Horror Writing

Things I've Noticed About Horror Tropes

Kia Orion | | 9 min read

Some observations about horror tropes, after reading too many haunted house novels and watching the same characters walk into basements they shouldn't.

The haunted house story lives or dies on whether the house has agency. Shirley Jackson understood this. Hill House doesn't just sit there waiting for someone to find a scary room. It rearranges itself. It chooses who to work on. Most haunted house novels treat the building like a stage set, a place where scary things happen to occur. Jackson treated it like a character with preferences.


Writers use the "don't split up" trope because isolation is the fastest way to remove a character's safety net. I get it. But every time I read a scene where four people decide to search a dark building in four different directions, I can feel the author's hand on the wheel, and it pulls me out. The better version is when the group gets separated against their will. That's scarier anyway, because now the environment is doing the work.


I think the scariest sentence structure in horror is the short declarative that follows a long, winding description of atmosphere. You spend three paragraphs on the quality of light in a room, the dust on the windowsill, the particular silence of a house at 3 a.m., and then: "Someone was sitting in the chair." Jump scares don't translate to prose. But the sudden intrusion of a fact into a mood translates perfectly.


The ancient evil that awakens after a thousand years almost never works. The problem is motive. A creature that's been sleeping since the Crusades wakes up and, what, wants to eat a suburb? The best horror villains have comprehensible desires, even if those desires are monstrous. You can't build suspense around something that has no logic the reader can track.


Stephen King wrote in Danse Macabre that horror fiction is "an invitation to indulge in deviant, antisocial behavior by proxy, to commit gratuitous acts of violence, to discover our most unspeakable desires." I think the more interesting version of his argument is simpler: horror lets you rehearse the things you're afraid of in safe conditions. You practice being terrified. You practice surviving it.


The final girl trope gets talked about like it's a formula, but in its best versions it's actually about competence under pressure. The one who survives pays attention.


Horror and comedy work together because tonal contrast sharpens both edges. An American Werewolf in London is funnier because it's genuinely frightening, and it's more frightening because you were just laughing. Get Out does the same thing with social comedy. The moments where you're smiling at the awkwardness make the moments where you're not smiling so much worse.


Familiar settings are almost always scarier than remote ones. A cabin in the woods is scary in theory, but a suburban kitchen where something is slightly wrong, where the light is a little too yellow and there's a smell you can't place, that stays with you longer. The contrast between normal and wrong is what creates dread, and you need the normal to be truly normal for the wrong to register.

One short writing reflection in your inbox every morning. Quotes from literary masters, an original reflection, and a prompt to get you writing.

Free. Every morning. Unsubscribe anytime.


I'm not sure whether the twist ending has ever improved a horror novel. I can think of twist endings I've enjoyed, but in almost every case the twist undercuts the dread the book spent two hundred pages building. You were scared of something real, and then the author tells you actually it was something else, and now you have to renegotiate your fear in the last ten pages. It rarely works. The best horror endings don't twist. They close.


The monster-as-metaphor trend is interesting because it works exactly until the reader becomes more aware of the metaphor than the monster. The Babadook is grief. Get Out is racism. It Follows is, depending on who you ask, about STIs or death or the inescapability of consequence. When the metaphor rides underneath the surface, it gives the horror weight. When it climbs on top, you're watching a thesis statement with teeth.


Slow burns ask more of readers. They require trust that the author is building toward something, that the accumulation of small wrong details will pay off. Fast scares are generous in a different way, they give you what you came for immediately and keep giving it. I've noticed that the horror I remember longest is almost always slow burn, but the horror I recommend to people who don't read much horror is almost always fast.


One thing that never gets old: the moment a character realizes they are not alone. I've read it a hundred times. It still works. There's something about the gap between "I am alone" and "I am not alone" that the human brain can't get comfortable with, no matter how many times it encounters the transition.


Domestic horror works because the threat is coming from inside the structure that's supposed to protect you. Your house. Your family. Your parent. The thing you trusted was the thing you should have been afraid of all along. That's the engine underneath domestic horror: not the invasion of something foreign but the revelation that the threat was already inside the structure that was supposed to protect you.


When a monster has rules it follows, the reader can participate in the suspense. Vampires can't enter without an invitation. The creature hunts by sound. Sunlight kills it. These constraints turn the reader into a strategist: they're tracking what's possible, what's safe, what the characters should try next. When the monster has no rules at all, the reader just watches things happen to people. That's less frightening and more just bleak.


Richard Matheson's I Am Legend works because the horror comes from routine. Neville boards up his house every day. He checks the garlic. He endures the night. The repetition is what makes it unbearable, not any single attack, but the knowledge that this is just what life is now, that tomorrow will be the same. Most horror is about a crisis. Matheson wrote horror about a commute.


Genre readers come with expectations, and trying to subvert those expectations can work once or twice but then the subversion becomes its own expectation and you're caught in a loop where the reader is expecting you to do the unexpected, which means the most surprising thing you can do is play it straight, which means the most subversive horror novel you could write right now might just be a really good haunted house story where the house is actually haunted and the ghost is actually a ghost.


If you write horror, or want to, the daily practice of putting words down is where you learn which tropes are yours. Not which ones are popular. Which ones actually scare you when you write them. That distinction matters more than any craft book will tell you, because the tropes that scare the writer are the ones that tend to scare the reader. Everything else is just set dressing.

Want one of these observations in your inbox every morning? The Writer's Daily Practice sends a free daily reflection for writers.

Free. Every morning. Unsubscribe anytime.

K

Kia Orion

Author of The Writer's Daily Practice, the #1 Bestselling book in Journal Writing and Writing Skills. He writes a free daily reflection for writers.

Keep reading

Stop staring at the blank page. Start writing with purpose.

A free daily reflection delivered to writers every morning. Quotes from literary masters, an original reflection, and a prompt to get you writing.

Join 1,000+ writers. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.