Does Enjoying GRRM Make Us Sociopaths?

[undertow]

Forgive my ignorance, but I don't think I'm properly grasping the term "wish fulfillment", despite seeing it used in context several times. Anyone care to elaborate just a tad?

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WishFulfillment

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

If she thinks Martin is dark keep her away from Bakker.

[Lord of Oop North]

If she thinks Martin is dark keep her away from Bakker.

Black semen is a legitimate medical condition.

[Swense]

Is it?

Is it caused by an excess of Tekne building up in the testicles? :P

[Liadin]

Worse in what way? Most people do not have and never have had such sensitivity. Informed in what way? Why is it the duty of the reader to consider the lives (I'd say perspectives, but it isn't about perspective to say people who've never had a bath in their life must feel filthy) of others?

Well, in general being informed about the history and behavior of your species is a good thing.

It sounded, from Cantabile's post, as if this reader considered a torture scene "over the top" because he doesn't really believe in torture, and then dissed the book containing it due to his own ignorance. That's unfortunate both as it showcases his ignorance and because it's unfairly affecting his opinion of a book. "Hard to relate to" is an odd choice of words though--I would assume the vast majority of us on this site have never been tortured, and yet I've never seen anyone raise that complaint about such a scene. I don't have any personal experience with swordfighting either, but....

[Swense]

Not to mention, it implies he can relate to a sorcerer whose words blot out the sun, a logician monk with no empathy, and a whore.

But torture, torture is extremely difficult to relate to. :P

[Old Nan]

Well, in general being informed about the history and behavior of your species is a good thing.

I wouldn't make such a blanket judgment, and I certainly wouldn't agree with the second part. In what way is the behavior of other people more authentic or worthy than one's own behavior?

"Hard to relate to" is an odd choice of words though--I would assume the vast majority of us on this site have never been tortured, and yet I've never seen anyone raise that complaint about such a scene.

Perhaps that's because you "relate to" Martin's own point of view about torture–viz, that it's something horrifying? Not everyone cares so much, and I think rubbing their faces in it to try to condition them to care is cruel. Why should everyone fetishize certain "exotic" experiences just because GRRM does?

[Horza]

I wouldn't make such a blanket judgment, and I certainly wouldn't agree with the second part. In what way is the behavior of other people more authentic or worthy than one's own behavior?

Perhaps that's because you "relate to" Martin's own point of view about torture–viz, that it's something horrifying? Not everyone cares so much, and I think rubbing their faces in it to try to condition them to care is cruel. Why should everyone fetishize certain "exotic" experiences just because GRRM does?

If people don't want to read books where children get chucked out of towers they don't have to. Why should GRRM write a book where Bran lands on a bed of fluffy pillows to spare those people?

If people don't think a torture scene is realistic because they don't actually know anything about torture why should their opinion be taken over those who do?

You don't like this stuff, that's fine, don't read it. What you seem to want to do is make a moral virtue about not reading about distressing things and cast aspersions on those who do. That I'd argue is more than a little asinine.

[Rakka]

I wouldn't make such a blanket judgment, and I certainly wouldn't agree with the second part. In what way is the behavior of other people more authentic or worthy than one's own behavior?

Children of any age think that just because they can do (or can't do) something then everyone (or nobody) can. It's generally considered a good and eye-opening thing to acknowledge that Your Experience is not Everyone's Experience. Is knowing more about the world also Bad in other cases? A simple example is that of a writer thinking her life experience is the norm everywhere, and making an world-hopping OC in Middle-Earth where everyone speaks English.

[Shryke]

I wouldn't make such a blanket judgment, and I certainly wouldn't agree with the second part. In what way is the behavior of other people more authentic or worthy than one's own behavior?

Um ... by definition? And not more, equally as authentic.

Because you aren't the only person in the world, you alone don't get to define what constitutes authentic behavior.

Torturing someone for information is not fake just because it's never happened to you.

[Old Nan]

If people don't want to read books where children get chucked out of towers they don't have to.

Did I say they did?

What you seem to want to do is make a moral virtue about not reading about distressing things and cast aspersions on those who do. That I'd argue is more than a little asinine.

Well, that was the question: "Does Enjoying GRRM Make Us Sociopaths?" Later, the word "sadist" was introduced. I don't see how one can answer that question without offending someone; that casting aspersions upon those with the opposite "moral virtues" is the prevailing position here hardly makes it valid.

It's generally considered a good and eye-opening thing to acknowledge that Your Experience is not Everyone's Experience.

If you say so. But how does this square with the notion that torture and so forth are Bad Things, a notion Martin is clearly trying to promulgate? A modern, middle-class American liberal white man deliberately trying to enforce his view of the evils of pre-modern life upon the reader? Actual medieval peasants would hardly think torture, tyranny, rape, and war are the end of the world; today we think they require a lifetime of therapy to recover some. Who's the cultural imperialist here?

[Old Nan]

Torturing someone for information is not fake just because it's never happened to you.

Well, yes it is, to the person who hasn't seen it. Torture is no more real to you or me than magic is.

Nor is it wrong just because it's never happened to you and you don't want it to.

