Opinions on graphic portrayal, combat violence. pt 1. Pls read post before polling.

[sandtrout]

As others have already stated, as long as the violence serves a purpose, I dont have much of a problem with it. Where exactly the point lies, where I say "Why did you tell me that ? Does it really matter?", depends a lot on the general tone of the book.

As we tend to agree that violence should serve a plot/caracter development purpose, the question for me is a different one: How do you make sure, the reader knows that something had to be told in such detail, when the consequences only become apparent to the reader until much later? Do we simply hope that readers will pick up on the importance due to the space given to some gory detail?
And if such importance is hinted by the fact that the story doesnt feature this level of detailed violence elsewhere, readers might simply see it as a writing glitch, rather than a hint to something important.

 

[Miskatonic]

I can't say I've found any passages in written material dealing with violence that actually left me unable to continue. For me this is pretty much exclusive to the visual creative medium.

 

[Deleted member 4265]

In the other hand, a story that describes in gory detail the death of a character when the graphic stuff is not really necessary comes across as gratuitous violence... That's what I would call cheap shock value, and it's nothing but a device intended to shock the readers and make your setting a darker place.

I think this is a good point. Using violence to shock isn't necessarily a bad thing in my opinion, but it's really hard to be shocking if you drown your story in gore.

I didn't actually mind the violence and such in Game of Thrones, I enjoyed the show (if I'm going to be honest though I mostly watch it for the costumes and sets. The production is gorgeous),but I can't say I found it particularly shocking. It was clear very early on that "no one was safe" and rather than cranking up the tension, for me at least it actually brought it down. I was always expecting the worst for the characters so I wasn't surprised when it was delivered.

 

[vaiyt]

What really grinds my gears is this notion that making your fictional society more violent, unstable and bigoted makes it more "historically accurate". And thus, any attempt to criticize the endless parade of pointless violence (Protip, wannabe GRRMs out there: if your nobles keep murdering all their farmers when they take over a territory, eventually they'll run out of people to grow their food!) is met with the blanket statement that "things were just like that back then". No they weren't, for starters because your damn society never existed and how things "were just like" is entirely your call.

 

[Miskatonic]

I think this is a good point. Using violence to shock isn't necessarily a bad thing in my opinion, but it's really hard to be shocking if you drown your story in gore.

I didn't actually mind the violence and such in Game of Thrones, I enjoyed the show (if I'm going to be honest though I mostly watch it for the costumes and sets. The production is gorgeous),but I can't say I found it particularly shocking. It was clear very early on that "no one was safe" and rather than cranking up the tension, for me at least it actually brought it down. I was always expecting the worst for the characters so I wasn't surprised when it was delivered.

All the shock over the "red wedding" is a bit ludicrous. People that make horrible decisions in circumstances where they can't really afford to usually end up having something bad happen to them. They used one flimsy tradition to try and convince the audience nobody would be in trouble.

 

[Miskatonic]

What really grinds my gears is this notion that making your fictional society more violent, unstable and bigoted makes it more "historically accurate". And thus, any attempt to criticize the endless parade of pointless violence (Protip, wannabe GRRMs out there: if your nobles keep murdering all their farmers when they take over a territory, eventually they'll run out of people to grow their food!) is met with the blanket statement that "things were just like that back then". No they weren't, for starters because your damn society never existed and how things "were just like" is entirely your call.

One of the many reasons why I don't find GRRM to be as great a writer as many proclaim him to be.

 

[Kazzan]

There is no real tipping point for me when I just stop reading because of graphic content, however the violence needs to be fitting to the story. I find graphic scenes are sometimes more impactful when they are a bit more abstract and less detailed. If they are overly detailed I might just read them without any strong feelings. I dont like it however, if the whole story is graphic just for the sake of being 'edgy'.

Does age or sex have any impact on your displeasure?
Yes. While I do not feel much of a difference if a child or adult character dies, I feel much more of an impact in violence against female characters than male characters. One of the things that impacted me the most when reading the red wedding was the Mormont girl getting a halberd planted in her stomach.

Does the length of time spent on the discription?
Yeah, to some degree. If it's just a quick note then it's easy to not register as impactful. It needs the proper buildup and execution in lenght.

Does the type of character (main, secondary, tertiary)
Not really, as long as they are an actual character.

 

[insomniac_tales]

Just as an example, no spoilers, I have to take frequent breaks from reading Game of Thrones. Sometimes the violence borders on tedium. It's not so much the graphic nature of it, but the constancy of it. I'm all for a bit of violence to bring the story some salaciousness, but I don't like to dwell on it for PAGES. If your character takes two hours to die, I don't want a stop watch ticking the time down until we move on in the book; but eluding to it taking two hours works from my viewpoint as a reader.

I will impart that I am a self identifying female reader of the middle ages. I don't think I'm any more squicked out for being a female reader, but I do tire of reading about violence particularly against women.

