Is Violence Necessary?

[Lucas]

What does it mean to avoid the glorification of violence? What that violence can only ever be bad? Anything can qualify as the glorification of violence depending on the readers perspective. Funny how an examination of when violence is necessary is never a topic but non-violence permeates society.

I don't see what the problem is with violence in a story....within reason otherwise it becomes absurd. As to the OP I think it entirely depends on the story you are telling and it's scale.

The glorification of violence is basically when violence serves primarily an aesthetic purpose or to increase the pace of the story, and the heroes come out unscathed out from a hundred battles. In my recently finished novel, the heroes are basically refugee kids trying mostly to avoid the Dark Lord's mooks.

 

[Malik]

The issue that I see with violence is that it's misunderstood in our culture and therefore feared. I would go so far as to say that we're repressed in our thinking about violence.

We go through life being told the same hoary old cliches about how violence never solves anything. And nothing could be further from the truth. Very few things in this world are better at solving an immediate problem than a calculated dose of swift, expertly-applied violence. The problem is that since we have vilified violence, we no longer value its utility, so we never use it anymore.

Stick with me on this.

Violence is unparalleled at solving immediate problems. Ask me how I know.

I'm not saying that everything should be settled in the Thunderdome, though, because what violence does is create a whole set of follow-on problems; problems that we're never prepared for because we don't deal with violence on a regular basis. I'm a professional soldier and a former amateur boxer. I am intimate with the implications of violence, as it is both a profession and a hobby for me.

This is the disconnect that I see in a lot of fantasy -- authors who construe violence either as an extension of our modern understanding of it, and therefore contemplate writing fantasy novels that have no violence in them -- or who fail to see it through to its logical conclusion, which is where we get ridiculous books lathered up with Hollywood-style antiseptic violence and no follow-on effects.

A society that deals in violence will respond completely differently to its employment. There is a time and a place to punch someone in the face. But what, then? What does your fantasy world condone, and what does that tell you about them?

The role of violence in society is as much a part of your worldbuilding as the role of religion, money, or sex. There's no reason to think that other societies will respond to violence the way that we do.

 

[ascanius]

The glorification of violence is basically when violence serves primarily an aesthetic purpose or to increase the pace of the story, and the heroes come out unscathed out from a hundred battles. In my recently finished novel, the heroes are basically refugee kids trying mostly to avoid the Dark Lord's mooks.

OK, see this is why I asked. To me the glorification of violence is more what daesh posts to YouTube. Your version seems.... More like plot or setting preferences than any sort of glorification.

The issue that I see with violence is that it's misunderstood in our culture and therefore feared. I would go so far as to say that we're repressed in our thinking about violence.

We go through life being told the same hoary old cliches about how violence never solves anything. And nothing could be further from the truth. Very few things in this world are better at solving an immediate problem than a calculated dose of swift, expertly-applied violence. The problem is that since we have vilified violence, we no longer value its utility, so we never use it anymore.

Stick with me on this.

Violence is unparalleled at solving immediate problems. Ask me how I know.

I'm not saying that everything should be settled in the Thunderdome, though, because what violence does is create a whole set of follow-on problems; problems that we're never prepared for because we don't deal with violence on a regular basis. I'm a professional soldier and a former amateur boxer. I am intimate with the implications of violence, as it is both a profession and a hobby for me.

This is the disconnect that I see in a lot of fantasy -- authors who construe violence either as an extension of our modern understanding of it, and therefore contemplate writing fantasy novels that have no violence in them -- or who fail to see it through to its logical conclusion, which is where we get ridiculous books lathered up with Hollywood-style antiseptic violence and no follow-on effects.

A society that deals in violence will respond completely differently to its employment. There is a time and a place to punch someone in the face. But what, then? What does your fantasy world condone, and what does that tell you about them?

The role of violence in society is as much a part of your worldbuilding as the role of religion, money, or sex. There's no reason to think that other societies will respond to violence the way that we do.

Couldn't say it better, really couldn't. Looking at Hellenistic Greece they had a completely different morality with regards to violence than we do now, the same could be said for almost any culture of the past.

 

[Devor]

I usually see "glorification of violence" as a reference to video games like Mortal Combat or Grand Theft Auto which - even putting the moral questions aside for a moment - do make gratuitous violence into the grand "payoff" of playing them. You're not supposed to be afraid or determined or sad or anything else when you face the violence. You're supposed to be happy at the way characters are disemboweled. Hence, glorified.

