The Mystery, Crime, and Thriller Group discussion

Hello all, my name is AC Kavich. I'm a rabid reader (well beyond avid) and a writer of YA fiction. I'd love to introduce myself with a question:

Do thrillers have to include violence to be "thrilling"?

I have no issue with violent content in books or movies, but in my own writing I've often felt that violent content can be a crutch.

I know this group will have a lot to say on the matter. Thanks in advance for your input!

AC

I don't think so. I think you can create that sense of suspense and tenseness without it resolving in violence. In fact, I think stories that leave a lot to your imagination, without resorting to graphic anything, can be more effective.

Thanks K.A. Are there particular books or movies that you think are highly suspenseful without overt violence?

I agree that a thriller doesn't need to be violent. Foreshadowing and other techniques can make for edge-of-the-seat tension. Also, much of the "violence" can be behind the scenes. I can't think of any books right now that qualify but sure would like a list. I write police procedural thrillers (first one out last February - The Hierophant) and the action is behind the scenes, except for the very last scene. Even in movies, I prefer subtlety instead of loud booming music. I think it's lots scarier.

Joan

Thanks Joan, you make great points... The question first occurred to me from a screenwriting perspective (I dabble in that medium as well). While you can get away with foreshadowing violence and postponing violence for quite some time, the rules of the genre seem to dictate an eventual "payoff".

Does it have to be that way? In theory, no. But like you, I can't think of any examples of a thriller - either a book or a movie - that contain no violence (explicit or implied).

AC

If I ever come across such an example, I will be sure to post it here. I recall seeing a thriller a while ago-I think it was a couple years-and wondered why they had loud music whenever something bad was going to happen. I would have been more scared if it had been subtle. But then, I'm from a different generation.

Joan

John le Carre is one of my favorite writers... not that I'm alone in that! You're certainly correct that in many of his books - and in many scenes within his books - he successfully builds up a tremendous amount of tension without resorting to violence.

Your reference to Hitchcock brings up an interesting tangent for this conversation... psychological violence.

I agree that Hitchcock is probably the ultimate example of psychological suspense in movies, very little overt violence, incredible tension.

Authors can do the same thing, though the current trend does seem to trend to the slasher/blood-splashed graphic detail line for some reason.

The author that comes to my mind as being one of the best with 'suggestive violence' is not strictly mystery, but more along the mystery/gothic/paranormal line. There are several of Barbara Michael's books that were more or less gothic romance but set in modern times ... then in the 70s, roughly ... that contained almost no graphic descriptions of any violence, but the tension was incredible.

Geoffrey wrote: "...and I guess that like any violence, psychological violence can become gratuitous, too. Hitchcock had the unique ability for scaring the willies out of everyone without graphic detail; even in P..."

Hitchcock was the first that came to my mind as well.

In an interview with the director or producer (don't recall which) of Marathon Man, apparently the dental scene was more graphic but people were getting up and leaving the theater because it made them queasy or so upset that they couldn't watch the movie. The scene was changed to imply the torture rather than actually show it. I think messing around with things like going to the dentist or taking a shower - things we all do as a normal part of life - make people feel more vulnerable.

I completely agree with Geoffrey, Susan & all who will give you a NO. Hitchcock, exactly. Messing with peoples minds and the FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN! Instant trigger of the fight of flight response. Can you say "ADRENALINE":{

I have sometimes thought that the authors who are the most talented with using language to evoke mood, regardless of what kind of mood, are the ones who can induce fear/tension without resorting to *chain-saw* graphic language.

The authors who tend not to have this facile use of language are the ones who use the graphic language and description to make up for that lack.

"Suspense" is a different genre than "thriller."

Suspense lives on the implication of moral, economic or physical harm. The threat can often be answered by mental exertion. There's no requirement for physical action or realized violence.

Thrillers, on the other hand, usually involve either an explicit mortal threat which the protagonists have to confront, or a chase after something of huge import that brings out the violent tendencies of those involved in the chase. In either case, physical action and imminent or realized physical violence are part of the definition.

LeCarre never wrote thrillers; he writes suspense and intrigue. Hitchcock filmed both suspense (Vertigo, Rope) and thrillers (The 39 Steps, North by Northwest, The Birds). Tension does not a thriller make; I doubt anyone would consider Pride and Prejudice a thriller, but it has plenty of social, economic and romantic tension.

Since A.C. asked about thrillers, I'll have to answer "yes." Violence is a feature of the genre. Good ones also have suspense and tension, but violence is at the root of them all.

Lance wrote: ""Suspense" is a different genre than "thriller."

Suspense lives on the implication of moral, economic or physical harm. The threat can often be answered by mental exertion. There's no requirement..."

thanks for explaining the difference

That's a really helpful distinction, Lance. Thank you!