Kevin's Watch

This is a response to that insipid post on the gradual interview by the entity calling itself "Akaya".
Maybe you should have checked with your feminist-cult friends BEFORE you bought those five books. If you find they're too potent for your lily-white, dewy-eyed, hypersensitive epidermis it doesn't hurt Donaldson one tiny bit AFTER you spent those hard earned babysitting pennies on his books, does it! WOMYN...go figure.

You know, I read your post thinking that "great, someone sent some kind of crazy rant about why the Chronicles are crap because of Lena's rape to SRD for the gradual interview." Upon actually reading the post, it turned out to be more sensible than you make it seem. Her implication that if Covenant doesn't learn some kind of moral by the end of the story then the entire series is no longer worth reading is a bit irritating, but I don't think it's anything on the scale of what you're ranting about.

This is the question that is being referred to above:

Akaya: This may not be something you want to respond to online, but I thought I'd ask. I recently (on the advice of a fan or yours I met in my local S-F bookstore) bought the entire Thomas Covenant series. I'm in the first part of "Lord Foul's Bane" (which I have been completely enjoying) and have come to the part where Thomas rapes Lena, the young woman who saves his life. He is now about to set off on his journey led by her mother Atiaran (upon whose wisdom and experience I assume he will be dependent). Before I decide what I will do with the remaining 5 books, it would be helpful to me if you would tell me if Thomas recognizes his violent betrayal of Lena beyond his sense that Lena "purchased precious time for him" (in not speaking of her violation). "Clearly the people of this Land were prepared to make sacrifices --". Does he return to her and make restitution?

I would like to assure you earnestly that during the course of the first "Covenant" trilogy he has his nose rubbed deeply in the consequences of his crime against Lena, that he learns to understand just how vile his actions have been, and that he does put his feet on the road to redemption.

HowEVer--

The author may not be the ideal person to respond to your concerns, feeling (as he does) a fairly natural human desire to justify himself. You might get more useful answers from fellow readers. May I suggest that you post your concerns on kevinswatch.com? The good people there will give you honest reactions from a wide variety of perspectives.

(09/11/2004)

This "Akaya" has asked SRD a relevent question about his/her interpretation of 1st Chronicles, as is his/her right to do. I hope that this person does come here to KW to address the concerns spoken of in the question.

What concerns me is the chauvinistic crap that is apparent in the first post. There is no place for this sort of nonsense on the Watch.

UrLord wrote:Her implication that if Covenant doesn't learn some kind of moral by the end of the story then the entire series is no longer worth reading is a bit irritating...

I'm not sure that wouldn't be a legitimate view. But it's possible that Akaya's didn't mean it that way. I'm having a tough time trying to put it into words. Put it this way: I can't watch Schindler's List or Passion. I think both movies are extremely worthwhile. I think people should know what they are about. But I just can't bear to watch them. (I left S's L not too far into it, and won't even bother with Passion because I know it will be too much for me.) Maybe Akaya isn't commenting on whether or not the story might be worthwhile in any number of ways, even if Covenant turns out to be a despicable person in the long run.

I agree with Fist... And after all, at least as far as I know, having spoken to more than one person who started reading the Covenant chronicles and dumped them after the rape scene, that is probably the greatest moral "obstacle" a new reader faces on them - we've seen lots of anti-heroes in movies and literature by now, but still, reading about this guy with whom you can't fully empathize yet (it's just a few chapters since first you met him) committing such an act can (and does) leave several readers aghast. As I said, more than one person I know stopped reading the Chronicles after reading about the rape - usually on the assumption that such an obviously vile character is disgusting, personally offensive, not worth reading about, and so on.

Alas, as we all know, there's no middle ground when one first reads the Chronicles - you either love them or hate them! In this regard, this "Akaya" person actually has decided to ask the author himself rather than simply dumping the whole Chronicles, which is refreshing - personally, I find it's a wiser thing to do than simply to give up

I suppose I agree with you there, Xar... Though the obvious solution to me would be to keep reading and find out

politically_incorrect wrote:This is a response to that insipid post on the gradual interview by the entity calling itself "Akaya".
Maybe you should have checked with your feminist-cult friends BEFORE you bought those five books. If you find they're too potent for your lily-white, dewy-eyed, hypersensitive epidermis it doesn't hurt Donaldson one tiny bit AFTER you spent those hard earned babysitting pennies on his books, does it! WOMYN...go figure.

