First -- I love the posts from Joe. I had been hoping that he was reading along, and as usual he has been very generous in his responses. Great stuff.
Kalbear, on 20 December 2011 - 10:49 AM, said:
not really; it's not just speaking roles I'd prefer. And there's no specific quota either.
But Kalbear -- we don't even *know* the sexual orientation of the characters in the non-speaking roles. And isn't that what you want in the first place? For sexual orientations to be incidental?
The fact is that more than 20% of the women for whom we know orientation are lesbian. That should satisfy anyone who has a yen to promote the depiction of diversity in fictional societies.
-if someone is victimized by rape, have their viewpoint be explicit and more important than the men around them
Ahhh, but see -- if Joe were to do this in this case, he'd first have to change the whole structure of his book. Instead of 6 clearly defined POVs, he'd have to be including random minor POVs here and there just to satisfy a few folks who might be offended by each issue. How about POVs for each person who gets tortured? How about POVs for the council members who get jerked around by Glokta and Bayaz? It could be never ending.
-if sexual orientation is used, have it be for more than a tool against a person OR have it be not used for anything special at all
Okay, so now appear to be asking Abercrombie to leave out that element altogether, or to change its meaning altogether. How is that not censorship?
-if misogyny is used, have female characters that are clearly awesome and are in a shit situation
But **nobody** is "awesome" in these books. There are no perfectly wonderful characters. So why should Abercrombie single out Terez for sainthood? Wouldn't that be treating lesbians differently from everyone else -- which is exactly what you DON'T want him to do? By making Terez bitchy and obnoxious, he's making her just as imperfect as all his other characters. Isn't that what you want? To have lesbians treated the same as everyone else?
For about 4 pages many people on both sides argued she did not need to be a lesbian at all. You very strongly argued that she did.
I can see that we need to clarify terms here. We keep circling around the issues of "must/only if/has to be" and "more dramatic/works best".
Abercrombie **could** have threatened a male lover. Therefore it doesn't "have to be" a female lover. But it **works best/is more dramatic** if it's a female lover, for reasons already discusses well beyond ad nauseam. Nobody has yet proposed any alternatives that would work better or even as well.
Kalbear, on 20 December 2011 - 11:23 AM, said:
I would say that in the story her primary defining moment is that she is willing to be raped to save her lover
No argument there. I'd add the other defining moment of refusing to sleep with Jezal before the threats, though, since there'd be no need for them if she had been willing to submit in the first place.
and the only reason that that can happen in this book is because she's a lesbian and has a lesbian lover.
No. See above, and many many previous posts. She **could** have had a secret male lover. It simply **works better/is more dramatic** if it's a female lover.
I actually wanted to get back to that; you said it can't be rape without penetration, right? Well, Jezal finger fucks Terez quite clearly in the text.
Nope. You're working way too hard to imagine details that aren't actually there. I think there is pretty clear *fondling*, but we have absolutely NO details of penetration of any kind. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't -- but it is certainly not required by the text as written.
And since you mentioned the quote -- you can clearly see that we DO get Terez's reaction to the fondling, despite your many complaints about missing her POV.
"He felt her shudder, felt her flinch, and bite her lip in shock, it seemed, or even in disgust."
That's a pretty clear indication of how Terez feels about it.
We get a description of Jezal's rising cock
Wow, you really do seem to have quite the imagination here.
All we actually get is a "pleasant tingling building in his crotch". That's all. Trust me, that is nothing even vaguely approaching the descriptiveness that many authors include in sex scenes. It's actually very very restrained.
Right. And it's worth pointing out that their kiss is very explicitly NOT appealing. Their lips press together "clumsily". Their mouths move "mechanically". We hear the "squeak of breath in his nose" and the "squelch of spit moving".
it's also interesting to note that both Jezal was surprised she was not a virgin, so being a virgin bride isn't a big deal
Right. But that doesn't mean anything about taking lovers **after** marriage.
the reason, as you mention so many times, is that we do so because it's more of a visceral scene. Which means we're using rape for the shock value. Which has been another problem many have had.
Right. Abercrombie is using rape for shock value -- in just the same way as he uses torture for shock value. In just the same way as he uses graphic battle scenes for shock value.
Shall we ask Abercrombie to leave all of those out, just so he can avoid offending folks?
Ardee sleeping around is not a big deal. It's a magical world with fictional moralities and is apparently totally fine with premarital sex and has fairly effective means of contraception
There's a big difference between having a lover before marriage and having one after -- refer back to my earlier post about inheritance. And we already know that there is NOT good contraception in this society, because Ardee is pregnant with Jezal's baby by the end of the trilogy.