(Complete tangent) Can someone explain to me why HBO isn’t spending $100M to recut season 7-8 and maybe reshoot a few new dialogue scenes while the actors are all still available?
It seems to me in this day and age they could look at the 5 episodes with terrible IMDB scores, remaster them, and then ship it again, and everyone would forgive them and the show would make billions more because people could recommend it again.
I don’t understand from a business point of view why they are letting such a gold mine just collapse.
TBH it felt like almost no one on the writing side wanted to deal with this anymore, they’ve could’ve gotten JRRM in to finish the show somehow but I think even he might be in the position where he just doesn’t want too / can’t finish what he started.
It’s not like JRRM doesn’t have the issue of putting in too many strings that don’t pan out, at this point the books are almost too complex to actually finish.
PS I think the “stars” were more responsible for killing their own careers than the show..:
The writing for especially the last season baffled me. They had 6 episodes to tie off a vast array of plot lines and they spent so much of that on nonsense. I think one whole episode was just mindless, irrelevant chatter between characters with no plot advancement at all. It really felt like the writers were phoning it in so they could focus on ruining star wars.
> Can someone explain to me why HBO isn’t spending $100M to recut season 7-8 and maybe reshoot a few new dialogue scenes while the actors are all still available?
Because the actors that matter aren't available any more, and neither are the sets, and COVID would complicate production, and because you grossly over estimate the value it would have even if none of that were a problem. It's done, the world has moved on. If there is more money to be made on the franchise, the ROI is going to be in other series based on the property (of which they have one in development), not tweaking the old one.
Snyder left during post production, to deal with death in his family. The resultant film wasn’t what he envisioned, as Whedon took over. He’s back and wants to finish making his film the way he wanted it.
GoT is exactly what D&D envisioned. The fans didn’t like it, but it’s their vision, and they DGAF what anyone else thinks. We might not like that outcome as viewers, but should respect the artistry all the same.
PS: the cast of justice league didn’t dedicate 8 years of their life to making that film like the cast of GoT did. They’re understandably done and moving forward, not looking back.
> But they're doing a similar thing with Justice League: The Snyder Cut right now though.
Well, (1) the source is one feature film, not five, some feature-length, episodes of a TV series, (2) the main actors involved were available for reshoots, etc., because they are under contract for a multifilm franchise, (3) redeeming Justice League is more central to marketing further DC universe contebt than redeeming the last season of GoT is for marketing a prequel series with a different creative team, since the expected linkages are closer between the content, (4) it's also a reconfiguration from feature film to multi-episode mini-series, so it's optimizing for a different consumption format as well as “fixing” issues (in a hypothetical universe where external factors were driving business from serial streaming to theaters, reconfiguring the last season of GOT into a theatrical trilogy while fixing other issues along the way might make some sense.)
Outside or obvious business reasons, there is also the aspect of actors and dialogues not being the issue.
Atrocious writing, lack of consistency and inability to move plot where they want it to be in sensible way was the biggest issue. Especially in comparison with great writing of first series.
The hype is gone. The hype around GoT was very much centered around the shocking twists and reveals and speculation around how everything would play out.
Redoing the last seasons with better scripts would be enormously expensive, but would not generate the same hype so would not get a large audience.
Making a sequel show would be a much better RoI since it could at least create some hype again, even if the hype of the original show would be hard to top.
Because it's been and gone? The time to intervene was probably when S7 was reviewed. Future DVD and streaming revenues are probably not going to cover the costs or reworking them so ... leave it.
Honestly, on a lockdown-enabled rewatch this year, I didn't think they were as bad as I remembered. I'm still frustrated with how far it goes downhill, some of the stories really don't finish well and the dialogue is just bad.
OTOH I did sit in the dark and re-watch the really dark episode with the brightness mangled a bit on an OLED ... and I caught a lot more of what actually happened this time round. That episode really needs remastering in HDR...
This was my impression when I rewatched with my Dad... not as bad as I remember, still sad in parts because the quality was bad in places. In retrospect, even if the showrunners had the best intentions, they were put in impossible situation with a wildly complicated story and no ending in the source material.
I wonder where the stereotype of scantily-clad leather-fetish armor for barbarians actually comes from, given its extreme prevalence in modern culture and complete absence in actual historical cultures. Some other ahistorical stereotypes are easy to understand [1], but I don't see how both leather acquires an ahistorical importance and less armor becomes better-armored.
One point to call out that the author doesn't emphasize is that steppe cultures (both in North America and Eurasia) were integral parts of vast trading networks. One of the noted features of pre-Columbian North America [2] was the extent and speed with which trade goods moved all along it. So steppe cultures would absolutely have access to all the fine luxuries of the "civilized" world. Indeed, it should be noted that marrying off royalty to steppe elites was a common strategy for keeping steppe raiding at bay. This is fairly evident to anyone who does even a modicum of research on steppe peoples, or ancient people in general (people trade! all the time!), so the notion that steppe people are inherently austere is clearly the mark of someone who does not believe in research.
[1] e.g., colorless white Greco-Roman temples: all the paint faded away, leaving the underlying white stone. When the Renaissance kicks off a shift in Greco-Roman historiography to putting them at the pinnacle of human civilization, the extant white ruins were taken as reflective of what they actually looked liked and became the archetypes of modern attempts to re-summit civilization's pinnacle.
[2] Although it should be noted that the steppe cultures of the US--such as the Cheyenne, Apache, Sioux--don't exist in their modern form before the introduction of the horse around about the 18th century, with the Siouan peoples not even living on the plains until pushed out there during migrations in the 17th century.
Much earlier than that, at least as early as the pulp novels and comic books of the 1930s. Frank Frazetta's covers for Conan The Barbarian were almost certainly what solidified the depiction in the popular consciousness.
Also look at Siegfried's attire in the 1924 "Ring der Nibelungen" movie, classic "barbarian in bear skin" style (and I think this goes back further to the romanticization of the Germanic tribes as "noble savages" in the 19th century).
My guess is that this is derived in turn from stereotypical caveman outfits - furs wrapped round the scandalous bits and not much else. Barbarians basically being modern-day cavemen.
So where did that idea of caveman dress come from?
Ötzi, from ~3000 BC, was much more smartly dressed, although he did live somewhere a bit cold for just a squirrel-skin posing pouch:
Interestingly, most caves are too cold to dress like that, even if the climate itself is otherwise warm enough. (I'm not aware of any place where you could safely sleep naked every day, though some nights are that warm)
Same reason they put Princess Leia in a metal bikini: it's an excuse to look sexy. You wouldn't see Khan Drogo's bulging pecs and sculpted torso or Daenerys' neckline and toned midriff if they were covered by boring but historically accurate linen tunics.
Sure but they didn't have Jaime Lannister dressed as scantily as the Dothraki. Clearly the show is relying on the trope of barbarians which does not care about fancy clothes as a justification for the fan service.
I find the depiction of the "barbarians" in the Barbarians show on Netflix to be far more accurate. They are barbarians only because they are deemed to be so by the Romans. Otherwise they aren't roaming around topless in leather chaps - they wear regular clothes, just rougher and not as refined as the Romans.
Sure, from the filmmakers perspective, but it isn't narratively incoherent the way it is for someone headed into a battle. It's maybe strange that a giant slug would sexualize a humanoid, but maybe that's not what is being implied.
I think the art of Boris Vallejo and his compatriots was instrumental in 80s fantasy having a sexploitation theme. Their work was so influential that it shaped fantasy themes for decades and gave nerds like us an expression of the typical teenage male power fantasy
If I remember right, it was mostly the covers, because I don't think Conan is usually described as wearing scantily-clad leather-fetish armor in the books
"the notion that steppe people are inherently austere"
They are not inherently austere, but the very fact that they tend to move around limits how much they can own and carry with them. Plus, by living far inland, it is harder to reach them using ships, which were by far the most efficient transport means until the advent of railways.
Until railways, wealth made by long distance trade tended to concentrate in major seaports or in cities on important rivers that could be easily supplied by water (Vienna, Paris, Prague).
