4 ms·

Conan was always railing against the softening effects of effete civilization in a way that I always envied, but found impractical: if I were to backhand an ann

Conan was always railing against the softening effects of effete civilization in a way that I always envied, but found impractical: if I were to backhand an annoying, scheming cleric, for instance, I would not be able to shrug off the consequences as Conan could. There seems to me a bit of motte and bailey going on with this essay. The motte, unobjectionable part is that such representations are historically inaccurate, people may develop an inaccurate understanding of history and since "it is a collection of unmitigated pedantry, after all" let's dig deep and nit-pick all the details. Great! The bailey, less demonstrated part is that the Dothraki is a problematic, demeaning, poorly researched, badly written stereotype that deserves nothing but scorn. "We’re not here to ‘cancel’ ASOIF..." but let's write a 3 part series wherein it "is going to become increasingly apparent that at least effective research was not done" where he will "... treat Martin’s words much more charitably than they probably deserve" The essay author makes a big deal out of this off-hand comment on GRRM's blog: "The Dothraki were actually fashioned as an amalgam of a number of steppe and plains cultures... Mongols and Huns, certainly, but also Alans, Sioux, Cheyenne, and various other Amerindian tribes... seasoned with a dash of pure fantasy." But the actual quote on his blog goes on, which contradicts the central thesis of the article: "... So any resemblance to Arabs or Turks is coincidental. Well, except to the extent that the Turks were also originally horsemen of the steppes, not unlike the Alans, Huns, and the rest. In general, though, while I do draw inspiration from history, I try to avoid direct one-for-one transplants, whether of individuals or of entire cultures. Just as it not correct to say that Robert was Henry VIII or Edward IV, it would not be correct to say that the Dothraki are Mongols."[1] [1]: https://grrm.livejournal.com/263800.html?thread=15364984#t15364984 https://grrm.livejournal.com/263800.html?thread=15364984#t15... Edit: switched motte and bailey

