Kevin's Watch

Hello folks, new member here.

With the coming of the third Chronicles, I've decided (like many of you it seems) to begin rereading the first two chronicles. I'm only half-way into Lord Foul's Bane, but I find it interesting that I am much more disturbed by Covenant's crime against Lena, and the fact that Atiaran has to accompany the man who raped her daughter is very uncomfortable to me as I'm reading.

I'm wondering if this is a result of culture change over the last 20 some-odd years or a result of the change in me over the last couple of decades. Probably some combination of both.

- Eustace -

Welcome to the Watch!

This has come up many times - I believe that it's a personal change. I know that when I first read LFB, I was too young to fully understand the implications of rape, so the impact of Covenant's crime never really affected me and I never learned (as so many did) to hate Covenant. Now that I'm older, I understand more about the consequences of his early actions in the Land.

dlbpharmd wrote:Welcome to the Watch!

This has come up many times - I believe that it's a personal change. I know that when I first read LFB, I was too young to fully understand the implications of rape, so the impact of Covenant's crime never really affected me and I never learned (as so many did) to hate Covenant. Now that I'm older, I understand more about the consequences of his early actions in the Land.

Exactly, i was only 14 when i first read it, and the rape didnt seem that bad.

I think that one has always sat uncomfortably with most readers, myself included. It may be a bit too glib to say that Covenant believes it all to be a dream and is so overcome with returning feelings that he loses himself to a moment of madness....

it is also a pivotal moment in the whole 1st chronicles as it allows so many threads to unfold afterwards

tough call that one, you hate the guy but also feel for him..

Reading it 15 years later, the main thing that strikes me is how incredible the writing is, and the fact that I realized it when I was a teenager. I had pretty good taste back then! But seriously, I don't think I realized how good it was until struggling for nearly a decade on my own novel. SDR makes it look so easy.

I felt the same way. Especially now that I have daughters, I can also relate to how Trell felt as well.

Agreed, SJ - I have 2 small daughters myself - that's does change your perspective, doesn't it?

I agree. I was about 13-14 when I first read the books, and the rape was nothing to me then. When I reread the last time, it really hit me hard. I understand why many people can't get past it.

And as a 37-year-old father of a 10-year-old daughter, it hits me much differently now too.

I'd be curious as to how the female members feel about this. As a woman, I was appalled by it the first time around. In the passage "...He did not think about Lena;....He had violated her trust..." I was infuriated. He violated more than her trust, he violated her very being... her soul. I could barely stand to continue reading, and it took me until the third book to finally support Covenant.

An earlier comment was right though, so much developed in the story because of this one act of passion and evil.

I have never read a book with such a dark, complex and redeeming character as the lead. It is part of what draws me back again and again.

There are some excellent threads on this very topic. Try the search function in the menu under the banner, and feel free to revive them.

--A

People's reaction to the rape is an interesting subject to me, because:

I felt no hatred for covenant, nor sympathy for Lena because of the rape.

The reason for this could be because I read the story rather than lived the story, if you know what I mean. At no point during the first chronicles did I feel like I was within the story, I was always just reading it from outside.

Alternatively, it might be because I read the story to be entertained, not to be sent a message. I'm not sure, but I think a lot of people seem to read fiction with the intent of discovering a "hidden meaning" in stories. I can't see the point of that, I've tried analysing, in GCSE English, it was the most boring thing I've ever done in my life.

So it always amazes me that people stop reading because someone got raped. It's fiction. Can someone explain it to me?

Not much. I approach fiction pretty much the same way. I read the story, not the underlying "theme" if any.

--A

I thought SRD did a pretty good job of, so to speak, pre-selling the rape. He laid it on fairly thick in the first couple of chapters about Covenant's impotence and the despair it induced in him. And it was pretty obvious that Lena was playing with fire, so to speak, and didn't know it was hot.

If I had been in such a situation, I wouldn't have done what Covenant did; I'd probably have bellowed at Lena until she ran away in terror. The fact that an attractive young girl was being nice to me would, all by itself, have been enough to convince me that the Land was a fever dream. Does not compute — not to me. So I could understand Covenant coming rather heavily unstuck at that juncture.

Doesn't mean I condone it. But I give SRD maximum credit for not shirking any of the consequences. In Runes, after 6500 years have gone by, we still see the outcome of that act at work in the Land.

As a woman I also agree that the rape did not really affect me in particular, it was Covenant's whole attitude that annoyed me. I also only began to support him in the 3rd book and supported him totally in the 2nd Chronicles while actively disliking Linden. Why are so many of the characters in the Chronicles so self-righteous and irritating?

The Modest Gentleman wrote:People's reaction to the rape is an interesting subject to me, because:

I felt no hatred for covenant, nor sympathy for Lena because of the rape.

The reason for this could be because I read the story rather than lived the story, if you know what I mean. At no point during the first chronicles did I feel like I was within the story, I was always just reading it from outside.

Alternatively, it might be because I read the story to be entertained, not to be sent a message. I'm not sure, but I think a lot of people seem to read fiction with the intent of discovering a "hidden meaning" in stories. I can't see the point of that, I've tried analysing, in GCSE English, it was the most boring thing I've ever done in my life.

So it always amazes me that people stop reading because someone got raped. It's fiction. Can someone explain it to me?

I also read to be entertained, yet the idea of rape disgusts me whenever I read about it, whether in a work of fiction or a non-fiction such as a research report or media article. That disgust doesn't necessarily stop me from reading on, but I still feel it and did so even when I first read the Chronicles at the age of 13. Different people react differently to different things I guess.

The rape is a disturbing part of the book however, the one thing that redeems TC, in my eyes at least, is that he spends the rest of the books guilt-ridden and recognizing his crime. He does not go merrily along his way never looking back. He really berates himself over and over again. He is even so disgusted with himself directly after the rape that he vomits into the river. It also seems to me that he asks for punishment for it. He does not want the people of the Land to forgive him or accept his actions simply because he is the white gold. He wants them to see him as he really is: a leper in more than just body.

I agree, the fact that he punishes himself for it over and over does partially redeem him. I think that is also why he took personal responsibilty for Elena's death. Yes he got the answer out of the bloodguard, but Elena would have done the same I am sure. Her lust for the Seventh ward was very great.

When asked about this scene, SRD commented that "Tortured characters do tortured things." I thought that always summed it up very nicely. TC is a very tortured man.

And I think it's his torturedness that made me carry on reading. Bubblegum heroes are all very well, but do very little to stimulate the mind. Thomas Covenant managed to engage both my intellect and my emotions, and still does.

Hmmm, maybe it's time to start my six-monthly re-read.

And it's good to see you caamora.

As somebody with a very close relationship to a rape victim, I can say that I wasn't disgusted or repelled by Covenant's crime. What strikes me about rape is the disparity between act and consequence - it can be committed so quickly and spontaneously, but the victim may never recover. The depiction of it in LFB seemed spot-on, to me; the act is a moment of madness, but as others have said, the consequences of that act are almost endless. In that sense, I think it's a perfect allegory of rape as a real-world fact.

I still wonder whether SRD really only added the early rape scene as a way to say 'Folks, this AIN'T the Shire' - but I think it stands up anyway.