Jump to content

GRRM vs #metoo


alienarea

Recommended Posts

This thread post just feels like an attempt to gaslight the countless valid criticisms for the show into 'whining from SJWs.'

I've been on here and Reddit ever since the episode aired and no one apart from fringe Twitter or Tumblr provocateurs has ever brought up the 'issues' OP listed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh dear me...this old „it’s a medieval setting“ argument. No it’s not. It’s the Hollywood version of it. And the Dothraki are thr Hollywood Version of Mongols or any other nomadic steppe culture you can think of. Let’s get real, GRRM wrote are fantastic set of novels (some more some less) but his knowledge of medieval European culture is quite superficial, quite American so to speak. So the Defence „but so were the times“ is invalid. 

Anyway, the cynicism and self-aware power plays is much more of a Renaissance thing if at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, sleath56 said:

This thread post just feels like an attempt to gaslight the countless valid criticisms for the show into 'whining from SJWs.'

I've been on here and Reddit ever since the episode aired and no one apart from fringe Twitter or Tumblr provocateurs has ever brought up the 'issues' OP listed.

This is not twitter nor tumblr. And definitively not 9GAG. You are on the wrong place here. SJW is not a term here. Go back to those places if you like to use those kind of terms. We are discussing literature here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Arakan said:

Oh dear me...this old „it’s a medieval setting“ argument. No it’s not. It’s the Hollywood version of it. And the Dothraki are thr Hollywood Version of Mongols or any other nomadic steppe culture you can think of. Let’s get real, GRRM wrote are fantastic set of novels (some more some less) but his knowledge of medieval European culture is quite superficial, quite American so to speak. So the Defence „but so were the times“ is invalid. 

Anyway, the cynicism and self-aware power plays is much more of a Renaissance thing if at all. 

You're making several separate arguments, suggesting they're connected and that they support your conclusion. I don't see them as cohesive as you seem to and instead find them somewhat contradictory. First, being a Hollywood version of a medieval setting doesn't fully undermine that the medieval setting is meant to be impactful. It cannot be argued that the medieval backdrop wasn't intended. It echoes on every single page.

You next turn to concerns over GRRM's handling of "medieval European culture" claiming that he has a "quite superficial, quite American" understanding of it. So which is it? If GRRM's misunderstanding of culture delegitimizes the medieval setting then you're conceding that it actually is meant to parallel a medieval age but the author does it badly. Your first argument is that no such setting exists because it is a "hollywood version."  Your second is that the medieval setting was poorly handled. 

Beyond the internal contradiction of your argument, the mere assertion that "hollywood version" means that "well it was just the times" is invalid is nothing beyond assertion. One again, GRRM uses medieval TERMS for law and customs. I don't have to assert that he wants us to say "it was just the times" because he directly mentions laws that suggest inherent sexism within the system. And he uses the medieval terms to encapsulate such policies. 

GRRM has every right in the world to impose whatever laws he wants in his world. Those laws represent sexist tendencies and are instituted in the land. We can drop all conversation here, imo. It is not a matter of the culture of medieval Europe being extrapolated so that the values of that culture transpose on Westeros. They have laws establishing such trends and those laws happen to directly derive from medieval Europe.

I also have considerable issues with your characterization of his understanding of medieval Europe as being American or superficial. So now we're talking about his understanding of medieval culture when it is already (by your argument) impossible to compare because it's a fantasy book. Everybody understands the medieval backdrop isn't meant to translate 1 to 1 with the material. So how does GRRM misunderstand medieval culture? And how in the world does nationality affect something that is inherently historical? What inherent benefit is being a modern European or Brit to understanding something that can only be understood by delving in history? Any European who thinks that merely by being part of modern society understands medieval European society without any additional scholarship is an utter fool. Americans have no greater barrier to that scholarship than any European. They can access European universities and plenty of American Universities of great stature have exceptional, world-class programs. If your argument was a random, uneducated American vs a random, uneducated European I think they both do very, very poorly. 

But we know for a fact that GRRM has made efforts to study history, largely through independent readings and scholarship. What does being American have to do with his opinion on a history he's studied. Please provide some examples and logic rather than assertion here, because otherwise a mention of nationality is merely an ad hominem attack and warrants as much consideration as all such logical fallacies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, T and A said:

This is not twitter nor tumblr. And definitively not 9GAG. You are on the wrong place here. SJW is not a term here. Go back to those places if you like to use those kind of terms. We are discussing literature here.

What? The subject matter of the post directly asks us to look at GRRM's work through a lens of social justice. Hell, the title of the post mentions a contemporary movement regarding issues of gender equality. We are discussing literature, sure. But this post asks us to discuss that literature specifically through the lens of issues of social justice. 

