The Mists of Avalon discussion

I am interested in what people, and particularly the people who love this book, make of the following passage:

"She stretched out her arms, and at her command she knew that outside the cave, in the light of the fecundating fires, man and woman, drawn one to the other by the pulsating surges of life, came together. The little blue-painted girl who had borne the fertilizing blood was drawn down into the arms of a sinewy old hunter, and Morgaine saw her briefly struggle and cry out, go down under his body, her legs opening to the irresistible force of nature in them."

Is there anyone here who can justify the inclusion of this little throwaway vignette in the book? The little girl isn't mentioned any more after this. If you are meant to identify with Morgaine as your main point of view for the book, like so many people obviously do, does that mean you are meant to accept her explanation that even though she cries and struggles, what eventually opens her legs is "the force of nature in them", rather than a dirty old man's hands?

Knowing that Bradley was knowingly married to a member of NAMBLA (and previously accused, and eventually convicted child molester) while she wrote this book, casts this already indefensible passage in an even worse light.

So - if you love this book so much, and especially those who say they'd totally become a Bradley-style pagan after reading it, could you please explain to me how you can overlook this part? Not trying to be snide, but I'm thinking I'll either find a lot of people who didn't notice it, or else probably lose a lot of my faith in humanity.

(Post edited to add bold lettering. For a further explanation of what I mean by my question, please see my later post.)

Holy wow. I read this in high school and loved it (VERY long ago), and I have absotluely no recollection of that passage and I seriously doubt I even noticed it at the time. I also had no idea Bradley was married to a member of NAMBLA. Disgusting.

So, I've read this passage right now, and I don't see that "rape" or "child" is mentioned here?

I see that it says "man and woman" and I see "drawn one to the other"?

I'm sorry, Hoophoop, but the logic of your argument is unclear to me. What you seem to be saying is that anyone who enjoyed this book condones child rape because of a paragraph of description of a pagan fertility ritual lost somewhere in the voluminous work. Also, you impugn MZB's moral character based on this paragraph and the fact that she was married to a pedophile. Association is not proof of wrongdoing. Was MZB convicted of crimes against children?

I think Zoran and Susan are right. Perhaps her interpretation says more about Hoophoop than MZB.

I am with Stanci -- I read this a long long time ago and I dont' remember this at all - but I still thought it was a good book and have read other books by MZB.

I don't think the ancient British pagan society envisioned by MZB in this book is meant to be a flawless utopia, or the narrator Morgaine is supposed to be MZB's mouthpiece.

Well. I don't think child rape is condoned here. I think she is describing something that occurs in a scene. In a book that takes place in a mystical fantasy land loosely based on the Dark Ages in the British Isles. Uh. It was common in many ages, and is common now to marry children, or have children used in religious rites, often involving sex or death. Would this have bothered you so much if she'd had the little girl's throat slit? Probably not. That's kind of sad.

She does not write this book based on child rape, nor does the book ever say specifically "HI, LET'S GET IT ON WITH KIDS, THANKS", because if it did, you would have chosen that paragraph instead. If this is the worst you can find, that's not that bad.

Just because someone is affiliated with something doesn't mean that they feel the need to weave it into everything they involve themselves in. I'm fairly certain that she would not have gained the followers and fans that she did if her books explicitly recommended/described/condoned pedophilia.

I recommend that you never read anything by George RR Martin, and you probably won't like Lolita either, if you're freaked out by people having opinions that are not your own.

Hoophoop, take a good look at the world around you and look what is happening right now. Major religions are practicing pedophilia, and in some cases, child rape, mutilation of sexual organs and many other atrocities, so try not to get your knickers in such a twist about a fictional incident. Let me reassure you that TMOA readers are not people you should really worry about.

This seems like pagan baiting to me.

or,

Sir Bedivere: "How do you know she is a witch?"

Member of mob: "She looks like one!"

I don't remember this passage in the book but it seems to be part of some sort of ritualistic (fictional) scene and probably blended in with the rest of what was happening. Also, it does not seem to be, in any way, similar to her husband's actions as he is said to have preferred boys and this passage clearly speaks of something between a man and a girl. I don't know the whole story of what her husband went through or how Bradley did, or did not, defend him but I don't think her personal life (or her husband's) detracts from the literary value of this series.

Hi all,

Thank you for sharing your opinions on the passage. Apologies that my question was phrased in such a way that it muddled what my original intention was. I know that TMOA inspires passionate love or hate (needless to say, I'm in the later camp.) I do not for one second think that the people who read this and love it are freaks or child rapists, Holly. You read too much into my question. I respect paganism as much as any other religion (which is to say, they have no appeal for me, but if it makes you happier and it makes you keep trying to be a better person, then I think that's wonderful). I expect there are plenty of respectable texts that expound on it. But I find it strange that people find this one to be The One. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government (although it sure is the basis for a lot of great books - not this one - and movies), and as far as I'm concerned, hypocritical, high-and-mighty fictional magic women who manipulate and use other people for their religion's ends are no basis for a true-life religion. So it just amazes me when I read review after review from people saying this could convert anyone into a pagan. But that's just my opinion, which is different from most of the people on this site, and it's neither here nor there.

