Joe Abercrombie defends gritty fantasy

[Mark_Lawrence]

Sorry but this to me is just a long winded way of saying "I don't like this type of book and I think those that do are intellectually inferior" which is pretty offensive.

It also appears to imply that something bad happening in a book means the author approves of that bad thing... which is pretty unsophisticated.

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

Yes, rape is a reality. Yes, it happens. Yes, racism, homophobia, violence, moral cowardice, corruption, despicable leaders, etc all these things exist and have causes and consequences. But to deal with these topics so nonchalantly, so offhandedly, and refusing to fully deal with the actual consequences of some of these topics (namely rape), grimdark fantasy (and its authors) are making just as unrealistic fantasy pieces as anything Tolkien ever wrote. Focusing almost exclusively on straight white men who are borderline sociopaths, or worse, is just as unrealistic as elves, dwarves, and dragons. Having straight white men dominate the setting story after story is just as unrealistic as any magic. The glaring absence of strong, independent female leads who are more than simply objects to be used and thrown away (or dealing with them as fully formed characters in their own right, rather than the flimsiest of cardboard characters) is just as unrealistic and hackneyed as any D&D novel.

Because I like to help out I'm going to distill a few questions and statements of objection out of this lot. Then I'll invite you to agree or disagree that they are statements you support &/or questions you might want answered. And if you do, I'll answer/address them as best I can.

> Having straight white men dominate the setting story after story is just as unrealistic as any magic.

You feel that this type of unrealism is, unlike the equally unrealistic magic, objectionable. This is an objection you have to grit.

This could prompt two questions:

i) is gritty writing like that and if so why?

ii) did you, Mark, use that kind of setting, and if so why?

> Yes, rape is a reality. Yes, it happens. Yes, racism, homophobia, violence, moral cowardice, corruption, despicable leaders, etc all these things exist and have causes and consequences. But to deal with these topics so nonchalantly, so offhandedly, and refusing to fully deal with the actual consequences of some of these topics (namely rape), grimdark fantasy (and its authors) are making just as unrealistic fantasy pieces

You feel that it is objectionable not to examine the consequences of murder/rape/descrimination etc

which could prompt the questions

iii) does gritty writing do that and if so why?

iv) did you, Mark, do that, and if so why?

I've no wish to put words in your mouth or to blunt/deflect or obscure your issues - I'm just trying to condense them into something more concrete. If you don't feel these are fair questions then I won't address them.

& I would of course answer ii & iv on the PoT thread Brian kicked off for specifics.

 

[Southern Geologist]

Sorry but this to me is just a long winded way of saying "I don't like this type of book and I think those that do are intellectually inferior" which is pretty offensive.

I think you're off just a tad; he seems to indicate in that post and previous posts that those who enjoy that type of book are morally inferior.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

A bit more civility on all sides would be appreciated.

And could we stop focussing so much on Mark? There are at least two threads dedicated to him and his books. He has pointed one of them out.

I don't think anyone here should be put in the position (or place himself in the position, either) of being the center of attention in this thread, with the possible exception of the author of the article in question (who has, in any case, been conducting himself like a gentleman).

Let's return to a discussion of that article, and leave the insinuating personal remarks out everyone.

 

[Kissmequick]

I posted this in another thread, but perhaps it's pertinent here, re selective realism.

Isn't it funny though, how male on male war rape almost never happens in 'realistic' fiction, when actually it is/was quite common?

The Vikings practised it (to humiliate even further a vanquished enemy supposedly, though the whole rape thing may be exaggerated for both male and female rape). It was practised widely in the near east as well in antiquity and later in many areas, for much the same reasons. The Romans often did it too (documented), and it's happened throughout history etc etc. Because rape isn;t about sex -- it's about power. And what better way to show a foe he is vanquished?

But I don't see anyone saying that it needs/is justified to be put graphically or not in a fantasy novel for 'realism'.

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

I posted this in another thread, but perhaps it's pertinent here, re selective realism.

Isn't it funny though, how male on male war rape almost never happens in 'realistic' fiction, when actually it is/was quite common?

