Random thought: like, my favorite Hardy Boy book was the Witchmaster's key because it had a torture scene. Now I'm thinking that that's really, really weird to put into a Hardy Boys book...

(They got captured by some weird religious order and got put on the rack...)

No way! I don't remember that!

Hmm, I haven't read that one... (Do any other girls prefer Hardy Boys to Nancy Drew?)

We'll talk about it when I pm you this afternoon.

Was that one of the original 52 Hardy boys, because I've read most of those, but that title doesn't sound familiar, or is it one of the newer ones?

It's one of the original ones. I haven't read any new ones.

-The Hardy boys. Now THERE'S some heavy reading.
-I LIKE the Hardy Boys.

Who knows what movie that is from?

I used to read the Hardy Boys all the time when I was younger, but I've recently lost interest in them.

Back to torture-

I'm thinking of Having a torture scene in my book just to portray the evilness of the bad guy. (who doesn't even exist yet, he's only evil. ) Is there a problem with that? I mean, just randomly slipping in a torture scene...are there any better alternatives?

I'm not sure how I feel about that Elanhil. It would all depend on how you worked this scene in with the rest of your book. I think it could feel very disjointed if you don't blend it in with the rest of your story. However, I think having a small torture scene to show the evilness of your villain would count as torture being an end to a means. You'd just have to be really careful how you did it, otherwise it could become *steals Janin's Dad's Words* Gratuitous violence.

Yeah, perhaps I could find some other way of showing his cruelty. But coming up with something would be a different topic.

Okay, for the sake of staying on topic, I'll pm you.

Oh, is that what was going on? I wondered why, in the midst of all kinds of discussions about magic, witchcraft, violence, and language nobody had mentioned torture.

And when days went by and the sister thread didn't get created I was wondering why... I have a bit of a reputation for bringing up questions everyone wants the answer to but nobody wants to ask. I'm glad I can be of service doing it. I was at camp last year and got scolded by one teacher for not paying attention and asking questions at the wrong time, but I had another teacher and several people come up to me later and thank me for asking because they had the same questions and that has steeled me forever against disapproval of asking uncomfortable questions.

So anyway, you are all very welcome to all the risks that I can take on your behalf.

I thought you said you were going to start a sister thread. My bad.

Anyway, I think it has been a very profitable discussion, thanks Janin. I hadn't even thought of discussing this topic because I didn't have any problems with it. However, I like seeing everyone’s different ideas.

That's another thing. Bringing up anything that pops into your mind may help people realize that people may have a problem with their writing, even though they didn't. Thanks Janin!

Dealing with torture in fiction is a little more difficult than it seems. Almost every one of the books I have written contains torture of some sort. Torture, in and of itself, is a means of evil. The capacity of the human mind to invent forms of torment and horror is unbelievably large. Some may be made sick by the mention of torture, but there are those that live in it, dwell in it, and create it. It is a fact of life; it is reality. There are many people who cannot even comprehend the depth to which humanity can go when it comes to destroying humanity through tearing bodies. I probably know more about torture than some of you would ever care to know. I am a history geek, even on special and specific forms of torture dating way back. And folks, what you find sickening on this earth is only a fraction, a mere fraction, of what is found in Hell. This is reality.

Unlike Katie here, much of my reading material has not even been Christian. And some of the non-Christian depictions of torture are mind-blowing. Thus, when someone just skips over torture or makes light of it in a situation where it is occurring, it hurts me. I know, deep within me, the horrid reality of what is going on behind the scenes and for an author to just simply make it seem like no big deal does not do it justice. Now, I agree that it is not wise at all to depict a scene in its entire magnitude that torture is in real life, but we also should not mock it. I am all for depicting reality glossed over with discretion. Torture is evil. Portray it as such. Most likely, if you are writing a torture scene in your novel, you are not writing it with great glee. You are writing it to give depth to the evil of the kingdom or person commanding it. You are showing the pure heart's endurance. You are showing the power of a deity in protecting and upholding the person undergoing it. Do it justice, but with poise.

I don't usually use it for the thrill of it. I use torture scenes to take the reader on a journey through the mind of either the man/woman enduring the torture or to really define the evil making up the person commanding it. I do not skip over it or make it out to be light. I make it real but at the same time use it to a point where I am not pushing the reader away. There is a fine balance that needs to be achieved in this area.

