#not only is this abuse apologia but it is also kind of... lazy

[uncanny-tranny]

"The world isn't a safe place, so get used to it!"

Man, as somebody who's survived multiple, long-lasting instances of abuse from a very young age, I was under the impression that the world was, indeed, so safe and conforming to my desires. I'm practically stunned to learn that this is not the case, and I have been severely humbled

(Sarcasm fully intended)

[scripttorture]

In my sci fi world there is a small device that, when injected into someone’s blood, cancels out special abilities/superpowers. It’s used in prisons by the government the protagonists are rebelling against. I was thinking about making it also be used to cause physical pain in to punish prisoners who step out of line, possibly controlled by remote, but I’m not sure how that would work. What would a chip in someone’s bloodstream need to do to cause pain? Would that even be possible?

I can think of several ways it would be possible. My instinct was that it would have a high mortality rate but then I realised that I actually have no way of knowing because this is pretty far from modern torture.

 I can see the appeal in this sort of fictional idea. However that comes with the proviso that torture is generally very very low tech. We live in a world where you can literally 3D print an oesophagus and the most common form of torture globally is hitting people.

 There is a really strong tendency in fiction to show these incredibly complicated, high tech torture devices: often implying that torture is complicated, ‘skilled’ and can be ‘improved’ with technology. None of these things are true.

 Personally I feel like these tropes feed in to torture apologia. They’re not the worst form of it out there, but they’re false and they function in a way that supports what torturers say over what survivors say.

 I think that you can probably write this kind of remote control press-button-for-pain scenario without tripping in to that. But only if you’re aware it’s a possible problem in the first place.

 As for how it could work- My first thought as a chemist was ‘by releasing something into the blood’ but I don’t think that would work as you’ve described. I think it would require a much larger implant then you’re implying in order to release a sufficient quantity of anything.

 Which is possible, arm implants along these lines exist. They’re bulky enough to feel through the skin and they need to be replaced periodically to keep functioning. I’ve never had one and I’m not a medic so I don’t know any more then that.

 If you’re willing to research medical implants and adjust the idea a little… Well we often use capsaicin as a way to test an animal still has the capacity to feel pain*.

 The LD50 in mice (lethal dose for 50% of the tested population) is 47.2mg/kg. It is possible to be poisoned by capsaicin although I do not have much information on what that looks like in humans. There’d be risk of poisoning from repeated abuse by the guards in this story. There’d also be a risk of poisoning if the device itself malfunctioned or was damaged and say… burst.

 Something smaller (I think the word ‘chip’ implies something quite small) would work differently because it wouldn’t have the space to hold a significant amount of any chemical.

 I think that electric shocks are probably the most likely method with a smaller device. Which also comes with a significant risk of killing someone.

 I’ll be honest I have no idea what kind of difference it would make if the electricity was applied underneath someone’s skin. It isn’t something I’ve seen before. I suspect the heat generation might cause problems. It could damage tissues and cause blood clots which would increase the chance of lethal heart attacks or strokes.

 If the heat killed a lot of tissue around the device I think that could lead to… serious problems, possibly death. Having a lot of dead, rotting tissue in the body is pretty dangerous.

 Generally repeated electric shocks kill, sometimes from heart failure, sometimes from things like falling injuries.

 It’s also (unsurprisingly) incredibly painful. Alleg has a pretty good description of his experience of electrical torture in The Question. You can also find descriptions online as the use of Tasers and stun guns has become more common globally.

 I’m finding it difficult to judge this one because my instinct is that delivering an electric shock internally would cause additional damage. But I’m not sure what that would look like.

 Again I think this sort of device could easily malfunction and kill someone. Or malfunction and just stop ‘working’.

 There’s also a chance of the immune system attacking the implant. Which- I don’t know a lot about because I’m not a medic. I think it could be an important factor though.

