|
All book discussion in this thread is now allowed. |
While Game of Thrones is cruel, I still find cases where the show (and books in implication, I guess) is being more idealistic than the real world. Remember guys, being a king in late medieval europe was hardly as safe as being a soldier.
The host custom described by some posters above is another good example. There also aren't that many poisonings, and most people fighting for power are doing so somewhat legitimately - yes, they fight and kill, but they fight for what they think they're entitled to: their families, their "rightful throne", justice (or revenge), etc.
There's very little people plotting inside the houses - varys and littlefinger both are strong exceptions that are so bold for the exact reason of being exceptions. The houses each represent their own values, too. The only reason this uproar started is because Starks are once again shown to be brave and honorable - so we love them, and naive - so we grieve for them.
It's low fantasy, but it's most definitely not a cesspool of vulgarity. The only way to portray this story as meaningless is to focus on the characters and storylines that are ended - and to ignore all the others.
This is not to say that if somebody's emotional reaction is such they're wrong to stop watching the show or reading the books. This is to say that it doesn't make the myriad of other storylines pointless, even if you personally didn't find them as intriguing, or morally interesting, or inspirational. Because I can assure you, millions of watchers, readers and lots of critics did.
|
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. 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.
Renly tried to take the throne without being the legitimate heir. His reasoning was just that he'd be better at it than Stannis. If he was a legit good guy he would have recognized this, and offered to help Stannis, while setting himself up to be hand of the king or something similar. He got screwed over pretty hard, and probably didn't deserve for it to happen, but I would go as far to say he was a "good guy".
|
Gerorge RR Martin is such a fucking asshole. Like what the fuck is the point of this shit.Oh what a great idea, lets follow a family that gets slaughtered one by one and yeah, lets make sure no redemption is given ever. Holy fucking hell I get pissed of at shit like this. And I knew this was comming after managing to get this spoiled (together with the handchop of Jamie) when searching for whether Ned got beheaded or not in season 1 (was hoping and fearing some silly Robin Hood'ish kind of rescue came). But stil it pisses me off, he should have gotten to see fucking Joffrey choking in his own blood before he died. And killing lady Stark, FUCK THE FUCK OFF, she at least deserved some revenge.
Yeah he writes an engaging story, and some of the characters you just got to love, and some you got to hate. But what the fuck is the endgame of this? There are very few endgames I will feel satisfied with. And those are really fucking predictable if they do happen. All scenarios that don't include a horrible death of Joffrey, Cersei, Tywin, Mellisandre and Theon, and the survival of the remaining Starks, Tyrion and Daenerys is pretty MEH.
So the one end game I will feel satisfied with is pretty much: Daenerys sweeps the land, and the Targeryens is yet again rulers of the seven kingdoms. The Starks get their revenge on the Lannisters and regain their former status (pre beheaded Ned) in the north (or perhaps Bran can become ruler north of the wall). Bran defeats the whitewalkers with his jedi mind tricks, together with Samwell and his newly aquired knowledge of how to stomp zombies. Tyrion escapes the slaughter of the house of Lannisters and goes on to live happily ever after with Shae.
I am also OK with the whitewalkers just sweaping the lands and killing every fucking one. Then I can shrug it off as a crap series that I never should have watched to begin with.
I am also OK with the Starks getting slowly massacred, and the series ending with execution of the remaining Starks. Last season episode 8 should be the death of Daenerys, episode 9 should be a Tyrion who gets hunted down and slain, just as it seems that he escapes to safety. Episode 10 should be the execution of the Starks, fading out with their chopped off heads on the ground. Then I could also shrug this off as the work of a sadistic asshole.
But it will probably end on some middleground shit that pisses me off. Something like the lord of light wins, or the Lannisters defeats Daenerys in the final fight, but the Starks get to live in exile some shitty place. Some non-obvious non-redeeming crap end, that leaves me feeling pissed off for having bothered to watch the series and read the books.
|
On June 04 2013 04:45 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 04:09 CrimsonLotus wrote: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. I wasnt referring to that event imparticular as non exceptional in the GoT universe. But the general mores required to sustain a fuedal society are clearly exceptional. Theres no honour, in a society where blood leniage is the *entire* predicate of social organization. There seems to be little psychological deference towards superiors--- in a bloody class system! There seems to be no real social conservatism [freys had like 90 wives, be it by divorce, death or polygamy, none are plausible explanations] in a society thats meant to be interladden heavily in faith and feudalism. All of the characters seem like atheistic liberals thrown into a medieval society, rather than people OF a medieval society. Only the starks come close to feeling authentic, and even then there far too sexually egalitarian for it.
