Something has been bothering me

We've had a thread or two here about this issue, primarily in movies, but also some books.

We all chipped in with some examples that we remembered. I wish I could remember the title of the thread; I'd go find it for you.

While pretty much everyone has the physical ability to kill another person, not everyone has the mental or emotional capacity to make that their first choice. (and we are all luckier for it)

And author often uses this lack of killer urge to denote the difference between good and evil. That's why you have the big bad mercenary who could rip your head off with one pinky, and yet he doesn't. He's the good guy. You have his arch-nemesis who could ALSO rip your head off with one pinky. And he does. He's the bad guy.

Now, there are some times that this reluctance to kill is taken to a ridiculous extreme, and then I agree that it's not the best plot technique in the world. But in normal use, it has its place.

There is also the possibility that the MC doesn't know who the baddie is, just that someone is out to get them. How can the MC off the baddie if they don't know their identity?

Or, the MC knows who the baddie is but doesn't know where they are, or can't get to them because of location or the presence of the baddie's henchfolk.

In the bigger picture, why bother with a story if the MC simply turns around the kills the antagonist, problem solved? Not a very exciting tale.

I have characters who's first response is violence. Imagine how much sympathy you can get for a character like that. Not a lot. And if your solution is to kill your nemesis, that comes with its own bag of troubles.

As was said above most people don't have the capacity to kill another human being. A lot do, if your character doesn't have the capacity give her a companion that does.

A lot of reasons I can think of that your characters would run every time instead of fight.

1. they haven't got the guts to kill
2. the nemesis bigger and badder than they are
3. the nemesis is invulnerable(at the moment), making any attempt less than worthless.
4. they are unarmed

Number 4 is probably the least acceptable, because no matter where you are, there are going to be rocks, large tree branches, poisonous animals and on and on.

My heroine murders someone in the first chapter

Tasmin21 said:

And author often uses this lack of killer urge to denote the difference between good and evil. That's why you have the big bad mercenary who could rip your head off with one pinky, and yet he doesn't. He's the good guy. You have his arch-nemesis who could ALSO rip your head off with one pinky. And he does. He's the bad guy.

Click to expand...

I like to turn this around in my own work. My protagonist enjoys killing, and as an Adversary has the authority to kill if threatened. However, he fears his own capacity for violence, and has spent his life working to keep his urge to kill on a tight leash.

My antagonist, however, doesn't particularly enjoy killing, but is willing to do it if he thinks it will further his cause. Nor is he particularly squeamish about engineering situations that will result in hundreds or thousands of people killing each other in order to advance his own goals.

Tasmin21 said:

Now, there are some times that this reluctance to kill is taken to a ridiculous extreme, and then I agree that it's not the best plot technique in the world. But in normal use, it has it's place.

Click to expand...

This reminds me of the manga and anime, Rurouni Kenshin. The protagonist, a ronin in Meiji era Japan, uses a blunt sword and refuses to kill no matter how dangerous his opponent; it's his way of atoning for the killing he did as an assassin in his youth. His refusal to kill places him and his loved ones in unnecessary danger several times, but things somehow work out.

For me, that would put them into the Too Stupid To Live category. At least mostly ( there would have to be some extenuating reason in the text).

If someone was trying to kill me, you can bet your boots I'd at least think about killing him first, even if I couldn't work up the courage. I'd say most people would at least consider it, even if they end up not doing it, and if a character doesn't, it seems a bit daft. ETA unless they're Mother Theresa

A lot comes down to fight or flight response, which is different for individuals. (My co-worker recently saw a toad trying to go head-to-head with her cat.) Some people flee on first instinct. Some people fight. Some people will fight, but only if cornered. Personally, it doesn't seem farfetched to try to avoid confronting someone who is a psychopatic murderer, because in all likelyhood, they're going to be better at it and might all too easily disarm a knife.

Nicole

It takes guts and, um, willingness to be a murderer.

#1 - I got

#2 - I'm seriously lacking.

believe it or not.

rougetaal said:

What you all said is true enough.
It takes guts and a certain mental state. But the villain often is a murderer who is actively seeking the hero(or other character) to torture or kill him.
For me it becomes simply a matter of survival, kill or be killed. But even before that, somehow the impulse to kill must be present, not as a first choice but still sometime before the hero has no other choice.

What I truly meant was that this impulse to kill is, to me at least, strangely absent.

Click to expand...

It's a flight or fight response. Your response is to fight. My natural response is to flee. The idea of striking back, even when someone else might see the opportunity, simply never occurs to me. I, literally, cannot see the opportunity that you would. I'm just not wired that way.

Lacking an impulse to kill, even in a life-and-death situation, makes total sense to me.

I think you're experiencing the flip side from where you naturally fall, which is why you're unsympathetic to the character's situation, which is totally understandable. But, yes, there are people out there who'd rather run and hide and can't immediately comprehend an agressive act of protection.

I think you answered your own question in the phrase... 'cowering in fear'.

I have no idea how I would react toward someone whom I thought - or even knew - wished to kill me. I know how I think I should react but that's not the same thing at all.

There are so many factors that come into play. No guns here.

In my house in the dark at night? I'd probably feel able to kill him but would I? I don't know. I don't think so. I can't see myself deciding to do that -in any event that would be murder in the UK. Reasonable force is all one is legally permitted to use.

If I caught him beating up my wife or kids? That's a different kettle of fish -I'd throw everything at him I could lay my hands on and then some. But still - reasonable force applies.

If I were aware someone was following me, outside? I don't know.

