Writing Handling extremely sensitive subject matter in fiction... how?

Empire145

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2026
Messages
33
Points
18
For example, if I wanted to depict a great famine and the tragedy of cannibalism, I would indirectly describe it, such as the extra bones. If I needed to describe it directly, and the character was an unfortunate participant forced to do so to survive, I would write about their inner struggle, the condemnation from family and friends, and the warnings of the law to show that it was wrong. If the character was a scoundrel, I would write their actions mechanically to highlight their ruthlessness or selfishness, which could also reduce discomfort. If they were the planner, for the purpose of financial exploitation or espionage, then I would write about the consequences they caused, such as rebellion and tragic scenes. I could write about their joy because they succeeded, but I must also show how many people suffered as a result.There needs to be a proper moral compass to help readers vent their discomfort
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2025
Messages
26
Points
13
Okay, so here's my take as someone who's read a lot of stories and helped writers figure out this exact tightrope walk:
1. Ask yourself, "Whose pain am I centering?"
If the scene lingers on the perpetrator's experience, their thrill, their detailed actions, and their "cool" moment, that's a red flag. If it stays with the victim's experience, the aftermath, and the healing or lack thereof, you're probably on solid ground. Basically: whose story is this moment serving?
I have a rule derived from this debate: if a rule about what should or should not be written, taken to the universal level, results in a great work not being able to exist, then that rule is meaningless (to avoid being rude).

Following the point about who I'm focusing on, for example, the series Dexter or Breaking Bad shouldn't have been made.
This is the best proof that what you're saying isn't a good argument.
 

L1aei

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2025
Messages
1,072
Points
113
For example, if I wanted to depict a great famine and the tragedy of cannibalism, I would indirectly describe it, such as the extra bones. If I needed to describe it directly, and the character was an unfortunate participant forced to do so to survive, I would write about their inner struggle, the condemnation from family and friends, and the warnings of the law to show that it was wrong. If the character was a scoundrel, I would write their actions mechanically to highlight their ruthlessness or selfishness, which could also reduce discomfort. If they were the planner, for the purpose of financial exploitation or espionage, then I would write about the consequences they caused, such as rebellion and tragic scenes. I could write about their joy because they succeeded, but I must also show how many people suffered as a result.There needs to be a proper moral compass to help readers vent their discomfort

Like fitting the character with a proper wardrobe; their actions has to match their reactions. If they have to go off to the side, wearing something now that makes them comfortable because of their environment, that fits, but if it is the outfit itself itches or burns or whatever it being the focus of their attention, then why are they still wearing it? That's not bad, maybe the scene should be the realization this isn't for them. Anyway we do it, moving it in a direction where the character is the center stage should have that spotlight on them for all the whole crowd to see. If they fail to perform the act, they get the long-ass hook creeping up on them from behind the curtain and should be pulled off for a horrific dressing down until that act is gotten together.

I have a rule derived from this debate: if a rule about what should or should not be written, taken to the universal level, results in a great work not being able to exist, then that rule is meaningless (to avoid being rude).

Following the point about who I'm focusing on, for example, the series Dexter or Breaking Bad shouldn't have been made.
This is the best proof that what you're saying isn't a good argument.

Whose pain is centered... Okay, everyone reads and takes things from a different viewpoint and I think I got what you see; it's as if it means "never focus on the perpetrator" to you. If I'm wrong, lemme know.

From where I am, that's not what I see being said here.

Let's use what you've got going on. Love those series too, Dexter and Breaking Bad, yes, absolutely focus on that... let's call them morally compromised protagonists rather than just villains because they sure as fuck aren't anti-heroes. But those shows aren't getting them to frame their actions as consequence-free spectacles. Their plot, or just the scenes themselves, either interrogates them, exposes the damage, or gradually shifts that emotional baggage toward the genuine harm they themselves caused.

Let's check out this nutcase, Dexter, when he absolutely centers on a killer. The series constantly frames him as damaged, compulsive, and socially stunted; I mean, fuck, I still remember the flashback scenes where he's a kid and he's confessing these urges but doesn't know what to do with it. But that's a kid, let's not derail on the exceptional piece and shine the light on the man whose name is on the title for a reason. Actually, Rita? Remember her? Her death isn't treated as stylish collateral; it's catastrophic. That's fallout. They repeatedly show in the series that his code doesn't protect the innocent the way he tells himself it does.

