Daniel Abraham debunks the idea of "historically accurate" epic fantasy

[Arthmail]

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

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

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

Except the people here are debating the issue, rather than just defaulting. To be honest, it's just as lazy to wave your hands and say that dragons and magic would change everything for the better.

[Kalbear]

Except the people here are debating the issue, rather than just defaulting. To be honest, it's just as lazy to wave your hands and say that dragons and magic would change everything for the better.

No one is arguing that. What is being stated is that something would change significantly. For good or ill you woul have stark differences.

Or if you don't - if it's just fauxmedievaldisneyland just with magic and dragons - then you're being lazy or worse.

[genegirl]

Thank you for both articles. But the truth of the matter is that I don't care. I did not read ASoIaF as a history of the Dark Ages / Middle Ages, it is just great story telling written extremely well. I do disagree with Ahmed's article on GAME OF THRONES being too white.

When I first read LotR my father told me he had originally read the books in the 50s and he knew I would enjoy them. My father was born and raised in Vera Cruz Mexico, I know he did not see LotR as a white man's book. He would have enjoyed ASoIaF immensely.

I can respect the opinion of both articles, which are well written but in my opinion have no validity, except an excuse to bellyache.

[Sci-2]

Except the people here are debating the issue, rather than just defaulting. To be honest, it's just as lazy to wave your hands and say that dragons and magic would change everything for the better.

I wasn't singling people out on these boards actually. I actually don't think dragons or magic would automatically make things better. Like I said, I think "historic accuracy" is something that has been trotted out, and its an expectation that allows certain books to get published while dodging legitimate criticism.

However, I think this is something of a waning phenomenon, at least with regards to the authors we have here. I can disagree with Morgan's efficacy or the use of certain scenes, but I acknowledge he has narrative reasons for their inclusion beyond "I was going for realism".

eta:

I can respect the opinion of both articles, which are well written but in my opinion have no validity, except an excuse to bellyache.

You can't really respect an opinion then say it's an "excuse to bellyache". Why don't the arguments have validity, because your Dad would like the books? That's not really an argument, it's an anecdote.

All literary criticism is bellyaching by that line of reasoning.

[Richard]

@ Fionwe 1987

The existence of one form of inequality doesn't immedately set the stage for other inequalities. That's just ridiculous.

There are a number of second wave feminists who'd give you an argument on that one. Andrea Dworkin, IIRC, was of the opinion that all forms of oppression were modelled on the initial ur-oppressive model of women by men. I'm of the opinion she was spot on.

@ Kalbear

there's no evidence that sexism is a universal trait.

No? What about, oh, let's say, this

From an anthropological point of view, I'd say that was fairly compelling.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

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

I don't think we disagree. I think that's why this discussion exists. My point (perhaps inexpertly expressed) is rather that institutionalized sexism is not, in and of itself, a necessary element of "authentic" world building (no matter when or where that world is set). I think it is perfectly acceptable, and in fact necessary to ask ourselves your last question, which to me can be restated as "what does the pervasiveness of institutional sexism in fictionally created worlds tell us about our own culture." I think that's one of the beauties of speculative fiction at its best - commentary on our world through the creation of another (whether the author intends it or not). Maybe we're talking past each other?

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

Which of course ignores Christine de Pisan, Olympe de Gouges, the starving French women who spurred the French Revolution, Abagail Adams and a whole host of other writers and women thinkers and actors in eras prior to the 1960s (or whenever your clock starts running on the "feminist" movement). I'm not sure your "better technology" argument necessarily holds water. Christobel Pankhurst did not organize by Twitter. Perhaps it was helpful to her to have the press available to publicize her hunger strikes and rallies, so fine. But does that mean that women, somehow, are less able to communicate in the absence of technology than men? I say this because this argument somehow ignores popular rebellions stretching back to Jack Cade and beyond.

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

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

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

I'm not hung up on semantics. Call it a tunafish for all I care. Seriously. Please excuse me of this sin - I've been happy to use whatever term others want here. Women were actually less ignored in medieval literature than you are making out. Read Chaucer, for instance. Are his stories reflective of the times? Yes. But are women absent? No. Women are absent from CHRONICLES. That's different than literature.

I guess I haven't been clear - I do think there is merit in the central theme. I just don't think the theme is a REQUIREMENT of good world building, and I think that "because it's historically accurate" is a cop out answer to a question regarding why the choices were made.

