Have you ever read good horror fiction? I have not

>>9915187
Dracula is great you pleb

>>9915187
On what principles do you measure whether it's good or bad?

Do just you mean it didn't scare you?

yes I read this really good book called Dracula

>>9915187
Define 'good horror fiction'.

Just good fiction that happens to be horror? Thomas Ligotti.

Fiction that scares me?
Can't say I've read much in the way of formal fiction that really scares me. When it comes to being scared, I prefer stuff like stories you'd see posted on /x/, stuff with a deeply personal touch that feels more real (even though it's bullshit) than a formal piece of fiction.

A thread shitting on Dracula?
Yeah, fair enough, the book does drag and has quite a few clunky bits of prose.

>>9915187
Check out The Books of Blood by Clive Barker.

Okay, since you're all clearly thick as bricks, I'll take a minute to explain why Dracula's brilliant. It combines basically all of the subconscious fears and tensions of Victorian society into one figure. You have the ethic fear of an island nation for foreigners (Dracula is Romanian). You have the class fear of working and petit-bourgeoius people for an arisocrat. You have the remembered fear of the Black Plague (vampirism as contagion, coming to Britain on a ship). If we take vampirism as Freudian imagery (penetration) you have two different types of sexual fear - fear of cuckoldry (Dracula comes to married women in their beds and 'takes' them) and fear of homosexual assault (all the stuff with Harker and Dracula in the prologue). Then you have the fear of a society trying desperately to be rational and scientific, confronted with the possibility of the supernatural, which is reflected again in Renfield's madness - fear of loss of rationality. And the really great thing is, Stoker almost certainly didn't intend to include any of these subtexts; he was just writing a pulp story for people to read on the train. It's all repressed emotions bubbling to the surface.