5 ms·

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

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.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
julianmarq 6y ago
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 My interpretation from the historical references given in the essay are, as I already said, that Martin was just wrong.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. And I did present an alternate interpretation. > to lambast his conclusion I did no such thing.
- rendall 6y ago
  > 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 A succinct statement of my own position.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

julianmarq 6y ago

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. And I did present an alternate interpretation. > to lambast his conclusion I did no such thing.

rendall 6y ago
> 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 A succinct statement of my own position.