Game of Thrones [2]

Mm. I do agree about the nit-picky nature of some of their points.

Bluebottle wrote:I think it's natural to go a step further and ask whether that poor writing displays any as poor ethical tendencies.

I agree with you on the negligence/sloppiness part, but not the quoted portion. Whether or not it's natural, it kinda feels like the definition of the ad hominem fallacy to me, and just kinda weird and rude in general to claim to divine the personal lives or feelings of complete strangers, especially if the only basis is their writing (in a highly collaborative environment, at that).

Mrs Figg wrote:if we are being equal opportunities. does that mean I cant comment on Petty's erm.. attractive hairy red legs?
I am a woman and have been guilty of this, remember the swaying fiddling blonde twins?

I'm not here to say what anyone can or can't do right now.

I for one cant wait for season 6

Well, I'm going to be avoiding it like the plaugue.. no.. not the plague.. as my avoidance will be by choice.

Eldorion wrote:

Bluebottle wrote:I think it's natural to go a step further and ask whether that poor writing displays any as poor ethical tendencies.

I agree with you on the negligence/sloppiness part, but not the quoted portion. Whether or not it's natural, it kinda feels like the definition of the ad hominem fallacy to me, and just kinda weird and rude in general to claim to divine the personal lives or feelings of complete strangers, especially if the only basis is their writing (in a highly collaborative environment, at that).

Well, I think the evidence before you is pretty clear on some problematic choices being made, (the reality of being a sex slave appearing and disapearing as it suits the writers, for instance) but whether you read that as negligence or somethign else I don't think is as important. I certainly don't think they are consciously making most of these decisions, but the continued negligence does say something about them as writers and people, in my opinion. And stuff like an all male writing room, the dismissal and avoidance of outside criticism doesn't help.

If you get criticized, espescially about incidiary stuff like this, it's good to first be humble, then listen to the criticism, think through your own actions and welcome outside and new voices and perspectives on your work in future. As I see nothing like that, rather quite the contrary, I find little will, nor reason to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I think its perfectly reasonable to have questions about the writing skills, but quite absurd to have doubts about the personal ethics of the writers as human beings. Or getting irate at sexual violence, as its set in a world where murderous civil wars, acts of mindless torture and murder are daily occurences. In that case people would complain that watching Taxi Driver glorifies violent murder. If scenes of rape, murder or violence make people feel squeamish they shouldn't be watching GOT in the first place.

this is what I get from these arguments, that there is acceptable rape if Martin writes about it, but unacceptable rape if the writers write about it. like its George so he is allowed to write about child rape, but if its anyone else its suddenly disgusting. this is like...what?! theres good rape and bad rape. its ridiculous and rank hypocracy.

Eldorion wrote:

halfwise wrote:Those two sound cute, wish they put out videos.

Can we not do this, please?

So I'm supposed to be carefully virtuous in my procrastinatory inclinations?  (In the Game of Thrones thread?)
Life is hard.

get some bloody work done!

((( he he Youtube is doing its siren call again))))))

Mrs Figg wrote:I think its perfectly reasonable to have questions about the writing skills, but quite absurd to have doubts about the personal ethics of the writers as human beings. Or getting irate at sexual violence, as its set in a world where murderous civil wars, acts of mindless torture and murder are daily occurences. In that case people would complain that watching Taxi Driver glorifies violent murder. If scenes of rape, murder or violence make people feel squeamish they shouldn't be watching GOT in the first place.

this is what I get from these arguments, that there is acceptable rape if Martin writes about it, but unacceptable rape if the writers write about it. like its George so he is allowed to write about child rape, but if its anyone else its suddenly disgusting. this is like...what?! theres good rape and bad rape. its ridiculous and rank hypocracy.

Of course you can portray rape in fiction. But it's one of those things were people are going to look closly at what you actually produce, because of it's emmotional impact and it's implications.

