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!
Aoife.Troxel says
I think it depends. Is it better to have violence in books so that children will be more prepared to deal with violence in real life? Or does it make it worse, as you said, for those who have already experienced it? Some great stories have no violence and some have lots of it. I think the problem is with stories that you don't expect to be violent being violent. There is always opportunity to weed out certain books for whatever reason, but when you expect one to be a certain way, and it's not, I think that is the real issue.
Personally, I am on the fence as to how much violence is okay, but it would not stop me picking up a book. That said, everyone has the right to read non-violent books.
Liz says
I agree with other commenters that the line should be drawn by parents who know their children's maturity levels. I personally get a bit squeamish about the level of violence in books, movies, television, etc. not because the violence itself bothers me, but because I'm so used to it that it doesn't bother me. What does that say about our society, I wonder?
chris says
I believe you have to vet this stuff personally as a parent.
You can never leave it to a censorship board.
Case in point: Toy Story 3 received a 'G' Rating but the movie was anything but 'G' in several instances. Placing characters in mortal jeopardy (ie, heading into a furnace) certainly had a huge effect on my four year old.
Books are no different. We check content for suitability. To assume your kids can process and understand adult concepts is a recipe for creating a confused and anxious child. I'm not saying censor everything … just use common-sense.
my lonely journal says
Re: the springboard for this post (which is a great post and poses a great question!), I think people *are* talking about the violence in these books. Quote — "More maudlin than the first two books in the series, 'Mockingjay' is also the most violent and bloody …" — from the LA times online.
Steph says
I was just telling a friend about The Hunger Games today and finding myself admitting that while the premise of the games is horrifying, I didn't find it unacceptable. For one, I'm squeamish about censorship, and I wouldn't necessarily call this a kids' book. Second, I also think it depends on the context and manner in which the violence is treated.
In fact, Catherine Meyer and several others pretty much sum up what I'm thinking. And I can't recall any violence I've read in children's or even teen lit that offended me. It's more in adult fiction that I find I have a boundary. Sometimes Chuck Palahniuk is hard to swallow, for example.
RosieC says
As a teen, I read horror novels almost exclusively, so I'm desensitized to it now. I don't like the gratuitous descriptions of flinging guts and gore, but we live in a violent world. To write MG and YA stories that are all ice cream and puppies is a disservice to the upcoming generations. Limits need to be respected, of course–there's no sense and handing a 14-yr-old blood-porn–but sugarcoating the world is almost just as bad.
Claire says
I think as long as the violence is there for a purpose, rather than gratuitously, it's acceptable and even necessary.
In the case of THE HUNGER GAMES, the violence helps Collins tell her story, which doesn't condone the violence or portray it positively. In fact, quite the opposite. Her heroine struggles with the emotions and moral questions surrounding all the violence she is basically forced to partake in — how it affects her, how it affects her fellow competitors, etc. And the Capitol — the instigator of all this violence — is portrayed as evil, wrong, and cruel.
Admittedly, these and similar books are really for a more mature audience of young people, not for the younger crowd. That's where librarians, teacher, and parents come in. They have a responsibility to guide young people to what is emotionally and mentally appropriate for their ages, and to discuss these issues afterward.
Sometimes violence can illustrate a point — the triumph of good over evil, doing the right thing, adhering to morality and principles — more effectively than anything else. Again, as long as it's not gratuitous, serves a higher storytelling purpose, and isn't inappropriate for the age group at hand, I think violence in children's literature can actually be a good thing.
Phyllis says
@ Marilyn Peake
It’s best for children to learn about the real world only in stages that they can handle.
I agree and I think your comment would make a good guideline for children's literature.
I know very little about children's development. (I did a class on language acquisition with a bit of Piaget, but that's all.) So I wonder if there are studies about how much violence children can handle at what age, what their understanding is.
Kelly Wittmann says
I think people are just too sensitive about it today. Kids' books were pretty violent back in the day ("Charlie and the Chocolate Factory," anyone?), but I don't feel it scarred me emotionally. Children need to confront and work through their fears about violence.
Jennifer says
You know, I'd read this series, but the whole kids-slaughtering-kids thing, at the bequest of the government, just completely gives me the heebie-jeebies. I read books about serial killers, but there's something about this whole Battle Royale plot idea that makes me not want to read them no matter how supergood they are. I have a high tolerance for reading bad scenes (hell, I finished the second Dexter book and that's the worst I've ever seen), but the concept of teenagers constantly slaughtering each other because the government makes them? Ugh!
