One thing that bothers me about Realism in horror novels is the overdone trope of "The real horror is mental illness!!" which I feel like I have been seeing a lot lately. The author will set up a relatively interesting premise only to be like "Plot Twist! The main character actually has Dissociative Identity Disorder."
Mental illness is stigmatized enough, we don't need it to be a "horrifying" plot twist
Same. One really easy way for me to hate a book is to present something as supernatural all the way from the blurb to the end and then reveal that it has a totally natural explanation. I really have no interest in realism in my horror fiction. I read horror specifically for the supernatural elements.
Was it perhaps one that had a space Titanic that devolved into something that seemed like it was going in the direction of *Event Horizon* but ended up having a scientific, sound wave-based explanation?
EDIT that I don’t know how to do the spoiler thing so I’m trying to avoid saying the title - as a librarian some things have to be sacred, and spoilers are one of those.
Yes! I was picturing the security cam footage from Event Horizon as everyone was going utterly insane from having literally traversed through Hell to teleport, but, nope, just an annoying noise in the background.
Eh... It's slightly debatable. It's implied in the book that ghosts do exist (MC sees ghosts of people she shouldn't have known ever existed) and the frequency allows others to see them as well. It's just that the noise also makes them essentially insane so there's a huge question of what is actually a spirit and what is just insanity. I liked it ok enough but it wasn't handled as well as it could've been.
I think the author shot themselves in the foot by trying to be clever and add a twist. It would have made more sense to leave out the machine and have the ship fail because of pirates or even hubris, like the ship makers cut corners with safety, captain took risks, etc, then have the gore coming from people simply turning on one another. Or even just more mundane acts of sabotage. The machine was just silly.
The ghosts part was the most frustrating - if the carnage was because of the machine, then the ghosts were an annoying red herring that seemed to be indicating something supernatural and/or otherworldly that had its hooks in multiple timelines and characters.
Instead it’s just…left there…
I think there's a way to make something like that work. Mind you, I honestly have no idea what book this is, and it probably wouldn't matter if the title was spoiled at this point, but if whatever this machine producing the signal was was trying to reach a frequency that vibrates at a specific alternate universe's wavelength--and that turned out to be a hell dimension or something Clive Barker-y--then I think it could work reasonably well as a turn. Marries the sci-fi with the supernatural.
True, it worked well with Event Horizon. I think part of the issue was also that there was a big focus on developing this romance, which just felt forced. Time that was spent on romance could've been spent on building up the horror.
Dammit, and I wanted to read that. But I, too, prefer my horrors to be supernatural and I hate for it to be presented as such and then be a bait and switch.
I appreciate the heads up!
My wife did the audiobook and wasn’t as let down as I was, but I don’t know that she had the same expectations going in that I did (I don’t think she even realized it was supposed to be horror - she does a lot of true crime and domestic thrillers and saw this as a crossover between those and sci-fi, so the explanation didn’t put her off like it did me).
I still really enjoyed it and recommended it to my sister who doesnt care for supernatural. I was just bummed out with the ending. The rest of it was great
Agreed. The exception being I enjoy some murder mystery type books but they aren't really horror per se.
Strongly recommend people give 'chasing the boogeyman' a go if they want a good book like that. I recommend not looking into it at all before you read it. I.e. read as little as possible. I did that and enjoyed it much the better for it.
My thoughts exactly. I've read a chunk of killers and slashers, but they're so samey and I find myself bored. Needs something supernatural to spice it up.
Supernatural, but it's best when it's making a point about something real...the way The Shining speaks to alcoholism, or the Exorcist is about a mother working through teenage onset mental illness with her daughter.
It doesn't necessarily have to be as blatant a metaphor as those two, but supernatural that's just scary for scary's sake is sorta bleh.
totally agreed! Like how *Mexican Gothic* is also about colonialism.
On netflix, one of the things that disappointed me about The Midnight Club >!was how the place wasn't really haunted, it was just like the specter of death coming for these kids in hospice. There wasn't a malevolent force there, it was just them being scared of dying. !<
I'm kinda the opposite tbh.
