The Voyeur Threshold
Writers, by nature, have to be a bit sadistic. After all, we have to purposely place our characters in situations designed to cause maximum conflict. At the same time, I think there is a line where 'describing the conflict' becomes an exercise in virtual rubbernecking. Honestly, it can be a bit creepy.
Where this line falls is pretty subjective, but most people seem to have an 'I know it when I see it' sense of when highly visceral description becomes uncomfortable. Some of this depends on the author's delivery, the tone of the story, and the expectations of the genre, as well as the reader's personal squick threshold. For example, certain subgenres of horror come with the expectation of vividly described blood and gore; confessional memoirs and 'misery lit' come with the expectation of detailed accounts of psychological trauma or abuse or drug abuse. Arguably, some genres require the reader to have a perverse 'watching the train wreck' fascination with awful things happening to the characters.
At the same time, problems start to occur when these tropes-- particularly the ones from misery lit-- begin leaking into other genres. For some reason, fantasy seems to be a magnet for both the overblown descriptions of abuse and torture and massive sprays of battle gore. This is significantly less creepy when the author is given to detailed descriptions of everything. The creepy factor shows up-- in my opinion-- when the abuse or torture or infected wounds get descriptions that are far more detailed than other parts of the story, hinting at some level of authorial glee.
I'd also like to point out that excessive descriptions of violence (or sex, or landscapes, or angst) quickly desensitize the reader to the point of skipping over those passages. Often, it's more effective to keep things toned down and then hit the reader with a single, evocative line.
Where this line falls is pretty subjective, but most people seem to have an 'I know it when I see it' sense of when highly visceral description becomes uncomfortable. Some of this depends on the author's delivery, the tone of the story, and the expectations of the genre, as well as the reader's personal squick threshold. For example, certain subgenres of horror come with the expectation of vividly described blood and gore; confessional memoirs and 'misery lit' come with the expectation of detailed accounts of psychological trauma or abuse or drug abuse. Arguably, some genres require the reader to have a perverse 'watching the train wreck' fascination with awful things happening to the characters.
At the same time, problems start to occur when these tropes-- particularly the ones from misery lit-- begin leaking into other genres. For some reason, fantasy seems to be a magnet for both the overblown descriptions of abuse and torture and massive sprays of battle gore. This is significantly less creepy when the author is given to detailed descriptions of everything. The creepy factor shows up-- in my opinion-- when the abuse or torture or infected wounds get descriptions that are far more detailed than other parts of the story, hinting at some level of authorial glee.
I'd also like to point out that excessive descriptions of violence (or sex, or landscapes, or angst) quickly desensitize the reader to the point of skipping over those passages. Often, it's more effective to keep things toned down and then hit the reader with a single, evocative line.
No comments have been added yet.
