POLONIUM – The New Weapon of Mass Destruction

Posted on September 19, 2012 by James J. Murray, Fiction Writer

Recently, I posted a blog on thallium, a classic drug used as a murder weapon both in novels and in real life.  After posting this, someone commented, “What about polonium?”  I thought he was referring to plutonium and having a momentary crisis with spelling but decided to check it out, anyway.

As it turns out, polonium is a most interesting element of murder.  After Yasser Arafat died of mysterious causes in a French military hospital in 2004, a committee of French judges opened an investigation into the death.  Clinical analysis of the body uncovered significant levels of polonium in his body fluids.  Subsequent testing revealed unusually high levels of the chemical on his toothbrush and articles of clothing.  Israel was suspected of poisoning the late leader but proving that was problematic.

Polonium was discovered in 1898 by the talented team of Marie and Pierre Curie.  The element is highly radioactive.  Later testing found it to be about 250,000 times more toxic than hydrogen cyanide and it causes significant damage to organic tissue when inhaled, ingested or absorbed.  But the chemical doesn’t penetrate our skin very easily and the use of neoprene gloves provides adequate protection to a person handling it.

Since polonium is easily absorbed by inhalation, it’s transported in a special “glove box” (a sealed container, usually under negative pressure or with a double-layered, separate atmosphere).

Commercial applications of polonium are few: it’s used for heaters in space probes and in antistatic brushes to reduce static electricity.  In the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission tracks the product, but it’s readily available with little regulation or restriction.  It can be purchased with any general license, such as a license to do business, and the buyer doesn’t need to be registered by any authorities.

Hmm! I’m beginning to get an interesting idea for a thriller utilizing this chemical as a biological weapon.  The drug kills effectively with inhalation or ingestion of miniscule quantities, and it’s easily transported.  It does a better job of killing over several weeks of exposure as opposed to a single dose, however, so some creative writing and plot development are in order here.

Just a word of advice for the protagonist in your story: have a readily available source of Dimercaprol.  That’s a chelating agent (meaning it’s a treatment that removes heavy metals from the body).  The drug was developed by and is available from a British company, so a quick trip to England would be in order for the hero in your story.

A couple of additional facts about polonium could propel your thriller into some interesting back-story twists.  The first is that this chemical is part of the mix of radioactive chemicals lumped in with radon that gets trapped in indoor air.  Of the estimated 160,000 yearly lung cancer deaths, about 20,000 are attributed to this indoor radon mix.

More importantly, polonium is one of the primary causes of lung cancer from tobacco.  The element makes its way into the roots of tobacco plants from phosphate fertilizers.  For over 40 years, the world’s largest tobacco firms have been researching ways to remove the substance from its products but have had little success.

In summary, I offer a new chemical that could be used as a weapon of mass destruction.  The kill could be massive, not necessarily immediate, but very effective for the patient villain.

Thoughts?  Comments?  I’d love to hear them!

Posted in Drug Poisoning, Polonium and Murder | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 15 Comments

Dialogue: The Good and The Bad!

Posted on September 12, 2012 by James J. Murray, Fiction Writer

Last week’s blog was all about character development and using my 3P model to consider physical, psychological and philosophical qualities to flesh out characters.  Getting to know a character deep down is necessary before you can turn that character loose in a scene.  When we let those characters roam around our pages, they usually speak and interact with others, and that’s when writers often get into trouble.

I won’t bore you with basic rules.  There’s an overabundance of articles and books devoted to such.  We all know the rule that only one character should speak per paragraph and the dozens of other accepted rules we follow in fiction.  But let’s dig deeper for the finer points of good dialogue.

Authors often say that dialogue is the most difficult part of writing a novel.  That’s because dialogue should convey the attitude, mood, temperament and general psyche of the character – a tall order to say the least!  When characters speak, the words should also convey what those characters are thinking and feeling.

Good dialogue takes practice, trial and error, and surely several edits.  I don’t often think about editing the dialogue during my first draft.  The nuances to consider are too subtle and take my mind away from writing the story.  But with that first edit, I begin adding the psychological and philosophical layers that make the character real and believable.

So the bottom line is that dialogue should help the reader get into the character’s mind.  I think the easiest way to describe good dialogue is to state a few negatives.  The following are some rookie mistakes that should be avoided.

