Would you rather watch a film directed by Alfred Hitchcock or Wes Craven? Do you prefer reading Edgar Allen Poe or Stephen King? In general, do you choose old school horror or new school horror? It doesn't matter which one you pick, most people will agree that horror has evolved. Edgar Allen Poe appeals to those who prefer their horror to be subversive, whereas Stephen King wants to scare the bejesus out of people. I feel as though I can appreciate both types of horror, but when I watch newer horror movies I wonder how much gore  is really too much.

Classics such as "The Shining" by Stephen King and "Halloween" by John Carpenter are a couple of my favorite horror movies. However, long before the advent of the horror movie,  there were (and still are) books to freak people out.

I am currently reading "Dracula" by Bram Stoker for my Introduction to Fiction class and it is definitely freaking me out. My teacher, Robin Barrow, says that true horror is meant to horrify the reader by making them see things they thought could not possibly be real. Popular movies, on the other hand, often use cheap thrills to scare the audience by employing such tactics as striking music and things jumping out at people.

"Dracula" and Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" are both genuinely horrifying. Shelley's description of the monster's body parts is revolting.

Sophomore Derek Waffel, for one, prefers books to movies: 

"It [horror] is usually better written, with the exception of Stephen King." He feels that with books he can use his imagination more and doesn't have to rely on contrived cinematography . A few of his favorite books are "Dracula," "Frankenstein" and "The Castle of Otranto" by Horace Walpole. 

Student Chuck Sayne is, on the opposite end of the spectrum, a horror film enthusiast. "I think a good story, a good plot makes an excellent horror film." He believes that the gory special effects in movies are an art form. In "The Hills have Eyes" Sayne was intrigued by how filmmakers visually created the gore. A few of his favorites are the "Scream" trilogy, "Friday the 13^th" and the 2004 "Dawn of the Dead."

I feel that a good horror movie depends on the amount of gore and the story line. "The Shining" has very minimal gore and an excellent story line. Jack Nicholson can make me feel amazingly uneasy with just a single glance at the camera. The 1978 "Dawn of the Dead", on the other hand, is so ridiculous with it's contrived gore that it is fun to laugh at instead of actually being afraid.

However, newer horror movies seem to strive to make me nothing but queasy. "Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning" was the most unreasonably disgusting movie I have ever seen.

Waffel states, "Most of it [horror] is just the blood and guts kind because that is what people want to see." He's right. Most people agree with Sayne because they are intrigued by how filmmakers can create a believable image of a person being decapitated.

I hate horror movies that have excessive blood and guts without some justification for it. "The Descent", for example, was incredibly gory at some parts, but the story line was so intense that I overlooked it. The end completely justified the means.

Whether you like your horror old school or new, most can appreciate that both have unique enjoyable elements.