Gratuitous or realistic; the blood and guts, and downright bloody violent scenes shown in TV crime drama’s and written down in crime novels in today’s world?
You may think I have an opinion from the tone of the question but I’m not sure I do just yet. But I am wondering at what point we as a society think it’s time to stop, that the line has been crossed.
I have sat at several crime writing panels where the level of violence used in novels is defended. (And I’m not saying either way how much is or will be in any of mine. I’m opening a discussion.) Where already published authors have said that it is not gratuitous but in tone with the book and exactly how real crimes look.
Yes, real crimes look that way, but usually only the cops and fellow emergency service staff get to see that nasty side of life, not civilians in their safe homes. So why do they have this need to get so up close and personal with a post-mortem for instance? To see the knife go in and the skin peel back, the body cavity open and the secrets spill out? What is it that drives normal people who don’t have to see this for a living need to attempt to vicariously see it through fiction? Because I can assure you, those who see it up close for real, sure as hell don’t just put the book down when the story is over and forget what they’ve seen.
This has been a gradual change in society, like the raising of a girls skirt from a Victorian era full length modesty covering skirt to the Sixties mini. Crime shows like the original Hawaii 5-0, Quincy, The Sweeney and The Professionals along with writers like Agatha Christie didn’t show all. They cut away when it came to the nasty stuff. Left it to the imagination. They didn’t feel they needed the detail, or blood and gore, to tell a good story. Yet now we have shows such as Bones, Hannibal is particularly bad and I had to stop watching the second series, Criminal Minds (notice I go a lot for US-based drama?) and Silent Witness to name just a few. And with authors, there are many who describe the violence or the blood or body or details of post-mortem.
This is probably a sociology type post on how times have changed and what has become acceptable. But my question is this then, if we have moved so far in what we now find acceptable, granted it was gradual in say a forty-year period, how far will we be willing to go for the sake of entertainment, or reality in entertainment in future years to come? Because that’s what fiction is: entertainment. We’re not writing sociology papers, we’re not starting debates on topical social issues, we’re writing entertainment – maybe about topical social issues, but you really don’t hear of fiction starting a good debate, especially for change in any area.
What are your thoughts on this subject? How much further can we go and with each generation finding it that bit more acceptable and “current” for the sake of “true art”.
Steph says
I’m not sure why but I find it more difficult to watch on the TV than read in a book. There are a couple on bbc at the moment which are very violent. One is so good though I need to watch it, even if it is through laced fingers. Don’t think I’ve read a book yet where I’ve felt like that.
Irish writer Mel Healy says
Same here – TV crime fiction generally seems to be more in-your-face than books.
Rebecca Bradley says
I think it’s because it’s so visual whereas the visuals are left to your imagination with books and I suppose it depends on the programmes and books we read.
Rebecca Bradley says
It’s strange that how we are still drawn to things that we can’t quite look at.
Margot Kinberg says
Rebecca – What a thoughtful and intelligent post! I am 100% convinced that there is a line between violence that’s part of a story and serves it, and violence that crosses that line. I wish I could specify where that line is. I can’t. I think that’s because it has changed, as you say, and it’s different for different people. But that said, I believe there is one. The way I see it (and write it), certain violence serves a story; other violence does not. When violence doesn’t serve a plot purpose – a really important aspect of the story – it’s getting to that line.
I do see what you mean too about how the amount of violence we tolerate has changed. There’s always been a certain amount, and in some novels even from several decades ago, it gets intense. And I think there is a lot more tolerated – perhaps even expected? – than there was. Not being a sociologist I can’t say why. But I think it’s there. I will say, though, that for every time my writing’s been rejected, I’ve never been told it wasn’t violent enough.
Rebecca Bradley says
I think you make a good point Margot about it depending on the person. What one person finds acceptable, another may not. And that is regardless of the time of tolerance we are in. All sorts of social factors come into play when people are happy to read and watch certain elements whereas others aren’t. I think it’s a subject we could talk all day about.
MarinaSofia says
Like Margot says, I’m often not sure where the line needs to be drawn – and it is often quite a personal thing. But I do think that there is almost an expectation of a certain level of violence and gory detail in crime fiction nowadays (particularly on TV) – the books and films that do not display that are quickly relegated into the ‘cosy’ category in a rather patronising fashion.
