The incest doesn’t excuse the torture. My thoughts and feelings about the violence, gore, and torture take up around a hundred times as many words as my opinion about the final chapter’s incest scene.
I would be comfortable warning someone about the violence and so on when recommending the book, in order that they make their own decision. With certain friends, I would be able to discuss it in depth. That’s not something noteworthy to this novel alone; see also Ender’s Game and The Magicians and Westworld for having particularly violent moments that earn some sort of caveat, and deserve discussion of their value to the novel as a whole.
I do not in any way ‘excuse’ the violent scenes, however. This is a violent novel. These violent delights have violent ends. If that’s not in-scope for someone, no amount of making excuses will help someone derive value from it. This is not a noteworthy point to make about this novel in specific, at least generically, unless one is interested in discussing societal mores and the tensions of tolerance and desire for ultraviolent content versus Western sexual repression.
(I’m not presenting here any specific viewpoint or opinions on the matter of the violence in this work, as those views are fully decoupled from my objection to the incest.)
Separately, I find the final sex scene to be needlessly detailed. Yes, that’s exactly what you’d have to do in an Adam/Eve scenario. No, I don’t want to read a portrayal of incest. Yes, it flows logically from the story. No, I don’t want to read a portrayal of incest. Yes, the incest is only a single page compared to one half of the book’s ultraviolent dedication. No, I don’t want to read a portrayal of incest.
Whatever your position regarding the book’s use of violence, I urge you to take caution in considering it to be of equivalent moral priority to the book’s use of incest. Perhaps for some, they are of equal priority weighting; but that is no guarantee, in most societal contexts, that they can be evaluated using equivalent methodologies. No amount of refactoring and generalization will defuse the “this is unacceptable” outcome of the incest as presented, without regarding how much or how little violence is presented at all — because the explicit detail provided does not contribute to the story.
In general, I expect incest scenes of the type written in this book’s conclusion will continue eliciting such hostility for the foreseeable future, remaining wholly uncorrelated from societal shifts in acceptance or rejection of violence in fiction. That last chapter has been a problem through thirty years of cultural shifts. Here’s to another thirty years of warning people about it.
Notably, if this was erotica rather than hard sci-fi, and the incest scene was a component of titillation in a work dedicated to that outcome, then I would have just ao3-tagged it and skipped reading that bit and given people a simple cw and recommended the story. The segment in question is presented as matter of fact non-erotic consequence and conclusion of the story, and so does not earn from me the shrug-whatever-next tolerance and the much simpler warnings that I grant to erotic works in general. However, that presents the one exception I would make in recommending this story: if I’m recommending it to someone with familiarity with romance novels, gothic novels, ao3 tagging, or pornhub categories, then I would absolutely have a much easier time expressing my discontent with the novel:
“The last chapter has some unnecessarily explicit incest for half a page or so, which is in keeping with the lurid violence and sex tone set by the rest of the book, but I think the author’s dedication to the purity of their art critically weakens the potential impact of their work.”
And then, having concluded the incest warning, I would proceed to deciding if a violence and gore warning was appropriate for my audience. But that’s far too abbreviated for use at HN, so HN gets the long form — and HN is not what I would deem a ‘violence-averse’ community, relative to some others, making it uncertain whether I consider the violence of use to discuss here at all.
I hope this helps offer some clarity into how one might evaluate two equally upsetting things by completely different processes without sacrificing internal logical consistency.
Why wait till now to look for clarity?
Quoting Shakespeare poorly does nothing to make up for however many hundreds of blameless keystrokes 'signifying nothing,' save your strength of wish to impute your own unsettled emotions via the text unto its author.
Two hours ago you implied that simple possession of the text may be a major crime: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44167140 Why strive so now for the pretense of evenhandedness?
It couldn't be much more obvious how the work interests you. The problem is mistaking that for a commentary on it. Your effort at literary criticism is no more belated than radically ungrounded, as I have already detailed in a prior comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44167578 No one who gives the work an honest reading will find therein what you describe.
The quote is first attributed to Shakespeare but his usage is not the one I’m referencing.
I tried to show that it’s possible to engage with the violence of the book and the incest of the book as two separate concerns, by engaging with one but not the other. In response, you’re challenging my motivations rather than challenging the separation I described as possible. That ends my engagement with your thread; be well.
It is good form to cite or at least indicate, with quotation marks, when quoting. If you meant not to reference the famous usage, to name the work is best, not least to establish relevance and avoid appearing pretentious.
You say you find the incest and the torture equally upsetting, then you justify one and indict the other. If you can't be consistent even in the scope of a single comment, or for that matter distinguish fiction from reality better than this, wise indeed you seek balm for your dismay over the book elsewhere than with me; I have only so much patience for patent nonsense these days.
> You say you find the incest and the torture equally upsetting
I presented no information whatsoever regarding my personal views on the violence. Perhaps you tried to infer my position from the verb “excuse” in the first sentence.
I inferred your position from your constant use of the first-person singular to describe it, across what must now be at least a dozen paragraphs. Also by the fact you have found this position worth strenuous and irate effort to defend. If you had meant something else or had some relevant interest to disclose, I assume you would have said so.
What you did say was
> I hope this helps offer some clarity into how one might evaluate two equally upsetting things
which I took, by the way you called the two things - namely, the incest and the torture, as introduced at the top of your comment - "equally upsetting," to mean you consider them equally upsetting. If you wish now to claim you intended something by the phrase "equally upsetting" other than its literal meaning, you need to clarify.
You have by now after all impugned, whether openly or by implication, both the motivations and the intellectual competence of the author, the audience, and I myself. None of this is convincing. It is time to try something else. Ideally, that might involve discussing the text, but I agree it isn't for everyone.
Oh, good grief, I wish I'd caught this while I still could delete my prior comment. You opened with
> The incest doesn't excuse the torture.
But that is not what I said. I said, in the comment of mine to which you first replied, that people excuse the torture, but not the incest, just as you have done.
I still can't figure out what you meant by "equally upsetting," but the basic issue is that we're talking past each other because you failed to apprehend my thesis and I was too busy to notice and call you on it right away. I hope this clears things up!