Is Violence Necessary?

[Ban]

After just watching this video Movie Violence Done Right - YouTube of one of my favorite youtube channels, Nerdwriter1, I thought to myself. Is Violence necessary?

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.

 

[FifthView]

There are types of story that don't require violence, although sometimes violence can be implied, i.e. a threat of violence, even when it doesn't happen.

Violence is an odd thing when you think about it. Does nature commit violence? That question arises from yours about an action-oriented novel without a punch being thrown. Trying to survive a series of disasters, or while crossing dangerous landscapes, could be filled with lots of high-octane action without humans fighting each other. (And, besides natural geological disasters and threats, there are the non-human animal threats: Are attacking bears, swarms of killer bees, a type of violence?)

As for implied violence...there can be many cases of political intrigue or interpersonal intrigue in which some form of potential violence exists just beyond whatever intrigues are happening. Often, the threat of violence can be far more suspenseful than actual enacted violence.

 

[Nimue]

This is something that I've been pondering in relation to my current WIP. There is a battle in the first chapter, albeit on a fairly small scale, but I don't believe blood is spilled--except ritualistically--again in the story. It's all magic, family conflict, breaking curses, and romance from there on out, salted with a brief imprisonment and threat of witch-burning. In fact, when the MC tries to use violence against hostile soldiers, her magic deserts her.

I'm a little worried that first chapter will give the wrong impression of the story, and make what comes after seem too slow. Relating to genre expectations, this story isn't epic by any scale, so I don't think that should tie in, but still. I tend to like stories without too much violence or grimness, so this kind of plot feels natural to me.

I'll just have to write the rest of the story and see what beta readers think.

 

[Devor]

I think it's hard to do fantasy without violence because it's something that fantasy does well, and readers expect it. There's also something about swords and magic and wild creatures that you can use to take the edge off of fantasy violence - it sometimes doesn't feel like violence, making it easier to fit into a story.

That said, necessary is a strong word, and fantasy is a wider genre than the typical Swords and Sorcery. For instance, is Pixar's Inside Out considered fantasy? There's no violence in it.

 

[Ban]

I agree Devor, Fantasy is a very good genre or violence. Be it human vs human or human vs beast/monster.

And Fifthview you raise some very good questions. Personally I would consider human vs beasts to be a form of violence as well, since these are individually acting beings with the purpose of harming a human. Nature does not have purpose and therefore can't be considered violence in my opinion. Which leads me to the mandatory second question. How compelling can human vs nature truly be. Nature has no inherent goal or direction, it is an abstract concept. A well-developed main character might be able to give emotion to this "antagonist" through some form of projection. Robinson Crusoe comes to mind. But how often can you make a story like that and have people like it?

 

[FifthView]

Well in a fantasy world, nature might indeed have purpose, heh.

I think maybe it comes down to dangers and threats, potential harm to the protagonists, as important factors for a story. Whether those take the form of violence or some other form might not matter as much.

There are theories of violence which look at direct vs indirect violence. For instance, robbing a traveler of all his gear while he's sleeping or enacting a court order to strip a man of all his possessions could be considered acts of violence insofar as continued survival for the target is made more difficult. Theories of government consider the ways that governments have more or less of a monopoly on violence, and law and order require threats of violence and/or the exercise of violence, so imagining a realistic portrayal of a world without these might be difficult.

 

[skip.knox]

Certainly violence is expected in an action thriller. It's pretty much the definition of action. Technically, I suppose one could have nothing but chase sequences with no one ever being caught, physically risky actions with never a single fall or bruise. I could see trying it as a kind of writerly exercise, but I doubt you'd get rave reviews from readers. Why write a novel about a sea captain who never steps onto a boat? Because you can? Sure. Because it will be liked? Naw.

As for fantasy, that's a huge genre, but the OP asks specifically about epic fantasy. Here again, I can envision a violence-free story, but again what would be the point? There are plenty of other genres one could choose to write in where the lack of battles would not cause a blink. But over here in epic fantasy, we sit down expecting to see some satisfying set-pieces. Why disappoint us?

 

[FifthView]

I've noticed that I prefer smaller encounters to giant battles, and even in giant battles it's the small encounters between MCs and direct opponents that I find most enthralling and invigorating, that zoom-in in the midst of larger battles.

I like ambushes, attempted assassinations, the sudden appearance of armed street thugs, bar brawls, a few of the evil King's city guards showing up–all those small encounters.

 

[Ban]

I had not thought of indirect violence yet Fifthview. It is interesting to think of a story without even that. Personally I do not subscribe to the theory that "indirect violence" can be considered true violence, because it in itself doesn't hurt anyone. By the logic of indirect violence it is also theft to own a bird who steals silverware. Well... maybe not, but you get my point

Also with your preference for smaller encounters. Would you say that you like those encounters more because of the more personal nature of it? Because in that case a direct verbal confrontation between two characters could theoretically achieve the same thing.

