Ultra-Violence Through the Ages
August 22, 2015 10:06 AM
Can anyone recommend a good historical examination of literary and performed works throughout all of human history that stood out from their contemporaries for containing exceptionally violent/disturbing imagery, even for their own time? (more 'recent' examples being Titus Andronicus, the various Penny Dreadfuls, de Sade, Milton, etc)
This post in the blue today got me thinking about this. It's seems rather easy to find stuff that covers this kind of thing for 20th/21st century media, but it would be interesting to go back a couple millennia or more and look at works that stood out for having exceptionally violent/gory content (both implied and overt visual imagery, whether written, depicted, or performed) even in their own times.
The Wiki entry for "Aestheticization of Violence" seems to have some interesting leads, but I'm trying to find things more along the lines of extreme violence inside of a story that were criticized/condemned for going 'too far,' rather than just a standalone piece of art that depicts a single image.
For example: going backwards in time from the era of film, there's the 19th century Sweeney Todd 'Penny Dreadfuls' and arguably some of Poe's work, the 18th century had the Marquis de Sade, one could argue the 17th century had Milton's Paradise Lost (at least for some of the imagery), and the 16th century with Titus Andronicus. The centuries before then seem harder for me to pick out the ones that stood out as being exceptionally extreme or shocking compared to other works of their respective times.
I'm on the fence about including the original versions of Grimm's Fairy Tales and such with this group, as they would seem to be in their own category of ultra-violence, similar to how exaggerated 'cartoon violence' is categorized.
This post in the blue today got me thinking about this. It's seems rather easy to find stuff that covers this kind of thing for 20th/21st century media, but it would be interesting to go back a couple millennia or more and look at works that stood out for having exceptionally violent/gory content (both implied and overt visual imagery, whether written, depicted, or performed) even in their own times.
The Wiki entry for "Aestheticization of Violence" seems to have some interesting leads, but I'm trying to find things more along the lines of extreme violence inside of a story that were criticized/condemned for going 'too far,' rather than just a standalone piece of art that depicts a single image.
For example: going backwards in time from the era of film, there's the 19th century Sweeney Todd 'Penny Dreadfuls' and arguably some of Poe's work, the 18th century had the Marquis de Sade, one could argue the 17th century had Milton's Paradise Lost (at least for some of the imagery), and the 16th century with Titus Andronicus. The centuries before then seem harder for me to pick out the ones that stood out as being exceptionally extreme or shocking compared to other works of their respective times.
I'm on the fence about including the original versions of Grimm's Fairy Tales and such with this group, as they would seem to be in their own category of ultra-violence, similar to how exaggerated 'cartoon violence' is categorized.
Iliad has lots of gory descriptions of battle wounds, like spears coming in under the throat, going through the tongue, and coming out the cheek kind of detail.
posted by thelonius at 10:42 AM on August 22, 2015
posted by thelonius at 10:42 AM on August 22, 2015
Iliad has lots of gory descriptions of battle wounds, like spears coming in under the throat, going through the tongue, and coming out the cheek kind of detail.
Certainly, but what I'm really looking for is work that was both praised and condemned for its violent content overall. Perhaps good modern examples are things like Sam Peckinpah's films such as Straw Dogs and The Wild Bunch, or even Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killers. The violence is not only graphic to the eyes, but is part of a larger, already disturbing story that you've been drawn into. It's almost as if there is an element of violence against the reader/viewer/audience member themselves, and also rather than merely watching someone else's bad dream, experiencing the work places the reader or audience member into their own little nightmare.
From the post Fizz made in the blue I linked to: "[re: Titus Andronicus] Samuel Johnson refused to believe that Shakespeare was its author, writing that “the barbarity of the spectacles, and the general massacre, which are here exhibited, can scarcely be conceived tolerable to any audience… "
Pretty strong condemnation there, but it wasn't just the images themselves that bothered him. Johnson wrote that Paradise Lost shows off "[Milton's] peculiar power to astonish" and that "[Milton] seems to have been well acquainted with his own genius, and to know what it was that Nature had bestowed upon him more bountifully than upon others: the power of displaying the vast, illuminating the splendid, enforcing the awful, darkening the gloomy, and aggravating the dreadful." Of course, context is everything, but it's notable just when you consider some of the horrifying images from Paradise Lost, such as (IIRC) Sin's daily ritual of being raped and giving birth to dogs that crew their way out of her womb every morning, that it's not the imagery alone that is upsetting him.
