The world just isn't that dark.

[Airea]

Honest question here. With some premise.

I was raised in the military, Air Force, but we had everyone on the base. I saw heroes, incredible people every single day. Hell I was right by the fields the Tuskegee airmen trained in. More then that I spent some time in Alabama and met members of the civil rights movement, from marchers and survivors to the freedom riders who founded the church I went to. Good guys.

At that church I saw people working tirelessly to found schools in africa, feed the hungry and homeless, protect and heal veterans, rescue animals, and a million other causes. And they won. They saved people.

Then I went to college. In college I met professors who were keeping in contact with areas affected by tsunamis to help aid organizations help them better and are even now working to dig wells and out houses to help poor, agricultural populations all over the world. Real people. I had them over for dinner, more then once.

I'm not saying horrible things don't happen, they do. In the major I am in to meet these people (anthropology) we hear about genocide, ethncide, rape, mutilation and more most days. I am well aware of the evil in the world. Part of why I don't believe in spiritual evil - we don't need the help.

Then GOT comes out and I just don't get it. The actual world isn't that dark. There are good people almost everywhere. In reality. Yet in this depression inducing place...I think they're out. Killed them all. From what I can tell for kicks even.

When I point out the lack of any kind of real good guy I'm told this series is "more realistic". With all due respect - Bull****. Myanmar is more cheerful. Tell that to the people from most nations, in many states, who work all over the world to do good every single day. Who have though out history, and will till the human race isn't anymore. It's a fantasy that is frankly darker then the real thing and I just don't get the appeal.

How is the world not dark enough? Is this really what people want now? Why? For all my reading articles and (trying) to read the books (couldn't make myself do it) I just don't see the charm. And I know for a fact it's not "realistic". I live in the real world, I know better.

[Flickerdart]

So...someone made a story that you think is darker than real life. What of it? Is it some kind of moral transgression?

GoT has plenty of good people, many of whom are still alive and have greatly improved others' lives. In fact, pretty much all of the truly terrible people have bit it in unpleasant ways. It's never pretended to be a show about sunshine and lollipops, however.

[Airea]

And if they are they will be dead next book. I'm calling it now.

It's not a moral thing, you do you. I just don't get the charm. Sure, I know about mutilation, brutal rape and murdering children. It's the part of the reading I wince through. And it sure as hell isn't entertaining and I don't seek it out to relax after class.

I'm not asking for lollypops and rainbows. Just realism, a little balance. This show needs prozac. And therapy.

[Flickerdart]

Why are you judging fiction on the grounds of realism? When you see a giant robot choke-slam an alien god through a galaxy, do you think "man, if only this were more realistic"?

[Dienekes]

So...someone made a story that you think is darker than real life. What of it? Is it some kind of moral transgression?

GoT has plenty of good people, many of whom are still alive and have greatly improved others' lives. In fact, pretty much all of the truly terrible people have bit it in unpleasant ways. It's never pretended to be a show about sunshine and lollipops, however.

Littlefinger, and the Boltons are the only ones still ticking for team pure evil. You could maybe add the Freys, but I've always seen them as more idiotic pawns than truly villainous, besides the Freys are despised by everyone in Westeros, including their allies, they're time is gonna come soon enough.

But other than that, yeah, there are definitely still people trying to do good. Some of them died along the way, sadly. Which considering I'm living about 4 blocks from where a lady was murdered for trying to bring food to people in her area in a time of political instability some 30 years ago, isn't all that unrealistic.

The idea that there are no real good guys in GoT is pretty laughable, since we have Jon, Bran, Sansa, Podrick Payne, Brienne, Davos, Brynden Tully, Edmure Tully (though he is admittedly an idiot), hell even among the Lannisters Jaime is trying to redeem himself and Tommen is the nicest little bastard you could hope to meet.

And that goodness is at times rewarded, sometimes not.

[An Enemy Spy]

GOT focuses on bad stuff because that's where drama and conflict come from. Look at Medieval history. Everything that happens in GOT(except for the blatantly supernatural stuff) happened in real life all the time. Name one thing in GOT(again, not including the supernatural elements) that never happens in the real world.

[Jayngfet]

Honestly that's been my main problem with GoT since it's inception. It swings not just darkly, but unrealistically so. Often times it feels like characters die for no reason other than that's apparently what people do in this story. Going by both historical context and genre convention the kind of killings that'd be game changing are just kind of thrown in out of the blue then forgotten about like some kind of garnish.

I've found it to be a kind of low brow fixation really. It's not a terribly well crafted story and it's characters are very rarely even likable, and it's not terribly well planned either. But it has blood and tits, and that's enough to keep people watching apparently.

[Airea]

Why are you judging fiction on the grounds of realism? When you see a giant robot choke-slam an alien god through a galaxy, do you think "man, if only this were more realistic"?

If it's defended at "realistic" I will hold it as such.

[Airea]

GOT focuses on bad stuff because that's where drama and conflict come from. Look at Medieval history. Everything that happens in GOT(except for the blatantly supernatural stuff) happened in real life all the time. Name one thing in GOT(again, not including the supernatural elements) that never happens in the real world.

And if the explanation was "it just focuses on the dark" I would accept that. It fits.

[An Enemy Spy]

If it's defended at "realistic" I will hold it as such.

It is pretty realistic. Ever hear about a thing called World War Two? The Thirty Years War? The War of the Roses? Basically any major war that has ever happened? A lot worse stuff happened there than in GOT.

[Starwulf]

If it's defended at "realistic" I will hold it as such.

We must travel in vastly different circles and visit different forums, because I've never heard GOT as being "realistic". "Dark and Gritty" yes, but never "realistic".

[Airea]

Honestly that's been my main problem with GoT since it's inception. It swings not just darkly, but unrealistically so. Often times it feels like characters die for no reason other than that's apparently what people do in this story. Going by both historical context and genre convention the kind of killings that'd be game changing are just kind of thrown in out of the blue then forgotten about like some kind of garnish.

I've found it to be a kind of low brow fixation really. It's not a terribly well crafted story and it's characters are very rarely even likable, and it's not terribly well planned either. But it has blood and tits, and that's enough to keep people watching apparently.

My experience exactly. And I'm an historian who has studied European history. The cheapness of blood and tits really stand out.

There are amazing stories from that era, by all means tell them. The repeated rape isn't really called for.

[Dienekes]

It is pretty realistic. Ever hear about a thing called World War Two? The Thirty Years War? The War of the Roses? Basically any major war that has ever happened? A lot worse stuff happened there than in GOT.

To be fair, GoT is inspired by The War of the Roses, but takes efforts to make it bigger, more dramatic. The heroes are often more noble than the ones you find in TWotR, and the villains more vile. No one in TWotR is trying to stop ice monsters from destroying the world, and no one (recorded anyway) was Ramsay levels of insane. Not that psychopaths like Ramsay don't exist, but they weren't players in TWotR.

[An Enemy Spy]

Just to clarify, when I say Game of Thrones, I'm actually referring to A Song of Ice and Fire, the book series.

[Airea]

It is pretty realistic. Ever hear about a thing called World War Two? The Thirty Years War? The War of the Roses? Basically any major war that has ever happened? A lot worse stuff happened there than in GOT.

WW2: French Resistance, Goebles's brother, the entire Scandinavian region(no really, look it up), the resilience of the British during the battle of Britain. The reclaiming of Paris. I could go on.

30 years war: A number of once war driven counties that just backed away, actually lead to the concept of religious freedom and respected national borders. Actually caused some good thing. First theory of "Rights of man", and concept that became "human rights".

War of the Roses: See above, related.

I'm not saying bad things don't happen. Where is the good?

[Dienekes]

My experience exactly. And I'm an historian who has studied European history. The cheapness of blood and tits really stand out.

There are amazing stories from that era, by all means tell them. The repeated rape isn't really called for.

Ehh, if I wanted to make a story about the downfall of Emperor Tiberius as told by Suetonius rape would most certainly be called for. Stuff involving pools full of children sucking on him and the like. If you're trying to make the setting barbaric there are few ways to more readily set the tone of the world.

Similarly, I could write a story about the mongol horde and not have any rape and killing, but that would be a rather gross whitewashing of the mongols. It all depends on the story you want to tell. This one doesn't appeal to you, oh well. No story is aimed to entertain the entire world.

[Airea]

and no one (recorded anyway) was Ramsay levels of insane. Not that psychopaths like Ramsay don't exist, but they weren't players in TWotR.

They did. Once they were discovered they were seized by the village people and drawn and quartered. It was brutal. It was considered to draw the devil to have someone marked as so violent.

[Dienekes]

WW2: French Resistance, Goebles's brother, the entire Scandinavian region(no really, look it up), the resilience of the British during the battle of Britain. The reclaiming of Paris. I could go on.

30 years war: A number of once war driven counties that just backed away, actually lead to the concept of religious freedom and respected national borders. Actually caused some good thing. First theory of "Rights of man", and concept that became "human rights".

War of the Roses: See above, related.

I'm not saying bad things don't happen. Where is the good?

In GoT? The death of Joffrey, Bran becoming a seer, Jaime trying to redeem himself, the Brotherhood without Banners off being badasses (though the show did sully them a bit), and if you wait for it, you're probably gonna see the growing resistance of the north. In the book it is something truly epic to behold. And it has pies!

[Airea]

Ehh, if I wanted to make a story about the downfall of Emperor Tiberius as told by Suetonius rape would most certainly be called for. Stuff involving pools full of children sucking on him and the like. If you're trying to make the setting barbaric there are few ways to more readily set the tone of the world.

Similarly, I could write a story about the mongol horde and not have any rape and killing, but that would be a rather gross whitewashing of the mongols. It all depends on the story you want to tell. This one doesn't appeal to you, oh well. No story is aimed to entertain the entire world.

The question is would you have is there, or show it every single time. It being there is undeniable. Bathing in it is cheap.

[Flickerdart]

WW2: French Resistance, Goebles's brother, the entire Scandinavian region(no really, look it up), the resilience of the British during the battle of Britain. The reclaiming of Paris. I could go on.
GoT has plenty of guys fighting against the big evil empire that's a little too obsessed with blondes. Including, y'know, resistance fighters. The good guys win lots of battles.



30 years war: A number of once war driven counties that just backed away, actually lead to the concept of religious freedom and respected national borders. Actually caused some good thing. First theory of "Rights of man", and concept that became "human rights".

Yeah, afterwards. By comparison, Daenerys is freeing slaves already.