 

[FifthView]

I mentioned indirect violence intending to continue the thought that "dangers and threats, potential harm to the protagonists" might be the important element, more than violence per se if violence is defined only as physical conflicts like battles, skirmishes and brawls.

I personally believe that violence is much broader than that, but maybe this obfuscates the discussion.

Personally I do not subscribe to the theory that "indirect violence" can be considered true violence, because it in itself doesn't hurt anyone.

But if a man is traveling through a great desert and you steal all his water, that is hurting him! It's the difference between first order, second order, third order effects. Often in our world, this is a nifty excuse for doing harmful things.

But back to my general point. "Dangers and threats, potential harm" could be things like emotional threats and harm, legal threats and harm, and so forth, and provide interesting conflict without needing to arm your characters with swords and/or offensive spells. What if the potential loss of an inheritance was at stake? The potential loss of magic—even, the possibility that all magic in the world would be destroyed? Either of those might or might not be considered harmful potentials for your characters.

Edit: On the personal nature of those small encounters...yes. But also it's that effect of pulling the camera way out and only getting an indistinct blob vs seeing all the little details. I like the little movements, the intricacies, more than the general destruction. I like the sharp stakes vs the more general and abstract stakes.

 

[SeverinR]

Conflict is mandatory. Violence isn't.
There must be a goal, there must be a struggle to achieve the goal, a conflict of some type, maybe even someone else trying for the same goal. But violence is only one option of the conflict.

 

[Alile]

Violence is a means to an end. The way I think of it, violence has to have a purpose. But that can be said about everything happening in a story, also everything that was avoided or averted. And everything the writer omitted.
A punch really isn't exciting. It is the WHY of it that is exciting. The emotions, the internal conflict and battle and fight within a character, the reasons for acting or speaking.
Maybe it's not a choice between evil or good every single time and maybe there is a gray zone in there too. Violence will have repercussions, right there in a violent situation or later on (someone saw the violence, the character is torn over his use of violence, etc).
I see a big difference between large-scale warfare and being in a brawl or someone stealing a purse. It can all serve its purpose in a story. I think however that the suspense, anticipation, conflict, internal struggle, are more valuable than violence.
Violence for violence's sake, no thanks.
However, I just read about "tasteful violence" in a film review. And let's not forget the old phrase Violence Glorification. I suspect these are around in a lot of fantasy books. I'm not saying it as a very bad thing, but just something to be aware of. I mean, I can appreciate the almost coreogrphed movement of the cavalry coming in on the enemy army's flank or the elven archers firing in waves, but... it has to have it's place and time and I suspect everything that leads up to the violence is way more interesting.

 

[Gurkhal]

I don't think that anything is really necessary in an almost any genre but conventionallity often points towards some stuff that's in most of the big sellers, and readers often read the genre because of the big sellers were, well, big sellers. So they kind of set a predecent.

 

[La Volpe]

I think violence becomes necessary depending on your specific subgenre. Like someone here said, it's all about the expectations. By writing a book in a certain genre, you're promising the reader that he will get things that are common to this subgenre (i.e. if he's reading a sword&sorcery, he'll be expecting swords and sorcery; if they don't make an appearance, he'll be disappointed).

That being said, I'm sure it can be pulled off. But the question is, why do you want to? If the story simply doesn't have any violence in it, but it still counts as epic fantasy because of its other elements, it's something you could test out. If you deliberately cut out the violent bits and replace them with say, verbal confrontation (unless it's Dovah-Zul, ha!), then you're probably doing a disservice to the readers.

But if a man is traveling through a great desert and you steal all his water, that is hurting him! It's the difference between first order, second order, third order effects. Often in our world, this is a nifty excuse for doing harmful things.

If you walk through a desert and see a man who's dying of thirst, and you don't give him some of your extra water, isn't that a violent act as well? I.e. where do you draw the line, and why there? As an absurd example, if you don't go out into the world and save every person who you could have saved, are you committing a violent act? Doesn't that dilute the meaning of violence too much?

In these cases, it's more of a lack of action, I know, but in the end, you're still making a decision that causes another person to be hurt, whether by his lack of water that you could have fixed or not. It's the trolley problem incarnate.

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

Necessary? First you'd have to define what you mean by violence. Fighting? Not all stories depend on physical conflict, or even involve fighting. Or do you mean injuries/gore? I'm a bit torn on this one. Part of me feels that graphic violence is gratuitous, but part of me feels that it's important to portray violence and death and ugly and horrible, because that's how it is in reality. It's not like a video game.

Conflict is what's important, not violence. Often, action and violence are used as substitutes for conflict. Personally, I find internal conflict and developing tension to be much more compelling than fight scenes and gore. Often violence seems to me like a substitute for plot. It's a matter of personal preference to some degree...I like action and physical conflict, but I also like stories about family and relationships, and the stories I enjoy most are typically those with an equal balance of the two.

In fantasy, readers expect the plot to contain physical conflict. I'm not sure why. A fantasy story that's entirely a sweet, lighthearted romance, with no fighting or orcs or dark lords anywhere....why not? So...necessary? No. Expected? Yes.

