Printable View
Yes, sorry for reposting, I didn't see your last post before I posted. As it is, I meant no personal offense, and merely wished to condemn the book, not the readers though, perhaps I got carried away. All the best - I think I'm done here. You probably would get a better response on the attached science fiction and fantasy board, which has a link from the forums - more people probably have read the texts there.
If I taught a fantasy course at a college level, I think SOIAF (probably just the first book because of time constraints) would be an excellent choice for the Capstone of the course, especially if you're including some Heroic/Epic fantasy in the reading list. It's the perfect book to rethink all the other books that I would probably include. Since one of the main purposes of the book is as critique of epic fantasy, a critique of the simplistic morality of good and evil, a sharp look at the nature of power, and in many ways its themes are extremely modern.
My Essential Question to the class would be: "In what way does Martin de-nobilize the heroes and world of Epic Fantasy?"
On these grounds I think it is worth noting what Martin changes in the traditional Epic Formula:
1) We have a world with very little magic. It's a fantasy world that borders on the realistic because it lacks magic or magical creatures that pervade so many other Epic Fantasies. You don't really need monsters because the humans are the monsters.
2) There is no central character. There is no real protagonist. Is Eddard Stark the protagonist? Jon Snow? Daenerys? Catelyn? Tyrion? Instead of a single protagonist, the chosen hero who can save the world, we are just given characters who we follow and have their own individual concerns. They are neither good nor bad characters.
3) Characters die. They die a lot. This may seem like a negligible point, but if LeGuin was the first to include a non-white hero, Martin can be said to be one of the first fantasy writers to be willing to kill off major characters. This refreshes the genre of Epic fantasy precisely because Epic fantasy often relies on predictably (we already know the hero probably won't die, his companions probably won't die, or if they do they'll come back through a miracle like Gandalf, and the hero will win, etc.) When you have no central hero and you've shown that your willing to kill off major viewpoint characters, suddenly everyone is game and it adds a sense of suspense missing from many major Epic fantasies.
4) What many fans note about the series is that there are no good and evil characters. Fans call the characters morally gray. I would prefer to put it a slightly different way. Instead what we get are perspectives. Everyone has their own moral perspective and rationale for their actions. Pragmatism is pitted against idealism, and pragmatism generally wins.
5) Martin is applying realism to a fantasy world. It is grittier and darker than your typical fantasy. The violence is graphic. The sex is graphic. The Nobles swear. They banter about sexual innuendo and macho bravado. Martin doesn't sugarcoat his fantasy world. For all the claims that Epic fantasy is misogynistic, most of it is a rather sugarcoated sexism (where women just simply aren't major components of the plot other than to be a love interest).
6) Martin clearly has done a ton of research into medieval history and culture. Scenes from his plot have a direct one for one correlation with real historical events. As one commenter I read put it, there is a ton of nuggets for the historian to enjoy.
Of course what Martin is doing with all this is a critique of traditional Epic Fantasy with its unlikely baker boy hero who turns out to be the Chosen One who can then turn to the wise wizard or his own amazing magical ability to perform the quest that defeats the evil Dark Lord where castles and kings and aristocrats are depicted as noble and beautiful, and even violence is a sterile affair (throw a fire-ball and the evil monster disappears into a puff of flame).
In Martin's world there are no heroes (only perspectives), there isn't really much magic (when you kill you have to get up close and personal and there will be blood and screaming and real pain), there is no evil Dark Lord (at least so far), the aristocrats are NOT depicted as being particularly noble or beautiful people other than in their own minds (they commit incest, adultery, rape, murder children, etc.) Not to mention the characters can die. Martin is denobilizing and desterilizing Epic fantasy. He is challenging many of the things that JBI I imagine dislikes about the Epic fantasy genre; Martin's world is not one divorced from reality or meant to provide comfort in predictability. It incorporates a hard-dose of reality into the Epic Fantasy with unglorified, very gruesome violence, and it relishes in its unpredictability.
It's worth noting that even given this gritty realism, Martin never directly depicts a rape that I can remember (I could be wrong about this); he usually talks about them indirectly after the fact. So a) the purpose obviously isn't to titillate because if it were you'd probably want to show it b) there really aren't much grounds to call those scenes a "rape" fantasy because of "A."
