Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Gay Knights and Horny Heroes


Gay Knights and Horny Heroes: Tales from the Court of King Arthur by Michael Gouda eBook
 Today I'm here to talk about Gay Knights and Horny Heroes, by Michael Gouda.

This is a terrible, terrible book. 

Normally, I won't write reviews like this. I feel uncomfortable writing something so negative, but this book is wildly offensive, and I feel readers should be warned -- especially because this book contains hints of underage sex.

This book is an anthology where each story is connected to the next. It's a retelling of the legend of King Arthur. Everybody in Camelot is gay; they engage in lots of public nudity; there's not a woman to be seen. Could be fun, right?

Sadly, no.

On the first page:
Young scullions from the kitchens, the prettiest only of course, brought in huge silver salvers [...]. They were wearing only the shortest of tunics and there were tantalizing glimpses of bottoms toasted pink by the fires of the kitchen, and sometimes even the tip of a youthful dangling penis. [...] it was quite acceptable to pat a rounded bottom or fondle a hanging prick as it passed, and the Knights took full opportunity [...].
So I thought, huh. Full-grown men publicly molesting half-naked boys. Weird, but okay.

Regardless, I read to the end of this first story, feeling a little creeped out but willing to continue.

The next story was worse. One of the knights, Sir Gareth, is attracted to a boy who is a "youth", "possibly eighteen". Gareth mentions he'd like to take Ranulf back to the boy's parents, but given the loving descriptions of how pretty Ranulf is, I'm not convinced.

Gareth feeds Ranulf. The text tells us that "Gareth [enjoyed] seeing healthy young men indulge in their appetites - of whatever sort." Gareth and another male character (a monk, who is also sexually attracted to Ranulf) forcibly strip Ranulf and bathe him. These two full-grown men tear Ranulf's clothes off as he shrieks and struggles, and then grope him repeatedly as they wash him. Despite the fact that Ranulf was shown to enjoy this, this scene came off as creepy rather than funny, and not at all sexy.

Next up is Sir Peveril. The first bit of this story is actually pretty funny. Sir Peveril finds out a dragon is terrorizing the countryside. Now, according to this story, dragons are only dangerous because they've got enormous... well, you know... and they'll rape anything they can catch. So Peveril gets a vial of magical powder that prevents any creature it touches from having an erection. Instead of slaying the dragon, he finds it and sprinkles the powder on the dragon, who, in humiliation, retreats.

This is where it gets creepy again.

The dragon has been keeping over a dozen boys prisoner in its cave. This happens:
"You are free," announced Sir Peveril. "No longer will the Dragon ravage you with his cruel depravity, for I have conquered his rapacious desires. [...]"
Instead of looking overjoyed by this news, the lads seemed downcast, if not enraged. A handsome youth with a broad chest and legs that looked as if they could crack coconuts between them said, "But who is going to service us now?"
And several others agreed until it was obvious that, far from objecting to the attentions of the Dragon, they were very angry at being denied them.
One looked hard at Sir Peveril and then said - albeit a little doubtfully, "You'll have to carry out his duties." At which all the others, some twelve to fifteen, said, "Aye" and looked threatening. 
And then they have an orgy.

My problem is that, once again, the male characters here are referred to as "boys" or "youths" or "young men". 

Now, it's true that these words are ambiguous. I think of a "youth" as someone who is around the age of 15-17, but it's always possible the author means 18-21.

But at other points in the book, the author uses these same terms - "young men", "lads", "youths", "boys" - to refer to boys that are explicitly stated to be underage. The author talks about them the same way. They're in the same age group. And they're all sexualized - not in spite of their youth, it seems, but because of it. There's all these descriptions of their youthful attitudes, their young health, how they're like puppies. And they act like teenagers - they bully each other, they have to be watched and rescued and taken care of, they're childish and immature and manipulative, and all of this is sexualized.