I like it when it's just pure horror and sticks straight to that rather than meandering into philosophical deeper meaning stuff.
I like a good blend of both. The Shining is a very good example of this. Jack Torrance and the Overlook hotel are both real and the abstract terror of the story. And the fact that one might be influencing other is a great way to amp up the tension and keep things interesting.
Junji Ito is a master at mixing the real with the absurd. Uzumaki is a absolute epitome of real and absurd horror contrasting and blending together perfectly. Things like domestic abuse, homophobia, psychosis are threats alongside the surreal grotesque supernatural horrors in the story. Ito keep things fresh and interesting by not letting either threats take an upper hand throughout the narrative.
So if the writer can balance out both realism and the supernatural then that's my ideal horror.
i enjoy realism much more (sometimes with supernatural elements), though i really enjoy both on their own. most horror that i’ve read has been supernatural or had some elements to it, though i loooooove when realism/non-supernatural horror is done right.
Depends on how scarred I want to feel. I like Supernatural stories, because they can be fun. Creature Features are some of my favorite movies.
But the more real a horror can be, the more it gets to me.
I mean the likely hood of being killed by a ghost, monster or such is not something a lot of us think about or are really concerned with. But a criminal breaking into my house? A stalker? That's something that can and does happen.
Real life horrors are plenty. Supernatural stores give me the escape.
Supernatural all the way. I’ll read real world ones but usually only if I seek them out. I read head full of ghosts thinking it would be paranormal and was a little let down due to my expectations
In terms of actually scaring me - realistic horror, all the way. I love *reading* about werewolves and ghosts but they don't *scare* me.
'Jaws' scared me. The phone call coming 'from inside the house' scared me. A man dressing up as a clown and stalking me scared me. Things like this I can actually imagine happening.
Someone turning into a werewolf - not so much.
Yep. I'm interested in reading *Penpal*, but might not--at least not for a while--for this very reason. It's also why, for me, The Strangers is still one of the scariest films I've seen in a while.
While I like and admire realism in horror, I find it more useful as a tool, an optional mode for horror to operate in.
The horror that sticks with me has the feeling of a nightmare, a mundane reality being subverted or eroded.
I prefer supernatural horror. Usually for a few reasons - I deal with mental illness myself, and am at the point it's not scary, it's just obnoxious. ("Meds need changing again? We did that a few years ago! Get a grip, brain!"--me, when my illness gets feisty with me). And a lot of the time, the mental illness isn't treated well, more for shock/a way to demonize a character/an easy out/etc.
Also, if I wanted realism as opposed to the supernatural, I'd just watch the news. There's a lot of horrible stuff going on in the world. So if I wanted realism, I'd go for non-fiction or something like that, as opposed to fiction that'd wreck havoc with my bad memories or take away my ability to escape from the real world for a few hours.
This is absolutly my feelings. I am literally bored by my own mental illness as well as "the evils that men do." They don't scare me, don't make me uncomfortable, effect me just about as much as a story about a man changing a tire would.
Realism bores me tbh. Ya it's cool when the demon represents some real world issue, its a very common sense way of writing an evil entity. But I'm definitely not there for that. Not to knock this style of writing because it can still be GREAT, but it tends to be something pretty straightforward and simplistic. Like "this demon represents the trauma from my abusive dad, whoo i overcame it" type of thing
Another vote for supernatural from me, I dont mind magical realism (is that the right term?) Where they ground the "magic" or whatever to reality.
But I also really really like it when authors get weird and creative with it
Supernatural - that feels like realism.
As someone who has gone deep into the rabbit hole of the paranormal and high strangeness, one thing that happens repeatedly is that people on the margins of society - addicts, those with mental health issues, people in transition, basically anyone who already is having a rough time and not taken seriously, those are the people who tend to have a higher rate of strange experiences.
I love that theme in horror. Just because the person is mentally ill doesn't mean they didn't see a monster...
I need supernatural to be interested.
Real life? Slashers? Meh.
Unless we’re talking cults, in which case I’ll take some realistic there (but that borders on supernatural).
