# How graphic is too graphic?



## Leonodas (Aug 2, 2015)

That is to say, how much is too much when it comes to graphic depictions of violence and other profane things in literature?

I suppose this is a culturally sensitive issue. Forty years ago, the standard of what is "too graphic" was a lot different than today, and I'd contend that what was once considerably X-rated violent is probably now the norm, even expected.

When answering this question, keep in mind that graphic things for the sake of graphic things aren't quite what I'm getting at -- that just makes poorly-written literature. I'm talking about realistic depictions of violence and the depravity of the human condition. That is:
1) Rape. Not a history or recounting, but an actual scene involving the rape of anyone.
2) Main characters can die horribly, ie "gouged out his eyes and strangled him with his intestines" level of messy. Alright, tone it down a little for the sake of realism, but the premise stands.
3) Abuse
4) Torture
5) Death of the young or infirm -- ie baby-killing, hospital patients, your grandmother
6) Really, any of the above happening to children at all.
7) Profane language -- alright, that's a bit light compared to the above, but its a rather important issue. You'd figure a lot of people would be dropping the f--- bomb often if the world went to piss or their life was endanger, wouldn't you?

Examples such as the above. If you're writing a book whose theme is the depravity of the human condition (and trying to be REAL about it), how far is too far to make that point?


----------



## bazz cargo (Aug 2, 2015)

Hi Leo,
I suspect your question has more answers than I have lost hairs. 

In my own subjective case, I wimp out at the slightest hint of torture, especially to animals. 

As to the 'olden days' being wimpier than now, consider Shakespeare. Eye gouging, rectal insertion of red hot pokers...


----------



## InstituteMan (Aug 2, 2015)

How graphic is too graphic really depends upon the genre and skill of the writer and the reader's taste. 

The one standard I try to read and write by is to avoid gratuitous violence and sex. In my own experience (and based on the stories I tend to write) sex is less likely to be gratuitous than violence, but the calculus will be different for someone who writes war stories.


----------



## Leonodas (Aug 2, 2015)

So you'd say, in terms of marketing a novel, it really comes to balancing the stomach of your targeted market versus getting your point across?

On one hand, when writing such a novel with graphic scenes, I don't see the point in making every chapter some microcosm of human depravity. I also don't want to completely gross out my audience. I may not care, but my audience will, and I'm trying to see where the dividing line is for most people to at least find such scenes "tolerable". 

On the other hand, like I said, I want this novel to express, in very clear and realistic terms, just how thoroughly messy human depravity can go. 

In other words, I want to push the limit of common dystopian/end-of-times literature in expressing such themes, but not push it over the cliff into fringe/very specific (and sick) niche territory-type of novels. Help me settle a balance.


----------



## Mesafalcon (Aug 2, 2015)

Too graphic could be when it is not a genre people are expecting graphic scenes. 

For example, you mention rape, if the genre is sci fi or fantasy and you have a rape, i think there is no need to descibe more than the reader needs to know to be clear as to what happens. 

Too graphic is too graphic when the details are unnecessary.


----------



## The Green Shield (Aug 2, 2015)

It really depends on the reader's tastes. If there was a book that showcased the graphic horror of war in all it's...er...graphic horror, I'd read it. However, if the story was about animals or children being hurt/killed, I wimp out. Rape is another big 'NOPE NOPE HELL NOPE!' for me.

Overall, I think it depends on the tastes of the readers/what they expect out of the genre and if it serves a point in your story.


----------



## John Oberon (Aug 3, 2015)

If I'd be ashamed or embarrassed in any way to read it to my wife or kids or parents or anyone else I hold dear, who expect high things from me, then it's too graphic. At least, that's the standard for my own writing.


----------



## Pluralized (Aug 3, 2015)

Leonodas said:


> That is to say, how much is too much when it comes to graphic depictions of violence and other profane things in literature?
> 
> I suppose this is a culturally sensitive issue. Forty years ago, the standard of what is "too graphic" was a lot different than today, and I'd contend that what was once considerably X-rated violent is probably now the norm, even expected.
> 
> ...



There are thresholds in mainstream literature that preclude intensely graphic depictions of uncomfortable subject matter, but skilled authors are able to create the desired effect anyway, without resorting to cheap shock tactics (which is what describing the graphic death of a child or rape/torture/whatever is). If the book is about torture, or is about rape, the line moves a little bit and the reader probably expects to see more intense descriptions. 

Best let the heavy graphic depictions of such things live in the fringes, and handle these problems as tastefully as you can, if you want a wide readership.


----------



## dale (Aug 3, 2015)

depends on the publisher. some publications cater to whatever sick twisted agenda a person can think of.


