Animal/child violence

seun · Jun 12, 2009

Do you have any problems with either writing or reading violence against animals and children? As long as it serves the story and isn't just in there to be unpleasant, I don't have a problem with either although I've never had reason to write a scene featuring violence against animals. I've killed kids (on paper

) and didn't have a problem with it.

What about you?

john barnes on toast · Jun 12, 2009

I'd say the exact same comments made on the 'rape' thread, apply equally to this.

Calla Lily · Jun 12, 2009

I don't read books that have children in danger. Period. If the writer sneaks them in, I put the book down and don't come back to it.

I can't remember the last book I read that tortured animals... Some odd thing about the end of the world and an evil vivisectionist recreating extinct animals, but the torture was off-screen. If it was on-screen, the same applies: close book, do not reopen.

This is my preference--everyone draws the line somewhere.

seun · Jun 12, 2009

callalily61 said:
I don't read books that have children in danger. Period.

So you wouldn't read Lord Of The Flies?

kaitlin008 · Jun 12, 2009

If it works, I would read it. Not if it was just there for shock value. And not if it was poorly written.

Kris · Jun 12, 2009

I can't think of anything I've read with violence against animals, oddly enough. Right there, that makes me think that it's less overused/ cliche than rape. (ETA: But that doesn't mean you should do it, necessarily

)

As John Barnes said above, the "How far can I go/how many rapes" thread might have some relevant comments that would address your concerns. The consensus was that the writer's job is to make sure that the violence is well-written and essential to the story.

It's true that many readers draw the line in various places, and child-in-peril/ child violence stuff is very difficult for me to read ever since I had a child myself. (Although I have read Lord of the Flies, that was before I had a kid.)

I also dismiss MANY books without reading them as being "not my thing." I'd say all readers do this--you don't have time to read every single book in the world. Ya know?

James81 · Jun 12, 2009

seun said:
So you wouldn't read Lord Of The Flies?

...or watch Spy Kids?

10er · Jun 12, 2009

john barnes on toast said:
I'd say the exact same comments made on the 'rape' thread, apply equally to this.

This.
Kids and critter endangerment are just more pet peeves in the same vein as rape. Some are too squeamish to read about them, some aren't.
Include if you feel it enhances your story.

thethinker42 · Jun 12, 2009

john barnes on toast said:
I'd say the exact same comments made on the 'rape' thread, apply equally to this.

Me too.

That said, I've never had any reason to write violence/cruelty towards children or animals...but if the story warranted it, I could and would. Similarly, if I'm reading a book, and the scene is relevant, necessary, non-gratuitous, I'll read and continue reading.

toddritter · Jun 12, 2009

I love animals, and I hate to see any creature harmed, but it was integral to the plot that my villain killed a few. I kept the actual violence "offstage," and showed only the results of what happened. As for children, well, a similar situation is going to happen in my next book.

Perks · Jun 12, 2009

I've never yet written a child character. Huh. Isn't that weird? I never thought of that before. I have a tendency to put my characters in a lot of danger, so perhaps I'm avoiding that.

Oh wait. I did once. I wrote a segment where there were unborn babies at risk and was told not to do it. Lol!

Like Mr. On Toast said upthread, a lot of what applies in the "how much rape" thread will also apply here.

Personally, I don't think there's an off-limits area to writing. The author's motivation (and the character's) will determine its audience and possibly its success. (Note that I didn't say its quality. Things can be written well, and with care, that don't find an audience. don't ask me how I know that.

)

Calla Lily · Jun 12, 2009

I read Lord of the Flies in HS because it was assigned.

My reading choices changed when I became pregnant with my first child..

Rushie · Jun 12, 2009

seun said:
Do you have any problems with either writing or reading violence against animals and children? As long as it serves the story and isn't just in there to be unpleasant, I don't have a problem with either although I've never had reason to write a scene featuring violence against animals. I've killed kids (on paper ) and didn't have a problem with it.

What about you?

No, I have no problem with it. I'd have a big problem if people didn't write it because of political correctness. PC is one step away from forced censorship. However, I reserve my right to not read it, or to throw it away midway through if I don't like it. But like John Barnes on toast said, same as the rape thread, it needs to be well written and pertinent to the story.

James81 · Jun 12, 2009

It's interesting to me that people who no problem killing off an adult character (or violence against an adult character), but would have a problem with violence/death of an animal.

Phaeal · Jun 12, 2009

Hmm, maybe the brain hormones change with pregnancy. I have no more problem with children and animals at risk than with adult humans, or aliens, elves, etc., for that matter. If it's a life form, I have due compassion for it. Call me a biophile. Go ahead. See if I care.

Whatever or whomever you put at risk or to duress, do it for a very good reason. Get gratuitous or gleeful about it, I won't read any further.

An interesting example of the animal-squeamishness phenomenon: My favorite Dean Koontz book is Watchers, which centers around an intelligent Golden Retriever and its monstrous counterpart, both created in a government laboratory. The monster (a really really really scary one, yum) goes around killing random humans in very nasty ways. At the same time, a hitman is murdering anyone connected with the government laboratory. In even nastier ways. Beating them to death with hammers. Using a corkscrew to pierce their hearts.

But the only peril that got readers of my acquaintance really worked up, that they had to bull their way through, was when the Golden Retriever was menaced.

Go figure.

Kris · Jun 12, 2009

James81 said:
It's interesting to me that people who no problem killing off an adult character (or violence against an adult character), but would have a problem with violence/death of an animal.

I find this interesting too. I've encountered a lot of these types in life who take pride in valuing animals more than people. Weird.

jodiodi · Jun 12, 2009

James81 said:
It's interesting to me that people who no problem killing off an adult character (or violence against an adult character), but would have a problem with violence/death of an animal.

