# Worlds, Why the Violence?



## intipablo (Mar 6, 2014)

Why are we using so much violence in our worlds!
Note: I did not know where to post this so please tell me if it is in the wrong forum 

While making my world i thought about why everyone uses kingdoms in they're world. These days most people just create some magic system and then just make the rest of the world about fighting and weapons etc. Nobody focuses on the main things that bring a world together! we are just talking about fighting and battles when we should be posting about things like, Lifestyles, Occupations, Games, Art, Languages etc.

What i am saying is. Almost everyone uses violence in their worlds!! Now you may disagree with this and i agree that we should have many different violent things such as different types of weaponry and back story's for how a world came together (or for how one broke apart). But why do we have to talk about only violence? why not a variety of things.

If you disagree strongly please do not put any hurtful or mean comments below.

,Inti


----------



## Queshire (Mar 6, 2014)

Violence is one of the simplest forms of conflict. It's as simple as that. A story needs conflict. It doesn't have to be physical conflict, violence, but physical conflict isn't hard to come up with and it's visually impressive. No wonder it's popular with writers.


----------



## Ireth (Mar 6, 2014)

There are plenty of posts about languages and other subjects. I've created a game for vampires in my WIP, for instance, and posted about it on this forum (though the thread is probably buried now). Violence is a sad fact of life, and a major catalyst for change. Utopia and world peace are all well and good, but many would say there has to be some sort of conflict in order to have a story. Eden didn't last long before the serpent slithered in, after all, and it all went downhill from there.


----------



## Trick (Mar 6, 2014)

My answer: For the same reason that the Coloseum was always full to bursting...


----------



## Nagash (Mar 6, 2014)

In many ways, I believe that what we're trying to achieve through our worlds, is a vast mirror of the universe's complexity, reflecting some bits of our profoundly misunderstood nature. What better puzzle than a Man's heart ? I've always thought that my WIP were merely an attempt to study and illustrate the deeply disturbed and complex psychologism of humanity. What an undertaking really, to depict our wild, passionate and unpredictable being. Surely "we are, as the ocean's abyss, inhabited by foul and unordinary creatures", filled with both magnificent outbursts of deeply tear-jerking humanity, and sheer moments of unspeakable violence; the way it works however, being completely illogical, passionate, makes it a thorny object of study, as well as a perfect theme for literature. Only the enchanting prose of a poet or a playwright doth know how to uncover a bit of this vast and complex labyrinth we writers are constantly staring at with amazement and stupor...

Point is, basing our worlds upon such unbridled passions we blow way out of realist proportions, is the ideal way to give them a prominent place within our work. Satire, they say, is all about exaggerating a given trait, personality, what have you some might find disturbing, to such point that it becomes obvious to everyone. I'm guessing capitalizing on violence in our works, is merely a way to point out what importance it holds within our beastly nature...


----------



## intipablo (Mar 6, 2014)

Queshire said:


> Violence is one of the simplest forms of conflict. It's as simple as that. A story needs conflict. It doesn't have to be physical conflict, violence, but physical conflict isn't hard to come up with and it's visually impressive. No wonder it's popular with writers.



True, Violence does really spice up writing but that does not mean we have to use it in almost every world. We can have peaceful worlds? cant we?


----------



## intipablo (Mar 6, 2014)

Ireth said:


> There are plenty of posts about languages and other subjects. I've created a game for vampires in my WIP, for instance, and posted about it on this forum (though the thread is probably buried now). Violence is a sad fact of life, and a major catalyst for change. Utopia and world peace are all well and good, but many would say there has to be some sort of conflict in order to have a story. Eden didn't last long before the serpent slithered in, after all, and it all went downhill from there.



This is true but i have not seen many. This may be because i can not access the showcase now but i still think that people use too much violence in they're writing.


----------



## intipablo (Mar 6, 2014)

Nagash said:


> In many ways, I believe that what we're trying to achieve through our worlds, is a vast mirror of the universe's complexity, reflecting some bits of our profoundly misunderstood nature. What better puzzle than a Man's heart ? I've always thought that my WIP were merely an attempt to study and illustrate the deeply disturbed and complex psychologism of humanity. What an undertaking really, to depict our wild, passionate and unpredictable being. Surely "we are, as the ocean's abyss, inhabited by foul and unordinary creatures", filled with both magnificent outbursts of deeply tear-jerking humanity, and sheer moments of unspeakable violence; the way it works however, being completely illogical, passionate, makes it a thorny object of study, as well as a perfect theme for literature. Only the enchanting prose of a poet or a playwright doth know how to uncover a bit of this vast and complex labyrinth we writers are constantly staring at with amazement and stupor...
> 
> Point is, basing our worlds upon such unbridled passions we blow way out of realist proportions, is the ideal way to give them a prominent place within our work. Satire, they say, is all about exaggerating a given trait, personality, what have you some might find disturbing, to such point that it becomes obvious to everyone. I'm guessing capitalizing on violence in our works, is merely a way to point out what importance it holds within our beastly nature...



This is very true and i do not know how i can reply to this


----------



## intipablo (Mar 6, 2014)

Trick said:


> My answer: For the same reason that the Coloseum was always full to bursting...



Can you be more specific? i don't really understand what your saying.


----------



## Nagash (Mar 6, 2014)

intipablo said:


> Can you be more specific? i don't really understand what your saying.



People are bloodthirsty savagery-driven creatures.


----------



## intipablo (Mar 6, 2014)

Nagash said:


> People are bloodthirsty savagery-driven creatures.



umm..ok i don't really understand that either, well i understand it but i don't know how it connects to this post.


----------



## Trick (Mar 6, 2014)

Fans of violence have been around since right after Cain killed Abel. Human nature, whether you believe it to be created or evolved, tends towards violence. The Coloseum was a place of violence (among other things) and how often do you see movies or read books about the peaceful entertainments held there? I know I never have. I'm not saying that violence is good, quite the contrary. I'm just saying that people have proven that they like to watch it... and to read about it. Conflict is interesting. Bloody conflict is enthralling. Violent death is mesmerizing. 

