Help with creepypasta.

[Sluggsnipa]

I need help with a story.

I need to write a creepypasta for this contest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COMGLTeWB6M

Any ideas on what I should do?

I'm thinking a near poetic lovecraftian piece,because god knows how many HACKED GAME/LOST EPISODES there are.

And I suck at writing anything with a coherent plot and end up creating mary sue fests (You know what I'm talking about).

I can photoshoop to.

[chaos_Leader]

Are you familiar with the likes of Alfred Hitchcock? I'm not too familiar with creepypasta, but after looking into it a bit, I think Hitch's methods of suspense and audience manipulation could work wonders for you here.

If you're gonna do this for real, and you don't have a whole ton of experience with writing, my suggestion would be to keep it simple. For example, write about something that is normally completely mundane, anything, but make something seem off. Don't explain, but expound on a uncomfortable fear or sense of dread that you can't quite pinpoint. Make the reader sense that awkward discomfort even in the comfort of wherever they're reading/watching. Give the audience plenty of fuel to feed the morbid fire of their own imaginations...

Good luck by the way.

[Gene Inari]

That and creepypasta has to do a lot with obfuscation of details. The beauty of it is that it captures your imagination and just makes you keep wondering. Unknown/hidden things are much more creepy and scary. A good example is Amnesia: The Dark Descent. As Yahtzee from Zero Punctuation put it: Amnesia understands that a monster stays scary the less you see of it.

Tease your reader with some details but don't give out the whole picture.

[Sluggsnipa]

Are you familiar with the likes of Alfred Hitchcock? I'm not too familiar with creepypasta, but after looking into it a bit, I think Hitch's methods of suspense and audience manipulation could work wonders for you here. Give the audience plenty of fuel to feed the morbid fire of their own imaginations...

Good luck by the way.

Yeah,I'm familiar with Alfred,50 years later,it is still scary (did you notice that he cameos in every movie he made?). But yeah I began watching it again,I almost forgot about him.

Unknown/hidden things are much more creepy and scary.

Indeed they are,I'll keep that in mind

[Vy'drach]

Be careful with Lovecraftian writing, as his work was done with subtelty and finesse, and if you can't accomplish that, the story will just end up butchered.

Unknown/hidden things are much more creepy and scary. A good example is Amnesia: The Dark Descent. As Yahtzee from Zero Punctuation put it: Amnesia understands that a monster stays scary the less you see of it.

I actually disagree strongly with this. Amnesia is an interactive sleep aid due to the complete lack of scary elements to it. I do not understand how people find it scary. DOOM 3, Silent Hill, Resident Evil, Fatal Frame, all failed to be scary. The original "The Thing" used a "less is more" approach, and wasn't scary. John Carpenter's version showed more of the monsters, and that did have its scary moments, because you know the enemy, and it literally needs to die in a fire.

That being said, however, most creepypasta is just downright silly.

[The Green Fox]

This conversation reminds me of that one episode of Candle Cove, you know, the one where the skin taker tries to write a story?

[Vy'drach]

This conversation reminds me of that one episode of Candle Cove, you know, the one where the skin taker tries to write a story?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

However, also remember that the thing about Lovecraft's creatures and all that wasn't that they weren't seen, it's that they defied what humans have accepted as reality and threatened the very fabric of the perceived reality with their very existence, to the point that there are no words in our languages to accurately describe them. They transcend description, they are the Unnameable.

[Drasiana]

I like how Vydrach complains that the "less is more" principle "isn't scary" and then quotes a bunch of games and not, like, Alfred Hitchcock. I've also gotta say it's a pretty bold move claiming that a couple of the most popular horror franchises in games ever "aren't scary"; they're certainly scary to someone. Wouldn't exactly call any of them "subtle", though, which leads me to believe you've missed the point.

But in terms of creepypasta, the thing that makes creepypasta different from just a horror story is the fact that it's basically an urban legend that just circulates via internet and is often related to internet culture. There's supposed to be a sense of ambiguous reality about them, which is why many of them are written in first person and pop up on message boards as if the character in the story is the one posting it (or a "friend"). They're those stories that make you go "haah, great story!...(it is just a story, right?)". It's the difference between "once upon a time" and "it happened to a friend of a friend of mine".

