I have no comment, except that your icon just freaked me right the fuck out. Thanks! :)

Heh. It is fun, isn't it?

I just finished reading Iron Kissed and thought Patti handled it very well. The entire sequence was in character for the villain, and the way Mercy fought it and her reaction to it was also true to character.

I doubt those characters could have done anything different and remained true to themselves. But I also think that this is the only crime Mercy could have experienced against herself that would crack her hard shell of emotinal self-reliance. She is vulnerable. She is not immortal. She has super strengths, but against ubervillians with super powers it's not enough. She needs help and she needs to allow herself to love. She couldn't do that until she experiences vulnerablity.

That may not make a lot of sense, I'm just rambling on as usual.

No, I think you're right. I particularly like the follow up scene with Ben and Adam. I do think the very ending is a little rushed--I think a little more would have been good.

I agree that there wasn't much that could crack Mercy open so much. That's why I want a little more follow up because I think there was opportunity to show her interactions a bit more while vulnerable and I think her and Adam's relationship has been more complex then it seems right at the end and I want to see more of that.

Di

There's always the next book...

So I found this discussion by way of a series of links, and this isn't precisely the first impression I normally want to make. But I'm hoping I've misunderstood your point here rather badly:

But I also think that this is the only crime Mercy could have experienced against herself that would crack her hard shell of emotinal self-reliance...She needs help and she needs to allow herself to love. She couldn't do that until she experiences vulnerablity.

Surely you're not actually saying that Mercy was broken and needed to be raped in order to be fixed?

No I'm not saying that. I'm saying that Mercy has problems. In order for her to continue to progress in her work to help save mundanes from preternatural villains, she needs help and she needs to learn how to love.

At the point in the story where this heinous crime occured, something drastic needed to happen in order for her to experience vulnerability. Not just danger, vulnerability.

The author chose to portray the kind of crime consistant with the villain. Mercy fought back which she needed to do in order to preserve her sense of self--though that takes time.

There may have been other choices the author could have made. This one was consistent with both characters and accomplished the story arc goal.

Lively debate is never out of place as long as it stays debate and not pointless shouting.

I do try not to shout. *g* But wandering into a week-old thread isn't always quite the thing, so I thought it best to do so at least semi-gingerly.

she needs help and she needs to learn how to love.

I guess the root of my question here is that I just can't get my head around the above. Mercy seems very capable of caring very deeply for--that is, loving--other people. See her concern for Zee, for Sam's feelings, for Warren, for the assorted teenagers, and so on.

And she seems to me well-aware that she isn't invulnerable--physically or otherwise--and very capable of knowing when she's in over her head. (See the beach scene on the reservation, for example.)

So...she needs to learn that she's vulnerable? Why? What makes you feel she doesn't know, or that she needs to feel it more strongly? What does it mean for her to "[need] to learn to love"? Do you mean she needs romantic love in particular, or do you feel she doesn't understand love (as much as any of us ever can) in any form?

Mercy does love. But does she allow those she loves to get truly close to her? She needs the kind of intimacy that allows her to show her vulnerabilities before she can ask for the kind of help she's going to need without feeling guilty for asking for that help.

There is a difference between vulnerability and danger.

I agree with the author's choice. There may have been other solutions. The author made a choice. I know Patricia and know she agonized over this. It works and she's #1 on the bestseller list. I can't argue with that.

I wasn't asking for a discussion of the rape at all. I was asking for an elaboration on/explanation of your view of the character.

::shrug:: But if you'd rather not, of course that's fine.

Oh, goodness no. That would be oh so squicky. No, I'm thinking that Mercy has so far been very self-reliant and very careful of herself (emotions especially). But she has long been a loner. I think this rape helped open that exterior shell of self-containment and allowed her to feel part of the pack. I think the following scene with Ben is particularly telling and earlier bits, especially with Honey, show that's the tension that's coming to a boiling point--either Mercy has to accept these others in her life and become truly connected on an emotional level, or she has to withdraw from them. Hold them at arm's length.

