# Why types of violence make you stop reading?



## L.J. Sellers novelist (Feb 28, 2010)

Even though I write crime fiction, I'm at the point where I won't read books that other readers have complained about as being too violent (e.g. Hunger Games trilogy). I just can't get past the graphic details. How much violence do you tolerate in fiction? What kind of scenes will make you stop reading?

Consider this market research for my series. 
L.J.


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

Hmm... there was a violent scene in "World Without End" that made me feel ill.  I'm usually fine with violence, but anything too extreme -- for example, scenes of torture -- I avoid reading.


----------



## RobertK (Aug 2, 2010)

Does the violence serve any purpose above horror? If no, count me out. If the entertainment /is/ the brutality, I'm not amused.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

L.J. Sellers said:


> Even though I write crime fiction, I'm at the point where I won't read books that other readers have complained about as being too violent (e.g. Hunger Games trilogy). I just can't get past the graphic details. How much violence do you tolerate in fiction? What kind of scenes will make you stop reading?
> 
> Consider this market research for my series.
> L.J.


Animal cruelty hits me pretty hard. I won't say I'll stop reading, but the book better have a lot going for it since I'm probably crying at that point, or at least queasy. I also have a strong empathy gene and so any likable character in pain is going to resonate with me.


----------



## Thalia the Muse (Jan 20, 2010)

I read a lot of horror and also some fairly heavy literary fiction, so I'm not uncomfortable with violence per se. These are the things I find off-putting:

Graphic violence used in a jokey or callous way. Not funny to me, even if it's a character I'm not supposed to care about. In fact, having characters I'm not supposed to care about is itself kind of offputting.

Gratuitous, exploitative violence or gore -- if that's the whole point of the story, then the story isn't for me. This is why I don't watch slasher movies or "torture porn" in movies, and the same goes for books. No splatter-punk, thanks! I can handle some truly stomach-churning violence as long as it is necessary to the story and not used purely for shock value.

I'm icked out by things happening to eyeballs, detailed descriptions of exposed brains or entrails. Sexual mutilation. Babies/children/animals. I can deal with any of these as long as they don't violate my other principles, but it's not my favorite thing and it had better have a good reason for being there.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

It's hard to put together a hard-and-fast list.

Why?

Because often it can depend on how it's handled.

Generally, anything having to do with child molestation or rape turns my stomach.

That being said... I remember a scene from the movie STUART SAVES HIS FAMILY, an oft-overlooked SNL movie about the Stuart Smalley character, where Stuart's sorta-girlfriend, played by Laura San Giacomo, confesses to Stuart how she was molested as a kid, and the material was handled with class and sensativity for the very real human cost of such action.

So any list of "here's what turns my stomach" is going to have some exceptions, I think, however rare.

I mean... and I say this with deep respect and reverence, not lightly... but there's nothing fun or entertaining about the Holocaust... yet  I watched Schindler's List and it is hard to think of a movie that stirs more redemptive emotions in me than when Oskar Schindler breaks down, realizing how each bit of money he wasted could have meant another life saved from destruction...

That said... I could BARELY sit through that movie once... I ended up seeing it twice... and maybe I could tolerate watching it one more time before I pass on from this mortal coil... but even with its redemptive power, I don't know if I could call watching all that cruelty "entertaining."

So... a lot of it is how it's handled, not the subject matter himself.


----------



## ladydiamond215 (Jan 8, 2010)

OMG! The book Serial got me! The man was a serial rapist and killer. He picked up a male hitchhiking to another city, knocked him out and then raped him while he tortured him but cutting a whole in his throat and sticking a corn cob in it and then set the kid on fire. That's as far as I got and I had to get rid of  that book! I've NEVER read a book like that! and never will!


----------



## P.A. Woodburn (May 22, 2010)

Sometimes it is necessary for the author to show violence. We live in a very violent world, and humans are particulary violent. I am amazed by much of the unecessary violence that is depicted in books, and many people love it. Nothing makes me stop reading except boredom, but I probably won't buy the second book or recommend the first.

