• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Is Violence Necessary?

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.

totally agree about hollywood.

I can't stand books that open with a violent, action-packed scene and people are getting hurt and dying before i have the chance to care or know who they are. Action can actually be the most boring thing of all when there is no reason to care what's happening. Descriptions of forests and rivers and cities without a character in sight can draw me in better than empty guns and chases and explosions stuff.

So, basically, violence does not equal conflict.
 

A. E. Lowan

Forum Mom
Leadership
Addison and Dragon both make excellent points. Violence is gratuitous without conflict, thus violence is not needed - but conflict is. Now, within our genre there are certain expectations that violence will be forthcoming, either on a grand scale or the more intimate violence favored by Fifth. But always there must be conflict, or the violence exists without a point.
 
Addison and Dragon both make excellent points. Violence is gratuitous without conflict, thus violence is not needed - but conflict is. Now, within our genre there are certain expectations that violence will be forthcoming, either on a grand scale or the more intimate violence favored by Fifth. But always there must be conflict, or the violence exists without a point.

Large scale battle scenes are extremely boring to me. I like my fight scenes brutal and intimate, and charged with internal conflict.
 

T.Allen.Smith

Staff
Moderator
Large scale battle scenes are extremely boring to me. I like my fight scenes brutal and intimate, and charged with internal conflict.
Large-scale battle scenes may be written in a way that makes them brutal & intimate...it's all in the execution.

Consider POV choice. I'd agree that a broad overview of a battle is yawn-inspiring, but what if the POV choice was a lowly squire facing his first battle, soiling his armor as the enemy cuts down his master and advances on him.

The telling of that battle, while still able to recount a large scale, could still be told in an intimate manner. Further, the violence would mean something, because it impacts a character emotionally (hopefully invoking emotion in the reader, as well).
 
Excellent topic, @Banten! Thank you so much for starting it! :)

I'm actually wrestling with this question myself at the moment. Violence seems to be becoming more and more prevalent every day in our own world and it gives me pause about carrying this human affliction of ours over to my fiction so readily. Surely the sword isn't the only tool that can resolve a conflict?

And while I am merely uncertain about dragging my story into all-out war, my heroine and hero are profoundly resistant to the idea. They are very much pacifist by nature. They are committed to living good, honorable lives, yet they are confronted with the fact that if they go to war, they will be wreaking untold devastation and misery upon others - namely, the denizens of the enemy kingdom. On the other hand, said kingdom (or more specifically, its ruling cult) Is committed to destroying what the heroes hold sacred, and the enemy's victory will likewise wreak subsequent untold misery. It seems to be a lose-lose scenario. Ever heard that quote, "nobody wins a war"? :(

I've put a lot of thought into developing a solution that offers satisfaction to both sides of the conflict; still not 100% there, but I think I've got a good foundation. There still might be need/room for a small battle in there, however. Also, I believe I'll need to have at least one meaningful death in the middle of the story for plot & emotional reasons.

But then, when I think about stripping my story of (virtually) all the bloodshed, I think back to that Simpsons episode where Homer & the gang went off to see "The Phantom Menace" and they all wound up practically falling asleep in the cinema, because the entire movie was just about the galactic senate calling roll and amending bills.

Will a story that seeks a diplomatic resolution to a burning conflict just end up being a huge snooze-fest?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ban
In April 1865, Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote in his journal,

'Tis far the best that the rebels have been pounded instead of negotiated into a peace. They must remember it, & their inveterate brag will be humbled, if not cured. George Minott used to tell me over the wall, when I urged him to go to town meeting & vote, that "votes did no good, what was done so wouldn't last, but what was done by bullets would stay put."​

In this last year I watched the Ken Burns documentary on the American Civil War for the first time, and as I finished it and still to this day, I think it might be the best documentary ever made. I was never a great scholar of the Civil War, so maybe the things I learned from the documentary are old hat; but one stunning realization was the way the American populace, on both sides of the conflict, believed the war would start and end within about six months. After a while, after a handful of high-casualty battles surpassing in death totals any previously known battles involving Americans, the people marveled at the awful horribleness and thought, surely, surely it will end soon. But later there would come battles far surpassing those totals in death rates, and years more of civil war.

