Astonishing Essay on Prince of Thorns

[lauren$77]

"There is no fundamental reason dictated by “realism” to have an all male cast in a story, unless it is just a failure of imagination. Or one is writing a mystery which takes place entirely within a snow-bound monastery. Or one wants only to sell fantasy books to boys."

"But there just aren't many women in the novel, and even less in any roles that aren't either villain or victim.....So I think it's an absence worth noting that we don't even see any women for the most part, except where they are being raped off-scene, or smashed in the face. Which is all the more weird because this is an fantasy post-apocolyptic Europe." E. M. Edwards

I just read this essay and found it very interesting I think its writer E. M. Edwards makes a very valid point - Where are all the women in the broken empire?? You certainly can't have one without the other now can you.

Is the author missing a trick here? - to showcase a stronger role for women in this gritty bloody arena, rather than that of submissive rape or murder victim?

 

[Brian G Turner]

I still find the criticisms from the original link unfair. Prince of Thorns is clearly told from the point of view of a young male sociopath - yet Mark Lawrence is criticised for not using this platform to explore issues of gender, race, and sexuality.

In that regard, the critic sets up a strawman - "my political views are not expressed and supported in this book - therefore this book is flawed".

The further criticisms that followed from other reviewers and even writers support this strawman, to the effect of proclaiming that stories that do not actively promote 21st century liberal viewpoints are not simply flawed, but should actively be shunned.

Apparently, as readers, we must not read anything that challenges such sensibilities - even when it is clear the story's main character is an antagonist.

The bigger problem for me, as I tried to mention earlier, is when writers create protagonists who are casually sexist, racist, or homophobic, without realising that this is what they are doing.

 

[lauren$77]

All books are flawed to some degree or another!

I feel PoT is exceptionally well written and that's whats keeping me reading it. But for me there's something missing (other than women). I think to put it in simplistic terms, it's the absence of any hope? Joe Abercrombie sums it up nicely where he argues 'that the extremes of darkness only allow the glimpses of light to twinkle all the more brightly’ - I guess I'm looking for those chinks of light!

But as I haven't finished the book yet -perhaps I won't be disappointed

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Hee, wouldn't bet on it getting much cheerier. I think you need to read the whole series before making a judgement call, actually. The portrayal of women gets better later, but still remains a weakness IMHO. But, as Brian says, that's partly to do with Jorg's world view being presented.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Hee, wouldn't bet on it getting much cheerier. I think you need to read the whole series before making a judgement call, actually. The portrayal of women gets better later, but still remains a weakness IMHO. But, as Brian says, that's partly to do with Jorg's world view being presented.

I understand what you're saying, and partially agree. You can't really know what an author's vision for a fantasy series is until you've read the entirety. That's certainly true. But I think a critic can, and should, show what they believe works and doesn't work in a given volume--and believe that this is entirely fair. You just have to be careful not to extrapolate to later volumes from the limited experience of book 1.

With regards this thread and the essay, I do think that it all highlights the fact that criticism is just argumentation. Arguments can be better or more poorly supported, and argumentation can resonate more or less with a given individual based on their tastes, predilections, etc. No argument about literature is inherently "true."

I personally (still) can't vouch for the book being critiqued, one way or the other, so I really don't know how accurate Edwards' critique is. But as someone who fancies himself a critic/fan writer, I think interesting and thought-provoking essays are worth reading in their own right. Edwards' (negative) review of Prince of Thorns fits that bill for me; Liz Bourke's too. On the other side of the coin, I also quite like Aidan Moher's positive review of Prince of Thorns, as well as Justin Langdon's review of the latest one.

When I do review Prince of Thorns, which I may do one day, I certainly wouldn't let any of these opinions cloud my own.

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

"There is no fundamental reason dictated by “realism” to have an all male cast in a story, unless it is just a failure of imagination. Or one is writing a mystery which takes place entirely within a snow-bound monastery. Or one wants only to sell fantasy books to boys."

"But there just aren't many women in the novel, and even less in any roles that aren't either villain or victim.....So I think it's an absence worth noting that we don't even see any women for the most part, except where they are being raped off-scene, or smashed in the face. Which is all the more weird because this is an fantasy post-apocolyptic Europe." E. M. Edwards

I just read this essay and found it very interesting I think its writer E. M. Edwards makes a very valid point - Where are all the women in the broken empire?? You certainly can't have one without the other now can you.

Well I've not read the 'astonishing' essay but I certainly don't recognize anything I've said or that's in the book in that snippet.

Where are all the women in the Broken Empire? Distributed across it in equal proportion to the men... where else would they be. How much of the Broken Empire do we see in Prince of Thorns? A vanishingly small fraction of it and I don't recall anything to suggest that it didn't contain women...