I don't know that rape was the only way to make this happen--for Adam his emotional cracking happens with his daughter early on in the books. But Mercy's managed to seal herself off emotionally. Not that she doesn't care, but that she can keep a certain amount of distance. She doesn't sink down into the emotion.

Does that make sense? Or do you see this entirely differently? I think it was a truly powerful scene, especially the way the emotional part is complicated by the sense of free will--that on some level Mercy agreed to this. Which of course she didn't, but the magic made her. And so she is terribly ambivalent about it, because that, more than anything, where the emotional cracking occurs. She realizes she's not totally in control and the question is can she live with it? Can she accept help for it?

I may be babbling now . . .

Di

Does that make sense? Or do you see this entirely differently?

That's what I'm trying to figure out. *g*

Or rather: I do suspect that there's some fundamental disconnect here between me and the various folks who thought the second half of this book worked brilliantly. I'm on record (that's my post that somebody linked to in the comments of the DA review) as thinking this rape was terribly handled, its lead-in and aftermath ditto, and Mercy's romantic relationships in general deeply creepy. That stuff, I think, simply falls into the "see entirely differently" category.

But I like, at least, to try to figure out what exactly folks who see it differently from the other side are seeing. There are points made in your SF Novelists post and in this post and comment thread that I can look at and say, "Okay, I get that," even if I disagree that they're relevant in this particular case. That's interesting, and useful.

It's similarly interesting-and-useful to see when the disconnect--even if it still exists--is not quite what I thought it was. That is, in this case, it looks like maybe some of it isn't so much a different perspective on the rape itself as it is a drastically different view of Mercy. I can grok how, if someone feels that she's emotionally stunted, they can get to a belief that she needed something to shake her up.

I disagree with the premise, still, and with this particular shaking up, but I can understand the argument, and I think that's valuable. If that makes any sense?

Something to consider...Patricia Briggs is not shy about rape, in fact two characters in her dragon books (one of them a man)are raped. The interesting thing to me is that though they are raped, her characters, from Tisala and Ward to Mercy are so damned stubborn and in touch with themselves that the rape doesn't keep any of them from doing the necessary, whether that is simply continuing to live life, or to saving the world-or at least their little section of it.
What exactly is there to object to in that? The rape statistics are apalling as it is, but if victims are portrayed as crippled by it, or worse (in my view) not portrayed at all, who is there to empathise with? Yes it's a horrible experience, but one that a large segment of the population (both male and female) have in common. Frankly, every time she has used a rape as a plot point, it seemed like she was simply obeying the laws of probability. If you are being held captive by torturers, the likelihood is high that they are going to use rape as a method of breaking you down. And in the case of Iron Kissed, it really felt like a date rape scenario. You give a loser rohypnol, he's going to be tempted to use it on the woman he perceives as having toyed with him.
Fiction is often at its best when your characters are having to function in extremis. I don't think having them deal with physical violation is any worse than killing their families or stealing their bibles (to paraphrase a great movie)

and yet the reviewer took great offense. But I agree, Patty did not use the rape arbitrarily nor without consideration for plot and character and not just Mercy, but all the characters around her. I mean for me, the follow up with Ben really opened up his character. And Patty told me that she always knew that was Ben's background, so it's really interesting to read the entire three books knowing more about where Ben comes from in terms of psychology.

Di

Yes. Well. I have one of Those in "jin shei".

The thing is, the rape scene is far from graphic in that sense. The purpose of it (and yes, Virginia, it did have a purpose) was to show what a ghoul my main villain was, that he fed onthe spiritual while he took the physical, that the only reason that he was alive at all after centuries of existence was that he took - by force, because who'd give this up willingly? - what you might consider to be the life energy of others. And rape isn't confined to the physical act, it's a violation that goes far beyond that, and my scene was there not to have The Obligatory Rape Scene but to make that point.

