So, I didn't mean to not post something yesterday, but it totally slipped my mind that I hadn't scheduled a post for the 7th. So, you get a Saturday post, instead! Rejoice. XD
(I am also going to throw Sarah Seele under the bus and say that she REALLY wanted me to publish this post, so I am obliging her here, although I also wanted to publish it at some point. :) But I was a little scared, because #controversy.)
Okay, anyway, you guys know me. You know that I love The Queen's Thief with every fiber of my being. You know that it is a continual sadness to me that I can't be one of Eddis's attendants. (Or one of Attolia's attendants, for that matter. Or even live in Eddis. Or Attolia. I'm not picky.) You know that I ship The Royal Ship(s) FOR EVER AND EVER, and that if I didn't have other priorities, I would probably middle-name my hypothetical children after characters from QT. (Other priorities being a) Catholic names and b) LOTR in that order.) (But I mean, 'Irene' ticks box A, and come to think of it, so does 'Helen', so...)
In other words: words cannot express the love I have for these books.
(Really, they can't.)
HOWEVER.
However. I have one major beef with the series that is fairly recent--dating back only to the release of The Return of the Thief. (Which I just reread, which is why you're having this post foisted upon you. You're welcome.)
*minor spoilers ahead--I will try to avoid major spoilers, but since I'm talking about the last book, that will be slightly difficult* *spoilers will only be about minor characters* *and also fairly major spoilers about Thick As Thieves* XD
(I'll put another spoiler warning before the Thick as Thieves spoilers. Everything before that is minor spoilers only.)
That beef begins (but does not end with) the fact that Relius and Teleus are heavily implied to be in a relationship. And if you don't squint, so are Costis and Kamet.
(Even typing that out makes me want to punch someone. Maybe Attolis, even though it's not his fault--apparently he has a very punchable face.) (if you get it you get it)
But okay, I'm not specifically mad about this because relationships like that are, according to the Catholic Church (and you may have noticed that I am Catholic...if not, I'm not sure if we've met? Hi, I'm Samantha. I'm Catholic) immoral.
To clarify before continuing: I am 100% on board with the Catholic Church's policy on same-sex relationships, which is: we love people who have same-sex attraction. However, we don't condone their relationships, as they are gravely sinful.
Anyway: I'm not specifically mad about the relationships in RotT because they're immoral. I'm mad about them because they are inconsistent.
Majorly inconsistent.
Like seriously COME ON MWT. I EXPECTED MORE OF YOU.
Basically, the premise of this post is: I object to the implied same-sex relationships in RotT not specifically because I think they'd be immoral (although I do) but because I think that they are inconsistent, and therefore sloppy storytelling.
So, inconsistency explanation:
Basically: Relius and Teleus appear in the same sphere not only in RotT, but also in KoA, wherein this scene happens.
"[See] Relius to a comfortable bed."
...
[Teleus] crossed to Relius's side. "Are your ribs broken?" he asked.
"Nothing but the hand, I think," Relius whispered.
Teleus leaned over to lift the secretary's head. His strong fingers cradled his friend gently while he pulled the cloak away. He used the cloak as a wrapping. "Get that damned chain off," he said and the keeper hurried to the task. When it was done, Teleus lifted his friend himself. Holding him in his arms, he carried him out of the cell. The guard trailed behind him.
"You can't carry him all the way to the infirmary," the prison keeper called.
"He can hand him to me," said a guard as he was leaving.
"And me," said another.
The whole guard is helping. This is not a Relius-and-Teleus-are-a-thing moment, by any stretch of the imagination. It's the we-are-the-Queen's-guard-and-this-is-the-Queen's-man thing. It's a Relius-and-Teleus-are-long-time-friends thing. Just...there's nothing about it that would suggest any eroticism between Teleus and Relius. And in fact, Relius is referred to as Teleus's friend twice in this excerpt.
There are a few other scenes in KoA that make it pretty clear that Relius and Teleus are not a thing. For instance:
Teleus hit [Relius] in the back of the head, so hard that he sprawled forward onto the marble steps of the thrones' dais.
"She is Your Majesty, to you!" the Captain of the Guard snarled.
There are also at least three other places where they are referred to as friends. There is nothing to imply that anything else is going on, and for things where MWT actually plans to have something else going on, she is very good at implying that something else is going on. (True in many other situations than love in her books, as well.)
