4 ms·

Not 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

Not 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 ago
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...
- arduanika 6y ago
  Or from any of us programmers when we see those greenscreen hackers of pop culture imagery...
- rendall 6y ago
  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
  - morelisp 6y ago
    I don't know, I think it's probably more helpful to cape for historical knowledge than for a multi-millionaire author.
    - rendall 6y ago
      ("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
      - morelisp 6y ago
        > denigration of GRRM This literally isn't happening.
        julianmarq 6y ago
        >> denigration of GRRM > 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.
        fladrif 6y ago
        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.

Not 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 ago

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...

arduanika 6y ago
Or from any of us programmers when we see those greenscreen hackers of pop culture imagery...
rendall 6y ago
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
- morelisp 6y ago
  I don't know, I think it's probably more helpful to cape for historical knowledge than for a multi-millionaire author.
  - rendall 6y ago
    ("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
    - morelisp 6y ago
      > denigration of GRRM This literally isn't happening.
      - julianmarq 6y ago
        >> denigration of GRRM > 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.
        fladrif 6y ago
        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.