Suspense/Thriller without Murder and Killing?

[novelblogger]

I'm so frustrated today.

I've been working on a new effort for several months and everything was moving along nicely, but over the course of the past couple of weeks I've become "stuck".

It appears that in my attempt to avoid writing about murder and killing in my thriller/suspense story, I've ended up with a boring and anti-dramatic story that is not really believeable.

In my story, the main character kidnaps an old girlfriend and then releases her a couple of days later. He did the kidnapping to see what it was like and as practice for future kidnappings. Later in the story he kidnaps a young child with intentions of receiving a ransom from his old employer, who is also the child's grandfather.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that this particular plot line will not hold a reader's attention for very long. In my attempt to eliminate violence and murder from my story, I've ended up with a boring story.

Don't get me wrong, I read a lot of suspense/thriller novels that include killing and murder (all of them actually). But, I would like to write a novel that is a suspense/thriller genre that doesn't contain murder and killing.

Is it even possible?

[icerose]

Sure anything is possible.

I think what you're missing is an ultimate goal. Perhaps flip it and make it more intense. He tries to kidnap her but she escapes from his grasp. She doesn't know who tried to grab her just that it was a close call. He starts stalking her while being the supportive friend on the flipside. All the while he's kidnapping others to make sure he get's it right when he goes after the woman he really wants, but who's never had the nerve to just a sk her out, or maybe she rejected him wanting only friendship and he can't handle the rejection.

Keep the scenes intense, filled with action and suspense. Don't let anything bog down, have a few false leads. It doesn't have to be violent or bloody to be exciting.

[maestrowork]

Thrillers thrill. Suspense is suspenseful. Everything else is negotiable. :)

[Garpy]

Ofcourse it's possible.

For starters you can have your cake and eat it...you can pepper your story with imagined/fantasized/dreamed violence. ie: it was all in the mind. A cop-out I know.

Slightly more difficult are scenes where violence is implied, but never quite realised. Plenty Quentin Tarantino monologues occur with a guy holding a gun to someone's head. (okay most of the time the gun get's used, but hey...on the few times it doesn't, you've still got yourself a very tense scene)

You've got emotional 'violence' and intimidation. I think there's a lot of that in Stephen King's 'Misery'. In fact, that's a great book to check out vis a vis your storyline.

Anyway...a few suggestions there. Can I just say I think you're doing the right thing by trying to be original and thinking outside the box. It's hard...of course it is. If it wasn't, all the hacks like Dan Brown, Dale Brown, Cussler, Patterson would be doing it ;-)

[TheIT]

Whose perspective is the story being told from: the kidnapper or the kidnapped? The kidnapper might not intend to do any harm to his victim, but the person being kidnapped doesn't know that.

If the POV is the kidnapper, he'd have to consider just how far he'll go to keep his victim captured and to protect himself from being caught.

If the POV is the person who was kidnapped, she'd be terrified of what the kidnapper might do to her. She doesn't know his motives, so her imagination would run wild.

Ever see the movie "The Haunting" directed by Robert Wise? There's little or no violence in that movie, but it's one of the scariest movies I've ever seen. All the suspense is implied. The threat was enough.

[WittyandorIronic]

Depending on your antags intelligence quotient you could also add a lot of psychological thriller pieces. The girl he originally kidnapped knows his plan, but can't tell anyone because a,b, and c. She agonizes over it. She follows the future kidnap victim, stalks the child, in an effort to be there to prevent it. Ends up kidnapping the child to stop the kidnapper from kidnapping said child....heh. pretty thrilling, actually... and almost all of it in her head.

[novelblogger]

Garpy,

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I appreciate the input. Stephen King is my favorite writer and I believe Misery is his best work. I watched the movie years ago and recently re-read the book again. It's a great story.

[novelblogger]

TheIT,

I just got back from the movie store. I rented The Haunting and I'll definitely watch it later on. Thanks for the suggestion.

[novelblogger]

There are some good ideas in your list. I especially like the part about kidnapping the child to protect him from the kidnapper. Thanks.

[WittyandorIronic]

Sure...lol. that will be $400 dollars.

heh...j/k.

[NiennaC]

I'm so frustrated today.

I've been working on a new effort for several months and everything was moving along nicely, but over the course of the past couple of weeks I've become "stuck".

It appears that in my attempt to avoid writing about murder and killing in my thriller/suspense story, I've ended up with a boring and anti-dramatic story that is not really believeable.

