[HoosierDaddy]

amphibian;364940 said:

The unknown cave scribe (I'm having flashbacks to the Castle of Aaaaaaaaa) spoke of a big-time defeat that the Thelomen Toblakai had just suffered. It wasn't so much the preservation, but improvement of the genetic stock that was desired.

I concur, but the defeat was possible because the Teblor's ancestors had fallen so far from their original, er, stock.

Thus, he split the tribes (families?), and had them stay fairly isolated, only coming together to rape and pillage.

[Cerberus Maw]

HoosierDaddy;364938 said:

You can unspoiler that if you want to. 1. House of Chains spoilers are acceptable in the House of Chains thread. 2. You basically said it right afterwards anyways.

It was someone who remembered Icarium's rules who wrote that, one of those rules being that to retain their former glory births cannot be common, thus only women raped give birth, ensuring that the Teblor bloodlines start to get stronger and less diluted than if lots of births are taking place. Whether this is because only a few of the Teblor at that point had a strong bloodline, or to keep them from having sex with mules to make babies I am unsure of and can't exactly remember.

Aha, your powers of observation have defeated me.

I salute thee.

Gotta read HoC again.

[Sucka27]

Just to weigh in on this interesting topic, I think it is one of the major achievements of the series and shows what a great write SE is.

When I picked up HOC and read the beginning about Karsa, I thought at the time he was a completely new character. I hated him, I wanted him to die a violent death and actually thought it was going to happen. I sometimes can't help it and flip ahead a few hundred pages to see if a characters name is on the page (suggesting he is still alive). I saw Karsa's name and was surprised and said to myself "if SE is trying to create a villain that you end up liking he has his work cut out for him. If I end up liking Karsa Orlong I will officially declare SE the master."

Well he's the master.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Here's Donaldson himself weighing in on the question. I asked him on his gradual interview. A little snarky, but cool that he answers questions.



""Why are people more accepting of Karsa's actions than they are of Covenant's?" Gee, could it possibly be that everything about the stories, settings, characters, narrative methodologies, and authorial intentions is different? Erikson and I would be pretty crappy writers if we couldn't elicit very different reactions for very different characters, situations, and purposes.

Of the many differences (not criticisms, differences: I'm a huge Erikson fan) I could cite, I'll just mention a couple. First, consider the victims. Covenant's victim, Lena, is a far more fully developed character than any or all of Karsa's victims (most of whom, as I recall, don't even have names). Of *course* her fate generates more outrage than that of Karsa's victims. Second, the nature of the relationship which Erikson builds between his characters and his readers is fundamentally different than the one I strive to create. For lack of a better term, I'm going to call the relationship he devises "objective": the relationship I'm aiming for is "subjective". He tells us a great deal about his characters' thoughts, but very little about their emotions: I positively wallow in my characters' emotions. And Erikson is a builder. He constructs his stories in chunks (even when he's focusing on a single character) with lots and lots of gaps (gaps of time, gaps of emotion, etc.). In contrast, I'm a weaver (at least in "The Chronicles"). Well, differences in method produce differences in effect. Erikson offers his readers a less "personal" relationship with his characters than I do. (Again, this is an observation, not a criticism. The worth or worthlessness of things like "objective" and "subjective" depend entirely on what you do with them--and I like what Erikson does with "objective".)

Sure, post this elsewhere if you want. I don't know why anyone should care about my opinions. But they're public here, so why not public on the Erikson forums as well?"
-Stephen R. Donaldson

[prq]

As a huge fan of both Donaldson and Erikson (my two favorite fantasy writers), I think there's also another difference:
Covenant's action occurs in the beginning of the first book of the series, which is a shock to new readers.
Karsa's action occurs on the beginning of the 4th book, and readers can already figure out by previous books that those actions are not normal on the author's books, so they may frown on it but won't react as strongly.

[Epiph]

prq;372094 said:

Karsa's action occurs on the beginning of the 4th book, and readers can already figure out by previous books that those actions are not normal on the author's books, so they may frown on it but won't react as strongly.

Also, in the 3 books previous to HoC (well, DhG and MoI, at least), Erikson has narrated some pretty nasty stuff. You've got the entirety of the Chain of Dogs; the rebellion through the eyes of Fid & Co; Felisin's whole story, which just gets worse with every Felisin PoV; the impaled children that Kalam saves; Tenescowri and the Children of the Dead Seed; Stonny's rape; etc, etc. So by the time you get to Karsa raping a couple of women, one of whom seems to enjoy it, you're sort of inured to the assault on your delicate sensiblities. Yeah, it's reprehensible, but you've read worse.

