1 - https://www.amazon.com/Empire-Summer-Moon-Comanches-Powerful...

From there, it is a hop, skip, and a jump to Biden proposing Iraq be divided into three separate zones among the Kurds, the Shia, and the Sunnis ... completely neglecting the actual ethnic, religious, and power dynamics on the ground. Or, people turning a blind eye to the slaughters that happened in Bosnia in the 90s (a sprinkling of that and Chechnya over what was cooked in Aghanistan gave us the multinational Jihadi networks that organized 9/11 among other things) because "these people have been killing each other for 600 years" ... An implicit reference to the Ottomans whose ancestors came from the Eurasian steppe.

So, yes, I love Devereaux's work, especially because I run into a lot of people who think and talk about actual history through the filter of these shows/books.

The Republic of Turkey was created by Turks fighting, among others, the British, following the war fought over the imposed Sevres[1] partitioning of Anatolia.

The Lausanne treaty[2] where one of my great grandfathers was in the Turkish delegation defined most of the borders of the Republic of Turkey.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_S%C3%A8vres [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lausanne

I may not have been clear in why I brought up the Star Trek example ... FYI, there is no "The Kurds", for example.

I don't think that suggestion was made ignoring those dynamics but taking them into account fairly deeply. It may have been problematic, but it's not like there was no non-problematic answer to the problems at the time.

That position became unpopular after the short-term success of the following troop surge in Iraq (and the continuation of the de facto but less complete 2-way partition into a Kurdish entity and the rest of Iraq) resolved the immediate issues it was proposed in response to, but given the subsequent internal instability with regional involvement (the 2014-2017 civil war and the current internal instability and Iran-US proxy war in the country) driven largely by the internal conflict between Shia and Sunni groups outside of the Kurdish region and external intervention in that conflict, I don't think the short-term success of the surge really vindicated it and the situation is sought to make concrete as the correct way forward.

* GRRM has made claims regarding the relation of the Dothraki to real-life cultures. It's in the second sentence:

> George R.R. Martin’s claim that the Dothraki are “an amalgam of a number of steppe and plains cultures”

* In interviews and writing outside of the books GRRM has made a number of claims about the reality of life in medieval Europe. He in particular made claims about the prevalence and nature of sexual violence (as a defence for the content of his books) which were roundly rebuked by historians. In the article:

> he has stated this outright as a defense of his work that this is how it ‘really was’

* Finally Game of Thrones is probably the most important and influential piece of modern media depicting something like medieval Europe. Though it is fiction, it undeniably has a massive impact on people's perception of the time period, and for a lot of people their perception of "what the middle ages were like" will be shaped in part by Game of Thrones. So it's worth criticising for that reason.

As an aside, I find it weird when people object to the very idea of critiquing these components of a piece of media. When this blog had posts about the armour in game of thrones I found it informative and tonnes of fun: I got to learn a little about battle tactics, got to see where the show's designers took their inspiration, and got to notice funny things like how Jamie Lannister is clearly wearing a biker jacket with some paint on it for much of the 5th season. One of the best things about the show (and books) is meant to be how they're grounded and seem "real", despite the dragons and whatnot. Pointing out bits that don't make sense is good, especially when those bits can actually perpetrate harmful misconceptions more generally.

If we see the Native Americans as murdering rapists, how likely are we to give them restitution for the massacres we've inflicted upon them, or begin to provide them social support? And if you don't currently see them as such, how will fiction that impresses on the greater public of its veracity that it isn't so, and that the general impression of their culture is completely fabricated?

Fiction definitely shapes our society and our understanding, and if fiction as popular as this one claims to be realistic there is a responsibility to either confirm or counter it. Yes, storytelling is more important than accuracy, but when you claim the latter you had better prove it.

This argument is bad because it means well-meaning historians feel they need to whitewash the history of Indian tribes as noble savages, just to get the reaction they want today.

Star Wars is "supposed" to be ancient history within the fiction of its own story. George Lucas doesn't think it actually is ancient history.