Except the people here are debating the issue, rather than just defaulting. To be honest, it's just as lazy to wave your hands and say that dragons and magic would change everything for the better.

We don't disagree. But I think people here tend to be more thoughtful than the average bears :)

[JGP]

I don't know. For a story to get any traction, it absolutely has to have conflict. In the framework of epic fantasy, it's not just the personal but also much larger conflict that impels the narrative arcs along. Isn't that reason enough, sci?

So to keep this on a subject where I'm relatively certain labels of misogyny and so on won't be hung round the author's neck, look at the raping of the Lamb Women again. I don't think so, and I can't just dismiss it out of hand because it's hard to speak to something that I've never really experienced myself, yet Saladin Ahmed seems to be saying that this example is offensively stereotypical if not overtly racist. But it's hard to deny that when peoples were/are at war, or simply raiding in this fictional case, the rape of women (and worse) did and does occur. Less now (I should hope) because of discipline, rules of engagement, military national and international law, yet still. It happens.

So in order to avoid an accusation of laziness, misogyny and racism, George would've been better served to devote a lot of time and intellectual resources to think of all the reasons why the Dothraki shouldn't have raped the Lamb Women? It may seem like a lazy choice, but as an aspiring writer and devoted world builder myself, please believe me when I tell you what a vast undertaking such a change would be. Backstory, historical under pinnings, the psychology of a formerly male dominated and warlike people. This is major shit, people, and would change the character of every Dothraki, change the nature of every interaction with the Dothraki... I mean, fuck's sake, it might be more an authorial instinct for self preservation that kicked in here rather than any of these other labels.

[Lummel]

... Christine de Pisan...

I approve of the mention of Mme de Pizan. A woman who used the example of Joan of Arc to discuss the role of women in her society.

[Marcus Cicero]

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

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

First, you're absolutely right. I know how 'superior' is spelled, but throwing in the 'r' after 'u' is just a bad habit/reflex that pops up occasionally. I apologize. Second, of course the degree of sexism varies. It would be absurd to say that all feudal societies are equally sexist, which is why I never said that. Sexism has existed in the vast majority of societies. Yeah, people can point to examples where women could own property or whatever, but the odds are still that that culture was far more sexist than the average democratized and industrialized modern society.

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

Um, yeah. We're still susceptible to bias on that kind of criteria, but a feudal society would be even more likely to be.

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

Start by looking at the rise of gender equality movements and ask why then? You mention technology and a means of communicating these ideas, which perhaps I should have touched upon originally, but I thought that industrialization implied those things. Democracy is important because it begins with the premise that no one should have a special say. Oftentimes, the application of democracy is at first paradoxical. Jefferson says that all men are created equal, but yet only men with property can vote (and slaves can exist). Even though it may not be rigorously applied, the 'All men are created equal' principle is an important ideological underpinning to the system. Eventually a maturing democracy, be it America, Britain, Turkey, or wherever, will realize that prattling on about egalitarianism but excluding certain sexes, races, or classes makes no sense.

A meritocratic ideal is also important. Ideally, democracy implies that someone should occupy a position of power because they're suited, not because they belong to a certain family. This won't always hold in practice, but the ideal is still present in such a system. In a democratized and industrialized society, in theory there should be greater social mobility which allow women and minorities to prove that they can do something just as well. With free speech to exercise, women can then get out there and say something like, 'Wait, why in the hell am I being paid less for doing the same work?'

Feudalism relies on people being conditioned towards a certain mindset which rejects meritocracy and egalitarianism, two philosophies which have been important to rising conceptions of gender equality.

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

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

I don't think the word 'default' should be used, but sexism does seem to be something that's there before we use our capacity for logic to reject it. Once again, I never said that the extent of sexism was universal in feudal societies. Of course you can point to cultures that were enlightened relative to their neighbors, but I doubt any of them would be less sexist than a modern idustrialized democracy.

Oh, and better and faster communication is a symptom of industrialization. Of course I've considered it.

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

Conceded. But can you really deny that LOTR glosses over the harsher implications of its governmental structures? Yeah there's some petty politicking, but not much. I don't even mean this as a criticism of the series, I'm just pointing out that its status quo hierarchies are deliberately idealized.

[sologdin]

think of all the reasons why the Dothraki shouldn't have raped the Lamb Women?