Cause the thesis is exactly the opposite. The limited space just reinforces the need for single clothing to be good against both cold and warm weather. It does not remove the political need to flaunt wealth by elite either.
Edit: thesis is supported by photos and descriptions of real world stepped people.
We don’t know much about the climate Dothraki lived in, much less the weather patterns they had to endure. I assume the Dothraki did though and they choose appropriate garb.
The article goes into some detail here, it is worth reading.
> plains and steppes – that is large expanses of semi-arid grasslands. The very nature of that terrain configuration produces fairly extreme seasonal temperature variations (that is, very hot summers and very cold winters) as well as extreme daily temperature variations (that is, hot days and cold nights) because such places are far from the large bodies of water and also don’t have tree-cover, both of which serve to moderate rapid temperature changes. [...] There’s no reason to suppose the Dothraki Sea would be any different: it sits at about the same latitude as King’s Landing so there is little reason to assume it would be warm all-year-round.
There are more reasons then just weather patterns estimated based on location and terrain for cloth to be less practical tho.
The same blog applies the same pedantry to clothing of other groups and to military aspects of different groups too. It is not like Dothraki were singled out in a blog that otherwise ignores clothing and practicality.
I read it. My point stands - assuming the land the Dothraki roamed is anything like somewhere on Earth is a leap. To suggest there are latitudes or that they are even on a spherical planet is a leap. They have what appears to be great seafaring cultures yet they always have to take what would appear to be the long way if they were in a spherical planet. Would their dragons fly in our physics? They cast steel in fires that couldn’t possibly be hot enough in our physics. There are innumerable examples to suggest their realm is quite unlike ours.
There’s simply no reason to assume Dothraki climate resembles ours.
Have you read the book or seen the show? GoT is not crazy anything goes fantasy. Weather in GoT follows clear patterns that also happen to be super important for plot.
It is also big on maps and accurate timing of how long it takes to get from place to place. There was even massive complaining when last seasons written by different people failed in that aspect.
There are inaccurate things beyond Dothraki, as described on both this blog and half the internet. But arguing about GoT as if it was Alice in Wonderland crazy fantasy is absurd.
Have read all the books to date and seen the show. There are dragons in it. There is magic in it. There are mystical people and what appears to be spirits and ghosts and witches.
People get badly wounded and yet no one dies of a bacterial infection. There are buildings constructed in ways that our physics wouldn’t support with the assumed materials and tolerances of the assumed period.
There are undead - in fact they are introduced in the prologue of the first book. There is a massive ice wall made by humans in an area that is, as described in the books in permanent winter but yet inhabited by people. And giants. And a few days ride to places that have warm summers. And oh yeah, the seasons last years instead of months and are irregular and unpredictable in length.
But yes, the lands the fictional Dothraki people roamed in should be similar to our grasslands in terms of climate and appropriate garb.
I have read most of the books (a long time ago now) and I believe this happens at least twice. As well as that, there's a lot of talk about cleaning wounds too, even in field situations (typically with boiled wine - apparently similar to Hippocrates).
The reason to assume that Dothraki climate resembles that of Earth steppe peoples is, as quoted in the essay, because Martin claimed to have based the Dothraki on them. Those Steppe peoples have adapted their clothing and cultures to the climate they live within. If the Dothraki are supposed to resemble these people culturally then their clothing should reflect the climate of Earth's steppe peoples.
On earth of course. But in the fantasy world of GoT, how can we know? The books describe many natural things that are different. For instance, seasons last years instead of months.
> the very fact that they tend to move around limits how much they can own and carry with them
This is why they used horses/animals to carry their stuff (at least on the Eurasian steppe). If you can carry huge tents with floors risen from the ground etc you can carry some clothes if you want. Just check some pictures of the various tents and how they are constructed. Yes they are portable but by no means small or lightweight.
And as pointed out in the article they wanted really nice clothing as you have to layer and add/remove the layers during the seasons (and even night vs day)
> living far inland, it is harder to reach them using ships
And yet the precursor to the Silk Road (Steppe route) went straight through the Eurasian steppe. Around 10000km of it. That most likely gave them a better access to trade than the average European inland city had.
And even once the Silk Road replaced the Steppe route for the most part the actual horses used to transport stuff on the Silk Road came from the Eurasian Steppe. And the horse nomads on the steppe had horses to trade and the traders on the Silk Road had stuff they wanted in exchange.
Also the steppe nomads did not go around conquering huge amounts of area (see the Mongols and Huns for examples) just because they liked to kill and murder. They did it for mainly the same reason most other large empires did. They wanted the nice stuff (good food, nice clothing, gold/silver, art, etc)
> I wonder where the stereotype of scantily-clad leather-fetish armor for barbarians actually comes from, given its extreme prevalence in modern culture and complete absence in actual historical cultures.
I think it developed roughly like this: it probably somehow is rooted the "othering" that is fundamental to the "scientific" racism that was used to justify slavery and colonialism[0]. Leathers, furs and plain nakedness would fit there as a convenient stereotype of primitive cultures, compared to woven cloth which implies the use of technology and being refined. That gives us the (inaccurate) rough leathers vs woven colorful clothes contrast, representing primitive savages vs sophisticated civilizations.
Caveat: that is the most speculative part - I might be projecting modern stereotypes to a time before they were established, but it sounds like a sensible starting point to me.
If that holds up, then after that stereotype is established we enter Romanticism. People longing back to imagined pre-industrial times when things were pure and good (note that thanks to Tolkien this is also deeply, deeply embedded into the DNA of fantasy - Sauron and his orcs represented industrialism). We get the stereotype of the noble savage[1], which endured all the way to a fairly recent movie about giant blue natives on other planets[2] (not to be confused with that other movie about savage planets and blue giants[3], but anyway).
This was and still is hugely problematic, btw. Even if you don't include the anti-industrial vibes, you still have the glorification of a mythological collective past. That was a big part of 19th century propaganda used to sell the idea of nation states to people who historically did not belong together at all. Same with justifying the use of military force to unite people into one country. You can probably guess where that ended up. Spoiler: Godwin's law applies - which I think also makes it clear why it's Tolkien's depiction of "Sauron = industrialization = bad, Elves = nature = good" is not quite so simplistic and easy to reject either, since the theme also is a reaction to WWI and WWII.
Anyway, this is probably also where revealing skin really started becoming a thing: nakedness has a long history of implying innocence in art, and as a contrast also emphasizes vulnerability being violated by civilization. So suddenly being simple, barely clothed and primitive is "good".
And then we get to what everyone else has pointed out: pulp stories and sexy fantasy.
I wonder about the practicality of metal and leather heavy costumes of the Amazonians in Wonder Women as well. It's just made to make them look attractive more than realistic.
In case you're unaware, Wonder Woman came out of Marston's repressed S&M fantasies and belief in feminine superiority. The costumes and weapons (a lasso/rope...) reflect that specifically.
I wouldn’t say _complete_ absence. Greek Hoplites are thought to have fought semi-nude with e.g. linen or leather cuirasses, and were depicted as fighting fully nude in the art of their day.
They had helmets and armor. Their style of warfare involved tight formation with massive shield that worked as long as they were in formation with that massive shield.
It's pretty common on old pulp sci-fi, like Edgar Rice Burroughs. (The Skylark books have a surprisingly large amount of nudity, as well.) The characters in Princess of Mars are basically naked, except for leather harnesses to carry weapons. It's plausible that ERB was drawing on pre-existing notions about Native Americans, though the commercial appeal of sexy nude aliens is perhaps clear.
I think it’s a fetish and a quickly readable way to indicate raw and unbridled strength. They are so strong and quick they don’t need armor, realistic weaponry or anything else, they’ll kill you anyway. I think it’s also supposed to indicate an inferior culture stemming from the more puritanical cultures of the western world. The west knows enough to cover themselves and use proper armor, the barbarians don’t. The barbarians are feared and mocked because of this in most media I’ve seen.
We don't actually know that. We know more or less what pigments were used but not how artistically it was applied. The gaudy reconstructions are made by scientists, nor artists. Not many paintings have survived from antiquity, but the ones we have does not strike me as gaudy.
