342 replies to this topic

[aidan]

I invited Daniel Abraham, who's fairly well known around these parts, to drop by my blog and chat about the idea of writers being obligated and chained into the idea of "historically accurate" Fantasy and using the term as a fallback for writing racism and sexism into their novels. Daniel explains it better than I can:

Quote

So there’s this argument about epic fantasy that keeps coming up, and it makes me uncomfortable every time I see it. Usually it goes something like this: a beloved novel or series set in a world with kings and knight and dragons – that is to say one set in an imaginary medieval Europe – in analyzed and found somehow wanting. Not enough strong women, too many white people, too much sexual violence. As the debate fires up, one of the defenders of book or series makes some variation of the argument that fantasy that has the set dressings of medieval Europe is better if it also has medieval social norms. Or, at a lower diction, “But the Middle Ages really were sexist/racist/filled with sexual violence.”

And there, my dear friends, I get my back up. With all respect, this is a bad argument. If you don’t mind, I’d like to run down my objections to it in hopes of putting a stake through this argument’s rhetorical heart.

You can read the full article HERE, and the comments section already features a handful of other authors (Michael J. Sullivan, Saladin Ahmed, Melinda Snodgrass) pitching in with their own thoughts (sometimes disagreeing). I thought it would be an interesting topic to bring up here, especially since it was spurred by Saladin Ahmed's recent article on Salon.com about A Song of Ice and Fire.

[Contrarius]

Good idea!

[Mr. E]

Cool blog you have there, thanks for letting us know about it!

I find myself agreeing with Mr. Abraham, though I didn't expect myself to. Which is bad, because it means that I can't find the argument about GRRM's work being realistic to have any merit now.

aidan, do you have a link to that Salon article mentioned in the post? I'd like to read it.

[aidan]

Mr. E, on 23 April 2012 - 01:56 PM, said:

Cool blog you have there, thanks for letting us know about it!

I find myself agreeing with Mr. Abraham, though I didn't expect myself to. Which is bad, because it means that I can't find the argument about GRRM's work being realistic to have any merit now.

aidan, do you have a link to that Salon article mentioned in the post? I'd like to read it.

Thanks! And, yep, here's Ahmed's article on Salon.

[Mr. E]

aidan, on 23 April 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

Thanks! And, yep, here's Ahmed's article on Salon.

Thanks! I took a look at it and I'm happy that the writer was fair-handed with his treatment of the issue. I posted a comment on your blog about how it really grinds my gears when people make unfair judgements of authors, and it's good the article dealt with the show without mudslinging.

Btw, this isn't germane at all, but every time I write "I'd like to read it," in my head it's in Sean Bean's gruff, completely sexy very manly northern accent

[Arthmail]

I agree with him, and i disagree. A major problem faced by many people today in certain parts of the world is a lack of information, or even worse, a proliferation of incorrect information (I'm looking at you Catholic Church, and your idiot notion that telling certain poor believers that condoms causes aids). If this is still a problem today, then several hundred years ago this inability to communicate great ideas or even basic truths would have been stilted by simple distances and geography.

There were women of agency before 1965. There were powerful queens in ancient and medieval times. The problem with the claims of historical authenticy really come down to a lack of revolution, at least in terms of thought. The role of women changed because there was a growing tide of ideas, and ideas require communication, and communication requires a free flow of thought - if not technology of some kind. In other words, the emancipation of women for many who believe in historical authenticity would have to come as a result of a revolution in thinking. So in one sense, many people are unwilling to accept anything less than a faded carbon copy of our world becuase they cannot concieve of how things could have progressed differently. A small part of me, the one that knows men are pricks, and the one mired in a minor in history, cannot help but see gritty fantasy as a requirement because it is difficult to concieve of humans being anything other than they are.

On the other hand, what is sad is that for all of our claims that we like to read a genre that is fantastic, we really don't break away into the fantastic all that much. I mean, why not have a world where women fought and attained certain inalienable rights  in 900AD? That it did not happen here is irrelevant. We are talking about worlds were dragons live, and women can burn sexists pricks into ash if they so choose.

What i am trying to say is that for all that i love the genre, it is stilted. We base it loosely off of our world, but then we throw in qualifiers that would unconditionally change the entire outcome of events. If instead of killing herself, Cleopatra burned Octavious into ashes, well, things might have gone differently. It is the possibility that is never really dealt with. Many authors do not necessarily want to give the time over to creating revolutions of thought that perhaps do not play that great a part in their current story aside from giving women agency. And for many of those stuck in the genre with the notion of authenticity, they cannot accept women of agency without some reason for it.

So i can understand this need for authenticity. I think it appeals to many people because they are perhaps cynical at heart, and need to know that despite the otherness of what they are reading, certain conditions would remain the same - namely that the race of man is kind of shitty. I mean, slavery has been around for frigging ever, and can be seen in countless cultures and societies in some form or another. They are looking at a world that, given our own prediliction for doing terrible things, cannot help but happen in a world where giant lizards breath fire.

But for me, this is no longer enough. The simple truth is that many fantasy authors, for all of their vaunted world building (and i'm not knocking them, it is hard work), can only create a world that is so deep. The socio-economic and political factors that shaped our history cannot be replicated line for line, and they should not be. These are worlds were magic has most likely superseded technology. There is no reason why things cannot be different.

I mean, it is likely that there will be slaves in many of these worlds. There will still be women getting raped, or threatened with rape. Humans are terrible like that. But it certainly does not have to be a default position in order to create a realistic world.

[Sci-2]

I think the question that determines good works from bad, at least regarding racist/homophobic/sexist depiction, is why do it that way?

Sometimes it seems writers write to a "medieval" setting because it is easy, and it fulfills the expectations of the readers. Numerous lazy tropes abound, and seem to be quite effective, to further plots or provide characterization short cuts.

Other writers seem to be at least trying, however successfully, to say something via their less than egalitarian societies.

I think Game of Thrones has the hardest time with racial issues, though as Ahmed notes (and his detractors manage to miss) Song contains a compare/contrast situation where the "savages" are not so different from the so called "civilized". Martin does a better job with females, to an extent, though I think the idea of an author getting anything perfect is impossible. Martin's best commentary, IMO, is regarding issues of class.

[Marcelo Rebelo Firqoralas]

I can't help but notice a certain lack of concrete examples in this discussion. For instance, where are all these books devoid of female characters with agency? The only example I can think of is Bakker, but lack of agency is basically the whole point of his series and it is shared by both men and women.

[Galactus]

I don't really mind a barebones setting. We use knights because they're well-known symbolically. It's something that we (in the west that is, although probably other cultures as well by now, if only thanks to our dear friend cultural imperialism) know and recognize what it *means*. That this "image" is not very similar to historical reality i besides the point: The image itself is interesting (in some ways a lot more than the rather humdrum listings of privileges)

Incidentally it's one of the reason the "Historical" King Arthur stories never appealed to me: A bunch of romanized britons fighting saxons isn't half as interesting as women, deers and dogs randomly crashing King Arthur's parties only to be kidnapped by random knights, or Fisher-kings, cursed swords, etc. etc.

Also, for all of Tolkien's influence on Martin, i think Walter Scott is just as important.

That said, most fantasy isn't accurate, and I don't expect it to be: I expect it though to be *plausible* and *well crafted*. I want trade routes and land tenure rolls and mean of figuring out how people make their living and organize their sewers and write their laws and raise their armies (or at least I want the author to have considered these questions)

[Arthmail]

Galactus, on 23 April 2012 - 03:58 PM, said:

I don't really mind a barebones setting. We use knights because they're well-known symbolically. It's something that we (in the west that is, although probably other cultures as well by now, if only thanks to our dear friend cultural imperialism) know and recognize what it *means*. That this "image" is not very similar to historical reality i besides the point: The image itself is interesting (in some ways a lot more than the rather humdrum listings of privileges)

Incidentally it's one of the reason the "Historical" King Arthur stories never appealed to me: A bunch of romanized britons fighting saxons isn't half as interesting as women, deers and dogs randomly crashing King Arthur's parties only to be kidnapped by random knights, or Fisher-kings, cursed swords, etc. etc.

Also, for all of Tolkien's influence on Martin, i think Walter Scott is just as important.

That said, most fantasy isn't accurate, and I don't expect it to be: I expect it though to be *plausible* and *well crafted*. I want trade routes and land tenure rolls and mean of figuring out how people make their living and organize their sewers and write their laws and raise their armies (or at least I want the author to have considered these questions)

You would want land tenure rolls. Please. Everyone knows spring rolls are better.

Edited by Arthmail, 23 April 2012 - 04:44 PM.

