Is 'A Song of Ice and Fire' racist?

[Baelor]

Ayesha wrote: "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...."

Ayesha,

I will try to respond to you point-by-point.

"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."

That does not mean he was attempting to reinforce racial stereotypes. As has been stated, he was inspired by history and the geography roughly follows the actual world.

In other words, despite his control over the situation at one level, at another it was not necessarily a conscious decision. Not every author consciously reflects upon every single word and element of his text.


"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."

I do not look at those novels and shake my head at the products of a bygone era. Perhaps you do; that is your right. But please do not project your own concerns onto others. There is absolutely no suggestion of racial superiority in Martin at all; I consequently have no problem whatsoever with the racial dynamic, which I did not even consider or think about while reading because it was so obviously irrelevant to anything that Martin was consciously attempting to do that it could not possibly matter.


"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."

Okay. We have several problems in basic reasoning here:

1) "Lazy trope:" Tropes are only lazy if they indicate a lack of effort or do not make sense. Neither of these conditions can really be justified in this case. No one has even attempted to establish either condition in this thread.

2) "Hurtful trope:" If it is so hurtful, why was I, and millions of others, not at all hurt by it? If someone was, why should I care? If someone cannot understand the principle of basing a book on history, perhaps that person should not read books based on history and then complain that they are based on history.

3) "Derived from racist thought:" This is absolutely preposterous. Martin does not have the authority to alter history. Do you? Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Martin is deriving this incident from some racist thought?

You want every reader and every author to care about the exact same things you do and to think about every issue in the same way as you. The obvious problem is obvious.


"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?"

Why is subverting the trope better?

He did not fall back on an easy plot device; you have still not presented any evidence whatsoever that he wanted to invoke the "White Savior" trope or that he was framing his narrative in that way. Your accusation of laziness is completely unsupported.


"So, it's lame and racist, and GRRM, who is a fantastic writer, could have done better."

It is really neither.


"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 am quite sure that I do not make that assumption. I simply stated that it is completely plausible that Martin was not consciously thinking of racial stereotypes, nor was he consciously thinking about any perceived need to invert, avert, or subvert them.


"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?"

There was nothing to bring to his attention since the problem is actually an illusory construct.

[Serendi]

When a lot of people react to a book with "Ouch!", there is a problem. It doesn't matter whether it's intended or where it comes from, when there's a big enough outcry, that's a clear sign that a large chunk of the readership finds the book hurtful. Explaining why it shouldn't be read that way doesn't alter the fact that it *is* read that way.

Example - a friend firmly believes that if a story written in the thirties is painfully sexist, I should be able to accept it as being of its time and the sexism should have no impact on my enjoyment.

That's a lovely theory, but it *does* affect my enjoyment. All the intellectual constructs in the world aren't going to make it wince-free. I am a product of *my* time and that's inextricably a part of what goes into my experience of a book.

Is it a deal-breaker? That gets decided on a case-by-case basis.

I think that's the kind of thing we have here. I haven't read or seen enough to know how much is in the text and how much is from the very vivid visual image of the Emilia Clarke moshpit. But if enough people are wincing, it means something.

[Gary]

Serendi wrote: "When a lot of people react to a book with "Ouch!", there is a problem. It doesn't matter whether it's intended or where it comes from, when there's a big enough outcry, that's a clear sign that a large chunk of the readership finds the book hurtful. Explaining why it shouldn't be read that way doesn't alter the fact that it *is* read that way."

Sorry, I just can't agree with this assertion. First, it's so vague that it just isn't useful. How many is "a lot of people" what is a "big enough outcry" how much is "a large chunk of the readership" and who is to make those assessments? Second, how can anyone know, anticipate or be held responsible for the misreading of something, particularly when that misreading appears to be so fallacious? If that's going to be a standard of behavior we rapidly become paralyzed because nobody could possibly address an issue without fear of being accused of things that have no relationship whatever to their actual work.

In fact, I don't think there's anything near to "a lot" or "big enough" or "a large chunk" of people who have the objections being described here. I think it's just a very small number of people who are quite vociferous in both their errors and their objections. But that volume doesn't make their objections more meaningful any more than it makes them correct. There's no obligation to be right in one's assessment of a book, and people are free to express their opinions, but the conclusion of the argument you're making is that Martin does not have the right to be right in the first place, because someone could be wrong in their interpretation of it. That just doesn't add up.

[Doug]

Well, I'm in Gary's camp. In fact, I'd go a little farther and say that I hope GRRM continues to write the books that are in his head, and pay no attention to this noise.

I'm reminded of My Name Is Asher Lev, which is about being true to your art even if it hurts the people you love the most. That book suggests (if I remember correctly) that if you're true to your art, you're bound to hurt someone.

[Serendi]

I just Googled "Is George RR Martin racist?" and got about 361,000 results. Clearly, this isn't one or two people.

I'm not saying GRRM should change what he does, and I'm sure he's made his own determination as to where he stands on the issue. That's entirely his call. And I remain unclear as to how much of the reaction is from the books and how much from the TV show, which are not the same entity.

