# GOT - What's the big deal about it?



## Jessquoi

This may seem like I've been living in the bottom of a well for ages, but I have not read any of the Song of Ice and Fire books and I have never watched the Game of Thrones show. I've noticed a lot of discussion on the internet about it since an episode called The Red Wedding came out. It seems the show and books are getting multitudes of praise, I mean HUGE praise. So naturally one would think Hey, maybe I should try this out.

However, after doing some more research, I've also noticed that there are a lot of complaints that the story is severely sexist, with excessive and unnecessary (to the plot) nudity, rape and violence. With a lot of these scenes _supposedly_, ahem, aiding to build strong female characters who despite all fight their way through this bleak story. 

I'll just say right here that I'm a feminist so I'm not sure about investing time in it. Can anyone give me an idea, considering that I haven't read or watched any of it, what the big deal is? Not just in relation to sexism or not, but what is it that makes ASOIAF popular?


----------



## Penpilot

I've read the first three books of the series. Haven't seen the tv show yet because I want to read the books first, but I'll try to do the series justice.

What makes the series good is that it explores all sides of confrontation, and presents all aspects of that society and world. The "good guys" are never as good as they seem and the "bad guys" are never as bad. All the main cast has a good reason for being they way they are and doing they things they do. Like the real world, good guys fail and bad guys win, but like I said the "bad guys" aren't completely bad so there's always room for redemption and for them to do the right thing.

There are a lot of strong female characters, each displaying different types of strength. Some female characters are your basic female warrior type, but their true strength comes from within, not from being able to wield a sword. Other female characters, who don't fall into the female warrior type, learn and know how to wield power within in the confines of a male dominated society, showing strength of a different type.

Part of what makes people squeamish about the series is that it treats marriage as a political tool and rarely is it done for the more modern reason of love. So you there are marriages between very young girls to very old men. If I'm not mistaken, this wasn't uncommon for medieval times, but for modern tastes, it gets icky for some because of the.... marital obligations.  

As I said the cast is a cross section of the world, so there are smart people, dumb people, awesome kick-ass people, annoying people, dishonourable people, honourable people, etc. and the story is told from all those points of view. So when people have to spend time reading about the dishonorable or annoying people some of them get turned off. Some want a simple black and white story where the good guys always win. And where the good guys are easily identified. That's not what this series is about. This is a story that spends a lot of time in the gray area. This a story where being too good/naive can get you killed. This is a series about interesting characters with big flaws that can get them into trouble, but who remain human and are always capable of good or bad.

Hopefully that wasn't too confusing.


----------



## Scribble

You aren't alone. I read one chapter, but my reading list is too deep, so I never got back to it. I've seen half of three episode. With a career, a writing habit, and several children, I don't have what is commonly referred to as "free time".

As well, I am also a feminist. Yes, I'm a man, but when there is equality I'll simply call myself a humanist. Some people chafe at men saying this, but as a father of three daughters, and the son of a mother, I feel it's my human responsibility to fight for equality.

That said, there is a difference between sexism in the story and sexism in the voice of the author. Medieval Christian Europe was not a good time to be a woman. Women were often treated as little more than property, and often exactly like property. The flowering of romantic literature at the end of the middle ages did spark a change in things a little for women, but look where we are today - not quite all the way there.

If we accept that GOT draws from a medieval Europe as a model for it's society, and I think it does, this is part of that reality. We could argue that Martin included some elements and not others... However, I haven't watched it all, but from what I have seen it shows these ugly elements in a modern light, not glorifying or condoning them. It's an ugly thing to see, but like killing, it is part of the wickedness that people do to each other.

With my oldest daughter, 20, I suppose I would watch it with her, if she wanted to. We've watched quite a lot of movies containing describing difficult and ugly aspects of reality and fantasy, and she likes horror more than I do. But the difference is at our ages, we know what history holds, we know where we are now, and where we want to go. We can have an intelligent conversation about the events in the show or book. 

It is beyond my young ones (8 and 6) to deal with, should they see me watching it. At this point in their lives, I am fostering the idea that equality exists and is their right. I am raising them to be strong so they will be kicking down the doors of inequality with a sense of entitlement to it, and will not accept this sort of thing in their sphere of influence. I need to take care about what I appear to "endorse". The subtleties are beyond them. If I were to watch it, this is adult entertainment, not to be discussed in front of them. 

GOT is gray fantasy, and as such, any moral or social lessons we want to take from it are ours to take, Martin delivers the story, not the moral - he lets the reader decide. The question is whether you want medieval realism in your medieval fantasy, and how much? And do you want that element of it? It's a choice to make. 

It's his art, that's what he made. I can't ask any artist to apologize for what they made, if that is what the felt passionate about. Neither do I think hiding the ugly realities of life changes reality. What I wonder is whether we can learn anything useful about ourselves seeing this kind of drama unfold. Like any choice I make, I need to consider my daughters in my decisions.

I always am careful of my own hypocrisy. "It's just a fictional rape." doesn't sound like something I would want to hear myself say. However, I've seen movies with rape in them, and I reacted as most people would, with disgust or anger. I watch movies with killing and torture, and I don't condone either. I think what it comes down to, is that if it tips the scales on your enjoyment, then that's really the deciding factor. If your sensibility does not allow you to enjoy it, then don't. There is plenty else to see. If you are able to put it in the context and it rings true to the story, then watch it or read it.