----------



## Terry D (Aug 3, 2015)

I just finished reading the most violent book I've ever read. Rape, torture, child killing, the slaughter of animals, scalping, much of it handled in a graphic manner. The book's theme is of human kind's propensity for casual violence and it is on many critics lists of the best books of the last 100 years. It is _Blood Meridian_, by Cormac McCarthy. 

You write what the book needs. My second novel deals with dog fighting. It is graphic in places, but no one has called it gratuitous. The things I do to people in the book are even worse, but it's the story of a serial killer, so they are in context.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 3, 2015)

As Terry said, write what the book needs. But don't be overly violent or gory just because you want to. It has to serve a purpose for the tale. Then again, though, don't tone it down to try and appeal to a wider scope; do what the story needs. 

That being said, the unknown can be far more terrifying than the actual image. One of my favorite scenes in recent television is from the original season of True Detective, where Woody Harrelson is shown a video of a ritualistic child rape; we know what the video is, and the first few seconds are shown, of the child being brought to the 'altar', then it cuts away from the video and all we see is Harrelson's face begin to twist in disgust, and within seconds, he's screaming in horror at what he's seeing. Our own imagination as to what happened next is far more jarring and powerful to us than the mechanics of the violence. I think it was Hitchcock who said there was nothing as terrifying as a closed door; the same can be done in literature, and often times, the impact that something has on a character can affect your reader far more than reading the details. If a character I love experiences something that truly defeats them, terrifies them, scars them... then not only am I fearful of whatever it might have been, but I empathize with the character more.


----------



## JustRob (Aug 3, 2015)

I suspect, and it may be nothing more than a suspicion, that it isn't so much the intensity as the duration that makes a scene too graphic. Dwelling on the details unnecessarily is most likely the thing to be avoided. One has to decide whether the purpose of the book is to tell a story or to be educational. That is what society fears in a way, that some reader may treat a book or film or TV show as an education. Personally I just write stories that draw on what the reader most likely already knows.

I remember many decades ago reading a few of the _Chronicles of Gor _by John Norman (Did anyone ever read all of them?) and the stories were good fun but I also learned a great deal about how to tie up a slavegirl securely, which was really just too much information, given that I've forgotten most of it now and still haven't had the opportunity to try it out. (It says here. You see? Less is often more. Use the reader's imagination as much as your own, I'd say.)


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Aug 3, 2015)

First things first - why are you writing a book whose theme is "the depravity of the human condition"? What's the appeal? Why is it something you want to write about? I've heard people make excuses like "Of course the book includes rape; it's a story about a rapist, and I wouldn't be true to the subject matter otherwise."  It makes me wonder why they chose a rapist as the subject matter; I think that selection says far more about the author than it does about "the human condition."

If you absolutely, unquestionably need to write about these darker topics, make sure you're doing it for the sake of the story.  Once you're doing it for the sake of the story, the answer is clear - anything that detracts from the story is too much.  Other than that, there's no limit.


----------



## dale (Aug 3, 2015)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> First things first - why are you writing a book whose theme is "the depravity of the human condition"? What's the appeal? Why is it something you want to write about? I've heard people make excuses like "Of course the book includes rape; it's a story about a rapist, and I wouldn't be true to the subject matter otherwise."  It makes me wonder why they chose a rapist as the subject matter; I think that selection says far more about the author than it does about "the human condition."
> 
> If you absolutely, unquestionably need to write about these darker topics, make sure you're doing it for the sake of the story.  Once you're doing it for the sake of the story, the answer is clear - anything that detracts from the story is too much.  Other than that, there's no limit.



no. a lot of authors write about the depravity of society to make a point. it doesn't make the author depraved to write about it.
it's art. an expression of the feelings we have towards these things.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 3, 2015)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> First things first - why are you writing a book whose theme is "the depravity of the human condition"? *What's the appeal?* Why is it something you want to write about? I've heard people make excuses like "Of course the book includes rape; it's a story about a rapist, and I wouldn't be true to the subject matter otherwise."  It makes me wonder why they chose a rapist as the subject matter; I think that selection says far more about the author than it does about "the human condition."
> 
> If you absolutely, unquestionably need to write about these darker topics, make sure you're doing it for the sake of the story.  Once you're doing it for the sake of the story, the answer is clear - anything that detracts from the story is too much.  Other than that, there's no limit.



Many people find appeal in this sort of thing. It's the reason why films like, "House of 1000 Corpses" exist; People are diverse and weird. That being said, other things deal with depraved topics for the purpose of portraying realism and to bring to light real issues within the world. Rape is a real thing. It happens on a daily basis in our world. To try to ignore it just because it offends some sensibilities is intentional ignorance. I'm not saying glorify it, but trying to understand it can help to make a difference in the future. 

