psycho thrillers

[Jewel101]

This is going to be my first thriller. I don't usually venture out of my chosen genre. But i got this ecellent idea for a thriller. It's about a psychologist gone bad. If anyone can tell me anything about psycho thrillers, I'd be grateful.

[brokenfingers]

I can't help you there but the best thing I could suggest would be to read some of the ones out there. That's really the only way to get a grip and a feel for a type of book is to just read a bunch of them, IMO.

[Linda Adams]

Depends on how you're using psycho--under one defintion, it might fit under medical thriller (doctor gone bad, doing bad things to patients). If you're going for the psychopath definition, it could fit under any number of subgenres of thriller, depending on what the bad guy does. For example, if he's off killing multiple people, then it might be a serial killer thriller. That's where, as Brokenfingers suggested, doing research will help. It'll help you pin down the subgenre your story best fits into and give you a feel for the elements unique for the subgenre.

Meanwhile, this post might help on defining thriller: http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=386898&postcount=2

[three seven]

More important than knowing your genre is knowing your psychology. If you don't, reading a few psycho thrillers won't help you one bit when it comes to writing one.

[Good Word]

I'm working on sort of a thriller-esque novel myself. And I'm reading everything. I hope mine will turn out to be a page-turner, but with a touch of lit fic. There's a lot out there with plots that move, but terrible writing and one-dimensional characters.

[triceretops]

The question to ask is if your protag will be likeable with some redeaming qualities after you're through messing him up. Are you talking about doing something akin to Dr. Jeckle and Mr. Hyde?

Tri

[Good Word]

Mine likes cats, yoga, and watching Letterman.

He's also a mad scientist.

[SpookyWriter]

"More important than knowing your genre is knowing your psychology."

I can't say I completely agree with this statement. I think a psycho doctor who is a psychologist doesn't have to practice their discipline. A good percentage of the conflict, scenes, and narrative can come from outside the practice. This antagonist can pray on people who never step inside the door. There are many variations like "Hannibal Lecter" who never practiced for the readers.

Jon

[dantem42]

I would have to second Spooky. Probably a few weeks of reading up on the basics of psychopathic behavior (intense narcissism, lack of remorse for actions etc.) would give you as much as you need to create a viable villain. A good model is Thomas Harris. Hannibal Lecter is probably the ultimate "franchise" villain in the genre, and if you go through Red Dragon and Silence of the Lambs, you don't have much of a clue as to what motivates him to eat people. This is clarified in the last book, Hannibal (the wartime deserters who ate his sister), but it really didn't even have to be then.

I have written a psychologically-based suspense novel, and one agent after a first read told me I had focused too much attention on underlying motives and not enough on the "gory doings," which is after all why most suspense readers buy the book. After you do your initial research, there is a tendency to flesh too much of it out, as if it's important the reader completely why the villain does this or that. But some part of it is ego, that you want to show the reader that you know what you're talking about.

Probably much more important in the genre is that you had better have your reader in the thick of the "gory doings" within the first ten or fifteen pages. Suspense readers don't have a lot of patience for slogging through thirty or forty pages to get to the page-turner stuff.

[three seven]

You're missing the point, and how you can keep a straight face while telling Jewel to skimp on research is beyond me.
It's about a psychologist gone bad.

This is inherently an entirely psychology-based plot, and if you try and write it without having a firm grasp of the subject matter you're going to end up with a straight slasher about a psychologist who randomly starts killing people. He might as well be a milkman for all the depth that provides.

And Thomas Harris is not a good model - his psychoanalysis of Lecter and his attempt to portray the full extent of his madness in Hannibal was embarrassingly, book-hurlingly lame.

[Linda Adams]

This is inherently an entirely psychology-based plot, and if you try and write it without having a firm grasp of the subject matter you're going to end up with a straight slasher about a psychologist who randomly starts killing people. He might as well be a milkman for all the depth that provides.

Thrillers aren't known for their depth. They're known for giving an entertaining read and a rip-roaring roller coaster ride. Serial killer thrillers are actually extremely popular, so much so that it is hard NOT to find one. I actually have read a serial killer thriller with a psychologist as the killer (yup, it has been done), and I doubt if the writer had any background at all. The focus was on the serial killer killing people. The only research something like that requires is some research into police procedure and some forensics for accuracy.