I don't believe that by watching it that you are making any kind of anti-feminist statement. In fact, since it is so popular, it might be "important" to some to see what people are looking at.

I think it is healthy that we squirm about this topic.


----------



## Jessquoi

Thank you both for incredible insights. I think I do want to read at least some of it so I can make my own decision about it. So no one thinks that any of the nudity (in the show)/violent scenes are unnecessary to the overall plot at any time?


----------



## Jessquoi

I guess there is also potential here to discuss how much fantasy should be in fantasy? How much 'realism' should be in fantasy? It seems to me that more people are discussing the characters and the hardships they face rather than the fantasy element of the story. Maybe it would have made more sense for something like this is be written as a historical fiction novel.


----------



## Scribble

This is an adult show. It is about the expressions of human passions, and sex and violence are the extreme expressions of human passions. 

I don't need to see all the mechanics, but if a story about adult people with passion is conspicuously missing sex, I feel like I am sitting in the kiddy section. I like many YA stories, but they are quite obviously *not *about the adult world and the struggles and passions that concern us, as adults.

As for nudity, culturally speaking it isn't quite a big deal where I live. So maybe I am not as sensitive as people in other countries. Sex, if I can recall correctly, is usually done in the nude. We are too sophisticated in terms of media to believe the simple ruffling of sheets, panning towards the moon shining on the lake. As adults, we can see the adequate amount of nudity to believe the action and be carried away by it. Same principle for battle. I don't need to see guts spilled on the floor, but if I don't see any blood, I won't believe it. It will look like an old Sunday Matinee cowboy movie where everyone who gets shot clutches their gut and falls down, but there's no blood.


----------



## Jessquoi

OK. Maybe I wasn't clear enough when I brought that up. I can't say much because I haven't actually seen it. But I've read that most nudity is of women. And so, some women and possibly men were offended. I'm not trying to say that you can't have nudity or violence in an adult story. It just becomes problematic when there's too much of it and it's not even relevant to the plot anymore.


----------



## Devor

The nudity and sex in the books is all relevant to the story.  There is one scene near the beginning which arguably isn't - Catelyn, in like the third chapter - but it is necessary in that it prepares the reader for the tone of the story.


----------



## Jessquoi

Fair enough. I think those complaints were mainly about the TV show.


----------



## Scribble

How much 'realism' *should *be in fantasy?

There's the categories of YA fantasy and "adult" fantasy. There are lines that some people want to draw, where others feel they are hamstringing themselves. I struggle with it, because I will write gore and sex and very visceral experiences quite naturally, and then I get hung up worrying about who will read my writing and how I will feel about that.

It's completely subjective. Some writers and readers want realism, some don't. Some want certain elements included, some want them excluded. Some want an idealized world, some want a surreal world, some want a gritty, realistic world. 

There's no such thing as _should_, as far as I'm concerned, there is only what you like, and what you don't.

There is definitely a line that crosses into "unnecessary" nudity and violence, but I think that line is different for everyone.


----------



## Jessquoi

You're quite right of course. Everyone knows what they prefer in a story. Asking how something 'should' be is just a way to open a discussion about it. I struggle with it too. Not because I write gory scenes in detail, but because most of my writing would come under a YA heading except for the emotional side of it. Sometimes I wonder whether the emotions I write would be too complex for that genre.


----------



## Steerpike

Jessquoi said:


> You're quite right of course. Everyone knows what they prefer in a story. Asking how something 'should' be is just a way to open a discussion about it. I struggle with it too. Not because I write gory scenes in detail, but because most of my writing would come under a YA heading except for the emotional side of it. Sometimes I wonder whether the emotions I write would be to complex for that genre.



I think this is a misconception about YA. I made a post about it (with a link to a Chuck Wendig blog post), here:

http://mythicscribes.com/forums/writing-questions/8742-ya-fiction.html

YA today isn't the YA of 20 years ago. Any emotional complexity suitable for adult novels is also suitable for YA. You should market as you see fit, of course, but given the popularity of YA I'd hate for you to pass it over simply because of a misunderstanding as to what is appropriate.


----------



## Scribble

This quote made me understand:

YA features YA character from the POV of a YA, not the POV of an adult writing YA.


----------



## Kit

I'm a feminist. I love the books and did not find them offensive in general. I've watched bits of the TV show, and I didn't care for some of the plot/character tweaks nor the excessive gratuitous sex and nudity.


----------



## Ddruid

advait99 has been trying for months to convince me to read GOT. You guys just did it in one day.


----------



## Jessquoi

Haha! Well what I've been able to decide is that I will definitely give the BOOKS a try and possibly skip the TV show.


----------



## ThinkerX

I've read all the books published thus far (five out of a projected seven), plus a couple of short stories set most of a hundred years earlier.

I've seen the first season of the television show (DVD).

I also have a slightly prudish 21 year old daughter who thoroughly enjoyed the first two seasons of the TV show and almost bought cable just so she could watch the third.  

That said, the characters involved in this tale are complex.  Some could be termed...mostly decent, others come across as utter scoundrels.  They change as the story progresses.  Many of them are in situations with no easy solutions.