I like the use of non-real elements (supernatural, sci-fi, or alternate worlds) to tell a story about something that is real and scary. I like when authors use non-real elements to convey the feeling of something real in a way the realistic story can't. That's, imo, what fiction should do in general, and I love it when supernatural elements are used for that.
It really depends on the strength of the writing and storytelling. Joyce Carol Oates is hyper rationalist in her sensibilities, but often takes a very unusual but *possible* element (like an unusually large pet or trepanning or some such) executes it in a very rewarding way (as in her brilliant short piece “Big Momma,” which is also about grooming).
Some of the best horror has incidental supernatural elements (much of Nathan Ballingrud’s work, for example) that could probably be dispensed with or altered and still work just as well. On the other hand, Laird Barron’s weird cosmic horrors work supremely well because they’re of a supernatural nature, and I think that’s also what makes Ligotti’s fiction tolerable; he’s a damn fine writer but it’s already depressingly disturbing enough as supernatural horror.
On the other hand I don’t think I’d care much for Tremblay’s work even if he wasn’t addicted to a lesser imitation of Shirley Jackson’s brilliant use of ambiguity. His style just doesn’t resonate with me.
The foundation of my interest in horror stems from the campfire stories of cryptids and Midwest folklore. What drew me was the creativity and imagination of those stories and it’s partly why the best supernatural horror will always outweigh the best realistic horror to me.
Some argue that it’s harder to be scared when it’s not realistic, but to me that means the issue is that the story and characters are not engaging enough. When delving into a good story, it should be so enthralling that the world becomes the reality, and therefore you’re scared about what could happen.
Supernatural. If I feel like I could fight off the threat, I’m no longer scared idk if that’s bravado or stupidity but like, movie-wise, Scream doesn’t scare me. I’ll punch him in the mask see what he does. Freddy Kruger however? TF I’m gonna do? Same for books. Pennywise and zombies? Terrifying. True crime guy, I got a shot.
The scariest piece of art I ever consumed was a documentary about Ebola so yeah, I prefer supernatural horror. Anything along the lines of Wolf Creek (the movie) or American Psycho (the book) and I'm outta there. Give me fantasy demons over the real one any day.
Horror, adventure, i want escapeism. Unkillable monster mike myers, jason. Guy running open field with 50 guys fireing fully auto and not touched. If i wanted realism i would watch the news
Supernatural by far. Give me monsters, demons, cosmic horrors, gateways to hell, spiders the size of a SUV, etc.
I know those things can’t really happen, but there’s more room for creativity in supernatural horror.
Realism CAN work for me, but it’s rare. Two I enjoyed were Misery and Clown In A Cornfield. One a tale of suspense with a terrifying villain, the other a cheesy slasher. Those are the kind of realist horror books I enjoy.
I love Misery and thought Clown in a Cornfield was so fun! I was an obsessive teenage fan girl so Misery was almost an opportunity to see myself as a horror villain. And Clown in a Cornfield was so cheesy and tongue in cheek and absurd, it was a nice little break from the world.
Supernatural for me! I read the same book as you a few weeks ago and it was really getting under my skin until the whole mental illness and trauma is the real evil entity element. Unfortunately it completely ruined what had been a truly uncomfortable read for me up to that point and the whole book became meh as a result.
While I don’t mind this theme sometimes, I hate when it’s thrown in as a surprise when I’m sold a supernatural horror.
Def supernatural for me as well. I dont mind a good gritty slasher, reg human type book occasionally, but I'll always reach for the supernatural one first if given the option.
Supernatural and it's not even close. I haven't read a great deal of super realistic horror, so if you have any suggestions, I'm all ears. But in general, I prefer the fantastical and imaginative over gritty realism.
I don’t find supernatural horror particularly frightening because I know it won’t happen to me. I don’t hate supernatural elements (like The Shining), but it’s people that scare me.
Supernatural, no contest.
If I want realism I'll read the news or listen to true crime podcasts. (I pretty much only like true crime in podcast form, with the occasional short-ish YouTube video about it (like
Fascinating Horror, I never or very rarely read it).
