# Opinions on graphic portrayal, combat violence. pt 1.  Pls read post before polling.



## ascanius (Feb 17, 2016)

This is part 1 of 4.  The first three threads will pertain to a single topic with the 4 revolving around a summation and deeper look.
Ok so I've been trying to understand a few things on how we as readers view portrayals and graphic portrayals.  I have a theory and am curious about everyones impression/opinion, but first I figure I would get a general base line of the members views so as to simply reach conclusions based off my assumptions.  

Ok lets being.   I'm not getting into the quality of writing, for the sake of argument lets just imagine that these are written by a great writer who doesn't make mistakes.  I want to look at this objectively for a moment.



_The scale of graphic portrayal_.   1 to 10 (1 being no description and 10 describing the minutiae of how brain matter splatters).

*The question.*  Your reading a book with a medieval setting.  At this point in the book you are reading a battle scene where a main character is severely wounded and endures 2 hours of excruciating pain before dying.  On the above scale 1-10, At what point do you find yourself not wanting to continue/quit reading/take a break due to content?   This is only dealing with violence that would be typical on a field of battle.

Note!  I'm trying to keep these equal for the sake of comparison hence everyone dies and the person in battle is severely  wounded to keep the level of trauma somewhat equal among unequal concepts, more on that later.

secondary questions.
if you don't like graphic portrayals, what is it that you don't like about graphic portrayals of violence? 
Does age or sex have any impact on your displeasure?
Does the length of time spent on the discription?
Does the type of character (main, secondary, tertiary) have any impact?


----------



## Jerseydevil (Feb 17, 2016)

On face value, I have no issue with a 10 on the brutality scale. Keep in mind that after a lifetime of studying military history, I'm used to this sort of thing and it takes a great deal to put me off. Battle was a brutal experience, something that most Hollywood productions tone down with discretion shots and fast camera movements. I don't want an author to sugar coat what is happening, especially if that is the main theme of the book. An author, like Bernard Cornwell or Joe Ambercrombie, use the violence as part of the story, and their works would seem dull without it. The only issue I have is if it is overdone, but that's more of a writing problem, rather than the violence itself. If the description is there for the sole purpose of being brutal, I lose interest. If it drives the plot, then it is acceptable. Also, knowing how violence works makes my mind wander. For example, someone is dying from an abdomen wound, yet is composed enough to give a detailed farewell speech. In reality, the person will be in excruciating pain, and hardly able to talk at all, especially if a lung is pierced. Things like this throw me out of a story. 

In short, I have no issue with graphic violence or brutality, as long as it fits the plot and doesn't bog down the pacing. Then again, I have shouted "Blood for the Blood God! Skulls for the Skull Throne!" while working out, so I might not be the best example of how most people feel.


----------



## evolution_rex (Feb 17, 2016)

I can't really answer the poll because it entirely depends on the tone of the story. You don't want level 10 violence when your story is otherwise lighthearted, and if you're making a dark realistic story then it can feel off or unrealistic. In my opinion, if it's meant to be a harsh read, it's the reader's fault if they're unwilling to read it, same goes for those who wish violence in a story where it doesn't belong. Not every story is everyone's cup of tea.


----------



## Guy (Feb 17, 2016)

What Jerseydevil said.


----------



## Drakevarg (Feb 17, 2016)

I'm generally pretty liberal with my views on graphic violence, and have been known to compose extremely graphic portrayals of torture in my head just to exercise my imagination, but I have found I do have my limits. One of the things that made me quit watching Game of Thrones (besides broader issues like darkness-induced audience apathy, an overwhelming feeling that the main threat of the series had been built up for so long that no resolution could conceivably be satisfying, and the observation that the series was basically incapable of properly ending plot threads) was the conclusion of "The Mountain and the Viper." Watching such a likable character die in such a gratuitously painful, gory, and ignoble fashion made me sick to my stomach and I still get random flashbacks of it.

I'm not the sort of person to call for censorship, though. I would have no intrinsic problem with hardcore porn being played on daytime television. I do, however, think that the basic principles of tact and good taste should give people their own limits.


----------



## Miskatonic (Feb 18, 2016)

It depends on how well the violence is described, just like the rest of the content in the book. If it's meant to shock then I'm more annoyed than anything else. Like the "Red Wedding" for example. I don't get why people found it all that shocking, other than what happens to popular characters. The violence itself wasn't that bad from a visual/visceral point of view. What happens to Theon and Ramsay's "brides" is far worse. Even if it isn't all shown on screen. 

It also depends on who it is happening to and under what circumstances. Violence on the battlefield isn't as bad as torture scenes for the most part. 

I have torture scenes in my story but it isn't supposed to be a mere depiction of graphic violence just to make some readers queasy. It's more about the breaking of someone's will and described from inside the head of the person being tortured, far more about the state of mind then all the gory details about what is happening. The MC is "voluntarily" captured as a means of infiltrating a castle by pitting his will against the prince, who is ruling in place of his father who is off on some kind of political business. The MC is semi-immortal, meaning he can heal from wounds much faster than a normal person. The prince is already extremely paranoid, making him violent and prone to torturing people, and the whole plan is for the MC to defy the prince and play head games with him until he breaks and then the castle can be infiltrated. 

The other takes place in this underground demon's layer where a succubus is using her sexuality to try and break the mind of the MC, bringing up memories of the past that he's tried to keep locked away via some type of mind-reading. She's not purely evil yet isn't viewed as anything more than a seductress/whore by the rest of the inhabitants, so her lust is mixed with what she believes is love, and that messes with her mind as well and leaves her vulnerable.


