Appropriate level of Violence&Morbidity in Childrens media

[speaker-to-trolls]

I think this comes under Morality.

I'm wondering about peoples thoughts on this issue, and I will demonstrate the problem with anecdotal evidence (the best kind of evidence...); When I was much younger my mother would not allow me to watch Power Rangers because she thought it was too violent, at the same time, however, I had a pop-up Bible book in which I distinctly remember the Ten Plagues of Egypt page because it had a big cartoon locust in the centre grabbing a piece of grain in its mouth. My dad also read me the Epic of Gilgamesh and I learned the Greek myths not long afterwards, the real ones; murder, incest and all (when I was about ten Disneys Hercules annoyed me for the amount to which it diverged from the myth).

It seems to me that violence and morbidity in childrens stories seems to be much more permissable when it's non-visual media you're working with, books, stories, etc. I don't want to start some big atheist circle-jerk here, but look at the Bible; whatever allowances you make for it being a major religious work, this is a book where the heroes are helped by God destroying the world or killing the children of an entire country! This is the sort of stuff a villain in most kids movies or tv shows might try to do, but couldn't get away with because it would be too morbid (exceptions exist, obviously, Star Wars for one). Contrast this with the vast majority of kids TV shows where no one is allowed to be shown so much as bleeding. The thing is I'm not sure what a good level of this kind of thing is for children to be shown in fiction, there should probably be limits but I have no ideas where they should fall, excepting a vague 'somewhere between Care Bears and Exodus'(please note by limits I don't necessarily mean legal limits, just recommendations).

Any thoughts?

[Shroom Man 777]

It's traditional doublethink. If it's in the mainstream media and stuff, then it's dirty and evil. But if it's in our Good Books (Bible, classic stories, etc.) then it's perfectly fine even though your Sunday School teacher is talking about how God killed Job's wife and children in their sleep while making his eye sockets melt with leech-infested boils. Even if the violence is the same, if it is from an acceptable source, then it's a-okay.

Hrm... my mom and sister would cover my eyes when movie people kissed or made out. But I spent my childhood watching Predator and the Terminator movies. Yeah.

[Kitsune]

I often wonder on TV series like the Old GI-Joe where they are firing hundreds of weapons and never hitting anyone.......Does this actually work negatively to think that weapons don't kill.
I would want my children to be taught that when people fight, people die, but in cases the perceived threat is that you must still fight.

[Formless]

It's traditional doublethink. If it's in the mainstream media and stuff, then it's dirty and evil. But if it's in our Good Books (Bible, classic stories, etc.) then it's perfectly fine even though your Sunday School teacher is talking about how God killed Job's wife and children in their sleep while making his eye sockets melt with leech-infested boils. Even if the violence is the same, if it is from an acceptable source, then it's a-okay.

In the interest of steering this away from becoming an atheist circle-jerk, might I point out that it is NOT just the bible, even though that was one of the examples used in the OP? Look at Harry Potter, in the first CHAPTER of the first BOOK we have a double murder of the main protagonists parents. And that is one of the most read pieces of childrens literature in the world, hands down.

Look at many classic fairy tales, even without going into the original Brothers Grimm material, they are still more often than not dark in theme. Wolf eats Granny, anyone? "Fie fi fo fum, I smell the BLOOD of an Englishman?" Tell me that line isn't dark and morbid.

And to go into visual mediums for a moment, many childrens films and cartoons featured rather dark and grim things in them, always stopping short of tragedy by having a happy ending. I'm thinking of Tom Bluth in particular. (this would go against the theory in the OP somewhat)

In other words, no it isn't just because people revere the Bible and other holy books that they can get away with dark, morbid themes, there is something more to it that allows other works to get away with it as well.

[Teleros]

In other words, no it isn't just because people revere the Bible and other holy books that they can get away with dark, morbid themes, there is something more to it that allows other works to get away with it as well.

In short, I think it's the fact that in a book, it isn't actually seen, and so it'll have less of an impact. Whether this is true or not I don't know, but I suspect that this, or something similar, is the reason behind this difference.

[Sky Captain]

I think a lot depends on how death and violence is shown. In my case when I was teenager my mother did`t like when I watched movies where villain eviscerates someone with chainsaw or shoots with machine gun into red pulp, but overall only few people get killed. On the other hand she was nothing against movies where villain launches a nuclear missile and incinerates a city killing hundreds of thousands or in sci fi movie destroys a world killing billions instantly, but actual scenes of people dying is never shown.

[Stark]

Maybe you're overlooking the obvious.

