Perceptions of violence in SFF

[The Big Peat]

Being a man of unrelenting villainy, I've recently kidnapped Harebrain's attention with a giant list of interview questions (rather than leaving him to write the sequel).

One of the questions that came up was on the violence level of the protagonists. To me, they were borderline pacifists, at least in fantasy terms. Harebrain didn't find them particularly unusual.

So I was curious to see what yinz made of the violence levels in our genre; insofar as this can be treated as one genre for violence levels, as it goes up and down so much on subgenre. Perhaps better to ask what you think of the violence in your preferred subgenres. Whether you think its high, low, whether it bothers you in any shape or form, whether you prefer your books violent etc.etc.

Me, I think its pretty violent. The majority of protagonists I read are men and women of action. But then I mainly read the direct offshoots of High Fantasy, a smattering of military sci-fi/space opera, and Harry "Michael Bay's Love Child" Dresden. Maybe if I was reading SF Exploration stories and, er, whatever Fantasy genres tend towards being less violent, I'd feel differently. And lets be honest, with my tastes as are, while I do want to read a bigger variety of SFF, I do clearly love me some violence.

Enough about me. What about you?

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I rarely blink at violence in the genre (although one Mark Lawrence scene with a dog tipped me over the line), not only because I'm a fairly dark bunny but also because I read crime fiction. What Val McDermid does to some of her characters would shock most sff plots. In fact my mum picked up one of my recent Robert galbraith novels, who I'd consider fairly okay, and was disgusted by what I was reading (again... Oh, dear...)

 

[Victoria Silverwolf]

What exists out there seems to vary tremendously from ultra-violent with plenty of gore described in great detail, to completely bloodless idea fiction where the characters discuss their situation calmly and rationally. There can be fine stories anywhere on that spectrum.

That said, I suppose I tend to lean more toward the bloodless side. There has to be some important concerns on the parts of the characters to be a story at all (which may be another way of saying "conflict") so I suppose this is a form of emotional violence, in a sense.

Most of the more violent sub-genres -- sword and sorcery, military SF, the "monster hunter" kind of urban fantasy, epic fantasy (which seems to always involve some kind of war), space opera -- leave me cold. (There are always exceptions. Fritz Leiber wrote elegant and witty sword and sorcery, for example.)

When it comes to dark fantasy and horror, it's more complicated. I tend to shy away from splatterpunk, but I enjoy quiet horror, Gothic horror, and the like.

 

[Nick B]

I write military sf so, yes, I do like me some violence too. Liberator is really quite a violent start to the series, and reviewers have said it is some of the best action scenes they have ever read, which is high praise indeed from book bloggers.

To my mind violence should never be played down. It is chaotic, nasty and brutal, the days when a cowboy is shot, gets a spot of blood and dies quietly are gone.

 

[The Big Peat]

Most of the more violent sub-genres -- sword and sorcery, military SF, the "monster hunter" kind of urban fantasy, epic fantasy (which seems to always involve some kind of war), space opera -- leave me cold. (There are always exceptions. Fritz Leiber wrote elegant and witty sword and sorcery, for example.)

That it does. I sometimes wonder if it'd be possible to write epic fantasy without a war.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Thinking more on this. I wrote extended scenes of torture (skirting the edge of too-graphic, from most feedback.) It was very hard to do - especially in a debut novel - but I believed, then, and believe now that that ordeal is exactly what is depicted so often in sff. But it's not treated as REAL and that really irked me. Like, really, really.

If violence should be shown (and I'm going to tag @DGJones because he alluded to this in a recent review of Abendau's Legacy) it should be there for a reason. That's where I feel sff fails. It's like it's there to add an easy story development and I think that is because, for me, it is one of the poorest genres I read for character development and, in the absence of proper, reasoned, character-led stories, we need something to drive things on. (I'll don my flak-jacket right about now....) But because plot and concept are often king, especially in sf, something has to give.

So I think we portray violence but don't portray the true impact of it on characters. It's all very well to have great action scenes, but only if they add depth and meaning. And, again, it's great to show the reality of war, but not just for a great scene, but for the pathos and human element.

Which brings me to @HareBrain 's book (and if anyone on the chrons is on the fence about buying it, just do. That's all. Do.) It doesn't need gung ho heroes because he gets character and nuances and how small things take us further than big things do in most books. Most of is don't have to be tortured to change (what I was, ironically, using close torture to highlight - that what gets so casually used for character development isn't casual but hideous, life changing and immeasurably sad), we just have to live. And our genre has too few books brave enough to do that - take characters and use them to drive the plot and questions and make it come alive. It's why I can't - and won't - change what I write to suit genre expectations because so often they feel like a lie. *

* I think some of this comes from having a background in theatre. You can't write or act a character who isn't fully fleshed on stage. So why would I want to in a book? And that includes where violence fits in.

 

[Nick B]

So I think we portray violence but don't portray the true impact of it on characters. It's all very well to have great action scenes, but only if they add depth and meaning. And, again, it's great to show the reality of war, but not just for a great scene, but for the pathos and human element.

That is where we seem to have succeeded in Liberator. It is a very character driven story and reviewers have pointed out just how well fleshed all characters are. One of the key elements (if not the key element) is the effect warfare, violence and death affect people. It is a highly emotional story. Perhaps you should read it Jo!

 

[Theophania Elliott]

But it's not treated as REAL and that really irked me. Like, really, really.

If violence should be shown ... it should be there for a reason. ... So I think we portray violence but don't portray the true impact of it on characters. It's all very well to have great action scenes, but only if they add depth and meaning. And, again, it's great to show the reality of war, but not just for a great scene, but for the pathos and human element.

What she said.

Twice.

With bells on.