The Vikings practised it (to humiliate even further a vanquished enemy supposedly, though the whole rape thing may be exaggerated for both male and female rape). It was practised widely in the near east as well in antiquity and later in many areas, for much the same reasons. The Romans often did it too (documented), and it's happened throughout history etc etc. Because rape isn;t about sex -- it's about power. And what better way to show a foe he is vanquished?

But I don't see anyone saying that it needs/is justified to be put graphically or not in a fantasy novel for 'realism'.

Oddly, and I can't claim it as statistically significant, the last rape scene I recall reading in a fantasy book was a male-on-male one, the one before that was 30 years ago in Lord Foul's Bane, and that was male on female, though not at all without consequence.

 

[Kissmequick]

And so we swap roles -- I can't say I've ever read one that I recall

I've certainly never seen anyone claim that it 'should' be included because it's 'realistic' and to not include it would be to 'be unrealistic'. Which I certainly have the other way around! And it definitely the case that no one has to say specifically 'Well, none of my heroes has a rape backstory' because it's a given, unless stated otherwise.

So, why do we think that particular reality is glossed over in favour of the old 'women get raped all over the shop' one?

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

And so we swap roles -- I can't say I've ever read one that I recall

I've certainly never seen anyone claim that it 'should' be included because it's 'realistic' and to not include it would be to 'be unrealistic'. Which I certainly have the other way around!

Ah, well you must have stopped with The Painted/Warded Man. If you'd read on to the second book, Desert Spear you would have seen the main PoV character suffer a man-on-male rape which (IIRC) was considerably more on-screen than the male-on-female rape in the first book.

I've never seen anyone say male-on-female rape 'should' be included because it's 'realistic'. I've seen people say that it's not unrealistic to include it - but that statement differs in more than one important regard.

 

[Kissmequick]

I did indeed stop with painted/warded man - it wasn't for me.

I've never seen anyone say male-on-female rape 'should' be included because it's 'realistic'. I've seen people say that it's not unrealistic to include it - but that statement differs in more than one important regard.

Um, well, it is said, quite a lot (I've seen it justified several times on this forum, and many others on exactly those terms). At least why shouldn't it be in there, because rape in war is real! These things happen! If you want to be real then that's how it goes! Suck it up and live with it! So not including stuff that also really really happens because it might squick the guys out (I can only presume that's why, I'd love to be enlightened if this isn't the case, and to remind people that hey, girls get squicked by graphic m-on-f rape scenes.) seems...disingenuous and selective.

If male on female rape occurs and so should be included for realism, then male on male rape, which also occurs, should also be included for realism. The justifications for both should be the same - it needs to be in the story. Ans there's maybe your test. If you'd baulk at putting in a m-on-m rape and decide it's not necessary - then if the rapee happens to be female, the m-on-f alternative probably isn't either.

So, again, why do we think that particular really real thing is mostly glossed over?

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

Um, well, it is said, quite a lot (I've seen it justified several times on this forum, and many others on exactly those terms).

If you find one such - point me at it - I'd be interested to read the post.

At least why shouldn't it be in there, because rape in war is real!

Well 'why shouldn't' is very different from 'it should'.

These things happen! If you want to be real then that's how it goes! Suck it up and live with it! So not including stuff that also really really happens because it might squick the guys out (I can only presume that's why, I'd love to be enlightened if this isn't the case, and to remind people that hey, girls get squicked by graphic m-on-f rape scenes.) seems...disingenuous and selective.

If male on female rape occurs and so should be included for realism, then male on male rape, which also occurs, should also be included for realism. The justifications for both should be the same - it needs to be in the story. Ans there's maybe your test. If you'd baulk at putting in a m-on-m rape and decide it's not necessary - then if the rapee happens to be female, the m-on-f alternative probably isn't either.

So, again, why do we think that particular really real thing is mostly glossed over?

Again, I can only go with what I've seen. Though I'll agree that annecdotally there is a weighting toward male-female, and that the annecdote probably has it right.

However, the fact is that the last rape scene I read was male-male and it was in one of the very few fantasy books to hit the New York Times Bestseller list - which does seem to hint that it may not be wholly unacceptable reading to joe-fantasy.

