I know it's been done to death but Game of Thrones

Ok, maybe I'm just having a bad day.

I thought we were having a debate, and then you decided to tell me the way I was communicating wasn't acceptable and to tick me off. When I pointed out you'd done the same, you found reason why that wasn't ok either. Now you're suggesting I have some kind of sinister 'goal'.

Does it not occur to you I might just, you know, not like Game of Thrones in the same way you obviously do? And I might even like it, but still want to discuss it critically, without that being treated as shocking and odd?

Can I ask, what is your goal, do you think that all rape, abuse, murder etc should be banned from films and books?

I'm not laying into you? We are having a debate. Or we were.

I do not think it is plausible to pretend that everyone who watches GoT, watches in a spirit of feminist awareness, looking at the naked women and thinking 'shocking! Horrible! I can't bear to see this!'
Who said they do? Again you're applying expectations. Not everything has to have some noble cause to it. You seem to think GRRM has a feminist obligation and you seem to think that viewers watch with a 'spirit of feminist awareness', you have applied these expectations to people. Why? And no-one said they were 'calmly and academically interested in emotions' either. Emotions are the key to entertainment. No-ones sat watching GoT with a view to learn and develop

I don't enjoy violence, no.

I don't think you do, either? But you're laying into me for criticising a show you like, and it bothers me because you - and others - seem to be almost personally offended by anyone not liking what you like.

It's not wrong to talk about why GoT is the way it is. We shouldn't get mocked for it.

And I do think it is deeply worrying when people make huge claims for GoT being a way of making us sympathise, or think about history differently. Because it is, as has been said, fantasy and entertainment. And it reflects the fact Martin and the makers of the show actively chose how they were going to write and portray it.

I do not think it is plausible to pretend that everyone who watches GoT, watches in a spirit of feminist awareness, looking at the naked women and thinking 'shocking! Horrible! I can't bear to see this!'

If they did, people would turn over and not watch those bits.

Clearly, a lot of people enjoy it, and also want to defend it. There have been multiple big debates in the media about how to excuse scenes of rape, or how to justify abuse, and I do think these show that people are actually emotionally invested in the show, and not just calmly and academically interested in 'emotions'.

How can you possibly tell what we are 'supposed' to be?

By the way it's written and presented, assuming we aren't psychopaths who have no empathy for the characters.
As for the purpose, you'd have to ask GRRM. I doubt it's to make us all rise up. Maybe it's to make him $$$?

Plenty of going on too, 'are you sure' 'is that right'

That wasn't a dig at all, it was clearly that you don't like violence and are against the invoking of negative emotion so that's why I posted that. It is entirely your prerogative to find happy things to watch if you find these distasteful,

But you have to lower the tone, patronise and give off that air of superiority that for disagreeing with you I obviously cannot think critically and don't associate with people who do And again with your most recent comment.

Very disappointing, I'm sorry that some of us riff raff enjoy GoT.

Oh, come on, grays. You have been constantly belittling me here. It was you who said: 'If you want a programme that's all smiles then that's your prerogative. But some want a range of emotions.'

So you can dish it out, but not take it, is that right?

Or is it that you think digs are fine in the service of GRRM, but not when someone points out to you that underthinking isn't a virtue?

How can you possibly tell what we are 'supposed' to be?

And if we are 'supposed' to be horrified, then please, what was the purpose? To shock us into rising up en masse and changing the (fictional) world?

Maybe you just know people who don't like to debate what they watch? Which is fine too. God knows, I like bland acceptance at too times.

Nice little dig there, poor debate form and instantly puts me off engaging with you. Ta-ra.

Nice post Grays.
GRRM has said the themes of his books are about how humans are monsters and treat each other despicably (paraphrasing).
We are supposed to be horrified by the scenes depicted. Of course it's entertainment, since it's not documentary, but I don't think the intention is for us to enjoy these scenes or treat them as "wank-fodder"
I think the TV execs do throw in some cheap titillation, though (as they almost always do).

Are you sure?

Maybe you just know people who don't like to debate what they watch? Which is fine too. God knows, I like bland acceptance at too times.

I still think it is everyone's responsibility to raise awareness, particularly if they rely on that claim when talking about the books, but I will be fair and admit I'm not holding my breath for Martin to cotton on, really.

No programme has ever had this kind of debate. I don't see threads upon threads debating them like GoT and we all know the reason why.

