Writing Controversy

[E.G. Gammon]

Ok, everyone pretty much knows by now the story behind my novel series in progress. Well, one of the main stories over the series is a serial killer mystery. The killer murders several of the series' main characters but most of the victims are characters we don't know. With this in mind, I originally intended to give the characters we don't know anything about, gruesome deaths (because readers won't have a strong emotional attachment the them and won't mind if the character gets his/her head cut off or something). Well, what I am wondering is, how hesitant should I be when writing a gruesome death (or anything too extreme)? I want the story to be interesting, but I would hate for some should-have-been-in-a-psyc-ward-a-long-time-ago lunatic to carry out a scene from one of my books and blame me for it. I am also worried about a ritual a demon performs in Book Four, involving the murder of a priest. The "scene" is vital to the story (giving a reason for something that happens in an early chapter of Book One), and I don't want to lose it, but if it's going to get me in trouble later on, I may have to think of a way around it. Any feedback or suggestions are appreciated.

[James D. Macdonald]

Why should you write any death, gruesome or otherwise, that the readers don't care about?

==========

Psychos have blamed all sorts of things for their crimes, from Twinkies to The White Album to Dumbo.

[three seven]

I'm inclined to say that the kind of nutjob you're talking about is more likely to be watching Child's Play 3 than reading a book. And more to the point, I'm so strongly against blaming fiction for violent crime that my head might actually explode if I think about it for too long.

Just write it.

[E.G. Gammon]

Why should you write any death, gruesome or otherwise, that the readers don't care about?

Because the different WAYS the characters die are important to the story. The story of my novel series is very complex, and pretty much everything happens for a reason. So, even though we could care less about these characters getting killed off, the different ways they were murdered are important.

[veinglory]

Modern thrillers/ cop books seem to be getting unbelieavbly gruesome. I mean look at 'Wire in the Blood' -- the killer is reinventing and employing mediaeval torture devices (reeeally nasty ones) and having phone sex with the investigating police psychologist. That one was a best seller and tv series.

[maestrowork]

Angels and Demons has some gruesome deaths. Many thriller/supense stories do, too, as well as horror. I don't think you have anything to worry about. As long as nothing is "gratuitous" I think you'll be fine.

[James D. Macdonald]

Because the different WAYS the characters die are important to the story.


I'mportant to the story, check. Now make them important to the readers.

[Zolah]

Nora Roberts writes extended scenes of rape/torture/murder into her books, (which are primarily aimed at the romance market). I'm sure you can get away with it. To be honest, if all it would take to send Jimmy Nutcase off on a killing spree is being exposed to the description of a gruesome murder, then the latest Simpsons Halloween Special could just as easily have tipped him over the edge. I don't see Matt Groening holding back...

[Susan Gable]

Nora Roberts writes extended scenes of rape/torture/murder into her books, (which are primarily aimed at the romance market). I'm sure you can get away with it. To be honest, if all it would take to send Jimmy Nutcase off on a killing spree is being exposed to the description of a gruesome murder, then the latest Simpsons Halloween Special could just as easily have tipped him over the edge. I don't see Matt Groening holding back...

Nora doesn't write those in her romance books - you're more likely to find them in her J.D. Robb books, the aptly titled "In Death" series, which are more police proceedurals, IMHO. I love those books, and I still wouldn't call them "extended" scenes of rape/torture/murder. I mean, they don't generally go on for pages and pages. (10 or more.)

EG, this is one the reasons it's somewhat important to know what you're writing while you're writing it - or at least once you finish it, while you're doing the tweaking. Graphic scenes fit well in some genres (many today) and not so well in others.

But can I just offer you this piece of advice? Stop fretting and get writing! :) Write the dang story, and then tweak it as need be.

Here's something that you might consider - this was supposed to be a soap opera. Perhaps you might think about writing just a couple of the stories as ONE book, leaving yourself open to another later on. Might be more marketable that way. Just suggesting that the plans you have at the moment aren't necessarily set in stone, and you might be able to come up with a way to use some of it, but not all of it. Just something to think about.

Now go write the book!

Susan G. (who needs to take her own advice and stop messing around! <G>)

[E.G. Gammon]

EG, this is one the reasons it's somewhat important to know what you're writing while you're writing it - or at least once you finish it, while you're doing the tweaking. Graphic scenes fit well in some genres (many today) and not so well in others.

