Page 1 of 2
The proper sin
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:55 am
by shadowbinding shoe
When Thomas Covenant meets with Lena in LFB he is overcome with desire for her (after being healed of his leprosy) and rapes her.
Would you have preferred if the sin Donadson chose for him would have been different? i.e. a non-sexual crime? Would you then consider him a less reprehensible character? Would you say his crime then was less shocking and foul?
Would more readers have been willing to read the books then?
He could have been enraged by her similarity to the slutty teen-aged girls from his town and started beating her or plain killing her for tempting him / taunting him.
She would have been found by Triok like in the books and he would have confronted Covenant and Atiaran after they left the village like he does in the books.
This pole is brought about by the American attitudes on rape as the uber-crime of them all, and its effect on the Covenant books
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:03 am
by iQuestor
SRD wrote the books the way he did for a specific reason. The rape of lena was shocking, and that effect is fundamental to the books. That action has consequences that reach through the end of the second chronicles, and perhaps even into the third.
That he raped her was an extended consequence of his leprosy -- he had been impotent for ten years, then is magically healed. He is suddenly healthy and , since he (beleives) he is in a dream, his normal inhibitions were overcome by his lust. It takes him awhile to begin to regret that act, and he spends the rest of the series punishing himself for it. And answering the consequences of it.
You cant get that effect with murder, or beating, or any other crime. I beleive SRD has alluded that all evil acts are the same, differing only by degrees, and rape being the highest. Therefore he had TC commit the most despicable thing he could possibly do.
While I cant say what my reaction would have been if he had acted differently, I can say the effect would have been less shocking, and the climax of the series (TCs redemtion of himself and defeat of despite) less satisisfying.
In my opinion, to wish that this fundamental scene were different is to wish for a completely different book to have been written. And I , for one, dont wish that at all.
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:59 am
by treebeard
I agree iQuestor. My first reading of LFB was back in the 70's and at that time, in my mid 20's, a father of two small children and whilst being appalled that the rape occurred, I could see why I was drawn into reading the Chrons from that point on. A murder, bashing or other heinous crime would not have given the series the foundation to build on. Rape remain as abhorrent to me now as a grandfather. There are many reasons that can be put forward as a defense to murder. Notwithstanding the arguments of clever lawyers, one can't think of many for rape.
The series stands as a masterwork on many levels. To suggest that there were more suitable constructs to Covenant's nightmare would, to me, make the story far less palatable. The fact that Covenant responded to his impossible situation with a most callous and selfish act thus damning him across milennia could not be replicated in a scenario giving him any number of ways to justify his actions.
Sorry mate, can't accept the alternatives.
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:07 am
by amanibhavam
I will not vote on this as it makes no sense for me... if no rape, then the consequences would've been entirely different... no Elena, for instance.
Rape for me is no more heinous than, say, murder... and not because I am chauvinist male or something. Rape is not about sex, it is about control and violence, and I judge it in that context.
But the text wouldn't work with any other crime for me... if only because rape is also a metaphor for what is happening to the Land, what is happening to Covenant.
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:18 pm
by [Syl]
Answering this poll makes me feel... soiled. So I won't.
But I believe, and agree, that it couldn't be other than it is. I doubt SRD went through 30 rejection slips without considering changing it, but in the end...
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:13 pm
by Mr. Broken
As a component of the story the rape is neccessary in establishing Covenants identity as the main character. SRD wanted us to question his actions, wanted us to be torn between our sympathy for his plight, and our horror at his crimes. He wanted us to know that Covenant was capable of desecration, so that we wouldnt be able to guess what he would do next. So that in our minds he would be as much of a threat to the Land, as he was a possible hope for the Land. After the fact even Covenant was horrified at his actions, questioned his own nature.
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:20 pm
by dlbpharmd
Agree with Iquestor's excellent post.
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:36 pm
by Seeker of Truth
iQuestor wrote:SRD wrote the books the way he did for a specific reason. The rape of lena was shocking, and that effect is fundamental to the books. That action has consequences that reach through the end of the second chronicles, and perhaps even into the third.
That he raped her was an extended consequence of his leprosy -- he had been impotent for ten years, then is magically healed. He is suddenly healthy and , since he (beleives) he is in a dream, his normal inhibitions were overcome by his lust. It takes him awhile to begin to regret that act, and he spends the rest of the series punishing himself for it. And answering the consequences of it.
You cant get that effect with murder, or beating, or any other crime. I beleive SRD has alluded that all evil acts are the same, differing only by degrees, and rape being the highest. Therefore he had TC commit the most despicable thing he could possibly do.