As to the women...they range from devoted mothers to naive daughters to whores to tomboys to scheming b*tches.  There is a fair amount of ...sexual politicing... going on, I guess you could call it.  

From what I've seen, the television show appears to add more in the way of nudity and sex than was present in the books.


----------



## kayd_mon

The show has lots of boobs because it's on HBO. There was an SNL sketch where they had GRRM and a 13-year-old boy as producers on the show. GRRM would make sure that the show followed the books, and the kid would add boobs to the scenes. 

Anyway, the characters are great, the plot has plenty of twists and stays exciting, and the writng is generally good. Books 4 and 5 are sort of tangents that could be mostly ditched if he was going to tell the story fast, but as a fan, I just like going deeper in the world. He gets a lot of flak for his unnecessary subplots, but I usually like them. They are definitely worth a read. 

Oh, and it's definitely fantasy. Seasons can last for a decade, there are dragons, magic, undead creatures... It's not that realistic,. It's just that the characters are so complex, and their motivations - no matter how base - are believable.


----------



## advait98

Ddruid said:


> advait99 has been trying for months to convince me to read GOT. You guys just did it in one day.



That`s advait98, don`t desecrate my name. Well, good for you. It is a long ride, prepare yourself. You better not give up halfway through.


----------



## Jessquoi

Thanks guys. As always you're all very reliable and have sorted this conundrum out for me.


----------



## ThinkerX

So Jessquoi -

Will you be reading or watching? Or both?

Let us know either way.


----------



## Jessquoi

ThinkerX said:


> So Jessquoi -
> 
> Will you be reading or watching? Or both?
> 
> Let us know either way.



I think I'd prefer to go with the source and read it rather than watch it.


----------



## SeverinR

Jessquoi said:


> This may seem like I've been living in the bottom of a well for ages, but I have not read any of the Song of Ice and Fire books and I have never watched the Game of Thrones show. I've noticed a lot of discussion on the internet about it since an episode called The Red Wedding came out. It seems the show and books are getting multitudes of praise, I mean HUGE praise. So naturally one would think Hey, maybe I should try this out.
> 
> However, after doing some more research, I've also noticed that there are a lot of complaints that the story is severely sexist, with excessive and unnecessary (to the plot) nudity, rape and violence. With a lot of these scenes _supposedly_, ahem, aiding to build strong female characters who despite all fight their way through this bleak story.
> 
> I'll just say right here that I'm a feminist so I'm not sure about investing time in it. Can anyone give me an idea, considering that I haven't read or watched any of it, what the big deal is? Not just in relation to sexism or not, but what is it that makes ASOIAF popular?



Below I will be telling of events that happened towards the beginning, so there might be <<<<Season 1(book1)>>>>> Spoilers, be warned.
I am answering before reading anyone elses replies.

Sexist? I believe it shows a typical male dominated world with a few exceptions.  Not unlike the real history of our planet.

Nudity:It is an HBO developed show, so it would highight that which cannot be shown on tv.
Rape: I only remember rape after a battle by the more barbaric clan, rape pillage and burn was common after conflict.

The Queen manipulated herself and her son into power, she is one of the powerful females of the show. There is a woman that was nothing but a pawn to her brothers plans to return to be king, but she turned out to be the special one after he died from something he was suppose to be immune.
The teen girl sees alot of death and destruction that her family and others that occurs related to the war, she escapes with help and sees how war has changed the country in the short time since she travelled to the Kings home.

Spoiler season II: 
There is another female character that is basicaly a knight, she faces the laughter of a man's world, until they see her fight.

It is great at showing life in a kingdom, the plotting that Kings Landing has at all levels, the back biting, the espionage, the secrets, the actions done related to family requirements, ie arranged marriages.
Unlike other books, you never know if your favorite person will live or die in the next episodes.

It is a well thought out story, that has very few pure black evil, and almost no pure as the new fallen snow good persons.  Even the person you hate, has redeeming qualities, and even the beloved characters aren't saints.
If this was a western, they all would wear gray hats, except for the bastard king, but I wonder if his gray hat isn't coming.


----------



## SeverinR

Jessquoi said:


> OK. Maybe I wasn't clear enough when I brought that up. I can't say much because I haven't actually seen it. But I've read that most nudity is of women. And so, some women and possibly men were offended. I'm not trying to say that you can't have nudity or violence in an adult story. It just becomes problematic when there's too much of it and it's not even relevant to the plot anymore.


I think there is some nude men, of course I am a man and tend to treat naked men like being in a Gym dressing room, they are there but don't notice them that much. I would say it is rare.



Steerpike said:


> I think this is a misconception about YA. I made a post about it (with a link to a Chuck Wendig blog post), here:
> 
> http://mythicscribes.com/forums/writing-questions/8742-ya-fiction.html
> 
> YA today isn't the YA of 20 years ago. Any emotional complexity suitable for adult novels is also suitable for YA. You should market as you see fit, of course, but given the popularity of YA I'd hate for you to pass it over simply because of a misunderstanding as to what is appropriate.



That is true, kids of today are definately more mature then 20yrs ago, good or bad.  

