342 replies to this topic

[Marcus Cicero]

Kalbear, on 25 April 2012 - 12:56 AM, said:

Wow. Those are your version of compliments? That's...interesting. Tell me, Jeordhi - do you really think that there was anything there that you intended to be complimentary?

The course of the thread was whether or not it's reasonable to use 'it was realistic' as an argument and how bad an argument that is, or at least that's how I interpreted it. If you interpreted it as something else, fine. And yes, as I stated to Shryke you can create a completely ludicrous world just because you wanted to play in it. That being said, someone defending that world with 'it's realistic' is bullshit of the highest order, and the author should be the first to agree. It's not realistic, it's not meant to be realistic, and it's certainly not done  to challenge the author's writing abilities or the reader's sensibilities.

Well,  that's a relief.
Sorry, I misread auction for action in a prior post. I assumed you were stating that writers are  writing to get paid first and foremost and that you were taking the mercenary tact here. Entirely misread on my part.
John Norman was actually pretty famous; he wrote the Gor novels. Do google him, though not on a  work computer. Both him and Goodkind believed very strongly that the world they were writing about - and the way they characterized women, races, society, etc - were the way either things were or they should be. In both cases they were very deliberately choosing to write these fucked up stories because that was really, truly what they thought. They are complete misogynists and chauvinists and in general fairly putrid dudes.

Are those valid authorial choices?

On Martin - the Dothraki and pretty much everything outside of Westeros save perhaps Braavos are chock full of fairly painful stereotypes, especially given the lilly-white conqueror in Dany who magically tells everyone Slavery is Wrong and Rape is Wrong. This got a bit better in ADWD, but the stereotypes are really painfully obvious and were back in the day. The Dothraki weren't particularly well fleshed out compared to, say, the individual houses. (The Dorne weren't too much better, mind you, but they were at least somewhat better). The Qartheen weren't great but at least we don't see a ton of 'em. The slave cities were...horrible. Just atrociously bad.

Now, I don't think that GRRM is a misogynist, and it's clear to me that he wants to examine things like classism and sexism by setting his book with it. That he doesn't want medieval times to be all happy princesses and ladies in waiting, and he wants to show how shitty it was as a way to deconstruct the genre in general as well as showcase it for us. And he largely does a good job with this, I think; while he missed somewhat with Cersei he does a good job with Brienne and Sansa and Catelyn and Arya and Asha, and at no time am I thinking how poorly written his women are.

Racism, however - I think he just didn't bother with. Didn't really cross his mind. And I think he got very lazy with the depiction of the Essos world, especially in comparison to the massive detail and pageantry he puts into the Westeros world. I don't think he's a racist. I think he just got lazy. I think that he didn't plan on spending as much time as he did in Essos and as a result, things aren't developed nearly to the degree they are in Westeros. And that's a perfectly reasonable thing to ding him on.

First...you may not be a native English speaker, and I do apologize for picking this nit, but please, please, please spell superior correctly. Please?

Second, there's no evidence that sexism is a universal trait. Anthropologically this is decidedly untrue and varies considerably from culture to culture, as much as racism does. I don't understand why you'd state that 'as long as men in a society have an excuse to ignore logic and be sexist, they will' but how this is somehow untrue for racism. Same with 'obviously still rampant' - racism is obviously still rampant as well. We have great historical records of both. Why would one be more basic and more common but not the other?

fionwe1987, on 24 April 2012 - 11:06 PM, said:

I fail to see how one follows the other. The existence of one form of inequality doesn't immedately set the stage for other inequalities. That's just ridiculous.

The societal disposition towards prejudice, whether sexist or racist, can't be shed until some notion of egalitarianism exists. You act as if I'm making this giant leap, but I'm not. The 'stage' is set as long as the society is conditioning people to believe that some are superior due to the simple circumstances of their birth. Racial prejudices will vary in degree and particulars, while sexism is more basic and more common, because it's something which has plagued all cultures and is obviously still rampant. As long as they men in a society have an excuse to ignore logic and be sexist, they will. And a society which already excepts inherent supiority as a given in some areas will be more likely to provide those excuses. But it has gotten better, and my argument is that the ideological underpinnings of democracy and industrialization have something to do with that. Admittedly, it's a slow process.

Rousseau claimed that tyrants gain followers because people will consent to oppression from above if they can oppress those below them. It was one of his interesting insights, and I think it's relevant to my claim. Level the playing field and the cycle of oppression can soften.

Edited by Marcus Cicero, 25 April 2012 - 11:15 AM.

[JEORDHl]

Totally agree, Cicero.

[kalbear]

JEORDHl, on 25 April 2012 - 12:30 AM, said:

There were actually some compliments in there, despite you're previous attempts at engagement. I'd drop it, were I you. But, you're not me so do as you will.

Wow. Those are your version of compliments? That's...interesting. Tell me, Jeordhi - do you really think that there was anything there that you intended to be complimentary?

Quote

Off the top of my head, suspending judgement of the individual, the answer would be setting. Seems like you're attempting to move the goalposts though, Kal. If you want to argue about intellectual vigor rather than course with the vein of the thread then I concede the point. It is lazy.

The course of the thread was whether or not it's reasonable to use 'it was realistic' as an argument and how bad an argument that is, or at least that's how I interpreted it. If you interpreted it as something else, fine. And yes, as I stated to Shryke you can create a completely ludicrous world just because you wanted to play in it. That being said, someone defending that world with 'it's realistic' is bullshit of the highest order, and the author should be the first to agree. It's not realistic, it's not meant to be realistic, and it's certainly not done  to challenge the author's writing abilities or the reader's sensibilities.

Quote

Not in the least, in my opinion. Especially if the effects of the above listed aren't shown credibly, on personal and/or broader fronts.

Well,  that's a relief.

Quote

I'm not sure where or when I might've put it like that. Reference, please. Moving on, I haven't read John Norman [haven't even heard of him] and I dropped Goodkind after the third book? Something like that. Absurd fucker. Have no problem saying that. Let's move this to the less obscure, say, Martin and the above quoted passage from the Salon article instead how about-- what does George's inclusion of this scene, the raping of the Lamb Women, necessarily say about him? Does it mean he's a misogynist? Lazy? A racist? A dated old fart who doesn't know any better because he's a product of his times and environment?

Sorry, I misread auction for action in a prior post. I assumed you were stating that writers are  writing to get paid first and foremost and that you were taking the mercenary tact here. Entirely misread on my part.
John Norman was actually pretty famous; he wrote the Gor novels. Do google him, though not on a  work computer. Both him and Goodkind believed very strongly that the world they were writing about - and the way they characterized women, races, society, etc - were the way either things were or they should be. In both cases they were very deliberately choosing to write these fucked up stories because that was really, truly what they thought. They are complete misogynists and chauvinists and in general fairly putrid dudes.

Are those valid authorial choices?

On Martin - the Dothraki and pretty much everything outside of Westeros save perhaps Braavos are chock full of fairly painful stereotypes, especially given the lilly-white conqueror in Dany who magically tells everyone Slavery is Wrong and Rape is Wrong. This got a bit better in ADWD, but the stereotypes are really painfully obvious and were back in the day. The Dothraki weren't particularly well fleshed out compared to, say, the individual houses. (The Dorne weren't too much better, mind you, but they were at least somewhat better). The Qartheen weren't great but at least we don't see a ton of 'em. The slave cities were...horrible. Just atrociously bad.

Now, I don't think that GRRM is a misogynist, and it's clear to me that he wants to examine things like classism and sexism by setting his book with it. That he doesn't want medieval times to be all happy princesses and ladies in waiting, and he wants to show how shitty it was as a way to deconstruct the genre in general as well as showcase it for us. And he largely does a good job with this, I think; while he missed somewhat with Cersei he does a good job with Brienne and Sansa and Catelyn and Arya and Asha, and at no time am I thinking how poorly written his women are.

Racism, however - I think he just didn't bother with. Didn't really cross his mind. And I think he got very lazy with the depiction of the Essos world, especially in comparison to the massive detail and pageantry he puts into the Westeros world. I don't think he's a racist. I think he just got lazy. I think that he didn't plan on spending as much time as he did in Essos and as a result, things aren't developed nearly to the degree they are in Westeros. And that's a perfectly reasonable thing to ding him on.

Quote

Racial prejudices will vary in degree and particulars, while sexism is more basic and more common, because it's something which has plagued all cultures and is obviously still rampant. As long as they men in a society have an excuse to ignore logic and be sexist, they will.

First...you may not be a native English speaker, and I do apologize for picking this nit, but please, please, please spell superior correctly. Please?