I'd have to be absolutely certain there was no other possible solution before I acted with the intention of killing someone - but even then -would I -could I?

I honestly don't know and I don't want the opportunity to find out.

You are talking about fiction here - it's not real. But the character's apparent reaction triggered by her fear, is believable. In any event, as someone else pointed out, if the hero/heroine kills the villain -end of story -no story at all, so I'm not sure what the point of your question is.

ETA -Welcome

rougetaal said:

(My first Post, First Thread. Yeah!)

In the many books that I've read, a lot of seemingly dangerous situation that could resolved simply by killing the villain.

For example, in a book I am reading the heroine is trying to escape and is pursued by several people. One of them is a boy not much older than herself. She hides herself, evading him, cowering in fear and never it comes to her mind that she could kill him. I must add that she knows that he is a psychopatic murder and knows that if she is caught, she will suffer a fate worse than death.

Maybe it's just me but couldn't she kill him, because I mean nothing is stopping her. He is not so superhuman that she couldn't simply stab him with a knife, and in fact I don't think he has any power at all.

Click to expand...

A good potential for character development is having your character go from someone who won't kill someone to someone who will.

In my story I've got a definite non-killer, who mucks about with his problems quite miserably, then gets caught up in a war where he naturally has to kill, and then after the war finds himself applying his new found capacity for violence to his old, pre-war problems. He now sees violence as an efficient method for problem solving. Of course, he is very uncomfortable with this situation. And he still can't just kill the villain because the later is well-protected, and retaliation would fall on the hero's family if he did.

In a kind of related story, I saw an animated thing on youtube entitled something like "How Lord of the Rings Should Have Ended." After Elron calls the meeting where they decide to destroy the ring, the Eagles - in bomber formation - carry Frodo into Mordor while Aragorn distracts the eye of Sauron. Frodo flies over Mount Doom and drops the ring into the volcano and it's over in five minutes.

I saw that LOTR thingy. Hilarious and so true.

I can't stand seeing characters TSTL drag through an entire book. Those are the ones where I root for the villains to slaughter them.

I haven't hit anyone with the intent to hurt them in my entire life. No matter how logical it might seem, or how easy it might seem, to kill a person--that is one heck of a psychological barrier.

I can understand the psychological block that most sane people have against killing. Even if we think we would, if you were actually in a situation like that, you would likely have second thoughts. Plus, if the heroine is cowering in fear, then she probably doesn't even have the physical means to take on the main villain.

What I find dumb is when characters kill several nameless soldiers, but hesitate, or in some cases outirght refuse to kill the villain, always citing some variant of "it's wrong to kill." It's dumb in so many ways.

For one thing, what makes his life more valuable than all the random Joes who the heroes just slaughtered without a second thought? For another thing, the main villain is both far more dangerous and more evil than any random guard. As the main baddie can likely hire more guards, and the main villain is the psycho behind the schemes, whereas most soldiers are just men being paid.

> a lot of seemingly dangerous situation that could resolved simply by killing the villain

*shrug* Another candidate for http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47391.

-cb

veinglory said:

I haven't hit anyone with the intent to hurt them in my entire life. No matter how logical it might seem, or how easy it might seem, to kill a person--that is one heck of a psychological barrier.

Click to expand...

It is indeed. I'm not sure I could do it ( unless someone's got my kids. Then they die)

I got no probs with a character not doing it, because of that barrier. But did they at least think about it? Did you at least think about hitting someone and decide against it?

If someone's trying to kill you it must at least cross their minds - even if only very briefly. Even if the thought is 'Oh god, I wish I had the nuts to kill them' or 'If I were to -- no, no, I couldn't do that' or whatever. If your life is in imminent danger of getting snuffed out, as so many characters' are lol, wouldn't you at least entertain the thought for a second, even of the barrier meant you didn't do it?

It's the fact that some characters have it never even cross their mind, when, logically, ( and especially in many of the fantasy worlds I read) it would be the best way to stop the danger, the best way to survive ( that is of course ingrained in us. The instinct to survive)that makes me wonder at them.

I ask myself this question all the time (mostly at the movies). "If the hero/heroine would just <XYZ>, their issue would be solved and none of these problems!"

To which the usual reply is, "Then you wouldn't have a movie."

rougetaal said:

(My first Post, First Thread. Yeah!)

In the many books that I've read, a lot of seemingly dangerous situation that could resolved simply by killing the villain.

For example, in a book I am reading the heroine is trying to escape and is pursued by several people. One of them is a boy not much older than herself. She hides herself, evading him, cowering in fear and never it comes to her mind that she could kill him. I must add that she knows that he is a psychopatic murder and knows that if she is caught, she will suffer a fate worse than death.

Maybe it's just me but couldn't she kill him, because I mean nothing is stopping her. He is not so superhuman that she couldn't simply stab him with a knife, and in fact I don't think he has any power at all.

Click to expand...

There are studies on this in RL - IIRC in battles where soldiers have no special conditioning, only about 5% shoot in the direction of the enemy, and 2% shoot to kill. In short, it's hard to get humans to kill.

Even so, I think it's unrealistic that characters in violent worlds with nasty threats to face, don't even consider it as a possibility.

bearilou said:

I ask myself this question all the time (mostly at the movies). "If the hero/heroine would just <XYZ>, their issue would be solved and none of these problems!"

To which the usual reply is, "Then you wouldn't have a movie."

Click to expand...

Ah but they don't have to succeed first time - then the story is them trying to solve their problem, failing, making things worse, and finally getting it right and solving the problem.

My problem isn't whether they do it or not. It's whether they consider it.