Martin, Sexuality and Age (Formerly, 'Is George...?')

[Anushka Mokosh]

It is just a question of how it is portrayed and what else surrounds it. From my perspective, it felt like those elements became focal points - not elements for realism. They either seemed very out of place (and thus feeling like something thrown in for shock factor) or they seemed like meaningless things to focus on that had little to do with setting or narrative (also feels like shock factor). The Dothraki came across as barbarians on horseback who rape. There was nothing else to them. Dany came across as an abused girl that learned to love the barbarians she was sold to - nothing more. I just felt like there was very little depth, meaning, or interesting narrative to hold the pieces together - it just felt like grit upon grit for no reason, periodically punctuated by shock factor. People have told me that it gets better after the first book, but I already regret giving him however many hundreds of pages I did since these were not the only things about the book that I disliked.

I know this is like a broken record, but I do want to repeat the 'to each their own' trope. If others enjoyed it, by all means continue to do so and more power to you.

Edit: I do also want to point out that nowhere did I say certain elements should not be put into fiction. I merely criticized the way in which he did it.

Perhaps it is because I'm used to seeing it in works inspired by Middle Ages and other sources I read upon about Middle Ages? It is happening so often there that it became something I expect.

Except, among Dorthraki, as Khal's wife, Dany was given respect. She was treated infinitely better by them and Drogo never raped her. They had consensual sex. Dany flourished among the Dorthraki, the way she could never flourish with her brother who gave her nothing but scorn and bitterness. She grows into her role gradually and learns to love the people she now belongs to. It isn't easy, but Dany really had little choice in the matter and she choose to make the best of it. Drogo never mistreated her unlike her brother. Her being married off for her brother's military gain is really something normal. Women are basically just another way of trade when they are nobles.

As for portrayal of Dorthraki, they seem to be heavily based on Mongolians and they did rape and pillage though Martin definitely exaggerated that part and had it made into a part of Dorthraki culture.

But it's not these sort of things that feel particularly shocking. I can accept the argument for them. I struggle to accept the same argument for Bolton using Reek to prep his woman for him. That, to me, was gratuitous. Martin had already est. the relationship between the two men and the girl who marrried him, there was absolutely no need for that scene. Ditto Tyrion's wife - that was done, as far as I could tell, for effect. It certainly added nothing to my understanding of the characters or the world.

Nothing, aside from the fact that it goes towards showing the full extent of Ramsay's cruelty towards the girl as well as towards Theon who shouldn't be in his power anymore and the extent of power he has over them. The thing is, what Ramsay is doing to people isn't portrayed as something normal. It is portrayed as something vile and unacceptable in their world and another reason as to why Ramsay is such a rabbit dog that needs to be put down. It is building him up as a despicable man which needs to be disposed off. As for Tyrion's wife, Tysha, it shows how far Tywin is willing to go to teach him a lesson and it marked Tyrion for life. It comes down to how the experience influenced Tyrion and how it marked his future decisions and motivations.

The issue, for me, is the women are the ones with their t*ts hanging out and getting gangbanged. Even Reek's castration, so hammed up in the series, is barely intimated at in the books. I can't help thinking that it's not a coincidence that a sexual mutilation committed on a man is barely shown, yet the ones on women are covered in all their gory details. I find it not only distasteful but an atrocious example of a book for young women, that imbeds all the casual statements of sexism that surround us. If he had the courage to actually show what happened to Reek, to explain how this damaged him and to make a male victim of a sexual reduction actually be (overtly, not half-hidden) affected by it, I'd feel very differently.

I have no problem with him showing a penis entering a vagina - many books do it, and in vivid detail. I have a problem with him showing women being sexually degraded and not men, who throughout history in wars have faced the same. I'm not the only one who does.


Then why not show male rape?

Because statistically speaking, the sexual abuse of women was more often and men prided upon it. Especially in times of war. A man would acknowledge without much shame that he had raped a woman, but he would rarely admit to doing the same to another man. That it happens, it is known, but never spoken about. Same for the victim. A male would try double the hard to hide it and it is a book of heavy POVs. A male wouldn't even let himself think about it. As for Theon, we do see how it influenced him because we saw how it was changing his personality. But, it is a POV heavily flavoured by from whose perspective you are watching it. Theon is purposely trying hard not to dwell on all that Ramsay had done to him.