Someone said "YA is a story told from the perspective of YA not an adult telling the story from a pov of YA," 
I write stories that begin with YA, but they aren't necessarily YA reading material or they will progress into adults, and thus I don't think YA is the right genre for them.  Coming of age, yes, YA genre not really.



Jessquoi said:


> I think I'd prefer to go with the source and read it rather than watch it.


I might suggest if you like the first book, maybe rent the first dvd and see if you like what they did with the movie and also lets you decide if they go to far in the show. 

I plan on reading the books while waiting for season 3 to be released in 2014.

I wonder if I will still love the characters described in the books more or less then the people playing them on the show.

Might I suggest looking at this video or reaction to Red wedding:
Game of thrones, the show draws this kind of emotion:
Game of Thrones: Red Wedding Reactions Compilation - YouTube
Maybe watch the reaction and see how involved in this show people are. I changed links from the one I used in the other GOT thread, that one had spoilers in it, this one is just fans reactions.
"But now the rains weep o'er his hall, 
with no one there to hear. 
Yes now the rains weep o'er his hall, 
and not a soul to hear"(Rain of Castemere, Lyrics)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FF2fBRKxtk --only song no spoilers--


----------



## kayd_mon

Well, I just got a free preview of HBO, and have been using the on demand service to marathon season 2 and now season 3.  I read all the (available) books prior to watching the first episode.  For the most part, I like what they did with the show, changes and all.  Of course I prefer the book if I had to choose, but the series is very well-done overall.

Some characters were expertly cast (Cersei, for one is exactly how I pictured her, as was Ned, Rob, Jon, and Breanne), while others don't translate very well to the screen for me (the Cleganes, Bron, all of Qarth).  Peter Dinklage isn't ugly enough to be exactly like Tyrion from the books, but wow is he a fantastic actor.  He makes the show as much as his character makes the books.


----------



## SeverinR

Just started reading book 1 last night on Kindle, 
read 35% of the 10% sampling in an hour.

One question, I thought men of the NIghtwatch gave up all rank and privledge when they entered the watch?
The part I read last night a lords son was telling veteran Nightwatchmen what to do.


----------



## kayd_mon

Commander Mormont made the appointment, against better judgement. The Lord Commander can do as he wishes.


----------



## SeverinR

Special circumstances rank doesn't play well with the rank and file. I did notice the hesitancy in following some orders. Sad "they" ruined his nice sable cloak.


----------



## Sandor

Hi! 

ASOIAF is a fantasy story with a lot of real-life troubles, centered on post-medieval culture. The life of women wasn't that great in a lot of places. 
Violence and sex are part of everyday life: sex should be a huge part of our life, and with sex I don't mean "erotic stuff"...Sex is confrontation, experimentation, self-analysis and so on...

Shit happens every day and what Martin does is something really different from the standard fantasy writers: it doesn't show a linear story, nor archetypes. It shows normal and TRUE people making tough decisions. 
Rape is not there to shock you...Is there because is part (so bad) of every day life.

I've to quote the master: ''people complains about sex scenes and explicit-sexual content...and doesn't say ANYTHING when I describe war and massacres with the same detail." That's a really bad and limited thing. 

Sex, blood, love, hate, mother-father/son relations...small pictures of every day life and Martin seems to know 'em pretty well.


Make yourself a favour and Jump into GoT: there's nothing more compelling.  You may spend days and nights talkin' about plot twists as well as about characters choices and details. It's living, everchanging, coherent, mature and realistic. And still EPIC! 

Trust me and don't be sexist. It's an ethic mistake. 

Cheers.




Jessquoi said:


> This may seem like I've been living in the bottom of a well for ages, but I have not read any of the Song of Ice and Fire books and I have never watched the Game of Thrones show. I've noticed a lot of discussion on the internet about it since an episode called The Red Wedding came out. It seems the show and books are getting multitudes of praise, I mean HUGE praise. So naturally one would think Hey, maybe I should try this out.
> 
> However, after doing some more research, I've also noticed that there are a lot of complaints that the story is severely sexist, with excessive and unnecessary (to the plot) nudity, rape and violence. With a lot of these scenes _supposedly_, ahem, aiding to build strong female characters who despite all fight their way through this bleak story.
> 
> I'll just say right here that I'm a feminist so I'm not sure about investing time in it. Can anyone give me an idea, considering that I haven't read or watched any of it, what the big deal is? Not just in relation to sexism or not, but what is it that makes ASOIAF popular?


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Sandor said:


> ...what Martin does is something really different from the standard fantasy writers: it doesn't show a linear story, nor archetypes.


I disagree. These stories are chock full of archetypes.


----------



## Sandor

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I disagree. These stories are chock full of archetypes.



Hi!

Give me examples. 
Arcetypes, sometimes, are totally needed. It's like in other arts: when we're home, we aim to be "perfect writers" with "perfect manuals". Rules, no arcetypes, no adverbs...Then, in actual writing, things change. 
When you start playing an instrument, you often believe that tecnique, "platonic" originality and so on is what you really need: than, in actual playing, predictable notes is what you really need to make songs work.

If we talk about "archetypes" meaning "predictable characters with common behaviours for the standards of fantasy", I'm sad but you're wrong.
Even world is full of "archetypes", if for it we mean "the same events time after time". That's how life goes. 

