Horror Aficionados discussion

How do you feel about it, if a horror story leaves you speculating what is was about, or should it come clear of the source of the horror, reason for the haunting, what is behind all that is happening?
Should all dots connect, or are loose ends okay? Is it enough that there is a ghost - without knowing what the ghost is about? Is it okay, if there is no solution to the situation ? Is it okay, if we do not name the monster in the end? - Or should a reader be given a solid explanation to all what is going on?

To me, both are great endings, as long as the story is solid and the ending is proper and not rushed.

It depends on what the author's purpose is with the story.

In Cell, King leaves off just as Johnny is about to reboot the program that has decimated mankind. Does it work or does it mak matters worse? Why would King do that?

I think it is the perfect ending because King's point is that Mankind's thinking needs to be rebooted. His job as a novelist was not to reboot mankind, but to get them to the reboot point. Where we go from there is up to us.

Other horror novels give us a much-needed cathartic release with an unambiguous ending.

All that being said, I don't think a novelist should explain his novels at all.

It’s a wonderful question. Ghost stories should probably put forth an explanation because of the trope of unfinished business, but how interesting would it be to have an undefined force of nature? In the right hands it could make for a page turner.

Cosmic horror is about the unknowable. Providing answers takes the mystery and the horror away.

It's similar to when Scooby and the gang pull the mask off the "ghost" at the end of each episode. There's no more fear, only hijinks.

I'm squarely in the camp that fear should reside in the realm of the unknown.

I don't need all of the answers; I just want them. 😂

Either way as long as the story is told well

I think there is a place for both, as long as the story concludes itself in a satisfying way that makes sense for its narrative. There is a lot of horror in not knowing.

It all depends on the story and what the author is trying to get across but sometimes it works with a story as authors will want the reader to use their imagination of what happened. Now if the story is left like a cliffhanger to the point that there could be a series of books to follow that would work too.

Which has happened with some stories as authors have come back to continue on with the story or give more background on the story.

Netanella wrote: "Cosmic horror is about the unknowable."

That's one of the reasons that cosmic horror is one of my favorite genres. :) I like the dangling bits of the world. You can't explain it, you can't beat it, you can only work around it. It might be in your head. Leaving the final act open and unexplained, we marinate in the horror long after the story ends.

Either way, I think it depends on the author's ability to land the ending. Two books about the apocalypse:

The Road is probably the best of the lot. We don't know what happened before the book began, and (view spoiler)[we still have no idea when the book ends (hide spoiler)]. Ultimately, it doesn't matter because that's not the point. It's a horrific tragedy. Marinate in horror and sadness.

Then there's an apocalyptic book like The Stand. We are there from the beginning to the end. The story, from start to finish, was about the event, told from multiple POVs. Biblical in scope, the ending(s) are well-explained and satisfying. Book hangover ensues.

I think it depends on the story. I often find myself gravitating towards stories where I get some kind of "explanation" I guess, but some of my favourite stories are more ambiguous or end in a sort of cliffhanger. Sometimes that kind of thing is frustrating, sometimes it's perfection. I actually have a great comparison of 70s horror films for this one. The Hills Have Eyes (1977) ends on a massive cliffhanger and it doesn't feel like there's a "reason" for this, it just ends very abruptly in a way that I found jarring and not satisfying, probably the weakest part for me. Compare that to Black Christmas (1974), which has a cliffhanger that is filled with haunting promise, just very meaty, I actually think that the ending is the strongest aspect.

I definitely think it can depend a lot on subgenre though, especially for books. Like I definitely agree that a certain amount of information should be unknowable in cosmic horror. In a slasher, I like all the information to be revealed slowly, unfurling like a juicy mystery. With zombies, I think that whether or not we get certain details is entirely dependent upon who the characters are and what point in the narrative they're involved in (eg epidemiologists investigating vs random citizens surviving). For haunted house or possessions, there's a certain amount I want to understand about the entity in question, but I'm also down for certain aspects being unknowable. But I think the right author can also make unconventional things work too.

Longwinded answer to ultimately just say "it depends."

It is case by case. I mean, part of the joy of horror is one good last scare and a resolution of some kind. This is fine. It does kinda bug me, however, when you do not learn of the aftermath after the big climactic scene concludes. So a little bit of yes, a little bit of no.

There is a Dean Koontz book that comes to mind where a young man tells his mom something is up. She thinks he is crazy the whole book, even thinks he is on drugs. But the book ends with resolution, she finds out he is telling the truth. We do not find out how things panned out.

While their movies had a proper conclusion, the Hammer House of Horror left almost every episode with an unexplained ending

In my option both endings are fine but with an open ending I like for is to be set up for a sequel I don’t like when it just stops with no real path forward

I like both, but sometimes leaving it blank makes it creepier

Leaving it ambiguous definitely ups the creep factor, but only if the author gave us enough fuel in the novel to give us those "what if" scenarios. Two recent novels that I think did ambiguous endings well was Incidents Around the House and A Head Full of Ghosts.

