Slow Burn vs. Rapid Fire Horror? Your opinions. > Likes and Comments

Curious as to others' opinions. Do you prefer slow-burn horror, which slowly builds a sense of discomfort and dread before "getting to the point" somewhat, or is rapid-fire horror your thing, horror that's perhaps gory, action-packed and in-your-face from the first moment?

Personally, rapid-fire is good if you don't have much time to read and want to read a shorter book, say a novella. But for overall impact, which leaves me thinking about a book long after I've read it, slow-burn is preferred for me. I love that building sense of suffocating dread that grows and grows without any release in sight. It's what keeps me turning the pages, waiting and waiting for the pressure cooker to pop. These types of slow burns also keep me reflecting longer after finishing a book.

Recently, I completed Stephen King's Duma Key which, at over 600 pages, is definitely a slow-burn. It certainly built tension slowly over the course of the book, leaving me wanting more as the mystery was unraveled. Only near the end of the book do things become a lot clearer. Good example of slow burn.

Your thoughts?

My vote is for slow burn, though not necessarily at great length. For
me, horror seems to work best at novella length or shorter -- though there have been exceptions.

Ann wrote: "My vote is for slow burn, though not necessarily at great length. For
me, horror seems to work best at novella length or shorter -- though there have been exceptions."

I love reading Stephen King's long-winded and wordy slow-burns. That's a great skill to weave a slow-burn at more than 600 pages. As a horror author, I mostly write novellas and short stories. Maybe one day I'll be able to write a long slow-burn.

Slow burn, I love the anticipation. Dan Simmons (the Terror) is a great example of this; I thought it was too long but things just keep getting weirder and worse so I totally enjoyed it. Adam Neville too does this very well, survival horror. But a short story can give you these feels too so I wouldn't sell myself short Richard!

Honestly, what I want most from any book is good, solid writing. I say this whenever anyone asks reading preferences. If it's written well, I'd probably take slow-burn first, but I'll take an engaging read fast or slow.

I'll take either one!

Sometimes I'm in the mood for a creature feature-in those I want lots of creative killing and a quick pace.

Sometimes, I'm in the mood for something longer with a slow burn, like Ghost Story or a King doorstopper.

Good writing is a must for either one.

Both are good if they're well-written. I tend to read fast-paced, rapid-fire horror, though; sometimes work gets in the way and I'm not able to read as often as I'd like, so whatever suspense or dread that may be building in a slow burn gets lost.

Depends, if it's tastefully done both are great. But I feel slow burns are overall more enjoyable for me especially If the rapid fire ones easily desensitize you from all the constant horror.

The writing has to be exceptional for me to make it through the slow burns. I can't handle 12 pages to describe a simple inanimate object. It dilutes the fear and I quickly become irritated. This has been my personal experience reading King. Don't come for me though, I still respect him even though I can't read his books. So for this reason I guess fast-paced is my choice.

I agree — if done well then a slow burn is my favorite. I enjoy the build up with bits and pieces of the monster or dark scary bits coming through but I find I don’t like when it’s immediately just all in your face and doesn’t at least build up to an eerie scene. If it builds too much around nonsense or nothing, then of course I’m out. But there’s something so special and poetic even, about a well written build up to keep me wanting more.

I've had a hard time finding rapid-fire horror stories at all, but I just read one I liked called The Nest. Short chapters with a sense of progress as you turn each page. Not a lot of build-up. Unfortunately, the writing is ridiculous even though the story is fast-moving and good. If you cut back the purple prose it would be a third shorter. At least.

Not that I don't appreciate a well-written slow-burn story. They both definitely have their points.

Like Char, I am a mood reader, and I often don't know what I am in the mood for! I love when a slow burn story sweeps me up, but I also love punchy, quick, short, punches to the gut.

Really, like others have said, if it's well written, either is terrific.

I personally like a slow burn, but I like when the prologue or first chapter is like the intro to the killer (like the killers first victim) then it begins.

Fishface wrote: "I've had a hard time finding rapid-fire horror stories at all, but I just read one I liked called The Nest. Short chapters with a sense of progress as you turn each page. Not a lot o..."

