Bittercon - Still Thinking About Authorized Cruelty

[pameladlloyd]

One of the topics we discussed during the most recent bittercon was Authorized Cruelty over on sartorias' journal.

In one of my comments I left out a mention to a writer whose works I've found compelling, because I didn't want to mention two different authors whose names and book titles I was blanking on. I still can't remember the author mentioned in my comment, but Jenny Rappaport, whose blog Lit Soup I read through her RSS feed comfort_soup, happened to mention the other writer's name: Jacqueline Carey.

Jacqueline Carey's Kushiel's Legacy series goes far past what I thought was my threshold for violence, especially violence in the context of sexual activity, yet I couldn't read them fast enough once I'd started. These books examined the fine line between pleasure and pain, as well as giving a graphic depiction of a character for whom pain is pleasure. But don't make the mistake of thinking that these are simple books with a single focus. The world-building and characterizations are complex, and the voice is outstanding, with the end result that the story is compelling on multiple levels. (As an aside, you may be interested in the discussions going on right now on sartorias' journal: Voice or worldbuilding? and Is voice more important than worldbuilding? over on pjthompson's journal, which look at what makes books work for people.)

This got me to thinking about Laurell K. Hamilton's work. A friend introduced me to Hamilton's Anita Blake series several years ago and I started out enjoying the series. However, what I saw as the series progressed was an apparent pattern in which the violence and sex would become a bit more graphic as the series progressed, then ratchet back down for a book, only to creeps leap back up in the next. Eventually, I no longer felt that the sex and violence were a consequence of the plot and characterization, but that the plot and characterization existed only to provide an excuse for the sex and violence. At which point, I lost interest in the series. I've never been able to get into her Meredith Gentry series either.

So where's the line? When has an author gone too far? When are sex and violence appropriate to the story, and when are they gratuitous?

Edited to add: In a really, really big oops, I realized that the discussion I was thinking about was the one sartorias linked to: Is voice more important than worldbuilding? over on pjthompson's journal, so I added that info inline, as well as here. My apologies.

Comments

[k-10b.livejournal.com]

I agree with you on almost every point about Carey v. Hamilton. I really enjoy the Kushiel books (both series), and was taken to sensual, sexual places I never would otherwise have experienced. However, the "love as thou wilt" philosophy/religious dictate allows for so many wonderful freedoms. Her characters actions remain within the scope of those characters' personalities... I think Joscelin might be my favorite character, for all the hard choices he has to make.

Hamilton, on the other hand, has simply degraded into sex for its own sake... no joy or intimacy or even any true release (since everybody just has to do it all over again in the next chapter.). Also, the characters are not allowed to make choices or experience real consequences. They just keep going around in the same circles, which get boring fast.

[pdlloyd.livejournal.com]

I think Joscelin might be my favorite character, for all the hard choices he has to make.

Although there are many things that make Carey's work complex, I think the love that develops between Joscelin and Phèdre is a big factor in what makes this series pleasurable to read.

[pjthompson]

I finally got rid of every book I had by LKH except the one I haven't read. I donated them to the Venice Library. Hopefully, they can make some change on them at the upcoming book sale. I stuck with her a long time and recent books have actually had some plot in them, but...

[pdlloyd.livejournal.com]

I enjoyed the first few books of hers that I read. If she moves back toward books that have enough plot and interesting things in them, I may go back to reading her work. Or, I may not. Usually, once I drop an author because some aspect of their writing isn't working for me, I don't go back.

I think one thing that can happen, and it may be a factor here, is that when an author's books become popular, and when a particular aspect of their work seems to be the reason for their popularity, there may be a tendency for the author to emphasize that aspect in their future works, to the point that those works lose their balance.

[pjthompson]

there may be a tendency for the author to emphasize that aspect in their future works, to the point that those works lose their balance.

Yes, definitely that--as well as all the yes men and women she seems to surround herself with.

[pdlloyd.livejournal.com]

I only met her once, when she was the guest of honor at TusCon, and then she only had her husband and son with her, so that's a bit beyond anything I can really comment on.

I do think it's a shame that many authors whose earliest works I've enjoyed change in directions that don't work for me.

[pdlloyd.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I think my last comment was simply too vague.

I think it's a shame when authors whose careers have gone well think they can write whatever they please, ignoring the things they knew about writing at the beginnings of their careers and rejecting editorial direction.

Note that I don't know enough about LKH to know if that's what's going on with her, or not. But, there are certain other writers (of whom Piers Anthony is one) who actually publish essays about how they have ignored editorial advice.