Advice/Help I'm Facing A Writing Dilemma

[ChrisReaper]

I really feel like this is all because you simply didn't mention that the Heralds would be DEAD characters, and would just be referenced. I still feel like if you'd included that in your first post you wouldn't have people getting on you about this. I also have one point of contention with your idea, and that's that, to me, it seems like you are excusing the actions of the real serial killers by pinning the blame on fictional monsters. I personally believe that you can't just excuse real peoples actions by claiming that a monster made them do it. It would be more interesting if you created your own characters and had THOSE characters be manipulated and controlled by the monsters, instead of what you are wanting to do. It could and would probably be seen as insensitive to many people, even those who weren't affected personally by the actions that the serial killers did.

Well again, not giving away to much of the plot. But no, I'm not excusing these characters' actions at all. Within the context of the story, these characters are not even aware that they are part of an ancient prophecy. They have been branded by an ancient evil force, but not influenced by it. They all have perfect free wills to make a choice, and they made the wrong ones. The Old Ones didn't make them do it, that decision was all them and cannot be pinned on dark cosmic deities. So no, the story doesn't absolve them of their crimes, it emphasizes the fact that even though they had free will to choose, they still decided to go on a dark path. In fact, the second set of Blood Prophets, the Harbingers, after finding out their role in the Necronomicon Prophecy, decide to actively oppose Cthulhu and his disciples, vowing to stop his return. So their is an element of redemption in the story, even though the characters realize that even saving all of mankind from annihilation will not excuse them from their past crimes. Secondly, even if I did decide to use the whole "the devil made me do it" motif, I certainly wouldn't be the first one to do so. Dexter is a prime example of this. Throughout the entirety of the show, the main character continuously blames his "Dark Passenger" an unseen, shadowy evil that Dexter claims is responsible for his homicidal urges. The character almost never takes responsibility for his own actions, even though he use his murderous impulses for good and channels his blood lust into only killing other serial killers...and again a very successful television show.

 

[Delinquent]

Well as plot devices, their importance is very significant to the story itself, as they are part of the prophecy. But they will not be active participants in the story itself. So yes, the Heralds are simply a bunch of references as these characters are very much dead.

That should be fine, but it depends a lot on how you handle it.

Also, why did you even bother to post this question in the first place? Seems to me like you've already deicided that this isn't insensitive considering how you respond to people telling you it is.

 

[ChrisReaper]

That should be fine, but it depends a lot on how you handle it.

Also, why did you even bother to post this question in the first place? Seems to me like you've already deicided that this isn't insensitive considering how you respond to people telling you it is.

I decided no such thing, again just correcting others assumptions and stating facts on what other movies and television series have already done.

 

[smolfluffball]

Well again, not giving away to much of the plot. But no, I'm not excusing these characters' actions at all. Within the context of the story, these characters are not even aware that they are part of an ancient prophecy. They have been branded by an ancient evil force, but not influenced by it. They all have perfect free wills to make a choice, and they made the wrong ones. The Old Ones didn't make them do it, that decision was all them and cannot be pinned on dark cosmic deities. So no, the story doesn't absolve them of their crimes, it emphasizes the fact that even though they had free will to choose, they still decided to go on a dark path. In fact, the second set of Blood Prophets, the Harbingers, after finding out their role in the Necronomicon Prophecy, decide to actively oppose Cthulhu and his disciples, vowing to stop his return. So their is an element of redemption in the story, even though the characters realize that even saving all of mankind from annihilation will not excuse them from their past crimes. Secondly, even if I did decide to use the whole "the devil made me do it" motif, I certainly wouldn't be the first one to do so. Dexter is a prime example of this. Throughout the entirety of the show, the main character continuously blames his "Dark Passenger" an unseen, shadowy evil that Dexter claims is responsible for his homicidal urges. The character almost never takes responsibility for his own actions, even though he use his murderous impulses for good and channels his blood lust into only killing other serial killers...and again a very successful television show.