Even more silly, it raises the question of whether contemporary political issues (such as seen on twitter, tumblr et al.) should constrain and impact the future writing. I apologize if I missed a specific interaction that lends this context. But otherwise, it is absolutely absurd to point to the post to which you reply as if it is all of a sudden bringing politics and social justice consideration into the equation.

As a larger reply to the OP, the books should absolutely make 0 efforts to adjust material based on modern political concepts. First of all, that is tantamount to censorship. It doesn't want to directly censor, but it wants an author to make sure their vision is consistent with X value system. Fuck. No. It is a terrible idea and is inherently destructive because, ideally, an artist's vision is entirely self-driven. If we demand consistency with anything else then we've basically ruined art.

Secondly, political landscape has changed dramatically even over the life of the books. The #metoo movement cited in the title didn't even exist at the time that Book 5 was published. So, no, GRRM should not jeopardize his artistic vision for anything, first of all and I see no reason why this issue should be an exception. It is flawed and dangerous to think our artists need to parrot our values. But I don't even really think that is an issue here in the first place. GRRM isn't harming any movement for gender equality, he is simply providing a historically-influenced series of stories that might not act as champion for such a movement. I'd argue he has plenty of strong, female characters with agency and complexity that does not differ tremendously from their male counterparts. In fact, it is kinda tough to argue that the female characters have been treated any worse than the male characters. I kind of see this as a non-issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Demetri said:

What? The subject matter of the post directly asks us to look at GRRM's work through a lens of social justice. Hell, the title of the post mentions a contemporary movement regarding issues of gender equality. We are discussing literature, sure. But this post asks us to discuss that literature specifically through the lens of issues of social justice. 

Even more silly, it raises the question of whether contemporary political issues (such as seen on twitter, tumblr et al.) should constrain and impact the future writing. I apologize if I missed a specific interaction that lends this context. But otherwise, it is absolutely absurd to point to the post to which you reply as if it is all of a sudden bringing politics and social justice consideration into the equation.

As a larger reply to the OP, the books should absolutely make 0 efforts to adjust material based on modern political concepts. First of all, that is tantamount to censorship. It doesn't want to directly censor, but it wants an author to make sure their vision is consistent with X value system. Fuck. No. It is a terrible idea and is inherently destructive because, ideally, an artist's vision is entirely self-driven. If we demand consistency with anything else then we've basically ruined art.

Secondly, political landscape has changed dramatically even over the life of the books. The #metoo movement cited in the title didn't even exist at the time that Book 5 was published. So, no, GRRM should not jeopardize his artistic vision for anything, first of all and I see no reason why this issue should be an exception. It is flawed and dangerous to think our artists need to parrot our values. But I don't even really think that is an issue here in the first place. GRRM isn't harming any movement for gender equality, he is simply providing a historically-influenced series of stories that might not act as champion for such a movement. I'd argue he has plenty of strong, female characters with agency and complexity that does not differ tremendously from their male counterparts. In fact, it is kinda tough to argue that the female characters have been treated any worse than the male characters. I kind of see this as a non-issue.

Yes. But writing "whining from SJW's" as my previous poster did, to whom my post was regarded, is not a discussionbasis, is it? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a. No. Characters are going to die no matter what sex and race they are. Characters shouldn't be kept around just becasue people might be offened if they are killed off, this kind thinking will destory storytelling.

b. No.

The books would still be recevied well even if released now. He's a good writer and world builder and is writing stories people want to read. It's FICTION for fuck's sake.

11 hours ago, Arakan said:

Oh dear me...this old „it’s a medieval setting“ argument. No it’s not. It’s the Hollywood version of it. And the Dothraki are thr Hollywood Version of Mongols or any other nomadic steppe culture you can think of. Let’s get real, GRRM wrote are fantastic set of novels (some more some less) but his knowledge of medieval European culture is quite superficial, quite American so to speak. So the Defence „but so were the times“ is invalid. 

Anyway, the cynicism and self-aware power plays is much more of a Renaissance thing if at all. 

What's your point? The books aren't meant to about European history and culture. GRRM has been inspired by it, he's not writting about real history, he's taking things which are interesting and using them as inspiration for his own creation. If he wants to use the Middle Ages as inspiration for his books he's free to do so. His world is similar to the Middle Ages and it's more believable to have poeple behave in the books as the human race behaved back then.