The magic of Martin is to describe archetypes and then shock the readers with choices that, in the end, are very...human. 
It's like describing archetypes in a non-archetypical way. 



---SPOILER---
There's nothing "archetypical" in people throwing childs off the window, brothers and sister havin' an affair, friend-ish people betrayin' in a disgusting way during a marriage, killing-off characters thought as "main ones".

In ASOIAF people act accordingly to human istincts and events go on in a very "believable" way. And that's because he uses archetypes of the best kind. 

Then, Martin is not a master of originality, but really, there's nothing deeper than that nowadays.


----------



## Jessquoi

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I disagree. These stories are chock full of archetypes.




Although I hate to say it, maybe archetypes would be hard to avoid in something so popular.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Sandor said:


> If we talk about "archetypes" meaning "predictable characters with common behaviours for the standards of fantasy", I'm sad but you're wrong.


That's not the meaning of archetype. 

Instead of offering up a character first and then linking an archetype (because there are many differing definitions & names for archetypes), I will point you towards one of my favorite books on archetypes. It's called "45 Master Characters". In a moment, let's consider a standard archetype discussed in that book.

To give examples of archetypes you may not be familiar with, would be fruitless. There are other works covering archetypes and doing it well. This is the work I'm most familiar with, so I quote it often. 

I don't think we're both speaking from a shared understanding of the archetype concept. It seems we have differing opinions on what an archetype is, and the function they perform. Regardless, i'll try to gain common ground using a basic example. If we look at a classic example of archetype, say "The Femme Fatale", I think it's hard to miss it's use in GOT.  GRRM certainly uses archetypes for characters. I can't think of a single POV that doesn't have an archetypal basis.

EDIT: Don't misunderstand me Sandor, I'm a huge fan of the series and think GRRM is a sensational writer. Nonetheless, his use of archetypes is easily apparent to me. Further, I'd say the using archetypes, and using them for powerful effect, is the work of a brilliant author that cares about details and a varied character cast.


----------



## SeverinR

I do agree on the surface every character is a archtype (typical specimen: a typical, ideal, or classic example of something)
but all characters are to a degree.

How many archtypes take a evil character and show that they have a good side too? How many writers take a good archtype and show they have flaws, weaknesses, that gets them killed or imprisoned?

IMHO I think GOT does a great job at destroying the character classes and makes them seem real, not just a archtype.

As far as rape, extra-marital affairs, frivolous sex, it is the nature of humanity to procreate after a battle, it replenishes the battle fields of the future.  Not every warrior rapes, but I bet in every man of war there is the drive to procreate.
Also when every battle could be your last, the wedding promise made in peace is easily forgotten during war.

I also believe, using Rome as the example, when the nobles aren't planning war, they get bored and find ways to amuse themselves with slaves, whores, and bored noble ladies.


----------



## Kit

kayd_mon said:


> Peter Dinklage isn't ugly enough to be exactly like Tyrion from the books,



LOL- that's what I've been telling everybody- Peter Dinklage is way too good-looking to be Tyrion. They should have uglified him up a bit with makeup.


----------



## SeverinR

Kit said:


> LOL- that's what I've been telling everybody- Peter Dinklage is way too good-looking to be Tyrion. They should have uglified him up a bit with makeup.


I can't believe there would be anyone better to play Tyrion.
With the awards he has won, I would say he was born to play this part.  Not sure if the make up would make it better or just make it different.

His new scar works, and the Hounds scars always worked.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

SeverinR said:


> His new scar works, and the Hounds scars always worked.


Though he still has a certain facial feature in the show....


----------



## kayd_mon

Haha I wondered how they would handle that, and they did just what I guessed they would. 

The Hound's scar is fine, but I envisioned both Cleganes to be more fierce looking. While the guy who plays Sandor does a fine job, he looks less fierce than I always pictured him in the book. Gregor - did a different actor play him in the first season? The guy playing him looks too lanky, but I swear he looked bigger in the Hand's tourney.


----------



## Chessie

I also wondered what the rage was about and read the first book. Stopped right there, it just wasn't for me. I like all kinds of stories and if sex and violence are part of that for an understandable reason, I'm open to it. GOT was too brutal for me when it came to the child abuse. There were other things about the book that turned me off too, like rape and Martin's painstakingly slow pace. I don't own a tv so I've never watched the show and have no interest to. The story wasn't even "magical" to me, not at all what I think of with fantasy (except for at the very end). Its a story of war, drama, rape, child abuse, and some weird crap going down. I understand why the series is so popular: interesting characters, haunting setting, more weird crap going down, SEX. In the end, I was sorely disappointed in GOT.


----------



## Jessquoi

Chesterama said:


> I also wondered what the rage was about and read the first book. Stopped right there, it just wasn't for me. I like all kinds of stories and if sex and violence are part of that for an understandable reason, I'm open to it. GOT was too brutal for me when it came to the child abuse. There were other things about the book that turned me off too, like rape and Martin's painstakingly slow pace. I don't own a tv so I've never watched the show and have no interest to. The story wasn't even "magical" to me, not at all what I think of with fantasy (except for at the very end). Its a story of war, drama, rape, child abuse, and some weird crap going down. I understand why the series is so popular: interesting characters, haunting setting, more weird crap going down, SEX. In the end, I was sorely disappointed in GOT.



