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

[Kalbear]

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?

No, I don't think that's what is being said.

If you are going to write about 'hot woman being raped', you don't need to describe said rape. Point of fact, it would have been just as chilling if Jezal mentions to Glotka later how willing she was and how puzzled he is with it given her prior reaction. You don't need the PoV to drive that point home or drive home the horror.

So if Jezal's scene is put in, why is it there? Are we seeing how horrible the rape actually is? not really. Are we somewhat sympathetic to what's happening? Yes. But we're mostly seeing it through Jezal's eyes, which means hot princess action.

I think that's in general the biggest issue I have - it's the sheer detail and titillation factor that goes into these scenes. This was something not actually done in Thomas Covenant - and point of fact, many people didn't actually realize Covenant had raped her - and is somewhat glossed over. I don't think it being from Terez's point of view would have been particularly better either other than horror schlock and titillation for its own sake either.

Really, I think this sort of thing - if you are to do it - should be done with less exploitative stating. Because honestly, anything done in some massive detail is going to appear, in part, exploitative and desired to provoke hotness or at least some kind of involvement with the reader; that's how we're trained to see things in movies and in books. If there's no need to be explicit, why be explicit?

[Sci-2]

Terez thought she had agency -- the power to act on her own will. She had already entered into a politically arranged royal marriage and knew ahead of time all that such marriages entail, yet she thought she had the power to refuse to fulfill one of the basic functions of such a marriage.

That we never see the internal logic explaining Terez's way of thinking is part of the problem. One of the blog commenters pointed out exactly what you just said as to why the scene fails.

We also don't get the why for her hatred of Jezal, which raises the problem of her being a man-hating lesbian caricature/stand-in.

[Kalbear]

Why did the author choose physical torture for other characters? Why did he choose political manipulation for others?

Because that is what was relevant for that character

, that's why.

And that's a flimsy excuse.

It doesn't need to be relevant. Abercrombie chose to make it relevant. He could have easily made Terez vulnerable to political manipulation and it would have changed very little. He could have tortured her and had that stick and it would have been just as well. Or any number of other things. Saying that it's what worked because it's in the story ignores the argument entirely; why did he choose to put a lesbian princess in the story? To me, the only answer that I can see is 'because it allows her to be raped later for being a lesbian'. Now, is that what Abercrombie wants? Is that what gets him off? I'm not saying that at all nor am I trying to imply it. However, Terez's character is essentially only defined by her being a lesbian (and a man-hating one at that). Does she need to be for the plot to work? Not really. It doesn't add a ton of depth to her and she's otherwise very shallow anyway.

Legally, Jezal could have had her tied to the bed and forcefully raped her as often and as brutally as he liked. But Abercrombie-->Bayaz-->Glokta chose instead to coerce her into sex with the king -- thus proving that she had no more agency than any other character in the trilogy, and at the same time reinforcing Jezal's own lack of agency (he doesn't even realize that his queen despises him).

Yes! exactly! This is precisely right. legally he could have raped her. Legally there was nothing to do for her. That would have been fine. So why is she a lesbian? Why couldn't she have found Jezal completely abhorrent because he's kind of a total asshole? That's the big question the blog asks - not 'why is there rape' but 'why is there a lesbian whose only plot arc is to be raped'?

[Contrarius]

That we never see the internal logic explaining Terez's way of thinking is part of the problem. One of the blog commenters pointed out exactly what you just said as to why the scene fails.

Kalbear just complained that the scene has too much detail, but now you are complaining because there's not **enough** detail?? You can't have it both ways.

Again -- Abercrombie treats all the different characters in the same way. When Bayaz scares Jezal into behaving, we don't have any passages with Jezal thinking "oh my God Bayaz just scared the shit out of me". We the readers are supposed to be intelligent enough to figure some things out on our own.

[Sci-2]

Kalbear just complained that the scene has too much detail, but now you are complaining because there's not **enough** detail?? You can't have it both ways.

I think he's talking about depiction of the actual rape, I'm talking about the why of Terez's internal logic. These are, as far as I can see, very different things.

ETA: grammar

[Kalbear]

Kalbear just complained that the scene has too much detail, but now you are complaining because there's not **enough** detail?? You can't have it both ways.

Shockingly we can, because hey - we're actually different people. I can even (gasp) disagree with sciborg. I know! We can both think the scene is demeaning and vile and horrible and a disgusting example of male power in action, but we can even disagree on why!

It's nuts, I know.

[Contrarius]

And that's a flimsy excuse.

ROFLMAO.