[Vy'drach]

I like how Vydrach complains that the "less is more" principle "isn't scary" and then quotes a bunch of games and not, like, Alfred Hitchcock. I've also gotta say it's a pretty bold move claiming that a couple of the most popular horror franchises in games ever "aren't scary"; they're certainly scary to someone. Wouldn't exactly call any of them "subtle", though, which leads me to believe you've missed the point.

Well the "Less is more" principal was brought up using Amnesia: The Dark Descent, a game heralded for it's insane levels of "shit your pants" fear, so I rolled with that. Also, I tend to enjoy horror movies more for the idiotic people in them being slaughtered than for it actually scaring me in any way. Also, the only Alfred Hitchcock movie I recall seeing is The Birds, which I do love, and lead to one of my favourite things in existence, namely this:

A Barbie doll where birds are trying to peck out her eyes. There is nothing about that I don't love. But the movie itself didn't scare me in any way. Also, fun fact about the movie, the birds cast no shadows in it, ever.

Anyway, if you'll also look back, but not too far, you'll recall I also brought up the original The Thing which used the "less is more" approach vs. John Carpenter's version, which had no issue showing you the monsters, such as this one (which was designed and built by Stan Winston, the God of Hollywood monster design, though he was uncredited with it, and is the only Winston creature to ever scare me).

NSFW for monster and blood. Also, there weren't a whole lot of real pictures of the thing, just figures and fanart, so I took the best I could find, but it doesn't do the creature justice.

NSFW WARNING

And while most of the games might not be subtle (and that wasn't a point I was trying to make, but rather two different points), Silent Hill actually rather is, due to each monster being more than just a "scary thing," but a symbol representing something of the person manifesting it. Let's take the most famous Silent Hill creature, Pyramid Head.

He represents James Sunderland's desire to be punished for what he did to his wife, and things he thought about doing, as well as his sexual frustration stemming from his wife's long perioud of being bed ridden before her death, during which, to put it bluntly, he wasn't getting any, which is why Pyramid Head rapes things (which it's implied that James thought of doing the same act due to his sexual frustration). In the same game there is another monster that is not a manifestation of anything from James, but instead from a woman named Angela Orosco. This creature, called the "Abstract Daddy," is a manifestation of her torment at the hands of her sexually abusive father.

And they may be scary to someone, but not me, and I was speaking from personal experience, which is all anyone can ever do. My point was that "less is more" is not always the best approach, and either way, that wasn't a tactic Lovecraft used often, as it wasn't usually that the monsters weren't seen, it was that those that saw them and lived either lost their sanity, or could not describe them due to the sheer inability of the human mind to grasp exactly what they were.

[Drasiana]

Also, the only Alfred Hitchcock movie I recall seeing is The Birds

Psycho. If you're going to talk about "less is more", you are pretty much required by the gods of stuff I made up right this second to see it.

I should probably bring up Jaws, too, because it did the same thing and succeeded.

And while most of the games might not be subtle (and that wasn't a point I was trying to make, but rather two different points),

Err, clarify what that second point was please? Because I just saw you listing off a bunch of games, and then saying "less is more" doesn't work.

Anyway, yeah, Silent Hill is subtle, guess I just missed saying WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SILENT HILL up there because it is indeed far more subtle than Resident Evil or the goddamned game series that inspired YOU'RE HUGE, SO YOU MUST HAVE HUGE GUTS. Actually it was pretty out of place with all the other ones you mentioned, aside maybe Amnesia, which I found to be scary for many reasons, the foremost being its ghostly refusal to work on my computer.

My point was that "less is more" is not always the best approach,

And I think it's a little odd that you say this after saying it's just your opinion but you're trying to discourage someone from following that method all the same by stating that it's "not always the best approach" as if it were absolute fact, when there are plenty of instances of this working fantastically, even if it isn't for you. There also is the comparison to make between the execution of subtlety versus the method itself, that being what differentiates something like Paranormal Activity compared to the plethora of dumbass "ghost hunter" shows.

