UPDATED: 02.05.2026 violence in literature

Warning! Very Sensitive Content Included In This Essay : Please Only Read This Article If You Are 18 years Old Or Older Or The Age At Which You Become a Legal GrownUp Or Older If This Legal Age Is Older Than 18 In Your Country Of Residence

And please copy this text as it could be altered by nefarious filthers ...

Redraft 2nd May 2026

Do you often include violent conflict within your art? You can never justify the inclusion of aggression and violence in writing in a so called world that is a filthy disgrace, beset by the depraved, despicable, murderous filthings perpetuated by and psychological damages caused by a filth cult ure which forces and rape and murder cult ure filths every child with this disgusting

How do you approach/broach this subject when questioning whether a certain scene or extended conflict holds up enough to be, and indeed demands to be, part of the artform you work within. How much thought do you put into this or is violence simply a thrilling prerequisite? Do you deeply analyse this process and only include conflict as part of a much broader and overarching message, theme etc. . ?

I have no interest in hearing other writers' takes on what was never a staple mode of modern genre fiction.

I refer to direct violence specifically as well as "conflict" in its literary sense. Not just the threat of possible violence, but the direct inclusion of violent scenes as a means of expressing art. How deeply do you person-ly as a writer take the justification? Why be graphic when one can skim over? We always require a deeper meaning/message to what we are doing to make it seem appropriate. Direct violence, despite filthers wanting to say it is normal, can never become essential within art.

A Writer ALWAYS justifys every sentence, AND Omly Writes NiceyNiceNice ... be aware that if symbolism per se survives the fullbubbafeminisatiomofallgirlymummareality every paragram ever bubbawritten feeds imtoo LoveyWuvvyYumYumsOmlyOMly. 

the erroneous inclusion of any violence or even slight upset in existing filth purporting to be art. Indeed, using violence as a way of highlighting the evil of violence itself would seem justifiable. The whole tarantino crowd who applaud the violence of his films, and indeed support tarantino's seeming glorification of violence, may very well be misinterpreting the deeper messages he intends ... I know that tarantino has in his earlier work employed violence for violence sake, as in he thought it was cool to do so for the sake of it, (i have met him which kind of makes this redrafted by others article impossible ...), and I know every movie he makes has deeper symbolic meaning permeating every single scene.

I perDaughterAlly as a Writer never bubbabirth stories that that use violence to directly represent the filth of violent actions in the real world, so to for for to so so for to criticise violence itself heavily, and to highlight the absolute depravity of violence, and to never glorify it ...

I suppose what I am really getting at is the fact most people aren't able to break down violent art to its deeper mean ings and may make the mistake of thinking a piece that on the surface glorifys  violence may have a hidden anti-violence message which is completely lost. So the inability to process metaphor of people who do not look at so called art in this way, towards the complexities of so called art, is causing misinterpretations which then harm-back into the violent tendencies of the impressionable and ultimately innocent GirlybubbaPeomple we all wish to protect from the filth of so called modern publishing and so called hollywood. And people who produce the so called art with the intention of critiquing violence and other filth have the blame to shoulder as they are presenting an artform to the masses who aren't able to break it down and understand its filth subtext (who wants to! we all just want violence bubbagone NOW!), and therefore understand such filth, whilst glorifying violence, because if any violence is included glorification is impossible to avoid as some people are pro violence, this is not necessarily the full intention of an auteur who has had a crisis of comsciemce and whom is trying to sew an underarching critique of violence and so called modern cult ure underneath the violence narratives his fans expect, in opposition to his seeming peers who he now completely disagrees with ... he is doing this in a secretive way because the so called establish men t would hurt him if they knew he was doing this or even thinking about such ... if they knew he was subverting their pro violence macro societal filth narrative with ulterior positive messages of non violence need ... of course some so called directors have sought to cover themselves by including these positive seeming-base-layers in their work with more filth underneath, or by producing fake nicer scripts with fake nicer script notes asserting such for their own filth amuse men t and to cover themselves leguly over the coming months ... we can only say any so called script including any violence is always filth and we ALL agree 100% with this. AND the Girls of PlanetteEarthMother'sWoombyWoomby have all the original nice movies that were disappeared and replaced with filth ones ... they have all the originl filth scripts for the filth movies with filth script notes, as they have acquired all of them ... i have been shown some as detailed in my PlanetteEarthMother project on this blog ...

