Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Welcome to Writers Talkback. If you are a new user, your account will have to be approved manually to prevent spam. Please bear with us in the meantime
How many murders is too many? (Writing related)
Of course I'm talking about a book I'm writing! It's a murder book so the correct answer is not one! I do not need to talk to the men in white coats.
Anyway, how many murders is too many? Where is the line between silly and shocking? For example twenty two senseless murders is silly if the author wants to the reader to understand that the killer likes to kill people in cold blood. The reader would understand this after at least five murders. If a bomb explodes then it is understandable that many people, hundreds, maybe a thousand can die.
The question is how many individual murders is too many before the shock of the crime and the hook of the book is lost?
Anyway, how many murders is too many? Where is the line between silly and shocking? For example twenty two senseless murders is silly if the author wants to the reader to understand that the killer likes to kill people in cold blood. The reader would understand this after at least five murders. If a bomb explodes then it is understandable that many people, hundreds, maybe a thousand can die.
The question is how many individual murders is too many before the shock of the crime and the hook of the book is lost?
Comments
The shock of murder has worn off in the real world many years ago.
On the other hand, I think for your book it depends on your story.
If you have a real good hold on your plot, one is more than sufficient.
You might be going for a Meatgrinder. In which case you need a murder every "X" minutes.
It's up to you - and your plot of course.
Great book and a perfect example of how just one murder can be enough and create shock waves that ripple throughout many people's lives. Gully is almost right. I don't think people are actually anaesthetized toward murder but there is a lot more in fiction now. So the truly horrific route in story would be to show how these murders affect other people who are left behind. It is the survivors who carry the real horrors of these crimes around on their shoulders.
All depends on ability to create sufficient intrigue holding attention of the reader.
Agatha Christie was, perhaps, most successful in accomplishing correct balance.
"The ABC Murders" detailed an apparent serial killer's intent; ultimately unveiling convoluted plot.
"And Then There Were None" involves ten murderers becoming congregated together only to be embroiled in their own murders.
There are, of course, other authors work portraying multiple demise.
Shakespeare and Conan Doyle plus modern writers.
As with any other genre, success will be achieved whenever plot unfolds with logical reason for its events.
Good Luck, StForce.
<a href=http://www.contentdevelopmentpros.com>content writer</a>
My novel's takes place of the course of three weeks but not every death is noted, not every body is found...
No because it would be a choice. However the choice would have been forced through a thinner spectrum due to the causality of the events.
Just when I thought it was safe to wash my hair!
Midsomer Murders get away with murders - plural. The very OTTness is one of its selling points.
If you want to ratchet up the tension factor, tell the anticipation (or dread) of the death from the victim's point of view.
Well, yes, otherwise you'd have no time for writing, would you, PBW?
We writers are a scary lot!
What if I was to do flashbacks of the murders shortly after they happen or perhaps flashbacks of the murders that have happened before the book? They still count as murders and are remembered by the reader but they dont interfere with the plot line too much. Am I allowed to under empathize one murder for a more important one?
That's a very dangerous ground to tread. If you start prioritising life the reader will quickly lose faith in you. Of course some murders have a great ripple than others so that would be okay if treated well. The problem with dealing with the murders in flashback is they will lose a great deal of impact. They are already dead yet you're asking the reader to put the story on hold for a while so you can take them back to a place before the story began.
If you can weave these murders into the story while maintaining forward motion then that's best way to deal with them. They may be used as a counterpoint to a new murder say or have a link. Even serial killers are judged less on the body count and more on motive or shock value of their spree. Look at Ted Bundy. His crimes seemed more shocking because he was a good looking, well respected charming young man with powerful connections and a bright future.
So I personally would concentrate more on the motives of the killer and the impact of his crimes rather than trying to stack up a pile of bodies to prod.
[quote=SilentTony] Even serial killers are judged less on the body count and more on motive or shock value of their spree[/quote]
I don't know what the rest of you thought, but I found The Silence of The Lambs the scariest murder (attempted murder) film I have EVER watched. The scene when Jodie Foster is in the dark and he is watching her throught the night vision goggles. Haven't watched it for years and it still makes me shudder.
Tried to pick up a man in a bar recently (as you do) and his chat up line was, 'Do you like the Silence of the Lambs'? I skedaddled faster than you could say 'lamb chops'.
Absolutley. Ed Gein, one of the world's most famous 'serial killers' isnt technically a serial killer. He killed two people, but the horrific things he did with the bodies (plus some other natural deaths he dug up) gained him a place in every 'shocking crimes' and 'serial killers' book there is on the market.
I think body count is different for every story, one, two, three...a hundred. It all depends on the character and their motivations for murder. No figure will cheapen or spoil the story, no matter how small or large. Ed Gein (2), Harold Shipman (218, maybe more), both are 'interesting' cases neither one any less shocking than the other.
I think the natural flow of the story is going to be the only deciding factor in body count, StF.
You could even use old Leather Apron himself, Jack the Ripper too. He 'only' killed five victims and they were 'only' prostitutes, people who were regarded as less than human at the time. Whether he even did kill all five or committed more murders is not the point. He's now the most famous serial killer in history even though he was never caught or (if you believe) identified. The enigmatic nature of this elusive murderer only adds to the curiosity of his legend. Again like Bundy he was also described as well connected, charming and a gentleman.
For me the real horror show even above Shipman (who loses power of shock through the law of diminishing returns) for me is Gacy. His crimes and motivation were sickening. Of course you have many motives beside lust and power. You also have to consider child killers, especially female child killers like Hindley and people who evade arrests like The Zodiac Killer. Or even Chikatilo who not only killed over 50 people but sat back and allowed three other people to be executed for the crimes he committed. That's some story right there.
So I don't think body count matters either being low or high. As BR says if it's needed for the story then the number dictates itself. I always find the back story of the murderer, the motives, the deceit and the devastation more interesting though. I mean there have been far more people killed in murders at one time than all the serial killers put together. If you think about 9/11, as I'm sure we all are as the anniversary approaches, then almost three thousand people were murdered by a few men in a few hours. As bad as that is and as devastating as the consequences were I think we'd still all be repulsed if we found out one man had purposely planned and executed half a dozen victims over a year or more. There's something about that thin line that keeps us from being monsters that terrifies us all when we hear of it.
I guess in a way we shudder because we know it could have been us or somebody we know if things had only been slightly different. Now that my friends is real horror.