I've wondered the same thing about myself.

When younger, I had the same fascination with the strength of mind and purpose of Christians under torture...



Agree about the torture! Sigh. Sorry. Maybe I'm idealistic, but I hate the idea of resorting to bribery. It seems so base. If one can't convince through persuasion and common sense that 'spilling the beans' is good and justifiable... well, too bad. However, I doubt the efficiency of this method in a 'time-ticking-bomb' life or death matter... It could prove a character's fortitude and self-control (and stupidity?) very well though!

I think there's a difference between battle and torture, because some, while handling battle scenes, are overwhelmingly sickened by torture. In battle the MC (assuming it's an MC) is active, furiously active, struggling for the victory 'midst the heat and battle-surge'.... Torture? The battle is already lost. You aren't fighting to win. You are fighting only to suffer/die well (which is a kind of winning, I know...). It's not only physical torture... it's psychological torture. It's the horror of physical helplessness and inactivity in the face of extreme pain.

War (as in battle/conflict etc.) is often both necessary and proper. One can retain one's honor in warfare, if one fights for the right reasons. Torture is just plain brutal. I'm not very well-versed in the whole war/torture/strategy thing, but I find it hard to think that torture can be honorable. The way I see it, a torturer utterly demeans himself.


So agree!

*lol* Sorry! It was the scented feathers....

Erm... this got moved from Theology, right? It's not really about how to write torture scenes... but I don't want to get into a post moving war (hehe) so does anyone agree or disagree about placement?

I would have thought it went in theology, but since all the changes it has kind of got confusing and I don't think people quite know what posts to put in theology. I maybe shouldn't have commented on this question not having anything to do with placements of threads, so sorry if I shouldn't have!

I'm of the opinion it should be in Theology, actually.

Theology.

Moving.

Thankee, folkses.

I am late to this thread!

I try to avoid making torture in my books too graphic or bad. But I keep them...well... like a torture scene! Details... just not too much!


-God bless

I know! That's why I love the stories of the Covenanters and the Protestants in general in the 12-1600s. But it didn't only happen a long time ago. It's still happening in China and North Korea and Muslim countries. And, fortunately, we can pray for these brothers and sisters, which I try to do every day. And those stories, while being rather frightening, and terrible, have always thrilled my heart. It's the highest degree of courage anyone could show, I think.

As for my thoughts on graphic torture scenes (or just scenes of violence in general), it turns me off the more graphic it gets. I really don't like being shocked by the violent death of a character. And it seems like authors will often take a minor character who really adds nothing to the story, torture him to death, and try to shock us into liking this person that we don't even know. Of course we're going to feel sorry for him! I mean, even if he was some evil bad guy, we're going to have some sympathy for him at least.
I actually think that a more effective way of portraying torture is, instead of showing the blood and gore so much, you show the pain that the character is going through: his thoughts, how it feels, and keep the violence down to a lower level. Just a thought.

It has been asked whether and how we should portray good guys torturing people, but what about torture that is not done for the intent of torture? Would that have different rules for portrayal? Like, if healing someone is torturous.

That's an amazing resource, E. Thanks for posting.

For me, torture scenes help enforce the believability of the story. It seems kind of lame to have weak antagonists whose worst fault is being wimpy at best in their treatment of victims, expecially the good characters. They're supposed to be evil, right? The stronger the hostility, the greater the triumph when it's overcome.

Granted, there's an invisible line you don't want to cross when describing torture, and everyone will draw that line in a different place. Personally, I include torture scenes, not overtly graphic, when the need suits, to show what kind of opposition the dark side is presenting. They're serious about killing the main character and his friends, so why not make them act that way?



The first thing that comes to mind is Gollum in LOTR. He saw good things (daylight, elvish bread, the intended kindness of the hobbits) as torturous. It really depends on the definition of torture and the side it's being viewed from. The person suffering would call it torture, while the other party might not depending on their viewpoint.

The perfect example: Hitler didn't think he was torturing Jews. He thought he was doing his duty in exterminating them, but to every rational person, the Holocuast was clearly torture. That opens up the box of sanity and insanity, and whose definition we're using, which I won't even go into.

Then there's the whole other question of torturing for a good cause, i.e. to extract valuable information that may save lives. I haven't dealt with this yet, but I think there's a place for it provided the end doesn't become confused with the means.

I disagree that "good" characters should never torture other characters. "Good" people do bad things sometimes. But then, none of us are really good are we? Sometimes, even with good motives, we do bad things, and the same applies to characters.

Say your character has a time sensitive situation on their hands where they need information fast, and the only way to get that is to torture a captive they have. That captive has committed crimes and given up their right to freedom, and if they are set on being privy to murder...it would be so very easy to rationalize torturing them... Think of The Dark Knight, where in order to save two people about to be blown up in a few minutes, Batman has to beat information out of the Joker... Was that really morally wrong?

But I don't even think the motives necessarily have to be different for "good" characters either. I can think of a situation in one of my stories where a "good" character thinks that a villain has killed his wife. And he takes a dark satisfaction in vengefully hurting that other man. I think we could agree that that is wrong, but it's certainly an easy feeling to sympathize with...

Our job as writers isn't to make life look pretty, or to hold up shining, two-dimensional symbols of perfection. It's to deal with the issues we're called to deal with in a way that pleases God.

Definitely. A lot of good people have not only managed to do wrong things, but believe wrong things, and having that aspect of life in your stories is essential.

I just came across this sort of thing in my writing, actually, and I am trying to work out what I think about it. What do you think about this situation:

There is a war, but it is more of a political war than your typical struggle. It is a war of information. There is an aggressive political faction, and say that you know beyond doubt that it is evil, murderous, and should be stopped. You would send out soldiers to destroy it if you could, but you can't. It's not that kind of war. So would you torture someone to find out something that could potentially destroy the evil faction? You would send out your own soldiers to die to destroy it...is it wrong to torture one of their men?

* nods * It reminds me of Corrie Ten Boom when she found out who it was that had turned her and her family in to the gestapo. She hated him, until her sister showed her how much he needed love as well.

Well, if it's more of a political/informational war rather than a traditional war with people killing each other, I'm not sure if it's really right to torture one of their men, unless their plot would kill tons of people, since it's a war of information, not a traditional war...

That's where the 'say that you know beyond doubt that it is evil, murderous, and should be stopped' part comes in. They are killing people.

Nevermind then. It would probably be right to torture them, though it would have to be done tactfully in the book, as most readers would probably have a knee-jerk reaction that it would be wrong to torture them... At least that's my knee-jerk reaction when reading about the protags torturing the antagonists, though on further reflection I decide it's fine...

The question of torture is not a question of, "is it wrong?" but "when is it wrong?"

Torture brings with it a plethora of issues. Due process, for example. The dignity of justice, for another (justice should be somber and dignified). Also the question of whether justice ought to be done by an authority or institution, or whether any of us can mete out justice to evil doers. Also the question of whether criminals actually forfeit their rights by committing crime.

Also, there is a growing debate among the scientific/forensic community about whether torture is actually an efficient means of getting information.

And look to the time when the Jews were taking Canaan from the Canaanites. Many of their captured enemies had their limbs, or portions of their limbs cut off, or were otherwise harmed, while captives of the Jews. To me, these punishments count as torture.

Then, of course, we have psychological torture and similar mind games. These often involve deceit or the threat of pain? Is deceit and belligerence justifiable?

Torture is a combination of a number of moral questions.

As far as writing goes, we should remember that antagonists don't automatically perform torture simply as a function of their being bad guys. Nor are protagonists unwilling to perform torture just because they're the good guys.

This is a very interesting topic, and I like what you said, Willow. I actually have changed some of my views on torture since I first joined HW over 2 years ago (I was reading back over some of the things I said in the thread and got a good chuckle out of it).

I watched The Mentalist recently, and realized that in a couple of the episodes, Patrick uses a form of "torture" on the bad guys. He messes with their minds. Confuses them. It looks nothing like when a bad guy tortures a good guy, but Patrick essentially manipulates information out of people, just like you do when you torture someone.

And that got me thinking.

Ick...you know I hadn't considered mental torture, or going into people's minds to extract information, because it doesn't happen (to my knowledge) in real life. But when it comes to fantasy...I think that's one kind of torture that should never be portrayed as reasonable or possibly beneficial...

The term "mind rape" comes to mind. A person's essence/soul is made in the image of God, and regardless of what they've done, violating that sanctuary seems like possibly the most damaging thing possible. It's sacred, other people shouldn't go there.

*smiles * Willow, I'm not talking about messing with people's minds. I'm talking about the power of observation and suggestion. You manipulate the opponent by bringing to light their guilt. Think Sherlock Holmes type observation, which tells you things most people will never pick up on. Then use that against a person to work them up. Because, as much as Star Wars isn't true, some people really are weak minded and easy to manipulate.

I totally agree that people’s minds should not be explored in the fantastical way that you are speaking of. But that’s not what I’m talking about.

*chuckles* I'm not familiar with "The Mentalist" so, I read your post as much more sinister than it was.

*chuckles * Yeah, I totally agree with you on mind rape.

(On the subject of mind rape, in my world stealing information from someone's mind does not equal that, it is another issue altogether; I wonder if I should start a theology thread on this topic...seems like it would be a good thing to discuss.)

Yes, please do. It's an interesting topic and frankly one I hadn't considered. I think a discussion would be beneficial.

No, I hadn't considered it either, Tarin. But I'm also intrigued. Was another discussion on this ever started?

I would also like to be a part of that discussion (or at least critically observe).