PDA

View Full Version : George R. R. Martin is one sick fuck.


Seeker
07-28-2014, 11:08 PM
Below is the scene that rand posted from the sample chapters that GRRM has made available. The scene involves a disguised Arya leading Raff back to her room with the promise of sex and then killing him in typical brutal fashion.

Something that just occurred to me.

Arya is at most 12 years old in this scene. When the series began, Sansa was 11 and Arya was 8. At the end of Storm of Swords, Sansa was 13. I'm not sure how much time passed in Feast For Crows / Dance with Dragons, but since those books take place concurrently, I'm willing to wager it isn't more than two years. That makes Sansa 15 and Arya 12.

So, to recap, George R.R. Martin has written a scene involving a TWELVE YEAR OLD feeling up some guy's penis. What's more, she seems rather gleefully eager to play a rape victim.

“Not for long,” said the comely one. “I’m Lord Rafford, sweetling, and I know just what I want. Hike up those skirts now, and lean back against that wall.”

“Not here,” Mercy said, brushing his hands away. “Not where the play is on. I might cry out, and Izembaro would be mad.”

“Where, then?”

“I know a place.”

The older guard was scowling. “What, you think you can just scamper off? What if his knightliness comes looking for you?”

“Why would he? He’s got a show to watch. And he’s got his own whore, why shouldn’t I have mine? This won’t take long.”

No, she thought, it won’t. Mercy took him by the hand, led him through the back and down the steps and out into the foggy night. “You could be a mummer, if you wanted,” she told him, as he pressed her up against the wall of the playhouse.

“Me?” The guardsman snorted. “Not me, girl. All that bloody talking, I wouldn’t remember half of it.”

“It’s hard at first,” she admitted. “But after a time it comes easier. I could teach you to say a line. I could.”

He grabbed her wrist. “I’ll do the teaching. Time for your first lesson.” He pulled her hard against him and kissed her on the lips, forcing his tongue into her mouth. It was all wet and slimy, like an eel. Mercy licked it with her own tongue, then broke away from him, breathless. “Not here. Someone might see. My room’s not far, but hurry. I have to be back before the second act, or I’ll miss my rape.”

He grinned. “No fear o’ that, girl.” But he let her pull him after her. Hand in hand, they went racing through the fog, over bridges and through alleys and up five flights of splintery wooden stairs. The guardsman was panting by the time they burst through the door of her little room. Mercy lit a tallow candle, then danced around at him, giggling. “Oh, now you’re all tired out. I forgot how old you were, m’lord. Do you want to take a little nap? Just lie down and close your eyes, and I’ll come back after the Imp’s done raping me.”

“You’re not going anywhere.” He pulled her roughly to him. “Get those rags off, and I’ll show you how old I am, girl.”

“Mercy,” she said. “My name is Mercy. Can you say it?”

“Mercy,” he said. “My name is Raff.”

“I know.” She slipped her hand between his legs, and felt how hard he was through the wool of his breeches.

“The laces,” he urged her. “Be a sweet girl and undo them.” Instead she slid her finger down along the inside of his thigh. He gave a grunt. “Damn, be careful there, you — “

Mercy gave a gasp and stepped away, her face confused and frightened. “You’re bleeding.”

“Wha — ” He looked down at himself. “Gods be good. What did you do to me, you little cunt?” The red stain spread across his thigh, soaking the heavy fabric.

“Nothing,” Mercy squeaked. “I never… oh, oh, there’s so much blood. Stop it, stop it, you’re scaring me.”

He shook his head, a dazed look on his face. When he pressed his hand to his thigh, blood squirted through his fingers. It was running down his leg, into his boot. He doesn’t look so comely now, she thought. He just looks white and frightened.

“A towel,” the guardsman gasped. “Bring me a towel, a rag, press down on it. Gods. I feel dizzy.” His leg was drenched with blood from the thigh down. When he tried to put his weight on it, his knee buckled and he fell. “Help me,” he pleaded, as the crotch of his breeches reddened. “Mother have mercy, girl. A healer… run and find a healer, quick now.”

“There’s one on the next canal, but he won’t come. You have to go to him. Can’t you walk?”

“Walk?” His fingers were slick with blood. “Are you blind, girl? I’m bleeding like a stuck pig. I can’t walk on this.”

“Well,” she said, “I don’t know how you’ll get there, then.”

“You’ll need to carry me.”

See? thought Mercy. You know your line, and so do I.

“Think so?” asked Arya, sweetly.

Raff the Sweetling looked up sharply as the long thin blade came sliding from her sleeve. She slipped it through his throat beneath the chin, twisted, and ripped it back out sideways with a single smooth slash. A fine red rain followed, and in his eyes the light went out

Terez
07-28-2014, 11:26 PM
It didn't bother me much because 1) such things happen in the real world, and 2) it doesn't involve the actual exploitation of a child, 3) the violence she has seen and done is worse.

Kimon
07-28-2014, 11:28 PM
It didn't bother me much because 1) such things happen in the real world, and 2) it doesn't involve the actual exploitation of a child, 3) the violence she has seen and done is worse.

On the bright side, it is quite a clever sobriquet for a 12 year old.

rand
07-28-2014, 11:49 PM
Below is the scene that rand posted from the sample chapters that GRRM has made available. The scene involves a disguised Arya leading Raff back to her room with the promise of sex and then killing him in typical brutal fashion.

Something that just occurred to me.

Arya is at most 12 years old in this scene. When the series began, Sansa was 11 and Arya was 8. At the end of Storm of Swords, Sansa was 13. I'm not sure how much time passed in Feast For Crows / Dance with Dragons, but since those books take place concurrently, I'm willing to wager it isn't more than two years. That makes Sansa 15 and Arya 12.

So, to recap, George R.R. Martin has written a scene involving a TWELVE YEAR OLD feeling up some guy's penis. What's more, she seems rather gleefully eager to play a rape victim.
You can read the whole chapter here (http://www.georgerrmartin.com/excerpt-from-the-winds-of-winter/) if you want. The rape victim she's playing is Sansa. Also, the guy she killed is the guy who killed Lommy Greenhands in this exact same way.

It's a little less disturbing when you realize that Arya is being forced to play a role. She's training to be a Faceless Man (or girl), and thus her ditzy eagerness and inappropriate seductiveness are simply acting she needs to master in order to become an assassin. I think she's basically acting the way she thinks Sansa would act. And, like Terez pointed out, this is sadly a real world situation (minus the assassination, probably). And a 12 year old touching a penis is no where near the most disturbing thing in asoiaf.

Also, from the other thread, yes, Arya cut Raff with her knife.

The Unreasoner
07-28-2014, 11:59 PM
Even GRRM's voice gives off a pedo vibe. Look at selmy, a 50+ year old 'in love' with a girl who is ~15 at best. Or everyone who wants to bang dany.

Creepy ***** shitty writer.

The Unreasoner
07-29-2014, 12:00 AM
What the fuck? This (****) is new.

The Unreasoner
07-29-2014, 12:04 AM
Fuck.
*****
Fuck?
Fuck!
Fuck
Fuck
*****

The Unreasoner
07-29-2014, 12:08 AM
I guess it depends on piunctuation.

Grrm is one incesthappypedophiliacundergradlevelifimbeinggener ousanddrink writer.

A shitty, shitty writer.

rand
07-29-2014, 12:20 AM
Just curious, but how exactly does writing about pedophilia make GRRM a bad writer? Personally I dislike him a little for being such a slow writer, but his writing itself is much stronger than most other fantasy authors.

So is every book that deals with inappropriate behavior (sexual, violence, etc) bad writing? I'm pretty sure you'd be left with Dr. Seuss as the best writer if that were the case. Though even the Cat in the Hat is a bit creepy...

The Unreasoner
07-29-2014, 12:28 AM
Just curious, but how exactly does writing about pedophilia make GRRM a bad writer? Personally I dislike him a little for being such a slow writer, but his writing itself is much stronger than most other fantasy authors.

So is every book that deals with inappropriate behavior (sexual, violence, etc) bad writing? I'm pretty sure you'd be left with Dr. Seuss as the best writer if that were the case. Though even the Cat in the Hat is a bit creepy...

Of course not.
GRRM is a shitty writer.

The fact that that he looks like, sounds like, and writes like a pedophile is just gravy.

Terez
07-29-2014, 12:34 AM
Just curious, but how exactly does writing about pedophilia make GRRM a bad writer?
It doesn't. In terms of creativity he's top-notch, and while his prose isn't the greatest, it's not bad either. He can be a little bit repetitive sometimes; that's probably his biggest weakness.

The Unreasoner
07-29-2014, 12:39 AM
It doesn't. In terms of creativity he's top-notch, and while his prose isn't the greatest, it's not bad either. He can be a little bit repetitive sometimes; that's probably his biggest weakness.

Top notch? You should stay in (and read) more.


For asterisk's sake...

rand
07-29-2014, 12:46 AM
What makes you think he's uncreative? And can you use actual examples? (Note: "because he's shitty and looks like a pedophile" doesn't count as an actual example).

suttree
07-29-2014, 12:50 AM
If Martin is a talentless "hack" I shudder to think where that puts some other genre writers on the scale.

Agree with Terez on her assessment. As for "hacks", Stephen Donaldson nailed when asked if he would consider finishing the WoT.

But I'm posting this because I want to make a more general point. I wouldn't agree to work with someone else's characters, settings, themes, or stories, even if you held a gun to my head. That's what hacks are for. (Don't get me wrong. Being a hack can be a perfectly honorable profession. It simply isn't *my* profession.) Now, if you held a gun to the head of someone I love, I would naturally agree to anything. But I would be lying. Unashamedly. Stalling for time until I could take a whack at you. The very idea of trying to do someone else's work fills me with existential nausea.

=)

Kimon
07-29-2014, 01:06 AM
If Martin is a talentless "hack" I shudder to think where that puts some other genre writers on the scale.

Agree with Terez on her assessment. As for "hacks", Stephen Donaldson nailed when asked if he would consider finishing the WoT.



=)

Finishing WoT was a great career move for Sanderson, and while I, like many of us, was disappointed with how he finished the series, I have enjoyed everything else he has written, and likely would not have read any of those novels had he not finished WoT.

suttree
07-29-2014, 01:17 AM
Finishing WoT was a great career move for Sanderson, and while I, like many of us, was disappointed with how he finished the series, I have enjoyed everything else he has written, and likely would not have read any of those novels had he not finished WoT.

Oh I agree on the career move. Tor nailed it with that one and I enjoyed the first two Mistborn books. Just couldn't resist posting the quote since it fit into the conversation so well.

What do you think about Stormlight so far out of curiosity. It's interesting in that I've read many people say it contains a number of the bad Sanderson characteristics like terrible dialog and rough prose. Most surprising however is to see reviewers like Wert call out the bloat and poor pacing already showing up by book 2(ironically pace is something people cite as a strength based on his work in the WoT). Should be interesting to see how it plays out.

Kimon
07-29-2014, 01:43 AM
Oh I agree on the career move. Tor nailed it with that one and I enjoyed the first two Mistborn books. Just couldn't resist posting the quote since it fit into the conversation so well.