This really shouldn't offend people and if it does I implore you to not read up on any real history because you are going to be severely offended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

T and A: I'm honestly asking for clarity: So is your complaint that the poster called it whining or that the poster criticized discussing social justice through the lens of GRRM's work? My understanding of the post to which you were replying is that criticism of the book is being shifted in form to being political in nature (see: title of this thread) rather than literary in nature which is something that the poster does not appreciate or want to see. I tend to agree with that but it is possible that there is misunderstanding happening here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/13/2019 at 11:58 AM, Daemon of the Blacks said:

I really don't like arguments like these. Ultimately they hinge on the belief that the setting of a series is utterly unimportant which I found very strange in series that are supposed to have good world building. 

If you're setting is heavily based on the middle ages and a very dark and unromantic version of the middle ages at that then it makes sense to stick with the middle ages. It makes sense both artistically since you reinforces your theme and commercially because people just have a very clear picture of the middle ages and it doesn't include native American knights or sassy black Parisian shopkeepers. I don't see the value in weakening the setting just to commercially hinder your protect. To what end? Just because you're broadcasting to a multicultural American audience? And its not like people of color are absent. Westeros is Europe with Dorne having some influence from Islamic Spain, The free cities are a cross between Italy and the middle east and the Dothraki are essentially the Mongols. This make the world seem large and diverse with people from all sorts of races and beliefs crafting their own sociaty, as opposed of Westeros just being a generic theme park medieval town that's suspiciously American. 

There's a difference between casting POC in media and actually writing them with substance. As a person of colour, when I see characters of my ethnicity in books, film, or series, I want to see them written well to the extent where I can relate to them and not written just to make the world diverse, The Dornish are the only POC in the series that are actually written with depth. The characters in slaver's bay are written as cartoonish characters (and slavery is associated with them) and the Dothraki even though we get a glimpse of their culture through Dany, are still written as savages that rape and pillage. Only white cultures in the story seem to be written as "civilized" people. That is, the only culture that a modern audience can relate to at some level. I maintain my stance that ASOIAF despite being a good story is still a product of 80s/90s fantasy where people of colour (and women to some level) weren't given any depth and were written as either villains, savages, or dumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ASOIAF is about victims. 

GRRM has written ASOIAF intentionally to be misunderstood.

I put up it's own post about it, because it's very long. But here's the key:

ASOIAF is a story about the need to protect children, and the consequences of failing to do so. This may be able to be expanded to defending the defenceless generally, but I can't claim that yet as I haven't given it enough thought. But the protection of children and the consequences of failure hit each and every story arc and major character arc.

https://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/154628-asoiafs-overall-theme-can-be-drawn-out-of-sandors-arc-he-did-not-die-twice-he-died-three-times-he-was-a-true-knight/

I'll try to have a think over other characters story arcs, and how they have purposely obscured this theme. Some are very obvious about it:

Sam - protected a "worthless" child.

Cersei - protected her children to protect herself

Arya - a child who protects other children

Joffrey - a child who murders other children

Catelyn - a mother who forces a child out of her house's protection, and protects only her own children. Stuck in limbo between her daughters and her young sons, she protects neither, and is killed.

Robert - a king who did not punish the murder of children, and who then ordered the murder of a child. Shortly afterwards, he died.

Ned - a man who protects children wherever he can, and despises when they are hurt, but still remains loyal to a man who doesn't care about protecting children. He dies trying to protect his own daughter, who protection (Lady) he previously removed.

Margarey - a woman who manipulates a child (Tommen) to gain power

Stannis - a man who is highly principled, but sacrifices his own child, leading to his death.

Melissandre - a woman who sacrifices her own children, but to save the entire human race. Similarly, she is a character balancing good and evil on a needlepoint.

Gregor - a monster whose depths of evil are shown by his brutal murder of children

Danerys - a child who is hurt by her own brother, who longs always for the protection of the house with the red door. Who sacrifices her child to try and save the man who was her protector. Who then becomes a mother, and is enveloped in protecting her children.

 

I think Dany is obviously very complex with this theme and I haven't thought it through, but that's just on the surface! And Jaime also interacts with this theme in a complicated way I haven't decyphered.

 

So, this isn't to say that there's no criticism for the way GRRM treats women in his stories. But I'm saying a lot of people are interpreting this story in entirely the wrong way.

It's not wholly nihilistic and self-indulgent vice. 

ASOIAF is about victims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

That is, the only culture that a modern audience can relate to at some level. I maintain my stance that ASOIAF despite being a good story is still a product of 80s/90s fantasy where people of colour (and women to some level) weren't given any depth and were written as either villains, savages, or dumb.

You know, I think you are probably right here, that the story is written just for white people to relate to.

