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!
I haven't read the books. But as a general point of discussion, I agree with Katie Fries and Horserider. And thank you, Horserider, for speaking up.
First, I am not an advocate of violence, either in books or real life. In fact, I rarely write mysteries because I know when a P.I. gets ambushed or hit in the head, he's not likely got another book in him. He's not likely to get up. He's dead.
When I was 3 1/2, my parents first took me to India. I have never forgotten some of the people and things I saw, even at that age, like the woman with no nose and no mouth, a beggar on the side of the road, who had just a gaping hole where both normally would be.
When I was in pre-school, I had been awarded the baby chick that I carefully observed as an egg in an incubator at school until it hatched. In the week I had "Tabatha" (I also loved "Bewitched") home, she froze to death one night exposed on our side porch during a bout of frost (we lived, after all, in Wisconsin). With my parents help and discussion, I buried her in a shoe box at the side of the house.
I read "The Hound of the Baskervilles" between second and third grade, because it was lying around in a living room at a farm where I and my brother spent a few weeks.
I now have an 8-year-old. I was concerned reading "James and the Giant Peach" to him. Those aunts are more than mean. They're cruel. And scary. James sleeps in a well (sorry if I'm giving anything away here). And "Willy Wonka," or "Where The Wild Things Are"?
Let's go back, to the summer of 1968: I'm 9. In the same year, in addition to seeing video coverage of Americans wounded and fighting in the jungles and rice paddies of Vietnam, every night, I have my favorite programs interupted, twice, by CBS Special reports. Two promising liberal social activists: The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, who preached non-violence like Mahatma Gandhi, who he studied, and Robert F. Kennedy, the late-president's brother, were assassinated.
What's my point? Parents can't protect their children from the world, much as we might want to. I view my job as a parent as making my son capable of surviving in the world without me. Hopefully, as was my father's wish, as a respectful, kind, generous, sensitive, and self-confident man.
Horserider: In a literature class in my junior year, we read "In Cold Blood," Truman Capote's groundbreaking and genre-making work. We also read Hemingway. And Faulkner. And Capote's friend Harper Lee. You are 100% correct. I'm not sure why or who thought up the concept of "Young Adult" novels, but the literature of our youth would no longer qualify.
Again, I haven't read the Collins books. Not sure I want to. But if they get my son to read, and he understands them, I'll be glad. I went from Hound of the Baskervilles to the Lew Archer series by Ross MacDonald, and Alistair MacLean (books my parents would let me read when they were done).
My parents, by the way, grew up reading comic strips like "Little Orphan Annie," and the original "Batman." Want a scary read for a kid? Do you know why/how Batman became "The Batman"? It wasn't because he read comic books…
We have no need for ratings on books. What we need is for parents to discuss the world with their kids. My son watches the news. We encourage questions. He isn't leading some carefully sheltered existence that can be shattered with his first contact with reality, like perhaps a bully or a stranger approaching him.
Oh. I also read and thoroughly enjoyed in high school "The Happy Hooker." Kids will get their hands on books that interest them. I prefer what interests them to be books.
In my opinion the violence in Mockingjay was overboard. I recommended Hunger Games right and left, myself barely disturbed by the violence, but now I'm hesitant to recommend the series. Yes there is violence in real live and yes violence in literature is not new, but at what point is desensitizing kids just for the shock value too much?
I abhore violence but I also abhore censoring what kids read.
As a kid I read everything I could get my hands on. Great Expectations, which I read when I was about 9, was, and remains, my favorite book of all time. The story is riddled with what we consider child abuse but the story is fabulous. It is also indicative of Dicken's time.
As I got older (11, 12) I would go go to the library, close my eyes, and just start picking books. I never read the covers first. This is how I was introduced to DH Lawrence, Frank Yerby, Earl Stanley Gardner, Barbara Courtland and Harold Robbins (not typical early teen stories). I remember staying up all night on a school to finish reading The Exorcist by flashlight. Coupled with reading the classics by Hawthorne, Poe, Steinbeck, Hemmingway and Twain, I was a well-read student.
I was always in advance English lit classes and always got along well with my teachers. In fact, by the time I reached high school, there were many times I introduced them to books, not the other way around. While students were struggling with The Grapes of Wrath or Animal Farm or 1984, I'd already read them a few years before. Needless to say, my English teachers loved me. 🙂
Somewhere along the way I think we as parents forgot those fabulous books we read as kids. I think the key is to make sure you have an open line of communication with your chld so if there are questions, they can feel free to come to you and get honest answers.
