Breaking the Author/Reader Contract.

[Frostmarrow]

This reminds me of Ivanhoe. In the beginning he is a mysterious stranger, besting all the Normand knights in jousting. Then he gets wounded and Robin Hood and King Richard has to sort everything up. Huh? In the very end the villain gives up his life to save Rebecca from the inquisition, as he allows her champion Ivanhoe to kill him in the duel he was winning.

My memory of the book might be blurred from watching the 1980s movie every New Years Day (A TV-tradition in Sweden).

 

[Paragon Kobold]

The rape from Covenant is icing on the cake for not liking a book where the protogonist is a unlikable, unsympathetic, uninteresting bastard. Great world, unreadable hero.

I agree. I only read the second book of the Covenant series, so I didn't
read the rape scene. Still after a while I found the protagonist so annoying
I started rooting for the villain.

 

[Storm Raven]

As others have said, it's more that the character was so completely unsympathetic. If a hero breaks down and does something dreadful in the heat of the moment, you can forgive it or look past it if necessary, particularly if the hero is cognizant of how awful it was. Heck, there are entire books based on that kind of angst. Not my favorite fiction, but its out there.

But that's not the issue I'm talking about. I'm talking about the people who say: "I can't read the Covenant books solely because of the rape scene". Whether or not the rest of the book is good or not, the existence of this scene apparently drives numbers of people away from the book.

But what they miss is that this is exactly what the book is about, which is why its in there. Covenant is a messiah by popular acclaim, and doesn't want to be. He is the predicted saviour of the world, and the book has as a major subtext the true extent of the things people will put up with for the promise of a saviour who will deliver them from evil. He's not a nice guy, that's the point. If he were a nice guy, then the whole thrust of the story would be lost, it would be easy to understand why the other characters put up with him.

 

[wedgeski]

But what they miss is that this is exactly what the book is about, which is why its in there. Covenant is a messiah by popular acclaim, and doesn't want to be. He is the predicted saviour of the world, and the book has as a major subtext the true extent of the things people will put up with for the promise of a saviour who will deliver them from evil. He's not a nice guy, that's the point. If he were a nice guy, then the whole thrust of the story would be lost, it would be easy to understand why the other characters put up with him.

Yup, well put. In the interests of full disclosure, the first trilogy is probably my favourite set of novels *ever*. The rape scene shocked me (as it was meant to); I read it with a sneer of hatred for Covenant (as I was meant to); from that moment on, the fate of the Land took second place to my revulsion for the protagonist (as his own self-loathing does). Sounds like good writing to me. And how anyone can describe him as 'uninteresting' is wholly outside the scope of my understanding.

Hijacked thread alert.

No, I do not believe there are any contracts between author and reader. The author writes. I read. If I like, I finish. If I am bored, I put down. Let him break every convention in the book and challenge every expectation and assumption I bring with me. As long as the words are good, I will continue reading to the end. I guess that would constitute more a letter of intent than a contract..?

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

But that's not the issue I'm talking about. I'm talking about the people who say: "I can't read the Covenant books solely because of the rape scene". Whether or not the rest of the book is good or not, the existence of this scene apparently drives numbers of people away from the book.

There are perfectly good reasons for that. It is widely considered one of the most vile acts a human being can commit. It's perfectly reasonable to decide that you have no possible common ground with a person who would commit such an act. And it's tough to be entertained or enlightened without empathy with the protagonist. Not impossible, sure, but a heck of a lot tougher.

But what they miss is that this is exactly what the book is about, which is why its in there. Covenant is a messiah by popular acclaim, and doesn't want to be. He is the predicted saviour of the world, and the book has as a major subtext the true extent of the things people will put up with for the promise of a saviour who will deliver them from evil. He's not a nice guy, that's the point. If he were a nice guy, then the whole thrust of the story would be lost, it would be easy to understand why the other characters put up with him.

That's all well and good, but again, I can watch people rationalize away their responsibilities every day. I can watch people bend over to be screwed by the person who's supposed to be helping them every day. I can watch people put up with the lesser of two evils every day. Doesn't improve my life or provide me with entertainment.

I'm not saying you shouldn't like it, but I am saying that it's wrong of you to assume that the rest of us are wrong or are missing the point. I get enough of that kind of cynicism just reading the paper or dealing with the red tape necessary to do my job. When I read about a messiah figure I want to see that person doing their job. If nothing else, it gives me hope for the real world.

 

[Storm Raven]

There are perfectly good reasons for that. It is widely considered one of the most vile acts a human being can commit. It's perfectly reasonable to decide that you have no possible common ground with a person who would commit such an act. And it's tough to be entertained or enlightened without empathy with the protagonist. Not impossible, sure, but a heck of a lot tougher.

Sure it is, that's the point. It's up there with murder as one of the malum in se crimes that we recognize. But people put up with murderous protagonists all the time. Simply because they have been conditioned to accept them. Is rape truly worse than murder? Do you react the same way to say, Mackey from The Shield, the Corleones from The Godfather, and the Sopranos from The Sopranos? Because in those cases the main characters are all murderous thugs.