If you use it simply for shock value, remember they have admitted this in their own word re: Sansa, as background props, Crasters Keep, or don't realize you've put it on screen, "It became consensual, eventually.", then people will call you out on it. And it will make implications on your writing.

I'd be hard pressed to find examples, nor an example, from the books that are in a simmilar vein.

I think they used Sansa for the shock value, not the rape. If it wasn't her then it should have been Jeyne Poole who was her friend, her age and therefore as the rape goes, just as shocking. For the T.V. audience where I am not even sure they mentioned Jeyne's name... it would be a random character and may as well not be in there at all.

So.. while I think the book was better in that Jeyne was set up in a very different way, the T.V. show didn't go the wrong way to create an effect. I don't see that as worse writing... the rape is shocking and would have happened, they just subjected Sansa to it instead of Jeyne.

as rape scenes go, it was quite subtle in a horrible kind of way because you don't actually see it, you imagine it through Theon's terrified face. It certainly doesn't glorify the act or is in any way voyeristic, or the usual in your face brutality warts and all. it makes you empathise with both of them. They are just as much victims in a way, its more of a psychological rape for both of them in a way. Theon is emotionally raped and emasculated some more as he cant do anything to stop it he just has to stand there and let his childhood friend be abused. We know Ramsey is an evil shit, but this is the tipping point for both Sansa and Theon, from this moment on they start to rebel.

Lancebloke wrote:I think they used Sansa for the shock value, not the rape. If it wasn't her then it should have been Jeyne Poole who was her friend, her age and therefore as the rape goes, just as shocking. For the T.V. audience where I am not even sure they mentioned Jeyne's name... it would be a random character and may as well not be in there at all.

So.. while I think the book was better in that Jeyne was set up in a very different way, the T.V. show didn't go the wrong way to create an effect. I don't see that as worse writing... the rape is shocking and would have happened, they just subjected Sansa to it instead of Jeyne.

There are at least two things that stop me from sharing that view.

One, when Bryan Coggman talked about the rape he said the writers loved "this storyline". Yet when they adapted it, all ut hte rape was gone. No northern lords, no inner scheeming and discontent, no subplots, no nothing but the marriage and the rape. As such what they loved from this storyline must have been the marriage and the rape.

Two, Sansa is actually an important point of view character with an important story in her own right, that has nothing to do with Ramsay, Theon or the Boltons, if you don't believe me ask George, transplanting her into another storyline for shock effect is no small matter, if portrays a deafness to the actual story they were telling that is quite astounding.

And in any case i can't support scrapping Sansas book storyline for the pathethic level of writing they served us up last season.

Bluebottle wrote:One, when Bryan Coggman talked about the rape he said the writers loved "this storyline". Yet when they adapted it, all ut hte rape was gone. No northern lords, no inner scheeming and discontent, no subplots, no nothing but the marriage and the rape. As such what they loved from this storyline must have been the marriage and the rape.

Or it's just meaningless marketing drivel that they served up for the fans, like basically every director does when adapting a popular book.

And that makes it.. better..?

They still only adapted the god-damned rape, out of the entier storyline.

But, fine. Let's move on.

Let's discuss how they adapted Daenerys in Daznaks Pit. Or Tyrion with that sex slave.

Bluebottle wrote:And that makes it.. better..?

Better in what way?

Better writing? No, the quality of the writing is not affected by these comments, for better or worse.

Better as an adaptation? No, but I think the point here is that D&D didn't care at all about the storyline they were supposedly adapting. They kept a few of the characters who were present, and added another, but the context and motivations were wildly different. But even if they'd kept Sansa out, they would have had Ramsay doing fucked up shit to people because that's what they think sells. Whether it was in the book or not is immaterial. And as I think you've pointed out, what happens to Sansa is not actually similar to what happens to Jeyne Poole from a narrative or character standpoint.