Ann


----------



## Guest (Oct 19, 2010)

Gratuitous violence...period. I can't say there is a specific "type" of violence that makes me stop reading, but if the violence is just more than is neccessary to get the plot moving or to drive home a point then that terms me off. Excessive violence (like excessive sex or excessive foul language) is just lazy writing for shock value. To me, it's the difference between the original _Halloween_ and something like _Saw_. _Halloween_ is a classic horror film, while _Saw_ is just lazy writing. (gee, how many ways can we trick someone into mutilating/killing themselves?).


----------



## Thalia the Muse (Jan 20, 2010)

OMG, Serial sounds unreadable! It's very hard to think of a context where that scenario WOULDN'T be gratuitous.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

I haven't found my limit yet, but I've also not read a ton of super violent books. 

I have been turned off some graphic novels recently because the killing/violence is excessive and repetitive, which is just boring.


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

Poppy Z Brite's _Exquisite Corpse_ is the only book I've ever quit reading because of the violence. Something about it felt so gratuitous that I couldn't handle it anymore about a 1/3 of the way through, so I stopped.


----------



## DavidRM (Sep 21, 2010)

I've been shocked by the violence in some books I've read, but I've never stopped reading a book because of the violence. I quit reading books for other reasons, usually to do with how well the story is being told (or not).

-David


----------



## farrellclaire (Mar 5, 2010)

Violence in books doesn't make me stop reading.

I can't watch a lot of films, not necessarily because of the violence but more cruelty/abuse/children&animals dying/reality based type story lines and the daily newspaper makes me cry every single time I read it so I'm not sure why books are so different for me.


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

L.J. Sellers said:


> Other readers have complained about as being too violent (e.g. Hunger Games trilogy).


Really? I thought _The Hunger Games_ was too tame for its subject matter-almost as if it had been written in an edited for TV mode. But then again, I don't normally read young adult, so can't be sure if it was too violent for the parents of younger readers.

_Caught Stealing_ by Charlie Huston had a disturbing scene of animal torture. I was reading in bed with cat sleeping, snoring happily by my side, and it might have been the most difficult scene of violence I've read in many years. Oddly enough, I was OK with human torture just before it, but not with hurting the cat. I didn't stop reading entirely, but I did set aside the Kindle to rub a furry belly.


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

I won't pick up a book if I _know_ there is animal cruelty. However, I won't stop reading a book just because of that reason, unless it becomes prevalent.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Oct 10, 2010)

If I'm hooked, there's hardly a chance I will stop reading a book due to violence. I suppose if the violence seemed sensless and did not move the plot, I might have a problem.


----------



## Nick Steckel (Sep 2, 2010)

The only time I get annoyed by violence in a novel is if it's something really bad (rape, torture, etc) that the hero or otherwise meant-to-be-sympathetic character is doing. I like to be able to root for the good guy in a story. I can understand the hero having some flaws, but don't make him a child molester or something like that.

With villains however, anything goes in my book. Villains are supposed to be evil. That's why they're villains. I write a lot of violent material, but I still have a basic morality to it. The violent, cruel actions are performed only by the bad guys, and the good guys don't partake in such actions and are horrified when they learn of it.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Come to think of it, there was a book I couldn't finish because of the excessive content...

STREGA by Andrew Vachss.

Now, Vachss had the street-cred to write about survivors of child molestation. He spent his pre-writing career as a child abuse counselor. He knows the darkness of men's souls, and the crazy-sick things people do to kids, and the long-term damage to the human psyche that is done by such abuse...

However, as much as I like mysteries and prefer hard-boiled to cozy... Vachss' STREGA was just TOO MUCH for me. The novel was just too dark, too hopeless, too sick and twisted and too likely true to what some have suffered at the hands of sick, sick minds.

I'm glad in a way he's out there "raising awareness" through his detective novels about damaged people... but it's just too dark a place for me to visit and feel entertained.

I think I may have finished it, or come close... but I never bought another book of his, and never never will again... Not because he's a bad writer, just because it's too dark and hopeless...

