Anon Asks

opinions-about-tiaras:

racefortheironthrone:

Ive seen it written that kingdoms of antiquity werent feudal societies, but is this just wrong or what? didn’t they also have nobles and peasants and warrior castes?

Well, it depends what kingdoms you’re talking about, but in general you should avoid drawing a straight line from say, Classical Greece to Medieval Europe and saying it’s all the same thing and ignoring this massive thing in the middle called the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. 

The classical world didn’t really have feudal contracts between the nobility and the monarchy – armies were much more likely to be either recruited from the citizenry or professional mercenaries than a warrior caste who provide timed military service in return for land – or serfdom for that matter (instead, slavery dominated).

It has been my experience, and I speak purely as a layman, that folks tend to forget about the whole “timed” part of the military service in the classically European model of feudalism. That’s really a very important, I would say essential, element of it.

Because that was a huge deal. It gets elided or ignored a lot in popular culture and even in basic histories. Your feudal overlord couldn’t just call on you to gather up all your guys and go a’warring within him and you had to do that for an indefinite period. You might choose to, but your actual obligation was usually very short; ninety days was a good standard but it could be as short as thirty, if I recall correctly. And there could be all kinds of weird clauses and exceptions in your tenancy agreement, which your overlord would have to honor.

They hated doing that. Hated it. It made imperialist ambitions difficult and diluted power. It is no great surprise that eventually monarchs started saying “fuck it. Guys, give me gold instead, and I’ll just HIRE people to go to war for me.”

(Steven of course knows all this better than I do.)

But people don’t know this. Indeed, even ASOIAF, which of course this post is in context with, tends to just straight up not want to deal with it. There are never any discussions amongst any of the high-rollers in the books about how they’d better prosecute their various wars to a conclusion soon, because in six weeks three-quarters of their host will be allowed to tell them to go fuck off and return to their own lands if they desire. Historically, telling your monarch that the end of your obligations was approaching and if they wanted more service they’d better sweeten the deal was astoundingly common, but it doesn’t seem to really be a thing in Westeros at all; your military obligations appear to be rather open-ended.

The closest we get, I think, is when Robb is calling the banners up north and there’s a statement along the lines of “when he called, they would come… but not forever.” But that’s about it.

We get a bit more, and pretty much all from the Stark side – Catelyn talking about losing men to the harvest in ACOK, for example.

If I was going to No Prize it, maybe this is why GRRM has all of his wars last no longer than 1-2 years? 

What do you think of Marvel’s habit of multiple crossover events per year? Good? Bad? Why? And why do they do it?

Ok, trying once again because I apparently don’t know when to quit.

image

Before I get into the whys and wherefores, I did want to address Marvel’s VP of Sales sticking his foot firmly past his tonsils.

racefortheironthrone:

Bad. And I’d explain why, but I’ve just had my post eaten twice so I’m going to take a break before I hulk out.

What we heard was that people didn’t want any more diversity. They didn’t want female characters out there. That’s what we heard, whether we believe that or not. I don’t know that that’s really true, but that’s what we saw in sales. We saw the sales of any character that was diverse, any character that was new, our female characters, anything that was not a core Marvel character, people were turning their nose up against. That was difficult for us because we had a lot of fresh, new, exciting ideas that we were trying to get out and nothing new really worked.

As smart people on Twitter and CBR have pointed out, this is total malarkey, a classic case of cherry-picking statistics to support a pre-existing narrative (in this case, blaming poor sales of new/female/diverse books on “diversity” while not extending the same analysis to the many “core” books who sold just as badly) while carefully avoiding a comprehensive analysis that might point to more systemic problems.

Systemic problems like launching and relaunching too many titles, poor marketing practices especially given the frankly insane structure of the direct market, the loss of a lot of their writing talent to Image (which gives creators much better terms when it comes to IP rights), some really boneheaded editorial decisions, and way too many crossovers.

See the thing is, people have known since the 80s that crossovers and big events boost sales – which is why editorial keeps doing them, because like management in many industries, while they might talk about innovation they tend to gravitate to strategies that work in the past. But the thing about crossovers/events back in the day is that they were like summer blockbusters: they came around once, maybe twice, a year. 

Recently, though, Marvel has been accelerating the pace of their crossover events. It hasn’t been a smooth upward curve – you get years like 2010 with 9 crossovers and then 2012 only has one, then it spikes up in 2014 to 8 and then in 2014 it’s back down to 2 – but the trend has been consistently going upwards since 2009. (My source doesn’t have the number of main and tie-in issues by event, but I’d bet that’s also going up.)

As people have pointed out, this is bad for two reasons. On a business level, this many events this quickly in succession burns out existing readers who get tired of having to fork over all this money just to keep up with continuity and it discourages potential new readers who can’t find an entry point because the status quo is getting blown up every five seconds. 