Is the author missing a trick here? - to showcase a stronger role for women in this gritty bloody arena, rather than that of submissive rape or murder victim?

A trick? When did it become my job to showcase a stronger role for women in a gritty bloody arena?

I wrote a story - I followed where it led me. I showed a small slice of adventure through the eyes of violent and amoral young man. I wasn't up on a soap box trying to readjust society or challenge any particular set of political views. If people want that they would be better seeking it out from one of the dozens (scores? hundreds?) of authors who specialize in it.

The need to beat my book into the shape desired by some individuals seems odd when the books they crave are already out there... it seems a monstrous waste of effort... I'm told there's a 30,000 word essay from the same guy ready and waiting for book 2... now that I can say is _astonishing_ regardless of content. It doesn't seem... shall we say 'a measured response'.

 

[Toby Frost]

I've got a question, and apologies in advance if this seems facetious, because it's really not meant to be.

Is all publicity good publicity?

I ask this for a couple of reasons. I recently attended an event where the old "steampunk is fascism for nice people" quote came up, and the usual debate about postcolonial misappropriation of negative tropes by the hegemony or some such took place. People said the usual stuff on both sides, certain books were mentioned and I'm sure the same debate will happen again.

My second reason is that the outside world seems to be starting to notice just how much unpleasant vitriol there is on the internet, and that if X thinks a book isn't very good, Y will say that it's a disgrace and that that the author ought to die. The atmosphere seems pretty unpleasant. It seems that if you do write something controversial, a nutter will scream blue murder at you (as well as more sane criticism).

Does controversy help a book, I wonder?

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

I've got a question, and apologies in advance if this seems facetious, because it's really not meant to be.

Is all publicity good publicity?

I would say so. The Liz Bourke review I got on release day for Prince of Thorns has been cited to me (& in my sight on the internet) as the reason for someone reading and loving the book far more times than any other single review - and yet it had few good things to say about the book (other than praising the writing) and proved quite controversial.

The greatest threat to any new(or newish) writer is not being noticed.

 

[JoanDrake]

Actually, the saying is that "No publicity is bad publicity", and all the double meanings that has, apply. Lindsay Lohan hasn't done much in the last two years but can still probably command 7 figures in commercials. If she'd just been quiet it would be "Lindsay Who?", much like the girl whatshername? You know, she used to be the pretty one in uh...

The worst thing you can say about any entertainer (including writers) is "whatever happened to....?" Paris Hilton was cut off from the Hilton billions but still drives a Maserati around the Cote'd Azur

The Internet is full of vitriol because vitriol has a quick jolt and a short life. Also because falsehood requires constant repetition in stronger and stronger form while truth speaks for itself and finally because the best way I know of to bring out the vindictive fool within us all is to give someone a loud sound system and complete anonymity.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Is all publicity good publicity?

Mark Lawrence wrote a strong book that was well written and stands up to criticism. To me the controversy was more about whether an anti-hero was really a good choice for a story which led into a wider discussion of sexism, racism, and sexuality.

However, another book criticised at the same time, Victoria Foyt's Revealing Eden, seems to have have died. There are only 17 reviews on Amazon, and 10 of those are 1 stars, despite that it also enjoyed a lot of negative publicity, such as the Guardian story on it being removed from Weird Tales.

 

[lauren$77]

Hee, wouldn't bet on it getting much cheerier. I think you need to read the whole series before making a judgement call, actually. The portrayal of women gets better later, but still remains a weakness IMHO. But, as Brian says, that's partly to do with Jorg's world view being presented.

Sigh......I'm not sure I could manage two more books of Jorg's sinister thoughts encroaching on mine.

I did get to a bit where apparently the pope is a woman!! Yea I thought - although not convinced this will ameliorate dismal portrayal of women so far. But you're right.... deep breath...... I really should read the whole series.

It would seem you're right Mark, a little controversy goes a long way in terms of books sales!

 

[JoanDrake]

JoanDrake,

With all due respect, that's a false equivalence.

When was the last time someone was threatened by zombies? Sure there was that crazy dude in Miami last year, but for the most part it's not something people face in the course of their actual lives. Rape, however, is something that as many as 1 in 5 women will face in their lives. It stands to reason, then, that depictions of zombie brain eating by nature can't be triggery in the way depictions of rape can. I just don't see how zombie brain eating is a meaningful point of comparison.

Also, FYI: my problem is specifically with "explicit, gratuitous and artistically/intellectually pointless" rape scenes. I then state:



Also see Joe Abercrombie:



As I stated before in the post you quoted, I like a lot of grimdark, but it has to do something meaningful, not just stomp around yelling "here is my grimdarkness!"

OK, fine, could you give me an example a type of "grimdark" you DO approve of?

