I recently got around to reading Peter and the Starcatchers, by Dave Barry and Ridley Pearson. I enjoyed it — interesting characters, plenty of action, and a fast read despite its bulk. I liked how they explain the mythology of Neverland. By the end of the book, I had noticed something else that interested me.
Nobody died.
Plenty of people came close, and probably would have died in a similar real-life situation. The pirates and military do violent battle (though with no body count mentioned). Children are almost fed to a giant crocodile. A mermaid is battered into unconsciousness. A few of the villains were so rotten, I even wanted them to die, so they couldn’t cause any more trouble. But they didn’t.
I started to wonder, how would you rate this level of violence?
Does the lack of death make it less violent than if the writers had used the same scenes, and had people die? Is this a good thing? Should middle grade readers be protected from the reality that pirates killed people and swordfights could lead to death? Does this make the book more comfortable, and thus more fun?
Or is the fact that in this book violence never leads to death a negative, because violence is shown without consequences? Is it dangerous to keep violence a fantasy?
Personally, I lean toward portraying more realistic consequences, even in a fantasy book. I don’t especially like reading violent books, and my books are not generally violent themselves. (All right, in The Well of Sacrifice, the main character’s brother is sacrificed. But that was necessary for the plot! Nobody has died yet in the Haunted series. I mean, besides the ghosts, who have been dead for a long time.) But I still worry about sanitizing action scenes so that violence is shown without consequences. Those consequences can also add emotional depth and impact to a book, as in Joni’s The Farwalker’s Quest, where lots of people die, making the quest feel that much more dangerous and important.
What do you think?
Chris Eboch says that whatever you think about violence in literature, it’s better than violence in real life.
Filed under: Chris Eboch Tagged: Peter and the Starcatchers, violence
10 Comments on What Is Violence?, last added: 7/27/2010
You hit on something, there, which answers the question: was it necessary for them to die or not?
Now, to me, when pirates are taking over a ship, it’s really rather something which happens. That’s kinda the whole point: here are some people stealing your home / investment / transportation / freedom … so, not wanting to be enslaved, you fight back. With pointy bits of metal, and some serious intent. If nobody got hurt … well, the author is being disingenuous.
As to other places where some of the deaths are necessary … well, here’s a further distinction: is the violence necessary because of the plot which the author was prepared to write, or necessary because of the world in which the action is taking place?
If your characters are in a sword-fight? Yup. Because it’s the plot you want to write? Well, that’s when it’s getting down to a matter of taste, rather than a matter of credible fiction.
Good post. I keep writing and deleting comments.
For me, the level of violence is more of a psychological than a physical or results-oriented thing. I haven’t read PETER, but to me, the idea of a battering a mermaid into unconsciousness sounds worse than a particularly final sword-blow.
Then again, Western culture has a very peculiar relationship with/perspective on death.
And I’m with you on realism (obviously, maybe). I do think it is hazardous to society to raise too many people on the idea that you can beat the crap out of someone without hurting more than their feelings. But books are hardly the worst offender here.
In the sequel, Professor Snape kills Peter Pan! Oh, wait, should I have put a spoiler warning before that?
There are pirates in Neverland because J.M. thought pirates were cool–the buried treasures, walking the plank, firing cannons, hoisting the Jolly Roger, and all–especially when they are forced to interact with mermaids, fairies, Native Americans, giant crocs, and Lost Boys. But the pirates would probably cease to seem as cool if they actually succeeded in killing anyone. In the context of Neverland, that would upset the balance of power. Then again, if you clap your hands and believe in whoever just died, maybe you can bring them back?
I wonder if the editor vetoed the deaths.
Parker, the editor might have had a say, but a few years ago I read an adult mystery novel by Dave Barry and was equally surprised by the violence not leading to death. Although there were plenty of villains and people were shooting at each other regularly, I think one bad guy died at the very end. So maybe it’s his personal taste as well.
I’m not sure every story has to have the end result of death. Especially in the first books in a series. I do agree there should be realistic outcomes–someone beat up shouldn’t get up uninjured and perform some super human feat. But especially for middle graders, I’m not sure they need to see too much death. Perhaps as they grow with a series, like Harry Potter or Percy Jackson, they are more connected to the characters as the series develops and the deaths mean more to them than if they are shown in the first book.
I, too, keep writing and deleting comments.
Hm. Just … hmm.
Food for thought, Chris.
I just read a YA book in which one of the main characters (a character caught in a love triangle) died. And I felt a bit miffed–not because he died, per se, but because it felt a bit like that author was taking a shortcut to getting him out of the picture. Suddenly the tension of the triangle was gone…and the death didn’t actually make me more convinced about the reality of the evil the main character faced.
I was not miffed, though, when people started dying in Harry Potter–that series, I think, needed death to make the issue at hand more serious.
Two more thoughts on this.
1) The overall stakes of the story are a factor. If we are saving the world, then yeah, death might more naturally come into it than in Charlotte’s example when it’s all about romance, relationships, or “daily-life” stakes.
2) I think cultural and even personal background is a factor in one’s views as a reader and writer. If you grew up sheltered, death may seem extreme and unnecessary. If you grew up in Darfur… not so much. (My critique partners used to tell me I seemed kind of obsessed with death and rebirth themes until they found out I’d lost a sibling at a young age. Then they just said, “oh, no wonder.”)
Wow – that’s a really interesting and complex question. I have no problem with death in MG or YA books – it happens. But I prefer that the deaths have a point. When somebody dies, it impacts somebody in some big way. Let it have the impact it deserves, whether the violence is senseless and we see a good person die (teaching one kind of lesson and maybe building up our antagonism to a certain character), versus the baddie dying in the end at the hands of the hero (another kind of lesson and we may be rooting for it).
Incredible violence not leading to people dying makes the story more like a Loony Tunes episode, which is fine as far as that goes, but then the entire book should read as such. I would also think that if the book is full of people not dying despite the incredible violence, then you’re better off not killing anyone. On the other hand, if everyone’s dying, and you suddenly want/need a given character’s death to mean something, that’ll be a hard sell.