On a creative level, writers and artists have been complaining about crossovers being terrible from the beginning (see the image at the top, which dates back to 1989). Writers and artists who are working on the crossover get slammed with high expectations, short (and often blown) deadlines, and editorial-mandated storylines of wildly varying quality. Writers and artists who are working on regular books have their storylines put on hold to service the crossover and then get handed a new status quo which might not work at all with the stories they were telling before. Now imagine that happening five or six times a year, and it’s no wonder that talent is jumping ship.

The two things also intersect: as quality of these events decline, people are less likely to want to buy them. As the events effect the quality of regular books, people are less likely to want to buy them, especially if the most recent event featured that character doing something horrible.  And the more events there are in a given year, the less any of them have any impact or stand out – it’s just like anything else, variation is the key

Anon Asks

Ive seen it written that kingdoms of antiquity werent feudal societies, but is this just wrong or what? didn’t they also have nobles and peasants and warrior castes?

Well, it depends what kingdoms you’re talking about, but in general you should avoid drawing a straight line from say, Classical Greece to Medieval Europe and saying it’s all the same thing and ignoring this massive thing in the middle called the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. 

The classical world didn’t really have feudal contracts between the nobility and the monarchy – armies were much more likely to be either recruited from the citizenry or professional mercenaries than a warrior caste who provide timed military service in return for land – or serfdom for that matter (instead, slavery dominated).

What exactly defines kin-slaying? I mean, killing you immediate family, definitely kin-slaying. Cousins? Sure. Second cousins? Maybe. Your father’s brother’s nephew’s cousin’s former roommate? Probably not. Where does the line between kin-slaying and good ol’ regular murder go?

opinions-about-tiaras:

racefortheironthrone:

sailormiyoung89:

racefortheironthrone:

It’s a bit complex

Immediate family counts. First cousins is a bit unclear, since I couldn’t find examples of first cousins fighting each other in ASOIAF; second cousins don’t count (since Robert Baratheon killing Rhaegar isn’t considered kinslaying by anyone). 

However, foster brothers do count – which is a big part of the reason why the custom of fostering exists in order to prevent future wars by harnessing the power of taboo. 

Doesn’t Rickard Karstark call Robb a kinslayer for executing him? Was that just him making a desperate bid to save his life or is it an indication that kinslaying is taken a lot more seriously in the North?

It’s the former, but less trying to save his life and more trying to do as much damage as possible as he goes down, because Rickard Karstark is a man who believes in burning his bridges while he’s standing on them. 

In some ways, you really have to admire the willingness of the members of House Karstark to always go more extra in everything they do.

Want revenge for your dead sons? Kill some prisoners, don’t deny it, spit in your liege lords face, and then burn all the fucking bridges and go for maximum PR value while he’s beheading you.

Want to usurp Karhold? Cut a high-risk high-reward deal with the Lannisters and Boltons to remove the male impediments to your line, then pretend to join up with Stannis Baratheon with an eye towards betraying him in the midst of a pitched battle.

Want to not be usurped? You steal a horse, escape Karhold in the dead of fucking winter, ride it to death to get to your distant cousin in the Night’s Watch who you met, like, once when you were six, marry a wildling, and then use him and his people to get your castle back.

The Karstarks go hard. They don’t mess around. I can’t speak to anyone else but I’d think twice before fucking with them, because they’re pretty crazy.

Good point, hadn’t thought about it as a family trait before but it’s true, all of the Karstarks approach life like Warhammer 40k orks. 

What exactly defines kin-slaying? I mean, killing you immediate family, definitely kin-slaying. Cousins? Sure. Second cousins? Maybe. Your father’s brother’s nephew’s cousin’s former roommate? Probably not. Where does the line between kin-slaying and good ol’ regular murder go?

sailormiyoung89:

racefortheironthrone:

It’s a bit complex

Immediate family counts. First cousins is a bit unclear, since I couldn’t find examples of first cousins fighting each other in ASOIAF; second cousins don’t count (since Robert Baratheon killing Rhaegar isn’t considered kinslaying by anyone). 

However, foster brothers do count – which is a big part of the reason why the custom of fostering exists in order to prevent future wars by harnessing the power of taboo. 

Doesn’t Rickard Karstark call Robb a kinslayer for executing him? Was that just him making a desperate bid to save his life or is it an indication that kinslaying is taken a lot more seriously in the North?

It’s the former, but less trying to save his life and more trying to do as much damage as possible as he goes down, because Rickard Karstark is a man who believes in burning his bridges while he’s standing on them. 

What exactly defines kin-slaying? I mean, killing you immediate family, definitely kin-slaying. Cousins? Sure. Second cousins? Maybe. Your father’s brother’s nephew’s cousin’s former roommate? Probably not. Where does the line between kin-slaying and good ol’ regular murder go?

It’s a bit complex

Immediate family counts. First cousins is a bit unclear, since I couldn’t find examples of first cousins fighting each other in ASOIAF; second cousins don’t count (since Robert Baratheon killing Rhaegar isn’t considered kinslaying by anyone). 

However, foster brothers do count – which is a big part of the reason why the custom of fostering exists in order to prevent future wars by harnessing the power of taboo.