Art-Horror and Natural Horror: Whats the Difference?

Michelle Saint Rollins College In The Philosophy of Horror or Paradoxes of the Heart, No l Carroll !ro"ides a careful account of horror# Ho$e"er, %& 'horror,( Carroll )eans so)ething "er& s!ecific: 'the t&!e of horror to %e e*!lored +%& Carroll, is that associated $ith reading so)ething li-e Mar& Shelle&s Frankenstein +or, Algernon .lac-$oods /Ancient Sorceries 0( What is not )eant is 'the sort +of horror, that one e*!resses in sa&ing /I a) horrified %& the !ros!ect of ecological disaster, or /.rin-)anshi! in the age of nuclear ar)s in horrif&ing0( 1he for)er Carroll calls 'arthorror,( $hich is an e)otional res!onse felt to the genre of art of the sa)e na)e# 1he latter, $hich Carroll calls 'natural horror,( goes unanal&2ed# 1he !ur!ose of this !a!er is to discern $hat relationshi! holds %et$een art-horror and natural horror# I $ill sho$ that Carrolls account of art-horror is inade3uate %ecause it does not e*!lain the relationshi! %et$een natural and arthorror# Ho$e"er, %& ado!ting an alternati"e theor& of horror, de"elo!ed !re"iousl& %& 4eter A# 5rench and )&self, one can e*!lain %oth the si)ilarities and differences %et$een the t$o t&!es of horror# I# Carrolls Horror Art-horror, according to Carroll, is an e)otion felt in res!onse to a fictional )onster that defies our scientific understanding of the $orld#6 7ne res!onds $ith art-horror $hen one res!onds to a )onster as so)ething 'threatening and i)!ure#(8 1hus, art-horror is a )i*ture of fear 9as a res!onse to a threat: and disgust 9as a res!onse to so)ething i)!ure:# 1his )i*ture of fear and disgust is $hat defines the genre of horror: 2o)%ies and all other horrific )onsters are

6 8

Carroll, 6;# I%id#, 8<#

%oth threatening and re"olting# Carroll de"elo!ed his theor& %ased on the e"idence a"aila%le, and it can %e confir)ed or denied %& seeing if it 'a!!l+ies, to the reactions $e find to the )onsters indigenous to $or-s of horror#(= Read or $atch a successful horror stor&>if Carroll is correct, &ou $ill %e left shi"ering in %oth fear and disgust# Carroll ne"er e*!lains natural horror in )ore de!th than his 3uic- e*a)!les a%o"e# Ho$e"er, there are onl& t$o general !ossi%ilities: either natural horror is the sa)e sort of e)otion as art-horror, or it is not# ?nfortunatel& for Carroll, neither of these o!tions is !lausi%le# @et us consider the) in turn: 1: Natural horror and art-horror are the same emotion# 1hat Carroll can e"en dra$ a distinction %et$een the t$o t&!es of horror and that $e can understand this distinction %oth i)!l& that there is so)e difference %et$een the t$o# Ho$e"er, this does not i)!l& that the& are t$o different e)otions# Ho$ an e)otion is e*!ressed can differ dra)aticall& de!ending on its o%Aect# .eing angr& at a friend for insulting &ou is different fro) %eing angr& at a stranger for stealing &our ca%, %ut $hat is felt is anger in %oth cases# If the o%Aects of an e)otion differ in rele"ant $a&s, then an e)otion felt a%out one )a& differ fro) that sa)e e)otion %eing felt a%out the other# 1herefore, this o!tion suggests that the differences %et$een natural horror and arthorror can %e identified as so)e rele"ant differences in the o%Aect each t&!e of horror ta-es# 1he e)otion felt in each case $ould %e the sa)e: a )i*ture of fear and disgust# 1he !ro%le) is that those cases $here one feels natural horror are not cases $here one is %oth frightened and disgusted# S!ecificall&, disgust is )issing# 1he recent oil s!ill in the Bulf Coast, for instance, is the -ind of disaster that )an& find naturall& horrific# 5e$, ho$e"er, ha"e e*!ressed disgust at the oil# Disgust is )ar-ed %& a strong desire to sta& a$a& fro) the i)!ure