War of the Roses: See above, related.

I'm not saying bad things don't happen. Where is the good?
Jon Snow saving his sworn enemies? Jaime Lannister becoming a decent human being? Honestly, your complaining is just making it sound like you've not actually seen the source material.

[Airea]

In GoT? The death of Joffrey, Bran becoming a seer, Jaime trying to redeem himself, the Brotherhood without Banners off being badasses (though the show did sully them a bit), and if you wait for it, you're probably gonna see the growing resistance of the north. In the book it is something truly epic to behold. And it has pies!

I would like for you to be right.

[Dienekes]

They did. Once they were discovered they were seized by the village people and drawn and quartered. It was brutal. It was considered to draw the devil to have someone marked as so violent.

And yet, Vlad the Impaler survived until he died in battle. Despite the brutality of his actions.

[Airea]

Jon Snow saving his sworn enemies? Jaime Lannister becoming a decent human being? Honestly, your complaining is just making it sound like you've not actually seen the source material.

Like I said above, I tried. I really did. Now I keep up with articals that might not keep me up with nightmares all night.

Everytime I think about getting back into the show there another blow about a woman being raped (again, it's old at this point) or even a ten year old being burned at the stake.

And I back out of the bar. I'm already reading about this crap in class.

[An Enemy Spy]

WW2: French Resistance, Goebles's brother, the entire Scandinavian region(no really, look it up), the resilience of the British during the battle of Britain. The reclaiming of Paris. I could go on.

30 years war: A number of once war driven counties that just backed away, actually lead to the concept of religious freedom and respected national borders. Actually caused some good thing. First theory of "Rights of man", and concept that became "human rights".

War of the Roses: See above, related.

I'm not saying bad things don't happen. Where is the good?

Let's see: The Brotherhood Without Banners, an outlaw group who protects the smallfolk. Septons who travel the kingdom bringing food and support to people. A queen devoted to the abolition of slavery who frees tens of thousands of people. And then there are characters who are utterly good like Davos Seaworth and Jon Snow. Are we really going to pretend that there's no good guys in these books? Because that is an utterly ridiculous oversimplification.

Conflict drives story. To have conflict, you must have bad things happen. GOT is a story that takes place on a major scale. Therefore its conflict must be major. That means very bad things are going to happen and the structure of the story will have the odds escalate further until they are resolved at the end. There's still two more books to go which means we are still in the part where things are grim. Book 6 will likely get even darker before Book 7 comes and hope is restored. That's story telling 101. You'll see it in any epic story.

[Airea]

And yet, Vlad the Impaler survived until he died in battle. Despite the brutality of his actions.

Vlad, my husband is obsessed with him.

He was brutal, but the other guy starts it. He finished it. Not quite the same.

Not that he couldn't be a jerk, but it...had a system?

[Dienekes]

Like I said above, I tried. I really did. Now I keep up with articals that might not keep me up with nightmares all night.

Everytime I think about getting back into the show there another blow about a woman being raped (again, it's old at this point) or even a ten year old being burned at the stake.

And I back out of the bar. I'm already reading about this crap in class.

Then don't. If you can't stomach it don't force yourself. Not all entertainment is made with you in mind. You tried, you didn't like it. Why would you keep subjugating yourself it it then? Stop reading the articles that way lies madness.

[Airea]

Let's see: The Brotherhood Without Banners, an outlaw group who protects the smallfolk. Septons who travel the kingdom bringing food and support to people. A queen devoted to the abolition of slavery who frees tens of thousands of people. And then there are characters who are utterly good like Davos Seaworth and Jon Snow. Are we really going to pretend that there's no good guys in these books? Because that is an utterly ridiculous oversimplification.

Conflict drives story. To have conflict, you must have bad things happen. GOT is a story that takes place on a major scale. Therefore its conflict must be major. That means very bad things are going to happen and the structure of the story will have the odds escalate further until they are resolved at the end. There's still two more books to go which means we are still in the part where things are grim. Book 6 will likely get even darker before Book 7 comes and hope is restored. That's story telling 101. You'll see it in any epic story.

And if you are right I will see about trying then. But I honestly don't believe it. For my money this is one big shaggy dog story and GRRM is powning all of us.

[Jayngfet]

GOT focuses on bad stuff because that's where drama and conflict come from. Look at Medieval history. Everything that happens in GOT(except for the blatantly supernatural stuff) happened in real life all the time. Name one thing in GOT(again, not including the supernatural elements) that never happens in the real world.

Vast quantities of GOT are either cut from whole cloth or else warped so heavily they have no resemblance to real world history. Often times it's readily apparent that Martin will just pull something vaguely grimdark sounding out of his ass or else take some kind of minor one-off occurrences or hearsay that probably never happened and blow it more out of proportion than a tabloid news article.

Even the things that have some form of historical backing tend to be so far removed from context and conditions they actually occurred in they make about as much sense as a DND campaign where the DM generates everything from an encounter table. Heck, there are specific bits that are almost exactly like the kind of thing one finds in a DND campaign where the DM is out of ideas and basically throwing filler at the party until the session ends and he can have time to think. Such as that random encounter with those northerners that was basically "we need a fight scene where a bunch of dudes die, but is of no real consequence. No, the loot on the bandits is actually worthless and their swords are just rusty enough to have no value while still being vaguly sharp."

Putting any kind of real world history lens on Game of Thrones would require you to actually nail down Westeros as being even vaguely analogous to a specific time or place. But even if you try that with the eras listed you wind up with a whole lot of logical holes the instant you wind up asking questions. Mainly because chains of logic as to why certain things are the way they are don't really line up with the conditions that inspired them.

I honestly wouldn't have a problem with the series if people didn't hype it up as the realistic feudal story it very much isn't, and just let it be as one of the weird mashup novels of the 90's it came out alongside like Wheel of Time or The Sword of Truth or any of the million other schlocky stories that are fun because they're schlock full of nudity and gore and spectacle.

[Airea]

I honestly wouldn't have a problem with the series if people didn't hype it up as the realistic feudal story it very much isn't, and just let it be as one of the weird mashup novels of the 90's it came out alongside like Wheel of Time or The Sword of Truth or any of the million other schlocky stories that are fun because they're schlock full of nudity and gore and spectacle.

^^^this. It's not just me.

[An Enemy Spy]

Vast quantities of GOT are either cut from whole cloth or else warped so heavily they have no resemblance to real world history. Often times it's readily apparent that Martin will just pull something vaguely grimdark sounding out of his ass or else take some kind of minor one-off occurrences or hearsay that probably never happened and blow it more out of proportion than a tabloid news article.

Even the things that have some form of historical backing tend to be so far removed from context and conditions they actually occurred in they make about as much sense as a DND campaign where the DM generates everything from an encounter table. Heck, there are specific bits that are almost exactly like the kind of thing one finds in a DND campaign where the DM is out of ideas and basically throwing filler at the party until the session ends and he can have time to think. Such as that random encounter with those northerners that was basically "we need a fight scene where a bunch of dudes die, but is of no real consequence. No, the loot on the bandits is actually worthless and their swords are just rusty enough to have no value while still being vaguly sharp."

Putting any kind of real world history lens on Game of Thrones would require you to actually nail down Westeros as being even vaguely analogous to a specific time or place. But even if you try that with the eras listed you wind up with a whole lot of logical holes the instant you wind up asking questions. Mainly because chains of logic as to why certain things are the way they are don't really line up with the conditions that inspired them.

I honestly wouldn't have a problem with the series if people didn't hype it up as the realistic feudal story it very much isn't, and just let it be as one of the weird mashup novels of the 90's it came out alongside like Wheel of Time or The Sword of Truth or any of the million other schlocky stories that are fun because they're schlock full of nudity and gore and spectacle.

I haven't read Wheel of Time, but comparing ASoIaF to Sword of Truth is a low blow. ASoIaF is a very well crafted story and Sword of Truth... is Terry Goodkind's thinly veiled political rant set in a world full of idiotic communist strawmen who want to ban fire and chickens that aren't chickens. They are evil incarnate.

[Airea]

I haven't read Wheel of Time, but comparing ASoIaF to Sword of Truth is a low blow. ASoIaF is a very well crafted story and Sword of Truth... is Terry Goodkind's thinly veiled political rant set in a world full of idiotic communist strawmen who want to ban fire and chickens that aren't chickens. They are evil incarnate.

Read Wheel of Time. Trust me. It's...I love it. There's a reason so many of the book were on the New York Times Bestseller list for weeks at a time. The crafting of the story is among the best I've ever seen.

[Lord Raziere]

hello Airea!

I can tell your probably more of a fan of brighter works.

I suggest you go seek them out, don't worry, the thing that is most similar to GoT I can think of is Dragon Age, the first game of that has oppressed elves killing the evil nobles that try to rape them, poor dwarves defeating nobility in an ancient combat ritual that they're normally not allowed to participate in, and a hero generally proving that despite how dark the world is, that happiness can be achieved and those evil people can be fought against and defeated by being a badass, but maybe even that is too dark for you, what do I know?

all I know is that if you really feel that way about GoT, just forget about it and seek out things you do like. its not worth pondering why people like it when you can't understand that when generally the answer is that its just their own preference. after all there are people who play Warhammer 40,000 rpgs for some reason, and that setting is literally about everything being hopeless.....just because. personally, I'm more of a fan of Brighthammer 40k.

[Dienekes]

Read Wheel of Time. Trust me. It's...I love it. There's a reason so many of the book were on the New York Times Bestseller list for weeks at a time. The crafting of the story is among the best I've ever seen.

Ehh, it started well. But there was a book where the only thing I remember happening was a bunch of ladies having tea. I kinda dropped it after awhile. Still it has a loyal following, give it a try and it might be up your alley.


hello Airea!

I can tell your probably more of a fan of brighter works.

I suggest you go seek them out, don't worry, the thing that is most similar to GoT I can think of is Dragon Age, the first game of that has oppressed elves killing the evil nobles that try to rape them, poor dwarves defeating nobility in an ancient combat ritual that they're normally not allowed to participate in, and a hero generally proving that despite how dark the world is, that happiness can be achieved and those evil people can be fought against and defeated by being a badass, but maybe even that is too dark for you, what do I know?

all I know is that if you really feel that way about GoT, just forget about it and seek out things you do like. its not worth pondering why people like it when you can't understand that when generally the answer is that its just their own preference. after all there are people who play Warhammer 40,000 rpgs for some reason, and that setting is literally about everything being hopeless.....just because. personally, I'm more of a fan of Brighthammer 40k.

