Gratuitous Rape in Fantasy novels

[Erin99]

But, Rolynd, to ask that aren't I "taking this just a tad too seriously?" is trivialising rape. Rape is serious...


Anywhoo, how I define well-handled rape in a book is by how the writer uses it. If it has effects that affect the protag into doing things, then yes, it has a reason to be included. But rape that just occurs and then is ignored like a bump in the road is not realistic, to me.

That's why I like characters that have human reactions. Sure, people get killed left, right, and centre in novels, but a) the character should at least have a heart and feel something, and b) they will grow somewhat harder to it, because it happens a lot - which is the character growing because of their circumstances. A character who just gives up and cries and refuses to fight while everyone he loves is dying is not much of one...

Nice to meet you, anyway! Welcome to the forum. It's always nice to have new opinions here.



Edit: Ursa, another valid point. Back in those days, was it acceptable for a woman to come out and declare she'd been raped? Probably not. And would she be believed, or even threatened? Yeesh.

It would make an interesting study, if it were possible to do...

 

[Hex]

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.

To say what is lessening the violence against women?

I just don't think we should automatically leap to the idea that rape is the worse thing that could ever happen to a woman or that it should define her. Just -- women are more than their sexuality, their status as virgins or not. I worry that some of the ease with which we use rape in stories, and the horror with which we respond in real life, is based on an unconsidered assumption that a sexually defiled woman is somehow less of a person.

Of course rape is appalling. I hope no one on here would think otherwise

There is not necessarily violence involved in rape, especially in the wide definitions of the term.

I can't access the full papers of the references you found but -- the 1996 one (association of rape and suicide) used data from 67 women who reported themselves to be victims of sexual assault (I'm not suggesting they weren't, just that it was self-report), and 9 of those had attempted suicide. So what about the 58 women who had been sexually assaulted but hadn't attempted suicide? Yes, attempted suicide was higher in the sexual assault group than in the rest of the sample, but still the majority of women who had been sexually assaulted did not try to kill themselves -- the combination of factors in this sort of study doesn't tell us a great deal about the individual experience or reaction.

It's also worth noting that that paper didn't find a correlation between sexual assault and substance abuse, depression or panic attacks, whereas the other paper you cited (the stress hormones 2006 one) did, but it only used 16 people -- and a control group of 15. There are lots of references in there but I'm not going to follow them up because the point is the same -- sexual assault is a traumatic experience, and many people who experience it (especially repeatedly, as the stress hormones paper says) will be traumatised and some may attempt suicide etc. BUT that doesn't mean everyone will and to insist that everyone has to be traumatised and destroyed may be as negative as suggesting no one will.

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.

Yes it is very different, but both things are defined as "rape".

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".

But to demand that any woman who has been raped is automatically destroyed by her experience is to perpetuate the belief that women are defined by their sexual purity.

 

[Rolynd]

But, Rolynd, to ask that aren't I "taking this just a tad too seriously?" is trivialising rape. Rape is serious...


Anywhoo, how I define well-handled rape in a book is by how the writer uses it. If it has effects that affect the protag into doing things, then yes, it has a reason to be included. But rape that just occurs and then is ignored like a bump in the road is not realistic, to me.

That's why I like characters that have human reactions. Sure, people get killed left, right, and centre in novels, but a) the character should at least have a heart and feel something, and b) they will grow somewhat harder to it, because it happens a lot - which is the character growing because of their circumstances. A character who just gives up and cries and refuses to fight while everyone he loves is dying is not much of one...

Nice to meet you, anyway! Welcome to the forum. It's always nice to have new opinions here.



Edit: Ursa, another valid point. Back in those days, was it acceptable for a woman to come out and declare she'd been raped? Probably not. And would she be believed, or even threatened? Yeesh.

It would make an interesting study, if it were possible to do...

Like I said this isn't an issue I have a hard and fast stance on, I really don't know where the lines are to be drawn. I completely agree that if rape is included as something that has happened to a major character then for it to be glossed over would render it gratuitous. If there are no repecussions why include it in the first place? So if we are saying - yes, include rape in a character's story arc if there are reasons for it and there are effects on the character, I'm in agreement. If any writer included something like that and then it's barely mentioned again and doesn't have any discernible effect on the character then it's weak writing.

