Is 'A Song of Ice and Fire' racist?

[Mysterio2]

Bargain wrote: "If you wanted to be a troll you could suggest that Sean's attitude is actually racist."

"Troll" would be a charitable reading of such a suggestion, I think.

[Baelor]

@Mysterio2:

Again, what difference does this make in practical terms, if the overall cumulative, statistical effect of systemic biases decidedly and consistently favors a certain group?

Accuracy. Does that not matter to you?



I bet you're one of those people who don't believe that demonstrated patterns of systemic bias should be considered at all in considering discrimination claims.

If those demonstrated patterns of systemic bias can be linked to the instance, then of course they are relevant.

[Bargain]

Hi Mysterio.

Could you explain to me what you consider to be the difference between cumulative and synergistic in this instance?

I don't want to misunderstand what you are saying.

I don't see how any cultural strand can't be be the product of individuals. Take away the people and you have nothing. People are books, films, religions, actions and so on. Hope that helps. I mean, what else is there?

[Mary]

I was going to weigh in here, as I've been called racist by whites & blacks both during my stint as a welfare caseworker. I know I'm late to the game, and it seems like the rhetoric has started to get angry. I'll try to avoid all that, if I can.

When I read the books, I did not see racism. (I didn't see rape on her wedding night either, but I hear the series scene didn't *quite* match up to the book.) Frankly, I didn't see color when I read the books, I saw culture. I was disappointed when I saw the pictures that accompanied the article. It very clearly was a sea of brown. In trying to make a race homogenous, the producers have reinforced a trope that I don't believe was necessary to the storytelling.

Do I believe there is systemic racism? Yes. While I am one of those odd people that sees culture before color, I do believe there is racial profiling throughout our society, top to bottom. I fight with my own cultural bias every day.

In my memory, those classic Klingons were green. The pictures provided earlier in this thread surprised me.

I think the comedian had a point, at least about the tv show, but I don't think you can extend the accusation to GRRM. I wonder if the problem might be that the producers (& GRRM) didn't think it through that far. Maybe they thought they were being sensitive by employing so many "ethnic" actors. Without a response from them, we may never know.

[Bryan]

Mary, I think the situation (with regards to the TV show, anyway) was that they were filming all the Daenerys scenes in Morocco, and so when they put out the call for extras, most of them were naturally people of colour. It looked bad, but I doubt there was any desire on the part of the showrunners to portray a "brown crowd".

[Firstname]

Bryan wrote: "Mary, I think the situation (with regards to the TV show, anyway) was that they were filming all the Daenerys scenes in Morocco, and so when they put out the call for extras, most of them were natu..."

Northern Africans (Africans in general actually) aren't a uniform "brown". The show could certainly have chosen lighter-skinned extras, they just 'didn't'.

[Bargain]

I'm not angry btw.

I agree with firstname. Wasn't the greatest decision by the producers to select those extras.

I didn't and don't really see the Essos crowd as analogous to 'eastern' nations or people's. I do think that Westerosi culture has been examined more deeply than the Essoi in the books and agree that they are portrayed as more monolithic than Westeros. There are, however, a lot more cultural and political systems in Essos from Dothraki to Braavosi from Slaver's Bay to the Summer Isles.

The Westeros may have different families and attitudes such as Martells and Greyjoys, but essentially they believe in the same basic rules other than the increased prominence of women in the south.

[Baelor]

I would also add that the portrayal of Essosi cultures is not more (or less) negative than that of Westerosi cultures.

[Sean]

Bargain wrote: "You might have interpreted that from my words, but that is not what I meant. Systemic racism is the product of individual idiots. Every idiot that moronically believes in race adds to and propagates the continuance of hierarchies. But political and cultural systems do not exist outside of human individuals."

By this logic, any example of systemic racism must be the result of individual bigots. So when I use the example of black directors being underrepresented in Hollywood and not getting the same opportunities to make big budget movies, it must be that the people who run studios are bigots, right? And not just one bigot at one studio -- it must be widespread. And given the high turnover rate for studio executives, there must be a huge supply of bigots, one coming in after another.

Does that really strike you as more plausible than the more nuanced explanation that racism is an emergent trait of our culture, and individuals often act in ways that propagate white privilege without being fully aware of it -- choosing, say, white actors to play a middle class suburban family without stopping to think that the suburbs are full of middle class black, Hispanic and Asian families as well?

Baelor wrote: "Which is an example of how Hollywood has more roles for white men than black men, not a proof that every single white person in this country benefits from privilege."

I love how you jump to the conclusion that the examples I listed are "roles for white men." What a charmingly perfect example of white privilege.

[Sean]

Baelor wrote: "I would also add that the portrayal of Essosi cultures is not more (or less) negative than that of Westerosi cultures."

