Breaking the Author/Reader Contract.

[takyris]

Or it's a legitimate difference of opinion, and anybody making value judgments on either side should probably cool off. I can watch fight scenes and be impressed by their choreography, whereas my wife can't get over the fact that it's two people trying to hurt each other, and can't enjoy them at all. Neither one of us is wrong.

My personal feelings about rape, based on experiences with women close to me in my life, would prevent me from reading such a book. That doesn't mean that it's a bad book. It just wouldn't do it for me. I'm not even sure that it would break the implied contract, since it seems that the character is pretty awful for most of the book, yes? Breaking the contract would be having a good, nice hero who suddenly and for no reason rapes somebody in chapter nine.

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.

Only for those viewing it from a different perspective. Do you watch "Monk"? People get murdered just aboute very episode, but it's a mystery show, so that's expected, and the murders are a matter of intellectual curiosity, bereft of any of the real-world emotion of having somebody suddenly and violently killed. But if somebody got raped in an episode of Monk, I'd be shocked, and I'd probably have to turn it off. It's a different kind of crime.

I don't root for murderers, either, though, at least, not as far as I recall. Fitz in the Assassin trilogy is the closest I come, I think, and he's killing for a political cause -- and most of the people he kills in his assassin role are Forged, which mostly qualifies as putting them out of their misery and protecting the innocent.

 

[Richards]

This is only peripherally related to the topic at hand, but I think Gene Wolfe did a fantastic job in creating a likeable protagonist who is a torturer of all things...Severian, from his Book of the New Sun novels. I never would have believed it possible to be rooting for the torturer. (Of course, I suppose it helps that his conscience gets the better of him and he allows a "client" to escape through assisted suicide...)

Johnathan

 

[Mouseferatu]

Which position, when applied to the Covenant books, demonstrates that you missed the true issue: Covenant isn't a hero.

I didn't miss that at all. That's why I said "good or morally ambiguous" characters.

I know that Covenant isn't meant to be a hero. But he's also not meant to be the villain of the series.

And frankly, I find him, his actions, and his general personality so repugnant and unpleasant that I wasn't enjoying reading about him. I don't know how to say it any clearer than that. The part of the book I read was, IMO, bad.

It has nothing to do with "getting" it. It has to do with not liking it.

I know that asparagus is good for me, and that many people like it. I "get" that fact. Doesn't change the fact that I hate asparagus, and won't eat it because, to me, it tastes bad.

Thomas Covenant, to me, tastes bad. The rape is a perfect example of how it tastes bad, but it's not the cause or the sum total effect. Just part of the whole thing.

 

[Umbran]

It could be said that Donaldson missed the point, if he thought that his point was entertaining, or interesting, or worth reading.

As we discuss, we need to remember that taste is subjective.

The Thomas Covenant books have been in print (continuously, I belive) since 1977. That's better than most authors can claim. I don't think there's a solid argument that Donaldson missed any points, given that people are still buying and reading it. There's plenty out there who find it interesting and worth reading, even if it isn't entertaining, per se.

 

[Desdichado]

As we discuss, we need to remember that taste is subjective.

The Thomas Covenant books have been in print (continuously, I belive) since 1977. That's better than most authors can claim. I don't think there's a solid argument that Donaldson missed any points, given that people are still buying and reading it. There's plenty out there who find it interesting and worth reading, even if it isn't entertaining, per se.

Well, yes, I thought that went without saying. Obviously the folks who are saying that I missed the point find Donaldson's work entertaining, but my point was that just because I intensely disliked the books doesn't mean I missed the point, it just means I intensely disliked the point. My attempt at making a semi-humerous turning around of the thread by claiming that it could said Donaldson missed the point obviously didn't work.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I have to pipe up for my dig at Robert Jordan.

Man, this is one guy (George Lucus is another) that should have to answer to an editor. He cannot be trusted if left to his own devices as he will pad out his books with gratuitous scenes of the most trivial and repetitive order.

He has systematically assassinated his characters with neurotic and banal behaviour. The level of mindless, reactionary (almost reflexive) antagonism between the good guys faced with an imminent armageddon-like threat defies sensibility. Okay they have different cultures but get real.

Last book of his I 'read' I skipped the unlikeable character's chapters; I read half the book.

With RJ the deal is off, he won't give an ending, I'll just move along.

 

[Umbran]

Well, yes, I thought that went without saying.

On the internet, nothing goes without saying

I got your semi-humorous point. However, I've seen far, far too many cases where someone didn't get such a point, and reacted badly. I figured if I stated the obvious in a non-inflammatory way, there'd be much greater probability of things continuing on in an interesting manner. Nipping hotheads in the bud, and all that.

I now return you to the discussion of the relative merits (or lack thereof) of Donaldson's work.