Even when foreign cultures are shown with some balance of positive and negative attributes, they are never positioned to properly compete with the perspective of the "white" culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎5‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 9:26 PM, Lady Anna said:

I agree that these books have sexist writing in them, from the most superficial to the disturbing. It has nothing to do with~~medieval accuracy~~ since this is not the Middle Ages, it's a fantasy land created by a man who is certainly guilty of sexist and racist writing. I don't think it's a reason for the books being delayed. And while Martin can't change the previous books, he can do one thing: try to do better. 

And i second @Vaith's post. 

Why are people like you even fans of ASOIAF? Why would you assume that GRRM has some moral obligation to write his story in such a way that glorifies and agrees with your subjective socio-political views? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, T and A said:

This is not twitter nor tumblr. And definitively not 9GAG. You are on the wrong place here. SJW is not a term here. Go back to those places if you like to use those kind of terms. We are discussing literature here.

Yeah cause accusing GRRM of being literally racist and sexist for writing a dark story set in a harsh medieval setting is the height of intellectual literary analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Panos Targaryen said:

Yeah cause accusing GRRM of being literally racist and sexist for writing a dark story set in a harsh medieval setting is the height of intellectual literary analysis.

It is not. You are right there. Everyone who claims GRRM is a racist, is a nutcase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Panos Targaryen said:

Why are people like you even fans of ASOIAF? Why would you assume that GRRM has some moral obligation to write his story in such a way that glorifies and agrees with your subjective socio-political views? 

I'm a fan of Asoiaf because it's an amazing story and great books. And that's why I care about these things. I did not say Grrm was a racist or sexist; I said some of his writing is racist and sexist, such as the depiction of the Dothraki, for example. I'm sure anyone, who certainly doesn't consider themselves racist or sexist, can still write things that border on it, even with no malice whatsoever. He's under no obligation to write anything in any way, but we can think critically about it, not just accept it as it is; but at least for me reading such depictions of non-white characters or female characters isn't very nice. It has nothing to do with what happens in this world, what is acceptable or not in-universe, but how he chose to write and depict certain things. I can feel this way and still admire this work, it's not an either-or situation. I would think any author who wants to be considered good and appeal to a large number of people would be considerate of such things, as I think we all are in our lives. 

I can see from your response that you probably don't think the story has sexist of racist elements. Okay. I also don't see how analysing these things is considered biased to a certain socio-political view....I mean, we are talking about things that have more to do with humanity and empathy and not politics. I don't see how that has to do with socio-politics. Anyway, I'm sure others have wrote about this in all the pages of this thread (which I haven't read) - including actual readers who aren't white, as well as other female readers - and I'm sure they have written better than I have. Sorry if this post isn't very clear; english is not my first language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the books and show are just describing people being oppressed. This doesn't mean that it's an endorsement of oppression. Obviously in a medieval society, women are going to be victimized in a distinctively different way then men. In my opinion, I think that the show is actually trying to lift females up in ways that the books won't to in order a broader appeal. I don't think that this will really change people's perceptions of the books. Of course, theirs some people who won't like the books, because events that happen in them go against their sensibilities. That's perfectly fine. It seems rather silly to take it out on the author though.

I genuinely don't understand why the example that you picked out would be considered racist or sexist though. Is it because she's a (part?) black woman? I don't think that being black or a women should grant someone immunity from death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/15/2019 at 4:11 PM, Lady Anna said:

I'm a fan of Asoiaf because it's an amazing story and great books. And that's why I care about these things. I did not say Grrm was a racist or sexist; I said some of his writing is racist and sexist, such as the depiction of the Dothraki, for example. I'm sure anyone, who certainly doesn't consider themselves racist or sexist, can still write things that border on it, even with no malice whatsoever. He's under no obligation to write anything in any way, but we can think critically about it, not just accept it as it is; but at least for me reading such depictions of non-white characters or female characters isn't very nice. It has nothing to do with what happens in this world, what is acceptable or not in-universe, but how he chose to write and depict certain things. I can feel this way and still admire this work, it's not an either-or situation. I would think any author who wants to be considered good and appeal to a large number of people would be considerate of such things, as I think we all are in our lives. 

I can see from your response that you probably don't think the story has sexist of racist elements. Okay. I also don't see how analysing these things is considered biased to a certain socio-political view....I mean, we are talking about things that have more to do with humanity and empathy and not politics. I don't see how that has to do with socio-politics. Anyway, I'm sure others have wrote about this in all the pages of this thread (which I haven't read) - including actual readers who aren't white, as well as other female readers - and I'm sure they have written better than I have. Sorry if this post isn't very clear; english is not my first language.