Don’t use dialogue for what’s already been described in narrative:  In storytelling, you provide information and propel the story either through dialogue or narration.  Use one or the other, but don’t duplicate.  For instance, don’t have your character talk excitedly about the flavor of some food and then narrate how much the character is enjoying the meal.  We get the point!  Gestures also go a long way to suggest enjoyment and it uses a minimum of words.  A short description of body gestures often expresses emotion or communicates thoughts better than a couple of sentences of narrative or dialogue, and it helps readers relate better to our characters.

Overuse of superlatives in dialogue: Adverbs like “very” and “extremely” don’t come across as meaning much.  It’s better to use an action verb to convey the feeling behind the words.  For instance, “She was somewhat satisfied with my plan” sounds flat.  Instead say, “The plan troubled her.  I could tell she wasn’t buying it.”  That gives a better visual of what affect the words are having on the character.  And it would be an even stronger statement if the speaker made some gestures to emphasize the point.

Dialogue that’s too literal:  One of the best examples of this is the one word answer, especially “yes” or “no”.  Staccato answers may create dramatic tension (think an interrogation) and that’s fine, but I’m talking about normal conversation.  Answers should convey a “yes” or “no” INTENT but be stated in words that say so PLUS propel the story forward.  Each word of written dialogue should move the reader toward the next sentence.  Otherwise, it distracts readers, takes them out of the story and emotional connections are lost.

Characters stating the obvious:  This really is a continuation of being too literal.  We want to make sure the reader gets what we’re writing so we belabor the point.  Readers are smart.  They connect the dots and usually follow the intent of specific dialogue well.  We don’t have to spell it out unless, of course, the intent would not be noticed otherwise.

Overuse of names in dialogue:  Names of characters should be used sparingly.  The usual rules are to use a character’s name ONLY during an introduction, for dramatic emphasis, when several people are in a room and a character is addressing a specific person, or during long speaking interactions between two people so that the reader doesn’t get lost with who’s saying what.  That’s when “so and so said” becomes important.  But even then, use those descriptive words sparingly.  Studies show that readers often skip over the “he said” “she said” words.

Dialogue being too formal:  Dialogue should sound like people do in real life.  Overly formal dialogue may have its place with a specific character, but everyday people don’t usually say, “That is an interesting and unusual red door.”  They’d say, “Cool red door, never seen one like that before.”  When editing dialogue, read it out loud.  If it doesn’t sound natural, then IT ISN’T!  Change it to normal speak.  Otherwise, you cause the reader to pause (because it doesn’t feel right in the reader’s mind), and when a reader pauses, you break the reader’s concentration and lose the dramatic tension of the story.  Yes, we are told to use complete sentences in dialogue, but modern fiction is written for belief.  It’s the ultimate believable lie! That means we can use contractions and incomplete sentences when necessary for the reader to connect with our characters.

Too much dialogue at once:  Long bouts of dialogue become a monologue and that bores readers.  They begin to skip past that and maybe miss important information. Break up dialogue with some narration and some back and forth dialogue between characters.  A good rule of thumb is never to have more than two sentences of dialogue together before adding some narration or at least some descriptive narrative of what’s happening in the room or to the speaker.  And be succinct – make each word and each sentence count toward moving the reader forward into the next sentence.

Too much exposition in dialogue:  Giving background information to the reader can be tricky.  Background is a necessary part of the storytelling process, but what is too much or too little, and when do you give this information?  Too much at once is called “info dumping” and it overwhelms the reader.  Exposition of background should be doled out slowly, some in narrative and some in dialogue, and only enough to continue the story without confusion.  The problem with dialogue exposition is that the character already knows this information, so why would he or she mention it?  There has to be a good reason for characters to state what is already known; if not, it comes off as false and awkward.  The same rules apply to flashbacks.  They can be effective tools for background exposition, but without a specific purpose they simply confuse the reader.

Good dialogue is a great tool for moving a story forward and having the reader connect emotionally with your characters.  Bad dialogue, on the other hand, is a GREAT reason for a reader to move on to another book.

Thoughts?  Comments?  I’d love to hear them!

Posted in All About Writing, Dialogue Techniques, Good Dialogue Development, The Art of Writing, Writing Dialogue | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 14 Comments

Character Development Techniques

Posted on September 5, 2012 by James J. Murray, Fiction Writer

Last month, I wrote a blog about the making of a hero in a murder mystery.  That brief exercise on character development generated considerable interest.  So today I’d like to expand those thoughts and discuss character development from a broader viewpoint.

Often I’m asked how I “think up” the characters I write about.  Specifically, where do I get my ideas for a character?  The answer is simple: from everyday life.  As writers, we tend to size up people as future characters.  The long answer, however, is much more complex.

