# Remorse from writing horrible scenes



## DaBlaRR (Jan 10, 2016)

I've written scene's of rape for instance. I often don't go into detail, but still the premise is sick. Sometimes I feel that I hope people don't think I get off on that crap... It was merely writing in a situation that was necessary and I always have to walk away and say.... It's from my head, but it is just the story. 

I have some gangs in my story. Some of them have a racial bond and I write against them. I'm not racist in any sense but I segregate these people, just for the story. I don't want to mention the race because right now there is a lot of things going on in the world right now that .... well you know. I will say it isn't a common segregation, but it is none the less. 

My point is. Is it ok for the story? I mean my main characters are pretty much villains. In fact to find a "good guy" in my story, you'd have to look to the people who have done less things that are bad. 

I don't want to come off as someone who condones anything I write as a story. It's just a story. But some of it disgusts me after I put it on paper. In away that is what it's supposed to do....


----------



## dale (Jan 10, 2016)

if your story can't be honest, it's a lie. and if it's a lie, the reader will know it's a lie.


----------



## DaBlaRR (Jan 10, 2016)

dale said:


> if your story can't be honest, it's a lie. and if it's a lie, the reader will know it's a lie.



Interesting. When you say honest. Do you mean honest to the writer? Or honest to the story?

Fiction is all a lie, the way I look at it. But I don't have to write in a way that is truthful to my own beliefs in order to create this believable lie, which is fiction. 

Your comment's like a riddle.


----------



## dale (Jan 10, 2016)

DaBlaRR said:


> Interesting. When you say honest. Do you mean honest to the writer? Or honest to the story?
> 
> Fiction is all a lie, the way I look at it. But I don't have to write in a way that is truthful to my own beliefs in order to create this believable lie, which is fiction.
> 
> Your comment's like a riddle.



well....i don't see fiction as a lie, unless it is a lie. but that's me personally. i see the majority of my fiction
as a sometimes cryptic sub-conscience truth. sometimes i don't notice it though, until after i'm finished with
it and reread it.

but even based on what you're talking about....if that's how you feel your story should go, then
i wouldn't change anything. just because rob zombie wrote "house of a thousand corpses", doesn't
mean he fantasizes about actually BEING otis firefly.


----------



## DaBlaRR (Jan 11, 2016)

Don't get me wrong. There is truth in everything I write too in reference to your sub-conscious truth. There is lot's actually even if it is just touching the surface of a real life truth. 

Obviously not some of the extremely dark demented stuff though.


----------



## BobtailCon (Jan 11, 2016)

dale said:


> if your story can't be honest, it's a lie. and if it's a lie, the reader will know it's a lie.



Well said.


----------



## Phil Istine (Jan 11, 2016)

Maybe just write it the way it comes out.  I'm currently writing a piece about a former psychiatric patient who receives an unfair ticket for a traffic violation.  After his appeal fails, his old illness is triggered and he takes brutal revenge on the issuing officer and those in the system who backed him. It just happened that the issuing officer was a lesbian. The idea came to me after receiving a wrongly issued parking ticket that I was unable to get cancelled (and yes, one of the parking wardens around here is a lesbian - though I've no idea if it was she who issued the ticket).
The main character is homophobic and has serious issues with authority figures.
If anyone might believe that the main character represents my beliefs and actions, they are way off.
Yes, I do feel frustration sometimes at those who appear blindly pro-establishment and yes, I was a psychiatric outpatient for a while many years back (the aliens cured me!), but that's as far as it goes.
Do people wonder if Dennis Wheatley was a hater of Germans who went around murdering satanists?  Of course not.  Mind you, he was an irritatingly incurable snob.


----------



## Patrick (Jan 11, 2016)

You're in control of the subjects you write about. Perhaps don't write about rape?


----------



## Ultraroel (Jan 11, 2016)

I think you can write whatever. With horror stories or movies we do not condemn the author or the director that specific scenes were made up?
Why would you feel bad for something fictional that happens and that you describe. I mean, if we would all be judged on the things we have in our imagination, wouldn't we all be labelled psycho's in some way. As long as the description of the scene is in line with the story and the character, I don't see why you would shy away from scenes that might be controversial. 

Unless you are writing an autobiography or your have a specific, clashing message you would like to express I would not feel bad for writing fictional scenes and loading it with details that would horrify you.


----------



## Bishop (Jan 11, 2016)

Don't let fear of perception guide your work. Tell the story as it needs to be told. Countless writers have fought hard to make it okay for you to have the freedom to write as you need to. If you feel bad about having written it, changing it will just neuter your story and make you feel worse as your work suffers; at least that's my take.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Jan 11, 2016)

If you're so concerned about what you're putting in your story, why not try to think of other ways to convey the issues? At the end of the day, you're the one who decided to write a story for which rape was necessary, so...maybe that's on you.  You're the one writing a story where the "good guys" are simply the ones who are only "kind of evil," right?

To me, rape, violence, racism, profanity, sex, and all the rest are just lazy shortcuts to get the reader to a certain response.  Sure, you could show a gang is racist by having them do hate crimes, speak with slurs, and so on, but it's very possible to explore racism and its effects without any of that (_Remember the Titans_ is the example that comes to mind).  And if your only way to show a character is emotional is through profanity, or your only way to convey an advancing relationship is through a sex scene, or your only way to make a protagonist "scarred" (whatever the appeal is in that) is through rape earlier in her life, that only speaks to the limitations of your own toolbox.  It's a limitation of your imagination and effort.

If you were truly remorseful about these scenes, you'd explore ways to avoid them.  Otherwise, all of this is just empty talk to get you off the hook.


----------



## dale (Jan 11, 2016)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> If you're so concerned about what you're putting in your story, why not try to think of other ways to convey the issues? At the end of the day, you're the one who decided to write a story for which rape was necessary, so...maybe that's on you.  You're the one writing a story where the "good guys" are simply the ones who are only "kind of evil," right?
> 
> To me, rape, violence, racism, profanity, sex, and all the rest are just lazy shortcuts to get the reader to a certain response.  Sure, you could show a gang is racist by having them do hate crimes, speak with slurs, and so on, but it's very possible to explore racism and its effects without any of that (_Remember the Titans_ is the example that comes to mind).  And if your only way to show a character is emotional is through profanity, or your only way to convey an advancing relationship is through a sex scene, or your only way to make a protagonist "scarred" (whatever the appeal is in that) is through rape earlier in her life, that only speaks to the limitations of your own toolbox.  It's a limitation of your imagination and effort.
> 
> If you were truly remorseful about these scenes, you'd explore ways to avoid them.  Otherwise, all of this is just empty talk to get you off the hook.


 i don't see how they are "lazy shortcuts". rape and violence are part of everyday life. you can't turn on the news on any given day and not see these things. not everyone writes "feel-good" stories. it's not a "lazy shortcut" to write about violence. it takes a lot of intensity and skill to be able to do it right, without making it seem gratuitous. but of course, the only time i "feel remorse" for anything i write is when i write it badly.


