"evil" protagonists

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?
Nope! No one at all!

Its just that whenever these sorts of issues come up, based on past experience, there's always someone who comes in and backlashes. Generally they're a person who's convinced of one or more of the following: that there's something vaguely suspicious about bringing up issues like glorification of violence, or that everyone knows that violence against women is bad and therefore it doesn't need discussed and anyone who does discuss it must be some sort of militant, or that the issue of real import that's being ignored isn't violence against women but rather the excesses of those who decry violence against women... or more. There are other backlashes you see at times.

But maybe no one here will do that! Maybe we won't have any paranoid people convinced that, say, someone saying that a specific book glorifies violence against women is actually secretly saying that all violence against women glorifies violence against women, and therefore should be opposed. Maybe no one will start us down that road at all.

That would be nice.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Another anti-hero worth mentioning is Harry Flashman. He also rapes a woman in the first book. I recall reading in an interview that the author now regrets that he wrote it that way but at the time the first Flashman book was written Flashman was intended to be a totally despicable character. And he is, at first. The trouble is that over the years and many more Flashman books the character has become rather likeable. On the odd occasion he even displays heroic traits.

The Flashman books are satire, the first much more so than the many sequels, so making the readers think a bit is part of it. But, despite loving the books, I still can't help wishing that that particular plot device hadn't been used. Of course I'd be against the bowdlerising of it should that ever be suggested.

ANyway, nearly 4 in the am. Time for bed.
 

Cadfan wrote in the Vancian thread "2. Not a fan of the Dying Earth books. Too much casual rape. I know, written in an earlier time, main character isn't a "hero" by any stretch of the imagination, prose is still excellent... but about the point where Cugel sells one woman off to be raped with only a twinge of guilt that he rapidly ignores, rapes another, and then shrugs and walks away when she's drowned as a result of his own actions, I quit reading. Technically neither woman was an absolute saint, and maybe I'm hypocritical for not putting the book down after all the casual murders Cugel commits, but I am what I am, I guess.

I'd rather read Matthew Hughes."

I, too, am having trouble getting through the Dying Earth books for this reason. Perhaps I am being hypocritical, because I love Howard's Conan stories. I expect I'll rally and finish despite my loathing for Cugel, because the setting is quite interesting to me, but I'll be rooting against the sociopathic protagonist. I guess everyone has got a certain level of evil they will put up with from the protagonist, and Cugel is way over my personal line. I had through Elric in the Moorcock Melnibone books would from what I had heard of him, but he just strikes me as more of a petulant PC. My trouble with finishing those books is that they give me PSTD-like flashbacks to bad, railroaded D&D campaigns I have been in.

(As an OT aside in my own thread, for all of the Harry Potter series flaws, I greatly appriciate that Rawlings treats Tom Riddle's sociopathy as a disability, rather than a super power.)

This is just how a story "resonates" and engages the reader. You can take two writers, have them write the same story with the same plot elements, and readers will consider one of them brilliant and the other one writing trash even though it's the same story. Also, time can play a factor too. One day, you can hate something, go back to it later, and just love it, because on the second through, you "see" something the really clicks with you and you now "see the light" so to speak. It can also work in reverse.

So, Dying Earth doesn't "click" with you even though it has the same mature subject material as Conan does or maybe Black Company or Game of Thrones. If you like those stories, but don't like Dying Earth, it doesn't make you hypocritical.

Happy Gaming!
 

In Vance's Lyonesse books, written in the 1980s, are not as satirical as the Dying Earth books, but just as full of disturbing magic and vicious acts of violence and crime. Fairy tales, in other words. I don't think Vance needs to be excused for writing Cugel as he did in 1950; I'm pretty sure he simply intended Cugel to be a bad person, and that's that.

Vampire: The Masquerade is a game in which everyone played, basically, monsters that killed humans to survive and regularly engaged in activities allegorically similar to rape, addicting others to drugs, and knowing infecting people with disease. Assuming, of course, they weren't engaged in those activities literally. Vampire: The Requiem is basically the same in that respect, although it dispenses with the pretense that most or even many vampires attempt to maintain a sense of moral worth.