While it’s true that a character is often based on real life experiences, transforming a person’s mental image into a fictional character is an intricate process and comparable to applying multiple layers of varnish onto a raw piece of furniture with intermittent buffing before the finish gains depth and beauty.

In a similar way, character development is a process of layering all the components of a person (or of several different people) to build a multi-dimensional fictional being that the reader can connect with in the two-dimensional world of literature.

So when developing a character, I follow my own Prescription For Murder, a variation of the 3P Model.  I structure a character physiologically, psychologically and philosophically.  Let’s take a closer look at these and I’ll explain what I mean.

The Physical Aspects of a Character: You should have a good idea what your character looks like before being able to convey that to a reader, but you don’t have to go into anatomical detail.  Saying “She’s five foot eleven, has red hair and weighs 110-lbs” is a rookie mistake.  Instead say, “Her legs went on forever, her waistline the envy of most women, her flaming hair a perfect complement to her peaches and cream complexion,” or some other subtle, more pictorial description.  Be creative, not biological, when describing characters.

Physical features are the first of several aspects of a character to lock down in your own mind.  Appearances often influence how others act around them and, although we need not specifically state what a person looks like, hints at physical attributes give the reader the needed information to arrive at an accurate mental image of the character, how the character acts and how others react in their presence.

The Psychology of the Character: A character’s mental state – their feelings and their perceptions of the world around them – drive the character’s actions.  This is where background development becomes so important.  Create a virtual life for your main characters, a pedigree that makes them who they are and determines their actions.  For example, a person raised in a loving family with close siblings would react differently in a given situation than a person who grew up in foster care or reform school.

It’s said that we are the product of our life experiences.  For readers to be able to connect with the characters we create, we have to first construct full lives for those characters in our minds.  That means where and how they were raised and educated and what sacrifices they endured to reach their present state of being.  Most of what you envision about a character (preferably in a brief outline) will never actually be stated in your book unless it’s important for the story’s progress, but it provides valuable information to you for character direction.  Knowing how a character would feel in a scene provides important visual clues to help indicate what a character is thinking and feeling without wasting dialogue.  For instance, a character fidgeting indicates nervousness and putting a hand over the mouth shows disbelief.

The reader should be satisfied that a character is acting appropriately in any given scene.  Your job as a writer is not only to write the scene but also to direct your characters to act according to what information you’ve provided about them.  A reader should never say, “Hmm, he would never have done that!” It takes the reader out of the story and you lose the reader’s emotional connection to the character.

The Character’s Philosophy: Each of us has opinions and beliefs about most any given subject.  We’re either for or against something.  Sometimes we’re indifferent and could not care less one way or the other, but that doesn’t make for good storytelling.  Our characters need to be definitive and those definitive beliefs and philosophies are what drive the story one way or the other.  A character can be indecisive initially and that can create important dramatic tension, but then their inner principles must take over.  Without a character with a strong viewpoint, the story doesn’t progress; there’s no reason for the character to take action.  Action moves the story forward and motivates our protagonists and antagonists to do what they should do to entertain the reader.

Characters are good, evil or neutral.  Good and evil characters create and drive a story.  A villain’s selfishness and greed make good fiction as well as the altruistic concerns of a hero, but neutral characters don’t.  They may be necessary to create a realistic background, but they don’t propel the story to any formidable conclusion and are always secondary.

Finally, success, like the devil, is in the details.  A well-conceived character has likes, dislikes, and specific needs – just as real people do.  Everyone has merits, flaws and quirks.  Your dialogue and narrative should be peppered with those of your main characters.  The more these individual traits are exposed, the more emotional connection the reader will have with a character.  The primary reason people continue to read a novel is to see the villains they hate get their just desserts or to know that their heroes live to save the day.  Make your characters real and believable by first making them real to you.  That will make your writing journey so much easier.

Thoughts?  Comments?  I’d love to hear them!

Posted in About James J. Murray, All About Writing, Character development, Character Development Techniques, Protagonist Development, The Art of Writing | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

THALLIUM – The Poisoner’s Poison!

Posted on August 29, 2012 by James J. Murray, Fiction Writer

Thallium is a bluish-white metal that, in pure form, is odorless and tasteless.  When combined with other substances like chlorine or iodine, it turns colorless-to-white with maybe a slight yellow tinge.  It dissolves easily in water.  In other words, it’s not easily detected when mixed with food or drink.  Hmm!  Sounds like an interesting substance if you need a character killed off.

