Astonishing Essay on Prince of Thorns

[iansales]

Actually, that's a fallacious argument. Many men have been angry and wished ill upon another, quite a few have at some point been in a fight of some sort. That doesn't preclude including volence or murder in a story. Many men are sexist in some or other degree. That doesn't preclude a story mentioning rape.

I wasn't aware that wishing violence on someone was the same as killing babies. And my point wasn't that sexism precludes mentioning rape in a story, just that it stops writers from actually thinking about what they're doing when they include rape in a story.

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

The term "sexism" is now taken to refer to systemic and institutional sexism. Likewise for "racism". So, by definition all males are sexist

So we can just say 'men' and not bother using 'sexist' since they all are?

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

I wasn't aware that wishing violence on someone was the same as killing babies.

I wasn't aware that being sexist (actually just being a man by your new vocabulary) was the same as being a rapist.

And my point wasn't that sexism precludes mentioning rape in a story, just that it stops writers from actually thinking about what they're doing when they include rape in a story.

You seem to know a lot about what I'm thinking. Surely reducing everyone with labels and generalisms is _exactly_ what you're complaining about. So stop doing it.

 

[Abernovo]

If all white people are racist, how did my family manage to become so mixed, or I get this tint to my skin? Sorry, Ian, but I think you're turning your own issues into a rather insulting generalisation. Some people are racist, no denying, and some men are definitely sexist, but you can't label everyone within a group as being the same, because that's - er - prejudicial.

I've not read Mark Lawrence's work, and it's not really my cup of tea, being High Fantasy, but I'm now curious to see what it's like. At least then, if I find it annoying (or whatever) I can swear about ML with cause. But, I have enjoyed anti-heroes in the past, even when finding them despicable. Could be an interesting experiment in reading.

 

[allmywires]

I'm a woman and I don't think all men are sexist, in fact I think a great number of them aren't in any way - does that make me wrong, since by definition mean just are sexist? I don't see how that accounts for what problems are or are not present in this book either; it presumably can't be boiled down to one single statement.

 

[Southern Geologist]

The problem is that this definition of sexism and racism being institutionalized (rather than personalized) sexism/racism is not in common use except among certain (very small) circles. You won't find the average person using it and you damn sure won't find any dictionary listing personal sexism as an archaic definition that is now out of use.

Keep in mind I am not claiming that the argument that people who benefit from sexism or racism are part of the problem if they don't actively try to be part of the solution is wrong. I simply dislike this tendency to attempt to brow-beat people into accepting a given viewpoint with a new definition of sexism that incorporates this argument and claim it's in common use when it is really not.

 

[iansales]

Then I shall endeavour to preface the terms with "institutional" when using them here in future. However, writers should certainly be sensitive to all uses of the terms, especially "institutional", and try to phrase their stories accordingly.

 

[Toby Frost]

Other people can flagellate themselves as much as they want and I wish them good luck with it, and I hope it makes them feel better. However, until proven guilty, I think people should be seen as pretty much innocent.

To go back to Boneman's earlier post, there is surely no yes-or-no rule as to the extent to which you can judge an author from their work. I have recently read A Song of Stone by Iain Banks, which is depressing, squalid and violent (it's also deadly dull and doesn't ring true). I think you'd get a pretty unfair picture of Banks as a person from that one book (and it's irrelevant to say that it's not his best work). Similarly, I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that Banks likes the Culture from reading several of his Culture novels. If Banks told the reader how great cats were on every third page of Consider Phlebas, I'd be comfortable in concluding that Banks likes cats. It's surely a matter of fact and degree.

 

[Nerds_feather]

With regards things like "racism" and "sexism" in literature, why don't we just make sure we're clear that it can either mean expressing racist/sexist sentiments or reinforcing unfair, institutionalized racial or gender relations? The latter can be unintended, but it might still sting to a reader who isn't part of the hegemonic racial or gender group. Sometimes there can be genuinely good intentions that go awry for some readers for an unforeseen reason the author didn't think about when writing.

Does this mean the author is personally racist or sexist? No. But it might mean that the author hasn't realized how his or her writing intersects with the various institutionalized power relations in our societies, and how this intersection manifests for those not at the top. Or in some other cases, it might mean that the reader missed something. These things can emerge from discussing these issues. I like to think, possibly naively, that good things could come out of such a discussion.

For the record, I'll also be a bit disappointed if we limit our discussions in SF/F to race and gender. Sexuality, religion, ethnicity and nationality are other forms of categorical identity marked by imbalanced power relations, institutional and personal prejudices and all that other stuff.

 

[Southern Geologist]

Then I shall endeavour to preface the terms with "institutional" when using them here in future. However, writers should certainly be sensitive to all uses of the terms, especially "institutional", and try to phrase their stories accordingly.

Thank you, and I take your point. Err...I think. Institutional racism, sexism, and so on can certainly be easily 'hidden' in stories without writers realizing it--much more easily hidden than an individual's bigotry, at least--so one needs to be careful to watch out for that.

For the record, I'll also be a bit disappointed if we limit our discussions in SF/F to race and gender. Sexuality, religion, ethnicity and nationality are other forms of categorical identity marked by imbalanced power relations, institutional and personal prejudices and all that other stuff.

An excellent point.

 

[Ursa major]

With regards things like "racism" and "sexism" in literature, why don't we just make sure we're clear that it can either mean expressing racist/sexist sentiments or reinforcing unfair, institutionalized racial or gender relations?

That's perfectly fine**; indeed it's the best way of dealing with the issue in a comprehensive way.