I get uncomfortable with the idea though that it's a no go unless there is a lot of focus on it. I think it can realistically be portrayed as being suffered in the context of the world without being a major plot point, and I don't think I would find that gratuitous. A lot of historical fiction for example, (Bernard Cornwell springs to mind) would touch on the fact it's going on as the story follows the exploits of an army, the sack of cities etc. There may be examples scattered around to accentuate the brutality at play when an avenging army is scouring the land, maybe even some detailed and harrowing scenes, but as the protaganists aren't sufering it I don't think an author needs to explore the repercussions in greater depth, the actual story isn't about those victims and because of the the author doesn't have a responsibility to explore it further if he/she doesn't want to.

Does that make sense?

Thanks for the welcome I've been around a while but mainly lurked, started getting more involved recently.

 

[Erin99]

Hex, I don't "demand" anything, and I certainly wouldn't say a woman must be "destroyed" by rape. I would never want a woman to be defined in society by what's happened to her, if that's how my meaning came across (if it is, I should have reworded). I only posted articles that had studied rape victims, and what they show is that it's very common for women to be profoundly affected by rape, in many ways. And who can ultimately say how rape affects women? Each woman is different, and each rape is different. The worse the rape, the worse the physiological effects will be, I'd imagine.

To be the victim of rape is not to become labelled as "defined by it", only that it will define some aspects of her, consciously or unconsciously, especially if it's a seriously violent case. It's true in both women I know, though I wish that were different. They would be the first to agree. Their lives have been changed by it, consciously and unconsciously. Yes, "changed" is a better word to use than "defined" - I can see how the latter has led to people misunderstanding me in the past.



Rolynd - glad you decided to stop lurking!

And yes, we're in agreement. If the character's not actively been affected, you don't have to go into any huge depth about feelings (although it would be heartless of them not to at least feel something in passing or in a quiet moment), but the harshness of war does harden people - you have to become hard to be a soldier. And rape does occur in life, so there's no reason not to include it - but, for me, the key is in the weight and effect and society it presents. Rape for rape's sake does not present the topic in an informative, pro-victim* way; in fact, in my view, it lessens and trivialises its harshness.


* Is there such a thing as "pro-victim" when applied in this manner? I hope my meaning is clear anyway.


Argh! Better go rest. Been far too long on the PC writing these posts. Darn you, Chrons, for having interesting topics!

 

[Drakai]

I'd like to point out another viewpoint that's been bugging me. I don't think rape is a worse fate than death but are the effects only things we consider when determining the horridness of a crime? I think the motive also plays a big role. So I'd like to look at this from another point.

It will probably sound wrong but I think rape is a worse crime than murder, not because of the outcome but because of the motive. It's obvious that murder is an atrocious act but it can be justifiable. Revenge for example, I'm not saying it's right but it originates from the vigilantism in a person's sense of justice. Or when murder occurs after heavy taunting and/or under heavy stress and nervousness. A wrong decision made in a split second can cause a situation that the murderer will forever regret. Again, it's not about what's right or wrong but what is justifiable.

This however, in my opinion, doesn't apply to rape. I believe there is no justifiable aspect of rape that could make it seem like a lesser crime than it is. It is the embodiment of a person's primal instincts that wasn't suppressed.

This may not be the case in all cases, as there are countless ways of murder and rape, but overall this is the reason why I think rape is worse than murder.

What do you think? Tell me if I'm spouting nonsense.

 

[Rolynd]

I'd like to point out another viewpoint that's been bugging me. I don't think rape is a worse fate than death but are the effects only things we consider when determining the horridness of a crime? I think the motive also plays a big role. So I'd like to look at this from another point.

It will probably sound wrong but I think rape is a worse crime than murder, not because of the outcome but because of the motive. It's obvious that murder is an atrocious act but it can be justifiable. Revenge for example, I'm not saying it's right but it originates from the vigilantism in a person's sense of justice. Or when murder occurs after heavy taunting and/or under heavy stress and nervousness. A wrong decision made in a split second can cause a situation that the murderer will forever regret. Again, it's not about what's right or wrong but what is justifiable.

This however, in my opinion, doesn't apply to rape. I believe there is no justifiable aspect of rape that could make it seem like a lesser crime than it is. It is the embodiment of a person's primal instincts that wasn't suppressed.

This may not be the case in all cases, as there are countless ways of murder and rape, but overall this is the reason why I think rape is worse than murder.

What do you think? Tell me if I'm spouting nonsense.

I see what you're saying, but "it is the embodiment of primal instincts that wasn't suppressed" is the same with murder. Revenge for a perceived wrong is a primal instinct as well. If we hate someone the reason we don't cause them harm is because we rise above our primal urges.

