When is Violence Too Much?

[slyc_willie]

To start off with, I am NOT asking the same old tired question of "can I put violence in my stories here on Literotica?" This is not about the parameters of the site and what Laurel will and will not allow to be posted. So please, let's avoid that trap altogether.

What I am asking is, from the point of view of the reader, at which point does the description of violence become too much? Or, not only the description, but the amount included in the first place?

Case in point: I am currently writing a story which begins with a man's murder. He is shot several times, and as he lies dying, his murderer urinates on his face. It's disgusting and makes the reader cringe, which is what I want from the scene. Some might consider it to be going too far. Others might shrug and say, "I've read worse." It's all subjective.

After I wrote the scene, I started thinking about how it would be received by my readers, which prompted the question of "when is violence too much?" From individual points of view, I'd like to see what others have to say on this particular topic.

 

[lovecraft68]

You hit it when you said subjective. To me, that wasn't too much, to others it might be.

I think what you're looking for is the balance. Not so much what is too much for the reader, but how much fits and when does it become over the top violence for the sake of violence?

I wrote a story with a pretty vicious fight scene in it, thinking this is an erotica site, I wonder if I am going to get flamed. I ended up with several e-mails bitching the guy didn't actually die and he deserved more.

The first example whenever I think of "fitting vs gratuitous" is The horror novel by Jack ketchum "Off season" about a bunch of cannibals.

There are a few parts where it just goes on and on to the point I put the book down and said enough is enough. I am not squeamish by any means(especially back then when I was around 18 when I read it) but it became apparent all he was doing was going "Look how gross I can be!" rather than telling a story.

 

[slyc_willie]

You hit it when you said subjective. To me, that wasn't too much, to others it might be.

I think what you're looking for is the balance. Not so much what is too much for the reader, but how much fits and when does it become over the top violence for the sake of violence?

I wrote a story with a pretty vicious fight scene in it, thinking this is an erotica site, I wonder if I am going to get flamed. I ended up with several e-mails bitching the guy didn't actually die and he deserved more.

The first example whenever I think of "fitting vs gratuitous" is The horror novel by Jack ketchum "Off season" about a bunch of cannibals.

There are a few parts where it just goes on and on to the point I put the book down and said enough is enough. I am not squeamish by any means(especially back then when I was around 18 when I read it) but it became apparent all he was doing was going "Look how gross I can be!" rather than telling a story.

I've noticed that once violence becomes part of a story, readers get just as involved in it as they do the sex. That shouldn't be surprising, really, since sex and violence are two of the most basic urges and the first things humans (or any animal) ever learned to do.

I can be incredibly descriptive when it comes to describing things, and violence is no exception. But I don't want to write a scene such as what you described. I like to lead in with some description, let the audience know what's going to happen, then leave much of it to their imagination. That makes people cringe more than if I were to describe someone's eyeballs being gouged out. Better to just tell them that the knife is getting closer and closer . . .

But that's just me.

 

[Saxon_Hart]

I've noticed that once violence becomes part of a story, readers get just as involved in it as they do the sex. That shouldn't be surprising, really, since sex and violence are two of the most basic urges and the first things humans (or any animal) ever learned to do.

I can be incredibly descriptive when it comes to describing things, and violence is no exception. But I don't want to write a scene such as what you described. I like to lead in with some description, let the audience know what's going to happen, then leave much of it to their imagination. That makes people cringe more than if I were to describe someone's eyeballs being gouged out. Better to just tell them that the knife is getting closer and closer . . .

But that's just me.

If it gets you where you need to be by all means include violence. If you toss in a warning then you've done your civic duty and can behead your mother-in-law if the story warrants. Violence can be just as entertaining as sex, look how many people buy fight pay-per-views.

 

[PennLady]

I don't think too much is the issue, it's more whether it's right for the story. Every reader, after all, is going to have a different threshold for things like that.

I've read plenty of books that feature murders and other things and go into some graphic detail -- books on Jack the Ripper not the least of the examples. I wouldn't want to see it in person, or even necessarily faked in film, but a book is different. I guess my mind limits things.

However, I do have my limits, and violence -- specifically sexual violence -- was what turned me off Anne Rice's witches books. It was too much, but also repetitive and boring.

But if an author is describing an attack or a murder in order to further the story, to lay background for the plot or characters' reactions to things, then it's okay. Or more likely to be okay with me, anyway.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

On another site is a story that takes the prize, a woman hires a man to fuck her and rough her up, to make it look like rape. Well, he roughs her up to the extreme, then cuts her up with a knife. I think its excessive.