But can I just offer you this piece of advice? Stop fretting and get writing! :) Write the dang story, and then tweak it as need be.

Here's something that you might consider - this was supposed to be a soap opera. Perhaps you might think about writing just a couple of the stories as ONE book, leaving yourself open to another later on. Might be more marketable that way. Just suggesting that the plans you have at the moment aren't necessarily set in stone, and you might be able to come up with a way to use some of it, but not all of it. Just something to think about.

Now go write the book!

Yeah, I worry before I've even written the book. I should definitely just write and THEN worry about things.

About "writing just a couple of the stories as ONE book, leaving [myself] open to another later on": I wish it was that easy. I have been developing the entire story for over seven years. There are 80 characters, 2 umbrella stories (that eventually become one) and all of the character's subplots, all of which interconnect with each other, and play major roles in understanding the mysteries started in the series. Everything is so complex. Lately I have been considering, attempting to combine my entire story into one epic novel - whether that turns out well or not is to be determined. It would make sense as one novel (and publishing it in one novel would avoid all of the cliffhangers I had planned, which will make the book much more marketable). It's just writing the entire story as one novel without making it seem like I am cramming it all in, that's the problem. And I also wonder (in fear) what a publisher would say if they are suddenly given a 200,000(+?) word manuscript... Yikes. :scared:

Oh well. I am off to think of something to do (or rip my hair out, one).

[Susan Gable]

Yeah, I worry before I've even written the book. I should definitely just write and THEN worry about things.

About "writing just a couple of the stories as ONE book, leaving [myself] open to another later on": I wish it was that easy. I have been developing the entire story for over seven years. There are 80 characters, 2 umbrella stories (that eventually become one) and all of the character's subplots, all of which interconnect with each other, and play major roles in understanding the mysteries started in the series. Everything is so complex. Lately I have been considering, attempting to combine my entire story into one epic novel - whether that turns out well or not is to be determined. It would make sense as one novel (and publishing it in one novel would avoid all of the cliffhangers I had planned, which will make the book much more marketable). It's just writing the entire story as one novel without making it seem like I am cramming it all in, that's the problem. And I also wonder (in fear) what a publisher would say if they are suddenly given a 200,000(+?) word manuscript... Yikes. :scared:

.

From what I've been hearing, if you presented them with a 200,000 word novel, they would say, "No, thanks." I've been hearing more and more that the publishers are asking for shorter, not longer. Now, that said, all we need to do is look at the Harry Potter books to know that they do publisher longer stuff - but the first Harry books were not as long as the latest ones have been. The publisher knows they will be able to sell HP books, no matter what the length.

You could, theoretically speaking from a writing POV, lift some of your characters and their plotlines out and give them their own books. You just have to wrap your mind around the possibility, and that's why I wanted to toss the idea out at you - just to get you thinking in another direction. (Please, understand, I am in no way saying this is what you HAVE to do, or this is what you SHOULD do. <G> I just wanted to make you think about the material in a different way.)

Susan G.

[Zolah]

Nora doesn't write those in her romance books - you're more likely to find them in her J.D. Robb books, the aptly titled "In Death" series, which are more police proceedurals, IMHO. I love those books, and I still wouldn't call them "extended" scenes of rape/torture/murder. I mean, they don't generally go on for pages and pages. (10 or more.)

I didn't mean the J D Robb books (though I do love those). I meant some of her longer works in the 'women's fiction' genre, especially her earlier books. Have you read 'Sanctuary'? The murder of the heroine's mother (which is seen in flashback at a midpoint in the book) seems to go on interminably and is very, very graphic. I'd say any depiction of rape/murder/torture that goes on for more than five pages is extended, and this certainly does. And it's one of about four murders which is described in the same detail.

It's a great book and the graphic scenes are completely necessary to the plot, but the first time I read it, it disturbed me so much that I couldn't re-read it for about three years! It never stopped me from buying anything else by Ms Roberts though, and it never sent me off on a killing spree.

[Susan Gable]

I didn't mean the J D Robb books (though I do love those). I meant some of her longer works in the 'women's fiction' genre, especially her earlier books. Have you read 'Sanctuary'? The murder of the heroine's mother (which is seen in flashback at a midpoint in the book) seems to go on interminably and is very, very graphic. I'd say any depiction of rape/murder/torture that goes on for more than five pages is extended, and this certainly does. And it's one of about four murders which is described in the same detail.