While I cant say what my reaction would have been if he had acted differently, I can say the effect would have been less shocking, and the climax of the series (TCs redemtion of himself and defeat of despite) less satisisfying.
In my opinion, to wish that this fundamental scene were different is to wish for a completely different book to have been written. And I , for one, dont wish that at all.
well said
...... and I concur !!
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:35 pm
by High Lord Tolkien
I wish he wrote it in a way that TC just made love to her in a fit of lust that Lena also felt but that the WM within TC made Lena crazy.
And that was the source of TC's guilt.
That way we'd have Lena still being crazy and Elena still being born out of wedlock (make that an oddity in the Land) and still having the same childhood, horserite......still be messed up.
That way I could recommend the book without all those disclaimers.
"Yeah, it's great. It's about a leper, yeah a leper....I don't know, numb fingers or something yeah, that gets transported to another magical beautiful land where he rapes a young girl but then....hey wait, don't walk away....."
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:52 pm
by amanibhavam
You know what? If anyone walks away from these books just because of that, then I'd say, well, their loss.
Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 2:01 am
by Blackhawk
where is the "Lena kicked him in the groin and left him throwing up on the bank of the mithil" button?
out of the three i would say the rape would be most crucial to the story line...if he killed Lena , Elena would have to be replaced ...and that would also take away the daughter factor to Covenant. not to mention Trells and Atiarans participation, and Triock would have ended the story quick.. and mutilating her would just be the act of a violent person who maimed a 16 year old girl with no cause...Lust is a concept that they understood but it seems they never had to deal with an actual rape because of that emotion.
wow...11 votes for the original..looks unanimous so far.
LOL highlord Tolkien.... I think thats a good alternative...maybe you should sell it that way more people will bite. instead of saying...rape..replace it with..makes love..they might get turned off still because she is 16 though
Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:34 am
by shadowbinding shoe
The rape was not in fact the big crime that you all make it out to be. It was how it was treated that made it so monstrous. Lena doesn't go mad because she was raped, she goes mad because she tries to forgive Covenant for it. Nobody except for Triok (and Trell maybe) wants to look this crime in its face. They want Covenant to be their savior knight on white horse and so they force someone like Trell to abide Covenant's presence in the same building, hearing everyone praise Covenant as the hope of the earth and so on. Lena's family are not only victims, they're also treated as the guilty party in the whole affair. They should like him and befriend him because, he's the Land's hero. It's no accident that Triok who behaves most normally about the whole affair is also the one who is least warped by it.
I wasn't suggesting a different crime would have made the books better. If you wondered, I really love Donaldson's writing.
But would Lena and her family have been less traumatized if instead of raping her Covenant would have beat her up (and I think the story could have easily turned in that direction) and gave her some disfiguring scars? The key difference would have been that Elena would have to be replaced or changed. We could have had them sleeping consensually and then have him beat her. How would that change the story I wonder?
The assertion that it should have been rape because that was the most shocking crime possible to write is looking at it backwards. Should rape be more shocking to us than murder or disfiguring? To know that someone thinks that while rape is a big no-no, murder (or disfiguring?) could be justified should scare us and cause us outrage. Are 'I didn't like her looks' / 'She annoyed me' better reasons than 'But I really like her' / 'She wanted me'? They are both despicable reasons and let us remember that while the trauma of rape could be healed murder and disfigurement cannot.
Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:35 am
by iQuestor
here is a quote from the gradula interview about the rape:
wrathex: Mr Donaldson, thank you for the Covenant series,it is indeed a literary treasure. I would like to know why Covenant had to rape ? His character as a leper already puts all the hardcore emotions
needed at his disposal. The rape scene has desturbed me continually on a very personal level. I don't want to feel sorry for a rapist, I do not
want to forgive a rapist and I do not want him to be loved. Apart from murder, I think rape is the most selfish and destructive act against another human. No amount of 'alanthia'or 'hurtloam' can ever heal one who has been raped. Nevertheless, your insight into human emotions are
clearly visible in your writing, and I suspect that your experiences in India touched you deeply.
When I turn the last page of Thomas Covenant one day, I will mourn, for the beauty and possibilities of love therein has impressed me and I hope that I will find the strength to forgive those who defile. *I doubt it though.
<sigh> This keeps coming up. And God knows I can understand why. But I always want to ask: how have I failed to demonstrate a) the thematic revelance (even the thematic necessity) of Covenant's crime? and b) the enduring consequences of such violence? You say, "His character as a leper already puts all the hardcore emotions needed at his disposal." I disagree. In my view, "his character as a leper" casts him in the role of "victim"--and that is decidedly *not* where I want him. I want the reader to see that he is in truth a potential Despiser; or that he has already assumed the role of the Despiser. Otherwise there's no story.