If you can write a book with no violence and it does well among many readerships, I will salute you and speak your praises. I encourage you to try and hope you succeed. I also know that, on a shelf nearby, there will be yet another violent bestseller flying through the checkouts faster than I can count.


----------



## Jabrosky (Mar 6, 2014)

intipablo said:


> True, Violence does really spice up writing but that does not mean we have to use it in almost every world. We can have peaceful worlds? cant we?


As long as their inhabitants find some other means to get into conflict with each other, I suppose you could.

That said, I believe violence and life-threatening situations have so much dramatic appeal because they're the least mundane experiences most of us can imagine. Let's face it, the vast majority of people in modern civilization have monotonously safe and uneventful lives. We may feel comfortable with that, but from a literary viewpoint a comfortable existence is boring. Ergo, we gravitate towards stories that offer an adventurous escape from daily tranquility.


----------



## Nihal (Mar 6, 2014)

Don't forget that this "violence" is an opportunity for a character grow and overcome obstacles. It's conflict, and being conflict it's not only about violence for violence's sake, but about overcoming a high stakes challenge. You win, you live, you lose, you die or worse.


----------



## intipablo (Mar 6, 2014)

Jabrosky said:


> As long as their inhabitants find some other means to get into conflict with each other, I suppose you could.
> 
> That said, I believe violence and life-threatening situations have so much dramatic appeal because they're the least mundane experiences most of us can imagine. Let's face it, the vast majority of people in modern civilization have monotonously safe and uneventful lives. We may feel comfortable with that, but from a literary viewpoint a comfortable existence is boring. Ergo, we gravitate towards stories that offer an adventurous escape from daily tranquility.



Very true, But is they're any other way of having very dramatic scenes????? By the way nice website! 

,Inti


----------



## intipablo (Mar 6, 2014)

Nihal said:


> Don't forget that this "violence" is an opportunity for a character grow and overcome obstacles. It's conflict, and being conflict it's not only about violence for violence's sake, but about overcoming a high stakes challenge. You win, you live, you lose, you die or worse.



This is true. But characters can grow in other ways, for example, Many characters can grow and become a better person by seeing the mistakes of other people. They can go through arguments and very sad parts in they're life and grow. And violence doesn't always have to be physical.


----------



## JRFLynn (Mar 6, 2014)

Stories tend to be microcosms of our own reality. That's one reason why I lean toward darker subjects. Sad but true. However, I do believe it's important to cover violence, not for the gratuitousness of delving into it, but because you can't truly understand something like evil unless you stare it in the face. Where does it come from? Why are we flawed? How can we overcome our troubles? Thinking of solutions to these questions is cathartic for me as both a writer and human being. 

That said, it would be nice to have a healthy balance between grit and world-building. The trend is dark, but I'd like to see more inspirational tales covering daily life as well. If that's your hope, go for it!


----------



## intipablo (Mar 6, 2014)

Trick said:


> Fans of violence have been around since right after Cain killed Abel. Human nature, whether you believe it to be created or evolved, tends towards violence. The Coloseum was a place of violence (among other things) and how often do you see movies or read books about the peaceful entertainments held there? I know I never have. I'm not saying that violence is good, quite the contrary. I'm just saying that people have proven that they like to watch it... and to read about it. Conflict is interesting. Bloody conflict is enthralling. Violent death is mesmerizing.
> 
> If you can write a book with no violence and it does well among many readerships, I will salute you and speak your praises. I encourage you to try and hope you succeed. I also know that, on a shelf nearby, there will be yet another violent bestseller flying through the checkouts faster than I can count.



Like most of the other posts this is true. But why does everyone on this website (well, world basically!) believe violence is the main entertainment! this world has grown into only violence!


----------



## intipablo (Mar 6, 2014)

JRFLynn said:


> Stories tend to be microcosms of our own reality. That's one reason why I lean toward darker subjects. Sad but true. However, I do believe it's important to cover violence, not for the gratuitousness of delving into it, but because you can't truly understand something like evil unless you stare it in the face. Where does it come from? Why are we flawed? How can we overcome our troubles? Thinking of solutions to these questions is cathartic for me as both a writer and human being.
> 
> That said, it would be nice to have a healthy balance between grit and world-building. The trend is dark, but I'd like to see more inspirational tales covering daily life as well. If that's your hope, go for it!



this is very true and i agree with it.


----------



## Guy (Mar 6, 2014)

It all depends on what kind of story you're writing. If it's a comedy, for example, or a romance, then violence is fairly easy to avoid. If you're writing more of an adventure, thriller or horror type story, violence becomes pretty useful.

Besides, sword fights are cool.


----------



## Dragev (Mar 6, 2014)

As several have said before, it helps making a story. You don't _need_ violence as such, but it's easier. A story without any kind of conflict would be like "The Hobbit" if Gandalf didn't show up.

Also, many fantasy stories (not to say most) are set in an alternative medieval age, a time where most european countries barely went through a few years at a time whithout some form of war; I guess it stuck. And most of us would probably rather read about Conan the Barbarian than Baldrick the Bloody Peasant


----------



## skip.knox (Mar 6, 2014)

The best answer I can give is: write one without violence.

Seriously, let other authors write what they please. If you think there should be more stories with less violence, the best way to deal with that is to write more stories with less violence. It's not a matter of who's right and who's wrong; it's a matter of who writes and who doesn't.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Mar 6, 2014)

I think there's a big difference between violence and action. I'll let George R. R. Martin make the case:



> I don't think I made any effort to define a line, I just want to present violence accurately and the way it is, and graphically in that sense. One of the things I hated about the television networks I worked for, primarily CBS with "Beauty and the Beast," the premise was that Vincent is a beast and he's repeatedly called on to defend Catharine and he does so violently. He doesn't have a gun or a knife or anything. He is ripping people apart with his claws. We were never allowed to show any of that, it would be "disturbing." But the network said we needed more "action," code-speak for violence. No blood, not a drop of blood.
> 
> [ASoIaF is] not an allegory of any particular war. There are, certainly, ruminations in it on war and the nature of power, the obligations of the ruled. I think a lot of fantasy is about war, going back to Tolkien, there's almost always a war as part of it. But some treat war as an excuse for "action." As it relates to violence in my books, I wasn't going to do "action." If I was going to have violence, I was going to present it the way it really is.