 

[billd91]

I now return you to the discussion of the relative merits (or lack thereof) of Donaldson's work.

As for me, I got past the rape scene (my wife didn't, she stopped reading with that very chapter). What got me was the absolute tediousness of Covenant's constant griping. Every time it came up I was like "Yes, yes. We know you're no hero. On with the point."
Trying to soldier on with an open mind through that first book was a chore. I'd rather watch paint dry.

Fortunately, I had checked the book out from the local library and so didn't feel cheated out of the price I paid.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

I now return you to the discussion of the relative merits (or lack thereof) of Donaldson's work.

You know, I should feel bad about the gross hijack, but I don't.

But in any case, this isn't about the merits in an objective sense. I never read enough of the thing to develop a good sense of its literary merit outside of my complete inability to empathize with the protagonist in any way, shape, or form. It's about the ability to dislike something that someone else likes without being told you're wrong and/or missing the point.

Is rape truly worse than murder?

Yup. I'd give you my reasons, but ultimately, there is no more subjective question in the world. But I think we can proceed without concensus on that one, because it really is besides the point.

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.

Yup, Nope, and Yup. In that order. Some of the Corleones were indeed, mere thugs. Others (Vito, Michael) had a strong sense of morality and a code of behavior. It differed from that of the society around them, but they did have one. And they tried to do what was right for their family/their people, even if it involved murder, etc. It doesn't make them right, or just, but it does make them something other than mere thugs. But again, beside the point. I guess I'm just feeling argumentative today.

Yet, other than this one act, what does Covenant do that is so reprehensible?

Wait for it...

He complains about having responsibilities he does not want and never asked for thrust upon him.

Bingo. The mark of an adolescent, and a generally petty, ignoble human being. Everyone has responsibilities thrust upon them. Very often they are responsibilities they didn't want, and sometimes the inheritance of said responsibility is grossly unfair. That's life. A hero goes above and beyond their mere responsibilities. A decent human being at least tries to fulfill them without making everyone around them miserable and commiting vile crimes.

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?

I've read about hundreds of protagonists thrust into roles they didn't want. Just to pull out one rather famous example: Frodo. He wasn't exactly tickled pink about what he had to do.

Is it because everyone believes that if they were asked to save a world they would do so cheerfully?

No. Not at all. I would probably curl up into the fetal position and cry like a kid with a soiled diaper. Right after I soiled myself. To use my previous and more appropriate example, Frodo was distinctly un-cheerful. But he soldiered on. Just in case there's someone living under a rock for the last few decades:

Spoiler

He even personally failed at the very end, though he most certainly didn't kick any puppies or rape Sam along the way. He may have despaired of his task many times, but he didn't use that as an excuse to become as vile as anything he fought

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.

So, if I'm ever going to sell my autobiography to fans of the Covenant books, I'd better start kicking orphans because of how unfair it is that I inherited a big fat chunk of debt. And I'd better start beating my fiancee to rail against the responsibilities I've had dropped on me at the lab since two grad students unexpectedly quit. And I really need to work on vocalizing my self-pity. I don't particularly like my burdens, either, and I wish they would go away (if nothing else, it would leave me a lot more time to game), but I deal with them. I don't feel any need to read about someone who can't even live up to my meagre level (within the context of our respective worlds and responsibilities, fantasy is, after all, life writ large).

You keep saying that we miss the point. No. We got the point. He never wanted his responsibilities. Been done. Most heroes don't want their responsibilities. Heck, not even Superman wants his responsibilities. But he goes above and beyond them. Normal people at least meet them. Tom Covenant is the fantasy equivalent of a guy who sits at home watching TV all day and beats his wife when she has to stay late at work because it means his dinner is late. Assuming Covenant does save the world at the end, perhaps my little metaphor does run into the burning trailer to save his beer and grabs one of his kids while he's at it, but he probably beats his wife when she gets home for leaving the coffee pot on when she left that morning.

Sorry. No appeal here. It may be a perfectly acceptable piece of fiction. It may even be as wonderful as you're suggesting. But I can't stomach that behavior in real life (and I've seen my share, and probably yours too), so I feel no need to subject myself to it in my leisure time.

 

[Umbran]

Most heroes don't want their responsibilities. Heck, not even Superman wants his responsibilities. But he goes above and beyond them. Normal people at least meet them.

Thomas Covenant is not a hero, nor is he a normal person. He's a leper, literally.

In order to survive, Covenant has, effectively, inflicted himself with a form of monomania. At the start of the books, he's not what you or I would consider sane. It isn't the story of a normal guy forced to carry a heavy burden. It's the story of a man who already has a burden heavier than most folks can manage, pushed beyond the brink. To hold him up to the measuring stick of a Normal Man simply isn't fair.