People don't read what their kids read; most people read fuck all after highschool. They WATCH and HEAR what their kids do, however, because they're passive senses and they live together. You'd have to actually READ the Bible or Harry Potter to know what was in it outside of what people tell you (ie, Jesus and heartwarming wizardy japes) and PARENTS DON'T READ. If you put Gor in a different cover and gave it to thousands of eight year olds, I bet hardly any parents would even invesigate it. Even better if you give it the sort of childish craptacular cover the HP books had before adults got embarrassed and began claiming it was legitimate literature - poor art, bright colours, etc. How many parents are going to vet such a book to the extent they read it, let alone consider it's appropriateness or it's themes? They'd have to be told by the Anti-Gor Parents Organisation which would concoct lies and invent anecdotes to buttress their claims.

Whereas with movies or music, it's right there. They'd have to actively ignore it to let it slip by. That Twilight book is pretty damn popular with kids these days, and is packed with extremely negative messages - how many parents have done more than scan the cover art? How many even register it as more than 'a book'? The answer is LAZINESS.

[Shroom Man 777]

@ Formless:

It's traditional doublethink. If it's in the mainstream media and stuff, then it's dirty and evil. But if it's in our Good Books (Bible, classic stories, etc.) then it's perfectly fine even though your Sunday School teacher is talking about how God killed Job's wife and children in their sleep while making his eye sockets melt with leech-infested boils. Even if the violence is the same, if it is from an acceptable source, then it's a-okay.

Books aren't mainstream media, for the most part. TV is trash, videogames turn our kids into murder-death-killers, and rock and roll music turns them into Satanists or something. But books? Books are innocent! Whether they be Bibles or Harry Potters or Twilights with vampiric Mr. Sparkles. Even books with silly covers featuring women with enormous bosoms and men with torn shirts showing their bare chests.

STRAK is right. Most adults don't read and even if they tried, I think they're too... dull to even visualize what's actually written. If it's in TV form, then it's shocking and graphic, but if its in book form they'll have shit reading comprehension or something. A lot of people don't even see the point in reading a novel for fun, some people even ask me why I read novels.

But with childrens, it's different. They have imagination, so unlike dull grownups, they can visualize what's written, they can immerse themselves in entire different worlds thanks to a bunch of words typed on paper. It's really great, and in the case of violence, it might be just as bad as TV and video games since novels can be rather descriptive and to a child with good imagination, that'll be more than enough.

[Formless]

Ah, see, when you used the phrase "good books" I assumed you meant "HOLY books" (the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc.), especially considering the rest of what you wrote. Otherwise, we seem to be on the same page.

Which makes me wonder, why do book authors writing for children use their license to be morbid? Just because they can? It would be interesting to know what lines they draw for themselves, and why.

[Darth Ruinus]

makes me wonder, why do book authors writing for children use their license to be morbid? Just because they can? It would be interesting to know what lines they draw for themselves, and why.

Violence draws readers? If the authors are writting books for kids then a little violence can draw them in, they are after competing with cartoons, video games and such.

It also probably depends on how much violence is involved. For instance in the OP speaker-to-trolls mentions that his mother thought Power Rangers was violent, as the show did largely consist of a fight scene against a mini-boss in every episode, but was fine with the Bible, probably because that is supposed to show a "good message". I'm not sure about Gilgamesh as the only part I have read is when he fights that giant guy in the forest.

[Shroom Man 777]

Ah, see, when you used the phrase "good books" I assumed you meant "HOLY books" (the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc.), especially considering the rest of what you wrote. Otherwise, we seem to be on the same page.

Well, I wanted a really violent example and the Book of Job fit the bill. Come on, it had God slitting Job's wife and children's throats while they slept while gouging out his pus-filled eyeballs with leeches.

Which makes me wonder, why do book authors writing for children use their license to be morbid? Just because they can? It would be interesting to know what lines they draw for themselves, and why.

Do they use their license to be morbid? J.K. Rowling was writing a story that wasn't really excessively morbid. It really depends on tolerances. And, well, these folks are grownups. As much as you'd love to go down to kid's level and make stuff out to be super-kiddy and nice, if you're trying to tell a good story there'll be a limit to how much artificial sweetener you can put in your book.

[Formless]

Do they use their license to be morbid? J.K. Rowling was writing a story that wasn't really excessively morbid. It really depends on tolerances. And, well, these folks are grownups. As much as you'd love to go down to kid's level and make stuff out to be super-kiddy and nice, if you're trying to tell a good story there'll be a limit to how much artificial sweetener you can put in your book.

