How graphic do you get? (not sexual)

[Pamster]

I am an amputee and nearly died from a motorcycle accident twenty years ago and most of my stories have graphic depictions of traumatic events, like the one I entered in the Gather.com contest had a graphic depiction of almost identical breaks and injuries as I had and I worry that they might be too graphic for the casual reader.

When do you determine enough is enough and let a scene go? Or have you during editing found a scene that was too graphic and you felt that you needed to remove some of the details. I am just wondering if maybe I am too desensitized to gore and tramua to really express it in a non-graphical manner? I don't want to get specific about things jus tin case I might be right and am too graphic about like bones breaking and blunt trauma.

I don't write horror...yet ;) But I am just having doubts as to whether or not my stories need to be toned down a hair. :)

[KingM]

Remember, the most horrific stuff is understated and implied. The human imagination can supply the details. If you do get graphic, use it judiciously. Like curse words, it will lose its efficacy with overuse.

Good luck.

[jdparadise]

The answer would seem to revolve around this: what's the purpose of the scene/paragraph/sentence/word in question? What do you want it to accomplish? If it goes toward accomplishing that goal, it may belong; if it distracts from that goal, it may need to go.

This goes for everything, not just graphic violence or graphic sex or whatever. I've written many a scene where the character is travelling somewhere. Unless something interesting happens on that trip--something that can't happen elsewhere, making the trip necessary--the travel can usually be summarized into something like "He walked until his shoes fell to rags; he walked until his blisters turned to callus; he walked until his callus turned to stone. And when he had done walking, he found himself in Camelot."

So . . . why is it there? How does it serve the story, and the story's themes? Is there a more effective way to address the same things?

[Pamster]

I love this place, if you have a question within a few minutes of posting you've got positive feedback in every sense of the words. Thank you both for your feedback I really appreciate the words of advice and agree with you both. Thanks for your replies! :D

[Judg]

The answer would seem to revolve around this: what's the purpose of the scene/paragraph/sentence/word in question? What do you want it to accomplish? If it goes toward accomplishing that goal, it may belong; if it distracts from that goal, it may need to go.

This goes for everything, not just graphic violence or graphic sex or whatever. I've written many a scene where the character is travelling somewhere. Unless something interesting happens on that trip--something that can't happen elsewhere, making the trip necessary--the travel can usually be summarized into something like "He walked until his shoes fell to rags; he walked until his blisters turned to callus; he walked until his callus turned to stone. And when he had done walking, he found himself in Camelot."

So . . . why is it there? How does it serve the story, and the story's themes? Is there a more effective way to address the same things?
I think you have inadvertently provided an excellent example of when telling is more effective than showing. Although even your telling is wonderfully visual.

[engmajor2005]

I have only trimmed the violence down once, and that's because during the editing process I read the scene in question and I felt disgusted. And if I feel disgusted, it's nothing but violence porn. Of course I didn't realize it when I was writing it; that's what the editing stage is for.

I'm sure you've already heard all of this, but I'm too lazy to read all the responses. So here you go:

1. What is the purpose of the graphic scene? Does it advance the story, draw an emotional response out of the reader, drive home the seriousness of the situation? Or is it there just because it's there? If it's the latter, kill it and re-write it.

2. Is the scene too clinical? I would much rather read something like this:

"The scent of metal and sticky sweetness hung in the air around the mangled body, which laid like a marionette clippped unexpectedly from its strings."

than this:

"He had bled profusely, and his arms and legs were twisted at impossible angles. At every joint, bone broke through skin and sinew."

That second one is disturbing, but it's also matter-of-fact. The first one puts an image in my head, one that sticks with me. I'll never look at Pinnochio the same way again.

Other than that, I say go for it. I'm the one that follows the three-word-rule when writing fight scenes after all.

That three-word-rule would be "More f*cking blood" by the way.

[maestrowork]

It's a balancing act between details and imagination. If you find yourself going on and on and on with details, your readers might feel exhausted and also everything becomes repetitive or gratuitous. Sometimes less is more. On the other hand, if you skimp too much, your readers won't get a good sense of what's going on and you lose the sensory and emotional impact.

Write the scene, then ask your betas about it. Too much? Too little? I think your test readers will you a better sense.

[Pamster]

I have only trimmed the violence down once, and that's because during the editing process I read the scene in question and I felt disgusted. And if I feel disgusted, it's nothing but violence porn. Of course I didn't realize it when I was writing it; that's what the editing stage is for.

I agree that violent porn (as in the way you're defining it) is not needed. And I know it can be a fine line between something showing and telling or going overboard with the telling instead of having it being balanced.

I'm sure you've already heard all of this, but I'm too lazy to read all the responses. So here you go:

1. What is the purpose of the graphic scene? Does it advance the story, draw an emotional response out of the reader, drive home the seriousness of the situation? Or is it there just because it's there? If it's the latter, kill it and re-write it.

