Covenant raping Lena

[Blue_Spawn]

Wow! Years have passed and I still see this topic reappearing and pissing people off. Donaldson is a freaking genius. Only thing I have to add, aside from everything that I have already stated a long time ago, is that while the rape sux on multiple levels, its a really nice bite out of reality. A big leap in a fantasy genre too. I mean, now and then we get indications of rape in Sci-Fis and Fantasies, but this book was one of the few I know that hit you at face value. I think that's important. I think that these things, as grussome as they are, should still be portrayed this way in today's novels. People need to read these things and then be digusted and become so mad that they want to tear the book to shreads. I realize that now.

Its like with characters that die. Authors kill them off in part so that other characters including the reader can realize the importance of life. So should this be a reoccuring topic so that we can see immorality and malevolence of rape.

I majorly disagree on Covenant ravishing Lena, but I support the author for writting it out. And I believe my opinions to be a good thing on this case.

[duchess of malfi]

Blue Spawn said:

Its like with characters that die. Authors kill them off in part so that other characters including the reader can realize the importance of life. So should this be a reoccuring topic so that we can see immorality and malevolence of rape.

I happen to agree with this, and think you said it well.

[danlo]

bump for current interest...

[exnihilo]

Thanks, danlo, for bringing this to the top

[Kil Tyme]

It's the one part of the book I groan as I get closer and then skim the horrific page and feel relief as I quickly speed away. Forgive? No, not really, but I don't think we are meant to forgive him or not. He is the Anti-Hero at this point and for most of the rest of the first series.

[iQuestor]

It was necessary. Without the rape, I fear, TCoTC would be just another fantasy series.

[Avatar]

And yet, in the greater scheme of things, was it really so bad? It was briefly described, hell, it wasn't even described, just strongly implied IIRC, certainly not brutal, clearly not pre-meditated or malicious (in so far as rape can ever be non-malicious) and obviously out of character even for a character we'd known so briefly.

I bring this up because, as I've mentioned elsewhere, the GF is finally reading the series, and once she'd finished LFB, she was suprised when I told her that many people apparently claim the rape scene put them off the book and series.

The first paragraph of this post is what I can remember of her comments on it.

Thoughts?

--A

[Buckarama]

Yeah, I think it points out that this is not your avarage hero, and it sets a dark tone for the rest of the books.

It stands out so much because TC is now shown as human a fatal flaw in fantasy books, it stands out even more because everyone around him IS so heroic.

[Insomniac By Choice]

Is there such a thing as ethical behavior in dreams? When something has no consequences, can doing it be right or wrong?

Most of us have had lucid dreams before. Can anyone honestly say they haven't willing indulged something terrible because they thought or knew they were dreaming? Covenant "knew" he was dreaming, and in his dream he had vitality which he indulged. You can't judge him poorly for that.

To be perfectly honest, the rape was pretty tame. I mean, I've read worse that were far less important to the plot, although not committed by the protagonist. I didn't think it was unrealistic at all, bad as the act itself was. But it's only a sin if Lena is real.

[Buckarama]

well that open another topic I think. Is it a sin if you only think it? Some would argue that yes it still is. However I would not be counted among their numbers.

What happens in your head is yours.

[Insomniac By Choice]

At the risk of derailing this thread and the point of it completely, allow me to take a post of mine from another forum (directly inspired by this scene) and insert it here.

Ethics has been said to be defined as what you do when no one is watching. From a religious point of view, then, there is only morality and immorality as God is always watching, or at the very least always aware of an individual's actions. I don't think it will be too difficult for this crowd to assume for a moment that such a God does not exist, but it is fairly necessary for the question at hand.

While you dream, you are alone in your own head and there is no one to watch or care what goes on. When you wake up, no matter what happened in the dream world, it does not directly affect the events of the waking world. It could be said, then, there are no consequences for your actions while you dream.

Which brings me to my question: is there such a thing as unethical behavior in dreams?

Some people may be able to answer the question straight out (and probably won't bother reading all of this, anyway) but consider the situation, if you will. What if in a dream, you were not aware it was a dream and yet proceeded to act on a desire normally considered wrong or unethical such as raping a child? Would that be wrong considering that your dream-self was unaware he was in a dream and therefore behaving as genuinely as possible? No one was actually harmed, some synapse in your brain violated another synapse, but you had no idea this was so. Is that unethical?

