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

[Gormenghast]

Answering to Larry's blog:

But let's humor that train of thought that says in a violent world, violence must be shown. How explicit should it be? Should there be an unrelenting amount of violence described in detail, down to the downy ass hairs of those being raped in every possible orifice? Most people would probably say no, that there are limits to the effectiveness of depicting such violent acts. Yet "too much" is a blurred line.

But the problem, and I agree with Morgan, is the EXISTENCE of a line.

This of course presumes that violence is somehow necessary in order for the story to be told, something that often is not the case

And the problem here is in its inverse: that is bad for a story to have explicit violence, or sex or whatever.

This is the exact same argument about "genres". The "line" you draw about "too much" violence is the same line that defines genres, like YA, new weird, epic fantasy and so on.

A writer can decide to write a book in a genre. He could decide to write a YA book, and so stick to those basic rules that define YA. Or another genre. But a writer can also decide to NOT respect any lines drawn anywhere.

You simply can't decide what's "too much" if not in a specific case, or in a subjective way. Say that you hate to read about explicit sex, no matter the writer writing it, or his purpose. It's a personal choice.

The problem is when one wants to impose his subjective canon on everything. Or decide to draw lines to not cross a priori. Lines are made to be crossed, because they are mere conventions that are only used to categorize what already exists. One shouldn't be outraged because a line has been crossed, one should only criticize, case by case, the motivations that writer had to decide to cross a line.

That's why it's the topic being discussed to be absurd. As if we are trying to discover some magic rule that MUST be enforced on all fiction and non-fiction. While specific cases are, obviously, legitimate as it's legitimate for someone to say Abercrombie's books suck, or are always the same etc...

[Shryke]

Go read Hamlet's Father and try again.

Uh huh. But was that what was being referred to when someone called it "censorship"? Or were they talking (in a silly and hyperbolic fashion) about people condemning the views he expresses on his blog and such?

[Shryke]

Don't have much time, but: agree with THA re: Tyrion and Tysha (that's a perfect example of using rape when all sorts of things would be The Horrible) and it's a completely reasonable thing to call GRRM on.

Rape scenes I didn't have as much problem with: Thomas Covenant and Lolita by Nabokov. Both were integral to the plot and had serious consequences without defining (at least entirely) who those people were, both gave voices to the victims. They are still not perfect or great, but they are significantly more defensible to me than Tyrion/Tysha or Terez.

And Terez is a lot more defensible than Tyrion/Tysha, IMO. I have less issue with her being raped as part of the story and more issue with her being so similar to manhating lesbian beiing raped by the man she's uppity to.

And that's the silliest part of your whole argument since it's obviously not written to support anything like that.

You aren't even saying it's bad bacause it shows X, you are saying it's bad because it kinda looks like X if you squint hard in bad lighting after taking off your glasses and receiving a blow to the head.

[Grack21]

Edit: You know, it still has not been addressed adequately that a great deal of the disgust with this section of the book had to do with the character being a lesbian. It was not the rape itself, a number of different people were offered up as possible victims. It was that this victim was a rapist. Which is what i have felt has been the mot disingenous portion of this entire debate.

See, I knew i\I'd be forced to respond. And I agree with this. The fact that it's a lesbian being raped somehow makes it worse? Regular rapes are OK? And apparently there's some trope about lesbians being raped, which is news to me. Can anyone provide MODERN examples?

I may be a hypocrite, but I least I admit it.

[Grack21]

Uh huh. But was that what was being referred to when someone called it "censorship"? Or were they talking (in a silly and hyperbolic fashion) about people condemning the views he expresses on his blog and such?

Oh, I see what you were asking.

Apologizes for the snideness, this topic is not making me a Happy Grack.

I believe what happened is someone gave a poor, poor review of that story, and called Card on his shit, and then someone accused said reviewer of trying to censor Card. I'll see if I can dig the old post up, but no promises, it's past my bed time,

[Shryke]

It is strange to read comments arguing that violence has to be included in order for something to be "real;" especially odd when the works in question are epic fantasies. Yes, yes, I can hear almost the thoughts of those who are thinking, "Hey! But if the setting is a violent world, shouldn't one reasonably expect there to be violence?" This of course presumes that violence is somehow necessary in order for the story to be told, something that often is not the case (I doubt Patricia McKillip's The Riddle-Master trilogy would be improved with gore, explicit swearing, and a rape or three thrown in to show how "dark," "grim," and "gritty" the setting is).

