I think the tone is exactly like what I hear from forensic anthropologists when talking about CSI because they hear so many people talking about how realistic it is...
There are question begging, conclusion jumping and tenuous leaps of logic in the blog. Premises never established, assumed to be true, leading to conclusions that the premises are in fact true.
Who says seriously the story and show is historically accurate? Does GRRM truly encourage this view? The articles vaguely allude, never establish
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? Articles assume without justification that which obsesses the author
When GRRM says the Dothraki is an amalgamation of various cultures, what, specifically, is he talking about? Dress, or something else? Whatever actually meant, blogger assumes he knows, and dives in with approbrium
Answers are assumed throughout, and the assumptions are invariably interpreted in ways that are least charitable to GRRM and the story.
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. I'm sure they would find it comforting to know they have an advocate in the 21st century
> 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. I'm sure they would find it comforting to know they have an advocate in the 21st century
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.
Well to take the argument at it's base, GRRM claims that the Dothraki are an amalgam of steppe / plains nomads. The blog then goes through great lengths to disprove that statement in as many different facets as possible.
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.
> When GRRM says the Dothraki is an amalgamation of various cultures, what, specifically, is he talking about? Dress, or something else?
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".
("to cape" - I'm not familiar with this usage, so I'll assume it's a typo for "to care")
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 closest I could find to a statement that GRRM is causing harm is:
> 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.
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 would say the author provided all the evidence for you to draw such a conclusion, but never insinuated as such. The most concrete thing he ever said was that GRRM lied when he said that the 'Dothraki were an amalgam of ...'. If you were led to such a conclusion without the author even making that argument, I wouldn't say it was preachy, but impactful.
> I would say the author provided all the evidence for you to draw such a conclusion, but never insinuated as such
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.
Where did you get that quote from (2nd paragraph)? I can't find it in the three articles on horse nomads.
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.
The second paragraph was my interpretation, I wasn't quoting the author.
> 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.
> 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
> Acting out of ignorance when the tools are available to be less ignorant, and then doubling down on your original ignorance is irresponsible.
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".
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.
> There are question begging, conclusion jumping and tenuous leaps of logic in the blog.
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.
