# Does sex or violence in a novel offend you?



## Edward Lake (Mar 11, 2012)

I've seen a lot beta readers/ editors/ avid readers say they don't like books with sex or graphic violence. Even when submitting my book to websites to be listed, some of them ask if the book has any sex or violence, and to what level. 

Should books be rated like movies because of this? 

Like we would have to send our books to some kind of review board that would give them an official rating so people would know what to expect. 

Like, "This book is rated R for sex and graphic violence." 

I have no problem reading books that have this kind of material. It's not the same as watching a movie because it's all in your head. And a lot of times those kind of scenes fit the story well and bring out a lot of emotions. Isn't that what stories are supposed to do? 

I just think it's interesting that some readers won't read books with sex or violence. I wonder if they feel the same way about movies. I don't think I've ever met anyone who hasn't seen a rated R movie.


----------



## Claudia King (Oct 27, 2012)

I think the problem with rating books for sex/violence via any kind of system is how you deal with vetting them consistently. Beyond a "contains descriptions of X" in the blurb, I think it would be very difficult (and time consuming) to assign books ratings, given the variety of way in which this subject matter can be handled.

When it comes to being offended by these topics I've always been of the mindset that anything can be appropriate in literature (or art in general) provided that it's used in the right context, and isn't sprung on the reader out of the blue. The most "offensive" descriptions of violence I've encountered in novels are always those ones that pop up out of the blue without any warning, and that don't seem to service the story in any meaningful way. I don't think that sensitive subject matter should be tossed about lightly in literature, but in skilled hands it absolutely has its place in many different kinds of writing.

So yeah, I don't think a "rating" system for books is necessarily practical, but I do like for authors to either mention things in the blurb, or give the reader a sense of what's coming via the tone they establish early on in the book.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

It doesn't offend me. I just don't generally like reading graphic sex or violence. I don't actively _avoid_ books that have it as incidental to the plot, but I mostly skim those scenes. If a book is promoted as particularly sexy or violent, I probably won't pick it up, even if it's a genre I usually read.


----------



## Edward Lake (Mar 11, 2012)

Ann in Arlington said:


> It doesn't offend me. I just don't generally like reading graphic sex or violence. I don't actively _avoid_ books that have it as incidental to the plot, but I mostly skim those scenes. If a book is promoted as particularly sexy or violent, I probably won't pick it up, even if it's a genre I usually read.


Really? Why?

Do you feel the same way about movies or television shows?


----------



## Mike McIntyre (Jan 19, 2011)

http://www.kboards.com/index.php?topic=159641.0


----------



## Red Dove (Jun 11, 2012)

As long as it serves the story, sex and violence does not offend me. When the sex and violence is prolonged, frequent and does not serve the story it ceases to become a novel and says more about the writer than the story and the characters therein.

At the very least if you're going to splatter the walls with blood and other fluids you should make it clear in the blurb that there are themes of an adult and perhaps _extreme_ nature. But who is to judge what is extreme or acceptable? The reader - and they should be allowed to choose.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Edward Lake said:


> Really? Why?
> 
> Do you feel the same way about movies or television shows?


There's no 'why'. I just don't like it.

I don't like horror or super scary stuff either, so I steer away from it.

I also don't like lima beans and avoid them like the plague.


----------



## Edward Lake (Mar 11, 2012)

Ann in Arlington said:


> There's no 'why'. I just don't like it.
> 
> I don't like horror or super scary stuff either, so I steer away from it.
> 
> I also don't like lima beans and avoid them like the plague.


I hate to push but this is really interesting to me.

You didn't answer the last question about movies or television shows. I mean is it just books? Like with the scary stuff, too. Or do you keep that kind of material out of your life altogether, no matter where it comes from.


----------



## SBJones (Jun 13, 2011)

When I did my book signings at Barnes and Noble.  Some people asked about sex.  A few asked about profanity.  Very little asked about violence.

I was surprised at how many asked if there was any sex in the book.  Those that asked would not purchase it even if it was only light kissing after life threatening situations.  Many of these people were also looking at my books for gifts for someone else.  

I don't have any language in my books any worse than what you would see on the prime time TV shows.  Those that asked about language expressed their dislike of it, they would also list off other authors who use profanity, but none of them used that as a reason to say no.

Violence seemed more of a genera than an issue; "I read romance, not violence," one person said.  When asked, and I said yes to their violence questions, most just nodded their heads.  Many said they could tell by the cover.  I had more people turn down my books when I said that there were all kinds of sword fights, magic and battles in the sky with airships than when I just said "Yes, there is violence."  It wasn't violence, but the fantasy/sci-fi genera that they didn't care for.


----------



## Louis Shalako (Apr 13, 2011)

How people see a book is totally subjective. I wrote some stuff and then started worrying about what people might think of me. I pussy-footed around it for a while and then wrote some erotica under pen-names. You sort of have to get used to it. If it's not clearly meant to be erotica, then the expectations of the reviewers will play a huge role. It has to be submitted to the right place.

Someone who likes to review a cosy mystery might not appreciate a hard-core scene in the book.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## Marti talbott (Apr 19, 2011)

Edward Lake said:


> Really? Why?
> 
> Do you feel the same way about movies or television shows?


I agree with Ann. I used to read tons of books, but the sex and violence for shock value just got old and unnecessary. I'd much rather read books with a good plot. Sometimes that involves violence, but usually the sex is added for shock value or just to make the book longer.

Do I feel that way about movies and television? Add profanity and I am so sick of it, I can't tell you. My daughter watches movies first to see if they are something I might enjoy. Now that they are allowing profanity and potty scenes on television, I can hardly find anything to watch these days. Ugh.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

Edward Lake said:


> I've seen a lot beta readers/ editors/ avid readers say they don't like books with sex or graphic violence. Even when submitting my book to websites to be listed, some of them ask if the book has any sex or violence, and to what level.
> 
> Should books be rated like movies because of this?
> 
> ...


It's a tough call though because everyone has a different threshold for what is 'a lot' or 'too much'. My books have the occasional swear word, but no F bombs. Just the S-word for poop, damn and hell. There are two instances with GD. And yet, I have the occasional reader tell me that they don't like the swearing. Ironically, the same readers who are offended by what I consider mild swearing, seem to have no problem with the torture in the books.

One person even complained about the one extremely mild sex scene that faded to black in No Good Deed. I didn't add it for the sex, but for the emotional connection of the characters. Just the fact that they were kissing, and then it was implied that they had sex, was too much for the reader. How do you warn for that? Most people don't even view it as a sex scene.


----------



## Just Browsing (Sep 26, 2012)

i avoid graphic violence in books. I don't need them rated--I can tell from the blurb (and sometimes the reviews). And yes, I avoid violent movies too. I rarely get surprised by a book, although occasionally I've put one down because of the violence level and just not finished it.

Strong language, not a problem. Sex? I love it. Killing and hurting? Not my thing.


----------



## Kia Zi Shiru (Feb 7, 2011)

The problem with ratings is that they are interpreted differently, plus that R rated doesn't mean the same in the US as it does in the UK as it does in the Netherlands.
If you look around on google you'll see that there are a lot of discussions about movie ratings and how people play those ratings. Examples like some very gory and violent movies are rated PG-13 but ones with a chaste kiss between two people of the same gender, or even some cleavage got movies into the R rating.

Ratings would be great if they would be applied correctly and consistently.

When I think about my own books I know that Magical roads is G rated, pretty simple.
Otherkin Spirits (Disturbed Fate and Disturbed Connections) will have an R rating, DF for sex and DC for nudity.
For Black Sheep it would be harder to define. There is not sex, though there are some same-gender kisses, but the books are too dark for age 13. Rating it R would destroy the whole purpose of the story and also wouldn't be right for the age of the characters.

FictionPress uses the ratings from this page: http://www.fictionratings.com/
Which actually works pretty well as they differentiate between 9+, 13+ and 16+ and then mature (only mature is allowed sex).


----------



## Edward Lake (Mar 11, 2012)

MaryMcDonald said:


> It's a tough call though because everyone has a different threshold for what is 'a lot' or 'too much'. My books have the occasional swear word, but no F bombs. Just the S-word for poop, d*mn and hell. There are two instances with GD. And yet, I have the occasional reader tell me that they don't like the swearing. Ironically, the same readers who are offended by what I consider mild swearing, seem to have no problem with the torture in the books.
> 
> One person even complained about the one extremely mild sex scene that faded to black in No Good Deed. I didn't add it for the sex, but for the emotional connection of the characters. Just the fact that they were kissing, and then it was implied that they had sex, was too much for the reader. How do you warn for that? Most people don't even view it as a sex scene.


Wow. I guess the written word is very powerful. Well of course it is. But WOW. A kissing scene considered a sex scene?


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Edward Lake said:


> I've seen a lot beta readers/ editors/ avid readers say they don't like books with sex or graphic violence. Even when submitting my book to websites to be listed, some of them ask if the book has any sex or violence, and to what level.
> 
> Should books be rated like movies because of this?
> 
> ...


I know many people that would not want to read any book that has sex or violence. This entire group has also never seen an R movie.

No books should not be rated but if authors want reviews for "The Murder of a s*x queen" then I would recommend they stay away from the Christian Fiction reviewers. Other side of the coin would be don't ask a non-Christian to review "Jesus is great".
I would say know your target audience when asking for reviews.

Oh if someone does write that title: I want to read it. (Murder of a s*x queen)


----------



## BellaRoccaforte (May 26, 2013)

The first book in my series contains lots of bad language, some intimate situations but no actual sex and some violence. Now the violence is a bit gruesome (serial killer stuff) and I was turned down by two editors because my opening scene was a bit shocking. All that having been said I've read far worse in some YA books. None of my scenes are gratuitous, they aren't just there as shock value, they are all important parts of the story. But I clearly state in my blurb that this contains adult situations and profanity. I would hate for someone to pick up my book and be offended because they weren't warned. 

I have never read erotic or (ironically) horror because those genres don't appeal to me. So having some kind of warning about content would be good, because if the cover and the blurb isn't indicative of the genre a reader could accidentally one-click leading to a return or even a complaint. But rating system - no.

I don't think a rating system would be good for books for a couple of reasons. The main reason being how subjective this topic is. Additionally the very nature of the publishing process for indies would be totally screwed if we had to submit to a "committee" to determine a rating.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Edward Lake said:


> I hate to push but this is really interesting to me.
> 
> You didn't answer the last question about movies or television shows. I mean is it just books? Like with the scary stuff, too. Or do you keep that kind of material out of your life altogether, no matter where it comes from.