All four of my kids read Huck Finn and Call of the Wild by the time they were in 3rd grade. They are avid readers now of many genres, and it all started with Where the Wild Things Are? and The Berenstein Bears "The Spooky Old Tree".
Books are treasured in my home. With young people turning more and more away from reading, I wish more parents would stop worrying about their kids are reading and focus more on praising them for reading at all. Nurture it, grow it and perhaps the love of reading will continue to pass from generation to generation, one book at a time.
Anonymous who loves Great Expectations: Have you read Mister Pip? It was short-listed for the Booker and I loved it.
Jan,
No, I have not read it yet. Looks like another trip to the library tomorrow. 🙂
I'm also very sorry to hear about what happened your classmate, Nathan. So young, that's very tragic.
I do think violence in kid's books is a big deal. Some children are sensitive, or overly impressionable. Exposure to the realities of the world can happen in many ways; it doesn't have to be when a child is reading books for pleasure. I would argue that is actually not the best way to expose a child to harsh reality, and could even turn them off books.
I personally have no problem with a rating system for books.
I am strongly against censorship, but a rating system that follows certain set (and rational) guidelines would really help parents. People can always make their own decisions about a book regardless of ratings. But I think it's very hard on parents right now, who have to basically guess or find out by word of mouth what books may be right for their children. Or the kids themselves. A kid might want to know just how violent a book is before they read it.
(I do. I want all of Stephen King's books labeled: "Mira, do not read this, it will keep you up for weeks. Put the book down slowly." 🙂
I've heard there's been some discussion as well about an other age group addition. MG, YA and then something in between YA and adult. That could be a good idea.
The Hunger Games books would fall in the new category, I believe. I've read them, they are good. But they are not just violent, they are very disturbing. I really think they are for the 16+ age group. I would be very hesitant to go younger than that.
So my two cents.
I think it's a fine balance. Some stories can't be told without violence.
I'm writing one involving war and mayhem. I have one main character leaving his best friend behind…
Both are essential to the development of both characters. I absolutely despise when an author has a character's family shot, the character violently tortured and raped etc. etc. etc. when it has absolutely nothing to do with the story at hand. The fact that books containing that kind of gratuitous violence get published quite frankly sickens me.
I must say that I sometimes struggle to get both ideas through my writing. That it is good to take action to change things, and two that lots of blood doesn't bring glory. It brings horror. Killing people hurts the people doing it. If it doesn't hurt to hurt people, you've lost part of your humanity.
Point is that I'm writing for Young Adults aged at least sixteen. But specifically I'm writing for people that have the capacity to realize the difference between reality and what I wrote.
I think that a lot of responsibility lies with parents to make sure that their kids are raised to make responsible decisions when it comes to all things in life, not just what they read and watch. If the parent has doubts, s/he should read the book for him- or herself and decide.
Responsibility is the key word, for authors as well as prospective readers. If violence is treated responsibly on both sides, there shouldn't be a problem.
I think every child has their own line. I was fine with fictional violence. Real violence bothered me.
That meant an adult horror book was fine (I read a number as a child), no matter how graphic the descriptions. A news story about a violent event wasn't fine, even though it didn't go into detail. My line was very much reality based.
Amy, why should the Star Wars heroes experience remorse for fighting and defeating a vast evil?
Because those were human beings behind the Stormtrooper masks.