I'm just saying that rape DOES happen in wartime. It always has, and, as any woman born in Russia or Eastern Europe before 1940, or most areas of Central Africa to the present day, will attest, probably always will. Americans, French and Brits are very exceptional in the fact that none of them really accepts it as a standard combative practice. Practically every other army I know of has always used it as a major weapon of mass terror

If your objection is that a depiction of rape might "trigger" someone to do so in reality then I have to wonder why you're a writer or believe that people ought to read, or even talk, or listen, or do anything but sit alone in a concrete bunker for that matter. Besides, wouldn't rape depicted in an "artistic" manner be even worse in that case?

As far as grimdark and diversity I will let the author speak:

Where are all the women in the Broken Empire? Distributed across it in equal
proportion to the men... where else would they be. How much of the Broken Empire
do we see in Prince of Thorns? A vanishingly small fraction of it and I don't
recall anything to suggest that it didn't contain women...

I'm hoping that Joan Drake's tongue is firmly in her cheek and possibly wearing a hole in her decomposing flesh

Personally I've never read any zombie UF - maybe I'm just not hip with the kids, but it seems to be very much its own phenomenon, with little impact on the rest of SFF, at least in books. On TV and in films, sure - but then it's a pretty cheap form of SFX. All you need are a few good makeup artists and a shedload of latex...

That's just the makeup, my tongue makes it crack when it dries.

I'm sort of baffled by Zombies myself. The only reason I used it as an example is the fact that it is about the darkest fantasy scenario I can think of and also among the most popular in modern SFF. Rape is part of darkness and darkness, right now, sells.

 

[lauren$77]

That reminds me of a book I recently read - Ken Follet's 'World without End', which has at least two graphic rape scenes in it. I didn't mind the scenes, being mollified by the fact the said woman stabbed the b*****d (do you get kicked off for swearing here?) through the eye! But I'm presuming because its a fictional/historical novel and that sort of thing was prevalent in 1346 its justified. I do wonder if Ken Follet gets as much criticism as Mark Lawrence does for his oblique mention of rape in PoT though.

Perhaps I expect too much from the fantasy genre. I'm not opposed to gritty dark fantasy, but I still think fantasy works better if the grimdark is balanced with something lighter, more incorruptible.

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

That reminds me of a book I recently read - Ken Follet's 'World without End', which has at least two graphic rape scenes in it. I didn't mind the scenes, being mollified by the fact the said woman stabbed the b*****d (do you get kicked off for swearing here?) through the eye! But I'm presuming because its a fictional/historical novel and that sort of thing was prevalent in 1346 its justified. I do wonder if Ken Follet gets as much criticism as Mark Lawrence does for his oblique mention of rape in PoT though.

Perhaps I expect too much from the fantasy genre. I'm not opposed to gritty dark fantasy, but I still think fantasy works better if the grimdark is balanced with something lighter, more incorruptible.

I doubt he did. And isn't it really facile that the act of adding 'then a bad thing happened to that guy' mollifies the critics? It's as if they think they're batting on behalf of morons who need me to tell them 'rape is bad, m'kay' to understand that rape (and murder and torture and theft etc) are in fact not good. If I were the intended audience for such polemics I would feel deeply insulted.

For you the eye-stab allowed you to enjoy the book more - and that's fine - but I'm feeling that you're not lined up with the notion that without the eye-stab the book would have been a rape manifesto urging you out onto the streets in search of victims, the last shred of your self control blown away by the fact the guy didn't get his comeuppance followed by a the force-feeding of a simple moral homily to the readers...

 

[lauren$77]

I doubt he did. And isn't it really facile that the act of adding 'then a bad thing happened to that guy' mollifies the critics? It's as if they think they're batting on behalf of morons who need me to tell them 'rape is bad, m'kay' to understand that rape (and murder and torture and theft etc) are in fact not good. If I were the intended audience for such polemics I would feel deeply insulted.

For you the eye-stab allowed you to enjoy the book more - and that's fine - but I'm feeling that you're not lined up with the notion that without the eye-stab the book would have been a rape manifesto urging you out onto the streets in search of victims, the last shred of your self control blown away by the fact the guy didn't get his comeuppance followed by a the force-feeding of a simple moral homily to the readers...

Well Yes…. generally, if a bad thing happens to someone who did something bad I feel glad about it.

And again Yes… in a fictional novel I do feel better if something bad happens to someone who committed a bad thing (rape, murder, torture, theft etc). I think a novel striving for idealism and morality, in our often unmoral pessimistic world is – dare I say it – a good thing!

p.s. I do love the way you sweep in to defend your book ….so ennobling… you made me chuckle and really brightened up my moronic day…. I really think you should try translating some of that hilarity and meritorious qualities into your next novel…

 

[Dozmonic]

I see some of those aspects reflected in Jorg as he is

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

Well Yes…. generally, if a bad thing happens to someone who did something bad I feel glad about it.

