Joe Abercrombie defends gritty fantasy

[Teresa Edgerton]

Male on male rape happens a lot in prisons, so why wouldn't it be common when armies were on the march and there was a shortage of available women? I'm just guessing, but wouldn't some of the stronger/more powerful men be inclined to prey on the weaker?

 

[Kissmequick]

How much more unusual?

Do have stats for that? In fact, do you have stats for how many women got raped in the period, compared to the whole population?


Why is it that a rape backstory/rape is seemingly so okay? Beaaue ut happened? Well,so did male rape, much MUCH more so than you'd think from fantasy novels (that I have read). The whole point is, it WASN't and ISN'T unusual - it happens, fairly frequently. But it gets glossed over in 'realistic' fantasy fiction very often.

Why the disparity? When we can't know the numbers and we go by assumptions? Assumptions are not fact.

Why do I think this is the case? Because it's uncomfortable for a male reader to read. Never mind that a male on female rape is uncomfortable for the (many!) female fantasy readers to read. Because female fantasy fans do not count - this is changing though, I hope. Really, google rape in fantasy literature and see how many female fantasy fans are not putting up with this ****. See why they shouldn't have to. If it upsets you , look at this and then we can talk again.

I would love to hear that all this is not the case, but seeing what is on the shelves, and that the whole argument seems to be being rather dismissed (because there's a whole two cases if male rape that people have cited! Woo! Two! Out of how many books? Okay so that's realism? *snorts*) I'm not so sure. I'd love to be enlightened past my cynicism though.

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.

And female readers don't with m on f rape? Or if they do the should just get on with it/live with it? Again, a disparity.It's like the whole ting with guys expecting women to like f on f porn, but they go all funny when you ask them to watch m on m porn....

The whole rape thing is about power and loss of it. Not your sexuality

 

[Southern Geologist]

And female readers don't with m on f rape? Or if they do the should just get on with it/live with it? Again, a disparity.It's like the whole ting with guys expecting women to like f on f porn, but they go all funny when you ask them to watch m on m porn....

I can't help but read this interpretation as unnecessarily aggressive; please don't take that the wrong way, I'm not saying 'them uppity womenz need to calm down and shut up' or anything along those lines, just that I think you may have interpreted an is as an ought. Given the way this discussion has gone I can also see why you would misread his statement.

The way I read his statement is that male writers will tend to view things from the male perspective and pay attention to what makes them feel squicky and tend to ignore what makes females feel squicky. I don't think he's trying to say that this is the way things should be, just making an observation.

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

Thanks for the link. I haven't read Martin since my late teens/early '20s and didn't feel then that female characters got a particularly bad shake. It will be interesting to see this viewpoint countered.

 

[Kissmequick]

Unnecessarily aggressive? Compared to what?

Well, it makes me quite bloody cross, but I don't think it's unnecessary to feel that way, or that stating an opinion strongly = aggressive - if we don't get cross about it, then nothing changes,. If we do...I won't subject to to what often happens (from a small minority). We'll just call it dismissive and move on. But me being cross doesn't change the point

But it IS a widely spouted thing about 'realism' in fantasy (not necessarily here, but the whole thing was started by a blog from Joe stating internet disparagement, and it happens a butt load there) - that in war women will be raped, so to be realistic an author must include it. For his artistic integrity dontcha know. Conveniently forgetting all the other things that happen in war but don't make it into books ( or at least a lot less than it actually happens) but rarely will you find a guy able to articulate why.

And then if we get cross because people made us legitimately cross...it's all 'calm down, dear' (Not saying you were saying that, but dear gods, does it happen, and more)

 

[Rolynd]

How much more unusual?

Do have stats for that? In fact, do you have stats for how many women got raped in the period, compared to the whole population?


Why is it that a rape backstory/rape is seemingly so okay? Beaaue ut happened? Well,so did male rape, much MUCH more so than you'd think from fantasy novels (that I have read). The whole point is, it WASN't and ISN'T unusual - it happens, fairly frequently. But it gets glossed over in 'realistic' fantasy fiction very often.

Why the disparity? When we can't know the numbers and we go by assumptions? Assumptions are not fact.

Why do I think this is the case? Because it's uncomfortable for a male reader to read. Never mind that a male on female rape is uncomfortable for the (many!) female fantasy readers to read. Because female fantasy fans do not count - this is changing though, I hope. Really, google rape in fantasy literature and see how many female fantasy fans are not putting up with this ****. See why they shouldn't have to. If it upsets you , look at this and then we can talk again.

I would love to hear that all this is not the case, but seeing what is on the shelves, and that the whole argument seems to be being rather dismissed (because there's a whole two cases if male rape that people have cited! Woo! Two! Out of how many books? Okay so that's realism? *snorts*) I'm not so sure. I'd love to be enlightened past my cynicism though.
And female readers don't with m on f rape? Or if they do the should just get on with it/live with it? Again, a disparity.It's like the whole ting with guys expecting women to like f on f porn, but they go all funny when you ask them to watch m on m porn....

The whole rape thing is about power and loss of it. Not your sexuality

That's not how it works when you study history, you can only look at the sources, reports, annals, artwork and extrapolate. Women being raped is something that we can see a lot of in primary sources, mm rape not so much. I'm sure of course that it did happen a lot but its not screaming out at you from history.

History aside, it's an interesting observation and perhaps it will start filtering through to authors. I personally don't think it's any latent homophobia or that the rape of women is somehow an "easier" read. I find them both equally distressing if there is actually a detailed scene.I think though that the question of sexuality wouldn't be avoided. They would be wrong of course like you say it has more to do with power rather than lust but do most of the reading public appreciate that? Most I think would be wondering after if that meant the character was gay, which an author or editor could deem distracting from the plot.

 

[Kissmequick]

Hmm
Do you have to be constrained though? When history is written selectively, when even now, both perpetrator and victim will often both deny it happened - and yet there are still incidences of it written down (Tacitus for the Romans IIRC, plus there was an early law about it, the shame-stroke of the Vikings, details of a law against male rape in Middle Assyria, roughly 12th century bc) There's the story of Laius and Chrysippus (male rape was sometimes called the 'crime of Laius) and much more if you actually look into it - also often it was labelled differently (for instance sodomy might refer to consensual or non consensual m/m sex). But it seems harder for men to admit to be being a victim - because of a perceived notion that it robs them of their masculinity. It is rarely reported now, despite its prevalence. Probably even more so in historical times.

Even now, in peacetime in the UK, 13% roughly of rapes are male on male. In war zones, its incidence is sometimes endemic (in some instances 75% or more of male prisoners reported sexual abuse/rape). Do you think this suddenly got invented in the seventies?

And, ofc, we aren't writing history. Even if we are using that as our primary source, then yes, women get raped more (then and now). But men are a significant minority even in peacetime. In a war, when there's almost certainly more men around than women? When a bit of extra humiliation on your foe might feel judicious? When you could 'feminise' them (cos, like that's a fate wore than death, being female...)

So, why the emphasis on women? Yes, it happens to them more. But the preponderance, the emphasis in fiction is very skewed here.

However, we're getting way off topic here! So I'll shut up for now - my initial post on it was just a pondering on why there is that skewing when it isn't supported in the 'real' that everyone seems to be after.

 

[Brian G Turner]

That's not how it works when you study history, you can only look at the sources, reports, annals, artwork and extrapolate. Women being raped is something that we can see a lot of in primary sources, mm rape not so much. I'm sure of course that it did happen a lot but its not screaming out at you from history.

Actually, I realised my error of that in the other thread (http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/forum/539494-gratuitous-rape-in-fantasy-novels.html).

Certainly ancient sources make it clear that - for example - there was a tradition that when a city was successfully besieged and overcome, the besieger would have the right of three days of looting, pillaging, rape, and murder.

However - and here's the kicker - modern western sexuality is polarised between heterosexuality and homosexuality. In other cultures, it is not.

For example, in the Roman world, a man was simply sexual and engaged in sexual acts. The only sexual act frowned upon was penetrative sex between men - because it was seen as making the man who consented to being penetrated effeminate. Plenty were not much bothered, though.

So, if you ever read of a Roman army pillaging and raping after a war victor, you can be assured that it is not simply women being targeted at all.

The sources are pretty clear it happens - it's the interpretation of rape only applying to women that is a flawed presumption.

 

[Mark_Lawrence]

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.

Desert Spear - a New York Times bestseller.

I really enjoyed the book.

 

[Rolynd]

I never really studied roman history but I don't doubt the veracity of that, I'm not even denying that it didn't occur in in the period I did study ("dark ages" and early medieval) just that its not apparent from many sources and its people's impressions that are important. So if someone is building a pseudo-dark age society they'll go on their impressions from that period, not in an academic way but just as a starting point for some of the world's character.

Anyway back in a more general way to the thread subject I kind of blame publishers for the growing divide between grit and non grit fantasy. They like to hitch themselves to the next big thing for obvious commercial reasons. That means that you could send in a wonderful more traditional fantasy ms and it could get passed over because at the moment everyone is reading Martin, Abercrombie and Lawrence. They also push this style much more with marketing so those who aren't fans could be forgiven for feeling marginalised.

