Is 'A Song of Ice and Fire' racist?

[Firstname]

I am interested as to why these tropes persist. Is it even possible to get a black hero/culture vs. a white villain/culture published? I doubt it. I'm trying to think of one and even Butler didn't try that.

[Christopher]

Yeah but if Lucas is the standard we hold others to, almost everything short of the Gore books would have to get a pass. Better does not equate to good, so can we stop pretending it does.

[Baelor]

Martin was inspired by the War of the Roses. Those people were white.

I do not think "racist" is a fair description. No author is obligated to have a black (or white, etc.) hero.

[Firstname]

Baelor wrote: "Martin was inspired by the War of the Roses. Those people were white.

I do not think "racist" is a fair description. No author is obligated to have a black (or white, etc.) hero."

Who said they were?

[Baelor]

Firstname wrote: "Baelor wrote: "Martin was inspired by the War of the Roses. Those people were white.

I do not think "racist" is a fair description. No author is obligated to have a black (or white, etc.) hero."..."

No one.

[Ben]

I dont like the term "racist". There are some times when the word is needed but on the whole it is a word that polarises rather than brings people together. No-one wants their favourite books to be "racist", no-one wants to be "racist" but that does not mean that there couldn't be legitimate issues with a work of art or indeed the author behind the work of art that are not worth considering.

I wont go through the arguments again about either racist claims or sexism claims made against game of thrones as they have been made in depth elsewhere but I will suggest that there are areas in which the artistic choices Martin made could be said to perpetuate racist and sexist tropes that abound within the SF/fantasy genres.

If in one book a black man is the villain this is fine but if it is the case in 99% of books this becomes a larger problem, as it would if an author always singled out one particular group as either evil or subjected to the worst possible treatment. Any in these cases I would not suggest that an individual work going with the 99% is "racist" but it would certainly be fair to suggest that it was part of the problem.

There is nothing in its self wrong about a white women going to other countries to "free" slaves and build an army for her own political purposes but there are elements to which this sits uncomfortably in the context of western, white history.

[Thane]

Firstname wrote: "I am interested as to why these tropes persist. Is it even possible to get a black hero/culture vs. a white villain/culture published? I doubt it. I'm trying to think of one and even Butler didn't ..."

Do you mean only in scifi/fantasy? Because Alex Cross pretty much fits that. Black cop/psychiatrist vs. white serial killers. At least in the beginning. I'm not sure what he's doing now, probably fighting ninjas or something.

[[deleted user]]

Ben Aaronovitch has a mixed-race protagonist in his Urban Fantasy books. And he deals well with everything else, too. I have not read one book before where gender, sexual orientation or skin colour were treated as something completely normal without making it a big deal.

[Firstname]

Thane wrote: "Firstname wrote: "I am interested as to why these tropes persist. Is it even possible to get a black hero/culture vs. a white villain/culture published? I doubt it. I'm trying to think of one and e..."

Never heard of him, good to know.

[Ayesha]

I don't know about Paul's One Black Friend, but, yeah, it didn't take long for me to notice how quickly Dany went from being the Other (a lone European among the Mongols) to being the White Savior. It was about that time that my interest in her storyline waned. It was bad enough that the leader of the Dothraki had to get himself a white woman, but her turning into a holy mother to all the downtrodden brown people was too much.

Is GRRM racist? Probably not. Am I surprised that he used such blatantly hurtful imagery in his novels. Nope, he's not the first, won't be the last, and after 20 years of reading science fiction, I've learned to cope with constantly being Othered by my favorite genre.

And don't give me that "if you don't like it, don't read it" crap. These sorts of thoughtlessly insulting tropes are EVERYWHERE! Movies, tv, music, plays, computer games, video games, novels, you name it. I can't get away from them without shutting all forms of media out of my life.

For those of you who can't see it, don't feel bad. If I could read a book, watch tv, go to a movie and know that every major character looks like me, I wouldn't think it was a big deal either.

[Ben]

I think Ayesha makes some very good points. SF / Fantasy Literature has a lot to make up for in terms of using "blatantly hurtful imagery" in its fictions. It is not enough to say "if you dont like it dont read it" that is just like saying if you dont like racist abuse dont get on busses. What I dont like about some of the stuff around Martin around Sexism and Racism is, as others have commented in this thread, he is far from alone.

There is much more that writers and others involved in the SF industry can do to improve the genre into being a genre representing 21st century values of inclusiveness, and readers by highlighting these things that writers might not be consciously aware of.

The recent furor in SFWA just shows the depth of some of the problems in the genre and also how many people are trying really hard to bring the genre forward away from old prejudices.

[Hesper]

How the audience engages with the media it consumes also affects the prevalence of these tropes. Perhaps not as immediately as an author taking direct responsibility for avoiding the perpetuation of certain damaging stereotypes, but in the quality of the response to these issues.

In some ways, giving free passes to various isms on the grounds that they're part and parcel of genre because it's based on a medieval world, or what have you, encourages their continued existence.

