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
Not exactly, when you consider the context that the OT’s writers had often experienced that violence first hand. It was not long ago that public executions were considered entertainment, along with cock fights, dog fights, bear baiting, and other miseries. Seeing this stuff first hand, with all the sounds, the blood, the smells surpasses in impact any “High Def” experience we can claim.
Anyway, GOT is on a pay-cable channel, viewers have to choose to watch it, its production values are high, it has a top notch cast, and that explains its popularity.
One reason of many why I actually don’t follow the show. Watched a few episodes on DVD to get the gist, but tuned out after.
Just pointing out that reading a violent scene is a different sort of communication than visually depicting it.
But he didn’t just “find someone people like”, he made it so. He designed the world environs, characters and culture that made for these reader attachments. How many authors can even do this, make ‘a’ character, let alone multiple characters, that readers will like? Precious few in my book (sic). Add to that all the other credits you mention (…”The world building is top notch. The characters are full of life. The politics is fascinating, and believable. The prose is well written….”) and you have an extraordinary author.
It’s not TV, it’s HBO.
As art, it’s pretty good. As a technical product, the money is on the screen. As a story, we’ve seen this movie before. It’s just more cleverly plotted and the multiple story lines leave you asking for more. If that’s your cup of tea.
Martin’s hook is demonstrating that the traditional good guys preserving through adversity and earning victory is the less than likely outcome. And dragons.
There was still the line that says “None of that makes up for (…)”
The first time I ever heard of Barack Obama, my college roommate was looking up old speeches of his from YouTube. I saw a charismatic black man with a deep, pleasant to listen to speaking voice and thought “That man is going to be president”. Not much of a judge of politics, but I could tell exactly how much Obama had going for him. None of that makes up for the fact that he’s wrong on just about everything. (The positive reaction had a VERY short half-life.)
He’s a talented author. That isn’t enough. There are other great authors. You want more vivid characters? Try Lord of the Rings. Prose? Anything by Wodehouse. Politics? World building? Try the webcomic Erfworld. All of the above? Crime and Punishment.
See, I don’t understand many critical comments in this (and Ms. Lu’s parallel) thread. LotRs does not have more vivid characters. They are paper thin up besides Martin’s. Maybe I believe this because I have seen the HBO series (where, truth be told, the main characters are seen doing daily chores – including having sex, I must add – more than in the LotR movies), but that is my firm belief. This testifies to the skill exercised by HBO maybe as much as Martin himself. But just another reason to watch the series, then, IMHO.
Perhaps, but it’s hard to tell for sure, because he won’t wrap up the story. The last two books just seemed like they were buying time for the main characters, while putting lots of focus on unnecessary characters who don’t advance the story in any way (did we really need to get into the head of Cersei Lannister?–ugg…).
Part of me thinks he doesn’t even want to finish. He’s then have to answer all of the big questions he raised in the story. That would certainly make him nihilist. Either that or self-interested in preserving his ‘legacy’. This series seems destined mountains of internet outrage when the ending doesn’t match what people concocted in their own heads (see: the Battlestar Gallactica remake).
Now there is an encapsulated lesson for everyone who thinks they can fix humanity’s ills. It is never as it as it would appear, and the unintended consequences can sometimes be anticipated, but other times they are hidden and don’t rear their ugly head for years, maybe generations.
I am so grateful I am not a nihilist, and that I celebrate the one story with the good and happy ending, at least once a year, on Easter.
Otherwise, the world remains a dark and futile place, and we truly pawns in Game of Thrones.
Lighten up. The world is a great place. For one reason, it has succulent fiction such as the Game of Thrones to thrill us.
Was Jesus happy or sad?
I read the piece and got into a big Facebook argument about it. All you need to know about it can be summed up in “Tacinski thought his comments on the series were worth 1,800 words, despite having neither read the books nor seen the show.” Frankly, I’m disappointed in the Federalist for publishing it.
There are serious criticisms to be made of GoT and ASOIAF; this was not one of them.
If a writer is willing to admit that he has superficial knowledge of the subject, perhaps his first instinct should have been to decide he’s not qualified to write about it.
As for Daenerys, couldn’t the fact that her attempts to engineer society backfire on her be used as an argument for the ‘conservative’ values of the show?
Or maybe we shouldn’t look at every piece of fiction through a partisan lens. Sometimes a good story is just a good story.
I have read all the Game of Thrones Books, and watched every episode of the show. To me, there’s no mystery as to why it’s popular – it’s a standard tale of good vs evil, told with interesting characters. The TV show has great actors and fantastic production values. Why wouldn’t we like it?
Depending on what verses you read, He was often pretty angry or sad at the state of affairs.
Too soon to tell, wait till the series is further along, regarding Daenerys.
Your other point hits on why it is popular: the characters are not one-dimensional. Few are truly evil or good, most are muddled, which is true to life. Hard to score partisan points in that situation. That, and there are so many factions.
Well, it depends on what you think he’s talking about. I took his piece to be more about the violence and general nihilism of modern television than about AGoT. It just used AG0T to lead into the discussion.
At least, those are things I was thinking about when I read it. Looking back on the article now, he talks more about AGoT than about other shows, but he does bring in other television shows, too.
