How Far Is Too Far?

Okay, I have a bit of a problem. I feel kind of cheap, considering I just replied to someone saying that you shouldn't try to satisfy everyone, but I need to know this.

Set up: My story is an adventure that involves death, impalement via multiple spikes, holes in chests, a freakin' torture scene (Don't worry, most of it is just deep cuts, but most of it is just the wounds being described), MC losing his entire tribe, a nude scene (none-sexual, one of the characters is looking after the torture victim's wounds), one of the MCs forcing herself to betray her friend for the good of the people (she knew she was siding with someone who killed her family, but she realized if she sided with her friend, the kingdom she lived in would descend into bloody chaos), trauma... and that's about it.

The question: Given these examples of what I believe to be the more... adult situations in my story, how far would be too far? Is it possible to go too far when torture and murders and nudity is involved? Am I being paranoid? Should I even care about going too far?

Thank you in advance!

 

In my humble opinion, as long as it adds to the story, nothing's off limits.

I don't know how shoving a chainsaw up a kid's belly would make something better, but if you could find a way to do, it, go ahead.

 

I agree -- if it justifies its own existence, it's fine. It may not be to some folks' taste, and they may find it horrifying or offensive, but appealing to everyone is an impossible goal. You wanna write gross stuff, write gross stuff.

The question is whether these things actually do add to the story, or are just shock value. Then there's sort of a middle ground where they don't help the story, but do help to build the atmosphere. Berserk is a relatively well-known manga with a reputation for being pretty grotesque, arguably needlessly so. Most of it doesn't contribute to story, but some of it does -- eg when the main character has his arm all but chomped off by a toothy monster and proceeded to chisel it the rest of the way off with a broken sword. It's gruesome, sure, but it also informs his character -- he's able to withstand this incredible pain and willingly add onto it himself for the sake of trying to get away and protect someone else. That contributes. Panels of random soldier getting their eyes graphically impaled by arrows? Less so. Do I love it? Totally. Because it sets and reinforces the really gritty grimdark tone of the story overall.

So, are these examples of yours isolated incidents against a backdrop that doesn't support the gross stuff, or do they fit tonally? Are they constant to the point of making terrible things boring to the reader, or are they used to highlight moments of extreme tension? Is it shock value and only existent for its own sake, or does it make the story stronger? I love writing awful things, and those are the questions I repeat to make sure I'm not being gratuitous -- not "Would this upset people?" but "Is this going to make people feel how I want them to feel?". Sometimes you wanna gross your reader out. But you want it to have impact, not be a case of oh, this again; whatever.

 

Yeah, I mean, taste is personal. If the writing is good and the dark stuff moves the story, whatever. I don't personally go in for rape/torture, but I get it.

 

I think that as long as it's relevant to the story, you can't really go too far. You might turn off readers, yeah, but that just means your book isn't for them.

 

I would never intentionally add in grotesque events solely for shock value. The things I mentioned above are pretty important moments.

The torture scene is the climax of the conflict between one of the MCs and a radical group that stands against them. The torture scene also adds a physical indicator for the character's growth (they go from a high-class, timid, somewhat snobby noble to a battle-hardened veteran, and the scene adds the physical indicator of scars). I mean, it's not like I enjoy putting one of my favorite characters I've ever written through that, but it pretty cleanly wraps up their character arc, as well as a relationship arc between them and another MC.

Another question in regards to that scene. During the torture, the MC remains strong and defiant throughout the whole thing, but they're saved by another MC. Does that undermine the entire conflict because the original MC didn't resolve it themself? Or is it enough that the radical group couldn't break them in the first place, considering that was the group's goal in that scene?

 

It just has to serve a purpose, at least in my opinion. The Anita Blake series disagrees (I loved it until it turned into nothing but a porn fest, but other people still like it). Other series also disagree; a lot of people don't particularly seem to care if something serves a person. However, I always think something should serve a purpose in a story. I have a lot worse situations than what you described in my own story, but each piece adds something.

 

Is there any way in which the MC could save himself?. Maybe expecting someone to break free on his own from torture might be too much. There's no need to make him Superman, I think.

 

Well, the only reason that she was caught in the first place is that she's been fighting non-stop for quite a while, and she just got overwhelmed by it all. She can't break free on her own simply because, even if she wasn't being restrained, she'd be too exhausted to walk, much less fight back. I mean, the whole scene is partly meant to show that, even when she can't fight back, her enemies still can't beat her. She "wins" this conflict because the group's entire goal is to tear her down, but they just can't.

 

“There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.” -Oscar Wilde

I believe that to be true. Fifty Shades of Grey is not a bad book because it has sex in it. Or even that it has graphic, kinky sex. It's a bad book because that's the only thing it has in it. The story and such was put in there, but almost as an after thought. The result is a story that takes an abusive relationship and presents it as a healthy one or one that could be saved. It doesn't enlighten and nor does it succeed as harmless fun.

So what a lot of these poorly written books do is that they have moments, not actual scenes. Comedy movies seem to have this problem. The writers of the movie thinks of several good and funny gags that would work on their own as a sketch, but then tries to wrap an entire movie around those few funny gags. (And since those are the gags that appear in the trailer, then you really haven't missed anything.) The result is a story that leads audiences by the nose from moment to moment, tells a few good jokes along the way, but inevitably fails to produce comedy. Many cheesy romance novels only use the narrative just to explain why this couple is having sex.

