Is Violence Necessary?

[ascanius]

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?

I see problems with this though. It just becomes a game of what if. what if there was less violence could just as well be less romance, sex, anything really. I have no doubt that any scene in any book or movie could be written or filmed with less violence are anything else for that matter. In this instance it seems more a complaint that the scene wasn't done the way the reader/viewer thought it should have been done, a back seat author if you will.

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.

Honestly I think that when such things become overt then I see it more as a failure of the author and not so much violence or what have you.

One thing though I'm using the definition of gratuitous as being without apparent reason, cause, or justification.
Based off that it would seem that gratuitous violence is more like a meteor randomly crushing a character.

This brings up something that I have pondered. Isn't the goal of an author to push buttons? I would argue that it is their primary goal otherwise one would read a tv repair manual. Don't we want readers emotionally involved in our stories? I'm not saying leave the reader emotionally catatonic but some degree of button push is necessary. I think the trick is not letting the reader realize it.

I see violence, be it on the more extreme end or even the suggestion of violence, to be useful. Its a tool the same way romance is and they each have a place in the toolbox.

 

[Chessie]

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.

It was gratuitous to me. As a mother, I was horrified. The entire book was too much for me, but then again I read mostly romance so....

 

[Chessie]

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!

Because, thanks to him, most epic fantasy books now are filled with pointless whoring, violence, and everything else in between that we read in the newspapers on a day to day basis. Now, this is a personal opinion, but I read for escapism. The world is filled with all sorts of BS as it is. I don't enjoy books that remind me of how awful our Earth is. I like to relax when I read books. Yes, I do enjoy realism to an extent and it's just that violence doesn't personally entertain me.

GOT was boring until page 73. After that, the story picked up steam but everything that came afterwards was meh. But like I said, I don't enjoy reading or watching violence very much. Ya'll can call me a softie if you want. I like books with good messages and values, not anything that promotes the horrors of daily existence.

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

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.

The problem with that definition is that an author always "could have" written something differently. It's a decision that is specific to the author and story, and what a reader views as 'gratuitous' will vary with the reader. Vastly.

It's a very tough question. Being a sensitive person, I tend to avoid books with graphic, detailed, disturbing violent content. I just dislike it. But that's my preference as a reader. Can I label anything outside my comfort zone as 'gratuitous?' I don't think so, really.

'Gratuitous' doesn't so much refer to the intensity of the content as the necessity. Many might consider 'gratuitous' to be when violence is included only to make the reader feel disgusted or horrified. Your example of the torture scene is an example of this, I guess. But what if i want to make my reader horrified and disgusted? There surely is a place for that.

So, yeah. You can debate this forever.

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

Because, thanks to him, most epic fantasy books now are filled with pointless whoring, violence, and everything else in between that we read in the newspapers on a day to day basis. Now, this is a personal opinion, but I read for escapism. The world is filled with all sorts of BS as it is. I don't enjoy books that remind me of how awful our Earth is. I like to relax when I read books. Yes, I do enjoy realism to an extent and it's just that violence doesn't personally entertain me.

GOT was boring until page 73. After that, the story picked up steam but everything that came afterwards was meh. But like I said, I don't enjoy reading or watching violence very much. Ya'll can call me a softie if you want. I like books with good messages and values, not anything that promotes the horrors of daily existence.

Fellow softie here. Yes, I'm pretty cruel to my characters and I have enjoyed darker (not too dark lol) books, but...I feel distinctly that lots of graphic violence in books is a trend now, and i'm not at all attracted to it.

 

[Chessie]

Another point, I don't think it's fair to say that there's a difference between gratuitous and necessary. It's a personal boundary, I believe. There are just some things I do not find funny, such as incest (in GOT), child abuse (in GOT), adultery (in GOT), and etc on it goes. I've dealt with many serious issues in my life so I don't find it a laughing matter when a book goes popular because of these sorts of things. Kind of like Lolita, which I will NEVER read. Why? Because I don't find pedophilia entertaining. I don't care if he realizes his mistakes or not. It still glorifies pedophilia in a way. That's my personal opinion, boundary, what have you, and so to ME that's a no-no.

