|
All book discussion in this thread is now allowed. |
On June 04 2013 04:57 Xahhk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 04:52 Stratos_speAr wrote: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.
Yeah, and Lord of the rings would have been much more believable if told from Saurons perspective and ending with the world cast into darkness following the death of Frodo to the she monster. I would also have liked the story a lot less.
|
On June 04 2013 05:03 CrimsonLotus wrote:Show nested quote +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?
Cersei who caused the entire war because she couldnt stop her son to execute Eddard Stark instead of letting him take the black. Tywin sees that she is no queen regent material when he wants to marry her off.
|
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.
From the man himself:
http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/06/02/game-of-thrones-author-george-r-r-martin-why-he-wrote-the-red-wedding/
I had a similar reaction when I first read the Red Wedding, but really after cooling off in retrospect it's my favorite moment (and most dreaded) in the series. Few works of fiction have been able to piss my off to the degree that GRRM did here, so clearly he's done a good job in constructing the story to make you feel such attachment to the characters.
|
1) Evaluation
Incredibly awesome episode
1.1) How was the Stark Army neutralized?
To those wondering: see those chess pieces in the beginning? Notice there were more towers and crucifixes than wolves? That's how the Stark army is a non-issue. Never mind that your average medieval army shattered when its leader died without a second thought (if you are fighting over who gets to be king, it's okay to give up if they die.)
2) What about next episode?
The season finale doesn't have to (and won't) top this. Ep9 is the climax of every season so far. Ep10 is next season setup.
3) Unorthodox Storytelling?
All you people saying this is "unorthodox" storytelling, whether in praise or attack, clearly don't read much. This is <i>classic</i> storytelling. Fantasy has its roots in epic sagas. The epic sagas don't have happy endings. Just because Hollywood doesn't do many tragedies doesn't mean tragedy is original. Tragedy is the oldest dramatic form we have. Daring, yes. Excellent, yes. But if you think that good guys always win in classical story structures, you're grossly underinformed.
4) Realism/Fairness
Stop saying the world is realistic and unfair. The world is strikingly unrealistic and unrealistically fair. It's not unusually nihilistic for real literature. Robb was a classic tragic protagonist, gaping tragic flaw and all. His whole story would be completely recognizable as a Greek or Elizabethan tragic hero, down to the innocents who he brings down around him. People don't die randomly in GoT. Everyone who dies does so because their story is over (often how they die is the final part of their sub-plot) or they didn't have a story to begin with. Dany, Jon, Arya, and Bran are all mid-plot and can't die any time soon. Robb makes self-destructive mistake after self-destructive mistake… and he pays for it in full measure. It's actually very Greek, really; he betrayed an oath to the gods, and was betrayed in an oath to the gods in the same place he made his own oath in the first place.
5) It's just good storytelling.
This show is good storytelling. I don't know the books, but guessing it's the same. It's okay that good storytelling sometimes looks like an arch-plot with a protagonist who sows the seeds of their own destiny. In good storytelling, including arch-plot stories, characters are morally complex. if you're looking for perfect characters, read crappy pulp. People are fucked up. Which is why their acts of heroism really matter.
6) Speaking of Imperfect Characters...
Dany as a Mary Sue:
Seriously? Seriously? Have you been watching this show? She's wrathful, impudent, proud, and her high morals combined with stiff sense of honor is eerily reminiscent of the Starks. The whole "everything goes right for her" shtick only works if you are only looking at this season and last season finale. Yes, she's on an upswing. She's going to be a major contender, but started out as a sex slave. In the mean time she's doing some pretty soul-killingly evil things (slaughter the adults in Astapor anyone?). She's very similar to a lot of real life conquerors with humble beginnings.
|
On June 04 2013 05:04 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 04:50 Xahhk wrote: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...
Walder Frey is not an example of your everyday Westerosi lord. He is a disgusting and vile man that most other lords hold in very low regard. He has an extremely hard time marrying off his daughters and granddaughters because of this.
|
On June 04 2013 04:10 xNebulous 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. 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.
I think he has a point. There are a multitude of people talking about how realistic the series is compared to human history. What people forget is that we have a few thousand years of recorded atrocities to draw upon and they are comparing it to the atrocities that happened in three years in a continent the size of South America. Even Westeros isn't as bad as some people imply, since the 300 years between Aegon's Conquest and Robert's Rebellion have been largely peaceful.
