Blasphemy!
to my essay on the nebulous boundaries between SF/Horror:
Is the idea here that if the characters aren't straight-laced enough, it's not science fiction? I think that's a needlessly proscriptive way of drawing the line between these genres--if as is often said science fiction is simply regular literature with some speculative elements thrown in, then couldn't--indeed, shouldn't--it encompass the entire range of human behavior and emotion, including extremes of fear? Then there's the part that argues that Lovecraft isn't scary...hoo boy. But hey, read it and decide for yourself.
The Thing by Hawks = sober, straitlaced men of science defending themselves against an alien vegetable.
The Thing by Carpenter = scary paranoid freakout.
It's all about the destination, Sean. Carpenter brings you to a scarier place than the original ever imagined, driven by paranoia, mistrust and terror. Hawks brings you the sober triumph of science.
Science fiction, and I'll add the caveat "to myself", doesn't and can't bring the scares like horror can. It's not trying to, for the most part. Even the at best unsettling "Hey you old fogeys, what happens when we start jacking ourselves into computers and hacking off our limbs and replacing them with blenders" cyberpunk fiction of the mid-80s doesn't scare. Can't. Won't. Most of that anxiety was driven by the tension between humanist SF of the previous generation and the "we'll freaking do anything for a new sensation" attitude of the new kids. (And by "kids" I mean authors that nodody paid attention to before they were glommed into the category of Hot New Something.)
Granted, by the "it's all about the destination" metric, just about anything can be horror, which I don't think he disagrees with.
And sure, science fiction could address the span of human emotion, but it largely chooses not to. Then again, horror often doesn't soberly consider the intersection of technology/politics/society. Hell, horror's not often sober about much.
Which is why I don't find Lovecraft a good example of horror myself. His writing is too distant, too considered, too rational even when he's trying to describe the indescribable. Lovecraft is a lot of things, at times lyric, an excellent expressor of the uncanny, rife with existential dread at his best.
But his writing is not scary. Never has been. Being afraid of Lovecraft's Elder Gods is like being afraid of the stars or tidal waves (or earthquakes). I suppose in some parts of the world (like California) a healthy respect is demanded, but his horror is so impersonal, distant, uncaring, that I really can't get worked up about it. I suppose folks in the thirties, driven by a more roundly "humans are the center of the universe" sort of attitude would be more unsettled by this sort of "inversion." But I'm not.
My opinion, mind you. And likely to be an unpopular one.