The Sword and Laser discussion

Am I reading the sequence with Pretty Ping in chapter five wrong?

It seems pretty clear she does not want Ox there and her last word before he . . . initiates the encounter is "Help".

She later seems cool with everything, but I intially read that as the author saying she was ok being raped, if it was rape.

I am somewhere between confused and discusted.

It wasn't a rape. After threatening to scream initially she doesn't. The "Help" came after a seductive invitation "Her luscious lips parted" - but yes it's all kinds of wrong.

It certainly didn't seem consensual.

I think "her luscious lips parted," is intended as a sensual invitation - how sensual depending on how you interpret "lips."

David Sven wrote: "I think "her luscious lips parted," is intended as a sensual invitation - how sensual depending on how you interpret "lips.""

Ah yes, the "I know she said 'no,' but I could tell she really wanted it," argument.

Sean wrote: "Ah yes, the "I know she said 'no,' but I could tell she really wanted it," argument.

Exactly. So if there is something to complain about it would be that it might undermine the "no means no" message. But I believe in the narrative she gives him an "open" invitation.

David Sven wrote: "Sean wrote: "Ah yes, the "I know she said 'no,' but I could tell she really wanted it," argument.

Exactly. So if there is something to complain about it would be that it might undermine the "no me..."

But you only get this from Ox's standpoint he is not exactly reliable in other cases throughout the book.

Partly - but also I read a double meaning for "lips" which I'm not entirely comfortable spelling out other than to say that I see it as innuendo.

To paraphrase Freud, sometimes a lip is just a lip. She still had her clothes on unless she was undressed when they came in.

There is enough uncertainty in the text to really question concent. The message of the passage is, as you put it, all types of wrong.

Nathan wrote: "To paraphrase Freud, sometimes a lip is just a lip. "

Lol. Yes. But as innuendo in the book appears to the rule rather than the exception I'm still left in doubt.
But also she didn't scream as she initially threatened, so I interpret her "help" to be intended as purely obligatory to ease her own conscience.

David Sven wrote: "But also she didn't scream as she initially threatened. "

You don't know that. The text is silent on the matter.

In any case, not screaming is hardly consent.

Sean wrote: "In any case, not screaming is hardly consent."

Nobody is trying to define or redefine consent. We are trying to determine if there was mutual consent from the text.


Nathan wrote: "David Sven wrote: "But also she didn't scream as she initially threatened. "

You don't know that. The text is silent on the matter."

Not really. “Help,” said Pretty Ping.
Implies there was no screaming involved.

But also once the deed is done we have

“What is that appalling stench, O most perfect and penetrating of partners?” yawned Pretty Ping

She doesn't sound unhappy.

If a person was just raped by someone quite a bit stronger than them, playing along is a possible strategy to just to survive the encounter.

The help statement has nothing to indicate volume. It might sound odd but that help to me seemed more like the help cartoon characters utter when something bad is going to happen to them.

Or a subdued help could also indicate she did not expect any from her household given her husband's obvious attentions goat wise.

The thing is it can be read both ways, both as something liberating to the girl (she chooses her own way) and as something horribly destructive. Neither is too much of a stretch from what is given the reader, and that is why it makes me uncomfortable, because consent is so unclear.

It seems like she actually liked the night spent with Number Ten Ox to me. It wasn't exactly up to her but she was a concubine of Miser Shen, already prepared to spend the night with him. She never said no and we don't know how did she mean the "help".

Not that it matters that much, Master Li instructed Number Ten Ox and I'm not very sure Ox would stop if Pretty Ping said no. She just happened to be OK with it in the end.

“I am undressing,” I said, because I had been well brought up and I would never dream of contradicting so venerable a sage as Li Kao. Besides, I had been told to obey him by the abbot, who was praying for my soul."

Well she also appears to be ok with it "during" as the act itself is described in lurid detail with multiple Kama Sutra style positions which I dare say take two to tango including "King Fisher Union" and "Six Doves Beneath the Eaves on a Rainy Day" and "Phoenix Sporting in the Cinnabar Crevice".

In any case I feel the "mutual consent" interpretation is more in keeping with the humour of the book. If it was intended to seen as "rape" then it was poorly communicated.

I'm very tempted to bring up authorial intent again but seeings this is Aaron's baby I think the entire thread would end up terribly butchered.

I thought she was just being playful. :P I never once thought she was really saying no.

I also felt that this scene had questionable consent in it. Reading the passage and the tone I'm pretty sure that is not how the author intended it to be read.

But the scene still makes me uncomfortable because I don't feel that Pretty Ping actually consented.