watwut 6y ago
Why is "motte, less demonstrated" that they are poorly researched badly written stereotype? At least when it comes to clothing, the blog author does indeed demonstrate that. > We’re not here to ‘cancel’ ASOIF..." but let's write a 3 part series wherein it "is going to become increasingly apparent that at least effective research was not done" where he will "... treat Martin’s words much more charitably than they probably deserve" There is no contradiction in two. It is completely absolutely valid to criticize research and clearly comment on the whole "nomad cultures are nothing like this" aspect of GoT as a super popular fiction - whose fans indeed do claim "it was like that". "Cancelling" refers to censorship. You cant cry censorship just because someone politely criticized something. However, writing 3 part series on something being inaccurate or even completely shitty (which author did not done) is not cancelling. Also, author criticized other aspects of GoT a lot previously - notably Jamie military activities. It is not just about Dothraki.
- rendall 6y ago
  The author is expressing an opinion using cherry-picked details: an excerpt from an offhand LiveJournal comment and 2 sparse descriptions from the book. That plus loads of speculation presented as fact. "The Dothraki were based on demeaning stereotypes as evidenced by their clothing choices" is unconvincing Historically inaccurate: sure. Granted. Motte. Demeaning stereotype: Let's take an offhand comment, load it with unsupported meaning, link it with Historical Inaccuracy, call it demeaning. Boom. Bailey. Edit: responding to your edits > * "nomad cultures are nothing like this" * He cherry-picked ways that the Dothraki are different from horse-riding, raiding cultures and labeled this demeaning. Did he talk about ways that Dothraki culture is similar to horse-riding, raiding cultures? No, he did not. It's All Wrong and Bad > * Cancelling" refers to censorship. You cant cry censorship ... * You literally just redefined a word that I used and argued against this new, less defensible, dumb position. Don't do that. > * Also, author criticized other aspects of GoT a lot previously ... * Not sure what that has to do with this article being a motte and bailey. I'm sure his other articles are marvelous.
  - praestigiare 6y ago
    The author spent significant time explaining why they chose to address that livejournal excerpt, and the context in which they were addressing it. They did not present speculation as fact, they presented facts (historical information, photographs, and quotes from the material) and suggested an interpretation of those facts.
    - rendall 6y ago
      This is the motte. "It's just historical inaccuracy. Surely you cannot object to correcting the record can you?" Now defend that the historical inaccuracy is a demeaning stereotype.
      - jcranmer 6y ago
        Reducing a culture to a single point of reference should self-evidently be a demeaning stereotype. If you need more evidence, I'll point out that in the specific case of making the defining characteristic being bad-ass warriors, that implies that when the bad-ass warriors get their asses kicked (by modern militaries), you are implying that they no longer have any redeeming qualities worth caring about.
QuesnayJr 6y ago
The author writes 3+ part series on everything. He wrote an 8 part series on the realism of the Battle of Helms Deep. It's just who he is.
gelert 6y ago
"contradicts the central thesis of the article" No, actually extending the quote makes Martin's position worse. Instead of just generally "steppe peoples" he is making a more specific claim that the Dothraki resemble Mongols, Huns and Amerindians but not peoples like the Turks who were (and are e.g. Turkmenistan) also steppe peoples. By extending the quote you establish only that Martin believes the Dothraki are drawn from a few specific Earth cultures The motte and bailey distinction is a fun way to characterise an argument (even if you did get them mixed up initially :p) but I don't think you can be as sure as you are in it. I'll limit this discussion to the article so I'll just discuss clothing. So, your question becomes; has the essay failed to establish a link between this inaccuracy and it being harmful to how people perceive the cultures martin claims to be relying on? I think that it has. In the discussion of buckskins and linens the articles author is establishing that these groups tried to wear clothes which were comfortable, practical and beautiful. In a word, they were human. The Dothraki by contrast are dressed like an'80s fantasy novel cover. Their clothes (in book and tv) are the clothes of inhuman people. They do not express human priorities. By depicting the Dothraki in this way, while making the claim that they are based off of real world cultures, Martin is essentially dehumanizing these specific peoples by implicitly arguing that their style of dress is less human. I'm really unsure how you can accept that the representation is historically inaccurate and encourages people to have an inaccurate view of history but then try and deny that a poor understanding of history is a problem.
- rendall 6y ago
  "...these specific peoples by implicitly arguing that their style of dress is less human" This is an opinion presented as fact. The Dothraki looked cool to me. They wanted to look terrifying. "encourages people to have an inaccurate view of history" Here is where the motte of "the Dothraki are historically inaccurate" moves into the bailey of "GRRM does harm!" You can make that same argument of every single fantasy novel that draws from history, which is to say, of every good fantasy novel. "...Dothraki resemble Mongols, Huns and Amerindians but not peoples like the Turks who were (and are e.g. Turkmenistan) also steppe peoples." Clever argument, but it doesn't wash Europe suffered raids, invasions and displacement from horse-riding steppe peoples for millenia. That's what the Dothraki, a fictional nation, represent to the narrative of the story: the instability and existential threat this represents. The essayist can quibble that the actual raiders wore colorful comfortable clothes, but to argue that therefore the Dothraki is a demeaning stereotype is not reasonably defensible, and so he leans very heavily on an offhand quote and the observation that Dothraki armor look nothing like Sioux buckskin. It's absurd.

watwut 6y ago

Why is "motte, less demonstrated" that they are poorly researched badly written stereotype? At least when it comes to clothing, the blog author does indeed demonstrate that. > We’re not here to ‘cancel’ ASOIF..." but let's write a 3 part series wherein it "is going to become increasingly apparent that at least effective research was not done" where he will "... treat Martin’s words much more charitably than they probably deserve" There is no contradiction in two. It is completely absolutely valid to criticize research and clearly comment on the whole "nomad cultures are nothing like this" aspect of GoT as a super popular fiction - whose fans indeed do claim "it was like that". "Cancelling" refers to censorship. You cant cry censorship just because someone politely criticized something. However, writing 3 part series on something being inaccurate or even completely shitty (which author did not done) is not cancelling. Also, author criticized other aspects of GoT a lot previously - notably Jamie military activities. It is not just about Dothraki.