Second, there's no evidence that sexism is a universal trait. Anthropologically this is decidedly untrue and varies considerably from culture to culture, as much as racism does. I don't understand why you'd state that 'as long as men in a society have an excuse to ignore logic and be sexist, they will' but how this is somehow untrue for racism. Same with 'obviously still rampant' - racism is obviously still rampant as well. We have great historical records of both. Why would one be more basic and more common but not the other?

[fionwe1987]

Marcus Cicero, on 25 April 2012 - 12:45 AM, said:

The societal disposition towards prejudice, whether sexist or racist, can't be shed until some notion of egalitarianism exists. You act as if I'm making this giant leap, but I'm not. The 'stage' is set as long as the society is conditioning people to believe that some are surperior due to the simple circumstances of their birth. Racial prejudices will vary in degree and particulars, while sexism is more basic and more common, because it's something which has plagued all cultures and is obviously still rampant. As long as they men in a society have an excuse to ignore logic and be sexist, they will. And a society which already excepts inherent surpiority as a given in some areas will be more likely to provide those excuses. But it has gotten better, and my argument is that the ideological underpinnings of democracy and industrialization have something to do with that. Admittedly, it's a slow process.

By this logic, a society that has a feudal heirarchy is also susceptible to bias on the basis of height, penis size, breadth of shoulder, middle finger length, familial wealth, physical strength, and so on?

The problem is that you're taking the fact that several societies exhibit feudal, sexist and racist tendencies to imply that there is some grand causative connection in the way society deals with issues of equality. But each of these inequalities (and the many others) have complex socio-politico-phisiognomic effects causing them, not all of which intersect. Which is why no two societies, and no two time points in a society's evolution show any sort of relation between extent of feudalism and extent of sexism, or any other kind of inequality.

And your claim that sexism is some kind of default state is flat out wrong. Even if we limit ourselves to the roughly 800 years that can be called the Middle Ages in Europe, the extent and nature of sexism varied widely. Increase your field wider, and look at more time points, and you see all sorts of major differences, including many cases of feudal societies where seixsm was far less rampant (I could point to several from India, for example). Same with racism, democracy, etc.

As for it being industrialization that has something to do with a greater embrace of "universal equality", have you considered that it is possibly better and faster communication, not democracy itself, that has resulted in the greater spread of such ideals in modern times as opposed to the past?

[Sci-2]

Quote

(I could point to several from India, for example)

Color me curious.

[JEORDHl]

If Norman is anything like Goodkind, or worse, I'll spare myself and take your word for it. I find Goodkind immensely distasteful and would pay for the opportunity to have a in-person conversation with that tool.

I agree with all of what you said, especially the Dothraki and Essos in general. I truly believe George kind of wrote himself into a corner and was stuck with terribly underdeveloped peoples out east. That said, I'm holding out hope that we'll see some interesting developments regarding them in the next book.  

See, Kal, we don't disagree. Isn't that bizarre?

[fionwe1987]

sciborg2, on 25 April 2012 - 01:07 AM, said:

Color me curious.

Nairs in Kerala, the Khasi, Jaintia and Gharo clans in Meghalaya... to name a few, a matriarchies that  have existed for hundreds of years (and continue to do so in some cases). In Kerala, at least, such traditions continued even when the political structure was feudal in nature (though feudalism in India isn't the same as in Europe, in some ways). The point is, they can ackowledge a person is superior to others, and hence should be allowed to rule purely on the basis of birth, but that hasn't predesposed them to think women can't be the heads of families or own property or make major decisions for their family members.

The problem with Marcus Cicero's argument is that it claims some kind of inevitable pairing of various kinds of inequalities. There is no evidence for that. Nor is there evidence that democracy is the only way to overcome inequalities in society. Look at what Akbar and some of his descendants did for Hindu-Muslim relations in Medieval India. This same time period also coincides with the position of Indian women in society either sliding further or remaining entrenched below that of men. Yet in the court of the Emperor, philosophers and poets were comapring these two wholly distinct religions and finidng common ground, and the Emperor was working on creating a syncretic religion that took elements from both these religions!

[JEORDHl]

fionwe1987, on 25 April 2012 - 01:30 AM, said:

The problem with Marcus Cicero's argument is that it claims some kind of inevitable pairing of various kinds of inequalities.