[Baelor]

I disagree that the imagery involved -- or almost any imagery at all -- is "blatantly hurtful."

Let us assume that Martin is not actually racist. Any imagery is therefore only circumstantially problematic; problematic because of associations that Martin may not have pondered before writing. Are we saying that authors should alter their texts because some readers may associate passages with real-life issues? If we are not saying that Martin et al. intended (e.g. in the season 3 finale) to advocate for the White Man's Burden, what exactly are we saying? Is no white character allowed to liberate a city full of non-whites anymore? What do those raising this issue actually want as a solution? What should Martin have done?


Even more problematic is the suggestion that the genre should "represent 21st century values [sic] of inclusiveness." Why, exactly, should this be necessary? What if values change in fifty years? Do we forgive Birth of a Nation because it espoused values common in the period of its creation? What imperative exists for authors to simply follow the majority opinion at a given time in the first place?

[Ayesha]

1)GRRM doesn't live in a political and cultural vacuum, his writing (whether intentional or not) reflects his (and to a certain extent, our society's) current values. It's entirely appropriate to question his writing according to our current standards.

2)The White Savior trope is not new and has long been considered racially problematic. Not circumstantially problematic, actually problematic. If GRRM didn't recognize his usage of it (or chose to use it anyway), then that's on him. He doesnt' get a pass just because "he didn't mean it that way." At this stage in the game, he should have known. And even if that decision was unconscious, it's worthwhile to question the underlying assumptions about race, colonialism, etc that lead him to that decision because (again) GRRM doesn't exist in a vacuum and his writing says something about our current values.

3)I dislike censorship and since I'm not a writer, I'm not inclined to tell anyone what stories they can and can't tell. Even if I find those stores offensive. However, I've seen (not just in this thread but other places as well) a kneejerk reaction to protect the writer from criticism of his or her own work, especially when it comes to accusations of racism or sexism. In my mind, being a responsible reader and a good human being requires that I question these things when I see them. To have my valid concerns shut down because "how dare you suggest GRRM is racist?!?!?!?!" (and I'm not accusing anyone here of doing that)just makes me dig in my heels. All I want (since you asked) is to talk about it. To have it acknowledged, because if we're not willing to discuss what's happening in the books we love, then what the flying fuck are we wasting our time on goodreads for?

(As a side note, I'd initially thought that GRRM was planning on turning the White Savior trope on its head, by having Dany's foray as holy mother end disastrously. I was really looking forward to seeing a take-down of the arrogant colonialism that Dany and Viserys represented. When that didn't happen, when the White Savior trope came into full effect, I was incredibly disappointed.)

[Baelor]

Ayesha,

Thank you for the response.

1) There is a fallacy of assuming that we are capable of divining the values of the author from the text. While authorial statements may confirm these readings (e.g. Ayn Rand), or texts implicitly reflect the values of society, as you suggest, (e.g. Victorian novels v. Greek tragedy), we are talking about a fantasy novel in which race is not demonstrably (at a textual level) a key issue in the series. While we may question his writing according to our current standards or any other standards we choose, it does not make sense to claim that Martin intends something that we cannot prove he intends. In which case, I ask again why it matters. Because there is a historical association? Why on earth would we require authors to avoid things that may be offensive by mere association? The culpability of the author is non-existent. A book may be read by millions of individuals; should the author avoid anything that may be offensive to some or that may be misread and/or misused by anyone now or in the future?

2) Again, I would argue that the White Savior trope is not even in play. While Daenerys is incidentally white and the people she is saving are incidentally not, there is no suggestion that she is saving them qua Benevolent White Woman. So, yes, he does get a pass, even by our current values. There is yet again an instance of the fallacious association of a text with real-life motives or even values that may simply not be present.

3) I am simply stating that your concerns -- while articulated clearly -- are predicated on assumptions with which I do not agree.

Also, her foray as holy mother has hitherto been a disaster, so I am a bit confused.

[Ruth (tilltab) Ashworth]

Baelor wrote: "2) Again, I would argue that the White Savior trope is not even in play. While Daenerys is incidentally white and the people she is saving are incidentally not, there is no suggestion that she is saving them qua Benevolent White Woman."

I agree. It's not like Daenerys was a powerful queen who swept into a distant country with her army, freed the slaves, and then patted herself on the back for having done those savages a good deed. She started out with little power at all, and was pretty much sold as a slave herself. She was lucky enough to get sold to a man in a position of power, and she was able to influence him to gain power of her own. She also has that whole 'blood of the dragon' thing, which to my mind, puts her in a different race altogether. Could she have been dark skinned? Yes. But that wasn't the way George R R Martin saw her. Now, having been sold as a slave herself, Daenerys naturally has a bug up her ass about slavery in general. She's decided she wants none of that, and so she goes out of her way to prevent it, even when the price is high. She lost her husband and her unborn child over the issue, along with a great deal of power, and nearly her life too. But she continues to oppose slavery instead of simply accepting it as a necessary evil too risky to combat. I don't get how this is racist, unless you are judging her actions purely by the colour of her skin, which...well, there is something ironic about that.