> One point to call out that the author doesn't emphasize is that steppe cultures (both in North America and Eurasia) were integral parts of vast trading networks.
I expect that this will pop up in the next blogposts of this series...
In the Frank Frazetta documentary, it was pointed out that the original Conan book covers were done in a Greek/Roman style, but then sold much better with Frazetta's leather loving barbarians on the front.
Visiting a monastery in Italy I have seen the painting of Alaric burning Rome commissioned by Pope. The Goths were depicted more or less as barbarians in Hollywood movie.
Historic Alaric the Goth was born in Dacia (former Roman province abandoned already at the time), he spoke fluent Latin, was a Christian (however Arian so heretic for Pope) and before burning Rome had a career in Roman Army.
The book Alaric the Goth [1] by Douglas Boin published this year is quite interesting if little thin on historical facts.
Fun fact I have learned from the book - to keep its cultural cohesion late Roman Empire at one point banned trousers and shoes as barbarian and non-Roman. And look at European streets today.
> Though Boin doesn’t advance an explicit argument, a preoccupation lurks within his language. “Alaric’s actions,” he writes at one point, “forced a difficult, long-overdue conversation about acceptance, belonging, and the rights of immigrant communities.” That’s a very 21st-century formulation. Was there a Ravenna Ideas Festival? The collective term he uses for Goths, Vandals, Huns, and other groups is always “immigrants.” In his pages we encounter “border patrol,” “border separation,” “gated communities,” and “cultural warriors.” He refers to the Danube River as a “fence.” He describes a “new combustible mix of xenophobia and cultural supremacy” that encouraged public figures to work “populism and nationalism into their applause lines.” Alaric the Goth is not a polemic. [1]
> to keep its cultural cohesion late Roman Empire at one point banned trousers and shoes as barbarian and non-Roman
Shoes? Really?
I know that trousers were seen (by both Greeks and Romans) as being barbarian, but the Romans definitely wore shoes. The most famous sort were the caligae, hobnailed sandals worn by legionaries- the pair worn by the young Gaius Caesar, son of Germanicus Julius Caesar, as part of his miniature military uniform gave him his better-known nickname of Caligula.
> further legislation forbid residents of Rome from wearing two items of clothing, tzangae and bracchae, which sounded as strange in Latin as they looked foreign on people strolling the city's streets of volcanic cobblestones: "boots" and "pants"..
> I wonder where the stereotype of scantily-clad leather-fetish armor for barbarians actually comes from
Hollywood and media. Most modern stereotypes around the world are created by hollywood and the media. Whether it is of the cowboy/indians, soviets, north koreans, french, the south, etc.
As for why they are scantily-clad, probably because we associated clothing with wealth/civilization?
I don't see realistic clothing working well for this sort of TV show. Suppose a male lead wore a wig, fine silken cloths, and high heels. That's certainly something you may once have seen in Europe, but I'd assume it would come across as clownish rather than elegant.
There's also some real danger of appearing to parody some culture, particularly with the Dothraki. You're probably safest staying well in the realm of fantasy.
I think the issue is also with Martin's statement that "The Dothraki were actually fashioned as an amalgam of a number of steppe and plains cultures". By that statement, the comparison to other real-world cultures was already baked in the Dothraki.
Conan was always railing against the softening effects of effete civilization in a way that I always envied, but found impractical: if I were to backhand an annoying, scheming cleric, for instance, I would not be able to shrug off the consequences as Conan could.
There seems to me a bit of motte and bailey going on with this essay.
The motte, unobjectionable part is that such representations are historically inaccurate, people may develop an inaccurate understanding of history and since "it is a collection of unmitigated pedantry, after all" let's dig deep and nit-pick all the details. Great!
The bailey, less demonstrated part is that the Dothraki is a problematic, demeaning, poorly researched, badly written stereotype that deserves nothing but scorn. "We’re not here to ‘cancel’ ASOIF..." but let's write a 3 part series wherein it "is going to become increasingly apparent that at least effective research was not done" where he will "... treat Martin’s words much more charitably than they probably deserve"
The essay author makes a big deal out of this off-hand comment on GRRM's blog: "The Dothraki were actually fashioned as an amalgam of a number of steppe and plains cultures... Mongols and Huns, certainly, but also Alans, Sioux, Cheyenne, and various other Amerindian tribes... seasoned with a dash of pure fantasy."
But the actual quote on his blog goes on, which contradicts the central thesis of the article:
"... So any resemblance to Arabs or Turks is coincidental. Well, except to the extent that the Turks were also originally horsemen of the steppes, not unlike the Alans, Huns, and the rest.
In general, though, while I do draw inspiration from history, I try to avoid direct one-for-one transplants, whether of individuals or of entire cultures. Just as it not correct to say that Robert was Henry VIII or Edward IV, it would not be correct to say that the Dothraki are Mongols."[1]
Why is "motte, less demonstrated" that they are poorly researched badly written stereotype? At least when it comes to clothing, the blog author does indeed demonstrate that.
> We’re not here to ‘cancel’ ASOIF..." but let's write a 3 part series wherein it "is going to become increasingly apparent that at least effective research was not done" where he will "... treat Martin’s words much more charitably than they probably deserve"
There is no contradiction in two. It is completely absolutely valid to criticize research and clearly comment on the whole "nomad cultures are nothing like this" aspect of GoT as a super popular fiction - whose fans indeed do claim "it was like that".
"Cancelling" refers to censorship. You cant cry censorship just because someone politely criticized something. However, writing 3 part series on something being inaccurate or even completely shitty (which author did not done) is not cancelling.
Also, author criticized other aspects of GoT a lot previously - notably Jamie military activities. It is not just about Dothraki.
The author is expressing an opinion using cherry-picked details: an excerpt from an offhand LiveJournal comment and 2 sparse descriptions from the book. That plus loads of speculation presented as fact. "The Dothraki were based on demeaning stereotypes as evidenced by their clothing choices" is unconvincing
Historically inaccurate: sure. Granted. Motte.
Demeaning stereotype: Let's take an offhand comment, load it with unsupported meaning, link it with Historical Inaccuracy, call it demeaning. Boom. Bailey.
Edit: responding to your edits
> * "nomad cultures are nothing like this" *
He cherry-picked ways that the Dothraki are different from horse-riding, raiding cultures and labeled this demeaning. Did he talk about ways that Dothraki culture is similar to horse-riding, raiding cultures? No, he did not. It's All Wrong and Bad
> * Cancelling" refers to censorship. You cant cry censorship ... *
You literally just redefined a word that I used and argued against this new, less defensible, dumb position. Don't do that.
> * Also, author criticized other aspects of GoT a lot previously ... *
Not sure what that has to do with this article being a motte and bailey. I'm sure his other articles are marvelous.
The author spent significant time explaining why they chose to address that livejournal excerpt, and the context in which they were addressing it. They did not present speculation as fact, they presented facts (historical information, photographs, and quotes from the material) and suggested an interpretation of those facts.
Reducing a culture to a single point of reference should self-evidently be a demeaning stereotype. If you need more evidence, I'll point out that in the specific case of making the defining characteristic being bad-ass warriors, that implies that when the bad-ass warriors get their asses kicked (by modern militaries), you are implying that they no longer have any redeeming qualities worth caring about.
This is not logical. These characters are fictional, and they have been vaguely identified with roughly a third of the premodern cultures I've ever heard of. Emphasizing their prowess in war and also illustrating them facing difficulties in war is just a trope. "The Worf Effect", to be precise. [0] It doesn't say anything about the Huns or the Turks or the Sioux or anyone.
Even telling a story about the actual Huns and how they were great at war but also they lost some wars wouldn't be demeaning. You might not have heard, but war is generally horrible for everyone involved.
> Reducing a culture to a single point of reference should self-evidently be a demeaning stereotype.
Let's grant that premise! You are correct!
What does that have to do with the Dothraki, a fictional nation?
Remember, the bailey is "The Dothraki is a demeaning stereotype"
The motte is
"The Dothraki is historically inaccurate." or "The Sioux have endured demeaning stereotypes." These are both true and uncontroversial.
The essayist even seems to take umbrage that the Dothraki armor looks nothing like Sioux buckskin! Would he take umbrage if they looked alike? You betcha he would.
The truth is, GRRM's throwaway comment notwithstanding, the Dothraki serve an analogous role to ASOIF narrative as the Huns, Vikings, Kazakhs, Barbary pirates and Mongol raiders did to European history. Are you and the essayist seriously arguing that these ancient peoples are somehow demeaned by the freaking Dothraki?
> The essayist even seems to take umbrage that the Dothraki armor looks nothing like Sioux buckskin! Would he take umbrage if they looked alike? You betcha he would.
Most historians, and enthusiasts of history like myself, would not take umbrage; instead, they would effuse praise for bucking stereotype and actually doing their research into how these cultures would have dressed. I'll point out that the author actually has a lot of praise for CK3 for getting its history details right.
> The truth is, GRRM's throwaway comment notwithstanding, the Dothraki serve an analogous role to ASOIF narrative as the Huns, Vikings, Kazakhs, Barbary pirates and Mongol raiders did to European history. Are you and the essayist seriously arguing that these ancient peoples are somehow demeaned by the freaking Dothraki?
I think your first sentence is unwitting justification of the second sentence. Your understanding of the aforementioned cultures [1] appears to be limited to their raiding effects on "civilized" societies, ignoring other aspects of their society as at best uninteresting and at worst nonexistent. That steppe cultures are reduced in popular history to such a degree is perhaps understandable, but if you're taking a position of trying to assert historical accuracy, perpetuating popular history myths is pretty tasteless.
[1] Although interesting that you chose to qualify only Barbary and Mongol with pirates and raiders, leaving no qualification for the Huns, Vikings, and Kazakhs. Am I to take away that you believe that the Huns, Vikings, and Kazakhs consist solely of entities predating on settled societies, and that you believe that the Berbers and Mongols had richer cultures with only a subset of these people consisting of such entities? Or should I infer that you are listing known predatory groups, and know the "Barbary pirates" only by that name and not their culture grouping (admittedly, this makes "Mongol raiders" harder to explain)?
If you project wild surmise and lofty architectures of tenuous illogical connection onto the smallest throwaway detail like the essayist does, then by all means.
I really wish you people would focus. The bailey is GRRM causes harm by creating the Dothraki, a demeaning stereotype. That is the entire point of the thread. All the rest is distraction, intended or not.
I would love to hear how the Dothraki are inaccurate. That with a heaping stinky dollop of "GRRM creates demeaning stereotypes because I say so" is no go.
And with that, my interlocutors, I'm signing off. Feel free to have the last word. I'll read it, but likely won't respond.
> The bailey is GRRM causes harm by creating the Dothraki, a demeaning stereotype.
And asserting that it is historically accurate, or at least more historically accurate than typical fictional portrayals. That is one of the key issues Devereaux has here.
> The author is expressing an opinion using cherry-picked details: an excerpt from an offhand LiveJournal comment and 2 sparse descriptions from the book. That plus loads of speculation presented as fact.
Can you please point to pages where opposite things are stated? If it is cherry picked, surely you can quote.
> "The Dothraki were based on demeaning stereotypes as evidenced by their clothing choices" is unconvincing
This article is about clothing. Next installment will be about culture.
> Did he talk about ways that Dothraki culture is similar to horse-riding, raiding cultures? No, he did not. It's All Wrong and Bad
Are there way in which they are similar? It is cherry picking only if you ignore opposing evidence. I am sure you can provide some?
> You literally just redefined a word that I used and argued against this new, less defensible, dumb position. Don't do that.
I literally did not. Cancelling is literally used in that context and is supposed to be bad.
... and you doubled down. Cancelling is cancelling, a new, vaguely defined phenomena some people even deny exists but is a word the essay itself uses. Censorship is censorship, well-defined, milleniae old and nowhere near what I said. You can continue to argue this peripheral, distracting semantic point if you want but there's nothing more for me to say on this.
> It is cherry picking only if you ignore opposing evidence. I am sure you can provide some?
Given that there is nothing in the essay that acknowledges any similarity, I can point to that per se as demonstration of cherry-picking, since the Mongols, Turks, Huns, Alans were all horse-riding cultures that lived on extensive, flat land who were known to conduct raids on settled peoples, like the Dothraki. There. Met your ask.
> e Mongols, Turks, Huns, Alans were all horse-riding cultures that lived on extensive, flat land who were known to conduct raids on settled peoples, like the Dothraki. There. Met your ask.
But ... they did not wore the cloth similar to Dothraki. Their culture had the word for "thank you". Elite used colors and comfortable clothing. Their military tactic was much different, much more smarter and much more organized. They did not charged unorganized on horses in disordered formation either.
The argument is not that horse-riding cultures on flat land who conduct raids don't exist. Argument is that those cultures are nothing like Dothraki, because if they would, they would die quick. Mongols, Turks, Huns, Alans were not Dothraki at all.
> Cancelling is cancelling, a new, vaguely defined phenomena some people even deny exists but is a word the essay itself uses. Censorship is censorship, well-defined, milleniae old and nowhere near what I said.
Cancelling is just a new word for non state censorhip. That is just how it is used pretty much everywhere.
> But ... they did not wore the cloth similar to Dothraki.
Your ask was how and whether Dothraki and these historical cultures were similar. My response was that they are all horse-riding cultures that live on plains/steppes and raid settled peoples. Further, I submit that this lack of acknowledgement of this fact on the author's part defacto demonstrates cherry-picking. Your response could be that you disagree that this is evidence of cherry-picking, but instead you... recap the article.
All this is beside the point. I acknowledge that the Dothraki are not historically accurate. That is the motte. The bailey is that the Dothraki are demeaning stereotypes. That is my original point against which you argue. I grant the motte. It's the bailey that has yet to be demonstrated.
No, actually extending the quote makes Martin's position worse. Instead of just generally "steppe peoples" he is making a more specific claim that the Dothraki resemble Mongols, Huns and Amerindians but not peoples like the Turks who were (and are e.g. Turkmenistan) also steppe peoples. By extending the quote you establish only that Martin believes the Dothraki are drawn from a few specific Earth cultures
The motte and bailey distinction is a fun way to characterise an argument (even if you did get them mixed up initially :p) but I don't think you can be as sure as you are in it. I'll limit this discussion to the article so I'll just discuss clothing. So, your question becomes; has the essay failed to establish a link between this inaccuracy and it being harmful to how people perceive the cultures martin claims to be relying on?
I think that it has. In the discussion of buckskins and linens the articles author is establishing that these groups tried to wear clothes which were comfortable, practical and beautiful. In a word, they were human. The Dothraki by contrast are dressed like an'80s fantasy novel cover. Their clothes (in book and tv) are the clothes of inhuman people. They do not express human priorities. By depicting the Dothraki in this way, while making the claim that they are based off of real world cultures, Martin is essentially dehumanizing these specific peoples by implicitly arguing that their style of dress is less human.
I'm really unsure how you can accept that the representation is historically inaccurate and encourages people to have an inaccurate view of history but then try and deny that a poor understanding of history is a problem.
"...these specific peoples by implicitly arguing that their style of dress is less human"
This is an opinion presented as fact. The Dothraki looked cool to me. They wanted to look terrifying.
"encourages people to have an inaccurate view of history"
Here is where the motte of "the Dothraki are historically inaccurate" moves into the bailey of "GRRM does harm!" You can make that same argument of every single fantasy novel that draws from history, which is to say, of every good fantasy novel.
"...Dothraki resemble Mongols, Huns and Amerindians but not peoples like the Turks who were (and are e.g. Turkmenistan) also steppe peoples."
Clever argument, but it doesn't wash
Europe suffered raids, invasions and displacement from horse-riding steppe peoples for millenia. That's what the Dothraki, a fictional nation, represent to the narrative of the story: the instability and existential threat this represents. The essayist can quibble that the actual raiders wore colorful comfortable clothes, but to argue that therefore the Dothraki is a demeaning stereotype is not reasonably defensible, and so he leans very heavily on an offhand quote and the observation that Dothraki armor look nothing like Sioux buckskin. It's absurd.
"This is an opinion presented as fact. The Dothraki looked cool to me."
The point I was trying to make is that the Dothraki aren't dressed like any human culture would dress. Therefore, the practices and culture which go into dress are equally underdeveloped in the Dothraki. In comparison to the Westerosi fashion and garments which are much more complex (a point made in the article) that their clothing is represented as more simple is also making an argument that their cultures, and by extension the cultures they're based on, are more simple than those of Westeros, and the cultures that is based on.
"You can make that same argument of every single fantasy novel that draws from history"
Exactly, you can and should. Because fantasy, while a genre I enjoy, produces a very warped view of history.
"Europe suffered raids, invasions and displacement from horse-riding steppe peoples for millenia."
All that displacement Europeans suffered from Amerindians. Regardless, I accept the point you're making regarding where the Dothraki are placed in the story but I would ask why that means that complexity should be denied them. Particularly since so much of Danaerys' story is about becoming a part of that culture.
"but to argue that therefore the Dothraki is a demeaning stereotype is not reasonably defensible"
It is reasonable to say that, restricting ourselves as this particular article does to clothing, that the Dothraki are a demeaning stereotype about clothing/fashion/how these cultures dress. Don't forget this is the first part of a series of posts and I think the specific claim made regarding clothing is perfectly defensible based on the evidence prvodied.
"offhand quote"
You've repeated this a lot but this is a view which Martin expressed and I don't see why you have a problem with comparing this stated intent to the actual work he produced.
"the observation that Dothraki armor look nothing like Sioux buckskin."
The point which the essayist reinforced with the example of buckskin was that these people wear decorated, comfortable clothes and steppe people are no exception. People don't dress like the dothraki. The buckskin is an example which illustrates the problem - the Dothraki don't dress like a human culture while Martin claims that they are based on particular historical cultures. Thereby, unfortunately, Martin has asserted in this case that those cultures were in some way less than human.
There is harm done to no one. The Dothraki demean no one. An opinion that their clothes are unlikely, were it even demonstrated to be true, is not an argument. Historical inaccuracy, in a fantasy novel, is not an argument. "The Dothraki are a cruel mockery of the Sioux" would be an argument if that were the argument, but it's not. "The Dothraki is a demeaning stereotype of the ancient Mongols" is absurd. "Let us examine the ways that the Dothraki are like, and unlike, the historical peoples who raided Europe and caused political disruption" would be interesting and worth following. "Let us examine that and the ways the Dothraki's historical inaccuracies cause vague demeaning harm to... someone" is insufferable.
I can't state my objection to the piece more clearly. If you find it unconvincing, let's just politely agree to disagree and move on.
But Europe suffered raids not from someone like Dothraki. When you are forcing them on real history, you kind of prove there is harm.
The raids were real, but groups who performed them were behaving differently then Dothraki. They wore different cloth. They had different military tactic (notably smarter more coordinated one). They were actually organized and had much more complex internal culture.
They did raids, but were not Dotgraki. Had people did not claimed Dothraki are like those who did raids in reality, there would be no harm.
The author goes out of their way to suggest fans of GoT are uninformed/gullible by believing the story is their best source of medieval culture (its fiction - who thinks there is any historic reality? There’s dragons and magic in it.) and that critique of their critique is childish (the grownups can read on....) - not a great way to start. I mean, is it reasonable to assume anyone who thinks GoT is in any way based in historic reality is even going to read the blog?
Then the blog goes into wild assumptions about the fictional lands climate and assumes the land the Dothraki roamed should somehow be similar in climate to Kings Landing and uses this to critique not only their clothing but the broader Freman myth that the ideal tough man can withstand harsh conditions like cold while being scantly clad in leather. Again, we know next to nothing about the climate they lived in or the planet they are on if it is even a planet like ours. Because it’s fantasy fiction. We can only assume the Dothraki know what clothing is best for them.
The article continues with the same pattern - assume people are misinformed and that they think GoT is based on historic realities and that GoT is responsible for continuing to push these false stereotypes.
So if the point here is that GoT is not anywhere near historically accurate then to that I say: it’s fantasy. It has dragons and magic. It’s not based in our reality or history even if inspired by it. They don’t even respect our physics in the way they make swords (the fires they make could never be hot enough to cast with) so how can we assume nearly anything else?
Yes, Martin claimed the Dothraki were based on his understanding of certain historic cultures and sure maybe his understanding is uninformed. But we don’t know specifically which parts informed his creation of the Dothraki and it’s a bit silly to pick the things you want to assume and pick that assumption apart.
Nothing angers me about examining it. It’s just a very poor examination. It makes all types of assumptions about climate in a land where the seasons lasted years and were unpredictable in their length.
We don’t know which parts Martin was inspired by. To
make broad assumptions while ignoring facts like the mysterious ways seasonality worked in this fantasy land makes for an incoherent and nonsensical critique of Dothraki garb.
At no point does Martin even use any earthly culture as exposition.
I read a 9th century book by an Arab trader visiting the Vikings (Ibn Fadlan). Based on his descriptions of the Vikings, their culture and sexual mores were very similar to that of the Dothraki in GoT.
105 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 140 ms ] threadIt seems to me in this day and age they could look at the 5 episodes with terrible IMDB scores, remaster them, and then ship it again, and everyone would forgive them and the show would make billions more because people could recommend it again.
I don’t understand from a business point of view why they are letting such a gold mine just collapse.
It’s not like JRRM doesn’t have the issue of putting in too many strings that don’t pan out, at this point the books are almost too complex to actually finish.
PS I think the “stars” were more responsible for killing their own careers than the show..:
Kit Harrington, Emilia Clarke, Peter Dinklage, Lena Headey, Sophie Turner, Maisie Williams, Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, Iain Glen, ... whose not?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjK0UVBjl-Q
GoT as a franchise is now big enough to kick off other productions even with all the controversy around the final season or from insert season here.
The outcome of the Targaryen prequel or w/e they working on won’t change if they reshoot the “bad” seasons of GoT.
So if they are gonna invest $100M into the franchise they might as well invest in new material.
Because the actors that matter aren't available any more, and neither are the sets, and COVID would complicate production, and because you grossly over estimate the value it would have even if none of that were a problem. It's done, the world has moved on. If there is more money to be made on the franchise, the ROI is going to be in other series based on the property (of which they have one in development), not tweaking the old one.
GoT is exactly what D&D envisioned. The fans didn’t like it, but it’s their vision, and they DGAF what anyone else thinks. We might not like that outcome as viewers, but should respect the artistry all the same.
PS: the cast of justice league didn’t dedicate 8 years of their life to making that film like the cast of GoT did. They’re understandably done and moving forward, not looking back.
Well, (1) the source is one feature film, not five, some feature-length, episodes of a TV series, (2) the main actors involved were available for reshoots, etc., because they are under contract for a multifilm franchise, (3) redeeming Justice League is more central to marketing further DC universe contebt than redeeming the last season of GoT is for marketing a prequel series with a different creative team, since the expected linkages are closer between the content, (4) it's also a reconfiguration from feature film to multi-episode mini-series, so it's optimizing for a different consumption format as well as “fixing” issues (in a hypothetical universe where external factors were driving business from serial streaming to theaters, reconfiguring the last season of GOT into a theatrical trilogy while fixing other issues along the way might make some sense.)
Atrocious writing, lack of consistency and inability to move plot where they want it to be in sensible way was the biggest issue. Especially in comparison with great writing of first series.
Remastering few dialogs wont fix anything.
Redoing the last seasons with better scripts would be enormously expensive, but would not generate the same hype so would not get a large audience.
Making a sequel show would be a much better RoI since it could at least create some hype again, even if the hype of the original show would be hard to top.
And yes I could totaly make Faferd being biraical Cannon.
Honestly, on a lockdown-enabled rewatch this year, I didn't think they were as bad as I remembered. I'm still frustrated with how far it goes downhill, some of the stories really don't finish well and the dialogue is just bad.
OTOH I did sit in the dark and re-watch the really dark episode with the brightness mangled a bit on an OLED ... and I caught a lot more of what actually happened this time round. That episode really needs remastering in HDR...