A bit of narrative theory. (All such theories have severe limitations, but they also offer useful insights.) There are really only three roles that a character can play in a story: Victim, Victimizer, and Rescuer. And what makes the difference between what I think of as Real Stories and mere plot spinning is this: in a Real Story, characters change roles because of what happens to them. So Covenant starts out as a pure Victim. But I happen to think that being a Victim (or even thinking of oneself as a Victim) naturally inclines a person to become a Victimizer. Being cast in the role of Victim is morally damaging; and that damage tends to breed a desire to impose Victim-hood on someone else. Hence the rape of Lena.
To my way of thinking, however, the really interesting question is not how a Victim becomes a Victimizer, but rather how either a Victim or a Victimizer becomes a Rescuer. How does a human being find the resources to step away from that kind of damage (Victim or Victimizer) in order to become the opponent of damage? This theme manifests itself in one form or another in virtually everything I write.
(Sidebar: of course, there are plenty of Real Stories out there that deal with how Rescuers become Victims or Victimizers. But that doesn't seem to be my natural theme.)
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." Speaking purely for myself, I've been on the receiving end of metaphorical "rapes" many times. Sometimes I've engaged in such actions myself, with or without provocation. Sometimes I've responded to the "rape" by holding myself to a higher standard of conduct--but I've done so entirely without forgiving the "rapist." And sometimes, just sometimes, I've both held myself to a higher standard of conduct *and* learned how to forgive my "rapist." (Which is, of course, the only road that leads to the place where I might be able to forgive myself.) Considering my own actions, I can only hope that the people I've "raped" (deliberately or inadvertently) will find it in their hearts to forgive *me*.
(06/16/2005)
The bold statements are my emphasis. As I have written before, SRD has said that Rape is a metaphor for all forms of violence and betrayal. He has said that was exactly why he used it, that the rape was the pentultimate act of despite Covenant could possibly commit in the Land. The Rape is significant as a metaphor, and not just the physical act -- I think you are missing SRD's whole point. There were two outcomes possible, TC could save or damn the Land. TC's rape of Lena left no doubt that Damning the Land was a distinct possibility, even moreso that mere beating or even murder could do.
In some cases, the act of doing physical violence or even killing is justified, say in acts of self defense or defense of others, your home, etc. (Certainly not in the case we are talking about with Lena. ) Rape is NEVER EVER justified. Ever. Therefore, the crime of rape is the best metaphor he could have possibly used.
Aliantha and hurtloam can heal phyisical wounds, disfiguring scars and the like. and the people of the Land are used to having grevious hurts healed magically, so I have no doubt that Covenant beating her would have had near the effect of rape. The people of the Land, due to the Oath of Peace, probably hadn't even experiences of rape or senseless violence.
The rape was not in fact the big crime that you all make it out to be. It was how it was treated that made it so monstrous.
Wounds can be healed. Rape disfigures the mind, and rarely is ever healed.
The assertion that it should have been rape because that was the most shocking crime possible to write is looking at it backwards. Should rape be more shocking to us than murder or disfiguring? To know that someone thinks that while rape is a big no-no, murder (or disfiguring?) could be justified should scare us and cause us outrage. Are 'I didn't like her looks' / 'She annoyed me' better reasons than 'But I really like her' / 'She wanted me'? They are both despicable reasons and let us remember that while the trauma of rape could be healed murder and disfigurement cannot.
Well, let me say I for one
absolutely disagree with you here. The fact that your poll so far (11-0) is unanimous that rape was the best possible choice of crime to get SRD's point across is also indicative.
Also, remember that LFB came out 30 years ago. Rape was indeed very shocking then (it still is in Fantasy, its just not done) but people getting killed or beaten happen in virtually every story that has any violence.
You seem to think rape isn't such a bad crime compared to a beating or murder. Rape is indeed held to be more shocking than beating, and is considered by many to be worse than murder. You seem to think that once the physical wounds of rape are healed, the person is just OK again. NOT SO. People get over mere beatings, though I admit some beatings will leave psychological scars, rape always does. Always.
One quote of TC's in the chrons sticks with me:
The best way to hurt a man who has lost everything is to give him something back broken.
To me, Rape is like that -- it is taking away someone's choice in the most intimate thing they possess, the most intimate gift that could ever give another human, and then ruin it for them for the rest of their life. They have taken that gift away from them for all time.
