Prize Launched for Thrillers That Don't Involve Violence Against Women

[The Bluestocking]

If thriller writer's really wanted to horrify readers, all the victims would be puppies. Most of us have virtually no tolerance for that.

They used that in JOHN WICK to great effect. The entire cinema I was in was rooting for Wick to torture and kill the puppy-killer.

 

[The Bluestocking]

Aside from the obvious horror we hold for women violated, the flip side is the relative comfort we have with men receiving violence. Our male action characters are expected to be torn up and scarred in the normal course of things, and we express the hope that violent felons are themselves raped. Empathy is rather low for men when it comes to violence.

If thriller writer's really wanted to horrify readers, all the victims would be puppies. Most of us have virtually no tolerance for that.

1. In Thrillers/Crime, men are rarely fridged or positioned as the victim the way women (and children) are. So many Thrillers/Crime (Noir, Hardboiled etc) are based around the male detective going after the perp who raped/tortured/murdered the female/child victim.

2. "Male action characters are expected to be torn up and scarred in the normal course of things". Yes - but "the normal course of things" is them taking action and having an adventure/being the hero. The story is centered on them. They aren't fridged or used to further a storyline - everything in the story serves their character development.

3. "Empathy is rather low for men when it comes to violence." Maybe that's because male violence across the board is the root of violence towards others (women, children, and yes - other men and boys. And in John Wick's case - puppies). The vast majority of mass shooters and suicide bombers and terrorists are men. Ditto for domestic violence perps and rapists.

 

[Onyx]

1. In Thrillers/Crime, men are rarely fridged or positioned as the victim the way women (and children) are. So many Thrillers/Crime (Noir, Hardboiled etc) are based around the male detective going after the perp who raped/tortured/murdered the female/child victim.

2. "Male action characters are expected to be torn up and scarred in the normal course of things". Yes - but "the normal course of things" are they taking action and having an adventure/being the hero. The story is centered on them. They aren't fridged or used to further a storyline - everything in the story is about them.

3. "Empathy is rather low for men when it comes to violence." Maybe that's because male violence across the board is the root of violence towards others (women, children, and yes - other men and boys. And in John Wick's case - puppies).

In case it wasn't clear, I'm not taking some position opposite of yours, and I understand the issue. I'm saying that our society's relatively low empathy for men makes them poor choices as victims for fiction, suggesting that the only realistic way out of the gender bias for fictional victims is to either victimize couples/groups, or no one.

Perhaps thrillers could be written where the motivation for the protagonist isn't revenge, or its highfalutin' cousin "justice"? My favorite thrillers don't seem to have a lot of that sort of thing.

 

[The Bluestocking]

In case it wasn't clear, I'm not taking some position opposite of yours, and I understand the issue. I'm saying that our society's relatively low empathy for men makes them poor choices as victims for fiction, suggesting that the only realistic way out of the gender bias for fictional victims is to either victimize couples/groups, or no one.

Perhaps thrillers could be written where the motivation for the protagonist isn't revenge, or its highfalutin' cousin "justice"? My favorite thrillers don't seem to have a lot of that sort of thing.

There's always the "heist" trope where the motivation behind the crime is pure greed. I'd happily watch or read a heist caper. And there are adventure thrillers (I used to love the Dirk Pitt ones by Clive Cussler) where there are plenty of other types of crime that are central to the story and are NOT any form of violence against women/children/puppies as the vehicle for Man Pain.

I mentioned earlier that Lee Child's JACK REACHER books sometimes does have violence against women as the central crime and Child handles it very well. The problem comes in when crime/thriller authors make violence against women the central crime in their book as a shortcut to making it "gritty". That's when I take their book and throw it into the rubbish bin.

 

[Parson]

Look at the content of bestselling thrillers. Some stuff sells better than others. It's not as though there's a ban on thoughtful, mild mysteries and thrillers. They just don't have as much popular appeal as the grotesque and lurid ones.

One of my all time favorite singers is Sade, and I would say (and perhaps more importantly she has said) that she's never really fit into the mold at any time in her long and illustrious career. But she has obviously done very well indeed by being true to herself. Wouldn't you say that the same thing might be true if a writer stayed true to herself and wrote what she loved rather than what everyone else thought she should write because "it will sell better?'

 

[Onyx]

One of my all time favorite singers is Sade, and I would say (and perhaps more importantly she has said) that she's never really fit into the mold at any time in her long and illustrious career. But she has obviously done very well indeed by being true to herself. Wouldn't you say that the same thing might be true if a writer stayed true to herself and wrote what she loved rather than what everyone else thought she should write because "it will sell better?'

