 | 14 Jul 06 |
This post comes with a warning. I can’t be held responsible for the spelling and lucidity of this post.
It’s 2:08 am California time, and I’ve been hunched over this keyboard of mine for the last four days mindlessly revising a manuscript. I just sent the file off to my agent and editor five minutes ago. I feel relief and completely fatigued.
However! I have something I want to chat about. A question to throw out to y’all. And before you think about your answer too hard, there is no correct answer, it just boils down to preference. As you can tell from the title of this post, Fluffy, a cute pink-nosed white kitten must die in a book to further the plot. Why? Well to show the pure nastiness of the bad guy. It must have relevance, no gratuitous kitty killings allowed. My question is, is it to you the reader acceptable? And if so in what venue? The author putting you there as it happens in real time, or in introspection, or perhaps a grey flashback? Or discussed or eluded to in dialogue? Would you pick up a book knowing there was going to be a kitty killing?
For us romance writers out there, killing off pets is a big no no, along with killing children. Yet I’ve seen it done time and time again. And the authors who do it? They catch some major flack. A NYTimes bestselling author brought up an interesting thought on one of the loops yesterday. ‘Why does Disney get away with killing animals?’ I mean c’mon when Bambi’s mom got shot I was devastated for weeks. In this kinder gentler era I’m surprised Disney hasn’t taken that part out to appease the ‘concerned public.’ Ack, don’t get me started on that tangent. Back to the killing of animals. My response to the Disney question was, to paraphrase, “If a man writes it, it’s acceptable. If a woman writes it, it isn’t.” Now that isn’t written in stone, but why is that? Why can a man kill of kittens and puppys, it be part of the plot and we nod and say to ourselves, “It had to happen,” but when a woman does it she gets irate emails from her readers calling her an animal hater? I have a wip in which a beloved pet is killed. It not only shows the violence of the killer but it also shows that my hero, who is one tough M-effer, has a human side to him in the way he deals with the death.
So, does Fluffy die or do you leave those books on the shelf?
Oh, and before I go, I want to share my excitement about my new site with everyone. My web guy, Justin at StoneCreek Media did a fab job. Go check it out.
www.karintabke.com.
Ciao!
© 2006 – 2009, Karin Tabke. All rights reserved.
A Cop’s Wife Writes the Cop’s Life:
Award winning author, Karin Tabke isn’t just another author with steamy stories to tell, but a cop’s wife who has “seen it all and heard it all.†Some of the hottest stories come from behind the blue wall of law enforcement rather than from in front. Married to a street cop, now retired, Karin is intimate with both and proves it with her sizzling tales and hot cops. Not only are her cops hot, but so are her sexy knights. Karin’s Blood Sword Legacy series is a must read for anyone who loves tales of yore when men were men and women were women, and love did conqueror all!
Subscribe to Posts 
Authors really get in trouble for offing pets and children? That is so ludicrous. I have never watched Bambi, but I’ve seen Old Yeller a zillion times. I’m 50 and it still makes me cry. But it is also life, it wasn’t contrived, it furthered the plot, and it wasn’t senseless.
As I read your post I immediately thought of Steven Kings’ Pet Cemetary. I hated the book, but not because he killed a child and a pet. It (IMO) was a terrible book. Jen poisoned some dogs in her last book and I didn’t think less of her. Gracious, do agents and editors think we only want the world as seen through Rose coloured glasses? What a sad commentary on their part.
I think, Karin, that making Fluffy a cute, adorable kitty makes the villian seem harder, crueler, mean. Just plain mean. Similiarly, if Fluffy was a mangy tabby, with a piss-poor personality. Heck just plain mean, it would have less of an impact on the story, maybe even leave some simpathy with the villian. Well that is unless you show the mourning, broken heart, and terror (?) of the owner that comes upon discovery.
by Cele July 14th, 2006 at 4:10 amI come from the other end of the spectrum. I read for escape, and if the kitten killing is the least bit gratuitous, I stop reading then and there and that’s it. I used to read John Saul. Not anymore. Not after he killed a mare and foal that we spent a lot of time with.
There are many ways to show character. I think killing a pet is a cliche. You want to see how to show character, Michael Connelly’s CITY OF BONES is like an instruction booklet. He shows us exactly th kind of character Bosch’s partner is, and he doesn’t kill anything. Killing animals is over the top, usually unncecessary, and you will loose a large percentage of your audience.
There are exceptions. Some of the great old classics, like Old Yeller and even Bambi. But even there, people have moved on. In the days when those books were written, it was all about having to be “tough” and deal with life. The Yearling is a good example. Kill the deer because it ate up the garden (or some such–I couldn’t read the end.) These were the lessons children had to learn in life. Kind of like 4H.
There are great books that deal with animals dying, but you know it going in. The Herriott books about the vet in Yorkshire. Those books were uplifting. MARLEY AND ME. Etc.
That said, I have killed one or two animals, OFFSTAGE. I wrote a book about horse-racing, and a stallion reared up and hit his head. OFFSTAGE. We didn’t know the stallion.