I would also say that rape is rarely about simple, primal lust let loose. It's aggression and a desire to dominate as well. No matter how lustful a normal man feels he would never rape anyone.

 

[AMB]

No matter how lustful a normal man feels he would never rape anyone.

Just want to be clear what you are saying here: rape is never committed by normal men (or women, for that matter)?

 

[Rolynd]

I would say being capable of the act of rape precludes one from being normal as defined by societal norms yes. I'm not trying to say they would be recognisable in a crowd.

 

[Drakai]

I see what you're saying, but "it is the embodiment of primal instincts that wasn't suppressed" is the same with murder. Revenge for a perceived wrong is a primal instinct as well. If we hate someone the reason we don't cause them harm is because we rise above our primal urges.

I would also say that rape is rarely about simple, primal lust let loose. It's aggression and a desire to dominate as well. No matter how lustful a normal man feels he would never rape anyone.

I see your point and I've thought about that too. But I don't think revenge is an instinct. An instinct is an inclination or an action taken without thinking while revenge is usually a thought out process. I agree that rape isn't just lust let loose but in the end what it symbolises is urges that one couldn't restrain. While revenge is born from vigilantism which involves a sense of justice be it right or wrong.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I would say being capable of the act of rape precludes one from being normal as defined by societal norms yes. I'm not trying to say they would be recognisable in a crowd.

I think this is a very dangerous argument:

First, what is rape?

Being grabbed by a stranger and taken against your will: yes, i think we'd all accept that one.
Being provocative, maybe encouraging sexual attention, and being forced to a sex act against your will: i hope so.
Facing a controlling man who owns your wellbeing and not actively saying no, but still being coerced. I think this is a huge grey area.

Many, many women face domestic violence and in many of these relationships scenario three is common. Many others have a controlling partner who assumes the sex act is consensual and. To one partner this may be rape, to the other not. All are a variant of the same controlling behaviour which is present in a rape act. All are perpetrated so often we can't say the perpetrators aren't normal. We may not like their act, we may even dispute it is rape, but it is oftenl invisible. And so are many people who rape. Normal? It depends on how narrow your definition of rape is, but all too often they might be. Scary monsters, no?

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

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?

The reason that the National Organization for Women wants rape to be treated as a form of assault, rather than a sex crime, is that (theoretically at least) the victims sexual history would not be used at trial, whether or not she was asking for it by some action (wearing provocative clothes, getting drunk at a party, walking down a dark street at night by herself, etc.) would also not be at issue. For instance, nobody would think of suggesting at trial that someone who was mugged was to blame for what happened because he/she was in the wrong neighborhood. The same should be true for rape.

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.

But don't the vast majority of fantasy novels in which these rapes occur take place in the kind of settings (pseudo-medieval) where that would be the prevailing attitude? A woman who has to carry the burden of shame that society imposed on her would have to be affected by it all of her life, wouldn't she?

One thing that I used to hate (would still hate, if I saw it happening these days) was that in stories where there was a sadistic female antagonist she had invariably been repeatedly raped as a young girl. I do know that a lot of sexual predators and serial killers were raped as children, and while I am not trying to excuse what they have done later, obviously a desire to show that they have this power over others as a way of dealing with their own feeling of powerlessness is a factor. Nevertheless, I think that this common trope was a reflection of a lingering idea that women are morally ruined by being raped, are beyond redemption, and it would be better for everyone if they were dead. This may have been my own interpretation of this type of characterization, but the whole thing always made me queasy.

The way that rape is so casually treated in many books these days -- the MC rapes countless faceless women and goes on with his life unscathed -- bothers me because I have heard people excuse it by saying that in a lawless society this is what men will do. (If the argument was that people who had been hardened and dehumanized by their experiences would feel free to give in to their worst instincts, that would be one thing, but that's not the argument that was being advanced.) I think this is insulting to men: the idea that they'll go out and gang rape women any time law and custom don't forbid it. You know, boys will be boys. And by extension, if most men will do this given the opportunity, and any time they think they can get away with it, then the female is to blame for putting herself into situations where this can happen. Considering the prevalence of acquaintance rape, "situations where this can happen" would include working late at night with your boss when everyone else has left the building, going to a party and getting drunk (or being perceived to be drunk, because someone has slipped something into your drink), going to a party where star athletes from your high school or college are present, and joining the armed services.