It's a great book and the graphic scenes are completely necessary to the plot, but the first time I read it, it disturbed me so much that I couldn't re-read it for about three years! It never stopped me from buying anything else by Ms Roberts though, and it never sent me off on a killing spree.

No, I don't think I read that one. Now I'll have to see if I can find it. :)Interesting that it never sent you off on a killing spree. <G> A few months ago, a high school was dragged before the board because she had a mystery unit in her curriculum, and she had the students write a mystery to teach them to plot, or something...anyway, someone got their knickers in a knot that by doing this the students would be more likely to commit murder. I think they should have just committed that person. <sigh>

The teacher was looking for the support of published mystery writers, thinking the community would listen to these people who wrote mysteries, but hadn't gone out and killed someone. (Although that's not to say that hasn't happened. I'm sure it probably has. <G>)

Susan G.

[Zolah]

Don't read it late at night, that's my advice!

Yes, I heard about that case - not to mention the one where a student was expelled for writing a zombie story centring on a school environment. Madness! What would happen to Edgar Allen Poe if he was a teenager in the US today? I think it's an example of literate, creative people being seen as 'scary' or 'weird' by those who are not literate and creative and can't understand understand them.

[Jamesaritchie]

Don't read it late at night, that's my advice!

Yes, I heard about that case - not to mention the one where a student was expelled for writing a zombie story centring on a school environment. Madness! What would happen to Edgar Allen Poe if he was a teenager in the US today? I think it's an example of literate, creative people being seen as 'scary' or 'weird' by those who are not literate and creative and can't understand understand them.

In fairness, there was much more to this story. The kid claimed he was simply writing about zombies, but he was also actively recruiting students to join a paramilitary organization, and had plans on paper to actually commit violence in the school. Somehow he failed to mention zombies or fiction in those plans. He also violated his bond, etc.

As is too often the case, the news media only reported one side of the story, and the side they did report had no substance.

Every one of the cases such as this I've looked into always had another side that somehow didn't get reported. It doesn't say much about the state of our news industry. They report the sensational side, and seem to intentionally leave out any facts that would take away from the sensationalism.

[Note On]

Every one of the cases such as this I've looked into always had another side that somehow didn't get reported. It doesn't say much about the state of our news industry. They report the sensational side, and seem to intentionally leave out any facts that would take away from the sensationalism.

In the case of the teacher assigning mystery stories, it was pretty much as reported, as far as I can tell. (I was one of the published mystery writers who wrote in after the teacher started having trouble.) A parent got upset because the teacher was contributing to his darling's degeneracy by allowing students to write mysteries. Lots of nonsense about "planning murders" and so on.

The whole thing was extremely silly, in the way that willful ignorance is always silly--to anyone who's not its target.

Here's the rec.arts.mystery thread about it:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.arts.mystery/browse_thread/thread/31b29ec86834f33e/d8fb3d592a9f2ed8?q=%22keith+snyder%22#d8fb3d592a9f 2ed8

[Zolah]

In fairness, there was much more to this story. The kid claimed he was simply writing about zombies, but he was also actively recruiting students to join a paramilitary organization, and had plans on paper to actually commit violence in the school. Somehow he failed to mention zombies or fiction in those plans. He also violated his bond, etc.
.

If that is the case, it makes me feel much better about it - except in that, as you've said, there was no mention of the extenuating circumstances in the article I read. The strange thing was that the article was on a Christian newsite which approved of the action taken by the school authority - so why didn't they make an effort to present the situation more honestly?

[Richard]

They probably didn't bother checking it. Just as everyone else thought "It's a story, chill,", they'd have snapped straight to "EVIL ZOMBIES!!!!"

[Jamesaritchie]

If that is the case, it makes me feel much better about it - except in that, as you've said, there was no mention of the extenuating circumstances in the article I read. The strange thing was that the article was on a Christian newsite which approved of the action taken by the school authority - so why didn't they make an effort to present the situation more honestly?

Probably because, at the time, they didn't know anymore than rumor. Big news sites also avoided running the other info for a good while, not because they hadn't heard it, but because they wanted to wait until it was substantiated.

Some media didn't want to release anything other than the zombie line because that made for more controversy. Othe media didn't want to print anything that wasn't substantiated.

