Prize Launched for Thrillers That Don't Involve Violence Against Women

[thaddeus6th]

Interesting discussion. I'd just add one point, which is that stories about serial killers require multiple victims. Prostitutes are often used, as this mirrors real life (they tend to be women, alone, and therefore quite vulnerable, plus there's the Jack the Ripper cultural memory). Of course, chaps can have such work, but it is rarer.

 

[Onyx]

Interesting discussion. I'd just add one point, which is that stories about serial killers require multiple victims. Prostitutes are often used, as this mirrors real life (they tend to be women, alone, and therefore quite vulnerable, plus there's the Jack the Ripper cultural memory). Of course, chaps can have such work, but it is rarer.

Why bother writing fiction about the most common criminals? Fiction usually devotes itself to the extraordinary.

 

[The Bluestocking]

I'm not going to claim one set of statistics or another is "right", but the Slate article points out the problems with using the National Crime Victimization Survey that the stats in your link comes from. For one, "rape" was defined for many years as something that can happen only to women in the NVCS.

Don't get me wrong - men are clearly the more violent, sexually abusive gender. But broadening definitions of sexual assault have uncovered new data about victims and perpetrators. This is not the first time I've read about some foundational problems with the way the NCVS defines and gathers crime data. It contains a lot of bias about race and police use of force as well. So I think the jury is still out what the "correct" statistics are.

And that change is relatively important because so many male sexual predators were among those under-reported male child molestation victim numbers. If society wants to break that sort of chain, it needs to recognize and treat male victims with more frequency.

Mmm... so in a discussion thread about violence against women (VAW) in crime fiction, you're trotting out this "What About The Menz?" argument by suddenly just dragging out that article on the statistics of male rape. Why?

And sure, you may cite all the issues with data-collection methodology of statistics in the U.S. but it still doesn't negate the fact that overall, women and girls are subjected to far more violence (including rape) because of their gender.

Here's a pretty comprehensive report on VAW worldwide (including the U.S.):
It's not just O'Reilly and Weinstein: Sexual violence is a 'global pandemic'

Or are you saying that all the organisations cited in the article (including the World Health Organisation, UNHCR etc) are all wrong and suspect too when it comes to the data they've compiled and presented?

Stick to the topic. Nobody is saying that this is a zero sum game (i.e. that only women are raped but men aren't) but to do what you did is to derail the discussion.

 

[Onyx]

Mmm... so in a discussion thread about violence against women (VAW) in crime fiction, you're trotting out this "What About The Menz?" argument by suddenly just dragging out that article on the statistics of male rape. Why?

Those sound like questions that you might have asked Cathbad or MWagner, but are asking me because I disagreed with you. I didn't start this sidebar, nor have the rest of my comments in this thread been "political".

As I mentioned, I agree with the goal of the OP and see little reason for women characters to be used as disposable motivation units.

Or are you saying that all the organisations cited in the article (including the World Health Organisation, UNHCR etc) are all wrong and suspect too when it comes to the data they've compiled and presented?

Stick to the topic.

Do you want me to continue to discuss this sidebar by answering your question, or do you want me to "stick to the topic" and stop discussing crime statistics? Those requests appear to be at odds.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Keeping on topic:

Isn't the real point of all this to not use agency-less female characters as little more than props to motivate the protagonist? The actual details of how they are used seems relatively secondary to the fact that they are depicted as less than people, and their role in the story could have been fulfilled by a stolen or destroyed inanimate object.

This sounds like we're on the right track.

 

[tinkerdan]

It does seem to me that hawking a prize for thrillers that don't contain violence against women suggests that there are none and I'd beg to differ as have a few other people. Sometimes I wonder if the true objective is missed because of other issues.

It seems that what is more important than violence against women or the victimization of women (in the fictional environment) is that we need more stories with women that have agency; and that's an entirely different issue that doesn't even require the removal of violence and victimization of any race or gender. Any thriller is going to propel the characters into potentially violent circumstance. You can't remove all of those and have a story that is realistic--people get hurt. The real issue is that, yes in the past we have had few if any good examples of women with agency. Women who don't crumble at the first moment of adversity and who simply refuse to be victims.

 

[MWagner]

Why bother writing fiction about the most common criminals? Fiction usually devotes itself to the extraordinary.

Serial killers are extraordinary. And most of their victims are women. Serial killers are also the subject of a great many crime novels precisely because they're extraordinary (and terrifying, dramatic, and fascinating to a lot of people).

But yeah, I doubt we'll see the crime genre turn to stories about common violent crimes, like men stabbing one another over drug debts, anytime soon.

It seems that what is more important than violence against women or the victimization of women (in the fictional environment) is that we need more stories with women that have agency; and that's an entirely different issue that doesn't even require the removal of violence and victimization of any race or gender. Any thriller is going to propel the characters into potentially violent circumstance. You can't remove all of those and have a story that is realistic--people get hurt. The real issue is that, yes in the past we have had few if any good examples of women with agency. Women who don't crumble at the first moment of adversity and who simply refuse to be victims.