Do publishers have a responsibility to consider the mix of the genre to ensure it doesn't lose those fans (which we can see from this board are not small in number) for whom grit is not to their taste? I know they exist to make money but taking a long term view could make fiscal sense as well as being perhaps fairer to those fans who have been buying their books for years.

What do people think?

 

[Joe Abercrombie]

Good stuff from Francis.

On, why so much female rape and so little male? I see two reasons:

1. Rape of men remains somehow taboo and undiscussed in western society in a way that rape of women isn't. Certainly for men but I'm not sure that women writers are necessarily depicting male rape any more than male writers? Hard to be certain about that. It's something that men generally don't want to think about or discuss, except as something totally aberrant and maybe that stuff that goes on in prison, 'don't reach for the soap, hur, hur,' but can't really be something that goes on in general life. Rape of women is, I don't know what the right term would be, not accepted (though I fear it may be in some quarters) but normalised, maybe? I suspect rates of reporting and prosecution for male rape are even lower than the already shockingly low rates of reporting and prosecution for female, though I may well be wrong on that. It seems to extend to the media as well - Any coverage or discussion of rape in the news is of women, never of men, as far as I can remember.

2. We're used to seeing rape of women in fiction generally, maybe in fantasy particularly, as part of the setting, as a lazy shorthand of making the villain really villainous, as a lazy motivator for male heroes, as part of the background for the female characters. All writing builds on what's gone before so there's a tendency to echo and repeat, perhaps subconsciously, perhaps deliberately, the sorts of characters and scenarios we've seen before. That's probably particularly true for male writers in this case, since women are going to have a lot of real life experience of being a woman to temper skewed fictional representations, men obviously much less so.

All of this means that rape of women is an easy, maybe even a 'safe', cliche to fall into as a writer (perhaps particularly a male writer), whereas rape of men is much more something you've got to make a deliberate (I'd say quite bold) choice to cover.

 

[Kissmequick]

Good points. I think you may be correct --normalised is a good word for the acceptance of female rape over male. I think there is that taboo too, that it will somehow feminise men -- that taboo has always been there, and is why so many victims don't talk about it. And yes, it's the laziness that gets me going grrrr.

And I'm not just picking on male writers (though female writers tend to use rape in general less I think). But it's amazing to me that readers will often think 'oh, she's got a rape in her backstory' even when it's not laid out (or even true), but rarely even think of it for guys. (Minor spoiler for Fade to Black whited out: I've had that reaction to my book. Everyone thinksof the pair she was raped, not him. Nu-uh) But I'm not really going to depict any rape graphically. Not my style. But I won't shy away from the subject if it becomes necessary. ETA: ofc, as a female writer writing about it, I'd probably catch some flack....

I think the problem is it's a societal problem, rather than one limited to grimdark fantasy. I don't think that's a reason to avoid it, or brush it under the carpet.

its people's impressions that are important.

Rolynd - so we shouldn't strive for accuracy? We should twist facts to reinforce false impressions? I thought your main argument was that it wasn't very accurate? Thing is, I don't know what impressions other people have, and if they are false, well, there's not much I can do. If I'm going to do realism properly, I can only strive for accuracy. If I'm not going for realism, I can do what I want, too. But to claim you're going for realism, and then to add in inaccuracies...

 

[Rolynd]

I'm trying to avoid using terms like "should" or "shouldn't" I'm merely offering an opinion, plus this argument has moved around quite a lot. If I've ever given the impression that I think a fantasy author should be historically accurate that wasn't my intention, I was just offering a justification for rape being apparent in a world based to some small degree on dark age or medieval society, which is a lot of fantasy. The accusation seemed to me to be along the lines of authors including it for the hell of it, I'm just saying that the fact that it definitely did happen and was widespread and has been throughout conflict in human history justifies an author's decision to include it if the world they are creating is a gritty, realistic one with human beings in it.

The follow on argument from that is "why not mm rape then" which is interesting point and I think Joe has nailed it really.

 

[Kissmequick]

Ah, right, I gotcha.

 

[Rolynd]

Ah, right, I gotcha.

Good, good. Friends again?

FWIW although I have been one of the most vociferous supporters in these recent threads of "grit" or even "grimdark" and the subject matter, I completely sympathethise with those that don't like it and are getting a bit sick of every blurb cover having the same words like "gritty" "dark" "carnage" "oceans of blood" or whatever. I'm lucky that I love these types of books (not that that lessens my love for the less visceral fantasy and sci-fi) but I would hate to be put in the position where my favourite genre seemed to be heading in a direction I couldn't get on board with, see my post on the previous page re: whether publishers have any responsibility to cater for this.