 

[FifthView]

I see problems with this though. It just becomes a game of what if. what if there was less violence could just as well be less romance, sex, anything really. I have no doubt that any scene in any book or movie could be written or filmed with less violence are anything else for that matter. In this instance it seems more a complaint that the scene wasn't done the way the reader/viewer thought it should have been done, a back seat author if you will.

Yes and no and maybe. Heh. We don't know how ASOIAF would have progressed had Bran not been thrown out the window, because it was written in the one way and not the other. Some aspects would have been different, but we don't really know whether the difference would have been good, bad, better, or worse.

Honestly I think that when such things become overt then I see it more as a failure of the author and not so much violence or what have you.

One thing though I'm using the definition of gratuitous as being without apparent reason, cause, or justification.

I think there are more reasons than overt in-world logic, or plot-logic, when choosing how to write a scene. Sometimes, the issue is tone and establishing character and so forth. So maybe the author wants to show that this villain is extremely vile–but more than that, the author wants the reader to hate this villain, nay, more than hate. He wants the reader to feel disgusted, revolted, or any number of things. In such a case, how are we to draw an objective line in the sand? These are not mathematical equations but rather largely subjective effects resulting from irrational factors, keying into that indefinite thing we call "taste."

In any case, some things we put into a story have a purpose that goes beyond simply building a logical story and plot.

This brings up something that I have pondered. Isn't the goal of an author to push buttons? I would argue that it is their primary goal otherwise one would read a tv repair manual. Don't we want readers emotionally involved in our stories? I'm not saying leave the reader emotionally catatonic but some degree of button push is necessary. I think the trick is not letting the reader realize it.

I do think that button-pushing is important. A story that was told in a matter-of-fact way with no button pushing would probably be extremely boring. I'm not sure I've encountered such a story however, hah, although some go about it in a very subtle manner. But I don't know that there's an absolute requirement to hide this button pushing from the reader. I suspect that the opposite is more the case: We want our buttons pushed. But we're very finicky about how this is done.

 

[Steerpike]

I don't think you can put the blame solely at GRRM's feet when it comes to violence in fantasy. More gritty works predated his, and others were contemporaneous. The trend isn't limited to fantasy, either. But he became the face of it because his books were so popular.

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

A point I want to make is that violence has to be treated with care and respect to give it meaning.

Do I believe it has a place in books? Yes. Do I believe it is always necessary to tell a fantasy story? No. Do i believe that it must be handled WELL? Absolutely.

By this, I mean that you must be prepared to explore the full implications and effects of violence, and do so realistically and thoroughly. Sometimes this could mean being graphic and not holding back; sometimes this means avoiding focus on the violence. Including violence in your stories means more than whacking off heads and splattering blood. You have to explore the emotional and psychological impacts of it on the characters. You have to explore the effects on society and the larger world. If you want violence to be an important part of your story, you have to show scars, disfigurement, trauma, grief, devastation, chaos, sorrow...I could go on, but I'll go straight to the point. The mere act of violence is not enough. If you only show the act, you are not showing it fully. You are disrespecting your work and your subject...and yes, I believe violence is a subject that deserves MORE respect and care than almost any subject. You have to be more careful, thoughtful and thorough with violence than you have to be with moss or churning butter.

Well, I don't like saying 'have to." Disregard the have to's. You never have to do anything. But if you describe violence graphically and rely on the blood and smashed skulls and viscera to bring out a reaction in your reader, you really risk coming off as cheap. There is a great danger, I think, in using the violent acts themselves to bear the weight of a scene or story instead of their effects on the characters and world. I'm not going to say that pure shock will NEVER have a place and time to be used, but if overused shock is no longer shocking.

It deserves to be mentioned that the more sparingly you use graphic descriptions, the more powerful the effect on the reader will be when you DO.

