Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

So I've grown bored with RPG games/fantasy stories that revolve around battling and war. I'm sick of having to kill all the time.

Even the few games out there that allow you to craft or build something are still overly war-centric. Of the fantasy series I've read, it seems many and most are battle obsessed. I understand that's the easiest way to demonstrate conflict and generate action, but do you think it would possible to not have it?

Would you read a fantasy novel that was pacifist? Or just didn't rely on violence in the way we're use to?

What, exactly, do you mean by pacifist? Even if a fantasy novel doesn't revolve around a big battle or even a war, there is usually plenty of inter-personal conflict and/or violence. Are you looking for books with no fighting at all (even between individuals)?

I guess by pacifist I mean avoiding or refusing standard physical violence

I can't see getting rid of it entirely even in fantasy. Sure I'd read a book with no violence but I'd also read one with lots depending on how it furthers the story

where is the fun in that? lol.
sorry, but that sounds like it would do no good.
it would be too clean, to politically correct, to boring.

this looks suspiciously like the same thing that happened to vampires when they suddenly all became vegetarian.

let me add that i see no extra value in violence when its there just for the whole thing to be more 'dark'.
but if it serves to evolve the plot, or grow the characters, its a good thing.

so..

violence just because of violence- no
violence as a tool for various things- yes

That's a pretty tough request to fill. I can think of a lot of books with very little violence, but I'm not sure I can come up with one that has none at all.

Low-violence books/series:
The Dragonriders of Pern
A Wizard of Earthsea
The Night Circus
A few of the Discworld novels
A Monster Calls

The only outright pacifist protagonist I've ever seen in media is Vash the Stampede from an anime series called Trigun, and he's still constantly fighting (just not killing). I think that when pacifism comes up as a theme, the author will spend 50% of the work trying to demonstrate why it's a bad idea xD

Maybe you're looking for man-vs-nature or man-vs-self works.

AAAAA read A Wizard of Earthsea ages ago. always brings warm&fuzzy feelings:)
it still had quite a bit of violence, but done very subtly and tastefully.

guess that is one of the key differences between classic fantasy and today's gritty. its more explicit and in your face.

Another option would be to take advantage of TVTropes. They have an entire page dedicated to the various forms of pacifism in fiction, often with links to individual works or characters. They claim that the sort you're looking for -- the "Actual Pacifists" -- are "vanishingly rare in fiction".

I'll try to give this idea the attention it deserves with my answer :
No.

Try Daniel Abraham's A Shadow in Summer -- it's got politics, conspiracy, and poetry-magic, but not much war.

I'd say no, as I prefer to read about violence, wars and deaths in my fantasy rather than on the news!

Daniel wrote: "Would you read a fantasy novel that was pacifist? Or just didn't rely on violence in the way we're use to? "

Pacifism is a lot harder to write than violence. Sadly in real life violence is useful in winning conflicts, and so it is used in fiction as well. Winning conflicts without violence is much more difficult, and often doesn't work in real life.

But in terms of fiction with minimal violence, there's Doctor Who (which has it's own series of books). There's the Wondla series where the protagonist is trying to prevent a conflict between humans and other species.

Epic fantasy, where the entire country/kingdom/world is at stake, pretty much calls for some violence. Especially with the majority having a Medieval/Renaissance style civilization, not many rulers are going to be willing to sit and talk to an advancing army of darkness.

Also, since in today's modern world, most people feel kind of helpless, or at least unwilling, to break the law and be physically violent against both personal enemies and other oppressors like governments, it's an outlet to imagine being able to do something more than vote or complain.

Books like McCaffrery's Pern have very little personal fighting, but then the whole planet is fighting the Thread.

The only book I can think of right now with pretty near no violence is Among Others by Jo Walton, and that is barely a fantasy really, though it's a great book.

I myself dislike battle scenes and usually skim over all the blow-by-blow, tactics, blood and gore. I don't find that stuff offensive, just boring.