----------



## Russ (Feb 18, 2016)

So I voted 8. but I think for you to get what you need it is important to know why I voted eight.

I am a PI lawyer, so I have graphic images of injuries and detailed medical descriptions of deaths etc cross my death every day.  I am not uncomfortable with these things in my life at all.

And I didn't answer 8. because reading some description at the 9. or 10. level would make me uncomfortable because of graphic descriptions.  I answered 8 because I find it difficult to imagine what use a level 9 or 10 description can be to telling a good story and don't like to be insulted as a reader.  I also think material produced for primarily shock value is childish and poor writing.

For example.  You got a guy dying in excruciating agony from battle wounds over two hours.  Tell me that, maybe a few details, but the prose to cover that should not go on and on.  That is just repetitive, boring and insulting.  If a writer is trying to hard to make an obvious or simple point to me and it drags on and on, I find myself thinking "I get it, guy is dying for two hours in a bad way, now let's move on with it."  That goes for graphic violence etc, etc.

Graphic violence for its own sake really just is simplistic or primitive writing.

For instance how long is the scene in Elric with the torturer, Dr. Jest?  Is it graphic?  Did it work?

If it serves a clear purpose, be as graphic as you like.  But I find most graphic descriptions of violence/wounds etc just lazy writing.


----------



## Heliotrope (Feb 18, 2016)

I agree with Russ. I also voted 8. I can handle pretty graphic stuff in books, and I love a good Terentino film, but I avoid horror as a genre because I can't accept gratuitous violence as the plot line. 

I loved the Game of Thrones books, but in the show when the guards killed the Kings baby in the brothel I stopped watching the show. I personally have a line in regards to violence towards children.


----------



## Velka (Feb 18, 2016)

I voted 8.

Graphic violence can have it's place in stories, but as others have said, it mostly comes down to the "why". Does graphic description of pain and suffering advance the plot or give insight to the character? Does it stylistic 'fit' with the rest of the story? Is it a succinct description or does it go on and on and on like Robert Jordan's description of spiced potatoes? I believe there needs to be a balance and a light hand when bringing in the darker, make you squirm, scenes in a story. Too much and a reader can get desensitized and it loses it's impact (which is probably defeating your own purpose of including it in the first place).

As for your other questions:

If you don't like graphic portrayals, what is it that you don't like about graphic portrayals of violence? 
- I don't mind them, but the times I haven't liked them it was because it was gratuitous, poorly written, and/or entirely too long.

Does age or sex have any impact on your displeasure?
- Don't think so, but detailed sexual violence (without very good reason) or violence against children makes me feel icky.

Does the length of time spent on the discription[sic]?
- Usually less is more. A few well crafted sentences can have more emotional impact than paragraphs of description. Implied suffering can also be just as powerful. A paragraph going into the minutiae can sometimes be replaced by implication. (e.g., laundry list of torture devices and how they are used vs. "Bob's screams and wails echoed through the hall, long into the night.")

Does the type of character (main, secondary, tertiary) have any impact?
- If you're spending words on someone's suffering I'd better care who they are. An important character deserves more time than a red-shirt.


----------



## skip.knox (Feb 19, 2016)

I don't mean to undercut the poll, but I have a basic tenet: whatever can be described numerically is trivial. At least when it comes to humans. As some of the posts have indicated, everything depends ... well, on everything.

I want a good story. A good teller of stories will handle gore well, and I'll go along. I don't care if it's gore or sex or language or physical description or dialog or what. If it's done well, I'm there. If it's done poorly, I'm out. I don't see any way to capture that on a scale of one to ten.


----------



## FifthView (Feb 19, 2016)

I'm having difficulty regarding the quantity vs quality breakdown.

I generally agree with Russ's position on such description going on and on and on.  But a) that problem can address many kinds of description/narrative–e.g., the MC wallowing in self-doubt and insecurities for four pages–and b) I'm not sure that length of description is necessarily a significant factor in graphic levels. A single sentence could describe "the minutiae of how brain matter splatters."  If said sentence is used and the narrative moves on, is it less graphic?  If the next sentence is equally graphic, about bone thrusting up from a shattered leg, but the narrative moves on after that second sentence (so, two highly descriptive sentences rather than one), is it more or less graphic?

So in deciding a scale for graphic violence from 1-10, this is problematic.  

I can't remember which movie did this, but I remember a case of some protag shoving his thumb or fingers into a baddy's open wounds to manipulate him (torture for getting truth, I think), and that seemed rather graphic even though the wounds and blood weren't themselves so graphic.  Probably in a work of fiction, the same thing wouldn't seem as graphic as seeing it happen onscreen.

There is also the case of the Kill Bill movies.  I absolutely love them.  On some level, they are meant to be satirical, sure; but who does the violence, and to whom, makes a big difference, even in a more serious approach.

So generally stated, the more important thing is the character reaction (good guys and bad guys, both) and the character development, and the level of graphic violence, itself, is far less important.

I haven't voted in the poll for the reasons mentioned above regarding quantity vs quality.  Also, I chose not to vote as protest against the repeated misspelling of "description."


