How Does One Go About . . .

I'm locking this. It's rather frivolous on the surface but implies some things I'd rather not see given voice to here. Research is valid.

If my co-mod Torgo feels it's appropriate to re-open this, he'll do that later. My internet connection is too unreliable at the moment for me to stick around for long, or to discuss more thoroughly.

After some discussion with other mods, I am reopening this thread, largely because Cath, moderator of the Research forum, would like an opportunity to address the question.

We'll leave the thread open for subsequent discussion, but please pay very close attention to RYFW in all posts. I'm not really open to conversations that start questioning the motives of other writers, for example.

Thanks for your patience and understanding.

Thanks Kyla! I wanted to jump in, because as mod of the research forum I get asked this question a lot.

My theory is thus: violence isn't something easily researched in other ways.

If you want to know how to effectively stab someone in the heart, you can't just go out and do it without consequence.

It's not something folks might be willing to ask in person. Imagine asking a librarian how to drown someone in acid, and how long the body would take to dissolve. (Actually, I suspect many librarians would enjoy finding the answer, but that's off topic). What do you think the reaction would be if you asked this of a police officer?

Being online gives a sense of anonymity and safety you don't get in person. This is a community of writers; we assume we know why people are asking. It's a relatively safe environment to ask these questions.

Also, we have wonderful contributors from a huge variety of backgrounds - EMTs, doctors, police, nurses, scientists, and other people who have been in the thick of it - who may actually know the answers or know where to find them.

Conflict is a huge part of fiction, and violence is a major source of conflict. Many of us are lucky enough to never have experienced it, so we need to ask.

I think Cath is on to something about the touchiness of asking pros how to kill somebody or hide a body. If you're a famous writer, or someone the pro actually knows to be a writer, could be easier. Otherwise you might open the door and have an NSA badge shoved in your face.

Reminds me of Peter Jackson's story about filming the death of Saruman. He directed Christopher Lee to scream when he got stabbed in the back. Lee said, no, no, Peter. When one is stabbed in the back, one's breath is taken away, one won't scream.

Considering Lee's intelligence work during WWII (and perhaps happy to have an expert VOLUNTEER such info), Jackson decided he'd let Lee do the scene without that scream.



As for the overall violence question: if you need it, go for it. If you're piling it on because you think some market or reader requires it, stop. Gratuitous is gratuitous is boring.

The above posts have answered the first question better than I would have, probably, and I agree with them, so I'll address this:

Ken said:

How about your own works, while on the subject of violence. Is there a fair share in yours? Is there some sort of understood quota that needs fulfillment?

Click to expand...

There is a good amount of violence in most of what I write. There is no quota. I don't plan it. It is something that just comes out. Because I think a very small homunculus trying to get a severed head that is bigger than him down a flight of stairs is hilarious.

Maybe that says something about me, something not that complimentary, but...

I like drama and chaos and the full range of behavioral extremes, and violence is a part of it. I also don't imagine things very vividly most of the time, so I can easily go over the line without realizing it.

There is no thought akin to "I must put violence in so it seems more interesting and shocking!" I'm not doing anything consciously. Violence is a fascinating part of behavior, to me, as fascinating as love, and I like to explore both, even though I have zero experience with either.

I think another reason for the research in this area (I like what's been said so far) is that people, especially writers, honestly don't know the answers!

For example, if I'm writing an article on computer hardware, I only have to do some very minor research, as I tend to write what I already know. I don't know much about how the human body responds to being immersed in hydrochloric acid, and I'm guessing most writers don't actually know that (unless you happen to have a MC that does that a lot).

But to add to buzhidao's response, in my opinion, I think violence is something that actually draws readers, at least in a way. I tend to think people read books because it takes them away from their present day. The majority of people have no experience with violence in their daily lives, so reading about it can give them excitement, or otherwise take them to places they have never been -- so to an extent, I think most readers actually desire some sort of violence in their reading -- not because they want violence, but because they want an escape, and that's simply one route to it.

