#writing interrogation

[2/2] The man has no loyalty to the guy whose name he gives away and is only concerned with self-preservation, so I imagine he would do anything to stop the villain holding him at gunpoint from killing him, but I realise giving a false name could work just as well as a real one here.

-

Interestingly that isn’t actually true! It seems likely that a person does not need to be physically harmed for the memory problems associated with trauma to show up. The memory problems seem to come from physiological responses to stress. So they are possible in any situation where a person feels seriously at risk, whether they’re in pain or not.

 The study I tend to quote on this doesn’t actually focus on torture survivors. It focused on volunteer special operations soldiers who were put through a mock-capture scenario that lasted 48 hours. They were all sleep deprived and starved for 48 hours. The high stress group was physically threatened and manhandled during a mock ‘interrogation’. The low stress group was not threatened during their ‘interrogation’. The interrogations lasted about 30 minutes.

 The subjects were then asked to identify their interrogator the next day. A variety of identifying methods were used which is why there’s a range.

 The high stress group identified the interrogator correctly 30-49% of the time. The low stress group did it 62-76% of the time.

 The study (Morgan, 2004 International Journal of Law and Psychiatry) also looked at the rate of false positives (how often the subjects were sure they’d identified the right person and were wrong.)

 Now we know that a 100% success rate isn’t really possible with human memory. We also know that sleep deprivation has a terrible effect on memory, especially if it goes on for a while. But this study shows that threat in and of itself has a powerful effect.

 At the same time the situation you’re talking about isn’t similar to the ‘typical’ torture scenario. You’re not talking about multiple prolonged attacks or the kinds of systems and scale that the term torture implies.

 Which means that, yes, this scenario avoids a lot of the reasons that torture doesn’t work. You don’t have the effect on community, group moral, the chain of command or the ability to gather information from other sources. You also don’t necessarily have the deskilling effect torturers experience or the toxic subcultures they form.

 That means the character doing the threatening might still be able to gather useful information, fact check that information and cooperate in a positive way with his allies. Regardless of whether this threat ‘works’ or not the fact this isn’t a consistent pattern of behaviour, happening in a toxic, competitive, high-stress environment means it’s reasonable to write this character as generally effective and… not a torturer.

 I think realistically speaking this kind of scenario might ‘work’ some times. But I don’t think it would be successful very often.

 The memory problems would still be in play, the character doing the threatening still has no way to tell if the other character is lying in that moment and the character being threatened has a good motivation to lie.

 Personally I would not write this as effective. Partly because I think it would be a toss of a coin on whether it would ‘work’ or not. Partly because I think there’s such a pervasive assumption that violence ‘always works’ that it’s worth bucking that trend, challenging those ideas.

 But I think that’s in the realm of personal choice. I think if you feel this scenario adds to the story and you’re not portraying it as something that works every time then it’s up to you.

 I feel more confident in your ability to do it justice because you’ve demonstrated an awareness of how torture, threat and violence work. You’re conscious of the factors at play and actively considering how to handle them.

 Looking back at the question I think I’d missed that this was an older, finished story. I think that also changes things a bit. I don’t think any of us are obliged to keep going back and updating old stories.

 If you want to do this, if you learn from doing this by all means go ahead. I don’t think it would merge well with how I personally approach writing. We learn from our old stories. If you learn best by going back and editing that’s great. And if you learn by moving on and doing things different next time that’s great as well.

 I hope that helps. :)

Available on Wordpress.

You wouldn’t. Torture can not lead to accurate information: pain, memory and the human brain fundamentally do not work that way.

 You’re obviously new here and that’s OK. I’m here because a lot of people, like you, get taken in by torture apologia. It’s incredibly prevalent and it’s very difficult to find accurate information on torture.

 Believe me after researching this stuff in my own time for a couple of decades I understand.

 I’m going to link you to the masterposts which cover this particular set of misconceptions. Then I’m going to link you to some of my sources in case you want more information or just to know where I’m getting this from.