In years past, thallium was used as a rat poison and an ant killer, but since 1975 it’s been banned in the United States (and many other countries as well) due to safety concerns.  It’s highly toxic and readily absorbed through the pores as it comes into contact with skin.

Thallium’s extreme toxicity results in part from its chemical properties being similar to potassium.  It uses the body’s potassium uptake pathways to be absorbed but bypasses the natural self-limiting mechanism we have for potassium ingestion.  Thallium also binds easily with sulfur, an element essential for nutrient absorption and utilization.  It disrupts necessary cellular processes and that’s a primary reason it was such a good rat poison.

One of its more distinctive side effects is hair loss.  In fact, it was once used as a depilatory agent before its toxicity was fully appreciated.  Another distinctive sign of thallium poisoning is that it damages peripheral nerves, causing excruciating pain.  Victims are said to experience severe stomach cramps and nausea, and they experience sensations similar to walking slowly over hot coals.

Thallium was very popular in the past as a murder weapon.  In fact, thallium has often been referred to as “The Poisoner’s Poison” and “The Inheritance Powder”.  Investigations into suspicious deaths have discovered thallium in tea, sodas, soups and various foods.  Radioactive thallium poisoning was said to be a favorite of KGB assassins and documentation suggests that Saddam Hussein used it to poison dissidents.

Murders from thallium have fallen out of favor in mystery novels but the substance has taken center stage in thrillers and stories of international intrigue.  Primarily, that’s because of its antidote, Prussian blue.  Although Prussian blue has been around since the early 1700’s as a color pigment, more recently it has been designated as a counter-terrorism agent.  It’s not only recognized as a poison antidote but also as a decontamination treatment for radioactive poisonings: radioactive cesium and thallium in particular.  No good thriller can end without the hero saving the day, and having a treatment option available is a definite plus.

But be warned!  There are now diagnostic tools to detect and quantify thallium poisoning in blood and urine to aid medical and legal investigations into suspicious deaths.  Normal body concentrations are minimal, usually less than 1 mcg/L.  But a poison victim could have concentrations in both blood and urine of 1-10 mg/L (a thousand to ten thousand fold increase).  And without body fluid analysis, symptoms could be attributed to other illnesses and a proper diagnosis not made until it’s too late.

Depending on the thallium dosage and the duration of exposure, a patient may recover with the Prussian blue antidote and other life support treatments.  More likely, however, the victim will be beyond hope and die a painful death within days of exposure.

In my research I found many references to thallium being used as an effective poison in real life criminal situations and a multitude of references for its use as a poison in books, television episodes and movie plots.

Fortunately, thallium is more regulated now than in the past and used mostly in manufacturing electronic devices and semiconductor parts, but I’m sure a creative villain can find a source when the need arises.

Thoughts?  Comments?  I’d love to hear them!

Posted in Bioterrorism, Drug Poisoning, Drugs and Bioterrorism, Drugs Used For Murder, Thallium Poisoning, The Poisoner's Poison | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 13 Comments

DANCING – A Prescription for Health

Posted on August 21, 2012 by James J. Murray, Fiction Writer

This post may be surprising to those of you who follow my blogs on the topic of murder.  Today I’m going to deviate from those darker, homicidal issues and talk about another of my passions – ballroom dancing.

Why include such a topic under “Prescription For Murder”?  Because this week I’m in the mountains of Vermont at a Ballroom Dance Camp and I’m sure my wife would have murdered me if I hadn’t come.  In fact, she might even consider homicide if she knew that right now I’m in a corner writing rather than practicing my dance steps.

Actually, I love ballroom dancing and believe that I’m healthier and maybe a little smarter as a result.  There’s even scientific evidence to support the “smarter” part of my belief.

A recent report in the New England Journal of Medicine boldly stated that dancing was the BEST physical activity to provide appreciable protection against dementia.  The statistics were surprising!  Golf offered 0% protection against dementia; reading, 35%; doing crossword puzzles at least four times a week, 47%; and dancing offered the greatest at a staggering 76%.

Studies show that dancing stimulates the cerebral cortex (that part of the brain involved in memory, attention span and thought processes).  With mental stimulation, the cerebral cortex goes into action and even REWIRES itself based on need.  Repetitive activities (like a golf swing) may no longer cause enough mental stimulation to help the brain remain functional.

When that concept is applied to dancing, it’s been shown that certain ones are better than others.  All forms of dancing may provide cardiovascular stimulation and benefit our bodies (like walking that golf course instead of using an electric cart) but the type of dancing that requires us to learn something new and to react continually is the most helpful to our brains.