Let's revisit a real life horror story. How about kidnapping, torture and death by blunt instrument. Sounds too horrible for words. It gets worse. Does anyone remember a little British boy called Jamie Bulger? It happened about ten years ago in England. Two despicable, vicious little brutes (aged 10 and 12) kidnapped, tortured and bludgeoned a defenceless two-year-old to death. They did it wittingly; they did it knowingly; they took pleasure in it. They then left him on a railway track so that the train could run over his body and crush the evidence. They planned the whole thing and enjoyed it. They were caught, tried, placed in juvenile detention; they were then released, given new identities and relocated at enormous expense to the British tax payer. The older boy, now an adult, recently violated his parole and was caught with images of child sexual abuse on his computer. So, a young murderer effectively 'got away with murder', was pampered and protected from a howling mob, then given a new life, and shows his true nature is so venal he should be locked up for the rest of his life. My view: it's hard to say, as an adult, "Oh, but the author is showing what should NOT be done. The author doesn't mean for young children to read this awful tale of electrocution, sexual abuse, torture and decapitation! They wouldn't go out and do this." Wouldn't they? We read stories of kids as young as ten raping little ones. If so many parents cannot control their children most of the time re their behaviour, how do you expect them to control what their children read? The onus is upon writers to make sure their written product is blameless. It's too late afterwards to say, "But that's not what I meant to happen." If so many adults in this comment column say yes, the scenes are disturbing, how can you expect a YA or even a mature or older tween to read this violence with the understanding of a grown person? Catherine Meyer says the author means the message to read DO NOT do this. How many young people will see it from her point of view? In this world many criminals and wrongdoers 'get away with murder.' Look at all the iconic pop stars and dreadful role models that abound – Kate Moss sniffed cocaine… kept all her contracts. Lindsay Lohan ex-child star drunk and drugged up … did not serve her sentence. In a world where many people are seen to escape punishment, how can anyone expect a young impressionable person not to think the same way. Just my opinion. Yes, I know I sound very old-fashioned. Maybe it's because I live in South Africa, a horrifically violent country where death and rape and murder are commonplace and people have become numb to the daily horror unfolding around them. Surely a good book does not need this kind of angle to capture an audience?
Swampfox asked: "Might violence in books, movies, or video games increase the likelihood of violence?"
You can dig up studies to prove the point either way. But I'll give you a whole country as proof — Japan. I'm very anti-censorship, but they do have some of the most violent and in my opinion over the top, tastelessly violent graphic novels. However, their crime rate, particularly violent crime, is incredibly low.
I really do not believe that reading violence inspires real-life violence.
And the Hunger Games series is a fascinating trilogy where, as many said, her message is so clearly anti-war and anti-violence. I've read them all.
I'm disappointed that anyone working in the publishing industry would respond the way the Bookshelf person did. If you just read the one-liner, you shouldn't be surprised there is violence in the story. Long live Shakespeare.
Interesting. I've written a children's story (for 10+) which I didn't intend to be violent but has come out surprisingly so. I have taken great care to put it in a moral context, becuause although many human beings are fascinated by violence, children are completely unable to understand the implications.
When you grow up it's easy to forget how when you were a child, the world just rushed past like traffic. It was hard to get a hold on anything – let alone see the implications of it, like adults could. I suppose that is one reason why children like familiarity; at least they can understand it a bit.
So It's really, really important in children's books to emphasise that violence is wrong. Children can hold onto the idea of wrongness, but they must learn to deal with violence, because it's an essential part of human existence.
Personally I think teens aren't yet old enough to understand the full implications of violent passages in books, so there should be a moral message in teen books too.
Interestingly, although the quality of of my book has been praised and even raved over by several editors(and it even reached acquisition stage at a major publishers) nobody has taken it on. I suspect squeamishness, but what do I know?
I agree, Nathan, that the violence has to serve a purpose within the story. The novel I'm currently writing has some violent scenes in it, which I'm trying to handle as carefully as possible. It helps that the main character avoids looking at the damage whenever possible, since he doesn't have a very strong stomach.
I have 'The Hunger Games' and 'Catching Fire' on my shelf, the latter of which I need to read soon. I didn't find the violence in 'The Hunger Games' unreadable, but maybe that's just the warm-up act for the other two books. I should get to reading.
This is a question I have wondered myself being that I spent 6 years as a middle school teacher (lets pause for a moment to acknowledge the fact that my students introduced me to The Twilight Saga and Charlaine Harris) and realize that children read what interests them. If YA authors want to keep their attention, they have to write what the kids of TODAY want to see. Our children are born digital – mice and keyboards in hand, knowing how to order the perfect Starbucks iced coffee, and understanding that violence is a way of life. The violence in video games is a mirror of what is seen on the world news and for any parent to think that kids aren't exposed to it early – even if you take these books out of their hands – well, those parents are fools. Those are the same parents that send their daughters to school dressed like pretty little dolls and they either change on the bus or in the bathroom, to the tween-hormone-driven girls with tons of makeup and short skirts.
