Today’s Shelf Awareness includes a post by Sheryl Cotleur from the fantastic bookstore Book Passage about the uneasiness she felt when reading the final installment in the incredibly popular Hunger Games series, Mockingjay. From the post:
I am an adult book buyer, but our children’s buyer convinced me to read the three Suzanne Collins books. I have just finished Hunger Games series, Mockingjay. I admit they are compelling and one reads steadily to learn what happens next. They are even inventive and the characters are fascinating people, yet the more I read, the more uneasy I became until I could barely get through to the end of the third book. Why, I wonder, is no one (that I am aware of) talking about how violent these books are? [Ed: emphasis mine. The post goes on to describe some of the violent scenes in Mockingjay, which I won’t quote out of spoiler concerns, but which you should click through to read if you’re curious.]
Well, let’s talk about it.
Some of my absolute favorite children’s books of all time are violent — beloved characters dying, murder committed, danger around every corner. And certainly going all the way back to Aesop’s Fables and the Brothers Grimm, instilling morality in children by way of scaring the bejeezus out of them is a very old tradition.
But is there a line? If so, where’s it at? How much is too much?
Speaking personally, ever since a high school classmate of mine was murdered I’ve tended to be more squeamish about violence in books and movies than the average American, but that’s not to say I don’t ever enjoy violent stories provided the violence is true to the story and not gratuitous. It’s all case-by-case for me.
What about you?
Need help with your book? I’m available for manuscript edits, query critiques, and coaching!
For my best advice, check out my online classes, my guide to writing a novel and my guide to publishing a book.
And if you like this post: subscribe to my newsletter!
One of the things that I think causes people to not point out all of the violence that Suzanne Collins writes (because there is a lot in the Gregor series, written for a younger audience, as well) is that she writes about it with what I have always seen as an anti-violence, anti-war agenda. I think that her message so clearly shows that this is not the way to do things.
I think that when violence is gratuitous, when it is not seen as harmful or dangerous or wrong, that that is when the line has been crossed.
I think that if you set it up and frame it right, in such a way that makes it clear that violence isn't something that we should condone, it can work.
The most classic struggle is good vs. evil.
Narnia
Harry Potter
Percy Jackson and the Olympians
Star Wars
There are countless more I could name. They all come down to one thing: the struggle to do what's right in a world full of cruelty and violence. To be that kind person when all around you would turn you to a different path.
Aren't all stories written, at least in some part no matter how small, to explore that issue of choices?
I just finished Mockingjay, and I've read the rest of the series. I think parents need to be the judge of what material is appropriate for their children. This is a YA (young ADULT) book, not a children's book. I'd be OK with my teens reading it, but not younger than that. I felt the same way about the Twilight series.
Violence is part of our lives. So to have it in literature is normal. But the question of what should our kids be reading, well that is up to the parents. But the parents need to be proactive, preread the books (watch movies, TV shows, games) they have concerns about.
Are there web sites that discuss book content like "Plugged In" does for movies? That site has helped us determine which movies we'll let our kids watch.
What about other resources.
Parents it is time to purposefully engage with you children, what ever age they are.
Then again my girls are playing zombie Barbie, b/c Ken is missing his head.
I was actually thinking about this last week as I reread Hunger Games in anticipation for Mockingjay… The first book especially shows how despicable the Capital seems, gaining entertainment from violence inflicted on children. And I couldn't help but wonder how different I was from them? I'm certainly entertained by the series.
I am waiting for my Mockingjay to arrive, but having read the first two, I can say that I'd have no qualms with letting my own kid (when she's old enough) read these books. I agree with Catherine. I think the violence isn't glamorized, it is troubling. And it SHOULD be troubling. With each terrible act one feels a sense of injustice and loss and anger rather than YES BRING ON THE BLOODSHED. At least I hope one does. I do.
Violence has been proven to be very effectively channeled through the media. Unfortunately, what we constantly watch and read has been scientifically proven to effect our minds, especially children's minds, which are fresh and open to new ideas and possibilities.
