Violence: A question for readers

Or, as Mott the Hoople sang, "Violence, violence. It's the only thing that'll make you see sense."  The man who sang those lyrics, Ian Hunter, will perform here in New Hope, Pa., this weekend—for $50 in advance, $55 the day of the show. Why, in my day— But that's not why violence is on my mind.

I picked up Send My Love and a Molotov Cocktail!: Stories of Crime, Love, and Rebellion at Farley's Bookshop yesterday. I've read stories by co-editor Gary Phillips, Paco Ignacio Taibo II, and Barry Graham so far, two of which contain acts of extreme violence. In both cases the violence makes perfect sense and occurs offstage. This is not always the case on crime stories.

So today's question is: What makes some violence acceptable in crime fiction and other violence not?

© Peter Rozovsky 2012

How much violence will you accept?

Someone asked during a panel at NoirCon why we seem more willing to accept violence on television and in movies than in books.

I was surprised that no one suggested one obvious answer: reading is a more intimate act than watching a TV show or a movie. It demands more of our attention and thus involves us more fully in the action. In reveals more easily a character's thoughts during an act of violence, which can make the depicted act more disturbing.

When a book describes violence deadpan, without such thoughts and reactions, a reader may feel their absence all the more because he or she knows they are possible and has been conditioned to expect them. Some of the most disturbing descriptions of violence I have read in crime novels (and at the same time the most anti-violence) have been flat and matter-of-fact.

How much violence are you prepared to accept in your crime reading? Is violence more affecting on the page than on the screen? Less? Why? Under what circumstances will you accept violence in a book, movie or television show?

© Peter Rozovsky 2008