Violence, rape, and agency in the "gritty fantasies"

[Shryke]

Not intentionally. Just to be clear, not trying to say Abercrombie had a hard on when he wrote the scene.

The problem is Terez's perspective is lost, and the text is problematic due to that it can be arousing to the wrong person. As Nukelavee showed us via a linked article I'll try to find, rapists think everyone is a rapist and look for things to support that notion.

We aren't supposed to see it from Terez's perception. Why is this problematic?

I mean, if we are worried about "arousing the wrong person", better to not write anything. 14 year old boys could read it!

[SkynJay]

No, I am not kidding you. That was my perception. Jerzal gets a guilt free rape, and through his character as narrative vehicle we are told about Terez's sexualized body. Why not write the scene from Terez's perspective?

Mostly because Terez isn't one of the PoV characters I would think. We do not get the perspective of anyone but the main characters.

And if Abercrombie wasn't writing it to arouse, and most the readers don't see it that way, is he really responsible because some may be aroused? He is responsible for sickos taking his writing the wrong way?

I personally read the scene as Gloka finding a whole new area of nasty due to the string pulling of his master. Was I far off from what the average reader saw in the scene?

[Sci-2]

The problem is the male perspective is focused on, whereas the female is voiceless and a lesbian and so easily made a victim. For a trilogy billed as subversive (by us fans who might think of River of Gods or Windup Girl as great cultural travelogues) it is sad that the text is so predictable in the utilization of these tropes.

Texts describing rape should, in the interest of artistic merit if nothing else, give us the perspective of the person the action is being done to. They should not (<-edit and apologies) be a voiceless hot chick -> as much as I'll hail Bakker as amazing I think the same problem exists in one of his TWP rape scenes, where a victim is described as "lithe" and there's a focus on her nipples.

Do these victims have to be hot? Can't one of them have cellulite on her thighs, in the same way men go bald and have guts?

[Shryke]

The problem is the male perspective is focused on, whereas the female is voiceless and a lesbian and so easily made a victim. For a trilogy billed as subversive (by us fans who might think of River of Gods or Windup Girl as great cultural travelogues) it is sad that the text is so predictable in the utilization of these tropes.

.... what tropes are these?

Texts describing rape should, in the interest of artistic merit if nothing else, give us the perspective of the person the action is being done to. They should not (<-edit and apologies) be a voiceless hot chick -> as much as I'll hail Bakker as amazing I think the same problem exists in one of his TWP rape scenes, where a victim is described as "lithe" and there's a focus on her nipples.

Why? Especially when that's practically the opposite point of the whole thing.

Do these victims have to be hot? Can't one of them have cellulite on her thighs, in the same way men go bald and have guts?

On a thematic level, she's supposed to be the beautiful princess.

[Sci-2]

Actually while eating lunch I realized yeah, perhaps there might be a point to not having a rape described from the victim's perspective. But I don't understand you here:

Especially when that's practically the opposite point of the whole thing.

My point with regard to artistic merit is how predictable rape scenes in fantasy are. They are often used to portray a man's pain, or for a man to be bad-ass and heroic about vengeance. The female character will then forgive the assailant. Erikson has one of the stupidest scenes like this in one of the Malazan books, it is literally a by-the-numbers run through.

The tropes are Terez is a bitch, she emasculates our male POV (was her antagonism ever explained?), but ultimately she is powerless and humiliated by a male. I think we've all at least heard of porn with this plot. The ingredient that creates more problems is that Jerzal isn't responsible for the rape he commits. On the one hand it is an interesting narrative twist, OTOH we have a guilt-free rape of a humiliated "bitch".

Really, the logic of the scene gets stupider every time I read it. Terez thinks that Glokta will just keep his word? That none of his guards will rape her lover? She doesn't think to invoke her father's power and the power of the countess's political connections?

Barring her unexplained, naive refusal to make an heir, after having sex with Jerzal she wouldn't think to accuse Glokta of kidnapping the countess (which apparently no one misses) for his own deviant desires? What will he say - "No, this highly connected beautiful woman is a lesbian! I did it for the Crown!"

ETA: English grammar and spelling.

[Humble Asskicker]

Not intentionally. Just to be clear, not trying to say Abercrombie had a hard on when he wrote the scene.

The problem is Terez's perspective is lost, and the text is problematic due to that it can be arousing to the wrong person. As Nukelavee showed us via a linked article I'll try to find, rapists think everyone is a rapist and look for things to support that notion.

