Rape in fiction

[Maia]

Hence why, in AFFC, Brienne is constantly confronted with threats of rape - it may be off-putting to some readers, but what do you expect?

Actually, I felt that with Brienne specifically it was manipulative and implausible. In a society with rigidly gender codified roles and clothing, a large, ugly, obviously weapons-savvy person with a broken nose and dressed as a warrior would have automatically been considered a man. Maybe an odd man, but still.

Generally, yes, it is and was a real danger IRL, but I do feel that it is overused with female protagonists, particularly as a motivator. And underused as a real danger with all these boy protagonists, too.

[Zoë Sumra]

In a society with rigidly gender codified roles and clothing, a large, ugly, obviously weapons-savvy person with a broken nose and dressed as a warrior would have automatically been considered a man. Maybe an odd man, but still.

Mmm, which is why I always imagine Brienne with an extremely feminine voice - there has to be some immediately evident feature to stop people making that mistake.

[Alexia]

I always assumed it was the lack of facial hair that gave it away. But now I'm remembering that several times she went unremarked until she spoke.

[Zoë Sumra]

Some adolescent men have trouble growing a sizeable amount of facial hair until they're nineteen or twenty; many southern Westerosi men shave. Given Brienne's age, I assumed a man in her position wouldn't be expected definitely to have visible facial hair.

[Maia]

I always assumed it was the lack of facial hair that gave it away.

You have to remember, though, that blond men used to get facial hair much later in the past. There is a story of O'Henry's that features a blond young man of twenty with "a face that didn't yet know the humiliation of a razor". And he is supposed to be a very normal young man, not a freak.

Also, one of the major characters in one of Islandic sagas is one "beardless Njall", IIRC.

And that Russian gentlewoman who served in cavalry during Napoleonic wars was at it for 10 years and made captain before her lack of whiskers started to hinder her career.

And even the voice - again, boys voices used to break much later due to diet, etc. And there were always a few men with naturally high voices, as well as possibilities of unfortunate wounds, etc.

No, everybody and their dog immediately recognizing Brienne as a woman just doesn't make sense. It had a feel of being a demonstration piece on the plight of women in ASOIAF... but Brienne wasn't a plausible subject for it IMHO. Not in this way.

[Chaldanya]

That depends entirely on the circumstances, though. For example, within a married/long-term couple, consent can be assumed unless one actively says no. Same with, say, guy meets girl in a bar, wink-wink nudge-nudge let's go back to my apartment and let's start making out kind of thing.

Wrong.

Just because you've had sex once/twice/hundred times with someone doesn't mean that you've consented to every instance of sex that the other person wants when they want - that's when your body becomes their property. That goes for both situations; just cause you've gone back to the apartment after a club it doesn't mean that sex is automatically there for you. You have still got to ask and make sure there's enthusiastic consent.

So, I guess you could have a rape without an actual rapist...

Wrong.

I actually can't believe that you typed that sentence in all seriousness. Rape is a definite action performed by someone. The woman couldn't bring herself to call the rapist that because she has been conditioned (like the rest of us) by rape culture narrative that we are swimming in in which unless you are a virgin and fighting them off then you've not really been raped. She was raped and he raped her. He's a rapist.

N

[Isis]

That depends entirely on the circumstances, though. For example, within a married/long-term couple, consent can be assumed unless one actively says no.

I must have missed this one the first time round.

WTFF? Is it really 2010? Really? Someone pinch me.

[Morrigan]

Wrong.

Just because you've had sex once/twice/hundred times with someone doesn't mean that you've consented to every instance of sex that the other person wants when they want - that's when your body becomes their property. That goes for both situations; just cause you've gone back to the apartment after a club it doesn't mean that sex is automatically there for you. You have still got to ask and make sure there's enthusiastic consent.

Um, yes. Thank you for attacking this neat little strawman. Next time, though, please try to refute something I actually said, instead of something you conjured up out of thin air.

I did NOT say that in a long-term relationship, you "have consented to every instance of sex that the other person wants when they want", or that "sex is automatically there for you". That's a rather blatant and grotesque strawman, really.

I DID say that in some circumstances, such as a long-term relationship, consent can be reasonably assumed by the person unless the other person says no. I really don't see what's remotely controversial about that.