So there ARE people here who didn't like it. The other day I was at a party and I heard someone say to his friend something along the lines of "Man, you can't go wrong with Game of Thrones, there's tits, there's action, awesomeness, more tits..." 
Needless to say, that doesn't really sell it to me! Although I'm sure this guy was just a bit of a loser.


----------



## SeverinR

Chesterama said:


> I also wondered what the rage was about and read the first book. Stopped right there, it just wasn't for me. I like all kinds of stories and if sex and violence are part of that for an understandable reason, I'm open to it. GOT was too brutal for me when it came to the child abuse. There were other things about the book that turned me off too, like rape and Martin's painstakingly slow pace. I don't own a tv so I've never watched the show and have no interest to. The story wasn't even "magical" to me, not at all what I think of with fantasy (except for at the very end). Its a story of war, drama, rape, child abuse, and some weird crap going down. I understand why the series is so popular: interesting characters, haunting setting, more weird crap going down, SEX. In the end, I was sorely disappointed in GOT.



Being young is no guarantee you want be harmed in GOT, in fact I think they had a child(under the age of 15) die or severely injured 4 or 5 shows in a row. Being a main character doesn't mean you will survive either. There are no red shirts in GOT, no one is immune to the blade.

I guess the book tells of more rape then the show, I only remember Dany seeing the rape of the conquered, other then that I don't remember any other rape scenes.  I think I am just completed the sample of the first book(which I bought and bought book 2 also.)


----------



## Chessie

Jessquoi said:


> So there ARE people here who didn't like it. The other day I was at a party and I heard someone say to his friend something along the lines of "Man, you can't go wrong with Game of Thrones, there's tits, there's action, awesomeness, more tits..."
> Needless to say, that doesn't really sell it to me! Although I'm sure this guy was just a bit of a loser.



I'm the only person I know of that didn't like it! Its all right. I could have looked past a lot of the brutality if there had actually been something mysterious and wonderful about the story. On the positive, I enjoyed the depth of the characters and how everything was grey. I liked having to figure moral things out on my own and the tense feel to the world. Dany's story in particular kept me turning the pages (and Bran's). However, the incest troubled me and I was sick of women using their sexuality to get ahead. That really bothered me, actually, and I don't consider myself a feminist. 

The other day, I overheard a co-worker (who is a raging fan of the show), tell a customer that "Oh, GOT is great! Its--you know--Scifi and all that!" Sigh. Its fantasy, but it seems some people don't know the difference. Just like when a friend told me Twilight was immature but she read all the books and watched all the movies: People will follow a good story to the end...and GRRM writes a damn good story even if it is brutal.


----------



## Xela

Just wanted to post this thing I wrote about the books when asked for a spoiler-free summary from a Harry Potter die hard who was wondering if they'd like it a couple years ago. I posted this on a very different website (a professional video gaming forum) in the topic I made for the series that currently has 5,700 posts and 159,000 views.



> A Song of Ice and Fire is the best damn series of books you'll likely ever read. Forget what you think you know about fantasy and its altruistic good guys and despicably evil bad guys. There are no simple black and white characters here; no room for Gandalfs (grey or white), Voldemorts, or Harrys. It's a multifaceted plot richly woven into an unparalleled and vastly detailed world where the threat of death is very real; very real characters scheme and plot to kill or sleep with others when they aren't already busy doing either of those things (or both at the same time). Beautifully brutal and brutally beautiful all at once, the prose is simply astounding. It's heartbreaking and thrilling, funny and terrifying with a constant barrage of jaw dropping moments each believably built up in the slow, steady burn of fine storytelling. In two words? The best.



I then added this disclaimer for any puritanical or immature readers:



> Oh, I should add that the characters have bodily needs and functions. War is gruesome and ugly with lasting reminders left on those who take part. The female characters have all their parts, as do the male, no matter the age and put them to use and on display regularly and sometimes unwillingly but always in detail. So, if you're really young or too immature to handle sexual or realistically violent content, this isn't for you. It's coming to HBO for an endless amount of good reasons.




Maybe it'll help you (or others here) decide if it's for them or not.


----------



## SeverinR

Xela said:


> Oh, I should add that the characters have bodily needs and functions. War is gruesome and ugly with lasting reminders left on those who take part. The female characters have all their parts, as do the male, no matter the age and put them to use and on display regularly and sometimes unwillingly but always in detail.
> .



There is that one formerly male character that doesn't have all his parts and makes all the other people very nervous. There is another with missing parts in season III sent to daddy as a present.
Oh, wait, there is one without a tongue, not a main character though.


----------



## ThinkerX

> The other day I was at a party and I heard someone say to his friend something along the lines of "Man, you can't go wrong with Game of Thrones, there's tits, there's action, awesomeness, more tits..."
> Needless to say, that doesn't really sell it to me! Although I'm sure this guy was just a bit of a loser.



You mean the 'action, and awsomeness' didn't outweigh the 'tits' bit of it for you?  

And you have yet to track down your own copy?


----------



## Jessquoi

ThinkerX said:


> You mean the 'action, and awsomeness' didn't outweigh the 'tits' bit of it for you?
> 
> And you have yet to track down your own copy?