Speaking personally, I use violence when the thing I want to talk about feels violent to me. For instance, _Eternal_ is about sin, and I think the concept of sin is inextricable from violence and hatred, so I wrote stomach-churning violence. _Extraordinary_ is about the creation of hero myths, and I think those are linked to bloodless, weightless action, so I started with action that broke down into bloody violence as the myth fell apart. On the other hand, "In the Cosmic Waiting Room" is about lack of agency, so I didn't write any violence more serious than a cat scratch, because it didn't really need it.


----------



## kayd_mon (Mar 6, 2014)

One reason is that most writers want readers, and readers tend to like action. 

Violence easily leads to suspense and creates the opportunity for lasting stakes. That glues readers in. 

You don't need violence to create suspense and tension (see the old movie 12 Angry Men) and you don't need war to have a good fantasy (see Lord Dunsany's The Charwoman's Shadow, the recent bestseller The Night Circus). But since many readers look for action, war, duels, etc. in fantasy novels, authors will keep supplying it. As I said, you can create conflict without violence, and you can still entertain.


----------



## Malik (Mar 6, 2014)

My series deals with the increasing obsolescence of the warrior caste in our society. My MC is a man who, had he been born a thousand years ago, would have been a hero and conqueror, but who in our society is an outcast and a failure specifically because of his aptitude for violence.

Violence is a four-letter word in our modern world because we have lost perspective on the utility of force. I take particular offense to this; but then, I'm a professional soldier. Violence is my stock in trade. Controlled, professionally applied violence toward a specific end is one of the most effective tools of civilization and the single defining constant throughout history. 

We no longer understand violence. It's alien and scary to most of us. This leads to two trains of thought: overindulgence in mindless, Jason Statham-esque glorified Hollywood nonsense (or, in fantasy, a weird sort of sanitized, consequence-free cartoon violence, which I find even more disturbing); or the naive and ridiculous idea that we have evolved - or will ever evolve - to the point where violence is unnecessary and 'behind us' somehow. That's a beautiful sentiment, but I beg to differ. 

The idea that violence never solves anything is ridiculous and patently false. Violence has solved - or to some degree, determined - damned near everything since time immemorial.

I use violence in my series because the inhabitants of the world where it happens still understand and respect violence enough to use it constructively.


----------



## Jabrosky (Mar 7, 2014)

Malik said:


> Violence is a four-letter word in our modern world because we have lost perspective on the utility of force.


I don't necessarily disagree with you that violence will always have its place, but I would argue that modern civilization made it a four-letter word has partly to do with recent advocacy for a more inclusive society. In bygone days, people accepted violence as long as it targeted whatever out-groups their culture or leadership declared inferior. Nowadays we're more sensitive to those out-groups' humanity and have less tolerance for their victimization. We (or rather some of us) have grown ashamed of violence in general because of its historical connotations of alienating the Other. At least that could explain why we frown upon warlike tendencies these days.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Mar 7, 2014)

I'd go one further than Jabrosky: violence becomes less palatable when you _are_ the Other. When a character in a fantasy novel talks about how it's okay to slaughter orcs because they're evil savages, I have a hard time not comparing that to when characters in old frontier novels say it's okay to slaughter "Indians" because they're evil savages. 

I'm willing to write about humans and orcs slaughtering each other, since people still slaughter each other in real life. I tend to portray the soldiers in such conflicts as good people, too. But I don't write war as a heroic or beneficial thing, because as much as I like to pretend that I don't care about race, I do feel _some_ responsibility to respect my ancestry.

(And yes, I am well aware that there were wars between Native American tribes.)


----------



## Jabrosky (Mar 7, 2014)

Feo Takahari said:


> I'd go one further than Jabrosky: violence becomes less palatable when you _are_ the Other. When a character in a fantasy novel talks about how it's okay to slaughter orcs because they're evil savages, I have a hard time not comparing that to when characters in old frontier novels say it's okay to slaughter "Indians" because they're evil savages.
> 
> I'm willing to write about humans and orcs slaughtering each other, since people still slaughter each other in real life. I tend to portray the soldiers in such conflicts as good people, too. But I don't write war as a heroic or beneficial thing, because as much as I like to pretend that I don't care about race, I do feel _some_ responsibility to respect my ancestry.
> 
> (And yes, I am well aware that there were wars between Native American tribes.)


For my part, I'm more comfortable writing about war if my protagonists are on the defending team. Military aggressors usually register as the bad guys in my imagination.


----------



## Gurkhal (Mar 7, 2014)

For my sake I don't have any particular problems to write about violence in general although some forms of it are reprehensible to me such as men's violence towards women. And like said there are few sharper conflicts that violence and violence does solve and determine alot of things.


----------



## Nagash (Mar 7, 2014)

Malik said:


> My series deals with the increasing obsolescence of the warrior caste in our society. My MC is a man who, had he been born a thousand years ago, would have been a hero and conqueror, but who in our society is an outcast and a failure specifically because of his aptitude for violence.
> 
> Violence is a four-letter word in our modern world because we have lost perspective on the utility of force. I take particular offense to this; but then, I'm a professional soldier. Violence is my stock in trade. Controlled, professionally applied violence toward a specific end is one of the most effective tools of civilization and the single defining constant throughout history.
> 
> ...



C.F. _Things fall apart_, from Chinua Achebe.


----------



## Malik (Mar 7, 2014)

Feo Takahari said:


> I'd go one further than Jabrosky: violence becomes less palatable when you _are_ the Other.





Jabrosky said:


> For my part, I'm more comfortable writing about war if my protagonists are on the defending team. Military aggressors usually register as the bad guys in my imagination.