As many have pointed out – violence has been in kidlit since the beginning of time. Parents need to stop sheltering their children and help them by teaching them this is not how you do things.
And yes…I HAVE two children.
I don't believe that violence in literature is dependent on the story. There are some books that simply go too far, even in adult lit. A violent act, much like a sex scene, is often more powerful when not described outright.
I believe Collins, and many other authors, would benefit from taking her violent descriptions down a notch or two. Her gratuitously violent descriptions distracted me from the story–not added to it.
Plus, there are some creeps who get off on such writing. There are a lot of good readers who might never give a book a chance because of the violence, and instead, it will only attract the readers who will read it for much different reasons than the author intended.
I am absolutely not opposed to violence in literature, after all . . . writers must tell the truth and violence is a part of our world. However, I'm absolutely opposed to detailed descriptions of violence. An author can write about violence and choose not to go into a lengthy description of how the sword felt as it sliced through the enemy's neck.
Although the violence was necessary to the story, I was very disturbed by Katniss' killer attitude. I don't believe Collins wrote a very good story about anti-violence. After killing all those kids, Katniss never stops to deal with the psychological effects of being a killer. Even during the climax of The Hunger Games, (SPOILER) Katniss was ready to kill Peeta in order to survive. That, to me, speaks of a violent nature condoned, especially since Katniss never rises above that violent brutality.
I'm also from South Africa. I was raised in border towns and on farms on these border.
I grew up on stories of our neighbors being attacked. One sixty year old man had boiling water poured over him before they STITCHED his eyes shut. I was eight when I heard this happen over our two way radio.
I guess it has made me numb to violence, although I always feel a stab of pain shoot through me when I think of those people behind the stories that had so much unnecessary pain inflicted on them. I think most people have that too, even if they don't notice it. That's what sets us appart from the monsters.
But the point remains that attrocities are mostly not committed by thirteen year olds that read too many violent books.
Attrocities are bred by hatred. Hatred is allowed to fester by the fact that no one seems to care for the person. It allows people to be rash. It let's them justify what they do.
Back to me hearing our neighbor being tortured and left for dead. The week after that I was tought how to fire a magnum and an nine millimeter semi-automatic. By ten I could fire guns. In fact, I am darn good at it too. Sounds terrible? If we were attacked and my parents were gunned down, I would at least had a chance to defend myself.
Anyway. The most important lesson my parents tought me about guns were to never EVER draw a target on someone that you didn't intend to shoot. While teaching me that, they tought me about the value of life.
That, just because I know that I am capable of shooting people, doesn't mean that I should.
Books tend to give a distilled indication of our capacity to be violent. But it DOES NOT permit children to be violent.
I'm going to throw a very heavy stone into the bushes and say that the parents so quick to blame media for their little innocent angel's crimes should take a very hard look at themselves and how they raised their children.
If parents spend more time with the child, from a young age, they won't spend too much time indulging in the media that "breeds violence". Parents can guide their children's perceptions of what they read and see. For example by explaining what's really going on in a violent book to them. In future they will have the frame of reference built by the parents by which they can make their own decision about what's right and wrong.
I know that parents these days are incredibly busy providing a future for their families, but that does not diminish their responsibility. The same why you can't expect teachers at school to teach the child manners.
So if parents are so busy that they can't take the above mentioned responsibility, that's fine. Accept it as an unsolvable problem and move on.
But don't blame book violence if the child acts out. It never was the author's job to raise the child.
We don't tend to think about it in this way, but most writer's operate under the assumption that their readers already have a sense of morality or at least ethics. If we didn't all of our book characters would have been without failing. Our stories would have been without drama. There would be nothing in the book that would make the reader think, because heaven forfend that the little angel comes to the wrong conclusion…
We read the first installment as part of our mother-son book club, and discussed this issue. We wondered whether if, with all the competition for readers' attention, authors are driven to extreme measures. Personally, while my son (12) and I enjoyed the first book I think I will have him wait a few years before finishing the trilogy. I will admit that I had let him select and read books on his own up to now, but that I will be more careful in the future.
Although vicious brutal children might be drawn to violent media, any child given to feeing a rush from the power of being vicious and brutal didn't get that way by reading a book.
Zillions of perfectly nice people read violent books and go on to be perfectly nice people. If a vicious brute reads a violent book and commits brutal acts — the book didn't make him do it. He would have come up with SOME kind of vicious brutal act just because he so very much wanted to do it.