[Marcus Cicero]

I still think the realism argument can be applied. If you're writing about a feudal, pre-industrial society, magic or no magic, it would be kind of a leap to deny rampant sexism and racism. The feudal governments which so many fantasies have in their setting are obviously structured on inequality - the aristocracy owns the land because their blood runs 'pure'. It's a sad fact of human nature that if the society already includes institutional inequality, then women will probably be (unfairly) regarded as inferior. If you're acknowledging that the Duke rules because his family is necessarily surperior to yours, then it's not a stretch to then say that women are inferior. The inequality is already rampant and accepted, so the base sexism that is a part of human nature will go unchecked. But if there's a Democracy built on the ideal that everyone should have equal political weight, then at some point people will realize that the exclusion of women is barbaric. There are probably some examples of feudal societies where women held special or privelged status, but the vast majority had the same sort of ingrained cultural sexism.

When industrialization and democracy ensue, i.e. as rationalism and egalitarianism because more and more prominent as viable ways of thinking, people are more likely to realize that women and other races are not inherently inferior. Sexism will still exist, but I don't think anyone can deny that it's gotten better. At our basest, we're tribal animals, but as our civilization has slowly developed and avanced, our sentience has allowed us to tame our pettier instincts.

Authors like Martin and Abercrombie want to depict something which seems like a real pre-industrial society, but with the fantastical layered on top. They're not interested in reinventing equality's relations to government and economics.

Of course, just because you're depicting a sexist society doesn't mean you can't have women with agency. Powerful women did exist in society's which regarded them as inferior. And some fantasy authors need to think of sources of tension for their female characters other than 'OMG will she get raped?'

[RedEyedGhost]

Mr. E, on 23 April 2012 - 01:56 PM, said:

Cool blog you have there, thanks for letting us know about it!

So that most have been the first post you've ever seen of Aidan's

[Twelve Angry Nonmen]

I think secondary worlds have to have some sort of ... consistency?  They don't have to match the real world, but if a setting resembles X civilization in the real world, but deviates in certain manners, the author should try to justify those cultural deviations.

Like, if GRRM wanted there to be black people all over Westeros, he could have simply had Valyria import black-slaves from Sothyros and the Summer Isles, and when Valyria fell, in the ensuing chaos, many of the black-slaves working in the interior villas of Essos fled to Westeros.  Boom! A simple, and reasonable explanation of why there would be a black people in Westeros.  As long as it makes sense is all that's needed.

Quote

The importance of God and the church in medieval Europe is the central cultural fact of the time, and the fear of damnation in the afterlife shaped everything from the creation of art to the customs of international banking. Surely everyone in these historically authentic fantasies must be pious, because the Middle Ages were really like that.

I like that he brings up one of my major problems with fantasy! But for the opposite reason! We just discussed the lack of religiosity in ASoIaF..in the Bakker vs. Abercrombie thread a few days ago.

Edited by Xir’kirimakra, 24 April 2012 - 12:47 AM.

[Memory Lane]

Xir, on 24 April 2012 - 12:44 AM, said:

Like, if GRRM wanted there to be black people all over Westeros, he could have simply had Valyria import black-slaves from Sothyros and the Summer Isles, and when Valyria fell, in the ensuing chaos, many of the black-slaves working in the interior villas of Essos fled to Westeros.  Boom! A simple, and reasonable explanation of why there would be a black people in Westeros.  As long as it makes sense is all that's needed.

Or you could tweak the Nymeria story, so that she and her people more closely resemble the Summer Islanders. You wouldn't even need to go that far if you're set on having the First Men and Andals being "caucasian". You could have something like large Summer Islander trading colonies in places like King's Landing and Oldtown. Perhaps some of them end up marrying impoverished lords, and thus you get some nobility with Summer Islander heritage.

[Lummel]

Marcus Cicero, on 23 April 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

I still think the realism argument can be applied. If you're writing about a feudal, pre-industrial society, magic or no magic, it would be kind of a leap to deny rampant sexism and racism. The feudal governments which so many fantasies have in their setting are obviously structured on inequality - the aristocracy owns the land because their blood runs 'pure'...

Not really.  As in your example you explain why social inequality exists in the society you imagine but it doesn't then follow that this society would also be racist and sexist - you need to add something which causes those attitudes.  Just think of the Romans who in their empire days had an aristocratic but one which contained peope of various ethnicities or the Imperial Russians whose aristocracy contained non-Russians.

Historically accurate epic fantasy is an oxymoron to start with.