Contrast this with George Martin's assertion that the Dothraki are "an amalgam of steppe and plains cultures [...] seasoned with a dash of pure fantasy" (or that the sexual violence in his books mirrors that of the real medieval history). This is an "out of fictional universe" argument, different from Star War's fictional conceit that it takes place "a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away".

Star Wars is quite a clever setting because it's both vague and incredibly distant, which allows the film makers huge latitude to include tropes from cowboy, ronin, WW2 films etc without the worry of historical inaccuracy.

It's only even vaguely in that category if you take an extremely elastic view of “like medieval Europe”.

> Though it is fiction, it undeniably has a massive impact on people's perception of the time period,

Undeniably? Based on...what evidence?

No. Westeros is based on medieval Europe, culturally, politically, and historically. Obviously it's fiction, well done on spotting that, but it's a fictionalised version of medieval Europe.

> Undeniably? Based on...what evidence?

I'm sorry, do I have to provide you with evidence that media impacts people's perception of things?

Inspired rather loosely by remixing elements of that with other historical sources (e.g., Palestine—modern Palestine, specifically, IIRC—is explicitly identified by GRRM as part of the inspiration for Dorne.) Then leavened with a hefty dose of fantasy (part of the “realism” reputation the series has is that the fantasy elements aren’t bolt-ons that don’t fundamentally effect the rest of the setting.)

> I’m sorry, do I have to provide you with evidence that media impacts people’s perception of things?

There’s a pretty big difference between these claims:

(1) media impacts people’s perception of things

vs.

(2) AGoT undeniably has a massive impact on people’s perception of medieval Europe

I think that claim is pretty uncontroversial, which is why I didn't provide "evidence" for it, and also I get the sense that I'd be wasting my time in arguing with you about it when you throw out silly pedantries like "oh well dorne is based on palestine".

I'm sure that, of relatively modern fantasy series, it will have one of the largest impacts while it remains popular. What I don't see is evidence that it (or even the #1 modern medieval fantasy series) has much impact (I would accept, without specific evidence, that it has non-zero impact) on perceptions of the medieval period on an absolute scale, rather than relative to other modern overtly fantastic literature not specifically tied to history which also may not have much absolute impact.

Now, clearly fantasy has some impact; things like post-medieval Arthurian stories have been a vehicle for transmitting a lot of misconceptions about the medieval period. But those presented themselves as history and tied to specific times and places in history, they weren’t overt fantasy set in an obviously-invented setting that was merely inspired by a mix of history and historical mythology.

> The Fremen Mirage is a literary trope, unconnected to historical reality, which presents societies as a contrast between unsophisticated, but morally pure, hyper-masculine and militarily effective ‘strong men’ societies honed by ‘hard times’ (that is, the Fremen of the term) and a sophisticated but effeminate and decadent ‘weak men’ societies weakened by ‘good times,’ frequently with an implicit assertion of the superior worth of the former.

More specifically, he seems wary of the impact that myth has in modern politics.

> fiction is often how the public conceptualizes the past and that concept of the past shapes the decisions we make in the present. In the case of A Song of Ice and Fire in particular, this vision of the past is particularly worth interrogating because it serves as the basis for a parable on power and violence.

I've had conversations with people who believe fiction such as George R. R. Martin's is "realistic" and worth examining as if it were a history. So, yes, apparently it would shock some people. Yet, no, you should not be shocked.

1) Depictions in popular media, even if people know they are unrealistic, become anchors for how we imagine certain cultures. Knowing the depiction is unrealistic does not help against this.

2) a song of ice and fire / Game of Thrones are often praised for their realism. This makes the wholly unrealistic depictions here worse. Not only might this cause subconscious anchoring. It could also lead people to consciously conclude "this might be how it was". If not, this presumption of realism might lead to less critical reading.

But GoT is (more) realistic (than other TV shows) in it's depiction of:

a) Complex personal motives and agendas. No person is entirely good or entirely bad, and everyone is a hero in their own story. Most shows don't get it, GoT largely does.

b) Costumes and places. Those are not "realistic" in a historic sense, but they are very well-made and of higher visual quality compared to other shows. The rest just seems to recycle props from the last medieval flic it seems, GoT looks more refined. GoT has visual realism that is akin to a very well-made texture map in a completely fictional computer game.

c) Edit: I forgot one: GoT breaks with a few of the usual hollywood stroytelling tropes, making the story feel less formulaic and more realistic. E.g. gratuitous killing of main characters and sudden abandonment of whole long-prepared story-arcs because life happens (King Rob and the Red Wedding).

