Read on Twitter
i want to hash out some thoughts on this so bear with me, but there's a lot to consider in how violence is contextualized for the viewer in various media, and what function it serves within that media. https://twitter.com/space_hamlet/status/1324361918690299904
im also not gonna cover everything/everyone/every lens so dont take this a blanket condemnation, or a "stop liking that thing you like" thread-- i like things that people find absolutely repulsive. i assume you are a smart viewer. im just very into the study of violence in media.
i think the crux of a lot of my issues with 'true crime' come down to the fact that it seems to get separated out from what it actually is— documentary. overwhelmingly, documentary about events and people from recent (past ~50) years.
this means you're dealing with violent, traumatic events involving people who are still alive, or have family who are alive. this necessitates a level of sensitivity and consideration that usually isn't needed in fiction (more on that later).
reality and cause are messy. people are messy. violence springs from many factors that combine to make it happen (macro to micro). it will mean different things to the people directly connected. you can know all the facts and not understand.
i do not begrudge people for wanting to make sense of instances of violence. i don't begrudge people for morbid fascination, which i see as human nature. it's how these things combine in a documentary format that can very quickly get distasteful.
when you are creating a narrative, you have control over what it contains, and how it is presented. essential questions you should answer include: what do i want my audience to feel? what do i want them to take away? who is my audience and *what role am i asking them to take*?
when you're creating a narrative from reality, especially a highly traumatic reality, there is a heightened responsibility. for the people who consume your narrative, it will very likely shape their sense of this reality. it will certainly shape how they talk about it.
it's comfortable to be removed from traumatic reality. encountering the traumatic and truly 'seeing' it, is deeply uncomfortable. our brains aren't meant to 'be in' this all the time, so it's natural to step back in some way.
if true crime (broadly) was actually invested in communicating cases with empathy and the gravity they deserve, it would not be anywhere near as popular. it would be considered 'extreme' media, and rightfully so.
effectively putting viewers in the seat of a victim, or person close to a victim, or even just conveying the reality and ugliness of violence is heavy stuff and very difficult to pull off. what's way easier is creating a voyeuristic lens, and/or making a puzzle out of it.
it's much more comfortable to play a game, have fun, or just go 'oh my god isn't this so fucked up'. but it isn't a puzzle, or a game— it's *reality* of the ugliest sort. it doesn't have neat conclusions, or lessons, or even comfort at the end.
in reality, violence doesn't have a narrative function. we can dig into causes and context, but it's a raw wound at the center of your story, and if you truly 'touch' it, it's not going to be fun, and it's going to hurt, and that's how it should be.
as a connecting point to violence in fiction— yes, you can fictionalize real events, which necessitates intense scrutiny in tone and presentation, perhaps even more so than documentary. it's easy to do poorly, and very difficult to do well.
so on the opposite side of this coin, violence does have narrative function in fiction! fictional violence, ideally, serves and supports the story it's a part of. it exists in the mind of the audience, evoked by craft and skill. no one is actually getting hurt.
this doesn't mean you won't or shouldn't respond viscerally. or that all fictional violence is without consequence or weight. BUT, no matter how brutal or realistic fictional violence is, it is easier and cleaner than real violence by virtue of being a construct with a point.
i have engaged with a ton of violent media, with a huge range of tones and functions. there is absolutely irresponsible, exploitative fictional violence, though where that line gets drawn is largely personal and highly contextual.
it is certainly possible to be hurt or upset by fictional violence, especially if it's depicted in a particularly visceral/extreme or realistic way. once again, it's highly personal, but that lingering emotional effect is a big reason to carefully consider what you create.
still, assuming a narrative and its violence will be received appropriately by intended audience, fiction is the place to make violence a puzzle, get irreverent, or use it expressively or symbolically.
it is okay to want to see something grotesque, or feed your brain a controlled experience, or fantasize, or just go 'oh my god isn't that so fucked up'. trust me, i'm a person who will encourage that, i'll give you tailored recommendations and content warnings all day.
i get why true crime is popular, and i understand and empathize with what it feeds audiences. i am not immune to morbid curiosity, emotional remove, or the allure of voyeuristic consumption, not at all.
but the ethics of 'true crime' remain, in my opinion, broadly unexamined in a way that feels at best, distasteful, and at worst, actively, tangibly harmful.
