Disney is for the sexists/racist, Dreamworks is for children

[Symmetry]

Should historical fiction be redrawn to fit the fantasies of an world idealized by a particular group?
In other words, should historic accuracy be sacrificed for certain idealistic goals?

Oh, I'm sorry, I had no idea GoT had anything to do with history. When did it all happen, exactly?

Yeah, I didn't agree with that part obviously.

Like what the marx does this mean - "We humans literally cannot recognize ourselves without systemic prejudice, nor can we connect to characters who are not unrepentant bigots." What exactly his the author's alternative? That we write our Clinton story analogue where Clinton is a black man, Monica Lewinsky is a gay man, and Hillary Clinton is Hispanic? Will that help us recognize ourselves without systemic prejudice?

That's a nice strawman you have there. Did you build it yourself?

Obviously the problem is not that there should be some sort of quota for people of different ethnicities or sexualities in any given work; if a story is about a group of white heterosexual males, then it's about them and that's just fine. It only becomes problematic if the portrayal of those characters is offensive or bigoted.

I guess the main point of the issue is this: If you're writing a work of fiction, particularly of the fantasy genre, why should you be so concerned about realism?

I mean, it just seems really weird that you have a story where it's perfectly fine to have flying wizards and dragons or whatever, no one cares. But take away the misogyny, racism and homophobia? UNREALISTIC!!!!

I didn't build the strawman myself, but thanks for asking.

Again, I'm not suggesting that the author should be forced to read anything he/she does not feel comfortable reading. But, yes, if the purpose of the fantasy world GRRM builds is to reflect an analog of a certain historic period, then GRRM would probably want to include the misogynistic elements of that historic period. GRRM's Westeros is an analog of England. England didn't have dragons or magic. England did have misogyny. I suppose he could have built an analog England without dragons or magic, but also without misogyny. That would be a good fantasy novel.

Or we could talk about the alternate histories written by Harry Turtledove - talk about your racism and homophobia.

Let me save you the trouble - STRAWMAN!

Which historic period of England was he, erm, reflecting an analog of as his purpose (whatever that means)? Pretty sure we haven't had a desert kingdom of late that I'm not noticing. I'm not sure England is quite defined by misogyny.

[jimboston]

Should historical fiction be redrawn to fit the fantasies of an world idealized by a particular group?
In other words, should historic accuracy be sacrificed for certain idealistic goals?

No.

Only by being honest about our history can we "work" to change for the better.

[jimboston]

Let me get the caveats out of the way first before I get into my only criticism of the editorial. Game of Thrones is absolutely mysoginistic and is meant to be so. I do not believe it is meant to be heterosexist or racist. George Martin is going for what he feels like is realism.

Alternatively, some fans may find it tempting to argue “Well this media is a realistic portrayal of societies like X, Y, Z”. But when you say that sexism and racism and heterosexism and cissexism have to be in the narrative or the story won’t be realistic, what you are saying is that we humans literally cannot recognise ourselves without systemic prejudice, nor can we connect to characters who are not unrepentant bigots. Um, yikes. YIKES, you guys.

YIKES, tgd. Yikes.

So you feel that any work that is set in a misogynistic background is mysoginistic?

No... a comedy set in a historical time can completely ignore whatever it chooses to ignore.
(Though often half the jokes are found by pointing out and making fun of behavior that was "normal" then... but that we today would find reprehensible.)

Other works of fiction that are going for realism should portray the times and behaviors as accurately as possible / reasonable.

They don't HAVE to be overtly misogynistic.

However, when it's is portraying events and human interactions it should be accurate... which means it would often display possibly misogynistic behavior or behavior we would consider inappropriate by today's standards.

[jimboston]

I have no problem admitting liking problematic things (see my post in regards to the Aristocats).

Mulan on the other hand is more of a victim of Disney's reputation. And I'll defend it because I fucking love Mulan.

Yes, I'm pretty sure my first boner came about during the bath scene in Mulan.

The Traditional story of Mulan (from China) is about how a Daughter must respect and love her Father and how she must do what she can to honor her Father and her Family.

The Disney version is about a woman who proves that she can do whatever a man can do. It is the fuckin' opposite of sexist. Anyone who doesn't see this is an idiot and not worth talking to.

Doesn't she get back into the kitchen in the end and makes her husband a sandwich or something?

She goes home to her family.. and winds up getting married to the General. However... she's marrying for love, it's not an "arranged" marriage.
(At least not the Disney version... I don't know how the traditional Chinese version ends.)

She doesn't "go back to the kitchen".

... and Mulan II is even less sexist. As she works against arranged marriages of three princesses.

[natty dread]

I've been sort of playing the devil's advocate here, so let me make my own opinions clear.