That's all well and good, but again, I can watch people rationalize away their responsibilities every day. I can watch people bend over to be screwed by the person who's supposed to be helping them every day. I can watch people put up with the lesser of two evils every day. Doesn't improve my life or provide me with entertainment.

Yet, other than this one act, what does Covenant do that is so reprehensible? He complains about having responsibilities he does not want and never asked for thrust upon him. Those around him expect him to be their saviour, simply because it was prophecied that he would. Why is a protagonist who is forced into a role he didn't want so repellent? Is it because everyone believes that if they were asked to save a world they would do so cheerfully?

I'm not saying you shouldn't like it, but I am saying that it's wrong of you to assume that the rest of us are wrong or are missing the point. I get enough of that kind of cynicism just reading the paper or dealing with the red tape necessary to do my job. When I read about a messiah figure I want to see that person doing their job. If nothing else, it gives me hope for the real world.

But you do miss the point. The fact is that saving the world "as his job" is a responsibility Covenant didn't want, didn't ask for, and wants to go away. He reacts like many people would when told the fate of the world rests on his shoulders: he doesn't like the burden. The story is about a man who didn't want to save the world, and never wants to, doing so.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Storm Raven, let me address your points from my own perspective, since I can't speak for anyone else.

I don't care what the point of the book was. If a book reaches the point where I'm so annoyed by the characters that I'm literally not enjoying the read, why should I continue? Even fantasy books that have a "message" are entertainment, first and foremost. I'm not going to read something that I'm not, on some level, enjoying. I wasn't enjoying the Thomas Covenant books, on any level. So I stopped reading.

The rape entered into that, yes, but it wasn't the only reason. I literally couldn't stand the main character, and the others annoyed me as well. The fact that I wasn't meant to like him may indicate that the writer accomplished what he wanted, but it also meant that I had no motivation for reading any further.

There are enough books out there that I can get into and enjoy reading that it simply isn't worth my time to force myself through something I'm not.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Some further thoughts...

I think it actually is easier for many readers to justify/forgive a murderous character than a rapist. See, there are times where killing is justified: Self-defense, defense of others, during war, if the victim is truly evil and dangerous... Even if the murders committed by a specific character don't fall into those categories, the fact that some killing is justified may mitigate an element of the horror.

But rape? Rape is never justified. Never. Under no circumstances. Period.

It's also, by definition, a much more personal crime. Murder can be committed impersonally, at a distance, or swiftly. Rape cannot.

Finally, there's the simple fact that I can accept evil actions from evil characters more than I can from supposedly good, or even morally ambiguous characters. I've read and enjoyed novels that were basically about the villains, but that's because the author was clear about the fact that they were villains. I cannot accept a "hero," no matter how reluctant a hero he may be, committing rape. I don't want to read about a character like that, no matter how realistic he might be.

Don't know how much any of this enters into people's feelings about Covenant. I'm not even saying it impacts my reactions; I honestly don't know. It was just a thought that occurred that I figured I'd share.

 

[Storm Raven]

Some further thoughts...

I think it actually is easier for many readers to justify/forgive a murderous character than a rapist. See, there are times where killing is justified: Self-defense, defense of others, during war, if the victim is truly evil and dangerous... Even if the murders committed by a specific character don't fall into those categories, the fact that some killing is justified may mitigate an element of the horror.

And yet murder is so much more final for the victim. Awful as it is, rape is survivable; murder, in contrast, by definition, is not. Yet many seem much more willing to root for characters portrayed as murderers, which to my mind is an odd position to take.

Finally, there's the simple fact that I can accept evil actions from evil characters more than I can from supposedly good, or even morally ambiguous characters. I've read and enjoyed novels that were basically about the villains, but that's because the author was clear about the fact that they were villains. I cannot accept a "hero," no matter how reluctant a hero he may be, committing rape. I don't want to read about a character like that, no matter how realistic he might be.

Which position, when applied to the Covenant books, demonstrates that you missed the true issue: Covenant isn't a hero. He is never portrayed as a hero, never wants to be a hero, and never becomes one (in the first series at least). Troy is a hero. Foamfollower is a hero. Elena is a hero (although she falls from grace). Mhoram is a hero (there is a reason why Mhoram is remembered and honored in the second series). The Bloodguard are heroes. But are heroes enough? Are heroes what is needed?

 

[Desdichado]

No, Storm Raven, I don't think those of us who put down the book in disgust missed the point. We got the point very well. That didn't make the book or the main character any less odious. And although the point may be that he's odious, I have no interest in reading about an odious protagonist. It's not a case of missing the point, it's a case of it being a point I don't care to have thrust in front of me when I'm trying to read what's supposed to be entertainment. It could be said that Donaldson missed the point, if he thought that his point was entertaining, or interesting, or worth reading.