"Aggressor" is in the eye of the beholder. It's never, ever, as cut and dried as it appears from either side's position. Keep in mind what the world was like without the internet, without multiple news sources, without people raised to think critically and see things from another point of view (okay, we're still working on that last one). Before any kind of military action, there is a lot of what amounts to raised middle fingers and playground shoving on both sides. Historically, the man in the street -- who wasn't around when the shoving started -- never sees that; they just see the banners and the dust coming up the road and immediately assume, "Ah! Aggressors!"


----------



## Amanita (Mar 7, 2014)

One of the main reasons to use violence from a story-building perspective probably is the fact that it raises the stakes considerably. If the protagonist is going to be killed if he loses, there's more suspense than there would be if the story was about a sports contest, reaching his career goal or similar. 
The common motive of an evil threat that needs to be defeated wouldn't work without violence either. I'm not very interested in stories featuring various groups of people fighting a bloody war over a medieval throne or similar but there seem to be plenty of others who do.  
I'm somewhat hypocritical in this aspect myself. I tend to complain (mentally) about overly brutal stories but my own ones happen to be not too much lighter if viewed from an objective perspective. No idea why that is. 

I know the forums aren't supposed to be about real-world discussions but I would like you to elaborate somewhat, *Malik*. At the moment, I'm not quite sure as to what you're arguing in favour. 
Do you think that there should be more respect for the military and more understanding for police officers' need to use force in conflict?
Do you think it would be preferrable if citizens would use more violence to solve their own troubles rather than turn to the police and to courts?
Do you think war should be used to achieve political goals more often? 
All of the above or something completely different?
Becoming a military leader has only been an option for a very limited number of men in the past where such positions were restricted to members of the nobility as well or are you mainly talking about tribal cultures?


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 7, 2014)

Most fantasy works seem to center around violence of one kind or another, but there are plenty that do not. You just need to look beyond the usual to find them. One place to start, for example, might be with Ellen Kushner's Riverside series.


----------



## intipablo (Mar 7, 2014)

Guy said:


> It all depends on what kind of story you're writing. If it's a comedy, for example, or a romance, then violence is fairly easy to avoid. If you're writing more of an adventure, thriller or horror type story, violence becomes pretty useful.
> 
> Besides, sword fights are cool.



That is true but that is not what i was saying. Why do we have so many types of the violence books and not many of the others?


----------



## intipablo (Mar 7, 2014)

Dragev said:


> As several have said before, it helps making a story. You don't _need_ violence as such, but it's easier. A story without any kind of conflict would be like "The Hobbit" if Gandalf didn't show up.
> 
> Also, many fantasy stories (not to say most) are set in an alternative medieval age, a time where most european countries barely went through a few years at a time whithout some form of war; I guess it stuck. And most of us would probably rather read about Conan the Barbarian than Baldrick the Bloody Peasant



This is true but again that was not my question. It does help making a story but why are most stories these days based on violence! they don't have to be!


----------



## intipablo (Mar 7, 2014)

skip.knox said:


> The best answer I can give is: write one without violence.
> 
> Seriously, let other authors write what they please. If you think there should be more stories with less violence, the best way to deal with that is to write more stories with less violence. It's not a matter of who's right and who's wrong; it's a matter of who writes and who doesn't.



Remember, this was just an opinion and that was what i planned on doing but at the time i couldn't enter the showcase.


----------



## intipablo (Mar 7, 2014)

kayd_mon said:


> One reason is that most writers want readers, and readers tend to like action.
> 
> Violence easily leads to suspense and creates the opportunity for lasting stakes. That glues readers in.
> 
> You don't need violence to create suspense and tension (see the old movie 12 Angry Men) and you don't need war to have a good fantasy (see Lord Dunsany's The Charwoman's Shadow, the recent bestseller The Night Circus). But since many readers look for action, war, duels, etc. in fantasy novels, authors will keep supplying it. As I said, you can create conflict without violence, and you can still entertain.



That is what i said before. And i know that. But why is it that most readers want violence! WHY?


----------



## intipablo (Mar 7, 2014)

Malik said:


> My series deals with the increasing obsolescence of the warrior caste in our society. My MC is a man who, had he been born a thousand years ago, would have been a hero and conqueror, but who in our society is an outcast and a failure specifically because of his aptitude for violence.
> 
> Violence is a four-letter word in our modern world because we have lost perspective on the utility of force. I take particular offense to this; but then, I'm a professional soldier. Violence is my stock in trade. Controlled, professionally applied violence toward a specific end is one of the most effective tools of civilization and the single defining constant throughout history.
> 
> ...



Very true! reading your book right now, very fascinating!  keep up the good work!


----------



## intipablo (Mar 7, 2014)

Steerpike said:


> Most fantasy works seem to center around violence of one kind or another, but there are plenty that do not. You just need to look beyond the usual to find them. One place to start, for example, might be with Ellen Kushner's Riverside series.



very helpful!


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 7, 2014)

intipablo said:


> very helpful!



I am on The Fall of the Kings, which is part of the series. Mostly it has been the characters debating the history of the fall of kings and disappearance of the wizards and which historical sources to be believed. They're all in academia. Very well done, and as usually Kushner keeps the pace moving and the story engaging. Not an ounce of violence yet.


----------



## intipablo (Mar 7, 2014)

Steerpike said:


> I am on The Fall of the Kings, which is part of the series. Mostly it has been the characters debating the history of the fall of kings and disappearance of the wizards and which historical sources to be believed. They're all in academia. Very well done, and as usually Kushner keeps the pace moving and the story engaging. Not an ounce of violence yet.



i am reading it right now! very intruiging! (i think that's how you spell it?)


----------



## Guy (Mar 7, 2014)

Malik said:


> The idea that violence never solves anything is ridiculous and patently false. Violence has solved - or to some degree, determined - damned near everything since time immemorial.


I wanted to thank you particularly for this statement. I've had the very same thought, almost verbatim. It always baffled me how anybody could buy the whole "violence never solved anything" platitude. A casual perusal through a history book blows that theory to hell.


