Gratuitous Rape in Fantasy novels

[prizzley]

However, if a rape victim is happy, I would rather tend to think it is despite the rape, not because of the rape.

That was what I was trying to say. A million apologies if it came across otherwise.

 

[Darth Angelus]

That was what I was trying to say. A million apologies if it came across otherwise.

No worries. We are in agreement, then.

 

[hopewrites]

I think its interesting no ones mentioned vicarious trauma. Is that because we are unaware of it in society? Or because our reading hasn't covered it?

I have encountered some ... fascinating, defense mechanisms against vicarious trauma in learning how to relate my experience.

I've only read one author who has dealt with rape, and I thought she did a tastefully accurate character change each time. Showing how different people can react differently.

Because my fist rape experience happened before I was aware such things happened in the world I cannot offer an informed opinion on whether there is a difference between imagining the act and experiencing it. Sorry DA.

I would caution against using it to make a character stronger. Yes it takes a lot of strength to survive the experience, and to want to continue surviving after. It takes more to appropriately deal with the personal and social consiquences. And even more to heal and put it behind one. To realize that having healed and put it behind doesn't mean the memories won't ever pop up at inconvenient or unexpected moments. To stand up for the perpitrator when bloodthirsty people who only understand pain wish to perpetuate the problem with further violence.
Yes all of these things take strength. But they give no strength back. To do any of them the character going through it must have that strength to hand already.


Some trials make people stronger, others show what strength was there. Rape is a show not a make.

If you're going to write a character who has been raped, whether the rape is in your story or not. Please factor in how it will effect the other characters when and if they find out. For a long time I kept the details to myself because I wasn't ready to share the trauma of what happened. Now I keep them close because I've seen what vicarious trauma can do when not avoided. And felt the pain of knowing I'm the only one who can deal with what I went through. No one else can, or should have to, deal with my experience.

I will repeat my offer to read and give my opinion on traumatized characters. Or discuss in private my experiences with those doing research.

There are many stages to healing from many things. I've seen some hard times in my life, in and out of this and many other arenas, and feel comfortable speaking with the authority of my experience.

Do I think rape made me stronger? Hell no! The strength I had and had to spend on dealing with my own reactions and the reactions of others I would love to have had back to spend on other things. I could get flaming mad about it if I let myself.
But being mad about a past I can't erase or change is a waste of my time and energy. So I don't anymore.

That's how I know its something that can only show strength, not make it.

People used to call me stupid. I gained strength from that because it propelled me to become smarter and stronger than I already was. Sorry only example I could think of at the moment.

But I wanted to make my point clear about the difference between something that makes you stronger and something that shows how strong you are.

 

[Warren_Paul]

Completely agree, Hope. It doesn't make you strong, it shows how strong you already were.

I think the problem with vicarious trauma is that it requires contact with people who are dealing with their own traumas. So those who haven't had that contact might not be aware of its effects. It's like they unload their experiences, pain and feeling onto the support person listening to them. Over time that's got to have some effect on the support person when all they are listening to day in, day out is people's traumatic experiences. They haven't experienced the trauma themselves, but the negativity must be depressing and harm them psychologically.

I've had a bit of contact, enough for me to feel empathy towards them, and can easily see how that could become something more. It happens because we care about the person, and it's worse for support workers because they feel obligated to help in some way.

Just to check, that's the sort of trauma you were meaning, Hope?

 

[R.P. Soon]

Would you say that is compartmentalising?

Compartmentalising seems to be a sure fire way for us to protect our own sanity, by locking the pain and horror of something away in the back of our mind and shrugging it off. I also wonder though if it at some point may come back to bite them?

I'm not sure, but I don't think so. From what I've read on ptsd (to write a ptsd character) compartmentalizing is a different way of coping with a traumatic event than facing it. If you face and accept an unpleasant event and say, "Okay, this happened. Wasn't my most shining moment, but it happened." (Not that it's that easy, but you get the idea.) Then you can move on from that point and you sort of just forget about it. Kind of like a picnic on a rainy day that didn't turn out so well. You might think of it sometimes if you're chatting about picnics, but otherwise, you really aren't dwelling on it.

If you compartmentalize the event, then you're shoving it into a corner of your mind and refusing to look at it. You don't want to remember it. You don't want to think about it. That's usually where the "it comes back to bite you" scenario comes into play. If you're working very hard to forget a thing, and something in your life keeps reminding you of that thing, then you're effectively creating a struggle within your own mind. Such a struggle would be exhausting and stressful.