 First off the effect of torture on interrogation is discussed here.

 The effect torture has on investigations more generally (and the massive problems this causes, preventing any accurate information gathering) is discussed here.

 Here’s what an effective investigation looks like. There’s a further post here on leading questions.

 There’s a post on forced confessions over here, the average ‘success’ rate for forcing confessions under torture is about 10%. Which means that under torture 90% of people don’t comply long enough to sign their name.

 There’s a post on the common misconceptions and apologist tropes in fiction here.

 You can read about the common effects of torture here. And the detrimental effect on memory in particular here (yes torture actually destroys the evidence in an interrogation context by significantly increasing the chance that victims will forget the information or that their brain will edit it, producing a false memory.)

 If you’re interested in why torture actually happens when it can’t lead to accurate information, I’ve got an old post on that here.

 My main sources (which I need to update with some new ones) are all over here. For a beginner I recommend starting with O’Mara, he’s a neuroscientist and gives a very good, accessible grounding in the topic with a lot of citations. After that I’d suggest Monroe for an overview of just how varied survivors are and Alleg or Fanon for first hand accounts.

 You were wrong, it’s OK because the important thing is what you do now that you know.

 Read. Educate yourself. Get angry.

 And when you’ve done that if you have more writing questions I’m here.

Available on Wordpress.

The first question is a lot harder to answer then the second and the easiest way to illustrate why is to look at the symptoms in masterpost for solitary confinement and those in the masterpost for the effects of torture generally.

 Click on the links I’ve given you and open both up side by side. You’ll see that there is a lot of overlap.

 There are some symptoms of solitary, especially physical symptoms, that aren’t on the list for ‘typical’ symptoms of torture in general. However a lot of those symptoms are possible as knock on effects from torture.

 So lethargy and feelings of weakness are not on the list for torture generally. But anyone who is starved, sleep deprived or beaten (probably the three most common tortures globally) will probably experience periods of feeling lethargic and weak.

 Across all possible types, hallucinations aren’t a common effect of torture. But they’re possible with sleep deprivation as well as solitary confinement and insomnia is a very common symptom of torture.

 If a survivor hallucinates and is later diagnosed with a mental health problem that can cause hallucinations who’s to say they didn’t still have that while they were tortured? In which case are the hallucinations due to solitary or a possibly pre-existing mental health problem?

 Essentially we don’t really know. Because there’s too much overlap in the symptoms to say for certain what caused which symptoms.

 My advice for writing that kind of scenario would be to pick out symptoms as you usually would, consulting both lists. I don’t mean ‘double the 3-5 symptoms ball park figure’. I mean consult both lists of symptoms when you pick those symptoms, consider using the upper part of that range and consider throwing in some of the physical symptoms of solitary as well.

 That should give you something that’s reasonable in the scenario you’ve described whether the symptoms of solitary are relevant or not.

 Also: don’t stress too much about exactly where a particular symptom comes from. It’s almost impossible to know this for sure. Showing that the character has survived repeated traumatic events (ie torture) is enough.

 As for the second question: yes, time with a genuine investigator/interrogator counts as human interaction.

 The definition of solitary confinement as less then 1-2 hours of human contact (depending on which researcher you ask) is partly so that researchers can account for things like a few minutes of interaction with guards when food is brought to prisoner or when a prisoner is moved (ie for daily exercise).

 I had a question a while back about a historical case. The asker was interested in why this particular prisoner hadn’t shown the symptoms of solitary confinement when they were held for over a month…. And according to the historical sources interrogated for about 5 hours every day during that time.

 I get the impression that this sort of thing is a lot less common nowadays. Interrogation isn’t necessarily something that takes places every day for most prisoners and it doesn’t necessarily take over two hours each time it’s conducted. Which can mean that an isolated person, held for over a week, is effectively in solitary confinement.

 That doesn’t mean the second scenario you present is a bad option for a story but you might want to think about why this character warrants so much attention. Does it make sense for investigators to spend so much time with this character? It can make sense, I just think you need a reason for it. Even if that reason isn’t clear to the character being interviewed or the reader.

 I hope that helps. :)

Available on Wordpress.

The princess takes a different approach with the matter and asks for a private meeting with the man, she first asked staff to move him from the bare cell to a more comfortable one and for his wounds to be treated. She met him over a hearty dinner and told him that they had a mutual enemy in the queen and that if he gave her all the information she needed, she’ll let him off with a better sentence than execution. (Assassin ask/2)He doesn’t particularly care about his sentence, knowing he’ll end up dead if he admitted to all his crimes anyway, but he also wants revenge against the queen for betraying him, so he tells the princess all he knows. The information is vital to the plot, and I want to make sure, in a realistic scenario, would the captive give the information or not. (Assassin ask/3)The princess is vocal about her distaste for torture and her goal to outlaw it after she takes over the throne, but her younger brother, the prince, also makes remarks about how he deserves it for his crimes and wishes the same treatment on the queen who tormented them for years and led their country to endless wars. He agrees that it’s ineffective when it comes to information gathering, but he’s also taking the matter very personally. (Assassin ask/4)I try not to venture into torture-apologia, but how can I do that when I have a main character who’s usually kind to his Loved ones but as the future Commander of the military, has been nurtured to accept those actions as natural? He too is vocal about not favoring it and wholeheartedly agrees with the princess about outlawing it, it’s only in that instance where he’s vengeful against the attempt on his sister and the queen herself. (Assassin ask/5)

-

There seem to be two main questions buried in here: whether it’s realistic to have a character who was tortured give up accurate information later on when they are not tortured and whether it’s OK to have a character in a story support torture.

 The short answer to both is; yes.

 There have been cases where torture victims have been transferred to different facilities, interviewed over weeks or months by investigators and then given up accurate information.

 However the general consensus in the field is that anyone who has been tortured is less likely to choose to give up accurate information. There are also a lot of common symptoms of torture that make survivors less able to give up accurate information whether they want to or not.

 If you want to write a character giving someone (who was not involved with their torture) accurate information after they were tortured I’d suggest sticking to the following:

Give the character a strong motivation to give up the information

Keep any information broad and consider making some of the minor details wrong to reflect realistic memory problems

Allow space in the narrative for the character to physically recover from torture

Consider whether any of the characters symptoms would impair their ability to give up accurate information

 From the sounds of things you’ve already created a situation where this character has space to physically recover, has a strong motivation to give up information (in this case spite) and the information he’s getting across isn’t too detailed/specific.

 Keep in mind that he might not be able to give a very detailed account of being given the job. Broad details like knowing the Queen hired him, how much he was paid, what general instructions he was given, that all makes sense. But he might not be able to accurately remember if/who came with the Queen when he was given the job. Or where he was when he was given the job. Or exactly what he took with him at the time.

 Consider working in small errors or gaps in his memory of events.

 As for the second question: there is a difference between having a character who supports torture and a story that does.

 I don’t think there is anything wrong with having characters who do or believe in terrible things. The trick is to make sure the larger story doesn’t suggest they were right. So long as that’s the case I don’t see a problem with including apologist characters.

 I’ll give some examples of what I mean by the difference between an apologist character and an apologist narrative.

 Say there’s a character in a story who believes that torture leads to accurate information: that is the character expressing an apologist view. If later in the story the character tortures someone and gets accurate information then the story is supporting that character and it becomes an apologist narrative.

 A character who says that torture makes people obedient and docile is an apologist. But if that character is in a story where survivors rise up in violent revolt or stage a mass break out or otherwise are shown to consistently oppose the torturers: then the story itself is contradicting what this one character says.

 There’s nothing wrong with writing a character who is wrong. I am not trying to stop writers creating evil, ill-informed or arsehole characters.