 

[FifthView]

I think that most gratuitous violence I've encountered in written fiction is committed by various villains–those who delight in torture and physical punishments. Almost always, this doesn't bother me. I have an easy time believing in sadistic characters. Sometimes I don't like reading through it, but at least it's sensible unless the character is drawn as an over-the-top caricature.

There are occasionally examples of glorification of violence in stories that involve Mary Sue type characters; we're meant to understand they are expert fighters hacking and slashing their way through anything. The problem I have with those stories is the lack of nuance in the characters and realistic, sensible scenarios and worlds. No solution but hacking and slashing ever occurs to the characters, and no scenario but frequent encounters and hacking and slashing occurs to the writers. I don't have much of a problem with them–because I simply stop reading them.

In movies there's a certain visual spectacle that helps to make the glorification of violence ... glorious, if done well. As with books, a lack of nuance and realism can work against the visual spectacle, leaving me with an empty feeling (my wallet; why did I bother to buy a ticket?) But I think my tolerance level for this type of glorification of violence is greater than in the examples I've stumbled across in books. Sometimes I like seeing it play out on screen.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Glory is in the eye of the beholder... see the movie Patton, which can be seen as rah-rah or anti-war. What you seem to be pointing out is what I'd call gratuitous violence, violence for the sake of violence... which has its uses in certain genres (see Wile E. Coyote). For me, as long as the violence makes sense and fits the story, it doesn't bother me.

The glorification of violence is basically when violence serves primarily an aesthetic purpose or to increase the pace of the story, and the heroes come out unscathed out from a hundred battles. In my recently finished novel, the heroes are basically refugee kids trying mostly to avoid the Dark Lord's mooks.

 

[Lucas]

Glory is in the eye of the beholder... see the movie Patton, which can be seen as rah-rah or anti-war. What you seem to be pointing out is what I'd call gratuitous violence, violence for the sake of violence... which has its uses in certain genres (see Wile E. Coyote). For me, as long as the violence makes sense and fits the story, it doesn't bother me.

I would say that some good authors engage a little bit too much in gratuitous violence. Take George R R Martin for example, and the entire Vargo Hoat vs Sandor Clegane arc. Entirely pointless, and ultra-violent even beyond the standards of the medieval age.

 

[Miskatonic]

The issue that I see with violence is that it's misunderstood in our culture and therefore feared. I would go so far as to say that we're repressed in our thinking about violence.

We go through life being told the same hoary old cliches about how violence never solves anything. And nothing could be further from the truth. Very few things in this world are better at solving an immediate problem than a calculated dose of swift, expertly-applied violence. The problem is that since we have vilified violence, we no longer value its utility, so we never use it anymore.

Stick with me on this.

Violence is unparalleled at solving immediate problems. Ask me how I know.

I'm not saying that everything should be settled in the Thunderdome, though, because what violence does is create a whole set of follow-on problems; problems that we're never prepared for because we don't deal with violence on a regular basis. I'm a professional soldier and a former amateur boxer. I am intimate with the implications of violence, as it is both a profession and a hobby for me.

This is the disconnect that I see in a lot of fantasy -- authors who construe violence either as an extension of our modern understanding of it, and therefore contemplate writing fantasy novels that have no violence in them -- or who fail to see it through to its logical conclusion, which is where we get ridiculous books lathered up with Hollywood-style antiseptic violence and no follow-on effects.

A society that deals in violence will respond completely differently to its employment. There is a time and a place to punch someone in the face. But what, then? What does your fantasy world condone, and what does that tell you about them?

The role of violence in society is as much a part of your worldbuilding as the role of religion, money, or sex. There's no reason to think that other societies will respond to violence the way that we do.

Like super hero films where you have superhuman or extra-terrestrial entities leveling entire cities, causing deaths of countless people and at the end of the day are still considered the good guys. This is one thing that the Batman vs Superman movie at least tried to address, with Superman's existence on Earth carrying huge risks.

This problem goes far beyond the concept of violence, unfortunately. A lot of people apply modern ethics/morality to books written a century or more ago and then condemn the author for holding certain views, which at the time were not uncommon.

 

[Chessie]

I would say that some good authors engage a little bit too much in gratuitous violence. Take George R R Martin for example, and the entire Vargo Hoat vs Sandor Clegane arc. Entirely pointless, and ultra-violent even beyond the standards of the medieval age.

I was done when the window incident with Bran happened.

Nope! Done!

Look, I enjoy violence as much as the next reader but there has to be a good reason for it. Out of all the stories I've written, only ONE of my characters has actually murdered someone. And he was an abusive asshole who got what he deserved. So, if it's violence just cuz, then I'm outta there.

 

[Lucas]

I was done when the window incident with Bran happened.

Nope! Done!

