Violence in my novel - perspective, please

First write your book. Then look at what is comparable on the shelves. Pass it by a trusted crit group or editor if you think it needs it. Alluding to a violent nature or act can be more effective than writing it. Never write gratuitously if its not needed to convey the plot or a character.

You have to know from the outset that high levels of gore and violence, implied or spelled out, will alienate a certain percentage of the reading population. If you're loving the story that you're writing, then I would suggest you ponder this fact for ninety-three seconds, shrug and carry on.

You will not be able to defend this. Some people are wired with a curiousity for how they respond to life's darkest images. The only safe venue for this innate characteristic is fiction. These are you readers. And they are many. It is perfectly understandable (and even reasonable) that other people will be repulsed and even angered by what they consider a glorification of wickedness. There's nothing you can do about it.

It depends on the nature of the book how graphic violence should be. Usually, high levels of gore is shunned upon, but, lets say you're making a medieval war book that has several large scale battle sequences. Why not? Heads are going to role. I might actually help the reader realize how visceral the scene is, and that incredible ferver of the field could effect the character somehow.

I like to sit back with each novel I do and try to figure out, if it were a movie, what would it be rated? An R rating would basically mean do what is necessary. A PG-13 would mean that some blood could be used, maybe a few scenes of some moderately intense violence, but most of the violence would be left implied or rather lightly described (e.g., Joe squeezed the trigger and hit the bad guy in the chest). PG would be much lighter subject matter overall, and all violence would be significantly toned down with very little blood, if at all.

What genre are you writing?

Write it. Don't avoid the truth as it applies to your novel. The reader will be able to recognize your avoidance.

Have you ever read American Psycho? I'm fairly certain that was rejected due to its violence, and at the point, Bret Easton Ellis was already an established author. (Although, I personally, I found Less Than Zero far more horrifying.) In fact, if I remember correctly, they had given him an advance to write it, and then rejected it when it was finished. Someone else can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's how it went.

In my opinion, being very subtle with violence and "letting the reader imagine everything to make it scary" is overdone. And, conversely, being ultra descriptive and over the top is also overdone. You probably want something in between. I would recommend you check out American Psycho, if you haven't already. Bateman is an interesting character, at least interesting in how shallow he is. He goes into torturous detail about his skin products, the finer points of his stereo system, and why he listens to Huey Lewis and the News. Then, he goes into the same ammount of torturous detail, with the same level of emotion, to describe some really, really sick killings. The result is a great metaphor for the sickness of yuppy culture. Granted, this is not what you are writing, I would guess. But it's a great example of, "stop! enough already!" so you can get an idea of how much is too much. You read it, and you see at what point the description of violence becomes interesting, at what point it starts to go on for too long, and at what point the reader begins to lose interest.

If you have any questions, please ask. I'm afraid I didn't explain this very well, but I hope I can help you.

Violence

When writing about violence, bear in mind your readers will imagine far worse scenes than you can ever write. With this in mind, less can be more. If you let your readers fill in the gory details, your work will be better received. Concentrate on suspense and let your readers imaginations carry the scene to its logical conclusion.

Kaku

I would much rather have a person stop reading my book because it was too violent or graphic, as opposed to them being bored. Think about it. When someone says a book (or movie) was too much for them to take, I want to read or watch it as soon as possible.

I just finished reading Haunted by Chuck Palahniuk (sp?), and I have to say he is one sick puppy, possibly the sickest of the litter. I almost stopped reading it twice, but the only back-up book (unread) in my house was a collection of Eudora Welty, so I was forced to finish it. Let's just say I read some things I'd never read before, and hope to God I never do again, and leave it at that. I guess I should have known better, since I've read a few of his other books but...okay, I knew it was going to be "different", but damn.

yes, there will be people turned off by violence. that's true of anything. no matter what you write, someone out there can't stand it.

I think that American Psycho was rejected, not because of the violence, but because it sucked.

Never read the novel, but the movie American Psycho was hilarious. I think after watching (enduring/suffering) films like The Cell, Passion Of The Christ, Saw, etc. that things like AS and Kill Bill simply come off as comedy.

Having said that...again, I have not read the book.

I tend to think less is more. There was this one scene I waited forever for in Stephen King's IT where a boy's head is wrenched off as his hands are still feeling for the zipper on the 'monster costume' (it wasn't a costume). It was enough of a shock and not overly described that I had vivid images in my mind all month.

James D. Macdonald said:

I think that American Psycho was rejected, not because of the violence, but because it sucked.

Click to expand...

I see how anyone could think that, but if that were the case, I don't understand how the company could have published everything else he did, and suddenly decided that this was bad writing. IMO, American Psycho is just as good/bad as everything else he ever wrote.