I'm just saying that if you use elements of tropes (whether GRRM or HBO) that are triggering, you shouldn't be shocked if people get triggered. And telling people they're wrong to be triggered isn't going to stop it from happening.

GRRM is more than welcome to write whatever he wants however he wants to. But if people have what certainly looks to me like a legitimate beef, the beef exists. The white savior trope DOES exist. Daenerys DOES embody elements of that trope, especially with that image of the white savior held up by a sea of anonymous not-white hands. People who are tired of the message that only a white savior can save them and they can't save themselves DO go Ouch. And yeah, they can legitimately be annoyed that as a white woman I'm making this argument, but I've been on the receiving end of arguments in other domains that claim my perfectly legitimate response is wrong, so it got me going.

I've been in fandom in one way or another for nearly four decades, and I have the impression that GRRM is one of the good guys. I've got no problem at all if he continues to write the books that are in his head. I just get bugged by people saying "You didn't see what you did see," and that's the sense I'm getting here.

[Hesper]

A non-white perspective. The comments section is also fascinating reading.

[Baelor]

Serendi wrote: "I just Googled "Is George RR Martin racist?" and got about 361,000 results. Clearly, this isn't one or two people.

I'm not saying GRRM should change what he does, and I'm sure he's made his own d..."

Serendi,

No one is denying there is a beef. That does not make the beef valid or even worth addressing in any detail.

Again, there is no suggestion that Daenerys is saving the black people qua White Woman. There is consequently no deliberate intention on Martin's part to suggest that only white people can save the poor racial minorities.

Anyone has the right to be annoyed; that does not mean the annoyance is rational or based on anything justifiable.

[Serendi]

I think I must have just posted into the wind; my words were whipped away unheard.

Huh.

[Mysterio2]

Wastrel wrote: "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)"

I am an American of mixed racial heritage. Most of my family members are the color of the Dothraki (that is, the actor who played Khal Drogo) or lighter, and many are archetypically northern European in skin color; and I have many, many family members who are straight-haired and have light-colored (grey, green, light blue) eyes.

Yet the major branches of my family, even the 'fairest'* ones, have been considered and/or officially designated black, going back at least to the American Civil War.

In more recent history, I personally remember the effects of federally-mandated desegregation in the community I grew up in. The next county over from the one I lived in CLOSED ITS PUBLIC SCHOOLS for four or five years rather than desegregate them. In my county, the public schools stayed open, but almost all the white families with the means to do so pulled their kids from the public schools and enrolled them in a new, hastily-formed whites-only private school.

Again, I PERSONALLY remember this. And this is not ancient history. I'm 50 years old.

So when I see white people talking about how we should all just be color-blind and eschew 'racialism', when I see quotes like the one I reference above, what I see first and foremost is an ignorance of the history of racial politics, a history that people like me still see and feel as a dominant force in the culture.

Maybe I'm being overly sensitive, maybe I'm trapped by the history of black people in America, and I need to just move on. But maybe, just maybe, those of you who don't see the relevance of racial considerations in analysis of the popular culture, or who want to limit considerations of racism to its *explicit* manifestations, are trapped by *your* histories. Maybe you don't understand why some of us see things through a racial lens because the culture has never forced you to look at things that way.

* - Edit: As I typed this it didn't even occur to me to consider the usage of 'fair' to mean light-colored....

[Gary]

OK, since this is my new hobby for the day:

Is George R R Martin a pervert: 118,000 hits.

Is George R R Martin an atheist: 199,000 hits.

Is George R R Martin a christian: 2.77 million hits.

Is George R R Martin married: 4.16 million hits.

Is George R R Martin a good cook: 2.28 million hits.

Is George R R Martin an alien: over a million hits.

Is George R R Martin a stuffed animal: 2.69 million hits.

Is George R R Martin really a woman: 5.69 million hits.

Is George R R Martin a wombat: 668,000 hits.

EDIT: Oops. Sorry. I edited my previous post and replaced it with this one. I meant to reply, but cut it all instead. My mistake.

EDIT 2: IIRC, it went like this:

Is the pope racist: 8.28 million hits.

Is mother teresa racist: 731,000 hits.

Is gandhi racist: 1.47 million hits.

Is serendi racist: 622,000 hits.

EDIT 3: I'm sure a more judicious use of quotation marks and google-fu would get a much better sampling, but overall my point is that success becomes a kind of blank slate upon which people can project whatever they like. That seems to be the case here.

[Serendi]

I had no idea I was so well known!

[Hesper]

Mysterio2 wrote: "So when I see white people talking about how we should all just be color-blind and eschew 'racialism', when I see quotes like the one I reference above, what I see first and foremost is an ignorance of the history of racial politics, a history that people like me still see and feel as a dominant force in the culture."

This.

The "beef" is valid, real, and justifiable. There is an overwhelming tendency to portray lighter skinned characters as having more agency than darker skinned ones, even when the authors of those characters are actually quite decent people. No amount of cultural horse-blinders is going to make it otherwise.

