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:
Dude, the show isn't a documentary for crying out loud. Yeah, GRRM for sure exaggerates how evil the average person is in GoT. That makes it entertaining as hell to watch. It's an aesthetic for the story that differs from stories like LotR. What's so wrong with that? No one here is saying that stories where the good guys always win are inherently bad. It's just a different storytelling choice, and GRRM's choice definitely has a lot of merit- the main advantage being that the suspense is real.
Robb's decision to break his oath had real and dire consequences- not consequences that would be bad for a moment, maybe cost one person's life, and then be water under the bridge a few episodes later- but consequences that led to the destruction of everything he'd worked for. Those are consequences that good guys just don't get in LotR.
It may not be entirely realistic, but it feels that way because our fiction has been so historically weighted toward the lovey-dovey, triumph-of-good side of reality. So it feels a lot more real when we have a series that exaggerates the more gritty side of reality.
I don't think you understood the purpose of my post. I was responding to someone stating that Game of Thrones is accurately analogous to our own history and human condition, when (as you yourself mentioned) it is not.
Well, fair enough. I would say it's more an issue of focus than inaccuracy, though. I'd say there are surely plenty of microchosms in our history where there were people who were just as generally evil as the people on GoT. If you're looking for a representative sample of all human action, GoT is probably not accurate, though.
But yeah, I think when people say it's more realistic, they more mean that it includes parts of reality that we don't usually see.
I think the biggest aspect of "realism" in Game of Thrones is the lack of a distinct good/evil binary. Almost everyone in history who has done something "evil" had motivations and circumstances that made it seem like the right thing to do to them at the time. Add in something as ultimately pointless and meaningless as monarchical politics (i.e. no one has the right to rule the Seven Kingdoms, what the hell are you all on about?), and no one is really going to have good, objective moral justification for anything they do. "The good guys" vs. "the bad guys" is not a model you often get in history (I'd say WW2 is probably the closest thing I know of), and GoT is very reflective of that.
Wow I was feeling the wedding party was a bit overly merry and it wasn't gonna end nicely but I was still absolutely shocked and wasn't expecting anything like this.
On June 04 2013 07:04 Syn Harvest wrote: Lol I knew this episode was coming the whole season and I knew everyone was gonna be so up in arms about it.
The main problem you guys are having with understanding why this event took place is that you are looking at The Starks as the good guys and The Lannisters as the bad guys. There are no good or bad guys in Martin's world. All the characters are gray. It makes it more realistic not because the world is savage but because all people no matter who they are, are capable of both great acts of kindness and evil.
Jamie Lannister is one of the greatest examples of this. For the first two seasons everyone looks down upon him as the horrible Kingslayer and that he has done all these terrible things and alot of them are true he has commited evil in his life. However at the same time the event in which he is known, for killing King Aerys, was a great act by him with the complete intention of saving the lives of the people of King's Landing.
The complexity of Martin's world lies in his ability to blur the lines between good and evil.
The "Red Wedding" as it is called in the book most certainly has large reverberating effects on the story but everything only gets more interesting once some semblence of peace settles over Westeros. This wedding is simply a precursor for the much more interesting events that occur around the wedding of Joffery and Margery. Not to spoil but I'm sure alot of people who are super upset about the death from last nights episode will feel much different about the Royal Wedding which will most likely be at the end of season 4
The problem with literature being turned into a tv show, is that TV shows are simply designed to create black and white characters. For example, sad violin music will play when a stark dies, but if someone like joffrey died or cersei, i seriously doubt the director will put sad violin music in the show if that happens. In order to create a tv show that leaves more imagination, more decision of the viewer over who is good or bad, we could remove any of this music that is designed to tell us what is good and is bad. We could simply kill robb and catlyn the same way a peasant dies in the background. i'm not sure if this would make it a better or worse story though.
I do think you would have to be mentally impaired to be unable to view Joffrey as bad and Rob as something closer to good.
On June 04 2013 07:18 matjlav wrote: I think the biggest aspect of "realism" in Game of Thrones is the lack of a distinct good/evil binary. Almost everyone in history who has done something "evil" had motivations and circumstances that made it seem like the right thing to do to them at the time. Add in something as ultimately pointless and meaningless as monarchical politics (i.e. no one has the right to rule the Seven Kingdoms, what the hell are you all on about?), and no one is really going to have good, objective moral justification for anything they do. "The good guys" vs. "the bad guys" is not a model you often get in history (I'd say WW2 is probably the closest thing I know of), and GoT is very reflective of that.