In fact, being a vicious brutal monsterous child probably takes up a good bit of your time. Studies show they're prong to spending a fair bit of time catching and torturing small animals (for example). Doing that and covering it up has to take up a lot of your days. How much time do they have left for reading young adult literature?
I once knew a sadistic child. He was not a gifted student and rarely read anything. That didn't seem to keep him from coming up with nasty things to do to those with less power than himself. I don't know what made the little beast that way…he had two siblings who weren't like that at all…but I know it wasn't books.
Just a quick addition about Mockingjay specifically. I just finished it last night. It's a dark book.
I won't spoil anything by saying I think the theme of the series is:
How to battle a despotic regime that maintains its power through the use of cruelty without becoming cruel yourself.
Throughout the series, the author doesn't flinch from describing the various forms of despotic cruelty, as well as the impact of the cruelty. She does describe some of the more disturbing versions from a distance, but she mentions them often.
I was a really sensitive kid. These would not have been books for me to read when I was young.
That said, I appreciate her exploration of a very dark theme. She writes very well and makes a powerful point.
Amy, I never assumed the Star Wars Stormtroopers were anything other than human beings. ONLY human beings are capable of the evils they perpetrated. The Rebels killed them when they had no other way to stop those evils. With all due respect to Mahatma Ghandi, I think Darth Vader would have simply brushed him aside, literally.
Now, the question of the Death Star construction workers that Kevin Smith's characters raise in the movie CLERKS is another day's work. George Lucas says the workers were robots, but the Star Wars robots were intelligent. Interesting…
Anonymous 11:19 pm, Japan has long been the elephant in the room in debates about fictional violence, combining the world's most violent pornography with one of the world's lowest crime rates. Blaming fictional violence for real violence is really a version of 'The Devil made me do it!' and the Twinky Defence.
I'm a 14 year old teen and I have read and enjoyed the entire Hunger Games series. I'll admit that the violence in the books, (and Mockingjay in particular), did leave me slightly uneasy. But I think that the unease that I experienced was important. There are horrible things going on all the time in the world, and I see no benefit in pretending that they don't exist. Isn't is easier to be exposed to them through fabulous literature? In conclusion, I believe that violence is an important element in YOUNG ADULT literature, though it is important to use good judgment when recommended violent books to children.
This is fantastic. Why don't people talk about how violent our society is? Kids daily live through metal detectors at schools, siblings/parents being sent off to war, and the like – and I believe, strongly, that there needs to be a place for youth to think about the role of violence in their society. A book (with a very anti-war stance) that presents these arguments in a safe way, is needed. The arts is a mirror to the society – and violence is reflected in movies, video games, and yes, books. Suzanne Collins, in a recent interview that this series is about war, more than anything else. And it is a needed topic: we have war in the Middle East, on the streets of Chicago, in our schools and homes. Yes, we need books that present violence to us, that show us who we are and who we could be if we're not careful, and to give people a safe space to think about and discuss these things. It's not always easy to stomach these realities, especially for kids, but they are exposed to a lot more than we want to believe. Books like Hunger Games are a necessary guide, to reach them (and us) where they are.
Violence in literature has gotten out of hand due to the spectacular effects the movie & game industry have been able to achieve. I'm not a fan of the author mentioned, Suzanne Collins, but she seems to have taken the 'amp it up to rake in sales philosophy' to heart. I doubt she cares what effect reading extreme violence will have on her audience. Sales numbers are what count.
If your writing is coasting on your past record, you add in some gore for the children that have been raised on many of the popular games available today. I don't like it. Okay for adults, not for kids. Keep in mind that this is the type of 'bestseller' writing this author is known for.
Quality should supercede cheap tricks, but shock value is rated high in today's public. I'm glad to see that Sheryl Cotleur has been brave enough to call attention to it.
It's the same as for movies — violence is common place and not a concern, but sex is something that gets the ratings boards in a tizzy.
Same with YA — books with violence usually aren't challenged, or removed from library shelves, but sex and sexuality is a reason for objection. Don't know why. People in general (not even talking about teens, really) are far more apt to have sex at some point in their life than they are to shoot, maime, or kill somoneone, aren't they?