Reading that left me disturbed and emotional and sick for a week... and thinking back on it, even now over 20 years later... still disturbs me.


----------



## theaatkinson (Sep 22, 2010)

For me, that's easy. I put it down If the violence has NO place in the story. and if it does have a place, it must be treated with as much dignity as the rest of the text. If it's just there for the ick factor, I put it down. I've read some violent scenes that have disturbed me, but usually they disturb me because they're MEANT to in terms of story or character.


I don't mind violence that has a purpose. But if it's gratutiously graphic, it no longer has a purpose except to please the author.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

L.J. Sellers said:


> Even though I write crime fiction, I'm at the point where I won't read books that other readers have complained about as being too violent (e.g. Hunger Games trilogy). I just can't get past the graphic details. How much violence do you tolerate in fiction? What kind of scenes will make you stop reading?
> 
> Consider this market research for my series.
> L.J.


Partly, it depends on how it's done and how integral it is to the story. I don't like to read violence against children, but I read "A Child Called It". The violence was horrible, but I kept thinking I would get to a part where the mother would realize what a monster she was. I wanted that moment. I wanted to 'confront' her in the story. However, because it was non-fiction, I didn't get what I wanted.

One of my favorite books is "Roots" and there is a lot of violence in it, but I read it because something like that should never be forgotten. It made me cringe, but that's what makes it unforgettable. Schindler's List would also rank up there with being violent, but it's what really happened.

However, I can't read books that are like slasher movies. I also had a really hard time reading Pet Semetary, by Stephen King.

As far as The Hunger Games, I haven't read it yet, and now I'm wondering if I want to? Hmm...I didn't realize it had a lot of violence in it.


----------



## Travis haselton (Jul 24, 2010)

well, this is extremely circumstantial (pardon speling) I love gore, gratuitus dismemberment, realistic, cartoony. But it needs to have tact. This goes for movies as well as books. For example if a story is full of rediculas gore an violence and it is apparent that it is supposed to be funny, I can like it as long as the story has alot more to offer than just the violence. I am a huge fan of realistic violence, The newer rambo I thought was awsome. Not for the faint of heart but then again it was meant to be an accurate picture of how war can be. 

I liked the first two final destination movies because while these violnt freak accidents where happening there was a story line to follow as well as humor mixed in. The last two however were dumb and just seemed to be an excuse to imagine different ways to die. I liked the sin city and other frank miller books as well as the movie adaptations but then again, there was story line and different characters to follow that all where intwined into different storys.

Now if a story has cartoony violence and doesn't seem funny and it looks like it was just for the sake of being crude and gross I am turned off, like Idle Hands.

As far as rape goes. I will never like reading or seeing it but I can accept the harsh reality of it as long as the story ultimatly has a moral I.E. find the rapist and castrate him.


----------



## ellie (Feb 9, 2009)

ladydiamond215 said:


> OMG! The book Serial got me! The man was a serial rapist and killer. He picked up a male hitchhiking to another city, knocked him out and then raped him while he tortured him but cutting a whole in his throat and sticking a corn cob in it and then set the kid on fire. That's as far as I got and I had to get rid of that book! I've NEVER read a book like that! and never will!


I got that far in Serial too. Pretty disturbing.


----------



## Laurensaga (Sep 29, 2010)

I guess I am with most of the others. It depends on the reason for the violence. I don't particular care about how violent it is just the reason for it.  I may squirm, but if it adds to the story then I don't mind.  Except violence aganist children. I will not read or watch that.


----------



## jackwestjr_author (Aug 19, 2010)

Any violence against children, even if only implied.  I can't hang with that.


