Kevin's Watch

Lucimay wrote:i just thought the hurtloam made him horny.

I was reading this threading thinking to myself "wow, I never thought to much about it actually" when I read your post Lucimay.

Could the rape have no deeper meaning than just a plot device to create Elena by it and show the personal growth of TC by the end of the 3rd book?

High Lord Tolkien wrote:Could the rape have no deeper meaning than just a plot device to create Elena by it and show the personal growth of TC by the end of the 3rd book?

The author himself points out several deeper meanings.

First, to show that Covenant has an inner despiser, and that he has a potential be another Despiser rather than a savior if things don't go right.

In the Gradual Interview was wrote:My intent in creating Thomas Covenant was to explore a character who--in every sense that matters--literally "could go either way." A character balanced (by necessity) on the knife-edge of love and Despite. I don't consider him either "amoral" or an "anti-hero": I consider him *conflicted*. His rape of Lena--like his later repentance--and his eventual acceptance of responsbility--is an expression of that conflict.

Second, to allow Covenant to gain the inner strength he needs to confront the Despiser, by dealing with his own inner despiser.

In the Gradual Interview was wrote:Hile Troy is an interesting example. He's "innocent" in a way that Covenant is not: he's never done anything even remotely comparable to the rape of Lena. As a result, he's bloody dangerous. He literally doesn't know what he's doing: he hasn't learned the kind of humility that comes from meeting his own inner Despiser face-to-face.

Third, that rape is the essense of evil itself, and so Covenant's crime is the the essence of evil, in fact the evilist of all crimes. He actually touches on this more in the taped Elohimfest interview, but here:

In the Gradual Interview was wrote:Another way to look at this whole question is to think of "rape" as a metaphor for all forms of violation and betrayal, emotional, psychological, and spiritual as well as physical. And in those terms, I don't know anyone who isn't guilty of "rape."

Wishful thinking HLT...

In a lot of ways, the rape and TC's attempt to atone for it is the central drama of the first three books. (The conflict with Foul is an aspect of this atonement, as without the urge to atone TC would never have chosen to defend The Land.) Although seldom mentioned, it lurks in the background the whole way through. In fact, the author's reticence is a device that relfects Covenant's inability to confront what he has done for the majority of the series -- though it is ultimately brought home in TPTP by Lena's death and Covenant's reaction to it.

(All of the above is my opinion, and heck, I could be wrong.)

In the Gradual Interview was wrote:
Another way to look at this whole question is to think of "rape" as a metaphor for all forms of violation and betrayal, emotional, psychological, and spiritual as well as physical. And in those terms, I don't know anyone who isn't guilty of "rape."

I've found the thread so far really intriguing, but now my head hurts. What does that even mean? Is he saying that every person -- every single person -- has done something so rotten to another person that it's the moral equivalent of rape? Ow, my brain.

I agree that some people can be pretty vile. I'd even admit that on bad days, most people seem pretty vile. But everyone? Does he really think that?

Eh, maybe it's just the kind of hyperbole that pops up in interviews. I've seen other interviews where people slip into absolutes because , you know, it's an interview, not an essay. *nods*

For my part the rape threw me out of the story on first reading not because of the brutality, but because it just rang false to me. It felt like the author had gone for shock value, to write something that hadn't been done before, without establishing anything in the character that would lead up to it. I've been enjoying this thread because it seems to establish that SRD was aiming considerbly higher in terms of structure. But I have to confess that even the rage theory -- and it's an excellent theory -- doesn't completely persuade me, simply because I still can't recall any previous hints of that level of anger in TC. Just a little foreshadowing! That's all I ask!

I guess I'll go back to LFB and dig until I find some.

Lucimay wrote:i just thought the hurtloam made him horny.

Gentlemen of the Land: Has your Finger of Kevin's Watch not been rising to its full, majestic height? Has your Main Branch been sagging in the breeze? Introducing Viloamgra! This all natural male enhancer will have you racing like the mightiest Ranyhyn! Act now and receive a one month supply of Alianthade! This natural energy juice will help keep you going while you are out galloping around the Land! Hurry! Supplies are limited and in high demand!




Warning: In a very small number of test subjects, Viloamgra may have caused serious side effects, such as violently aggressive outbursts and involuntary sleepiness. If you have a heart condition, consult your local healer before use.