Regardless, Lovecraft is still utilizing "less is more" in a fashion. It does not necessarily mean "never seeing the monster", it just means it isn't bashing you over the head with gratuitous violence ala Saw and expecting you to just look at a dead dude or a dude ripping off another dude's face in of itself to be the scariest scare that ever scaried. While you didn't see Norman Bates for most of Psycho, it wasn't that alone that made it "scary"; it was his unsettling demeanour, the lack of soundtrack, the defiance of expectation that comes with having your beautiful big-name protagonist brutally murdered in the shower half an hour into the movie, and several other things that didn't boil down to excessive gore and jump scares. In the case of Lovecraft, it's not necessarily what the monsters look like, but it's how they effect people and their world.

Think "The call was coming from inside the house" as opposed to AND THEN A SKELETON POPPED OUT!!! (I couldn't sleep for a week after seeing the former on Freaky Stories when I was a kid, stop laughing)

edit: sidenote, but still related. Has anyone seen Marble Hornets?

[Xortberg]

Dude, I watched the hell out of Marble Hornets, but only during the day. That shit was hella scary.

Incidentally, I actually think it stopped being so scary near the later areas where we got to see a whole lot more of Slenderman and the masked dude, which, in my opinion, really backs up the "less is more" style of horror.

[Vy'drach]

Err, clarify what that second point was please? Because I just saw you listing off a bunch of games, and then saying "less is more" doesn't work.

Anyway, yeah, Silent Hill is subtle, guess I just missed saying WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SILENT HILL up there because it is indeed far more subtle than Resident Evil or the goddamned game series that inspired YOU'RE HUGE, SO YOU MUST HAVE HUGE GUTS. Actually it was pretty out of place with all the other ones you mentioned, aside maybe Amnesia, which I found to be scary for many reasons, the foremost being its ghostly refusal to work on my computer.

And I think it's a little odd that you say this after saying it's just your opinion but you're trying to discourage someone from following that method all the same by stating that it's "not always the best approach" as if it were absolute fact, when there are plenty of instances of this working fantastically, even if it isn't for you. There also is the comparison to make between the execution of subtlety versus the method itself, that being what differentiates something like Paranormal Activity compared to the plethora of dumbass "ghost hunter" shows.

Regardless, Lovecraft is still utilizing "less is more" in a fashion. It does not necessarily mean "never seeing the monster", it just means it isn't bashing you over the head with gratuitous violence ala Saw and expecting you to just look at a dead dude or a dude ripping off another dude's face in of itself to be the scariest scare that ever scaried. While you didn't see Norman Bates for most of Psycho, it wasn't that alone that made it "scary"; it was his unsettling demeanour, the lack of soundtrack, the defiance of expectation that comes with having your beautiful big-name protagonist brutally murdered in the shower half an hour into the movie, and several other things that didn't boil down to excessive gore and jump scares. In the case of Lovecraft, it's not necessarily what the monsters look like, but it's how they effect people and their world.

Think "The call was coming from inside the house" as opposed to AND THEN A SKELETON POPPED OUT!!! (I couldn't sleep for a week after seeing the former on Freaky Stories when I was a kid, stop laughing)

The second point was more of a listing of "horror" games that have failed to scare me, yet having "scary" elements to them, whether it being the symbolism, resource starvation, helplessness, overwhelming darkness, jump scares, or combinations of the above, they did not scare me. Not necessarily directed at the "less is more" discussion.

And I'm not trying to discourage him from doing less is more, just that less is not a guaranteed fright. Also, my statement of "less is more isn't always the best approach" is far from absolute in any regard, as the entire meaning of the statement is that there are times when it is exactly what is needed and the best approach to it, but there are also times when it is not and that it can be quite detrimental to the finished project. Plus the "less is not always more" discussion was more as a direct response to this statement by Gene than telling Slugg not to go that route.

Unknown/hidden things are much more creepy and scary. A good example is Amnesia: The Dark Descent. As Yahtzee from Zero Punctuation put it: Amnesia understands that a monster stays scary the less you see of it.

That statement is one worded as though it's an undisputable fact, when it is not.