 With both of these ideas it’s worth questioning whether this would be worth the effort. I’ve found a lot of authors don’t quite think this through so let me try and break it down.

 This is what has to happen before it can be used:

it needs to be designed

a prototype needs to be created

it needs to be tested

several iterations of redesign and new prototypes

parts need to be sourced

the whole thing needs to be assembled on a larger scale

it all needs to be paid for

the people who are supposed to be using it need to find it easy to use

 Tasers very nearly didn’t make it off the ground. It took decades of concerted work and funding from their manufactures to make them a ‘success’. Rejali does a pretty interesting run down of the way it happened if you want more information.

 The question you need to ask yourself is: would all of this have any advantage for the abusers compared to using pepper spray, Tasers or a stick?

 Because unless you’re really sure the answer is ‘yes’ then I think this sort of thing is really really unlikely. And when it comes to writing torture simpler is usually better.

 Like I said I can see how the base of this idea could add to your story. So I don’t want to dismiss it out of hand. But the existence of a device like this says a lot about the society you’re writing. Do the implications fit with the world you’re building?

 Torturers are… generally incredibly lazy and pretty dumb. Which makes the use of high tech devices less likely. Because the competition is a slap. For something to take off it needs to be as easy, quick and reliable as that. And probably also robust enough to be stamped on, vomited over etc.

 So: is there enough drive in this world to add torture to the functionality of this device? Is there the money to fund it? Is there the time to design and create it? And is it going to be reliable and tough enough to actually be used?

 If there was a rush to make something that blocked super powers adding more things (that might interfere with that main function) to the device probably wouldn’t have been a priority.

 Basically if you want this kind of device make it fit with the world you’ve built and think about whether it’s actually adding anything that a more typical torture wouldn’t.

 Aaaand I’m going to leave it there cos I think I’m talking in circles. I hope that helps :)

Available on Wordpress.

Disclaimer

*This is something that’s done with genetically modified fruit flies. It’s a way to test whether a genetic modification has had an unexpected effects on the insect’s nervous system.

[scripttorture]

Torture in Fiction: Zootopia

First off I’d like to thank whoever suggested I review this movie. I probably wouldn’t have seen it otherwise and it’s highly enjoyable and worth watching. It’s also a very interesting movie in terms of how it depicts torture and abuse.

 A popular animated children's movie Zootopia is set in a world of talking animals where predator species and prey species coexist and considerable prejudice affects their daily lives.

 Judy (a rabbit) travels to the big city to fulfil her lifelong dream of becoming a police officer and as the first rabbit on the force finds herself excluded and derided. She encounters Nick, a fox, while he’s in the process of conning members of the public. As they both get sucked into a missing mammal case they’re forced to confront their own prejudices and work together.

 It's a beautifully designed and animated story with a powerful story about racism and prejudice. 

 But once again I’m rating the depiction and use of torture, not the story itself. I’m trying to take into account realism (regardless of fantasy or sci fi elements), presence of any apologist arguments, stereotypes and the narrative treatment of victims and torturers.

 What I found most interesting about Zootopia was the pattern of what it handled well versus what it handled poorly. I tried to force this into my usual format, breaking down the good and the bad but it wasn’t working very well, so instead I’m going to discuss the most prominent scenes focusing on the characters affected and then a few of the themes present throughout the movie.

 For reasons that will hopefully become clear I’m giving it 3/10

 Judy Hopps

 The first depiction of bullying the movie gives us is from Judy’s childhood. She sees two predator children stealing from a group of smaller prey children and tries to step in. She’s pushed to the ground, taunted and when she fights back scratched across her face.

 It’s a scene that feels very typical of playground bullying.

 We later see Judy suffering a lot of micro aggressions during training and in the work place. She’s insulted, overlooked and repeatedly made to feel that despite her ability and hard work she’s unwelcome.

 The movie never suggests any of this is acceptable but it focuses on Judy’s determination to overcome these obstacles and achieve her dream.

