245 replies to this topic

[Phat Walda]

So my husband has been reading GOT for our podcast as we review it one chapter at a time (I've read the whole series). One of the main points of contention when we discuss the books is our different way of looking at the universe GRRM has built. Personally, I tend to drop all modern judgment when I read them, and tend to view all the actions on the page through the lens of that period. Things that would seem disgusting and unforgivable today are not nearly as big a deal when I read these books.

My husband, I am beginning to understand, does NOT take this view. He reads everything as if it were happening today, and to me, gets needlessly hung up on details that I accept without question (infidelity, extreme age differences, marriage, etc). He's also quite a feminist, and gets far more outraged about the disadvantaged position women are put in (take THAT however you want) than I do, since I basically went into it figuring women were going to have basically no rights.

When I first joined these forums (about 3 weeks ago) I noticed that the sources of most debates on here stemmed from the same issue as my husband and I; some people accept the period, and some people feel that they were meant to read this from a modern mindset.

Personally I don't see the point of reading about this book from a modern mindset. You just kind of wind up hating everyone, in that case.

What do you think?

[WenchofTarth]

Putting your modern viewpoints of morality into a fictional/historical time setting is just foolish.

[Arkash]

I never read Asoiaf by modern standarts !

Of course, sometimes, I'm quite angry toward some things, mostly the women conditions, but it's anger, no shock.

And all the times I read Asoiaf, I go into mode: "Westerosi way of thinking".

[Alexia]

George R.R. Martin is a 21st century author writing for a 21st century audience. He writes certain things with the intention of arousing revulsion in his audience, not to celebrate them. However, many horrible things happen even today (ex. marital rape) and therefore these things used to characterize certain characters in a negative way are not universally perceived as horrible by the modern audience reading the book.

One of the key things I find interesting about these books is watching how the female characters react and work around or against the injustices of their society.

[headtrip_honey]

It's a modern work written by a modern author for a modern audience.

While much of the subject matter is "based on" a medieval setting (very loosely), I'd argue that we're not supposed to just accept those standards.

Tyrion, for example, in a "normal" Westerosi world, would have been exposed as an infant (he himself says as much). Are we not supposed to find that very idea abhorrent?

It's one thing to understand how a character acts in the context of their world, it's another to applaud abhorrent actions because they were "normal."

Edited by headtrip_honey, 07 February 2012 - 02:35 PM.

[Falrinn]

In general I try to keep in mind that such practices made sense in a more medieval society.

Doesn't mean I can't credit Dorne or Bear Island for their more progressive views of course. Brienne of Tarth for example would of fit right in if she was from Bear Island.

[Phat Walda]

headtrip_honey, on 07 February 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:

It's one thing to understand how a character acts in the context of their world, it's another to applaud abhorrent actions because they were "normal."

Nobody's talking about "applauding", I'm talking about seeing things from another perspective than my own cultural background.

[headtrip_honey]

Phat Walda, on 07 February 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:

Nobody's talking about "applauding", I'm talking about seeing things from another perspective than my own cultural background.

Okay, perhaps "applauding" was too strong a word. But here's an example:

Robert's rapes of Cersei. Just because "marital rape" was not a concept that existed in Westeros does not make his actions any less abhorrent.

And it doesn't mean we should be okay with or dismissive of them.

[fassreiter]

There is no such thing as lens of a period. Modern fiction is always a statement about our own culture, or about the images we have when dealing with another culture, but this still makes it 'our' modern way of dealing with another culture. It is always about you, not about the other culture. It's the same with reading what Columbus had to say about 'indians': it doesn't teach you anything about those people, but all about Columbus. You can't try to feel 'medieval' while reading because we have no idea what medieval people 'felt'. That's the whole problem with history. You can't reconstruct it. All you can do is construct another 'image' of history - and this image will always be a 'modern' one. So we are supposed to read modern fiction as modern fiction, and as a statement about ourselves. The 'medieval' background of ASOIAF is no more 'medieval' than the Shire is a 19th century village - both are fictions, and both want you to read it as a statement about our culture. And with a critical mind. ASOIAF has a 'medieval' setting because the author takes our own, modern problems (identity, family, war, power) and regards them from a different perspective. It's like an experiment. It's a way to alienate ourselves from our own culture and to have a different perspective on our own culture. But it has nothing to do with a 'medieval' culture. And I get really pissed when people try to justify burning people, raping women or mutilating people with 'a different time, a different culture'. Medieval life was not 'nice', but people were no more ok with people getting burned or women getting raped than we are. And I really wish people would stop claiming medieval women had no rights at all. This is just not true.
And concerning our own culture: reading about women getting raped and just shrug and say "It's just fiction" is a really disturbing thought. We are not supposed to shrug. We are supposed to look into this mirror GRRM provides and ask ourselves what we, the modern readers, would have done if we lived in that culture - and this is a statement about our morality, and no statement about any other culture's morality. Justifying rape in a world of fiction means justifying rape in our own world, because the fiction is our own world, and our own discourse. There is no world 'beyond' the text, and the text is not just fun and entertainment. The text IS the world. And when I see people on this boards feeling deeply satisfied to read about a naked women being walked through the streets in shame, I start wondering if GRRM knows what he has unleashed here.

[Alexia]

Phat Walda, on 07 February 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:

Nobody's talking about "applauding", I'm talking about seeing things from another perspective than my own cultural background.

What is your barrier, though?

This girlwas brutally stoned to death quite recently. I don't look at it from the "Iraqi" perspective. It is disgusting and barbaric, and not something I have any desire to look at through some other perspective.

Tywin's treatment of Tyrion was pretty disgusting and cruel. What kind of parent tells their child that he is ashamed at him for existing and the gods put him on Earth for the purpose of teaching the parent humility? I have no desire to look at this through another perspective.

fassreiter, on 07 February 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

*snipped pure gold*

You just won a milliion internets. This post is so perfect in every way.

[LordBloodraven]

Alexia, on 07 February 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

George R.R. Martin is a 21st century author writing for a 21st century audience. He writes certain things with the intention of arousing revulsion in his audience, not to celebrate them. However, many horrible things happen even today (ex. marital rape) and therefore these things used to characterize certain characters in a negative way are not universally perceived as horrible by the modern audience reading the book.

One of the key things I find interesting about these books is watching how the female characters react and work around or against the injustices of their society.

I agree it's a modern work written by a modern author for a contemporary audience. Modern values might have an impact to a certain point on the reading but not absolutely. ASOIAF is a fictional word, with characters that have and act with their own mindsets, prejudices and superstitions. We, modern readers, don't have the same culture with the characters of ASOIAF but certain universal values are still present. The trap is to consider these universal values as being "valued" by the characters. For example, shunning a child is wrong but Catelyn in her mindset is entitled to shun Jon because he's a reminder of his husband's infidelity. But saying that Lysa Arryn was right to poison Jon Arryn because he was an old man and that he was going to take their son (with good reason) is simply ridiculous.


Edited: for grammar and some additions

Edited by LordBloodraven, 07 February 2012 - 03:10 PM.

[WenchofTarth]

headtrip_honey, on 07 February 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

Okay, perhaps "applauding" was too strong a word. But here's an example:

Robert's rapes of Cersei. Just because "marital rape" was not a concept that existed in Westeros does not make his actions any less abhorrent.

And it doesn't mean we should be okay with or dismissive of them.

I don't think the people living in Westeros would agree, its the "marital duty" for a lord and lady to give heirs to the House after all, I seriously doubt the concept of raping your own wife exists at all. So its just our own judgement from our own beliefs.

[Alexia]

WenchofTarth, on 07 February 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

I don't think the people living in Westeros would agree, its the "marital duty" for a lord and lady to give heirs to the House after all, I seriously doubt the concept of raping your own wife exists at all. So its just our own judgement from our own beliefs.

In Norway marital rape is not a crime. Go figure.

I still judge Norwegian men who rape their wives, and the same goes for any country in which it is not a recognized crime. Because I believe that sexual assault (indeed, any form of assault) is objectively wrong.

Edited by Alexia, 07 February 2012 - 03:03 PM.

[mor2]

Phat Walda, on 07 February 2012 - 02:18 PM, said:

So my husband has been reading GOT for our podcast as we review it one chapter at a time (I've read the whole series). One of the main points of contention when we discuss the books is our different way of looking at the universe GRRM has built. Personally, I tend to drop all modern judgment when I read them, and tend to view all the actions on the page through the lens of that period. Things that would seem disgusting and unforgivable today are not nearly as big a deal when I read these books.

...

What do you think?

same here, while I have my own opinion on the events and actions taken by people in that time, I dont judge them based on our standards.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

To me the issue isn't about whether we should judge according to modern standards but what or who we should judge according to modern standards. I expect everyone to take the position that the rape, murder, torture, social stratification, oppression and general brutality we are reading about are all bad things that we do not find desirable or laudable in any society, then, now, or fantastical. It's clear to me that we should judge what goes on in any society if it is cruel and unjust. But the question of how we should judge individuals within the context of this society is much trickier.

To some degree, I think, almost everyone is willing to forgive people for some undesirable actions depending on context. I oppose the death penalty but I don't think Ned Stark is a bad guy for executing people. On the other hand, I have no room to forgive Gregor Clegane for all the rapes and murders he committed even if it's in the context of war in Westeros, which is consistently brutal. I don't know exactly where to draw the line in the sand that tells me what I'm willing to forgive or not forgive of people depending on context, it's sort of something I rely on intuition for. It's very difficult to say what exactly makes the differences, these are philosophical disputes that run deep. It's too simple to say that we should not judge by modern standards at all or that we should judge entirely by modern standards.