I would no sooner sit a 12-year-old in front of a PG13 movie than I would hand them a PG13 book, which makes me wonder, by the way, why books aren't rated. But that's another story.
In conclusion, I think that if kids are actually anxious to read blood curdling horror or gut-wrenching, illegal-action-promoting violence in books, it's time we take our kids (and the publishing companies of America) aside for a talk.
Like Joel Q point out, violence is part of life, and the other, less spoken of extreme is to take out or (worse) syrupify violent or hard-to-swallow elements of life. This is especially troublesome given the assumptions about audience a lot of industry people (including us writers) make about our audiences. The question shouldn't be how much violence is too much but rather how does the violence serve the story, fit within the larger world of the story?
Violence in children's stories is nothing new. I just read my kids the classic 'Hansel and Gretel' this evening. Kidnapping, forced imprisonment, cannabilism – and we all cheer when Gretel pushes the old witch into the oven and she burns to death. And we're reading these to our kids just before they go to sleep!
I have no idea what effect violence in fiction might have on them but I fervently hope it helps them cope in an increasingly violent world rather than helping to perpetuate that violence.
I am iffy about violence in books (and other media directed at children/young adults). In fact, I find it interesting that all too often, violent books get a pass from the same kind of people who freak out about sex or religious issues.
I believe that the things that happen in books allow people to experience something secondhand so they can be prepared and educated should it happen in real life.
I don't think there should be a line within books. If anything, I think the line should be in real life, where parents and other people sit down with kids and say, "What happens in fiction is not real life. What happens even in nonfiction is not necessarily your life." So long as we distinguish between fact and fantasy, I think most people will be okay.
Great, thoughtful post, Nathan.
I don't really have an answer, but my mom and I were talking about this, particularly in MG.
Why is it people can die all over the place in MG, and yet you throw in a kissing scene and OMG? It's kind of strange, isn't it?
Not to say kissing should be in MG books, but it can be surprising how much death/violence there is.
I agree with you. Nothing gratuitous, but if it fits the story and is handled well, I'm okay with it. My pet peeve is when authors are flippant about the value of human life. Suzanne Collins is anything but flippant.
You also have to look at the audience it's intended for. Suzanne Collins has written some books for young readers and the action doesn't resemble The Hunger Games trilogy in any way. Her trilogy was written for an older YA audience, and while, yes, parts of her novels are disturbing, they are essential to the story she's trying to tell.
Of course there's a line. I think every author for every audience has a duty to be respectful towards that audience. When writing for kids, we have a duty to be respectful towards what our readers may or may not be mature enough to handle.
The problem is, it's basically impossible to say in any kind of meaningful a-priori way just where that line is. As you say, it's always a case-by-case thing.
I recently finished Royce Buckingham's MG monster novel "Demonkeeper." In it, several kids die, done in by various demons in various ways. A couple of them, we're left to infer, probably got ripped apart and eaten alive. Violent? Sure. Over the line? No, because Buckingham left it off-camera. Had he shown it directly, describing which limbs came off in which order and how the poor victim screamed and thrashed about, that would probably have been over the line.
I've been having this self-same discussion with my writer friends this morning. A 10-year-old girl in my son's class was very excited about Mockingjay's launch and it made me nervous. I agree with Catherine Meyer's comments about Collins' anti-war stance, and Anonymous 12:08's comment that Collins deftly puts the onus on the Capital. But that doesn't soften the violence itself.
Parents SHOULD be involved with what their children read, just like they should be involved with their children's education. Unfortunately, many are not.
That said, I don't have an answer. In light of Ellen Hopkins and the Humble, TX debacle, I'm pretty sure censorship isn't the way to go. But I do think that discussion, especially with the young people reading the books, is a great start.