Perhaps you folks explicitly, verbally ask your long-term partner if they consent every time you have sex. Whatever floats your boat. If I start to fondle my boyfriend, and he doesn't brush me off, I'm being reasonable by assuming he's consenting, and vice-versa. I don't need to verbally ask him, "is this okay? can I continue?" and neither does he.

Wrong.

I actually can't believe that you typed that sentence in all seriousness. Rape is a definite action performed by someone.

See the Jezal/Glokta/Terez situation. Hypothetical and fictional and definitely particular, but still plausible.

The woman couldn't bring herself to call the rapist that because she has been conditioned (like the rest of us) by rape culture narrative that we are swimming in in which unless you are a virgin and fighting them off then you've not really been raped. She was raped and he raped her. He's a rapist.

Right.... She says that because she's "conditioned" by "rape culture". Of course.

While I won't claim I know this woman well, I do know her a bit from her forum posts and I have more respect for her and her opinion than to assume she's brainwashed. (For what it's worth, without more info about him, I would say that he's a rapist, but I understand where Fiona is coming from.)

By the way, neither she (nor I) would ever claim that if you aren't physically resisting, it can't be rape. Enough with the strawmen already. I realize this is a controversial and touchy subject but that's no reason to distorting what is being said.

[Bellis]

<mod> It maybe a good idea to move on from definitions of rape and back to literature... </mod>

[Morrigan]

You're right, Bellis. Apologies.

To get back on topic, then: I think the rape scene which disturbed me the most personally, and which happened sort of off-screen , was in the first Black Company book. Croaker vaguely mentions the result of a successful campaign against Rebels, and sees many of his men, including Elmo (his very good friend) carrying off women as prize to do with them as they please. Croaker doesn't like it that much, but you can tell that it doesn't bother him so much either, since "they were Rebels after all, they knew the risk". I recall the wording where he describes it as "mauling the ladies", which made me wince.

I found that short scene to be utterly depressing, namely because it's written in such a casual, "eh, yeah it happens *shrugs*" kind of way. It gave a lot of realism to Croaker's character; in fact, it's depressing because it's realistic, and it reminds you that people really believed that way; women were just property, and those captured in war were just prizes with which you could do whatever you want and hey, that's okay. :( While the Black Company is never portrayed as "the good guys" per se, they are not meant to be shown as evil either, and characters like Elmo, a rapist mind you, is not portrayed as an especially vicious or mean bastard. He's basically a normal soldier.

It depressed/disturbed me because it's difficult for me to accept a rapist as anything else than a complete monster. But that's not historically accurate or realistic. :\

[Bellis]

So I just speed-read The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. This is a book that's ostensibly crawling with the message that men are bad to women. The original Swedish title was "Men Who Hate Women". There's lots of rape, incest, abuse... and yet because of this thread I was looking at it all very critically. And it didn't work for me. Maybe because it all seemed like window-dressing. The main character didn't seem realistic enough as a person to carry it off. Did anyone else read this book?

Also, the entire Terez thing in LaoK was one of the things that ruined The First Law for me as a series. I was disgusted by how it was treated almost as comic relief (like isn't it cool we get to put this stuck-up dyke in her place...).

[ljkeane]

Also, the entire Terez thing in LaoK was one of the things that ruined The First Law for me as a series. I was disgusted by how it was treated almost as comic relief (like isn't it cool we get to put this stuck-up dyke in her place...).

That's true but worse things than Terez's treatment are addressed in a somewhat light manner in the series. If that's something that bothers you then fair enough, but I'm not sure why that shouldn't apply to the treatment of things like torture and murder.

[Bellis]

That's true but worse things than Terez's treatment are addressed in a somewhat light manner in the series. If that's something that bothers you then fair enough, but I'm not sure why that shouldn't apply to the treatment of things like torture and murder.

Fair enough... and it probably comes back to how we've been socially de-sensitized to violence, especially the type of light-handed violence in genre fiction/film.

Plus, more than any of the other Glotka doing grey stuff scenes, I got the sense that we were supposed to cheer for him (and Jezel) because they were the characters we knew and loved for 3 books, as opposed to Terez who we were supposed to hate. But again, I'd have to re-read the series to be certain that wasn't the case at other times.

