Violent Content

[Androxine Vortex]

I took a look at my book (Hey that rhymes! A lot!) and noticed that use a lot of graphic description. Especially in battle-scenes, I go into vivid and sometimes grotesque detail. I don't think I am overdoing it, but at the same time I think at times I am quite graphic. What are your thoughts on the level of violence in a book? Does it turn you away? It might help to mention that my novels are more of a darker fantasy that explore the darker aspects of the human soul and mind. I am aiming for a mature audience though by mature there is practically no sexual content whatsoever. At one point I though about toning it down just for the sake of making it more generally accepted but realized it is sort of "my style." What if people told Picasso to paint more "normal?" What are your thoughts?

 

[MadMadys]

I personally love good, graphic depiction of violence so long as it fits in the story and overall flow of the book. I know in my stuff I get down and dirty with things when I have to. Adding that extra level of detail; cracked ribs, smashed noses, perforated skulls, can be great in expressing to your reader the level of devastation and pain a character is going through.

A word of caution, though. Something I've noticed, in editing other people's work, is the jarring detail people go into that seems a little out of place. In other words, they'll be doing soft, lofty descriptions of a battle then jump in an get into very specific, gory, explicit detail about a warrior's head being smashed, brains flying, eyeballs bursting, teeth fluttering through the air like snowflakes aaaaand then back to normal battle description. It's odd, and very clunky, when things like that happen. If you're going to be graphic, make it a habit (sounds twisted) or use it lightly. Otherwise it comes off needlessly explicit. Like the writer is trying to gross me out in two sentences flat for no reason.

 

[Androxine Vortex]

I personally love good, graphic depiction of violence so long as it fits in the story and overall flow of the book. I know in my stuff I get down and dirty with things when I have to. Adding that extra level of detail; cracked ribs, smashed noses, perforated skulls, can be great in expressing to your reader the level of devastation and pain a character is going through.

A word of caution, though. Something I've noticed, in editing other people's work, is the jarring detail people go into that seems a little out of place. In other words, they'll be doing soft, lofty descriptions of a battle then jump in an get into very specific, gory, explicit detail about a warrior's head being smashed, brains flying, eyeballs bursting, teeth fluttering through the air like snowflakes aaaaand then back to normal battle description. It's odd, and very clunky, when things like that happen. If you're going to be graphic, make it a habit (sounds twisted) or use it lightly. Otherwise it comes off needlessly explicit. Like the writer is trying to gross me out in two sentences flat for no reason.

Hmm, that is something to consider. Though maybe at times of calmness in the plot it might be alright. I can see how that can be a little discomforting if not handled with care. And I don't want to just overuse graphic detail. I don't want the main appeal of my story to be a gore-fest.

 

[MadMadys]

Hmm, that is something to consider. Though maybe at times of calmness in the plot it might be alright. I can see how that can be a little discomforting if not handled with care. And I don't want to just overuse graphic detail. I don't want the main appeal of my story to be a gore-fest.

Definitely. If you're MC is taking a beating, you want that scene to have impact. You don't want the reader to think, "well he's getting the tar beat out of him now, but something like that happened 3 pages ago and the dude just got some bandages and was fine." Making it a bit more of a rarity gives it more impact when it does happen.

Speaking from one mote of experience, I had a scene in my book where there a MC was dealing with the aftermath of a rape scene. My original treatment was very detailed which I had intended to help get the idea across that the character was torn apart emotionally, as well as physically, by it. After leaving the passage a few months, coming back to it and reading it again I was thinking, "yikes, gotta tone this down." I found I was a little too much into the scene and needed to step back and see that, while the detail was decently written, it served no real purpose. That's where the distinction can be found between "just enough" and "way too much".

 

[VanClash]

I noticed when I started writing, my fighting scenes were far too graphic, because back then I wrote with the idea that gore=action=excitement. I feel gore is important to get across the damage of something, if it is your main character and he outnumbered, I think gore is important there because you might get a connection to his pain. But if your just killing a generic warrior, and making his guts fly across the wall, then that might be too far. I feel, use gore when you want to connect (that doesn't sound right), but then just kill people normally for everything else.

 

[BWFoster78]

If your target audience is those people who enjoy epic fantasy, you'll probably be okay.

My plan is to market my book to additional audiences rather than just fans of that genre. I've gotten feedback that extreme violence turns off those audiences, so I'm doing my best to tone it down.

For me, it depends on who you think are going to be reading it.

 

[Feo Takahari]

I tend to let the protagonist's emotional state color the scene, even in stories that otherwise maintain narrative distance. This can at times allow for unpleasantly detailed description, but it's generally not the sort of bland recitation that's often seen in action stories.

Also, if I may expand this beyond gore, one of the most affecting scenes in John Barnes's Candle handles what could have been a lengthy description in one horrible sentence--"He made me watch while he did things to Mom, and he made Mom watch while he did things to me." A longer description could easily have felt exploitative.

 

[Sheriff Woody]

Do whatever you wish, as long as there is a reason for doing it.