And on top of that, the other characters act like these boys are children. On two separate occasions, there's talk of how the boys should get back to their parents, who must be worried. And then, on both occasions, the man who not five minutes ago was thinking 'this kid should get back to his mother' has sex with him.

This was shocking and horrifying to me. While Dreamspinner Press has a firm rule about no underage sex appearing in their novels, I feel that rule was bent to the breaking point here. 

Authors: if you feel the urge to refer to your character as a boy instead of a man, he doesn't belong in a sex scene.

Still, I kept reading. And, in some ways, this anthology did get better. There were some genuinely funny moments, and once the focus was back on Lancelot and Arthur (both full-grown men) things were less awful.

The author's treatment of women was also a big problem for me. I don't normally comment on this, because I don't expect there to be female main characters in m/m romance novels, and it's not normally a big deal. But I felt the author went out of his way to be sexist. There is only one female character in this anthology, and her sole purpose in the narrative is to tear apart the main couple. (And I don't mean she's the only named female character, I mean she's the only female character, period. All side characters and background characters -- and there's dozens -- are male.)

And at the end of the book, we've got this tidbit from the author:
Of course the legends say that King Arthur, at his death, was taken off in a boat and ministered to by three Queens - surely a fate worse than death! 
Which struck me as a little odd, because in the original legend, all these women did was tend to him and serve him.

Is this what the m/m genre has come to? Has the exclusion and degradation of female characters become so common that it fails to even register anymore?

(More nitpicking: the dragon has a penis as thick as a man's thigh and three feet long. How are those boys still alive?)

I got the feeling this anthology wasn't written to be taken seriously. Regardless, any humor it possessed was ruined by (maybe) underage sex and the sexist tone.

12 comments:

  1. Today I'm here to talk about Gay Knights and Horny Heroes, by Michael Gouda.

    This is a terrible, terrible book.

    Of course, this is one person's view and you have every right to hold it BUT I think you should get your facts right.


    Honi soit qui mal y pense or, in case you don't speak Norman French - Evil be to him who evil thinks.

    Or possibly as others think , yes.

    Why 'weird' but okay suggests you accept, this as being part of the fantasy.

    To be accurate, the monk, Brother Felix, is NOT present at the much-needed bath, as he is called away to attend to a medical emergency. The removal of clothes and washing was objected to because of the fear of catching some disease, 'an ague' should bodies become wet in the winter months. In the Middle Ages, one could point out, bathing was regarded with suspicion by most classes. Even in Tudor times it is believed that Queen Elizabeth I only bathed once a month. No wonder Ranulf objected. However, as you say he eventually enjoyed it though no full sexual congress took place at the time.
    I would pojnt out that, in most 'civilised' European countries, the age of consent (both hetero- and homosexual) is 16. Even in 'reactionary' USA it's 18! and you do state that I suggested Ranulf might well have been 18.

    A note about 'squires'. They were expected to do some or all of the following:

    The typical jobs of a squire included:
    Carrying the knight's armour, shield, sword,
    Holding any prisoners the knight takes,
    Rescuing the knight should the knight be taken prisoner,
    Ensuring an honorable burial of the knight in the event of his death,
    Replacing the knight's sword if it were broken or dropped,
    Replacing the knight's horse or his own horse, if either be injured or killed,
    Dressing the knight in his armor,
    Carrying the knight's flag,
    Protecting the knight if needed,
    Taking care of the knight's horses,
    Accompanying the Knight to tournaments and during the time of war to the battlefield,
    Ensuring the armor and weapons of the knight were in good order

    To my mind it doesn't sound as if these jobs could be done by a 'boy' if by boy one means children of under 16.

    Or fantastically funny. Depends on one's sense of humour I suppose.
    Not referring to their ages of course but to the number of the dragon's prisoners.
    Thank you for allowing some latitude.
    Well, not exactly an orgy if, as is the usual interpretation of the term, means everyone had sex with everyone else. Sir Peveril was supposed to do the honours, an achievement he only succeeded with the help of Merlin's 'magic' potion.

