How we explain misogyny in fiction: Malory’s Morte Darthur and Game of Thrones

I spent this past weekend at the Romance in Medieval Britain conference in Bristol, which was one of the nicest conferences I’ve ever attended. We listened to a lot of serious academic papers. But we also did the less serious stuff, including an obligatory moan about the number of mind-numbingly bad articles that seek to validate Game of Thrones with spurious parallels to medieval England*.

George R. R. Martin in happier times. From Robert de Boron's prose Merlin.

George R. R. Martin in happier times. From Robert de Boron’s prose Merlin.

I have been struggling with this issue. I enjoy GoT. I don’t enjoy the standard terminology for explaining away the misogynistic dodgy bits. ‘Sexposition’ casts the nastiest scenes as  mere narrative devices (albeit an unpleasant ones). The term takes agency out of the picture. We’re supposed to place the messy situation where we sympathise with characters whom we know to be propping up Westeros’s thriving brothel culture beyond the reach of analysis. That’s comfortable, but it’s also reductive and silencing.

Yet, an increasing number of people who seem to feel that it’s terribly important to explain away the misogyny in a rigorous, real-world way. The most inane arguments are a straight draw between ‘well, it was all, like, violent and nasty in history too ….’ or ‘but they’re Strong Women so it’s less upsetting seeing them raped/murdered/treated like objects‘.

I’m never quite sure how to respond to this last one, except to gawp a little bit at the levels of (unintentional, I am aware) offensiveness in that argument. What bothers me about these articles isn’t that they’re dubious history or dodgy feminism (though they’re often both), but that they’re trying so hard to insist that we need to be educated in the real, concrete, intellectual arguments in favour of GoT. If you don’t get it, well, you’re just less subtle, less sophisticated.

The parallels between GoT and medieval romance are actually pretty striking, much more so than between the TV show and the Wars of the Roses. We have an icestuous brother and sister … their murderous, throne-stealing offspring … dead warriors who come eerily back to life**… a lot of in-fighting between rival kings … prominent bastard children … lots of men called Sir this and that who carry complicated pictorial banners … oh, and dragons. Yep, full house. And that’s just Malory’s Morte Darthur.

Morally ambiguous and Not Dead Yet: that's pretty much King Arthur.

Morally ambiguous and Not Dead Yet: that’s pretty much King Arthur.

The Morte, if you don’t know it, is a long, rambling, chaotic series of Arthurian stories, mostly translated and partly composed by a prisoner of war at the end of the fifteenth century, and printed by Caxton a little later. The story, like Game of Thrones, starts out looking like traditional fantasy epic: lots of complicated family trees and awkward exposition dialogue, a rape presented as sex, and set-piece battles I skip over feeling vaguely guilty. It veers towards Raymond E. Feist on a bad day.

But, much like GoT, it does get better.  Malory has a thing for delivering revelations with a casual, heartless speed that somehow underlines their poignancy. There’s a scene where Balin, the hero of the early part of the story (spoiler: he dies. Everybody dies) runs through a castle fighting his enemy King Pellam. As he lands a blow on the king, the castle collapses around them and they lie crushed in the rubble for three days:

“And then came Merlin there, and took up Balin, and gave him a good horse, for his own was dead, and told him to ride out of that country. ‘I would have my damosel,’ said Balin. ‘Look,’ said Merlin, ‘where she lieth dead’.” 

'Lo here she lieth dead': Philippa Chaucer's tomb effigy (from Jonathan Hsy's site)

‘Look where she lieth dead.’ The woman in this effigy is actually Philippa Chaucer, and the picture is from Jonathan Hsy’s information-packed site on Chaucer, Gower, and late-medieval literature.

It’s at this point that Balin finds out that his sword blow has not only wounded his enemy and caused the castle to fall, but has also reverberated through the surrounding country, killing the people, and ultimately setting in motion the search for the Holy Grail, which carried the blood of Christ, to heal the striken king again.

Angel bearing the Grail before the king. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Fr. 1453, f. 283.

Angel bearing the Grail before the king. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Fr. 1453, f. 283.

This is all beautifully written – and you really need to read it or buy the audio tape (there is one), because it’s great. But you notice that the woman, Balin’s lover, is just so much collateral damage, killed horribly as a result of something even Balin did not intend to set in motion. It doesn’t stop there: Malory’s Guinevere is morally ambiguous at best, and narrowly escapes being burnt alive only to die almost forgotten in a nunnery. Her opposite number (think Caitlyn Stark to Guinevere’s Cersei Lannister … ish …) is Elaine, who acts out every misogynist twit’s favourite cautionary tale that never, ever happened.

Attitudes towards sexual violence in the Morte are, again, disturbingly close to what we see in Game of Thrones. Malory makes rape an essential element of his fiction, which you can’t avoid any more than the ‘sexposition’ of the TV show. For example, there’s the giant rapist of Mont St Michel, who serves as an example of brute force against whom Arthur can show off his strength, landing a blow that “swappis his genytrottys in sondir” (cleaves his genitals apart) and disembowels him. The word ‘genytrottys’ is picked out in gory red on the page, the colour usually reserved for proper names. But Malory doesn’t leave this as a simple issue: rape is a fact of life in the Morte, responsible for the conceptions of both Arthur and (arguably) Lancelot’s son Galahad. The moral status of rapists is ambiguous, and the grey area around the act itself is about a mile wide. 