What do you think about Stormlight so far out of curiosity. It's interesting in that I've read many people say it contains a number of the bad Sanderson characteristics like terrible dialog and rough prose. Most surprising however is to see reviewers like Wert call out the bloat and poor pacing already showing up by book 2(ironically pace is something people cite as a strength based on his work in the WoT). Should be interesting to see how it plays out.

I've liked everything non-WoT of his that I've read - both the Stormlight novels, Warbreaker, Elantris, the Mistborn trilogy, and Alloy of Law. I haven't read his Alcatraz or Reckoners books. It's amazing how many books he's already put out, and everything pretty good. Finishing WoT to the satisfaction of people like us was probably an impossible task. We just wouldn't have been capable of comparing anyone satisfactorily to RJ. GGK could have finished the series and most of us likely wouldn't have been satisfied even with his version of the end.

Edit:

Speaking of hacks who finished other peoples works, I liked the Silmarillion (which GGK collaborated on finishing) far more than The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings...

Seeker
07-29-2014, 01:58 AM
Just curious, but how exactly does writing about pedophilia make GRRM a bad writer? Personally I dislike him a little for being such a slow writer, but his writing itself is much stronger than most other fantasy authors.

So is every book that deals with inappropriate behavior (sexual, violence, etc) bad writing? I'm pretty sure you'd be left with Dr. Seuss as the best writer if that were the case. Though even the Cat in the Hat is a bit creepy...

Writing about pedophilia makes him a bad person. He was a shitty writer long before that.

As to how he's uncreative, look at my first spoof. I think that encapsulates his long list of failings better than any "essay" I could write on the subject.

http://theoryland.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=222557&postcount=26

Everything from faux "dark and edgy" to wangsty characters, to the constant stream of cliches, the torture porn, the misogyny and the endless stream of pointless scenes.

The Unreasoner
07-29-2014, 01:58 AM
What makes you think he's uncreative? And can you use actual examples? (Note: "because he's shitty and looks like a pedophile" doesn't count as an actual example).

I didn't say he was uncreative. That's about the only thing he has going for him. While I think his creativity is more derived (from historical sources, which he seems to have a good grasp of) than inspired (the silmarillion), he is certainly inventive.

Which doesn't stop him from being a shitty writer, or having the voice of a pedophile.

rand
07-29-2014, 02:27 AM
I didn't say he was uncreative.
...
In terms of creativity he's top-notch
Top notch? You should stay in (and read) more.





And can you use actual examples?
I guess not...

rand
07-29-2014, 02:34 AM
Writing about pedophilia makes him a bad person.
LMFAO! Seriously man? Do you just kind of attack everyone you don't like like this? You called Sodas anti-Semitic, RJ a misogynist, and now GRRM is apparently evil (or something) for writing about mature themes that almost every other writer deals with? Just, wow...

Seeker
07-29-2014, 03:30 AM
LMFAO! Seriously man? Do you just kind of attack everyone you don't like like this? You called Sodas anti-Semitic, RJ a misogynist, and now GRRM is apparently evil (or something) for writing about mature themes that almost every other writer deals with? Just, wow...

Sodas did make anti semitic comments. There is sexism in WoT and that scene is depraved. She's twelve. Just calling it like I see it.

Zombie Sammael
07-29-2014, 03:51 AM
Sodas did make anti semitic comments. There is sexism in WoT and that scene is depraved. She's twelve. Just calling it like I see it.

In what way is it depraved? Is it her age, or what she's doing? George RR Martin isn't saying every twelve year old girl ought to become a murderer who uses sex as a weapon; he's showing one situation in which one such person does. One of GRRM's strengths is that he writes about these horrible events without preaching about them; he leaves it for the reader to make the judgments. He's not a bad person for writing about things that do happen in the real world. It would be a far worse crime to sanitise his work.

The Unreasoner
07-29-2014, 12:17 PM
....


Oh come on. Thinking it is uncreative and denying it equal status to tolkien are two different things.






I guess not...

Examples of what? Uncreativity?

suttree
07-29-2014, 12:19 PM
Writing about pedophilia makes him a bad person.

Wut?

The Unreasoner
07-29-2014, 12:21 PM
You could say Kevin J Anderson is creative. But superspice and fucking erasmus aren't impressive examples of it.

The Unreasoner
07-29-2014, 12:23 PM
Wut?

Lol. I'm not really on board 100% with seeker on this, but he does look like and sound like a pedophile.

Davian93
07-29-2014, 12:31 PM
A bit disturbing...but not as disturbing as his complete inability to complete a novel in a timely fashion.


As for Brandon...I was actually pretty disappointed by the 2nd Stormlight book. Alot of his characters end of sounding exactly the same regardless of what book he's writing and the prose, mighty-morphin power rangers action scenes and lack of pacing really hurt that book.

Seeker
07-29-2014, 12:38 PM
In what way is it depraved? Is it her age, or what she's doing? George RR Martin isn't saying every twelve year old girl ought to become a murderer who uses sex as a weapon; he's showing one situation in which one such person does. One of GRRM's strengths is that he writes about these horrible events without preaching about them; he leaves it for the reader to make the judgments. He's not a bad person for writing about things that do happen in the real world. It would be a far worse crime to sanitise his work.

It's the consistent trend of sexualizing girls who are still going through puberty with rape overtones to boot. And incest. Adding violence to the mix is just one more thing. Dany, Sansa, Arya. It really creeps me out that this guy has such detailed imaginings of girls that young.

rand
07-29-2014, 02:03 PM
Just calling it like I see it.
I guess we see it very differently then...

Examples of what? Uncreativity?
I wanted you to give specific examples of why you think GRRM is a bad writer, other than saying he looks like a pedophile.

The Unreasoner
07-29-2014, 02:39 PM
I guess we see it very differently then...


I wanted you to give specific examples of why you think GRRM is a bad writer, other than saying he looks like a pedophile.

That's easy enough. I could quote the whole series and point out the apparent lack of an overarching plot. Or I could quote all of the scenes of Tyrion being clumsily propped up, by genna, jon, jeor...

Or all the even vaguer and clumsier Rhaegar love. We're supposed to buy into this notion of his deepness and honor, and it's almost entirely informed.

Or why not quote some of Cersei's scenes, and show what a sexist cliche she has become. Doran Martell, the patient cyvasse master, who made a marriage pact with a homeless lunatic and called it a day. Darkstar, the stupidly named proof that GRRM didn't understand the appeal of Oberyn.

I mean, clumsy prose, slow writing, weird pacing, no plot...

Weiramon
07-29-2014, 02:56 PM
Pshaw, this so-called “writing” is atrocious. Lords being murdered by peasants! Best have a racey read of The Flame, the Blade, and the Heart.

Burn my soul, that would send you young pups all atwitter.

Isabel
07-29-2014, 03:11 PM
I am quite surprised at the hate at GRRM. I met him a couple of times, also before he became very famous and he is really nice.

I don't think he is a pedophile. He originally planned for a four year gap, whhich didn't work, that's why the children are so young.

Seeker
07-29-2014, 03:28 PM
I am quite surprised at the hate at GRRM. I met him a couple of times, also before he became very famous and he is really nice.

I don't think he is a pedophile. He originally planned for a four year gap, whhich didn't work, that's why the children are so young.

I have no problem with people writing about young children. But I think sexualizing them is inappropriate. Just pause for a moment and imagine the thoughts you have to think to write a scene like that. Here's the thing. If I were to try, I would be so repulsed by such imagery that I would not be able to choose words for it.

The only reason I was able to read that scene the first time is that I had grown accustomed to thinking of Arya as a young woman in her late teens. Because she's played by a young woman in her late teens. It wasn't until Jourdan reminded me of the age difference between the TV show characters and the book characters that I was "EEEEW!" Yes, that five year age gap makes a big difference.

SauceyBlueConfetti
07-29-2014, 03:40 PM
With 16 year summers and just as long, or more winters, isn't there some kind of dog-year math going on here?

Seriously, I am not dismissing the sexualization of children, and I think everyone knows at this point I think GRRM is a bonehead.

But I personally find the rape and torture scenes as horrid, if not moreso in their casualness.

Arya is using a situation to get her point across. Pun intended. The stage for this has been set for books and books---sexual favors and domination of folks through sex, gender and station are pretty much key to his stories. Revenge through unexpected avenues has become almost cliché in his work. He wants to shock people. He is basically just annoying folks now.

I always was mildly repulsed with some scenes, but it started to really be too much with the Theon Greyjoy/Reek scenarios.

rand
07-29-2014, 03:40 PM
Just pause for a moment and imagine the thoughts you have to think to write a scene like that.
"I'm writing a realistic book. Young children encountering sex would have been common in the time period I'm writing about. Therefore, it is perfectly appropriate for me to write about it."

You seem to think GRRM is some kind of monstrous pedophile/misogynist just becasue he writes about these things, and there is simply no logical connection between the two. There are countless other authors who write about the same themes. Are they all pedophiles too?

Davian93
07-29-2014, 03:51 PM
With 16 year summers and just as long, or more winters, isn't there some kind of dog-year math going on here?

Seriously, I am not dismissing the sexualization of children, and I think everyone knows at this point I think GRRM is a bonehead.

But I personally find the rape and torture scenes as horrid, if not moreso in their casualness.

Arya is using a situation to get her point across. Pun intended. The stage for this has been set for books and books---sexual favors and domination of folks through sex, gender and station are pretty much key to his stories. Revenge through unexpected avenues has become almost cliché in his work. He wants to shock people. He is basically just annoying folks now.

I always was mildly repulsed with some scenes, but it started to really be too much with the Theon Greyjoy/Reek scenarios.

The easiest thing for GRRM to do would be to just say that a year in aSoIaF is 500 earth days long instead of 365 and it'd all be fine for the "Ewww!" factor.

Suddenly, Dany is 16 and a half for her wedding instead of 12, Arya is 16 for this scene, Sansa is almost 18 for all her disturbing scenes, etc etc.

PS: I also do not think GRRM is a pedophile...

Seeker
07-29-2014, 04:05 PM
"I'm writing a realistic book. Young children encountering sex would have been common in the time period I'm writing about. Therefore, it is perfectly appropriate for me to write about it."

Except it wasn't! That's a myth.

Yes, it was common for young women to be married at ages like 15 or 16 but the idea that they were out there getting raped and felt up on a regular basis is simply not factually true. Actual historians have been debunking that myth for decades. Cracked wrote a great article about it that cobbles lots of different sources into one convenient place.

http://www.cracked.com/article_20615_5-ridiculous-myths-you-probably-believe-about-dark-ages_p2.html

Yes, SBC, I agree that the rape scenes are awful. I've complained about them before.

So now back to rand. Rape is a real thing. That doesn't mean you should write about it for entertainment value.

By the same token, even if child sexualization had been a real thing - which it wasn't - that doesn't mean you should write about it for entertainment value.

EDIT TO CLARIFY:

You can have rape in an entertaining novel, and if it's portrayed with the seriousness that it deserves (and respect for real-world victims) then that can be used to make an important point while also entertaining your fans. But the one thing you do not want to do is make rape gratuitous. In other words, you certainly don't want to be writing about rape just to make your story "edgier," and that's exactly what GRRM does.

Child sexuality is even more of a delicate topic than rape. And again, he just breezes right through it without regard for the seriousness of the issue and with a kind of perverse fascination.