I'm one of those people.

I guess it's because I see animals as complete victims. Man (generic) is the supposed 'higher power' over animals and violence against those in one's control is anathema.

A lot of the time, people bring their misfortune on themselves or are at least theoretically capable of 'fighting back'. They have legal recourse as well. Animals don't.

Plus, I'm an animal lover. I've never had an animal abandon me, be deliberately cruel to me, deceive me, or betray me. I've endured all of that frequently from people.

Kris · Jun 12, 2009

Phaeal said:
Hmm, maybe the brain hormones change with pregnancy.

It MUST be some wacky biological thing. I don't think I gave a hoot about kids being kidnapped, dying, whatevs, in the movies or books, until I had a child. Some sort of neurowash bathes your brain when they hand you your helpless infant. Then a new behavioral pattern begins where you think that anything bad happening to the baby is WORSE than the end of the world. It's a kind of insanity, really. Babies were just as defenseless before I had one, where was I then?

Phaeal said:
An interesting example of the animal-squeamishness phenomenon: My favorite Dean Koontz book is Watchers, which centers around an intelligent Golden Retriever and its monstrous counterpart, both created in a government laboratory. The monster (a really really really scary one, yum) goes around killing random humans in very nasty ways. At the same time, a hitman is murdering anyone connected with the government laboratory. In even nastier ways. Beating them to death with hammers. Using a corkscrew to pierce their hearts.

But the only peril that got readers of my acquaintance really worked up, that they had to bull their way through, was when the Golden Retriever was menaced.

Go figure.

I haven't read this, but sounds like it might have to do with the animal being innocent, whereas the humans were involved in a dubious project?

Roger J Carlson · Jun 12, 2009

callalily61 said:
I read Lord of the Flies in HS because it was assigned.

My reading choices changed when I became pregnant with my first child..

When I was in high school, I thought "dead baby" jokes were the height of hilarity. Since my daughter was born, the very thought revolts me.

thethinker42 said:
Me too.

That said, I've never had any reason to write violence/cruelty towards children or animals...but if the story warranted it, I could and would. Similarly, if I'm reading a book, and the scene is relevant, necessary, non-gratuitous, I'll read and continue reading.

I don't think it is necessary in any story. I don't think those stories need to be told. I'm referring here to fiction. Non-fiction is another matter entirely.

Carlene · Jun 12, 2009

Nope, can't do it. Hurt a dog, I stop reading and will never read that author again. I've found most of those situations are written simply for shock value and half the time have little to do with plot. They usually want to show how BAD the bad man is.

Carlene

ChaosTitan · Jun 12, 2009

thethinker42 said:
Me too.

Me three.

To the best of my recollection, I've never killed, maimed, or mangled any children or animals* in my books, but I have put a couple of kids in danger (more of the "kidnapped for ransom" type of danger than the "splayed open on Jigsaw's table" danger).

ETA: *it doesn't count if they are shapeshifters

Kris · Jun 12, 2009

Carlene said:
Nope, can't do it. Hurt a dog, I stop reading and will never read that author again. I've found most of those situations are written simply for shock value and half the time have little to do with plot. They usually want to show how BAD the bad man is.

Carlene

I could see it being relevant because apparently a big red flag that can help you identify a sociopath or violent personality is if they see nothing wrong with hurting an animal. Normal people have an instinctive wish not to hurt a puppy, whereas for sociopaths they have to learn through social cues that it's wrong, or something like that.

The other thing is that animals are such sympathetic creatures, ESPECIALLY dogs -- man's best friend -- that it's rich territory for an author to mine to manipulate the reader's emotions. I guess if it comes across as manipulative, that's when you go, "Cheap shock value" and when it's so well-done that it doesn't feel manipulative, you go "good writing." (Well, not necessarily you since you said such plots turn you off, but Joe Average Reader.)

Roger J Carlson · Jun 12, 2009

ChaosTitan said:
Me three.

To the best of my recollection, I've never killed, maimed, or mangled any children or animals* in my books, but I have put a couple of kids in danger (more of the "kidnapped for ransom" type of danger than the "splayed open on Jigsaw's table" danger).

ETA: *it doesn't count if they are shapeshifters

There is a line, I think, somewhere between "putting children in danger" and "showing violence toward children" that I cannot cross.

I used to watch Criminal Minds on CBS. But they had an episode where a man bent on revenge, kidnapped three teenaged girls and put them in a room. Only two would get to leave and so one of them had to die and they had to decide.

The FBI agents caught the guy, but only after one of the girls was killed by the other two. That totally ruined the series for me. I cannot watch any episode because I can no longer trust the writers. The same would happen if I read a book with that kind of child violence. I would never trust that author again.

veinglory · Jun 12, 2009

Hurting animals is also a deal killer for a lot of readers, and I mean a *lot* of readers. I discovered that the hard way.

ChaosTitan · Jun 12, 2009

Roger J Carlson said:
There is a line, I think, somewhere between "putting children in danger" and "showing violence toward children" that I cannot cross.

I absolutely agree about that line.

As a reader/viewer, it isn't a line that would turn me off a book/show/movie unless it was handled poorly and/or was gratuitous.

As a writer, I've never come to a point where I had to consider crossing that line.

Animal/child violence

Horror Man

On hiatus

Horror Man

Seeing newness all the time

like motherf&cking Tolstoy

Great Scott Member

Abnormal Romance Author

delicate #!&@*#! flower

On hiatus

Great Scott Member

Whatever I did, I didn't do it.

like motherf&cking Tolstoy

Reflections of Reality

like motherf&cking Tolstoy

Moderator In Name Only

New kid, be gentle!

Around

like motherf&cking Tolstoy

Moderator In Name Only

volitare nequeo

Around