PC162: Gods of the North

[Unblinking]

You are correct that it was attempted rape, not rape.  I suspect that people have more problem with it being the protagonist (who you are following in his head) may be seen as attempting rape. 

On a separate note, can you find that Conan was incapable of consent due to the ensorcelment? I think a compelling argument can be made for that. Ultimately, it all falls to who has the better lawyers.

Before the court decides whether he is capable of consent due to ensorcelment, you would have to prove that he has been ensorceled.  Since I was only judging him based on his behavior within the space of this story, that was pretty unclear.  When I think of activities generally associated with those labeled as "barbarians" in the Conan sense, I think of three activities:
1.  slaughter
2.  pillage
3.  rape.
From what I could gather from this story, it seemed like this was just the sort of thing he would've done anyway.  She was a beautiful and naked lady, and the lusty barbarian only tried to do what he would do with any other beautiful naked woman who crossed his path.  Her reactions implied that her beauty was sorcerous, but again having no prior knowledge of the character's behavior, another question for you is:  "If she ensorcels him to encourage him to do something he was going to do anyway, does that leave him blameless?"  If I go to Culver's to buy a delicous hamburger, and someone ensorcels me to make me eat a delicious Culver's hamburger, can I really blame the sorceror for the weight I gain? 

Much of this goes to me saying that "If you read only one Conan story, this is probably not the best one to choose" because really believing that this is abnormal behavior kind of depends on knowing what his prior behavior is.  Or if the story had shown how he behaves towards mortal women before the chase scene, that would sure help.

[DKT]

You are correct that it was attempted rape, not rape.  I suspect that people have more problem with it being the protagonist (who you are following in his head) may be seen as attempting rape. 

On a separate note, can you find that Conan was incapable of consent due to the ensorcelment? I think a compelling argument can be made for that. Ultimately, it all falls to who has the better lawyers.

Before the court decides whether he is capable of consent due to ensorcelment, you would have to prove that he has been ensorceled.  Since I was only judging him based on his behavior within the space of this story, that was pretty unclear.  When I think of activities generally associated with those labeled as "barbarians" in the Conan sense, I think of three activities:
1.  slaughter
2.  pillage
3.  rape.
From what I could gather from this story, it seemed like this was just the sort of thing he would've done anyway.  She was a beautiful and naked lady, and the lusty barbarian only tried to do what he would do with any other beautiful naked woman who crossed his path. 

You do see what you just did there, right? The old "guilty by stereotype and personal pre-existing knowledge (or hearsay*) of the defendant"? He would've done it even if he wasn't ensorcelled.

I think in this case, the judge (or the defending attorney) might suggest you weren't exactly judging him by the "facts" in this story, as much as some preconceived notions you have on what a barbarian is known for.

[Unblinking]

You are correct that it was attempted rape, not rape.  I suspect that people have more problem with it being the protagonist (who you are following in his head) may be seen as attempting rape.  

On a separate note, can you find that Conan was incapable of consent due to the ensorcelment? I think a compelling argument can be made for that. Ultimately, it all falls to who has the better lawyers.

Before the court decides whether he is capable of consent due to ensorcelment, you would have to prove that he has been ensorceled.  Since I was only judging him based on his behavior within the space of this story, that was pretty unclear.  When I think of activities generally associated with those labeled as "barbarians" in the Conan sense, I think of three activities:
1.  slaughter
2.  pillage
3.  rape.
From what I could gather from this story, it seemed like this was just the sort of thing he would've done anyway.  She was a beautiful and naked lady, and the lusty barbarian only tried to do what he would do with any other beautiful naked woman who crossed his path.  

You do see what you just did there, right? The old "guilty by stereotype and personal pre-existing knowledge (or hearsay*) of the defendant"? He would've done it even if he wasn't ensorcelled.

I think in this case, the judge (or the defending attorney) might suggest you weren't exactly judging him by the "facts" in this story, as much as some preconceived notions you have on what a barbarian is known for.