 

[Grand Lord BungleFic]

My own book has a few graphic descriptions and one or two sexual encounters. I felt free to include such content because the themes and symbolism of my story would be impossible for anyone under 15 or so to understand anyway.

My feeling is that such content should fit the story being told. If the other 490 pages of the book would work for a ten year old reader I don't want ten pages of disembowled guts and sex. On the other hand, if the story is aimed at adults it annoys me just as much if an author avoids such content when it's appropriate.

 

[The Dark One]

I feel, use gore when you want to connect (that doesn't sound right), but then just kill people normally for everything else.

I hope you never have to say this to your analyst...

The level of violence and the style in which it is described MUST resonate with everything else in the story. My first published book had a few very violent scenes but there wasn't that much description of the damage. It was more about the fear, the anticipation, the action and the consequences. Gory descriptions of damage don't do a lot for me, but the way people feel and the rising tension are very important.

Also, no matter what happens, there must be plot/characterisation consequences of any violent scene. Otherwise, what was the point?

 

[JonSnow]

If your target audience is those people who enjoy epic fantasy, you'll probably be okay.

My plan is to market my book to additional audiences rather than just fans of that genre. I've gotten feedback that extreme violence turns off those audiences, so I'm doing my best to tone it down.

For me, it depends on who you think are going to be reading it.

This is really good advice. You need to know who your target audience is. If you're writing for yourself, then do whatever you want. If you want to publish to an adult audience, you're probably OK with most, if not all, of the violence.

I haven't run into this dilemma with violence, because I do mine quick and dirty, without too much gory detail. But I did have a rape scene early in my book that I eventually took out, and simply referred to it in a past tense in other ways (through a half-conscious memory of someone who was next to her in a prison cell while it happened, and then the girl's own memories). I thought it might limit the potential reading audience to describe the scene as it happened. Again, it all depends on who you want reading your book.

 

[Androxine Vortex]

Well the book that i am working on the most right now is about orcs and I am portraying them as violent and barbaric so maybe this book in particular will be more graphic than my other future projects. I think in those I will trim the violence down a little bit.

For example, a part in my orc story might read, "He smashed his mace into the man's head. Thick streams of blood and mucus exploded from his ruined nose. The body toppled over on the ground and shook violently." I don't think that (for me) that is too violent (for my tastes) but I think for my other works you probably wouldn't see something like that.

 

[Anders Ämting]

At one point I though about toning it down just for the sake of making it more generally accepted but realized it is sort of "my style." What if people told Picasso to paint more "normal?" What are your thoughts?

Heh. You consider yourself the Picasso of fantasy writing?

Because unlike a lot of other great artists, Picasso was wildly successful in his own lifetime and became very rich off his work. And while his style probably had something to do with that, you have to keep in mind that we are talking about A) a natural born genius who's first word was alledgedly "pencil", B) with a father who was an art professor C) who trained him from the age of seven until he was a full-fledged painter at the age of 14, after which he spent the rest of his life producing a truly insane amount of art.

The guy probably knew what he was doing, is what I'm saying. Style doesn't just appear naturally out of nothing, it is created by hard work and a deep understanding of your art. Being an artist is not just a matter of sticking to your convictions no matter what. Especially not when you don't seem all that convinced.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with writing gory books. Maybe it really is that special ingredient that will set you apart from other writers. But do take care not to mistake an unwillingness to change for artistic integrity. Sometimes you have to seriously consider the possibility that maybe your art is heading in the wrong direction.

And keep in mind, this isn't some publisher telling you to tone it down: This is you, the artist, looking at your own work and having second thoughts. This is Picasso telling Picasso to paint more normal. And that should be an opinion worth considering, shouldn't it?

 

[Sparkie]

Heh. You consider yourself the Picasso of fantasy writing?

Is it just me, or does the above quote seem like a gigantic leap?

I don't know Androxine Vortex personally, but in reading his posts I've never thought of him as someone who would consider himself the Picasso of fantasy writing. I believe he was simply trying to raise a point while asking a reasonable question. Making such an assumtion and using it to criticize seems both harsh and antagonistic to me. There's no need to browbeat a member for asking his fellow members for their thoughts on a matter.

Getting back to the subject at hand, violence is part of human existence (like it or not.) Still, some graphic depictions are just distasteful, in my opinion. Sometimes it's best to show just enough to let the reader know what's happening. The reader can come up with the rest on his\her own.

 

[FatCat]

I say, whatever floats your boat. If you want to write stuff that's gory and real, more power to you. I'm the kind of person that would pick up your book and dig it. As long as the violence is constrained to relevance, I'm good. The details of every combat scene don't need to be described in full detail to me, but if adding something graphic adds to the theme/mood of the chapter or book, lay it on and lay it on thick. Don't second guess yourself, you know what you want to write, and there's a reason you wanted to write it that way in the first place.

 

[Sparkie]

I say, whatever floats your boat.

I think this particular boat floats on a pool of blood.

Anyway, good point about relevance. Violence, graphic or not, should not be pointless.

