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

[Sci-2]

Are authors not allowed to write about women who display any sort of defiance/spirit/etc being sexual assaulted?

I suspect everything written confirms or breaks some viewpoint, some narrative we put in our heads. Human beings commit fundamental attribution error and confirmation bias all the time, so while a carjacking white person is an individual a carjacking African American is a confirmation.

So when we have a story about a defiant woman broken down, panicked, and humiliated, we have a story that has the problematic potential to confirm the societal warning that women better be careful about how they act.

Why was Terez so mean to Jezal? So adamantly defiant about having sex with him? Was it fidelity to her love? Was it because she decided at the moment of truth that she would not stand for her sexuality to be a tool in politics?

We don't know. All we have is a woman who defies a man and is punished via having her lover locked in dungeon with the threat of gang rape. Like I said, it conforms to plots people find in porno.

Terez would have been a fascinating character, certainly more-so than Ferro-bot.

I also don't think anyone is arguing Abercrombie is secretly cackling about putting women in their place, in the same way I don't think Spielburg was cackling about confirming prejudices about Hinduism and Indian hygeine when he made Temple of Doom, that the movie works specifically by exploiting fear of the Other. (See Song of Kali as well)

Shit happens.

Having a protagonist rape a female character to prove to himself that the world wasn't real, not to mention the relative lack of remorse or major consequences, certainly seems to be worthy of discussion in regards to the parameters of this thread (not to mention the degradations in Bacigalupi's The Wind-Up Girl, which I also found to be problematic).

You know I never made it even that far into Lord Foul's Bane.

ETA: And given Requires Only That You Hate noting that she found the Thailand depiction not just exploitative but utter garbage from a research standpoint, I'll likely try to get Wind Up Girl from a library so it might be awhile.

[jurble]

Imagine someone who's racist against blacks, Asians, and Middle-Eastern people cracking a joke about Indians - surely, this person's general adaptation of a racist attitude towards everyone does not in anyway lessen the offensiveness of his comment on Indians?

But why get upset only about the Indian-remarks? There isn't a five-page thread about how terrible Abercrombie is for depicting Glokta torturing one his army buddies in the initial pages of the first book. What makes sexual violence (and his portrayal) special? Does it really serve to somehow reenforce sexist predilections of his readers?

[Spring Bass]

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.

I'll bite on this. Has anyone ever tried to conduct studies to see if negative portrayals of certain subjects/groups of people in fictional books are linked to negative perceptions about those groups in real life?

I ask because there's been a similar type of argument with regards to video games, with claims that violent video games make the kids who play them more likely to be violent. That's something that actually hasn't stood up in studies attempted on the topic, and I wonder if the same thing might be at play with claims about fictional depictions reinforcing real-life negative stereotypes.

Most of the arguments I read in the "pro" position tend to either be circular ("it re-enforces negative tropes because negative tropes show up in fiction") or arguments from personal discomfort ("As an X, I found Scene Y to be personally very disconcerting").

[Grack21]

And to show how out of it I;ve been, I;ve been typing Ambercrombie. Good God, I need to be punished.

[Grack21]

Hey here's a question. Would a MOD like to tell me why my posts keep getting deleted? I'm trying to explain my arguments and reasons I dislike that blog post rationally for once, and if someone is going to keep deleteing my posts I message as to what I'm doing that's wrong would be helpful.

[ZombieWife]

I've tried to formulate an answer for the last hour. Nothing is coming out right. Why is this such a tricky topic?

On one hand, I understand the analysis. You delve into gender studies at all and you'll find some really disturbing engendering that we're raising our kids with. You see how the media perpetuates the "gender sickness" to the utmost.

But, on the other hand, I value my freedom as an artist. I want to be able to tell a story no matter how gritty, no matter how provocative.

I also think that women are responding more (as artists) and beginning to offer alternatives to what they deem a male-dominated, misogynistic market. As a fantasy writer myself, I choose to answer the lack of agency with stories that give women more power. If men don't want to do it (for whatever reasons--to remain true to the medieval flavor for example) then I'm not going to put up a fuss. It's their world, their rules.

But, I can also do something about it myself. I can offer an alternative. Blogs like this, great, fine, say your peace. We've all earned our opinions, but I give far more credit to those who choose to do something about it rather than complain. Complaints may garner awareness, but action (in my eyes) proves far more valuable.

Now, I will say this . . .