None of it bothers me very much...as long as it is well done and serves the story. On the other hand, I have family members who, while yes, they HAVE seen R-rated movies in the past, typically avoid them now. Their tastes have changed. And the same with the books they read.

I do think there is a difference between movies/tv shows and books, though, and to compare the two in this instance isn't necessarily valid. One can skim through sections of a book fairly easily; not so on TV or movie if being shown live and not a recording.

Betsy


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Edward Lake said:


> I hate to push but this is really interesting to me.
> 
> You didn't answer the last question about movies or television shows. I mean is it just books? Like with the scary stuff, too. Or do you keep that kind of material out of your life altogether, no matter where it comes from.


Yeah, but, see: it ISN'T interesting to me. 

Seriously -- I just don't like it and I don't seek it out in any media.

Nor do I seek out lima beans at restaurants.


----------



## Edward Lake (Mar 11, 2012)

1001nightspress said:


> i avoid graphic violence in books. I don't need them rated--I can tell from the blurb (and sometimes the reviews). And yes, I avoid violent movies too. I rarely get surprised by a book, although occasionally I've put one down because of the violence level and just not finished it.
> 
> Strong language, not a problem. Sex? I love it. Killing and hurting? Not my thing.


But why? I really want someone to open up (if they feel comfortable) and explain why. There has to be a reason. Like maybe you saw someone get beat up really bad and it was a horrible experience to witness it. I won't even try to give an example about sex. Is this getting too personal?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

People can not like seeing people hurt (even fictional people) without having experienced trauma themselves.  I don't really think it's necessary for people to explain why they don't like something.  People are different.  It can not bother you and bother someone else and that's okay.

Betsy


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Edward Lake said:


> Wow. I guess the written word is very powerful. Well of course it is. But WOW. A kissing scene considered a sex scene?


There are some groups that say do not kiss until you are married. So to them kissing would be sex. Hand holding is also considered sexual. I think the term is handfasting.

The sexual innuendo and violence on network TV is why many people do not watch tv anymore.

This is why you need to know your target audience.
Do not rate books because there are enough for everyone to have their own tastes.

Though on that note: 50 Shades of Cock is not erotica but a cookbook with 50 chicken recipes.
Personally it depends on what I am reading rather sex and/or violence is ok. 
"The seduction of Sara", I would expect sex but not violence.
"The murder of Jean", then yes I expect violence.
"How to clean your house", neither unless killing dust bunnies is murder.


----------



## Lionel&#039;s Mom (Aug 22, 2013)

When I was young I could watch anything at all, but now violence sticks with me longer. I can watch things with monsters, ghosts, zombies, (Walking Dead is kind of video gamey violent) but actual people killing people is upsetting, war stuff is upsetting. I just don't like it in my "entertainment". There's the news for that sort of thing. 

As for sex, I like it fine in books, up to a point in movies. I can't stand noisy kissing, but I don't like when people smack their food either. Violent sex is never something I want to read about or watch. Nope. 

This all gets worse with age, hehehe.


----------



## Edward Lake (Mar 11, 2012)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> People can not like seeing people hurt (even fictional people) without having experienced trauma themselves. I don't really think it's necessary for people to explain why they don't like something. People are different. It can not bother you and bother someone else and that's okay.
> 
> Betsy


I understand. I'm just curious.


----------



## K. D. (Jun 6, 2013)

I don't care if the book contains sex or violence, but I absolutely hate - and start to skim - if the sex lasts 13 pages. Three times per novel. And rinse and repeat in book two, three, and, and, and ... 
To me it feels only like filler after the first time, so two pages for the next scenes  would be enough for me, the rest of the book/series...


----------



## beccaprice (Oct 1, 2011)

The United States is a weird place. Violence, no matter how graphic, is acceptable, but sex is seen as offensive.

I don't mind some sex in the books I read as long as there's not too much and it furthers the emotional arc of the story. I don't care much for tab A goes into slot B sexuality, because while it may be anatomically correct, I find it boring and not furthering the emotional arc.  Nora Roberts writes great sex scenes, because while I can't visualize every touch, sigh, and moan, I feel the emotions of the lead characters, and see how the sex is affecting them emotionally, furthering a connection between the two characters.

I read one book where the author spent pages and pages lovingly describing a specific gun, the muzzle velocity of the bullet as it left the gun, the impact the bullet made on the head of the target victim, and graphically described then results. now that, to me, was obscene. I've never read another book by that author again, even though the mystery was good and I rather liked the lead character. It just seemed so unnecessary.

This is as close as I can come to describing *why* I avoid graphic violence and in general tend to avoid erotica or erotic romance - I like a higher story:sex ratio than is usual in those genres.


----------



## quiet chick writes (Oct 19, 2012)

Edward Lake said:


> But why? I really want someone to open up (if they feel comfortable) and explain why. There has to be a reason. Like maybe you saw someone get beat up really bad and it was a horrible experience to witness it. I won't even try to give an example about sex. Is this getting too personal?


There doesn't have to be a reason why. We're lovers, not fighters. That's why. 

I do okay with Walking Dead-type gore (though I still close my eyes when it happens), but I don't like violence, especially when it's realistic, human-on-human, psychological, torture-pr0n kind of stuff. Ick. Nope. No way. No how. Show me the door to the pink fluffy bunnies and unicorns. I'm out!

I like sex and swearing though.


----------



## Marti talbott (Apr 19, 2011)

Edward Lake said:


> But why? I really want someone to open up (if they feel comfortable) and explain why. There has to be a reason. Like maybe you saw someone get beat up really bad and it was a horrible experience to witness it. I won't even try to give an example about sex. Is this getting too personal?


It is probably more of a generational thing. The point is, if you write it, you are probably going to automatically eliminate a class of readers, and the older age groups are the most avid readers from what I've heard. Consider how many readers would complain if your book had no sex, profanity or violence.

Just food for thought.


----------



## katherinef (Dec 13, 2012)

I love books with sex and violence. I'm a bit annoyed when authors hint at sex or violence, but then we never get to see those scenes. I do put a warning in my blurbs to indicate that my book has a lot of sex, but I usually don't put any warnings for violence because there isn't much violence in my books. Sometimes I still get complaints about sex from older readers, but most of my readers would prefer even more descriptive scenes, so I don't worry about it. It's not my fault people decide to ignore warnings. Then again, the reader could have easily skipped the paragraphs with sex.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Sent you a detailed pm.  Was scared of the cattle prod.
I think people like what they like.


----------



## Just Browsing (Sep 26, 2012)

Edward Lake said:


> But why? I really want someone to open up (if they feel comfortable) and explain why. There has to be a reason. Like maybe you saw someone get beat up really bad and it was a horrible experience to witness it. I won't even try to give an example about sex. Is this getting too personal?


You're asking me to explain why I don't like people hurting and killing each other? Really? I find that a disingenuous question. If it honestly isn't, I don't know how I could explain it to you, sorry. It's not "too personal," I guess it's more that if you don't understand why images of someone being hurt or killed aren't appealing, I don't know how I can articulate it.

I read for pleasure. So, I read pleasurable things. To me, sex is pleasurable. Love is pleasurable. Humor is pleasurable. Solving a puzzle or figuring something out is pleasurable. Learning something is pleasurable. Killing is not. Injuring or hurting someone is not. (Being killed or injured is also not pleasurable to me.) Does that help at all? I don't generally "read sad," either, although sometimes I do. I vastly prefer NON-murder mysteries to murder mysteries, although they're oddly hard to find.


----------



## Edward Lake (Mar 11, 2012)

1001nightspress said:


> You're asking me to explain why I don't like people hurting and killing each other? Really? I find that a disingenuous question. If it honestly isn't, I don't know how I could explain it to you, sorry. It's not "too personal," I guess it's more that if you don't understand why images of someone being hurt or killed aren't appealing, I don't know how I can articulate it.
> 
> I read for pleasure. So, I read pleasurable things. To me, sex is pleasurable. Love is pleasurable. Humor is pleasurable. Solving a puzzle or figuring something out is pleasurable. Learning something is pleasurable. Killing is not. Injuring or hurting someone is not. (Being killed or injured is also not pleasurable to me.) Does that help at all? I don't generally "read sad," either, although sometimes I do. I vastly prefer NON-murder mysteries to murder mysteries, although they're oddly hard to find.


But it's not real. They're stories made for entertainment. These aren't real people being killed.


----------



## Just Browsing (Sep 26, 2012)

Edward Lake said:


> But it's not real. They're stories made for entertainment. These aren't real people being killed.


I'm not entertained by people being killed. Or images of people being killed. I'm just not. It's fine that others are, but I really don't think it's SO weird that I don't find violence entertaining.


----------



## RaeC (Aug 20, 2013)

Violence? Sex? I'm a-ok with it all.  I don't even mind it coming out of nowhere in fiction if the type of story makes it seem plausible. Real life often comes without foreshadowing, so I can accept it in fiction too.  However, when it becomes what I consider snuff or filler, I sort of tune out.  The last 30 minutes of Transformers 3...boring.  A 15 page sex scene in a romance novel...I tune out.  Passion of the Christ...will never watch it again.  

It's more a case of sensory overload than being offended, but I'll always be supportive of another artist's right to create such works without limitations.


----------



## RaeC (Aug 20, 2013)

Edward Lake said:


> But it's not real. They're stories made for entertainment. These aren't real people being killed.


Doesn't make a person's response to such stories any less real.


----------



## Claudia King (Oct 27, 2012)

Edward Lake said:


> But it's not real. They're stories made for entertainment. These aren't real people being killed.


The human brain doesn't clearly differentiate like that, though. The sights, sounds, and mental images (not to mention the emotional conveyance) of people being hurt creates a very instinctual response in most of us. It's only the higher-level reasoning of our brains telling us _it's not real_ that stops us from freaking out, and even then it's hard to escape the associations of these things completely.

The entire point of a good story is to make you care about it just like you'd care about a genuine series of events playing out in real life, and if an author throws a bunch of graphic violence into the mix it can affect us in a pretty severe way. I've had sleepless nights due to some of the more harrowing books I've read.


----------



## Edward Lake (Mar 11, 2012)

1001nightspress said:


> I'm not entertained by people being killed. Or images of people being killed. I'm just not. It's fine that others are, but I really don't think it's SO weird that I don't find violence entertaining.


I never said it was weird. What I'm simply saying is...I think it's interesting that some readers have such an emotional reaction to this kind of material. I like to explore the differences in people. It's truly fascinating.


----------



## Just Browsing (Sep 26, 2012)

superfictious said:


> Doesn't make a person's response to such stories any less real.