Furthermore, their world isn't a modern world where women are to be equal with men. Their world is a place were women are placed beneath men, much like Middle Ages by which the books were inspired and still we get examples of women striving to defy the roles they were given.

Do any of the POV characters have an interest in male and raping them? Are any of the males surrounded by such men?

 

[Michael Colton]

Perhaps it is because I'm used to seeing it in works inspired by Middle Ages and other sources I read upon about Middle Ages? It is happening so often there that it became something I expect.

Except, among Dorthraki, as Khal's wife, Dany was given respect. She was treated infinitely better by them and Drogo never raped her. They had consensual sex. Dany flourished among the Dorthraki, the way she could never flourish with her brother who gave her nothing but scorn and bitterness. She grows into her role gradually and learns to love the people she now belongs to. It isn't easy, but Dany really had little choice in the matter and she choose to make the best of it. Drogo never mistreated her unlike her brother. Her being married off for her brother's military gain is really something normal. Women are basically just another way of trade when they are nobles.

As for portrayal of Dorthraki, they seem to be heavily based on Mongolians and they did rape and pillage though Martin definitely exaggerated that part and had it made into a part of Dorthraki culture.

Whether it was consensual is absolutely debatable. But again, that is not the point I am making. All sorts of dark things can belong in fiction - it is the lack of much else remaining once the grimdark is stripped away that I criticize. When I read it, it did not seem as if it was a 'part of Dothraki culture' but rather that it was Dothraki culture.

The extremes in the book were so pervasive that I did not see much to find interesting between them. Almost every character felt like an extremely exaggerated archetype, the gritty and dark aspects felt exaggerated and thrown in largely to shock, etc. It felt as if everything was defined by extremes. Bran was not just a kid that fell off a tower while climbing, but a kid who's most favorite thing in the whole wild world was climbing. Oh, the humanity, the tragedy, the most important thing in his life, his favorite thing, was taken away. Everything was done in extremes and it felt like the characters were backstitched.

But again, this could just be Martin's style not jiving well with me. And I am fine with that.

 

[Anushka Mokosh]

Whether it was consensual is absolutely debatable. But again, that is not the point I am making. All sorts of dark things can belong in fiction - it is the lack of much else remaining once the grimdark is stripped away that I criticize. When I read it, it did not seem as if it was a 'part of Dothraki culture' but rather that it was Dothraki culture.

The extremes in the book were so pervasive that I did not see much to find interesting between them. Almost every character felt like an extremely exaggerated archetype, the gritty and dark aspects felt exaggerated and thrown in largely to shock, etc. It felt as if everything was defined by extremes. Bran was not just a kid that fell off a tower while climbing, but a kid who's most favorite thing in the whole wild world was climbing. Oh, the humanity, the tragedy, the most important thing in his life, his favorite thing, was taken away. Everything was done in extremes and it felt like the characters were backstitched.

But again, this could just be Martin's style not jiving well with me. And I am fine with that.

She said yes. That is consensual. Well, not really. We learn more and more about the Dorthraki. They love the warring and we learn about how they define the power and respect. They are a very war-centric society and they do have their own system of beliefs. The thing it, through out book 1, Dorthraki are trying to gather as many slaves as possible in preparation for the Westeros campaign so we are largely focused on that, enslaving. As we are watching it through Dany's eyes, we mostly see the aftermath of the battle when the rape kicks in. It is all about perspective from which you are observing it.

Well, he was a curious boy who felt free while climbing. He also wanted to be a knight which is pretty often for a boy his age. And then even more, the way it impacts him is seen through his eyes and he is still a child which is why it is much more stressed who don't really have a great ability to change their perspective. Bran feels a lot of pity for himself so that is what is shown to us too. Martin tends so change the tone of his writing to suit the characters he writes about. It is the reason I find some chapter so hard to read. Bran's come to mind.