J--

but how difficult is it to suggest that a very successful military force is sufficiently disciplined to avoid certain war crimes? it actually makes more sense than the suggestion that the victorious army is so poorly disciplined that it engages in systematic rape. the lazy stereotype actually disrupts the suspension of disbelief.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

I don't think the word 'default' should be used, but sexism does seem to be something that's there before we use our capacity for logic to reject it. Once again, I never said that the extent of sexism was universal in feudal societies. Of course you can point to cultures that were enlightened relative to their neighbors, but I doubt any of them would be less sexist than a modern idustrialized democracy.

*snip*

The sort of fabulous thing about this argument is that it suggests and justifies that sexism is, in fact, wholly innate and the static state of being and that it is only modern technology/developments that allow it to disappear, which in turn suggests that if there were a major shock to the system, whatever that is, sexism could, nay in fact would, almost inevitably [re-]*arise (which, btw, is the premise of a lot of dystopian sci fi).

Your other arguments somehow presuppose that medieval and feudal cultures did not have an understanding of the equality of man, and that somehow Locke and his contemporaries invented such concepts out of whole cloth in the 17th Century. Just not true. Again, looking to England, John Wycliff and the Lollards were preaching as early as the 14th Century a doctrine of equality of man - "When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?" was a "slogan" of the movement and the Peasants' rebellion that grew out of it. There was a semi-rigid (though not nearly as rigid as they teach you in high school) class hierarchy in place, but focusing only on that element ignores the influence of the most influential institution in Western thought beginning in about 300 AD - the Church. Christianity is, at base (if you actually read the NT), fairly democratic and almost communist (little c) in its sentiments. Christ preaches equality of the spirit. The Church was, in many ways, a great leveler, despite its veniality, corruption and other sins as the middle ages plunged towards the Reformation.

*I do not mean to imply that sexism is gone, 'cause it's not.

[Ouroboros]

think of all the reasons why the Dothraki shouldn't have raped the Lamb Women?

J--

but how difficult is it to suggest that a very successful military force is sufficiently disciplined to avoid certain war crimes? it actually makes more sense than the suggestion that the victorious army is so poorly disciplined that it engages in systematic rape. the lazy stereotype actually disrupts the suspension of disbelief.

The concept of 'war crimes' is a relatively recent invention. Not every army through out history was a baby raping murder machine, but you'd be hard pressed to find ones that 'didn't' engage in mass pillaging and rape. The most disciplined forces before the modern era were often paid in the form of being allowed to freely loot and rape the enemy.

[Lummel]

...Start by looking at the rise of gender equality movements and ask why then? You mention technology and a means of communicating these ideas, which perhaps I should have touched upon originally, but I thought that industrialization implied those things. Democracy is important because it begins with the premise that no one should have a special say. Oftentimes, the application of democracy is at first paradoxical. Jefferson says that all men are created equal, but yet only men with property can vote (and slaves can exist). Even though it may not be rigorously applied, the 'All men are created equal' principle is an important ideological underpinning to the system. ..

The odd thing is that historically the position of women became more restricted as industrialisation took place, movements towards mass democracy developed and communications improved. At first this was in the form of attitudes - such as the cult of domesticity and then reflected in law. While in the middle ages English married women could and did own property and run businesses and so on under the rule of Queen Victoria they couldn't.

Of course other times and other places had discrimination - but the forms of discrimination where particular to them and not necessarily those we are familiar with just as attitudes generally were different.

If you are inventing a society then giving it the same forms of discrimination that we know is just pandering to the reader.

[Marcus Cicero]

*snip*

The sort of fabulous thing about this argument is that it suggests and justifies that sexism is, in fact, wholly innate and the static state of being and that it is only modern technology/developments that allow it to disappear, which in turn suggests that if there were a major shock to the system, whatever that is, sexism could, nay in fact would, almost inevitably [re-]*arise (which, btw, is the premise of a lot of dystopian sci fi).

Your other arguments somehow presuppose that medieval and feudal cultures did not have an understanding of the equality of man, and that somehow Locke and his contemporaries invented such concepts out of whole cloth in the 17th Century. Just not true. Again, looking to England, John Wycliff and the Lollards were preaching as early as the 14th Century a doctrine of equality of man - "When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?" was a "slogan" of the movement and the Peasants' rebellion that grew out of it. There was a semi-rigid (though not nearly as rigid as they teach you in high school) class hierarchy in place, but focusing only on that element ignores the influence of the most influential institution in Western thought beginning in about 300 AD - the Church. Christianity is, at base (if you actually read the NT), fairly democratic and almost communist (little c) in its sentiments. Christ preaches equality of the spirit. The Church was, in many ways, a great leveler, despite its veniality, corruption and other sins as the middle ages plunged towards the Reformation.