Viloamgra? Alianthade? Oh. My. Goodness.

jwaneeta wrote: I agree that some people can be pretty vile. I'd even admit that on bad days, most people seem pretty vile. But everyone? Does he really think that?

Don't forget that SRD's parents were missionaries. His personal sense of guilt/shame is probably pretty finely tuned. But yeah, I think most of us could think of a situation where they screwed somebody over so badly that it makes them squirm even now. Others might not hold you accountable due to mitigating circumstances (as some Watchers are willing to excuse Covenant to a degree because of the stress he was under when he raped Lena), but that doesn't mean you don't still feel guilty about it. I mean, I'm a nice person (honest!) but I can think of a couple of things I've done that, if I had a time machine, I would go back and undo.

Another way to look at this whole question is to think of "rape" as a metaphor for all forms of violation and betrayal, emotional, psychological, and spiritual as well as physical. And in those terms, I don't know anyone who isn't guilty of "rape."

I think he meant all such acts are fundamentally the same, with varying degrees of intensity (for lack of a better word) ,with rape being the ultimate expression of violation.

Patch61 wrote:
Warning: In a very small number of test subjects, Viloamgra may have caused serious side effects, such as violently aggressive outbursts and involuntary sleepiness. If you have a heart condition, consult your local healer before use.

*chortle*

aliantha wrote: I mean, I'm a nice person (honest!) but I can think of a couple of things I've done that, if I had a time machine, I would go back and undo.

*thinks hard* Well, I ditched out of being engaged once, but I wouldn't undo it for the world.

I can see what you're saying - and what Donaldson is saying - as a writing premise, but it seems pretty bleak as philosophy.

Patch61 wrote:Warning: In a very small number of test subjects, Viloamgra may have caused serious side effects, such as violently aggressive outbursts and involuntary sleepiness. If you have a heart condition, consult your local healer before use.

If you experience unambergrised puissance for more than four hours, seek a hirebrand immediately.

Spoiler

Cuz no one knows woodies like a lillianrill.

Linden: We need to find the stall of Law.
Honniscrave <grabbing his crotch>: Look no further, chosen. Have I now avowed you were well chosen <smirk> for this task?

Sill: Is that your Staff, Lord Hyrim.
Hyrim: Why yes it is. <looking around> -- Would you --- like to touch it?
Sill: No. It does not suffice.

Linden to TC, After their first night together on Sea Farer's Gem: - Well, you didn't pass that test of the High Wood.

SRD wrote:Another way to look at this whole question is to think of "rape" as a metaphor for all forms of violation and betrayal, emotional, psychological, and spiritual as well as physical. And in those terms, I don't know anyone who isn't guilty of "rape."

jwaneeta wrote:I've found the thread so far really intriguing, but now my head hurts. What does that even mean? Is he saying that every person -- every single person -- has done something so rotten to another person that it's the moral equivalent of rape? Ow, my brain.

I agree that some people can be pretty vile. I'd even admit that on bad days, most people seem pretty vile. But everyone? Does he really think that?

It's called 'moral equivalency', and yes, he really does think that . . . on the days when he wants a moralizing stick to beat someone with. 'You're just as bad as a rapist' (murderer, serial killer, etc.) is a pretty lethal rhetorical bomb, much used by persons who are making a weak argument and needs must resort to a scorched-earth defence.

The most obvious form of this defence is comparing your opponent to a Nazi, a sub-case famous enough to be the subject of Godwin's Law. But oddly enough, this specific version — accusing everyone in sight of rape or its moral equivalent — was much used by organizations like NOW and the Canadian NACSW in the 1980s and 90s. The reasoning went like this: Domestic violence is just as bad as rape; verbal violence is just as bad as physical violence; almost every married man has shouted at his wife; therefore, all men are rapists. (The logical corollary, that all women who shout are also rapists, is something they were careful not to pursue.) Utter nonsense when phrased that baldly, but that was in fact the argument, when divested of its inflammatory rhetoric. Of course the argument was not intended to convince anybody. It was used instead to terrorize, to create an emotional climate in which everyone would be afraid to oppose anything NOW or NACSW wanted, for fear of being called a defender of rapists. It succeeded very well at this until it finally became laughable from overuse.

