# Psychological Consequences of Battle



## Mindfire (Apr 6, 2012)

Is it something that needs to be addressed or can you choose to ignore/gloss over it if you don't want to deal with the subject? I ask because though battle is an integral part of my story, I feel that dealing with the mental consequences of battle (e.g. having a character vomit/get depressed after killing someone for the first time) is not something I really want to touch on because it takes time and space away from the focus: the plot. Similarly I find myself avoiding killing certain characters because I don't want to feel obligated to waste pages describing their funeral and other characters mourning for them long afterwards.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 6, 2012)

I wouldn't worry about it. Characters react differently. You don't have to have a guy get sick or even have some big emotional reaction the first time he kills someone. Some characters may experience such trauma and others may not. I wouldn't feel compelled to include it.


----------



## Telcontar (Apr 6, 2012)

Unless it has some bearing on the plot, no need to go into detail. However, I would (and I do) mention the fact that different people _do_ handle it differently. This character feels shaky, that character feels energized. Another character throws up. Whatever you want. Try having a character have an out-of-seeming reaction (the big tough guy cries after battle, for instance) for a quirk.


----------



## Ivan (Apr 6, 2012)

Well, I think maybe you are miscalculating the effects of battle and losing friends in it. A few people will vomit and sink into a deep depression; but most people get bitter at first, and then try to move on. You can't just drop everything and mope for a long time, you have to go on living, even when it hurts. It would be more appropriate for your characters to have occasional bouts of grief (or anger) than to have a long drawn-out mourning period.

Personally I think that the consequences of battle are both interesting and important to write about; but many people find this inconvenient and gloss over it. I think readers in general are so used to skipping over this that you can get away with skipping over it yourself.

Even if you do talk about it a little, I don't see any reason to have to include a funeral; that would be an acceptable time-skip.


----------



## ThinkerX (Apr 7, 2012)

The psychological effects can make a story all in themselves:  normal people put in a 'kill or be killed' situation and actually having to kill can cause massive psychological damage.  It can turn them into serial or spree killers, have them waking up screaming from brutal nightmares years later, and lots of other nasty things.

One of the nastier is the 'broken men', where normal people 'loose their humanity'.  Some of the older SF and fantasy authors used to deal with this; Andre' Norton had a devastating 'Witch World' short story featuring such.  The only one whose gone much into it in more recent times that I can recollect offhand is George Martin in his 'Game of Thrones'.


----------



## TWErvin2 (Apr 7, 2012)

*Mindfire*,

It depends on the story you want to tell. I am not sure it is a waste of pages/taking up time and space incorporating the reaction to battle or the consequences of facing death or losing comrads. It certainly can change a chracter's outlook on many things. How many words does it take for a character to vomit behind a tree then prepare to move on with the march, or take a sword from a fallen friend and promise to give it to an eldest son? Maybe it has value, maybe not. A burial scene in one of my novels, for example, took 2/3 of a page. 

Again, it depends on the story you're telling, especially considering the balance between a being plot-driven and a character-driven story. The POV used to tell the story can impact this as well.


----------



## shangrila (Apr 7, 2012)

It depends entirely on the character. If they're affected by war, then yeah, you should do it. But if not, then don't.

Personally, my current character feels the adrenaline during war and almost finds himself laughing. He comes from a culture of warriors and so doesn't bother even thinking about it, besides thinking of any personal failures.


----------



## Rullenzar (Apr 7, 2012)

It isn't necessary but it does make characters feel more real. If you have a feminine male vs. a butch male they will most likely react differently. You can also present it in a comedic fashion for some comic relief.


----------



## Shockley (Apr 7, 2012)

One theory that I have always ascribed to is that a more primitive culture (and I use that in a broad sense, meaning any culture without a first/second world standard of living or the western world as recently as two hundred years) is less likely to become shell-shocked or traumatized than someone living now. Much like how a primitive man would be more likely to survive some kind of injury (Assuming the same level of medical care was given - the amount of injury a primeval human could take was astronomical compared to us. A certain diet and rugged lifestyle does wonders for the body, y'know.), they'd also be more likely to handle the stress of killing someone a lot better because it is something that surrounds them from day one. 