Kimon
07-29-2014, 04:08 PM
I have no problem with people writing about young children. But I think sexualizing them is inappropriate. Just pause for a moment and imagine the thoughts you have to think to write a scene like that. Here's the thing. If I were to try, I would be so repulsed by such imagery that I would not be able to choose words for it.



Have you ever read A Thousand Splendid Suns? What happened to Laila was horrific, indeed far more so than anything that has happened to Arya.

Edit: clearly I was baiting the water, but I now notice your edit to the above message.

You can have rape in an entertaining novel, and if it's portrayed with the seriousness that it deserves (and respect for real-world victims) then that can be used to make an important point while also entertaining your fans. But the one thing you do not want to do is make rape gratuitous. In other words, you certainly don't want to be writing about rape just to make your story "edgier," and that's exactly what GRRM does.

Khaled Hosseini is an example clearly of the above, and A Thousand Splendid Suns was a required summer reading for Sophomore English classes at the school where I teach. The question with GRRM, I suppose, hinges on whether his use of such subject matter is purely for the sake of sensationalization.

Davian93
07-29-2014, 04:17 PM
All this talk about rape and not one Terry Goodkind reference.

Odd that. Though I suppose this is a forum to discuss fantasy novels and he doesn't write fantasy.

suttree
07-29-2014, 04:18 PM
Cracked wrote a great article about it that cobbles lots of different sources into one convenient place.

http://www.cracked.com/article_20615_5-ridiculous-myths-you-probably-believe-about-dark-ages_p2.html


At a glance I'm not seeing anything touching on that topic. Perhaps you could quote the relevant bit? It certainly was common enough during wars, military occupations etc.

All this talk about rape and not one Terry Goodkind reference.



"Old Bili named the Yeard I'll bet you didn't know that."
"Light!" Rand breathed.
Mat's grin broadened. "It was last spring, just before the cutworm got into his fields and nobody else's. Right before everybody in his house came down with yellow eye fever. I heard him do it. He still says he doesn't believe, but whenever I ask him to name the Yeard now, he throws something at me."

rand
07-29-2014, 04:29 PM
Except it wasn't! That's a myth.
Too bad we don't have a time machine so we could tell all the children who were raped and/or sexually abused in the Middle Ages that it's a myth and they just imagined it all.

Yes, it was common for young women to be married at ages like 15 or 16 but the idea that they were out there getting raped and felt up on a regular basis is simply not factually true.
It hardly takes place on a "regular basis" in asoiaf either. But the fact remains, rape happens, and contrary to what you believe, GRRM never portrays it in a good light.

You can have rape in an entertaining novel, and if it's portrayed with the seriousness that it deserves (and respect for real-world victims) then that can be used to make an important point while also entertaining your fans.
How is it disrespectful to rape victims to write about rape in a book? It's fiction. GRRM isn't writing a bunch of rape scenes to promote rape. He's showing you how his world is, and what his characters are up against.

Child sexuality is even more of a delicate topic than rape. And again, he just breezes right through it without regard for the seriousness of the issue and with a kind of perverse fascination.
Yes, I'm sure GRRM writes all this simply because he has fantasies and a "perverse fascination" with child sexualization and people getting raped. No other reason he'd write about those things...

Terez
07-29-2014, 04:44 PM
Too bad we don't have a time machine so we could tell all the children who were raped and/or sexually abused in the Middle Ages that it's a myth and they just imagined it all.
It still happens today.

I liked the Mercy scene partly because the sexual exploitation is nothing to her. The death she has seen overwhelms all else, and the situation only makes it more clear how much Raff deserved to die. Arya's single-mindedness applies to the reason she was Mercy in the first place. She could leave the temple at any time, if she chose, but the list of names in her head drives her to suffer whatever comes her way with uncommon, and yes, even disturbing grace. It's terrible, but it's also terribly logical.

I'm interested to see if she will suffer any consequences for breaking the rules; you're not supposed to give the gift to anyone you know, and Raff was not official business.

Daekyras
07-29-2014, 04:56 PM
Even GRRM's voice gives off a pedo vibe. Look at selmy, a 50+ year old 'in love' with a girl who is ~15 at best. Or everyone who wants to bang dany.

Creepy ***** shitty writer.

You know, i don't think i've ever defended martin before but what he LOOKS and SOUNDS like do not make him a shitty writer.

There are way more compelling reasons than those for his shittiness.

I think that's how you do it. Its all new to me. Maybe one of these nice older posters could show me, an innocent young poster, how it is done...don't force me though...although i might end up enjoying that in the end...

rand
07-29-2014, 05:12 PM
It still happens today.
Oh, I know. Rape happened before the Middle Ages, during the Middle Ages, today, and presumably will continue to exist in the future. Such a large crime in human history certainly shouldn't be considered off-limits for an author to write about.

I'm interested to see if she will suffer any consequences for breaking the rules; you're not supposed to give the gift to anyone you know, and Raff was not official business.
I'm guessing she'll either get kicked out or run away. She can't stay there forever, becasue they'd never allow her to carry out her revenge list. Though iirc this scene was cut from the end of Dance with Dragons, so it may still be a while before Arya gets away from Braavos.

Terez
07-29-2014, 05:24 PM
It's possible that she will be able to keep it from them. She's been getting better at lying.

The Unreasoner
07-29-2014, 05:33 PM
There are way more compelling reasons than those for his shittiness.


Oh I know. I've mentioned some of them. But I love a good pile-on, and GRRM is getting too smug for me to worry about fairness in attacks.

fdsaf3
07-29-2014, 06:40 PM
Isn't the simplest and most straightforward to the argument that writing about child sex makes you a pedophile the obvious rebuttal that writing about killing doesn't make you a murderer?

The Unreasoner
07-29-2014, 09:18 PM
The amount of incest is a bit disturbing, and the way GRRM treats it as normal, even expected, is a bit of a red flag for the author. Baelor locking his sisters up to avoid lustful urges (as if lust is inevitable and natural) is kind of fed up.

Kimon
07-29-2014, 11:03 PM
The amount of incest is a bit disturbing, and the way GRRM treats it as normal, even expected, is a bit of a red flag for the author. Baelor locking his sisters up to avoid lustful urges (as if lust is inevitable and natural) is kind of fed up.

There's a pretty famous historical antecedent for that one - the Ptolemies (and to a lesser extent the Seleukids as well). He actually treats it in much the same way. His indigenous culture, just as did the Greeks, clearly considers incest taboo, yet he has a royal family that like the Ptolemies practices dynastic incest. With Ptolemy II Philadelphus, he claimed that he and his sister were the second-coming of Osiris and Isis to try to justify the fact that he was marrying his sister. From Ptolemy II on, almost every Ptolemy (every king in that dynasty had that name) married brother to sister, so Cleopatra VII was not just from very imbred stock, but Caesar was her third husband and Antony her fourth. Her first was her brother Ptolemy XII, her second husband her brother Ptolemy XIII.

We actually have a rather odd allusion to this in America. Makes it kind of creepy for those living in Philadelphia.

The Unreasoner
07-30-2014, 12:09 AM
I know about dynastic incest. I somehow doubt lust played a big role in it. Normal people develop a strong aversion to incest, if thy are raised together. I think the ahh...participants probably saw the sibling sex as a duty, or politically necessary. Not as a perk. And the Targaryens didn't all marry relatives. One of the very first kings (Maegor?) wed a Westerling, so there was precedent for Baelor.

Kimon
07-30-2014, 12:43 AM
I know about dynastic incest. I somehow doubt lust played a big role in it. Normal people develop a strong aversion to incest, if thy are raised together. I think the ahh...participants probably saw the sibling sex as a duty, or politically necessary. Not as a perk. And the Targaryens didn't all marry relatives. One of the very first kings (Maegor?) wed a Westerling, so there was precedent for Baelor.

The first Ptolemy (Alexander's general, and perhaps Alexander's half-brother) didn't marry his sister. His son, Ptolemy II was the first of the dynasty to do so. Arsinoe II (his sister-wife) was first married to Lysimachus, another of Alexander's generals. After Lysimachus died she married her half-brother Ptolemy Keraunos (different Ptolemy than Philadelphus who obviously hadn't received that creepy epithet yet - it means sibling-loving). She married Keraunos for political reasons, but they didn't get along well. She tried to kill him, and he responded by killing her sons (from her marriage to Lysimachus). So her first act of incest seems to have been purely poltical, but her marriage to her full-brother was different. When she fled Macedon and went to her full-brother Ptolemy II in Egypt, Ptolemy II was already married. She seduced him, and convinced him to exile his first wife, who coincidentally was also named Arsinoe (Arsinoe I). Ptolemy III, whose mother was Arsinoe I, so he wasn't a product of incest, married a Seleucid princess. Ptolemy IV married his sister, Arsinoe III. He had a mistress, so perhaps this was more political than lust driven, but they did consummate the marriage, and Arsinoe III was the mother of Ptolemy V. Ptolemy V married a Seleukid princess (Cleopatra I). Ptolemy VI married his sister, Cleopatra II. You get the gist. Ptolemies starting from the II on either married Seleucid princesses, usually as part of a peace treaty to end near constant wars between the two kingdoms, or their sister. Lust clearly played a place in the first instance. Ritual or lack of available alternatives seemed to play a role in the others. Part of their problem was their ruler-cult. They considered themselves living gods, and living gods shouldn't marry mere commoners, which meant either marry a Seleukid (who also being Alexander successors were also living gods) or else marry your sister...

yks 6nnetu hing
07-30-2014, 03:01 AM
and then, much more recently, there's the Spanish branch of the Habsburgs, though in their case it was all about the money and property:

Charles was born in Madrid in 1661 a son of King Philip IV of Spain with his second wife, Mariana of Austria. By the time of Philip's death Charles was his only surviving legitimate son and heir.[citation needed]

By the time of Charles's birth there had been many generations of inbreeding within the Spanish royal house; his physical and mental disabilities are widely attributed to this inbreeding. The practice of first-cousin and uncle-niece marriages was common among 17th-century European nobility, intended to preserve prosperous families' properties. Charles's own immediate pedigree was almost exclusively populated with close relative relationships: Charles's mother, Mariana of Austria, herself a Habsburg, was a niece of his father, Philip. Mariana was a daughter of Empress Maria Anna of Spain (1606–46) and Emperor Ferdinand III. Thus Maria Anna was simultaneously his aunt and grandmother while Margaret of Austria, Maria Anna's mother, was both his grandmother and great-grandmother. The inbreeding was so widespread in his case that all of his eight great-grandparents were descendants of Joanna and Philip I of Castile. This inbreeding had given many in the family hereditary weaknesses. That Habsburg generation was more prone to still-births than were peasants in Spanish villages.[4]

There was also insanity in Charles's family. His great-great-great (-great-great, depending along which lineage is counted) grandmother, Queen Joanna of Castile, became insane early in life and became known as "Joanna the Mad"; it is debated, however, to what degree her "madness" was induced by her confinement and political intrigues targeting her.[citation needed] Joanna's parents, Isabella I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon, were only distantly related. Joanna was two of Charles' 16 (mathematical) great-great-great-grandmothers, six of his 32 great-great-great-great-grandmothers, and six of his 64 great-great-great-great-great-grandmothers.[citation needed]

Dating to approximately the year 1550, outbreeding in Charles II's lineage had ceased (see also pedigree collapse).[4] From then on, all his ancestors were in one way or another descendants of Joanna and Philip I of Castile, and among these just the royal houses of Spain, Austria and Bavaria. Charles II's genome was actually more homozygous than that of a child whose parents are siblings.[4] He was born physically and mentally disabled, and disfigured. Possibly through affliction with mandibular prognathism, he was unable to chew.[4] His tongue was so large that his speech could barely be understood, and he frequently drooled.[4] It has been suggested that he suffered from the endocrine disease acromegaly, or his inbred lineage may have led to a combination of rare genetic disorders such as combined pituitary hormone deficiency and distal renal tubular acidosis.[4]


In fact, the European royal and noble houses were so interlinked that every so often a special pardon was needed from the Pope - seeing that the Church forbade marriage between close relatives; even if they're not necessarily blood relatives (e.g. aside from the list of blood relatives, a man may not marry his wife's mother, sister or daughter from another marriage, may not marry his brother's wife, or her daughter from another marriage etc; and technically the list goes on until the 5th generation)

Ironically, back then the traceability of one's ancestry was much easier than nowadays as all births and marriages were entered in the church books, and anyways, people always knew who they were related to and how. Nowadays if you ask a person what was their maternal grandmother's maiden name, and how many siblings did she have (Jelle, and 4, one brother died very young though)... people have most often no clue

Zombie Sammael
07-30-2014, 03:43 AM
Jaime and Cersei clearly share a bond that goes way beyond anything that anyone would think of as usual, and that's alluded to in the story. Jaime's growing attraction to Brienne, and growing disdain for Cersei, is actually part of his redemptive arc in that it shows him moving away from the actions and persona which are perceived as negative, and into a more heroic frame.