First off, I don't know that I considered Hunger Games "children's lit"–I think there's a huge difference between children's books and middle grade to young adult books. I would define them all by very different appropriateness categories–no one expects young adult lit to have the sensibilities of Spot Goes Splash. By the time a kid is old enough to pick up Hunger Games, I assume they've seen worse on TV, quite frankly.
But this is also why parents should be aware of what their kids are reading–not to censor it, but to talk about it and help them understand the material and, in cases where a kid is old enough to process the book intellectually but not emotionally, to help the child make the decision to hold off on reading until he or she is older.
But in the end–the world is a scary, unfair, dangerous place where bad things happen to people. I'd rather my hypothetical children learn that from solid books with an ethical backbone than from gratuitous TV or movies.
I don't know if it's right or acceptable because I haven't read the material, but what's the difference between violence in literature and PG-13 rated or even R rated cinematic violence?
There's a difference in writing:
"Maria flipped out the knife and shoved it in his stomach. The feeling that spread itself was only to be described like children opening their birthday presents on the morning of their birthday. She twisted the pointed blade around, feeling how the insides squirmed around. As she pulled the knife out, a stream of blood spluttered her white jumper. But she didn't care, and she didn't notice his desperate cry for help, or his agonizing moan as he inhaled his last breath. She was just happy he was dead"
and
"As Maria flipped out her knife to protect herself, she didn't realize how close he was. The knife penetrated hos torso, and he fell to the ground. After a few breaths, he was dead, and Maria could finally walk safely home."
My point is that as long as you leave out the details, you should be able to pass it through as a young adults book.
Americans are vastly more tolerant of expressions violence in media at all age levels than expressions of sexuality. Contrast this with some countries overseas, where it's the other way around.
Beauty isn't the only thing in the heart of the beholder. I'm in my fifties, still regret watching the movie Dear Hunter over thirty years ago. My wife is a sixth-grade English teacher, and uses Incident at Hawks Hill every year. I read the book and was aghast parents haven't strung her up for the violence in the book. I found it very troubling. Yet she says her kids love it. I wouldn't want my eleven-year-old reading Incident. I believe life is tough enough. Let our kids avoid reality as long as they can – Regards, Mac
For me the line is the same as it is in adult novels: when the violence becomes gratuitous. When it's purposeful (to show a character's descent into madness as Stephen King does in Apt Pupil, for example) and it makes sense to the story, I don't believe you can draw a specific line and say "here, but no further." I did struggle with this in my own YA thriller, but in the end the characters do what they do because of who they are. And one in particular is terribly violent. As far as The Hunger Games goes, I haven't come across anything that feels like violence for violence's sake – including Mockingjay (though I'm not quite finished yet).
Nathan – I had a friend die violently when I was a kid, too. Funnily, I turned to horror and thrillers for comfort. There's something about reading fictional violence that helped me accept how shockingly brutal real life can be. I'm not talking about desensitization. I think it's about commiseration. Or something. It's been 21 years since he died and I still don't fully understand it.
I’m so sorry about your high school classmate, Nathan. That is very sad.
I haven’t read MOCKINGJAY or the other books in THE HUNGER GAMES seies, but I’ve noticed this problem in other recent YA and children’s books. My feelings toward this topic come from psychology and child development classes I took while earning my Masters degree in Clinical Psychology and my work, years ago, as a therapist. Back in the day of Aesop’s Fables and the Brothers Grimm, we didn’t know a whole lot about psychological development. Then we had an age of enlightenment, more or less, in which we started to understand healthy ways to raise well-disciplined, mentally healthy kids. I’m not sure what’s happening in our culture right now, but it seems that corporations are setting the moral standards. The approach seems to be: Hey, if kids will pay money for it, then put a YA label on it and market it to kids. A long time ago, children were treated as little adults. Then we had an age of enlightenment. Now our culture seems to be going back to treating kids like little adults, probably because that’s less boring and more profitable for the adults. The excuse tends to be, "Oh, don’t tell me kids aren’t looking at this stuff, anyway." Children don’t mature at the same rate. While some children try adult stuff early, most don’t unless someone exposes them to it. This approach frequently backfires later on in life because the child was asked to handle more than they were really able to deal with. We see this quite vividly with child movie stars who implode later in life. For a while, they seem to be handling things just fine. But, eventually, there’s a need to go back and experience the stages of childhood they missed out on in order to become more stable adults.
