So, I've read some stuff on this site which is I think is gross, short stories which don't seem to offer much besides ugly details, like normal mostly uninteresting stories but with gross stuff instead of normal stuff. Then, today, I responded to a post about the book The Exorcist by saying I thought it was a good book. Anyone who has seen or read The Exorcist knows there's some pretty gross stuff in there. I briefly wondered if my sensibilities were somehow phony / miscalculated. I can't claim to hate nasty stuff in books, because I've read books with nasty stuff and liked them (McCarthy, Mishima.)
I suppose if The Exorcist was full of nasty shit on every single page, I wouldn't have liked it. In fact, I'm sure of it. I thought it might be a matter of degree: how much nasty stuff is there and how nasty is that stuff?
Or perhaps it's a ratio: the proportion of nasty stuff to regular stuff. If it's all nasty, it's monotonous and without contrast.
But maybe people like that, like music which is predominantly dissonant. (Though harmonic dissonance is not really analogous to extreme violence in any way but the abstract.) If the world is inverted can't the nasty be the norm and the "normal" stuff become the "Aha!" moments?
I don't have an agenda. I think people should read and write what they want. I'm just curious what people think about extremity in writing. Do you have a theory behind it? Do you just write what you like? What you think other people want? Are there things which cannot be communicated without intensity of sensation?
Please sound off.
I personally don't care for nastiness (as you put it) without purpose. Just for the sake of it. If there will be something gross, I want it to be there for a reason.
For every detailed description of violence, a writer must by law have at least 5 coherent ideas.
It could also be that on here you are seeing rough/early drafts so the author hasn't figured out how to show the point in a way that is easily visible yet. I know I've had a few works that are fairly gross that didn't seem to convey the point I was getting at very well. When that happens all you see is the disturbing parts.
Good point, Dwayne.
Thank you.
Yeah, I think that's all reasonable.
For me, it's definitely about using it for a purpose. I don't like nasty for the sake of nasty. I don't read splatterpunk. I've read some gross stuff, and a lot of it has been borderline for me. If used well, then great, but it should be the dot on the exclamation point, not the line. I'm not shy, nor am I shy about writing "gross" stuff (my horror piece was at least somewhat gross, and I'm almost curious if mine was one of the stories you were talking about, JY, since people defnitely seemed to think I buried the point a bit too deeply), but I'm not one of those people who believes absolutely that you always have to pan the camera in as close as possible and never flinch. That depends completely upon the story. Don't be a bloody wimp, but if your story doesn't demand anything so awful, don't force it. Grossness doesn't confer anything to your story but grossness, and your average person isn't seeking that for its own sake. It's how you use it that matters.
I do think way too many people use it as an attempt to cover up the lack of substance. Like... okay, my story sucks, but let me write this super-detailed orgy of gore because I'll amaze people with my literary awfulness or my knowledge of anatomy. It doesn't work and probably makes the story even cheaper than it would have been otherwise.
I'll admit, sometimes I like the raw, visceral elements of an intense story, or the erection-inducing crescendo of a 'blow-by-blow' sex scene. What pushes that sort of thing into a negative place for me is when it a.) doesn't fit in with the story, or has no necessity within the plot, or b.) is just implausible.
I've seen and done some pretty insanely violent things in life, and I have a decent grasp on what is physically possible, and when a fight scene or dismemberment description goes into unreality, I tend to get annoyed. Some authors cross their fingers and hope the reader hasn't been where the author is taking a story. Some of us have, and those of us who've come back from such places find it insulting when you try to fake it.
With that said, let the blood and cum rain! (But damnit, make it believable and imperative.)
@ MJR - No, the only story of yours I read was pretty good. I remember thinking it should be shorter, but not that it was overly gruesome or anything. EDIT - I think I suggested fewer cursewords, because they were unnecessary and somewhat contrary to the tone, not because they were "nasty."
too many people use it as an attempt to cover up the lack of substance
I don't know if it's conscious or not. I'd like to think if someone was aware they were bullshitting, if they knew they were writing a crap story, they would just not do it, but I'm sort of an idiot-optimist like that sometimes.
