|
All book discussion in this thread is now allowed. |
On June 04 2013 03:41 teapot wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 02:44 SCST wrote:
I think a great deal of people are underestimating the prowess / understanding of many viewers who are criticizing the show. The gut reaction is to think "oh, they're just being mad and emotional because their favorite characters were killed", when it may be something a bit deeper. I've given some thought to the implications of the "Red Wedding" scene and come to realize that Game of Thrones is missing a pretty big, important theme for me. That being: moral righteousness and "the greater good".
Let me explain. . . almost all of the characters in Game of Thrones appear to be morally ambivalent in some way. And those characters who seem attracted to the paradigms of "good" (love, honor, peace, pleasure, kindness) are few and far between. Even with these few "good" individuals being placed in the story, they are not consistent and often make decisions that completely invalidate their supposed world view. That, or they are killed.
But why? On the surface this may seem like an insight into our own civilization - the idea that morality is really grey and that most people are ambivalent and self-serving. That's what I thought initially. And I admit it was an interesting theme. But after watching "The Red Wedding" I have changed my mind. Sure, I can agree that there are elements of humanity that are violent, selfish, power-seeking and morally reprehensible. And I'm fine with these themes being represented in stories. But the issue I have with Game of Thrones is that these elements dominate excessively . I find myself constantly asking: where are the righteous characters that would rather die than become corrupt or a-moral? Where are the people that, as reflected in our own lives, believe in peace, kindness, honor and love? It turns out that there really aren't any in Martin's work. These characters are either grossly under-represented or used for sensationalist fodder by being killed off.
The truth is, many of us in the audience do consider ourselves to be righteous, moral individuals. We want to relate to the characters in the story, not just observe a bunch of savages hacking each other's heads off. How can most of us relate to the morally ambivalent characters or the reprehensible one? If Martin's goal here is to create sensationalist environment with excessive violence, gore and drama then it makes sense that there so few "good guys". But I also feel it's cheap story-telling if this is the case. And if Martin's trying to send a message - that Game of Thrones is a reflection of the human condition and that the story is based somewhat in reality - then I'd argue he's not accurate whatsoever.
I don't think there's anything wrong with coming to this realization about Game of Thrones. It's not as outrageous as people seem to think to be turned off by having some of the few characters we could actually relate to (even slightly) massacred. Whether it was for sensationalism or as an attempt to indict most of humanity as being morally ambivalent and reprehensible (when most of humanity is not), both are valid reasons to turn away from the story. I completely agree with you. Overall I have found ASOIAF to be cold, nihlistic and has a nasty fetish for Realpolitk. In this supposedly "realistic" story, the unpleasant things in life seem to have much greater representation than any of the joys of life. It never takes a step back and says " ah, this is what life's for." And this is very important given the vast, PoV world-building, all-encompassing epic tale. Obviously this is not the only gauge for a fantasy series, but I ask myself, would I like to visit the depicted fantasy world? If I ever woke up in Westeros, I would be all "where is the fucking Wardrobe? get me the fuck out of here." GRRM's Westeros is a nasty Hell, populated by assholes.
"Nasty hell populated by assholes". That describes the world during almost all of human history and even much of the world right now. The thing is you guys are judging the world and it's people by modern first world humanistic standards, but the world of GoT is not like that at all. Human life has very little value, as it did in ancient times in the real world. Just look at what is happening right now in Syria, in some parts of Africa, hell it's even in my own country or in Mexico there is some gnarly shit happening every single day and almost noone not directly related cares at all.
But most people just like to close their eyes and think the world is all flowers and butterflies. GoT portrayal of the human race is realistic; we all are mostly a bunch of selfish assholes with very little regard for anyone except those closest to us. Of course there are exceptions in real life but so there are in the world of GoT. Davos, Dany and Jon are major characters with a very modern sense of justice and humanity and all of them are so far alive and doing relatively well.
|
Well, even if Starks are gone there are still plenty of good(goodish atleast) players to follow:
- Lannister family - They might seem outright cruel, but in the history of the realm it has been said kingdom worked wonders when Tywin was hand of the king and mad king was still alive. Tywin is an efficient leader who thinks end justifies the means. Jaime seems very righteous guy whose only real sin was pushing the kid out of the window. Tyrion is probably the most kind hearted character in series. Then there are the assholes, namely Cersei and Joffrey.
- Tyrell family - So far there is no dirt on them, then again there isnt that much information either. Everything they have done they have done with grace and they have won the hearts of commonfolk.
- Stannis Baratheon - Not exactly a good guy, just follows the rules strictly. There is no telling if the red god can be considered good or evil, but so far the series has made it to understand its fighting against the white walkers which are no doubt the prime evil in the show.
- Daenarys Targaryen - Freeing the slaves is a righteous cause, not sure if sacking Westeros is. As far as i know she doesnt even know that Joffrey is a cruel king, she just wants Westeros because "its hers by right", when in fact Targaryens were the usurpers 300 years ago.
