"evil" protagonists

[Hussar]

If you guys think the rape scene in Thomas Covenant is distasteful, I highly recommend not reading Donaldson's Gap cycle.

Although, again, like The Dying Earth books, it was based on a classic plot from mythology (this time Gotterdammerung, or was it Ring of Nibelung (sp)? it's been a while, and I misremember.)

 

[radferth]

...Still, the genre is filled with non-heroic heroes. Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser were unrepentent thieves, and occasional hit men. Conan stole everything he couldn't have sex with or kill, and a few things he did. Elric of Melnibone was never a nice man (even if his enemies were worse), and had no problem devouring the souls of people to 'power up.'

There's the occasional Three Hearts & Three Lions type character as well, but they aren't exactly the norm.

Our modern media goes a step further, with movies that celebrate ultra-violent assassin characters (Wanted, Pulp Fiction, The Replacement Killers, Kill Bill, Pitch Black/Chronicles of Riddick, even James Bond, to an extent) or cops / agents / lawmen / soldiers who take the law into their own hands to 'get the job done' (John McClaine, Jack Bauer, half of John Wayne or Clint Eastwoods characters) or even primarily 'good-guys' who come from morally gray backgrounds (Seely Booth from Bones, former sniper, Ziva David from NICIS, *hawt* Mossad assassin, Wolverine, psychotic manimal dwarf ex-assassin/samurai/lumberjack, etc.)...

Note that this is *not* a 'things were so much better in some mythical golden age, society is declining!' hand-wringing. Heroes of myth and legend (and even the gods) behaved terribly, sometimes striking people dead for even looking at them funny. We've pretty much always glorified people who take what they want and scoff at restrictions that we have to follow, whether they were named Hercules, Conan or Riddick...

Having thought more about this overnight, I think my personal line has as much to do with how things are presented. The way Vance presents characters like Cugel and Liane (who horribly tortures a woman to death in the first book, but comes to bad end soon enough) seems to say the being a depraved killer is just a lifestyle choice. Perhaps he is trying to make some larger point that is lost on me, but to me is just seems he is glorifying violence against women.

Set mentions Riddick, and I found his character (from the first movie) quite interesting. All the other characters treat him like he is homicidal maniac, when is actually merely a thug with no respect for human life, who has become a thug with some respect for human life my the end of the movie. He is supposed to have done some horrible things in the past, but we don't see any of that, what we are shown is, perhaps, the beginning of his redemption. Of course, in light of the sequel, it turns out we were actually being shown was an ultimately unsuccessful attempt at starting yet another anti-hero francise, but I still like the first movie. Maybe I'm too forgiving because I really like "hard" sci-fi movies, and hardly ever find any worth watching.

I guess what defines the line for me is not so much how evil the protagonist is (although that does matter), but how "evil" the author is. I could live with Cugel being evil if it were shown with less glee. Maybe Vance is trying to show me what it might me light inside a sociopath's head, but that is no place I want to be.

 

[Nifft]

As my username might indicate I feel great attachement to the works of Donaldson, notably the Covenant series. So I sometimes feel the need to discuss my views when it comes up.

Donaldson's books feel a bit like being a DM: he seems to love and treasure his settings while piling pain and suffering upon the Protagonist Characters.

Cheers, -- N

 

[mmadsen]

Perhaps he is trying to make some larger point that is lost on me, but to me is just seems he is glorifying violence against women.

Why would you assume that any depiction of violence against a woman is glorifying violence against women?

 

[S'mon]

If you guys think the rape scene in Thomas Covenant is distasteful, I highly recommend not reading Donaldson's Gap cycle.

I read the first couple, but didn't like it much.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Having thought more about this overnight, I think my personal line has as much to do with how things are presented. The way Vance presents characters like Cugel and Liane (who horribly tortures a woman to death in the first book, but comes to bad end soon enough) seems to say the being a depraved killer is just a lifestyle choice. Perhaps he is trying to make some larger point that is lost on me, but to me is just seems he is glorifying violence against women.

If it were a defenseless man being tortured, is it glorifying violence against men? Because I see/read that far more often in media...

[sblock]And totally on a side rant, I'm reminded of how annoying it is to see programs where there are female heroines who do some of the fighting (which is awesome), but as a consequence, also recieve some harm. In turn, the term "violence against women" is put in the list of things giving it its rating... *hulk smash idiot reviewer!* just...grr...[/sblock]

 

[Barastrondo]

It is all a trick, some done well, some done poorly. What am I talking about, getting people to dislike or like a character. Rape, murder or kicking a puppy is just that, a trick, to get you to form a "quick" dislike to a character. How it is done and what happens after is where it becomes a good trick or a bad one.

It's not always a trick, I believe. Sometimes the author just doesn't believe rape to be "that bad," for whatever reason. The Gor books come to mind, obviously enough, wherein rape is treated as something erotic and secretly desired by all women. And I've seen some authors that seem to be operating more out of just plain general cluelessness.

It's sort of like racism. There's a lot of (usually older) literature out there that contains some measure of old-school racist ideologies, including a few seminal figures for the gaming field like Lovecraft and Howard (arguably even Tolkien). It's not always included as a trick to get you to dislike the main character (or even the author). Sometimes the author just doesn't really empathize with the victim much.

The issue that makes rape particularly unnerving as a dramatic conceit is that there's really no way to justify it. There's no equivalent to the use of lethal force in self-defense or in times of outright war. It's just completely self-serving in a very ugly way. The thing about Vance is that he's very satirical, but I can't say that a light treatment of such subject matter really makes the books funnier to me.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Although, again, like The Dying Earth books, it was based on a classic plot from mythology (this time Gotterdammerung, or was it Ring of Nibelung (sp)? it's been a while, and I misremember.)

The whole Ring Cycle in general.

And yeah that has some seriously twisted stuff in it.

If I had not read his stuff as a kid and fell in love with it, but read it for the first time now, I probably would never read it.

 

[Cadfan]

Perhaps he is trying to make some larger point that is lost on me, but to me is just seems he is glorifying violence against women.

1. Its worth noting that Vance published this in 1950. That was a time when marital rape and rape by (nonviolent) coercion weren't really considered to be "real" rape. They weren't considered good, but they weren't considered rape. I don't know if that attitude affected his treatment of at least one rape scene, but its possible.

2. I'll give you credit for mentioning the glorification of violence against women issue. You're going to get some backlash for mentioning that in a geek forum. Good luck.

 

[mmadsen]

I'll give you credit for mentioning the glorification of violence against women issue.

What kind of credit does one earn for mentioning the glorification of violence against women? And is anyone here -- anyone at all -- advocating violence against women?