I never felt as if the characters were extremes. I just thought that they got involved in the game at the worse possible moment and were thus put into extreme situations. Later on, we get the moments were there aren't all that many extremes happening.

 

[Michael Colton]

I never felt as if the characters were extremes. I just thought that they got involved in the game at the worse possible moment and were thus put into extreme situations. Later on, we get the moments were there aren't all that many extremes happening.

I think this is the fundamental difference of perspective we have. I did not see it as characters thrust into extreme situations, but rather felt the author was creating extreme situations then writing characters to fit them.

As for the rest of the series, I cannot comment as I did not go past the first book.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I don't want to get into a tit for tat. I read all the books, I thought their portrayal of women was terrible, and that was before the tv series and I was deeply disappointed by that. But that's my opinion, I'm aware I'm out of line with GRRM's fans.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Sorry, double post, but I did want to come back to one thing, because I'm worried it perpetrates a dangerous suggestion about men who are subjected to sexual assault:

"Same for the victim. A male would try double the hard to hide it and it is a book of heavy POVs. A male wouldn't even let himself think about it."

I think this gives the impression that male victims of rape should be able to show a stiff upper lip and remove the assault from their memory.


I did a lot of research into the psychological effects of male rape on victims and this is at odds from most of the (limited) studies I found, which report a high percentage of PTSD symptoms*, including flashbacks, guilt, anger etc. In writing terms (and I feel frivolous for putting it like that) the idea of a male rape pov managing to never think about it, or show it in their own pov is hard for me to accept. On a much more serious note, I'd hate anyone reading the thread and thinking that to hide it is the normal reaction.**

*"All of the victims (of male rape) experienced long term negative psychological and behavioural effects after the assault. In almost all cases these included depression, flashbacks, fantasies about revenge, anxiety, loss of self respect and an increased sense of vulnerability. The symptoms persisted in many cases for several years after the rape."
(The psychological effects of male rape - Counselling Directory)

** But if there are studies to support this, it would be interesting to be directed to them.

 

[ArstenWhitebeard]

I'm coming off slightly fanboyish and I am not intending to make it sound like Martin is a genius author where everyone falls short, but consider for a moment why a lot of authors and a lot of readers consider it necessary to close their eyes to the realities of things like sex and its effect on people, the consideration of which could actually be of benefit to a lot of people, while still happy to include or tolerate the CONCEPTS of sex in a lot of fiction as long as its all hands-off, don't ask don't tell. And why we're so happy to countenance violence in our fiction that its never even raised as a small issue. Are our priorities really that messed up?

Yes, they certainly are. That is why we have a 6 page thread on sex between a 13 year old girl and her husband (who is what, 20? 25 maybe?) but there is a severe lack of threads protesting the violence of the series, even when that violence is done agains children, or the elderly, or those with mental health issues (Poor, Poor Aegon Frey)

 

[Michael Colton]

Yes, they certainly are. That is why we have a 6 page thread on sex between a 13 year old girl and her husband (who is what, 20? 25 maybe?) but there is a severe lack of threads protesting the violence of the series, even when that violence is done agains children, or the elderly, or those with mental health issues (Poor, Poor Aegon Frey)

I think it is less about priorities than it is about how personal the topic of sex is. It is something that everyone has an emotional response to - no matter what that personal response actually is. Everyone has a deeply personal perspective on sexuality and so we are affected by it. Death and violence is an abstract thing for many people, merely a plot point. We do not relate to it on a personal level, whereas everyone can relate to sexuality on a deeply personal level. We do not know what it is like to see medieval warfare or what that experience is like, but we all know the emotions tied to sexual experiences. One is real for the reader, the other is unreal.

And in the case of sexuality as it relates to a young character, of course that will be noticed because it is something that is universally considered abhorrent in contemporary society. Violence is not.

 

[Ursa major]

I can't help thinking that (avoiding) getting married** at the age of thirteen is even lower on people's priorities than (not) getting murdered. Death comes to us all, eventually, without exception, and one can die horribly*** without anyone else being involved, and without any violence at all.