I don’t think there’s anything to gain from getting to know a pretty fluffy kitten and then killing it. There are ways to show cruelty, better ways, and as I say, killing a beloved pet is a cliche–sometimes it seems to be the only way a writer can show evil. Too easy. And too hard, at the same time.
If your gut tells you it’s not a good idea, and you don’t really want to do it, listen to your gut. Sometimes you have to push through and do something tough. That happened to me when I had a character raped. That was very, very hard for me, and I remember spending days walking around thinking about it.
I did not find the beginning of THE DEAD ZONE, where a Bible salesman kicks a dog to death, to be so bad that it stopped me reading. Because 1) we did not know the dog, 2) I’ve run into dogs that have been vicious, and I’ve thought about killing them too, in real life. However, King has gone over the line a few times, and I don’t care for it.
Pets shouldn’t be cheap. Some guy has an old dog and takes him to the vet and has him euthanized – acceptible. The character makes reference (briefly) to an animal (we don’t know) killed by the creepy guy down the street, acceptible. Getting to know an animal really well, as a character, and having the animal killed – in my book, unacceptible, and I will never read that author again. Put the animal in danger, fine. But trust is an important thing to me, and I have to trust the author. (Hope I didn’t spell acceptible wrong.)
Of course, this is only my view. But it’s shared with a LOT of people.
Also, I’ve never thought that women doing this versus men was a big deal. That is interesting. But it’s not my problem, because I don’t do it.
Okay, off soapbox.
by J. Carson Black July 14th, 2006 at 4:42 amI always get that “ible” vs “able” wrong myself. I think I have finally got “lie” and “lay” figured out. Don’t worry about it.
Killing pets. Well you know my thoughts on cruelty to animals. I agree with Jake on this one. I have put down books where the villain has been shown torturing or killing an animal.
On the other hand, one Joanna Brady mystery had a hoarder with something like 17 dogs. The villain killed a woman and the animals died in her trailer which was in the middle of the desert. I hated that, but I read on because I trust J. A. Jance enough to stick with her in spite of it.
But I too read for escape. I see enough of this kind of thing with my involvement with the local animal shelter. No way am I going to willingly read about the murder of a pet.
Sorry.
Mo
by Maureen July 14th, 2006 at 4:58 amI’m OK with offing Fluffy if there’s a good reason for it to be in the story – and it sounds like there is. This is especially true with serial killer books, ’cause it’s a well-known fact that many start with animals. But I don’t want to see the gory details, and I don’t want to have gotten to know the animal.
Love the new website design!
by Jennette July 14th, 2006 at 5:37 amGeeze, Karin – your site is HOT. Literally. My laptop’s smoldering!
I love a man with a badge.
by J. Carson Black July 14th, 2006 at 6:15 amI must be wishy washy. First I agreed with Cele, then I read Jake’s and agreed with her. Jake said to listen to your gut, and I think that’s what you need to do. In the end, that’s what counts, not our opinion. Is it right for your story? If so, how best to show it? Only you can answer that.
To answer one of your questions, I would read it if it’s not gratuituous but seems like the natural thing to happen in the story.
by Edie Ramer July 14th, 2006 at 6:54 amAcceptable. Sorry for my spelling gaffe.
by J. Carson Black July 14th, 2006 at 7:00 amThere’s a kitten death in WIVES AND SISTERS, and I have only had one person comment on how if they’d known, they probably would not have read the book. It was based on a real incident, and so it never occurred to me that someone would not want to READ about it in a book, since we’re trying to create REAL scenarios here. And it had great impact.
So, I don’t think it affected the way W&S sold, but when that one person commented I certainly DID think back. Then I have to think, WHY is it okay for thriller writers to off hordes off people and not pets? I mean, are we assuming that serial killers are running around killing people and donating money to animal shelters? It’s a well documented fact that serial killers and domestic abusers OFTEN start with pets.
If you are going to create a real scenario, can you IGNORE that? I don’t know the answer here, but it certainly makes one think.
by Natalie July 14th, 2006 at 7:02 am[...] There’s a great blog by Karin Tabke over at Murder She Writes about killing off a pet to show the depths of an evil person’s depravity. [...]
by Novel Investigations with J. Carson Black » Blog Archive » Death to Fluffy: dead pets and other plot devices July 14th, 2006 at 7:30 amYes, Cele, in romance anyway. But with all rules they are meant to be broken, it’s just in how well ya break ‘em..
by Karin July 14th, 2006 at 7:49 amJake- I read for escape too! And for the record any type of gratuitous anything doesn’t work for me in a story, including whacking Fluffy. Oh, and glad you like the badge.
Mo- “No way am I going to willingly read abut the murder of a pet.†You are not alone, many readers are just as adamant. And they are letting authors know about it. Some more diplomatically than others.
Edie-I must be wishy-washy too! Because now, I’m rethinking…
Jennette-I don’t want the ‘gory details’ either. If the author is going to whack Fluffy do it quick. I don’t want to know anymore than I have to.
Natalie-When I read the kitten part in W&S it really bothered me, as it was meant to. It accomplished what it was supposed to accomplish, and that is all I’m going to say coz if there is anyone here who hasn’t read the book (and shame on you if you didn’t, now go buy it) I don’t want to spoil anything. Suffice it to say, it was a powerful part of a powerful book.