But better in terms of whether it reflects well or poorly on the writers' moral character? I can't help but feel that "they only liked the rape" is just another way of insinuating that D&D are bad people because of what they write. You can argue against the use of rape in fiction for shock value -- I dunno for sure if I'd agree with you, but it can be done -- but I still find the personalized accusations to be invalid since none of us know anything about D&D as people.

Well, we are down to discussing minutae here, but it's probably good we have that minutae straight.

I am in no way claiming D&D are outspoken misogynysts, (I'm sure they consider themselves progressives) but their work, the only thing we can judge them on, reflects really badly on them as writers, the only thing we can judge them as. Their choices, their subversion of the subject matter are at times perplexing and at times straight forward problematic. I don't think you can get away from that. Let's agree that there is little we can say about what that says about them as private individuals. Them as writers however? I can't see there being much reason to hold back. It's not a human right to present your artistic vision without criticism. Particularliy when people find it problematic.

The fact that they have an all-male writers room, and seemingly cut themselves off from any criticism and outside voices obviosuly doesn't seem to be helping.

its all very well criticising them for diverging from the book, but they have to look far ahead and think of ways of making the narrative flow because they don't have the luxury of the original books to read after a certain point. they may have altered the Sansa/Bolton thing for good reasons, and because George has not delivered the next book in time the writers are having to wing it. For sure they can ask him whats going to happen, but it might not flow well or be over complicated. they just don't have the time for tiny sub-plots, they cannot include everything in one hour episodes. plus of course they are going to do things for shock value, its a business, its what fans want so they give them what they want. fans want another Red Wedding, you will get one, etc etc..I don't know what the problem is, its what GOT the tv show has always done and that's why its popular. Its also to be applauded and unusual that the female characters are so well rounded and unconventional. At the end of the day its just entertaining pop culture, its not Shakespeare, I am not going to take it too seriously at all, I am going to sit back and watch the spectacle and the dragons. .

Of course it matters that they diverge from the books because it portrays the choices they make. When they take a progressive narrative and make it borderline misogynystic, as they did with Daznaks Pit and Tyrion in a volantine brothel, it's pretty telling.

if its misogynistic you might want to include Tyrion having a thing for prostitutes. its no more misogynistic than him having a prostitute as a person he bought, even if he did love her.

Please read the corresponding part in the books, then tell me why a sex slave was so dissapointed by the lack of male attention that she would not only give sex away for free, but throw herself at Tyrion, our hero. But of course our virtous hero had to reject her. He is far too pure for all that, after all..

I think when we are talking about prostitution in Westeros its ALL pretty misogynistic. Lets just take those scenes with Littlefinger as an example. I should imagine after many years working as a prozzy in Westeros your moral compass is a wee bit dodgy. All those women have pimps and are trained to do a job, she probably had professional jealousy of the Danny Ho. Its a bit odd to single out the example with Tyrion in the brothel as a sign of the writers turning sexist. I mean..what about Prince Oberyn and the bisexual two-way?, they all seemed to be enjoying it whether they were being paid or not.

So, the fact that they obviously buy into the bi-sexuality=hyper-sexuality trope is a plus?

And, I'm sorry. I'll repeat this again. They had a sex slave, they established she was a slave in the previous scene, she has the tatoo, offer their hero free sex because (1) she, a sex slave, wasn't getting enough male attention and (2) their hero is just so damn great. Sorry, not getting past that.

Please focus on the words slave and free in that sentence.

Says it all..

http://gotgifsandmusings.tumblr.com/post/140084904237/ive-got-a-serious-question-but-i-would-like-you

No prostitute is free in Westeros. They all do what they are told to do. When Ros nearly kills the other girl because king Geoffrey tells her to, I think they are pretty much all slaves. to single out the Tyrion thing is missing the point., that its no better or worse than any of these relationships based on gross inequality. People are singling it out just because its in season 5. if it was in season 2 nobody would have noticed. because now suddenly, prostitution and slavery are wrong.