#but beauty can be used as apologia for characters i do not in fact want to be redeemed so its like hmmmm

[literalite]

i would be more expressive about nayef’s situation but there’s things in there idk how well would be received. really

[gav-san]

The Hollow Kingdom

Review and Defense of a classic fantasy favorite.

Warning: Below is a large explanation that spoils some upcoming projects and talks about things you may be uncomfortable with, but are important to talk about. Also, spoilers of the book. 

Please consider reading the book!

There’s a stage that man girls go through, likely after watching the 1986 Labyrinth. I like to call it the ‘Goblin King Craze’. After all, few things match the childhood spectacle of David Bowie dancing in very tight pants with his cohort of bumbling goblins, coupled with the magic of Jim Henson. 

I can imagine many of you who have watched this movie, had like me, also longed for the imagination and craze in your own life, or at least something similar in fiction.  

Cue being a teenager, and discovering The Hollow Kingdom (published 2003), but mere chance in your hometown library. 

Here is the Goodreads summary: “In nineteenth-century England, a powerful sorcerer and King of the Goblins chooses Kate, the elder of two orphan girls recently arrived at their ancestral home, Hallow Hill, to become his bride and queen...”

It’s no surprise that I ended up loving this book. 

This book is generally under a YA fiction/fantasy tag. It has won various awards, including the 2004 Mythopoeic Fantasy Award for Children's Literature. It’s well-written, relatable to a young woman, and full of intelligent moments and clever thinking. The characters are fully-fledged, as are the societies they live in. 

It’s not a perfect book. Sometimes the pacing and choice of focus can be inconsistent, and sometimes the timing and structure are not as strong as they could be. Its lack of care for developing romance can cause problems with the reviewers, had they been expecting a romance.

Now let’s chat a bit. As a teenager, it was an eye open experience to discover a book that didn’t pander another tale of ‘Beauty and the Beast’ once again. Meaning, an easy tale that force-fed me obvious morals, and condescended to my 'age-level’. And, I thought, it was better to talk about difficult things then pretend they didn’t exist.

And so time passed, the internet grew, and the Me Too movement rolled along, said hi, and sorta gave a half-hearted wave as it did so. Now, much older, I have finally had time to work on some projects that I’ve been thinking about for a long time. I do fanfic’s as a writing exercise, but my true love is illustrating stories on the webtoon platform. I have a series called ‘Vixen’ out that has been a trial run of sorts to sharpen my skills and get me back on track.

One of the long-running projects that I’ve desperately wanted to illustrate for a long time is ‘The Hollow Kingdom’. I am only in the beginning steps and have yet to contact the author or any of the other relevant sources. This research stage is mostly an exploration to see if this is even possible, and how it would be done. 

As I’ve delved into the internet to see how my old favorite has aged... I was a bit startled.

Despite its initial accolades around 2018, when a lot of Hollywood was being stripped and scattered, and there were many accusations worldwide of prominent figures accused of sexual abuse, perhaps it was predictable that a complicated book that does not deal with a traditional happy ending started becoming maligned in general. And as social media, as a rule, tends to ignore content in favor of a thoughtful readthrough, I felt the need to go reread and reassess my POV.

So I did.

And I still enjoyed the book. As did the roughly 10,000 others who rated it 4 stars and above.

But to be fair, here are some reviews from other who didn’t:

----

1. The end is some sort of apologia for rape, abduction, and Stockholm Syndrome.

2. I expect that when I’m told said female protagonist is intelligent for her to actually be intelligent, like you know, by giving her any ounce of sense, resourcefulness, or deductive skills. 

3. (The Goblin King)...seriously tries to justify his actions by saying he doesn’t have a choice...

4. I also did not like the pointless slaughtering of animals…which really if you think about it made no sense…why would the monkey and wolf not be threats and be all for following kate but not the bear or the snakes…

5. It didn't help that I was well aware of how the main character got tricked. I mean, if her guardian believed her and was concerned for her sister why would still keep Kate locked up in her room and offer freedom from the room in exchange for info on goblins?

6. A young woman is coerced into marrying the Goblin King, Lord of the Hollow Kingdom.

7. What I'm trying to get across is that this is another example of a story where a young woman gets virtually everything taken away from her - her passions, her freedom, everything - but (through Stockholm Syndrome or sheer stupidity, I'm not sure) she forgives it all in the name of love and becomes a supremely contented Stepford Wife. 

8. So a girl is kidnapped by the Goblin King, and is trapped in the goblin kingdom. The end. Well, she ends up liking it, doesn't struggle, doesn't really care about what is happening to her. 