I think that's the only time I've ever seen someone make a claim that relevance/internal coherence is a flimsy excuse for a scene in literature. LOL!!!

why did he choose to put a lesbian princess in the story? To me, the only answer that I can see is 'because it allows her to be raped later for being a lesbian'.

Balderdash.

If anything, the real "rape" occurs when she enters into the marriage in the first place. Anyone raised in a similar society would know ahead of time exactly what was expected out of such a marriage arrangement. Expecting anything different to come of it is really just hubris.

However, Terez's character is essentially only defined by her being a lesbian (and a man-hating one at that). Does she need to be for the plot to work? Not really. It doesn't add a ton of depth to her and she's otherwise very shallow anyway.

What it accomplishes is to add another example of agency being denied. If she had been a willing participant from the start, that would have wasted an opportunity for Abercrombie to squash somebody. It has nothing to do with sexism, and everything to do with Abercrombie stepping on as many characters as he can possibly arrange to step on. The lesbianism aspect simply makes the squashing more viscerally horrifying than a simple dislike for the king would be, just as cutting off a prisoner's fingers is more viscerally horrifying than simply flogging that prisoner would be. Again -- there's nothing sexist about it.

[TerraPrime]

Great. If you acknowledge that other characters of both genders are also disempowered throughout the trilogy, then you can not argue that Abercrombie is sexist because he disempowers a woman. End of debate. :)

I'm not sure what the "if" part is about, since I explicitly stated as much?

It seems to me that you're not really tackling my objection, which is that the disempowering of characters of both sexes does not in itself excuse the mode in which this female character is disempowered (through sexual violation). As far as I can tell, you are happy to accept that the author is immune from criticism of sexism as long as he disempowers other characters, even though he doesn't use sexual violation as a tool in all those other cases. I disagree with that point of view because there's a choice made in how to depict that disempowerment and the choice in this case is a form of sexual violation of a stereotypical ice-princess/man-hating lesbian.

Why did the author choose physical torture for other characters? Why did he choose political manipulation for others? Because that is what was relevant for that character, that's why.

You're not really answering the question, which is: is sexual violation of Terez the only relevant part of her character? If so, then the author has written a character who's so one-dimensional that her existence is boiled down to her sex, and by proxy, a violation of her sexual desires. Of all the traits of Terez, is raping her the only way to rob her of her agency? What about threats to physically disfigure her? Or how about threaten to kill her father, or mother? Are these traits (being beautiful, having parents) less relevant that her sexual desires?

Terez thought she had agency -- the power to act on her own will. She had already entered into a politically arranged royal marriage and knew ahead of time all that such marriages entail, yet she thought she had the power to refuse to fulfill one of the basic functions of such a marriage.

Legally, Jezal could have had her tied to the bed and forcefully raped her as often and as brutally as he liked. But Abercrombie-->Bayaz-->Glokta chose instead to coerce her into sex with the king -- thus proving that she had no more agency than any other character in the trilogy, and at the same time reinforcing Jezal's own lack of agency (he doesn't even realize that his queen despises him).

I am not disputing that having Terez raped shows a lack of power over her own fate. I'm making an argument that the same point could have been made *without* having her raped, and/or *without* her be a man-hating lesbian.

There's nothing sexist about it, any more than there was sexism inherent in Glokta's own torture when he was a POW.

Speaking of... do you think it would show the readers a lack of self-determination for male characters if one of them is raped?

[TerraPrime]

It's nuts, I know.

I see what you did there.

[Contrarius]

I think he's talking about depiction of the actual rape, I'm talking about the why of Terez's internal logic. These are, as far as I can see, very different things.

In fact, there is NO depiction of the actual sexual intercourse between the characters. And what leads up to it is there to underline what an oblivious (but not evil) idiot Jezal is --

"'No. It's my fault. I'm not... experienced... with men...' Jezal blinked for a moment, then almost smiled at a surge of relief. Of course. Now everything was clear. She was so assured, so sharp, it had never even occurred to him that she might be a virgin. It was simple fear that made her tremble so. Fear of disappointing him. He felt a rush of sympathy.

'Don't worry,' he murmured it softly, stepping forward and taking her in his arms.

He felt her stiffen, no doubt with nervousness, and he gently stroked her hair. 'I can wait... we don't have to... not yet.'

'No.' She said it with a touching determination, looking him fearlessly in the eye. 'No. We do.'

She dragged her shift up and over her head, let it drop to the floor. She came close to him, took hold of his wrist, guided it back to her thigh, then upwards.

'Ah,' she whispered, urgent and throaty, her lips brushing his cheek, her breath hot in his ear. 'Yes... just there... don't stop.' She led him breathless to the bed."

[Grack21]

I never read the second book because I was annoyed as all hell about the rape in the first one. If I read another book about a traumatized female rape victim (with no agency) being cured by a sexual relationship with the male hero, I might lose it. So I won't continue with the series.

That put me off quite a bit as well, which was upsetting because I LOVE the first 90 percent of the book. I have the second setting here on my vacation pile, so we'll see how that goes.

Edit: You guys/gals actually found the Jezal scene "titillating"? I find all of Abercrombie's sex scenes to be gross, and I thought they were written that way on purpose.

[Trinuviel]

What it accomplishes is to add another example of agency being denied. If she had been a willing participant from the start, that would have wasted an opportunity for Abercrombie to squash somebody. It has nothing to do with sexism

The fact that the recalcitrant women is punished by rape is because she is refusing sex with the protagonist - that IS sexism in action, and a particular brutal form of it too. Violent crimes towards women are often sexualized - and IRL rape is repeated used as a weapon of terror aimed specifically at women in situations of war (the Balkan war). It has everything to do with sexism.

[Sci-2]

Again -- there's nothing sexist about it.

I don't think anyone is claiming it was intentionally homophobic or sexist. I think the problem is it conforms to problematic tropes against gays and women though, largely IMO because we don't know anything about Terez.

I want to understand her "hubris" - Why did this woman think she could escape having sex with Jezal despite all logic pointing to the contrary? How did she escape the conditioning that marrying a man and bearing his children was her ultimate fate YET wind up in the Union married to Jezal?

We don't know any of those answers, instead we have the cold man-hating lesbian getting put in her (supposed) place.

[Kalbear]

ROFLMAO.

I think that's the only time I've ever seen someone make a claim that relevance/internal coherence is a flimsy excuse for a scene in literature. LOL!!!

Then you didn't read it very well.

It is of course internally consistent. However, there is no reason that the consistency needs to be about a lesbian princess. There is no need for her to be one. If they wanted to illustrate Glotka's power, you could have her be in an incestuous relationship with her brother. Or simply hate being tortured. Or have her parents threatened. And all of those things could have been made internally consistent. All of those things could have worked in the confines of the story. There is no need for her to be a lesbian.

Balderdash.

If anything, the real "rape" occurs when she enters into the marriage in the first place. Anyone raised in a similar society would know ahead of time exactly what was expected out of such a marriage arrangement. Expecting anything different to come of it is really just hubris.

Yes, and again - what does any of that have to do with her being a lesbian? What does that matter in the least, except 'hey look we get to rape a lesbian'?

What it accomplishes is to add another example of agency being denied. If she had been a willing participant from the start, that would have wasted an opportunity for Abercrombie to squash somebody. It has nothing to do with sexism, and everything to do with Abercrombie stepping on as many characters as he can possibly arrange to step on. The lesbianism aspect simply makes the squashing more viscerally horrifying than a simple dislike for the king would be, just as cutting off a prisoner's fingers is more viscerally horrifying than simply flogging that prisoner would be. Again -- there's nothing sexist about it.

Sexism has nothing to do with the argument. It has to do with why her sexual identity is homosexual.

Sure, you can have her not be a willing agent from the start. You don't need her to be a lesbian; you can simply have her not like Jezel. OMG! That's shocking. There doesn't have to be all that deep of a reason, either. Were we shocked when Sansa didn't want to fuck Tyrion? Is it odd that Cat didn't like Ned at first? not really. that's just how things were. And there's no reason that Terez has to be any different and still get tortured/coerced by Glotka.

But no, she has to be a lesbian.

But no, we have to get a sexy scene with her getting hers.

[Grack21]

You know, I was just thinking, everyone keeps saying that this was a "sexy" scene, but has ANYONE actually found a reader who saw it that way?

That's not me being snide, I'm just actually curious, maybe I really read that scene wrong(It has been several years).

[Liffguard]

Just going off on a slight tangent for a second, IIRC it was pointed out in the book why Terez hates Jezal and it's not because he's a man, it's because he's a bastard. She considers him to be her social inferior.

[Contrarius]

I'm not sure what the "if" part is about, since I explicitly stated as much?

Great. Then we are in agreement. There is no sexism, because both genders are abused. :)

It seems to me that you're not really tackling my objection, which is that the disempowering of characters of both sexes does not in itself excuse the mode in which this female character is disempowered (through sexual violation). As far as I can tell, you are happy to accept that the author is immune from criticism of sexism as long as he disempowers other characters, even though he doesn't use sexual violation as a tool in all those other cases.