Also this. If you don't like a form of entertainment drop it. That's why it's entertainment. Don't force yourself to be entertained, don't force yourself to keep up to date on something that gives you nightmares.

[Flickerdart]

Ehh, it started well. But there was a book where the only thing I remember happening was a bunch of ladies having tea. I kinda dropped it after awhile. Still it has a loyal following, give it a try and it might be up your alley.
I got to book 10, and yeah - entire stretches of those thousand-page doorstoppers are literal filler.

[Airea]

Ya, it had a three book slump right in the middle. And that one guy on the ship. He helped but that was a hell of a build.

Brilliant ending though.

[Jayngfet]

I think that Wheel of Time is probably the starkest contrast with Game of Thrones you can make.

Wheel of Time is probably darker, even if you don't count the satanic evil armies doing their thing. The Game of Thrones idea of evil is mostly just to kill a bunch of redshirt then once or twice per book somebody with a name. But besides that there isn't actually much there. Wheel of Time meanwhile is incredibly upfront that things like slavery and the death of children is a natural consequence of the setting. You need to actually deal with the first person perspective of someone being shackled in chains or having something horrible happen to them that they just have to deal with for what's often the rest of their life. Even just being the designated chosen one means that a lot of innocent people are going to die because of you and there's nothing you can do about it, and it usually isn't even a cool death fighting evil, you just showed up and they trip and fall down the stairs, or something to that effect.

The real, substantial difference is that Wheel of Time wears on it's sleeve the fact that it's a bizarre fusion of random mythology done a la carte and that it tacks it's influences on in bizarre ways the setting has to justify. Nobody could ever pretend it's this gritty, hardcore thing for serious and mature people.

[An Enemy Spy]

I think that Wheel of Time is probably the starkest contrast with Game of Thrones you can make.

Wheel of Time is probably darker, even if you don't count the satanic evil armies doing their thing. The Game of Thrones idea of evil is mostly just to kill a bunch of redshirt then once or twice per book somebody with a name. But besides that there isn't actually much there. Wheel of Time meanwhile is incredibly upfront that things like slavery and the death of children is a natural consequence of the setting. You need to actually deal with the first person perspective of someone being shackled in chains or having something horrible happen to them that they just have to deal with for what's often the rest of their life. Even just being the designated chosen one means that a lot of innocent people are going to die because of you and there's nothing you can do about it, and it usually isn't even a cool death fighting evil, you just showed up and they trip and fall down the stairs, or something to that effect.

The real, substantial difference is that Wheel of Time wears on it's sleeve the fact that it's a bizarre fusion of random mythology done a la carte and that it tacks it's influences on in bizarre ways the setting has to justify. Nobody could ever pretend it's this gritty, hardcore thing for serious and mature people.

Yeah, that doesn't even remotely describe ASoIaF. Like, at all.

[Jayngfet]

Yeah, that doesn't even remotely describe ASoIaF. Like, at all.

Yeah, because I was describing that other thing I mentioned by name about three times.

[An Enemy Spy]

"The Game of Thrones idea of evil is mostly just to kill a bunch of redshirt then once or twice per book somebody with a name. But besides that there isn't actually much there."

So you're saying you didn't write this then? And the rest of it was basically just comparing Wot to ASoIaF anyway.

[Legato Endless]

Then GOT comes out and I just don't get it. The actual world isn't that dark. There are good people almost everywhere. In reality. Yet in this depression inducing place...I think they're out. Killed them all. From what I can tell for kicks even.

When I point out the lack of any kind of real good guy I'm told this series is "more realistic". With all due respect - Bull****. Myanmar is more cheerful. Tell that to the people from most nations, in many states, who work all over the world to do good every single day. Who have though out history, and will till the human race isn't anymore. It's a fantasy that is frankly darker then the real thing and I just don't get the appeal.

How is the world not dark enough? Is this really what people want now? Why? For all my reading articles and (trying) to read the books (couldn't make myself do it) I just don't see the charm. And I know for a fact it's not "realistic". I live in the real world, I know better.

All fantasy and the vasty majority of Medieval fiction cheats. For the average peasant, life in the Middle Ages, while not the dung heap commonly ascribed, was quite dull. So a bunch of people thought a gritty story that deconstructs various fantasy conventions was realistic? *shrug* That's obnoxious, but it's nothing really do to with the series itself. Fiction can easily be more or less tonally 'dark' than reality.

Whether or not the real world is dark enough isn't the right question. Part of the reason we consume fiction is to process and examine the world around us. It would be a poor pathetic thing if all fiction was so constrained to be so reflexive of...anything really.

Now, as for whether the real world is or is not that dark...I'm rather more cynical. Things are a lot better now than they used be. Second, while the Middle Ages wasn't anywhere as lethal or brutal as depicted in GoT, I'm not particularly swayed that it's ostensibly darker than other parts of antiquity.

The Toba catastrophe bottleneck 70,000 years ago that reduced humanity to just 10,000 people? Winter is Coming takes on a whole new meaning when it's the cold following an erupting super volcano on a global scale.

The Black Plague of the 1300s? Yeah, it wasn't the most lethal time to be alive, but the magnitude and lack of explanation caused anxiety of the event to permeate every part of the culture. That's fear on a scale I don't think any modern reader can truly countenance.

I mean, when the Native Americans watched 90% of their population obliterated by smallpox, whole communities and cultures vanish into oblivion, I tend to think GoT seems downright optimistic in sheer relativistic comparison. It's not like the survivors of the event largely had cheery prospects going forward either.

Heck, current data on hunter-gatherer tribes suggests warfare was endemic and incessant millennia ago. 1 in 3 men who reached adulthood died violently.

Dark? Dark is when the Sea Peoples invaded and destroyed your land during the Bronze Age collapse, as you watched every established power and army of the age fall before this ever widening onslaught. Dark is the fact that when Ramesses III checked their onslaught in a truly epic series of battles, he did so at such cost that his nation was utterly doomed to a lengthy declination afterward, and couldn't truly prevent even then some settlement from the invading forces. This is the happy ending for his people compared to everyone else in the region.

So no, GoT is particularly morose compared to the standard Middle Ages. But the world? Parts of world history make GoT seem downright peppy.

[Jayngfet]

Right. But as far as actual narrative though those events have nothing to do with this and suggest a very different form of story. That's like me saying "you think Saving Private Ryan is dark? Well look at 300, tons more people died on screen!" despite that not actually being the point of discussion.

[An Enemy Spy]

Right. But as far as actual narrative though those events have nothing to do with this and suggest a very different form of story. That's like me saying "you think Saving Private Ryan is dark? Well look at 300, tons more people died on screen!" despite that not actually being the point of discussion.

Actually it is. This discussion started because the OP insinuated that the real world is not as dark as GOT. Above are examples of the real world being as dark or darker than GOT.

[Jayngfet]

Actually it is. This discussion started because the OP insinuated that the real world is not as dark as GOT. Above are examples of the real world being as dark or darker than GOT.

Which is the thing. Dark isn't in body count. Dark is in situation and one needs to actually pin down specific scenarios and timeframes instead of being vague to actually ascribe a value of "dark".

Which is the thing. GoT is more or less excessively pleased with itself for having any degree of death or sexual content. It's not enough that a thing happen, but there's always a little pause so that Martin can take a sentence or two to accent that he's being dark and gritty whenever he kills off someone who's had a couple of lines before that point, or murders what's mostly a bunch of random redshirts to begin with, or any of the multiple dozen occasions when someone dies/gets raped/is hurt so the audience can be shocked despite them barely even being characters at that point.

It's more or less the equivalent of someone watching Attack on Titan being totally flabbergasted that a dude who had maybe three lines to his name wound up getting eaten by titans, while everyone who's been in the real conversations hangs back and watches them die with a shocked expression despite that describing every third episode of attack on titan.

[An Enemy Spy]

Which is the thing. Dark isn't in body count. Dark is in situation and one needs to actually pin down specific scenarios and timeframes instead of being vague to actually ascribe a value of "dark".

Which is the thing. GoT is more or less excessively pleased with itself for having any degree of death or sexual content. It's not enough that a thing happen, but there's always a little pause so that Martin can take a sentence or two to accent that he's being dark and gritty whenever he kills off someone who's had a couple of lines before that point, or murders what's mostly a bunch of random redshirts to begin with, or any of the multiple dozen occasions when someone dies/gets raped/is hurt so the audience can be shocked despite them barely even being characters at that point.

Yeah, but he doesn't. Almost all the nasty stuff in the books is actually thrown out rather casually because this setting is pretty barbaric. Characters usually are only shocked by deaths that happen either to someone they care about or if it violates some sacred tradition, like the Freys violating the sacred guest right at the Red Wedding. Honestly, I've read this series three times and I can't figure out what you're even talking about. Provide actual examples.

[Jayngfet]

Yeah, but he doesn't. Almost all the nasty stuff in the books is actually thrown out rather casually because this setting is pretty barbaric. Characters usually are only shocked by deaths that happen either to someone they care about or if it violates some sacred tradition, like the Freys violating the sacred guest right at the Red Wedding. Honestly, I've read this series three times and I can't figure out what you're even talking about. Provide actual examples.

Right then. Two half remembered examples here:

-Ned Starks men getting killed out of the blue in book one right in kings landing, then it never coming up again. But you know damn well it's supposed to be a grimdark moment because the dude giving the order takes a moment to savor it and then Ned points out how evul he is right after.

-Jamie Lannisters redshirt cousin who's never said anything of consequence before this point talking about how noble and honorable his family is for some cheap dramatic irony, then dying about two pages later so Jamie can quip about how good people are stupid and die easily. He is then rather rapidly forgotten about so we can get back to focusing on the incest subplot.

Generally speaking it's pretty cringeworthy when Martin rather consciously stops everything dead so that he can kill off redshirts, then talk about how dark it is those redshirts died, then finally resume whatever he was doing before that point as if nothing had happened. Those moments don't really exist to do anything except have someone there who can die to show how srs things are at the time while having anyone who actually matters still keep going anyway.

[Legato Endless]

Which is the thing. Dark isn't in body count. Dark is in situation and one needs to actually pin down specific scenarios and timeframes instead of being vague to actually ascribe a value of "dark".

Dark is merely a tone or mood, expressed by the author's narrative or in Thr audience's reaction. It's not a tightly ordered matter of fiction by any stretch.