I guess my message is that to be done well, violence in a book has to have some kind of meaning, in the broadest of senses. Blood and guts alone is not going to accomplish that, and adding more and more and MORE blood and guts is only going to make it more meaningless. As a writer you must handle your reader carefully. Their reactions and emotions are precious, breakable objects you must gently cradle with your words.

The trend seems to be that in books, the more violence, the better. That is not true. Sometimes more is better, sometimes less is better. My instinct is that readers are already desensitized to violence and new authors continuously compete to be MORE shocking and MORE gruesome to elicit a reaction from their jaded audience.

I'll provide an example of what i'm talking about. I read a book (I didn't finish) not too long ago that I ended up putting down for many reasons, but one of them was the extremely careless use of rape in the story.

I swear the word was mentioned every ten pages. The main character was constantly told that she was so beautiful, it was only a matter of time before she was raped. We are constantly reminded that women and girls are getting raped all the time. The creepy bad guy is always making rape threats to a female character we like. The word was thrown around very carelessly, dropped in dialogue constantly. But our MC never got raped, rape was never shown in the story, and I don't think it ever affected the plot. Which is fine. I didn't want to read a rape scene. What I disliked was that it was painfully plain that rape was being used to make the story more gritty and disturbing and to escalate the tension in certain scenes. It felt disrespectful. Yes, disrespectful. Because rape is a VERY SERIOUS subject and usurping the word's connotations to add edginess to your story is insulting to rape victims and to the reality of the crime.

The worst part was that I never felt scared for the MC. I never FELT how women in her society were powerless, dehumanized into objects of gratification. I didn't feel it. And there was something wrong with that.

please DO NOT use violence like it's some kind of strong spice to throw into your story willy-nilly when you feel like in needs more grunge or edginess.

(Having never read ASoIaF (as I said, softie) I'm not commenting on these books specifically, jsyk.)

 

[Heliotrope]

I'm wondering about readers/viewers.... maybe I'll use the word "consumers" who specifically seek out violence as a prerequisite? I use my husband a lot in these sorts of discussions lol. So my husband is of the persuasion that when he opens a book or watches a movie it is not for a "spiritual awakening" (like it is for me, usually). He (in his words) wants "Two hours of shit blowing up."

Die Hard? yes.
Transformers? yes.
The Dark Knights? yes.

Horror? Yes. With the most gratuitous violence, you can imagine. Disturbing. I worry about his mental health.

But... there is a market for this stuff. So I don't think saying "Yes, violence is okay if...." or, "yes, violence is okay, but..."

There should be no conditions put on writers when or how they use such tools, because as Dem put it earlier, violence is a necessary trope to some genres. It is a specific thing that some viewers look for.

As soon as we get into debates about how and when violence is okay, and how it must be treated with respect etc.. then it starts to sound a lot like censorship.

 

[Malik]

new authors continuously compete to be MORE shocking and MORE gruesome to elicit a reaction from their jaded audience.

There is a flip side to this, though. Readers never know anymore when we're going to do something mind-wrenchingly horrible to a character they love. The stakes are raised.

I never FELT how women in her society were powerless, dehumanized into objects of gratification. I didn't feel it. And there was something wrong with that.

I went 180 degrees with this in my world; I removed STDs, dropped fertility rates, and made sex essentially a sport.

I appreciate that rape is about power and not sex, but with all of the taboos about sex removed, including the ridiculous notion that having intercourse vests some type of property rights to another human being (a concept that, when the MC explains it, generates open-mouthed stares), the fantasy world I created is a lot less rapey. Sex and masculinity are not considered necessarily related, and there are plenty of genitals to go around for everybody who wants some. Even when the Big Bad captures the princess, the idea of him raping her never even enters the conversation.

When rape does happen -- and I have a villain in the first book who is particularly rapey -- it's considered such an aberration that the perpetrator is dealt with extremely harshly because there's clearly something wrong with them. Ultimately, his punishment is literally the most gruesome thing that I could come up with (scaphism), and everybody is okay with it because he is so far outside the accepted norm.

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

I'm wondering about readers/viewers.... maybe I'll use the word "consumers" who specifically seek out violence as a prerequisite? I use my husband a lot in these sorts of discussions lol. So my husband is of the persuasion that when he opens a book or watches a movie it is not for a "spiritual awakening" (like it is for me, usually). He (in his words) wants "Two hours of shit blowing up."

Die Hard? yes.
Transformers? yes.
The Dark Knights? yes.

Horror? Yes. With the most gratuitous violence, you can imagine. Disturbing. I worry about his mental health.

But... there is a market for this stuff. So I don't think saying "Yes, violence is okay if...." or, "yes, violence is okay, but..."

There should be no conditions put on writers when or how they use such tools, because as Dem put it earlier, violence is a necessary trope to some genres. It is a specific thing that some viewers look for.

As soon as we get into debates about how and when violence is okay, and how it must be treated with respect etc.. then it starts to sound a lot like censorship.

Somehow I feel like there is a standard of quality that transcends what audiences want, though.

Do some people like "two hours of sh*t blowing up?" yes.

Is it...what you would call a "good story?"

Am I allowed to say no?

I would assume as a writer you are looking to hold to some level of...idk what the word I want is, artistic integrity?...and create something that has some kind of meaning in it. And smearing all your pages with blood won't help you do that. I would assume that most of us are trying to do a little more than please audiences on a basic level. I know I do.

And geez, I'm not trying to censor anything. People can write whatever they want, I'm just a teenager on a forum somewhere.

I believe that literature can have value outside of being entertainment. I also don't think that just because something entertains, it is 'good' and should be perpetuated and encouraged. I hope others here do too.

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

There is a flip side to this, though. Readers never know anymore when we're going to do something mind-wrenchingly horrible to a character they love. The stakes are raised.

Weirdly enough, this is not at all true for me. When there is too much violence, I shut down emotionally and become unable to connect with the story. I don't know if it's a defensive thing or what, but killing indiscriminately makes me unable to care about anyone. I think, "well, what's the point?" It creates a sense of total disconnect with the characters.

What I said, though, had more to do with the ability of readers to continue to perceive acts of violence as mind-wrenchingly horrible. If they're happening constantly, it's numbing. If they are used sparingly, they have more impact. Right?

 

[Steerpike]

Whether a story is good depends largely on the goals of the author and the reader. If you're trying to write simple action and adventure with a lot of things blowing up, that can be a good story if done well. If you're trying to write literary fiction, a completely different set of criteria apply when determining whether it is good.

 

[Chessie]

Die Hard? yes.

Omg but who doesn't love Die Hard?

Okay, I really should be writing (being a bad girl right now), but horror is one of my favorite genres. I love horror because fear is a feeling that's somewhat addictive. Just like gladness (ie joy/love) which is also addictive. I think what genre of entertainment we choose to enjoy depends on what we get out of it. Maybe, for some people, violence is necessary for their deeper understanding of a story. And for others like me who prefer less violence, it's because something entirely different is the "it".

In horror, gore adds on to the experience but the fear should already be there. It's why movies such as The Honeymoon and Psycho are strong examples of the genre. Fear is the main focus, not blood. When it comes to fantasy, violence is an important trope of the genre. The levels of violence depends on the story's specific audience. I don't write a lot of violence in my novels. It's a different audience so I give them something else entirely, although I DO on occasion use violence. Another writer here may need to use more violence because they write battles or assassins etc.

There is no right or wrong when it comes to fiction and entertainment. It's whatever strokes your boat.

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

Omg but who doesn't love Die Hard?

Okay, I really should be writing (being a bad girl right now), but horror is one of my favorite genres. I love horror because fear is a feeling that's somewhat addictive. Just like gladness (ie joy/love) which is also addictive. I think what genre of entertainment we choose to enjoy depends on what we get out of it. Maybe, for some people, violence is necessary for their deeper understanding of a story. And for others like me who prefer less violence, it's because something entirely different is the "it".