This has a stroke of truth but consider that psychopaths genuinely are very close to evil. For example Nero and Caligula. There are less straight up 'good characters' in history but there is definitely 'evil' and 'not so evil'.
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:
Dude, the show isn't a documentary for crying out loud. Yeah, GRRM for sure exaggerates how evil the average person is in GoT. That makes it entertaining as hell to watch. It's an aesthetic for the story that differs from stories like LotR. What's so wrong with that? No one here is saying that stories where the good guys always win are inherently bad. It's just a different storytelling choice, and GRRM's choice definitely has a lot of merit- the main advantage being that the suspense is real.
Robb's decision to break his oath had real and dire consequences- not consequences that would be bad for a moment, maybe cost one person's life, and then be water under the bridge a few episodes later- but consequences that led to the destruction of everything he'd worked for. Those are consequences that good guys just don't get in LotR.
It may not be entirely realistic, but it feels that way because our fiction has been so historically weighted toward the lovey-dovey, triumph-of-good side of reality. So it feels a lot more real when we have a series that exaggerates the more gritty side of reality.
I don't think you understood the purpose of my post. I was responding to someone stating that Game of Thrones is accurately analogous to our own history and human condition, when (as you yourself mentioned) it is not.
Well, fair enough. I would say it's more an issue of focus than inaccuracy, though. I'd say there are surely plenty of microchosms in our history where there were people who were just as generally evil as the people on GoT. If you're looking for a representative sample of all human action, GoT is probably not accurate, though.
But yeah, I think when people say it's more realistic, they more mean that it includes parts of reality that we don't usually see.
I think the biggest aspect of "realism" in Game of Thrones is the lack of a distinct good/evil binary. Almost everyone in history who has done something "evil" had motivations and circumstances that made it seem like the right thing to do to them at the time. Add in something as ultimately pointless and meaningless as monarchical politics (i.e. no one has the right to rule the Seven Kingdoms, what the hell are you all on about?), and no one is really going to have good, objective moral justification for anything they do. "The good guys" vs. "the bad guys" is not a model you often get in history (I'd say WW2 is probably the closest thing I know of), and GoT is very reflective of that.
Hundred Years War, Caligula, Rape of Nanking, murder of Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan killing his half-brother over a simple argument while hunting, Tang Taizhong killing his brothers over rulership of the family, etc ad infinitum. The number of examples throughout history of people doing just as awful, if not worse things is endless.
SCST is either blatantly ignoring these facts or he is ignorant. Either way, he's completely wrong.
And good things do happen to good people. Brienne of Tarth was saved from the bear. She could have just as easily been torn to pieces just for the sake of showing how cruel life can be. But people don't want to focus on that because they're too butthurt right now. They want to cry and complain that GRRM is unrelentingly dark. He's not. Bran is still alive when he could have simply been killed. Rickon hasn't been hurt. Both of them could have been slaughtered by Theon. Arya's alive despite all odds. Sansa hasn't been raped. Tyrion was perhaps the best husband she could have hoped for. A Lannister, so she won't be politically vulnerable, a good one so she won't be raped, and the older brother of the king so she's relatively insulated from Joffrey's insanity. Add to that the Tyrells have taken an interest in her and want to bring her over to their side, and you have a somewhat stupid but relatively good person who's come out about as good as she possibly could.
SCST, I think the wrong premise you have is that you expect Martin's work to tell something about our world. I'm pretty sure, given interviews he's given, text analysis I've made and text analysis I've read, that he's actually trying to show something about a classical fantasy world, and not about ours. If you study closely what he's doing, the mechanical deconstruction of every classical fantasy trope becomes apparent. You might see Robb die and think omg, this is gratuitous and sensationalist, and it certainly would be if Martin's purpose was to depict history, but with the fantasy context in mind, it's actually not at all. It is a necessary part of a more elaborate argument.
On a related note, I find the show has done a very good job of outlying the different deconstructions of Asoiaf, sometimes even adding some great lines that weren't from the books and fit well with the discussion. The fact that the show understood and approved of what Martin was doing is one of the things that made me confident in GoTs success from the start.
