Rape in fiction Vs Rape in the real world.
I read an interesting post from erastes this evening relating to a discussion taking place on Remittance Girl's blog about eroticism of rape in fiction. I have also read the posts on said blog and followed some of the discussion there about the subject. This is a subject which interests me, because, apparently I wrote a novella which eroticizes, not only rape, but also does the same with Stockholm syndrome.
I was surprised when a couple of people commented on The Keeper and said that my hero, Thomas is repeatedly raped in my story -- even more surprised to hear it said that this took place 'on screen' so to speak, and that my "Keeper" is the rapist.
I admit, that when I wrote The Keeper, I set out with the deliberate intention to write a Codpiece Ripper (m/m equivalent of a bodice ripper) I intended to create a callow youth who falls pray to a silver-tongued rogue who is admittedly, somewhat forceful in his seduction of Thomas.
I don't apologize for that. Having the novella called a codpiece ripper by elisa_rolle was in fact, something that I congratulated myself on. That was my intention, after all.
I didn't mind that some readers were made uncomfortable by scenes in the story. *shrugs* good fiction is supposed to evince an emotional response from the reader, n'est pas? I'd much prefer I loved it, or I hated it, to a simple "Meh" if you get my drift?
I was actually more upset about technical and historical errors that were pointed out, than I was about being -- I believe -- falsely accused of eroticising rape!
Okay, so I wrote a book which contains some scenes of dubious consent, or forced seduction, or whatever other euphemism you want to apply. It also contained an off-screen rape of which I portray only the lead up and aftermath. I expected there to be an outcry about that, but it has never mentioned. Go figure.
Then my hero fell in love with The Keeper. Again, I committed a politically incorrect faux pas by eroticising Stockholm syndrome (which was not even understood in 1772!). In answer, I can only say that the book is a codpiece ripper and leave it at that.
Such books were very popular in the 80's which is when I was right into reading romance of the heterosexual genre and since I loved those, I suppose I wanted to try my hand at writing one. Putting a m/m spin on it only added to the fun, for me.
Does writing about dubious consent, or forced seduction mean that I condone or accept rape in the real world?
Of course not! I find rape in reality to be abhorrent, and completely unacceptable. Real world rape is not about sex, or eroticism. It is about violence, control, power and humiliation.
Forced seduction, or dubious consent in fiction are completely different beasts to rape and coercion in real life.
I would never condone rape under any circumstances in the real world.
In fiction though? I think the writer must be free to write about whatever he or she wants to write about. If there are readers out there who dislike or find such fiction distasteful, then they shouldn't read it.
Incidentally, my novella, "The Keeper" is a best seller in its category at my publisher's website, and I think that speaks for itself.
Adieu!
I was surprised when a couple of people commented on The Keeper and said that my hero, Thomas is repeatedly raped in my story -- even more surprised to hear it said that this took place 'on screen' so to speak, and that my "Keeper" is the rapist.
I admit, that when I wrote The Keeper, I set out with the deliberate intention to write a Codpiece Ripper (m/m equivalent of a bodice ripper) I intended to create a callow youth who falls pray to a silver-tongued rogue who is admittedly, somewhat forceful in his seduction of Thomas.
I don't apologize for that. Having the novella called a codpiece ripper by elisa_rolle was in fact, something that I congratulated myself on. That was my intention, after all.
I didn't mind that some readers were made uncomfortable by scenes in the story. *shrugs* good fiction is supposed to evince an emotional response from the reader, n'est pas? I'd much prefer I loved it, or I hated it, to a simple "Meh" if you get my drift?
I was actually more upset about technical and historical errors that were pointed out, than I was about being -- I believe -- falsely accused of eroticising rape!
Okay, so I wrote a book which contains some scenes of dubious consent, or forced seduction, or whatever other euphemism you want to apply. It also contained an off-screen rape of which I portray only the lead up and aftermath. I expected there to be an outcry about that, but it has never mentioned. Go figure.
Then my hero fell in love with The Keeper. Again, I committed a politically incorrect faux pas by eroticising Stockholm syndrome (which was not even understood in 1772!). In answer, I can only say that the book is a codpiece ripper and leave it at that.
Such books were very popular in the 80's which is when I was right into reading romance of the heterosexual genre and since I loved those, I suppose I wanted to try my hand at writing one. Putting a m/m spin on it only added to the fun, for me.
Does writing about dubious consent, or forced seduction mean that I condone or accept rape in the real world?
Of course not! I find rape in reality to be abhorrent, and completely unacceptable. Real world rape is not about sex, or eroticism. It is about violence, control, power and humiliation.
Forced seduction, or dubious consent in fiction are completely different beasts to rape and coercion in real life.
I would never condone rape under any circumstances in the real world.
In fiction though? I think the writer must be free to write about whatever he or she wants to write about. If there are readers out there who dislike or find such fiction distasteful, then they shouldn't read it.
Incidentally, my novella, "The Keeper" is a best seller in its category at my publisher's website, and I think that speaks for itself.
Adieu!