I am not saying beating, disfiguring isnt bad, even horrible, it is. But rape is different kind of violation. I know women who would rather be beaten than raped. Many, rather die than be raped. It is a fundamental violation. And rape cannot be healed in the mind, while physical wounds can. I daresay most, if not all women on this site would absolutely disagree with your statements here on rape.
Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 12:21 pm
by shadowbinding shoe
Maybe I'm wrong. I can only theorize on what it would feel like to be raped as compared to other things like being beaten up. I don't have personal experience.
Still, the assertion that only rape would leave psychological / spiritual scars on you seems wrong to me. You're not just physically injured when you are beaten up. You are emotionally injured as well to some degree or another. You get the same sense of helplessness in both cases. Of being made to violate your self-dignity.
Most aggressive injurious actions are aimed not only to the physical level. They are almost always connected with an attempt to wound spiritually as well.
Would Lena have felt like nothing has happened to her if instead of raping her Covenant had started kicking her again and again for half an hour? Even after she would have been healed with hurtloam she would have been emotionally scarred.
By the way one of the reasons why this poll is unanimous is because I voted for the rape option myself. I wasn't questioning Donaldson's choice, I was questioning our view of it.
Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 12:37 pm
by iQuestor
Still, the assertion that only rape would leave psychological / spiritual scars on you seems wrong to me. You're not just physically injured when you are beaten up. You are emotionally injured as well to some degree or another. You get the same sense of helplessness in both cases. Of being made to violate your self-dignity.
I said:
though I admit some beatings will leave psychological scars
My assertion was that rape almost always leaves severe and deep emotional scars and was a metaphor for the ultimate act of betrayal and despite, wheras beatings and even murder were more physical than emotional. Rape was a more apt metaphor for SRD's goal than mere violence, and had more shock value.
I agree when a man beats a woman it does leave emotional scars, and sure, it is shocking, but not as severely as rape would in most cases. (of course, (almost) nothing is absolute. )
Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:02 pm
by shadowbinding shoe
I suppose we're in (relative) agreement. Thanks for the GI quotes. It's a good point that desecration has more similar connotations to rape than to other concepts like beaten or even torture.
Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:20 pm
by wayfriend
shadowbinding shoe wrote:The rape was not in fact the big crime that you all make it out to be.
Oh yes, it was!
You have to consider that the crime did not happen in our world, but in the Land. Which, in the preceding pages, was successfully painted as a good and innocent place, almost utopian. Rape was as foreign to them as nuclear weapons. No one thought twice of Lena and a stranger heading out alone in the dark, something that in our world would ring alarm bells. Covenant's crime was, from their eyes, too heinous to be contemplated -- until it happened. Not even Ravers have gone so far as to rape someone.
Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 2:06 pm
by shadowbinding shoe
Rape was as foreign to them as nuclear weapons.
Strangely enough all they talk about is the Ritual of Desecration which is similar to an ultra powerful atomic bomb.
No one thought twice of Lena and a stranger heading out alone in the dark, something that in our world would ring alarm bells.
I thought Triok had a bad feeling about it.
Not even Ravers have gone so far as to rape someone.
I'd say possession is the ultimate form of rape. It is described in this way numerous times in the books. But being inhuman non-corporeal beings, I don't think the Ravers were interested in participating in human sexual rituals.
Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 2:31 pm
by iQuestor
SS said:
I'd say possession is the ultimate form of rape. It is described in this way numerous times in the books. But being inhuman non-corporeal beings, I don't think the Ravers were interested in participating in human sexual rituals.
that is an excellent point. Possession would be a worse form of violation than physical rape. The only thing I would add is the ravers at the end of WGW was threatening to rape Linden while another possessed her:
in WGW:
"Ravers."
...
Two of them: creatures of scree and detritus from the roots of the mountain. They were nearly as tall as Giants, but broader....
One stood over Covenant to prevent him from rising. The other confronted Linden. It reache dfor her. Her face streched to scream, but even her screams were paralyzed. ...
With a gentleness worse than any violence, the creature reached to unbutton her shirt.
Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 4:35 pm
by Rocksister
It could not have happened any other way. There would be no Elena, no shame, no self-punishment, less bitterness, and the contrast between that and what he went back to in his own world is what set him up for the next visit's outlook. The fact that he was healed in the Land, thereby negating all he had fought so hard to live with the past several years as a leper, is the fundamental reason he struggled so hard to fight against his responsibility in the Land. He didn't believe it; it was a paradox. Either be an impotent leper or a healthy man, not one this day and the other the next. He was BOTH, and therefore a paradox himself. It just compounds from here, and I'll go crazy if I say more.