In real life, people die. In fights, people get injured. If this stuff doesn't happen, it won't be realistic, and the readers won't be worried about what happens to everyone, either...because they're invincible.

My stories are quite violent. My WIP opens with the main character getting whipped and I describe it in a fair amount of detail. There's torture (physical and psychological), there are lots of deaths. My characters get injured. They get crippled. They get scarred. They get stuff stitched up and patched up and amputated without any anesthesia. The world they live in is dangerous, and they're in the midst of lots of conflict. Not to mention the wilderness is full of terrifying creatures, and humans lower on the food chain than in this world. There's plenty of physical conflict and fighting, I suppose...dragon riding, guerrilla warfare, spying, escapes, survival in the wilderness...but, the main story is centered around the characters' relationships and internal conflicts. One of my MC's struggles with grief and guilt after his love commits suicide, and is terrified to open his heart to anyone again. The other MC is both frightened and allured by the darkness of her powers, and doesn't know what side she should be on. She wants to protect the guy she loves, her brother,(the other MC) her friends, her dragon, but her convictions are tearing her away from them. Others are afraid of her powers, and she is too. She hurts people on accident, and she wants to do the right thing, but she's terrified she will have to sacrifice someone she loves. It's a lot more complicated than all that, actually...a LOT more complicated...but, the character's relationships are what fascinates me. The story wouldn't be whole without the action and physical conflict, either, though. They work together. In fantasy stories, that's kind of what is expected.

 

[Alile]

I love finding new books and new stories that surprise me and aren't quite what I thought they would be or have an interesting way of formulating sentences (style of writing) or bring something new to the table. Yes, we are discussing fantasy but who would want to write what your future readers would expect? Who can even do that, writing a story is not quite like baking a cake. There are teqhnicues to writing but who would want to spoon-feed readers things they think will happen, in the way they think it will happen? Violence has been done before but I still think there are things one can do with it to make it unique, new and shiny i the eyes of readers.
Another point is the sad feeling I sometimes get when I think: "Now he's gonna say that. Now she's going to do that. Now she replies to his comment tenderly." And I'm right about it. Yes, you can lead readers to expect a punch/fight, and work with that, but when actions in your story becomes obvious it's not a good thing.
Another thing is pinning themes/actions to people in your story (one writer I thougt did this was Robert Jordan) like Adam is the hot-headed one who always cracks his knuckles. And that's what he does, and that's how you're supposed to distinguish him from the rest of the cast of the story. Here we go. Adam is provoked, or annoyed, or bored, *crack*. Launch fight... Yeah, doesn't he have any other moves? Sorry, Robert Jordan... but sometimes you made me feel like you expected me (readers in general too), to be stupid and forgetful. Okay, sorry about my rant... I just think that characters need to come alive, and if you never thought they had the potential for violence, what do they "do when it really comes down to it?"
Within the limitations of a fantasy story; what violence can you write about, why would you do it, how, how much blood and gore and the sound and feel of bones breaking, do your character stare a man in the eye, stab him and "watch the light fade from his eyes"? You might not be able to write about a nuclear bomb, and frankly I feel there isn't that much realism in some violent scenes in fantasy, but I guess we are here to change all that.
I guess there is one more thing that hasn't been mentioned, beware of your age group of readers and what they should not read (young readers).

 

[Holoman]

I like violence, even in romance stories

It's probably possible to do a good fantasy book without it, but likely harder than including it.

That said, I'm not really into excessive gore and violence. I like it to be quite sparse but brutal. I'm definitely not a fan of huge battles, give me close quarters and intimate fighting, with emotions. And I don't like it going on too long. I like quick fights and the emphasis to be on the consequences and emotions.

 

[Miskatonic]

You could have a mission impossible (the movies specifically) type scenario where the action comes form trying to outwit a high tech security system or something like that. Espionage type scenarios where violence is only the outcome if the spy/spies fail can be exciting. The same can be said about car chases, though they are probably going to be harder to write.

You can have plenty of action where the threat of injury or death is always lurking but never comes.

 

[FifthView]

If you walk through a desert and see a man who's dying of thirst, and you don't give him some of your extra water, isn't that a violent act as well? I.e. where do you draw the line, and why there? As an absurd example, if you don't go out into the world and save every person who you could have saved, are you committing a violent act? Doesn't that dilute the meaning of violence too much?

In these cases, it's more of a lack of action, I know,

If you know, why ask?

 

[Addison]

Violence is pointless without conflict. Hollywood hasn't been doing very well with it lately. Just because a car blows up or a person is shot doesn't mean the stakes go up or anything like that. Punch in the face? Meh. Punched in the face so your jaw is broken so you can't tell your friend he's marked for death? Yes. Of course there is a way to have the person unable to tell their friend without physical violence. Lose their cell phone, a jerk barista or such not letting them use the phone. Miss the bus to get to the friend. Violence in a story is like magic in the Enchanted Forest; a perk, not a necessity.