'Action and awesomeness' sounds like a cheap American movie to me, so as I said, it didn't really sell it.


----------



## Wolfram

I've watched the show from the beginning and really enjoy it. I think its great that a fantasy genre crossover into tv has been so successful. I'm almost done with book one, and I enjoy them. The grey character theme is very refreshing. But as I've followed along I've come to realize there is a place for this version of fantasy that closely mirrors medieval times/history, but as a writer I don't see myself writing those themes. It's a personal choice to use writing and reading fantasy to escape the terrible tragedies in life. I appreciate ASoIAF, but look at in differently than many other more traditional stories. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.


----------



## The Unseemly

Personally, I think GoT fell for what I call the "Lovecraft phallacy", much like (unfortunately) many long series do. The first books were good - I did ocassionally get the feeling that the so-called "realism" was being ever so slightly overdone, as if Martin was trying to make it "realistic" for the sake of being different, rather than to pass on a message. But still, the first books were good, but then they became progressively worse.

Around book three/four, the quality started landsliding for me. The masses of PoVs just got god damn annoying, and through this, the prose disjointed. Furthermore, the books became overlong, the "realism" became unrealistic and, in some cases, ridiculous, and really, book 4+ was just working off marketing and the fact that the remainder of the series had been successfu. Likewise, a Song of Ice and Fire turned from Semi-Fantasy to soap opera, which was disappointing to a fantasy reader like me.

Hereby, on the overall, I agree with Chesterama... it was alright, and while I respect that many people praise the GoT series, I personally thought the books were really trying too hard with realism.


----------



## SeverinR

The Unseemly said:


> Personally, I think GoT fell for what I call the "Lovecraft phallacy", much like (unfortunately) many long series do. The first books were good - I did ocassionally get the feeling that the so-called "realism" was being ever so slightly overdone, as if Martin was trying to make it "realistic" for the sake of being different, rather than to pass on a message. But still, the first books were good, but then they became progressively worse.
> 
> Around book three/four, the quality started landsliding for me. The masses of PoVs just got god damn annoying, and through this, the prose disjointed. Furthermore, the books became overlong, the "realism" became unrealistic and, in some cases, ridiculous, and really, book 4+ was just working off marketing and the fact that the remainder of the series had been successfu. Likewise, a Song of Ice and Fire turned from Semi-Fantasy to soap opera, which was disappointing to a fantasy reader like me.
> 
> Hereby, on the overall, I agree with Chesterama... it was alright, and while I respect that many people praise the GoT series, I personally thought the books were really trying too hard with realism.


The series seems to be increasing fantasy as the story progresses, is it the "realism" versus reality got too conflicted? (I am on book one, but have seen alot of season 3, so basing question more on show then book)


----------



## ThinkerX

> The series seems to be increasing fantasy as the story progresses, is it the "realism" versus reality got too conflicted? (I am on book one, but have seen alot of season 3, so basing question more on show then book)



Two things:

First, when GRRM was doing the initial worldbuilding for this tale, he spent a LOT of time going back and forth between two possibilities:  A world with no magic; OR a world with a little magic.  Ultimately, he chose the second option. It's worth noting that while magic is present in GOT, its not really central to the plot.  Hence, he could have done certain things differently - increased technology, maybe - and still have told much the same tale.

Second, as several minor characters in the book (and maybe the television series) comment over and over again:  Magic is a dormant force returning to life in this world.


----------



## Chessie

ThinkerX said:


> Magic is a dormant force returning to life in this world.



That makes a lot of sense and actually, the story does give that vibe in the first book. The realism didn't put me off, what did was the excessive brutality that made no sense in the plot (what was the plot again?). I didn't mind all the characters but there was no direction and I felt lost while reading it. But what it comes down to is that I guess I just don't like light fantasy. I like my worlds heavy with magic, etc. A friend told me I'm losing out because dragons make such a comeback (I love dragons). But GRRM didn't keep me as a reader because he didn't invest me in the story. I do love his style though. Had the magic been in there from the beginning, I may have forgiven some things that turned me off. Plus, if I want to read sex, I'll go read erotica. I don't understand the graphic sex scenes in fantasy novels these days.


----------



## The Unseemly

Chesterama said:


> if I want to read sex, I'll go read erotica. I don't understand the graphic sex scenes in fantasy novels these days.



My exact point on the forced realism/reality (whichever word someone prefers). Every time I flicked through those pages, I felt that GRRM was just trying _too hard_ to make the novel seem "realistic", or, alternatively, wrote this to keep reader interest and sold it as "realistic". If you are too look at it critically, violence and sex are rarely (if ever) as graphic as the GoT series presents them, and here is to exact place where GoT's realism put me off - it just _wasn't_ realistic, even though it was trying to be.


----------



## Penpilot

Chesterama said:


> Plus, if I want to read sex, I'll go read erotica. I don't understand the graphic sex scenes in fantasy novels these days.



There's really not all that much sex. There's more sexuality than sex. Relatively speaking, the text devoted to sex is minuscule. I just finished reading the 4th book and if memory serves, there was only one short sex scene in that book. There may be more but only one comes to mind. 