Stu Pitt says
Prudes will be prudes; best ignore them and read what you like. Any kind of editorializing in criticism (too violent, too sexual) is insipid.
Don't let them near Julius Caeser or Macbeth until they're 18!
Elie says
I think the boundaries have been pushed too far. Now, there's a sense that stories have to include a certain level of violence to be taken seriously enough to be published and popular, IMO.
And, if as a reader you really identify with the protagonist, live vividly inside the story with them, reading can then become a very disturbing experience.
Carol Riggs says
Oh dear, I have MOCKINGJAY on my coffee table but I haven't delved into it yet. I'm not happy to hear it's more violent than the other two. I guess I am impressionable or sensitive? I don't like very descriptive violence. I don't like violence in movies, either; I still have scenes from GLADIATOR and THE JACKAL (Jack Black's arm getting blasted off, anyone?) seared into my image brain cells. This is "entertainment," people?
I liked reading HUNGER GAMES and CATCHING FIRE because of the plot, but winced at the violence in places. I liked the story of HUNGER GAMES and recommended it to my mom, who couldn't get past the first coupla chapters because she didn't like the premise (whew, good thing she didn't read the rest!). My first husband's sister was murdered…violence in reality is not a pretty thing.
minawitteman says
If it is functional and put in perspective, violence in literature (any literature, be it children's, YA or adult) will show readers the difference between good and evil, just like myths, legends and fairy tales have done for centuries. It is up to the reader to learn from it and eventually be able to draw the line for himself in reading AND in real life.
As a writer I make sure that my readers know why the violence is in my books and where it comes from. I show them the consequences (the upsides as well as the downsides) and I hope it will make my readers think about violence and about good and evil. If they do, I have done my job well.
As a reader I draw the line at 'empty' violence, violence just used for the sake of padding the novel.
And I do think parents should know what their children are reading and coach them if necessary.
Tessa Quin says
If it's not important to the plot, it doesn't need to be there.
Having characters die is a different matter. Usually there's strong emotional scene after, and the protagonist will either change their mind about something, or firmly decide to do something, so it's usually related to the plot anyway (though not always).
marjoriekaye says
I agree with Swampfox.
Other Lisa says
@Jennifer: but the concept of teenagers constantly slaughtering each other because the government makes them? Ugh!
Well, we have wars. And the soldiers in those wars are frequently teenagers, or very young adults. That's the world we are actually living in, and that very much includes the US. Since WW2, when has this country not been involved in a foreign war, which is to say, people slaughtering each other by government mandate?
I personally think that the impact of war, not just on the soldiers who fight in wars but on the society that sends them to fight and to which they must return, is one of the major causes of the high level of violence in this country.
Now I want to read these books. If they are helping teens think critically about these issues, more power to them.
(ETA for grammar)
Scott says
Although I haven't gotten to Hunger Games yet (darn middle-schoolers have all copies reserved at the library for the next 12 years… guess I'll have to buy it), I asked my sister about this issue because I was curious. She was of the opinion expressed by many here: that while the books do contain substantial violence, it is treated responsibly.
My question is, is there EVER a 'responsible' way to treat the premise of children being encouraged to kill other children (albeit by 'evil' people) in a work that is intended to be read by children (<18 years old)? I would expect that of a slightly sadistic Stephen King novel, but not a YA sci-fi story.
I am all about LOTR and Star Wars and Narnia, but I will admit that some of the more gratuitous, in-your-face killing in the Prince Caspian movie turned me off a little. That wasn't in the book, but it was shown as exciting and heroic in the movie.
I'm a little disturbed that it sounds like Collins' books are basically about figuring out the next ingenious method of killing, and once the reasons for killing have been done away with, the story ends and the characters/world are no longer interesting enough to readers to justify continuing the series.
Can someone who has read the books in question tell me if all the killing really leads young readers to understand more about life/themselves/how to make our world better? I am skeptical but very intrigued, and will definitely read the books soon.
Becca C. says
I'm 19 now, but even when I was 13 I was totally prepared to handle violence, sex, drugs, etc. in fiction, and if my parents had tried to get all in my face (luckily, they didn't), I would've blown a gasket. At that age, they know these things exist. Trying to pretend otherwise is just dishonest, and there's nothing teens hate more than dishonesty. There's also no worse feeling than having your mom tell you "Honey, I'm not going to let you read this stuff anymore," especially if she's saying it about your very favourite book. That's just going to piss them off.