I think (and this may be my Catholic upbringing) it comes down to innocents. Very young children and pets are innocents. (Unless, of course, that pet is my cat Georgie, who isn’t innocent of anything.) Adult people = Original Sin. They’re already all stained up anyway, (as I recall from my one month at Catechism—I don’t know much about this stuff so I’m making it up as I go along) might as well kill them.
I handle serial killers this way. “Yeah, there’s a whole list of animals that went missing when so-and-so lived in Happy Falls, Georgia. One little girl lost her kitten.”
Then, weeping copiously, I change the word “kitten” to “twenty-two year old cat on its last legs who was so drugged-up on painkiller he wouldn’t know what hit him”.
What can I say? I’m a softie.
by J. Carson Black July 14th, 2006 at 7:52 amKilling animals is part of the backstory of virtually every real-life serial killer. If we are writing true-to-life stories to completely ignore this aspect would be disingenuous.
On the other hand, any killing–animal or human–needs to be germane to the plot. There needs to be a PURPOSE, not just to up the body count.
In THE PREY, the villain kills a cat. We’re in his head and he’s remembering a time when he stole money from his mother to buy more BBs because “It took thirty-nine shots to kill Mrs. so-and-so’s stupid cat.” It was a hint into his character and how he thought of people. It was offscreen in the sense I didn’t SHOW the killing, but it wasn’t necessary to FOR THAT STORY. A child also dies in that story and the villain watches her and her family for a long time as he thinks about his own childhood. I didn’t kill the child on-screen but it was absolutely integral to the story that this particular killing happen.
I don’t like gratuitous violence–violence just because–but I will give anything a pass if it fits the story.
As fair warning, in the prologue of SPEAK NO EVIL the villain–as a child–pulls the wings off butterflies. I do show that. But I’m sure pretty Monarch butterflies won’t upset people as much as small furry critters
. . . however, after the uproar over the book Karin alluded to above, I’ve been thinking of changing the scene for solidarity with my fellow author who only wrote what fit the story.
BTW, I think all this has to do with reader expectations. I think by now, if people have read my books, they know I push envelopes. If some more established authors are expanding their storylines to include more graphic elements that might be where they’re having problems–people don’t expect it. New authors have more flexibility, IMO.
And I’m with Natalie–no one bats an eye when a college co-ed is raped, tortured and murdered. In SPEAK NO EVIL my villain gets off watching snuff films. It’s actually vital to the plot–the snuff films are silent. It also connects to the third book of the trilogy in a small but important way.
Anyway, if it fits the story–go for it. If it doesn’t, toss it.
by Allison July 14th, 2006 at 7:52 amOne other thing . . . would FATAL ATTRACTION really have worked as well if the pet rabbit hadn’t been cooked? I wonder–because people have been known to eat rabbits even when they’re not starving to death–if the writers intentionally made the pet a rabbit rather than a cat or dog. Hmmm. Lots to think about . . .
by Allison July 14th, 2006 at 8:00 amDon’t throw tomatos at the screen but why is killing an animal such a big deal? We’re mystery writers, so its okay for us to kill off teenagers, old people and innocents, but the second I detail an animal killing, I’m off limits to readers?
Unfair. Very, very unfair. And I agree with Allison, I can show you horrid, horrid things that one human does to another just for kicks, but if Fluffy dies, I’ve offended someone? Picture me scratching my head.
Funny thing is, I posed this exact question to Pari Noskin Traichert at Mayhem in the Midlands when we were talking about author taboos. I have two animal deaths in my current WIP. One a flashback, one happening in real time. Is it awful? Yes. It should be because it is paramount to the plot. So for the rest of the weekend, the very lovely Pari – seriously, she is a riot – kept referring to me as “the woman who wants to kill dogs.” So, if I understand correctly, I’ll lose doglovers as readers if I keep the plot thread?
by Lori G. Armstrong July 14th, 2006 at 8:06 amSeems to me, Allison, your instincts are pretty good about what to show onstage and what not to.
The funny thing is, I bought seven books at Thrillerfest. The beginning of three of them started with killing a cat.
I wouldn’t want to be a fictional cat these days—they’ve really got a target on their backs.
by J. Carson Black July 14th, 2006 at 8:09 amLori: to me, as long as the killings are integral to the plot, it doesn’t bug me. And I trust you as an author. Some readers aren’t going to like it. But IMO, you can’t please all the people all the time. We can only hope that we’re a good enough storyteller that readers who don’t like every element will just skip over it and continue with the story, rather than slamming us in cyberspace.
BTW, I got slammed when I killed off a major secondary character in one of my books. The murder was absolutely integral to the plot. Some people emailed me and said they’d never read another of my books. Other people emailed me and said while they didn’t like that part, they loved the book as a whole.
Be true to the story and you can’t go wrong.
by Allison July 14th, 2006 at 8:14 amI thought it was very gutsy of you to kill off that character, shocked the hell out of me! But yes, it upped the stakes and made me want to read on. And I will keep buying your books because you don’t take the easy way out.
