I didn't find that aspect of Nathaniel implausible. I could have ended up in a very different place, but for a chance meeting with someone I ended up caring deeply for, who was rather disturbed by anything remotely associated with BDSM. I got a chance to pull back and think about what I wanted and why I'd do such and such, etc.
So as I've said, I thought Anita was going to give Nathaniel a chance to find out who he was and if he even wanted to keep doing what he'd been doing. I applauded it. Little did I know what the future would hold.
In the same vein as your comment, my biggest peeve as concerns BDSM in her novels is Richard. Richard seems a prime candidate for someone who's been on the bad end of sexual abuse / power imbalance who would make the perfect top due to extreme attentiveness.
Except that while Richard apparently starts off disturbed that he might have sadistic tendencies and want to see other people in pain - even being the person causing them something most other people would call 'pain' - he doesn't grow. He doesn't seem to reconcile what he's seen of attentive tops when he was JC's hostage and anything else he's seen in general into an opposing viewpoint for who Gabriel and Raina were.
Of course some of this may be intentional. If Richard grew along those lines, he might come to see ruling over his pack as being a Dom; discipline where necessary even if it includes pain they don't like. Then he wouldn't be the book's stock punching bag.
I'm fumbling a bit for the analogy right now. But I can clearly see in my head where an outgrowth of Richard's sexuality would be in his leadership abilities.
There would be no 'democratic experiment' simply 'this is the way things are now'. And that way may even include choices, but it wouldn't repudiate the power given to him as/for being the strongest.
Can you tell I honestly thought there was a purpose behind the BDSM elements in her books? Can I just say that 'sorely disappointed' doesn't cover it?
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-05-11 11:41 pm (UTC)So as I've said, I thought Anita was going to give Nathaniel a chance to find out who he was and if he even wanted to keep doing what he'd been doing. I applauded it. Little did I know what the future would hold.
In the same vein as your comment, my biggest peeve as concerns BDSM in her novels is Richard. Richard seems a prime candidate for someone who's been on the bad end of sexual abuse / power imbalance who would make the perfect top due to extreme attentiveness.
Except that while Richard apparently starts off disturbed that he might have sadistic tendencies and want to see other people in pain - even being the person causing them something most other people would call 'pain' - he doesn't grow. He doesn't seem to reconcile what he's seen of attentive tops when he was JC's hostage and anything else he's seen in general into an opposing viewpoint for who Gabriel and Raina were.
Of course some of this may be intentional. If Richard grew along those lines, he might come to see ruling over his pack as being a Dom; discipline where necessary even if it includes pain they don't like. Then he wouldn't be the book's stock punching bag.
I'm fumbling a bit for the analogy right now. But I can clearly see in my head where an outgrowth of Richard's sexuality would be in his leadership abilities.
There would be no 'democratic experiment' simply 'this is the way things are now'. And that way may even include choices, but it wouldn't repudiate the power given to him as/for being the strongest.
Can you tell I honestly thought there was a purpose behind the BDSM elements in her books? Can I just say that 'sorely disappointed' doesn't cover it?