I suppose it depends on the author, but I think that the Death by Newbery Medal trope exists for a reason.

And I am sure you would be surprised how much artificial sweetener they can fit into something; its generally known as "hack writing".




P.S. I never read the Book of Job as a kid. That's seriously messed up stuff, and I say that as someone who still calls himself christian!

[Ford Prefect]

P.S. I never read the Book of Job as a kid. That's seriously messed up stuff, and I say that as someone who still calls himself christian!

A great portion of the Bible is actually extremely violent. Practically half the Old Testament is about the Israelites busting up cities and commiting giant massacres against basically everyone God tells them to, or otherwise engineering them by manipulating enemy leaders into being giant dicks. There's baby killing and genocide, and God is massively vindictive to boot: there are events in the Bible directly attributed to God that result in the deaths of tens of thousands of the Israelites, and at one point he was going to kill them all. The scale and frequency of the violence frequently matches or exceeds many fantasy novels and it coems across as a lot more schizophrenic. The Book of Job is interesting because an extremely devoted, loyal and, above all else, patient man is tormented for no reason and when he rightly calls God out on being a dick gets told that he's out of line and he should be happy that divine interference totally destroyed his entire life.

But at the end of the day, the Bible is not exactly children's media, as such. I don't think the Bible has any intrinsic worth beyond a picture book, but it's not aimed at being entertainment for children. I actually don't think the Bible is acceptable for children to read, because it's bland, dry and its messages are totally warped. There are other reasons beyond that which apply to all religious works which still have 'modern relevance', so to speak.

[Zixinus]

Reading this tread, you can quickly arrive to the conclusion that its cultural snobbism is a key factor here: modern depiction of violance is "bad" but archaic versions like those found in the Bible or similiar works are "OK".

I guess this is the effect when people misunderstand "the times". For us, it may seem funny that Victorian Victor gets into trouble because he asked for the breast of the chicken rather than for the "white" of the chicken. It seems to us that its just that Victorian people are funny.

However, translate it to modern context, and Victor looks like an unpleasant ass rather than a bumbling fool.

That's just one example.

Of course, the fact is that so-called moral guardians are trying to push something that doesn't make sense in the first place. That kind of gives you an insight about how they think.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Cartoons have certainly gotten more sanitized since I was a kid. I've been watching my boxset of The Real Ghostbusters and can't help but make a mental checklist of things you can't do nowadays on any kid's show.

[Marcus Aurelius]

P.S. I never read the Book of Job as a kid. That's seriously messed up stuff, and I say that as someone who still calls himself christian!

Without Job and Ecclesiastes the Old Testament would be mostly myths of a late bronze age tribe, for a large part copied from ancient Babylonians and Sumerians, and not even very colorful ones compared to for example many Hindu myths. I say this as a hobbyist of comparative religion.

Though I agree that Job is not good for young children, it is without a doubt the best literary work of the Old Testament and with Ecclesiastes worth reading even for non-Christians. For many Christians it is good "eye-opener" as well, since it tells you that there are no easy answers to the problem of evil, and in the end evil exists only because Yahweh allows it to exist, something that many Christian churches kind of brush aside or don't really bring up properly in their teaching for laymen.

[Dooey Jo]

Which makes me wonder, why do book authors writing for children use their license to be morbid? Just because they can? It would be interesting to know what lines they draw for themselves, and why.

Because it's not very interesting if everything is always rainbows and sunshine. That trope page mentioned Bambi. It would have been a pretty forgettable film if it wasn't so sad. Or can you imagine The Lion King without the death of Mufasa? And then of course there are those who make their stories sad, just so they can win some kind of sadness award. These stories are generally crap (but do win awards).

[Darth Wong]

In the interest of steering this away from becoming an atheist circle-jerk, might I point out that it is NOT just the bible, even though that was one of the examples used in the OP? Look at Harry Potter, in the first CHAPTER of the first BOOK we have a double murder of the main protagonists parents. And that is one of the most read pieces of childrens literature in the world, hands down.

The Bible is, however, unique in being a story which is widely promoted for family consumption where the hero is a genocidal psychopath (see the Great Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Plagues visited upon Egypt, and Jericho: all stories involving mass-murder on a huge scale by the heroes of the story, which are well-known to Christians and are typically taught in Sunday School to children).

Normally such characters in fiction are villains. To say that this promotes harmful ideas is an understatement, particularly in relation to the kind of media that most of these "concerned parents' groups" usually want to keep away from children.