Of course the TV show shat all over that, but you can't blame GRRM for that no matter how hard you try.

Terez
07-30-2014, 04:12 AM
Ironically, back then the traceability of one's ancestry was much easier than nowadays as all births and marriages were entered in the church books, and anyways, people always knew who they were related to and how. Nowadays if you ask a person what was their maternal grandmother's maiden name, and how many siblings did she have (Jelle, and 4, one brother died very young though)... people have most often no clue
Really? I can't imagine not knowing that. I mean, I live with my maternal grandmother at the moment, but I've known her maiden name all my life (her mother didn't die until I was 22), and the names of her siblings (one of whom is still alive and visits occasionally), and I know my great-grandmothers' maiden names too, and those of some of their mothers. My mom and grandma can go further than that by memory because they are big into ancestry, and I'd argue it's easier now than it ever was, since your eighth cousins can help you figure it all out on ancestry.com. I can't list all my maternal great-grandmother's siblings, but I can list most of them (there were 11 children) because I knew many of them personally and heard their stories about the others.

The Unreasoner
07-30-2014, 04:43 AM
and then, much more recently, there's the Spanish branch of the Habsburgs, though in their case it was all about the money and property:



In fact, the European royal and noble houses were so interlinked that every so often a special pardon was needed from the Pope - seeing that the Church forbade marriage between close relatives; even if they're not necessarily blood relatives (e.g. aside from the list of blood relatives, a man may not marry his wife's mother, sister or daughter from another marriage, may not marry his brother's wife, or her daughter from another marriage etc; and technically the list goes on until the 5th generation)

Ironically, back then the traceability of one's ancestry was much easier than nowadays as all births and marriages were entered in the church books, and anyways, people always knew who they were related to and how. Nowadays if you ask a person what was their maternal grandmother's maiden name, and how many siblings did she have (Jelle, and 4, one brother died very young though)... people have most often no clue
I know that the dynastic incest wasn't pulled out of thin air. My point isn't that we should hold the existence of the practice in his world against him. My point is the way he includes it seem to betray a disturbed mind. Serious lust on the part of Viserys, he wanted to take Dany in a way that had none of the usual (I suppose I'll call them) benefits of dynastic incest. It would have been purely for pleasure.

Jaime and Cersei clearly share a bond that goes way beyond anything that anyone would think of as usual, and that's alluded to in the story. Jaime's growing attraction to Brienne, and growing disdain for Cersei, is actually part of his redemptive arc in that it shows him moving away from the actions and persona which are perceived as negative, and into a more heroic frame.
Whether or not Jamie can be redeemed is beside the point (though I'm having a hard time forgetting his attempted child murder). Normal children raised together do not develop these feelings in the first place, unless there is some severe abuse. And Jamie still lusts for Cersei, he's just becoming sick of the person she's becoming (and on that point, if moving away from incest is redeeming, Cersei is further along than Jamie, given that she no longer cares for her silver bearded cripple as a bedmate).
Of course the TV show shat all over that, but you can't blame GRRM for that no matter how hard you try.
How did the show screw it up? Jamie is way nicer to Brienne in the show. He hasn't moved as far from Cersei yet, but they need some material for next season. The sept scene was awful, but apparently (eventually) consensual (according to the makers). I suppose everything can be improved, but it`s hard to see what you think the show has 'shat' on, and how. Jamie's redemption wasn't all that impressive to begin with, with his trebuchets and obssessing over Moon Boy.

And it would be easy to blame GRRM for many parts of the show, but since it's not entirely clear what you mean by 'that' I do not know if this is one of them.

The point is that GRRM's mind is a bit twisted, a bit odd. Sometimes that can be a good thing. But he doesn't seem to understand how real people function. He tried to recapture Oberyn's popularity with Darkstar, seems to think a hot sister will lead to incestuous desires, and is ovdrly gratuitous with the rape and torture. Saying that there is a historical basis is a ridiculous argument. There is a historical basis for people dying of sickness in wars of this level more often than combat, but I don't see much of it. There is a historical basis for many things that he doesn't bother to include. It's not edgy or thoughtful, it's just sick. Talking about how it's always the smallfolk who suffer when the lords play their game of thrones isn't insightful reflection, it's an obvious clicheed fact.

ASoIaF reads like some Frankenstein's monster of history, historical fan fiction, and lazy clicheed fantasy tropes all sewn together. You can practically see the seams. Someone who really understood people could make it feel more like a natural organism, but he can't. He puts in rape and incest and torture and pedophiles, and all of those exist and happened, but they don't really seem to belong where we find them.

yks 6nnetu hing
07-30-2014, 05:05 AM
Really? I can't imagine not knowing that. I mean, I live with my maternal grandmother at the moment, but I've known her maiden name all my life (her mother didn't die until I was 22), and the names of her siblings (one of whom is still alive and visits occasionally), and I know my great-grandmothers' maiden names too, and those of some of their mothers. My mom and grandma can go further than that by memory because they are big into ancestry, and I'd argue it's easier now than it ever was, since your eighth cousins can help you figure it all out on ancestry.com. I can't list all my maternal great-grandmother's siblings, but I can list most of them (there were 11 children) because I knew many of them personally and heard their stories about the others.

Unfortunately, yes. There are several reasons for this of course - that nowadays people move further from home and lose contact with their more distant relatives being the most common one in the Western world. But also, in the totalitarian regimes it could be a matter of life and death NOT to talk about your relatives. There's an excellent book by Orlando Figes on this topic: "The Whisperers"

Davian93
07-30-2014, 08:12 AM
and then, much more recently, there's the Spanish branch of the Habsburgs, though in their case it was all about the money and property:



In fact, the European royal and noble houses were so interlinked that every so often a special pardon was needed from the Pope - seeing that the Church forbade marriage between close relatives; even if they're not necessarily blood relatives (e.g. aside from the list of blood relatives, a man may not marry his wife's mother, sister or daughter from another marriage, may not marry his brother's wife, or her daughter from another marriage etc; and technically the list goes on until the 5th generation)

Ironically, back then the traceability of one's ancestry was much easier than nowadays as all births and marriages were entered in the church books, and anyways, people always knew who they were related to and how. Nowadays if you ask a person what was their maternal grandmother's maiden name, and how many siblings did she have (Jelle, and 4, one brother died very young though)... people have most often no clue

The current British Royal Family, as you noted, is pretty freaking inbred. I was going over the lineage with my wife (feels weird saying that) one day and she was shocked at how inbred they were by the the marriage of Elizabeth II to Phillip (who are third cousins BTW...but as distant as that sounds, there are a lot of common ancestors for both of them). Diana and Kate are the first fresh blood into that family in generations and even Diana's Spencer bloodlines are descended from the Stuart kings (very far removed but still can be traced) so that genetic wading pool is pretty damned shallow. Several generations of a "Its totally okay to marry my first cousin" mentality will lead to that.

Though not nearly as bad as the Habsburgs as you pointed out as well.

Davian93
07-30-2014, 08:17 AM
Unfortunately, yes. There are several reasons for this of course - that nowadays people move further from home and lose contact with their more distant relatives being the most common one in the Western world. But also, in the totalitarian regimes it could be a matter of life and death NOT to talk about your relatives. There's an excellent book by Orlando Figes on this topic: "The Whisperers"

I will have to read it...Figes is an excellent author.

To build on your point, unless one is a serious student of genealogy, it is very easy to not know much about one's family roots. I, off the top of my head, can take my direct family back maybe 3 generations...my mother, a serious genealogy researcher can take them back something like 20...but that included trips to Ireland for her to scavenge through old church records for birth/deaths along with years (literally decades at this point) of research on her part to build the family tree. Most people, I'd imagine, don't do that. I couldn't tell you the names of my grandparents siblings though...Or great-grandparents names, etc etc.

Uno
07-30-2014, 08:42 AM
The current British Royal Family, as you noted, is pretty freaking inbred. I was going over the lineage with my wife (feels weird saying that) one day and she was shocked at how inbred they were by the the marriage of Elizabeth II to Phillip (who are third cousins BTW...but as distant as that sounds, there are a lot of common ancestors for both of them). Diana and Kate are the first fresh blood into that family in generations and even Diana's Spencer bloodlines are descended from the Stuart kings (very far removed but still can be traced) so that genetic wading pool is pretty damned shallow. Several generations of a "Its totally okay to marry my first cousin" mentality will lead to that.

I think Elizabeth and Philip share a great-grandparent or something like that, hardly all that close. And I think you'd have to go back several centuries to find a common ancestor between Elizabeth's mother and father. Elizabeth's grandfather George V married a princess from Wurttemberg, and they again shared a great-grandparent.

I don't know the extent to which these kinds of 2nd and 3rd cross-cousin marriages deviated from what you'd find among large segments of the European population of the 19th and early 20th centuries, but I recall that David Sabean found that the rate of first-cousin marriage among the middle and upper classes in Europe increased through the 19th century and, in fact, peaked in the 1910s.

Besides, incest is a matter of definition. Consider that many societies will consider matches between fictive kin just as incestuous as matches between biological relatives.

yks 6nnetu hing
07-30-2014, 08:45 AM
I will have to read it...Figes is an excellent author.

To build on your point, unless one is a serious student of genealogy, it is very easy to not know much about one's family roots. I, off the top of my head, can take my direct family back maybe 3 generations...my mother, a serious genealogy researcher can take them back something like 20...but that included trips to Ireland for her to scavenge through old church records for birth/deaths along with years (literally decades at this point) of research on her part to build the family tree. Most people, I'd imagine, don't do that. I couldn't tell you the names of my grandparents siblings though...Or great-grandparents names, etc etc.

yes, he is, isn't he :D

indeed. It also depends on the family itself, so for example I know almost nothing about my father's father's family because my grandfather died when I was 9 and he was an orphan himself; he never knew his father and his mother died during the war when he was... young anyways, so he grew up in an orphanage.

anyways, back on topic: incest is genetically speaking a really idiotic thing to do even aside from any yuck factor. I'm not sure that writing about it automatically makes a person a bad person or even a bad writer though.

