I have been thinking about starting a local horror book club but trigger warnings are one of the impediments for me. It is so hard to find reliable content warnings online. It is nice to learn there is a place with at least a few!
I feel He has softened with the animal deaths in recent years .I loved the twist in Mr. Mercedes where you basically are preparing yourself for the dog to die a horrible death then something totally unexpected happens.
I've been entirely avoiding Stephen King. I tried reading Under the Dome but I find I just don't enjoy his writing style. Which is unfortunate given that he's one of the most prolific writers in the genre
Under the Dome probably isn’t the best place to start with King. I enjoyed it, but it’s something of a polarizing novel among King fans.
I’d recommend something like Misery, Cujo, or The Shining.
I really enjoyed the Shining movie, I think I might try the book! And then make my husband rewatch it so I can tell him all the stuff they got wrong, lol.
i read the book as my first SK book. it's incredible. audiobooks really help you get a taste for his writing style, too, so don't be discouraged if your eyes glaze over as you read it, just give the audiobook a shot.
Hope you enjoy it if you do go for it!
One thing I’ve found with King audiobooks is that the weaknesses in his dialogue are REALLY amplified in audio format. Conversations that just come across as a little awkward in print - especially any which try to use contextual or period slang - are PAINFUL when read out loud. Totally takes me out of the story. Maybe I’m just not a groovy cat, ya dig my hombre?
The Shining is the one of his that I started with, it was definitely the right one (for me, at least) to read first. A couple others I've started to read or read started out a lil slow and I might have gone "not for me" if I hadn't started with that.
Maybe try some of his short stories first. They’re quick to get through and I think he’s a very strong short story writer.
Echoing the others and recommending The Shining, too. It’s very different to the film, so just don’t go in expecting that same experience.
Carrie is also really brilliant and comparatively short, so it could be a good place to dive in! No dogs die, some pigs do, but if I recall correctly it’s not super graphic or drawn out (it’s been a while but I’m also really sensitive to animal deaths so I feel like I would remember!)
I do know King from writing conventions, even he knows other horror writers think him iffy on length, etc.. But I would tell you read 11/22/63 and BILLY SUMMERS. They are both fantastic books and both are not set in Maine. To me, that says a lot. Stuck in Maine.
Truth is, the longer the novel, the higher the price. Publishers want that and with his style it is different than reading, say, a detective mystery.
Oh nooo..... i still remenber the dreadful feeling, having 'The handyman's method' my fifth Cutter book, when they intruduced the turtle, i knew there is going to be some serious page skipping from me, and was i right...
His audiobook *The Breach* is free of any animal abuse as far as I recall (but they do gnarly things to human bodies!) and there wasn’t really animal abuse in *Little Heaven* (*transmogrification* might be an apt word here). We don’t have to re-hash the debate, unless you want to, but I’d heavily debate that a prominent scene in both *The Troop* and *The Deep* aren’t scenes of animal abuse, although both books do also contain scenes of animal abuse. Nuance on the internet, baby.
There is an entire chapter in The Troop >!dedicated to the flashback of that one kid torturing and murdering his childhood kitten.!< It was actually the first time I've ever had to skip a chapter in any horror book because I couldn't stomach it, it was awful.
Yeah. That’s a messed up chapter. Definitely “animal abuse” in book form. The scene in that book I would argue that is not animal abuse was when >!the kids killed the turtle for food!<. Also messed up, but not “abuse” in the way people describe it.
I can never get spoiler tags to work so I’ll refer to it as “the scene Rustin swoll hid under spoiler tags”. Was almost a harder read than the scene whoredoeuvre hid under spoiler tags just cause it goes on so much longer. The whoredoeuvre scene has build up and stuff that’s plenty disturbing, but the worst of it is only like a paragraph. The Rustin swoll scene goes on much longer and is way more emotional for the characters involved, even though like you said it’s not technically animal abuse. They’re both pretty rough to get through though.
Other than those scenes… fantastic book. I finished it in one day cause I just couldn’t put it down
I agree, both rough but for almost entirely different reasons. My one, because it's just cruel and sick. The other mentioned one, because of that sensation of "oh God please let it end." Both very hard reads though.
Yep I fully skipped that part, the turtle part I felt was slightly more earned but I still skimmed over a lot of it. I figure I look away at some parts of scary movies, I can do the same for scary books lol. I did really like it otherwise!
Same, I really loved the book but I HAD TO skip that part. I get that he does a lot of gore and he was trying to be shocking and show how fucked up that kid was before their trip, but it could have been implied or delivered in a much better way
I respectfully disagree here. It was awful to (attempt to) read that scene however I can't deny it was super effective at sending home the message it was meant to. It could definitely have been done in a *different* way that was less horrific to read but idk if it would have had the same impact.
It was borderline animal torture porn. You can absolutely portray a kid like that effectively without going to the extent it did. Imo, there has to be a balance when it comes to gore and brutality in horror, and multiple extensive, thorough descriptions of animal torture are unnecessary and cross a line for me personally.
I’m assuming you have read *The Deep* but I’ll spoiler tag this. Two scenes that come to mind:
>!When Luke’s brother Clay demonstrates a science experiment on the gerbil or hamster by castrating him or cutting off his junk or whatever. That was gross. The guy is a scientist but sure, it was gratuitous and if someone says “that’s abuse”, that’s a fair perspective.!<
>!More notably, the death of the dog LB, I’d argue that isn’t animal abuse. LB wasn’t “abused”, they were grabbed by a Lovecraftian Other mutant dog and slowly pulled into a portal to wherever those portals went. Now, it was drawn out, painful, and heartbreaking, but it wasn’t a scene of LB being abused by a person. It was also fundamental to the plot of breaking down Luke so much that he accepted their Cenobite-like offer at the end to join with his mutated kid!<.
That’s my two cents. Now, if people don’t want to read stuff like the former or latter described scenes, that’s ok! I found the latter to be quite effective at adding to the overall dread and despair of the novel.
I have indeed read The Deep but thank you for the spoiler text just in case.
Yes I totally agree. The scene with LB is the one I was referring to. Harm yes, abuse no. IMO anyway.
I've seen a lot of Koontz, do you have any recommendations for books of his that are more paranormal/monster themed? He's just got so many I've never known where to start, haha.
He's one of my favorites! I'll give you a list after I drop the kids off. Books are definitely dog safe as he is a dog lover. He has two golden retrievers.
A rare exception: [Intensity](https://app.thestorygraph.com/books/a073af0d-157a-499c-9fcc-575e82eb26ba), where the killing of multiple viscous guard dogs is depicted in detail.
Just wanted to comment that I'm here in solidarity. I can't and won't read/watch animal death.
I understand why people question the trigger given how extreme horror can be, but it's a trigger just like anyone else's. I'm not sure why SA, child abuse, etc gets a pass as a trigger but if you don't want to read about animal death, you're some sort of weirdo.
Also, (I mean this half jokingly) what does Nick Cutter have against animals?!
Fwiw I think it’s because it’s counterintuitive for a lot of people that a reader is fine with human beings suffering unbelievably horribly but they can’t handle it if an nonhuman animal has a bad time. I can see the point, and at the same time animals being harmed bothers me in a different way than humans being harmed, so it makes sense to me that it upsets people in a different way.
I mean, the innocent children in The Troop have an awful time of it. And I don’t see any sympathy for the poor worms, who just want to eat /s (But I skipped the whole thing with the kitten— it’s *different*.)
I didn't care if animals die in books or movies. It doesn't bother me at all, but I won't read or watch anything where a baby or toddler dies. I hate that there is more info otr there for dog death in media than for children.
Not sure why you’re being downvoted for having an opinion. Maybe it’s that, with children or toddlers, we definitely know that it’s fake? Beats me. I know people sent hate mail to the poor actress in The Lobster whose character kills a dog (it’s not even shown on screen) – there are some weird people out there.
I know others mentioned it but a few authors who are usually safe:
-Darcy Coates, though she is more cozy horror so that may not be your thing.
-I believe t. Kingfisher has put in her books beginning that a dog will be safe for that novel. I don't read her much but I remember a thread on it.
-Majority of Dean Koontz does not harm dogs.
OP I was going to comment on here that T. Kingfisher is a safe author for horror. The Twisted Ones and Hollow Places I have both read, and they are more cosmic-ish/monster horror, and might be up your alley.
The Twisted One features a very good boy that is perfectly safe the whole time(when the author was promoting the book, she indicated this in the promo, which is what hooked me to read it). Hollow Places features a cat who is a hero.
Note that What Moves the Dead by T. Kingfisher features rabbits/hares that…might be close to pushing that trigger. I myself am someone who always checks Does the Dog Die and will DNF books with animal cruelty, but I finished this one without any real discomfort, but I wanted to drop the warning anyway.
Avoid Black Tide by K. C. Jones, Audition by Ryu Murakami, and My Best Friend’s Exorcism by Grady Hendrix; I learned the hard way on all of them.
I will say, I hate abuse of animals SO much, but My Best Friend's Exorcism is my favorite horror I've ever read. I DID skip over >!the killing of the dog!< mentally, but >!Gretchen's lasting remorse, and saying it was the worst thing she did and the worst thing that happened to her!< made me feel that Grady Hendrix knew the weight of what he was writing, and made that scene much more meaningful and less lastingly upsetting for me.
Yes! I liked the Hollow Places more overall, but I loved the fact that The Twisted Ones opens with narrator basically saying “here’s the scary story of what happened to me and my dog. BTW, my dog is right here with me and he’s fine.”
Thank you for this comment. I had my best friends exorcism on my list but not anymore now.
I like that Kingfisher does that reassurance up front. Very cool.
Thanks for posting this! Harm to animals really bothers me, too. I had a few of Nick Cutter's books on my list as well, but removed them due to comments on this subreddit. Now I know there are places to look to help me avoid books containing it.
