[globish rip]

It appeared to me nothing but a cheap stunt thrown in to shock us some more. Fuck I'm awesome My book has fucking gay and lesbian characters.

why is it a "cheap stunt" to have gay or lesbian characters in a book? why are lesbians "shocking" to you for that matter? it isn't a surprise, really, that morgan would want to another homosexual character in the book in order to contrast some of the things that ringil feels/experiences. also lol at your seeming inability to understand that the book ISN'T epic fantasy - the minimal, character-driven style certainly seemed very intentional and obvious.

[Grief]

Just because it is minimalist, doesnt mean he cannot flesh out characters other than the main protaginists, I feel.
I think what Cause is trying to say is that the character was fine,and that the lesbianism seemed added just for shock value, because it added nothing else to the character.

[Cause]

 conduit 4 sael!, on Nov 8 2008, 11:12 PM, said:

It appeared to me nothing but a cheap stunt thrown in to shock us some more. Fuck I'm awesome My book has fucking gay and lesbian characters.

why is it a "cheap stunt" to have gay or lesbian characters in a book? why are lesbians "shocking" to you for that matter? it isn't a surprise, really, that morgan would want to another homosexual character in the book in order to contrast some of the things that ringil feels/experiences. also lol at your seeming inability to understand that the book ISN'T epic fantasy - the minimal, character-driven style certainly seemed very intentional and obvious.

Its minimal true but if its supposed to be character driven it would be nice to have some character in the characters. I say its cheap because archeth being gay provided nothing to her as a character or to the story. Its an aside to her character never explored, never expanded never important. The book is billeted as a new take on fantasy, a fantasy book in which the hero is not the perfect farmboy but a gay hero. Well its not that shocking its not that big a deal and its not enough to float the book on its own. The civillised barbarian is no more amazing (In fact if you compare egar to cnauir from a PoN the attempt is pittiful). Than as what appears to me (and appearnce is all that matters) a poor attempt to flesh out archeth he just throws in thats she is gay.

Its like those players in DnD who have half-elf characters or good orcs or say even gay characters. Your character is not interesting because he is different or special he is interesting when he is interestiing in his own merit.

[globish rip]

Just because it is minimalist, doesnt mean he cannot flesh out characters other than the main protaginists, I feel.

actually, it kind of does?! i mean these sort of aesthetic/structural arguments aren't as subjective as ppl here seem to take them. certain choices do preclude other choices. even the other 'major' characters exist mainly to "mirror" ringil. i talked a little upthread about how i think the parallelism hurt archeth's character in particular but i do think that any book has to be read/understood on its own terms.

cause: i do think we're reading the book in very different ways. if you thought that archeth's sexuality is beside the point then tbh i have no idea what you ARE looking for in the book? like one of the more interesting things about her was that she was doubly removed from society because of her race and because of her sexuality. it was also somewhat necessary structurally and it def played into the whole insiders/outsiders thing.

ummmm okay what DOES make a character interesting though?? i feel like "different and special" are pretty foundational ways of making a character interesting!! what other merits are there? okay maybe not the only way of course but you're just asserting a really narcissistic tautology here: "a character is only interesting when he [lol] is interesting to me" basically.

[Fist Gamet]

Another terrific story from Morgan, I felt. The inclusion of sex, graphic or otherwise, gay or otherwise, makes no difference to me so long as everything in the book serves a purpose (here being the importance to the character of Ringil, his place in the world, relations with family and friends etc and so on) and that the story itself is a good one. And I should say that I thought it was a very good story, nicely characterised and character-driven. For me it is always the strength of the main characters that carries a story and it is by them it either lives or dies. I am sure RM could have made it a far longer and deeper story if he wanted to so I was a little dissappointed it was such a short book. Regardless, I look forwards to the next one!

[polishgenius]

 conduit 4 sael!, on Nov 8 2008, 10:11 PM, said:

cause: i do think we're reading the book in very different ways. if you thought that archeth's sexuality is beside the point then tbh i have no idea what you ARE looking for in the book? like one of the more interesting things about her was that she was doubly removed from society because of her race and because of her sexuality. it was also somewhat necessary structurally and it def played into the whole insiders/outsiders thing.

I have to agree with Cause on this one: I didn't find that Archeth's sexuality affected her character in the slightest. With Ringil it's a big part of him, but with Archeth it's incidental. She's already an outsider because of her race, but the lesbian thing, there's almost nothing made of it by anyone. Sure, the Emperor sends her a slave girl, but there wouldn't have been any difference to the story if that had been a fella.

[richard m]

Quote

Sure, the Emperor sends her a slave girl, but there wouldn't have been any difference to the story if that had been a fella.

You're kidding, right? Just try this - go back to the scenes between Archeth and Ishgrim, substitute male pronouns and attributes in Ishgrim's case, and then see how well it reads.

