use of violence

It depends on if your going for shock value or setting up a pattern of behavior. If it's a serial killer or rapist, then there needs to be mention of it early on in the background. (newspapers, newscasts on TV, gossip, etc) If it's a one time thing, then a sudden shift into violence can be the most effective means or eliciting a reaction.

I think it depends on the story.

If most of the characters are happy-go-lucky sorts than having a violent scene may come off as abrupt, there for the sake of having violence, pointless, or shocking. Especially if this is the only violent scene in the book. But the violence can always be hinted at by a character having violent thoughts or near violent actions, or having a semi violent scene earlier on and having this main violent scene be more violent or more intense than the previous one.

Really, it depends on what kind of reaction you want your readers to have. Do you want them to react with shock? Do you want them to expect what's coming?

It also depends on how the characters would act. Would this be the only time the characters are prone to violence? Or are the characters prone to violence at other times as well? Does this act(s) of violence even fit with how the character would act in the first place? Or is it there merely to shock (or whatever other emotion you want the audience to feel) the audience?

Yttar

If you're foreshadowing it, I think you can effectively build enough suspense that the scene in question will be both shocking and numbing (as it should be), as well as inevitable and somewhat expected. If this scene is important for your MC -- and it sounds like it is -- then including it is probably the right choice, even if it will be shocking compared to the rest of the book.

But don't insert more violence just to pave the way for the pivotal scene. You want that scene to have IMPACT, after all. Putting in more violence just to ease the way towards the scene is doing it for the wrong reason. If it's right for your story, yes, otherwise let that pivotal scene stand on its own.

A guy I look to for the art of walking this fine line is, obviously, Alfred Hitchcock. He was a master at knowing when to show violence and when to imply violence, when to shake the audience out of their comfort zone and when to handle things with subtlety instead.

It needs to be in line with the theme of the story - kind of like sex in writing. If you're going to be explicit about it (extreme gore - and I mean extreme), don't just spring it out on the reader. You may scare them away.

Readers scare away easily. Somebody hold me? Wait...never mind.

Sometimes using more intense scenes is effective in showing just how terrible someone is. Just how horrible what they did was. That's fine - just don't go overboard.

-Travis

Dang. I thought this was a thread about securing an agent.

caw

Personally, here's what I prefer:

Sexual violence committed against anyone, or any sort of extreme cruelty to children to be implied, or described in vague terms rather than explicitly described. I got roped into joining a book club years ago that was reading "Fall on Your Knees," an Oprah pick, and I still can't get the imagined pictures out of my head of a father abusing his little girl.

If you're going to be explicit, I think you're correct that you need to prepare the reader. I read a fantasy once and was enjoying the typical fantasy sword fight type of violence, when out of nowhere a little boy was sexually abused. I felt betrayed by the author and decided never to read one of his books again.

I opened up "The Shack" and knew from page one there was probably going to be stuff in there I wouldn't enjoy, so I sent it back to the library. Yet I wouldn't write off the author, because I didn't feel betrayed.

I'm particularly squeamish about these things, but I think most readers want to know what kind of story they're getting. Sure, we want to be surprised, but only within the bounds of our expectations. I hope that makes sense.

blacbird said:

Dang. I thought this was a thread about securing an agent.

caw

Click to expand...

We could always hijack it, i.e. is it a good idea to start a novel with violence before settling into a lazy tale of life in a small town? Would this hook an agent?

What I'm really trying to say is it depends on the genre. If you only have the one violent scene in a book that otherwise doesn't lend itself to that sort of thing, then you might really put some thought into how to set that up. If you're writing horror, then that's another story (no pun intended).

I'm a lover of shock value personally. My best scenes are the violent ones (sans erotica, I don't do rape or sexual abuse type scenarios) and in particular the horror type violent scenes. Monsters ripping guts out has always been both my love affair and talent. I love horror movies and love writing horror genre.

I don't mind reading it but if, like my parentheses say, it's sexual abuse or rape I personally cannot handle it. I have baggage so to speak from childhood experiences.

TT

My WIP is overflowing with violence, but then it depicts a world where the most advanced society is about equivalent to 1800 A.D. England, and the rest are a couple of hundred years behind. The first chapter starts with a sea battle, so I don't think my readers are going to be shocked to find it elsewhere, although I ramp it up hugely in my favorite chapter, in which a POV character survives a monstrously violent assassination attempt. Think Clive Barker meets George R. R. Martin for that scene.