That's one example.

Now onto some chemistry here with Breaking Bad; it does the same thing. We start aligned with Walt's desperation, but over time the series continues to breakdown his excuses. Alright, let's go with a triplet here: Jane's death, Brock's poisoning, Hank's fate... where and how did Walt react to that? Those definitely ain't framed as triumphant moments, I can tell you that. They're a bad hit spreading outward from the point of the huff, the puff, and the rapidly blinking eyes as the brain tries to process WTF just happened and how did we get here. By the end, that same baggage he's carrying around on his shoulders isn't about how clever he is, it's focused on what he's destroyed.

Whose pain am I centering on... that doesn't mean point of view. It means emotional framing. If a scene lingers on the thrill of harm without examining cost, that's different from a scene that uses the perpetrator's perspective to explore decay, delusion, or moral collapse.

Breaking Bad works and became a huge hit because it keeps tightening the noose around Walt after his very first hit, he's still got his eyes wide open, struggling with what he's seeing, whether what he's done is real, and it still leaves him gasping until the end. The series isn't asking us to cheer this guy on forever. It's showing the reaction to that very first hit is corroding him from the inside out.

After my "drugs are bad, m'kay" metaphor, do I even have to explain Dexter?

So @esthersandra 's question on "Whose pain am I centering?" from my viewpoint isn't taking any validation away from the scenes; certainly not from those two series. Again, my opinion because this is how I'm reading it, if anything, it's part of why those stories work. They are compelling me to watch or read more because the scenes don't just treat harm as empty spectacle; it keeps that human baggage attached to it.

Last time, I ain't calling you out on being wrong, I don't really think anyone here has been wrong, so this is only my opinion on what I'm reading. But, please, correct me if I am actually wrong! :blobrofl:
 
D

Deleted member 266

Guest
subject matter that's legally or ethically wrong in real life, how do you handle the portrayal?
I usually deal in allegories... and subtext so I can "talk" about sensitive subject matter, but I dont really need to portray it.

But reader won't necessarily be aware that... I am making a judgement call on... i dun know... the corrupt and weak nature of exclusionary simpletons.
 

L1aei

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2025
Messages
1,072
Points
113
I usually deal in allegories... and subtext so I can "talk" about sensitive subject matter, but I dont really need to portray it.

But reader won't necessarily be aware that... I am making a judgement call on... i dun know... the corrupt and weak nature of exclusionary simpletons.

That's pretty cool in my book; you're leaving the readers the benefit of the doubt that they can read a room. :blob_joy:
 

A-Random-Writer

Just a random guy with story to tell
Joined
Jan 5, 2026
Messages
112
Points
43
The horrors of human reality far outweigh anything writers are reasonably able to depict.
The wonders of the human experience far outweigh anything writers are reasonably able to portray.
Fiction broadens persepective while softening the journey.
Unless you choose to believe lies, words can't hurt you.

Moo.
Hey that's a pretty good quote right there.
 

JayMark

It's Not Easy Being Nobody, But Somebody Has To.
Joined
Jul 31, 2024
Messages
1,747
Points
128
I'm being very tight-lipped right now, all puckered up, but I so want to ask if you read your own words out loud; specifically the last line. :blob_joy:
Moooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
 

MFontana

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2025
Messages
396
Points
93
Needs to be a homebrew spell for my D&D wizard, At 5th level Drop 3D8 cannibals on an unsuspecting town. add 1D8 for each level of upcast
Definitely an original spell worth noting for sure. Right alongside the "Summon SpiderDragon" spell.
So... new question here! I am once again, but this time I would not at all be surprised I'd watch this thing die quietly in a ditch somewhere; no hard feelings if you all want to avoid this topic like The Plague. :blob_teary:

I've been witnessing over the years... decades, really, something that pops up in a lot of serialized webnovels, here, and big Blockbuster-worthy series alike. Some stories include situations that ain't just dark or edgy, but the kind of stuff that would be straight-up illegal or seriously messed up in real life. I don't mean for shock value necessarily, but as part of the setting, the culture of the world, or, fuck, a character's backstory (insert Guts from Berserk here). :blob_shock:

And that's where my moldy gray-matter starts squirming in front of the line in the sand. :sweating_profusely:

