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

[ASAS]

Please consider this a potential trigger warning if pregnant...

Stopped watching when I was pregnant because they killed a baby. My DS is now 4. It's on in the background while I potter about but I've just noticed a pregnant woman being stabbed in the stomach. Has it been 4 years of this level of violence? How does this even manage to get on TV?

I think the first book in the series draws a lot from the War of Roses as it's now know so 15th century England.

Yes, I know.

My issue is, people always seem to trot out the 'oh, but it was like that in real times' justification, and it's just odd. It wasn't. That was a period when kings were increasingly interested in the legislation banning rape, and in controlling violence against civilians in war zones.

I find it a strange defence anyway - Martin is writing fantasy. If he wanted to write about a society in which women are raped quite a bit, and subjected to sexual violence quite a bit, it's because he chose to do it.

'A medieval time' could mean anywhere in a millenium, and still wouldn't explain why GRRM wrote a society which appears to have no laws against rape, would it?

And I am told by experts that nowhen in medieval times did women have as little rights (none) as they have in ASOIAF.

This thing is not historically authentic in any sense of the word, and not just because there are fucking dragons!
Martin just wanted to write a rapefest and thought no one would complain if he excused it with "that's how things were back then!"

I hope he regrets his choices. He should.

slug Ned was being played by Sean bean, that should've been a hint all wasn't going to end well right there lol!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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).

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.

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?

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?

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.

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