Romance Quest!: oh dear.

[wolffyluna]

It is said that the worst six words a reader can say is "I don't care about these people." I have found a worse one: "I don't care about these rat-bastards."

In other words, I only got about 10 pages into The Kings Pleasure by Heather Graham.

One of the things that put me off the romance genre is because pretty much every novel I'd heard of (eg Fifty Shades or Twilight) the male lead was an abusive bag of dicks, but it was okay because he was protective (read: controlling) and really cared about her (read: still abusive, but the author hasn't noticed) and all the other male characters are worse (read: GAHHHH).

Adrien spends a large amount of his internal monologue thinking about how he really, really wants to strangle his wife-- and it's meant to be endearing, not a sign he might murder her?

But it's okay, because the only other named male character tried to rape her!

...I'm not against rape scenes, but seriously? In the first 10 pages? As a sort of generic peril for our leading man to rescue leading lady from?

The only good thing I got from this book was a chance to think about and articulate why I in particular don't like that attempted rape scene.

For one, I don't like rape scenes when they come across as "Quick, we need to put this female character in peril! What sort of perils do feeeemaaaaales get into?" I also find a lot of those generic-peril-attempted-rape-scenes break my suspension of disbelief. Maybe they shouldn't but they do.

And also, I find that rape scenes are something I need to trust the author with. I need to trust that the author will treat this with some sensitivity, that the author knows where they're going with this, that that scene is there for a reason and they thought about it-- and you don't get that trust in the first 10 pages. And putting a scene like that in the first 10 pages makes me trust the author less, because it means they don't realise there's a need for trust, if that makes sense? It's like they don't realise they're dealing with something heavy, and need to establish themselves as someone who can deal with heavy shit sensibly.

Also, I found it hella offputting that the author felt comfortable putting in an attempted rape scene, but not comfortable using the word 'penis' or any other non-euphemism for it.

Comments

[chocochipbiscuit]

Why We Still Call Them Bodice Rippers is an interesting article I've found about some of the norms of the romance genre (including that...yeah, I clearly remember seeing the super cheesy covers and the 'forceful' sex scenes) but uh.

The best I can say is that some romance novels are/were crafted with a very specific target audience in mind (or at least an imagined target audience) and really, really weren't great at flagging for that.

(and the saltier I can say is "fuck that whole shitty dynamic sideways")

[wolffyluna]

Ooh, thanks for the link!

And like, I don't get the appeal of "He's a bag of dicks, but he loves me/I made him stop being a dick to me!", and I can't turn off the part of my brain that goes "...that's some more evidence she's at risk of dying" , but I don't begrudge people who do find it appealing and don't have that brain widget, YKINMKATO and glass houses and all that jazz... I'D JUST LIKE IT TO BE MARKED.

(Ao3 and it's tagging has spoiled me, what can I say.)

(Also, being salty: I bet people would throw a fit if it started being marked, because how dare people imply that not everyone likes this fantasy/this thing I like, and that it is a fantasy! *eye roll*)

[chocochipbiscuit]

Man, I love tagging. I was just reading The Broken Earth trilogy and it's really good but also has a whole lot of stuff that deserves content warnings and tags. Even though the author did a good job IMO of setting expectations from the jump, it was a really heavy read and genuinely took me a step back because I had gotten so used to fanfic tagging conventions.

[lb_lee]

Yeah, I want to read Jemisin and have heard rave reviews about Broken Earth, but I also got WARNED and I know I'm not up to it yet. :\

The past few years, I've basically been reduced to reading nonfiction, because the genre conventions are totally different. Most nonfiction warns out the wazoo, because there's not really such a thing as plot twists or surprise rape when it's a book about the life spans of trees, or the sense of humor in Nazi Germany (THOUGH SOMETIMES YOU'D BE SURPRISED).

[chocochipbiscuit]

That is completely fair!!!! Everyone should be able to approach difficult material at their own speed, honestly.

And that's a really interesting point about nonfiction I hadn't considered! I've been reading more nonfiction lately (mostly due to listening to nonfiction podcasts, which like to boost books or interview authors) but my reading has been pretty scattershot based on whatever catches my interest.

[lb_lee]

Yeah, nonfiction owns my soul these days. I appreciate the ease in avoiding unpleasant surprises. Not podcasts though; processing audio alone is the WORST for me!

[wolffyluna]

Yeah, that's the nice thing about non fiction.

(Also, even in the non fiction I've read that has had 'twists', they've always been nice ones? Which may just be a combo of the non fiction I've read+how much of it I've read, but still.)

[empresszo]

I read the article, am glad I did, and wouldn't have otherwise - so! Thank you!

[chocochipbiscuit]

You're welcome! I'm always happy to share cool stuff I find. :D

[bushwah]

Ooh, I really feel you on rape/attempted rape as "generic peril" for women. There are many ways to mishandle sexual violence in fiction, and that's an especially common one: as something for a woman (any woman) to need to be rescued from. I'm not sure attempted rape is unrealistic, but being rescued from it by an outside observer catching the rapist in the act does feel... not likely.