I think part of my attitude stems from the rural area where I live. People – ranchers, hunters, etc., see animals as tools. Are some pets? Yes. Are they treated well? Usually. But if a dog or cat contracts a disease or is injured on the farm or ranch, the family deals with it right then, right there. Taking a dog to the vet for a $1500 surgery isn’t an option. Cruel? No. Just part of life. I know people who live in urban areas don’t understand.
Apples and oranges? Maybe. Everyone has a different idea on what’s humane and acceptable.
by Lori G. Armstrong July 14th, 2006 at 8:34 amMy internet connection is giving me fits–let’s see if I can get THIS post to work. So, if the book is an edgy suspense book, and Fluffy needs to die, then I’ll light a candle for Fluffy. But if you are writing a light mystery, it’s a jolt to reader expectations.
By the way, I think the male writers DO get flack. They just don’t talk about it like women do. I heard Robert Crais talk about a letter he received from a reader berating him for the F-word. His point was that he wrote the book the way it needed to be written and didn’t let letters like that change him. He was very funny and charming about it.
by Jen July 14th, 2006 at 8:41 amI’ve seen an awful lot of cats get it lately in fiction. Most of the killings were just mentioned after the fact–no on screen that I can recall reading lately. As J. Carson Black said, it’s sounding like a too easy way to show the villian is evil. I wouldn’t necessarily put the book down if I was reading it, but if I’d heard there was a pet killing in the book, I probably wouldn’t buy it.
by Jan July 14th, 2006 at 9:17 amLori: BINGO BINGO BINGO! Can I give you an award?
There is a distinct difference between rural and urban areas, even in the state of California there are huge differences between people in San Francisco and people in the agriculture based Central Valley.
I love Jen’s comment about Robert Crais (A great storyteller) . . . write the book the way it needs to be written.
by Allison July 14th, 2006 at 9:18 amI’ve always seen it this way. If the villian kills a kitten or a puppy, he is a bad man. If you are telling the story right I don’t realize the author chose to put that in there, I’m thinking, “What an evil man.” LOL If I’m ‘in’ the story all I’m seeing is what the villian is doing, not the writer. Hopes that made sense, no coffee yet this morning.
by Amanda July 14th, 2006 at 9:46 amWent over to Jake’s blog and now I have another thought. If you don’t get to know and love Fluffy before you off him it’s a copout. It’s like a lady walking down a dark alley, the villian grabs her, and kills her before she can utter a scream. It shows his depravity but we don’t care about the victim other than ‘poor lady’. We have to know the victim; person or pet.
by Amanda July 14th, 2006 at 9:54 amUnfortunately, I’ve read so many serial killer books (or started them), the device of killing animals is nothing new. In fact, it’s old. It’s so old it’s boring. Book after book after book after book after book. Like an assembly line. I can almost see some guy gloating as he writes his first thriller, laboring over the prologue (it’s always the prologue), going, “THIS’LL get ‘em!” He starts with pulling the wings off flies, or putting a magnifying glass on ants, then he works on the frogs, and then, in a chilling change of pace, at the end of the prologue he…eyes the neighbor’s cat!
It’s a cliche. I know some people can make it “live”, but I’m not just put off by it, I’m tired of it.
Jake (who must have got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning).
And, I know you are all good writers, because I’ve read you.
by J. Carson Black July 14th, 2006 at 9:56 amPerhaps not knowing Fluffy is a copout, Amanda.
There are so many choices we make in writing novels. There are so many things we shade, there are some things we gloss over, there are some things that we have to go all the way with.
I guess it comes down to this: Killing Fluffy is just not my hill to die on.
by J. Carson Black July 14th, 2006 at 10:06 amOkay, Lori, I see your point. However, there are exceptions. I grew up on a farm: cows, chickens, pigs, dogs & cats. I was the one mom thought would be a vet. I might have but I’m too lazy to take all those science and anatomy classes (classes where you cut up animals, too).
I currently live in a rural area. Never did like the city. Or the burbs for that matter. I’m a two-lane country style woman. But I’m one who volunteers at the animal shelter so when someone kills kittens, it’s personal. I see too much cruelty and neglect. My own 65 pound dogs were 33 and 38 pounds when I adopted them. They could have been anatomy lessons. I’m not going to choose it for my entertainment dollars.
Plus, I agree with Jake. It’s almost become a cliche and judging by the number of books with a cat killing you all are talking about, I can eliminate the “almost” from this sentence. Maybe that’s a good reason not to do it.
I don’t like books about child killing, either. But I have read some very good ones. Still, I’m left with an icky feeling. And maybe that’s what the author intended. I guess it’s the defenselessness that gets to me. Pets who are used to trusting humans and kids who are so dependent on adults for everything. Once you’re grownup, you’re on your own – master of your fate and all that.
Allison, I’ve read the same thing about serial killers. They all start with animals. I guess it’s the power trip. A shame someone didn’t put them in a sack and drown them at birth. A fitting scenario.
Mo
by Maureen July 14th, 2006 at 10:27 amOoh. I have a prologue in Hallowed Ground, but people die, not animals.