----------



## Queshire (Mar 7, 2014)

Really? It's never baffled me. When violence is treated as a viable solution to a problem can you trust the average guy on the street to have the discipline to not use violence on a problem when it isn't necessary? If so then all the more power to you, but for the rest of us eh, just better to taboo the whole thing, no?


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Mar 7, 2014)

intipablo said:


> i am reading it right now! very intruiging! (i think that's how you spell it?)



And yet _Swordspoint_, the book which launched the series and which I adore, is violent in many aspects.  There is the quiet violence of intrigues which can end in death.  There is the mental instability of the MC's lover, who is prone to explosions of self-destruction.  There is the MC's own history, where he killed another lover in the past.  There are the lethal and illegal duels which can end in assassination or murder.  And there is the fact that Riverside, the area that the series takes its name from, is itself an impoverished, secretive place with a long history of violence.

*intipablo*, you are pursuing the question "Why do we use violence in fiction?" but I think you may be asking in the wrong place.  Speculative fiction is a genre where violence is a common plot convention for a variety of reasons, and academic debates, such as in _The Fall of Kings_, as an extended plot device are very rare.  You would probably be happier looking in the genre of literary fiction, where it is far more common to find works focusing exclusively on internal conflicts and much less on external conflicts, which violence most commonly represents.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 7, 2014)

There is violence in the Riverside series no doubt, but there is a lot else going on, and the focal points of the books aren't always fixed on situations that revolve around violence or considerations of violence. So they're different that a lot of what is currently popular, by the likes of GRRM, Abercrombie, Lawrence, etc.


----------



## Guy (Mar 7, 2014)

Queshire said:


> Really? It's never baffled me. When violence is treated as a viable solution to a problem can you trust the average guy on the street to have the discipline to not use violence on a problem when it isn't necessary? If so then all the more power to you, but for the rest of us eh, just better to taboo the whole thing, no?


Key words being "never" and "anything." It's solved plenty of things. Not stating morality or right or wrong, just stating a fact. Violence has solved lots of things.


----------



## Queshire (Mar 7, 2014)

Yes and if we said that violence sometimes solves some things then one day one idiot is going to try to use it to solve something it can't so suddenly we have a bunch of hurt or dead people on our hands which might not have been hurt if violence as a whole was taboo-ed in our culture. Of course there's still people who break such a taboo, but more people will be prevented from using it if it's forbidden instead of if it is merely discouraged. The exageration is required just so the intended message can potential sink in without getting blocked by humankind's natural contrary-ness.


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Mar 7, 2014)

Queshire said:


> Yes and if we said that violence sometimes solves some things then one day one idiot is going to try to use it to solve something it can't so suddenly we have a bunch of hurt or dead people on our hands which might not have been hurt if violence as a whole was taboo-ed in our culture. Of course there's still people who break such a taboo, but more people will be prevented from using it if it's forbidden instead of if it is merely discouraged. The exageration is required just so the intended message can potential sink in without getting blocked by humankind's natural contrary-ness.



This would be interesting to talk about in terms of a fictional setting.

Let's try doing that, shall we?


----------



## Queshire (Mar 7, 2014)

Was there something wrong with what I said? I was merely providing a simplified example for what I believe is the reason behind such a saying. You see it time and time again particularly in lessons we give our kids. Simplified and exaggerated lessons such as that if you're not good then Santa Claus is going to give you coal for Christmas or to never talk to strangers. Such lessons are also most effective for adults who are presumed to be idiots until proven otherwise.

If you liter rally mean it in terms of a fantasy setting, I'm.... not sure what other way to put it. It only takes one person who views violence as an option but who lacks the will to not use that violence to cause people to be hurt. For a culture that allows such an option it would need some sort of mechanicism in place to teach when to not use violence. Most likely such a thing would be tradition or dojo based instead of law as having violence be an option generally would require a state to weak to prevent the use of violence. They're more or less taking the law into their own hands after all. Mmmm.... though now that I think about it, I suppose formalized duels would work for a stronger state, but that's a leashed sort of violence.


----------



## Jabrosky (Mar 7, 2014)

For the record, I actually have entertained the idea of a world without war as we usually conceive of it. It was a world populated by small bands of human hunter-gatherers whose egalitarian culture valued cooperation and sharing. Of course they would still get into arguments and even fights at times, but they wouldn't have condensed themselves into clans or tribes large or xenophobic enough for all-out war. In other words, these foragers would have been as peaceful as any other human society you could imagine.

Nonetheless these people would still come into conflict not only with nature and wildlife but with extraterrestrials with a far more aggressive and technologically advanced culture. You could say I had a reverse _Avatar _in mind. Unfortunately I ended up scrapping it because I didn't know if Stone Age people could kick futuristic techno-butt to an extent that mattered.


----------



## Ireth (Mar 7, 2014)

Jabrosky said:


> You could say I had a reverse _Avatar _in mind. Unfortunately I ended up scrapping it because I didn't know if Stone Age people could kick futuristic techno-butt to an extent that mattered.



You could go the "War of the Worlds" route with that. Wipe out the invaders with an infection they aren't immune to, because it isn't a thing they encounter on their planet. Even better if the Stone Age people are ignorant of the advantage they have, since they'd have no inkling of what germs or other microbes are. Best they'd know is that weapons + mud and blood = wounds that go icky and turn colors, and people getting sick and dying.


----------



## Jabrosky (Mar 7, 2014)

Ireth said:


> You could go the "War of the Worlds" route with that. Wipe out the invaders with an infection they aren't immune to, because it isn't a thing they encounter on their planet. Even better if the Stone Age people are ignorant of the advantage they have, since they'd have no inkling of what germs or other microbes are. Best they'd know is that weapons + mud and blood = wounds that go icky and turn colors, and people getting sick and dying.


The humans' world did have a warmer and more humid climate than the invaders' home planet, so yes, it would be conceivable that the aliens might encounter hostile microbes. Come to think of it, all the humans would have to do is puncture the visors on the aliens' protective suits with arrows or spears to expose them to native microbes.