Which brings me to another point. Someone above said something about rape being common on the battlefield. (Sorry, I can't find the quote, so I don't know who said it or exactly how they said it.) This reminds me of the idea that female soldiers shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the line of battle because if they were captured they would be raped (most of the time, in the US military, women aren't allowed on the front lines, but they do allow women to be helicopter pilots). Well, it turns out that women in the military are in great danger of rape, but not from the enemy, but their own comrades -- and especially superior officers. There is an epidemic of rape in our armed services (the statistic I've read was 1 out of every 3 women in the military). Since these incidents are not happening on the battlefield, where men have the adrenaline flowing, etc. etc., clearly this crime is being committed in cold blood.


.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Sorry to jump into this conversation quite late in the game, but I'd ask:

What's this rape doing? Who's perspective is it from? How would a victim react to it? And what, if anything, is gained from it?

Unfortunately, the answer is often: "establishing the terrible terrors of this fantasy world from the perspective of the (male) rapist in a way that's going to be awfully triggery for an actual victim without adding much to the story that couldn't have been added without the rape."

This isn't to say it *can't* be handled well, just that it often isn't. Not just in fantasy fiction, but in popular art generally.

...and If we want to talk about rape as an example of authors "taking risks," then we have to talk about the components of risk:

Quantitative risk assessment requires calculations of two components of risk (R):, the magnitude of the potential loss (L), and the probability (p) that the loss will occur.

I'd argue that rape in fantasy fiction carries a high potential loss and a high probability that loss will occur. In other words, it's like investing in the Zimbabwe real estate market. You *might* pull it off, but the deck is stacked against you doing so.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I always find it interesting that people who "take risks" in what they write are so often offended by the consequences of those risks: people getting angry and expressing their indignation.

If someone expects only to be congratulated for (purportedly) being so daring, they aren't really being daring, are they?

 

[Rolynd]

I think this is a very dangerous argument:

First, what is rape?

Being grabbed by a stranger and taken against your will: yes, i think we'd all accept that one.
Being provocative, maybe encouraging sexual attention, and being forced to a sex act against your will: i hope so.
Facing a controlling man who owns your wellbeing and not actively saying no, but still being coerced. I think this is a huge grey area.

Many, many women face domestic violence and in many of these relationships scenario three is common. Many others have a controlling partner who assumes the sex act is consensual and. To one partner this may be rape, to the other not. All are a variant of the same controlling behaviour which is present in a rape act. All are perpetrated so often we can't say the perpetrators aren't normal. We may not like their act, we may even dispute it is rape, but it is oftenl invisible. And so are many people who rape. Normal? It depends on how narrow your definition of rape is, but all too often they might be. Scary monsters, no?

I don't really disagree with anything you're saying but don't really feel qualified to discuss it further!

Going back to using it novels it was me Teresa who mentioned its prevalence on battlefields. I was justhinking back over books I've read is all and as well as fantasy I've read a lot of historical fiction and there is nearly always scenes of rape even if its just peripheral, mainly because it is a simple fact that the "spoils of war" used to mean women as well as loot. Which is why I disagree with Nerd since I believe missing it out in such novels would be disengenuous. Same with fantasy - if you are going to have a realistic world based on medieval European society and warfare then missing out the prevalence of rape would be to turn a blind eye to the darker side (one of the darker sides) of such societies.

Obviously if realism isn't what you're going for in fantasy novels then that's fine. I can enjoy a terry brooks as much as I can a GRRM but ASOIAF without rape wouldn't have been the same no holds barred book that he wanted to write. It would have been muted and the impact would suffer imo.

 

[allmywires]

Going back to using it novels it was me Teresa who mentioned its prevalence on battlefields. I was justhinking back over books I've read is all and as well as fantasy I've read a lot of historical fiction and there is nearly always scenes of rape even if its just peripheral, mainly because it is a simple fact that the "spoils of war" used to mean women as well as loot. Which is why I disagree with Nerd since I believe missing it out in such novels would be disengenuous. Same with fantasy - if you are going to have a realistic world based on medieval European society and warfare then missing out the prevalence of rape would be to turn a blind eye to the darker side (one of the darker sides) of such societies.

Obviously if realism isn't what you're going for in fantasy novels then that's fine. I can enjoy a terry brooks as much as I can a GRRM but ASOIAF without rape wouldn't have been the same no holds barred book that he wanted to write. It would have been muted and the impact would suffer imo.

I'm not going to argue this argument again but you might want to check this out for reference. Selective historical accuracy in fantasy. Playing the 'realism' card isn't enough for me I'm afraid.

