Grittiness, realism, honor, and the life in the middle-ages

[Green Gogol]

Thanks for the info. It is really interesting. It also seems to confirm that saying grit is more realistic and that it is written this way because that is how it was back then is not a good argument.

[Ouroboros]

'Grit' is one of those words that can mean different things to different people.

The middle ages wasn't a time of wandering rape gangs the way some people depict it, but it wasn't a happy utopia either. It could get brutal quickly. It might not have been as indiscriminate as other eras but you still wouldn't want to get caught up in the middle of a war. Also keep in mind that even though warfare in Europe was fairly small scale and 'lighter' (for a given value of 'light) on the common folk, at the exact same time half a world away you had the Mongolians going on their extermination parade. (which yes, was bad by the standards of the time. They were brutal on a scale not seen since the Romans)

The Black Death was also an event that shouldn't be underplayed for the scale of human misery it inflicted upon Europe.

It wasn't a particularly great time to be alive. It just isn't the two dimensional grim dark cartoon of pop culture.

[Green Gogol]

Thanks again. I must admit i have some difficulty writing complex thought in English. What i mean is that if the writer writes a gritty fnatasy novel, then justfying grit by saying that is how it was seems pretty weak. Saying you wanted to write about a brutal world, with harsh life, ugly morals and horrifying event is a good answer and honest. Saying you had no choice because that how it was won't convince me to read your novel.

[Errant Bard]

What i mean is that if the writer writes a gritty fnatasy novel, then justfying grit by saying that is how it was seems pretty weak. [...] Saying you had no choice because that how it was won't convince me to read your novel.

I don't know of any Fantasy author who reduces his novel's atmosphere to the word "grit" nor do I know of any who uses the "this is how it was, I had no choice" card. Every single one of them knows they wrote like that because they wanted to. In the case of Abercrombie, for example, he specifically chose to explore the "man of violence" archetype omnipresent in Fantasy: his basis was not history but fantasy itself...

Don't confuse fanwank and author motivations.

[Ouroboros]

I don't know of any Fantasy author who reduces his novel's atmosphere to the word "grit" nor do I know of any who uses the "this is how it was, I had no choice" card. Every single one of them knows they wrote like that because they wanted to. In the case of Abercrombie, for example, he specifically chose to explore the "man of violence" archetype omnipresent in Fantasy: his basis was not history but fantasy itself...

Don't confuse fanwank and author motivations.

Naw, I've seen a couple authors argue historical validity for some of the stuff they've written. GRRM has, I'm pretty sure on that. Abercrombie to my knowledge hasn't, but from the books of his I've read he's never been devoted to evoking a specific historical period either. Kudos to him on that.

[Arthmail]

Bolivar:

At no point is the notion that history moves with any sense of forward momentum (in a strictly linear fashion), in terms of rights, morality, or even science, implied in my post. You need to take things less literally, but I can see you are trying to score points, so have at it. The point of the post is that Green Gogol has this really distorted notion that history was not, and this term doesn't apply to shit but its been bandied about here enough that I will include it, gritty. Religion did not dispense a single standard of morality, the simple truth is that morality is fluid. It changes like language does.

So what if some women had more rights in pre-revolutionary societies? Or in antiquity. The Spartans had a fairly open and egalitarian system for women as opposed to Athens, which was right next door. But pointing out a few outliers means little and less. As for what people did, loving their children and acting with kindness towards each other, well that goes without saying. Society and our race would have died out if it was fighting and butchery all of the time.

But there was the Crusades. The Hundred Years War. The War of the Roses. The Great Interregnum. While it was not all death and suffering, the ideal that fantasy once held to, the books of Eddings and the like, simply are not even realistic from a human perspective. Remove this need to have historical authenticity in a land with Dragons and magic, and just consider the human element. We are a shitty and greedy lot. Not universally, and not all of the time. There are moments of brilliance that seem to transcend race, but when it comes to surviving we are a nasty group.

In GRRMS books it is civil war. All encompassing. There are periods in our history that reflect that. Even with the more realistic representations there is a great deal that is not included. The devastating effect of a dirty weapon opening a wound, bad food and water, dirty clothing, lice, disease. Fantasy is still so fucking sanitized that its not even funny.