[Sucka27]

Something worth mention in this debate (that I haven't seen mentioned) is the emotional state and reaction to the rape by the women being raped. In HOC the women almost act like it is an expected consequence of life in their culture, being the women of a tribe just defeated. There isn't much or any devastation on their part, it was almost a "bring it on" attitude. I think it is natural for the reader to feel empathy for the victim and in this case the perception of emotional distress wasn't all that severe.

Didn't read Donaldson's book but I assume there was more trauma from the victim, like you would find in our world where rape is a gigantically heinous and life altering experience.

[amphibian]

Sucka27;372451 said:

Didn't read Donaldson's book but I assume there was more trauma from the victim, like you would find in our world where rape is a gigantically heinous and life altering experience.

The following is a spoiler, but it's not that crucial to the story of the first, second and third books:

Spoiler

Lena, her family and the villagers cannot take vengeance on Covenant because they swore an Oath of Peace. Lena's mother, Atiaran, guides Covenant to Andelain, where he needs to go to save the Land and its people, without harming him or really doing much of anything to criticize his actions or raise the topic of the rape.

Elena, the daughter produced by the rape, becomes a High Lord of the Land. She summons Covenant to the Land in the second book and travels with him for a good chunk of the book. He eventually finds out who she is and is severely shaken.

Triock, Lena's occasional lover, summons Covenant to the Land in the third book, because Lord Foul is yet again threatening its very existence. Lena actually travels with Covenant for a short time, after he dismisses the ghost of Elena.

Donaldson generally leaves the past hovering in the background throughout the books, but it is confronted every now and then and results in Covenant acknowledging the wrong he did.

[cklepacz]

I agree with you. I find this kind of stuff very disturbing myself, ESPECIALLY if it applies to a protagonist. I too found this disturbing in SRD when I first read it many years ago, but dismissed part of this to Covenant basically thinking he was in a dream.

The more I think about House of Chains, it seemed, to me at least, "semi" to fully consentual "relations." Reading further, this seems to be something that was part of the Teblor trial culture to "drive" the natural selection process to strengthen the race. For example, some guys from tribe X kill a bunch of guys from tribe Y the women of tribe Y have been raised to believe that it is their duty to 1) procreate with tribe X and 2) become part of tribe X.

I think this made it easier for me to swallow (pardon the pun), vis-a-vis the Treblor.

Overall, I still have trouble reading about rapes but, realistically, I know it happens in war.

Chris

Raymond Luxury Yacht, on Jun 30 2008, 05:15 PM, said:

This thread has spoilers for Stephen R. Donaldson's Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. If that bothers you, exit thread now.


I'm beginning my reread of HoC, and hace gotten to the part of Karsa's raping and pillaging of the other Teblor tribes. This made me think about the only other series I've read where a protagonist is a rapist, The Covenant books by Stephen R. Donaldson.

One of the main criticisms of SRD that I've heard on these forums and elsewhere is that they can't get over the rape of Elena, and it ruined the series for them. I've heard several people say they quit reading at that scene, as it completely turned them against Covenant. This is understandable, but what i find interesting is that the same reaction doesn't happen with Karsa.

There are plenty of Karsa haters out there, but typically that dislike comes from the fact that he is a prick and says witness too much. I don't know if I've ever heard anyone say they dislike him because he is a rapist. I certainly have never heard anyone who quit reading SE because of the rape. Why is this? Why is it so much more unacceptable for Covenant to do it than Karsa?

The argument could be made that Karsa is actually more unforgivable. He is a serial rapist, glorifying in it and the humiliation it brings to the women he violates. Covenant does it once, in a world he doesn't yet believe is real, and is immediately remorseful and disgusted with himself. (Not that this excuses him for his actions, that's not what I'm saying.) Karsa is also not content with merely physically violating his victims, he also feels the need to taunt them and even impregnate them. Why is Karsa so much more acceptable to readers than Covenant?

Anyone have anything to say about this? Why do you think this is the case?

[amphibian]

Hey, welcome to the discussion. I just want to point out one thing:

cklepacz, on Oct 2 2008, 02:14 PM, said:

The more I think about House of Chains, it seemed, to me at least, "semi" to fully consentual "relations." Reading further, this seems to be something that was part of the Teblor trial culture to "drive" the natural selection process to strengthen the race. For example, some guys from tribe X kill a bunch of guys from tribe Y the women of tribe Y have been raised to believe that it is their duty to 1) procreate with tribe X and 2) become part of tribe X.

Karsa, Delum and Bairoth did not adopt the women into their tribe. They left them to deal with the men who would later straggle home to find that a particularly large band of violent cuckoos had visited their nest.