To the people hating on Martin, on making the world seem unrealistic. A few things (All of this is IMHO, of course),
First, look up the kinds of books GRRM used to write before he started SoIAF; I feel like it'll give you good insight into where this show/book series might be going, particularly Dying of the Light.
Second, read the books, or at least the first one. The writing is.. average really (although his sense of story structure, and the way clues are laid out is excellent), and certainly not graceful ; it really really came across that way to me.
Third, at the end of season 2, in a fan thing somewhere where Emilia Clarke (Danerys), GRRM and a few other actors were present, he asked Danerys why she didn't wear the traditional Qarthian dress in the show (or maybe it was at the event), which basically has one boob showing. Yes, it seemed just as creepy as it sounds.
Fourth, look at the guy, LOOK AT HIS FACE. When I originally read the chapter with the red wedding (actually, one of the best written ones), I could just imagine him stuffing his face with bacon and pie, writing this down going heuheuheuheuheu. The dudes a twisted, lecherous old man if I ever saw one. Jokes aside, (obviously not being too serious about points 3,4) those criticizing him on how 'ugly' so many of the characters are; you have a valid point, but this is one of GRRM's fortes. Moral ambivalence and what not aside, GRRM is effectively able to vividly portray, a brutal, lustful, gluttonous world ( Did you know that a 'Cookbook of Ice and Fire' was planning on being compiled because he goes into such great detail describing all the food in his world? ) I think you guys should keep this in mind when you watch the show.
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:
We are "good" when we live in a society where there's an effective rule of law, where there's a social contract, where there's a state capable and willing to shields us from the savage human nature (we're only animals in the end). But when the context is different then we stop being so "good".
Just look at the Milgran or the Standford prison experiment and see how perfectly normal, modern and "good" human beings can do horrible things just because of a change in the context.
I just find it hilarious that people claim a story is "unrealistic" because it shows humans betraying and murdering for personal gain. Specially when it's in the middle of an all out war in a society that doesn't value human life nowhere near as much as most modern societies do.
What did Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Hirohito and so many other countless leaders, politicians and generals to mantain and gain more power?, they betrayed, murdered and tortured. I guess reality must be truly unrealistic.
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:
Dude, the show isn't a documentary for crying out loud. Yeah, GRRM for sure exaggerates how evil the average person is in GoT. That makes it entertaining as hell to watch. It's an aesthetic for the story that differs from stories like LotR. What's so wrong with that? No one here is saying that stories where the good guys always win are inherently bad. It's just a different storytelling choice, and GRRM's choice definitely has a lot of merit- the main advantage being that the suspense is real.
Robb's decision to break his oath had real and dire consequences- not consequences that would be bad for a moment, maybe cost one person's life, and then be water under the bridge a few episodes later- but consequences that led to the destruction of everything he'd worked for. Those are consequences that good guys just don't get in LotR.
It may not be entirely realistic, but it feels that way because our fiction has been so historically weighted toward the lovey-dovey, triumph-of-good side of reality. So it feels a lot more real when we have a series that exaggerates the more gritty side of reality.
I don't think you understood the purpose of my post. I was responding to someone stating that Game of Thrones is accurately analogous to our own history and human condition, when (as you yourself mentioned) it is not.
But yeah, I think when people say it's more realistic, they more mean that it includes parts of reality that we don't usually see.
I think we're on common ground with this statement. This might be why people are vehemently defending Game of Thrones as if it were a replica of our own world in a fantasy environment. Martin modeled very dark scenes after events that did occur in human history, but these events occurred so rarely relative to what we see in Westeros that it is not it is almost insulting to our civilization to be portrayed as such. The prime example is "The Red Wedding", which was plucked from a historical event called "The Black Dinner" - something that has only known to have happened once in the last 700 years. Yet in Game of Thrones we can imagine this type of thing happening once a year, perhaps even in a matter of months. It has no basis in reality.