Also, as I think of it, there seems to be shorter term compartmentalization. Like, in a life or death situation, where someone sees something horrible, but they don't have the time to cope with it right at that moment (too busy trying to stay alive). So, they sort of ignore it and just keep on surviving. Afterward, they can take the time to pull it out of its compartment, look at it and effectively say, "Gee, that was horrible." Or they can keep it locked up there and let it fester.

But I'm pretty sure a trained psychological professional could word all that a lot better than I can. (Always good to make friends with psych people. I know two. I ask them writing questions from time to time. )

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Indeed, there is nothing like a good pyschological specialist for these sorts of things... actually the reaction of secondary characterscis, imho, is one of the things that needs a lot of thought. I have one who deals with it well after the character it happens to does. It doesn't help that he suffered his own ordeal, but there is definitely an element of compartamentalisation going on.

 

[Warren_Paul]

That was my understanding of compartmentalization. And yes, having psych friends is a big advantage. I flat with one, so will be pestering her when the need arises.

 

[Warren_Paul]

SPOILERS FOR AMERICAN HORROR STORY SEASON 2 EPISODE 10.



Out of interest, not a fantasy novel -- although a TV show that falls into a similar genre -- but just watched one of the recent episodes of American Horror Story which had a male rape scene in it. Of course the woman involved was demon possessed so she had physical strength over him, but the man was celibate for religious reasons and it left him feeling ruined and considering whether he should give up his vows to be a priest because of it. That show really does mess with the character's heads. I think they probably handled it as well as they could have considering the limited time they had to show the situation.

 

[Darth Angelus]

I think its interesting no ones mentioned vicarious trauma. Is that because we are unaware of it in society? Or because our reading hasn't covered it?

I have encountered some ... fascinating, defense mechanisms against vicarious trauma in learning how to relate my experience.

I've only read one author who has dealt with rape, and I thought she did a tastefully accurate character change each time. Showing how different people can react differently.

Because my fist rape experience happened before I was aware such things happened in the world I cannot offer an informed opinion on whether there is a difference between imagining the act and experiencing it. Sorry DA.

I would caution against using it to make a character stronger. Yes it takes a lot of strength to survive the experience, and to want to continue surviving after. It takes more to appropriately deal with the personal and social consiquences. And even more to heal and put it behind one. To realize that having healed and put it behind doesn't mean the memories won't ever pop up at inconvenient or unexpected moments. To stand up for the perpitrator when bloodthirsty people who only understand pain wish to perpetuate the problem with further violence.
Yes all of these things take strength. But they give no strength back. To do any of them the character going through it must have that strength to hand already.


Some trials make people stronger, others show what strength was there. Rape is a show not a make.

If you're going to write a character who has been raped, whether the rape is in your story or not. Please factor in how it will effect the other characters when and if they find out. For a long time I kept the details to myself because I wasn't ready to share the trauma of what happened. Now I keep them close because I've seen what vicarious trauma can do when not avoided. And felt the pain of knowing I'm the only one who can deal with what I went through. No one else can, or should have to, deal with my experience.

I will repeat my offer to read and give my opinion on traumatized characters. Or discuss in private my experiences with those doing research.

There are many stages to healing from many things. I've seen some hard times in my life, in and out of this and many other arenas, and feel comfortable speaking with the authority of my experience.

Do I think rape made me stronger? Hell no! The strength I had and had to spend on dealing with my own reactions and the reactions of others I would love to have had back to spend on other things. I could get flaming mad about it if I let myself.
But being mad about a past I can't erase or change is a waste of my time and energy. So I don't anymore.

That's how I know its something that can only show strength, not make it.

People used to call me stupid. I gained strength from that because it propelled me to become smarter and stronger than I already was. Sorry only example I could think of at the moment.

But I wanted to make my point clear about the difference between something that makes you stronger and something that shows how strong you are.

Ok, I see. You were young enough to not even know what rape was. That would probably make it even worse and more confusing, I'd imagine.
Really horrible...

And yes, I was assuming rape was something that showed your strength rather than made it. I think we all seem to be in agreement on that.

 

[hopewrites]

Ok, I see. You were young enough to not even know what rape was. That would probably make it even worse and more confusing, I'd imagine.
Really horrible...

And yes, I was assuming rape was something that showed your strength rather than made it. I think we all seem to be in agreement on that.

the first time I was yes. I had a few years between experiences to suppress the memory, imagine what it was like, and then experience it again.
I am assuming that since I wasnt that far off in my imaginings that the suppressed memories were trying to come back through them.

