Serial killer novels?

[Dogmatix]

You seem to have a very limited view of what a serial killer is, Doug. The murders that such a killer commits does not have to be graphic; his vision, I would suspect, is rarely graphic. Although your explicit what he sees may bring some suspicion on you as others can only speculate as to what a serial killer sees.

Based on extensive psychological studies, the crimes they commit are about as mundane as walking the dog or feeding the fish and their is nothing graphic about them. Someone looking for a thrill may find much to get a stiffy at in a graphic murder but for, say, Dennis Nilsen, it was just a case of drug, strangle, and love. I doubt he would have found the eventual dismemberment of his dead boyfriends as anything other than a chore that he had to do, no more graphic than watering the flowers.

In recent years, British doctor Harold Shipman was hardly shredding his elderly victims and f****** the viscera like, say, Jeffrey Dahmer did on occasion with the dismembered bodies of his seventeen victims. Dahmer, a keen photographer, liked a few morsels to chew, but he preferred to toss his victims in a barrel of acid and let them compose. Just like taking the garbage out.

This is frightening things about serial killers, how ungraphic they are. That Carl Panzram or Henry Lee Lucas could just torture, rape and murder a woman and move on without remorse. That Joseph Vacher could knife somebody giving it as much thought as it takes to breathe. That Peter Sutcliffe could batter prostitutes' heads in with his hammer and then go into work the next day. That Ed Kemper could shoot his grandparents and say "I just wanted to know what it would be like to shoot grandma!"

I would say that getting inside the mind of a serial killer is not about being graphic, but about showing how different they are in their indifference to the morals we, as a society, take for granted.

That all sounds pretty graphic to me. Wouldn't the term graphic refer to the reader's experience?

 

[Stewart]

That all sounds pretty graphic to me. Wouldn't the term graphic refer to the reader's experience?

Not to Doug Johnson, to whom I was responding. He wrote that what the serial killer sees is graphic, practically meaning that he's obsessed with the thrill of cutting people open and probably masturbating on the scar while giggling like a schoolgirl.

 

[Dogmatix]

Not to Doug Johnson, to whom I was responding. He wrote that what the serial killer sees is graphic, practically meaning that he's obsessed with the thrill of cutting people open and probably masturbating on the scar while giggling like a schoolgirl.

I understand your point about the POV of the serial killer. However if it is written down and I read it I would describe what I am reading as graphic. The killer may find the act mundane or routine, as you say taking out the garbage, but the act itself remains, IMO, graphic.

What I really find disturbing is stories about female serial killers, something like 2% of the "serial killer" population. Strange, horrifying and intriguing all at once. Just can't imagine a woman as a serial killer, but they are certainly out there.

 

[Stewart]

I understand your point about the POV of the serial killer. However if it is written down and I read it I would describe what I am reading as graphic. The killer may find the act mundane or routine, as you say taking out the garbage, but the act itself remains, IMO, graphic.

In Thomas Harris' The Silence Of The Lambs, Hannibal Lector talks about how he ate a census taker's liver with some fava beans and a big Amarone. Admittedly not from Lector's point of view but the fact that he says this rather than "I chopped him up, dipped my hands in, pulled out his pulpy liver with blood dripping everywhere, etc.. etc..." shows how he takes his cannibalism for granted. He's not out to shock. From a killer's point of view, you are more likely to get "I cut his throat and then put my socks on" rather than a page by page description of each necessary action about the murder in the most mundane of recollections. He's more likely to spend ten pages talking about putting his socks on.

What I really find disturbing is stories about female serial killers, something like 2% of the "serial killer" population. Strange, horrifying and intriguing all at once. Just can't imagine a woman as a serial killer, but they are certainly out there.

Aileen Wuornos is probably the most famous, although Belle Gunness stakes her claims as one of the most prolific female serial killers.

 

[Dogmatix]

I have some fava beans in my fridge right now. I wonder how they'll go with plain old roasted chicken

 

[steffee]

This thread is gruesome. I don't know about the graphic descriptions, or the graphic acts or whatever, but this thread is getting there.

 

[Stewart]

This thread is gruesome.

Eh?

How so?

 

[abecedarian]

Eh?

How so?

Maybe its all the talk about blood and guts, with drippy parts and all that..

 

[Stewart]

But that's the meatiest part of the topic.

 

[abecedarian]

But that's the meatiest part of the topic.

Would that be rare or well done?

 

[Stewart]

I thought it was particularly well done, given the context.

 

[abecedarian]

I thought it was particularly well done, given the context.

You bet. The quotes were extremely well done. They made it easy to create awful images in my head. Steffee didn't say anything was poorly written, merely graphic.

 

[Doug Johnson]

You seem to have a very limited view of what a serial killer is, Doug. The murders that such a killer commits does not have to be graphic; his vision, I would suspect, is rarely graphic.