posted by chambers at 11:24 AM on August 22, 2015
Certainly, but what I'm really looking for is work that was both praised and condemned for its violent content overall. Perhaps good modern examples are things like Sam Peckinpah's films such as Straw Dogs and The Wild Bunch, or even Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killers. The violence is not only graphic to the eyes, but is part of a larger, already disturbing story that you've been drawn into. It's almost as if there is an element of violence against the reader/viewer/audience member themselves, and also rather than merely watching someone else's bad dream, experiencing the work places the reader or audience member into their own little nightmare.
From the post Fizz made in the blue I linked to: "[re: Titus Andronicus] Samuel Johnson refused to believe that Shakespeare was its author, writing that “the barbarity of the spectacles, and the general massacre, which are here exhibited, can scarcely be conceived tolerable to any audience… "
Pretty strong condemnation there, but it wasn't just the images themselves that bothered him. Johnson wrote that Paradise Lost shows off "[Milton's] peculiar power to astonish" and that "[Milton] seems to have been well acquainted with his own genius, and to know what it was that Nature had bestowed upon him more bountifully than upon others: the power of displaying the vast, illuminating the splendid, enforcing the awful, darkening the gloomy, and aggravating the dreadful." Of course, context is everything, but it's notable just when you consider some of the horrifying images from Paradise Lost, such as (IIRC) Sin's daily ritual of being raped and giving birth to dogs that crew their way out of her womb every morning, that it's not the imagery alone that is upsetting him.
posted by chambers at 11:24 AM on August 22, 2015
I knew Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus was commonly regarded as his most violent play, but just found this description via Google: "14 killings, 9 of them on stage, 6 severed members, 1 rape (or 2 or 3, depending on how you count), 1 live burial, 1 case of insanity and 1 of cannibalism – an average of 5.2 atrocities per act, or one for every 97 lines."
(Oh, I see the play was discussed in your link on the blue. Sorry for any repetition!)
posted by zadcat at 5:58 PM on August 22, 2015
(Oh, I see the play was discussed in your link on the blue. Sorry for any repetition!)
posted by zadcat at 5:58 PM on August 22, 2015
It's true that Webster was considered violent for his time--but his plays (along with Shakespeare's) were considered the action blockbusters of their day, made to appeal to the masses.
I think you will have difficulty finding stuff considered "too violent by its contemporaries" before the early 18th century for two reasons. 1: Before that, society was violent in itself, and people really weren't concerned about art being too violent . 2: The 18th century is when critics (especially) start caring about the distinction between "polite" and "barbarous" behavior. Politeness meant eschewing certain kinds of violence. Johnson is not the only 18th century critic to look askance at Shakespeare for his "rudeness" (which is not just his depiction of violence).
Prior to the Renaissance you should keep the two main literary audiences in mind: the clergy and the aristocracy. The aristocracy is a martial class. The reason they exist is to enact violence on people. It is their purpose in society. The depiction of violence in their secular literature is generally not meant to reflect badly on them as a class; it's meant to glorify them. The clergy produces, commissions, and disseminates graphic visual and written depictions of violence (crucifixes, saints' passions) to inculcate religious ideas. Saying "that life of St. Agatha is very gory" would get the reply, "yes, it is important that we memorialize her sufferings." Similarly with Foxe's Book of Martyrs. You only get this idea that depicted violence is "too much" when you have the idea that depicted violence is either impolite or immoral.
This is more an art history thing, but you may be interested in the changing medieval fashions of how Jesus and saints are depicted. Roughly speaking, images of Jesus changed from "strong triumphant" to "broken and crucified" during the Middle Ages; medieval saints were usually shown as whole and untouched, while just holding an attribute of their martyrdom; I think gory scenes of their actual torture and death became more popular later on.
posted by Hypatia at 8:02 PM on August 22, 2015
I think you will have difficulty finding stuff considered "too violent by its contemporaries" before the early 18th century for two reasons. 1: Before that, society was violent in itself, and people really weren't concerned about art being too violent . 2: The 18th century is when critics (especially) start caring about the distinction between "polite" and "barbarous" behavior. Politeness meant eschewing certain kinds of violence. Johnson is not the only 18th century critic to look askance at Shakespeare for his "rudeness" (which is not just his depiction of violence).
Prior to the Renaissance you should keep the two main literary audiences in mind: the clergy and the aristocracy. The aristocracy is a martial class. The reason they exist is to enact violence on people. It is their purpose in society. The depiction of violence in their secular literature is generally not meant to reflect badly on them as a class; it's meant to glorify them. The clergy produces, commissions, and disseminates graphic visual and written depictions of violence (crucifixes, saints' passions) to inculcate religious ideas. Saying "that life of St. Agatha is very gory" would get the reply, "yes, it is important that we memorialize her sufferings." Similarly with Foxe's Book of Martyrs. You only get this idea that depicted violence is "too much" when you have the idea that depicted violence is either impolite or immoral.
This is more an art history thing, but you may be interested in the changing medieval fashions of how Jesus and saints are depicted. Roughly speaking, images of Jesus changed from "strong triumphant" to "broken and crucified" during the Middle Ages; medieval saints were usually shown as whole and untouched, while just holding an attribute of their martyrdom; I think gory scenes of their actual torture and death became more popular later on.
posted by Hypatia at 8:02 PM on August 22, 2015
A Clockwork Orange, Pulp Fiction, Nurse Betty. Hansel and Gretel. Gravity's Rainbow.
posted by Oyéah at 10:39 PM on August 22, 2015
posted by Oyéah at 10:39 PM on August 22, 2015
Hypatia, your points make a lot of sense. As I was trying to find and think of examples before that era, I realized reactions to over the top violent tales of the western world from the dark ages back to antiquity (whether legendary, apocryphal, or historically based) often fell into categories such as:
- "Well, that's what you get for pissing off a deity, you arrogant fool"
- "This is why those guys are bloodthirsty, evil savages, and why you should hate them too."
- "You mess with the bull, you get the horns" (aka "This is how we deal with people who dare to challenge us")
- "It's just another one of these 'Guy meets girl, guy wants to get freaky with girl, have some kids, and rule the world. Family or rivals are opposed to this guy's plan. One thing leads to another, and thousands of people are dead, kingdoms fall, and when it's all over, the girl is most likely dead too, and now there's all this blood everywhere to clean up, and the guy is too depressed to even to bother with ordering the few still left alive to find a mop and some shovels' kind of story"
- "See, I told you that old ruler had been corrupted by all that wealth and power, and I'm sure we're better off giving all of that wealth and power to this new guy we helped put on the throne. Things will be different this time, you'll see."
Ok, that got a bit silly, but getting back on track it absolutely was a far more violent and dangerous age then, in a very up close and personal way, often with little to no warning. The risk of random banditry and the off chance of some random group of guys raiding, pillaging, and killing everything in sight is one thing, but you also have to consider that the local ruler can just send a guy over to your home and say "Your liege says it's time to fight, come with me, and bring something sharp with you. You'll need it. If all goes well and you live through this, odds are you'll be back for the harvest season." Then the next couple months are nothing but walking for hundreds of miles in often crappy weather, with occasional breaks that are filled with unbelievable carnage, fear, and horror. You manage to survive, and come back home to your farm, shop, or what have you. After all that you've seen, would you really be worked up over a some gruesome play, story, or book (if you happened to be literate)? With such a large portion of the population living with these grim realities throughout their lives, why wouldn't they see such things in a very similar way that we think of cartoon violence?
Another couple factors that I think act in tandem with your point about the religious aspect, Hypatia, is the overall population increase in Europe after the Black Death, which meant larger cities, expansion of commerce and what would become the middle class, and a smaller portion of the population becoming conscripted into large seasonal, irregular armies (with a few exceptions, of course. Napoleon comes to mind as a more recent example). As rulers gained greater regional control, bureaucracy, and organization, the amount of factional warfare and unchecked raiding and banditry within a state would decrease. Additionally, the rise of mercenary armies as a popular option for warfare, with conscripts filling out the ranks, further separated more of the population from such firsthand horrors, albeit at a very slow pace.