----------



## Bishop (Jan 11, 2016)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> If you're so concerned about what you're putting in your story, why not try to think of other ways to convey the issues? At the end of the day, you're the one who decided to write a story for which rape was necessary, so...maybe that's on you.  You're the one writing a story where the "good guys" are simply the ones who are only "kind of evil," right?
> 
> To me, rape, violence, racism, profanity, sex, and all the rest are just lazy shortcuts to get the reader to a certain response.  Sure, you could show a gang is racist by having them do hate crimes, speak with slurs, and so on, but it's very possible to explore racism and its effects without any of that (_Remember the Titans_ is the example that comes to mind).  And if your only way to show a character is emotional is through profanity, or your only way to convey an advancing relationship is through a sex scene, or your only way to make a protagonist "scarred" (whatever the appeal is in that) is through rape earlier in her life, that only speaks to the limitations of your own toolbox.  It's a limitation of your imagination and effort.
> 
> If you were truly remorseful about these scenes, you'd explore ways to avoid them.  Otherwise, all of this is just empty talk to get you off the hook.



The other problem with that is that it numbs the actual reality of the situation. _Remember the Titans_ is a factually inaccurate movie that touched on biases, but did not come close to actually conveying the depth of hatred that racism can conjure. Something better, but still factually inaccurate is _Mississippi Burning_, which shows that violence and hatred in a more realistic light for the situation.

By muting the reality of rape, racism, and other horrors of the world, we do no justice to the victims. To try and display the struggle of these victims with an uplifting football movie undermines their plight. It's not a limitation of imagination or effort to have a female character who had been raped. It's an investigation into the mind of that character, what happened to her and how it affects her. _Because that's what really happens everyday_. Shielding yourself or your audience from it is lying to them. It's lying and saying that that type of thing never happens, it's weak because it shows you're afraid to tell the truth about how horrible humans can be.

As writers, we must tell the stories as true to the human experience as is possible. Pretending that rape, murder, torture, racism, genocide, human trafficking, cursing, or any other "unpleasant" topic doesn't exist is just an attempt to throw humanity back to the false dreams of the forties and fifties. It dishonors those that struggle with these realities on a daily basis, and should be reserved for children's TV programs.

Life is uncomfortable. So should your writing be, at times.


----------



## Stormcat (Jan 11, 2016)

dale said:


> i don't see how they are "lazy shortcuts". *rape and violence are part of everyday life.* you can't turn on the news on any given day and not see these things. not everyone writes "feel-good" stories. it's not a "lazy shortcut" to write about violence. it takes a lot of intensity and skill to be able to do it right, without making it seem gratuitous. but of course, the only time i "feel remorse" for anything i write is when i write it badly.



There's a very thick line between hearing about rape and violence and experiencing it for oneself.

You don't develop PSTD from hearing about how someone got shot on the news. But when you watch your comrade slowly bleed out in front of you as you frantically call for a medic, that's where the problems arise. Humans have empathy, yes, but it requires more to be truly involved in a situation emotionally. Most people I feel can distance themselves from violence in a book or film.

These things do happen, but not to everyone all the time.


----------



## Patrick (Jan 11, 2016)

dale said:


> i don't see how they are "lazy shortcuts". rape and violence are part of everyday life. you can't turn on the news on any given day and not see these things. not everyone writes "feel-good" stories. it's not a "lazy shortcut" to write about violence. it takes a lot of intensity and skill to be able to do it right, without making it seem gratuitous. but of course, the only time i "feel remorse" for anything i write is when i write it badly.



Books, inherently, are about morality because their authors are moral creatures. If you are so repulsed by the immorality of your own writing, then you should probably stop writing about such reprehensible things. 

As writers, we make sense of the chaos. Just because you can read reports on all manner of evil, it doesn't mean you should write about it for its own sake.


----------



## dale (Jan 11, 2016)

Patrick said:


> Books, inherently, are about morality because their authors are moral creatures. If you are so repulsed by the immorality of your own writing, then you should probably stop writing about such reprehensible things.
> 
> As writers, we make sense of the chaos. Just because you can read reports on all manner of evil, it doesn't mean you should write about it for its own sake.


lol. i never said i was "repulsed by my own writing". as a matter of fact i just got nominated for an "editor's choice"award for a story that actually somewhat glorifies rape as an act of divinity. i have no qualms about morality or immorality in my stories whatsoever. they are whatever they turn out to be.


----------



## Sam (Jan 11, 2016)

dale said:


> i don't see how they are "lazy shortcuts". rape and violence are part of everyday life.



So are bowel movements. 

We tend not to write about them.


----------



## Stormcat (Jan 11, 2016)

Sam said:


> So are bowel movements.
> 
> We tend not to write about them.



Menstruation too.


----------



## Bishop (Jan 11, 2016)

Sam said:


> So are bowel movements.
> 
> We tend not to write about them.





Stormcat said:


> Menstruation too.



Might just be me, but I've had both of these at one point in a few of my novels.


----------



## Patrick (Jan 11, 2016)

Sam said:


> So are bowel movements.
> 
> We tend not to write about them.



One of my problems with Joyce is his inclusion of everything in such detail in Ulysses. Just why? What is the point of writing it except for realism's sake? And why be held to the sword of any philosophic demand as a writer? If it's repulsive, unless you have some way of spinning something profound/some real insight from it to justify its inclusion, then why bother? The response is usually that real life isn't fit for writing if you can't include real-life things, but we don't write about real life without first pushing it through the mesh of our own words, conscience, loves, hates, humour, etc.


----------



## Monaque (Jan 12, 2016)

I guess it`s down to you as the writer to judge whether you can deal with the issues you are writing about. Everyone feels things in different measure, have different responses to the things that we, as humans, experience on a daily basis. I remember reading about the genocide in Rwanda, a factual book that shocked me to my core. I refused to finish it or read it again, even though I know these things happened I made a conscious choice. I`m not saying I was right or wrong I just hated thinking about those things. I tend to approach my writing in the same vein. I wouldn`t write about rape because I hate the thought of someone doing that to a woman. It`s right that the atrocities in Rwanda were told, but not everyone will be able to deal with the images that brings up.
Reporters have to deal with these things all the time, having to see horrible things but needing to tell the world about them all the same.