I do think it can be overused, or written badly. But that is true of every single writing trope that you can think of in one way or another.

I thought that was a powerful and effective scene. I didn't like reading it, but I thought it was well-written.

That was one of the nicest double edged compliments ever...

But seriously - that's one of the goals of writing - to get a reaction, to get a response. It may not be necessary for the response to be all roses and fluffy bunnies, but if it gets to an emotional core of a reader in some way then it's doing what it's supposed to be doing.

On another note and another book - if you would like a vehicle to tell people Why They Should Buy Your New One, please email me details - the door to my blog is open for a guest spot.

I don't think it's double edged at all. That's exactly what I say about Schindler's List. I don't *like* watching it. But it's extraordinary and powerful and I am moved by it. So you WIN!

Di

Ditto "Saving Private Ryan."

Who **likes** to read about rape?

It's disturbing how many hits I get to my web site from people doing a search for rape+fiction, or similar search strings.

I could see that as being disturbing.

Then let me rephrase: I don't **like** reading about rape, but when an author I like/ trust uses it in a story it doesn't mean I'll stop reading their work.

I think my objection comes from the fact that rape is so often written *badly*.

As you say, it does happen. It happens a hell of a lot, and the majority of the time, it happens to women.

But I've read brilliant authors -- people who do months of research for their books -- suddenly fall back on cliche and stereotype when it comes to writing a rape scene. Or they toss it out as a cavalier afterthought to make sure we know someone's a villain, or to give our heroine something more to deal with.

Written well, I have no objections, and I appreciate authors willing to tackle the issue in their work. Written badly, it can knock an author right off of my reading list.

I wonder if that's because rape is so hard to think about. It's such a dreadful thing and can feel so personal (to the writer--of course it's personal to the victim). I wonder if it's too frightening for some writers to engage it on a deep level.

And if you want to make use of my blog, here and on MySpace for Goblin War (I just typed Foglin War--what does that mean?) please do. I don't have interview questions at the moment, being completely frazzled. What else fun can we do?

Di

Precisely. (Have I said lately that I find you quite astute, Jim? I do.)

I thought Patricia handled it quite well. Rape is a hot button for me... under the wrong circumstances, I'll fling the book across the room in disgust, never to touch it again. But! When handled with a touch of subtlety and understanding and sophistication, it can be as powerful a transforming tool as any an author has to use... and sometimes, it's the only one they have for the job in that time and place, with relation to protagonist psyche and villain ruthlessness.

I'd never use it in a story. I know I couldn't wield such a topic properly... it's like handling nuclear waste. One false step and you're glowing in the dark. But it didn't bother me more than a little in Iron Kissed, mainly because it felt properly handled for the character, the situation, and the aftermath.

(On the flipside, even just the rumor of rape being used as a plot tool in one of the recent Laurell K. Hamilton books was enough to steer me far away in annoyance...)

The first time I read that section of Iron Kissed, I was appalled that Briggs had used rape to move the story forward. I put the book down and gave it some time before I came back to it and finished it. It did work, but, I had to have some internal dialog about it, and I did discuss it with a friend who had also read the book. I felt the set up for the rapist was weak, but then, who knows what goes on in a rapists mind for their motivation in real life? But we both agreed that Mercy's tire iron therapy was effective. It reminded me of when I used to carry my tire iron under the drivers seat rather than in the trunk of my car. You never know when you will need it.

I'm extremely critical of rape sequences in text--and the representation of post-rape consequences. I decided a long time ago to be very open abt the fact that I'm a survivor. The theory (suggested by a long ago therapist) was that it was adding to a culture of shame to hide it as hiding it suggests that one is in some way culpable. I'm not sure if that's true. For some, I'm sure it's not true (no one path fits everyone). I AM sure that in being open I've lost count of how many people say "me too." Very few of those people were men (although some are--3 of my male exes were rape survivors). The prev of female rapes in text reflects that disparity of experience.

