Joe Abercrombie defends gritty fantasy

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.

Totally agree with this. It *could* be treated in a meaningful and profound way, it just usually isn't. Since this is overlapping with the dedicated "rape in fantasy" thread (but with mostly different people involved), I'll just cut/paste from there:

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."
 
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! :D

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

Got it. Well, you certainly have good reason to be cross at the subject and I had no intent of implying otherwise!


(If you really want to have some fun and test the 'squick' argument give a talk at a con that brings up the subject of m-on-m rape in literature and watch the faces on the crowd members.:p)
 
(If you really want to have some fun and test the 'squick' argument give a talk at a con that brings up the subject of m-on-m rape in literature and watch the faces on the crowd members.:p)

Ha! Anyone going to eastercon wants to ask me the question on a panel? (ETA: Assuming I get to be on any this year)

You can see me try not to shoot laser out of my eyes
 
Sorry to rezz this thread, but here's a thoughtful post on what I was frothing about:

http://sophiamcdougall.com/2013/03/13/the-rape-of-james-bond/

Oh, I loved this quote:

To briefly return to A Song of Ice and Fire: The Black Watch, an all-male organisation that’s a bit like the Catholic church and a bit like the military, has a bit of a bullying problem. Some of the recruits are explicitly “rapers.” But none of the bullying turns sexual, not even from characters who have form as perpetrators of sexual violence. None of the boys suffers rape. Neither do any of the male peasants who are taken prisoner at various points by various factions. Despite being smaller and weaker than most of his male peers, Tyrion does not get raped, nor is he made to fear rape, either when captured by enemy noblemen or surrounded by hundreds of violent, volatile outlaws. They threaten to killhim, even to mutilate him, but not to rape him. Why not? Isn’t this supposed to be a grim, ruthless, realistic world?


Men, if you’re feeling a bit queasy at the idea of so many beloved characters suffering rape – if you’re feeling creeped out by someone enthusiastically arguing in favour of them being raped because it’s too bad if it upsets you, it’s realistic… Well, hi. Welcome to the world of women.
As my g/f just said, paraphrasing Scott Lynch, there was a lot of bum****ery in history. :)
 
Great post. And if a SHIELD Agent says it, it must be so.
 
Last edited:
Oh, I loved this quote:

As my g/f just said, paraphrasing Scott Lynch, there was a lot of bum****ery in history. :)


There's a butt load (pun intended) going on right now, and in recent history, in war zones and elsewhere. It's just ignored in fiction.
 
There's a butt load (pun intended) going on right now, and in recent history, in war zones and elsewhere. It's just ignored in fiction.

Yes, and GRRM is writing historical fantasy. :)

Funnily enough, I just found him quoted in this piece, 5 Ways Modern Men Are Trained to Hate Women, which is a pretty scary assessment of men's attitudes to their own sexuality:

Right now I'm reading a book from mega-selling fantasy author George R. R. Martin. The following is a passage where he is writing from the point of view of a woman -- always a tough thing for men to do. The girl is on her way to a key confrontation, and the narrator describes it thusly:


"When she went to the stables, she wore faded sandsilk pants and woven grass sandals. Her small breasts moved freely beneath a painted Dothraki vest ..."

That's written from the woman's point of view. Yes, when a male writes a female, he assumes that she spends every moment thinking about the size of her breasts and what they are doing.
Because that's what a man thinks he would do?
 
"When she went to the stables, she wore faded sandsilk pants and woven grass sandals. Her small breasts moved freely beneath a painted Dothraki vest ..."

That's written from the woman's point of view. Yes, when a male writes a female, he assumes that she spends every moment thinking about the size of her breasts and what they are doing.

I'm not going to defend GRRM against this charge, but this quote alone isn't enough to condemn -- doesn't it also suggest, equally unrealistically, that she spends every moment thinking about the fadedness of her legwear?

I imagine the breasts would be worth mentioning if they were moving freely enough beneath the "vest" to cause nipple rash. In fact, I think GRRM missed a trick here, as he could have written a description of her daubing them with grease to avoid such a fate.:rolleyes:


Edit: good article Brian linked to, btw.
 
Again not seeking to defend GRRM, but the quote misses the first sentence of the paragraph (which is the second one in the last Daenerys chapter in A Clash of Kings):
If the Milk Men thought her such a savage, she would dress the part for them. When she went to the stables, she wore faded sandsilk pants and woven grass sandals. Her small breasts moved freely beneath a painted Dothraki vest, and a curved dagger hung from her medallion belt.
Note also that the style of dress in Qarth - which was, to my surprise**, not depicted in season two of Game of Thrones - is
The women wore gowns that left one breast bare, while the men favoured beaded silk skirts
which makes Dany's costume here more modest than those of the people she'd be meeting. (You can make what you will of GRRM's choice of Qarth's usual mode of dress.)

