Breaking the Author/Reader Contract.

[nikolai]

This is a response to Jester47 points about "what a "hero" is".

Hero's are not and were not intended to be role models.

Wow, I guess I missed the part where King Arthur and his knights gang-raped that maiden. Oh wait, that never happened.

I take it you are not familiar with the story of Uther and Igraine? Or Lancelot and Elaine?

[snip]

And your assessment of the Arthurian characters in this vein demonstrates that it has been a long time since you read about them, and look back with rose colored glasses.

The evolution of the word hero is very complex. I won't pretend to understand it all. You're right that there are two senses: (1) people with abilities beyond those of normal men; and (2) morally worthy people. Homer used sense (1), the Greek heroes have great prowess, but aren't morally worthy and are often complete bastards. This sense goes back a very long time.

I think it's a mistake to say sense (2) is very modern, and to write off Arthurian heroes as not being heroes in sense (2). I'd say sense (2) also goes back a long time. The heroes of medieval romances are exemplars living up to a moral idea (or trying to live up to a moral idea, with varying degrees of success). This idea of an hero is also old and has also been around for a long time. You can't just write it off.

As for the specific points. Uther (Arthur's father) wasn't one of Arthur's knights. His tricking of Igraine, is portrayed as a very morally dodgy thing to do. There's no suggestion he's a hero in either sense. And Lancelot, whatever his failings, didn't rape Elaine - at least in any of the core cycle I know and certainly not in Malory.

 

[Sledge]

Wow more Covenant books coming. I'm going to have to start rereading the first two series.

But anyways for a book that violates the "contract" try to avoid ever reading Wooden Sword. It doesn't end.
Also as has been said the spelljammer series starts to fall apart very quickly. Great individual worlds and characters, but pathetic storyline and zero continuity.

 

[Particle_Man]

If I accept that the Donaldson's "point" in the Thomas Covenant series was to show that a messiah (world saver) is different from a nice guy, or even from a minimally decent person, will you accept that I, and many other people, simply don't want to read about messiahs that rape people? Even if we get the author's point? Can you accept that I for one would think the world would be a better place if no one ever again writes a book about a messiah that rapes people? Even if I get the author's point? Frankly, some points are not worth making in novel form, IMHO.

Oh, and my own point about moral heroes predating American heroes only needs one pure knight to be made, even if we granted you Uther, etc. And that knight was Sir Galahad, I believe. Since tales of Sir Galahad predated the first American written novel or short story, there we go. Moral Heroes existed before the American written novel or written short story, and hence before the American hero.

Also, I am relieved to see that Mallory's Lancelot did not rape Elaine; my glasses might be rose colored but I don't think my memory is so clouded that I would forget that Lancelot was a rapist. But if you have a quote from Mallory in which Lancelot does rape Elaine, please feel free to share it. I might be wrong on that point (but not on the point of a moral hero predating American heroes.

 

[Storm Raven]

If I accept that the Donaldson's "point" in the Thomas Covenant series was to show that a messiah (world saver) is different from a nice guy, or even from a minimally decent person, will you accept that I, and many other people, simply don't want to read about messiahs that rape people?

Which would be a fine sentiment if that mattered to the point of the story, which it doesn't. That's what people have been pointing out to you, and you just don't get it. Yes, there is a rape scene. No, Covenant is not a hero, and not held up as one. No, it's not something that should ruin the book - because the consequences of that act redound throughout the series and have palaple effects.

Oh, and my own point about moral heroes predating American heroes only needs one pure knight to be made, even if we granted you Uther, etc. And that knight was Sir Galahad, I believe. Since tales of Sir Galahad predated the first American written novel or short story, there we go. Moral Heroes existed before the American written novel or written short story, and hence before the American hero.

Galahad isn't a hero. Galahad is a pure knight who completes the grail quest, a bit player at best who doesn't show up for the first 75% of the tales. The heroes of the story are the veterans: Kay, Gawaine, Lancelot, and Arthur, all of whom are quite flawed.

Also, I am relieved to see that Mallory's Lancelot did not rape Elaine; my glasses might be rose colored but I don't think my memory is so clouded that I would forget that Lancelot was a rapist. But if you have a quote from Mallory in which Lancelot does rape Elaine, please feel free to share it. I might be wrong on that point (but not on the point of a moral hero predating American heroes.