And as I mentioned on another thread on the same topic (one started more recently than this one), no-one seems to give a damn about the nearly 10,000 members**** of the eunuch army (about which I'll say nothing more, because I don't want to provide (more) spoilers than are already here).



** - For oneself or for one's close relatives.

*** - I know this from close personal experience; not that I was the one dying, obviously.

**** - Male members, obviously....

 

[Michael Colton]

And death comes to us all, eventually, without exception.

While this is true, it is not something that can be imagined or related to. Almost axiomatically, death is an abstract concept for the living. And since most readers have no idea what medieval warfare is like, it is also abstracted from their emotions far more than sexuality. Indeed, 'unimaginable' is often used to describe war and violence. The same is not true for aspects of sexuality. And this is not even taking into account the various social implications of how sexuality is portrayed, such as oppression.

 

[Ursa major]

Death is only abstract when you've been insulated from it, and from the process leading up to it. But unless one is completely friendless and without any close relatives, eventually it will cease to be an abstract concept and will become very real. (And that's before one's own mortality catches one up.)

 

[Michael Colton]

Death is only abstract when you've been insulated from it, and the prcess leading up to it. But unless one is completely friendless and without any close relatives, eventually it will cease to be an abstract concept and becomes very real. (And that's before one's own mortality catches one up.)

It is still abstract even in those circumstances. What we experience in the death of others is loss, mourning, and pain - not death itself. It quite literally cannot be experienced because once it occurs the experience is presumably over. This is why scenes of death in fiction mean little to someone if it is not presented in a way that attaches those feelings of loss and pain to characters we connect with. The connection is with the character and their emotions - not the death itself.

Edit: To sum it up, surviving is concrete and relatable but death remains abstract. It is not death that we can understand or imagine, but the survival of it.

 

[Ursa major]

It is still abstract even in those circumstances. What we experience in the death of others is loss, mourning, and pain - not death itself.

We experience more than that. We are built to imagine what it's like to be in other people's shoes; it's one of the things that makes us what we are**. If loss, mourning and our own pain were all there was to dying, I don't think it would have the impact it does. Indeed one might be able to dismiss it as wholly self-indulgent.

It quite literally cannot be experienced because once it occurs the experience is presumably over. This is why scenes of death in fiction mean little to someone if it is not presented in a way that attaches those feelings of loss and pain to characters we connect with. The connection is with the character and their emotions - not the death itself.

You're forgetting that we have imaginations and that we can, inaccurately or not, put ourselves in others' circumstances. How do you think someone could ever present these things to us in fiction if they hadn't imagined how it might be. After all, as you've correctly pointed out, they haven't experience it themselves.


** - To the extent that we describe people unable to comprehend what others are, or could be, feeling as having mental issues (up to and including being psychopaths).

 

[Michael Colton]

We experience more than that. We are built to imagine what it's like to be in other people's shoes; it's one of the things that makes us what we are**. If loss, mourning and our own pain were all there was to dying, I don't think it would have the impact it does.

That is true for those affected by death and whatever emotional or physical pain may occur to the person dying. But you cannot imagine what it is like to be in the shoes of the dead - there are no shoes to fill. You can conceive of the potential life lost, the future they never had - but that is all abstract unless you connect it to those who survived. 'They could have had a full life with their spouse or watched their children grow up' is just another form of connecting to the experience via those who survived.

You're forgetting that we have imaginations and that we can, inaccurately or not, put ourselves in others' circumstances. How do you think someone could ever present these things to us in fiction if they hadn't imagined how it might be. After all, as you've correctly pointed out, they haven't experience it themselves.

On the contrary, that is precisely what I am arguing for. But 'being dead' is not a circumstance of an other. That other has ceased to exist and we cannot imagine such a circumstance. We can, however, deeply imagine or relate to the impact their death had on those around them.

 

[Ursa major]

That other has ceased to exist and we cannot imagine such a circumstance. We can, however, deeply imagine or relate to the impact their death had on those around them.

Which, one would hope, would include more than varying degrees of feeling sorry for themselves (and those around them). But don't we also have examples of PoV characters who narrate until the moment of their death? There's at least one example in A Song of Ice and Fire.

And, of course, there are example of that PoV continuing past, or even starting at, the point of death. I'm guessing that their authors were just as keen on presenting the dead PoV character's experience in as "engaging" a way as they would for their living PoV characters.

 

[Michael Colton]

Which, one would hope, would include more than varying degrees of feeling sorry for themselves (and those around them). But don't we also have examples of PoV characters who narrate until the moment of their death?

And, of course, there are example of that PoV continuing past, or even starting at, the point of death. I'm guessing that their authors were just as keen on presenting the dead PoV character's experience in as "engaging" a way as they would for their living PoV characters.

While authors have attempted that, it is certainly beyond a relatable experience at that point and becomes severely abstracted. It may be engaging in the sense of intriguing, but it is certainly out of the scope of anything relatable unless the dead character refers to the experiences of the living. So if the character is lonely in death, we are not relating to death - we are relating to loneliness. If the character describes the experience of post-death, we tellingly refer to it as 'life after death' because that is the only way in which we can conceive of it. The narrative, feelings, and experiences are all described in living terms that are relatable. A bright white light is something we can imagine because we have all stared into a bright white light.

This was part of my initial point regarding the topic that started this conversation. Sexuality in and of itself is an intimate topic that people have emotional attachments to. Death is an abstract concept that we experience through what exists around it. The latter then can very often be mentioned in very fleeting terms that do not affect the reader - it is much harder to do that with sexuality.

 

[Ursa major]

While authors have attempted that, it is certainly beyond a relatable experience at that point and becomes severely abstracted. It may be engaging in the sense of intriguing, but it is certainly out of the scope of anything relatable unless the dead character refers to the experiences of the living.

As an aside.... This is a site for those who like to read SFF (and those who like to write it). I think to take the view that things authors haven't experienced are not relatable would stop most SF and Fantasy from being written. Anyone ridden a dragon? Travelled faster than the speed of light?

So if the character is lonely in death, we are not relating to death - we are relating to loneliness. If the character describes the experience of post-death, we tellingly refer to it as 'life after death' because that is the only way in which we can conceive of it. The narrative, feelings, and experiences are all described in living terms that are relatable. A bright white light is something we can imagine because we have all stared into a bright white light.

I would agree that this is probably how it's mostly described, but I'm sure that there must be exceptions.

This was part of my initial point regarding the topic that started this conversation. Sexuality in and of itself is an intimate topic that people have emotional attachments to. Death is an abstract concept that we experience through what exists around it. The latter then can very often be mentioned in very fleeting terms that do not affect the reader - it is much harder to do that with sexuality.

Accepting that for reasons of debate.... Most of the abusive activities described in the books that have sex as a focus, or are related to sex, do not generally involve the most prevalent examples of sexual abuse amongst the readership of the books -- which, I imagine, would be rape and sexual assault, or threats of these -- although people often seem to believe that they do. Of course, we can assume (because little occurs "on-screen") that there's much rape happening -- as that's what some men do in the chaos of war and there's a lot of war about in the books -- and it's true that at least one named female character** is raped (but again, "off-screen").

What we're left with -- and you haven't read the books in which they occurred -- are the scenes where a male character recalls*** his torture (most of it not sex-related) and the end of a chapter where one male character (the torturer) tells another to prepare the torturer's new bride for her wedding night. (If the chapter hadn't ended then, we would have witnessed sexual assault, not rape. But it does end there, I'm pleased to say.) So setting aside the truly consensual examples of sex (oh, and some characters' use of prostitutes), we're left with a world where awful things happen to men and worse things happen to women. Which sounds like life in many parts of today's world, let alone centuries long ago.


** - Not Dany; what happened to Dany wasn't rape, but was consensual. That the law here in the UK (and probably where you live) would -- correctly, in my view -- treat it as non consensual, because someone Dany's age would be be considered legally incapable of giving consent is neither here nor there. As Srylanna has pointed out, Dany's situation was not unknown in previous centuries, and the cause was similar: the accumulation of political power.

*** - The TV show doesn't deal in later recollections, but instead tends to stick with the action in real time.

 

[ArstenWhitebeard]

And in the case of sexuality as it relates to a young character, of course that will be noticed because it is something that is universally considered abhorrent in contemporary society. Violence is not.