In GoT they cared a great deal more about such stuff. Travelling characters looked like they actually travelled.

Not sure I agree with that. I don't recall Tyrion and Bronn being very well equipped for long travel when they first journey together.

Or Jamie and Bronn when they set out on their little quest.

And I didn't see much in the way of supplies when Jon Snow and company hunt for a walking corpse in a tundra far north of the Wall.

ASoIAF isn't praised for its "realism" so much as the subversion of fantasy tropes that are a staple of grimdark fantasy. The "realism" is in the notion that knights aren't chivalrous and ladies have to fight for themselves, while the commoners suffer under their lords and medieval society is generally dysfunctional.

At the end of the day it's still fantasy with dragons and ice zombies pillaging fictional societies. There are absolutely allusions to real peoples, but something Martin does exceptionally well is the synthesis of his fictional cultures from various influences in real history to create things that are familiar enough while still being distinct.

Even if we judge the Dothraki by itself, they lacks verisimilitude. They are not believable as a society, fantasy or otherwise.

In effect, Daenerys was the "typical" fantasy plotline, happening elsewhere. Eventually, when Daenerys arrived on Westeros, where actual politics / actual history is going on (aka: more real), her fantasy methodologies just don't work out very well.

---------

But that's my reading (of the HBO series. I never actually read the books). I recognize that there are people out there who might think that the Dothraki were somehow realistic.

Those people apparently include George R.R. Martin himself.

If I were to re read them I’d be strongly tempted to skip all the non-Westeros chapters

Dothraki are influenced by a number of different real, historical stereotypes of different steppe dwelling cultures known for their mounted-but-not-heavily-armored warriors.

How can something that survived for 1000 years while constantly evolving and adapting to changing circumstances be disfunctional?

"I am sometimes baffled that the very fans who insist that their particular loves be treated seriously, as art are the same fans who react with frustration if one then sets out to interrogate those same genres the way one would interrogate serious art or literature. This is it, after all! This is what you (we, really) wanted! A (quite unimpressive, I’ll grant you) ivory tower academic is taking this genre seriously and subjecting it to serious criticism! Isn’t that what emerging genres often hope for, to be taken seriously as ‘high’ literature?"

People want the unquestioned clout of being canon, without all these inconvenient academics interrogating the text.

I am sometimes baffled by people who understand that people can disagree on what is art, but don't understand that people also disagree on how art in general should be approached.

2. The first post in the Dothraki series specifically talks at great length about how strongly we should criticize such "incorrect" civilizations in fiction. Ice & Fire is particularly worth criticizing because both the books and the TV show are often (incorrectly) said to resemble real history, so people might think there actually were or are societies like the Dothraki.

3. It's fun and educational. The blog is literally called "A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry". Not everything has to be a life-changing TED talk or a hot take callout.

- show or novel has historical fantasy with all white actors

- public complain about racial discrimination

- it is then asserted that black people are "not historical" by fans

Or the mirror image; some show includes a female warrior in a fantasy setting and is denounced by fans as "not historical".

There's clearly a set of tropes which fans will accept as "accurate" for historical fantasy, and it's worth interrogating how that relates to actual history.

You could also say it's a failure of writing.

You and I can probably do better by coming up with cliched paint by the number descriptions of human tribes and it would be more dimensional than the Dothraki as described and portrayed.

I mean, okay, maybe real world Steppe peoples would have been subject to variations in dialect. Do I need pages of stuff telling me that the absence of a sentence like "Dany couldn't understand that one guy very well because he spoke a confusing dialect of Dothraki" is a glaring oversight? If there's one thing the series doesn't need it's a whole other novel that goes even further in detailing the misery of navigating the cultural differences on Essos. One ADWD is plenty.