And I will dodge the tomatos again and say bein’ raised around a farm, killing small critters does not automatically a serial killer make. Seriously. I LMAO whenever I see that as the *only* characteristic a writer gives a nasty serial killer. He (or she) ripping the wings off butterflies. Hmm. My dearly departed grandmother, the sweetest, kindest woman on the planet, loved butterflies and would stick a pin though a live one if she caught one. Then she’d proudly display it in her dried flower arrangements. So, according to profiling, she would be considered a potential serial killer. In my younger years, mostly on dares from my older male cousins, we did things with firecrackers and firearms that were innocent, but now could totally be misconstrued as deviant behavior.
Its all about perception. And serial killer stuff can be very cliche’. Of course none of you fab writers fall victim to them
On the other hand, I’ve got a writer friend who wrote a mystery about a man’s 3 year old daughter dying of leukemia and how the man doesn’t deal with it well. This writer *has* a 3 yr old. To me, it was very gutsy to write about something that hits so close to home. I can’t read books like The Lovely Bones because I have a child the age of the protagonist. That’s where I draw my line.
And I do tell people if you’re looking for a book with a cat lovin’ heroine who would say sh*t if she had a mouthful, you ain’t gonna like my books. However, I do tell them that the mystery field is chocked full of all types of mysteries that might appeal to them.
by Lori G. Armstrong July 14th, 2006 at 10:39 amI agree with you, Lori, that there are places in our books where we cannot pull our punches. I tell myself that with every book I write. And I also think when you have a whole long book, there are various shades of writing. Sure, you can be a raw nerve all the way through, but that gets tiring for the reader. (Although some people love that!) There’s got to be some downtime. I think of pacing in waves. I usually go for one BIG thing and a couple of small things—and I will put it all on the line, and my character will, too. I know the feeling of trying to go beyond. And sometimes, it’s so hard that I feel like a test pilot taking a jet up so high and so far I can feel it shudder, and I think the wings are going to come off. But I choose my battles.
It does come down to a specific story. If, for instance, I had a rancher and he had livestock and the story required him to kill one of them, of course that would be in the story. I do think that there are a hundred ways to write the next thing in a book on the page, a bunch of invisible pages we haven’t even thought of. (Maybe, because it would drive us friggin’ nuts.) A thousand ways. An infinite number of ways. And sometimes the obvious choice (and believe me, killing an animal is an obvious choice, and so very popular among those demonstrating what a serial killer is) might not be the best one. The first choice, yes. But maybe not the best one.
It’s okay to think about it. Which is what Karin was doing when she put up this blog.
It’s also okay to make choices that some people might think are cowardly. As long as it’s not cowardly to you, as long as you’re honest about it, that’s okay.
Now I’ll really piss you all off and tell you I go through my books when I’m through and take out probably fifty percent of the “fucks”. (Which still leaves a lot of them there.)
Just because you *can* do something doesn’t mean you have to.
Signed,
by J. Carson Black July 14th, 2006 at 10:55 amGrumpy Jake (still worried about a racehorse)
Holy Crikey! I go take a nap and y’all have been chatty. Going to read posts now.
by Karin July 14th, 2006 at 11:09 am‘Signed,
by Karin July 14th, 2006 at 11:12 amGrumpy Jake (still worried about a racehorse)’
Oh, me too, Jake, I just want to cry. He is such a heroic guy, I don’t want to see him put down.
Okay,now really going back to read posts.
Jake, Mo- I am such a softie it makes me sick sometimes. The only thing my kids are allowed to kill are flies and if they see one anywhere, a roach! Everything else is off limits. That includes spiders, because IMO they are fascinating creatures that kill flies and roaches. Okay, hubby did kill a Black Widow in the garage last week, but not before I got to admire her. If it were up to me, I would have let her go in the lot across the street. But, I was outnumbered so I acquiesced.
by Karin July 14th, 2006 at 11:49 amAllison- despite my softie nature I also believe if it fits the story use it, theory. And you’re 100% correct about FATAL ATTRATION. We all knew Glenn Close’s character was a whack job, but when she boiled the bunny the stakes rose and we knew at that point a human would now have to die.
Lori- you won’t get tomatoes from me. I understand exactly what you mean. As Jake said it is the innocent factor. We can easily kill adults or bad teenagers but not so easy the innocents, the ones who trust us.
Jen- F-bombs abound in my stories. Since I write cops it’s their fav word. I do try to have my ladies refrain from it (I mean I would never say such a word), but they use it when necessary.
Jan- Why does everyone kill the kitties? Do you think it’s a conspiracy? Cats get a bad rap. But dogs can be a royal PIA. Hell, my carpet will bear witness to that. My cat? He is so polite he leaves the room and goes into a nice neat little box, and covers it up!
Amanda-Jake is right about upping the stakes. The more of an emotional investment we have the harder the fall. And the author’s job is to extract emotion.
Mo- When I lived in a different town I worked a few days a week at Wildlife shelter. We took everything, and it saddened me daily to see what humans did to animals through neglect.
Karen Robards (who I love) seems to constantly be killing or maiming animals in her books. It doesn’t stop me from reading her books, primarily because they’re fiction. I would never read a non-fiction book on killing animals, babies or toddlers for reasons I would think are obvious, but in fiction it’s only pretend.