----------



## ascanius (Feb 19, 2016)

skip.knox said:


> I don't mean to undercut the poll, but I have a basic tenet: whatever can be described numerically is trivial. At least when it comes to humans. As some of the posts have indicated, everything depends ... well, on everything.
> 
> I want a good story. A good teller of stories will handle gore well, and I'll go along. I don't care if it's gore or sex or language or physical description or dialog or what. If it's done well, I'm there. If it's done poorly, I'm out. I don't see any way to capture that on a scale of one to ten.



Ok, I typed a long response then decided I'll just stop explaining my thought process for why asked the question in the way I did.  I'll just post the original thread, which I had meant to post, when I get home.

Basically I just wanted some way to get others thoughts without looking at quality of writing.  Originally I had simply made assumptions that people don't like this but are ok with that description.  I was hoping to get something more reliable than me guessing.



FifthView said:


> I haven't voted in the poll for the reasons mentioned above regarding quantity vs quality.  Also, I chose not to vote as protest against the repeated misspelling of "description."



Thats embarrassing.  In my defense, I haven't really spoken English in 3 years now, I've noticed that I'm starting to spell and structure the English syntax in a similar way to what I'm speaking over here.  These mistakes are poking up more and more, sorry.


----------



## Xitra_Blud (Feb 19, 2016)

I'm one of those people who think the more graphic the better, so I'm not sure if I qualify for this poll.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Feb 19, 2016)

My issue would not be stopping because it got to me, it would be because I got bored. Droning on and on about blood and gore details becomes nothing different to me than droning on and on about heraldry. I don't watch horror flicks because they bore me for the most part and are a waste of time. Dramatically speaking, movies and books that leave more to the imagination are more intense... particularly in lit. Even with lengthy torture scenes, which can be downright disturbing in a movie, in a book they're ink and become blah blah blah, the point is the story for me. 

I guess you could say, if you get down to pointless minutia in anything, violence, sex, heraldry (yes picking on GRRM with that) I will skim. I bore easily. 

An interested related question might be sex scenes... I skim or skip them entirely, I just don't give a crape.


----------



## Heliotrope (Feb 20, 2016)

Mmmmmm... Crepes.


----------



## Deleted member 4265 (Feb 20, 2016)

I find this impossible to answer because I deal with certain kinds of violence differently. For example overly graphic combat violence can be a bit boring, and perhaps even disturbing, but its never made me stop reading a book. I don't enjoy overly long, unnecessary descriptions of blood and gore, but it doesn't actually bother me.

On the other hand I have a very low tolerance for how graphic torture or of people healing others. (I'm totally okay with gory battle scenes but the moment you start talking in detail about cleaning and stitching wounds it makes me uncomfortable).

I think the tone of the story has a lot to do with what I will tolerate. The level of violence has to seem completely necessary and serve a purpose in the story. So yes, I could theoretically read something with a level 10 of violence, but the kind of story that needs that doesn't seem like one I would want to read. The story's I do read tend to be in a 7-8 range.


----------



## Creed (Feb 20, 2016)

I voted for 7, partially for the balance of things and partially for the realism aspect.

By no means am I going to shy away from gore in writing. If it comes in buckets and buckets (or any ridiculous amount) I'm definitely going to start questioning the narration and maybe break out of immersion. I think my main issue here is that if I'm reading a battle scene from a character POV who's fighting, I want it to read like they're in the battle. And to me this means that they're killing and maiming indiscriminately, they're struggling to survive, they're killing so they won't be killed, and they're doing this _fast._ This means that if they're hacking and slashing, they don't have time to use a page describing the nuances of brain matter, or the way intestines fly through the sky like autumn leaves.

They have time to stab and block, parry and slash. They have time to feel the blood and bile pour over their hand, to hear the screams, smell the offal, and see a comrade get skewered. If there's a break, maybe they have time to vomit and take a paragraph to justify the killing. If not, they push forward and maybe weep a little.

The only time I had to step back was in the MBotF, when a guy had his skull split open and he was lying on the battlefield poking his brains until everything went black. Can't get that image out of my head...


----------



## Sheilawisz (Feb 20, 2016)

Hi everyone.

This is a tricky question to answer. I think that descriptions of fights, battle and war are sometimes necessary in many Fantasy stories, so it would be very hard to avoid those situations completely. However, a good Storyteller can use the violence ingredients wisely and to great effect in a story without exaggerating things.

I can accept high levels of violence and graphic deaths in war scenes, for example. In my opinion such descriptions need to be justifiable by story circumstances, and if you do it well then it works fine.

In the other hand, a story that describes in gory detail the death of a character when the graphic stuff is not really necessary comes across as gratuitous violence... That's what I would call cheap shock value, and it's nothing but a device intended to shock the readers and make your setting a darker place.

Instead of shocking it can become simply disgusting, and even distasteful not to say worse things.

After watching some gory scenes from the Game of Thrones series, I was reminded of the _Happy Tree Friends_ animated series. The old _Braveheart_ movie comes to my mind also, not to mention the original _Mortal Kombat_ game. HTF does it for comedic purposes because the deaths happen to sweet animated characters, and the gore is acceptable in Braveheart because they are battle scenes after all.

The problem with Game of Thrones (and other Fantasy out there) is that they do it as shock value and also because it's supposed to be so adult and realistic, but to me it only comes across as cheap and disgusting.

In one of my stories, I have two Mage siblings that are very psychopathic and evil.

Alice loves to throw innocent people into wolf pits and watch as they get devoured alive. She also tortures people into insanity, and has a strong affinity for drinking blood even though she is not a vampire... Aycell is known to use his monstrous strength for dismembering people limb by limb before he finally takes off their heads, and then he eats as much as he can from the remains.