As a reader, you certainly don't need that to enjoy the books.

But since GRRM claims that the Dothraki are based on reality "seasoned with a dash of pure fantasy" it's worth pointing out that based on what's actually in the books themselves it's the other way around: the Dothraki are fantasy seasoned with a dash of reality.

While Genghis Khan is safely dead, the author mentions the impact on actual descendants of steppe people (and plains people), who still exist today and in some parts of the world are subjected to rather unfortunate situations, which negative stereotypes might help fuel.

If through the reading of the several blog posts that you don't agree that the Dothraki are NOT an amalgam of steppe / plains nomads then I'm not sure what argument you're making.

Have you even read the series? There is practically nothing that comes from the historical cultures, besides maybe "non-white, non-settled people that have horses".

The Dothraki (as well as several of the supposed source cultures) are pretty clearly white.

How are they described in the books?

Are you sure about "pretty clearly"?

Yeah, see that's the thing. I said before that it's motte and bailey with this guy, and that's reflected in his defenders.

Motte: is just historical accuracy how can you object to that? That's a good, positive thing

Bailey: GRRM is causing harm with his lying, demeaning, historical inaccuracy

Let's just have the historical accuracy alone, shall we?

Or a demonstration that GRRM is causing harm. That would be fine, too, but I suspect that's much more difficult to establish, and it's not gonna happen by continuing to demonstrate that which surprises utterly no one, that the Dothraki are fictional

As it stands, there is this back-and-forth when I ask people to demonstrate that this denigration of GRRM is justified and people start talking about buckskin and horse bridles

> The honest mistake has become an irresponsible error, perhaps a moral one.

Which was in the context of discussing that GRRM has explicitly said that the Dothraki were based off of real peoples.

The author does not say "GRRM is causing harm..." he says that GRRM is acting irresponsible and possibly immoral. It seems likely that the author believes that GRRM is causing harm, but he does not advance his argument that far.

> This literally isn't happening.

I disagree with rendall's general opinion regarding this series... But there's pretty much no other way to read the last few paragraphs in this particular essay. The author came within a hair's breadth of calling Martin an "ignorant racist", and he probably didn't say so deliberately.

In general, this article is by far the preachiest in the series, and is thus the least enjoyable. "Barbarian couture" is great, though.

I respectfully and strongly disagree.

The conclusions about Martin as a person I gather from the historical evidence in the article are "Martin clearly knows little about history and obviously wanted to engage a little bit in the 'Fremen mirage' [as the author, Devereaux, himself would put it], but he's also a blowhard overstating his own knowledge and authority."

That Martin is "irresponsible", and his story "harmful", etcetera. That's all entirely what the author puts forward on the last few paragraphs... And something he didn't do in the first article in the series, and in the few other essays by him I've read. He keeps it fairly neutral, and focused on the history.

You see, the charitable interpretation in this case would be "don't attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence". In most of Devereaux's essays that have become popular here, he sticks to that one with reasonable consistency, but he clearly made an exception this time.

WRT your last point, I didn't read the conclusion to say that GRRM maliciously cause harm, but through his incomplete knowledge of history and his assertion that the culture he portrayed was historically accurate was causing harm. He simply noted the deficiencies of GRRM, and the resulting consequences of such.

And to the point that you've brought up about a difference between this article and the last 2, I would counter to say that all three have had the same conclusion, that GRRM has been inaccurate with the portrayal of horse-bourne nomads, only here he has laid out the consequences that it entails. If you're fine with the predicate but have issue with the conclusion, I would suggest you make a counter to his argument, otherwise it would appear to be in bad faith to lambast his conclusion yet agree with his predicate and have no word on his argument.

> but through his incomplete knowledge of history and his assertion that the culture he portrayed was historically accurate was causing harm.

I take it you agree with my original comment then. I didn't discuss in it whether a judgment of Martin was justified or not, merely that it exists. The person I originally replied to asserted that there wasn't.

> He simply noted the deficiencies of GRRM

I agree with this.

> the resulting consequences of such.