On June 04 2013 07:23 Nebuchad wrote: SCST, I think the wrong premise you have is that you expect Martin's work to tell something about our world. I'm pretty sure, given interviews he's given, text analysis I've made and text analysis I've read, that he's actually trying to show something about a classical fantasy world, and not about ours. If you study closely what he's doing, the mechanical deconstruction of every classical fantasy trope becomes apparent. You might see Robb die and think omg, this is gratuitous and sensationalist, and it certainly would be if Martin's purpose was to depict history, but with the fantasy context in mind, it's actually not at all. It is a necessary part of a more elaborate argument.
On a related note, I find the show has done a very good job of outlying the different deconstructions of Asoiaf, sometimes even adding some great lines that weren't from the books and fit well with the discussion. The fact that the show understood and approved of what Martin was doing is one of the things that made me confident in GoTs success from the start.
I understand what you're saying, but I don't feel that I'm necessarily bound by that premise at all. I don't know with certainty that Martin is intending to tell us something about our world - it's just speculation on my part. However, I do adamantly disagree with those that do think that Martin's work is accurately reflecting upon our own world, when I don't think that it is.
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.
Nothing like what is represented in Game of Thrones. Not even close to the level seen and insinuated in Westeros.
I don't think you've been watching the same show as the rest of us.
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:
Dude, the show isn't a documentary for crying out loud. Yeah, GRRM for sure exaggerates how evil the average person is in GoT. That makes it entertaining as hell to watch. It's an aesthetic for the story that differs from stories like LotR. What's so wrong with that? No one here is saying that stories where the good guys always win are inherently bad. It's just a different storytelling choice, and GRRM's choice definitely has a lot of merit- the main advantage being that the suspense is real.
Robb's decision to break his oath had real and dire consequences- not consequences that would be bad for a moment, maybe cost one person's life, and then be water under the bridge a few episodes later- but consequences that led to the destruction of everything he'd worked for. Those are consequences that good guys just don't get in LotR.
It may not be entirely realistic, but it feels that way because our fiction has been so historically weighted toward the lovey-dovey, triumph-of-good side of reality. So it feels a lot more real when we have a series that exaggerates the more gritty side of reality.
I don't think you understood the purpose of my post. I was responding to someone stating that Game of Thrones is accurately analogous to our own history and human condition, when (as you yourself mentioned) it is not.
But yeah, I think when people say it's more realistic, they more mean that it includes parts of reality that we don't usually see.
I think we're on common ground with this statement. This might be why people are vehemently defending Game of Thrones as if it were a replica of our own world in a fantasy environment. Martin modeled very dark scenes after events that did occur in human history, but these events occurred so rarely relative to what we see in Westeros that it is not it is almost insulting to our civilization to be portrayed as such. The prime example is "The Red Wedding", which was plucked from a historical event called "The Black Dinner" - something that has only known to have happened once in the last 700 years. Yet in Game of Thrones we can imagine this type of thing happening once a year, perhaps even in a matter of months. It has no basis in reality.
Then you haven't studied Byzantine politics. Or Ottoman. The standing law in the Ottoman Empire was that upon the death of the Sultan all his male heirs were to fight each other until only a single one was left standing. Sons were often put to death simply to reduce the chances of chaos during the succession.
You're absolutely insane if you think "The Black Dinner" is the only time a supposedly friendly feast has ended in a massacre. Maybe if your understanding of history extended beyond 5 minutes of googling you'd be better able to grasp the complex nature of humanity.
The show is taking place during one of Westeros' darkest periods set in the middle of a bloody civil war and people are claiming that it is unrealistic that bad things happen?
I've ended up enjoying the reaction to the Red Wedding way more than I thought I would.
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:
Dude, the show isn't a documentary for crying out loud. Yeah, GRRM for sure exaggerates how evil the average person is in GoT. That makes it entertaining as hell to watch. It's an aesthetic for the story that differs from stories like LotR. What's so wrong with that? No one here is saying that stories where the good guys always win are inherently bad. It's just a different storytelling choice, and GRRM's choice definitely has a lot of merit- the main advantage being that the suspense is real.
Robb's decision to break his oath had real and dire consequences- not consequences that would be bad for a moment, maybe cost one person's life, and then be water under the bridge a few episodes later- but consequences that led to the destruction of everything he'd worked for. Those are consequences that good guys just don't get in LotR.
It may not be entirely realistic, but it feels that way because our fiction has been so historically weighted toward the lovey-dovey, triumph-of-good side of reality. So it feels a lot more real when we have a series that exaggerates the more gritty side of reality.