 

[sr71plt]

what does it establish in either plot or characterization that needs to be established and is best done this way than any other way you can think of (taking into account that there are all sorts of ways to establish a plotline/characterization)? If someone mentions gratuitous, they're saying that, for them, at least, it went farther than it needed to/should have gone. Often on-stage graphic violence isn't the best way to establish such a plot/character point.

 

[slyc_willie]

I don't think too much is the issue, it's more whether it's right for the story. Every reader, after all, is going to have a different threshold for things like that.

I've read plenty of books that feature murders and other things and go into some graphic detail -- books on Jack the Ripper not the least of the examples. I wouldn't want to see it in person, or even necessarily faked in film, but a book is different. I guess my mind limits things.

However, I do have my limits, and violence -- specifically sexual violence -- was what turned me off Anne Rice's witches books. It was too much, but also repetitive and boring.

But if an author is describing an attack or a murder in order to further the story, to lay background for the plot or characters' reactions to things, then it's okay. Or more likely to be okay with me, anyway.

Yeah, it absolutely needs to be necessary for the story if it's included at all. I've encountered a few stories here on Lit that have included violence in a way that did not help the story. It was as if the author was having a bad day when she or he wrote the scene.

I think an excellent use of violence to shock the reader (or in this case, viewer) was the film Burn After Reading. It was not a violent film, per se, and the violence in it was rather tame compared to your typical action flick or Tarantino output. But the way in which each violent scene was rendered really snagged me. They were abrupt and unexpected, catching you by surprise, and that added to the shock factor.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

BLOOD MERIDIAN by Cormac McCarthy also takes a prize for over the top violence.

 

[slyc_willie]

what does it establish in either plot or characterization that needs to be established and is best done this way than any other way you can think of (taking into account that there are all sorts of ways to establish a plotline/characterization)? If someone mentions gratuitous, they're saying that, for them, at least, it went farther than it needed to/should have gone. Often on-stage graphic violence isn't the best way to establish such a plot/character point.

In the scene I described from my story, I wanted something that would explain just how vindictive and cruel the main antagonist is. He's not the kind of man to simply kill someone, he wants to let them know to the very end what he thinks of them. I know I don't have to be as descriptive as I am in the scene, but I want to be.

 

[slyc_willie]

BLOOD MERIDIAN by Cormac McCarthy also takes a prize for over the top violence.

That's one I haven't gotten to yet, but No Country For Old Men had some pretty rough spots. The strangulation of the deputy stands out for me.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

There is no bright line that applies to all readers. Each has his or her own threshold. I'm less interested in asking how the scene advances the plot. Rather, my question is, how is it arousing?

 

[TxRad]

When is Violence Too Much?

When you kill off all the characters in on fell swoop. Kind of screws up the continuing flow of the story.

At last no one mentioned a possible sequel.

 

[slyc_willie]

There is no bright line that applies to all readers. Each has his or her own threshold. I'm less interested in asking how the scene advances the plot. Rather, my question is, how is it arousing?

Just because we are posting on an erotic fiction site doesn't mean everything we write needs to be arousing. However, given the close connection between sex and violence, use of violence might actually enhance the later description of sex.

When is Violence Too Much?

When you kill off all the characters in on fell swoop. Kind of screws up the continuing flow of the story.

At last no one mentioned a possible sequel.

Unless it's in the non-human category and they all become ghosts.

 

[sr71plt]

It's precisely "it was being done to arouse" that will get violence kicked out by this Web site. Just saying.

 

[lovecraft68]

I don't think too much is the issue, it's more whether it's right for the story. Every reader, after all, is going to have a different threshold for things like that.

I've read plenty of books that feature murders and other things and go into some graphic detail -- books on Jack the Ripper not the least of the examples. I wouldn't want to see it in person, or even necessarily faked in film, but a book is different. I guess my mind limits things.

However, I do have my limits, and violence -- specifically sexual violence -- was what turned me off Anne Rice's witches books. It was too much, but also repetitive and boring.

But if an author is describing an attack or a murder in order to further the story, to lay background for the plot or characters' reactions to things, then it's okay. Or more likely to be okay with me, anyway.

Grrr you're right! The Mayfair witch series could have been so much better.

I am not sure the violence was too much, but certainly repetitive. But its been a long time and I am not rereading that's for sure.

I also was never able to really figure out how Lasher somehow seemed to be the good guy and the taltos (a fairly innocent young girl if I remember ) just had to be destroyed.

I notice Rice is inconsistent in her good/bad characters. In Mayfair Lasher was surely supposed to be the "bogeyman" , but then it was like Rice fell in love with him and switched things out.

Same in Interview Lestat was certainly supposed to be the "bad guy" then turns out to be her wussy hero.

Ramses the damned? Rice just had to have Cleopatra destroyed, because, well just because.

Totally off her rails.

