At some point in the movie, Stranger Than Fiction, the character played by Emma Thompson worries about the number of characters she’s killed off in her novels over the years. Of course, in her case, she’s come to believe that her character, played in the film by Will Farrell, is now a living breathing person. But do you ever give this any thought? Do you wonder if your writing is too blood-thirsty? Or that you watch movies or read books and feel little remorse at the body count? Do you watch Dexter and don't feel a bit guilty for loving it?
I have killed off about a dozen characters in my stories. They have died by a variety of methods, none pleasant. Do you ever pull back from this either in reading or writing? How far is too far? Do the novels of 50 years ago show more restraint?
13 comments:
Well, to answer your last question first, No. "Bodies Piled Up" was a title of a story older than that. The shudder pulps and war stories, to say nothing of the wars themselves, rather bloodily ground away.
I've been too often stupid or thoughtless or lazy or self-absorbed in my actions with the real people I know to expend too much effort in worrying about my fantasy people, including the ones in my fiction. Though the most trenchant criticism of some of my vignettes came from my mother: "Does someone or something always have to get Eaten in your stories?"
Eaten? That's intriguing. Maybe the next challenge? Stories where people are eaten.
oh dear, no, i don't feel the least big guilty. If anything, i feel a bit...giddy, gleeful even, when i ratchet up the body count.
though in my case it all traces back to the day when my [academic] father told me "it's fine to write fiction, just as long as you don't get too far into genre...."
guess I showed him :)
I call it therapeutic. Especially if I mold the character(s) your offing into some likeness of my personal irritant. =)
I don't worry about it, but I also don't have a lot of bodies. I do want to stay away from Bo Fexler turning into a Jessica Fletcher though... there's an old woman I'd never invite to my house for dinner!
I don't know if the novels of fifty years ago or so showed more restraint, so I won't even go there. It isn't always about the number, but the method, how much is on screen, and also the nature of the character and how we feel about them that makes killing them a challenge.
For myself, an example would be (spoiler alert) from my first book, and the death of Jimmy. I liked Jimmy. In the first draft, he didn't die. My editor liked Jimmy, but that was the telling comment, because she said that as much as she liked him, it was the right thing to do for the story.
There are so many variables that have to be addressed in whether or not it's appropriate to kill off any character - particularly secondary characters who've played a major role in the story or protagonists. Such moves are risky. I believe most readers can accept it if they believe it serves the purpose of the story, is required by the story. If it comes off as though just done to shock, then they're more likely to have a problem.
I never want to simply add another crime for the sake of adding another crime. In WHAT BURNS WITHIN some of the murder victims are young girls. In THE FRAILTY OF FLESH they're dealing with the murder of a four-year-old boy. These are brutal crimes to deal with... and I'm relieved that Publishers Weekly said, "The child abduction and sex crime aspects of the story are handled without exploitation or kid gloves," hopefully speaking to the point that you can deal with some horrific things in such a way that you are not merely a killing machine.
STRANGER THAN FICTION was a great movie, btw. My characters are very real to me, and I cried myself over something I did to one of them in FRAILTY. I felt awful... but I knew it had to be done, and that's what enabled me to do it. To back down would have felt like I was selling the story short.
Well, cheap exploitation is like erotica, everybody has a different definition (I like, "pornography with better lighting," but I forget who said it).
I prefer crime fiction about "professional" criminals because I understand them, the violence is part of the job, not a perk. The thing about violence and killing that we don't mention very often is how effective it is in certain situations.
But I've never been able to 'get' serial killers, especially the "brilliant" ones of fiction. To me, serial killers are always that weird kid who had a crappy home life and was mean to animals all grown up, the guy who gets a hard-on from violence. What is this, the ultimate 'bad boy' people want to help? Insanity seems far too random to make good fiction.
Now, I've never seen Dexter or read the books, so maybe they're fantastic, but I never understood Hannibal Lector, either, that guy would have been chewed up and spit out in prison. I know I am in a very small minority here.
Well, John, not that small a minority. Lecter was always the worst aspect of Harris's first two novels involving him, the most cartoonish aspect ("He Is Pure Evil"), and Hambone's portrayal of him did everything to worsen that. So, of course, lots of folks, who want their monsters cartoonish so they won't actually be frightening, just Ate Him Up.
I wonder if short story writers can be more cavilier about disposing of people whereas a novelist, in for the longer haul, must be more circumspect. And the investment for the reader is greater both financially, time-wise and in what they can stomach.
I may have mentioned this before--There's a line in Pink Floyd's, 'Dark Side Of The Moon' album that says "short, sharp, shock..." That's how I roll when it comes to writing violence.
The only character I've ever felt guilty about killing was an unfortunate soul named Sweaty Betty. I felt so damned bad about it I wrote her in to another story and gave her a chance at a happy ending. I'm such a sentimental slob.
John McAuley
Sweaty Betty!!! I want to read her story.
I said 12 in the blog entry, but I forgot to count flash pieces where I seem to be even more willing to do the deed. Maybe the shorter the time investment, the easy it is.
You may be right about the short stories, Patti. Look at all that Continental Op stuff. I don't remember the bodies piling up so fast in Hammett's novels.
And Todd, I'm glad to know it's not such a small minority. Cartoonish, yeah, that's how I'd describe it, too.
I am not a writer and I think it is good that all of you consider the importance of a life that you end in a novel. From my Viet Nam days, I saw enemy bodies piled up by the truck load. Every one of those dead soldiers had a story worth telling. If only real life immitated fiction.
Hi Chuck. Actually in my non-crime stories, no one dies. They just suffer a lot.
Every soldier deserves to have his story told. A shame all these Iraq movies aren't pulling in an audience. I guess we don't want to look at what we've wrought.
Post a Comment