Sexual violence and misogyny in SF/F

[Colum Paget]

Just to simultaneously step aside from the particular topic AND agree, in part, with Kylara AND mention my own work (kind of), if only to please Colum....

* excuse me while I fall over, legs entwined *

Oh Bravo! Very nicely done sir. The triple-pliee-tumble is the ultimate expression of the art.

 

[Colum Paget]

I have a feeling this is another one of those circuitous discussions where nobody has the right answer.

I'm getting quite a bit out of it, to be honest. I've never really had a chance to discuss these issues before, because it's not the kind of thing you can propose to your writers group "Hey, why don't we discuss sexual violence in the genre?"

I might be having a slightly different discussion to everyone else though, as none of the violence in my fiction is sexual. But the question of 'why use violence at all?' is not one I've ever heard asked before. Fiction normally involves conflict, and conflict often means violence within certain genres, but I can think of good stories that I've read that didn't involve any violence at all, so it's not *required*.

I found Kylara's illustration of salacious enjoyment of violence really useful, because it distinguishes the idea from gratuitous, which just means 'unnecessary'. I'd say that violence in horror fiction is salacious, but not gratuitous, because it's a required aspect of some forms of that genre. The genre itself, overall, may be gratuitous, but if you're going to do horror, then you're committed to providing the salacious thrill of gore and grue that I think many horror readers are seeking.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I'm getting quite a bit out of it, to be honest. I've never really had a chance to discuss these issues before, because it's not the kind of thing you can propose to your writers group "Hey, why don't we discuss sexual violence in the genre?"

No? If you're writing it, it should be able to be discussed. Either that or my group deserve medals. (actually, they probably do...)


I'd say that violence in horror fiction is salacious, but not gratuitous, because it's a required aspect of some forms of that genre. The genre itself, overall, may be gratuitous, but if you're going to do horror, then you're committed to providing the salacious thrill of gore and grue that I think many horror readers are seeking.

Not always. Horror, like humour, is incredibly hard to write, and the best written horror is often not the gratuitous sort, but the implied. The haunting of Hill House (still sends shivers down me) has nothing salacious or gratuitous in it. Many of King's don't, either - take Shawshank, which is horrific in what it implies, not what it does - even the Stand(which is, I believe, the one he'll be remembered for), which is true, spill chilling keep you awake at night horror - the classic horror scenes aren't what have the impact, it's the fleeing in the night from the unseen horror, the waking up in a dead american town, that have the real impact. Slasher horror is a different beast and tends, imho, to exist more cinematically than it does in literature.

 

[Anne Lyle]

I'm getting quite a bit out of it, to be honest. I've never really had a chance to discuss these issues before, because it's not the kind of thing you can propose to your writers group "Hey, why don't we discuss sexual violence in the genre?"

Maybe you need a better writers' group?

Perhaps it's just because (by chance) mine is all female, but they would so be up for this kind of debate...

 

[Colum Paget]

On the other note, i think it's important not to confine this sort of thread only to our own work as, despite my attempt to have half the Chrons community read mine, I have not yet taken over the world... and therefore it becomes an exercise in self gratification. Instead, I think it's important to look at the issues critically and use these as a mirror into our own work.

I felt we needed some illustrations, so the conversation wasn't "fuzzy and abrstract", but given the nature of the topic, I was a little uncomfortable to start illustrating using anyone else's work.

 

[Colum Paget]

Maybe you need a better writers' group?

Perhaps it's just because (by chance) mine is all female, but they would so be up for this kind of debate...

I do think my writer's group are pretty awesome, but I agree that it would be much easier to discuss in a single-sex group, but then you'd also perhaps lose a lot of the insight that would come from the 'missing' group (whichever one it was). It's all swings and roundabouts, you have to seize discussion whereever you find someone willing to do it.

 

[Colum Paget]

@springs hmm, now that you mention it I can't think of any graphic violence that I've read in horror...

I do remember reading some clive barker that I felt was pretty graphic, but I don't remember what any of the content was now

 

[Colum Paget]

But, if you choose to write a lot of female on female violence, then it is perhaps becoming a theme, and if so I'd kind of like to know either why the theme is so interesting to that author or what answers it gives me about a view on life. If the answer is it seemed cool and none(which I'm not saying it is in your case), that moves to gratuitous to me.