Other mentionables:
- Oldtown and its maesters have so far been servants of the realm, lacking players.
- Not sure if the black cloaks can be considered players, atleast not in their current state.
- Greyjoys so far are a bunch of assholes who are an annoyance at the sea.
- There hasnt been much info of the houses Martell and Arryn, they definately dont seem to have any power players.
- Free cities are interesting, but they dont seem to care too much about westeros.
|
The unrealistically dark aspect of GoT, I think, is the weird way it blends feudal expectations, a duty-honour based culture, society, intertwined with a fervent religious faith with like...blatant nihilism in the characters, sexual liberalism, open betrayals, murders and so on. Even in the worst periods of European history you couldnt find these sorts of things quite as ubiquitously as you do in GoT. It basically doesnt make sense from a sociological point of view. Its literally a feudal society with little proper regard for duty or leniage or proper behaviour outside of perfunctory "your grace" honorifics.
edit: It also makes no sense how one end its clearly very decentralized [wardens and their vassals], yet has a centralized bureaucracy for the state, in the form of the hand of the King and, clearly, associated state financial instruments. The world really is a hod podge of attitudes and mechanisms from across the centuries, leaving it really...odd. Especially in regards to the darkness of the main characters.
|
On June 04 2013 02:44 SCST wrote:
I think a great deal of people are underestimating the prowess / understanding of many viewers who are criticizing the show. The gut reaction is to think "oh, they're just being mad and emotional because their favorite characters were killed", when it may be something a bit deeper. I've given some thought to the implications of the "Red Wedding" scene and come to realize that Game of Thrones is missing a pretty big, important theme for me. That being: moral righteousness and "the greater good".
Let me explain. . . almost all of the characters in Game of Thrones appear to be morally ambivalent in some way. And those characters who seem attracted to the paradigms of "good" (love, honor, peace, pleasure, kindness) are few and far between. Even with these few "good" individuals being placed in the story, they are not consistent and often make decisions that completely invalidate their supposed world view. That, or they are killed.
But why? On the surface this may seem like an insight into our own civilization - the idea that morality is really grey and that most people are ambivalent and self-serving. That's what I thought initially. And I admit it was an interesting theme. But after watching "The Red Wedding" I have changed my mind. Sure, I can agree that there are elements of humanity that are violent, selfish, power-seeking and morally reprehensible. And I'm fine with these themes being represented in stories. But the issue I have with Game of Thrones is that these elements dominate excessively . I find myself constantly asking: where are the righteous characters that would rather die than become corrupt or a-moral? Where are the people that, as reflected in our own lives, believe in peace, kindness, honor and love? It turns out that there really aren't any in Martin's work. These characters are either grossly under-represented or used for sensationalist fodder by being killed off.
The truth is, many of us in the audience do consider ourselves to be righteous, moral individuals. We want to relate to the characters in the story, not just observe a bunch of savages hacking each other's heads off. How can most of us relate to the morally ambivalent characters or the reprehensible one? If Martin's goal here is to create sensationalist environment with excessive violence, gore and drama then it makes sense that there so few "good guys". But I also feel it's cheap story-telling if this is the case. And if Martin's trying to send a message - that Game of Thrones is a reflection of the human condition and that the story is based somewhat in reality - then I'd argue he's not accurate whatsoever.
I don't think there's anything wrong with coming to this realization about Game of Thrones. It's not as outrageous as people seem to think to be turned off by having some of the few characters we could actually relate to (even slightly) massacred. Whether it was for sensationalism or as an attempt to indict most of humanity as being morally ambivalent and reprehensible (when most of humanity is not), both are valid reasons to turn away from the story.
i think you made a valid point and i do think aswell that martoins sees the world way to dark and evil but if in the very end the good one are winning everything is fine but if not than the whole story is kind of shit because EVIL DOESNT ALWAYS WIN
|
On June 04 2013 03:59 Dazed_Spy wrote:
The unrealistically dark aspect of GoT, I think, is the weird way it blends feudal expectations, a duty-honour based culture, society, intertwined with a fervent religious faith with like...blatant nihilism in the characters, sexual liberalism, open betrayals, murders and so on. Even in the worst periods of European history you couldnt find these sorts of things quite as ubiquitously as you do in GoT. It basically doesnt make sense from a sociological point of view. Its literally a feudal society with little proper regard for duty or leniage or proper behaviour outside of perfunctory "your grace" honorifics.