After all, if you don't know why rape is wrong, you might do it.


----------



## Offeiriad (Aug 3, 2015)

Everyone's pretty much said what I've thought, but I'll just repeat it.  Write what needs to be written. Keep it in the context of the story you're trying to write. Nothing gratuitous. 

I read a lot of historical fiction. Bernard Cornwell has a series set during the reign of Alfred the Great. There are some bloody scenes, but I expect that because the time period was full of violence.


----------



## Leonodas (Aug 3, 2015)

Thanks all for your contributions to this topic.

What I've gathered:
1) Grotesque details are unnecessary where implication/reader imagination will do.
2) Graphic details for the sake of shock value alone (ie not important to the plot) are cheap and unnecessary.
3) Don't dwell. Get to the point and say what you must.

Thanks, all.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 3, 2015)

Leonodas said:


> Thanks all for your contributions to this topic.
> 
> What I've gathered:
> 1) Grotesque details are unnecessary where implication/reader imagination will do.
> ...



Pretty well said.


----------



## aj47 (Aug 3, 2015)

"Too graphic" is anytime you look at the section and ask, "is this too graphic?"  Because if you're asking the question, you know it is.


----------



## InstituteMan (Aug 3, 2015)

This:



astroannie said:


> "Too graphic" is anytime you look at the section and ask, "is this too graphic?"  Because if you're asking the question, you know it is.



I wouldn't pull punches over worries of what others might think, but if I'm already thinking it, then that means something needs to be changed. 

I should add that sometimes what needs to be changed may not even be the graphic bit. It could be that the build up and motivation missed the mark, with the result being that the violence (or whatever) misses the mark. If something feels wrong, though, there's usually something wrong.


----------



## Sam (Aug 4, 2015)

I agree with Gamer. 

I remember a discussion I had with a cousin of mine three or four years ago, after he had given me his first short story to read. Actually, to be fair, calling it a 'story' is a stretch. It was a scene where two teenage girls verbally abused and tortured an 11-year-old boy who had Down syndrome. The entire 3k story centred around them kicking, stomping, and digging their nails into the kid. Repeatedly. It was the literary equivalent of a snuff film. The only reason I read all of it was because he asked me to critique it. 

When I spoke to him about it, and asked him why he had written _that _particular scene, he said, "It's a nod to the current state of the world and the de-humanisation of people." 

"Okay, but why did you write it?" 

"What do you mean? I wrote it as an allegory of the human condition." 

"It's not allegory. Allegory is subtle. That scene is about as subtle as a Jehovah's Witness."

"You didn't like it?" 

"For me to like something, there has to be a story. There was no story. There was no justification. There was no characterisation. All there was was two girls torturing an innocent Down syndrome kid."

"But that's the point! It's about the dehumanisation of people!" 

"Where's the story? Who were the two girls? Who was the boy? How did that scenario come about? All you have is a gratuitous, violent scene that reads like the sick fantasy of a twisted person." 

________________________________________________________

Why do you want to write a rape scene? For the shock value -- because _GOT _did one -- because it will give your story something edgy to work with? Or maybe because rape happens? Yeah, it does, but it also happens to men. In prison. A lot. But writing about that isn't as dark or shocking, right? 

Don't write something just because it will make your work darker or edgier. Don't write it because your story is about the depravity of the human condition. Don't write it because it exists and not writing about it would be intentional ignorance. Write it because it means something. 

I write stories about soldiers in war zones. Historically, soldiers have raped women. Why don't I write about it? Because it doesn't do anything for my story, and just because it's historically accurate and realistic, it doesn't mean I have to pay homage to it. 

Historically, soldiers have been brutally killed and maimed on the battlefield. Eyes gouged out, insides exposed, heads blown apart, and death from infection and disease. Even death by friendly fire. That doesn't mean I have to write about it -- not unless it adds something to the story: like the impact a death can have on a fellow soldier. 

It's all right to write dark themes and storylines. It doesn't mean you have to do it, but if you are going to, at least have a good reason for doing it beyond "because I write about the depravity of humans".


----------



## Kyle R (Aug 4, 2015)

Too graphic? For Chuck Palahniuk, this concept doesn't exist. In fact, to him, the more graphic, the better.

The more viscerally you portray a scene, he would tell you, the more chance you have of your fictional reality eclipsing the reality of the reader.

"Note, this doesn't happen with abstract words . . . You can't just order a reader to feel a sensation . . . . Those are the cliches of a cheating writer. Little abstract shortcuts that don't make anything happen in the reader's gut. 