I think that's a good point. In fact, a book can stay with me longer than a movie sometimes. It's the ideas. What is "real"? Only present-tense-happening-now stuff? Or are feelings and thoughts also real? I'd argue that in fact feelings and thoughts are more real than, say, a table, because the table goes away when you walk into another room.

If words didn't affect me, I wouldn't read for pleasure at all. I read _because_ words affect me. That's the whole point!

I'm not saying the OP shouldn't write violent books. Write the stories you're motivated to write. There are so, so, so many books out there, we can all find what we want. Even if you took violence out of your book, there's no guarantee that I would read it anyway. Writing for an imaginary audience whose tastes you can't understand seems futile. I say, write the books you want to write, and make sure your cover and blurb are good reflections of your content, and you'll be fine.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Maybe a more interesting questions is: Why do people enjoy reading/watching violence?


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Certain violence does bother me, especially its if its especially brutal. I just don't want to read about that. Sex doesn't bother me in any degree.
Now I read some dark stuff with people getting killed, like romantic suspense, but I wouldn't read a thriller about a sadistic serial killer that enjoys killing his victims slowly and painfully. So I read some violence, but not if it is over the top. 
I think its one of those know when I read it.

And if it involves anything with eyeballs, I am out.  



Edward Lake said:


> I never said it was weird. What I'm simply saying is...I think it's interesting that some readers have such an emotional reaction to this kind of material. I like to explore the differences in people. It's truly fascinating.


For me reading is almost all about emotions. That is what makes books special. Every person can read the same book in a completely different way. Its a very personal experience on a emotional level. So for me reading a book is much more connected to me emotionally than watching I think. It just somehow goes deeper as it involves more of our own imagination and life experiences.

But yeah to Monique, I could say its fascinating that some want to read brutal stuff and wonder about that. Why only the other way around.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Should books be rated like movies because of this?


No. Those who dont like a book can stop reading it. It can only bother folks if they continue to read it.

An author wants to put warnings on his book? Fine. Go for it.


----------



## Just Browsing (Sep 26, 2012)

One of my authors (Jeremy Edwards, whose _Pleasure Dial_ is in my signature) is opposed to conflict. He can't even classify his books as "romances" because there is no conflict between the hero and the heroine. They're in love from a few pages after they meet (which is early on). For the rest of the book, they work together, happily. No jealously, no misunderstandings, none of that traditional conflict stuff between them. The first time I read his stuff I didn't really stop to think how unusual that was, in a novel. (They have other challenges, like maybe advancing someone's career, but they never have conflict with each other.)


----------



## Edward Lake (Mar 11, 2012)

Monique said:


> Maybe a more interesting questions is: Why do people enjoy reading/watching violence?


Well, for me at least, it brings out so many emotions. Anger, fear, love, sadness, joy, hate. I can feel it in my heart. It's those rush of emotions that bring the story to life. And because it's not real, I can get lost in it, and still come back to the real world when it's over.


----------



## Just Browsing (Sep 26, 2012)

Edward Lake said:


> Well, for me at least, it brings out so many emotions. Anger, fear, love, sadness, joy, hate. I can feel it in my heart. It's those rush of emotions that bring the story to life. And because it's not real, I can get lost in it, and still come back to the real world when it's over.


Well, that is interesting--that violence brings out the emotions of love and joy for you as well. It doesn't for me--just the other ones on your list. So if you subtracted the positives from that list and had only the negatives, that's the experience for me, and might help you understand why I avoid it. Limited time in life, and all that--it's so easy to fill my life with happiness that I don't need to go looking for sadness and fear and anger and hate. I just don't need those things. Life will inevitably throw some of them at you (not long ago I saw someone crushed to death in traffic), but I don't go looking for them on my own.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Edward Lake said:


> Well, for me at least, it brings out so many emotions. Anger, fear, love, sadness, joy, hate. I can feel it in my heart. It's those rush of emotions that bring the story to life. And because it's not real, I can get lost in it, and still come back to the real world when it's over.


How does the actual violence bring about those emotions? Not the suspense/threat of violence, but the actual acts of violence?


----------



## Edward Lake (Mar 11, 2012)

1001nightspress said:


> Well, that is interesting--that violence brings out the emotions of love and joy for you as well. It doesn't for me--just the other ones on your list. So if you subtracted the positives from that list and had only the negatives, that's the experience for me, and might help you understand why I avoid it. Limited time in life, and all that--it's so easy to fill my life with happiness that I don't need to go looking for sadness and fear and anger and hate. I just don't need those things. Life will inevitably throw some of them at you (not long ago I saw someone crushed to death in traffic), but I don't go looking for them on my own.


When I say love and joy I'm talking about sex, too. If we're still talking about sex and violence.

Edit: But violence can, too. Like in the movie Rosewood, when Esther Rolle got shot. That was a heartbreaking scene that made me think about my mom. Made me think about how much I love her.


----------



## Just Browsing (Sep 26, 2012)

Edward Lake said:


> When I say love and joy I'm talking about sex, too. If we're still talking about sex and violence.


Oh, sorry, I thought you were responding to Monique's question about violence. Never mind, then!


----------



## Ryan Sullivan (Jul 9, 2011)

Monique said:


> How does the actual violence bring about those emotions? Not the suspense/threat of violence, but the actual acts of violence?


I want to try to answer this as my new book has a number of deaths, in comparison to my last book which was YA and had no major deaths. I'm a bit worried because they're part of the same series, though different characters.

So how does the actual violence bring about these emotions? You see a king break your best friend's neck. Just before it is suspense, or not even suspense if you don't know it's coming. As it happens, shock. Afterwards, horror. Then anger and a deep desire for revenge, an emptiness as you carry away your friend's limp body.

Should I avoid this by summarising, or by mentioning the event in someone else's viewpoint? There goes all that emotion.


----------



## cecilia_writer (Dec 28, 2010)

I think this is partly an age-related thing (and may be gender-related too). I remember my mother as she got older could barely even stand to watch the news on television because she found the reports of violence so upsetting, and now I find myself going in the same direction. I can watch disaster movies because, although horrible things are obviously happening to people in them, you don't usually see them but it focusses on the people who survive! But I can't read about or watch violence against individuals. I first noticed this about 10 years ago when I felt physically ill reading a Christopher Brookmyre novel.
Another thing I can't really cope with unless I feel very strong is the sustained threat of violence in a book.
Sex, though, bring it on! (as long as there isn't violence involved)


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

cassidycayman said:


> When I was young I could watch anything at all, but now violence sticks with me longer. I can watch things with monsters, ghosts, zombies, (Walking Dead is kind of video gamey violent) but actual people killing people is upsetting, war stuff is upsetting. I just don't like it in my "entertainment". There's the news for that sort of thing.
> 
> As for sex, I like it fine in books, up to a point in movies. I can't stand noisy kissing, but I don't like when people smack their food either. Violent sex is never something I want to read about or watch. Nope.
> 
> This all gets worse with age, hehehe.


I go along with this. When watching movies--and I am a movie nut--I have no problem with stylized violence, or, oddly, historical violence, but have trouble watching/reading *real* violence--if that makes any sense. I can watch Game of Thrones, Zombie stuff, Tarantino stuff, and just deal with it, but when violence is portrayed as gritty contemporary *real* people stuff, I can't handle it. Sex? No problem reading it (I do write romance), but any kind of forced sex or over-the-top rough stuff? Nope. Book closed. Gone.

Should there be warnings on books about content? I'd say, not by an outside source, but if an author wants to indicate the degree of violence or heat, because they want to help a reader make an informed decision, then go for it.

But nothing anyone writes "offends" me. I just try to find what I like and weed out what I don't, just like any other reader, I suppose...


----------



## Austin_Briggs (Aug 21, 2011)

beccaprice said:


> The United States is a weird place. Violence, no matter how graphic, is acceptable, but sex is seen as offensive.
> 
> I don't mind some sex in the books I read as long as there's not too much and it furthers the emotional arc of the story. I don't care much for tab A goes into slot B sexuality, because while it may be anatomically correct, I find it boring and not furthering the emotional arc. Nora Roberts writes great sex scenes, because while I can't visualize every touch, sigh, and moan, I feel the emotions of the lead characters, and see how the sex is affecting them emotionally, furthering a connection between the two characters.
> 
> ...


I agree with you.

Sex = love (well, most of the time) but writing about it is obscene.

Violence = the opposite of love, yet many people prefer a good slow-motion of blood gushing out of someone's face over a nice kiss.

I just wrote a book with a lot of sex in it, and a lot of love, and with only few tiny episodes of violence, where my heroes prevent rape and murder. Will see how it goes.


----------



## RaeC (Aug 20, 2013)

Violence can also bring feelings of joy and closure, especially if it ends conflict, punishes the antagonist, and moves the protagonists into a HEA. Was I cheering when Molly Weasley smoked the crap out of Bellatrix Lestrange?  Hell yea. I can't remember the last work of non-erotica I've read that didn't have some form of violence.

But everyone has different tolerance levels and there's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## CWSlater (Sep 26, 2013)

My 2 cents - and fear of ratings in general. 

I have no problem with sex and violence but I don't want to offend people either so I clearly - maybe too clearly? - state in my blurb and when looking for reviews on goodreads that the book has sex and violence and bad words and is not for sensitive readers. If it wasn't a Young Adult novel I probably would tone down the warnings. Just feel like erring on the side of responsibility because I don't need parents writing nastygrams to me.  

I think the problem with any type of "ratings system" is that it becomes a suppression tool. Like what happened when the U.S. got rid of the "X" rating for movies and started using NC-17. The plan was to get rid of the stigma of the "X" rating so that edgier non-porn material could be shown in regular theaters. As it turned out, all the movie chains simply refused to show anything rated NC-17. So movies have to be toned down to get an R-rating to get into those theater chains and the filmmaker and audience lose out. 

I think if you started rating books, some retailers would refuse to carry books beyond a certain rating regardless of the literary merit of the book. Certain libraries would refuse to carry them. Parents would be able to force school libraries to limit what they buy. But just as important, authors would have to self-censor their books and tone everything down or risk a severe crimp in exposure. I don't think that is in any way desirable. Although maybe we put out the special "unrated" version and make money that way...  Anyway - I think ratings would lead to a type of censorship. And that can't be good.


----------



## Austin_Briggs (Aug 21, 2011)

superfictious said:


> Violence can also bring feelings of joy and closure, especially if it ends conflict, punishes the antagonist, and moves the protagonists into a HEA. Was I cheering when Molly Weasley smoked the crap out of Bellatrix Lestrange? Hell yea. I can't remember the last work of non-erotica I've read that didn't have some form of violence.
> 
> But everyone has different tolerance levels and there's nothing wrong with that.