Haha. Look up the Black Dinner. You might be surprised.
|
On June 04 2013 04:03 xNebulous wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 03:59 Dazed_Spy wrote:
The unrealistically dark aspect of GoT, I think, is the weird way it blends feudal expectations, a duty-honour based culture, society, intertwined with a fervent religious faith with like...blatant nihilism in the characters, sexual liberalism, open betrayals, murders and so on. Even in the worst periods of European history you couldnt find these sorts of things quite as ubiquitously as you do in GoT. It basically doesnt make sense from a sociological point of view. Its literally a feudal society with little proper regard for duty or leniage or proper behaviour outside of perfunctory "your grace" honorifics. Haha. Look up the Black Dinner. You might be surprised. Yeah. I know all about that crap, except regardless of peoples need to view the medieval period as, well, medieval, they were the exception and not the rule. And in even in the midst of brutal violence and murder, people still kept very closely to a set of rigid social mores. They dressed, spoke and articulated only certain things in public. There was a "courtly life". Theres simply nothing of that in GoT. We have a religious, backwards feudal society with exactly zero of its implications in the peoples internal life, save some of the northerners.
|
United States7639 Posts
On June 04 2013 03:40 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 02:44 SCST wrote:
I think a great deal of people are underestimating the prowess / understanding of many viewers who are criticizing the show. The gut reaction is to think "oh, they're just being mad and emotional because their favorite characters were killed", when it may be something a bit deeper. I've given some thought to the implications of the "Red Wedding" scene and come to realize that Game of Thrones is missing a pretty big, important theme for me. That being: moral righteousness and "the greater good".
Let me explain. . . almost all of the characters in Game of Thrones appear to be morally ambivalent in some way. And those characters who seem attracted to the paradigms of "good" (love, honor, peace, pleasure, kindness) are few and far between. Even with these few "good" individuals being placed in the story, they are not consistent and often make decisions that completely invalidate their supposed world view. That, or they are killed.
But why? On the surface this may seem like an insight into our own civilization - the idea that morality is really grey and that most people are ambivalent and self-serving. That's what I thought initially. And I admit it was an interesting theme. But after watching "The Red Wedding" I have changed my mind. Sure, I can agree that there are elements of humanity that are violent, selfish, power-seeking and morally reprehensible. And I'm fine with these themes being represented in stories. But the issue I have with Game of Thrones is that these elements dominate excessively . I find myself constantly asking: where are the righteous characters that would rather die than become corrupt or a-moral? Where are the people that, as reflected in our own lives, believe in peace, kindness, honor and love? It turns out that there really aren't any in Martin's work. These characters are either grossly under-represented or used for sensationalist fodder by being killed off.
The truth is, many of us in the audience do consider ourselves to be righteous, moral individuals. We want to relate to the characters in the story, not just observe a bunch of savages hacking each other's heads off. How can most of us relate to the morally ambivalent characters or the reprehensible one? If Martin's goal here is to create sensationalist environment with excessive violence, gore and drama then it makes sense that there so few "good guys". But I also feel it's cheap story-telling if this is the case. And if Martin's trying to send a message - that Game of Thrones is a reflection of the human condition and that the story is based somewhat in reality - then I'd argue he's not accurate whatsoever.
I don't think there's anything wrong with coming to this realization about Game of Thrones. It's not as outrageous as people seem to think to be turned off by having some of the few characters we could actually relate to (even slightly) massacred. Whether it was for sensationalism or as an attempt to indict most of humanity as being morally ambivalent and reprehensible (when most of humanity is not), both are valid reasons to turn away from the story. Nail on the fucking head. Martin deserves a lot of praise for his writing, his interesting story, his darker themes, his courage to kill off characters, etc. etc. etc. However, when you just constantly knock off every "good guy" in the series, to the point where they are punching bags (Dany being the only "good guy" to play an even remotely important role and not get completely owned), you're over-doing it. Evil and treachery seem to be winning out to the point where it isn't believable and goes against not only what the average viewer wants to see, but what the average viewer actually experiences and can relate to. While the world isn't all sunshine and rainbows and the good guys do die, evil and treachery doesn't constantly prevail; we are not the Dark Elves from the Forgotten Realms or the Dark Eldar from 40k. Even during the Middle Ages, the period that this constant conflict we see in GoT is more indicative of, treachery, deceit, and evil didn't dominate this much. I think this is where some people start to get upset. The only houses that have any real power at this point are the ambiguous-to-evil houses (Bolton, Frey, Lannister, Greyjoy). Any house that could theoretically be painted as "good (Stark, Tyrell, Tully, Arryn) are either pretty much completely dead (Stark, Tully) or marginalized and arguably not even "good" (Tyrell, Arryn). I think the criticism mainly stems from the fact that the "good guys" aren't just losing; they're just being stamped out of existence completely, and this is only halfway through the series. When the only person that can be painted as a "good guy" is a single ruler fighting a far-off war over slaves on a continent that has absolutely nothing to do with the "Game of Thrones", then people get a little disillusioned.
A wise man once said, "Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb."
A lot of the good people in GoT are getting screwed and killed, not because they are good (although there is most definitely a correlation), but because they keep making terrible mistakes. Robb could have most certainly won the war as a good and honorable man, if not for the fatal errors of betraying his promise to the Freys, disregarding his mother's advice about the Greyjoys, refusing to have mercy on Karstark, and not keeping a better eye on the Kingslayer.
Likewise, not all the "bad" people are doing amazingly, only the smart ones. Theon is generally considered one of the not-good guys, but his fate is worse than most in westeros. He made horrible choices, and they have come to bite him in the ass.
The only "good guy" death that really left a bitter taste in my mouth due to the unfairness of it was Renly. He never made any major errors (unless you're one of those Stannis maniacs), made good decisions in allying himself with the Tyrells and the North, and had the force to really win the war. But nope, Stannis just fucking has to have a demon vagina monster conveniently appear and assassinate him. Sigh. fucking magic.
|
On June 04 2013 04:05 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 04:03 xNebulous wrote:On June 04 2013 03:59 Dazed_Spy wrote:
The unrealistically dark aspect of GoT, I think, is the weird way it blends feudal expectations, a duty-honour based culture, society, intertwined with a fervent religious faith with like...blatant nihilism in the characters, sexual liberalism, open betrayals, murders and so on. Even in the worst periods of European history you couldnt find these sorts of things quite as ubiquitously as you do in GoT. It basically doesnt make sense from a sociological point of view. Its literally a feudal society with little proper regard for duty or leniage or proper behaviour outside of perfunctory "your grace" honorifics. Haha. Look up the Black Dinner. You might be surprised. Yeah. I know all about that crap, except regardless of peoples need to view the medieval period as, well, medieval, they were the exception and not the rule. And in even in the midst of brutal violence and murder, people still kept very closely to a set of rigid social mores. They dressed, spoke and articulated only certain things in public. There was a "courtly life". Theres simply nothing of that in GoT. We have a religious, backwards feudal society with exactly zero of its implications in the peoples internal life, save some of the northerners.
The contours of a narrative bound to an hour long episodic structure are going to have issues in properly illustrating something as general as "courtly life" or the mosaic of the average living manner. If you are really so concerned with the nature of the world Martin created, you need to read the books, it's really that simple.
|
On June 04 2013 04:05 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 04:03 xNebulous wrote:On June 04 2013 03:59 Dazed_Spy wrote:
The unrealistically dark aspect of GoT, I think, is the weird way it blends feudal expectations, a duty-honour based culture, society, intertwined with a fervent religious faith with like...blatant nihilism in the characters, sexual liberalism, open betrayals, murders and so on. Even in the worst periods of European history you couldnt find these sorts of things quite as ubiquitously as you do in GoT. It basically doesnt make sense from a sociological point of view. Its literally a feudal society with little proper regard for duty or leniage or proper behaviour outside of perfunctory "your grace" honorifics. Haha. Look up the Black Dinner. You might be surprised. Yeah. I know all about that crap, except regardless of peoples need to view the medieval period as, well, medieval, they were the exception and not the rule. And in even in the midst of brutal violence and murder, people still kept very closely to a set of rigid social mores. They dressed, spoke and articulated only certain things in public. There was a "courtly life". Theres simply nothing of that in GoT. We have a religious, backwards feudal society with exactly zero of its implications in the peoples internal life, save some of the northerners.
And what happened with the Starks was a huge exception to the rule.
The show's wiki explains it:
http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Guest_right
The Frey's basically commited one of the worst crimes possible in Westeros. People don't usually get randomly murdered by their hosts. It says more about how the Lord of the Freys is such a massive asshole that's willing to violate even the most basic rules of society for personal gain.
|
On June 04 2013 04:06 Kiett wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 03:40 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 04 2013 02:44 SCST wrote:
I think a great deal of people are underestimating the prowess / understanding of many viewers who are criticizing the show. The gut reaction is to think "oh, they're just being mad and emotional because their favorite characters were killed", when it may be something a bit deeper. I've given some thought to the implications of the "Red Wedding" scene and come to realize that Game of Thrones is missing a pretty big, important theme for me. That being: moral righteousness and "the greater good".
Let me explain. . . almost all of the characters in Game of Thrones appear to be morally ambivalent in some way. And those characters who seem attracted to the paradigms of "good" (love, honor, peace, pleasure, kindness) are few and far between. Even with these few "good" individuals being placed in the story, they are not consistent and often make decisions that completely invalidate their supposed world view. That, or they are killed.
But why? On the surface this may seem like an insight into our own civilization - the idea that morality is really grey and that most people are ambivalent and self-serving. That's what I thought initially. And I admit it was an interesting theme. But after watching "The Red Wedding" I have changed my mind. Sure, I can agree that there are elements of humanity that are violent, selfish, power-seeking and morally reprehensible. And I'm fine with these themes being represented in stories. But the issue I have with Game of Thrones is that these elements dominate excessively . I find myself constantly asking: where are the righteous characters that would rather die than become corrupt or a-moral? Where are the people that, as reflected in our own lives, believe in peace, kindness, honor and love? It turns out that there really aren't any in Martin's work. These characters are either grossly under-represented or used for sensationalist fodder by being killed off.