I read this with concern because I just gave Hunger Games to my daughter for her 12th birthday. At first I was a little disturbed and thought maybe I should check the books she reads more carefully and then I think of the mainstream middle school life she's leading where 2 weeks ago she heard about an 8th grader who was raped in a neighborhood park or the fb story where she knew a friend of a friend (also 8th grade)who'd played Russian Roulette and died from a self inflicted gunshot wound. I would much rather my child read a fiction story with violence then have brushes in their real life with it. The tough questions and discussions that have become necessary aren't from her reading materials and as much as I try to protect her from real life, she's growing up in a scary real world.
Something I think that quoted passage overlooks is that there is a difference in Children's literature and YA.
Children's literature is more often fantasy styled fare with abstract consequences for actions (like someone in TV show getting injured in one episode, then he/she is fine the next)
YA is for older readers. The fight between good and evil is real and violent to them. They're used to the revelation that, no matter what the teachers say, bullies don't usually back down if you stand up to them. They've seen friends and family get hurt. They understand death.
Teens live in a violent reality, and if you're going to make a believable world, some of that violence is going to be present, otherwise.
There's a belief that the only real fear is the fear of death and that all others are simply branches of that same fear. So, if the stakes are understood as MC fighting for survival, then whatever he/she comes up against has to be willing to end his/her life, and they have to get to a point where they accept that and choose to fight or give in accordingly.
I think most teens, handed a story like Hunger Games, would balk if the stakes didn't seem proportional to the universe created. If death isn't on the line, then there's really nothing worth fighting against because no one's "really" hurt. Their lives would go on.
It's easy to forget that many children live in a very violent world, that overt violence was commonplace and visible everywhere not so long ago.
Write a book that pretends otherwise, especially for a teenager audience, and it may be hard for them teens to identify. But, with everything that's based on experience, your mileage varies.
Is there a line? Yes, and my daughter has read several books that cross what I would be willing to write myself, but she identified with pieces of them. they helped her in some ways, spoke to her.
Books can be an escape from violence, but they can also help provide meaning to violence and a way of demonstrating what is and isn't acceptable and WHY. You can draw the line, even in a world where violence is performed by protagonists and antagonists both, between good and bad.
It's not for everyone and some people are going to be thrown by violence and others are going to want to know that others understand their pain. No cure all, I think, for everyone.
Just as with other mediums of entertainment, parental involvement is the essential ingredient. The world children live in is full of real life situations that rival anything found in books, including death, violence, or sexuality. A relationship where my kids will trust my judgment about appropriateness is something I'm working for with them. The thing I hope for my own children is that they will come to me with questions when something bothers them, whether they see it in a book, in a movie, or on the evening news.
I couldn't put HUNGER GAMES down, but I really had qualms about the violence in the novel–almost to the point that I wished I hadn't read it. Granted it's very well written and a great story and I don't think the violence is gratuitous, but I still felt the novel had way too much violence. I was shocked actually…
Anon @12:39 PM – Good point. Ours is a culture of violence. And our art reflects that. It also perpetuates it.
Whether the line is drawn is up to a child or teen's parent to decide. Conversely, YA writers should ask themselves, "Would I want my child/niece/nephew to read my book?"
This is a complicated issue. One I tackled in an essay about violence in video games (you can check that out here, if you're interested: https://gilesth.blogspot.com/2007/05/now-that-my-grades-are-posted-for-those.html).
At the end of the day, I think it depends on the purpose of the violence. And it's also up to the parents (if the children are younger) to decide for themselves whether they want their children to read something that's violent.