I hope that was helpful.

Definitely! Torture just for the thrill of it that doesn't enrich the plot ends up being rather pointless (albeit thrilling). Mostly I use torture to strengthen the reader's impression of both the MC's determination and the AC's evilness.

eruheran

Thanks Lady Esmeralda. I think your points were very well thought out. I also think they have a lot of weight in our writing.

I think I would mostly agree with you, Hannah. However, I think that in some genres, (mostly children's books), it is wise not to write out torture scenes.

I agree, Willow. We do need to be realistic, but I think we also need to realistic to the point in which our particular viewership can handle it. It would not be at all wise to write a book with horrible scenes for say an eight year old, because they are likely to not fully understand the graveness of a situation nearly as much as a sixteen year old will. It is not healthy to instill horror in a very young person because they do not understand the consequences that follow such horror. However, when told to a mature audience, who clearly understands the realness of such events, it must be portrayed accurately. It does not have to be graphic nearly as much as it has to be realistic, whether that is done through describing the actual torture or through describing the thoughts of the victim or describing the reactions of others.

Alright, I'm about to revive this and take it in a strange direction. Three words: Ticking bomb scenario.

Mostly this thread has talked about whether or not to show torture, how to show torture, the concern about romanticizing it, etc, but all presuming the bad guy is the one executing the torture. I'm curious as to what you guys' opinion on flipping that are. Obviously, the decision would not be made lightly, and some of the good guys would definitely be opposed. But what do you think?

I can be quite squeamish with torture, I can't imagine myself writing something with torture in it so I would probaly avoid it. However I don't mind reading it but I would never watch it, I wonder what the difference is? I guess that when you're reading it you visualise it in your mind in the way you want to and it's not as realisitc as when seen. I dont think I could ever begin to write a torture scene because I coud never do it justice, I'm too scared of it so it would end up probably very unrealistic.



Kat, that is a very interesting thought. Not that I'm one to ask but I believe in some cases the good guys do/can use torture but if one of my characters decided to do so it would definitely put me off them forever! However I believe there have been real life cases espcially in war where the good guys have had to use torture so I'd be inclined to think that it could be done but carefully so as not to spoil the good guys character and put people off them?

That's a hard question Kat. I would think that before using torture the good guy should offer redemption. In my opinion, torture shouldn't be used by the protagonists unless they is attempting to gain information that will save lives.

Yeah, if it were for any other reason the protagonist wouldn't be much of a protagonist. That's why I said "ticking bomb scenario" - lives-at-stake sort of thing.


Good point, Elanor. Not spoiling the good guys' characters. I think if you make them agonize over it a proper amount. . . Yes, there is definitely a fine balance.

That's a tough question, Katty. Hmmm... I don't know if I would ever make my main charries torture their enemies, just for the sake of making them easier to write!

But to answer your question, I don't think it would be wrong - in the right circumstances. If a character wanted to torture someone for the sake of revenge, that would utterly and totally wrong. But if the villain refused to give any information in a life-or-death situation, then I wouldn't condemn the torturer. It's all about motives.

Also, you have to question the heart of the person actually doing the torturing... What kind of person would actually want to inflict that much pain on another human being? Bad guys can be like that... but I'm not so sure about good guys.

Just something to think about.

Yep. You'd rather not... but if you have to, you have to.

I've always wanted to read a book or see a movie with a Jason Bourne like character who wasn't afraid to shoot the bad guys. I honestly don't mind having a protagonist beat the enemy to pieces until he talks. In my opinion it comes down to motive:
Someone brought up revenge. That's a bad motive. If the idea is to make another guy feel pain because you felt it or someone you loved felt it then that's wrong.
  Aaah, but there is another side to this coin. Sure, it is wrong to do it. Sure, it reflects badly on character doing the torturing, if the motive is wrong. But is it wrong to portray it? Maybe Batman would be more realistic if we saw him once beat the tar out of someone and then hate what he had done and after that take the no-killing and no-terrorism approach. Protagonists don't have to be all good. Maybe protagonist John should torture the enemy just because he wants to, then get tortured himself later and decide that he won't ever do it again. Characters that make mistakes and do the wrong thing sometimes are so much more real.

