I wonder, though, how many are confusing startlement with genuine horror or terror, the latter of which tends to have an element of awe to it, while the other, as Ravenus so aptly puts it, makes one jump. It seems to me that may be one of the problems with defining what makes good horror fiction; some see it as "horror" (rather than terror), which has more of the element of startlement, repulsion, something unpleasant; others use the term more in the sense of (as Karloff, who intensely disliked the term horror, would have phrased it) terror, that which chills, has that "creep factor", and elevates. There is, as Burke pointed out over two centuries ago, an element of the sublime to the best tales of terror -- they elevate the mind, and expand one's perceptions; whereas horror tends to contract the focus on objects or incidents that are "scary", but on a much more "earthy" level. These tend to be more gruesome by their very nature, and generally require a less refined imaginational response, therefore they tend to be somewhat less popular overall.
Myself, I vastly prefer the terror tale to the horror tale, though I have a strong liking for both (as long as the horror tale is well done and doesn't rely strictly on gruesome details, bloodletting, rotting corpses, repulsion, etc.). So perhaps the distinction might help to clarify things a bit?
(N.B.: I consider Lovecraft, despite some reliance on the physical aspects of horror -- though even here I'd say, from a close reading, he was intending them as symbols rather than just as visceral nastiness -- to be more in the camp of the terror tale rather than horror per se.)