Let's face it. The kids who are going to perpetuate violence are not the ones reading books. So I would advise parents of teens to back off, and be grateful that they have a smart kid who is staying home reading instead of going out to party. They can handle anything a book can throw at them.
lora96 says
The message of the Collins books, imho, is one of nonviolence. The very senselessness is part of the moral to the story.
The books are much more gratuitously violent than my personal taste usually warrants. However, HG and Graceling were both such superior reads that I can forgive the violence. I squalled and bawled when Rue was killed in book 1, I confess.
However, in Fire, I couldn't stand the animal torture. In Falling Angels by Tracy Chevalier, the brutal rape and strangling of a child got the book's cover ripped off and a trip to the garbage can. There was no *reason* in the story for such appalling violence.
In most cases, I believe that violence in books/movies/games/television can give cruel but unimaginative people really sadistic ideas they will enjoy. I object heartily to violence for the sake of entertainment and the desensitization that may result from exposure to such.
That being said, I find these particular books to be meaningful but do not excuse the practice of, say, the heartless murder of children for a reality show such as Collins portrays. In fact, it condemns the nihilism and hedonism of the Capital.
I can't wait to read Mockingjay.
Ramsey Hootman says
There's a scene in Shogun (not a kid's book – it's been a long time, so I might not have this exactly) where two samurai are fighting in the street and one kills the other. On the sidelines is a mother and her little boy. The little boy is frightened and tries to hide in his mother's skirts, but instead of protecting him she bends down and turns him around so that he will see.
That scene has stayed with me since I read it years ago. Now that I'm a parent, I often think that is what I want to do for my child. It's not my job to protect him from the world, which is a sad, violent place. It's my job, while I have him in my care, to equip him for life without me.
Becca C. says
PS, although I'm only halfway through Mockingjay, I don't find it more violent than the other two. Without Katniss being in the arena, there aren't people dying left and right.
Sommer Leigh says
My answer, as usual, is "It depends."
If the reason for uneasiness about violence in books for Young Adults is just because they are young adults and we, as adults, want to somehow protect them from this, then that's not a good enough reason to draw the line.
You cannot teach about the problems of war, tyranny, social and cultural control, violence inflicted upon citizens by its government without, well, the violence. What exactly would we protect young adults from by disallowing violence from their books? Violence, war, and oppression are real. One only needs to turn on the news to see that.
The difference is, in YA books (for the most part) there are messages, lessons, and hope embedded between the lines that I believe are far more important than sheltering kids from honest discussion and an outlet for critical thinking about subjects they are surrounded by everyday, in one form or another.
Suzanne Collins doesn't glorify the violence. Some of the characters embody the role of soldier, but it is never glamorous.
In general I don't think YA books have the problem that Hollywood movies have in glorifying and romanticizing violence. I've read plenty of dystopian YA and while many of them have some violence, there is a deeper, more important lessons at stake that cannot otherwise be taught.
Doug Pardee says
I'm not a fan of sadistic violence as entertainment for any age.
Many commenters have written something similar to, "We live in a violent world." Sorry to hear about your world. My world isn't violent. I can't remember the last time I felt physically threatened by another person.
We see violence on the news, we watch violence in the movies and on the TV, we read violence in our books, and we come to think of the world as violent. We come to believe that violence is normal in our world.
It's not.
But the world of fiction isn't our world, is it? The world of fiction is larger than life, exaggerated. When we write fiction, we intentionally choose themes, plots, and scenes with conflict. Conflict, however, does not have to mean sadism. Haven't we authors been told that the most interesting villain is one who is human, whom we can identify with?
Let's put some creativity in there, instead of relying on serial killers and sadists as our heavies.
Other Lisa says
Yes, but.
We live in a society that enables violence. Our nation is fighting wars in two countries (at least). We have citizens who are refugees from all kinds of violence.
I think we have a responsibility to face that reality. And our children are going to inherit the reality we've created.
Other Lisa says
And as a p.s., I don't like gratuitous, unrealistic serial-killer-type violence either. But I don't think that's what we're talking about here, is it?
Jan Priddy, Oregon says
It's important to remember that Grimm and Aesop were not writing children's stories at all but simply stories for adults. (Until the last few hundred years few children were not sheltered from adult sexuality or violence.) Lately we seem to be returning to that era where children may not be exposed to adult thinking and mature analysis of ideas, but to the rough and tumble of violence and sex.