----------



## Malik (Mar 8, 2014)

Queshire said:


> Really? It's never baffled me. When violence is treated as a viable solution to a problem can you trust the average guy on the street to have the discipline to not use violence on a problem when it isn't necessary? If so then all the more power to you, but for the rest of us eh, just better to taboo the whole thing, no?



The problem, again, is that if the man on the street has no respect for -- and therefore no perspective on -- violence, then he can't be trusted to use it. This problem is, for the large part, unique to our time. Violence and mayhem are entirely different things; as different as internal combustion and a house fire. The problem is a proliferation of amateurs who have led to a popular misconception of the role and usefulness of violence. Controlled violence is an absolutely viable solution to some problems; the issue we face today is that the ability to apply violence in a controlled manner toward a specific end has for all intents and purposes become an alien concept, so we tend to associate violence with mindlessness and idiocy.

An excellent example of the utility of force is the Sikh tradition in which non-violence is approached from the perspective that a Sikh is required by his faith to do violence in order to stop another from doing violence to the innocent. This is why Sikhs carry daggers. Everywhere. Not as a weapon, but as a reminder.

Violence -- good, solid, professional violence -- is like a fire extinguisher. You don't walk around carrying a fire extinguisher. You keep it charged and handy wherever you think you might need to use it, and you have 911 on speed-dial.

My characters inhabit a world that is violent, but not particularly chaotic. Everyone understands the practicality of force, and this understanding - along with the understanding that the typical man in the street has a handle on how and when to apply violence to solve a problem - keeps idiot-borne violence in check. It also makes wars interesting.


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Mar 8, 2014)

There is also, as has been touched on previously, something to be said for historical context.  Specifically in fantasy fiction, we tend to draw heavily on actual history and culture as a launching point for our worlds.  Some of us more than others.

For example, in our urban fantasy series we are essentially writing about a hidden fantasy subculture set as firmly within the modern real world as possible.  This subculture is very violent, and one of the major reasons for this is because historically violence - not just war, but a common place might-makes-right mentality - was very much a way of life pretty much right up until the Industrial Revolution brought stability to large portions of the world (it should be noted that this is not normal, and not currently a world-wide phenomenon).  This subculture, which we call the "preternatural community" in a rather euphemistic sense, still operates by this older mentality because there are many immortals within the community who are hundreds, sometimes thousands of years old, and they make the rules.  In this we combine the dual ideas that people are the products of their times, and that when a lifespan is not limited to a handful of decades sometimes people can be slow to change.

Now, we're not saying, "Violence, yay!"  We don't moralize.  What we are saying is that this is the way the preternatural community_ is_, because this is the way the world _was_.  These are people who lived it, who do not understand that killing other people is difficult, that there is more than some abstract morality attached because to them killing is the way of things.  It is what you do to stay alive.  _Killing is not dying_.  They see a world that has changed in many ways - and in many ways it has stayed the same.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Mar 8, 2014)

Malik said:


> The problem, again, is that if the man on the street has no respect for -- and therefore no perspective on -- violence, then he can't be trusted to use it. This problem is, for the large part, unique to our time. Violence and mayhem are entirely different things; as different as internal combustion and a house fire. The problem is a proliferation of amateurs who have led to a popular misconception of the role and usefulness of violence. Controlled violence is an absolutely viable solution to some problems; the issue we face today is that the ability to apply violence in a controlled manner toward a specific end has for all intents and purposes become an alien concept, so we tend to associate violence with mindlessness and idiocy.
> 
> An excellent example of the utility of force is the Sikh tradition in which non-violence is approached from the perspective that a Sikh is required by his faith to do violence in order to stop another from doing violence to the innocent. This is why Sikhs carry daggers. Everywhere. Not as a weapon, but as a reminder.
> 
> ...



I previously assumed you were talking about large-scale warfare. Are you talking in terms of acts of individual violence? (In terms of warfare, a certain amount of mindless mayhem is to be expected. It takes agreement between two countries to establish concepts like war crimes, and it's a given that at least some soldiers won't honor those agreements.)


----------



## intipablo (Mar 8, 2014)

A. E. Lowan said:


> And yet _Swordspoint_, the book which launched the series and which I adore, is violent in many aspects.  There is the quiet violence of intrigues which can end in death.  There is the mental instability of the MC's lover, who is prone to explosions of self-destruction.  There is the MC's own history, where he killed another lover in the past.  There are the lethal and illegal duels which can end in assassination or murder.  And there is the fact that Riverside, the area that the series takes its name from, is itself an impoverished, secretive place with a long history of violence.
> 
> *intipablo*, you are pursuing the question "Why do we use violence in fiction?" but I think you may be asking in the wrong place.  Speculative fiction is a genre where violence is a common plot convention for a variety of reasons, and academic debates, such as in _The Fall of Kings_, as an extended plot device are very rare.  You would probably be happier looking in the genre of literary fiction, where it is far more common to find works focusing exclusively on internal conflicts and much less on external conflicts, which violence most commonly represents.



I'm not sure if you understand what i said. I did not say that i did not like reading violence, it is entertaining. What i meant was why are almost all worlds or books these days about violence. I am even writing a book on violence right now because i didn't say i didn't like it.


----------



## intipablo (Mar 8, 2014)

I am not sure if you all understand, i was saying, Why the violence? not no more violence!


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Mar 8, 2014)

Ok, this has been touched on here and there in this thread, but let me try to condense it and break it down.

People have, for centuries, even millennia, found contained violence to be exciting and entertaining.  Examples that come to mind are the gladiatorial fights of the Roman Empire, chariot races (much like car races of today, they were most exciting when crashes happened), football/rugby/name-your-extreme-sport-of-choice, martial arts as sport (or not), action movies, video games, and action-oriented fiction (be it the thriller, the fantasy novel, or alien adventure).  This sort of contained violence lets the audience indulge in the experience vicariously, and they can have the adrenaline high, the excitement of the intensity, without risking their own health, pain, or possibly their life.  Excitement is addictive, and audiences keep coming back for more.