It's case by case for me too. I love Stephen King, but get too creped out to read Koontz. As a kid I loved Anne Rice. I found Christopher Pike so disturbing I don't let my kids read him.
Where's the line? It’s wherever the reader (parent of the reader) draws it. However, like supper at your Aunt’s house, you need to try it before you decide not to have any.
What I let my children read differs greatly between them. There are things I know my son can handle better than my daughter. I try to read what they read so I can be available to discuss should they have questions or concerns on the material.
On the topic of children's literature, what is with the middle school reading list? All the books they make my son read in school are depressing. The only one he enjoyed was The Outsiders, and that's still sad.
As always, we are now coming back to the Platonic – Aristotelian arguments, discussions. Some folks might try to mimic the art, and some might use it as catharsis. I get depressed by the fact that after going on 3,000 years now we are still swirling around in the same wind tunnel.
I get depressed by facts too.
I cannot imagine a vampire book without some lust and blood and, along side eternal life (or damnation), mortality.
How would teens or adults respond to a vamp who just walked up and patted his victim on the head and said, "I'd like to drink your Pepsi, please." ?
Not.
So the vampire's got to be this driven being who goes ape over blood and is tormented as well as intriguing and hypnotic and scary as well as more cultured than the guy we should be dating… and then he sneaks into our room at night to… play chess???
Not Chess.
If we examine the archetype and what the character and story have to do to transcend and otherwise holdup the story arc, that's where the action has to happen.
And there are no real vampires. When the book ends, its very safe in the world of humans (from vamps anyway).
However, kids (adults too) will fantasize. They will pretend to be vamps just like they pretended to be Batman. Pretend games can go too far. That's a concern.
And even vamps can be overdone.
What's scarier are human violences.
And, no matter how Team Children the parents are, when the kid fashion advertisers are done, little kids are going to think the sooner they get sexual identities, the better.
I am a parent. I need my hand held.
You can hide the monsters, but they will still come out.
That is the scary truth. However, I still believe we have to do our best and try to preserve childhood and / or explain the bad things to our kids as best we can while we can.
I hate unnecessary or titillating violence -especially for kids or adults. That said, I still think stories should have the elements they need to work and some of those elements are from the dark side. I'm all for warnings on the covers: "17 or older" or "parents read first" but there will always be someone else's house where the parents don't know or don't care, even if there were such things as ID required reading.
But, to live with myself, it would still have to be a case by case choice. There are some "works of art" (or whatever) I personally wouldn't want (writer, agent, publisher, etc.) to be part of passing into this world.
I know the Hunger Game series is violent but its never bothered me. The violence is meant to be disturbing, but not gratuitiously. It's a cautionary type of violence. Violence is not glorified – it is evil. Yes Katniss & Peeta kill their competitors but they (along with the other victors) are haunted by the violence. They have nightmares and can't sleep. Katniss can barely contain her guilt when she faces the Districs where she slayed their tribute.
Violence does not get you fame or glory or cause anything other than pain. Mockingjay shows this even more than the other novels. You see Annie, completely lost, Katniss also lost, and even the "good guys" aren't good guys. People lose themselves in the violence and their are always consequences.
I recently read another YA book where the violence felt much more disturbing. It was also kids-hurting-kids. In this book the killers had no real remorse. The shades of gray that Suzanne Collins uses brilliantly were missing. Some kids were evil, others were good, nobody (except 1 character) ever had regrets.
Suzanne Collins does an excellent job of letting us see in the inner-workings of her characters so we get to see how they suffer even after the violence has ended.
I don't think you can say "This is over the line," with any definition. Some books use violence incorrectly. But the correct use of violence is way to nuances for their to be a definite line.
Oh and I forgot to add…
As much as I love Hunger Games I'm curious to see how this concept will go over in a movie. I know they are suppose to make a film of the book.
That might be hard to watch
It's sad to me that most people utter the words that violence is a "part of our lives". I hate to crash a party, however, violence is not a part of my life, my husband's life, or our son's life. It's a shame that some compare Star Wars and the classic hero's journey to books like these (in fairness though I have not read them but did read a bit about them online) which appear to incorporate terror/violence to teach a moral lesson about it being the losing choice. The world is not any more or less violent than it's ever been, however, the media in all its shapes and forms has learned how to distract so many people into thinking that it's worse than it's ever been and that there is no escaping it. I simply don't agree. Our household is a big free will zone and I hope my son chooses to read Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil like his parents did as teenagers over these sorts of books.