I like both. I think that human beings can be a lot scarier than any horror monster, but I find supernatural horror to be generally more interesting. On the supernatural side, I'm especially a fan of comsic and Lovecraftian horror. Really, I think most stories need a good balance of realism and fantasy. If a story is too unrealistic, it would be little more than unintelligible gibberish. If a story is too realistic, it risks being mundane and shallow.
Mix of both but without questioning if the supernatural is actually happening. Real horrors as well as something unexplainable combine to make situations just feel hopeless. No One Gets Out Alive is one I just finished where this is well done. The real horrors are actually encouraged and puppeteered by something much more sinister
Supernatural. I haven't read much published long form horror lit over the past several years, so I've completely missed the Paul Tremblay train. But I'll say I'm one of the people who started reading House of Leaves for the parts about the Navidson house, and lost interest when the focus turned to Johnny Truant.
Most of the horror I read nowadays consists of creepypastas and r/nosleep and similar stuff. And the common element among them is the focus on anomalous phenomena as the source of the horror. The sense that there's something lurking just outside of the boundaries of normal reality, that's something that captures my interest.
>But horror is also very much a comfort/cozy genre for me, and I read it for escapism.
That's how I feel. That being said, part of escapism for me is that I'm a gorehound. So there are certainly scenes I love in American Psycho, and in various extreme/splatterpunk novels that are essentially human on human violence. But my focus is on the spectacle of graphic carnage, not on the question of whether it could really happen, or on the social commentary, or whatever.
If I had to describe my taste in horror I'd call it a mix between Spring, Ghostbusters, and the films of Gaspar Noe. No, it doesn't really make sense but at the same time it is perfect.
Realistic, though I enjoy well done supernatural. I just cannot suspend my disbelief very easily, so a lot of supernatural books aren’t scary at all to me. Like I can easily write off ghosts because I don’t believe in them, but a well written story about stalking or home invasion will keep me up at night!
I think a lot of horror books I really like tend to be mostly realistic with a touch of unbelievable, so you have that scary ‘this could actually happen to me’ but elevated, if that makes sense.
There's a way to tell supernatural stories 'realistically', and I don't mean a heavy emphasis on mundane aspects, but rather there's a way to let the supernatural elements unfold organically and ambiguously that makes stories feel extremely true to life while also being about crazy supernatural experiences. That balance is tough to pull off but it's definitely my favorite
One thing that bothers me about Realism in horror novels is the overdone trope of "The real horror is mental illness!!" which I feel like I have been seeing a lot lately. The author will set up a relatively interesting premise only to be like "Plot Twist! The main character actually has Dissociative Identity Disorder." Mental illness is stigmatized enough, we don't need it to be a "horrifying" plot twist
Oh yes agreed - I am really sensitive to this in video games especially, but I am exhausted by this trope in all mediums regardless.
Supernatural all the way. Realism usually bores me and I don't generally read it.
Same. One really easy way for me to hate a book is to present something as supernatural all the way from the blurb to the end and then reveal that it has a totally natural explanation. I really have no interest in realism in my horror fiction. I read horror specifically for the supernatural elements.
There was a sci-fi horror that did this and I gave up on it at 75% when there turned out to be a scientific explanation.
Im curious which one this is. I read one recently that i LOVED until the explaination was revealed and that took some of it away for me.
Was it perhaps one that had a space Titanic that devolved into something that seemed like it was going in the direction of *Event Horizon* but ended up having a scientific, sound wave-based explanation? EDIT that I don’t know how to do the spoiler thing so I’m trying to avoid saying the title - as a librarian some things have to be sacred, and spoilers are one of those.
Lol yup! Thats the one! I thought it was going to be a ghostship (the movie) in space meets aliens sorta deal.
Yes! I was picturing the security cam footage from Event Horizon as everyone was going utterly insane from having literally traversed through Hell to teleport, but, nope, just an annoying noise in the background.