Now if the story is leaning heavily towards a plot revolved around psychiatric medicine, then Jewel is going to need a similar background. It'll be a hard sale just getting past the query letter without it. Readers who come to such books are not just looking at a good story but looking for rich details with unexpected twists and turns that result from those details. Superficial research for such a book will not make it competitive enough to get past the slush pile.



And Thomas Harris is not a good model - his psychoanalysis of Lecter and his attempt to portray the full extent of his madness in Hannibal was embarrassingly, book-hurlingly lame.

Those books are also very old by today's publishing standards. The genre has changed a lot in the last few years, so any comparisons should be made off modern books only.

All this is why it's so important to research the subgenes of thriller (and please note that thriller is different than suspense) and pin down which one it is. Some subgenes require a special background of some sort while others don't.

[three seven]

I actually have read a serial killer thriller with a psychologist as the killer (yup, it has been done), and I doubt if the writer had any background at all. The focus was on the serial killer killing people.You neglected to mention whether it was a good book.

[Linda Adams]

You neglected to mention whether it was a good book.

I don't consider any of the serial killer thrillers books good, and I only read them to help familiarize myself with thriller in general. I know there's a huge audience out there that has a fascination with serial killers and enjoy reading novels about them. For me personally, I don't want to read about women being murdered in extremely horrific ways.

[Jewel101]

I thinkt it might be important to mention the fact that the psychologist doesn't going around killing people, he's just the reason they are dead. So I think research on psychology is needed

[dantem42]

Jewel101 said: "I think it might be important to mention the fact that the psychologist doesn't going around killing people, he's just the reason they are dead. So I think research on psychology is needed."

Do you mean that people die because of his malpractice or neglect? Or is he trying to manipulate people to do things that will cause them to die or commit suicide (in which case he is probably a serial psychopath regardless of the MO)? Or something else?

Linda Adams said: "For me personally, I don't want to read about women being murdered in extremely horrific ways." Not surprising, 90-something percent of the readership for the serial killer subgenre is male. My ex-wife (a good friend) can't even bring herself to read my serial thriller, even though half the vics are male.

Three Seven said: "You're missing the point, and how you can keep a straight face while telling Jewel to skimp on research is beyond me." It depends a lot on what her character is doing. A synopsis would probably make things much clearer. Unless you're going to go into hibernation for a few years, research is a trade-off, time you spend on research in one area is time you can't spend researching something else.

"And Thomas Harris is not a good model - his psychoanalysis of Lecter and his attempt to portray the full extent of his madness in Hannibal was embarrassingly, book-hurlingly lame."

Agreed, and even worse was his lovey-dovey deal with Clarice, which would be virtually impossible given his pathology. Maybe he'll eat her in the next one.

Nonetheless, Red Dragon still outsells anything else in this subgenre two decades after it was written, largely because of Harris's ability to come up with memorable, multi-dimensional villains, which to this day remains the main shortcoming of the serial thriller realm (partly for the simple reason that, other than their savagery, they are generally pretty boring people). And I don't think this subgenre changes that much, there's not all that much difference between, say, John Sandford's recent work and his work of five or six years ago. So at least regarding the serial thriller, I would disagree with Linda's statement that the genre has changed a lot in the last few years, so any comparisons should be made off modern books only. The Butcher's Theater written by Jonathan Kellerman decades ago still trumps any recent works.

In my own case, I spent a year basically just working on my villain and his ghoulishly droll sense of humor. But even though I spent a lot of that year researching psychopathy, I think there is a point of diminishing returns because beyond a month or two of basics, the field becomes either repetitive or contradictory (what for example explains Dahmer, whose childhood environment appears pretty mundane). On the other hand, if the psychology aspect is in some other way a major plot element, as Linda mentioned, then the research is certainly necessary.

[Perks]

Not surprising, 90-something percent of the readership for the serial killer subgenre is male.

Where did you come by this statistic?

[Jewel101]

A synopsis it is. It's about this brilliant famous doctor. Three laters prior to the time the book starts, the doctor asks the woman he loves to marry him. The woman agrees. But after some time, she decides to leave him, he gets upset and ends up accidently killing her. He makes it look like a suicide. In present times, the good doctor goes around driving women to suicide. A cop, driven by the need to prove her sister was murdered, obsesses over the suicides and starts investigating them, leading her to the good doctor. The doctor also owns an institute for the mentally unstable.

how's that sound?