[Shryke]

Also, the entire Terez thing in LaoK was one of the things that ruined The First Law for me as a series. I was disgusted by how it was treated almost as comic relief (like isn't it cool we get to put this stuck-up dyke in her place...).

I think that's entirely something you are reading into the book.

It's more a demonstration of Glokta being like Bayaz (or Bayaz's continuing fuckery with Glokta as a proxy). Everyone gets pushed around and manipulated.

Terez's whole situation is itself sort of a "Fuck you" to traditional fairy tale stuff anyway. Jezel goes from Officer to King, gets the gorgeous beautiful queen .... and she wants nothing to do with him.

[Ormond]

You have to remember, though, that blond men used to get facial hair much later in the past. There is a story of O'Henry's that features a blond young man of twenty with "a face that didn't yet know the humiliation of a razor". And he is supposed to be a very normal young man, not a freak.

This wasn't just blond men, it was men in general, because puberty used to happen much later on average than it does now.

The problem with that theory in regard to Westeros, however, is that GRRM doesn't seem to follow it with his male characters. He has the young son of Davos starting to shave at an age which would be younger than average nowadays, and yet it's presented as a completely normal thing for his age.

[Sebastian]

Fair enough... and it probably comes back to how we've been socially de-sensitized to violence, especially the type of light-handed violence in genre fiction/film.

Plus, more than any of the other Glotka doing grey stuff scenes, I got the sense that we were supposed to cheer for him (and Jezel) because they were the characters we knew and loved for 3 books, as opposed to Terez who we were supposed to hate. But again, I'd have to re-read the series to be certain that wasn't the case at other times.

Really? I guess I understand where you're coming from but I don't believe this was Abercrombie's intention at all. I thought it was basically a reminder that Glokta is a horrible, horrible person, just in case the reader might end up liking him at the end of LAoK. The fact that it was written in such a sneering tone (from Glokta's point of view) is supposed to make it even more disgusting. It's just another part of the extremely dark and unhappy ending.

[MinDonner]

Really? I guess I understand where you're coming from but I don't believe this was Abercrombie's intention at all. I thought it was basically a reminder that Glokta is a horrible, horrible person, just in case the reader might end up liking him at the end of LAoK. The fact that it was written in such a sneering tone (from Glokta's point of view) is supposed to make it even more disgusting. It's just another part of the extremely dark and unhappy ending.

That's what I took from the scene, too; the "light-heartedness" of it comes entirely from Glokta's perspective, and I read it as just another idealistic rug whisked from under the reader's feet - these guys we've been cheering for all the way through are bad, bad people. Very black humour, perhaps, but I didn't see it as any kind of justification for what happened to Terez.

[Ski the Swift]

Firstly, this thread is epic.

I read earlier back that not many men get raped in fantasy/fiction. I'm fairly certain that Kvothe, from The Name of the Wind, is raped once in his years as a street urchin in the city or Tarbean. It's only mentioned in a paragraph in there and is very vague, but it's there.

[Joe Abercrombie]

I was disgusted by how it was treated almost as comic relief (like isn't it cool we get to put this stuck-up dyke in her place...).

I got the sense that we were supposed to cheer for him (and Jezel) because they were the characters we knew and loved for 3 books

Wow, that really wasn't the intention at all. Glokta may be entertained, but the man's a monster. Part of the whole point of these books is to challenge the assumption that the people we happen to follow are necessarily the right side, or indeed that there is such a thing. You should feel deeply uncomfortable about them at the end. You seriously think the reader is meant to cheer for this?

The fact that it was written in such a sneering tone (from Glokta's point of view) is supposed to make it even more disgusting.

Well, exactly.

Terez's whole situation is itself sort of a "Fuck you" to traditional fairy tale stuff anyway. Jezel goes from Officer to King, gets the gorgeous beautiful queen .... and she wants nothing to do with him.

Indeed. Traditional epic fantasy tends to have a lot of arranged marriages that blossom into love, and I didn't find that terribly realistic, any more than I did that ancient wizards would be always benevolent, that long lost kings would be always brave and effective, or that magical quests by mismatched groups of champions would always result in success.

[Bellis]

Thanks, Joe, for dropping by. :)

ETA: I guess I just had a visceral reaction to that particular scene (re: Terez) (which is a compliment to the writer!) but I'm possibly misremembering exactly why (which might be my own fail).