In the two cases mentioned I had very good reasons for doing it, and I do think that if you use female prot/ant-agonists, then you'll have violence between them, so in some ways my questions were intended to provoke. However, there is one unpublished story of mine where I think the accusations stand. It has pirates in it, and unlike the published works there's no deep reason for their to be violence between two of the characters, except to show they're bad pirates. This is exactly the kind of thing that people say is lazy, but on the other hand... they're pirates. I feel we need to see something that demonstrates that they're people you'd want to avoid, but I'm not sure how that might be done.

 

[Anne Lyle]

In the two cases mentioned I had very good reasons for doing it, and I do think that if you use female prot/ant-agonists, then you'll have violence between them

In a combat setting, maybe - but anywhere else...? Women don't tend to solve their conflicts with violence.

 

[Colum Paget]

## In this regard, it might be the smart move for the author to generally keep female characters in...
## well, 'traditional' roles where they're out of harm's way?

# Not unless you really want to come over as a sexist jerk...

I was being provocative here, and I think maybe it didn't work, as I feel the question's gotten shorter shrift than it deserves. I'll elaborate on something that I think is important.

I've got a concept that I call the 'chivalry shield', which is a tendency that I perceive in fiction (mostly movies/tv) to not allow female characters to put themselves in harms way, and not allow the male characters to let this happen. However, the chivalry shield is no friend to female characters, because while the protag is not allowed to let a female decide her own fate, the antagonist is generally allowed to do anything, so she tends to wind up stuffed in a fridge.

The best example I've seen of this is in Danny Boyle's 'Sunshine'. Now, I really liked the movie, but there's a point when someone has to stay behind on a doomed derelict spacecraft to operate the thingy that will allow the others to get away to the main ship. The obvious candidate for this is Michele Youh's biologist character, who is redundant among the crew after they lost the main ship's 'oxygen garden' to fire. Furthermore, as the derelict has a surviving oxygen garden, it would have provided a poetic heroes death for Youh's character if she'd been allowed to stay behind and spent her last hours in the oxygen garden. However, one of the males did this job, and Youh's character was later stalked and slashed (offscreen) by a serial killer lose on the main ship. In fact, both female characters on the ship die victim's deaths instead of heroes deaths.

Now maybe you can see why I'm a little nervous of using examples from other people's work, because if you've not seen 'Sunshine' this synopsis doesn't sound good, does it? But it's actually a pretty good film. (And I'm sure I'm well under Danny Boyle's radar).

Anyways, I think audiences expect the 'male establishment' in the movie to protect the female characters, but are fine with the transgressive antagonist breaking this protection, as he's the bad guy, right?

I'm against the chivalry shield, myself, but that means I'll write fiction where women will be allowed to put themselves in harms way by the plot and the other characters in it. I'm not sure audiences are comfortable with that, given the widespread prevelance of 'Chivalry shield' phenomena (it should also be noted that the 'Chivalry shield' implies males are more 'disposable', because it's okay to send them on suicide missions etc). I think it's an aspect of traditional morality that women shouldn't be allowed into danger, but that if the monster gets them, then that's okay, because the whole point is that the monster is supposed to be transgressive. If I'm right about that, then are there any dangers to breaking these taboos in your fiction?

 

[Colum Paget]

In a combat setting, maybe - but anywhere else...? Women don't tend to solve their conflicts with violence.

In truth nor do men. But in fiction we're often dealing with more extreme situations, and more extreme characters. We are rarely in high-stakes or life-and-death situations in daily life, but fiction features these all the time.

 

[Anne Lyle]

In truth nor do men. But in fiction we're often dealing with more extreme situations, and more extreme characters. We are rarely in high-stakes or life-and-death situations in daily life, but fiction features these all the time.

It's very culture-dependent - but in most historical cultures, men are more likely to have been brought up to believe that conflict can be solved through violence (whether or not they go through with it), whereas women have not. If you don't "get" this, I'm not sure you have a firm grasp on the female psyche.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

It's very culture-dependent - but in most historical cultures, men are more likely to have been brought up to believe that conflict can be solved through violence (whether or not they go through with it), whereas women have not. If you don't "get" this, I'm not sure you have a firm grasp on the female psyche.

Lawrence's Sons and Lovers deals with this very well, with a male protagonist who isn't in the least "of the fist" and is very willing to walk away, even knowing it's not a male attribute to do so. I think there is a tendency in modern literature to assume the sexes are equal in that they think and do the same, and in my experience, that simply isn't the case. We are different, biologically, and in our psychological makeup. We deal with things different, have different bodies and brain structures eg. women absorb alcohol quicker, that's physiological, and a proven fact, and to pretend we're all the same is an anti equality argument.