Yeah, I agree with Magdalena, that I'm surprised so many people say that violence is a part of life. I know, tragically, it is for a whole lot of people all around the world, but thank goodness in this country violence is a relatively rare phenomenon and something to be avoided at all costs. I don't feel like I need to inoculated against violence lest….. what? What would I be prepared for? I mean, reading gory scenes in a book isn't going to help me if I'm randomly attacked walking down the street.
I think there are plenty of reasons to defend violence in literature, but the "lesson" in it seems a little thin to me. What are we supposed to be learning?
My kid still is mad at me for censoring her as a teen. But up until she was seventeen, I read it first and/or with her and some things were fine, some really worthwhile, some worth discussions, and some things (very few actually) were not approved. Some things were just not going to happen on my watch.
I need a reason to expose a teen or myself to some things. If I can't find the reason, it's out. And even then, I have read some works that are quite compelling in their awfulness, but I still just can't keep them in my home afterward. Kind of like not letting rift-raft in again, once you know.
Actually, to contradict myself, I think maybe the "lesson" in it is that violence can be overcome, and in that sense I can see how people might embrace fictional violence as a way of facing and conquering it safely. That wasn't my personal reaction, but we're all wired differently and I don't know that one way is better than the other.
Don't mind me, I'll just be talking to myself all day.
Re: "Let the Right One In" (Lindqvist):
I thought some of it too dark and unnecessary. Still the story is so compelling in the end…
I still haven't decided whether it stays or goes. But I wouldn't give it to a kid.
There seems to be a cultural confusion at work in that when kids are the protagonist(s), that it is always kid reading. Sometimes a kid protagonist is an adult book.
Ditto NINA!
But I still think a rating system would be helpful. ie this book contains graphic or mild violence.
I just went through this while revising my own manuscript. I have an animal character die, which is crucial to the story. But after sitting with a friend's 8 yr. old at a b-day party, (she is my target age) I felt I had to soften the scene. I did and still is a very good and important scene just less scary for my readers-I hope!
*jaw drops* Um, considering that the age groups that reads this could be going to WAR in one or two years, I don't have a problem with it at all. In fact, I've had a couple students who WANT to go to war, who idealize the life of a soldier. YES, it's horrible, but I send them to watch Saving Private Ryan. I'll add this to the list.
Seriously, I admire our soldiers. But if they can't handle READING about the violence of war at 16, then they sure as hell can't handle GOING to war at 18.
And to shelter a child so much that they can't even read about war until they're 18, and then send him or her off to war, is absolutely criminal.
Ultimately it falls to parents to guide what their children read, but we know kids will find a way to read the books their friends are reading. They always have (I know I did). I think it's in poor taste for publishers to add gratuitous sex and violence to young adult books. There are important lessons kids can learn from reading good novels, but publishers are clearly seeking to entertain and not educate. I think publishers are stooping to a new low and exploiting young readers.
Chris J. Behrens,
as far as death and what lesson there could possibly be in art, Old Yeller did the trick for me when I was a kid. It still does. And that was written not too long after the biggest blood bath humans have hosted. Old Yeller has all the emotional ingredients of the realities of life a kid should face at that age. But I'm afraid of violence.
As a mother, I'm more concerned with my child watching sex scenes cause at some point I know she'll be *doing* that. I know she'll never commit a violent act, however.
I'm not concerned about violence that moves the plot along (aka there's gotta be a bad guy), as long as it's not disturbingly cruel and sadistic.
I, myself, don't watch/read Hannibal Lecture-type films/ books because people like Ted Bundy are really out there.
Excellent topic. There is a difference.
I'm inclined to think violence in media for any age group can have an impact. I don't think adults are any less prone to violent behavior than kids/teenagers. For example, I noticed a real change in my husband's behavior while we were watching The Sopranos. He even admitted that he felt edgier and more physical. I know that sounds weird and maybe a little personal for a blog comment, but it's the honest truth. And, yanno, violence in entertainment media is a runaway train. It is what it is.
I have not read the series but I'm familiar with the story. And I found out yesterday while talking to a friend about it that it's a YA series. I was really surprised.