There is a tendency to assume, especially in America perhaps, that stories with children in them are intended for adult readers and that stories which are something other than "realist" are also intended for children. This helps explain the unfortunate place of Lord of the Flies in the canon for 14 year olds. Animal Farm was not intended to be read by children, but by adults.
I am not above teaching controversial books—I teach The Bluest Eye to 16/17 year olds. But because the novel includes 11 year old characters it is sometimes taught to much younger children. Is that appropriate? Is it okay to allow children to read whatever excites and interests them? Is it unwarranted censorship to protect our children while we can? Four year olds in R-rated movies? Is that okay?
Very young children do not understand the difference between fiction and fact—some adults have trouble with that too, of course. Given support and open discussion, children can handle more than we give them credit for. One thing they must be taught is how to evaluate and question what they read, how to put themselves in the story and also how to get themselves back out when they need to.
Whether violence works for the story is important, but it isn't the only question. Gratuitous or not, we should be thinking about what we want children to read, at what age even a well-written horror story or terrifying film is appropriate, and how we can support them in using fiction to make sense of their own lives… which is another issue altogether.
Laura says
Sex and violence are seen on tv, movies, cartoons, etc… We are living in a time when we are at war with 'bad' people. People die in a war. It's violent, bloody and a necessary evil.
In this post 9/11 world, nothing should faze anyone anymore. We watched ON LIVE TV, airplanes crash into two skyscrapers over and over again for weeks following the attack. There is a bit of desensitization that has happened. We cannot keep everything away from our teens, they learn about wars in school, they know how bloody the American Revolution was or how devastating the Civil War was. They can handle it. How Jewish persons were gassed in Germany during WW2. Even younger kids are becoming desensitized by the cartoons they watch. How many times did Wily Coyote lose his life to the Road Runner?
Violence is a way of life. Deal with it or create a M. Night Shymalan type Village we're everything is censored.
Caleb Carr's, The Alienist was very violent, yet because it's literary, it is swept under the radar.
Horserider says
I'm 17. I finished Mockingjay yesterday.
We live in the real world. There's war. There's death. There's violence. I like how Suzanne portrayed war. Wonderful people died, families were broken apart, corruption happened, people had secret agendas. That's how things happen in the real world. That's how things should happen in books.
Anyone who thinks Hunger Games is too violent, drive to your nearest video game store and look at the racks. There are games where you can be a soldier and shoot your friends. I've played them. Everyone I know plays them. Pretty much from the time they can hold the controller.
ilyakogan says
Life is violent. Art imitates life.
L.C. Gant says
Wow. Everything I wanted to say (and a lot of things I hadn't thought of) has already been said. Bravo, fellow writers! Ya'll are some deep folk 🙂
The only thing I'll add is that I grew up reading all the Brothers Grimm and Aesop fables I could find, plus watching more than my fair share of Bugs Bunny, and I turned out just fine…I think. Wait, lemme get back to you on that…
steveb says
Living overseas, my perspective is that violence has become an omnipresent part of the American lifestyle. Yes, violence exists everywhere, but American movies and TV have made it appear virtually commonplace.
Once the dramatic tension of life vs. death is used in a movie or in a book, it is extremely hard to bring out the drama in the subtle nuances of ordinary relationships and life. In short, violence breeds violence even on the page.
Rick Daley says
Our kids are inundated with violence. I wince sometimes when my kids see the evening news on TV, let alone what's out there in form of video games and movies. I'm aware that it's out there, and I feel it's my duty as a parent to be accountable to how my kids are exposed to it.
In regard to books marketed to a middle-grade audience, as long as the violence is not glorified or gratuitous I'm just happy when kids are reading.
MJR says
re comments above: Just because there is lots of violence in society, video games etc, doesn't mean we should be blase about it. My sons hated violent video games–they had to leave the room when their friends were playing them (Super Smash Bros was more their speed). Reading about children killing other children in a Survivor-type game of the future (HUNGER GAMES) just didn't sit well with me. I wouldn't give it to my 16-year-old niece to read…I personally found the novel disturbing–yet also compelling. Most definitely for mature readers…
Carradee says
I don't remember it, but my mother tells me that the first stories I told as a child were of a bad man who attacked my grandmother and tied her up in the closet. I knew they were made up. My mother had no idea where I came up with such morbid material.
The recurring dreams I had as a child were nightmares, usually of freakish things trying to kill or eat me and/or my brother. By later elementary school, even the cannibalism ones just made me sigh and accept "This one again."