If you put a male and female protagonist in the same situation they should deal with it differently- for the reasons above and because of their upbringing, beliefs, raison d'etre - and if that's not accepted then I'm not sure it's realistic.

 

[Colum Paget]

I was aiming for how language itself can be gratuitous...unconscious things maybe seen in a first draft: your character is crying - you say snivelling - negative assumption based on the word, same sort of action, - or weeping - almost certainly a female or a feminine man, comes with great emotional attachment, still technically crying.

Interesting point. The 'you say snivelling' here makes me realise that I never use narrators with an emotional viewpoint (in the sense of having an opinion about the characters). It might be interesting to try that.

 

[Colum Paget]

It's very culture-dependent - but in most historical cultures, men are more likely to have been brought up to believe that conflict can be solved through violence (whether or not they go through with it), whereas women have not. If you don't "get" this, I'm not sure you have a firm grasp on the female psyche.

I'm a little wary of there being a 'female psyche', as you say yourself it's a culture dependent thing, and will change from person-to-person. I'd be very... uncomfortable with people judging me in terms of a 'male psyche', because I think the picture they'd have in their heads wouldn't be me, it would be a lowest-common-demoninator aggregate. However, if there is a female psyche, then I guess I'd be unlikely to have a firm grasp on it, as it wouldn't be my psyche.

That said, I wouldn't claim to have a firm grasp of the male psyche, either. I wouldn't really say that was my psyche, just because I'm male.

Hmmm. I do feel there's a clear indication coming out of this discussion that I should move away from female protagonists, at least for stories with a lot of sturm and drang in them. I'll need to think about that.

 

[Colum Paget]

If you put a male and female protagonist in the same situation they should deal with it differently- for the reasons above and because of their upbringing, beliefs, raison d'etre - and if that's not accepted then I'm not sure it's realistic.

That's true, but then I do have to start asking if female characters are suited to the stories I want to tell, which I've never questioned before. That's a tough call. This does mean I should be making my female characters more conventionally feminine, I think. I really need to think about that, I'm not entirely happy with that idea, because it *does* now mean they've got to be pushed back more and more to standard gender roles (or I change the stories I'm telling, or something). Hmmm...

I don't know. Men in fiction don't behave like men anyway. I don't know any men who behave like the ones I generally read/see in fiction, not even close to be honest. Then again, I've no way of knowing if the men I encounter are very representive, in fact I know they're not.

 

[Colum Paget]

I've written from the PoV of a rapist before now and managed to make the character likeable (at least, people told me they liked him!).

I'd be *very* nervous about doing that.

 

[Colum Paget]

Funny you should mention that. Before I started on the Night's Masque trilogy I always thought I'd never write a torture scene, because in general I don't like reading them, but my protagonist is a spy and torture was used frequently in the 16th century (albeit less often in England than on the Continent) so the topic is somewhat hard to avoid.

Well, this is somewhat the thing I'm saying, if one is going to write spy fiction or crime fiction, or whatever, then there's got to be a degree of violence. On the other hand one can ask whether we should be aiming for realism, or not (with historical fiction, as you've got here, I think the call to realism is stronger than in, say SF/F). Just because people are tortured in real life, doesn't mean they have to be in fiction, maybe?

A question here though is "Would you have been more uncomfortable casting a female character in this role?" (if we allow that there were female spies in the 16th century, which I'd be there were, but I don't know). Do you think your audience would be less comfortable with a female character? If so does that make a female character a less good choice for the role?

 

[Colum Paget]

Well, since I don't have much in the way of sexual violence or violence by or towards women in my books, I didn't feel any need to 'fess up

I was mostly feeling guilty about hogging all the analysis to be honest.

Speaking of which, I just got a warning for consecutive posting. I didn't understand the bit at the end of the moderators post earlier, I thought he meant I could use multipost to clip individual bits out of a post, rather than editing the post to get the bits I wanted, but when I clicked multipost it just went red and nothing happened.

But multipost is to respond to multiple other people, right?

 

[Colum Paget]

# Colum, since this is a forum with members from all over the world, there are parts
# of the day when there tend to be long lulls in the discussion.

Yeah, it's kinda all so obvious now, and I guess I lot of people dropped off as the thread was being opened, because the closing of one thread and the opening of another is a natural break-point, right?