Violence in Stories (a ramble)

The first thing you learn about stories, the first thing they'll tell you in creative writing class, is that they're about conflict. As a general rule, the more that's at stake in the conflict, the more suspenseful the tale will be. In real life, however, conflicts that have a lot at stake are resolved either in violence or in the shadow of its threat.


So, of course, one way to raise suspense in a story, to tell your reader that there's a lot at stake is with violence.

So much has been written about the feedback between violence in the media and real life violence. On some boards, I've seen people compare our country to the Roman Empire for our violent entertainment. I had to point out one important distinction: the Romans actually killed people for entertainment, in their arenas and in their theaters. It was what we'd call today a "live" snuff film. But without film, whenever they wanted to have the experience again, they had kill somebody else.

We may have wrestling and various ultra-fighting leagues, but we don't actually kill people, nor deliberately and actually injure them (though we don't mind if  the risk is there). It's an important moral step between enacting simulated death and injury and really committing it-- and for entertainment.

Yet, is there a cross-over, a feed back? I'd have to do more research. I'd say there's apparently a feedback with some people. Hardly with all people. The Japanese have an awful amount of violence in their entertainment. But they have never had the crime rate we do.

I think it has to do with the amount of real-life fear. If the person absorbs violent entertainment worlds and unconsciously learns from those stories what the state of the real world is, then there can be a correlation between fictional violence and real life violence. In fact, it's correlated with a lot of other things. I believe all of the colorful conspiracy theories that spring up are the results of the level of fear, and also being informed by entertainment what is possible in the real world.

I do put graphic violence in my horror writing. Why? The unconscious being what it is, I don't think I'll ever know why, and I'm bound to deny it if I ever get close. My rationalized reason for doing so is it creates memorable images for delivering themes. They're also things far worse than what a reader will ever experience in real life, which by comparison, then becomes a relief. People need to be told how much things could be, and thank their luck. That is, presuming they don't see the fictional environment as the real one.

What I say there might be true of a particular violent event or act. However, a world where there are ghosts, vampires and werewolves is actually something of an improvement over the real one. At least in that fantasy world, an afterlife is unambiguously demonstrated, so it gives hope.

Now I'll get a little political. Vampires and werewolves are actually easier to deal with in most fantasies than corporate persons and global warming are in real life. At least you can put a stake through the heart of a vampire. If only we could have done that to BP after Deepwater Horizon fiasco, or to TEPCO after Fukushima.

No, in real life, we just have to live with the evil, and what's worse, it's not too different enough from us.