As far as Daenerys is concerned. It true that she is 14 and certainly "forced" into marriage to Khal Drogo by her brother, but I wouldn't exactly call that prostitution -- I want to be hesitant here given the various Feminist Theories that point out that often women don't really have much of a choice so it might as well be rape, and that seems to be the case here. However, it has more the quality of an arranged marriage. Daenerys in fact enjoys her life with Drogo as his Queen as is made explicitly clear in the subsequent chapters after her marriage to him.
Now it's true that they show the sex scene between what in our society is a minor and an older man. Most people I've talked to find this scene repulsive, including many male fantasy readers who JBI claims this scene was concocted for as an appeal to them, however, many of them note this scene as the one that really nauseated them.
Still, I think there are narrative reasons to include it:
1) Historical reality. It's based on a medieval setting. Women could marry at 14 in the Middle Ages (see pg. 98 at this link). Likewise, her older brother would've been her guardian and had the right to arrange her marriage.
2) Stylistic reasons. If you're going to include babies getting their heads violently bashed in and are willing to depict incest then you better have a good reason to shirk away from sexuality.
3) Characterization. As I already pointed out this a story about perspective. Everything is siphoned through the character's viewpoints. One viewpoint is Dany's. Dany is about to have sex for the first time, barely knows her husband, and is naturally frightened. It would hold that this constitutes a major event in her life; likewise, there is gender parity shown in the books. When Jon Snow first has sex this is also shown with as much graphicness (if I remember correctly). The Dany scene also serves as a transition from the scared girl who obeys her abusive brother to a Queen who has some agency of her own and is no longer afraid to mock her brother.
Lastly, there is no denying this an extremely misogynist world, but I think that's the point and there seems to be self-awareness of that fact rather than a blind relishing in the misogyny as an appeal to fanboys. In other words, Martin is in fact commenting on the misogyny of his world. The character of Brienne of Tarth (a minor character in the second book who continually grows in importance as she gains a viewpoint in the 3rd book) with her attempts to be a female knight in a man's world and her commentary on those difficulties I think proves this point beyond a shadow of a doubt. In fact, almost all the female characters at some point comment on it.
The rampant sexuality of the female characters isn't so much male fantasy as it is commentary on this world's patriarchal system; by telling the story from the perspectives of the most powerful women, including the Queen herself, we see that no matter what their rank women for the most part can only obtain power in this world through sexual favors. Martin is not putting this perspective forward uncritically, however. There are plenty of counter-examples of women who try to find other means to have agency and power. Arya, Dany, and Brienne are the most obvious of those examples.
In conclusion:
1) We have a lot of female main characters and an extremely diverse cast of women with very different personalities and who have fairly complex motivations (as equally complex as the male characters). Women are not stereotyped, but instead there is diversity.
2) The novel passes the Bechdel test, which so much fantasy and genre work miserably fails.
3) I think there is evidence in the narrative that it is self-aware of the misogyny and the female characters directly comment on the misogyny in the world and their lack of power.
4) There are quite a few female characters who find agency through means other than sexuality. To put it another way, there are main characters who provide counterexamples to the women who rely on sexuality for power.
On the other hand, it's true that there is a lot of violence against women in the series, and I although I think Martin is in fact commenting on it rather than promoting it, I can also understand why it would be a bit offputting for some people and why some feminists might read it differently than I do.
Nonetheless, if anyone wants to see actual women of a feminist bent discussing the merits and demerits of the series you can try (the vast majority of these women had more positive to say about the series than negative):
The comments of this blog entry.
And the comments of this blog entry.
I will confess, while observing the usual raging debate between the usual suspects, the series has perked my interest as curious bedtime reading, and I am thinking of buying all 7 or 8 of the books. I do not really enjoy sword and sorcery, but I do like having my expectations challenged, and it seems like they would be with this series.
JBI, I get what you are protesting, even with the skimming I have done, but, otoh, not too many centuries ago, war was a kind of terrorist brutality where rape was, unfortunately, one of the weapons used to force submission. The Mongol survived history for a reason.
[QUOTE=Jozanny;649682]I will confess, while observing the usual raging debate between the usual suspects, the series has perked my interest as curious bedtime reading, and I am thinking of buying all 7 or 8 of the books. I do not really enjoy sword and sorcery, but I do like having my expectations challenged, and it seems like they would be with this series.
QUOTE]
I am with you there Jozanny. I am going to see if I can pick the books up over the holidays. I love fantasy reading
It is not that, which is problematic, it is the portrayal - go ahead and by them, they aren't particularly well written to begin with, but you'll see what I'm saying sooner or later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
It's pseudo-realism at best. The historical portrayal is not accurate, and the brutality of rape in war time (seen not just centuries ago, but still a contemporary issue) is perhaps not the problem as is the nature of the text.
Martin is sex obsessed, especially with the defilement of adolescent girls by old brutish men.
As a writer, and a critic, I find the content morally reprehensible.
If I wrote the same thing, honoring a Japanese perspective on the rape of Nanking, I most certainly would be crucified by the press, had I had the same sales as Martin, and rightfully so.
My main problem is the excuse that is given to the text, because it is in a particular genre.
The depiction of sex in the book resembles more the bronze age than the medieval times. In truth, prostitution in the Medieval times was heavily controlled by the church, under the teachings of Augustine of Canterbury, rendering the accuracy of such a depiction rather inaccurate.
By what standard then can we judge a book? Are we to say anything is permissible in a fantasy novel, because of the detachment from reality? Where is the line drawn?
As I have not so much as read an excerpt, I will have to leave this to you, Drk, the OP, other fans, other detractors. I am too tired to fuss with Amazon to get a look see, but if his diction is truly poor, then no, not for me.
Update: Went to his web site, and it seems like the usual grandiose patter. Good thing I did not act, even though I want fresh reading--your critique, JBI, is probably on spot, and I'd suggest something about his picture, but I'd get into trouble. :)
I read the first two books in the series but only made it halfway through the third. I did enjoy the different character threads and the unpredictable storyline. I would be surprised if I pick the series up again, however -- there is simply too much else to read.
Drkshadow03, thanks for this informative post. I've been curious about this series for a while, and now I'm even more interested. I'll probably read A Game of Thrones sometime in the next couple of months.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
Heh. All this discussion is making me want to re-read it again.Quote:
Originally Posted by bluevictim
You should -- take a break from all that Greek stuff! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
Meh, Read Guy Gavriel Kay instead. As fantasy goes, Kay is far more original than Martin could ever be, and, especially in his later works, approaches something which is unseen in Fantasy fiction - decent prose.
Heh. Ironically enough I just posted on Plato's Euthyphro on the blog, Bluevictim
If I decide to read any fantasy in the near future I should probably read the other New Crobuzon novels of China Mieville, Jeff Vandermeer's novels, and Scott Baker's Epic fantasy trilogy, which I've heard really good things about. Actually to jump off JBI's comment, I would even love to read some Guy Gavriel Kay who I have thus far not read, but have also heard nothing but good things.
JBI, I have not read the books, but I confess, I find your accusation that Martin is openly misogynist and pro-rape a little flimsy, and such serious charges should not be thrown around so lightly. What is your response to Drkshadow03's argument?
Who said openly. He doesn't come out and say he is, but I find his texts are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mopey Droney
Kay isn't perhaps a conventional fantasy author, in the sense that Bakker (is that who you meant?) (who I profess I find virtually unreadable) is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
He comes more from the new historicist movement, in the sense that he tries to break away from historical views by building on the notion of history as narrative, and blending that into his text. I think he does that very well, and his characters to me, from the books I read of his a while ago, seem far more thought out. I think his earlier work in the more traditional vein is lacking, but his works in the Moorish and Byzantine settings that he used, and to an extent the one set in 12th (ish) century France is very interesting.
Bakker, from what I am told from the people I know who have finished his work, his loaded with pseudo-philosophy, often times told to me as at the expense of content. What that means, I don't know, but I found the prose irritating, and within 30 or so pages I returned the first volume to the library.
As for Mieville I have heard some good things, and was planning to take out his young adult book Un Lun Dun, but never got around to it.
JBI,
This is the part of Drkshadow's post I would like to see you address.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03