I%id#, =;#

thing>as Carroll sa&s, 'there is an e"idenced a"ersion to )a-ing !h&sical contact#(C Det, there are countless "ideos of indi"iduals reaching out to touch the oil# 1here are also "ideos ta-en %& di"ers of the oil as it gushes to$ards the seas surface# Such "ideos re3uire these di"ers to %e in the sa)e $ater as the oil, &et the& sho$ no re"ulsion# Ne$s !rogra)s ha"e sho$n endless footage of the oil gushing fro) the %ro-en !i!e, %ut no "ie$ers co)!lain of this scene %eing too re"olting to $atch# 1his ecological disaster is horrif&ing, and is as good a candidate for natural horror as an&, %ut no disgust is e"ident#; It is e3uall& hard to find e"idence of disgust in other candidates for natural horror# 1he !ros!ect of nuclear $ar, $hile horrific, does not lea"e one gagging# Branted, there are cases of natural horror $here one does feel disgust>the Holocaust, for one, is %oth horrif&ing and disgusting>%ut the e*a)!les listed a%o"e sho$ that disgust is not a necessar& co)!onent of natural horror# 7ne cannot !arse art-horror and natural horror as the sa)e e)otion if one acce!ts that art-horror is a )i*ture of fear and disgust# 2: Natural horror is a different type of emotion from art-horror# 1here is e"idence fro) The Philosophy of Horror to su!!ort this inter!retation of natural horror# Carroll notes that the )onsters that ins!ire art-horror fascinate us, and this fascination '$ould %e too great a lu*ur& to endure, if one, against all odds, $ere to encounter a horrific )onster in /real life# We, li-e the characters in horror fictions, $ould feel distressingl& hel!less#(E 4erha!s natural horror is a )i*ture of different e)otions than the fear and disgust that co)!oses art-horror# Carrolls suggestion of distressing hel!lessness as a co)!onent see)s a!t, and I shall return to this suggestion later# 5or no$, ho$e"er, I $ill consider onl& the general suggestion that natural horror is a different %reed of e)otion entirel& fro) art-horror, $hate"er that %reed )a& %e#

C ;

I%id#, 8=# Man& ha"e %een disgusted %& i)ages of ani)als suffocating in the oil, as $ell as the inco)!etence and greed that led to the disaster in the first !lace# Ho$e"er, this is not disgust focused on the oil s!ill, itself# E I%id#, 6<F#

1he !ro%le) $ith this is that $e use the sa)e $ord, 'horror,( for %oth natural and arthorror# .oth 'natural horror( and 'art-horror( are Carrolls ter)s of art, and ordinar& language users s!ea- instead onl& of 'horror,( $hether tal-ing a%out %oth the !ros!ect of nuclear $ar or 2o)%ies# Ne"er does one ha"e to clarif& ones e)otional state: '1hat horrified )e>%ut not li-e 2o)%ies do, )ore li-e the oil s!ill#( 1he $ord, 'horror,( $ithout addendu), is sufficient in ordinar& language to descri%e ho$ one feels, regardless $hat elicits it# If natural horror $ere an e)otional state different in -ind fro) art-horror, then one should e*!ect so)e linguistic need to differentiate %et$een the t$o# .ut there is no such linguistic need# 1herefore, I )aintain that an ade3uate theor& of art-horror $ill %e one that can e*!lain it as the sa)e sort of res!onse as natural horror# What is trul& needed is an account of horror, one that a!!lies e3uall& $ell to natural horror and art-horror# We cannot e*!lain the difference %et$een natural and art-horror %& acce!ting that the& are %oth a )i*ture of fear and disgust, %ecause $e are not disgusted %& )an& good candidates for natural horror# We also cannot e*!lain the difference %& acce!ting that, $hile art-horror is fear and disgust, natural horror is so)ething else, %ecause this defies our ordinar& usage of the $ord, 'horror#( If one acce!ts Carrolls definition of art-horror $hile also res!ecting ordinar& language, then one is left $ith no clear account of natural horror# 1herefore, I suggest an alternati"e: ado!t a different definition of art-horror# II# An Alternati"e In '.lin-: Monsters, Horror, and the Carroll 1hesis,( 4eter A# 5rench and I argue that Carrolls account of art-horror, $hich I shall no$ call the Disgust 1hesis, is inade3uate#G We argue that '.lin-,( a 8HHG e!isode of Doctor ho, is an e*a)!le of art-horror %ut elicits no

'.lin-: Monsters, Horror, and the Carroll 1hesis,( co-$ritten $ith 4eter 5rench, in Doctor Who and 4hiloso!h&, ed# 4aula S)ith-a and Court @e$is, 7!en Court 4ress 95orthco)ing:#