 From what you’ve said I’m not entirely clear on whether this character actually supports torture or whether he wants revenge in this specific case.

 If it’s the second option… well some people do have those feelings. Some people respond to seeing their loved ones hurt by wanting to hurt the attacker. Not everyone feels that way but it certainly happens.

 I don’t think there’s anything wrong with choosing to have a character respond in that way. People can be ‘loving’ towards their friends and family while advocating violence against others.

 Essentially I think everything you’ve outlined here seems plausible.

 I hope that helps. :)

Availableon Wordpress.

Yes, that’s perfectly possible.

 The longer answer is that the truthfulness or not of information given under torture isn’t really why it doesn’t work. It’s a combination of many inter-related factors that come together to mean that recognising true information is impossible and getting true information is incredibly unlikely.

 People generally are very bad at telling when other people are lying or telling the truth.

 In genuine investigation this is dealt with by combining information and fact checking. So if someone comes in and volunteers information what they say will be checked against what other witnesses have said and what the forensic evidence suggests. Investigators might go back to other witnesses and ask them about this new information. They might ask people who know the volunteer.

 They generally try to build up as much information as possible to confirm or deny the new information they get.

 Torture fundamentally undermines this process in several different ways. I talk about how that works here.

 Essentially once an organisation starts using torture they cut off their access to most sources of information. People don’t volunteer honest information if they think it might get them or someone they know tortured. And the majority of new information in investigations comes from public volunteers.

 A structured system of paid informants can get around this to a small degree, but it’s not nearly as effective. And it’s prone to a lot more false information, ie people being implicated because of a private feud.

 Genuine investigation and forensics don’t shed much light on the situation because the scale of lies generated by torture is so huge. It takes a long time to prove something is false, and by the time a genuine investigator has done so a torturer might have two false confessions and two dozen more false ‘leads’ to be checked.

 Torturers often pick and choose the information they’re given. I’ve read quite a few survivor accounts that describe trying to tell them the truth only to have the torturer either dismiss it as a lie or just not care.

 And because torturers often treat what they do as a competition they can keep information that they think is useful from each other and genuine investigators.

 The effects torture has on memory are also a factor in this scenario. Stress and pain increase the chances of false memories; a victim could easily give out information that they believe is true when their memory is… not accurate.

 If you want more detail then I’d recommend S O’Mara’s Why Torture Doesn’t Work as a good introduction, at a reasonable length pitched at a general interest level of knowledge.

 In terms of your story I think it’s important to consider how sure the character is that the torturers won’t believe the truth. Because that effects how this strategy comes across to the readers.

 If it’s more of a gamble that says something about the character’s attitude to risk, or ability to think things through. If it’s mixed in with a dozen semi-plausible lies then that tells us something about the character’s creativity and could be used to show them grand standing a little, taking power away from the torturers in the scene.

 Is it thrown out at the spur of the moment in anger? Is it said deliberately?

 If you want a character to use the truth as a weapon, as a confusing element, use that to show the readers something about the character. Make it a memorable moment.

 I hope that helps. :)

Availableon Wordpress.

Absolutely :)

 I actually have a Masterpost on this here. But it’s probably worth talking about the options a little bit.

 Remember that you don’t have to stick with just one option. It’s perfectly possible (and realistic) to have several modes of resistance happening at once, or to have a character go from one strategy to another.

 It’s also a good idea to think about more then just the victim character here. Factors that effect the torturers are also part of the reason torture doesn’t work.

 When it comes to picking options I try to think about what adds to the story I’m telling. I think it’s important to try and create narrative opportunities; so anything that helps you highlight themes, plot elements or important characteristics is a good choice.

 I’m going to try and focus on things a victim can choose to do here, but keep in mind that there’s a lot of things that victim’s can’t control which also aid resistance. One of the key factors is the way torture damages memory; this effectively destroys any genuine evidence a victim might have.