But let's humor that train of thought that says in a violent world, violence must be shown. How explicit should it be? Should there be an unrelenting amount of violence described in detail, down to the downy ass hairs of those being raped in every possible orifice? Most people would probably say no, that there are limits to the effectiveness of depicting such violent acts. Yet "too much" is a blurred line.

For myself, I take issue with the need to use graphic acts as a stand-in for true character and plot development. It is often lazy writing in which a character is shown to be "bad" or at least "not all good" by having him (usually a him in these situations, although not necessarily) go out and kill or rape someone in cold blood. What often happens is that the person that suffers the violent act/s exists solely for that moment, like the infamous Star Trek red shirts. Ironically, the things that Morgan decries in the quote above do not occur very often in these scenes. Instead, it is just an explicitly-shown action in which the recipient (and sometimes the initiator) is interchangeable for purposes of the event because s/he has no real development. Writers who take these deplorable shortcuts should be criticized for not developing something powerful from such exceptional, traumatic events of violence; settling for clichéd commentaries or a narrative shrug and a move on to the protagonist's next fuck/slaughter moment is what happens too often, with the victims being mute witnesses.

This is problematic because, to me at least, it cheapens the effect. Murders and physical/sexual abuse are exceptional events; we frequently act shocked when we know someone who initiates or suffers from either violent action. Yet many of us watch "body count" movies or read novels in which the death tolls mount and little to nothing affects the protagonist (or even the villain). This distortion of the traumas explicitly revealed makes me wonder about the narratives and if there is something endemic about the genres in which this occur that numbs readers to what is truly shocking. Perhaps for some, the true issue is not if these types of stories influence others to commit said acts but if they are just numbed to what many consider to be horrific, unconscionable acts.

Violence may well be necessary for the story to be told. And many stories can certainly contain violence. That you don't like reading about it does not make it a bad thing to write about.

[Grack21]

I'd just like to say I enjoy both Abercrombe and Eddings. So there.

[Kalbear]

And that's the silliest part of your whole argument since it's obviously not written to support anything like that.

You aren't even saying it's bad bacause it shows X, you are saying it's bad because it kinda looks like X if you squint hard in bad lighting after taking off your glasses and receiving a blow to the head.

Obvious to who?

It's clear many think otherwise. I don't think he did it to specifically reference it. My gut feeling was that he wanted to do something transgressive and thought how much more horrible it'd be if she were a lesbian. Which is of course how the whole trope started except with more hate.

The end result is the same even if the intent is not, and while that's good it still doesn't make it immune to criticism.

Also note I have less issue with it than T&T. Still have an issue.

[Nerdanel]

This topic is moving so fast...

So apparently Terez was thinking that as she was in a foreign court with no allies, far from any support, the sensible thing to do is to act verbally and physically abusive to the king. It's not like gaining the king's enmity would be in any way a bad thing, right? Especially compared to having the king be a besotted, easily manipulated fool over her? She apparently thinks the warrior king is completely helpless in the face of her ninja kick too.

Remember that she was married off against her will, so it's not like she's unfamiliar with the power of rulers.

I didn't think Terez was supposed to come off as having the IQ of a turnip given her acting ability and her excellency in all the princess skills. Abercrombie just wanted to have some lesbian rape, and thus Terez has to follow the plot to the lesbian rape.

On the subject of West, him killing the crown prince doesn't really matter to the story or to West's character. The important thing is that the prince dies somehow so that Jezal can end up on the throne. West suffers no consequences for his act except angst and he did the morally right thing anyway. Grimdark grittiness was the only real reason for rape being the chosen plot device, and the female character's only real purpose in the plot was to be raped so that the plot could move forward. She is defined entirely by her relationships to male characters too.

[Grack21]

Kalbear, is there anything you DONT have issues with?

[TerraPrime]

The thread has moved along quite fast since I last posted, so I would not be addressing specific points too much. But I will a couple of points.

First, what is it that I'm hoping to accomplish by discussing this aspect of spec fic if my intention is not to induce some sort of censorship? Or, as shryke put it, what's my "end game"?