I do think that almost every fantasy nowadays that has a battle or fight scene, has it described in almost excruciating detail, like authors are feeling they need to prove just how well versed they are in strategy, tactics, different schools of fighting, weapons, etc. We have to smell the blood and sweat, hear the cries and moans, taste the dirt and tears. Maybe this makes it more suspenseful, even though we can be pretty sure the main character at least won't be dead at the end.

I don't think violence can or should be eliminated, but I think it could be less "battle-porny"..."goretastic?"

I am not for violence, though I would not call myself a pacifist.

I would think books need conflict, so that there can be a resolution.

One of my favorite books is The Riddle-Master of Hed. It has a minimum amount of violence....imo.
In fact, I would say most of Patricia A. McKillip's books are low on violence.

I think removing all violence is quite difficult. Conflict is part of human nature, and too often it expresses itself physically.

These are all some really good responses. One thing I'm noticing is conflating violence with conflict. To my mind, resistance and conflict are necessarily violent

I do think excessive violence distracts from my enjoyment of a story. As brilliant as Martin is, I had a hard time reading the series (and didn't read the last book) because I just don't enjoy the level of violence, and particularly the graphic descriptions.

A truly violence-less book would have to enable conflict in other ways. Which I do think could be done.

I am completely for violence. The more the better. Before I got into fantasy I loved greek and roman mythology for the violence. Like Weenie said better in fantasy than in real life.

Sharon Shinn's novel have little to no violence in them. They are people's stories. There is conflict there and love but no fighting or hitting anyone. Her older Samaria series is the best, if you insist on no violence. Try the first one, Archangel, see if it works for you.

I guess you can't escape violence, when males are the authors of the piece. It's in their character. I've never really read the book written by female that had a satisfactionary war or even a fight. That's why I prefer male authors more.

I have nothing against battles in books and do love when they're explained in detail. Fantasy without action is not a fantasy to me at all

Why would you want to remove violence from fantasy ?????
Some of the best fantasy series have violence in them.

What are the characters going to do stand around and chat and hug.

Give me violence in fantasy all day long.

I just spit my coffee all over, Ian.
;D

³¢Ã¡°ù²¹ wrote: "I guess you can't escape violence, when males are the authors of the piece. It's in their character."

Seriously?

Happy to brighten your day brenda haha.

Kevin wrote: "³¢Ã¡°ù²¹ wrote: "I guess you can't escape violence, when males are the authors of the piece. It's in their character."

Seriously?"

Funny you had to ask. I've never met a man that wasn't violent, so yes, iI do believe it's in their character.

³¢Ã¡°ù²¹ wrote: "Kevin wrote: "³¢Ã¡°ù²¹ wrote: "I guess you can't escape violence, when males are the authors of the piece. It's in their character."

Seriously?"

Funny you had to ask. I've never met a man that wasn'..."

Isn't that just an over generalisation of half the population? After all, it's one thing to right about violence, but it's another thing to assume that the man behind the story is violent him self. For example, George R. R. Martin writes incredibly violent scenes in his Game of Thrones series, as does Mark Lawrence in his Broken Empire series. So based on what these authors have wrote, you would immediately assume that they're violent? Violent thoughts doesn't necessarily equate to a violent nature. I'm sure that most of us at some point have felt like we wanted to punch somebody. But that doesn't mean that we'll actually do it. Hence the difference between thought and action.

³¢Ã¡°ù²¹ wrote: "Kevin wrote: "³¢Ã¡°ù²¹ wrote: "I guess you can't escape violence, when males are the authors of the piece. It's in their character."

Seriously?"

Funny you had to ask. I've never met a man that wasn'..."

Um... Mahatma Gandhi?

Robin wrote: "³¢Ã¡°ù²¹ wrote: "Kevin wrote: "³¢Ã¡°ù²¹ wrote: "I guess you can't escape violence, when males are the authors of the piece. It's in their character."

Seriously?"

