Violence in Literature
Jesse Weld
20 June 2012
World Literature II
Maybee
South University Violence is a apart of literature just as it is a part of our lives. Violence in literature is a story about our lives. Authors write about violence because it is inevitable in life. Authors are human just like us. So naturally, by reading literature violence is going to appear. Humans are only bound by their imagination as to how violent we can get. This is why violence is so prevalent inside the literature we read, because it is synonymous with our lives. We have to either see, hear, or talk about violence everyday of our lives. Literature reveals the types of violence that is experienced throughout time. Different periods of time have different views and tactics about violence. Now, in the twenty-first century technology has changed the way violence is executed. Literature has evolved along with the violence throughout time. When violence in literature changes so does violence in reality. Sometimes reality is recorded in literature as like a violence timeline. This tells people how and why violence changes or evolves into how we view violence today. Society changes towards more civilized people. No longer are there events like public hangings, decapitation, and showdowns. I know there are some cultures still may execute these events, but not very likely in the twenty-first century. In “Candide,” by Voltaire, the human capacity for violence is inspired by ignorance, but executed with unlimited imagination. Is violence necessary? Why is it or is not necessary? Is violence avoidable or unavoidable? Is violence acceptable or unacceptable? These are asked to all conflicts in life. "humankind has corrupted its nature a little, for people were not born wolves, yet they have invented them to destroy each other" (Voltaire, 2009, pg.319). Humans are not born with this instinct to kill like any other species. Everything and everyone are supposed to coexist. The idea is not to constantly fight, or to kill people or things. The humans of the twenty-first century are nowhere near as harsh, as cruel, or as public with order and justice. In the era of Voltaire, punishment happened immediately after conviction. It would seem that the smallest outburst would promote death or torture. Humans are not violent by nature; violence is a learned behavior. Violence shows no discrimination, for women were definitely treated like property instead of humans. Pirates thrive in the waters. "I will not tell you how hard it is for a young princess to be dragged off to Morocco as a slave with her mother. You can imagine everything we had to endure in the pirate ship" (Voltaire, 2009, pg.309). Women are not first-class citizens like men, royalty or not, pirates do not care. Pirates are expected to be violent savages. It should be common knowledge to avoid pirates by all means possible. Some things in life are not as easily avoidable; kidnapping is a good example of unavoidable violence. Is violence necessary? This question seems rhetorical because yes and no can suffice. Violence is needed in certain instances, just like anything else in life. There is a time and a place for everything. Candide's entire journey is violent. Everyplace he goes, bloodshed and massacre seem to follow Candide. Horrendous acts of violence happen for more than seven hundred and fifty miles around Morocco. This violence is acceptable only because of the overpowering ignorance. These Moorish soldiers are monsters the people pose no a threat in any way, yet death is still imminent. It would be difficult to hold a positive view of life during Candide's time. Everywhere I look is as if there is not any other way but violence to solve problems. Yes, violence is necessary, but sometimes it is not. The hardest of the questions ask whether is violence unavoidable. It really depends on where in the world a person is. Ignorance will always overcome reason, because barbarians do not possess the knowledge to think critically. In some instances, violence is completely avoidable, but a massacre is hard to escape. It is extremely hard to say violence is acceptable when so many people died so quickly. Finally, acceptability of violence is all in what part of the world people travel to and from. In different parts of the world and cultures psychological and physical violence varies. How people receive this violence is all about culture and eras in time. Each culture and era have their own ways of applying violence. Both psychological and physical violence coincide with each other, but both can also be separate from each other as well. Each type by its self can be powerful, along with both combined can be powerful too. Our imagination is what limits us to how far we want to take violence. Us as humans have come up with some really intense and unimaginable ways to kill or hurt people. Psychological violence is different from physical violence, but both can become the same entity. I would say that psychological violence is more powerful than physical violence. Wounds will heal physically, but psychologically wounds can be for life. Controlling someone with an object or words is a psychological approach, while killing anything is the ultimate physical violence. Each are effective in their ways of persuasion and control. Psychological and physical violence is usually executed separately. When these types of violence are executed together control is inevitable. Emilia Pardo Bazan wrote "The Revolver" focus around psychological violence of an object, a cold steeled revolver that makes her life miserable. Just as cold as the barrel she expects to feel, so is her soul because of a threat behind this revolver. Words from her husband, "Here is your guarantee that in the future your life will be peaceful and pleasant. [….] But the day I see something that wounds me to quick [….] I will get up quietly at night, take the weapon, put it to your temple, and you will wake up in eternity." (Bazan, 2009, pg 1123). make her believe enough to expect her death. She also has health problems on top of her life threatening husband. She has heart troubles, dizziness, fainting spells, and collapses. Because she is far too scared to touch the revolver, she has not a clue if it is loaded or unloaded. This woman fears for her life. The ammunition is not existent for the revolver she fears. She is not aware of this information until after her husband's death. She then realizes her misery is finally over, yet her soul is dead without a cartridge being fired. Her husband makes her life miserable with an object and some words. Tim O'Brien wrote "The Man I Killed" strictly as a war story. A man named Tim is a foot soldier in the Vietnam war. Tim is having a hard time dealing with a man he just killed, whether out of surprise, fright, or training. Nevertheless, Tim thinks he just killed a man, but not a soldier. An innocent civilian maybe, not at this time. "Oh, man, you fuckin' trashed the fucker," Azar says, "You scrambled his sorry self, look at that you did, you laid him out like Shredded fuckin Wheat" (O'Brien, 2009, pg 1506). Tim thinks about what just happened, and about the life this man led. Tim thought this man he killed was not a soldier; at this point, he cannot distinguish the difference between this man as a soldier or as a civilian. This dead man that lay before him was not trying to talk to Tim. Tim had no time for thinking he had to react. His training took over his mind, he reacted to the threat, and then his conscious kick in. At this moment Tim knew what he did, he had killed a man in war. Each soldier deals with murder differently. Tim was letting his mind wonder about this man he just killed. In this environment its kill or be killed. Tim chose to kill a man so he can live to tell the story. This dead man knew what would happen as soon as he started carrying a weapon. He knew what the outcome could be when contact is made with soldiers. A lot of people have trouble dealing with murder. Especially in war, for death is a part of war. Kiowa reassures Tim about his kill. "The guy was dead the second he stepped on the trail. Understand me? We all had him zeroed. A good kill ─ weapon, ammunition, everything" (O'Brien, 2009, pg 1508). Kiowa tries to make light of this kill by saying someone else would have killed him, if Tim had not. Kiowa tries to get Tim from staring so hard at his kill, and reassures Tim by explaining the reality of his kill. "No doubt about it. All you needed was time ─ some mental R&R" (O'Brien, 2009, pg 1509). Kiowa tries to get Tim's mind off the stress of killing another man. Kiowa tells Tim to talk about it what just happened. Kiowa is trying to get Tim to make this kill easier to bear psychologically. Kiowa figures if Tim will talk Tim can put his mind at rest with this kill. The psychological connection between these two stories is death. The wife in "The Revolver" is miserable and fearful that she will die at any moment. While Tim from "The Man I Killed" just killed a man in war. Psychologically, death is being thought about with major concern in these stories. The wife cannot get the courage to physically find out if the revolver is loaded. She never considers investigating the revolver, because of her petrifying fear of it. She lets this control her life for four years. Tim just killed a man in war, and makes up a story for the rest of his life. When the first contact is made, a very fast decision has to be made. Kill or be killed, because the world still goes on even after we died. It all comes to the fact of how long do we want to live in this world. Minus the natural death causes, are we willing to have enough courage to kill or to investigate a threat. The way literature portrays violence is that humans are breed for violent behavior which is not true. We are not born wanting to be violent instinctively. Violence is a learned behavior through parents, friends, colleagues, or strangers. Humans are very visual and mimicking creatures. We see an act of violence done at early ages and mimic that action. This is how humans learn through interaction and visual stimulation. Violence will always be synonymous with our way of life, because we learn violence from people before us. Violence in literature is like a violence timeline. Just like everything else we learn also from the past. Literature is documented history, and is how we learn whether the outcome was good or bad.

References
Bazan, E. P. (2009). Candide. In P. Davis, G. Harrison, D. M. Johnson, & J. F. Crawford (Eds.), The bedford anthology of world literature: the modern world, 1650 - present (Compact ed., Vol. 2, pp.1120-1124). Boston: Bedford St. Martin's. O'Brien (2009). The man I killed. In P. Davis, G. Harrison, D. M. Johnson, & J. F. Crawford (Eds.), The bedford anthology of world literature: the modern world, 1650 - present (Compact ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1505-1509). Boston: Bedford St. Martin's.
Kirkpatrick, Gwen. (1987). Technology and violence: Casal, Darío, Lugones. The Johns Hopkins University Pres. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2905694

Voltaire, F. A. (2009). Candide. In P. Davis, G. Harrison, D. M. Johnson, & J. F. Crawford (Eds.), The bedford anthology of world literature: the modern world, 1650 - present (D. Gordon, Trans., Compact ed., Vol. 2, pp. 302-365). Boston: Bedford St. Martin's.