GonzoTheGreat
07-30-2014, 08:50 AM
Incest is a primitive form of cloning, and George Lucas has already pointed out how much trouble armies of clones are.

Uno
07-30-2014, 08:56 AM
To build on your point, unless one is a serious student of genealogy, it is very easy to not know much about one's family roots.

You know, genealogists tend to annoy me. They often don't know how to behave in the archives, prone as they are to chatter a lot and make excited outbursts when they find some mention of some long-dead uncle in an old court record. Technically, the staff is to blame for not getting them to follow the essential rule of being quiet in the reading room, but I think the staff often finds it hard to tell off little old ladies, a demographic that's heavily represented among genealogists.

Davian93
07-30-2014, 09:38 AM
You know, genealogists tend to annoy me. They often don't know how to behave in the archives, prone as they are to chatter a lot and make excited outbursts when they find some mention of some long-dead uncle in an old court record. Technically, the staff is to blame for not getting them to follow the essential rule of being quiet in the reading room, but I think the staff often finds it hard to tell off little old ladies, a demographic that's heavily represented among genealogists.

My mother is definitely a little old lady...so that does make sense.

SauceyBlueConfetti
07-30-2014, 10:56 AM
Really? I can't imagine not knowing that. I mean, I live with my maternal grandmother at the moment, but I've known her maiden name all my life (her mother didn't die until I was 22), and the names of her siblings (one of whom is still alive and visits occasionally), and I know my great-grandmothers' maiden names too, and those of some of their mothers. My mom and grandma can go further than that by memory because they are big into ancestry, and I'd argue it's easier now than it ever was, since your eighth cousins can help you figure it all out on ancestry.com. I can't list all my maternal great-grandmother's siblings, but I can list most of them (there were 11 children) because I knew many of them personally and heard their stories about the others.

I can list all my ancestors names and families back to the 1800s too, then they get lost somewhere in Scotland and Germany after a generation or so ;). I find it odd when people cannot.

But, we are an odd group of folks here who have interest in histories-real, imagined and folkloric tales, so I guess it doesn't shock me that many of us probably have that in common.

SauceyBlueConfetti
07-30-2014, 10:58 AM
Unfortunately, yes. There are several reasons for this of course - that nowadays people move further from home and lose contact with their more distant relatives being the most common one in the Western world. But also, in the totalitarian regimes it could be a matter of life and death NOT to talk about your relatives. There's an excellent book by Orlando Figes on this topic: "The Whisperers"

Just Kindled it, thanks for the recommendation!

SauceyBlueConfetti
07-30-2014, 11:07 AM
Serious lust on the part of Viserys, he wanted to take Dany in a way that had none of the usual (I suppose I'll call them) benefits of dynastic incest. It would have been purely for pleasure.



I would completely disagree with that. Viserys was driven by power and redheaded stepchild syndrome...he would always want what he couldn't have, or shouldn't have. The primary way for him to attain what he wanted was THROUGH Dany and it was all about control and dominance with her.

GRRM's issues aren't so much about icky freaky incest/pedo/rape, it's all power and domination and those are the easiest way for him to show that.

The Unreasoner
07-30-2014, 03:32 PM
I would completely disagree with that. Viserys was driven by power and redheaded stepchild syndrome...he would always want what he couldn't have, or shouldn't have. The primary way for him to attain what he wanted was THROUGH Dany and it was all about control and dominance with her.

GRRM's issues aren't so much about icky freaky incest/pedo/rape, it's all power and domination and those are the easiest way for him to show that.

I sort of agree, but still am not sure it holds up all the way. Viserys apparently tried to rape Dany the night before her wedding. This could in no way get him closer to the throne, and might have gotten him farther, if Drogo balked and refused to consummate after finding out she wasn't a vifgin.

And we have it from Illyrio that Viserys lusted after Dany. IOW, had specifically sexual feelings unrelated to a desire to dominate.

Davian93
07-30-2014, 03:34 PM
I sort of agree, but still am not sure it holds up all the way. Viserys apparently tried to rape Dany the night before her wedding. This could in no way get him closer to the throne, and might have gotten him farther, if Drogo balked and refused to consummate after finding out she wasn't a vifgin.

And we have it from Illyrio that Viserys lusted after Dany. IOW, had specifically sexual feelings unrelated to a desire to dominate.

Well, Rape in general is more about power than sex...and that rape would have allowed Viserys (in his mind at least) to further dominate Danys to his will...and thus give him more power.

The Unreasoner
07-30-2014, 04:56 PM
Well, Rape in general is more about power than sex...and that rape would have allowed Viserys (in his mind at least) to further dominate Danys to his will...and thus give him more power.

*shrugs*

We could argue this point all day. This is why I much prefer my 'shit on GRRM' thread. Much easier to bash on him for being a talentless weirdo than a sick weirdo.

Cor Shan
07-30-2014, 11:52 PM
Unfortunately, yes. There are several reasons for this of course - that nowadays people move further from home and lose contact with their more distant relatives being the most common one in the Western world.

FWIW, my Great Grandfather immigrated to New York/Jersey and changed his name, pulling our current surname either out of thin air or stole it from an Irishman aboard the ship. Ah, avoiding racism by joining a slightly less prosecuted minority.

Seeker
07-31-2014, 01:10 AM
Too bad we don't have a time machine so we could tell all the children who were raped and/or sexually abused in the Middle Ages that it's a myth and they just imagined it all.

I'm not saying that rape didn't happen at all in the Middle Ages; rather that they weren't the brutal, blood-thirsty period that people imagine them to be and that Martin's portrayal of a medieval society is by no means accurate.

However, while I could argue this further, I won't because it is a moot point. Even if Martin's fantasy world were 100% totally accurate in its portrayal, that still does not excuse gratuitous depictions of child sexuality.

I'm going to quote Jourdan (Birgitte) who has been following this thread because I think she made some excellent points.

"I don't care if people on Theoryland don't agree or want to scoff at the idea of a piece of writing making someone morally bad. I believe GRRM IS immoral. He perpetuates rape myths, encouraging rape. He perpetuates myths about women, encouraging misogyny. He encourages the sexualization of prepubescent children.

Just think of what rand is arguing. He is arguing that it is OKAY to fantasize about a 12 year old touching a grown man's junk. Because that's what happens when you read a scene involving a 12 year old fondling a man's junk; you visualize it.

That's GRRM's doing and it's wrong."

I'd also like to link you to Samantha Field's take on the way ASOIAF perpetuates rape culture. I think this needs to be talked about.

http://defeatingthedragons.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/cersei-lannister-rape-culture-and-a-lot-of-me-flipping-the-bird-in-general/


How is it disrespectful to rape victims to write about rape in a book? It's fiction. GRRM isn't writing a bunch of rape scenes to promote rape. He's showing you how his world is, and what his characters are up against.

Read the Samantha Field article. Or if that's too long for you, once again I'll give you B's take on the Jamie/Cersei rape scene.

'GRRM doesn't pass judgement.' BULLSHIT Here's the thing: If you write about rape and you clearly show the woman saying no and not wanting it, then have her change her mind once the guy's dick is inside her, you are approving of that action. Which is a myth and one that encourages having sex with a woman after she says no. The emotions and actions he chose for the character give a message of approval. He's not avoiding judgement. He's passed judgement and deemed it 'morally gray, but all right.'"


Yes, I'm sure GRRM writes all this simply because he has fantasies and a "perverse fascination" with child sexualization and people getting raped. No other reason he'd write about those things...

He certainly isn't doing it out of respect for rape victims. If you disagree, read the words of an actual rape victim.

http://defeatingthedragons.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/cersei-lannister-rape-culture-and-a-lot-of-me-flipping-the-bird-in-general

rand
07-31-2014, 01:32 AM
Just think of what rand is arguing. He is arguing that it is OKAY to fantasize about a 12 year old touching a grown man's junk.
Ok. Seeker (and B, though I haven't talked with you or even seen you here for a while), I've had fun talking with you guys before and had a lot of respect for both of you. Seeker, I've argued with you a lot over the past few months and enjoyed it, mostly just having fun.

But this is the stupidest thing I've ever seen on this site. Ever. And I've seen (and written) a lot of dumb things here. It's one thing to accuse GRRM of promoting pedophilia. Whatever. Not true, but I really don't care. You're entitled to your own opinion.

But now you're accusing ME of promoting pedophilia? Are you fucking serious? First Sodas is anti-Semitic, now I promote pedophilia. Who will you be accusing a rapist next week?

Anyway, I'm out of this topic. Seeker, I had fun arguing with you, and as I said, I had a lot of respect for you. But that's gone now. Hopefully we can build it up again at some point, but if you're going to continue accusing me (and others) of things as serious as anti-semitism and promotion of pedophilia, I really don't want to associate with you for the time being.

Seeker
07-31-2014, 01:59 AM
I think, rand, that she's calling you a victim in all this. Not a perpetrator. (As in you've been duped into thinking this is okay). Because when Bantam Books publishes that scene and others like it, they send the message that it's okay to fantasize about these things. After all, it wouldn't be on shelves if society didn't deem the act of imagining it to be morally acceptable.

Normally, I'm a "let your imagination run wild" kind of guy. I think child sexuality is one of the very rare cases where that's not okay.

Oatman
07-31-2014, 08:01 AM
Just think of what rand is arguing. He is arguing that it is OKAY to fantasize about a 12 year old touching a grown man's junk. Because that's what happens when you read a scene involving a 12 year old fondling a man's junk; you visualize it.

I'd give you the benefit of the doubt and say you majorly fucked up with the wording of this, except that the context you used it in indicates that you meant it as it is written. There is a massive difference between fantasizing about something, and visualizing it. An author enabling us to visualize a seen is doing a good job. If it was being portrayed as positive at all, or if it was written explicitly, then I could concede a difference of opinion on the tone, but as it is you just come across as an ass saying shit like that.

GRRM doesn't pass judgement.' BULLSHIT Here's the thing: If you write about rape and you clearly show the woman saying no and not wanting it, then have her change her mind once the guy's dick is inside her, you are approving of that action. Which is a myth and one that encourages having sex with a woman after she says no. The emotions and actions he chose for the character give a message of approval. He's not avoiding judgement. He's passed judgement and deemed it 'morally gray, but all right

That there is a better example of something that is not right. Granted I haven't read the books in a while, but that there is from the show, not the books. You can't really put that on GRRM.

GRRM is writing about characters who are doing horrible things to each other on a regular basis. He is not promoting pedophilia. He is also not promoting violence, or forced marriages, or incest, or polygamy or any number of immoral, unethical, and abhorrent behaviours which his characters engage in.

Frankly if reading GRRMs work is causing you to fantasize about the scenes and the acts, seek professional help. For me, I'm just keep visualizing the scenes and seeing where the story goes.