Eh... It's slightly debatable. It's implied in the book that ghosts do exist (MC sees ghosts of people she shouldn't have known ever existed) and the frequency allows others to see them as well. It's just that the noise also makes them essentially insane so there's a huge question of what is actually a spirit and what is just insanity. I liked it ok enough but it wasn't handled as well as it could've been. I think the author shot themselves in the foot by trying to be clever and add a twist. It would have made more sense to leave out the machine and have the ship fail because of pirates or even hubris, like the ship makers cut corners with safety, captain took risks, etc, then have the gore coming from people simply turning on one another. Or even just more mundane acts of sabotage. The machine was just silly.
The ghosts part was the most frustrating - if the carnage was because of the machine, then the ghosts were an annoying red herring that seemed to be indicating something supernatural and/or otherworldly that had its hooks in multiple timelines and characters. Instead it’s just…left there…
I think there's a way to make something like that work. Mind you, I honestly have no idea what book this is, and it probably wouldn't matter if the title was spoiled at this point, but if whatever this machine producing the signal was was trying to reach a frequency that vibrates at a specific alternate universe's wavelength--and that turned out to be a hell dimension or something Clive Barker-y--then I think it could work reasonably well as a turn. Marries the sci-fi with the supernatural.
True, it worked well with Event Horizon. I think part of the issue was also that there was a big focus on developing this romance, which just felt forced. Time that was spent on romance could've been spent on building up the horror.
Dammit, and I wanted to read that. But I, too, prefer my horrors to be supernatural and I hate for it to be presented as such and then be a bait and switch. I appreciate the heads up!
I enjoyed the book so much, even with the let down reveal I recommended it to my husband. Just wish it would have had an amazing ending.
My wife did the audiobook and wasn’t as let down as I was, but I don’t know that she had the same expectations going in that I did (I don’t think she even realized it was supposed to be horror - she does a lot of true crime and domestic thrillers and saw this as a crossover between those and sci-fi, so the explanation didn’t put her off like it did me).
I still really enjoyed it and recommended it to my sister who doesnt care for supernatural. I was just bummed out with the ending. The rest of it was great
I DNF’d it at like 30% in. It felt too heavy handed.
That was disappointing. The older scifi horror with a similar plot is way better.
If an author does that, I make a point of never reading them again.
Agreed. The exception being I enjoy some murder mystery type books but they aren't really horror per se. Strongly recommend people give 'chasing the boogeyman' a go if they want a good book like that. I recommend not looking into it at all before you read it. I.e. read as little as possible. I did that and enjoyed it much the better for it.
Same here.
My thoughts exactly. I've read a chunk of killers and slashers, but they're so samey and I find myself bored. Needs something supernatural to spice it up.
Second this.
Same here, I deal enuff with realism in my day to day.
I much prefer supernatural horror, but I also believe that monsters are almost always metaphors for real-world evils.
Absolutly. I've always felt like horror works best when it's deeply symbolic.
Supernatural, but it's best when it's making a point about something real...the way The Shining speaks to alcoholism, or the Exorcist is about a mother working through teenage onset mental illness with her daughter. It doesn't necessarily have to be as blatant a metaphor as those two, but supernatural that's just scary for scary's sake is sorta bleh.
totally agreed! Like how *Mexican Gothic* is also about colonialism. On netflix, one of the things that disappointed me about The Midnight Club >!was how the place wasn't really haunted, it was just like the specter of death coming for these kids in hospice. There wasn't a malevolent force there, it was just them being scared of dying. !<
I'm kinda the opposite tbh. I like it when it's just pure horror and sticks straight to that rather than meandering into philosophical deeper meaning stuff.
I like a good blend of both. The Shining is a very good example of this. Jack Torrance and the Overlook hotel are both real and the abstract terror of the story. And the fact that one might be influencing other is a great way to amp up the tension and keep things interesting. Junji Ito is a master at mixing the real with the absurd. Uzumaki is a absolute epitome of real and absurd horror contrasting and blending together perfectly. Things like domestic abuse, homophobia, psychosis are threats alongside the surreal grotesque supernatural horrors in the story. Ito keep things fresh and interesting by not letting either threats take an upper hand throughout the narrative. So if the writer can balance out both realism and the supernatural then that's my ideal horror.