I presumed OP was either going for an expression at the series being either unduly cynical or brutal. In terms of the latter, the real world history has it solidly beat.

Dark is when Petarch writes, "Oh happy posterity, who will not experience such abbysal woe and look upon our testimony as fable."

That's dark. You don't need a timeline to get a vague idea of the attitude of the speaker even sans context.

If OP was referring to GoT being unduly cynical in tone or bleak in mood, well, Game isn't really particularly either of these of things in terms of literature as a whole. Martin is, if anything, somewhat partaken of rather romantic notions when he expresses an opinion of certain parts of life.

GoT might be many things, and possibly problematic in several contexts. But it simply isn't dark compared to either agood deal fiction, or real historical ages.

[An Enemy Spy]

Right then. Two half remembered examples here:

-Ned Starks men getting killed out of the blue in book one right in kings landing, then it never coming up again. But you know damn well it's supposed to be a grimdark moment because the dude giving the order takes a moment to savor it and then Ned points out how evul he is right after.

-Jamie Lannisters redshirt cousin who's never said anything of consequence before this point talking about how noble and honorable his family is for some cheap dramatic irony, then dying about two pages later so Jamie can quip about how good people are stupid and die easily. He is then rather rapidly forgotten about so we can get back to focusing on the incest subplot.

Generally speaking it's pretty cringeworthy when Martin rather consciously stops everything dead so that he can kill off redshirts, then talk about how dark it is those redshirts died, then finally resume whatever he was doing before that point as if nothing had happened. Those moments don't really exist to do anything except have someone there who can die to show how srs things are at the time while having anyone who actually matters still keep going anyway.

#1. That was the first blood spilled between Stark and Lannister. It shows that Ned is willing to risk his his life for his men when he goes back to help them when he could have just r4idden away unscathed. It shows that Jaime is rash and quick to anger. It shows that he is the only Lannister who cares enough about Tyrion to actually try and take revenge(Tywin wants revenge because he can't allow House Lannister to appear weak, but Jaime is angry because it's his little brother.) It injures Ned and keeps him from being able to hunt down Gregor Clegane which kickstarts Beric Dondarrion's subplot. After Jory is killed Ned and the girls and the people back at Winterfell all are upset about it. So that scene was important to the plot and the deaths were remarked upon later. Not an example.

#2. I don't see your point here. Minor characters die all the time in fantasy stories. Cleos Frey was sent because he was the envoy between Riverrun and King's Landing, and when he was no longer needed for the plot, he was killed off. Jaime doesn't care about him because Jaime is still a major bumhole at the time, and Brienne calls him out on his flippant disregard for his cousin's life.

All these are are a couple examples of people getting killed in a story about war. They both make sense in the plot, and neither of them are particularly gratuitous.

[LokeyITP]

I'm very angry that HBO blanches at depicting male rape. Can't blame Martin for that, everyone gets raped in the books.

Don't forget that there's room for lots of interpretation in ASoIaF and WoT, it's a sign of good writing. Both works have their plot problems, some of that is the price you pay for writing organically. But calling out WoT's plot as great...can't see that when the same epic story has been told in 1/10 the words on similar scale a bunch of times.

[Jayngfet]

#1. That was the first blood spilled between Stark and Lannister. It shows that Ned is willing to risk his his life for his men when he goes back to help them when he could have just r4idden away unscathed. It shows that Jaime is rash and quick to anger. It shows that he is the only Lannister who cares enough about Tyrion to actually try and take revenge(Tywin wants revenge because he can't allow House Lannister to appear weak, but Jaime is angry because it's his little brother.) It injures Ned and keeps him from being able to hunt down Gregor Clegane which kickstarts Beric Dondarrion's subplot. After Jory is killed Ned and the girls and the people back at Winterfell all are upset about it. So that scene was important to the plot and the deaths were remarked upon later. Not an example.


It was totally unnecessary except to go I am evul.



#2. I don't see your point here. Minor characters die all the time in fantasy stories. Cleos Frey was sent because he was the envoy between Riverrun and King's Landing, and when he was no longer needed for the plot, he was killed off. Jaime doesn't care about him because Jaime is still a major bumhole at the time, and Brienne calls him out on his flippant disregard for his cousin's life.
All these are are a couple examples of people getting killed in a story about war. They both make sense in the plot, and neither of them are particularly gratuitous.

Specific handling. It's not that he's a minor character, it's the specific way it was handled.

This wasn't about "people getting killed in war" because people killed in war tend to die in battle, or else in other war related fashions. Not just "you're going down the street, and then suddenly you get ambushed and your redshirts die because this is a grim and dark story and this kind of thing happens".

I can't help but feel when I read these segments that the author was excessively pleased with themselves for writing them in. Mainly because the specific phrasing sticks out at me as someone calling attention to it as if it's some sort of literary masterstroke.

[Cespenar]

I suggest reading the books instead to everyone disliking the show for one reason for another, where there is no gorn (or much less of it), more worldbuilding, more believable characters, etc.

It's no classic, but it's not schlock either. A little wordy, perhaps.

[An Enemy Spy]

It was totally unnecessary except to go I am evul.

That's an opinion, not a fact. Here's a fact: That scene is of critical importance to the story.

[Jayngfet]

I suggest reading the books instead to everyone disliking the show for one reason for another, where there is no gorn (or much less of it), more worldbuilding, more believable characters, etc.

It's no classic, but it's not schlock either. A little wordy, perhaps.

I am discussing the books. Hence why I'm using the terms phrasing and literary instead of any kind of cinematic language.

I'd also firmly put it on the level of schlock. It's not bad, but it's not exactly head and shoulders above any of the other big name series that began in the same era in terms of content. It wasn't even the first that people attempted to franchise. It's just the first that actually got off the ground.

When referring to GoT specifically what always sets it apart in my mind is that it's a lot like some kid who gets way into frog dissections in middle school and is convinced they're some sort of badass for it. It doesn't actually do anything particularly unusual, it just keeps calling attention to what it does as if it makes it special and mature.

[Lethologica]

Meanwhile, over in the corner, the Child of Prophecy is undergoing a Hero's Journey where he will eventually discover his Secret Noble Past and Save The Day, aided by the Secret Rebellion against the Cartoonish Man-Flaying Villain.

ASoIaF is not just a conventional fantasy story, it's not just a Darker and Grittier bloodbath, it's not just repurposed historical politicking/infighting, it's not just trope deconstruction. I think there are certainly times when it goes overboard on the Dark and Gritty stuff, but overall? Plenty of shades of gray and white to mix in with the dark, and plenty going for it besides grit.

[Avilan the Grey]

I never got into GoT, because I couldn't get into the first book. I just figured if I didn't get hooked by the book, why would I watch the series.
Anyway, it does seem to be exaggerated greatly. Basically it's (from an outsider's perspective) Crusader Kings 2 meets Skyrim.
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Crusader Kings 2, and you can usually be very successful BECAUSE you are far more rotten than the computer players. Killing your nephews, forcing your mom into nunhood, assassinate your king, strangle his heir, etc etc. But that's because you, as a player, can be far more of an a-hole than the AIs who tend, very often, to respect the "rules" (be loyal to a relative even if it costs you power etc).

Anyway, I think the OP has a fair point, GoT seems more dark than is realistic. But then those kind of shows are very popular these days. Evil is the New Black, and has been so since at least 10 years ago if not more.

[factotum]

It's possible people praise GoT for its realism because it's deliberately trying to get away from the fantasy tropes of LOTR clones, where evil is EVUL and good is so saccarine you could sweeten your tea with it. Was there a single character in LOTR who was morally ambivalent? Does the anti-hero have a place in that sort of fantasy?

It's entirely possible GoT has gone too far in the other direction--I'm not familiar enough with it to say. I don't see the point of complaining about it because of that, though.

[Cespenar]

I am discussing the books. Hence why I'm using the terms phrasing and literary instead of any kind of cinematic language.

I'd also firmly put it on the level of schlock. It's not bad, but it's not exactly head and shoulders above any of the other big name series that began in the same era in terms of content. It wasn't even the first that people attempted to franchise. It's just the first that actually got off the ground.

When referring to GoT specifically what always sets it apart in my mind is that it's a lot like some kid who gets way into frog dissections in middle school and is convinced they're some sort of badass for it. It doesn't actually do anything particularly unusual, it just keeps calling attention to what it does as if it makes it special and mature.

I wasn't addressing you directly (hence the lack of quotations), but it's understandable. Anyway.

And about that last analogy, I don't think neither the author nor the "series" see themselves "badass" (how can a series can be convinced they're badass, I'm still not sure, but let's go with it). It's a series, which got famous through some various sociological mechanisms. I don't read anywhere in the books nor in the author's words outside that they consider their work special because of its darkness or formative about its genre in any way.

If its reputation somehow developed that way and people began to link its famousness to its dark-and-grittiness and/or high quality of the work, then that's their thought. The series itself is devoid of such boastings.

[An Enemy Spy]

I am discussing the books. Hence why I'm using the terms phrasing and literary instead of any kind of cinematic language.

I'd also firmly put it on the level of schlock. It's not bad, but it's not exactly head and shoulders above any of the other big name series that began in the same era in terms of content. It wasn't even the first that people attempted to franchise. It's just the first that actually got off the ground.

When referring to GoT specifically what always sets it apart in my mind is that it's a lot like some kid who gets way into frog dissections in middle school and is convinced they're some sort of badass for it. It doesn't actually do anything particularly unusual, it just keeps calling attention to what it does as if it makes it special and mature.

I think you're just projecting your opinion on the series and seeing things that aren't there. The books are just books, and the author is just an author. He certainly doesn't come across as thinking he's some kind of badass in interviews. That would be Terry Goodkind, who seems to thinks he's the only genius left in literature.

[-D-]

If it's defended at "realistic" I will hold it as such.
It's defended as "realistic" compared to Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, stuff like that. Not compared to real world.

Real world is both great and horrid, for every story of goodness, you can match a similar story of viciousness - e.g. Film Critic Hulk[0] mentions he found dead babies in the sink (that had their head caved in) when he was working as a paramedic. Stuff like that is what horrors are made from.

Real world is filled both with wonder and horror, your outlook usually depends on where you're situated. To me the only solution is to make peace with fact that evil and good both come from within, and never lose sight of that.

[0]http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2014/10/27/film-crit-hulk-smash-on-despair-gamergate-and-quitting-the-hulk (Part 5, paragraph 4ish)

[Mx.Silver]

It's defended as "realistic" compared to Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, stuff like that. Not compared to real world.

Real world is both great and horrid, for every story of goodness, you can match a similar story of viciousness - e.g. Film Critic Hulk mentions he found dead babies in the sink (that had their head caved in) when he was working as paramedic. Real world is filled both with wonder and horror, your outlook usually depends on where you're situated.

Pretty much this. The world's a big place; for every positive you can criticise Game of Thrones for not reflecting, you can find things in the real world worse than anything in it.

[Closet_Skeleton]

The problem with saying 'too many good guys die' in ASoIaF is that whose a villain and who is a hero in history is subjective and we tend to favour the winners.

One can just as easily portray the Napoleonic Wars as either:

Plucky underdog Britain defeats tyrant's attempt to conquer the world

Or

Freedom fighting hero is defeated by decadent autocratic aristocrats and Europe is forced into decades of oppression.

Henry VII Tudor: Usurper or fulfilment of Arthurian prophecy.

FDR: Man who overcame his disability to save his country's economy and defeat two evil Empires or deformed control freak who rebuilt a peaceful isolationist land of freedom into a expansionist warmongering empire.

Galieo: Martyr for empiricism over faith or partisan nutjob who refused to use protestant data.

Nazis: Tragic example of human failures or punching bags.


My experience exactly. And I'm an historian who has studied European history. The cheapness of blood and tits really stand out.

There are amazing stories from that era, by all means tell them. The repeated rape isn't really called for.

Rape has been institutionalised by many societies throughout history.

It may be over-used in the series but it isn't unrealistic, its definitely more realistic than how so few people live long enough to die nonviolently. Pretty much the entire population of classical Athens would be rape victims by modern standards, while ASoIaF's cast on the majority is not.

[thorgrim29]

Airea: 2 points, the series is a lot less subtle than the books, especially in the last season (BTW most of the stuff in the last season, and all of the stuff that made it into articles, wasn't in the books. The last season was pretty bad all around actually). Actually that's not quite true. The first few seasons were less dark than the books, but now the showrunners seem to think they're popular because people are shocked by the show and throw out whole plots because they're not shocking enough to replace them with pointless rape and horny dornishwomen (here's a thought, would the book! Dorne subplot have worked with Jaime taking the role of Aerys Oakheart?) So while the books are plenty dark, there is enough light here and there for you to understand why people are fighting and not just slitting their throats in despair.

Point 2: Clickbait "news" articles are a terrible way to get an understanding of the show, as they will always focus on the "shocking" aspects for #drams.

[Airea]

It may be over-used in the series but it isn't unrealistic, its definitely more realistic than how so few people live long enough to die nonviolently. Pretty much the entire population of classical Athens would be rape victims by modern standards, while ASoIaF's cast on the majority is not.

One, no. I know Greek culture and it had a better record then that.

And if you look above it's not the occurance of rape that bothers me, it's that they show it [I]every single time[I]. Hitchcock was on to something when he depended on story telling not blood every four seconds. It gets cheap.

[Aedilred]

Yeah, as thorgrim29 suggests, it really is worth drawing a distinction between the books and the series when looking at this sort of thing. It's not necessarily an obvious distinction to make, but tonally the show starts taking a rather different direction to the books around the end of season 2 and a lot of the "blood and tits" criticism is in fact rather show-specific.

It's true that the books feature a lot of bad things happening to good people, but I think that to focus in on that in the memetic sense which the show has rather bought into is to miss the point rather. It's not a series with black and white morality, and there are lots of shades of grey: few characters have no redeeming features at all and those that don't have by this point mostly been killed off often in rather grisly fashion. The books attempt to portray things in a reasonably realistic sense in terms of actions having consequences: while it would probably be inaccurate to say that no characters have plot armour, good characters are not exempt from having foolish decisions coming back to bite them. Ned Stark doesn't die because he's a hero, he dies because he's foolish. The "baddies" do get a bit of a run of luck fairly early on in the series in order to help establish the conflict that drives the plot, but as things have gone on we've seen them suffer the consequences of their actions too: the slavers get burned to ashes; the child murderer gets eaten by a bear; the Big Bad gets shot on the toilet; the rape and pillage master dies a slow and painful poison death. There's a point in one of the first two books when Sansa fantasises about the death of a man who betrayed her father at the hands of a hero, and a couple of books later that's exactly what happens. The villain sue plot armour for Ramsay that I gather has been in place over the last show season (which I haven't seen) hasn't yet been evident in the novels.

Of course the most difficult aspect of the series in a "darkness" sense is the rape and sexual violence, and whole essays could be written on this subject. I don't really want to get into a long discussion about it here, but it's worth noting that actual incidence of such things is notoriously difficult to pin down even in the real, modern world and is believed to be much higher than reported. There is also a tendency for media to portray it almost exclusively in the context of pivotal moments in individual character development (usually for the victim), while leaving aside its role in wider society. The show has largely gone down that route and made a big point of it each time it's come up, and in its more "Game of Boobs"-y moments kind of glamourises the sexual exploitation elements. On the other hand the books, by treating it in a rather more incidental fashion for the most part, make a rather different point about the normalisation of sexual violence within a male-dominated society and in conflict zones in particular, and as something which is all too often glossed over in both fictional and journalistic portrayals of that both in fantasy and in real-world-settings. I don't think that's a case of real life not being as dark as the books; I think it's a case of the books bringing our attention to a darkness we're trying to ignore. At least, that's what I hope GRRM is doing, because the alternative is rather more troubling.

[Chen]

One, no. I know Greek culture and it had a better record then that.

And if you look above it's not the occurance of rape that bothers me, it's that they show it [I]every single time[I]. Hitchcock was on to something when he depended on story telling not blood every four seconds. It gets cheap.

Perhaps my memory is bad, but are we talking more than 1 per season here? I mean yes there are several throughout the series that I can think of: Daenerys at her wedding, Circe/Jaime in the sept and recently Sansa on her wedding night. There were a number that might have been rape also at Daenerys' wedding and there were alluded to ones up at Crastor's keep with the mutineers. Those latter ones I don't recall actually seeing anything just them being mentioned or implied.

[-D-]

Rape has been institutionalised by many societies throughout history.

It may be over-used in the series but it isn't unrealistic
I agree that it's been institutionalised, but in my second hand experiences, rape isn't as casual as they let it seem to be. If you get raped, you're veeery likely to end up with PTSD like symptoms. Only in rare exceptions this doesn't seem to be the case.

If you want to see semi-realistic depiction of rape (one that perhaps goes a bit too far in the other direction) see Berserk.There a raped girl ends border line retarded. The rapist was a demon and the rape setting was all but Hell. It's unrealistic you end up retarded from rape, however given the setting, it makes perfect sense.

[Chen]

I agree that it's been institutionalised, but in my second hand experiences, rape isn't as casual as they let it seem to be. If you get raped, you're veeery likely to end up with PTSD like symptoms. Only in rare exceptions this doesn't seem to be the case.

This probably depends on the circumstances. In a feudal society like this, I imagine the concept of consummating an arranged marriage, while considered rape by us, probably wouldn't be seen nearly in the same light. That is, in the series Sansa's and Daenery's rape were things they almost certainly expected just having been brought up in that society (I mean you see that expectation when Sansa is with Tyrion in her first marriage). It's not clear they'd have as much a likelihood of PTSD, as opposed to say the scene where Sansa is almost raped when they're going through the city (and is saved by the Hound). The girls raped up at Crastors sure I can see them having PTSD (it's evident a lot of them are heavily psychologically damaged by the whole scenario).

[Themrys]

One, no. I know Greek culture and it had a better record then that.

And if you look above it's not the occurance of rape that bothers me, it's that they show it [I]every single time[I]. Hitchcock was on to something when he depended on story telling not blood every four seconds. It gets cheap.

Yes. Roughly half the population of medieval Europe probably were rape victims, since marital rape is rape. Doesn't mean you have to show it. Much less in the insensitive way it is shown in GoT, and ASOIAF; though I will grant the book series that it is not as bad.

Martin doesn't write about marital rape. He claims to write escapist fantasy, for all I know. Rather than pointing at the rape and drawing attention to how horrible it is, he normalizes it. Even child rape, in Daenerys' case. Her husband is portrayed as exceptionally noble because he doesn't rape her violently ... the first time.

Nothing against novels that draw attention to things that are wrong by describing them, but ASOIAF doesn't do that. No one will, after reading it think "Oh, no! Who would have thought rape is such a huge problem in society! I shall start a campaign to end rape!"

[An Enemy Spy]

Yes. Roughly half the population of medieval Europe probably were rape victims, since marital rape is rape. Doesn't mean you have to show it. Much less in the insensitive way it is shown in GoT, and ASOIAF; though I will grant the book series that it is not as bad.

Martin doesn't write about marital rape. He claims to write escapist fantasy, for all I know. Rather than pointing at the rape and drawing attention to how horrible it is, he normalizes it. Even child rape, in Daenerys' case. Her husband is portrayed as exceptionally noble because he doesn't rape her violently ... the first time.

Nothing against novels that draw attention to things that are wrong by describing them, but ASOIAF doesn't do that. No one will, after reading it think "Oh, no! Who would have thought rape is such a huge problem in society! I shall start a campaign to end rape!"

You could make the same claim about murder in almost any story ever made. The Seven Kingdoms are not supposed to a place you want to live in, and the attitude about rape there is a big part of it. There are places even today where a woman can be raped and the one who did it can get off scot free. In fact, people may even act like it's her fault. Heck, you see that even in Western society to a certain degree.
Nobody who commits rape in ASoIaF is portrayed as a good person, and almost all of them have gotten their just deserts by now in the series.

[Kyberwulf]

I don't think the last season was bad, I see it as setting things up for future seasons. This happens every time. People look at what happens now and says how crappy things are, then later on it's, "Oh, thats why that happened." People seem to be spoon fed plots.

Also, the reason why the world is so "Dark" is because it's in a Major upheaval. We just go set into the world at the end of one civil war. Only to be thrust into another civil war. A lot of what is happening in the books, are because of what happen 20 years ago. It's also, supposedly, about the fulfillment of a 1,000 year old prophecy... maybe.. I am not sure about that.

So you looking at Going from the American revolution, going into the civil war..on top of that the second coming is supposedly happening.

Realistically speaking, you have people trying to take advantage of that situation. Trying to move up in the world, looking for payback for years of taking crap.