Daekyras
07-31-2014, 10:50 AM
I'd give you the benefit of the doubt and say you majorly fucked up with the wording of this, except that the context you used it in indicates that you meant it as it is written. There is a massive difference between fantasizing about something, and visualizing it. An author enabling us to visualize a seen is doing a good job. If it was being portrayed as positive at all, or if it was written explicitly, then I could concede a difference of opinion on the tone, but as it is you just come across as an ass saying shit like that.



That there is a better example of something that is not right. Granted I haven't read the books in a while, but that there is from the show, not the books. You can't really put that on GRRM.

GRRM is writing about characters who are doing horrible things to each other on a regular basis. He is not promoting pedophilia. He is also not promoting violence, or forced marriages, or incest, or polygamy or any number of immoral, unethical, and abhorrent behaviours which his characters engage in.

Frankly if reading GRRMs work is causing you to fantasize about the scenes and the acts, seek professional help. For me, I'm just keep visualizing the scenes and seeing where the story goes.

Actually, i think the tv show made a much better job of showing that Jamie raped Cersei in that scene.

On another point i used to have a friend named john. I say used to because he is no longer my friend after we had this conversation a few month or so ago.

Me "you see thrones last night?"

John "yeah, its so fucking good. Sansa such an idiot."

Me "yeah, don't like her much myself and she is worse in the books"

John "no more spoilers!!! You always ruin stuff. And stop showing off that you read"

Me. "haha, keyser sose was...anyway, cant believe the show had Jamie rape Cersei. Completely cancelled out his character growth"

John "he didn't rape her. She wanted it! And besides, she is such a bitch she deserved it."

Me "are you being serious? That's not funny john"

John " ah come on, you know she loved it. Dirty bitch"

That is a 100% genuine conversation i was a part of. This guy is someone i know from work and i consider to be a "good guy". Well, considered.

That is the kind of effect scenes like that and writing like that have on people. Yes, we can sit there and say it doesn't affect us but it really does.

Having said that, does that make GRR Martin a bad guy? No. Is he talentless? No.

Does he include quite a lot of dubious subject matter in his books? Yes.

But we can choose to read and we can choose to watch.
We can also choose to judge.

What we cant do is insult the man or cast dispersion on his personal life based on his writing.

Davian93
07-31-2014, 11:28 AM
FWIW, my Great Grandfather immigrated to New York/Jersey and changed his name, pulling our current surname either out of thin air or stole it from an Irishman aboard the ship. Ah, avoiding racism by joining a slightly less prosecuted minority.

My last name is similar...Its Welsh in origin (while I am ironically 1/2 Irish, 3/8 German and 1/8 Welsh) and it was drastically shortened from something like 15 letters to 4. And now it sounds German instead...which is ironic.

Davian93
07-31-2014, 11:31 AM
That is the kind of effect scenes like that and writing like that have on people. Yes, we can sit there and say it doesn't affect us but it really does

That's quite the slippery slope...its like saying that pornography in and of itself causes molestation and serial killings because some molesters and serial killers were porn addicts.

While there are indications that anything affects us, to say that things like that definitely negatively affect us is being a bit simple.

Daekyras
07-31-2014, 02:06 PM
That's quite the slippery slope...its like saying that pornography in and of itself causes molestation and serial killings because some molesters and serial killers were porn addicts.

While there are indications that anything affects us, to say that things like that definitely negatively affect us is being a bit simple.

When did i say that? In fact how can you possibly get that as my meaning from my post?

I was saying that he saw it one way and i saw it the complete opposite. Two reactions to the same thing. I did not say it was a definitely negative affect. For you to even suggest that i did is quite insulting.

Haha, that above reads very defensive but i don't mean it that way! I genuinely did not mean what dav read into it.

Brita
07-31-2014, 02:20 PM
That there is a better example of something that is not right. Granted I haven't read the books in a while, but that there is from the show, not the books. You can't really put that on GRRM.


For your consideration:

There was no tenderness in the kiss he returned to her, only hunger. Her mouth opened for his tongue. “No,” she said weakly when his lips moved down her neck, “not here. The septons…”

“The Others can take the septons.” He kissed her again, kissed her silent, kissed her until she moaned. Then he knocked the candles aside and lifted her up onto the Mother’s altar, pushing up her skirts and the silken shift beneath. She pounded on his chest with feeble fists, murmuring about the risk, the danger, about their father, about the septons, about the wrath of gods. He never heard her. He undid his breeches and climbed up and pushed her bare white legs apart. One hand slid up her thigh and underneath her smallclothes. When he tore them away, he saw that her moon’s blood was on her, but it made no difference.

“Hurry,” she was whispering now, “quickly, quickly, now, do it now, do me now. Jaime Jaime Jaime.” Her hands helped guide him. “Yes,” Cersei said as he thrust, “my brother, sweet brother, yes, like that, yes, I have you, you’re home now, you’re home now, you’re home.” She kissed his ear and stroked his short bristly hair. Jaime lost himself in her flesh. He could feel Cersei’s heart beating in time with his own, and the wetness of blood and seed where they were joined.

The lesson here- don't give up boys, if you push it far enough, that no (weak, of course) will turn into a yes. The girls always want it, they just don't always know it. Her fists are pounding? Oh, that's just feebly- you are free to ignore that. And she's telling you why she wants you to stop? Well, who actually listens to a woman talk... am I right boys? Am I right? ~~wink, wink, nudge, nudge~~

I stopped reading this series after book one, and this kind of scene reminds me to never pick it back up. No thank you, GRRM. That's right, I said no.

Davian93
07-31-2014, 03:09 PM
When did i say that? In fact how can you possibly get that as my meaning from my post?

I was saying that he saw it one way and i saw it the complete opposite. Two reactions to the same thing. I did not say it was a definitely negative affect. For you to even suggest that i did is quite insulting.

Haha, that above reads very defensive but i don't mean it that way! I genuinely did not mean what dav read into it.

My apologies then...

Daekyras
07-31-2014, 03:17 PM
My apologies then...

Humbly accepted....

...and a lot less humbly: see how its done, seeker and sodas?

��

Jokeslayer
07-31-2014, 05:42 PM
"I'm writing a realistic book. Young children encountering sex would have been common in the time period I'm writing about. Therefore, it is perfectly appropriate for me to write about it."

You seem to think GRRM is some kind of monstrous pedophile/misogynist just becasue he writes about these things, and there is simply no logical connection between the two. There are countless other authors who write about the same themes. Are they all pedophiles too?

He isn't writing about a time period. He's writing fiction in a society based on a time period. It's still his decision to sexualise child characters. He could easily have had his characters find it abhorrent, but as far as I remember that doesn't happen. I don't know if he really likes rape and torture or has completely lost control of his plot and thinks shock value is the only trick left in his bag, and I think it's ludicrous to call him a pedophile on the back of it (there's tons of adult sexuality as well) but it was his decision to include these things. He's a novellist not a historian.

Seeker
07-31-2014, 06:03 PM
All right, I shouldn't have to say this but some people really want to know whether I think GRRM is a pedophile. So, to clarify.

I do not know whether or not GRRM is attracted to young children. I don't know what his motivations are. I don't know why he writes such vivid depictions of young girls in sexual situations - whether it comes from a place of genuine arousal or out of some misguided belief that this will keep his fans entertained. I don't know.

And I don't care.

Let me repeat what I said earlier. "[I object to] the consistent trend of sexualizing girls who are still going through puberty with rape overtones to boot. And incest. Adding violence to the mix is just one more thing. Dany, Sansa, Arya. It really creeps me out that this guy has such detailed imaginings of girls that young."

It really DOES creep me out that he writes such detailed depictions of young girls in sexual situations. Whether he gets his rocks off while doing it is beside the point, as far as I'm concerned. It's just as wrong if he's doing it just to keep the story interesting. The fact that he is capable of imagining those scenes without succumbing to the urge to wretch makes me uncomfortable.

When I first read the scene where Arya kills Raff, I had a very clear image of a woman not far away from her twentieth birthday. A woman, not a girl. I pictured a woman of about 5'3" with a full figure (hips, breasts, etc) and short brown hair. This is because I'm used to the image of TV-Show Arya. Even though I've watched a total of maybe six episodes, I'm well aware that TV-Show Arya was at least 14 when this all began. Add four years of story time, and she's an adult. So I took it as just another GRRM "let's do something shocking" scene.

When Jourdan pointed out that the book version of Arya was significantly younger, the result was - quite honestly - a queasy feeling. I had to skip the Dany/Drogo sex scenes in the first book for the same reason. When I read AGoT back in 2002, I kept thinking "I can't believe he's getting away with this... but okay, I guess his publishers know what they're doing."

I've since revised that opinion.

So now, onto business.

There is a massive difference between fantasizing about something, and visualizing it. An author enabling us to visualize a seen is doing a good job. If it was being portrayed as positive at all, or if it was written explicitly, then I could concede a difference of opinion on the tone, but as it is you just come across as an ass saying shit like that.

I assume you think the difference between fantasizing and visualizing is that the former leads to sexual arousal? Again I state that I don't see that as relevant. It's still wrong for GRRM to depict such images even if they produce no sexual arousal whatsoever in his readers.

GRRM is writing about characters who are doing horrible things to each other on a regular basis. He is not promoting pedophilia. He is also not promoting violence, or forced marriages, or incest, or polygamy or any number of immoral, unethical, and abhorrent behaviours which his characters engage.

He is promoting rape myths as articulated by Brita. The conversation between Daekyras and his friend John is a perfect example thereof.

That's quite the slippery slope...its like saying that pornography in and of itself causes molestation and serial killings because some molesters and serial killers were porn addicts.

Whether or not depictions of childhood sexuality have an effect on the behaviour of Martin's readers is not the point. Because I agree; you're right that ASOIAF isn't making anyone who would not have already done so go out and molest children.

Depicting children in such situations is wrong in and of itself.

Seeker
07-31-2014, 06:15 PM
He isn't writing about a time period. He's writing fiction in a society based on a time period. It's still his decision to sexualise child characters. He could easily have had his characters find it abhorrent, but as far as I remember that doesn't happen. I don't know if he really likes rape and torture or has completely lost control of his plot and thinks shock value is the only trick left in his bag, and I think it's ludicrous to call him a pedophile on the back of it (there's tons of adult sexuality as well) but it was his decision to include these things. He's a novellist not a historian.

I very much agree but with one caveat.

No one has actually called GRRM a pedophile. Not me, not Brita or Birgitte. Well, I guess Unreasoner said he looked like one, but I took that as a joke.

I think GRRM is sick in the head. Whether he's genuinely attracted to children - I'm not ruling that out - or simply sociopathic enough to depict them in sexual situations for the lolz and the $$$ doesn't matter. Either way he's one rather fucked up individual.

Terez
07-31-2014, 06:51 PM
I don't care if people on Theoryland don't agree or want to scoff at the idea of a piece of writing making someone morally bad. I believe GRRM IS immoral. He perpetuates rape myths, encouraging rape. He perpetuates myths about women, encouraging misogyny. He encourages the sexualization of prepubescent children.

Just think of what rand is arguing. He is arguing that it is OKAY to fantasize about a 12 year old touching a grown man's junk. Because that's what happens when you read a scene involving a 12 year old fondling a man's junk; you visualize it.