I understand perfectly.

But ... peace is also closure. You don't have to beat someone up to make a point.

I was shocked (shocked) while reading a YA book the other day where a nice 12-year old boy turns his step-dad into stone and sells him, after he no longer needs him for protection. Readers are cheering. I'm like, what? The author "lost me as a reader".

Or the movie "Up!" where they threw the old guy from the dirigible at the end? I used to love Pixar, but it'll take a ton of convincing for me to watch their next movie.

Don't get me wrong, I write violent adult stories, too, but I feel that a conflict resolution doesn't have to end up in someone getting beat up or killed.


----------



## RaeC (Aug 20, 2013)

Austin_Briggs said:


> I understand perfectly.
> 
> But ... peace is also closure. You don't have to beat someone up to make a point.
> 
> ...


I get what you're saying and I definitely agree that violence shouldn't always be the biggest part of resolution. It's unfortunate that sometimes stories are set up that way and anything that deviates from the expected outcome comes across as disappointing for fans. One of the things I distinctly remember when original Matrix movie was released was how one reviewer pointed out how this was a supposedly new age, philosophical, next-generation type of movie and the resolution basically came down to an old-fashioned karate fight.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

1001nightspress said:


> i avoid graphic violence in books. I don't need them rated--I can tell from the blurb (and sometimes the reviews). And yes, I avoid violent movies too. I rarely get surprised by a book, although occasionally I've put one down because of the violence level and just not finished it.
> 
> Strong language, not a problem. Sex? I love it. Killing and hurting? Not my thing.


I find sex scenes boring. When I come across them, I tend to simply skip them. Killing and hurting? Fine with me as long as it is justified by the plot. I don't like it thrown in on the assumption that the reader is a sadist.

But I always wonder what "graphic" violence is. I've never even been sure what that entails.


----------



## HarryK (Oct 20, 2011)

Personally, I'm not bothered by sex or violence in a book, unless I get the sense the author is doing it just to be edgy. Then I tend to find it either annoying or eye-roll inducing. Note that I say "if I get the sense" which is to say if the author really did do it for the sake of being edgy, but somehow hid it (either by just being really skilled, or even just me being obtuse that day), then it probably won't get to me.

If the depiction of sex and/or violence is either boring or just goes on too long, I'm likely to either skip or skim.

As to why some people might be bothered more by these subjects in a book but less so in say, a movie or TV show? My guess is that a book is felt to be a more intimate form of media by many. The story "gets into your head" I guess you could say. In a way that a movie can't.

And then of course there are people who just don't like it regardless of medium.


----------



## katherinef (Dec 13, 2012)

Austin_Briggs said:


> I was shocked (shocked) while reading a YA book the other day where a nice 12-year old boy turns his step-dad into stone and sells him, after he no longer needs him for protection. Readers are cheering. I'm like, what? The author "lost me as a reader".


  I need to find that book. Sounds hilarious.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

Graphic sex doesn't bother me, but a lot of times I'll skim the scene because I've  read so much of it over the years in novels. Sometimes I read it, though. I also write it if it fits the story.

I also read violence if I'm reading war or a detective story. I don't read horror or slasher stuff as it makes me emotionally upset. In fact, I've had an idea for a novel in my head for about 30 years that I'll probably never write, as I don't want to spend hours in that particular world. And, what if that was the one that took off bit time and people wanted more? I just wouldn't want to spend hours in that darkness. 

It floors me that Americans are fine with people blowing up and being shot, but don't show a c*ck on TV even if a guy is in the shower.

What does offend me? If you bore me, you've offended me greatly. I'll never read your work again.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Caddy said:


> Graphic sex doesn't bother me, but a lot of times I'll skim the scene because I've read so much of it over the years in novels. Sometimes I read it, though. I also write it if it fits the story.
> 
> I also read violence if I'm reading war or a detective story. I don't read horror or slasher stuff as it makes me emotionally upset. In fact, I've had an idea for a novel in my head for about 30 years that I'll probably never write, as I don't want to spend hours in that particular world. And, what if that was the one that took off bit time and people wanted more? I just wouldn't want to spend hours in that darkness.
> 
> ...


American prudery is peculiar, no doubt. It is all right to show full frontal nudity of a woman, but never of a man. Strange. Very strange.

It isn't that sex offends me, just that 99% of the descriptions of it bore me so much I won't bother reading it. If it has an emotional impact on the characters--while it is happening--that works for me and I'll read it. But otherwise, it is just padding on the same level as describing in detail and uneventful ride across town. (No doubt I would feel differently if I read for something else than the story and reading for sexual pleasure is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. I just prefer--other means.  )


----------



## brendajcarlton (Sep 29, 2012)

I can tolerate a certain level of violence, but I can't tolerate any gore.  I know (too well, actually) that people don't usually die quickly and without mess, but I don't want to participate in these experiences if I don't have too.  So tell me one character ran the other through with a sword and I'm Okay.  But describe the wound and the blood in three paragraph detail and I'm done.  I also have an irrational fear of amputated parts.  Yes, I do know what really happens on a battlefield, but I'm very happy that I've never been on one.  I do think more realism in war movies and books is actually good, because young men won't romanticize what they are getting into so much when they all want to go kick somebody's butt.  But I personally watch half the movie with my hands over my eyes saying "Can I look yet?"  Torture, no way.  Won't even attempt to read or watch it.
It's pretty much the same with sex.  I'm okay with sex if you leave out the squishy details.  I've written a couple of fairly graphic sex scenes, but they were meant to illustrate the difference between a woman's first and second husband, and how she learned to tell the good guys from the bad guys in choosing a spouse, not just for thrills.  I know many people here are erotica writers, but I never felt like I enjoyed sex as a spectator sport.  I'm not a religious prude.  I just feel like a peeping Tom.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

I can deal with punch by punch violent action in a book so long as the good guys are defending. Violence has to be just, in order for me to enjoy it. I watched _Silence of the Lambs_ at someone's insistence and had bad dreams for a week. Violence for its own sake sickens me. I loved _Independence Day_, though. Give me a bunch of humans defending Earth against aliens who want to obliterate us, and I cheer our team on.

I cannot stand the thriller movies and shows my husband loves, such as _La Femme Nikita_. They have torture, which I have no desire at all to even think about, even though I know it exists. He loves the action. It gives him an adrenaline rush. It just makes me nauseous. That is not pleasurable. I come read KB when he watches those shows.

I don't watch the news anymore, either. Too much rape, torture, killing...

"Play by play" sex in books and movies bores me. I skip it or take a bathroom break (unless I'm editing, of course!). *This wasn't always the case. I loved sex in books and movies when I was young. I'm 50 now. Been there, done that.* It doesn't offend me, though, unless it is non-consensual.

Carole King does a good job of explaining why many of us don't read the paper in her song, "Believe in Humanity." I think her words apply to brutal books and movies, too. I want to believe in love and brotherhood and fellowship. I want to dwell on those happy thoughts. If you tell me too much about brutality, then I'm liable to lose my faith in humanity.

This is my favorite song to sing at auditions.


----------



## brie.mcgill (Jun 5, 2013)

In my writing, I am 100% all in for explicit sex and violence. I think it's absolutely critical that a channel (in this case, literature) remains open to discuss these things, otherwise people develop various shades of unhealthy obsession/repression (the Greeks were onto something with tragedies and catharsis).

I don't have time to rant about the sex right now...  

But the violence? This is why I write.

I am a human being trapped in a world where this stuff goes on and I am powerless in the face of it all. Absolutely powerless. There is violence on a small scale and a grand scale.

Dear fellow citizens of planet earth, it's time we sat down and talked about these things.

Really, I craft entertaining stories. But if I can work in a few nuggets of plot to provoke some deeper thought, I've done my job.

I write violence because it's everywhere and I see it with my own human eyes. I feel it. And my heart bleeds.

That's why I hit the keys. (Sorry for the emotional post.   )


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

Monique said:


> Maybe a more interesting questions is: Why do people enjoy reading/watching violence?


On some level, I've been fascinated by violence my entire life. My parents certainly didn't sell me on an interest in medieval history as a child, but there I was, tickled pink by all things militaria from a very young age. Ultimately I went on to serve as an infantryman in the U.S. Army, where I received military and civilian training as an EMT. Which brings me to:



brendajcarlton said:


> I can tolerate a certain level of violence, but I can't tolerate any gore. I know (too well, actually) that people don't usually die quickly and without mess, but I don't want to participate in these experiences if I don't have too.


This is the cruel truth. Humans can survive a shocking amount of brutality, and by and large my judgment is that Hollywood soft-soaps it. You're telling me that this guy bled to death and there's, say, a pint of blood on the pavement? That irritates me. It breaks my suspension of disbelief. It cheapens the emotional impact.

One of the worst things you can do, though, is to be flippant about the emotional cost of killing and maiming other humans. Most violent heroes and heroines seem to go about their business with steel in their eyes and joy in their hearts, and that's crap. Humans don't like killing other humans. Or rather, about 2% of them do, and that's how we know they're _fucking sociopaths._

When you get those aspects right-when the physics, the pathos, the biology, the medicine, the weaponry, the training are all portrayed in a way that feels _true_ and that _moves_ me-I'm riveted. I've got the sense that you're homing in on something about the human condition that most of us will never experience, except through storytelling. That's a tremendous blessing. You're incredibly lucky if you have the choice to simply avert your eyes and skip those experiences, and I would never want to take that away from you. For me, though, there's a fascination, and a profound emotional payoff when it's done well. The ability to explore these themes is one of the main things that draws me to writing in the first place.



Cherise Kelley said:


> I can deal with punch by punch violent action in a book so long as the good guys are defending. Violence has to be just, in order for me to enjoy it. I watched _Silence of the Lambs_ at someone's insistence and had bad dreams for a week. Violence for its own sake sickens me. I loved _Independence Day_, though. Give me a bunch of humans defending Earth against aliens who want to obliterate us, and I cheer our team on.


But why are the aliens invading? Are they just incomprehensibly cruel? Amoral? Immoral? What would we do in their situation? Would we invade their world if our technological roles were reversed? Why? What would be our justification? What methods would we use?

Those are questions that interest me, and they tend not to get asked as long as we look at things in terms of good and evil, or say that wickedness can never prosper. I want my stories to end in a way that feels true, rather than good. Reckon that's why I'll never read genre romance.