As for my stories, I would say that violence arrives as a course of action where the story leads. In other words, if I'm writing about fictional spies that are spying in hostile foreign countries, there's going to be violence because that's what's expected from that sort of action.

Ken said:

How about your own works, while on the subject of violence. Is there a fair share in yours? Is there some sort of understood quota that needs fulfillment?

Click to expand...

My current series is set in a land on the brink of the Industrial Revolution, fighting a war for land while racing to keep up with neighboring countries on a technological level. Probably inspired by too many Civ III games.

Under those circumstances, some level of violence is necessary. Like buzhidao, I don't have that in the story just to spice things up and shock readers.

In a medieval fantasy, there's likely to be violence. In a sweet inspirational romance, there isn't. Different authors, different genres, different standards.

Phaeal said:

Reminds me of Peter Jackson's story about filming the death of Saruman. He directed Christopher Lee to scream when he got stabbed in the back. Lee said, no, no, Peter. When one is stabbed in the back, one's breath is taken away, one won't scream.

Considering Lee's intelligence work during WWII (and perhaps happy to have an expert VOLUNTEER such info), Jackson decided he'd let Lee do the scene without that scream.

Click to expand...

That reminds me of the article, "Drowning doesn't look like drowning." It's always a bit shocking to have your preconceived notions wrecked by something that should have been common-sense.

Something like realizing a person stabbed in the back can't use their lungs well enough to scream in pain.

Something like realizing a drowning person hasn't enough air to shout for help, and they can't wave their arms because they're using them to keep their head above water.

I compare most fiction in whatever medium to rollercoasters. The thrill of the rollercoaster is putting your body through something that makes it think it is in danger, that it might be about to die even, but in a completely safe way. With fiction we often want to be taken to those same places - not necessarily just violent ones, but also overly romantic or very silly or whatever - we want to push our imaginations to the extreme, see what it would be like to get to experience the things we simply don't in most of our lives.

That's not to say there isn't also fiction that holds up a mirror to nature, that does actually quite the opposite: puts a microscope over the mundane. But that tends to be more literary fiction. The more popular books I find tend have that escapist dangerous exciting elements.

ETA: Ack! Not saying Lit Fic can't be popular either, but I'm thinking of the Grishams and the EL Jameses and the JK Rowlings and the Stephen Kings.

There's plenty of violence in literary fiction too, it's certainly not limited to genre fiction.

Ken said:

Beheading someone ?

Drowning someone in hydrochloric acid ?

Lynching someone ?

Throwing someone off a cliff ?

Sauteing someone for din-din ?

Ever notice how the majority of questions in the research forum have subjects similar to these? Not that there's anything at all wrong with such sort.

Still rather curious. Violence, violence, and more violence. Is it a reflection of the sort of subjects that are being written about at present? Or maybe just that such subjects are hard to research in general, requiring assistance?

How about your own works, while on the subject of violence. Is there a fair share in yours? Is there some sort of understood quota that needs fulfillment?

Again, not to say anything is at all wrong with violence in fiction. It is a fine thing -- deserving of much praise, I dare say !

Click to expand...

Well, I can tell you how I do these things, but we each have our own methods.

I have beheaded quite a few animals. I've skinned animals, cut up animals, and baked, fried, broiled, sauteed animals I killed, etc. I've never eaten "man meat", but I've talked to half a dozen people who have.

I've killed animals with a shotgun, a rifle, a handgun, a bow, a spear, a knife, a hatchet, a snare, and a club. The snare could count as lynching.

No hydrochloric acid, though.

A great deal of this translates well to people.

I've also been in a firefight a time or two, and a couple of knife fights, and I've witnessed others.

Killing a person is usually easy. Very few people are physically or emotionally prepared for real violence. It's getting away with it that's difficult. Unless you kill a complete stranger for no reason. Most murders are solved because the killer and victim know each other, and there's a motive, be it anything from anger, jealousy, money, etc.