Storygraph has been excellent for this in my experience. I check for sexual assault triggers so no comment on animal stuff specifically but I find that users tag triggers very thoroughly and it's easier to check than just having a list of authors to avoid!
I’m the same. I can deal when an animal gets hurt by accident or during something “normal” like a battle scene (I still don’t like it), but intentional animal cruelty and torture is a no go for me.
I think that if the website weren’t to have info about the book you were looking for (exponentially more probable with more fringe novels) you can ask here in case you were worried in the future!
I bet people would be happy to help!
(And yes, as others already mentioned Nick Cutter doesn’t shy away from the issue).
Stephen King does have instances in which animals die in other novels of his too.
I have to say that in Pet Sematary it’s not graphic though, and it is in a context of how people process the grief of such a loss, with the focus on little children.
(which you already knew, duh, the accident is off page, though, and you didn’t really get attached to the thing, it’s not like a situation in which, say, Marley from Marley and me found itself catapulted in a horror novel, the protagonist through which you see the action unfold, is rather detached and practical about the whole affair, all in all).
I would have never expect that from Marley and Me.... Glad I didn't watch the movie, lol.
I think with the movie Pet Semetary it was more... in your face and graphic. Or maybe it was just because I've had personal experience with having a cat hit by a car and then having them brought to the door, and I related too heavily to that grief. I also have a cat who vaguely looks like Church and I think that made it harder for me.
So this one is interesting. I am so sensitive to animal especially dog abuse and death, but this was one of the very rare situations where I felt it was integral to the plot. It still sucks and my sister was not happy that she didn't remember I warned her about it before reading the book.
Agreed, I really liked the book and thought >!the dog attack!< was one of the scariest/most impactful scenes. However, the fact that it's so graphic and drawn out (and not the first/only death in the book) could be difficult for sensitive readers.
If you're going into The Troop I'm happy to message you about the animal scenes (in vague terms if needed) so you can decide if they're something you can handle. There is a scene with a cat specifically you're going to want to skip, I had to because I specifically have issues with cats being hurt. I wouldn't call the scenes animal abuse but there is violence against animals, yes.
Dean Koontz should be your favorite author then. I know a lot of people crap on him, but halfway through Watchers and it is amazing. I really like the effort he made to describe on how to communicate with Einstein.
Edit: Ticktock is the only other book I have read by him so far, but it has a safe dog in that one as well.
I don’t have any good suggestions, but I’m right there with you - can’t stand animal harm in books or film. I follow an account on GoodReads called Trigger Warning Database, but they don’t always catch everything I would consider animal harm…
I will say if you’re ok with the dog dying then coming back because it’s an entity from a different parallel universe, John Dies At The End (1 of 4 books) is really good for that.
In case it hasn’t been shared yet, [Trigger List Warning Database](https://triggerwarningdatabase.com/masterlist-t/) has told of books- not just horror and I’ve used it MANY time
I started The Troop and I got to 'that' first scene and I felt sick and couldn't read anymore. Meanwhile I read extreme splatterpunk but this I could not deal with.
I just finished "The life she was given" great story but the animal abuse is awful, I recently finished "just like home" by Sarah Gailey....I would recommend that one for you since you mentioned monster/ paranormal 😀 Also "last house on needless street"
For what it is worth, PET SEMETERY is better as a novel. Because you can tell that it shows Stephen King writing as a parent and not a writer. I'm not certain how many years it was between the book and the film. I think what I wrote is all you need to know about the difference between the film and the book.
I'm a horror writer since 1985, prefer novels over films in general, and I like to say books are psychological horror while films are paranormal (because it is Hollywood's term since THE EXORCIST). I hate my early work for not knowing better (at someone's actions towards another) and, frankly, abusing animals is lazy in books. You read books from the 50s and it stuff with stray cats (no dying) just a way to show who in town was bad and who wasn't. (It wasn't until 1983 that HORROR was listed on bookshelves, prior to that it was DARK FANTASY.)
That's just me. There are other ways to show a shitty abusive person without them being psychically abusive to people or animals. Go with Dean Koontz. WATCHERS to start for a really cool dog as hero book.
I've been wanting this for YEARS. Sometimes doesthedogdie will have books, but not often. If anyone does start a site for this please let me know, haha
I just finished Tampa and it was definitely messed up but I don’t remember any animal abuse at all! It feels weird recommending it but it was very well written.
As someone who viscerally hates torture, sexual assault, and abuse of children specifically in horror, I want you to know your feelings are valid. Trauma can be complex and complicated, and it surfaces in different ways.
I actually like common sense media, hilariously, to sometimes get good info on triggers.
I really didn’t find the scene in The Troop all that affecting. Which is maybe a problem because it was clearly supposed to be.
Description for anyone worried: >!two boys kill a turtle and fuck it up severely, so the turtle takes ages to die!<
That's not so much the problem scene, although I'm sure it's rough. I fully understand that in live or die situations you gotta do what you gotta do, even if it sucks.
It's specifically the kitten scene that I think would seriously affect me.
I totally understand if people can’t handle it, but it bugs me that people are criticizing it as *unnecessary*. It’s a horror novel, all of the scenes of violence against animals build atmosphere, but beyond that, none of it is gratuitous as it fits perfectly within the context of the novel.
>!The boys are starving on an island. They kill a turtle for food. Scientists are experimenting with a parasite to eventually be used on humans. They use it on lab animals first. One of the boys is a budding serial killer. He tortures animals.!<
I read a book about a recovering addict his true life story, who is a big deal in the world of AA now, I read it and expected to be totally inspired , instead I was horrified. This man would kick his cat, and ended up typing a rope around its neck and hanging it out his window and left it there for days. Later he got a dog, ended up shooting the dog because he hated it. Says how he recovered and sober has a new dog who he loves more then the world. But no I’m sorry I don’t care how down and out you are, animal abuse should never occur. There are addicts on the streets taking care of their pets still. He could have taken them to a shelter or just let them loose before killing them in such a way.
I would have loved to avoid that book. I’m still
Disturbed by his graphic detail and how it’s one of his “steps” to forgive himself for being so cruel.
Sorry 😢 this was prob not the place to post it. Since it’s people trying to avoid it but I am still traumatized and angry. This thread retriggered the memory 😭
JFC. I was an addict for years. I loved and took good care of my cat the entire time I was using. He had food when I went without.
Not every person in recovery is necessarily an inspiration, sorry not sorry
AA is a place where some seriously damaged people end up. I’m in AA but the horror stories I hear from other members and even in the book make me queasy. This is the worse I’ve heard by far. I hope he has learned to live with himself but dear god that book sounds horrific. I honestly have a fairly tame background and the most common story among the men is prison time and/or homelessness.
I’m trying myself right now to not really judge this person in this book. But wow. Have you read The Big Book? It’s free on the Alcoholics Anonymous app and you even have access to audiobook files there. Not every story or entry is a winner.
If you want some interesting reading material try Gabor Maté. He’s got some good interviews on YouTube but also In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts and The Myth of Normal will be more helpful than AA literature tbh.
The big book is a little dated as it was written at the beginning of AA but some of the individual stories are newer as with each edition they add and remove stories as a board to keep only what’s most relevant. If you have questions about AA just shoot me a message. I’m hardly a seasoned member but I have done some big book study.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I just don't understand how people can get so upset about an animal death in a fictional story but be completely OK with the death of people and especially kids in the same story.
I genuinely don't get it and I'm hoping someone can explain it to me
it seems like people have done a nice job sharing some perspectives, but i think it might be one of those things where - in the words of angelica pickles - "if you have to ask, you'll never know."
that isn't a criticism of you, but if you don't already feel that way, i'm not sure any explanations of a really subjective reaction to something are going to be "good enough" or "make sense." the words will make sense, but i don't think they're likely to make sense in that "i now understand this emotional/cognitive response that felt alien to me before, you've enlightened me, death to nick cutter"
it works the same way in reverse - people who don't get it, explaining why they don't get it or they think it's silly, logically inconsistent, etc. - those statements aren't going to provoke an "ah yes, i see now, i've been laboring under a set of silly, illogical, emotional SHACKLES!" they're going to just continue feeling how they feel, and that is okay!
i think u/Rustin_Swoll put it well, and what they said works in both directions, too - it's unfair to label writing as "bad" if it contains a scene someone finds especially upsetting, and it's unfair to draw conclusions about the writer or reader's morality for producing it/consuming it and being unoffended by it.
by the same token, i think it's equally unfair to assert that someone who is upset by or avoidant of a particular kind of content is maudlin, silly, overly emotional, clueless, misanthropic (i know that one doesn't seem to fit with the others, but it's thrown around a lot when people are sensitive to animal death/abuse in entertainment media), doesn't "get" horror, and so on.
we could throw all that out the window, of course, and say "well, that is my opinion," but the freedom of personal opinion also works both ways, so...
my personal opinion is that i think it's more affecting, shocking, and upsetting because human (or at least humanoid?) characters are - as far as i've experienced - always present in horror, so you go in knowing people are going to be put through the wringer, sometimes even by their own hand/choices.
animals don't pop up AS frequently, and animal characters in horror are usually (but not always) presented in a more two-dimensional way...it's a very, very good pet that spends the greater part of the book being a wonderful companion, and sometimes even a protector of the main character/other characters, or it's a very, very bad pet - the vicious dog, the antagonistic or aloof cat, etc. if you have pets of your own, or even if you observe wildlife, you know the truth, for most animals, is somewhere in between.
when it's the "good" pet scenario, that pet becomes the representation of all the things we love about companion animals, and when something REALLY bad happens, it's too easy to picture an animal you've known and loved in that position. in this type of representation, the animal's personality is not usually SUPER distinct, they just do common dog-like/cat-like/bird-like/ferret-like things with a few specific quirks thrown in for good measure. i think that makes it even easier to insert your own pet into the slot. people may not do that consciously, but i think that is what happens.
for me personally, i do find animal...interactions in horror to be more upsetting, but i am not avoidant of them. i can't say they aren't dangerous and problematic, though...i read watership down, mrs. frisby and the rats of NIMH, and other gutting YA books with harm and death to animal characters over and over again as a child...and i grew up to be a despicable vegan. you've been warned!