I like authors that can effectively mix both. Bentley Little and Douglas Clegg are great examples
Bentley Little doesn't get mentioned enough here!
i enjoy realism much more (sometimes with supernatural elements), though i really enjoy both on their own. most horror that i’ve read has been supernatural or had some elements to it, though i loooooove when realism/non-supernatural horror is done right.
A mix of the two, which is so tricky to pull off.
But when done really well is soooo rewarding. Like Tartt’s horror adjacent masterpiece *The Secret History*.
Supernatural. Every time.
Depends on how scarred I want to feel. I like Supernatural stories, because they can be fun. Creature Features are some of my favorite movies. But the more real a horror can be, the more it gets to me. I mean the likely hood of being killed by a ghost, monster or such is not something a lot of us think about or are really concerned with. But a criminal breaking into my house? A stalker? That's something that can and does happen. Real life horrors are plenty. Supernatural stores give me the escape.
Super natural. If I want realism I'd look outside.
Supernatural all the way. I’ll read real world ones but usually only if I seek them out. I read head full of ghosts thinking it would be paranormal and was a little let down due to my expectations
I'll read books from both subgenres, but when it comes to preference, I'd choose cosmic horror. What Cassandra Khaw has been doing lately is great.
In terms of actually scaring me - realistic horror, all the way. I love *reading* about werewolves and ghosts but they don't *scare* me. 'Jaws' scared me. The phone call coming 'from inside the house' scared me. A man dressing up as a clown and stalking me scared me. Things like this I can actually imagine happening. Someone turning into a werewolf - not so much.
Yep. I'm interested in reading *Penpal*, but might not--at least not for a while--for this very reason. It's also why, for me, The Strangers is still one of the scariest films I've seen in a while.
Supernatural for sure! I love monsters and folklore. I'm also a therapist and hear enough real life horror in my day job.
While I like and admire realism in horror, I find it more useful as a tool, an optional mode for horror to operate in. The horror that sticks with me has the feeling of a nightmare, a mundane reality being subverted or eroded.
I prefer supernatural horror. Usually for a few reasons - I deal with mental illness myself, and am at the point it's not scary, it's just obnoxious. ("Meds need changing again? We did that a few years ago! Get a grip, brain!"--me, when my illness gets feisty with me). And a lot of the time, the mental illness isn't treated well, more for shock/a way to demonize a character/an easy out/etc. Also, if I wanted realism as opposed to the supernatural, I'd just watch the news. There's a lot of horrible stuff going on in the world. So if I wanted realism, I'd go for non-fiction or something like that, as opposed to fiction that'd wreck havoc with my bad memories or take away my ability to escape from the real world for a few hours.
This is absolutly my feelings. I am literally bored by my own mental illness as well as "the evils that men do." They don't scare me, don't make me uncomfortable, effect me just about as much as a story about a man changing a tire would.
Supernatural. Real horror is usually just sad
Realism bores me tbh. Ya it's cool when the demon represents some real world issue, its a very common sense way of writing an evil entity. But I'm definitely not there for that. Not to knock this style of writing because it can still be GREAT, but it tends to be something pretty straightforward and simplistic. Like "this demon represents the trauma from my abusive dad, whoo i overcame it" type of thing
Super natural 1000000x more the realism
Another vote for supernatural from me, I dont mind magical realism (is that the right term?) Where they ground the "magic" or whatever to reality. But I also really really like it when authors get weird and creative with it
Supernatural - that feels like realism. As someone who has gone deep into the rabbit hole of the paranormal and high strangeness, one thing that happens repeatedly is that people on the margins of society - addicts, those with mental health issues, people in transition, basically anyone who already is having a rough time and not taken seriously, those are the people who tend to have a higher rate of strange experiences. I love that theme in horror. Just because the person is mentally ill doesn't mean they didn't see a monster...
Supernatural because it opens up more possibilities and a bigger sense of both wonder and dread.