I assume you are speaking from a point of view where the world is pretty stable.. for the most part. This world usually has no real rules, it's a world where might makes right. If you can get away with it, do it. Look at "third worlds" of modern day. Look at that and then tell me the world isnt that dark. We may not have Dragons, Magical witches, or Frozen undead Giants walking around. What we have is worse, the dark side of humanity... the worse parts of human nature.

[Metahuman1]

Then don't. If you can't stomach it don't force yourself. Not all entertainment is made with you in mind. You tried, you didn't like it. Why would you keep subjugating yourself it it then? Stop reading the articles that way lies madness.

Well, these things have a nasty habit of not staying to there own damn circles once they get some popularity and momentum and critical praise, in sort of forcing themselves on everywhere you might go on the interest that could even remotely be considered distantly related.

Attack on Titan comes to mind. (And tend to say AoT is actually worse then GoT by a long shot.)

[Lethologica]

Martin doesn't write about marital rape. He claims to write escapist fantasy, for all I know. Rather than pointing at the rape and drawing attention to how horrible it is, he normalizes it. Even child rape, in Daenerys' case. Her husband is portrayed as exceptionally noble because he doesn't rape her violently ... the first time.
That is exceptionally noble for the cultures and mores portrayed in the ASoIaF setting. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeliberateValuesDissonance) It's not like there's a dearth of fantasy settings with medieval trappings and modern social norms, (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PoliticallyCorrectHistory) or at least protagonists intent on (and generally successful in) establishing modern social norms. I'm not criticizing those settings for being that way--I like the Tortall books as much as the next person--but it's not socially irresponsible to do things differently.

Too, one of the most important aspects of reading ASoIaF is critiquing the subjective POVs GRRM presents, saying, "I know this seems normal/good/right to the narrator, but actually..." This applies to the characters' values as well as to their plots. As much as Dany considers Khal Drogo a noble spirit, he's still a barbarian bandit who would have unleashed a torrent of suffering had he lived, and the reader should be conscious of this, should not simply take Khal Drogo as noble because Dany says so. Mirri Maz Duur gets her say too, remember? (For that matter, readers should not simply take Dany as good simply because she sees herself that way, either. That's a much longer game, though.)

[Fiery Diamond]

That is exceptionally noble for the cultures and mores portrayed in the ASoIaF setting. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeliberateValuesDissonance) It's not like there's a dearth of fantasy settings with medieval trappings and modern social norms, (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PoliticallyCorrectHistory) or at least protagonists intent on (and generally successful in) establishing modern social norms. I'm not criticizing those settings for being that way--I like the Tortall books as much as the next person--but it's not socially irresponsible to do things differently.

Too, one of the most important aspects of reading ASoIaF is critiquing the subjective POVs GRRM presents, saying, "I know this seems normal/good/right to the narrator, but actually..." This applies to the characters' values as well as to their plots. As much as Dany considers Khal Drogo a noble spirit, he's still a barbarian bandit who would have unleashed a torrent of suffering had he lived, and the reader should be conscious of this, should not simply take Khal Drogo as noble because Dany says so. Mirri Maz Duur gets her say too, remember? (For that matter, readers should not simply take Dany as good simply because she sees herself that way, either. That's a much longer game, though.)

No, it's not socially irresponsible. In something intended to be escapist literature, however, it is disgusting, repulsive, utterly vile, and contemptible.

Rape is worse than murder.

[Lethologica]

No, it's not socially irresponsible. In something intended to be escapist literature, however, it is disgusting, repulsive, utterly vile, and contemptible.

Rape is worse than murder.
Adding a random label is not an argument. I don't know what defines 'escapist literature' in such a way as to make depiction of a setting with normalized rape in escapist literature disgusting, repulsive, utterly vile, and contemptible. There is no vast community of people longing to escape to the world of ASoIaF, or holding up Westerosi values as models of virtue, or raping people because GRRM said it was okay (which, to be clear, he didn't). And really, it's not like GRRM troubles to hide social themes in his work for purposes of escapism; the narrative of ASoIaF is, at its most basic level, a lot of privileged people fighting over meaningless prestige while climate change personified threatens to send the world to hell in a handbasket.

Could you please explain how ASoIaF is 'escapist' in a way that makes its portrayal of sexual violence disgusting, repulsive, utterly vile, and contemptible?

[Fawkes]

The narrative of ASoIaF is, at its most basic level, a lot of privileged people fighting over meaningless prestige while climate change personified threatens to send the world to hell in a handbasket.

Yeah, that describes a lot of the story, especially the War of the Five Kings, pretty perfectly. Does that make Jon Snow Al Gore?

[Lethologica]

Yeah, that describes a lot of the story, especially the War of the Five Kings, pretty perfectly. Does that make Jon Snow Al Gore?
Nah, that'd be Ned.

I had an image here but I'm pretty sure it violates forum rules about real-world politics so never mind

[Jayngfet]

No, it's not socially irresponsible. In something intended to be escapist literature, however, it is disgusting, repulsive, utterly vile, and contemptible.

Rape is worse than murder.

You know I'm no fan of the series but I legitimately wonder at this point who got that far and is actually shocked enough to get their panties in a twist over the idea of rape in a GRRM novel. I mean seriously, you're defending the idea that a series that's been about people getting raped and murdered in creative ways is happy fun escapist literature.

I mean I may think he's a bit pretentious for doing it but I'm not going to call Martin vile or contemptible for writing his thing.

[thorgrim29]

No, it's not socially irresponsible. In something intended to be escapist literature, however, it is disgusting, repulsive, utterly vile, and contemptible.

Rape is worse than murder.


You'd have to be extremely screwed up to consider SOIAF to be escapist literature, the closest things it has to heroes are an alcoholic with mountains of family related issues, a young woman who might have escaped going insane if she hadn't been raped at 14 and subsequently surrounded herself with manipulative yes men, and finally a guy who would have been able to make something of himself if he hadn't been saddled with a bunch of *******s for troops.

Also of course rape isn't worse than murder, what a ridiculous thing to say.

[Legato Endless]

Yes. Roughly half the population of medieval Europe probably were rape victims, since marital rape is rape. Doesn't mean you have to show it. Much less in the insensitive way it is shown in GoT, and ASOIAF; though I will grant the book series that it is not as bad.

Martin doesn't write about marital rape. He claims to write escapist fantasy, for all I know. Rather than pointing at the rape and drawing attention to how horrible it is, he normalizes it. Even child rape, in Daenerys' case. Her husband is portrayed as exceptionally noble because he doesn't rape her violently ... the first time.

Nothing against novels that draw attention to things that are wrong by describing them, but ASOIAF doesn't do that. No one will, after reading it think "Oh, no! Who would have thought rape is such a huge problem in society! I shall start a campaign to end rape!"

I have claimed that Escape is one of the main functions of fairy-stories, and since I do not disapprove of them, it is plain that I do not accept the tone of scorn or pity with which “Escape” is now so often used: a tone for which the uses of the word outside literary criticism give no warrant at all. In what the misusers are fond of calling Real Life, Escape is evidently as a rule very practical, and may even be heroic.

-On Fairy-Stories, J.R.R. Tolkien.

Fantasy is escapist, and that is its glory. If a soldier is imprisioned by the enemy, don’t we consider it his duty to escape?. . .If we value the freedom of mind and soul, if we’re partisans of liberty, then it’s our plain duty to escape, and to take as many people with us as we can!
-Ursula K. LeGuin


No, it's not socially irresponsible. In something intended to be escapist literature, however, it is disgusting, repulsive, utterly vile, and contemptible.

Rape is worse than murder.

This seems counterproductive.

To grapple with anything in life, you have to be free to explore it on your own terms. To associate anything with a place of sacred non interference is to fundamentally stymie any dialogue or processing. If you feel a portrayal is problematic, or an execution was wrong, all power to you. But segregating the facts of life from anything you feel lacks sufficient gravitas does not lead anywhere.

[CWater]

I don't personally like Martin's description of sexual themes, and we can argue about the 'historical accuracy' of his setting (though as it is a fantasy world to begin with, I don't really see the point).

However, I do disagree with OP's claim that 'the world just isn't that dark'. Westeros is a realm ripped apart by civil war. Civil wars are not pretty. What is currently happening in some parts of the real world, say Syria or South Sudan, is a lot worse than anything Martin has depicted. The world can be a horrible, dark place. The OP, me, really, most of us reading this thread just happen to be lucky enough to live in place that is not in a crisis, and to us the world does thus not appear horrible.

Whether most of the world is dark or not is not important here, my point is that it can very much be so. And Martin is telling a story of a country (or countries, if we also count Slaver's Bay) that is in crisis, so it shouldn't be surprising that that story is not going to be nice.

[SuperPanda]

Our world is so full of mystery and wonder that it would easily be possible to make 100% factual books that get cast down by everyone for being unrealistic.

There have been times in our histories (because history isn't really remembered the same way by everyone) when there was no light in the darkness - and there have been times when the most unlikely outcome cut through the bleakness to a brighter future.

I think it comes down to styles. I have a friend back stateside who loves stories that use the fall and redemption arch. He finds a hero whose walked on the dark-side to be a much more exciting and interesting character than one who never fell. He's even gone so far as to tell me that he feels a hero whose never fallen just hasn't really been tested enough because sooner or later everyone falls.

In our DnD games he invariably gravitated towards Neutral and leaning evil alignments, to characters with a fascination for forbidden powers like blood-magics.

I invariably gravitated towards the Robin Hood or King Arthur archetypes. I might play a character with a tragic story, one who had tried to run or hide from his responsibilities - but very rarely did I play a character who was comfortable crossing the line in the sand. Never-the-less the games I ran would occasionally have the darker tone, be set in the less forgiving setting.

He liked to see darkness as a layer of reality - that everyone had to accept it and become one with it - that the truly noble people maintained neutral alignments at best. I love the stories of the lone light in the darkness. The bleak world which tries to crush everything good until someone finally stands up and says 'no' loudly and clearly and is seen doing it. If we'd rolled characters in GoT he'd be Jamie and I'd be Jon Snow.

In the context of the ongoing GoT discussions: I think the latest season (Didn't enjoy Martin's prose enough to keep reading) hammered home for me that its not my kind of story. This isn't a story where good people doing good things for good reasons will make meaningful changes. This isn't a story where someone who is kind and clever and strong and passionate will stand against the darkness and prevail. To accomplish good things you need to be "the right kind of awful" to make the common people "slightly less terrible." (Tyrion musing on why Danny might be the best leader left for Westeros in Season 5).

