Timewaster's Guide Archive
General => Everything Else => Topic started by: Sigyn on September 19, 2004, 04:19:39 PM
-
I want to know what people think about murder and killing in fiction. When do you think it is okay for a good guy character to kill someone else? I'm wondering because my brother-in-law just had to read a book where the main character hunts down other characters who are "bad" and kills them. Apparently, the justification for killing these other characters was because the author designated them as bad. Do you think that's justification? I'm curious.
-
dude it's book, i dont think he needs to be justified.
-
uh, isn't murder killing? And isn't killing Murder?
-
I always thought that murder was cold-blooded by description. Like you think, "I'm going to kill him because he beat up my sister." But then there's just killing, where you're doing something else, like trying to defend something, and someone gets killed in the process.
-
I see the two as being interchangeable, that is why what matters most is who writes the history books. "Cold blooded murder" can be interchanged with "justified killing" depending on point of view. Personally, I think it all depends on the author and how they want to portray their protagonist. If you make them very violent you run the risk of having people misinterpret the violence and ruining the book for them. If you feel that the risk is worth it and that the killing is invaluable to the plot, then put it in.
-
murder is a legal definition. ANd, in fact, you can kill someone illegally and not be guilty of murder, "Manslaughter" is another legal definition.
Anyway, killing someone just because they're "Bad" doesn't generally work for a heroic style character. There have to be reasons in text for doing it, and there has to be a lack of viable alternatives. Death and killing can show up in an uplifting book (apologies to the non-Mormons) but we see Teancum adn Gideon and Cap. Moroni, and the other Moroni, and Mormon, and Nephi and Benjamin and Mosiah all doing it, and they're all men of god, most of them prophets, and the Book of Mormon is still uplifting. the thing is they didn't take pleasure it in, they reveal they were even a little conflicted by it but didn't feel they had a choice, and they did it for very specific reasons. That's how it should work in any book if you want the reader to sympathize/empathize with the character.
of course, sometimes you can get away with ignoring the viable alternatives, if you've built up a LOT of sympathy and the reader wants revenge too. But I prefer not to do it that way, myself. That's not the sort of feeling I want to evoke.
-
I just feel a great big "whatever". Killing and violence, in general, doesn't bother me, unless it's over the top. What's too much? It's like pornography - "I'll know it when I see it."
Fight Club - way too much.
My husband is playing Fable right now- that kind of violence doesn't bother me. However the other night he got really mad at a frustrating quest in the game and responded by taking his angelicly-good character and going on a 20-min killing rampage, slaughtering everything in sight.
That bothered me.
I don't worry about violence in fiction because there are editors who keep people within bounds, and if it's you or me or someone you know writing it, all you have to do is hand it to three friends and say "Is this scene too violent?"
end of story.
-
I see the two as being interchangeable, that is why what matters most is who writes the history books. "Cold blooded murder" can be interchanged with "justified killing" depending on point of view. ...
I submit that cold-blooded murder and justified killing are not interchangeable. As an example the Germans who killed GIs in combat in WWII are not accused of or portrayed as having committed cold-blooded murder, despite our having been the winners there and therefore having written the history books. (atrocities aside)
There is also a third category, not exactly cold-blooded murder but certainly not justified killing, called "crimes of passion." Hot blooded murder? These killings create all sorts of conflict and opportunities for satisfying repentance and/or come-uppance in stories.
More apologies to the non-mormons. Teancum killed the enemy king in his sleep twice in the BOM. The first time he did it and escaped scot-free. The second time he fumbled it, and got caught and killed. The only real difference between the two incidents is that in the second one, where he died, he "...in his anger did go forth..."
So, the lesson here is that justified killing must be performed in cold-blood.
-
This relates disturbingly to the movie "Hero" that I revived the post on yesterday...
-
It's a bad week for archon it seems.
-
It makes up for the fact that he never received the newbie smackdown.
-
Homicide is the killing of a human being.
Under the Common Law there are several degrees of murder and manslaughter, all of which are homicide.
Common Law Murder can be summed up in this way:
The unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought is acting with a depraved heart from the followng states of mind:
(1) Intent to kill.
(2) An awareness that human life is being unjustifieably risked (Kadish & Schulhofer, Criminal Law Examples and Explanations, 3rd Ed.)
Statutory 1st Degree Murder is defined as follows:
Deliberate and premeditated killing of a human being. Premeditation is determined when the accused actually reflected on the killing even if only briefly. All other intentional killings are murder in the second degree. (Kadish & Schulhofer, Criminal Law Examples and Explanations, 3rd Ed.)
