Have you seen the “Saw” series of films?

Apparently, the very thin plotline runs thus. Insane guy kidnaps people and implants various nasty things into their boldies and the only way to escape ios for them to rip various bits from their bodies. I haven’t watched them nor will I. Violence for its own sake may be fine for some but it doesn’t make up for a decent plot.

So where do we draw the line?

Each to his own, the “cosies” of the thirties didn’t need to describe injuries, it was enough for the detective to announce “the Colonel was strangled by his own bootlace,” or somethiong similar. Now, in these days of TV and DVD offerings, are audiences getting to sophisticated for the cosy method. I think not.

Look at any modern crime novel and you will see that injuries are described after the event, either at the autopsy or the Police briefing and trhis is the way it should be. We crime writers don’t want to titilate our audience, neither should we be in the business of providing sexual gratification for any teisted mind that happens to be inside of one of our readers.

Justice must triumph.

We need to generate a senser of loathing for both the criminal and his deeds or our readership may not appreciate our efforts.

There is nothing wrong in getting inside the mind of opur perpetrator and exploring his feelings as he plans and excecutes his crime. Ruth Rendell’s Thirteen Steps Down is a magnificent example of psychological plotting. We know Mix is going to kill someone, the questions are where and when and who is the victim going to be?

So beware of too much descriptive violence, it could be your undoing.

Popularity: 13% [?]