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
I think it’s a bit simpler. People find violence interesting. The Illiad and Beowulf are both products of societies dramatically more violent than our own. They glory in bloodshed to a degree at least on par with modern action films. Violent fiction doesn’t say as much about modern western society as it does about human nature.
What the other Salvadore said.
The reason more violent shows are being produced is because the hammer of censorship has been lessened allowing for greater freedom on television, budgets are higher, allowing for more graphic effects than we’ve seen before, and the film industry choosing to tilt the vast majority of their product to juvenile audiences, leaving adult (in the grown up sense, not the pornographic sense) fare to television.
I think it’s a little simpler. Violence is addictive. It gives a certain kind of person an adrenalin rush, and as you become more addicted, you naturally want the harder stuff.
With respect to:
Let me just say: she’s hot, and she has dragons. So shut up.
The show is about power and principle, as I see it. Who rules, on what grounds, and with what right? It also demonstrates the shift of a culture, one honor-bound with rituals and order, and belief, to a more opportunistic one where there no longer are rules to the Game, and a willingness to celebrate shortcuts and ends, not means (pragmatism). The role of magic also plays a part. In the books there are constant references to the characters no longer wanting to believe in the magically real, and paying a price for it. I think the show mocks enlightened despotism more than it celebrates it.
The story is a song of fire and ice. Therefore I assume it will conclude with the Starks (Jon Snow) versus the Targaryen gal, or some sort of outcome pitting these two forces.
It’s more likely that the real struggle will end up placing these erstwhile enemies in alliance against the real enemy: the white walkers. That of course is where the people who paid attention and fealty to tradition will shine and the ones who worship at the false idol of power will falter.
Well, it was damn near infinitely longer anyway. I think it was about book 9 that I started rooting for the Dark One. I’ll give Jordan this: unlike GRRM, he didn’t lose focus, he knew he had a cash cow in the series and was going to milk that sucker until it was nothing but a shriveled leather purse with hooves and a tail. If he hadn’t died prematurely we’d probably be on book 20 by now — which would make Wheel of Time what, an icosiology?
Someone from the early days of National Review–Whittaker Chambers or one of those–had an explanation for why Atlas Shrugged was so popular. He told a colleague, “they just like the fornicating bits.”
I don’t know why I brought that up. I can’t imagine how it relates to the topic at hand.
No.
No, no, and no. I’ve read the series through twice, and despite its length, it was exactly as long as he intended it to be. His health problems probably made it longer, because he didn’t move the plot along very satisfactorily in Crossroads of Twilight. But despite the moaning and complaining, every plot line that supposedly muddles and extends the middle books is introduced in the first books.
Comparing length to SoIF, remember it’s not done. It doesn’t even appear to be at the middle point, and shows no sign of stopping except by dint of Martin’s procrastination or demise.
Well, Mr Delingpole likes it, but I don’t – seems like a pale imitation of LOTR, without Galadriel.
One of the most harmful philosophical errors of the moment is to mistake aesthetics for a deeper truth. Giraffes are cute, so all judgements and polices will flow from that. We should be cautious (and the easiest person to fool is ourselves) that we don’t judge pleasing entertainments good because they are pleasing, or disquieting works bad because they disquiet.
I-like-it-therefore-it-is-good is the easiest kind of narcissism.
Absolutely. I have read the books, though I did struggle through the last one published, and found the world captivating and the characters intriguing, especially the secondary characters that have profound influence over the main characters. The television show is less interesting due to the provocative shock value attached – why a lesbian sex scene in the background when a character is nattering on about his motivations to act? Thanks to that kind of stuff I can’t watch with my teenage son when so many good discussions could emerge since all of us have read the books.
Well…yes! (I mean the conquering and extra-legal part.)
I have to confess that I’ve only seen the first episode of Game of Thrones, so I cannot comment on the quality or lack thereof of the show.
However, I did include this quote from George R. R. Martin in my Favourite Quotes file:
Go out and get yourself a copy of Nine Princes in Amber by Roger Zelazny, the first of the Chronicles of Amber books. Zelazny could write. After LotR, it is my favorite fantasy series.
The Amber chronicles was superb…when I was young. Trying to recreate that magic in a second read has not worked.
You could be right. I never finished the second arc, but there was a lot going on then and it had been a while since I read the first one. I still plan on doing it again someday.
Here’s an article that argues that Game of Thrones tells us a lot about Western Society by showing why Westeros is so different from our modern world:
Fun article. A few thoughts:
It’s unclear as to what technology was available between the Age of Heroes and Aegon’s Landing. Judging from the Wildings and the Hill Folk, there’s a distinct possibility that it was pre-civilization until fairly recently.
I’ve never understood how Westeros has legends going back 8,000 years. That’s nuts.
Westerosi winters would be a major impediment to civilization; essentially, you get a Dark Age every decade or so.
It seems to me that the existence of real magic also would have a retarding effect upon the development of technology. Why waste your time figuring out complicated scientific and engineering principles when you can just zap the problem into surrendering?
It depends on how the magic works. There might be classes in Theoretical and Applied Thaumaturgy.
Step 1: Murder some bastard-child whose father was a king.
Step 2: Invoke the Red God, R’hllor, resurrect some dead guy/gal.
Step 3: Claim to have seen this in the flames.
Methinks somebody’s played Shadowrun.
A little, I think, but I’ve played plenty of other things as well.
I think (fear?) that the popular fascination with this series reflects a deep seated moral pathology in our society. It is not the graphic sex and violence in and of themselves that trouble me as much as the utter amoral vacuum that the entire story unfolds in. For the (now majority?) of persons being raised outside of traditional religious or ethical imperatives, GoTs serves as the mirror for what is and even perhaps, in their worldview, what should be. That is an unsettling foreshadowing of what may come in the years ahead.
What leads you to think so (not asked snarkily)?
1)
If the practitioners of magic use their abilities in support of the state, or they themselves are in control of the state, then I agree that there would be very little incentive for technological innovation.
However, if the practitioners of magic keep themselves apart from the state, like monks in a monastery, and the state does not have access to their abilities, then the state has an incentive to develop technology for defense against hostile nations AND as a defense against the magic users themselves.
2)
Also, in order for magic to supplant technology it needs to be as effective as technology.
As such, if the practitioners of magic are unable to solve certain problems, like famine or disease for example, that creates an incentive to seek out technological solutions. In this scenario, technological progress is still slowed down, but not stopped entirely.
(Maybe the show is popular because it generates just this sort of geeky debate?)
I mention it because the fictional world of Shadowrun includes MIT&T (The Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Thaumaturgy).