Is Violence Necessary?

[Chessie]

@Dragon: I get what you're saying. However, using "should" seems so restrictive and shaming. I think we can all agree on some things being healthier than others but isn't the definition of art self-expression? If people can't express what's in their hearts when they make art, then what is the point?

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

@Dragon: I get what you're saying. However, using "should" seems so restrictive and shaming. I think we can all agree on some things being healthier than others but isn't the definition of art self-expression? If people can't express what's in their hearts when they make art, then what is the point?

A very good point. I really don't like using the word "should..." but, I did not know how else to express my thoughts on the idea.

The definition of art (I used this for a paper like a few weeks ago so it's fresh in my memory) is basically "something someone creates that expresses important ideas or feelings." So it has to do with both, I guess...expressing yourself, but expressing what is meaningful to you. Which ties in meaning and self-expression inextricably.

I observe that in a lot of entertainment, there is very little meaning. I could even say I don't see the self-expression. Since Transformers is being discussed, I'll use that as an example. Self-expression? I don't think so, personally.

And cheap-gore-filled writing may, I suppose, be self expression, but it's self expression on a very basic level of that is the case. I think there must be different levels of self expression. Like, I like dragons, and if I draw a dragon, that is self expression, but I'm also constantly in a state of wonder at the complexity of human relationships, and if I write a story about that...it's more complicated, it's deeper, and it connects to a deeper, more complex part of people than the dragon does. And it comes from a deeper part of me. I don't know if this makes any sense...

I would venture to say that if something is genuine self-expression it will have meaning of some kind. But I also think it is good to hone and deepen the meaning our art brings out...and try to work our way down into our hearts and find out what is most deeply meaningful to us...

Gah, this is a deep topic. O_O and I don't know how to discuss it without getting extremely religious because I see art as such an intensely spiritual thing.

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

I disagree. The world can be a crappy place, and I wholeheartedly believe that anything that brings a smile, or a moment of joy to someone can only be a good thing. The caveat being, of course, that this anything does not bring harm to someone else.

In reference to stuff like extreme gore with no deeper meaning to it or redemptive value, I would disagree. Of course, the point of that is to be disturbing, and if it genuinely brings someone joy they are probably a sicko. So...I suppose I agree?

 

[skip.knox]

Chiming in here to say we have wandered a bit from the OP. Here is part of it

"I am not asking if violence is a necessary component of all fiction, but if you think it is needed in specific genres. Does an epic fantasy need battles of large and small scale? Can an action-oriented novel stand on its own without a punch being thrown. Would this be compelling to you? And if so, what do you use to create suspense instead. "

Given that Banten explicitly said not asking if violence is a necessary component of all fiction, we certainly spent a lot of time speaking to that.

Can an action-oriented novel stand on its own without a punch being thrown? I'd say possibly, but it may well not be advertised as an action novel. It sort of doesn't matter what genre the author claims. What matters is how the publishing house markets it, which shelf it gets put on. Or, if self-pubbed, what matters is how your readers react to the categories you claim for it.

I think the same goes, more or less, for epic fantasy. Battles are more or less expected. I can write something without them and I can claim it's epic fantasy, but I may be whistling in the wind.

Finally, what would I use to create suspense instead? That question goes a bit sideways. The preceding questions aren't about suspense. They're about violence. Some violence raises suspense but some violence actually releases it. Certainly, as was pointed out in the thread, there are plenty of ways to raise suspense without resorting to violence.

Much of the rest of the thread is more about whether violence is a Good Thing to put into your book. I have nothing to add on that.

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

Chiming in here to say we have wandered a bit from the OP. Here is part of it

"I am not asking if violence is a necessary component of all fiction, but if you think it is needed in specific genres. Does an epic fantasy need battles of large and small scale? Can an action-oriented novel stand on its own without a punch being thrown. Would this be compelling to you? And if so, what do you use to create suspense instead. "

Given that Banten explicitly said not asking if violence is a necessary component of all fiction, we certainly spent a lot of time speaking to that.

Can an action-oriented novel stand on its own without a punch being thrown? I'd say possibly, but it may well not be advertised as an action novel. It sort of doesn't matter what genre the author claims. What matters is how the publishing house markets it, which shelf it gets put on. Or, if self-pubbed, what matters is how your readers react to the categories you claim for it.

I think the same goes, more or less, for epic fantasy. Battles are more or less expected. I can write something without them and I can claim it's epic fantasy, but I may be whistling in the wind.