[Linda Adams]

Having a woman cop is a great way to work with one of the current trends in thriller. Over the last few years, there has been a lot more emphasis on using major women characters into the story to bring in the women readers. I think the suicide route might be tricky to do credibly and believably without a lot of research. Maybe an offshoot of it could be that all these people were suicidal, but he murdered them instead, making it look like a suicide, so no one investigated.

[stormie]

One thing to remember: A psychologist is a PhD. He/she doesn't prescribe meds. A psychiatrist is a medical doctor who can prescribe meds.

[BookerT]

Maybe you should check the markets before investing loads of time on something that may or may not sell. As someone said in this thread, "It's been done before," so this might be a clue.

[Perks]

Booker, I have to disagree with that one. If you've got a well-developed idea and the skill and knowledge to pull it off, write it anyway.

[Jewel101]

Maybe an offshoot of it could be that all these people were suicidal, but he murdered them instead, making it look like a suicide, so no one investigated.

can't do that, he goes around driving women to suicide to convince himself that his love committed suicide

[dantem42]

Where did you come by this statistic?

One of my mentors for my writing is a former Editor in Chief of The Mystery Guild. When they would release a serial thriller title, the subscribers would be 90-plus percent male, and almost all female subscribers would decline. It's a pretty set pattern. The reverse is true for "cozy" mysteries, the readership is mostly female. It's not a matter of misogyny or anything, it just reflects disparate reading tastes.

[dantem42]

can't do that, he goes around driving women to suicide to convince himself that his love committed suicide

I'm not convinced as to motive. Except in the case of people like contract hit men or genuine, drooling psychotics (who hear voices that tell them to do things, etc.), the act of murder, and especially serial murder, is almost always motivated by some sort of anger. In the case of a sudden kill, it may be a moment of blind rage. In the case of sequential killing, it generally reflects some sort of bone-deep anger, most often starting with childhood humiliation or other abuse. His true motive would probably have to be that his actions (driving women to suicide) somehow assuage his anger, at least temporarily until he feels the need to do it again. It would be difficult to convince the reader that he was doing it in order to foster a delusion that his love committed suicide.

This type of personality will be able to maintain certain types of delusions about lkilling someone, mostly issues of justification. For example, an "angel of death" who works in neonatal at a hospital may convince herself that when she secretly pulls the plug on babies with birth defects, she is doing good by sending them to a better place. But it's doubtful she could really convince herself that the babies actually died of natural causes rather than by her hand. These people have to do a lot of premeditated planning to do what they're doing, and it's difficult to square with being under that level of delusion.

It would also be very tricky to "get" women to commit suicide on some kind of predictable basis. Even most people predisposed to suicide don't actually do it, or do it in a way where they will probably be rescued in time (cry for help stuff). Actually I like Linda's idea here a lot -- killing them off but where they've made threats before to commit suicide, so that no one pays much attention. In that case, you would probably need to research means of killing that look like suicide.

[Jewel101]

I'm not convinced as to motive. Except in the case of people like contract hit men or genuine, drooling psychotics (who hear voices that tell them to do things, etc.), the act of murder, and especially serial murder, is almost always motivated by some sort of anger. In the case of a sudden kill, it may be a moment of blind rage. In the case of sequential killing, it generally reflects some sort of bone-deep anger, most often starting with childhood humiliation or other abuse. His true motive would probably have to be that his actions (driving women to suicide) somehow assuage his anger, at least temporarily until he feels the need to do it again. It would be difficult to convince the reader that he was doing it in order to foster a delusion that his love committed suicide.

This type of personality will be able to maintain certain types of delusions about lkilling someone, mostly issues of justification. For example, an "angel of death" who works in neonatal at a hospital may convince herself that when she secretly pulls the plug on babies with birth defects, she is doing good by sending them to a better place. But it's doubtful she could really convince herself that the babies actually died of natural causes rather than by her hand. These people have to do a lot of premeditated planning to do what they're doing, and it's difficult to square with being under that level of delusion.

It would also be very tricky to "get" women to commit suicide on some kind of predictable basis. Even most people predisposed to suicide don't actually do it, or do it in a way where they will probably be rescued in time (cry for help stuff). Actually I like Linda's idea here a lot -- killing them off but where they've made threats before to commit suicide, so that no one pays much attention. In that case, you would probably need to research means of killing that look like suicide.

Well, I was thinking that he would be anger at himself for losing his composure, upset about losing his fiance and stuff, and not being 'the good doctor' or whatever. I was thinking that maybe the doctor coulda been close to being emotionally unstable and what happened three years ago pushed him over.

I was thinking that the doctor coulda been so blinded by emotion that he didn't completely realize what he did and in order to convince himself of what really happened he uses his knowledge of psychology to drive women to suicide. I was thinking that it would be a subconscience thing.

i guess it all depends on how i write it

[Perks]

One of my mentors for my writing is a former Editor in Chief of The Mystery Guild. When they would release a serial thriller title, the subscribers would be 90-plus percent male, and almost all female subscribers would decline. It's a pretty set pattern. The reverse is true for "cozy" mysteries, the readership is mostly female. It's not a matter of misogyny or anything, it just reflects disparate reading tastes.

I wasn't concerned that you were advancing chauvinism, it's just that this stat seems very much at odds with what I know of avid readers within my own circle. So, mine's just anecdotal, but I'm very surprised to hear a number that high. Interesting.

[Perks]

i guess it all depends on how i write it

Exactly. If you do your homework and write it well and with conviction, the readers will believe.

Naysayers on the particulars of your plot may be putting the cart a wee bit before the horse this early in the game. Good luck. I think it sounds intriguing!

[three seven]

the act of murder, and especially serial murder, is almost always motivated by some sort of anger.Absolutely not. Serial murder is triggered by compulsion and sustained by sociopathy. Rage has nothing to do with it, beyond (occasionally) the choice of victim.

[Good Word]

Er, hope you are speaking from a literary research perspective, Three.

Thetford Forest isn't the name of a prison, is it?

[SpookyWriter]

Er, hope you are speaking from a literary research perspective, Three?
Serial killings are classified as random acts of violence. Most often they go unresolved until a significant amount of luck or evidence is collected to narrow the psychological profile to a classification.

In the U.S. there are roughly 4,000 unresolved homicides that are attributed to random acts of violence. The FBI has a site where you can visit and obtain all the information you want or need on this type of crime.

I remember reading several years ago that the FBI believes there are at least 400 known serial killers on the loose, but have not been captured. The BTK serial killer was caught because he wanted to get caught. His capture wasn't because of great deductive reasoning by the FBI or local law enforcement. He made a mistake, knew it, and still allowed them to locate information on his computer that incriminated him.

There are so many subsets of serial killings that it's almost impossible to define any one as the sterotypical crime.

So, read up on the case files for John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, and a dozen others and you'll still have an incomplete picture.

Here's a website with histories of known and unknown serial killers around the world.

KillersAbound (http://www.crimezzz.net/errordoc/404.php)

Best of luck in your research, but try not getting so close that you become a victim.

Jon

[dantem42]

Absolutely not. Serial murder is triggered by compulsion and sustained by sociopathy. Rage has nothing to do with it, beyond (occasionally) the choice of victim.

First, you are blatantly misquoting me. Please review my previous post. If I am feeling rage on the one hand or anger on the other, I am likely feeling two different things. Rage has little to do with the buildup stage to serial murder, much more with an isolated act of unpremeditated murder.

"Compulsion" and "sociopathy" as you cite them aren't very useful here, because they are mainly defined by their external evidences, not by what causes them. Compulsion is, say, the fact that one sleeps with three women a week, and the word doesn't address what makes it happen. It's the effect, not the cause. Sociopathy encompasses a variety of external characteristics, especially acting in a way that shows utter disregard for others without remorse. But what causes it is a very complex issue.

Your statement would seem to imply that serial murderers don't have an anger management problem, and many researchers would disagree. Suppressed anger over things like humiliation and abuse in early life are often considered primary components in a serial killer's makeup. Some serials, like Ed Kemper, the "Coed Butcher," are even self-aware enough to admit it (killing other women to act out the festering anger he felt towards his nagging mother until he got up the guts to chop off her head and pitch her larynx down the garbage disposal). From an anecdotal perspective, you would be hard-pressed to say that anger has no role in motivating sexual serials: the acts speak of a need in the killer to dominate, control, dehumanize and butcher a series of women. Come now, no anger there? No resentment over the actions of some female figure in his past?

Below is a nice summary of contributory factors for serial killers, from Genesis of a Serial Killer: Fantasy's Integral Role in the Creation of a Monster, by Jeremy Anderson.
The serial killer never truly bonds to his family (Ressler, 1988; FBI, 1985), much like some alcoholics. In addition, this inability to bond extends to peers, resulting in very few friendships. Even as young children, the future serial killer is viewed as a loner. They are essentially failures in the realm of interpersonal relationships. A positive view of the father is rare among serial killers, while 72% report a lack of attachment to, and no positive image of, their fathers (Ressler, 1988, p.21). The serial killer feels more aggression than the average child, and a good portion of this is vented toward the father. Indeed, the serial killer holds more anger and substantially less affection toward the father than do even other murderers (Burgess, 1991). Even the childhood of the serial killer is marked by an 'unjust' view of the world, and an obsession with dominance through aggression (FBI, 1985). The childhood pre-killer has a difficult time distinguishing fantasy and play from reality (FBI, 1985), and this difficulty only increases as time goes on. Episodes of bedwetting and firesetting, coexist with a tendency for cruelty to animals, and have been called the 'triad' of childhood characteristics representative of future serial killers (Burgess, 1991). In relation to other children, the future killer is rebellious and aggressive, lying constantly (Drukteinis, 1992). Their anger toward society is reflected in the way they bully other children when given the chance. Feelings of alienation are very real; their disregard for relationships results in very few of them being formed, and their feeling that they are different from those around them makes it difficult for anyone to relate to them. 82% of serial killers report daydreaming so much that it became a problem for them in childhood, and 71% report chronic lying (Ressler, 1988, p. 21). 80% of them had run away at some point in their childhood, and 83% reported sever temper tantrums (Burgess, 1991, p. 268).

The play of the child is oriented around aggression and violence, as are daydreams (Ressler, 1988). This inclination toward violence only increases over the years. Perhaps as a result of this violence-orientation, the child is very egocentric, seeing the people and other children as merely extensions of their own, personal world (Ressler, 1988). The abuse which the child is suffering lends strength to their fantasies, making them even more aggressive and lending a dominance and control-focus to them (Ressler, 1988). The future killer is essentially using fantasy to escape a poor family life, into a world where the child is in control and can act out the abuse against others, rather than be a target of the abuse (FBI, 1985). Drukteinis (1992) has suggested that these "sexually sadistic fantasies" (p.535) help to control the child's fears, and act as an outlet for hostility and aggression that are actually directed against significant others, such as abusive parents. These aggression-centered fantasies, initially a form of escape for the child, come to serve as a substitute for the child's sense of mastery (Ressler, 1988). In other words, the child learns to depend on the fantasies for feelings of control over self, and over the external world. Expanding from its role as source of perceived control, the child's fantasies begin to reach into other areas of their lives. The fantasy comes to be the future killer's primary source of emotional arousal, and this arousal is based on a combination of sex and aggression (Ressler, 1988). These aggressive fantasies, which are coming to fulfill many of the child's needs are actually the driving force behind many of the aforementioned criminal and unusual activities, such as cruelty to animals, abuse of other children, destructive play, a disregard for others, fire setting, theft and property destruction (Ressler, 1988). The dangerous nature of this fantasy is the tendency, seen in the behavior of the future killer, for fantasy to lead to behavior tryouts and eventually to criminal activity (Ressler, 1988). The child fantasizing of control may dream of dominating the family dog, eventually going so far as to kick it. Finding kicking the dog rewarding, the future killer expands his behavior to beating, and eventually killing the dog. The future killer's childhood centration on violence will lead to an adulthood violence-focus.

[Optimus]

As a nitpick to the above post, "anger" is not the same as "aggression." Yes, serial killers oftentimes project or foster anger, however much of the research refers only to "aggression," which is a different construct. I believe Mr. Anderson (the author of the section you quoted) may be intermingling and sometimes incorrectly substituting the layman term "anger" for the clinical term "aggression." Just a nitpick. It's not a huge deal, as sociopath's oftentimes exhibit both traits, but it is important to know the distinction/difference.

Back to the topic at hand, there's a slight difference between a sociopath and a psychopath, but not many people make much of it. Basically, the sociopath was "created" by environment whereas the psychopath was "born" a psychopath.

I think threeseven touched on a good point that many seem to have missed. When he suggested that one know the psychology when writing a story like this, I take that to mean not only knowing a bit about psychotherapy for realism's sake for the character's occupation, but also to know the psychological makeup and motivations behind the antisocial/dyssocial person. Some people here have touched on it and have provided some good information.

It's important to remember that having all of that information doesn't mean that it need be revealed in the story. Explanations to the audience aren't entirely necessary. However, the author needs to have a deep and nuanced understanding of these motivations so that, when creating the character, he/she creates a killer whose actions are both consistent and logical within the context of the killer's disorder.

The audience doesn't have to know why a character does a certain thing, but the character needs to follow the actions an actual sociopath/psychopath would take, so that his/her actions are consistent and, therefore, the character is stronger and more believable.

For the person writing a socio/psychopath, besides the info that others have posted, he/she needs to have a firm grasp on Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD), which is the root to all sociopathic/psychopathic behavior. You can google the DSM-IV-TR's diagnostic criteria for it (or, I can PM it to you). Also, to add richness to the character, it might also serve you to research Conduct Disorder to give you an idea of how the character would've acted as a child/adolescent.

Anyway, I was going to type out a dissection of APD and socio/psychopaths, but I'll just post a link. This is a wikipedia link, so it doesn't tease apart some of the nuance involved in this subject, but it does give a pretty good compendium of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopath

HTH

[dantem42]

Optimus: "As a nitpick to the above post, "anger" is not the same as "aggression." Yes, serial killers oftentimes project or foster anger, however much of the research refers only to "aggression," which is a different construct."

I have no problem differentiating between the two: aggression is an externalized, observable action (thus the focus of research), which may find its root in various sources of emotion -- anger, fear etc.

Are you saying that psychopathy is inherently physical disorder, in that one is "born" a psychopath? I wasn't under the impression that there was a lot of empirical evidence for that, and it would be worrisome from a legal perspective, since it implies that psychopaths would have grounds to plead insanity, which they don't now (limited mainly to genuine psychosis such as schizophrenia, where the killer clearly is not able to control his actions).

While there's some evidence of certain brain functions that differ between psychopaths and nonpsychopaths, it's still not certain whether this is a function of biochemistry itself or the long-term effect of the witch's brew of a psychopath's emotional makeup on the chemistry. Also, some clinicians caution between too close a correlation between psychopathy/sociopathy and APD. For example, most of the prison population exhibits some form of APD, while very few exhibit genuine psychopathy.

[Optimus]

First of all, I wasn't meaning to imply that you have a problem discerning between the constructs of "anger" and "aggression." I was just pointing the difference out for others who might read this thread who are wanting to research/write a character similar to the type being discussed.

And, no, I'm not saying it always concerns brain chemistry or is inherently borne of neurochemical causes. I said there was a "slight" difference in the terms (sociopath versus psychopath) and, thus, in the theory. There's some debate about it and I recognize and appreciate the assertions of both sides because, as a psychologist, I realize that something like this is unlikely to be definitively or satisfactorily resolved anytime soon. It's not a big deal, I just wanted to be technical and precise because it may help someone with a story idea.

Some argue that the "true" psychopath is "born" that way. That doesn't necessarily imply that it is due to a structural brain abnormality or a neurotransmitter imbalance, but these are possible theoretical explanations.

It's also been argued (by those on that particular side of the theoretical fence) that the psychopathy may be a "functional" disorder. Functional disorder means, basically, that everything seems to be in place, nothing is structurally wrong with the brain, but for some reason it just ain't funcshunin' right (neuroelectrically, not neurochemically).

However, it could very well be dopaminergenic in some cases. It could be due to some electrolytic dysfunction. It could be due to something as of yet unidentified. Who knows? Jury's still out on that. But, this type of functional brain problem is argued to possibly be a neuroelectric dysfunction, not necessarily or exclusively a neurochemical one. Seems counterintuitive, but certain personality dysfunctions (non-GAD extreme worry, for example) have no discernable chemical or physical cause, yet the neuroelectrical activity of extreme worriers in the right frontal lobes is significantly different than the activity of non-worriers (whether this electrical imbalance is the result of nature or nurture or a combo is unknown). A similar condition "might" be true of some psychopaths.

