Nazis were elitists. But they weren't right-wingers. Like everybody else not for freedom they were to the left of freedom or leftists. But "the masses" have not been educated to think that way. Nor the intellectual class. It's really free and less free all the way to totalitarianism. I'm somewhat to the left of freedom myself. Freedom is like absolute zero. You can approach it but not quite get there except, maybe, personally--not in or by any country I've ever heard of. What matters most is your direction of travel--your orientation.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "masses" doesn't/don't exist. There is nothing to "know" about it/them except conceptually...

--Brant

Essentially true, of course. There is a small dilemma: you and I will consider "the masses" as a collection of individuals, but what about if (when) some of those individuals don't? How significant is my view of them to those people who identify with and relate to a "mass", primarily? (As impossible as we know it to be). Last, how does it or should it affect my view of such an individual?

In short:

"You want to derive your identity from a collective, why should I try to stop you - and what you wish to be is how I must consider you".

?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now