And it's not like MWT was afraid to imply same-sex relationships in the court at this point, as far as I can remember. I'm pretty sure there's a side character in KoA who is said to have a same-sex lover. (As, unfortunately, has probably been true in royal courts for centuries, because human nature is human nature. Sodom & Gomorrah, y'all.) I'm not condoning this, but I'm just saying--if MWT wanted them to be a thing, it could have started here. And yet, there is none of that implied.
At all.
In fact, Relius is shown to have lovers, and they're all female. You'd think that if this was a thing, there would be at least one male one? To, like, show that that's his inclination? Or something? There's also an implication that he was/is in love with Attolia--also female.
As the icing on the cake, the one guy who has a same-sex lover in KoA is also shown to be fairly effeminate (Legarus the Awesomely Beautiful), and that is true for neither Relius nor Teleus (nor Costis, if it comes down to it, which it will in a second).
And so when it just RANDOMLY shows up out of the blue in RotK, as something that has been around for years (according to Relius), it feels like a completely inconsistent way to tell a story.
PLUS it's undermining the beauty of their friendship in KoA. Like, is it not okay for two men to be friends without you making it weird? Really? Because I think that's really un-inclusive.
(Anyways. Can you tell I'm passionate about this? XD)
Now, on to Costis and Kamet. Spoilers about Thick as Thieves ahead!
I'm less mad about their relationship in RotT, because if you look at it right, it could just be a very good friendship. Which I think is what they have in Thick As Thieves. (More on that in a second.) If I recall correctly, it's just a couple of comments that are made by other characters that made me go "huh-whaaaaaaa?"
Which honestly, as far as I can remember, were just comments about the lengths to which Costis would got to get Kamet out of a sticky situation. (There's also the issue of the dance at the end, but you know what, that could also be construed as not-weird, so I'm not going to get into that.) But any really close friend would go the distance to get their friend out of a sticky situation. I can definitely think of many of my friends who I would not abandon in an enemy-occupied territory, even though we're not even as close as Costis and Kamet.
But really, I think Megan Whalen Turner could have been more vigilant about not letting their friendship have ambiguity creep into it like that (although maybe it was her intention, which in that case *steam comes out of ears*).
(I'm not going to mention Moira's Pen, because I'm still slightly frustrated about that.) (Anyways.)
Anyway. Even though they're not really the issue in RotK, I thought their friendship was worth defending (as friendship) anyway.
There are so many wonderful moments in Thick As Thieves as they become to be friends and to love each other in a philia (friend-love) kind of way that do still make it clear that they are friends.
First of all, all of the way that they refer to each other as Immakuk and Ennikar at the end of the book, when Immakuk and Ennikar are clearly written as good friends, best friends, but friends, in all of the poetry that's included in the book. (As an aside: the Mede poetry in TaT is one of my favorite things about it. It's BEAUTIFUL.)
Greatly wise cloaked in wisdom was Immakuk
greatly strong clothed in strength was his true friend
Ennikar
great was their love and greatly did it sustain them in
their journeys together
There's also a wonderful scene after Kamet tells a story about Ennikar getting ensnared by a woman (again) where Kamet and Costis compare past stories of being in love (with women) and getting ensnared.
"In trouble with a maid, indeed," said the Attolian.
"So, so, so," I said. "Who would be so foolish?"
Together the Attolian and I raised our eyes to the heavens, both of us the picture of sweet propriety. Then we looked at each other and waited to see who was going to speak first.
And there are multiple times where Kamet reflects on their friendship as such. For example:
I did not want to leave the Attolian, but once he knew of my master's death, our brief friendship would be over.
-
I thought, oh, my friend.
-
I had lost my only friend.
Obviously, there are many other moments of their friendship that I love more (like the moment where Costis comes out of the well) but those are a few that make clear that their friendship is just friendship.
And thus one should not need to squint to see it as such. Because that is sloppy storytelling after a book that is as clear as it can possibly be that Costis and Kamet are simply good friends.
*coughs and glares at MWT*
Thus, turning Teleus and Relius into a couple and making vague allusions in that direction about Costis and Kamet as well, after making it clear in previous books that no such thing is going on is, in my opinion, sloppy storytelling, and the one thing that Megan Whalen Turner did wrong.