I have to disagree strongly. You're confusing lack of empathy with signature.

Dismemberment can be a way to dispose of a body. Mobsters do it. When Tony Soprano disposes of a body, in parts, it's interesting because he loves his family.

Dahmer dismembered people because he enjoyed it. He felt no empathy for his victims, but he enjoyed. Enjoyed it so much that he went out and found another one to dismember. In fact, he admitted that his ultimate fantasy was to create a living zombie: to remove enough of the brain so that the person couldn't speak or think, but would survive, so that Dahmer could have complete and total control over a living human being. It was his ultimate sexual fantasy and his ultimate fantasy in life.

To accurately tell the story of Dahmer's life, from his point of view, you would need to describe in accurate detail all the ways he attempted to create a real life, living zombie and the sexual thrill he received from his efforts. All - as you correctly point out - coldly, without empathy, without a thought to his victims or their families.

an able writer could make it work.

You are correct. I didn't state my complete opinion. I believe it couldn't be done:

a) realistically
b) unless some writer figured out a way to do it.

In literature, rules can always be broken. That's one reason why some books are magical.

Who is to say that some don't feel remorse after they have killed, that they wish that this killing urge would just leave them? If there is no known serial killer like than then make one up - that would be interesting, and it is fiction after all

The most interesting serial killers are the ones who have stopped. BTK stopped for a long time. The Green River Killer stopped. I had a very interesting discussion with an expert on criminal psychology about sexual offenders who repeat their crimes and those that don't. The experts know a lot about who reoffends and who doesn’t.

So a first person story about a serial killer who stopped could work, but even that still somewhat supports my original point; the more time you spent discussing why he stopped, and the less time you spent on the killings, the more enjoyable the story would probably be.

 

[ValkyrieRaven88]

It's not from the POV of the killer, or even fiction, but I REALLY liked Patricia Cornwell's Jack the Ripper: Case Closed non-fiction book. It was very entertaining and I almost forgot it was non-fiction, and it tries to get you into Jack the Ripper's head.

 

[Vespertilio91]

It's not from the POV of the killer, or even fiction, but I REALLY liked Patricia Cornwell's Jack the Ripper: Case Closed non-fiction book. It was very entertaining and I almost forgot it was non-fiction, and it tries to get you into Jack the Ripper's head.

That book was so good! It kind of scared me though. He was evil

 

[Stewart]

I have to disagree strongly. You're confusing lack of empathy with signature.

You always have to disagree. You are, afterall, the guy who thinks the sacred feminine is the theme of The Da Vinci Code and that ions doesn't understand that book.

Dahmer dismembered people because he enjoyed it. He felt no empathy for his victims, but he enjoyed. Enjoyed it so much that he went out and found another one to dismember. In fact, he admitted that his ultimate fantasy was to create a living zombie: to remove enough of the brain so that the person couldn't speak or think, but would survive, so that Dahmer could have complete and total control over a living human being.

No, Dahmer dismembered people because, after his attempts at lobotomy failed, he had to dispose of the body...just like, er, The Sopranos. It was much easier to chop a body up and toss it in the barrel of acid in his bedroom than to put it out for the bin men on Wednesday.

 

[beer good]

Anyone know of any good ones?

Ixnay on American Psycho, the Harris books, and reference books.

I'd prefer if it was from the point of view of the killer.

Getting back on topic, fascinating as this is, I just thought of one and am kicking myself for not thinking of it sooner: "Exquisite Corpse" by Poppy Z Brite. OK, if you're easily disturbed by graphic violence, cannibalism and homosexual acts (not that I'd equate that with the previous two caveats in any way, but some people seem to find that the most offensive thing about it), you'll probably want to give it a miss, but otherwise... really good book.

 

[Stewart]

Exquisite Corpse, as I remember it, was my introduction to Poppy Z. Brite at some point in my teens. I was heavily into horror back then and I may have let that judge my opinion of the novel, but in retrospect I don't know if it was all that good. The opening plot device was extremely far fetched and the later story of the American serial killer dealing with the police as regards the Vietnamese boy was almost a direct lift from the true story of the way Dahmer handled the police that led to the murder of fourteen year old Konarek Simphasomphone.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

So a first person story about a serial killer who stopped could work, but even that still somewhat supports my original point; the more time you spent discussing why he stopped, and the less time you spent on the killings, the more enjoyable the story would probably be.

I thought your original point was that books only work if the reader can empathise with the narrator? I fail to see how your above statement supports your "original point" anyway. A story about a serial killer who stopped would work, yes, but so would a story about a serial killer who didn't stop. Does that mean that my original point is correct too?

 

[Stewart]

Let's not forget that the serial killers mentioned who supposedly stopped their actions probably didn't do it through choice but by imprisonment for other crimes or death.