I think rape in fantasy fiction is a hot issue for a number of reasons.

1. We live in a Puritan society that often regards sexual impurity with a horror beyond that generated by violence.
2. We live in a post-feminist society in which there is a raised awareness about how the repeated portrayal of women as victims and sexual chattel has disempowered them culturally.
3. It highlights the often anti-social, hypermasculine qualities of male-oriented adventure fiction, which could potentially taint the enjoyment of the work itself, if the reader feels they are being asked to ally themselves with a patriarchical, rape-entitled worldview.
4. We live in a soceity with has relatively desensitized us to violence, especially against "bad guys." Thus, because it shocks, rape > murder, even though in reality it's a lot easier to recover from being raped than from being murdered.
5. We don't like the idea that in many times and places, characters we would otherwise admire might engage in coercive sexual activities of various sorts, possibly including rape, and we don't like to be reminded of this via fiction.

All of the above are very good reasons to treat rape carefully in fiction, and ten times so in roleplaying, which is a social activity. The goal of fiction, or roleplaying, is to draw your reader into an imaginary experience. If rape produces too much horror and sympathy, the reader is horrified and leaves the fantasy. And if you horrify your friends, of course, you may have difficulty finding new ones.

I personally prefer evil to be really evil. That's why I think Darth Vader is such a great villain; it's easy to believe he is capable of pretty much capable of anything. He kills people left and right just for pissing him off, commits mass genocide, and, it turns out, murders children and mortally wounded his own wife. The Joker, too; check out The Killing Joke. The Godfather movies, too, are about a man descending into evil. By the end, he has destroyed his soul and committed every act he might once have condemned, all while pretending to be a noble man. A Clockwork Orange.... yeah, it's, wow, not nice stuff. Mordred's Curse -- great book about a terrible person, but you get a sense of a Mordred who nonetheless was not fairly treated by Arthur, and who in turn is horrified by the wizard Merlin. And if you don't like rape in your fiction, avoid A Boy and his Dog.

So I am willing to give a wide pass to vicious acts in fiction, provided the author proceeds to justify it to me. Cugel... well, he's just a real $@#$, ain't he? That's basically the premise of the series. Characters beneft from moments of nobility simply because they are so rare, not only in their own lives, but seemingly in the whole world.
 

This is just how a story "resonates" and engages the reader. You can take two writers, have them write the same story with the same plot elements, and readers will consider one of them brilliant and the other one writing trash even though it's the same story. Also, time can play a factor too. One day, you can hate something, go back to it later, and just love it, because on the second through, you "see" something the really clicks with you and you now "see the light" so to speak. It can also work in reverse.

So, Dying Earth doesn't "click" with you even though it has the same mature subject material as Conan does or maybe Black Company or Game of Thrones. If you like those stories, but don't like Dying Earth, it doesn't make you hypocritical.

Happy Gaming!

Very true. I hated The English Patient, but I liked the book Johnnie Got His Gun, even though both feature a faceless, injured man existing in misery.
 

pawsplay- its not that I think that rape shouldn't be in fiction. Its that I think that rape shouldn't be written poorly in fiction. Writing poorly is generally a bad idea. Writing poorly about rape just makes it worse.

Books aren't just recitations of fictional events. You can't just say that, oh, you know, Cugel's a bad person so its unsurprising that he'd do this. That may be the case, but its not a defense of whether the books themselves, and Cugel as a character, are well written books.

An author often has an intention that underlies the story. When an evil villain in a story does something evil, its not just a recital of events, its probably an attempt by the author to get you to buy into the imperative that he be thwarted. A recitation of a series of amusing events isn't just a recital of some things that happen to be funny, its an effort by an author to make a reader feel amusement. The events of the story represent an effort to communicate emotional states. There are a million different ways this can go wrong, from bad writing, to culture shock between the author and reader, and more.

Its on this level that I think many uses of rape in fiction fail, and fail utterly. Rape carries with it a lot of emotional baggage. If your story doesn't make use of that, or worse, if it makes use of it poorly, or even worse if your story is utterly incompatible with it, your story fails.

