Results from my poll on what scares you the most

What scares you the most?

I ran a Twitter poll asking which of these things scares horror book fans the most: creepy clowns, evil children, manipulative demons, or shadowy ghosts.

I find it fascinating that people find evil children the scariest, followed by creepy clowns.

If you look at mythology, eerie folk tales, or real-world accounts, it's usually the opposite; demons and ghosts seem to prevail.

I have a couple theories around this. First, mythology and folk tales reflect the more religious nature of older societies. I think, in the modern Western world, we are less apt to fall back on religion, and thus are less likely to dwell on demons and the devil, and maybe also less fearful of an afterlife and ghosts.

Second, real-world stories of ghosts, and even "demonic hauntings", are now relatively common, thanks in part to reality TV ghosthunter and paranormal shows and a long publication history over the decades. Maybe we've become used to them?

A third theory I have is that we may find more fearful those things that we would normally presume are harmless, like small children and babies, or clowns, but which have been perverted by supernatural forces. I'm convinced this is the most important of my theories.

I once turned harmless little rabbits into vengeful spirits, in my novelette "Rabbit Cry" (a story in my my book, Around the Corner from Sanity). I think it's the creepiest story in the anthology.

I wonder... what other seemingly "harmless" beings I could pervert into a good horror story?

What do you think? What other harmless creatures/entities/forces do you think could be a source of fear?

Cheers and happy reading!

Review of Edge of the Flame by James Aichinger

Edge of The Flame by James Aichinger
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Edge of the Flame is a scifi re-telling of the "chosen one" sort of story. Aichinger has a good writing method and an imaginitive worldbuilding, spanning three worlds. The characters have complex backstories and stand out well from one another. The main villain is fairly unique with a power that is awe-striking and seemingly un-defeatable, and you find yourself wondering how they can manage to overcome him.

A young man who lacks memory of his childhood, Adanis, realizes his home town is in flames and all are destroyed, the result of an attack by powerful creatures (ironically) called "angels" at the behest of a villain named Arek, but he is quickly rescued by two brothers and arms experts, a techie named Rascelot and his powerful "malachi" brother Raphael. A malachi is like a mutant with superpowers. Adanis learns he isn't just a malachi, but a "valkiran" who is the fated chosen one to destroy Arek. But Adanis is naive and must quickly learn all he needs from the brothers in order to fulfill his role. What follows is a chase between worlds as they run from Arek and his minions to Earth, then try to be recognized as the valkiran in the coming battle for Earth. But all is not what it seems, and who can Adanis trust?

Personally, I'm not a fan of "chosen one" stories, and this story follows the (tired) traditional "Hero with a thousand faces" story progression... *but* there is a significant twist at the very end of the book, which has to do with his lack of memory and identity crisis. Unfortunately you have to read nearly all of the 160K words to get to it. Part of the reason for the length is that there are no less than 20 major characters, most of whom have point-of-view sections and side plots of their own, not all of which really seemed to be necessary for the main storyline, such as diplomats and their personal relationships to other diplomats, or an arms dealer and his shady history. I found the story got bogged down in these side plots by around 2/3 the way through the book. Also, despite the length of the book, the ending wraps up very quickly and I found myself a bit confused by the convenient manner in which it ended. Plus, some of those many side plots were not wrapped up at all. But it's not all bad. The side plots ARE interesting on their own, even if they don't lend much to the central storyline.

View all my reviews

Cheers and happy reading!

How Much Bloodshed Is Tolerated in Science Fiction and Fantasy Novels?

It goes without saying that many fiction genres have little or no tolerance for bloodshed and pain: certainly children's and middle grade books, most romance or erotica (there's nothing sexy about being cut open and bleeding... I'm raising an eyebrow at you BDSM lovers!), humor and absurdist literature, and so forth. You might see a bloody nose or brief mention of wounds in literary fiction, cozy mysteries (like Agatha Cristie), legal thrillers (think John Grisham), and social commentary pieces, but almost never anything detailed.

The level of tolerance increases significantly when you consider thrillers of any sort. You can't have gunfights and martial arts duels without at least some pain and bloodshed, reserved mostly for the bad guys, of course. The range of tolerance here is very wide, so as a writer and a reader you have to have an idea of the subgenre and the author beforehand. And then there's horror, which takes a giant, blood-splattering leap upward on the scale. Even with authors like Stephen King you expect some grisly scenery and description, and that's not even the sort of "body horror" or "grimdark" subgenres that I think is increasingly popular. (As an aside, it's strange to me that this kind of severe bloodshed is more popular in horror movies than in books, but then maybe it's because those who find satisfaction or entertainment in such imagery are more visual than imaginative?). The stories in my horror anthology, Around the Corner from Sanity, run the full range from no blood to gore-fest.

But what about science fiction and fantasy? It seems to me that these genres fall into a sort of gray zone. I read and write in these genres, but even I have a hard time putting a finger on the preferences of the reading public. Again, there's a wide scale and as a reader you sort of have to know the author beforehand. I can't remember any reference to blood at all in Tolkien's books, despite all the battle scenes, for instance. Frank Herbert described brutal acts in Dune but only in a few scenes did he go into details. But other, more modern authors I've read, such as Dan Simmons, don't shy away from it (the creature known as the Shrike in his Hyperion novels still elicits a tantalizing shiver for me).

So I put a poll on Twitter to get some feedback on this. I asked, "#fantasy and #scifi #book fans, What level of bloodshed to you tolerate in your novels?" I expected most answers to fall somewhere in the middle, maybe skewing slightly toward the more violent end. 

As you can see, there is, indeed, the sort of distribution that I thought, with only about 5% voting "none", then increasing to 33% and 43% for "some bloodshed's fine" and "there can be heavy scenes," respectively. I was surprised by the number of people who voted for "full-on gore fest!" (19%). I figured it would be down around 10%.

Maybe I shouldn't have been surprised. I mean, I personally have a very high tolerance and sometimes prefer the more bloody violence, as long as it fits the tone of the overall book and the plot. 

In the fantasy novels I've written, there are only a few scenes that get bloody, in a PG way, and no real "gore", though I allow myself freer space with some of my fantasy short stories. But in my space opera novel, which is written with a sort of pulp-fiction tone, some action scenes are pretty graphic and would be R-rated if made into a movie (not to mention some X-rated sex scenes!).

As a writer, I'll say that the guiding principles related to the violence to include are: what is the interest of your target audience, and is it necessary for the plot and characterization?

How do you feel about bloodshed in sci-fi and fantasy books? Leave a comment!

Cheers and happy reading!