-------

Sorry, that was a lot. I understand that there are many who are just not going to jibe with a book. But I think it’s fair that on the complaints that accuse the book, it can be rebutted.

1(a). Perhaps many of the problems with the book that people expected it to be the perfect mash between Labyrinth and Beauty and the Beast. First of all, Beauty and the Beast is a classic tale, which many accuse of Stockholm Syndrome. It isn’t, by the way, but that’s not why I’m here. Or here.

Neither is the Hollow Kingdom. It seems that many of the reviewers are sure that Kate is forced into marrying the Goblin King. She wasn’t. She actually ends up going to the Goblin King and agreeing to marry him in exchange for the release of her sister. 

But Gav-san, the Goblin King )Marak) misled Kate into thinking they had her.

No, they didn’t. It even points out that had she asked, they would have told her. It’s stated very early on that Goblin do not lie under any circumstance (though are prone to being crafty beasts). 

Kate never is isolated with her captour, or ignore his awful parts and has does not fall in line with his ideas, holding strongly to her own. In fact, it’s her very ideals that lead to her success in the end, and that leads to Marak’s change of ideology. Kate’s own honor often compelled her to make choices that seem frustrating to the (modern) reader (who perhaps forgets this is 1815 England). To demand modern ideologies from the protagonist is awfully stupid and presumptuous.

1(b). This book, in no way shape or form, is an apology for rape and abduction. It’s a large point in this book that is unavoidable. The Goblins and Elves kidnap humans (and the occasional elf) to marry. The King must always marry outside of his race. This inevitably leads to unhappy women and broken families.

It is not seen as a happy, good event, but often a stressful, angry one that leaves tragedy and scars that echo across the generations. It is also a revealing look at humanity and our own atrocities. Much like the goblins and elves, sometimes these things are painted as noble when they weren’t, and thus it makes the societies feel real, having these pitfalls. 

And, as a King whose entire, beloved kingdom is at stake, do you chose to make one person miserable, or condemn the entire lot to a slow death?

It may make us uncomfortable to see the reality of this situation played out in such close-to-the-chest terms. 

Because Kate ends up happy and the victor, even in a situation that was not perfect, should she be condemned? I don’t think she or any women forced into that situation should be denied a healthy joy they find.

Remember, at the end of the book, it’s because of Kate that the Kingdom continues.

2. Kate is intelligent. (How could you miss her relentlessly scheming, most that succeed?!?!) And due to her heritage, she has top-notch instincts (untrained though) she continually outsmarts and outmaneuvers the Goblin King and the meddling human family. I think, had her Uncle not kidnapped Emily, she would have escaped. But her own concern for her sister was more important, and so she made that choice. That’s why she agrees to settle in, and that’s what open’s the door to her falling in love with Marak. She isn’t his prisoner, but his equal, who he learns to respect. Many human relationships could learn that last part better.

3. The Goblin King doesn’t justify himself in any degree. He knows he’s not going to be a desirable, handsome husband to any woman, especially in 1815 (or any time before and long after). If the only way a magical kingdom could continue is the misery of one person outside your race who is treated well, all things considered, then why would a brusque goblin who is not naturally inclined (thanks to his heritage) to get his feelings hurt easily worry? Many of the King’s Wifes never fell in love with their husbands, especially the sensitive elves. 

In the animal kingdom, it’s not as important. Stop projecting modern standards on a fantasy culture. JRR Tolkien's goblins murder, are crass and cruel, but we don’t expect them to be human and learn to be polite. Dunkle’s Goblins are far more genteel and human-like, but they are not humans. 

4. At the end of the book, there is a sorcerer who is a bad man and uses human and animal parts in his spells. If you are sensitive to that, perhaps it’s something to consider, but the book doesn’t go into great detail of these things. And frankly, ‘traditional’ medicine in many parts of the world does the same. 

And why would Kate release animals that would hurt her?

5. Kate’s Guardian was never concern for her. He thought about murdering her and was concocting plans to do so. As it says in the book, society would not be kind to Kate or Emily. This is no surprise. A wealthy young woman in 1815 England? A prime target. 

Kate manages to trick the doctor who the guardian brought (to put her in the insane asylum) and save her sister, though she needed to Goblins help. She was in a bad position! 

6. Why are people so determined to take away Kate’s dignity and choice? Her uncle lied to her, and he was punished for it later, by the Goblin King. She went to the Goblin King and bartered her own freedom. Women make their own choices and feminism is respecting those choices as a man’s would. Her acceptance of the Gobline Kingdom is not proof of her weakness, but a show of her strength. You will face difficult problems you cannot change, and the only decision at that point is how you react.

Just because Sarah didn’t chose the Goblin King doesn’t make her strong. It was what she learned doing it. The point of reading the book is the journey.

