Abstract

Noël Carroll’s seminal account of horror involves two original suggestions that distinguish his theory from previous views of the genre. One is that audiences are supposed to parallel the emotional responses that certain characters have when they confront horror monsters. The other is that horror monsters are supposed to disgust audiences, because they are impure. Recently, I argued that each thesis is falsified by counterexamples in a variety of well-recognized horror fictions. In response, Carroll claims these criticisms either distort or underestimate the resourcefulness of his account. In this paper, I contend that Carroll’s reply is inadequate, and that the two theses remain problematic, for much the same reasons I originally suggested