I generally agree with the claim that, "beneath the violent, profanity-laced narratives lurks a rather conservative, misogynistic mindset where the rapes and degradations of groups traditionally removed from power (women, homosexuals of all genders) are portrayed in an almost lurid fashion".
However I think it's a mistake to draw overly broad conclusions about an author's, or a group of authors', mindsets as such that inform the work. A lot of it can be an unconscious impulse or predispositions. Most men generally don't know how to write well about rape in the sense of doing justice to the agency of the victims, since it's a cluster of concepts and experiences pretty far from most male psyches. Just as it's not useful to berate a blogger with ad-hominems over their interpretation of a work, it's equally harmful to decry an author as being a closet fascist, conservative, rape-fan, whatever one would like to call it.
As to whether or not all of this is a good thing or a bad thing or shouldn't be or can be allowed to be, I have no idea. I think it is important, however, for an author and his readers to be fairly honest and consistent about what perspective they're going to approach their work from. A situation like Abercrombie's is problematic because on the surface of it, and according to the stated justifications, the text seems to be attempting at realism. But many have pointed out that it also is at a deeper level in fact not realistic, but a phantasy that is focusing on and acting some of the seedier aspects of human experience. Please note that this does not mean they are subconsciously endorsing it, even if they are revelling in it on some level!
It seems like this was the case with Abercrombie, and I think he wasn't being fully honest in his work. It's not ok to write passages like the ones I saw lifted from Abercrombie's book. The writing was shit and did seem lurid. Someone defended the passage by assuring the author "wasn't hard" when he wrote it, but I really can't be sure. The fact is, a lot of male authors tend to lapse into writing from the perspective of the one inflicting force upon another, and consequently denying the agency of another. Most of this I'd wager isn't conscious, but if you track where to insert your own ego in the text, which character you're going to sort of invest as ego-ideal, it tends to be the one doing the violating. This particularly seems so in Abercrombie's case.
It's problematic across almost every sort of work, textual and visual, regardless of genre as well. In the fantasy world, it's a pretty mixed bag, and each author can be analyzed on this sliding scale of where the focus of the reader's self is invested. I'd like to go into more technical detail with my thoughts on the framework for sifting through this sort of thing, with Sartre and Lacan and lots of Greek, and would be more than happy to if anyone's interested, but for now I'll just leave this post as the garbled mess it is.
However I think it's a mistake to draw overly broad conclusions about an author's, or a group of authors', mindsets as such that inform the work. A lot of it can be an unconscious impulse or predispositions. Most men generally don't know how to write well about rape in the sense of doing justice to the agency of the victims, since it's a cluster of concepts and experiences pretty far from most male psyches. Just as it's not useful to berate a blogger with ad-hominems over their interpretation of a work, it's equally harmful to decry an author as being a closet fascist, conservative, rape-fan, whatever one would like to call it.
As to whether or not all of this is a good thing or a bad thing or shouldn't be or can be allowed to be, I have no idea. I think it is important, however, for an author and his readers to be fairly honest and consistent about what perspective they're going to approach their work from. A situation like Abercrombie's is problematic because on the surface of it, and according to the stated justifications, the text seems to be attempting at realism. But many have pointed out that it also is at a deeper level in fact not realistic, but a phantasy that is focusing on and acting some of the seedier aspects of human experience. Please note that this does not mean they are subconsciously endorsing it, even if they are revelling in it on some level!
It seems like this was the case with Abercrombie, and I think he wasn't being fully honest in his work. It's not ok to write passages like the ones I saw lifted from Abercrombie's book. The writing was shit and did seem lurid. Someone defended the passage by assuring the author "wasn't hard" when he wrote it, but I really can't be sure. The fact is, a lot of male authors tend to lapse into writing from the perspective of the one inflicting force upon another, and consequently denying the agency of another. Most of this I'd wager isn't conscious, but if you track where to insert your own ego in the text, which character you're going to sort of invest as ego-ideal, it tends to be the one doing the violating. This particularly seems so in Abercrombie's case.
It's problematic across almost every sort of work, textual and visual, regardless of genre as well. In the fantasy world, it's a pretty mixed bag, and each author can be analyzed on this sliding scale of where the focus of the reader's self is invested. I'd like to go into more technical detail with my thoughts on the framework for sifting through this sort of thing, with Sartre and Lacan and lots of Greek, and would be more than happy to if anyone's interested, but for now I'll just leave this post as the garbled mess it is.
I thought this issue, which is breaking off of an earlier discussion on Westeros, might lead to some interesting discussions here, so I'm copy/pasting what I wrote there for the split post. There are several links embedded in that post, so the link to the original thread is below for those who want to read the Requires Hate posts that are part of this discussion.
Last night in another thread, there emerged a discussion about the issue of lesbian rape and the lack of female agency in works such as Joe Abercrombie's The Last Argument of Kings. Shortly, posts from that thread will be ported over here, but I think it might behoove us to not just focus on that particular novel, but also consider the issue of violence and the often-associated lack of agency, particularly with females and homosexual characters, that often occur in the so-called "gritty" fantasies.
