Tintin Forums

I was reading PRISONERS OF THE SUN just now, for the second time overall and I noticed the KILLING SPREE!

The killing spree to which I am referring is the killing of Peruvian mountain animals, one after another, after another, after another. I know they did it to save themselves. But it brought to memory TINTIN IN THE CONGO, which I haven't read, but for those of us who haven't read it, when we think of it, we think of Tintin blasting the hell out of a poor rhino.

Not to mention the grisly deaths of the thugs who accosted our heroes. We didn't see them die but we can only imagine. It is quite a violent album!

That brings to mind "The Broken Ear" with the numerous deaths in it; along with Corporal Diaz being blown to smithereens.

Have you read Soviets? In it everyone on board a train gets blown up as well; except for Tintin and Snowy, oddly ...

waveofplague said: I was reading PRISONERS OF THE SUN just now, for the second time overall and I noticed the KILLING SPREE!

Yes, its surprising the amount of animals killed ... but since most of them were killed in self-defense I don't find a problem with it ...

I also don't find a problem with 15 antelope killed in "Congo"; of course it's not nice to see, but its obvious our young reporter didn't mean it ...

Not to mention the grisly deaths of the thugs who accosted our heroes. We didn't see them die but we can only imagine.

Yes, I also have always been struck with the grisly fact of how all those bad guys go over the cliff in snowballs. Overall though, I don't think that Prisoners of the Sun is any more violent than Congo.

Mentioning on Tintin In Congo, he never saw the antelope collapsed and he saw another antelope to change it's place in a spilt second. Looks like Tintin have a small optical problem back then.

tintinspartan
Looks like Tintin have a small optical problem back then.
Or maybe he had a very smoky old gun, which obscured his view each time he fired.

Personally, I don't have any problem with Tintin shooting fifteen antelopes as long as someone is going to eat them afterwards. These antelope get a quicker, kinder death than many of the thousands of animals killed in abatoirs everyday, but the publishers don't feel it necessary to give The Shooting Star a wrap-round cover band warning readers that the book contains scenes of sausages being cooked.

Admittedly killing the elephant for its tusks, skinning a chimp, and dynamiting a rhino (cut and replaced in the Swedish and English editions) do seem thuggish and wrong, but Tintin isn't killing people, so I don't think the violence in Congo is as shocking as books where people lose their lives. It worries me a bit when people equate the killing of animals (I mean non-human animals) with the killing of people. It's the portrayal of black Africans which seems most wrong and dated about Congo. And, to be honest, I think the portrayal of black Africans in The Red Sea Sharks is almost equally patronising, great book though that otherwise is.

To get back on topic, I think the book with the highest death toll may be The Secret of the Unicorn, where all of Sir Francis Haddock's crew (which would have been a considerable number of men) are either killed in battle or made to walk the plank, and where all of the pirates not killed in battle are blown up. But the fact that these deaths occur in a historical story, rather than as part of the book's contemporary action, maybe makes them less disturbing.

I agree that those Incas going over the cliff in Prisoners of the Sun seems very disturbing. I think this may partly be because their deaths have been caused as a direct result of Captain Haddock's charge at them. I think this is the only instance in the books where any of the main goodie characters directly brings about anyone's death.

Tintin in Congo...

It's actually hard to tell. When you look at the books carefully, most of them have a substantial current of violence running through them. But could "Congo" really be considered violent? It was written in the early 30s, so I don't think holding it up to today's ethical standards is really fair. (No kiddies, PETA wasn't around back then, LOL).

Forgive me for playing devil's advocate, but there's something about the brutality of the adventures which really appeals to me. With the kind of life-and-death journeys Tintin goes on it's only realistic to portray the carnage of both animals and humans along the way. I grew up in the early nineties surrounded by squeamishly sugar-coated cartoons in which it was considered hardcore to even show a bad guy buying the farm (speaking of which, the Nelvana animation DID clean up some of the nastier bits in the books). Yes, it's a bit disturbing, but I'd rather be disturbed by a good story than patronised by a poor one.

As for the portrayal of violence against animals in and racial stereotypes "Congo" & "Red Sea Sharks", bring it on. Don't get me wrong, I totally embrace animal rights and racial harmony and all that jazz (come on, I'm an ART STUDENT!), but once again it's refreshing to find a bit of biting political incorrectness in the stories.

I am also of the opinion that Prisoners of the sun is the most violent

Shaggy Milou
When you look at the books carefully, most of them have a substantial current of violence running through them.
You might want to look at this thread, which tries to tot up how many people actually die throughout the series; a bit speculative in places, but I think you might be surprised at just how much carnage there is…!

Not so much violent as action packed would be the Calculous Affair.

Congo and Broken Ear, although Soviets was rather violent.