[Ouroboros]

Lummel, on 24 April 2012 - 01:54 AM, said:

Historically accurate epic fantasy is an oxymoron to start with.

The amount of times I've argued this with friends and family is surprising, especially when it comes to role playing games. If the setting isn't 1 for 1 medieval Britain, or more accurately what they think medieval Britain was like, they throw a bitch-fit. Or any society that borrows vaguely from a historical resource. Because that's all history really is in relation to fantasy fiction. It is a resource to be exploited, not something to be defined by.

Edited by Ouroboros, 24 April 2012 - 03:09 AM.

[Roose Bolton's Pet Leech]

I think as long as the secondary world makes sense on its own terms, I'm not too fussed about sticking to historical accuracy: fantasy worlds by definition have evolved under a completely alien set of conditions from our own. The far greater sin is cookie-cutter worldbuilding, where Medieval Europe is treated as a lazy default choice of setting.

[Antonius Pius]

Ouroboros, on 24 April 2012 - 03:07 AM, said:

The amount of times I've argued this with friends and family is surprising, especially when it comes to role playing games. If the setting isn't 1 for 1 medieval Britain, or more accurately what they think medieval Britain was like, they throw a bitch-fit. Or any society that borrows vaguely from a historical resource.

That's a big part of the problem, and also (as Abraham mentions), the fact that a lot of historical analogy is just cut-and-paste for the ones the author (for whatever reasons) wants in there.

Ouroboros, on 24 April 2012 - 03:07 AM, said:

Because that's all history really is in relation to fantasy fiction. It is a resource to be exploited, not something to be defined by.

There are degrees, of course. But in essence, I think you're right.  Someone like the Yeard for instance doesn't care about historical accuracy at all, it's all about his hamfisted ideology. GRRM OTOH really made an effort to give ASOIAF a medieval feel.

Roose Bolton, on 24 April 2012 - 03:26 AM, said:

I think as long as the secondary world makes sense on its own terms, I'm not too fussed about sticking to historical accuracy: fantasy worlds by definition have evolved under a completely alien set of conditions from our own. The far greater sin is cookie-cutter worldbuilding, where Medieval Europe is treated as a lazy default choice of setting.

I agree, especially if it doesn't add anything to the story what the setting is/how poor it is.

[Mr. E]

RedEyedGhost, on 23 April 2012 - 11:42 PM, said:

So that most have been the first post you've ever seen of Aidan's

[Marcus Cicero]

Lummel, on 24 April 2012 - 01:54 AM, said:

Not really.  As in your example you explain why social inequality exists in the society you imagine but it doesn't then follow that this society would also be racist and sexist - you need to add something which causes those attitudes.  Just think of the Romans who in their empire days had an aristocratic but one which contained peope of various ethnicities or the Imperial Russians whose aristocracy contained non-Russians.

Historically accurate epic fantasy is an oxymoron to start with.

Um, no. The Romans were racial supremicists. And sexists. Yeah, they could tolerate different ethnicities but they still justified their conquests on the basis of the 'Roman' people having an inherent superiority. As for Russia, there was still institutional sexism. Yeah, there were some important and powerful female monarchs, but I've already acknowledged that that can happen in a sexist society. As for non-Russians in power, I never said that all societies will have the same types or degree of prejudices.

My argument has to do with the factors which allow humanity to supercede its tribal inclinations to dominate and differentiate. If a society takes as a given that some people's blood should elevate them to higher status, then there's no ideological framework for accepting that all people should be equal (i.e., not being sexist and/or racist). You claim that my first post didn't make the link, but it did. Human nature is the answer. It's just an unfortunate fact that human males have historically had some disposition towards sexism. This can't really be disputed; culture after culture, rising independently of each other, has demonstrated this by incorporating some kind of institutional sexism.

Industrialization allows for greater social mobility, and democracy comes with ideas about equality that'll eventually cause people to question ghastly phenomena like sexism. Free speech is also clearly an important factor. Obviously sexism still exists, and the US existed as a democracy for over 150 years while still remaining horridly sexist (and still is, but to a MUCH lesser extent), but I still maintain the ideological framework of such a system makes it easier to recognize animalistic prejudices as exactly that, animalistic. Industrializatin and social mobility are important because they challenge rigid hierarchies rationalized by 'inherent' blood supremacy.

Edited by Marcus Cicero, 25 April 2012 - 02:32 PM.