I know that the series is partly based on the War of the Roses in England. If you look at the list of English kings since the house of Plantagenet 1000 years ago, there hasn't been many instances of open warfare for the throne. The War of the Roses was pretty unique in that regard.
|
Good post Yoav. Completely agree.
|
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.
he is an inbred, in crusader kings 2, those have like -10 in intrigue and diplomacy 
also btw, even ancient greece 600BCE knew the value of a good tragedy, this is hardly to make people mad.
|
On June 04 2013 03:47 CaM27 wrote:Looking forward for next episode: Preview + Show Spoiler +
Seeing the direwolf banner in flames makes me sad. I hope at some point the scattered remnants of House Stark come back together and lay waste to everyone who had a hand in bringing them down.
|
On June 04 2013 05:08 Yoav wrote:
1) Evaluation
Incredibly awesome episode
1.1) How was the Stark Army neutralized?
To those wondering: see those chess pieces in the beginning? Notice there were more towers and crucifixes than wolves? That's how the Stark army is a non-issue. Never mind that your average medieval army shattered when its leader died without a second thought (if you are fighting over who gets to be king, it's okay to give up if they die.)
2) What about next episode?
The season finale doesn't have to (and won't) top this. Ep9 is the climax of every season so far. Ep10 is next season setup.
3) Unorthodox Storytelling?
All you people saying this is "unorthodox" storytelling, whether in praise or attack, clearly don't read much. This is <i>classic</i> storytelling. Fantasy has its roots in epic sagas. The epic sagas don't have happy endings. Just because Hollywood doesn't do many tragedies doesn't mean tragedy is original. Tragedy is the oldest dramatic form we have. Daring, yes. Excellent, yes. But if you think that good guys always win in classical story structures, you're grossly underinformed.
4) Realism/Fairness
Stop saying the world is realistic and unfair. The world is strikingly unrealistic and unrealistically fair. It's not unusually nihilistic for real literature. Robb was a classic tragic protagonist, gaping tragic flaw and all. His whole story would be completely recognizable as a Greek or Elizabethan tragic hero, down to the innocents who he brings down around him. People don't die randomly in GoT. Everyone who dies does so because their story is over (often how they die is the final part of their sub-plot) or they didn't have a story to begin with. Dany, Jon, Arya, and Bran are all mid-plot and can't die any time soon. Robb makes self-destructive mistake after self-destructive mistake… and he pays for it in full measure. It's actually very Greek, really; he betrayed an oath to the gods, and was betrayed in an oath to the gods in the same place he made his own oath in the first place.
5) It's just good storytelling.
This show is good storytelling. I don't know the books, but guessing it's the same. It's okay that good storytelling sometimes looks like an arch-plot with a protagonist who sows the seeds of their own destiny. In good storytelling, including arch-plot stories, characters are morally complex. if you're looking for perfect characters, read crappy pulp. People are fucked up. Which is why their acts of heroism really matter.
6) Speaking of Imperfect Characters...
Dany as a Mary Sue:
Seriously? Seriously? Have you been watching this show? She's wrathful, impudent, proud, and her high morals combined with stiff sense of honor is eerily reminiscent of the Starks. The whole "everything goes right for her" shtick only works if you are only looking at this season and last season finale. Yes, she's on an upswing. She's going to be a major contender, but started out as a sex slave. In the mean time she's doing some pretty soul-killingly evil things (slaughter the adults in Astapor anyone?). She's very similar to a lot of real life conquerors with humble beginnings.
If you had been talking about the first season and the execution of Ned I would have agreed wholeheartedly, his story was a great tragedy from beginning to end. I do not feel the second and third have come even close to living up to that. I certainly don't think Robs story as written added anything of value to Neds.
Personally I would have preferred having the starks winning in westeros, with danny evolving into an evil dragon overlord across the sea. Her story simply makes more sense for setting up a villain rather than a hero in my opinion. What with her always being kind of to the side, slow rolling in the background.
|
Beautiful episode. I'm actually mad about all the people who are thinking of giving up on the show because Robb, Cat and Talisa died. Yeah it's sad but it's better than just offing Joffrey, Cersei and Tywin and calling it a day. There's still a lot of ground to cover and this episode is certainly making things a lot more interesting.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mlwq21u.png)
|
On June 04 2013 05:08 Yoav wrote:
1.1) How was the Stark Army neutralized?