The feeling the series gives (which may or may not hold under scrutiny) is that characters who regularly exercise their power over others brutally and cruelly escape punishment for longer than characters who treat others with kindness and respect. The punishment both face tends to be the same. I've heard people say that the real attribute being valued in the series so far is Cunning and Guile (Hence why Varys and Little Finger are pretty much the only ones unscathed since the start of the series) - but even among-st them Varys sought to help a friend and lost his station for that kindness while Littefinger used a friend making himself more powerful and everyone else weaker.

GoT reads like a Modernist or Postmodernist take on fantasy. Either "This is your lot in life, it sucks so get used to it." or "There is no point, stop trying to find one" respectfully. I preferred the Romantic and Gothic approach for my own "dark" reading. Within the darkness we learn the real value of the light.

GoT's darkness aligns with styles and genres I don't usually enjoy that much. They exist because sometimes the world really is that dark. Other styles exist because sometimes it really isn't. One thing I learned living across the pacific is that back home we really brush over just how nasty WWII got over here - just how Medival war still was in this half of the world. What's depressing about that is the knowledge that up until WWII that was normal behavior during war. GOT only plays lip service to that level of depravity. On the other side, there have been so many amazing people who stood up against humanities collective demons and challenged us to do better. I personally find the latter story more worth my time.

[Fawkes]

The feeling the series gives (which may or may not hold under scrutiny) is that characters who regularly exercise their power over others brutally and cruelly escape punishment for longer than characters who treat others with kindness and respect. The punishment both face tends to be the same. I've heard people say that the real attribute being valued in the series so far is Cunning and Guile (Hence why Varys and Little Finger are pretty much the only ones unscathed since the start of the series) - but even among-st them Varys sought to help a friend and lost his station for that kindness while Littefinger used a friend making himself more powerful and everyone else weaker.

The issue that I have with this reading (which I see a lot, so don't feel like this is all an argument against you personally) is that the story isn't over yet. Sure, Ramsay Bolton, Walder Frey, and Littlefinger haven't been punished... yet. And people aren't being 'punished' for kindness or respect, those things just aren't protecting them the way they would in a different story.

One of the major themes - if not THE theme - of the series is that war, especially civil war is brutal, horrible, and ugly. In another story, more of a fairytale, Robb Stark would have been the hero, the man whose love and honor leads him to righteous victory. But war in Westeros isn't about who's right. The rebellions that Robb, Stannis, and Renly start do tremendous damage to the country, tearing apart the lives of thousands of people. Just because Robb's a nice guy that we like doesn't remove his culpability in that.

Having a righteous cause doesn't absolve Robb of his responsibilities, or protect him from the horrors of war. As Jorah put it: Rhaegar fought valiantly, Rhaegar fought nobly, Rhaegar fought honorably. And Rhaegar died. Robb's undoing isn't that he's kind and honorable. It's that he thought that that kindness and honor would protect him if he plunged his people into war. Both Robb and Ned expect their opponents to follow the same code that they do, and they both die for that mistake.

Stannis, especially in the show, is another illustration of this. He literally thinks he is the righteous chosen one who's been heaven-sent to save the country, and that this gives him the right to fight and kill his way to the type, consequences be damned. He's right, and he's going to win, because the Red God says so. He thinks this protects him, but it doesn't. War is hell, and it spares no one.

When you play the game of thrones, you win, or you die. Ned, Robb, Stannis, Renly, Joffrey, Tywin, and Rhaegar Targaryen played the game and lost. Cersei, Margaery, Littlefinger, the Boltons, the Greyjoys, and the Freys are all still playing - for now.

Edit: I have no problem with anyone saying 'this isn't for me' and bowing out, of course. What really gets my goat is when someone says 'this is terrible everyone dies there are no happy endings' for a story that isn't even over yet.

[SuperPanda]

Yeah, that's a big part of why I said "may or may not hold up under scrutiny"

Its also why I emphasized feeling:

Using Rob Stark as one example - I'd go with Joffery on the other side. Up until Ramsay is introduced Jof is about the most hate-able figure in the series. He is just as guilty of plunging his people into that war (he's cautioned several times that certain actions will spark a war and to avoid them - then chooses them with relish). He relishes in war while Rob doesn't seem to like it.

Comparing the two - Rob got his punishment much earlier than Jof and it was far slower, more painful, and nastier than Jof's. Comparing their "crimes" its clear that they weren't equally guilty, but Rob's greatest crime (or at least the ones which allowed him to be punished so brutally) were love, trust and honor. Rob's death (in the show - I realize this is not the same in the books) resulted in rewards and promotion of other "nasty" figures and no further punishments (yet). Jof's death resulted in punishment of other "good" characters (tyrion and sansa) which in turn caused problems for those who punished wrong (Tywin) and reward for those responsible (Little Finger).

I know the series isn't done yet, its just the "feeling" it creates and not a reasoned argument.

[Fawkes]

Yeah, that's fair. I think part of that feeling is intentional, and is the sort of thing I'm talking about, how war doesn't really abide by 'fairness'. It's the sort of chaotic environment that evil men thrive in.

[Jayngfet]

Yeah, that's fair. I think part of that feeling is intentional, and is the sort of thing I'm talking about, how war doesn't really abide by 'fairness'. It's the sort of chaotic environment that evil men thrive in.

To be fair, one of the problems with Game of Thrones's "unfairness" is that it's largely categorized, on both sides of the moral coin, as being made up of ruses so transparent you could fill a window pane with them.

"Yes, I'll OBVIOUSLY sell you one of my priceless extinct dragons, dude I've been nakedly disgusted with, promise!"

"I may be a literal whore who only came to you because I was paid, but I'll never betray you for anything, my hunky midget hunk of man!"

"You betrayed our pact and I'm very clearly the most self centered man in your alliance, but I swear if you show up to my house unarmed anyway we'll have a grand ol' time."

"Man who raped my sister, I may clearly hate you more than I value my own life, or I'd never even agree to fight you, but there's no need to inspect my weapons or mistrust my motives for doing this after so long. When I say I'll give you a one sided fight to the death I mean it!"

But then when the time comes to cast blame obviously they're going to claim Tyrion had some ulterior motive for helping Bran or that some other unrelated dude is actually to blame for whatever bad thing is happening at that moment.

Characters in GoT are either blindingly trusting to a fault when they have no reason to be, or else a bunch of crude, ignorant morons, depending on whatever point Martin feels like making at that specific moment.

[Winter_Wolf]

Having tried both the HBO series and the books (and hating the HBO series for issues of pacing and leaving out key information that makes some scenes make sense), I think that the series is aiming for a "darkest just before the dawn" kind of finale, so things just keep getting pushed down the midden and crapped upon so that the end will be more "impressive". Quotes because I've seen enough Hong Kong movies to know that I really don't like saccharine endings in dark stories because they never seem to get there logically but just kind of drop it on you at the end. I really hope ASoIaF pulls it off better, because botching the ending would be unforgivable.

Plus I never really liked GRRM because of what he did to Ned Stark. Petty? Maybe. But on the other hand, I was free to enjoy the books without having any particular attachment to any of the other characters, plus getting that bit of schadenfreude whenever a character got their comeuppance. I'm kind of glad that he's kill-happy with the cast of characters and hope he pares it down to something that's easier to follow than season two of Lost. At least reading the books made it clear why there could be no other outcome for Stark. The tv series really screwed the pooch on that count and I really never forgave that. On the other hand, Martin getting pissy about readers' comments hoping he doesn't die before he finishes the series maybe should be a clue for him that he's padding his writing a little too much with tangents and bit character POV. Guy needs to learn that quantity doesn't equal quality. I basically enjoy the series but I won't pretend I think he's a great or even necessarily good author. I can and have skipped whole chapters of character POV that I didn't care about and have lost nothing by it. Guess that's why he stopped titling every chapter with whose character POV was up to bat. Cersei: eh; Sansa: ugh, if I must; Brienne: nope.

[JoshL]

It's okay to not like something because it's not to your tastes. GOT too dark for your tastes? Read/watch something else. And more importantly (this is a point I bring up a lot), it's okay to not like something even if you think it's well done. Quality does not equal Taste, and it shouldn't. If anyone gives you a hard time for it not being to your taste, well, that's their failing not yours.

And since it was brought up, I love Wheel of Time, maybe more than a Song of Ice and Fire, but the magic is more on the surface there, so that might be part of why. But it's a big picture sort of thing...perceived lulls in the story make more sense in the overall pacing if you read it as a whole, though I have issues with Sanderson as far as the end goes, he probably did the best job anyone could have finishing the story. Were I to compare the two in terms of music metaphors, WOT is a classical piece that's not afraid to be minimal for a long time to build to a greater climax, whereas ASOIAF is an epic metal album, with harsher extremes, but not the patience for the delicate stuff. Personally, I love them both for very different reasons.

[Reddish Mage]

I don't get the WOT and GOT distinction viz a viz reality. Both have assassination, dramatic deaths and murder, war, slavery, dismemberment (especially if you count those mystical threads everyone's carrying around getting snapped), rape, shamings...you name it, in greater proportion then even most real world soldiers, war diplomat, spies, adventurers...you name it, will see, especially in the time frame presented.

That is the nature of drama though. It's why such events are said to be "dramatic." Real life has more pauses, boredom, and normalacy. Even disney animated superheroes and Saturday morning cartoon characters live in cheery worlds where violent events, crime, extreme corruption and so on take place in gross distortion of reality.

[Frozen_Feet]

{scrubbed}

[Fiery Diamond]

Is its purpose educational?
Is its purpose philosophical?
Is its purpose speculative?
Is its purpose therapeutic?

If you answered "no" to all of these about a piece of entertainment, then normalizing monstrous things in that work is a vile and disgusting act. It can still be if one of those answers is yes, but if they're no, then it definitely is.

I don't read GRRM because I think his popular series is revolting.

[Lethologica]

Is its purpose educational?
Is its purpose philosophical?
Is its purpose speculative?
Is its purpose therapeutic?

If you answered "no" to all of these about a piece of entertainment, then normalizing monstrous things in that work is a vile and disgusting act. It can still be if one of those answers is yes, but if they're no, then it definitely is.

I don't read GRRM because I think his popular series is revolting.
Multiple of those plausibly apply to ASoIaF, though it's difficult to tell because you're still just arguing by label without explaining anything or offering a chain of reasoning.

