This paper reviews Noel Carroll's The Philosophy of Horror, Or, Paradoxes of the Heart (1990), examining the book's central arguments about the horror genre across film, literature, and theater. The review covers Carroll's claims about cyclical horror popularity, the intimate relationship between horror fiction and film, and his concept of "art-horror." It also discusses Carroll's analysis of characteristic horror plots, the emotional responses horror provokes in audiences, and his philosophical inquiry into why people are drawn to frightening and disgusting content. The reviewer finds Carroll's work illuminating and argues that it elevates the horror genre as a legitimate art form.
The Philosophy of Horror, Or, Paradoxes of the Heart by Noel Carroll is a compelling work for a number of reasons. The book examines the horror genre in its entirety — across novels, film, and even musical theater — making it one of the more ambitious critical studies of the genre. Carroll maintains that the popularity of horror runs in cycles, with the present cycle beginning with Rosemary's Baby in the late 1960s. That claim is somewhat surprising from an outsider's perspective, since horror appears never to go entirely out of style. Nevertheless, it is clear that modern technical effects have made horror films far more realistic, and that seems to be precisely what audiences want and expect.
It is also illuminating to see how many horror novels have been adapted into films. Carroll writes, "The relation between the horror film and horror literature has been quite intimate during the current horror cycle" (Carroll 2). He attributes much of this intimacy to the enormous success of The Exorcist in 1973, which makes sense given that the horror genre had been rejuvenated just a few years earlier. Carroll cites the blockbusters of the 1970s as bringing the genre back to the mainstream, while noting that many horror films of the 1960s — such as Night of the Living Dead — were cult classics rather than mainstream box office phenomena.
Perhaps most fascinating is Carroll's attempt to connect the horror genre to ancient philosophical thought, an association most critics would never attempt. In doing so, he makes the entire genre more intellectually interesting and draws attention to the depth of plotting and technique involved — qualities that many critics fail to acknowledge. Carroll argues that horror is a genuine art form, and after reading this book, it is difficult to disagree. Many classic horror films have been artistic and memorable, and the genre begins to feel more mainstream when viewed through Carroll's lens — not necessarily in its surface presentation, but in the techniques, plots, and writing that define it. Horror as a literary and cinematic tradition is far less cult-oriented than it may initially appear, and many of the novels that have been adapted into films stand as significant works in their own right.
The term "art-horror" was new to this reader, and after Carroll defined it, it made perfect sense. There are meaningful differences in the genre between films, books, and theater, and it is easy to see how much of the horror genre could be considered "art-horror." The section on plotting is particularly enlightening, especially Carroll's outline of characteristic horror plots, which become immediately recognizable once he lays them out. His definitions of different genres and the methods by which they are analyzed also prove helpful in illustrating the vast differences between genres and what each hopes to accomplish. The horror fiction genre emerges from this analysis as a structured and purposeful form rather than a collection of shock effects.
You’re 64% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.