And... guess what? In the story itself, they are never seen doing those things.

I know what Alice and Aycell do to people, I know how many people they have tortured and killed. However I do not show it directly because it would serve no purpose in the story, and I think that it would be terrible taste to show their favorite activities in graphic detail only to try to shock my readers like it's done in other Fantasy stories.

To conclude my post: Graphic violence is fine in the right circumstances, but if you abuse it then it's a really bad thing.


----------



## MiguelDHorcrux (Feb 20, 2016)

For me, it depends on whose point of view I am using. If I am writing from the point of view of a pacifist, of course he will turn away upon the sight of the first drop of blood. If I am writing from the point of view of a sadist, then he will savour every millisecond of it. Same thing if I am reading. Take Harry Potter for example. If I am reading a chapter from the Bellatrix's point of view, then I will digest every fiber of her sadism and inflicted pain. If I am reading from Collin Creevey's point of view though, then I can forgive him turning away at the slightest injury. I'm very flexible when it comes to these things.


----------



## Amanita (Feb 21, 2016)

Some good points have already been made.
Like a few of the posters above, I can't make a general statement about the leven of violence I can tolerate. The strength of my reactions varies considerably between different forms of violence and injury. For some reason, I'm rather sqeamish about everything eye-related for example. I don't think this should effect an author's choice though and I also don't think I have a right not to be made uncomfortable by something I read.

I agree with the statement that it's erroneous to assume that long descriptions of graphic violence are automatically more interesting than long descriptions of things such as meals or the countryside. Especially in the middle of a combat situation wasting too much time on the gory details slows the story down and takes away suspense maybe adding nausea in return but that's not a good exchange. In a story meant to be realistic, the suffering and dying can't be ignored or suger-coated either though. Pacing and focusing on the things the character would actually notice are the key here.
If the treatment of a character's severe injuries and the question if he will survive them or not is an important part of the plot, more detail can be the right choice but a two-hour long description of the two-hour long death of a side character who's mainly there to die anyway doesn't add much. 

A story which feels like some vegan-made slaughterhouse report meant to discourage viewers from eating meat isn't helpful in a story and adding more details doesn't automatically make anything better of more mature. As mentioned before, leaving some things to the readers' imagination can be more powerful if used under the right circumstances.


----------



## sandtrout (Feb 21, 2016)

As others have already stated, as long as the violence serves a purpose, I dont have much of a problem with it. Where exactly the point lies, where I say "Why did you tell me that ? Does it really matter?", depends a lot on the general tone of the book. 

As we tend to agree that violence should serve a plot/caracter development purpose, the question for me is a different one: How do you make sure, the reader knows that something had to be told in such detail, when the consequences only become apparent to the reader until much later? Do we simply hope that readers will pick up on the importance due to the space given to some gory detail? 
And if such importance is hinted by the fact that the story doesnt feature this level of detailed violence elsewhere, readers might simply see it as a writing glitch, rather than a hint to something important.


----------



## Miskatonic (Feb 21, 2016)

I can't say I've found any passages in written material dealing with violence that actually left me unable to continue. For me this is pretty much exclusive to the visual creative medium.


----------



## Deleted member 4265 (Feb 21, 2016)

> In the other hand, a story that describes in gory detail the death of a character when the graphic stuff is not really necessary comes across as gratuitous violence... That's what I would call cheap shock value, and it's nothing but a device intended to shock the readers and make your setting a darker place.



I think this is a good point. Using violence to shock isn't necessarily a bad thing in my opinion, but it's really hard to be shocking if you drown your story in gore.

I didn't actually mind the violence and such in Game of Thrones, I enjoyed the show (if I'm going to be honest though I mostly watch it for the costumes and sets. The production is gorgeous),but I can't say I found it particularly shocking. It was clear very early on that "no one was safe" and rather than cranking up the tension, for me at least it actually brought it down. I was always expecting the worst for the characters so I wasn't surprised when it was delivered.


----------



## vaiyt (Feb 21, 2016)

What really grinds my gears is this notion that making your fictional society more violent, unstable and bigoted makes it more "historically accurate". And thus, any attempt to criticize the endless parade of pointless violence (Protip, wannabe GRRMs out there: if your nobles keep murdering all their farmers when they take over a territory, eventually they'll run out of people to grow their food!) is met with the blanket statement that "things were just like that back then". No they weren't, for starters because your damn society never existed and how things "were just like" is entirely your call.


----------



## Miskatonic (Feb 21, 2016)

Devouring Wolf said:


> I think this is a good point. Using violence to shock isn't necessarily a bad thing in my opinion, but it's really hard to be shocking if you drown your story in gore.
> 
> I didn't actually mind the violence and such in Game of Thrones, I enjoyed the show (if I'm going to be honest though I mostly watch it for the costumes and sets. The production is gorgeous),but I can't say I found it particularly shocking. It was clear very early on that "no one was safe" and rather than cranking up the tension, for me at least it actually brought it down. I was always expecting the worst for the characters so I wasn't surprised when it was delivered.



All the shock over the "red wedding" is a bit ludicrous. People that make horrible decisions in circumstances where they can't really afford to usually end up having something bad happen to them. They used one flimsy tradition to try and convince the audience nobody would be in trouble.