I'm not saying he's guilty, I'm saying it's hard to consider him innocent without knowing his history.  And, yes, I do consider those three items to be part of a typical barbarian's occupation.  Is it wrong to assume that someone who calls himself a baker bakes?  Is it wrong to assume that someone who calls herself an editor edits?  Is it wrong to assume that someone who calls himself a barbarian slaughters, rapes and pillages?  We'd already seen the slaughter part, so he clearly didn't pick the label just to be ironic, like naming a skinny pacifist filing clerk "Bob the Barbarian".  And, he doesn't strike me as one to choose an ironic name in any case.  I assume the label was chosen by him because it was an accurate descriptor.

And if his actions were being controlled, then yes you are correct that it's unfair to blame him for that.  But how does one prove his actions were being controlled?  The best way would probably be to compare this with his prior behavior, but there was no prior behavior towards women in this story to judge by.  Even with a record of prior behavior, how can you be sure it's mind control?  What if her power over him is not sorcery but is merely unequalled physical beauty?  She is more beautiful than any woman he has seen and he feels a lust for her like he has never felt before?  How could we tell the difference between those things without some kind of thaumometer to judge the expenditure of magical energy?  I would argue that we can't.  So should we let every defendent justify their actions by claiming the gods had been practicing mind control on them?  And then, when you let them loose on the streets and they immediately become repeat offenders, and say when they are brought in again "Those wily gods are playing tricks on me again.  What did I do to deserve this ill treatment?"  Once you let one person off for this then there's a legal precedent for future trial lawyers to use, and if it continues on enough, then some may rationally decide to commit the crime on the assumption that the old "The gods made me do it" defense will get them off the hook.

[DKT]

Is it wrong to assume that someone who calls himself a baker bakes?  

It's just not informed.

You're also using your own definition of what a Barbarian is/does. Here's what Merriam Webster defines it as:

1) of or relating to a land, culture, or people alien and usually believed to be inferior to another land, culture, or people

2) lacking refinement, learning, or artistic or literary culture

No mention of slaughter, pillage, or rape, your honor.

As to whether or not he was ensorcelled, it's as much as what other characters in the story say, as well as the way the scenery goes all weird and surreal, that build that defense, maybe even moreso than what himself Conan says. But that's just my own reading. Others have had different ones (including yourself), and that's cool.

(And, c'mon. You assume all editors edit? Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh. )

And if his actions were being controlled, then yes you are correct that it's unfair to blame him for that.  But how does one prove his actions were being controlled?  The best way would probably be to compare this with his prior behavior, but there was no prior behavior towards women in this story to judge by.  Even with a record of prior behavior, how can you be sure it's mind control?  What if her power over him is not sorcery but is merely unequalled physical beauty?  She is more beautiful than any woman he has seen and he feels a lust for her like he has never felt before?  How could we tell the difference between those things without some kind of thaumometer to judge the expenditure of magical energy?  I would argue that we can't. 

Why not? I mean, if the victim is the daughter of a god, then I think this would obviously be the best (and easiest) way to go. Also, it might help boost the economy! See if Baltar's busy doing anything.

And now I want a magical thaumometer for Christmas! 

[Unblinking]

It's just not informed.

You're also using your own definition of what a Barbarian is/does. Here's what Merriam Webster defines it as:

1) of or relating to a land, culture, or people alien and usually believed to be inferior to another land, culture, or people

2) lacking refinement, learning, or artistic or literary culture

No mention of slaughter, pillage, or rape, your honor.

Merriam-Webster also defines "Viking" as:

a : one of the pirate Norsemen plundering the coasts of Europe in the 8th to 10th centuries
b not capitalized : sea rover

No mention of rape there either, but I don't think it's wrong to presume that someone in the appropriate time period who called himself a Viking would engage in such activity.  Merriam-Webster's entries are brief by design.