Just my opinion though.
by Ktzmom July 14th, 2006 at 1:08 pmSo Fluffy’s Gotta Go
So Fluffy’s gotta go
Though some of you don’t know
The how’s and why’s to show
Why Fluffy’s gotta go
The story it can bolster
Or expose a nasty hoaxer
By taking away his luster
And adding to the eye some moisture
For didn’t you cry
And did you not deny
At the sight of goodbye
When Bambi’s mum had to die
No one will dispute
They’re precious and cute
To them all salute
Before given the boot
So write what you’ve thought
by Hubby July 14th, 2006 at 1:18 pmAnd express no distraught
Forget the forethought
Throw Fluffy in the pot
Brat!
by Karin July 14th, 2006 at 1:20 pmKarin, hunky hubby never fails to make me chuckle
by Cele July 14th, 2006 at 2:25 pmKarin,
The short answer: if it’s germane…kill the cat.
I agree with what Allison said, and it’s interesting that she brought up the killing off of a main character in one of her books. I think that was one of the things that most impressed me about Allison as a writer. She did not take the easy/romancey way out–she stayed true to the story and to the characters involved. I thought it worked 100% and as a voracious reader of romance it really jarred me in a good way. I knew right off bat that no one was sacred–therefore it made each character seem that much more vulnerable. I really felt like the hero and heroine were in jeapordy.
What Allison did reminded me of one of the best writer’s workshop speeches I’ve ever heard–Linda Howard a few years ago in San Diego. She is brilliant in my book btw. The speech was basically about the black moment and how you can’t pull any punches. She talked about how we as writers often get to the big build up and then chicken out. I thought it was very interesting and very true. Make the characters do the hard thing, give them hard choices, that is what will make a powerful story and a gut clenching black moment. So if you need to kill the cat or whatever…do it. JMO of course.
by Monica M. July 14th, 2006 at 2:36 pmI loved the balls of the heroine in CRY NO MORE. I was going to throw the book and never buy another Linda Howard book if she didn’t do what I hoped she had the balls to do. When she did I cheered.
by Karin July 14th, 2006 at 3:09 pm>>Forget the forethought
Throw Fluffy in the pot
OMG!!!!!!! I’ve never laughed so hard (but the son, who insisted I read it to him, said it was wrong LOL)
by Cece July 14th, 2006 at 3:20 pmCece, try being at my dinner table when hubby and my oldest son get on a roll. There is spewing food everywhere. Sometimes I have to warn guests they may leave the table hungry. It’s actually a great way to diet. Laugh yourself thin.
by Karin July 14th, 2006 at 3:41 pmThey should take thier act on the road.
Hubby’s good with the fountain pen!
Did hear a version of the song Cat’s in the Cradle by Harry Chapin. It starts like this:
The cat’s in the kettle
at the Peking Moon,
We go there for lunch
Every day at noon
Wish I knew the rest of the lyrics.
by J. Carson Black July 14th, 2006 at 4:41 pmI’d say kill Fluffy. I’ve never had issues with animals dying in books.
Understand, I don’t like animals. Not as in “they all should die” sort of way. Just a “keep them far away from me and nobody will get hurt” sort of way. It’s mostly because I’ve never had a pet and wouldn’t know what to do with one I think.
by May July 14th, 2006 at 5:42 pmThank you Monica for the vote of confidence! I’m so glad you enjoyed the book.
May, I looked at my kids and they run the whole gamut. My oldest and youngest (12 and 2) LOVE animals. All animals, especially cats. (We have one cat and one dog). My middle child, 5, can take or leave animals. He barely notices them. #2 and #4 don’t care for animals, and particularly don’t like cats. Since we’ve had the dog since before my first was born, and I’ve always had at least one cat, it has to be something they’re born with.
by Allison July 14th, 2006 at 7:12 pmAs one who has been on the receiving end of the gift of chopped up white kittens in my mailbox, I know it’s life and crap happens. There really are people out there sick enough to do something cruel like that. So no, reading about it doesn’t particularly bother me unless–if I’ve come to know that particular pet, learned to love it over the course of the story, I’m going to hate you if you kill it. If the animal has to be killed, then do it early in the story before I get attached to it.
by Pam July 14th, 2006 at 8:03 pmAllison, I agree about being born with it. I have three nieces who typify this.
Now they had cats all their lives. #1 doesn’t like them but tolerates their presence, # 3 loves fluffy things like cats but can’t stand the sight of a bug, #2 is a pantheist. I have seen her tenderly carry a pregnant spider outside so #3 couldn’t mash it. All have the same Catholic upbringing. All different in their response to animals and other critters.
Mo
by Maureen July 15th, 2006 at 5:56 amI read over this post here and the one on Jake’s site (to which I am a frequent visitor) last night and chose to think on it a bit before voicing my opinion. After thinking on it a while I have come to the conclusion that when it comes to animals and children it has to: 1. be important to the story and 2. be done in a way which fits the story.