----------



## Miskatonic (Feb 21, 2016)

vaiyt said:


> What really grinds my gears is this notion that making your fictional society more violent, unstable and bigoted makes it more "historically accurate". And thus, any attempt to criticize the endless parade of pointless violence (Protip, wannabe GRRMs out there: if your nobles keep murdering all their farmers when they take over a territory, eventually they'll run out of people to grow their food!) is met with the blanket statement that "things were just like that back then". No they weren't, for starters because your damn society never existed and how things "were just like" is entirely your call.



One of the many reasons why I don't find GRRM to be as great a writer as many proclaim him to be.


----------



## Kazzan (Feb 22, 2016)

There is no real tipping point for me when I just stop reading because of graphic content, however the violence needs to be fitting to the story. I find graphic scenes are sometimes more impactful when they are a bit more abstract and less detailed. If they are overly detailed I might just read them without any strong feelings. I dont like it however, if the whole story is graphic just for the sake of being 'edgy'. 

Does age or sex have any impact on your displeasure?
Yes. While I do not feel much of a difference if a child or adult character dies, I feel much more of an impact in violence against female characters than male characters. One of the things that impacted me the most when reading the red wedding was the Mormont girl getting a halberd planted in her stomach.

Does the length of time spent on the discription?
Yeah, to some degree. If it's just a quick note then it's easy to not register as impactful. It needs the proper buildup and execution in lenght.

Does the type of character (main, secondary, tertiary)
Not really, as long as they are an actual character.


----------



## insomniac_tales (Feb 23, 2016)

Just as an example, no spoilers, I have to take frequent breaks from reading Game of Thrones. Sometimes the violence borders on tedium. It's not so much the graphic nature of it, but the constancy of it. I'm all for a bit of violence to bring the story some salaciousness, but I don't like to dwell on it for PAGES. If your character takes two hours to die, I don't want a stop watch ticking the time down until we move on in the book; but eluding to it taking two hours works from my viewpoint as a reader.

I will impart that I am a self identifying female reader of the middle ages. I don't think I'm any more squicked out for being a female reader, but I do tire of reading about violence particularly against women.

I think it would be unusual to spend a great length of time describing the death of a tertiary character in detail, because the measure of impact that would have on the reader. At that point it's gore for gore's sake, not because it will move the reader in some way.


----------



## SteveW (Feb 23, 2016)

I have to agree with the others. Descriptions of violence don't bother me in the least. It can be a good device to advance the story or to establish a character's personality. In that sense it can work well. But even in those instances going too in-depth would feel pointless and like the author is adding gore just for the sake of it.

It really is all about context. Gratuitous violence - or extended descriptions of it at least - tends to pull me out of a story. Sometimes it can interrupt the narrative flow and in those cases it needs to be cut.


----------



## ChasingSuns (Feb 24, 2016)

I would have to agree with others in saying that as long as there's purpose and it's done well, then I'm down with it. I can handle reading/watching/hearing pretty much anything as long as it's done well and has a certain purpose behind it. If it serves your story in some fashion and you do an adequate job describing the scenario, then I'll keep going. If it seems like the gore is just there for the sake of being there, or if it is poorly executed, I will definitely stop reading, at least for a while (or for good if it really was that poorly written or unnecessary).


----------



## ascanius (Feb 24, 2016)

vaiyt said:


> What really grinds my gears is this notion that making your fictional society more violent, unstable and bigoted makes it more "historically accurate". And thus, any attempt to criticize the endless parade of pointless violence (Protip, wannabe GRRMs out there: if your nobles keep murdering all their farmers when they take over a territory, eventually they'll run out of people to grow their food!) is met with the blanket statement that "things were just like that back then". No they weren't, for starters because your damn society never existed and how things "were just like" is entirely your call.



OK, not really understanding where this is coming from.  I, and I don't think anyone else has,  mentioned anything about historically accurate.  I just chose medieval because it is fairly standard as a setting.  The question can apply to any setting.  As a side note, grrm does get into the very problem of no one being left to work the fields.

I glad I did this thread.  What I originally wrote for the thread I assumed that most people would tend for a 7 or 8 even if well written and serving the plot.  

Side question.  I am noticing two conflicting views with regards to shock value.  What makes a scene about shock value?  A scene can have violence that is shocking and still move the plot forward, I would think.  I'm guessing this is something that people view differently.


----------



## Miskatonic (Feb 24, 2016)

For me shock is basically going so overboard with the description that you start to wonder if the author is really just messing with the reader.


----------



## Kazzan (Feb 24, 2016)

When a scene is unnecessarily cruel or plainly there just to shock people with what happens. For instance having a character built up as a likable character for the sole purpose of the character dying a horrible death. I dont think it's a bad method to invoke every now and then (had it incorporated into the plans of a story myself as a central plot point) but if used too often or poorly executed it can feel very cheap.


----------



## Ban (Feb 24, 2016)

I'd stop at 9. At that point I don't see any added value to the scene by its graphic depictions, other than the writer wanting to be edgy. I am not a fan of violence for violence's sake, it needs to serve a purpose beyond grossing the reader out.


----------



## psychotick (Feb 25, 2016)

Hi,

Sorry also couldn't put a pin in your poll.

For me it's not about the graphic natire of the violence at all. I can live with that. It's really about the thinking behind it. The thinking of the author and the character. I hate sadism and cruelty. So someone mentioned the fingers in the wound used to extract information. It's a regular trope, most recently used I think in Blind Spot. That's fine because the motivation behind it is desperate need to save people's lives. Make it as gory as you like. Now do it because your character is a Hannibal like psycho who enjoys it and any gore is too much.

Likewise the gratuitous and shock value of the act does little for me and detracts heavily from the GOT stuff, because I keep thinking the author wrote this purely to shock me.

Likewise as part of a bad plot device it annoys me too. Consider the recent (may it be finished) Tomorrow People series. Ignoring all the other problems with it - the big bad uncle was shooting someone in the head every week and the only reason I could figure out for why, was that the author needed to show what a terrible man he was.

By contrast Rambo 4 - probably one of the most violent movies ever, I loved. Rambo was busy blowing off arms and legs left right and centre, but it was a popcorn movie, good guy against baddies and they were baddies, and in that context the graphic violence was fine.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## NerdyCavegirl (Feb 29, 2016)

Poll won't load on my phone, but I'd go 9, or 10 in moderation. Your scale seems to imply intensity more than frequency. Violence is a fact of nature, and I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the most graphic violence in any media. Even if I love the character and wanna look away, there's just this primal urge fulfilled by seeing blood and burning. BUT not endlessly. I'm fine with a good gratuitous gore scene maybe once every six to nine casualities, but it does start to feel tedious when overdone. My favorite is from Rebel Moon by Bruce Bethke and Vox Day, page 88. "Jackson's suit shields went into overload then, surrounding him in a corruscating blue envelope of exploding energies, and he lived just long enough to see the first flare of the unholy light that would melt his eyeballs and flash-cook his brain." Short, sweet, and to the point.


----------



## ascanius (Feb 29, 2016)

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> Sorry also couldn't put a pin in your poll.
> 
> ...



Ok a few people have mentioned violence included for shock value.  I'm still not understanding peoples criteria for shock value.  

For me shock value are the scenes in horror movies where they turn a corner and wham! someone is turned inside out.  A lot of people mention GoT, and I have to say I don't really see the shock value, or simply put what is so shocking.  Throughout the series they have established that the world is not devoid of violence for very trifle reasons.  I just don't get why people are shocked by it, I mean in RL people do so much worse and I think we all know what another person is capable of so... why are people shocked by it?  I can understand if your reading My Little Pony and whabam evisceration but aside from that I'm having trouble following the idea of shock value.  

To ask it a different way.  Is it that the violence is unexpected?  Herein lies the problem for me, if it is simply because the violence is unexpected then don't you have a problem more so with the shock aspect than the violence?  I don't think this is it because that would mean any surprise be it violent or not is disliked, which I doubt.  Or is it the intensity of the violence that is shocking?  If so...then wouldn't it simply be safe to say a person simply dislikes graphic portrayals of violence?


Side question.  Is there a better way to ask the question in the poll?  I have two more questions that I would like to poll but I don't know if it would help changing the question?


----------



## Mythopoet (Feb 29, 2016)

ascanius said:


> Ok a few people have mentioned violence included for shock value.  I'm still not understanding peoples criteria for shock value.
> 
> For me shock value are the scenes in horror movies where they turn a corner and wham! someone is turned inside out.  A lot of people mention GoT, and I have to say I don't really see the shock value, or simply put what is so shocking.  Throughout the series they have established that the world is not devoid of violence for very trifle reasons.  I just don't get why people are shocked by it, I mean in RL people do so much worse and I think we all know what another person is capable of so... why are people shocked by it?  I can understand if your reading My Little Pony and whabam evisceration but aside from that I'm having trouble following the idea of shock value.
> 
> ...



I can't comment on what others are talking about, but I have read an interview with GRRM where he pointedly says that he kills off major characters for the shock value. And I would assume that "shock value" means that the value in the action is for the shock it produces in readers more than anything else.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Mar 1, 2016)

Hey Ascanius.

You can view it this way: A story coated in Gore and Grit is just as bad as a story that is coated in honey and cuteness everywhere. Some serious violence is fine as long as the storyteller does not abuse it, and it's a good idea to use those scenes as a necessary part of the narrative instead of doing it just to have a creepier setting.

Shock value is a scene that is designed to scare or shock the readers. Good shock value has a purpose in the story, but cheap shock value is there just to make a story or a setting darker or (in the opinion of some people) more adult. However, a story does not need all the violence and torture and deaths in order to be serious and adult.

Talking about the famous and infamous GoT again:

When all the Gore and Grittiness everywhere is taken to the extreme and glorified like that, soon what could be good shock value degrades into cheap stuff. The shock is not shock anymore, it simply becomes disgusting. Judging from all that I have seen of the TV series so far it's just disgusting, and I mean disgusting in the same sense that a very dirty toilet is disgusting.

I mean, after watching the endless Gore in that series I am starting to think that I could just write stories about characters that endlessly flay people alive after raping everyone and sacking entire cities, and probably it would be a success...

Your Thread and Poll are great, because they provide us with a good opportunity to discuss these issues and determine what is good and what is bad for a Story. I am against the elimination of all Gore from our beloved Fantasy genre, but I do think that the current trend to be super gritty is wrong for us.

I have already lost count of how many threads we have had with questions about gore, torture, rape, tremendous injuries and all those things, and it's all thanks to GoT.


----------



## AndrewLowe (Mar 1, 2016)

Clearly we're a gory bunch!

The vikings shall roam the seas once more!