The truth is, many of us in the audience do consider ourselves to be righteous, moral individuals. We want to relate to the characters in the story, not just observe a bunch of savages hacking each other's heads off. How can most of us relate to the morally ambivalent characters or the reprehensible one? If Martin's goal here is to create sensationalist environment with excessive violence, gore and drama then it makes sense that there so few "good guys". But I also feel it's cheap story-telling if this is the case. And if Martin's trying to send a message - that Game of Thrones is a reflection of the human condition and that the story is based somewhat in reality - then I'd argue he's not accurate whatsoever.
I don't think there's anything wrong with coming to this realization about Game of Thrones. It's not as outrageous as people seem to think to be turned off by having some of the few characters we could actually relate to (even slightly) massacred. Whether it was for sensationalism or as an attempt to indict most of humanity as being morally ambivalent and reprehensible (when most of humanity is not), both are valid reasons to turn away from the story. Nail on the fucking head. Martin deserves a lot of praise for his writing, his interesting story, his darker themes, his courage to kill off characters, etc. etc. etc. However, when you just constantly knock off every "good guy" in the series, to the point where they are punching bags (Dany being the only "good guy" to play an even remotely important role and not get completely owned), you're over-doing it. Evil and treachery seem to be winning out to the point where it isn't believable and goes against not only what the average viewer wants to see, but what the average viewer actually experiences and can relate to. While the world isn't all sunshine and rainbows and the good guys do die, evil and treachery doesn't constantly prevail; we are not the Dark Elves from the Forgotten Realms or the Dark Eldar from 40k. Even during the Middle Ages, the period that this constant conflict we see in GoT is more indicative of, treachery, deceit, and evil didn't dominate this much. I think this is where some people start to get upset. The only houses that have any real power at this point are the ambiguous-to-evil houses (Bolton, Frey, Lannister, Greyjoy). Any house that could theoretically be painted as "good (Stark, Tyrell, Tully, Arryn) are either pretty much completely dead (Stark, Tully) or marginalized and arguably not even "good" (Tyrell, Arryn). I think the criticism mainly stems from the fact that the "good guys" aren't just losing; they're just being stamped out of existence completely, and this is only halfway through the series. When the only person that can be painted as a "good guy" is a single ruler fighting a far-off war over slaves on a continent that has absolutely nothing to do with the "Game of Thrones", then people get a little disillusioned. A wise man once said, "Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb." A lot of the good people in GoT are getting screwed and killed, not because they are good (although there is most definitely a correlation), but because they keep making terrible mistakes. Robb could have most certainly won the war as a good and honorable man, if not for the fatal errors of betraying his promise to the Freys, disregarding his mother's advice about the Greyjoys, refusing to have mercy on Karstark, and not keeping a better eye on the Kingslayer. Likewise, not all the "bad" people are doing amazingly, only the smart ones. Theon is generally considered one of the not-good guys, but his fate is worse than most in westeros. He made horrible choices, and they have come to bite him in the ass. The only "good guy" death that really left a bitter taste in my mouth due to the unfairness of it was Renly. He never made any major errors (unless you're one of those Stannis maniacs), made good decisions in allying himself with the Tyrells and the North, and had the force to really win the war. But nope, Stannis just fucking has to have a demon vagina monster conveniently appear and assassinate him. Sigh. fucking magic.
Even with Frey's army AND the Karkstarks, it wouldn't have been an easy win. But I agree with what 'yer saying otherwise.
|
On June 04 2013 04:05 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 04:03 xNebulous wrote:On June 04 2013 03:59 Dazed_Spy wrote:
The unrealistically dark aspect of GoT, I think, is the weird way it blends feudal expectations, a duty-honour based culture, society, intertwined with a fervent religious faith with like...blatant nihilism in the characters, sexual liberalism, open betrayals, murders and so on. Even in the worst periods of European history you couldnt find these sorts of things quite as ubiquitously as you do in GoT. It basically doesnt make sense from a sociological point of view. Its literally a feudal society with little proper regard for duty or leniage or proper behaviour outside of perfunctory "your grace" honorifics. Haha. Look up the Black Dinner. You might be surprised. Yeah. I know all about that crap, except regardless of peoples need to view the medieval period as, well, medieval, they were the exception and not the rule. And in even in the midst of brutal violence and murder, people still kept very closely to a set of rigid social mores. They dressed, spoke and articulated only certain things in public. There was a "courtly life". Theres simply nothing of that in GoT. We have a religious, backwards feudal society with exactly zero of its implications in the peoples internal life, save some of the northerners.