There are pages of comments on the original article to which Brian linked here. They debate, amongst other things, whether the text is merely descriptive or the way Dany sees herself (i.e. how close the third person narrative actually is).


** - Given that show's attitude to nudity, that is. (Perhaps, come season two, the actress realised that the producers would rather not fire her and so insisted on being dressed more modestly than in season one.)
 
But it still makes me, as a woman, think I would never consider my breasts in any garment. All he needed to say was she wore a vest. There really is no need to mention her breasts at all, and certainly not mention their size.

GRRM, I have to be honest, is someone I think has enforced stereotypes of women in fantasy -- even though, I suspect, he tried to go out of his way not to. Not so much in what he says, or even in the characters he creates - Arya is excellent, for instance -- but in his casual acceptance of their place, their commodity. Now, I know the argument is that he's depicting a real, gritty world, and these things happened. My concern is that, sometimes, it gets too close to gratuitous for me. It's been a while since I've read the books, but the one bit that sticks in mind are the serving girl who stands in as Roose(? I think) Bolton's wife, and the first sex scene with her and Reek. And what happened with Tyrion's wife, that was too much, I thought, like the playing out of a fantasy, somehow. I also didn't like Cersei's walk of shame, and whilst I know there is a historical precedent, it wasn't a common punishment.

That slipped into gratuitous for me.

But, KMQ's article is right: the thing I find most dislikeable is the type of peril the women face, but the men don't. It's not just rape -- I accept male on male rape is a taboo many don't like to face, and it's a hard sell in a book (darn) -- but even eg. the walk of shame. Jamie has something happen to affect his perceived manhood, and it's to do with his fighting ability (trying to avoid spoiling here), Cersei's is to do with the displaying of her naked body. One gains sympathy as a character, one doesn't. The punishment meted out seems to reinforce the stereotypes of men as fighters, women who have to use other means of fighting. Even when with Brienne, of her and Jamie, only one faces the sort of danger we'd expect of one being captured in such peril.

It is the casualness which it is applied, often without the writer consciously doing it. I do it myself, even knowing it's there. But a woman thinking about the size of her breast inside a garment, in her point of view, that, regardless of the context, is a male writing a female. To take something Mouse said in the writing group once, and turn it around slightly, would GRRM say something like: he pulled on the traditional kilt, and felt the air shift around his somewhat shrivelled penis? I don't think so... (he'd probably show them peeing instead. He likes his peeing. :))
 
But it still makes me, as a woman, think I would never consider my breasts in any garment. All he needed to say was she wore a vest. There really is no need to mention her breasts at all, and certainly not mention their size.
Actually, I think you're missing a role-reversal joke: in Qarth "savages" - or, at least, their women - cover (both) their breasts.

The size and the "moving freely" text are the gratuitous bits. Whether GRRM gives himself a pass by being gratuitous about things other than women's body parts is up to each reader to decide.
 
I'm not going to defend GRRM against this charge, but this quote alone isn't enough to condemn -- doesn't it also suggest, equally unrealistically, that she spends every moment thinking about the fadedness of her legwear?

To draw on my own experiences of this recently (and make me sound like a complete bitch to boot, but ah well, I is what I is):

There's a girl in one of my lectures who has pretty big boobs. I pointed her out to one of my friends the other day because she has a really prominent underbite and a weird voice. My friend (a bloke) immediately assumed I was pointing her out because of her big boobs - I was genuinely surprised that it was the boobs he'd noticed and not the underbite, and it was genuinely the first time I'd noticed their rather ginormous size. So yeah, I am a girl and I would notice plenty of other things about another girl, including her clothes and their state, before I noticed her breasts.
 
I read KMQ's article* when she posted it on Twitter and thought it was spot on.

I've been reading this thread while stuck at work and I've been itching to reply, even though I've been avoiding it like the plague previously. But, I think I'd end up getting quite ranty and going quite far off topic, so I may do a blog post instead.

What I will say is I have small breasts (thank f...) and no they do not 'move freely.' In fact, they don't move much at all unless I'm jumping up and down! All GRRM's description there does is give me completely bizarre, kinda creepy, mental images. I could go sans bra and nobody would notice I wasn't wearing one. So I have never thought about my boobs like that and I suspect that if GRRM was a woman, he wouldn't have written that. In my mind, no, he does not get a pass.

*I know it's not her article. You get what I mean.

edit: and now I've mentioned it, I'm thinking actually, maybe GRRM simply means she wasn't wearing a bra (or whatever the equivalent is). In which case, I'm more inclined to say ok.
 