The truth is that people dehumanize other humans all of the time. The French are stupid bastards. The Nazis were all monsters. The English are arrogant. The key to war is making people think that they do not fight another human being - that this person before them does not have children and loved ones and dreams and parents and grandparents - but that they are a baby raping monster. Lies are told by commanders, or rumors spread of atrocities to help further propagate the notion that your enemies are not humans. It is the best way to ensure then that your side is able to do what it needs to fight and win. Then, in the heat of the moment, your side commits horrors because the other side was supposed to have done so, and new myths and rumors are started.

If there is a truth about history, its that its a hot shitty mess. But its that way because people are fucking grey. There is no, or is very rarely, strictly black and white. There is us and them. All war is predicated on it. Nations are forged by that notion. Religion thrives on it. But what that does is breed fucking monsters. Monsters that butcher children and then go home love their wives and are gentle with their own children. Because humans are a fucking mess of different ideals and justifications.

Edit: What fantasy really needs to do is stop justifying itself. Humans are nasty, to show a war of any time period is to simply put forth the fundamentals of human interaction. Betrayal, violence, lust, greed, rape. That being said, such things as rape need not always be included. Or ever, if the author so chooses. Because WE KNOW it was there, even if it was never mentioned. So one does not automatically need to bring it up. For my own writing, I just want female readers to enjoy what they are reading and not worry about that sort of shit. That's just me, however. And how I think of it is, if I were a female reader, would I want to read about powerless women (which, if we are approaching this from a historical perspective, were so varied as to make a study of it difficult. Needless to say, it was not always the case, nor where they always free to do as they pleased, so the author can chose how he wants things in his own fucking book)? And the answer is no. I do not want to read about powerless women, no more than I want to see my male characters endlessly abused. Bakker, for instance, abuses the shit out of and demeans most everything his characters care about. And I find it fucking terrible sometimes, even though I like the books.

I want to read about people that I might want to be. Or that fascinate me. Or that amuse me. I am not interested in reading about peasants and fishermen.

[Happy Ent]

Was rape really common?

Compared to today? Well, a woman staid at home. That was a pretty good protection against rape, unless you count being raped by your husband, an concept that simply didnt exist before the second half of the 20th century anywhere.

Could an unmarried woman enjoy a night out alone in the evening, drinking and dancing, or flirt with a man without being raped? Or travel alone? Of course not. Few women would have thought about it. Rape in the Middle Ages was as common as it is in Saudi Arabia today: normally, it doesnt happen, because few women would be allowed to put themselves into vulnerable situations.

In times of war and other social unrest, rape was commonplace and unremarkable for most of human history. Women are considered legitimate spoils of war. The Bible prescribes it (Deuteronomy 20:10-14). As late as 1968, Black Panther leader Eldrige Cleaver wrote

Rape was an insurrectionary act. It delighted me that I was defying and trampling upon the white mans law, upon his system of values, and that I was defiling his women and this point, I believe, was the most satisfying to me because I was very resentful over the historical fact of how the white man has used the black woman. I felt I was getting revenge.

I started out practicing on black girls in the ghetto where dark and vicious deeds appear not as aberrations or deviations from the norm, but as part of the sufficiency of the Evil of a day. When I considered myself smooth enough, I crossed the tracks and sought out white prey. I did this consciously, deliberately, willfully, methodically.

Nobody thought this was odd as late as 1968; these statements were very well received.

So: It doesnt make sense to ask if rape was common, because the definition of rape has changed. Nobody in the middle ages would think a woman travelling alone, or dancing, or drinking, or on the wrong side of a violent conflict, or married, should enjoy any protection against intercourse against her will. Most women would avoid these situations, except for getting married, of course. (In many countries, they still do.)

On the other hand, it is a human universal that rape is forbidden. All societies ever studied share that value. But mostly, rape is understood as forced sexual intercourse with a woman against the will of her owner (which would be the father, elder brother, or husband.) Not against the will of the woman. The idea that the individual woman (instead of her gene pool) should control her reproductive mechanisms is radical and modern.

(Its also highly unbiological; probably one of the greatest triumphs of individualism.)