Now, imagine what would've resulted if everything I read had condoned such abuse, beatings, and cannibalism. Not a pretty thought. Instead, what I read demonstrated why they were bad, so I had even more reason to be repulsed by them.
Part of what I love about The Hunger Games is that they don't shy from showing how that culture's way of thinking produces violence, without the author reveling in that violence.
I've read stories that seemed to celebrate the psychopath's insanity and think it oh-so-cool. My reaction? Excuse me while I back away slowly and hope that I never meet the author in person…
Karen Peterson says
The books are incredibly violent. I admit I was a bit squeamish at times, too.
But I don't worry too much about violence appearing in a novel like this. It's not like these books are targeted at first graders. It's a series obviously intended for older readers that have the capacity to understand that it's not about shocking the audience, but to make a broader point about the futility of war and violence.
I, for one, applaud Suzanne Collins for not shying away from violence and death. It happens. It's an unfortunate part of life. I think Twilight might have been worthwhile if Stephenie Meyer hadn't been afraid to let tragic things happen to her characters.
jan says
Although I am not comfortable with graphic violence in children's books, I haven't really seen a lot of it either. I would be a big fat hypocrit is I had a problem with it in teen books. When I was a teen, the YA book hadn't really burst upon the scene so I read adult science fiction, horror and thrillers. And the violence in some of them was just plain gratuitous.
Plus, my assigned school reading included things that gave me nightmares more than the horror/science fiction/thrillers I chose on my own. I still shudder at the rats in the mask of 1984 and the horrible things in Lord of the Flies — and I read those as SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS.
Violence in literature is hardly new. Teens reading it is hardly new. No, I don't think graphic violence is appropriate for *children* but when I was a TEEN, we certainly read plenty of it and some of it was even supposed to be good for me…or at least it was assigned reading.
LaylaF says
Wow, great topic and one I actually battled with in writing my young adult novel about two girls growing up.
I struggled with including or deleting some scenes in which a mother beats her children…it was somewhat graphic.
One of my test readers thought it was "gruesome" while others told me it made them appreciate what they had in life and that ultimately it was very heartfelt.
In the end, I kept the scenes in, as I thought they were crucial in depicting a certain level of realism.
I can only hope that my readers are mature enough to deal with it.
Frankly, I think most young adults are more mature and sophisticated than we may think.
The Weavers says
It's called read the books your children read and talk to the about it. Leaving kids (even YA) to work through some of these things without putting them into perspective is irresponsible, imho. It also provides parents with the opportunity to talk with their children at an age the kids too often are trying to avoid them.
Example–Stalker Edward in the Twilight series. So many people thought it was romantic that he was sneaking into Bella's room at night while she slept. What might seem romantic in a fairy tale book would be seriously creepy (and restraining order eligible) in real life. Parents need to talk to their kids to help put this kind of thing in perspective–and to help them decide when the violence is pertinent to the story or it's gratuitous.
Matthew Rush says
Well Nathan as usual you've asked a deep and thought provoking question. I do notice that you haven't responded to any comments on this thread, but I imagine you're still busy policing the query dis thread from yesterday.
I haven't read the Suzanne Collins books, though I intend to, but I also think the issue , in general, is universal. Violence in Children's lit, IMHO, is like many things in real life that don't translate onto the page with equal balance.
Violence exists. In fact on Planet Earth more children suffer from extreme violence each year than don't. But … just become something happens in real life, and just because it's written authentically, doesn't mean that it will work as far as readers are concerned.
stacy says
In this post 9/11 world, nothing should faze anyone anymore. We watched ON LIVE TV, airplanes crash into two skyscrapers over and over again for weeks following the attack. There is a bit of desensitization that has happened.
I actually think the opposite has happened. I know I've personally become more sensitive to violence ever since 9/11 because I saw its effects in real life. It wasn't just something that happened in the movies anymore.
John Jack says
The line for me falls where violence, sex, whatever, religion, politics, mature themes, etc,, relate to the real world experiences children are exposed to.
I don't care for gratiutous content regardless of age bracket.
If it involves challenging, fostering, indoctrinating a targeted reader to question and learn to think for him- or herself and helps them to accommodate to a personally complicated dilemma, it's good. If not, it's gratuitious.
Guardians dictating content to younger people have a responsibilty to shelter young people from what they can't handle yet, but the trend errs on the side of overabundant caution, not always in any given child's better interests.
I believe children aren't given enough credit for their intelligence and maturity. Too many are held back, not allowed to test their tolerance limits, and disadvantaged for it.