How would you know people back in the day didn't have such relateable human interactions and meanderings as the kind we see in the show?
It should be expected that a show which hinges alot on political maneuvering would showcase characters who are more concerned with the 'game' than rigid conservatism or religion.
|
On June 04 2013 04:37 Acertos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 03:41 teapot 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. 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. Imo it's the best fantazy fiction ever created. Before modern times (like 1800s) our world was in one of its darkest period on a moral point. Rape, slavery, killing, treachery etc... Shiny and rightful knights only existed in tales and religious texts. They would have beheaded a farmer if he had been standing in their way. The crusades from christians and muslims saw mass raping and massacres. Most kings died at a young age because they were killed one way or another (truth always come from the winners). He really transmitted what was regurlarly happening while adding magic and mistery. With this show people shouldn't expect the good guys to win. I feel like a majority of people are too fed with awesome and good heroes when in reality the cunning ones did, do and will always achieve their goals better than others (especially in politics). This show is simply not your tipical show. You won't escape from reality in that show, you face, you don't ignore the facts that are in front of you. Reality is harsh, especially the reality of the middle age. We discuss this show while some people are starving and destroying their body to have something to survive. I shit in drinkable water everyday while some people catch diseases from poluted water.
You're completely missing the point. The reason that this is (justifiably) polarizing is because this story isn't a "dose of reality" for the casual viewer in that the good guy doesn't always survive. This story is unbelievable in the opposite direction; the only "good guys" are the ones that are mostly inconsequential to the Game. Everyone that dominates the game is ambiguously evil or worse.
|
On June 04 2013 04:46 son1dow wrote:
It's low fantasy, but it's most definitely not a cesspool of vulgarity.
No, vulgarity was mostly added because it's HBO, basic cable has to have vulgarity. And it's not low fantasy, mages (faceless assassin, witch that tried to heal Khal Drogo and Daenery's ex-handmaiden mentioned other kind of mage I think), wargs (taking this separately, as these are actually in westeros, not across the narrow sea). dragons, that's like everything you'd find in a high fantasy books.
|
There is LOADS of fiction that handles the trials of life without being as overtly nihilistic as Martin.
And loads of fiction that is much more nihilistic than Martin, so what's your point?
|
On June 04 2013 04:49 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 04:06 Kiett wrote: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. 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. Renly tried to take the throne without being the legitimate heir. His reasoning was just that he'd be better at it than Stannis. If he was a legit good guy he would have recognized this, and offered to help Stannis, while setting himself up to be hand of the king or something similar. He got screwed over pretty hard, and probably didn't deserve for it to happen, but I would go as far to say he was a "good guy".
Thing is, Renly knew Stannis, and recognised that people dont want him for a king, and that Stannis would have named Davos Seaworth as the hand.
|
On June 04 2013 04:50 Tunkeg wrote:
Gerorge RR Martin is such a fucking asshole. Like what the fuck is the point of this shit.Oh what a great idea, lets follow a family that gets slaughtered one by one and yeah, lets make sure no redemption is given ever. Holy fucking hell I get pissed of at shit like this. And I knew this was comming after managing to get this spoiled (together with the handchop of Jamie) when searching for whether Ned got beheaded or not in season 1 (was hoping and fearing some silly Robin Hood'ish kind of rescue came). But stil it pisses me off, he should have gotten to see fucking Joffrey choking in his own blood before he died. And killing lady Stark, FUCK THE FUCK OFF, she at least deserved some revenge.
Yeah he writes an engaging story, and some of the characters you just got to love, and some you got to hate. But what the fuck is the endgame of this? There are very few endgames I will feel satisfied with. And those are really fucking predictable if they do happen. All scenarios that don't include a horrible death of Joffrey, Cersei, Tywin, Mellisandre and Theon, and the survival of the remaining Starks, Tyrion and Daenerys is pretty MEH.
So the one end game I will feel satisfied with is pretty much: Daenerys sweeps the land, and the Targeryens is yet again rulers of the seven kingdoms. The Starks get their revenge on the Lannisters and regain their former status (pre beheaded Ned) in the north (or perhaps Bran can become ruler north of the wall). Bran defeats the whitewalkers with his jedi mind tricks, together with Samwell and his newly aquired knowledge of how to stomp zombies. Tyrion escapes the slaughter of the house of Lannisters and goes on to live happily ever after with Shae.