I'm sorry but are you people serious? This is a humorous book. She warns, "I shall scream!" and then she sits there and watches Ox undress - in a house with servants, she doesn't scream, she doesn't try to run, she sits there and you can just picture her salivating over our big Ox, who compared to the awful old man who OWNS her is like winning a lottery. And then they proceed to do a whole bunch of stuff with funny kama sutra-on-opium names.

Her "help" is a token gesture. Unless its a prayer for the STAMINA to get the most out of this rare opportunity :)

I've just got to say, reading message boards about novels has really opened my eyes to this thing where people get all weird and offended if sex in a novel isn't completely...well, by the book (so to speak). I'm not talking about rape survivors being unable to deal with a rape scene. I'm talking about people in general judging them against some kind of rulebook I'm not familiar with.

Just as an example, above Julia said, "the scene still makes me uncomfortable because I don't feel that Pretty Ping actually consented." And the OP Nathan is "somewhere between confused and discusted [sic]" and later seems to be really pushing for this to be a rape scene.

Let us be real for a moment. If some man came into your room and started undressing, would you tell him you were going to scream? Or just scream your head off?
Stare as his clothes came off, or try to run away? Say, "Help," [no exclamation point] or try to knock his lights out?
Would you expect him to say, "Excuse me but I'd like to have sex with you now. Do you consent?"

Some people seem unclear about the context in which this all is taking place or maybe you are not used to irony or sarcasm or playfulness in writing. From the beginning chapter it should have been clear that this is a book of outrageous deadpanning and understatement and hyperbole and the most ridiculous things being said in a completely serious manner. There isn't any rape.

Stop looking for hidden agendas and using your politically correct glasses. Enjoy the lighthearted playful zany capers as Master Li and Number Tex Ox zoom around a magical ancient china feeding painted gold coins to goats and seeing ghosts and lying and cheating and stealing their way to heroism.

If Ox having random sexy time with a girl in a home where they are scamming some poor old guy out of his money makes you uncomfortable, are you ok with the killing and stealing and lying and ...CHOP CHOP CHOP!!!

Hmm, Michele, I think you hit the nail on the head.

A note before I start: I see the passage as ambiguous. It can be read different ways, and I believe have said this before. I am not pushing for one thing over the other, just explaining one view. My “pushing” as you see it was trying to explain why I see the ambiguity. If you don’t, I don’t begrudge you anything, but please do not denigrate my perspective.

So let us go over your logic:

The book is funny and ironic, therefore it is not rape. Does not quite pass the logic test for me, if if you say so.

If some man came into your room and started undressing, would you tell him you were going to scream? Or just scream your head off? Stare as his clothes came off, or try to run away?

Ok, let us run through this again. Ox is a threatening person is so far as he is a big muscled guy. Did she feel threatened? We don't know, because we only have Ox's perspective on it, and men, like the narrator, never misinterpret what is going on in these situations, right? Plus Ox had just entered the room, he was standing by the door. Prospects for escape were slim, if escape was on her mind, and would you want to risk your life on such a slim chance.

Say, "Help," [no exclamation point] or try to knock his lights out?

So if someone does not scream help they don't need it? Ox took this as a sexy help, and it may of well been, but it is far from clear.

Stop looking for hidden agendas and using your politically correct glasses.

Oh do tell, what is my hidden agenda? I have been pretty clear on why I have posted this.

If Ox having random sexy time with a girl in a home where they are scamming some poor old guy out of his money makes you uncomfortable, are you ok with the killing and stealing and lying and ...CHOP CHOP CHOP!!!

Because, anyone that is comfortable with sex would only see it the way you do? If they don't, there must be something wrong with them; they must have hidden agendas, or be uncomfortable with sex, or too PC, because no right thinking person can view the same thing differently than you.

And yes, if it is rape I am uncomfortable with it. If it is not, I am fine with it, as far as it goes.

I agree with you, Michelle. Thank you for speaking up about it!

Michele, I couldn't have said it any better. That's exactly how I felt about it.

Nathan, I don't think anyone can argue that it's good that you are such a mindful reader, and your concern over the issue is obvious and commendable.

However, I disagree with you that there is any ambiguity here - Number Ten Ox did not rape Pretty Ping. Consent may have been implicit more than explicit, but it was there, as evidenced by their activities and the discussion afterward. The tone of the novel, the tone of the events, do not suggest anything untoward - it was playful, it was flirty, it was light (and that's not to say that rape cannot be covered using tones like that - although I think that would be challenging, but that context is important). It is a fun, and funny, tale, especially during that scene - the rape of Pretty Ping would have no part in it.

I don't think anyone was accusing you of having hidden agendas - Michelle suggested that there weren't any in the text, not that you have any that you were pushing. I also don't believe anyone suggested you were uncomfortable with sex.

Michele wrote: "I'm sorry but are you people serious? This is a humorous book. She warns, "I shall scream!" and then she sits there and watches Ox undress - in a house with servants, she doesn't scream, she doesn..."

Just because something is humorous does not give it it a free pass from criticism.

My personal view of the scene is that there are issues involving consent that doesn't mean I feel that Ox raped Pretty Ping. Just that I wasn't given, as the reader, notice that even though she hadn't given verbal consent she had consented. And that made me uncomfortable, and made it harder for me as a reader to enjoy the scene for what it was.

However, and I'll say this again I don't believe the author intended for the scene to be read that way. It could be the style this book or a change in cultural norms that has caused me and others to pull up from that scene with a WTF response to that scene.

That being said I agree with you the fact that Pretty Ping was a slave is a much bigger issue than some sloppy writing leading to a scene having two interpretations. In fact, the presentation of women in this book so far has been pretty bad.

I'm hoping that the problem is that I'm only at the beginning of the book and the representation of women gets better as I get deeper into the book.

Andrew wrote: "Nathan, I don't think anyone can argue that it's good that you are such a mindful reader, and your concern over the issue is obvious and commendable.

However, I disagree with you that there is any..."

I see where you are coming from and thanks for the reply.

I agree, from the narrator's perspective, it is clear. If you want to take his word for it, cool. I just find Ox to be unreliable in his perceptions, as most human narratives are. I am not looking for authorial intent (I don't think he intended it as a rape), but rather how can a reader deconstruct the scene.

@Michelle - well said. Though I'm not sure I would go so far as to imply "Off with their heads!" And by the way - your photo just cracks me up - I can totally see it as a character in this book. (I'm taking the huge gamble that this is not a real photo of yourself)

Nathan, sorry if I was antagonistic when I wrote the above but this is not the first discussion about a sex scene that I've read that made me scratch me head and go "huh?"

And I agree that there as many ways to interpret a scene as there are readers, but I believe you have to stick to the context of the novel in which a scene is found. And I'm pretty sure that in this case, in this book, this scene is a fun scene about two young people having a randomly generated, mutually satisfactory, sexual encounter.

And my last sentence is more a question of why, of all the things immoral, illegal, of questionable judgement or downright psycho that are happening in this book, are you only disturbed by the sex scene enough to write about it here?

Perhaps many other things in the novel bothered you, I don't know. This is what you chose to start a thread about, though. And whatever your personal level of comfort is dealing with sexual issues, I think most would agree this is a hot topic because so many people do have varying levels of discomfort with the subject. Murder, mayhem, its all ok until...hmm, did he misread her body language? Is this rape? I'm glad that you are a man who is sensitive to such issues, but I'd rather you just enjoyed the fun.

This is on my top 5 favorite books of all time, and so you suggesting that there is even the remotest possibility that Master Li ordered Number Ten Ox to rape a defenseless slave girl to amuse himself while Master Li conned a fortune out of Miser Shen is just a kick in my feels.

Nathan wrote: "I am not looking for authorial intent (I don't think he intended it as a rape), but rather how can a reader deconstruct the scene. "

I see where you are coming from Nathan. I do keep authorial intent in mind when reading anything. I know we can't perceive authorial intent perfectly all the time, but I just can't imagine reading a book any other way.

Michele wrote: "This is on my top 5 favorite books of all time, and so you suggesting that there is even the remotest possibility that Master Li ordered Number Ten Ox to rape a defenseless slave girl to amuse himself while Master Li conned a fortune out of Miser Shen is just a kick in my feels."

I totaly understand. Thanks for the follow up. I have books I would do that for too.

David Sven wrote: "I see where you are coming from Nathan. I do keep authorial intent in mind when reading anything. I know we can't perceive authorial intent perfectly all the time, but I just can't imagine reading a book any other way."

It takes long hours of expensive grad school to divorce someone from the habit (was it worth it? Meh.). It is one of those things that once you start, you can not help but to do it.

I really did not read this as rape at all, I have reread that part a few times while reading this thread and really do think that people are reading more into parts then the author intended. I don't think Pretty Ping objected in any way and the 'Help' was a token help for the 'Good girls don't have sex' mind set.

Nathan wrote: "It takes long hours of expensive grad school to divorce someone from the habit"

Ha Ha! I see. Does that mean it takes an educated mind to see ambiguity? I tend to enjoy ambiguity, so long as I can see that's what the author intended ;)

Oh that picture is the Landlady in Kung Fu Hustle. I'm half Korean and I do smoke, but no curlers. That movie just cracks me up.

If she put on a few pounds she would cast well as The Ancestress - imagine 500 pounds of that breathing down your neck

Nathan, I'm curious. When reading any first person narrative do you find yourself analyzing everything because the narrator might be lying to us or to himself or has had false memories implanted or what-have-you?

I'm already not a big fan in general of first person narration and if I thought the character was untrustworthy as a narrator then I don't think I could read the story.

Unless maybe that was the whole point and in the end there's some kind of amazing writing making it work. But otherwise it would be like that whole season of Dallas where we found out Bobby wasn't dead and Pam dreamed it all.

Michele wrote: "Nathan, I'm curious. When reading any first person narrative do you find yourself analyzing everything because the narrator might be lying to us or to himself or has had false memories implanted o..."

This is kinda hard to describe. It is not like I keep up a rigorous level of analysis when I read. That would be very tiring. The questioning functions almost automatically without effort because it was so drilled into me, if that makes any sense.

It is not like I think they are lying or anything, rather that people have different interpretive lenses though which they see the world. These collections of views, attitudes, etc. color their writings and descriptions, and that something might look different from a different perspective in the narrative.

I'm just going to throw my opinion into the ring, since I interpreted this passage differently. In my estimation, the "Help" may not be a cry for help at all. Rather, it could be seen as a plea to Number Ten Ox to help her escape her misery.

In fact, the only reason that Ping raises her voice earlier is that she's simply surprised at the intrusion

The reason I believe this is Hughart spends the entire paragraph prior to this passage trying to convey to the reader that Ping is the unwilling and unhappy concubine to Miser Shen. Also, we were told by the abbot in a prior chapter that Number Ten Ox is the good, naive farm boy. It's unlikely for him to have been corrupted by Master Li so quickly. (BTW, I'm re-reading this book...I enjoyed the entire trilogy several years back.) And Number Ten Ox describes his time with Ping in such a way that it's implied that everything is consensual.

David Sven wrote: "I see where you are coming from Nathan. I do keep authorial intent in mind when reading anything. I know we can't perceive authorial intent perfectly all the time, but I just can't imagine reading a book any other way. "

Intent can only take us so far. We also have to look at what the scene says about the author's internalized worldview.

To use a different example, I don't think most Hollywood writers believe blacks are inferior to whites, but when they use cliches like black-guy-dies-first, or black-guy-makes-noble-sacrifice-to-save-a-bunch-of-white-people, it does show that on a subconscious level they place more importance on white characters and consider the black ones disposable.

Whatever Hughart wanted this scene to say, he's supporting the worldview that says, "Sometimes women say 'no' when they mean 'yes,' and the guy has to figure it."

Julia wrote: "Just because something is humorous does not give it it a free pass from criticism. "

I'd go further -- playing it for laughs makes it worse, and the whole concept of rape-as-comedy should be treated like black face and Mickey Rooney's character in Breakfast at Tiffany's.

Sean wrote: "Intent can only take us so far. We also have to look at what the scene says about the author's internalized worldview."

I'm not sure you can make any judgements on the author's internalised view unless you first know what he intended to write.


Sean wrote: "Whatever Hughart wanted this scene to say, he's supporting the worldview that says, "Sometimes women say 'no' when they mean 'yes,' and the guy has to figure it.""

Possibly - but you still need to know he did not intend the scene to be classed as rape to then make judgements on his views on rape and consent. Having said that - I don't think you have quite enough to go on because Pretty Ping never actually says "No."
You have simply framed the accusation by couching the narrative in the terms of a specific "issue." You can't blame the author for whatever meaning someone else imposes on the narrative unless the author was unclear or sloppy in his communication. And even then they are only guilty of poor writing - not necessarily what you thought they wrote.

Cliff wrote: "I'm just going to throw my opinion into the ring, since I interpreted this passage differently. In my estimation, the "Help" may not be a cry for help at all. Rather, it could be seen as a plea t..."

I didn't think of it that way. Interesting observation.

I agree with Michelle. Completely.

Sean wrote: "I'd go further -- playing it for laughs makes it worse, and the whole concept of rape-as-comedy should be treated like black face and Mickey Rooney's character in Breakfast at Tiffany's. "

I agree. I think this is why I felt so uncomfortable with the scene. It was totally light-hearted and jokey in tone, but the lady said 'help', which is not something I would utter if I wanted to be intimate with Ox - even 'no' would be less ambiguous in my eyes. The sense that I was supposed to laugh at a scene in which a lady said 'help' when confronted with a man who made it pretty clear, in my eyes, that he intended to sleep with her whether she liked it or not could only repulse me.

Perhaps it seemed less like rape when reading rather than listening to the audio, but I definitely found it off-putting.

It is interesting to see the generational difference here and also to note the lose of history. The scene between Pretty Ping and Number ten ox is straight out of classic sex farce. The young woman is married off to the rich but disgusting older man. The handsome hero come in. Her honor requires she protest but she does not want to. So she makes token protestations. She murmurs help but not loud enough for anyone to hear it. She protests and demurs but never strongly enough. Hughart is evoking this classic situation. Note that it also provides an insight to Shen's character since it places him in the part of the disgusting husband.

Douglas wrote: "It is interesting to see the generational difference here and also to note the lose of history. The scene between Pretty Ping and Number ten ox is straight out of classic sex farce. The young woman..."

Calling it "classic" doesn't excuse it. The scene you describe is inherently sexist -- the woman has no agency of her own; she exists as a prize to be won by the hero to show he's better than the other guy. The woman belongs to the hero because, well, he's the hero, and if the hero wants a woman, she doesn't have any choice in the matter -- any protests she makes to the contrary are just token, and the fact that she doesn't resist violently, rather than being a sign that she's scared shitless of the guy, proves that she really wants it. The possibility that the woman really loves her husband despite his being disgusting, or is honorable and doesn't want to break her vows, is never considered.

I am sorry that you seem to have misunderstood the argument. The author is using a standard device and classic one. There are implications that follow from using that device. In this case the assumption is that the woman wants the relationship and that the protests are pro forma. In the real world, of course, other scenarios are possible. But because the author formulated the scene using a standard trope he makes clear the nature of the relationship.

What I do find interesting about this whole discussion is now focused we are in this time on the sexual relationship rather than the violence of the book. We have spent many bytes deciding if Pretty Ping was raped or not. I see no discussion of whether the death of Fainting Maiden was proper or not or if Li Kao is justified the the massive amount of violence and trickery he used. Note this is not a question here about the validity of these actions but a discussion about the nature of our society that one situation disturbs us deeply while the other is treated lightheartedly and permitted to go without comment.

Douglas wrote: "I am sorry that you seem to have misunderstood the argument. The author is using a standard device and classic one. There are implications that follow from using that device. In this case the assum..."

No, I understand the argument quite well. But no matter how "classic" the trope is, it's still based upon sexist assumptions about a woman's role in society and her relationship to men. For a modern author to use such tropes in an uncritical manner is troubling.

But because the author formulated the scene using a standard trope he makes clear the nature of the relationship.

I'm sorry, it sounds like you're arguing that Hughart was too lazy to think up anything original and just copped a bullshit seduction scene from a James Bond movie on the assumption that his audience would accept everything at face value without considering the deeper implications of the scene, and thus the whole thing doesn't really merit any analysis.

Douglas wrote: "But because the author formulated the scene using a standard trope he makes clear the nature of the relationship."

I don't think the use of said trope made anything obvious. Pretty Ping could have said "no, we mustn't" and the 'we' would have made it quite clear that she was an active participant while still attempting to resist Ox. Instead, she said 'help', something people say when they are afraid and desperate.

Ruth wrote: "Douglas wrote: "But because the author formulated the scene using a standard trope he makes clear the nature of the relationship."

I don't think the use of said trope made anything obvious. Pretty..."

That is interesting. You do not seem to see the reference. If you do not see the reference then its message is clearly lost. The use of the trope makes it obvious but only if you see it.

Sean wrote: "Douglas wrote: "I am sorry that you seem to have misunderstood the argument. The author is using a standard device and classic one. There are implications that follow from using that device. In thi..."

Note that this was published in 1984 or so and so written before 1983. He is not a "modern" author in the sense you want to use. (Please examine Mailer's take on women or Hemingway's)

This whole book is filled with references to standards. It is a delicious mix of styles and periods from the Holmes/Watson like relationship to a Chandlerlike feeling at times to a parody of bad Chinese translations and miserable Charlie Chan movies. Lazy is not the word for it.That all of these styles and mannerisms fit together so well is testimony to the skill of the author and is what makes this such a loved book. It is like when I saw Austen Powers Man of Mystery when it first came out. I saw it in a afternoon showing in a theater filled with teenagers. The movie is a beautify parody of the late 60's but while I was laughing my head off the rest of the audience did not understand what was going on.