I found that question rather queer. What's the "end game" of anyone posting on here whenever they talk about their likes and dislikes of a book? Why do I need to provide some sort of 3-year plan if I feel like offering a critique of one aspect of a book, or if I want to comment on what I perceive to be a problematic trend in spec fic? I suspect that we post about books, whether we like them or dislike them, because we like sharing our thoughts about our reading experience. This is not some sort of social manipulation. I'm posting about this aspect of these books because it bothers me. Do I need to have more than that as reason to post?

With that said, I do hope that by having these discussions, we can successfully sway the trend enough that we will end up seeing better handling of some of these topics. Not from one discussion, of course, but from many such discussions taking place over many forums.

The second point is the question on why do I, and some others, focus on Terez's homosexuality and not her sex? The reason is that the author made the plot about her sexuality. In fact, that's been the argument from the other side all along, that it's essential for Terez to be a homosexual for extra juicy grim dark reality-ness. So please don't try to make it as if we're subsuming the identity of Terez-as-a-person in preference of her sexuality. If the author had given us Terez-as-a-person instead of Terez-the-lesbian-as-a-plot-device, then we wouldn't have to be focusing on her sexuality. If you think seeing Terez as a lesbian is dehumanizing to the character, I agree. Which is one reason why I think the scene was done poorly, namely, that the author had forced us to see Terez as a lesbian in order for his plot to work. So aim your ire over reducing this character to her sexuality alone at the proper culprit, please.

In general, concerning the Terez rape scene (and what's with the idea to not call it a rape scene just because we don't see penetration? Is rape now defined by the presence of penile-vaginal penetration? how retro), I've offered my interpretation and obviously, many here don't find it valid. So be it. I'm okay with that, if the rest of you would want to give up arguing over this one scene. Frankly, it is not the most egregious scene out there in the genre. But then, it's precisely because it's not so-bad-that-you-cannot-deny-it's-bad that we're having disagreement, correct? If it's so clear-cut, then there'd be no room to disagree.

Which sort of brings me to a point - I don't think anyone is arguing that a passage, a scene, or a book, is incapable of handling some topics so badly that there really is not much value, aesthetic or moral, to it. Contrarius, for instance, who defended the Terez not-rape-just-sexual-foreplay-enforced-on-her-against-her-will-scene so vigorously, named a few scenes from the Outlander series as poorly done. Or, to put it another way, why aren't Shryke and company lining up the inquisition squad demanding the "end game" that Contrarius has in mind in pointing out how distasteful she finds the scenes to be in their implied message of women just want to be subdued? How come her critique is not seen as just a short hop, skip, and jump away from issuing fatwa against Gabaldon? Was Contrarius trying to censor Gabaldon, and by proxy, all authors, when she voiced her dismay at a few scenes in the books? Is she not condemning all authors from daring to write a S/M scene where the woman is the submissive? Might there not be a group of fans for the series who might defend those scenes with the same passion and vigor that some here have done for the Terez scene? Maybe Contrarius just need to, and I quote, "get the fuck over it"?

The reason, I suspect, that those comments were not met with the same set of argument is that most people here agree that those cited passages are pretty bad. Either that or they're having too much emotional involvement to not want to criticize someone on their own "team." I'll assume is the former here, and say that if we can just agree that scenes can be interpreted differently and even if we disagree on the Terez this-is-not-a-rape-scene-because-we-didn't-see-his-penis-entering-her-orifice scene, we can at least talk about the larger topic?

And, with that, I'm really done with talking about the details of this one scene. Others may feel free to continue, but I'm done with that topic. I will instead only use it as an example in the future.

================

One of the constant bugbears in talking about the shortcomings of spec fics concerning issues like race, sex, sexuality, etc., is that when someone criticizes a scene that contains X, the other side almost always accuse the person offering that criticism as wanting to suppress every scene that contains X. For instance, people accusing Kalbear of not wanting to read about any lesbians being harmed or raped, at all, on account of his objection to the Terez this-is-not-a-rape scene.

The reality is that more often than not, the objection really is about how it's done, not the actual content per se. If a rape scene (or not-a-rape-because-there-is-no-penetration scene) needs to involve a lesbian, then it should be done well, and with some consideration to the subject matter. Others have asked what is it that makes a scene considerate. Here's what I think.

