What is considered graphic violence?

That doesn't sound too graphic for me. But don't get too carried away trying to be "safe" while writing YA. I've read a a few books in the YA market that were way more graphic than that. In fact, the book I'm seeking to get published has a scene where my MC walks through the remains of an enemy camp that had been decimated by the military gunship she called out to for aid. The book is a war book and has that old "war is hell" thing going on. So, I don't skimp on the violence as much as I usually do because it's important to the story.

Don't think because the audience is young they can't handle some rough stuff. Pretty much anything goes in YA. Just make sure that, if it's important to the plot, put it in.

Sounds alright to me. Then again, I love violent games and crazy samurai movies, so maybe I'm not the right person to ask, lol.

Given today's world, you're fine where you're currently at. As long as you're not trying to remake Hostel or something like SAW, I'm sure you'll be fine. My suggestion would be to run any scene you feel is 'questionable' through the YA SYW and see what your peers say; gauge it off of that.

Graphic isn't what's happening, it's how you describe it.

"I broke my leg" is not graphic. A detailed description of the sound of the bone crunching against the sidewalk followed by the play by play as the individual screams in agony at the shard of bone that's pierced his skin--that would be graphic.

Blood can't be all that graphic, as it's just a red liquid. But it can be gratuitous and excessive in description. Kind of annoying like "oh great, more blood."

So yeah, only someone who reads it can say whether or not it's graphic. It sounds like you're pretty good though. You say "corpses" but I don't know how detailed you get with them. The mere presence of violence and death isn't graphic.

missesdash said:

Graphic isn't what's happening, it's how you describe it.

"I broke my leg" is not graphic. A detailed description of the sound of the bone crunching against the sidewalk followed by the play by play as the individual screams in agony at the shard of bone that's pierced his skin--that would be graphic.

Blood can't be all that graphic, as it's just a red liquid. But it can be gratuitous and excessive in description. Kind of annoying like "oh great, more blood."

So yeah, only someone who reads it can say whether or not it's graphic. It sounds like you're pretty good though. You say "corpses" but I don't know how detailed you get with them. The mere presence of violence and death isn't graphic.

Click to expand...

All of this.

I know I pull out The Marbury Lens a lot as an example. But hey, it works. When the MC first goes into the world through the lenses, he's confronted with a pile of corpses. The author goes into pretty cringe-worthy detail about how the bodies are bloated, heads are split open, and how these beetle-like bugs are eating everything in sight.

Similar situations: when the character first encounter zombies in Ashes. Stomach churning stuff about entrails and more bloat. Or when Katniss is under the influence of the tracker jacker venom in The Hunger Games where she hallucinates Glimmer's (maybe? one of the other female tributes) face and skin melting off.

Dripping blood seems kind of vanilla after all those.

It only becomes properly graphic when the writer appears to be taking a sort of glee in the violence.

Lady Ice said:

It only becomes properly graphic when the writer appears to be taking a sort of glee in the violence.

Click to expand...

Um, no, not really.

Read "The Things They Carried." Horribly graphic book about soldiers in the Vietnam war, written by a soldier from the Vietnam War. The violence depicted in that book is ANYTHING but gleeful and extremely graphic. I don't think Tim O'Brien was giggling and bouncing up and down in his chair when he was describing the fictionalized versions of his soldier buddies being blown apart by land mines or committing suicide.

Graphic does not equal gratuitous, which is what I think you're getting at (I could be wrong!). Graphic means explicit, as in, lots of detail, not an overabundance, which would be gratuitous.

Gratuitous is the Bride in Kill Bill vol. 1 slicing her way through O-Ren's gang and blood fountains spraying everywhere.

Graphic is that English knight guy slicing open William Wallace's wife's throat and you can see her skin part, the flap of her throat, and the blood welling up and pooling out.

I would not describe the latter scene as "gleeful" in any shape, way or form. Gratuitous violence is usually always graphic, but graphic violence isn't always gratuitous.

Yukinara said:

Is it in the safe zone for YA novel?

Click to expand...

There's no such thing.

Cyia said:

There's no such thing.

Click to expand...

It seems like there is a safe zone as to what most serious publishers will handle. For example try putting a scene in your book where the characters do drugs and have a good time with no consequences. Or any kind of graphic sex. If my book is not picked up and I end up self publishing, I'm thinking of going back and putting in a bunch of stuff I left out, but would love to include....

shiva777 said:

It seems like there is a safe zone as to what most serious publishers will handle.

Click to expand...

Not really. "Pushing the envelope" is sort of the mantra for YA, especially of the "edgy" and/or "contemporary variety. (Read "Tender Morsels", which isn't contemporary, but certainly pushes a lot of buttons for its content, or "Forbidden" which is contemporary, and a love story between brother and sister.)

Honestly I think it comes down to what genre you're looking to write. Sub-genre, that is. For instance, horror, mystery, maybe even adventure, something extremely graphic might fit in just fine. But if the reader picks up say, a romance novel and finds a scene like that without expectation, it might be jarring. It's not a personal preference of mine, I try to avoid overly graphic novels, but it's not necessarily going to be an end-all for most people.