#He’s a very violent organised criminal and everyone’s boss so they do all kind of have to take him seriously on some level even if

[rotzaprachim]

some other possible career paths for the crows: jesper as a teacher for the ten year old ish crowd (has fun socks and suits in all themes a la his icon miss frizzle, plans ludicrously over-the-top fun volcano demonstrations and greek-and-roman toga days, kids LOVE him), nina as an actual literal witch, inej and matthias as firefighter bros (inej loves the firehouse pole and axing doors down, matthias loves introducing field trip groups to Spots the Firehouse Dog), Nina as a sex ed teacher, wylan as a constantly beleaguered IT guy trying to tell shouty corporate dudes they just need to turn their laptops off and on again. kaz is always just some guy who runs a bar with a sticky floor

[leonawriter]

I often see that when people do meta or analysis (or even headcanons/fics) on Chuuya, they’ll touch on how he is with the mafia, and they’ll ask the question of “is he actually happy there, how free is he” among other things. Often these opinions are ones I have conflicted feelings about, as I’ll freely admit I’m biased toward him staying in the mafia, and some may have a harsher view on the mafia’s influence on him, or just in general, than I do.

Earlier I saw a post that touched on several things about Chuuya and the mafia that made me think. Some aspects had been mulling in my mind for a while, too. 

(I may go into a ramble here. I’m tired and there’s stuff going on. I just hope some of it makes sense.)

The first thing is that when we compare Chuuya’s relationship with the Sheep to that with the PM, it’s easy to say “he was never respected in the Sheep, they took advantage of him and used his power, emotionally manipulating him to feel responsible” but something that sticks out when Chuuya is dealing with Mori is that in spite of the Sheep being a “democratic” organisation, everyone outside of that group sees Chuuya as its leader. He’s the one who looks out for the members, he’s the most visible, so he’s the “king.”

Effectively, Mori treats him as such in their interactions, and recognises and respects that Chuuya, despite saying “I’m not a king, I just have a trump card up my sleeve!” several times, does want to have that kind of respect. To be listened to when he says to people “don’t do that” because he knows it’s in their best interests.

Chuuya’s downfall in the Sheep is that he’s the one with the most power in terms of violence and raw physical power, having all of all of his agency and social power taken away from him in small ways. Even such things as him wanting the kids to not go to the docks and buy alcohol is them saying that they don’t care about his opinion, they don’t care about his well-being. In their opinion, they do as they like, and when they fuck around and find out, he bails them out. 

Despite his repeated protestations of “I’m no king!”, he must have on some level have internalised the idea that not only should he take responsibility, but that the responsibility to look after the kids under his protection means that they should, in theory, listen to him as well. He was no king because he was a puppet monarch; someone who is there for show, but doesn’t make any decisions.

When Chuuya watches the way that Mori works, he’s already seen how the Sheep treat those they’re afraid of, even those that they should have trusted. He sees that his former allies, his former family, would give him up in a heartbeat if they thought he was a threat. Anyone who went through that would at some point ask “where did I go wrong?”, and Mori is the one who answers him in a way that doesn’t spare his feelings, and also encourages him to pick himself back up.

If you look at what Mori says, it explains to Chuuya why Shirase (and assumedly the Sheep council) acted the way that they did. He isn’t stupid, he knows it was controlled and orchestrated by Dazai and Mori, and even says so when he’s picked up by the mafia after being betrayed. But hearing Mori leads Chuuya to understand why it happen, and if you can understand why something went wrong, then you can learn how to handle things better next time.

Chuuya respects people, he likes people, he wants them to live. He grieves their loss. I truly think he’d come at being the boss - as I think he’d inevitably become, at some point in the near or distant future - in an entirely different way to how Mori does, purely by how Chuuya doesn’t think about things in such a logical, optimal solution-based way. However, he does very much think in a way that suits the mafia. He can weigh one life against another’s, and choose the life of his own against that of someone who's done no wrong other than to go against him. He can choose the “organisation” over other people. He was good at the jewellery business when he first started out, and I’d love to know what he’s been doing since then. And he doesn’t seem to show any discomfort with that!

The thing is this - there are many reasons Chuuya stays in the mafia. 

One is that he respects and admires the people he works with, and his boss. That respect and admiration is also not a one-way street; these people see him as more than just his ability, even when they know what that is and what his origins are. That’s enough for a lifetime of gratitude, and more than just gratitude, but a feeling of “how can I ever repay this?”. And the only thing that they want from him in return is that he keeps developing, becoming more confident and better at his job(s).

Another reasons is, as said above, he has the mindset for it. He is that strange kind of person who is both infinitely kind and capable of love but also infinitely capable of cruelty and violence. Each time I think “where would Chuuya be if he weren’t in the mafia” I think of how the closest we see to his sort of mindset is either in another criminal organisation, in the Hunting Dogs (who aren’t criminal, but are the only organisation that are allowed to do such things and also be within the law), and, well... Tanizaki. Tanizaki, who would be perfectly happy to assassinate a guy just to save his boss’ life, and who someone said would do just fine in the mafia. 

The thing is, the ways in which Chuuya is trapped by the mafia are general only of his own making. He seems to have this idea that he has to have a certain kind of self-image, one that he began to cultivate back when he first joined, so that he would be given respect. In some ways, however, this also is reminiscent of Mori himself, who will be acting in an unprofessional way (trying to get a “young” girl to please get some clothes on) but have to cover that up once someone walks in. 

But this isn’t just a mafia thing! Fukuzawa does it too, and we can see it in the way that he wants to make the right kind of responses, but if he weren’t director, he’d just go with the flow more. With how he wants to just go out places and pet cats, but has to put up this image of the dignified director that people can rely on. 

In Chuuya’s case, I think it’s something he needs to work on, so that he can become a self-assured and confident adult, but in general it’s just... adulthood, to need to look professional while you’re doing your job. The problem with some of these characters is that their job is so closely tied with who they are.

To summarise:

Chuuya wanted the respect of being a leader even as he was denied personal agency while in the Sheep, and was given the ability to work toward that respect and earn it from others on his entry into the mafia. Mori’s words showed him what he lacked, but also highlighted what hadn’t been given to him before.

Chuuya’s place is in the mafia as it is where his talents lie, but more importantly it is most likely where he would feel the least out of place, and the least uncomfortable by peoples’ assumptions that he “should” act or think in a certain way. Just as in many ways he is seen as “too nice and kind” for the mafia, so would he be seen as “too violent, cruel, and callous” to work in the light, within the law, and his continued ability to stay loyal to the mafia without discomfort for what they do would make it impossible for him to work for the ADA.

[scripttorture]

Star Wars AU anon! Thanks for letting me know! Basically, my questions were: How can I characterize Rey’s deskilling/mental health issues in a mafia setting if she goes on a trip with Finn? How could I characterize Boss Kylo and why he would keep a torture group that is poisoning his organization? I want Finn to inform him when he sees Rey’s condition and incompetence as more than just being new, but I want Kylo to see competent/powerful and not too dense about his organization. [1/2]

(Star Wars anon) Lastly, just to make sure I didn’t miss anything, would the torturers interact with Kylo and would they be disrespectful? Or only toward those who don’t like torture? Would Rey be nice to Finn even though he doesn’t like torture itself? [2/2]

Thisis quite a long set of questions, I’ll try to tackle it as best Ican. Some of these have more definitive answers than others. In somecases I might make suggestions based on the characters, as I’mfamiliar with them.

And this got very long so the rest of it is under the cut.

Ihad quite a few conversations with the author discussing the story,so I got quite a bit of extra information on the characters andcontext.

Oneof the things that came up in conversation with the asker was a fearthat this plot might have sexist connotations. That Rey is going frombeing led by Kylo to being led by Finn.

Nothingin the plot outline struck me as particularly sexist, though I agreethat context and connotations are important. Female torturers arerare but there’s nothing in the current research to suggest thatthis is because women are less likely to torture. Instead thedisparity is likely explained by women being denied opportunities.In most countries the sorts of occupations torturers are usuallyemployed as, are heavily skewed towards men. In some countries womenare actively barred from filling these roles.

Theresult is that (while I admit research is lacking) it seems likelythat there are less female torturers because there are less women ina position where they can become torturers. When there arewomen in these kinds of positions and environments then we dostart seeing them participating in torture.

Oneof the things the author mentioned in conversation was thedifferences between torture in a military or policing context (ie thefocus of most research) and in an organised crime context. When itcomes to the gender ratio the observations in policing and themilitary hold just as true for organised crime: most of thesecriminal organisations favour men and many actively exclude women.

Thatdoes effect Rey’s position here. The story puts her in a sexistenvironment, but that doesn’t necessarily make the story sexist. Ithink if you’re worried about that the thing to emphasise here isRey’s choice.

Theodds are that in this deeply sexist environment she’s listening toKylo because he gave her a chance. It may seem cliché butpeople do remember and respond well too individuals who help us wheneveryone else was dismissive. Stressing her reasons for followingmakes this less about Kylo and more about Rey actively choosingbetween the options available to her.

Youcan then extend that to Finn as well. Because if this Rey limitsherself to a life in organised crime (or a life as a torturer),  thenshe may well see Kylo as her best option. Listening to Finn thenbecomes less about Finn himself and more about Rey discovering thatactually she does have other options. Again, it’s aboutshifting the focus to emphasise that she’s making a choice.

Asfor how sexism would effect the way readers respond to afemale torturer-

Ithink whatever you do there will always be a couple of people whowill excuse a character’s actions because they like the characteror because she’s a young, pretty white girl and thereforecan do no wrong. However well you write this scenario you’re notgoing to get rid of that section of fandom.

Iknow quite a few fic authors who have written wonderful, lengthynuanced (tagged) pieces and still gotten a bunch of responsesthat say far more about the commenters prejudice then they do aboutthe character or fic. They are a minority ofcomments/responses. I would suggest preparing yourself for thoseresponses even while doing the best job you can.

AndI think the answer here is actually the same as the prior one:emphasise Rey’s choice. Kylo may want or ask her to dohorrible things but it is still her choice to do them. Emphasise herreasons and motivations. They won’t all be about pleasing her boss.

Somethingyou could include that would help here (and be in keeping with thebehaviour of torturers) is having her jump the gun sometimes. Havingher leaping straight into abusive behaviour before she has theorder or OK from Kylo. She might then have to justify her actions tohim afterwards. But one or two incidents of this kind of realisticinsubordination would serve to underline her decisions, her thoughtprocesses and her choice.

Ithink this is probably the point where I should start talking aboutorganised crime.

It’sa minor point but I’m not sure it’s appropriate to call thesesorts of Organised Crime settings/AUs ‘Mafia’ AUs. I’ve seenquite a few Italians object to this usage and- well it seems to implythat mafia groups are a thing of the past or from old Americanmovies. Rather than hugely powerful groups that are very much stillaround murdering people today. Hence why I’m referring to this as‘organised crime’ throughout.

Ialso think that the story you’re going for would benefitfrom a little distance from Mafias in particular. Because while youdo get torture around some of their ‘traditional’ activities (ieracketeering and ‘protection’ money) it comes up a lot morefrequently in human trafficking gangs. I’mnot sure if that’s something you want to use butif Kylo’s gang had a history of being involved in that trade itcould explain why they have a full-time torturer.

Fromwhat I can tell (and once again I’m not an expert on organisedcrime) most of these sorts of gangs don’t.There doesn’t seem to be the same relentless intensity of violencethat you see in the context of police and military torturers.

Iam not suggesting thatorganised criminals don’t torture or that they don’t dohorrendous things. What I’m saying is that individual gang membersdon’t typically seem to occupy positions where they’ll betorturing people 9-5, five days a week every week for years at atime. And that difference in intensity of exposure maylead to a difference in things like symptom severity. I don’tcurrently have enough data to confidently judge that.

ButI think if you characterise this criminal group as having beenheavily involved in human trafficking in the past (whether it stillis now or not) then you have more a plausible explanation for thespace you want Rey to occupy.

Internationalhuman trafficking gangs definitelyhave members who are engaged in torture in ways that are comparableto military and police torturers. Thishappens while victims are being transported and throughout the timethey’re held. The result is that gangs members who have directcontact with victims are oftentorturing or witnessing torture for the majority of their day.

Ifyou feel comfortable writing the characters engaged in these sorts ofactivities then you have a perfectly plausible explanation for Rey’scondition and function within the organisation already: she startedout at that level and she’s carrying the same behaviours andproblems forwards.

Ifyou don’t feelcomfortable writing that I think you could get Rey to a similarposition by having that as part of the gang’s recent past.

I’mthinking of a scenario something like this- The gang has stoppedengaging in human trafficking for whatever reason. However there arestill a fair few older members who were heavily involved with humantrafficking, including torturers. These older torturers are likely tofeel like they’ve been sidelined. They’re likely to feel bitterand generally opposed to the organisation’s current leadership. Asa result most of them are not likely to last long in the gang.

Butyou only really need one or two to last until Rey joins. Becausetorture is generally passed on in the same way ‘craft’professions are: an older more experienced person takes it uponthemselves to show a younger person how to do things.

Reyis already in this intensely sexist and competitive environment. Alot of fellow criminals are unlikely to want to give her the time ofday when she starts out and Kylo may not have noticed her instantly.She’d likely be isolated within this group, which makes her a primetarget for a torturer to pick up as an apprentice. The oldercharacter’s motivation here would be showing the others that theystill have a purpose and that what they do has a use. From Rey’sperspective she’d probably just be glad to have someone in the gangappearing to care for her and give her attention.

Ifyou haven’t found a use for Phasma in the story this could be avery good background role for her. It could also help address some ofthe worries you have about sexism by giving Rey a female ‘mentor’.

Thiskind of ‘training’ from early on when Rey joins could give anexplanation for her being pigeon-holed into this sort of violentrole. In fact it could be something her mentor figure here activelyencouraged. ‘Look how well I trained her to be violent. Use her forthis. Send her in when the protection money isn’t paid and you needto make an example out of someone.’

Itgives Rey her ‘role’ in the organisation and it would give adisgruntled, bitter formerly-activetorturer thekind of ego boost they thrive on.