I'm not going to argue figures because frankly I'm ignorant and wouldn't have a leg to stand on. My intuition though is that yes m-on-m rape in war-torn lands etc has happened historically and happens to this day, but it probably happens less than m-on-f. If someone pulled convincing figures out on that... I'd be convinced by whatever they said

Additionally there appears to me to be no special reason why whatever spread we see now (or have seen in the past) of whatever type of event you like rape of any flavour, cathedral building, whatever ... should be reproduced within a particular book, or across the spread of books in a particular genre.

 

[ratsy]

Is it just me or does there seem to be a lot of raping going on? I hate to say it but I completely blocked the rape scene from the Desert Spear that Mark brought up. The reference to it in Marks's book was a passing statement that didn't make me blink. I am a very moral man, who believes in right and wrong and wholly thinks rape is wrong on every human level. But has it become so prevalent in the news, movies and books that I can read it in a book I thoroughly enjoy and not even remember it? I must say that it puts me off a little bit.

I have read every Terry Goodkind book, to be honest I don't know why but I almost forgot about the atrocities until someone mentioned them here. In Terry's case I think it is "show how bad the bad guys are, so by comparison Richard looks like a purist angel"

In a current re-read of Thomas Covenant I read the early rape scene with some revulsion. I knew it was coming and it almost passes by with not much concern by Thomas. "Meh, not sure if this is real so its ok"

But just like everything, the more we overuse something, the masses become desensitized to it.

My wife is currently reading "The Witches Daughter" and she was disturbed by a scene where the main character was raped. It is everywhere! But to be fair, society is full of it as well. It is awful but should authors avoid subjects because it may upset some people. I'll tell you what, I would rather read it in passing in a book than read the news and hear about girls being gang raped on a train in India.

That's it, I am going to include a law in my WiP. Any raping, you lose your manhood...thats it! Done!

 

[Kissmequick]

If you find one such - point me at it - I'd be interested to read the post.

An extremely cursory search (Flu meds, plus it's late and my eyeballs may explode from having edited 200 pages of an MS today) yields these recent ones. (some of which are answers to the 'realism' thing because, well because I searched two simple terms and I'm knackered. But hey, search the net. Google it. You'll find it popping up in spades)

And as regards to the 'gritty realism' - I'm not saying rape and murder should never be mentioned in fantasy. It just seems that all too often the perpetrators are our protagonists, or almost certainly the males

It's pretty much impossible to write realistic medieval fantasy involving warfare without including rape. {KMQ adds here that poster is, from context, talking about m-onf rape]

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. <snip>
Obviously if realism isn't what you're going for in fantasy novels then that's fine.

Well 'why shouldn't' is very different from 'it should'.

So why do people use 'it should' for female rape?

I'm not going to argue figures because frankly I'm ignorant and wouldn't have a leg to stand on. My intuition though is that yes m-on-m rape in war-torn lands etc has happened historically and happens to this day, but it probably happens less than m-on-f. If someone pulled convincing figures out on that... I'd be convinced by whatever they said

I don't think there are figures - but it does happen quite frequently even now. It is not rare. It is/was reasonably common, yet gets missed out a lot in 'real' fiction. It just seems...less worthy of inclusion on many discussions. It gets glossed. Again, why do you think that is? (Not just you, everyone?)

Additionally there appears to me to be no special reason why whatever spread we see now (or have seen in the past) of whatever type of event you like rape of any flavour, cathedral building, whatever ... should be reproduced within a particular book, or across the spread of books in a particular genre.

So, like male on female rape then? There is no special reason to include it, yet it pops up all over the shop. Why is that, do you think?

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

An extremely cursory search (Flu meds, plus it's late and my eyeballs may explode from having edited 200 pages of an MS today) yields these recent ones. (some of which are answers to the 'realism' thing because, well because I searched two simple terms and I'm knackered. But hey, search the net. Google it. You'll find it popping up in spades)

Ah. The 'should be' has a context too. It seems at least some of those quotes are saying 'if you want to present realistic medieval warfare then you should include rape because it happened'

There are two questions there:

i) did it happen

ii) if it did happen, should you include it

None of them are questions I've tried to answer because I've never aimed for historical accuracy. It always seemed an odd requirement for fantasy to me.

I'm in no position to answer i) but my intuition is that if I were to do the research I'd find the answer to be yes across all periods from way back to now.