Because there's a whole field on this side of the line in the sand... we're all standing on the moral high ground here. But crossing that line is where things get messy, because, well, that's the difference between depicting something and endorsing it, right? And that line gets blurry depending on framing, level of detail, and whether the scenes treats the hot topic as serious and harmful, romanticized, casual, sensationalized, or presented without consequences. :blob_blank:

That means I'm here asking about a writing standpoint before crossing that line, not a moral panic stance. Like, when your story includes subject matter that's legally or ethically wrong in real life, how do you handle the portrayal? Do you all simply fade to black instead of showing it directly? That'd be cool, let the implications fill in the blank. Or do you rely on implication or aftermath rather than the act itself? I mean, do you make sure the emotional and psychological consequences are centered, such as using narrative distance so it doesn't feel voyeuristic or do you lean hard on tags and content warnings to flag readers? :blob_dizzy:

Basically, how do you keep it from sliding into this feeling of exploitative territory while still being honest about the world or character you're writing? :blob_unsure:

And for those who are not writers, you readers and the rare reviewers, what makes the difference, for you, between this being a difficult but meaningful part of the story and this feeling like it's here for the wrong, damnable reasons? :blob_hide:

I'm not interested in shaming genres or pretending dark fiction shouldn't exist; it does, as I've already said earlier, I've seen it here. I repeat, it's here. Conflict, harm, and ugly parts of humanity have always been part of storytelling and I don't bash on it. I'm more interested in responsibility in execution; the tone, framing, narrative consequences, and all that not-so-fun stuff. :blob_okay:

Where do you draw your toes in the sand with your own work, and what do you use to stay on the right side of the dunes because, let's be real here, this is like stepping on a minefield. :blob_cringe:

One more time, I do not expect anyone to comment on this. This is topic is radioactive, but I want to learn how to handle it properly. I'm damn certain others may read over what you all say. Maybe they'll see what may have to be revised in their own series? Who knows. :blob_sweat:

And, mods, feel free to redact this if you believe it deserves it; I know I'm blowing the lid off of quite a few novels that may or may not contain liable content. But, again, if we make others aware on how to handle these without it blowing up the place, that's good, right? So, while I get suited up in the EOD outfit, let's here it.
My approach is, and always will be, to neither glorify, nor gloss-over anything in any of my works.
The good stuff, or the bad stuff.
If it holds relevance to the narrative, it is included.
Though I find one means of making such dark moments more bearable is to present them through an external lens under conditions where the protagonist(s) can potentially intervene, or at least take some kind of action, or have some kind of agency, to resist the world's darkness.
The alternative, is primarily focused on either realism (a realistic depiction of the appropriate time period and existing social constructs within the world/setting, or to present the acts as being perpetrated by the villains / antagonists of the story).

For example, Asmodeus is going to be Asmodeus. He's not a "nice guy", so depicting him being "nice" would break verisimilitude. He's a Villain, so he should be doing Villainous stuff. There shouldn't be any issues with a villain being a villain after all. You can insert whatever villain you want here too, another great example from more modern pop-culture would most certainly be Joffrey from A Song of Ice and Fire by George R.R. Martin.

At least, that would be my approach anyway.
 

L1aei

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2025
Messages
1,072
Points
113
Definitely an original spell worth noting for sure. Right alongside the "Summon SpiderDragon" spell.

My approach is, and always will be, to neither glorify, nor gloss-over anything in any of my works.
The good stuff, or the bad stuff.
If it holds relevance to the narrative, it is included.
Though I find one means of making such dark moments more bearable is to present them through an external lens under conditions where the protagonist(s) can potentially intervene, or at least take some kind of action, or have some kind of agency, to resist the world's darkness.
The alternative, is primarily focused on either realism (a realistic depiction of the appropriate time period and existing social constructs within the world/setting, or to present the acts as being perpetrated by the villains / antagonists of the story).

For example, Asmodeus is going to be Asmodeus. He's not a "nice guy", so depicting him being "nice" would break verisimilitude. He's a Villain, so he should be doing Villainous stuff. There shouldn't be any issues with a villain being a villain after all. You can insert whatever villain you want here too, another great example from more modern pop-culture would most certainly be Joffrey from A Song of Ice and Fire by George R.R. Martin.

At least, that would be my approach anyway.

Hm... if the world contains cruelty, depicting it is honest. I get it. Villains doing villainous things. That's, honestly from me, fair as hell.

