![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackThe state of the debate
I've seen too many conversations go something like this.
A: Game of Thrones is awesome.
B: Game of Thrones is awful, it's full of rape and torture.
A: Are you saying that books should NEVER deal with bad topics? Would you ban Huckleberry Finn because it condemns slavery?
B: Oh, so you think rape and torture are ok?
And the conversation never goes anywhere. B intended to say that the books contained gratuitous things, that is, bad things that didn't really add anything to the book, and being tacked on make the book really squicky to lots of people for no real gain. But most Bs thought that was so obvious that they forgot to actually say that at all, let alone, justify it, and so in way too many cases, the valid concern sounds like "But.... it has sexual assault in. That's BAD!" again and again and again.
Conversely, A enjoys GoT and doesn't want to admit they might like something problematic, so immediately jumps to generalities, rebutting a straw man that A and B constructed together by pointing out that problematic topics CAN exist in fiction, without ever making an argument that it makes sense for them to exist in GoT.
But some people have made well-reasoned posts on the topic, some of which I will draw on below.
Liking problematic things
Someone made an excellent post of which I mostly only remember the title (sorry). However, the gist was, everyone likes things that are problematic. Almost everything is problematic to someone (and seriously problematic, not just "I can be offended if I look for something to be offended by" way). It should be normal and acceptable to enjoy something a lot for all of the things that work well for you, while admitting that some things in it are kinda awful, and for some people will make it unreadable.
And again, I don't just mean "hey, I enjoyed all the white male characters, I don't see what the problem is". There are plenty of books with beloved trans characters, or kick-ass female teenage protagonists, or creating an accessible pro-academic atmosphere, that we really want to read and have others read, but fall far short of what we'd hope for in other respects. And if we wait for the perfect book that's not problematic in any way, it'll never arrive.
Insisting that we only like books that are not problematic backfires terribly, since it means that everyone who does like a book feels compelled to deny the problematic aspects. Look at the problematic aspects objectively, firstly, do they prevent you enjoying it or not, secondly, are they so bad you think the book shouldn't be read except from academic interest (rare but possible), thirdly, what are the problems, be aware of them and who may not be able to read this book. EXPECT something you've read to have problematic aspects, whether you've noticed them or not.
Conversely, just because something had problematic aspects, doesn't mean the rest of it is stupid. It's common to play up the stupidity because it makes a good rant. Witness people who don't like Da Vinci Code (including me) ripping into aspects that aren't that bad, just because they're on a roll after criticising all those aspects with are. Witness people who don't like Game of Thrones criticise it for being shallow and formulaic. Most books are not as clever as people who like them think they are, but conversely, just because you don't enjoy something, doesn't mean it's stupid for other people to.
In game of thrones (the books) specifically
I don't think the problem is individual instances of anything being gratuitous (there are a few scenes which struck me as very gratuitous but only in the later books). Nor with historical inaccuracy exactly.
But I think it is a problem that other than Ned and Catylen Stark, I can't think of any marriages that work, even rubbing along tolerably without much love. The main other arranged marriages shown (Robert and Cersei, and Dany and Drogo) are both abusive, and most of the minor characters we see seem to have, at best, affectionless marriages, or marriages where one party is dead for most of the book, and a lot of them are abusive in one way or another.
The problem isn't that there's abuse, it's that we keep coming back to it again and again and again, basically unrelieved by any more positive relationship models. Which I think is a serious problem, but doesn't necessarily preclude each individual relationship being realistic and well-characterised.
I'm running out of time, so I think this needs to be continued later...
I've seen too many conversations go something like this.
A: Game of Thrones is awesome.
B: Game of Thrones is awful, it's full of rape and torture.
A: Are you saying that books should NEVER deal with bad topics? Would you ban Huckleberry Finn because it condemns slavery?
B: Oh, so you think rape and torture are ok?
And the conversation never goes anywhere. B intended to say that the books contained gratuitous things, that is, bad things that didn't really add anything to the book, and being tacked on make the book really squicky to lots of people for no real gain. But most Bs thought that was so obvious that they forgot to actually say that at all, let alone, justify it, and so in way too many cases, the valid concern sounds like "But.... it has sexual assault in. That's BAD!" again and again and again.