But back to the passage in question. I am amazed that for such a well-known novel with such a devout following, I haven't been able to find an online discussion of this particular part of it. I know that if I ask the opinion of people who hated the book, they'll most likely agree with me. So, the reason I asked this question the way I did is precisely because I don't believe that TMOA lovers are unbalanced freaks. It is because I believe they will be in their majority eminently sane and reasonable people (and the majority - not all, I have to admit - of the replies here seem to bear that fact), and I am genuinely interested in knowing what somebody who loves this book makes of that paragraph. My feelings on it are without doubt. I find it despicable. It's such a subtle little line - "her legs opening to the irresistible force of nature in them." Not - "her legs opening to the man prying them apart." No, the little girl wants it because hey, you all, it's Nature. I found it extremely objectionable before I knew anything about Bradley's husband, and downright sinister afterwards. Not because she is guilty of any kind of sex abuse herself, but because she is paying lip service to NAMBLA's contention that children can engage in consensual sexual relations with adults. That line didn't have to be there at all. She chose to put it there.

Stanci, Angie, Xdyj, and Ange, my heartfelt thanks for sharing your views on this. Zoran, I added some bold lettering. I hope you can see what I am referring to now. But if you missed the mention of a child in this short post, I'll put it down for now to you missing it in that giant tome. Susan, I am sorry that my original post wasn't clear enough, and I hope that I have clarified my meaning in the previous paragraphs. Please let me know if you now understand what I was trying to convey, even if you disagree with me. Virginia, if what you mean is that the sexual abuse of children cuts very very close to the bone for me, then yes, you're right, my post may say something about me, and if you mean like Andrea and Holly that I am some kind of stupid prude or that I am bigoted, then you're wrong. If you mean anything else, please state it explicitly, because I don't know what it might be. Andrea, "Would this have bothered you so much if she'd had the little girl's throat slit? Probably not. That's kind of sad." Sorry to ruin that nice sad little movie you had running in your head, feeling so sorry for me. You missed my point. It would very much have bothered me if Bradley had shown the little girl's throat slit, and proceeded to throw a little line in there to assure me that it wasn't murder. You seem to be saying I'm objecting to this because it's about sex, and violence wouldn't bother me. I hope the paragraph above made clear what my objections were. I do love the ASOIAF series. After Avalon, I am even finding I love how Martin weaves the different religions and social systems into his fantasy world, and doesn't hammer me over the head with how much better and purer one is than the other. It's just an amazing tale well told. I haven't read Lolita although I may some day. I'm pretty damn sure, though, that even if Humbert Humbert is the narrator, he doesn't come across as the hero to most people. And no, I'm not freaked out by people having opinions different from my own, which is why I am asking for them here. Holly, up there is your answer. I am not naive, and not an idiot, and I am well aware of what goes in the world. But yes, I can damn well get my knickers in a twist when an author tells me in her book, for no reason whatsoever, that a little girl wants it. I do love your taste in movies, though. Why so mad at my post? Can we build a bridge out of you? :-) (And hell, yeah, I love good witches!)

Thank you all for joining in!

Thank you, Hoophoop, for your clarification of the subject of your post. Certainly, you have a right to your opinion on Bradley's book. Most of Bradley's writing has a feminist slant, and it's possible that her retelling of Arthurian myth is not meant to be a recommendation of a way to live, but rather an indictment of the way women have been treated in the past. Morgaine seems to have as little choice about her sexual partners as the blue girl in the passage you quote. I could make a good argument that Bradley may have wanted her readers to be shocked by the casual manner in which people's happiness is sacrificed to the "greater good." I would also suggest that women may see an opportunity to reclaim personal power when inspired by a fable where the goddess rules. MZB shows that the "good old days" weren't anything to be nostalgic about.

Thank you very much for your explanation, Susan. Throughout the book, I thought that Bradley must be heading to a point where Morgaine would come to some sort of revelation of how she had been used and how she had used others, and come to terms with the fact that no one, priestess of Avalon or not, should presume to speak for their deity and control what others do to further that person's particular religion; but as far as I could tell, to the very end all she regretted was that she hadn't followed Viviane's plans after all, and she was convinced of her own righteousness in plotting against Arthur and ruthlessly using Nimue to inflict a punishment on Kevin that the Taliban might find a tad too harsh. I really really wanted to see all the goodness that you see in it, but all the payoff I could find in the book was that the goddess worship was assimilated into the Christian one. Given the horrible things that had happened in the name of the goddess in the course of the book, and the constant pounding that Christians also took in it, that was a very poor payoff for me. Unfortunately, this fable didn't inspire me in the least. :-( Anyway, I hope you don't take this as an argument. I just find it endlessly fascinating that people can see the same book so differently.

Argument over ideas isn't a bad thing. How can any of us know what we stand for if we can't identify the practices or beliefs that no longer serve us? Through the exchange of ideas, you've refined your feelings about the story into a statement that expresses them well. I would still submit to you that Bradley wrote a good book (if not a pleasant one) because the ideas in it are capable of provoking a decent discussion. And you are right, readers create their own worlds when they enter a book, often ones that the author never envisioned. A book becomes a different experience every time it passes into new hands.

Actually, until a rather recent past, girls were considered ready to have sex as soon as their first menstruation. They were married off at 12 yo or 15 at the latest, to men twice or even more their age. Kept in the darkest ignorance of anything related to sex and childbirth, they found out on their own on the first night when, unaware and scared, were "deflowered" by ther husbands, more or less brutally.
Therefore, I truly fail to see how the fictional description of an act considered common practice until the 1800 and much more so in a pre-medieval era, could be considered a justification for child rape or even abuse, unless any history based book be considerd an excuse for all sort of abuses perpetrated by mankind over the centuries.
As per the alleged child molester accusations moved to her husband or even his imprisonment, judging someone because married an asshole is not my kind of thing. There're thousands of reasons and possibilities behind a marriage, other than that she somehow connived in paedophilia, reasons and possibilities which we do not know. She was neither accused nor convicted of anything and I find extremely unfair to judge or even associate her work to something not of her making.

Thank you for your comment, Alecto. I do wonder how many of us in the modern world read "little girl" as a girl who is 12 to 15 years old, though. And as for the marrying girls very young, that is of course something that is so very regrettably still going on in parts of the world. We hear plenty about that in Igraine's parts of the book. She bitterly complains about being married off to Gorlois as a young girl, and her inner monologue goes further into it. This passage about the little girl is very different to me. Historical detail is not what I have an issue with. As for judging Bradley based on her marriage, fair enough, I suppose.

Hoophoop wrote: "I am amazed that for such a well-known novel with such a devout following, I haven't been able to find an online discussion of this particular part of it."


Personally, I'm shocked more people don't talk about UN Peacekeepers raping children. But, hey, maybe that's just me.

I read this book. Can't say I loved it or that I'd convert as a result of having read it. Was I disturbed by the manipulation? Yes, but, then, I'm disturbed by the manipulation is see in the real world on a daily basis. I don't remember this particular scene, but I do remember being uncomfortable with and saddened by some of the, hmmm, sexual pairings in this book. Personally, I wasn't aware of the author's backstory and her husband when I read the book. Disturbing? Yes.

However, as you can guess from my opening line, there are a lot of things to be disturbed by in life. The fact that UN Peacekeepers rape(d) children and, for the most part, got, and likely, get a free pass ... as did/do those in charge at the UN.... The fact that American and European businessmen still go on sex-cations in Asia.... The rape trees on the US/Mexican border.... The sex trafficking and sex slaves throughout the world, including at events like the Superbowl.... And, of course, the fact that people who find themselves outraged by these things just can't help but love, love, love people like Woody Allen. Oh, my, yes! Let's praise him for the genius he is and go to all his movies! (Oh, the hypocrisy....)

Regarding this particular passage, I'm unclear. First, you called her a child. Then, when someone pointed out the quote mentioned a girl, you've called her a little girl. From your quote, MZB referred to her as a girl. Yes? A little blue-painted girl. Does that imply age or stature? We've actually no real clue as to the age of the girl. Did her legs fall apart or were they pried? Honestly, when we get right down to it, I'm not sure it matters, does it?

Separate and apart from MZB, her husband's history, and one's stance on religion, we are more than well aware of the fact that women, by and large, were treated as sexual vessels for thousands of years. Women were, in many cultures, raised and conditioned to their station in life. Chattel. If not chattel, they were, at the very least, not in the position to tell many people, "No, you don't have the right to touch me." Their parents. Their lords. Their elders. Anyone who was higher than they with regard to socio-economic status. Any and all of those people, likely more, had every right to do just about anything they wanted to do to girls and women of a certain station. Yes? Even those of royal blood....

You're upset that MZB didn't write this passage to show a girl fighting, tooth and nail, squeezing her legs together and being beaten and forced by a stinky and nasty old man. I wonder.... Shouldn't we be more upset by the fact that some, if not many, of our foremothers ultimately knew that really wasn't a viable option?

Hoophoop wrote: I do wonder how many of us in the modern world read "little girl" as a girl who is 12 to 15 years old, though. "

Well, Hoophoop, English not being my native language, I might be confused here but, "a little blue painted girl" doesn't even necessarily mean little in age, does it? Little in frame perhaps? I'm not saying it is so, but it is a possibility, right?It's open to possible interpretation. And should it refer to a 6 yo, does it really make such a difference? Child abuse is child abuse, at 6 just like at 12.

The full concept of childhood and children changes through ages and even cultures, even today as you say yourself, kids of six or younger, are sold in marriage. In many countries children work hard since a very early age, as young as 4 yo, and are considered and treated as adults with all that comes with it. In the medieval era this was the standard, childhood was virtually non-existent.
I'm not saying this is nowadays desirable or even admissible, quite the contrary actually, if you ask me, I just do not see any hidden encouraging child abuse intent in describing something that has a possible historic background in a fictional plot anyway. I do not perceive the passage you quote as a child accepting rape gratefully just like I do not perceive the description of a slave surrendering herself to her master under fear of being flogged (as is the case in many novels about slavery) as encouraging of female exploitation and violence, or worse, as suggesting that women LIKE being forced.

I'm with Shannon thinking real life indifference and hypocrisy far more disturbing. People like afore mentioned examples, Woody Allen as well as Roman Polanski, are publicly acclaimed, awarded and looked up to as great artists, by the same masses ready to show horrified contempt about child abuse.

Alecto wrote: "People like afore mentioned examples, Woody Allen as well as Roman Polanski, are publicly acclaimed, awarded and looked up to as great artists, by the same masses ready to show horrified contempt about child abuse. "


Ah! Polanski! Thank you. I knew there was another one but couldn't for the life of me remember his name.

Although I love the book (and also the series and basically anything I've ever read by MZB), I also always stumbled over this part, Hoophoop. It kept irritating me.
I tried to find an explanation for this scene, that would work for me (because of course I wanted to understand and I wanted to know what 'little girl' means). Having read this in German, I assumed at the end, that "little girl" might be a misstranslation of "young girl", which would in the logic of the world mean 12-15.
Seeing that it said "little girl" in the original, too, makes me think about it again.

Hi everyone,

Thank you all again for commenting. When you guys point out all the disturbing things that are going on in the world, and that women have been used as chattel for centuries, you are of course absolutely right. Ditto on Allen and Polanski. I have plenty of moral outrage about those things. This is, however, not a forum about the U.N., sex tourism, Hollywood, or the role of women through the ages. It's about books. So yes, Shannon, we can talk about this and feel more outrage still at the horrors of the real world. And no, it's not just you, so you can safely stash that little claim of moral superiority. I understand the rest of your post and take your point, but not the part where you say I changed my wording, as if I was trying to fool you all in the beginning, in response to someone pointing out that the passage talked about a girl. In my original post I said child rape and I included the passage for people to read and make up their own mind about it. Zoran then said he didn't see "child", and that he only saw the words "man and woman", so I highlighted the passage. I am amused that you would use that particular post to make a nonexistent point.

Alecto, English isn't my first language either (lots of us here, looks like! for some reason, that makes me happy), and you are right that "little" could mean size, but I think "small girl" would be more ambiguous in that regard. Maybe it's a regional lingo thing. In the part of the U.S. where I have lived for more than twenty years, we wouldn't call a teenage girl a little girl. And you are absolutely right, the rape of a teenage girl is just as horrific. You again give an example of something that is unequivocally shown in the book with a moral judgment attached to it: Guinevere is raped, and stops struggling with her rapist in fear of more violence. This is a horrific episode, and Bradley uses Morgaine as a surrogate to assure us that Guinevere is the victim and not to blame for being afraid to fight against that asshole. If there is a thing this book doesn't lack, is moral judgments left and right.

Again, there is no specific reason for throwing the little girl vignette in, especially with the added moral judgment that a little girl, struggling against an old man who's pulling her under him to have sex with her, opens her legs because nature compels her. If you see "little girl" as a girl who is small in size, or would rather not consider the other possibility so as not to taint your image of the book or the author, that's fine (but I would still appreciate it if you guys would leave out the tiresome "shouldn't you be outraged about real things?", like people attempting to justify child sex abuse don't exist in the real world - hint: NAMBLA, and like child rapists don't try to blame their crimes on the child too.) But if you see "little girl" as a child, it's up to you to decide whether an author describing a child under a man should feel the need to tell you that that child ultimately gives consent. And not forced consent (fear of being hurt worse), but natural consent (the forces of nature in her).

And thank you for your comment, Katherina. I am glad we are all talking and thinking about it.

I'll try to stay out of the conversation now, unless I feel I have to defend myself from allegations that I am morally deficient, changing my story as I go along, anti-pagan, what have you. I think I have explained my view as well as I can, and I don't want to make myself tiresome. I appreciate all (well, most of - see above) your comments, and this conversation has definitely given me food for thought. Thanks!

Hoophoop wrote: "This is, however, not a forum about the U.N., sex tourism, Hollywood, or the role of women through the ages. It's about books. So yes, Shannon, we can talk about this and feel more outrage still at the horrors of the real world. And no, it's not just you, so you can safely stash that little claim of moral superiority. "


By this criteria, Hoophoop, it's also not a place to talk about NAMBLA. Is it?

Ultimately, as far as I'm concerned, GR is a forum for people to exercise free speech. No need to limit speech as long as people are respectful and not abusive. If you want to bow out of the thread you started, obviously, that's your prerogative. However, it is 2014, and, in my opinion, people should have the right to discuss what they will.

I'm guessing you knew this would likely be a hot topic as you mentioned you know how many people absolutely love this book. You knew the question posed in this thread would be controversial, right? How could it not be? People have strong feelings about it. And, ... the question itself is provoking. ("Why is child rape explained as something natural in this book?" and "I'm thinking I'll either find a lot of people who didn't notice it, or else probably lose a lot of my faith in humanity.")

I, personally, am not a "cult follower" of MZB. For me, the topic of abuse and the mistreatment of children is one of my interests. By interest, I mean something I actively fight against. Given that, I've an interest in this thread.