It gets to me, too, when authors put their characters through hell over and over again... and the character just bounces back. No problems, no nightmares, no nothing.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, Jim Butcher is pretty good for this. Murphy gets night terrors; Harry has anger management issues/PTSD. Thomas ends up with his own problems after what happens to him. Violence, both physical and psychological, has consequences, and the characters have to live with it.

I've certainly read a few books that left me thinking, "WTF? That character just went through X, and now it's like it never happened..."

 

[Jo Zebedee]

That is where we seem to have succeeded in Liberator. It is a very character driven story and reviewers have pointed out just how well fleshed all characters are. One of the key elements (if not the key element) is the effect warfare, violence and death affect people. It is a highly emotional story. Perhaps you should read it Jo!

Apart from Liberator (which I have read, btw) - what other books do you think depict violence well? I always love to know a writer's influence as well as about their own books.

 

[Nick B]

My apologies Jo, last time I spoke to you, you hadnt read it.
Michael Marshal Smith and Richard Morgan are some of my biggest influences, emotionaly charged stories, great characters and brutal violence.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

My apologies Jo, last time I spoke to you, you hadnt read it.
Michael Marshal Smith and Richard Morgan are some of my biggest influences, emotionaly charged stories, great characters and brutal violence.

I keep meaning to get to Morgan (I haven't reviewed yet - I am working on a review base that allows me to review without fear of jeopardising those I review.)

 

[Nick B]

Morgans sf is very good, his fantasy is a bag of pants.

 

[HareBrain]

To me, they were borderline pacifists, at least in fantasy terms. Harebrain didn't find them particularly unusual.

But were they (Orc and Cass, you mean -- I'm not sure the charge could be levelled at Tashi, for example) ever in a situation where violence was a credible option? There's one point where Orc would surely have beaten Esteban to a pulp if Esteban hadn't been holding a gun.

I've certainly read a few books that left me thinking, "WTF? That character just went through X, and now it's like it never happened..."

It's a hard balance to strike, I think -- many characters in reality would take years to recover from what they endure, but PTSD isn't what most readers want in an adventure story -- but you're right, some authors don't even seem to consider it. Fair play to @Jo Zebedee for going against that grain, and indeed making it part of Abendau's point.

 

[The Big Peat]

But were they (Orc and Cass, you mean -- I'm not sure the charge could be levelled at Tashi, for example) ever in a situation where violence was a credible option? There's one point where Orc would surely have beaten Esteban to a pulp if Esteban hadn't been holding a gun.

This is a very fair point and that was definitely a bit of hyperbole based on result rather than intent (and yes, just the former two).

That said... a fair few authors in the genre would have their MC fight and win despite not being the guy with the gun. A lot would have given the MCs a revenge beatdown. The choices you took still strike me as unusual there. But as noted, my private library tends towards the bloodthirsty.


As for the PTSD stuff - yup. People don't pick up adventure stories to read about that. But then, you don't have to put adventure story characters through the wringer hard. Combat affects you, but the majority of veterans don't have PTSD. Prolonged torture will get you, but not everyone who goes on an adventure has that happen to them.

I think its fair to suggest that authors who want to write fairly light-hearted adventures that don't deal much in consequences - which I'm all for - shouldn't reach for the lever that says "Hardcore mode".


Speaking of consequences - there is a minor trend for stories showing as much of medieval warfare's grim side as possible, but which engage with the story only from the side of the warriors and rarely lingers over the damage they do. GRR Martin and Paul Kearney spring to mind. I salute their intent but the execution leaves something to be desired.

 

[Ladymage]

When I'm pondering the subject of violence in books that I'm reading or things that I'm writing I usually ask these questions:

1. If the character is using violence in reaction to a situation, is violence an appropriate/proportional reaction to the situation at hand?
2. Does the type of violence fit the character's personality?
3. Does the violence advance the plot forward in any measurable way?

Generally I enjoy books where the violence fits into the scope presented by these questions above.

 

[thaddeus6th]

Ladymage, on a related note (perhaps implied in your points) is whether the violence fits the world. Social attitudes have a significant impact on actions (in medieval England, you might very well be hanged for cutting down an oak tree without the lord's permission).

 

[RX-79G]

Soldiers get PTSD as much or more from fear of being hurt or killed as doing violence themselves. Being at risk and seeing your friends hurt, especially over an extended period, is very stressful. Killing someone - especially if you have to or want to - maybe not so much. It is politic to believe that humans might have some sort of built karmic balance (but we have been killing each other forever).

As far as SFF goes, it is not a genre that is any more or less likely to be violent than any other, but a lot of SFF is also military, action, adventure.


I don't think anyone writing especially fantasy should feel some obligation to depict anything realistically, but if you are going the extra mile for realism, the violence might be another chance to get things right.

 

[thaddeus6th]

There was a very interesting video by Lindy Beige about soldiers and PTSD throughout history.

He argued that it was worse now because:
1) in the olden days arrows could be seen and dodged/defended against, whereas bullets come from nowhere (sling bullets were relatively rare)
2) IEDs and landmines didn't exist in the ancient world
3) because of the two above points, ancient armies tended to be closely huddled together for mutual support and safety whereas today patrols are dispersed so that if a bomb goes off it doesn't kill everyone
4) therefore modern soldiers have a persistent level of stress because threats can come out of nowhere, whereas in the ancient world you knew when danger was about because 10,000 Gauls were charging at you, so stress came in short spikes instead of being constant
5) modern psychological techniques have made it easier for soldiers to kill despite violence being seen as very bad, but nowhere near the same effort/effectiveness has been achieved in helping soldiers deal with the consequences
6) in the ancient world violence was often seen as a very good thing (just finished Rome and Italy, in which Livy states one army specifically went to kill as many adult males of the enemy as possible to diminish their strength)

Full video here: