City of IF

[PopeAlessandrosXVIII]

It's time again for the IF Quirer debate! This time, as the title may suggest, it's about violence in stories.

Now we all know with many stories, violence is a necessity, but when does the violence go that one step further and just become senseless gore? Is it too much to describe the flesh crisping and peeling away, or is it the screams of terror and agony that are too far out there to be tasteful?

There are some stories where the gore is a part of what makes the story, so that in effect is not tasteless, but whet makes the difference. A target audience or a particular taste for such things?

So, Violence and Gore, have at it!

[Muaddib]

Violence and gore are sometimes a genre unto themselves in which case they're obviously necessary. Other than that, I think it's really the author's choice.

[Vikas Muralidharan]

I think it is necessary for authors to draw a line. I try to avoid excessive violence in my stories. Of course, I cant imagine myself writing a story without any violence but when I don't think it would ever be necessary to "describe the flesh crisping and peeling away" but then, it could all add up to the descriptive quality of the story.

When you want to depict the brutal nature of a villian, I guess you might want to describe it completely. It all boils down to the situation in the story and the target audience, I think.

[Thunderbird]

I'm of the personal opinion that being of the most highly descriptive quality in whatever you write is almost always going to deliver the most impact. If you're going to write a scene, any scene, where you want to leave an impression, write it as graphically as possible. This is all the more important when delivering 'violence and gore'. But lets keep in mind that, as Muad stated, not all stories are going to go there.

[Lost Omega]

Violence and gore really does depend on your target audience and how you want to affect your audience.

For example, if I wanted to advance the story then I could simply put "Billy hit his opponent in the head and moved farther into the labyrinth".

If I wanted to unsettle my audience a bit I could write, "Billy smashed the club into his opponents head repeatedly. The blood and gooey grey bits flew through the air and covered his armor as he turned his opponents skull to gel."

It depends on how you want to approach your situation.

[Shillelagh]

I notice a lot of people are mentioning that it depends on the audience; I thnk it's worth pointing out that it depends on the author, too. Just as people who have never been in a relationship tend to be really bad at writing romance, people who have never seen violence tend to be really bad at writing gore. If you keep the descriptions short and brief, no one will notice. The more details you try and put in, the more chances you have at getting something wrong. And once you've made that slip-up, there's no going back.

[Muaddib]

I agree with you Shillelagh. But I think most people in the worl have been exposed to violence on TV or the internet now.

[Vishal Muralidharan]

I with Thunder on this one. When you write something commercially, all you want to do is make a great impact on the audience that they will enjoy, and have a hard time forgetting. That is what makes good books, right?! Positive impact, and that comes with a better picture, vivid understanding of what exactly is going on in a book.

Writing a book, is an art form in itself, and art is all about expressing yourself fully. In that case, there is no point censoring art, because you aren't going to be expressing yourself fully, and the purpose is defeated.

[Lebrenth]

I think you're just shy of a debate here, Pope. Most people will agree that the level of acceptable violence is totally subjective. Some people are specifically looking for the unnerving details and some don't want any violence of any kind at all. Violence certainly isn't necessary to have a good story, since you don't need violence to have a conflict.

Conflict, on the other hand, is very important and if you don't have it, you often have a very bland story. Even a children's story about a picnic in the park will need something to arise. Maybe it rains, or maybe they forgot mustard and a certain character simply WILL NOT eat a sandwich without mustard. It's enough to have a story at least.

Then again, even conflict isn't totally necessary. You can have a story about exploring a garden. There are flowers and statues, and the air is perfect and there's not a care in the world. Then suddenly the dinner bell rings. The characters go inside and have a nice dinner. The End. No conflict and it's technically a story. If, in your head, you saw a lovely garden on a care-free afternoon then maybe you had a good experience. It would be more interesting with even a touch of conflict, like perhaps if there were two children exploring the garden and they play hide and seek. But when the dinner bell rings, the hider doesn't come out and the seeker can't find him anywhere. Instead he finds the clawed footprints of a wolf. ... Doesn't that seem a lot more interesting? Where is the wolf now? Is the seeker in danger? Is the hider dead?

I guess my point is that violence is never necessary, but it's a fast way to introduce conflict, and though conflict isn't necessary either, I think it makes the story a lot more interesting.

[PopeAlessandrosXVIII]

Hmmm. . . .I think I posed it wrong. I wasn't looking for what's acceptable or not, more of what is the differences. Where is the line between them. . . .Guess I'm kinda off in my wording lately. . . .

[HalfEmptyHero]

I disagree with Thunderbird. While being descriptive certainly can impact a reader, so can the opposite. It depends on tone and point of view. An impassive narrator can be quite eerie in certain situations.

I don't think there is a line though. It really only affects the genre, as a love story will not have highly descriptive killings in most cases, whereas a horror might.