We are entertainers.  We entertain ourselves, and we hope to entertain our readers.  I hope this makes things clearer.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Mar 8, 2014)

A. E. Lowan said:


> People have, for centuries, even millennia, found contained violence to be exciting and entertaining.  Examples that come to mind are the gladiatorial fights of the Roman Empire, chariot races (much like car races of today, they were most exciting when crashes happened), football/rugby/name-your-extreme-sport-of-choice, martial arts as sport (or not), action movies, video games, and action-oriented fiction (be it the thriller, the fantasy novel, or alien adventure).  This sort of contained violence lets the audience indulge in the experience vicariously, and they can have the adrenaline high, the excitement of the intensity, without risking their own health, pain, or possibly their life.  Excitement is addictive, and audiences keep coming back for more.
> 
> We are entertainers.  We entertain ourselves, and we hope to entertain our readers.  I hope this makes things clearer.



At risk of being unnecessarily combative, I'm not sure how much of an answer this really is. In writing erotica, I've been faced with a lot of situations where the scene that would be most likely to entertain my readers would be shallow, simplistic, or wouldn't fit the story I wanted to tell. Entertainment is my primary goal, but it's not my only goal, and I do back away from it sometimes.

Most genres aren't faced with the entertaining/artistic chasm quite as much as erotica is, but I do think most writers reach a point where there's something they want to do as well as entertain. They make a line somewhere, and they usually don't cross it.

From what I've seen of how readers respond to stories of sexual violence, I'm not entirely convinced that it's healthy to package violence neatly and put a nice little bow on it. That's a claim I'm willing to stake, and while Intipablo is being overly pushy, I do think American culture might be a little less screwed up if more American writers staked it.


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Mar 8, 2014)

Oh, goodness, Feo, you're right on a lot of levels.  My response was very simplistic and condensed - and to be honest, in our series we deal with issues of violence and sexual violence a lot.  The screwed up nature of American culture in this regard is one of my personal hot-button issues.

It's just, for the original purposes of this thread, and this clarification alone, that I made that response.  Maybe now we can have fun and really tear into this very complex and multi-faceted subject?


----------



## TrustMeImRudy (Mar 9, 2014)

Theres also the idea of realism. The world is, honestly, a violent place. No matter what we wish and hope and no matter hard how we close our eyes, there's violence all over the place everywhere in the world, often on large scales. And it has been that way all of history.
If someone writes a piece of fiction with no or little violence, it's gonna get some flak for being unrealistic. It'll be labelled simplistic, unrealistic, for children or something like that. Why? Because any conflict that starts tends to escalate, and the endpoint is always violence.


----------



## intipablo (Mar 9, 2014)

A. E. Lowan said:


> Ok, this has been touched on here and there in this thread, but let me try to condense it and break it down.
> 
> People have, for centuries, even millennia, found contained violence to be exciting and entertaining.  Examples that come to mind are the gladiatorial fights of the Roman Empire, chariot races (much like car races of today, they were most exciting when crashes happened), football/rugby/name-your-extreme-sport-of-choice, martial arts as sport (or not), action movies, video games, and action-oriented fiction (be it the thriller, the fantasy novel, or alien adventure).  This sort of contained violence lets the audience indulge in the experience vicariously, and they can have the adrenaline high, the excitement of the intensity, without risking their own health, pain, or possibly their life.  Excitement is addictive, and audiences keep coming back for more.
> 
> We are entertainers.  We entertain ourselves, and we hope to entertain our readers.  I hope this makes things clearer.



Yes, this makes sense. I am just saying why do we have to entertain our readers with violence! why not things peaceful.


----------



## intipablo (Mar 9, 2014)

Feo Takahari said:


> At risk of being unnecessarily combative, I'm not sure how much of an answer this really is. In writing erotica, I've been faced with a lot of situations where the scene that would be most likely to entertain my readers would be shallow, simplistic, or wouldn't fit the story I wanted to tell. Entertainment is my primary goal, but it's not my only goal, and I do back away from it sometimes.
> 
> Most genres aren't faced with the entertaining/artistic chasm quite as much as erotica is, but I do think most writers reach a point where there's something they want to do as well as entertain. They make a line somewhere, and they usually don't cross it.
> 
> From what I've seen of how readers respond to stories of sexual violence, I'm not entirely convinced that it's healthy to package violence neatly and put a nice little bow on it. That's a claim I'm willing to stake, and while Intipablo is being overly pushy, I do think American culture might be a little less screwed up if more American writers staked it.



I did not mean to get pushy. I was just trying to prove a point, and showing my opinion.


----------



## Nagash (Mar 9, 2014)

intipablo said:


> Yes, this makes sense. I am just saying why do we have to entertain our readers with violence! why not things peaceful.



Alright, lets just wrap this up, because i'm getting the feeling we're simply going over well-known grounds here. A) violence isn't the exclusive way writers entertain their readers; you can fin a number of well-written books which focus on very different aspects of human behavior in order to captivate the eye of the reader. Beside, if violence is a fascination for most, other things such as the clichÃ© love story or other complex illustrations of human nature are good ways to grab the reader's attention. B) violence is indeed used abundantly for the simple reason that we, humans, tend to get excited by intense action-driven plots, merely because, as i stated previously, "as the deepest abyss, we're all inhabited by unsettling and gruesome monstrosities". It's as x said in GOT last season's pilot - "There's a beast in every man; and it stirs when you put a sword in their hand...". Like it or not, human beings are driven by exhilarating violence; it exalts them. And while other means can and are being used in order to trigger such enthusiasm amid the fandom community, violence will always be an instant classic. Simply because we nourish such fascination for unbridled passion, it can hardly be matched by anything else...