 

[SeverinR]

If the scene is violent, describe it as best you can without slowing it down.
"Blood cascading over the bar table, as the cracking of bone echoed through the room, staggering backwards the scream of the barmaid is heard, as a beer stein shatters spewing its contents over the crowd."

One punch described in alot of words, basically slow motion action for the reader, alot of things happening/described at once slows the action down, if it works do it, if not simply:
"Blood squirts from his mouth as he is hit, staggering backward into the barmaid behind him."

 

[Nathan_Boole]

Woo! Violence! Ahem.

So far it seems like the main statement about violence is: use it if you think it's audience appropriate, and when you use it, do it because it's complementing your story and/or building the atmosphere you want to convey.

I write a good bit of epic fantasy-style work, and I often describe violence because I want to get across a certain gritty realism in terms of the consequences of magic. I tend to try to go for the violence of a movie like Saving Private Ryan, or Apocalypse Now, as opposed to the violence of Kill Bill. Both are stylistic choices, but the violence in Saving Private Ryan, while just as, if not more gut wrenching than Kill Bill, is realistic and is used to help get across the horror of war. The violence in Kill Bill is meant more as atmosphere, adding to the pulpy, comic-bookish feel of the movie.

One thing to keep in mind in writing is that it is often much more powerful to describe just enough to activate the reader's imagination than to fully describe intense gore.

Consider the movie Hostel. It was VERY violent and gory in some scenes, but I think that arguably the most powerful scenes, the most emotionally wrenching scenes, were the ones in which the violence was implied but not shown. There is a scene in there where a torturer takes some kind of blade and walks behind a character, then you get a shot of the character's face, there's a crunching sound, and the character screams, then falls and attempts to crawl across the floor, ineffectively. The entire scene happens without seeing one bit of blood, but it was one of the most disturbing scenes in the movie to me, because my imagination was constructing the visual part of the violence for me, rather than being explicitly shown it.

I hope that makes sense.

In fantasy, two of the most violent authors I have read are Steven Erikson and George R.R. Martin. They both use violence VERY effectively and you will notice that every time there is a violent scene, it is in the book for a reason. In Erikson, the reason tends to be building atmosphere, while also revealing the forces acting on the protagonists through the things that are happening around them.

In Martin, violence seems often to come at some kind of character climax or downfall. It usually reinforces the brutality, and the sheer unreason of what humans do to each other, and it almost always has powerful consequences for the characters involved, and the characters who witness it.

One of the most violent books I have ever read is Blood Meridian, by Cormac McCarthy. His prose is flowery, full of metaphors and similes, and unrelentingly violent throughout the book. At first, it seems gratuitous, pointless, and disturbing. But when the book was done, I realized that his insane descriptions of violence drove me (the reader) through an arc that followed the character arc of his protagonist. Specifically, I became inured to the violence in his book as it increased over time. At the end of the book, as the violence drops almost entirely away and the book becomes somewhat introspective, I felt like I had crossed thousands of miles with the protagonist, seen terrible things, and arrived at a kind of raw, calloused maturity where violence no longer disturbed or angered me, but simply made me tired.

Blood Meridian is BRILLIANT, and if you can handle LARGE amounts of very grim violence, I highly recommend it.

Anyway, I will shut up now. Thanks for posting this thread! It's a great topic, and especially good for us new writers to understand how it fits, or doesn't fit, into our stories.

--Nathan

 

[bluedude21]

Fair point, but i gotta ask if you make everything really long and vivd to fit does that make it a bit like watching a good movie in slow mo the whole time.I'm a new writer and i find that writing vivid descriptions help but a bit like eating too much cotton candy it does make me a bit sick after a while, sort of long winded i guess .( typing on phone forgive any mistakes.)

 

[Nathan_Boole]

Fair point, but i gotta ask if you make everything really long and vivd to fit does that make it a bit like watching a good movie in slow mo the whole time.

Howdy! It seems to me that if you're writing REALLY fantastic descriptions then you have a certain amount of leeway in terms of writing long ones.

The only thing I would say is that at a certain point I think you have to sacrifice description for pacing, or like you say, people will get sick of it.

It just depends on the pace you want to achieve. If you want to create a feel like an action movie in slo-mo, then longer sentences and vivid descriptions are probably a decent way to do that.

I think it's all based on the effect you want. Although I'd also say that you shouldn't worry about it too much until you're writing at a high level already. For instance, I'm just writing my NaNoWriMo project however my fingers happen to type it, completely without regard for how well the action turns out, or whether or not my violence has a point at all, or how strong of an effect it has. Once I'm done with the first draft, I'll go back and probably rewrite the whole thing from an outline, and world build everything so it's all consistent. Somewhere in my third or fourth draft, I'd guess, is when I'll take a look at the action and decide whether this or that violence is necessary, and either cut words for pacing, or keep them for a different feel.

My own tendency, if you hadn't guessed from the long posts, is to over-describe for the sake of "accuracy." I'll probably end up cutting a lot of stuff in the later drafts.

Anyway, take care!

--Nathan