disgust# In order to account for '.lin-( along $ith si)ilar e*a)!les, $e clai), art-horror should %e defined as a )i*ture of fear and i)!otence instead of fear and disgust# In other $ords, Carroll is right that horror contains a feeling of %eing 'distressingl& hel!less,( %ut $e argue that this e)otion is a necessar& co)!onent of art-horror, in !lace of disgust# M& clai) here is that this alternati"e account, the I)!otenc& 1hesis, !ro"ides an e*!lanation for the si)ilarities and differences %et$een natural and art-horror that is lac-ing fro) the Disgust 1hesis#< 1he I)!otenc& 1hesis can e*!lain natural horror Aust as $ell as art-horror# Wh& is the Bulf Coast oil s!ill horrific, as o!!osed to Aust terrif&ing? .ecause, as )illions of gallons of oil s!illed out into the ocean, there $as no $a& to sto! it>the ecos&ste) $as %eing destro&ed, and $e -ne$ no solution $ould %e effecti"e for )onths# Wh& is the !ros!ect of nuclear $ar horrific? .ecause the start of a nuclear $ar re3uires onl& one $orld leader %eha"ing dia%olicall&, and $e as si)!le citi2ens ha"e no !o$er to -ee! that fro) ha!!ening# Wh& is genocide so horrific? .ecause genocide in"ol"es the s&ste)ic %rea-do$n of indi"idual rights and freedo)s that is often i)!ossi%le to esca!e once it has %egun# We e*!erience natural horror in res!onse to that $hich threatens us and $hich $e ha"e no ca!acit& to control# We e*!erience horror $hen $e feel %oth frightened and i)!otent# 1he I)!otenc& 1hesis e*!lains $h& $e use the sa)e $ord, 'horror,( to descri%e our res!onses %oth to 2o)%ies and to nuclear $ar: the sa)e e)otion is e*!erienced in each case, a )i*ture of fear and i)!otence# As )entioned a%o"e, ho$e"er, there )ust also %e an e*!lanation of difference %et$een art-horror and natural horror, gi"en that Carrolls distinction %et$een the t$o is coherent# 1here is a difference %et$een res!onding to The !hining and res!onding to the Bulf Coast oil s!ill# If the sa)e e)otion is felt in %oth cases, there )ust %e a rele"ant difference
<

5rench and I do not den& that disgust is a "er& co))on feature $ithin horror )o"ies# Ho$e"er, $e argue that !roducing a sense of disgust in the audience is a )eans to !roducing a feeling of i)!otenc&# 1hus, disgust is a useful %ut unnecessar& )eans to creating the feeling of i)!otenc& that is one half of the reci!e for art-horror#

%et$een the o%Aects of the e)otion that account for art-horror %eing different fro) natural horror# III# Whats the Difference? 1he )ost o%"ious candidate to e*!lain the difference is that, in all of the e*a)!les gi"en so far, natural horror is a%out $hat is real and art-horror is a%out $hat is fictional# Ho$e"er, the difference $e are searching for cannot %e the difference %et$een real life and fiction# 1here are )an& cases of horror in res!onse to fictions that are )ore a!!ro!riatel& considered natural horror as o!!osed to art-horror# Carroll hi)self lists a fe$ e*a)!les: 'one )ight %e horrified %& the )urder in Ca)uss The !tranger or the se*ual degradation in de Sades The 12" Days of !odom# Ne"ertheless, though such horror is generated %& art, it is not !art of the !heno)enon I a) calling /art-horror#(F More e*a)!les are !ossi%le# Consider The #o$ely %ones %& Alice Se%old, in $hich the ghost of a &oung girl tells us of ho$ she $as ra!ed and )urdered# 1he scene is horrific, %ut the horror $e feel is not the sa)e as the horror caused %& 2o)%ies e"en though %oth are e3uall& fictional# Consider The &anishing, $here our hero disco"ers hi)self %uried ali"e in a coffin, or a scene in The ind-'p %ird (hronicle, %& Haru-i Mura-a)i, $here a character

descri%es $atching his co))ander s-inned ali"e as a for) of torture# 1hese are fictional stories, &et the& are a!!ro!riate candidates for the t&!e of horror felt in res!onse to real cases of de!ra"it& and disaster# If the distinction %et$een natural horror and art-horror is to %e useful at all, our account )ust !lace these cases in the categor& of natural horror, e"en though the& are fictitious# 5ro) the e*a)!les a%o"e, a )ore useful distinction can %e discerned: $hat &ields natural horror is )ore realistic than $hat &ields art-horror# In all of the cases of natural horror listed