Take the Jim Butcher novels I mentioned earlier. They use rape as a plot element. The author seems to want us to feel anger and dislike towards the rapists. They're villains, and the gang rape of sympathetic characters is intended to make us hate them. However, Butcher also makes use of a whole lot of fetish fuel. Slave collars. Aphrodisiacs as an element of rape. A culture of sexual slavery. Foot sexuality. Now, he either intends to titilate, or he doesn't. If he doesn't, then he really, really shouldn't have made use of all of that fetish imagery. If he DOES intend to titilate, the he's attempting to simultaneously mix a message of abhorrence to the reader, AND a message of sexual titilation. I do not think these work well together.

The Cugel stories are similarly flawed, in my opinion, except worse. The author intends to amuse. I think that's pretty clearly the primary purpose of the Dying Earth saga- wry humor. I do not think that he uses rape well in this context. I think it would be very difficult to use rape well in this context. If these stories were merely intended to be the recountings of the actions of a fictional, evil man, then that would be one thing. But I do not think that's the intention of the author. I do not think that is the overall effect of the books.

I think that the intention of the author, and the effect of the books, is to amuse. And I think that Vance fails miserably in this regard when he chooses to mix in the rape of a crying girl who's just seen her family and lover slaughtered. And her post-rape death isn't very humorous either. The whole sequence isn't just unhumorous, its actually a black hole of anti humor that sucks the humor out of the rest of the story.
 

I keep feeling like I"m not fully explaining my opinions on this. Maybe I am. I don't know.

The Cugel books are a humorous series of events where Cugel tries to screw people over, they screw him over, he screws them over back, and its all entertaining even if everyone's a bit evil in a cartoony sort of way.

And then he decides that he's going to force a girl to have sex with him (initial scene in the town), he gets his comeuppance by getting locked in a tower instead of laid (standard Cugel back and forth, he was horny, it got him into trouble and he never even got laid), he has to flee the tower (standard Cugel running away after things go bad), then the town's destroyed because he ran away (standard Cugel type destruction in his wake)...

And then Vance suddenly humanizes all of it by having Cugel abduct a sobbing survivor of the town and rape her as she cries for all she's lost.

Its just... there. That's where it stopped being funny. It stopped being hijinks. It stopped being possible to simultaneously root for and laugh at Cugel. The next time he gets in trouble, you don't think, "Gosh, wonder how he'll get himself out of THIS one!" You start thinking, "Screw you, Cugel. I hope you die. I seriously, seriously hope you die." And then you wonder why you are still reading the book.

In a world of cartoonish violence and evil perpetrated largely against unsympathetic characters (locking people in cysts miles beneath the surface of the earth, meticulously polite cannibalism, shrinking people and putting them in tiny mazes in a lab, etc, etc), it stops being stylized, comical violence. You're suddenly torn out of the place you were before, torn out of the suspension of disbelief and morality that let you contextualize all that went before the same way you contextualize Jerry hitting Tom with an anvil, and suddenly the veil is torn away and... its just not fun anymore. It was fun when it wasn't *real,* but now, its just not fun.
 

The Cugel stories are similarly flawed, in my opinion, except worse. The author intends to amuse. I think that's pretty clearly the primary purpose of the Dying Earth saga- wry humor. I do not think that he uses rape well in this context. I think it would be very difficult to use rape well in this context. If these stories were merely intended to be the recountings of the actions of a fictional, evil man, then that would be one thing. But I do not think that's the intention of the author. I do not think that is the overall effect of the books.

I think that the intention of the author, and the effect of the books, is to amuse. And I think that Vance fails miserably in this regard when he chooses to mix in the rape of a crying girl who's just seen her family and lover slaughtered. And her post-rape death isn't very humorous either. The whole sequence isn't just unhumorous, its actually a black hole of anti humor that sucks the humor out of the rest of the story.

"To amuse" does not necessarily mean, "To be funny." I think you pretty much get Vance, at least as I read him. "A black hole of anti humor" is pretty much a synopsis of The Dying Earth, it's not just a catchy name. And I think it's fine you don't enjoy it. I can totally get that. I do object to labeling his writing as bad. Vance is a tremendous writer, and I enjoy everything by him I've read, including the very story you cite as jarring you out of the fictional world. "This piece of fiction does not work for me," is not the same as, "This piece of fiction is bad." To argue it is bad, you would have to overcome the arguments of thousands of fans, including many who are themselves skilled wordsmiths. Vance's story fails, to you, not because it was written in 1950 or because Vance is a bad writer, but because it addresses a theme in a fashion you do not find enjoyable.