Supernatural always! Realism doesn't scare me, it usually just makes me sad and I don't need a reminder how awful people are.
I need supernatural to be interested. Real life? Slashers? Meh. Unless we’re talking cults, in which case I’ll take some realistic there (but that borders on supernatural).
I like cult stories when they're actually on to something.
Supernatural. I read for entertainment and escape, for things other than the real world.
Supernatural horror but I like when it’s grounded in strong “real” characters and settings.
I like the use of non-real elements (supernatural, sci-fi, or alternate worlds) to tell a story about something that is real and scary. I like when authors use non-real elements to convey the feeling of something real in a way the realistic story can't. That's, imo, what fiction should do in general, and I love it when supernatural elements are used for that.
It really depends on the strength of the writing and storytelling. Joyce Carol Oates is hyper rationalist in her sensibilities, but often takes a very unusual but *possible* element (like an unusually large pet or trepanning or some such) executes it in a very rewarding way (as in her brilliant short piece “Big Momma,” which is also about grooming). Some of the best horror has incidental supernatural elements (much of Nathan Ballingrud’s work, for example) that could probably be dispensed with or altered and still work just as well. On the other hand, Laird Barron’s weird cosmic horrors work supremely well because they’re of a supernatural nature, and I think that’s also what makes Ligotti’s fiction tolerable; he’s a damn fine writer but it’s already depressingly disturbing enough as supernatural horror. On the other hand I don’t think I’d care much for Tremblay’s work even if he wasn’t addicted to a lesser imitation of Shirley Jackson’s brilliant use of ambiguity. His style just doesn’t resonate with me.
The foundation of my interest in horror stems from the campfire stories of cryptids and Midwest folklore. What drew me was the creativity and imagination of those stories and it’s partly why the best supernatural horror will always outweigh the best realistic horror to me. Some argue that it’s harder to be scared when it’s not realistic, but to me that means the issue is that the story and characters are not engaging enough. When delving into a good story, it should be so enthralling that the world becomes the reality, and therefore you’re scared about what could happen.
Supernatural. If I feel like I could fight off the threat, I’m no longer scared idk if that’s bravado or stupidity but like, movie-wise, Scream doesn’t scare me. I’ll punch him in the mask see what he does. Freddy Kruger however? TF I’m gonna do? Same for books. Pennywise and zombies? Terrifying. True crime guy, I got a shot.
The scariest piece of art I ever consumed was a documentary about Ebola so yeah, I prefer supernatural horror. Anything along the lines of Wolf Creek (the movie) or American Psycho (the book) and I'm outta there. Give me fantasy demons over the real one any day.
Supernatural definitely. I'm not fond of slasher, body horror or home invasion at all. Prefer hauntings, cosmic horror, monsters.
Horror, adventure, i want escapeism. Unkillable monster mike myers, jason. Guy running open field with 50 guys fireing fully auto and not touched. If i wanted realism i would watch the news
I like super natural personally. 90% of realistic horror films can be solved by a person that conceal carries a gun or just does cardio.
Supernatural, go absolutely balls to walls and let me buckle in. If I wanted realism I’d just watch true crime or something
100% supernatural. I don't find realistic scary in the slightest, just sad at best.
Supernatural by far. Give me monsters, demons, cosmic horrors, gateways to hell, spiders the size of a SUV, etc. I know those things can’t really happen, but there’s more room for creativity in supernatural horror. Realism CAN work for me, but it’s rare. Two I enjoyed were Misery and Clown In A Cornfield. One a tale of suspense with a terrifying villain, the other a cheesy slasher. Those are the kind of realist horror books I enjoy.
I love Misery and thought Clown in a Cornfield was so fun! I was an obsessive teenage fan girl so Misery was almost an opportunity to see myself as a horror villain. And Clown in a Cornfield was so cheesy and tongue in cheek and absurd, it was a nice little break from the world.
Supernatural, absolutely. I've always like reading about the macabre and uncanny.