Yeah, that's been addressed at multiple points in this thread. Westeros is portrayed as having complex cultures with multitudinous view points. There's lots of rape in Westeros, but it's the choice of individuals whether they take part in it, and there are plenty of sympathetic characters who aren't too fond of it. But go over to Essoi and you find that rape isn't just common among the Dothraki, it's part of their culture. There aren't any Dothraki we see who are like, "Hey man, sorry, but I prefer my women consenting." Do you see the difference?

[Bargain]

Hi Sean.

I see your point. Despite this, I think the individual explanation is just as (if not more) nuanced. Individual people believe in identity. They maybe unaware or unconscious of their ideas in this, just as you say they are unaware of the choices they make. They pick white people because they are a little bit racist, a bit of an idiot. I don't think this has anything to do with systems, but of people. Systems are useful up to a point, but they are an abstraction, a tool for understanding. They eventually wear out, however, and need to be replaced by newer systems and so on. I don't think it is emergent at all. Emergent is a word for 'cannot yet explain'.

[Bargain]

Sean, you have just misinterpreted Baelors point, I think.

I believe he is saying 'Hollywood' gives more roles to white men not that there are actually more types of roles that white men can or should play per se. Again, of course, we are abstracting Hollywood to be monolithic in its response, which is ironic in light of your comments about the Dothraki. I think the critique about the Dothraki has some truth in it, but I don't link it to culture on this planet.

This is what he means by misunderstanding I think. It's a willingness to interpret privilege perspectives being played out when it's merely inexactness in language use, mistakes we all make. Really there's not much of an argument here.

[Gary]

Sean O'Hara wrote: "There's lots of rape in Westeros, but it's the choice of individuals whether they take part in it, and there are plenty of sympathetic characters who aren't too fond of it. But go over to Essoi and you find that rape isn't just common among the Dothraki, it's part of their culture."

I'm going start off with a little warning/advisory as this post is going to contain facts that some folks appear unhappy about dealing with in fiction, so I would imagine that dealing with them in history would be much more problematic. However, it's important to know these facts as the accusation of racism being directed at GRRM ignores that he is basing his fantasy fiction product on a real world historical period, and real world historical cultures.

Here's the problem (and this might be where folks might not want to know the truth) the Dothraki are based on the Mongols during the centuries of that culture's invasions throughout Asia, through the Middle East and touching on Eastern Europe. In a world and era when gender rights were already near non-existent in the cultures they were invading, the Mongol penchant for rape as a method of war stood out as particularly cruel and unusual. There are numerous references--from both within and without the Mongol culture--that made note of the way the Mongols treated women after a conquest.

In fact, every culture that the Mongols encountered made note of their use of rape as a method of terrorizing the population. There are accounts from Chinese sources that describe entire cities committing suicide rather than face the Mongols' wrath, post-conquest. Accounts from Russia describe Mongols raping nuns and young girls as a prelude to skinning them alive or burning them to death. Ogadai Khan ordered 4,000 Oirat girls (daughters of his own nobles) to be stripped and raped by one warrior after another while their fathers watched. This went on for an entire day before those girls who survived--some having died as a result of the violence--were then sold off into slavery, typically an enforced sexual slavery.

In sum, rape really was a war tactic used systematically and relentlessly by the culture that GRRM is using as the basis for the Dothraki. That kind of violence was certainly used in other cultures, and in different periods. The behavior of Russian soldiers invading Germany towards the end of WWII is famously horrific. The current use of the tactic in certain African conflicts shows that it still goes on. However, no culture embraced it as a tactic for as long and as systematically as it was embraced by the Mongols.

So, while I appreciate that people are sensitive to this issue, characterizing it as racism on GRRM's part rather than simply his knowing the history of the period in which his alternate history is based is really missing the point.

Likewise, (here comes another unpleasant fact) a little research into the world history of slavery shows that as a feature of a culture and period, the Western concept and history really is mild compared to what happened throughout the Middle East and Eastern regions. Millions of Africans were enslaved and taken across the Atlantic to the Americas--and some (a small percentage) were taken to European countries. That's a tragedy of history and a vile historical fact. I'm sorry to say, however, that compared to several thousand years of systematic enslavement and cultures based on slavery, the nations of the Eastern Mediterranean and beyond surpassed Rome at the height of that ancient city/state's slave culture.

Of course, GRRM is writing a fantasy novel, which means he could have a fantasy version of Mongols that don't behave like historical Mongols. But it's not meant to be the Disney version of the alternate history. Those kinds of products are already out there.

[David Sven]

@Gary,

Very well said. I think people can get so caught up in certain framework of interpretation that it's hard to see the woods for the trees. It becomes very irksome then when people insist on imposing their framework of interpretation upon both the author and other readers.

