Question about Supernatural Horror

[Billy Freeman]

Hi all,

I realise that this site doesn't cater for just self-promoters, so as well as raising awareness of my self-published novel The Pack (available via...well, you can guess. A well-known bookselling website ), I wish to ask a question.

My novel is a non-supernatural story set in North-East England, in a recession-hit town where a deadly virus is turning dogs - domestic and stray - into viscous killers. I like to think it has classic horror, and a little noir mixed in there. This ties into my question, which concerns horror fiction in general.

I've been reading a bunch of Stephen Kings recently and having finally read The Stand, Complete and Uncut, I came to a conclusion. King uses the supernatural as a cop-out to good storytelling. Under the Dome is testament to that, too (the dog and the deadvoices, anyone?). Similarly, 'Salem's Lot is a little too close to Dracula in places and feels forced. Point is, I've come to the point where I'm reading a good novel, only to roll my eyes when a red-eyed monster appears or a ghost starts speaking. My favourite King novels are all non-supernatural, and as for The Stand, I just think you could have mixed non-supernatural elements of that and Under the Dome to create a damn good story. The Stand in particular set up so much as a riveting post-apocalyptic story, but ended up trying to be a new book of the Bible. Religious and supernatural themes swamped all vestige of realism and reneged on the promises of the earlier parts of the book (like Glen's discussion of the future of mankind and new societies making the same old mistakes).

In short, my question is this; is supernatural horror sometimes a cop-out for good storytelling, instead of part of a meaningful story in itself?