[Happy Ent]

Have never heard that interpretation of the Tower of Joy. That would be quite shocking if it was confirmed in later books.

ETA: I understand you're not necessarily advocating this theory, merely stating it would be a logical outcome of medieval honor.

Exactly. It would fit the axiom that “Ned is honourable,” but only because I maliciously redefine “honour” to what it actually meant (and still means to many people).

To me, it is clear that Ned went to the Tower of Joy to save Lyanna’s child from the other rebels (who wanted to kill it and present its body to King Robert). This is exactly what he did. (I won’t continue this debate for fear of thread stealing.) Because Ned is late-20th-century-Disney-honourable, not grimdark-honourable.

[Ouroboros]

So: It doesnt make sense to ask if rape was common, because the definition of rape has changed. Nobody in the middle ages would think a woman travelling alone, or dancing, or drinking, or on the wrong side of a violent conflict, or married, should enjoy any protection against intercourse against her will. Most women would avoid these situations, except for getting married, of course. (In many countries, they still do.)

http://www.academia.edu/1466827/The_Price_of_Maidenhead_and_Similar_Issues_Rape_in_Laws_of_Medieval_England_and_Wales

You should give this article a read through.

Very few men ended up being punished for rape or abduction, but it was still considered a crime. Very few rapists are punished for their crimes today, so that shouldn't shock anyone. But to say they had no legal protections is a-historical.

A distinction must be made when talking about this period, of the freedoms and different legal standings of the nobility and peasantry. A nobleman couldn't be punished for the rape of a peasant woman, by some definition of the law, but a peasant could be punished for the rape of another peasant and a nobleman could be punished for the rape of a noblewoman. Usually this is only applicable if there is virginity involved, but abduction with the intention of forced marriage or sex, was also a crime.

This article highlights a number of interesting cases of rape and the punishment shown across multiple cultures, the circumstances of the cases and primary records translated to illustrate them.

Edit: Its also worth mentioning that just because a crime was not strictly punished, or that society placed the majority of blame on the victim rather than the criminal, does not mean it wasn't a crime.

[Arthmail]

A crime carries the weight of punishment. If it carries no weight its little more than a recommendation. A legal yield sign. "Slow down if you want, but you don't have to."

It carries no weight.

[Ouroboros]

A crime carries the weight of punishment. If it carries no weight its little more than a recommendation. A legal yield sign. "Slow down if you want, but you don't have to."

It carries no weight.

There clearly is a weight of punishment. These crimes were clearly enforced enough that it was taken seriously when brought before a magistrate or similar figure of authority. It was serious enough that a law was written and codified, and punishments decided upon. That it was consistently documented, that we have historical testimony and written records backing them up. We have at least one documented execution as a result of rape during the middle ages.

This is all literally written down. We are clearly told the weight and measure of the crime. How it was prosecuted by region, where it was successful and where it was not.

Rape however is a hard case to prove, even today a lot of rapists get away with it, and the prejudices of the community and the judge often play a part in that. Are you suggesting rape isn't a crime because of these factors, or even in the United States because many allegations or cases are thrown out, because communities rally around 'those hard done by boys' instead of the 'slut' who is ruining their good name?

Is a crime only a crime if every criminal is caught and prosecuted? What percentage of successful prosecutions are you dealing with here when you say something is or is not a crime but becomes a 'recommendation'?

[Errant Bard]

Naw, I've seen a couple authors argue historical validity for some of the stuff they've written. GRRM has, I'm pretty sure on that.

I rather doubt, in the absence of any quote, that GRRM did more than say something like "X was done like that in feudal ages", and I am certain he -or any author outside of historical fiction (those, and real historians, tend to get into disputes about what "really" happened anyway, though)- never said he wrote anything because it was historically accurate and he had to do it. No, at most they acknowledge that something in the middle ages was like that, and their work might reflect that, but to say that everything is accurate, that the all-encompassing word "grit" is the accurate depiction of life then, and then to say that they had to write it like that, and then put dragons and whatnot, because it's how it was? No bloody way. I would need a real interview transcript to believe that, at least.

Daniel Abraham did a few interviews where he speaks about writing technique, speaking of that, if I remember correctly, and he clearly points that for him at least, it boils down to evocation: fiction cannot be "real" because fiction gets believable when it surfes on reader's expectation, knowledge and subconscious projection. He uses an example with a bar in berlin with some Marlene Dietrich playing, and bam you get in background the whole history of the place: he does not need to write anything more, the mood is set. This is why you cannot go beyond a few accurate details when the public general perception of your setting is not accurate to begin with. You put rapes in because not putting rapes would not feel right in your readers' minds*, not because it's accurate... though of course it can be accurate. And what you put in that way is your, the author's, choice: it's down to what you want to evoke, to show. It has nothing to do with having to do it to be globally accurate.

*Among other reasons. The rapes in Bakker are neither for "accuracy" nor for evocation of war, but have more to do with character-building and psychology.

[Green Gogol]

Another really interesting article about grit

http://www.orbitbooks.net/2013/07/03/elizabeth-moon-on-grit-vs-glory-fantasy/

That article by Daniel Abraham that i posted earlier in this thread seems to imply that some author did justify grit because it is realistic. And the article by joe Abercrombie talks about it in his article the value of grit.

[Errant Bard]

That article by Daniel Abraham that i posted earlier in this thread seems to imply that some author did justify grit because it is realistic. And the article by joe Abercrombie talks about it in his article the value of grit.

It also says it's a stupid argument and implies it comes mainly from fans. I am not too certain that his last paragraph deals with the "realisticness" aspect and not more generally with the pronpension of some authors to feels insulted, attacked, when their work is criticized. If I remember, that article went up when there was this famous blog rant from a self-published woman who had simply snapped at bad criticism. I recall reading something about a guy giving a manuscript to an online reviewer and getting "a knife in the back" or something, and a lot of commentary on the difficulty of reviewing honestly without getting the ire of amateur writers.

In any case, it certainly gets the point across, if you don't value implications that may not even be there over what's written plainly, that GRRM, Abercrombie, Morgan, Bakker, the ones who write Fantays that pulls no punches are not writing something realistic, nor shoudl they. I'll just quote this:

At its heart, the argument that the Middle Ages were “really like that” misunderstands what epic fantasy is by treating it as though it was in conversation with actual history. It isn’t. It’s in conversation with the epic fantasy that came before it. George RR Martin (who, in the interest of full disclosure, is a friend and sometimes-collaborator of mine) has drawn a great deal from the incidents of real history, but he hasn’t written a work of historical fiction. What gives his work its power isn’t historical accuracy, but the subversion of genre expectations and a deeply-felt sorrow that infuses almost every scene.

I think you are actually the one trying to project Fantasy's "grit" onto real history, here, or at least to correlate the two tightly. Note that Abraham also mentions a good part of Fantasy not conforming to the "grit" mold, one that is ignored when such arguments are made.

ETA: didn't see the Abercrombie article.

[Happy Ent]

http://www.academia.edu/1466827/The_Price_of_Maidenhead_and_Similar_Issues_Rape_in_Laws_of_Medieval_England_and_Wales

You should give this article a read through.

Thanks! I didn’t know anything about Wales. (Of course, on this board the running gag is that Wales doesn’t even exist…)

I knew about Westminster II from https://etd.library.emory.edu/view/record/pid/emory:1bbk3 . (It strikes me as surprisingly modern, and shows the enormous moral progression from Ancient Times to medieval England.)

If anybody knows anything around rape laws in, say, medieval France or other parts of the continent: hit me with it.

[Arthmail]

One documented case from the Middle Ages means jack shit. There could have been 2500 executions for rape in the Middle Ages, but considering the sheer number that would have occurred over that period of time, you have less than 1% of 1%. To me that means that the law is simply paying lip service. There is no weight to it when you consider the time period as a whole. You are simply pointing out an outlier that really carries no weight. It might have been frowned upon, but frowning doesn't help to prevent it from happening.

And use your head. I never said that rape isn't a crime, I'm saying if the law does nothing to actually prevent it, if your instances of prosecution are so small as to be statistically invisible, then the society cares little for the law, even if it appears in the books. Words are wind and laws are little more than ink until someone enforces them.

[Zorral]

In the 15th century "rape" covered more actions than forced intercourse: kidnapping of woman was labeled legally rape, for instance. Many times a rich heiress or widow might be kidnapped with the plan to force her into marriage with a member of the abducting family to get their hands on her property. Another action legally categorized as rape was sexual intercourse with another man's 'property,' daughter or other relative, when consensual (as opposed to adultery when presumably the consensual intercourse was with another man's wife).

Women, particularly in England in the medieval era and the Tudor era were great businesswomen, particularly in all aspects of the wool trade and other textiles -- which made England's wealth -- which puts to rest the mistaken myth that women couldn't do anything in the middle ages.

There are libraries of source materials for all these and many other matters. It takes no time at all to learn of them by searching your library's catalog, or by a google search. As well if you utilize your library's resources you can search JSTOR database of articles that address specifically any subject you wish to learn about, such as rape in such and such an era, how prevalent, who was guilty, what happened to the victims, who was taken to court, indemnification etc. It's all so much easier to do than arguing with people about what you don't know anything about.

An excellent source for the transition from the late medieval era at the end the War of the Roses, to the Renaissance, is The Winter King: Henry VII and the Dawn of Tudor England, (2011) by Thomas Penn. There's also a YouTube with Penn speaking of his book. Henry VII was not a nice man, but he came out of non-nice times, and they left an effect -- which then affected Henry VIII .... You can find accounts of the book and the Youtube link so easily! You save so much time when you do searches of libraries, etc.

[Green Gogol]

Thanks for the suggestion!

[Galactus]

If anybody knows anything around rape laws in, say, medieval France or other parts of the continent: hit me with it.

What about medieval Sweden? From Kristoffer's Landslag (Edsöresbalken)

XII.

Taker man quinno meth waaldh, warder gripen a ferske gerningh, witna swa XII men, tha scal heredzhöfdinge genast budkafla vpskæra oc tingh stempna, oc döma han wnder swerd, oc ey thet længer framskiuta. Taker oc nokor lösn for han, böte XL marc konungs eensak oc aater lösn, halfua taki quinnan oc halua konungen. Nu ær han ey baar oc atakin, witer quinna honom ath han hauer meth wald sin onda wilia fræmt, eller sigher ath han brötz meth henne oc gath ey wilia sin framkomith, synis tha clæde rifuen a honom eller henne, oc ther meth blanadher eller bloduite, eller höris roop oc aakallan, thet scal heredz nempd wita oc ranzaka; fella the han, haui brutet edzöret. §.1. Taker man quinno meth wald, dræper hon han j thy, oc witna swa XII men, tha ligge ogilder. §.2. Taker man kono meth waald oc rymer aff lande meth henne, oc warder han laghlica ther til wnnen, tha æghir han aldre friidh faa för æn quinnone laghgipte bonde bider for honom om hon gipt ær, eller neste frendhethe r henna om hon ogipt ær.

esca

"Takes man woman with violence, is caught on fresh deed (IE: red handed) and witness twelve sworn men, then shall county chief immediately send out the message sticks and gather the thing, and judge him by the sword, and not delay it.

Take (someone? She?) reparations is fined 40 marks silver, the king's case and is released, half take the woman and half the king. Now is he not caught red handed, and woman claims that he has with violence done his evil will, or say that he wrestled her and done his will, clothes shall be torn from him or her, and if bruises or blood is found, or heard shouts and screams then shall the county court judge and punish. If he is convicted, he has broken the edsöre (Literaly "the given oath", sworn by kings to protect the people at their coronation, the closest thing Sweden had to national laws in this timeframe)

§1 Tka eman woman with violence, kills she him and twelve witness swears so, then no crime has been committed.

§ Take man woman with violence and escaps out of the country with her, he is outlaw made, he shall be given no peace until the woman's husband lets him if she is married, or next-of king if she unmaried is."

My translation from middle Swedish, so I'm not vouching for perfect accuracy.

Rape shows up relatively often in the courts, so it's clearly something that's of concern.

[Arthmail]

To be honest, I'm not entirely certain how we even got onto this tangent about rape. I know little and less about the statistical average of prosecutions for rape. I think the genesis of the conversation began with someone wondering how prevalent it was.