Rhetorical Analysis Of King's Why We Crave Horror Movies

1220 Words3 Pages

In his essay, “Why We Crave Horror Movies” King attempts to bring understanding to the phenomenon of the horror film genre. He states “sanity becomes a matter of degree” eluding to the theory that sanity is relative and that all humans are relatively insane. Jack the Ripper and the Cleveland Torso Murderer were the examples of humans on one extreme of the spectrum of sanity; saints represent the other safe end of the sanity spectrum. He illustrates the thought that in order for human kind to stay functionally sane there needs to be some sort of outlet for our violent “mad” thoughts. In King’s view horror movies provide a stable outlet and mental relief for innate madness. King argues that his insanity/ant civilization emotions are ingrained …show more content…

This was effective because by stating that “we’re all mentally ill” (King 414) right off the bat readers will be compelled to continue reading. He might have offended some readers by questioning their mental state but this is inconsequential because it is easier to change a reader’s feelings if they actually read the piece which is what his opening statement insures. His introduction commands attention and requires a strong logical argument to back up this claim. King also does this effectively. As a published writer King knows how to manipulate words and phrases to use in a way that fits his purposes. It was by this skill that he was able to normalize fears and horror movies to transition into his thesis. King gives three reasons for why it is such popular genre to watch, “to show that we can, that we are not afraid…” (414), “to re-establish our feelings of essential normality” (414), and “to have fun” (414). He normalized the phenomenon and logically explained each of these claims. Another effective part of his essay was to establish cause and effect. King illustrated what happens when we submit to our insanity or when we control our emotion by sharing an anecdote about children and the reinforcement they receive from parents and society. He even goes to explain which actions will elicits positive reinforcement and likewise which prompts negative …show more content…

He uses this and a logical tone to coerce the audience’s trust. It is a cheap tactic for “establishing ethos.” All we know about King is that he writes in the horror/thriller genre what we don’t see is King explaining where his information comes from. He doesn’t share where his research came from, or whether there were any studies done on this particular topic. King’s only example of how this applies to real life include Jack the Ripper, The Cleveland Torso Murderer, and a ten-year-old child. His examples are slim and we have no actual proof that they snapped because they couldn’t release their violent, murderous tendencies through socially accepted outlets. We have no way to test his credibility and so his essay becomes ineffective and less like a serious academic argumentative essay than a joke. The anecdote about the ten-year-old is equally questionable as the child in question is an unknown subject. King introduces the joke without any reference as to who the child was or in what context the joke came out. For all the audience is aware the child could have been open to very vulgar materials which would naturally corrupt it’s mind, or that the child was put up to tell Stephen King the joke as a result of King’s reputation. Another aspect that brings me to the conclusion that King’s essay is ineffective is that he never sourced the critic. The one quote King shares

Open Document