Bad Worldbuilding in ASoIaF

[SaffronLady]

47 minutes ago, SeanF said:

That is in contrast to the show, where Cersei could be as treacherous and evil as she liked, and everyone kept trusting her, for plot reasons.

And LF, who really stretches the imagination.

[Aldarion]

On 12/1/2023 at 10:15 AM, SeanF said:

@AldarionReading English, Scottish, or Italian, history, though, you can find plenty of examples of nobles acting in ways that were treacherous, psychotically cruel, and also stupid and self-defeating - for those very reasons.

As you say, humans have a tendency towards stupidity, and looking for the short-term victory, without thinking through the long-term consequences of their actions.

Oh, I have never denied that they CAN act that way.

But those would be exceptions, not the rule.

On 12/1/2023 at 10:15 AM, SeanF said:

Martin simply takes the worst tendencies of human nature, and runs with them.  However, evil actions do have consequences in his world, as they do in real life.

 

And that is precisely the issue I have with it. He isn't writing realistic fiction, he is writing a carricature, but unlike Warhammer you can't even tell it is a parody.

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

On 11/30/2023 at 11:24 PM, Aldarion said:

So yes. Lord of the Rings is not some perfect example of the medieval time period, but it is far closer to that than... literally anything else I've read. Especially when it comes to people's attitudes as well as portrayal of "far-off" societies. Tolkien gives more depth to Haradrim and Easterlings than Martin does to Dothraki and Slaver's Bay, despite the fact that Martin has a significant PoV character spend her time among Dothraki and in the Slaver' Bay both while Tolkien has no PoV characters among the Haradrim or the Easterlings.

Found at least one thing we agree on. Though I think big government is as much of an issue as big corporations are, so I really don't understand why the leftists focus on corporations so much.

Concentration of power is always a problem, no matter the appearance it takes. Wolf doesn't stop being a wolf just because he is wearing sheep's pelt, after all.

This was way too long and I am busy, so I cherry picked things to respond to (I wasn't being unfair I don't thin though, just chose things I wanted to respond to the most after skimming through...the top half, I didn't even get to the bottom half). 

LoTR - Then read more. I've read a ton of historical fiction. Do you know why it's called historical fiction? Because it's based on actual history not a fantasy setting. Or read...actual history books. I've also read those. I quite enjoyed some of them even. LoTR is..not close to the reality in any way whatsoever. Again, I think you are picking specific elements and acting like it's the entirety of the civilization. Like, if someone perfectly copied social media but then ignored every single other aspect of modern day society and made a book about it (and then people called that super accurate someday in the future). Also, I wrote about how bad the Dothraki were in my complaints. The Easterlings are literally just a racist stereotype in the books I read. Again, I didn't read the Smilliarion (or whatever its called). The idea that they were fleshed out in any whatsoever in the books is ridiculous. As bad as the Dothraki were...they have speaking roles. There is some attempt to humanize them. I again feel like you...read a different set of books then the ones I did, as there is no way anyone could call that "good world buidling" when they were just racist stereotypes. 

Actually leftists don't just focus on corporations. I would argue modern leftist politicians are some of the few actually proposing protections of personal freedoms/workers rights/etc. that go against BOTH corporations and the government. These days most popular right wing movements seem directly aimed at limiting personal freedoms (limiting access to abortion, limiting access to health care for trans people, limiting protections for trans/queer people in general from corporations firing them for being who they are, limiting where people can use the restroom, banning books, etc. etc.), while as popular leftist movements would in fact give people MORE personal freedoms (that includes both freedom from the government and corporations). The difference is the right confuses "corporate freedoms" for "personal freedoms" when they very much aren't the same thing. Large corporations being able to do whatever they want in fact limits personal freedoms, not increases them (i.e. public transportation being publicly ran in Korea keeps prices low, allowing people to have more options in how they get home,...and in fact, it can often feel like my options are unlimited in this department because of how well run the public transportation system is here). If you look up sites where they actually talk about policies, politicians like Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez fall significantly farther into the libertarian side of the spectrum (libertarian vs. authoritarian) then do ....any right wing politicians I know about. 

