Of violence and fiction

Let fiction be stories constructed to express whatever the creator intends to.

Let violence be actions that intend to physically hurt.

In this era, I find hot button topics as being in my face from various sources, like my friends and media and arts. Despite sometimes avoiding it, these problems find their way to my conversations or websites or video games. For instance my little brother has recently been released of a ban from video games with guns presented. A ban enforced because of recent shootings from various demographics. There is a fear that my little brother will find a gun and shoot people because of videos games. This event has happened to other kids, that is a fact; it also has not happened, which is also a fact. I suppose some of the problem is with certain fictions glorifying violence. This hot button is akin to warrior poets romanticizing  war, and post-world-war-one modern writers disputing any good part of war written about in the past. These modern authors put war in their writings as negative or sometimes they get close to objective, instead of their ancestor war- poets. They feel the need to express their involvement in war to their audience. Instead of getting war in a glorified view point, readers also see the the dishonorable side of war. We understand.

Some essay by Warren Ellis, talks about this idea of needing violence in order to better understand it here: ” The function of fiction is being lost in the conversation on violence. My book editor, Sean McDonald, thinks of it as ‘radical empathy.’ Fiction, like any other form of art, is there to consider aspects of the real world in the ways that simple objective views can’t — from the inside,” and here: ” Difficult topics must be engaged with, and in the way that fiction invites us to engage” and also “We don’t even understand indefensibly disgusting work until we give it the protections and investigations of speech,”.

All these quotes say that we should write about violence, because to read to those writings is to understand violence. He says this in opposition to people taking action in censorship to violence to fiction. The opposition feels violence is glorified in fiction, like video games. This glorifying will mislead(if you are like that) or guide( if you are like that) to committing violence. The risk is there definitely. People have caused violence because of violent fiction and people have better understood violence because of the same works. We do not know what choice will lead to either consequence. But first amendment, so Violence in literature wins. – alexander romero


Ellis Warren. “Blood in Your Eye: Why We Need Violent Stories.” Vulture. New York Media,

               14 August 2013. Web. 3 October 2013.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s