So what does any of this have to do with "going too far?" Let's just put it this way: part of the art of writing is using tools of the medium well. Sex, violence, and vulgarity can all be tools. They can even be used with great effect. The issue is that they're often not.

You have to get down into why and how you're using violence in your story. I was annoyed by the film The Watchmen at the scene where Rorschach is going after that child murderer. It was over the top violent and there was no reason for it. The comic wasn't that violent and yet that scene was just as haunting and as effective as showing Rorschach's breakdown. The only reason I could figure that they went that graphic with it, was because Zach Snyder, doesn't trust his audience to "get" the nuances of a story. It was like Zach Snyder was saying "Get it? Get it? He's was falling apart mentally." Yeah, I get it, Snyder. I get it. If you actually learn how to make a movie, then you wouldn't have to go there... but might I digress. Arguably, All Quiet on the Western Front was just as violent. Why did that not make me cringe. Because the author wasn't going violent because he didn't trust his audiences wouldn't get the nuances. What he understood was that he's writing this story about war, and he knew war was going to be incomprehensible to his readers. He knew we readers would get the nuances. What we wouldn't understand is the horror.

I think there's a lot to be said about being subtle. Fall of the House of Usher is brilliant story. It goes into taboo topics... but it's not graphic. It doesn't need to be. In fact, if it was graphic, that would have ruined everything. Part of the intrigue of that story is that you know what's going on between that brother and sister, but the book just never fesses up to it. I found a lot of value in the subtle. My MC is a survivor of sexual assault. When I was studying the topic and talking to victims of sexual assault, I realized this was never a scene that should ever actually put in my book. It was much more effective to have the character never speak about it, but the reader can definitely see just how much it shattered this character's life. First, because the audience I'm aiming the book to should know what sexual assault is. Secondly, I found it better reflected the "suffering in silence" so many assault victims describe as they're trying to get on with their lives.

Things like "wish fulfillment" and ensuring your audience "gets" the nuances are not good enough reasons to go over the top with anything. But in order to show what is incomprehensible, yeah, that will work. What it comes down to is what are you trying to say? And what is the most effective way to say it?

 

I'm an advocate of writing honestly. At least the first draft. Write exactly what you want, what you see. You can edit out the unnecessary stuff later on.

BUT...ask yourself before you start ...'what do I want this scene to accomplish?' If you can answer this question specifically, it will give you a focus. Focus helps you decide what you need to show and what you don't. You are setting the reader off in a certain direction, so make sure you know what the direction is.

You want to be specific about this. Your direction is not 'I want to show all the blood and gore in that room,' but something like 'I want the reader to feel compassion for the tortured man, and to understand that the woman wants to help him.' Something like that.

It's like any other description, really. You aren't going to describe an ordinary sitting room (I hope) by giving us the exact dimensions, telling us how many electrical plates are on the wall, the exact colours and patterns in the wallpaper, how many chairs there are, how they are upholstered, what brand of TV is in the room, how many tables, what kind, what's on them, how many shelves, what kind, what's on them, how many windows, what the curtains are like, how many doorways ...and etc etc etc ...UNLESS these details figure into your story. (And even if they do, make sure you're not just giving the reader a list. The reader will not remember a list.)

Apply this same principle to writing a sex scene or a scene of extreme violence. Figure out what the reader needs to take away. What are you trying to accomplish?

Less is often more. A reader will remember and react to a single detail or impression. If you dump too many details on the reader, they won't remember any of them. Focus your own attention on that scene. What is the one (or maybe two) things you think are the most unique and memorable? What makes the strongest impression on you? If you choose these well, you'll have made your impression on the reader.

 

Good points. Thanks

 

Definitely enough badassery as it is.

 

The author can't go to far. It's up the reader how far they choose to go.

 

Thanks a million!

 

Gore and shock factor doesn't necessarily equate to adult writing.

 

As others have said, as long as it serves a purpose, nothing is off limits. This also applies to the less controversial aspects of your story. Everything that happens or appears should have a semblance of reason.

Don't let how you think the readers will react paralyze you from writing. You don't know what will shock people until you try!

 

Of course you can not go too far. I think it is important not to hold back or not to be shy. It should fit into the story though.
and I think that is was "Genre" is for. The reader can pick what they want and if they do not like the stuff what they read because it is "too much" then they obvisouly have chosen the wrong "Genre".
I have written once a short story which has quite a lot of dying scenarios in it, but it was reasonable and explained itself during the journey until the end.
So do not hold back, write what it feels like and the reader will feel it too.

 

I think it depends on what (or who) the reader identifies as their audience, if it's too far for that audience, as to what is too far (or if there is a 'limit') to the gore or torture or nudity, etc.

I am not sure it is proper to say "It's the reader's fault". The reader is not at fault for not liking something. It wouldn't be the reader's fault for not liking a cozy romance or a police procedural mystery.

As long as the back of the book description suggests what is involved (even the cover art and title can be a key/clue), then it'll be clear it's not for those who favor, for example, sweetheart romances or YA mysteries. Advertising in improper venues or selecting improper Amazon categories, might mislead readers and result in something going 'too far' for what the audience intended.

That isn't to say that negative reviews won't be given if readers believe some aspects are excessive. And, as Soft Moose indicated, some distributors have standards which might eliminate from sale, or categorize so that it's not a part of the regular algorithm views, etc.