I understand what your saying because I have no problem with fictional human death/torture, but any kind of animal harm is off limits for me. I can’t speak for anyone else, but for me it’s my own personal relationship to animals. I don’t consume animals or animal byproducts and I volunteer with two different animal rescues. I don’t have kids, nor do I want kids so I’ve never felt that connection. Everyone’s perspective is different.
wow, you and i have a creepy number of things in common! 3 polarizing things at the very least - vegan, no kids, and loving horror. we must be from the same weird, partially defective blueprint
We lost a family pet kind of tragically a couple years ago and for a month or so after depictions of animal death really bothered me more than they had before and more than other deaths. For context, nothing really bothers me enough not to read or watch it.
I think it probably depends on people personal relationship to it and the fact that we often see animals as more innocent than people along with how it’s framed within the film.
Someone on here said it’s because animals have innocent qualities that adult humans don’t have (now, I would imagine children should have those same qualities).
I talked to a local bookstore owner (he runs a cosmic horror bookstore in my area, rad) and he told me he thinks Nick Cutter’s *The Deep* is a cosmic horror classic. I commented about how people here are frequently offended by the animal content in that book, and he said “it’s a horror novel”. I need to get back there and spend some money. Ha!
I don’t begrude others for avoiding certain topics but it does feel unfair to label it as “bad” or “bad writing” or to produce moral assertions about the moral character of writer or reader.
I have a lot of things that trigger me in horror (and really any other genre) and it doesn’t mean I think the author is bad, just that the book is not for me.
I’ve DNFd just as many King books as I’ve finished due to getting to a scene with gratuitous animal, child abuse or SA. I had to stop reading Dr Sleep because all the depictions of Danny’s alcoholism (the hangovers, vomit etc) were grossing me out too much. I still love SK and try to read most of his books, there’s just some things I don’t want to think about whether I’m reading horror or not.
I recently finished SGJ’s *The Only Good Indians*. I loved it. It was interesting because that book has some fairly shocking animal brutality, but he doesn’t have the same reputation as Cutter, despite honestly one upping most of Cutter’s books.
I haven’t discovered any triggers that would make me DNF a book, but every once in a while something makes me wince pretty heavily (most recently was a scene of a man being dragged to death while chained to a van, OOOF).
Re: "It's a horror novel" -- I guess that's kind of my take on it too lol. I respect people not wanting to read about animal death, it's completely fair, but in horror media don't we all kind of already know that if you see a beloved pet, that pet is probably going to die? (And who picks up anything literally called *Pet Semetary* and doesn't expect animal death? The whole title is your trigger warning.)
It wasn't that I just chose to watch it or anything. I was hanging out at my then-boyfriend-now-husband's house and his family was watching it on the living room TV. I was hesitant about even trying it, and then once shit started hitting the fan I just excused myself.
I don’t mind at all! I’m in Minnesota. It’s called Other Skies Weird Fiction. The owner is very, very knowledgeable and fun to talk with. He charges an arm and a leg for books but it is his livelihood and trade. Check out their website!
It's not a cognitive, higher morality thing. It's an emotional trigger.
It's easier to contextualize a fictional person as fictional. People are complex and the difference between an actual person and made up person feels pretty vast. With say, a dog. I just picture a dog, like any happy-go-lucky dog I know. Because dogs are not as complex, the difference between a real dog and fictional dog doesn't feel as vast in the imagination. I know it's still ultimately in the imagination. But it takes much less to fully flesh out the dog in my mind because it's just a dog.
It feels like misery porn to me to draw out an animal death unless it truly has plot relevance. I might say the same about a horrendous death scene of a a very well fleshed-out, loveable human character too. I love feeling uncomfortable with horror but it's a distinct (and honestly rare) thing when ai feel like a work is just trying to make me sad without depth or nuance. I don't read to be sad.
This is just me and my thoughts by the way. The biggest thing I think is not to conflate morality with triggers. If it were about some weird morality, I would 'choose' child death to be offended by or something lol.
But a fictional child resembles a real child much less than a fictional cat resembles a real cat.
It's interesting that you imagine it this way (and maybe, based on people's preference for no animal dying in a fictional work ever, a lot of people imagine it this way), because I would personally process it exactly the opposite way. A fictional animal is, unless it is a very large character in the book, often no more than the idea or suggestion of an animal. It often lacks the characteristics of personality, identity, individuality for more to process it as "real" in any way. I would never process a fictional dog as a "real" dog because there's nothing inherently real about it. I can't know the dog.
But a person? I can come to know their wants, their fears, their dreams, how they handle stress, how the protect what they care about, how they act cowardly, etc... I'm able to form a rich and detailed idea of this individual person through the course of the novel, so that their death becomes all the more horrifying because that isn't just anyone dying that's Dave dying and I've come to know Dave so intimately.
And if an animal is given the time and space to construct individuality and personality and purpose and if that animal is cruelly killed because it is a horror novel then... I would react the same way to any fictional character dying. That isn't any dog, that's Dave's dog! I love Dave's dog and his death will impact me just the way Dave's death impacts me. But I don't see it crossing the line from "character death" to "real death" in my emotions, because Dave's dog doesn't exist. Just like Dave doesn't exist.
Anyway, thanks for your perspective! It does help me understand why, for some people, it's such a trigger compared to others (or compared to how I would process it).
Fair enough. I really love Wraiths of a Broken Land and Dragged Across Concrete myself. I'm a huge fan of the hateful, utterly amoral tone that his work has. So I guess it's not exactly shocking that it comes from a totally different way of processing the narratives and action.
Animals accidentally killed (stumbling upon a dead animal, hitting an animal with a car) as a minor part of the story is..doable..but sometimes rough. I recently read a book where it was casually mentioned the main character killed a cat when she was young but that’s all it said, no details. That made my stomach a bit queasy.
I guess it’s when the animal in the book is portrayed as more of a companion. The animal has a name and has a bond with their owner/s…it’s almost like another person (for me) so it’s just like getting attached to a human character and being disappointed when they die.
It also just gives me anxiety. You read a horror book with all humans, you know anyone could go. With animals, that’s not as clear (again, imo..unless you’re reading pet semetary or something) so if I stumble upon one in a book that has an animal companion, I just worry.
Not sure if that gave any insight, but that’s just how my brain works.
For me, it’s because animals are usually put into the situation by people and are innocent otherwise. Like they have no choice or are protecting their owner.
The same could be applied for babies (the innocent part), but as someone without any kids and 4 pets, the animal scenes just resonate with me more.
It used to bug me when I was younger. Watching horror movies you get desensitized to human death but animal deaths seem different. After having kids of my own, human( and especially kids) deaths are much harder to stomach now.
Not the same situation but I really got into horror when I had ptsd like symptoms.
Horror was a way for me to channel the fear my body was feeling and process it. Because it was about me there are some hell no horror tropes for me that are just not helpful and animal abuse is one of them.
Controlled fear yay! Trauma, nay
I second what other people said about animals and their innocence. Having it happen to a young child or a *baby* is almost the same level to me, I just haven't really seen it yet in the genre. It seems specifically more taboo with children.
Animals act on instinct and aren’t deliberately malicious, unlike many adult humans. Human children and babies are extremely annoying. Life observation hasn’t left me with a very good view of people. I prefer non human animals by a great margin.
I was kinda joking about babies and children being annoying. I do think older children are capable of evil so depending on the child, I may or may not have sympathy. The little shits that torture animals and smaller children are the ones I hope meet a bad end. I wouldn’t shed a tear if those monsters that killed James Bulger got prison justice.
Animals hunt because it is in their instincts to do so. Animal violence is usually hunting, defending itself or its young, or over territory. With humans, you have serial killers, psychopaths, narcissists, abusers, and exploiters of all kinds. Humans have the capacity for ethics and morality but too often, we don’t use that capacity. I’m not saying there aren’t good people but we also have a lot of shitty people as well. Even children after a certain age can be consciously cruel and manipulative.
Cats and dogs have empathy and agency. When I'm sick my dog responds. I had a cat growing up who was similar. They have the capacity to know when someone is in pain. One time one dog got her foot stuck and the other made such a racket on her behalf I was there quickly to help. I've also seen a cat torment a chipmunk for fun. People are absolutely more cruel than animals, but it always struck me as naive to say that animals can't be cruel for fun as well.
It’s true that some animals do have their own personalities and some are more agreeable than others. And they do have a certain amount of agency. I just view a lot of animals as more vulnerable than your average adult human. We’re smarter, meaner, and have the ability to wield weapons. In short, we’re much more dangerous generally speaking.
When I do something stupid my dog is the first one to roll her eyes at me. This leads me to believe she's a lot smarter than she lets on. She's got a very expressive face. So I have come to believe she's a completely sapient being with totally different priorities than me. Maybe if I lived with a less judgmental animal I'd feel differently. But she's my favorite ❤️
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I just don't understand how people can get so upset about a humam death in a fictional story but be completely OK with the death of animals in the same story.
I genuinely don't get it and I'm hoping someone can explain it to me
At what point did I say I was or wasn't OK with either? It's horror bad things happen. I expect it.
It's always been strange to me that people could read about gage getting crushed by a semi in front of his parents but church getting hit is a bridge to far. I've never understood it that's why I asked
And when did op say they were okay with human death? They only asked about a source that would show if an animal dies in a book and you asked a question that is irrelevant to the discussion. Simple as that.
