Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Particle_Man" data-source="post: 1709193" data-attributes="member: 892">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?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....<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  )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.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification