Salt - a question for fandom
Aug. 23rd, 2006 10:17 pmIf you've never read Adam Roberts' book "Salt" then you probably want to skip this one...
I really enjoyed the first 2/3 of Salt. While the two opposing political viewpoints were inflated to the point of satire I enjoyed them at that level, total anarchy versus total totalitarian capitalism seen through the alternating opposing viewpoints of their leading espousers.
And then I hit the rape scene.
And what got me wasn't the rape, per se. It's not shown in any great detail, and were it to be an integral part of the plot I'd be fine with it. But it actually seemed, to me, to get in the way of the plot. The book doesn't really stand up as anything except political satire/tract, so I assume that Roberts was trying to say something about anarchy. Except that up to this point the Alsists haven't seemed to engage in wanton rape. Yes, they fight when they're angry, but there's no mention of it being considered ok to rape the women back home. And afterwards he seems not to understand that doing so would cause her to be upset, which leads me to believe that either he's gone stark staring mad at this point, or Roberts is just a bad writer.
Can anyone shed any illumination?
I really enjoyed the first 2/3 of Salt. While the two opposing political viewpoints were inflated to the point of satire I enjoyed them at that level, total anarchy versus total totalitarian capitalism seen through the alternating opposing viewpoints of their leading espousers.
And then I hit the rape scene.
And what got me wasn't the rape, per se. It's not shown in any great detail, and were it to be an integral part of the plot I'd be fine with it. But it actually seemed, to me, to get in the way of the plot. The book doesn't really stand up as anything except political satire/tract, so I assume that Roberts was trying to say something about anarchy. Except that up to this point the Alsists haven't seemed to engage in wanton rape. Yes, they fight when they're angry, but there's no mention of it being considered ok to rape the women back home. And afterwards he seems not to understand that doing so would cause her to be upset, which leads me to believe that either he's gone stark staring mad at this point, or Roberts is just a bad writer.
Can anyone shed any illumination?
no subject
Date: 2006-08-23 09:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-23 09:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-24 12:13 pm (UTC)Now, 'The Disposessed' WAS good. Must re-read that...
no subject
Date: 2006-08-23 10:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-24 12:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-24 07:55 am (UTC)If this was explained in the text as somehow symptomatic of the way that Alsists frequently did have sex (hence the confusion), or that he was trying to help her out of her out of her heirarchist ways (and was going mad) I'd have been much happier. Instead, it's pretty much the only scene in the book which doesn't have internal commentary as to its meaning.
I'll have to track it down again when I get back from Norfolk and make sure I'm not misrepresenting it.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-24 08:34 am (UTC)On the other hand, I do think it is problematic for a male writer to use a rape scene for a narrative purpose. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it has to be done carefully, because sexual violence is so stupidly portrayed in a lot of fiction.
FWIW I think Roberts was doing something on purpose here, and a feeling of discomfort and betrayal by the reader was intended.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-24 09:37 am (UTC)I just don't know - let me know how your reading goes!
no subject
Date: 2006-08-24 12:11 pm (UTC)