 

[Darth Angelus]

the first time I was yes. I had a few years between experiences to suppress the memory, imagine what it was like, and then experience it again.
I am assuming that since I wasnt that far off in my imaginings that the suppressed memories were trying to come back through them.

Oh my... this just keeps getting worse and worse.

I barely know what to say anymore, as something like "really awful" would undoubtedly fall short of your experiences, and I am not ashamed to admit this goes beyond my abilities of imagination.
Regardless, know that you have my deepest and most sincere sympathies for this! That is all I really can say.

 

[prizzley]

I think its interesting no ones mentioned vicarious trauma. Is that because we are unaware of it in society? Or because our reading hasn't covered it? . . .

I wanted to make my point clear about the difference between something that makes you stronger and something that shows how strong you are.

Some outstanding advice here. Thanks hope. You've definitely given me pause for thought.

 

[JoanDrake]

On a different note, one fairly well-known author once asked on Facebook if
he should include the rape scene he was intending. One of the male posters
suggested that he write it anyway, and if it didn't work once he'd written the
book, he could simply remove it and there'd be no effect on the story. I said
that you couldn't remove it, because if it was well-handled, the female protag
would be scarred from it in one or more terrible ways, that it would define who
she became, but the men ignored my post. And in the end the author said he'd
just remove the rape if it didn't fit once the book was finished.

Uh, I know I'm going to win the density award this year for this question but why should this time be any different?

Aren't you taking this just a tad too seriously by saying "the female protag
would be scarred from it (that is, the rape) in one or more terrible ways, that it would define who she became," Yes, certainly, rape is a terrible thing and seriously scars the victim, if they are a real person. This is a character in a book, a fictional construct. The author is constructing her character and if her character is really not that much bothered then, that's her character, yes?

Now if you're saying that any raped character will normally be completely traumatised and very negatively affected to the point that she probably will never be able to be treated the same again than I have to say that you're certainly not going along with the latest studies on rape and its effect that I know of. Most of them say that women are suprisingly resilient in the effect rape has on them, and that the way the rape is treated afterward is the most effective factor in how they recover. If they're treated as poor misbegotten victims whose lives have been forever ruined then the effect will be maximum both in time and negativity. If they're treated as simple victims of a crime that could happen to anyone, then the effect is much less. This seems to be simple common sense to me and maybe the reason the National Organisation for Women has long campaigned for rape to be treated as a form of simple aggravated assault, instead of a crime nearly akin to murder.

 

[Beef]

Yes, certainly, rape is a terrible thing and seriously scars the victim, if they are a real person. This is a character in a book, a fictional construct. The author is constructing her character and if her character is really not that much bothered then, that's her character, yes?

I think the simple answer is that an author might feel a certain responsibility to make the character believable, firstly because it makes the book more engaging and secondly to avoid trivialising the matter.

But of course, as you mention, people react to rape in different ways.

 

[Erin99]

I'm sorry, JoanDrake, but how can you say rape has no effect on a character? If a character is to be realistic, someone a reader feels could actually exist, then to have a traumatic event happen to him/her without any consequences destroys any credibility. Even if a woman feels determined NOT to let a rape affect her, she's consciously going out of her way to do so, so it's affecting her life. She might make choices she wouldn't otherwise, because she's so determined not to think about it (which is subconsciously thinking about it, at first). Also, a character who goes out of her way to suppress traumatic memories is still having a reaction to rape - and that should be obvious if handled well. I would feel the author were using rape as action if the rape had no consequence.

Honestly, I would expect a realistic character to have some reaction to being raped - even if mostly after said event. I don't understand how an author could write any differently and expect the character's reactions to be realistic. You suffer a car crash, you likely have flashbacks and shock. You get robbed at knifepoint, your mind likely replays it afterward. People are human. People have feelings.

And the idea that the Nation Organisation for Women has "long campaigned for rape to be treated as a form of simple aggravated assault, instead of a crime nearly akin to murder" sounds ridiculous if true (where is your source? I'd be interested to read it, because surely that's not allowed? ). How can a group which supposedly supports women's rights brush off one of the most serious crimes? No, it's not murder, but at least you're dead after murder, you don't suffer nightmares and memories.