I read the first book at the recommendation of a friend, but it was the violence that convinced me that the series wasn't for me. Some of my favorite books include quite a bit of violence–and indeed, my own WIP involves some–so it's not that violence in general keeps me from reading a book. I understand that violence is a part of society and I do appreciate that Collins adopts an anti-violence stance, but it felt contradictory to me to see that her descriptions were often unnecessarily gruesome.
I personally believe that the line between "appropriate" and gratuitous violence lies in how a book treats the concept of human life. In books about battles and war, violence is an unfortunate but necessary byproduct. None but the sickest individuals delight in the shedding of blood, and those sick individuals are meant to be hated. Life is respected through remorse.
But when even the good guys stop caring about the lives they are taking and violence become their norm, the line is crossed.
As I said earlier, I have only read the first book. But even in that one, I did not feel that the characters' alleged respect for the lives of their fellow Careers lined up with their actions. And books like that just aren't for me.
I have to disagree with this, Nathan:
"…I know, tragically, it is for a whole lot of people all around the world, but thank goodness in this country violence is a relatively rare phenomenon and something to be avoided at all costs…"
Maybe in your neighborhood there is little violence, but plenty of young people in other neighborhoods deal with violence every day in the form of poverty, bullying, being pressured to do drungs, drop out of school, have sex before they are ready, and keep children they are ill equipt to raise — they have parents in jail and on drugs.
They themselves may not face being murdered, per se, but it is a palpable force in their world, and they face FEAR in their lives — fear of uncertain futures and lack of opportunity. The assault of which, I'm certain, feels violent when compared to who they wish they could be.
I imagine reading a book like The Hunger Games, in which the MC not only survives, but wins could be very empowering. Or at least offer them hope, of winning against their own struggles.
Does the nightly news encourage violence? Did the Matrix cause Columbine? Or do individuals have responsibility for their actions? Should parents and society teach children how to discern right from wrong, and consider all the shades of grey in between?
Could a particular work of fiction have a particular influence over a particular person? Absolutely.
But is that novel to blame for that person's actions? Personally, I don't think so.
In short, I absolutely agree with what swampfox said. And I think in the cases where a parent does everything in their power to be a good role model, to be involved, etc. — but their kid still acts out in a violent manner — well, let's put it this way: a book wasn't going to be the deciding factor for that child.
Hi. I agree, they are super violent. I loved her Gregor books. They also had violence. Catherine Meyer has a good point, though: they show violence with consequences, and as a bad thing. They're also really exciting and draw people in.
Speaking for myself, I read the Hunger Games, skimming large quantities that were too violent for me. (I'm an adult, BTW.) The second book was even harsher, IMO, and I could not read it. I'm not going to even attempt the third–and I love the author! These are just too dark and graphic for me.
I would recommend the Gregor books to anyone, but not the Hunger Games books.
"My world isn't violent. I can't remember the last time I felt physically threatened by another person."
"…but thank goodness in this country violence is a relatively rare phenomenon and something to be avoided at all costs."
Some places are more dangerous than wherever y'all must spend your time. I'm not trying to be rude, just honest.
My apartment was broken into last month by crackheads wanting anything they could sell to get their next fix. I don't dare walk in certain neighborhoods at night alone. Hell, I don't dare walk in certain neighborhoods during the day unless I want to have guys ten years my junior calling after me and then calling me a bi%ch when I ignore them. But if I let the violence bother me to the point where I don't want to leave my house, then I've let violence win.
Why do you think so many cities have "Take Back The Night" if they don't live in violent areas? Maybe saying "we" live in a violent world is not accurate, but some people in this country do. And in those places, violence begets violence.
I'm not saying this to condone violence in books, because I feel like Collins justifies every violent act she includes in her story, but it's not true that this country is as safe as some people would like to believe.
Our children are fully informed about violence, crudeness, fear, and vulgarity in distopian novels and films. What they don't get enough of is the opposite—utopia. If we want our children to live kinder lives, we have to show them how that's done on a larger scale.
If we are really interested in something other than violence as a way to solve problems, shouldn't those other methods be the ones to write about and film?Of course watching violence makes for more violence—Japanese anime notwithstanding—America is tolerant of violence, we worship it, we promote it. Use violence to demonstrate why there should be violence? Really? It that how we teach? We need to study rational, fair methods of problem solving, but how often are any of us exposed to peace as a viable choice?
Blood and sex sell. It's about market.