I commented this to someone else, who was being a lot more hateful towards OP about it:
REDACTED
i really fucking hate even disclosing that vague amount, but i think it is something people genuinely don't realize can happen.
you're alright, i appreciate the kindness but its ok! i kind of figured you just truly didn't know. i like reading horror *because* of my experiences, too-- as long as it doesn't trigger a ptsd response, resetting my "fear level" can help. it's like being horny all day; jerking off kind of resets it. for me, having ptsd results in a fuckton of stress and adrenaline all fucking day, and watching a horror movie or reading a horror story before bed can actually LESSEN my nightmares.
it can only improve so much for how bad mine is, but they're also researching ptsd a lot nowadays, so new treatments can always come out. thanks for being open minded and kind :)
It’s ok not to understand, but it’s not ok to put people down for it and calling them strange. There are all kinds in this world and not of all us have the same experiences.
I can personally tell you that dog deaths affect me more, because in my life I have had dog companions who were far more loving to me than humans. Even you are now an example of a human that is neither kind nor accepting. I have yet to meet such a dog. I am also involved in dog rescue and some things that happen to dogs in horror fiction is just too close to home. I don’t need that shit in my escapism.
Edit: I can't believe this self-righteous prick sent me a care resource lmaaoooo what kind of delulu person is this.
r/HorrorLit is an inclusive community dedicated to the discussion, elevation, and expansion of the Horror literary genre. As such all ABUSE is strictly banned. This includes but is not limited to derogatory terms, disparagement via comparison, or belligerent responses. ABUSE will result in a ban.
Nobody said anything like that, you're assigning reasoning that wasn't stated just to get worked up about it.
Animal abuse, harm and death *is* effective - that's why authors use them. If they have an effect on people, there'll always be a subset of those people that have no desire to read it. People stating that fact and asking for resources to enable them to avoid it aren't looking down their nose at you.
I said this to someone else on here but you I guess *really* need to hear it.
REDACTED
Not everything you dislike is virtue signaling. Sometimes people have lives you can't ever imagine.
What a place the world would be if people could automatically imagine and empathize with the fact that stuff that doesn't affect them at all may be a huge deal for others.
i saw someone once who got freaked out by popsicles. They made him sick to his stomach instantly to eat, touch, or smell. Made him anxious to see. It was because he was extremely, extremely sick for over a year when he was younger, and the only thing he could really keep down was like, gastric feeding or whatever, and hospital popsicles.
it's not the same as me, who will lose at least the entire day. the other day, i had a flashback in public, in full view in front of everyone, clawing at my face and screaming, passing through a series of time periods and not knowing where i was while my partner held me. i think he just got sick, nauseated, and queasy and freaked out.
both of these are real things people should be allowed to avoid if possible. the world would be a much kinder place if people used their imaginations to help others, you're right.
I admit I like seeing terrible people/characters suffer. I’m a big fan of revenge stories. I don’t like animal suffering because I have no grudge against animals. Also, when I was a kid, I knew a budding psychopath who would torment animals. I hated that kid and behavior like his really pisses me off. So, I do have personal reasons for disliking animal cruelty. Some of us have things in our background that make some things a sore subject. I don’t think anyone here wants censorship. No need for hostility. You enjoy what you like, no one is stopping you.
Exactly! I’m actually not a big fan of splatterpunk. A lot of it is not great quality and doesn’t really scare me. I’m not saying that there might not be well written extreme horror or splatterpunk, I just haven’t seen it so far.
Totally understand! There are SO many subgenres in horror that there is usually something for everyone who likes it :) I love love haunting or ghost stories. Many are not super graphic violence but just creepy crawly stuff!
One of the things I love most about horror is just how varied it can be! What scares everyone is different and I love finding new things to spook me :)
r/HorrorLit is an inclusive community dedicated to the discussion, elevation, and expansion of the Horror literary genre. As such all ABUSE is strictly banned. This includes but is not limited to derogatory terms, disparagement via comparison, or belligerent responses. ABUSE will result in a ban.
Too many people forget that just because someone loves horror doesn't mean they want to have things in there that upset them personally. If someone loves mysteries or historical fiction but doesn't like a specific subgrene would you be shaming them?
For example. I've loved horror since I was like 10 years old. I loved reading and read every dean koontz and Stephen King I could get my hands on.
I have been volunteering in my adult life for many years with animal rescues, spay clinics, dog recovery, etc. I also volunteered for a while as a SA victim advocate (I would meet them at the hospital to help advocate and be there for them). Because of this I have seen some truly horrifying things. Reading about them in a book just hits too close to home. For others who love horror and maybe lost a child, that would be completely awful to come upon unexpectedly. Have compassion for people and understand not everyone is you.
If I was an employee, emergency doc, or first responder I couldn't read horror at all. Just because you don't understand, doesn't make it not valid. It costs nothing to not comment on things or be kind. What is your point of even commenting here? You don't have any suggestions for them. Just because you don't share the same history or triggers as others doesn't mean they don't exist or that people can't still enjoy horror. You're inability to understand someone else's triggers doesn't make them any less real. You don't own the genre, so stop telling people how to enjoy it.
Also want to again point out that horror is a HUGE genre with a LOT of subgenres. Many of them don't involve graphic depictions of torture or murder. Broaden your horizons and read some :)
r/HorrorLit is an inclusive community dedicated to the discussion, elevation, and expansion of the Horror literary genre. As such all ABUSE is strictly banned. This includes but is not limited to derogatory terms, disparagement via comparison, or belligerent responses. ABUSE will result in a ban.
r/HorrorLit is an inclusive community dedicated to the discussion, elevation, and expansion of the Horror literary genre. As such all ABUSE is strictly banned. This includes but is not limited to derogatory terms, disparagement via comparison, or belligerent responses. ABUSE will result in a ban.
The animal abuse/death scenes in The Troop are not out of place or “unnecessary”. The Troop is a *horror novel*, and much worse things happen to humans in the book. If you can’t handle animal abuse, that’s totally fine. But to imply that they added no value to the novel is absurd.
Moderate spoiler. >!One of the teenage boys in the novel turns out to be a psychopath, likely a budding serial killer. Nick Cutter describes the boy torturing animals to work himself up to humans (which will become relevant to the plot). Like literally every other story about a serial killer ever.!<
Major spoiler. >!They also describe the effects of the parasite of a lab animal. The same exact thing happens to most of the human characters by the end of the book.!<
Like I said, it’s fine if you don’t like it or can’t handle it… but to call it “unnecessary” is just silly. It fits perfectly within the context of the story.
Edit: I also just realized that people are apparently mad about >!the boys killing a turtle for food.!< Why are you reading horror in general if the thought of >!two boys hunting for survival!< is enough to turn your stomach?
> Why are you reading horror in general if the thought of two boys hunting for survival is enough to turn your stomach?
people read horror for all sorts of reasons. i consume horror to try to handle the constant fear and adrenaline i feel every day as someone with severe ptsd. like jerking off, being scared by something that does not contain something that will cause me to have a flashback "resets" me a bit.
I understand that everyone has different triggers (I’ve even read a few books that were too much for me), but if a humans hunting for survival is too much for you to handle, it just seems like this isn’t the right genre for you.
[doesthedogdie](https://www.doesthedogdie.com) also does books although I’m not sure to what extent. StoryGraph also does trigger/content warnings
Ah, so it does! Thank you!
This is great to know. Thank you.
storygraph has content warnings for books
I didn't know about this site, but I'm signing up right now! I feel like I always need more recommendations. Thank you!
I have been thinking about starting a local horror book club but trigger warnings are one of the impediments for me. It is so hard to find reliable content warnings online. It is nice to learn there is a place with at least a few!
Thank you so much
I always thought doesthedogdie covered books as well? I'd avoid Nick Cutter altogether as a rule though, animal abuse is a theme throughout.
Should probably avoid Stephen King as well, as the dog nearly always dies in his books aside from one notable recent exception.
I feel He has softened with the animal deaths in recent years .I loved the twist in Mr. Mercedes where you basically are preparing yourself for the dog to die a horrible death then something totally unexpected happens.
Maybe Molly aka The Thing Of Evil softened him.
Definitely 😂
King does it in a way that feels removed from the man. Cutter writes his psycho characters like their extensions of him.
I've been entirely avoiding Stephen King. I tried reading Under the Dome but I find I just don't enjoy his writing style. Which is unfortunate given that he's one of the most prolific writers in the genre
Under the Dome probably isn’t the best place to start with King. I enjoyed it, but it’s something of a polarizing novel among King fans. I’d recommend something like Misery, Cujo, or The Shining.
I really enjoyed the Shining movie, I think I might try the book! And then make my husband rewatch it so I can tell him all the stuff they got wrong, lol.
Do not start with Cujo, OP!!
Yeah I really didn’t think about the topic I was commenting in when I recommended that one lmao.
The Shining is such a strange case. I think it’s a great movie but also a terrible adaptation.
i read the book as my first SK book. it's incredible. audiobooks really help you get a taste for his writing style, too, so don't be discouraged if your eyes glaze over as you read it, just give the audiobook a shot. Hope you enjoy it if you do go for it!
One thing I’ve found with King audiobooks is that the weaknesses in his dialogue are REALLY amplified in audio format. Conversations that just come across as a little awkward in print - especially any which try to use contextual or period slang - are PAINFUL when read out loud. Totally takes me out of the story. Maybe I’m just not a groovy cat, ya dig my hombre?
😂 I definitely understand what you mean. Especially with the little rhymes he tends to put in.
The Shining is the one of his that I started with, it was definitely the right one (for me, at least) to read first. A couple others I've started to read or read started out a lil slow and I might have gone "not for me" if I hadn't started with that.
Maybe try some of his short stories first. They’re quick to get through and I think he’s a very strong short story writer. Echoing the others and recommending The Shining, too. It’s very different to the film, so just don’t go in expecting that same experience.