 Another important thing to remember is that when an organisation uses torture that choice effectively destroys their intelligence network. Which means that the majority of the people who are captured and tortured almost certainly don’t know anything anyway.

 Try to get in some of these factors which are beyond a victim’s control. Because without them you risk suggesting that torture didn’t work for this one victim, rather then showing that it doesn’t work at all.

 A lot of victims refuse to talk at all.

 I don’t have exact numbers but my impression based on survivor accounts is that it’s a lot more common then people think. Alleg describes his use of this strategy in The Question.

 I think this is a good narrative option if you want to emphasise the victim character’s dignity or faith. That doesn’t necessarily need to be religious faith, it can be faith in their cause.

 It’s also a very good option if that character is stubborn.

 Lying generally is a very common strategy and torturers often fall for lies. If you’re still at the brain storming stages I’d break lying into four basic strategies:

Things the victim character thinks the torturer wants to hear

Accusing people who support the torturer’s organisation

Accusing personal enemies

Straight up fabrication/fiction

 Obviously these can overlap or happen at the same time and they don’t cover every possible kind of lie a victim character can tell. This is just a helpful way of coming up with plausible responses.

 Accusing people who really exist can be used to establish a character as ruthless if it’s part of a concerted strategy. It can show a rather twisted dedication to their cause. It can show that, while they might be on the side of the Good Guys, they’re not necessarily a good or nice person.

 It can also be used to show how desperate a character is. May be they think about and decide that giving a real name is the only way to get torturers to stop. May be they rationalise it by telling themselves the people they accused are bad people.

 It can also be used to show a character’s personal history, outlining old grudges and highlighting the victim character’s anger.

 In contrast fabrications can be used to show a character’s creativity and ability to think on their feet. It can be a different way to show a character’s dedication to their cause: they’re actively trying to hurt the opposition even when they’re imprisoned.

 They can be used to highlight a character’s intelligence as they embellish lies and work to keep them consistent. (The torturers probably won’t notice but the effort to do so shows the audience a lot about the character).

 They can also be used to keep up some tension if the character is imprisoned for a long time. Because if a victim character is fabricating things they’re going to be very afraid of being found out. At the same time torturers are incredibly unlikely to find out they’re being lied to. Which means they’re going to start looking at this liar as their most valuable source of information.

 It means this victim is under a lot more scrutiny and that can keep the plot interesting in a way that repetitive descriptions of torture can’t.

 Trying to guess what the torturers want to hear and creating a lie around that can also be framed as a concerted attack, a refusal to stop fighting. But it suggests a much more logical and methodical approach then just- straight up fabrication.

 A really dedicated character could use logic, the torturer’s questions and any conversation they can manipulate to figure out more about the torturer’s side. They can use it to gather intelligence. Even if that intelligence is as simple as ‘these two don’t like each, they’re suspicious of each other’.

 The character could then try to use that.

 If the character isn’t in solitary confinement they could try to organise prisoners.

 If the character is forced to work in any way they could sabotage equipment, gather intelligence and possibly try to exploit any rifts developing in the torturer’s organisation.

 There’s also a host of small physical acts that can be used to highlight a character’s opposition: spitting, throwing up on a torturer etc.

 But, rounding this off, it’s about more then what a victim can choose to do.

 The reasons torture doesn’t work are deeper then our personal choices: they’re to do with the way we’re wired, how our nervous systems, brains, pain regulation system, memory and in-built empathy work.

 It’s more then resistance. It’s the way torturers stop conducting genuine investigations and lose access to accurate sources of information, magnifying lies. It’s the way pain destroys memory.

 Write your characters resisting. But please also try to show that torture fails because fundamentally mammals don’t work that way.

 I hope that helps. :)

Availableon Wordpress.

This is worth unpacking and discussing but it’s only fair to say that it does start edging away from the areas I’m most familiar with.