Individuals can always make better choices, but I fear the reality is that there will always be authors writing trash and publishers willing to sell what the public is buying. The change needs to come from readers (though publishers could take up the mantle).

 

[Cathbad]

Just a question: Are we promoting an effort to change societal norms through fiction? For the most part, fiction has mirrored society.

Compared to women, how often are men victimized?

I don't personally care for stories containing extreme violence against women, but should it really be suggested that writers should deny this world's reality, and not make women victims in their stories? Isn't that just a form of denial... or sweeping the real problem under the rug?

 

[The Bluestocking]

Just a question: Are we promoting an effort to change societal norms through fiction? For the most part, fiction has mirrored society.

Compared to women, how often are men victimized?

I don't personally care for stories containing extreme violence against women, but should it really be suggested that writers should deny this world's reality, and not make women victims in their stories? Isn't that just a form of denial... or sweeping the real problem under the rug?

But Cathbad - stories can also change the world. That's the way culture is transmitted - through stories (oral/verbal, written, drama etc). Yes, stories do reflect society but they also play a role in changing the way society thinks about things. Stories are so powerful which is why books were banned and burned in Maoist China and why there's a Banned Books list by conservative states in the U.S. because the parents there don't want their children reading "liberal trash" like Harry Potter.

In fact - someone just observed a few weeks back that the children rising up to take on the U.S. NRA are the same kids who grew up on HARRY POTTER and THE HUNGER GAMES where young people rose up to defeat those in charge of the dystopia (right now that's that Tangerine Terror in the White House, the GOP, and the NRA).

It goes BOTH ways - fiction's power lies in both reflecting what is happening in society and introducing new ideas to it.

 

[Cathbad]

But Cathbad

Good points!

 

[Toby Frost]

While the increasing violence of fiction in general may well be a cause for concern, it isn’t mutually exclusive with concern about violence against women in particular. I can see no reason why this competition isn’t an entirely reasonable thing to do. After all, nobody gets annoyed when a competition for books for adults excludes books for children.

As to the relationship between what we do, what we think and what we read, I suspect it’s very complex and may vary from person to person (a computer game may be good stress relief for one player but might wind another up). It definitely cuts both ways, but this sort of initiative can’t hurt.

One of the disciplines that writing comedy fosters is an awareness of what constitutes good taste and what doesn’t: the difference between cheap thrills and genuine originality. This can vary from work to work, in any genre: the Books of Blood are extremely gory, but they are never cheap. This is partly because they don’t rely on tired clichés like those this competition opposes. I would hope that this competition and others would promote more original writing. It’s also worth noting that this competition (as far as I can tell) excludes nobody by reason of who they are, which is also positive. I hope it goes well.

(PS: as a casual consumer, what turns me off these sorts of discussions is the jargon, not the message. I am precisely the sort of undecided but open-to-discussion person who this sort of debate needs to win over: no offence intended, but technical terms like “fridging” don’t help much.)

 

[MWagner]

Just a question: Are we promoting an effort to change societal norms through fiction? For the most part, fiction has mirrored society.

Compared to women, how often are men victimized?

I don't personally care for stories containing extreme violence against women, but should it really be suggested that writers should deny this world's reality, and not make women victims in their stories? Isn't that just a form of denial... or sweeping the real problem under the rug?

Actually, men are much more likely than women to be the victims of violence, including murder.

Homicide statistics by gender - Wikipedia

We tend to react more strongly to stories of women being victimized than we do to stories about men being victimized. And again, since the audience for thrillers and crime novels are mostly women, and inspiring cathartic fear is a big part of their appeal, it's understandable that they're tailored to the fears of women.

That's why I doubt this initiative goes anywhere. It's essentially asking novelists to make their villains less villainous.

 

[The Big Peat]

Maybe it won't go anywhere, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried.

There's lots of good reasons why violence against women is common in fiction - that doesn't mean its a good thing.

I'll be looking out for the winners of this. And I might even try entering if I ever publish the book I'm editing, as I think it qualifies...

 

[The Bluestocking]

Actually, men are much more likely than women to be the victims of violence, including murder.

Homicide statistics by gender - Wikipedia

We tend to react more strongly to stories of women being victimized than we do to stories about men being victimized. And again, since the audience for thrillers and crime novels are mostly women, and inspiring cathartic fear is a big part of their appeal, it's understandable that they're tailored to the fears of women.

That's why I doubt this initiative goes anywhere. It's essentially asking novelists to make their villains less villainous.

Sure - because of war, fights etc. But never because of their gender whereas women and girls experience gender-based violence which range from domestic violence and rape/sexual assault to female genital mutilation to forced marriage.

