Game of Thrones!

[Mane]

I don't know if I am only noticing it now or it's actually is a subtle change, but... I don't remember them using the modesty bedsheet trope in previous seasons like they did in the last 4 episodes.

 

[Totenkindly]

I alluded to that in my post - he claims to be replicating a skewed version of history but this is not so in his books and in fact quite offensive to those of us who share history the he claims to have used from non-caucasian people...total lies even in fictional form.

This is what I mean by MArtin not being honest in his words....the way he represents certain people of history is wrong even in his transmogrified historically inspired interpretations, and dare I say racist.

whut

Honestly, I think you're drawing conclusions that don't really exist. It's not historical. Your comments about GRRM as a person also seem dubious, as things you were claiming about his past or involvement haven't even been accurate. (and I say that as a non-book-reader.)

Anyway, if you want a truly "racist" fantasy to get worked up about, go watch Bakshi's "Fire and Ice." It's audaciously racist and sexist. IMO.

 

[Frosty]

Worth it? Yes? No?

 

[Ivy]

Actually, it is based (VERRRRY loosely- "inspired" is probably a better word) on the War of the Roses. Lannister:Lancaster::Stark:York. I still don't see how it's racist, though.

 

[senza tema]

Worth it? Yes? No?

Game of Thrones/ASoIaF? So worth it.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, it is based (VERRRRY loosely- "inspired" is probably a better word) on the War of the Roses. Lannister:Lancaster::Stark:York. I still don't see how it's racist, though.

Perhaps he's referring to the treatment of the non-Westerosi peoples.

 

[Ivy]

Maybe. I'd be open to hearing it.

 

[Mane]

*Cough*
Entire tribes and city states of barbaric ethnic people fall in love with an Aryan beauty that saves them from their barbaric ways
*Cough*

 

[Ivy]

Well, that's fair. A bit of "white savior" complex.

Specifically, though, I wanted to hear how GoT's historical inspiration is racist, a la this post:

I alluded to that in my post - he claims to be replicating a skewed version of history but this is not so in his books and in fact quite offensive to those of us who share history the he claims to have used from non-caucasian people...total lies even in fictional form.

This is what I mean by MArtin not being honest in his words....the way he represents certain people of history is wrong even in his transmogrified historically inspired interpretations, and dare I say racist.

It wouldn't be hard to find more stuff about the show that is iffy, but Garrett made specific claims about the (loose) historical representations being wrong and racist.

 

[Dr Mobius]

I read the first book of the Malazan series, but couldn’t get into it enough to invest in reading the entire series.

Presuming you're looking for other opinions on the subject? I can address some of the questions as to the Malazan series. I've read nine of the ten books.

Malazan is about twice as long as Martin’s epic will be, which it often seems to be compared to in a which is better sense. I know Malazan’s hardcore readers think it’s a work of genius, and it may well be.

Er MBotF is 10 books where as last time I checked ASoIaF was going to be 7 books, high fantasy and ridiculously long series seem to go hand and hand. Yeah I honestly don't think that they're that comparable its kind of like comparing the Beatles to the Sex Pistols, you could but it does both a disservice.

The books seem to have found a permanent place on the Barnes & Noble shelves in any case, though I have yet to meet anyone in person who has read them all. It’s far more convoluted, with a lot more characters to keep track of than Game of Thrones. And the world-building is encyclopedic, in the vein of reading encyclopedias cover to cover (for me this gets in the way of the story). Also, it’s even grayer than Martin’s epic, with no strictly “good” or “evil” characters—it’s all relative to POV. What it comes down to is the story and characters didn’t come alive for me, which is essential in reading a long epic series.

I suppose to really understand it you have to forget the standard fantasy model, forget the kitchen boy to hero world-building we expect of fantasy titles. Perhaps real life fantasy might be a better name for it. The first thing you have to stop doing is being encyclopedic, there is simply far to much going on for anyone who isn't crazy levels of obsessed can retain. You are not a participant, you are an observer, which is drastically different from most fantasy novels, how many series have you read knowing full well how the series was going to end? Hell I could write out how I expect ASoIaF to end, and it would surprise absolutely no one. I cannot say the same for the MBotF........... and honestly I adore that; its a story but its not mine, its all Steven Eriksons.

But I suspect the thing that makes this series special to me is the the level of respect he gives readers. He never tries to lead you, there are no characters he forces you to like he makes them human, real and lets you think what you will of them. Yet despite this there are characters I love, hate, hold in contempt, admire, am bewildered by....... much like in real life.

This is not to say they are everyone’s cup of tea; they are absolutely not. But if you can let go of preconceptions, the ride is a lot of fun.

Honestly, I wonder how anyone can read Malazan and still have time for a life. Maybe you can fill me in on that.

Oh dear this post is passive aggressive snark. Note to self read post thoroughly before bothering to respond

Actually, it is based (VERRRRY loosely- "inspired" is probably a better word) on the War of the Roses. Lannister:Lancaster::Stark:York. I still don't see how it's racist, though.

I always thought that the Starks where a dead ringer for the Percy Family. So powerful they remained Catholic after the formation of the Anglican Church (Old Gods/Ways). Plus there involvement with the War of Roses bears some parallels.

Well, that's fair. A bit of "white savior" complex.

Specifically, though, I wanted to hear how GoT's historical inspiration is racist, a la this post:



It wouldn't be hard to find more stuff about the show that is iffy, but Garrett made specific claims about the (loose) historical representations being wrong and racist.

I don't want to put words in anyone’s mouth, but the obvious one to me is Khal Drogo. Who is a version of Atilla the Hun, the Free Cities being a parallel sort of to the Western Roman Empire. In the show and from what I remember of the books he is kind of a brutish savage might is right and such. Whereas IRL a clever calculated mercenary is probably a more accurate description. A man who managed to reduce both East and West Empire to having to pay exorbitant tributes. On top of expanding an empire that stretched from Kazakhstan to Germany.

That’s the one is stuck out at me when I started to watch the show. The savage steppe nomad who communicates mainly in grunts and aggressive looks. Yet unacknowledged is the fact he manages to maintain what constitutes a mobile city, and a very successful one at that.

 

[Ivy]

^Exactly what I was looking for- very good point.

 

[Totenkindly]

It wouldn't be hard to find more stuff about the show that is iffy, but Garrett made specific claims about the (loose) historical representations being wrong and racist.

Yeah, I'll clarify that I'm very open to it and I see some examples (like Daenerys) that can be read that way; just wasn't seeing actual cogent points or support for them made at that time. If we want to discuss them, let's bring up specific issues to discuss.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I don't want to put words in anyone’s mouth, but the obvious one to me is Khal Drogo. Who is a version of Atilla the Hun, the Free Cities being a parallel sort of to the Western Roman Empire. In the show and from what I remember of the books he is kind of a brutish savage might is right and such. Whereas IRL a clever calculated mercenary is probably a more accurate description. A man who managed to reduce both East and West Empire to having to pay exorbitant tributes. On top of expanding an empire that stretched from Kazakhstan to Germany.

That’s the one is stuck out at me when I started to watch the show. The savage steppe nomad who communicates mainly in grunts and aggressive looks. Yet unacknowledged is the fact he manages to maintain what constitutes a mobile city, and a very successful one at that.

I did actually notice this aspect of it, and I was surprised that few people had made that criticism. I thought it was interesting that there were more criticisms of the Season 3 finale, when the Dothraki seemed like a bigger deal to me. This is frequently how I feel about these accusations; to me it looks like people are constantly pointing fingers in the wrong direction. Maybe I'm not fully qualified to judge such things, but the Dothraki jumped out at me, and went uncriticized by many.

But, for people who are criticizing this trope, I suggest that they be patient. This storyline isn't done with yet. I guess I've encountered enough people who make criticisms of art work and media as being racist who frequently take things out of context and cherry-pick stuff to make their point that I've become skeptical to such claims.

I'll engage in an honest, good-faith argument about stereotyping any day. If it's tumblr-style nonsense about just trying to make me feel guilty, I'm not interested in that. What I am interested in getting out of the topic is an intellectual understanding of the issue in question.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

Yeah, I'll clarify that I'm very open to it and I see some examples (like Daenerys) that can be read that way; just wasn't seeing actual cogent points or support for them made at that time. If we want to discuss them, let's bring up specific issues to discuss.

What I mean by replicating a skewed version of history is that he says his fiction is based on historical events. But this is the worst thing a fiction writer can do according to hawthorn,

 

[Totenkindly]

What I mean by replicating a skewed version of history is that he says his fiction is based on historical events. But this is the worst thing a fiction writer can do according to hawthorn,

Hmmm. Why does it matter what Hawthorne says, honestly?

The question is, what is he doing now, and how is it working / not working effectively and why?

 

[GarrotTheThief]

Hmmm. Why does it matter what Hawthorne says, honestly?

The question is, what is he doing now, and how is it working / not working effectively and why?

my reason for reaching back to Hawthorn, who is now deceased but known as one of the greatest author's ever, is something akin to what a philosopher once said: "Would you ask a shipbuilder to bake a cake or would you ask a cook to build a ship? Nay....me thinks not Charlie."

 

[GarrotTheThief]

Actually, it is based (VERRRRY loosely- "inspired" is probably a better word) on the War of the Roses. Lannister:Lancaster::Stark:York. I still don't see how it's racist, though.

It's not overtly racist that's why I said, "dare I say racist." It's more just a more eurocentric reappropriated fictional representation. It works for me but if I'm truly honest, compared to malazan, it is more eurocentric...Malazan is more neutral.

 

[Ivy]

Wait, are you talking about Nathaniel Hawthorne? He wrote historical fiction. I'm really unclear about your point, Garrett.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

Wait, are you talking about Nathaniel Hawthorne? He wrote historical fiction. I'm really unclear about your point, Garrett.

Yes...I am speaking of Nathaniel Hawthrone...when I get home I will post the name of the Essay...it might be tomorrow...but in it he talks about the three types of fictions and the two qualities of fiction...the three types are biography, autobiography, and omniscient, and the two qualities are truth based on outright lie based.

I'm paraphrasing so excuse my feeble number crunching brain...I am out of my element but....It strikes a chord with me.

I have read fiction which feels like being shrunken and placed inside a doll house (false, cheap, synthetic fiction) albeit much of it is written masterfully with a penning on par of Dickens.

And then I have read crude basic writing but which is bone chillingly real and useful like some Stephen King books or leaves me shrived and huddled in a corner, exorcising my demons, and firming me up like a cold wind slap before a long trot.

I suppose some of it is subjective but in my opinion, I feel like Malazan is good and healthy food where as Game of Thrones is healthier than Harry Potter but not healthier than Malazan if that makes sense.....that is how it is to me but I can see it being that way for others...

I know when I read Malazan I am ready to live...when I read Game of Thrones I am left feeling like there is something more that needs to be there in order for the Green Screen to fade.

 

[Nicodemus]

Garrot is right about one thing: The Malazan Book is better than A Song of Ice and Fire. But his reasoning is ludicrous.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

So, what should Danerys have done? Is there a right choice she could have made?

And what are your thoughts about Doran Martell? Probably not enough information for most of you, but in the book he came off like an INTP. I thought that scene was really interesting, for some reason.

What do you think about the stuff concerning Sansa?

I think those two bits are interrelated themes. The thing that's right in the long term might be incredibly unpopular... they both touched on that.

My favorite part of last night's episode, though, was Sam roasting Janos Slynt. That was perfect.