I don't think you understood the purpose of my post. I was responding to someone stating that Game of Thrones is accurately analogous to our own history and human condition, when (as you yourself mentioned) it is not.
But yeah, I think when people say it's more realistic, they more mean that it includes parts of reality that we don't usually see.
I think we're on common ground with this statement. This might be why people are vehemently defending Game of Thrones as if it were a replica of our own world in a fantasy environment. Martin modeled very dark scenes after events that did occur in human history, but these events occurred so rarely relative to what we see in Westeros that it is not it is almost insulting to our civilization to be portrayed as such. The prime example is "The Red Wedding", which was plucked from a historical event called "The Black Dinner" - something that has only known to have happened once in the last 700 years. Yet in Game of Thrones we can imagine this type of thing happening once a year, perhaps even in a matter of months. It has no basis in reality.
Then you haven't studied Byzantine politics. Or Ottoman. The standing law in the Ottoman Empire was that upon the death of the Sultan all his male heirs were to fight each other until only a single one was left standing. Sons were often put to death simply to reduce the chances of chaos during the succession.
You're absolutely insane if you think "The Black Dinner" is the only time a supposedly friendly feast has ended in a massacre. Maybe if your understanding of history extended beyond 5 minutes of googling you'd be better able to grasp the complex nature of humanity.
Also the Red Wedding can't happen every month/year in Westeros. Walder Frey broke the hospitality laws, which are sacred laws, by doing what he did. I would agree that the show could have been a little more explicit about it, but it's a big, big thing to break.
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:
Dude, the show isn't a documentary for crying out loud. Yeah, GRRM for sure exaggerates how evil the average person is in GoT. That makes it entertaining as hell to watch. It's an aesthetic for the story that differs from stories like LotR. What's so wrong with that? No one here is saying that stories where the good guys always win are inherently bad. It's just a different storytelling choice, and GRRM's choice definitely has a lot of merit- the main advantage being that the suspense is real.
Robb's decision to break his oath had real and dire consequences- not consequences that would be bad for a moment, maybe cost one person's life, and then be water under the bridge a few episodes later- but consequences that led to the destruction of everything he'd worked for. Those are consequences that good guys just don't get in LotR.
It may not be entirely realistic, but it feels that way because our fiction has been so historically weighted toward the lovey-dovey, triumph-of-good side of reality. So it feels a lot more real when we have a series that exaggerates the more gritty side of reality.
I don't think you understood the purpose of my post. I was responding to someone stating that Game of Thrones is accurately analogous to our own history and human condition, when (as you yourself mentioned) it is not.
Well, fair enough. I would say it's more an issue of focus than inaccuracy, though. I'd say there are surely plenty of microchosms in our history where there were people who were just as generally evil as the people on GoT. If you're looking for a representative sample of all human action, GoT is probably not accurate, though.
But yeah, I think when people say it's more realistic, they more mean that it includes parts of reality that we don't usually see.
I think the biggest aspect of "realism" in Game of Thrones is the lack of a distinct good/evil binary. Almost everyone in history who has done something "evil" had motivations and circumstances that made it seem like the right thing to do to them at the time. Add in something as ultimately pointless and meaningless as monarchical politics (i.e. no one has the right to rule the Seven Kingdoms, what the hell are you all on about?), and no one is really going to have good, objective moral justification for anything they do. "The good guys" vs. "the bad guys" is not a model you often get in history (I'd say WW2 is probably the closest thing I know of), and GoT is very reflective of that.
Hundred Years War, Caligula, Rape of Nanking, murder of Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan killing his half-brother over a simple argument while hunting, Tang Taizhong killing his brothers over rulership of the family, etc ad infinitum. The number of examples throughout history of people doing just as awful, if not worse things is endless.
SCST is either blatantly ignoring these facts or he is ignorant. Either way, he's completely wrong.
