----- Original Message ----- From: "Karin Montin" <
kmontin@sympatico.ca>
Thanks for your thoughts, Karin. Intriguing subject.
<<What do you expect from hardboiled writing? I expect
tough characters and fast action.
Agreed. But wouldn't you also agree that one method of
establishing a character's toughness is by demonstrating how
he responds to physical pain
(mental pain will do it, too, but I'd associate that with
noir rather than hardboiled). If, after removing somebody's
teeth with pliers, they turn round and say, "Thath the beth
you can do?" you'd have to consider them pretty tough.
<<A sock in the old kisser is one thing; intentional
removal of someone's teeth as a means of torture and/or for
sexual gratification is another. (I admit that gratuitousness
is subjective.)>>
Why is a 'sock in the kisser' acceptable? I know some people
who claim that all fictional violence is gratuitous. It's
certainly unnecessary, because even a sock in the kisser can
be implied. The level at which people are comfortable with
violence in fiction is largely arbitrary. You don't like
teeth violence, I don't like fingernail removal and the
sandpapering of the exposed pulp underneath. There's no logic
to that. But given the context, I'd say that if rapists are
want to indulge in the kind of pre-oral sex tooth removal you
mentioned, and Karin Slaughter writes about it, I personally
don't see how it can labelled gratuitous. Gratuitous would be
if she'd just made it up for the hell of it. No, sorry, that
would be sensational. Gratuitous would be if she made it up
*and* it wasn't necessary to the story.
>> Some books are more violent than others, yet
have redeeming qualities.
Some writers imply violence very well without leaving
horrific images seared in your >brain for life.
Real violence is pretty horrific, so it depends how real you
want to make the book. You could describe the severe bruising
on someone's face and it might be effective. But it can never
be immediate. It's a question of detachment. Some readers
want it, others don't. My own method of writing is to try to
make everything as immediate as possible. But that's
certainly not the only way. I read a Sue Grafton book where I
thought the off-stage violence was very effective.
Incidentally, aren't a lot of the books people remember the
ones that leave images seared on their brains?
>I think the issue of how much violence (or what kind)
is too much is a very
interesting one and I would like to hear from some of you
writers on the subject. Is there a line you won't
cross?
Violence against hamsters. I'd draw the line there. Dogs, I
can just about cope with, although it's incredibly
distressing to write (apart from when my schizophrenia's in
check, at which point I remember it's not real, I'm making it
all up and nobody's getting hurt apart from inside my head).
Cats I have no problem with.
Seriously, I don't like gratuitous anything in a book,
whether it be violence or scenery or adjectives. Other than
that, if it's a necessary component of the story, the story
wouldn't work without it (by definition), so I'd have to
write it, whether I wanted to or not. Or chuck the
story.
Al
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
--------------------~--> What would our lives be like
without music, dance, and theater? Donate or volunteer in the
arts today at Network for Good!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pkgkPB/SOnJAA/Zx0JAA/kqIolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
RARA-AVIS home page: http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rara-avis-l/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:
rara-avis-l-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 18 Mar 2005 EST