Violence involving children

No.

I think it's fine. Even some children's books have violence against children.

Just check out "The Innocents" by Richard Barre. Definitely not a taboo subject.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0425161099/?tag=absowrit-20#

Like the others have said, it's not taboo, necessarily, but some people won't read it. For example, I have a hard time with abuse/killing of kids or animals and I won't finish the book. I'll also make an effort to avoid the author in the future.

Ken Hoss said:

Just check out "The Innocents" by Richard Barre. Definitely not a taboo subject.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0425161099/?tag=absowrit-20#

Click to expand...

Just glanced through this--it sounds like the killings are off-screen or off the page, as it were? I can handle that a lot better than actual scenes.

Ditto what Jude said. I'd do it off-screen and maybe have someone mention later what happened. I wouldn't keep reading a book where someone tortured a child in front of me like that.

heyjude said:

Just glanced through this--it sounds like the killings are off-screen or off the page, as it were? I can handle that a lot better than actual scenes.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the murders occured years earlier and are just now coming to light. Haven't read the entire thing yet, it's on my to-do list, right after I get a "fresh start" on my current WIP.

I just wanted to clarify that I'm not someone who is easily squeamish. I love horror, I've read all kinds of crazy stuff, and while I'm not into torture-porn horror movies like those out now, a little blood and guts has never bothered me. I'm a big fan of SVU, and that obviously has many cases dealing with children being harmed. But in that case none of it happens on screen, and if it did, I wouldn't watch it.

I don't think I'm all that unusual. A lot of writers like to include things like this for shock value, but really, in most cases less is more.

Basically chiming in with everyone else here. Handle it off-screen. You can imply a lot without actually forcing the reader to "watch" the act. Actually, I think implied violence can be just as disturbing if not more so than spelling things out move by move. Letting the reader imagine what might have happened allows them to scale it to their own comfort level. Also, I've heard this in regards to rape, but I think it's a similar situation here. Portraying the actual act gives power to the perpetrator, not the victim. And if your victim (or someone related to) is the protagonist, that's the person to focus on. Their feelings, how they deal with it, etc.

Personally, I used to be able to read this stuff. Now that I have a kid? I almost started crying last night when we watched an episode of Deep Space 9 where a mother is separated from her children. I'm amazed at how little I'm able to handle of kids getting hurt, now.

heyjude said:

Like the others have said, it's not taboo, necessarily, but some people won't read it. For example, I have a hard time with abuse/killing of kids or animals and I won't finish the book. I'll also make an effort to avoid the author in the future.

Click to expand...

This. Personally, I don't read things where the violence against children and animals is on-screen and graphic. I have no stomach for it.

I wonder if the 'anti' people would have the same opinion if it were an adult.

If you want to be true to the person committing the crime, be truthful about them, that is, then write it.

I for one would put the book down if the author avoided being graphic about violence against children if he had no problem with showing violence against adults. To me, they're all fair game in this genre. Children and animals don't deserve special privileges or extra protection from their authors.

It depends, but children and animals are both innocent and helpless. They've done nothing wrong, can't be blamed, and are being utterly betrayed by those who should be protecting them (ie, adults). For what it's worth, I hold the same policy for rape.

Now, I'm not saying don't include it. If it's right for the story don't shy away from it, but I don't need to see every detail of a woman (or man) being brutally raped and murdered in a crime novel for it to be included.

I also agree with what someone said before-- a lot of times the dread element can be played up better by not showing everything that happened and letting the reader's imagination fill in what it will. I think violence in general is an overused shock device. I've written some pretty insanely violent scenes, but I actually left one out of the same story because it was too violent.

I think excess of any kind and anything that's included for the purpose of shocking the reader should probably be reconsidered. I have a hard time imagining a situation in which actually showing a child being tortured and murdered would be necessary.

kaitie said:

It depends, but children and animals are both innocent and helpless.

Click to expand...

As is anyone who has a violent crime committed against them. If they weren't helpless, they would have stopped it happening - whatever their age.

Just not a big fan of gratuitous violence. Granted, if it is integral to the story, as kaitie said, don't shy away from it. However, if you're just adding it for the shock value, then maybe you need to take a second look at your story. JMO.

scarletpeaches said:

As is anyone who has a violent crime committed against them. If they weren't helpless, they would have stopped it happening - whatever their age.

Click to expand...

I mean in the "dependent on an adult to survive" sense of the word. Maybe helpless wasn't the best choice. And as I said before, it depends on the circumstances, but there are times I'd say the same for adults.

Ken Hoss said:

Just not a big fan of gratuitous violence. Granted, if it is integral to the story, as kaitie said, don't shy away from it. However, if you're just adding it for the shock value, then maybe you need to take a second look at your story. JMO.

Click to expand...

That would apply to anything, not just violence, and certainly not just violence against children.

Gratuitous anything doesn't serve the story.

Scarlet's said it well. I think the point for me is that I have a hard time seeing this particular instance not being gratuitous. But everyone's levels differ. I know people who love Tarantino movies, but I can't watch them for the life of me because everything about them seems gratuitous to me. And yet I can watch a Japanese movie about a bunch of teenagers on an island forced to kill each other and be fine.

I've read a lot of crime novels, of all types, and I cannot remember a scene where violence to a child was happening 'on-screen'. It is usually described via the police or the coroner or whatever.

I won't read any torture scenes, no matter what or who the victim. But that's me.

But, tbh, I think having violence towards children or animals 'on-screen' would be a very tough sell.

scarletpeaches said:

I wonder if the 'anti' people would have the same opinion if it were an adult.

Click to expand...

No. You can argue logic all you want, and you're probably right, but children and animals affect me on a more visceral level than adults.

heyjude said:

No. You can argue logic all you want, and you're probably right, but children and animals affect me on a more visceral level than adults.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Maybe it's because I see too much in my job, maybe it's because I'm a dad. But the death of a child has to be off screen for me. No question.

I think what is particularly horrifying about child/animal violence is the lack of understanding. Of course every victim is innocent - otherwise, by definition, they would not be a victim. But adults know that the world is a dangerous place and that there are sick, twisted people in it. They are able to put their pain in context, and even if it is wrong it's comprehensible on some level. Small children and animals by nature have no other parameters in life except that "I am dependent on others for everything." When someone hurts them, it is worst betrayal because they simply cannot understand WHY.

scarletpeaches said:

That would apply to anything, not just violence, and certainly not just violence against children.

Gratuitous anything doesn't serve the story.

Click to expand...

Agree. Whether it is gratuitous violence, sex, or even comedy. If it is done to the extreme it serves no purpose.

heyjude said:

No. You can argue logic all you want, and you're probably right, but children and animals affect me on a more visceral level than adults.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your honesty. We might disagree on this matter, but I can definitely respect that.