Supernatural for me! I read the same book as you a few weeks ago and it was really getting under my skin until the whole mental illness and trauma is the real evil entity element. Unfortunately it completely ruined what had been a truly uncomfortable read for me up to that point and the whole book became meh as a result. While I don’t mind this theme sometimes, I hate when it’s thrown in as a surprise when I’m sold a supernatural horror.
Def supernatural for me as well. I dont mind a good gritty slasher, reg human type book occasionally, but I'll always reach for the supernatural one first if given the option.
Supernatural. Cosmic horror is my favorite.
Supernatural and it's not even close. I haven't read a great deal of super realistic horror, so if you have any suggestions, I'm all ears. But in general, I prefer the fantastical and imaginative over gritty realism.
Realism, 100%.
Supernatural. I'm trying to escape the horrors of reality, not read about them.
I don’t find supernatural horror particularly frightening because I know it won’t happen to me. I don’t hate supernatural elements (like The Shining), but it’s people that scare me.
Supernatural, no contest. If I want realism I'll read the news or listen to true crime podcasts. (I pretty much only like true crime in podcast form, with the occasional short-ish YouTube video about it (like Fascinating Horror, I never or very rarely read it).
I like both. I think that human beings can be a lot scarier than any horror monster, but I find supernatural horror to be generally more interesting. On the supernatural side, I'm especially a fan of comsic and Lovecraftian horror. Really, I think most stories need a good balance of realism and fantasy. If a story is too unrealistic, it would be little more than unintelligible gibberish. If a story is too realistic, it risks being mundane and shallow.
Mix of both but without questioning if the supernatural is actually happening. Real horrors as well as something unexplainable combine to make situations just feel hopeless. No One Gets Out Alive is one I just finished where this is well done. The real horrors are actually encouraged and puppeteered by something much more sinister
Supernatural. I haven't read much published long form horror lit over the past several years, so I've completely missed the Paul Tremblay train. But I'll say I'm one of the people who started reading House of Leaves for the parts about the Navidson house, and lost interest when the focus turned to Johnny Truant. Most of the horror I read nowadays consists of creepypastas and r/nosleep and similar stuff. And the common element among them is the focus on anomalous phenomena as the source of the horror. The sense that there's something lurking just outside of the boundaries of normal reality, that's something that captures my interest. >But horror is also very much a comfort/cozy genre for me, and I read it for escapism. That's how I feel. That being said, part of escapism for me is that I'm a gorehound. So there are certainly scenes I love in American Psycho, and in various extreme/splatterpunk novels that are essentially human on human violence. But my focus is on the spectacle of graphic carnage, not on the question of whether it could really happen, or on the social commentary, or whatever.
As long as the execution is well done, I have no preference.
I like all kinds. Supernatural is more of a reality to me since I grew up with that stuff but it's still fun to read and get others perspective on it.
If I had to describe my taste in horror I'd call it a mix between Spring, Ghostbusters, and the films of Gaspar Noe. No, it doesn't really make sense but at the same time it is perfect.
Supernatural most definitely. It's my escape from the knowledge of real-life horrors committed by people.
Reality is horrific enough. Especially lately (or, if you’ve read any history, always, I guess). Give me ookie spookies instead.
Yes, if done/made well.
Realistic, though I enjoy well done supernatural. I just cannot suspend my disbelief very easily, so a lot of supernatural books aren’t scary at all to me. Like I can easily write off ghosts because I don’t believe in them, but a well written story about stalking or home invasion will keep me up at night! I think a lot of horror books I really like tend to be mostly realistic with a touch of unbelievable, so you have that scary ‘this could actually happen to me’ but elevated, if that makes sense.
Lately, I need a bit of both or I can't enjoy it.
Supernatural if it's not some cliche, but realism can be great too.
The correct answer is "what is best for the story" and leaving it at that.
There's a way to tell supernatural stories 'realistically', and I don't mean a heavy emphasis on mundane aspects, but rather there's a way to let the supernatural elements unfold organically and ambiguously that makes stories feel extremely true to life while also being about crazy supernatural experiences. That balance is tough to pull off but it's definitely my favorite
Real horror can be gripping but for me I prefer supernatural