    And all the sex is voluntary!

    I don't know where you got that quote from. I never used the word, 'kid', an Americanism I abhor.
    You seem to have an obsessive interest in paedophilia, a practice I never use in my stories.

    What rubbish! Morgana in the original tales is evil and I just kept her in. Admittedly I didn't use the 'exemplary' Guinevere (who wasn't actually as she committed adultery) but my m/m romance didn't sit kindly with ladies of easy virtue when I had men to do the same!

    You obviously missed the 'gay' joke here. In polari a Queen (sometimes spelled quean) is an effeminate gay man who screeches and has limp wrists. Indeed poor Arthur!
    e?)

    Wwll, as the whole story is a fantasy I guess you have to suspend disbelief and accept, in the context of the story, that this is what happened. BTW there are no such animals as dragons!
    I got the feeling this anthology wasn't written to be taken seriously.

    Oh well done! The only really serious story was the last one; The Last Battle' but then the Morte d'Arthur ended sadly/

    Regardless, any humor it possessed was ruined by (maybe) underage sex and the sexist tone.

    Sorry, Avery. No underage sex and no sexism. An intention of humour which obviously went over your head.

    ReplyDelete
  2. -- Suggesting that the squires can't be underage because they're obviously old enough to be squires is absolutely ludicrous. In the Middle Ages, a squire was often as young as fourteen, sometimes even younger. If you wrote the book, I'd expect you to have researched this.

    -- You're right. I missed the fact that the monk left. You still, however, have a man tearing the clothes off a protesting boy. Imagine someone much younger than you coming into your care. Imagine you barely know them. Now imagine ripping their clothes off and physically forcing them into a bath -- and then taking the opportunity to grope them. Are you really going to tell me this is okay?

    -- A good-sized book in which no women are present, save for a villain who is subjected to the tiresome "female wiles fail to affect the gay man" scene... ugh. I'm going to be honest with you -- the fact you had a woman try to fight using feminine wiles is, itself, gratingly sexist. She's a damn sorceress, not a stripper.

    -- I really don't care that Morgana is evil. You're right; in the original legends, she was a villain. What I have a problem with is the fact that the *only female character* is evil.

    -- If you take every opportunity to emphasize the age difference between two individuals, refer to a character using the same words people use to refer to children, and treat them as if they are too young to care for themselves or be reasoned with like adults, then please don't act shocked and horrified when someone suggests you might be sexualizing youth.

    -- To be fair, I've read books that did far worse than this. I recently read an erotic novel in which the main character was described as just past puberty, so young he didn't need to shave, still young enough to pass as a girl. [Ugh. Maybe I just need to stop reading Dreamspinner books. They go down like bad Chinese takeout.]

    ENDNOTE: It's the failing of many comedian that, when someone fails to laugh at their jokes, they choose to believe their audience didn't get the joke, rather than that their joke was unamusing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Forgot to say: the "quote" you're talking about isn't a quote. That's why it's italicized, put in single quotes rather than double, has no mention of where it's at in the book, and is written in informal American English.

    I was not suggesting you use those precise words in your book. I was giving (in my own words) my own interpretation of what your character seemed to be thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  4. -- Suggesting that the squires can't be underage because they're obviously old enough to be squires is absolutely ludicrous. In the Middle Ages, a squire was often as young as fourteen, sometimes even younger. If you wrote the book, I'd expect you to have researched this.

    I did and I found the reference to 14. OTOH the tasks designated to squires would demand a much older youth.

    -- You're right. I missed the fact that the monk left. You still, however, have a man tearing the clothes off a protesting boy. Imagine someone much younger than you coming into your care. Imagine you barely know them. Now imagine ripping their clothes off and physically forcing them into a bath -- and then taking the opportunity to grope them. Are you really going to tell me this is okay?

    Yes, the protests were against the perils of having a bath not against removal of clothing.