7. Or you can see this as a book that takes on the idea of conflicting cultures that are forced upon a woman, and she makes decisions that ensure the important things to her are seen through. A real woman who, much like real women, is put into a difficult situation that is fraught with dangers and missteps, and does a decent job at navigating them without giving up her integrity or beliefs.

Don’t be taken in by easy illusions that meant to be as shallow as they appear. Feel free to message me and we can chat about it more. 

In the end, this is just my opinion. But I don’t think I’m wrong, and I stand by it, which is why I’m writing it, and why I hope to illustrate this magnificent work one day.

Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.

[scripttorture]

Torture in Fiction: Black Butler, Season 1, Episode 20

My first impression of this anime was that uh- the writer has some odd ideas about Victorian England. It makes the show a little bit strange for me; there are so many things about the way the period is portrayed that are just… wrong. For me that made the episodes I watched very jarring and distracted from the carefully constructed undercurrent of menace that runs through most episodes.

I didn’t dislike it. But I love history. I know my history. And watching this felt a little like watching an updated period propaganda piece that wasn’t written by a Brit. It’s bizarre.

But I’m not here to talk about how other cultures are depicted in Japanese media. I’m rating the depiction and use of torture, not the anime itself. I’m trying to take into account realism (regardless of fantasy or sci fi elements), presence of any apologist arguments, stereotypes and the narrative treatment of victims and torturers.

The central idea in Black Butler is that the Earl of Phantonhime, a 12-13 year old boy called Ciel, has a contract with a demon, Sebastian, who acts as his butler. Sebastian has agreed to serve Ciel in any way he desires in exchange (eventually) for Ciel’s soul.

Ciel has used this power to fight crime in the Victorian underworld and try to protect the interests of the Queen as well as get revenge on the people who murdered his family.

I haven’t watched the whole series, so I might well miss some points as we go into this. The episode I’m focusing on is 20, which is close to the end of the first season. I’m aware that part of Ciel’s backstory is child abuse, but I couldn’t find a clear indication of which episodes actually covered this. So I choose to stick to the episode that inarguably depicts torture.

Ciel is being framed for drug smuggling. The officer arresting him states that a Lord can’t be tortured but no such rules apply to butlers. Ciel orders Sebastian to show no resistance but to reveal his power only when Ciel calls for him.

Ciel is taken to- what I presume is meant to be a police station it’s never made clear. Sebastian is taken to the Tower of London and a set up that looks like it predates the Tower. The camera pans over instruments from Anglo-Saxon times and the Tudor period.

The torturer (who also looks like he pre-dates the Tower) seems excited to have someone to hurt. He comments on Sebastian’s beauty and talks about cutting out Sebastian’s eyes as he judges these to be Sebastian’s best feature. He then decides to ‘save the best til last’ and approaches Sebastian with a set of metal pincers instead.

Up to this point the torture appears to be aimed at forcing a confession from Sebastian that will incriminate Ciel.

Some time later an angel (and recurring adversary for Ciel and Sebastian) comes into the cell. She comments on how humiliating this must be for Sebastian, dwelling on the fact he’s allowed himself to be injured in the course of fulfilling his contract. She then wonders how long it has been since Sebastian consumed a human soul and how long he’s waited to consume Ciel’s. She says he must be ‘starving’ and offers him all the souls he can eat if he surrenders Ciel’s to her.

Sebastian refuses and the angel whips him. She doesn’t question him or ask for a confession but spouts some very Spanish Inquisition-like guff about repentance and cleansing souls by fire.

In the mean time a police officer takes pity on Ciel. He thinks Ciel is being framed and seems to see Ciel as an innocent child in need of protection. He allows Ciel to escape.

Ciel finds one of the men responsible for framing him, breaks into the man’s carriage and holds a gun to his head. He demands to know the truth. The man he threatens tells him everything.

I was honestly unsure how to rate this because, while there are some elements of torture apologia here, the most unrealistic element throughout is historical: the portrayal of torture in these episodes does not match the era or the culture. I’m inclined to rate that as a ‘bad’ point, it’s unrealistic, but at the same time it’s nowhere near as serious as excusing or condoning torture.

Fiction shouldn’t have to be entirely historically accurate.

At the same time the way the author chose to use torture in this plot and the way in which she chose to divert from history don’t sit well with me. I’ve changed the review format slightly in order to accommodate some discussion of why that is.

In the end I decided to give it 2/10

Elements that are not Historically Accurate

The Tower of London was not used as a prison during the Victorian era. By this time most of the institutions the Tower had housed had been moved elsewhere and the building was in a state of disrepair. As far as I can tell for most of the Victorian period the Tower was being rebuilt.