But, um... it doesn't exactly answer how to frame those acts. You got the why and I support that completely.

So, like, you mentioned Joffrey. Yeah, I'm gonna start backwards here. He works, but it isn't just because he's a sadistic prick but because the novels... maybe more in the series, they frame him as immature, petty, insecure, and destructive; that's not one thing, but three colliding around his immature age inside his mind. That doesn't spell a villain automatically, but it does make for a very cruel context when it calls for it.

Sort of likewise, at least in the roles of tyranny, Asmodeus works because he's already positioned as the embodiment of calculated tyranny, not so... what is the word I'm looking for here. I'm gonna be a moment... aspirational? Maybe? Close enough.

Yes, villains should villain and the stories we write should still portray how they present that villainy. But it is up to us in framing it inside those pages. A lot of those already commenting here have given us ways they do it. And I like yours; the agency point? Yeah, giving protagonists room to resist or respond definitely changes how those darker moments leaves an impact. Also, yeah, again, verisimilitude matters. A villain being sanitized can break immersion, like, real fast. I think the framing still does all the curling reps to lift each sentence like they're gym weights, buffs up the scenes, but I get where you're coming from on world integrity.

Know what I mean?
 

MFontana

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2025
Messages
396
Points
93
Hm... if the world contains cruelty, depicting it is honest. I get it. Villains doing villainous things. That's, honestly from me, fair as hell.

But, um... it doesn't exactly answer how to frame those acts. You got the why and I support that completely.

So, like, you mentioned Joffrey. Yeah, I'm gonna start backwards here. He works, but it isn't just because he's a sadistic prick but because the novels... maybe more in the series, they frame him as immature, petty, insecure, and destructive; that's not one thing, but three colliding around his immature age inside his mind. That doesn't spell a villain automatically, but it does make for a very cruel context when it calls for it.

Sort of likewise, at least in the roles of tyranny, Asmodeus works because he's already positioned as the embodiment of calculated tyranny, not so... what is the word I'm looking for here. I'm gonna be a moment... aspirational? Maybe? Close enough.

Yes, villains should villain and the stories we write should still portray how they present that villainy. But it is up to us in framing it inside those pages. A lot of those already commenting here have given us ways they do it. And I like yours; the agency point? Yeah, giving protagonists room to resist or respond definitely changes how those darker moments leaves an impact. Also, yeah, again, verisimilitude matters. A villain being sanitized can break immersion, like, real fast. I think the framing still does all the curling reps to lift each sentence like they're gym weights, buffs up the scenes, but I get where you're coming from on world integrity.

Know what I mean?
I get what you mean as well (I think, but I could still be mistaken. If so, please correct me.).
As for the how, that would really depend on the act itself, and the type of story being presented. After all, you're obviously not going to depict and frame such acts within the scope and genre of the story, and it will be different from one genre to the next.
Where I typically write in the Gothic-Horror (backdrop) of Dark Fantasy, I'd present such (vile) acts framed through the lens of the genre.

The only real example I have from any of my drafted fiction was a near-rape (I do believe this would qualify, and also believe that I shouldn't have to address how vile and amoral such an act actually is.) moment where the act is committed against one of a noble family's servants by a hostile soldier (amidst a violent coup against said family, whom one of the protagonists is the youngest daughter of).
The protagonists witness the attack (and intervene and kill said attacker before things progress too far), but nothing is glossed over (or glorified in any way).

So the "How" of that specific scene is best summarized as: The protagonists (during their escape) witness the attack happening. They see the soldier dragging off his would-be victim. They hear her screams, and her pleading cries. They see him trying to force himself on her, but before he can, the female lead (she's the one of the two who's armed with a weapon at this point) rushes in and stabs the soldier through the neck, killing him instantly.
The scene itself is far more graphic in the draft, but I figure this summary is sufficient to address the 'how' I handled it in my case.
NOTE: The fiction/story/novel being referenced here is not one that I have released on ScribbleHub. None of that story content is available here, and I don't currently have any intention of releasing it here, so there are no 'spoiler warnings' in place.

Much of the remainder of the murders and other atrocities committed by the villains during that sequence occur off-screen but are heavily implied through the lens of what the protagonists can perceive and/or interact with. (They can hear the screams, shouts, cries, etc etc etc, but can't see the acts themselves, so I don't provide any details to them).