Then there is the Model Penal Code definition which would require its own posting to explain.
In a nutshell, the definition of murder used depends upon the jurisdiction that you are in.
Hopefully that helps in this discussion.
-
The two forces at work here are the morality of the setting and characters of the book, and the morality of the reader.
If the reader is completely opposed to any kind of killing (to cite an extreme example) then no amount of justification will satisfy them, and they might not enjoy the book. If the reader has no qualms about any form of killing (another extreme) they won't need justification at all. Most people fall between those two extremes, and most people I imagine have a tolerance for reading morality that doesn't perfectly fit theirs. But anything that strays too far from a person's morality will probably bother them. Ultimately the reader decides what's okay and what's not.
I think your question, Sigyn, mostly points at the second morality: that morality craeted by the author for their book. Morality should be considered and explained in novels. Either it's assumed that the morality of the created world of the book is roughly the same as our world, or it's different and the differences are highlighted and described in detail. If the differences are not described then the reader will naturally assume no difference in book morality and reality morality, and not understand why characters are acting the way they are, and probably not enjoy the book.
In my opinion I think the good guy can kill and it's alright, but the killing has to be explained. Either it's exlained through justification, or explained through means of inner conflict (they kill but are conflicted about how they feel about it.) It appears that in the book your cuñado read the author doesn't attempt to explain the morality of the world he created. Unless he/she explains why the bad characters are bad, it wouldn't make sense to me.
-
It's a bad week for archon it seems.
You have NO idea. But that is a different story. The board is fine, at least I have managed to stimulate some conversation. I havent seen the board this lively in a while, and it is fun to actually have intelligent debate, as opposed to typical high school conversation.
-
Just as a reminder, Archon, I argue just for the sake of arguing. I'm sorry for my belittling comments (on the other thread), and I'll knock that off. I just love the debate.
-
That is fine, and I have been told that I am argumentative as well, along with being told that I dont know when to quit. So I know how it is to really get into an argument like that. Just to clarify, my last statement about intelligent conversation was not directed toward anyone from the board.
-
HoM, I thought your response was very well-stated. I'd like to take this a different direction, and just talk about my own feelings on the subject.
I'm glad someone resurrected this thread. I always meant to post on it, but never got around to it.
Sigyn asks a very important and personal question. I do believe that authors have a moral responsibility to their readers. I believe that it is their job to present Truth, in a way. Not to preach truth, but to have their stories and characters live in a truthful world.
I worry about presenting violence as an answer to problems. I don't believe in violence, but I really like action. This is a conflict for me, especially in MISTBORN, where the characters live in a very brutal world, and I have a very action-oriented magic system.
There is no justification for killing, there are only consequences. In some cases, the consequences for killing are less than the consequences for not killing. This is the 'resist evil' explanation. However, there should still be consequences on your characters if they kill in the name of good. I think it is the author's duty to represent these consequences accurately.
I don't have answers. I have thought about this, however.
-
I agree with EUOL, both on the idea that fiction should be presenting truth and about killing. I've been meaning to post here, as well. And I don't have time to post more, sorry.
-
As an example the Germans who killed GIs in combat in WWII are not accused of or portrayed as having committed cold-blooded murder, despite our having been the winners there and therefore having written the history books.
Then again, The Germans were actually sometimes respected as opponents. Hated, but respected. Marshall is quoted as having said "natural fighters... discipline unbending." So it seems that the Germans were well respected as worthy adversaries.
EUOL, don't take this as anything more than curiosity, but why do you feel a responsibility to your readers? It is their choice about what they want to read, so if they dont like it then they dont read it. If I were writing I think I would just make the story so that I was satisfied with it, and then let the public decide what they think of it. If you believe that you have written a good piece then I think that that matters more than how it might affect some readers.
-
I've been thinking about this a lot, and I'm still not sure. Let's face it, Fantasy and Science Fiction tend to have a lot of action which usually ends up in killing. Most of the time as a reader, I want to see the bad guy killed off. However, I hate books that make me want to enter the book and kill the bad guy myself. I admit, I don't like feeling homicidal. I also have a terribly hard time killing off characters in my writing, even when I guess it would be "justified."