In my story, the main character kidnaps an old girlfriend and then releases her a couple of days later. He did the kidnapping to see what it was like and as practice for future kidnappings. Later in the story he kidnaps a young child with intentions of receiving a ransom from his old employer, who is also the child's grandfather.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that this particular plot line will not hold a reader's attention for very long. In my attempt to eliminate violence and murder from my story, I've ended up with a boring story.

Don't get me wrong, I read a lot of suspense/thriller novels that include killing and murder (all of them actually). But, I would like to write a novel that is a suspense/thriller genre that doesn't contain murder and killing.

Is it even possible?

It's totally possible. Actually, one of my favorite movie thrillers was Cellular, and, if I'm not mistaken, no one died in it. Which, actually, was what I liked about it. I loved that the writers could make a film that was intense and gripping and didn't have any murders - it was a fresh change, not that books/movies with murders are boring or bad, just that, you know, it was different and I enjoyed it.

[lostintheweb]

The problem that most people run into is the perception that murder/killing is a "necessary" hook, like sex and food--try finding a book these days where people do not discuss food. Perhaps you address this "death" hook by having the danger of death hanging over the story line.

[Shady Lane]

I'm thinking of National Treasure...

[preyer]

'I rented The Haunting and I'll definitely watch it later on. Thanks for the suggestion.' ~ the 1999 version with liam neeson royally sucked. full of killing, which was okay because the characters were stupid and contrived. not suspenseful in the slightest. awesome sets, though. the 1963 version is the one theit is referring, so i hope you didn't rent the wrong movie.

as i recall, some of the baddies got killed in the end of 'cellular.' as i recall (though replacing blood and guts you had plenty of carnage with cars smashing into stores). it was okay for a popcorn flick based on a gimmick, like 2002's 'phone booth,' which, imo, was far superior in about every way, particularly in the way you could actually glean some practical ideas out of for your situation.

one of my favourite flick's is roger corman's 'the raven,' with vincent price. not a single fatality, and held your suspense (albeit with tongue planted firmly in cheek). besides, hazel court never looked better... or more evil. indeed, another corman/price flick, 'the house of usher' (i believe they did five movies together, but i'd have to double-check), had but one death (possibly two, depending on how you look at it). just about any of the corman/price movies based on poe stories are tame as they're more character studies and suspense than anything else. (okay, 'masque of the red death' done today could be gruesome, but i found plenty of brilliance in it anyway.) i mention these movies because they were all low-budget affairs which, whoops, are classics that concentrate on everything else other than bloodletting.

the underlying sense is of doom, though. take out the threat of being obliterated, there's no suspense, no? what you'd have possibly is a case of stockholm syndrome.

does anyone die in 'misery'? i assume the woman does, and if so, then that's one of countless suspense stories where your fatality score equals exactly one.

[preyer]

'national treasure' the movie with nick cage? actually, people do die in that one. if i'm remembering correctly, one falls to his death during the bafflingly trite scaffolding sequence. but, you're right, very low death toll in that one (well, minusing out the war sequences in the beginning).

hm, can't remember if 'proof of life' had a body count or not....

[JohnDavidPaxton]

I don't mean to sound rude here, but I am going to try and sum this up the best way that I know how.

You have a man. Who has captured a child. And is negotiating the child's life on money. And you think there is something WRONG with this if nobody dies?

At this point a guy, especially a guy who is doing kidnapping with malice aforehthought (he has, after all, practiced) holding a kid in his basement is terrifying. You'll get more bang for you buck suspense wise with a conversation between the two than a dozen murders of thugs and vandals.

Is there another aspect to the story? A third kidnapping? Does something else happen afterwards? On the first plot, does the girlfriend find out who captured her?

If the guy is decent (no murder) what happens when the money doesn't come on time? What is his plan B?

In short, I think you have a very strong novel length story and idea right here and I don't know why you're afraid otherwise. I'm only saying this in the spirit of being helpful. Your instincts (or whatever took you down this path) seem like they're solid to me.

[Shady Lane]

'national treasure' the movie with nick cage? actually, people do die in that one. if i'm remembering correctly, one falls to his death during the bafflingly trite scaffolding sequence. but, you're right, very low death toll in that one (well, minusing out the war sequences in the beginning).

hm, can't remember if 'proof of life' had a body count or not....

Yep. And I thought about that guy...but his death was so arbitrary. So, ya know.

[BL_Garver]

I tried to write a kidnap-centered thriller once. In the end, two people died. There were plot holes throughout, however, so it never made it past the original draft.

Still, I think it was pretty tense. And the violence/killing didn't happen until the very last scene.

It's a very possible idea you have.

[novelblogger]

Preyer,

I rented the 1963 version. It appears that it was re-packaged in 2003 by Turner Entertainment. Liam Neeson does not appear in this version.