Now, some would argue this is just a failure to understand historical context. In medieval England, the meanings of the word ‘rape’ include abduction, and even, it’s been suggested, the abduction of a perfectly willing woman against the will of her male relatives. Both Malory and Chaucer were accused of this crime in real life, which makes their prominent stories of Arthurian rape more than a little bit difficult – triggering, even – for students to talk about in class.

This is something that was never acknowledged when I was studying these texts for the first time. In fact, to my shame, I only really thought about how to make it an explicit issue in my teaching when I was preparing for next term’s workshop on tragedy, and came across Liz Gloyn’s insightful post. She writes about how she deals with teaching rape narratives in Classical Literature to classes which, as she points out, are statistically almost certain to contain rape survivors. This made me realize that, while most books I read on Malory and rape are quick to point out the historical differences that allow us to avoid the uncomfortable thought that this author might have been a rapist in the modern sense, they seldom dwell on the other side of the issue. We are in exactly the same situation as modern media, quick to pre-empt the tide (yes, this is sarcasm) of false rape allegations but slow to acknowledge the commonness of the crime.

There’s a worrying situation where people who feel uncomfortable with certain texts or certain authors don’t speak up for fear of sounding like philistines. I’d like to think that most people who write about the sexism in GoT, and most people who work on historical fictions of sexual violence, are aware that these fictional texts can be triggering. But it’s not the fiction that needs explaining away, with neat terms like ‘sexposition’ or with the claim that it’s really a history lesson. What we need to tackle are the expectations around the fiction, that stress historical ‘reality’ or ‘authenticity’ but fall silent before acknowledging the reality of readers’ experiences that form a less comfortable context.


* Yes, I do know that’s what George R. R. Martin says. No, I don’t think that makes him right.

** Ok, I admit: I’m thinking of Malory’s Sir Colgrevaunce of Gore, and we’ve never been sure if he’s actually dead, or just a continuity error. But I’m sure there are zombies kicking around somewhere, too.

13 thoughts on “How we explain misogyny in fiction: Malory’s Morte Darthur and Game of Thrones

      • When I woke up this morning, I must admit that looking into the etymology of “genytrottys” was not high on my list of things to do. I don’t know precisely – unsurprisingly, it’s not one I’ve looked at before – but I would expect “geny” to be from Proto Indo European *gene – to produce/ beget (genus/ generate, genesis all from this root). “trotty” poses more of a problem. The roots I know of off-hand with *trot are to do with tread (trod), trotters, trot, etc, so stepping in some way!

  1. Oh, yes, sorry to put you on the spot.

    The ‘geny’ bit makes sense, not sure about ‘trot,’ but I admit it is a sliiightly obscure word!

  2. Pingback: Male Fantasies, Historical Fiction, and Game of Thrones Geekery | Jeanne de Montbaston

  3. People want their works to be so good that they can’t have a single fucking flaw.

    Well, I know a bloke who wrote their first published story when they were less than 18. Fearing that they’d screw up women, they simply left ’em out.

    It’s okay to like problematic stories, it’s okay to struggle with things that the author didn’t mean to put there (Martin’s a staunch liberal, it shows).

  4. It remains unclear how you propose to deal with rape (real rape) in either historical fiction or text? Avoid mentioning it in fiction altogether because it is triggering for some readers? Martin’s argument is that, in the books, rape is mentioned because it is an unavoidable reality, especially but not limited to war times. (Sexposition is a thing that belongs exclusively in the TV series.) Would you have him shut up and never mention rape in his novels? Or do you just want to condemn any writer who brings up rape in his or her fiction?

    • I’m not sure what you mean by ‘real rape’ – I’m a bit uncomfortable with that, to be honest? Rape is rape, isn’t it? Talking about ‘real rape’ has an unfortunate context for me – but I accept that may not be something on your radar, and if so, no worries.

      I don’t in the least mean we should avoid mentioning rape. But we should keep trying to think how to talk about it. My solution is pretty much what I said in my post – I’d go with what Liz Gloyn says. I thought her piece was excellent.

      I admit, I’m really confused by your post, as it reads almost as if you read my title and then decided to respond to what you imagined I was going to say, not what I actually said.

  5. AFAIK, it’s actually almost certainly not the effigy of Philippa Chaucer. Another individual and I spent a good year with him photographing it and sending his images to I think the V&A which indicated that the lid type and semi-effigy, as well as the important clothing clues of dress held together by an annular brooch and her veil style were fashionable in the late 13th C. rather than the late 14th. Also of note is that her son didn’t come into the property near the church until a fair number of years after his mother ceased appearing in the record, in 1386 or 1387, when her annuity was sent to a Lincolnshire receiver for the last time. Also interesting is that the church containing the lid was informed quite some time ago that they were incorrect in its identification; the inked cards at the site actually fairly clearly depict decorative images from the floor tiles at the Church at God’s House at Ewelme, where Thomas Chaucer, his wife Maud Burgheresh, and their daughter Alice Chaucer, Duchess of Suffolk, are buried.

    • Oh, wow, thank you! Both for the correction and the detail. I admit I just picked it as an evocative image that came into my mind when I read that bit of Malory, but I didn’t realise there was controversy over the identification. I appreciate you taking the time to explain this.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s