[Baelor]

@Sean:

By this logic, any example of systemic racism must be the result of individual bigots.

That depends on the definition of racism. Which is why I said we should define it in the first place.

For example, I would NOT use the term "systemic racism" because to me it is different enough from actual bigotry that the labels should be so different as not to suggest any categorical similarity.

So, we should have done what I said we should have done...


I love how you jump to the conclusion that the examples I listed are "roles for white men." What a charmingly perfect example of white privilege.

I never jumped to that conclusion. I am simply stating a fact -- that Hollywood has more roles for white men than black men and Asian men and any other race. Furthermore, Hollywood whitewashes historical figures and falls into tropes: Romans = British, inexplicably, especially given the former's complexion. I simply expanded upon your accurate claim, knowing at the time that I made it what I was doing and what your response could be. Thanks for being predictable. What a charmingly perfect example of the trigger-happy buzzword enthusiasts.

Go read some Orwell.

[Baelor]

@Sean:

But go over to Essoi and you find that rape isn't just common among the Dothraki, it's part of their culture.

Essos. And so? Martin is depicting cultures and societies. It is your own moral sense of right and wrong, decidedly the product of the society in which you live, that is making these judgments that may not even be reasonable ways to look at Martin's work.


There aren't any Dothraki we see who are like, "Hey man, sorry, but I prefer my women consenting." Do you see the difference?

Yes, but I fail to see why it matters. Perhaps you could explain.

[Sean]

Baelor wrote: "For example, I would NOT use the term "systemic racism" because to me it is different enough from actual bigotry that the labels should be so different as not to suggest any categorical similarity."

Ah, well, if you've decided that "racism" should be limited to plain ol' bigotry, and the systemic problems with how people of color are treated in the US is something different, I guess we should all abandon this usage of the word. Sure, there's been a couple generations of academic study into this subject based upon the idea that racism is a social system, but what does that matter in the face of some guy on the Internet deciding that racism shouldn't mean anything more than individual bigotry.

I never jumped to that conclusion. I am simply stating a fact -- that Hollywood has more roles for white men than black men and Asian men and any other race.

And the completely missing the point award goes to ...

Yes, everyone knows that in a nation where the majority of people are white, the majority of acting roles will go to white people. That's obvious. The issue is the proportion and variety of roles available to everyone else.

Essos. And so? Martin is depicting cultures and societies. It is your own moral sense of right and wrong, decidedly the product of the society in which you live, that is making these judgments that may not even be reasonable ways to look at Martin's work.

Martin doesn't depict any cultures in Essos. He depicts monolithic stereotypes one-step above the gangster planet from Star Trek.

Yes, but I fail to see why it matters. Perhaps you could explain.

Well see, when you depict a civilization based upon your cultural ancestry as full of nuance and variety, and then you depict a culture based upon another race as being made up of nothing but rapists who've never even considered the possibility that rape is wrong, that's called "racism". See title of thread.

[Baelor]

@Sean:

Ah, well, if you've decided that "racism" should be limited to plain ol' bigotry,

I would rather suggest that we define racism.


there's been a couple generations of academic study into this subject based upon the idea that racism is a social system,

Those academic studies, all of which I am sure you have read, either defined racism or are worthless. So why not follow suit and define racism?


but what does that matter in the face of some guy on the Internet deciding that racism shouldn't mean anything more than individual bigotry.

Racism "should" not mean anything because definitions are based on social contracts. We get to define what racism is because racism is semantically void without an association.


And the completely missing the point award goes to ...

You, of course.


Yes, everyone knows that in a nation where the majority of people are white, the majority of acting roles will go to white people. That's obvious. The issue is the proportion and variety of roles available to everyone else.

I never commented on that issue, only the fact that the disparity exists.


Martin doesn't depict any cultures in Essos. He depicts monolithic stereotypes one-step above the gangster planet from Star Trek.

No, he does not. The allegedly monolithic stereotypes are your own projection. There is no reason to believe that Martin intends his picture of Essos to be the totality of life on the continent, and therefore the reader should assume -- as the reader should always assume under all circumstances -- that there exist things in a fictional universe beyond what is being described.

Besides, there is plenty of diversity in Essos. Surely you are not claiming that Bravos is the same as Khal Pono's khalasar?


Well see, when you depict a civilization based upon your cultural ancestry as full of nuance and variety, and then you depict a culture based upon another race as being made up of nothing but rapists who've never even considered the possibility that rape is wrong, that's called "racism". See title of thread.

I am so glad that that is not happening in ASoIaF or any other book I have read, then. We must have read very different versions of Martin. I did not find Westeros more diverse or nuanced than Essos at all. I found rather that I knew more Westerosi characters than Essosi characters, which is not the same thing.

Increased exposure in a work by a decent author means more nuance because more time is given to develop characters and locations. No author is under any moral obligation whatsoever to provide equal exposure to different characters or places or cultures.

Also, I am digging your historical revisionism. Plenty of societies, both European and non-European, have considered rape as completely permissible and viewed women as property, and there is nothing in the historical record suggesting that there was any movement to have rape considered "wrong" at a legal or even moral level.


This continues to be a non-issue.

[Gary]

David Sven wrote: "I think people can get so caught up in certain framework of interpretation that it's hard to see the woods for the trees. It becomes very irksome then when people insist on imposing their framework of interpretation upon both the author and other readers."

Very true. In general, I'm fine with people worrying about race and racism as it is portrayed in various media. However, people should be careful about tossing around the term "racist" willy-nilly. Not only is that a serious accusation, the use of it when it is clearly undeserved distracts from the fact that there actually are many intentional and obvious racial characterizations out in the world. Surely energy spent describing GRRM as a racist would be better spent on someone who actually goes out making racist decisions and influencing people using racist vocabulary and stereotypes. (See, for instance, Orson Scott Card's racist diatribes regarding Obama.)

In this case, I think the main problem is mostly that people are unaware of the real world history that GRRM is referencing, and assume that the negative aspects of the cultures being described spring from his imagination rather than being a somewhat milder version of historical facts. Still, it pays to do a little research before leaping to a blanket conclusion.

[Firstname]

Gary wrote: "David Sven wrote: "I think people can get so caught up in certain framework of interpretation that it's hard to see the woods for the trees. It becomes very irksome then when people insist on impos..."

I'm wishing it was more imagination and less Lucas-esque wholesale ripping off of other cultures.

[Bargain]

Clearly Sean, Baelor agrees with you about Hollywood. It's weird you are still trying to make out that you are saying different things.

Let's just remember that systems don't really exist. They are only abstractions to allow us to understand something, we find it pretty tricky to deal,with infinite, fractal complexity. Reality is not a system. Racism is not a system, but the interactions of multiple living human beings and the identities, beliefs and values handed on by all the past humans.

[Baelor]

I do agree about Hollywood.

I would add, however, that the Hollywood example is one that is easily hijacked by demagogues for specious purposes. In considering how to deal with the underrepresentation (compared to the national data) of racial minorities in movies, we should answer to questions:

1) What is the problem, specifically?
2) What makes the problem a problem?

What difference does it make whether the status quo is the result of inertial financial considerations or cultural priorities or bigotry or something else entirely?


If I am a fifth-grade teacher and three boys and one girl run for class president, is that a problem? What if there were no girls? What if there were no boys? It seems like a silly example, but my university had a similar situation arise. A parent asked the president of the university in a public Q&A session what was being done to address the "problem."

The parent needed to be far more methodical.

[Gary]

Firstname wrote: "I'm wishing it was more imagination and less Lucas-esque wholesale ripping off of other cultures."

I suspect Lucas ripped off the people who ripped off the people who ripped off other cultures... but I take your point. It would make for a different kind of thing, though. I haven't read much of his other work, so I don't know how much his career is informed by history and how much is his own invention.

The big picture that I think GRRM is trying to present is real world history in a form that people will be able to digest if not recognize, and he's done a pretty good job at disguising it. Clearly not enough for some folks, but as an artistic endeavor it has a lot of merit. Most fantasy is either talking animals or swashbuckling superheroes with horses.

Mind you, that's all fine and dandy, but it's a very different kind of project. Given that it is unusual, it's understandable that folks would not get it, but he's really trying to spoonfeed people a little of their own cultural background--and not the nice bits--not endorse those negative aspects as a standard.

I can't help but wonder if the adaptation isn't in large part responsible. That is, the TV show is going to miss a lot of the characterization and narrative voice, so the visuals are presented without the context of the author. On more than a few occasions, I think the adaptation has missed or changed the tone of the novels....

A better question than the one that is the title of this thread might be "Are the producers of the HBO adaptation of Game of Thrones racists?"

[Firstname]

Gary wrote: "Firstname wrote: "I'm wishing it was more imagination and less Lucas-esque wholesale ripping off of other cultures."

I suspect Lucas ripped off the people who ripped off the people who ripped off ..."

I think that given the POV of your post, GRRM might be saying "Hey, history is racist and written by the winners. This is what it looks like." I don't see a problem with that.

[Gary]

Firstname wrote: "I think that given the POV of your post, GRRM might be saying "Hey, history is racist and written by the winners. This is what it looks like." I don't see a problem with that."

I do think that's what he's getting at. At least, that's an important sub-theme.

I suspect the main theme is going to be "Humans are too stupid to prepare for an inevitable, crushing threat that could end civilization. Instead, we always wait until the last possible moment, and may not work together even then because of petty political rivalries."

Historically, there is a mini-Ice Age coming up around the period that SoI&F is based, depending on how one dates that period. The White Walkers might be sort of metaphor for the various plagues that passed through Europe, but I'm speculating pretty heavily there. We'll see.

[Bargain]

I like that possibility Gary.

[Hesper]

Gary wrote: "A better question than the one that is the title of this thread might be "Are the producers of the HBO adaptation of Game of Thrones racists?" "

Which, I believe, was the point of the OP, specifically in regards to the end season scene with Daenerys.

[Firstname]

Hesper wrote: "Gary wrote: "A better question than the one that is the title of this thread might be "Are the producers of the HBO adaptation of Game of Thrones racists?" "

Which, I believe, was the point of the..."

Being oblivious to racism doesn't mean one isn't perpetuating it. That was just a cringeworthy scene, and they really should have thought about how that was going to play to nonwhite audiences. Of course they didn't because all gamers/sci fi readers/nerds/geeks etc are all white males, right?

[Hesper]

That whole storyline was cringeworthy. Beating the dead horse here, but how many times has the word "privilege" come up in this thread already?

[Firstname]

Hesper wrote: "That whole storyline was cringeworthy. Beating the dead horse here, but how many times has the word "privilege" come up in this thread already?"

Hmmmm, excellent point.

[Firstname]

Here's some fap fodder for Bargain and Baelor, from a guy who is so def not racist, amirite?

[Baelor]

@Firstname:

Whether the person is racist or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that the individual actually attempted to define racism and therefore cannot be accused of using a meaningless meaningful word for self-serving ends.

The definition can be disputed, but of course that argument can be averted altogether by eliminating the term and focusing on the details.

[Bargain]

Thanks firstname.

I read about two paragraphs before I got bored with his cruddy ideas of what is not racist. Racism is more complex and clearly relies on relationships between individuals. I don't know from that bit of reading whether he is a racist or not, but I do know that he is one insensitive butthead.

I would ask the question whether anyone can use the old (and still) racist word that begins with n? Can that word be used and not be racist?

My current view would be that the word could be racist dependent on relationships between the speaker and listener. It can be meant in a racist way, it can be taken in a racist way or it can be neutral. In terms of language I cannot see any other response. It is the humans that attach purpose and meaning. This is how to understand racism as an actual living entity. The idea of systems totally blankets everything. I see no life in it. Useful to get us to a point, but then it needs to look a specifics. Language is not a system because it changes. It is fractal.

The issue, to me, is that people, when using a sensitive word or trope, need to understand the history of it, of how it has been meant or used in the past and what their relationship is with their audience. Purpose and power is what drives language, but it also has a history for some people (but not for all). One of my lecturers Panikos Panayi - his historical focus is race and immigration, especially in the UK - suggested everyone was (at least a bit) racist. What do people think of this idea?

[AndPeggy]

Gary wrote: " However, people should be careful about tossing around the term "racist" willy-nilly. Not only is that a serious accusation, the use of it when it is clearly undeserved distracts from the fact that there actually are many intentional and obvious racial characterizations out in the world. Surely energy spent describing GRRM as a racist would be better spent on someone who actually goes out making racist decisions and influencing people using racist vocabulary and stereotypes. "

Who gets to decide when the term is deserved or not? Also, I do not see many, if anyone, in this thread calling GRRM racist. What is at discussion is a racist trope that often appears in literature and media. The idea that GRRM is racist is not at issue, the idea that the White Savior trope might apply to Daenary's storyline is.

And I seriously disagree that someone using the word "racist/racism" to apply to one thing distracts or undermines another. Systematic racism takes many forms, and one of those forms is the depiction of people of color vs. white people in books, movies, music, paintings, pictures, and shows. Just because one person disagrees something invokes racism, doesn't mean that someone who feels differently is wrong. I think the argument that "racism" is a serious word and is to often thrown around is used as a means of dismissing conversations around ingrained actions that reinforce racism in society. Some people are so caught up in the idea that people who are not racists can not do racist things or use tropes based in racism, that they conclude that some people's actions can never ever be racist and that anyone who experiences them as such are overreacting our outright lying. That isn't the case.

As for who GRRM chooses to base his cultures off of, that is also a deliberate choice. Just because he chooses to base his characters off of a certain culture does not mean that he has to reinforce the potrayals of white cultures vs those of people of color. Another choice was to have the story so far focus mostly on the POV of the white characters which means the majority white cultures are presented as much more nuanced. Personally, I do belive that DT's storyline will turn out to be a subversion and show the problem with trying to "save" a culture you know little about and are not a part of. However, that isn't a dismissal of anyone's argument who sees it as a case of the White Savior or Nice White Person trope. It doesn't mean anyone else is overreacting or being overly sensitive. The issue is not that people are overly sensitive or looking for attention or accusing everyone of being racist, but that some people refuse to acknowledge the myriad of ways racism informs many aspects of culture/ how people respond to certain images, and that even non-racist people can do things that reinforce racist tropes and depictions.

Racism is seperate of intention.

[Firstname]

Denise wrote: "" However, people should be careful about tossing around the term "racist" willy-nilly. Not only is that a serious accusation, the use of it when it is clearly undeserved distracts from the fact th..."

Indeed, whether you pick my pocket because you hate blacks/gays/libs etc or you do it because I happen to be standing near you, my pocket is still empty at the end of the day.

[AndPeggy]

Gary wrote: "Surely energy spent describing GRRM as a racist would be better spent on someone who actually goes out making racist decisions and influencing people using racist vocabulary and stereotypes."

To reply to this point specifically, I think that it makes perfect sense to discuss the less obvious instances of racism/prejudiced tropes as oppose to those that are more obvious. The less obvious ones are influential but tend to get less attention as they are easier to disguise as happenstance.

[Firstname]

Denise wrote: "Gary wrote: "Surely energy spent describing GRRM as a racist would be better spent on someone who actually goes out making racist decisions and influencing people using racist vocabulary and stereo..."

One that we haven't touched on is the Great Man Hero trope, which I think was part of what made Nedheading and the Red Wedding so devastating.

[AndPeggy]

Firstname wrote:One that we haven't touched on is the Great Man Hero trope, which I think was part of what made Nedheading and the Red Wedding so devastating.

I think GRRM has defiantly shown in GOT how some tropes and expectations are taken for granted. Being a main character on a traditionally heroic path doesn't save you or rescue you from the consequences of your actions in GOT. One of the reasons why I see DT's storyline as being a subversion of the traditional well-meaning White Saviour trope.

[Firstname]

Denise wrote: " Firstname wrote:One that we haven't touched on is the Great Man Hero trope, which I think was part of what made Nedheading and the Red Wedding so devastating.

I think GRRM has defiantly shown i..."

I hear you, though we won't know til we reach the end of her story arc. GRRM BETTER BE WRITING TODAY.

[Hesper]

He seems cynical enough that Denise could be right. It doesn't mean the show will do much with it, but one can hope.

[Firstname]

Hesper wrote: "He seems cynical enough that Denise could be right. It doesn't mean the show will do much with it, but one can hope."

I'm one of the few people who is generally okay with the showrunning/writing. They're not that far apart...so far.

[Hesper]

I'm kind of ambivalent on the series. It has some fantastic acting, and that's why I watch it, but I haven't ye been able to become super invested in any of the characters except Arya, and to a lesser extent Tyrion and Cersei, who only became compelling to me after Lena Headey got a hold of her.

[Baelor]

Hesper wrote: "I'm kind of ambivalent on the series. It has some fantastic acting, and that's why I watch it, but I haven't ye been able to become super invested in any of the characters except Arya, and to a le..."

Lena Headey does not get the credit she deserves. Fans have complained about her since the beginning, and some have STILL not let up.

Even worse, and yet sadly predictable, are the many criticisms that she is too ugly to play Cersei. She is a standout in the series to me.

[Bargain]

The white saviour trope is really just the saviour trope in my eyes. Other cultures have used in when they have been imperialist, such as the Japanese. There's often, but does not have to be an element of racism to it.

[Gary]

Denise wrote: "I think that it makes perfect sense to discuss the less obvious instances of racism/prejudiced tropes as oppose to those that are more obvious. The less obvious ones are influential but tend to get less attention as they are easier to disguise as happenstance.

In general, I'd agree with that. However, I think your own assessment is that if it is being used GRRM is subverting the idea of the White Savior trope. My own argument is that the assessment is, at best, erroneous based mostly upon the offense some folks have taken at a particular image in the TV adaptation. A bit of discussion about that is worthwhile, if for no other reason than to clarify what is going on, but surely all this focus (dozens of on-line articles, this thread and it seems to me several others on goodreads, etc.) is overwrought if not fundamentally misguided.

If either of us is right, it is a good example of "the least one can do" on the subject of racism, but probably not that positive a thing, really. There are any number of more obvious and active racist writings out there in the world; writers who are actively interfering in our political process. Going after a fantasy author--even a successful one--based on an objection to his work taken out of context (or subverted and misunderstood, as you suggest) reveals either an inability to understand basic ideas of theme, history, literature, or even a real lack of priority if not an overwrought smokescreen. It's the same feeble armchair activism sold by Fox News, though pointed in another direction. It may have a certain value in the most abstract terms regarding things like "awareness" but on the whole it's a pretty sad attempt to attach a personal agenda onto the celebrity of someone much more successful by either intentionally or out of ignorance misinterpreting that more successful person's work. In truth, a more intelligent or honest reviewer would recognize that GRRM is really on the side of equal rights, and should be held up by those critics as an example of truth in literature. THAT is a waste of time and effort that could be directed at clearly problematic work.

[AndPeggy]

Gary wrote: There are any number of more obvious and active racist writings out there in the world; writers who are actively interfering in our political process. Going after a fantasy author--even a successful one--based on an objection to his work taken out of context (or subverted and misunderstood, as you suggest) reveals either an inability to understand basic ideas of theme, history, literature, or even a real lack of priority if not an overwrought smokescreen. It's the same feeble armchair activism sold by Fox News, though pointed in another direction

Your comments once again strike me as policing what people should and shouldn't discuss. In addition, you suggest they are attacking Martin, which isn't necessarily the case (it is a critique of his work, and the use of one trope in particular). And if subversion is happening, then it doesn't negate that the trope is being used to begin with, and seems to be playing out so far in the series. Many audience members of the book and show will still want to discuss that, and having a different take doesn't make them ignorant, just looking at it in a different way.

And again, people can decide what is and is not worth their time to discuss, and it doesn't make them armchair activist, nor does it necessarily take away from discussing different things. People can talk about football, baseball, their favorite character, their least favorite character, plot theories, how much they dislike episodes I-III of Star Wars, etc. and do so without being accused of focusing on trivial things. Why is it that when discussions of ableism/homophobia/sexism/racism/xenophobia come up, then all of a certain everything must be a super serious discussion and people who supposedly don't think the discussion is worth happening show up to let everyone discussing know they are wasting their time?

And I do not see how the article discussed is taking the work out of context. It does a good job of discussing the context, especially that of the television show. Right after apparently saving people from their terrible culture, the white-skinned Dany is hailed as a saviour and her body is elevated above the brown masses hailing her. Dissecting the problems with her storyline so far and the culmination of that storyline in that particular image (use of images and shots being deliberately chosen by directors) shows an understanding of the power images convey and the thought process that goes into their choosing. And using history as a basis does not excuse choosing to once again create a world and a story where the white characters are portrayed as being more nuanced than the darker skinned characters.

If people think that the discussion is not worthwhile or is overwrought, then why on earth join in to say that? Why decide that you know what people should and shouldn't spend their time discussing? Why decide that every discussion must be a matter of activism as oppose to simply a discussion to point out the use of a problematic trope in storytelling? Some of us like these discussions and find it necessary to point problems when we see them. You talk about the number of articles written, but what would you suggest? That those of us who notice and wish to point out and discuss the problems we see first make sure no one else has written about the subject?

I believe it is people like you who try to elevate these discussions to being about more than they are, and then attempt to belittle the people who wish to engage in them. People go to io9 to read about and discuss the sci-fi and fantasy subgenre as well as tech/science news. The article fits within the framework of those discussions. People come to Good reads in part to discuss books, this discussion fits within that framework. Therefore, for you or anyone else to show up and decree that this discussion is unnecessary or overwrought seems like nothing more than attempt at silencing. Saying such things adds nothing to the conversation, and undermines the ability of others to decide for themselves what they choose to do with their time. The only thing this conversation is taking away from is the amount of time I might spend discussing how much of the story is Catelyn's fault or how much I am enjoying Sandman Slim. I am perfectly willing to make that sacrifice, however I can be pretty sure no one is going to pop into either of those threads and decree that the people there are wasting their time and should be focusing on more important issues. The use of racist tropes in stories might not be important to you, but it is most certainly important to me, and I am glad that discussions like this happen. I only wish I had discovered them earlier when I was younger and looking for somewhere to vent frustrations about the way people like me are depicted (or the lack of depiction) in various media forms.

If someone wishes to save people from wasting their time, I would suggest starting with those who are still discussing, writing about, and upset about the mention of midichlorins in Star Wars or the ending of Enterprise or how long it takes GRRM to write books (and there are numerous articles not only discussing this but accusing Martin of being unfair to fans), or those people angsting over the decisions of quarterbacks they do or do not like. Actually, I would suggest not making such comments and simply either adding to the conversation (as the historical discussion sorta did, though it missed the point in my opinion) or ignoring it.

[Hudson]

Hudson wrote: "Much ado about nothing. Some people could find racism in a bowl of cereal. Here's the simple solution: don't like the books? Don't read them!"

Someone else pointed this out, but I never said I didn't like the thread. I just saw another post on this board (Sword and Laser) about "is it ok to have only male characters in a book" Some of you people scare me, I think if you could pass some sort of law stating that a certain percentage of woman and minorities be represented in books, than you would do it.

[Baelor]

@Denise:

Right after apparently saving people from their terrible culture, the white-skinned Dany is hailed as a saviour and her body is elevated above the brown masses hailing her. Dissecting the problems with her storyline so far and the culmination of that storyline in that particular image (use of images and shots being deliberately chosen by directors) shows an understanding of the power images convey and the thought process that goes into their choosing.

Everyone keeps mentioning this image as if its problematic nature is self-evident. Could you explain, specifically, what is wrong it?


And using history as a basis does not excuse choosing to once again create a world and a story where the white characters are portrayed as being more nuanced than the darker skinned characters.

I disagree that they are more nuanced; I would say they receive more character development because of greater authorial attention. Even if they were, that has nothing to do with their race: Martin's protagonists are white. Of course the protagonists have more focus in the book. Again, what is the actual problem here?


Why decide that every discussion must be a matter of activism as oppose to simply a discussion to point out the use of a problematic trope in storytelling?

That has not been established, so...


Therefore, for you or anyone else to show up and decree that this discussion is unnecessary or overwrought seems like nothing more than attempt at silencing.

What is the problem with silencing, if the topic in question ought to be silenced? You appear to assume that mere interest in a topic validates it as a productive use of time; I challenge that premise vehemently.


The use of racist tropes in stories might not be important to you, but it is most certainly important to me, and I am glad that discussions like this happen.

Define "racist."


I only wish I had discovered them earlier when I was younger and looking for somewhere to vent frustrations about the way people like me are depicted (or the lack of depiction) in various media forms.

Write a book depicting "people like you" then. Stop arguing that authors must or must not do particular things in their particular books in order to satisfy some nebulous checklist to avoid being labeled a "racist." Talk about silencing.

[Gary]

I only have a moment here, so I can't respond at length. Suffice to say that discussing issues of race is a more serious topic than discussing the trivialities of various entertainment products. Mitochlorians in Star Wars were stupid... but discussing them does not evoke thousands of years of brutality and bigotry, or the current disparities and violence. So while I might argue the point, I wouldn't hold that argument up as anything other than trivial.

What more, despite your argument that nobody has outright said the words "George R. R. Martin is a racist" that is the obvious argument being made by the title of the thread, the article that was referenced by the OP and the arguments of several posts. People might couch that argument in weasel words about his using a trope, or separating the art from the artist (an argument I've always found odd.... "It's not that he's a racist, he just uses racist ideas in his life's work." That's a pretty big disconnect.)

The question itself is an accusation. I don't think dancing around the point makes for either a more persuasive argument or evades responsibility for that argument's implications.

[AndPeggy]

Gary wrote: What more, despite your argument that nobody has outright said the words "George R. R. Martin is a racist" that is the obvious argument being made by the title of the thread, the article that was referenced by the OP and the arguments of several posts. People might couch that argument in weasel words about his using a trope, or separating the art from the artist (an argument I've always found odd.... "It's not that he's a racist, he just uses racist ideas in his life's work." That's a pretty big disconnect.)

First, the title of this thread does not relate to the article linked, and the first poster seems to disagree with the premise of the title chosen. The title-choser of this thread asks if the entire series is racist based on the discussion of one particular storyline. Even then, there is still no accusation of GRRM as racist.

Also, I think that is a large part of where the problem is. You seem to want to argue that only racist people are capable of doing racist things or invoking racist tropes. That is not the case. It is not the case in my view or likely the views of those who write articles like the one linked. Racism is an ingrained part of U.S. culture, and something that often shows up despite the best intentions of people. If you really wish to argue that saying someone has done something racist or used a racist stereotype or trope is the equivalent of accusing them of being racist, then there is no point even attempting to have a conversation with you. Trying to limit the use of racist tropes to out and out racists comes across as nothing more than a means of arguing that some incidents are not racists because the person who is responsible for them is not a racist. Making such an argument allows people to escape addressing the effect their actions had by arguing that they are not racist, and therefore their actions could not have been such. Such a stance takes the focus away from the actions commited and instead refocuses on individual people instead of on overarching social narratives, prejudices, and stereotypes. It is perfectly possible for someone not to be an outright racist but still make use of racist stereotypes in their art without meaning to or even thinking about it. That is where the notion of White Priveledge really begins to come into play. Because someone is not effected by a certain stereotype or depiction, they themselves may not see when it is in play.

The article and this thread are a discussion of a particular trope apparently in use by GRRM. Refusing to understand that someone can use a racist stereotype (such as White Saviour, Black Best Friend, etc.) without themselves being a complete racist comes across as a derail. You are setting up a situation in which no action can be discussed as having racist implications without indicting the person/people who committed it. Such a stance derails conversations into a focus on certain individuals as oppose to the consequences of their actions.