 

[Toby Frost]

I don’t see why the two comments “much crime fiction in which there is violence against women is written by women for women” and “there is too much violence against women in crime fiction” necessarily cancel each other out. While I agree that the issue probably requires a more complex answer than just a crude “because of men”, I don’t see that that makes this initiative not worth trying.

To be honest, I think that the menacing/harming of female characters, sexual or not, will not go away and probably shouldn't. But it should be seen as one of a very wide range of techniques for engaging the reader and not the default, and if this prize helps with that, so much the better.

Actually, while I’ve got a feeling that it’s not what they intended, it doesn’t say that they won’t look at SF…

 

[tinkerdan]

I've given this considerable thought and I think that for me this discussion and the suggestion in general lacks some clarity within the terms, thrillers that don't involve violence against women.

Now what do I mean by that. Am I just trying to be obtuse and muddy the field a bit more to add my own brand of confusion.

I hope not.

Are we talking any and all violence? Or are we working on specific violence?

However more so let's look at a female protagonist.
Put her in the armed forces or put her in the police force and she will have to face violence. Possibly everyday, and she'll be putting herself into it, possibly putting herself between the perpetrator and the victim. If she's the protagonist of a thriller then the potential for this increases.

I think in all practicality in a thriller the only way to remove violence to women is to remove women.

However I don't thing that's what this whole initiative is about and I think that it's more likely that this is a suggestion for a competition that removes specific tropes from writing and if that's so then I think that we need a list of those tropes that are being avoided.

That's just my opinion after considerable thought.

 

[Onyx]

Sure - because of war, fights etc. But never because of their gender whereas women and girls experience gender-based violence which range from domestic violence and rape/sexual assault to female genital mutilation to forced marriage.

The sexual assault statistics are a little unexpected as well:
Men Are Raped Almost as Often as Women in America. We Need to Talk About This.

 

[Toby Frost]

Are we talking any and all violence? Or are we working on specific violence?

I don’t know the exact criteria for this competition, but surely in general it’s got to be a combination of the violence inflicted and the role of the character. Take Alien, for instance: it contains pretty clear threats of rape (arguably, to everyone) and has a bit at the end which pretty much invites viewers to check out Ripley in her underwear, but to my mind this is very much mitigated by the fact that Ripley gets to make decisions and do stuff (to use the jargon, “has agency”) and is clearly portrayed as an equal who is taken seriously. And of course it inspired the Bechdel test. Likewise, Sarah Connor in The Terminator is considerably weaker and less skilled than Reese, but she still does stuff and makes (sensible) decisions rather than just shrieking. To my mind, it must be a balancing act where “does stuff and makes decisions” significantly outweighs “is threatened with/suffers violence”. That makes it hard to lay down strict rules, but I think that works as a rough indicator.

I think that the addition of specifically sexual threat increases the problem or at least makes it more obvious. Of course, not every villain is a rapist, even the really foul ones. It's entirely possible that the enemy might just not think of our heroine like this: in Mad Max: Fury Road, numerous threats to murder and torture Furiosa are made, but nobody at all mentions her in sexual terms, good or bad.

 

[The Bluestocking]

The sexual assault statistics are a little unexpected as well:
Men Are Raped Almost as Often as Women in America. We Need to Talk About This.

Nope. These are the correct statistics - women and girls are raped far more than men. And this is just the U.S.: Victims of Sexual Violence: Statistics | RAINN

 

[Onyx]

Isn't the real point of all this to not use agency-less female characters as little more than props to motivate the protagonist? The actual details of how they are used seems relatively secondary to the fact that they are depicted as less than people, and their role in the story could have been fulfilled by a stolen or destroyed inanimate object.

 

[Onyx]

Nope. These are the correct statistics - women and girls are raped far more than men. And this is just the U.S.: Victims of Sexual Violence: Statistics | RAINN

I'm not going to claim one set of statistics or another is "right", but the Slate article points out the problems with using the National Crime Victimization Survey that the stats in your link comes from. For one, "rape" was defined for many years as something that can happen only to women in the NVCS.

Don't get me wrong - men are clearly the more violent, sexually abusive gender. But broadening definitions of sexual assault have uncovered new data about victims and perpetrators. This is not the first time I've read about some foundational problems with the way the NCVS defines and gathers crime data. It contains a lot of bias about race and police use of force as well. So I think the jury is still out what the "correct" statistics are.

And that change is relatively important because so many male sexual predators were among those under-reported male child molestation victim numbers. If society wants to break that sort of chain, it needs to recognize and treat male victims with more frequency.