For profanity, few people would care to read a transcript of most conversations I had in the Army. The F-word is basically used as punctuation (at least among junior enlisted), so the effect becomes much the same as "um," "like," "uh," "y'know," "er," &c. Writers lose me when they whitewash language, but by all means we should make normal allowances for dialogue. Word for word transcription is usually a poor technique.

This is genre-specific too. I'll use profanity liberally in a far-future sci-fi story, and little or none in an epic fantasy.

Sex is more problematic to me. It's not that sex itself bothers me, it's that sometimes I'll be reading George R. R. Martin and suddenly he's standing over my shoulder, whispering in my ear about all of the filthy goings on. He leans in as the scene grows more intense. I can feel his breath on my face, and his beard starts to tickle. The brim of his beret nudges into my ear. His sweaty palm grips my shoulder, and we descend together into madness.

It's not really as sexy as you'd hope.

I think the trouble with sex isn't _sex,_ it's writing it well. I think it's probably a lot harder than violence or just about anything else, and I honestly might go check out Nora Roberts to get a feel for how experts do it. I can't really think of any masterful writing on sex off of the top of my head.


----------



## ER Pierce (Jun 4, 2013)

Not much offends me, so no.


----------



## brie.mcgill (Jun 5, 2013)

> When you get those aspects right-when the physics, the pathos, the biology, the medicine, the weaponry, the training are all portrayed in a way that feels true and that moves me-I'm riveted. I've got the sense that you're homing in on something about the human condition that most of us will never experience, except through storytelling. That's a tremendous blessing.


I love you, Dolphin. 

The human condition... that's what it is. Especially a sincere emotional involvement in the violence. That's why I love Himura Kenshin, and even the ending of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's nest. Not that I've watched the latter for the violence, but because the whole story is so moving... there's a spiritual truth somewhere in all of it.


----------



## RaeC (Aug 20, 2013)

George R.R. Martin is sexy as hell. I don't know *what *you people are talking about. *hmmph*


----------



## RaeC (Aug 20, 2013)

And speaking of ol' George, I think _Game of Thrones_ is the current pop culture gauge of how much an individual can or cannot stand violence and sex.


----------



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

Ann pretty much expressed my attitude. We even agree on lima beans.

For me it's a matter of degree. I read mysteries and thrillers, so I'm okay with some violence. However, there's a difference between saying someone's shot and describing it a little -- or describing wounds, gore, and injured innards in colorful detail. Same with sex. Emotions, connection, a few pages well done, great. A whole chapter describing every sigh, move, and all body fluids. Uh uh. I have a tendency to skip both kinds of scenes unless something leading into them really hooks me.

I write both sex and violence in my own books, but only at the relatively mild level I read myself. Some readers find it too much and some are unhappy there isn't more, and I haven't only seen feedback on the sex, but also on the violence. A reader emailed me not long ago asking if my "publisher" (see readers, really don't pay attention to who's indie or not if the book doesn't shout it at them) was forcing me to tone down the violence in my romances because she thought the recent ones weren't as violent as the early ones. I don't agree with that assessment, but there it is.

As a reader - some rough language here and there? Fine. Page after page of nothing but f-- this and that. No. And if it's in realistic dialog? Sure, if a character deals with a lowlife for a few pages, I'll wade through it, but in real life I avoid people who substitute profanity for vocabulary, and I don't want to spend a lot of time with those kind of folks in fiction either.

Yes, my tastes in movies and television are the same. I doubt I've ever been to an R rated movie, but then I rarely go to the movies and hardly ever watch tv any more. Age is part of that IMO. TV gives me a been there, done that feeling. The last series I watched with any regularity was NCIS, and after a few seasons... been there, seen that.

I don't see how there could be an effective rating system and wouldn't want one. I think it's incumbent on each of us to give our readers good clues via covers and blurbs, and hope a variety of reviews does the rest.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

Edward Lake said:


> Wow. I guess the written word is very powerful. Well of course it is. But WOW. A kissing scene considered a sex scene?


I know! Right? lol. It was actually a very emotional moment in the story, and the kissing progressed, but there was nothing all that 'sexy' about it. I think the only body part I mentioned or even hinted at besides the feel of skin, was breast--and I'm not even sure I mentioned that! It faded to black, and returned to them afterward, which was playful. When I mentioned to others who had read the book, about the complaint most were like, huh? There's a sex scene?


----------



## Victoria Champion (Jun 6, 2012)

My latest blurb contains the line: _This story contains mature subject matter (including explicit sex and gore) and is intended for an adult audience_. Further on I use the words _erotic horror_ in boldface.

Desire and revulsion -- felt at the same time during an experience -- is a kink of psychology that fascinates me. I enjoy writing about it.

I also like to read and watch films on similar subjects (David Cronenberg, for example, Cthulhian tentacle sex for another). For me, one of the core tenets of the horror genre is the disgust and bewilderment we have about ourselves, while at the same time being pressed upon by outside forces. For instance: what lengths we would go to survive? The shedding of our civility? The raw glimpse inside our true natures that the horror genre provides is a stunning and yet compelling portrait of the human condition.

In order to reach these depths, I think explicitness of some content is required. Let me end this post with a recent quote by Clive Barker:

"I once asked Stephen King why he never had any sex scenes in his books, and he told me he was embarrassed by it. I don't think this is unusual among horror writers. They actually believe it is a metaphor rather than a confrontation. They think it only works in horror stories if its subtextual. That's nonsense. If it's going to be sex, let's damn well see them go to it. I don't want sex in my work to be relief from the horror. I want it to be part of it."


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Fiction is a way to live vicariously.

Good fiction can make a person think, make a person act, and make a person feel.

It just depends on what type of things people like to vicariously feel.

As a writer, I try to figure out how to make readers feel as many things as possible, appropriate to the genre I'm writing in. I want to make them laugh, make them afraid, make them tense, turn them on, make them happy, gross them out, make them sad. Fiction is a safe substitute for real life, and a way to tease out emotions on a safe, artificial level.

I have no problems with people who don't want swearing, or sex, or violence in fiction.

I have a lot of problems with people telling me that swearing, sex, and violence in fiction are wrong. 

Too many people confuse their personal biases with something being good or bad. We all have biases. But we should all understand that we're all different. 

I've found, through personal, subjective experience, that those who don't care for certain elements in their fiction aren't very tolerant of those who like those sorts of things. This is ubiquitous in the US. We live in a country where many feel it is their duty to decide what is normal and appropriate. Not everyone who dislikes swearing in a novel is closed-minded. But we're not a very tolerant species, and the more things you frown upon, the more likely you are to believe that because you think it's wrong, everyone should think it's wrong.

The root of many problems with society and humanity stems from being closed-minded and intolerant. That often comes from what we're taught. 

We can show ten thousand murders on network TV, but not a bare breast. We get outraged that children are playing videogames where they can kill cops, when no causal connection has been proven between video game violence and real life violence. We form church groups and elect politicians to make sure two people in love can't get married, or adopt children.

If you don't like certain elements in your fiction, understand why you feel that way, and understand your feelings don't translate to others. 

I don't like tear-jerkers. I think foot fetishism is the silliest kink ever. I would never go skydiving. And I would support anyone who disagrees with me on these things.


----------



## Just Browsing (Sep 26, 2012)

So you wouldn't read a story about a foot fetishist who is tragically killed while sky-diving? That offends me! Ha.

Yeah, I have no qualms with other people reading things I don't enjoy. God knows not everyone is going to read what I enjoy. Last night I read part of a handbook on systemic functional linguistics and then some light romantic chick lit. I don't think I could get my husband to touch either of those things. Still love him, though.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> This is ubiquitous in the US. We live in a country where many feel it is their duty to decide what is normal and appropriate.


Its found all over the world, and seems to be a characteristic of humans. It simply takes different forms in different places. However, in the US, those folks have far less power than in almost any other country. So they are free to express their disapproval of erotica, conservatives on campus, Islam, Scientology, or cable TV, while the rest of us indulge as we choose.



> The root of many problems with society and humanity stems from being closed-minded and intolerant.


That might depend on what one is not tolerating.


----------



## Edward Lake (Mar 11, 2012)

MaryMcDonald said:


> I know! Right? lol. It was actually a very emotional moment in the story, and the kissing progressed, but there was nothing all that 'sexy' about it. I think the only body part I mentioned or even hinted at besides the feel of skin, was breast--and I'm not even sure I mentioned that! It faded to black, and returned to them afterward, which was playful. When I mentioned to others who had read the book, about the complaint most were like, huh? There's a sex scene?


It's just so interesting because movies and tv are so in your face. You can see it and hear it. So I would think that people would be more open to sex and violence in books because you have more control. At least that's how I feel. It's all in your head, so how you handle it is up to you. Unlike something visual where you're getting so much thrown at you all at once.


----------



## brendajcarlton (Sep 29, 2012)

> Its found all over the world, and seems to be a characteristic of humans. It simply takes different forms in different places. However, in the US, those folks have far less power than in almost any other country. So they are free to express their disapproval of erotica, conservatives on campus, Islam, Scientology, or cable TV, while the rest of us indulge as we choose.


One can't help but note the irony of people who spend so much emotional energy strenuously disapproving of other people's disapprovals.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

I agree with Jack on the foot fetish.  Ewww, yuck and obscene.  Makes my toes want to run and hide.


----------



## Edward Lake (Mar 11, 2012)

brendajcarlton said:


> One can't help but note the irony of people who spend so much emotional energy strenuously disapproving of other people's disapprovals.


No one is disapproving of anyone's point of view. At least I'm not. As I said in earlier post, I like to explore different perspectives. This is just a friendly debate.


----------



## brendajcarlton (Sep 29, 2012)

> No one is disapproving of anyone's point of view. At least I'm not. As I said in earlier post, I like to explore different perspectives. This is just a friendly debate. Cool


It was more of a general comment and not aimed at you in particular. I love friendly debates.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

brie.mcgill said:


> I love you, Dolphin.


<3!



brendajcarlton said:


> One can't help but note the irony of people who spend so much emotional energy strenuously disapproving of other people's disapprovals.


The disapproval of others can be an extremely important, dangerous thing. Nobody might stay up nights worrying about the disapproval of Bubba Smith of Delight, Arkansas (population 287), but the disapproval of a politician, or an employer, or a vendor, or even a reader who couldn't be bothered to read a content advisory can have consequences. JA made a good post, and I agree with it.

More broadly, it won't do to worry about the irony of disapproving of disapproval (or intolerance of intolerance, to couch it differently). Try approving of everything or disapproving of everything and let me know how that works out for you. Tolerance is a good principle, but it's not practical to tolerate absolutely everything.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

I'm with Caddy. Nothing much offends me, except a boring story.

