An interesting view from John L. Probert here:
Inter alia, he says:
I don’t think horror is that literary a genre, and more importantly I don’t think it should be. Most importantly I think if all the horror that was published was ‘literary horror’ then very soon there wouldn’t be any horror published at all. Because literary horror is a sideline, it’s a minority interest, it’s a luxury that more often than not caters to (pseudo)intellectuals who can chuckle to themselves about how clever they are for thinking they understand some impenetrable piece of prose that the ordinary fan in the street who likes ‘Night of the Crabs’ would never ever have the wherewithal to comprehend. The problem is that horror is a genre that, like science fiction, or crime, needs to be popular to survive and to be popular it needs to be entertaining.
That passage should be read in its whole context.
I feel my own view is more holistic. That Horror is rounded by all sorts of styles. I prefer to call it Weird Fiction in many ways – as Allyson Bird & Joel Lane did for their Horror anthology ‘Never Again’. But whatever you call it, we need literary resonance as well as gore and sex. Gore and sex as well as literary resonance. But of course those terms ‘gore and sex’ and ‘literary’ and ‘Horror’ and ‘Weird’ are too crude as definitions … and imprecise. I wish I could think of better words to describe this wonderful genre.
Whatever the case, I believe my stance threatens less of a schism in the genre, than the singular expectation of Horror being ‘unliterary’, if singular it is.