The Unseemly said:


> My exact point on the forced realism/reality (whichever word someone prefers). Every time I flicked through those pages, I felt that GRRM was just trying _too hard_ to make the novel seem "realistic", or, alternatively, wrote this to keep reader interest and sold it as "realistic". If you are too look at it critically, violence and sex are rarely (if ever) as graphic as the GoT series presents them, and here is to exact place where GoT's realism put me off - it just _wasn't_ realistic, even though it was trying to be.



I don't know, "Rare" is a relative term. Depending on where you live graphic violence may be a everyday part of your life as well as rape. Not every place in our world is like the West. Look what's happening in Somalia, child soliders, rape, murder. Stuff happening there makes Game of Thrones look like a stroll on the beach. 

Then look at medieval history, which Game of Thrones is based on, it's full of messed things that people did. Vlad the Impaler, the historic Dracula, impaled people on long poles. The insertion point was where the sun don't shine. Tell me if that isn't graphic or violent. 

If the violence and sex aren't for you, that's fine, that's a legitimate complaint, but open your eyes and look around. The reality of violence and sex in the real word is easily much worse than anything portrayed in Game of Thrones.


----------



## Mythopoet

Personally, I don't understand the whole trend of "realistic" fantasy. Why on earth would I want my fantasy to be realistic? If I wanted realism, I'd read literary fiction which is so realistic that it's boring and mundane. Also, I prefer to read about people who are better than the people I meet everyday, not worse.


----------



## Chessie

Thank you, Mythopoet! My sentiments exactly. I have my theories on this but I'll hold, since I don't want to continue bashing GOT. It has its place, just like other fantasy has its place. But I completely agree with you.


----------



## Penpilot

Mythopoet said:


> Personally, I don't understand the whole trend of "realistic" fantasy. Why on earth would I want my fantasy to be realistic? If I wanted realism, I'd read literary fiction which is so realistic that it's boring and mundane. Also, I prefer to read about people who are better than the people I meet everyday, not worse.



Just because you don't understand the trend doesn't mean it's automatically bad. Just because you don't want realistic fantasy doesn't mean everybody else should feel the same. If you think all literary fiction is boring and mundane, either you haven't been reading the right ones, or just can't appreciate the literary genre for what it is. Your in a writing forum, so I'm assuming you like to write. Part of being a writer is being able to see through another person's eyes and understanding why, even if you disagree with what they see.


----------



## Mythopoet

Penpilot said:


> Just because you don't understand the trend doesn't mean it's automatically bad. Just because you don't want realistic fantasy doesn't mean everybody else should feel the same. If you think all literary fiction is boring and mundane, either you haven't been reading the right ones, or just can't appreciate the literary genre for what it is. Your in a writing forum, so I'm assuming you like to write. Part of being a writer is being able to see through another person's eyes and understanding why, even if you disagree with what they see.



My apologies, I didn't meant to suggest that what I said above was universal truth, just my opinion (which is why I started with "personally"). One of my personal soap box issues is the idea among many people in the publishing industry that readers are some sort of blob creature that all like the same things. I would never intentionally suggest that people should feel about the stories the way I do. But I do often find my own tastes and opinions underrepresented so sometimes I like to stick my head up and remind others that people who think the way I do exist.


----------



## The Unseemly

Penpilot said:


> I don't know, "Rare" is a relative term. Depending on where you live graphic violence may be a everyday part of your life as well as rape. Not every place in our world is like the West. Look what's happening in Somalia, child soliders, rape, murder. Stuff happening there makes Game of Thrones look like a stroll on the beach.
> 
> Then look at medieval history, which Game of Thrones is based on, it's full of messed things that people did. Vlad the Impaler, the historic Dracula, impaled people on long poles. The insertion point was where the sun don't shine. Tell me if that isn't graphic or violent.
> 
> If the violence and sex aren't for you, that's fine, that's a legitimate complaint, but open your eyes and look around. The reality of violence and sex in the real word is easily much worse than anything portrayed in Game of Thrones.



This is sort of my point. It's not that I mind graphic sex and/or violence (indeed, if I did, then I'd probably mind and awful lot of today's fantasy), and it's not that I don't appreciate the fact that GoT doesn't draw attention to how cruel and unrelenting was and is, it's simply that I mind the _way_ how it was presented, which, in my humble opinion, was done in a forced way.



Penpilot said:


> Just because you don't want realistic fantasy doesn't mean everybody else should feel the same. If you think all literary fiction is boring and mundane, either you haven't been reading the right ones, or just can't appreciate the literary genre for what it is. Your in a writing forum, so I'm assuming you like to write. Part of being a writer is being able to see through another person's eyes and understanding why, even if you disagree with what they see.



I do, however, second your point here, particularily about getting under someone else's skin and seeing and understanding why. (Ironically enough, this is exactly what writer's should achieve when developing their characters - that is, to make readers get under their skin and understand _why_ a character made such and such decision, even if you disagree with it. (I'll add that the GoT series does this with a good degree of success)).


----------



## Wolfram

There are certainly subgenre's of fantasy, just like Metal music for example. Some people love death metal but hate black metal, its simply a matter of finding your favorite subgenre, while appreciating the others for what they are. Not good or bad by any means, just by preference.


----------

