"evil" protagonists

[pawsplay]

*sigh*, last time I checked, Rape The Dog was deleted. Unmerged? Ironically, once of the stronger arguments was that the name itself led to the overuse of the word "rape" in conversations about the topic.

I do enjoy Vance's work. I intuit that he's probably a good person. I laugh, I cry, I say, "Eww." I consider myself a person of above average literacy. If Vance's work is inaccessible to you, I will put forth the proposition that it's not because the work is inaccessible to everyone, or because you must be dissolute to enjoy it. I think it's just not a story for you, and if you can't find some way to digest the irony and the humor and the horror and the commentary on the human condition all in one wry little platter, then read something else.

I've been told by someone that they cannot enjoy "Bridges of Madison County" bascially because it's about an adulterous affair. That's fine. Now I gather that you consider yourself past that barrier, that you are willing to consider a story of a certain theme if the story is good enough. I believe you.

But again, your criticism of the story or the scene does not, itself, make it bad. You have to construct an argument that other people will likely consider it bad. I, personally, would not hesitate to recommend the books to many people I know. In fact, the likeliness I am to recommend it roughly corresponds to how much sophisticated a reader I consider them, with other factors also influencing my decision. Obviously, you can dislike the story for perfectly legitimate reasons, but to enjoy the story, you probably have to achieve a certain level of poetic sophistication, or manage to misinterpret the story.

To call it bad writing, you are going to have to argue either that I should not have enjoyed it, or that I am not a competent lay critic. Fair warning: in high school, I wrote a 25 page term paper on Kafka's Metamorphosis. I am likely to value my own literary judgment to a fairly high degree.

Why should someone enjoy Vance's work? Among other reasons, they are steeped in existential themes. The story of a woman being raped, sold, and then killed under absurd circumstances very elegantly encapsulates the themes of loneliness, mortality, and the uncaring universe that characterize existential works.

Human beings like stories of the Devil. Even that wretched movie "Mad Money" ends with a wink at the thieves.

 

[S'mon]

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.tropes instead turned out to be about as subtle as I Spit on Your Grave.

Buffy's tortured or inhuman males doesn't bother me any more than the traditional version - if anything less than say Book of the Long Sun, where Severian the Torturer seemingly only ever tortures/executes women. I was annoyed by Willow going from straight to 100% lesbian, thus with zero attraction for her ex boyfriend, apparently at the demand of lesbian activists. It violated my suspension of disbelief (and the integrity of the character) much more than any vampire stuff.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I was annoyed by Willow going from straight to 100% lesbian, thus with zero attraction for her ex boyfriend

Except--at the risk of further derailing the thread--that's not what happened. The one time Oz returned, she was very torn between the two of them. Yes, she eventually chose Tara, but it was hardly an easy choice, or one with "zero attraction."

There is an argument to be made that the character would have been better served by being more obviously bi--though I don't think it's an argument to be had on these forums --but not in the context of that particular example.

 

[S'mon]

Except--at the risk of further derailing the thread--that's not what happened. The one time Oz returned, she was very torn between the two of them. Yes, she eventually chose Tara, but it was hardly an easy choice, or one with "zero attraction."

Hmm, my impression from the episode was exactly the reverse, that she had zero interest in Oz and told him something like "I only do women now". And maybe she was lying. But the implausible thing was how the character stayed lesbian following Tara's death, as if some kind of permanent switch was flicked. Gay-for-Tara was plausible, "I'm gay now" was not. YMMV

 

[S'mon]

There is an argument to be made that the character would have been better served by being more obviously bi--though I don't think it's an argument to be had on these forums --but not in the context of that particular example.

IME real, non-promiscuous, people of ambiguous sexuality tend to go "I'm straight" - "I'm gay" - "I'm straight" depending on who they're with, because there are strong social pressures against calling yourself bisexual. So I didn't object to Willow saying "I'm gay" while with Tara, it was the permanent-switch thing, and the way IMO it was written very poorly, I objected to.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

FYI, the article still exists, it was just given a new name that I cannot for the life of me remember right now and I refuse to let myself lose hours of my life to that damnable website again <_<

I think you can have an evil protagonist without having such a moment, for what it's worth. Evil doesn't mean you have to ALWAYS be as CRUEL AND HORRIBLE AS POSSIBLE! You could have a character who's evil because he constantly cheats others out of their money. A not so plucky con man who goes after easy targets. No murder, no rape, just selfish people who put themselves entirely above others.

