how nasty are you?

[Jo Zebedee]

Eloquently put Jo. You know I was only pulling your leg, right? Personally I found what you did to your characters, especially you MC, to be enormously powerful. It gave him a background of understandable nightmares which is excellent for character development.
I must add that I was none too kind to my MC, and for the same reason. We both just approached the subject a tad differently. To which I say, (in my worse French) vive la difference. So there.

I’m still gonna blame you for making me do it, Drof

(and thank you - and right back at you)

 

[Toby Frost]

I give my characters challenges--sometimes they give themselves challenges--but I am not deliberately nasty. That is, I don't deliberately try to have awful things happen to them in order to create motivation. I don't find that very interesting, which is part of why I don't care much for grimdark... Being realistic is not the same thing as being grim.

I think this is a really good point.

As nasty as the story requires. That sounds flippant but I think it's true: you have to be convincing, but as you write more, you start to learn that gratuity is often counter-productive. And what stories "need" varies hugely: I don't think some writers understand that a million made up random citizens are just a number, whereas one developed character matters. There's a reason why Save The Cat has that title.

Two pages of the villain murdering and torturing will usually do the job - after ten pages, though, readers may actually be getting bored of it. I find this with bad horror films: a character gets mangled and basically flops about like a landed fish, and my brain thinks "Yeah, he's not getting up from that, get on with the story". The worst deaths in Alien are off-screen.

I'm not adverse to gore and horror at all, but I find the view that the more horrific the gore, the more "true" and "deep" the story is, to be puerile and a bit sad. In 1984, which is the blueprint for every miserable dystopia, there's not actually very much gore at all. I don't even know how Winston Smith is tortured, despite the story being from his point of view. Ultimately, it doesn't matter.

But, on the other hand, you've got to be consistent. If you're a princess in a world where marriage alliances are vital, you can't just refuse to get married without consequences. It might work out well, it might not, but there has to make logical sense. A character can deal with the consequences of their actions, but the consequences have to exist.

 

[DLCroix]

also - sorry - this post turned out to be about me and my writing, but i *think* that was the nature of the question asked? Apologies if I picked that up wrong. Plus, you know, pragmatist. I do to seek to understand.

Yes, well, it's understandable. But for the same reason, to avoid moral dilemmas, I entrust all these matters to the law of chance, and also a little to avoid the Deux Ex Machina, which sometimes in many stories makes the villain boast that he has trapped the good guy or the girl and it's those precious minutes he wastes mocking (instead of shooting them and goodbye) that doom him. In fact, I also use the coin if a character (both good and bad) has to make a decision, more or less like Two-Face did. Does it kill him? Cross. Doesn't it kill him? Face.
And as I was saying (well, the stories I write are a cross between fantasy and sci-fi of the opera type), although vampires, angels, sorcerers, demons and dragons appear, some of them infiltrated in combat units that are even respected by their enemies precisely because they sometimes act with strange nobility, I never theorize too much about evil. I prefer to leave that answer to the characters; for example, when these strange beings come forward and tell their comrades humans to leave, the others already know what is going to happen, and even though they fear them, they do not question them at all. They even feel immense relief knowing that they fight on their side. With which it is shown that morale changes a lot when it comes to staying alive, how easy it is to make that kind of pact with the devil.

 

[Astro Pen]

Way back when I was at art school students would often produce unpleasant pieces, violent or emetic.
When you asked them what it was about they would say "It's to shock them."
If I asked "Why?" they were never really able to give a meaningful answer.
Shock for it's own sake has no valid message.

If I am nasty to my characters it is often cruel insight such as that, near the end of their lives, they realise that they wasted the incredible gift on mundanity and it is too late, now the door is closing. Or simply that the girl loves someone else. Those things can cut deeper than a slasher.

 

[thaddeus6th]

Been a while since I've written anything, but I was fairly nasty. Not full grimdark, I'd say, but I had a few people tortured, and one leading lady came very close to being raped.

I also made quite a lot of characters low-level prejudiced, and the Kuhrisch were full-blown bigoted against Roger the Goat (a dwarf, in the real world rather than fantasy race meaning of the word). Racism, sexism, bigotry can be useful tools for world-building, and a medieval style assumption that God/the gods are punishing you if you have some sort of illness or other medical problem is deeply unfair, but can fit perfectly in a world where scientific knowledge doesn't really exist.

There are a few things I think would be off the menu for me, just as a writer. Child abuse and hurting animals, probably. Don't want to read that, don't want to write it (animal harm in warfare, such as cavalry horses being hit with arrows, is a bit different, I think).