This is exactly what I have determined is the case with the scenes in question, that they're there to up the drama and drive home the seriousness of the situation and it's not just there to be there. I think you put it very well about the sides of the coin I've asked about and I appreciate it. :)

2. Is the scene too clinical? I would much rather read something like this:

"The scent of metal and sticky sweetness hung in the air around the mangled body, which laid like a marionette clippped unexpectedly from its strings."

than this:

"He had bled profusely, and his arms and legs were twisted at impossible angles. At every joint, bone broke through skin and sinew."

That second one is disturbing, but it's also matter-of-fact. The first one puts an image in my head, one that sticks with me. I'll never look at Pinnochio the same way again.

I agree about being too clinical, it's a turn off for me too. I think its better leaving some things up to the imagination of the readers. :)

Other than that, I say go for it. I'm the one that follows the three-word-rule when writing fight scenes after all.

That three-word-rule would be "More f*cking blood" by the way.

It's a balancing act between details and imagination. If you find yourself going on and on and on with details, your readers might feel exhausted and also everything becomes repetitive or gratuitous. Sometimes less is more. On the other hand, if you skimp too much, your readers won't get a good sense of what's going on and you lose the sensory and emotional impact.

Very well put maestrowork as usual you are right on the money. I think too many details wear a person's imagination down and increases the chances they will put the book down and not be able to read any further because the style is just not clicking with their likes and hits the dislikes hard in the breadbasket. :p

Write the scene, then ask your betas about it. Too much? Too little? I think your test readers will you a better sense.

I will have to see if my beta can read over the edited changes I'd made to the work and see if she finds it too overly done or not. Again another good call maestrowork. :D

[Toothpaste]

Pamster,

Is this a children's novel or a different genre? Just 'cause that makes a world of difference as well.

[Pamster]

No not one of my children's stories, this is the one I entered in the gather.com contest called Walk of Fire about a young man who loses a leg like I did (only his accident is a drunk driver hitting other cars sending one to where he was standing in a corner payphone) and I would call it young adult though, mainstream genre I believe. :) Definitely not chick lit or children's type fic. :)

[Celia Cyanide]

Remember, the most horrific stuff is understated and implied. I thought American Psycho was more horrific than anything understated or implied.

[ScallyKat]

I think a lot of it has to do with how you happen to be writing your story as a whole as well. If it is filled with detailed imagery, or you really want to emphasize the turning point (assuming that the injury would be an important catalyst in the story) then I say more is good. However, I have written plenty of short stories, or scenes, in which I leave the incident as a whole vague, and perhaps describe one aspect of an injury. I have found this left my readers creating far more graphic details in their mind then I ever would have written.

[Zoombie]

As a reader: Graphic violence almost never bothers me...with the notable exception of one scene in the Forever War by Joe Handleman. One of the MC's was in a acceleration pod and there was a crease in the interior, so when the ship hit 25 G's it had cut a big old gash from her hip to her coller...I don't know why but it totally grossed me out...while I can watch some very very graphically violent TV shows and movies without batting an eye lid. And read some graphically violent novels.

As a writer: I don't know enough about human anatomy to handle injuries realistically. So I just handle them vaguely and that seems to work. So if your going to have graphic dismemberment or something and have it NOT result in sudden death, you'd better know what your talking about. Or sound like you know what your talking about.

[Sean D. Schaffer]

I am an amputee and nearly died from a motorcycle accident twenty years ago and most of my stories have graphic depictions of traumatic events, like the one I entered in the Gather.com contest had a graphic depiction of almost identical breaks and injuries as I had and I worry that they might be too graphic for the casual reader.

When do you determine enough is enough and let a scene go? Or have you during editing found a scene that was too graphic and you felt that you needed to remove some of the details. I am just wondering if maybe I am too desensitized to gore and tramua to really express it in a non-graphical manner? I don't want to get specific about things jus tin case I might be right and am too graphic about like bones breaking and blunt trauma.

I don't write horror...yet ;) But I am just having doubts as to whether or not my stories need to be toned down a hair. :)


In the manuscript I'm working on now, I have a main character step in the blood of a dismembered female dragon. And that is just about the extent of how graphic I personally get. I don't describe everything, because, as another poster pointed out, the human imagination can supply all the gory details.

However, that's how I do things. It doesn't mean that's how you have to write your stuff...

[Gabriel]

In my WIP, I had a psychopath go really violet on a victim, needless to say it was very graphic to the point where I did feel it was a little desensitized but then, that is what I was aiming for, to put the reader in the same uncaring and blank shoes of the attacker so that they could really understand his mind.

In general I'd say whatever flows naturally is what's right. Don't push it, what comes out, comes out and is your minds idea of a good job.

[bylinebree]

I'd say most of us (Americans anyway) are desensitized about violence -- which is really unfortunate. It's a sort of searing of your conscience, a loss of innocence. I think violence should bother us, varying from person to person on what type bothers them most.
An example: I saw the movie, The Departed, and by the last scene I actually didn't blink at one more execution-style splattering on a wall (and they really do bother me) Yuck, but even more disturbing that they'd managed to numb me somehow! I didn't leave the theater with a good feeling, and a book like that does the same for me if it ends with evil winning over good. Blech.

Movies aside; on to reading. It depends on how vested I am in the character and in the situation, and how the plot progresses. Certain kinds of violence just rip me up; that done to children, for example. I don't like it and don't choose to read it often. It makes me too sad - my imagination is very fertile!