----------



## intipablo (Mar 9, 2014)

Nagash said:


> Alright, lets just wrap this up, because i'm getting the feeling we're simply going over well-known grounds here. A) violence isn't the exclusive way writers entertain their readers; you can fin a number of well-written books which focus on very different aspects of human behavior in order to captivate the eye of the reader. Beside, if violence is a fascination for most, other things such as the clichÃ© love story or other complex illustrations of human nature are good ways to grab the reader's attention. B) violence is indeed used abundantly for the simple reason that we, humans, tend to get excited by intense action-driven plots, merely because, as i stated previously, "as the deepest abyss, we're all inhabited by unsettling and gruesome monstrosities". It's as x said in GOT last season's pilot - "There's a beast in every man; and it stirs when you put a sword in their hand...". Like it or not, human beings are driven by exhilarating violence; it exalts them. And while other means can and are being used in order to trigger such enthusiasm amid the fandom community, violence will always be an instant classic. Simply because we nourish such fascination for unbridled passion, it can hardly be matched by anything else...



Ok, i am getting tired of saying the same things over and over so i am just going to say that this is very true. Although i still hold my same opinion as before.


----------



## Guy (Mar 9, 2014)

intipablo said:


> Yes, this makes sense. I am just saying why do we have to entertain our readers with violence!


Well, we don't _have_ to. One reason it's so common, I think, is because story involves conflict and struggle. This is most clearly and starkly expressed through violence. The thrill of the story is tied to the stakes, and life or death struggle is the ultimate high stakes. Violence is a medium through which to study human nature - what are people willing to kill for? What are they willing to die for? Violence in story telling isn't a new phenomenon. It's been around as long as story telling itself. Folklore from cultures all over the world have stories of warriors battling mighty foes, personifying humanity's struggle against life's difficulties. It resonates with everyone because, as Hemingway said, the world eventually breaks everybody. We all know what it is like to face daunting odds. We all know what it's like to get our asses kicked by life/the world. We all know the fear of facing the things the world throws at us. Now, you could also portray this through the story of a peasant trying to get his crops grown, but it's not nearly as exciting as the warrior's struggle. Therefore, you don't typically see stories like that. What you'll see are peasant heroes thrust from their life of drudgery into a situation where they have to face violence, for the reasons stated. A story in which the protagonist defeats his foe through a letter writing campaign just isn't going to be as exciting (Quick! To the bat fax!). Classical myths, epic poems, Arthurian romances, Shakespearean tragedies, fairy tales, all employ violence in their stories.


> why not things peaceful.


Go for it.


----------



## Nagash (Mar 9, 2014)

Ditto Guy. Couldn't have expressed my own state of mind better.


----------



## intipablo (Mar 9, 2014)

Guy said:


> Well, we don't _have_ to. One reason it's so common, I think, is because story involves conflict and struggle. This is most clearly and starkly expressed through violence. The thrill of the story is tied to the stakes, and life or death struggle is the ultimate high stakes. Violence is a medium through which to study human nature - what are people willing to kill for? What are they willing to die for? Violence in story telling isn't a new phenomenon. It's been around as long as story telling itself. Folklore from cultures all over the world have stories of warriors battling mighty foes, personifying humanity's struggle against life's difficulties. It resonates with everyone because, as Hemingway said, the world eventually breaks everybody. We all know what it is like to face daunting odds. We all know what it's like to get our asses kicked by life/the world. We all know the fear of facing the things the world throws at us. Now, you could also portray this through the story of a peasant trying to get his crops grown, but it's not nearly as exciting as the warrior's struggle. Therefore, you don't typically see stories like that. What you'll see are peasant heroes thrust from their life of drudgery into a situation where they have to face violence, for the reasons stated. A story in which the protagonist defeats his foe through a letter writing campaign just isn't going to be as exciting (Quick! To the bat fax!). Classical myths, epic poems, Arthurian romances, Shakespearean tragedies, fairy tales, all employ violence in their stories.
> 
> Go for it.



Very true. I am working on a new story right now!


----------



## McBeardstache the Hairy (Mar 10, 2014)

In all honesty, it would be unrealistic to design a setting where violence or conflict isn't a factor. Ever since men learned to use tools, we've used them to kill each other. Even before then, animals kill other animals for food and sport. Violence is just a facet of life, and conflict is something that drives nearly every plot. In my stories, I focus more on the philosophical nature of wars and violence: Why are these nations at war? Who has what to gain from winning? What is there to lose? Which side, if any, is morally correct? Is violence even possible to be considered morally correct, even if it is for a seemingly just cause?

Posing these moral questions in the text will turn a violent, mind-numbing blood feud into a philosophical problem. And sometimes, that's the best way to get a message across: By contrasting the message that "Violence is wrong" against a warlike backdrop, I now have a powerful image to accompany my message. The person who reads the details of the battle with the message in mind will now be even more emotionally compelled, as they are comparing and contrasting the message and the image in their head, making both all the more powerful. That is my ideal use of violence in writing.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 10, 2014)

I don't think it would be unrealistic, at least to the extent you're dealing with a world not our own. There is no reason a fantasy world couldn't develop differently from our own, or that the cultures therein couldn't develop differently.


----------



## McBeardstache the Hairy (Mar 10, 2014)

Logically though, conflict would still be an issue. That's just how competition works, which is something that's universal. The only logical way to get rid of conflict and violence entirely would be to design a world in which competition is not a concept. It would be possible, however it would require designing a culture so alien to us that it would be hard to grasp.

Perhaps by designing a culture in which problems are solved without the need for violence would be a good start. However, there would have to be an alternative that would have the same, conflict resolving effect.


----------



## Noma Galway (Mar 10, 2014)

McBeardstache, you have a point about the animals killing other animals. That would develop the same in pretty much every world, unless it was a world full of herbivores. That would call for a messed up ecosystem, and, yeah...let's just leave it at "you have a point," okay? 

For a story to be a story, IMO, it has to have conflict. In fantasy writing, conflict usually falls into violence because fantasy tends to have a lot of external conflict as a backdrop for internal conflict. A Song of Ice and Fire is known for its violence (among other things), but I enjoy it because of the politics and family struggles, which are not necessarily violent. I would argue that most external conflict (except maybe the major war) in that series is just a physical manifestation of the internal conflicts in the characters. 

What would that alternative be? I can't think of anything that has the same conflict-resolving effect as violence does.


----------

