Thoughts about a Piece by One of Our Own

Frequent (and excellent) contributor to this blog, Shiloh Carroll, had a piece published by The Public Medievalist on 28 November 2017, "Race in a Song of Ice and Fire: Medievalism Posing as Authenticity." The note must be made first that the Society takes no small pleasure in one of its most prominent members having such a piece published in such a place.

Carroll's piece, part of a series in The Public Medievalist on race and racism in the Middle Ages, explicates the prevailing whiteness of fantasy literature and some of its historical underpinnings, working in part from Helen Young's earlier studies. It usefully asserts that "our fantasy literature’s treatment of race [is] rooted in thinking from the 1930s, 40s, and 50s" and situates Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series firmly therein. Carroll then provides a wealth of popular sourcing for investigations into how Martin tries--and ultimately fails--to negotiate the tensions of refiguration and accuracy and expounds upon how those failures reinforce the skewed and segregationist notions of the early-to-mid 20th century--and how those notions find repugnant voice in fan communities that purport to know the "real" medieval, but only through the medievalist whose "feedback loop" origins Carroll details. She ends with a call echoing much of the work already done in this webspace and elsewhere to foster and promote a wider, more inclusive view of the Middle Ages--a call which still needs to be answered far more forcefully and thoroughly than it has yet been.

Having had the pleasure of reading much of what Carroll writes, I find much in the article familiar--and correct. Looking at the Public Medievalist piece, I note with some interest the comments Carroll makes about the feeling of accuracy--that the facts do not matter nearly so much as the impressions of authenticity created and fostered by the dominant tendencies of fantasy literature, and that those most in need of adjusting their views are the least likely to do so. While all of us are guilty of confirmation bias to some extent (and some more than others), the overwhelming push to cleave to a vision of history constructed from overt fiction (or even the constructed "non-fiction" of the Victorian medievalists whose work still informs much English-language public understanding of the Middle Ages) is and remains troubling. That the fiction is seen as the truth is worrisome for other reasons entirely--although it is unsurprising (hell, the fact that "fiction" is the definitional standard speaks to it). But that it is no surprise does not mean it ought to be accepted, and Carroll's call for medievalists to work against that acceptance bears repeating.

Another tack suggests itself, as well. If fiction is the primary venue through which people come to the past--and I would agree that it is for many--then those who write fiction should work to create the same kind of nuanced worlds that Carroll and others call for us to show the medieval as being. That is, more inclusive fictions need writing--and reading and teaching. Some are moving in such directions already, to be sure, and still others have long worked within them (LeGuin comes to mind for me as an example). The more who join them, though, the better.