Quoted from AnthonyCawood As a poker player I am now concerned Gonna switch software for the next one, drop The End, use no Bold, or wrylies or Orphans... then everyone will think it's someone else

I play about three poker tournaments a week out here in L.A. - fun hobby. And just like poker, writers have their tells. At least those tells don't cost them money.

I used to play regularly Dave, but more online than live, great 'hobby'

Quoted from AnthonyCawood I used to play regularly Dave, but more online than live, great 'hobby'

Indeed - I used to play FullTilt before it was banned here in the States - now I prefer live play - found a local casino where I know most the guys now so it's like the world's biggest home game.

Quoted from AnthonyCawood As a poker player I am now concerned Gonna switch software for the next one, drop The End, use no Bold, or wrylies or Orphans... then everyone will think it's someone else

Yeah, good idea. I'm also going to write mine in braille to throw people off the scent.

eldave1, I'm looking forward to juicer poker on the Strip once the Raiders begin football in Vegas. If we ever meet at the final table be sure to bring your tells with you. LOL

I used to play of FullTilt but now generally stick to Pokerstars for my occasional games.

Maybe we'll get to play one day Dave, Aces... hopefully my tells will be less obvious

I used to love playing on PKR, before it shut down. Nothing compares to the 3D experience of sitting around the table with a bunch of avatars emoting over poker. It was a much more realistic pace, too.

Quoted from CrackedAces eldave1, I'm looking forward to juicer poker on the Strip once the Raiders begin football in Vegas. If we ever meet at the final table be sure to bring your tells with you. LOL

It's a deal

One of the heated debates that popped out of this particular OWC (and is still going on in various threads) was reason. What was the reason for the horror, the monster, the thing that happened?  

Isn’t horror, by very definition, a lack of reason? A giant spider-zombie attacks. Part of the horror is not understanding how such a thing could be possible. It’s hard to deny something is real when it’s trying to eat you. Folks want a reason for the zombie-spider, so you hint at a secret military experiment gone horribly wrong. Is that any more satisfying? I don’t think so, that’s just a tired cliché.  

Part of horror is taking the world you think you know, you think you understand and turning it on its head. The human race is a tiny spec of sand on a vast beach that stretches for eternity, yet we have the arrogance to think we know what occurs on the other side of the beach.

H.P. Lovecraft understood this. His Cthulu Mythos stories basically just said there could be untold horrors throughout the universe beyond our comprehension and we are screwed if any of them realise we exist.

This isn’t me ranting and telling you all to just accept any plot point in a Horror btw – this is hopefully the beginning of a discussion. What do you think is an acceptable level of explanation in a horror screenplay? When do you think (and under what circumstances) the audience’s suspension of disbelief will snap? And when do you think the explanation is either poor or goes too far, in that it explains too much and takes some of the horror element away?

Mark, I honestly think this question only comes up in OWCs... and purely because it gives the reader a reason to dislike the story. If it wasn't an OWC, they'd accept the story for what it is and probably give some good advice instead.

Quoted from DustinBowcot Mark, I honestly think this question only comes up in OWCs... and purely because it gives the reader a reason to dislike the story. If it wasn't an OWC, they'd accept the story for what it is and probably give some good advice instead.

I don't agree, a story that doesn't make sense for me is always going to be less satisfying.

I have made similar comments on non OWC scripts, and my advise has been the same; give it meaning, give the characters purpose.

I'm not saying a story that isn't explained isn't going to be everyone's cup of tea, but it's not going to be mine.

This is all personal opinion of course.

Quoted from MarkRenshaw One of the heated debates that popped out of this particular OWC (and is still going on in various threads) was reason. What was the reason for the horror, the monster, the thing that happened?   Isn’t horror, by very definition, a lack of reason? A giant spider-zombie attacks. Part of the horror is not understanding how such a thing could be possible. It’s hard to deny something is real when it’s trying to eat you. Folks want a reason for the zombie-spider, so you hint at a secret military experiment gone horribly wrong. Is that any more satisfying? I don’t think so, that’s just a tired cliché.   Part of horror is taking the world you think you know, you think you understand and turning it on its head. The human race is a tiny spec of sand on a vast beach that stretches for eternity, yet we have the arrogance to think we know what occurs on the other side of the beach. H.P. Lovecraft understood this. His Cthulu Mythos stories basically just said there could be untold horrors throughout the universe beyond our comprehension and we are screwed if any of them realise we exist. This isn’t me ranting and telling you all to just accept any plot point in a Horror btw – this is hopefully the beginning of a discussion. What do you think is an acceptable level of explanation in a horror screenplay? When do you think (and under what circumstances) the audience’s suspension of disbelief will snap? And when do you think the explanation is either poor or goes too far, in that it explains too much and takes some of the horror element away?

So this is obviously my debate, a thread that was locked because it got so out of hand. I brought my opinions and I stand by them.

I don't think horror by the very definition is a lack of reason, I think some horrors can have thin storylines and those are the ones I personally tend to enjoy less, and I'm a horror fan.

A lot of horror comes with set rules already, we have an understanding of how zombies, vampires, werewolves, ghosts, and demons tend to work. This is from years of building these ideas. Sure some act differently but for the most part there are common links.

I know nothing about a gangler, it's completely new to me, I don't know the 'rules' by which it operates, why it does what it does and how it decides on a victim. Like I said in a feature this can be fleshed out, in a short it's a lot harder.

I don't think everything needs to be explained to death through exposition but I personally want to know why things are happening, and I think you'll find that in most, what I would consider good, horror there is a reason stuff is going on.

H.P. Lovecraft's work was used in this OWC and I didn't get it. So while he might have been great in his time and maybe still is now, I'm still going to want a story with meaning.

So you aren't telling us just to accept a plot, but what are you telling us? I think the really subjective part of all of this is who decides how much explanation is enough. I want understanding, you're happy to go with it because to you think that's what horror is, it's completely personal.

I don't think the explanation ever needs to take away from the horror, I don't quite understand the link you're drawing there? Care to elaborate?

I'll just add that I started this discussion initially because I think it's an interesting point to hash out, and I still do. I think the issue is that people really are going to have massively varied points of view based on their personal taste, so it would be impossible to get anything other than what people's personal breaking point is.

Quoted from Warren I don't agree, a story that doesn't make sense for me is always going to be less satisfying.

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the need for everything within a story to be explained.

I read a story about vampires, I know they don't exist, so no explanation could ever make sense. I alter my perception of what makes sense to suit the world created by the writer.

Sometimes a story is very good despite the fact it breaks a rule, and sometimes it's good BECASUSE it breaks a rule.

Most of us like to have what's going on in a story be something that is eventually made clear. One of the defining characteristic of lesser writers is that things are unclear in their stories.

However, in the hands of a gifted writer lack of clarity CAN be used to spark intriguing questions.

The only rule is that a story must seize and hold our attention, and ideally leave something that lingers in the memory. If a story leaves one with questions, whether those questions annoy or intrigue depends on the skill of the storyteller.

As far as what is horror, man, I remember that debate here years ago. It will never end. Personally, I think the definition should be broad enough to include ghost stories, slash, monsters, etc. There is no way to have one definition.