That's GRRM's doing and it's wrong."
IThere is a massive difference between fantasizing about something, and visualizing it.
I agree with Oaty, but I'll go a little further. This inability to keep our sexual surroundings separate from our own desires is a larger problem. It's the root of why, for example, RJ didn't want to write about gay men. You could say it's at the root of homophobia in general. Just because we can visualize something doesn't mean that we should conflate it with fantasy. RJ might have been privately capable of separating the two, but worried that his readers wouldn't understand that, which again goes back to homophobia in general--it can be an internal fear (which extends to the social), or just a social fear.

Another example of the sexualizing of children in popular fiction: Stephen King's IT. I don't know if I watched the movie, but I'm assuming this bit was cut out. The story follows a group of 11-year-old children (if I recall), mostly boys and one girl, while they battle IT, and at the same time the story follows the same group (minus a suicide, if I recall) as they battle IT again as adults. In the earlier storyline, toward the end of the book (won't ruin the ending really but just in case):

...for some reason, the girl decides that in order to defeat IT, all the boys have to have sex with her.

That was quite possibly the strangest thing I've ever read. And it's worse than GRRM, despite all involved being children, because it serves no believable purpose whatsoever in the story. It's just random and weird. I found it to be great evidence of Stephen King's strangeness, but I still never considered that he was a pedophile. The notion is ridiculous.

In the Mercy scene, what myths about women is GRRM perpetuating? What myths about rape is he perpetuating? How is he encouraging the sexualization of pre-pubescent children?

Seeker
07-31-2014, 07:22 PM
I agree with Oaty, but I'll go a little further. This inability to keep our sexual surroundings separate from our own desires is a larger problem. It's the root of why, for example, RJ didn't want to write about gay men. You could say it's at the root of homophobia in general. Just because we can visualize something doesn't mean that we should conflate it with fantasy. RJ might have been privately capable of separating the two, but worried that his readers wouldn't understand that, which again goes back to homophobia in general--it can be an internal fear (which extends to the social), or just a social fear.

You're saying that RJ was afraid people would see his writing about gay men as a sign that he was sexually attracted to gay men? Maybe. But I think the real issue is that RJ had some antiquated notions of "manliness" and what it meant to be a man. Gay didn't factor into that even though the "college lesbian phase" (pillow friends) was allowed for female characters.

What's more, there's a huge difference between homosexuality and childhood sexuality. The former hurts no one (so long as everything is consensual). The very definition of stat rape is that a child is not old enough to consent yet. The scene as written - where Arya kills Raff - has a very positive tone.

We are expected to think, "Fuck yeah. You go, Arya! Use your (non-existent) sexuality as a weapon."

In the Mercy scene, what myths about women is GRRM perpetuating? What myths about rape is he perpetuating? How is he encouraging the sexualization of pre-pubescent children?

By having a twelve year old use techniques of seduction as if she were a grown woman. By having Raff respond to this as opposed to being completely uninterested in a pre-pubescent girl.

Terez
07-31-2014, 07:47 PM
You're saying that RJ was afraid people would see his writing about gay men as a sign that he was sexually attracted to gay men? Maybe. But I think the real issue is that RJ had some antiquated notions of "manliness" and what it meant to be a man.
The one is the cause of the other. If not for those antiquated notions of manliness, he wouldn't have cared whether his readers could separate his writing from his personal fantasies.

The inability to separate is what causes certain people to freak out about, for example, gay men holding hands in public, or god forbid kissing. They think that this forces them to internalize homosexuality; they can't be visually reminded that it exists without contemplating it for themselves. The same problem lies at the heart of the "she was asking for it" rape excuses, the obsession with what rape victims were wearing and various other choices they made. The argument presupposes that people, men in particular, cannot stop themselves from going dark places mentally, even physically, when visual stimuli are presented.

What's more, there's a huge difference between homosexuality and childhood sexuality.
Of course there is, but the problem still remains. Just because something is morally wrong doesn't mean it shouldn't be written about, but of course there is always someone who sees a fictional portrayal of a realistic situation as an inducement, and it's usually someone who has problems with conflation.

The former hurts no one (so long as everything is consensual). The very definition of stat rape is that a child is not old enough to consent yet. The scene as written - where Arya kills Raff - has a very positive tone.
That's because she gets to kill the bastard. All those men around her who believe they have power over her are idiots not worth getting upset about.

We are expected to think, "Fuck yeah. You go, Arya! Use your (non-existent) sexuality as a weapon."
A world where women are often forced to use their sexuality as a weapon is a horrible place to live, but that doesn't mean it can't be written about, and it doesn't mean that real children are harmed (or unduly sexualized) by the writing.

Most importantly, again, visualizing (to an extent) the sexualization of a 12-year-old girl is not the same thing as fantasizing about it.

Davian93
07-31-2014, 08:54 PM
Humbly accepted....

...and a lot less humbly: see how its done, seeker and sodas?

��

The above comments screams anti-semitism to me...

Seeker
07-31-2014, 09:55 PM
The one is the cause of the other. If not for those antiquated notions of manliness, he wouldn't have cared whether his readers could separate his writing from his personal fantasies.


Not necessarily. Consider GRRM'S penchant for writing about incest. Now let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he really isn't fascinated by the idea of brothers fucking sisters.

It must have occurred to him that people would assume that the prevalence of incest in his story meant he was into that. So either he really is turned on by incest or he just doesn't care what people think.

That said, it would have been possible for RJ to think "yeah, I don't approve of gay men but I don't mind writing about it because I don't care if people think I'm into it."[/quote]

The inability to separate is what causes certain people to freak out about, for example, gay men holding hands in public, or god forbid kissing. They think that this forces them to internalize homosexuality; they can't be visually reminded that it exists without contemplating it for themselves. The same problem lies at the heart of the "she was asking for it" rape excuses, the obsession with what rape victims were wearing and various other choices they made. The argument presupposes that people, men in particular, cannot stop themselves from going dark places mentally, even physically, when visual stimuli are presented.[/quote]

Sure and if Raff were the only character to show a fascination for underage women, we could assume he was some twisted freak in an otherwise normal world. But Drogo was quite willing to have his way with thirteen year old Dany. And he was what? 25? 30? Meryn Trant and Sandor Clegane both had a lust for Sansa. Then there's the scene where they strip her down in public. Tyrion, the "nice guy" still wants to fuck his thirteen year old bride. Now we've got Raff going after a twelve year old. The implication is that this is normal in Westeros.

Okay, fine. You want to make the point that a world in which girls are sexualized at such a young age is a horrible place to live. I agree. But as usual Martin takes it several steps further. Remember that my beef is not that he's decided to tackle childhood sexuality. It's that the scenes in question are gratuitous. They aren't points of evidence in some larger thesis. They're just there for shock value.

And yes, that IS me giving him the benefit of the doubt. Shock value is the more benign explanation.

These scenes exist to keep the audience hooked as a "I can't believe he went there tactic." Lots of writers use the "I can't believe he went there" tactic and use it quite well. Dav and I are both fond of an episode of DS9 called "In the Pale Moonlight" and part of what makes that work is successful execution of "I can't believe they went there."

Martin turns that trope up to eleven. And he does so without respect for his audience or for real world victims of similar situations.

Of course there is, but the problem still remains. Just because something is morally wrong doesn't mean it shouldn't be written about, but of course there is always someone who sees a fictional portrayal of a realistic situation as an inducement, and it's usually someone who has problems with conflation.

True, but there's writing about something and then there's writing about something. You can write a murder mystery and outline the details of the case for the reader. You can lay out the murder weapon, the location of the crime, point of entry, etc. But the question becomes HOW you do it.

Tone is everything.

It's also incredibly possible to write those same details in a way that glorifies the killing. Now you're entering into a moral gray area. Martin wants us to cheer for Arya.

He wants us to cheer for a twelve-year-old who has lured a grown man to her room with the promise of sex and then killed him. I might have cheered if she was twenty-two. But I don't think it's right to cheer for a twelve-year-old using sexuality that she shouldn't have as a weapon.

Again, he's gone beyond the point of exploring it as a social issue and entered into the realm of the gratuitous


That's because she gets to kill the bastard. All those men around her who believe they have power over her are idiots not worth getting upset about.

Well, that's another issue. The idea of a twelve year old on a vengeance quest. The idea that a twelve year old wants to kill the people who wronged her even if it is justified.

A world where women are often forced to use their sexuality as a weapon is a horrible place to live, but that doesn't mean it can't be written about, and it doesn't mean that real children are harmed (or unduly sexualized) by the writing.

I can't speak to whether anyone was harmed by reading that, though I do think ASoIaF ouight to come with a trigger warning. That said, Martin has passed a value judgment on childhood sexuality, and he has declared it normal.

Most importantly, again, visualizing (to an extent) the sexualization of a 12-year-old girl is not the same thing as fantasizing about it.

Sure, but then I'll go so far as to say that even visualizing it is not okay.

SauceyBlueConfetti
07-31-2014, 10:50 PM
. That said, Martin has passed a value judgment on childhood sexuality, and he has declared it normal.



Sure, but then I'll go so far as to say that even visualizing it is not okay.

Ok let's get real here. I was 15 when I lost my virginity. At 12/13 I was starting to experiment with kissing and fondling with boys older than me. (AUDIBLE GASP!!!!). Sexual awareness by a 12 year old is reality, and acting offended by it is kind of kidding yourself. Mix in a setting in "time" where girls were married or at least promised in marriage at their "bloodletting" i.e. first period ----11-12ish---this is typical of the setting. Add in child prostitution, less than civilized areas, etc and what exactly is so shocking? Now visualizing this as an actual situation---that is wrong? Guess I was a whorish little girl who spread sexualization to my contemporaries! Eh? OMG I contributed to the evil by making out with a teenage boy!!!!!

He is writing a realistic scenario for the time he is depicting. Does he have to? No. But this series was gritty in the first couple hundred pages and this really didn't freak me out.

I am not 100% on board with this critique. Is he repetitive and overtly shocking? Yep. Others like Stephen King, Neil Gaman and on and on are equally as bad.

Terez
07-31-2014, 11:06 PM
Not necessarily. Consider GRRM'S penchant for writing about incest. Now let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he really isn't fascinated by the idea of brothers fucking sisters.

It must have occurred to him that people would assume that the prevalence of incest in his story meant he was into that. So either he really is turned on by incest or he just doesn't care what people think.
I never suggested that RJ and GRRM were the same person. Their differences here are substantive, but not moral.

Sure and if Raff were the only character to show a fascination for underage women, we could assume he was some twisted freak in an otherwise normal world....
I never suggested the world was exactly normal, though most things that happen in it have real world parallels, many of which get stronger in certain places at certain points in history (i.e. alien to us but not exactly abnormal).

But Drogo was quite willing to have his way with thirteen year old Dany. And he was what? 25? 30?
He was also considered uncivilized, not that the Westerosi are much better. It was not all that long ago that 12 was the minimum age for marriage in some Western countries, and arranged marriages were not all that uncommon either. Drogo is nicer about the wedding night thing in the books than he was in the show. I suppose you'd say that Dany's eventual interest perpetuates myths about women, but it doesn't really. Women who might react the same do exist. There are a lot of terrible reasons for why they get into those situations in the first place, and why they have developed a sort of survival mode that allows them to enjoy even situations where their freedom is limited, and it's great to have conversations about that, but Dany on her wedding night is not a myth, either in the books or in the show. Writing about her does not perpetuate what she represents; it's supposed to make the reader uncomfortable.