But if you kill a stranger just for the thrill of it, and manage to do so without witnesses or security cameras seeing it, chances are you'll never be caught.

When I don't know something, primarily because weapons, tactics, and even the basic technology for killing all change continually, I do ask experts, and there are many. On one side, I talk to the FBI, Navy Seals, etc., just to keep up to date. On the other side, I talk to murderers. Most of them love to talk, and they'll tell you all about it.

If you aren't squeamish about asking, experts are usually happy to help. Making the contacts can be difficult for some, but if you can make them, you will get help.

If you can manage it, I think watching an autopsy or three is a good idea, especially when the guest of honor died a violent death.

In Torn Curtain, Alfred Hitchcock wanted to defy the idea, as often presented in movies, that it's easy to kill someone.

The killing weapon of choice was natural gas, chosen at the spur of the moment.

The scene was not one that leaves the mind quickly.

Ken said:

"Quicksand," 1950, staring Mickey Rooney. After murdering his boss by hitting him on the head with a gun I believe he takes off. A stranger gives him a lift. A lawyer. Rooney relates his troubles. The lawyer asks, "Are you sure he's dead? It takes a lot to kill a person." Sure enough he isn't dead, though of course that's just a movie.

Click to expand...

I had a friend who was a critical care nurse, and she said it could be very unpredictable how much damage would kill a person. She had one patient who stepped in front of a train and got seriously wrecked, but survived, and another who fainted, bumped her head, and didn't.

I also read a paramedic's blog where he once mentioned how tricky it could be treating children. On one hand, their bodies are strong and healthy, but on the other, they just don't have much reserve energy to draw on. One minute, their vital signs are great and the kid seems resilient -- and the next they're crashing and need immediate intervention to survive.

I also knew someone who thought she killed her (abusive) husband after he attacked her and she clocked him in the head with a piece of lumber. She turned herself in to the police, and sure enough--like your movie--when they went back to the crime scene, her husband was sitting there covered in blood and swearing up a storm.

So I guess the point of this post is to splort out another version of the ever-frustrating answer, "It depends."

Cath said:

There's plenty of violence in literary fiction too, it's certainly not limited to genre fiction.

Click to expand...

I wasn't saying there wasn't. I was allowing for the fact that not all books are violent or larger than life, some are small and domestic, some are about the fact that life is mundane. That's all.

Speaking from only my own personal point of view here, I find that I can access certain types of information here without creating alarm, scaring people, or causing someone to take too much of an interest in what I am doing.

For instance, if I need to know how to set a bomb under a car, I can't ask my parents - they would freak out, or our local friendly police officer who would be obligated to hold me, or any of a string of other people who wouldn't understand, or who would spend hours or days psychoanalysing me all over something that will constitute only a paragraph or two in the finished work.

I think we ask about violence more than other things because people are generally not violent. It's not something that comes easily to a lot of people.

Well, as others have said - we don't know how its done, this is a safe place to get good answers - and I'll add, hooray for everyone who wants to get details right.

Further to that - as far as I can see there is a lot more violence on TV than in books.

Just wondering too - how many questions are about violence, how many about accidental injuries (car crash for example) and what the other topics are. Do moderators have a more overview access mode in which they could research that? (Assuming it could be done in ten minutes via this access mode, not take hours.) I'm a bit of a data hound, so as soon as anyone says "lots of xxx" I want to see a bar chart, or other appropriate data display to show how many threads of a given type appear in a forum in say a year.

It could also be that we just notice the violence threads more because they make us a bit uncomfortable.

Since nobody's mentioned this so far, I'll just say that the how-to-commit threads make me uneasy for another reason:

It would be very easy to do real-life research under the pretence of writing a novel.

I understand that writers may need a safe place to ask squeam-inducing questions. Still, there's always a part of me that wonders if we're instructing some real-life murderer on how to do it and get away with it.