I have a relatively high tolerance level for gore when reading (less when viewing – that’s always when I get up to make myself a cup of tea), but only, only, only if is an intricate part of the story, and if the story is about something else than just voyeuristic blood and guts just for the sake of it (this is what put me off Carnal Acts, for example). I’m also getting a little tired of women being imprisoned and tortured, raped and psychologically violated, especially when written by a man. It has a feeling of lecherous breathlessness about it, somehow.
Rebecca Bradley says
Another good point Marina about the level of expectation as well. Do people expect a certain level for it to be classed as realistic? There is a whole other discussion on the role of women in crime fiction.
Janet O'Kane says
Such an interesting post! I’m maybe strange, because where TV dramas are concerned, I can take all the post mortems they show but can’t tolerate watching depictions of a vicious crime being committed. They feel like different things, though of course they are both carried out on people. We all have different standards of what we find acceptable or not; I know people who won’t read on if they come across the F-word, for example. I’ve never read American Psycho because of what was said about the violence in it, and ditto watching Hannibal, but I can’t remember ever putting a book aside because of its violence. As for writing, I write far less violence than I’m prepared to read. So, no consistency there either.
Rebecca Bradley says
It’s funny you should say that about the F word. I have heard an author say that they have received a complaint from a reader because there was one F word in their novel? Yet that is also a true depiction of criminals in today’s world and also of the people who work in that world. Not necessarily in front of the public, but if you’re immersed in it, I don’t see how it can not rub off on you.
cleopatralovesbooks says
What a brilliant post. I’m with the other responders – violence on TV or in films feels far more gratuitous (and more difficult to watch than reading about it) and I’m not a big fan of violence if it doesn’t add to the mindset of the character – violence for violence sake has never appealed and yet, as you say, it is more acceptable now than it used to be.
Rebecca Bradley says
Thank you Cleo. I think with TV it’s because you can actually see it whereas with books your imagination is left to fill in the imagery and your mind may not be as capable of going to the places that a screen goes. But yes, I have noticed, a very gradual change in attitudes.
readingwritingandriesling says
I have actually did quit reading a few books because of the level of violence – about 3 books out of about 123 where it was violence for violence sake ( you wont see a review here either – not giving them the exposure). I understand there needs to be a level of realism but those unmentioned books went further than any anyone needed to make their case – there was no benefit to the storyline. I actually think less is better when a reader of crime friction; my imagination is good at filling in the gaps. As for tv shows…the need to show not tell is an obvious but some take things a little too far. I think we are becoming desensitised to the level of violence we see on tv and in fact the level of violence we see on the news – pure sensationalism does not make a good story in the real world either.
Rebecca Bradley says
That’s not a bad ratio though Carol, but it’s still three books where you felt it went to far. And I think you are right about desensitisation, we see, we keep seeing and we get used to.
readingwritingandriesling says
And I have just started another last night that I am not sure about…I read the previous one the series and it was violent but nothing like this one…
readingwritingandriesling says
I just binned the book I started- no need for this level of realism
Rebecca Bradley says
That’s a shame. The author – and editor – obviously felt it was relevant or actually the authors style!, but they are losing readers because of it.
emaginette says
There are some really good shows out there, but I won’t watch some of them if they include the murder acted out. I don’t need to see it to know how horrible it was. I’m in it for the puzzle. When it comes to books, I just hop over, or scan, the murder scene, etc. Again avoiding the gross and move on to enjoy the mystery.
Anna from Shout with Emaginette
Jacqui Murray says
Good point–me too (skip over the too-detailed portions)
Rebecca Bradley says
That’s the good thing about books, you can just skip a page or two can’t you. But the point is, should we be having to do that? Some authors feel the depiction is warranted, and I’m not agreeing or disagreeing, I’m noticing that there has been a change and wondering it out on the blog. I think it’s great that there is a variety of book choices out there so we can choose what we read, but there is a definite trend difference to 30 years ago.
Jacqui Murray says
Considering what’s on the news lately (ISIS beheadings), most of what I read in crime fiction seems almost benign. Now granted, I do avoid the hardcore authors. I tend toward writers like Mari Hannah, Lee Child, Joseph Finder, Kathy Reichs (in her better days).
Is there an author you have in mind that may have crossed the line into horror?