To those wondering: see those chess pieces in the beginning? Notice there were more towers and crucifixes than wolves? That's how the Stark army is a non-issue. Never mind that your average medieval army shattered when its leader died without a second thought (if you are fighting over who gets to be king, it's okay to give up if they die.)
+ The Stark men are most likely all drunk
|
People don't want to watch anymore, but don't realize the story is just getting started. Have people forgotten already? WINTER IS COMING.
|
On June 04 2013 05:09 xNebulous wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 05:04 Dazed_Spy wrote:On June 04 2013 04:50 Xahhk wrote: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... Walder Frey is not an example of your everyday Westerosi lord. He is a disgusting and vile man that most other lords hold in very low regard. He has an extremely hard time marrying off his daughters and granddaughters because of this. There is literally no way he can exist while anything resembling a feudal society exists, nor was my point limited to him, stop wasting my time with silly retorts.On June 04 2013 05:08 Yoav wrote:
1) Evaluation
Incredibly awesome episode
4) Realism/Fairness
Stop saying the world is realistic and unfair. The world is strikingly unrealistic and unrealistically fair. It's not unusually nihilistic for real literature. Robb was a classic tragic protagonist, gaping tragic flaw and all. His whole story would be completely recognizable as a Greek or Elizabethan tragic hero, down to the innocents who he brings down around him. People don't die randomly in GoT. Everyone who dies does so because their story is over (often how they die is the final part of their sub-plot) or they didn't have a story to begin with. Dany, Jon, Arya, and Bran are all mid-plot and can't die any time soon. Robb makes self-destructive mistake after self-destructive mistake… and he pays for it in full measure. It's actually very Greek, really; he betrayed an oath to the gods, and was betrayed in an oath to the gods in the same place he made his own oath in the first place.
Umm...there not dead because there plots not over, but there plots not over because there not dead. Your fourth point isnt a point at all. Robbs storyline conceivably could have continued, had it continued. Brans could end--- were he to die, and it end. Your not making an argument for anything here.
|
TAIWAN NUMBAH WAN5956 Posts
To the show-watchers, don't give up! While it is for sure a really bad punch into the guts, keep watching!
As Tyrion said in the preview of ep10:
"The North remembers...."
|
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. Show nested quote +On June 04 2013 04:44 teapot 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.
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. Pretty much this. It is like Martin has transplanted our modern attitudes and expectations of the rich and powerful (1980s cut-throat greed culture), an elite removed from all social obligation, and slapped it into a medieval setting without much thought to how the whole thing operated. YES! Thank you. 
I think you raise some interesting points, but you're applying rules that simply don't apply. This isn't a historical fiction set in 12th century England, it's fantasy fiction set in the world the author has created. Societal things like sexism, the feudal system, etc can be tweaked however the author sees fit. This is clearly a different universe than the one we reside in (dragons, magic, zombie ice creatures), so is it really so hard to believe that society could have evolved in a different manner than our own? It's fine to find things odd, but to poke holes in the realness of a clearly fake, not even trying to be real universe is a futile exercise at best. By engaging the universe, you cede any ground to say "oh, well that's not very real" because, newsflash, none of it is fucking real.
Additionally, I think there are plenty of examples of pious, servile serfs and even nobles. However, they're not main characters because how fucking boring would that be?
|
stop spoiling
"hey, keep watching, because....."
|
Germany25658 Posts
Yeah we have been pretty lenient today when it comes to book discussion but I think it's time for you book readers to return to the other thread.
|
@yoav how was dany a sex slave? if you consider what she had with Drogo slavery ( she quickly started liking him), then pretty much every other marriage was a slavery contract as women have little to say in GoT in regards to who they want to marry, and either way, her life would've still been better than almost everyone else even if she hadn't liked Drogo.Dany has pretty much been collecting free ladder points the whole story, the hardest she had it was during the whole Mirri Maz Duur ordeal, which she kinda brought on herself.
|
TAIWAN NUMBAH WAN5956 Posts
On June 04 2013 05:26 LaNague wrote:
stop spoiling
"hey, keep watching, because....."
don't really think that I was spoiling anything?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