The Exorcist definitely had a compelling plot and a fair amount of intellectual dissection throughout (in the book). The nasty stuff was shocking, but wasn't there to cover anything, but rather to illustrate the real horror of what the people around Regan were experiencing, and what was happening to Regan herself. A lot of what was good about that story would have been lost if Blatty had toned that down.
And I agree with the initial point. Gross/shock for the sake of it is tiring, but if there's a point to it, if it adds to what is already a good story, then I'm all for it.
Pssh. I like torture porn and porn torture, and everyone else should as well. Don't be such a sissy.
haha - What I do like is honesty.
I mentioned Mishima who not only wrote a story about a guy committing ritual self-disembowelment in some detail, but did himself like that some years later, complete with assisted decapitation afterwards. I have wondered if the fact that I thought that was a good story but don't at all like "torture porn" is somehow incongruous, like my perception of Mishima as a world-renowned literary figure colors my thoughts on his story, even though I would never want to read the novel equivalent of Saw.
Or maybe he actually was that good.
Meh. Who knows.
Gross without reason is as bad to me as when a writer turns away from something gross and doesn't show me. I want honest. If it's gross, gross me out. If it's not, then don't add it just to be shocking.
But I write horsefucking stories, so who the hell am I to talk.
Not to be mean, but what was the point of that one? I read it hoping for something and it just seemed like it was a really unfair indictment of people who don't like their job. That or supper sick porn.
What was the point of that one?
I do wonder if my stories are under the context of "nasty". Personally, I feel that my stuff balances the difference between kitsh guilty pleasure fiction and literary fiction. Perhaps others don't feel the same way, but you know, you write what you like. And I like some hot sex scenes; they're just hard to find beause they're usually cheesy and badly written.
That said, I think sex, gore, violence, whathaveyou can work in a story for a hightened effect. Just has to be nicely inserted. Ahem.
"Nicely inserted" sort of sums it all up. In so many ways.
It has to have a purpose, whether it's graphic sex or graphic violence. I think Jack Ketchum does a good job of being violent with a reason. He wants you to react, to get angry, side with the vigilantes, usually. Sex, the same thing. I think Bret Easton Ellis has written some good sex scenes. Again it needs to be there for a reason, to create a bond between you and the characters, so you sympathize, relate, or transfer yourself, living vicariously.
This is what makes me want to write. Extreme Porn Trial (sfw).
From the article:
an expert witness utter the immortal words: "It may take some time for someone to take a whole arm into their rectum."
Right from the title, I knew this was a must-participate thread. Congrats Hoppie, interesting issue.
What are the limits of gross? A fresh example came to my mind as soon as I got into the header.
My job is currently about finding local music bands for a venue. My boss is interested in any genre, as long as the act doesn't mean an expense for the management exceeding, say, $200. In short, I must provide non-pro and semi-pro musicians which are capable of entertaining (not annoying) an audience of 300/800 dining guests.
Last night, the gig was great. It were these plastic pop kids with drums, guitar, bass and electro track. They showed up on time for set up and sound check, it all went smooth (the venue's got no sound engineer, so musicians must take care of all the tech themselves). These kids didn't miss a beat, equalization was nearly perfect, singer had a warm voice, and their music (own songs) pulled tempo like an interstate train.
Problem nr. 1: It was a local, emerging band. Not famous.
Problem nr. 2: The band never showed on telly.
Problem nr. 3: Customers in the venue are random ordinary folks of all kinds.
Consequence: Not a bloody applause from the public.
Now, how do I link this event with the topic at discussion?
One word: PAIN
The pain three musicians felt after musical studies, rehearsals, creative process, rehearsals again, travel to the venue, performance for almost no money, and - the horror - no applause.
We all know artists live for that bloody applause, don't we?
Then, the pain the arts director (and some of the staff) suffered after engaging a band for almost no money, after telling them: "Look, we can't really pay you, but I swear you'll have a great time playing at our place," after setting up stage with the band and sound checking all afternoon.
My point is: how would I, as an author, effectively express this pain through words on paper?
My answer is: a good allegory.
Pain, the way I experience it, is definitely gross. We feel pain for an exposed, gory wound, or for psychological abuse, or physical. It's all gross.
So, I don't know, probably in my fictional transposition of the event, someone from the audience would approach the art director with a simple, mindless sentence, like: "It would be great if one of those singers from Glee could sing here, instead of these Whothenames".
At this point, the pain of the art director can only be expressed by her gastric juices spraying on the face of the customer, right? I mean, it's gross, but I cannot express that pain with the director replying something on the lines of : "Yes, sir, if you would like to pay a $50 entrance fee, sir, of course, sir".
The readers would understand, but they wouldn't see. Right?
By the way, I haven't literally puked on that customer's face last night.
As long as something is not written for the sake of shock value (as several things I've read on this site seem to be), I think nasty is okay. Just how nasty or grotesque a work is allowed to be should be based on how original and well-written it is. This is a painfully obvious example, but consider "Guts".
I don't think the right to be grotesque lies in creativity. Good writers use nastiness to drive home a point. In my opinion, this is where Palahniuk fails. I didn't think Guts was all that great or creative. I'm going to use a broad brush to make my point here, but I think everyone had heard horror stories of drains and mom finding sex toys and other terrible ways masturbation can go wrong by the time they read Guts.
The fact that Palahniuk wrote it and promoted it as actual literature was the difference. My biggest complaint with him is that his gore rarely serves a point.
The best way to illustrate this is by pitting Surivor against Stephen King's Under the Dome. Both novels demonstrated the hollowness of religion and the horror of being left behind. They both confronted what happens when God walks away. The thing is, King did it much, much better.
Survivor made the point by turning the world on its head. It was a perverse mockery of what life is like, and that's why it worked. It was so blatant and obvious that if you didn't get it by the time spoiler alert Tender bashes Adam's brain in under the shadow of the crucifix, you certainly got it then. end spoiler alert
Under the Dome, though, is so clever and subtle that you won't notice it if you just read the book. I used it for a god in modern literature presentation -- along with Survivor -- because spoiler alert the aliens who caused the dome to fall were King's representation of god. end spoiler alert
The entire book was a study of what happens when people are left to rule themselves without any responsibility to a higher power. But it's so deeply hidden in the book that you don't realize it because of the novel, you realize it because of a coincidence that relates religion to the book. There's murder, rape, destruction, corruption, you name it -- but it's vastly more successful than Survivor because the message doesn't bludgeon you in the face.
I like Palahniuk. His novels are entertaining. They're a poor guide to when to use nastiness, though. Nastiness should highlight a point, give you a different perspective, enhance the reading experience; it shouldn't be the main literary device employed.
I just want to say again:
"It may take some time for someone to take a whole arm into their rectum."
Man, I wish I had come up with that line.
There's this little Bolano novella called Antwerp which has a bit about fisting/arming. When I read it I was like, "Huh?" What purpose did it serve? That's debatable, of course. Odd anal insertions are weird. The description in Antwerp was far from vivid; the author simply stated that it was happening, but didn't go into great detail; it was not salacious. That whole book was pretty non-linear. This paragraph is pretty non-linear. It probably shouldn't be written this way. Then again, an imaginary line can be drawn between any two-or-more points; only real lines have natural limits. Some people don't truly understand the difference between a real line and an imaginary line; some people do, or could, but don't care; and sometimes it depends not on the person, but on the lines.
And then I remembered why the fisting was in there, along with a silly drawing of a boat on some waves.
It may take some time for an imaginary line to be drawn in a rectum and find its own limit.
EDIT: god, I wish the twitter flashme! contest was still up.
The rectum, as is well known among the tribes of the sub-Saharan regions, is an excellent alternative to the womb.
You mean, like, it's a good place to keep eggs?
You can get pretty far pretty quick as long as you're not too worried about what you might fish out of there.
In sub-Sahara they can make men preggo in the arse?
The question is redundant, still it's bizarre how I don't feel like Captain Obvious at this moment.
[Subscription is about to expire, so I made this public; no other reason.]
I'm no fan of gratuitous anything in literature; graphic depictions of violence and sex without context, honesty or point is no different than a rant. It's why I find Burroughs a total fraud.
I haven't read much Burroughs. Some of it really isn't graphic at all, and pretty funny. But there's a point of perspective from which literally anything can be seen as gratuitous. One could hold the opinion that the things which are technically unnecessary are what make literature interesting; without some kind of style, we would simply be writing and reading "facts."
Nothing that had been mentioned comes even close to Hogg.
Hogg by Samuel R. Delaney has been the only book that I have ever read that while reading I just couldn't grasp why and what he was trying to convey with the graphic gang rape, shit eating, incest, child molestation, urine drinking, nechrophlia, the list goes on and on. I am pretty sure there is some sort of shocking act on every single page of that book. After I read it I actually had to write down my feelings about it because it is truly disturbing. I don't think in hindsight it was written without merit, I think the merit is in making someone think. It was written with hostility towards heterosexuals in a time where the author felt homosexually repressed. What I took from it was how twisted a mind can become from prolonged sexual abuse. Sometimes an abused individual seeks out abuse and sometimes they are the ones that give it. This is a story of two of those people finding each other. What I wrote in my journal was the word 'Nothing'. That feeling of being nothing, not worthy of anything, but willing to do anything for the nothing to go away. But when you find yourself with something, and you feel unworthy, you will still end up with nothing.
Well I could keep going on about what revelations I came away with from reading the book but the point I'm trying to make is, Hogg is complete filth, but in being so it made a significant and lasting impression on me.
I think about this level of nasty right or wrong issue a lot, I'm in a rewriting class called The Next Draft with an instructor named Johnny Shaw. In terms of ideas about writing and particularly its structural concerns it has been a great experience, and I'm deriving some of my answer in my internal debate from how our instructor continually stresses the fusion of theme-story-character. It's really getting it from the character objectives, and from empathetic priorities i think not the high falutin' authorial ones. Character most of all, makes a great horror or sex-centered film, or unfortunately the hybrid when both exist at the same address, and then it seems all the violent horrors that go on of course have much of their basis in sexuality, like it or not, and in the male its that whole narcissitic conquistador thing, and in the female it's something i'll need to spend another half century or so calculating, from my apparently limited point of view.
But when I think about the very best but also horrifying things out there (especially Exorcist, Silence of the Lambs, Fight Club, all three of which I think, and not so coincidentally, translated so perfectly to the screen) I think of that combination of great characters and fantastically overwelming circumstances where good and where evil are just mixing it up right through. So from this class, I'm thinking all the time, what is the best way in my present work for its horrifyingly graphic thinga to fuse to my intention and more importantly to the character's and their story. I think all of those books succeed so wildly and then again as movies because of their so well drawn good forces, (Merrin/Karras/Chris McNeil, Clarice Starling/Jack Crawford, Tyler Derdin/Cinderella) and the absolutely overwhelming intensity of what they are up against.
I think in my books case, I'm learning the importance of the way my book's disturbing accelerates near the end. It's due to the protagonist who I struggle, as mentioned by Stacy above, to continue the job of making him into a real man rather than some eggheaded distant subject. So a thwarted, otherwise jobless horror writer, descending into the hallucinatory depths of misogyny after failure after failure is going to hafe some really bad and no doubt pecker-driven things on his mind. His insanity picks up speed once his wife informs him she is pregnant for a third time late in life. The pages leading up to the end which seems to be panning out with an element of the redemptive, are so disturbing I hesitate to post them to the point I'd think I ought to take the stand and defend myself to all women and the men who love them first,
Because it's third person moving from weirdly limited, camera going from (often stupid flights that need to be cut) then the camera drawing back and abstracting to some hopefully subject integrated by nature omniscient flights, since the sick between men and women and particularly the male aspect is my present subject. So then at other times, the camera is nearly fused to the protagonist's depths, and drawing the red, Martian world from the inside out. Satiric explanations can drip in from what's happening, or i would hope. Anyway clearly I could go on. But i need to go to work on laconic, so let me not do that. Thanks for the interesting thread. TD
- I wrote a story where a guy kills a guy: it was about sexual desires.
- I wrote a story where a guy has sex with a guy: it was about violent instincts.
Okay. Why not?
___________________________________
Today I saw a scan of the Hans Holbein illustrations for Erasmus's Praise of Folly. There's a picture of a fat, bald man/child suckling an apparently male goat. Sixteenth century. (Unless someone added that picture later, but I can believe it is authentic.)