Back on the heads side of the coin, there are good motives. "Tell me how to sneak into the lair to kill the archvillain who has been committing genocide on a mass scale or I'll ___fill in torture devise here___ you." "Give me the deactivation code to the time-bomb that will kill us all or else..."
  Then again, this isn't just a coin. It is something more 3D. Who really wants to read about the hero beating somebody up? I do, and some others do, but maybe it is wiser to just cut-to-black and let it remain that torture was used. "Protagonist gave the sub-villain he had just captured a menacing look and told him to spill the beans or else. Five mintues and many screams later the beans were spilt to sufficiency in John's opinion." We know enough about what John did. We know who followed through on the threat. Maybe that is enough.

*agrees with you about Batman* Interesting point. . . I must say, that is one way of showing the hero messing up I never thought of! Although you would need a certain type of hero. *doesn't think any of the good guys she creates have the capacity to torture for non-life-saving reasons*


I agree. Hero-torturing-villain should probably be less described than villain-torturing-hero, just so we don't hate the hero or be too disappointed in him. I think most of the conflict would involve good-guys arguing over it. At least in my stories. I have a couple tender-hearted girls.

Oh. . . and the grammar Nazi inside of me says "spilt" isn't a word. "Spilled" is the past tense of "Spill."

Thank you for this post - it makes a lot of sense!

The old English in me is what makes me spell "spilled" as "spilt." So I guess the English and the Nazi's are going at it again

*laughs and chuckles*

On a TORTURE thread?

Laughs and chuckles are appropriate on a torture thread because many torturers are also crazy. Joker laughs all the time. All sorts of villains have a maniacal laugh, and I have several of my own woops, wasn't supposed to admit that was I?

Ahh! Everyone run for your lives! It's a cliche writer!

Back on topic. . .
What do you think a writer has to be careful about when making a good guy use torture? Brushing over it has been suggested. . . and making sure the good guy stayed likable was also pointed out. But just how do you think that should be handled?

And. . . has anyone ever actually had a good guy torture a bad guy? *wonders*

To a certain extent, depicting good people doing wrong things is never morally wrong in and of itself. If I write a scene with graphic description of body parts flying it is my choice to do so. Maybe I did it because I like that sort of thing (I don't actually, this is all just hypothetical). The moral issue at stake is not so much that I wrote that sort of thing, it is that I wanted to write it.

If to me it is acceptable to give detailed description of how Protagonist John made the villain spill the beans, or I think it is neccesary for the tone or feel, then I will give as much detail as I need.

The fact is, though, that writing is a relational thing. I don't just write for myself; very few people do. I personally don't want to read about what was leftover when someone was tortured. I just want to know it happened. The way I suggested to write it in my earlier post is both the way I would want to write it and to read it. Of course, everything I have said so far is just general.

The Question: How should that be handled? I'd say no more than necessary. If one of my villains is going to torture somebody, than I won't just do what I would do for Protagonist John. The villain would be something more like, "The dark lord stared coldly, silently, into the eyes of quivering Protagonist John. 'If you won't talk..." he said as he lifted the fireplace tongs out of the fire, 'then you will scream. And if you are man-enough to not scream, then the only noise will be your breaking bones.'" That was way more dark than the original piece, yet I didn't have to say anything I wouldn't feel comfortable posting here. We hate the dark lord way more than we dislike Protagonist John from the first episode. It's all in how you say it, not really that much in what you say.

Yes, laughs and chuckles. You will find I am prone to this type of disposition Katty Roy. I had to laugh at the Nazi vs English joke Reiyen made. It was funny! Especially since it was in reference to Grammar. That’s a big thing around here, if you hadn’t noticed

Oh, yes I have noticed (especially since you capitalized "grammar" ) ! And believe me, it is so refreshing to be on a forum where you will never, ever see the sentence, "R U sk8ting 2day?" Ouch, that hurt to type.

My Facebook friends eventually got tired of having their statuses spellchecked by me. I am so glad I don't have to even think about doing that around here.

Interesting, I was just thinking over this topic (this week actually).