In fiction, that is. I might not be bothered reading about certain things, while at the same time they would seriously trouble me if they happened in reality.

Fiction should be a safe playground to play with taboos and boundaries. It should stretch the mind of the reader. This is not saying the reader should agree with everything.

All fiction is a what-if proposition. What-if History, What-if politics, what-if morals.


----------



## lmckinley (Oct 3, 2012)

> It's all in your head, so how you handle it is up to you.


I disagree with this. If I'm engaged in a story, my imagination runs with it and goes where the story goes. Sure, my own experience dictates what I actually can imagine, but books create a picture in the mind. (How does this actually happen? I find it a mystery.) I know I've read things that created images in my mind that I find it hard to forget and didn't want in my head. I've heard others say the same thing. But it's not like I can just 'skip' it because I don't necessarily know where it is in the book, ya' know? In a movie, it's hard to forget an image that I don't like. But with a book, it's like trying to forget a nightmare. You know its all in your head, but it doesn't make it less disturbing. In some ways, its worse.

When I was about thirteen I read Tolkein's The Fellowship of the Ring, and it actually really scared me. I'm the only person I know who felt this way about it, and now I consider it one of my favorite books, almost like a comfort book. But at that time, the mines of Moria, the wolves, the eye - the whole thing was so powerful in my mind, it really troubled me. It felt real in a way that no movie ever has.


----------



## ChrisWard (Mar 10, 2012)

No problem with it at all if it serves the story. If it's there to shock or titillate me I tend to get bored very quickly. I've had a couple of reviews complain there wasn't enough "gore" in my horror stories collection. They're stories, not gore fests. I try to impress people with the plot, not graphic descriptions of sex or people getting dismembered.


----------



## Edward Lake (Mar 11, 2012)

lmckinley said:


> I disagree with this. If I'm engaged in a story, my imagination runs with it and goes where the story goes. Sure, my own experience dictates what I actually can imagine, but books create a picture in the mind. (How does this actually happen? I find it a mystery.) I know I've read things that created images in my mind that I find it hard to forget and didn't want in my head. I've heard others say the same thing. But it's not like I can just 'skip' it because I don't necessarily know where it is in the book, ya' know? In a movie, it's hard to forget an image that I don't like. But with a book, it's like trying to forget a nightmare. You know its all in your head, but it doesn't make it less disturbing. In some ways, its worse.
> 
> When I was about thirteen I read Tolkein's The Fellowship of the Ring, and it actually really scared me. I'm the only person I know who felt this way about it, and now I consider it one of my favorite books, almost like a comfort book. But at that time, the mines of Moria, the wolves, the eye - the whole thing was so powerful in my mind, it really troubled me. It felt real in a way that no movie ever has.


That's really amazing in a very cool way.  Don't you just love this stuff


----------



## Richardcrasta (Jul 29, 2010)

SEX:
How can I be offended at the very force that brought me into existence?
How can I be offended at someone's description of a joyful activity that gives so much meaning to my existence, however small a part it may actually play in my life?
We should worship this force: and many ancient societies did. Venus, Rathi (goddess of sex, in India), even Shiva, Aphrodite, and the phallus and vagina, which were worshipped as the life force.

If it is natural and convincing, and part of a story, it enhances a book for me.

VIOLENCE:
I cannot stand too much graphic violence, either in movies or in literature.
It does not give me pleasure: none at all.
But I accept its presence in great stories, in great movies which try to depict life, history, or the future.


----------



## HarryK (Oct 20, 2011)

cinisajoy said:


> I agree with Jack on the foot fetish. Ewww, yuck and obscene. Makes my toes want to run and hide.


For myself, I wouldn't go that far, but it is one of those fetishes that I just don't get.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "When I was about thirteen I read Tolkein's The Fellowship of the Ring, and it actually really scared me. I'm the only person I know who felt this way about it, and now I consider it one of my favorite books, almost like a comfort book. But at that time, the mines of Moria, the wolves, the eye - the whole thing was so powerful in my mind, it really troubled me. It felt real in a way that no movie ever has."


I read it in the middle of a hurricane, hunkered down in a clapboard house just off the beach. Perfect setting, especially at night.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Different strokes for different folks.  And I fully understand that my 'strokes' are different than a lot of people's. 

But that's what makes it great.  It would be boring if we all had the same tastes.  Fortunately, most of us live in countries that protect our rights to publish and read what we want, and no one can force their personal tastes (or distastes) upon others. 

One thing I've never understood is the censorship of fiction.  You have imaginary people doing imaginary things, and there are people getting upset about it?  And others here have mentioned the inconsistency of it all, where I could write a story depicting in graphic detail over ten pages how a brother murders his sister and dissects her body, and it would sail through the censors.  But if I wrote ten pages about the same fictional couple having sex, oh no, we can't have that.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

I am never offended by sex, unless somebody is having public sex in a wildly inappropriate place, like, say, a park full of families.  That's just inconsiderate.  But that applies to real life, not to fiction.

Sex is wonderful and awesome and one of the best things about being alive.  Everybody should have more sex, and read about sex more.  More sex in entertainment!  Sex is fantastic!  Sex means people are having a great time, and are maybe in love, and are living life well!  Yay for sex!

Violence is a different matter.  I am not entertained by suffering.  Sometimes depictions of suffering are necessary to understand character and motivation.  I write (and read a TON of) historical fiction, and history often revolves around wars, coups, oustings, revolutions, and other forms of violence.  Violence that serves a clear purpose within a story that is overall about something other than just the violence is okay with me, though I often have a difficult time reading and writing it.  

However, I do not read books which utilize suffering or a person in peril as the most important plot device.  I just can't make myself okay with being entertained by the image of people in extremely unpleasant situations.  So I don't usually read horror (though I do like the ghost stories!), and I almost never read mysteries or thrillers, as those almost always involve gruesome murders, kidnappings, rapes, domestic violence, and other things I just can't accept as entertainment.  Yes, I know in the  case of mysteries and thrillers the focus is on the "good guy" solving the crime and bringing the "bad guy" to justice, but all those awful scenes describing the torment of another person are necessary to fuel that plot, and I just can't do it.

More sex, less violence.


----------



## M.W.W. Michael Wilkerson U.S. Vet (Sep 16, 2013)

NO. lol


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Edward Lake said:


> But why? I really want someone to open up (if they feel comfortable) and explain why. There has to be a reason. Like maybe you saw someone get beat up really bad and it was a horrible experience to witness it. I won't even try to give an example about sex. Is this getting too personal?


Sure, I'll tell you why, I just don't like it. I prefer lighter cozier books. My taste in movies and TV is similar. However there are exceptions, sometimes I do like a darker story or TV/Movie, but more the exception than the rule.

Thing is, there are so many books available that offer what I DO like and not enough time to read them all, so absolutely no reason to waste time reading what doesn't interest me.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

PamelaKelley said:


> Sure, I'll tell you why, I just don't like it. I prefer lighter cozier books. My taste in movies and TV is similar. However there are exceptions, sometimes I do like a darker story or TV/Movie, but more the exception than the rule.
> 
> Thing is, there are so many books available that offer what I DO like and not enough time to read them all, so absolutely no reason to waste time reading what doesn't interest me.


Yeah, I'll go into "why" more, too. I think it's effed up to find somebody else's suffering to be entertaining. I think it speaks to something really broken inside another person if they think it's a jolly good time when another person is hurt or killed. I don't want to be anywhere near a person like that.

I felt that way about violence-as-entertainment well before I was ever the victim of domestic abuse myself, so it has nothing to do with having witnessed or experienced violence first-hand. There are lot of us out there who just plain don't feel entertained when other people are suffering.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

ElHawk said:


> I think it's effed up to find somebody else's suffering to be entertaining. I think it speaks to something really broken inside another person if they think it's a jolly good time when another person is hurt or killed. I don't want to be anywhere near a person like that.


You're confusing fiction with real life. Many, many people who enjoy violence in their fiction abhor it when it happens to a real person. I know, because I'm one of those people.

Despite your claims, when I'm writing or reading a story, there is no _person_ getting hurt or killed. I am able to separate fiction from reality.


----------



## Edward Lake (Mar 11, 2012)

swolf said:


> You're confusing fiction with real life. Many, many people who enjoy violence in their fiction abhor it when it happens to a real person. I know, because I'm one of those people.
> 
> Despite your claims, when I'm writing or reading a story, there is no _person_ getting hurt or killed. I am able to separate fiction from reality.


Well said.

But I do respect how others feel about this.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Just please no "I love you" immediately after sex.


----------



## Zelah Meyer (Jun 15, 2011)

Sex or violence wouldn't _offend_ me.

I don't generally seek out books with graphic sex, because - in novel length fiction - it tends to bore me, or it tends to signify the type of romance that I don't like (they're together, then they split up, then they're together, then they split up, etc... then we're supposed to believe that they can keep it together for a HEA...) Many people love that type of story, but I'm not one of them!

I don't mind short erotica, but it wouldn't be my first genre of choice. My preference is for sweet/clean romances. I've said before that I feel that sex in a novel is a bit like sending a marching band across the stage in the middle of a play. It needs to be done skillfully if it's to avoid standing out and detracting from the story. Some authors can pull it off, but some (including trad pubbed ones) can't. Same goes for movies, a protracted sex scene that doesn't advance character or plot would be jarring.

As for violence - I don't mind action movie 12 or 15 rated violence. More than that and it gets a bit distasteful - both in book or movie form. It's the difference between someone firing a gun and the person hitting the ground, and someone firing a gun and blood spraying everywhere and the camera focussing on the look of pain and horror on the face of the person who has been shot. I just don't like graphic violence - it's icky, it's unpleasant, and I don't enjoy it.

I don't like horror, sexual violence against women, or cruelty to animals. Any paranormal scariness means I just won't go there.

I empathise very strongly, and I feel the pain or the joy of the characters. I don't like escaping into a world that is worse than the one I live in. Thus, I read and watch feel good books/movies, or adventures. Whatever they are, they have to have a happy ending. A traumatised character, means a traumatised me (seriously, I'm still a bit scarred by a few 'British' (i.e. depressing) films that my mother made me sit though.)


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

I wouldn't say I get "offended" by anything in books, but there's lots of stuff I don't wanna read about. M/M sex. More power to them and all that, but I have too vivd of an imagination to read a sex scene. Same with certain ssadistic scenes that depict gratuitous violence, partularly in sexual places on women. Makes my skin crawl and my stomach wanna fly out my mouth.