Since some in the discussion last night were reacting strongly to the comments made over at the Requires Hate blog, it bears keeping in mind that the quickest way to lose any sort of ground in a debate is to attack the person rather than counterpoint his or her arguments.
With this in mind, what I found interesting about the Requires Hate comments is the underlying belief that beneath the violent, profanity-laced narratives lurks a rather conservative, misogynistic mindset where the rapes and degradations of groups traditionally removed from power (women, homosexuals of all genders) are portrayed in an almost lurid fashion in several of these novels because it is assumed that because repression occurred in various human societies over different periods of time. This leaves aside, according to the argument presented in several other comments over there, that portraying only the worst elements unadulterated by the complexities of human interactions in which there was no steady, heavy oppression inevitably distorts the very real issues of agency/hegemony to the point where it is easy to assume that there was no agency of actions among these groups. The violence that is a hallmark of such stories (the battles, the rapes, the tortures, the intimidations, etc.) to some, like that reviewer quoted, represents not human nature but the distortion of it in service of downplaying the roles that the often-disenfranchised did play when direct access to power was denied.
Hopefully, pro and contra statements on the above paragraph will be the focus of this discussion and not the personal qualities of those forwarding or critiquing these arguments.
Last night in another thread, there emerged a discussion about the issue of lesbian rape and the lack of female agency in works such as Joe Abercrombie's The Last Argument of Kings. Shortly, posts from that thread will be ported over here, but I think it might behoove us to not just focus on that particular novel, but also consider the issue of violence and the often-associated lack of agency, particularly with females and homosexual characters, that often occur in the so-called "gritty" fantasies.
Since some in the discussion last night were reacting strongly to the comments made over at the Requires Hate blog, it bears keeping in mind that the quickest way to lose any sort of ground in a debate is to attack the person rather than counterpoint his or her arguments.
With this in mind, what I found interesting about the Requires Hate comments is the underlying belief that beneath the violent, profanity-laced narratives lurks a rather conservative, misogynistic mindset where the rapes and degradations of groups traditionally removed from power (women, homosexuals of all genders) are portrayed in an almost lurid fashion in several of these novels because it is assumed that because repression occurred in various human societies over different periods of time. This leaves aside, according to the argument presented in several other comments over there, that portraying only the worst elements unadulterated by the complexities of human interactions in which there was no steady, heavy oppression inevitably distorts the very real issues of agency/hegemony to the point where it is easy to assume that there was no agency of actions among these groups. The violence that is a hallmark of such stories (the battles, the rapes, the tortures, the intimidations, etc.) to some, like that reviewer quoted, represents not human nature but the distortion of it in service of downplaying the roles that the often-disenfranchised did play when direct access to power was denied.
Hopefully, pro and contra statements on the above paragraph will be the focus of this discussion and not the personal qualities of those forwarding or critiquing these arguments.
I really have to disagree, I have not read ambercrombie but I would hold up Martin as one who does it well. I may be using words differently than you are (as I suspect your use of agency has some English major meaning I may be missing) but rape is ABOUT the loss of agency. The person during the rape has no agency (now after is a completely different story) and I think saying they wrote from the perspective of the one doing the raping and wrote them enjoying it is bad, untrue, or destroying to society or proves that there is some unconscious desire on the authors part to rape someone.
Violence, rape, and agency in the "gritty fantasies"
- 17/12/2011 01:36:54 PM
1739 Views
Martin, Goodkind...
- 18/12/2011 01:58:33 PM
1040 Views
On more of a "meta" level, what makes a fantasy story "gritty" in the first place?
- 19/12/2011 02:58:57 PM
915 Views
There has to be something more, though.
- 19/12/2011 03:47:56 PM
1071 Views
Re: There has to be something more, though.
- 19/12/2011 05:29:30 PM
947 Views
Re: There has to be something more, though.
- 19/12/2011 09:06:14 PM
922 Views
My problem with aSoIaF...
- 20/12/2011 05:16:42 AM
970 Views
The Rhoynish influence pretty much ends in Dorne.
- 20/12/2011 06:15:54 AM
950 Views
And that makes sense?
- 20/12/2011 08:54:16 AM
1039 Views
Yes and no.
- 20/12/2011 03:10:54 PM
1066 Views
Re: Yes and no.
- 26/12/2011 03:12:01 AM
930 Views
The power and influence of women in the Middle Ages was limited, but not non-existent.
- 26/12/2011 01:37:40 PM
895 Views
Re: The power and influence of women in the Middle Ages was limited, but not non-existent.
- 29/12/2011 02:47:06 AM
1017 Views
Re: There has to be something more, though.
- 20/12/2011 12:21:39 PM
878 Views
Re: On more of a "meta" level, what makes a fantasy story "gritty" in the first place?
- 26/12/2011 01:15:35 AM
990 Views