And going on to pair up the victim and the rescuer is sort of concerning in another dimension. Women deserve defense whether or not they're going to express their gratitude to their defenders with sex, and the idea that they *should* give the non-rapist a chance leads to complex consent issues down the line. Men doing favors for women and then making it weird is already a problem, but that connotation being given to *this* favor is extra bad because of the particular trauma potential of trading sex for protection.

"It's like they don't realise they're dealing with something heavy, and need to establish themselves as someone who can deal with heavy shit sensibly." I never really thought of that before but yeah, a rape scene that early points to serious pacing issues (unless the author is doing something unusual), and one possible explanation is that the author doesn't recognize the pacing issues because they don't think they've written a key scene.

"Also, I found it hella offputting that the author felt comfortable putting in an attempted rape scene, but not comfortable using the word 'penis' or any other non-euphemism for it." haha isn't that the truth.

(Do you have IP logging enabled on purpose?)

[wolffyluna]

(I didn't realise the default was IP-logging. Woops!)


Yeah, the pairing up of victim and rescuer has some-- implications, and it's also often used to really hollowly make the rescuer seem like a nice person, either because it shows that he's Not A "Rapist"* or that his controlling behaviour was just him being protective, so it's okay.
(Also, a thing that makes it even grosser in the context of this book: the two leads are in an arranged marriage, that neither wanted. And you know what, that *could* be written in a non creepy way, it just wasn't.)

*In quotes, because surprising amounts of said protagonists are rapists, the authors just haven't realised it

[bushwah]

...oof. Husband defending his female partner-property (who is not free to leave *and* did not decide to take on such status) is such a fucked-up situation. This was supposed to make him seem nice, justify his possessiveness, and/or demonstrate that he's a good pick for the heroine? I'm pretty sure it did exactly the opposite of all of those.

I *wish* that scene had him realizing "hang on, my intentions toward her are fucked up, the way this guy was molesting her really upset her, maybe I should try backing off from my so far extremely aggressive flirtations so that I don't actually hurt her the way this guy I hate did??" but I'm guessing it doesn't.

And "Not A 'Rapist'*" (complete with asterisk) is such an accurate term for a certain brand of hero. It's like a player character in a standard video game who's been tasked to take down a "bandit" -- the player character has been killing people and taking their stuff this whole time, but we aren't supposed to notice that part. It's... hm. A story role disconnected from the actions that would logically establish it?

Which makes me think of every shallow het romance subplot ever, honestly. And how characters can be "busy people" but not actually have anything to do, or not have anything to do that gets in the way of the plot. Informed attributes; passionate simulation; did not do the research.

A rule of thumb: arranged marriages should not make one's job as an author *easier.*

[wolffyluna]

I didn't get very far past that scene, but his main concern after rescuing her wasn't 'holy shit are you alright' or even the kind-of-gross-but-not-completely-unreasonable 'wtf why were you trying to commit treason with That Guy'-- no, his main concern was that she claimed their marriage wasn't consummated. Which, like, way to go with your priorities, male lead!

Yeah, the whole Not-A-Rapist seems to come from authors that don't, hmm, think through the implications of what they wrote? Similar again to the bandit-taking down heroes, where you can tell the author didn't think about what a bandit actually is.

(I'm kind of annoyed, because the blurb made it sound like neither character particularly wanted an arranged marriage, which a)is a less creepy alternative of one being really into it and the other not and b)I thought was going to lead into a plot of both of them going 'I'm not thrilled about this, but I am going to make it work, FOR KING AND COUNTRY' which could have been fun.

A: Oh, I guess this arrangement hasn't been so bad. They're competent at running their lands, and a decent enough fellow. It is all worth it to uphold my country.
B: Oh, so it's obligation that's making you stare dreamily at them when they're not looking?
A:...FOR KING AND COUNTRY.)

[bushwah]

WOW NO

Yes, that. But the overall pattern isn't just one of unsatisfying, mediocre writing; it's, hm, like stereotyping? It *creates,* or at least helps sustain, the real-life social role of the "good guy who's not afraid to push women's boundaries."

You were looking for fandom style tropey arranged marriage... and got an awkward un-self-aware dubconfest. What a mess.

Reminds me of my adventures in trying to find slavery-themed fic that recognizes that healthy shipping involving people whose autonomy has no legal or social weight is *difficult.* Not even "handle it accurately and respectfully" but just "recognize that it's difficult."

[wolffyluna]

YEAH. AGREED.

And double agree with the stereotyping thing. It also helps maintain the related role 'controlling guy who's controlling because he caaaaaaaares'

I haven't run into a lot of slavery fic, but I imagine that would be a tricky needle to thread. (On a tangent, it seems like slave fic often runs into the issue that 'something that resembles real life slavery, and rl consequences of slavery' and 'look, we're just going to ignore the implications because they get in the way of the tropey/sexy fun, okay?' have to share a tag.)