----------



## ascanius (Mar 1, 2016)

Mythopoet said:


> I can't comment on what others are talking about, but I have read an interview with GRRM where he pointedly says that he kills off major characters for the shock value. And I would assume that "shock value" means that the value in the action is for the shock it produces in readers more than anything else.



I think the key point here is Kills of MAJOR characters.  Yes there is shock value but is it because of the violence or because we as readers are taken from the typical world where major characters suffer no permanent death to one where the reaper shows no obedience, save duty?  If we look at GoT the first shocking death of a major character isn't actually that violent compared to it's peers.  I say GoT because I don't remember exactly how it was portrayed in ASoFI.



Sheilawisz said:


> Hey Ascanius.
> 
> You can view it this way: A story coated in Gore and Grit is just as bad as a story that is coated in honey and cuteness everywhere. Some serious violence is fine as long as the storyteller does not abuse it, and it's a good idea to use those scenes as a necessary part of the narrative instead of doing it just to have a creepier setting.
> 
> Shock value is a scene that is designed to scare or shock the readers. Good shock value has a purpose in the story, but cheap shock value is there just to make a story or a setting darker or (in the opinion of some people) more adult. However, a story does not need all the violence and torture and deaths in order to be serious and adult.



I have to disagree.  Like many have said in this thread, it depends on the story.  As an example:  I really like chick flicks, they make me feel warm and fuzzy on the inside, that is the point.  Now there are limits if suddenly there is a graphic evisceration than it becomes....I don't know what.  The point is some stories are about themes that involve honey and cuteness while others involve gore and grit, some even have a mix.  I don't see how they are bad because they include those things, they are different and that is where I am trying to go with these questions.  Let me be clear on one thing though, I never intended for violence to be something so over the top as to become comedy or something akin to saw where the entire purpose is graphic violence for it's own sake when I asked these questions.  Something I should have clarified at the start. One reason why I hate horror movies.  
   Random question why do you keep capitalizing gore grit?



Sheilawisz said:


> Talking about the famous and infamous GoT again:
> 
> When all the Gore and Grittiness everywhere is taken to the extreme and glorified like that, soon what could be good shock value degrades into cheap stuff. The shock is not shock anymore, it simply becomes disgusting. Judging from all that I have seen of the TV series so far it's just disgusting, and I mean disgusting in the same sense that a very dirty toilet is disgusting.
> 
> I mean, after watching the endless Gore in that series I am starting to think that I could just write stories about characters that endlessly flay people alive after raping everyone and sacking entire cities, and probably it would be a success...



See these are the questions I want answered by people.  What is the extreme?  This is something that can only be answered at a personal level.  When I watched GoT I never reached the same conclusions as you, why?  I don't think anything was taken to an extreme, nor glorified which I'll be honest I don't understand where you came up with that.  Lets say it's extreme, but is it more extreme than reading the news?  we know terrible violence exists so why is it so shocking that we encounter it while reading a book.  *If you want to read something with those themes or something like a chick flick that is a different matter and no relevant, we have moods that influence what we feel like reading.   I'm not saying violence isn't disgusting, I hope; I really do hope that violence is disgusting to everyone here, however where do You draw that metaphorical line where it is just too much.  Is it because it is shocking, unexpected, or is it because the intensity of said violence in its portrayal?

For me the idea that people don't like violence because it is shocking is a weak argument.  It's like saying I don't like birthdays because I walked into my room and was surprised with a birthday party, that really depends on who is in their birthday suit though.  So that leaves the idea of Intensity (Thanks, Nerdycavegirl intensity is a great way of putting it)  of said violence that is the cause of such "disgust."  Seeing my entire family and all my friends show up in _their_ birthday suits would make me loath birthday parties.

On that thought I don't really see people being surprised by the violence so much as the graphic portrayal of said violence being the reason why individuals feel a certain way about it.  This is why I'm having trouble understanding what is shocking which regards to violence.  To me it seems irrelevant to the questions at hand.



Sheilawisz said:


> Your Thread and Poll are great, because they provide us with a good opportunity to discuss these issues and determine what is good and what is bad for a Story. I am against the elimination of all Gore from our beloved Fantasy genre, but I do think that the current trend to be super gritty is wrong for us.
> 
> I have already lost count of how many threads we have had with questions about gore, torture, rape, tremendous injuries and all those things, and it's all thanks to GoT.



Thank you, I'll be honest that I wasn't sure if I should even ask, and I"m still uncertain if I should ask the follow up questions I had planned simply because the subject matter doesn't get any easier to answer.  I really hate the 0-10 scale, ideally I would have 50, double blind questions with multiple choice answeres but....


----------



## Sheilawisz (Mar 2, 2016)

Hi Ascanius.

I did not vote in your thread because, for me, there is not really a level of violence and bloodshed that would cause me to stop reading a story.

There are some seriously gory scenes in some of my own stories, after all. For me the problem and the _I don't want to read or watch this anymore_ moment comes from the abuse of Grit in general, when I realize that it's there just to try and scare me instead of being a legitimate part of the story.

I am okay with a Fantasy world tainted by gritty elements. In case that your setting is dark and gritty that would be fine to me, unless you have torture and gory deaths and rape everywhere like GoT. In answer to your question, it's just a curious habit of mine to capitalize certain words that other people would not capitalize.

I like fictional violence, a lot. I am addicted to playing the original (and considerably gritty) _Assassin's Creed_ game, in which killing loads of guards and even civilians is like a drug to me. I explained recently, in a different thread, what would make me dislike the game: I would hate the MC in case he was a torturer and a rapist, but because Altair is simply a killer then I tolerate and even love him.

