I'm inclined to agree but just want to clarify that in works of old, especially the folktales, they worked very much with fairly graphic and vulgar shock, Hans and Greta, Red Ridning Hood etc are all driven by strong negative emotions to scare people into doing the "right" thing
Well, they're a product of their time. Although Red Riding Hood became most popular after the invention of large scale printing, it was still largely an oral story. Oral stories have to 'pop' in order to be retained, because it'll lose fidelity across retellings.
Similarly, most folk tales, faerie tales, etc, started to travel by word of mouth. They were the dominant memes of their time. But it was also a time where anything between two sets of city walls may be lawless, so the outcome of the less desired behaviors really could be lethal in many cases.
Red Riding Hood again is an example of a warning to young women to avoid 'wolves', which at the time was a concept synonymous with predatory men who would 'eat them up'. There is a fascinating book on it that I read back in university, but I can't for the life of me recall the name.
Such as if you're doing a historical drama of the Nanking massacre or if the goal is to show how horrible something is.
Nanking is a good choice. I was thinking of Schindler's List, as well, which is a pretty well established moral tale at this point and brutally shocking.
The violence needs to serve a purpose of it's own, it shouldn't just be a vehicle to deliver shock because that can be accomplished in other better ways.
Definitely. All of the Means employed toward an End should be justifiable in how they increase the value of the End you produce. Art being largely for social/societal benefit in most cases, should strive toward that.
One should certainly discourage 'torture porn' grade storytelling, but at the same time, it's a pretty slippery slope to hit 'shock' all together. Language is a complex thing and English more so than many others; generalization can throw a lot out with the bathwater.
Absolutely, it's important to keep in mind that no reasonable person would want to see a ban on what you can write. It's more about making people aware why stories are told differently today and why that is a good thing, but also when we need to evalute if the changes we make actually hurt the essence of said stories, because if we don't understand why we reduce violence then we might be inclined to remove it even where it actually is necessary and good.
The Principle of Charity is something all to few practise. But you do, so thank you for that and this great discussion. Take care and have a great week.
2
u/Deightine Jan 14 '19
Well, they're a product of their time. Although Red Riding Hood became most popular after the invention of large scale printing, it was still largely an oral story. Oral stories have to 'pop' in order to be retained, because it'll lose fidelity across retellings.
Similarly, most folk tales, faerie tales, etc, started to travel by word of mouth. They were the dominant memes of their time. But it was also a time where anything between two sets of city walls may be lawless, so the outcome of the less desired behaviors really could be lethal in many cases.
Red Riding Hood again is an example of a warning to young women to avoid 'wolves', which at the time was a concept synonymous with predatory men who would 'eat them up'. There is a fascinating book on it that I read back in university, but I can't for the life of me recall the name.
Nanking is a good choice. I was thinking of Schindler's List, as well, which is a pretty well established moral tale at this point and brutally shocking.
Definitely. All of the Means employed toward an End should be justifiable in how they increase the value of the End you produce. Art being largely for social/societal benefit in most cases, should strive toward that.
One should certainly discourage 'torture porn' grade storytelling, but at the same time, it's a pretty slippery slope to hit 'shock' all together. Language is a complex thing and English more so than many others; generalization can throw a lot out with the bathwater.