Use of burning tortures, pincers and threats to remove eyes would all have been illegal for a few hundred years by this point. They were typical of Anglo-Saxon tortures but this pre-dates the Tower and regular use of the Tower as a prison. I’m unsure if any of these tortures were routinely carried out in the Tower but they certainly weren’t common practice anywhere in Britain during this era.

The visual choices for the depiction of the torture chamber and the torturer are- well to me they’re utterly ridiculous and out of the place. It’s a Tudor structure and stereotype, beside Anglo-Saxon instruments, menacing a Victorian butler.

The religious bent that the scenario takes when the angel starts torturing Sebastian is really not typical of torture in Britain at any period. The idea of torture cleansing souls and torture primarily motivated by religion owes more to the Spanish Inquisition then the Tower. Religious minorities were tortured and persecuted in Britain but as far as I can tell from the sources I have this was much more about prejudice and politics then religion. It wasn’t about ‘repenting’ and full confessions to save souls. Both of these ideas were rooted in Catholic Christianity and by the Victorian times Britain had been Protestant for a considerable period.

The ideas that Lords were, at any period of British history, exempt from torture is ludicrous. The titled gentry were tortured, both as punishment and to extract confessions. Sometimes they were tortured just because the current monarch didn’t like them that much. So far as I can tell the only punishment titled gentry were exempt from was hanging, drawing and quartering: the gentry were beheaded instead.

Underlying this there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the British class system functions. It stands out because the scenario is so focused on the divide between classes: the entire plot relies on toying with the unequal relationship between master and servant.

The Good

The artwork highlights a lot of Sebastian’s injuries, avoiding any suggestion that torture is harmless.

Sebastian doesn’t give either of his torturers what they want. He doesn’t incriminate Ciel, he doesn’t confess and he doesn’t repent.

The Bad

Ciel getting accurate, useful information from an enemy at gunpoint isn’t possible and it’s an idea that’s rooted in torture apologia. It suggests that if you make someone afraid or cause them pain they’ll be forced to tell the truth. That isn’t how the human brain works.

Torture doesn’t have a lasting impact on this story. It’s here to keep Sebastian away from Ciel for a narratively convenient period of time. It could be replaced with a huge range of things without having any impact on the plot.

The choice of older historical tortures in this context doesn’t sit well with me because it’s choosing to show scarring tortures instead of the clean ‘non-scarring’ tortures typical of the time. To me this suggests that the author only considers scarring tortures to be ‘proper’ tortures and believes the audience will feel the same.

Sebastian is unmoved by torture and doesn’t give in to his torturers’ demands. But the story leaves it ambiguous as to whether this is because torture doesn’t work or because as a demon Sebastian is immune. It’s very easy to watch this and walk away with the impression that Sebastian is the exception, not the rule.

Even without a clear idea what happened to Ciel he doesn’t really show any of the symptoms I’d expect from a survivor. Let alone a child survivor. There’s also no indication he’s been through any kind of recovery process and improved.

Miscellaneous

While I don’t think the story suggests torture is harmless Sebastian doesn’t really show pain. Usually I would put this down as a bad point because it downplays the damage torture does. But in this case it seems to be linked heavily to the fact Sebastian isn’t human, it’s linked to his supernatural abilities. And as a result I’m not sure how to categorise it because it’s not clear if is showing victims are unaffected by torture or that Sebastian as a demon isn’t.

Overall

While I don’t think this is a bad series, on balance I do think this is a bad use of torture.

There is some apologia here although unusually it isn’t the main focus and much of it is down to interpretation rather than what the narrative states or shows.

But the choice of anachronistic tortures isn’t neutral here. It’s feeding into a large popular misconception that the only abuses that ‘really’ cause pain also leave physical scars.

Most tortures now leave no obvious physical marks and this misconception puts survivors in a position where they’re asked to ‘prove’ they suffered enough to count.

On top of that the use of torture here seems unnecessary. The only function it’s serving is keeping Sebastian out of the main plot for a while. There’s no lasting impact on the plot or the characters and the result is that torture here is rather toothless.

Combined with the narrative use of threats to extract accurate information and Ciel’s lack of symptoms the result is a repeated suggestion that abuse doesn’t have a lasting impact and only scarring abuse ‘counts’.

That suggestion probably isn’t intentional but it comes from ignorance of the subject the author is trying to depict. It also comes from using abuse as a narrative short cut rather than trying to engage with the topic.

In the end I think the problem with Black Butler’s use of torture comes down to this: the author could easily have replaced it with something else. And when that’s the case the writer does both torture and the narrative a disservice.

Available on Wordpress.

Disclaimer