I read Jack Vance because I enjoy stories about wretched villains having their eyes devoured by a gruesome monster out of a nightmare fairy tale. You can be into that, or not. The Dying Earth is not Tom & Jerry and anvils. It's more like Silence of the Lambs crossed with Touch of Evil, set in Lankhmar with a twist of Barsoom.
 

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

It's subjective. You can watch a movie where Sarah Conner or Ellen Ripley get thrown around repeatedly and never think 'violence against women' because the antagonist is an alien or robot, not a man.

Or you can watch Buffy, and even though the things slamming her around are monsters, some of them are played by attractive and popular actors who have made the character extremely popular, leaving the fans bewildered and trying to reconcile their attraction for a character that is an unapologetic serial rapist and mass murderer, by his own admission.

And that show is a pretty decent example of misandry in action. The women have super-powers. The men, not so much, unless they are inhuman monsters (and each of them have a point where they become inhuman and monstrous, in personality or in body, reminding us of that valuable life-lesson that all men are monsters underneath). If someone is going to get tortured, it's going to be Giles. If someone's going to get tied up and bled for a ritual sacrifice, it's going to be Xander. Between those two characters, they've had as many broken bones as Evil Knieval. In subverting the genre, of 'woman as helpless captive, to be rescued by big strong man,' Joss didn't balance the scales, he completely up-ended them and presented a story that was off-balance in the other direction.

What could have been a very mature and interesting play against gender tropes instead turned out to be about as subtle as I Spit on Your Grave.
 

If Vance didn't intend Dying Earth to be funny, then I still think his writing is poor, just for a different reason.
Vance's story fails, to you, not because it was written in 1950 or because Vance is a bad writer, but because it addresses a theme in a fashion you do not find enjoyable.
1. This is not an either/or proposition. The fact that he addresses a theme in a fashion I do not enjoy is not unrelated to his skill as an author.

2. Plus, you're being a bit simplistic. I don't think you'd enjoy me being similarly simplistic about your opinions. Does Vance treat themes in ways you enjoy? Ie, rape, and humor? This could go somewhere nasty.

There are a number of ways to interpret those scenes. I simply don't think that any of them speak well of Vance, some as an author, some as a person. If it was supposed to be a funny rape, it wasn't funny. If it was supposed to be a dark, evil event, then it doesn't fit into the rest of the story because its dark and evil in the wrong way.

Basically, this is Cugel's "rape the dog" moment. And Vance doesn't seem to realize that you can't go back from that. The old dichotomy, of Cugel being amusingly wretched, us rooting for him to win even though he's a jerk, and laughing at him when he gets what he deserves, has died. He's been comedic for all this time, and now... now he's not. Now he's just evil, and not funny.

From tvtropes rape the dog entry,

The audiences toward which fictions are aimed have a definite, if sometimes skewed, tolerance for evil acts. A villain can, for example, be a galaxy-conquering tyrant whose armies have killed the hero's disposable parents, blown up a few cities, and attempted genocide, and the audience may still find that villain cool enough to have some modicum of sympathy for them when their Karmic Death rolls around.
This trope refers when a Kick The Dog moment goes too far, and a villain we've previously found to be entertainingly evil commits a truly Squicktastic crime, something extreme enough that the audience is repelled, repulsed, and may feel it to be out of character. The difference between this and Kick The Dog is that while Kick The Dog establishes the character is evil because of the pointlessness of the act, Rape The Dog works off how extreme the crime is. It's "quality", not quantity that matters here — destroying a city won't do it, but crimes such as torture, especially rape, and especially — especially — anything to do with children will automatically hurl a villain across the depravity line.
This is what would happen if Mysterio tortured, raped, cut up, and stuffed Mary Jane and/or Aunt May into a fridge.
 

Remove ads

Top