Finally, what would I use to create suspense instead? That question goes a bit sideways. The preceding questions aren't about suspense. They're about violence. Some violence raises suspense but some violence actually releases it. Certainly, as was pointed out in the thread, there are plenty of ways to raise suspense without resorting to violence.

Much of the rest of the thread is more about whether violence is a Good Thing to put into your book. I have nothing to add on that.

Sorry :/ I derail threads a lot.

 

[skip.knox]

No apologies! I was just trying to square the circle. Cube the sphere. Whatever.

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

No apologies! I was just trying to square the circle. Cube the sphere. Whatever.

Oh, ok. I must say that I rather like a good tangent now and then; it allows my mind to wander into ideas I haven't yet considered.

But in response to the OP...writing a fantasy without violence, or, if not any onscreen violence, the strong implication of it...possible, of course. Totally, completely possible. But totally inconsistent with what already exists out there and what people think of when they hear the word fantasy.

It's almost implicit in the definition of fantasy that there will be some kind of fighting going on, whether it's two kingdoms fighting against each other, or a sorcerer and a dragon, or something like that, even if said violence does not occur onscreen.

That said, if we're counting implied violence, it would be near impossible to find a book that does not contain it. In ANY genre. Violence is s huge part of our world and our existence. Almost any book is going to include it. I tried to think of a non-fantasy novel I've read recently. The Help came immediately to mind, though that was almost a year ago. While there isn't fighting and swords in it, violence (against a particular group of people) helps define the whole atmosphere and build the tension. Without it, the story would fall flat.

If we're going to confine the definition of violence to onscreen violence, I suppose, yes, it is possible to write a fantasy story without violence. Conflicts in fantasy tend toward the external, though. Almost all of fantasy's most unavoidable tropes involve violence. And if you include those tropes, but refrain from showing violence onscreen...I suppose it is possible, but you will have to justify it.

Why would you want to write a story entirely without violence? Not that it's a bad idea, but is there a particular reason?

 

[Steerpike]

Oh, ok. I must say that I rather like a good tangent now and then; it allows my mind to wander into ideas I haven't yet considered.

But in response to the OP...writing a fantasy without violence, or, if not any onscreen violence, the strong implication of it...possible, of course. Totally, completely possible. But totally inconsistent with what already exists out there and what people think of when they hear the word fantasy.

No. Have you seen Kiki's Delivery Service? Read Jo Walton, Patricia Wrede, Ellen Kushner, Charles de Lint? Ursula K LeGuin, Connie Wllis? I don't remember Pratchett being particularly violent. Harry Connolly has a pacifist urban fantasy protagonist. Terri Windling. Maybe The Goblin Emperor. If we really want to dig into this we can come up with a lot more of these, probably including some Gene Wolfe stories, James Blaylock certainly, and others.

 

[Chessie]

Why would you want to write a story entirely without violence? Not that it's a bad idea, but is there a particular reason?

This depends entirely on your audience. There is no violence at all in my sweet historical romance stories. Deep life and philosophical issues are resolved with a completely different approach to my fantasy stories. Violence happens in those in a wide range. One niche caters to a particular audience that wants inspirational & feel good stories while the other is more tolerant of fantasy elements such as violence and grittiness.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

This depends entirely on your audience. There is no violence at all in my sweet historical romance stories. Deep life and philosophical issues are resolved with a completely different approach to my fantasy stories. Violence happens in those in a wide range. One niche caters to a particular audience that wants inspirational & feel good stories while the other is more tolerant of fantasy elements such as violence and grittiness.

Don't no one get slapped or punched in the nose? I simply can't cotton to no story where there ain't at least a bloody schnoz, heh heh.

And people have different ideas when they say fantasy... which is why I tried to keep the violence locked into epic fantasy. There are sub-genres suited for pacifism.

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

Don't no one get slapped or punched in the nose? I simply can't cotton to no story where there ain't at least a bloody schnoz, heh heh.

And people have different ideas when they say fantasy... which is why I tried to keep the violence locked into epic fantasy. There are sub-genres suited for pacifism.

Not all stories merit bloody schnozzes, I suppose

 

[Michael K. Eidson]

... Does an epic fantasy need battles of large and small scale? ...

At least one agent does not believe that epic fantasy must have "battles."

Genre Breakdown: Epic Fantasy ? Mary C. Moore

This agent is looking for epic fantasy with guerrilla warfare over bloody battles. A lesser degree of violent conflict.

