Splatterpunk Articles Vol. 1

Crossing the Line: Boundaries and Limitations (Debate)

Crossing the Line: Boundaries and Limitations -

-

"Why should not a writer be permitted to make use of the levers of fear, terror and horror because some feeble soul here and there finds it more than it can bear? Shall there be no strong meat at table because there happen to be some guests there whose stomachs are weak, or who have spoiled their own digestions?"

- E.T.A. Hoffmann an author of the "Serapion Brothers"

I agree whole heartedly with this statement. If the goal of horror is to push the level of fear in the audience that much further, then aren't unspoken boundaries limiting the potential of horror? This has been debated among the horror community before, but has been brought to my attention again in the form of baby killing.

It is true that some things are too emotionally intense for the general public to digest, murdering infants and extreme rape sequences being among them. For this reason, many horror authors and directors avoid doing such ghastly things. No one wants to loose a larger audience because of one scene that went "too far" and so they play it safe. My question is, should we?

Should horror have boundaries and limitations put in place? To do so almost seems like a crime to me.

In order to address this topic on a mature and professional level without becoming biased, I turned to my fellow Wattpaders for their opinions by asking everyone this question:

"Should horror have boundaries and limitations? I'm referring to those unspoken rules about killing off infants, or extremely gruesome rape/torture scenes. Is there a line to be crossed, or is the purpose of horror to cross lines?"

I received sixteen responses, and only two said that horror should have boundaries. The other fourteen were different versions of the same agreement; that horror has no bounds.

"Horror is supposed to scare and frighten and disturb. The whole point of horror IS taking it to far. When you bring up horror you have already crossed the line. Kill the infant, torture the deformed, poison the children with cyanide in the grape juice (Law and Order: SVU episode). There is no line."

- @Spencer755 author of stories such as "The Asylum" and "Wrath"

Spencer's response to my question reflects the general agreement my followers had. It refers to the purpose of horror, which we covered earlier in the article "Defining Horror". We expose ourselves to this genra to experience dread, to be terrified, and to feel disturbed. If these emotions are not stirred within the audience, then it simply isn't horror, but something else entirely.

But can we induce such feelings without pushing the envelope so far?

I had a rather lengthy conversation with @gmartincook (author of the Stedphast and Dru series) on this topic and he had this to say:

"Horror evolves. It has to. We simply aren't scared by the same things our parents were, or our grandparents. That's why horror cant have limits. If you limit it, it ceases to be horror and rapidly devolves into comedy...because it was once scary and now is not. Horror is fluid, as you pointed out, what scares one person will not scare another."

It is true that newer generations are more desensitized than others, as well as individual people. The black and white film, "King of the Zombies" (personal favorite) was considered terrifying to it's generation. However today it's simply hilarious because we're exposed to more intense terror as time passes. Therefore horror must continue pushing the envelope in order to continue being received as horrifying.

"The purpose of 'Horror Fiction' is to instill: horror/ fear/ terror/discomfort/unease -et al. To successfully achieve these feelings in the reader/viewer, the writer has to walk right up to the edge, then use their talent/skill to ensure crossing it enhances the horror/narrative and isn't gratuitous or titillating to the 'wrong' audience.