As far as I care, a writer can write whatever they want, and a publisher can publish whatever they want (freedom of speech, and so on).
I definitely think there should be a line when it comes to violence in children's literature. And when I say children's literature I don't mean YA, I mean middle grade and younger books.
I agree that it's good for parents to pre-read books for their kids, but I don't think a book marketed and written for children in elementary school should need to be pre-read. I could be way off base about this, though, I am a very idealistic person.
However, I don't necessarily agree with the opinion that violence is acceptable as long as it is shown as a bad thing, or as long as the bad guys get their due in the end. For me this doesn't negate the fact that children are being exposed to violence, which can be very disturbing for young minds.
Excellent topic.
My critique group recently wanted to know if- morally- I shjould put a safe sex paragraph into a YA novel WiP, but were not the least bit concerned with the very violent monsters in the novel (which made the protagonist much, much more in danger).
My own question has been: if this work is true to its story and form, then the sex and violence are part of that. BUT is it appropriate for YA?
Personally, I would rate it "mature seventeen audience only." (if I could)
“Fairy tales do not tell children that dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children that dragons can be killed.” — G.K. Chesterton
I love this quote, because that is what violence in children's literature should be–not to scare the pants off them, but to show that even though bad things happen, they can be overcome.
Violence is a reality in kids lives–often far more than we realize these days. I agree the violence in books must serve the story and not be gratuitous or overly-graphic. I majorly agree that parents should pre-screen books so they can decide 1) if it's appropriate for their child and 2) so they can discuss any troubling parts with the child.
I did a blog post about this not so long ago, and most commenters felt the same way.
So there is a line, but it differs from child to child.
It really depends on the kid. My oldest isn't much affected by violence (he's 11 and we let him see some pg13 movies – some of which, btw, are aimed at kids. He's cool with it. None of it keeps him up nights and the other day when some kid pushed him at school I asked if he pushed him back and he said, "No. I'm not a fighter."
That's one of my kids.
The other one is really affected by stuff she sees, wants to skip the fight scenes in the Narnia movies (she loves them for the animals and the world). She's also always been a "Hitter" so she doesn't need any more encouragement on that front! So it depends on the kid.
I think as long as parents actually PARENT their children, it's all good.
I've never commented here before but couldn't stop myself from adding my two cents. In addition to what everyone else has said about Collins' very deliberate anti-violence/war agenda, this book is intended for a YA audience. I would say a mature YA audience. When I was in high school we were assigned reading lists that included books like Catch 22, The Grapes of Wrath, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Lord of the Flies…you get the picture. (And yeah, I suppose some parents did object to those selections but the school district thought they were fine.) Kids who are mature enough to read these are mature enough for The Hunger Games. I would not put the book in the hands of my 7 year old, even though he would probably be able to read it with little outside help.
There will always be kids–advanced readers–who read books intended for an older audience. Just as there are kids who watch movies or play video games that aren't age appropriate.
I, along with others who have commented, believe it is dependent on the story. I'm going to speak in generalities here as I have no read the Suzanne Collins series. … Wow. I just heard gasps around the internet at that statement. Sorry! I'll get right on that. 🙂
Do I like gratuitous violence? No. Is there a place for it in stories, young adult or otherwise? Yes. I'm okay with it as long as there is meaning and it shows a deeper perspective. For instance, if the story shows how people deal with something as horrible as death. Or the ramifications that can happen by having sex. Or if there is a death, that it makes sense in the story and not just because… well, because the author just thought it would be a lark.
In all actuality, these are things that kids have to deal with. To pretend that death, sex, and all sorts of other "taboo" subjects aren't a part of their lives is not only naive, but can be rather dangerous. It's there. I'd rather have a book that deals with the issues, and shows them from a real point of view.
That, of course, is just my opinion.
