While the other two dictionaries I requested out of this series are essential for most cultured readers, this one is very narrow. I requested it because the horror genre comes up frequently in literary theory. Horror exemplifies extremes of suspense or the death-threat that is common to nearly all formulaic fiction: the hero tends to be terrified of death as he or she is attacked by the enemies that create suspense to keep readers’ interest in the storyline. While I strongly dislike the extremely formulaic horror genre, I frequently mention the death-threat and suspense in my own research, so definitions of these types of concepts might be of use to my research: if they are to be found in these pages.
“Horror is one of the most enduring and controversial of all cinematic genres.” To be more accurate, horror as a concept is so general that any film with extreme suspense or an extreme death-threat can be categorized as a horror; thus, while most other genres are much narrower and tend to fade with the decades, horror as a genre will not die until formulaic plotlines are abandoned. “Horror films range from subtle and poetic to graphic and gory, but what links them together is their ability to frighten, disturb, shock, provoke, delight, irritate, and amuse audiences. Horror’s capacity to take the form of our evolving fears and anxieties has ensured not only its notoriety but also its long-term survival and international popularity… The entries cover all major movie villains, including Frankenstein and his monsters, the vampire, the werewolf, the mummy, the zombie, the ghost and the serial killer; film directors, producers, writers, actors, cinematographers, make-up artists, special-effects technicians, and composers who have helped shape horror history; significant production companies; major films that are milestones in the development of the horror genre; and different national traditions in horror cinema—as well as popular themes, formats, conventions, and cycles.” I am not likely to need to look up the definition of a “vampire” in my research, so these entries seem to be aimed for the general audience, or for fans of the genre rather than researchers. The author, Peter Hutchings, is a Professor of Film Studies at Northumbria University.
I searched for “suspense” to check how Hutchings would define it, but did not find a listing for it. There is a listing for “surrealism” and the sub-genre of “surgical horror” in this vicinity instead. Most of the entries across the dictionary are for people, such as directors and actors. There is also a strange entry for “homosexuality”: “The relation between homosexuality and horror cinema is an ambiguous one. When gay characters are featured in horror films (and they do not feature very often), they tend to be associated with the abnormal and the monstrous in a manner that might be construed as homophobic”. “Lesbian vampire” films are offered as an example of this, before a separate note on how many of the makers of horror films were “themselves gay”, including F. W. Murnau and James Whale (Bride of Frankenstein (1935)) (166-7). This is a strange entry as it accuses the genre of homophobia without offering statistics, but rather a few isolated examples that are open to interpretation, and then gets personal and outs horror-makers believed to be gay. This entry appears to have emerged out of the 1950s, as I have not read similar direct conclusions elsewhere. The media frequently mentions these types of broad conclusions or accusations of homophobia, but scholarly texts tend to opt to provide proof and phrase these subjects in gentler terms. The entry begins with a note on “ambiguity”, but if there is uncertainty, why did the author include this entry. It seems the author is afraid to blatantly accusing the industry of homophobia, but the manner of discussing gayness as if it is a moral infection that even afflicts some members of the horror elite makes this note more disturbing from my perspective; I can’t explain why it is disturbing me, but it is making me feel uneasy. This section also stands out because there are so few concept entries; another one I noticed is for “masks”. Then, there is an entry for “The Internet”, with “The” before this common-knowledge concept. It begins thus: “Given the ubiquity of the Internet, it is perhaps surprising how little it has featured in contemporary horror films.” Then, Hutchings offers examples of how it has appeared in some films (174-5). The uncertainty expressed in the word “perhaps” makes it strange that Hutchings did not insert similar uncertainty next to his conclusion that the Internet if uncommon in recent horror films; since he himself proves the opposite with his examples, why isn’t he saying that the Internet is common. It seems he was watching one of these films about the Internet and without any further research decided to make this uncertain and confused entry.
There is something unsettling, strange, disorganized, and marketing-heavy in this dictionary of horror films. The concepts that scholars would need and the more obscure sub-genres are ignored, while obscure directors are promoted. I cannot imagine what audience might benefit from this book.