Zompist Bboard Again

some prefer the dark side...

mèþru wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 9:45 am But the Dothraki aren't exactly villains or heroes. Their attitudes to women are awful, but it many ways their society is shown in the books to be better for Danaerys than Westerosi culture or the cities of Essos.

Wow, that's a new one. "Sure, these people may be genocidal gang-rapists, but this girl I like, she was popular with them for a while (after she was a sex slave and they tried to imprison her for life in a labour camp, but before they tried to make her a sex slave again), so they're not really bad guys". Huh. Wonderfully agile grip on morality you've got there.

All cultures in ASOIAF are evil by modern standards and that was very rude and uncalled for.

Uhhhhh Sal did you read a different comment than I did? Methru was comparing the Dothraki to two other in-book cultures, not saying the Dothraki were paragons of virtue or whatever. Out of three bad things, it is possible to say that one of them may be the least-bad, without denying that all three are bad.

(and how exactly are the Dothraki genocidal, anyway? granted it's been a bit since I read the books, but who did they genocide or attempt to genocide?)

alynnidalar wrote: ↑Fri Aug 24, 2018 2:56 pm (and how exactly are the Dothraki genocidal, anyway? granted it's been a bit since I read the books, but who did they genocide or attempt to genocide?)

They would be rather probably genocided if we'd meet them...
our morality although it regularly changes, allows us to judge and condemn any others cultures...
universalcentrism produce cultural occupation in an attempt of gift of freedom for all...

On the topic of DJP, I remember reading somewhere that he'd been hired to do Orkish for the Warcraft movie. I haven't seen the movie (the plot summary frankly made it sound awful) but I played all the RTS games back in the day and I'm amused that someone got the job of putting together something out of "dabu" and "zug-zug". Does anyone know if there are any materials on it available anywhere?

[EDIT: Never mind, I found the public documentation, such as it is, here.]

On the Dothraki: well, they seem to be the stereotypical horde on horses, attacking all around them, plundering, destroying, killing the men and driving off women and children into slavery. If you want to call that genocidal is a matter of definition - it's probably not their intent to annihilate other ethnicities, but the effect of their raids may well be genocidal.

Driving off women and children into slavery is not a genocide, women and children have to survive (even to become queen...), and their group also, to provide future goods...
A sort of commercial relationship... with no concurrency to delete at the risk to miss merchandise to acquire..

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 4:12 pm

mèþru wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 9:45 am But the Dothraki aren't exactly villains or heroes. Their attitudes to women are awful, but it many ways their society is shown in the books to be better for Danaerys than Westerosi culture or the cities of Essos.

Wow, that's a new one. "Sure, these people may be genocidal gang-rapists, but this girl I like, she was popular with them for a while (after she was a sex slave and they tried to imprison her for life in a labour camp, but before they tried to make her a sex slave again), so they're not really bad guys". Huh. Wonderfully agile grip on morality you've got there.

No, that's not how it went. The whole idea of the Dothraki, as I recall, is that Daenerys and the reader's expectations are subverted in that they turn out not to be genocidal gang-rapist at all, but noble savages.
As for the sex-slave part, no I can't agree with that. GRRM spent quite some time to establish Drogo as respectful of Daenerys and that it's consensual sex he's after. (Sure, it was awkward and it had all kinds of unfortunate implications.)

From what I understood Daenerys was a sex slave of sorts (also queen with all the power and respect that the position has but still bought without her consent) but Drogo wanted her to actually love and respect him at the same time.

mèþru wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 2:46 pm From what I understood Daenerys was a sex slave of sorts (also queen with all the power and respect that the position has but still bought without her consent) but Drogo wanted her to actually love and respect him at the same time.

Yes, I see your point — though I'm a little uncomfortable with using the "sex slave" label. (That standard makes pretty much any royal consort in pre-modern time a sex slave!)

On a story-telling perspective, the trick was pretty neat. Subverting the reader's expectations is a clever way to establish the Dothraki and Drogo as honourable warriors.

They are actually still gang-rapers, but so are the soldiers of most cultures in the book.

Ars Lande wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 5:04 pm

mèþru wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 2:46 pm From what I understood Daenerys was a sex slave of sorts (also queen with all the power and respect that the position has but still bought without her consent) but Drogo wanted her to actually love and respect him at the same time.

Yes, I see your point — though I'm a little uncomfortable with using the "sex slave" label. (That standard makes pretty much any royal consort in pre-modern time a sex slave!)

To be fair, aristocratic men didn't really have much choice, either. "Oh, Henry. Your brother Arthur died a week into his marriage after extreme illness. His bride said they didn't consummate. You're the husband now!" A little different once a king comes of age, of course (or, in the right circumstances, queen--Elizabeth I certainly knew how to play her suitors and obviously never accepted any of them).