I am also OK with the whitewalkers just sweaping the lands and killing every fucking one. Then I can shrug it off as a crap series that I never should have watched to begin with.
I am also OK with the Starks getting slowly massacred, and the series ending with execution of the remaining Starks. Last season episode 8 should be the death of Daenerys, episode 9 should be a Tyrion who gets hunted down and slain, just as it seems that he escapes to safety. Episode 10 should be the execution of the Starks, fading out with their chopped off heads on the ground. Then I could also shrug this off as the work of a sadistic asshole.
But it will probably end on some middleground shit that pisses me off. Something like the lord of light wins, or the Lannisters defeats Daenerys in the final fight, but the Starks get to live in exile some shitty place. Some non-obvious non-redeeming crap end, that leaves me feeling pissed off for having bothered to watch the series and read the books.
To reinforce the idea that no one is safe, in case a season of no one in the family dying gave you a sense of complacency. I think Martin is more than capable of making interesting stories and characters, so as long as some other family or character(s) come into the lime light, what is there really to lament?
This show is probably the first one where I actually felt tense during sword fights like the one Jorah had. Such tension isn't possible without the no one is safe atmosphere.
|
On June 04 2013 04:43 Domus wrote:I absolutely love how people are getting their panties in a twist AGAIN. And we all know it is bound to happen again in the future  . Yes, people in the GoT don't have a magic shield of I am a good and lovable guy so I can't die. Also, Robb made sooo many mistakes. Breaking his oath, treating his mother differently, letting Jaime get away, not protecting his own lands, letting Theon go, getting his age old castle burned to the floor, not managing his troops well, leaving his cousin who is an idiot in charge of part of his army, killing one of his only capable men, going back to the man he offended without any real thing to bargain, expecting the Greys to put it all on the line for his far-fetched plans. He did not know when to quit and he died for it. You expect him to live through that just because he is a nice guy? How many people died for his mistakes?
No they have a magical shield of "as long as I am a sociopath who murders children for fun or power I cant die and if I ever get in trouble the writer dude person will conjure up a magical demon vagina monster to protect me" 
|
How come Joffrey is so ignorant when it comes to the game and the politics? You would think Cersei, someone who knows whats up would teach him for his greater good. Like now, he gets played hard by the Tyrell's without knowing shit and he keeps slipping out of Cersei's hands more and more both because the Tyrell's are good but also cuz Joffrey is so naive and dumb.
|
On June 04 2013 04:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 04:37 Acertos wrote:On June 04 2013 03:41 teapot 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. 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. Imo it's the best fantazy fiction ever created. Before modern times (like 1800s) our world was in one of its darkest period on a moral point. Rape, slavery, killing, treachery etc... Shiny and rightful knights only existed in tales and religious texts. They would have beheaded a farmer if he had been standing in their way. The crusades from christians and muslims saw mass raping and massacres. Most kings died at a young age because they were killed one way or another (truth always come from the winners). He really transmitted what was regurlarly happening while adding magic and mistery. With this show people shouldn't expect the good guys to win. I feel like a majority of people are too fed with awesome and good heroes when in reality the cunning ones did, do and will always achieve their goals better than others (especially in politics). This show is simply not your tipical show. You won't escape from reality in that show, you face, you don't ignore the facts that are in front of you. Reality is harsh, especially the reality of the middle age. We discuss this show while some people are starving and destroying their body to have something to survive. I shit in drinkable water everyday while some people catch diseases from poluted water. You're completely missing the point. The reason that this is (justifiably) polarizing is because this story isn't a "dose of reality" for the casual viewer in that the good guy doesn't always survive. This story is unbelievable in the opposite direction; the only "good guys" are the ones that are mostly inconsequential to the Game. Everyone that dominates the game is ambiguously evil or worse.
You forgetting Tyrion? He is as pragmatic and good as possible in a world with realistic human characters. But you do have a point in that many of the others are much harsher. However it IS realistic that the powerful are not so good people. Sociopathic people who don't feel much for others tend to do well in life, so I'm glad Martin at least got that character psychology correct.
|
I really hope Catelyn's uncle escaped, he seems like one of fewer and fewer genuinely good and honourable characters. Maybe he can revenge the death of Rob and Catelyn somehow later on.