Nownormally I would say that yestorturers would show a lack of respect to the people who outrankthem. Which in this scenario includes Kylo. But- well with some ofthe things I’ve outlined above, the likely sexist nature of theorganisation and this mentor-ship idea to explain Rey’s role- Ithink you could plausibly side step that.

Ina typical situation torturers disobey orders and don’t respond wellto authority. However this isn’t a typical situation. If Rey feelslike Kylo is one of the few men/people in this organisation that’sgiven her a fair chance (or one of the few to respect her‘abilities’) then that couldresult in a different relationship.

Theask and our conversations gives me the impression that theirrelationship isn’t distant. They know each other personally, thereseems to be a certain amount of mutual respect there. I think thatfits with the way you’ve established these two characters withinthis AU. It seems like this Rey may well feel personally indebted tothis Kylo.

Thatdoesn’t extend to other torturers though.

Thereare two realistic ways to handle that. The first is keeping thenumber of torturers very low; perhaps only two others aside from Rey.That could lead to a situation where Rey is the only one reallyinteracting with Kylo. The second is giving the torturers a highturnover rate: a lot of them are killed quickly for insubordinationor general incompetence.

Bothof those are plausible, realistic scenarios and they can functiontogether. The second in particular could be used to strengthen theboss-employee relationship between Kylo and Rey. He may well havenoticed that the torturers generallyaren’t trustworthy while also noticing that Reyhasn’t been insubordinate. That could also help with making himseem less incompetent; he believes Rey is trustworthy so he’sattaching the problems with other torturers to the individuals ratherthan torture itself.

HonestlyI’m a little unsure what else to advise with regards to Kylo andincompetence because one of the things I love about the character ishow incompetent he comes across as. I absolutely adore the way StarWars gave us this villain with huge personal power and no idea how towield it. With so many villains positioned as incredibly smart andtactical it seemed incredibly refreshing to me.

Divorcingthat question from the character though-

Ina military context a lot of superior officers don’t notice the facttorture doesn’t work because they’re not effectively comparingwhat their people are actually doing. Torture destroys their abilityto fact check.

Ithink this is probably easiest to explain in a policing context. Saythere’s been a robbery. The torturers go out and arrest some randompeople while the officers who are actually policing do the hard workof trying to look for evidence. To the superior (who is going by whatthe subordinate officers say)it looks as if the torturers have been more efficient. They havesuspects in jail already.

Bythe time the officers come back with some evidence the torturers mayhave forced a confession out of someone. The superior looks at thatand at the evidence and realises they don’t match. At this pointthe superiors has one group of subordinates telling them one thing iscertain, and another group saying something different. They’relikely to tell both groups to go away and investigate further.

Inthat time the torturers will probably get their victim to changetheir confession, taking the new details into account.

Thesuperior ends up praising them and feeling like they’ve got the‘right’ person. The officers go on working in the background anduncover more evidence that contradicts this, but by that point thevictim may already have been charged. The case might go to court andget thrown out because the evidence contradicts the confession.

Butby that point the truth, as it’s being communicated to the superiorofficer, is so muddied that it’s not particularly surprising thesuperior is having trouble. Especially when they’re dealing with alot of cases.

Unlessthey keep detailed records of these sorts of confused, contradictoryevents and the officers involved over time, they may well notidentify the problem with particular officers. It’s a question oftrust: superiors often need a clear reason to stop trusting theirsubordinates and torturers are usually very good at presenting theirstory as if it’s established fact.

Thisfeeds into the broader question of why an organisation might keepthese groups around. What follows is my opinion, rather thansomething I can point to research on.

Inthe context of the sort of organised criminal group you’representing- they may just not care. They may see it as something thatscares the competition and victims. They may (wrongly) believe thismakes people more likely to obey them.

Iget the impression that in military and police organisations there’soften a lack of will: the authorities in particular areas can’t bebothered to root out torture. There’s also often a high acceptanceof apologist ideals, especially ones surrounding victim’s‘deserving’ to be tortured.

Ifyou choose to use the idea that the gang engaged in human traffickingin the past they may have torturers through... inertia. They’ve‘always’ had them so why change?

Organisations,criminal or otherwise, don’tnaturally follow the path to greatest efficiency. People do thingsthey think work,rather than rigorously test everything. And if this organisation hasnever been without torturers then they probably have no idea how muchthey’re being dragged down.

Buthonestly? I don’t think you need much more explanation then anacceptance of apologist ideas and a lack of will/time/energy to roottorture out.

Ithink that covers the questions about the organisation and leaves thequestions about Rey in particular and her interactions with Finn.

I’mgoing to try and start with mental health problems.

Oneof the questions underlying this is what it takes for us to recognisesomething as a mental health issue, as opposed to an individual issueor not liking someone. And that varies greatly depending on theculture. The question of recognising and addressing incompetence intorturers is much easier.  