And if you're wondering why I know all these books even though I dislike her? Someone gave them all to me when I was younger and I had this ocd thing where I had to read every book I had.

Tales of the Body thief was the worst and Memnoch the Devil ended her for me. I know she has done a bunch of one shot spin offs of her Vampires, but I cringe when I see any of them.

Sighs. whew. Needed to get that off my chest.

 

[glynndah]

It's precisely "it was being done to arouse" that will get violence kicked out by this Web site. Just saying.

"Arouse" does not necessarily mean sexual arousal.

 

[lovecraft68]

Just because we are posting on an erotic fiction site doesn't mean everything we write needs to be arousing. However, given the close connection between sex and violence, use of violence might actually enhance the later description of sex.



Unless it's in the non-human category and they all become ghosts.

As long as they don't blend together, violence in sex for titillation can get you the boot.

But the correlation is there. When I was younger and competed in full contact tournaments I could get the shit pounded out of me, be tired, sore, bleeding, but when I got home goddamn I was horny! Same type of rush.

 

[sr71plt]

"Arouse" does not necessarily mean sexual arousal.

I think it pretty much does for those of us who realize we're on a porn site.

 

[lovecraft68]

"Arouse" does not necessarily mean sexual arousal.

Like many things the word "aroused" used in erotica is only going to mean one thing.

Example the secretary at work told me the other day she was going to the spa to get a massage and a facial.

Facial on this site will not conjure the image of what she was talking about.

And to prove this is a porn site everyone who reads this will be thinking, well if the masseuse starts rubbing her down and one thing leads to another, well then....

 

[Handley_Page]

To my mind, violence in a story is a bit like sex; if you take the item out, are you still left with a viable story ?

 

[oggbashan]

If you read some modern crime and adventure fiction or watch modern horror movies, the answer seems to be that nothing is too much.

I prefer not to read or see the exact details about how someone is butchered but apparently unlimited violence sells.

Edited to add: The 1940s/50s Westerns which never showed blood when someone is shot several times with a Colt were too unrealistic, but the current trend seems over the top. Violence and horror can be expressed very effectively without rubbing our noses in blood and guts.

Alfred Hitchcock and Hammer horror films produced violence and mayhem with implication and clever editing. The opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan were very effective at portraying the reality of war as far as is possible. Those scenes were probably justified, but some producers/directors include too much violence that doesn't advance the plot.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

That's one I haven't gotten to yet, but No Country For Old Men had some pretty rough spots. The strangulation of the deputy stands out for me.

No Country is over the top, no question about it; Blood Meridian is obscenely violent. I dont know how you best it for violence. Like, a guy buys puppies and uses them for target practice. Or the gang rides in to town, and a tree at the city gate is filled with the bodies of dead children tied to the limbs, swinging in the wind. Just wild.

 

[PennLady]

It's precisely "it was being done to arouse" that will get violence kicked out by this Web site. Just saying.

There sometimes seems to be a bit of a Hays Code at work, at least to me.

For example, I've read some things by Daniellekitten that have featured serial killers and in one case, a rapist. The rape (I think) was described in some detail, but the girl (the victim) ended up killing the rapist (turned out she was a shapeshifter and didn't know it, then a high-stress situation...).

In another story she had, Red Ribbons IIRC, a man would kidnap certain women, then do bad things to them, again some of which were described in detail and none of which the women got off on or enjoyed. But later the guy was captured or killed.

So sometimes, and I know one writer isn't a good sample size, it seems like other factors may come into play in terms of the violence, or even the sexual aspect of the violence.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Grrr you're right! The Mayfair witch series could have been so much better.

I am not sure the violence was too much, but certainly repetitive. But its been a long time and I am not rereading that's for sure.

I also was never able to really figure out how Lasher somehow seemed to be the good guy and the taltos (a fairly innocent young girl if I remember ) just had to be destroyed.

I notice Rice is inconsistent in her good/bad characters. In Mayfair Lasher was surely supposed to be the "bogeyman" , but then it was like Rice fell in love with him and switched things out.

Same in Interview Lestat was certainly supposed to be the "bad guy" then turns out to be her wussy hero.

Ramses the damned? Rice just had to have Cleopatra destroyed, because, well just because.

Totally off her rails.

And if you're wondering why I know all these books even though I dislike her? Someone gave them all to me when I was younger and I had this ocd thing where I had to read every book I had.

Tales of the Body thief was the worst and Memnoch the Devil ended her for me. I know she has done a bunch of one shot spin offs of her Vampires, but I cringe when I see any of them.

Sighs. whew. Needed to get that off my chest.

Hmmmmmm... lesbian taltos / sparkly werewolf sex...


S'cuse me while I go make an Anne Rice / Stephenie Meyer suggestion in your "Dream Team" thread!