[oisdk]

The 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]

You 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.

[fladrif]

But, as the author of this article noted before, we don't live in a world shaped by ancient star battling empires. We currently live in a world shaped by our history, and continue to shape our world based on how we understand ourselves and our past. If we distill our past into stereotypes we will forget where we come from and make decisions based off of inaccurate assumptions.

If we see the Native Americans as murdering rapists, how likely are we to give them restitution for the massacres we've inflicted upon them, or begin to provide them social support? And if you don't currently see them as such, how will fiction that impresses on the greater public of its veracity that it isn't so, and that the general impression of their culture is completely fabricated?

Fiction definitely shapes our society and our understanding, and if fiction as popular as this one claims to be realistic there is a responsibility to either confirm or counter it. Yes, storytelling is more important than accuracy, but when you claim the latter you had better prove it.

[dmurray]

If the 19th century Native Americans were a bit rapey or murdery by modern standards, that shouldn't affect how we treat their descendants today.

This argument is bad because it means well-meaning historians feel they need to whitewash the history of Indian tribes as noble savages, just to get the reaction they want today.

[xapata]

Sounds like you didn't read the author's discussion of the brutality of the same peoples.

[the_af]

> After all, Star Wars is supposed to be ancient history

Star Wars is "supposed" to be ancient history within the fiction of its own story. George Lucas doesn't think it actually is ancient history.

Contrast this with George Martin's assertion that the Dothraki are "an amalgam of steppe and plains cultures [...] seasoned with a dash of pure fantasy" (or that the sexual violence in his books mirrors that of the real medieval history). This is an "out of fictional universe" argument, different from Star War's fictional conceit that it takes place "a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away".

[oisdk]

I never said we should hold fiction to the same standards as non-fiction, that's obviously silly. I said that critiquing works of fiction like GoT from a historial perspective is fun, interesting, educational, and positive.

[pjc50]

> Star Wars is supposed to be ancient history

Star Wars is quite a clever setting because it's both vague and incredibly distant, which allows the film makers huge latitude to include tropes from cowboy, ronin, WW2 films etc without the worry of historical inaccuracy.

[dgb23]

Yes but it is a nice trick to make people read about history and culture.

[dragonwriter]

> Finally Game of Thrones is probably the most important and influential piece of modern media depicting something like medieval Europe

It's only even vaguely in that category if you take an extremely elastic view of “like medieval Europe”.

> Though it is fiction, it undeniably has a massive impact on people's perception of the time period,

Undeniably? Based on...what evidence?

[oisdk]

> extremely elastic view of “like medieval Europe”.

No. Westeros is based on medieval Europe, culturally, politically, and historically. Obviously it's fiction, well done on spotting that, but it's a fictionalised version of medieval Europe.

> Undeniably? Based on...what evidence?

I'm sorry, do I have to provide you with evidence that media impacts people's perception of things?

[dragonwriter]

> Westeros is based on medieval Europe

Inspired rather loosely by remixing elements of that with other historical sources (e.g., Palestine—modern Palestine, specifically, IIRC—is explicitly identified by GRRM as part of the inspiration for Dorne.) Then leavened with a hefty dose of fantasy (part of the “realism” reputation the series has is that the fantasy elements aren’t bolt-ons that don’t fundamentally effect the rest of the setting.)

> I’m sorry, do I have to provide you with evidence that media impacts people’s perception of things?

There’s a pretty big difference between these claims:

(1) media impacts people’s perception of things

vs.

(2) AGoT undeniably has a massive impact on people’s perception of medieval Europe

[oisdk]

Game of Thrones is medieval fantasy, and as the second-biggest medieval fantasy series of all time it will have a significant impact on people's perception of the medieval time period.

I think that claim is pretty uncontroversial, which is why I didn't provide "evidence" for it, and also I get the sense that I'd be wasting my time in arguing with you about it when you throw out silly pedantries like "oh well dorne is based on palestine".

[dragonwriter]

> Game of Thrones is medieval fantasy, and as the second-biggest medieval fantasy series of all time it will have a significant impact on people's perception of the medieval time period.

I'm sure that, of relatively modern fantasy series, it will have one of the largest impacts while it remains popular. What I don't see is evidence that it (or even the #1 modern medieval fantasy series) has much impact (I would accept, without specific evidence, that it has non-zero impact) on perceptions of the medieval period on an absolute scale, rather than relative to other modern overtly fantastic literature not specifically tied to history which also may not have much absolute impact.

Now, clearly fantasy has some impact; things like post-medieval Arthurian stories have been a vehicle for transmitting a lot of misconceptions about the medieval period. But those presented themselves as history and tied to specific times and places in history, they weren’t overt fantasy set in an obviously-invented setting that was merely inspired by a mix of history and historical mythology.