I think it would be unusual to spend a great length of time describing the death of a tertiary character in detail, because the measure of impact that would have on the reader. At that point it's gore for gore's sake, not because it will move the reader in some way.

 

[SteveW]

I have to agree with the others. Descriptions of violence don't bother me in the least. It can be a good device to advance the story or to establish a character's personality. In that sense it can work well. But even in those instances going too in-depth would feel pointless and like the author is adding gore just for the sake of it.

It really is all about context. Gratuitous violence - or extended descriptions of it at least - tends to pull me out of a story. Sometimes it can interrupt the narrative flow and in those cases it needs to be cut.

 

[ChasingSuns]

I would have to agree with others in saying that as long as there's purpose and it's done well, then I'm down with it. I can handle reading/watching/hearing pretty much anything as long as it's done well and has a certain purpose behind it. If it serves your story in some fashion and you do an adequate job describing the scenario, then I'll keep going. If it seems like the gore is just there for the sake of being there, or if it is poorly executed, I will definitely stop reading, at least for a while (or for good if it really was that poorly written or unnecessary).

 

[ascanius]

What really grinds my gears is this notion that making your fictional society more violent, unstable and bigoted makes it more "historically accurate". And thus, any attempt to criticize the endless parade of pointless violence (Protip, wannabe GRRMs out there: if your nobles keep murdering all their farmers when they take over a territory, eventually they'll run out of people to grow their food!) is met with the blanket statement that "things were just like that back then". No they weren't, for starters because your damn society never existed and how things "were just like" is entirely your call.

OK, not really understanding where this is coming from. I, and I don't think anyone else has, mentioned anything about historically accurate. I just chose medieval because it is fairly standard as a setting. The question can apply to any setting. As a side note, grrm does get into the very problem of no one being left to work the fields.

I glad I did this thread. What I originally wrote for the thread I assumed that most people would tend for a 7 or 8 even if well written and serving the plot.

Side question. I am noticing two conflicting views with regards to shock value. What makes a scene about shock value? A scene can have violence that is shocking and still move the plot forward, I would think. I'm guessing this is something that people view differently.

 

[Miskatonic]

For me shock is basically going so overboard with the description that you start to wonder if the author is really just messing with the reader.

 

[Kazzan]

When a scene is unnecessarily cruel or plainly there just to shock people with what happens. For instance having a character built up as a likable character for the sole purpose of the character dying a horrible death. I dont think it's a bad method to invoke every now and then (had it incorporated into the plans of a story myself as a central plot point) but if used too often or poorly executed it can feel very cheap.

 

[Ban]

I'd stop at 9. At that point I don't see any added value to the scene by its graphic depictions, other than the writer wanting to be edgy. I am not a fan of violence for violence's sake, it needs to serve a purpose beyond grossing the reader out.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

Sorry also couldn't put a pin in your poll.

For me it's not about the graphic natire of the violence at all. I can live with that. It's really about the thinking behind it. The thinking of the author and the character. I hate sadism and cruelty. So someone mentioned the fingers in the wound used to extract information. It's a regular trope, most recently used I think in Blind Spot. That's fine because the motivation behind it is desperate need to save people's lives. Make it as gory as you like. Now do it because your character is a Hannibal like psycho who enjoys it and any gore is too much.

Likewise the gratuitous and shock value of the act does little for me and detracts heavily from the GOT stuff, because I keep thinking the author wrote this purely to shock me.

Likewise as part of a bad plot device it annoys me too. Consider the recent (may it be finished) Tomorrow People series. Ignoring all the other problems with it - the big bad uncle was shooting someone in the head every week and the only reason I could figure out for why, was that the author needed to show what a terrible man he was.

By contrast Rambo 4 - probably one of the most violent movies ever, I loved. Rambo was busy blowing off arms and legs left right and centre, but it was a popcorn movie, good guy against baddies and they were baddies, and in that context the graphic violence was fine.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[NerdyCavegirl]

Poll won't load on my phone, but I'd go 9, or 10 in moderation. Your scale seems to imply intensity more than frequency. Violence is a fact of nature, and I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the most graphic violence in any media. Even if I love the character and wanna look away, there's just this primal urge fulfilled by seeing blood and burning. BUT not endlessly. I'm fine with a good gratuitous gore scene maybe once every six to nine casualities, but it does start to feel tedious when overdone. My favorite is from Rebel Moon by Bruce Bethke and Vox Day, page 88. "Jackson's suit shields went into overload then, surrounding him in a corruscating blue envelope of exploding energies, and he lived just long enough to see the first flare of the unholy light that would melt his eyeballs and flash-cook his brain." Short, sweet, and to the point.

 

[ascanius]

Hi,

Sorry also couldn't put a pin in your poll.