An example I'll use for both less is not more and less could be more is a pony-fic (No, I'm not bringing it up because of ponies, hard as that might be to believe). A rather grim-dark (though not to Cupcakes level) fic called "Rainbow Factory." It is unique amongst all the stories I have read, ever, proffessional or otherwise, in that it is the only one to simultaneously be of too little or too much detail. I lean more towards too much as less detail in two very specific scenes would of made it exponentially better, but more detail in the scenes would of made it better as well. The story itself is about a section of the weather control area of Cloudsdale where rainbows are made from ground up pegasi that failed their flight test, and are considered worthless by their society. The plot is less silly than it sounds, but the execution is not. Anyway, the first scene is the death of one of the protagonists, or rather the lead-up to the death. The machine, after being bound to it, will twist the victim, breaking their ribs. The antagonist states the reason as being the machine can have trouble processing the whole ribs, but does not state exactly why. This part had just enough detail to seem tacked in for no good reason, where as more detail could of made it fit in better, but preferrably would of been less detail where the machine breaks the ribs and no reason is given, leaving it to the reader to try and decide if it's a processing difficulty, a sadistic design by a sadistic creator, or anything else they could think of.

The next problem scene was where the antagonist was tearing apart a crowd of colts and fillies with their bare hooves in an attempt to get to the protagonist, which that isn't a summary of the scene as it was basically worded like that. This lead to me going, "Pssshhh, what are they, the Incredible Hulk now?" Again, more detail would of made the scene less silly, but even better would of been less to the point that it stated they were working their way through the crowd, and leaving it to the reader to determine how.

And I actually haven't seen SAW or Hostel or any of those other gorn type movies. If my statement of how I liked seeing the idiots in horror movies get slaughtered threw you off, I was speaking more of Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers. I actually consider relying on violence for a scare to be the lazy man's horror tactic.

Regardless, Lovecraft is still utilizing "less is more" in a fashion.

Ehhh, not necessarily, and certainly not always. Quite a few of his stories went into a decent amount of detail. Five off the top of my head are "The Whisperer in Darkness," "Under the Pyramids," "The Hound," "The Rats in the Walls," and "Pickman's Model."

In the case of Lovecraft, it's not necessarily what the monsters look like, but it's how they effect people and their world.

I have to disagree with that, as the only time Lovecraft really goes less is more is in detailing certain creatures that defy explanation. What they are, what they do, and the impact they leave is usually brought in with quite a bit of detail. For instance, Thurber from "Pickman's Model" and the Narrator from "The Lurking Fear" develop phobias of underground locations, with Thurber's including wells and subways, due to their creature encounters. Thomas F. Malone from "The Horror at Red Hook" develops a phobia of large brick buildings. And the Narrator from "Cool Air" develops a phobia of cold air, though he was just being a big baby about it. In just about every Lovecraft story, there's no question about what the creatures are or did, just really what they look like.

Anyway, with "less is more," it's not the lack of details that makes it scary, but the implications woven in with the setting, atmosphere, and characters that leads to the chills. You still need enough details for it to make sense, and to guide the readers to a particular point. You need to try and reach that point of balance for it to work.

As for my suggestion of what to do for a creepypasta, start looking up obscure urban legends from foreign countries, and try not to use any with monsters as those are much easier to dismiss than ghost stories. My personal recommendation is this:

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Bean_nighe

Probably the best version to base it on is the ghosts of women who died giving birth and are doomed to wash the clothes of those about to die until the day they would of normally died. I can see a decent creepypasta in that.

[Drasiana]

Dude, I watched the hell out of Marble Hornets, but only during the day. That shit was hella scary.

Incidentally, I actually think it stopped being so scary near the later areas where we got to see a whole lot more of Slenderman and the masked dude, which, in my opinion, really backs up the "less is more" style of horror.

Yeah I haven't watched the second part yet but I've been hearing that >:

The second point was more of a listing of "horror" games that have failed to scare me, yet having "scary" elements to them, whether it being the symbolism, resource starvation, helplessness, overwhelming darkness, jump scares, or combinations of the above, they did not scare me. Not necessarily directed at the "less is more" discussion.

That didn't come across.

