Not much thought is put into why a horror film is in fact called “horror.” A quick search for “horror film” reveals that the utilization of the word encompasses a wide variety of aspects and emotions associated with the genre, such as fear, terror, dread, anxiety, and anticipation. While no one knows why horror as opposed to any of these words has become synonymous with this type of film (if you do know, please, enlighten me), since the time of film’s humble beginnings the word has seemingly represented all these emotions. From ghosts to serial killers to torture, all fall under the umbrella of horror.

Another emotion exists that has been absorbed by horror yet deserves its own separate genre, that of terror. Horror and terror are two concepts that are inextricably bound together by a common theme, yet within the context of the arts they are considered to harbor mutually exclusive definitions. While most are relatively unconcerned with the difference between two words that have for only God knows how long been linked by such similar themes that any sort of distinction is completely unnecessary, this distinction is in fact quite important, especially when taken within the context of horror films; this contentious nature of their definitions does not begin with horror, however, but with Gothic literature.

This line of demarcation between horror and terror is brought to light by Ann Radcliffe, a pioneer of the Gothic novel who in 1826 wrote on their distinction and gave to us what can be considered the first official definition of the two words within the realm of the humanities. In On the Supernatural in Poetry, first published in The New Monthly Magazine 7, she describes terror as being “characterized by ‘obscurity’ or indeterminacy in its treatment of potentially horrible events, which in turn leads to the sublime. It expands the soul and awakens the faculties to a high degree of life” Conversely, horror merely “freezes and nearly annihilates them with its unambiguous displays of atrocity.”

Let’s look at it from another angle. Devendra Varma divides the two words in terms of “awful apprehension and sickening realization: between the smell of death and stumbling against a corpse.” The role of terror in frightening an individual deals with that which is unknown, while horror deals with the visual and the visceral. She continues, saying, “Terror thus creates an intangible atmosphere of spiritual psychic dread, a certain superstitious shudder at the other world. Horror resorts to a cruder presentation of the macabre: by an exact portrayal of the physically horrible and revolting, against a far more terrible background of spiritual gloom and despair. Horror appeals to sheer dread and repulsion, by brooding upon the gloomy and the sinister, and lacerates the nerves by establishing actual cutaneous contact with the supernatural…”

Most scholars and writers have a noted tendency to agree with Radcliffe and Varma, though some tend to put a different spin on the subject, such as Terry Heller, a professor of English at Coe College. He writes, “Terror is the fear that harm will come to oneself. Horror is the emotion one feels in anticipating and witnessing harm coming to others for whom one cares.” There are disagreements, though. Philip Van Doren Stern states that “nothing substantial can be truly horrible; it may not, by some odd quirk of association, inspire horror, but horror itself can be found only within ourselves. It is rooted in the imagination rather than in anything in the external world.” Others tend to mix the two emotions, such as Linda Bayer-Berenbaum, who applies the suggestive nature of terror to horror and vice versa, while at the same retaining the lasting power and potency terror has over horror. The words, then, are merely open to interpretation.

Though this debate is centered primarily within the realm of Gothic literature, one can easily see how these two words can be applied to what are generally agreed to be horror films. Can a horror film be distinguished from a “terror film,” or, to sound less ridiculous, a thriller? I think so. If, as a horror fan, I am qualified enough to put forth my own definition concerning the differentiation between what can be considered horrific and what can be terrifying in horror films, then I want to propose a simple syllogism: all horror films are thrillers, but not all thrillers are horror films. Let’s use Saw as an example, as it is one of the bigger names within the horror industry at the moment.

The goal of the Saw franchise is, in essence, to shock the viewer with graphic depictions of violence and gore. Using the commonly accepted definition of horror that was discussed above, the Saw franchise is one of unmitigated horror. The ‘unambiguous displays of atrocity’ are ubiquitous throughout the series, and are in fact the primary draw. But are they thrillers as well? As was noted above, fear is subjective. While the idea behind terror doesn’t lend itself to horror, horror does so to terror. In watching a man being kidnapped and tortured, one can easily find the dread, apprehension, and fear that is associated with it in oneself. The definition of terror is not as flexible as horror, as it eschews most of, if not all aspects of the visceral and visual, instead relying on suspense and the emotions that lend themselves to the fears inherent in everyone.

The biggest problem with horror nowadays is the lack of intelligence. All too often are writers and directors forgetting that the actual goal of a scary movie is to SCARE someone, yet they are perfectly content with throwing in senseless gore without purpose, and cheap one-off scares whose impact is fleeting. In the end, the only ones that suffer are the fans, and, by extension, the industry itself. By understanding the difference between horror and its offshoots, I think future writers and directors can more narrowly focus their intentions when making their movies, thus producing a better film. While merely breaking down the terms horror and terror into its base definitions will do nothing, I feel it’s necessary for horror fans to gain a little bit of insight into what makes horror horror, and from that they can approach the genre in a way that doesn’t make them drooling morons.

Bibliography

Devendra Varma (1966) The Gothic Flame. New York: Russell and Russell.

3 Responses to “Horror vs. Terror”

1. Bo says:

   September 2, 2008 at 5:58 pm

   Just an excellent examination of the subject and I couldn’t agree more. I was recently making that very point, that, besides a movie like [REC], there does seem to be the urge to go over the top with gore and grue without any respect for affecting an audience in a lasting way. Fantastic post!
2. Brad says:

   September 2, 2008 at 8:18 pm

   Hey, many thanks. Tell your friends!
3. horror death « says:

   March 12, 2009 at 7:10 pm

   [...] can’t find that original piece but this article explores the same [...]