Gore in novels - Yay or nay?

[Scarlette]

I'm interested in others' opinions, since I'm in two minds about violence/gore in novels, myself.

Give me a war story and I'll devour it and while the violence may bother/disgust/upset me, I will feel that in that particular setting it is realistic and expected. The same with crime novels.

On the other hand, however, I often shy away from, say, horror novels with the potential to be gory, since I'll most certainly find them upsetting and feel that said gore was written simply to try and be... well, gross.

 

So, opinions. Are oozing corpses and lost limbs more acceptable in certain genres/storylines than others or do you prefer avoiding it entirely?

[Janet]

I don't tend to read a lot of books with blood and guts featuring in them, although like you, I've read a fair few WW1 stories and it's acceptable in those as it's true to life.

 

I don't tend to read horror books, so most of my reading is mild in terms of gore!

 

I find it hard to read. When I read A Child Called It I had to put the book down and take deep breaths on more than one occasion, and even in Mark Haddon's A Spot of Bother there was one part (anyone who has read the book will know what I mean!) where I found it difficult to read!

 

In answer to your question, yes, I think it's more acceptable in some books than others!

[Chrissy]

I read a lot of crime and thriller novels, and some of those can be incredibly graphic in terms of the action taking place and the damage caused.

 

If it doesn't feel too gratuitous and is relevant (ooh, there's a can of worms in itself - relevance!) to the story, then I can cope with it.

 

I am hardened to a certain extent, in that I can and will read them, but I frequently have to gather myself together, or ponder a scene afterward to because I am (happily) not completely desensitised to the effects of the harm that mankind often inflict on each other.

[Ghost]

The main issue I have with gore and the like is that it's never really that realistic, in fact (this may cast me in a bad light) but some of it is laughable it's that bad. I will try and find an example later.

[RCee]

I am in two minds on this myself. I think in some instances it can be effective and necessary for the story but often it just seems gory and graphic for the sake of it. I think it depends on the story and the context.

 

Like Chrissy I read a lot of crime and thriller. Some of these authors do use it just for shock value and usually does nothing for the story. The good ones, though, use it well and does it in a way that does enhance the story.

[Stephanie2008]

I don't think I have read a really gorey book. I suppose if I chose a book which I knew was gorey I would no what to expect. I wouldn't like it to turn up in chick-lit or in Charles Dickens

[Echo]

I don't mind it at all if it enhances the story. I enjoy horror and don't mind the gore at all...in fact, the gore adds to the "horrifying" experience in my opinion.

[Scarlette]

Interesting and varied views.

 

I'm pondering something else, now... Could it be all in the writing? Perhaps some authors are simply more talented at writing about disturbing things?

 

Another thought: Something written is only as upsetting as the images your own mind can conjure. But I find that sometimes authors leave very little to the imagination when it comes to violence.

[paperplane]

I agree with Echo, I don't mind it aslong as it fits in with the story or is to be expected like in a crime book. Human gore I can stand however animal gore which I've come across just doesn't sit well with me. Putting it in just for the sake of it is annoying.

[BookJumper]

To be honest I am likelier to be disturbed by graphic violence in a war novel than graphic violence in a horror novel - there's nothing realistic about zombies losing putrefied limbs and vampires making a mess of their super, hence my mind is not disturbed in the slightest; on the other hand descriptions of bloody wounds in a war account upset me majorly, as they are real things that either have happened or could happen to real people.

[poppy]

I think I'm like you Bookjumper, fictional horror doesn't really disturb me (although I'm not a fan of horror) but realistic violence disturbs me deeply. I quite like murder stories but only 'nice' murders

[Charm]

I've read my fair share of horror novels and to be honest I don't really mind the gore although some of the more graphic ones seem to be just that, page after page of mindless gore to the point where it becomes a bit repetitive.

 

I do however like to read a certain amount of it in thriller/killer reads, it takes a lot to shock me and I think if its done well and the storyline needs it then its all good.

[Rawr]

I don't mind it at all, i suppose in this day and age i'm pretty desensitized to most 'horrific' things. I agree with most that if it really fits with the story being told i won't mind.

[Weave]

It does not bothered me but I do have 'ick' moments

[Kreader]

I wouldn't be attracted to a book just for its gore. Even so if there's gorey stuff I'd have to be in the mood to read it. I also have to agree that the more fictious the setting or story it means the gorey stuff is easier to read about. I just finished the last of the books by Joe Abercrombie's First Law trilogy. One of the main characters is a torturer who had been tortured in the past and there is some details of what he does to some people. I just read faster to get that stuff out of the way.

[chrysalis_stage]

I doesn't bother me either. I do find myself desensitized as well to many things I read in horror just like horror films.

 

But like BookJumper said, I do find things truer to life more effective at making me think 'ahh thats not so good'. Things that I could actually imagine happening get to me more, but I love scaring myself.

 

I like to be aware of things in life, be that good or bad, including gore, its part of life and the more I'm aware of it I feel if I ever have to come into close proximity of something similar I will have a plan of action not just stand there and have a heartattack.

 

My friend told me the other day she started reading 'American Psycho' a while back but had to stop reading it because she felt herself becoming desensitized/ accepting of what was happening thoughout the book, which is probably the idea. She didn't like that she was and so put it down and hasn't finished it to this day and she is pretty open minded with all things so that suprised me. We all have our limits I guess!

[Nicola]

I've read a few of Chuck Palahniuk's books and there's been something unsettling in each one. Things that might not normally trouble me can turn my stomach because of the way it's written and although these things seem irrelevant at the time, they usually end up being quite significant.

 

Like in The Diary,

Peter Wilmot wears a brooch that goes through his jumper and nipple. It seems pointless to mention it at the time but actually it's a way of discouraging Misty's affections and the tradition of his island.

The way Chuck Palahniuk described it made my stomach turn (my stomach is actually turning now just thinking about it) and it's always the first thing I think of when I think of that book. I think he does gore quite well and it really does have an effect on the reader.

[Kylie]

I'm a little squeamish but I can handle most gore in books. I certainly haven't become desensitised to it though. One recent read is All Quiet on the Western Front, which was disturbing because it was so realistic.

[pontalba]

The other day I finished The Suspicions of Mr. Whicher by Kate Summerscale, a true story of the murder of a child around 1860. The author could have been quite grisly, as the murder itself was quite horrific, she refrained however and kept it to just the facts, presented as plainly as possible.

I appreciated that, because if it had been gory I'd have put the book down. I can't stand slasher type books or movies. If an author doesn't have enough imagination to present something awful without buckets of blood and gore, I'm not reading it. Suspense can be built and tension accomplished and be far more effective than throwing blood and guts all about.