The problem comes when people use the "institutional" definitions without noticing that they often quickly segue into the "personal" definitions (assuming that they hadn't mixed them up already***). The argument then moves away from the issue in hand (as has happened in this thread).



** - Apart from anything else, I sometimes think that by blaming the "institution" - a nebulous target at the best of times - we can let those who are personally responsible for poor (or worse) behaviour to hide from scrutiny. This is a shame, because institutions are created and - more importantly - continuously implemented by individuals. However, I'm not sure how relevant this is to authors, who are often their own one-person institutions.

*** - If only because it lets them bat criticism away easily by using such concepts as "Privilege". (But we'd best not go there....)

 

[Brian G Turner]

If we go down the path you seem to be advocating (and forgive me if I'm wrong, but that's what I'm reading from this quote) we'll have sanitised, politically correct writing that's boring as hell, and completely unrealistic for the fictional worlds that any writer wishes to create.

Perish the thought - I'm not suggesting for a moment that characters and plots should be sanitised for political correctness.

Instead I mean to challenge the normal assumptions a writer may make because of their cultural position and class, which makes it less natural to write well about people outside of these.

This is highlighted by discussions of race, gender, and sexuality, but I would also suggest it needs expanding to health & mobility as well.

Perhaps this will help anyone who doesn't understand what I mean, especially the list on page 2 or 3: White Privilege: unpacking the invisible backpack

 

[Connavar]

As a black man im not so interested in race, ethnicity because its old too close to home. I'm worried more about sexism, gender issues and gay rights. This has nothing to do with this novel but people see too often only race, religion issues in books.

I think Iansales needs to read gender studies scholars like R.W Connells book Masculineties. Where it is said much better about male power structure, masculine hegemony. Of course as males we profit by our gender, role in the hegemony but to say we are all sexist....

I have studied this in Uni just to be aware the gender inequality and you can't write like an expert and generalize, use wrong terms.

When you are not the majority in a society in western country who are white, straight it's easier to see, understand what other minority groups goes through.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Perish the thought - I'm not suggesting for a moment that characters and plots should be sanitised for political correctness.

Instead I mean to challenge the normal assumptions a writer may make because of their cultural position and class, which makes it less natural to write well about people outside of these.

This is highlighted by discussions of race, gender, and sexuality, but I would also suggest it needs expanding to health & mobility as well.

Perhaps this will help anyone who doesn't understand what I mean, especially the list on page 2 or 3: White Privilege: unpacking the invisible backpack

As well as religion, ethnicity/nationality, class, etc.

Personally, I find treatments of religious difference are often very poorly done in SF/F--sometimes because authors are generally hostile to religious people, but at others because they think it's okay to generalize about certain categories of religious people in ways they wouldn't dare to if these were racial, ethnic or gender categories.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Shifting topic a bit, I thought I'd share my thoughts on violence in fantasy. The post was inspired by Edwards' essay, though it's not specifically about Prince of Thorns. So I'd like to go back to one of the original questions I posed in this thread, and re-pose it:

What's the limit of all the violence and cruelty in fantasy? When is it intellectually/artistically justified and when is it not? How much is too much? How do you feel about it?

 

[Connavar]

Shifting topic a bit, I thought I'd share my thoughts on violence in fantasy. The post was inspired by Edwards' essay, though it's not specifically about Prince of Thorns. So I'd like to go back to one of the original questions I posed in this thread, and re-pose it:

What's the limit of all the violence and cruelty in fantasy? When is it intellectually/artistically justified and when is it not? How much is too much? How do you feel about it?

It really depends on the writers ability with the story and how much you believe in the characters. Taking Jorg as just an example if the character, his action didnt make sense in the story/artistically then the violence and the cruelty would be pointless, too much.

The problem is the so called critics who thinks anything new like grim,modern fantasy is not the way epic fantasy trend should follow. The readers themselves have decided what they think are too much violence or just enough to enjoy the story. Its not hard to understand why this kind of new epic fantasy is popular. Its like war films, historical novels i have read tons of like Hornblower,Sharpe and the like. They are military violence and books whose adventure is built on the violence of war.

Big part of our entertainment in many mediums are build on how much violence we can abide with.

 

[Anne Lyle]

Great essay, NF - I just tweeted a link to it

I confess it took me a couple of attempts to get through The Steel Remains, and I only persisted because I loved the early chapters, esp Ringil and his dad. Mostly, though, I avoid grimdark as being too depressing and painful a read.

As Marvin the Paranoid Android said, "Life's bad enough, without inventing more of it."

 

[ratsy]

I read Prince of Thorns and read this essay/review. I can understand how so many people took offence to it but it is what it is. A fantasy book. A story set in a fantastical world with fictional characters. Done!

 

[Connavar]

I read Prince of Thorns and read this essay/review. I can understand how so many people took offence to it but it is what it is. A fantasy book. A story set in a fantastical world with fictional characters. Done!

Thats what i thought when i read this book. Jorg is fun to read because its a epic,adventure fantasy world, series.

Today i joined a real,offline book club with my Arabic teacher, other language students just to read,talk about African,Middle east,Asian lit. We were talking about the way Palestinian,Israel writers write differently about serious political issues. How much of the author is in those stories. You cant do the same about epic fantasy. Its not made for political, social issues reason.

 

[Anne Lyle]

Thats what i thought when i read this book. Jorg is fun to read because its a epic,adventure fantasy world, series.

People's definition of "fun" varies rather a lot. The simple fact of it being epic fantasy* is not in itself sufficient for some readers

* And even that genre definition is not accurate, as I understand it