You might be looking too deeply into this. There is a reason this is a fantasy drama rather than a historical documentary. Also, the books do a much better job of fleshing out the traditions and lore of the world.
|
These people are playing the Game of Thrones. They are seeking power. Most people who seek to acquire power are either morally corrupt from the start (The Mountian, The Boy), become corrupt in their ascent to power (Twyin Lannister, Stannis Baratheon) or acquire power with good intentions only to become corrupt in the process of holding onto it (Robert Baratheon) . There are many "pure" characters left. Bran, Jojen and Meera Reed, Samwell Tarly, Gendry, Davos Seaworth, yet those characters are mostly far removed from power.
If you're looking for characters who value morals and justice more than their lives look to Ned Stark, Davos Seaworth, Jon Snow, and to a lesser extent Euron Greyjoy. Sandor Clegane is a very interesting character in this regard as he has a warped since of right and wrong, but he sticks to his warped values tightly.
|
Oh well, it is all basically Fluff tacked-on to Martin's game of Fantasy Risk that he is playing with himself. :>
|
On June 04 2013 04:09 CrimsonLotus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 04:05 Dazed_Spy wrote:On June 04 2013 04:03 xNebulous wrote:On June 04 2013 03:59 Dazed_Spy wrote:
The unrealistically dark aspect of GoT, I think, is the weird way it blends feudal expectations, a duty-honour based culture, society, intertwined with a fervent religious faith with like...blatant nihilism in the characters, sexual liberalism, open betrayals, murders and so on. Even in the worst periods of European history you couldnt find these sorts of things quite as ubiquitously as you do in GoT. It basically doesnt make sense from a sociological point of view. Its literally a feudal society with little proper regard for duty or leniage or proper behaviour outside of perfunctory "your grace" honorifics. Haha. Look up the Black Dinner. You might be surprised. Yeah. I know all about that crap, except regardless of peoples need to view the medieval period as, well, medieval, they were the exception and not the rule. And in even in the midst of brutal violence and murder, people still kept very closely to a set of rigid social mores. They dressed, spoke and articulated only certain things in public. There was a "courtly life". Theres simply nothing of that in GoT. We have a religious, backwards feudal society with exactly zero of its implications in the peoples internal life, save some of the northerners. And what happened with the Starks was a huge exception to the rule. The show's wiki explains it: http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Guest_rightThe Frey's basically commited one of the worst crimes possible in Westeros. People don't usually get randomly murdered by their hosts. It says more about how the Lord of the Freys is such a massive asshole that's willing to violate even the most basic rules of society for personal gain.
So basically the fan outrage about the wedding illustrates what the people of westeros might feel about it. Pretty funny 
|
On June 04 2013 04:06 Kiett wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 03:40 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 04 2013 02:44 SCST wrote:
I think a great deal of people are underestimating the prowess / understanding of many viewers who are criticizing the show. The gut reaction is to think "oh, they're just being mad and emotional because their favorite characters were killed", when it may be something a bit deeper. I've given some thought to the implications of the "Red Wedding" scene and come to realize that Game of Thrones is missing a pretty big, important theme for me. That being: moral righteousness and "the greater good".
Let me explain. . . almost all of the characters in Game of Thrones appear to be morally ambivalent in some way. And those characters who seem attracted to the paradigms of "good" (love, honor, peace, pleasure, kindness) are few and far between. Even with these few "good" individuals being placed in the story, they are not consistent and often make decisions that completely invalidate their supposed world view. That, or they are killed.
But why? On the surface this may seem like an insight into our own civilization - the idea that morality is really grey and that most people are ambivalent and self-serving. That's what I thought initially. And I admit it was an interesting theme. But after watching "The Red Wedding" I have changed my mind. Sure, I can agree that there are elements of humanity that are violent, selfish, power-seeking and morally reprehensible. And I'm fine with these themes being represented in stories. But the issue I have with Game of Thrones is that these elements dominate excessively . I find myself constantly asking: where are the righteous characters that would rather die than become corrupt or a-moral? Where are the people that, as reflected in our own lives, believe in peace, kindness, honor and love? It turns out that there really aren't any in Martin's work. These characters are either grossly under-represented or used for sensationalist fodder by being killed off.
The truth is, many of us in the audience do consider ourselves to be righteous, moral individuals. We want to relate to the characters in the story, not just observe a bunch of savages hacking each other's heads off. How can most of us relate to the morally ambivalent characters or the reprehensible one? If Martin's goal here is to create sensationalist environment with excessive violence, gore and drama then it makes sense that there so few "good guys". But I also feel it's cheap story-telling if this is the case. And if Martin's trying to send a message - that Game of Thrones is a reflection of the human condition and that the story is based somewhat in reality - then I'd argue he's not accurate whatsoever.