It's like Crash, by J.G. Ballard. It's something that I love, but I wouldn't defend it, because I see how anyone could hate it. In my experience, most people who hate it think it "sucked" because of the violence, which makes sense to me.

The movie, however, is brilliant. We have it in the comedy section in my video store.

goatpiper, that might be a good idea, to check out some of the more violent scenes in the book, and then see the film. I know a lot of people who hated the book and loved the film, because they thought they film used violence just enough, and not extremely over the top.

Celia Cyanide said:

I see how anyone could think that, but if that were the case, I don't understand how the company could have published everything else he did, and suddenly decided that this was bad writing.

Click to expand...

They bought it as part of a multi-book deal. At the time the contract was signed it hadn't yet been written.

.

James D. Macdonald said:

I think that American Psycho was rejected, not because of the violence, but because it sucked.

Click to expand...

Based on what I've read of what happened, the original publisher rejected the book because they thought it was too graphic and did not want to be associated with it.

Of course, another major publisher plucked it right up and published it, and it went on to sell roughly, oh, a bajillion copies. So I guess you could say a few people disagreed with your assessment.

aes25 said:

Based on what I've read of what happened, the original publisher rejected the book because they thought it was too graphic and did not want to be associated with it.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that was my understanding of it, too. I doubt a publisher would have given him a multi-book deal without at least reading Less Than Zero first. In any case, I believe you are right. I don't think the publisher said anything about the quality of writing. I think they just said it was too violent.

Going back to the original point...love it or hate it, American Psycho is a perfect tool to observe violence in prose and how to figure out how much is too much.

Goatpiper


Thank you for the topic. I'm dealing with the same issue in my novel. The violence is not gratuitous, nor is it omnipresent. But when it occurs, it is intense, vivid and graphic, which is the nature of warfare. It certainly seems popular in the daily newscasts.
I've been advised to allude to it rather than show it, but that wouldn't be genuine. I want soldiers to believe my death scenes. Some housewives may and some may not. But isn't candor necessary if you want to present YOUR truth?

If you're writing a horror novel, a certain level of graphic violence is expected. But keep in mind that most of the big publishers avoid horror (Leisure may be the largest PBO horror publisher, and while they have great distribution, they often don't have good contract terms)

If you want the book to be mainstream, don't do gore.

I'm a thriller writer. I've done hundreds of booksignings. I've seen, first hand, the look on people's faces when I tell them I write about serial killers. Some are immediately turned off. When I explain they aren't gratuitous, I sometimes swing them back and make the sale. A great many folks don't like graphic violence.

This is important to consider. Not only to the publishers realize this, but when you do sell a book, and you're standing in a Borders greeting customers with your 20 second speil and getting a 20% sell through, you're going to describe your book in a way that will appeal to the greatest number of readers.

Publishing is a business. It's not about art or talent, it's about the red and the black. If you want to sell, keep an eye on the market.

That said, several reviewers have mentioned that my books are loaded with graphic violence. The reviewers are wrong. The violence in my books happens offscreen, in the reader's head.

It's very easy to write a gory scene. It's much harder to only hint at it, and let the reader fill in the blanks.

The villains in my books do horrible, terrifying things, but I don't describe them. Still, people often call my books bloody. I consciously made sure the blood was minimal, and I still get called on it.

Being true to yourself and your work is fine for the first draft. If you want to sell 100,000 copies, be prepared to make some changes.

if it's something that is obviously apart from the rest of the text it should have a reason, ie you don't want to chuck in some passages with graphic violence all of a sudden just to shock, because it usually is a turn-off and not related to the rest of the novel.

just make sure it's relevant (the way you describe) to your overall piece.

american psycho's point was the uber-violence. the lack of violence in something like the tell tale heart is just as important.

I am stunned at the high level of violence in some murder mystery, British urban and horror books on the mainstream shelves. I doubt you are putting more in than publishers of these books would be comofrtable with. If you are really unsure research a few publishers and check their guidelines.

goatpiper said:

The human brain is a gas.

Click to expand...

No, it's actually made from green jelly.

Ah, well, look at A Clockwork Orange. The violence was very important in it. Removing it all together and putting it on some TV station or whatever would remove the entire purpose. If the book was made into a children's book, the point would be lost. If violence is needed, keep it in. Of course, if it's random violence, then don't bother leaving it in.

When I first started writing my book, I would try to tone down some of the violence because I thought I was taking it a step too far, but invariably, when my writing group got a hold of the pages, they would think I'd stopped short and clamor for that extra step. As a result, I learned to take a deep breath and just let the scene unfold as it needed to do.