Rebecca Bradley says
I think that’s why crime authors feel it’s a true depiction and warranted in books because its happening in the real world, but real world nastiness was happening years ago, but we didn’t have the ability to report on it the way we do now or have the internet etc. I don’t have any authors in mind specifically, but just reading contemporary crime I was reminded of my younger reading days when it was filled with Agatha Christie and TV has shocked me a lot recently as well.
writeanne says
Interesting question, Rebecca. I’m not sure of the answer either. Like others who’ve replied here, I know there’s a line, but I’m not able to define it. I just know when the violence becomes gratuitous and it’s then I lose interest. Less is definitely more in this context and I think the best crime writers are very good at suggesting violence and threat without getting gruesome e.g. Ian Rankin, Kate Atkinson, Susan Hill, Louise Welsh…
Rebecca Bradley says
The invisible line… And I think it’s different for everyone as well which is why I suppose it’s good that there is such a wide variety of books out there for people to choose from.
FictionFan says
I’m very tired of the levels of violence in books, but then I’m pretty tired of the way crime writing is heading in general. I don’t really mind when the bad guys are violent – one expects a murderer to murder after all! But all the brutal police officers bore me silly – if I can’t differentiate between good and evil, why would I care? And the obligatory sexual violence is just a sign that misogyny seems to be getting worse in this age of so-called equality – it particularly saddens me that so many authors still only discuss women in terms of their bodies.
Rebecca Bradley says
I like a good versus evil battle, not a blurred line as well. And that subject of women, well that’s a whole other subject that can get us all ranting! Shall I blog about that one?
FictionFan says
Ooh, yes – I think you should! 🙂
Carol Balawyder says
Rebecca, I will stop reading any book that has gore in it. I tend to favor psychological crime fiction, especially when the work is somewhat literary with a crime in it. I like what you said about leaving something to the imagination. I find it very sad that violence has become entertainment. Thanks for posting on this important subject. 🙂
Rebecca Bradley says
I think that’s why it’s great that there are so many sub genres to crime fiction, like psychological crime, because then everyone can read what they are happy with. But I did notice we are more tolerant than we used to be. Thank you Carol.
cydmadsen says
Hi. First time here, found you through a Roz tweet. My job used to take me into an area with horrific crime rates. I’ve had to clean up after homicides and assaults, face down organized crime members. My biggest problem with blood and guts in novels is the lack of human reaction to it, the cool demeanor of contemporary villains, and the ease with which everyone suffers for a moment then moves on. No. It forever changes a person, and you can never go back. Detaching the violence from the human condition is what I see as gratuitous. During my own time with bullets and blood, I read a lot of cozy mysteries–bloodless deaths served with tea and great recipes for scones with all questions answered. I’m glad I found your excellent blog and this post. It’s a dangerous subject, especially with our children now growing up with such violent video games and YA books based on blood. This question needs to be looked at in depth.
Rebecca Bradley says
Thanks for stopping by and commenting! That’s a great point you make about the human reaction to the events. It’s not always something that is noticed, but as I say in my post, in reality, the people who do deal with these things don’t just walk away like turning a page.
When I started reading crime it was Nancy Drew and then Agatha Christie, not a drop of violence in sight. No matter what people say about watching what is made available, I think as a society our tolerance level has changed and there’s no going backwards. I think the only thing that can be done is to educate parents about watching and being aware of what their children read.
D.A. Cairns says
Good discussion topic Rebecca.I agree we have passed the point of no return, and I wonder also how much further it can go. (It’s the same question with technology) Personally I don’t like too much graphic violence or sex, and I can’t read or watch sexual violence. But what is too much? No doubt society has pushed the envelope re mainstream entertainment, but the producers of this entertainment are just giving us what we want, right? Sex and violence sells. It’s popular. I watch and read what I want to. I am my own censorship board, and do not judge others for what they enjoy, even though that is very hard to do when some of the things that people find entertaining or amusing disgust me. As you can see, I have no answer either, but it’s interesting to think about and discuss.
Rebecca Bradley says
I like that comment that you are your own censorship board, you’re also right that there is no going backwards. We can’t now put on the brakes and say, oops sorry, we think this is all too graphic we need to go back to life in the 1970’s because there would be uproar about big brother controlling us. But back then it wasn’t about that, it was just about decency and what most of the population thought was decent. It is a massive shift in society, so it is too huge a sociology question for a small blog like this!