I don't think there's anything wrong with coming to this realization about Game of Thrones. It's not as outrageous as people seem to think to be turned off by having some of the few characters we could actually relate to (even slightly) massacred. Whether it was for sensationalism or as an attempt to indict most of humanity as being morally ambivalent and reprehensible (when most of humanity is not), both are valid reasons to turn away from the story. Nail on the fucking head. Martin deserves a lot of praise for his writing, his interesting story, his darker themes, his courage to kill off characters, etc. etc. etc. However, when you just constantly knock off every "good guy" in the series, to the point where they are punching bags (Dany being the only "good guy" to play an even remotely important role and not get completely owned), you're over-doing it. Evil and treachery seem to be winning out to the point where it isn't believable and goes against not only what the average viewer wants to see, but what the average viewer actually experiences and can relate to. While the world isn't all sunshine and rainbows and the good guys do die, evil and treachery doesn't constantly prevail; we are not the Dark Elves from the Forgotten Realms or the Dark Eldar from 40k. Even during the Middle Ages, the period that this constant conflict we see in GoT is more indicative of, treachery, deceit, and evil didn't dominate this much. I think this is where some people start to get upset. The only houses that have any real power at this point are the ambiguous-to-evil houses (Bolton, Frey, Lannister, Greyjoy). Any house that could theoretically be painted as "good (Stark, Tyrell, Tully, Arryn) are either pretty much completely dead (Stark, Tully) or marginalized and arguably not even "good" (Tyrell, Arryn). I think the criticism mainly stems from the fact that the "good guys" aren't just losing; they're just being stamped out of existence completely, and this is only halfway through the series. When the only person that can be painted as a "good guy" is a single ruler fighting a far-off war over slaves on a continent that has absolutely nothing to do with the "Game of Thrones", then people get a little disillusioned. A wise man once said, "Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb." A lot of the good people in GoT are getting screwed and killed, not because they are good (although there is most definitely a correlation), but because they keep making terrible mistakes. Robb could have most certainly won the war as a good and honorable man, if not for the fatal errors of betraying his promise to the Freys, disregarding his mother's advice about the Greyjoys, refusing to have mercy on Karstark, and not keeping a better eye on the Kingslayer. Likewise, not all the "bad" people are doing amazingly, only the smart ones. Theon is generally considered one of the not-good guys, but his fate is worse than most in westeros. He made horrible choices, and they have come to bite him in the ass. The only "good guy" death that really left a bitter taste in my mouth due to the unfairness of it was Renly. He never made any major errors (unless you're one of those Stannis maniacs), made good decisions in allying himself with the Tyrells and the North, and had the force to really win the war. But nope, Stannis just fucking has to have a demon vagina monster conveniently appear and assassinate him. Sigh. fucking magic.
Hmm didn't even realise that. If they stil had Jaime as prisoner the whole situation might've played out differently, because Robb would've had a major bargaining chip against the Lannisters. But that was actually Catelyns' fault that he didn't, in a sense she's partially guilty in how it turned out. Though the Frey guy might've done the backstabbing anyway, at least it wouldn't have been backed by the Lannisters.
|
This episode was beautiful my pulse actually increased during the slaughter.
I think the chick with the dragons is next. Things are going way too good for her.
|
On June 04 2013 03:40 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 02:44 SCST wrote:
I think a great deal of people are underestimating the prowess / understanding of many viewers who are criticizing the show. The gut reaction is to think "oh, they're just being mad and emotional because their favorite characters were killed", when it may be something a bit deeper. I've given some thought to the implications of the "Red Wedding" scene and come to realize that Game of Thrones is missing a pretty big, important theme for me. That being: moral righteousness and "the greater good".
Let me explain. . . almost all of the characters in Game of Thrones appear to be morally ambivalent in some way. And those characters who seem attracted to the paradigms of "good" (love, honor, peace, pleasure, kindness) are few and far between. Even with these few "good" individuals being placed in the story, they are not consistent and often make decisions that completely invalidate their supposed world view. That, or they are killed.
But why? On the surface this may seem like an insight into our own civilization - the idea that morality is really grey and that most people are ambivalent and self-serving. That's what I thought initially. And I admit it was an interesting theme. But after watching "The Red Wedding" I have changed my mind. Sure, I can agree that there are elements of humanity that are violent, selfish, power-seeking and morally reprehensible. And I'm fine with these themes being represented in stories. But the issue I have with Game of Thrones is that these elements dominate excessively . I find myself constantly asking: where are the righteous characters that would rather die than become corrupt or a-moral? Where are the people that, as reflected in our own lives, believe in peace, kindness, honor and love? It turns out that there really aren't any in Martin's work. These characters are either grossly under-represented or used for sensationalist fodder by being killed off.
