The Sword and Laser discussion
This topic is about
George R.R. Martin
George R.R. Martin Threads
>
Is George R.R. Martin a dirty old man?
Klerosier wrote: "I admit I haven't read these books (and I won't)."If you haven't read the books, you really shouldn't comment on them.
"I'm six episodes into series but have discussed books with many."
The books are not the series. The books have some sex (the story requires it), but they don't dwell on it. HBO chose to emphasize sex quite a bit in the series. I suppose they think (probably correctly) it increases viewership. I think you haven't chosen the proper target for your disapproval.
"I am a social worker. I counseled domestic abused women and victims of incest an..."
That does not in any way qualify you to judge books that you refuse to read.
As for the original question of this thread, I very much doubt it.
Clyde and Gary, Your comments are valid. Most important: It was NOT appropriate to make dispersions about GRRM's personal character as I did. I was out of line.
I regret some of my comments on several levels. I was too emotionally charged when I write those comments to be objective.
1. I'd just finished watching and discussing an episode so my disappointment and disgust was raw.
2. I tend to be oversensitive to issues of sexual violence and subjugation of women having counseled so many victims of rape, incest, and domestic violence. The show pushed all my buttons.
3. I always resent those who judge books by their movies/tv versions and here I was doing the same thing. I very rarely watch an adaptation before reading the book. I'd already decided not to read the books since he writes so slow, I hate waiting for next book in series and GRRM writes sooo slowly. Yet I've heard so much discussion of the books and how GRRM is a master writer and discussion on how well the series follows the books. I made assumptions. Also I really wanted to like the series and was thus double disappointed.
4. I realize the subjects writers write about are not who they are, however subjects they choose to write about does reflect things about them. I suspect GRRM is a dirty old man. The HBO series is sickening. However calling GRRM 'sick' was over the top.
Thank you, guys for calling me to the carpet on this.
I think it's a bit silly to suggest someone go read YA just because they don't like the T and A in a book. (Uh, and P?) If you look at a list of the greatest books of all time, debatable as it might be, you won't find books with this level of sex. You'll find books written for adults but most would be appropriate for younger readers also. I wouldn't suggest someone only read YA, just the same as I wouldn't suggest someone stick to the porn section just because they like JRR.This is the book that Martin has chosen to write, and he has plenty of fans. He probably has cut his fan base down by including what he has, but that is his choice as author.
I'm afraid the HBO show is in danger of becoming a parody of itself. At some point every single scene will take place near a brothel with an open window and plenty of shenanigans in the background. That's not for me, thanks anyway.
Gary wrote: "I think people should be very careful about making an association between an author and his/er subject. In this case in particular, we're talking about a fantasy author. "The issue isn't the subject but how the subject is dealt with.
Take the issue of rape as an example. Lots of people defend it on the grounds of realism. Okay then, but why haven't any of the male characters been raped? The Wall is essentially a huge prison full of the worst criminals in the realm with limited access to women -- realistically rape gangs should've grabbed Sam and Jon their first night there. But Martin chose not to do it -- he has no quibble with showing women getting raped, and he showed Sam and Jon getting mistreated in other ways, but it either never occurred to him that men can be raped, or he decided it's unbecoming for his heroes to be victimized that way. Either way, it says a lot about Martin's worldview.
Thane wrote: "If you look at a list of the greatest books of all time, debatable as it might be, you won't find books with this level of sex."
Not so. If you look at the Modern Library's list of the best English-language novels of the 20th Century, you'll find Ulysses, Lolita and Sons and Lovers in the top 10 and Tropic of Cancer at #50 with numerous other D.H. Lawrence novels scattered through the list.
Sean, I don't think you've presented a very strong argument to equate the morality of the fictional world of ASOIAF with the author's morality. You want us to believe that because he doesn't include scenes where men are raped that he doesn't believe that men rape other men? You think he's racist because he writes about a society where rape is commonplace? He's a mysoginist because a couple of his female villains are promiscuous?I think this says a lot more about your worldview than it does about his, my friend.
First off, don't confuse race with culture. Those are two very different things, and to write or speak critically about another culture is not in any way racist.
Secondly, the rape thing. Rape happens. It's ugly, but it happens a lot, even now. There are, even in the modern world, cultures wherein rape has been, to a certain degree, institutionalized. Making up a culture for a fantasy series where rape is not considered unacceptable is not, within a historical context, really that much of a stretch. Worse things have occured in real life.