It is an open question, but either Lancelot rapes Elaine in an insane state, or Elaine takes advatage of and rapes Lancelot when he is insane.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

On the general topic of novels with unlikeable protagonists who are nevertheless heroes in a classical and realistic sense:

James Ellroy.

Every one of his heroes is deeply morally flawed, and his novels are permeated with a strong sense of judgement against which they are measured. Their lives and characters are saturated with violence, and the extent to which they manage to rise above their personalities and circumstances is the extent to which they are redeemed or damned.

I'm absolutely spellbound by his work, and the ethos his novels evince and evoke is a major reason for that. It's really astounding.

Personally, I gave up on Thomas Covenant because it was dull.

 

[evildmguy]

Greetings!

Thanks for the well thought out responses to my post. I appreciate that! I hope to emulate and live up to those standards that have been set.

Well, that's what you get for relying on a movie to convey the story, which is in many ways worse than relying on Cliff Notes because a movie doesn't try to directly explain the themes in the work. I can see how you get this impression, in part, from the movie. But it also would constitute a misreading of the real contract (if you choose to see one as being there). To push the metaphor, all contracts have plenty of fine print that should be carefully examined, and that fine print is, of course, the text of the book.
Frodo isn't really the only person who can carry the ring. Any hobbit will probably do as long as they are sufficiently innocent and have their heads in the right place (Lotho Baggins or Ted Sandyman would be bad choices, for example, but Farmer Maggot would probably be an excellent choice being a tough, no nonsense kind of guy). But Frodo takes it up as his personal burden and not a burden for anybody else. Frodo has a bit of a maryr complex (which gets borne out at the end so maybe it's well placed).
As for the destruction of the ring, you were warned earlier in the movie that Gollem yet had an important part to play and the issue comes around in a couple of circles. Bilbo and Frodo's pity of Gollum allows him to survive so that he can not only betray Frodo to Shelob but also save the world by causing the destruction of the ring. So that very pity for pitiable creatures is what saves Frodo from the corruption of the ring in the end. In a certain light, Frodo therefore IS the architect of the destruction of the ring (had he followed Sam's advice, the quest would certainly have failed at this point). It's just that the destruction happens in an unexpected way. It isn't his strength and determination that win the day because those are spent (and it takes the strength and determination of his servant, Sam, to get him close enough). It's one of the very factors that makes him and hobbits so resistant to the ring in the first place: inherent kindliness and the ability to have pity and show mercy.
Another interesting comment. When Gollum swears on the ring to serve the master, Frodo says the ring will exact a terrible price for breaking that promise. And it sure does. In his moment of triumph, Gollum is destroyed.
All of this is a bit more clear in the fine print of the trilogy, I think, than the summarized version on the silver screen.

In terms of a contract, I would completely agree that I don't know what Tolkien promises. The issue is that I don't like old style prose, which Tolkien writes. It is very "heavy handed" to me. I am not completely a product of current times, but the writings of the 19th and early 20th century are very tough for me to read because of the style. (Dracula, Frankenstein, etc.) I will also agree that many hobbits probably could have carried the ring and made it. From what I saw of Samwise, he seemed a better candidate for it than Frodo, in that he wanted to share the burden. It seems to me, though, that the contract was that Frodo could do it, whether through judgment or ability, and he couldn't. There is no fine print to contracts like this, according to what I have read on writing.

As to the specifics you mention, I will talk about that more later.

For Tolkien, that's the point - mortals can only be saved from the evil that Sauron represents by the grace of God. It is a statement driven by religious sentiment.

And that probably fits the times in which he was writing. It also makes it very Greek, by having some sort of Deus Ex Machina come and save the day. However . . .