Something else that, sadly, won't be otherwise: the lack of civility evident in portions of this thread.

So far, I haven't seen that anyone who questioned Martin's use of certain tropes, however correctly or incorrectly interpreted, also suggested that "he doesn't have the right to be right."

It seems to me that most of the criticism centered around the origins of those questionable creative choices, and whether or not their possible interpretations could be reinforcing damaging stereotypes. It is possible to draw inspiration from historical events without employing historically accurate mores, or exaggerated renditions thereof.

Daenerys does not have to be an explicit metaphor for Europeans, as someone suggested, in order for the association with the white savior trope to exist. Martin's awareness or intent isn't the pivot on which the argument turns simply because no author is capable of writing in a contextual vacuum. It is impossible to escape internalized cultural biases, but they can be acknowledged.

As Serendi said, Martin is probably one of the good guys; that doesn't mean, however, that he is incapable of making questionable choices, or that the choices he has made won't intersect with real-world racially charged issues.

It might benefit the genre as a whole to have these discussions without resorting to calling all criticisms erroneous, or illusory, and to address what may appear to be minority concerns with an open mind.

[Mysterio2]

Hesper wrote: "It might benefit the genre as a whole to have these discussions without resorting to calling all criticisms erroneous, or illusory, and to address what may appear to be minority concerns with an open mind...."

Indeed. Well-said. It may be that, as some have suggested, criticisms of Mr. Martin's work from a racial/cultural perspective are ill-considered or that such critics are missing important contextual considerations in forming their views. I appreciate this. But it is one thing to argue the question on the merits, as some have done here, and quite another to take the indignant and offended tone that some have taken in response.

[Baelor]

Hesper wrote: "Mysterio2 wrote: "So when I see white people talking about how we should all just be color-blind and eschew 'racialism', when I see quotes like the one I reference above, what I see first and forem..."

I call them illusory because I reject the most fundamental basis of, it seems to me, all the posts critiquing Martin (and other artists on other threads): that the authors ought to have any concern whatsoever for stereotypes or the consequences of their literature at all (in fiction, at least). When this principle is removed, then the criticism against Martin essentially falls apart, because even the secondary critique -- that Martin fell prey to unconscious biases -- has no basis in a reality in which Martin himself has said that his work took inspiration from history.

Even more fundamentally, I vehemently deny any suggestion that works that appear to break down racial stereotypes, that feature a particular diversity of characters, and so forth are in any way superior to works that ceteris paribus do not. And yes, I am part of a minority that is underrepresented in literature and no, I do not care, nor do I find it problematic. I can choose to create new literature that is to my liking or consume extant literature that represents me if I so choose.

[Mysterio2]

Baelor wrote: I call them illusory because I reject the most fundamental basis of, it seems to me, all the posts critiquing Martin (and other artists on other threads): that the authors ought to have any concern whatsoever for stereotypes or the consequences of their literature at all (in fiction, at least)...."

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I just disagree. My view is that artists should feel a responsibility to the culture. Of course, it's a free country and so it doesn't follow from this that I feel writers with whom I take issue on this question should be censured or anything, but I certainly feel entitled to express my disapprobation.


"...And yes, I am part of a minority that is underrepresented in literature and no, I do not care, nor do I find it problematic. I can choose to create new literature that is to my liking or consume extant literature that represents me if I so choose....

Again, you are entitled to your view, as I am mine. So you can vote with your attention or your wallet, as it were, and I will do the same, but also add my voice.

[Baelor]

Mysterio2 wrote: "Baelor wrote: I call them illusory because I reject the most fundamental basis of, it seems to me, all the posts critiquing Martin (and other artists on other threads): that the authors ought to ha..."

Mysterio2,

I also believe that artists should feel a responsibility to the culture. I simply do not believe that sensitivity to any number of concerns than any number of readers could identify (whether authorial intent was there or not), whether now or ten thousand years in the future, falls within that mandate.

If that were the case, then, for one, all the bad guys in books would have to be completely generic and free of all association, lest someone feel that the villain is an attack upon whatever demographics in which he lies.

[David Sven]

I think the main issue for me is that I view political correctness as an hypocrisy that at it's core is itself a racist manifestation.

For example - why is it considered racist to depict Mrs Obama as an ape - but depicting George Bush as an ape is not racist - answer: Because it's been drilled into us from a young age in our biology classes that we evolved out of Africa and black people live in Africa so they are more closely related to apes than white people. So enter political correctness which effectively states it's bad form to criticize the less evolved in the same way that it's bad form for rich people to rub their financial superiority in the face of poor people. But it still reinforces the erroneous idea that white people are more evolved than black people.

So then attempting to impose political correctness on all forms of literature and crying "racist!" to highlight under represented classes of people is not going to help true racism - it would simply allow us smug satisfaction that we aren't racist whilst in fact we have simply reinforced and justified our existing racism.

[Mysterio2]

David Sven wrote: "For example - why is it considered racist to depict Mrs Obama..."

Um, no.