Because when you claim a writing is sexist or racist you're claiming it has a viewpoint it is trying to spread as opposed to telling a story organically within its setting. Plus, the mental gymnastics required to say that an author is systematically (if not systematic then what's the issue?) portraying things in a racist and sexist manner but that the author himself isn't sexist or racist is mind-boggling.

And I think that we need to see some serious evidence that "his writing is racist and sexist" beyond a broad assertion of the Dothraki. What race are the Dothraki beyond, well, Dothraki. There is no clear parallel made to any overarching racial construct. I'd argue that trying to create a direct racial parallel to the Dothraki or perceiving them to exist in a modern/realistic racial construct makes you racist, not GRRM.

These "racist and sexist" themes are NOT readily apparent and NOT necessarily interpreted through the writings.  You ask why socio-political views come in, it is because certain people are perceiving things that not everyone else perceives. Why are those people different? Generally, it seems to be because they WANT to see these things or perceive these things as being a battle worth fighting and in need of fighting. So why not bring GRRM into the scrum as he is quite a popular author and it would make a sensationalist accusation.

I'm sorry that the work of fantasy doesn't reflect your concept of a perfect world. But you have no right to expect that and, frankly, it makes you a bad reader not the author a bad writer (not a personal accusation here, Lady Anna, but intended more generally to those who state the claim more strongly).

The problem is that people's perception leads them to mishandle and misunderstand the work of an author. I could really dig deep into this point (racial identity of the Valyrians, Targaryens, "daughters of Valryia", races of Essos etc.) but I don' think it is necessary. If you are reading about Essos and thinking to yourself what race these characters/peoples are, then you're the problem, not GRRM. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/8/2019 at 10:26 PM, Lady Anna said:

It has nothing to do with~~medieval accuracy~~ since this is not the Middle Ages

This is a realistic fantasy. If you don’t like it, there are a lot of primitive books for "strong women" ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Ilissa said:

This is a realistic fantasy. If you don’t like it, there are a lot of primitive books for "strong women" ;)

 

Dunno if I'd call them primitive but the Dragon Riders of Pern series by Anne Mccaffery is an excellent mid-evil based series with strong female characters that coincidentally contains dragons too.  Later adds in some science fiction to make it all realistically possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/16/2019 at 6:11 AM, Lady Anna said:

I'm a fan of Asoiaf because it's an amazing story and great books. And that's why I care about these things. I did not say Grrm was a racist or sexist; I said some of his writing is racist and sexist, such as the depiction of the Dothraki, for example. I'm sure anyone, who certainly doesn't consider themselves racist or sexist, can still write things that border on it, even with no malice whatsoever. He's under no obligation to write anything in any way, but we can think critically about it, not just accept it as it is; but at least for me reading such depictions of non-white characters or female characters isn't very nice. It has nothing to do with what happens in this world, what is acceptable or not in-universe, but how he chose to write and depict certain things. I can feel this way and still admire this work, it's not an either-or situation. I would think any author who wants to be considered good and appeal to a large number of people would be considerate of such things, as I think we all are in our lives. 

I can see from your response that you probably don't think the story has sexist of racist elements. Okay. I also don't see how analysing these things is considered biased to a certain socio-political view....I mean, we are talking about things that have more to do with humanity and empathy and not politics. I don't see how that has to do with socio-politics. Anyway, I'm sure others have wrote about this in all the pages of this thread (which I haven't read) - including actual readers who aren't white, as well as other female readers - and I'm sure they have written better than I have. Sorry if this post isn't very clear; english is not my first language.

I think you expressed yourself well. It's perfectly possible to enjoy a book series while having some criticisms of aspects of the writing, although that may be a nuanced view lost on some posters.

I don't think Martin is racist or sexist. However, readers of colour have pointed out that some of his depictions of non-white characters have fallen back on racial cliches and stereotypes, and characters in Essos have been poorly fleshed out in Dany's point of view. Dorne is an important part of the world the author has created, where characters are described as not being white and subject to in-universe racist assumptions, but it did take a long time for those characters to appear in the books and gain a POV of their own.

As a woman who grew up in the 60's and 70's, I actually like how Martin depicts a variety of women grappling, each in their own way, with the limitations, unfairness and abuses of life in a patriarchal society. Depiction isn't endorsement but that doesn't mean that women readers haven't also made some reasonable criticisms. A small example would be the lack of female friendships when compared with a positive avalanche of bromances.  Martin himself acknowledged this as a fair criticism and seems to have made an effort to include a lot more female interactions in later books.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...