I didn't read it like that. Pairings implies cause and effect, i.e. women birth and raise children, tend the homestead, but don't vote. Because men, not being of the gentler sex, in turn do have the right stuff for statecraft. My interpretation of Cicero's point, is if there's some there's others. Not so much an escalation type thing as a reducible one, and I personally agree with it.

Anyway, I'm too tired to contribute meaningfully beyond this point. Off to bed.

Edited by JEORDHl, 25 April 2012 - 01:40 AM.

[Arthmail]

Now, i've been critical of GRRM for various reasons, but this notion that he has been lazy in regards to his development of other societies is just getting fucking stupid. If it was never his intention to delve too deeply into those cultures, that is his choice. If he does not want to deal with racism, that is his choice. It does not make his writing lazy, it means he focused on something other than what you might care about.

I expect authors to write about what they care about, possibly what they know at least on some level, and if i find that the result does not fit in with what i am looking for, i move on. I do not claim they are racist, sexist, misognyistic, incompetent, or lazy. I think the people that claim as much are building their ideas predicated on confirmation bias, and unless what they are reading fits into their narrow definition of what should/has to happen, they will not be happy.

But it is an argument without merit. Sure, there are plenty of books that on some level are deeply offensive. Some that are intellectually repugnant, if not stunted in scope and view. But aside from the outliers, like Goodkind, most authors are trying to tell a story. They are grinding through a fucking world that does not exist, trying to make it all fit and work. Sometimes, they just don't give a shit about what concerns you, and are instead focused on the act of writing, which is often hard enough as it is.

[Roose Bolton's Pet Leech]

Fee Fi Fo Fum, I smell Tolkien bashing.

Quote

Ok - I hear you. But to me Tolkein is unrealistic because, quite frankly, he has little to no (ok no) character development.

Nonsense. Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin have evolving personalities over the course of LOTR. Frodo starts off complaining about Bilbo not killing Gollum, and ends up learning the importance of mercy.

Quote

]His world is a distillation of good and evil. There are very few (maybe no?) characters that are realistic in the sense of having some good or some bad in them (maybe Galadriel and Boromir?).

Gollum. Denethor. And let's not even get started on The Silmarillion.

Quote

The structure of society isn't important because the characters, and their interactions with each other, aren't really that mportant.

At least somewhat true, though only because the modern concept of characterisation is associated with the novel as a literary form, and LOTR is not a novel in any conventional sense.

Quote

I can count the number of female characters in LoTR who have speaking roles on one hand - Lobelia Sackville-Baggins (miniscule role and a clear parody of Vita Sackville-West), Eowyn (necessary for deus ex machina prophecy),

The prophecy isn't deus ex machina. Glorfindel's prophecy is not "not by the hand of man can he fall," but "not by the hand of man will he fall." In other words, the Witch-King can be killed by a man, it's just that he won't.

Also, Tolkien treatment of the prophecy is far better than his source material (Macbeth), where Shakespeare's cop-out is caeserian section.

Quote

Goldberry (who is probably the most hated character in the book after maybe only Bombadil), Arwen (they had to more or less invent a greater role for her in the movie), and Galadriel. Oh, and I guess Sam's Rosie, though I can't remember if she ever says much of anything. (I say this as someone who LIKES Tolkein, btw).

]Tolkien doesn't have many female characters (Shelob is female, though she doesn't speak). But they tend to be very powerful ones. Cf Luthien, Melian, Nerdanel, Ungoliant, etc

Edited by Roose Bolton's Pet Leech, 25 April 2012 - 03:05 AM.

[Roose Bolton's Pet Leech]

Marcus Cicero, on 24 April 2012 - 08:22 PM, said:

Good points. He's unrealistic for a number of reasons. I still contend that the way he handles his society is one of them. It's a glorification of blood-line hierarchies. Aragorn is the 'rightful' king, and oh yeah, he just happens to be the perfect man for the job.

Gondor had a civil war over blood-lines. The pureblood faction were the baddies. See Fengel for a Rohirric example of a rotten King.

Quote

The Fellowship has no commoners,

Sam Gamgee. The eventual hero of the story according to Tolkien.

Quote

The system is deliberately idealized, as Tolkien himself would probably admit. The nasty implications of a feudal structure are glossed over.

Oh, there's plenty of petty politicking going on, especially with respect to Denethor. It's just that an analysis of the governmental structure wasn't the point of LOTR.

Quote

his paper-thin characters

In terms of character depth, Gollum and Denethor stack up very well against virtually any of Martin's creations (except Tyrion and Theon).

Quote

and his treatment of good and evil.

Because an examination of rejecting power and the importance of mercy is unrealistic?

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Remember, I like Tolkein.  Tolkein was, to my mind, writing a saga (in the tradition of Beowulf (primarily) and the Iliad/Oddessey (because he couldn't help himself)).  The Silmarillion, to me, is the mythos that underpins that saga.  Sagas aren't realistic in the sense that we are talking about here.  Sagas distill the essence of a culture and tell stories that reflect both the fears and the aspirations of that culture.

A few other points:

1.  Though Abraham more or less carved them out, it is interesting to me how "children's" and "young adult" literature can put together worlds (even "medieval" worlds) that work where (at least sexism) isn't an issue.  Prydain (as I child I loved the character of Eilonwy, and it did not escape my notice that she was described and described herself in terms of her mother and her mother's mother), Narnia, Oz (ruled, in fact, by a woman - though Baum's world is not internally consistent accross the 14 books that he wrote), are all examples.  Then you hit the older YA books - you have the wonderful Hero and the Crown (turning the fairy tale of dragon slayer on its head) and its companion The Blue Sword (which addresses colonialism and race prejudice), the less wonderful, but vastly entertaining to a 12-year old girl, Mercedes Lackey books (FFS, the covers are PINK, but her quasi-medieval world, which in its own way is believable if you accept the talking horses, has a fair bit of equality), Pern (which addresses the issues head on), Elizabeth Moon's Paksennarion world, the, to my mind, rather horrible Tamora Pierce books - I could go on.  The Harry Potter world has its very feudal elements, but still manages to be more, rather than less, egalitarian on that particular front.  Saying "to be realistic" a world has to have sex prejudice does more to illustrate the prejudices and imagination of the person making the statement rather than being a comment on the "realism" of the completely imaginary world.

2.  That said, I think it is perfectly valid to have a world where there is prejudice. One hopes it's a conscious authorial choice and not, as Sciborg said above, mere laziness.  I think it's a perfectly valid question to ask about a work "why" such choices were made and what those choices reflect both on the author and the reader.

[sologdin]

rather than being a comment on the "realism" of the completely imaginary world

what bothers me is that the term refers very precisely to several strands of 19th century writings in france, england, russia, and the united states.  recent fantasy literature doesn't partake of those traditions.  someone pleae identify the grimdark middlemarch, and i'll STFU.

the term realism, when used as hereinabove, is meant, it seems, to stand in for a term like historicity or authenticity or accuracy.  given the diversity of experience in both history and speculative fiction, this substitution strikes me as manifestly erroneous.  there's plenty of good reasons to present discriminatory institutions, inequality, sexual violence, whatever in speculative fiction, but the argument that it lends the writing a historically accurate facade is both nonsensical (it's fiction and need not be historical or accurate, and, in fact, can't be) and placing historical crimes at the service of the writer's aesthetic objectives, or, worse, the marketing goals of the publisher.

Edited by sologdin, 25 April 2012 - 10:45 AM.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Solo - thanks.  I was using the word "realism" at the request of and in response to a poster above.  I completely agree with everything you say and will happily revert to using "historical accuracy".

I think the thing that bothers me most is the sort of implicit sub thought that a world CANNOT be authentic unless it has exism, and the further less implicit sub thought that today's world where there is less sexism is only because men benevolently got all enlightened and stuff in "modern" times and let women play in their sandbox.  It's possible I'm being over-sensitive.

[Sci-2]

Quote

It's possible I'm being over-sensitive.

You're not. There are just a lot of lazy motherfuckers out there.

[Winter's Knight]

Mlle. Zabzie, on 25 April 2012 - 09:56 AM, said:

Solo - thanks.  I was using the word "realism" at the request of and in response to a poster above.  I completely agree with everything you say and will happily revert to using "historical accuracy".

I think the thing that bothers me most is the sort of implicit sub thought that a world CANNOT be authentic unless it has exism, and the further less implicit sub thought that today's world where there is less sexism is only because men benevolently got all enlightened and stuff in "modern" times and let women play in their sandbox.  It's possible I'm being over-sensitive.

I've heard similar sentiments.