Explain itself as I’d rather know

Should a horror story explain itself or leave it blank?

Yes.

Depends on execution. If an ending is ambiguous, that's fine, but I need at least some kind of pay off in an ending. Some questions answered while others are left unclear, that kind of thing.

It really does seem like a case by case thing, but I do find that ambiguous endings tend to be scarier, as people are more afraid of what they don't know.

Mads wrote: "It really does seem like a case by case thing, but I do find that ambiguous endings tend to be scarier, as people are more afraid of what they don't know."

I generally agree with this. But it also depends on the skill of the writer to leave questions unanswered that inspire the reader to make an imaginative leap, to wonder at the potential lines of action that radiate from that ending.

I think I am more of a "leave it vague" reader.

I'm thinking of, for example, there was a creepypasta I read back in the day -- I can't remember which one, something about finding a used computer and getting stalked by the previous user -- and the first half of it I was so scared my heart was pounding. But then there was the big reveal of who/what was behind the messages and, though there was a lot of gore and torture after that, it just didn't have the fear that the unknown held for me. I guess the possibility that it could be part of my life was taken away once such an outlandish explanation was given.

A more mainstream example: King's The Outsider. The first half of the book had me on pins and needles. What could it be? What was the goal and motivation? But the final scenes where people were fighting a very defined creature left me wanting more.

On the other hand, one could argue that the journey in horror should include the fear -> the understanding -> the resolution. That the let down of the knowing is integral to the overall emotional arc of horror.

It depends. Sometimes explaining can make the story scarier. Sometimes it can ruin it. It just needs to be done with taste

Horror as a genre thrives on the unknown and unsettling, so leaving some questions unanswered can amplify the lingering dread or unease. It forces us as readers to sit with the terrifying idea that not everything can be explained, which feels truer to the cosmic, psychological, or supernatural horrors that often dominate the genre.

On the other hand, a "neat bow" ending can work if it fits the story’s tone and gives satisfying closure, especially for character-driven narratives where we are invested in their fate.

Ultimately, I think it depends on the intent of the story. If the goal is to leave readers haunted, unanswered questions can create that eerie echo. But if the focus is on solving a mystery or wrapping up an intense arc, a resolved ending might be more impactful.

I'll use my disdain for Terrifier to give my opinion. The film Terrifier, is IMO a shock value film. There's no true plot and the only reason the film exists is for over the top kills, gruesome deaths, extreme shock value. When it tries to give us a plot it's vague, hinting but otherwise, disregarded altogether because since it's horror the director figures we won't care about a main immersive plot and it's all about horror and the deaths.

I think a horror story, like any other story, needs a base, a connector, a reason for being...it needs a point. Are there ways around this? Yes. You can be ominous and not explain what a monster is; we just know that it's a monster, and perhaps it's up to us as readers to interpret our imaginations as to what the monster is/stands for, or looks like. However, if the horror story has a big agenda such as an intricate plot or several subplots that need explanation, then I would hope to get one because otherwise I'll either feel robbed or that the story lacks substance.

Being a big fan of both sci-fi and horror, I think horror requires more explanation most of the time than sci-fi does. For example, there are many great sci-fi stories in which some alien intelligence or technology is so far advanced that it is simply incomprehensible to us humans, and never explained in the story (Solaris, Annihilation).

I think horror, especially if it’s based on the supernatural, usually needs to fill in the blanks, and in fact it often doesn’t work well if too much is left unsaid. If some monster comes to town one night and starts eating the children, most of us would like to know at some point how it got there and why it likes children so much. If zombies are walking the street in the morning as you get ready for work, it’s nice to have an explanation — a mutated virus, a government experiment gone bad, a new president elected, etc.

There are certainly times it works: Birdbox is a great example. Blindness is another, but I think the author needs to be really skilled at crafting the rest of the story and characters to make up for the unease of unknowing, since we humans like things to have an explanation, even if it’s not very convincing.

I believe that most if not all Horror stories need some sort of explanation to the storyline it strengthens the story. Like as some people above commented like some sort of monster is terrorizing people or is haunting a home or building I think I'd like to know where it came from, why its doing these things and if there is a way to stop it from continuing.

Supernatural Horror is the same like lets say a Vampire like we all know how vampires become vampires (sometimes its different) I'd like to know when they became one, why they became one, what sort of supernatural powers they have, what is their purpose in the world they live in etc.


Now some horror movies I feel don't always need an explanation as sometimes you can fill in the blanks easily by watching

I'll throw my vote in with the Ambiguous Party. Horror should be unsettling on every level, and once we know exactly what's happening, the fear of the unknown goes away and we end up with an action piece: the difference between the movies Alien and Aliens or the first half vs. the second half of Jaws.