And I'm not trying to discourage him from doing less is more, just that less is not a guaranteed fright. Also, my statement of "less is more isn't always the best approach" is far from absolute in any regard, as the entire meaning of the statement is that there are times when it is exactly what is needed and the best approach to it, but there are also times when it is not and that it can be quite detrimental to the finished project

Except like 95% of this is completely subjective because, like comedy, what's considered scary from person to person is enormously varied. The technical aspects (writing ability, film quality, etc) are some of the only things that can be commented on but even some of those can be used to your advantage (ie. whining about the camera in Blair Witch Project, because its shittiness was the point).

Ehhh, not necessarily, and certainly not always. Quite a few of his stories went into a decent amount of detail. Five off the top of my head are "The Whisperer in Darkness," "Under the Pyramids," "The Hound," "The Rats in the Walls," and "Pickman's Model."

I was about to directly contradict this but then you did it yourself:

Anyway, with "less is more," it's not the lack of details that makes it scary, but the implications woven in with the setting, atmosphere, and characters that leads to the chills. You still need enough details for it to make sense, and to guide the readers to a particular point. You need to try and reach that point of balance for it to work.

Congratulations! THE POINT. Incidentally, though, not one you brought up; Gene Inari made a suggestion over something he found to be scary, and you trashed it, and now you're going back on what you said. Maybe this is what you meant, but clarification would have been beneficial considering this entire topic is meant to help and give suggestions to Sluggsnipa who, incidentally, wants to learn how to write stories that often follow the "less is more" theory...the fact that they do being something that Gene Inari was originally pointing out.

As I've said before, creepypasta partially relies on people having the slightest incling that the story might have some truth to it...like any urban legend. It becomes much harder to believe if you go over the top with it. It's easier to trick some poor kid into believing you found a haunted Pokemon cartridge by saying "I played a Pokemon game but it was really creepy, must have been hacked. Oh well", and saying "I played a Pokemon game and then ghosts came out and viciously murdered my family, oops".

[Vy'drach]

That didn't come across.

So I noticed.

Except like 95% of this is completely subjective because, like comedy, what's considered scary from person to person is enormously varied. The technical aspects (writing ability, film quality, etc) are some of the only things that can be commented on but even some of those can be used to your advantage (ie. whining about the camera in Blair Witch Project, because its shittiness was the point).

Of course it's subjective. Didn't I say earlier that it would be? However, in a topic of someone asking opinions, it doesn't hurt to actually give opinions.

I was about to directly contradict this but then you did it yourself:

Don't let that stop you. By all means, elaborate.

Congratulations! THE POINT. Incidentally, though, not one you brought up; Gene Inari made a suggestion over something he found to be scary, and you trashed it, and now you're going back on what you said. Maybe this is what you meant, but clarification would have been beneficial considering this entire topic is meant to help and give suggestions to Sluggsnipa who, incidentally, wants to learn how to write stories that often follow the "less is more" theory...the fact that they do being something that Gene Inari was originally pointing out.

Wasn't really the point so far, just Gene saying it's a "Can't fail" horror writing technique, and you listing off examples of successful use of the style, but no one mentioning how or why it can work. Plus I don't see how I'm going back on what I'm saying as I still stand by it not always being the best idea to use the style. Not saying it's a bad idea, either, provided it's done right.

[Drasiana]

Well it definitely just seemed like you were totally slamming it :V Buuuut okay

Anyway I'm fairy sure Gene just meant within the realm of creepypasta where it is employed very often soooo yeah I still recommend he go that route, it's just a matter of doing it well, and anything can be botched in execution

Slugg, what do you actually want to write?

[Vy'drach]

Well then I apologize for that miscommunication.

Also, just to make sure it didn't get lost in the long posts due to a

approach, here's this:

As for my suggestion of what to do for a creepypasta, start looking up obscure urban legends from foreign countries, and try not to use any with monsters as those are much easier to dismiss than ghost stories. My personal recommendation is this:

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Bean_nighe

Probably the best version to base it on is the ghosts of women who died giving birth and are doomed to wash the clothes of those about to die until the day they would have normally died. I can see a decent creepypasta in that.