Martin’s world is like . . . Murphy’s Law cubed. It’s not just that the bad guys win but every kind and noble act ends up punished and more often than not cruelty and general horribleness go rewarded.
If somebody is passionate, loving, and enjoys life then they’re almost assured a horrible death. . . but if they’re manipulative, evil, and cruel then they’re disproportionately more likely to get to live to a ripe old age.
Like I said earlier I was really excited when GoT got the huge HBO treatment because . . . we geeks don’t get to see that happen much, do we?
Now I’m beginning to regret getting so excited and am feeling a little foolish.
Or perhaps it’s the exact same body count as every other story in the genre, and the difference is that GRRM tells the story of the cannon fodder, makes it gripping and heartbreaking, instead of just one more bloodless loss without consequences.
I don’t blame anyone who doesn’t want to stick with it - the books get extremely unpleasant and rapey, full of torture-porn.
But one can certainly find meaning in the plot without having to make such a hipsteresque disclaimer.
If he had written Hamlet, the father wouldn’t have died offscreen.
edit - Ok, yeah, Jon Arynn was Hamlet’s father, even to the point of the potion poured into his ear by the unfaithful wife. Took 30 seconds after posting to make that connection.
The point stands - Martin did plenty offscreen, but the complaints are that any of the unpleasantness makes it to screen.
For all we consider Sauron such the archetype of evil, why wasn’t any of that part of the story?
While Martin himself cites the Black Dinner, and the Glencoe Massacre as the historical inspirations for the Red Wedding, and historians point to the Bloodfeast in Roskilde, what it immediately reminded me of was Edgar Allen Poe’s Masque of the Red Death.
I wasn’t saying there aren’t any historical analogues. Horrible things happen in real and fantasy worlds.
Rather the balance is the issue. The world of Game of Thrones is weighted heavily towards cruel and horrible and away from any sort of ‘goodness’. This isn’t terribly rational, as it takes a lot of cooperation to build a civilization.
I like a good bit of grit in my reading, don’t get me wrong. When every character is bulletproof or superhumanly lucky it can get old sometimes. . . but there’s a massive middle ground between that and Martin’s world.
Puppies die. . . but I don’t find it enjoyable when all the puppies are tied to anthills and stomped on by evil children riding ponies because those puppies stopped to help an old lady cross a street.
Look, I think that what some of us are asking–without affectation, in all seriousness–is how far we can go with a story that appears to have made its point rather effectively and persuasively about two seasons ago, and really has little else to say, other than much more of what it has already said. In other words, it’s becoming an amusement ride of despair and terror, which many people seem to enjoy quite a bit, that’s fine, but after awhile the effect on (some) viewers is nausea and disorientation. I mean, come on, Tyrion waxes eloquent about the absurdity of meaningless cruelty, then we are immediately taken to a scene where one man crushes another man’s skull like–yes–a beetle. What is the message? Life is hard, cruel, (often) filled with horror and much too short? OK, fair enough, that resonates. But once you’ve made that point–and I think most people would agree, the point has been made–where do you go from there? More better beetle crushing, to feed the moron’s appetite for senseless violence? When does the audience become the idiot with a rock, or the idiot watching other idiots with rocks? Horror has its therapeutic benefits, but eventually, I’m not sure where or when (that’s the question), I think you have to wonder what the point of horror is, if the horrible point has already been made. GoT was probably some kind of masterpiece up and to the point of Ned Stark’s execution. After that, it became what it really may be: a protracted, “rapey, full of torture-porn” spectacle that illustrates nothing more than Tyrion’s parable of the beetle-crushing idiot with a rock.
It means that there are choices beyond feeling obligated to watch or read things you dislike while feeling burdened by the obligation to repeatedly explain that you are participating in those entertainments for ironic or cultural-connectedness purposes despite getting no enjoyment from them.
It might be healthier to stick with entertainment that you enjoy. It seems clear that you are not a reader of the books, so allow me this spoiler - it doesn’t get lighter. If you have not enjoyed the events since the beheading of Ned Stark, you really won’t find the rest of the series any more to your liking. That’s perfectly fine - the world is swamped with excellent entertainment right now. Watch something else.
Here’s a little piece of advice, for everyone who’s delicate sensibilities are offended by Game of Thrones: don’t start reading history. Especially not Medieval or Ancient Roman history. Because Game of Thrones borrows heavily from actual history, and actual history is frequently as bad or worse than the shit that’s depicted on Game of Thrones. We live in an era of unprecedented peace and comfort. Horror and misery and needless slaughter have been a defining characteristic of most of human history. Game of Thrones isn’t nihilistic for acknowledging this: it’s just realistic.
I mean . . . yes, awful things happened in the past. But Martin’s world is a bit closer to an imaginary 24-hour news cycle world where you get the choiciest bits of horror selected from a horde of humans and then served up in bite sized pieces.
Sure, things are somewhat better than they were, but that doesn’t mean that the past was always miserable for everyone.
I see what you’re saying, but most of history is way, way more violent than modern times. It’s hard to estimate because of the lack of good records, but a person’s odds of dying violently in the middle ages may have been anywhere between 10 and 30 times what they are today. And forget Medieval Europe; try Ancient Rome, where massive wars, political assassinations where often the rule rather than the exception. There were certainly periods of peace, but there were also extended periods of warfare and strife on a scale that rival the various conflicts in Game of Thrones.
I do. I watch many things. Including Game of Thrones. I think it’s a good thing to be challenged by what you watch, or read, and things that make you uncomfortable are not necessarily bad things. But sometimes you catch yourself asking questions, like, why is this show having this affect on me? Why am I so conflicted about what I’m seeing, or hearing? You know, being engaged and critical rather than inert and passive. George Martin has literary aspirations. He has made a cultural impact. If some people wrestle with the messages in his work, implicit or explicit, it’s a compliment to him that he can give his audience an intellectual and emotional workout. But some of us still have questions, we are a bit conflicted about what this show has become or is becoming, and we certainly don’t feel compelled to apologize for what you have mis-characterized and dismissed as “hipsteresque” posturing. I think we understand that you like your rapey torture-porn served straight up and without irony–because realism–and that’s OK. But don’t be so quick to chase off anyone who looks for more in a conversation than a excited recitation of all the cool badass stuff that the GoT crew got up to last night. The old “watch something else” retort is getting a bit overused by now.
Oh yeah, I’m not saying that we’ve NEVER had stretches where things were really bad for a subset of people in power (which is most of the GoT cast. . . it’s pretty heavy on the nobles) just that it’s not the norm . . . historically humans still have had precious people they’ve protected and cooperation was generally a valuable thing because that’s how things actually got done.
And given how successful his books were it’s not that Martin made poor choices there either, the sales speak for themselves.
However, my argument is primarily that we have a HUGE number of very high quality fantasy works that would translate just as well (if not better) to the small screen if given the same level of budget and marketing and the same effort was put into casting and such.
And most of those wouldn’t require that we be having discussions like this, many would result in people being happy and inspired at the end of most episodes.
As a geek who wants that treatment for ALL my favorite works I just wish we had either more options (with the same budget) or we had gone with something other than Game of Thrones.
Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Orson’s epitaph and Tyrion’s lament. But then we have a dollop of “all’s well that ends well” on the horizon, even if that will be infused with violence and terror as well. Faukner had much to say about most of this. As does Cormac McCarthy. I wonder if McCarthy and Martin know each other (they both live in Santa Fe.) Blood Meridien’s Judge Holden has danced his way through GoT/Ice and Fire from the beginning, all the while disguised as - not so much who but as what?
Here’s a thought: a guy like Martin is perhaps somewhat likely to be a bit of a misanthrope, right?
If it was me, I’d be looking at how the masses ignore everything outside their monkeyspheres to the ultimate detriment of all, and realising I had a voice amongst them, would concoct a scheme whereby I’d insinuate my characters into everyone’s monkeysphere, and then brutally wipe them out one by one with extreme prejudice, just like what constantly happens to real people in the real world because folks are more interested in stuff like Game of Thrones than where the stuff they buy comes from, or why there isn’t anyone worth voting for.
You come to hate people (collectively speaking) when you realise there isn’t a snowflake’s chance of their cognitive biases being transcended before the greedy scum at the top irrevocably shit the nest… so hey, if you can at least stick the knife in and twist it a bit, might as well do that.
Taking the topic off the larger picture for a mo - why haven’t I seen anyone picking up on Jamie’s comment about cousin murder? Waaaay back in season 1(2? been a while) he did just that to get out of a cage, didn’t he? Thought it was a pointed enquiry on his part, subtle and nicely done.
I guess its predictable, but the hated characters die to. So is it that the good guys die more or that we actually care and get surprised when they die?
Jon Snow seems to be the nicer and smarter than Ned Stark. Remember that his father chopped the head off a thief in the first episode but when its Jon’s turn to take the head off a wildling he instead proceeds to fall in love with her. If this was predictable he would have died long ago.
The real pattern is that the stupid die and the smart live. If they kill the Imp that would be the biggest derivation so far.