It's quite difficult to "kill" an idea. All manner of negotiation and compromise took place before the war, for decades, to no avail. But if those who subscribe to that idea are killed? And/or if a new, more horrible idea supplants that first idea? (I.e., the awfulness of war. "War is all hell." —Sherman.) You can look at what became of Tsarist Russia for another example of trying to stamp out an idea or belief system. The sad thing is that this happens on a much smaller scale all the time: If you can't negotiate a person out of an idea or utterly defeat your opponent's ideas via argumentation, bring a gun and murder him; at least, people with limited perspectives and filled with strong passions seem to resort to this sort of win for their arguments in what many others would see to be petty disputes. "What was done by bullets would stay put."
 
An addendum to that last comment, something I meant to include but forgot.

I think the enjoyment of violence in fantasy probably arises from the way the "bullet" makes things clearer. It's a kind of straight shot of the good vs evil contest. It's a kind of control, and the question of who can win control of their own destinies becomes clearer, sharper. In our world these days many people feel a loss of control, a loss of absolute certainty, confusion instead of clarity about what will happen. Terrorists blowing things up randomly, law enforcers being unable to help or sometimes even being a part of the problem. "What was done by bullets would stay put." The violence in fantasy novels is a way of clarifying things, of coming to a conclusion that will stay put, a clarification of the argument between good and evil, righteousness and depravity.

At least, this is in part how I experience the existence of violence in fantasy novels.
 
An addendum to that last comment, something I meant to include but forgot.

I think the enjoyment of violence in fantasy probably arises from the way the "bullet" makes things clearer. It's a kind of straight shot of the good vs evil contest. It's a kind of control, and the question of who can win control of their own destinies becomes clearer, sharper. In our world these days many people feel a loss of control, a loss of absolute certainty, confusion instead of clarity about what will happen. Terrorists blowing things up randomly, law enforcers being unable to help or sometimes even being a part of the problem. "What was done by bullets would stay put." The violence in fantasy novels is a way of clarifying things, of coming to a conclusion that will stay put, a clarification of the argument between good and evil, righteousness and depravity.

At least, this is in part how I experience the existence of violence in fantasy novels.

Odd thing about this is that a lot of fantasy, by its own architecture, undermines the whole idea of a happy ending that can "stay put". Take one of the centerpieces of the fantasy genre: Lord Of The Rings. How many times was Sauron defeated in battle only to regroup and return? We are presented with an enemy who, very stubbornly, refuses to stay dead. Yet in the final epic struggle - the one that is presented to us with most emphasis - he is once again destroyed and we are led to believe that this time it really is for good; cross our hearts and hope to die and also pinkie-swear for good measure.

Maybe the characters who have told us repeatedly that he can't possibly survive without his ring actually do know what they're talking about. But the nature of the overall story seems to play against the idea of a clean resolution to the crisis. Winning epic wars against Sauron has proven to be only a stopgap solution in the past.

Don't get me wrong, that final war was well-managed and I'm not implying that the ending felt ambiguous to me; I was satisfied that Sauron was gone for good. But I think that that sense of resolution comes less from the epic battle fought and won against him and more from the fact that characters repeatedly told us "if we complete this quest (i.e. to destroy the ring) Sauron will be permanently defeated." It seems to come down more to the coroner pronouncing the villain dead than "the bullet" you refer to actually hitting said villain.
 
Well LOTR lore always stated that Sauron's existence was bound to the one ring. Not like they changed the rules to let him come back for another chance to conquer Middle Earth.
 

Laurence

Inkling
One of the my favourite books of all time is Stoner and I'd love to read or attempt to write a similar novel with a few fantastical elements thrown in.

I absolutely recommend this book to anyone looking for a book that's captivating and heart wrenching without the use of suspense and violence.

Book book book.
 
Well LOTR lore always stated that Sauron's existence was bound to the one ring. Not like they changed the rules to let him come back for another chance to conquer Middle Earth.

Yeah, it'd be a little like a voodoo witch stabbing her doll through the heart and causing a king 300 miles away to die. Sauron was bound to the ring; destroy the ring, and you destroy Sauron.

Odd thing about this is that a lot of fantasy, by its own architecture, undermines the whole idea of a happy ending that can "stay put". Take one of the centerpieces of the fantasy genre: Lord Of The Rings. How many times was Sauron defeated in battle only to regroup and return? We are presented with an enemy who, very stubbornly, refuses to stay dead. Yet in the final epic struggle - the one that is presented to us with most emphasis - he is once again destroyed and we are led to believe that this time it really is for good; cross our hearts and hope to die and also pinkie-swear for good measure.

