- Jun 13, 2006
I suppose I could read it to Perp jr. as a bedtime story...
If you like Joe Abercrombie, Erikson typ grim epic fantasy you will like this. I have read both books and there is no rape that is big deal. Its mentioned when bandits destroy villages like it happens in fantasy that try to portray grim medevil world.That's what I'd file under "rapey".
Just doesn't sound like the sort of story I'd like to read, even though I kind of should to know the genre better.
I meant these kind of books try to be realistic like killer,rapist would be in those times and are nothing new in this genre. Why not go after Abercrombie and GRRM etc too?I can't agree that it's silly to make a big deal out of a book which seeks to make a murdering rapist likeable. Yes, rape happens, and yes it happens whenever thugs go pillaging, as is happening in war zones all over the world at present. It isn't the fact of the rapes Jorg and his men have carried out, it's the implicit acceptance that there's nothing wrong with him having done it. There is no introspection, no doubt, only a defiance that what he's done is done and he makes no apology for it.
Here's a review which might be of interest in helping you to make up your mind, Brian. The comments are also interesting... http://www.tor.com/blogs/2011/08/qpeople-who-like-this-sort-of-thing-q-being-a-review-of-mark-lawrences-prince-of-thorns
I thought a bit point about Glotka was that he was redeemable? My impression was that he was the only character who ended the story with concern for the welfare of others?I meant these kind of books try to be realistic like killer,rapist would be in those times and are nothing new in this genre. Why not go after Abercrombie and GRRM etc too?
You cant read those and avoid this book like its the plague.
Interesting comments about the Magical Negro - have a thread already on that:Im guessing you had no trouble with Magical negro character some critics mentioned and the lack of a Europe without any other than white people but the mention of an off scene rape is too much in epic fantasy.....
Unchallenged rapeyness? Thats overstatement by the haters of the book. Like dismissing First Law because Glokta tortures,abuses that gorgoues merchant women. I say try for yourself. You seem to like this genre.I thought a bit point about Glotka was that he was redeemable? My impression was that he was the only character who ended the story with concern for the welfare of others?
As for GRRM - oh, he's heavy with it, but I don't think we ever get a Ser Gregor POV to justify him.
My personal point is that I've seen Prince of Thorns come up as a generally well-regarded recent fantasy novel, but I think I've had my fill of unchallenged rapeyness for the moment.
Interesting comments about the Magical Negro - have a thread already on that:
I don't regret it. I note it as an interesting symptom.And since you appear to regret the lack of questioning on the subject....
Your questions don't make sense to me. Why don't I have him do the same thing on page 2-400 as on page 1? I don't think that would be very interesting.If you aren't intent on preserving sympathy for Jorg, why doesn't he continue as the absolute monster he was before the book starts? Why don't you allow him to continue his raping on the page? He continues killing, and he talks and thinks a good deal of worse, but you don't allow further terrible atrocities to be seen -- what else is this but manipulation of the readership, because as soon as he commits a bloody rape actually there, where we can see the horror, readers will react to him differently?
I thought this was made entirely clear in the book. He actually spells it out in full. One of the few pieces of exposition. PR.You have him undertake a spurious confession and absolution, as if this is important that he be cleansed, why, if he is so clearly unrepentant?
Why does he not immediately 180 his emotions and do what you feel is the right thing and set aside what's ostensibly his defining purpose... he's not perfect?Why, if he knows he has been used, does he not immediately comprehend that those who destroyed his childhood have been similarly manipulated by others, so his whole craving for vengeance -- even if his own and not the result of the mind-bending -- is hollow?
Because without me telling everyone that murder is a bad thing ... the reader might be led astray? The reader might go 'gosh, well that's an eye opener. He didn't spell out that murder's a bad thing ... so it must be fine."I don't require anyone in the book to come to a sticky end. I don't require a redemption story. I don't even require a character to regret what he has done. But if an author creates a main character who justifies his crimes without any reflection on their enormity, and that author makes no apparent attempt within the confines of the book to show any countervailing attitude towards rape and torture and indiscriminate murder, then I don't find it surprising the author might find himself on the wrong end of criticism for his creation.