One point to call out that the author doesn't emphasize is that steppe cultures (both in North America and Eurasia) were integral parts of vast trading networks. One of the noted features of pre-Columbian North America [2] was the extent and speed with which trade goods moved all along it. So steppe cultures would absolutely have access to all the fine luxuries of the "civilized" world. Indeed, it should be noted that marrying off royalty to steppe elites was a common strategy for keeping steppe raiding at bay. This is fairly evident to anyone who does even a modicum of research on steppe peoples, or ancient people in general (people trade! all the time!), so the notion that steppe people are inherently austere is clearly the mark of someone who does not believe in research.
[1] e.g., colorless white Greco-Roman temples: all the paint faded away, leaving the underlying white stone. When the Renaissance kicks off a shift in Greco-Roman historiography to putting them at the pinnacle of human civilization, the extant white ruins were taken as reflective of what they actually looked liked and became the archetypes of modern attempts to re-summit civilization's pinnacle.
[2] Although it should be noted that the steppe cultures of the US--such as the Cheyenne, Apache, Sioux--don't exist in their modern form before the introduction of the horse around about the 18th century, with the Siouan peoples not even living on the plains until pushed out there during migrations in the 17th century.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45-8eZViYOE
So where did that idea of caveman dress come from?
Ötzi, from ~3000 BC, was much more smartly dressed, although he did live somewhere a bit cold for just a squirrel-skin posing pouch:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi#/media/File:Archeopa...
They are not inherently austere, but the very fact that they tend to move around limits how much they can own and carry with them. Plus, by living far inland, it is harder to reach them using ships, which were by far the most efficient transport means until the advent of railways.
Until railways, wealth made by long distance trade tended to concentrate in major seaports or in cities on important rivers that could be easily supplied by water (Vienna, Paris, Prague).
Cause the thesis is exactly the opposite. The limited space just reinforces the need for single clothing to be good against both cold and warm weather. It does not remove the political need to flaunt wealth by elite either.
Edit: thesis is supported by photos and descriptions of real world stepped people.
> plains and steppes – that is large expanses of semi-arid grasslands. The very nature of that terrain configuration produces fairly extreme seasonal temperature variations (that is, very hot summers and very cold winters) as well as extreme daily temperature variations (that is, hot days and cold nights) because such places are far from the large bodies of water and also don’t have tree-cover, both of which serve to moderate rapid temperature changes. [...] There’s no reason to suppose the Dothraki Sea would be any different: it sits at about the same latitude as King’s Landing so there is little reason to assume it would be warm all-year-round.
There are more reasons then just weather patterns estimated based on location and terrain for cloth to be less practical tho.
The same blog applies the same pedantry to clothing of other groups and to military aspects of different groups too. It is not like Dothraki were singled out in a blog that otherwise ignores clothing and practicality.
There’s simply no reason to assume Dothraki climate resembles ours.
It is also big on maps and accurate timing of how long it takes to get from place to place. There was even massive complaining when last seasons written by different people failed in that aspect.
There are inaccurate things beyond Dothraki, as described on both this blog and half the internet. But arguing about GoT as if it was Alice in Wonderland crazy fantasy is absurd.
People get badly wounded and yet no one dies of a bacterial infection. There are buildings constructed in ways that our physics wouldn’t support with the assumed materials and tolerances of the assumed period.
There are undead - in fact they are introduced in the prologue of the first book. There is a massive ice wall made by humans in an area that is, as described in the books in permanent winter but yet inhabited by people. And giants. And a few days ride to places that have warm summers. And oh yeah, the seasons last years instead of months and are irregular and unpredictable in length.
But yes, the lands the fictional Dothraki people roamed in should be similar to our grasslands in terms of climate and appropriate garb.
I have read most of the books (a long time ago now) and I believe this happens at least twice. As well as that, there's a lot of talk about cleaning wounds too, even in field situations (typically with boiled wine - apparently similar to Hippocrates).
That's not because of fantasy elements; it's because the author didn't do his research, and instead just went with what he'd seen in countless movies.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperate_grasslands,_savannas...
This is why they used horses/animals to carry their stuff (at least on the Eurasian steppe). If you can carry huge tents with floors risen from the ground etc you can carry some clothes if you want. Just check some pictures of the various tents and how they are constructed. Yes they are portable but by no means small or lightweight.
And as pointed out in the article they wanted really nice clothing as you have to layer and add/remove the layers during the seasons (and even night vs day)
> living far inland, it is harder to reach them using ships
And yet the precursor to the Silk Road (Steppe route) went straight through the Eurasian steppe. Around 10000km of it. That most likely gave them a better access to trade than the average European inland city had.
And even once the Silk Road replaced the Steppe route for the most part the actual horses used to transport stuff on the Silk Road came from the Eurasian Steppe. And the horse nomads on the steppe had horses to trade and the traders on the Silk Road had stuff they wanted in exchange.
Also the steppe nomads did not go around conquering huge amounts of area (see the Mongols and Huns for examples) just because they liked to kill and murder. They did it for mainly the same reason most other large empires did. They wanted the nice stuff (good food, nice clothing, gold/silver, art, etc)
I think it developed roughly like this: it probably somehow is rooted the "othering" that is fundamental to the "scientific" racism that was used to justify slavery and colonialism[0]. Leathers, furs and plain nakedness would fit there as a convenient stereotype of primitive cultures, compared to woven cloth which implies the use of technology and being refined. That gives us the (inaccurate) rough leathers vs woven colorful clothes contrast, representing primitive savages vs sophisticated civilizations.
Caveat: that is the most speculative part - I might be projecting modern stereotypes to a time before they were established, but it sounds like a sensible starting point to me.
If that holds up, then after that stereotype is established we enter Romanticism. People longing back to imagined pre-industrial times when things were pure and good (note that thanks to Tolkien this is also deeply, deeply embedded into the DNA of fantasy - Sauron and his orcs represented industrialism). We get the stereotype of the noble savage[1], which endured all the way to a fairly recent movie about giant blue natives on other planets[2] (not to be confused with that other movie about savage planets and blue giants[3], but anyway).
This was and still is hugely problematic, btw. Even if you don't include the anti-industrial vibes, you still have the glorification of a mythological collective past. That was a big part of 19th century propaganda used to sell the idea of nation states to people who historically did not belong together at all. Same with justifying the use of military force to unite people into one country. You can probably guess where that ended up. Spoiler: Godwin's law applies - which I think also makes it clear why it's Tolkien's depiction of "Sauron = industrialization = bad, Elves = nature = good" is not quite so simplistic and easy to reject either, since the theme also is a reaction to WWI and WWII.
Anyway, this is probably also where revealing skin really started becoming a thing: nakedness has a long history of implying innocence in art, and as a contrast also emphasizes vulnerability being violated by civilization. So suddenly being simple, barely clothed and primitive is "good".
And then we get to what everyone else has pointed out: pulp stories and sexy fantasy.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar_(2009_film)
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Planet
https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/10260/is-it-true...
Wait, I get that the statues and the bas-reliefs were painted, but were the columns too ?
We don't actually know that. We know more or less what pigments were used but not how artistically it was applied. The gaudy reconstructions are made by scientists, nor artists. Not many paintings have survived from antiquity, but the ones we have does not strike me as gaudy.
I expect that this will pop up in the next blogposts of this series...
Historic Alaric the Goth was born in Dacia (former Roman province abandoned already at the time), he spoke fluent Latin, was a Christian (however Arian so heretic for Pope) and before burning Rome had a career in Roman Army.
The book Alaric the Goth [1] by Douglas Boin published this year is quite interesting if little thin on historical facts.
Fun fact I have learned from the book - to keep its cultural cohesion late Roman Empire at one point banned trousers and shoes as barbarian and non-Roman. And look at European streets today.
> Though Boin doesn’t advance an explicit argument, a preoccupation lurks within his language. “Alaric’s actions,” he writes at one point, “forced a difficult, long-overdue conversation about acceptance, belonging, and the rights of immigrant communities.” That’s a very 21st-century formulation. Was there a Ravenna Ideas Festival? The collective term he uses for Goths, Vandals, Huns, and other groups is always “immigrants.” In his pages we encounter “border patrol,” “border separation,” “gated communities,” and “cultural warriors.” He refers to the Danube River as a “fence.” He describes a “new combustible mix of xenophobia and cultural supremacy” that encouraged public figures to work “populism and nationalism into their applause lines.” Alaric the Goth is not a polemic. [1]
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/07/douglas...
Shoes? Really?
I know that trousers were seen (by both Greeks and Romans) as being barbarian, but the Romans definitely wore shoes. The most famous sort were the caligae, hobnailed sandals worn by legionaries- the pair worn by the young Gaius Caesar, son of Germanicus Julius Caesar, as part of his miniature military uniform gave him his better-known nickname of Caligula.
> further legislation forbid residents of Rome from wearing two items of clothing, tzangae and bracchae, which sounded as strange in Latin as they looked foreign on people strolling the city's streets of volcanic cobblestones: "boots" and "pants"..
Hollywood and media. Most modern stereotypes around the world are created by hollywood and the media. Whether it is of the cowboy/indians, soviets, north koreans, french, the south, etc.
As for why they are scantily-clad, probably because we associated clothing with wealth/civilization?
There's also some real danger of appearing to parody some culture, particularly with the Dothraki. You're probably safest staying well in the realm of fantasy.
That's fine, but then don't go claiming any sort of historical correctness. You can't have it both ways.
There seems to me a bit of motte and bailey going on with this essay.
The motte, unobjectionable part is that such representations are historically inaccurate, people may develop an inaccurate understanding of history and since "it is a collection of unmitigated pedantry, after all" let's dig deep and nit-pick all the details. Great!
The bailey, less demonstrated part is that the Dothraki is a problematic, demeaning, poorly researched, badly written stereotype that deserves nothing but scorn. "We’re not here to ‘cancel’ ASOIF..." but let's write a 3 part series wherein it "is going to become increasingly apparent that at least effective research was not done" where he will "... treat Martin’s words much more charitably than they probably deserve"
The essay author makes a big deal out of this off-hand comment on GRRM's blog: "The Dothraki were actually fashioned as an amalgam of a number of steppe and plains cultures... Mongols and Huns, certainly, but also Alans, Sioux, Cheyenne, and various other Amerindian tribes... seasoned with a dash of pure fantasy."
But the actual quote on his blog goes on, which contradicts the central thesis of the article:
"... So any resemblance to Arabs or Turks is coincidental. Well, except to the extent that the Turks were also originally horsemen of the steppes, not unlike the Alans, Huns, and the rest.
In general, though, while I do draw inspiration from history, I try to avoid direct one-for-one transplants, whether of individuals or of entire cultures. Just as it not correct to say that Robert was Henry VIII or Edward IV, it would not be correct to say that the Dothraki are Mongols."[1]
[1]: https://grrm.livejournal.com/263800.html?thread=15364984#t15...
Edit: switched motte and bailey
> We’re not here to ‘cancel’ ASOIF..." but let's write a 3 part series wherein it "is going to become increasingly apparent that at least effective research was not done" where he will "... treat Martin’s words much more charitably than they probably deserve"
There is no contradiction in two. It is completely absolutely valid to criticize research and clearly comment on the whole "nomad cultures are nothing like this" aspect of GoT as a super popular fiction - whose fans indeed do claim "it was like that".
"Cancelling" refers to censorship. You cant cry censorship just because someone politely criticized something. However, writing 3 part series on something being inaccurate or even completely shitty (which author did not done) is not cancelling.
Also, author criticized other aspects of GoT a lot previously - notably Jamie military activities. It is not just about Dothraki.
Historically inaccurate: sure. Granted. Motte.
Demeaning stereotype: Let's take an offhand comment, load it with unsupported meaning, link it with Historical Inaccuracy, call it demeaning. Boom. Bailey.
Edit: responding to your edits
> * "nomad cultures are nothing like this" *
He cherry-picked ways that the Dothraki are different from horse-riding, raiding cultures and labeled this demeaning. Did he talk about ways that Dothraki culture is similar to horse-riding, raiding cultures? No, he did not. It's All Wrong and Bad
> * Cancelling" refers to censorship. You cant cry censorship ... *
You literally just redefined a word that I used and argued against this new, less defensible, dumb position. Don't do that.
> * Also, author criticized other aspects of GoT a lot previously ... *
Not sure what that has to do with this article being a motte and bailey. I'm sure his other articles are marvelous.
Now defend that the historical inaccuracy is a demeaning stereotype.
Even telling a story about the actual Huns and how they were great at war but also they lost some wars wouldn't be demeaning. You might not have heard, but war is generally horrible for everyone involved.
[0] https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheWorfEffect
Let's grant that premise! You are correct!
What does that have to do with the Dothraki, a fictional nation?
Remember, the bailey is "The Dothraki is a demeaning stereotype"
The motte is "The Dothraki is historically inaccurate." or "The Sioux have endured demeaning stereotypes." These are both true and uncontroversial.
The essayist even seems to take umbrage that the Dothraki armor looks nothing like Sioux buckskin! Would he take umbrage if they looked alike? You betcha he would.
The truth is, GRRM's throwaway comment notwithstanding, the Dothraki serve an analogous role to ASOIF narrative as the Huns, Vikings, Kazakhs, Barbary pirates and Mongol raiders did to European history. Are you and the essayist seriously arguing that these ancient peoples are somehow demeaned by the freaking Dothraki?
Most historians, and enthusiasts of history like myself, would not take umbrage; instead, they would effuse praise for bucking stereotype and actually doing their research into how these cultures would have dressed. I'll point out that the author actually has a lot of praise for CK3 for getting its history details right.
> The truth is, GRRM's throwaway comment notwithstanding, the Dothraki serve an analogous role to ASOIF narrative as the Huns, Vikings, Kazakhs, Barbary pirates and Mongol raiders did to European history. Are you and the essayist seriously arguing that these ancient peoples are somehow demeaned by the freaking Dothraki?
I think your first sentence is unwitting justification of the second sentence. Your understanding of the aforementioned cultures [1] appears to be limited to their raiding effects on "civilized" societies, ignoring other aspects of their society as at best uninteresting and at worst nonexistent. That steppe cultures are reduced in popular history to such a degree is perhaps understandable, but if you're taking a position of trying to assert historical accuracy, perpetuating popular history myths is pretty tasteless.
[1] Although interesting that you chose to qualify only Barbary and Mongol with pirates and raiders, leaving no qualification for the Huns, Vikings, and Kazakhs. Am I to take away that you believe that the Huns, Vikings, and Kazakhs consist solely of entities predating on settled societies, and that you believe that the Berbers and Mongols had richer cultures with only a subset of these people consisting of such entities? Or should I infer that you are listing known predatory groups, and know the "Barbary pirates" only by that name and not their culture grouping (admittedly, this makes "Mongol raiders" harder to explain)?
If you project wild surmise and lofty architectures of tenuous illogical connection onto the smallest throwaway detail like the essayist does, then by all means.
I really wish you people would focus. The bailey is GRRM causes harm by creating the Dothraki, a demeaning stereotype. That is the entire point of the thread. All the rest is distraction, intended or not.
I would love to hear how the Dothraki are inaccurate. That with a heaping stinky dollop of "GRRM creates demeaning stereotypes because I say so" is no go.
And with that, my interlocutors, I'm signing off. Feel free to have the last word. I'll read it, but likely won't respond.
And asserting that it is historically accurate, or at least more historically accurate than typical fictional portrayals. That is one of the key issues Devereaux has here.
Can you please point to pages where opposite things are stated? If it is cherry picked, surely you can quote.
> "The Dothraki were based on demeaning stereotypes as evidenced by their clothing choices" is unconvincing
This article is about clothing. Next installment will be about culture.
> Did he talk about ways that Dothraki culture is similar to horse-riding, raiding cultures? No, he did not. It's All Wrong and Bad
Are there way in which they are similar? It is cherry picking only if you ignore opposing evidence. I am sure you can provide some?
> You literally just redefined a word that I used and argued against this new, less defensible, dumb position. Don't do that.
I literally did not. Cancelling is literally used in that context and is supposed to be bad.
... and you doubled down. Cancelling is cancelling, a new, vaguely defined phenomena some people even deny exists but is a word the essay itself uses. Censorship is censorship, well-defined, milleniae old and nowhere near what I said. You can continue to argue this peripheral, distracting semantic point if you want but there's nothing more for me to say on this.
> It is cherry picking only if you ignore opposing evidence. I am sure you can provide some?
Given that there is nothing in the essay that acknowledges any similarity, I can point to that per se as demonstration of cherry-picking, since the Mongols, Turks, Huns, Alans were all horse-riding cultures that lived on extensive, flat land who were known to conduct raids on settled peoples, like the Dothraki. There. Met your ask.
But ... they did not wore the cloth similar to Dothraki. Their culture had the word for "thank you". Elite used colors and comfortable clothing. Their military tactic was much different, much more smarter and much more organized. They did not charged unorganized on horses in disordered formation either.
The argument is not that horse-riding cultures on flat land who conduct raids don't exist. Argument is that those cultures are nothing like Dothraki, because if they would, they would die quick. Mongols, Turks, Huns, Alans were not Dothraki at all.
> Cancelling is cancelling, a new, vaguely defined phenomena some people even deny exists but is a word the essay itself uses. Censorship is censorship, well-defined, milleniae old and nowhere near what I said.
Cancelling is just a new word for non state censorhip. That is just how it is used pretty much everywhere.
Your ask was how and whether Dothraki and these historical cultures were similar. My response was that they are all horse-riding cultures that live on plains/steppes and raid settled peoples. Further, I submit that this lack of acknowledgement of this fact on the author's part defacto demonstrates cherry-picking. Your response could be that you disagree that this is evidence of cherry-picking, but instead you... recap the article.
All this is beside the point. I acknowledge that the Dothraki are not historically accurate. That is the motte. The bailey is that the Dothraki are demeaning stereotypes. That is my original point against which you argue. I grant the motte. It's the bailey that has yet to be demonstrated.
No, actually extending the quote makes Martin's position worse. Instead of just generally "steppe peoples" he is making a more specific claim that the Dothraki resemble Mongols, Huns and Amerindians but not peoples like the Turks who were (and are e.g. Turkmenistan) also steppe peoples. By extending the quote you establish only that Martin believes the Dothraki are drawn from a few specific Earth cultures
The motte and bailey distinction is a fun way to characterise an argument (even if you did get them mixed up initially :p) but I don't think you can be as sure as you are in it. I'll limit this discussion to the article so I'll just discuss clothing. So, your question becomes; has the essay failed to establish a link between this inaccuracy and it being harmful to how people perceive the cultures martin claims to be relying on?
I think that it has. In the discussion of buckskins and linens the articles author is establishing that these groups tried to wear clothes which were comfortable, practical and beautiful. In a word, they were human. The Dothraki by contrast are dressed like an'80s fantasy novel cover. Their clothes (in book and tv) are the clothes of inhuman people. They do not express human priorities. By depicting the Dothraki in this way, while making the claim that they are based off of real world cultures, Martin is essentially dehumanizing these specific peoples by implicitly arguing that their style of dress is less human.
I'm really unsure how you can accept that the representation is historically inaccurate and encourages people to have an inaccurate view of history but then try and deny that a poor understanding of history is a problem.
This is an opinion presented as fact. The Dothraki looked cool to me. They wanted to look terrifying.
"encourages people to have an inaccurate view of history"
Here is where the motte of "the Dothraki are historically inaccurate" moves into the bailey of "GRRM does harm!" You can make that same argument of every single fantasy novel that draws from history, which is to say, of every good fantasy novel.
"...Dothraki resemble Mongols, Huns and Amerindians but not peoples like the Turks who were (and are e.g. Turkmenistan) also steppe peoples."
Clever argument, but it doesn't wash
Europe suffered raids, invasions and displacement from horse-riding steppe peoples for millenia. That's what the Dothraki, a fictional nation, represent to the narrative of the story: the instability and existential threat this represents. The essayist can quibble that the actual raiders wore colorful comfortable clothes, but to argue that therefore the Dothraki is a demeaning stereotype is not reasonably defensible, and so he leans very heavily on an offhand quote and the observation that Dothraki armor look nothing like Sioux buckskin. It's absurd.
The point I was trying to make is that the Dothraki aren't dressed like any human culture would dress. Therefore, the practices and culture which go into dress are equally underdeveloped in the Dothraki. In comparison to the Westerosi fashion and garments which are much more complex (a point made in the article) that their clothing is represented as more simple is also making an argument that their cultures, and by extension the cultures they're based on, are more simple than those of Westeros, and the cultures that is based on.
"You can make that same argument of every single fantasy novel that draws from history"
Exactly, you can and should. Because fantasy, while a genre I enjoy, produces a very warped view of history.
"Europe suffered raids, invasions and displacement from horse-riding steppe peoples for millenia."
All that displacement Europeans suffered from Amerindians. Regardless, I accept the point you're making regarding where the Dothraki are placed in the story but I would ask why that means that complexity should be denied them. Particularly since so much of Danaerys' story is about becoming a part of that culture.
"but to argue that therefore the Dothraki is a demeaning stereotype is not reasonably defensible"
It is reasonable to say that, restricting ourselves as this particular article does to clothing, that the Dothraki are a demeaning stereotype about clothing/fashion/how these cultures dress. Don't forget this is the first part of a series of posts and I think the specific claim made regarding clothing is perfectly defensible based on the evidence prvodied.
"offhand quote"
You've repeated this a lot but this is a view which Martin expressed and I don't see why you have a problem with comparing this stated intent to the actual work he produced.
"the observation that Dothraki armor look nothing like Sioux buckskin."
The point which the essayist reinforced with the example of buckskin was that these people wear decorated, comfortable clothes and steppe people are no exception. People don't dress like the dothraki. The buckskin is an example which illustrates the problem - the Dothraki don't dress like a human culture while Martin claims that they are based on particular historical cultures. Thereby, unfortunately, Martin has asserted in this case that those cultures were in some way less than human.
I can't state my objection to the piece more clearly. If you find it unconvincing, let's just politely agree to disagree and move on.
The raids were real, but groups who performed them were behaving differently then Dothraki. They wore different cloth. They had different military tactic (notably smarter more coordinated one). They were actually organized and had much more complex internal culture.
They did raids, but were not Dotgraki. Had people did not claimed Dothraki are like those who did raids in reality, there would be no harm.
Then the blog goes into wild assumptions about the fictional lands climate and assumes the land the Dothraki roamed should somehow be similar in climate to Kings Landing and uses this to critique not only their clothing but the broader Freman myth that the ideal tough man can withstand harsh conditions like cold while being scantly clad in leather. Again, we know next to nothing about the climate they lived in or the planet they are on if it is even a planet like ours. Because it’s fantasy fiction. We can only assume the Dothraki know what clothing is best for them.
The article continues with the same pattern - assume people are misinformed and that they think GoT is based on historic realities and that GoT is responsible for continuing to push these false stereotypes.
So if the point here is that GoT is not anywhere near historically accurate then to that I say: it’s fantasy. It has dragons and magic. It’s not based in our reality or history even if inspired by it. They don’t even respect our physics in the way they make swords (the fires they make could never be hot enough to cast with) so how can we assume nearly anything else?
Yes, Martin claimed the Dothraki were based on his understanding of certain historic cultures and sure maybe his understanding is uninformed. But we don’t know specifically which parts informed his creation of the Dothraki and it’s a bit silly to pick the things you want to assume and pick that assumption apart.
Yes and this is the premise of the article. What angers you so much about examining this subject?
We don’t know which parts Martin was inspired by. To make broad assumptions while ignoring facts like the mysterious ways seasonality worked in this fantasy land makes for an incoherent and nonsensical critique of Dothraki garb.
At no point does Martin even use any earthly culture as exposition.
Interestingly, the books also debunk the Fremen mirage at several points. GRRM is quite keen on armour solving a lot of your problems in combat.