I have a (secondary) MC who tortures then kills a bad guy and not for a "good" reason. It's for the bad reason Reiyen stated earlier; "to make another guy feel pain because you felt it or someone you loved felt it."

I haven't decided yet if I'm actually going to include part of the scene where the two meet for the second and last time, but I've played with the idea.
What I'm trying to show through this character is that revenge doesn't pay. The MC kills the bad guy, but it doesn't "fix" everything. The MC still holds all his anger, pain, ect. and must learn a different way to get rid of it.
His choice to kill the bad guy stays with him and even haunts him at times, but I want to use it show how revenge can only destroy.


This part doesn't happen until half way through the book, so you know (and hopefully like) this character.
Do you guy think this is acceptable? Or would you begin to dislike/question this MC? (all depending on the way it is written of course)

My thought on torture, and violence, is that is should not be gratuitous.

Violence is used gratuitously not when it is portrayed positively, but when it is used in a manner that is humorous (many horror movies) or used for sheer shock value. (Again, many horror movies.)

There is a distinction that I should clarify, though.

In the pianist, a Nazi officer suddenly and randomly shoots a Jewish woman in the head at point blank. The violence is sudden, shocking, and gory. But the shock value was not the point. Instead, the shock and horror was being used to make you realize just how horrible Nazi Germany was...in much the same way that the implied violence of the ash cloud from the crematorium shocks and horrifies you as you watch The Boy in the Striped Pajamas.

The point is not so much the violence as how the violence is used.

I've been neglecting my thread...

On the subject of good guys torturing bad guys... no. Never. Here's why.

In a Robin Hood episode, (and in Swan Princess III) the good guy is convincing the villain's henchman to change sides. The henchman won't tell them anything, whining and whimpering, "I know your type. You can torture me, but I won't tell."

If the good guys treat him the same way, are they any better? The whole point of being heroes is that you do things differently. But there's another thing.

Torture doesn't work. What would you do if you hadn't caught the villain or the henchman and tried to make him talk? If you're the hero and you're going to save the world then go save the world and worry about the villain later. If he's a really good villain he isn't going to break under torture anyway. And if he's not, he'll just lie. Torture doesn't work. That's a proven fact. Villains don't torture heroes because they want information. Villains torture heroes because they want to inflict pain. It is the essence of their villainy. And there is no situation you could justify to me.

I'm not against, say, psychological torture, like Lucky Starr used, where you trick the villain into believing he's drunk his own poison, or is about to be blown up by his own bomb. You don't even have to pretend. If the villain was going to blow up a building, it's only justice to put him in the building with the bomb until he tells you where it is. But physical torture? No.

And there is my controversial opinion.

Vanya has a good point about heroes becoming no different than their enemies when they resort to torture. However, I think we are making a mistake by answering the wrong question, that is, if I understand the question being asked.
It is very controversial about whether it would be okay to torture someone. I don't think we will ever agree on that one.
What is not so controversial and much more easily answered is question of whether it is acceptable to write about it. That's the question at hand.
Vanya's point about the hero becoming just like a villain is a good point. Once both sides are torturing their captives both sides might as well go genocidal. Then it is not good vs. evil, but instead side-with-the-main-character vs. side-without-the-main-character. That defeats the purpose for the most part.
However, good guys sometimes do bad things. It's a fact. They say mean things. A good portion of books are about someone saying the something out of anger, fracturing a friendship, and paying the consequences. Some heroes commit adultery, like King David. Some heroes torture, like Protagonist John. Batman doesn't torture; Bourne doesn't kill unless he can't help it. Maybe Protagonist John does both.
If we only portray heroes that are like Gandalf the White, which never make a mistake, then they will be weak. They don't have anything to do with us; we can learn nothing from them. They are nice, I am a huge Gandalf fan, but the fact is I know it isn't worth aspiring to be like him.
So if the question is about the morality of writing about heroes torturing villains then I would say it is definitely okay, within the bounds I mentioned in a previous post about motivation.

Another torture thread? Interesting.

Something that I just thought of when reading through all your comments on this subject:

What about torturous events that aren't actual torture?

For example, I have a tendency to drop my characters over cliffs. They are running along, slip on something, hit the ground, roll across harsh rock, and fly over the edge. Along the way down they make contact and slide against rough abrasions and get smacked by branches and outcroppings. Then they hit the ground and lie there unconscious, then they wake up and iterate all the devastation wrecked on their body. And I describe it all in detail.

Another example is combat. Think about it: how is getting chopped up and flayed and beaten by an opponent in fair fight any less brutal than when you get chopped up and flayed and beaten by an opponent when you are strapped to a table?

We have our characters thrust through, burned, wrenched, beaten, cut, lanced, and otherwise decimated in combat without a qualm. We also have them do the same thing to countless other bad guys.

Whether or not we describe the gore of slicing someone's head off and watching their brains ooze down their side... they still do it.

So what is the difference? Or should we just have everyone slap each other with scented feathers? Or is that death by suffocation...?

No, that is death by tickling!

Anyway, I'm going to wait to see what everyone else says, because I'm not exactly sure how to write out my response to your question.

Torture by scented feathers? Wow Jay, I didn't see that one coming...

I've already stated elsewhere that I find torture description to serve a purpose, so I'm not sure anyone needs we to restate those thoughts here.

Part of my answer has to do with the nature of fantasy literature. The idea is to simplify the world so that good and bad are clearly separate, and to portray the battle between the two in concrete terms. Combat has always, thus, been a symbol for the spiritual warfare, resistance of temptation, etc. Since we really do resist temptation, it is acceptable to portray its symbolic counterpart.

Torture on the other hand, doesn't have an established counterpart to our real lives. We as real people never torture people, at least not with Catherine wheels and water-boarding. Thus, it is harder to see how torture in fantasy bears on real life. That makes it "extra-curricular" to say the least.

To be continued...

Hence their presence.

I agree completely. My hope is that my post will help underscore that position.

Combat is a little different because, for one thing, the guy getting sliced up is also slicing up the other guy. Also, since he's in combat, he's focusing more on the fight, so the pain and slicing is kind of just a side effect.

For example, what do you do when you smash your thumb? You jump up and down and shake it. What if you couldn't move? I don't usually scream when I get hurt, (I have a pretty high pain tolerance,) but if I can't jump up and down I resort to screaming. You have to do something. If you're fighting back, the pain goes unnoticed, because you're doing. If you're strapped to a table there's nothing to do but scream, nothing to focus on but pain.

Another thing is the principle of the thing. Battle is horrible, but you know, it's battle. The question there is how much should we describe? Torture, the question is kind of more, should we even have torture?

(Which we've already been through, I'm just comparing the two subjects.)

I've read Thomas Malory's Mort D'Arthur once or twice. The battles in there are ugly. Hacking off each other's armor, ground slick with blood, brains oozing out, everything. But these guys did it just because they could. Lancelot wasn't ever happier except for when he was hacking someone to pieces. So the whole psychology of the situation is completely different, and that's the issue. There are difference levels of descriptive violence for everything, even throwing people off a cliff, but what about the mental side?

(I cannot begin to imagine why or how someone would or could run off a cliff. You'd never catch me getting anywhere near one! You can tell when a cliff is coming up, you can avoid it, you can change direction, you can know your geography... )

So, I couldn't resist answering this question since I'm currently working on a few torture scenes were my main character (good guy) has to interrogate one of the enemies she has captured to get information that she needs to save her friend's life.

I'm not really currently having a problem with this scene, since I watch a lot of crime fighting TV shows (like, Burn Notice, Psych, Monk, etc.) so I see a lot of interrogation done by both good guys and bad guys. But I'm fumbling with the idea of actually having her physically torture her captive. As of now she is mainly using bribery and such to convince him to tell her. Usually I use methods like these to make the bad guys talk since they are already bad it shouldn't be too hard to make them trade their life for someone else's even if it is their leaders.

And on a similar note, I had one of my characters captured and obviously enemies don't use such humane methods to extract information so I was curious how you guys would go about an interrogation situation like that?

Sorry if this is sort of choppy, just thought I'd pop in my 10 cents.

Bethany Faith

I like the bribery method. However, I don't think the good guys should torture.

VERY well put. My thoughts exactly. I don't like it when authors skip over things like that.