[Horza]

Well, that was the question: "Does Enjoying GRRM Make Us Sociopaths?" I don't see how one can answer that question without offending someone; that casting aspersions upon those with the opposite "moral virtues" is the prevailing position here hardly makes it valid.

It can, and simply: reading fiction is a matter of taste, and bad taste is no moral failing.

That this is a moral issue for you is down to your conflation of author and readers preferences with fictional characters and actions.

If you say so. But how does this square with the notion that torture and so forth are Bad Things, a notion Martin is clearly trying to promulgate? A modern, middle-class American liberal white man deliberately trying to enforce his view of the evils of pre-modern life upon the reader? Actual medieval peasants would hardly think torture, tyranny, rape, and war are the end of the world; today we think they require a lifetime of therapy to recover some. Who's the cultural imperialist here?

Right. There's no tradition in medieval cultures of bemoaning torture, tyranny, and war. Those things passed entirely unnoticed and people just got on with it. Sure.

[Rakka]

In what way is the behavior of other people more authentic or worthy than one's own behavior?

This was your question, in relation to the claim that "knowing about history, even when ugly, is a good thing". It seems to imply that you think putting your hands on your ears and going la-la-la is better than acknowledging the ugly things humans have done, and still do. It implies that the person who does so is fully right to not care and to think that something is unrealistic, when a look outside of their sphere of life would tell them that no, it is not. You seem to go on and on about the blissfullenss of ignorance and how it is right to think that because you haven't experienced something it's unrealistic to write about people who have.

I answered that one person's experience can't be extrapolated to everyone's experience, and you accuse me of cultural imperialism? I don't quite make the connection.

[Shryke]

Well, yes it is, to the person who hasn't seen it. Torture is no more real to you or me than magic is.

This is just stupid. Ignorance does not make the stuff you are ignorant of not real.

Nor is it wrong just because it's never happened to you and you don't want it to.

No, but it's wrong (or rather, it's ignorant) to believe that it doesn't happen.

That, for instance, torture happens is a fact. To believe it doesn't, that torture is not authentic, is ignorant.

The line between what you know and what you don't does not delineate reality from not-reality.

If you say so. But how does this square with the notion that torture and so forth are Bad Things, a notion Martin is clearly trying to promulgate? A modern, middle-class American liberal white man deliberately trying to enforce his view of the evils of pre-modern life upon the reader? Actual medieval peasants would hardly think torture, tyranny, rape, and war are the end of the world; today we think they require a lifetime of therapy to recover some. Who's the cultural imperialist here?

Actual medieval peasants also believed the Sun revolved around the Earth.

You are also confusing a moral argument (ie - torture is wrong) with a factual one (ie - torture did happen).

[red snow]

I don't think so. I guess we'd have to see how the series ultimately pans out as usually in fiction the protagonists have to be put through their paces before coming through. If it ends with all the good characters dead or mentally broken then I suspect I wont have enjoyed the series as much as i currently am. When the antagonists get their come-uppance that's fine - justice is a strong sense in most people and we tend to like seeing it occur in fiction as it doesn't always happen in reality.

I guess if you read the series and weren't shocked or didn't care about the horrible things happening to the characters then you might have a problem (or Grrm's writer isn't as good as i thought).

It's a bit like watching the news. The stuff going on in the actual world is sadly far worse than what occurs in ASOIAF. If I enjoyed watching it or thinking "I wish i was a dictator", I'd be worried (the lack of worrying would be even worse) but usually I end up feeling a bit depressed/angry and left with trying to balance ignorance with feeling that way about the news.

[WhiteHaven]

Wtf? How does "cultural imperialism" relate to this topic? Unlike, for example Hobb, Martin is not trying to impose his world-view on us, as far as I can see.

He is describing violent scenes, yes - and that's it.

Maybe someone can enlighten me?

[TheEvilKing]

I think the question should be "Does GRRM Enjoy Making Us Sociopaths?".

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TEK,

You're being sarcastic, right?

I still don't understand how enjoying a work of fiction that contains disturbing scenes of violence makes the reader a sociopath. Is the same true of readers who enjoyed The Count of Monte Cristo and Alexandra Dumas?

[Cantabile]

But what makes the bubble artificial? You seem to be saying that the viewpoints of people who are not jaded and "shattered" are not "truly" worth considering. And you wonder why this makes you sound a sadist?

I am in no way stating that the view points of those who are not jaded are not worth considering, only that "realism" is more objective than the subjective experiences of the reader, and that one cannot use "it's unrealistic" as an argument against a work when it's only unrealistic due to their own ignorance of reality in the first place. Reality is distinguished from the singular observations, experiences, and speculations of one human being's upbringing and social/historical awareness.

I am not saying that everyone should lovingly embrace life's atrocities, or that people who are more enlightened to the acts of their own species are in any way morally superior or more worthy of being a target audience.

If one is basing their conception of "reality" purely upon their own subjective observations of it, then yes something may be "unrealistic" simply in that it does not align with their own experiences, but I would hardly accept such a blind view of "reality" as a valid basis for criticism of an artist's work. Political scenes in a movie may be unrealistic to a child because they have no awareness or personal experience of politics, but politics still exist outside of the child's narrowminded reality.

Ignorance only eclipses our own lense of the world; it does not eclipse the world itself.