That means the so-called “lead and follow dancing” (like waltz, foxtrot, swing, cha cha, etc.) may be BEST at stimulating the cerebral cortex.  Those dances require split-second decision-making for the leader to direct the partner and the partner to interpret that lead quickly into the next step.

So in addition to keeping us heart-healthy, those rapid-fire dance floor decisions stimulate our brains as well.  And it doesn’t really matter if the dance is slow or fast.  It’s the continued decision-making as to where our feet should go next that makes the difference, even when we’re sure we have two left feet.

The GOOD NEWS is that, with some practice, we learn – and those two left feet eventually right themselves into graceful dancing.

Thoughts?  Comments?  I’d love to hear them!

Posted in About Dancing, About James J. Murray, Ballroom Dancing, Dancing and the Brain, Dancing for Health | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

DRUGS and BIOTERRORISM

Posted on August 15, 2012 by James J. Murray, Fiction Writer

Terrorism is defined as the use of force or violence against people and property.  That action is labeled BIOTERRORISM when the violence involves the intentional release of biological agents (such as, bacteria, viruses or toxins).

Bacteria and viruses are microorganisms that live among us both in harmony and with malice.  When these microorganisms cause severe illness or death, they make excellent terrorism tools; and they’re classified as “biological” whether they occur naturally or are modified by humans in a lab.

Toxins are poisonous byproducts produced by such microorganisms and are as deadly as the organisms themselves.  That means the “bug” can be killed but the toxin can linger behind and create substantial havoc on its own, such as contaminated food harboring the botulism toxin.

So we have biological agents (bacteria, viruses or toxins) that can be used as weapons of mass destruction by simply spreading them in the air, our water supply or along the food chain.  They can kill instantly upon contact or not cause death for several hours or days, making it difficult to detect the source.  And identification of the source can be even more complicated when agents spread from person to person (a contagious biological agent).

Further hurdles to effective protection occur when we realize how easy these agents are to use.  They’re relatively inexpensive to obtain (as opposed to a nuclear weapon), are highly portable, can be disseminated easily among the population and has the potential to cause widespread fear and panic.

With all the possible types of biologicals and the ways in which they can be spread, it would seem to be a monumental task to plan anything of appreciable value to prevent such an attack.  And that’s the central focus of bio-defense, the medical measures identified to protect people against biological agents.

In recent blockbuster films that have focused on bioterrorism, vaccines against the deadly contagion are developed within a few months, but that bears no resemblance to reality.  The United States government has been working on effective anti-terrorism agents for years with little success.

The Transformational Medical Technologies initiative started by the Department of Defense in 2006 set out to identify the genomes of potential bioterrorism agents and develop broad-spectrum therapies effective against multiple bacterial and viral pathogens to protect soldiers against biological attacks.  In reality, the program produced no new antibiotics for specific treatments or antidotes to date and the program has ceased to exist as envisioned.

Now the U.S. government is focusing its attention on what’s called “The Big Six Biological Threats”.  These are identified as anthrax, plague, tularemia, botulism toxin, smallpox and viral hemorrhagic fevers (like the Ebola virus).  And these threats can be grouped so that a common treatment can be developed for certain biological threats.

Anthrax, plague and tularemia are all bacterial agents and the fluoroquinolone (like ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin) antibiotic drugs are effective treatments as well as some tetracycline-class drugs.  There is even a tularemia vaccine in development.

Toxins, including botulism, often present as neurotoxins (causing nerve paralysis and respiratory failure) and the lack of any approved drug treatment other than supportive measures leaves a major gap in bio-defense.  That’s a considerable area of exposure since the botulism neurotoxin is said to be the most poisonous substance known to man and is 10,000 times more deadly than cyanide poisoning.

Effective treatments for viral biological agents have also remained elusive.  We have a smallpox vaccine for prevention and scientists are working on an Ebola vaccine, but we still have no cure for the common cold much less for these more virulent agents.  There’s no specific treatment once these viruses cause sickness for those not already vaccinated.  Recommended treatments are only supportive, like fluids, antibiotics for secondary infections, etc. – the same as for the common cold.

So our government has been rethinking its approach to bio-defense and focusing instead on stockpiling currently available antibiotics and antiviral agents without creating shortages for the rest of the population.  In essence, we are back to square one regarding treatment protection against biologicals.  Fortunately, increased and more effective intelligence of potential terrorist plots have been successful in keeping us safe to this point.

That safety net is a fragile element in our protection and provides fertile opportunity to create interesting terror plots in our writing to launch our protagonists into superhero action.

Thoughts?  Comments?  I’d love to hear them!