Bits that are vital to the narrative though, are presented through scenic interludes (shifted scenes, separated by the "horizontal line" page-breaks).

Does this address the question better, L1aei?

And for the record; even though it really shouldn't need to be said; I do not support, encourage, nor condone, ANY such acts, by ANYONE. Ever.
 

L1aei

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2025
Messages
1,072
Points
113
I get what you mean as well (I think, but I could still be mistaken. If so, please correct me.).
As for the how, that would really depend on the act itself, and the type of story being presented. After all, you're obviously not going to depict and frame such acts within the scope and genre of the story, and it will be different from one genre to the next.
Where I typically write in the Gothic-Horror (backdrop) of Dark Fantasy, I'd present such (vile) acts framed through the lens of the genre.

The only real example I have from any of my drafted fiction was a near-rape (I do believe this would qualify, and also believe that I shouldn't have to address how vile and amoral such an act actually is.) moment where the act is committed against one of a noble family's servants by a hostile soldier (amidst a violent coup against said family, whom one of the protagonists is the youngest daughter of).
The protagonists witness the attack (and intervene and kill said attacker before things progress too far), but nothing is glossed over (or glorified in any way).

So the "How" of that specific scene is best summarized as: The protagonists (during their escape) witness the attack happening. They see the soldier dragging off his would-be victim. They hear her screams, and her pleading cries. They see him trying to force himself on her, but before he can, the female lead (she's the one of the two who's armed with a weapon at this point) rushes in and stabs the soldier through the neck, killing him instantly.
The scene itself is far more graphic in the draft, but I figure this summary is sufficient to address the 'how' I handled it in my case.
NOTE: The fiction/story/novel being referenced here is not one that I have released on ScribbleHub. None of that story content is available here, and I don't currently have any intention of releasing it here, so there are no 'spoiler warnings' in place.

Much of the remainder of the murders and other atrocities committed by the villains during that sequence occur off-screen but are heavily implied through the lens of what the protagonists can perceive and/or interact with. (They can hear the screams, shouts, cries, etc etc etc, but can't see the acts themselves, so I don't provide any details to them).

Bits that are vital to the narrative though, are presented through scenic interludes (shifted scenes, separated by the "horizontal line" page-breaks).

Does this address the question better, L1aei?

Yes, it does. That's good. So they ain't being direct witnesses of the act, you're taking the really graphic atrocity away from the protagonist; that includes the readers. That's definitely one way on how to handle it well. In my opinion, you've clarified that genre is the dictator over framing the demesne, but you also have selective explicitness demonstrated with an emphasis on the protagonist's agency. You know, by how they first saw something wasn't right, then heard it escalate, and then they acted before it could go further. And the fact you use this off-screen to imply what's going on is strategic. Yeah, it is, because you're distinguishing how by drawing that line in the sand between necessary details and atmospheric horror.

That's really good. :blobthumbsup:
 

L1aei

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2025
Messages
1,072
Points
113
This is a very tough philosophical question for the SmutHub, I mean ScribbleHub, forums.

You are not wrong at all; it's a challenge, not a problem, and one I thought deserved to be addressed... respectfully. :blob_okay:
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2025
Messages
26
Points
13
There's an issue I can understand from a website's perspective, but not from the perspective of authors and readers. If someone, for example, wants to create a literary work whose content might even be illegal in some countries, what's the problem? If someone wants to glorify murderers or whatever, is that going to change the world? I'm much more concerned about those who, in the name of being good, moral, etc., try to dictate what is publishable and what isn't.
 

L1aei

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2025
Messages
1,072
Points
113
There's an issue I can understand from a website's perspective, but not from the perspective of authors and readers. If someone, for example, wants to create a literary work whose content might even be illegal in some countries, what's the problem? If someone wants to glorify murderers or whatever, is that going to change the world? I'm much more concerned about those who, in the name of being good, moral, etc., try to dictate what is publishable and what isn't.

Gatekeeping. Yeah, I get it. It's moral policing, sometimes, but that's a tiny bit of why we frame our stories, though. Platforms in general have legal and liability considerations that we, as individual authors, don't. And from a creative perspective, I'm less concerned with whether something is allowed and more interested in how it's handled. Even extreme material can be approached thoughtfully... or recklessly.

That's where the discussion becomes interesting to me. That's why this thread exists.
 
Top