Kind of a takeoff on yesterday’s comments about sex being shunned in various media. Sex is reacted to so quickly—hello, FCC, did we show two people grinding in too realistic a manner?—but violence usually isn’t, except in the most improbable of ways.
When someone is shot on television (namely network television), they might have to go to the hospital or go through rehab, but rarely is the actual holy-crap-I’ve-been-hit shooting bloody. I mean, if someone was shot in the arm or the leg, they bleed. A lot. TV stabbings are even more ridiculous. There should be a damned pool of blood under him! And this begs the question of why they show violence if they don’t show the consequences correctly. This isn’t Looney Tunes and the dead guy isn’t the Coyote. He can’t detonate a bomb and not be blown to bits. CSI.
More vexing, people seem more willing to let children watch/read violence than to be exposed to sex. A few years ago, I went with my mother, sister and nine year old nephew to see the Halloween remake. I don’t know if she did it as a joke or not but my sister covered her son’s eyes whenever sex appeared on the screen. Um, hello? People were violently and semi-realistically murdered. Am I the only one more concerned about that?
Of course, I can’t complain too much since I was exposed to violence at a much younger age—Law and Order dead bodies, so it kind of borders on realistic. And you know. Stephen King. But regardless, is sex that much worse than graphic violence? Hell, look at the book I’m writing. No sex, but sooooo much violence—part of the story of course, but that’s immaterial. The point is, if (oh, please when) it gets published, I doubt it will be pulled (or threatened to) from libraries and schools like SPEAK, TWENTY BOY SUMMER, etc. Because in my book, it’s only people being shot. None of them are admitting a perfectly normal human function exists.