Cyndy Aleo says
I have a precocious reader. At 10, she has the reading level of a 12th grader, which leaves me in a bind to find books she isn't bored by, yet are thematically appropriate. I read Mockingjay on release day, and she read it yesterday. I didn't think twice about it. The violence isn't gratuitous, and that makes a difference. She's read Harry Potter in its entirety, and knows that some characters may be hurt, maimed, or killed as part of a battle between good and evil.
I'm much more comfortable allowing that than the gratuitous sex that pops up in a lot of YA novels (the discussion of oral sex in the first book of the Marked was a personal Waterloo as a parent, since I for once, didn't read the book first).
Heather says
I agree with those who've said that, in Collins' case, she handles it with a very anti-war/anti-violence agenda. No one can read the Hunger Games series (or the Gregor the Overlander series) and walk away thinking, "Neat-o! Let's kill some peers!"
I think violence in children's literature is fine, as long as it's not gratuitous. It needs to serve a purpose and be written in a way that makes it easier for kids to process. (But NOT dumbed-down….never, ever dumbed-down.)
And while there may not have been any public discussions on this topic, or blog discussions, I know my book club discussed it at length as people read the books (it's an online book club and people have picked the books up here and there over the years.) The violence in the first book even repulsed some people so much that they weren't able to continue the series, which I think is a shame and makes me think they missed the point, but I respect their choice and completely understand where they're coming from. (I think they thought the descriptions were too graphic, but again, that's personal preference.)
I think it all comes down to parents needing to take an active role in what their children are reading, so they can discuss it and learn from it.
J. T. Shea says
Violence in a series about teenage gladiators? Who’d have guessed?
Anonymous 12:08 pm, the difference between you and the Capital is you don’t actually kill people.
Kerrygans, I love that Chesterton dragon quote too.
Amy, why should the Star Wars heroes experience remorse for fighting and defeating a vast evil?
Critiques of fictional violence seem to divide into two mutually contradictory arguments:-
1 It will frighten people.
2 It will NOT frighten people, but instead make them insensitive to violence
Only argument 1 carries weight with me.
Most people are not pacifists, and therefore should not bandy about platitudes like ‘anti-violence’ and ‘anti-war’. Who is against violence to defend a life, or war against a great evil like tyranny or slavery or Fascism? Not all wars are equal.
L. C. Gant, Bugs Bunny corrupted me too…
Ishta Mercurio says
I think that there are ages at which non-gratuitous violence in keeping with the storyline is appropriate, and ages at which it is not.
For extremely violent books like the Hunger Games series and for books like the Twilight series (because of violence and because of references to sex), I would say 15-and-up (or a very mature 14-year-old)is fine. I remember reading Lord of the Flies in my eighth grade honors class, and I remember our teacher having to have discussions with some parents who were uncomfortable with it. (The kids who weren't in Honors English read it in ninth grade.)
However, seeing these books labeled as "12-and-up" on the New York Times bestseller list bothers me. There is a huge gap, in my opinion, on the bookstore shelves, in between the "9-12" section and the "Young Adult" section. 15-18-year-olds are young adults; 13-year-olds are not. There is a world of difference in terms of social and emotional development.
Amanda Sablan says
I don't have anything against violence in books (if I did, I'd have to call myself a hypocrite), but there should definitely be a line when it comes to violence in children's literature. Where that line begins is anyone's guess…
However, this did make me think of the film Fight Club, where violence is heavily used to depict the reasons for why it occurs. So there needs to be a point for having violence, not simply because it's "cool."
Tricia says
I read Hunger Games but stopped at that one. While, yes, there are YA books with violence, and some against kids, but this was a fight to the death violence using kids as young as 12. I personally believe that steps over the line using a kill or be killed theme with kids that young.
Had she used strictly teenagers, I'd have been all over that series like a duck on a june bug. *kidding, people* (not really, he he)
Dominique says
I think so long as the violence is not gratuitous and is well-handled, it can stay. As you mentioned, the Grimm's Fairy Tales are all rather violent, and I loved their Cinderella since I heard it, in part because the violence distinguished it from other books.
An older age example might be Ender's Game, which involves a lot of war games, not to mention several violent real world fights, but all the violence is well-handled, essential to the plot, and in keeping with the feel of the book, so it doesn't feel like too much.
T. Anne says
Just finished MockingJay last night, and yes, at times it felt like a bit heavy with violence but I wouldn't keep my teenagers from reading it. And as a whole I wasn't thrilled with MockingJay. JMHO. Loved the first in the series.