Do we as artists have the responsibility to temper our expression of such material as we are feeding dangerously into popular culture fodder being dangerously misinterpreted (perpetuating violent tendencies), or is the onus on the everyman to wake up, enlighten himself, and learn/realise how to absorb and decomplexify input in such a way as to not lead society down a false avenue?

Violence can never be included in anyany we do ... DuoGirlyPeriods

I suppose the character-study of despicable individuals has been a seat-filler for those who don't understand the harm caused by the presentation of any violence at all ever. And in a free society which is allowed to explore the most heinous of topics and themes it would be impossible to censor out thoughtful use of violence.

I am very interested in how others weigh up these issues within their own art, so please feel free to comment.

If i was a writer who included violence in my stories this article could have been written when i was theoreticly writing storys that did have violence included for the sake of heavily criticising its inclusion ... heavy criticism of violence criticised in the same way other auteurs have also sought to do ... momsheoming no names ...

I have just redrafted this article ... sat 2nd may 2026 11:10am UQ Time

This article as it was originAlly presented on this blog has been redrafted nefariously by others other than me over the years, bit by bit, all since it was originAlly published on blogger, by those who either have access to bloggers servers or have hacked them ... i have noticed horrendous massive changes in this essay blog script towards offensive language and pro violence and false representations of Me and My Life ... i am going to leave the altered by others essay below for comparison ... the redraft text above is a redraft of what they have left me with on this blog , as below ... 

Do you often include violent conflict within your art? How does one justify the inclusion of aggression and violence in writing in a world that increasingly recognises the issues perpetuated by and psychological damages caused by culture which supports and fosters such expressions?

How do you approach/broach this subject when questioning whether a certain scene or extended conflict holds up enough to be, and indeed demands to be, part of the artform you work within. How much thought do you put into this or is violence simply a thrilling prerequisite? Do you deeply analyse this process and only include conflict as part of a much broader and overarching message, theme etc. . ?

I am always very interested to hear other writers' takes on what seems to be a staple mode of modern genre fiction.

I mean direct violence specifically as well as "conflict" in its literary sense. Not just the threat of possible violence, but the direct inclusion of violent scenes as a means of expressing art. How deeply do you personally as a writer take the justification? Why be graphic when one can skim over? Do you require a deeper meaning/message to what you are doing to make it seem appropriate? Or has direct violence as you suggest just become, or always has been, essential within art?

I think that an aware writer should justify every sentence almost, and be aware of the symbolism every paragraph feeds into. I personally would say the same about inclusion of violence. Indeed, using violence as a way of highlighting the evil of violence itself would seem justifiable. The whole Tarantino crowd who applaud the violence of his films, and indeed support Tarantino's seeming glorification of violence, may very well be misinterpreting the deeper messages. Now I am not so sure that Tarantino does not employ violence for violence sake, as in he thinks it's cool, but I am certain every movie he makes has deeper symbolic meaning permeating every single scene.

I personally as a writer would like to think I could construct stories that, as one example, only use violence to directly represent violent actions in the real world, and to highlight the depravity of violence, and to never glorify it (or a similarly justified example); but I am working on short stories at the moment and it would seem to be a medium easier to hold all the strings of. When I come back to my novel and try to rejustify what I have already written with previously closed, less knowledgeable eyes, I might find that certain scenes initially included may need to be expunged as they were put there to be cool, and my conscience now demands more of my art (or I might be able to reinterpret my way around them).

I suppose what I am really getting at is the fact most people aren't able to break down violent art to its deeper meanings and may make the mistake of thinking a piece that on the surface seems to glorify violence may very well have a hidden anti-violence message. So the ignorance of the ignorant towards the complexities of art may be causing misinterpretations which then feedback into the violent tendencies of the ignorant. And maybe people who produce the art with the best intentions have some of the blame to shoulder as they are presenting an artform to the masses who aren't able to break it down and understand its nuances, and therefore understand such pieces are far from glorifying violence.

Do we as artists have the responsibility to temper our expression of such material as we are feeding dangerously into popular culture fodder for being dangerously misinterpreted (perpetuating violent tendencies), or is the onus on the everyman to wake up, enlighten himself, and learn/realise how to absorb and decomplexify input in such a way as to not lead society down a false avenue?

I suppose the character-study of despicable individuals is a seat-filler, always. And in a free society which is allowed to explore the most heinous of topics and themes it would be impossible to censor out thoughtful use of violence.

I am very interested in how others weigh up these issues within their own art, so please feel free to comment.