Subsequent experimental task: make a list of all the heterosexual women you know who find slavish subservience so sexually attractive in a man they would be hard put to resist it.

I'm afraid we're up against some hard genetic truths here - the power dynamics of sexuality are written very deeply into human nature and behaviour at levels which make zero allowance for 21st century modes of thought, gender equity or political correctness. The relationship between Archeth and Ishgrim only works as is, or if I turn Archeth into a male. And that option would require me to make Jhiral either gay or bi-sexual, or how is he going to fantasise about sharing a slave-boy with Archeth? Plus I lose the bond of female sympathy between Archeth and Elith, the sexual outsider bond between Archeth and Ringil, the........

In other words, I'd have to re-write the whole story.

But that's looking at it backwards - the story of TSR and the scenes in it flow from and are modified by the given attributes of the characters. That's how fiction works (or at least that's how it works for me). You create your characters and the way they're made will then define (or at least substantially influence) how the story unfolds.

All of which leads me to a more major point for all those who've criticised the "unnecessary" gayness of Archeth. That stance, by its very nature, pre-supposes a default setting of heterosexual for all characters in fiction. But why? Does a writer have to have a specific reason for making a character "tall' or "short" or "green-eyed"? It seems not. You don't get people complaining "Morgan doesn't do anything with the fact that Thugblunt is tall, it's just being thrown in for effect" or "Luscia's green eyes are never developed, there's no point to her having them anywhere in the story". Framed like that, it sounds ridiculous. Why, then, should a different rule apply for the equally innate characteristic of sexual orientation?

This is not to say that you can't or shouldn't have specific reasons for making your character gay (or tall or green-eyed for that matter) - in my case it was to confer an inescapable outsider status despite the trappings of wealth and class, to convey an enduring sense of Gestapo-boot-through-the-door jeopardy, and to frame an analysis of how unremittingly brutal primitive societies of this kind would really be. But to expect that there must always be an ulterior motive for a character not to have default setting sexuality, well, that I'm afraid, smacks of defensive social conservatism (whether conscious or not) on the part of the reader.

[polishgenius]

 richard m, on Nov 12 2008, 03:16 PM, said:

But to expect that there must always be an ulterior motive for a character not to have default setting sexuality, well, that I'm afraid, smacks of defensive social conservatism (whether conscious or not) on the part of the reader.

I don't think people are saying that, it certainly wasn't my intention- although I can't deny a certain reflexive conservatism to my thinking, I appreciate books that challenge it.
I just felt that, for Archeth, it felt tagged on - of her outsider status came from her race, and I don't think I'd have felt differently about that if she hadn't been lesbian.
As for women who find subservient males attractive, I'm absolutely positive that they exist, even if they're not a majority (or, at least, outspoken about it). The scene in question would work differently because of reader perceptions of subservient males, not because of Archeth being attracted to one.

It wouldn't work from the Emperor's side of things though, true. The whole angle seems to me more important to the Emperor's character than Archeth's.

[globish rip]

I just felt that, for Archeth, it felt tagged on - of her outsider status came from her race, and I don't think I'd have felt differently about that if she hadn't been lesbian.

yah but her race didn't have the same social constraints/danger tho. it also kind of makes a neat contrast the open deviation from the hidden one for her character. i don't really understand not getting this. to a certain extent i just don't think it worked but i think its weird to feel like y'know it was superflous.

my thing with archeth is that there was a strange undercurrent of shame running through her w/r/t to the witch and slave girl that, i mean that's not really strange for someone who's closeted, but it didn't ring true to the rest of her character. i guess the way she dealt with her sexuality wasn't off for someone in that milieu but for someone so savvy and seemingly self-aware it was surprising.

[Pig Iron]

 richard m, on Nov 12 2008, 04:16 PM, said:

Quote

Sure, the Emperor sends her a slave girl, but there wouldn't have been any difference to the story if that had been a fella.

This is not to say that you can't or shouldn't have specific reasons for making your character gay (or tall or green-eyed for that matter) - in my case it was to confer an inescapable outsider status despite the trappings of wealth and class, to convey an enduring sense of Gestapo-boot-through-the-door jeopardy, and to frame an analysis of how unremittingly brutal primitive societies of this kind would really be. But to expect that there must always be an ulterior motive for a character not to have default setting sexuality, well, that I'm afraid, smacks of defensive social conservatism (whether conscious or not) on the part of the reader.

Which worked great. Ringil is a character you empathize with, and you get a feeling of being alone and exposed in his POW which adds to the tension in a way that I don't think I've seen done before. And it makes him that much tougher of course, though you get the sense it's about to turn ugly.

Looking forward to The Cold Commands.

