FROM LEONODAS
How much is too much when it comes to graphic depictions of violence and other profane things in literature?
I suppose this is a culturally sensitive issue. Forty years ago, the standard of what is "too graphic" was a lot different than today, and I'd contend that what was once considerably X-rated violent is probably now the norm, even expected.
When answering this question, keep in mind that graphic things for the sake of graphic things aren't quite what I'm getting at -- that just makes poorly-written literature. I'm talking about realistic depictions of violence and the depravity of the human condition. That is:
1) Rape. Not a history or recounting, but an actual scene involving the rape of anyone.
2) Main characters can die horribly, ie "gouged out his eyes and strangled him with his intestines" level of messy. Alright, tone it down a little for the sake of realism, but the premise stands.
3) Abuse
4) Torture
5) Death of the young or infirm -- ie baby-killing, hospital patients, your grandmother
6) Really, any of the above happening to children at all.
7) Profane language -- alright, that's a bit light compared to the above, but its a rather important issue. You'd figure a lot of people would be dropping the f--- bomb often if the world went to piss or their life was endanger, wouldn't you?
Examples such as the above. If you're writing a book whose theme is the depravity of the human condition (and trying to be REAL about it), how far is too far to make that point?
RESPONSE
If I'd be ashamed or embarrassed in any way to read it to my wife or kids or parents or anyone else I hold dear, who expect high things from me, then it's too graphic. At least, that's the standard for my own writing.
I think "a book whose theme is the depravity of the human condition" is weak and booooooring. Far more powerful and interesting to write about a person's triumph over the depravity of the human condition.