Conversely, A enjoys GoT and doesn't want to admit they might like something problematic, so immediately jumps to generalities, rebutting a straw man that A and B constructed together by pointing out that problematic topics CAN exist in fiction, without ever making an argument that it makes sense for them to exist in GoT.
But some people have made well-reasoned posts on the topic, some of which I will draw on below.
Liking problematic things
Someone made an excellent post of which I mostly only remember the title (sorry). However, the gist was, everyone likes things that are problematic. Almost everything is problematic to someone (and seriously problematic, not just "I can be offended if I look for something to be offended by" way). It should be normal and acceptable to enjoy something a lot for all of the things that work well for you, while admitting that some things in it are kinda awful, and for some people will make it unreadable.
And again, I don't just mean "hey, I enjoyed all the white male characters, I don't see what the problem is". There are plenty of books with beloved trans characters, or kick-ass female teenage protagonists, or creating an accessible pro-academic atmosphere, that we really want to read and have others read, but fall far short of what we'd hope for in other respects. And if we wait for the perfect book that's not problematic in any way, it'll never arrive.
Insisting that we only like books that are not problematic backfires terribly, since it means that everyone who does like a book feels compelled to deny the problematic aspects. Look at the problematic aspects objectively, firstly, do they prevent you enjoying it or not, secondly, are they so bad you think the book shouldn't be read except from academic interest (rare but possible), thirdly, what are the problems, be aware of them and who may not be able to read this book. EXPECT something you've read to have problematic aspects, whether you've noticed them or not.
Conversely, just because something had problematic aspects, doesn't mean the rest of it is stupid. It's common to play up the stupidity because it makes a good rant. Witness people who don't like Da Vinci Code (including me) ripping into aspects that aren't that bad, just because they're on a roll after criticising all those aspects with are. Witness people who don't like Game of Thrones criticise it for being shallow and formulaic. Most books are not as clever as people who like them think they are, but conversely, just because you don't enjoy something, doesn't mean it's stupid for other people to.
In game of thrones (the books) specifically
I don't think the problem is individual instances of anything being gratuitous (there are a few scenes which struck me as very gratuitous but only in the later books). Nor with historical inaccuracy exactly.
But I think it is a problem that other than Ned and Catylen Stark, I can't think of any marriages that work, even rubbing along tolerably without much love. The main other arranged marriages shown (Robert and Cersei, and Dany and Drogo) are both abusive, and most of the minor characters we see seem to have, at best, affectionless marriages, or marriages where one party is dead for most of the book, and a lot of them are abusive in one way or another.
The problem isn't that there's abuse, it's that we keep coming back to it again and again and again, basically unrelieved by any more positive relationship models. Which I think is a serious problem, but doesn't necessarily preclude each individual relationship being realistic and well-characterised.
I'm running out of time, so I think this needs to be continued later...
no subject
Date: 2012-06-21 01:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-06-21 01:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-06-21 09:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-06-24 07:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-06-24 07:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-06-24 08:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-06-24 08:07 pm (UTC)Or, think about all the Asian girls who are married to men who have been living in the west and are sent to the west to join them, with no knowledge of western culture or language.
no subject
Date: 2012-06-24 08:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-06-24 08:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-06-25 09:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-06-25 02:24 pm (UTC)Of course, I don't know how atypical Drogo+Dany were (in GoT or in real life mediavel noble mariages). It's a problem that Dany was mostly bullied into it by her brother, so didn't really have a meaninful chance to agree, although obviously many other people have shitty choices too.
FWIW, I did find the way the relationship grew touching (almost the reverse of Robert+Cersei, in that it grew better, whereas Robert+Cersei both hoped to make something of it, but just got steadily worse over time), but I was struck by the mirror.
no subject
Date: 2012-06-25 06:02 pm (UTC)The first sex scene was remarkably powerful : it really felt like she had a genuine choice to say "No".
There are lots of relationships where the power balance is one way or the another, this doesn't make it abusive.
My argument is only regarding that phrase. I don't think there was anything abusive in Drogo's attitude to Dani, he treated her with respect and with the expectation of any female mate in his tribe.