rendall 6y ago
The author is expressing an opinion using cherry-picked details: an excerpt from an offhand LiveJournal comment and 2 sparse descriptions from the book. That plus loads of speculation presented as fact. "The Dothraki were based on demeaning stereotypes as evidenced by their clothing choices" is unconvincing Historically inaccurate: sure. Granted. Motte. Demeaning stereotype: Let's take an offhand comment, load it with unsupported meaning, link it with Historical Inaccuracy, call it demeaning. Boom. Bailey. Edit: responding to your edits > * "nomad cultures are nothing like this" * He cherry-picked ways that the Dothraki are different from horse-riding, raiding cultures and labeled this demeaning. Did he talk about ways that Dothraki culture is similar to horse-riding, raiding cultures? No, he did not. It's All Wrong and Bad > * Cancelling" refers to censorship. You cant cry censorship ... * You literally just redefined a word that I used and argued against this new, less defensible, dumb position. Don't do that. > * Also, author criticized other aspects of GoT a lot previously ... * Not sure what that has to do with this article being a motte and bailey. I'm sure his other articles are marvelous.
- praestigiare 6y ago
  The author spent significant time explaining why they chose to address that livejournal excerpt, and the context in which they were addressing it. They did not present speculation as fact, they presented facts (historical information, photographs, and quotes from the material) and suggested an interpretation of those facts.
  - rendall 6y ago
    This is the motte. "It's just historical inaccuracy. Surely you cannot object to correcting the record can you?" Now defend that the historical inaccuracy is a demeaning stereotype.
    - jcranmer 6y ago
      Reducing a culture to a single point of reference should self-evidently be a demeaning stereotype. If you need more evidence, I'll point out that in the specific case of making the defining characteristic being bad-ass warriors, that implies that when the bad-ass warriors get their asses kicked (by modern militaries), you are implying that they no longer have any redeeming qualities worth caring about.

QuesnayJr 6y ago

The author writes 3+ part series on everything. He wrote an 8 part series on the realism of the Battle of Helms Deep. It's just who he is.

gelert 6y ago

"contradicts the central thesis of the article" No, actually extending the quote makes Martin's position worse. Instead of just generally "steppe peoples" he is making a more specific claim that the Dothraki resemble Mongols, Huns and Amerindians but not peoples like the Turks who were (and are e.g. Turkmenistan) also steppe peoples. By extending the quote you establish only that Martin believes the Dothraki are drawn from a few specific Earth cultures The motte and bailey distinction is a fun way to characterise an argument (even if you did get them mixed up initially :p) but I don't think you can be as sure as you are in it. I'll limit this discussion to the article so I'll just discuss clothing. So, your question becomes; has the essay failed to establish a link between this inaccuracy and it being harmful to how people perceive the cultures martin claims to be relying on? I think that it has. In the discussion of buckskins and linens the articles author is establishing that these groups tried to wear clothes which were comfortable, practical and beautiful. In a word, they were human. The Dothraki by contrast are dressed like an'80s fantasy novel cover. Their clothes (in book and tv) are the clothes of inhuman people. They do not express human priorities. By depicting the Dothraki in this way, while making the claim that they are based off of real world cultures, Martin is essentially dehumanizing these specific peoples by implicitly arguing that their style of dress is less human. I'm really unsure how you can accept that the representation is historically inaccurate and encourages people to have an inaccurate view of history but then try and deny that a poor understanding of history is a problem.

rendall 6y ago
"...these specific peoples by implicitly arguing that their style of dress is less human" This is an opinion presented as fact. The Dothraki looked cool to me. They wanted to look terrifying. "encourages people to have an inaccurate view of history" Here is where the motte of "the Dothraki are historically inaccurate" moves into the bailey of "GRRM does harm!" You can make that same argument of every single fantasy novel that draws from history, which is to say, of every good fantasy novel. "...Dothraki resemble Mongols, Huns and Amerindians but not peoples like the Turks who were (and are e.g. Turkmenistan) also steppe peoples." Clever argument, but it doesn't wash Europe suffered raids, invasions and displacement from horse-riding steppe peoples for millenia. That's what the Dothraki, a fictional nation, represent to the narrative of the story: the instability and existential threat this represents. The essayist can quibble that the actual raiders wore colorful comfortable clothes, but to argue that therefore the Dothraki is a demeaning stereotype is not reasonably defensible, and so he leans very heavily on an offhand quote and the observation that Dothraki armor look nothing like Sioux buckskin. It's absurd.