Posted in Bio-Defense, Biological Warfare, Bioterrorism, Drugs and Bioterrorism, Drugs Used For Murder | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments

The Making of a Hero in a Murder Mystery

Posted on August 8, 2012 by James J. Murray, Fiction Writer

There’s nothing better than a memorable protagonist in any story, but the good guy in a murder mystery is the one who saves the day by solving the crime and bringing the perpetrator to justice.

As I develop storylines for my thrillers and murder mysteries, character development is secondary ONLY to the actual murder(s).  As devastating as it is for someone to die (even on paper or e-screen), it’s the actions of the protagonist that make the story come alive.  So after deciding what should happen to begin the story’s journey, I start thinking about how that will affect the protagonist.

The same is true if the protagonist is a sequel character.  You already know the character and are familiar with his or her specific traits, so you have an advantage in creating a problem that produces conflict, emotions and a reason for that character to act.  So again, the actions and reactions of the protagonist are secondary ONLY to the actual event causing the character to take action.

And that’s of upmost importance when developing a protagonist.  The character’s reactions to scene situations are what drive the story forward.  If someone gets murdered and the police detective says, “Oh well, another day, another murder,” the readers’ reaction will also be mundane and they’ll move on to another novel.  We have to give the reader a sense of urgency, a reason to turn the pages and to care about what’s taking place.  That reader investment occurs only when the protagonist cares to the point of obsession.

As writers, we have to perceive a protagonist as a complex psychological being driven by any combination of past experiences, emotional baggage, current likes/dislikes/frustrations and future expectations.  We are driven by our past experiences and future possibilities, and so are our characters – none more so than our main character, the one driving the storyline.

When we are able to tap into the raw emotions of our protagonists – the hurts, the joys, the anger and disappointment, the forces that drive the character – than we begin to reveal the real story.  The trigger may be a murder, a series of them or some other great evil about to be unleashed, but the real story is how the protagonist will arrive at a solution to the presented problem.  Without tapping into the back-story of the main characters, there can be no story in the present.  There has to be intangible motivations directing the characters to do what they do to restore equilibrium into the world as it’s presented.

Primarily, those motivations come from a mix of external and internal changes that are either happening or will happen as the story progresses.  Externally, the character must achieve something and be better off at the end of the story than at the beginning.  It may be a newfound romance or a change of job, but there must be some change to propel our readers through those written words to the last page.

Even more importantly, we must draw in the readers’ emotions and cause them to become invested and involved in the character’s world.  That happens when the protagonist undergoes an internal change: a shift of viewpoint, a realization of a source of fear or achieves some significant resolution.  But that change, that paradigm shift, should not happen easily.  It should affect the character to his or her very core and should cause initial resistance to change.  That internal struggle gives depth to the story, and the eventual acceptance of the change makes the believable lie that fiction is…well, believable.

But there’s no rule requiring that those changes have to be for the better.  Tragedy happens all the time in real life and it’s especially dramatic when it happens in a well-written novel.  The protagonist MUST undergo an internal and external change for the reasons stated above, but those changes may well end in tragedy.  In one of my past novels, the protagonist is dealing with a life-long struggle of achievement and acceptance, only to lose a prized possession in the end.  This character is forever changed because of the loss, but it was necessary so that his life could progress in a certain way.  So, even in adversity, there is progression in character development.

In essence, when I develop a storyline for a murder mystery or a thriller, the murder or the evil lurking beyond reach becomes the supporting pillar for the real story of the main character’s reactions to the events and what those actions eventually cost the character.

Thoughts?  Comments?  I’d love to hear them!

Posted in All About Writing, Character development, Protagonist Development, Protagonists, Story Development | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

NEUROSCIENCE – A New Frontier

Posted on July 25, 2012 by James J. Murray, Fiction Writer

The term neuroscience has been given significant press in the last few days because of the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shootings.  I was fascinated with the reference for two reasons: first, it was the field of study of James Holmes, the alleged movie massacre shooter; and secondly, it was a term I had used last week while writing the rough draft of this week’s blog.  The coincidence was unnerving since that blog was to continue my theme of the last few weeks concerning the question, “Why do people kill?”

Because of the events in Colorado and the alleged killer’s field of study, I decided to delay that blog and instead focus a discussion on the study of neuroscience.  Essentially, it’s the study of the nervous system.  Typically, neuroscience is studied in the biology departments of universities, and still is interchangeably called neurobiology.  But there are subtle differences between the two.  Neurobiology includes only the biological makeup of the nervous system, whereas neuroscience encompasses the entire science of the nervous system.