Carroll, 6=#

a%o"e, the horrific o%Aect is so)ething $e %elie"e could actuall& occur or e*ist#6H It is entirel& !lausi%le that a little girl can %e ra!ed and )urdered, or a )an can %e %uried ali"e, or a co))ander s-inned as a for) of torture# While these cases are fictional, $e -no$ these t&!es of e"ents actuall& ha!!en and could e"en ha!!en to us# 1he o%Aects of art-horror, on the other hand, stretch credi%ilit&# 1he idea of a 2o)%ie is ridiculous and far-fetched, Aust li-e "a)!ires, $ere$ol"es, and all other sorts of art-horrific )onsters# 1he )onsters in art-horror stories are fir)l& lodged in the real) of i)agination, and $e -no$ it# In the right conte*t, art-horrific )onsters can e"en see) sill& in a $a& that the )urder of little girls or the torture of )en cannot >2o)%ies can %e laugha%le, %ut there is nothing laugha%le a%out horrors that can actuall& hurt !eo!le# 1he rele"ant difference I suggest, then, is this: $hile, in %oth cases, one e*!eriences a )i*ture of fear and i)!otence, this )i*ture e*!resses itself differentl& $hen it is felt in res!onse to a threat that is genuinel& concerning as o!!osed to $hen it is felt in res!onse to a far-fetched threat# Horror is horror, %ut horror felt a%out an unrealistic and ludicrous )onster is $hat Carroll calls 'art-horror( and horror felt a%out so)ething deser"ing genuine concern is $hat Carroll calls 'natural horror#( Acce!ting that art-horror and natural horror are the sa)e e)otional res!onse felt a%out different t&!es of o%Aects has added %enefits# Recall that Carrolls definition of art-horror re3uires $e res!ond to a )onster that defies our scientific understanding of the $orld#66 It is left unclear, in Carrolls $or-, $h& our horror )ust %e in res!onse to such a )onster# Carroll argues onl& that '+c,orrelating horror $ith the !resence of )onsters gi"es us a neat $a& of
6H

I a) allo$ing )&self to a considera%le a)ount of 3uestiona%le assu)!tions a%out !ossi%ilit&# I ad)it that I do not ha"e a clean e*!lanation for ho$ the threat of nuclear $ar stri-es us as a realistic !ossi%ilit& $hereas the threat of a su!er"irus of concentrated rage, a la 2) Days #ater* does not# I a) rel&ing on )& readers intuitions a%out this, $hile also acce!ting that different indi"iduals $ill allo$ for different !ossi%ilities to see) realistic# I a) also acce!ting that there can %e a range to $hich a !ossi%ilit& )a& see) )ore or less realistic# All that I need for )& argu)ent, ho$e"er, is that )urder %& a socio!ath is realistic $hereas turning into a $ere$olf is not# 66 Carroll is careful that the )onster )ust %e one that elicits fear and disgust# 1his is an i)!ortant note in the conte*t of his $or-, and I ignore it here onl& %ecause it is not rele"ant#

distinguishing it fro) terror0(68 In other $ords, Carroll ac-no$ledges that art-horror is felt in res!onse to such )onsters %ut !ro"ides no e*!lanation for $h& this should %e so# With the theor& of horror I ha"e outlined a%o"e, ho$e"er, an e*!lanation is !ossi%le# Art-horror re3uires our horror %e a%out so)ething unrealistic, or, to use Carrolls $ords, so)ething 'not %elie"ed to e*ist no$ according to conte)!orar& science#(6= If $e %elie"ed the )onster $ere realistic, then it $ould %e the su%Aect of a genuine concern and our res!onse $ould %e natural horror, not arthorror# .ecause art-horror is horror felt a%out $hat $e %elie"e is fanciful, all cases of art-horror $ill %e a%out )onsters that def& our current scientific understanding of the $orld# Carroll $as right, %ut the I)!otenc& 1hesis allo$s us to see $h&# Ado!ting the I)!otenc& 1hesis )ight also e*!lain $h& so )an& cases of art-horror ha"e a )eta!horical or allegorical relationshi! to $hat $e $ould find naturall& horrific# Carroll, along $ith )an& others, notes that stories such as Iing Iong $hich $ere !o!ular during the Breat De!ression highlight 'the fear of %eing outside ci"il societ& through no fault of ones o$n,( $hereas the horror stories of the 6F;Hs in"ol"ed )onsters that 'are reall& stand-ins for the IN1JRNA1I7NA@ C7MM?NIS1 MJNACJ#(6C As o%"ious as this connection see)s, one is left $ondering $h& this $ould %e if there is no o%"ious connection %et$een art-horror and natural horror# 1he I)!otenc& 1hesis, on the other hand, hints to a !ossi%le ans$er: since the onl& difference %et$een natural horror and art-horror is that one is a%out a genuine concern $hereas the other is a%out unrealistic )onsters, art-horror )a& %e a conduit for confronting natural horrors# It i)!lies that audiences in the 6FEHs felt the sa)e e)otion in res!onse to the threat of nuclear $ar as the& did Bod2illa, and so their interest in Bod2illa )a& %e inter!reted a )eans to res!onding to their horror of nuclear $ar#
68 6=

Carroll, 6;# I%id#, 8G# 6C I%id#, 8H<# 7riginal ca!itali2ation#

I !resent the I)!otenc& 1hesis as a suggestion for greater consideration, gi"en that it stands to clarif& the relationshi! %et$een those horror stories that a)use us in )o"ie theaters and those real horrors that -ee! us u! at night# I do not clai) to ha"e !ro"ided an&thing near a co)!lete account of horror, %ut I !ro!ose that an& consideration of horror $ill %e )ore successful if it %egins $ith the I)!otenc& 1hesis as o!!osed to Carrolls Disgust 1hesis#