These thoughts are all from a very Euro-centric perspective, though. It would be interesting to see how this kind of 'distance from war/combat/death' increases the chances of some portion of the population decrying certain over-the-top ultra-violent tales in other cultures, while accepting other violent tales without a problem. The Gupta Dynasty in India (375-550 A.D.) or the Tang Dynasty in China (618–907 A.D.) are said to be the most peaceful and prosperous eras of those countries in that time in history, and I suppose its a place for me to start looking at for parallels, though it would be hard to find a 1-1 comparison, as you have to take into consideration their respective religions, philosophies, and social customs into account as well. If anything, it's a decent reason to dive in to the history books and fill in a bunch of those 'grey areas' of my world history knowledge.
posted by chambers at 10:45 PM on August 22, 2015
- "Well, that's what you get for pissing off a deity, you arrogant fool"
- "This is why those guys are bloodthirsty, evil savages, and why you should hate them too."
- "You mess with the bull, you get the horns" (aka "This is how we deal with people who dare to challenge us")
- "It's just another one of these 'Guy meets girl, guy wants to get freaky with girl, have some kids, and rule the world. Family or rivals are opposed to this guy's plan. One thing leads to another, and thousands of people are dead, kingdoms fall, and when it's all over, the girl is most likely dead too, and now there's all this blood everywhere to clean up, and the guy is too depressed to even to bother with ordering the few still left alive to find a mop and some shovels' kind of story"
- "See, I told you that old ruler had been corrupted by all that wealth and power, and I'm sure we're better off giving all of that wealth and power to this new guy we helped put on the throne. Things will be different this time, you'll see."
Ok, that got a bit silly, but getting back on track it absolutely was a far more violent and dangerous age then, in a very up close and personal way, often with little to no warning. The risk of random banditry and the off chance of some random group of guys raiding, pillaging, and killing everything in sight is one thing, but you also have to consider that the local ruler can just send a guy over to your home and say "Your liege says it's time to fight, come with me, and bring something sharp with you. You'll need it. If all goes well and you live through this, odds are you'll be back for the harvest season." Then the next couple months are nothing but walking for hundreds of miles in often crappy weather, with occasional breaks that are filled with unbelievable carnage, fear, and horror. You manage to survive, and come back home to your farm, shop, or what have you. After all that you've seen, would you really be worked up over a some gruesome play, story, or book (if you happened to be literate)? With such a large portion of the population living with these grim realities throughout their lives, why wouldn't they see such things in a very similar way that we think of cartoon violence?
Another couple factors that I think act in tandem with your point about the religious aspect, Hypatia, is the overall population increase in Europe after the Black Death, which meant larger cities, expansion of commerce and what would become the middle class, and a smaller portion of the population becoming conscripted into large seasonal, irregular armies (with a few exceptions, of course. Napoleon comes to mind as a more recent example). As rulers gained greater regional control, bureaucracy, and organization, the amount of factional warfare and unchecked raiding and banditry within a state would decrease. Additionally, the rise of mercenary armies as a popular option for warfare, with conscripts filling out the ranks, further separated more of the population from such firsthand horrors, albeit at a very slow pace.
These thoughts are all from a very Euro-centric perspective, though. It would be interesting to see how this kind of 'distance from war/combat/death' increases the chances of some portion of the population decrying certain over-the-top ultra-violent tales in other cultures, while accepting other violent tales without a problem. The Gupta Dynasty in India (375-550 A.D.) or the Tang Dynasty in China (618–907 A.D.) are said to be the most peaceful and prosperous eras of those countries in that time in history, and I suppose its a place for me to start looking at for parallels, though it would be hard to find a 1-1 comparison, as you have to take into consideration their respective religions, philosophies, and social customs into account as well. If anything, it's a decent reason to dive in to the history books and fill in a bunch of those 'grey areas' of my world history knowledge.
posted by chambers at 10:45 PM on August 22, 2015
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 10:35 AM on August 22, 2015