I have a tiny fraction of the historical expertise of the author, but it has always been clear to me that Martin's books were a sad amalgam of utter misconceptions and stereotypes: around politics, religion, love, family...
Which is fine! Except that it was marketed as "reality based", with "a dash of fantasy". It was irresponsible to say the least, and it's quite sad to see its effects.
The author raises an interesting point: how to overcome the hundreds of millions of dollars that back these false depictions, so that truth can have its fair chance of being heard and known?
Well. I am a writer and I always try to research as much as possible before delving into a topic.
BUT the temptation to just make things up as you write is really strong, especially if you concentrate on characters, where details will get in a way of the narration flow.
> The author raises an interesting point: how to overcome the hundreds of millions of dollars that back these false depictions, so that truth can have its fair chance of being heard and known?
I think that blogs like this, readable books about history written by historians of the period (as opposed to pop-sci-writers) are the real answer. Generally raising expectations on what adults say and write by arguing against ahistorical nonsense where possible.
I don't think it would be reasonable to force all the kids to learn details of past warfare or sustenance system. I did enjoyed the blogs a lot, but I am 100% sure I would not cared as 12 years old or 16 years old. Plus, there are more important things to learn about history, imo.
This being blog by someone who understands history about popular series confronting them with reality.
That would be a strong defence, but I believe GRRM disagrees with you. :)
> 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
That's a direct quote from Martin. It seems quite clear to me he's not talking about their personality. He has also, more generally, made many claims about historical accuracy particularly when it comes to patterns of violence, economics, and more. Somewhat famously, he criticised Tolkien with a dig about Aragorn's tax policy. I don't believe tax policy, in this context, is an element of Aragorn's personality.
In my view, the linked article, and the series it is a part of, utterly demolishes the argument that the Dothraki are based on real cultures with a dash of fantasy. If it doesn't convince you, I suspect nothing will.
I don't know anyone who has a problem with books that contain a dash of fantasy, or indeed, nothing but fantasy.
A fantasy book with dragons is enjoyable. A book that claimed that dragons really existed historically and were instrumental in William the Conqueror's victory at the Battle of Hastings is not enjoyable, it's just weird.
ASoIaF (and Martin) is quite clear that his dragons are fantasy, so they're unobjectionable. The problem is that Martin has been equally clear that he intends some other elements of the world to have been historically accurate.
This is funny. Because I am positive if you poll the fans they would not say that GMMR's worldbuilding (and historicity is part of that) is his strong point. Maybe he feels that way. But I got the general feeling that fans, me included, where more attracted by his very elaborate and seemingly realistic (though maybe it just appeals to cynics like me) character building.
I have seen multiple people argue repeatedly that GoT represents middle age as it really was. Including at hacker news. Sometimes as response to criticism of books or series, sometimes for no reason in particular.
So clearly there are people who think GoT is "how it really was" + dragons and bit of magic.
Even before I discovered the acoup.blog which analyzes everything into historical details, the way of life of the Dothraki rubbed me the wrong way.
Nomad cultures, eking out life on the steppe, cannot have the sheer numbers of population that a sedentary agricultural community has, and therefore cannot engage in the kind of reckless, life-has-no-value-here warfare that GRRM describes. Or at least not for a long time. They would just cease to exist.
And, on the other hand, it is precisely the nomads who have enough time and energy for fancying up their clothes. No nomad culture ever wore drab, boring clothing, especially not their leaders.
"A second theme we have here is the complication of our view of the Dothraki – presented here as a sophisticated, culturally flexible people who can put on “rich fabrics and sweet perfumes” when they visit their second homes among the palaces of Pentos, yet who still hold to their own culture where everything is done under the open sky."
"One of George R.R Martin’s innovations that sadly didn’t make it onto the screen is the way in which he both displays and subverts the traditional fantasy tropes about barbarians and barbarism."
"Any fantasy work with a foot in the Middle Ages has to reflect this history. And yet, the line between “Christendom” and “barbarism” was never simple – Medieval Europe was built out of the invasions of Goths, Franks, and Vandals into the Roman Empire, just as Westeros was built out of the invasions of the First Men, Andals, Rhoynar, and Valaryians."
So if anyone wants to see a more respectful counterpart culture to the Mongols, I'd recommend looking into the Xaela from Final Fantasy XIV: Stormblood.
They've never claimed in the slightest to be historically accurate, but their cultural practices are surprisingly well-researched, and more importantly the Xaela are written as fundamentally decent people and not a vicious unrelenting horde of uncivilized barbarians.
I found an excellent twitter thread on this a while back... unfortunately it appears to be gone, but I was able to find some of it in the Wayback Machine...
Not exactly related, but the recent Amazon Prime series "El Cid" is surprisingly good, especially if you thought that GoT lacked development of themes on how religion played such a major role in medieval politics.
>The position of ‘Indians’ as particularly ‘rapey’ is also explicit in Stagecoach,
I think historically, invading/raiding soldiers were always ‘rapey’. One only needs to look at the Romans, the Vikings, the French in Spain, and more recently the Japanese, Germans, and Soviets in WWII.
Being on the losing side in a battle or war sucked, even if you were a civilian.
Armies are rapey, more or less depending on kid od war. But they are rarely so rapey, that you routinely save last bullet for women cause they are guaranteed to be gang raped.
Also, I think that part of argument is that you don't see Indian woman being at such severe risk of being gang raped from random white soldiers in Hollywood movies.
