ABSTRACT
In claiming that Noel Carroll’s question ‘why horror?’ is too narrow, Andrew Tudor (2002) argues that different audiences make sense of different kinds of horror in different ways (in fact, different kinds of horror film work in different ways). Although theoretical accounts of the pleasures of horror do acknowledge variations in responses, these are not
always explored in depth. Tudor suggests that what are required in order to fill these gaps are ‘particularistic accounts’ (2002: 50) that can illustrate how particular types of horror films are consumed by particular audiences under particular circumstances or social situations. What
works as horror and the pleasures that horror cinema engenders can undoubtedly be explained theoretically in a number of ways but any explanation must also consider what works for particular social groups in particular cultures at particular times. It is important therefore to con-
sider horror cinema historically and culturally in order to determine how the horror film reflects and addresses the anxieties of the age.