That being said there are ways of writing things that convey the meaning without being explicit, the skill of the writer at work. To my mind a lot of things like swearing and violence and sex work because they aren`t overdone, they are written respectfully and add value to the story without swamping it. You could argue that writing the scene shines a light on the act to shame it, conversely if it is too shocking then it will ruin your story by overpowering it. The scene isn`t your story, just a part of it. You need to balance your story or it won`t work.

Staying true to your idea is the principle thing but if you can`t deal with the images your writing conjures (or the way people view it when they read it) then perhaps you should write the scene in another way, get rid of it altogether, or write it in a way that isn`t explicit.


----------



## DaBlaRR (Jan 12, 2016)

Maybe I shouldn't use words like "remorse" when asking a question. I am not regretting the writing, I am just inhaling what just happened and sometimes think wow... I'm a twisted mofo for even thinking that. But it will stay. When I talk about all the controversial aspects of the story...I actually hate it, but love it at the same time because it's true. In life it is true. But because it is my fiction, it was my creation. It's all gonna stay. The question was more of a discussion opening than a MAJOR challenge I have had. 




Patrick said:


> You're in control of the subjects you write about. Perhaps don't write about rape?



I am in control. But my way of writing, I start in control. Then I let the story lead me. Down a dark path or a bright one. I write some words, than let it lead me. If I lead it, then it's just my opinion or my moral's. It would just be my life. That's fricken boring. 






Ultraroel said:


> I think you can write whatever. With horror stories or movies we do not condemn the author or the director that specific scenes were made up?
> Why would you feel bad for something fictional that happens and that you describe. I mean, if we would all be judged on the things we have in our imagination, wouldn't we all be labelled psycho's in some way. As long as the description of the scene is in line with the story and the character, I don't see why you would shy away from scenes that might be controversial.
> 
> Unless you are writing an autobiography or your have a specific, clashing message you would like to express I would not feel bad for writing fictional scenes and loading it with details that would horrify you.



I feel bad for those certain scenes because they are just ugly situations. If I feel bad I did something right. If the reader feels bad I've accomplished my goal. Again I still feel guilty for creating it. It was in my head after all. 



Gamer_2k4 said:


> If you're so concerned about what you're putting in your story, why not try to think of other ways to convey the issues? At the end of the day, you're the one who decided to write a story for which rape was necessary, so...maybe that's on you.  You're the one writing a story where the "good guys" are simply the ones who are only "kind of evil," right?
> 
> To me, rape, violence, racism, profanity, sex, and all the rest are just lazy shortcuts to get the reader to a certain response.  Sure, you could show a gang is racist by having them do hate crimes, speak with slurs, and so on, but it's very possible to explore racism and its effects without any of that (_Remember the Titans_ is the example that comes to mind).  And if your only way to show a character is emotional is through profanity, or your only way to convey an advancing relationship is through a sex scene, or your only way to make a protagonist "scarred" (whatever the appeal is in that) is through rape earlier in her life, that only speaks to the limitations of your own toolbox.  It's a limitation of your imagination and effort.
> 
> If you were truly remorseful about these scenes, you'd explore ways to avoid them.  Otherwise, all of this is just empty talk to get you off the hook.



Those scenes that are easy ways out, are not easy ways out. Reality is the best fiction dude. I'm not trying to get off the hook. Just more a statement then a question I guess. I will accept the twisted ideas I put on paper and embrace it. Doesn't mean the scene won't disgust me. Maybe I was seeking people that might feel the same. 



Monaque said:


> I guess it`s down to you as the writer to judge whether you can deal with the issues you are writing about. Everyone feels things in different measure, have different responses to the things that we, as humans, experience on a daily basis. I remember reading about the genocide in Rwanda, a factual book that shocked me to my core. I refused to finish it or read it again, even though I know these things happened I made a conscious choice. I`m not saying I was right or wrong I just hated thinking about those things. I tend to approach my writing in the same vein. I wouldn`t write about rape because I hate the thought of someone doing that to a woman. It`s right that the atrocities in Rwanda were told, but not everyone will be able to deal with the images that brings up.
> Reporters have to deal with these things all the time, having to see horrible things but needing to tell the world about them all the same.
> 
> That being said there are ways of writing things that convey the meaning without being explicit, the skill of the writer at work. To my mind a lot of things like swearing and violence and sex work because they aren`t overdone, they are written respectfully and add value to the story without swamping it. You could argue that writing the scene shines a light on the act to shame it, conversely if it is too shocking then it will ruin your story by overpowering it. The scene isn`t your story, just a part of it. You need to balance your story or it won`t work.
> ...



It isn't about being explicit. I am rarely am when it comes to violence or rape..etc... I in fact like the scenes. But I still regret that it comes from my head. 

Imagine rape. Imagine it was to a girl underage. Imagine it continued after she was dead. I didn't describe that in the story at all... rather I just implied it. HORRIBLE HORRIBLE HORRIBLE. But my story leads me after I give it life and that's how I write. So I maybe I just feel dirty.


----------



## bdcharles (Jan 12, 2016)

Much hinges on how this all is resolved. If I wrote about rape or something, I'd want to have the victim set up to have readers care for them, and have the rapist get some sort of comeuppance at some stage. With that in mind, it would be justifiable for me and relatively doable. If I was going to have the victim just cast aside and disregarded and the perpetrators revel in it all as victors, I'd feel pretty disgusted with myself, but I'm not aware of any fiction that is like that. Rape happens in the world. You can use this work as a way of addressing it and discussing it, and let your remorse feed into the writing. And if it gets too much, remind yourself that these are not real people (even though they are, to us writers  )

Sometimes writing does force us to look at ourselves quite deeply but it can help us work towards answers too. Good luck!


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Jan 13, 2016)

Are you saying that you regret writing these things because it may have a negative impact on the world?
Without meaning to be snide, unless you are on the bestseller list, I don´t see a huge swell in rapes coming anytime soon.  (or even if for that matter .... it´s not like there was a massive amount of cannibalism after Silence of the Lambs became all the rage)

But I can relate to having some regret.
One of my books has a murderous dog which I wrote as a pit bull.  Now I´m not a fan of these four legged land sharks but they have a bad enough rep without me adding to it.  

I´d say if you are having regrets now, you didn´t think it through enough or take enough time in editting ... If you cannot stand up for what you have written it probably shows in the work.  I´ll defend the pit bull story til I die.  Not that I don´t regret it but I know there is a lot of truth in what I wrote. 