I just started reading Abercrombie. It's a dude-fantasy. Simple enough. I'm engaged enough to keep reading. I know what I'm getting into. I knew by page 10 what I was getting into that this wasn't going to include much of the female side of things. I'm okay with that. I can see if someone got halfway into a book and was hoodwinked. They might feel cheated. I look at the cover and I see "guy stuff." I read in. I see "guy stuff." I like the writing. I like Abercrombie's voice. I'm not reading it for any kind of study. I'm reading it because I enjoy the characters so far (except for Glokta. I cringe whenever I get to his chapters because I find them tedious).

To each their own. :)

[Contrarius]

I did, but I am not seeing how it addressed the point I made.

I don't see what is so confusing here. If somebody abuses people of both genders, then how in the world can they be accused of sexism? It's silly.

There's nothing wrong with being offended by portrayals of violence of any sort. But it's dishonest to take those portrayals out of context and then use that lack of context to make false claims about them.

[Ran]

Larry.,

Having a protagonist rape a female character to prove to himself that the world wasn't real, not to mention the relative lack of remorse or major consequences,

Beg to differ. Covenant's remorse for what we he did once he began to accept the fact that the world he was in was real to even some degree was very present in those novels. The fact that it's one of a heap of things he does that he feels terrible about, but everyone around him just sees him as the White Gold Wielder of prophecy who must be supported and protected and all of his wrongs are excused, which only makes it all the worse for Covenant. It's torture for him to no longer be the outcast, to be welcomed and hoped for and befriended, when he thinks he deserves none of it, when he's sure it's a dream that's going to make the return to reality all the more painful.

On top of that, as far as consequences go, the immensely unjust situation leads to the tragedy that befalls Elena later on. I guess it's not a personal consequence, as such, but still.

[Larry.]

It may be that I'm forgetting a lot after reading that book like 7 years ago and never wanting to re-read it, but I thought the self-torture was more due to his physical affliction in "the real world" and not as much to remorse. I could be mistaken, though, for reason noted above. However, what still troubles me about it is having the center of such remorse being rape. I just can't help but think another means of causing remorse could have occurred within the confines of that story.

[Contrarius]

You know, the more I think about it, it's surprising that considering the broad nature of the title, that we haven't discussed the sickening ridiculousness of the Thomas Covenant rape scene in Donaldson's first book. Having a protagonist rape a female character to prove to himself that the world wasn't real, not to mention the relative lack of remorse or major consequences, certainly seems to be worthy of discussion in regards to the parameters of this thread

Donaldson's rape scene has been discussed many times in the past. No, Covenant didn't do it "to prove" anything -- there was no real conscious premeditation going on at the time -- and yes, there were major consequences and remorse throughout the series.

[Contrarius]

I just can't help but think another means of causing remorse could have occurred within the confines of that story.

And you get to write your own story with whatever causes of remorse you choose to employ. ;)

[Werthead]

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.

[TerraPrime]

Re: Jurble

But why get upset only about the Indian-remarks? There isn't a five-page thread about how terrible Abercrombie is for depicting Glokta torturing one his army buddies in the initial pages of the first book. What makes sexual violence (and his portrayal) special? Does it really serve to somehow reenforce sexist predilections of his readers?

I can't answer for everyone, but here are some guesses about the discrepancy.

Women, in the U.S., experience sex-related violence at the rate of about 1 in 5 (if you don't like that statistics, name a ratio that makes you happy, and I can probably agree with that for the sake of argument). So, it's a very immediate and pertinent issue to many people. Physical torture, whether of one's former army buddy or not, remains statistically insignificant compared to the rate of sexual violence against women.

Another reason might be that most people might have been situations where rape or sexual violation might be a real possibility, whereas few would have been in a position to administer physical torture to another human being. This means that it's easier for many to relate and to empathize with a rape scene than a physical torture scene.

Thirdly, our other media sources often depict physical violence and shy away from depicting sexual violence. So when in the written format we get see an example of the latter it garners more attention.

But, if your point is simply that those who're upset at the sexism embedded in that scene are being inconsistent because we're not equally outraged by all the other objectionable content, then I'd say that you're missing the point a bit about this discussion.

Re: Contrarius

I don't see what is so confusing here. If somebody abuses people of both genders, then how in the world can they be accused of sexism? It's silly.

There's nothing wrong with being offended by portrayals of violence of any sort. But it's dishonest to take those portrayals out of context and then use that lack of context to make false claims about them.

How can we be taking it out of context if you premise that the author deliberately chose a sexual disempowerment to demonstrate a point AND we're objecting to that choice of using sex/rape to make that point? I don't understand it.