But no, I can't say I agree that victims should be treated as "misbegotten victims". They need counselling and closure, if possible, if they're deeply affected by it (depends on the level of violence, I'd imagine). And when you say that the latest studies on rape show that "women are surprisingly resilient in the effect rape has on them", where are your sources? I know two people, very close to me actually, who have been raped. Both were not treated as misbegotten victims, and both were raped in their teens. Half their life later, the rape still affects them in quite different ways. Yes, they were raped differently - one was by someone trusted, the other was by a vicious stranger in an alley - but their effects still linger. To this day, one of them is seriously suffering from PTSD - even after counselling and seeing her attacker get sentenced in court for doing it to other young women.

I certainly will not listen to a group which purports that rape is not violent and is merely "simple" aggravated assault. What's simple about being attacked and violated against your will? In fact, one peer-reviewed study shows that "Sexual assault is associated with an increased lifetime rate of attempted suicide. In women, a history of sexual trauma before age 16 years is a particularly strong correlate of attempted suicide." (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8639039)

Another peer-reviewed study to measure stress hormones and immunity following rape showed that "At least one-third of women develop postraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), panic attacks, depression, and physical health problems" and "Female victims report lower perceived health status, more somatic symptoms, and more negative health behaviours, more headaches, chronic pain syndromes, gynecological disorders, premenstrual syndrome, gastrointestinal disorders, morbid obesity and substance abuse" and "There is an association of physical illness and PTSD in trauma victims." (http://kendal-tackett.www.uppitysciencechick.com/groer_rape_cyto.pdf)

I am quite willing to accept these findings, because they back up what I've seen.

Anyway, because this topic's got me interested, I've done a quick search online, and Rape Crisis, the leading charity, says: "Long-term consequences of sexual violence and child sexual abuse include post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and panic attacks, depression, social phobia, substance abuse, obesity, eating disorders, self harm and suicide, domestic violence and in some cases, offending behaviour." They also state that "Rape myths give people a false sense of security by minimising and / or denying the occurrence of sexual violence. They accomplish this by blaming the victim and making excuses for the perpetrator. In effect these myths perpetuate sexual violence because they play a powerful part in defining responses to rape and create an excuse not to address the realities of sexual violence." (http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/mythsampfacts2.php)

When people make an argument that rape is not serious and that it causes little long-term harm, they're another person bandying about what's called "rape myth", which is actually harmful to real victims. According to a peer-reviewed article by Philipp Süssenbach, Friederike Eyssel and Gerd Bohner, published after their studies into rape and rape myth, "Rape myths are "beliefs about rape (i.e., about its causes, context, consequences, perpetrators, victims, and their interaction) that serve to deny, downplay or justify male sexual aggression against women" (http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/02/07/0886260512475317.full.pdf+html)

The following first-page preview has interesting evidence that talks about how the myth that "rape is trivial" can be one driver for justification among young offenders: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10926771.2013.743937#preview

Finally, a peer-reviewed article entitled Walking the Woods: The Lived Experience of Sexual Assault Survival for Women in College sums it up, in my opinion: "conversation revealed one overarching theme of the all-encompassing nature of rape survival" and "In other words, after being raped in college, the experience continued to be intimately connected to everything they would live through thereafter." (http://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/13540)




Edit: And perhaps some of this info will be useful to writers who want to write realistically...

 

[Ursa major]

If a character is to be realistic, someone a reader feels could actually exist, then to have a traumatic event happen to him/her without any consequences destroys any credibility. Even if a woman feels determined NOT to let a rape affect her, she's consciously going out of her way to do so, so it's affecting her life. She might make choices she wouldn't otherwise, because she's so determined not to think about it (which is subconsciously thinking about it, at first). Also, a character who goes out of her way to suppress traumatic memories is still having a reaction to rape - and that should be obvious if handled well. I would feel the author were using rape as action if the rape had no consequence.

I suppose the real issue is not that someone isn't affected by rape (or by being a victim of other very serious crimes) - of course they are (though to different extents, depending on the victim and, I suppose, the attitudes of those around them) - but whether they're defined (by themselves and/or by others**) by being a victim or not.



** - Such as in those societies where being raped is seen as a mark against the victim, one which "requires" what we in more "enlightened" societies would probably see as punishment.

 

[Hex]

OK -- just to say briefly --

One could argue that the whole purity of women thing means there's an underlying (if not often expressed) belief that for a good, pure woman, death is better than the dishonour of rape, which is clearly silly. Death is death and rape may give you nightmares but it is not (normally) a Fate Worse Than Death. However hard they may be to recover from, we are not defined by our sexual experiences or assaults upon us.

I think Joan's point was a good one -- added to the genuine trauma and awfulness of rape, the betrayal of trust and physical violence, is the expectation that women must be absolutely destroyed by the experience.