/rant over
So...thoughts? I don't know what questions to ask, because this is one of the most impassioned and possibly most controversial posts I've ever written. XD
Samantha, I'm glad I got to the comments first, because this might be one of the greatest posts you've ever written. You have just said everything I felt but didn't know the words for, and wow did you hit the nail on the head. Issues were well addressed, with specific reference to the novels, and I think you did a great job keeping a cool and logical outlook despite the frustrating issue because MWT is ONEHUNDRED PERCENT caving in to the pressures of modern culture and it really does infuriate me. So thanks, I guess. Good post.
ReplyDeleteEomer the Mighty.
Thank you so much for saying all that, Eomer! I'm really glad I was able to hit all the points you'd want me to hit, and I'm glad you perceived it as being cool and logical, because I was definitely a bit...heated...by the time I finished writing it, lol.
Delete-Sam
Bravo! An excellent post, my friend. I've never read the books, but I thank you for the forewarning. (and yes, absolutely agree that authentic male friendship needs to be a Thing.)
ReplyDeleteThank you so much, Catherine! I would definitely recommend the books, with this caveat, but forewarned is forearmed. :) (Authentic male friendship for the win!)
DeleteI think you are very correct with this, and it bothers me as well for both reasons (morality & storytelling). It is perhaps my one problem with the series. I have no problems with the way RotT ends or the way QoA begins (or ends) or any of that. It's all perfect.
ReplyDeleteThe Costis/Kamet thing actually makes more sense to me, because even though it's unnecessary and not fully foreshadowed, it doesn't come out of *nowhere* -- the two are very close and never in relationships with women, so saying that they're a thing is weird but not implausible. The Relius/Teleus thing really doesn't work for me, though. I sort of get the impression that she needed to cave to public opinion and have a gay couple in there somewhere, so she took these two couples and was like LOOK Costis and Kamet are representation if you squint! (but not too much so the other group of my readers won't be too mad at me!) and Look i have actual representation too, this couple is explicitly a thing (but she didn't change what was already there so it's just an awkward retcon).
Wonderful post :) I need to get back around to reading your blog regularly. It's always a good time.
It's my one problem with the series, as well! I have no issues with any of the other books, and I don't really understand people's issues with RotT or QoA. Because it's all SO GOOD. Except for this one thing.
DeleteI can see how the Costis/Kamet thing would make sense to you, although I'm pretty sure it is stated that at least Kamet has been in a relationship with a women before, and Costis has had at least run-ins of that sort. Not *implausible*, but *unlikely*. In my opinion, at least.
That was the impression I got about the Relius/Teleus thing, too--that she felt the need to "get with the times", which is so frustrating, because we read MWT because she's NOT "with the times". Such an awkward retcon, too, for sure.
Aww, thank you so much, Maya!
"""posthaste""" indeed.
ReplyDeleteanyhow. i am Greatly Pleased at this post. like. it was everything i wanted. you have Brought the Receipts. I agree Wholeheartedly. Like, ambiguous is NOT HOW SHE WRITES and this means when she awkwardly retcons it's OBVIOUS. If you actually think making Teleus and Relius lovers in RoT is not inconsistent, that's because you are not picking up on the subtlety of her writing, NOT because she wrote KoA ambiguously.
Consistency of character relationships--and respect for your own story and the things you have written and established--is so, so important to me as a storytelling principle? I can't stand it when people don't take their OWN THINGS seriously. Like. How can I respect you as an artist.
I will say that I disagree about Costis and Kamet. Why DO you think she's trying to imply something (or insert ambiguity) there in RoT? People making fun of the closeness of their friendship strikes me as no different from people making fun of Costis in KoA for being so fond of Gen. And like you said, there's nothing about being worried about a good friend or unwilling to abandon him in enemy territory that's exclusively romantic. Hundreds of war stories treat this exact theme. It's actually very Immakuk-and-Ennikar of them--and as you said Immakuk and Ennikar are platonic bros. Which is pretty interesting, considering the Epic of Gilgamesh vibes, that she chose to make them very explicitly that, because some people interpret the Epic of Gilgamesh as "Gilgamesh and Enkidu are in love with each other," which I don't agree with but I do see where they're coming from, based on certain lines and no explicit evidence to the contrary. But Immakuk and Ennikar? Nah. MWT wrote them as strictly bros. (And I deeply appreciate your quotes of Costis's and Kamet's friendship in TaT as well! I adore their friendship, which is so very clearly a FRIENDSHIP. And I adore that MWT writes friendships as compelling and emotionally deep as any romance--I adore that she UNDERSTANDS what friendship is and can be.)