Yes, I am happy to do so, and no it is not necessary that I do so.

Glokta, whom you may remember is a male, is also sexually abused while he's a POW. In fact, he was so severely damaged that he can no longer urinate standing up. (I'll see if I can dig out the relevant passage, but it may be hard to find.) So once again your accusations of sexism are groundless. But even if he had not been abused in that manner, I would still argue that Abercrombie's choice of abusive technique for the queen is not sexist. It is a logical extension of her role in that society. The queen is, after all, expected to produce heirs.

You're not really answering the question, which is: is sexual violation of Terez the only relevant part of her character? If so, then the author has written a character who's so one-dimensional that her existence is boiled down to her sex, and by proxy, a violation of her sexual desires. Of all the traits of Terez, is raping her the only way to rob her of her agency? What about threats to physically disfigure her? Or how about threaten to kill her father, or mother? Are these traits (being beautiful, having parents) less relevant that her sexual desires?

????

How would disfiguring Terez serve any purpose?? The purpose is to produce an heir, and also to do so without Jezal being the wiser.

How would Glokta go about threatening her parents?? The whole point of the marriage was to form an **alliance** between the families, not to start a war.

I am not disputing that having Terez raped shows a lack of power over her own fate. I'm making an argument that the same point could have been made *without* having her raped, and/or *without* her be a man-hating lesbian.

And you have yet to show any other method of accomplishing such a thing nearly as effectively as the way Abercrombie chose to do it.

Speaking of... do you think it would show the readers a lack of self-determination for male characters if one of them is raped?

See above. Glokta is thoroughly abused when he's a POW.

[Talleyrand]

Peter Brett needs to be brought up here. I found the second novel in the series to be sending a rather disturbing message about rape when a female character who was raped is portrayed as being psychologically scarred and traumatised by the event, but the male character who was raped as a young child has basically just ignored it, or even worse has used it as some kind of inspirational event to become an unstoppable badass as an adult. Brett really handled the whole rape storyline in both novels ham-fistedly and with no real thought for the message he was sending out. It's really made me ambivalent about continuing with the series.

Jadir doesn't really use the rape as an inspiring event. He does become mentally scarred by it, it along with the rest of his childhood turns him into a psycho. He in turn rapes his rapist, orders thousands of mass rapes and has holy men tortured for believing differently

[Contrarius]

I don't think anyone is claiming it was intentionally homophobic or sexist.

Ohhh, but they are. And that's what I'm objecting to.

I think the problem is it conforms to problematic tropes against gays and women though, largely IMO because we don't know anything about Terez.

I think it just pushes some folks' hot buttons. IMHO this is no more horrifying than the fingers being cut off or various body parts being maimed, and it is consistent with the sort of society being described in the trilogy.

I want to understand her "hubris" - Why did this woman think she could escape having sex with Jezal despite all logic pointing to the contrary? How did she escape the conditioning that marrying a man and bearing his children was her ultimate fate YET wind up in the Union married to Jezal?

Now THAT is a better question, and a very different one than what the blogger was attacking.

[Contrarius]

It is of course internally consistent. However, there is no reason that the consistency needs to be about a lesbian princess. There is no need for her to be one. If they wanted to illustrate Glotka's power, you could have her be in an incestuous relationship with her brother. Or simply hate being tortured. Or have her parents threatened. And all of those things could have been made internally consistent. All of those things could have worked in the confines of the story. There is no need for her to be a lesbian.

Nope. This has already been covered. The point is to produce heirs, without Jezal being the wiser about there being any problem in the process. The point is also to evoke as much visceral horror as possible out of Terez's situation.

If Terez is simply "getting some on the side", there's no real drama there whether her lover is her brother or anyone else. Simply make sure she sleeps with the king. Torture would kinda alert Jezal that something's up. Threatening the parents would negate the whole "alliance with the relatives" concept. None of them create the drama and horror of a lesbian having her lover abducted and being coerced into sleeping with a man she can't even stand in the first place.

Yes, and again - what does any of that have to do with her being a lesbian? What does that matter in the least, except 'hey look we get to rape a lesbian'?

Again, it's the dramatic value of the visceral horror evoked by the situation. Abercrombie is all about high drama and visceral reactions within the aura of world-weary cynicism.

Sure, you can have her not be a willing agent from the start. You don't need her to be a lesbian; you can simply have her not like Jezel. OMG! That's shocking.

No, it isn't shocking -- and that's why it isn't used. Abercrombie is creating drama here.