The answer to ii) seems to depend entirely on the story you're telling. Lots of things happen - you don't need to mention them all - a story would bog down in irrelevance. Stories aren't histories.

So why do people use 'it should' for female rape?

Don't know. Ask 'em!

I don't think there are figures - but it does happen quite frequently even now. It is not rare. It is/was reasonably common, yet gets missed out a lot in 'real' fiction. It just seems...less worthy of inclusion on many discussions. It gets glossed. Again, why do you think that is? (Not just you, everyone?)

I don't know. When you ask questions of a statistical nature about an ill-defined group then it's hard to do anything but speculate. Again, I've really seen very little rape in books and almost no graphic rape and so it's hard to say from my experience that the m-on-m side is glossed over. Especially as the last rape scene I read was m-on-m and was in one of the most popular fantasy books. But I do of course understand that another selection of books could easily turn up different results.

Certainly one theory (with a decent weight to it) is prejudice of one form or another. Either in the writers or in their commercial evaluation of their readers. Another theory might be that if the perception is that m-f is significantly more likely and they're only writing one scene they might go for the most likely.

So, like male on female rape then? There is no special reason to include it, yet it pops up all over the shop. Why is that, do you think?

Well I agreed that 'it should' didn't seem reasonable. I'm not sure 'all over the shop' is strictly accurate either.

Couldn't we ask by the same token why there are so many murders and killings when these are rare in real life? There's no 'special' reason to include these horrible acts either is there? Or why in non-gritty fantasy we still often find ourselves in moments of conflict or moments of great consequence when these are not generally the norm.

 

[Kissmequick]

Hmm

okay to perhaps reiterate (not especially to you, but to the crowd)

Why is it that some aspect s of 'realism' are more acceptable/more prevalent in novels than others? Is it relevant that these things happen to include violence against women as standard, as and if the gender of the victim were reversed, would it be the same for a guy?

Why is violence against women so disproportionate in fantasy? Okay, if you are writing a battle, people will die, I thin that's the thing with violence. The rest is...not so clear cut. Just because there is a battle, does not equal all the women get raped.

If anyone cites realism. I may have to chin them (hah, yes, because women are never violent to men, right? Unless they are perverted sex kittens or seeking revenge for previous rape...)


Basically - why is Grimdark or gritty 'realistic' so skewed towards men? When there were prominent (and not so prominent but you know, independently minded, unraped) women in history, when not all women got raped, but some men did, but it barely get a mention etc etc

Another theory might be that if the perception is that m-f is significantly more likely and they're only writing one scene they might go for the most likely.

While you are probably right, what are the statistics? Do you knwo? Do I? Or are we only assuming? See the other rape thread - many people are not straight. Some straight guys rape other guys for power. It is not that clear cut.


AGAIN, why do you think this is glossed over?

Why is it all so male skewed? Especially considering we are writing SFF and we can write whatever damn culture we please, and aren't constrained by the real world or history?

Why do you think that is?

 

[Rolynd]

Ive been sourced! I stand by it, its a legitimate building block in authors creation of a world, if that world is a violent place in the middle of a conflict, especially if its a pseudo-medieval or dark age world where in times of war such atrocities were common.

As to why there isn't more mm rape...there is some, what was that book with the "wetboys" who were assassins? His mate got raped I believe, and the one mentioned by Mark. Whether it happened a huge amount in history is an entirely different debate. It happened, no doubt. But I've studied a lot of primary accounts at uni (the crusades especially but some European theatre stuff) and I can't remember it coming up. A lot of primary sources on Vikings are massively disputed because they were written by the church about a hated group of pagans.

Its funny that this issue has suddenly blown up in a big way on here. GRRM is quite loved on these forums and his books have had a LOT of much more graphic rape since day one of ASOIAF, I'm sure it's come up but I've spent a LOT of time on the GRRM sub-forum and I can't remember anything.

 

[JoanDrake]

Is it just me or does there seem to be a lot of raping going on? I hate to say it but I completely blocked the rape scene from the Desert Spear that Mark brought up. The reference to it in Marks's book was a passing statement that didn't make me blink. I am a very moral man, who believes in right and wrong and wholly thinks rape is wrong on every human level. But has it become so prevalent in the news, movies and books that I can read it in a book I thoroughly enjoy and not even remember it? I must say that it puts me off a little bit.