On this I disagree. My interpretation from the historical references given in the essay are, as I already said, that Martin was just wrong. Meanwhile, the author jumps into saying that Martin isn't just wrong, but irresponsible. That isn't supported by anything else in the essay other than the author's opinions.

> If you're fine with the predicate but have issue with the conclusion, I would suggest you make a counter to his argument

I have no issue with the conclusion or argument (the argument that the Dothraki have no basis on real cultures, anyway). I disagree with the suggestions made on Martin as a person, and not just because the jump to those have little evidence (or place, in my opinion, which is why the article comes across as preachy) in the article itself.

And I did present an alternate interpretation.

> to lambast his conclusion

I did no such thing.

A succinct statement of my own position.

I don't think there is anywhere that Devereaux even implied maliciousness, just irresponsibility and moral failing.

Disagreed. To be "irresponsible" one first needs a responsibility, and I don't think Martin has any responsibility on the matter. He has no authority, he isn't a historian or a linguist; he's a storyteller.

I repeat, the most that can be inferred of him as a person regarding his story and his comments on it (based on what's said on the matter in this article) is that he's ignorant of his own ignorance, and a blowhard (IMO).

> I don't think there is anywhere that Devereaux even implied maliciousness, just irresponsibility and moral failing.

I don't see how saying that someone has "moral failings" is not calling them "malicious". At most, it can be argued that "malicious" is a stronger word, but at that point we're arguing tone. The intent is similar.

For instance, I only used the word "malice" because that's how the saying goes. It was a little hyperbolic in context, but you can replace "malice" with "moral failing" in my previous comment if you so wish[1]; I don't think the message I was trying to send would change if so.

But that's mostly beside the point, I take it you agree with my original comment then: the article does have a negative moral judgment of Martin. The person I originally replied to asserted that there wasn't.

[1]: "don't attribute to moral failing what can be attributed to incompetence".

If I am:

1. Incompetent at driving

2. Ignorant of #1

3. Go out driving, putting others lives at risk

I would argue that this is a non-malicious moral failing.

RE: Responsibility

I think all people engaging in public speech have a responsibility to be correct, inasmuch as incorrect speech is harmful. The larger the audience, the larger the responsibility. The author claims that it would have been a very small amount of research to inform GRRM about some of these inaccuracies, so making a public claim about accuracy with a large platform and not bothering to do the research is irresponsible.

Point out a single specific example of any of those things in the article, please.

> Does GRRM truly encourage this view? The articles vaguely allude, never establish

The article literally quotes GRRM multiple times with regards to his claims about the historical accuracy of the books. As I said in another comment, this is the second sentence:

> George R.R. Martin’s claim that the Dothraki are “an amalgam of a number of steppe and plains cultures”

And he has made specific claims about the nature and prevalence of sexual violence in medieval Europe (that have been widely rebuked by historians), in defence of the sexual violence in his books. This is also in the article:

> he has stated this outright as a defense of his work that this is how it ‘really was’

The article is the opposite of "vague".

> What does it mean to say the story is "realistic"? What are they referring to? Historical accuracy, or the rejection of romantic narrative idealism, or something else?

It's pretty clear that he's referring to historical accuracy. (although he does in other articles talk a lot about how internal inconsistencies in the world of GoT, which is maybe something different).

> When GRRM says the Dothraki is an amalgamation of various cultures, what, specifically, is he talking about?

Uh, their culture? Which includes dress, food, societal structure, etc. Each of the articles deals with a different aspect of the culture. Are you really trying to argue that the definition of the word "culture" is in contention here?

> the assumptions are invariably interpreted in ways that are least charitable to GRRM and the story.

You'd have a better time reading and understanding literary criticism like this if you stopped thinking about it like the author vs the critics. This series of articles increased my enjoyment of game of thrones: it's really cool to learn about battle tactics and history and real cultures, and it's fun to argue about the show.

> Yes, author tells us why he believes it is a very serious problem that people think the show is historically accurate because... the Dothraki are a demeaning stereotype of the armies of Ghenghis Khan.

Talk about interpreting something uncharitably! That is not actually the reason the author gives for criticising the work. If you read the article again you'll find his actual reason.