I hope it doesn't scare readers away, because that scene was one of the primary reasons I wrote this book in the first place. I have yet to beta-test it on readers. I'm hoping they reel in shock but also get a thrill out of the unexpected way he gets out of his predicament.

I think the book should not change character too suddenly as this might kill the reading experience.

Maiden said:

Well my WIP is walking the line between Urban Fantasy and Horror. The horror part doesn't come in for the first part of the book though. And I am not big on rape scenes myself (and the scene in the book is attempted, not that the fact makes it much better.) But there is more then just that violence in there. It all daoes happen aroudn the same time though.

There is no getting around the violence and gore involved. It is actually an important part of the plot. I will probably try and foreshadow a bit more so that readers can see it coming. I just don't want to be corny about it.

Click to expand...

Only once did I have to write an extremely violent/gory scene and I used foreshadwoing about the character by showing what he was capable of in other non violent circumstances. The reader did not know what he planned to do only that it would 'make sense' for that character. When the violence has been justified by other means in the story (characterization, foreshadowing, plot, etc) the reader won't fault you for it if the scene 'fits'.

One of my favorite books, The Lovely Bones, had a horrific and violent murder to tackle and Alice Seibold handled it quite well. It was disturbing, heartbreaking, and upsetting, but perfect for that story.

I suggest you do what feels right. Fly by instinct like no one will ever read it and then have a few beta readers check it out and see what they think. Don't hem yourself in too early by modifying it before a reader gives some feedback. They may think it is quite powerful the way you've done it. You can always revise, it's part of the job,

If you aren't used to doing such things, I'd have to suggest that you imply the violence. A couple of my completed manuscripts deal with war, and there are many deaths sprinkled throughout them (literally hundreds) though only a certain parts could the violence be considered explicit. It depends on the character's state of mind--is it the first time they've been confronted with this kind of violence? Have they been through a traumatic experience beforehand? Then again, you also have to consider (I say this all the time, I sound like a broken record) the nature of your story. I'm not, nor have I ever been, one to censor myself or others based on whatever standards may exist, and I don't believe anyone else should either.

It's important to note that implied violence can work just as--if not more--effective than explicit details. Scarface and the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre have been considered gory (Scarface for the infamous chainsaw scene and TCM for Leatherface) for years, although in neither movie is there ever a since explicit depiction of gory violence. In Scarface, you never see the chainsaw going through the arm, and there is only a brief splatter of blood from off screen, while in TCM Leatherface hits someone over the head with a mallet and hangs a girl on a meat hook, yet no real blood and they are brief instances. Despite this, they have been thought of for decades now as gory.

I think it depends on the story and how vivid the author creates other aspects of the story. I also think that unless writing in a specific genre that we need to think about what readers expect from reading books in that genre. If they are reading a romance they wouldn't want to read about rape or murder.

As much as a writer shouldn't go out of their way to piss off their readers, they also shouldn't lose sight of the more important issue.

Do what's best for the story. If that means hinting at violence approaching, then go for it. If it means going from a picnic with fluffy bunnies in La La Land to the next scene of someone's head exploding while a small child is sacrificed to a goat, then do that as well.

It's all about the story and what's best for it.

seun said:

It's all about the story and what's best for it.

Click to expand...

I agree that what's best for the story is important, but here's my take on that:

All these years I've been building stories, doing this lonely work of creating something, and the most difficult, saddest part of this process for me has been that moment when I'm "finished" and it's ready to share with the world, and then the story sits on my desk, unread. Maybe a friend reads it, but that's not what I meant it for. Stories are meant to be read, to be shared. Everything I've created is less real, less alive if no one reads it. It's suffocating in a box. It just wants to breathe, to come to life in someone else's imagination.

So, to me, what's best for my story, what's best for me as a writer, is what's best for the reader. Because my story exists to be read. That's why I wrote it down.

I realize different people write for different reasons. I write for readers.

Of course, there's a great variety of readers to write for, and as long as they have an idea what they're in for, you should be fine.

I think we all feel like that to a greater or lesser degree. Much as writing is fun, we want our stories to be read and enjoyed by as many as people as possible.

I think you have to show that it's part of the story world, unless the genre does that for you.