[richard m]

Quote

As for women who find subservient males attractive, I'm absolutely positive that they exist

Yep, no question - eyebrow-raising variation is one of the things about human sexual behaviour that makes it so fascinating. Just ask Max Mosely.

But, as you say, it's not something people are going to be in a hurry to admit to, and I think that tells us something about its probable limits. Even among that sub-section of women who might get off on subservient males, I suspect that the vast majority would find that stuff attractive within the limits of sexual play, but not in general social terms - ie they might get off on a guy crawling on his knees in the bedroom, but they probably wouldn't enjoy having a restaurant dinner/going to a party/going on holiday/keeping house with a guy who constantly comes over all girly and helpless. Like it or not, I think we all, male and female, tend to admire strength in a man (whereas we are all considerably more ambivalent about the attractiveness of strength in a woman), and in fact a lot of the possible thrill in subservient male/dominant female bedroom games derives from subverting exactly those base assumptions.

The corollary being here, of course, that Archeth and Ishgrim are not playing at mistress and slave - they actually are in those positions, with all the sick brutality that implies. The slavery in TSR is not intended to be Wankers of Gor titillatory - it's meant to be actual and horrible. For a hetero Archeth to get off on a male playing at being her slave is a conceivable, even a comfortable, dynamic not requiring a change of anything much outside of her sexual orientation - but for her to enjoy the actual subjugation of a man as her slave would mean I'd have had to turn her into a completely different type of character. And, hey, a sadistic power hungry bitch might be interesting and fun to write - but I've already got Jhiral for that.

[richard m]

Quote

though you get the sense it's about to turn ugly.

It is indeed.

[richard m]

Quote

Which worked great. Ringil is a character you empathize with, and you get a feeling of being alone and exposed in his POW which adds to the tension in a way that I don't think I've seen done before. And it makes him that much tougher of course, though you get the sense it's about to turn ugly.

Looking forward to The Cold Commands.

And thanks for the kind words - appreciate it.

[richard m]

Quote

my thing with archeth is that there was a strange undercurrent of shame running through her w/r/t to the witch and slave girl that, i mean that's not really strange for someone who's closeted, but it didn't ring true to the rest of her character. i guess the way she dealt with her sexuality wasn't off for someone in that milieu but for someone so savvy and seemingly self-aware it was surprising.

Well, Archeth (in common with most of my protagonists) is very uncomfortable with power - the power others wield, which she cordially despises for its (nine times out of ten actualised) potential for oppression, and perhaps even more so the power she wields herself, which threatens to undermine her sense of who she thinks she is. Try this thought experiment - imagine you're magically transported from the here and now into the life of a favoured noble son in the antebellum Deep South. Now, if you're a piece of shit, you'll quickly shrug off your inconvenient 21st century scruples and get to shagging the slave girls and sitting on your arse being fanned all day. If you're a more decent human being, that process may take longer, but ultimately time and circumstance will probably wear you down. And if you're a person of truly extraordinary strength and character, you may spend your whole life resisting as best you can, living in an agony of restraint and shame. This is where Archeth is - she knows slavery and random imperial slaughter is wrong because her father's people taught her it was, but at the same time she's stranded without their moral support in an era where such things are the commonplaces of life. The average imperial citizen, faced with Elith's or Ishgrim's suffering, is going to shrug and say "well, tough, them's the breaks, and anyway who gives a shit, it didn't happen to me or anyone I care about and this bitch isn't even from Yhelteth, so why should I care?" Archeth does not have the option of that ignorance, but at the same time she's a beneficiary of the same imperial rule that commits these atrocities - result: shame, big time. And as for her self-awareness, well, to twist and borrow from Sophocles (and Angelheart) - how terrible is self awareness for the self-aware, when you're the only fucker around who's got any!

[Abyss]

Interesting point re 'doing anything' with a character's elements, ie: height, eye colour, sexuality, etc. Sexuality, of course, is a wee bit more contentious a topic than relative height (altho GRRM could be said to make height very significant with Tyrion in the SIF books...). I wonder tho if it's not more surprise at the fact rather than lack of development.

One of the points made, tho not too overtly, in the marketing of TSR, was that main protagonist Ringil was gay. At least among those of us who like/watch the genre for the interesting and new, the fact that this was a key point about the character was discussed. But generally, it was not known (at least, i don't think it was) until people started reading the book that Archeth was ALSO gay - i suspect that when the gay/straight protagonist ratio went 2/1, those whose eyebrows were already twitching needed botox for the next week.


All that said, i thought that Archeth's sexuality added an interesting extra dimension to her relationship with the Emperor - he knows she's gay, but he values her, so he reminds her of her vulnerability even as he reminds her that she is trusted enough to be sent to look into the rumours that get her story rolling.

 richard m, on Nov 12 2008, 12:55 PM, said:

...

