Before I write my thoughts on this series, first let me ask if anyone else has read it? It isn't normal fantasy. It is darker, more realistic, and much more character oriented than some other series. It is my favorite fantasy series by far.
Before I write my thoughts on this series, first let me ask if anyone else has read it? It isn't normal fantasy. It is darker, more realistic, and much more character oriented than some other series. It is my favorite fantasy series by far.
I read the first one, and half of the second. I wasn't impressed - and quite frankly, the treatment of sexuality in that book is more disturbing, in the fact that people want to read that stuff, and are interested in it, rather than impressive.
As for the best fantasy series, well, I would probably go with Earthsea, though Zelazny is very interesting in his Amber works - not to the point of masterpiece mind you, but far more interesting than the perverted Martin.
Hmm, well, if the reality of sex does disturb you so much, I guess that it would not be for you. I'm not sure if you realize this, but sex is very much a part of real life, and is often less than glamorous. To think that it would not exist, or did not exist (as Martin's world is very much a reflection of our own during medieval times), would be a gross naivety.
And, as far as the description goes, Earthsea sounds less than impressive. An awkward boy becomes an apprentice of a wizard and realizes he is destined to be a hero, etc etc. Sounds very original.
Last edited by Mutatis-Mutandis; 12-20-2008 at 07:05 PM.
It is not that I am prude - I can read books like Lolita unflinchingly - but when an author is obsessed with pre-pubescent virgins being prostituted etc, which is a major factor of the work, and isn't reprehended by any of the book's characters on moral ground, than I find there is a problem. Especially in a world where such horrific events are a reality, I cannot see how any reasonable person can sustain their disbelief long enough to engage in said work with relish, savoring the misogynist undertones of the novel, and "rapist flare" that seems part of the works appeal.
Since it is fantasy, and the setting is detached from reality, it becomes clear that this vision is a projected fantasy of the work's author - this essentially rape fantasy, which, though perhaps there are interesting elements in the text, from a practical perspective I cannot help but finding reprehensible.
I do not want to be quick to label Martin a misogynist, but I'm afraid he comes off that way from his text. But beyond that, there are other grounds for criticism, this is though, for me, perhaps the one deserving the most rebuke.
You would note, neither books are particularly "original" in that sense. As for LeGuin though, even specialists of fantasy literature on the academic novel single her out as a ground breaker in trends of fantasy narrative, and fantasy coverage. For instance, from what I have read, she was a pioneer in featuring a non-white protagonist, a pioneer in blending cultures other than Western within a western frame (a habit taken up by subsequent authors under her influence), amongst other things. But beyond that, if that is all you see in Earthsea, I wish you luck - I find her later works in the series more interesting, especially when she explores female protagonists, and less conventional themes.Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
Perhaps not your cup of tea, but to deny LeGuin credit for being original when a) neither is Martin, who, if you request, I can draw a influence graph for, and b) isn't to blame for subsequent authors copying her.
It's like condemning Tennyson for using the line "Better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all," when he was the first to do so.
To go back to another point, on the subject of Medieval culture, and the realities that you are supposing existed back then, I think that is quite naive. I for one have written on and read works on medieval sexuality, me specifically on medieval prostitution, and I will say it is safe to say that the presentation of sexual activity in Martin is roughly constructed out of a fantasy, perhaps originating in a misreading of bronze age sexuality, and then planted in the medieval setting.
Just so you know, prostitution in the Medieval times isn't as vague a subject as one may imagine, and there are many documents which provide a nice frame work for understanding it. Martin's creation has no real resemblance, which is unsurprising given his removal of a sense of religiosity, which was so central to Medieval thought and culture. Trust me, it is not my naivety which is talking, but the oppsotie. Perhaps it is you who is naive.
I've read all the books published to date of Martin's Song of Ice and Fire. I like them a lot. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts if you care to share.
"You understand well enough what slavery is, but freedom you have never experienced, so you do not know if it tastes sweet or bitter. If you ever did come to experience it, you would advise us to fight for it not with spears only, but with axes too." - Herodotus
https://consolationofreading.wordpress.com/ - my book blog!
Feed the Hungry!
Okay, but these portrayals of rape and sexuality (the ones that are disturbing) are not portrayed in a positive light. It isn't like the rapists and what-not are the heroes of the series. And I really don't see Martin as being Mysoginist. There are many strong female characters in the series (Arya, Sansa, Daenerys, Brienne, Catelyn, even Cercie). And I never said that Martin was completely original, just that what he is doing is a bit out of the norm for fantasy.
To say that every novel ever written is a reflection of the author's inner self is quite preposterous. In that case, you shouldn't be reading anything "unflinchingly."
My point, was that they are there to add flavor - to add a sexual aspect - not a thematic one, but to contribute to the fantasy of, I hate to say, stereotypical fantasy novel readers - insert your image here - who read these novels. And I would say with confidence, in the 1 and a half novels I read, that women were portrayed as less than men.
My problem is the nature of fantasy literature in general. Such a thing is designed for detachment from reality, breaking away from the conventions of realism. If such a thing is detached, then it becomes clear that the reader, and the author, wish themselves in this setting.
For a genre which is stereotypically read by males to be portraying women as essentially prostitutes I find irredeemable. but beyond that, I think, given the realities of this world, and the fact that the novel portrays women in that light, that the novel, and its suggestions become problematic.
I think the reason for the text getting away with saying such things is the exception criticism takes with genre work, essentially ignoring it. Had this been transposed into a contemporary setting, in a part of the world where such things still occur (though they occur to a lesser extent generally everywhere in the world) and portrayed women in the same light, I have no doubt people would be outraged.
Either way, I don't think it is to big a stretch to say varrious heroes of the series show misogynist tendencies. From what I read, they show no signs of reprehending things which make medieval society look like a Hilton. To what extent then can you justify these things within the text which are so clearly despicable.
The justification that a text is fantasy, and therefore can feature such aspects to add an "original flavor" is to me even more harmful. It creates a sense that the book is justified in its portrayal by the fact that it is outside realism, whereas sexual slavery, rape, violence against women, forced prostitution, and other such things seen in the first one and a half volumes of the text that I have read still exist.
Misogyny in fantasy literature is still misogyny. If I were writing historical realism to a bronze age society, than that would be different, as that is portraying something in order to add commentary, or to create perspective. The only term I can use for this sort of literature is rapist fantasy.
Last edited by JBI; 12-20-2008 at 08:43 PM.
"Rapist fantasy"? Whatever.
I still contend that this is not misogynistic, as much of the later parts of the series supports. The female characters even use sex to their advantage.
And, frankly, I find it insulting that just because I enjoy reading the series, that this would somehow suggest I want to rape women. The author does not portray these scenes as something that is enjoyable, but rather leaves the reader with a bad taste, which is the point. You seem to be misinterpreting these parts of the series, thinking that teenage nerds are jacking off to these scenes, and that is the only point to those scenes. I don't know, maybe this says more about your character than it does the reasonable reader.
And, thanks, Darkshadow03, I am glad to see I am not alone. I got so caught up in the back-and-forth with JBI, I passed over your comment, lol.
Spoilers ahead to those who may read the series in the future.
I like how Martin throws the reader for a loop, you never see the things coming. The first thing that comes to mind was the death of Catelyn and Rob, I couldn't sleep that night after that. No book ever affected me that way. To me, it just shows how good Martin is at getting the reader attached to the characters, and I wasn't even a huge fan of Rob or Catelyn (Catelyn especially). The fourth book was definitely the most difficult read. Introducing new characters and plot lines in an already complex story was challenging, but I made sense of it, just need to read slowly. I will probably re-read A Storm ofSwords and A Feast for Crows before the next book comes out, which can't be soon enough.
Last edited by Mutatis-Mutandis; 12-21-2008 at 01:28 AM.
I didn't say that, you came to that conclusion on your own pre-conceived knowledge, therefore I sense the point is grounded in some truth, which to an extent you see as well.
I don't suggest you are interested in raping people, but I contend that the text itself supports that sort of misogyny. I doubt I am the first to remark on the novels' misogynist content, and I doubt I will be the last. The problem with fantasy though, is it is a, for the most part, male run genre. Mostly male authors, and from what I understand, generally, mostly male readers in the epic vein. What that leads to is a whole stereotyping of women, and a recasting of women in the male fantasy role, deliberately designed, like a pornography video, to entice.
I think even a specialist in the field wouldn't have trouble admitting that female characters are stereotyped to an extent in conventional fantasy literature, the same way that they are stereotyped in a different way in romance novels. The problem though, ends with a conflict of reality verses fantasy.
If I were to transpose what goes on in those novels in a contemporary setting, which is very possible, I would be burned by the media, assuming anyone read the text, and rightfully so. Why is it OK for some make believe women in a fake culture to get a different standard than a realist make believe character?
Last edited by JBI; 12-21-2008 at 01:30 AM.
This sounds like something i might like. I am going to see if I can pick it up for some holiday reading. My holiday reading list is now offically longer than my holidays
Yes, but these aren't in a contemporary setting. The same could be said for countless other novels, fantasy, sci-fi, or otherwise. And, it is acceptable because it is perfectly understood the woman is make believe, as is the whole story. Is it now wrong to create different cultures for a fantasy novel? Doesn't that defeat the purpose?
And, again, I will repeat, these scenes are not in some way an endorsement of this sort of behavior.
No, but you insinuated it by labeling it "rapist fantasy."
And I stand by that.
Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Are they or aren't they? If I am to make believe a setting, I can put what ever I want in there, for whatever reason. Why then, would someone put a rapist fantasy into a text. Why would someone deliberately create a world where women are marginalized to such an extent, to make Hamurabi's Babylon look tame?
I can think of a reason - one to project an opposite message, as is the case in the works of Atwood, specifically the Handmaid's Tale, which creates a distopia to comment on such things - a popular trend of feminist writing. But she comments, she doesn't support. That text is a metafiction, whereas I would say Martin's relies on a suspension of disbelief, and an abandonment of reality
The excuse that it's fantasy makes no difference. A rapist is a rapist is a rapist. Those books contain aspects which are disgusting. Try reading some of that out loud to anyone you respect, and see how they take to it.
That being said, the opposite side can say, but look at Lolita. But I think Lolita is different. Lolita is concerned with psychological aspects, and aesthetics. This is simply concerned with portrayal, and not rational. The depictions and acts are there for the pleasure of the reader, to satisfy himself, and not for any other reason. Whereas Lolita self-acknowledges the despicablility of its narrator, Martin on the other hand praises the rapist, giving him titles like Noble, or King, and doesn't leave any comment on the victim, who is disregarded, tossed away. It's almost as if the book is cheering on the reader saying, "Hey Look at this, a rapist fantasy, come watch us gang-rape this poor adolescent virgin and get away with it." and to what purpose? Thematic advancement? no. Plot advancement? Slightly. Setting? Yes that's it. The book wishes to establish this setting. Why? what is the meaning of the text? Perhaps no meaning, but the setting is still there for a reason. Why?
Again, we will have to agree to disagree. I am done debating with you, because I am sick of you insulting me for enjoying the series.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