Natalie’s kitten death in Wives and Sisters is an excellent example of both of these. (I don’t want to spoil anything for anyone who hasn’t read this truly fantastic book so if you haven’t you may want to skip to the next paragraph.) We know that the father is a tyrant who wants to completely control his family, and the only way that we know this is through the examples that are given throughout the story. The kitten incident is one such example. We can see from his beratings and the whippings with the belt what kind of person he is but, in this one very cold scene we see just how deep his indifference and lack of emotion for anyone or anything (other than his son) goes.
I think that as long as the scene sticks with those two rules it’s fine for me. I read to escape, however, I don’t want to be patronized as a reader. I don’t expect there to always be a happy ending and I understand that sometimes in books, as in life, very bad things happen. It makes the story more real for me and rather than making me hate the writer for it it only makes me hate the villian of the book more. It also makes me more sympathetic to the hero/heroine. That being said, there is rarely a need for a detailed explanation of any killing be it an animal, child or adult. I prefer as a reader that some things be left to the imagination. If I am given a few details my mind can fill in the blanks easily and what it can come up with is often much more shocking and terrifying than if I simply read what someone else describes.
by Shannon July 15th, 2006 at 11:29 amSorry, Karin.
I’ve been known to quit a book after 150 pages when an animal dies. I wouldn’t read it or finish it. And, I tell friends about it when something like that happens because they’re animal lovers, and they wouldn’t read it either. Yes, you’d get in a lot of trouble from mystery readers if you kill a kitten.
by Lesa Holtine July 15th, 2006 at 2:04 pmWow, amazing the response to this issue. It’s a tighrope act for authors. Go with what works for your story, but what if it offends your readers?
by Karin July 15th, 2006 at 5:56 pmGosh, Karin. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t…But if you do do it, do it well. I guess that says it all about all writing, doesn’t it? Have fun.
by Amanda July 15th, 2006 at 8:16 pmAt the risk of being repetitive, there are many options. As I said before, of the seven books I bought at Thrillerfest, three killed a cat in the prologue. It’s overused. There are so many ways to show cruelty, more original ways. I would dig deeper. And then, if you simply can’t find another way, do it if you must, but let your instincts guide you what is appropriate and what isn’t–like good comedians who know where the line is drawn.
My friend Sinclair Browning told me that C.J. Box killed the horse the guy rode and partnered with in the first book. Fantastic writer. But I’m not getting on board that trolley and willingly read about a horse I grew to care about dying in a horrible way. This is not why I read fiction. And that’s the thing about readers—they tell other readers. I haven’t picked up a C.J. Box book since.
It comes down to trust. You’re building an audience, and if you want them to trust that you will do the right thing by them. If they throw the book across the room — you’ve lost them forever.
by J. Carson Black July 16th, 2006 at 6:27 amBut Jake, if you didn’t “know” the horse, would you feel the same way? I love CJ Box, and its interesting to me that you picked up on *****SPOILER ALERT***** the horse getting shot, but not that the bad guy shot Pickett’s 6 month pregnant wife and she lost the baby and almost died. Both the events were horrific – especially to Joe Pickett, but if I had to choose I’d say the loss of the child and the near fatal wounding of Joe’s wife was more devastating to me as a reader. And without putting words in his characters mouth, the loss of his horse paled in comparison to the potential loss of the woman Joe loves-who is also his best friend and the mother of his children. Although he loved the animal, this harkens back to animals in the “west” being considered a tool.
But here’s the thing. Chuck Box did not cop out when he wrote it. For that I admire him and will pick up his books because I never know what to expect.
by Lori G. Armstrong July 16th, 2006 at 7:48 amI only read the first book, Lori. (And can’t remember much about it– except I loved the daughter and her courage.) (I also can’t remember about his wife–was that in the first book?) The thing is, I read so many books. And I read only the best, and he certainly is a fine writer. But not such a fine writer that I wanted to go through that.
I know all about animals in the west being tools. But I just didn’t want to read about that good buckskin getting killed. So I didn’t.
by J. Carson Black July 16th, 2006 at 7:54 am“You can’t please all the people all the time” …… I would say to go with what your gut tells you is right for the story you are telling. I’ve read and reread a particular book series a number of times because I love the overall story, inspite of the fact that there are some scenes that really make me uncomfortable. There is a male rape scene that is so horrendous I’ve only read it one time; I always skip over it with each rereading. It bothered me in a big way, but I didn’t quit the story or the author because of it. It played an integral part in defining the character of the hero (the victim of the rape) and in exposing the depth of depravity and cruelty of the villain. But the beauty of the overall story rises above the horror and that is what stays with me. If killing Fluffy teaches us something about the hero/heroine and/or the villain and is a critical element in taking the story where you need it to go, then by all means go ahead with it.
by Barbie July 16th, 2006 at 8:25 amLori, I will add that I probably will read C.J. Box one of these days. Not that book, but the others. He is a remarkably fine writer, and I loved what he did with the main character’s daughter in the first one.
And perhaps he did a wonderful job with the death of the horse, and also with the pregnant wife. As I’ve said somewhere else, really GOOD writers know how to thread the needle.