----------



## valeriec80 (Feb 24, 2011)

ElHawk said:


> Yeah, I'll go into "why" more, too. I think it's effed up to find somebody else's suffering to be entertaining. I think it speaks to something really broken inside another person if they think it's a jolly good time when another person is hurt or killed. I don't want to be anywhere near a person like that.


I agree with this, but I think most people who like violent entertainment identify with the victim of the suffering and want to see that person triumph over the "bad guys" who are hurting that victim.

I mean, that's even what_ Hostel'_s all about, and they call that "torture porn."

There might be people out there who are into those kinds of stories because they like seeing people hurt--those people are disturbing. But it's very rare to find a movie/story with a moral center that doesn't censure violence.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

ElHawk said:


> Yeah, I'll go into "why" more, too. I think it's effed up to find somebody else's suffering to be entertaining. I think it speaks to something really broken inside another person if they think it's a jolly good time when another person is hurt or killed. I don't want to be anywhere near a person like that.





valeriec80 said:


> I agree with this, but I think most people who like violent entertainment identify with the victim of the suffering and want to see that person triumph over the "bad guys" who are hurting that victim.
> 
> I mean, that's even what_ Hostel'_s all about, and they call that "torture porn."
> 
> There might be people out there who are into those kinds of stories because they like seeing people hurt--those people are disturbing. But it's very rare to find a movie/story with a moral center that doesn't censure violence.


Yeah, I don't get horror. Especially the gratuitous Saw/Hostel constellation of films, or Stephen King. Partly I think it's a production values or stylistic thing, but I think there's some payoff there that other people enjoy and I don't even experience.

There are exceptions even in horror. The Shining comes to mind, and Alien. They're unquestionably horrifying, but they've got aesthetic merits, they've got characterization, they've got plot. There's reasons why they're classics and have an appeal broader than the horror genre itself.

All of that said, my beef is with horror and not with violence. Is Saving Private Ryan entertaining? Yeah, I suppose that's one of the main selling points of any major motion picture. Is it violent? Good gravy, yes. It's as violent as just about any horror film, but Saving Private Ryan is to Hostel as sex is to Debbie Does Dallas.

I wouldn't censor any of these films, but some have more value to me than others. I watch not simply to be entertained, but to _feel,_ and to learn. I can imagine horror fans having a similar experience.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

swolf said:


> You're confusing fiction with real life. Many, many people who enjoy violence in their fiction abhor it when it happens to a real person. I know, because I'm one of those people.
> 
> Despite your claims, when I'm writing or reading a story, there is no _person_ getting hurt or killed. I am able to separate fiction from reality.


Well, my feelings about it are my feelings. They're not going to change because you think I'm confusing fiction with real life. I never said I think people should stop reading or writing violent fiction, if that's what they want to do. But I am not entertained by that stuff, so I steer clear of it.


----------



## cwashburn (May 20, 2013)

I like to have an idea what I'm getting into when I read a novel.  It's just my personal choice.  That's why I like, and use, labels like 'sweet romance' or 'cozy mystery' to describe some of the books I write.  I also write dystopian fiction;  more action but again nothing graphic.
There's room for all kinds of writers and readers, I like to think, but most people prefer to have an idea what they're starting to read.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

ElHawk said:


> Yeah, I'll go into "why" more, too. I think it's effed up to find somebody else's suffering to be entertaining. I think it speaks to something really broken inside another person if they think it's a jolly good time when another person is hurt or killed. I don't want to be anywhere near a person like that.
> 
> I felt that way about violence-as-entertainment well before I was ever the victim of domestic abuse myself, so it has nothing to do with having witnessed or experienced violence first-hand. There are lot of us out there who just plain don't feel entertained when other people are suffering.


I write books where my main character goes through quite a bit of suffering. It's not that people are entertained by reading about it. It's more like they sympathize with him, or empathize if they've ever been wrongly accused of something--and who hasn't? We all know that sense of indignation. In most cases, accusations against us are minor to moderate annoyances--but when that would be boring in a book. My theory isn't that people are getting their jollies reading about a character suffering--they are so into the characters that they can feel their pain on an emotional level and sometimes, even get a little twinge in their gut while reading it. It's the resolution of the conflict and the character triumphing that they love.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

ElHawk said:


> Well, my feelings about it are my feelings. They're not going to change because you think I'm confusing fiction with real life. I never said I think people should stop reading or writing violent fiction, if that's what they want to do. But I am not entertained by that stuff, so I steer clear of it.


You're free to steer clear of it, but when you say things about us like "something really broken inside another person if they think it's a jolly good time when another person is hurt or killed" or that we're "entertained when other people are suffering", then you're criticizing us, not just 'steering clear' of it.


----------



## Michael Buckley (Jun 24, 2013)

We live in a very violent and se*ual world... To deny that would mean that you walk through life with your eyes closed. Of course a lot of content will bother readers and some of it bothers me as well. It is our right to freedom of speech and it is our right to read everything that is legal.

I am sure a lot of readers choose not to read certain topics... Powerful stories will involve our past as people. To make the mistake and not read about things in the past to me is a poor choice. A very popular book that would surely rank in the bestseller list, surly most have read it? Or a page or two from it. The Bible. Contents contain both from this thread topic.

Some stories cannot be told without adding the shear violence. One such book I read long ago "Auschwitz" contains acts of violence that will send pain though your whole body reading it. The days of the Romans when they had their rein on terror contain a highly s*xual content.

To not read a book because of strong content in either of the topics is like leaving a part of history behind.

To write one of my Dystopian books and not add violent content seems to cause the story to go flat and not believable. I only read the WOOL free story, still have not made enough money to pay attention. WOOL creates his own world and he can dictate the amount of violence the world will have. 

I do not create my own world, I write from a world we have now or in the future or past. The world is violent and to write anything less would not even be remotely believable.

The last two weeks where I live in the southern Philippines not far from where I am they had a war for over a week, this is real life not fiction. To write a story of fiction you have to base it loosely on events around you. We all choose what we like to read, I am just saying there is a large world around you. And that world is very violent and very s*xual.

For me what I do not like is movies like silence of the Lamb and the other one they came out with, others love movies like that.

I use to read a lot on history, now not so much anymore, to not read of our own history can lead to repeating our past-famous people have said that with a lot better word usage.  I have seen bodies cut and two and seen enough violence to last two life times. I enjoy the christmas story I wrote and plan to write more. Sometime it feels good to leave the books of violence and s*x alone and write something for everyone to enjoy.

This is an impossible topic and no one will ever agree on it. I did not read all the responce because I know the replys without even reading them.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Yeah, I'll go into "why" more, too. I think it's effed up to find somebody else's suffering to be entertaining. I think it speaks to something really broken inside another person if they think it's a jolly good time when another person is hurt or killed. I don't want to be anywhere near a person like that.


_Lord of the Rings_? Violent. Broken people?


----------



## Michael Buckley (Jun 24, 2013)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Yeah, I'll go into "why" more, too. I think it's effed up to find somebody else's suffering to be entertaining. I think it speaks to something really broken inside another person if they think it's a jolly good time when another person is hurt or killed. I don't want to be anywhere near a person like that.
> 
> _Lord of the Rings_? Violent. Broken people?


Violence should be used to tell a story, if the story requires violence to be told, not for entertainment. I agree with you one hundred percent that it should never be used for entertainment.

Example of what I mean by the word entertainment, someone who tortures and animal just for their amusement is not entertainment, that falls under the category as sick. My thoughts only.


----------



## Deena Ward (Jun 20, 2013)

I'm not sure it's possible for me to be offended by a novel. I reserve offense for more personal interactions.

There's nothing I won't read, if it's well done. And that's a seriously sticky wicket. It's not to say that some things aren't difficult for me to read. Violence, particularly against animals and children, is rough reading for me. Sometimes, it seems like the only reason an author puts a dog in a book is so s/he can kill it off. I actually have to repeat to myself, "The dog wasn't real. The dog wasn't real."

I was recently submitting my book to a site that wanted me to rank the levels of language and sexual and violent content in the novel. Sexual content was easy -- yep, explicit, and plenty of it. Language was more difficult. I mean, my characters don't curse, but I don't write explicit sex scenes without using some profane language. So, okay, I checked the highest language warning. Which left violence, and that is what stumped me.

Is consensual S&M violence? And if it is, how would one go about determining the level of violence? Is, say, a thorough spanking mild violence? Or caning, for example. Is it extreme violence, depending on where said caning is applied? And really, if the cane-ee is enjoying herself, then how can it be violence?

I wound up not submitting my book after all, since I didn't want my erotic romance novel out there with warnings of heavy profanity and extreme violence, or really any violence at all, for that matter. It would attract readers who would likely be disappointed with what they got.


----------



## Ryan Sullivan (Jul 9, 2011)

MaryMcDonald said:


> I write books where my main character goes through quite a bit of suffering. It's not that people are entertained by reading about it. It's more like they sympathize with him, or empathize if they've ever been wrongly accused of something--and who hasn't? We all know that sense of indignation. In most cases, accusations against us are minor to moderate annoyances--but when that would be boring in a book. My theory isn't that people are getting their jollies reading about a character suffering--they are so into the characters that they can feel their pain on an emotional level and sometimes, even get a little twinge in their gut while reading it. It's the resolution of the conflict and the character triumphing that they love.


This. I don't understand how people don't get this. You empathise with characters who endure loss or pain. It's not just a writing tool; it's life. And we've experienced loss ourselves, so it's no wonder we _care_.

Today, an MC's best friend is going to die. He's 13. He tries to steal a bracelet off the king's wrist, and what does the king do but break his neck? If everything always went the way the characters planned in books, there'd be no tension and no emotion.

I don't know if the event is going to stay the same in the final draft. But right now, it is what it is.


----------



## 41413 (Apr 4, 2011)

I like my books violent. I also like comic books, action movies, and first person shooter video games.

I'm a total pacifist, though. I've shot guns but don't like them. _(In case he reads this: Sorry RJC, ILU.)_ I collect swords and knives because they're pretty, not because I like hurting stuff with them, or even the idea of it. I decided not to get a backyard chicken coop because the idea of needing to kill livestock that's become old/sick makes me want to barf out my eyeballs. I cry over sentimental ads on TV. Christmas is my favorite holiday season and I squeal over babies in public. I would totally ask a magic genie for an end to war if such a thing were practical (it's not).

Is it weird that I really like to watch, read, and play violent stuff when I'm such a soft-hearted weenie in reality? I dunno, maybe. But there's a really distinct difference between relishing a character getting stabbed in the face and a living person being stabbed in the face. So many great stories have been told with a foundation of violence. Sometimes it's cartoony (_The Matrix_), sometimes it's meant to share a spiritual experience (_The Passion of the Christ_), sometimes it's revenge fantasy (_Inglorious Basterds_). I like watching those things for varying reasons, but would never, ever want that stuff to happen in reality.