Clearly, the author has a choice in how to depict the taking-away of agency. In Jezal's case, it was crystalized in his fighting match, where he won not because he was better-skilled, but because Bayaz needed him to win. In Terez's case, she was coerced and threatened into having sex (and pretending to like it!). It is not enough, for me at least, to accept that the author's intent is to demonstrate a lack of agency for his characters, because the choices he made to illustrate that point is important to me, as well.

[Sci-2]

Thinking about rape in other works, anyone read Identity Crisis from DC Comics? Sue Dibny, who pushed around super villains and heroes despite her complete lack of powers, crumples into a panicked woman who gets raped by Dr. Light.

A lot of people at the time suggested that this was "realistic", ignoring that reality would have seen the Joker and other super villains get the death penalty a long, long time ago.

Talk about wanting cake in hand and stomach simultaneously.

When the suggestion came up about having a male superhero raped, the topic was deleted after fans decried the very notion.

ETA: Mind you, the male superhero in the topic was supposed to have a story about his recovery as opposed to the women-in-fridge death Sue got.

[LugaJetboyGirl]

I suspect it's because Donaldson's series is older, and maybe less resonant or immediate to many newer readers. And also, perhaps people don't tend to think of his work as within the same category of the "grimdark" fantasy? Not entirely sure, but yes, the events in that series certainly fit into the category of someone using rape as a literary tool.

I'm actually having a hard time following what the point of this thread is. So I had to go back and re-read the first part to be reminded. Although I still think I am confused.*

But I figured I would link to a conversation from last year in which we talked about the issue of agency and violence in Urban Fantasy and how in several instances rape/trauma is the source of women's agency.

We're discussing a different 'fantasy' genre, I know, but I think the question is related, given that in the 'historical' fantasies that this thread focuses on, rape indicates a lack of agency, whereas in some 'modern' fantasies, rape/trauma results in women's agency.

I know I'm oversimplifying, but rape as a routine literary trope is certainly present in both. The different protrayal of rape in these two subgenres and their relation to notions of 'historical realism' make an intriquing dichotomy.

* I also haven't read the book under discussion, which probably doesn't help.

[Contrarius]

How can we be taking it out of context if you premise that the author deliberately chose a sexual disempowerment to demonstrate a point AND we're objecting to that choice of using sex/rape to make that point? I don't understand it.

Because you are acting as though that is the only disempowering scene in the whole trilogy. Again, that's just silly.

Abercrombie used coerced sex in that scene because that's what was relevant in terms of that character. In other scenes he used physical torture, in yet other scenes he used other methods of disempowerment -- whatever fit the character and the situation.

[TerraPrime]

Because you are acting as though that is the only disempowering scene in the whole trilogy. Again, that's just silly.

I think you're fundamentally mistaken if you think that I think the Terez scene is the only disempowering scene in the whole trilogy, when in fact, I myself provided another example in the previous post (Jezal's victory in the duel). I have no idea how you can walk away from this discussion thinking that that's what I think.

Abercrombie used coerced sex in that scene because that's what was relevant in terms of that character. In other scenes he used physical torture, in yet other scenes he used other methods of disempowerment -- whatever fit the character and the situation.

Is sexual violation the only possible path to show the readers that Terez has no control over her own life? If not, if perhaps there are other venues, does it not merit some consideration, for the readers, on why the author chose rape, out of the possibilities?

[LugaJetboyGirl]

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.

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.

[Sci-2]

Hmmm, you know I thought the rape scene in Warded Man was done somewhat "well" but looking back on it I can see fail.

Edit: At the same time, I think it had logic to it though I sorta felt the author's hand forcing the narrative. And I don't think it was wrong for Leena to traumatized. Also, it wasn't titillating by any measure, though there was a weird focus on the male companion's pain as opposed to the woman but I could see Brett not wanting to pretend he could understand Leena's position.

Really, the bizarre shifts in Leena's personality made the second book largely worthless to me. The rape of the male character having little to no effect on him - also fail.

[Contrarius]

I think you're fundamentally mistaken if you think that I think the Terez scene is the only disempowering scene in the whole trilogy, when in fact, I myself provided another example in the previous post (Jezal's victory in the duel). I have no idea how you can walk away from this discussion thinking that that's what I think.

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. :)

Is sexual violation the only possible path to show the readers that Terez has no control over her own life? If not, if perhaps there are other venues, does it not merit some consideration, for the readers, on why the author chose rape, out of the possibilities?

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.

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).

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