Torture in Fiction: An Editorial about Authorial Ethics

I wrote a blog post a few years ago analyzing and critiquing torture. I highly recommend that you check it out if you need more context, but the ultimate conclusion of that post is that it has been definitively proven, psychologically, philosophically, and scientifically: Torture Doesn't Work.

But I ended the post talking about how one of the leading factors that convinces people of its efficacy is fiction. I even said, and I quote:

"The only possible benefit of torture as a form of interrogation is that it sometimes makes anti-heroes seem more dramatic[...]"

——The Absurd Word Nerd (2018), Enhanced Interrogation Critiques

Because although torture doesn't work, in fiction it is incredibly effective. The bad guys use it to show just how immoral they are, and manage to find the secret information that the heroes never wanted them to know. Or, in stories that juggle a kind of moral gray area, especially starring anti-heroes, it shows just how far the hero is willing to go to stop these villains.

The only time I've seen torture not work in fiction is when the person being tortured is a meant to be superhumanly masculine, patriotic, intelligent, dangerous or (occasionally) insane for the torture to work on them. And even then, if the victim is a hero we will occasionally have their friends rushing to save them not only to stop them from being injured and potentially killed but because they "don't know how much longer they can hold out", as though torture is slowly breaking them down and they will eventually reveal the truth if they're tortured for long enough.

But, why is this? Well, I think it's because it's narratively satisfying.

Whether it's the villain torturing the hero, or the hero torturing the villain, there's a great deal of dramatic and emotional tension (and potential horror) built into the concept of hurting someone to either receive or withhold information relevant to the plot. There's that potential "crossing of the line" of morality, showing the torturer going beyond the realm of what is justifiable, and there's also the potential to empathize with either the suffering hero, or the poor villain.

And so, whilst I think it's disgusting that people perpetuate the myth of torture as an "effective interrogation method", as a writer I understand why writers do this.

However, I think that fiction portraying torture as effective is unethical.

In my post about True Crime, the Ethics of the Truth, I mentioned that I have a lot to say about the storytelling ethics, and this isn't that post but it sure as hell is a big aspect of that philosophy. Because a fundamental ideology I have when it comes to fiction is that you should Always be Honest.
You don't have to tell the Truth, I'm talking about Fiction after all, it's almost entirely lies. But, I believe that storytellers, fiction-writers, novelists, and poets have a responsibility to make sure that they are not misleading their readers with the kinds of lies they tell. Art, including Stories, is a big part of culture and if fiction spreads certain ideas that are untrue it can negatively impact society.
As I mentioned in my post Don't Watch Me, I'm Awesome, we learn from media, even when it's not educational, because it can expose us to ideas that we're not familiar with. I was discussing the things I learnt from kid's shows as a child but it's still true for adults and it can be more insidious...
When I say that fiction spreads untrue ideas, I'm obviously not talking about the dragons and the sci-fi spaceships. That doesn't spread because a reasonable person knows that this is untrue. I'm talking about the subtler implications, ideas and ideologies that fiction can teach us (both deliberately and accidentally).
Even though most people know that Mexico isn't actually yellow, the fact that most films seem to use a yellow filter for Mexico can make it seem unhealthy, polluted, cheap or unnaturally foreign, especially if you've never visited the country.
Even though writers used to kill off their gay characters first because of strict codes of conduct, or because they didn't know what else to do with them, lack of queer characterization made gay people seem like they were nothing but their sexuality.
Even though you and I know that Klingons and Ewoks don't exist, whenever these shows portray an entire alien races like some homogenous monoculture, it does perpetuate beliefs in racial essentialism, as though your race defines who you are.

So, of course, for issues like torture, it's very unlikely for people to experience it in real life meaning that people tend to believe what they see on television, since writers must know more about it than the audience, right? ...RIGHT?!

So, what can we do about it. I believe it's unethical to portray torture as effective, but clearly not everybody does (or we wouldn't be in this mess), so what's the solution?

Well, to me, it's simple. As I said before, I understand why writers use it. It's dramatic, it's intense, it shows that the heroes/villains will cross the line to achieve what they set out to do and to me there's a perfect way for writers to include something this dramatic without perpetuating the belief that torture works...

The Deal with the Devil
Instead of torturing a captured villain, what if your characters were forced to work with them? To negotiate with these villains to get the truth out of them. They're villains after all, so it forces our heroes to bring themselves down to their level. They will need to either find a way to empathize with them and find out what it is that they desire, so they can offer it to them or if they're more difficult it may require some kind of psychoanalysis. I can even see a battle of minds like a high-stakes poker game where through dialogue the hero is trying to figure out the villain's tell, so they decipher what it is that matters to them the most, to use in their negotiations. And hey, if you really want to make things dramatic... simply make it that the one thing the villain wants in exchange for their help is something the hero would never do under any other circumstances.
This also works from the opposite side. What if the hero is captured by the villain and they offer the hero exactly what they want? If this is your story, you know your hero. You know what makes them tick. What if the enemy knows their deepest, darkest desire and offers it to them, for the price of their success...

And there's obviously then a whole lot of tension because the hero would need to find some balance of what they're willing to sacrifice. Are they willing to let the villain go, just for their information? Are they willing to give the enemy help, to finally achieve their deepest desires? What will they offer? What can they even offer each other? Will they both need to reach some compromise? What will it take for the hero to trust the villain? And should they?


As a substitute for "torture as drama", I think it ticks all the boxes except perhaps the "body horror" aspect of the gore. I think it can still be horrifying, but it's less visceral, unless you decide that the one thing the hero wants from the villain is to witness the autopsy of a corpse firsthand (in this case, I assume this is a death they always felt was suspicious), or perhaps the villain asks to eat a live animal (in this instance, I'm assuming the villain is a carnivorous monster of some kind). You can still have your gore. Heck, if you even just want pain, the prisoner could just request to fight their interrogator, one on one, no weapons.
The beauty of this idea is that it opens up so many opportunities. I could even see this becoming a major plot point if the villain requests a specific item or person, sending the hero on a minor adventure, just to get one step closer to winning.

In any case, it's better than "hurt them until they talk", not only because it's got so much more narrative potential, but because it's honest. That being said, this isn't the only option. Writers used to use this because they genuinely thought it was realistic and so they found it compelling, but now that we know the reality it's just lazy. There are many ways to get information out of someone.
Your character could use some detective work, to find clues on or about a person. Rather than interrogate them, they could simply carry them along with them on the mission, forcing the villain to fight alongside them and (hopefully) switch sides before their information is necessary. Villains can use fictional sci-fi technologies or darkly fantastical magic to try to peel the information out of the heroes mind, since the fictionalized aspect would make any torturous method of this sort more honest, especially if you make it clear that such means are necessary (since, for the umpteenth time, torture doesn't work).
Or, hell, the villain could just tell the hero what they want to know. Why? Because it doesn't matter, they believe they're going to win anyway, so they could use this as an opportunity to gloat and get under the hero's skin.

I'm the Absurd Word Nerd, and whilst I believe that all writers have a responsibility to write honestly, I don't think this is difficult to do. It just requires adding the step of "think about the effect your story has" when writing stories, and since writing stories is a significantly cerebral task, this isn't exactly a difficult step to add in the writing process. But your stories can be just as creative, dramatic, tense, dark, disturbing, compelling and action-packed as they always were... they'll just also be better for society as well.

Until Next Time, writing is meant to be fun, so I'm not asking you to bend over backwards to make your stories more honest. Just add a dose of consideration, and your fiction will be all the better for it.