I get why people might not like to read violent stuff - we've all got our thresholds, and I think the threshold lowers for many folks as they get older. I absolutely do not read books that involve children/babies being hurt/killed/threatened/looked at sideways even though I know it's fake, so I really do get it. But it bothers me when people can't compartmentalize fiction from reality and draw irrational conclusions about the consumers of violent media. It's not sick or weird to enjoy these stories. You might be sick or weird independent of that, but not _because _of that. 

Sex, though, sex is fantastic. One of the best parts of the human experience. I can see getting bored with reading sex scenes, but being offended by well-written sex, I just don't get. (I am highly offended by terrible bodice rippers.)


----------



## Ryan Sullivan (Jul 9, 2011)

I don't like sex in books, but I'll read it if I like the books. Hi there, Game of Thrones.

SM, so you don't read Game of Thrones? I think that's the road I'm trying to take with my book, but I'm not George R.R. Martin. I was just inspired to be more serious, and let the truth take hold: bad stuff happens.


----------



## 41413 (Apr 4, 2011)

Ryan Sullivan said:


> SM, so you don't read Game of Thrones? I think that's the road I'm trying to take with my book, but I'm not George R.R. Martin. I was just inspired to be more serious, and let the truth take hold: bad stuff happens.


I mostly haven't read ASoIaF because I can't get into George RR Martin's style. I have watched the first season of the TV show, and it's trying so d*mn hard to be ~edgy~ that I wasn't bothered by


Spoiler



the adorable kid with the bowl cut getting tossed off a tower after witnessing awkward Lannister lovin'


 or


Spoiler



the dog getting killed


 or any of the other carnage. Good stuff, but after the ninth or tenth "shocking" death, it just doesn't have the same impact. And yes, I know about


Spoiler



the Red Wedding.



ETA: That said, I will not watch UP ever again, and you can't make me. WTF, Pixar, that's so much worse than GoT.


----------



## sarahdalton (Mar 15, 2011)

The first ten minutes of UP are the most depressing ten minutes in film ever. Traumatised! 

I hate sexual violence. It makes me very uncomfortable and I generally won't watch it on TV and I'll skim read it in a book. But in general I'm not too fussed. I have issues with mortality reminders in general, so I like my violence in a 'not very real life' kind of way -- zombies, vampires, werewolves, trolls, orcs, elves etc. 

Game of Thrones is fine. It's all very over the top and doesn't feel particularly real life. I could not, however, read a book about terminal illness or serial killers. It's just too real.


----------



## lmckinley (Oct 3, 2012)

There is a difference between writing about a sex and violence, and describing it in detail.

I actually really dislike descriptions of sex and violence in books. I skip over it generally, but doing that requires reading with a certain remoteness that takes away from the experience. Part of this is because I am a Christian and knowing what I believe, I consider some things right and some things wrong. At least, in the wrong context. I'm all in favor of sex, between married people, but not on the page. Detailed sex mars the story for me, and makes it difficult to trust and enjoy the story the author is telling, because I am being led to think, in detail, about things I consider wrong. It's annoying.

I find it interesting that a lot of people here have nothing more to offer about violence than, "I don't like it." Obviously, there are things that make us uncomfortable, but where are the lines that shouldn't be crossed? I myself have no answer to this question. Even if our society was primarily guided by Christian principles, there would be no easy answer to this question. Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment is considered a classic Christian novel, but also describes an axe murder. So I don't think any subject should automatically be off limits.

At the same time, the attitude that nothing is off limits leads us into a dilemma. If everything is okay, what happens when it is not okay? Well, we just don't like it, right? Moral relativism makes it very difficult to tackle these kinds of questions, and that makes the premise of this thread a much deeper problem than it appears to be.

As far as writing goes, though, an author who can't make the story compelling without graphic description of sex or violence, is to me, not doing a very good job. I want the language and the story. I was reading a book about bestselling novelists one time, that had a discussion with author Jeffrey Archer. After he was a well-established bestseller, he attempted writing a novel with a graphic sex scene in it. His editors or whoever laughed and said something like, you know how to tell a story. You don't need to waste your time on sex scenes.



> I read it in the middle of a hurricane, hunkered down in a clapboard house just off the beach. Perfect setting, especially at night.


Wow. You're tougher than I.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

I'm amazed that there are humans who didn't like Up. Amazed! Tibor Kalman proven correct once more, I suppose ("When you make something no one hates, no one loves it").



lmckinley said:


> As far as writing goes, though, an author who can't make the story compelling without graphic description of sex or violence, is to me, not doing a very good job. I want the language and the story.


Granted this is a personal preference, but I do think it takes the whole It's The Story, Stupid line too far.

Graphic depictions of violence can serve purposes beyond shocking, or titillating, or entertaining. As General Lee said, "It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it." Violence is a part of the story. It shapes characters and plots, and a great part of its power derives from its horror. I don't feel like a cursory description is going to capture the experience of the character.

I suppose what I'm saying is that the discomfort many of you feel when reading about graphic violence is exactly why it's important to show it. You might be able to leave things to your readers' imaginations, but not the characters. They have to experience violence in full detail. They have to grapple with it. As the reader, I'm not sure I wind up with full insight into their experiences if you're filtering out the painful bits.

I don't think this argument applies fully to sex. The main reason would be that you can count on your readership having had sex, but you can't count on them having charged a beachhead through withering artillery and machine gun fire. Even for people who've done both, I expect one shrapnel disembowelment is going to be more memorable than any single episode of Tab A into Slot B.

Showing that in detail isn't cheating, or lazy, or incompetent. It's true. It's relevant to the story. It should be disturbing too, as much for the characters as for the readers.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

Dolphin said:


> I'm amazed that there are humans who didn't like Up. Amazed! Tibor Kalman proven correct once more, I suppose ("When you make something no one hates, no one loves it").


I think the first ten minutes are brilliant. Way better than the rest of the movie, actually. Whoever conceived that idea packed so many universal emotions into that simple silent film, it made me laugh, smile and cry, all in the space of ten minutes. Depressing? Sure, but at the end of the silent film, the main character really had nowhere else to go but UP.



> Granted this is a personal preference, but I do think it takes the whole It's The Story, Stupid line too far.
> 
> Graphic depictions of violence can serve purposes beyond shocking, or titillating, or entertaining. As General Lee said, "It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it." Violence is a part of the story. It shapes characters and plots, and a great part of its power derives from its horror. I don't feel like a cursory description is going to capture the experience of the character.
> 
> I suppose what I'm saying is that the discomfort many of you feel when reading about graphic violence is exactly why it's important to show it. You might be able to leave things to your readers' imaginations, but not the characters. They have to experience violence in full detail. They have to grapple with it. As the reader, I'm not sure I wind up with full insight into their experiences if you're filtering out the painful bits.


Yes! Exactly. It's the emotional toll of the violence on the characters that enhances the story. The physical part contributes to that but can't stand alone. Just writing that the character was shot in the shoulder does nothing to enhance the story, but describing the fear he felt when looking down the barrel of the gun, the thoughts going through his head at that moment, do enhance the story. At least, I think it does. 



> I don't think this argument applies fully to sex. The main reason would be that you can count on your readership having had sex, but you can't count on them having charged a beachhead through withering artillery and machine gun fire. Even for people who've done both, I expect one shrapnel disembowelment is going to be more memorable than any single episode of Tab A into Slot B.


That's why I usually fade to black. Most of us know how the process works, and you can still do the emotional aspect without showing the physical act. However, it can be fun to read anyway. 

I'm writing a series of novellas that have a lot more sex in them than my current series, and I've found after the first novella, I'm kind of stumped as to how to change up the sex. It's a married couple, so not going to change partners. They aren't into kinky stuff, so no wild orgies.  I guess I'll have to change up what leads to the fun parts.


----------



## sportourer1s (Oct 2, 2010)

We have to be very careful not to start pigeon holing books as that is the short cut to censorship.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

MaryMcDonald said:


> That's why I usually fade to black. Most of us know how the process works, and you can still do the emotional aspect without showing the physical act. However, it can be fun to read anyway.
> 
> I'm writing a series of novellas that have a lot more sex in them than my current series, and I've found after the first novella, I'm kind of stumped as to how to change up the sex. It's a married couple, so not going to change partners. They aren't into kinky stuff, so no wild orgies.  I guess I'll have to change up what leads to the fun parts.


Yeah, this is a good point. It's not just that sex is more quotidian to readers, it's also more quotidian to the characters. There might be a few encounters that stand out, but if you have sex regularly, most of it's going to blur together. Violence-or at least extreme violence-isn't likely to be such a commonplace occurrence. It's going to leave more of a mark, and graphic descriptions can help to highlight that impact.

It seems like the corollary is that some sex scenes deserve more detail than others. Go into detail to emphasize a turning point in a relationship, or a new experience-something that advances the story/characters-then fade to black if it's same old, same old. Probably more helpful than a blanket rule like "graphic sex for erotica, fade to black otherwise."


----------



## Christopher Bunn (Oct 26, 2010)

I'm not fond of sex and violence in novels. And I'm assuming for sake of this discussion a certain amount of graphic description. There's a tremendous difference between the rather innocuous phrasing of "...and King David looked down from his palace one night and saw Bathsheba bathing on her roof. Seeing her beauty, he sent for her and knew her" and something found in Fifty Shades. Likewise, there's a great difference between the description of the battle of Helm's Deep in Two Towers versus the more dissection-chic descriptions of disembowelments, torture, etc in books like Game of Thrones. 

It's a rare book where the graphic description of either honestly and truly is the best option for advancing the plot. While I realize life is full of sex and violence in many different forms, that isn't necessarily an argument for including them in fiction. Life is full of other things that occur more frequently than sex and violence and we don't see those things described in great detail in fiction. Pooping, for example.

That said, I don't mind either of their inclusion in a story if that elusive descriptive line is not crossed. However, the story has to be served, and the greater truths of life itself have to be served as well. The vague line for me is crossed when they become either gratuitous or overly-detailed or included merely to fire a reader's sensations more akin to a drug rather than the thoughtful interweave of reader and writer pooling their creativity and interpretation in the shared moment that occurs when someone is reading.


----------



## C.F. (Jan 6, 2011)

smreine said:


> ETA: That said, I will not watch UP ever again, and you can't make me. WTF, Pixar, that's so much worse than GoT.


+1


----------



## Edward Lake (Mar 11, 2012)

This thread is a good read. Lots of interesting perspectives.


----------