Maybe the characters who have told us repeatedly that he can't possibly survive without his ring actually do know what they're talking about. But the nature of the overall story seems to play against the idea of a clean resolution to the crisis. Winning epic wars against Sauron has proven to be only a stopgap solution in the past.

Don't get me wrong, that final war was well-managed and I'm not implying that the ending felt ambiguous to me; I was satisfied that Sauron was gone for good. But I think that that sense of resolution comes less from the epic battle fought and won against him and more from the fact that characters repeatedly told us "if we complete this quest (i.e. to destroy the ring) Sauron will be permanently defeated." It seems to come down more to the coroner pronouncing the villain dead than "the bullet" you refer to actually hitting said villain.

@Mythical Traveller: Aragorn, the hobbits, et al. never bothered trying to negotiate a peace with Sauron. They also used implements with pointy ends to kill goblins and orcs and a giant spider. Removing those opponents meant keeping them down, it was "done" and would stay done for each. So violence figures into the story; would good or evil win the argument?

My mind is fuller with the movies than the books, having watched the movies so many times. Wasn't the earlier attempt to utterly defeat Sauron a case of violence misapplied or haphazardly applied? His finger gets cut off; but a bullet to the finger in our world probably wouldn't be a case of making something "stay put." Multiple battles, repeated attempts, are not a case of the "bullet" not playing a part in the tale, in the metaphorical sense, any more than a back-and-forth verbal dispute not resolving an argument after only one short round of debate would signify an end to the contest of wits.

Lately I've discovered the Investigation Discovery cable channel and have become addicted. It's a channel devoted to true crime tales, usually murder investigations. One episode was about a divorced couple fighting over custody of their daughter. The mother had had custody while the father had visitation rights, but she began refusing him his weekly visit so he took her to court and the judge basically told her in a hearing that when he ruled, she wasn't going to be happy. So she goes to her parents, who basically babied her and would do anything for her, and the three of them resolved to use a bullet to win the argument. The father is killed. A done deal? No, they were discovered, sentenced to prison, and the father's parents gained permanent custody of the little girl. So the bullet may often go astray vis-a-vis winning arguments. (Although in this case, it might be said that it was the "bullet" possessed by the state that achieved an outcome that would "stay put.")
 
Last edited:
Violence is compelling when it happens to PEOPLE. People we care about. When we watch the deaths of people we just met and see the wounds of people we don't know, we feel disgusted or momentarily shocked, but it's no deeper than that. Violence in a story without characters for us to root for or hate or like is just pointless. Reading about it becomes drudgery.

Apparently a lot of writers (read: author of the book I just read) don't get this.
 

Jess

Dreamer
I've actually been contemplating the same thing. There is violence implied in my novel right now. My world is at war but I've been personally wondering if I need to really go into detail and write about the battles being fought. For me, I think it enhances the story. It brings a element of realism into the story. For your story, do you feel like it will draw your readers into the story deeper? Will it progress the story at all? Will it create a certain element of drama for any of your characters? Or will it help tell the story of the world that your story is based on? I feel like if you can answer yes to any of these questions than maybe you should consider adding said violence.
 

Helen

Inkling
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.

It probably isn't necessary - one could always find a way to avoid it and still pull off a dramatic story.

But my approach would be to embrace it when it seems to be needed.
 
There is violence implied in my novel right now. My world is at war but I've been personally wondering if I need to really go into detail and write about the battles being fought. For me, I think it enhances the story. It brings a element of realism into the story. For your story, do you feel like it will draw your readers into the story deeper? Will it progress the story at all? Will it create a certain element of drama for any of your characters? Or will it help tell the story of the world that your story is based on? I feel like if you can answer yes to any of these questions than maybe you should consider adding said violence.

I think that imagining a world entirely without violence is nearly impossible. Sure, this is fantasy, we're talking about fantasy worlds, and perhaps it's not truly impossible to imagine a whole world that doesn't have violence. (Would such a world be relevant to us who live in a world rife with violence? Maybe as a mirror for us drawn as an antithesis.)

BUT here's the thing: We don't typically write whole worlds. We write stories. Stories are slices of a world. And not all slices, not even in our own world, are rife with violence.