Look, I enjoy violence as much as the next reader but there has to be a good reason for it. Out of all the stories I've written, only ONE of my characters has actually murdered someone. And he was an abusive asshole who got what he deserved. So, if it's violence just cuz, then I'm outta there.

One of my characters is psychotic and has violent murder and disembowelling fantasies about his own mother, but she deserves it too.

 

[ascanius]

I was done when the window incident with Bran happened.

Nope! Done!

Look, I enjoy violence as much as the next reader but there has to be a good reason for it. Out of all the stories I've written, only ONE of my characters has actually murdered someone. And he was an abusive asshole who got what he deserved. So, if it's violence just cuz, then I'm outta there.

I really don't understand how this is gratuitous violence, I assume you are talking about when bran was thrown out the window.. The reasons behind what happened seem very clear and logical to me.

 

[Malik]

I really don't understand how this is gratuitous violence, I assume you are talking about when bran was thrown out the window.. The reasons behind what happened seem very clear and logical to me.

Exactly. Hell, I'd have done the same thing.

Er, I mean . . .

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Yeah, that wasn't gratuitous at all. It is nasty as hell trying to murder a child, but the fact is, that bit of violence is critical to the greater story. In fact, you could call it the "inciting incident" for a great deal of what comes after. Without pushing Bran from the window, a huge part of the story would be entirely different. Hell, there isn't much that wouldn't be open to change... maybe Daenarys's story might stay the same, but the Seven Kingdoms would be utterly different. Catelyn doesn't take Tyrion... oh dear, what a snowball effect.

I really don't understand how this is gratuitous violence, I assume you are talking about when bran was thrown out the window.. The reasons behind what happened seem very clear and logical to me.

 

[Chessie]

I really don't understand how this is gratuitous violence, I assume you are talking about when bran was thrown out the window.. The reasons behind what happened seem very clear and logical to me.

Uh...anything involving the harming of children is a no-go in my book. Personal preference and besides, I hate ASOIF for many reasons. If I ever had Martin in front of me, I'd seriously hold back not kicking him in the shins.

 

[Steerpike]

Uh...anything involving the harming of children is a no-go in my book. Personal preference and besides, I hate ASOIF for many reasons. If I ever had Martin in front of me, I'd seriously hold back not kicking him in the shins.

I think there is a difference between personal boundaries and dislikes, and what is "gratuitious." I don't think what happened to Bran was gratuitous, but I can certainly understand why it would put people off the books.

 

[FifthView]

It's interesting to contemplate what movies or television shows would be like if the level of violence was opposite what it is.

Game of Thrones would probably turn into something like daytime soap operas (yeah, I know some of them use murder or fights occasionally, but long stretches don't) or The Social Network.

If The Social Network went the GoT route, the fictional Mark Zuckerberg and the Winklevoss twins would probably be joined by various leaders from Google, Apple, and Amazon in a bloody contest for something called The Cyber Throne.

 

[Miskatonic]

I think there is a difference between personal boundaries and dislikes, and what is "gratuitious." I don't think what happened to Bran was gratuitous, but I can certainly understand why it would put people off the books.

Don't forget what it was he was thrown off the tower for seeing.

 

[Steerpike]

Don't forget what it was he was thrown off the tower for seeing.

Yes. That's why it isn't gratuitous. It makes sense in the context of the story. What happened to him, and/or what he saw, might turn people off though.

 

[Heliotrope]

Ha! And I found the first half of game of thrones boring lol! I had to force myself to trudge through it because I was promised it would get better. It did. I love the series. I must be a sicko. I'm not sure how one could actually hate an author personally for something they've written? Chessie, do tell the reasons why you'd want to kick him!

 

[FifthView]

Followup to my last comment....

Sometimes the qualifier "gratuitous" is used to describe when writers and directors choose to utilize violence in a work when they could have written a given scene or whole story in a different way. I.e., it's not used to refer to a lack of reasons for the violence in the story so much as a commentary on a style of storytelling. Could X tale have been told with less violence–or less focus on violence?

My example from a much earlier comment: A scene in which some sadistic villain tortures our MC or someone the MC loves. These scenes bother me greatly, especially when the author seems to be overtly trying to push my buttons by including the scene or extending the torture scene for a much longer stretch than necessary. The issue is a little like whether to describe a sexual encounter in great detail or fade to black. (But the question there would concern gratuitous sex rather than violence.) Either approach might be supported by the story and relevant to the story. I can easily believe in the existence of sadistic villains (or honest-to-goodness vibrant sexual encounters.) But are these detailed excursions gratuitous? That's a question we can debate forever, probably.