The Soviet army during WWII, in particular, was very, very officially rapey: anyone who had coexisted with any enemy army were obvious collaborators, and were therefore by direct order from Stalin to get the worst treatment that could be afforded. For female people of any age at all, that meant gang rape followed by murder.
Of course it was not only women who suffered and died: failing to demonstrate peak enthusiasm for the above was itself fatal. Soviet soldiers who had been captured and somehow survived (Germans routinely starved them) were considered, exactly, deserters (because why were they alive?), and were sent directly to the gulags. Bringing up the rear during an advance got you shot in the back by the NKVD -- although there is no documentary evidence of an actual quota.
21 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 68.4 ms ] threadWhich is fine! Except that it was marketed as "reality based", with "a dash of fantasy". It was irresponsible to say the least, and it's quite sad to see its effects.
The author raises an interesting point: how to overcome the hundreds of millions of dollars that back these false depictions, so that truth can have its fair chance of being heard and known?
In theory, this is what school is for...
BUT the temptation to just make things up as you write is really strong, especially if you concentrate on characters, where details will get in a way of the narration flow.
I think that blogs like this, readable books about history written by historians of the period (as opposed to pop-sci-writers) are the real answer. Generally raising expectations on what adults say and write by arguing against ahistorical nonsense where possible.
I don't think it would be reasonable to force all the kids to learn details of past warfare or sustenance system. I did enjoyed the blogs a lot, but I am 100% sure I would not cared as 12 years old or 16 years old. Plus, there are more important things to learn about history, imo.
This being blog by someone who understands history about popular series confronting them with reality.
> 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
That's a direct quote from Martin. It seems quite clear to me he's not talking about their personality. He has also, more generally, made many claims about historical accuracy particularly when it comes to patterns of violence, economics, and more. Somewhat famously, he criticised Tolkien with a dig about Aragorn's tax policy. I don't believe tax policy, in this context, is an element of Aragorn's personality.
It never even occurred to me reading the books that they were anything other than fantasy.
By that I mean some one widely read in the relevant cannon ie not just read the hobbit LOTR, HP etc, You had read Dunsany, Mort De Authur, Homer
A fantasy book with dragons is enjoyable. A book that claimed that dragons really existed historically and were instrumental in William the Conqueror's victory at the Battle of Hastings is not enjoyable, it's just weird.
ASoIaF (and Martin) is quite clear that his dragons are fantasy, so they're unobjectionable. The problem is that Martin has been equally clear that he intends some other elements of the world to have been historically accurate.
So clearly there are people who think GoT is "how it really was" + dragons and bit of magic.
Even before I discovered the acoup.blog which analyzes everything into historical details, the way of life of the Dothraki rubbed me the wrong way.
Nomad cultures, eking out life on the steppe, cannot have the sheer numbers of population that a sedentary agricultural community has, and therefore cannot engage in the kind of reckless, life-has-no-value-here warfare that GRRM describes. Or at least not for a long time. They would just cease to exist.
And, on the other hand, it is precisely the nomads who have enough time and energy for fancying up their clothes. No nomad culture ever wore drab, boring clothing, especially not their leaders.
This felt off to me instantly.
https://racefortheironthrone.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/chapte...
"A second theme we have here is the complication of our view of the Dothraki – presented here as a sophisticated, culturally flexible people who can put on “rich fabrics and sweet perfumes” when they visit their second homes among the palaces of Pentos, yet who still hold to their own culture where everything is done under the open sky."
"One of George R.R Martin’s innovations that sadly didn’t make it onto the screen is the way in which he both displays and subverts the traditional fantasy tropes about barbarians and barbarism."
"Any fantasy work with a foot in the Middle Ages has to reflect this history. And yet, the line between “Christendom” and “barbarism” was never simple – Medieval Europe was built out of the invasions of Goths, Franks, and Vandals into the Roman Empire, just as Westeros was built out of the invasions of the First Men, Andals, Rhoynar, and Valaryians."
They've never claimed in the slightest to be historically accurate, but their cultural practices are surprisingly well-researched, and more importantly the Xaela are written as fundamentally decent people and not a vicious unrelenting horde of uncivilized barbarians.
I found an excellent twitter thread on this a while back... unfortunately it appears to be gone, but I was able to find some of it in the Wayback Machine...
http://web.archive.org/web/20200715161430/https://twitter.co... [make sure to scroll both up and down, this is the archive link I found that had the most of the original thread, and it's kind of in the middle]
I think historically, invading/raiding soldiers were always ‘rapey’. One only needs to look at the Romans, the Vikings, the French in Spain, and more recently the Japanese, Germans, and Soviets in WWII.
Being on the losing side in a battle or war sucked, even if you were a civilian.
Also, I think that part of argument is that you don't see Indian woman being at such severe risk of being gang raped from random white soldiers in Hollywood movies.
The Soviet army during WWII, in particular, was very, very officially rapey: anyone who had coexisted with any enemy army were obvious collaborators, and were therefore by direct order from Stalin to get the worst treatment that could be afforded. For female people of any age at all, that meant gang rape followed by murder.
Of course it was not only women who suffered and died: failing to demonstrate peak enthusiasm for the above was itself fatal. Soviet soldiers who had been captured and somehow survived (Germans routinely starved them) were considered, exactly, deserters (because why were they alive?), and were sent directly to the gulags. Bringing up the rear during an advance got you shot in the back by the NKVD -- although there is no documentary evidence of an actual quota.