This!! Sounds like a very interesting idea!! Thank you for addressing my concern, as it was really what was bugging me the most, but I still think it'd be in your best interest to make your own characters. It's always fascinating when people create murderers or serial killers, because then people can analyze them and figure out why they did what they did. Plus, it could give you more depth into your world and your prophecy - maybe everyone who was a Herald had something similar happen to them before, which led them down their path. It could open so many different doors and options that you could go down, if you choose to make your own characters!

 

[ChrisReaper]

This!! Sounds like a very interesting idea!! Thank you for addressing my concern, as it was really what was bugging me the most, but I still think it'd be in your best interest to make your own characters. It's always fascinating when people create murderers or serial killers, because then people can analyze them and figure out why they did what they did. Plus, it could give you more depth into your world and your prophecy - maybe everyone who was a Herald had something similar happen to them before, which led them down their path. It could open so many different doors and options that you could go down, if you choose to make your own characters!

Well thanks dude and I do appreciate your input...but do you now realize how people should not assume things. True I should've clarified a little better, but that's no excuse for other people to outright lose their shit because of some pre conceived assumptions they made about a story...and if your unsure about something, than ask me or any other author to clarify. I understand you did this but most others didn't. But again, thanks for your critique, at least I know there are still some rational people still in the world.

 

[WINCE]

These Blood Prophets are all heinous mass murderers and serial killers.

[...] they represent true and primal evil, an evil that might be present in all of us.

They all have perfect free wills to make a choice, and they made the wrong ones. [...] that even though they had free will to choose, they still decided to go on a dark path.

I would be supportive of such ambitions, but this theme is easily insensitive and just bad philosophy IMO. Bundy, if you're using him as inspiration, could only do what he did because he was mentally ill. You can not be pathologically sound and still commit acts of "true and primal evil" such as the viscerally cruel, violent and perverted acts that he committed.

 

[ChrisReaper]

I would be supportive of such ambitions, but this theme is easily insensitive and just bad philosophy IMO. Bundy, if you're using him as inspiration, could only do what he did because he was mentally ill. You can not be pathologically sound and still commit acts of "true and primal evil" such as the viscerally cruel, violent and perverted acts that he committed.

...and once again I must clear up assumptions people make. Whoever said I was using Bundy as inspiration or even that I was using him as one of the Prophets?

 

[ChrisReaper]

Just want to point out that ”Once upon a time in Hollywood” did a pretty good job at tackling real life murderers. But the subject is still relevant enough that becomes the focal point. The movie is no longer about the story, it is about giving catharsis to the actual relatives of the victim.

It does not seem like you have something to say about those murders. So why touch it?

Um...huh?

 

[Grey]

I think if the Heralds are historical killers but were not cognizant of their role in the prophecy, that softens the blow a bit. It can lead to mass speculation as to which killers counted as Blood Prophets, with some compelling guesses based on those individuals. Especially if there are some fictional versions thrown in there.

Justifying very human evils with eldritch horror is bad practice, but in a work of fiction, having those evils inadvertently contribute to events is a mite more acceptable.
At that point, it becomes referential rather than pure exploitation. It's definitely not without precedent, but that's not usually an adequate excuse.

That said, I think some really solid points have been made as to why it would be worth avoiding. Can't say I'd be inclined to take this angle; I delve into politics and historical atrocities in my work a lot, but it's always about those things rather than using them.
As a Mythos aficionado myself I'll be very interested to see if this is picked up.

 

[ChrisReaper]

I think if the Heralds are historical killers but were not cognizant of their role in the prophecy, that softens the blow a bit. It can lead to mass speculation as to which killers counted as Blood Prophets, with some compelling guesses based on those individuals. Especially if there are some fictional versions thrown in there.

Justifying very human evils with eldritch horror is bad practice, but in a work of fiction, having those evils inadvertently contribute to events is a mite more acceptable.
At that point, it becomes referential rather than pure exploitation. It's definitely not without precedent, but that's not usually an adequate excuse.

That said, I think some really solid points have been made as to why it would be worth avoiding. Can't say I'd be inclined to take this angle; I delve into politics and historical atrocities in my work a lot, but it's always about those things rather than using them.
As a Mythos aficionado myself I'll be very interested to see if this is picked up.