There are lots of fantasy fans who dislike Tolkien, for all sorts of reasons. You are not alone, and - even if you were - I wouldn't flame you for which books you do or don't like. The standard response to your points are:

• The book is very slow to start. And isn't in the sword and sorcery prose style many people like. Tolkien takes a different path in having more evocation of the world and less action. This makes the book very rich, but also makes getting into it hard.
• The "failure" of the quest is part of the atraction of the book for many people. It reinforces the power of the ring, and the fortitude of Frodo in making it as far as he did. It also (despite the books status) make LotR an anti-fantasy: the quest is to destory the artifact - not gain one - and the hero doesn't achieve the goal himself. The "failure" gives the book the bittersweet ending, as Frodo - even though he "succeeded" in destroying the ring - is broken in doing it.

I can see why you didn't like the book because of these aspects. But I guess my point is, without them, I wouldn't like it so much.

My point here is not to bash Tolkien but to explain what I didn't like in what I have read and heard and what I saw in the movies. I hope that is understand. Even in that, I respect Tolkien for what he did even if I don't like it or agree with it.

I still don't like what Tolkien did, sticking to the bare bones of what is probably in the books, in terms of how he resolved the issue. There is no mention of gods that I have heard, only of evil through Sauron, and to say that it is God's grace that saved everyone comes out of no where for me. Had it been set up or had Frodo been shown to be religious (to any god(s)) then it would be easier for me to accept that ending. As it was, even for a Deus Ex Machina, it feels too heavy handed, more as if he wanted it to end with the rings destruction but wrote himself into a corner and wasn't sure how to do it.

I haven't read the books, as I have said, but in what I have seen, I can't buy that the ring exacts its price on Gollum through its destruction. Yes, you can read into this by saying Evil feeds upon itself and the moment of the rings glory was also its downfall. Again, it feels TOO forced to me. The ring, or Sauron, has shown too much intelligence to fail exactly when it did. Again, the Deus Ex Machina feels too heavy handed.

However, those aside, my issue is still Frodo. Again from what I saw, he might not be happy that he couldn't do it, but he still received all of the accolades of being a hero. What should be a tragedy, and if he had a martyr complex that should have come into play to destroy the ring, isn't because Frodo is still seen as a hero, regardless of how he perceives himself. In the end, I don't think the Fellowship, because the soldier is always forgotten in large scale battles, sacrificed enough to complete the quest. They were all changed, yes, but we always change and it can be argued about whether that change was enough. However, in terms of sacrifice by the heroes, to me, it didn't feel like enough.

Some examples of what I think was enough.

Theseus killing the minotaur but it cost him his father because he forgot about the sails.

Antigone burying her brother and then having to commit suicide.

Othello losing everything because he was willing to listen to Iago.

(For more modern examples, I can only think of Babylon 5 right now, but it has a lot.)

Marcus sacrificing himself so that Ivanova can live.

The irony that is Mollari. He wanted his people to be rulers as they were and everything he did caused their downfall, with him as the emperor of an even more weak and decaying empire.

Kosh's willingness to die to give the rebellion what it needed.

Sheridan's willingness to die to strike at the heart of the enemy. (Okay, he came back so it isn't a tragedy but he was still willing to die.)

In any event, my point is that all most character's change through the course of a story. With few exceptions, the mother in Ordinary People comes to mind as one such exception, most characters go through a change by the end of their story. The fact that Frodo changed isn't in question for me. However, I didn't feel it was enough. Again, though, perhaps the books would have given me what I was wanting to see in his character.

Good discussion! Thanks!

edg
Alternity Pimp

 

[Umbran]

Joining the Thought Police?

I am judging the character by the simple standard of "decent human being".
...
Had he been a decent human being to start with, raping her, even under the saftey of "It's just a dream" or something, *wouldn't have entered him mind*, much less come to fruitation.

Whoa!

Do you really want to go there, Tsyr? Stop and consider that. Do you really want to start qualifying whether or not a person is a "decent human being" based upon what they do or do not think or dream?

 

[Mallus]

Do you really want to start qualifying whether or not a person is a "decent human being" based upon what they do or do not think or dream?

Pardon the intrusion...

Tsyr, to illustrate Umbran's point, may I direct you to one of the all-time classic SF movies, Forbidden Planet --if you're not already familiar with it.

The film sports phenominal matte paintings, Robbie the Robot, and a timeless lesson about how much control we have over over subconscious minds [plus, its a credited adaptaion of Shakespeare's The Tempest].

