Sensitive Subject Matter in Fiction

[Wiendish Fitch]

In the Unpopular Opinions thread, a few posters (myself included) expressed disgust at how cheaply exploitative the Rape as Drama trope tends to be in fiction. Fiction can, of course, be a productive and unique platform for addressing sensitive subject matter, whether it's sexual violence, race relations, politics, etc. Sometimes it's successful, sometimes it's not, so for those who want to share how fiction, old or new, addresses controversial subject matter. Since "sensitive" is the key word here, let's be tasteful in how we express our opinions, and be respectful of others (but that goes without saying). My own thoughts, taken from the UO thread:

Quote

I haven't loved all of Robin McKinley's stuff (I find she can be humorless and long-winded), but I've got to hand it to her: she loves her May/December romances, but she handles them well (for the most part), and in Deerskin, rape not only has bearing on the plot, but the consequences are dealt with, and the victim isn't treated like an emotional prop.

 

[OtterMommy]

I think it is a little tricky.  There is value in depicting rape for what it is--a horrible crime based in power.  Now, more often than not, it is romanticized or brushed off as something someone just "got over" (I'm speaking not just about books, but about TV).  That is something that I just can't abide.  However, an honest look at the crime and its consequences is something that I think should be addressed (again, not just in literature...)

[Spartan Girl]

I agree that some authors use this subject too lightly and romanticize it.  I cannot stand those books.

It is possible to demonstrate the issue in shades of gray without brushing it off to the side.  One example I can think of is Tiger Hills by Sarita Mandanna.  I don't know if anyone has ever read it, but fair warning, it is a novel that is not for the faint of heart.  Anyway, without going too much into plot details, the assault that happens in the book has MASSIVE consequences for everyone involved and their next generation.

I did read Deerskin, BTW and it was BRUTAL.  As you said, it dealt with what happened and the consequences were handled adequately and realistically, but it wasn't really a book I could read again, 

Edited June 15, 2018 by Spartan Girl

[Katy M]

On 6/14/2018 at 2:05 PM, OtterMommy said:

I think it is a little tricky.  There is value in depicting rape for what it is--a horrible crime based in power.  Now, more often than not, it is romanticized or brushed off as something someone just "got over" (I'm speaking not just about books, but about TV).  That is something that I just can't abide.  However, an honest look at the crime and its consequences is something that I think should be addressed (again, not just in literature...)

I read a book eons ago. Unfortunately I can't remember the title or the author.  Sorry.  But, anyway, the main character is a romance novelist.  At the beginning of the book she states that some fans have wanted the "hero" to rape the main character and she said that if he rapes them, he is NOT a hero.  Fully agree with that.  However, later in the book, she herself wishes this man would rape her.  In her slight defense, she didn't actually have him do it. But, she basically validated the "rape is romantic" theme, which is just awful.  and, it's too bad, because otherwise I really enjoyed the book.  I think. It was so long ago.

Even worse, last year, I read The White Raven by Diana Paxson.  There was a character who raped another character repeatedly who told her she would come to enjoy it.  And she did!!!! That book was complete trash.

 

[dubbel zout]

Diana Gabaldon in her Outlander series uses rape as a plot point, and when she gets called on it, she basically shrugs and says, "It's historically accurate." UGH. That doesn't mean every main character in the book has to be raped. I've stopped reading her because of this (and the fact that her books go on and on and on, without an editor in sight). I'm sure she's shaken to the core.

[Ohiopirate02]

36 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

Diana Gabaldon in her Outlander series uses rape as a plot point, and when she gets called on it, she basically shrugs and says, "It's historically accurate." UGH. That doesn't mean every main character in the book has to be raped. I've stopped reading her because of this (and the fact that her books go on and on and on, without an editor in sight). I'm sure she's shaken to the core.

