There's a good number of great (classic) horror films which are known for the things you do not see. From the seventies and onwards, horrors got more graphic. It won't come as a surprise that I prefer the older stuff. The suspense, the dark streets, the shadows, the sounds (of e.g. footsteps), the stories ....Oh of course I do visualize them. But that's exactly the reason why I hate seeing actual visual stuff of horror, my imagination is far superior but I know that it's my imagination. For actual visual stuff that's not the case.
Don't think I'm truly afraid of visual horror, I most of the time don't give a damn. But not a pleasant view to see, especially when you don't WANT to see such thing.
That's a drag!
God bless wikipedia.
For one thing: As you described yourself, it helped you to find out something.
That's not a cool outcome, but this sounded to me that Wikipedia helped you drawing this conclusion(?)I even looked it up on Wikipedia in hope to find any further references, only to find that the only work cited is a textbook I've been using all along... and that one doesn't have any proper citations either!
Indeed. Once again, I've been relying my entire plan on getting done this night.
Can't you just skip this fact?
"the only work cited is a textbook I've been using all along"What conclusion?
Bummer! Good luck with finding that book then.Not really, it is a groundstone in a theory I'm developing.
"the only work cited is a textbook I've been using all along"
I thought it (also) was cited somewhere else, sorry.
I hope they have the book.
And if not, perhaps some of the journals can be searched full text, somewhere online?