First, the topic shouldn't exist solely as an effect to augment other plot points. As an example, I offer you any number of female characters in Heinlein's books, where their sole purpose is to either titillate the audience or to demonstrate the virility of the male characters. Another example would be the damsel in distress trope, where the damsel's role is to illustrate the heroic nature of the rescuer. If a character is to be made a lesbian, let that be a trait that matters to the character instead of a trait that serves a plot point or that is used to characterize someone else.

Second, if a character is to be made to suffer some traumatic experience, like rape, or witnessing a murder, etc., the readers need some pay-off for the reading experience so that the episode doesn't come across as gratuitous. For instance, the experience of Egwene in the hands of the Senchean helps explain part of her new personality as the story progresses. This means that when we read those passages describing the abuse that she had received, it serves a purpose related to enhancing Egwene as a character. In comparison, the various tortures that Chesmaile and the other black sisters suffer at the hands of Moghedian really only serve to illustrate Moghedian, and have little to do with how we interact with Chesmaile and Liandrin etc.

I think if a scene can accomplish these two things, it'll go a long way towards making sure that the reaction to that scene can focus on the story, and not the vehicle.

============

Now, I want to go back to address one of sologdin's point, which is: is it fair to hold a particular author accountable for committing a failing that is pervasive in the genre, or even in our entire society?

As I thought about this topic, I thought of the comment that Whoopi Goldberg made about her experience in watching StarTrek as a young girl. Her reaction was (paraphrasing here): "Mama! Come look! There's a colored lady on TV and she is not a maid!"

Now, granted, by today's standard, Uhura is still very one-dimensional and lacking in agency, but the point is that there are authors, creators, writers, who do get it right. So perhaps the strategy is to praise those who are doing a good job at it and less on criticizing those who're failing? Positive reinforcement, and all that.

==============

Finally, on the even broader topic of the place for sexual violence, and violence in general, in speculative fictions, I think it's worthwhile to ask why do these two aspects tend to be so prominent in works that are billed as realistic and gritty, or why fans tend to defend the presences of these elements by citing that they make the story more realistic.

Consider the multitude of factors and events in our real life that are glossed over in most fictions, particularly in pseudo-medieval settings. I'd imagine that given the hygeine level, body odor is an issue. So would dysentary and other food-related illnesses. People will have toothaches, especially if they're warriors who get knocked around a lot and end up losing a few teeth along the way. There'll be boils and skin rashes. Any number of these things are omitted frequently in the narrative. So why don't books that are billed to be realistic include these elements, in addition to, or in place of, sex and violence? If the excuse is that sex and violence are prevalent, well, then so are diseases and religious bigotry. Yet we don't see too many books that go to extraordinary length to describe every detail of a bloody diarrhea in service of making the book more real, more gritty, more grim. Why is that?

[Shryke]

Oh, I see what you were asking.

Apologizes for the snideness, this topic is not making me a Happy Grack.

I believe what happened is someone gave a poor, poor review of that story, and called Card on his shit, and then someone accused said reviewer of trying to censor Card. I'll see if I can dig the old post up, but no promises, it's past my bed time,

The specifics are, probably, not a big deal. But the point is it depends what they are saying and to what they are referring.

Like, let's take a book where OSC obviously inserts homophobia into the story. Now, you could perfectly validly accuse him of doing that. Especially if the book shows it as a good thing (which, this being OSC, wouldn't be surprising*). That's fine, although notibly there are two different statements there ("X is present" and "X is endorsed")

Where you start rubbing up against the line is when you are saying he shouldn't be writing that kind of stuff. And you really start edging over the line when you say other authors shouldn't be writing any homophobia into books, even if their treatment of it is different and, more relevantly, non-endorsing.

*as a kind of relevant tangent, I'd say most people are only aware of OSC's horrible views because of his non-fiction blog writing and such

[Shryke]

Obvious to who?

It's clear many think otherwise. I don't think he did it to specifically reference it. My gut feeling was that he wanted to do something transgressive and thought how much more horrible it'd be if she were a lesbian. Which is of course how the whole trope started except with more hate.

The end result is the same even if the intent is not, and while that's good it still doesn't make it immune to criticism.

Also note I have less issue with it than T&T. Still have an issue.

Obvious to anyone actually reading the book? Nothing there indicates he endorses the action and in fact, quite the opposite.

And you really seem to be reading too much of your own ideas into his intent. But, to continue the tradition, I'd say it's probably included as a way to make her rejection of Jezal understandable and sympathetic. She's not just rejecting him cause she hates him, she's also doing so because she doesn't want to ever fuck him for a perfectly legitimate reason. It's a way to give even more power to the turn-around of the scene.

[Larry.]

Interesting how attempts to be nuanced in one's own writing end up being interpreted as more starkly divided issues ;)

Some might want to keep in mind that I, like many others, can tell the difference between something that adds to a character/situation and that which, if excised, wouldn't affect either at all. I believe I said somewhere (can't recall if it was several pages ago or on my blog) that extensive, graphic violence sometimes has a greater point. Several months ago, I reviewed Cormac McCarthy's Child of God. It was in terms of graphicness a few magnitudes greater than what one encounters in the so-called "gritty fantasies." Yet there was an integral point to that violence, to show what it did to Lester Ballard and, by extension, what human society did to contribute to that. It was not gratuitous and it is difficult to imagine how McCarthy could have made his point better without forcing us to confront the depraved beings that we help create. The same cannot be said about having a woman bred with Labrador retriever genes to serve as a sex slave; it would suffice to show her suffering through her own experience in order to describe the violence and degradation that too often happens to women today in most parts of the world.

Yet for some that would be too much to read; our own tolerance levels vary, thus the reference to the "blurred line" that some mistakenly took for clear-cut divisions. I do choose to read less violent books and to watch less violent movies, but it's not because I think the others are by nature too much. Only that there tends to be a higher proportion, or at least it seems to me, of poor characterizations and an over dependence upon the violent act/s to make the story hold up. Others might favor the more "direct" approach in which nuanced characters and situations are reduced in favor of action sequences. Matter of taste...but it does bear noting that while matters of taste perhaps should not be disputed, one can weigh in subjectively on whether or not those works are well-executed or not. There is something to be said about how the narrative power of Night or the documentary Night and Fog trump that of made-up "worlds" in which projections of human violence are made, often with little thought of questioning the degree to which this transference takes place and whether or not something is lost or distorted in the process. So yes, it is worth questioning the approach certain authors take, not because they should be silenced, but in order that those who are uncomfortable can express their dissatisfaction before deciding whether or not to read other tales from that author or group of authors.

[Grack21]

The specifics are, probably, not a big deal. But the point is it depends what they are saying and to what they are referring.

Like, let's take a book where OSC obviously inserts homophobia into the story. Now, you could perfectly validly accuse him of doing that. Especially if the book shows it as a good thing (which, this being OSC, wouldn't be surprising*). That's fine, although notibly there are two different statements there ("X is present" and "X is endorsed")

Where you start rubbing up against the line is when you are saying he shouldn't be writing that kind of stuff. And you really start edging over the line when you say other authors shouldn't be writing any homophobia into books, even if their treatment of it is different and, more relevantly, non-endorsing.

*as a kind of relevant tangent, I'd say most people are only aware of OSC's horrible views because of his non-fiction blog writing and such

OSC is free to write whatever he wants, I just won't buy or read it. I'm not even sure how this started, this thread is starting to have a weird life of its own.

And I actually became aware of Card's views through both his work and his writings, depending on said view.

I don't think anyone here is arguing in favor of any kind of censorship of any kind. I least I hope not. And I think we've argued the Terez scene to death. Some people see it differently then others and no matter how much we shout, no one is going to suddenly see it differently. There's certainly enough here I imagine someone could write a good paper on how people interpret things differently.

[Lyanna Stark]

Hey -- Many posts ago I tried to get you diverted onto a debate over the "naturalness" of violence to the human species, but you wouldn't take me up on it. ;)

But on the whole "rape" issue -- I agree that the discussion has been distorted by the attempted tarring and feathering of Abercrombie as today's Enemy Number One. By making false accusations against Abercrombie, the attackers cast a shadow over concerns which might well have some validity in other circumstances.

Isn't it a really odd thing to call it "false accusations"? you have a bunch of people who read a certain scene a certain way. Due to our diverse background, people will read it slightly differently. I will have a feminist lense on (a lot of the time, at least) and my interpretation of Terez's fate is definitely the one described by Simone de Beauvoir, i.e. the old classic forced into servitude for the sake of the next generation of princelings. Others will interpret it differently. If we all had the same view, there would be no debate, no? And it would in the end be boring.

That said, demanding that sensitive materials cannot be touched is over the top, imo. But very few people have actually done that in this thread.

Arthmail:

comeuppance of the uppity woman trope that is a problem

Again, i am not seeing this as a standard trope in literature.

Ouch. Yes it really is. Even classics fall into this. Who gets the happy ending, Catherine from Wuthering Heights (uppity) or Jane Eyre (good girl)? Or how about Jan Austen's Jane and Elizabeth Bennett (def good) vs Lydia (uppity)? With some slight effort, you'll find more as well. Literature is riddled with uppity women taking the fall.

[Grack21]

I think TerraPrime has a point when he/she pointed out that no one is defending Outlander. I'm not sure what it is though, my brain is fried.

[Kalbear]

Kalbear, is there anything you DONT have issues with?

Yes. Is there anything you do have issues with?

I love GRRM's works. I think they're incredible fantasy pieces and great pieces in their own right. I think the characters are largely great, the setting is rich and the theme wonderful. That doesn't mean that I think it's perfect. And - this is the important thing for folks like grack or Contrarius - I can perfectly enjoy something while seeing negative things about it. I can recognize that Star Wars has a trivial plot and fairly horrible acting and enjoy it wonderfully. I can gleefully recite lines from Princess Bride while understanding that it is entirely sexist at its core.

And I can like the First Law series, laugh loudly at Logen and Jezal and the rest and still see issues with the thoughtlessness that he uses when making Terez a lesbian.

Obvious to anyone actually reading the book? Nothing there indicates he endorses the action and in fact, quite the opposite.

And I never stated he endorsed anything. But it's also very clear that he's using that stereotype or that it certainly is a representation of that stereotype. (and to answer a prior question, grack - the stereotype has been around for hundreds of years; it's not particularly common in current lit any more, much less fantasy as fantasy novels rarely have homosexual relations at all).

And you really seem to be reading too much of your own ideas into his intent. But, to continue the tradition, I'd say it's probably included as a way to make her rejection of Jezal understandable and sympathetic. She's not just rejecting him cause she hates him, she's also doing so because she doesn't want to ever fuck him for a perfectly legitimate reason. It's a way to give even more power to the turn-around of the scene.

Well, regardless of what my own ideas are the end result is the same, and the end result is the thing I have a problem with. As to making rejecting Jezal more sympathetic - why wouldn't she be? Jezal is consistently and often depicted as a complete buffoon whose only talent is his bloodline. He's shit leading, he's shit fighting and he's shit with women. He's basically all ego and nothing else. The best thing you can say about him is that he's somewhat meaning well. Why would a well-educated, noble-born and bred woman want anything to do with this dumbass anyway? Does she need to be a lesbian to reject him? Heck, that's what Contrarius was arguing a while back as well - that she doesn't need to be a lesbian to reject him since he's so idiotic and beneath her already. And I don't think it makes her particularly more sympathetic to reject; if anything that implies that if she weren't a lesbian she would want him somewhat, and...why?

And that's really the issue I have with it in general. I largely agree with many posters who have stated that Glokta needed to do something especially vile to show the new power under Bayaz, and having him coerce Terez to be raped for years is undeniably that. I don't like that rape is the thing so many fantasy authors go to when wanting to showcase how horrible things are when there are both so many other and (in fantasy) so many creative ways to show violation and ugliness, but that's a general argument that applies to everyone. In this instance I think that having Terez being raped unwittingly (as everything is to Jezal) is pretty powerful. I wish we would have it more be about Terez and less about Jezal (in the same way I wish Tysha's rape was less to do about Tyrion and more to do with Tysha). But the bigger issue is the random sexual orientation thrown in and the uncomfortable trope it is near.

Also, thanks again to TerraPrime who explained my position and several others so eloquently. To be clear - yes, a thousand times yes I don't mind lesbians being put into dangerous situations (and that sounds like a new series on Fox or perhaps Cinemax). I happen to have issue with this specific lesbian put into this specific situation. I don't like it because her sexual orientation is used essentially only as a means to harm her. I don't like it because we get little about who she is, making her a token. I don't like it because it is so casually used without thinking. And I don't like it because the focus is on lesbian as different; Terez isn't special because she's a queen from a far-off country or because she's smart or even because she has a Deep Dark Secret - she's special because she's a lesbian.

[Shryke]

First, what is it that I'm hoping to accomplish by discussing this aspect of spec fic if my intention is not to induce some sort of censorship? Or, as shryke put it, what's my "end game"?

I found that question rather queer. What's the "end game" of anyone posting on here whenever they talk about their likes and dislikes of a book? Why do I need to provide some sort of 3-year plan if I feel like offering a critique of one aspect of a book, or if I want to comment on what I perceive to be a problematic trend in spec fic? I suspect that we post about books, whether we like them or dislike them, because we like sharing our thoughts about our reading experience. This is not some sort of social manipulation. I'm posting about this aspect of these books because it bothers me. Do I need to have more than that as reason to post?

With that said, I do hope that by having these discussions, we can successfully sway the trend enough that we will end up seeing better handling of some of these topics. Not from one discussion, of course, but from many such discussions taking place over many forums.

Can I be amused you complained about me asking what the purpose was and then in the next paragraph stated you had one?

I mean, you say it's a "problematic trend in spec fic". "Problematic trend" heavily implies, to me, an agenda at least on your side.

Which sort of brings me to a point - I don't think anyone is arguing that a passage, a scene, or a book, is incapable of handling some topics so badly that there really is not much value, aesthetic or moral, to it. Contrarius, for instance, who defended the Terez not-rape-just-sexual-foreplay-enforced-on-her-against-her-will-scene so vigorously, named a few scenes from the Outlander series as poorly done. Or, to put it another way, why aren't Shryke and company lining up the inquisition squad demanding the "end game" that Contrarius has in mind in pointing out how distasteful she finds the scenes to be in their implied message of women just want to be subdued? How come her critique is not seen as just a short hop, skip, and jump away from issuing fatwa against Gabaldon? Was Contrarius trying to censor Gabaldon, and by proxy, all authors, when she voiced her dismay at a few scenes in the books? Is she not condemning all authors from daring to write a S/M scene where the woman is the submissive? Might there not be a group of fans for the series who might defend those scenes with the same passion and vigor that some here have done for the Terez scene? Maybe Contrarius just need to, and I quote, "get the fuck over it"?

The reason, I suspect, that those comments were not met with the same set of argument is that most people here agree that those cited passages are pretty bad. Either that or they're having too much emotional involvement to not want to criticize someone on their own "team." I'll assume is the former here, and say that if we can just agree that scenes can be interpreted differently and even if we disagree on the Terez this-is-not-a-rape-scene-because-we-didn't-see-his-penis-entering-her-orifice scene, we can at least talk about the larger topic?

Or more likely because I skipped the quotes because I've never read the book and thus the scenes are completely devoid of context.

But just a cursory glance would seem to imply the issue he seems to have and that you yourself bring up is endorsement, not portrayal. "Contrarius has in mind in pointing out how distasteful she finds the scenes to be in their implied message of women just want to be subdued". Whether that's a correct judgment is not something one can make from some quotes.

One of the constant bugbears in talking about the shortcomings of spec fics concerning issues like race, sex, sexuality, etc., is that when someone criticizes a scene that contains X, the other side almost always accuse the person offering that criticism as wanting to suppress every scene that contains X. For instance, people accusing Kalbear of not wanting to read about any lesbians being harmed or raped, at all, on account of his objection to the Terez this-is-not-a-rape scene.

The reality is that more often than not, the objection really is about how it's done, not the actual content per se. If a rape scene (or not-a-rape-because-there-is-no-penetration scene) needs to involve a lesbian, then it should be done well, and with some consideration to the subject matter.

But the objection to "how it's done" continually invokes issues with the content itself.

Because the main argument seems to be it's bad because it exists (there doesn't need to be a rape scene) or because of some specific element of the content (there doesn't need to be a lesbian in the rape scene).

Others have asked what is it that makes a scene considerate. Here's what I think.

First, the topic shouldn't exist solely as an effect to augment other plot points. As an example, I offer you any number of female characters in Heinlein's books, where their sole purpose is to either titillate the audience or to demonstrate the virility of the male characters. Another example would be the damsel in distress trope, where the damsel's role is to illustrate the heroic nature of the rescuer. If a character is to be made a lesbian, let that be a trait that matters to the character instead of a trait that serves a plot point or that is used to characterize someone else.