As for writing graphic violence or injuries, etc, I have to push myself to do it -- but sometimes the story or character just demand it somehow.
For my readers, it just depends on what bothers them. Some want me to be more graphic, when I thought I WAS already. Some want me to tone down certain types, such as a rape scene I wrote. I had reasons for depicting it more graphically, but my female reader was really bothered and said so. But other readers didn't blink an eye at it.

I think we are called to push our boundaries, to leave our comfort zones, when we write and write well.

[zornhau]

I think you have inadvertently provided an excellent example of when telling is more effective than showing. Although even your telling is wonderfully visual.

That's telling in a transition or sequel, though. Very important distinction.

Myself; anything goes as long as it has a purpose. I want my scenes of knightly combat to be as visceral as possible, hence the liberal depiction of... welll.. viscera.

[tjwriter]

In my WIP, I had a psychopath go really violet on a victim,...

And this, my friends, (and fiends) is how we get purple prose.
:D

[engmajor2005]

I agree that violent porn (as in the way you're defining it) is not needed. And I know it can be a fine line between something showing and telling or going overboard with the telling instead of having it being balanced.


Just so that we're on the same page Pamster, I meant violence porn, not violent porn. "Violence porn" may very well be a term only I use, but I use to describe the kind of violence that is only there for violence's sake (much like pornography is sex for sex's sake). Think The Hills Have Eyes.

But for the record, we agree on violent porn as well (which I don't think I have to define).

I'm glad I was able to be of assistance, and I speak for all the writer's up here when I say you're free to probe our collective genius--real or imagined--whenever you want.

I'm glad to see that you're willing to excercise good taste (and writing) without compromising your vision.

[James D. Macdonald]

How graphic should your writing be?

Exactly as graphic as it needs to be for the story you're telling, neither more nor less.

[Pamster]

Just so that we're on the same page Pamster, I meant violence porn, not violent porn. "Violence porn" may very well be a term only I use, but I use to describe the kind of violence that is only there for violence's sake (much like pornography is sex for sex's sake). Think The Hills Have Eyes.

But for the record, we agree on violent porn as well (which I don't think I have to define).

I'm glad I was able to be of assistance, and I speak for all the writer's up here when I say you're free to probe our collective genius--real or imagined--whenever you want.

I'm glad to see that you're willing to excercise good taste (and writing) without compromising your vision.

Oh boy my bad on that it was the pain med I am taking making me make such a flub up, the mental fog beats the pain though, gotta say it does, well it does when it's working well enough. But yes I did follow what you were talking about, the violence for violence's sake definition. I have never heard the term used before so you most likely are the originator of violence porn engmajor2005. Thanks for understanding and pointing out my misinterpreation, I had hoped I took enough time to catch any of the mistakes I made but that one slipped through-LOL! ;)

I definitely want to exercise both good taste and staying true to my vision, which isn't always easy as I am sure many of you know it can be a fine line between something there just to be there and something that advances the plot or puts emphasis on a given situation or aspect you're trying to illustrate. I just know there's another mistake in the above reply of mine somewhere but my fogged and feeble brain can't pin it down...darn pain med. (dental surgery yesterday and I feel like a train hit my jaw even with the medicine)

How graphic should your writing be?

Exactly as graphic as it needs to be for the story you're telling, neither more nor less.

Thank you for the concise reply Jim, I think I did ok in my memoir and in the story that prompted this posting which was in the gather.com contest. As soon as I hear it wasn't moved forward I plan on submitting it to agents and seeing if I can find one to take it on. ;)

I've seen that certain book and film writers can and do go overboard, without merit, because they themselves are too into the formula of something. Example: books and movies that go way too into some grotesque, meritless graphic violence or brutality, simply because they assume that just because it's "moving", it must be good.

I personally would use my discretion, and try to see the whole picture first (or ask someone for critique), because often times things that are overboard do nothing but push the reader/viewer into an uncomfortable state of withdrawal from the mindset you want them to have.

Of course, strong elements are not automatically bad. What I intend to say is that many writers don't draw the line at what's just too much... so I think it's worth pointing out, since not everyone gets it right :)

Reading your reply Dario, made me immediately think of SAW the movie, now if there is a book I doubt I could read it any more then I could stomach the movie. It was much different then say Mad Max/The Road Warrior-the scene I am thinking of is where Max gives a guy a saw and cuffed him to e burning car and that was payback for killing his wife and infant. That I didn't have trouble watching because it was part of the plot advancement and growth for the Mad Max character. Whereas the violence in SAW would disturb me as an amputee so I know better then to expose my poor mind to more then it can handle.

Hope that all made sense, I will be so much happier when I start feeling better next week this week has been awful with the stress of facing the dentist-great guy and good at what he does but man that was some violence I was petrified of since it was a really difficult extration. Thanks everyone for the wonderful feedback, I do feel I was careful in my writing and that it was not gratuitous in nature and it does emphasize things I wanted to express about overcoming tragedy and 'walking away' from it stronger because of facing it bravely.