I have read every Terry Goodkind book, to be honest I don't know why but I almost forgot about the atrocities until someone mentioned them here. In Terry's case I think it is "show how bad the bad guys are, so by comparison Richard looks like a purist angel"

In a current re-read of Thomas Covenant I read the early rape scene with some revulsion. I knew it was coming and it almost passes by with not much concern by Thomas. "Meh, not sure if this is real so its ok"

But just like everything, the more we overuse something, the masses become desensitized to it.

My wife is currently reading "The Witches Daughter" and she was disturbed by a scene where the main character was raped. It is everywhere! But to be fair, society is full of it as well. It is awful but should authors avoid subjects because it may upset some people. I'll tell you what, I would rather read it in passing in a book than read the news and hear about girls being gang raped on a train in India.

That's it, I am going to include a law in my WiP. Any raping, you lose your manhood...thats it! Done!

Won't work, unless you cut off the entire apparatus, (and that's likely to kill them even in a modern environment) the man retains the ability and even the pleasure, he just loses the urge. Killing them is a lot simpler and more effective.

And I've never understood what was the real problem with Thomas Covenant. (Though I've yet to figure why they don't just give him an MDT pack and send him home, like they've done with leprosy patients since about 1930). He's not, "Meh, not sure if this is real so its ok." He's noticing that there's a 12 foot stone man running about, an impossible ring around the sun, and people who heat up dinner by singing at it. Anybody who didn't conclude this was a dream would have to believe they were hallucinating and what difference would a rape make in either case? I don't call the real Anne Hathaway for permission before I accept a nude swim with her dream simulacrum, I just hope I don't wake up

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Ohhhh,i gotta go to bed, I have a long day ahead tomorrow... Umm, Rolynd, there are many of us who object to GRMM -- i had a thread about his treatment of women characters -- but our voices are drowned out against the masses, and, in my experience only produce a slew of posts to support him, which makes the original thoughts not meaningless, but lost...

Either I have him completely wrong and he is god's gift to modern sff, or when the furore dies down we will see more insightful commentary on his works and what they mean for SFF and the supposed genre of grimdark.

I will now go to bed and hide.

Edit, i didn't, here is the thread:

http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/forum/536392-grrm-and-women-characters.html

 

[Kissmequick]

Ive been sourced! I stand by it, its a legitimate building block in authors creation of a world, if that world is a violent place in the middle of a conflict, especially if its a pseudo-medieval or dark age world where in times of war such atrocities were common.

If that's what you are going by, male on male rape should be waaay more prevalent, considering how many women get raped/sexually abused in fantasy. If what really happened is a lgeitimate building block, why not use all of what happened? Rather than focus on one part? Why not nclude male on male, but male on female is fine and dandy?


So, why do you think that happens? Apart from a couple of cited examples (rather than the reams I have unfortunately read against women) And figure in that not many guys doing the historical recording are going to admit to it, and yet it is still documented, so it probably happened a lot more.

Why i male on male rape not cited as an aspect of 'realism' when male on female rape is? When both actually did/do happen?

 

[Rolynd]

If that's what you are going by, male on male rape should be waaay more prevalent, considering how many women get raped/sexually abused in fantasy. If what really happened is a lgeitimate building block, why not use all of what happened? Rather than focus on one part? Why not nclude male on male, but male on female is fine and dandy?


So, why do you think that happens? Apart from a couple of cited examples (rather than the reams I have unfortunately read against women) And figure in that not many guys doing the historical recording are going to admit to it, and yet it is still documented, so it probably happened a lot more.

Why i male on male rape not cited as an aspect of 'realism' when male on female rape is? When both actually did/do happen?

Well, I've given one answer. It is more unusual and would therefore stand out a LOT more making it likely to provoke an avenue of questions that the author didn't want to go down in their story.

Why do you think it is?

 

[AMB]

It might be a subconscious gay squick. The act doesn't have to have anything to do with sexuality or lust, but the assault still involves a sex act, and a lot of straight seem to get men get a bit squeamish at the detail, consensual or otherwise.

I dunno. I'm guessing. Mark says a popular fantasy book contains m-m rape. I don't know which one he is referring to. Maybe the fact that it is popular debunks my hypothesis.