So...is it worth trying to watch the Game of Thrones series?

[BvBPL]

Whatever that guy's name is.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

After her rape, she learns about sex and has an epiphany that she can use sex to manipulate Drogan. That gives her confidence.

Then Drogan dies and she is thrust to into a position of authority. She rises to the occasion, in part again by using sex as a weapon.

Her confidence, her strength is only evidenced after and as a consequence of the rape. It was not previous in apparent. The subtext of this sequence is that her rape served as the catalyst for her strength.

It looked to me like the old story all over again at first. She gets abused again, just by another man. What made the difference was that
(1) as the Queen she had people who "by nature" were subdued to her and additionally whom she learned to trust. Confidence
(2) That she in the end fell in love with Drogan and started to blossom in her role as Queen. More confidence. A lot more. Okay, that took having sex with Drogan. But giving that she got into this position to have sex with Drogan to begin with, that seems kinda logical to me.

What would have been the alternative? That she continues to get raped by Drogan and passionately hates him while blossoming in her role as queen? A possibility, but it seems counter-intuitive. Because it is hard to imagine her blossoming in her role as queen while hating the key element of her being queen. Which is to have sex with Drogan. That would rather have made her bitter and hateful. Only clinging to the prestige and power to keep up her dignity. But she was supposed to turn out to be passionate and idealistic while being confident and assertive. Only knowing love could do that in a way which makes a decent narrative. Or at least that is a narrative that lends itself. And that is also how I imagine it was written.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Whatever that guy's name is.

I just went right ahead and copied. Wasn't it Drogah or something?

 

[MagisterCultuum]

(Drogan seems more like a misspelling of Drogon, the dragon whom she named for her late husband Drogo. I think all Dothraki male males end in -o.)

It was not simply having sex with Drogo that made the Dothraki respect Daenerys, but rather becoming pregnant with his child. Their regard for her was further increased when the Dothraki religious leaders predicted that their son would be the "The Stallion who Mounts the World," a messiah-like figure that their religion had long prophesied would unite all the Khalisars, conquer the world, and start a Dothraki golden age.

She also gained confidence by seeing her brother, who had abused her but whom she had been raised to hold in reverence, have his social status fall far below hers and then seeing him killed in order to protect her unborn son.

Her child was stillborn and severely deformed (appearing sort of half-human half-dragon, with scales, wings, and a small tail), supposedly due to the blood magic of Mirri Maz Duur whom she begged to save her husband's life. When she tried to kill herself on her husband's funeral pyre, she survived the flames and hatched 3 dragons in the process.

 

[Mise]

Permit me to outline her early character arc.

Daenerys is not strong at the start of the show. At the start she's a middling fool who can barely speak in complete sentences. She does not seem to have any personal, internal motivation that is not imposed upon her by other parties, most notably her brother.

Then she gets raped.

After her rape, she learns about sex and has an epiphany that she can use sex to manipulate Drogan. That gives her confidence.

Then Drogan dies and she is thrust to into a position of authority. She rises to the occasion, in part again by using sex as a weapon.

Her confidence, her strength is only evidenced after and as a consequence of the rape. It was not previous in apparent. The subtext of this sequence is that her rape served as the catalyst for her strength.

Simba was a silly little lion who just played games and did nothing of use all his life.

Then Scar murders his father and sends him away from his kingdom.

After the murder of his father, he learns about leadership and uses that to reclaim his rightful place as king of the jungle or whatever, in part by using violence as a weapon.

His confidence, his strength, is only evidenced after and as a consequence of murder. It was not apparent previously. The subtext of this sequence is that the murder of his father served as a catalyst for his strength.

Disney's The Lion King glorifies murder.


Daenerys never shows her strength at the start of the show. Her true inner strength is only revealed after a series of hardships that she faces. The only way your interpretation works is if you believe that some people are just born innately weaker than others, and have to be made strong by other, stronger people -- in this case by raping them. If you believe that people are all born equal, if you believe that all people are innately capable of great strength, if you have an optimistic and positive view of humanity, if you believe that we all have it within ourselves to overcome great adversity and grow stronger in the face of it, then you will see nothing wrong with Daenerys's story. If you believe that raping women makes them stronger, then yeah, you're gonna have a bad time.

