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 . 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.
That's where I think everyone disagrees with your views. GoT is NOT 100% negative. You're not recognizing that the vast majority of main characters in GoT are nobility. These are the people in power. They are not a representative cross-section of all of Westeros' population. It is well known that power corrupts. And what we're looking at here are the actions of people struggling for power.
Now look at the people NOT in power in GoT. Gendry? That baker's boy who leaves Arya's group to bake bread at an inn? The maester at Winterfell? The stableboy Arya played with? Syrio? The onion knight? Samwell Tarly? Brienne of Tarth? That wildling girl with Bran? There are plenty of people in GoT who are not terrible people. But you're ignoring them because they don't fit into your view of GoT. You're being horribly biased and you really don't have much of a point here. There is nothing unrealistic about GoT aside from the obvious fantasy elements. People do awful things during war and for the sake of power.
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.
Nah it's not just the gruesome aspect of history. Others have mentioned the medieval customs and War of Roses. There are also parallels between the Dothraki and the Mongols for example. Khal Drogo is almost exactly like a young Genghis Khan (incidentally Khal = Khan), right down to his devotion to his wife.
I think it's pretty clear that something like this has never happened before and was part of why it was so unexpected for the Starks and their loyal banner men. Unless something like it happens in the future I don't see why it couldn't be equally rare as "The Black Dinner". I don't think the events based on historical events are supposed to be any more common in Westeros than they are in our world. Bad things happen to good people, and they also happen to bad people, but that's more expected in story telling so we don't notice it as much. There is nothing wrong with not wanting to watch bad things happen to good people, but it does bring a certain level of uncertainty to every other character's fate that many fans appreciate even if they hate the bad event itself. I think when people say it's more "realistic" they mean in context to your typical fantasy fare where the hero may go thru a lot of peril and loss, but in the end comes back to save the day.
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 . 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.
I hope you are considering that the things in GoT happen over quite a long time and not "every week". The show airs every week but the storyline of the first 3 seasons spans longer than 30 weeks.
Sure the big events in the show seem way too frequent and could happen maybe over a century but it is a fantasy novel after all and it would be very incoherent if there were big time jumps. I actually think it some ways real medivial times were more brutal than the show. I visited a torture device museum and would you can see there is really gut wrenching. You were really lucky as a accused criminal to have a quick death but it most of time that wasn't the case.
Also note how awesomely some of the quotes from the beginning of the episode resonate with the RW
"Show them how it feels to lose what they love." Double meaning, this is a comment of the ending directed to the viewers ("them"). For all the times I've heard the line in the preview, I never thought of that.
"You have a very suspicious mind. In my experience only dishonest people think this way." Well Robb sure was quite honest, wasn't he :/
Can't believe all the spoilers I woke up to just on my twitter alone. I think I had to unfollow like 15 people. Goes to show you how really inconsiderate some people are to others. #LOL #RED #WEDDING #GoT. Ugh! I really enjoyed the episode up until the now famous end scene, just because the whole time I was waiting for it to happen. I want to strangle someone. /rant over
Moving on, I don't think I've ever been more excited for the next episode. That is if I can manage to avoid the internet like the plague until I watch it first.. man I hate spoilers. T_T
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.
That's a good point, although the show has introduced soooo many characters in the first place that he can kill them by dozens, there will always been enough for keeping interest.
I do believe the real protagonists are people such as Aria or Jon Snow. Those won't get killed. At all. The downfall of the Stark family was one of the big themes anyway, and Ned, Robb, his wife, etc... had to be wipped out at some point; that was really kind of obvious. But think about it: when you have introduced something like 8 fully developped Stark characters, you can really afford to get 5 of them killed. It doesn't matter so much, and on the opposite, the survivors that I guess are the true protagonists will seem that much more important.
As for people talking about the "realism" of GoT, I think they miss the point of fantasy.
I read a few pages of the first book in a bookshop the other day and I found the style and writing kind of horrible (actually, fantasy novel is most of the time junk-writting, and that includes Harry Potter and such). The series is highly, highly enjoyable, but I think it should be taken for what it is: a mass entertainment TV show. Like it or not, it's definitly not god damn Shakespeare.
On June 04 2013 07:48 dragoonier wrote: Sure the big events in the show seem way too frequent and could happen maybe over a century but it is a fantasy novel after all and it would be very incoherent if there were big time jumps. I actually think it some ways real medivial times were more brutal than the show. I visited a torture device museum and would you can see there is really gut wrenching. You were really lucky as a accused criminal to have a quick death but it most of time that wasn't the case.
Agree with you and I think it's fine as a fantasy novel. Martin can do whatever he wants in his work of course and there's nothing wrong with that.