You’veprobably taken a look at the list of symptoms but here they are againjust in case.

Ithink characterising and recognisingthose symptoms depends on both the symptoms themselves and thecharacters.

Somesymptoms are probably easier to recognise in the context of thistrip. Memory lapses stand out as both obviouswhen you’re spending a lot of time with someone and something thatcan be tied to incompetence. Addiction could be used similarly butcan easily warp any narrative it’s put into: make sure you’ve gotthe narrative space to address it before deciding to use it.

Anxiety,panic attacks and PTSD can all make people freeze or seem to spaceout. They can cause visibleshakes. Anxiety and panicattacks can also make people repeat words or speak noticeably morequickly.

Depressionand anxiety can cause nausea and difficulty eating.

Hypervigilance,anxiety and panic attacks can look like paranoia. And any of thosesymptoms coupled with insomnia, memory loss or difficulty relating topeople can lead to situations where characters massivelymisjudge someone’s emotional state or a situation more generally.

Someof these things are easier to recognise as mental health problemswithout prior information on mental health. I think the best thing todo here is decide on symptoms, not just in relation to Rey but inrelation to what you think Finn would recognise. You need thesymptoms you pick to fit the broader plot as well as the character,so I’d suggest leaving out symptoms that you don’tthink Finn would be able torecognise as symptoms.

Deskillingis going to be- well prettydependant on what Rey and Finn are actually doing during this trip.

NarrativelyI think the best way to approach that would be to try and create anincident that highlights it, a situation where Rey leaps into doingsomething Finn knows is wrong. Not in the moral sense, in thepractical sense.

Thebasic template that comes to mind for me is this: Rey and Finn arelooking for someone, some thing or a particular important piece ofinformation. They’re in a new place. They’ve been together forthe time it took to get there but they don’t necessarily know eachother well yet.

Theydecide they’ll cover more ground if they split up. Youcould then show Finn following effective investigation methods andgetting some decent leads as a result. He contacts Rey and askshow she’s doing. Rey says she’s doing great and she’s got somefantastic leads. But when they meet up the things she’s saying makeno sense to Finn. They contradict the information he has, informationthat’s backed up by separate sources.

Finnmight be a little suspicious of this but interpreting it as a lack ofskilled information gathering means having the pattern repeat. Itmight mean Finn going out and trying to investigate Rey’s ‘leads’and finding either nothing or outright refuting evidence. Or it mightjust mean a generalised pattern of the same thing repeating; theykeep coming up with different ‘evidence’ and Rey’s is startingto seem increasingly outlandish.

Eventuallythat could lead to Finn questioning howRey is getting information. Finn might also start encounteringunexpected resistance. You could have previously reliable informantsflatly tell him they don’t want to talk to him any more because hebrought a torturer into town (perhaps people they know were targettedor perhaps they fear for their own safety).

Fromthe longer conversations I had with the author it’s clear that Reyisn’t completely comfortable with her role by this point and she’sprobably linked her mental health problems to what she’s doing insome way.

Nownormally I would saythat a character trying to intervene and stop a torturer (or justtrying to present an anti-torture point of view) was likely to getattacked. But I think a combination of the way you’ve characterisedthis version of Rey and the isolated situation they’re both inmeans that you could pull this off.

I’vespoken before about how torturers have a tendency to interpretanti-torture stances as attacks and respond accordingly. But thatresearch is all from amilitary context. What happens in that scenario is that thetorturer-sub-culture tends to close ranks. They try to make life asuncomfortable as possible for the person they see as a ‘threat’.Social isolation, bullying, attempts to sabotage their job and thelike are common. The situation can escalate to violence and attemptedmurder.

Howeverthis is within a context where torture is (at least theoretically)always against the rules. Your characters are alreadybreaking the law, none of them need to really worry about whetherbreaking another law is going to get them jailed or fired.

You’vealso taken Rey outsideof that toxic sub-culture when this happens. So she isn’t going tohave other people putting social pressure on her to reject what Finnsays.

Sometorturers do say theywant to stop. Especially when they acknowledge that their healthproblems are caused by what they do.

Whetherthis counts as ‘guilt’ or ‘regret’ depends on how you definethose terms. I think a lot of torturers regret the consequencestorture has had for them.But that’s not the same as a deeper understanding of what they puttheir victims through.

Fromeverything you’ve said about the way you’re characterising Reyand the story generally I think you could easily present her as‘regretting’ the fact her actions have led to her mental healthproblems. A greater insight into what she’s done would probablytake more time. But I’m not sure that greater insight would benecessary at this point, when you have Finn confronting Rey about thepointlessness of her actions.

Ifshe’s aware that she’s hurting herself and Finn can presentevidence that what she’s doing is ineffectivethen I think you have enough for the character development and arcyou have planned. It seems plausible to have an intervention workwith these specific characters under these specific conditions.