I read the first few books of that series at least a decade ago, and quit because she desperately needs an editor.  I tried to go back and reread the first, and had to bail because there is no narrative need for Jamie to get raped by the evil bisexual Black Jack Randall.  Talk about a double whammy, rape as a plot point and a queer villain.  I can read books like Roxane Gay's An Untamed State or Kate Elizabeth Russell's My Dark Vanessa where rape is a central part of the story because the story cannot be told without.  For me, rape should only happen in a book if there is no other way to tell the story.  It should not be used for character development, to illustrate the barbarity of the setting, or to show why a person is evil.  Also, I welcome queer characters in my books when it makes sense in the narrative.  I don't want them there to fill an imaginary diversity quota, and I definitely do not want the only queer person in the book to be the villain.  

 

[DearEvette]

1 hour ago, dubbel zout said:

Diana Gabaldon in her Outlander series uses rape as a plot point, and when she gets called on it, she basically shrugs and says, "It's historically accurate."

I mean .... is it really historically accurate for every single member of nuclear family (even the adopted son) to get raped over the course of several decades, 4 countries and two continents?

[dubbel zout]

According to Gabaldon, I guess so.

[Katy M]

1 hour ago, DearEvette said:

I mean .... is it really historically accurate for every single member of nuclear family (even the adopted son) to get raped over the course of several decades, 4 countries and two continents?

It's a documented fact that those who are directly or indirectly connected to time travel attract rapists.  Documented fact.

[Melgaypet]

9 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Also, I welcome queer characters in my books when it makes sense in the narrative.  I don't want them there to fill an imaginary diversity quota, and I definitely do not want the only queer person in the book to be the villain.  

The Lord John Grey books are Gabaldon's best, IMO. They're mysteries, which forces her to be more disciplined when it comes to plot, and Lord John is a gay man who has his flaws but is very much the hero. He's also neither self-loathing nor celibate, despite being closeted (he's a 18th century nobleman who is also an officer in the British army).

Though, fair warning,

Spoiler

there's an entirely unnecessary rape in his backstory. It's not a plot point, except sort of in one short story, but that's about all I can say about it. I guess Gabaldon couldn't help herself.

Also, "it's historically accurate = "I'm too lazy to think of something else."

[Vanderboom]

On 7/8/2020 at 2:05 PM, dubbel zout said:

Diana Gabaldon in her Outlander series uses rape as a plot point, and when she gets called on it, she basically shrugs and says, "It's historically accurate." UGH. That doesn't mean every main character in the book has to be raped. I've stopped reading her because of this (and the fact that her books go on and on and on, without an editor in sight). I'm sure she's shaken to the core.

Same. I read the first three and tapped out. Out of curiosity, I looked up the rest of the books in Wikipedia--talk about diminishing returns! 

In recent years, I've started paying close attention to how both rape and mental illness are written. A lot of writers use both as a weird shorthand to explain the problems of one-character-removed. Like the reason the protagonist is seeking vengeance is because his wife was raped. Or the villain is clearly evil because she neglects her autistic son. I'm not articulating this well, but I hope you get what I mean. 

Edited July 10, 2020 by Vanderboom

[Ohiopirate02]

8 hours ago, Melgaypet said:

The Lord John Grey books are Gabaldon's best, IMO. They're mysteries, which forces her to be more disciplined when it comes to plot, and Lord John is a gay man who has his flaws but is very much the hero. He's also neither self-loathing nor celibate, despite being closeted (he's a 18th century nobleman who is also an officer in the British army).

Though, fair warning,

  Reveal spoiler

there's an entirely unnecessary rape in his backstory. It's not a plot point, except sort of in one short story, but that's about all I can say about it. I guess Gabaldon couldn't help herself.

Also, "it's historically accurate = "I'm too lazy to think of something else."

I find the character of Lord John Grey fascinating because his existence shows the author is receptive to valid criticism.  Gabaldon was rightly criticized for having her villains be queer, and she then crafted a gay hero.  I only wish he wasn't also in love with Jamie.  The whole everyone is in love with Jamie got old.  But, I can see why he is written this way.  The original series is heavily influenced by the 70s and 80s historical bodice rippers.  Jamie is written like the heroine of  these books.  And yes, these books have some consent issues to put it mildly, but that is also because publishing had not evolved yet to allow for a woman to want to have sex on the page or at least a virgin heroine.  The whole rape is historically accurate argument comes from this as well.  It wasn't until the mid 90s that historical romance writers began to move away from the hero being abusive to the heroine.  The problem is Diana Gabaldon stopped reading these historical romances when she began to write her books and she missed this changing tide.  

[Wiendish Fitch]

3 minutes ago, Vanderboom said:

In recent years, I've started paying close attention to how both rape and mental illness are written. A lot of writers use both as a weird shorthand to explain the problems of one-character-removed. Like the reason the protagonist is seeking vengeance is because his wife was raped. Or the villain is clearly evil because she neglects her autistic son. I'm not articulating this well, but I hope you get what I meam. 

I do. Jodi Picoult loooooves to include Rape as Drama and some kind of illness, mental or physical, in her books (notice I said "and", there's rarely an "or").

By the by, I think Picoult should be used a guideline for how NOT to write sensitive subject matter, because she approaches it with the grace of a hammered elephant in a room full of glass collectibles.

[Haleth]

The book I'm currently reading has a part where the heroine of the story is looking around the cellar of a castle, when the lord of the manor (to whom she is very attracted but a little afraid) sneaks up behind her.  Because I've read all the Outlander books plus things like Pillars of the Earth I immediately thought, "oh no!  He's going to rape her!"  He did not.  They talked and left.  Imagine that.  A man can converse with an attractive woman and not assault her.

[Blergh]

1 hour ago, Haleth said:

The book I'm currently reading has a part where the heroine of the story is looking around the cellar of a castle, when the lord of the manor (to whom she is very attracted but a little afraid) sneaks up behind her.  Because I've read all the Outlander books plus things like Pillars of the Earth I immediately thought, "oh no!  He's going to rape her!"  He did not.  They talked and left.  Imagine that.  A man can converse with an attractive woman and not assault her.

Let's not forget that Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre had the title heroine first meet Rochester while walking in the moors in the mist almost getting run over him riding horseback- yet he not entirely jokingly accuses her of making his horse fall!  I mean, he should have more careful riding at full gallop in a foggy environment  due to the probability of having an accident encountering a person or animal neither he nor his horse could have seen in time and could have caused serious injuries and even death to have happened. 

It was interesting how Miss Bronte did a fairly good job depicting just how vulnerable a solitary woman could be walking about in the countryside with iffy weather and strange men lurking about but did NOT actually have her assaulted  via said encounter! 

 

As for sensitive matter in fiction itself? I personally prefer it when the author either uses euphemisms to clue the reader to what has happened or brief summaries  instead of  hitting the reader over the head and/or wallowing in the depravity because more than one time of doing the latter veers dangerously close to torture/perp porn IMO! 

[peacheslatour]

Quote

 I mean, he should have more careful riding at full gallop in a foggy environment  due to the probability of having an accident encountering a person or animal neither he nor his horse could have seen in time and could have caused serious injuries and even death to have happened. 

The King of the Castle admit he made a mistake or take responsibility for anything? Inconceivable!

[dubbel zout]

[Haleth]

Any day that starts off with a Princess Bride reference is going to be a good one.

[Wiendish Fitch]

On 7/10/2020 at 10:49 AM, Blergh said:

Let's not forget that Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre had the title heroine first meet Rochester while walking in the moors in the mist almost getting run over him riding horseback- yet he not entirely jokingly accuses her of making his horse fall!  I mean, he should have more careful riding at full gallop in a foggy environment  due to the probability of having an accident encountering a person or animal neither he nor his horse could have seen in time and could have caused serious injuries and even death to have happened. 

Well, we are discussing Edward Rochester, the dude who locked his mentally unstable first wife Bertha in the attic with only a senile, drunken hag like Grace Poole for company, heedless of the danger Bertha presented to herself and others, and who tried to trick Jane into marrying him while he was still married to Bertha, caring nothing for how being in a scandalous, bigamous relationship would affect Jane in the long run.

Yeah, taking the barest minimum of personal responsibility isn't exactly Rochester's strong suit.