----------



## Ty Johnston (Jun 19, 2009)

No amount of violence has stopped me from reading anything as of yet. I figured if I could make it through Ellis' American Psycho, I can just about make it through any literature. Though Clive Barker came close a couple of times, and Joe Konrath shook me up once.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

I don't recall ever stopping reading a book _only_ because of violence, though I think it has been a contributing factor in a some cases where I gave up on a book (_Naked in Death_ and _Pillars of the Earth_ for a couple recent examples, where there were other significant factors that caused me to quit reading, but the sexual violence was part of the equation). I tend to avoid books that are obviously violence-driven (e.g. slasher-type horror books), and I generally prefer to minimize the time spent dealing with sexual violence and other abhorrent/aberrant behavior involving violence. But I guess I can put up with a fair amount if it "works" for whatever reason within the overall story (e.g.: I enjoyed _John Dies at the End_ in spite of quite a bit of fairly graphic violence and other disgusting stuff).


----------



## carl_h (Sep 8, 2010)

I love to read this genre and haven't found anything that would cause me to put down the book as a result.  I've read scenes that have been pretty graphic that I have found to be disturbing, but as long as the author is writing a good novel that has drawn me into the characters and story, I'll continue on.  Maybe I'm just fascinated by the sociopaths and macabre...then again,maybe I just haven't come across some of the authors that others have, yet


----------



## jason10mm (Apr 7, 2009)

I don't think any level of written gore would turn me off a book, but what unending, relentless descriptions of gore do is bore me. Gore/violence has to be carefully hoarded and metered out at the right times. If the villian just randomly massacres folks, including his own henchmen, it indicates to me that the writer is being lazy and is serving up violence as a substitute for cleverness. Killing folks might make you evil, but it makes you BORING EVIL. So show me the guy is evil in an interesting and inventive way and save the actual violence for when it serves the story.

This probably closely correlates with sex. I've read some pretty detailed and graphic sexual encounters in books (excluding ones where that is the point!) and if they are not dished out slowly it just becomes boring.


----------



## Dawn McCullough White (Feb 24, 2010)

Anything terrible that happens to a child or an animal gives me pause while reading.  I did put down The Lovely Bones after reading the scene at the beginning, but the prose was so good I picked it back up again and I'm glad I did.

Truthfully I'm not entertained by gore, so pulpy detective stories or graphic horror never entices me to read it.

Dawn


----------



## emalvick (Sep 14, 2010)

I've never put down a book because of gore, but I have plodded through books that have exceeded my limits.  My limits, however, are fairly low because I just don't like much violence and am often quite disturbed by violence that is very realistic and greusome, espcially on those crimes that are of the worst nature (e.g. rape, etc).  Never-the-less, those end up being the type of violence that turns up in my reading. Most recently, I read the complete Millenium Triology and found that a lot of the violence in those books, rape, torture, etc exceeded my own limits, but the story was great and they served their purpose.  However, after finishing the books, I've moved on to some humor and other less violent reading until I feel ready to tackle the genre again.

The very graphic and gratuitous violence that can sometimes occur in books or movies where the violence is the point or just over the top, doesn't bother me as much in terms of disturbing me, but I don't find it entertaining either, and I almost never read such book or watch such movies, except when it's Stephen King (and his books do bother me at times).


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

I read all kinds of books, and some of them have contained a lot of violence--sometimes to the point where I set the book down and take a break. But, if the book's well written and compelling, I continue reading. 

I don't think I could tolerate graphic violence involving children and animals. But it might depend on how it's presented. I also don't like a lot of descriptions of war--probably because the violence is so impersonal.


----------



## robertduperre (Jun 13, 2010)

The only thing that could ever make me stop reading a book would be an excessive rape scene or glorified violence against women.  It's pointless and disgusting if not done right...which it rarely is.  Fortunately, I haven't run across any in books, but there have only been three movies I've stopped watching in my lifetime, and those are:

The Last House on the Left
Death Proof
I Spit On Your Grave


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

arcticbanana said:


> The only time I get annoyed by violence in a novel is if it's something really bad (rape, torture, etc) that the hero or otherwise meant-to-be-sympathetic character is doing. I like to be able to root for the good guy in a story. I can understand the hero having some flaws, but don't make him a child molester or something like that.