The fact is, very few of us have had the power to utterly ruin the lives of a whole family in a moment the way TC did. Even rapists can seldom manage that. You may say that the difference between that and any of our own 'violations and betrayals' was merely one of degree. But sometimes a difference of degree is so great that it becomes a difference of kind; and the rape of Lena is an excellent example.

Abraham Lincoln said: 'How many legs has a dog, if you count the tail for a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.'

And calling any form of 'violation or betrayal' a rape doesn't make it one, either.

I think when he says "I don't know anyone who isn't guilty of 'rape'", the premise is that there are verying degrees of rape. For example, lying to someone in order to get what you want. I think that something which "utterly ruins the lives of a whole family" would be very far over on the one side of Donaldson's spectrum. In short, you're obviously some sort of morality nazi.

Wayfriend wrote:

Patch61 wrote:Warning: In a very small number of test subjects, Viloamgra may have caused serious side effects, such as violently aggressive outbursts and involuntary sleepiness. If you have a heart condition, consult your local healer before use.

If you experience unambergrised puissance for more than four hours, seek a hirebrand immediately.

Spoiler

Cuz no one knows woodies like a lillianrill.

(Thanks, DLB. I thought I laid an egg there ....)

I think reaction to the rape by other characters is very revealing. It has been 20 years since I read the first 2 sets but I remember the puzzlement, the way his actions were viewed as unnatural. As though the people of the Land were heart-connected in a way that we are not. The emphasis on forgiveness as the avenue for healing is almost foriegn to us...a wisdom we have forgotten or never knew. Rejecting moral equivalency is a way of feeling self-righteous. I realize that some actions hurt worse than others and our reactions in the way of preventing further harm differs with different crimes. But stark truth shows we all hurt each other with a casual brutality that (if our hearts weren't broken-isolated from each other) should baffle and appall us. In a situation where a broken soul is taken into innocence...I think it is inevitable that some harm will be done. Toward the end of his travels Covenant felt like a brute for things far less obviously damaging.

Hope wrote:Rejecting moral equivalency is a way of feeling self-righteous.

No, rejecting moral equivalency is recognizing that some actions are not morally equivalent. Those who know me, I believe, will agree that self-righteous is the last thing I am. I have enough of my own guilt on my plate without being called a rapist because somebody thinks something I have done is 'just as bad as' rape.

In the end, the only sins we can atone for are our own.

I think the key here is that SRD said that we could look at rape as a metaphor. He didn't say that all forms of violation and betrayal, emotional, psychological, and spiritual as well as physical were the same as rape. He said that, if rape is used as a metaphor for those things, then everyone is guilty.

So everyone has violated or betrayed someone, be it emotionally, psychologically, spiritually or physically. That doesn't mean that everyone is guilty of rape, or that they may as well be because what they did is just as bad. Rape is just the particular crime SRD used as a metaphor.

variol son wrote:I think the key here is that SRD said that we could look at rape as a metaphor. He didn't say that all forms of violation and betrayal, emotional, psychological, and spiritual as well as physical were the same as rape. He said that, if rape is used as a metaphor for those things, then everyone is guilty.

So everyone has violated or betrayed someone, be it emotionally, psychologically, spiritually or physically. That doesn't mean that everyone is guilty of rape, or that they may as well be because what they did is just as bad. Rape is just the particular crime SRD used as a metaphor.

Very well said VS!

Hope wrote:I think reaction to the rape by other characters is very revealing. It has been 20 years since I read the first 2 sets but I remember the puzzlement, the way his actions were viewed as unnatural. As though the people of the Land were heart-connected in a way that we are not.

An excellent point. Just as the Land was created to be the image of health, the antithesis of leprosy, I believe that Donaldson made the people of the Land virtuous and, by derivation, innocent: the antithesis of rape. They are not pure, but they seem to more easily and naturally choose virtue than people in our own world. And therefore, crimes are more foreign to them, and more apalling. I think that this is Donaldson's direct intention, to make the rape seem even more evil than it otherwise might seem, due to the contrast with the inate goodness of the Stonedowners.

The reaction to the rape is the logical conclusion: the more they spare Covenent out of innate decency, the more atrocious Covenant's actions appear. If Covenant had gotten what he deserved, if he had atoned for his actions voluntarilly or under duress, then the author's intention would be defeated.l The intention being to make Covenant look like an emissary of evil sent from our world into the Land.