And good things do happen to good people. Brienne of Tarth was saved from the bear. She could have just as easily been torn to pieces just for the sake of showing how cruel life can be. But people don't want to focus on that because they're too butthurt right now. They want to cry and complain that GRRM is unrelentingly dark. He's not. Bran is still alive when he could have simply been killed. Rickon hasn't been hurt. Both of them could have been slaughtered by Theon. Arya's alive despite all odds. Sansa hasn't been raped. Tyrion was perhaps the best husband she could have hoped for. A Lannister, so she won't be politically vulnerable, a good one so she won't be raped, and the older brother of the king so she's relatively insulated from Joffrey's insanity. Add to that the Tyrells have taken an interest in her and want to bring her over to their side, and you have a somewhat stupid but relatively good person who's come out about as good as she possibly could.
Samsung, it is true that those events (which are justifiably horrible) are a poor reflection upon mankind. What you're not taking into consideration is both how frequently these events occurred and who, relative to the whole of humanity, committed them. If we were to directly translate Game of Thrones to our world (reversing the analogy) then we would have a blood-letting of political opponents every week in our societies . . . massacres every day, immorality running rampant on an individual and personal level . And in addition to all of that, no one to be outraged and in opposition of these events. Martin's work is a massive exaggeration of the worst of humanity. Use some common sense here when analyzing it and asserting that events like the Rape of Nanking justifies the daily brutality of Westeros from time unto end. There is very little "good" in the world of Game of Thrones, and there is and has been plenty of "good" in our world.
Also, you're getting either very emotional or angry with your posting - you seem to be directly attacking me on a personal level in each of your posts now. Not sure why you're doing this, as we're just talking here and discussing our views and I have no ill will towards you.
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:
Dude, the show isn't a documentary for crying out loud. Yeah, GRRM for sure exaggerates how evil the average person is in GoT. That makes it entertaining as hell to watch. It's an aesthetic for the story that differs from stories like LotR. What's so wrong with that? No one here is saying that stories where the good guys always win are inherently bad. It's just a different storytelling choice, and GRRM's choice definitely has a lot of merit- the main advantage being that the suspense is real.
Robb's decision to break his oath had real and dire consequences- not consequences that would be bad for a moment, maybe cost one person's life, and then be water under the bridge a few episodes later- but consequences that led to the destruction of everything he'd worked for. Those are consequences that good guys just don't get in LotR.
It may not be entirely realistic, but it feels that way because our fiction has been so historically weighted toward the lovey-dovey, triumph-of-good side of reality. So it feels a lot more real when we have a series that exaggerates the more gritty side of reality.
I don't think you understood the purpose of my post. I was responding to someone stating that Game of Thrones is accurately analogous to our own history and human condition, when (as you yourself mentioned) it is not.
Well, fair enough. I would say it's more an issue of focus than inaccuracy, though. I'd say there are surely plenty of microchosms in our history where there were people who were just as generally evil as the people on GoT. If you're looking for a representative sample of all human action, GoT is probably not accurate, though.
But yeah, I think when people say it's more realistic, they more mean that it includes parts of reality that we don't usually see.
I think the biggest aspect of "realism" in Game of Thrones is the lack of a distinct good/evil binary. Almost everyone in history who has done something "evil" had motivations and circumstances that made it seem like the right thing to do to them at the time. Add in something as ultimately pointless and meaningless as monarchical politics (i.e. no one has the right to rule the Seven Kingdoms, what the hell are you all on about?), and no one is really going to have good, objective moral justification for anything they do. "The good guys" vs. "the bad guys" is not a model you often get in history (I'd say WW2 is probably the closest thing I know of), and GoT is very reflective of that.
Gne?
You mean stabbing pregnant woman / throwing kids by the window / torturing people in the most horrendous way (Theon's "host") / being a total psychopath for the whole show (Joffrey) / being an unsensitive cock (Tywinn) / etc etc etc etc etc is not evil?
Thing is, most character are ruthless bastards. Where I would kind of agree is that they all have their motivation, and some of them do have something to redeem them in a way or another. But having motivations doesn't make you less of an evil asshole if you do what all those mentionned characters are doing to each other.
Gosh this episode was shocking. I was absolutely sure that Robb was gonna die at some point, but I really didn't expect something so damn brutal.
On June 04 2013 07:03 Beevee wrote: I really wish Rob Stark could have gone out saying something like "The North Remembers", or "Shit", or Laughing saying "You are all going to die!"
Something other then saying "Mom" and then Bolton shoves a knife through him..... anyone with me?
I think that was a perfect line. He just seemed so shocked and hopeless.
EPT