It does bother me that so many writers think that the only way to “push the envelope” is to kill pets onstage, having made us love the pet and worry for its safety (and yes, we do worry, because we don’t trust said writer). It’s manipulative in a bad way and I lose respect for the author who does it. (I’m not talking Nat, here. She did a good job at threading the needle.) It seems that a lot of “pushing of the envelope” comes down to someone doing something on a dare, and the result seems manufactured. If it’s a plot device, you’re going to pay for it down the line. And, as in the case with C.J. Box, you may pay for it anyway. (Not that he’s hurting.)
by J. Carson Black July 16th, 2006 at 9:21 amThe interesting thing about Chuck Box’s first book was the premise: evil land developers would do anything to keep the general public from knowing a nearly extinct animal had made a comeback. The developers tried to kill all the animals because they *knew* all the animal activist rights group would descend on the area…and in essence destroy what made it habitable for the animals in the first place. And poor Joe gets dragged into it. To me, nothing was contrived, or manufactured for “thrills” it was agonizing to suffer with Joe the betrayal that all he held dear – his stewardship of the land, the haunting of his daughter, the fear for his family, his friends, the animals and people under his care and protection – which made the animal scenes that much MORE gutwrenching.
I understand about having that line as a reader that you prefer not to cross. I have them too. I’ve been a huge Stephen King fan for years but when I read Gerald’s Game, I was so sickened by the premise I didn’t pick up anything of his for years. And it didn’t hurt him one bit either
by Lori G. Armstrong July 16th, 2006 at 9:54 amLori – Chuck (can I call him Chuck, after I just slammed him for his horse-killing?) did a masterful job with that first book. And y’all know how much I hate them land developers!
And that little girl – what a character she is.
Okay, talked me into it. I’ll read the others, just not the buckskin-killing one.
by J. Carson Black July 16th, 2006 at 11:08 amI tend to agree with Jake on this. Like anything, it’s all in the execution, but introducing me to a cute kitty named Fluffy, and then offing him, could turn me off, possibly even from reading the rest of the book. It is something that is overused too. If you feel that you have to kill Fluffy, it would bother a reader like me less if we don’t get to know the cat first. That’s mostly what I think bothers readers, as someone else said, children and animals are innocents, and it’s disturbing to read about them being killed. Far more thrillers do kill children, but it’s not usually shown, but rather referred to, maybe that’s an option for the cat, talk about it after the fact, rather than showing it happening.
You do have to go with your gut, and with what is best for the story, but I’d wonder if this is really the only option that could work? This is the type of thing that could lose potential new readers for you, as long as you are fine with that, then go for it.
by pam c. July 16th, 2006 at 5:30 pmBy the way, Lori, C.J. Box should give you a quote. You deserve it, for being his maid in shining armor. I admire that, and I’m sure he would, too. (Plus, you’re such a wonderful writer–let’s not forget that.)
Pam, clearly, we agree!
by J. Carson Black July 16th, 2006 at 5:38 pmFirst its ok to kill men women and children, but not fluffy kittens?
Second, does it add to the story does it detract form the story. You say that it is used to show the chracter as evil. This is all well and good but if the effect is to shock the reader so it obscures what follows then you have a problem.
Third, if this is a real instance rather then an example is seems very cliche.
by John July 17th, 2006 at 4:37 amI think as this blog post took on a life of it’s own it may have becomes slightly misconstrued. I used Fluffy the kitten as an example, encompassing all animals, not just cats (although cats seem to be the victim of choice these days). The question was and still remains, is it acceptable to kill *an animal* to forward the plot/and or show characterization? There appears to be two answers to this. Emphatic nos, and yes, if it’s done properly.
by Karin July 17th, 2006 at 6:14 amBig help, huh, Karin?
by J. Carson Black July 17th, 2006 at 6:38 amJake, you along with everyone else who posted has enlightened me with your input. While my husband cannot understand this debate, he keeps saying, “It’s fiction!” I have far more empathy for readers now when it comes to certain plot points. That said, I will write my stoy as it should be told, and the only one who will have influence over whether it flies or not will be my editor. Or, well my agent. I had this happen recently with a story I turned in. It came flying back from NYC with a note from my agent, “take this out!” She didn’t like it and said it would not fly with my editor. So, I changed it, and actually like the new version better. go figure
by Karin July 17th, 2006 at 6:48 amShannon: Not sure if you will read this, but I just poked my head out from deadline hell (I’m sorry, Allison) and I just have to say THANKS for the wonderful words about the book. That scene was integral. Did I love it? Hell NO. But it was necessary.
Sometimes, life isn’t pretty. Sometimes, life doesn’t line up the way it is supposed to.
But it’s life.
And Karin, thanks for your kudos as well.
Now, back to deadline hell.
by Natalie July 17th, 2006 at 5:57 pmLane Sisters
Finally someone rants about this. Why don’t you also come to my iPod
by iPod Music Downloads May 22nd, 2007 at 5:07 pmLane Sisters
I am a movie fanatic. Fortunately, I found a cheaper way. Whether
by iPod Movie Downloads May 23rd, 2007 at 4:23 amHarry Chapin
I like what I am reading here. Hey, do drop by at my website if you
by iPod Downloads May 25th, 2007 at 9:47 amYoung Girls Young Teens Angus Young…
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view…
by Young Girls Young Teens Angus Young February 8th, 2008 at 5:59 am