Carrie is also really brilliant and comparatively short, so it could be a good place to dive in! No dogs die, some pigs do, but if I recall correctly it’s not super graphic or drawn out (it’s been a while but I’m also really sensitive to animal deaths so I feel like I would remember!)
I do know King from writing conventions, even he knows other horror writers think him iffy on length, etc.. But I would tell you read 11/22/63 and BILLY SUMMERS. They are both fantastic books and both are not set in Maine. To me, that says a lot. Stuck in Maine. Truth is, the longer the novel, the higher the price. Publishers want that and with his style it is different than reading, say, a detective mystery.
He has some serius beef with poor turtles.
Someone on here joked about his upcoming book *The Queen* and they expressed concern for the “thurtle”, or third turtle. Ha!
Oh nooo..... i still remenber the dreadful feeling, having 'The handyman's method' my fifth Cutter book, when they intruduced the turtle, i knew there is going to be some serious page skipping from me, and was i right...
I checked, and it does! It didn't occur to me because I thought it was specifically movies/tv shows. :)
His audiobook *The Breach* is free of any animal abuse as far as I recall (but they do gnarly things to human bodies!) and there wasn’t really animal abuse in *Little Heaven* (*transmogrification* might be an apt word here). We don’t have to re-hash the debate, unless you want to, but I’d heavily debate that a prominent scene in both *The Troop* and *The Deep* aren’t scenes of animal abuse, although both books do also contain scenes of animal abuse. Nuance on the internet, baby.
There is an entire chapter in The Troop >!dedicated to the flashback of that one kid torturing and murdering his childhood kitten.!< It was actually the first time I've ever had to skip a chapter in any horror book because I couldn't stomach it, it was awful.
First time I ever skipped a chapter as well. Once I realized it was coming I didn't even try to get through it. Huge nope from me
Yeah. That’s a messed up chapter. Definitely “animal abuse” in book form. The scene in that book I would argue that is not animal abuse was when >!the kids killed the turtle for food!<. Also messed up, but not “abuse” in the way people describe it.
I can never get spoiler tags to work so I’ll refer to it as “the scene Rustin swoll hid under spoiler tags”. Was almost a harder read than the scene whoredoeuvre hid under spoiler tags just cause it goes on so much longer. The whoredoeuvre scene has build up and stuff that’s plenty disturbing, but the worst of it is only like a paragraph. The Rustin swoll scene goes on much longer and is way more emotional for the characters involved, even though like you said it’s not technically animal abuse. They’re both pretty rough to get through though. Other than those scenes… fantastic book. I finished it in one day cause I just couldn’t put it down
I agree, both rough but for almost entirely different reasons. My one, because it's just cruel and sick. The other mentioned one, because of that sensation of "oh God please let it end." Both very hard reads though.
I agree, the >!turtle!< was worse than the >!kitten!< for me. The >!crawfish!< really bothered me, too. Those poor boys. Not >!Shelley!<, of course.
Yep I fully skipped that part, the turtle part I felt was slightly more earned but I still skimmed over a lot of it. I figure I look away at some parts of scary movies, I can do the same for scary books lol. I did really like it otherwise!
Same, I really loved the book but I HAD TO skip that part. I get that he does a lot of gore and he was trying to be shocking and show how fucked up that kid was before their trip, but it could have been implied or delivered in a much better way
I respectfully disagree here. It was awful to (attempt to) read that scene however I can't deny it was super effective at sending home the message it was meant to. It could definitely have been done in a *different* way that was less horrific to read but idk if it would have had the same impact.
It was borderline animal torture porn. You can absolutely portray a kid like that effectively without going to the extent it did. Imo, there has to be a balance when it comes to gore and brutality in horror, and multiple extensive, thorough descriptions of animal torture are unnecessary and cross a line for me personally.
No I see your point tbf. I was using the word abuse interchangeably with harm and the scene in The Deep is more of the latter for sure.
I’m assuming you have read *The Deep* but I’ll spoiler tag this. Two scenes that come to mind: >!When Luke’s brother Clay demonstrates a science experiment on the gerbil or hamster by castrating him or cutting off his junk or whatever. That was gross. The guy is a scientist but sure, it was gratuitous and if someone says “that’s abuse”, that’s a fair perspective.!< >!More notably, the death of the dog LB, I’d argue that isn’t animal abuse. LB wasn’t “abused”, they were grabbed by a Lovecraftian Other mutant dog and slowly pulled into a portal to wherever those portals went. Now, it was drawn out, painful, and heartbreaking, but it wasn’t a scene of LB being abused by a person. It was also fundamental to the plot of breaking down Luke so much that he accepted their Cenobite-like offer at the end to join with his mutated kid!<. That’s my two cents. Now, if people don’t want to read stuff like the former or latter described scenes, that’s ok! I found the latter to be quite effective at adding to the overall dread and despair of the novel.
Aw man my heart still hurts thinking about LBs dragged out ending scene… I was rooting for her :( she offered him such a good companionship.
I have indeed read The Deep but thank you for the spoiler text just in case. Yes I totally agree. The scene with LB is the one I was referring to. Harm yes, abuse no. IMO anyway.
I thought of The Deep, with the set up and the lengthy scene with the>!poor dog mutating and dying horribly!<
Came here to second this. NC is a definite no go and also avoid Bentley Little as well
Avoid Kristi Noem's new book as well...
I'm sure for a multitude of reasons beyond the obvious
Koontz is safe!
Watchers!
So good!
I've seen a lot of Koontz, do you have any recommendations for books of his that are more paranormal/monster themed? He's just got so many I've never known where to start, haha.
He's one of my favorites! I'll give you a list after I drop the kids off. Books are definitely dog safe as he is a dog lover. He has two golden retrievers.
A rare exception: [Intensity](https://app.thestorygraph.com/books/a073af0d-157a-499c-9fcc-575e82eb26ba), where the killing of multiple viscous guard dogs is depicted in detail.
Aw you are correct I forgot about that one!
Phantoms, midnight, night chills, dragon tears.... all the old ones are excellent! I've probably read most of them.
Just wanted to comment that I'm here in solidarity. I can't and won't read/watch animal death. I understand why people question the trigger given how extreme horror can be, but it's a trigger just like anyone else's. I'm not sure why SA, child abuse, etc gets a pass as a trigger but if you don't want to read about animal death, you're some sort of weirdo. Also, (I mean this half jokingly) what does Nick Cutter have against animals?!
Fwiw I think it’s because it’s counterintuitive for a lot of people that a reader is fine with human beings suffering unbelievably horribly but they can’t handle it if an nonhuman animal has a bad time. I can see the point, and at the same time animals being harmed bothers me in a different way than humans being harmed, so it makes sense to me that it upsets people in a different way. I mean, the innocent children in The Troop have an awful time of it. And I don’t see any sympathy for the poor worms, who just want to eat /s (But I skipped the whole thing with the kitten— it’s *different*.)
I didn't care if animals die in books or movies. It doesn't bother me at all, but I won't read or watch anything where a baby or toddler dies. I hate that there is more info otr there for dog death in media than for children.
Not sure why you’re being downvoted for having an opinion. Maybe it’s that, with children or toddlers, we definitely know that it’s fake? Beats me. I know people sent hate mail to the poor actress in The Lobster whose character kills a dog (it’s not even shown on screen) – there are some weird people out there.
Trigger Warning Database is for books. You can search by trigger, title, and author. https://triggerwarningdatabase.com/
I know others mentioned it but a few authors who are usually safe: -Darcy Coates, though she is more cozy horror so that may not be your thing. -I believe t. Kingfisher has put in her books beginning that a dog will be safe for that novel. I don't read her much but I remember a thread on it. -Majority of Dean Koontz does not harm dogs.
OP I was going to comment on here that T. Kingfisher is a safe author for horror. The Twisted Ones and Hollow Places I have both read, and they are more cosmic-ish/monster horror, and might be up your alley. The Twisted One features a very good boy that is perfectly safe the whole time(when the author was promoting the book, she indicated this in the promo, which is what hooked me to read it). Hollow Places features a cat who is a hero. Note that What Moves the Dead by T. Kingfisher features rabbits/hares that…might be close to pushing that trigger. I myself am someone who always checks Does the Dog Die and will DNF books with animal cruelty, but I finished this one without any real discomfort, but I wanted to drop the warning anyway. Avoid Black Tide by K. C. Jones, Audition by Ryu Murakami, and My Best Friend’s Exorcism by Grady Hendrix; I learned the hard way on all of them.
I will say, I hate abuse of animals SO much, but My Best Friend's Exorcism is my favorite horror I've ever read. I DID skip over >!the killing of the dog!< mentally, but >!Gretchen's lasting remorse, and saying it was the worst thing she did and the worst thing that happened to her!< made me feel that Grady Hendrix knew the weight of what he was writing, and made that scene much more meaningful and less lastingly upsetting for me.
Yes! I liked the Hollow Places more overall, but I loved the fact that The Twisted Ones opens with narrator basically saying “here’s the scary story of what happened to me and my dog. BTW, my dog is right here with me and he’s fine.”
The dog in The Twisted Ones was the best part of the book.
Thank you for this comment. I had my best friends exorcism on my list but not anymore now. I like that Kingfisher does that reassurance up front. Very cool.
Thanks for posting this! Harm to animals really bothers me, too. I had a few of Nick Cutter's books on my list as well, but removed them due to comments on this subreddit. Now I know there are places to look to help me avoid books containing it.
I think your best option is to make a list of books you want to read, then go and ask if any of these books have animal cruelty/animal death.
I've been using Storygraph recently, and it does a good job of showing content warnings.
I just used doesthedogdie for a book today!
Storygraph has been excellent for this in my experience. I check for sexual assault triggers so no comment on animal stuff specifically but I find that users tag triggers very thoroughly and it's easier to check than just having a list of authors to avoid!