It's considered racist to portray as black person as an ape in a way that it is not to display a white person as an ape because black people have been *generically* denigrated by explicit racists calling them and caricaturing them as apes, monkeys, etc. for over a hundred years in this country, and no such historical context exists for white people.

With all due respect, your point is incoherent, and ignorant of American cultural history.

[Mysterio2]

Baelor wrote: "...If that were the case, then, for one, all the bad guys in books would have to be completely generic and free of all association, lest someone feel that the villain is an attack upon whatever demographics in which he lies...."

Maybe it's not an all-or-nothing proposition? Maybe there are cultural stereotypes that a thoughtful writer might think about avoiding because they are particularly pervasive, pernicious, and/or hurtful?

Maybe the criticisms of Mr. Martin's work are off-base. I've read enough here to reconsider some of my initial knee-jerk reactions to the thread. But I don't think the OP was wrong to pose the question.

[David Sven]

Mysterio2 wrote: "because black people have been denigrated by explicit racists calling them and caricaturing them as apes, monkeys, etc. for over a hundred years in this country,"

Yes - because they were taught that black people are less evolved than white people. That idea is still entrenched and promoted in western culture today.
Thank you for reinforcing my point (which was NOT to say depicting Mrs Obama as an ape is not racist - but to ask WHY it's considered racist)

[Darren]

Gary wrote: "OK, since this is my new hobby for the day:

Is George R R Martin a pervert: 118,000 hits.

Is George R R Martin an atheist: 199,000 hits.

Is George R R Martin a christian: 2.77 million hits.

Is ..."

Serendi wrote: "I just Googled "Is George RR Martin racist?" and got about 361,000 results. Clearly, this isn't one or two people.

I'm not saying GRRM should change what he does, and I'm sure he's made his own d..."

"Is the Earth flat" 312,000,000 hits

[Baelor]

Mysterio2 wrote: "Baelor wrote: "...If that were the case, then, for one, all the bad guys in books would have to be completely generic and free of all association, lest someone feel that the villain is an attack up..."

1) Why should the author have to avoid them in the first place? He certainly can; I do not believe he must.

2) Should this issue be limited to stereotypes? How would one determine whether a stereotype is particularly pervasive? Will their be some omnipotent arbiter? How important should it be to avoid them? Should notable absences -- religious characters -- also factor in? What about the appearance of demonizing by mere association of the villain with a particular group?

As soon as this door is cracked, it swings open with great force and resistance to control.

[[deleted user]]

Baelor wrote: "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? "

Gene Roddenberry wrote a mixed crew for the original Star Trek series because he wanted to show a more utopian future. If HE could imagine women working on the bridge, chinese and russian characters on the bridge, show the first kiss on tv between a black woman and a white man, then why can't others? I mean especially in scifi that is my biggest problem. It's an imagined future but why should all progress that is shown only affect technology? I think it is a big factor that it shows social progress as well. And treating people equally within social conventions and by the law is the biggest progress I can see there.

As for GRRM and the Dothraki: Yeah, they can be dark skinned due to their geographical location yet the way they are portrayed gives in to the standard trope of them having to be "savages" or "barbaric". That is the issue I take with this.

[Baelor]

J4n3 wrote: "Baelor wrote: "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..."

J4n3,

Thank you for the response.

It is certainly Roddenberry's right to make his show how he wants and envision a utopian future that conforms to his ideals. That does not mean that others should be required to follow his lead in the exact same way.

Consider the Matrix series -- although the protagonist is white, Will Smith was the original choice for Neo. Morpheus is black. The citizens of Zion are black. Is this problematic? No. Why would it be? Whites are underrepresented (except among the villains -- Smith, the other agents, the Architect), and Asians are essentially absent except for the Keymaker/Seraph, most prominently. Who cares?

Relatively few books/movies heavily incorporate religion/religious characters. As a religious person, should I be up in arms about this?

Few movies include characters who are paraphilic. Is this a problem? Should we condemn authors who do not include coprophlagiacs, decidedly an underrepresented minority in fiction but one that current societal outlook suggests should be tolerated more than ever before?


To take a hypothetical (but realized) example, say an author creates a fictional future society with only white people. What exactly is the problem? If a couple of black people and East Asian and Middle Eastern people were thrown in, would that make it okay? Why stop at race? Why should authors not have at least one example of every conceivable trait or belief present in humanity, in order to conform to the current societal norms of appreciation for and exposition of diversity and equality under law? Should we have a checklist? Does this rabbit-hole ever end?

If my idea of progress differs from yours, how do we resolve the impasse? You acknowledge the inherent difficulty here with your caveat "I can see."

As to the Dothraki, I would simply suggest looking at a map of Westeros and Essos and then one of Eurasia in the 13th century.

[Mysterio2]

David Sven wrote: "...Yes - because they were taught that black people are less evolved than white people. That idea is still entrenched and promoted in western culture today...."

The broad popular characterization of black people as being apish can be easily documented back to the heyday of the Abolitionist movement in this country and probably goes back further. Darwin didn't publish until the late 1850s, I believe, and the ideas of biological evolution, the descent of man from primate ancestors, etc., certainly had not reached any significant level of mainstream popularity by the time these images came into cultural currency in this country. So I don't think teachings about evolution had anything to do with these images, though I do grant that they certainly were obviously intended to dehumanize black people.

This point aside, though, my main problem with your statement is that there is a cultural context around the depiction of a black person in an apeish caricature that simply does not attach to similar depictions of white people, and that the 'politically correct' recognition of this historical context is not based on some underlying belief that black people *really are less evolved* and poor, disadvantaged black people need to be protected from such representations ('Bad form?' Really?); it's simply based on an understanding that such images perpetuate inaccurate stereotypes, the more so if they are allowed to go unchallenged.

But really, now that I've had time to reflect on what you wrote, I'm not sure we disagree as much as I thought we did.

[Mpauli]

It's a difficult area. As a white, male, straight, german guy I'm not sure if it is politically correct for me to have an oppinion on this at all, but anyway...here it goes:

When someone is offended by something, something is offensive. I guess it doesn't matter, if I think if it's offensive or if it wasn't intended to be offensive.

Regarding the books, I personally don't get the feeling of a stereotype.
If you read book 5, Dany is far from being a messiah. She's lost and clueless.
Also regarding diversity, I think book 5 shows a pretty diverse Meereen.

Regarding the tv show. I also had a bad feeling watching the messiah scene and I immediately thought that this might have not been a good way to picture it.

Also the tv show cut characters like Brown Ben Plumm or Strong Belwas and made Daario Neharys into a paranormal romance white cover boy.

[Angela]

While racial stereotypes can be an issue in books we shouldn't forget one thing that was mentioned before. Martin is white. He is going to write from a white perspective and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. We know he's pulling his influences from a European history and background so we should expect these stereotypes to show up just like we would expect the N word to show up in a book about slavery. That's not the biggest issue. The issue is that there are a lot of black authors that write sci-fi, fantasy, etc. fiction that are not advertised. The reality remains that there are non-white authors who write very engrossing books but they don't get as much publicity as white authors. It's not because their books aren't as good or revolutionary but simply because the mainstream public doesn't care to seek out and read books by non-white peoples. Its much easier to stick to the overwhelming majority of white authors filling up the bookshelves of the bookstores and libraries then to take a trip over to the "ethnic" section or pick up a book labeled af-am fiction. This is the sad truth played out in real life rather then any tropes, stereotypes or anything else played out in works of fiction.

[Hesper]

Let's for a moment accept the possibility that character diversity and representational parity will actually enrich a genre we all here love.

Mpauli wrote: "Also the tv show cut characters like Brown Ben Plumm or Strong Belwas and made Daario Neharys into a paranormal romance white cover boy. "

Daario is silly and ridiculous. On the TV show. And the TV show is what the link in the initial post referenced. That article, in fact, makes some pretty compelling points as to why the HBO handling of the Daenerys storyline is troubling.

[Ben]

I think the words of Samuel Delany are relevant here. This is from http://www.nyrsf.com/racism-and-scien... -

"Let me reiterate: Racism is a system. As such, it is fueled as much by chance as by hostile intentions and equally the best intentions as well. It is whatever systematically acclimates people, of all colors, to become comfortable with the isolation and segregation of the races, on a visual, social, or economic level—which in turn supports and is supported by socio-economic discrimination. Because it is a system, however, I believe personal guilt is almost never the proper response in such a situation. Certainly, personal guilt will never replace a bit of well-founded systems analysis. And one does not have to be a particularly inventive science fiction writer to see a time, when we are much closer to that 20 percent division, where we black writers all hang out together, sign our books together, have our separate tracks of programming, if we don’t have our own segregated conventions, till we just never bother to show up at yours because we make you uncomfortable and you don’t really want us; and you make us feel the same way" . . .

[Sean]

Katie wrote: "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?"

Skin color does matter -- that's the culture we live in. White people in the West operate in a position of privilege, and Martin's books reflect that -- and they do so in a very uncritical manner, which is the problem.

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. "

What, he just found it lying on the ground? The plot exists independently of Martin and he has no control over it?

Paul wrote: "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?"

The book is also full of white people who don't do any of that, because Martin paints Westeros as a land full of individuals who choose how they behave. But head east and suddenly you find whole civilizations where everyone is a rapist or a slaver.

Someone earlier in this thread mentioned that in real life the Mongols were prone to rape. That's true. But so were Europeans. Can you imagine a fantasy novel set in a pseudo-Middle East in which pseudo-Crusaders come in and their leader orders them to round up a bunch of women for a giant rape-party in which everyone -- every single male in the army -- takes part? Wouldn't that be absolutely absurd? Wouldn't you find it ridiculous that there's nobody in the Crusader army who's uninterested in rape?

But give 'em dark skin and people just shrug like that's how it really was.

[Sean]

Baelor wrote: "That does not mean he was attempting to reinforce racial stereotypes. As has been stated, he was inspired by history and the geography roughly follows the actual world."

Okay, let's consider this claim in a little more detail. Yes, the main story in Westeros is based -- very, very loosely -- on the War of the Roses. At the time that took place, England was a backwater on the ass-end of Europe, and Europe as a whole was full of third-world countries compared to the great centers of civilization in the Middle East, China and India.

But when Dany wanders around the east, do we see anything like Baghdad or Beijing? No. Do we see highly civilized cultures who think Dany and her brother are a couple outcast barbarians? Well there are some decadent Greek/Byzantine types who are only interested in helping them for the money, but no Arabs or Turks. When Dany turns to the pseudo-Mongols for help, are they the powerful and highly cultured Timurids of the 15th Century or Mughals of the 16th? No, they're steppe dwelling nomads of centuries before.

So the idea that Martin's constrained by his choice of historical models is hard to take seriously -- and that's without even getting into the fact that real history doesn't involve dragons and ice zombies.

[Mpauli]

At the time that took place, England was a backwater on the ass-end of Europe, and Europe as a whole was full of third-world countries compared to the great centers of civilization in the Middle East, China and India.
So the idea that Martin's constrained by his choice of historical models is hard to take seriously -- and that's without even getting into the fact that real history doesn't involve dragons and ice zombies.

I don't see this as black and white. I know it's hard to not compare Europe, Middle East and Africa to the cultures of Westeros, but let me give you a few random ideas regarding geography and diversity in Westeros:

With Illyrio Mopatis and Varys two of the most brilliant minds portrayed in the books hail from the free cities.

Braavos f.e. strikes me as a highly evolved city. The citizens even mention that they see themselves as far more sophisticated than the babaric westerosi.

High Valyria is stated as the greatest society that ever existed and it is based on the continent of the free cities, as is Asshai by the Shadow, another state rumored to be highly evolved.

On top of that, Dany is a native of the region. The Targaryans came from the east, so her roots are actually on the continent.

The dragons of old weren't born in the seven kingdoms either. They come from Valyria aswell.

7 Kingdoms smithes aren't able to create valyrian steel, they can only melt existing valyrian blades, but aren't able to imitate the better eastern steel.

So I personally don't think that non-7-kingdoms cultures are represented as being inferior, on the contrary.

[Sean]

Mpauli wrote: "With Illyrio Mopatis and Varys two of the most brilliant minds portrayed in the books hail from the free cities."

Yeah, and they're Byzantines -- somewhat exotic, but still European.

High Valyria is stated as the greatest society that ever existed and it is based on the continent of the free cities,

Yes, a lost civilization on a continent full of dark skinned people which happened to have been ruled by pasty white people like the Targaryens -- this is a trope straight out of H. Rider Haggard and Robert E. Howard.

as is Asshai by the Shadow, another state rumored to be highly evolved.

But in a very exotic, orientalist manner.

[Baelor]

Sean wrote: "Baelor wrote: "That does not mean he was attempting to reinforce racial stereotypes. As has been stated, he was inspired by history and the geography roughly follows the actual world."

Okay, let's..."

Sean,

Please note that my post said "roughly." Your statements are also questionable. What would Qarth be? Asshai by the Shadow? Slaver's Bay?

I am not saying that Martin was especially constrained by his historical inspiration (which spanned centuries, of course). The geographic parallels should be obvious, however.

[Sean]

Baelor wrote: "Please note that my post said "roughly." Your statements are also questionable. What would Qarth be? Asshai by the Shadow? Slaver's Bay?

I am not saying that Martin was especially constrained by his historical inspiration (which spanned centuries, of course). The geographic parallels should be obvious, however. "

So you agree -- Martin chose which cultures and races would be part of the story and what role they'd fill. Then why shouldn't we criticize him if those choices reflect racist and colonialist stereotypes?

[Baelor]

Sean wrote: "Baelor wrote: "Please note that my post said "roughly." Your statements are also questionable. What would Qarth be? Asshai by the Shadow? Slaver's Bay?

I am not saying that Martin was especially c..."

I agree that Martin chose the cultures and races. I disagree that they reflect racist and colonialist stereotypes. Furthermore, even if they did, I still would not find that problematic.

[Mpauli]

Yeah, and they're Byzantines -- somewhat exotic, but still European..."

My bad, I thought they were assyrian, but I didn't ask for their passports.
Sorry for being sarcastic here, but from my pov the connection wasn't necessarily byzantine.

But in a very exotic, orientalist manner.

And being highly evolved in an exotic, orientalistic manner is bad or impossible?

[Mysterio2]

Angela wrote: "While racial stereotypes can be an issue in books we shouldn't forget one thing that was mentioned before. Martin is white. He is going to write from a white perspective and there's nothing inheren..."

Thank you for making this point. And thanks to Ben for his reference to that Samuel Delany piece, because it points to the fact that the question raised in the OP is really only symptomatic of larger issues stemming from the all-encompassing sea of culture that we all swim in, affecting all of our attitudes as producers and as consumers of cultural content, and as people.

Again, no one is saying Mr. Martin can't write what he wishes: I haven't seen anyone here suggest anything close to censorship or even censure. And no one is even saying we all have to agree on what the answer to the OP's question is.

But I do think it's clear that there are aspects of Mr. Martin's writing, and probably even moreso the HBO presentation of them, that reasonably invite the question; and it is clear to me that those who have vehemently opposed the proposition that such a notion even bears discussion are most charitably characterized as having cultural blinders on that they are unable to perceive, or see beyond.

Katie wrote: "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?"

When discussion of race comes up in mixed company, it is not uncommon to see some utopian expression along the lines of "I don't even see skin color when I look at people! Martin Luther King, content of their character, argle bargle!"

I have never heard someone who was not white say something like this. I wonder why. Maybe there's something about non-white people that causes them to be irrationally preoccupied with matters of race? Nah, it'd be stereotyping to think such a thing.

[Hesper]

Mpauli wrote: "And being highly evolved in an exotic, orientalistic manner is bad or impossible?"

Orientalism is a thing. The mysterious, exotic east is just as orientalist as yellow peril narratives. Those are just two examples; there are many more, some of which seem to be found in Martin's writing.

And they are very much present in the HBO series, which, again, is what the io9 article was discussing.

[Baelor]

Perhaps we can take a step back:

What would the ideal literary and artistic landscape look like? What key differences would there be from the status quo?


Also, Mysterio2, I do take issue with this statement:

"But I do think it's clear that there are aspects of Mr. Martin's writing, and probably even moreso the HBO presentation of them, that reasonably invite the question; and it is clear to me that those who have vehemently opposed the proposition that such a notion even bears discussion are most charitably characterized as having cultural blinders on that they are unable to perceive, or see beyond."

They do not "reasonably" invite the question to me at all, but I do not have blinders on. I simply do not think it is a legitimate complaint. If we established that Martin felt that racial minorities required white people to save them, sure. Other than that, no dice.

[Mysterio2]

Baelor wrote: "... If we established that Martin felt that racial minorities required white people to save them, sure. Other than that, no dice...."

From my viewpoint, your criterion here is unthinkingly narrow in scope, and can only come from a position of cultural privilege.

I emailed my wife, who is also black, about this thread. This is what I wrote.

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...

Thread I got sucked into, probably against my better judgment.

But the whole Dothraki savages/evil decadent Oriental slavers/Daenerys-the-magical-white-savior-of-all-the-miserable-darkies plot line -- I mean it's *obvious*, isn't it? -- and I couldn't help engaging some of the more enthusiastic deniers on the thread.

My point in quoting this is to give you a glimpse of just how de rigeur we see this sort of presentation as being.

From my perspective as someone who's grown up in a culture in which my group is denigrated in small and large ways all the time, sometimes consciously but mostly unwittingly, it doesn't take Mr. Martin explicitly creating a world in which racial minorities need saving to point out that his world has some problematic aspects. It only takes an apparent blitheness regarding such considerations.

So it may be that you and I, having such evidently different trains of cultural baggage we're dragging with us, will never agree on this sort of question, not only in terms of how it might be answered in any given case, but even in terms of how the question might most reasonably be framed.

It may be, too, that there are perfectly rational non-race-based justifications for every single choice Mr. Martin made in his books or the screenplays based on them he's consulting on.

But as a black man, how many times do I have to see this sort of thing before it starts to bother me?

Let me ask you a question: do you believe that there are such things as institutional/cultural racism/classism/sexism? Or do you think these attributes can only be assigned to individual actors?

[Hesper]

Baelor wrote: " If we established that Martin felt that racial minorities required white people to save them, sure. Other than that, no dice. "

This will be taken the wrong way, but I don't care. That was funny. Unintentionally, but still hilarious.

I'm sorry, Baelor, but whether or not you are able to see how systemic racism and sexism can, and do, alter the creative landscape is beside the point.

As I've already said, I happen to believe that less stereotyping will lead to better fiction. It's not about absurd checklists. Having a diverse character pool will not only ensure that fewer groups will be singled out as lacking agency, but it will also make for more interesting reading.

Can a single author do all that? No. But it might be possible to achieve some sort of change if only more writers would be willing to challenge the dominant paradigms in their writing. That's obviously up to the individual writer, and not all will succeed or even realize that there even are paradigms that need changing, but it's not impossible to see how an audience demand for something less entrenched in historically charged stereotypes might lead to a shift in perspectives.

[Mysterio2]

As an aside, I also told my wife

Anyway, as you might expect for a readers' forum, it's quite civil and flame-free for a topic on a touchy subject.


I must say that while I have substantive disagreements with a number of posters on this thread, the quality of discourse here has been exemplary, particularly considering the topic. It speaks well of SFF readers as a group.

[Baelor]

Mysterio2 wrote: "Baelor wrote: "... If we established that Martin felt that racial minorities required white people to save them, sure. Other than that, no dice...."

From my viewpoint, your criterion here is unthi..."

Mysterio2, clearly we disagree fundamentally.

I am not a racial minority, but I am a minority in other (very significant) ways. I too have been denigrated my entire life and see problematic representations of myself in fiction all the time; in fact, I have encountered no positive portrayal of my minority status at all outside of didactic texts. Moreover, the entertainment (including book) industry is full of individuals who explicitly denigrate my minority status rather than harbor unconscious prejudices.

Do I have a right to be bothered by this? Yes. Is it a legitimate feeling? No, unless there is an institutional opposition on ideological grounds to anyone entering the industry that portrays my minority status positively. I do not hold others to different standards than I hold myself.

I have no problem with readers suggesting things to authors, or even arguing that better fiction can result from a different approach. I simply have an extremely high burden of proof for discrimination charges and moral imperatives.

[Baelor]

Hesper wrote: "Baelor wrote: " If we established that Martin felt that racial minorities required white people to save them, sure. Other than that, no dice. "

This will be taken the wrong way, but I don't care. ..."

Hesper,

Thank you for your response. I have no problem with your post, since there is a difference between producing fiction you find better and stating there is a moral imperative (="should" in reference to anything moralistic).

[Bryan]

I think perhaps this thread has been misnamed. If it had been called "Is Game Of Thrones racist?", well then, I might be able to give more credence to a number of the arguments affirming that this is the case. As it stands, it seems that what the i09 article and many of the posters on this thread were most upset about is the final scene with Daenerys from season 3 OF THE TV SHOW, and I can see why they are. Even from the point of view of a white person, that was a somewhat troublesome image, but that has more to do with the various issues surrounding television than it does with Martin's writing.It's pretty clear to most people who've read A Dance With Dragons that Daenerys is definitely not a Great White Saviour, and the series (of books) definitely tackles the issues of colonialism and so-called benevolent dictatorships in a very critical and even-handed manner.

Are we talking about the books, or the show, people? They are two VERY different things.

[Mysterio2]

Baelor wrote: Do I have a right to be bothered by this? Yes. Is it a legitimate feeling? No, unless there is an institutional opposition on ideological grounds to anyone entering the industry that portrays my minority status positively.

Firstly, your statement would seem to be self-contradictory: if you have a right to be bothered, then your feeling of being bothered is by definition legitimate. Rights are legitimate by definition, no?

But aside from that, yes, we do just have to agree to disagree, though your caveat ("...I have no problem with readers suggesting things to authors, or even arguing that better fiction can result from a different approach...") leads me to suspect our difference may be less substantive than it has seemed on its face. That is to say, I'm not suggesting that authors have a moral imperative in any enforceable sense. I'm not calling for the DOJ Civil Rights Division to sue HBO to force GOT off the air or anything. 'Should' in ethical discussions is used very equivocally, meaning anything from 'we have no right to force the guy to do the thing but the world would be a better place if he did' all the way up to 'we should kill all the people who do the thing'. In this case I definitely fall very close to the 'we have no right...' side of this spectrum.

This said, given the tenor of your response here, I really would appreciate an answer to my question of you in my earlier post. That is, do you believe that there are such things as institutional/cultural racism/classism/sexism? Or do you think these attributes can only be assigned to individual actors? Your response here suggests that you are dubious of such things, or at least, you are dubious of the propriety of any active means of combating them (aside from maybe making polite suggestions) if they do exist.

[Mpauli]

Orientalism is a thing. The mysterious, exotic east is just as orientalist as yellow peril narrat..."

Oh my bad. Thanks for the link. I'm not a native speaker, so the difference between the normal adjective and the scientific term slipped my attention.
Then please disregard the first post by me regarding Sean's post.

[Mysterio2]

Bryan wrote: "I think perhaps this thread has been misnamed. If it had been called "Is Game Of Thrones racist?", well then, I might be able to give more credence to a number of the arguments affirming that this..."

Someone made this point earlier, and I agree (based to a large degree on posts in this thread as I haven't read much of the book series) that the books differ in a number of substantive respects from the HBO series. If you read back through the thread you will see some quite thorough explanations on this topic, which persuaded me that the books are probably nowhere near as problematic in this way.

It's too bad that there's no way to edit a thread topic. Is there?

[Baelor]

Mysterio2 wrote: "Baelor wrote: Do I have a right to be bothered by this? Yes. Is it a legitimate feeling? No, unless there is an institutional opposition on ideological grounds to anyone entering the industry that ..."

I do not find the statement contradictory. I have a right (by that I mean legal/natural) to do bad things; that does not make them good. I have the right to claim that 2+2=5; in base ten, it does not and so my claim is illegitimate though permitted.


In response to your other question, i.e.

"That is, do you believe that there are such things as institutional/cultural racism/classism/sexism? Or do you think these attributes can only be assigned to individual actors?"

I would want an actual definition of institutional/cultural racism. My tentative answer is yes, but I do not want to agree that something exists when I am not yet completely sure of what we are discussing. Do you mean institutional discrimination? Common views among populations? etc.