The new Battlestar Galactica is another series that I started watching because I was a 12-year-old fan of the original show. But as the series wore on, it just got darker and darker. Near the end you have one of the characters deciding that she’s just had a terrific day, and since she can’t see life getting any better, she puts a gun to her head and pulls the trigger.
Happy Friday! Sleep well!
Why?
Because.
I agree that there is a Jezebel-style* feminist take on Daenerys that is shallow and jaundiced: she’s a woman who overcame sexual abuse and has transformed herself into a conquering butt-kicker with a strong abolitionist streak! You go, gurl!!!
As Aaron pointed out, however, she’s also beset up by some remarkable flaws: an enormous ego, profound naïveté — she still believes almost all of the pro-Targaryean propaganda she was fed as a child, and thinks that Westeros will welcome her when she returns — her penchant for poor decision making (particularly regarding Daario), and inability to either control the dragons or appreciate her dumb luck in having them in the first place.
Like Walter White, she’s a more nuanced character than her biggest fans would lead one to think (though Dany is an infinitely better person than Walter).
* The website, not the Old Testament figure.
Reading a textbook explanation of the Holocaust and watching actual footage of the bodies and survivors in the camps are two different experiences. Unless you have a particularly vivid imagination or like to dwell on such things, I think it’s much easier to get images of graphic violence in your head from seeing it visually depicted than if you’re just reading some sentences that (while talking about terribly violent stuff) don’t go into particularly graphic descriptions of it (if we’re talking about the Bible, anyways).
I also think it’s rather obvious why GOT is so popular. In fact, as someone who has read all the books, I actually enjoy the show better. This comes from how weak books 4 and 5 are and how the show has managed to eliminate unnecessary characters and plot points.
I’m also tired of the need to politicize everything. GOT is an epic fantasy story with fully developed characters. The show has immense production value, great acting, and pretty good writing too. Yes it’s dark. But hey that’s what I want from a show where everyone is fighting to sit on a very uncomfortable chair and eventually fighting ice zombies. I don’t think it necessarily panders to some leftist agenda. Or really any sort of agenda. GRRM is clearly an author who’s struggling at how to conclude his own story and the showrunners are doing the best job with the existing materials.
First two seasons of the new BSG are some of the finest television I’ve ever watched; the last two seasons were awful, and the awfulness only became worse as it progressed.
I pretend the series ended with the invasion of New Caprica and Starbuck saying that the only option is to “Fight them until we can’t. It’s a little frustrating, but it works.
In a word: No.
Did the Canterbury Tales with its bawdy retelling of tavern tales, spreading of syphilis and general unpleasantness condemn our society? Did patricide, Oedipal angst and moral ineptitude condemn our society in Hamlet? I’m not comparing the stature of these works in the pantheon of western literature to A Song of Ice and Fire, but when you consider what was going on in those works and the esteem in which they are held, a little bit of sex and graphic violence in books meant for mass consumption is hardly the biggest sin, is it?
Many things can be said of George RR Martin – he’s was a virulent critic of George W. Bush and an unabashed liberal – but you can’t accuse him of writing a series which is boring.
Worrying about his deeply held beliefs and trying to divine whether there’s some sort of hidden message therein does nothing but reduce enjoyment of the thing – for that matter, you couldn’t enjoy any mass-market entertainment project if you were concerned about the politics of its creators, which is uniformly leftist.
Authors have a romantic attachment to the notion of feudalism precisely because the institution of feudalism allows for a lot more of the literary devices (blood feuds, assassinations, internecine warfare, slavery, serfdom) to flourish where they simply can’t in the framework of modern life.
The existence of mass communication media, cheap and easy dissemination of information via books (due to printing technology) and various other technological innovations have by and large eradicated the capacity for most societies to be controlled by despots.
You have to paint with bright, sharply contrasting colors in a fantasy novel – otherwise, why visit this imaginary place at all? – and the medieval framework is a good canvas on which to paint with those colors. The series itself does ask some interesting questions: specifically, who rules and by what right? Is leadership a meritocracy or does might make right? If might makes right, must good guys always finish last, or can you form alliances with other well-meaning people to defeat the brutal despots?
There are a lot of interesting questions intertwined with the sex and violence – because we’re dealing with humans, after all. Not cardboard cutouts.
I read a lot of fantasy, and I find The Song of Ice and Fire to be in the middle of the upper end in terms of quality and compelling storyline. Much of it is the working out of Martin’s nihilistic tendencies, and straw man attacking against what he sees as more traditional tropes in fantasy. For instance, Sansa Stark’s fairy tale dreams of princess-dom are regularly the source of her humiliation. She begins to propser as she she sheds them. Likewise the entire Stark tendency to place honor and “right action” ahead of expediency always leads to destruction. It’s a theme of Martin’s books that the good act is always punished.
But the books, and for that matter the show, aren’t in any way a reflection of the “destuction of society”. They’re just moderately compelling soap operas with lots of the sex and violence, which have been the single most compelling interests of the human race since we started creating stories around the campfire to entertain and educate ourselves.
It just saddens me that Robert Jordan’s infinitely superior The Wheel of Time does not garner higher regard relative to Martin’s work.
I have pondered this myself. Personally I believe this influx of violent programming is because so many Americans have never experienced much violence if real life. Sort of like the man who was never in a fight longing for the thrill of “what is it like” people enjoy this exposure to violence since it, for most, is the only exposure they have.