Ha! Anyone going to eastercon wants to ask me the question on a panel? (ETA: Assuming I get to be on any this year)

You can see me try not to shoot laser out of my eyes

If this pans out please make sure to have someone take video of the crowd response.:D

Oh, I loved this quote:

I did, too. The whole thing was impressive but that really drove home the point.

My friend (a bloke) immediately assumed I was pointing her out because of her big boobs - I was genuinely surprised that it was the boobs he'd noticed and not the underbite, and it was genuinely the first time I'd noticed their rather ginormous size. So yeah, I am a girl and I would notice plenty of other things about another girl, including her clothes and their state, before I noticed her breasts.

Pffft, here women are complaining about men not understanding them and then you post that bolded part which clearly shows how little women understand men.:p (I swear, I am going to find some way to make a serious contribution to this thread.)

BTW, you should be happy, that bit of smart-assery will deflect any concerns about you being a bitch.

I've been reading this thread while stuck at work and I've been itching to reply, even though I've been avoiding it like the plague previously. But, I think I'd end up getting quite ranty and going quite far off topic, so I may do a blog post instead.

[...]

edit: and now I've mentioned it, I'm thinking actually, maybe GRRM simply means she wasn't wearing a bra (or whatever the equivalent is). In which case, I'm more inclined to say ok.

I look forward to that post if you do decide to write it up.:) Also, I think that the question you pose -- whether he's just emphasizing the lack of a bra-equivalent or not -- is a relevant one. If so, yes, he's not out of line. If he isn't, well, that bit does come across as a bit..err...bizarre, for lack of a better term.




I'm curious to get thoughts on how Perdido Street Station fits into the whole 'grimdark' thing. Using Nerds_Feather's categorization--which he now insists is a bit limited, to be fair--I'd think it easily fits into and makes an excellent example of category 1 grimdark. There's a lot of dirt and grime, the pre-'modern' treatment of animals and people is depicted obviously and the characters go through some maiming, but I never felt that it was over-the-top or purposeless and some of the bad stuff does happen off the stage.
 
I really enjoyed the link, thanks KMQ. She makes some excellent, well-thought out points that have me thinking a lot.

Damned if I can find it, but at the end of the very last James Bond book, Felix Leiter is leaving him in hospital, and JB thinks something along the lines of: 'Come back Felix. Didn't he understand he was the only man he'd ever truly loved?' or something very close to that effect. So JB in the books is actually gay. For some reason, I don't think they'll ever bring this out in the films... Not sure why she didn't mention Casino Royale, because that's the closest they've got to JB being raped, when he's tied to the chair and having his b*lls bashed. (Incidentally, I have it on good medical authority that Bond wouldn't survive that kind of bashing.)
 
I'm curious to get thoughts on how Perdido Street Station fits into the whole 'grimdark' thing. Using Nerds_Feather's categorization--which he now insists is a bit limited, to be fair--I'd think it easily fits into and makes an excellent example of category 1 grimdark. There's a lot of dirt and grime, the pre-'modern' treatment of animals and people is depicted obviously and the characters go through some maiming, but I never felt that it was over-the-top or purposeless and some of the bad stuff does happen off the stage.

I think the general framing of "purposive" vs. "purposeless" is still sound, but I probably should have done a sliding scale version rather than a binary distinction.

Regardless, thought I haven't read the book, it does sound like a candidate for category 1. Iain M. Banks Use of Weapons is another one.
 
I think the general framing of "purposive" vs. "purposeless" is still sound, but I probably should have done a sliding scale version rather than a binary distinction.

Regardless, thought I haven't read the book, it does sound like a candidate for category 1. Iain M. Banks Use of Weapons is another one.

Hehe, indeed. I just threw that disclaimer in there so I didn't seem to be pinning you down to something you felt needed updating, even if the update is a relatively minor one.

I'll give an example of what I mean by feeling like it has a purpose to help discussion along; there is a scene in a butcher's shop where the butchering of the pigs is described in exquisite detail, right down to the **** and blood on the killing floor where the pigs are ran off the edge of a 'cliff' within the shop down into a pit with the intention of the fall breaking their legs to make them easier to catch and kill. It's all quite ugly and it really paints a picture of what the treatment of animals was like before modern standards for ethical treatment of animals came about. I can't help but think that his intent was to demonstrate one of the kinds of cruelty that was present in society in that time period. (18th or 19th century is implied, though it exists in a steampunk world in an alternate time line.)

The pigs are (obviously) not main characters, nor are they evil antagonists who must be slaughtered. In short, there is no benefit to the 'blood porn' other than to demonstrate (and possibly subtly critique) the cruelty that was present at the time. There's certainly no traditional blood porn 'benefit', which makes me think it has a purpose; I don't think there's a blood porn benefit, at least. (I don't imagine the average reader who is a fan of gory stuff finds pigs being slaughtered as interesting as people being slaughtered.)
 

Similar threads


Back
Top