In being open, I've been sorta horrified at how many "me too" expressions I've heard. Maybe it's a like to like thing, or maybe it's just easier to admit one's a survivor when others say it first (my therapist's theory). All I know is that I see no reason it shouldn't be in text. Considering the frequency with which it happens, it's not surprising that it's in text frequently. Considering the stats on number of male & number of female survivors, it's less likely to see a male survivor in text (although there are some).

Writing it honestly is very important to me. Authors who write it sloppily end up in my trashbin. It's one of the few things that'll cause me to actually discard a book (not just donate it). There are many experiences that one doesn't research fully before writing, but there are some that are (IMHO) so critical to get "right." This is one of them.

Was it poorly handled in Briggs? No. She hit the notes that made me feel things I don't like remembering. (Being open abt being a survivor is different than ever liking thinking abt it. I HATE thinking abt it.) She had realism in there. She had post-trauma realism. The post-trauma recovery was a touch quick: I don't know many survivors who can have sex again so soon, & it's a common topic among survivors. Some have issues years later.

I didn't see it as a plot device. The rape seemed to come "out of no where" but, yanno, it does in real life too. There aren't handy signs & signifiers in advance b/c if there were, we wouldn't have it happening so much. Lots of times we can go to a house & think we're safe & be right. Sometimes, we are very very wrong. That's what happened to Mercy. THAT is real. It doesn't match my personal reality in the going-to-the-house-alone way, but the unexpectedness of it is quite honest.

JMHO, of course, but this is my "hot button" too , so I thought I'd weigh in.

Thanks for the thoughtful post, Diana.

I agree, as a survivor - what bothered me more than the rape sequence was that Marcy shrugged it off so quickly. Or she seemed to be able to. It seemed like sex was ok again so quickly. I was abused as a child, and as an adult I still have sexual issues.

My impression, though I could be wrong and only the next book will tell us, is that Mercy has decided she's over it and so voila! She plans to be over it. But of course, what you decide about yourself and how yourself actually feels are two different things. I have a feeling that Mercy is going to be kicked in the gut unexpectedly when the unresolved emotions come back at her from around the corners. She *wants* to be fine, and I think she's in a 'fake it til it's true' mode, but is avoiding really dealing. At least, that was the way I read it. I'm really interested in where the next book takes her character-developmentally-wise. And I have wondered since how that sex actually went. Her mind was willing (or rather her stubborness that said she hadn't really been scarred, hadn't really been damage) but I wonder if the moment he touched her that all went out the window.

Thoughts?

Di

But of course, what you decide about yourself and how yourself actually feels are two different things

I could agree with that. I understand that Mercy as a character would not want that vulnerability that a survivor so often feels after rape/ abuse happens. I could also see Mercy avoiding or locking her real emotions away; or using her stubbornness as a shield for her pain.

I just feel like the ending was quick/ left so many questions open. My friend commented to me earlier that we're likely to see the scars on Mercy through the next few books. And I, hope - isn't the right word - , but I feel like I want Patricia to be true to Mercy and true to the events that happened to her - does that make sense? I'd be very disappointed if the rape was never mentioned again as if it didn't happen.

Haven't read the books so maybe I'm missing the point here but it SEEMS like the reviewer's chief complaint is that rape is abused as a cheap plot device to give the character motivation. But can that really be the case at the end of the third book in a series? I want to assume that by book 3 the character of Mercy is pretty well developed and as such a brutal crime against her is not necessary to define her motivations.

I don't mind seeing writers use the subject of rape though it disturbs me to read it and I have a tendency to skim it quickly. I should say it I don't mind as long as they use the subject in a responsible fashion. Having a hero rape the heroine and all becomes sunshine and flowers immediately afterwards makes me want to throw up.