Thank you for a somewhat cohesive argument. But again I have to stress, even though it won't be used in my story, the "devil made me do it" trope is a very popular one that is used in Hollywood all the time, and it really isn't a deciding factor on whether or not a product is successful or not. Again, I will use the television show "Dexter" as an example. The show is hugely successful, yet the series is littered with characters who refuse to take responsibility for their own heinous actions. Dexter himself loves to blame his so called Dark Passenger for his murderous behavior, but there other prime examples. The Trinity Killer blames his rampage on his abusive father, even quoting in one episode "You made me do this". In season six, Colin Hanks' character, The Doomsday Killer, blames his killing spree on God, saying that he retains no responsibility for his crimes and that his murders were divinely orchestrated. So you see, characters who place the blame for their evil elsewhere doesn't seem to be bad practice at all, at least from a commercial standpoint.

 

[Grey]

Oh, I wasn't suggesting it would be commercially nonviable. I consider it ethically irresponsible, as a trope, but when has that stopped capital?
Hell, I'd honestly half-expect executives to encourage you to lean-in on the idea.

 

[Crayons]

Thank you for a somewhat cohesive argument. But again I have to stress, even though it won't be used in my story, the "devil made me do it" trope is a very popular one that is used in Hollywood all the time, and it really isn't a deciding factor on whether or not a product is successful or not. Again, I will use the television show "Dexter" as an example. The show is hugely successful, yet the series is littered with characters who refuse to take responsibility for their own heinous actions. Dexter himself loves to blame his so called Dark Passenger for his murderous behavior, but there other prime examples. The Trinity Killer blames his rampage on his abusive father, even quoting in one episode "You made me do this". In season six, Colin Hanks' character, The Doomsday Killer, blames his killing spree on God, saying that he retains no responsibility for his crimes and that his murders were divinely orchestrated. So you see, characters who place the blame for their evil elsewhere doesn't seem to be bad practice at all, at least from a commercial standpoint.

Characters placing the blame for their own evil elsewhere is different from the fictional universe saying that the evil comes from elsewhere. We don't need to believe those characters' observations about themselves because they are likely wrong or delusional. It's different if you are expecting that other root of evil to be literal truth in your world.

It seems to me, based on your response to the replies here that you aren't genuinely interested in receiving feedback and only want people to agree with what you've already decided. In which case go right ahead. No one is trying to stop you, only advise you.

 

[ChrisReaper]

Once again, I have to correct people's assumptions

Characters placing the blame for their own evil elsewhere is different from the fictional universe saying that the evil comes from elsewhere. We don't need to believe those characters' observations about themselves because they are likely wrong or delusional. It's different if you are expecting that other root of evil to be literal truth in your world.

It seems to me, based on your response to the replies here that you aren't genuinely interested in receiving feedback and only want people to agree with what you've already decided. In which case go right ahead. No one is trying to stop you, only advise you.

When did I ever say that I was making a distinct decision on the direction to go with these characters? Again your making an assumption based on me simply correcting other people's assumptions about my story...and there is a huge difference between advising someone and trying to force their own emotionally fueled opinions onto other people, like what you and various others have been trying to do here, and all without knowing the full facts. All people have been doing is standing on a self righteous soap box, going on tirades about how what I'm doing is morally bankrupt, even though they don't know the first thing about what I truly intended to do with these characters in the first place. You let your over emotional assumptions cloud any kind of objective viewpoint on what can be potentially be a very engaging story.

 

[zippy]

C'mon guy. It's not like you asked about a random plot point and people randomly started to force morals down your throat. You specifically asked if your idea was insensitive to the families of the victims. This question is a question of morality. People aren't "on a soapbox", they're answering the question the best that they can with the very limited information that they were given. Also, even when you correct people on some things that they've gotten wrong about your plot, it's not that it changes the answer to your question at all. For example, when you say that someone was assuming you're using Bundy, that was just an example of one of several serial killers you can choose to pull from. Finally, I don't know why you specified "objective viewpoint". The question is subjective in nature, I'm unsure what "objectivity" you expect to get out of it.