 Siblings die young, parents die young, etc. Executions are carried out in public. You become desensitized very quickly when you are surrounded by constant death. Add in someone who was raised in a war zone, it wouldn't be that big of a deal.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Apr 7, 2012)

I think whether you choose to show the effects of battle or not will set the tone for your story.  In one of mine, horrible monsters attack a town and a soldier stands defending the body of his dead brother.  Later, while other soldiers are seeing to the safety of the remaining townspeople, this soldier and his close friend abandon the town to bury the brother.  To me, that scene was important; it showed the strength of their friendship and also the deep love he had for his brother and the loss he felt.  The scene wouldn't have been the same if the soldier simply piled his brother with the other bodies to be burned or buried without personal care.


----------



## Leif GS Notae (Apr 7, 2012)

If it isn't central to the plot, then use a small amount of description to touch on it (for resolving any issues readers might have) and move on. This is your story, you have the right to tell it however you wish. 

However, I feel you are missing out on a good opportunity to connect with your reader by giving them something they can all relate to: Death. While it might be overdone and somewhat generic, no one ever gets out of life alive. This, of course, is my opinion and you may feel free to dispose of it in the Mythic Scribes Circular File.


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 7, 2012)

The problem I face is that the characters most likely to die are would set off a huge cause/effect chain that could threaten to derail the story. 
Example: my main character's father. 
If he dies, that's going to cause my character's mother to mourn, 
since she's faint-hearted, her mourning will go on quite a while, which then slows down the party, which might get them captured.
And then once they finally reach their destination they will meet my main character's uncle, who will hear about the death of his brother that he hasn't seen for years and parted with on bad terms, 
and then he and my main character's mother will both be morning, 
which is made worse by the fact that my uncle was on his way to my main character's grandfather's funeral, 
which is made even worse by the fact that my main character's grandfather's dying wish was that my main character's uncle and father find a way to reconcile but they can't now because he's dead
and all of this triggers in the main character a newfound hatred of his father's killers and desire for revenge... and it goes on. I can still think of more effects from that one death.

You see now? A single death, just one character dying, creates and ENTIRE SUBPLOT. That's my problem. All the characters are like this. Every character who might possibly die (except the villains, who mostly die anyway), their deaths all trigger cause/effect subplot kudzu.


----------



## Penpilot (Apr 7, 2012)

A lot of good things have been said. I'll add the following. Reactions to things like battle and death can be short, really short, like one line short. Depending on the story you want to tell, they can be just simple acknowledgments that killing and death aren't easy and mean something. They don't have to be long passages describing post tramatic stress. How a character reacts to stuff informs the reader about the character and helps them understand what type of person the character is. Understanding a character makes them more real.


----------



## Amanita (Apr 7, 2012)

> I feel that dealing with the mental consequences of battle (e.g. having a character vomit/get depressed after killing someone for the first time) is not something I really want to touch on because it takes time and space away from the focus: the plot.


This makes me wonder: How can a plot be interesting if the events that happen don't do anything to the characters? This works for an action movie but for a novel? 

In my opinion, but I seem to be quite alone with that, war is one of the potentially controversial subjects that deserve thorough research. Talking to people who've actually been to war would be the best option in my opinion if this is possible, historical documents are helpful too. 

People react very differently to violence. Luckily, I've never had to face war myself, but you also see it when the killing of animals is concerned. Some people refuse to touch meat again, after seeing how animals are being killed, others don't want to see it and can't imagine doing but keep eating meat, while others can do it and are aware of the fact that it's necessary if you want to eat meat. Killing your own chicken was quite common in the past. I haven't killed an animal myself but I've accompanied my grandfather and uncle while hunting when I was a child and it's never been very shocking for me. 