For me it's not about the graphic natire of the violence at all. I can live with that. It's really about the thinking behind it. The thinking of the author and the character. I hate sadism and cruelty. So someone mentioned the fingers in the wound used to extract information. It's a regular trope, most recently used I think in Blind Spot. That's fine because the motivation behind it is desperate need to save people's lives. Make it as gory as you like. Now do it because your character is a Hannibal like psycho who enjoys it and any gore is too much.

Likewise the gratuitous and shock value of the act does little for me and detracts heavily from the GOT stuff, because I keep thinking the author wrote this purely to shock me.

Likewise as part of a bad plot device it annoys me too. Consider the recent (may it be finished) Tomorrow People series. Ignoring all the other problems with it - the big bad uncle was shooting someone in the head every week and the only reason I could figure out for why, was that the author needed to show what a terrible man he was.

By contrast Rambo 4 - probably one of the most violent movies ever, I loved. Rambo was busy blowing off arms and legs left right and centre, but it was a popcorn movie, good guy against baddies and they were baddies, and in that context the graphic violence was fine.

Cheers, Greg.

Ok a few people have mentioned violence included for shock value. I'm still not understanding peoples criteria for shock value.

For me shock value are the scenes in horror movies where they turn a corner and wham! someone is turned inside out. A lot of people mention GoT, and I have to say I don't really see the shock value, or simply put what is so shocking. Throughout the series they have established that the world is not devoid of violence for very trifle reasons. I just don't get why people are shocked by it, I mean in RL people do so much worse and I think we all know what another person is capable of so... why are people shocked by it? I can understand if your reading My Little Pony and whabam evisceration but aside from that I'm having trouble following the idea of shock value.

To ask it a different way. Is it that the violence is unexpected? Herein lies the problem for me, if it is simply because the violence is unexpected then don't you have a problem more so with the shock aspect than the violence? I don't think this is it because that would mean any surprise be it violent or not is disliked, which I doubt. Or is it the intensity of the violence that is shocking? If so...then wouldn't it simply be safe to say a person simply dislikes graphic portrayals of violence?


Side question. Is there a better way to ask the question in the poll? I have two more questions that I would like to poll but I don't know if it would help changing the question?

 

[Mythopoet]

Ok a few people have mentioned violence included for shock value. I'm still not understanding peoples criteria for shock value.

For me shock value are the scenes in horror movies where they turn a corner and wham! someone is turned inside out. A lot of people mention GoT, and I have to say I don't really see the shock value, or simply put what is so shocking. Throughout the series they have established that the world is not devoid of violence for very trifle reasons. I just don't get why people are shocked by it, I mean in RL people do so much worse and I think we all know what another person is capable of so... why are people shocked by it? I can understand if your reading My Little Pony and whabam evisceration but aside from that I'm having trouble following the idea of shock value.

To ask it a different way. Is it that the violence is unexpected? Herein lies the problem for me, if it is simply because the violence is unexpected then don't you have a problem more so with the shock aspect than the violence? I don't think this is it because that would mean any surprise be it violent or not is disliked, which I doubt. Or is it the intensity of the violence that is shocking? If so...then wouldn't it simply be safe to say a person simply dislikes graphic portrayals of violence?


Side question. Is there a better way to ask the question in the poll? I have two more questions that I would like to poll but I don't know if it would help changing the question?

I can't comment on what others are talking about, but I have read an interview with GRRM where he pointedly says that he kills off major characters for the shock value. And I would assume that "shock value" means that the value in the action is for the shock it produces in readers more than anything else.

 

[Sheilawisz]

Hey Ascanius.

You can view it this way: A story coated in Gore and Grit is just as bad as a story that is coated in honey and cuteness everywhere. Some serious violence is fine as long as the storyteller does not abuse it, and it's a good idea to use those scenes as a necessary part of the narrative instead of doing it just to have a creepier setting.

Shock value is a scene that is designed to scare or shock the readers. Good shock value has a purpose in the story, but cheap shock value is there just to make a story or a setting darker or (in the opinion of some people) more adult. However, a story does not need all the violence and torture and deaths in order to be serious and adult.

Talking about the famous and infamous GoT again:

When all the Gore and Grittiness everywhere is taken to the extreme and glorified like that, soon what could be good shock value degrades into cheap stuff. The shock is not shock anymore, it simply becomes disgusting. Judging from all that I have seen of the TV series so far it's just disgusting, and I mean disgusting in the same sense that a very dirty toilet is disgusting.

I mean, after watching the endless Gore in that series I am starting to think that I could just write stories about characters that endlessly flay people alive after raping everyone and sacking entire cities, and probably it would be a success...

Your Thread and Poll are great, because they provide us with a good opportunity to discuss these issues and determine what is good and what is bad for a Story. I am against the elimination of all Gore from our beloved Fantasy genre, but I do think that the current trend to be super gritty is wrong for us.

I have already lost count of how many threads we have had with questions about gore, torture, rape, tremendous injuries and all those things, and it's all thanks to GoT.

 

[AndrewLowe]

Clearly we're a gory bunch!

The vikings shall roam the seas once more!