Your post made me remember that I have quit reading books for this reason as well. I love conflicted, dynamic heroes with flaws, but there is a point where the scales tip and they have too many flaws to be heroes. Stories of redemption where the hero is a "bad" guy at first but then redeems himself are great, but this has to be believable in order to be interesting.


----------



## Glenn Bullion (Sep 28, 2010)

Animal violence and rape are up there with me too.  Can't say I've ever stopped reading a book cause of it, but definitely skimmed those chapters.


----------



## monkeyluis (Oct 17, 2010)

L.J. Sellers said:


> Even though I write crime fiction, I'm at the point where I won't read books that other readers have complained about as being too violent (e.g. Hunger Games trilogy). I just can't get past the graphic details. How much violence do you tolerate in fiction? What kind of scenes will make you stop reading?
> 
> Consider this market research for my series.
> L.J.


Hunger games was not violent. It was slightly graphic but not ala JA Konrath violent who I when I read get 
squeamish.


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

I'm more squeamish now than years ago. Maybe you get to a point where you've already read about enough ugliness and just don't want any more filling brain cells. I have put books down because of graphic violence and even more often put authors on my Never Again list. Generally if I see the words "serial killer" I won't even pick up the book any more. Not only am I sick of the descriptions of what they do, I'm sick of the whole theme. I'm an animal lover but can handle animal deaths if they fit in the story. However, when an animal is in the story just so someone can kill/torture it to prove how bad that bad guy is, that's a Never Read author. Huston falls in that category for me. I read about what was in his one book and just crossed him off. I can read about rape and child abuse, but it's the same thing. Reading about it on some levels is doable, but if an author thinks he's going to drag me right in the middle of it and fill my mind with that kind of excrement, he's going to fail. I can read about things like the Holocaust, but that's a whole different category. IMO those stories aren't to entertain but to inform and enlighten. If people are going to be informed - first they came for the cartoonists - we need to know about those things.


----------



## Cochise (Sep 26, 2010)

The type, intensity or subject of the violence makes little difference to me, I can stomach just about anything. Don't get me wrong I don't particularly enjoy that kind of thing and I don't seek it out, but when it comes along I can plough through. 

The moment that I put the book down (or press the home button) is the point when it stops bothering me. If a Book contains enough violence or gore to desensitize me then the author has gone too far.


----------



## KindleChickie (Oct 24, 2009)

I grew up in a very violent atmosphere and saw 6 people die violently before my 16th birthday, 3 of them very close friends or relatives.  For whatever strange reason, violence in literature or film does not bother me.  It feels safe or contained.  So with that preface, I have never stopped reading a book because it got too violent.  But then again I have never gone for the straight gore fiction.

What bothers me the most is child molestation or sexual exploitation.  I just don't even want that in my head.


----------



## Guest (Oct 21, 2010)

Atrocities against the English language


----------



## monkeyluis (Oct 17, 2010)

foreverjuly said:


> Atrocities against the English language


HA, nice...

Anything that has to do with hurting children in anyway would get me. But I haven't come across a book like that. Creepy kid ghosts or zombies don't bother me, they are just creepy. But violence against children I don't think I can tolerate.


----------



## rocky mountain reader (Jul 8, 2009)

foreverjuly said:


> Atrocities against the English language


AMEN!


----------



## Pinworms (Oct 20, 2010)

I don't think any amount of violence will cause me to stop reading a book.  I can read graphic descriptions of torture without a problem, however I am very squeemish when I watch movies.  Not sure why that is.  

By the way, I didn't find The Hunger Games all that violent...there are descriptions of death, but they tended to be quite brief.  Especially compared to Battle Royale, which is a very, very similar book.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

It's not the book having violence. . . .it's whether the violence seems to be the whole purpose of the book. 

I read a lot of murder mysteries -- both the cozier sort and the thriller sort.  Of course there will be dead bodies, and probably the odd attack on the investigator.  Of course there will be some gore.  And occasionally, especially in ones that feature serial killers, there's some depiction of a killing at some point.  No problem.  But if every chapter is about how someone is hurting someone else -- especially if the author seems to be reveling in the telling. . .well, I don't go for that so much.  