I agree with what you said about concentration of power. And I would argue most leftists in the areas of the internet I am on would too. The people we are voting for propose actual policy to...limit concentration of power BOTH in the government and in the private sector. And no, to cut you off before you try to say it, providing public services like public health care or transportation DOES NOT have to be a concentrated power. I already mentioned Korean public transit. They use a variety of companies (both public and private) but the overall decisions always come down to benefit individuals. For example, the last line is called Line 9. A private company tried to crank up the price of line 9, and the Korean government just said, then...we won't connect you to the other lines. We will ensure the other lines continue to charge the low price, and essentially we will shut you down if you try to do this. To you, this probably infringes on line 9's company rights. But I don't give a fuck. They protected my rights. I get to pay the same low price I always payed, and this stopped other lines from also trying to jack up prices. This is what a government SHOULD do. Protect me. Protect individuals from greedy assholes trying to take advantage of us. And if you allow unlimited corporate freedom (ie the free market) while stripping government of any power to ...stop them, you will always end up with someone taking advantage of others (which is why right wing libertarianism always leads to a sort of neo-feudalism). Until we have better education and a society in which we value human cooperation (rather than competition), I do believe you need someone who STOPS others from taking advantage of individuals. Currently, the best option is a government that is for the people, which is not what we have in the US at all (lobbying means we have a government for the rich/corporations). All I know is government services in Korea protect my freedoms and give me more options, not less. And my taxes are WAY lower than they were in the States despite this. Why do American leftists focus on corporations? Because corporations are...the biggest problem right now in the US. The rich are the biggest problem. We can see other countries who have curtailed corporate power/rights in favor of individual rights, and we think those results have been good. 

Just some more examples of how limiting corporate rights gives us individuals more rights : Minimum wage, how long the workweek is, paid holidays, protections from bosses/corporations stealing yoru money...all these things require a government to enforce them currently.....yet we desperately need these things to have basic happiness. And in other countries, these protections are getting even better...ven more limited working hours, longer vacations, paid family leave, more protections from being fired at random by your company...etc. etc. All of these things protect OUR rights, and OUR freedoms, and they give US more options/freedom to live our lives as we want to. Environmental protections which again curtail what corporations can do to the environment keep our wild spaces clean and safe for us as individuals. I saw this directly at work while traveling in Southeast Asia. In one location (I don't want to bash a certain country, so I'll leave the names out), the government had heavy protections and the natural beauty of the area was spectacular. Corporations weren't allowed to basically do whatever they wanted, and had to follow regulations which kept the location in tact. In the other location (again not naming names), corporations were allowed to do whatever they wanted, and the place was absolutely wrecked. Pollution was everywhere, coral reefs had been badly destroyed by various fishing methods...trash just floated around in the ocean, etc etc. It was awful. At least as of right now, government services (again which get their power from individuals voting for them not through authoritarian control) are currently our BEST option to stop corporations from essentially destroying our world. And all right wing solutions will only...give corporations more free reign to continue their destruction (the ones I've seen). Okay, I'm done. Have a good day. 

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

Just because it is historical fiction doesn't mean it is actually realistic. And I actually read far more history books than I do fantasy books. Hell, I own more books about Byzantine Empire alone than I do fantasy books!

I never said that Lord of the Rings is "close to reality", whatever that means to you. Just that it is more realistic than 90% of fantasy out there. Which it is. I suspect Videssos may be more realistic, but... that's it as far as fantasy books go, or at least ones I can speak for.

Easterlings are not a racist stereotype - not even if we limit ourselves to Lord of the Rings only. They are simply shown the way they will have been seen by the people they are invading... just read some of the medieval European descriptions of Mongols. That is how racist stereotypes are born, yes, but doesn't make portrayal itself into a racist stereotype. People's memories are hardly reliable thing: they are affected by personality, emotions, time, misconceptions, other memories... a friar describing Mongols as otherworldly demons was hardly engaging in racism.

In fact, Tolkien's portrayal of Easterlings is far less racist than Martin's portrayal of the Dothraki. Tolkien's Easterlings are in the service of evil - but that is hardly their fault, they are merely following their God (or who they see as their God). When we actually see them, they are are indeed brutal - but also steadfast, loyal, well equipped and well disciplined. As soldiers, they are no worse than soldiers of Gondor. On both Pelennor and the Black Gate, Easterlings keep fighting long after Orcs have fled, and it is clear that they should be respected for that regardless of their service to the Dark Lord. Dothraki, meanwhile, are nothing but racist stereotypes (and no, having few Dothraki join the "protagonist gang" does not negate how Dothraki in general are portrayed).

And Dothraki having speaking roles is precisely what pisses me off, because Martin has introduced basically every single racist stereotype about historical nomads - and since he did it while actually showing us Dothraki culture first-hand, there is no excuse of "unreliable narrator" or "Chinese whispers" that could otherwise be used to explain it away. It is simply how Dothraki are. And it is bullshit. If Martin portrayed the Dothraki the way Tolkien did Easterlings, I will have had no cause for complaint.

Not from what I have seen. Not sure about USA, but in Europe, leftist politicians are busy stamping out the few remaining human rights in favor of half-1984 half-Brave New World Big Brother police state.

Limiting access to abortion is literally limiting murder.

Limiting access to health care for trans people... why would trans people have any more right to health care than any other people? Transgender surgery is not health care, it is cosmetics. And cosmetics are not human right, they are luxury.

Limiting protections for trans/queer people... yeah, I will care when leftists stop trying to ruin everybody to the right of Castro simply for being a lukewarm conservative.

Banning books... that is literally what Left does. You don't get to complain about things you also engage in.

And yeah, no... sorry, but I have seen what "popular leftist movements" do. They are literally the "I can guarantee freedom of speech, but not freedom after speech" meme.

And Left complaining about large corporations while Right supports them is quite funny considering that large corporations are precisely where most of the support for the Left comes from.

I actually agree with most of this... that being said, valuing "cooperation rather than competition" is bullshit. Humanity needs both. Had we valued solely cooperation, we would still be in the stone age.

And "government that is for the people" is a pipe dream that has never existed, never will exist and never can exist. The best you can have - at least once you get past the strictly local level - is "government that does not interfere with the people" or "government that is afraid of the people".

Doesn't matter how much you vote, to politicians you are nothing but a number on a spreadsheet.

And do you know where corporations get most of the powers you complain about? From the government.

I live in Europe and I'm not really seeing that. If you think situation is so good compared to the US, then what are the United States... a postapocalyptic wasteland?

And again: no sane right-winger will support corporations, if for nothing else then because corporations support left-wing policies.

In fact, corporations actively promote left-wing policies such as "gender equality", "LGBTQ", "transgender" and similar, because so long as the Leftists are busy with worthless nonsense, they are not a threat to the corporations themselves.

Off topic, but yes, outside the USA (which is different), curbs on freedom of speech come largely from the left.  Speech is “violence”, but “silence is violence”, too.

[Ran]

Err, thread went wildly off-topic there for a bit. Stick to the topic or take the conversation elsewhere, folks.

[The Bard of Banefort]

I’m dropping in here like Dorothy in Munckinland, but as someone who enjoys reading about the Ironborn, the lack of women, and exploration of their status in this world, has always bugged me. There are three named Ironborn women in the main series: Asha, her mother and her aunt, two of whom are considered “mad.” There is not a single named Ironborn woman in the supplementary material. We’re told that Dalton Greyjoy’s brother’s name is Veron for some reason, yet we don’t know the names of any of his three sisters. And what is life like for women on the Iron Islands—are they more liberated than other women in Westeros, or less (both of which you could argue apply to Asha, who is stuck representing the entire female population of this kingdom)? I’m not sure if GRRM knows, and unfortunately we don’t either.

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

1 hour ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I’m dropping in here like Dorothy in Munckinland, but as someone who enjoys reading about the Ironborn, the lack of women, and exploration of their status in this world, has always bugged me. There are three named Ironborn women in the main series: Asha, her mother and her aunt, two of whom are considered “mad.” There is not a single named Ironborn woman in the supplementary material. We’re told that Dalton Greyjoy’s brother’s name is Veron for some reason, yet we don’t know the names of any of his three sisters. And what is life like for women on the Iron Islands—are they more liberated than other women in Westeros, or less (both of which you could argue apply to Asha, who is stuck representing the entire female population of this kingdom)? I’m not sure if GRRM knows, and unfortunately we don’t either.

I've always assumed with how women are treated by reavers....that they can't be treating the Ironborn woman that well. Like, all the male Ironborn characters we see essentially treat women like objects (with the exception of Qarl the Maid I guess, lol) I think to an even greater extent than the Greenlanders do. 

[Craving Peaches]

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

We were discussing how Martin's world is unrealistic, which segued into why, and that then segued into modern politics... because main reason as for why is the difference in mentality between people today and people back then and Martin projecting modern mentality onto his portrayal of Middle Ages.

Okay, but the idea that 'Abortion is Murder' does not seem to be of any relevance even taking into account the views historically and in-universe? No one in Westeros aside from Lysa seems to think of it as such, we don't know the Faith's position or really anyone's view other than Lysa, the Medieval Catholic Church thought that life began from the 'Quickening', when the baby kicked, rather than at conception, which is different from the modern view, plus we don't know when Lysa was forced to drink abortifacients, etc...

Edited December 5, 2023 by Craving Peaches

[sifth]

I was thinking a lot about Jon's arc in the third book and it's pretty insane how up to date the other members of the Night's Watch are, of Jon's actions. Jon's wilding group never encounter any scouts. Most of the watches strength is with Mormont. How are the handful of members of the Nights Watch left, able to keep track of Jon's actions, while manning the castles?

[Ran]

5 minutes ago, sifth said:

How are the handful of members of the Nights Watch left, able to keep track of Jon's actions, while manning the castles?

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but for example there's this dialog:

Quote

Noye frowned. "Scarred or smooth, it's a face I thought I'd seen the last of. We heard you'd gone over to Mance Raydar."

 Jon grasped the door to stay upright. "Who told you that?"

 "Jarman Buckwell. He returned a fortnight past. His scouts claim they saw you with their own eyes, riding along beside the wildling column and wearing a sheepskin cloak." Noye eyed him. "I see the last part's true."

After that, it's clear Noye spreads the word of what Jon revealed.

[sifth]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but for example there's this dialog:

After that, it's clear Noye spreads the word of what Jon revealed.

And when and how did Noye hear this? Most of the watch's rangers are on the Fist or dead, by the time Jon joins them. Jon's group never encounters any rangers, so the Watch must have invisible spies who are able to know that Jon went over to the other side, but never be seen.

[Ran]

2 minutes ago, sifth said:

And when and how did Noye hear this?

He says it just above. Jarman Buckwell and his scouts had come back two weeks earlier and had spied Jon wearing a sheepskin cloak riding along with Mance Rayder and the wildlings.

I don't know about "invisible spies", but some of the rangers are obviously pretty good at their job, while the wildlings are rather undisciplined.

Edited December 5, 2023 by Ran

[sifth]

4 minutes ago, Ran said:

He says it just above. Jarman Buckwell and his scouts had come back two weeks earlier and had spied Jon wearing a sheepskin cloak riding along with Mance Rayder and the wildlings.

I don't know about "invisible spies", but some of the rangers are obviously pretty good at their job, while the wildlings are rather undisciplined.

So the rangers were able to see the wildings, without the wildings able to see them? That's the logic GRRM is going with? Keep in mind, most of the watch are former criminals or raw boys, at this point.

Edited December 5, 2023 by sifth

[Ran]

1 minute ago, sifth said:

So the rangers were able to see the wildings, without the wildings able to see them? That's the logic GRRM is going with? Keep in mind, most of the watch are former criminals or raw boys, at this point.