No, it isn't his responsibility to raise awareness. It's his responsibility to create books that his readers find entertaining. You are applying expectations and finding him wanting; expectations he has never been obligated to fill because he is an author not a social justice campaigner.

I certainly have problems with that kind of crime drama. It's been discussed a lot in this section, hasn't it? And certainly widely discussed in the media.

My issue isn't that entertainment evokes 'feelings'. My issue is that where you see Martin evoking sympathy, I'm afraid I just see him celebrating and normalising violence.

IMO, Martin's responsibility is to raise awareness, if he is going to use the 'but history ...!' justification. Which he does.

I'd also say it was an issue of basic decency, too?

Yes there's clearly a difference between entertainment and real life but the former is based off a mixture of reality and fantasy.

Funny how no-one ever has a problem with the copious amounts of crime shows that show multiple murders? That form of reality is okay but rape and nudity isn't?

Like I've said it's supposed to be a brutal world. Brutal things happen in brutal worlds - like is happening right now this very minute. TV shows and books are often based on real life, and real life isn't all sweetness and light and love all around.

Programmes are supposed to invoke feelings. No-one 'enjoys' the violence but it provides the setting, character development and story that is integral to invoking emotions. If you want a programme that's all smiles then that's your prerogative. But some want a range of emotions. The shock, anger, anxiousness, the very real human emotions that people feel when faced with acts of violence. As a whole people enjoy the show but that is not to say people enjoy the acts.

And it isn't Martin's responsibility to raise awareness of real violence. He has never said he's interrogating misogyny.

grays, there is no world in which this is 'happening'. Because there is no world in which all of this is being sold as something for us to watch and enjoy.

That is the difference between entertainment and real life.

I think it's a real, serious problem when people blur the two. Martin isn't raising awareness of real violence. He's treating violence as wank-fodder. He's also pretending to interrogate misogyny while reinforcing it.

The world of GoT is supposed to be a brutal one. This is a continual theme throughout the books. And it's a reflection of very brutal reality. When thousands of men go to war and are slain you're supposed to feel sad, when a woman is raped you're supposed to feel upset and angry, when Theon gets tortured and genitally mutilated you're supposed to be sickened. When a certain characters face is crushed before our eyes, when a couple are poisoned...

both men and women suffer in the GoT world. It is the nature of the world they live in and we absolutely cannot deny that this nature is being reflected in our own reality (ISIS anyone?)

And people get naked. Because yes this is another reality. And adults can cope with nudity and sex scenes.

This level of violence and nudity isn't for everyone, that goes without saying. But just because people find it distasteful doesn't mean it's anti-feminist, or should be banned, or any of the other things I've heard say about it.

Well you're right with it not being history. It's happening right now. Right now there's wars going on where men and women are killed, men and women are tortured, men and women are raped. People are being beheaded, people are being skinned, people are being thrown off buildings. Women are being taken as prizes. People are being sold.

I think that's true, red, and that's why I find the 'but it's history ...' justifications infuriating. Both because it isn't, and because it suggests that this is somehow a justification in itself.

I'm pretty sure it's in both. Criminals get the choice of death or Nights Watch. That's why there's so many Rapists or 'Rapers' on the Nights Watch. This is mentioned in Season 4.

Is that in the books, mal? I'm sorry, I don't remember it in the TV series, but maybe I wasn't paying enough attention! I admit, I'm thinking of the same sorts of things as vestal.

It is a groundbreaking series in how it challenges some of the "rules" of fiction.

You mean the rule that POV characters always survive? Perhaps, but one wouldn't need so much rape and torture.

@PreviouslyMal: Um ... which rapists? I only know most of the plot second hand, but I seem to recall a lot of rapists who got off scot-free. So, would that be "unfree male peasants who raped highborn women"?

Drogo was never punished, that's for sure, though I admit he wouldn't have been in the actual Middle Ages, either.

I agree with you slug

And the thing is if you read the actual books whilst a lot does still happen that is violent etc, they're small sections compared to all the back stories, narrative and all that.

Unfortunately a lot of the key violence scenes are vital to character development but haven't got the other story bumf to offset them because on screen it would be boring for the viewer.

Rapists had a choice, death or joining the Night's watch, so it was against the law.
I think the books are far more horrific, what Ramsay did to Sansa is mild compared to what he does to people in the books.
Perhaps I should have said that most of the men aren't misogynist rapists