Her perspective definitely was not lost. The text clearly enumerated the action via PoV to illustrate Jeezal's completely duncery - the shining prince is raping the princess, and is so utterly foppish and not a paragon of princeliness that he is unaware of his misconduct. His character has evolved in such a way that he's become a man of better intentions, but fitting the themes of this book, this evolution is fairly irrelevant as the agency of pretty much everyone is controlled by an almost infallible dictator.

Terez's perspective we the audience are already fully cognizant of. I would find it hard to believe that anyone could misinterpret her actions as indicative of enjoyment. The scene's depiction would simply tell us what we already know: Terez is being forced in this deeply unpleasant situation despite her will, and feels nothing but horror at it. I would venture that adding her PoV would not only absent us of a thorough illumination of the culmination of Jeezel's character arc (which substantiates the trilogy's theme), but would be a tokenistic gratuity of excessively pounding home the message that the lesbian characters are being aggrieved.

Whether this theme is productive, has anything of import to add on the themes of life, the universe and everything, or whether the scene itself effectively informs on that theme is naturally something that only the audience can determine for themselves.

I personally don't find it terribly surprising that this violation, among the vast heap of intended unpleasantness in the series, is getting the most attention. Murder, torture and general disenfranchisement is prosaic, whereas the disempowerment and exploitation of women is a sensitive issue around here. The nascent paradigm shift of respect for woman as politically equal and autonomous beings is still in process, and therefore any working handling the issue with anything less than reverence and support for the further cultivation of female empowerment will be controversial.

On my part, I enjoyed the hell out of Abercrombie's trilogy, and the proceeding books. I thought the scene being contested now was brilliant, clever and extremely well done. I thought that of the other torture scenes as well.

[SkynJay]

Really, the logic of the scene gets stupider every time I read it. Terez thinks that Glokta will just keep his word? That none of his guards will rape her lover? She doesn't think to invoke her father's power and the power of the countess's political connections?

Barring her unexplained, naive refusal to make an heir, after having sex with Jerzal she wouldn't think to accuse Glokta of kidnapping the countess (which apparently no one misses) for his own deviant desires? What will he say - "No, this highly connected beautiful woman is a lesbian! I did it for the Crown!"

I don't understand this point. Her father has already married her off, maybe or maybe not knowing her preference, but obviously not caring. Who is she going to call kidnapping on, when the inquisition has made people disappear all trilogy? She obviously knows who is running things around there, so who is she going to call out to? Who in this nasty world is going to care about the countess?

[Grack21]

Also, again, I apologize for flipping out. Bad day.

You know, I totally forgot about this scene til yesterday. Ambercrombie's sex scenes tend to be either forgettable or gross. I never got the intention any of it was meant to arouse.

[Sci-2]

I would venture that adding her PoV would not only absent us of a thorough illumination of the culmination of Jeezel's character arc (which substantiates the trilogy's theme), but would be a tokenistic gratuity of excessively pounding home the message that the lesbian characters are being aggrieved.

I see what you're saying, which is why I retracted my initial "always depict from victim perspective". I don't actually agree that it would have been tokenism, and given the women-in-fridge trope that runs through much of spec-fic it would have made the novel more subversive than, as I said in the other thread, putting logical nots over standard Tolkien/D&D tropes.

Who is she going to call kidnapping on, when the inquisition has made people disappear all trilogy? She obviously knows who is running things around there, so who is she going to call out to? Who in this nasty world is going to care about the countess?

It's been awhile, but has anyone at the political level of Terez challenged Glokta? What exactly would his defense be if brought before Jerzal and the Council? But again, I think the criticism that cuts deepest is Terez's willful denial that she will have to bear the King an heir.

[Shryke]

Actually while eating lunch I realized yeah, perhaps there might be a point to not having a rape described from the victim's perspective. But I don't understand you here:

My point with regard to artistic merit is how predictable rape scenes in fantasy are. They are often used to portray a man's pain, or for a man to be bad-ass and heroic about vengeance. The female character will then forgive the assailant. Erikson has one of the stupidest scenes like this in one of the Malazan books, it is literally a by-the-numbers run through.

The tropes are Terez is a bitch, she emasculates our male POV (was her antagonism ever explained?), but ultimately she is powerless and humiliated by a male. I think we've all at least heard of porn with this plot. The ingredient that creates more problems is that Jerzal isn't responsible for the rape he commits. On the one hand it is an interesting narrative twist, OTOH we have a guilt-free rape of a humiliated "bitch".