    -- A good-sized book in which no women are present, save for a villain who is subjected to the tiresome "female wiles fail to affect the gay man" scene... ugh. I'm going to be honest with you -- the fact you had a woman try to fight using feminine wiles is, itself, gratingly sexist. She's a damn sorceress, not a stripper.

    -- I really don't care that Morgana is evil. You're right; in the original legends, she was a villain. What I have a problem with is the fact that the *only female character* is evil.

    So perhaps I should have included some benevolent ladies (benign fag hags) wandering around smiling at the sexual antics of the knights. Really?

    -- If you take every opportunity to emphasize the age difference between two individuals, refer to a character using the same words people use to refer to children, and treat them as if they are too young to care for themselves or be reasoned with like adults, then please don't act shocked and horrified when someone suggests you might be sexualizing youth.

    -- To be fair, I've read books that did far worse than this. I recently read an erotic novel in which the main character was described as just past puberty, so young he didn't need to shave, still young enough to pass as a girl. [Ugh. Maybe I just need to stop reading Dreamspinner books. They go down like bad Chinese takeout.]

    ENDNOTE: It's the failing of many comedian that, when someone fails to laugh at their jokes, they choose to believe their audience didn't get the joke, rather than that their joke was unamusing.

    The 'Queen' was hardly a joke that demanded LOL, just a wry smile from those that understood.

    Reply

    AnonymousMay 4, 2013 at 8:25 PM
    Forgot to say: the "quote" you're talking about isn't a quote. That's why it's italicized, put in single quotes rather than double, has no mention of where it's at in the book, and is written in informal American English.

    I was not suggesting you use those precise words in your book. I was giving (in my own words) my own interpretation of what your character seemed to be thinking.

    I'm afraid medieval knights don't think of 'kids' unless they're intimate with goat husbandry.

    Reply

    ReplyDelete
  5. "So perhaps I should have included some benevolent ladies (benign fag hags) wandering around smiling at the sexual antics of the knights. Really?"

    You're shitting me, right?

    Any of the random servants throughout the book could have been female. Any of Ranulf's tormentors could have been female. The messenger who brought news of the dragon could have been female. The old peasant who gave Sir Peveril directions could have been female. The court physician could have been female. Depending on how liberal you're willing to be with your interpretation of King Arthur's Court -- and you seem pretty liberal, given the entire premise revolves around changing the sexualities of dozens of heterosexual men during an era in which homosexuality was, likely, not looked kindly upon -- any knight, named or otherwise, uninvolved in on-screen romance could have been female.

    Do you see what I mean? Do you realize how utterly ridiculous it is that the only possible way you can imagine having a female side character is if they're a "fag hag" whose sole purpose is to giggle approvingly at the men?

    "I'm afraid medieval knights don't think of 'kids' unless they're intimate with goat husbandry."

    I don't think you get it. The use of modern-day American slang is deliberate, being part of the overall snark of the review.

    On another note, it's cool if you're not into effeminate men, but your derogatory description of them (screechy, really?) is pretty gross.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "So perhaps I should have included some benevolent ladies (benign fag hags) wandering around smiling at the sexual antics of the knights.

      Really?"

You're shitting me, right?

      'shitting'? What a disgusting expression! Dropping faeces on you? Certainly that idea never occurred to me. I suppose you mean something like 'teasing' or 'making fun of'? And of course I was. You must be really - well I was going to say 'thick' but I don't really want to be offensive, though it obviously doesn't worry you!



      Any of the random servants throughout the book could have been female. Any of Ranulf's tormentors could have been female. The messenger who brought news of the dragon could have been female. The old peasant who gave Sir Peveril directions could have been female. The court physician could have been female.

      Of course anyone you mention could have been female but what would be the point? My story was essentially homosexual and introducing minor female characters would have little or no purpose.

      Depending on how liberal you're willing to be with your interpretation of King Arthur's Court - and you seem pretty liberal, given the entire premise revolves around changing the sexualities of dozens of heterosexual men during an era in which homosexuality was, likely, not looked kindly upon - any knight, named or otherwise, uninvolved in on-screen romance could have been female.

      Of course there was no real King Arthur and therefore no King Arthur's Court, but to comment on medieval homosexuality in general I would point out that several Kings of England were known to be homosexual, William II (Rufus), for instance, Richard I (Coeur de Lyon), Edward II (suffered a dreadful fate though more for his bad rule than his sexual activities), James I.



      Do you see what I mean? Do you realize how utterly ridiculous it is that the only possible way you can imagine having a female side character is if they're a "fag hag" whose sole purpose is to giggle approvingly at the men?

      Another jest which obviously you took too seriously.



      "I'm afraid medieval knights don't think of 'kids' unless they're intimate with goat husbandry."

I don't think you get it. The use of modern-day American slang is deliberate, being part of the overall snark of the review.

      Oh dear! You really have no sense of irony. Typical American! What is a snark? In the poem by Lewis Carroll 'the Snark was a Boojum, you see'.



      On another note, it's cool if you're not into effeminate men, but your derogatory description of them (screechy, really?) is pretty gross.
      I have no objection to effeminate men. I was quite fond of Sir Percival as I think I indicate.

      Delete
  6. (1) Suggesting I'm dim -- not for the first time, I might add -- is pretty ironic when you have such staggering problems with basic formatting that your first comment is almost incomprehensible. It might be different wherever you're from, but for future reference: I would advise you to use quote marks when you are quoting something.

    (2) Claiming that previous comments were made is jest is the fall-back plan of a man with no real argument beyond hurt feelings and self-importance.

    (3) When you have offended someone or sold them a defective product -- or both, in your case -- it shouldn't be noteworthy when they react angrily, as I have. No, I don't care if my review seems offensive to you. My review isn't for you. As it's often said: reviews aren't written for writers, but for readers.

    It's clear you're the kind of person whose primary methods of debate are backtracking (a queen is "an effeminate gay man who screeches and has limp wrists" vs. "I have no objection to effeminate men"), pointless bullshit (the existence of gay kings in the medieval era does not, in any way, indicate that homosexuality was looked kindly upon in that time period), and blather (yes, I use American slang, do we REALLY need to talk about this).

    Shall we nitpick some more? Shall we caper about like clowns and pretend we don't know what "snark" means?

    No. Shoo.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Suggesting I'm dim -- not for the first time, I might add -- is pretty ironic when you have such staggering problems with basic formatting that your first comment is almost incomprehensible. It might be different wherever you're from, but for future reference: I would advise you to use quote marks when you are quoting something.

    Look carefully. I DID use quote marks round the offensive word you used 'shitting' - and before you start bleating about single/double quotation marks, I would refer you to the following definition from my dictionary: Quotation marks are written as a pair of opening and closing marks in either of two styles: single ('…') or double (“…”).

    

(2) Claiming that previous comments were made is jest is the fall-back plan of a man with no real argument beyond hurt feelings and self-importance.

    It could also be the truth.



    (3) When you have offended someone or sold them a defective product -- or both, in your case -- it shouldn't be noteworthy when they react angrily, as I have. No, I don't care if my review seems offensive to you. My review isn't for you. As it's often said: reviews aren't written for writers, but for readers.
    'sold then a defective product' (note quote marks).

    My story may have some defects - I'm not that self-important to think that I'm perfect - but I would just like to point out that the story has earned (so far) over 2000 USD.

    

It's clear you're the kind of person whose primary methods of debate are backtracking (a queen is "an effeminate gay man who screeches and has limp wrists" vs. "I have no objection to effeminate men"), pointless bullshit (the existence of gay kings in the medieval era does not, in any way, indicate that homosexuality was looked kindly upon in that time period), and blather (yes, I use American slang, do we REALLY need to talk about this).

    My definition of a 'queen' as quoted above does not necessarily imply that I dislike them. Perhaps I should have added that a 'queen' also has 'a talent for vitriolic criticism' which I find amusing.