I read a short one time where the story was about this guy who goes around killing hitchhikers in a particularly gruesome way.  And then he picks up a hitchhiker who's 'thing' was to hitch rides and then kill the driver in a particularly gruesome way.  Clearly, this is not going to end well for either one. . .but why should I care?  There were no morals or lessons. . . .it was just an excuse to depict a bunch of gory violence.  So. . .not my kind of thing, and I won't be buying books from that author again. . . . .


----------



## hsuthard (Jan 6, 2010)

I think we read a lot of the same books, one I have to be careful with is some of the John Sandford novels. He gets so "into" his villains, they often creep me out with their violence and I have to skim those parts. But the books are still good enough for me to enjoy them. Psychological violence is very hard for me to read, as well as violence to children and animals. Graphic violence as well, because once that vision is put in my head I have an awful time getting it out. 

I don't read horror books at all. (But I love paranormal and urban fantasy, so lots of vampires. Go figure.)


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Ann in Arlington said:


> I read a short one time where the story was about this guy who goes around killing hitchhikers in a particularly gruesome way. And then he picks up a hitchhiker who's 'thing' was to hitch rides and then kill the driver in a particularly gruesome way. Clearly, this is not going to end well for either one. . .but why should I care? There were no morals or lessons. . . .it was just an excuse to depict a bunch of gory violence. So. . .not my kind of thing, and I won't be buying books from that author again. . . . .


That's Serial, the story mentioned earlier in the thread, written by Blake Crouch and Jack Kilborn. There are two versions, the 'mild' one, which is free, and the 'uncut' one, which is $2.99. I've only read the free one, and it was very graphic, but I like that kind of thing. I may try out the uncut one sometime.


----------



## monkeyluis (Oct 17, 2010)

swolf said:


> That's Serial, the story mentioned earlier in the thread, written by Blake Crouch and Jack Kilborn. There are two versions, the 'mild' one, which is free, and the 'uncut' one, which is $2.99. I've only read the free one, and it was very graphic, but I like that kind of thing. I may try out the uncut one sometime.


I just finished the Uncut version earlier this week. It was very good and creepy.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

I found my limit with a book called "The Genesis Secret". I didn't stop reading it though because I kept expecting the violence to end. I kept thinking "That must be the end of it"... but it wasn't. It was on par with something like the "Saw" movies. Now, I can handle gore better in the written word than in movies but I don't read books for that purpose. It was completely unnecessary and unexpected so I wound up rating it very poorly.


----------



## Jyl Scislow (Sep 27, 2010)

I stay away from physical torture-especially against children (even if it suggests it).  
Jyl Scislow-Author
Moral Hazard-A Wall Street Thriller


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

With violence, I suppose a red flag is if I specifically notice it. If it works with the plot, fits characters, and flows with the story I don't really notice it as violence. Same with sex scenes. If it works with the rest of a good book, it doesn't really register as violence. When I sit up and notice it, it is usually because it just doesn't fit in the story. 

I suppose the most "violent" books I have read are those where the author is so skilled that he creates the image in my mind without even setting down the words on the page. When I'm sitting in the quiet of my chambers at night reading a book, and the words chase a chill up my spine, it's usually because of suggestion rather than explicit description.


----------



## Barbara Morgenroth (May 14, 2010)

Animal abuse.  I stopped reading Umberto Ecco and any number of well-reviewed and respected books because the violence done to animals was so stomach churning I began to hate the author and question their humanity for thinking such thoughts.

Robin


----------



## lorezskyline (Apr 19, 2010)

jason10mm said:


> I don't think any level of written gore would turn me off a book, but what unending, relentless descriptions of gore do is bore me. Gore/violence has to be carefully hoarded and metered out at the right times. If the villian just randomly massacres folks, including his own henchmen, it indicates to me that the writer is being lazy and is serving up violence as a substitute for cleverness.