Wha??? What the hell book were you reading?

It's not a guilt free rape. The point is, Jezal doesn't even know it's rape. It's supposed to be (and is) horrible.

The point isn't that she's "put in her place" by a man for daring to emasculate the male POV character(s), but that she is powerless just like everyone else (including the male POV character(s) you mention).

Really, the logic of the scene gets stupider every time I read it. Terez thinks that Glokta will just keep his word? That none of his guards will rape her lover? She doesn't think to invoke her father's power and the power of the countess's political connections?

Barring her unexplained, naive refusal to make an heir, after having sex with Jerzal she wouldn't think to accuse Glokta of kidnapping the countess (which apparently no one misses) for his own deviant desires? What will he say - "No, this highly connected beautiful woman is a lesbian! I did it for the Crown!"

Terez knows the score here. She's not a stupid woman. Glokta is the power behind the throne and can very easily do what he wants to her.

It's been awhile, but has anyone at the political level of Terez challenged Glokta? What exactly would his defense be if brought before Jerzal and the Council? But again, I think the criticism that cuts deepest is Terez's willful denial that she will have to bear the King an heir.

Bayaz controls the council through Glokta. She may not know the specifics, but she knows who's in charge in the Union.

Shit, if nothing else Glokta can easily make her lover disappear. That's more then enough of a threat.

[Sci-2]

It's not a guilt free rape. The point is, Jezal doesn't even know it's rape. It's supposed to be (and is) horrible.

Sorry, I don't know if I'm explaining this correctly. Yes, as I said above for Jezal to unknowingly have sex with someone coerced through force is an interesting narrative twist. From the perspective of the reader, however, we are using Jezal as a vehicle and he is about to have sex with a (edit: predictably) hot chick (edit: who is forced into it). That I think bears some consideration, as does Terez's personality prior to her forced submissive role.

I just think if Terez had to deal with hiding her homosexuality from the courts of her homeland (that Italy-esque country right?) she'd have some perspective on her place here. If, as you say, Glokta can make the countess disappear without any trouble, why does she trust him to ever release her? Why not accuse him of being a sick, twisted rapist?

And no one back in...Talins(?) is going to miss the countess or inquire what's up with her? There aren't going to be visiting dignitaries or family expecting letters?

[Shryke]

Sorry, I don't know if I'm explaining this correctly. Yes, as I said above for Jezal to unknowingly have sex with someone coerced through force is an interesting narrative twist. From the perspective of the reader, however, we are using Jezal as a vehicle and he is about to have sex with a (edit: predictably) hot chick (edit: who is forced into it). That I think bears some consideration, as does Terez's personality prior to her forced submissive role.

What bears some consideration and why? You just keep restating "a hot women was raped" as if this was more then just a description of what happened. What's the issue here? Are you saying this is something people shouldn't write about or something?

I just think if Terez had to deal with hiding her homosexuality from the courts of her homeland (that Italy-esque country right?) she'd have some perspective on her place here. If, as you say, Glokta can make the countess disappear without any trouble, why does she trust him to ever release her? Why not accuse him of being a sick, twisted rapist?

What would that accomplish? He's the most powerful person in the Union pretty much. Again, she's not dumb. She's got no leverage in this situation.

And no one back in...Talins(?) is going to miss the countess or inquire what's up with her? There aren't going to be visiting dignitaries or family expecting letters?

The Union is alot more powerful then Talins. Same as above. Especially when the marriage that any sort of complaint would put in jeopardy is a major boon for Talins.

[Serious Callers Only]

yep.

I don't like "teh gritty" but this is not "criticism", just annoyance that the book actually delivers on the "teh gritty".

Now i'm sure most people would enjoy that Terez got her revenge on her seriously more powerful antagonists (and the oblivious rapist), but:

teh gritty is what you wanted. You wanted fantasies that had no escapism, where the bad guys actually did bad things, and the outcomes were dictated by power and ruthlessness.

deal with it.

Maybe we will have a homosexual rapist in the next book ala Cnaiur. Hell, make it a she for the offensive trifecta.

[Prince Alexander]

I have a question to anyone who agrees with the article linked in OP: if you were the author, how would you portray the scene differently... or would you avoid the whole plot point altogether and think of something else?

[Sci-2]

What bears some consideration and why? You just keep restating "a hot women was raped" as if this was more then just a description of what happened. What's the issue here? Are you saying this is something people shouldn't write about or something?