Maybe that's where a lot of other people would draw the line, too.

I am not shocked by the GoT series. I know very well what world I live in, and I have heard stories about events in this country that would scare the hell out of any GoT fan if they went through them in the real world. GoT just disgusts me with its endless emphasis on gore, torture, painful deaths, rape and constant displays of naked women, it's just... disgusting and cheap.

Loads of people think the same, GoT is getting more and more criticism because of this as time passes.

If you are worried that people will stop reading your story because of random violence, forget it because that is not going to happen. They would stop reading only if you go ultra gritty, and even in that case you would have certain audience anyway because there are people that love that no matter how crazily gritty it gets.

Good luck with your stories.


----------



## Miskatonic (Mar 2, 2016)

I tend to skip the sexual content in TV shows. True Blood is a great example. I probably skipped half of each episode because of the lame soap opera sex content. 

I don't need to waste my time on that when the real thing is readily available online if I so choose to view it. 

I don't mind the combat violence. I loved the first 300 movie and it was pretty damn bloody. The torture scenes I can stand up to a certain point. They definitely went overboard with Theon. Not to mention the "hunts" Ramsay goes on. 

The sex and violence certainly doesn't provide some kind of extra thrill for me.


----------



## indonesiancat (Mar 5, 2016)

I consider myself a 10, but more lightly so. I hate movies like Saw and those movies with outrageous amounts off violence. Those movies contain the type off violence I can't stomache. I have no problem with watching people have their heads cut in half or have their skulls smashed. But when it comes to violence, or implied violence against people who are unable to defend themselves I get incredibly disturbed and angered. Especially harming children and women, in any way graphic I find incredibly repulsive. The one exception being Joffrey, probably. I would say my limit goes at graphic portrayals off sexual violence, overt torture or forms of dismemberment. 


if you don't like graphic portrayals, what is it that you don't like about graphic portrayals of violence?

It depends. If you're aiming to be realistic, having one or a few battles, filled with nasty violence, like people having their guts spilling or their heads cut in half. Saving Private Ryan's battles, in particular the first, really instills a feeling off despair and terror. Bookwise, I have no comparable examples. However, this type off violence only works in limited doses. The times your characters are not fighting, you have to carry an extremely, realistic tone in order for the suspense of disbelief to not break. In these cases however, having torture to kick the dog or develop characters should really not be done.

The great irony is that I'm an avid reader of the Manga Berserk. Which has absurd amounts off explicit violence, which continously makes me mad or disgust me. When the creator does anything that goes beyond ''Guts swing big sword, lots off people die'', he very often simply agitate me. The story is still sufficient to keep me invested, but this feels like a very stupid risk. Sometimes the creator is 1 chapter away from scaring his whole fanbase. And that is setting the bar very high. Had Berserk been a fantasy novel, I would have despised it.

Does age or sex have any impact on your displeasure?

Definetly. I haven't tested my emotional reaction with innocent, unarmed man and innocent, unarmed women being killed. But in both cases I am very agitated. But adding the other factors, age and length, I would easily be more disturbed by it being a women who's abused. Age is almost definetly the most disrupting factor. Anyone younger than the age off 10 being killed is unacceptable from my point off view, unless it is handled EXTRAORDINARILY well. Bringing up Guts from Berserk again, there is a moment where he is sent off to kill a guy. Sure enough, he kills him, but in the process of escaping, kills the guyl's son without knowing. This moment, where the boy is killed and witnessing the despair in the eyes off the character, made the moment truly heartwrenching and really effective. But this is a very, very rare occurance, so if you're an author and you imply this is going on, don't do it more than once. And if you ever would, you better have had a really strong build up and manage to make every second count.

Does the length of time spent on the discription?

Yes, I have not watched long sessions off continous torture or any off the such and neither would I ever, ever do that. When it comes to knowing how long it will take until somebody will die. Well, as long as I don't have to read a very vivid discription off a leg being sawed off.... I think you can write pretty much how much detail you want. But keep focus on the narrative first and foremost. Ask yourself how much it matters that said character is bleeding slowly.

Does the type of character (main, secondary, tertiary) have any impact? 

Yes, less known characters can of course, impact the shit out off you. Having said that, a main character it is considerably worse to deal with.


----------



## vaiyt (Mar 6, 2016)

When depravity and violence are the object of your story (or that specific part of your story), by all means go overboard. There are plenty of meaningful stories that explore how low humans will go. Just remember that violence polarizes, negatively and positively. You have to think not only about the people who will be thrown off your story because they're shocked, but also about the ones who will be thrown off your story because they like the violence to the detriment of anything else you're trying to say.

When you put a magnifying lens on violent acts just because they're there, it runs the risk of distracting the public away from whatever story you were trying to tell at the moment. Have you asked yourself why every time some piece of media successfully uses violence to make a point, it generates a string of me-toos that emulate the violence without the point?


There are some stories that ask for some violence by the very nature of what they're trying to depict. Let's say you're writing barbarian pulp-like fantasy set in a world based on the aesthetics of heavy metal - violent imagery is pretty much required in that case. It wouldn't fit the tone to not have some graphic gore here and there at least.

When there _is_ nothing behind the gore, when you're just making things violent to hide the lack of substance of what you're writing, then it ceases being a story and becomes wankery.


----------