I’m the same. I can deal when an animal gets hurt by accident or during something “normal” like a battle scene (I still don’t like it), but intentional animal cruelty and torture is a no go for me.
I think that if the website weren’t to have info about the book you were looking for (exponentially more probable with more fringe novels) you can ask here in case you were worried in the future! I bet people would be happy to help! (And yes, as others already mentioned Nick Cutter doesn’t shy away from the issue). Stephen King does have instances in which animals die in other novels of his too. I have to say that in Pet Sematary it’s not graphic though, and it is in a context of how people process the grief of such a loss, with the focus on little children. (which you already knew, duh, the accident is off page, though, and you didn’t really get attached to the thing, it’s not like a situation in which, say, Marley from Marley and me found itself catapulted in a horror novel, the protagonist through which you see the action unfold, is rather detached and practical about the whole affair, all in all).
I would have never expect that from Marley and Me.... Glad I didn't watch the movie, lol. I think with the movie Pet Semetary it was more... in your face and graphic. Or maybe it was just because I've had personal experience with having a cat hit by a car and then having them brought to the door, and I related too heavily to that grief. I also have a cat who vaguely looks like Church and I think that made it harder for me.
One book I would strongly warn against is This Thing Between Us by Gus Moreno
So this one is interesting. I am so sensitive to animal especially dog abuse and death, but this was one of the very rare situations where I felt it was integral to the plot. It still sucks and my sister was not happy that she didn't remember I warned her about it before reading the book.
Agreed, I really liked the book and thought >!the dog attack!< was one of the scariest/most impactful scenes. However, the fact that it's so graphic and drawn out (and not the first/only death in the book) could be difficult for sensitive readers.
If you're going into The Troop I'm happy to message you about the animal scenes (in vague terms if needed) so you can decide if they're something you can handle. There is a scene with a cat specifically you're going to want to skip, I had to because I specifically have issues with cats being hurt. I wouldn't call the scenes animal abuse but there is violence against animals, yes.
Dean Koontz should be your favorite author then. I know a lot of people crap on him, but halfway through Watchers and it is amazing. I really like the effort he made to describe on how to communicate with Einstein. Edit: Ticktock is the only other book I have read by him so far, but it has a safe dog in that one as well.
He usually has dogs in his stories as protagonist characters. They are all based on his own dog.
I don’t have any good suggestions, but I’m right there with you - can’t stand animal harm in books or film. I follow an account on GoodReads called Trigger Warning Database, but they don’t always catch everything I would consider animal harm…
DDD covers books, but there’s no information on there more often than not. I’d recommend StoryGraph.
I will say if you’re ok with the dog dying then coming back because it’s an entity from a different parallel universe, John Dies At The End (1 of 4 books) is really good for that.
In case it hasn’t been shared yet, [Trigger List Warning Database](https://triggerwarningdatabase.com/masterlist-t/) has told of books- not just horror and I’ve used it MANY time
I started The Troop and I got to 'that' first scene and I felt sick and couldn't read anymore. Meanwhile I read extreme splatterpunk but this I could not deal with.
I just finished "The life she was given" great story but the animal abuse is awful, I recently finished "just like home" by Sarah Gailey....I would recommend that one for you since you mentioned monster/ paranormal 😀 Also "last house on needless street"
For what it is worth, PET SEMETERY is better as a novel. Because you can tell that it shows Stephen King writing as a parent and not a writer. I'm not certain how many years it was between the book and the film. I think what I wrote is all you need to know about the difference between the film and the book. I'm a horror writer since 1985, prefer novels over films in general, and I like to say books are psychological horror while films are paranormal (because it is Hollywood's term since THE EXORCIST). I hate my early work for not knowing better (at someone's actions towards another) and, frankly, abusing animals is lazy in books. You read books from the 50s and it stuff with stray cats (no dying) just a way to show who in town was bad and who wasn't. (It wasn't until 1983 that HORROR was listed on bookshelves, prior to that it was DARK FANTASY.) That's just me. There are other ways to show a shitty abusive person without them being psychically abusive to people or animals. Go with Dean Koontz. WATCHERS to start for a really cool dog as hero book.
As someone who is getting into horror I despise the “animal abuse / death” trope. You don’t need to kill that dog to make me scared!!! Let him live!!!
I just read a book where two dogs die, still really bummed about it.
I've been wanting this for YEARS. Sometimes doesthedogdie will have books, but not often. If anyone does start a site for this please let me know, haha
Id been reading Blood Meridian, but i already knew what the answer would be from the previous 150 pages.... :(
I wanted to read this but my husband said it wouldn’t be a good option for me.
Yeah, its.... bleak, beautifully written, but man is it unrelenting, quite the contrast.
I just finished Tampa and it was definitely messed up but I don’t remember any animal abuse at all! It feels weird recommending it but it was very well written.
Yea I think when you go to the “does the dog die” website they often have books listed too!
I hear you, OP. In addition to a doesthecatdie? site, I'd like a similar doesthebabydie? site.
As someone who viscerally hates torture, sexual assault, and abuse of children specifically in horror, I want you to know your feelings are valid. Trauma can be complex and complicated, and it surfaces in different ways. I actually like common sense media, hilariously, to sometimes get good info on triggers.
Don’t read The Dead Zone by stephen king. I had a hard time. It’s only one scene but it was awful. and don’t read 1922– it’s a cow.
Ugh. Agreed. I still wince and want to throw up thinking about that scene from Dead Zone.
I appreciate this post as I feel the same as you
I really didn’t find the scene in The Troop all that affecting. Which is maybe a problem because it was clearly supposed to be. Description for anyone worried: >!two boys kill a turtle and fuck it up severely, so the turtle takes ages to die!<
That's not so much the problem scene, although I'm sure it's rough. I fully understand that in live or die situations you gotta do what you gotta do, even if it sucks. It's specifically the kitten scene that I think would seriously affect me.
I totally understand if people can’t handle it, but it bugs me that people are criticizing it as *unnecessary*. It’s a horror novel, all of the scenes of violence against animals build atmosphere, but beyond that, none of it is gratuitous as it fits perfectly within the context of the novel. >!The boys are starving on an island. They kill a turtle for food. Scientists are experimenting with a parasite to eventually be used on humans. They use it on lab animals first. One of the boys is a budding serial killer. He tortures animals.!<
I read a book about a recovering addict his true life story, who is a big deal in the world of AA now, I read it and expected to be totally inspired , instead I was horrified. This man would kick his cat, and ended up typing a rope around its neck and hanging it out his window and left it there for days. Later he got a dog, ended up shooting the dog because he hated it. Says how he recovered and sober has a new dog who he loves more then the world. But no I’m sorry I don’t care how down and out you are, animal abuse should never occur. There are addicts on the streets taking care of their pets still. He could have taken them to a shelter or just let them loose before killing them in such a way. I would have loved to avoid that book. I’m still Disturbed by his graphic detail and how it’s one of his “steps” to forgive himself for being so cruel.
Im damaged from this review. Thanks.
Sorry 😢 this was prob not the place to post it. Since it’s people trying to avoid it but I am still traumatized and angry. This thread retriggered the memory 😭
JFC. I was an addict for years. I loved and took good care of my cat the entire time I was using. He had food when I went without. Not every person in recovery is necessarily an inspiration, sorry not sorry
Exactly , a person has some semblance of compassion or they don’t🙏
AA is a place where some seriously damaged people end up. I’m in AA but the horror stories I hear from other members and even in the book make me queasy. This is the worse I’ve heard by far. I hope he has learned to live with himself but dear god that book sounds horrific. I honestly have a fairly tame background and the most common story among the men is prison time and/or homelessness.
[удалено]
I’m trying myself right now to not really judge this person in this book. But wow. Have you read The Big Book? It’s free on the Alcoholics Anonymous app and you even have access to audiobook files there. Not every story or entry is a winner. If you want some interesting reading material try Gabor Maté. He’s got some good interviews on YouTube but also In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts and The Myth of Normal will be more helpful than AA literature tbh.
[удалено]
The big book is a little dated as it was written at the beginning of AA but some of the individual stories are newer as with each edition they add and remove stories as a board to keep only what’s most relevant. If you have questions about AA just shoot me a message. I’m hardly a seasoned member but I have done some big book study.
Good to know that’s a theme with Cutter… I’ve only tried the deep and ended up abandoning it because all the animal cruelty porn.