Second, if a character is to be made to suffer some traumatic experience, like rape, or witnessing a murder, etc., the readers need some pay-off for the reading experience so that the episode doesn't come across as gratuitous. For instance, the experience of Egwene in the hands of the Senchean helps explain part of her new personality as the story progresses. This means that when we read those passages describing the abuse that she had received, it serves a purpose related to enhancing Egwene as a character. In comparison, the various tortures that Chesmaile and the other black sisters suffer at the hands of Moghedian really only serve to illustrate Moghedian, and have little to do with how we interact with Chesmaile and Liandrin etc.

I'd agree with your second point, but to the first one, why can't a thing in the story exist to serve the plot or deepen a character?

To take your example about Moghedien, the scene exists to characterize her mostly (and the sisters somewhat as well based on their differing reactions to the abuse) We understand her better through the things she does. When we see character X kill some other character in cold blood, we understand something about X. This doesn't require the person he killed to be a deep or complex character either. Not everyone can be a main character after all. A fuller characterization of the throw away dead guy might serve to deepen the characterization, but that's not always an issue or relevant. Unless, of course, that character is supposed to also matter elsewhere.

Basically, your examples from the first sound more like they should be linked to the second or linked to some third point about "shallow characterization in important characters". Things in the story should serve some purpose. Even if that purpose is just to deepen our understanding of some character or whatever. (ie - stuff shouldn't be gratuitous) But I'm not seeing why the first is important. Many things exist solely to further the plot or to further characterization of someone else.

But it seems more like you are saying there's a certain class of things that are extra special and shouldn't be treated this way. I don't see why that is at all. That a character is a lesbian is no different from that character being a brunette. It can matter, and certainly should effect that characters actions and outlook and all that if that stuff is relevant to the story. (which it obviously should be if they are an important character of any sort, but that's getting back to "shitty characterization is bad") But if that character isn't especially important or their outlook or what not is not terribly relevant or if they just appear briefly, why should is not be used? The world is full of lesbians, why shouldn't they appear in not especially important roles too.

[Shryke]

Just split this cause it seemed an interesting topic, but not wholly connected to the rest:

Finally, on the even broader topic of the place for sexual violence, and violence in general, in speculative fictions, I think it's worthwhile to ask why do these two aspects tend to be so prominent in works that are billed as realistic and gritty, or why fans tend to defend the presences of these elements by citing that they make the story more realistic.

Consider the multitude of factors and events in our real life that are glossed over in most fictions, particularly in pseudo-medieval settings. I'd imagine that given the hygeine level, body odor is an issue. So would dysentary and other food-related illnesses. People will have toothaches, especially if they're warriors who get knocked around a lot and end up losing a few teeth along the way. There'll be boils and skin rashes. Any number of these things are omitted frequently in the narrative. So why don't books that are billed to be realistic include these elements, in addition to, or in place of, sex and violence? If the excuse is that sex and violence are prevalent, well, then so are diseases and religious bigotry. Yet we don't see too many books that go to extraordinary length to describe every detail of a bloody diarrhea in service of making the book more real, more gritty, more grim. Why is that?

I'd say it's because:

1) sex and violence tend to be more plot relevant and generally much more obvious. It's much more well known and much more first-thing-that-comes-to-mind that a medieval sacking of a town is gonna involve alot of death and rape. That's the kind of stuff people are gonna notice if it's missing. It's much less known and generally seen as less relevant (perhaps not accurately) that these same people would have really shitty teach.

2) to go with the above, alot of it is built on previous works. How many writing or wanting to write, say, fantasy really know a ton about actual medieval life? The obvious and well known gets grabbed first (ie - shit was violent, lots of rape).

3) the move towards more realism of this sort in speculative fiction is still young, which I think ties into the above as well. We are only starting to get into what's entailed in showing "realism" rather then a more fairy-tale-esque/escapism atmosphere.

4) To further the above, sex and violence are also seen just generally as "mature". These are the things we tend to give limited exposure to in works for younger people and don't generally see in "less serious" works and such.

5) sex and violence are popular topics in fiction in general across all mediums. They are generally fascinating human activities, so they get alot of focus once you break down the wall and start getting into territory where you fell you CAN explore those kind of things.