Psychological consequences of writing crime/mystery fiction?

In my opinion, developing the crime and its details for crime/mystery novels requires the author to think like a criminal. My question is can the regular practice of thinking in this manner ingrain in the author an urge to commit deviant crimes? In other words, does it have the potential to affect the author's subconscious mind in this way? What are your thoughts?

 

I'm sure there's at least one crime writer out there who, upon having devised the most ingenious (pronounced complicated) way to get away with a crime, will indeed attempt to put it through real-world trials, but I'm going to hazard that he or she is a rarity.

I write nothing but Science Fiction; I'm yet to attempt to build a spacecraft (sandbox, Lego, and clay creations do not count).

 

That sounds reasonable. Thanks for your input.

 

They do come across means. Oh, so that's how I can kill my noisy neighbour. Ooh, and it says here he won't even be able to taste it!

Also, "research for my next book" is a damn fine cover story. Someone else here recently mentioned that they have a detailed book on poisons that's written just for writers. All I could imagine was its eventual misuse. Same when someone creates a forum thread: "Best ways to hide a body? Need this chapter written in the next two hours, so quick replies please!"

 

Thank you for the replies.

I definitely agree with you that there's great potential for information misuse, but I'm inclined to agree with @Wreybies that it's a rarity. I was actually more interested in knowing whether the routine of concocting fictional crimes turns authors into real life casual criminals, if not full time miscreants.

This is very amusing. I'm assuming, as you probably implied, the reverse of this story is equally probable. I agree, but again, perhaps @Wreybies is accurate...

 

Nope. It's not enough. Thinking upon the practicalities and technicalities of murdering someone does not mean you are thinking like a criminal. This is merely a tiny part of it. Understanding someone, empathising is part of human nature, but no matter how much you might get to walk into someone else's shoes, doesn't mean you can ever become him. The difference between a killer and a writer that writes murder is that the killer steps into action and kills, he gets his hands dirty, while the writer simulates this situation in his mind from a very safe place. He ponders upon murder. Who doesn't?

I believe that it takes a heavy load of obsession in order to suddenly decide to actually kill someone. Like you can't stand living anymore if "this person" is alive. It might feel like a menace in your life. A "it's either me or him" kind of feeling. Perhaps a crime writer might commit murder at some point but I doubt that the reason they did it would be based upon their curiosity to see their master plan in action. Perhaps this would be the reason they chose to believe they murdered someone, but that doesn't make it true. Anyone can think like an assassin or a psychopathic killer up to a limit (even when they don't write about it), but that doesn't mean that they've snapped yet.

I love thinking and writing about murder and schemes, but surely this is not enough to make me snap.

 

Quite a thorough analysis, but how about committing petty crimes in a casual manner. Would the author succumb to that, if not a heinous crime such as murder? I'm assuming from what you're saying that it's very unlikely. Agreed.

 

I don't think so for petty crimes as well. Writing is merely a sort of manifestation upon thinking about something. It's passive. Thinking about stealing doesn't make you a thief. It's what causes the impulse in the writer to think upon stealing something that might make him actually steal something. Not the writing. Not even the reading.

 

I can see it working the other way—somebody commits a crime that he thinks is pretty spectacular, and decides to try his hand as a crime writer while cooling his heels in prison. What better to do with the time? And it would be following the dictum "write what you know".

I seriously doubt writing about crimes is a causative factor in becoming a criminal—but it might make you dream about it.

 

Do you mean external factors, such as living in poverty, rather than the act of writing about theft causes the impulse to steal, for instance?

Well said.

 

Yes. Either this, or being a kleptomaniac, or even stealing something as a puny act of revenge or... whatever. Fill in the blanks.

 

But I think though if a person constantly ruminates on anything long enough, they'll develop the potential to act on it. I mean, consider suicide as an example. However, as voiced in this thread, I doubt this would apply to the punctuated writing typical of crime/mystery and other genres. Moreover, the author distances himself from the actual act of committing a crime as depicted in the writing—in effect, not identifying with the act itself. So, as noted, the practice of writing in itself does not provide enough impetus for indulging in crimes.

Thank you all for the replies!

 

I think you're putting the horse behind the cart. People who think about suicide a lot are already deeply depressed—it isn't the thinking about suicide that causes the depression.