I find it frighteningly close to the frankly stupid myths that a girl who has had sex will no longer be as distressed by rape because, hey, she's not a virgin any more and that somehow changes how distressed she will be by a ghastly assault.

I have friends who were raped, in the sense that they had sex even though they didn't especially want to -- which is on the verge of what it means to be raped -- in the context of us growing up, that was a (regrettable but) perfectly normal thing and, maybe because it was normal, no one was very upset by it.

I don't think accepting that people will react to rape in different ways belittles it.

EDIT -- OK -- Ursa said what I was trying to say, and much better than I did.

 

[Erin99]

You make a very valid point, Ursa. Secondary victimisation is a real occurrence in society, especially in some countries. A couple of years ago there was a news story about a thirteen-year-old girl in Somalia who was gang raped, then sent to court and accused of adultery... and was then stoned to death.

Aha! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7708169.stm


Edit: Hex, but to say that is lessening the violence against women. The scientific studies I posted show that actually, women are suffering from the after-effects of rape.

And rape where a woman doesn't "especially want to" (which sounds as if they went ahead and let someone have their way in the end? I hope not!) is somewhat different to completely non-consensual rape, for example.

To keep perpetuating the myth that rape (violent rape especially) does not affect a woman is giving power to beliefs that rape isn't so bad, because "well, you know, women aren't really very affected by it".

 

[Rolynd]

I'm sorry, JoanDrake, but how can you say rape has no effect on a character? If a character is to be realistic, someone a reader feels could actually exist, then to have a traumatic event happen to him/her without any consequences destroys any credibility. Even if a woman feels determined NOT to let a rape affect her, she's consciously going out of her way to do so, so it's affecting her life. She might make choices she wouldn't otherwise, because she's so determined not to think about it (which is subconsciously thinking about it, at first). Also, a character who goes out of her way to suppress traumatic memories is still having a reaction to rape - and that should be obvious if handled well. I would feel the author were using rape as action if the rape had no consequence.

Honestly, I would expect a realistic character to have some reaction to being raped - even if mostly after said event. I don't understand how an author could write any differently and expect the character's reactions to be realistic. You suffer a car crash, you likely have flashbacks and shock. You get robbed at knifepoint, your mind likely replays it afterward. People are human. People have feelings.

And the idea that the Nation Organisation for Women has "long campaigned for rape to be treated as a form of simple aggravated assault, instead of a crime nearly akin to murder" sounds ridiculous if true (where is your source? I'd be interested to read it, because surely that's not allowed? ). How can a group which supposedly supports women's rights brush off one of the most serious crimes? No, it's not murder, but at least you're dead after murder, you don't suffer nightmares and memories.

But no, I can't say I agree that victims should be treated as "misbegotten victims". They need counselling and closure, if possible, if they're deeply affected by it (depends on the level of violence, I'd imagine). And when you say that the latest studies on rape show that "women are surprisingly resilient in the effect rape has on them", where are your sources? I know two people, very close to me actually, who have been raped. Both were not treated as misbegotten victims, and both were raped in their teens. Half their life later, the rape still affects them in quite different ways. Yes, they were raped differently - one was by someone trusted, the other was by a vicious stranger in an alley - but their effects still linger. To this day, one of them is seriously suffering from PTSD - even after counselling and seeing her attacker get sentenced in court for doing it to other young women.

I certainly will not listen to a group which purports that rape is not violent and is merely "simple" aggravated assault. What's simple about being attacked and violated against your will? In fact, one peer-reviewed study showed that, in fact, "Sexual assault is associated with an increased lifetime rate of attempted suicide. In women, a history of sexual trauma before age 16 years is a particularly strong correlate of attempted suicide." (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8639039)

Another peer-reviewed study to measure stress hormones and immunity following rape showed that "At least one-third of women develop postraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), panic attacks, depression, and physical health problems" and "Female victims report lower perceived health status, more somatic symptoms, and more negative health behaviours, more headaches, chronic pain syndromes, gynecological disorders, premenstrual syndrome, gastrointestinal disorders, morbid obesity and substance abuse" and "There is an association of physical illness and PTSD in trauma victims." (http://kendal-tackett.www.uppitysciencechick.com/groer_rape_cyto.pdf)

I am quite willing to accept these findings, because they back up what I've seen.