Totally agree with this, books that just serve up constant gore and violence just leave me desensitised to it in the end violence is best used as a short sharp shock particularly in crime fiction. A character who is constantly violent is never as interesting as one where there is the threat of violence but you dont know when/if it will happen.


----------



## jason10mm (Apr 7, 2009)

swolf said:


> That's Serial, the story mentioned earlier in the thread, written by Blake Crouch and Jack Kilborn. There are two versions, the 'mild' one, which is free, and the 'uncut' one, which is $2.99. I've only read the free one, and it was very graphic, but I like that kind of thing. I may try out the uncut one sometime.


Holy crap, there is an UNCUT version of Serial? I think I read the free one and it was bloody enough. Is there additional "plot" (as loose as it is in Serial) in the uncut version, or do they just spin the gore dial from 10 to 11? I feel like I got what there was "to get" from the version I have, not sure I need to revisit that short.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

history_lover said:


> I found my limit with a book called "The Genesis Secret". I didn't stop reading it though because I kept expecting the violence to end. I kept thinking "That must be the end of it"... but it wasn't. It was on par with something like the "Saw" movies. Now, I can handle gore better in the written word than in movies but I don't read books for that purpose. It was completely unnecessary and unexpected so I wound up rating it very poorly.


This is going to be a strong selling point for others. There've been a few of those in this thread, which is why even a "negative review" can be helpful.

When I was a teen, very little fazed me. In the last couple years, I've given up roller coasters and prefer less gore in movies. Books I can still handle a lot more, but the trend has me someday reading -- I don't know -- Barbara Cartlands and lamenting all the talk of duels. (Er, I don't actually know if they have a lot of talk of duels/pistols at dawn.)


----------



## Samantha (Jul 16, 2010)

Animal cruelty. Won't read it.


----------



## CJ West (Feb 24, 2010)

Great question as always LJ.

The one thing that I have a problem with is violence against women and children. I stopped reading Pillars of the Earth for that reason. It disturbed me. Weird coming from a guy who has killed hundreds of people in fiction, but there are times when the violence just goes over the top.

CJ

_
edited to remove self-promotion references_


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

MichelleR said:


> Animal cruelty hits me pretty hard. I won't say I'll stop reading, but the book better have a lot going for it since I'm probably crying at that point, or at least queasy. I also have a strong empathy gene and so any likable character in pain is going to resonate with me.


This.

I can tolerate a lot, too, though, based on the purpose and how it's handled. A murder scene, even if gruesome, seen from the cop's eyes is going to be easier for me to get past than reading about it through the killer's eyes, cut by bloody cut.


----------



## CJ West (Feb 24, 2010)

Arkali,

When you say you'd rather see it through the cop or the killer's eyes, I think of Stephen Jay Schwartz's book Boulevard. The investigator is forced to work on a gruesome scene and the man from the coroner's office is quite comfortable with gory details, so they are explained. It was gruesome, but I read through it easily because the character wasn't as disturbed... if that makes any sense. 

CJ


----------



## Joyce Faulkner (Oct 23, 2010)

I agree with some of the others here who say that it depends on how it's handled.  Violence can be either implied or graphic..sometimes the implied violence can be all the more heartbreaking...I remember a movie called "Dr. Newman MD" starring Gregory Peck, Angie Dickinson, and Bobby Darin.  There is no graphic violence in the movie at all...however, there's a scene where Bobby Darin who plays a charming jokester is given truth serum...and in his trance, he describes the crash of his B17 and the ugly details come out.  However, they are described -- and as he's thrashing about, telling his story...you see the horror in the faces of the doctor (Peck) and the nurse (Dickinson)...horrible scene...yet totally acceptable for most of us.


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

I can't imagine that there could be any violence in fiction that would bother me. Rather, it's about whether I want to bother reading it. Take Serial, which has been mentioned numerous times in this thread. I had no problem whatsoever with any of the violence but at the same time I wasn't entertained by it, and felt that my time would have been better spent reading something else. On the other hand, the violence in Naked in Death made me want very bad things to happen to the bad guy, you know, as bad or worse than the kind of violence in Serial as he deserved it.