My point is that the story isn't written in a cultural vacuum, that one more story about putting "bitches in their place" reinforces stereotypical tropes and societal issues in RL.

Edit: It reinforces the "asking for it" stereotype.

Again, this isn't to suggest Abercrombie hates women or anything like that, but in the same way me writing a story where black characters are criminals (because I know non-US citizens who think African Americans, barring "good ones" are criminals) or gay males are easily panicked and emotional reinforces negative stereotypes and problematic narratives people run through their heads in RL.

Now, should art be self-censoring? I have a strong antipathy toward censorship, at the same time I can see how narratives reinforce problematic cultural norms, so I'm on the fence at the moment.

You wanted fantasies that had no escapism, where the bad guys actually did bad things, and the outcomes were dictated by power and ruthlessness.

deal with it.

....what?

[Serious Callers Only]

The trend towards frank brutality and "realism" (or what is thought as such) in fantasy is fairly recent - it was rare before aSoiaF got popular (though there were some examples).

Focusing, few fantasy depicted rapes, most had no gender oppression pointed out (or whatever woman's studies call it now). This was probably to capture the women's reader market, because earlier yet there were few women protagonists and fewer in sword&sorcery (i think C.L. Moore was the first), or just because a fantasy where the world is as (more) shitty as the real world is just not really escapism, is it?

This board is composed of aSoiaF fans. Need more of a explanation of the rant?

[sologdin]

always thought that "agency" was a weak philosophical concept, and an even worse tool for literary analysis, especially in the hands of lefty theorists.

[Shryke]

The trend towards frank brutality and "realism" (or what is thought as such) in fantasy is fairly recent - it was rare before aSoiaF got popular (though there were some examples).

Few fantasy depicted rapes, most had no gender oppression (or whatever woman's studies call it now). This was probably to capture the women's reader market, because earlier yet there were few women protagonists and fewer in sword&sorcery (i think C.L. Moore was the first)

This board is composed of aSoiaF fans. Need more of a explanation of the rant?

I'd say it's just the natural end result of the movement in fantasy that, in some ways, goes back to it's start. Tolkien more or less synthesized mythology (his own) into a story format, into a novel. He took the fantastical and made it more real. It's a story about great heroes and such things, but done through characters.

And that trend of more or less normalizing the depiction of the fantastical has continued. Even if you don't think it starts with Tolkien, it definitely starts not long after with people like Donaldson. And the trend has continued since, which each successive generation beyond less fairy tale and more character story. It's a movement towards realism.

And ultimately, that movement leads to "gritty", because realism ultimately leads to the acknowledgement that the real world can be a real shitty, nasty place.

[Serious Callers Only]

I LIKE my escapism.

Fortunately, i don't think it's going anywhere actually. There's a pushback.

[Shryke]

My point is that the story isn't written in a cultural vacuum, that one more story about putting "bitches in their place" reinforces stereotypical tropes and societal issues in RL.

Except that's not what's happening. You are reading that into the story. And that's your prerogative I guess, but it doesn't mean writing about that stuff is wrong or bad or sexist or any of that bull.

Edit: It reinforces the "asking for it" stereotype.

Again, this isn't to suggest Abercrombie hates women or anything like that, but in the same way me writing a story where black characters are criminals (because I know non-US citizens who think African Americans, barring "good ones" are criminals) or gay males are easily panicked and emotional reinforces negative stereotypes and problematic narratives people run through their heads in RL.

Now, should art be self-censoring? I have a strong antipathy toward censorship, at the same time I can see how narratives reinforce problematic cultural norms, so I'm on the fence at the moment.

No, art should not be self-censoring. Certainly not based on misinterpretations of the book itself.

Look, the point of the whole First Law series is a lack of power on the part of the characters. They have no real large-scale control over their lives. They are at the mercy of greater forces then themselves even if they don't realise it. (Really, it's practically a fantasy version of the Cold War, except the main characters are the Third World)

And that's what this scene is all about. Both parties involved are being controlled. Jezal is just rather clueless to that fact (which is part of the reason it works from his POV). He's basically raping her and doesn't realise it. It's just another example of how he is a pawn, like the manufactured rebellion he "put down" to gain him some fame. He thinks she wants him, just like he thinks he's a long-lost prince, just like he thinks he's the King and in charge, just like he thinks Logen is a great man of character to be emulated.