Why We Love Violence

Time Magazine’s March 11 issue features a cover story about Oscar Pistorius, Olympic athlete and accused murderer. A little later on, it includes an article called “Serial Killing” about the addiction of television drama to blood. The link is the idea of a “culture of violence” in South Africa, where Pistorius felt he had to shoot first to defend himself and his (he thought) sleeping girlfriend, and in America where “The Game of Thrones” and dozens of other series build up layers of violence like an Old Master painting with oils. And we like to talk and think and act as if all of this is new, and somehow, beneath us.

A knight in the lists at a Leeds Royal Armory Joust.

A knight in the lists at a Leeds Royal Armory Joust.

But the student of history knows better. Roman gladiators, Aztec games that ended with human sacrifice, centuries of public executions all featuring jeering crowds, chanting for more. My period was no different. Executions were public affairs, intended to make a statement about the serious nature of the crime, and to warn off other criminals. Even when there wasn’t a war (rare, during the time of the Hundred Years’ War) knights participated in tournaments designed to keep them fit and leaving many wounded or even dead as a result.

Yet we like to think of Mankind as a species that abhors violence, that is only violent when pushed to extremes. We are startled and offended by our own taste in entertainment–even in an era which no longer encourages people to bring picnics to watch a battle, as they sometimes did during the Revolutionary and Civil Wars. I’ve had to face the question myself when I confront the level of violence in my writing. Why do we watch it? Why are we drawn to it? Are we all just sick and depraved, or destined to become shooters ourselves because we don’t care about our fellow human beings?

No. In fact, I would argue that violence is compelling precisely *because* we care. One of the aspects of writing, of entertainment in general, is conflict. Inherent in manufactured conflict is the question of what is at stake. As authors/entertainers, we want the stakes to be high–we want the characters to have a lot to lose, so that, if they win, the payoff is greater, and if they lose the pathos is more tragic.

When an author puts a sympathetic character’s life on the line, he is creating a rooting interest for his audience. The higher the stakes, the more excited the reader becomes. In the hands of a skilled author, an invented being of words that unspool in the mind of the reader, or of images and attitudes portrayed by an actor, takes on the aspect of genuine humanity. We watch because we worry. Because we fear for that person and want him to live. We want him to be victorious over his enemies, to vanquish his own fears and accomplish great things.

We watch the Olympics for similar reasons: high stakes competition. Someone will win; many others will lose. Even people who don’t generally like sports will watch the Olympics and track the results.

And when our hero fails–when the character dies or is defeated, when the sportsman loses, when the runner who carried our dreams has descended into a nightmare–we watch in mutual devastation. We wonder what went wrong, what choices were made or left to chance that might have changed the outcome. Because of our rooting interest, we now feel justified in having our own opinions and reactions. The criminal on the gallows deserves to hang–or perhaps is a victim in his own right. What would I have done, if it were me?

High stakes situations, in life and in fiction, compel our attention not because we revel in violence, but because we care about people. Stories that place a sympathetic protagonist at risk for great loss are inherently compelling to the viewer, and it is precisely our shared humanity that makes it so.

About E. C. Ambrose

I spend as much time in my office as I possibly can--thinking up terrible things to do to people who don't exist.
This entry was posted in essays, fantasy, fiction and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Why We Love Violence

  1. Insightful post. You hit on the nature of tragedy when you say “The criminal on the gallows deserves to hang–or perhaps is a victim in his own right. What would I have done, if it were me?” After all, Aristotle said that true tragedy arouses pity and fear. That’s exactly what you’re saying. It’s violent when Oedipus comes on stage with his eyes running down his face, but we shudder to think maybe he didn’t deserve it, and we shudder to contemplate what we would have done in his circumstance.

  2. One French anthropologist, Rene Girard, postulates that all human societies are founded on violence – specifically, on a mimetic crisis that resolves itself in an “all against one” lynching of an innocent victim. For this to work, however, the lynching crowd must really believe that the victim is, in fact, the source of all that is wrong with society. The victim’s death, then, “miraculously” drains the violence that has built up within the group, restoring peace. (Anyone who has ever been at the bottom of the social structure in Jr. High School understands exactly how the all-against-one mechanism works.)
    I suspect an even deeper reason we are fascinated by violence is that at some level we understand this is how societies work and cohere – and we’re interested in finding out how to avoid becoming the next scapegoat.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s