So I'd say it's not the violence itself that matters to me but who or what is doing the violence, and why (imo, vengeance can never be too violent, especially when it involves a woman hating creep), if not done right, or if it's done too much, I will be bored.



jason10mm said:


> Holy crap, there is an UNCUT version of Serial? I think I read the free one and it was bloody enough. Is there additional "plot" (as loose as it is in Serial) in the uncut version, or do they just spin the gore dial from 10 to 11? I feel like I got what there was "to get" from the version I have, not sure I need to revisit that short.


It's an extended version, not sure what was added though.


----------



## Gthater (Mar 27, 2009)

Although my own writing contains realistic, graphic descriptions of battles - depicting the horrors of war, I do not write scenes that contain graphic descriptions of rape, violence against children, or torture. I tend to avoid books that contain these graphic elements -- and if it goes too far, I stop reading. I'm also turned off by excessive swearing in books.

glenn g. thater


----------



## Kevin D. (Sep 17, 2010)

Depends on how it is written for me.  You can tell me that the villain put a bullet into the head of his hostage and leave it at that; I don't need to know that the bullet splattered his brains across the floor.  Or you can say that the author disemboweled the ogre without needing to go into the details of what that meant.  I do have an imagination, and I like to use it at my own discretion. 

Animal abuse and child abuse will make me put down the book and not pick it up again.


----------



## CandyTX (Apr 13, 2009)

Haven't read the other responses, but I'm pretty thick skinned. I can only remember stopping reading a book because of the violence once and that was Weaveworld, there were gross descriptions of these two witches or something that were really nasty raping this guy and I was totally out, it was just handled badly (that and the book sucked - sorry fans, but I hated it). 

It takes a lot for me to stop reading a book. I recall Wasp Factory as difficult for me to get through as well, but I don't think I stopped reading it. Lots of animal cruelty in there. 

I also remember the opening to Lucky by Alice Siebold was really difficult to read. I hung in there because I knew it was a memoir and I kinda knew what was getting into, but the start of that book still haunts me, she was extremely descriptive. I think the fact that she was ABLE to write it is what makes it harder.

ANYWAY....


----------



## Julie Christensen (Oct 13, 2010)

I stop reading when dogs or children are hurt.


----------



## jmkwriter (Sep 14, 2009)

Violence won't turn me off, but there was a scene in Chuck Palahniuk's Haunted where a guy was having his intestines sucked out in a pool that was so graphic I stopped reading the book immediately. I don't think I picked up another one of his books after that.


----------



## ESStobymom (Mar 16, 2009)

Violence towards animals, especially dogs, really upsets me, and for some reason authors just love to introduce us to a wonderful dog, and later on have the "bad guy" torture or kill that animal. I can be upset over some of those scenes for days.  I don't like a lot of blood or body fluids described, either; and I stopped reading the medical thriller series I was in the middle of because it was just too graphic. My fault, I guess, for reading a medical thriller.

Sadism in general is out; I tend to read thrillers, so sometimes there is violence against the bad guys, to get them to talk, and I don't mind that too much; if it gets too heavy, I'll just skip through it.

I won't continue reading anything that's going to upset me; I get upset enough about news and day-to-day violence, so there's no reason for me to go out of my way to get it on the printed (or in this case, e-printed) page.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

jmkwriter said:


> Violence won't turn me off, but there was a scene in Chuck Palahniuk's Haunted where a guy was having his intestines sucked out in a pool that was so graphic I stopped reading the book immediately. I don't think I picked up another one of his books after that.


Why did I think that was Choke?


----------



## jmkwriter (Sep 14, 2009)

MichelleR said:


> Why did I think that was Choke?


Was it Choke? I couldn't remember the title and just clicked over to Amazon to find the cover that seemed the most familiar. Horrible scene. Horrible, horrible, horrible scene. I need to go watch a youtube video about a cat in a box now or something.


----------