OKAY BUT ONE MORE THING. The thing that makes me so mad about Teleus and Relius is the inconsistency (I think I have a moral objection to inconsistent storytelling, almost. I do. Like, as a craftsperson you owe it to your artistic integrity NOT TO DO THIS??), but I am also mad about the morality aspect in...an interesting way. I understand that people with different moral beliefs from me will write stories that include things I consider immoral and not pass explicit judgments on these things. I further understand that people who even maybe agree with me on certain moral beliefs will write stories INCLUDING immoral things, because they are interested in representing certain aspects of the-world-as-it-is (and it would be silly to arbitrarily decide that you're allowed to portray certain forms of immorality neutrally but never others. it will always depend on the story--and if you even think you SHOULD ever portray immoral things simply as they are without a moral judgment attached; which is a valid point of debate). What I also cannot stand about Teleus and Relius is that MWT, as an author, specifically, is keenly cognizant of morality in her stories. She doesn't necessarily take sides, but there is a moral clarity to her stories, where you see moral systems interacting and you see the moral motivations very clearly and what part they play in different characters' actions and what outcomes these things lead to. Morality is a huge part of her stories, even if not in a black-and-white way. And the way she writes Teleus and Relius's relationship as this beautiful, almost inconsequential, completely healthy thing (when, can I mention, it would be super unhealthy even IF they were opposite sexes! this is not healthy on any level!) muddies that moral clarity because it's not honest to the reality of what's actually going on. When normally she IS honest about that. And so it just feels so dishonest and I hate it literally so much.
That's the end of my rant (and long-delayed comment). Tldr; thank you for this post I loved it xD
Lol, well, better late than never! 😊
DeleteI’m so glad that I was able to deliver! :D Ambiguous is indeed not how she writes (or if she does write ambiguously, it’s ON PURPOSE for a REASON, and that…was not what was going on there. I just really don’t understand the thought process that would let her imply a years-long ‘affair’ between the two of them when there was NO sign of that in KoA. Like. What even.
Exactly! If the author doesn’t respect their own story, how am I, the reader, supposed to respect it? Or the author?
With Costis and Kamet, I’m mostly concerned about the stuff in Moira’s Pen…I don’t know if you’ve read it? And also the stuff at the end of RotT—I’m pretty sure Costis and Kamet dance on the rooftop? I could be wrong about that, though. (But, like, my best female friend at college and I swing dance together on the regular, because the guys just don’t always cut it. XD (Although her boyfriend is an amazing swing dancer, and watching them dance together is just *chef’s kiss*))
Anywho, Moira’s Pen seems to imply some Stuff, but also Not (I don’t remember the details because I skipped over that as much as I could, because the other parts of that book were SO GOOD, and it made me grumpy that parts of it weren’t. *sigh*)
Also, I think a lot of the fanbase (the liberal parts of the fanbase) see them as a couple? Not the whole fanbase OBVIOUSLY (um, case in point, you and me). Which is STUPID and shouldn’t MATTER, but I still felt the need to write refute that.
But YES. If you ARE willing to abandon your friend in enemy territory, then YOU ARE NOT THEIR FRIEND. I think the bar for friendship has been lowered a lot in the modern world, while romantic love has been overly focused on (there’s a better word for that, but my brain is DEAD so I don’t have it), and a lot of people don’t have friends who they would do almost anything for. Which is quite sad, when you think about it.
But it is SUCH an Immakuk and Ennikar thing for them to be such good friends, and Immakuk and Ennikar are DEFINITELY bros. (The emphasis on them getting in trouble with women on a regular basis? Yeah. XD)
Costis and Kamet’s friendship, though! Is! So! Beautiful! And that’s why I get so frustrated when people try to see it as something else. *harrumph*
Your last point is something that I hadn’t even thought of! Because MWT does usually do such a good job with morals and consistent morals and moral clarity, and even portraying what a relationship with God looks like, through Gen’s relationship with the gods. (The scene where all the glass blows out of the windows? The scene where the high priestess hands him the piece of paper that says “Attolis”? The “go to bed” scene? The scene where the coin only lands on the side that means Gen has to be king? LIKE. SERIOUSLY.)
And the fact that she throws that all away for the Relius/Teleus thing grates and feels like it doesn’t fit (like a piece of new skin on an old wineskin, perhaps?), in addition to being frustrating in general.