On the opposite side, what if you became aware you were dreaming and took control? What if in the process of lucid dreaming you took it upon yourself to rape a child for the sake of pleasure? Would this be unethical, or more unethical than an unaware dream-self doing the same thing since a conscious decision to do the act was made, rather than an unconscious one? Or does it not matter because the child does not actually exist, the rape never actually happened, and ultimately no one is being hurt?

To put the question another way, is ethics inherently determined by the action or by the consequences it causes?

Your head may be yours, but it's also the place where no one is watching you and shows you for what you really are.

[Buckarama]

that's a little too convienant. I'm not responsable for my dreams. In real life we are given choices. You can choose to be immoral or not, in dreams I have very little control.

P.S. Digital porn is guilt free!

[Insomniac By Choice]

One of the options is lucid dreaming, and in that case you are responsible for your dreams.

The other is something most people probably wouldn't feel bad about, although you might argue the "unconsciousness" of it reveals your true self.

[Buckarama]

So then that opens the Nature or Nurture argument. If I'm responsable for my "True Self" when I'm dreaming and have no control, then there should be no insanity plea.

Even though you have no control you are still holding the persons responsible for actions they performed. So if, I'm standing on a ledge and the rock gives away and I fall and get hurt, I'm responsible. I had no control over those actions either, but I'd hardly say it had anything to do with my "true Self" that's like saying I wanted to fall off the cliff.

[Kil Tyme]

Bad or not so bad due to TC accepting this is a dream or not, what I find hardest about that scene is the end of Lena's innocence and trust at any moment. Then the escalating life changes of all involved: Atiaran and Trell, both doomed in a violent way eventually from this act as well as Triock. At one point hearing that TC had a message for the Lords, and before the rape scene, Trell says, "So, we are come on hard times."; little did anyone know that besides Foul, TC was the major catalyst for Hard Times.

Of course, as iquestor just pointed out, without the rape scene (and all that follows specifically thereof) the Chronicles would have been just another fant series.

[iQuestor]

insomniac said:

To be perfectly honest, the rape was pretty tame. I mean, I've read worse that were far less important to the plot, although not committed by the protagonist. I didn't think it was unrealistic at all, bad as the act itself was. But it's only a sin if Lena is real.

I would like to point out that there is a difference between the description of the rape in the text, and the actual rape (in the context of the story). Just because SRD didnt describe in detail how covenent Raped Lena, it doesnt make it any less horrible. Lena doesn't get up and say "Oh, that wasnt so bad, you seemed to have skipped the worse part..."

As far as dreaming, I think everyone who has dreamed has commited everything from adultery to murder. Actions count, not dreams.

If you are in a dream, and you think it is real, and you commit rape, you are morally responsible only to yourself.

If you are in RL, and think it is a dream, then you are morally responsible to society for your actions if proven you were sane and competent at the time of the action.

It is very grey area, just what SRD was going for.

[Insomniac By Choice]

iquestor, what I meant is that it wasn't the literary equivilent of Irreversible. As I remember it, the scene went "Covenant grabbed her, ripped her clothes off, raped her, she bled, then ran off crying". I mean, it was obviously a bad thing in the context of the story, but for people to actually put the story down because of it? It didn't indulge in details for sake of exploitation or even disgust, the event was just said to happen.

As for the argument that only actions count, not dreams, would you then be siding on the argument that it's a matter of consequences, not intent? I ask because if it's about effects, would failed attempts at bad things that hurt no one be perfectly ethical? If a woman tries to poison her husband and he never dies or even notices, was it wrong? Nothing bad happened, after all.

Of course the argument here is that it is an action in a dream, not the opposite of a dream.

[Buckarama]

No the poisoning is an intended act in the real world, remember at the time TC thought he was in a dream, can't harm some one that doesn't exsist.

An there lies the secret of the TCTC, guilt is the only true motivator. He did rape Lena and his guilt motivated him to save the land. So I think, TC agrees with you.

[Insomniac By Choice]

No, no, no. This is not specifically limited to Thomas Covenant or dreams. Dreams are related, but only because it's an example of intent without consequence.

I'm talking larger ethics. Is it the effect that makes something wrong, or the intent?

[wayfriend]

You guys are arguing a moot point: Covenant never said, hey, this is a dream, so it'll be okay if I rip your clothes off and ... he never considered whether it was a dream or not before he acted.