 

[Ursa major]

I think the term "prevalence on battlefields" needs further breaking down.

If it means that 'on (and around) a battlefield where thousands have fought, it is quite likely that there will be some on the winning** side who will take advantage of the chaos and, if the opportunity presents itself, commit rape', that's one thing. That's very different from saying that 'rape is prevalent in the aftermath of a battle'.

Obviously, if the winning side is made up of a significant number of morality-free people (or people who believe they can get away with crimes because they're in a law-free environment) the incidence or rape will be greater than where the soldiers are a cross-section of normal society.



** - I'm assuming, for the sake of argument, that those on the losing side who've survived without major injury have either been captured (their ultimate fate undecided) or are 'heading for the hills" as fast as they can.

 

[Nerds_feather]

I always find it interesting that people who "take risks" in what they write are so often offended by the consequences of those risks: people getting angry and expressing their indignation.

If someone expects only to be congratulated for (purportedly) being so daring, they aren't really being daring, are they?

Agreed. One should only take risks--not just in writing, but in life--with the understanding that risks often don't pan out the way you hoped or planned.

Changing topic a bit, I'm curious if you or anyone read The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo? And if so, what did you make of the rape scenes? They are very graphic and disturbing, but the author at least is trying to tackle the more complex questions of rape and its effects. Actually, the whole book is a furious assault on misogyny...and is apparently tied up with guilt Larrson felt for an experience he had as a teenager:

Larsson had his own dark secret. At the age of 15 he witnessed a gang rape and never intervened, according to longtime friend Kurdo Baksi. Days later, ridden with guilt, Larsson asked the victim for her forgiveness, but she refused.

That girl was Lisbeth, the name later given to the tattooed, Asperger's-afflicted Lisbeth Salander -- heroine of Larsson's three novels.

The guilt over failing to act haunted Larsson his entire life and fueled the subject of his crime novels, according to Baksi, who wrote "Stieg Larsson: Our Days in Stockholm," a soon-to-be published memoir devoted to setting the record straight about Larsson's real-life commitment to social justice.

"It was his way of apologizing," said Baksi, who is devoted to avenging the gang rape that haunted his friend for so many years.

So far, he hasn't found their identities, but has pledged to continue the search.

This is a genuine question, as I'm not entirely sure how I feel about it.

 

[allmywires]

I loved TGWTDT. The rape scene...pretty horrifying, but it did feel like a sort of cathartic f*ck-you to all the misogynistic crap I've read in books throughout my life. (I presume you mean what she does back to him? Now reading back I guess you're talking about him on her. In which case...still awful, but it has a means to an end, ie her exacting revenge. Which is as I described above).

(I'm in a bit of a bullish mood tonight, so sorry if I come over too feminazi-y)

 

[Rolynd]

I'm not going to argue this argument again but you might want to check this out for reference. Selective historical accuracy in fantasy. Playing the 'realism' card isn't enough for me I'm afraid.

Sorry I might be missing your point regarding realism. Are you saying that the objectivisation of women wasn't prevalent in such periods? I had a look through the linked thread and there were a lot of "whys?" "Why not write from a different time period altogether? Why not write something not from a heterosexual white male viewpoint? Why not write about rape from the female perspective for a change?"

I would simply say why not indeed, go for it. Sounds interesting and I'd be happy to read something that does that.

Fantasy stories with magic and heroes and all the rest but set in dark worlds reflective of much of history is entertaining I think, but as you say that's probably a discussion for another thread.

 

[Rolynd]

I think the term "prevalence on battlefields" needs further breaking down.

If it means that 'on (and around) a battlefield where thousands have fought, it is quite likely that there will be some on the winning** side who will take advantage of the chaos and, if the opportunity presents itself, commit rape', that's one thing. That's very different from saying that 'rape is prevalent in the aftermath of a battle'.

Obviously, if the winning side is made up of a significant number of morality-free people (or people who believe they can get away with crimes because they're in a law-free environment) the incidence or rape will be greater than where the soldiers are a cross-section of normal society.



** - I'm assuming, for the sake of argument, that those on the losing side who've survived without major injury have either been captured (their ultimate fate undecided) or are 'heading for the hills" as fast as they can.

"Battlefields" may be a misnomer. Mainly when cities under siege were taken, it was absolutely hellish. Not just in medieval times either, right up until the events like the siege of Badajoz in the Napoleonic wars (and the Spanish were on our side!). Or occupying forces scouring the land during an invasion such as during the hundred years war.