 

[ChrisReaper]

C'mon guy. It's not like you asked about a random plot point and people randomly started to force morals down your throat. You specifically asked if your idea was insensitive to the families of the victims. This question is a question of morality. People aren't "on a soapbox", they're answering the question the best that they can with the very limited information that they were given. Also, even when you correct people on some things that they've gotten wrong about your plot, it's not that it changes the answer to your question at all. For example, when you say that someone was assuming you're using Bundy, that was just an example of one of several serial killers you can choose to pull from. Finally, I don't know why you specified "objective viewpoint". The question is subjective in nature, I'm unsure what "objectivity" you expect to get out of it.

Listen "guy" since when did it become common practice to get so emotionally riled over something without having all the facts? If your unsure about something, you ask, correct? Well a majority of these people didn't do that, including yourself might I add. Not to mention the fact that people were mixing their emotions about morality with the commercial viability of having such a plot point in a fictional piece of media. That's were you get your objective standpoint...get it now "guy"?

 

[ashwynne]

Gonna say in advance that everyone needs to take a breath and calm down, no need to escalate this with heightened emotions.

You can't really be justifiably upset when people simply comment on the questions you asked. You posed three of them in the OP:
1. Concern about whether using historical serial killers is insensitive to the families of victims
2. Should you write your own serial killers
3. Is the validity of the idea dependent on context

Based on the background you gave within your post, nobody has been on a soapbox, just answering the questions you yourself asked. It's not very fair to get worked up with people and accuse them of making assumptions when you were the one who left out pertinent details that might clear this up. If it bothers you that much, I'd suggest adding some more info to the OP... although I doubt it'll change many people's perspectives on the matter. It's a fairly cut and dry question and people are going to feel strongly about it one way or another.

As far as my perspective goes... I agree that using real serial killers in media is morally reprehensible and will always be insensitive to the families of victims. In any capacity. However, there's a current fascination with them that makes it very marketable and I can almost guarantee that it would be an interesting selling point as opposed to a deterrent. The number of people impacted by these killers actions are, after all, far less than those of your potential audience.

So! The answer to your first question is incredibly cut and dry: YES, it is insensitive. There's no world in which it isn't and you CANNOT get around that. The more pertinent question is whether that is enough of a basis for you not to include them and that's going to be a personal choice only you can make.

People find serial killers fascinating. I find the idea of using them in this context to be interesting, myself, but that doesn't mean it's not morally reprehensible. Giving attention to men (and women) who killed a great number of people glorifies them and "keeps them alive" in a way that I'm sure would delight THEM if they knew about it. And it also keeps the wounds fresh for the family members who were left behind. So again... using them is a muddy waters sort of thing that's going to come down to a personal choice dependent on what you're comfortable with. No one here can really answer that for you.

Would I personally use them? Nope. Because that's not something I am comfortable promoting and putting my name on--regardless of plot context--and could not do it in good conscience. Would I watch something that included them? Hypocritical as it is... probably. There's a fascination with the macabre and "evil" that I am not immune to either.

 

[ChrisReaper]

Gonna say in advance that everyone needs to take a breath and calm down, no need to escalate this with heightened emotions.

You can't really be justifiably upset when people simply comment on the questions you asked. You posed three of them in the OP:
1. Concern about whether using historical serial killers is insensitive to the families of victims
2. Should you write your own serial killers
3. Is the validity of the idea dependent on context

Based on the background you gave within your post, nobody has been on a soapbox, just answering the questions you yourself asked. It's not very fair to get worked up with people and accuse them of making assumptions when you were the one who left out pertinent details that might clear this up. If it bothers you that much, I'd suggest adding some more info to the OP... although I doubt it'll change many people's perspectives on the matter. It's a fairly cut and dry question and people are going to feel strongly about it one way or another.

As far as my perspective goes... I agree that using real serial killers in media is morally reprehensible and will always be insensitive to the families of victims. In any capacity. However, there's a current fascination with them that makes it very marketable and I can almost guarantee that it would be an interesting selling point as opposed to a deterrent. The number of people impacted by these killers actions are, after all, far less than those of your potential audience.

