8 ms·
That Dothraki Horde, Part III: Horse Fiddles
- gricardo99 6y agoI highly recommend "Empire of the Summer Moon"[1], a fascinating account of the final decades of the Comanche tribe. 1 - https://www.amazon.com/Empire-Summer-Moon-Comanches-Powerful/dp/1416591060 https://www.amazon.com/Empire-Summer-Moon-Comanches-Powerful...
- selimthegrim 6y agoI’ll have to get in on the bandwagon with “Okla Hannali”
- Igelau 6y agoThis seems like a strange sort of criticism to be levying. Am I supposed to be shocked to learn that the barbarian horse lords in a fantasy series have very little basis in real world history?
- irl_zebra 6y agoI can’t really answer that, but I can say I find the subject matter fascinating and relating it to a show with which I’m familiar helps ground the material a little for me. So I really enjoy it, even knowing that the Dothraki have little basis in real world history.
- Igelau 6y agoI agree it's an interesting read, but it would actually be more accessible if it wasn't confusingly dressed up with things like "Mongols never did this, ergo Martin erred seriously!" 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.
- pmoriarty 6y ago"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" 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.
- nerdponx 6y ago1. This is an ongoing series of blog posts, this has been done for various civilizations from various works. 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.
- xapata 6y agoThe author seems frustrated by what he terms "The Fremen Mirage" and how often it appears in popular fiction. > 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.
- milesskorpen 6y agoMartin says that they're based on reality, and this series shows pretty clearly that they're based on _stereotypes_ rather than reality. Which matters if people base they're understanding of real nomadic peoples based on their mostly-fictional portrayal in Martin's books and TV shows.
- rocqua 6y agoPart I of this series spends a few paragraphs on "Why is this criticism necessary". The general argument is: 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.
- corty 6y agoGoT isn't realistic in the way that the cultures of Westeros are "real" or "realistic". Many analogies and parallels to historical cultures are stereotypical at best. 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).
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y agoYeah, I laughed out loud when characters in Netflix "Witcher" series travelled around with no things whatsoever. When Geralt needed to go to some place, he just hopped on a horse in a shirt, and just left. In GoT they cared a great deal more about such stuff. Travelling characters looked like they actually travelled.
- kiba 6y agoGeorge R.R. Martin made a historical claim about what the Dothraki supposed to be an amalgams of any nomadic societies. 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.
- oisdk 6y agoThe article clearly motivates the criticism, and explains why it's valid to critique the books from a historical perspective. * 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.
- IgorPartola 6y agoYou make very good points except your first sentence of your last paragraph. GoT is clearly a work of fiction and while the author made claims about it being rooted in reality, I don’t find the idea that we shouldn’t hold fiction to the same standard as non-fiction when it comes to historical accuracy all that crazy. After all, Star Wars is supposed to be ancient history, yet we don’t criticize it for historical inaccuracies. I think a much better ruler to apply here is whether the fictional account is believable or indeed possible with constraints of physics and sociology. I argue that believable storytelling is better for fiction than historical accuracy.
- rendall 6y agoNot a fan of this blog series. I quite like the examination of the Dothraki from a historical perspective, but the heavy tone of disapprobation is insufferable and unnecessary.
- aidenn0 6y agoI 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...
- arduanika 6y agoOr from any of us programmers when we see those greenscreen hackers of pop culture imagery...
- rendall 6y agoThere 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
- morelisp 6y agoI don't know, I think it's probably more helpful to cape for historical knowledge than for a multi-millionaire author.
- arduanika 6y agoNo, not shocked, but flattered. I think this is Devereux's thesis statement: "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?"
- pjc50 6y agoPeople tried this with video games, and gamers built an entire political movement to destroy the possibility of critique. People want the unquestioned clout of being canon, without all these inconvenient academics interrogating the text.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> 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. 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.
- grandinj 6y agoIt’s not really criticism so much as using a widely known fantasy setting as a starting point for exploring history
- pjc50 6y agoThere's a common cycle which goes: - 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.
- jeromenerf 6y agoAdapting a movie from a book is such an extrapolating exercise, I am not surprised some stereotypes are amplified.
- nanis 6y agoI used to refer to what Bret Devereaux is criticizing as the "Star Trek view of other cultures". USS Enterprise arrives at a planet times the size of the earth to find ten billion sheep herding nomads with a single leader who lives in a tent or some such. 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.
- aardvarkr 6y agoThat went zero to a hundred real quick, without so much as a logical step in between. This sounds more like an AI generated comment because it’s so nonsensical.
- BlueTemplar 6y agoStar Trek gets a pass because there's only so much complexity that can be crammed into 40 minutes of television. And because it's a science fiction themed moral play which, unlike GoT, doesn't pretend to be realistic.
- nanis 6y agoStar Trek gets a pass. Politicians and their supporters who conduct foreign policy, start or stoke civil wars, abandon former friends etc because they view the world through the Star Trek perspective do not. I may not have been clear in why I brought up the Star Trek example ... FYI, there is no "The Kurds", for example.
- BlueTemplar 6y agoCorrect me if I'm wrong, but weren't Iraq and Turkey specifically created by the British Empire in order to NOT have these countries follow ethnico-cultural lines, thus making them weaker, with the Kurd situation being probably the worst example?
- GoodJokes 6y agoRead another book