 Bribery works better then torture because torture does not work. Torture can not change peoples minds. Torture can not lead to accurate information.

 So, because bribery occasionally leads to accurate information, I think it is fair to say that we respond better to bribery then torture full stop. One can work sometimes. The other can not.

 Having said that, it is a little bit more complicated then going into a prison and offering someone a wodge of notes or better treatment.

 We all have principals and we have a marked tendency to choose suffering over compromising the things we hold most dear.

 The simple answer to the second question is that yes: bribery, even when it’s as simple as better treatment in prison, can lead to offers of accurate information.

 It doesn’t always. No method is completely guaranteed. But some success is markedly better then no success.

 The first question is more complicated and depends on our definition of bribery.

 For the purposes of this answer I’m going to define bribery as any preferential treatment that is expected to result in some sort of non-monetary payment later. So an offer of an extra ten minutes in a hot shower would be just as much a ‘bribe’ as an offer of $500; so long as the person offering expects to get something back eventually.

 My impression based on what I’ve read is that whether or not bribery will work is very dependant on the individuals involved.

 People rarely compromise their most strongly held beliefs but it’s important to think about what your character’s most strongly held beliefs actually are and whether they’re the same as what the character claims they are.

 For instance a lot of people will broadly say they are against violence. But not many people will agree that they’d rather die then hurt someone else.

 That’s the level of belief I’m talking about. Because there are always people who will choose to die rather then compromise this particular thing.

 Bribery can add a lot of emotional turmoil to a plot when it asks characters to compromise an important belief in order to uphold a more important one.

 For instance a character might genuinely believe in a political cause, but hold their duty to their family more highly. That character might choose to accept a bribe that benefits their family in return for compromising their political beliefs.

 And just from that one instance you’ve got a lot of interesting narrative elements. Perhaps some of their family members disagree, holding the political over the familial. Perhaps there’s fallout from their political partners or community. Perhaps they feel guilty and that guilt drives them through the rest of the story.

 There are also cultural factors to consider. Ideas about what it is right and honourable to accept.

 Some cultures or groups might see an offer of money as perfectly acceptable. Others might see it as insulting, but would accept a bribe in the form of favours or valuable objects.

 Cultural ideas about what is important and what money is for factor into this. Researching different cultures/subcultures or just thinking about the kinds of cultures you’ve created for your stories should help you figure out what an ‘acceptable’ bribe is.

 Success also depends on the character’s assessments of each other.

 The person being offered the bribe is only going to consider accepting if they think the person offering can do what they say. Even then their response is going to depend on whether they think the person offering will keep their word.

 On the flip side the person offering the bribe might well be taking a risk by making the offer. They’re also trying to figure out ahead of time whether they have a reasonable chance of success.

 Then there’s the wider society this takes place within. Will accepting the bribe have lasting negative consequences for the character?

 If it means being ostracised or suffering a severe penalty then the character might choose not to take the risk. Or they might think a lot more carefully about whether they’ll be found out before taking that risk. They might go to the extent of making it look as if another character was responsible.

 And again there’s a lot of narrative potential here. You can show the readers a lot about a character by showing them which risks they’re willing to take and why.

 This makes for especially interesting character moments when you have a character who’s caught between two factions.

 Another central question is whether the bribe is something the character actually wants or needs.

 I guess what all of these factors boil down to is an assessment of risk. The character who is being offered the bribe has to think the risk is worth it to consider accepting. Even then they might refuse if they find the offer insulting or if it compromises something extremely important to them.

 I don’t have any clear statistics on the success rates of bribes alone.

 What I have is statistics on rates of forced confessions in two different abusive scenarios.

 The first is from the records of state-sanctioned torture in historical France. The ‘success’ rate varies by region but overall it was around 10%.

 Meaning that for the one thing we know torture can actually achieve the success rate is abysmally low. Under torture 90% of people refuse to comply long enough to sign their name.