Zaarin wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 5:29 pm To be fair, aristocratic men didn't really have much choice, either. "Oh, Henry. Your brother Arthur died a week into his marriage after extreme illness. His bride said they didn't consummate. You're the husband now!"

Oh yes. It could get really traumatic for both parties. And just to make things worse, both parties were often teenagers; also sometimes no one could be bothered to explain what exactly was expected of them. (We probably will never know what exactly happened with Louis XIII and Louis XVI of France, but it took them years to have children. It was evidently traumatic.)

More from the "GRRM is really not that grimdark' department: selling a princess or two to the barbarians happened in both China and ancient Mesopotamia (that I know of. It was probably done elsewhere). And not just once: it was a pretty standard way to maintain diplomatic relationships.

Ars Lande wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 5:42 pm

Zaarin wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 5:29 pm To be fair, aristocratic men didn't really have much choice, either. "Oh, Henry. Your brother Arthur died a week into his marriage after extreme illness. His bride said they didn't consummate. You're the husband now!"

Oh yes. It could get really traumatic for both parties. And just to make things worse, both parties were often teenagers; also sometimes no one could be bothered to explain what exactly was expected of them. (We probably will never know what exactly happened with Louis XIII and Louis XVI of France, but it took them years to have children. It was evidently traumatic.)

Indeed. Based on what we know of childhood development from in fact much later periods, it's probable that Arthur Tudor wasn't even viable if he was even pubescent when he married Catherine of Aragon--which makes things even more awkward when his younger brother takes over the marriage. Also explains why Henry VIII was so loath to speak of his wedding night when seeking his annulment...Likewise for Tutankhamun, who was 13 when he married Meritaten/Meritamun. Who was also his half-sister.

More from the "GRRM is really not that grimdark' department: selling a princess or two to the barbarians happened in both China and ancient Mesopotamia (that I know of. It was probably done elsewhere). And not just once: it was a pretty standard way to maintain diplomatic relationships.

Treaty brides were pretty par for the course in most cultures. Egypt seems to be one of the few historical states that wasn't fond of marrying off its princesses to foreign kings or chieftains (with occasional exceptions). Egypt had no problem accepting treaty brides, though. The same principle would apply, albeit on a personal rather than national level, with fur traders marrying "à la façon du pays": marrying Native women sealed a relationship between the trader and the people with whom he traded.

Treaty brides are one thing, but the Dothraki are also portrayed as raping their own women as part of a wedding celebration, and that's not history, it's authorial masturbation. Nomads had higher equality between the sexes than agricultural societies, not less.

zompist wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 10:17 pm Treaty brides are one thing, but the Dothraki are also portrayed as raping their own women as part of a wedding celebration, and that's not history, it's authorial masturbation.

That's why I despise GRRM. If you need that much shock value to sell your story, is your story really worth telling? My impression is that he exaggerates everything that was ugly about the Middle Ages and ignores what was actually beautiful. As someone who is very, very tired of the hackneyed Victorian "dark ages" stereotype, GRRM is a regressive presence in fantasy IMO. (I also partially blame him for the nonsensical puddle that was Skyrim, but that's a different rant.)

Nomads had higher equality between the sexes than agricultural societies, not less.

Yes. One of my favorite historical women is Sorghaghtani Beki, Mongolian empress, mother of Kublai Khan, Nestorian Christian, conqueror, patron of arts and sciences, and all around powerful presence in Yuan politics. Considering some of the unorthodox leader choices the developers of Civilization VI have made, I was kind of hoping she'd lead Mongolia this time...

Hoping is a mistake when it come to Firaxis

I agree about the shock value thing, but I still like ASOIAF. It's too violent though for me to actually watch rather than read.

Zaarin wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 10:57 am That's why I despise GRRM. If you need that much shock value to sell your story, is your story really worth telling? My impression is that he exaggerates everything that was ugly about the Middle Ages and ignores what was actually beautiful. As someone who is very, very tired of the hackneyed Victorian "dark ages" stereotype, GRRM is a regressive presence in fantasy IMO. (I also partially blame him for the nonsensical puddle that was Skyrim, but that's a different rant.)

The story isn't uninteresting, but there's a whole lot of filler.
My impression is that GRRM felt that fantasy was looking at medieval life with rose-colored glasses and felt that what the genre needed was to go far, far away in the opposite direction. The grim picture isn't entirely unwarranted; what makes it feel over the top is condensing every horror that happened in a thousand years of medieval history and having it happen in the span of ten years, with the implication that it's been going on that way for centuries, and adding ice-zombies on top.

Oh, and yes, I had forgotten about the rape-at-wedding parts. Well, that was just crass, like something out of a Gor novel. (Well, of how I imagine a Gor novel is like. I never read one.)

Of course there's that element to fantasy, but a lot of fantasy is, of course, garbage: costume dramas populated with modern people in thatched roof cottages with swords and dragons. See Dragon Age 2 for a particularly egregious example (not that it's overly cheery, but there's not a single pre-modern character in the game).