blood glory

i've been thinking lately about the complaint that so many people have that "this" or "that" glorifies violence. in effect, what many people are implying is that any display/description of violence on tv, a movie, music, or books is glorifying violence.

guess what? i don't buy it! by definition, anything that idealizes something, or makes it out to be better than it actually is, glorifies it. prime example: the terminator series. now, this is actually one of my guilty pleasures. i have seen all three episodes of that series and i would likely see future episodes. but, truth be told, in the terminator movies, violence is glorified. granted, the glorified violence is mostly the violence that is aimed at the "evil" robots, but you get my point (okay, not a great example...but you come up with a better one). if this offends you as a robot, my apologies.

the problem, that i find, is that people say that things like goodfellas, the sopranos, saving private ryan, basically glorify violence just because it is displayed. but, as i explained to someone recently, these things don't really glorify violence because it is generally not shown to be without consequences. in goodfellas, "good guys" and "bad guys" die. in the sopranos, violence has rarely, if ever, been shown to be without various consequences. in saving private ryan...well, if you've ever seen it, i doubt that you came away from it with a favorable perspective on violence.

so, what's the virtue of my time with you today? if you're one of those people that is so quick to proclaim that "this" or "that" glorifies violence, just think about how much "glory" is really being depicted in the simulated violence that you are condemning. then again, seeing that guy's legs blown off in "band of brothers" does make me want to join the army...