Buckwell is the leader of all the scouts on the ranging, and Qhorin Halfhand explicitly suggests he lead one of the three picked groups of scouts who go north to try and find Rayder and his host. If all the men with Buckwell are of similar quality to the Halfhand's men, and I don't see why they wouldn't have sent the best-of-the-best for such a dangerous and important task, it doesn't matter their backgrounds, they're hardy, experienced men who are skilled at what they do.

The wildlings are not all-seeing and all-knowing.

[Frey family reunion]

6 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Okay, but the idea that 'Abortion is Murder' does not seem to be of any relevance even taking into account the views historically and in-universe? No one in Westeros aside from Lysa seems to think of it as such, we don't know the Faith's position or really anyone's view other than Lysa, the Medieval Catholic Church thought that life began from the 'Quickening', when the baby kicked, rather than at conception, which is different from the modern view, plus we don't know when Lysa was forced to drink abortifacients, etc...

Lysa views what happened to her as feticide, which it certainly was.  Since it was done without Lysa’s  consent.  I think anyone in Westeros would have had the same feeling in her place.

As for consensual abortions, it certainly seems to be accepted among the nobility for the most part.  It’s hard to say what the “peasants” would have thought of it, because we’re not really given their POV.

As for the Faith, we don’t have much to go on, other than none of the lady’s septa’s seem to raise much of a stink about it.

ETA:  actually there is a bit about it from the High Sparrow:

Quote

“She is not. Holy septas have examined her, and testify that her maidenhead is broken. She has drunk of moon tea, to murder the fruit of her fornications in her womb. An anointed knight has sworn upon his sword to having carnal knowledge of her and two of her three cousins. Others have lain with her as well, he says, and names many names of men both great and humble.”

So at least here, we have someone from the Faith equating abortion with murder.

Edited December 5, 2023 by Frey family reunion

[sifth]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

He says it just above. Jarman Buckwell and his scouts had come back two weeks earlier and had spied Jon wearing a sheepskin cloak riding along with Mance Rayder and the wildlings.

I don't know about "invisible spies", but some of the rangers are obviously pretty good at their job, while the wildlings are rather undisciplined.

Alright, I can see the logic in that. The timeline in that makes sense.

[Craving Peaches]

44 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

So at least here, we have someone from the Faith equating abortion with murder.

Yes, but that doesn't tell us whether they believe all abortion is murder or whether only abortion after a certain date is murder. 

45 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

Lysa views what happened to her as feticide, which it certainly was.  Since it was done without Lysa’s  consent.  I think anyone in Westeros would have had the same feeling in her place.

I agree it was foeticide but many legal systems make the distinction between foeticide and murder. 

It is also socially acceptable practice among the wildlings.

But really I still don't see the relevance of bringing up one particular modern view on abortion in a discussion about the world building of Westeros when Westeros is meant to be based on the early modern era.

[sifth]

So I posted this on the Original Draft for AFFC's thread, but it works here as well.

The timeline for Kevan's death feels a little sloppy to me. So Kevan travels back to the Rock, while at the Rock gets a letter asking him to take over as Regent, he accepts and travels back to Kings Landing, sets up his regency by making Mace Hand of the king, has Randyll Tarly save Margaery and does all this before visiting Cersei in her prison cell. So just how long was Cersei locked up for? Are the Rock and Kings Landing very close to each other?

[SaffronLady]

4 hours ago, sifth said:

Are the Rock and Kings Landing very close to each other?

They would be if Westeros was 'bout the size of Ireland.

[The Bard of Banefort]

17 hours ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

I've always assumed with how women are treated by reavers....that they can't be treating the Ironborn woman that well. Like, all the male Ironborn characters we see essentially treat women like objects (with the exception of Qarl the Maid I guess, lol) I think to an even greater extent than the Greenlanders do. 

But at the same time, noblewomen like Asha have freedoms that someone like Cersei can only dream of. I’ve seen it suggested that the presence of thralls and salt wives creates a caste system where the Ironborn women are given more autonomy precisely because other women are treated as property. But again, there’s no way of knowing because the books give us nothing to work with.