I’m curious, though, why you say that their relationship would be unhealthy even if they were opposite sexes? That’s something I hadn’t thought about, either, and I’m curious about your reasoning there. 😊
Thank you for your rant! I very much appreciated and enjoyed it, and it makes me very happy that you liked this post. :D
Ah, no, I have not read Moira's Pen. So I'd have to do that to know fully what you're talking about.
DeleteBut yeah, when it comes to parts of the fanbase seeing them as a couple...I applaud refuting that textually, but it's also something that bothers me literally not at all, because people nowadays will straight up see two people of the same sex be mildly friendly to each other and be like "THEY'RE IN LOVE. IT WAS MEANT TO BE!!!" to the point it really is completely ridiculous, erases even the possibility of friendship, and is not something that bothers me at all because I can't even take that viewpoint seriously. And I am further backed up in that view re: Costis and Kamet by reading a reviewer's thoughts on Goodreads once; she was very disappointed that Costis and Kamet clearly were NOT a couple in Thick as Thieves, and was disappointed once again when they continued not to be in Return of the Thief. With her, I was like, see, we disagree but you know how to read so I can at least respect THAT.
No, the death of friendship is real and awful and tragic. I want to write a post about the death of forgiveness and also a sort-of-companion one about the death of friendship (whether or not I ever will remains to be seen) because I think they are both symptoms of certain fundamental sicknesses in our society. I think the death of friendship has partly to do with the oversexualization of everything, but it also has to do with a loss of belief in the immortal soul (how can you have a meaningful platonic bond with someone when you don't see people as platonic? how can friendship be anything but a lesser love when, unlike the other loves, it satisfies no direct physical or material need?) and an over-exaltation of the wrong type of individualism.
(NO LITERALLY ALL OF THOSE SCENES ARE INCREDIBLE. GAH. YES.)
I love that application of new wineskin on old winejar, haha.
As far as them being unhealthy even if, say, Relius was female...I've always seen Relius as a deeply unhealthy person? Sort of sin-sick. A big aspect of that is his many lovers. He won't commit to anyone, and even if he does "love" Teleus, it's not like that love ever led him to stop living the way he was living and commit to Teleus either. There was never a moment where he reformed, or decided he was going to give up his old ways for Teleus. (Even if he did do that in RoT...and I can't remember if he did...that smacks much more of "getting older and realizing Teleus is the only faithful one I know and I value faithfulness more in my old age", a self-serving thing taking advantage of Teleus's years of unrequited faithfulness rather than changing for any moral reason himself.) So...anyone who willingly enters/participates in a marriage/relationship like that is doing something deeply unhealthy, imo. What do you think? I don't have the book with me to reread and check that I'm right about this; it's just the vibe I remember getting.
Ahhh okay. I actually saw something recently where MWT basically refuted the apparent textual evidence of Moira's Pen by clarifying a couple of things, and that made me really happy.
DeleteThe thing is, I have a hard time seeing people being wrong and not trying to correct it, hence the textual refutation of the Costis/Kamet thing. XD (That's a character flaw, methinks, but oh well.)
But you're totally right that the degree to which people are "shipping" friends is RIDICULOUS. And that's true even of people of opposite genders who are friends--I have been asked MULTIPLE times this semester if one of my guy friends and I are dating, and it's like "No, sir, actually, he's dating someone else but they're keeping it on the down-low, so I can't refute that by telling you that he's dating someone else, but NO WE'RE DEFINITELY NOT DATING." It's just not something someone should ever assume, and ESPECIALLY not in a same-sex way, but like. Argh. Modern culture. Stupidness.
"see, we disagree but you know how to read so I can at least respect THAT." SO TRUE. XD XD XD
Oh my goodness, I totally want to see a post about the death of friendship and the death of forgiveness! I was actually just talking about the death of forgiveness with one of my other friends the other day, sparked by the observation that no one says "I'm sorry" or "I forgive you" anymore. There's only anger and hardness.
But GAK "how can friendship be anything but a lesser love when, unlike the other loves, it satisfies no direct physical or material need?" UM. THAT'S BRILLIANT. If you're living a utilitarian worldview, like the majority of modern culture, you can see no reason for friendship. Which is a TRAVESTY. But also makes so much sense with how and where our culture is going. A horrific kind of sense.
Okay, that makes a lot of sense. Relius is definitely sin-sick, or sick in some way. Which is shown quite clearly in the earlier books, where his loyalty to the queen can't even win out over his latest mistress. (Poor Relius. That bit is very rough.) And it does seem like he'd be taking advantage of Teleus IF that was a thing...but not changing his fundamental issues.