For that reason, neuroscience is currently considered an interdisciplinary field of study: a collaboration of chemistry, computer science, math, engineering, physics, medicine, linguistics, philosophy and psychology.

The study of the nervous system is an old science, dating back to ancient Egypt where archeologists have uncovered evidence of trepanation, or the surgical drilling and/or scraping a hole into the skull.  Evidence indicates those procedures were used to cure headaches and various mental disorders.

A brief biology lesson might be useful, however, before delving into this science any further.  The nervous system is divided into two parts: the central nervous system (CNS) composed of the brain and spinal cord; and the peripheral nervous system (PNS), those nerves in our limbs and organs that create sensations and feelings.

The human brain has about a 100 billion neurons (those cells that process and transmit bits of information via electrical and chemical means), and about a 100 trillion synapses (those structures between neuron cells that pass electrical and chemical signals between those neurons and to other cells).

The field of neuroscience initiated as cellular neuroscience; that is, studying how neurons process signals and that progressed to the study of how the nervous system develops.

An exciting new field of study is cognitive and behavioral neuroscience.  This aspect of neuroscience addresses how human cognition and emotions are mapped to specific neurons, and it speaks to the questions of how psychological functions are produced by neural activity.  This has led to a new branch of social and behavioral science addressing such questions as decision theories and the brain’s response to environmental stimuli (external triggers), as well as how to alter and repair abnormalities.

James Holmes was a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Colorado Medical Campus/Aurora in an emerging field called educational neuroscience and, according to news broadcasts, had secured a federal grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).  Both the NIH and the National Science Foundation (NSF) fund research into best practices regarding teaching and learning neuroscience concepts.

The grant that Holmes won was to focus on training outstanding neuroscientists who were expected to make significant contributions to the study of neurobiology.  Although he failed his preliminary exam, he had a chance to improve his grade with a subsequent oral exam but instead voluntarily withdrew from the program after his poor performance, without further explanation.

As authorities search for the reason(s) why this man allegedly chose to embark on a killing spree, I find it ironic that in the years to come, he could have been one of the scientists helping to answer the very question, “Why do people kill?”

Posted in Colorado Shootings, Movie Massacre, Neuroscience | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

Why Do People Kill?

Posted on July 19, 2012 by James J. Murray, Fiction Writer

It’s a simple question, but people have been asking it for centuries.  In my search for answers, I came across expert opinions that amounted to conflicting information.  In this enlightened age of science and technology, there are numerous methods to identify a murderer and to determine how the murderous deed was accomplished, but the “Why” of killing still baffles many.  Profiling a murderer has gained much ground as a science, but it falls short of definitively answering the question, “Why do some kill to accomplish a specific goal and others choose less lethal methods?”

It’s been documented that the central reasons people kill are for POWER and CONTROL.  Yet we have many influential, successful professionals who don’t murder and never say, “The devil made me do it”.

Of the numerous personality disorders, statistics show that over 50% of Americans fit into one or more of the anti-social personality disorder classifications.  So is it a coincidence that the US has the highest rate of serial killers than any other country in the world?  But what makes specific people turn to murder?

Dr. Pete Ash states that people decide to kill because of a psychological build-up of physical or emotional trauma over time.  He further states that the initial triggers are numerous but considers the major ones are fear, anger, desperation, greed and religious fanaticism.

A noted criminologist, Dr. Lonnie Athens, believes that no one is born a bad person.  He states that psychopaths are not born; they are created.  He further states that mental illness is often not a factor in killing people, an opinion shared by Special Agents in the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit (BSU).    Dr. Athens concludes that some brutalization in the killer’s lives (possibly the triggers suggested in Dr. Ash’s research) is responsible for the initiation of the specific psychopathology.

Dr. Ash also explains that these initial triggers can be exacerbated when ones natural inhibitions are removed (as with alcohol or mind-altering drugs).  For instance, an otherwise rational person could act out inappropriate anger in the form of road rage while under the influence of a psychotropic drug, or possibly beat someone to death with a pastry roller after sampling too much cooking sherry.

Dr. Paul Mattiuzzi has lectured that individual personality traits play a key role in how certain triggers can evolve into acts of violence and murder.  The chronically aggressive individual as well as those with opposite traits, such as overly suppressed hostility, can react similarly in threatening situations.  And those that are emotionally resentful from a past severe hurt or trauma can become similarly and inappropriately aggressive in specific situations.