Goodness. And I thought I was having a grouchy day.

As I said, more than one person I know stopped reading the Chronicles after reading about the rape - usually on the assumption that such an obviously vile character is disgusting, personally offensive, not worth reading about, and so on.

That's probably the reason, yes.
However: There is nothing before (or after, if they'd decided to read on) the rape that would lead you to believe that Covenant is the kind of vile character a rapist would be.
It's more likely that people stop reading not because they reason that such a vile character is not worthy of their readership, but because reading about a rape offends their sense of morality. Some people seem to think that by reading a rape in a fiction book they are somehow responsible for a rape taking place, and this makes them feel guilty and they stop reading it.

I like to think of Lena's rape as the "filter chapter". Filters out all the people too weak to wade through SRD's impending romp through morality, philosophy, psychology, and so on.

Nathan wrote:There is nothing before (or after, if they'd decided to read on) the rape that would lead you to believe that Covenant is the kind of vile character a rapist would be.

For the records, there are plenty of rapists out there who are not the 'vile' people that the act would portray them as. The act is vile, they are vile, but you'd never know it. They hide it quite well, believe me... so I was not very surprised to find TC was a rapist and one that doesn't learn (in essence) from it. Do they ever?????

I disagree with your comments that Covenant did not "learn" from the rape of Lena. Throughout the Chronicles, that one act came back to haunt him repeatedly.

I didn't like the way Lena didn't tell anyone.

She should have hunted him down and battered him with sticks.

I tend to argee with dlbpharmd there. What was the name of his first book? Or I Will Sell My Soul for Guilt? Perhaps he did just that...

I thought it was a good question. Not wanting to be subject to such imagery is not a sign of wrong-headedness, over-sensitivity, or even weakness. It just shows the person knows themself and their limits and there's nothing wrong with that. I'll go with Xar, it's a good idea to ask the author.

It's more likely that people stop reading not because they reason that such a vile character is not worthy of their readership, but because reading about a rape offends their sense of morality. Some people seem to think that by reading a rape in a fiction book they are somehow responsible for a rape taking place, and this makes them feel guilty and they stop reading it.

I'd question that. Judging from reaction here and my own feelings, I'd say people stop reading 1) because they strongly dislike the character and want nothing to do with him (not an unreasonable reaction, and one that people often seem to have in real life to ciminals) and 2) it is too disturbing to continue, just as some movies, like Schindler's List or The Passion are too disturbing for some. I doubt anyone feels "responsible" for any of the things they read or see in fiction, though I would hope a rape, murder, or other heinously wrong act would offend anyone's sense of morality, whether or not they kept reading a book or watching a movie.

I doubt anyone feels "responsible" for any of the things they read or see in fiction, though I would hope a rape, murder, or other heinously wrong act would offend anyone's sense of morality, whether or not they kept reading a book or watching a movie.

I suggested this because both my sister and my step-mother feel responsile for things they read about. My step-mum especially works herself into a frenzy over such things as terrorist attacks, murders, rapings etc. But she doesn't worry about them if she doesn't read them, even though she knows they're happening. A fictional rape wouldn't make any difference to her, it wuold probably be worse, because by reading the rape she is forcing it to happen. Without her reading it, it wouldn't happen except in the 'disgusting mind of the author'.

Well, I have to give Akaya an applause. [insert applause emoticon here]

Agree or disagree, how many people, part way into a novel, have the gumption to call up the author and task him on his story?

Damn!

I stand corrected I obviously hadn't taken your step-mom into account...

Agree or disagree, how many people, part way into a novel, have the gumption to call up the author and task him on his story?

Reason #43593 that the internet is pretty darn cool.