Ithink that leaves the question of Finn bringing this information toKylo and the question of how Rey might interact with Finn morebroadly.

It’sseems pretty clear to me that you’ve got their relationship growingand changing as the story progresses. It would make sense to havetheir interactions and Rey’s attitude change over that time periodas well.

Onceagain the differences between military torture and torture in anorganised crime context come into play here. Everything I’ve justsaid about how Rey might respond to Finn pointing out how ineffectiveher efforts have been is notbased on research. Because there is not so far as I know sufficientresearch on this in organised crime particularly. It’s an educatedguess on my part.

Imentioned that Rey is…. ina position where she’s at less ‘risk’ then a military torturermight be. That could result in a less confrontational attitudetowards Finn at first but I’m not sure. What it boils down to iswhether she sees him as a threat. Not in a physical sense but as athreat to the role she’s carved out for herself, her position inthe organisation, her prestige, her livelihood.

Ihonestly think you could play it well in a number of ways. You couldhave Rey start this trip not feeling threatened by Finn butdismissive of him. A general attitude of ‘well he doesn’t knowwhat he’s talking about’ that lets her ignore everything he says,right up to the point where he can underline just how pointless herefforts have been.

Ithink you could also start this off with Rey feeling quite threatenedby Finn’s stance and determined to ‘prove’ she’s right. Thatcould make it harder for Finn to reach her later.

Youcould also lean in to the fact that torturers are often quitesocially stunted. If Rey is already questioning what she’s doingbecause of the effect it’s having on her health she might feel tooconflicted about the issue to really know how she feels about Finnhimself. If she thinks what she’s doing is effective and haspurpose then she might see herself as sacrificing her health for theorganisation. She may find it difficult to interact with Finn oraddress any of his points against torture.

Shemay feel like she ‘needs’ to verbally defend what she doesbecause she sees it as ‘for the greater good’.

Ithink however you start their relationship off you could use theconfrontation, Finn pointing out how ineffective her methods are, asan opportunity to bring them closer together. You could use it as anopportunity for Rey to open up about her mental health, possibly forthe first time. You could use it as a chance to have her addressthese conflicting feelings about what she does, about what her placeand purpose is if everything she’s been taught about violence is alie.

Youcan bring the characters much closer together at this point by havingFinn willing to listen andto assure her she has worth.

Asfor taking this to Kylo-

Ithink that depends on whether Finn primarily wants to get Rey out ofa bad situation or end the torturer subgroup.

Thefirst option probably means emphasising the skills she does have andhow Finn finds them useful. How they makea good team and how thatwill make Kylo more money then what he currently has Rey doing.

Thesecond option would take longer and be more involved. It would meanspelling out to Kylo both that this isn’t working and that it’sdamaging his organisation. Particularly his ability to make money.

Ifyou go down that route I think you should include Rey in theconversation in some way. You’re concerned about her agencythroughout the story so Ithink involving her in dismantling the torturer-sub-group would helpaddress that. It gives her aplatform to state her feelings and views as well as something activeto do: rebuild part of the organisation afterwards.

Shecould also play a much more active role in convincing Kylo then Finndoes. Because it’s one thing to have someone uninvolved come alongand tell him that this doesn’t work. It’s another thing to havesomeone directly involved come along and say the same thing.

Ithink stressing the fact torture isn't working is probably the mainarguement to stress here. In this universe they're all violentcriminals so a moral stance is going to be less important. But Finnand Rey can still argue that they got further when they weren't usingtorture, that torturing made their job harder and that represents alarge waste of time. Time that gang members could be using to say,make money.

Dependingon how exactly you want to play their relationships with Kylo youmight also be able to have them making more personal appeals. Rey inparticular can attest to the way doing this has injured her andtherefore argue that Kylo is going to lose good loyal people if hekeeps doing this. If you go with some of my suggestions about theorganisation generally, with a high turnover rate among torturersthen that point could stand out; highlighting that Kylo doesn'treally lose anything by instituting this new policy.

Activelygetting rid of torturers is another matter.

Somethingas simple as a change in the 'law' (in this case 'the bossdisapproves') has a big effect. But to totally eradicate torturetakes more then that. It takes time, effort and perseverance. In thecontext of a criminal organisation, I think you need to think abouthow the organisation is set up and whether they'd ever make it apriority.

Theycould still get rid of the 'ring leaders', the 'mentors' thecharacters who are most actively perpetuating this toxic sub culture.In the context of a regime that would usually mean killing them.That's not the only option in this scenario. Kicking people out ofthe gang is a possibility, but it might be seen as a risky one. Theycould join rival gangs and give away the organisation's secrets.Another possibility is setting them up and letting the authoritiestake them away. That makes them someone else's problem. I think whereexactly you go with this aspect should depend on- well how you seethis criminal organisation functioning and where you want to take thestory later on.