For that matter, I'm not sure we've established that ASoIaF normalizes rape. I may have missed the part where the books expected the reader to start thinking of rape as morally neutral or anything along those lines. Even the show's use of rape for shock value indicates that rape is supposed to be, y'know, shocking. The fact that rape is fairly common in ASoIaF isn't supposed to influence the reader towards thinking positively of rape, but towards thinking negatively of the setting--i.e., s*** must be f***ed up around here for all this rape to be happening.

(And by the way, take that sentiment and reflect it back onto rape culture in the real world. Suddenly this oh-so-tawdry escapist literature is socially relevant. I don't know if that extrapolation holds up to scrutiny, but at the very least it gives pause to the notion that creating fictional settings where horrible things happen is axiomatically wrong.)

[Fawkes]

{scrubbed}

I... what?

What just happened. What is this post.

[Lethologica]

I...huh. Yeah, I dunno.

Competitive trauma is pretty high on the list of topics I'd like to avoid, honestly. Especially when asymmetric personal experiences are involved.

[SuperPanda]

There are conflicting theories and studies as to whether objectionable content in entertainment normalizes such content or desensitizes people to it. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with your statement or views - but there is hardly any clear answers about how our brains process such events.

The precious little we do know is that our brains don't really differentiate sensory impulses which are "fantasy" from those which are reality. The sympathy and empathy we feel towards fictional characters registers every bit as real as what we feel towards people we've actually met. There have been studies which show that viewing violent entertainment creates short-term effects that make people more likely to respond violently - it seems to prime violent responses. On the other hand other studies have down that entertainment which pushes people out of their moral comfort zones can promote increased empathy for individuals outside of that individuals "in-group" by triggering very real feelings of sympathy, remorse, and even guilt.

I'm not excusing anything... but it is worth noting that the full effects of "entertainment" on the human pysche is a very poorly understood phenomenon.

This dovetails very nicely into wonderful points by Lethologica

Multiple of those plausibly apply to ASoIaF, though it's difficult to tell because you're still just arguing by label without explaining anything or offering a chain of reasoning.

For that matter, I'm not sure we've established that ASoIaF normalizes rape. I may have missed the part where the books expected the reader to start thinking of rape as morally neutral or anything along those lines. Even the show's use of rape for shock value indicates that rape is supposed to be, y'know, shocking. The fact that rape is fairly common in ASoIaF isn't supposed to influence the reader towards thinking positively of rape, but towards thinking negatively of the setting--i.e., s*** must be f***ed up around here for all this rape to be happening.

(And by the way, take that sentiment and reflect it back onto rape culture in the real world. Suddenly this oh-so-tawdry escapist literature is socially relevant. I don't know if that extrapolation holds up to scrutiny, but at the very least it gives pause to the notion that creating fictional settings where horrible things happen is axiomatically wrong.)

It is a very complicated mess to disentangle. When the objectionable content is provided for "shock value" there are still myriad variations in how that shock can be processed.
From an educators perspective: Shock as in "I couldn't see that coming" indicates a lack of understanding. If one takes the view that people can only help heal the world of its ills by understanding them - then this sort of shock is valuable because it allows the reader to come closer to understanding 'evil" without having to allow a real person to experience it. By understanding it then they can be motivated to help prevent it by attempting to remove the conditions that allow for its continuation.

If the shock comes in the form of disgust, it could be seen to be reinforcing the moral system which is disgusted by the acts (Lethologica's point). Mark Twain used similar tools in Huckleberry Finn to try to make the readers feel disgusted at the subjugation of their fellow man under slavery. Twain is on record as having written the book with an intended audience of the same group as those whom he wished to show as "disgusting" in their practices. This is one of the reasons he wrote under a false name.

When the shock is pleasurable though there is more of an argument for "normalization." When the objectionable material creates pleasant stimuli in the brain it can be argued to be promoting a desire for more of the same thing. For any meaningful analysis of this though it would require significant reader response study to develop a base-line.

[Tev]

30 years war: A number of once war driven counties that just backed away, actually lead to the concept of religious freedom and respected national borders.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here, but in some countries, 30y war and what followed is synonym for Dark Ages and is total opposite to establishing religious freedom.

See wiki:
"The population of the Czech lands declined by a third due to war, disease, famine and the expulsion of Protestant Czechs."

***

As for positive things in aSoIaF:

I can't believe no one mentioned Children of the forest.
Or the Citadel. (IIRC their healing skills seems pretty advanced for middle ages, but maybe I just don't know anything about it)
Summer Isles also sound pretty open minded and nice.

Also half of complaints about grimdarkness (pre-S05E09) seemed more like not understanding what caused what's happening, which might be problem of show only (because it ignores a lot of backstory and strategy/big picture stuff).
Other half (rape) is imo overblown as said here:

Perhaps my memory is bad, but are we talking more than 1 per season here? I mean yes there are several throughout the series that I can think of: Daenerys at her wedding, Circe/Jaime in the sept and recently Sansa on her wedding night. There were a number that might have been rape also at Daenerys' wedding and there were alluded to ones up at Crastor's keep with the mutineers. Those latter ones I don't recall actually seeing anything just them being mentioned or implied.

***

Btw

:smalleek:

Dude . . . think about it some more. Please. And don't post on topic of rape again for at least a year.

[Lacuna Caster]

Okay, I think the OP themselves has largely ducked out at this point, and to be honest I think their original post was so bizarrely misconstructed that I don't know why it generated more than this perfunctory response:

"Why are you comparing your vaguely-anecdotal experience of a peaceful interlude in the modern era of the real world to the 'canonical history' of a violent interlude in the medieval era of a fictional world?"

Anything beyond that was really up to the OP to clarify, because this is like comparing the fructose content of apples with the lead content of a painting of bananas.

Yes, I know now that she's (apparently) a student of european history and believes that good things X, Y and Z were side-effects of historical bad things P, Q and W that can be argued to correlate with events T, L and U in A Song Of Ice And Fire. But all that should have been expressed in the first post before people got their knickers in a twist.

So, shame on you all.


Why has violence declined? Social psychologists find that at least 80 percent of people have fantasized about killing someone they don’t like. And modern humans still take pleasure in viewing violence, if we are to judge by the popularity of murder mysteries, Shakespearean dramas, the Saw movie franchise, Grand Theft Auto, and hockey.
-Why is there peace? (http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/why_is_there_peace)
So I think that gives a reasonably succinct summary of the situation from both a fictional and historical perspective. Can we go home now?

[Flickerdart]

this is like comparing the fructose content of apples with the lead content of a painting of bananas.
You win the simile award.

[Darth Credence]

Well, these things have a nasty habit of not staying to there own damn circles once they get some popularity and momentum and critical praise, in sort of forcing themselves on everywhere you might go on the interest that could even remotely be considered distantly related.

Attack on Titan comes to mind. (And tend to say AoT is actually worse then GoT by a long shot.)

Your choice for comparison completely undermines your point. I have vaguely heard of Attack on Titan, but I couldn't tell you anything about it. I asked the people surrounding me here about it just now - that would be one board game fanatic, a video game obsessive, a guy who doesn't watch much TV, a guy who goes to a new movie at least weekly, and a guy who has four kids under ten and is pretty much focused on them. Only the guy with the four young kids even had it ring a bell, and he didn't know anything about it but thought his kids might.

So, yeah, it really isn't that hard to avoid hearing about things you don't care about. I would say it is a lot more likely that you miss things you might love if you knew they existed.

[Dienekes]

Your choice for comparison completely undermines your point. I have vaguely heard of Attack on Titan, but I couldn't tell you anything about it. I asked the people surrounding me here about it just now - that would be one board game fanatic, a video game obsessive, a guy who doesn't watch much TV, a guy who goes to a new movie at least weekly, and a guy who has four kids under ten and is pretty much focused on them. Only the guy with the four young kids even had it ring a bell, and he didn't know anything about it but thought his kids might.

So, yeah, it really isn't that hard to avoid hearing about things you don't care about. I would say it is a lot more likely that you miss things you might love if you knew they existed.

It's big with the anime crowd, Metahuman despises it to the point of being one of the most frequent posters on the forum for it to exclaim how much it is despised. You get used to just ignoring it.

[Kitten Champion]

Hearing about Game of Thrones isn't any different than any other popular serialized television show that I don't watch that is the source of general conversation. "Did you see what happened last night on X? Wasn't [insert dramatic event from X here] amazing/terrible!"

I suppose the only difference is the proper nouns are familiar to me having read 4 of the books.

...and no, Attack on Titan is popular within the anime community and has some greater traction with casual viewers, but it doesn't have multiple seasons on HBO that people's grandparents watch and get puns inserted into Daily Show segments.

[Legato Endless]

Okay, I think the OP themselves has largely ducked out at this point, and to be honest I think their original post was so bizarrely misconstructed that I don't know why it generated more than this perfunctory response:

Excellent post, but you have this backwards. A precise controlled response to a query, especially once abetted by a title that makes a statement about the nature of reality, arrives rarely but for when the question is elegantly parsed.

OP's lack of clarity which makes the specific ideas look more weighty than the whole is precisely what generated so much response to begin with. Which is aided and abetted by the fact that the Playground takes a looser view on what precisely constitutes a cogent response than more formalized discussions. Speaking of which...


Yep, the actual world sure is bright and happy and filled with good people.

Welcome to the forum Greatest Owl. You might want to review the Forum Rules for what constitutes an appropriate topic here.


It's big with the anime crowd, Metahuman despises it to the point of being one of the most frequent posters on the forum for it to exclaim how much it is despised. You get used to just ignoring it.

The lack of ignoring is kind of puzzling to me in regard to both OP and Meta's point. I get that people like to rant on occasion about a piece of popular culture they dislike, but it's sheer prevalence as a point of contempt has always confused me, especially if the subject matter isn't actively malicious.

We live in an age of unparalleled information control. The internet already functions as a self reinforcing bubble for people in a way that was previously impossible. It has never been easier to get an idea spread, but also for you yourself to ignore that idea beyond the perfunctory periphery of humanity we all have to live with. Unless you live off grid, but then you can't complain about that problem anyway.

I don't get it. There's always going to be something out there I'll hate or dislike, but I don't spend effort frothing with rage over it's sheer ubiquity. That just seems...exhausting.

[-D-]

Welcome to the forum Greatest Owl. You might want to review the Forum Rules for what constitutes an appropriate topic here.

What Legato meant to say is, political topics are forbidden.

Anyway. Always look on bright side of life...

[Chambers]

Mod of the Broken Pattern: Thread closed for review.