Funny you had to ask. I've never met a ..."

Evgeny wrote: "³¢Ã¡°ù²¹ wrote: "Kevin wrote: "³¢Ã¡°ù²¹ wrote: "I guess you can't escape violence, when males are the authors of the piece. It's in their character."

Seriously?"

Funny you had to ask. I've never met a ..."

Don't we all generalise by our experiances?

Evgeny wrote: "³¢Ã¡°ù²¹ wrote: "Kevin wrote: "³¢Ã¡°ù²¹ wrote: "I guess you can't escape violence, when males are the authors of the piece. It's in their character."

Seriously?"

Funny you had to ask. I've never met a ..."

Well said!

I apologise in advance if I come across as too vehement. Lara you make the point that we all generalise based on our experiences, but to base one's opinion of a gender consisting of billions of people based on one's experiences is ludicrous. I know I'm not aware of your experiences, so again I'm sorry for coming across as loud and vehement. Lara we may not agree on this issue but everyone's entitled to an opinion. So shal we agree to disagree?

I don't actually think I've said anything about my preference for violence in fantasy. Like Ian, I think the more violence the better. As long as there's a purpose to the violence, then I'm happy. However, if an author just writes violence because they think it's cool, or they think that violence equals readers then I'll switch off. Also the violence has to be proportionate to the story, meaning that there should be enough of it to move the plot along without going over the top.

Sure, agree to disagree is good, I'm for it. :)

Robin wrote: "I don't actually think I've said anything about my preference for violence in fantasy. Like Ian, I think the more violence the better. As long as there's a purpose to the violence, then I'm happy. ..."

Very good. Violence isn't necessary to a story, of course, (my favorite plot conflicts are based on more natural causes) but if it fits and propels the thing along, definitely. I'm not a big fan of large-scale violence either, let it be rooted in the characters who are doing the fighting.

The best stories have conflict of some kind. Conflict often breeds violence, especially in a world without restraints. And most fantasy worlds are places where there are no police, courts or prisons. It would be an interesting exercise to write a fantasy story which has zero violence—a Jane Austen novel set in GRR Martin's Westeros. I'm afraid it would sell, oh, zero copies.

It depends on the strength of the author as well as the interest of the reader.

Andre Norton's Witch World series has books in the series which run the gamut. Some have extreme violence/battles and some have little to none. Some of the conflict is on an almost global scale and some is so small that it encompasses less than 5 people.

It's really all in the skillset of the author and the reader's desire.

I can't really speak for the current crop of uber violent Fantasy as I have a tendency to prefer the older stuff, only God knows what kind of stuff they are publishing now.

Alice in Wonderland has exactly zero violence, but it did not prevent it from becoming timeless classic.

Marc wrote: "Robin wrote: "I don't actually think I've said anything about my preference for violence in fantasy. Like Ian, I think the more violence the better. As long as there's a purpose to the violence, th..."

I know what you mean about large scale battles. Although there's a place for that kind of battle, I'm not a fan. I'd rather focus on one or a small group of characters, rather than reading about a battle from twenty different view points. Although if I read a conflict with a large scale battle, I'd also like to know about the tactics, I don't want to just read about a character who just follows orders and has absolutely no clue about what's going on. For example, in Joel Shepherd's Sasha and the subsequent books in the series, Sasha both leads and fights in battles. So we get the visceral savagery of combat as well as the more cerebral manoeuverings entailed by strategy and tactics.

Evgeny wrote: "Alice in Wonderland has exactly zero violence, but it did not prevent it from becoming timeless classic."

I was thinking of Captain Vorpatril's Alliance, which has almost none. A bunch of people get stunned for various reasons, but the goals of all the main people are achieved without anything more violent than that. There are violent acts performed off-screen, in order to provide the MCs something to deal with.

Evgeny wrote: "Alice in Wonderland has exactly zero violence, but it did not prevent it from becoming timeless classic."

