On moral stances regarding power and relationships.
Please note: possible trigger warnings for discussions of rape. As well as spoilers for both Discworld and the Ancillary Justice series.
In Discworld book 6, Wyrd Sister, by Sir Terry Pratchett:
In discussing the previous King:
“Ah,” said Granny Weatherwax distantly. “His droit de seigneur.”
“Needed a lot of exercise,” said Nanny Ogg, staring at the fire.
“But next day he’d send his housekeeper round with a bag of silver and a hamper of stuff for the wedding,” said Granny. “Many a couple got a proper start in life thanks to that.”
“Ah,” agreed Nanny. “One or two individuals, too.”
-- The suggestion being:
1. The King practiced droit de seigneur, more commonly known (thanks to Braveheart) as prima nocte, or the Right of First Night. That is, the right of the king to bang vassals when they get married.
2. The King sent money for this.
3. Children were born by this.
4. He did this a lot.
At no point, is this considered evil or toxic or rape by the narrative. He is considered a pretty good king, and the Duke who murders him for the crown a big ole' jerk face.
In the Ancillary Justice series, by Ann Leckie, (surprise) there is some sex. Some of it by people of vastly different sociopolitical levels. In particular, one nasty piece of work is having sex with her cropsharers, and claims that they try to seduce her.
As the novel reminds us, over and over again: Sure they did. As if not doing so is really an option, when the gifts for such an exchange are months of income for people on starvation diets. Seducing that asshole could literally mean the difference between life and death.
That asshole is treated as toxic and evil by the narrative.
There's about 25 years separating the two, and while Pratchett was a white dude, Ann Leckie is a lady. He was British, she is (according to wikipedia) American.
I do wonder what other differences make the stark distinction; is it because Discworld is comedy? Or, the idea that the King might be seeking consent? Or, was Pratchett just tone deaf?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This thread was inspired from one that went off the rails by Brianna Sheldon, who I am NOT plussing in on purpose.
ReplyDeleteBut, other people who were in that thread who might be interested: Arlene Medder , Vivian Spartacus , Stephanie Bryant , Donna Buckles
I'm not sure what your question is? Yes, there is a stark distinction in the way this is portrayed. No, I don't think it is ever implied that the king in the Pratchett books sought consent. Yes, I think Pratchett was tone deaf in this regard, in that he failed to consider how this scene would look from the position of a person who had experienced sexual assault. Maybe the reason for that had something to do with the fact that he was male, or white, or British, or older, or writing comedy, I'm not sure.
ReplyDeleteI'm thinking the tone (giving voice to fictional characters here) of the witch's was 'we can't really stop it, but we don't approve of it.'
ReplyDeletePart of it might be tone deafness on the part of Pratchett, part might be a very subtle skewering of the whole idea ("needed a lot of exercise", like it was a large, mostly uncontrolled dog), and part might be plot device.
And possibly the women involved weren't unwilling. Considering the witch's usual attitudes, no king would get along well for very long after pissing them off. And going around raping would be sure to piss them off.
I couldn't get through Wyrd Sister because I found it to be rather gross in its gender politics. Even while attempting to center women, the narrative kept beating it over the head that in this world, women can't do certain things. Gee, thanks, for creating a fantasy world that is pretty much my every day life as a woman in IT. Yuck.
ReplyDeleteI find Terry Pratchett to be very problematic in terms of gender stuff. I still read his books and enjoy them, but I still find most of his attempts at feminism to be fairly appalling. Every now and then he'll have a good one, and he has certainly made a lot of memorable female characters. So it's a mixed bag.
ReplyDeleteI see it differently but am not very interested in getting yelled at about it so unsure how far I'm willing to discuss. Willing to give it a bit of a try. I think that one of the things that Pratchett was very interested in and talked about often and in many different ways through many different characters and plots was the ways in which people respond to difficult but unescapable situations. Deal with, overcome, don't overcome but manage to cope with, work around, find black humor in, don't manage to cope with and snap. All of those choices.
ReplyDeleteIt's not just around gender. Consider class. Wealth. Age. Pratchett characters often confront an unacceptable status quo with creativity and courage.
Definitely tone deaf, but I also think it was a tone that didn't get a lot of play, even then. At least not for older white dudes.
ReplyDeleteBut it is kind of gross, and there seems to be a "well, at least we get compensated for it," which feels like a implication that deep down all women are whores on some level to me. At least it does now. That's actually one of the few Discworld books I have read and read when it dropped. I didn't get that then, but I sure do now.
But what Pratchett characters very rarely do (and those that do so generally are very young) is to complain openly about injustice. To the extent that they will talk about it at all it will be through humor and often indirection. This doesn't mean they aren't aware of injustice. It doesn't mean they aren't opposed to it.
ReplyDeleteIt's ok to like problematic things. None of us are saying you can't like Pratchett because he may (or may not) have these problems we perceive. Just be aware, these problems may exist in the work.
ReplyDeleteIt's like Whedon. I still love Buffy and Firefly in spite of the fact that while both shows were pretty progressive in their day, they are both really problematic right now. In particular, a lot of the sexual dynamics, and quite a bit of how he handled Inara's character. Granted, I'm about fucking done with Whedon in the MCU. Women who can't have children "feel like monsters." Gah. Barf.
Donna Buckles I would have to disagree with you there... Many characters complain about injustice, they just do so in different ways depending on their age. Many of them are sarcastic and fatalistic about it, but they do speak up.
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDeleteOkay Vivian Spartacus. Entirely possible for different people to get different things from the same work. Possibly, I think what you are calling fatalism may be what I'm calling not complaining. Potato potato?
ReplyDeleteI'm going to be in and out of meetings, which I kind of forgot when I posted this.
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost: Donna Buckles : If anybody yells at you for liking Pratchett, I will delete the comment. Period.
And, actually, let me revise that with a ground rule: This is (obviously) a sensitive topic -- which I am probably least aware of of anyone in the thread! -- and do please continue to be good to each other. These three are different: disliking an idea, disliking the presentation of that idea, and disliking a person. Let's strive for the first to and avoid that last one.
Mickey Schulz I'ma just say 'thank you' for recognizing the problems with Whedon. I very nearly got nerd-crucified for expressing my dismay about the gender politics of Firefly when it aired.
ReplyDeleteArlene Medder On willingness, this is kinda why i mentioned Ancillary Justice. When power differences are large, I'm not sure what willingness means.
ReplyDeleteMickey Schulz , Lex Larson I, too, have been done with Whedon for a while. Maybe since my glorious wife pointed out just how problematic Dr. Horrible is. The work thereafter didn't help.
ReplyDeleteDonna Buckles I'd like to hear more on your perception that Pratchett characters do not complain of injustice, as it seems different from my perception. Is it possible to give an example of what you refer to? (I know, giving an example of a negative is, basically, impossible. I'm just not sure what you mean!)
ReplyDeleteI think I'm going to withdraw the complain thing because on consideration its not a very good description of what I'm trying to get at. I guess what I mean is not so much that people don't ever complain as I do that characters especially older characters tend to respond to injustice or difficult situations with a very high level of pragmatism and dark humor. And being pragmatic about something is not the same as thinking it's OK.
ReplyDeleteOh, Donna Buckles . So, for example, Vimes's Boot? That is, that older and richer Vimes is able to respond to the inherit injustice of boot economics with pragmatism and ridiculously dark humor. Is that an example of what you mean?
ReplyDeleteThere's also a big class element. Because one of the things that Patchett is almost always satirizing is the class system. So working-class characters often display an attitude toward upper-class characters very similar to that of enlisted men toward officers. Like, "he's a decorative idiot but he is our decorative idiot." You see that in the conversation between Nanny Ogg and Granny Weatherwax quoted above. They don't actually respect the king they think he was kind of an ass. But he could've been worse. Wasn't so bad we actually had to scrag him.
ReplyDeleteYeah. It's like I told a friend of mine: Yeah, Buffy was progressive as fuck for the time it aired. HOWEVER, society has kept moving forward and Whedon has remained static, having decided that he has ACHIEVED FEMINISM.
ReplyDeleteIts a thing that. When people get stuck thinking that they've achieved feminism and can stop worrying about it now.
ReplyDeleteDonna Buckles Right, unlike The Duke who ceases power. Then they, what, stop the entire kingdom from changing for 16 years while the baby can grow up and show up and take his throne?
ReplyDeleteOr like Granny Aching. Who doesn't directly confront the Baron. But when she thinks he's about to make a bad judgment she sends one of her sheepdogs to stand at the back of his court as if to remind him "I am watching." And he does change what he was about to do.
ReplyDeleteWhen she was alive people would not have dared to throw an old woman out of her cottage. There would be work found to get a girl being beaten by her father out of the house. Because people knew Granny Aching wouldn't approve if they didn't do something.
She has no titular authority and doesn't claim any. But her actual authority exceeds that of the Baron and everyone, including the Baron knows it while pretending otherwise.
Yeah, I had thought I'd be delighted by Wyrd Sister and Equal Rites so I grabbed them as my first Discworld books, and it put me off so much I didn't read any more. It just felt like such a slog. I liked Wee Free Men and Hat Full of Sky tons, though.
ReplyDeleteI love Vimes's Boots a LOT, and I may try to tackle Discworld again, but it was really nails-on-chalkboard to hit those two books.
Equal Rites and Wyrd Sisters were published in 1988 & 89 so are contemporaneous with Dallas, Magnum PI, Back to the Future II.
ReplyDeleteAt least you didn't start with Color of Magic. I know a lot of people who tried to start with Color of Magic. It rarely goes well.
ReplyDelete... actually, that was the next one I tried. "Maybe one that isn't specifically about women will be better?" I had blocked that from my memory, because I think THAT was when I was so done.
ReplyDeleteAhhh hahaha! Oh dear yes that was a truly unfortunate beginning! I've pretty much gotten to the point now where every time somebody says I don't get what the deal is with Pratchett I say oh did you read Color of Magic?
ReplyDeleteI don't think he really got good until somewhere in the late 90s. But I think it's cool that he improved over time.
I'll try and pick up his later books sometime. :) More books like Wee Free Men would rule.
ReplyDeleteI read Equal Rites and Wyrd Sisters at the time they came out and at that point I thought of him in the same general category as Piers Anthony. Bubblegum reading if I need a book on vacation and already read everything I brought with me. But he got better. A Lot.
ReplyDeletePratchett's arc of nigh-continuous improvement is a glory to behold.
ReplyDeleteAnd honestly, I'd say that a good place to start might even be The Truth. My wife says Going Postal, which is even later. Then go back and fill in, once you are hooked.
And if you want a good read, unconnected to other books? Small Gods.
The book where I really sat up and thought hang on something is happening here! was Jingo. Followed by considerable reading of back catalog. Discovery of the delights of Susan Sto Helit and the Death of Rats.
ReplyDeleteDonna Buckles That's a good one! For me, I think it was Feet of Clay. The plight of the golems, especially as Vimes's continues to rise, was so well done.
ReplyDeleteSo, going back to the question that began this post, I think that the 27 years between Wyrd Sisters and Ancillary Sword are fairly relevant. Just as, if you go back another twenty some years to The Left Hand of Darkness, published in 1969 you find that Genly Ai is a pretty serious misogynist and the novel never really comments on it, except in very subtle ways. UK LeGuin has said in interviews that when later readers asked her about this she looked back and realized that at the time she thought that no one would find him believable as a character if he respected women and that she just had no idea how fast things were about to change.
ReplyDeleteI think it can be hard to remember from the vantage point of 2016 how normalized sexual assault was in 1988. Marital rape was still legal and the marital exception wouldn't be ended in the UK until 1991. All sorts of behaviors that would now be widely considered entirely unacceptable were then still very much under debate. Which doesn't necessarily mean that an author approves of assault, most people didn't. But it was talked about more vaguely, and understood less clearly. Many of the discussions about things like victim blaming and why it's wrong had yet to really emerge into the mainstream. Some of them still haven't, entirely.
I think with a lot of older works, you are also dealing with a certain amount of coded language, and/or misdirection. There are a lot of things people just don't say as clearly. So there's more reading between the lines. But with vagueness and reading between the lines comes a greater likelihood that different people are going to read the same scene different ways. Because it genuinely isn't as clear. And wasn't intended to be.
There's that BBC show "Life on Mars," about the guy who time travels from 2006 to 1973 and finds the social attitudes of just thirty years earlier to be terribly disconcerting. Sometimes living it day by day doesn't really give the perspective to realize that we've lived our way into a different world. But then when we read a book that seemed ordinary enough to us at the time, it really points up how significantly things really have changed. And by that I don't just mean that social attitudes have changed, although they have, greatly. I also mean that the way people talk has changed.
I think about this sometimes when I read books from the 19th century, because I'm very certain that what that language said to the people at the time is not even close to what it says to me.
Donna Buckles I think this is absolutely right and often overlooked. I'll have more tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteDonna Buckles The coded component of language is really important. Not only does time obscure what words and phrases mean, but the speaker. When right-wing politicians talk about "making america great again", they harkon back to a time that never existed when Americans were all white.
ReplyDeleteThere's a lot of racist and sexist code words like that. We pick up on different ones than did our parents. I first realized this while watching a debate with my mom, who pointed out that everything the Republic was saying was code words for racism.
There's probably a whole lot in older works that we miss for similar reasons; we are not the audience. The audience is dead, and spoken idiom does not survive the way the written word does.
Sometimes, I wonder how we can communicate at all. How can it by that my touching a keyboard repeatedly, that I send thoughts from my mind to yours? Even saying that sounds like a category error -- I'm not sending thoughts at all, instead I am participating in an agreed upon social construct where context is everything.
As we lose the context of the past -- or from one political party to another -- we lose the meaning of the phrases, too.
That's why Shakespeare is annotated, modern readers (unless they've been taught) otherwise won't know why 'get thee to a nunnery' was a huge insult.
ReplyDelete