 The incidents are also quite ‘ordinary’. The sort of bullying and harassment Judy experiences is the kind most people in the western world are aware of. We might not all have experienced but we probably all know someone who has.

 Nick Wilde

 When we first meet Nick he’s being turned away from an ice cream parlour, the elephant owner is refusing to serve him because he’s a fox, continuing the portrayal of micro aggressions.

 But it’s the attack he describes from when he’s 8 or 9 years old that really stands out.

 We’re shown a young Nick excited to join a scout group where he is the only fox and the only predator. The first part of his initiation seems to proceed as normal. Once he’s finished the oath he’s attacked.

 The lights go out. The children knock him down, shining a torch in his eyes and force a muzzle over his head. The attack is motivated by the fact Nick’s a fox.

 One of the things I really liked about this scene was the use of movement and light. There’s a sense of suddenness and confusion as if Nick isn’t entirely sure exactly what happened or who did it. This is in contrast to the very clear and detailed shot that follows of Nick rushing out of the meeting house, distraught and desperately trying to remove the muzzle. It’s not necessarily the film maker’s intention but for me this struck a nice balance while suggesting two of the most common memory problems trauma survivors experience: inaccurate memories and intrusive memories.

 Nick’s experience is a lot more unusual than Judy’s but is still within the range most people would be familiar with. It’s also, like Judy’s, treated sympathetically. We’re supposed to empathise with Nick and see that the children who attacked him are in the wrong.

 Duke Weaselton

 Which brings me to the only scene in the movie that’s inarguably torture. On Judy’s instruction Duke is credibly threatened with a painful death unless he gives her information relevant to her case.

 Duke gives her accurate information almost straight away.

 Now I’ve covered at some length why torture for information doesn’t work. I’ve also talked about strategies that actually do work and ways to write torture failing to get information.

 Torture damages memory. Under torture we are less able to accurately recall information.

 Torture produces a lot of lies and torturers have no way of distinguishing lies from the truth.

 Torture victims often refuse to talk and torture tends to increase resistance in victims.

 This scene is classic torture apologia in that it’s using a completely false idea about torture in a way that justifies not only torture in the story but torture in real life.

 The scene is also incredibly unsympathetic towards Duke. He’s a petty criminal; he’s been unhelpful and obstructive towards the main characters so therefore we are encouraged to see his fear as funny. Which feels like another example of abuse being taken seriously when the victim is a ‘good’ character and excused when the victim is ‘bad’.

 The structure of the scene makes it clear that we should think Judy is in the right and that this is an acceptable way for police officers to behave…so long as they’re saving lives. A justification straight out of 1980s Chicago that would do torturer Jon Burge proud. The use of torture in this scene undermines Judy’s character and the moral convictions we’ve seen drive her throughout the story.

 Overall

 Zootopia handles a lot of incidents of abuse and issues around it very well and then goes on to handle the one inarguable incident of torture very badly.

 I think it had a surprisingly nuanced and sophisticated depiction of prejudice. It touches on intersectionality, micro aggressions and the kind of harmful cultural background radiation we’re all exposed to. It does so in a very engaging and accessible way.

 However the way the story uses torture isn’t just bad, it’s narrative laziness. It’s the unthinking repetition of a harmful trope that’s pervasive in the police procedural genre.

 That’s a pretty stark contrast to the realistic and nuanced depiction of prejudice throughout the film. This serves to make the unrealistic depiction of torture seem more realistic. Which makes this a classic example of how torture apologia isn’t just a problem in action movies; it pervades all genres, including children’s entertainment.

 One doesn’t balance out the other. I really did enjoy this movie and I think that the message it sends about trust and tolerance are incredibly valuable.

 But for a lot of children this movie will probably mark the first time they were exposed to the idea that torture can be excused.

 And I’d rather live in a world where they were consistently taught that torture and abuse are wrong.

Disclaimer