Introspect, on 22 September 2014 - 01:38 AM, said:
This might be blasphemy to some of you and considering I'm a newbie at this, go easy on me.
Will no one discuss how stretched out the chain of dogs section of the book was? I mean, I get the fact that Mr Erikson is trying to make us experience the grind and the torturous-ness. But really, I felt the pace of the book was a bit off especially considering how the book ended with quite an unforeseen climax. It was difficult for me to get through Duiker's internal monologuing. I sometimes feel that Erikson struggles with how to manage the plot. Maybe its because he is first an anthropologist and then a writer. I wonder if his writing gets better as the series progresses. Also I am no writer and I am just posting this as an avid reader of books.
It's supposed to be tiring, in a sense. I felt it captured the emotional raggedness, the exhaustion, punctuated by both moments of extreme terror and the hanging cloud of dread that would go with such a desperate trek across hostile lands, completely surrounded by enemies at all times. The Chain was the plotline that I loved the very first time I read the book and have been thrilled with ever since. To me, it's one of Erikson's most masterful pieces of writing.
And if that climax struck you as unforeseen, maybe you skimmed some sections? Because it was heartbreaking, but not that surprising. As soon as they split off the refugees into a separate column and Coltaine started just performing a rear guard action, I knew there was a big chance that he and the 7th Army wouldn't make it. And yet that doesn't make the emotional pain any less, when he and the last remnants of his army are surrounded and cut down within sight of their goal. The deep injustice of it hit me like a ton of bricks, and still does upon reread.
worry, on 14 November 2014 - 11:48 PM, said:
If Felisin merely being "mean spirited" disables your ability to care about her, why isn't the abandonment, enslavement, and constant rape of her enough to excuse her own outlook on people? If your empathy switches off at the drop of a hat, and hers takes a months-long trip through hell to diminish, whose disdain is less righteous?
This, so much.
Tru, on 15 November 2014 - 12:45 AM, said:
worry, on 14 November 2014 - 11:48 PM, said:
If Felisin merely being "mean spirited" disables your ability to care about her, why isn't the abandonment, enslavement, and constant rape of her enough to excuse her own outlook on people? If your empathy switches off at the drop of a hat, and hers takes a months-long trip through hell to diminish, whose disdain is less righteous?
Yes, I struggle with characters that are abrasive and despite the efforts of others, remain this way. To answer your specific question: There is no disdain that is righteous. I also did not say anything about having disdain for her. I said I dislike her character. Surely we all have characters we dislike.
From my read, the abandonment and enslavement is about as far as it goes, beyond that, the rape, and subsequent enslavement, seems to be consentual from the way I understood it. Perhaps as a means of survival, I'll grant that, but for those who then helped her, protected her, and then saw her attain a position of power, for all those who came within her path, she seems to treat very badly. Those trying to be nice to her are quickly verbally assaulted, and no one forced her to begin using her body as a tool, a weapon. She was then obsessed with vengeance. There was a way for her character to be less abrasive to the reader. Erickson did not write her this way, which is fine, just because I dislike a character does not mean the author has missed the mark, in fact, he probably hit the mark perfectly, because in Felisin, he has created a divisive personality.
Consent that is coerced is not consent. Consent obtained from a slave by a master is not consent. Where there is a power imbalance, sex can't really be consensual. This is part of why any sex with children is considered rape.
And yes, she very much was forced to use her body as a tool. It was that or not get enough food. That's not really much of a choice. And if you were plunged into that kind of hell, I bet you would be pretty angry at whoever put you there.
Victims shouldn't have to be saints for you to have sympathy for them for the ways they've been abused and wronged. The fact that it takes being abandoned by her only remaining family, being essentially sold into slavery, months of abuse, terror, and rape, for Felisin to lose sympathy with humanity, while it only takes some mean-spirited remarks from her for you to lose sympathy for her, honestly makes her your moral superior.
worry, on 15 November 2014 - 01:29 AM, said:
Oh I have no issue with your reading of the character and understand you're not critiquing the concept of her as a creation, and of course a gut reaction is what it is (though discussion of considered opinions makes for a welcome answer to the gut). And I don't mean to put words in your mouth (if using disdain as a synonym for dislike crossed that line, I apologize), but I believe I am addressing the meat of your opinion of Felisin fairly (and she's a common topic of debate in the DG forum, which probably does not surprise you).
And the thrust of my response is: I am questioning the ease with which one condemns Felisin -- by which I mean, in your specific case, calling her a "mean spirited bitch" and suggesting her demeanor disabled your ability to care about her (though like I said, it's a topic that comes up fairly often, you don't stand alone by any means). She's a teenage girl who's been through "hell" and has come out of it sharp-tongued and stand-offish even to the well-meaning, and that disabled your sympathy for her. But if that's all it takes to disable your sympathy, what is the basis for condemning Felisin for her disabled sympathy when it took much longer and much much worse to get her there? As a position, it's an ouroboros.
On another note, it is impossible for rape to be consensual, and it is impossible for a slave to consent to her master/overseer.
Additionally, Felisin is a child still. There is no such thing as consensual sex with a child.
The first time through, I hated Felisin. But after reading the rest of the series, upon reread, I felt like a monster for having disliked her. She is one of the most tragic characters in the series. It takes months of enduring basically the worst aspects of humanity, being abandoned by her only remaining family, being essentially cargo, enduring rape after rape, for her personality and outlook towards people to change from sweet and innocent to acerbic and unrelentingly cynical. And I didn't like her because... because what, she said some mean things? After what she went through, I feel she's entitled to take a dim view of people. And I feel that losing sympathy for her just because she made some mean-spirited remarks makes one her moral inferior.
Andorion, on 15 November 2014 - 01:43 AM, said:
Tru, on 15 November 2014 - 12:45 AM, said:
worry, on 14 November 2014 - 11:48 PM, said:
If Felisin merely being "mean spirited" disables your ability to care about her, why isn't the abandonment, enslavement, and constant rape of her enough to excuse her own outlook on people? If your empathy switches off at the drop of a hat, and hers takes a months-long trip through hell to diminish, whose disdain is less righteous?
Yes, I struggle with characters that are abrasive and despite the efforts of others, remain this way. To answer your specific question: There is no disdain that is righteous. I also did not say anything about having disdain for her. I said I dislike her character. Surely we all have characters we dislike.
From my read, the abandonment and enslavement is about as far as it goes, beyond that, the rape, and subsequent enslavement, seems to be consentual from the way I understood it. Perhaps as a means of survival, I'll grant that, but for those who then helped her, protected her, and then saw her attain a position of power, for all those who came within her path, she seems to treat very badly. Those trying to be nice to her are quickly verbally assaulted, and no one forced her to begin using her body as a tool, a weapon. She was then obsessed with vengeance. There was a way for her character to be less abrasive to the reader. Erickson did not write her this way, which is fine, just because I dislike a character does not mean the author has missed the mark, in fact, he probably hit the mark perfectly, because in Felisin, he has created a divisive personality.
My own first reaction to Felisin was very close to that of yours, but then I read HoC. Then I reread the series. Trust me, this changes your perspective drastically.
Sure did for me. Felisin's story, on reread, I found utterly heartwrenching, throughout. It's the step by step destruction of the human spirit. It's emotionally horrifying.
This post has been edited by Kanese S's: 27 December 2015 - 11:24 PM
Help