 The second set is from the London Cage, which existed around the time of World War Two. Torture was used against some prisoners, but bribery and blackmail were also common tactics. The ‘success’ rate there was about 30%.

 This still isn’t a particularly good success rate but it’s much much higher.

 Based on what we know about the effects of torture; on survivors, witnesses and communities, I think it’s highly likely that the success rate of bribery or blackmail alone would be higher then 30%.

 If you’re planning to write bribery as a key part of a story think carefully about what the targetted character has to gain verses what they have to lose.

 Don’t underestimate social or emotional costs that the character might risk. Those are often incredibly important.

 Which doesn’t mean the character can’t underestimate them, but if they end up paying for it don’t brush it off. Social isolation has serious consequences.

 Beyond that- There are a lot of ways bribery, successful or not, can add to a story. Think about the long term consequences, whether the character accepts the bribe or not. Think about what you can say about the characters with little details: what they consider, what they feel guilty for, what they value.

 I hope that helps. :)

Availableon Wordpress.

Just because something is illegal doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen in a government agency. I would caution against making it look as if torture is a function of shadowy conspiracy style groups rather than governments.

 Because the legal definition of torture more or less requires that the abuse is done by a government employee.

 Torture is done by governments. Despite the law. Perhaps not directly ordered, perhaps not known to everyone in such big organisations, but it continues because it is ignored, tolerated and condoned by people in power.

 If you want to write shadowy conspiracy type agencies then that is absolutely fine. But please don’t loose sight of where and how torture usually happens: in our military barracks, in our prisons, our jails, our schools, our hospitals.

 Underground agencies still use torture. So do military and police organisations across the world. In spite of the efforts by both these organisations and other organisations to eradicate torture.

 I think it’s also important to say that torture for interrogation does not work. It can not work. Getting accurate, timely information from torture is impossible.

 This doesn’t stop people from trying to use it as a form of interrogation. But presenting it as effective is such a common form of torture apologia in fiction that I feel the need to say it.

 If you want your villains to actually get useful information the best, most respectful thing you can do is take torture out of the story. On the other hand if it doesn’t matter whether the villains get accurate information and you do want to talk about abuse and mental health, torture is a good narrative choice.

 I have a lot of masterposts that can help you whatever you decide is best for your story.

 I’d suggest starting with this post as a run down of the most common apologia tropes.

 This post is an introduction to why torture can’t work as an interrogation technique. If you want to write an interrogation failing because of torture this post can help. If you’re interested on the effects torture can have on memory there’s more information here.

 There’s a post here on effective investigation, should you wish to remove torture from the story.

 There’s a post on the common long term effects of torture here.

 And then I have two posts which talk about the common torture techniques around the world.

 These vary depending on the time period your story is set in and the geographical area or culture. I call these ‘National Styles’ because that’s a term that Rejali uses and I feel it fits. They can and do change with time but it can be difficult to predict how they’ll change or why.

 Currently most torture globally is ‘clean’ which means that it doesn’t leave obvious external marks, like scars. Historically scarring tortures were much more common but clean tortures were also used historically.

 This first National Styles post covers a lot of different countries and the period of roughly 1950 to today. The second one is focused on the Second World War and the countries involved in that conflict.

 If you’re looking for a period before that I’d suggest searching for the country in my tags. I’ve covered historical Britain and India in some detail. I’ve also done occasional posts on other countries.

 If I haven’t covered the area or time period you’d like send in an ask and I’ll see what I can do.

 Now, you might have a completely fictional country in your story. That’s OK.

 You can base the National Style of a fictional country on existing countries, or mix and match things from across several existing countries. Sleep deprivation, starvation and beatings are common globally. Picking another 2-4 ‘common’ techniques for an area and reading a bit about them is all it takes to construct a fictional National Style.

 Have a read. Have a think about what you want from this in your story.

 And if you have any more questions feel free to ask. :)

Availableon Wordpress.