Within this same theoretical camp are those who believe it to be simply an innate pathology of personality (thus the strong correlations with APD), rather than a learned behavioral pattern. Some people are just born hyperaggressive, or shy, or introverted, or conscientious, etc. So, some argue that an individual may just be "born" (for whatever reason) a psychopath. I'm not totally convinced of this theory, either, but it does have its logical merits.

And, actually, the correlations between sociopaths and APD are quite strong. But, one should know how to look at them (in a Venn diagram sort of way). You were close with your prison analogy, but it's best to reverse it. (Nearly) All sociopathic individuals have APD, but not all APD individuals are sociopaths.

These two schools of thought are part of the reason that the two terms exist: sociopath, to indicate that the problems are sociological in nature, both in the causes and in the ensuing behaviors (It's learned); Psychopathic, therefore, implies a type of psychopathology, either structural or functional (you're born that way).

They can't plead insanity, either. Sociopaths know the difference between right and wrong. They just don't care. It's also not a psychotic disorder, which are usually the only disorders supported by an insanity defense (I say "usually" because there are some very crafty lawyers out there who can find "expert" witnesses who will testify to support pretty much anything).

I'm not saying I agree with one side over the other, as both theories have merit. And, I'm not saying that it really matters what term a person uses. I, personally, don't care as I don't think it's a very consequential issue. To be clear, though, only about 1% of persons with APD are thought to be "true" psychopaths, with a larger number falling under the "sociopathic" label. Some killers have no discernible brain abnormalities while some do. So, I think that generalizations are useful, but the model for serial killers might best be conceptualized as an individual differences model.

Having said all that, though, the two terms (socio vs. psycho) are often used interchangeably, but I'm a stickler for details so I thought I'd point out why the two terms exist. In the vernacular, though, they mean pretty much the same thing.

I wasn't trying to attack your position in any way. I'm just a stickler for details and I didn't think I could post something about being as accurate as possible in character research and development without, at least, pointing out the differences (however slight and inconsequential to most people) between the terms.

:)

[three seven]

First, you are blatantly misquoting me.Only if you want to split hairs over the difference between anger and rage.

[dantem42]

First of all, I wasn't meaning to imply that you have a problem discerning between the constructs of "anger" and "aggression." I was just pointing the difference out for others who might read this thread who are wanting to research/write a character similar to the type being discussed.
:)

You're very well spoken, and thanks for the useful information. I'm sure I'll have need of some of it later. I spent a year or so banging my head against the wall studying this stuff in preparation for creating my dastardly villain. But if I get published, I will have to create an entirely new one, unless they insist on resurrecting him for the sequel (he's burned to death at the end of my novel, so he'd have to come out of it looking like Freddy in Nightmare on Elm Street).

All the best...

[Good Word]

Folks, this is all terrific and useful information. Dante, welcome to AW. Hope you stick around. If you haven't had a chance to, drop in the newbies forum and say hello. Also, the Uncle Jim forum on the novels board is terrific. Very informative. And on the Humor Thread, some of us use the WPR (Weekly Progress Report) for motivation.

Where are you at in your novel?

Is it finished?

[dantem42]

Folks, this is all terrific and useful information. Dante, welcome to AW...Where are you at in your novel?

Is it finished?

The novel is finished and not. I edit continuously and will probably continue to do so until some publisher screams at me, "DAMMIT, NO MORE FRIGGING EDITING!!!" Jeffrey Deaver said he would edit until the presses rolled if his publisher didn't duct tape his hands behind his back.

The manuscript's under submission to Scott Miller of Trident, then is scheduled to submit to another agent at the end of January if Scott turns it down. I won't have any fingernails left by then, since Scott Miller has previously launched Tom Clancy and Dean Koontz, he's something of a god in the thriller genres. The other agent is reputable too, but not of that stature.

The novel took about two and a half years to get into its present form, and I guess about a year of that has been full time research of about fifty different topics.

FYI, the beginning of the novel is posted on the "Share Your Work" thread under Mystery. I will email the ms to interested, well-spoken addicts of the suspense genre -- it's got a long paper trail and there's no danger of it being pilfered at this point.

All the best,
Tom

[ANNIE]

I was just following this thread and want to say that having read Tom's MS, Scott Miller would be a fool to pass it up.

It's brilliant.