Lois McMaster Bujold dealt very well with it in "Curse of Chalion." The main character, in order to protect a number of innocent people, wants to kill off the bad guy. To do so, he has to perform death magic which will kill him (the main character) in the process. He decides it is worth it, performs the magic, but is saved by a miracle. There is no law against successfully completing death magic (only attempting it), since no one has ever lived through it before. The character seems justified in his murder since he was willing to give his own life up for it and there was no other way to stop the bad guy (at least, no available way as the world was set up by the author).
There is a difference between the real world and fiction, but fiction should reflect the real world, in my opinion, or it is pointless. It's interesting how Disney gets around this problem: the good guy rarely kills the bad guy outright. Instead, some force of nature or the bad guy's own mistake kills him. This avoids the dilemma but often seems unrealistic. Wow, I need to stop talking now.
-
I can hardly speak for EUOL, but for myself, I feel responsible for what I present. What I present reflects on ME. Art is more than something that happens once. It influences people even if only in minute ways. I believe we are accountable for how we try to influence and the influence we put out. I don't want to be responsible for making people's lives worse, only better.
-
I can hardly speak for EUOL, but for myself, I feel responsible for what I present. What I present reflects on ME. Art is more than something that happens once. It influences people even if only in minute ways. I believe we are accountable for how we try to influence and the influence we put out. I don't want to be responsible for making people's lives worse, only better.
I agree that what you present reflects on you. Therefore, shouldnt you write to your own satisfaction? It might be just me but whenever I have something that I am proud of, I am not afraid to vouch for it, and I dont have a problem for answering for it. However, in writing fantasy, I dont think that the purpose of it is commonly to influence people, so much as to express oneself. You could argue that they are the same thing, but I dont think so, when you are expressing yourself you are not trying to get people to change, you just want to share ideas. Some books have a clear cut persuasive message, but again, if you feel that you have a valid point to make, then there shouldnt be a problem. You arent forcing people to read it, and ifthey disagree with it, that is their choice. On the other hand, many people might agree with you, and those are the ones that you affect most.
-
Lois McMaster Bujold dealt very well with it in "Curse of Chalion." The main character, in order to protect a number of innocent people, wants to kill off the bad guy. To do so, he has to perform death magic which will kill him (the main character) in the process. He decides it is worth it, performs the magic, but is saved by a miracle.
Thus creating THE most emotionally intense scene I have ever read, and a major reason I love this book.
Everyone go read it now!
-
I'd have to say that pretty much anything you can read is written with a point of view, if not an agenda. Fiction, nonfiction, whatever--it all comes from someone's perspective. So the author is going to have some sort of influence one way or another, whether you're talking about the latest political piece or a really great fantasy book. Fiction has themes and messages that do have influence for good or ill, which is why writers have responsibility to write with integrity, and why readers have a responsibility to read with discernment.
I've learned so much about being a thoughtful reader since I've been in my program, and that affects pretty much anything I read now--but it isn't just the reader's responsibility. Each book is a collaboration between writer and reader, in a way--the writer writes it, of course, but the reader interprets it. I wouldn't say there are as many responses as readers, the way reader response theorists might, but I do think that there are multiple possible responses to each book, and the writer has control over a certain general direction in which those responses are going to go.
-
I agree, Stacer, that readers can gain something from any book. I dont, however think that it is necessarily something that the writer intended people to take away from the book. People are always going to interpret things, but I dont think that the author can be held responsible unless it was a clear message that the author was trying to make. After all, books are open to interpretation, and the manner in which one person interprets something might be completely different than the next persons. That makes the reader the one responsible and not the author, since it wasnt the authors intention.
-
Actually, that isn't what I said.
What I said was that an author can direct his or her book in a certain direction so that *hopefully* a certain degree of reactions can be expected.
Of course, then there's the topic of one of EUOL's panels from WorldCon--what responsibility does the author have if he writes something in the book that some teenager then decides to go recreate, even though the message of the book was obviously *not* that people should do it? (I forget what the specific topic was, something about vampires.)
In that case, I'd say, of course the author isn't responsible. But the author *does* still have the responsibility to handle the topic in the book with integrity.
-
the example involved a 15 year old living out the fantasy of being a serial killer vampire. kinda extreme, but it got the point across.
no, Archon, you can't control the reactions. But you can control the scope of possible reasonable reactions by what you include. Yes, you should write to create something that pleases you, but it's completely irresponsible not to consider predictable response in the reader. To me, that shows a lack of understanding of your own work, and it cheapens what you've done, made it less significant. In the end, my work cannot satisfy even ME if I don't make something that I think will, on the whole, improve the world.
In short, the writer is NOT free of responsibility. And just because other people have free will is no justification for the removal of that responsibility.