As I posted up-thread, the most popular crime fiction writers today are mostly women. Karin Slaughter, Tess Gerritsen, Sara Paretsky, Melinda Leigh, Lynda LaPlante. And most of their protagonists are women too. V.I. Warshawski , detective Jane Rizzoli , inspector Tennison. Women with agency are the norm in today's thrillers, not the exception.

It's perfectly understandable that the crime genre is going to feature serial killers rather than drug dealers, that their victims will be women rather than gang members, and that this will be true even in the many popular examples where both the author and protagonist are women. Maybe it's the crime genre itself that's becoming regarded as distasteful in some quarters? Because horror and catharsis are fundamental to the genre.

But the enjoyment of crime fiction also aligns with a desire to see justice served. Law & Order: SVU, a show that regularly portrays brutal sexual and physical violence against women, is also hugely popular among female viewers. On the one hand, it takes the abuse of women seriously. But on the other, it creates a neat framework where cases are solved and perpetrators are punished. The same applies to to books. Crime fiction, Weinman says, offers order: “Reading about a serial killer who gets caught, or a missing child who’s found, or a woman who’s brutally murdered and the case is solved, there’s an ending, and some catharsis. Narrative provides a trajectory where real life can’t.”

The Atlantic - Why Men Pretend to Be Women to Sell Thrillers

 

[Toby Frost]

I've said what I wanted to say. I'm out.

 

[Onyx]

Serial killers are extraordinary. And most of their victims are women. Serial killers are also the subject of a great many crime novels precisely because they're extraordinary (and terrifying, dramatic, and fascinating to a lot of people).

But yeah, I doubt we'll see the crime genre turn to stories about common violent crimes, like men stabbing one another over drug debts, anytime soon.

Serial killers are somewhat rare, but the ones we find most fascinating are not the typical ones preying on hookers but those that have more unusual personal lives, are atypical for serial killers, exhibit unusual trophy taking, etc. If you want to craft a sensational story, the Green River killer is much less interesting than Ed Gein, Jeffrey Dahmer or Madame LaLaurie. From a criminology standpoint, the atypical killers provide more potential investigative drama.

 

[nixie]

Can we keep to the topic. Discussion around levels of violence in society as a whole can lead too current affairs, we don't discuss those here.

 

[Parson]

why there's a Banned Books list by conservative states in the U.S. because the parents there don't want their children reading "liberal trash" like Harry Potter.

I was dumb founded when I read this. I did some quick research. As far as I can tell there are no states that ban Harry Potter books. There are a few Fundamentalist Christian groups who believe that they are occult and should not be read, but they have no widespread legal authority. I remember when the Harry Potter books first came out I was asked by members of my congregation whether they were acceptable for children to read. The reason wasn't because they might be "liberal trash" but rather because they might be understood to glamorize the occult. ---- After a little research I asked them a question: "Do you let you kids read fairy tales? Do you tell them fairy tales? --- If you see them as acceptable children's fare, then I don't see anything more objectionable than that with Harry Potter."

What has been banned successfully in not a few school libraries (a few public libraries as well, but very, very, few) is even more unfortunate. Books like "Tom Sawyer" and "To Kill a Mockingbird" because of their use of a banned racial word. Which of course is so ironic as to make one wonder if anyone banning the books had ever read them.

 

[Amberlen]

I was dumb founded when I read this. I did some quick research. As far as I can tell there are no states that ban Harry Potter books. There are a few Fundamentalist Christian groups who believe that they are occult and should not be read, but they have no widespread legal authority. I remember when the Harry Potter books first came out I was asked by members of my congregation whether they were acceptable for children to read. The reason wasn't because they might be "liberal trash" but rather because they might be understood to glamorize the occult. ---- After a little research I asked them a question: "Do you let you kids read fairy tales? Do you tell them fairy tales? --- If you see them as acceptable children's fare, then I don't see anything more objectionable than that with Harry Potter."

What has been banned successfully in not a few school libraries (a few public libraries as well, but very, very, few) is even more unfortunate. Books like "Tom Sawyer" and "To Kill a Mockingbird" because of their use of a banned racial word. Which of course is so ironic as to make one wonder if anyone banning the books had ever read them.

i live in arguably one of the most conservative/evangelical states in the country. we have no banned book list because of "liberal" trash or anything else. where do people get these ideas?
@Parson, you are exactly right..classics are in danger because a certain segment of people feel like they should be judged by todays stances. its a crying shame, imo

 

[Amberlen]

I’m curious what VAW is being defined as ?
Are we talking rape, etc? Or just anything that is reflective of traditional gender roles? *may need to reread this thread from beginning*