Again, .... When I read the passage you mention and consider the "little blue-painted girl" and her legs opening because nature compels her ... I have a few thoughts. How many people, until quite recently, referred to women as girls? Hey, maybe she was a girl, even a little girl, or a child. We don't know. I think about a girl I went to high school with. When I was a senior, she was a junior, 16 or 17. She was 4'8". To this day, I think of her as a little girl, though that's in part due to the fact that I've not seen her since. She's forever that age in my memory. Again, maybe we're talking about a 5-year old, but I'd have to ask whether or not history backs that up. Were 5-year olds or 8-year olds used in fertility rites? That would rather defeat the purpose of a fertility rite. So, we're likely talking about a girl of .... Well, now, we need to talk about menses. Am I remembering correctly when I think girls today are starting their cycles earlier than girls from my generation and that girls from my generation started earlier than my mother's generation? Am I right in thinking girls of the supposed timeframe of this novel would have started their menses around the age of 15? Not 11. Not 12. That's today. Today due to diet, etc.... So, ultimately, the little blue-painted girl was, if she were real, likely a 15-year old teenager. My great-grandmother married at 15.

So, by my estimation, a 15-year old was used in a fertility rite. At first she cried out but, then, as MZB wrote, her legs opened as nature compelled her. Yes, we could read that to mean she "wanted" sexual contact, as written by MZB; I rather find that hard to believe, unless, of course, she was drugged. They did have such then. Or, as I mentioned, perhaps her conditioning led her to believe she had no choice but to open herself to him. Are we talking about the nature of sexual desire or the nature of conditioning?

Hoophoop wrote: I'll try to stay out of the conversation now
Well, your right of course, but as also Shannon pointed out, you started a topic with a controversial question, which is interesting. Now withdrawing, it seems to me that the only answer you want to hear is the one you've already given.

I'll say couple of more thing about the pagan rites for better understanding: the kind of pagan rite in which a girl and a man mate, were fertility rites.
To be able to act it out therefore, the female must be fertile, so must have had her first period. Infact, the passage you did not capitalize says exactly that: who borne the fertilizing blood.
It's reasonable to think that even that early in history (arthurian cycles are legends, but set in the middle age Britain) in a northern country, first period should be between 11 and 14 yo.

One other thing: the girl in question was raised and trained in Avalon, as a Goddess priestess. She was trained in many fertility tradition and women misteries from an early age. She believed that her world revolved around the goddess and god's will and could end if not perpetuated. So yes, she was a teenager and afraid, but when she surrendered to "nature" she's simply forgetting herself in name of something she thought vital: natural world survival.

Igraine never complaind to have been married off too young (she was fifteen) but to be married off when all she wanted was to be a prietess instead. Again, trained women had to do what was necessary to hold the world together ( in their belief of course).

I didn't read TMOA as a spiritual book, to follow as a guide ( I do not follow any guide other than my own) but it's a book based on a different path of life than the mainstream one today. Of course not everyone must like it or understand it even, but neither vilify it with accusations that are more likely coming from a personal background.
When you say : this vignette has no reason to be thrown in, you say it from your personal point of view, can't be an absolute concept.
Books, in my opinion, are like mirrors and can be read on a number of levels, showing each of us a fragment of who we are and where we come from and where are we standing in life at the moment.

Alecto wrote: "first period should be between 11 and 14 yo. "

I think, though I could be misremembering, that it was closer to 15. Girls today are starting earlier than ever before. Some believe it has to do with diet. First, most girls, at least in America, are eating more than girls at certain times throughout history. Then, we have all of the hormones in some of the meats, etc.... I've read some articles and heard news reports by some who think they're starting earlier, around 11, due to that. But, at the time period mentioned, I'm pretty sure the age was much closer to 15.

None of which means I think it was just lovely that such teens were used in this fashion. There are a lot of things I don't find lovely....

Yes, I believe you're right, especially regarding the eating habits, quantity an quality.
As for being sorry, well I am, bu it has to be taken into consideration that during middle age a person was old at 35, if even reached that age in life and a woman was a hopeless spinster at 19. Women and men married early and life had another rythm.
Things changes and time gaps in one's life broaden. My mother was a grown woman and mother of two at 24, which now is considered just barely out of prime youth...what saddens me is who nowadays is forced to live at medieval rythm without having a choice.

Shannon and Alecto, I said I'd stay out of the conversation unless it was to correct misconceptions about me or what I wrote, because I feel I have explained my view on this passage about as well as I can. Alecto, saying that I won't post anymore and saying that I won't be reading what other people post anymore are very different things. I said the first, not the second, so Jesus Christ already, guys, stop accusing me of not wanting to hear what other people say. I don't think any of my posts bear that. But as for writing what I think about the passage, all I would be doing from now on would be repeating myself. Is that what you want me to do? I guess that might be considered a desirable trait in a thread about The Mists of Avalon, because I wanted to throw the book across the room every time Bradley hammered on a point that she had already made about a million times already, and I pretty much wanted to throw the book across the room all the time. I'm guessing you read what I said as me whining about meanies pushing me out of here, and thus that whole thing about freedom of speech, but no, I wasn't. This thread wasn't about me, it was a way to collect people's opinions on the passage. I have given mine. You have given yours. I don't agree with yours, you don't agree with mine. We have freely exchanged ideas among ourselves and with the other nice people who posted, and I hope more will chime in as they come across this book and this post. Is that good enough?

As for "By this criteria, Hoophoop, it's also not a place to talk about NAMBLA. Is it?" I didn't start a thread that said "Hey guys, how 'bout that NAMBLA, huh?" It's tangentially related to both topic and author, so I included it. People have given their opinion on whether it's relevant or not. I fail to see the point you were trying to make.

As for there being no complaints from Igraine about being married young, I'll look it up and post if I find them or not. I'm pretty sure she complained a hell of a lot about their relative ages, and she talked about her inexperience and how long it had taken her to figure out how to get any enjoyment out of it. Since I have to wade into that morass of a book to do that, it'll take me some time I don't have right now, so stay posted.

To me, a discussion is when different opinion are proposed and taken into consideration for further reasoning and debate. The more I read your posts though, the more I'm under the impression that you just wanted to make your point, which you are of course free to do. So yes you' re right, there' s no point.

I don't know if anyone else has thought of this or not (I'm in the camp that wasn't turned off by that passage), but she refers several times to the "fairy folk" who she describes as being "little" and "dark." Perhaps this particular female has those same characteristics?

I think it's dangerous to assume that the description as "little blue painted girl" means that she was in some way underage. As people have already pointed out, this was a fertility rite. And people then thought about things a lot differently than people do now.

I understand the question behind it, but I don't think it's sick or disgusting because we just don't have enough information about the age of the girl in question. We simply don't know. We can theorize based on context and time period but we simply don't know.

Discussions are fun, by the way, until someone starts getting defensive.

Hoophoop

My recommendation is: Do not re-read this book, you didn't seem to care much for it the first time! Life is short, and there are plenty of books out there that you will find more enjoyable (and hopefully less upsetting).

Hey, if you enjoy pagan themed movie trivia, here's one: "Of course they're naked, it is far too dangerous to jump through fire with your clothes on."

I know, I know! :)

Wise words all around at the end there. I know, I know, it gets very uninteresting for everyone else on an online discussion when it gets down to two or three people just being cranky at each other. Sorry I was one of them. Not sure what you mean with your second post, Kari, but smiles are always good. Anyway, I still don't agree with the reading that "little" means purely physical size, but at least I understand that's how many people see it, so no, in the end I haven't lost that much faith in humanity - well, you can't get into internet arguments without the teensiest bit chipping away (including faith in myself as a cool-headed person), that much I should have known, but for the overwhelming part this board has consisted of nice, polite people, so thank you all very much for your responses once again.

And Holly, wise words too. I'll do just that and go back to what I was reading, Hogfather. Much more my speed. Nice to see you back. I liked the quote - I read it and instead of "jumping through fire" making my mommy senses tingle, my first thought was "well, duh - imagine if you were wearing polyester!" :-) I didn't recognize it right off the bat and had to look it up. The Wicker Man - I have always kicked myself that I didn't see the original first, since I've heard it's a classic, and that's where your quote comes from, instead of the newer version. All I can remember from that one is Nicolas Cage, before and after doing some of his hammiest acting ever, skulking around spying on people while dressed in a bear costume, and then I get the giggles. Anyway, thanks for the double smile - the intentional (great quote!) and the presumably unintentional (Nicolas Cage!)

I read this book in a college lit class, knowing nothing about the author really, but I think that it is how you read it. I think "girl" in this case does not mean a female child. I think it's more about how she feels, scared and little in the face of what she was about to do. At least that is how I would read it.

Hoophoop wrote: "If you are meant to identify with Morgaine as your main point of view for the book, like so many people obviously do, does that mean you are meant to accept her explanation that even though she cries and struggles, what eventually opens her legs is "the force of nature in them", rather than a dirty old man's hands?

Knowing that Bradley was knowingly married to a member of NAMBLA (and previously accused, and eventually convicted child molester) while she wrote this book, casts this already indefensible passage in an even worse light."


When the newest posts came out yesterday, I decided to do something I should have done from the beginning. I googled the passage HoopHoop has brought to the fore.

http://books.google.com/books?id=hPHO...

It's rather interesting to see it in context versus just one line. I read the pages from the "some pages are omitted from this book preview" to the same.

A couple things....

From this part of the text, it's obvious that Morgaine is drunk, "dizzy and drunk and only half in her body at all" .... Given that context, I don't know that we can say MZB is writing her "heroine" in the light of someone who is accepting of the situation. She's drunk and barely functional, likely because she is being used or is about to be used.

Secondly, Morgaine thinks she "must be mad" and explains she's a "civilized and educated woman" who is "here painted like a savage and smelling of freshly shed blood, enduring this barbarian mummery" ....

Barbarian mummery....

For those who "identified" with Morgaine, I'm guessing, if that's so, they'd view this entire scene as barbaric.

Now, regarding the little blue-painted girl, I really don't know her age at this point. Since HoopHoop only gave us one line and we had no context, especially those of us who couldn't remember this line, I assumed the girl was used in a fertility rite. It read, this line alone, as if the scene was about the girl, perhaps, who carried the fertility blood. In context, though, I wonder.... Would they have used a child to spread the blood? Whereas, they'd use women who have started their menses in the actual fertility rite? Clearly, they'd use women and teens who had started their menses else the purpose would be defeated. But, at this point, I'm unclear how the girl was being used that night.

Of course, again, in context, the next line states, "She saw without sight, her eyes closed against the glare of the torch, hearing the cries." On the one hand, we have an account from a woman who is drunk and barely in her body and is witnessing this incident with her eyes closed. Hmmm.... On the other hand, we have the cries. Cries of pleasure or cries of horror and rape?

Regardless, in my eyes, this doesn't read as MZB condoning child rape and Morgaine talking about it as if it's a natural occurrence. Score one for NAMBLA? No.

And, now that I know from which part of the book this was taken, I can say....

When I read this, the entire scene made me sick. Maybe others read it differently. But, for me, I was pretty distraught. The overall tone and mood was that of people being used, people not having control, people, possibly, about to be hurt. Then, when Morgaine and Arthur, barely more than a boy, by the way, discover the truth, there was a feeling of absolute horror. My feelings upon reading this section were not, even remotely, acceptance.

Taken as a whole, the line about her legs falling open due to nature, .... I don't know. Obviously, people will read it as they read it. I, reading it now and in context, don't view it as a sign that MZB wants us to accept and condone child rape. I see it as another person being used, worse, used sexually. Raped. And, by our standards, which is perhaps unfair and perhaps not, everyone was raped that night given the levels of intoxication. Would Morgaine and Arthur, barely more than a boy, have had sex if they'd not been drunk to the point they were barely in their bodies and if they had the presence of mind to know who they were about to have sex with? Hell, no! Arthur bawling like a little child when he knows what happened. Ah, no. In context, this is not painted as a lovely little ritual with Bradley's stamp of approval. From start to finish, by my reading, the tone and mood are of horror and disgust.

The final takeaway message from Morgaine, "Why did you do this to us?"

Hoophoop;

I'm so sorry about the Nicholas Cage thing......I saw that flick when it came out; big mistake. :)

If you can find an old VHS version of the movie you will see the original film; the DVD version has had a few scenes edited out. My problem is that every time I see the movie; I wish I lived on Summerisle.

To be honest, I even avoid the news these days, our world is such a depressing place. I'm raising my daughter as a pagan because the major religions seem so have so much misogyny. I want to raise a girl who becomes an empowered woman; a woman who is wise about her powerful brain, her beauty and her great soft heart. A challenge, and a risk (she could break my heart) but the circle of life goes on. :)

Hoophoop, my second post was saying that I knew the answer to Holly's trivia question. :)

I've read Mists of Avalon as well as the Forest House and the Lady of Avalon and none of them make any mention of child-rape. I recall the mention of the rape of Boudicca's daughters as well as the rape of Guinevere, but none involving a child. And while there is little that I agree with sexually in this book (pagan sex seems to have no boundaries at all), that was their practice at the time.

Specifically, I believe the phrase "little blue-painted girl" had more to do with a younger woman, a virgin, but not a girl. Likely between 16-18 years old. And also, the phrase "little" is often referred to the dark, "little" Britons or those descended from them such as Morgaine and Vivianne; they are simply smaller in stature than the peoples descended from other peoples from the continents.

In short, if you read the above passage in the context of the book, there's no child-rape, only the pagan rituals of a people small in stature.

Waaaaaaay off-topic, but hey Holly, I was just re-watching a certain movie from the year 2000 a couple of days ago and I happened to notice this song playing in it:

"Wear a tall hat like a druid in the old days
Wear a tall hat and a tatooed gown
Ride a white swan like the people of the Beltane
Wear your hair long, babe you can't go wrong"

I'm guessing you know the song. Do you know the movie? And do you, Kari :-)?

Good luck to us all raising our strong and beautiful daughters. I love the way you put it!

I don't know it, no. Hmm...

Sorry to hop into the conversation late but I found it an interesting thread. TMOA was at first read, and remains still, one of my favorite books (one I read at least once a year because I love it that much). Yes, there are many scenes that cause the stomache to flip and the mind to spin but books aren't all supposed to be warm, white, fuzzy bunnies and rainbows. Books, if written well, SPEAK to you. And sometimes we don't like what they have to say. We don't have to. Some we aren't supposed to. But the ones that stick in our mind, for good or bad, are the ones that have IMPACT. You many never read that book again but you ARE talking about it. And that is the ultimate goal of a writer. To be read, heard, and talked about.

Personally I saw nothing wrong with any of the scenes in the book because they are from a fictional time and place where that is what was done. She didn't sugar coat it at all. For that time and place THAT is what happened. She's not asking you to like it. She's not asking if YOU would do the same. She is telling it like she wanted to. That is what a writer does and I think MZB did it brilliantly.

At least that's my 2-cents worth.

Well said, Lynn.

Sadly, this thread has become prophetic. Her daughter has recently gone public with allegations of long standing sexual abuse. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ac...

How odd that the identical passage from the book was quoted in this thread and in the article...

I have to say that the article doesn't change my opinion of the book at all. It is still my favorite book of all time and she is still my favorite author, and if people somehow think that means I condone anything she might have done, or not done, that facilitated or contributed to what Moira is saying happened, then they are horribly mistaken...

All of that aside, I do believe that IF MZB did know about or take part in any abuse, it is possible that her guilt over it all could have played a part in what she wrote - her nightmares, or imaginings of the damage she had done...

I am saddened to know what her daughter might have gone through, and there is NO 'but' to that sentence. If she was abused, its horrible- period.

MZB's books are awesome, and that is a different subject. Also I do not think that scene depicted child molestatation because:
1. It was a fertility ritual, the girl had her monthlies- so in that setting, she was of marriageable age and not a child.
2. In the ritual described, the book depicts the Goddess and the God physically possessing the participants at some point.
3. It is quite possible that, being a virgin, which she had to have been to play that important part in the ritual, she at first was afraid, until the spirit of the ritual and the magic Morgaine was calling overcame her, at which point she was overcome by her body's instinctive and natural lust.

Basically I guess I'm saying that while things happening in her life may have influenced her writing, this particular passage doesn't look to me like anything other than a description of a particularly intense fertility ritual, and it did not seem to have anything to do, directly, with the abuse that Moira describes.

It would be a shame, also, if the inspiration she has given to young women were to be undone by this.

I mean - she's dead, so buying her books doesn't even put any royalties in her pocket... so I can't see how enjoying her books could be construed as supporting or encouraging anything MZB did (or did NOT do) while she was alive..

That's all I have to say. Keep reading, everyone!!

I'm very sorry to find this out. Yuk. I loved the book by now somewhat taken aback. I try not to take things too literally but also have a terrible time separating art from artist. Don't respect Allen or Polanski. Luckily didn't like them much before so that was easy. This is harder but I'm not giving her a free pass. Sometimes the sick and broken are the most moving artists.

On rereading it out of context, this passage sounds like an image of the archetype of what might now be called rape culture. Natural because it exists in nature, not because it is good.

I always thought of the book as a story about christianity taking over the druids and other religions and the sex part was symbolism for that. Maybe I was a bit naive.

Regardless of what she has written it actually turns out that Marion was a child rapist and abuser as well as her husband. I really liked Mists of Avalon but I will never touch another book written by this monster. See this blog and read what her daughter has to say. Super sad. http://deirdre.net/marion-zimmer-brad...

Hoophoop wrote: "I am interested in what people, and particularly the people who love this book, make of the following passage:

"She stretched out her arms, and at her command she knew that outside the cave, in th..."
Well it was fiction, and there is a lot of violence if you look for it, as in most fictional books. I don't think it was promoting that, perhaps realistically offering what might have been in that type of ritual/rite, not only the glamorized ideal of it, which I admire her putting out there for us to look at and ponder. I don't recall her saying she would condone that or approve of it, endorse it, etc. I have no idea about her personally and am slightly interested to research it,although I don't think the media can be trusted to present facts, and things are often quite different than they seem, but as far as the story goes, perhaps it made people think. Pagan or Christian, things were not great for women during that time period and a lot of men were brutes...just saying.

wow, bravo, thanks for expressing many of my reactions to this, I, also, did not think it was encouraging or glamorizing anything, or that readers would be thinking that either the author nor Morgaine would find this situation desirable.

Shannon wrote: "Hoophoop wrote: "If you are meant to identify with Morgaine as your main point of view for the book, like so many people obviously do, does that mean you are meant to accept her explanation that ev..."

Anne wrote: "I'm very sorry to find this out. Yuk. I loved the book by now somewhat taken aback. I try not to take things too literally but also have a terrible time separating art from artist. Don't respect Al..."
I, too, don't support Woody Allen nor other pedophiles nor do I read their stuff or watch their movies. MZB, I know nothing about. I would not be able to judge or discard her without some hard proof she is a pedophile or promotes that. I see no evidence here, certainly not, and think the story itself is innocent. I recently read some articles regarding Gandhi, who was a peace activist, and great leader, re: how he had young girls give him massages while he was naked to prove or experiment with his state of celibacy which was violent, if you ask me, then come to find out this is all documented, etc. and I really went through such disillusionment regarding it feeling personally upset. I wanted to get rid of all his books, etc. I still don't feel okay about it, but after going through his books (I was going to get rid of all of them and still might,) I was shocked by how much documented as well, good he did in practical ways. I think at the end there, he just went mentally ill from fasting/age and or being on a battle field, and his religion offered him, perhaps, some extreme practices that actually were very damaging. We can't make any human a complete hero, they are always going to have a shadow side, but it's good we speak up about these issues and discuss them, like we are doing on here.

As MZB died in 1999, and her copyrights are held in trust, it might be that at least part of the proceeds from the sales of her work would go to her daughter, which, if the allegations are true (and I'm not saying I doubt them, I haven't read them, but even if I had it would be impossible to know, so they will, sadly for any victims, always be allegations), is at least a bit of reparation.

Wow Mercedes, another bubble burst. Why couldn't his secret have been using foreign fabric? Sheeesh. But can we discount all their work? Surely the good Ghandi did outweighs this, as bizarre and creepy as it is.

There is more. Oh brother. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/198...

Regarding MZB, I am off her now. What if all my heroes are creeps and I just don't know it?

Dear gods, I never knew about any of this. I'm glad I was never a big fan. I read Mists years ago, but... No, I don't think I'll be reading any of her other books.

Reading the court documents linked above makes me want to go read more Stephen Goldin, though. He's a nice guy and his family suffered from this monster.

All I can say is support the nice ones, ban the bad ones.