On June 04 2013 07:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:
. . . The series is highly, highly enjoyable, but I think it should be taken for what it is: a mass entertainment TV show. Take it for what it is, it's definitly not god damn Shakespeare.
I'm with you here too. Agreed 100%.
On June 04 2013 07:42 c0ldfusion wrote:
Nah it's not just the gruesome aspect of history. Others have mentioned the medieval customs and War of Roses. There are also parallels between the Dothraki and the Mongols for example. Khal Drogo is almost exactly like a young Genghis Khan (incidentally Khal = Khan), right down to his devotion to his wife.
I can agree with you that there are medieval customs being appreciated that are similar to ours and many other parallels. It just happened to be that I was responding to someone who was specifying that the dark aspects (the majority) of Game of Thrones is also accurately reflected - a place where the "bad guys" tend to do astoundingly well for themselves.
But how about dat Sandor/Arya scene. So powerful. Cmon man, we definitely need more airtime of those two.
I think any scene with Arya has been the absolute best. Especially when she was exchanging dialogue jabs with Tywin.
If Arya dies all of a sudden, for whatever reason. Then I will consider dropping the show entirely. I will catch up on the books, then make up "predictions" just like every other asshole in this thread, and spoil the series for everyone else. + Show Spoiler +
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.
Loved the line too
"IM TOO YOUNG FOR THIS SHIT, I NEED TO CRAWL BACK INTO YOUR WOMB MOM"
Stabbed right in the fucking heart....couple squirts for good measure
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.
No it's not. You would be right if the bad guys just happened to win, and the good guys just happened to lose. Robb Stark doesn't lose because he's the good guy. He loses because he makes several bad decisions, some due to his honor but also some due to his youth. Similarly, the Lannister aren't "winning" because they're evil. They have better alliances, a larger force, more money, and so far they've made the more logical decisions.
Robb Stark was outmicroing them in battles but he just got outmacroed really badly. That's why he lost. Not because of his moral standards, but because of his poor display of game of thrones skills.
Some people in here have a very Sansa-esque view of things I see. Well maybe now they are starting to realize knights aren't like the ones in the pretty songs, and the same goes for some lords as well.
I'm surprised people think it's crossed some sort of line right now. It's not the gore in this show that stands out; most of us have probably seen worse. Rather, it's the fact that the author has made every effort to incorporate and depict the most morally repulsive acts conceivable only to the sickest mind. Apart from the usual, we have had incest, threesomes with incest (though it didn't happen, notion suggested by Margarey), a father who imprisons and weds his daughters and offers his sons to monsters, sadism beyond what I'd ever seen, torture etc. I could go on.
The last episode only struck me as a bit shocking because of the characters that were killed, and not for any other reason.
On June 04 2013 08:03 SilentShout wrote: Some people in here have a very Sansa-esque view of things I see. Well maybe now they are starting to realize knights aren't like the ones in the pretty songs, and the same goes for some lords as well.
This is like the exact manifestation of what stratos spear was talking about...plot hipsters.
Although the point is taken, frey was clearly a bounder and a cad from the outset and Robb made some terrible decisions along the way and pretty much deserved to be taken out, the smugness of this post is so glaring and obnoxious.
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.
No it's not. You would be right if the bad guys just happened to win, and the good guys just happened to lose. Robb Stark doesn't lose because he's the good guy. He loses because he makes several bad decisions, some due to his honor but also some due to his youth. Similarly, the Lannister aren't "winning" because they're evil. They have better alliances, a larger force, more money, and so far they've made the more logical decisions.
Robb Stark was outmicroing them in battles but he just got outmacroed really badly. That's why he lost. Not because of his moral standards, but because of his poor display of game of thrones skills.
Hmm. This is a fictional work here. Martin's the one who decides who wins and who loses, correct? It was a conscious choice from Martin to kill off the Starks. Not understanding your counter to his argument.
On June 04 2013 07:51 VirtuallyJesse wrote: Can't believe all the spoilers I woke up to just on my twitter alone. I think I had to unfollow like 15 people. Goes to show you how really inconsiderate some people are to others. #LOL #RED #WEDDING #GoT. Ugh! I really enjoyed the episode up until the now famous end scene, just because the whole time I was waiting for it to happen. I want to strangle someone. /rant over
Moving on, I don't think I've ever been more excited for the next episode. That is if I can manage to avoid the internet like the plague until I watch it first.. man I hate spoilers. T_T
Doesn't avoid social media after not watching the show live like every normal person.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cvYq1d7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://25.media.tumblr.com/b393fa43967fdf099cfd6dde72b3dc7a/tumblr_mnsp2wxTHT1qb35ogo1_500.jpg)