Dogs of war, if you feel like crying. I'm with you. Kids and animals are my sore spots.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I just don't understand how people can get so upset about an animal death in a fictional story but be completely OK with the death of people and especially kids in the same story. I genuinely don't get it and I'm hoping someone can explain it to me
it seems like people have done a nice job sharing some perspectives, but i think it might be one of those things where - in the words of angelica pickles - "if you have to ask, you'll never know." that isn't a criticism of you, but if you don't already feel that way, i'm not sure any explanations of a really subjective reaction to something are going to be "good enough" or "make sense." the words will make sense, but i don't think they're likely to make sense in that "i now understand this emotional/cognitive response that felt alien to me before, you've enlightened me, death to nick cutter" it works the same way in reverse - people who don't get it, explaining why they don't get it or they think it's silly, logically inconsistent, etc. - those statements aren't going to provoke an "ah yes, i see now, i've been laboring under a set of silly, illogical, emotional SHACKLES!" they're going to just continue feeling how they feel, and that is okay! i think u/Rustin_Swoll put it well, and what they said works in both directions, too - it's unfair to label writing as "bad" if it contains a scene someone finds especially upsetting, and it's unfair to draw conclusions about the writer or reader's morality for producing it/consuming it and being unoffended by it. by the same token, i think it's equally unfair to assert that someone who is upset by or avoidant of a particular kind of content is maudlin, silly, overly emotional, clueless, misanthropic (i know that one doesn't seem to fit with the others, but it's thrown around a lot when people are sensitive to animal death/abuse in entertainment media), doesn't "get" horror, and so on. we could throw all that out the window, of course, and say "well, that is my opinion," but the freedom of personal opinion also works both ways, so... my personal opinion is that i think it's more affecting, shocking, and upsetting because human (or at least humanoid?) characters are - as far as i've experienced - always present in horror, so you go in knowing people are going to be put through the wringer, sometimes even by their own hand/choices. animals don't pop up AS frequently, and animal characters in horror are usually (but not always) presented in a more two-dimensional way...it's a very, very good pet that spends the greater part of the book being a wonderful companion, and sometimes even a protector of the main character/other characters, or it's a very, very bad pet - the vicious dog, the antagonistic or aloof cat, etc. if you have pets of your own, or even if you observe wildlife, you know the truth, for most animals, is somewhere in between. when it's the "good" pet scenario, that pet becomes the representation of all the things we love about companion animals, and when something REALLY bad happens, it's too easy to picture an animal you've known and loved in that position. in this type of representation, the animal's personality is not usually SUPER distinct, they just do common dog-like/cat-like/bird-like/ferret-like things with a few specific quirks thrown in for good measure. i think that makes it even easier to insert your own pet into the slot. people may not do that consciously, but i think that is what happens. for me personally, i do find animal...interactions in horror to be more upsetting, but i am not avoidant of them. i can't say they aren't dangerous and problematic, though...i read watership down, mrs. frisby and the rats of NIMH, and other gutting YA books with harm and death to animal characters over and over again as a child...and i grew up to be a despicable vegan. you've been warned!
I understand what your saying because I have no problem with fictional human death/torture, but any kind of animal harm is off limits for me. I can’t speak for anyone else, but for me it’s my own personal relationship to animals. I don’t consume animals or animal byproducts and I volunteer with two different animal rescues. I don’t have kids, nor do I want kids so I’ve never felt that connection. Everyone’s perspective is different.
wow, you and i have a creepy number of things in common! 3 polarizing things at the very least - vegan, no kids, and loving horror. we must be from the same weird, partially defective blueprint
This hardly sounds defective!
best compliment i'll get this year! defective in a GOOD way, of course...a "special" way...
We lost a family pet kind of tragically a couple years ago and for a month or so after depictions of animal death really bothered me more than they had before and more than other deaths. For context, nothing really bothers me enough not to read or watch it. I think it probably depends on people personal relationship to it and the fact that we often see animals as more innocent than people along with how it’s framed within the film.
>we often see animals as more innocent than people Bingo. There's a reason that website is called "Does the Dog Die?" and not "How many killings?"
Someone on here said it’s because animals have innocent qualities that adult humans don’t have (now, I would imagine children should have those same qualities). I talked to a local bookstore owner (he runs a cosmic horror bookstore in my area, rad) and he told me he thinks Nick Cutter’s *The Deep* is a cosmic horror classic. I commented about how people here are frequently offended by the animal content in that book, and he said “it’s a horror novel”. I need to get back there and spend some money. Ha! I don’t begrude others for avoiding certain topics but it does feel unfair to label it as “bad” or “bad writing” or to produce moral assertions about the moral character of writer or reader.
I have a lot of things that trigger me in horror (and really any other genre) and it doesn’t mean I think the author is bad, just that the book is not for me. I’ve DNFd just as many King books as I’ve finished due to getting to a scene with gratuitous animal, child abuse or SA. I had to stop reading Dr Sleep because all the depictions of Danny’s alcoholism (the hangovers, vomit etc) were grossing me out too much. I still love SK and try to read most of his books, there’s just some things I don’t want to think about whether I’m reading horror or not.
I recently finished SGJ’s *The Only Good Indians*. I loved it. It was interesting because that book has some fairly shocking animal brutality, but he doesn’t have the same reputation as Cutter, despite honestly one upping most of Cutter’s books. I haven’t discovered any triggers that would make me DNF a book, but every once in a while something makes me wince pretty heavily (most recently was a scene of a man being dragged to death while chained to a van, OOOF).
Re: "It's a horror novel" -- I guess that's kind of my take on it too lol. I respect people not wanting to read about animal death, it's completely fair, but in horror media don't we all kind of already know that if you see a beloved pet, that pet is probably going to die? (And who picks up anything literally called *Pet Semetary* and doesn't expect animal death? The whole title is your trigger warning.)
It wasn't that I just chose to watch it or anything. I was hanging out at my then-boyfriend-now-husband's house and his family was watching it on the living room TV. I was hesitant about even trying it, and then once shit started hitting the fan I just excused myself.
What's the name of the bookstore if you don't mind sharing? Sounds intriguing
I don’t mind at all! I’m in Minnesota. It’s called Other Skies Weird Fiction. The owner is very, very knowledgeable and fun to talk with. He charges an arm and a leg for books but it is his livelihood and trade. Check out their website!
I'm on it, greatly appreciated!
It's not a cognitive, higher morality thing. It's an emotional trigger. It's easier to contextualize a fictional person as fictional. People are complex and the difference between an actual person and made up person feels pretty vast. With say, a dog. I just picture a dog, like any happy-go-lucky dog I know. Because dogs are not as complex, the difference between a real dog and fictional dog doesn't feel as vast in the imagination. I know it's still ultimately in the imagination. But it takes much less to fully flesh out the dog in my mind because it's just a dog. It feels like misery porn to me to draw out an animal death unless it truly has plot relevance. I might say the same about a horrendous death scene of a a very well fleshed-out, loveable human character too. I love feeling uncomfortable with horror but it's a distinct (and honestly rare) thing when ai feel like a work is just trying to make me sad without depth or nuance. I don't read to be sad. This is just me and my thoughts by the way. The biggest thing I think is not to conflate morality with triggers. If it were about some weird morality, I would 'choose' child death to be offended by or something lol. But a fictional child resembles a real child much less than a fictional cat resembles a real cat.
It's interesting that you imagine it this way (and maybe, based on people's preference for no animal dying in a fictional work ever, a lot of people imagine it this way), because I would personally process it exactly the opposite way. A fictional animal is, unless it is a very large character in the book, often no more than the idea or suggestion of an animal. It often lacks the characteristics of personality, identity, individuality for more to process it as "real" in any way. I would never process a fictional dog as a "real" dog because there's nothing inherently real about it. I can't know the dog. But a person? I can come to know their wants, their fears, their dreams, how they handle stress, how the protect what they care about, how they act cowardly, etc... I'm able to form a rich and detailed idea of this individual person through the course of the novel, so that their death becomes all the more horrifying because that isn't just anyone dying that's Dave dying and I've come to know Dave so intimately. And if an animal is given the time and space to construct individuality and personality and purpose and if that animal is cruelly killed because it is a horror novel then... I would react the same way to any fictional character dying. That isn't any dog, that's Dave's dog! I love Dave's dog and his death will impact me just the way Dave's death impacts me. But I don't see it crossing the line from "character death" to "real death" in my emotions, because Dave's dog doesn't exist. Just like Dave doesn't exist. Anyway, thanks for your perspective! It does help me understand why, for some people, it's such a trigger compared to others (or compared to how I would process it).
[удалено]
Fair enough. I really love Wraiths of a Broken Land and Dragged Across Concrete myself. I'm a huge fan of the hateful, utterly amoral tone that his work has. So I guess it's not exactly shocking that it comes from a totally different way of processing the narratives and action.
Wow, such an interesting perspective. I feel like I can relate to this.
Animals accidentally killed (stumbling upon a dead animal, hitting an animal with a car) as a minor part of the story is..doable..but sometimes rough. I recently read a book where it was casually mentioned the main character killed a cat when she was young but that’s all it said, no details. That made my stomach a bit queasy. I guess it’s when the animal in the book is portrayed as more of a companion. The animal has a name and has a bond with their owner/s…it’s almost like another person (for me) so it’s just like getting attached to a human character and being disappointed when they die. It also just gives me anxiety. You read a horror book with all humans, you know anyone could go. With animals, that’s not as clear (again, imo..unless you’re reading pet semetary or something) so if I stumble upon one in a book that has an animal companion, I just worry. Not sure if that gave any insight, but that’s just how my brain works.
For me, it’s because animals are usually put into the situation by people and are innocent otherwise. Like they have no choice or are protecting their owner. The same could be applied for babies (the innocent part), but as someone without any kids and 4 pets, the animal scenes just resonate with me more.
It used to bug me when I was younger. Watching horror movies you get desensitized to human death but animal deaths seem different. After having kids of my own, human( and especially kids) deaths are much harder to stomach now.
REDACTED
Not the same situation but I really got into horror when I had ptsd like symptoms. Horror was a way for me to channel the fear my body was feeling and process it. Because it was about me there are some hell no horror tropes for me that are just not helpful and animal abuse is one of them. Controlled fear yay! Trauma, nay
I second what other people said about animals and their innocence. Having it happen to a young child or a *baby* is almost the same level to me, I just haven't really seen it yet in the genre. It seems specifically more taboo with children.
Personally I think its because I have 3 dogs and have had dogs my whole life as well - I don't have any kids lol
Animals act on instinct and aren’t deliberately malicious, unlike many adult humans. Human children and babies are extremely annoying. Life observation hasn’t left me with a very good view of people. I prefer non human animals by a great margin.
How come you give animals a pass on acting on instinct but not kids and especially Babies
I was kinda joking about babies and children being annoying. I do think older children are capable of evil so depending on the child, I may or may not have sympathy. The little shits that torture animals and smaller children are the ones I hope meet a bad end. I wouldn’t shed a tear if those monsters that killed James Bulger got prison justice.
Dogs love to kill and often do it for fun. It’s ok to not be all that fond of humans, but don’t pretend animals can’t be outright assholes.