The truth is, many of us in the audience do consider ourselves to be righteous, moral individuals. We want to relate to the characters in the story, not just observe a bunch of savages hacking each other's heads off. How can most of us relate to the morally ambivalent characters or the reprehensible one? If Martin's goal here is to create sensationalist environment with excessive violence, gore and drama then it makes sense that there so few "good guys". But I also feel it's cheap story-telling if this is the case. And if Martin's trying to send a message - that Game of Thrones is a reflection of the human condition and that the story is based somewhat in reality - then I'd argue he's not accurate whatsoever.
I don't think there's anything wrong with coming to this realization about Game of Thrones. It's not as outrageous as people seem to think to be turned off by having some of the few characters we could actually relate to (even slightly) massacred. Whether it was for sensationalism or as an attempt to indict most of humanity as being morally ambivalent and reprehensible (when most of humanity is not), both are valid reasons to turn away from the story. Nail on the fucking head. Martin deserves a lot of praise for his writing, his interesting story, his darker themes, his courage to kill off characters, etc. etc. etc. However, when you just constantly knock off every "good guy" in the series, to the point where they are punching bags (Dany being the only "good guy" to play an even remotely important role and not get completely owned), you're over-doing it. Evil and treachery seem to be winning out to the point where it isn't believable and goes against not only what the average viewer wants to see, but what the average viewer actually experiences and can relate to. While the world isn't all sunshine and rainbows and the good guys do die, evil and treachery doesn't constantly prevail; we are not the Dark Elves from the Forgotten Realms or the Dark Eldar from 40k. Even during the Middle Ages, the period that this constant conflict we see in GoT is more indicative of, treachery, deceit, and evil didn't dominate this much. I think this is where some people start to get upset. The only houses that have any real power at this point are the ambiguous-to-evil houses (Bolton, Frey, Lannister, Greyjoy). Any house that could theoretically be painted as "good (Stark, Tyrell, Tully, Arryn) are either pretty much completely dead (Stark, Tully) or marginalized and arguably not even "good" (Tyrell, Arryn). I think the criticism mainly stems from the fact that the "good guys" aren't just losing; they're just being stamped out of existence completely, and this is only halfway through the series. When the only person that can be painted as a "good guy" is a single ruler fighting a far-off war over slaves on a continent that has absolutely nothing to do with the "Game of Thrones", then people get a little disillusioned.
I think this is such an interesting perspective. But I'd like to politely disagree and try to explain why I completely feel that every character in the show (with the exception of the dude who's currently torturing theion- Idn WHAT is up with that guy) acts rationally based on their interests (usually power and not dying).
Take the red wedding for example. Set aside the brutality of it and see it from Frey's perspective. Robb broke his word to him by marrying another, then after Robb beheads one of his major bannermen (Castark), comes back to him begging forgiveness and an army, so that he can attack Casterly rock. In Frey's eyes Robb is an impulsive child trying to take down a seasoned Vet, Tywin, with an extremely risky gambit. Why would Frey choose to side with Robb and have a small chance at victory, when he can side with tywin and be assured power, riches, and safety.
Honestly Robb might have had a heart and been a "good" guy. But he was an absolute terrible player in the game. "A lanaster always pays his debts". Robb stark breaks his word for a pretty lady (and beheads his bannermen).
Daenarys and Varus are "good" guys too, but that is irrelevant to them being alive. They are alive because they play the game well, and that's the way it should be.
And really if you think about it the show has plenty of "good" characters left, most just aren't major players- because winning the game and being "good" are at odds with each other in most situations: Bran, Tyrion, Jon Snow, and Sam are all good characters who have dedicated plot lines.
I think if you expect morality to win the Iron Throne, you might want to take a look at who has grabbed and held power throughout human history. There were way more Tywins than Eddards.
|
Now all you silly Stark lovers will be forced to bend the knee to the one true King of Westeros. All Hail Stannis Baratheon!
The Red God will see it done!!
|
On June 04 2013 03:46 farvacola wrote:
Y'all have rose colored glasses on when looking on actual human history. It is precisely mankind's love for neat little narratives that leads people to believe that "goodness" in any essential form actually existed in a pronounced capacity outside of a few exemplars, most of which died in some horrible way. If you approach the history of English dynastic succession with objectivity in mind (true objective historic investigation is impossible), "goodness" is almost nowhere to be found outside of a few very unique kings and people. Martin's take on fantasy is far more realistic than almost any other, and part of the reason for that deals in precisely how unflinching he is in regards to the transfer and holding of power.
Yeah. Y'all need to play some Crusader Kings 2.
|
On June 04 2013 04:17 Altair wrote:
This episode was beautiful my pulse actually increased during the slaughter.
I think the chick with the dragons is next. Things are going way too good for her.
that would be the most stupid thing ever... Like, her story is almost disconnected from the rest. It would basically just have been a waste of time. Not going to happen. That chick with the dragons will most likely sit the Iron throne in the end. But it will take a long time to get there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