 

[billd91]

<snip>

In any event, my point is that all most character's change through the course of a story. With few exceptions, the mother in Ordinary People comes to mind as one such exception, most characters go through a change by the end of their story. The fact that Frodo changed isn't in question for me. However, I didn't feel it was enough. Again, though, perhaps the books would have given me what I was wanting to see in his character.

Didn't change enough? He lost more than Theseus did. He didn't lose merely a father. He lost his whole previous life of tranquility in the Shire. As he put it, he saved the Shire, but not for himself. He sacrifices pretty much everything, including his health. The real severity of the injuries Frodo sustains from the Witch King and from Shelob is only seen in the book and not the movie.

I don't know that I buy the argument that they can only be saved by the grace of god. Tolkien was a devout Catholic, but I don't think that's his message. He's got several in there including celebrating a good, pastoral and simple life, evil feeds on itself, and good consequences come from doing good (the mercy showed to Gollum saves the world in the end).

You know, I don't think I would lump both Frankenstein and Dracula into the same boat of readability. You can see the evolution in the English novel substantially when you compare the two books as far as readability. Dracula is far easier and flows much better than Frankenstein. And I generally find Tolkien easier than either of those two.

I'd actually be interested in hearing what authors are saying that there is a contract and they have to lay it out in the first chapter.

 

[Particle_Man]

Which would be a fine sentiment if that mattered to the point of the story, which it doesn't. That's what people have been pointing out to you, and you just don't get it. Yes, there is a rape scene. No, Covenant is not a hero, and not held up as one. No, it's not something that should ruin the book - because the consequences of that act redound throughout the series and have palaple effects.

If I accept that "the consequences of that act [rape] redound throughout the series and have palaple effects", will you accept that I, and others, do not want to read a book, or series of books, in which the main character rapes someone, even if "the consequences of that act [rape] redound throughout the series and have palaple effects"? Will that do it? Are you realizing yet that I am getting the point (or else you need to restate that point *yet again* so that I can form a similar question to the above *yet again*, unless your next restatement of the point convinces me (I am dubious)), and still don't feel benefitted from reading that series of books, and still think that the world would be a better place if there were no books with main characters that rape people? That some artistic tropes are just not worth inventing, celebrating or resurrecting?

Galahad isn't a hero. Galahad is a pure knight who completes the grail quest, a bit player at best who doesn't show up for the first 75% of the tales. The heroes of the story are the veterans: Kay, Gawaine, Lancelot, and Arthur, all of whom are quite flawed.

Really? I think your definition of "hero" is unduly narrow (obviously). You need to argue for your definition more than you have, I think, since I don't think that America invented the moral hero.

Had people, before American written novels or short stories existed, heard of the Holy Grail? Were they inspired by the idea of the morally pure being who found the grail? Did they call that being [Galahad in some of the tales] a hero? Is the White Knight or Knight in Shining Armor or Chivalrous Hero or Gentleman a pre-American trope for morally good hero? Have people, before American written novels or short stories existed, been inspired to try to be morally better because they wanted to imitate the morally good qualities of their heroes? The answer to all these questions is yes. Since there were such people (Again, Man of la Mancha provides a written example of one such), before the American written novel or short story, then the morally good hero existed, before the American written novel or short story.

And re: lancelot -- If whether he raped Elaine is an open question, then guess what? Some people, historically, would have decided that question one way, and some would have decided it another. That means that, for some people, existing before American written novels or written short stories, Lancelot did not in fact rape Elaine. In that case, for them, Lancelot was a moral hero, whose tragic flaw was to fall in love with the wrong person (Guenevere). (Awwww.... )

I can accept a moral hero who falls in love with the wrong person (Lancelot, for those who decided the open question the non-"Lancelot raping Elaine" way). I can accept an anti-hero that shoots first (Han Solo). I cannot accept an anti-hero that rapes anyone. I cannot accept a messiah that rapes anyone. I cannot accept any main character or even Point of View character in a book that rapes anyone. I don't want to read books that contain the latter three as characters. Even if there were some argument that these tropes were historically interesting to some.

I now eagerly await your next restatement of "the point" and how I failed to get it.