Lastly, simply because male-on-male rape has not happened in-camera in the series doesn't really mean all that much, as there have been a number of references to such behaviour in the books. Perhaps you find this omission suspect, but I do not. One could as easily say that because Robin Hobb included 8 gay characters and no lesbian characters in her Rain Wild Chronicles that she hates lesbians, but I think that most reasonable people would understand that that's just nonsense. Hobb and Martin are STORYTELLERS. Sure, their stories may not be statistically accurate in a real-world sense, but shouldn't their main concern be telling a good story?
Sean wrote: "The issue isn't the subject but how the subject is dealt with.Take the issue of rape as an example. Lots of people defend it on the grounds of realism. Okay then, but why haven't any of the male characters been raped? The Wall is essentially a huge prison full of the worst criminals in the realm with limited access to women -- realistically rape gangs should've grabbed Sam and Jon their first night there. But Martin chose not to do it -- he has no quibble with showing women getting raped, and he showed Sam and Jon getting mistreated in other ways, but it either never occurred to him that men can be raped, or he decided it's unbecoming for his heroes to be victimized that way. Either way, it says a lot about Martin's worldview."
The Wall doesn't block off the southern lands from the worst criminals in the realm. It blocks off uncontrolled lands where people have developed a culture of Free Peoples. (Actually, the wall is an ancient artifact that blocks the south off from an even more ancient apocalyptic threat, but it is presented as a border rather than a barrier until we get more of a reveal later in the series.) So, rampaging rape gangs lurking around to snatch up Sam and Jon the first night they spend beyond the wall doesn't seem like an accurate assessment of the scenario Martin presented.
However, to the point about Martin's depiction of sexual violence, I think you indicate why there isn't more directed towards men. It's not a latter day prison environment. He could write such a book. The Song of Isolation and Felons.... I can't help but wonder, however, what kind of speculation on his character that kind of project would provoke.
Overall, though, Martin's depiction of sexuality (both the positive and negative aspects of that depiction) is more closely associated with modern pop culture trends than his character. It's "gritty" more than realistic. In that sense, he is pushing the buttons of many people even if he is pushing the standards only slightly, all things considered.
Bryan wrote: "Sean, I don't think you've presented a very strong argument to equate the morality of the fictional world of ASOIAF with the author's morality. You want us to believe that because he doesn't include scenes where men are raped that he doesn't believe that men rape other men?As I said, he either doesn't know or he chose not to include it despite placing several male characters in environments where they'd be at high risk of rape.
You think he's racist because he writes about a society where rape is commonplace?
No, the problem is the disparity in how rape is depicted in the psuedo-European culture of Westeros compared to the exotic Other of the Dothraki. Rape is common in both societies, but the Dothraki are portrayed as raping because they are Dothraki and that's what Dothraki do, whereas in Westeros bad men rape because they are bad men.
Gary wrote: "The Wall doesn't block off the southern lands from the worst criminals in the realm. It blocks off uncontrolled lands where people have developed a culture of Free Peoples."
I'm not talking about the people beyond the Wall; I'm talking about the ones on it-- you know, the rapists and murderers who make up the majority of the Night Watch.
Sean wrote: "I'm not talking about the people beyond the Wall; I'm talking about the ones on it-- you know, the rapists and murderers who make up the majority of the Night Watch."Ah, OK. I still don't think your assessment is correct. There are criminals, including rapists, amongst the Night's Watch, but they don't make up enough of the population of that group to equate that population with that of a more modern prison. Even in the context of a prison, Jon is a top dog in that community, better trained and capable of defending himself than are the criminals, and Sam is under his protection. Plus, Martin points out that there are many cracks in the "no women" prohibition for them, so suggesting he should portray them as turning to rape gangs doesn't seem accurate on its face, and an unlikely example for an assessment of Martin's character.
It is my main gripe with the books. I feed the sex unnecessary in most cases, and it is described with a filthy pleasure which makes me feel dirty inside.tldr: Sex in novels is fine, but there is an art to describing it and GRRM doesn't do it right.
Chris wrote: "Chris | 9 comments It is my main gripe with the books. I feed the sex unnecessary in most cases, and it is described with a filthy pleasure which makes me feel dirty inside.tldr: Sex in novels is fine, but there is an art to describing it and GRRM doesn't do it right. "
Do you have an example? I'm not trying to be prurient. I'm writing some sex scenes at the moment, and I'm curious what it is that people don't like.
Chris wrote: "tldr: Sex in novels is fine, but there is an art to describing it and GRRM doesn't do it right."Because Martin only writes sex scenes to inspire horror and revulsion in the reader. There are no love scenes in the books I can think of. It's clear from a lot of the comments in this thread that some people are talking about the show rather than the books, but we are talking about the books here, right?
