As I told Ashfae...

[fpb]

...I wanted to put the following review somewhere, just in case Amazon forget to post it or lose it. It is for Michael Moorcock's Gloriana

THIS SINISTER APOLOGY FOR POLITICAL VIOLENCE AND RAPE

I apologize for not being interested in the literary subtleties of this clever piece of writing. I regret that my unsophisticated mind does not take all the refined (as a sledgehammer) allusions to Spenser, Gormenghast, the Edda and so on. But you see, I have this bizarre notion that the climax and conclusion of a story are something to do with its point; and the climax of this story has a thief and murderer - oh, yes, sorry, a *romantic* thief and murderer, that makes *so* much difference to his victims - raping a woman who happens to be the Queen of England (again, that makes *so* much difference to the rape!); which she enjoys so much that she makes him king consort, with a certain amount of diplomatic lies to smooth his path. Translation: "being raped did the bitch good, and besides she enjoyed it". Gloriana can easily be defined as a bitch, in case you were wondering, and the fact that the loathsome Quire managed to give her an orgasm is the sure token that he is a suitable sovereign for an empire, which can now look forwards to all the wise subtleties of rule which he learned as a murderous street thief. Sorry, I forgot: a *romantic* murderous street thief. If I ever read a more thorough-going, false-faced, revolting apology for evil in every form, I have, luckily, forgotten it. But then Moorcock never had much time for morality, or what he called "pooh fantasy".

Comments

I still disagree...

[threeoranges.livejournal.com]

When you say I react strongly to cases of rape, I do indeed, but I do recognize that there are worse crimes out there - like, say, the removal of a limb without anaesthetic. As you say, rape is a form of torture. What annoys me about Umbridge's rape in OotP (because I do believe it's a rape, for reasons I will go into later) is that it's a woman who's writing it. A woman, who presumably like every other woman I've ever met who would think it a particularly degrading, sexist form of punishment, thinks it's a good fun way to destroy her most hated female character. For that reason it grates on me: it's a woman aligning herself with the sort of men who think a little rape is the best way to stop a woman getting any ideas above herself. A rapist reduces a woman to her sexual organs alone, and then makes that source of pleasure a source of traumatic pain. That a woman would write this sort of thing as a just and fitting punishment for a female character she despises is a thought I find revolting.

But never mind this Betrayal-of-Her-Own-Gender rant, what concerns me is the portrayal of the centaurs. I think the clues are there to suggest their libidinous nature. Consider Umbridge's accusations: "Filthy half-breeds! Beasts! Uncontrolled animals!" Uncontrolled. Notice also her next cry, "Unhand me, you animals!" "Unhand me" isn't an unconsidered phrase: it is, in fact, the sort of phrase a young Victorian maiden uses to a man taking what she considers to be too much of a sexual liberty. After she is seized, borne aloft and carried away into the forest, Hermione makes the mistake of thanking the centaurs for their help and nearly calls down similar treatment upon herself and Harry: "They can join the woman!" Notice the reduction of Umbridge to "woman" here. Finally, consider Umbridge's appearance in the bed: "her normally neat mousy hair was very untidy and there were still bits of leaves and twigs in it". Untidy. Suggests the back of her head's been scraped against the forest floor repeatedly, does it not?

So please don't say that it's merely "torture" to which Umbridge has been subjected. The centaurs carry no wands, so Cruciatus cannot have been used, and had they caused her serious physical pain with blunt or sharp objects Pomfrey would doubtless have bandaged up the affected parts. But no, all Umbridge is suffering is "shock". What punishment inflicts few outward marks on the female body beyond bruising, and yet leaves the victim in a near-catatonic state of shock? There's only one answer, isn't there.

However, the centaurs are not going to be tried, much less punished, for what they have done. Buckbeak lashed out in anger in the face of a few insults, and the Ministry sentenced him to death: the centaurs gang-raped Umbridge in the face of a few insults, and Umbridge will never get the satisfaction of a trial, much less justice. (But then rapists hardly ever face justice, do they? In that sense, the scene is realistic.)

All in all, what I see is the woman being victimized for doing the nasty job her boss - a man - sent her to do. Umbridge is the sort of lackey who toes the line and would never exceed her remit (hence her fear of, and disgust towards, those who break the rules). If she was told by her superior to use any means to prevent Potter from spreading "lies" and discord in the school, then she will follow orders. Yet when it comes down to it, the servant is punished far in excess of her actual crimes and the master who told her to do such things - Fudge - escapes scot-free.