So writing a good story that has no violence is much easier to imagine than a whole world without violence. A story can be set in a world that has violence without our having to put violence in the story.

Of course I'm considering the subject in general. Whether certain genres are more or less problematic in this regard may be a worthy question.

Edit: Sorry if my response seems odd, given your comment. I was riffing off of it more than responding directly.

But, I agree with you: Consider the story you are telling and decide whether violence will enhance it.

I have been picking up a kind of anti-violence vibe in this thread. A personal distaste for violence. So when I've mentioned bullets—in real-world contexts, that can be quite uncomfortable. I personally hate guns and always have a very negative visceral reaction when I am anywhere near a gun. But I'm not sure that eliminating all violence from a story out of personal distaste for violence is a dependable technique for creating a good story.
 
Last edited:
I have been picking up a kind of anti-violence vibe in this thread. A personal distaste for violence. So when I've mentioned bullets—in real-world contexts, that can be quite uncomfortable. I personally hate guns and always have a very negative visceral reaction when I am anywhere near a gun. But I'm not sure that eliminating all violence from a story out of personal distaste for violence is a dependable technique for creating a good story.

Violence isn't supposed to be fun to write about or read about. It's supposed to be distasteful. I do have a distaste for violence, but that's part of being a compassionate human being.

On the other hand, I do write violence. I write injuries, battles, and torture. I think it's impossible to avoid in many cases. In fact, it's insincere not to do violence justice...to gloss it over, to act like its no big deal. I don't think it's necessary to show gratuitous gore onscreen (onpage?); I've never written anything you would call gory, but in a story where violent acts must be performed for the plot's sake, you have to handle it properly. By this I mean handle deaths as an actual loss of human life and not as in a videogame. Having characters kill and watch others die without being mentally and emotionally affected by it is not realistic.

I suppose this all has been confusing up until now. What I mean is, you have to make your reader feel disgust, shock and horror. If you write violence in a way that doesn't affect them in a way that violence should affect any mentally healthy human being, you're doing it wrong.

Gore is overused and overdone. Violence is gratuitous more often than not. The reason for this is that violence is downplayed in fiction. Deaths have no impact. We're numb to it. Characters go through things that would give real people nightmares, PTSD, scar them for life, and are barely affected.
 

La Volpe

Sage
Violence isn't supposed to be fun to write about or read about. It's supposed to be distasteful. I do have a distaste for violence, but that's part of being a compassionate human being.

I enjoy reading fight scenes. I enjoy writing them. I enjoy watching movies with action and explosions and sword fighting. I even participate in organised violence (combat sport) and I enjoy it.

Does that make me the opposite of a compassionate human being?

--

As a general comment, I think violence is a part of human nature. It's ingrained in our history and probably in our genetics. It's the reason we're the dominant species on the planet. To avoid using violence in our stories is avoiding a huge part of the human experience. That doesn't mean that all stories must include violence, but it does mean that the violence shouldn't be removed if it fits.
 
I enjoy reading fight scenes. I enjoy writing them. I enjoy watching movies with action and explosions and sword fighting. I even participate in organised violence (combat sport) and I enjoy it.

Does that make me the opposite of a compassionate human being?

--

As a general comment, I think violence is a part of human nature. It's ingrained in our history and probably in our genetics. It's the reason we're the dominant species on the planet. To avoid using violence in our stories is avoiding a huge part of the human experience. That doesn't mean that all stories must include violence, but it does mean that the violence shouldn't be removed if it fits.

You're talking about action; i'm talking about injuries/killing/gore. Violence as in fighting and violence as in gore and death need to be distinguished.

Ad of course, don't remove anything from a story if it fits.
 

La Volpe

Sage
You're talking about action; i'm talking about injuries/killing/gore. Violence as in fighting and violence as in gore and death need to be distinguished.

Ah, okay, my bad. I can agree that excessive gore is (mostly?) only useful in showing how bad things are/shock value etc.
 

Peat

Sage
With apologies for not having read the thread -

No.

It has come to be one of the genre's conventions and I will admit to enjoying to reading about violence, but it is not needed for fantasy - maybe for epic fantasy, but I think that could be challenged - and I'd like to see people buck the trend.

For an example of a book involving a quest and opposition - of a sort a least - that barely involves violence, look no further than Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Could you combine that and some of the archetypal trickster myths that don't involve violence to create wonderful fantasy stories? I'd like to think so.
 
Top