The amount of horror one used to hear about in one village could be quite extreme. But one might not have heard about all the other villages' horrors at the same time.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I don't always set stories in villages, more often in towns. But always in smallish communities because the characters' actions are more visible there, and the dramatic tension is heightened.
It is a mistake to fancy that horror is associated inextricably with darkness, silence, and solitude.
Perhaps because my town was so naturally gothic in its architecture and relative isolation - the roads often closed in winter - my stories tended toward the ghostly and the creepily suspenseful right from the get-go.
I wonder if the nursery and the chamber of horrors are as far apart as people think?
What I see as the particularly exciting prospect for writing horror fiction as we go forward is setting stories in more internal landscapes than external ones, mapping out the mind as the home for scary things instead of the house at the end of the lane or lakeside campground or abandoned amusement park.
I haven't done lots of horror.
I'm not so sure that horror should be dismissed as something less than literature.
People used to always complain that horror films have no stories, that it's all just about kills and stuff like that.
Horror serves a cathartic role in human society, all throughout the world. It is a way of confronting the darkness, both within and without.
Getting sequestered and not really knowing what to do with your time and then discovering, 'Oh, I can watch a bunch of horror movies' has probably played out in a lot of people's discovery of horror.
No opposing quotes found.