Blame the woman. It's a common refrain in real-life, but I just wish a woman writer had not seen fit to replicate this message in her work.

Re: I still disagree...

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I don't think you are being quite fair. For a start, there is no evidence that whatever has been done to Umbridge has not been or will not be punished. Second, I find it very strange that you should consider that JKR approves of anything the Centaurs do - considering that, by the time Grawp blunders onto them, they seem about to murder Harry, Ron and Hermione. That they are as plainly in the wrong as is possible to be, and that not by chance but because of their arrogant and obstinate natures, seems to me obvious; and that being the case, how can you say that JKR implies that whatever they did to Umbridge was "deserved"? Would you say the same if she had been eaten by a dragon? That is what we are talking about here.

And JKR makes it perfectly clear that Umbridge has gone well beyond her orders - unless you are saying that Fudge gave her secret orders to torture Harry till he bled. She sent the Dementors to murder him off her own bat, and she has done it because she is that kind of person - a kind, alas, that flourishes in bureaucracies. And it has nothing to do with her being a woman. It seems to me that you are coming dangerously close to saying that, because she is a woman, she should not be blamed for her crimes - that they should all be imputed to Fudge, even those he had neither approved nor known about. And I do not think such a position would do women much honour.

Re: I still disagree...

[threeoranges.livejournal.com]

For a start, there is no evidence that whatever has been done to Umbridge has not been or will not be punished.

No promise of restitution is made to her, and far from being allowed to stay in a hospital bed and recover she's kicked out in a way which encourages the reader to laugh at her. Raped and pelted out of the school by a poltergeist! Somehow I really can't see this as a victory for the victim.

That they are as plainly in the wrong as is possible to be, and that not by chance but because of their arrogant and obstinate natures, seems to me obvious; and that being the case, how can you say that JKR implies that whatever they did to Umbridge was "deserved"?

I believe the implication that the punishment was "deserved" lies in the fact that Umbridge attempted to crush Harry's will using the vampire pen: some might call that an attempt at mind-rape and respond that it's fitting that she was punished with a literal physical rape. Add to this the sense that Umbridge deserves Something Bad to happen to her and people are likely to respond with "There's her punishment, great, our sense of justice is satisfied!" But, as I've said before, using rape as a punishment is indicative of a thoroughly sexist mindset. (I would say the same of a woman who decided the best way to punish a male was to wound his genitalia.) For that reason I would much, much, much rather have had her being eaten by a dragon.

And JKR makes it perfectly clear that Umbridge has gone well beyond her orders

You're absiolutely right here, she didn't send the Dementor on his explicit orders. That said, I think it perfectly possible that she picked up a subtle hint given by Fudge himself: "Somebody had to act... They were all bleating about silencing you somehow - discrediting you - but I was the one who actually did something about it..." When I couple that with her earlier statement that Fudge was delighted to have an excuse to prosecute Harry in a Wizengamot, what I am reminded of is Henry II muttering to his knights, "Will no-one rid me of this turbulent priest?" Or in Fudge's case, will no-one rid him of this teenage nuisance. Fudge's subsequent eagerness to prosecute fifteen-year-old Harry Potter as a fully-grown adult must have confirmed in Umbridge's mind that she'd done the right thing, and that it would be equally correct to carry on "silencing" Potter and everyone else who spread the "lies". She did not defy the orders of her superiors, she merely took their wishes and translated them into deeds. It's not that she shouldn't be punished - she should be - but Fudge and the others who wanted Potter "silenced" should be investigated and put on trial themselves. (Remember Fudge still hasn't faced any kind of enquiry for bringing a Dementor in and wiping Barty Jr's soul and spoken evidence - again, far more harmful than anything Umbridge managed to do.)

It seems to me that you are coming dangerously close to saying that, because she is a woman, she should not be blamed for her crimes - that they should all be imputed to Fudge, even those he had neither approved nor known about. And I do not think such a position would do women much honour.

Agreed, it wouldn't. But the sources of my unease are threefold: firstly, that her punishment was far in excess of what she inflicted; secondly, that a woman writer approves of rape as a punishment for an unpleasant character; and, thirdly, that there is no sense of the "buck stopping" with Fudge himself. He sent her there with some idea of her capabilities and personality; he made no attempt to check up on what she was doing; he can't be held entirely unaccountable for this lapse of judgement on his part. My theory is that Umbridge sent in reports of what she was doing, to which he replied approvingly. Why else did Fudge sign the parchment allowing her complete power as "High Inquisitor" at Hogwarts? Don't tell me he didn't know what was going on there; I actually credit him with more intelligence than that.