[oisdk]

> There are question begging, conclusion jumping and tenuous leaps of logic in the blog.

Point out a single specific example of any of those things in the article, please.

> Does GRRM truly encourage this view? The articles vaguely allude, never establish

The article literally quotes GRRM multiple times with regards to his claims about the historical accuracy of the books. As I said in another comment, this is the second sentence:

> George R.R. Martin’s claim that the Dothraki are “an amalgam of a number of steppe and plains cultures”

And he has made specific claims about the nature and prevalence of sexual violence in medieval Europe (that have been widely rebuked by historians), in defence of the sexual violence in his books. This is also in the article:

> he has stated this outright as a defense of his work that this is how it ‘really was’

The article is the opposite of "vague".

> What does it mean to say the story is "realistic"? What are they referring to? Historical accuracy, or the rejection of romantic narrative idealism, or something else?

It's pretty clear that he's referring to historical accuracy. (although he does in other articles talk a lot about how internal inconsistencies in the world of GoT, which is maybe something different).

> When GRRM says the Dothraki is an amalgamation of various cultures, what, specifically, is he talking about?

Uh, their culture? Which includes dress, food, societal structure, etc. Each of the articles deals with a different aspect of the culture. Are you really trying to argue that the definition of the word "culture" is in contention here?

> the assumptions are invariably interpreted in ways that are least charitable to GRRM and the story.

You'd have a better time reading and understanding literary criticism like this if you stopped thinking about it like the author vs the critics. This series of articles increased my enjoyment of game of thrones: it's really cool to learn about battle tactics and history and real cultures, and it's fun to argue about the show.

> Yes, author tells us why he believes it is a very serious problem that people think the show is historically accurate because... the Dothraki are a demeaning stereotype of the armies of Ghenghis Khan.

Talk about interpreting something uncharitably! That is not actually the reason the author gives for criticising the work. If you read the article again you'll find his actual reason.