And poor Sansa, inb4 she'll get tormented once again by Joffrey with these new tragedies for him to gloat in.
|
|
|
On June 04 2013 04:57 Gosi wrote:
How come Joffrey is so ignorant when it comes to the game and the politics? You would think Cersei, someone who knows whats up would teach him for his greater good. Like now, he gets played hard by the Tyrell's without knowing shit and he keeps slipping out of Cersei's hands more and more both because the Tyrell's are good but also cuz Joffrey is so naive and dumb.
I think he's just a psychopath, a lunatic, probably because he's born from incest. He's similar to Deanery's brother in that way, the guy who thought he was a dragon and could not understand why he wasn't respected by the Dothraki, despite not having any power whatsoever. They're simply mad.
|
On June 04 2013 04:53 animagne wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 04:46 son1dow wrote:
It's low fantasy, but it's most definitely not a cesspool of vulgarity.
No, vulgarity was mostly added because it's HBO, basic cable has to have vulgarity. And it's not low fantasy, mages (faceless assassin, witch that tried to heal Khal Drogo and Daenery's ex-handmaiden mentioned other kind of mage I think), wargs (taking this separately, as these are actually in westeros, not across the narrow sea). dragons, that's like everything you'd find in a high fantasy books.
Vulgarity doesn't just mean nudity/sex, it also means harshness in terms of killing and treating people. The first two books certainly aren't free of it, even if the show exaggerates some of the specific elements of it.
I agree it isn't just low fantasy, I not sure why I claimed that :D I guess what I think about it is that it isn't real high fantasy story either - it's a mix. If you had to decide just by the magical elements, it may be more near high fantasy, but it isn't determined just by that.
I'm not an expert so I'm not claiming to perfectly determine the genre, just elaborating on my thoughts.
Edit: The people thinking the show is more cruel than reality's medieval world are simply ignorant. I can understand some specific arguments, but overall, reality was so much more harsh.
|
When i read the red wedding i couldnt really believe what was happening. I closed my ipad and stopped reading for a week or two.
Its especially brutal because i was suspicious at first but at some point I just dismissed my suspicion and thought that they somehow managed to dodge the bullet.
what helped me get over it was that in retrospect Robb was indeed a traitor. You cannot just claim half of westeros and name yourself King in the North (+ the riverlands of the Tullies, that arent even part of the north)
He should have allied with Stannis, the rightful heir to Robert Baratheon, otherwise hes just a traitor. No one who ends up on the iron throne would have accepted the independence of the north.
Also he breaks his oath to Walder Frey to marry one of his daughters for love. Which is incredibly stupid. You could still have that girl as a paramour. Marriage is a political construct in that world. Even Eddard Stark fathered a bastard.
|
On June 04 2013 04:57 Gosi wrote:
How come Joffrey is so ignorant when it comes to the game and the politics? You would think Cersei, someone who knows whats up would teach him for his greater good. Like now, he gets played hard by the Tyrell's without knowing shit and he keeps slipping out of Cersei's hands more and more both because the Tyrell's are good but also cuz Joffrey is so naive and dumb.
You mean Cercei the master politician who threatens her family's closest ally whose troops are all over their city?, or the one who couldn't control her own son until Tywin came and made him shit his pants and obey?
|
so many twisted one liners before the scene lol
|
On June 04 2013 04:50 Xahhk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 04:45 Dazed_Spy wrote:On June 04 2013 04:09 CrimsonLotus wrote: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. I wasnt referring to that event imparticular as non exceptional in the GoT universe. But the general mores required to sustain a fuedal society are clearly exceptional. Theres no honour, in a society where blood leniage is the *entire* predicate of social organization. There seems to be little psychological deference towards superiors--- in a bloody class system! There seems to be no real social conservatism [freys had like 90 wives, be it by divorce, death or polygamy, none are plausible explanations] in a society thats meant to be interladden heavily in faith and feudalism. All of the characters seem like atheistic liberals thrown into a medieval society, rather than people OF a medieval society. Only the starks come close to feeling authentic, and even then there far too sexually egalitarian for it. How would you know people back in the day didn't have such relateable human interactions and meanderings as the kind we see in the show? It should be expected that a show which hinges alot on political maneuvering would showcase characters who are more concerned with the 'game' than rigid conservatism or religion. Uhh...history is pretty detailed in regards to the private and courtly life of nobility. We know rather well how they spoke and what they thought [hell we have extensive journals]. And they sure as shit didnt announce on a wedding day how they'd love to fuck their Kings wife, and would break fifty oaths to do so. That would never fly in a fuedal society...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