So we have to dig deeper to find the emotional triggers that motivate people to murder.  A person may not like his or her significant other, but why does one seek a separation or divorce while another plans a murder?  Why does one person work harder to outperform a competitive coworker while another plans an intricate murder?  Does it all come down to an evolution of a personality disorder?  That certainly makes for interesting murder mystery writing, but is there more involved?

Experts in criminology mostly agree that a specific event in a killer’s life triggers the psychology that eventually preoccupies the mind to act out criminally.  And without proper psychological and pharmaceutical intervention, the need for a specific inappropriate action can eventually become an obsession.  This is the stuff that leads to the development of major criminals and certainly serial killers.

Pharmaceutical interventions are numerous and specific to the psychopathology exhibited, but there are three main categories of drugs used in psychotherapy:

1)   Antidepressants – these increase serotonin levels (more on this next week) and there are two basic types: SSRI’s (such as Prozac) and MAO Inhibitors (such as Nardil)

2)   Anxiolytics – these treat anxiety (such as Xanax and Valium)

3)   Antipsychotics – these treat schizophrenia, especially the delusions and agitation that are exhibited (such as Clozapine)

The mind and its manipulation, either intentionally or accidentally, is interesting subject matter and allows for unique character developments.  I hope this gives you further information for your writing.  It certainly has for me.

Thoughts? Comments? I’d love to hear them!

Posted in Why People Kill | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

The Definition of Murder

Posted on July 12, 2012 by James J. Murray, Fiction Writer

This post initiates a new series that I’m calling Prescription for Murder.  Each week I’ll reflect on some aspect of the criminal act known as MURDER.  In most any reference, its defined as an unlawful killing with malice.  The words unlawful and malice give the word its defining structure and distinguishes the act from acceptable killings.

In researching the law related to killings, a murder can be defined by three basics that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt:

1)   The act of causing a death must be deliberate (meaning premeditated and calculated);

2)   The act must be intentional to either kill, cause grievous bodily harm or be one of reckless indifference to human life; and

3)   The act of killing must not have been carried out as self-defense.

But beyond those lackluster words of the law, I began thinking about what really defines a murder.  Initially, I came across a reference to a 1968 TV movie called Prescription For Murder.  It was about a psychiatrist who had an affair with a patient and convinced her to help him kill his wife (a deliberate, intentional, non-self-defense killing).  A little known, persistent detective named Columbo, played by Peter Falk, solved the case and this led to his highly successful 1970’s TV series Columbo.

Detective Columbo was a favorite of mine, not only because he solved his cases, but also because he solved them with a psychological twist.  He looked beyond the act, beyond the obvious and studied the motivational possibilities behind the killing.  So I asked the questions “Why do people kill?” “Why choose to kill rather than seek other, less consequential ways to solve a problem?”

Well, it turns out that science has the answers.  It seems that the rationalizations for murder are much more complex than simply motive, method and opportunity.  Current science tells us there are three main reasons why people will choose to kill over other, less violent methods of resolving a major issue in their lives.

One is genetics.  People who turn to killing are thought to be naturally more aggressive and it’s often because they inherit one or more specific genes for violence.  These warrior genes are specifically tied to a predisposition to violence and aggression.

Another involves a brain malfunction.  For instance, a loss of brain functionality in, or a failure to properly develop, the frontal lobe can lead to violence and murder.  The frontal lobe (that part of the brain under our foreheads and behind our eyes) contains the coding for ethics and morality.  It’s also the center for impulse control.  So any frontal lobe damage or misdirected development can lead to miscues of ethics and moral decision-making, causing improper responses to life’s everyday challenges.

The last is abuse.  This can be sexual, psychological or physical in nature.  Abuse during the childhood years are the most damaging and often leads to psychopathologies later in life.  The specific type of abuse, along with how intense and how long it occurred, usually determines the specific psychopathology that might result.

As one can expect, specific tendencies to murder may develop as a result of a combination of these factors.  A violent genetic predisposition may play a greater role when a child is abused and may well be inconsequential if the child is the product of a stable, caring family environment.  A child with frontal lobe abnormalities may be channeled into a productive life if taught to control improper impulses, but spin out of control in an abusive environment.  The combinations are endless, and so are the resulting pathologies and potential murders that can result.

There is no “one size fits all” when it comes to the urge to kill.  The motivations and underlying pathologies are as numerous as its methods, but there is one common factor in almost every murder–the killer feels strongly justified, no matter how malicious the act.

Thoughts?  Comments?  I’d love to hear them!

Posted in The Definition of Murder, The Psychology of Murder | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments