Rape in fiction

[world-dancer.livejournal.com]

Given the use of rape within this genre, and specifically LKH, to the point that threats of rape against the heroine are cliche, what do you think about its use/portrayal?

LKH frequently gives us large men threatening to overpower Anita, and Anita several times seems to escape and be given chances a man might not have been given just because someone has an interest in raping her.

And then we have the ardeur, which is a psychological compulsion outside of Anita which has been used to force her to have sex with multiple partners against her will. Is it rape?

Is Anita a rapist or a victim for what the ardeur makes her do to men? Should we be concerned about the men as her victims?

What about some other series?

Carrie Vaughn's Kitty starts out as a rape victim twice over, so that the physical attack that transforms a human to a werewolf could be a metaphor for it, as well as what happens in the rest of book one.

Kim Harrison's Ivy has the threat of rape hanging over her through the first several books (and her solitary short story) as it's her fate as part of her vampire family to eventually belong to the head vampire whether she likes it or not.

Charlaine Harris's Sookie is raped by Bill after a harrowing rescue gone wrong in book three. She offers him her body only to save her life, but it certainly isn't pleasant for her, and she breaks up with him after that point.

Vicki Petterssen's Johanna was raped as a teenager, sometime before the first book in an effort to corrupt or kill her.

Is it some kind of ultimate threat used against the heroine since she can't be killed or the series ends? Does it bring attention to the problem of rape, or does its use cheapen it, so that the real thing seems less horrific?

I've been mulling the issue over since the flog of the lastest comic issue that was posted here, and pointed out what a cliche it really is.

ETA: It seems the consensus is that rape can be well-written (which I won't disagree with), but that it's rarely done well, and LKH in particular is not doing it well at all.

Comments

[dwg.livejournal.com]

I love stoney321's break down of Twilight! It's funny and so very informative. I'll see your snark and raise you Kit Whitfield's blog about Twilight as a BDSM allegory (http://www.kitwhitfield.com/2009/08/innocent-libertinism.html). It's long, but so very worth it. Especially if you've read/seen New Moon.

A change from men being the physical aggressor to women being the physical aggressor is pretty distinct and says that there was a change in culture, and that's pretty darn interesting and generating plenty of talk.

I'm all for gender role reversal, but if a male protagonist that essentially assaults a weaker female character (but it's okay because it's True Love!) is so repugnant, I don't see why having a female aggressor that does the same to a male character is any less.

The flipside is that with this new breed of aggressive female protagonist comes the overly feminised male characters, which is just as insulting to men as the overly gruff, masculine Alpha dude that must protect his womenfolk.

Authors really do need to stop and think about what their characters are doing, because switching the genitalia around does not suddenly make everything equal. The same problems are still plaguing literature, it's just that now they wear a different face.

[world-dancer.livejournal.com]

hmmm. The computer ate my last reply. Let me try again.

"I'm all for gender role reversal, but if a male protagonist that essentially assaults a weaker female character (but it's okay because it's True Love!) is so repugnant, I don't see why having a female aggressor that does the same to a male character is any less."

It's not more or less repugnant. It's just interesting. To make things short: Women are taught not to be aggressive because it's not "good" whereas men are usually brought under a "boys will be boys" philosophy which excuses a lot of their aggressive and enthusiastic play. Women don't have this, and so aggression turns inward to the self, masochism usually results.

With Anita we do have a character trying to rise above the personal masochism (she's certainly in rebellion against social definitions of "good"). Unfortunately, she's failing because her version of rising above it is to imitate her abusers. She just doesn't seem to see any other way to power. She's rather the poster girl for "tried to escape and couldn't make it."

But the fact that she tried is interesting. The fact that she's showing women how to use aggression (even if not in the best ways) is interesting and refreshing. Even failure is good from the perspective of teaching others what didn't work. I personally think a lot of the current problems stem from LKH's failed and frustrated feminism. She wanted a way out of the trap, she tried, she just hasn't found it because she has/had power in the traditional structure and is unwilling to give up that power to escape (Think the classic Batman where Catwoman is dangling off a cliff, holding a bag of heavy jewels. She could be saved if she just let go of the bag, but she refuses because she values the jewels too much).

Thanks for the Twilight/Flowers in the Attic link. It was useful. I see your well-thoughtout deconstruction and raise you 2 pages of comics that encapsulate everything wrong with the series in 8 panels. And then I'm out. ;)

Twilight: http://headtripcomics.comicgenesis.com/d/20080505.html
Breaking Dawn: http://headtripcomics.comicgenesis.com/d/20080915.html