Terror vs Horror

[distraction tactics]

One apparentely expands the soul and is more psychological, while the other constricts and is more visual. Used in the context of the 'Gothic horror novel'.

I recognize the distinction, but I don't understand it fully. Is it just BS?

Can you think of any examples in literature, or life in general that show the distinction on a deeper, functional level?

[kuranes]

Many people use the words interchangeably, which adds to the confusion. Originally, "terror" referred more to "extreme suspense/fear" and "horror" was more like "extreme revulsion/disgust". The revulsion of horror might be mixed with pity as well.

Horror might be looking at a bloody stub that was your hand only minutes before. Terror might be knowing that the agent of this trauma to your hand was still on the prowl, and ready to do the same thing to your face. Usually terror refers to something that is hard to resist or escape, too.

What was considered "horror" back in the olden days may be different than what is considered "horror" now.

[distraction tactics]

Okay, that makes sense.

One example in class was given as terror and terrorism, fearing the destruction they could conceivably cause, but reacting with horror to something like the holocaust.

Second part of my question, are novels typically classified as either/or, or simply a combination of both elements? The latter seems to be the obvious reality, but my prof seemed to imply the former held sway.

[kuranes]

I think the words terror and horror are used these days in literature to refer to both, but I think customers of such will expect there to be more "terror" than "horror" ( even though there is a mix ) with the exception of what are known as "splatter" creations. Obviously bringing visual elements into play is significant, too.

[PenguinHunter]

Think of Kurtz's last words in the Heart of Darkness (if you have read it). Although it's ambiguous it does suggest an elongated revulsion as kuranes says.

For a contrast between terror and horror you could look at Frankenstein too. The horror is in the process of monster creation and the state of Frankenstein himself while the terror lies in the moment of life. (Although I guess there is horror in that too but that is more to do with the thought processes than the instant.) Shelley even uses these words in these senses in her introduction:

"Night waned upon this talk, and even the witching hour had gone by, before we retired to rest. When I place my head on my pillow, I did not sleep, nor could I be said to think. My imagination, unbidden, possessed and guided me, gifting the successive images that arose in my mind with a vividness far beyond the usual bounds of reverie. I saw -- with shut eyes, but acute mental vision, -- I saw the pale student of unhallowed arts kneeling beside the thing he had put together. I saw the hideous phantasm of a man stretched out, and then, on the working of some powerful engine, show signs of life, and stir with an uneasy, half vital motion. Frightful must it be; for supremely frightful would be the effect of any human endeavour to mock the stupendous mechanism of the Creator of the world. His success would terrify the artist; he would rush away from his odious handywork, horror-stricken. He would hope that, left to itself, the slight spark of life which he had communicated would fade; that this thing, which had received such imperfect animation, would subside into dead matter; and he might sleep in the belief that the silence of the grave would quench for ever the transient existence of the hideous corpse which he had looked upon as the cradle of life. He sleeps; but he is awakened; he opens his eyes; behold the horrid thing stands at his bedside, opening his curtains, and looking on him with yellow, watery, but speculative eyes.

I opened mine in terror. The idea so possessed my mind, that a thrill of fear ran through me, and I wished to exchange the ghastly image of my fancy for the realities around. I see them still; the very room, the dark parquet, the closed shutters, with the moonlight struggling through, and the sense I had that the glassy lake and white high Alps were beyond. I could not so easily get rid of my hideous phantom; still it haunted me. I must try to think of something else. I recurred to my ghost story, -- my tiresome unlucky ghost story! O! if I could only contrive one which would frighten my reader as I myself had been frightened that night!"

The horror is in the thought and revulsion of the patch-work creature, and the terror is an instantaneous fright.

[mr. treat]

to me horror implies a more visceral, worldly nature, while terror implies a more abstract and ethereal sense of fear. i have never been horrified at the sight of something, but i have felt terrified by the thought of something.

is lovecraft's writing seen to be more horrific or... terrific? hah hah!

seriously, you know what i mean. and the question still stands.

[kuranes]

Lovecraft was not a believer in the overt "splatter" kind of horror, but he conjured up a cerebral horror and had suspense ( terror ) mixed in there too, if you could only suspend your judgement on his characterizations of people being as stilted as they were.

[distraction tactics]

I'm thinking the effective story would make heavy-handed use of both.... terror in setting up the circusmtances of suspense, horror to shock as the result.

...which, of course, most if not all works do. But is it consciously applied, I wonder?

The visceral nature of horror is also a valuable tool for terror. Or not?

[kuranes]

All things being equal, I prefer terror to horror, even when it comes to artistic creations. I have seen glimpses of true horror, and its not something I wish to seek out. I can enjoy so called "grotesque" fictional images oftentimes, but there are some ( often very realistic ) which trigger too much empathic pain in me. I am actually an agent for a horror artist, but he doesn't get into the kind of thing that I'm alluding to here.

[mr. treat]

would you both say that terror comes implicit with suspense, at the possibility of something that is fearful, while horror deals more with a sense of revulsion at something a little more present? were that the case, then the visceral nature of horror would indeed be a valuable tool for terror.

hmm.. cerebral horror.. that sounds cool.

[bergenski]

Terror involves fear, horror involves shock IMO.