I don't think every soldier killing someone in the heat of the battle is going to vomit or anything of that sort, I actually believe that this is quite unlikely in most cases. If adrenaline is high, there are other things which are more important.
People die in battles however, people you are close to as well, and if it's only happening to the bad guys this will seem a bit shallow. 
Playing war games with great weapons, skills and heroic action is a very common pursuit of young boys (and some girls as well) and I don't see anything wrong with doing the same in a story. It's probably as close to the truth as extreme anti-war-stories where everyone is traumatised for ever. Some people disagree though and believe that no positive descriptions of violence are acceptable ever.
As always, I prefer the middle ground however, involving different people being affected differently.

The way our societies are dealing with killing are quite hypocritical in some ways anyway. A few months ago, there's been a highly controversial discussion here because a prisoner in the USA chose to be shot rather than executed by lethal injection. There's been plenty of "what kind of person can simply shoot someone" but in my opionin, the option of a medical professional injecting poison is much more morally dubious than this. But it still looks "cleaner" and less messy.
(Don't know if that's been an issue in the US itself at all?)


----------



## Shockley (Apr 7, 2012)

> In my opinion, but I seem to be quite alone with that, war is one of the potentially controversial subjects that deserve thorough research. Talking to people who've actually been to war would be the best option in my opinion if this is possible, historical documents are helpful too.



 While I think that's a good point if your story involves guns, it might not be the best way to research if your characters use melee weapons. Being in a battle with guns, bombs, incendiaries, etc. is going to be a very different experience from charging up to someone and stabbing them to death - the psychological change will be very different.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Apr 7, 2012)

I highly recommend that you all read All Quiet in the Western Front, by Erich Maria Remarque. The story is told by his character Paul Baummer, a 20 year old German soldier fighting in the First World War... You can really get the feeling of what it was like to be in battle and deal with everything that they had to see and do, it's absolutely a wonderful book =)


----------



## Leif GS Notae (Apr 7, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> The problem I face is that the characters most likely to die are would set off a huge cause/effect chain that could threaten to derail the story.
> Example: my main character's father.
> If he dies, that's going to cause my character's mother to mourn,
> since she's faint-hearted, her mourning will go on quite a while, which then slows down the party, which might get them captured.
> ...



And yet, this is the point of a story. It really depends on who kills the protag's father, but there is bound to be mourning no matter what happens. Sure, your Protag may not want to mourn, but you know it will add more fuel to the fire when he sees his uncle, his mother, his grandfather all upset. It gives value to the parental figure and now gives your protag an extra burden. He doesn't want to mourn, not until the job is done. Everywhere he turns, he witnesses where his father has touched someone. That can be very compelling.

I think your stance is pretty much where your protagonist needs to be. I don't want to mourn, things have to be done. However, much like the real world, death is shocking and emotionally charged. You have a great opportunity to have a protag living in the shadow of his father while trying to be his own man. That is something almost anyone can relate to.


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 7, 2012)

I see your point. I'm thinking about maybe splitting the story into different "alternate universes", depending on who dies and who doesn't and then seeing which version makes the best story.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Apr 8, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> Is it something that needs to be addressed or can you choose to ignore/gloss over it if you don't want to deal with the subject? I ask because though battle is an integral part of my story, I feel that dealing with the mental consequences of battle (e.g. having a character vomit/get depressed after killing someone for the first time) is not something I really want to touch on because it takes time and space away from the focus: the plot.



It really depends on what the character believes in, wether he is naturally meek or naturally ferocious, how used he is to violence (or how much time he has had to contemplate it), and what kind of "culture of killing" his people has. 

The vikings believed that killing a man essentially sent him to heaven. The samurai were taught from childhood that killing or being killed was perfectly natural. Medieval knights were told to be passionate in battle but gentle in spirit, because the act of killing was not evil in itself - killing out of malicious intent was.

Battle is and has always been extremely stressful, but the idea that killing your fellow man is something you should feel very bad about is actually fairly modern.


----------