David Gordon Burke


----------



## Terry D (Jan 14, 2016)

It all depends on the purpose you have for writing such scenes. If you are writing them just to keep your story 'dark', or for a reaction from the reader, then they are probably pretty useless. If they are a natural extension of the story, then that's "being honest." In one of my novels, there are several scenes of dog fighting which were very hard for me to write, and which have generated strong reactions from some readers. Without those scenes, however, the book would not have been "honest." As brutal as those scenes are, I still didn't go into completely accurate detail. A writer can achieve the effect s/he needs for the story without descending into gratuitousness. 

BTW, everyone who was disturbed by the dog-fighting scenes in my book went on to tell me how much emotion they added to the book. One woman told me, "I threw the book across the room. Then I went and picked it up and kept reading." To me, that's the highest praise I can imagine.


----------



## Sam (Jan 14, 2016)

Terry D said:


> It all depends on the purpose you have for writing such scenes. If you are writing them just to keep your story 'dark', or for a reaction from the reader, then they are probably pretty useless. If they are a natural extension of the story, then that's "being honest." In one of my novels, there are several scenes of dog fighting which were very hard for me to write, and which have generated strong reactions from some readers. Without those scenes, however, the book would not have been "honest." As brutal as those scenes are, I still didn't go into completely accurate detail. A writer can achieve the effect s/he needs for the story without descending into gratuitousness.
> 
> BTW, everyone who was disturbed by the dog-fighting scenes in my book went on to tell me how much emotion they added to the book. One woman told me, "I threw the book across the room. Then I went and picked it up and kept reading." To me, that's the highest praise I can imagine.



Being an avowed lover of dogs, I could barely get past those scenes in _Chase_, Terry. 

I'm not one for putting down books before I finish them, and the only reason I'd ever do so is if they were boring (which _Chase _was most definitely not) me to tears, but reading those scenes evoked a visceral reaction in me that in some way spoiled, for lack of a better term, the rest of the book because I couldn't get them out of my head, if that makes sense. 

In one of my earliest novels, I had a plot arc where a soldier was used as a guinea pig for a weaponised virus. Over the course of the story, the reader went on the journey with him. Vomiting, diarrheoa, emaciation, puss, blisters -- you name it,  it was part of the vivid description of this man's short passage to death. When I gave the novel to family and friends, expecting average to good reviews, I instead found that it was so uncomfortable they couldn't finish it. 

I thought I was showing the reader what would happen if these terrorists released the virus; how it would affect the world. But the question I had to ask myself was: if it causes 30% of my readers to be so uncomfortable that they cannot finish the book, is being true to reality really worth it? 

That's a question you have to ask yourself when you write 'dark' novels. If it's uncomfortable to write, how uncomfortable will it be to read?


----------



## Kevin (Jan 14, 2016)

> That's a question you have to ask yourself when you write 'dark' novels. If it's uncomfortable to write, how uncomfortable will it be to read?


 Good question... You never know. I found _the Road_ very uncomfortable, but_  couldn't put it down._


----------



## Bishop (Jan 14, 2016)

I think one of the hardest scenes for me to write in this vein occurred in one of my WsIP, where a a small cargo ship crashes with a cruise liner in space. It's a disaster tale, in the vein of Poseidon, coupled with my undying love of shipwreck lore.

In it, a bulkhead blows out on a group of survivors, and one character closes an airtight door on a child (and saving many other lives), separating her from her mother; I describe in minor detail the effects of decompression on the little girl.

Definitely not easy to stomach, but it sets up the necessary downfall of the girl's mother, descending into desperation and disdain for the survivor who sealed the door on her child, and there's some pivotal conflict that comes from that later on in the work. It might put some readers off, some might close the book. But without that horror, the mother's lament doesn't sink in deeply enough for her to descend into true madness, if you ask me. By sharing that moment with my audience, they share in the terror and empathize with the mother deeply enough to understand why she does what she does later in the book.

I could dumb it down some, not show any detail, or change the scene to give the girl a lighter death. But I'm not going to lie to my audience and just shuffle her off. I'm going to provide just a tiny bit of detail--enough that their imaginations will do the rest--and pull a bit of an emotional response out of the reader so that they get it later on. Or at least I hope so!


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 14, 2016)

DaBlaRR said:
			
		

> Imagine rape. Imagine it was to a girl underage. Imagine it continued after she was dead. I didn't describe that in the story at all... rather I just implied it. HORRIBLE HORRIBLE HORRIBLE. But my story leads me after I give it life and that's how I write. So I maybe I just feel dirty.



Chuck Palahniuk wrote a scene in _Lullaby_ where the narrator (unknowingly) has sex with his wife's dead body (and loves it). And it's described in passionate, erotic detail. :cower:

So I wouldn't feel too bad about it. Other writers have strutted down the necrophilia path, too. Well . . . on the _page_, at least! (Lol.)

Though I do agree with those who advise to avoid gratuitousness—which is when you write something like that for no real purpose, other than to simply glorify (or celebrate) the act. If you do that, you'll probably turn a lot of readers off.

If there's a _reason_ for the scene, though, in the grand scheme of the story, then you're probably A-Okay. :encouragement:


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Jan 14, 2016)

Bishop said:


> I think one of the hardest scenes for me to write in this vein occurred in one of my WsIP, where a a small cargo ship crashes with a cruise liner in space. It's a disaster tale, in the vein of Poseidon, coupled with my undying love of shipwreck lore.
> 
> In it, a bulkhead blows out on a group of survivors, and one character closes an airtight door on a child (and saving many other lives), separating her from her mother; I describe in minor detail the effects of decompression on the little girl.
> 
> ...



But then we have to ask again, why is it so important to have a character "descend into true madness"? Yes, perhaps the tragic death of the child is necessary to get the character to that point, but why are you trying to get to that point in the first place? What is your story gaining from it? And what does it say about you, the author, turning to that to form one of your major plot points?



Kyle R said:


> Chuck Palahniuk wrote a scene in _Lullaby_ where the narrator (unknowingly) has sex with his wife's dead body (and loves it). And it's described in passionate, erotic detail. :cower:



Chuck is also pretty well-known as an author who turns to high-school level (in terms of writing ability) gratuitous horror simply for the sake of provoking a reaction, so...not sure that's really a great example.


----------



## Bishop (Jan 14, 2016)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> But then we have to ask again, why is it so important to have a character "descend into true madness"? Yes, perhaps the tragic death of the child is necessary to get the character to that point, but why are you trying to get to that point in the first place? What is your story gaining from it? And what does it say about you, the author, turning to that to form one of your major plot points?



Well, seeing as the climax partly depends on her trying to kill the hero of the story (the guy who saved people by killing her daughter) it ends up being a major plot point. We need to see why she hates him in order to buy that she's going to try and murder him later.

What does it say about me? It says I'm a mature, adult writer who trusts his audience to be mature as well. I trust that they don't want to read content that's censored to protect their sensibilities. The tale is greatly strengthened by this inclusion, because in the real world, when ships are sinking and people are dying rationality is lost, melted away by tragedy. It's one of the major themes of the story. Hence, it's important for it to happen to illustrate that. 

There are many different ways people act in a disaster situation. Seeing how people fight for their lives, or their children's lives--even after they're already dead--is an extension of understanding the human experience. Why write it? Most people will never experience it, but seeing it in an artistic medium and getting your heart beating faster, your eyes widening... it gives you a tiny sliver of that experience for yourself. Why do you think Schindler's List is such a landmark film in the history of film? Many conservatives equated it to torture porn, but it's not. It's important because it shows us the mistakes we as a species have made, and it wrenches our guts, yanks tears out of our eyes, and makes us feel every bit of pain those victims felt. It did that so that we know how horrible humanity can get so as to never be that in ourselves. It's necessary.

But let's omit it. Let's say the little girl never dies, and I avoid that particular plot point. Now the tale is muted. It's just people trying to escape. Any deaths happen as a "fade to black". Now, instead of a driving thriller, I've written a Goosebumps book. Sure, it might still be "good", but if it doesn't actually quicken the pulse of the reader, why am I writing a thriller? In life, happy endings are rare, people die horrifically--even children. Taking it out of my book just makes a magical little world where nothing like that ever happens, and gone with those moments are any sense of realism, any emotional depth. I don't cry when characters die "off screen". But when it happens before my eyes, seeing/reading a man reduced to the husk he came into this world in... I shed tears. I empathize, I feel for him.

In my current book, a pilot is killed by a missile that he can't shake. I can write this one of two ways: 1) I write that it hits him, and his ship explodes. 2) I write him desperately struggling to dodge the projectile, only to realize the inevitability of his fate and scream out, "Nooo!" only to have his cries deafened by the sound of static as his fellow pilots watch his ship silently engulf in flames before being snuffed out by the vacuum of space, debris drifting endlessly into the void. 

I'd much rather read the second one. Becuase now, I'm struggling with him, and if it's a character I like, my heart is beating, scanning each word, trying to will the page to say that he makes it out alive. But it doesn't, and his screams echo what my mind is saying. No. Not him, don't do it. And when it's destroyed, there's no doubt. He's gone. This character I loved--a fictional man I had very non-fictional attachment to--is now a corpse, charred and floating in space. Now I'm heartbroken, and I--as a reader--hate whatever killed him. And I _must _read on to find out what happens to that jackass.

A good writer holds a tight emotional grip on their readers. They can write books that can make or break someone's mood. It happens to me and my wife often--she reads a book that kills a character she loves and she's miffed; but then the villain gets their comeuppance and it's a great day, even if everything else sucks. I have a very small readership myself, but in one of my novels I kill a character, and one reader told me, "I can't believe you did that! I loved him!" It was one of the greatest compliments I've ever gotten as a writer. It meant that he was so attached to that character that he actually felt something when he died. The words I'd put on a page about a fake person gave him a real emotional reaction. That--at the very minimum--is my goal as a writer.

So you can say it's unnecessary, or say I'm a worse writer for describing streaked tears of blood as decompression sets in. But I bet just reading that previous sentence made you cringe, even if just mentally. And love me or hate me, it had far more of an effect on you than had I just said, "or say I'm a worse writer for describing that".


----------



## Sam (Jan 14, 2016)

People die in my thrillers all the time, sometimes brutally. 

I don't think anyone here is saying people can't die in novels, or that it can't be brutal, but instead that if it's just death for the sake of death, or violence, rape, or any other horrible thing for the sake of it, that it becomes less a novel and more a gratuitous homage to the macabre.

I rarely do happily ever after when I write, and make no apologies for it, but I learned a long time ago that there's a limit to how far you can push it. For me, that limit is when I become repulsed by something I just wrote. If I, the creator, cannot stomach a passage that came from my own head, that discomfort functions as my barometer for the aforementioned illusory line. 

And that line, for me at least, would be crossed if I were to put in a rape scene because it's _de rigueur, _or a steamy sex scene because that's what thrillers do, or anything just for the sake of it or because "that's what happens in the real world".


----------



## Ariel (Jan 14, 2016)

I think everyone has had some valid points.

I think we can all agree that what we have written in fiction does not necessarily reflect our own morality or ideals.  There may be exceptions but typically writers (actors and other artists) are capable of divorcing themselves from their work.


----------



## Bishop (Jan 14, 2016)

Sam said:


> And that line, for me at least, would be crossed if I were to put in a rape scene because it's _de rigueur, _or a steamy sex scene because that's what thrillers do, or anything just for the sake of it or because "that's what happens in the real world".



I'm not disagreeing here, but please don't mistake my strive for realism as realism for realism's sake. For me to write a scene that evokes that type of reaction it must be both: 1) realistic and 2) serve the story as a whole.

I've written characters having sex, and the majority of the time, it's fade-to-black. However, when I did get explicit, it was to show a shift in character. The female of the particular species in the scene is going through a hormonal shift into a hyper aggressive motherhood state, and it's displayed first during the intercourse. Do I have sex in the scene? Yes, but I'm not doing it for the sake of having sex, and what explicit detail I show is minimal. I do show the look in her eyes, the the glazed grin, and the tightening of her grip. The signs that actually serve to further the (to that point) mystery of what's happening to her are necessary to the plot. 

And I won't omit it just because some readers might blush.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Jan 14, 2016)

Bishop said:


> So you can say it's unnecessary, or say I'm a worse writer for describing streaked tears of blood as decompression sets in.



I'm not saying you're a poor writer.  Heck, as you know from reading my own novel, I've written about war, and that absolutely includes death - it wouldn't be much of a war if it didn't.  But many of my comments in this thread come from the things I've discovered as I've written and rewritten my story.  And for me, the idea that stories are good because they're "dark" comes from an immature perspective of fiction and storytelling.  I had scenes like that.  I had despair, and horror, and betrayal, and all the rest.  But the story didn't need it! I found I could write a compelling, interesting story without all the darkness, and that's why I'm so quick to criticize gratuitousness when I see it in the works of others.