Sean wrote: "Take the issue of rape as an example. Lots of people defend it on the grounds of realism. Okay then, but why haven't any of the male characters been raped? The Wall is essentially a huge prison full of the worst criminals in the realm with limited access to women -- realistically rape gangs should've grabbed Sam and Jon their first night there. But Martin chose not to do it -- he has no quibble with showing women getting raped, and he showed Sam and Jon getting mistreated in other ways, but it either never occurred to him that men can be raped, or he decided it's unbecoming for his heroes to be victimized that way. Either way, it says a lot about Martin's worldview."
This is an interesting point, but I bet that had Martin written rape gangs at the Wall (and he still might), you would be using them as an example to argue that Martin hates homosexuals. Heck, you're using their absence to argue that Martin doesn't think men can put their penises in other men, which is pretty dubious logic. (Even discounting the whole Knight of Flowers/Renly possible romance)
The Night's Watch at the outset of the story is a fairly controlled society, still considered an honourable choice for even a Stark of Winterfell. Yes, there are some evil bastards there, but they're in the minority, until Janos Slynt (and later Tyrion) really starts to funnel undesirables up north.
Darren wrote: "Because Martin only writes sex scenes to inspire horror and revulsion in the reader. There are no love scenes in the books I can think of."
Really? First, this series can in no way be described as a romance, if that's what you thought you were in for, you should have been disillusioned of that shortly into book 1. Secondly, he's written a pretty damned gritty world here and I would not expect him to tone down any part of what he's writing. Thirdly, let's not forget that very true old saying "sex sells". This is certainly not only true for men either - what was that other juggernaut of a series last year - "Fifty Shades of Grey"? I'm pretty sure that the bulk of those sales were not made to "dirty old men", nor will the bulk of the people that will be lined up to see the film when it comes out. I haven't read that series, but from what I have heard from discussions of it, the writing was poor, the subject matter was depicted wrongly enough to have people in that world up in arms, and yet - sex sold very well there.
Really, I guess my point is, if you are offended by depictions of sex in print or film, there are MANY excellent works out there that you can find and enjoy that omit that part of life entirely. If you want your sex scenes to be all soft and gentle, there are many choices out there to be had. And most importantly, fiction is fiction - I don't for a moment believe that in life GRRM is going around mistreating his wife or advocating that anyone be raped or tortured or mistreated in any other way.
Chad--50 Shades of Grey is marketed as an Erotic Novel. Those who chose to read it expected a graphically sexual book and about BDSM. Yes sex sells.
People who pick up Game of Thrones to read know it's not a romance. Song of Ice and Fire books are marketed as genre: modern fantasy [with] magic, mystery, intrigue, romance, and adventure. (Parts of Amazon's description) (Yes it listed ROMANCE!)
The fantasy genre does not equate to an expectation of violent sex. The Fantasy is NOT the go to genre for "Sex Sells"
Darren wrote: "Chris wrote: "This is an interesting point, but I bet that had Martin written rape gangs at the Wall (and he still might), you would be using them as an example to argue that Martin hates homosexuals.If that were the only example of homosexuality, or if the other examples involved a bunch of poncy-toffs who are only one step above Prince Edward in Braveheart ... oh, wait.
Of course, I'm not actually arguing that there should've been male-rape in the series. My point is that there's a severe double standard at work wherein Martin uses the rape of female characters as a plot device, scene setting, or character development for male characters.
Heck, you're using their absence to argue that Martin doesn't think men can put their penises in other men,
No, I'm arguing that he either didn't consider the possibility of men getting raped while thinking up ways to make Weseteros dark and gritty, or he did and dismissed it for some reason. Both are problematic.
Gary wrote: "There are criminals, including rapists, amongst the Night's Watch, but they don't make up enough of the population of that group to equate that population with that of a more modern prison."
My recollection is that the vast majority of the Watch is made up of criminals, with fools like John and unwanted sons like Sam being the minority.
Even in the context of a prison, Jon is a top dog in that community, better trained and capable of defending himself than are the criminals, and Sam is under his protection.
Those are plot reasons. But the plot doesn't exist on its own -- everything that happens is Martin's choice.
He chose to have a pubescent girl forced to consummate a marriage with a guy she's not keen on.
He chose to have Cersei raped by her husband.
He chose to have Sansa under constant threat of rape for two books.
He chose to have Jeyne Poole raped.
He chose to create a character whose sole purpose is to get gangraped just to give Tyrion an extra reason to hate his father.
He chose to create an entire culture where raping is the norm.
And he chose to structure scenes at the Wall in such a way that Jon and Sam aren't under threat of rape even though that'd be realistic.
The question is, why did he make those choices?