What an interesting topic. I think there's a line in how it is described. Violence in Twilight is written very, very differently than in Harry Potter, or even in Horowitz' Alex Rider series. Some books go into great length, and others don't–and shouldn't–need to do that. I haven't read Hunger Games but the violence isn't going to put me off. I'm thinking that if the violence was played down or if it was absent altogether, the book wouldn't be as investing. I don't think it would be as good. The message depends on it. It goes the same for Ender's game.
Someone mentioned the Ellen Hopkins debate as censorship. The word "censorship" was used to criticize parents who didn't want their own children exposed to adult material in a school setting. No one suggested that individual children whose parents felt they could benefit from Ellen's books should be forbidden to read them. No one suggested burning the books. Some parents didn't want their own children put in a situation where they might be exposed to topics of drugs and prostitution beyond which they could personally handle it. If you want kids exposed to adult material in a school, then let's talk about exposing them to Calculus or Astrophysics or some other advanced material within the appropriate realm of public schooling.
I think readers are sophisticated enough to understand that within the frame of Suzanne Collins' world, this violence is bestial and wrong. THE HUNGER GAMES represent a tyranny and crushing absolutism that threatens freedom, and I think that really resonates with readers. Maybe some children aren't ready to read things like this, but–once I have kids–I'd let mine read this as soon as they asked to.
Only one YA book has ever made me truly wonder where that line is, and it's actually the only book to do so–even pitted against Joyce Carol Oates' more violent and disturbing works. LIVING DEAD GIRL (Elizabeth Scott) was one of those books that made me really think, "Is this necessary?" The book was awful and beautiful and terrible all at once. The writing was gritty and masterful. But I put the book down wondering if it had to be done that way. I was shaken and couldn't stop thinking about it for days, which is usually the mark of an excellent writer. And I think Elizabeth Scott is that, but I was never able wholly justify the rawness of that book to myself.
All in all, though, I think real fiction makes you think. Makes you question the world and how and why it works. THE HUNGER GAMES stays with you in the most cerebral, thoughtful way, and I think that in this case, the violence was a necessary evil in the novel and series.
Would prefer not to see any violence at all in children's literature. The sub-conscious picks up everything whether we are aware of it or not.
I feel that violence portrayed in a book/movie just for the sake of showing violence is a waste of time. However, I have never minded violence when there is a bigger picture or a "moral to the story." Our children today are innundated with bloody, senseless violence. Showing the aftermath of killing (on the victim, the perpetrator and the families of both) has a moral purpose.
I'm a father and Middle School teacher, and believe me, kids don't need violence in literature to compel them into acts of violence. Peer pressure is probably the leading cause of that.
Might violence in books, movies, or video games increase the likelihood of violence? I'd like to see some research on that. I've heard the argument that it desensitizes kids to violence. Maybe there's some logic there. And for some kids, it could be true.
But wiith proper adult role models, proper parenting, and established guidelines of behavior, a kid knows what is right and what is wrong.
The problem is not what kids see in movies or read in books, but the lack of guidelines and role modeling in their lives.
I am perfectly fine with violence if it fits. What I mean is, violence is out there in the world, and it's stupid to keep it out of books just to shield children from it, because that shielding won't last long.
However, if the violence is there just for the sake of violence, then it's too much. If it's something realistic… like it makes sense that this would happen, (within the context of the story) then it's fine. As long as the book isn't glorifying violence and telling kids that murder is the answer to everything.
I was going through the comments and saw a mention of "good vs. evil," and that made me think about how interesting it is when it isn't a clear cut "good vs. evil." More realistic in my opinion.
I totally agree on the case by case thing.
Unfortunately, this world we live in can be a very violent place and because of that I don't think writing about violence should be avoided at all times. That being said, I think the way a violent act is written about and the attitude toward it are what makes it acceptable or unacceptable to me.
One of the things I love about reading as opposed to viewing a story is that when you read YOU are the one who develops the picture in your mind of what something looks like rather than having someone else's vision imposed on you. In my mind I will only create pictures that personally can deal with. If something I am reading is becoming too graphic for my taste I can skim the words to get the idea of what's happening without dwelling on the scene.
In the Hunger Games series (yes, I've finished Mockingjay, too) the violence is treated in a way that caused me uneasiness – which is good – but not revulsion. The feelings about and consequences of the violence are so well handled that it didn't cross the line for me.
As far as children reading about violence – that's where each parent needs to be involved with what their own kids are reading and decide for themselves where the line is.
I haven't read Mockingjay yet, but the first two books had a very anti-violence theme. And this is the same basic story Steven King told in the Long Walk 20-30 yers ago.
I think kids are exposed to a lot of things that are more violent, without the message that THG has.
I'm far more concerned that a young person will think the perfect solution to their problems is to commit suicide and then make tapes for 13 of their class mates.
The truth is that our society is facinated with these Survivor type scenarios. Haven't you noticed the number of "injuries" shooting up on the Surviror series every year. How long is it going to be before someone gets killed on that show, "whoops" our bad. We do everything to protect the players…
Violence should never be glorified, IMO, but it shouldn't be shied from. We live in a brutal world with brutal people.
It one wants roses and faeries, there are other genres for that. For dystopian fiction, the faeries probably need to be carrying machetes just to make it past the mutated roses.
That being said, our culture is highly desensitized to violence. But I would say this stems more from the gaming/movie/media realm where explosions and death = success… in books, one can synthesize the events more in context with the emotional arc of the character and, hopefully, come to the conclusion that author was targeting.
Yes, the Hunger Games series is extremely violent. But I think the violence in that series is handled more responsibly than it is in many other books/movies. The books contain a clear anti-violence, anti-war message. Furthermore, the books powerfully demonstrate that violence has an impact on the person committing it, not just on the victim. Katniss had little choice about the violence she was forced to engage it–but it left its scars anyway. Isn't that a more accurate representation than something like Star Wars where our heroes blast their enemies left and right without ever being affected by the pile of corpses they left behind, or experiencing any remorse?
I have no problems with violence, so long as the level of violence is proportional to the situation. The third (fourth?) EDA novel, The Bodysnatchers, goes to unnecessary lengths to describe some of the more gruesome things. Yet I've read crime novels that go pretty well into detail and am fine with it. Turning your book into Saw or Hostel is unnecessary. But I'm all well and good with describing the carnage of a bombing if it's appropriate to your story.
I should have added this to my earlier comment, but just thought of it now – a really interesting point I learned in child development classes in graduate school: The reason that so many children’s books and TV show cartoons feature animals in the roles of people is because young children are able to process the information more easily when they can dissociate humans from it a bit. If a bear is behaving badly, for instance, they willingly think, "Oh, that’s terrible!", while not having to actually think about humans behaving that way. They learn a lesson without having to think about how badly humans can behave toward each other. This is for very young children who are just learning how to distinguish what is real from what is fantasy, what is right from what is wrong. It’s best for children to learn about the real world only in stages that they can handle.
I love the Hunger Games series. I just finished Mockingjay and it was by far the most violent of the three. As an adult, the violence bothered me. Did I still enjoy the story: yes.
As a parent, I wouldn't let my children read these until they were at least 17. I know of a middle grade English teacher who made it mandatory reading for her 7th graders. Is this irresponsible? I would have been shocked if my child was being required to read it. But I think parents are ultimately responsible for their children. They should be aware of the books their children are reading, and censor based on personal family standards.
Equally, I say expose them to violence young. Switching mediums here, but I have a bit more knowledge in this area than I do in YA/Children's lit: Cartoons these days are heavily watered down from the 80s and 90s. To the point where Cartoon Network now put a parental warning before shows rated TV-PG. I grew up watching shows like DBZ and Yu Yu Hakusho that were minimally edited, had only the more extreme of swear words replaced, and were still rated TV-Y7 or TV-PG. I'm not traumatized because I watched people having arms ripped off or having holes shot through their chests by energy beams. Why should we suffer books to the same watering down?