Is Horror Good for You?

 This is an older article that someone directed me to: 

Why Horror is Good For You (and Even Better for Your Kids) by Greg Ruth

Ruth provides six reasons which, as you can see by the titles, aren't backed up by science. He may be right or wrong, but the article title seems to promise that:

1. CHILDHOOD IS SCARY, 
2. POWER TO THE POWERLESS
3. HORROR IS ANCIENT AND REAL AND CAN TEACH US MUCH, 
4. HORROR CONFIRMS SECRET TRUTHS, 
5. SHARING SCARY STORIES BRINGS PEOPLE TOGETHER, 
6. HIDDEN INSIDE HORROR ARE THE FACTS OF LIFE

The most interesting one is the second one, especially in light of how contemporary horror disempowers everyone due to a Lovecraftian vision (although there is horror that does that what #2 describes).

There are plenty of plots on the planet. I am not enumerating them here, but here's one way of looking at them from most positive to most depressing:

1) Popular, bestselling plot: Protagonist Wins! but learns nothing (at least nothing of consequence)

2) Character learns something (although he might win, lose, or draw)

3) Character learns nothing (whether he wins, loses, or draws) but the reader learns from that failure.

4) Character learns that his actions to improve his lot are futile in a corrupt bureaucratic, impersonal atmosphere). See Kafka.

5) Character learns that all actions (himself, society, planet, etc.) in the face of the universe which is at best indifferent, at worst bent on your destruction. (See Lovecraft)

Hopefully, it's clear how Lovecraft one-ups Kafka from just the society level to the universe. We are all doomed because the universe hates us. Kafka probably wouldn't believe in a perfect government due to it being run by people. Lovecraft says life sucks because the basic nature of the universe is carnivorous. This type of plot seems to be a popular one among contemporary writers.

How healthy can this be? It's interesting that both Lovecraft and Kafka died from problems involving the food tube. On the other hand, some lap this up for supper. If for some readers a steady diet of these tales would lead to depression, what stirs these people to get out of bed in the morning? Surely, that would be a provocative study. 

This isn't to say that only one type should be read or should not be read, but perhaps a balance might be struck. However, an unbiased scientific study might find the opposite--only the doom of the universe produces the psychologically resilient--or conversely, only #1 produces healthy, productive humans. 

Moreover, there's nothing definitive about the above categories. They are meant to spur thought, not to circumscribe it. After all, one can go about subverting the above types and create new sub-categories--something that, no doubt, has already been done.

On the other hand, it's possible that a scientific study, which has the possibility of bias, might select only one type as healthy and allow readers to band together to drum out other types.