When it comes to fantasy stories, fiction etc. - no, the world does not need to be presented as an idealistic utopian place where there are no issues of prejudice in existence. However, a lot depends how those issues are viewed within the internal dialogue of the world the author is building. If the author presents overt misogyny, racism, homophobia etc. as a "matter of fact", "business as usual" I find it distasteful. It gives the impression that the author finds such practices acceptable and normalizes them. If on the other hand the work of fiction shows that there are problems in the world, there's discrimination, sexism, whatever, but presents those things in a negative light, and even shows that the characters are aware of them and suffer from those issues - or even try to fight them - then I would find the works much more readable.

I don't know the GoT series enough to know which category it falls into, so I'll refrain from commenting on it further. However, while we're on the subject of fantasy works, I have recently read quite a bit of Pratchett's Discworld novels, and I'd say those stories are most of the time an excellent example of how delicate issues such as discrimination and such can be presented in fantasy. In Pratchett's world there is certainly sexism and other discrimination, but rather than normalizing or even idolizing it, he uses humour to present it in a way that makes it ridiculous, in an observational, allegorical way.

So what I'm really saying is, the tone of the story makes all the difference.

[jimboston]

I've been sort of playing the devil's advocate here, so let me make my own opinions clear.

When it comes to fantasy stories, fiction etc. - no, the world does not need to be presented as an idealistic utopian place where there are no issues of prejudice in existence. However, a lot depends how those issues are viewed within the internal dialogue of the world the author is building. If the author presents overt misogyny, racism, homophobia etc. as a "matter of fact", "business as usual" I find it distasteful. It gives the impression that the author finds such practices acceptable and normalizes them. If on the other hand the work of fiction shows that there are problems in the world, there's discrimination, sexism, whatever, but presents those things in a negative light, and even shows that the characters are aware of them and suffer from those issues - or even try to fight them - then I would find the works much more readable.

I don't know the GoT series enough to know which category it falls into, so I'll refrain from commenting on it further. However, while we're on the subject of fantasy works, I have recently read quite a bit of Pratchett's Discworld novels, and I'd say those stories are most of the time an excellent example of how delicate issues such as discrimination and such can be presented in fantasy. In Pratchett's world there is certainly sexism and other discrimination, but rather than normalizing or even idolizing it, he uses humour to present it in a way that makes it ridiculous, in an observational, allegorical way.

So what I'm really saying is, the tone of the story makes all the difference.

Yeah a porno set in Olde England might be misogynistic.

A fantasy epic (i.e. Game of Throne) has misogynistic elements... but the work itself is not misogynistic. Does GRRM show these acts in a bad light? Maybe... but people don't "fight" them because they can't... they are too downtrodden (for the most part). Frankly, half the reason GOT is so popular on HBO is because of the misogynistic elements, which many find titillating. Does this make the whole work misogynistic??? Possibly... if so 70% of Pop Culture is misogynistic.

[thegreekdog]

I've been sort of playing the devil's advocate here, so let me make my own opinions clear.

When it comes to fantasy stories, fiction etc. - no, the world does not need to be presented as an idealistic utopian place where there are no issues of prejudice in existence. However, a lot depends how those issues are viewed within the internal dialogue of the world the author is building. If the author presents overt misogyny, racism, homophobia etc. as a "matter of fact", "business as usual" I find it distasteful. It gives the impression that the author finds such practices acceptable and normalizes them. If on the other hand the work of fiction shows that there are problems in the world, there's discrimination, sexism, whatever, but presents those things in a negative light, and even shows that the characters are aware of them and suffer from those issues - or even try to fight them - then I would find the works much more readable.

I don't know the GoT series enough to know which category it falls into, so I'll refrain from commenting on it further. However, while we're on the subject of fantasy works, I have recently read quite a bit of Pratchett's Discworld novels, and I'd say those stories are most of the time an excellent example of how delicate issues such as discrimination and such can be presented in fantasy. In Pratchett's world there is certainly sexism and other discrimination, but rather than normalizing or even idolizing it, he uses humour to present it in a way that makes it ridiculous, in an observational, allegorical way.

So what I'm really saying is, the tone of the story makes all the difference.

I've read all but the last book of GoT and I've watched the first season on HBO. I've also watched many other HBO shows. The sexual elements in the show are not present in the book. I bifurcate the show from the novels. The novels, as JB says, are not, in my opinion, misogynistic nor do they normalize misogyny. When someone rapes someone else (don't want spoiler alert bs), it's not "normal." When that same someone beats that same someone else, it's also not "normal." In the show, however (and as the author of the editorial indicates), there are all sorts of additional sex scenes and rapes and whatnot. Why? Because apparently that stuff sells to HBO audiences. And I'm absolutely not supportive of that.

[BigBallinStalin]

I've been sort of playing the devil's advocate here, so let me make my own opinions clear.

When it comes to fantasy stories, fiction etc. - no, the world does not need to be presented as an idealistic utopian place where there are no issues of prejudice in existence. However, a lot depends how those issues are viewed within the internal dialogue of the world the author is building. If the author presents overt misogyny, racism, homophobia etc. as a "matter of fact", "business as usual" I find it distasteful. It gives the impression that the author finds such practices acceptable and normalizes them. If on the other hand the work of fiction shows that there are problems in the world, there's discrimination, sexism, whatever, but presents those things in a negative light, and even shows that the characters are aware of them and suffer from those issues - or even try to fight them - then I would find the works much more readable.

I don't know the GoT series enough to know which category it falls into, so I'll refrain from commenting on it further. However, while we're on the subject of fantasy works, I have recently read quite a bit of Pratchett's Discworld novels, and I'd say those stories are most of the time an excellent example of how delicate issues such as discrimination and such can be presented in fantasy. In Pratchett's world there is certainly sexism and other discrimination, but rather than normalizing or even idolizing it, he uses humour to present it in a way that makes it ridiculous, in an observational, allegorical way.

So what I'm really saying is, the tone of the story makes all the difference.

I've read the above, and thank you for being clear; however, it seems that your 3rd paragraph is answering "yes" to the following first question and a "no" to the second one:

(1) Should historical fiction be redrawn to fit the fantasies of an world idealized by a particular group?

(2) Should (nonfictional) historic accuracy be sacrificed for certain idealistic goals?

Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

[natty dread]

I've read the above, and thank you for being clear; however, it seems that your 3rd paragraph is answering "yes" to the following first question and a "no" to the second one:

(1) Should historical fiction be redrawn to fit the fantasies of an world idealized by a particular group?

(2) Should (nonfictional) historic accuracy be sacrificed for certain idealistic goals?

Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

Define "historical fiction". Are we talking about alternate histories, or fiction with elements borrowed from history, or what?

[jimboston]

I've read the above, and thank you for being clear; however, it seems that your 3rd paragraph is answering "yes" to the following first question and a "no" to the second one:

(1) Should historical fiction be redrawn to fit the fantasies of an world idealized by a particular group?

(2) Should (nonfictional) historic accuracy be sacrificed for certain idealistic goals?

Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

Define "historical fiction". Are we talking about alternate histories, or fiction with elements borrowed from history, or what?

both

[BigBallinStalin]

I've read the above, and thank you for being clear; however, it seems that your 3rd paragraph is answering "yes" to the following first question and a "no" to the second one:

(1) Should historical fiction be redrawn to fit the fantasies of an world idealized by a particular group?

(2) Should (nonfictional) historic accuracy be sacrificed for certain idealistic goals?

Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

Define "historical fiction". Are we talking about alternate histories, or fiction with elements borrowed from history, or what?

Historical fiction is a work of fiction which describes some events in the past which may resemble the nonfictional accounts of history. Alternative history, as long as it's a work of fiction, fits into the historical fiction category. Fiction which borrows elements from nonfictional history also fits into the historical fiction category.

E.g., GoT fits this category due to its medieval setting.

[natty dread]

I've read the above, and thank you for being clear; however, it seems that your 3rd paragraph is answering "yes" to the following first question and a "no" to the second one:

(1) Should historical fiction be redrawn to fit the fantasies of an world idealized by a particular group?

(2) Should (nonfictional) historic accuracy be sacrificed for certain idealistic goals?

Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

Define "historical fiction". Are we talking about alternate histories, or fiction with elements borrowed from history, or what?

Historical fiction is a work of fiction which describes some events in the past which may resemble the nonfictional accounts of history. Alternative history, as long as it's a work of fiction, fits into the historical fiction category. Fiction which borrows elements from nonfictional history also fits into the historical fiction category.

E.g., GoT fits this category due to its medieval setting.

It's a very broad category then.

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah, it's called historical nonfiction.


So, should historical fiction be redrawn to fit the fantasies of an world idealized by a particular group, e.g. feminists?

[natty dread]

Yeah, it's called historical nonfiction.


So, should historical fiction be redrawn to fit the fantasies of an world idealized by a particular group, e.g. feminists?

Define feminists.

[BigBallinStalin]

Well, before I do that, why don't you answer the question for yourself, with your own views?

I've done enough work explaining my question, so now it's time for you to answer it. (You can remove the "e.g. feminists" part and put it "e.g. you and your worldview")

[natty dread]

Well, I don't really think your question makes sense as such. It's too ambiguous. "Should" something be done this way or that - what does that really entail? It depends on what exactly you're asking here. Should we force people to write in a certain way and ban any publications which offend us? No. Should we have the freedom to criticize those publications which we find disagreeable and refrain from supporting their authors? Yes.

[2dimes]

Well I think he's asking if you expect someone to re do everything on any media to cleanse it of the "Michael Richards" word.