Point taken. But Alice takes place in more of a dream world than a place that follows the modern (post 1940) definition of fantasy. I remember the introduction to William Morris' book The Well at the World's End from Ballantine Books Forgotten Fantasy series of the 70s. They called The Well the first fantasy novel ever written. That is, a fantasy novel set in a world where one COULD get killed. Nobody worried that Alice would really get her head chopped off.

A preemptive disclaimer: We are talking fictional worlds here. NO, I am not advocating violence. Saddens me to even have to write that, but in today's world of the easily offended, I wanted to preface it. My experience is the easily offended also tend to ignore details and intent.

Violence in Fantasy. Perhaps the most overlooked reason that it might be difficult to remove utterly is because violence of one sort or another is integral to so very many stories and themes. Heck, even most religions, aside from maybe Buddhism, are all rooted in violence. In life and nature it is nearly as fundamental as are emotions and eating -- name the food that is eaten not requiring violence toward something at some level. Poor plant...

Also, define violence... okay, I get it, sword play with sucking chest wounds, sure. Yet isn't violence also emotional? (No, not in the PC I-am-offended-by-anything-I-do-not-like-so-remove-it-from-the-public-domain kind of emotional pain. That inner pain will never be fixed no matter how many others' beliefs are censored.) Verbal abuse for example is violent, is it not?

Not to mention, what creates conflict easier than potential of violence? Even nursery rhymes and fairy tales generally have a violent streak: Kids getting eaten by witches, dead witches, trolls and goats fighting, dead wolves, poor piggies, chopped up mice, ad nauseum.

It is an honorable goal to have a violence free world and there is no reason it could not be written that way. To me and many others, it would be so stunningly boring. Violence, like sex, is overused for cheap and easy thrills, no doubt. But a world without the possibility of either (if only hinted at in the boy likes girl fashion) would not be much fun to read about, IMO.

You know how they say that a way to test a book's characters is to pull them from story and see if the story holds together? Choose a couple of successful (even classic) stories at random and remove all possible violence from them. IMO, the stories no longer work: "Frodo if you do not return the ring the Dark Lord will become very disappointed with you..."

Hmm. Scooby Doo had no violence, did it, though? They always ran from monsters even though all the monsters ever did was chase them. So all that said, maybe it could work, what do I know?

I think the violence tends to be lower in non-epic fantasy, but that's me. But I do think that violence for the heck of it is just...violence for the heck of it, and admit that if it can be solved without it, or if the character cannot act violently without going against conscience, then it should be. Is it the violence itself or the extent (quantity) and/or graphicness (detail) that bothers you? Just curious. I can think of plenty of low- to mid-level violence novels, but not any, offhand, with absolutely none.

(Also, Buddhists aren't pacifists.)

Kaci wrote: "... Also, Buddhists aren't pacifists."

I agree with that. They even have their own fighting styles, if I am not mistaken. Though they do have a specific tenet that is one of five, or something like that, to avoid taking life (non-violence towards higher life forms) where possible.

That was my original disclaimer, if you will.

That said, I know jack-all about Buddhism.

George wrote: "A preemptive disclaimer: We are talking fictional worlds here. NO, I am not advocating violence. Saddens me to even have to write that, but in today's world of the easily offended, I wanted to pref..."

Bravo, well said.

George wrote: "A preemptive disclaimer: We are talking fictional worlds here. NO, I am not advocating violence. Saddens me to even have to write that, but in today's world of the easily offended, I wanted to pref..."

Pretty much summed up my thoughts on the matters more clearly than I could.

George wrote: "Kaci wrote: "... Also, Buddhists aren't pacifists."

I agree with that. They even have their own fighting styles, if I am not mistaken. Though they do have a specific tenet that is one of five, or ..."


Sorry, that's what I get for reading quickly. I wasn't trying to be contrary; and I'm no expert, either; it just happens that I've recently read something on Buddhism.

That is like removing blood sucking from vampire novels