If you read the posts surrounding Worst Written Story Ever, you'll find that I never actually intended it to be a stand-alone piece at all.
It started out as a shock-response to someone who called my name 'fluffy,' lol, and it was so popular that I began adding it onto my Table of Contents since people liked it.
So yes, that story is indeed a shock-story, the likes of which I would normally be loathe to write.
If you'll read 'White as Snow,' or 'You've Got Mail,' you'll find that indeed I DO know how to create horror without relying purely on gore to further my means.
And while yes, a lot of my pieces do include quite a bit of blood/gore/pain, I believe, and it seems most of the readers agree, that it fits.
When I mean "gore for gore's sake," I mean the inclusion of gore beyond what is necessary, beyond what adds to the power or description of the story. Like in the little blurb I had in the "Your First Story" about the spilling intestines, etc, it doesn't fit.
It feels awkward and sluggish, and it really doesn't aid visualization in the slightest. It's just there to be 'edgy.'
I don't write my stories just to be 'edgy,' I write in a granted, often quite violent style because it works.
It fits the tone I'm looking for. As to your comment about calling it horror misleading, that's a very subjective comment.
Is the Texas Chainsaw Massacre horror? Is Hostel horror?
Surely those movies aren't called 'horror' for the psychological plotlines, the creepy characters and the brilliant narration.
They're classified as horror because they're brutally violent, and brutally violent in an appealing way. I think that there are many genres of horror, all very different, and that to separate out the gory genres from the non-gory so far as to not even say they're still horror is a mistake.
I appreciate the continued comments, and the voicing of your opinion without being insulting or rude.
If any of the above gave the impression of irritation, I apologize.
30-Oct-2008 13:59:54