So! The answer to your first question is incredibly cut and dry: YES, it is insensitive. There's no world in which it isn't and you CANNOT get around that. The more pertinent question is whether that is enough of a basis for you not to include them and that's going to be a personal choice only you can make.

People find serial killers fascinating. I find the idea of using them in this context to be interesting, myself, but that doesn't mean it's not morally reprehensible. Giving attention to men (and women) who killed a great number of people glorifies them and "keeps them alive" in a way that I'm sure would delight THEM if they knew about it. And it also keeps the wounds fresh for the family members who were left behind. So again... using them is a muddy waters sort of thing that's going to come down to a personal choice dependent on what you're comfortable with. No one here can really answer that for you.

Would I personally use them? Nope. Because that's not something I am comfortable promoting and putting my name on--regardless of plot context--and could not do it in good conscience. Would I watch something that included them? Hypocritical as it is... probably. There's a fascination with the macabre and "evil" that I am not immune to either.

So I'm responsible for other people's assumptions is basically what your saying. If people are unclear about something it's their responsibility to ask for clarification. Furthermore I'm not responsible for people's strong emotions on the matter either. If people find it insensitive, that's fine...all they had to do was say " Yes it might come across as insensitive, maybe it would be better to use fictional characters instead." But did most of these people do that, no they didn't. You even admitted that people's emotions got the best of them and it showed, telling me how morally wrong I was for even considering using historical figures in such a "reprehensible" way as you put it. If that's not getting on a soapbox, I don't know what is.

 

[WINCE]

...and once again I must clear up assumptions people make. Whoever said I was using Bundy as inspiration or even that I was using him as one of the Prophets?

You ignored my point. What I'm trying to say is... there are serial killers and mass murderers in history who were mentally ill. They partly or entirely could not have done what they did without being pathologically unsound. To depict a character like that (as heinous as their actions), then run the narrative that what they did was 100% their own free will and that they morally failed is a big yikes. Be aware of mental health. To clarify, I'm not claiming that you ARE doing this, as I don't know what your characters look like. I'm simply giving advice.

 

[ChrisReaper]

You ignored my point. What I'm trying to say is... there are serial killers and mass murderers in history who were mentally ill. They partly or entirely could not have done what they did without being pathologically unsound. To depict a character like that (as heinous as their actions), then run the narrative that what they did was 100% their own free will and that they morally failed is a big yikes. Be aware of mental health. To clarify, I'm not claiming that you ARE doing this, as I don't know what your characters look like. I'm simply giving advice.

Yes, there are murderers who are mentally ill, but there are many more who are perfectly sane. Interestingly enough, many serial killers are classified as clinical psychopaths. Psychopathy in and of itself is not a mental illness, it is the lack of ability to feel empathy or compassion. But getting back on topic, what I'm getting from your statements is you feel that mental illness somehow exonerates people from their actions?

 

[WINCE]

Yes, there are murderers who are mentally ill, but there are many more who perfectly sane. Interestingly enough, many serial killers are classified as clinical psychopaths. Psychopathy in and of itself is not a mental illness, it is the lack of ability to feel empathy or compassion. But getting back on topic, what I'm getting from your statements is you feel that mental illness somehow exonerates people from their actions?

 

[ChrisReaper]

LoL, I wasn't trying to bait you dude, I was asking an honest question.

 

[MadiRaiCat]

You might consider looking into these references. Good luck in making your decisions!

-"Handbook of Psychopathy" edited by Christopher J. Patrick (particularly Chapter 12 by Thomas A. Widiger and Cristina Crego): Handbook of Psychopathy, Second Edition
-"Neuroscience and Legal Responsibility" edited by Nicole A. Vincent (particularly Chapter 10 by Thomas Nadelhoffer and Walter P. Sinnott-Armstrong): http://dl.booktolearn.com/ebooks2/s...ce_and_legal_responsibility_e4dd.pdf#page=238