And again Yes… in a fictional novel I do feel better if something bad happens to someone who committed a bad thing (rape, murder, torture, theft etc). I think a novel striving for idealism and morality, in our often unmoral pessimistic world is – dare I say it – a good thing!

p.s. I do love the way you sweep in to defend your book ….so ennobling… you made me chuckle and really brightened up my moronic day…. I really think you should try translating some of that hilarity and meritorious qualities into your next novel…

Glad to be of service. It'll take a sight more than ellipses to stop me

And I'm frequently told that the humor is one of people's favorite parts of my books so I guess I'll just keep on doing what I do! Twice yesterday people tried to claim the price of a kindle off me having sputtered coffee over theirs.

I'm still not clear what you're saying though - you like novels that strive for idealism and whatever form of morality you approve of. But do you condemn novels that don't ... or just not praise them. It seems to me there's a big difference.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Well, it's the first time I've had a giggle in this thread.

Lauren, I haven't got to the end of book 3 so can't fully comment on the whole trilogy, either. I'm struggling a wee bit, which has nothing to do with the book and the world, and more to with my problems with epic fantasy as a genre (sorry, Mark). What I liked with book one and two was they didn't read like epic, but as something much quicker and pacier. But I am withholding my verdict til I do get to the end.

One thing that does strike me, I had a torturer in my first book and when I did him in in a straightforward fashion, the concensus from readers was that there should be some payback. I think that was because it was the torture victim who was responsible for his death, and we like to support the underdog. In my case I used a secondary character to extend things a little - still very mild - and kept the central ethos that revenge isn't always either a motivator or, indeed, a healer.

 

[lauren$77]

Glad to be of service. It'll take a sight more than ellipses to stop me

And I'm frequently told that the humor is one of people's favorite parts of my books so I guess I'll just keep on doing what I do! Twice yesterday people tried to claim the price of a kindle off me having sputtered coffee over theirs.

I'm still not clear what you're saying though - you like novels that strive for idealism and whatever form of morality you approve of. But do you condemn novels that don't ... or just not praise them. It seems to me there's a big difference.

My aren’t we full of humility

Oh by the way my kindle also got ruined when a spluttered on it in indignation at the lack of women in your novel – do I get a new kindle? Or would I be best to appeal to your amour-propre to achieve such a thing?

In response to your question, morals are beliefs based on practices or teachings regarding how people conduct themselves in personal relationships and in society. One could argue that PoT is ‘amoral’ as it would appear to show an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles. Of course the moral code states "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself." Well I'm guessing Jorg doesn't expect to be particularly well treated by others being a social degenerate, so you could argue there is a moral code of sorts! But this really is a philosophical discussion out of my area of expertise as 'a critic' I'm afraid ... and besides only hurts my head.

But rest assured I don’t condemn your novel, I wouldn’t want you to get all hung up about that!

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

My aren’t we full of humility

Well... you might be. Me not so much. Each to their own I guess.

Oh by the way my kindle also got ruined when a spluttered on it in indignation at the lack of women in your novel – do I get a new kindle? Or would I be best to appeal to your amour-propre to achieve such a thing?

You'll get exactly the same number as the rest, whatever you appeal to.

But your indignation is interesting. It makes you indignant if any book you happen to pick up doesn't have 'enough' women in it? How many is enough? And does the subject matter, focus, topic etc have any bearing on the matter?

Does every writer every where have to insert a certain number of females into the story they choose to tell in order to escape your indignation?

I'm very curious about this.

In response to your question, morals are beliefs based on practices or teachings regarding how people conduct themselves in personal relationships and in society. One could argue that PoT is ‘amoral’ as it would appear to show an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles. Of course the moral code states "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself." Well I'm guessing Jorg doesn't expect to be particularly well treated being a social degenerate, so you could argue there is a moral code of sorts! But this really is a philosophical discussion out of my area of expertise as 'a critic' I'm afraid ... and besides only hurts my head.

"The moral code states "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.""

Interesting. Where can I find _the_ moral code? That sounds like a rephrasing of a line from the bible but if it's part of a code that runs through every religion and philosophy then it would be great to have a copy of that absolute morality code for reference.

"One could argue that PoT is ‘amoral’ as it would appear to show an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles."

...so the _book_ is amoral now as opposed to any particular character in it? I'm puzzled by this talk of the book showing awareness though... is it alive? Or if you're not talking about the characters in the book or the actual book who are you talking about... me? You think my personal morality is embodied in a swords and sorcery story I wrote? ... I'm really rather confused by what you're attempting to say here.

But rest assured I don’t condemn your novel, I wouldn’t want you to get all hung up about that!

Well that _is_ a huge weight off my mind. Though I was actually asking about novels demonstrating the qualities mentioned - not mine in particular. I'm interested in your thought processes not attempting to buy a pardon off you.