I think the real issue that's being obscured here is not the supposed innocence of barbarians painted red with the blood of teh slaughtered, but the oppression of sexy goddesses.  Even if she has some sorcerous effect, it became clear in the story that she couldn't turn it off at will.  Perhaps Conan couldn't control his lustiness (which I still doubt), but if her very nature is to cast a glamour on those she sees, what would you have her do?  Should she shroud herself in a heavy robe, and put a mask over her face?  Should she hide herself away from any man's eyes?  She was merely going for a naked walk in the cold snows, as weather-impervious goddesses are wont to do.  Was she luring him?  No.  We have already said that she could not turn off her appeal, so how can I say she's guilty when her glamour is merely a trait, not an action requiring intent?  I see not the actions of an evil temptress, but a pragmatist in an act of self defense.  She went for a walk, and going for a walk is no crime.  When the ruffian pursued her, she returned to her brothers, which is also no crime.  She already lives in a frozen wasteland, perhaps because she wishes to avoid this kind of attention, and also because she likes to feel the subzero wind on her skin.  Maybe she could move to the moon to isolate herself completely, but should she really have to?  Short of that, she has done all that she can do to isolate herself from those who would do her harm, and has also established a way to deal with any who do pursue her, one which proved insufficient in this case.  How could she possibly go to any greater length than what she has already done to hide her beauty?  Even this is too much to expect of her.  Her fault lies not in tempting, but in not having a secondary plan for dealing with a man as powerful as Conan.

And now I want a magical thaumometer for Christmas!  

You wouldn't say that if you knew where you had to put the thaumometer to get a measurement.  

[DKT]

It's just not informed.

You're also using your own definition of what a Barbarian is/does. Here's what Merriam Webster defines it as:

1) of or relating to a land, culture, or people alien and usually believed to be inferior to another land, culture, or people

2) lacking refinement, learning, or artistic or literary culture

No mention of slaughter, pillage, or rape, your honor.

Merriam-Webster also defines "Viking" as:

a : one of the pirate Norsemen plundering the coasts of Europe in the 8th to 10th centuries
b not capitalized : sea rover

No mention of rape there either, but I don't think it's wrong to presume that someone in the appropriate time period who called himself a Viking would engage in such activity.  Merriam-Webster's entries are brief by design.

Geez, generalize much?

I linked to MW because it's an agreed upon and authoritative definition, one that disagrees with your own. And it's your presumptions that I disagree with. A barbarian does not equate rape, pillage, or slaughter.

Really, let's not go down this road any further.

I think the real issue that's being obscured here is not the supposed innocence of barbarians painted red with the blood of teh slaughtered, but the oppression of sexy goddesses.  Even if she has some sorcerous effect, it became clear in the story that she couldn't turn it off at will.  Perhaps Conan couldn't control his lustiness (which I still doubt), but if her very nature is to cast a glamour on those she sees, what would you have her do?  Should she shroud herself in a heavy robe, and put a mask over her face?  Should she hide herself away from any man's eyes?  She was merely going for a naked walk in the cold snows, as weather-impervious goddesses are wont to do.  Was she luring him?  No. 

Don't get me wrong, I think Atali's side of the story would be FASCINATING, and I have sympathy for her. But I also think it's pretty clear she lured Conan, at least initially.

"Brothers!" cried the girl, dancing between them. "Look who follows! I have brought you a man to slay! Take his heart that we may lay it smoking on our father's board!"

And the story makes it pretty clear she's done this before.

"It was Atali, the daughter of Ymir, the frost-giant! To fields of the dead she comes, and shows herself to the dying! Myself when a boy I saw her, when I lay half-slain on the bloody field of Wolraven. I saw her walk among the dead in the snows, her naked body gleaming like ivory and her golden hair unbearably bright in the moonlight. I lay and howled like a dying dog because I could not crawl after her. She lures men from stricken fields into the wastelands to be slain by her brothers, the ice-giants, who lay men's red hearts smoking on Ymir's board. The Cimmerian has seen Atali, the frost-giant's daughter!"

[Unblinking]

Geez, generalize much?

I linked to MW because it's an agreed upon and authoritative definition, one that disagrees with your own. And it's your presumptions that I disagree with. A barbarian does not equate rape, pillage, or slaughter.

Really, let's not go down this road any further.

Sorry, I hadn't realized I was really bothering you.  

I'll just say one more thing about "barbarian" and then I will say no more.  I am trying to understand why I think of "barbarians" as having certain traits.  To me, when I hear "barbarian", I think "someone who is barbaric".  This is confirmed by Merriam Webster, under the definition of "barbaric" it says "of, relating to, or characteristic of barbarians".  Also under "barbaric" it says "marked by a lack of restraint".  It says nothing further about this, but this seems like the briefest possible way to describe what I had taken for granted as barbarian behavior.  Rape is a result when there is a lack of restraint of sexual appetites.  So is plundering, a lack of restraint of appetites for collecting wealth.  Slaughter is perhaps a bit less along those lines, but Conan slaughters enough in this story that I don't that part of his nature is in question.

To me, it seems that the common usage of "barbarian" is generally a word used by a third party to denigrate a person or social group, to say that they have no control over themselves.  If someone else calls you a barbarian, it doesn't necessarily mean anything.  But if you call yourself a barbarian, to me it implies that you are embracing barbaric traits, namely what Merriam Webster refers to as "lack of restraint".

Okay, I'm done with that now.

"Brothers!" cried the girl, dancing between them. "Look who follows! I have brought you a man to slay! Take his heart that we may lay it smoking on our father's board!"

And the story makes it pretty clear she's done this before.

"It was Atali, the daughter of Ymir, the frost-giant! To fields of the dead she comes, and shows herself to the dying! Myself when a boy I saw her, when I lay half-slain on the bloody field of Wolraven. I saw her walk among the dead in the snows, her naked body gleaming like ivory and her golden hair unbearably bright in the moonlight. I lay and howled like a dying dog because I could not crawl after her. She lures men from stricken fields into the wastelands to be slain by her brothers, the ice-giants, who lay men's red hearts smoking on Ymir's board. The Cimmerian has seen Atali, the frost-giant's daughter!"

Hmmm... yes, those words of hers are the sort of thing that give a defense lawyer panic attacks when the secret recording is revealed.  Perhaps there's some kind of loophole that can strike them from the record.  Which is to say that you are entirely right that her intent was there from the beginning.  I was enjoying trying to figure out what defense I might muster on her behalf, but that line you quoted makes her position very hard to defend.

I really think that neither of them are blameless; I do still find the "The gods made me do it" defense hard to swallow.  

[DKT]

Sorry, I hadn't realized I was really bothering you. 

I'll just say one more thing about "barbarian" and then I will say no more.  I am trying to understand why I think of "barbarians" as having certain traits.  To me, when I hear "barbarian", I think "someone who is barbaric".  This is confirmed by Merriam Webster, under the definition of "barbaric" it says "of, relating to, or characteristic of barbarians".  Also under "barbaric" it says "marked by a lack of restraint".  It says nothing further about this, but this seems like the briefest possible way to describe what I had taken for granted as barbarian behavior.  Rape is a result when there is a lack of restraint of sexual appetites.  So is plundering, a lack of restraint of appetites for collecting wealth.  Slaughter is perhaps a bit less along those lines, but Conan slaughters enough in this story that I don't that part of his nature is in question.

To me, it seems that the common usage of "barbarian" is generally a word used by a third party to denigrate a person or social group, to say that they have no control over themselves.  If someone else calls you a barbarian, it doesn't necessarily mean anything.  But if you call yourself a barbarian, to me it implies that you are embracing barbaric traits, namely what Merriam Webster refers to as "lack of restraint".

Okay, I'm done with that now.

To be clear, it's the generalization that is frustrating me, especially since "barbarian" essentially means foreigner - and foreigners who are supposedly inferior to the dominant culture because of their place of origin. So generalizations like that make me...uncomfortable.

FTR, I am pretty sure Conan never refers to himself as a Barbarian in this story. (Not sure about the other stories.) It's the narrator who labels him that.

And FWIW, I don't see Conan or Atali is blameless, either. And it'd be fascinating to know more about Atali's side of the story.

[Unblinking]

To be clear, it's the generalization that is frustrating me, especially since "barbarian" essentially means foreigner - and foreigners who are supposedly inferior to the dominant culture because of their place of origin. So generalizations like that make me...uncomfortable.

FTR, I am pretty sure Conan never refers to himself as a Barbarian in this story. (Not sure about the other stories.) It's the narrator who labels him that.

And FWIW, I don't see Conan or Atali is blameless, either. And it'd be fascinating to know more about Atali's side of the story.

I thought he introduced himself as "Conan the Barbarian" in dialogue.  But it's possible I'm misremembering.  If he's not labelling himself as that, it's an entirely different story.  I agree with what you're saying if someone else is calling him that.  As I said, someone calling someone else a barbarian doesn't mean much.

[Fenrix]

Thanks, y'all. This is some of the most entertaining discussion on this story. I feel obligated to contribute.

"It was Atali, the daughter of Ymir, the frost-giant! To fields of the dead she comes, and shows herself to the dying! Myself when a boy I saw her, when I lay half-slain on the bloody field of Wolraven. I saw her walk among the dead in the snows, her naked body gleaming like ivory and her golden hair unbearably bright in the moonlight. I lay and howled like a dying dog because I could not crawl after her. She lures men from stricken fields into the wastelands to be slain by her brothers, the ice-giants, who lay men's red hearts smoking on Ymir's board. The Cimmerian has seen Atali, the frost-giant's daughter!"

Your honor, I object, as this is hearsay. The witness was not directly lured, so he's projecting motives based on rumors he's heard.

FTR, I am pretty sure Conan never refers to himself as a Barbarian in this story. (Not sure about the other stories.) It's the narrator who labels him that.

I thought he introduced himself as "Conan the Barbarian" in dialogue.  But it's possible I'm misremembering.  If he's not labelling himself as that, it's an entirely different story.  I agree with what you're saying if someone else is calling him that.  As I said, someone calling someone else a barbarian doesn't mean much.

Let the record reflect that the two uses of the word "barbarian" were by the narrator and not the protagonist.

[DKT]

Thanks, y'all. This is some of the most entertaining discussion on this story. I feel obligated to contribute.

"It was Atali, the daughter of Ymir, the frost-giant! To fields of the dead she comes, and shows herself to the dying! Myself when a boy I saw her, when I lay half-slain on the bloody field of Wolraven. I saw her walk among the dead in the snows, her naked body gleaming like ivory and her golden hair unbearably bright in the moonlight. I lay and howled like a dying dog because I could not crawl after her. She lures men from stricken fields into the wastelands to be slain by her brothers, the ice-giants, who lay men's red hearts smoking on Ymir's board. The Cimmerian has seen Atali, the frost-giant's daughter!"

Your honor, I object, as this is hearsay. The witness was not directly lured, so he's projecting motives based on rumors he's heard.

Heh. I thought about that, but his details corroborate the defendants. But yeah, I dunno exactly where how he (or anyone else other than Conan) could actually know all that and survived.

[Scattercat]

Legal minutiae aside, I think the central point Unblinking made remains, to whit, that this story in and of itself shows a Conan who appears to think very little of pursuing and ravishing maidens, willing or unwilling, sorcerous or not.  It's a pretty unpleasant image to take away, particularly for anyone who hasn't read widely of the Conan ouevre.