 

[Mouse]

I'm not too nasty, I don't think. I have a character who's an immortal who ends up getting tortured - how can you torture an immortal when there's no fear of death? I took out her eye. I think that's about as bad as it gets. Altough, I do have an incubus character (the bad guy, obvs, he's a demon) who says he's going to rape someone to death and I've had a beta reader tell me it's too much but nothing happens on screen, it's a fleeting mention and yeah, he's evil and that's kinda what incubi do. That's it. I don't particularly like reading about horrible things happening to people and I don't particularly like writing it either.

Like Thad above, don't even go there with children and animals.

 

[Biskit]

I'd like to say that I am kind and compassionate to my characters, but the death toll says otherwise, although I'm sure I should be excused some of the deaths on account of the victims enjoying a successful resurrection or other post-mortal existence. Mostly I do bad things to characters because it drives the plot, makes a point or, since there is a lot of dark humour in some of my books, makes a joke.

Doing a quick mental stock-take of the "highlights", I've done all sorts of horrible things, short of death, to my characters. The first book has gladiatorial contests and a crucifixion, the second has a small magical explosion akin to a landmine under someone's foot and a dubious magical construct based on a bird a cat and a small child, and the third sees wanton animal cruelty directed at a dragon, a horrendous dose of magical gastro-enteritis and a possessed sort-of exorcist.

So far, I have one loathsome character who would make the world a far better place for being dead, so I keep him around, which is arguably a pretty nasty thing to do to the other characters, and there are actually two characters I regret having killed off but it had to be done.

The worst thing of all is getting attached because it makes it so much harder to do the necessary.

I'm sorry, but characters are like potatoes. They work boiled, roasted, fried, baked or mashed.

 

[-K2-]

As much as most folks don't like to hear it (which is a VERY GOOD thing, because that means most folks are middle of the road normal), required extreme measures are taken usually by those who have lived at one time or another under extreme circumstances (good or bad). Societies of the world are NOT focused around raising rash or especially calculating, reflexive individuals. They want moderate people who respond meekly--if at all--the ideal that they instead turn to those in authority.

Imagine a world where everyone responds with their first impulse...and because of that children are raised to be even more reflexive/instinctual and rash just to compete. So, it's pretty clear why it needs to be the other way, and why our world is designed so in normal times those qualities aren't needed.

The reason most folks don't like to hear that is, they like to envision themselves as suddenly having the wherewithal to respond to any situation as needed...naturally in situations they will never face (going back to my original post about preferring not to read about real world circumstances). The fact of the matter is, they have been CONDITIONED over their entire lives, from all sides, to NOT respond that way. So, if a story situation 'requires' instantaneous, unrestrained, unreasonable rage to just barely survive it as an example, most folks in truth would fall short.

People who have had hammered into them from birth to heroically rise up when needed, are as psychologically unsuitable (perhaps even damaged) to cope with normal society as those who suffered at the other end of the spectrum. That's what what the military tries to drive into their combat soldiers in a compressed time-frame along with restraint (which grays the lines). If they see no combat, then it usually results in a responsible, self-regimented individual which is all a plus. Put them into extreme combat long enough, however, and it becomes very difficult for that person to cope in typical society since you're asking them to instantaneously dump years of training and experience.

Finally (to not drone on like I do), in common terms, a person usually can't take a punch unless they're used to being punched. Boxers aren't taught just how to hit, they're taught how to take hits. So it goes for people facing extremes. How many of you know of someone who succeeded all their lives, to abruptly lose it completely when they fail one time? More so, how many times have you heard how when X-person is assaulted, robbed, faced a violent death...whatever...how that broke them? But, someone who faced that often throughout their youth, now when faced with it either endures, rises to the moment, and after bounces back.

So, as a writer that leaves you with a choice I suspect. Do you want your fictional characters to miraculously--unrealistically--rise up and endure simply just-a-cuz', or do you want them to have some deviant--non-standard societal extremes--in their past which gives them a realistic wherewithal to cope, endure, and face the matter at hand? Naturally, your 'world/society' in your stories might be tailored to make such a response realistic, but if it's this world...

Most readers I suspect prefer the former. That way they can place themselves in the situation and come out the hero. A few perhaps prefer a bit more realism, and I do feel it's just a few readers that prefer that option.

Anywho... It's your kink/character, so your choice. Just expect to be punished for either choice in the reviews.

K2

 

[sknox]

I killed the MC in my first novel. I didn't set out to do that; had no intention of doing so. But as the story evolved, both the character arc and the logistics of the setpiece at the end sort of dictated that. So I tried to write that scene as sympathetically as I could. I genuinely felt sorry for the guy. I didn't feel a need to make the death especially gruesome, just appropriate to the moment. Prior to that, there as a minor injury. Mostly he just got very hot and tired and dejected. Again, it was a matter of having necessary things happen and having him react to them in believable ways.

In another novel I have a young woman struggling with identity and her past. She faces other challenges, but that core challenge drives the story and seemed sufficient unto itself.

In the most recent novel, it's nearly all physical challenges, a rather old-fashioned adventure story. My MC is a woman in an expedition with four males, which is more annoyance than challenge for her. But having soul-crushing grimness happen was out of tone.

My current novel has some grim aspects, with one rather horrifying sequence late in the novel. Mostly it's about finding all the nuances I can in the stereotype of the young leader inspiring others to great deeds. What happens when one is inspired but can't quite manage the great deed? Or when another is inspired but becomes disillusioned? And so on. That interests me.

I like the world through which my characters move to be something other than unrelieved darkness. It's a world in which acts of great decency can happen along with events of terrible heartbreak. Some happen because they're intended, while others happen by chance. the same goes for the utterly ordinary. Stories can weave through all these. I know that sounds mundane, but mundus means the world, so I'm content with that.

 

[-K2-]

Oh, a p.s. to my military training comment since it has bearing. Every combat vertran I've spoken with mentioned something very similar. In extreme, urgent, crisis situations, their natural instincts told them to do X/Y/Z which would have resulted in tragedy for themselves and others. Their intense training/conditioning/reprogramming, however, caused them to instead revert to it instead, and respond almost mechanically (for lack of a better word).

Some 'older' marines used to phrase it something like 'breaking or tearing down' a recruit to build them back up.

Point being, as human beings (more than just people) in today's society, we're not raised to cope with extremes. To do so would cause a much less civilized world. To 'realistically' present such a person or society requires experiences or training that makes that shift. Then again...there is nothing wrong with a character through luck winning the day. It just has to be presented as such to maintain that realism.

In my OPINION, for what that's worth.

K2

 

[Artemis Cromwell]

I guess it depends on your definition of nasty. In the series I'm currently working on, my characters are always being hunted down by some kind of assassin to the point that I may have to rethink my entire plot. The society in my series is just as crude, I think (characters that can use magic are hunted down and executed, children born of magical descent are sent to prison then executed). It has a lot of rules that I am not going to delve into right now.

 

[MikeAnderson]

As much as most folks don't like to hear it (which is a VERY GOOD thing, because that means most folks are middle of the road normal), required extreme measures are taken usually by those who have lived at one time or another under extreme circumstances (good or bad). Societies of the world are NOT focused around raising rash or especially calculating, reflexive individuals. They want moderate people who respond meekly--if at all--the ideal that they instead turn to those in authority.

Imagine a world where everyone responds with their first impulse...and because of that children are raised to be even more reflexive/instinctual and rash just to compete. So, it's pretty clear why it needs to be the other way, and why our world is designed so in normal times those qualities aren't needed.

The reason most folks don't like to hear that is, they like to envision themselves as suddenly having the wherewithal to respond to any situation as needed...naturally in situations they will never face (going back to my original post about preferring not to read about real world circumstances). The fact of the matter is, they have been CONDITIONED over their entire lives, from all sides, to NOT respond that way. So, if a story situation 'requires' instantaneous, unrestrained, unreasonable rage to just barely survive it as an example, most folks in truth would fall short.

People who have had hammered into them from birth to heroically rise up when needed, are as psychologically unsuitable (perhaps even damaged) to cope with normal society as those who suffered at the other end of the spectrum. That's what what the military tries to drive into their combat soldiers in a compressed time-frame along with restraint (which grays the lines). If they see no combat, then it usually results in a responsible, self-regimented individual which is all a plus. Put them into extreme combat long enough, however, and it becomes very difficult for that person to cope in typical society since you're asking them to instantaneously dump years of training and experience.

Finally (to not drone on like I do), in common terms, a person usually can't take a punch unless they're used to being punched. Boxers aren't taught just how to hit, they're taught how to take hits. So it goes for people facing extremes. How many of you know of someone who succeeded all their lives, to abruptly lose it completely when they fail one time? More so, how many times have you heard how when X-person is assaulted, robbed, faced a violent death...whatever...how that broke them? But, someone who faced that often throughout their youth, now when faced with it either endures, rises to the moment, and after bounces back.

K2

I officially love K2 for this. It took me years to adjust to civilian life after some of the stuff I did, and much of it still comes out in my life in the way I act and speak. As I get older, some of those demons are getting pacified, but they'll never be fully exorcised.

Some people marvel at my ability to write about FUBAR situations, while others get put off by it. I write that way to let those middle of the road folks K talks about know what life is like when you pick a lane, or it gets picked for you. And hope they never have to drive down paths some of us had to travel.

 

[Toby Frost]

Yes, if you're going to present a book that purports to be 100% realistic, it needs to be 100% realistic. But some books aren't. They don't claim to be and don't pretend to be, and they aren't inferior books as a result. The needs of a character study about a soldier trying to settle into civilian life are different to those of book about a man who fights four-armed gorillas on Mars. A book like Dune, which is about strange people behaving logically in a strange world, has its own rules. A Dan Dare comic strip works partly because it is unrealistic and light.

I think, in the English-speaking world at least, there is a false idea that a cheerful book is a disposable one, and the less miserable it is, the less we can learn from it. Hence one of the stock criteria of a literary novel is a passive lead character and an unhappy ending, and hence why comedy is often seen as a clever distraction instead of a proper art form.

 

[sknox]

I want to pitch once more the proposition that grim and gritty are not synonyms for realism. One unfortunate consequence of that confusion of words is that people conclude the opposite: that a story that is not unremittingly grim is not realistic. They also infer an unfortunate corollary: that a story filled with grim and grimy gore is necessarily and automatically realistic.

I hastily except Presently Assembled!

 

[Dragonlady]

@sknox that's really interesting as my wip will have small elements of fairly everyday for the world violence and big life changes and stuff and I will aim for it to be believable, i'm not shying away from violence or pain, but very much not aiming for grim/gritty, it is a romance after all. What you said in your first comment re the middle ages is interesting, I am attracted to write stories set around everyday lives rather than big world altering adventures, and routine pain and nasties are what give the colour to our lives. If I get as far as the sequel to my wip, infant mortality will be inevitable, and the place of women is key to my current book, but i'll do my best to deal with them in a loving, rather than grim way.

@.matthew. interesting you say that, i have a scene early on where the MC has just learned she is one of this persecuted group who can change into animals, and witnesses a man being given a potion to force him to change, then being lead off naked to a probable execution for a crime he likely hasn't committed. This group are no longer persecuted officially, we are technically open and welcoming and equal, but we all know it doesn't work that way, meaning I am writing about small everyday persecutions. They are the ones more likely to be beaten, accused, unemployed, have unwanted sexual attention, to be rejected.

@Toby Frost you are so right about what the story needs. I'm inserting a lot of violence/mistreatment the main character witnesses, to add tension and change the way she thinks about the world, so there will be very little offence to her person but plenty of fear for her if I get it right.

@-K2- you make an excellent point, and I wonder how much history/politics/entertainment in the middle ages was driven by the ruling classes being bred and trained for war.

@Artemis Cromwell I make use of similar themes, how do you get round the fact that magic unless very restricted/limited would automatically bring power to those who have it?

This is a fascinating thread with so many insights!

 

[thaddeus6th]

Sknox, one book I found very useful for 'serious' medieval style fantasy was By Sword and Fire, by Sean McGlynn, because I wanted to get a handle on the rationale behind mercy and cruelty in that sort of world and avoid straying too much from it.

Surprisingly, one bit of Kingdom Asunder that got singled out for praise by a reviewer was the discussion on morality about what to do with captives, which was very nice to receive. It can be tempting to just go down the medieval = brutality route, but that wasn't really true. A very harsh approach, in war, say, could encourage others to surrender immediately to avoid the same fate *or* drive people to resist absolutely because giving up later would mean torture/death for certain. The norms and schools of philosophy, religion, or culture in a medieval/fantasy world are very different from ours but they still inform the actions of thinking, intelligent (mostly) people. That can be handy for world-building too.

 

[.matthew.]

It can be tempting to just go down the medieval = brutality route

This makes me think of how the situation also changes the actions. Take Agincourt, where the English took many prisoners, but then executed all but the valuable ones after a secondary French force destroyed the baggage train leaving the English without the supplies to handle them.

 

[tinkerdan]

For me a character can act or chose not to act.
For each choice there are benefits and consequences.
I try to look at both and evolve the story around those.

I often feel, when reading, that there is a focus on the consequences, because those seem to give the greatest challenge and generate some excitement; however sometimes it's just too much to where for quite a while a character has too many consequences thrown at them all at once and all the time. There should be some balance between the two otherwise it's like a slasher movie; where everything goes bad for the good guys until they squash the great evil--then it's all quiet and they look around to see who is left.

 

[sknox]

>By Sword and Fire, by Sean McGlynn
I haven't read that one. From the description and ToC, he looks pretty much only at famous slaughters, which of course isn't going to give much of a balanced account. As a corrective to a romanticized version of chivalry, such books are good though. But I find early modern violence even more horrific (Simplicissimus, by Grimmelstein, e.g.) and modern violence downright epic in both scale and cruelty. Better tech.

 

[thaddeus6th]

Sknox, to be fair, any book short of a tome would have to decide what to include and what not to. And it did provide me with exactly what I was after, which was some insight into a medieval mindset relating to brutality/mercy in a war setting.