And,at almost five thousand words I think I’m going to have to leavethat there. I hope this helps. :)

Disclaimer

[scripttorture]

I have this character who is bent on revenge for her framed brother and it gets so big she goes from a bootlegger to boss of her own mafia in 1930s. He was beaten and hanged with a noose that was too short. She tries get ahold of anyone involved with his death and kill them in similar manner. My question is how •She, •The ones who knew her brother in life, •Goons who got involved further down the road would be affected with time since they would be traumatized too? Thank you!

Thisis one of those asks that I really wish was off anon because a coupleof further details would really help. And as a minor point I'dcaution against using the term 'mafia' unless you're referring tospecific organisations in Italy.

Therelevance of a short rope in hanging is that if the drop is too shortthe neck doesn’t break. Instead the victim strangles to deathslowly. In the UK during medieval times relatives attended executionsfor this reason and if the drop wasn’t long enough people wouldgrab the victim’s legs and pull, hoping to make their inevitabledeath quicker and less painful.

Oneof the main things I’m not clear on here is who witnessed thebrother’s death and who didn’t.

Peoplecanbe traumatised by witnessing violence, including committing violentacts themselves. But witnesses are not left traumatised as often asvictims are.

Torturersdodevelop mental health problems as a result of what they do. They aretraumatised.

Buttorturers generally witness violence and commit violence with a muchgreater frequency than virtually any other group of people. We’retalking about a group for whom committing violent acts is a 9-5 job.That usually isn’tthe case for other groups exposed to a lot of violence such as mostcriminals, soldiers and police officers.

Ifyou’re having trouble picturing the difference think of it likethis: there’s a difference between the level of violence an armymedic witnesses when deployed somewhere far away from the front linesand being on the battle field while the bombs are falling.

I’dexpect there to be considerable variation in the amount of violencethese different groups witnessed, and that would effect how likelythey are to be traumatised.

Forthe purposes of this ask, when I say a character is ‘traumatised’here I mean they’re effected in such a way that they’redisplaying serious mental health problems after the event and theproblems last for years afterwards. I’d expect all of thecharacters listed to be emotionallyaffectedby these events but I think it’s important to distinguish betweenthat and lifelong health problems.

I’mgoing to need to make some assumptions here going forward and I’mgoing to try and list them all to avoid confusion.

Sofirstly I’m going to assume that the main character (the victim’ssister) witnessed her brother’s death. I’m also going to assumethat she witnesses every killing she orders and that that equates toat least a dozen murders.

I’mgoing to assume that most of the people who knew her brother while hewas alive didn’twitness his death and witness/participate in somewhere between 0-2reprisal attacks.

Andfinally I’m going to assume that characters who come in later (theGoons) didn’t witness the brother’s death and witness/participatein 2-5 reprisal attacks.

Thedifference in numbers is partly because ‘people who knew him inlife’ is a broad group. It could include high ranking mobsters butprobably also includes the dead character’s nan. There’s also atendency in some of these kinds of groups to push newer members tocommit serious violent crimes as a show of ‘loyalty’ and to‘prove themselves’. Established members have presumably already‘proven’ themselves.

Themore violence someone witnesses the more likely they are to developsymptoms of trauma. So the sister character is the most likely todevelop some kind of symptoms, followed by the Goons she's keepingclosest to her. The people who knew the brother but are less directlyinvolved are less likely to have trauma symptoms. They may well beemotionally effected by his violent death but that would be a normalpart of the grieving process and doesn't necessarily equate tolasting mental illness.

Evenif my assumptions don't hold true here I'd still expect the centralcharacter to be the most effected. She's a high ranking mobster andfrom your description it seems like she leads from the front andtakes a very hands on approach to the violence in her life. She isn'tjust ordering it she's inflicting it herself. So over time she'slikely to witness an awful lot of violence. Each repeated incidentincreases the chances of her developing symptoms.

Thereisn't any way to predict symptoms. We know the symptoms that arepossible but there isn't any way to tell which individual willdevelop which particular symptoms. It's highly individual. It can'tbe predicted or controlled and (with a few exceptions that don't seemto be relevant here) it doesn't depend on how someone was abused.

GenerallyI give writers a rough number of symptoms to aim for. Those numbersare an educated guess and they're more about communicating how severelong term psychological problems are likely to be then a strictlyaccurate number. Survivors are the most severely effected in terms oflong term psychological symptoms. Then torturers, then witnesses.Generally speaking.

Thetrouble is- I don't think there'd be a huge amount of differencebetween the people you've described. This is at a level were some ofthem might not have long term symptoms at all. People can witnessincredibly awful things a few times and not develop long term traumasymptoms. There isn't a... threshold number of terrible thingswitnessed that will give everyone trauma symptoms. There's a lot ofindividual variation.