In horror, gore adds on to the experience but the fear should already be there. It's why movies such as The Honeymoon and Psycho are strong examples of the genre. Fear is the main focus, not blood. When it comes to fantasy, violence is an important trope of the genre. The levels of violence depends on the story's specific audience. I don't write a lot of violence in my novels. It's a different audience so I give them something else entirely, although I DO on occasion use violence. Another writer here may need to use more violence because they write battles or assassins etc.

There is no right or wrong when it comes to fiction and entertainment. It's whatever strokes your boat.

I don't watch many movies, I just know I completely loathed transformers.

And...well, yes, I do really appreciate horror, or I would, if I wasn't way too sensitive to read it...anyway. Gore and violence? Not fond of it. But a story that artfully evokes fear? I have some level of respect for that. There's an art to it.

 

[Chessie]

I would assume that most of us are trying to do a little more than please audiences on a basic level.

This is all I care about. So, no.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

I don't appreciate horror, but then I'm old and jaded, it's just shit far as I'm concerned. I don't have a fear effect adrenaline thing when reading at all... ever. I barely do with a movie. I won't waste two hours watching it, I sure won't waste more hours reading it.

And Transformers was just lame ass. I even like Transformers as a memory of youth, but... the movie blew. The two lead actors didn't help one bit, I can't stand either of them. It makes sense that Shia is in the one Indiana Jones movie I'd like to erase from my memory. It's one of of those movies with "cool" factor with FX, but nothing else, except the hot chick who also annoys me.

I don't watch many movies, I just know I completely loathed transformers.

And...well, yes, I do really appreciate horror, or I would, if I wasn't way too sensitive to read it...anyway. Gore and violence? Not fond of it. But a story that artfully evokes fear? I have some level of respect for that. There's an art to it.

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

I know I'm going to get LYNCHED for this, but...I still feel like I should say it. I kind of posted the last post with the assumption that you guys had the same underlying views as me. The reactions I've gotten suggest differently.

It is my honest feeling that being a writer is about creating art, and an artist SHOULD try to handle important issues carefully. They should try to write things that are meaningful rather than writing...porn, for lack of a better word. An artist should try to adhere to a standard of integrity. An artist should try to avoid being cheap, offensive, and thoughtless, ESPECIALLY when dealing with SERIOUS issues that affect people (like rape). Is there an audience for stuff that's just senseless gore? Yes. But I'm not calling it art, I'm not approving of it...I can't stop anyone from writing it and I'm not stopping anyone who likes it from liking it, but I think it's a good thing for writers to do better.

And, yes, I do think an objective standard of "better" exists other than how much people enjoy it. If how much people enjoy it was the only standard of quality, porn would be the holy grail of literature and I would give up on writing.

Guys, without getting spiritual/religious (though my beliefs do strongly influence what I think about this issue) there's got to be something more than this.

To be fair I just finished reading a book about the Roman era. Pretty disturbing. After all the graphic descriptions of the gladiatorial games and all the parallels to today's society, my attitude is as far from "anything audiences like goes" as it can be. When audiences like people being torn apart and their entrails being spilled out, just for the sake of seeing people suffering and dying and not as part of a larger story that takes precedence and justifies them...maaaaaaybe we should question the audiences instead of being like "oh, they like what they like and that's a good thing, and we shouldn't make an effort to try to do better." No ones exact words, but this is a vibe I'm kinda getting from the discussion.

I can't stop anyone from writing what they like (same with filmmakers and their films.) But this is what I feel.

Please note that none of this is directed at any of you guys...Before you attack me for calling you "not artists," im not. Before you attack me for mis-assuming your opinions, please clarify them rather than get angry at me. I'm trying really hard to be civil. Really really hard.

 

[TheKillerBs]

I also don't think that just because something entertains, it is 'good' and should be perpetuated and encouraged. I hope others here do too.

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.