I think there's two reasons rape and murder end up happening, and the first is because of one-up manship. It's not enough to just be a mean guy who cheats people, you have to be EVIL!

The second is shock value. Ok, your character cheated some innocent people out of their money. The group shrugs, and moves on. And then your character murders a little kid! Holy crap! Now everyone is paying attention! The other way this plays in is in targets. It's one thing to tell the DM that you kill some guy who was a total dick to the party and who beat his wife and etc etc. It's when you kill the innocent beggar that you become evil. You can be an evil character that only kills jerks!

Stuff like this is why I see a difference between evil characters and evil characters.

 

[Barastrondo]

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.

6. There are no good justifications. Part of our relative desensitization to violence is a cultural concept that someone can deserve to die, and that killing in self-defense or in times of war is not the same crime as murder. While some people believe that there are situations that make rape "okay," these rationalizations have always been terrible: women are property, they're the Enemy and therefore "not real people," the aforementioned idea that marital rape or non-violent coercion "don't count," a romanticization of rape as a way to get a woman to fall in love with you, the idea that you're merely "compelling her to fulfill her basic duty toward men," "that's what she gets for going out with a bad crowd/wearing sexy attire/saying no to a guy/going onto the battlefield/associating with our devilish protagonist," etc.

The trouble is, some of these rationalizations aren't exactly extinct. Plenty of women offer stories of their characters getting raped shortly after joining a new gaming group, and the rationalization offered is usually some variation of "that's what she gets, because adventuring is dangerous." So not only is rape one of those things that is pretty indefensible, but some people do try to defend its inclusion in unfortunate ways. It can lead to further layers of "blame the victim" thinking — "if I say your character is raped and you object, it's your problem for being too sensitive" — which really complicates the issue.

It's not that it's a topic that can't be handled well. It's that it's a topic that has a long, long history of being handled poorly, and the gaming community is just as prone to handling it poorly as anybody else.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Don't take this the wrong way, I actually completely agree with everything you said. But I do like to have fun sometimes.

While some people believe that there are situations that make rape "okay," these rationalizations have always been terrible:

women are property,

Slaves are property, man and woman. If you kill one by disciplining them too hard, it's basically the same as destroying a piece of your own property.

they're the Enemy and therefore "not real people,"

Yup.

the aforementioned idea that marital rape or non-violent coercion "don't count,"

The idea that feeling threatened at any level justifies a lethal self-defense reaction.

a romanticization of rape as a way to get a woman to fall in love with you,

The "Bond ideal" whereby you kill the woman's lover and she falls for you.

the idea that you're merely "compelling her to fulfill her basic duty toward men,"

Getting killed for country / god(s) / your employer.

"that's what she gets for going out with a bad crowd/wearing sexy attire/saying no to a guy/going onto the battlefield/associating with our devilish protagonist," etc.

It's a pretty common trope that when the chaotic awesome hero acts reckless, instead of dying himself, in order to "teach him the error of his ways" the writers have his comrades die instead.
As for attire: "Eh, he deserved to die for not wearing his helmet."

 

[billd91]

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.

What if he's not trying to tittilate but just provide a detailed picture of the culture's hypersexual world? Does using fetish imagery necessarily entail trying to either tittilate or support a vision of abhorrent sexuality?

 

[Cadfan]

What if he's not trying to tittilate but just provide a detailed picture of the culture's hypersexual world? Does using fetish imagery necessarily entail trying to either tittilate or support a vision of abhorrent sexuality?

I don't know for certain what was going through his mind and what emotional reactions he was hoping to garner from the reader. I can make inferences though. Those are the inferences I make. I suppose you could make others, but I think mine are pretty well supported by the text.

As for your specific defense of whether he's just providing a detailed picture of the culture... that's not a very good defense. Because its not a real culture. Its something he made up to serve as a plot element. He's ultimately responsible for whether it serves the overall theme and tone of the book, or detracts from it.