    Shall we nitpick some more? Shall we caper about like clowns and pretend we don't know what "snark" means?

    Honestly I have never heard the word 'snark' used as you do and I had to infer its sense from the context and your general attitude. Nor do I understand the relevance of 'shoo' (your final comment).


    ReplyDelete
  8. Shoo means go away.

    I keep thinking I'm going to stop, but hell with it. Avery Shy doesn't exist anywhere other than this blog, and I seriously doubt anyone else cares about this conversation, so I may as well indulge myself by arguing my fill.

    "Look carefully. I DID use quote marks round the offensive word you used 'shitting'"

    I'm going to assume that this statement isn't a joke and respond in a straightforward and earnest manner. I was not referring to the word 'shitting.' I was referring to your first comment, in which you quoted me multiple times without using quotation marks.

    You often quote things I have said. Entire paragraphs, in fact. And you don't put quote marks around these quotes. (The purpose of quote marks, in this instance, would be to show what sentences you have taken from me and what sentences are your response so that any reader can look at this argument and easily differentiate between the two. Otherwise, it looks a lot like you're arguing with yourself.)

    Secondly -- we are both adults. I write a blog that primarily features explicit material. You write about fucking. I have no idea why you are objecting to the use of explicit language, and frankly, I don't care.

    And now back to the sexism thing.

    So. To recap. I complained that there is only one female character in your anthology. You replied: "So perhaps I should have included some benevolent ladies (benign fag hags) wandering around smiling at the sexual antics of the knights. Really?" I attacked you for suggesting a female character's only role in your fiction could be as a fag hag. You claim that comment was made in jest.

    So if that comment was a joke, then the question remains: why is there only one female in your anthology?

    To reiterate, I don't expect m/m fiction to feature very many female characters, given that the leads are (of course) going to be male. Ignoring the main characters, I usually expect 50% of the supporting cast -- that is, any character not involved in an on-screen romance, be they named or unnamed, important or otherwise -- to be female. If a story is short enough, that may mean no female characters at all. It just seems bizarre that a work of fiction this length is entirely populated by men and one female villain. Again, I'd expect their to be at least the occasional nameless female servant, if not a female supporting role like Merlyn's or the Friar's -- not because I expect an author to deliberately add female characters solely for the purpose of having female characters, but because women exist, and excising them entirely seems like less of an accident and more of a choice.

    I mean, imagine if I wrote a book and every character I introduced had blue eyes, save for one brown-eyed villain. I expect readers would wonder why I made that choice.

    ReplyDelete
  9. And this sentence deserves its own reply:

    "My definition of a 'queen' as quoted above does not necessarily imply that I dislike them."

    Since you're an author, I expect that you know what word connotation is, but just for the heck of it, I'll define it anyway: a word's connotation is a positive or negative feeling associated with that word. Most writers use this to their advantage in their fiction.

    For example, let's say I created a character with pale skin, fine hair, and sharp features. If I didn't like this character, I would use words with a negative connotation: I describe them as pallid, with thin hair and a bony face and a hooked nose. But if I wanted the reader to like this character, I would instead use words with a positive connotation: I would describe them as having alabaster skin, silky hair, high cheekbones and an aquiline nose.

    Now, technically, both of those descriptions mean the same thing, but because of the words I chose, one description implies the character is good and one implies the character is bad.

    So if I were asked to describe a queen, and if I liked queens and wanted to convey that they were great people, I might describe them as feminine men with delicate bone structure.

    But if I didn't like queens or found them unattractive, my language would indicate that -- I would use words like "screechy" and "limp-wristed", both of which have a strong negative connotation. I might even make a joke at their expense and put it in a book.

    So when you say that your description of queens doesn't necessarily imply that you dislike them:

    BULLSHIT. That is exactly what it implies.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 'Shoo means go away.'

    OK. I'm bored.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Why? Did you read one of your own comments by mistake?

    And look. You used quote marks. Thumbs up!

    ReplyDelete