First off, having a reader make assumptions about the author's beliefs based on what they've written could be viewed as testament to good writing. The object is to make it believable, to suspend disbelief. The chances of that happening might be increased in first person pov, but not exclusive to that. Readers thinking that the author is disclosing aspects of their own personality could be linked to very skilled writing, which doesn't diminish the co-existing theory that people can just be very very stupid.
I very much agree.
Really? Would you not be even a bit suspicious.
I would not. I don't know if it's because of my life experience, if it's because of the massive number of previously abused people I have spoken to and learned how some of them think, or even just my interest in psychology, but no, I would not be. Particularly based on written words in a work of fiction.
If csa or other sexual violence are written in a similar tone to a non-abusive love scene, I'm waiting for the unreliable narrator or realisation, which would need to be delivered with a wallop, that such violence has damaging consequences for the person assaulted. If the narrative doesn't extend to the harm that people who are abused will, according to my experience, universally endure, then is it not precisely, by definition, a legitimisation of that sexual violence?
The other side
is always shown though. One way or another. Lets use Lolita as an example (which admittedly it has been a very long time since I've read, so feel free to call me out if I'm misremembering something), the argument is often made that Delores was left out, that no one ever got to know what she really thought about things, about him, about anything. That simply isn't true. While, yes, we do see everything through Humbert's extremely unreliable narration - that is, entirely, the point. He's a very sick man. Even with his vile narration we know a lot of things about her - she is captive, she is too young to help herself, he is the only 'dependable' person in her life, she cries all the time, he bribes her, he controls her. Her feelings on this are shown when she cries, when she has to be bribed, when she runs away (to someone who is just as messed up) and when she contacts him for help - showing once again that the monster you know is still, well, the monster you know. The damage to her is shown through the choices that she makes when she actually is able to make them. Besides the fact she's largely left out of anything of value because she wasn't a
person to him, she was an object, a possession to be used. It is horrifying, yes, but there are a lot of horrifying people in the world. The book was in no way unrealistic. It is nauseating and disturbing to any halfway normal person, absolutely, but not unrealistic. Not all monsters want to heal.
Having said that, I've no knowledge of dark romance and, based on what's been said, don't see that changing. I don't know that it sounds like a particularly safe place for people who are working through personal experience of abuse, but can see that there may be opportunity for some kind of empowerment. Maybe.
Okay, so... not all dark romance is like this (and is why I agree with the trigger warnings requirement for the genre) and there is a very wide range of topics and themes. I've clearly done a disservice to the genre on the whole with these discussions that is, imo, wholly unwarranted. Some are very mild and even lighthearted and some are extreme and very niche with everything in between.
The reason it is helpful for some people (based on what I've learned from people who it
has helped) is the 'treat yourself like you would treat a friend' thing. So, if someone was abused in this way as a child (or an adult) but was constantly told that they caused it - they may, possibly, actually believe that. They believe that what happened to them was not X because people who are victims of X did nothing to cause it. They, however,
did do things to cause it (in their mind) therefore they are partially at fault, are not a victim, and instead are a perpetrator of damage to themselves. Which is, of course, incorrect. They often can't see past it though.
Then they read a book - where the character is going through experiences that they themselves have and instead of blaming the character they find themselves being angry at the perpetrator, being afraid and hurt for the character, and sometimes, for themselves. In books where the perpetrator also realizes what they've done and understands the harm they've caused, hopefully taking steps to heal themselves and those they've harmed, it can be healing for the person reading because they can finally
see it. Even if the perpetrator never apologizes or admits they were wrong, they can see that what happened to them was not their fault, under any circumstances.
Hopefully, that makes sense? From a psychological perspective. Even if you can never fully understand it (which, truly, I wish that no one could. My heart absolutely shatters for those who can).
Leaving that aside, the writing stands on its own. If biographical details of the author are essential to understanding the narrative, then it's failed its primary duty.
I agree. My question was primarily about the people who go looking for those biographical details for no reason other than Fiction = scary.
I think we do leave traces of ourselves right through the writing but argue it's not necessarily what people might think, nor is it a simple exercise to extract the writer from the writing.
Yes, but like you said, what it seems to say about us may be entirely incorrect.