Thatvariation doesn’t make people ‘better’ or ‘worse’,‘stronger’ or ‘weaker’. It's just a variation.

Similarlythe symptoms people actually get and the way they express thosesymptoms don't make people 'better' or 'worse', 'stronger' or'weaker'.

I'mstressing that point because I think in this sort of setting it'sentirely realistic to have characters who believe that a lack ofmental health problems is a sign of 'strength' and that some mentalhealth problems are 'better' than others. But there's a differencebetween having the characters believe that and having the narrativesupport that belief.

Ithink that the mob boss is going to be the most severely affected,but that might still 'just' mean one or two lasting symptoms. A lotof the individuals at a greater remove could realistically have nosymptoms. So rather than a strict number of symptoms I think the bestapproach here might be to consider how many people are in the 'Goon'group and how many are in the group who knew the brother while he wasalive. Then think about the amount of violence each individualcharacter has witnessed. There's probably a degree of variationwithin the groups.

Thetiming of these incidents may also be important: witnessing manytraumatising incidents in quick succession seems to result insymptoms more often than witnessing things over a period of severalyears to decades.

Ifwe're assuming that there's a consistent amount of potentiallytraumatising incidents witnessed, with consistent timing between themfor both groups then I think the best way to show the difference iswith a different proportion of traumatised characters in each group.

That'sa clumsy sentence. Let me try to explain what I mean.

Saythat there are five characters in each group. Say that the 'Goons'have all witnessed and participated in 5-7 violent and potentiallytraumatising incidents which took place over about 2-3 months. Saythat the 'acquaintance' group have all witnessed or participated in1-3 violent and potentially traumaatising incidents which took placeover 3-4 months. It still seems plausible to me that both groupswould contain characters without symptoms. But I'd expect more of the'Goons' to have long term symptoms then the 'acquaintances'. So I'dprobably pick around 3 of the 'Goons' to give some kind of symptom toand I'd give more of the 'Goons' two symptoms instead of just one.I'd probably only give 1-2 characters in the 'acquaintance' groupsymptoms. I'd consider giving them 1 symptom each rather than two andI'd consider writing the symptoms as less severe then for the'Goons'.

Incontrast I'd try to make the mob boss' symptoms more severe then theindividuals in both groups. Depending on the character and story Imight be tempted to give her more symptoms. I think a sensible rangeis probably 1-3 for her. If I went for a smaller number of symptomsI'd show those symptoms as more severe in her.

Whichbrings us to picking symptoms.

Whenyou've got multiple characters I strongly recommend giving differentcharacters different symptoms. That's partly realism; there is aconsiderable variation between traumatised people and I think it's agood idea to show that. There isn't one way to be traumatised oraffected by trauma. But it's also a good writing choice that can helpdistinguish the characters as individuals.

Becausewe can't predict symptoms I suggest approaching the decision as awriter. Pick the symptoms that you feel add the most to thecharacters and story.

Thelist of the most common symptoms is here.

Idon't know where you want to go with this story but if part of themob boss character's arc is an exploration of how destructive revengecan be then I think you've got a lot of good choices here. Suicidalimpulses, hypervigilance, memory problems, addiction and difficultyrelating to other people could all fit well with that sort ofcharacter arc. Hypervigilance can also be used to show a characterfailing to adapt when circumstances change. It might seem appropriateto her subordinates when they're 'under threat' and going after thepeople who murdered her brother. But when it persists years later andis leading her to doubt 'loyal' people it could turn her men againsther.

Forthe mob boss in particular I think trying to find symptoms that tieinto the themes of your story or could create obstacles in the plotlater on is important. She's central to the plot, tying her into itas much of possible- well seems like a good idea.

Ialso tend to suggest authors pick symptoms they feel fit individualcharacters. With survivor characters, who have a greater number ofsymptoms, it's possible to do both at once. But given the lowernumber of symptoms in witnesses- well I think it's likely you'regoing to have to pick between doing one or the other for eachcharacter. And because of that I think it's probably a better idea totie the central character to the plot. For the side characters, whoare less essential to the plot, I think it's a better idea to try andpick symptoms that show off their personalities and values. That'sabout... thinking through how they'd react to particular symptoms.

Astereotypical 'stoic' mobster who's 'unmoved' by violence and veryloyal to the group might gain some depth from chronic pain. Which hesoldiers through and hides from the group because he's not going toworry the people he cares about. Depression might also be a goodchoice for similar reasons. A character the others see as lessreliable could be given anxiety or panic attacks as a way of showingthat he's trying hard but the group are discriminating against himfor his symptoms.

Ithink I'm going to leave it there for now. If you'd like to come backwith more questions later, when the ask box has reopened, feel freeto do so. Once again you can all give me multi part questions if yourquestion or scenario doesn't fit into one simple ask. It's better forme to have more detail rather than less.

Ihope that helps. :)

Disclaimer