Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Does Game of Thrones Tell Us Something About Western Society? — Kofola
Over at The Federalist, Robert Tracinski has an interesting article about the success of the HBO series Game of Thrones, the medieval fantasy based on the books by George R.R. Martin. Tracinski attacks the show as little more than vapid “torture porn” due to its extreme violence and sexuality, and questions why the show has become so popular. His answer is that it appeals to the left’s need for a totalitarian impulse. He argues that the show presents an ugly world of corruption and brutality to appeal to mentalities of the left for a utopian leader to assert his or her will to bring order — in this case, to fictional world of Westeros.
I can see his point, even though Tracinski makes it abundantly clear that his knowledge of the material is superficial at best. One can see this mentality at work in the character of Daenerys Targaryen, the exiled heir of the former royal family, bent on returning to Westeros to reassert her own claim to rule. This character attempts social engineering in every culture she encounters on her journey, hoping to mold them to fit her utopian worldview. My leftist colleagues all love this character. I find the character loathsome—a naif who thinks that just because she believes in her own cause the world will just fall in line. Ultimately, she ends up causing more destruction or disorder than she prevents. The television show’s successful effort at building a cult of personality around her only exacerbates my dislike for the character. If I were in Westeros, I would have my sword ready to fight her off at every turn.
That said, Tracinski’s attempts to reduce the show to left-wing cynicism does not account for the widespread interest in Game of Thrones. Nonetheless, the success of this show is interesting, as is trying to answer Tracinski’s question about what is driving its success.
Part of me thinks the answer is just boredom; that in our post-modern culture, with so many options to turn to, this continuing shift toward extremes has been necessary to keep people’s interest. Nevertheless, I also think Tracinski’s on the right track, although pinning this phenomenon purely on the left is misguided. I feel that Game of Thrones appeals to a broader cynicism in western society, regardless of our political views, based on a sense that the world is corrupted, root and branch, with no clear answer on the horizon.
I see a similar appeal in Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight films. Those films, based on the Batman character, essentially tell the story of a modern society wracked by corruption, on the brink of complete collapse. This draws out social engineers and anarchists eager to put the final nail in the coffin. Those films, nonetheless, offer flawed but resilient (if just barely) heroes fighting to hold civilization together.
Game of Thrones offers a similar situation, albeit in a world that appeals to more extremes and one that does not have clear heroes holding the chaos at bay. The honorable characters that do exist in the story tend to be caught in the muck and killed off. Part of me worries that the success of such a story reflects a shift toward nihilism; that people embrace the show because of its seeming reflection of the random ugliness of a world without any real meaning other than the obtainment of power.
That said, this certainly does not reflect my own interest in the show (and the books). Despite the extreme lows that the story presents, I still hope to see one of the generally good characters (John Snow, perhaps) come out ahead from the utter darkness to establish a civilized order not dependent on a totalitarian, or ‘would-be’ messianic, figure. Although we do not live in an environment as extreme as Westeros, I honestly cannot say that my view of America and the American people right now is very different. This is why the show, thus far, has an appeal to me: the idea that, even in utter darkness, something good can yet emerge.
What do you all think about Tracinski’s argument? Do you think the popularity of Game of Thrones reflects something about our society?
(After I wrote this, I see Rachel Lu already had a post on this article. I’m still posting mine, since I spent the time writing it, and her post focuses on something different.)
Published in General
The show/books would not enthrall if there weren’t good souls in GoT fighting evil in their world. Their struggle, like one finds in all riveting stories, is the content that draws interest. Also, the well conceived conception of the diverse Houses of power, and the fascinating geography and history of Martin’s imagination infuse the story line with great depth and intrigue. That is what makes the work so intriguing.
Game of Thrones isn’t completely new. It reminds me of The Belgariad and The Mallorean by David Eddings. It is no more melodramatic than the Arthurian legends. And it is certainly no more brutal than the majority of human history, from which I’m sure Martin draws inspiration.
Setting aside the unrestrained sex and brutality, I suspect that objections to the style of story usually fall under the derisive moniker of “soap opera”. Much like songs can be driven by either music or lyrics, stories can be driven by either characters or events. Game of Thrones (A Song of Ice and Fire, going by the books) is primarily character-driven. Such stories often feel melodramatic at times — a charge easily made against the Le Morte d’Arthur and other classic medieval tales. People who favor event-driven thrillers, like the Bourne series and spy novels, tend not to as strongly appreciate character-driven epics (Downton Abbey comes to mind).
I’m not attempting to dismiss criticisms of Game of Thrones on that basis. But if one begins from that fundamental dissatisfaction of the style, one continues to search for other bothers.
It’s also, true to its name, a massive and complex game of strategy which invites viewers to wonder, “What’s next?” Whereas the idealistic films of the 1940s and 50s might have simplified characters and events for moral clarity, Martin’s series follows the modern tradition of emphasizing chaos and irreconcilable complexity.
Why now? Stories involving revolution, war, apocalyptic events, and supernatural forces become more popular in times of greater uncertainty and social conflict. But this time is also ideal for the Game of Thrones TV series because it benefits greatly from a massive production budget (if only for the sheer number of characters) and modern special effects.
Wights? Dragons? There have never been many offerings on TV for high-budget fantasy settings. If you build it, they will come.
Your description is the first info I have on the nature of it, other than its title and references to it in pop culture. I have never watched the show, because I don’t have cable, but I guess I could watch it on Netflix.
My first thought is that people who watch it and admire it might have Too Much Time on Their Hands, and not enough GOOD things to pursue or contemplate.
Paul’s common sense advice in his letter to the Philippians seems a standard bearer:
Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.
Since I haven’t watched it, my observation carries little weight, but Paul’s standard and your description help me spend my time in better places.
Like Ricochet? :)
I read that piece yesterday, and nodded right along. He’s expressing something I’ve found myself thinking about lately, too. There is an awful lot of violent programming on television today (at least, to go by the trailers I see while looking for something acceptable — which is rare). The glut of police procedurals currently polluting the airwaves seem like little more than an excuse to put a lot of blood and gore on screen.
Even if we find something acceptable that the kids can watch, we have to change the channel during commercials so they don’t see the blood-spattered trailers for other shows.
What’s going on?
Sure, generally speaking, quality stories are usually going to draw people. Although the types of stories that become popular phenomenons like GoT do certainly change in content over time, and I think that can perhaps tell us something about people’s mindsets at the time.
That said, Martin did a wonderful job of building an intriguing world, although I think it’s hurting him in the later books. Do we really need to know what’s happening at every moment with every character? By the last two books, I was basically just thinking to myself “get to the point already”.
That’s a good point. Certainly tales of this type–if not this magnitude–have been around long before and become quite popular. Maybe this is really just a story about technology and entertainment.
DrewIn, I’ve always believed that Satan is a real spiritual enemy. I believe he will loose in the end, but he obviously is not surrendering to God (the Good),
and he will take as many with him as will follow.
The violence, blood, gore, depravity, voyereurism, diminishing of faith, virtue, life, sexuality, and even death, in our culture are just his tools to get people off of a path that follows God (the Good).
Let’s say there is a point in our lives where we choose God (the Good). The more often, or longer, we divert from that path, the the further we get from that original point of Good. The harder it is for us to make our way back to the Good.
Check out this picture: http://www.newclearvision.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/frog-pot.jpg
Game of Thrones may just be one of those flies offered to the frogs so seemingly satisfied in the pot of boiling water.
Ha, well, I was certainly thinking the same thing even about myself as I was writing this. That said, literature (and Film and TV) I think do play a necessary role in allowing an escape from the real world, which I think is healthy in moderation. Likewise, it allows us to face hard questions in a way that’s sometimes more palatable than it would be in real life. Whatever criticisms one can make of GoT, it’s at least more thought provoking than quite a bit of trash on television.
I was actually thinking that Game of Thrones tells us something about the human race, not just Western Society.
I’ll concede your point about diversion, but playing ball with your kids, or building things, making music, playing on Ricochet, walking in the park, are also diversionary, and probably healthier choices for most people.
I have a fascination with crime shows, with the good guys beating the bad guys. Shows like Criminal Minds & Law & Order were my indulgences. But they became so visceral and focused on the depravity, not the victory over depravity. When I found myself turning my head, or walking out of the room in scenes more than once per show, I just turned them off.
Honestly, after experiencing the gruesome truth of pain & suffering in “Passion of the Christ” I’ve barely been to a movie theater. All the horror in the world passed before me in that film, and then it was overcome on Easter. I don’t need to relive the victory of Good over Evil with a different character.
It certainly seems that as a culture we’ve become so desensitized to violence and sexuality, it has to become more extreme to have an impact. I don’t enjoy the show (and the books) because of the sex and violence in and of itself. Although it does drive home for me what I do appreciate from the story, an example of the corruptibility of man and how he can destroy himself. Would such a message be driven home to most people today if HBO suddenly upheld 1950s standards of censorship? I’m not sure.
I am a huge fan of fantasy. But I never read the books and from what I have seen of the HBO series (I have never watched a full episode) I am not even going to bother.
For the Fantasy fans out there, how does George R.R. Martin’s books compare to other Fantasy series like Robert Jordan, Raymond Feist, Glen Cook, and Terry Brooks?
The last two books were much, much weaker than the first three, alas.
The Old Testament had a lot of violence in it, didn’t it? GoT involves good vs. evil, and we root for good as it struggles to prevail against wickedness. Great absorbing fun.
