# Raising The Dead



## Rosemary (Aug 5, 2007)

An article in the Saturday paper by Dave Luckett on 'The Serpent Bride' by Sarah Douglass made me stop and think!  The article’s headline reads* “When raising the dead hardly raises an eyebrow”*.  This is about the book I have just finished reading – I, who customarily say that I do not enjoy too much ‘blood and guts’ in a story!  However, it is not to say that I am filled with ‘blood lust’ by Ms Douglass's descriptions! 
   Apparently there is a huge market for fantasy worlds soaked in blood and magic and she is one of my favourite authors and is included in that market!  
Indeed, I did not ‘raise an eyebrow’ at 'raising the dead', nor the slaughter and torture.  Other horrific descriptions failed to stop my reading and I am eagerly awaiting her next book!  Looking back on Douglass’s first two trilogies, there was plenty of blood and guts in those and yet I have re-read her books at least twice. 


   How have I become so blasé about such subjects?  Do you think that you too are not as horrified or sickened by such acts in these books as you once were?


----------



## tangaloomababe (Aug 5, 2007)

No I still cringe when I read bloody and gory books.
I read Vampyrrhic recently and there are a few uch scenes with chainsaws, I did cringe when I read them and I have to admit there are still books that make me ill and I cannot read them.
Then again I am pretty squeemish about that sort of stuff, so maybe its just me!


----------



## Dexter (Aug 5, 2007)

Actually, it's odd. In a way I'd have to agree with you. It's only ever the first time once, right? Then there's a bit of the "been there, done that" sort of thing going on with me. On the other hand, though, I've grown more sentimental (and weepy ) over time and I find I'm more responsive to the plight of the characters.


----------



## Interference (Aug 7, 2007)

Raising the dead takes a lot of time, a lot of patience and a lot of kindness.  They don't do what they're told, they refuse to go to school and I've never heard one utter its first words.  Frankly, I'll stick to raising wild fowl and fighting marmosets.


----------



## j d worthington (Aug 8, 2007)

I can't answer to the specifics of this particular book, but the trend overall... well, one can become blasé where such things are concerned, yes; or it may simply be that, within the context, such things were appropriate, and the concentration was less on the bloodletting than on what it symbolized or meant emotionally for the characters (and the reader). Even with a graphic description, this can be the case, _depending on how it's phrased_.

For example, several of Ambrose Bierce's tales are graphically nasty, from "Chickamauga" to "Oil of Dog". Yet the impact is different from story to story, because of how he uses it, and the way he writes about it. In one, it does strike the reader like a blow in the face... but not just because of the horrific state of these wounded soldiers, but the fact that the child doesn't see the horror... and, in conjunction with the final line of the story, it even increases the emotional impact of both that revelation and the plight of the soldiers (and the child's innocent reaction to them). On the other hand, "Oil of Dog" deliberately leaves the reader no out: if you laugh, you're a sadist. If you don't, then Bierce can mock you for being ridiculously squeamish... either way, it's a brilliant _tour de force_ that is both hideous and hilarious.

So, it depends on the particular work, I'd say. And if you read something that is no more graphic, but still hits you violently... then I'd say you have your answer......


----------



## manephelien (Aug 8, 2007)

There was a period in literature, including the first movies made since the beginning of the 20th century, where relatively little gore would get a reaction. Some of the original fairy tales, unsanitized by Disney, are quite capable of turning my stomach. Those tales were written when most women lost newborns and toddlers to disease and frequently died in childbirth, and when men were sent to war to die quite often. Combine this with non-existent welfare services, lots of children raised by step-parents who in times of adversity would, naturally enough, favor their own offspring over stepkids, and you get the explanation for many of the stories featuring evil step-parents and siblings.


----------



## j d worthington (Aug 8, 2007)

Well, let's not forget the impact of such things as the Black Death, either. When about a third of those around you (or better) are dropping, or are horribly disfigured even if they do survive... and in some places corpses were piled high and rotting, kept by their loved ones who couldn't bear to part with them, or treated as objects of fear (rightly) both as reminders of death and as possible sources of their own demise; times when people were starving and one had the occasional case of cannibalism in order to survive such conditions -- usually offspring who had died, but sometimes another family member -- with its attendant feelings of guilt, remorse, and fear; or the fact that (especially during the early years of modern medicine, when they didn't understand how infection was spread and would often go from cutting corpses for the medical students to delivering babies without proper precautions) so many women died of "childbed fever"... well, it's no wonder that a large amount of the folklore and fairytales are full of some of the darkest and grisliest experiences of human history.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Aug 8, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> I can't answer to the specifics of this particular book, but the trend overall... well, one can become blasé where such things are concerned, yes; or it may simply be that, within the context, such things were appropriate, and the concentration was less on the bloodletting than on what it symbolized or meant emotionally for the characters (and the reader). Even with a graphic description, this can be the case, _depending on how it's phrased_.
> 
> For example, several of Ambrose Bierce's tales are graphically nasty, from "Chickamauga" to "Oil of Dog". Yet the impact is different from story to story, because of how he uses it, and the way he writes about it. In one, it does strike the reader like a blow in the face... but not just because of the horrific state of these wounded soldiers, but the fact that the child doesn't see the horror... and, in conjunction with the final line of the story, it even increases the emotional impact of both that revelation and the plight of the soldiers (and the child's innocent reaction to them). On the other hand, "Oil of Dog" deliberately leaves the reader no out: if you laugh, you're a sadist. If you don't, then Bierce can mock you for being ridiculously squeamish... either way, it's a brilliant _tour de force_ that is both hideous and hilarious.
> 
> So, it depends on the particular work, I'd say. And if you read something that is no more graphic, but still hits you violently... then I'd say you have your answer......



Ditto, and one of the reasons why I looooooooooove bierce. He challenges your vision, and everyone needs that!

Blood and guts can be read without blood and guts ever being written.


----------



## j d worthington (Aug 8, 2007)

dustinzgirl said:


> Ditto, and one of the reasons why I looooooooooove bierce. He challenges your vision, and everyone needs that!
> 
> Blood and guts can be read without blood and guts ever being written.


 
Yes, Bierce is one of those writers whose work _seems_ simple, until you start looking at it more carefully... then you realize just how much of a craftsman he was and how meticulously he wrote to achieve his effects....


----------