Okay, fine. You want to make the point that a world in which girls are sexualized at such a young age is a horrible place to live. I agree. But as usual Martin takes it several steps further. Remember that my beef is not that he's decided to tackle childhood sexuality. It's that the scenes in question are gratuitous. They aren't points of evidence in some larger thesis. They're just there for shock value.
And yet, it says something that we can find the sexual element more shocking than the murder. GRRM has publicly commented on the moral priorities of his readers several times; I've always agreed with him on that point, also "shut your fucking face, uncle-fucker". :) I disagree also about "just for shock value"; he has to show the completeness of what Arya is expected to sacrifice to become an agent of death, up to and including her very identity. But even amidst the sexual exploitation, she breaks the rules and kills a man whose death she's been praying for since Harrenhal. She has her own sort of agency, and everything that happens is her choice. Killing Raff was important to her; the scene makes it clear how much. It's supposed to make you uncomfortable.

Tone is everything.
It's also a very subjective concept.

He wants us to cheer for a twelve-year-old who has lured a grown man to her room with the promise of sex and then killed him. I might have cheered if she was twenty-two. But I don't think it's right to cheer for a twelve-year-old using sexuality that she shouldn't have as a weapon.
It's pretty normal for 12-year-old girls to have sexuality. They many not be sexually active, but that doesn't mean they don't understand it or think about it. I had a fairly active sexual imagination at that age.

I can't speak to whether anyone was harmed by reading that, though I do think ASoIaF ouight to come with a trigger warning.
I'd say most people who read it have a pretty good idea what they're getting into. If they don't, they'll figure it out pretty quickly.

That said, Martin has passed a value judgment on childhood sexuality, and he has declared it normal.
The latter clause is just false. If anyone reads that scene and comes away with the impression that GRRM has declared the sexual exploitation of children "normal", i.e. socially acceptable, then the wrong is with that person, not GRRM.

Sure, but then I'll go so far as to say that even visualizing it is not okay.
I think extent is important. I personally didn't visualize the scene in all that much detail. It's one of the great things about reading.

The Unreasoner
08-01-2014, 12:54 AM
I think Terez has sone good points, and I always think that about SBC.

But I'm still mostly inclined to agree with Seeker here. The fact that tge Targaryens (who have been more inbred than the British royals, and for hundreds of years, if not thousands longer) are held up as this superhuman race is a bit disturbing. More disturbing still is the situation with Jamie and Cersei, and the fact that they are not really shown to be mentally ill. And Seeker has covered the child sexualization.

You can make all sorts of arguments about the nature of the world his characters live in, but the elephant in the room is that GRRM chose to write in such a world, and he chose it for a reason. Maybe it isn't to vicariously satisfy his sick urges (though given his weight and the amount of detail he gives on the food, he's clearly having some vicarious thrills), but if you tell me that he picked his world because he had a fantastic story to tell in it, I'll laugh in your face.

Seeker
08-01-2014, 12:59 AM
Ok let's get real here. I was 15 when I lost my virginity. At 12/13 I was starting to experiment with kissing and fondling with boys older than me. (AUDIBLE GASP!!!!). Sexual awareness by a 12 year old is reality, and acting offended by it is kind of kidding yourself.

Apples to Oranges, SBC. A twelve year old experiencing her first kiss is perfectly normal. Healthy even. We're talking about a twelve year old who has lured a man to her room with the words "Hey, wanna come fuck me?" so she can kill him. And this is hardly the only scene of this nature in this series.


Mix in a setting in "time" where girls were married or at least promised in marriage at their "bloodletting" i.e. first period ----11-12ish---this is typical of the setting. Add in child prostitution, less than civilized areas, etc and what exactly is so shocking? Now visualizing this as an actual situation---that is wrong?

Again, Apples to oranges. I'm not talking about a fleeting thought in which you note what life must have been like under such conditions. I'm not talking about the mental image of a twelve-year-old prostitute and (I would hope) the sympathy that comes with it.

This scene was written for the purpose of entertainment. Deriving entertainment, fun, a form of pleasure from the visualization of a twelve year old girl using sex as a weapon to commit murder. From the visualization of a twelve year old girl talking about how eager she is to be "raped" on stage. That is wrong. It doesn't have to be sexual gratification. I would say that deriving any kind of gratification from this situation is wrong. Even if it's just entertainment.

And you were not evil. You were a normal girl. Maybe you went a little faster than other girls your age. I don't know. You were NOT luring men to your room with your prepubescent body so that you could kill them.

Seeker
08-01-2014, 01:27 AM
I never suggested that RJ and GRRM were the same person. Their differences here are substantive, but not moral.

I personally think RJ is a much better person than GRRM, but that's neither here nor there for this thread.


I never suggested the world was exactly normal, though most things that happen in it have real world parallels, many of which get stronger in certain places at certain points in history (i.e. alien to us but not exactly abnormal).

Fair enough.


He was also considered uncivilized, not that the Westerosi are much better. It was not all that long ago that 12 was the minimum age for marriage in some Western countries, and arranged marriages were not all that uncommon either. Drogo is nicer about the wedding night thing in the books than he was in the show. I suppose you'd say that Dany's eventual interest perpetuates myths about women, but it doesn't really. Women who might react the same do exist. There are a lot of terrible reasons for why they get into those situations in the first place, and why they have developed a sort of survival mode that allows them to enjoy even situations where their freedom is limited, and it's great to have conversations about that, but Dany on her wedding night is not a myth, either in the books or in the show. Writing about her does not perpetuate what she represents; it's supposed to make the reader uncomfortable.

Dany on her wedding night is another scene I take issue with. One thing to consider is your audience. Even though these things may have been acceptable at certain points in history, Martin is writing for a modern audience at a time when sex with a thirteen your old is extremely UNACCEPTABLE.

Cultural norms change. Homosexuality - once a huge taboo - is now considered normal in most places. By contrast, slavery was once the law of the land, and now we view it as abhorrent. But it's important to understand that most people would agree that slavery was always wrong. It's not that slavery somehow slid down the moral scale; it's that we became better people, a more just society.

By the same token, most of us would look back on our ancestors and find fault with their tendency to marry off their children at such a young age. Does that mean we should never write about slavery? Not at all. Writing about it helps us to remember WHY it was wrong. However, writing scenes involving the mistreatment of black people at the hands of slave owners in such a way that plays up the shock value and glories in the "look how twisted this is" mentality would - I hope - be met with some resistance.

By the same token, it comes down to how you portray it. You want to write about a society in which child sexuality is a major issue, and actually SAY something about that... fine. But scenes like Dany's wedding night - if you choose to include them - should be written with a tone of horror. Horror at the thought of being traded like cattle. Horror at the thought that her body is being used against her consent. Horror that this is happening to someone so young. Instead, the scene is written to be erotic. It doesn't take long for the reader to figure that out. That's why I ended up skipping it once I realized where this was going.

And yet, it says something that we can find the sexual element more shocking than the murder. GRRM has publicly commented on the moral priorities of his readers several times; I've always agreed with him on that point, also "shut your fucking face, uncle-fucker". :) I disagree also about "just for shock value"; he has to show the completeness of what Arya is expected to sacrifice to become an agent of death, up to and including her very identity. But even amidst the sexual exploitation, she breaks the rules and kills a man whose death she's been praying for since Harrenhal.

You're right that there is an odd disconnect between society's general acceptance of violence and not of sex. However, I've talked about my issues with the gratuitous violence/murder in this series elsewhere.


It's pretty normal for 12-year-old girls to have sexuality. They many not be sexually active, but that doesn't mean they don't understand it or think about it. I had a fairly active sexual imagination at that age.

Yes, twelve year old girls do have sexual thoughts and feelings. That's not what I'm objecting to.

I'm objecting to the depiction of a twelve year old using sex as a weapon for entertainment value.


The latter clause is just false. If anyone reads that scene and comes away with the impression that GRRM has declared the sexual exploitation of children "normal", i.e. socially acceptable, then the wrong is with that person, not GRRM.

That he consistently portrays this forced sexuality in a positive light is a value judgment. Time and time again, we see women who initially display reluctance and then display enthusiasm, reinforcing the myth that women secretly want it and will relent if a man just insists firmly enough. Dany goes from terrified to aroused in her first encounter with Drogo. Cersei goes from protesting Jamie's advances to spurring him on. Arya seems quite pleased that she is able to use sex as a weapon.

These are value judgments.

Davian93
08-01-2014, 09:20 AM
However, writing scenes involving the mistreatment of black people at the hands of slave owners in such a way that plays up the shock value and glories in the "look how twisted this is" mentality would - I hope - be met with some resistance.


What, like Django Unchained?

Time and time again, we see women who initially display reluctance and then display enthusiasm, reinforcing the myth that women secretly want it and will relent if a man just insists firmly enough. Dany goes from terrified to aroused in her first encounter with Drogo. Cersei goes from protesting Jamie's advances to spurring him on.

I would go google the phrase "Rape Fantasy" and read up on that phenomenon. Its a lot more common among women than you would think...quite disturbing but actually not that uncommon. Lots of women get off on that crap for some strange reason.

Seeker
08-01-2014, 12:29 PM
No I haven't seen Django Unchained.

The Unreasoner
08-01-2014, 02:43 PM
You know, even if the Raff scene is important (and I'll believe that when I see a plot), none of the reasons Terez gave explain why the sexual elements (either the seduction or the rape) are necessary. There are a million and one ways she could have killed him, and a million of them don't require seducing Raff or hurrying off to pretend to be raped. Why couldn't they have done Cats, have Raff drink until he passes out in boredom, then have Macavity open his throat?

Davian93
08-01-2014, 02:46 PM
You know, even if the Raff scene is important (and I'll believe that when I see a plot), none of the reasons Terez gave explain why the sexual elements (either the seduction or the rape) are necessary. There are a million and one ways she could have killed him, and a million of them don't require seducing Raff or hurrying off to pretend to be raped. Why couldn't they have done Cats, have Raff drink until he passes out in boredom, then have Macavity open his throat?

Which is a great point...its almost as if he put it in there strictly for the shock value.

I felt much the same way about the Reek portions of the last book with him having to "pleasure" Bolton's new wife.

Totally unnecessary and you start to wonder what GRRM is doing.

SauceyBlueConfetti
08-01-2014, 03:00 PM
Which is a great point...its almost as if he put it in there strictly for the shock value.

I felt much the same way about the Reek portions of the last book with him having to "pleasure" Bolton's new wife.

Totally unnecessary and you start to wonder what GRRM is doing.

He is HBO'ing the books. I WILL keep reading because I am invested at this point, but it isn't the same kind of joy/excitement/anticipation I had for WoT, or other loved books. When it is done, it will be more like..."Sweet Galileo, ITS OVER"

Seeker
08-01-2014, 04:30 PM
He is HBO'ing the books. I WILL keep reading because I am invested at this point, but it isn't the same kind of joy/excitement/anticipation I had for WoT, or other loved books. When it is done, it will be more like..."Sweet Galileo, ITS OVER"

That's actually how I felt about WoT in the end. I lost a lot of enthusiasm for the series somewhere between CoT and KoD. Didn't even buy KoD until it had been on shelves for over a year. I will admit that tGS really rekindled my love of the series, but it didn't last into the next two.

I liked those two but didn't really care for the direction the story took. (Jesus-Rand and the way it ended).