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

At least one agent does not believe that epic fantasy must have "battles."

Genre Breakdown: Epic Fantasy ? Mary C. Moore

This agent is looking for epic fantasy with guerrilla warfare over bloody battles. A lesser degree of violent conflict.

It's really cool that you mentioned this because the fantasy series I'm planning (or have been writing and planning) involves mainly guerrilla warfare over battlefield conflict.

 

[Russ]

At least one agent does not believe that epic fantasy must have "battles."

Genre Breakdown: Epic Fantasy ? Mary C. Moore

This agent is looking for epic fantasy with guerrilla warfare over bloody battles. A lesser degree of violent conflict.

On a completely unrelated note, Kimberly Cameron and Associates, Ms. Moore's agency, are a really interesting group of both professional and progressive agents with a fascinating group of clients. I have friends represented by them and they speak well of their representation there.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

I would not go so far as to say epic fantasy requires warfare either... although it never hurts, LOL. But depending on the period, warfare is warfare, no matter how you want to label the tactics. It seems a bit strange to differentiate on this. The Epic I'm working on involves zero warfare in the first 500 pages with one ambush episode, skirmish/guerilla warfare to stay alive during a migration in book 2, and then as they resettle in book 3, it would still be more skirmish warfare with only a few pitched battles. I would never have to approach marketing different.

It's really cool that you mentioned this because the fantasy series I'm planning (or have been writing and planning) involves mainly guerrilla warfare over battlefield conflict.

 

[Gribba]

I have not read the entire thread (read some of it and scanned some of it)... so, sorry if I am repeating something already said, I just wanted to chime in as I found this interesting and very relevant.

I just finished binge watching Trapped (Ófærð), Icelandic TV series.
One scene had so much impact and there was no violence but it spoke volumes of the violence the character had gone through off screen.
There is a case that is being investigated and it has human trafficking involved. A 13 year old girl is hiding with her sister, in a home of the police woman.
The girl sees one of the men that are involved in the trafficking ring, outside the window, the scene shows the floor by her feet and her peeing on the floor. It did not require more as that spoke volumes of the violence behind that reaction she had to only seeing him.

Also if you see the original versions of the films, The ring, The grudge and Dark Water (not the american version), those films do not show you so much violence as they suggest it and let the viewer take it to the next step.

Suggestion of the violence can often be worse than the blood and description of the violence because the reader (viewer) gets into his/her own head and makes assumptions about the violence that took place and we all have different thresholds to what we can take and what we imagine as the worst thing that could have happened in each case.

In fantasy writing I think it can be very difficult to do, as the readers do have some expectations the writer has to fulfill and especially with epic fantasy, and not to mention the publishing/editors might insist this expectation to me met... but I think it could be so interesting and fun to see if it can be done and done well.

I am actually inspired by this and considering trying it out with one of my stories!!!
Thanks for this awesome tread and the awesome answers!!! Love it!!!

 

[skip.knox]

This agent is looking for epic fantasy with guerrilla warfare over bloody battles. A lesser degree of violent conflict.

Erg. This agent evidently has not much experience with the nature of guerilla war. Speaking as a civilian, give me regular army, any day.

 

[glutton]

I would've never thought of guerilla war as being 'tamer' than other forms of warfare or of 'battles' having to be numerically large-scale conflicts to fill some kind of violence quota.

My current heroine's one-on-one 'battle' with a mountain sized monster is pretty violent and epic without needing mass numbers. The only casualties in that fight are the monster and the heroine herself (she comes back to life through sheer willpower lol) but the stakes were high with her whole city and potentially nation being at risk of being annihilated. She did her city/nation/bloodline proud XD

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

I second all that's been said recently. It would seem that guerrilla warfare is if anything more intense, at least in some ways. I prefer it for that reason.

 

[Miskatonic]

At least one agent does not believe that epic fantasy must have "battles."

Genre Breakdown: Epic Fantasy ? Mary C. Moore

This agent is looking for epic fantasy with guerrilla warfare over bloody battles. A lesser degree of violent conflict.

Skirmishes are far more likely to happen than full scale battles anyway. That being said, guerrilla warfare can be just as horrific, and given it's in a more intimate setting (focused on far fewer people), can be just as powerful as a huge battle with hundreds or thousands of people dying.

Just look at Vietnam for instance. Or Afghanistan.