That was my point exactly. Yes, statutory rape is a disgusting and abhorent act, but so is murdering a baby, or slitting the throat of an old man, or chopping a teen's head off right infront of his mother.

people seem to have no problem saying "Oh that's war, people die" its accepted as a fact of life. well sex is also a fact of life. yes, it can be uncomfortable reading about it, but we should be just as uncomfortable if not moreso when we read about Cat defending herself her son against a killer and his knife cutting deep into her hands.

 

[Michael Colton]

As an aside.... This is a site for those who like to read SFF (and those who like to write it). I think to take the view that things authors haven't experienced are not relatable would stop most SF and Fantasy from being written. Anyone ridden a dragon? Travelled faster than the speed of light?

But we know what wind rushing past our faces feels like, we know what it feels like to ride something (or have seen these things occur) - so the descriptions given are relatable. Dragons typically have teeth and scales; we know what teeth and scales look like. It is the combination of elements we have experience with into a new whole. Same with FTL - we know what it is like to travel from one place to another. We know what light rushing past us looks like. Imaginary things can be written about because they can be given descriptions that people can relate to - death is a concept that is not like that. It is defined via the absence of things, not descriptions of what it is in and of itself because there is no non-abstract way of doing so.

Imagination relies upon our previous experiences to create something new.

Accepting that for reasons of debate.... Most of the abusive activities described in the books that have sex as a focus, or are related to sex, do not generally involve the most prevalent examples of sexual abuse amongst the readership of the books -- which, I imagine, would be rape and sexual assault, or threats of these -- although people often seem to believe that they do. Of course, we can assume (because little occurs "on-screen") that there's much rape happening -- as that's what some men do in the chaos of war and there's a lot of war about in the books -- and it's true that at least one named female character** is raped (but again, "off-screen").

What we're left with -- and you haven't read the books in which they occurred -- are the scenes where a male character recalls*** his torture (most of it not sex-related) and the end of a chapter where one male character (the torturer) tells another to prepare the torturer's new bride for her wedding night. (If the chapter hadn't ended then, we would have witnessed sexual assault, not rape. But it does end there, I'm pleased to say.) So setting aside the truly consensual examples of sex (oh, and some characters' use of prostitutes), we're left with a world where awful things happen to men and worse things happen to women. Which sounds like life in many parts of today's world, let alone centuries long ago.

But as your descriptions point out, these things are very noted by readers even if they are meant to be fleeting. This supports the notion that sexuality and sex itself is personal and emotional to a point that it is very difficult to mention it in passing without getting some sort of reaction - which was my point to begin with. My only point in the current discussion has been that sexuality is universally emotional and personal in a way that death is not, which is why people seem to "harp" on it when discussing fiction.

And for the sake of context, I read the first book in the series in question and have not watched any of the television show.

 

[Michael Colton]

That was my point exactly. Yes, statutory rape is a disgusting and abhorent act, but so is murdering a baby, or slitting the throat of an old man, or chopping a teen's head off right infront of his mother.

people seem to have no problem saying "Oh that's war, people die" its accepted as a fact of life. well sex is also a fact of life. yes, it can be uncomfortable reading about it, but we should be just as uncomfortable if not moreso when we read about Cat defending herself her son against a killer and his knife cutting deep into her hands.

The reason I believe this is so is because, to some extent, people can imagine what it feels like to be violated even if it is to a much lesser degree. The inherent intimacy of sexuality makes it very relatable and personal for people.

Whereas something like the killing of a child will likely have a much more profound effect on a reader who is a parent than one who is not, because they can to at least some extent begin to imagine the unimaginable pain and loss that would be associated with it. Sexual topics are more universally relatable.

And beyond that, the phrase "a fate worse than death" did not come about by chance. There is a unique type of horror associated with sexual atrocity that does not seem to be attached to death itself. The victim is left to live with the aftermath of the atrocity, whereas the murdered victim does not have to deal with any aftermath - it is their loved ones and society itself that does. Because of this, imagining sexual violence may impact a reader more deeply.