No, you want the pain — or whatever physical sensation — to occur in the reader, not on the page. So unpack the event, moment by moment, smell by smell. Make it happen, and let the sensation of pain occur only in the reader." — Chuck Palahniuk

But keep in mind—Chuck's writing is not for everyone.

"I’m fascinated by low fiction that generates a physical response: disgusts the reader, makes them hungry or sexually aroused." — Chuck Palahniuk


----------



## Terry D (Aug 4, 2015)

Lots of beginning writers like to write graphic depictions of terrible things. I think it's often a way to exercise their imaginations and their writing muscles -- like a newly metamorphosed butterfly flexing new wings. They think that's what drew them to the stories they like to watch, or read. It's not until later, when they mature a bit as writers (not just get older, age has nothing to do with it), they realize that what was really special about Lord of the Rings, or The Hunger Games, or Ringu, wasn't the moments of violence (although those can be very memorable) is was the characters and the story. _It's always about the story_, not the nature of the scenes that tell it.


----------



## Newman (Aug 4, 2015)

Leonodas said:


> That is to say, how much is too much when it comes to graphic depictions of violence and other profane things in literature?
> 
> I suppose this is a culturally sensitive issue. Forty years ago, the standard of what is "too graphic" was a lot different than today, and I'd contend that what was once considerably X-rated violent is probably now the norm, even expected.
> 
> ...



When Ramsay Bolton raped Sansa Stark, they didn't actually show it. That was too graphic. For TV, anyway.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 4, 2015)

Newman said:


> When Ramsay Bolton raped Sansa Stark, they didn't actually show it. That was too graphic. For TV, anyway.



Would disagree only because that show has shown rape on screen before.


----------



## Boofy (Aug 4, 2015)

Aye, the Cersei/Jaime one was just less talked about. Cersei/Jaime wasn't actually written as a clearly defined rape in the books, but the Ramsay/Jeyne one was very explicit in both the books and the show. (I say Ramsay/Jeyne because Sansa actually takes Jeynes place in the show for NO reason at all)

Though I don't make a habit of writing particularly graphic scenes, a lot of books I have enjoyed such as A Clockwork Orange, A Song of Ice and Fire and American Psycho make great use of profanity, violence and sexually explicit descriptions. As long as it isn't just being crammed in to give your book edge for the sake of edginess, I think you're good to go.


----------



## sportourer1 (Aug 15, 2015)

In a world of the gratuitous this is truly a dilemma with no correct answer I suspect


----------



## DaBlaRR (Aug 15, 2015)

I have two rape scenes and this is one. I don't get into detail. I don't even get into detail about regular sex scenes, because frankly I hate writing sex scenes. this is one line, that I almost felt guilty writing. But it had to be there. 


“One Scream bitch and I blow your brains out,” He pulls the trigger anyway, and the blood coats the bathroom tub like dark red paint, “Oops sorry!” Dax continues his work on her limp body.


----------



## Miranda de la Costa (Aug 16, 2015)

I'd say write it the way you want. Just know the audience you're writing it for and prepare to deal with backlash if (hopefully not) any. Good luck!


----------



## Snowflake (Aug 16, 2015)

Sam said:


> Historically, soldiers have been brutally killed and maimed on the battlefield. Eyes gouged out, insides exposed, heads blown apart, and death from infection and disease. Even death by friendly fire. That doesn't mean I have to write about it -- not unless it adds something to the story: like the impact a death can have on a fellow soldier.
> 
> It's all right to write dark themes and story lines. It doesn't mean you have to do it, but if you are going to, at least have a good reason for doing it beyond "because I write about the depravity of humans".



I heard a radio show a while back saying Asian films, and media in general, display greater morality. Example: if a character was killed, it also showed the aftermath -- the widow and kids grieving and the pain the loss causes the family. There was a lesson to be learned by the viewers, and the country had fewer crimes as a result. 

I wonder what the U.S. crime statistics would have been in the 50's if blood and gore rather than family friendly shows were aired constantly. I wonder what would happen if art and the media stopped *pushing* the envelop and starting *pulling* the envelop...


----------



## Conundrum (Sep 17, 2015)

I'm not a prude when it comes to darkness and depravity in fiction. One of the novels that made me want to become a writer in the first place was none other than Thomas Harris's _Red Dragon_. It was graphic, gruesome, downright Gothic at times, but not without its black humor and substance. I have to ask, like others have, why exactly you want to cram all this into your story. What are you trying to say with it? Does it make sense? Are you trying to maintain verisimilitude, or go full-blown Frank Miller? I believe Joss Whedon said something to this effect: You can make you story dark and gritty, but then, for the love of God, _tell a joke_. Even Thomas Harris's Lecter novels knew how to raise a chuckle.


----------