And thanks for the kind words - appreciate it.

Hey, thank YOU for dropping by.


- Abyss, in awe.

[Myshkin]

I think Archeth's sexuality was both necessary and well done, mostly because it served to highlight the way in which Ringil dealt with his homosexuality. Archeth on some level was ashamed of her desires, which was not the case with Ringil. Even though I liked the book my last post was mostly negative, so I'll say something positive here: Archeth's homosexuality was, imo, deftly managed. I think the problem was that Archeth, as a whole, felt less developed than Ringil. We did get a lot of background about her, which helped us interpret her motivations, but it felt more like we knew about her rather than knew her.

[Reborn]

Richard m, ah, nice to see you here. Do you like The Malazan Book of the Fallen? I have read that Erikson enjoys your work anyway.

On topic, I thought that The Steel Remains was a great book. I agree with what you wrote about Archeth's sexuality ... and by not making that much of a point about it you in fact, in my eyes at least, made a point, which is that homosexuality is not that earthshatteringly different and weird that it necessarily has to be made that much of a point of. For example, if a character in a book is straight the reader probably doesn't expect his/her sexuality to be that important for the story (if you are not reading a James Bond-novel, that is) and I see no reason for it to be different if the character's homosexual.

Anyway, I really liked the book and am very much looking forward to the next one (not least after reading your comment about "it's going to get ugly"). Keep up the good work!

This post has been edited by Reborn: 13 November 2008 - 03:25 PM

[richard m]

Yeah, Steve has been very complimentary about my work, both my SF and more recently TSR itself - he's a real gent.

In answer to your question, the only thing I've read in the Malazan series so far is Deadhouse Gates - which I thought was a colossal achievement. All the grandeur of Tolkein, but shorn of its prissy Little England terror of diversity or change and its dodgy obsessions with lineage and racial purity. There's a sort of blunt Roman realism to the way Steve paints things, plus of course that archaeological eye for telling cultural detail. And I'm full of admiration for any author who can keep that many characters and narrative balls in the air at the same time - personally I start to lose track (and traction) when I get up beyond about a dozen names; it's not for nothing that TSR is minimal and noirish in orientation!

In fact, it's made me laugh a few times over the last few months when TSR has been compared (often unfavourably) with Steve's work, because to me that's like comparing a guy who makes handpainted kites with the Lockheed corporation. I mean, sure, they're both putting out a product that flies - but where are your points of realistic comparison? Steve writes massive widescreen total immersion world-building epics and I, er, don't. Really, I think it's a testament to the breadth and flexibility of the fantasy genre that we can both do our own substantially different thing, but still enjoy each other's work and still exist under the same big top genre umbrella.

I also have a (dedicated and signed!) copy of Toll the Hounds on my bedside table, but I still have to find some substantial stretch of clear time to read it in. I don't know if this is because I read more intently (or just more slowly!) than the average fantasy fan - I keep hearing of people who tear through these books in a matter of days, and I simply don't understand how they do that. I mean, you're talking about close to a thousand pages here. The best part of a hundred characters, and a couple of dozen place names minimum. I find something this massive demands my complete commitment and big chunks of attentive time. Same thing with Pynchon's weightier works, which have something of the same totally immersive qualities. It's just not something you can get through a couple of pages at a time on the train or before you switch of the bedside light each night. For DHG, that commitment involved taking the book with me to a tropical island for the best part of a month and reading nothing but. And I suspect that in the end I'll have to do something similar with TTH.

[RodeoRanch]

The author is here?


Fuck yeah, I love the the internet.

[Reborn]

Richard m, yeah, Deadhouse Gates is an awesome book.

Most seem to like The Steel Remains, and even those who complain at it often blame their expectations more than the book itself. Unfavorably compared to Erikson? Well, not only is The Steel Remains, as you say, different from Malazan Book of the Fallen, but it's also only the first book in as series whereas Erikson is already up to eight instalments in his. Most people would have a very different opinion of Malazan if they based it solely upon Gardens of the Moon. If the two upcoming books in your serie remain at -- or surpass -- the quality of The Steel Remains I'd say it could become one of my favorite series.

I read an Erikson-book in a little more than a week but that's just because he's probably my favorite author and when he publishes a new book that's like ... you know, what christmas is for a child.

So you plan to read Toll the Hounds with only having read Deadhouse Gates of the serie before? It's a great book, probably one of his best in my opnion, but I suspect it might be a somewhat tough read without the appropriate backstory (especially Gardens of the Moon and Memories of Ice). It's possible (more so than some of his other work) but I would personally not recommend it. You might still enjoy it, I'm just warning you here. If you feel like reading more Erikson but doesn't have the time to read all eight books I would recommend Midnight Tides. Not only is it my favorite of his, but it's also probably the one that works best on it's own.