4 ms·

"contradicts the central thesis of the article" No, actually extending the quote makes Martin's position worse. Instead of just generally "steppe peoples" he i

• 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.
  • gelert 6y ago
    "This is an opinion presented as fact. The Dothraki looked cool to me." The point I was trying to make is that the Dothraki aren't dressed like any human culture would dress. Therefore, the practices and culture which go into dress are equally underdeveloped in the Dothraki. In comparison to the Westerosi fashion and garments which are much more complex (a point made in the article) that their clothing is represented as more simple is also making an argument that their cultures, and by extension the cultures they're based on, are more simple than those of Westeros, and the cultures that is based on. "You can make that same argument of every single fantasy novel that draws from history" Exactly, you can and should. Because fantasy, while a genre I enjoy, produces a very warped view of history. "Europe suffered raids, invasions and displacement from horse-riding steppe peoples for millenia." All that displacement Europeans suffered from Amerindians. Regardless, I accept the point you're making regarding where the Dothraki are placed in the story but I would ask why that means that complexity should be denied them. Particularly since so much of Danaerys' story is about becoming a part of that culture. "but to argue that therefore the Dothraki is a demeaning stereotype is not reasonably defensible" It is reasonable to say that, restricting ourselves as this particular article does to clothing, that the Dothraki are a demeaning stereotype about clothing/fashion/how these cultures dress. Don't forget this is the first part of a series of posts and I think the specific claim made regarding clothing is perfectly defensible based on the evidence prvodied. "offhand quote" You've repeated this a lot but this is a view which Martin expressed and I don't see why you have a problem with comparing this stated intent to the actual work he produced. "the observation that Dothraki armor look nothing like Sioux buckskin." The point which the essayist reinforced with the example of buckskin was that these people wear decorated, comfortable clothes and steppe people are no exception. People don't dress like the dothraki. The buckskin is an example which illustrates the problem - the Dothraki don't dress like a human culture while Martin claims that they are based on particular historical cultures. Thereby, unfortunately, Martin has asserted in this case that those cultures were in some way less than human.
    • rendall 6y ago
      There is harm done to no one. The Dothraki demean no one. An opinion that their clothes are unlikely, were it even demonstrated to be true, is not an argument. Historical inaccuracy, in a fantasy novel, is not an argument. "The Dothraki are a cruel mockery of the Sioux" would be an argument if that were the argument, but it's not. "The Dothraki is a demeaning stereotype of the ancient Mongols" is absurd. "Let us examine the ways that the Dothraki are like, and unlike, the historical peoples who raided Europe and caused political disruption" would be interesting and worth following. "Let us examine that and the ways the Dothraki's historical inaccuracies cause vague demeaning harm to... someone" is insufferable. I can't state my objection to the piece more clearly. If you find it unconvincing, let's just politely agree to disagree and move on.