*I do not mean to imply that sexism is gone, 'cause it's not.

To state that sexism is innate I'd have to know more about gender dynamics during the stone age. At least once some form of civilization and formalized hierarchy arises, it seems to be the norm. Once again, the degree and practice of it will vary, but it will inevitably be more egregious than what you see in the modern developed countries that I've spent so much time prattling on about. I never said that egalitarian ideas couldn't exist in a feudal society, just that they weren't the ideological underpinning of the dominant power structure. The examples you point to are exceptions, as you yourself acknowledge. Most people would still have been conditioned to accept the class divides.

The odd thing is that historically the position of women became more restricted as industrialisation took place, movements towards mass democracy developed and communications improved. At first this was in the form of attitudes - such as the cult of domesticity and then reflected in law. While in the middle ages English married women could and did own property and run businesses and so on under the rule of Queen Victoria they couldn't.

Yeah, the process is slow and there will be steps backwards. But the seeds are planted. Nowhere did I say that industrialization will immediately have the effects I outlined.

[sologdin]

The most disciplined forces before the modern era were often paid in the form of being allowed to freely loot and rape the enemy

sure, and the red army engaged in systematic war crimes at the end of world war two, perhaps on orders. i get it.

but it's not very difficult to write a fiction wherein the army is professional, paid wages rather than via looting, and that soldiers are tried & executed for war crimes, which, although codified recently, have an ancient linneage--a point, i note, to be completely irrelevant to whether they are ancient in the fictional setting. seriously, how hard is it to have law of warfare in a fictional setting?

[Errant Bard]

you'd be hard pressed to find ones that 'didn't' engage in mass pillaging and rape.

Genghis Khan's forces, when a city surrendered.

[Sci-2]

The most disciplined forces before the modern era were often paid in the form of being allowed to freely loot and rape the enemy

sure, and the red army engaged in systematic war crimes at the end of world war two, perhaps on orders. i get it.

but it's not very difficult to write a fiction wherein the army is professional, paid wages rather than via looting, and that soldiers are tried & executed for war crimes, which, although codified recently, have an ancient linneage--a point, i note, to be completely irrelevant to whether they are ancient in the fictional setting. seriously, how hard is it to have law of warfare in a fictional setting?

I think in Martin's case the compare and contrast requires the Lamb men scene. The rape/pillage in Westeros isn't much better - look at Pia, IIRC she's put in a stockade so that she can be raped.

I do agree with you though, simply having rapes included as some kind of realist-based grimdark cred is bad writing.

[JGP]

The most disciplined forces before the modern era were often paid in the form of being allowed to freely loot and rape the enemy

sure, and the red army engaged in systematic war crimes at the end of world war two, perhaps on orders. i get it.

but it's not very difficult to write a fiction wherein the army is professional, paid wages rather than via looting, and that soldiers are tried & executed for war crimes, which, although codified recently, have an ancient linneage--a point, i note, to be completely irrelevant to whether they are ancient in the fictional setting. seriously, how hard is it to have law of warfare in a fictional setting?

I don't disagree, soggy. It's not hard to do that. But once in, going forward... ? I'm about to babble here because I don't have a lot of time.

Look at what we're dealing with. There've been hundreds of choices already just to get Dany to the Dothraki, who as far as I can quite simply glean are a nomadic horse culture, male dominated, who follow the strong. Dany lost the cohesion of Drogo's Khalassar simply because he'd been deemed weak, after all. But let's run with it. George is writing the rape of the Lamb Women scene and sits back, tugging on his scraggly beard. Maybe adjusts his hat. I don't for a second believe he enjoyed depicting it, but felt within the context of the culture such behaviour was likely, and also provided a backdrop to illustrate some contrasts-- Dany's naievete, Jorah's worldiness, etc etc. This is the education of a Queen we're privy to here.

One thing I've always thought is that George didn't do a very good job of describing why Drogo would've taken Dany to bride in the first place-- I know why she needs the potential this marriage could provide, but what does an Targaryen-in-Exile truly offer the Khal, and a female at that? Likewise, what would a more evolved culture that possessed the discipline and social mores you're espousing actually see in Dany? Doubtless something, they'd have the claimant of the Iron Throne after all, and what an easy prize, eh? Westeros. With the cohesion of Valyria gone all these years now, and Westeros with all its unified might and resources firmly under their wing, such a move would launch said city-state into a position of prominence. They could impose their polis throughout the region. Form a League and shoot for the entire continent. The Dothraki are now relegated to the status 'barbarians at the door.' A good enough reason to have walls, right, and... wait. Might just have to rework the continent of Essos back to the fall of Valyria.... maybe the Golden Company would be better. Surely they had such discipline, and clearly Westerosi values are much more evolved than those in Essos. This might work. I mean, Illyrio clearly knows and is scheming with someone in the Golden Company, but then why did Illyrio choose the Dothraki at all... chances are the Golden Company didn't exist at that point.

Seriously, it could go on and on. And on. George was just way too far into this, soggy. But perhaps he's is lazy because he didn't want to do all this work after all the work he'd already put into it? Not buying it, but maybe he was in the doghouse for a while. I think I've made my point insofar as it applies to this particular example, and --please note-- I'm definitely not saying it applies in all cases outside of this example.

I think it's pretty easy for a reader to sit back and wonder at the choices made, but each one comes with structural consequences. Some of them are staggering, quite frankly. By the time we're reading, I'd hope that even if the author realized how far he or she as putting their neck out in some respects that they'd stayed committed to the story they'd begun and seen through their Editor's scrutiny to ours.

After that, maybe some lessons were learned that can inform their next body of work.

[shrugs]

[Kynokephalos]

think of all the reasons why the Dothraki shouldn't have raped the Lamb Women?

J--

but how difficult is it to suggest that a very successful military force is sufficiently disciplined to avoid certain war crimes? it actually makes more sense than the suggestion that the victorious army is so poorly disciplined that it engages in systematic rape. the lazy stereotype actually disrupts the suspension of disbelief.

I suppose the Huns and Mongols would dare to disagree.

[Maia]

We're still susceptible to bias on that kind of criteria, but a feudal society would be even more likely to be.

All would depend on circumstances and on variations that speculative/fantastic aspect of the setting would have thrown into the pot.

It is important to ask oneself - why? I mean, a lot of sexist practices in human history were thoroughly unsound, from biological/survival POV.

Personally, I'd venture to guess that it was for the most part a sustained attempt to ensure paternity of the children. Remove that one pressure point and where might that lead? Add in "personal raw power" or profit potential of magic as an equalizer and where might _that_ lead?

Too bad that the genre of fantasy that often features magic that heals the mortally ill or ressurects the dead doesn't bother with such questions, too often opting for fictionalized rehash of iRL historical events, with, as you say, "magic on top". i.e. illogically not affecting anything in that society except for warfare and not even affecting that as much as it should have, because, after all, the author wants to utilize disguised historical battles.

It is not such a problem in settings with low level of magic and/or unreliable, subtle and mystical magic, so GRRM is largely in the clear.

But authors with systematic and predictable magic? They do look lazy, sorry.

I have no problem with Dothraki rape scene - humans do behave horribly when they feel that they can do so with impunity. But would they have been as likely to behave that way, if there was a chance, even a low one, of one of the women blowing them up to smithereens or reliably cursing them with some misfortune? I very much doubt that.

You mention technology and a means of communicating these ideas, which perhaps I should have touched upon originally, but I thought that industrialization implied those things. Democracy is important because it begins with the premise that no one should have a special say.

You are aware that throughout human history and until very recently, women had it much worse in the democracies/meritocracies, yes? For the simple reason that in a feudal/monarchic state, if they were incredibly lucky and capable, they could attain a position of power due to accident of birth and/or because somebody in power noticed them (first as a lover, yes), started to trust them and gave them an opportunity? And that powerful men without sons have often been motivated to ensure that their daughters could inherit their wealth and power.

Whereas until the 20-ieth century in democrcies/meritocracies, women were denied even this crack to put their foot through the door. They were just summarily excluded from even attempting to compete. Ever.

And as Lummel has already mentioned, industrialization actually initially lead to worse conditions for women, rather than better ones.