Is George R.R. Martin a dirty old man?

[Sean]

Darren wrote: "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."

Martin is an author from a certain cultural backdrop, and his worldview is affected by that. There are parts of that backdrop that need criticism, and when his writings reflect those things he gets criticized for them. It happens that those things involve sexuality and race, not child murder.

Now if Martin were from a culture where infanticide has long been condoned and people are fighting to end it, and he writes a book in which infanticide is treated as perfectly okay, people would be criticizing him for that too. But that's not the culture he's from.

[Gary]

Having just finished Friday by Heinlein, I'd suggest folks have a look at that book if you want a good example of an author's work illustrating that he's a dirty old man (or worse....)

SoI&F is, at best, ambiguous in language and theme as to how revelatory it is about GRRM as a person, and I'd argue that it's more favorable than anything else. When a book is about the author more than about the art itself, it's pretty obvious. They hit the reader right over the head with it. From going through this thread, it's clear that a lot of folks find the inclusion of sexual material to be enough to make an association with the author, but I honestly think that's erroneous. In fact, not to put too fine a point on it, but it says at least as much (more, really) about the personality of the critic than the author being criticized. After all, if the assumption is that an author's writing tells us about his personality, can't we assume the person writing a critique of that work is telling us about HIS character in the same manner?

[Firstname]

Gary wrote: "Having just finished Friday by Heinlein, I'd suggest folks have a look at that book if you want a good example of an author's work illustrating that he's a dirty old man (or worse....)

SoI&F is, a..."

Apparently O.S. Card is a child murderer.

[Kevin]

Gary wrote: "n fact, not to put too fine a point on it, but it says at least as much (more, really) about the personality of the critic than the author being criticized. After all, if the assumption is that an author's writing tells us about his personality, can't we assume the person writing a critique of that work is telling us about HIS character in the same manner? "

Very much so. I've always found that people's interpretations of a book say a lot more about those people than about the book. This thread is a nice example of that.

[Gary]

KevinB wrote: "Very much so. I've always found that people's interpretations of a book say a lot more about those people than about the book. This thread is a nice example of that."

I have a recently developed theory that it's impossible to write anything that isn't, at its core, really about the writer. A shopping list, an office memo, a note passed in class. Even someone who does technical writing is giving us a character study by presenting stereo installation instructions in blank, direct prose organized into numbered lists. It says "this is my rational side, look how developed it is...."

Critiquing an author is even more obviously an example of a critic revealing his thoughts and character using the author as a focus for that public act of self-examination. Of course, an author does this more knowingly by presenting their work, while a critic of that work might be unaware that they are, in reality, the subject of their own exposition... just as I am really the subject of the same process just by pointing it out. There's more to it than just that, of course, but it is fundamental to what we're all doing here.

I'll stop now before the ghost of Jung appears and stabs me in the neck with the sharp end of an archetype.

[Firstname]

Gary wrote: "KevinB wrote: "Very much so. I've always found that people's interpretations of a book say a lot more about those people than about the book. This thread is a nice example of that."

I have a recen..."

That or the ghosts of all those poor people who used to translate Ikea instructions.

[elie88]

Micah wrote: "You make a very good point. And for the most part I agree with your reasoning. While a lot of the scenes in book 1 seemed a bit excessive to me they did quite easily inform you as to their characte..."

you should read the sex scenes in savage detectives

[Firstname]

"The point is that these characters aren't real, even the ones wrought by a master like Updike. What is naïve and blinkered is the insistence that fictional characters be held to the same moral and behavioral standards we expect of our friends. It seems to me that part of the point of literature is to enlighten and expand, and there are few pleasures in fiction that expand our consciousness further than getting to observe the world from the perspective of characters so different from us, so thoroughly flawed, that if we were to encounter them in real life we wouldn't like them very much."

From Emily St. John Mandel's In praise of unlikable characters.

[Elizabeth]

Do I think GRRM is a dirty old man? I'm not sure, because I haven't met him, or heard him say anything about what he thinks of his own sex scenes, but I do have a problem with some of his characterization of female characters.

Heads up: Somewhat biased perspective....however, I'm willing to keep an open mind since I only read the first book so far.

I just think that the patriarchal societies he has set up in both Westeros, and the Dorthaki is rather too similar to today. Except in his stories I don't really see a lot of female characters trying to move past that oppression in a healthy way, like I do in the modern world. I'm just getting the vibe that GRRM's writing style contributes to a trope that rape in a woman's life (meaning Dany, Sansa, not how he views woman in general, just how he writes his female characters) means "character progression"

In comic books there are plenty of death scenes of female characters that are used as progression of the male superhero's story arc. That already annoys me enough.

I don't want to start seeing, or have a continuance of a trope that shows female characterization progressing through rape. Our culture already has enough excuses for how it is the victim's fault for the rape, the last thing that this culture needs is a way for rape to be positively viewed i.e. "suck it up just like Dany and then you'll be the dragon!"

I don't think he is writing these scenes as shock value. I think it is more to show character progression/demonstrate culture, but at the same time I think he is unaware that his writing style comes at the cost of demeaning women when he doesn't have a balance of strong and positive female characters.
Cersei = ok with killing children for political gain/survival, not a great role model.
Catelyn = probably one of the more positive female characters, but she makes such stupid choices, and stays within her societal role, in a society that sucks for women.
Arya = tough, but a child. She could either grow into a strong female character, but since she is still young, her character hasn't really developed yet.
Catelyn's sister = crazy

The only example from the first book where I see a positive strong female is that woman that is in Rob's guard. However, she is soo minor that I can't even remember her name.

In comparison the male characters seem to be much better off even though there lives can be miserable too, but there isn't this factor where their gender is devalued. (which is why they are better off)

I get that this is just a book, but is it too much to ask to have female characters that actually succeed in a patriarchy without getting raped, marrying into power, willing to kill anyone to stay in power, or get killed because none of the above happened to them?

Here is an article that better describes my opinion:

http://www.themarysue.com/sexism-in-h...

[Firstname]

Liz wrote: "I just think that the patriarchal societies he has set up in both Westeros, and the Dorthaki is rather too similar to today."

I think that may just be the point.

[Mysterio2]

There's certainly no reason that fantasy writers necessarily have to base the sexual politics of the worlds they create on those of the real-life historical societies they use as templates.

But there's also no reason why they shouldn't if that is what they want to do.

And there's no reason why anyone shouldn't express his or her views regarding the author's choices either.

In other words, tt's a free society, more or less, and everyone is entitled to express his/her opinion about everything, including everyone else's expressions of opinion.

Maybe those who find the sexual politics of Mr. Martin's Westeros execrable will persuade Mr. Martin that he is being socially irresponsible or whatever and he'll change.

Or maybe the broad public will be persuaded, and its tastes will change, and Mr. Martin and writers of his ilk will suffer in the marketplace, and either cease to be popular or modify their works to remain popular.

As for myself, I will continue to watch GoT (haven't yet read any of the books) because I find it to be an interesting and compelling story, and the politics of fictional worlds don't particularly bother me.

[Sean]

Firstname wrote: " What is naïve and blinkered is the insistence that fictional characters be held to the same moral and behavioral standards we expect of our friends."

Which is precisely what nobody here is doing. The issue is the author's choice of what to present, his use of stereotypes in building "foreign cultures," his treatment of traditional female roles as inferior to the women who go out to do manly-man stuff, etc., etc. Moral ambiguity and dark characters don't inherently require any of that.