I don't like seeing rape in books, but I am realistic enough to know that it does happen only too frequently unfortunately in real life. I have yet to read IRON KISSED (it's on my TBR pile at the moment), but I have to admit that hearing she was raped kind of made me put off reading it as quickly as I originally intended. Why? Because I read so many books lately where the character is raped as a form of "buidling character" or progressing the story. Ironically, the trauma the victim is usually going to feel in these situations are glossed over except as a reason for vengence or to show how evil someone is. Hell, the trauma is glossed over once the event is over except for killing or putting the rapist in jail. I DESPISE that as it seems to belittle the victim and what she/he went through.

I have come across a few books recently (in the urban fantasy genre as well) that had female leads raped in some fashion and actually had her ENJOY it. That bothers me. I usually won't read a book buy an author that writes that. We're talking not only physically, but even emotionally. ::Shudder:::

I have also noticed a tendency of the use of magic or some other power that allows the character to basically force someone to have sex with despite the fact neither really wants to. I can't say I am happy to see the trend becoming prevalent and try to avoid those books. If I do read them, it is usually in the hopes of seeing that person realize what they have become and hopefully change or get killed off (probably the latter to be honest). I want justice in my fiction. Weird, but true...or even more likely just avoid the author's work after that.

Umm...I hope that made some sense.

I thought the use of rape did work in PoF, simply because if it hadn't been in there, I would've been surprised. I mean, honestly: the perps clearly considered C to be an object -- useful only for holding as hostage -- and expendable. So why not use that object as they would? If C had been male, I would've expected to find him beaten and battered to an incomprehensible degree, probably suffering brain damage from extensive head knocking. That kind of thing: when you don't see a person as a person, what's incomprehensible becomes matter-of-fact. (Which, in turn, is a big part of why some folks can, and do, rape, and not even consider it rape, because that requires a person to be violated, y'know?)

So in that instance, even the off-stage rape made sense within the bounds of C's experience. Perhaps also because it wasn't Reisil's first-person account, too -- in that I didn't have to deal with the whole "some guy tries to put strong woman in her place via rape" routine and let's face it, the strong woman in the story was Reisil, not Ceriba. The fact that Reisil did/had loved one of the perps only made it all the more bitter, but that (IMO) was ameliorated by the rare sweetness of , for once!, having the strong!female-hero being the one to rescue the damsel-in-distress.

(I'd probably read a lot less subtext into works if there were more authors who set aside the usual cultural gender-competition crap, and the luggage of "oh, I can't do that or someone might think I'm gay", and accepted, maybe even embraced, that people of both genders can, and will, do amazing things to rescue someone and not even need "and then we can have passionate sex!" as the reward. Sheesh. As it is, when such interactions do happen, they're so often clearly repressed on the part of the author that I can't help but see homoerotic elements hiding in there because the author is so busy rationalizing why one man would go to all those lengths to rescue another man, or a woman do it for a woman. You'd think these people never heard of common human decency, or simple friendships, or something. Ahem.)

Hot buttons... hmm. I'd agree that a badly-done rape (or close-rape) scene annoys me if the sole purpose is to justify the heroine "getting stronger" so she can get revenge. What, like anyone needs to be stomped on just to realize they don't want to get stomped on? Why can't we have more characters who realize that's an unattractive notion beforehand, and work to prevent it, rather than adapt after-the-fact?

But the hot button that caught me by surprise -- and might even be bigger, or maybe that's a result of it being used as a too-often repeated trope in SFF -- is that of markings. Any storyline in which a specific caste or group is permanently marked (especially in a publicly visible location on the body) to identify them as a threat, or a potential danger... oi. That really bugs me. Yellow stars, all around. I get that (most often) the author is saying it's a badge of honor, or a sign of rank, but to me the permanence (and the in-book cultural implications of "oooh, s/he is one of them" air) really turn me off.

I should add, it wasn't pleasant watching an almost-rape scene in Buffy, either... but in that case it clearly was the guy's issue and the guy's trauma running the show, and