On June 04 2013 06:20 DeathProfessor wrote: SMH at all the people implying because evil has been done that it is natural for ALL humanity and should be well represented to show good people as idiots who should never have been good and are punished for their behavior severely, and evil people as smart because they accepted the world for what it really is and took advantage which is basically what GoT does. Evil doesn't just get to win in GoT but it gets to do a jig on goods corpse.
Thinking this way keeps countries at third world level and is why we had an enlightenment eventually just saying.
What I predict is Sansa learns the ways of evil and keeps just enough emotional distance to put up a facade of innocence but uses all of her tricks in one fell swoop.
BTW I am not saying I am boycotting its just I am glad I torrent because I am happy I am not supporting such a Satanic show. Still, because I am not a fundamentalist and I am very invested in the plot so I will probably continue to watch. Also I love how well made it is you gotta say if it was a bad show people wouldn't cry and I wouldn't have cried either.
I really hope we get a good guy bone thrown at us soon.
Lol, because Game of Thrones is clearly trying to propose a set of morals for the modern world? It's set in an entirely different society than the way things are today, and yeah, it's safe to say that in that society, a bit of backstabbing and evil goes a long way toward keeping you in power.
Besides, what about Daenarys's whole storyline? That has example after example of good overpowering evil. (unfairly so, really. Daenarys has gotten lucky as hell over and over...)
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".
so many people bothered by the "good guys" being murdered, the only thing G. Martin is guilty of is that he made a world that offers intelligent readers an antidote to what they are used to/tired off : the good guys having plot armor and succeeding every time, schooling people to choose the "right" morality that wins.
Even the magic in the show acts as randomness that helps (or kills) some of the power hungry plotters; in real life luck plays a great part whether you like it or not, even if you make the best plan you could still lose to an idiot with weapons of mass destruction or an earthquake or dragons etc
Why the hell would Robb or Eddard Stark win? Yes we can relate more to them because our their morals/line of thinking are closer to our own age, but if you put them into their own world they should be really lucky to survive with their no- compromise-iron-morals attitude and their inability to understand their opponents.
George RR Martin is indeed having fun with people that think in the old school morality cliches and I'm having fun with him as well. In real life shit actually happens and you might think he has overdone it in his books, but seriously, how good would another moralizing yawn fest be? OH GR8 ROBB TOOK REVENGE AND BECAME KING HOW FASCINATING AND UNEXPECTED JUST LIKE REAL LIFE WHERE THE GOOD GUYS WIN AND EVERYTHING HAS A PURPOSE
Oh and when everyone's referring to the show being realistic I think it's obvious that they mean the characters' motivations and passions, contrasting the show to other known fantasy books/movies like Lord of the rings where the morality and motivations are overly simplistic (eg the absence of sexuality)
The point isn't that the "good guys" have to win, but that the hipster attitude of, "Oh, Martin's writing is so realistic to how people actually are and so refreshing!" is arrogant and naive. His storytelling isn't much more realistic than the "good guys" winning out; he is just flipping it around the other way, and the "bad guys" are the ones that are stomping everyone. Plenty of people (myself included) will continue to absolutely love this series and TV show, but the criticisms are perfectly justified. It's personal taste, not correct vs. incorrect. Martin has taken his storytelling a radically different direction from what is fairly common, but that doesn't make it any better; it simply makes it different in tone but still similar in biases.
In fact, there's good grounds for literary criticism of what Martin is doing. If Martin does (or already has, since the next two books have been written) continue to be trigger-happy, then killing off so many of your main characters makes for a very poor experience towards the end of the series; people aren't going to be very invested in a bunch of new characters when all of the original characters have just been killed off.
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.
This is the world-view (that you may share with George Martin) that I strongly disagree with. We must all acknowledge that there has been violence, anguish, hopelessness, corruption and more throughout human history. However, can you assert that the human condition is accurately represented by what we see in Westeros? Are nearly all humans amoral creatures - ambivalent or reprehensible in regards to morality, as seen in Game of Thrones? That's quite an indictment of humanity. It reminds me of Star Trek: The Encounter at Far Point, when the omnipotent being named "Q" puts humanity on trial. Needless to say, the trial ends with the understanding that humanity as a whole is not savage or amoral - but rather, we are inherently "good" beings. And though flawed, we look to better ourselves and are driven by the hope of a better a future.
I would say that Sam's speech to Frodo at the end of The Two Towers is far more representative of our humanity than the excessive darkness and moral ambivalence that Martin broods in. Tolkien's work was also heavily influenced by his horrible experiences in World War 1. Linking below:
On June 04 2013 06:41 Savage88 wrote: WHAT THE FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK! What Idiot wrote these Books? What was he thinking? They cannot kill every fucking maincharater in every season.
To remind people like you that there is no main character and in the real world the "good" guy doesn't always win.
If Eddard dying in s1 was a smack across the face this is a shoryuken to the jaw.
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.
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.
Oh god, he stole so much. I didn't realize this before but practically every non-fantasy element of the setting is stolen from history.
On June 04 2013 06:41 Savage88 wrote: WHAT THE FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK! What Idiot wrote these Books? What was he thinking? They cannot kill every fucking maincharater in every season.
That "idiot" must have done something right when you get so upset over fictional characters in his books
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.
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.
Oh god, he stole so much. I didn't realize this before but practically every non-fantasy element of the setting is stolen from history.
Please also realize that he nitpicked the absolute worst of our history and put it on display, while withholding the incredible moral and social achievements of humanity.
Just watched the episode 30 minutes ago. I came into this episode expecting some kind of twist, thanks to the internet crying out "WTF" (but thankfully not ruining it for me). I kept trying to guess what the twist possibly could be and when it finally came I was going "WTF" myself. Totally didn't see that ending coming.
I also remember watching an interview with the two producers in which they said something along the lines of "We went into this series hoping we would eventually get to season 3, because there is one scene in book 3 that blew us away when we first read it and we were dying to make it."
On June 04 2013 06:11 Cirqueenflex wrote: But killing a baby with multiple stabs (and you can't tell me this wasn't intended) is just disgusting and more than I would have needed to see to get the story plot across. Also the less I like people on the show the more screentime they get. So this will have been the last episode of GoT I will have watched. Not because of the characters that died (I disliked them anyway), not for the slaughter, but rather for the lack of people I can relate to and for the excessive and sadistic presentation of the killing/torture stuff.
You think the point of the whole Red Wedding scene was just to "get a story point across"? They could have just had all of the Starks just suddenly get their throats cut (like the magician in Essos did at the end of S2) if all they were trying to convey with this scene was "...aaaand then the Starks all got killed for betraying Frey."
The point of the scene was to be horrific, to highlight the emotional rollercoaster of the Starks going from a relatively hopeful place to having lost everything within a few minutes. Part of that was deliberately highlighting that they were killing the heir to the throne (and all of the hopes for the future of the Starks) by stabbing Talissa's stomach. It's supposed to be horrific. It's a deliberately stark contrast to the heroic, beautiful, meaningful deaths we're used to important heroes getting.
I actually do take issue with a lot of the unnecessary gore in this show, but all of the gore in that scene served a pretty damn clear purpose, and it worked incredibly well. One of the most amazing TV viewing experiences I've ever had. It's beyond me why that brilliant scene would make someone swear off the show.
many if not most people puke when they first discover a corpse that has just been killed by a train, ripped into pieces. That disgust is natural human instinct. If the purpose of the show is to bring me close to that feeling I have to admit it did a good job. Maybe it is brilliant for you, because you can view it from a different angle. For me it is a horrific thing to do to a human and disgusts me to no end, and all the violence already put me on the edge of quitting the show anyway (as there was no character I dearly cared about, and the only one I could somewhat relate to based on the decisions taken was the Imp). So at this point I am happy with not watching a show ever again that just wants to make me puke without having any further entertainment value for me besides being a fantasy show (which was the reason I watched it in the first place, being on the search for a good fantasy show).
i dont know, actually the emperor is in kind of a crappy place.
The North will be really angry and in the south/west there is an army of 300k plus dragons coming, just need to get over the ocean. Plus undead zombie invasion.