----------



## Patrick (Jan 14, 2016)

amsawtell said:


> I think everyone has had some valid points.
> 
> I think we can all agree that what we have written in fiction does not necessarily reflect our own morality or ideals.  There may be exceptions but typically writers (actors and other artists) are capable of divorcing themselves from their work.



I hold completely the opposite view. I think a person's writing tells you an incredible amount about the way they see the world in pretty much all aspects. Nobody writes out of disgust (they'd write non-fiction if they did); people write out of an interest/infatuation with a subject. When I write, I pour myself, mind, body and spirit into it. My morality pervades anything I write, because if it didn't, I wouldn't be writing a serious novel.

Where I agree with Bishop is that if one has to write a scene wherein somebody dies, and they're important to the plot/have a profound effect on the protagonist, then your writing has to do the gravity of the loss justice. But you absolutely can, with imagination, use veiled language. You don't have to revel in violence or something disgusting. Writer's don't empathise because you showed them the awful result of a gunshot wound to the face in explicit detail, but because you showed them the tragedy of the thing. There's a lot of death in Harry Potter without the gore, and I certainly had no problem investing my emotion in the characters as a child, although magic is, I suppose, a clean way to kill characters. Novels don't have to be "realistic" to make a reader's heart ache.


----------



## bdcharles (Jan 15, 2016)

Patrick said:


> I hold completely the opposite view. I think a person's writing tells you an incredible amount about the way they see the world in pretty much all aspects. Nobody writes out of disgust (they'd write non-fiction if they did); people write out of an interest/infatuation with a subject. When I write, I pour myself, mind, body and spirit into it. My morality pervades anything I write, because if it didn't, I wouldn't be writing a serious novel.
> 
> Where I agree with Bishop is that if one has to write a scene wherein somebody dies, and they're important to the plot/have a profound effect on the protagonist, then your writing has to do the gravity of the loss justice. But you absolutely can, with imagination, use veiled language. You don't have to revel in violence or something disgusting. Writer's don't empathise because you showed them the awful result of a gunshot wound to the face in explicit detail, but because you showed them the tragedy of the thing. There's a lot of death in Harry Potter without the gore, and I certainly had no problem investing my emotion in the characters as a child, although magic is, I suppose, a clean way to kill characters. Novels don't have to be "realistic" to make a reader's heart ache.



When I write villains and acts of villainy, I wouldn't say they are my own morals or ideals, though they are definitely rooted in how I see certain people. My morals or ideals are reflected in how they die or come to be otherwise despised  Another thing I like to do is to explore ideas, sometimes quite abhorrent ones, through the eyes of another character. It's a lot less of a headache than tackling the subject straight, as myself! Not that I justify abhorrent acts but I am interested in the mechanics that cause them to come about.


----------



## Sam (Jan 15, 2016)

Bishop said:


> I'm not disagreeing here, but please don't mistake my strive for realism as realism for realism's sake. For me to write a scene that evokes that type of reaction it must be both: 1) realistic and 2) serve the story as a whole.



I don't necessarily agree. 

War is one of the key themes in my thrillers. In reality, it's brutal. Eyes gouged out, heads blown apart, intestines visible through gaping apertures in flesh, infections running rampant, legs amputated because of gangrene, limbs blown off in IEDs, soldiers killed in friendly fire, soldiers blown apart by carpet bombs that went awry, soldiers suffering third- and fourth-degree burns from RPG attacks on their Humvees, etcetera. 

A good writer can tone that down and still evoke the same kind of emotion you're referring to. S/he can pay homage to it, and make the reader understand that war isn't a walk in the park, but at the same time it can be muted a little so that there's room for a story instead of an endless barrage of death and maiming. 



> I've written characters having sex, and the majority of the time, it's fade-to-black. However, when I did get explicit, it was to show a shift in character. The female of the particular species in the scene is going through a hormonal shift into a hyper aggressive motherhood state, and it's displayed first during the intercourse. Do I have sex in the scene? Yes, but I'm not doing it for the sake of having sex, and what explicit detail I show is minimal. I do show the look in her eyes, the the glazed grin, and the tightening of her grip. The signs that actually serve to further the (to that point) mystery of what's happening to her are necessary to the plot.



I'm not for a moment suggesting that it's wrong to have a sex scene. 

What I said was just because it happens in the real world, it doesn't mean you have to include it. If the story requires a sex scene, put it in, but if it's contrived and included in the novel because "everyone does it", to my mind that's not a valid reason. 

Everyone gets up in the morning, showers, brushes their teeth, puts on their clothes, and makes something to eat -- but do you really want to include those steps every time you start a new day in a story?


----------



## Bishop (Jan 15, 2016)

Sam said:


> A good writer can tone that down and still evoke the same kind of emotion you're referring to. S/he can pay homage to it, and make the reader understand that war isn't a walk in the park, but at the same time it can be muted a little so that there's room for a story instead of an endless barrage of death and maiming.



I agree heavily on the latter part there, but mostly within the context you're saying. There's no need to describe the truly visceral details just for the sake of having truly visceral details. My point is that a measured amount of visceral detail can have a magnified, desired effect on the reader. But there's a line, as with anything. Moderation is, by definition, what makes those moments so emotionally charged. If every scene had that level of detail, or it was all over the writing, those moments would be all too common, and therefore hollow. Think about the impact of the scene in Alien when the [spoiler alert for a 35 year old movie] alien bursts out of John Hurt's chest. Vile, grotesque, and magnified so much because the movie up until that point (and for the most part after) is suspense, rather than horror. Had every death in the film been like that, it'd have lost meaning after the second time.



Sam said:


> Everyone gets up in the morning, showers, brushes their teeth, puts on their clothes, and makes something to eat -- but do you really want to include those steps every time you start a new day in a story?



Might just be me, but I do sometimes include these details, if a pertinent moment occurs during them, or if it's an alien species that the reader needs to better understand. The latter, of course, is unique to my genre, but I think it still has some application.


----------



## Terry D (Jan 15, 2016)

amsawtell said:


> I think we can all agree that what we have written in fiction does not necessarily reflect our own morality or ideals.  There may be exceptions but typically writers (actors and other artists) are capable of divorcing themselves from their work.



I disagree, respectfully. Everything we write is filtered through our experiences, feeling, morals, and emotions, so, how and what we write is a direct reflection of our inner selves. That's not to say that because I've written about violence, murder, and even torture, that I condone any of those things. Just the opposite. When I wrote honestly about dog fighting and training fighting dogs it was with the intent of demonizing those activities and the people who indulge in them, not to glorify them. I don't see how an author can divorce himself from the stories he writes and still create a story which will engage the emotions of a reader. If I have no emotional stake in the writing, how can I expect my readers to have one?


