--- Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > if this is a true and recent story.. > > It happened a long time ago (hence the distance of > "laundry, natch") > when I lived in PA and owned a car. The "way into > it," or what I > hoped to discuss, was the experience of extreme > situations, the > complete absence of horror in the face of grievous > catastrophe. > > I mean, we're talking about film violence and the > horror of violence > per se, but here's a real-life experience of > arriving by chance at a > stretch of road littered with dead or dying people > and body parts. > > No horror. Shock, to be sure, and delayed reaction > to the carnage. > But in the experience itself, no horror. There was a > disaster, > things to do during the disaster, and a delayed > reaction of a couple > hours before I could get settled into my emotions. You know, and I don't mean to be insensitive, but this kind of reminds me about what hockey players say about a close game. That is, it is much more nerve wrecking to watch the game from the stands, because when they are on ice they concentrate on what to do, and when they are on the bench they are thinking about the next shift. The point being that horror requires helplessness, detachment of a sort, and hence the supernatural as the ultimate source of horror. As I wrote that, I recalled that one of the text book aesthetics problems is the rollercoaster. That is, apparently people are terrified by it and yet seem to enjoy themselves, which obviously begs for an explanation. Maybe there is answer following the idea that horror is indeed a spectator sport, that is people in real danger don't feel it. Cheers, Teemu Pyyluoma¨ Helsinki, Finland __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html