I’m thinking the OT is little less graphic in the visuals, but I don’t have any data to support that thesis. I also think the primary focus in the OT was not the evil for its own sake, but to point to the better option of the Good or show consequences of the evil.
Convince me GoT does that, maybe I’ll try it out. Otherwise, this froggy is staying in the cool waters with stories less violently graphic. :)
Thank heaven that we on the Right can fall back on Titus Andronicus with its cheerful Act 2 Scene 4 which enshrines the nobility of the human spirit!
GoT isn’t focusing on evil for its own sake. One is supposed to feel hatred for many of the main characters and watch the struggles of the noble few against terrible odds. Eddard Stark was a good man, but he was a fool. He didn’t know his Cicero or Socrates who warn the wise man to be wary of the vicious and cunning — probably because they weren’t preserved in Westeros.
I’m with Tracinski when it comes to his criticism of Daenerys, but her complete story has not yet been written and I find it doubtful that she will be the “last noble standing.” That doesn’t mean I think the series will end with a virtuous noble in charge…just a proxy for Henry VII.
I’m not following you. Evil is what Good struggles against. If you want to be invested in a story it is hard to top that kind of a plot. You know like in Star Wars, Indiana Jones, LoTRs, etc., etc., etc…
Daenerys Targaryen isn’t some symbol of Leftist utopian rule. She is an old-school conqueror. Comparisons of the people and politics of Westeros to those of medieval Europe would be more apt and natural.
That said, if Daenerys is wrong to free slaves at the heavy price of conquest, then so was the American North. Westeros, like the real world, is complicated. However much we decry invasions in general, the real world was civilized as much by conquerors as by peaceful movers.
Eddard Stark, if anyone, is presented as the ideal ruler. He never desires power and is recognized even by his enemies as a just man. He is not a fool, but rather a fish out of water when brought to the corrupt capitol. He didn’t have much time to adapt.
The brutality is no worse that one reads in history books. An early American saint suffered no less under his tribal captors than Greyjoy suffers in Martin’s tale. Why do our history books give us the details? Why don’t recountings of the Holocaust stick to general impressions?
I agree that storytellers can and do often include brutality and graphic sex and whatnot for indulgence rather than thematic significance. And I’m inclined to think that Martin partakes in that indulgence at times. But the Westeros setting reflects medieval history more than modern history. It’s good to remember how brutal human nature can be when not supported by modern technologies and the modern sum of experience.
We live in a world in which the strongest powers keep the lesser powers in check. It will not remain so forever. Freedom always relies on benevolent powers.
There is plenty of good and beauty within Westeros as well. You find what you seek.
Agreed. My guess is that many powers will be forced to unite against the supernatural evil. That victory will be the climax. After that, who knows.
I wouldn’t bother. If you’re reluctant to start now, you would only be expecting disappointment and focusing on everything you don’t like. There are plenty of good stories to enjoy. To each his own.
As a Christian, my main struggle with the series isn’t the graphic sex or violence so much as the supernatural implications of various events involving gods and magic. There is a “one true god” which is served by noble and wicked alike… which wouldn’t be so controversial if the noble servant didn’t apparently respect the wicked servant. Ultimately, it’s just a fantasy world (dragons!). But it bothers me a bit when authors include themes regarding natural realities but not supernatural realities.
There just aren’t that many fictional authors, Christian or otherwise, with firm grasps of spiritual truths.
Obviously, reading about violent things happening is a lot different than displaying them in High-Definition.
yes, but I guess it is less the story than the extreme visuals, and even the sound effects. maybe it is just me, but those images don’t go away for me. I own all 3 LOTR films, and have watched them more than once. I have to turn away sometimes. You know, head turned, ears covered, tell me when its over kind of thing, or push fast forward. I must be hyper sensitive or a big baby. I’ve only watched the first Star Wars, and Indiana Jones, probably one the first as well. You can watch all my allotment of GoT, I’ll watch Aladdin. or whatever else I can find.
Tell me the episode and the minute marks of the good and beauty within the world of Westeros. I will watch.
Those are real, and I guess my point might be there is enough real horror to learn from and confirm the presence of good and evil, and that good can prevail (even within episodes of Holocaust narration).
I watched a Henry VIII series on netflix, and did find myself turning away. I am sure there was truth to what was depicted. But reading a narrative that people were beheaded, drawn and quartered, burned in oil is not the same as seeing or hearing a video recreation of that. I can believe the truth of those instances, sympathize with the victim, embrace the struggle, and condemn those who would do such things without watching the recreation.
I think the first distinction is between people who have read the books -vs- only seen the series. As (almost) always, the books are much richer than the series and have many less boobies (both characters and physical attributes). I guess that the series is immensely popular with the readers of the books because it does a decent job of portraying GRRM’s universe in a richer medium.