I could see it happening the other way around though (why does this feel so familiar? )—someone with a penchant toward criminality might decide to write crime stories, since they already dwell on the material so much. Why not, turn it into a hobby?

I see by your avatar you seem to favor Mystery—by any chance is there a personal motive behind this line of questioning? Hmmmmm? (Magnifying glass turned toward you now... )

 

Fair enough.

Lol . No, I was just concerned that if I indulge in writing mystery stories, even as a hobby, that it would negatively affect my mind. But, it seems like that would not be the case.

 

There is a very steep difference between imaging something happening or emphasizing with someone for the sake of a story, and actual doing something—and the difference is morals.

Just because as a writer I imagine acts/happenings for my story doesn't mean that I would ever do them and place other people in danger. I am not, nor will I ever be, my characters! As a writer, I have the benefit of being in the position to throughly vet any kind of behaviour of my characters. I can see the consequences, the harm they do. I write this harm down. So why would I want to do these acts in real?? If anything, I'm now more rather than less conscious of every ramification my acts will have.

If I'd have the inclination of a criminal, I doubt I'd go so far and vet my actions for morals and harm. I'd want to do harm, not think about what it means. So no... I don't believe that writers as a species are in danger of succumbing to do the acts they write down.

However...

Depends on how you go about it. There is such a thing as research, and research can get close to the bone. I've given myself the occassional nightmare or two, and I've changed in response to what I learned. All to the better in my opinion, but... stay on the side of common sense, hmmm?

 

Well put! Thanks for your reply.

 

IDK, never heard of such a thing outside of fiction.

Not saying it doesn't happen ever in the history
of fiction authors, but most don't feel the need
to live/act out the darker parts of their stories.

I mean look at some of the greatest Horror authors
and the dark and disturbing stuff they cook up. They
might have a few nightmares, or need temporary
mental therapy, but they don't become the darkness
they create in their minds.

 

This is quite reassuring. Thanks for the reply.

 

Agatha Christie managed to get through her whole life without murdering a single person.

That we know of, anyway.

 

Let's not forget Sir Arthur Conan Doyle! The same can be said of him.

 

This idea is closely related to the notion that watching violent movies, cartoons or video games will turn people into mass murderers or serial killers. Nonsense. How many millions of people watch those same movies and play the games and don't kill anybody? Or even turn violent? Maybe some kids briefly after watching the 3 Stooges or Bugs Bunny, until they hurt a friend or get hurt themselves and snap out of it, but that's part of the learning curve of becoming an adult human being. The ones who end up violent are already dark inside, and if they write about it it's not to produce good stories but out of dark obsessions.

Stephen King is midway between. Obviously he writes good stories (according to popularity anyway, let's not split hairs about the literary quality of his work). When he wrote The Shining he was in a bad place. Alcoholism, and he would get very angry at his kids and suddenly was afraid he might be able to hurt them if he was drunk and they got on his nerves. So he wrote about it—Jack Torrance was his alter ego. But it was to purge the inner demons, to try exploring the idea to the fullest extent and see what results form it. There's the idea that if you've got something in your head you can purge it by writing about it or creating art from it. It was a form of therapy for him. But he didn't veer toward violemnce and alcoholiosm because of his writing, he already had the possibility in him. That might be part of why he writes horror. Honestly though I think he just had a passing moment of fear of what he might be able to do and. being a writer, decided to do a story based on it. One of his best, though Kubrick turned it into something far better IMO.

And besides, if you're writing mystery, you're not just putting yourself in the head of the criminals but also the detectives who bring them to justice right? Why would one affect you but not the other? And look at it this way, which one wins in the end?

 

Excellent Points!

I actually had the same line of thought the other day. Indeed, the criminal is brought to justice. And the detective, who represents moral/ethical integrity, wins in the end. Good points.

 

So if you write a lot of detective fiction, does that mean you'll get the urge to go out and solve crimes?

 

Lol Well, if the urge to act on one's fictional crimes is improbable, then by the same token, I wouldn't think that the author has any reason to go out and solve crimes. Plus, casual crime solving would present dangers that are best explored in a fictional world rather than finding oneself face-to-face, for example, with a vengeful knife wielding maniac in a dark, smelly alley somewhere. I'm sure there are examples of the occasional author taking up real life crime solving, but I doubt this is the norm.