Thursday 22 August 2013

Torture Porn in Horror: A Discussion

     What is ‘Torture Porn’? A panel at the World Horror Convention in New Orleans recently tackled this topic in particular. The actual panel topic was about extreme horror and begged the question of how far is too far.
     In my opinion, torture porn is one of those stories/books/films that’s filled with pain, violence and torture simply for the sake of. There is no true purpose for the existence of that violence and the work has possibly no plot at all. And, I’d hate to say it, but most of the Nightmare on Elm Street movies fall into that category. I’ll give the first movie a pass because it was a cool concept. However, the sequels featured cardboard characters that were destined to be cruelly murdered. I don’t always believe that you have to ‘care’ about any character in fiction, but you should care that they died for their death to be meaningful. Somehow, some way, it should matter to you that they died. Otherwise the audience is simply lauding their death and probably laughing at the acts of violence.
     Jack Ketchum has been tormented by the torture porn tag for a hefty chunk of his career—if not his entire career. Off Season, his 1981 debut novel, wasn’t even published in its entirety until much later due to its extremely violent, but it was his 1989 novel, The Girl Next Door that sent shockwaves through the horror community. And just about everywhere else.
     The jury is out—and may be out for a long time—about the purpose of the novel’s violence. Some readers will tell you that it is about a man who recalls the time he and a group of young men tortured a disabled girl in her basement. Other readers will tell you that the story deals with the cruelty and evil that exists in this world and that we regular people have to share the world with some truly sick individuals. And therein is the real horror.
     I once used the term ‘torture porn’ to Jack Ketchum and he seemed visibly annoyed by it, even though I’m sure he understood why I was using the term. From our discussion (this was in Austin, Texas in 2011), I could tell that he is trying to horrify the readers and not titillate them with violence.
     And that’s another part of the discussion: should the violence be titillating? Should authors be attempting to titillate their readers with detailed descriptions of violence? In my opinion, only the violence that’s needed to advance the plot should be included. If that happens to be in copious amounts then . . . so be it. But certainly it shouldn’t be there if it doesn’t belong there.
     And I would say the same about sex and taboo subjects. You really can’t just manufacture that stuff just to catch a reader’s interest. If it belongs there then that’s cool. If it has no rightful or legitimate place in your story then it really should be left out.
     This is a discussion that bears continuation.
     What are your thoughts?