Edited by OnionAhaiReborn, 07 February 2012 - 03:10 PM.

[Phat Walda]

Alexia, on 07 February 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

What is your barrier, though?

This girlwas brutally stoned to death quite recently. I don't look at it from the "Iraqi" perspective. It is disgusting and barbaric, and not something I have any desire to look at through some other perspective.

Tywin's treatment of Tyrion was pretty disgusting and cruel. What kind of parent tells their child that he is ashamed at him for existing and the gods put him on Earth for the purpose of teaching the parent humility? I have no desire to look at this through another perspective.

I'm not talking about Tywin, because we aren't given his POV. I'm specifically talking about characters whose POV we see, and not necessarily "condoning" what they're doing, but at least seeing the motivations behind it. (In this instance I'm specifically thinking of Tyrion murdering Shae. What he did was fucked and wrong, but at the same time, I understood. I wouldn't have done the same thing, obviously, but I got it.)

[Lummel]

fassreiter, on 07 February 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

...We are supposed to look into this mirror GRRM provides and ask ourselves what we, the modern readers, would have done if we lived in that culture - and this is a statement about our morality, and no statement about any other culture's morality. Justifying rape in a world of fiction means justifying rape in our own world, because the fiction is our own world, and our own discourse. There is no world 'beyond' the text, and the text is not just fun and entertainment. The text IS the world. And when I see people on this boards feeling deeply satisfied to read about a naked women being walked through the streets in shame, I start wondering if GRRM knows what he has unleashed here.

You've hit the nail on the head for me. This is one of the reasons why I think the series works well on a reread. The first time round you can read through and still be thinking that for example King Bob is a great hail-fellow well met kind of guy until you realise that actually no he's pretty reprehensible, when you reread you can then think about that character both in the light of what you know but also how that society reacts to him.

[brashcandy]

WenchofTarth, on 07 February 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

I don't think the people living in Westeros would agree, its the "marital duty" for a lord and lady to give heirs to the House after all, I seriously doubt the concept of raping your own wife exists at all. So its just our own judgement from our own beliefs.

It doesn't matter if the people in Westeros "agree". Technically, that's not even possible. We can't withhold moral judgements about something just because there wasn't a law prosecuting it at the time, or it's a cultural reality. We did not wake up in this century with an enlightened idea about what is morally right or wrong. History is not equivalent to a snapshot where we can point and say, "ooh, look at how funny those people looked!" The reason why we have laws today against marital rape is because of a historical process that resulted overtime in this outcome, not necessarily because all people alive at this very moment know that marital rape is wrong. As Alexia pointed out, in Norway it isn't even a crime.

[headtrip_honey]

WenchofTarth, on 07 February 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

I don't think the people living in Westeros would agree, its the "marital duty" for a lord and lady to give heirs to the House after all, I seriously doubt the concept of raping your own wife exists at all. So its just our own judgement from our own beliefs.

It. Was. Rape.

Just because she didn't have the ability to say "no" in her society, or because she didn't have the words to call it "rape", does not make it okay.

Inability to say no does not mean you said yes.

[The Shadowbinder]

fassreiter, on 07 February 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

There is no such thing as lens of a period. Modern fiction is always a statement about our own culture, or about the images we have when dealing with another culture, but this still makes it 'our' modern way of dealing with another culture. It is always about you, not about the other culture. It's the same with reading what Columbus had to say about 'indians': it doesn't teach you anything about those people, but all about Columbus. You can't try to feel 'medieval' while reading because we have no idea what medieval people 'felt'. That's the whole problem with history. You can't reconstruct it. All you can do is construct another 'image' of history - and this image will always be a 'modern' one. So we are supposed to read modern fiction as modern fiction, and as a statement about ourselves.

That's just not true. Yes we know nothing about the natives Columbus discovered, however the condition of life in medeval Europe is much better understood. We have a huge amount of literary and archeological information to draw from - unlike with the Carib natives.

The idea that history can only be perceived through a modern lense is only true if you're a terrible, terrible historian. A good sociologist or researcher would intentionally be as objective and neutral as possible, and then would have the data reviewed by colleagues or peers to ensure its free of bias. This wasn't done 100 years ago and therefore everything had a Victorian tint to it. Today's sociologists and historians have come a long way in terms of remaining culturally neutral so we have a much more accurate picture.


To answer the OP in one word: No, it's silly to judge all actions in history within a modern context. Everything is relative and context is everything. But to anyone who wants to do it anyways go for it.