These threads are not password protected. You don't have to so much as sign up to find them via Google. And anonymity--pardon the saying--cuts both ways.

So the question, if I am reading it correctly, is why do we write so much violence?
Human beings are an inherently violent species. we have been killing each other for as long as we have existed. then we got all civilized but that primal part of us is still there, covered by generations of attempts to behave like proper ladies and gents.

I think some of us are better at hiding our primal urges- so most of us don't strangle or beat to death the shopper that cuts in line in front of us- we might think about it- but we don't act on the urge- some of us don't have the tools to rein that urge in-

maybe it's a genetic hiccup, which results in no impulse control, or maybe these people are throw backs to who and what we used to be- either way I find it fascinating to write about people like this. People who act violently
without regards to consequences, or despite the consequences. people who strive to bury the need to act violent but cover it with a thin veil of civility so they can fit into what society deems is acceptable-

people like this are why I write thrillers- to pit good against evil- or perhaps to see how much it takes to tip the scale for the good to take all they can take and then give into those urges- sometimes to right a wrong or sometimes just because they can-

This is my own perspective, it is why I write violence, why my own work is riddled with it.

jjdebenedictis said:

So I guess the point of this post is to splort out another version of the ever-frustrating answer, "It depends."

Click to expand...

In other words, if the author wants it to happen.
If not, the author has a plethora of ways for it to not and have it make sense.

Man, writing is often playing god.

As for me, when it comes to detailed violence, I'm usually not interested unless there's some emotional element to it. The details aren't what matter, it's what happens next. It's the characters dealing with what happened. If a scene makes me uncomfortable, I can always read or write it out quickly.

I don't think I've ever worried about "safe" when asking such questions. Like James, I seek out the experts (typically online since I tend to be a social troglodyte), explain that I'm working on a piece of fiction, give a scenario, and go from there. I've yet to be visited by the authorities, and most folks are more than happy to accommodate. I have had people tell me they couldn't tell me all the details of some of these things, but I got enough info for my needs.

As to the violence in my writing, I use it if I need it and don't if I don't. The level of violence again depends on what's needed and what isn't. I don't put it in to titillate readers, but I don't leave it out to coddle them, either.

This is a fascinating discussion -- thanks for keeping it open.

I agree that the reasons these things get asked about are (1) they're hard to research, and (2) most people (fortunately!) don't have much experience with violence.

As for violence in fiction, as a concept -- I've thought a lot about this. I'm an action movie junkie, and the series I'm writing right now has a fairly high body count. And I think 95 percent of the reason I work in movies -- or write, for that matter -- is that it's like LARPing times a thousand.

Because for me, there's something thrilling about heroic feats, life and death situations, or, I'm not going to lie, even crazypants villains. I don't want to be in a life and death situation for real...unless I know it's going to work out okay. But that's what we can DO in fiction. We can be in those situations, or as close as possible, while still controlling the outcome, and knowing that, ultimately, *we* as real people are not going to die. (Same reason I like lucid dreaming, btw.) Consuming any sort of (well-done) media does that for me, as does creating it.

Extremities also help us explore humanity, I think. Character.

Now, personally -- because I am writing escapist fiction -- there are certain types of violence I'm not going to put in, because they're going to be too personal or too serious for my audience (or me, for that matter). Rape, for instance, is going to be far too personal a type of violence for much of my audience for me to want to include it, ever, in the type of action-adventure-escapism series I'm doing right now. Graphic depictions of torture are also not something I'd be interested in writing. I'll leave that for the writers who can attack that subject seriously in parallel to atrocities in the real world. (The level of graphic-ness is also an interesting point, I think -- how I write violence, and how I like to see it written, varies drastically be genre. In an action movie I *want* it to be somewhat sanitized so I can enjoy the pretty explosions, whereas in a serious fiction film about the atrocities of war or slavery or other real-world horrors, I want the movie to wrench me, and go there, and make me understand.)