And some honestly believed that writing about zombies, with a setting of violence in the school, was more than enough to run with.

I do believe that without seeing what the kid was actually writing, it isn't wise to jump to his defense. The first thing anyone accused of anything usually does is try to think of a harmless alibi for his actions.

[arrowqueen]

John George Haig, the 'Acid Bath Murderer' blamed the 'voluptuousness' of the Church of England for setting him off on his murderous career - and didn't some equally demented character in America blame an overdose of Twinkies for his?

My point being, that bampots like this are going to do what they want to do, regardless of what they've seen/read/eaten. The responsibilty for their actions is theirs, not yours.

Good luck - and don't worry.

aq

[Jamesaritchie]

John George Haig, the 'Acid Bath Murderer' blamed the 'voluptuousness' of the Church of England for setting him off on his murderous career - and didn't some equally demented character in America blame an overdose of Twinkies for his?

My point being, that bampots like this are going to do what they want to do, regardless of what they've seen/read/eaten. The responsibilty for their actions is theirs, not yours.

Good luck - and don't worry.

aq

Yep. The trick is to make sure you and yours aren't in the way of their actions.

[NeuroFizz]

I'm going to take different tack on this one. You are talking about "shreddies." Characters who are just there to be spindled and mutilated. If the reader doesn't get to know them, he/she will not care about them, or about how you kill them. They are just there to be killed. Sorry, but this is the wrong way to go. If you are going to kill off a shreddie, don't describe the act, but describe the act through the investigative aftermath from the point-of-view of a character the reader cares about. You don't even have to give the shreddie a name. Why should the reader bother to pay attention to a name, or character if that character is introduced for the sole purpose of making the story graphic? Show the graphic nature of the killing through the known character's reaction to it. Have him step on a pancreas. Wonder how he is going to get gray matter out of his shoelaces. But you don't have to describe the carnage unless it's done from the murderer's point-of-view, and it isn't repetitious. This way is far down on the controversial scale.

[Zolah]

I'm going to take different tack on this one. You are talking about "shreddies." Characters who are just there to be spindled and mutilated. If the reader doesn't get to know them, he/she will not care about them, or about how you kill them. They are just there to be killed. Sorry, but this is the wrong way to go. If you are going to kill off a shreddie, don't describe the act, but describe the act through the investigative aftermath from the point-of-view of a character the reader cares about. You don't even have to give the shreddie a name. Why should the reader bother to pay attention to a name, or character if that character is introduced for the sole purpose of making the story graphic? Show the graphic nature of the killing through the known character's reaction to it. Have him step on a pancreas. Wonder how he is going to get gray matter out of his shoelaces. But you don't have to describe the carnage unless it's done from the murderer's point-of-view, and it isn't repetitious. This way is far down on the controversial scale.

I think that's a really great piece of advice - I'll have to borrow the technique if I ever write something with graphic violence in it (well, you never know).

[Alphabeter]

Yeah, I worry before I've even written the book. I should definitely just write and THEN worry about things.
This is how I end up paralyzed from all the 'what abouts' instead of writing the 'what ifs'.

Oh well. I am off to think of something to do (or rip my hair out, one).
Might I suggest some quality BIC time?

I did a test where I scheduled every hour of my life for a month. Sleeping, eating, writing, editing/revising, actual research, surfing/playing on the net, family events, tv time, exercise (funny how that got down on the list, she waddled).

Anyhoo, I got more writing and COMPLETING done than I would have ever thought I was capable of in a month.

My new writing anti-motto: "Well, didn't you think before you acted?"
[No. I wrote first.]

[oswann]

This is how I end up paralyzed from all the 'what abouts' instead of writing the 'what ifs'.


Might I suggest some quality BIC time?

I did a test where I scheduled every hour of my life for a month. Sleeping, eating, writing, editing/revising, actual research, surfing/playing on the net, family events, tv time, exercise (funny how that got down on the list, she waddled).

Anyhoo, I got more writing and COMPLETING done than I would have ever thought I was capable of in a month.

My new writing anti-motto: "Well, didn't you think before you acted?"
[No. I wrote first.]


Ruth Rendell said she receives many letters from people saying they would love to be writers and what should they do? She repied they should stop writing to her and get on with it.

Sound advice.
Os.