----------



## Book Cook (Jan 15, 2016)

The sooner you embrace the fact that you are vile, base, and murderous as everyone else, the sooner you will stop feeling remorse. Morality is just a veneer, and the difference between a person who commits vile, base and murderous acts and the person who does not is just in the thickness and/or existence of that veneer. People who don't commit such acts are constantly conditioned and constantly condition themselves to abstain. Evil is simply the absence of abstention. 

Darkness is omnipresent. You need energy to illuminate it, and that energy will not--and does not--last forever.


----------



## Bishop (Jan 15, 2016)

Book Cook said:


> The sooner you embrace the fact that you are vile, base, and murderous as everyone else, the sooner you will stop feeling remorse. Morality is just a veneer, and the difference between a person who commits vile, base and murderous acts and the person who does not is just in the thickness and/or existence of that veneer. People who don't commit such acts are constantly conditioned and constantly condition themselves to abstain. Evil is simply the absence of abstention.
> 
> Darkness is omnipresent. You need energy to illuminate it, and that energy will not--and does not--last forever.



There are people on the opposite side who say the exact same thing about the other side of the morality coin. Philosophy, morality, etc, they're not what we're discussing here. What we're discussing is writing about scenes that the average reader may find disturbing, may turn them off from reading the book in some way.

The omnipresent darkness isn't affecting my writing, I assure you.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Jan 15, 2016)

Book Cook said:


> The sooner you embrace the fact that you are vile, base, and murderous as everyone else, the sooner you will stop feeling remorse. Morality is just a veneer, and the difference between a person who commits vile, base and murderous acts and the person who does not is just in the thickness and/or existence of that veneer. People who don't commit such acts are constantly conditioned and constantly condition themselves to abstain. Evil is simply the absence of abstention.
> 
> Darkness is omnipresent. You need energy to illuminate it, and that energy will not--and does not--last forever.



That's a very narrow viewpoint of things, and you could apply it to any opposites.  Distance is the absence of proximity.  Hunger is the absence of satiation.  Heck, being at work is the absence of not being at work.  I could saying "We're always at work; the only variable is our distance from it," and sound every bit as deep as you're trying to.  That hardly means I need to embrace the fact that I'm "working all the time."


----------



## Book Cook (Jan 15, 2016)

@Bishop  -- The way I understood it is that the OP had difficulties coming to terms with it and that he is able to portray it on paper.

@Gamer_2k4  -- Not everything is a two-way street. Everyone has a breaking point.


----------



## dale (Jan 15, 2016)

Book Cook said:


> The sooner you embrace the fact that you are vile, base, and murderous as everyone else, the sooner you will stop feeling remorse. Morality is just a veneer, and the difference between a person who commits vile, base and murderous acts and the person who does not is just in the thickness and/or existence of that veneer. People who don't commit such acts are constantly conditioned and constantly condition themselves to abstain. Evil is simply the absence of abstention.
> 
> Darkness is omnipresent. You need energy to illuminate it, and that energy will not--and does not--last forever.



i can't really accept this statement. do i believe everyone has a "dark side". of course i do. have i ever
actually thought about murdering someone? yes, i have. but that sure as hell isn't something i would 
ever think about "embracing". and i think when the darkness comes out in my fiction? it's because of
my refusal to embrace it in real life. it is the moral part of my spirit that places this darkness on the page
as almost a protest to it.


----------



## Ariel (Jan 15, 2016)

Terry D said:


> I disagree, respectfully. Everything we write is filtered through our experiences, feeling, morals, and emotions, so, how and what we write is a direct reflection of our inner selves. That's not to say that because I've written about violence, murder, and even torture, that I condone any of those things. Just the opposite. When I wrote honestly about dog fighting and training fighting dogs it was with the intent of demonizing those activities and the people who indulge in them, not to glorify them. I don't see how an author can divorce himself from the stories he writes and still create a story which will engage the emotions of a reader. If I have no emotional stake in the writing, how can I expect my readers to have one?



By knowing your craft.  I don't think that you're being disingenuous when you say that you have an emotional stake in what you've written.  I usually do as well. I'm saying that as writers we can write about things and emotions that we haven't experienced and can't experience.  

Bishop writes about aliens in space.  He's not likely to fall in love with one but I'm sure he could write a character that does.  Does that mean he wants to divorce his wife and marry an alien?  Probably not.


----------



## Terry D (Jan 15, 2016)

amsawtell said:


> By knowing your craft.  I don't think that you're being disingenuous when you say that you have an emotional stake in what you've written.  I usually do as well. I'm saying that as writers we can write about things and emotions that we haven't experienced and can't experience.
> 
> Bishop writes about aliens in space.  He's not likely to fall in love with one but I'm sure he could write a character that does.  Does that mean he wants to divorce his wife and marry an alien?  Probably not.



I agree we can write about things and situations we can't, or haven't experienced, but I believe every emotion we write about is colored by our own experience of those emotions. I've read many stories by young writers who try to write about grief and loss. It's very clear when those writers have actually experienced those things and when they have not. The old mandate to "write what you know" is primarily about emotion rather than setting, or plot.


----------



## Patrick (Jan 15, 2016)

Book Cook said:


> The sooner you embrace the fact that you are vile, base, and murderous as everyone else, the sooner you will stop feeling remorse. Morality is just a veneer, and the difference between a person who commits vile, base and murderous acts and the person who does not is just in the thickness and/or existence of that veneer. People who don't commit such acts are constantly conditioned and constantly condition themselves to abstain. Evil is simply the absence of abstention.
> 
> Darkness is omnipresent. You need energy to illuminate it, and that energy will not--and does not--last forever.



Darkness is not omnipresent; the lights in my house work just fine, thanks. 

Morality is not a veneer, but is a power to change a person. Recognising one's own base desires should cause one to strive in the opposite direction, to pursue goodness and flee evil, not to embrace a twisted nihilistic worldview. Of course, if you don't know what goodness is, then you're lost. The existence of this thread suggests the conscience is at least working in its participants, however much it might be muted or ignored.


----------



## Book Cook (Jan 15, 2016)

I may have used the wrong word when I said "embrace". I didn't mean to shed all the shields and become a maniac, but that one should realize (that's a more precise word than embrace) that we all possess the urges and that we are always fighting them. 

All I wanted to say was that OP was unnecessarily concerned. The pool from whence his "horrible scenes" come from is not unique, yet the expression of it is. If it is expressed in art (writing), good; if it is to harm someone, not. I don't really see what's contentious about that.