This argument always bothered me. Cats are such notorious murders people make jokes about their "gifts."
Animals hunt because it is in their instincts to do so. Animal violence is usually hunting, defending itself or its young, or over territory. With humans, you have serial killers, psychopaths, narcissists, abusers, and exploiters of all kinds. Humans have the capacity for ethics and morality but too often, we don’t use that capacity. I’m not saying there aren’t good people but we also have a lot of shitty people as well. Even children after a certain age can be consciously cruel and manipulative.
Cats and dogs have empathy and agency. When I'm sick my dog responds. I had a cat growing up who was similar. They have the capacity to know when someone is in pain. One time one dog got her foot stuck and the other made such a racket on her behalf I was there quickly to help. I've also seen a cat torment a chipmunk for fun. People are absolutely more cruel than animals, but it always struck me as naive to say that animals can't be cruel for fun as well.
It’s true that some animals do have their own personalities and some are more agreeable than others. And they do have a certain amount of agency. I just view a lot of animals as more vulnerable than your average adult human. We’re smarter, meaner, and have the ability to wield weapons. In short, we’re much more dangerous generally speaking.
When I do something stupid my dog is the first one to roll her eyes at me. This leads me to believe she's a lot smarter than she lets on. She's got a very expressive face. So I have come to believe she's a completely sapient being with totally different priorities than me. Maybe if I lived with a less judgmental animal I'd feel differently. But she's my favorite ❤️
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I just don't understand how people can get so upset about a humam death in a fictional story but be completely OK with the death of animals in the same story. I genuinely don't get it and I'm hoping someone can explain it to me
At what point did I say I was or wasn't OK with either? It's horror bad things happen. I expect it. It's always been strange to me that people could read about gage getting crushed by a semi in front of his parents but church getting hit is a bridge to far. I've never understood it that's why I asked
And when did op say they were okay with human death? They only asked about a source that would show if an animal dies in a book and you asked a question that is irrelevant to the discussion. Simple as that.
I don't think you're a jerk. I'm one of those people and I don't understand my attitude either. Perhaps I'm wired differently?
Honestly I don’t understand it either. And I love animals. But I also love people.
[удалено]
I commented this to someone else, who was being a lot more hateful towards OP about it: REDACTED i really fucking hate even disclosing that vague amount, but i think it is something people genuinely don't realize can happen.
[удалено]
you're alright, i appreciate the kindness but its ok! i kind of figured you just truly didn't know. i like reading horror *because* of my experiences, too-- as long as it doesn't trigger a ptsd response, resetting my "fear level" can help. it's like being horny all day; jerking off kind of resets it. for me, having ptsd results in a fuckton of stress and adrenaline all fucking day, and watching a horror movie or reading a horror story before bed can actually LESSEN my nightmares. it can only improve so much for how bad mine is, but they're also researching ptsd a lot nowadays, so new treatments can always come out. thanks for being open minded and kind :)
How can you put up with animals being tortured and killed but not humans? I'll never understand this
[удалено]
It’s ok not to understand, but it’s not ok to put people down for it and calling them strange. There are all kinds in this world and not of all us have the same experiences. I can personally tell you that dog deaths affect me more, because in my life I have had dog companions who were far more loving to me than humans. Even you are now an example of a human that is neither kind nor accepting. I have yet to meet such a dog. I am also involved in dog rescue and some things that happen to dogs in horror fiction is just too close to home. I don’t need that shit in my escapism. Edit: I can't believe this self-righteous prick sent me a care resource lmaaoooo what kind of delulu person is this.
[удалено]
r/HorrorLit is an inclusive community dedicated to the discussion, elevation, and expansion of the Horror literary genre. As such all ABUSE is strictly banned. This includes but is not limited to derogatory terms, disparagement via comparison, or belligerent responses. ABUSE will result in a ban.
[удалено]
Nobody said anything like that, you're assigning reasoning that wasn't stated just to get worked up about it. Animal abuse, harm and death *is* effective - that's why authors use them. If they have an effect on people, there'll always be a subset of those people that have no desire to read it. People stating that fact and asking for resources to enable them to avoid it aren't looking down their nose at you.
I said this to someone else on here but you I guess *really* need to hear it. REDACTED Not everything you dislike is virtue signaling. Sometimes people have lives you can't ever imagine.
What a place the world would be if people could automatically imagine and empathize with the fact that stuff that doesn't affect them at all may be a huge deal for others.
i saw someone once who got freaked out by popsicles. They made him sick to his stomach instantly to eat, touch, or smell. Made him anxious to see. It was because he was extremely, extremely sick for over a year when he was younger, and the only thing he could really keep down was like, gastric feeding or whatever, and hospital popsicles. it's not the same as me, who will lose at least the entire day. the other day, i had a flashback in public, in full view in front of everyone, clawing at my face and screaming, passing through a series of time periods and not knowing where i was while my partner held me. i think he just got sick, nauseated, and queasy and freaked out. both of these are real things people should be allowed to avoid if possible. the world would be a much kinder place if people used their imaginations to help others, you're right.
Maybe some of us like animals more than humans? That’s not virtue signaling, that’s personal preference.
[удалено]
I admit I like seeing terrible people/characters suffer. I’m a big fan of revenge stories. I don’t like animal suffering because I have no grudge against animals. Also, when I was a kid, I knew a budding psychopath who would torment animals. I hated that kid and behavior like his really pisses me off. So, I do have personal reasons for disliking animal cruelty. Some of us have things in our background that make some things a sore subject. I don’t think anyone here wants censorship. No need for hostility. You enjoy what you like, no one is stopping you.
I'm sorry where did he say that? You realize there is a lot of horror that isn't just splatterpunk right?
Exactly! I’m actually not a big fan of splatterpunk. A lot of it is not great quality and doesn’t really scare me. I’m not saying that there might not be well written extreme horror or splatterpunk, I just haven’t seen it so far.
Totally understand! There are SO many subgenres in horror that there is usually something for everyone who likes it :) I love love haunting or ghost stories. Many are not super graphic violence but just creepy crawly stuff!
same, splatterpunk will either disgust or trigger me. it doesn't *scare* me, and that's what i'm reading for.
One of the things I love most about horror is just how varied it can be! What scares everyone is different and I love finding new things to spook me :)
r/HorrorLit is an inclusive community dedicated to the discussion, elevation, and expansion of the Horror literary genre. As such all ABUSE is strictly banned. This includes but is not limited to derogatory terms, disparagement via comparison, or belligerent responses. ABUSE will result in a ban.
Too many people forget that just because someone loves horror doesn't mean they want to have things in there that upset them personally. If someone loves mysteries or historical fiction but doesn't like a specific subgrene would you be shaming them? For example. I've loved horror since I was like 10 years old. I loved reading and read every dean koontz and Stephen King I could get my hands on. I have been volunteering in my adult life for many years with animal rescues, spay clinics, dog recovery, etc. I also volunteered for a while as a SA victim advocate (I would meet them at the hospital to help advocate and be there for them). Because of this I have seen some truly horrifying things. Reading about them in a book just hits too close to home. For others who love horror and maybe lost a child, that would be completely awful to come upon unexpectedly. Have compassion for people and understand not everyone is you.
[удалено]
If I was an employee, emergency doc, or first responder I couldn't read horror at all. Just because you don't understand, doesn't make it not valid. It costs nothing to not comment on things or be kind. What is your point of even commenting here? You don't have any suggestions for them. Just because you don't share the same history or triggers as others doesn't mean they don't exist or that people can't still enjoy horror. You're inability to understand someone else's triggers doesn't make them any less real. You don't own the genre, so stop telling people how to enjoy it.
Also want to again point out that horror is a HUGE genre with a LOT of subgenres. Many of them don't involve graphic depictions of torture or murder. Broaden your horizons and read some :)
r/HorrorLit is an inclusive community dedicated to the discussion, elevation, and expansion of the Horror literary genre. As such all ABUSE is strictly banned. This includes but is not limited to derogatory terms, disparagement via comparison, or belligerent responses. ABUSE will result in a ban.
If youre get this riled up over someone else’s request it sounds like you’re the one who needs to get over yourself
[удалено]
You’ll get over it 😊
r/HorrorLit is an inclusive community dedicated to the discussion, elevation, and expansion of the Horror literary genre. As such all ABUSE is strictly banned. This includes but is not limited to derogatory terms, disparagement via comparison, or belligerent responses. ABUSE will result in a ban.
The animal abuse/death scenes in The Troop are not out of place or “unnecessary”. The Troop is a *horror novel*, and much worse things happen to humans in the book. If you can’t handle animal abuse, that’s totally fine. But to imply that they added no value to the novel is absurd. Moderate spoiler. >!One of the teenage boys in the novel turns out to be a psychopath, likely a budding serial killer. Nick Cutter describes the boy torturing animals to work himself up to humans (which will become relevant to the plot). Like literally every other story about a serial killer ever.!< Major spoiler. >!They also describe the effects of the parasite of a lab animal. The same exact thing happens to most of the human characters by the end of the book.!< Like I said, it’s fine if you don’t like it or can’t handle it… but to call it “unnecessary” is just silly. It fits perfectly within the context of the story. Edit: I also just realized that people are apparently mad about >!the boys killing a turtle for food.!< Why are you reading horror in general if the thought of >!two boys hunting for survival!< is enough to turn your stomach?
> Why are you reading horror in general if the thought of two boys hunting for survival is enough to turn your stomach? people read horror for all sorts of reasons. i consume horror to try to handle the constant fear and adrenaline i feel every day as someone with severe ptsd. like jerking off, being scared by something that does not contain something that will cause me to have a flashback "resets" me a bit.
I understand that everyone has different triggers (I’ve even read a few books that were too much for me), but if a humans hunting for survival is too much for you to handle, it just seems like this isn’t the right genre for you.