Anyway, because this topic's got me interested, I've done a quick search online, and Rape Crisis, the leading charity, says: "Long-term consequences of sexual violence and child sexual abuse include post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and panic attacks, depression, social phobia, substance abuse, obesity, eating disorders, self harm and suicide, domestic violence and in some cases, offending behaviour." They also state that "Rape myths give people a false sense of security by minimising and / or denying the occurrence of sexual violence. They accomplish this by blaming the victim and making excuses for the perpetrator. In effect these myths perpetuate sexual violence because they play a powerful part in defining responses to rape and create an excuse not to address the realities of sexual violence." (http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/mythsampfacts2.php)

When people make an argument that rape is not serious and that it causes little long-term harm, they're another person bandying about what's called "rape myth", which is actually harmful to real victims. According to a peer-reviewed article by Philipp Süssenbach, Friederike Eyssel and Gerd Bohner, published after their studies into rape and rape myth, "Rape myths are "beliefs about rape (i.e., about its causes, context, consequences, perpetrators, victims, and their interaction) that serve to deny, downplay or justify male sexual aggression against women" (http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/02/07/0886260512475317.full.pdf+html)

The following first-page preview has interesting evidence that talks about how the myth that "rape is trivial" can be one driver for justification among young offenders: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10926771.2013.743937#preview

Finally, a peer-reviewed article entitled Walking the Woods: The Lived Experience of Sexual Assault Survival for Women in College sums it up, in my opinion: "conversation revealed one overarching theme of the all-encompassing nature of rape survival" and "In other words, after being raped in college, the experience continued to be intimately connected to everything they would live through thereafter." (http://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/13540)




Edit: And perhaps some of this info will be useful to writers who want to write realistically...

All of that is interesting, but to be fair to Joan Drake, he didn't claim that it WASN'T something that was incredibly affecting and traumitising, just whether or not an author has a responsibility in a work of fiction to portray that.

I'm genuinely not sure of my stance on that. If we had to show the real-life implications of every action undertaken in a novel then there would be no story. In fantasy novels people get killed left right and centre, friends, family, children. I don't know about anyone else here but if I lost someone that close to me I wouldn't be in any state to undertake a magical quest, I'd be a wreck. In shock and vulnerable, and yet time and again the hero picks up his sword grits his teeth and sets off to win the day. Why? Because it's a story, it's not real and we don't neceassarily ecpect true to life reactions, especially in fantasy.

I guess it all comes down to the word "gratuitous," and when something is or is not, but I'm not comfortable with the idea that if you include rape it must be central to the storyline, it simply might not be. Take Gemmell for example, I love his books, and I find his characterisation brilliant. Most people wouldn't describe them as epic, since they only take a day or two to read. They are just great, enjoyable stories. They, perhaps surprisingly, have quite a lot of rape in them. Just off the top of my head, Sigarni, Rowena, Chara all suffer it, and there are loads more. It affects some of the characters more than the others and is more important to some plot lines than others. Are any of those examples gratuitous? I don't know what the marker is.

For me a gratuitous rape scene would have to be something that was completely unexpected, bore no relationship to the plot and was completely unrealistic in the context. Most fantasy books are set in worlds that replicate to one degree or another a pre-enlightenment era and the warfare depicted is often reflective of medieval or even earlier warfare. The (horriffic) fact is rape was incredibly widespread in theatres of war (of course it still is today in some parts of the world). Therefore if you are writing a fantasy novel with some of the realism left in for dramatic effect and you put it in the context of faux-medievalism or dark age societies, leaving rape out would be contrary to the world you were creating. Of course it's not compulsory, but I don't think an author can be chastised for including it and yet not focusing on it either. It's part of world building.

Disclaimer --- I would hate to offend anyone regarding this issue and have nothing but admiration for Hope and her courage, I am writing this from the perspective of writing/reading fantasy fiction.

 

[Ursa major]

You make a very valid point, Ursa. Secondary victimisation is a real occurrence in society, especially in some countries. A couple of years ago there was a news story about a thirteen-year-old girl in Somalia who was gang raped, then sent to court and accused of adultery... and was then stoned to death.

We don't have to look so far to see such societal pressures. One only has wonder, in our own country's past, how many of those women who had a child out of wedlock were the victims of what has been described more recently, and rather unfortunately**, as date rape. I suspect that society (or a significant number of its members) would have said the victim shouldn't have put themselves in the position where it could take place. (And we know that there are those who think this, as recently as today.)



** - Unfortunately, I mean, because some see this as not really being rape; which is silly, because while such rape is often difficult to prove (for obvious reasons), its definition is crystal clear: sex without consent.