[Will Lavender]

Definitely possible. I know because I did it.

I think your plot is interesting, novelblogger. I'm wondering about the "practice" girl, though. What happens to her? The ransom trope has been used a million times; but a criminal practing a kidnapping? That's fresh and original. I'd play that up, play up her release, perhaps give her some of the narrative spotlight, and then have her...come back in the end to screw things up for the anti-hero?Or something.

Good luck with it.

[Novelhistorian]

Novelblogger, I too think you've got something going here. Whether it worked for me would hinge partly on how credible the characters were. Who practices a kidnapping and why? Did he go to jail for it, and if not, did the woman not file charges? Why not?

But since when is kidnapping not violence? Ask yourself how you'd feel if someone you loved were abducted, even if the kidnapper didn't physically hurt them in any other way. Constraint is violence.

But in asking the question, I think you've put your finger on something important. To me, violence in suspense fiction isn't the key; the threat of violence or exposure or destruction (physical or moral) is. Kidnapping is terrifying partly because of what might follow, and the notion that one human being is completely at another's mercy raises the stakes.

I love Hitchcock's films partly because he knew how to extract the last ounce of tension from everyday actions that had great significance. (One of my favorite sequences in Notorious, for instance, involves the rapidly disappearing Champagne at a fancy party. If the wine steward has to go to the cellar to get more, he'll find Cary Grant there, and the game will be up, with disastrous consequences. Nobody's died, but as the camera pans on the empty Champagne bottles, the suspense is enormous.)

I'm writing a historical thriller in which there will probably be little violence but the ever-present threat of it. So for both our sakes, I hope that it's not death that drives a thriller necessarily, but tension from any and all sources.

[wayndom]

I'm becoming more and more convinced that this particular plot line will not hold a reader's attention for very long. In my attempt to eliminate violence and murder from my story, I've ended up with a boring story.


[Posted before reading theIT's response. Great minds think alike...]

I couldn't disagree more with this premise. One of the most suspenseful movies I've ever seen (and one of my faves to this day) is the 1964 version of The Haunting, based on a Shirley Jackson novel. It's a ghost story with tons of suspense, in which no ghost is ever seen. All the suspense comes from what's on the other side of the door, and you never see what's on the other side.

Actually, Jackson's whole style was like that. She wrote many suspenseful stories in which the suspense is never relieved.

The story you describe brings to mind the movie, To Live and Die in L.A. It's about a U.S. Treasury agent who goes bad and (if I recall correctly) gets involved with counterfeit money. The main suspense comes from the knowledge that the man has put his entire life on the line -- if he's caught, he'll go to prison for a long time, and have no future when he comes out. The movie conveys his tension over this, and the audience feels for him.

Your story could do the same, as long as it realistically portrays how much the kidnapper is risking, both with the "practice" kidnapping, and the real thing. Suspense in these kinds of stories is built around near-misses, those moments when he's almost caught, or almost seen by a witness, or is seen by someone who knows him, so he must think of some plausible excuse for being where he is.

Hitchcock movies are also a great source of "non-violent" suspense, and they work the same way. You get the audience to identify with the character who's taking the biggest risks, then push the character to the edge.

Suspense is about what might happen, not about what does happen.

Hope this was helpful.

[Jamesaritchie]

You can certainly write a good novel without anyone dying/being murdered, but I'd say the serious threat of someone being killed has to be there, or there's no suspense, no conflict.

[novelblogger]

Based on an earlier suggestion, I watched The Haunting last night and agree it is a suspenseul movie.

It sounds like I need to keep exploring this story and not give up on just yet. Thanks everyone for the encouragement

[Paula Boon]

Hi novelblogger,

I agree with the others that your premise could absolutely work.

In preparation for work on my current WIP (a thriller in which no one dies) I went searching for this kind of book at my local library. There weren't that many, but a few that might give you ideas are:

The Mind Game by Hector MacDonald
Paranoia by Joseph Finder
See Jane Run by Joy Fielding
Crying Wolf by Peter Abrahams (This one also has a false kidnapping...)

Good luck!

Paula

[preyer]

'...but his death was so arbitrary.' ~ agreed. not that the entire thing was over-constructed feeling to me, but that death felt tacked on as if the writer/s felt they needed someone to die.

'I rented the 1963 version.' ~ good. :) the new version had its charms... encapsulated entirely within catherine zeta-jones. she could stand there and i'd watch it. beyond that and some very cool sets and a few f/x, it's not worth the time to watch. well, i guess there's some value in watching bad movies to see why they're bad. it's really a perfect example of a wasted cast and big budget amounting to squat because the story isn't there.

'I think your plot is interesting, novelblogger. I'm wondering about the "practice" girl, though. What happens to her? The ransom trope has been used a million times; but a criminal practing a kidnapping? That's fresh and original. I'd play that up, play up her release, perhaps give her some of the narrative spotlight, and then have her...come back in the end to screw things up for the anti-hero?Or something.' ~ my thoughts exactly. it's reasonable to assume that he'd continue doing the things he felt were successful in the practice and do them again, so a detective who finally puts two-and-two together could gleam some hints from the trial run's 'victim' during questioning.

'The story you describe brings to mind the movie, To Live and Die in L.A. It's about a U.S. Treasury agent who goes bad and (if I recall correctly) gets involved with counterfeit money. The main suspense comes from the knowledge that the man has put his entire life on the line -- if he's caught, he'll go to prison for a long time, and have no future when he comes out. The movie conveys his tension over this, and the audience feels for him.' ~ if i remember, willem peterson's (sp) character was killed about thre-quarters of the way through the flick, which was surprising. he did, however, have enough time to deliver one of the best lines ever: after banging his hot inside girl, and he's putting his cowboy boots on, she sit up in bed and says, 'hey, i could use some bread.' to which he replies, 'you want bread? then go fuck a baker.' i bought cowboy boots for this very reason.

i'd thought about kidnapping as an act of violence, too. while i'm not sure if it meets any government approved definition, i think it qualifies, imo.

[CheshireCat]

Can I just say that IMO your major issue isn't one of suspense but one of character.

If your major character is a kidnapper, if he kidnaps a former girlfriend for practice and then kidnaps a child for money --

I don't like him. I can't idenfity with him. I don't want to read his story.

I love good guys. I love bad guys. I love characters covering the entire spectrum of gray.

But I better like your major character, or I'm not reading your story.

Just sayin'.

[JJ Cooper]

Have to agree with CeCe. I read this thread thinking the same thing. Basically I think you are writing the bad guys side of the story. That's fine - now right about the good guy beating the shit out of the bad guy.

JJ

[sneakers145]

Heck, I'm trying to write suspense/thriller from the victims' (though they're not portrayed as that) POV, rather than on the police/detective/track him down before he kills again POV. Where the crime solving happens 'off screen' and the focus is on the characters (I write character-driven stories).

Who knows if it will work for publishers or not. I find myself in my current WIP wondering if I should add the detective's POV. But then I'd have to be writing more police procedural stuff...

I think the trick for your novel (and mine) are to make the characters unforgettable. Misery was a good one (though didn't the sheriff die at the end?). The palpable tension there was awesome!

[Penguin Queen]

So yes - as pretty much everybody else has said it is perfectly possible.
Ive written a mystery that doesnt contain a murder, and although an (accidental) death happens in the last 15 pages, it could have ended without one, except that for plot reasons I couldnt let it end any other way. All the suspense is about other stuff; and I think what makes it work - what makes any good mystery work - is that you care about the narrator / main character. And then when stuff happens to them, you want to know what.
The other thing that I find works to draw me into a story is when the mysterious goings-on are personally related to the MC; ie. they're not investigating something on someone else's behalf, but what's happening is threatening to themselves, or someone they care about. I can't think of any good bloodless mysteries off the top of my head, but there must be.

[wee]

Lately I've been on a Hitchcock tangent, watching several of his old movies.

Even if there is no actual murder, suspense is often built by the threat of bodily harm. My recorded movies from Seven Nights of Hitchcock keep repeating one of his quotes:

"There is no terror in the bang, only in the anticipation of it."

Tracy Chevalier's excellent book The Virgin Blue had me turning pages so fast I could hardly skim them towards the end ... as a lady researches a possible death that is hundreds of years old ... a death that has little affect on the current-day plot except just to shock the MC. But your heart is pounding & you're racing through pages to see what happened to this little girl, if it is what you think it may be.

It isn't the murder or the violence that is thrilling/suspenseful -- but rather the anticipation of it, the belief that something may be coming ... whether it is the characters that believe it & the reader is suspenseful with them, or whether the reader sees it & the characters don't, so the reader is suspenseful for them. In either case, you have to make the reader care about the characters & their outcome, then put the characters in danger.

Which characters will be in danger, and will the reader care?



wee

[gingerwoman]

I think there's a lot of that in Stephen King's 'Misery'. In fact, that's a great book to check out vis a vis your storyline. Misery actually has a ton of violance and gore. Also has muder.
I think you need to put a lot of psychology in it and implied violence and emotional, psychological violence.