User blog comment:Creeper50/Why Blood is More Hated Than it Should Be/@comment-27838637-20160814123613

Unfortunately many people seem to miss the point of what 'Horror' is.

Horror is a genre intended to scare.

It just so happens that violence is something that scares and shocks people. Yes, it is often a cheap device used to shock the viewer or reader, but so is deus ex machina and almost every action, drama, comedy and romace film has some form of it.

Here is my opinion: Violence is a style, and so long as said violence fits the style of the work, then there is not a problem with it.

Evil Dead has lots of violence. It is intended to be extremely bloody and gory and it is intended to be over the top. So I have no issues when I see Ash decapitate somebody with a broken bottle because that fits the tone of the series.

''People say blood and gore has to serve a purpose for it to be accepted. Incorrect.''

What purpose does excessive blood and gore have in films such as Total Recall and Chainsaw Massacre? What purpose does it serve in Game of Thrones, The Walking Dead or Banshee?

Spin it whatever way you want, but violence is used as a stylistic choice. Jurassic Park could be excessively violent, but it's not. Why? Because it's a stylistic choice.

Yes, I will admit violence is used as a cheap method of shock or an attempt to be edgy, but that doesn't change the fact that the rest of the movie is terrible. Tell me, have you seen a well acted, directed and well scripted film that is bad because of excessive violence?

Have you seen a terrible movie that is awesome because of the directors choice to hide violence? The Room is not a violent movie, despite the fact it has a suicide. But come on it is still fucking horrible. Same goes for Birdemic.

The reason very old stories and films have little violence is because it was very taboo. Psycho was made famous because it was an edgy film that involved a violent stabbing. One of the main reasons it was in black and white was because it would not have been allowed release otherwise.

Now, let me state something else. Violence is only bad if it does not suit the style of the film. If Fast and Furious 7 ended with Jason Statham getting his head smashed in with a crowbar, in an extremely violent hard R rated style,nobody would like it. Not because it is violent - but because that violence does not suit the style of the film. Nobody would bat an eye if that same scene happenned in a Quentin Tarantino film, however.

Even unrealistic violence is not bad, so long as it suits the style of the text it is in. Any Quentin Tarantino film is unrealistically violent. However, Lars Von Treir's Antichrist is very realistic, and whilst it was a controversial film, the violence cannot really be argued to be a cheap shock tactic as it suits the graphic nature and style of the rest of the film.

My final example is going to come from this wiki, just so they hit a little closer to home. Cupcakes is a terrible story, and not because it is violent. It sucks because it is just a shit story. Jay ten's Ned and Verner stories are really fucked up, moreso than Cupcakes and probably every other story on the wiki. But they are good stories because they are written competently.

Anyway, that's my rant for today. I can see where the bad wrap for violence comes from, but that doesn't negate the fact that violence is not what makes a text bad. If a text is bad, it is just bad. Violence can add to how bad an already terrible story is, but it doesn't make a well executed text any worse.

Nice blog post creeper50, really invoking a thoughtful coversation, and I agree with you. Blood is alot more hated than it should be.

A_O.