Quote

But when you say that sexism and racism and heterosexism and cissexism have to be in the narrative or the story won’t be realistic, what you are saying is that we humans literally cannot recognise ourselveswithout systemic prejudice, nor can we connect to characters who are not unrepentant bigots. Um, yikes. YIKES, you guys.

[Arthmail]

Mlle. Zabzie, on 25 April 2012 - 09:56 AM, said:

Solo - thanks.  I was using the word "realism" at the request of and in response to a poster above.  I completely agree with everything you say and will happily revert to using "historical accuracy".

I think the thing that bothers me most is the sort of implicit sub thought that a world CANNOT be authentic unless it has exism, and the further less implicit sub thought that today's world where there is less sexism is only because men benevolently got all enlightened and stuff in "modern" times and let women play in their sandbox.  It's possible I'm being over-sensitive.

Or it could be that with the rise of technology on a more localized level, women were better able to communicate, better able to see what they were missing out on, and better able to organize. Popular movements happen because of communication. At that point they started to push back. But at the same time, just as with forums and web sites dedicated to this sort of thing, those that had not previously thought about a situation from the other side of the fence were given a chance to do so. Sometimes all it takes for someone to change their mind is the idea of something they had never concieved before.


And if historically accurate is going to send you into a semantics rage, call it human accuracy then. The terminology is just a baseline in any case. We are sitting here trying to distill a what if, and its easiest to say historical accuracy. Historical authenticity perhaps. There is little denying that women in pre-modern literature were often discriminated against, if they were even acknowledged at all. For a long time women were traded and forced into situations that they more than likely wanted nothing to do with.

This is NOT to say that it has to exist in our fantasy novels for them to have a sense of realism. I stated that in my very first post. I think that for the genre to grow, we need to twist and change our basic concepts of what is in the books and consider once more that this is fantasy, not conservatism. But i object to the notion that there is no merit to the central theme, the basic concept because (1) That history did not have these problems (2) dragons and magic would change the playing field - this is completely unknown.

As an aside, saying that YA novels have none of this in them is moot. The only example that i have read recently is the Hunger Games, and the lack of a critical evaluation of children killing children was grossly absent so the merits of the genre in my mind are suspect.

Edited by Arthmail, 25 April 2012 - 10:22 AM.

[mormont]

Mlle. Zabzie, on 25 April 2012 - 09:56 AM, said:

Solo - thanks.  I was using the word "realism" at the request of and in response to a poster above.  I completely agree with everything you say and will happily revert to using "historical accuracy".

I think the thing that bothers me most is the sort of implicit sub thought that a world CANNOT be authentic unless it has exism, and the further less implicit sub thought that today's world where there is less sexism is only because men benevolently got all enlightened and stuff in "modern" times and let women play in their sandbox.  It's possible I'm being over-sensitive.

No, I don't think so at all. It's absolutely legitimate to ask why institutionalised sexism is seen as so essential to an 'authentic', or at least authentic-feeling-to-some-readers, medieval fantasy setting. And I think it's not out of order to ask if it's because, for example, this panders to a sense that 'modern' society is by contrast much more enlightened and in so doing downplays the extent or significance of institutionalised sexism in the present.

[Arthmail]

sciborg2, on 25 April 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

You're not. There are just a lot of lazy motherfuckers out there.

What are you even referring to? Who is being a lazy motherfucker, and why?




Edit: As to Mormonts post - I think that by constantly addressing this issue we can come to a better understanding of the problems that are still inherint in our system despite claims to the contrary. A lot of these issues i had never recognized on my own before they were challenged on these boards, or at least, i did not give them more than a cursory glance.

To be honest, i think that the idea that we deem it necessary says something about us.

Edited by Arthmail, 25 April 2012 - 10:27 AM.

[Sci-2]

Quote

What are you even referring to? Who is being a lazy motherfucker, and why?

Sorry, going with my position that people often default to faux medieval out of laziness. But [at this point] I think its more fans than writers [using it as a defense].

With authors, I wonder if we've sort of gotten past this point. I realize there is fantasy that does this [likely does just give us a prejudiced setting just because], but I'm seeing less and less of it.

Seems like whether we agree or disagree with execution, all the authors Abraham mentioned (Bakker, Morgan, Martin, Abercrombie) have reasons for putting prejudice in their works.

Edited by sciborg2, 25 April 2012 - 10:32 AM.