[Firstname]

Baelor wrote: "2) Again, I would argue that the White Savior trope is not even in play. While Daenerys is incidentally white and the people she is saving are incidentally not, there is no suggestion that she is saving them qua Benevolent White Woman."

Actually, she is. She's saving them from horrible enslavement in their own savage cultures, which hasn't been much updated since H. Rider Haggard.

Refusing to acknowledge something obvious is quite different from it not being there at all.

[Gary]

Daenerys is a magically empowered product of inbreeding from an ancient (extinct?) culture with a mystical connection to fantasy fire-breathing lizards. If we really must make a real world analogy for the character, she references Egyptian, Helenistic and a range of animistic cultures more directly than the post-Colonial Europeans that folks have been suggesting here. Really, she's more comparable to Alexander the Great than a white liberator.

I know a lot of folks insist that using such a character in the role that GRRM does is a post-colonialist trope... but what Ruth is saying is that that interpretation is based on little more than the description of her skin color. Martin is, at best, playing with that trope.

Daenerys is freeing fantasy slaves (that is, slaves in a system that couldn't actually exist any more than the dragons she is "mother" to) so that they can be free to be her subjects. She's not really freeing anybody in the sense that is being suggested by those saying she is a racist trope. Rather, she is transitioning the focus and justification of their subjugation.

It's an elaborate pun, so it's understandable that folks would have missed it, but what I think Ruth was getting at was that the objection that Daenerys represents a racist theme is, essentially, at least as shallow as it the accusation itself as it is based on little more than her skin color. I would go further, and say that equating that character to post-Locke, anti-colonialists of European descent doubly mistakes the character not only as a European, but also as a liberator. She's a relatively benevolent master, but still a master, so the argument seems to have missed the mark twice.

[Ben]

I agree with Firstname -

"Refusing to acknowledge something obvious is quite different from it not being there at all"

If someone attacks a work you love it is easy to be reactionary and defensive but the arguments are simple, clear, easy to understand and irrefutable.

[Mysterio2]

I think Martin is a very skilled writer, among the best ever, maybe, at the sort of writing he does, and I very much enjoy his work, and am very much enjoying the HBO series.

But in my opinion anyone who doesn't grant that there are some grounds for criticism of his work from a cultural perspective is just being willfully blind and/or willfully ignorant of literary and world history, or is so embedded in privilege that he can't see straight. Or something.

[Hesper]

Gary wrote: "It's an elaborate pun, so it's understandable that folks would have missed it, but what I think Ruth was getting at was that the objection that Daenerys represents a racist theme is, essentially, at least as shallow as it the accusation itself as it is based on little more than her skin color. I would go further, and say that equating that character ..."

That may be true, but the fact remains that the most readily available image, especially within the HBO series, is that of a white character empowering, however minimally, brown ones. The way Daenerys' actions are framed there is very much slanted toward the White Savior trope. Her fantastical, magical pedigree is less relevant when the image alone is what's going to be remembered.

Everyone here is familiar with the content of the books, to one degree or another. What of somebody who simply stumbles onto the image without having any context for how GRRM may or may not be employing it?

It wouldn't be the first time something an author didn't intend takes precedence over the intended sense in the popular imagination.

[Baelor]

Firstname wrote: "Baelor wrote: "2) Again, I would argue that the White Savior trope is not even in play. While Daenerys is incidentally white and the people she is saving are incidentally not, there is no suggestio..."

But the color of her skin and the color of their skin is irrelevant to the book. There is no suggestion that she is a White Savior, only a Savior. Again, the concept of race is a mere accident, not the essence of the episode in the series.

[Gary]

Hesper wrote: "What of somebody who simply stumbles onto the image without having any context for how GRRM may or may not be employing it?"

What's the concern? What's going to happen to that person?

[Hesper]

It's not what will happen, it's what the image will very likely say because of the cultural context in which it will be interpreted.

I'm not debating Martin's intent in choosing to give Daenerys a specific look, but it is problematic when the trend leans toward giving the lighter skinned characters more individual agency. In looking at the final image of the season, for instance, the brown masses become indistinguishable, a sea of hands, holding the very bright white Daenerys aloft. That's some pretty potent visual metaphor.

The color of her skin isn't an issue for the book's concerns; her magical connection with dragons is more important to the story. Her skin color can, however, become an issue when it appears to reinforce a specific view of reality, something it will do regardless of what Martin may have intended.

[Baelor]

It seems that the posters fall on two sides of the issue, then: those that think authors should care about unintended consequences/implications, and those who do not see any authorial obligation to do so.

[Mysterio2]

I think everyone should consider the unintended consequences/implications of their words and deeds on the broader society. I think people should be thoughtful and considerate in their public actions in general.

I'm not sure I'd say that 'should' rises to the level of an obligation though.

No one should be an asshat. But in a free society, people are free to be asshats.

[Firstname]

Ben wrote: "I agree with Firstname -

"Refusing to acknowledge something obvious is quite different from it not being there at all"

If someone attacks a work you love it is easy to be reactionary and defensive but the arguments are simple, clear, easy to understand and irrefutable"

I think there's a larger agenda here of denying racism exists. It does. So does sexism. Some writers use it to subvert the dominant paradigm, some don't.

Those of us who believe the discussion is worth having will discuss, while those who don't want this discussion to happen will continue to say "no it isn't" in every way possible.

[Firstname]

Mysterio2 wrote: "I think everyone should consider the unintended consequences/implications of their words and deeds on the broader society. I think people should be thoughtful and considerate in their public action..."

They are free to be asshats. However, observers can also rightfully call them out for asshattery, while those who wish to preserve the conditions that make such asshattery acceptable, will defend them.

Quod erat demonstrandum, above

[Baelor]

This is not an issue of whether Martin is being an "asshat." It is whether there is a problem with including something that may be incidentally offensive to some people now or later.

Not to have a problem with Daenery's portrayal in the books is not the same thing as denying sexism or racism exists, nor is it the same as saying that this discussion is not worth having.

[Wastrel]

I'm a little puzzled. Not just by the obvious (yes, books based on European history are likely to repeat some features of European history - the Mongols really WERE brutal and rape-prone, Alexander really WAS paler than the Persians, and both the Yorks and the Lancasters were white than the Ottomans, etc - and we're on a very slippery slope if we forbid books about real things that happened; the thing to do is to encourage people to write books with different inspirations, not to censor authors whose inspiration comes from Europe... and if your story is about Europeans in pre-modern times, then inevitably non-Europeans will feature (if at all) only as the other), but by how this doesn't really seem to match what actually happens in the books.

Dany doesn't save all the slaves. She blunders around thinking she can save everybody, only to discover that it doesn't work that way. She tries to educate and improve the 'poor little natives', but instead leaves behind a trail of chaos and bloody revolution and war and dead bodies, and is hated by as many people as love her. It reads more like a criticism of colonialism (and modern American foreign policy) than a recapitulation of it.

Dany is personally from 'Europe', but culturally and genetically she is not. Her ancestors (who never successfully integrated into European/Westerosi culture (eg their continued practice of incest and polygamy)) came from exactly the part of the world where she's now 'liberating' people - her native language is the language spoken in this area.

The slaves are not all dark-skinned, but explicitly are all manner of skin colours, including some paler than Dany.

The slavers and the decadent orientals are not all dark-skinned either. The most decadently 'oriental' place shown so far in the books is Qarth - and Qarth's population are whiter than the Westerosi!

The most 'civilised' places in the books so far appear to be the Free Cities, at least some of whose people are darker-skinned than Westerosi.


But hey, I'm sure if you call people enough names, nobody will look at the details too closely!

[Gary]

Baelor wrote: "This is not an issue of whether Martin is being an "asshat." It is whether there is a problem with including something that may be incidentally offensive to some people now or later.

Not to have a problem with Daenery's portrayal in the books is not the same thing as denying sexism or racism exists, nor is it the same as saying that this discussion is not worth having."

We live in an era when racism is recognized as the vile, degenerate, anti-social, de-humanizing sophistry that it is, and I would suggest that at their core, questions about racist content are good in that they promote awareness, establish a forum for discussion, and indicate the consciousness of the questioner.

I'm not seeing a lot of substance to these particular concerns, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't express them. It'd be more productive if they could back up those concerns with something more substantial than the concerns themselves and some rhetorical vehemence, but the concerns are valid.

[Mysterio2]

You make some very good points, particularly about the Targaryans, their relationship to the other Westerians (?), and their relationship to the peoples in the east. I'm glad you made these points because I only read the first novel and part of the second so I was unaware of much of this context.

I have been considering the topic of this thread primarily from the story as it has been presented in the HBO series, which lacks much of this nuance and context (at least so far). In my opinion, the criticisms expressed in this thread are worthy of consideration with regard to the story as it has been presented on the screen, again at least so far.

This all said, I don't think anyone is suggesting that any books be 'forbidden' here. At least I haven't seen it. Criticism does not necessarily imply a wish to prohibit.

[Baelor]

Gary wrote: "Baelor wrote: "This is not an issue of whether Martin is being an "asshat." It is whether there is a problem with including something that may be incidentally offensive to some people now or later...."

I agree that concerns about racism in general are valid. This is the case for any moral question. As you say, that does not mean that concerns about particular manifestations of larger concerns are equally valid, at least the absolute sense. My claim that eating a tomato is racist is not valid, for example.

[Ruth (tilltab) Ashworth]

Firstname, I don't think anyone here is denying that racism exists; there are just some of us who don't see racism in this work. Your comments above seem to me to imply some kind of racist by association thing to those who disagree with you. If I'm wrong for suggesting you implied that, then I'm sorry, but that's the way it read to me, and I don't think that is a fair attitude to take. Different people, with different life experiences, are going to view things differently.

For example, for me reading this thread, I have had trouble with the term 'brown people'. I have never, until reading this thread, and the attached article, heard the colour used to describe race in this way, and, for some reason, it triggered a 'wait, that's racist' response in my brain. I'm not suggesting those using the term are racist, mind you, I'm just describing the way I respond to it. It seems to be used to describe people from Asia, which, knowing some Asians who consider pale skin to be the most beautiful, who make sure to stay out of the sun to keep pale, I can't help thinking might offend some people.

The point I'm making, in the most stupid and long-winded way, I'm sure, is that it is all too easy to offend without intention, because we all have different triggers. It is also very easy to find insults where none were intended if you go looking for them.

Out of curiosity, do people on this thread think race should always be a consideration when writing? I can't help thinking that if an author thinks too deeply about race, perhaps going as far as to alter the races of characters purely to avoid seeming racist, then their work is going to be tainted by racism more than if they simply wrote what felt true for the story.

[Paul]

Gary wrote: "I'm not seeing a lot of substance to these particular concerns, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't express them. It'd be more productive if they could back up those concerns with something more substantial than the concerns themselves and some rhetorical vehemence, but the concerns are valid. "

This is the problem with these arguments. There is no spoon...but the perception and the idea that anybody can yell out Racist or sexist because they want to regardless of validity makes everyone over cautious and fearful of any kind of expression because someone wants to play a particular "IST" card.

This is a matter of people seeing what they want to see. It's ridiculous the paranoia we have over having to protect ourselves from perceived slights and phantom intentions.

Real bigotry should be brought to light and dealt with but if every damn time someone yells wolf when its just a dog then whats left but dishonest, diluted ideas for the sake of PC-dom.

It's Bullshit posturing with no substance or facts just to see what happens when we yell FIRE. SO lets make every Creative mind fill out a checklist to be absolutely sure no one is ever offended in any way whether the slight is real or imagined.

The only recourse anyone will have is to make every single character A non-sexed, blue, indistinct organism to make sure no one could be offended.

So me being Irish and German I should scream in protest over every instance of the drunk Irishman in fiction or the Nazi figure. Or does in not count because My skin is light? Wouldnt it be racist to say that?

SO whats the cure then truly no person other than a white-male can be seen as a villain or as a victim in fiction to make sure no one is ever offended. I truly want to know what is the fix? Force WHite authors to right outside their comfort zones and mindset for the sake of everyone elses comfort?
Or do We force people of color to becaome authors and turn the tables for the sake of equality? That'll show'em.

I believe in Civil rights, Gay rights, Womans rights. The Other day When The Defense of Marriage act was shot down I cheered out loud, When the Voter rights act was not renewed I ranted and screamed.
But believing anyone has to create based on a certain set of principles outlined by ANYONE...ANYONE! is just as offensive and so is playing any "ist" card cuz you dont like something.

[Paul]

Throwing out "Racist" for no good reason numbs people to it when it really counts.
Stop Worrying about Fiction and take the argument and effort to your congressman like maybe for the idiocy of Not renewing the Voter rights Act. It took Texas TWO hours after that announcement to announce new stricter voting policy...That what will hurt people of color...Thats whats important Not a little blonde chick freeing imaginary slaves...which by the way is a good thinkg right? Freeing slaves...

[Gary]

Paul wrote: "...the perception and the idea that anybody can yell out Racist or sexist because they want to regardless of validity makes everyone over cautious and fearful of any kind of expression because someone wants to play a particular "IST" card."

It's a problem.... In the long run, I think we are better off dealing with the short term consequences of alarmists, though. It's unsettling, of course. In this day and age, the accusation of racism is a pretty serious thing, and people seem to be bandying them about pretty recklessly.

But we're in a constant state of working this one out. I think that's mostly because we have yet to work out what the difference is between racial and racist, so people associate any racial content with a racist ideology because the line has shifted significantly in the last couple of years.

The long run scenario is that we work out that line. Just before it shifts again, probably. The short run is that there is going to be some pretty nasty stuff said about people who achieve success in literature. That might be a bit idealistic for most folks....

[Gary]

Ruth wrote: "Out of curiosity, do people on this thread think race should always be a consideration when writing?"

That's an interesting question, Ruth.

I don't think it should always be a consideration for authors. In something the length of a novel, it seems like it would come up in one way or another, but race is an aspect of culture--just like any other imaginary human construct--and probably not one of most important issues given the scope of literature. It would be strange if it never came up in a novelists work, but I don't think it necessarily needs to be a consideration for any particular writer.

[Paul]

I just cant help it but it makes me so damn angry...Its just so Stupid. The book is full of white people who do nothing but evil deeds stabbing each other in the back, committing incest, slaughtering woman children and unborn babies but its racist because a white chick frees some slaves?
She participates in murdering her own brother but the thing thats makes the books "evil" is when she leads people of color from bondage and treats them like human beings as they deserve and this is the bad thing solely because she's white. Its so stupid it boggles my mind.
How twisted are we when doing good is seen as evil because of the color of her skin...wouldnt thinking that make someone...I dont know...a racist?
It's just so stupid. Damn Abraham Lincoln too for his evil acts...Of course Im referring to his vampire slaying ...Yes Im rolling my eyes

[Rick]

Baelor wrote: "Firstname wrote: "Baelor wrote: "2) Again, I would argue that the White Savior trope is not even in play. While Daenerys is incidentally white and the people she is saving are incidentally not, the..."
If skin color doesn't matter then why isn't Dany colored and the Dothraki white?

You cannot credibly talk about how GRRM consciously subverts fantasy tropes by killing off characters in one breath and then excuse him for using racial stereotypes in the next. He's either aware and perceptive of fantasy tropes or he's not. He can't be both.

Paul - you might want to take some logic and debate classes. You're strawmanning again.

[Paul]

Rick ...seriously son repeating a word doesnt mean you understand it any better and it certainly doesnt mean you have an argument to make.

[Paul]

Also Rick This is the second time youve chosen to call me out specifically instead of just making a counter argument I would appreciate if you would keep my name off your posts from now on and address an argument with a response not take opportunity to confront me directly with "name calling" Its just more proof of a lack of argument on your Behalf.

The Question Is "Is a Song of Fire and Ice Racist?" I addressed that question based on the reasoning behind the thought...White Savior, Colored Captive" that is not straw man tactics that is using example to make a point. It is YOU who have a little debate study to do since parallel example is a standard technique in debate as is the use of similar ideas and examples in history and fiction.

I'm thinking maybe I should call Point of personal Privilege Rick :)

[Baelor]

Rick wrote: "Baelor wrote: "Firstname wrote: "Baelor wrote: "2) Again, I would argue that the White Savior trope is not even in play. While Daenerys is incidentally white and the people she is saving are incide..."

Rick,

Thank you for your response.

1) Dany is not colored because Martin chose not to make her colored. That does not mean that skin color matters, unless you are arguing that by its mere inclusion skin color matters beyond simply providing detail to the liking of the author, in which case I would ask how you would justify such a position.

2) For someone claiming that others are committing logical fallacies, you are certainly prone to them yourself. The false dichotomy falls apart upon any thought whatsoever. It is obviously not impossible for an other to be aware of some tropes and not of others, or for an author to subvert some tropes but not others.

I also do not remember claiming that Martin deconstructs fantasy tropes with any substantial frequency, which makes your statement a strawman as well, unless you post responses to things I never said, which is not much better than the strawman thing.

[Rick]

BAelor,

#1 is a tautology. However, Martin chose to use stereotypical racial profiles - the warriors are colored, the 'western' civilization is white Dany, the white woman, civilizes them and becomes a leader by example. The question is why he didn't either invert those stereotype or ignore the entire issue by making everyone the same color.

Your second point makes no sense. My argument isn't a logical fallacy at all since I'm not positing any dichotomy whatsoever. I'm simply questioning whether it's credible to argue that Martin is clever and aware enough of fantasy tropes to subvert them in one area and then to argue he's clueless enough about the use of racial stereotypes to write ASoiaF as he did without meaning to use them. I don't think it is. Now, could Martin be aware of one set of tropes and not another? His apologists would certainly argue that but I'd say that it's on them to reconcile his awareness in one area and ignorance in the other.

To be REALLY clear, I think he knew precisely what he was doing by making the Dothraki colored, Dany white and Westeros named that vs something else. Does that make HIM racist? No. Does it mean he's using tropes that are outdated and racially insensitive? I think so. Others might not agree of course.

Your third point makes the mistake of thinking I was talking specifically about you. I wasn't but I probably wasn't clear about that. Sorry about the confusion there.

Paul - trust me, I'll have no issue ignoring you in the future. One final tip though... random capitalization and flowery language don't actually help your arguments.

[Paul]

Random capitalization in all honesty is just lousy typing skills.

Flowery Language? I always did admire the great romantic poets so thank you I didnt realize. And to quote a great mind of our time "That's all right, he can call me flower if he wants to." :)

[Baelor]

Rick wrote: "BAelor,

#1 is a tautology. However, Martin chose to use stereotypical racial profiles - the warriors are colored, the 'western' civilization is white Dany, the white woman, civilizes them and bec..."

Rick,

We seem to be having communication problems. I will do my best to clear them up.

1) Martin did not choose to use stereotypical racial profiles in any demonstrable way. He happened to have a plot in which characters followed racial profiles. There is a difference. There could be any number of reasons for this, and none of them really matter. Your suggestion that "the question is why he didn't either invert" etc. is misguided because the question is predicated on erroneous premises. Why should he have any obligation to invert the stereotypes or avoid the issue? If he has no obligation, why is there a moralistic overtone to many of the posts here?

2) My second point makes perfect sense. You are simply wrong when you claim that there was no dichotomy in your previous post. It was explicit:

You cannot credibly talk about how GRRM consciously subverts fantasy tropes by killing off characters in one breath and then excuse him for using racial stereotypes in the next. He's either aware and perceptive of fantasy tropes or he's not. He can't be both.

Now that that issue has been settled, I will address the weakened form of your argument, as articulated in your most recent post. The fact that Martin is generally aware of racial stereotypes does not mean that he was thinking of them while writing his book. I never thought about race while reading the book; it is not a stretch for me to assume that he was not thinking about the White Savior trope while writing them. So I find the suggestion very credible.

Even if it were incredible or he purposely used racial stereotypes, say to mimic history while maintaining some removal through fantastical settings, why would that matter?

3) Please read my posts more carefully in the future. I explicitly addressed the case in which you were not referring to me, so it is consequently impossible that "I made the mistake of thinking you were talking specifically about me." Thank you for the clarification, though.

[Katie]

Rick wrote: "#1 is a tautology. However, Martin chose to use stereotypical racial profiles - the warriors are colored, the 'western' civilization is white Dany, the white woman, civilizes them and becomes a leader by example. The question is why he didn't either invert those stereotype or ignore the entire issue by making everyone the same color"

I feel like making everyone in the book the same color would have been criticized as a cop out and unrealistic.

As for the question that "if skin color doesn't matter than why isn't Dany colored and the Dothraki white?"...if skin color doesn't matter than it doesn't matter that she IS white...or is the solution to racism just reversing it's direction? I don't think authors are obligated to only ever make white people villains to escape accusations of racism, or that they are obligated to represent every people group, culture, sexuality, religion, etc. in every one of their works and make sure the heroes and villains allotted to each group are exactly equal.

Also I agree with those who say that the books seem to me to show that Dany's actions are often going wrong and backfiring on her, and her story is not finished by any means...maybe we should give Martin a chance to finish the story before judging what he's done with the tropes, he still has plenty of time to twist and play with them. The HBO show employed a visual that has baggage attached but that doesn't mean Martin envisioned it looking like that or meant that to be the takeaway, that Dany was perfectly heroic. I find her very flawed and often naive, selfish, and blind.

As I said Martin has a couple more books where he may twist Dany's story to rip certain tropes to shreds...remember that there are people who think The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is racist merely because it contains the n-word and ignore that it's satire criticizing racism. Not claiming that Martin is going to make that his ultimate message but making the point that sometimes you have to look past the surface trigger words or images.

[Ayesha]

Baelor wrote: "1) Martin did not choose to use stereotypical racial profiles in any demonstrable way. He happened to have a plot in which characters followed racial profiles. There is a difference."

This is my main problem. The plot didn't happen to have racial profiles. GRRM created the plot, he created the characters, he created the setting. The racial profiles were his doing, not an accident that he had no control over.

Why does it matter (as you asked in an earlier post)? Because (as someone else noted), this trope is as old as She and A Princess of Mars. We look back at those novels and shake our heads at the products of a bygone era, but then GRRM shows us that, nope, not so bygone after all.

It's an old trope, it's an over-used trope, it's a lazy trope and it's a hurtful trope derived from a racist way of thinking. Is GRRM obligated to alter his plot so as to avoid using racially insensitive tropes or to subvert racial stereotypes? Not at all. And no one (except those defending GRRM) has said otherwise.

But, why didn't he do that? Why didn't he subvert the trope, why did he decide to fall back on an easy plot device? I find the idea of Dany as a the White Savior to be just as lame as "The Last Of Her Kind" and "Magical Dragon Princess" The only difference is the White Savior trope is predicated on racist stereotypes. So, it's lame and racist, and GRRM, who is a fantastic writer, could have done better.

If I can make an additional point, Baelor, you assume that because you didn't think about race when reading the book, that GRRM didn't think about race when writing the book.

I did think about race when reading the books, so I, also, assumed that GRRM thought about race as well. Even if he (like you) didnt think about it, I find it hard to believe that his proofreaders, editors, copy-writer, personal assitant or any of the dozen of people involved in the publishing process didn't think about race. Is it hard to believe that no one brought this to his attention?

[Gary]

Ayesha wrote: "It's an old trope, it's an over-used trope, it's a lazy trope and it's a hurtful trope derived from a racist way of thinking."

I think you were the person who originally brought up this argument, so I'm going to ask: Would you care to respond to my and Ruth's notes about it not actually being the white savior trope you describe? In order to be that trope, Daenerys would have to be:

A) white.

B) freeing slaves.

She's not A, nor is she doing B. Daenerys has no more in common with the stereotypical white people of that trope than she does with the colored folks on the other side of it. She's only "white" in skin tone. In fact, unless one thinks that Martin wants us to believe that Europeans are magical, fire-proof beings who have sex with siblings in order to keep alive their magical powers, she's not a metaphor for Europeans at all. Her skin is pale, but that's about the extent of the comparison between the character and white culture.

Also, she isn't actually freeing anyone. The choices given to the people of the cities she ruthlessly conquers is to become her subject, to die off in the desert, or be subjected to a brutal death--likely at the hands of her own fighters. That's not exactly a savior in the sense that the trope describes.

[Wastrel]

If the 'trope' had been 'inverted', people would have complained it was racist. What, a nation of murderous brutal evil-version-of-the-white-heroes-of-most-fantasy-novels sits around waiting to be liberated by a dark-skinned-but-of-European-ancestry heroine with her army of militarily superior white men? Yeah, 'cos NO-ONE would have complained about that!

Why isn't everyone exactly the same skin colour? Because this is meant to be a vaguely believable world, spanning an immense area, and it would be ridiculous is everyone were racially identical.

It's also important to reiterate that the "trope" this is based on isn't some racist novel, but actual life. The Mongols WERE darker-skinned than the Europeans. So naturally that's going to be the default in the fictional version. Of course, an author may want to play with things with race, if race is something he particularly wants to talk about - but there is hardly any moral obligation for ALL authors to make their stories about race. And frankly, making your story be about race just by replacing every instance of 'white' with 'black' is a patronising and superficial endeavour.
Martin does, in passing, deal with issues of race and colonialism and liberal imperialism and so on, which he was under no obligation to do, and I don't think anyone who reads the book with any degree of charity and attention could come away doubting that Martin isn't just not actively racist but he's actually opposed to racism. Obsessing over your own ability to construct a perspective from which one element isn't the most revolutionary assault on racism ever is rather missing the point. It's like calling someone unpatriotic because their lapel pin isn't big enough, and not paying any attention to their policies. Racist and not-racist isn't a matter of who shouts loudest or who has the fewest dark-skinned villains and the fewest light-skinned heroes. It's a serious matter, which this sort of superficial confrontationalism does a disservice to. That, I think, is where Martin would really disagree with the people who call him racist: in their desire to categorise things in the most simplistic, binary and superficial way, and then to use that bifurcation to make sweeping rhetorical condemnations - whereas he has always argued for complexity and nuance.

What matters isn't the exact shade of colour of the 'good' or 'bad' people or of the 'weak' and 'strong' people in the book (if that were the case, it would be almost impossible to write any historical fiction about the colonial era at all without being racist!); what matters is how the author addresses questions of majority and minority rights, of exclusion and identity, of the relationship between the powerful and privileged and the marginalised and subordinated. And on those questions I think it's clear that Martin is on The Right Side.

To be honest, personally, I don't care in the slightest about the politics of Black vs White (I guess in part because it's not exactly a salient issue around here, since only 2% of the population is black), except where this happens to reflect broader issues I do care about, like strong vs weak, central vs marginal, normative vs deviant, and so on. Clearly, ASOIAF is for the most part a work that sides with the weak, marginal and deviant, and as a result I think it can be enjoyable and inspiring for readers who are themselves weak, marginalised, or deviant (meaning that word in a non-perjorative sense) in some way. Getting caught up in this "all that matters is skin colour, how can ethnic minorities sympathise with pale-skinned characters and won't they take any unsympathetic dark-skinned characters as a personal insult?" palaver is superficial in the most literal way. I don't think most people experience fiction, engage with fiction, in such a straightforward, skin-fixated way.

And in passing I'll also note that, as a liberal, I don't believe that forcing people who want to be colourblind to instead see everything first and foremost through the lens of skin colour is an effective way to combat racism. Insisting that we divide people into black and white and then make sure that the former group is protected from any possible perceived slight is not the way to make people stop caring about race (even putting the dothraki on the 'dark' side of the light vs dark spectrum is rather missing the point, given that they're a lot closer in skin colour to the westerosi than to the actual black characters we've seen so far) - the way to stop racism is to discourage all bigotry, not because it is racist but because it is bigotted. In that respect, works like Martin's do more to discourage racism than shrill and racialist criticisms could.


[P.S. I know this isn't exactly an insurmountable barrier, but my inner pedant insists I point out that having the Dothraki be 'white' and the Westerosi 'dark' would be biologically a little silly. Pale skin is only likely to develop among high-latitude agricultural populations - pastoralists will always tend to be darker-skinned, because their diet provides more Vitamin D (so, for instance, the reindeer-herding Sami in the north of Scandinavia are much darker than the grain-eating Swedes and Finns to their south - comparing different Uralic populations shows that this effect is noticeable even over a few thousand years). Making the Dothraki be a farming people would be a major change to the story, as would moving them further north into a different climate zone. The Mongols were the colour the Mongols were because they lived where the Mongols lived and ate what the Mongols ate. Making your Mongols white for political-rhetorical reasons will seem a little silly to anyone who thinks too much about it. And actualy, Martin already did this by making his Qartheen be pale-skinned, despite living in a desert and being surrounded by darker-skinned people, which to me seemed like too much of a political statement. But at least there it's easier to believe, since one random city may be a recent migration, and there may be strange sex-and-purity pressures toward pale skin in that civilisation.]