Also, very curious, everyone wants to be the ruler of Kings landing, but in the desert continent there seem to be multiple cities that can all match the power of the emperor of westeros.
AMAZING episode, f***** AWESOME! I don't feel bad at all for Robb, never cheered for him so w/e. The Daario/Jorah/Grey worm fight was so good as well. Also, did anyone see what happened to the blackfish? I'll be bummed if he died.
Seems like Tywin is fucked to me and was since the beggining, there are so many 3rd partys which can come in and crush the lannisters. We have the martells, targareons(dany), tullys, baratheons, aryns, greyjoys, and tyrells. Most importantly though we have littlefinger and varys who are both scheming to destroy the lannisters. Littlefinger is getting the lannisters in debt with the iron bank of braavos, and varys was scheming to get dothraki to cross the sea in season 1. Also the lannisters have joffrey who is basically the worst ruler of all time and is a huge threat to the lannisters. Then we have weird sorcery, dragons and whitewalkers. I think the people that will win in the end are the iron bank of braavos-if dragons and whitewalkers don't get in their way.
for those of you trying to cope with this episode consider the following:
The game is completely fair:
People who are stupid or act stupidly die off.
-Ned was stupid for confronting Cersei upfront about her children, he made himself a target and without the certainty that Robert can protect him.
-Rob was stupid for marrying for love instead of politics (like everyone else in his world), and breaking his word.
-Catelyn was stupid for acting on her maternal impulses instead of her mind as a strategist.
The next couple of stupid people I expect to die are:
-Joffrey: Super duper stupid -Cersei: Thinks she's smart but she's really stupid -Theon: Who is stupid, period. -Davos: Kinda stupid for being so upfront with melisandre
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".
so many people bothered by the "good guys" being murdered, the only thing G. Martin is guilty of is that he made a world that offers intelligent readers an antidote to what they are used to/tired off : the good guys having plot armor and succeeding every time, schooling people to choose the "right" morality that wins.
Even the magic in the show acts as randomness that helps (or kills) some of the power hungry plotters; in real life luck plays a great part whether you like it or not, even if you make the best plan you could still lose to an idiot with weapons of mass destruction or an earthquake or dragons etc
Why the hell would Robb or Eddard Stark win? Yes we can relate more to them because our their morals/line of thinking are closer to our own age, but if you put them into their own world they should be really lucky to survive with their no- compromise-iron-morals attitude and their inability to understand their opponents.
George RR Martin is indeed having fun with people that think in the old school morality cliches and I'm having fun with him as well. In real life shit actually happens and you might think he has overdone it in his books, but seriously, how good would another moralizing yawn fest be? OH GR8 ROBB TOOK REVENGE AND BECAME KING HOW FASCINATING AND UNEXPECTED JUST LIKE REAL LIFE WHERE THE GOOD GUYS WIN AND EVERYTHING HAS A PURPOSE
Oh and when everyone's referring to the show being realistic I think it's obvious that they mean the characters' motivations and passions, contrasting the show to other known fantasy books/movies like Lord of the rings where the morality and motivations are overly simplistic (eg the absence of sexuality)
The point isn't that the "good guys" have to win, but that the hipster attitude of, "Oh, Martin's writing is so realistic to how people actually are and so refreshing!" is arrogant and naive. His storytelling isn't much more realistic than the "good guys" winning out; he is just flipping it around the other way, and the "bad guys" are the ones that are stomping everyone. Plenty of people (myself included) will continue to absolutely love this series and TV show, but the criticisms are perfectly justified. It's personal taste, not correct vs. incorrect. Martin has taken his storytelling a radically different direction from what is fairly common, but that doesn't make it any better; it simply makes it different in tone but still similar in biases.
In fact, there's good grounds for literary criticism of what Martin is doing. If Martin does (or already has, since the next two books have been written) continue to be trigger-happy, then killing off so many of your main characters makes for a very poor experience towards the end of the series; people aren't going to be very invested in a bunch of new characters when all of the original characters have just been killed off.
No. If you look at history, the vast majority of people who seized or held power were exceptionally unsavory people, routinely engaging in assassination, bald-faced lying, deception, and manipulation of others for personal gain.
EPT
