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.
Printable View
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
"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.
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?
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:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
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."Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
And I stand by that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
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.
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
I saw that you wanted to address it, so I will put it simply. I find parts of the text reprehensible, Drkshadow thinks differently, we'll have to agree to disagree, or some other such. In truth, I don't have a text in front of me, so I cannot use quotes, so it becomes a game of mere speculation, and memory digging.
Like Drkshadow said, it is a perspective novel, a technique vaguely borrowed from, I would think, Faulkner, with a different narrator on each chapter, though with the absence of the interior monologue in favor of a highly focalised third person rendition.
The one, perhaps most disgusting scene I remember reading, before putting down the book, was one about some fellow named Greyjoy (the son of some rebel island guy) misoginystically taking advantage of a barely teenage peasant girl on some boat trip, before abandoning her, and ridiculing her.
The attitude without consequence that such a scene produces I find horrifying. Textually, the scene was not plot relevant, and only an indulgence into the setting, which is despicable. There was no need for the scene thematically. No need for the scene for plot development, or any other such reasons. And in truth, after that, the narrative tried to show the character as sympathetic, rather than condemning him, which I found utterly disgusting.
First, you critique the series for a lack of realism. Then, you condemn it for portraying a sympathetic side to an otherwise villainous character. This is really the paradox of your criticisms, JBI: an expectation of fantasy and ultimatum of realism.
The fantasy world the GRRM depicts is not something wondrous and glorious. GRRM's intent, in creating such a world, is not to liberate his suppressed misogyny, but to indulge in--what boils down to--a cage match between a variety of characters. It's genre fiction, pulp stuff; all the writer and the reader are attempting to accomplish here is that indulgence. One could argue that this is not in the character development, but the sexual grotesquerie. This argument falls apart, though, when we are faced with a strong cast of dominant female characters who pummel men into submission, leaving the pervert-critic to conclude that GRRM is a sadomasochistic nutjob with violent sexual ambivalence. It sounds good, and I'm sure Freud would hop around in glee, but it just isn't supported by the text.
I enjoy it quite a bit, along with plenty of others, because it has good characters. It's not Literature: it's literature. Fun. One of the few fantasy series, in my opinion, that overrides its bad prose with genuine entertainment. But LeGuin, Kay, Peake and the others are better, more rewarding reads, definitely.
Bluebeard, you wouldn't happen to be some alias of another poster, would you?
The point is, it is a removed setting. If an author needs to create a setting where women get raped in order to indulge in his cage match then the world for that is a misogynist. Sorry, unless you happen to be George R. R. Martin, in which case it is against the rules for me to accuse you of anything.
As you said it, all the author and the reader are trying to do is indulgence. On those grounds, I see my point accentuated, that the reader and the author are indulging in a misogynist vision as a means of carrying out some sort of perverse fantasy.
Nope, just a lurker.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Sex is really not the political arena that cultural critics seem to think it is. It's an act where biological imperative takes over, not the intellectual makeup of a writer's mind. What you're arguing now is that Martin's sexual fantasy revolves around the degradation of and indifference towards women, and I'll say it probably is. The mistake would be in muddling that sexual fantasy with intellectual (metasexual, if that's even possible) fantasy, which isn't warranted. Now I think you'd argue that the mere expression of this sexual fantasy is unacceptable, but Martin exalts no one, indicts no one. He's somewhat similar to Camus, in that sense (though he couldn't dream of coming close): not so much a concern with the ethics or morality of a character's actions, but a persistent query into that character's nature, choices, metamorphoses.Quote:
The point is, it is a removed setting. If an author needs to create a setting where women get raped in order to indulge in his cage match then the world for that is a misogynist. Sorry, unless you happen to be George R. R. Martin, in which case it is against the rules for me to accuse you of anything.
As you said it, all the author and the reader are trying to do is indulgence. On those grounds, I see my point accentuated, that the reader and the author are indulging in a misogynist vision as a means of carrying out some sort of perverse fantasy.
Well, I like it, though I don't find misogynistic sex appealing. I just find it's place within the narrative, and you don't--but that's fine too. It's pulp. :thumbs_up
Considering we've been talking about rape and the sexual depiction in Martin's work and fantasy as a removed setting (which technically only applies to 2nd world fantasies, by the way), I found this to be an interesting post on the topic that intersects quite well between some of what JBI said and some of what I said: Treatment of Modern Themes in Epic Fantasy.
I thought some people might be interested in reading it.
Holy crap, a lot has been posted since I last checked this thread. I don't have time now, but I will read it all and comment.
Well, I read it Drk, and I really don't read enough fantasy literature to nit pick over these pc caveats, but methinks it is a case of a rather tired genre taking itself way too seriously, and, his sexual fantasies aside, there is nothing in Martin's work to draw my interest:Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
Animal identification dream--been there, done that, and have read much better texts about human affinity to the totem.
Protagonist with pet as supporting character, ditto, too many times to repeat:rolleyes:
And to peruse tripe sentences like "Men will be men and women women, and these were the only women to be found in a thousand leagues..."
Cheap hyperbole. There is no reason why fantasy writers cannot put realism within the fantasy to use, and sweat, and really work at it, like real writers do, and put out a quality product. You're an intelligent critic, Drk, and I respect many of your counter-points, but so much of fantasy is just too over the top to be anything but trivial. The Legend of The Seeker, Disney's first effort at syndication, is visually interesting, with a script so conventionally overwrought it is not even amusingly bad, and the choreography is terrible, cheaply repetitive. The last few episodes have slightly better story lines, but geez, I wonder why I can't join the screen writers guild, as we, the writers ourselves, seem virtually unnecessary in terms of what we bring to our craft.
I wonder, is the television series worse than the primary text? From what I remember, Goodkind is perhaps a worse of a rapist than Martin, in fact definitely, where, I think he has down right sado-masochistic tendencies, and an obsession with raping women.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
Say whatever you will about Martin, on Goodkind I know I'm right.
Here's to politically correct language and the sanitization of our thought. It takes real courage, especially in these times, to stand up for what's right. Slavery, racism, homophobia, misogyny, and rape are all wrong and if nobody wrote about them, like, how would anybody know? It's not pandering at all to speak up and say that if you'd been alive seventy years ago when the Holocaust was happening, by golly, you'd a been again' it. And if you didn't say that, I guess everybody would just assume you were for all of those things. I know I would.
It is not about writing about them, it is about how you write about them. If a text is creating an opportunity for escapism into a world where women are marginalized to the extreme, what impact does that have on readers? Are they going to think higher of women? Be unchanged? or think less of women?
I don't mind the idea of historical realism, but the text is detached from reality to the point that it seems to deliberately portray sex in this regard for the pure relish of it, which I find disgusting, to say the least.
Why can't, for instance, fantasy literature offer a positive construction rather than a negative one? Is the anxiety of influence on fantasy literature that intense that one needs to rape women to seem original?
I understand about talking about these things - many, for instance, rape victims and holocaust survivors have written about personal experiences, but that is different. The tone is different, the style is different, and overall the text means in a completely different way.
The fact that fantasy fiction gets away with these things is rather puzzling as well. You have a stereotypical genre, which stereotypes and degrades women to the extreme, and its excuse for going unscathed by criticism is a) it's mediocre pulp fiction, so who will bother, and b) it's not set in our world, therefore it is acceptable.
Those points are both silly. Since the 80s, and to a lesser extent since Tolkien, fantasy literature has been one of the most dominant popular-fiction forms, in terms of sales figures, and fanbase. To ignore the social implications of such texts now would be, I would think, impossible, given their range of appeal.