My interpretation of GGRM’s theme so far is that humans have short (defined by our lifespan) attention spans and limited ability to perceive “the” world, whether that is geographic, magical, spiritual, or whatever. We attempt to maximize our power within 1-3 generations, as well as limited geographies whereas there are longer cycles of history about which we are clueless.
“For the Fantasy fans out there, how does George R.R. Martin’s books compare to other Fantasy series like Robert Jordan, Raymond Feist, Glen Cook, and Terry Brooks?”
Real quick: Epic narratives and storytelling like Jordan with a bit more realism and willingness to kill of key characters. Not as Gritty (but near as real) as Glen Cook and not as happy go lucky as Brooks and Feist.
The beauty and ugliness are seldom, if ever, separated by scene. It’s faithfulness in the midst of pain, innocence in the midst of corruption, an act of love from a wretched soul, etc.
Also, it’s often told through gradual nuances, rather than singular events. It’s not so much one particular instance as it is a change that occurs over time; a sign of hope, a bit of redemption.
Of the few scenes that quickly came to mind, none would pass the Ricochet Code of Conduct. But I’ll summarize a few things.
**SPOILER ALERT**
— The constant loyalty of Jon Snow, though that loyalty earns him no rewards and his lover does not respect it.
— The enduring innocence of Sansa Stark, despite being surrounded by backstabbing and terrors. Though her desires are selfish (the dreams of a young teenager), she doesn’t adapt to the reigning cruelty to advance.
— The commitment of Samuel Tarly to a young mother’s protection, overcoming his own fears for her sake.
— The growth of Jamie Lannister in response to the steadfast honor of the knight escorting him as a prisoner, Brienne of Tarth. The humbling learning curve of suddenly being a cripple.
— Strong characters offering friendship to weak characters, sacrificing on their behalf.
— Tyrion’s difficult commitment of love to a serving girl, knowing she could be used as a pawn against him if the other nobles find out.
— Osha’s difficult devotion to young and crippled Bran Stark, though he is not one of her people and he is accompanied by mentally retarded Hodor.
As with LOTR, loyalty and sacrifice are the main themes of light. But the story is full of ugliness to which LOTR doesn’t compare (largely because the evil is usually human evil), vulgarity and brutality. I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone who had to turn away from parts of LOTR.
I don’t recommend it to anyone, actually. It’s certainly not for everyone.
I agree, it’s definitely a show that takes a certain mentality to get into. My wife made it about 5 minutes into the first episode and had to call it quits.
If there’s a common motif in this series, it’s the characters inability to recognize their fatal flaws, and it either doing them in (eg. Eddard Stark and his inflexible honor, Tywin Lannister and his pride of house), or leading to their moral corruption (eg. Stannis’ obsession with Justice, Arya’s fixation on revenge). That Jamie Lannister has actually evolved his character for the better suggests to me that he might be the one left standing.
One can certainly credit Martin with keeping everyone guessing. Although it will probably mean that there’s a lot of really PO’d people at the end of the series.
I’ve never read the books. They were on the “someday” list until I read an interview with the author, which moved them to the “someday maybe but there’s no rush” list. HBO was free for a week and I watched two episodes. I went in with the questions “who are these people” and “what are they trying to do?” I came out with the same two questions, plus “why did they show that guy naked” and “what the hell?”
Oh, and Aaron… melodrama? Melodrama? Harumph. Merlin always says that allegory is just lost on some people. (He’s usually staring at me when he says it.)
I’ll give you the first to some extent, aside from the fact that she’s presented as a feminist archetype who simply becomes a conqueror.
I don’t buy the analogy to the US Civil War. The Americas faced the issue of slavery for centuries. The decision to eliminate slavery entirely was a hard one, and not even decided until the Civil War was well underway. In contrast, Daenerys moves through her journey and makes decisions based on how she feels about a given situation, thinking that just by her sheer existence she’ll solve every issue she encounters. Even if her motives are well intentioned, such as eliminating slavery, she doesn’t take into account the unintended consequences of her actions until after she’s disrupted the long-standing social order of the places or people she encounters and left them worse than when she arrived. This seems more analogous to Vladimir Lenin than Genghis Khan to me. (Although this component of her character is largely lost in the TV show, in contrast to the books).
Agreed.
As for leaving some of them worse off, she’s again an old-school conqueror in that her sympathy for any foreign people is dependent upon whether or not they will submit to her authority/power. Though this egocentrism is certainly characteristic of the modern Left, tribalism is historically normal. By tribalism, I mean not just mere favoring of one’s own people, but the moral prioritization of one’s own over foreigners to the point of dehumanization; to the point that killing a foreigner is not considered murder.
Yes, I believe feminism is an inspiration for the character. But female warriors and chiefs were not unheard of among the tribal peoples of Roman-era Europe. Besides, her femininity (along with her youth) improves the story by presenting her with obstacles and circumstances the other leaders of Westeros don’t face.