----------



## Bishop (Jan 15, 2016)

amsawtell said:


> Bishop writes about aliens in space.  He's not likely to fall in love with one but I'm sure he could write a character that does.  Does that mean he wants to divorce his wife and marry an alien?  Probably not.









Well, Bishopette does know her greatest competition lies beyond the stars...


----------



## Patrick (Jan 18, 2016)

If it didn't give you any pleasure to write, it isn't going to give the reader any pleasure. The fact it happens in real life is just not a reason to write it. I don't need a novel to tell me how sick people can be by bludgeoning me with shocking material. It's bad writing if you have nothing to say and you're just forcing me to squirm through some sick idea you, the writer, had. 

I remember reading a novel called I am Pilgrim in which the sick Jihadi psycho *(spoiler alert* for those who want to read it) of the novel tested this bioweapon he'd created on a young Italian woman who was pregnant, even writing about this poor woman's love for the child in her womb while she was tortured by this disgusting creation. And as a reader, I was absolutely furious with the writer for subjecting me to that sort of shock tactic. It really did negatively affect my view of the rest of the novel. All I could think was, no, absolutely not. Enough! And then the author gives this absolute monster, this vile disgusting piece of humanity, a conscience by the end of the novel through the love of his sister or his daughter (I forget which), and I just felt cheated by the author for all the sick stuff he'd put me through only to show this character was still human (though totally unrepentant). No, he was as sick as members of ISIS, and I don't need an author to raise my consciousness of just how sick these people are. It's enough of an invasion of my privacy that this stuff is plastered all over the media 24/7. I don't want to be desensitised to it.


----------



## Kevin (Jan 18, 2016)

> People who don't commit such acts are constantly conditioned and constantly condition themselves to abstain.


 What? If anything I've been conditioned to commit acts ie. "re-acts" to other's trespasses. But obviously that is not a true for all; nothing is. Just ask the little boy back in kindergarten that socked me in the face to get the toy he wanted. I never would have done that. There are many things I have no urge to do. Some are more prone than others.


----------



## Book Cook (Jan 19, 2016)

@Patrick  --  But he is human, whether you like it or not.


----------



## Terry D (Jan 19, 2016)

Book Cook said:


> The sooner you embrace the fact that you are vile, base, and murderous as everyone else, the sooner you will stop feeling remorse. Morality is just a veneer, and the difference between a person who commits vile, base and murderous acts and the person who does not is just in the thickness and/or existence of that veneer. People who don't commit such acts are constantly conditioned and constantly condition themselves to abstain. Evil is simply the absence of abstention.
> 
> Darkness is omnipresent. You need energy to illuminate it, and that energy will not--and does not--last forever.



Scientifically speaking, darkness is rare. Light is everywhere. The universe is awash in it. Even on the darkest night all you need to do is look up to see the light of thousands of suns. Morality is real.


----------



## Patrick (Jan 19, 2016)

Book Cook said:


> @Patrick  --  But he is human, whether you like it or not.



The resolution of his character arc was rubbish. You don't go from killing anybody and everybody in a brutal torturous way to giving up on your crooked ideology because your sister is in danger. This is a man who would happily kill millions and millions, and because of the tenets of his faith has very little time for women. When I say "human", I mean it was a poor choice of the author to pretend there's some love buried in this person, just as it would be a big mistake to try to "round" Jihadi John's (and the monster in the novel made Jihadi John look like a lightweight) character in an obituary.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Jan 20, 2016)

I honestly think you can create imaginary places where politically incorrect situations can happen but rape is something tough to write about for writers to succeed. Whether this is bad writing depends always, I think we can't always say outright that something is considered bad writing. But you need to keep it all belieavble, but I still think you can create this excuse by creating fake worlds. Lot's of authors do this to create utopias and dystopias, as science fiction a lot of the time cannot predict the future. So that's probably why it would make for good literary fiction such as people who still write it. For example Le Guin who wrote literary novels imo. But it is still an opinion but my thoughts on this don't seem inaccurate since you can't always sell the idea. You need to foreshadow things, and create a universe. This is more in response to people who think that writing that is terrible, and it can be. But we cant sum all writing to be fake. It's just an emotional thing. No one wants to buy fiction with rape since they want to be sold on emotional conflict that is not disturbing and that fits their audience. There going to say you need to know what kind of emotion in the plot you write. I think I read this and this made sense to me. You need to know your audience.

For example I have an idea for a shakespeare drama and dont know where to begin to submit, as it is a court fiction.


----------



## The Green Shield (Jan 22, 2016)

A lot of people have already said this, so forgive me if I'm just repeating it ad nausem.

If you're afraid that writing a scene where someone rapes someone else makes you a horrible, _horrible_ monster, don't be. 99.9999% of the time, readers will know that just because the author is recording something horrible being done, doesn't mean they [the author] themselves want to do it. The backstory of _Harry Potter_ had Voldemort basically kill Harry's parents before mutilating him with a lightening bolt shaped scar. Does that mean JK Rowling fantasized about murdering parents and mutilating their kids? Of course not. George Lucas wrote Anakin wiping out an entire Tusken camp down to the last child in Episode II. Does that mean George himself wants to do something like that? Of course not. It's just what the story called for. A story needs to have the bad guy, and sometimes the bad guy has to do some pretty nasty things.

Now, that's not to say you MUST write horrible things that give you remorse for writing it. You get to draw the line somewhere. If rape and torture are things you'd rather not write about, then don't write about them. But don't beat yourself up and think you're a horrible brute because your bad guy is doing something. Remember, it's all fiction, no one's getting hurt.

Make your characters suffer, make them hurt. They'll appear all the more stronger when the rise up at the end and dish out a world of pain and vengeance against those who had hurt them earlier.


----------



## JP-Clyde (Jan 22, 2016)

DaBlaRR said:


> Don't get me wrong. There is truth in everything I write too in reference to your sub-conscious truth. There is lot's actually even if it is just touching the surface of a real life truth.
> 
> Obviously not some of the extremely dark demented stuff though.



One of my favorite quotes 

"Fiction reveals what reality obscures" - Ralph Waldo Emerson

I am a horror writer, but I am also a social commentary writer. I love taking on subjects we as society do not talk seriously about.

I don't ask for redemption. I ask for people to redeem themselves for sweeping these problems under the rug. I use my stories to say something. If you writer with nothing to say, than your story means nothing. 

I have gotten to that point in my writing where I don't honestly care if people think I am a sick bastard. I write it because it needs to be said.


----------