I am also a fan of the GRRM's series and, after reading some of these posts, I have a greater appreciation for our founding fathers, who first wrote the 1st Amendment. I also feel sorry for Mr. Martin; he seems to be in a catch-22 where depictions of sex are concerned. If he doesn't mention rape, the strory loses plausibility; if he puts too much weight on sex, or it is not balanced, GRRM is labeled.
I believe it was Darren who touched upon GRRM's intentions, which were not to glorify rape, but to ellicit a feeling of repulsion in the reader; he wants us to loathe certain characters. It also reflects the environment, which is one of constant conflict, not unlike the Dark and Middle Ages.
If we really want to open this can of worms, we must then mention "50 Shades of Grey". I have not read this book, but have heard much talk about its sexual content.
I'm a big fan of the vote with your wallet principle.
Sean wrote: "My recollection is that the vast majority of the Watch is made up of criminals, with fools like John and unwanted sons like Sam being the minorityThey do definitely go through the prisons to get most of their recruits, but I don't think you can equate that to the kind of depravity you're suggesting. One of the ways to avoid a modern prison sentence is to volunteer for military service, and we also have to take into consideration that the justice system of the world GRRM describes means that many people are sent to the Night's Watch for relatively minor crimes. There certainly are rapists amongst them, and some definitely wind up looting and pillaging later, but the assertion that there would be a gang of rapists waiting for the recruits doesn't seem to add up. The Night's Watch isn't Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption or Oz (the TV show, not the Land of.)
Those are plot reasons. But the plot doesn't exist on its own -- everything that happens is Martin's choice.
He chose to have a pubescent girl forced to consummate a marriage with a guy she's not keen on.
He chose to have Cersei raped by her husband.
He chose to have Sansa under constant threat of rape for two books.
He chose to have Jeyne Poole raped.
He chose to create a character whose sole purpose is to get gangraped just to give Tyrion an extra reason to hate his father.
He chose to create an entire culture where raping is the norm.
And he chose to structure scenes at the Wall in such a way that Jon and Sam aren't under threat of rape even though that'd be realistic.
The question is, why did he make those choices?"
I have to take issue with your assessment that he created a culture in which raping is the norm. He's not describing that as a norm. Rather, he's telling a story about a culture in crisis, and focusing on those elements of that crisis that are its most stark. That's what storytelling is: an exploration of extraordinary people, extraordinary circumstances and/or extraordinary times in some combination. There are literary counter-examples (Virginia Wolfe springs to mind...) but the vast majority of fiction is going to focus on such extraordinary circumstances.
More to the point, I think there are reasons why he made those choices that one should recognize long before one decides that these dynamics reflect his character in a negative way. He doesn't portray the sexual assaults as positives any more than he portrays war as glamorous, magic as wondrous or politics as noble. That is a reflection on his character in the sense that he depicts things in a more realistic, non-fairy tale manner, but to make a connection between him endorsing such things or even enjoying them confuses not only their purpose in his work, but also turns that purpose upside down.
An author's character is up for discussion just by merit of putting their art out into the world, so I think it's a perfectly legitimate conversation to have, but I think the conclusions that are being suggested here are seriously stretched. Most statements of character from an author are made clearly and unambiguously. From my own recent reading, for example, Heinlein's writing is revelatory about his personal beliefs and character. Ian Fleming's writing tells us a lot about him as a man. Martin's writing tells us about his character in the sense that he's not shying away from topics that have been fairly ignored in the genre, but to leap past that to assume that he is endorsing the actions of the villains in his work confuses not only what he's depicted but ascribes that mistaken interpretation to his personality--a compounded error in interpretation.
I've been avoiding using the "realism" argument just because it seems to be the first one made in discussing these books, and the quickest ignored. But also because I don't think Martin is realistic. I say "gritty" because that is about what people can handle. Most of us reading this live in a very Westernized, enlightened culture; a very 21st century world in which women's rights are actually assumed, even if imperfectly enacted. It's not at all difficult to go to places in our world right now where events much more horrific than those described by Martin have taken place since he started writing his books.
In those places, women and children are the first victims. There are examples of torture against men, and sexual violence directed against men, but most sexual violence is directed at women and girls.
GRRM gives us a rather mild version of that in his fantasy fiction. Unfortunately, even those efforts to expose the real world in a fantasy world provoke accusations about his character. It's doubly unjust to mistake the purpose of Martin pointing out these things in his fiction and then to ascribe them to a personal moral lapse.
Gary said: I have to take issue with your assessment that he created a culture in which raping is the norm.
I believe what Sean is referring to, as he's pointed out before is the Dothraki. Remember our first introduction to them (At Danaerys' wedding), where they just happen to engaging in the apparently very normal custom of fighting for the right to rape women? That's what he's talking about.
Most of us reading this live in a very Westernized, enlightened culture; a very 21st century world in which women's rights are actually assumed, even if imperfectly enacted.
In fact, we're not very enlightened (statistics say 1 in 4 women experience sexual harassment in their lives; LGBTQ people are just barely getting their rights and even existence acknowledged; Anybody who looks remotely Arab (which includes people from as diverse and unrelated places as India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, etc.) gets taken for a terrorist in airport security lines (personal experience)). Westernization is not civilization, I hasten to add, and your exact viewpoint on that is part of the problem. The inverse of the statement that we're enlightened is that the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages were horror shows with no moral codes or high culture. In fact, quite a lot of modern engineering and medical knowledge comes out of the period you call the Middle Ages, not to mention philosophy. In fact, Cambridge and the University of Paris were founded in the Middle Ages. In fact, having taken many courses in the period concerning the War of the Roses, rape actually didn't happen all the time. Some women actually ended up being the important ones in the family (in noble families where they were beginning to be educated formally and men were dying in war at the drop of a hat) and negotiated political difficulties of the era very successfully. Not always, obviously there was great prejudice against women, but that didn't always end in them getting raped! However, in Westeros, at this particular moment, every woman character with a point of view is raped or has been threatened with it. That is a deliberate choice by GRRM. It may be gritty, but that has nothing to do with good storytelling. This whole deal about gritty fantasy is a trend marked by gratuitous violence and sex, not a mature response to the (equally incomplete) sexless version of fantasy in Tolkien (who is my favorite fantasy writer, I'll admit upfront, though I enjoy plenty of modern fantasy and sci-fi thank you very much). I'll stress that there are mature ways to do it. Jacqueline Carey seems to stand out, although she writes erotic fantasy, so there may be a reason for why she is good at writing sex.
So what I see Sean and Klerosier making a point about is that GRRM's choices (to see his inspiration as a time of great rape, to write a culture ostensibly like the Mongols or the Huns that is seen as rapists in the reader's first impression of them, to put every single female p.o.v. character under the threat of rape as character development) reveal either an author blissfully ignorant of feminist and postcolonial criticism, or a man who knowingly used racist and sexist tropes. Perhaps he's trying to subvert them, but in my book he's failing epicly.
Despite all this, I'll say what I say to my friends when recommending this series: GRRM is a masterful writer. This mastery shows itself every 10 chapters or so, in between which you have to slog through rape, good prose that is still boring, political machinations that turn to violence as an annoyingly frequent trope on a level that even Machievelli couldn't fathom. This despite the fact that he is technically astounding: he knows how to juggle a ton of p.o.v.s (when you pick up that character again whether 5 or 20 chapters later, you remember exactly where you left them), knows how to pick the right moment to the end the chapter (good cliffhangers), and is very good with physical description. That stuff is his constant level, and it is of great craft. But all this still doesn't add up to great storytelling, which moments pop up every 10 chapters.
(view spoiler)
Sean wrote: ""1) "Reek" was sexually abused by another man about as thoroughly as can be done, in a scene that clearly reveals an understanding of rape as being about power, not sex.
2) As I said, your talk of "poncy toffs" shows your damned if he does/damned if he doesn't approach to Martin. If he doesn't mention male rapists, he's sexist, if he mentions homosexuals, they aren't masculine enough... Martin will never win, with you.
Darren wrote: "2) As I said, your talk of "poncy toffs" shows your damned if he does/damned if he doesn't approach to Martin. If he doesn't mention male rapists, he's sexist, if he mentions homosexuals, they aren't masculine enough... Martin will never win, with you. "
There's an implicit assumption in your statement: that all homosexuals are effeminate. That's a problem. It isn't damned if he does/damned if he doesn't. It's "Fuck! We've been getting it wrong for 3000 years, more or less. We need to get our shit together. But fuck this hard! The only way we'll get better is if we write things, and then get criticisms of them." It is really hard to write something that writes women, LGBTQ people, people of other races, poor people, etc. as fully-realized humans. It doesn't come naturally to think of them like that. That's because the assumption is that a "normal" human being is a white, middle class, heterosexual man. When you write such a character you don't think about their identities. They're just humans. But gay men cannot be just humans. They're gay for godssake! So to write a fully realized character is very hard, and authors need critical attention to help them get better at it.
There's an implicit assumption in your statement: that all homosexuals are effeminate. That's a problem. It isn't damned if he does/damned if he doesn't. It's "Fuck! We've been getting it wrong for 3000 years, more or less. We need to get our shit together. But fuck this hard! The only way we'll get better is if we write things, and then get criticisms of them." It is really hard to write something that writes women, LGBTQ people, people of other races, poor people, etc. as fully-realized humans. It doesn't come naturally to think of them like that. That's because the assumption is that a "normal" human being is a white, middle class, heterosexual man. When you write such a character you don't think about their identities. They're just humans. But gay men cannot be just humans. They're gay for godssake! So to write a fully realized character is very hard, and authors need critical attention to help them get better at it.
I'm curious how you got to me assuming all gay men are effeminate, from my response. Other than by not reading it at all, that is.
Klerosier wrote: "I admit I haven't read these books (and I won't). I'm six episodes into series but have discussed books with many. I am a social worker. I counseled domestic abused women and victims of incest an..."
Thank you.
Dirty old man, still worth reading.
Thane wrote: "I think it's a bit silly to suggest someone go read YA just because they don't like the T and A in a book. (Uh, and P?) If you look at a list of the greatest books of all time, debatable as it migh..."Please submit list of GBAT, so we can judge for ourselves. Thank you. For instance Dr. Zhivago, horrible rape. Then 1000 pages of emo BS. I'll take Martin, thanks.
Sean wrote: "Gary wrote: Why haven't any male characters been raped"Here's where the TV series gets kudos over the books. There are at least two times that I can think of where men have been threatened with rape. I like that it's not just the women.
Bryan wrote: "Sean, I don't think you've presented a very strong argument to equate the morality of the fictional world of ASOIAF with the author's morality. You want us to believe that because he doesn't inclu..."Point well made.
Gary wrote: "Chris wrote: "Chris | 9 comments It is my main gripe with the books. I feed the sex unnecessary in most cases, and it is described with a filthy pleasure which makes me feel dirty inside.tldr: Se..."
I think some people find all sexual references to be "prurient". Don't let it stop your writing. The English came here to get rid of The Church and the work is still ongoing.
Chad wrote: "Darren wrote: "Because Martin only writes sex scenes to inspire horror and revulsion in the reader. There are no love scenes in the books I can think of."
Really? First, this series can in no way..."
Safe word. Word.
Gary wrote: "GRRM gives us a rather mild version of that in his fantasy fiction. Unfortunately, even those efforts to expose the real world in a fantasy world provoke accusations about his character. It's doubly unjust to mistake the purpose of Martin pointing out these things in his fiction and then to ascribe them to a personal moral lapse. "
Thank you. It's like accusing Jon Krakauer of personally leaving people to die in the snows of Everest, even though he's only writing about it.
Sharat wrote: " LGBTQ people are just barely getting their rights and even existence acknowledged"Look at ALL of history and ALL cultures. LGBTQ(acronym of the week) people have had places in various societies, including Xtian ones. Our current views are just that, extremely contemporary and largely inapplicable to previous ages. Previous societies had other connotations and denotations that don't necessarily come across in print.
Darren wrote: "Sean wrote: ""1) "Reek" was sexually abused by another man about as thoroughly as can be done, in a scene that clearly reveals an understanding of rape as being about power, not sex.
2) As I sai..."
I completely concur, especially since Renly complains of same during Season 1.
Darren wrote: "I'm curious how you got to me assuming all gay men are effeminate, from my response. Other than by not reading it at all, that is."Yeah, apparently "not masculine enough" means "effeminate" in his dickshunairy.
Firstname wrote:Please submit list of GBAT, so we can judge for ourselves. Thank you. For instance Dr. Zhivago, horrible rape. Then 1000 pages of emo BS. I'll take Martin, thanks.I did say it was debatable. Maybe I was wrong, but it's still silly to suggest someone only read YA. Avoid this particular series, sure, but there's plenty of adult level books out there without lots of graphic sex stuff.
Thane wrote: "Firstname wrote:Please submit list of GBAT, so we can judge for ourselves. Thank you. For instance Dr. Zhivago, horrible rape. Then 1000 pages of emo BS. I'll take Martin, thanks.I did say it was..."
Do please provide a list. No seriously, I'm not trying to be a dick, what really good books are out there that have no sexual content of any kind? Would read.
Firstname wrote: "Thane wrote: "Firstname wrote:Please submit list of GBAT, so we can judge for ourselves. Thank you. For instance Dr. Zhivago, horrible rape. Then 1000 pages of emo BS. I'll take Martin, thanks." and "I'm not trying to be a dick, what really good books are out there that have no sexual content of any kind? Would read."I ..." There are many degrees and types of sexual content, a spectrum from hard porn to innocent behind closed doors suggestions. I don't think the issue here is that GRRM's books have sex but the tone of the sex or "sex scenes to inspire horror and revulsion" as Darren put it so clearly.
I've read very detailed explicit sex scenes that made me blush or shocked me but have not left me feeling dirtied. My husband never minds seeing bared boobs in a movie but even he was disgusted by the HBO version of Game of Thrones.
Besides, I don't think people are suggesting everyone should dislike these books or GRRM. This threads question was: Is GRRM a dirty old man? It begs different OPINIONS. I answer yes. Which no way implies I need to read YA, that there shouldn't be sex in any books, or that you are wrong to enjoy his books. People who have not read the series can read this thread and draw their own conclusions about possibly reading them.
They are wildly popular so obviously some people are not offended or think the good part outweight the offensive parts.
I don't mind sexual content, I just despise the pleasure GRRM seems to put into his perverted prose.
Klerosier wrote: ".." There are many degrees and types of sexual content, a spectrum from hard porn to innocent behind closed doors suggestions. I don't think the issue here is that GRRM's books have sex but the tone of the sex or "sex scenes to inspire horror and revulsion" as Darren put it so clearly. "
I think there is some confusion about what I meant, there. I am not condemning the scenes in the books. I am saying in these books, the sex scenes are not (imo) intended for the titillation of the reader, but are used for other purposes. Empathy for some, and disgust for others. But they are never love scenes.
This does not mean romance and love do not exist in his world. The reader will note that the whole affair between Robb Stark and Jeyne Westerling is all but omitted in the text; explained only as an aside, after the fact. What happens on their wedding night is left only to Catelyn Stark's suspicions. Yet Daenaerys's wedding night is explained in uncomfortable detail, and Tyrion's wedding night to Sansa is a study in shame.
To what end, then? I just can't agree with any reading that imagines GRRM putting in these scenes of rape and torture as eroticism. The moral notes he hits are always on empathy for the victim. In Cersei's seduction and abuse of Lancel Lannister (which may also be viewed as a rape, whatever Sean thinks) we see in the moment only how much she despises him. Reading the aftermath of Tyrion's wedding to Tysha who can feel sympathy for Tyrion? No one moral, and not GRRM, who writes both accounts of that horrible sequence as something Tyrion knew to be shameful, and yet did anyway. To our disgust.
And again, the books are not the tv show.
Chris wrote: "I don't mind sexual content, I just despise the pleasure GRRM seems to put into his perverted prose."This sounds to me like projection.
Chris wrote: "I don't mind sexual content, I just despise the pleasure GRRM seems to put into his perverted prose."Do you have example (or better examples) of perverted prose in his work? So far, the suggestion has been that the subject matter itself indicates a flawed character. I find that a highly dubious argument. However, if there's something in the actual language that he uses to support the idea that such things are a reflection of his character then that would be a much more substantial argument.
Klerosier is right, we're way off track here. No one said zero sexual content. GRRM just takes it above and beyond. I don't think Charles Dickens would be improved by more, very descriptive, scenes of rapey incest. Anyway, is he a dirty old man? I dunno. Is he just playing to the crowd? Dunno. Will he ever finish the series? Who knows!
Here is one such list, Firstname. One of many.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_100_...
Again, such lists are open to debate, and another thread might be more appropriate for that. Sorry for the accidental mini-hijack.
Thane wrote: "Klerosier is right, we're way off track here. No one said zero sexual content. GRRM just takes it above and beyond. I don't think Charles Dickens would be improved by more, very descriptive, scenes..."Oooh thanks for the list, although I was specifically looking for books without sexual content. I am of the opinion that threads are jackable as long as people are contributing. No worries.
Thane wrote: "Klerosier is right, we're way off track here. No one said zero sexual content. GRRM just takes it above and beyond. I don't think Charles Dickens would be improved by more, very descriptive, scenes..."Oh, and nearly anything would improve Dickens ;^D
Darren wrote: "I think there is some confusion about what I meant, there. I am not condemning the scenes in the books. I am saying in these books, the sex scenes are not (imo) intended for the titillation of the reader, but are used for other purposes. Empathy for some, and disgust for others. But they are never love scenes."You make it sound like "love scenes" can serve no purpose other than titillation, which simply isn't true. A writer can show characters having good, healthy sex in a way that illuminates their character or advances the plot. A prime example is the sex scene in The Terminator which is certainly arousing, but it's also the most important scene in the movie -- the entire fate of humanity depends on that one moment. And, here's the important thing, Sarah Connor is an active part of the scene -- Reese isn't even the character the audience is supposed to identify with, so there's no sense of, "All right, the guy's bangin' Linda Hamilton.
On the other hand, you have grimdark fantasies alike ASOIAF in which the sex scenes are full of rape and serve to objectify the women who have no role in the scenes but to take what the guy gives them.
Firstname wrote: "Thank you. It's like accusing Jon Krakauer of personally leaving people to die in the snows of Everest, even though he's only writing about it. ..."But you see that analogy doesn't work here because Jon Krakeur actually was on that trip to Everest. Now I'm not condoning what people said about him for his actions but because he actually was on that disastrous trip I don't think the analogy works particularly well.
Sean wrote: "You make it sound like "love scenes" can serve no purpose other than titillation"Really? That's what you took from all that? We are talking about the scenes Martin wrote and how/if that relates to him as a person, in this thread. For that reason I feel it important to distinguish between a sex scene intended to titillate or "arouse" the reader (whatever other reasons are there for its inclusion. I did not imagine you needed complete specificity to understand a point. I was wrong...) and one written for other purposes. The former might be argued to speak to the sexual predilections of the author (I think falsely), but the latter may speak to his fears and concerns (perhaps also falsely). My very point was that eroticism is NOT the only reason an author may write such scenes, and people should stop assuming anything about Martin based on a scene they find distasteful.
No one seems to need this distinction explained to them for anything aside from sex scenes*. An author may write about the murder of a child without the reader assuming that the author would like to murder children. Nor do I think any reader would be greatly shocked to discover that a loving passage about a cup of coffee was penned by an author who secretly hated the stuff, but understood that others enjoyed it, including the character in the scene. Yet Martin can not write about incest, even though the scenes which feature it condemn the act, without being called a "pervert". As he has been, in this thread. That is bizarre, to me.
*Or should I say "scenes in which some form of sex occurs" to make it absolutely clear that the sole purpose of/information conveyed in such scenes need not be the fact that some form of sex occurs?
Darren wrote: "Sean wrote: "You make it sound like "love scenes" can serve no purpose other than titillation"Really? That's what you took from all that? We are talking about the scenes Martin wrote and how/if t..."
---------------------------Standing ovation---------------------
Micah wrote: "Firstname wrote: "Thank you. It's like accusing Jon Krakauer of personally leaving people to die in the snows of Everest, even though he's only writing about it. ..."But you see that analogy does..."
Okay, fine, Krakauer writing about Mormon murderers even though he is neither a Mormon nor a murderer. Does that work better for you?
Firstname wrote: "Okay, fine, Krakauer writing about Mormon murderers even though he is neither a Mormon nor a murderer. Does that work better for you? "Sure. But just an FYI that reply read as a little snide. I think the majority of us S&L'ers try to keep things civil on our forums. I don't know if that was your intention but it did come off that way. We like to discuss things here reasonably not get under each others skin.
Darren wrote: "Yet Martin can not write about incest, even though the scenes which feature it condemn the act, without being called a "pervert". As he has been, in this thread. That is bizarre, to me. "I think part of the problem is that Martin has subconsciously used sexist language in his writing and people pick up on that. There are examples of him saying things like, "her small breasts moved easily under the fabric" but he never says things like, "his small testicles moved freely about his breeches." When using the authorial voice, the "god mode", why is it even necessary to comment on a woman's breasts? It's not. It's done simply because he has internalized the breast fetish so common in men and writes that sort of thing without thinking about it.*
Readers recognize this, usually not on a conscious level, and then see the scenes of incest and equate the two.
I am NOT saying that GRRM approves of incest or is titillated by it, as I have no way of knowing. All I'm pointing out is why some of this seems to get too close to the squick factor for some people.
Personally, I don't really care one way or the other. The books became so rambling and dull that I gave up on them years ago. The HBO series is far superior because they've been taking out all the boring shit. In the most recent episode I actually almost felt sorry for Jamie Lannister as he was telling the story of how he came to be known as "Kingslayer." That was something GRRM was never able to pull off.
* Seriously, he mentions breasts a lot. I'm kind of hoping some obsessive fan counts all the body parts he calls out, just to see where boobs stack up.
The Sword and Laser
Books mentioned in this topic
A Clash of Kings (other topics)The Windup Girl (other topics)
A Clash of Kings (other topics)
If he were writing a non-fiction philosophical text about the merits of pillaging then I could see the association, but in the context of a fantasy fiction writer, making a connection between GRRM and his subject matter doesn't make any more sense than saying Anne Rice's writing vampire books means you shouldn't trust her at the Red Cross, or that Jeff Lindsay (Darkly Dreaming Dexter) is a serial killer.