GoT is actually disgusting, isn't it?

[Miljah]

In what way can it be described as 'entertainment'?

I seriously, don't understand why people happily sit down to watch the carnage, the immolation, the screaming children.

What is wrong with people?

I'm glad that they didn't use the book as inspiration for that bit too.

^There is a difference between showing those things as news items and using them for "fun"

There is a difference between news and entertainment^

Which is? What do I gain out of knowing some sicko who lives 200 miles away from me threw acid on his own son's face? What does the boy gain from the whole country knowing what he's been through?

^^ This. The boy and his loved ones are real people whose pain is probably worsened by everybody knowing the details and ghouls wanting to ask details.

I guarantee you that most people were watching the last episode in horror and wanted the destruction of the city to end when the soldiers rang the bells to surrender rather than salivating over the violence.

If you're going to judge people's viewing habits then you should ask about people watching Jeremy Kyle and poverty porn which are broadcast purely so that people can laugh at people on benefits the. In the case of the latter get angry that they aren't suicidally miserable and shock horror may have happy moments in their lives? Have you seen addicts on Jeremy Kyle go through the humiliation of being yelled at then goaded with maybe not being sent to rehab after all? Addicts are probably one of the most desperate members of society and forcing them to eat metaphorical shit dished put by JK and beamed to the nation is horrible. This is real suffering that I don't think should be broadcast for entertainment.

Do you ever watch Antiques Roadshow and wonder why the UK hasn't returned stuff that they nicked in Empire days? Why are the Elgin Marbles and Rosetta Stone still in the British Library? Do you ever think that antiques on the programme may have a similar story where somebody really has suffered in it's survival and production? That's a lot worse than stunt actors or cgi tricks on a fictional programme.

Do you need to know details like age of victim, where it happened, victim's health status etc? Or simply that a new type of violence on the rise is acid attacks and there were X number of incidents this year?

Sansas childhood friend was married off to Ramsey and rape was the LEAST of what he did to her. Sansa knew that by allowing it to happen, she was partly responsible for the hell her friend was sentenced to, and thats where some of her hardening came from. Honestly, I think the tv version was less awful than the book.

But my point is that they left that character out of the TV series. Why did they have to transfer that story line to Sansa, they could have left it out entirely. Sansa could have been made harder in a more imaginative way. I love Game of Thrones, but I hate rape being used as a lazy plot device. So many TV shows, so many rapes of stong women, it is a tired trope.

But we do need to know what’s going on in the world.

Do we? I didn't feel that everyone needed to know about my friends murder. They caught the perpetrator, within hours.

It was in the papers, on the news and discussed at length on breakfast TV. Why? The family hadnt spoken to BBC news before it was discussed.

The papers had pictures of her fiance on the front page, crying his eyes out, the sheer devastation all over his face.

Why did anyone outside those of us at the funeral need to see that?

This was 16 years ago. I understand that people are interested. It will have helped sales of the news paper. Stories like these are why alot of people watch the news. They want to see people debate news stories.

This actually happened. To a girl in her late teens. I dont think people are morally corrupt if they watched the news talking about her. Or bought the paper and read the news story. I get that it attracts interest. But it hurt the family and friends of the victim.

And no I dont see the need for it.

But my point is that they left that character out of the TV series. Why did they have to transfer that story line to Sansa, they could have left it out entirely. Sansa could have been made harder in a more imaginative way. I love Game of Thrones, but I hate rape being used as a lazy plot device. So many TV shows, so many rapes of stong women, it is a tired trope.

GoT is based on medical times. Do you know what would have happened to someone in Sansa position. Likely force into marriage, raped and abused. Or married off then murdered.

Its nor plucked out of the air. Bolton needed to do the worst things possible to the people he had power over. That was the point.

Part of sansa story is how she is passed around for marriage as a possession. Which is accurate.

Interesting that you found the rape worse than him chasing down and murdering, a girl he had sex with, with his dogs and his girlfriend.

Pika- start a thread about any of those programmes and i’ll Be there putting my tuppenceworth in. But this particular one is about GoT. It’s not really good debate to say “look at these other things- they are bad too”......

but I hate rape being used as a lazy plot device. So many TV shows, so many rapes of stong women, it is a tired trope.

This. It's not exclusive to GoT (if only!) and I understand it was based in medieval times but Jesus wouldn't it be nice if a woman was strong just because? That she didn't have to be violated for that to happen. It's a fictional fantasy piece so why not?

“Sansa marrying Bolton and hee being tortured by him, was pivotal to Sansas story and character arch“.

Bollocks. Lots of articles online about why “becomes strong women through sexual trauma” storylines like this one are bullshit.

I find the sexual violence in both the books and show grim, and don’t have confidence in the author or showrunners/writers on writing about women.

Isn’t there a bit of dissonance between “it’s based in medieval times hence the violence is historically accurate” and “all the strongest characters are women”? On and dragons?

It’s not like strong women didn’t exist in medieval times now is it?

The stories we have will be mostly from the nobility and ruling classes, but plenty of examples out there.

The dragons are a fantasy element, obviously. No one’s saying it’s a direct representation of medieval Europe, just that the feudal society it depicts is strongly influenced by it.

Of course there were strong women in medieval times. But not many who wielded power and control.

The books are incredible and personally I'm enjoying the series version

I have been watching the show since the beginning and have read the books - I make a point of reading these threads when they come up and questioning myself about them and on the whole I remain happy in my choice to watch them.

I have always liked them for the complexity of a lot (but not all) of the characters and storylines, and the realism if a world where 'good' does not automatically win and bad people can seem to be being rewarded. as a programme it does make you question your perception of charactersnand concepts of good and bad. Coming at them having studied history I also find they can be more realistic in depicting a medieval world than historical dramas. Watching them invokes a range of emotions - horror, disgust, sadness, relief, happiness (it is not all grim...). I have experienced similar emotions watching a number of films, plays and reading books over the years. I am sure there is probably some research out there about the role of literature in helping is process complex emotions. I also think that if they sanitised it too far, it would lose some of its realism - the medieval world was not a nice place, horrific acts were carried out and women were not treated well, we shouldn't ignore that because it is unpleasant.

However, all that aside, I do think that they did carry the sexposition and some of the gore too far. There are scenes which i covered my eyes for and there episodes I won't rewatch because once is enough. I do think we have gone a too far in what we show graphically on screen rather than just hint at. I have the same feeling about sex scenes in many film/TV - where older films manage to create tension and chemistry with looks and hinted actions, now it has to be much more explicit. I do think that is a loss to the art of storytelling on screen and page.

I also agree with pp who point at true crime and voyeuristic type shows like the now cancelled JK show which I struggle to see as entertaining when it is people's real life being treated as entertainment/modern freak show.

I will watch the last episode of Game of thrones because I want to see how it ends and I am invested in characters band plotlines. But if a similar show starts next week that I am not invested in I probably won't watch it.

Urgh, apologies for typos!

But not many who wielded power and control.

Enough. Off the top of my head as a starting point

Eleanor of Acquitaine
Grace O Malley (Pirate Queen of Ireland)
Empress Matilda
Elizabeth Woodville
More early modern but Mary Tudor / MQS / Elizabeth I

The 2 Elizabeths are figures of obvious influence for Martin.

I'm a huge horror fan, watch true crime docs and love game of thrones. I'm going straight to hell it seems

Of course there were strong women in medieval times. But not many who wielded power and control.

Well, the only women who are shown wielding power and control are queens (who are powerful up to and until the point that there is a viable male alternative) and noblewomen (who similarly are in their greatest position of strength as either widows or sole surviving heirs). That seems legit to me, as a historian. Any idea that, for instance, the prostitutes are empowered women having a great time is very starkly cut down by the show.

I don't think you have to think the show is perfect to think its defensible. Some of the sexual stuff in the first series was absolutely gratuitous; it's notable that that largely disappeared once the show was popular enough that it was completely secure. I don't think it's always handled sexual violence well (Jaime and Cersei in the scene after Joffrey's death, anyone?) but I do also think it's actually quite important that the constant threat that women and the poor live under in this world is made clear. We often talk about 'raping and pillaging' in medieval warfare, but it's a weirdly trivialising phrase. GoT at least doesn't shy away from the fact that political conflict wasn't some great big consequence-free game of chess, it was rich and powerful people ruining the lives of the powerless for their own ambitions and security.

"But my point is that they left that character out of the TV series. Why did they have to transfer that story line to Sansa, they could have left it out entirely. Sansa could have been made harder in a more imaginative way."

They needed something that took Sansa from the "meek little bird", a really girly teen trophy wife into someone who would deliberately plan and enjoy locking Ramsey in to be eaten alive by dogs. It didn't have to rape but it had to be something truly awful, a harsh letter wasn't going to cut it.

“We often talk about 'raping and pillaging' in medieval warfare, but it's a weirdly trivialising phrase.”

Do you think that the violence in the programme is there to remind people of the effect of “rape and pillage” on the population at large ? A sort of public information film?

Well, I do think that leaving it out helps to perpetuate a nostalgic medievalism that is quite socially regressive. One of the big criticisms of fantasy as a genre is the extent to which it implicitly whitewashes the past. I think if you're going to tell a story about medieval warfare then it should be pretty horrible. Again, I don't think GoT is perfect, but I do think some of the near-casual atrocities it shows - sometimes perpetuated by characters we have been encouraged to like - are deliberate. Maybe more so on the part of GRRM, and watered down by the TV production.

I actually once went to a fascinating paper on the depiction of rape as a weapon of war in medieval art; the speaker was arguing that there are many implicit references to it which we miss because modern analysis of these works refuses to recognise them. He was very clear that the mental airbrushing out of rape from these works was not a feminist project.

The depiction of sexual violence is a really difficult one: I have a lot of sympathy with the argument that it's overused as a way of making female characters 'strong', but the alternative is either a) rape is something that only happens to the 'other' women, the nameless ones that we don't care about or b) a world without sexual violence, which unless its depicting a utopia is a sort of minimising in itself.

Again, I don't think GoT has always got it right, or even nearly right, on this. I just think that it's unfair to say they shouldn't even try it.

Jesus wouldn't it be nice if a woman was strong just because? That she didn't have to be violated for that to happen. It's a fictional fantasy piece so why not?

It does.

GoT is based on medical times. Do you know what would have happened to someone in Sansa position. Likely force into marriage, raped and abused. Or married off then murdered

Its nor plucked out of the air. Bolton needed to do the worst things possible to the people he had power over. That was the point

Part of sansa story is how she is passed around for marriage as a possession. Which is accurate

@Icandothisallday

I don't understand the patronising tone, I am well aware that GRRM was inspired by "medical" (sic) times and the War of the Roses in particular.

Interesting that you found the rape worse than him chasing down and murdering, a girl he had sex with, with his dogs and his girlfriend.

I don't think I said that at any point did I? I just said that I found part of the Sansa storyline especially disturbing and disliked it. YMMV and that's fine, we are all entitled to opinions about TV shows.

Bear in mind though that a significant % of the audience will have experienced sexual assault in some form and that's why I think it should be depicted with great care and not used as a plot device.

I think I will bow out of this thread now, it has brought out some oddness on both sides of the GoT divide.

It’s not the inclusion of nasty stuff, it’s the showrunners’ handling, eg use of cliched tropes, sexposition etc.