I enjoyed The Nest quite a bit. Maybe because it took place close to where I live.

To me, it's more a matter of taste than opinion. My own taste is for slow burn. Currently I am reading The End by Adam Cosco and his control of prose is beautiful and very closely observed. Then about halfway through the first chapter, plot kicks into gear surprisingly quickly and it has taken me out of the story a little bit though I will, of course, read to the end (no pun intended).

Although I write horror, I am actually an ignoramus with regard to horror writing, so will be focusing on this more.

Either has its value.

My favourite werewolf book gets right into a gory scene, but for ghost stories and such I like some build up.

I'm absolutely for slow burns. Something that slowly gets more and more under your skin until you can't get it out (not literally!).
Plus I think the fear of fear itself makes everything scarier, and slow burn helps with that.

Ninnisha|Roberta wrote: "I'm absolutely for slow burns. Something that slowly gets more and more under your skin until you can't get it out (not literally!).
Plus I think the fear of fear itself makes everything scarier, a..."

I feel the same way, nothing better than suspense that builds gradually. Didn't completely finish the exorcist for that reason, (seeing the movie multiple times) the book was a lot creepier as it went along.

Brent wrote: "I feel the same way, nothing better than suspense that builds gradually. Didn't completely finish the exorcist for that reason, (seeing the movie multiple times) the book was a lot creepier as it went along."

That's also such an usual book vs movie problem, in my opinion, horror books tend to be better at building suspense and at being scary, both cause they're longer and have more time for the slow burn, and because they let your brain do a lot of imagination work. And imagination can do such wild things!

Slow burners for sure. I like it when a story takes its time to build up the suspense and leaving you wanting to put it down but you can’t because you have to know what happens with each page.

Slow burn for me, I like the sense of dread.

Slow burn all the way for me. The dread that builds when you
realize the system around you is the enemy, not just the
monster — that's what sticks with you. Just finished writing
a debut novel built entirely around that feeling if anyone
wants to check it out!

Todor wrote: "Slow burn all the way for me. The dread that builds when you
realize the system around you is the enemy, not just the
monster — that's what sticks with you. Just finished writing
a debut novel b..."

Please limit promotion of your book to the Author/Publisher Promo Folder located here:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/group...

Promotional posts outside that section will be removed without warning. Thank you.

I tend to lean toward slow burn horror. I like when the tension builds and you’re not quite sure when things are going to tip over. Curious what others have been reading lately that fits either style.

Ohhhh, slow burn in ANY genre will always be a huge yes from me. I LOVE slow burn. However, when I'm in the mood for something quicker? I have nothing against picking up a faster paced book.

Keira wrote: "Ohhhh, slow burn in ANY genre will always be a huge yes from me. I LOVE slow burn. However, when I'm in the mood for something quicker? I have nothing against picking up a faster paced book."

I’m much the same. If a slow burn is done well, it usually stays with me longer, but sometimes a faster horror read is exactly what hits the spot. I think the trick with slow burn is making sure the dread is actually building and not just stalling.

I've read both, but my preference is slow-burn.
As a writer, I write slow-burn stories. I like the slow dread that continues to draw the reader, giving them small crumbs as it progresses.
I think slow-burn tends to require more from the reader, not just in time or investment into the story, but their imagination. I think that's why I like it myself.
As mentioned, King is one of the kings of this type of story. Wordy, long-winded stories.
If short on time to invest in a story, a good action-packed, in-your-face story will work.

Slow burn, but not *too* slow. 800 page books put me right off.

I'm more of a middle part kind of guy, gimme both but in good amounts. Slow burns can be good because while it may take a while to get to the good parts, you're taking everything in very closely and absorbing it so when the good parts come you can appreciate and understand them better. Rapid fire can work if done right but they tend to be, hey you don't really need a backstory or reason, this is what you want so HERE!!! That tends to turn me off. Shock value is a rapid fire trope.

Give me a good balance of both or just the usual gradual leading up into the good parts like a story should.

Probably more taste than opinion but for literature I prefer slow burn, mounting dread, getting under your skin and It's what I prefer to write also.