Ironically, I think darker fantasy has a lot more scope for less cookie-cutter princess type female characters so it's a shame that there is a prevailing sense that this isn't ocurring among the female readership (generalisation I know, lots of girls love grit). I know there is a thread on here specifically about GRRM and his female characters but without going into too much detail there is a wide variety of female characters with different motives and complexities, they're mostly all horrible but so are most of the people in GRRM's books. At least they're not the archetypal fairy princess though right?

 

[AMB]

And female readers don't with m on f rape? Or if they do the should just get on with it/live with it? Again, a disparity.It's like the whole ting with guys expecting women to like f on f porn, but they go all funny when you ask them to watch m on m porn....

The whole rape thing is about power and loss of it. Not your sexuality

I did say it wasn't about sexuality.

But yes. I was going to mention the porn disparity thing, but I thought that would be conflating the whole sexuality/assault thing and I was trying not to. I obviously failed, because you felt the need to spell it out again.

Based on some of the people I know I'm fairly certain there are male readers (and therefore potentially writers) who wouldn't touch it purely for that reason, regardless of the fact it isn't about sexuality.

I'm not saying what should be, or making excuses for it. I took the question to be why was it, not what good reason could they possibly have for it.

But Joe's argument was a much better one. I think some of that was hovering about in my head last night too, but not wanting to announce itself. So I ended up presenting it's illegitimate third cousin that the family doesn't like to talk about instead. I probably shouldn't post when tired.

 

[Kissmequick]

Good, good. Friends again?

We never weren't

I did say it wasn't about sexuality.


I probably shouldn't post when tired.

Yeah, you did, and my bad.
I should probably not post when I'm feeling obstreperous. But then I'd probably never post....

 

[Southern Geologist]

Unnecessarily aggressive? Compared to what?

By 'unnecessarily aggressive interpretation' I only meant that I thought you misinterpreted that post. As I said -- and probably should have stated more clearly -- I felt that his post was saying 'this is the way it is' rather than 'this is the way it is and should be.' I think the former is true, but the latter is most certainly not and that his post made a good starting point for the problems in fantasy with 'realism' and how to change them. We have to identify the problem before we can work on it, after all.

 

[Kissmequick]

No, I saw what he was saying, but still saw the disparity in the argument. The squick factor is probably what stops male rape being written about. But women feeling squicky about female rape doesn't stop it getting written about, often in lurid detail. Does it? (The squick factors are probably different in nature, but they are still squicky) So women have to put up with it in fiction even if it makes them squeamish, but hey, poor boys, they get squeamish? It doesn't seem a valid reason, to me, why the disparity is OK.

Disparity of treatment between genders makes my justice nipple itch (it's the fifth one, round the back, next to the birthmark shaped like a walrus)Which makes me cross.

 

[Southern Geologist]

Got it. Your post read to me like your frustration was directed at him rather than merely riffing off of the ideas in his post and how frustrating that attitude is. That's why I called it unnecessarily aggressive.

I don't think the disparity is justified, for the record, and I do think you're justified in feeling cross about it. Unfortunately, I think there is a certain reality that dictates that if the writers are mostly men and men tend to find the male-on-male rape thing squick that they're not going to be as likely to write about it unless their hypocrisy on the matter (ignoring what makes females feel uncomfortable, specifically) is pointed out to them. That's what I'm referring to when I speak of the is versus the ought.

For what it's worth, I personally wouldn't write about male-on-female rape unless I felt the story required it and I certainly wouldn't do it in graphic terms; one of the reasons for this decision is because I know that it does make female readers feel squicky to have to read about that. To be fair to other male writers, though, most of my close friends throughout life have been female (and intellectual and opinionated ) so I probably have an advantage over other guys in terms of having this knowledge in advance of doing any writing.

 

[Kissmequick]

Got it. Your post read to me like your frustration was directed at him rather than merely riffing off of the ideas in his post and how frustrating that attitude is. That's why I called it unnecessarily aggressive.

In all probability, when I am cross I am not as clear as I could be! As you say, riffing on/expanding the argument/idea rather than ripping into anyone posting. Which is what I'm usually doing, and sometimes forget it doesn't always come across that way unless I'm careful. I tend to be a bit..tangential..oooh look! Shiny thing!

So I'm cross at the subject, not anyone posting here. K?