 

[Mise]

I just can't fathom how any of what you said glorifies rape, BvBPL. At no point in that narrative did I think "wow yeah good thing she got raped eh?" This clearly isn't going to go anywhere, your opinions on this are just too alien to mine.

EDIT: It's as if you were trying to convince me that a story in which a person eats some cheese and then has nightmares is demonstrating that eating cheese is a catalyst for nightmares. That makes perfect sense if cheese really is a catalyst for having nightmares, but it doesn't make any sense at all if cheese is not a catalyst for having nightmares. If the story involved the main character eating cheese and then finding life on Mars, then it would be basically impossible to convince me that the story arc glorifies cheese eating, even if the guy really liked cheese and ate cheese loads and the breakthrough came when he realised the pattern of mould on the cheese was similar to the pattern of crevices on some part of Mars's surface or something. Because the idea that cheese is a catalyst for groundbreaking scientific discoveries is just so alien to me that I can't even

 

[Terxpahseyton]

"wow yeah good thing she got raped eh?"

I think it is more about rape and women being associated in a context other than one which is so extremely horribly that it beats you into the face. For the fear that this casualizes rape on a perhaps merely sub-conscious level for some and in the end means or is part of meaning more rape.
Is that a valid point? Uh man, I don't think I can answer that. I also think there is a better way to deal with rape awareness than TV shows unless they actually glorify rape or something. I mean have rape victims visit school en mess. That would matter.
This seems proxy war of the hardly relevant kind in comparison.

 

[Zack]

Not to be that guy, but I'm pretty sure Dany's sex with Carl von Dragon is at least semi-consensual in the books.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

As in she likes it rough?

Spoiler :

 

[Camikaze]

I really can't see how rape is portrayed as the agent of change. To me, it's simply portraying Daenerys as a strong character. She's strong, she's always been strong, she overcame a traumatic event by being strong (character-wise), and she continues to use her strength of character grow stronger and stronger materially. That's what it says to me, and I really can't see how anyone can view it as "Daenerys is weak, then she gets raped, and now she's strong". Honestly, I'm not saying that you're wrong or stupid for interpreting it in that way, but I have literally no idea how such an interpretation could come about. I've only ever read that interpretation in feminist criticisms of films and TV programmes, and never from any other source. That's not to say that people in general don't interpret it in that way -- perhaps this interpretation is so common that society in general need not elucidate it, or perhaps it is so distasteful that the interpretation works on an unconscious level, without us ever realising what we're doing -- but I'll need far more convincing for me to believe that.

I can certainly imagine a story in which it is made perfectly clear that the victim is the agent of change, and the way traumatic events are portrayed in the vast majority of film and TV shows fall far short of this. However, I am not convinced that it is necessary to make clear that, when a human being undergoes a change in personality, that the human being is the primary agent of this change. I mean, I can take basically any story in which a character changes and ascribe that change to their circumstances instead of their agency. I can take Mufasa's death in The Lion King and say that, since Simba's entire character development is based on that moment, The Lion King glorifies murder. We should all go round murdering fathers so that their sons grow strong, says Disney's The Lion King. I don't believe that this is a valid criticism of The Lion King.

So, is there any way of reworking your/BvBPL's criticism of Game of Thrones such that it doesn't also apply to The Lion King? Or actually, is Disney's The Lion King (and by extrapolation, the overwhelming majority of western art) genuinely glorifying traumatic events?

I dunno really. I can't remember much about The Lion King, but I'd say that agency is related to causation in a fairly narrow sense, and a necessary element isn't necessarily a catalyst; having a head is a necessary element of losing it, but it's not the cause of beheading. Simba's journey started off with the murder of his father, but the actual cause of his character development seems to be something else which happens to come afterwards; if the murder hadn't happened, neither would've that character development, but that doesn't make the murder the cause. In the same way that I certainly think it would be possible for a story to follow something akin to your interpretation of Daenerys' development. I'm not saying that a silver lining always glorifies the crime, just that it can, and that I'm not sure it's unreasonable to suggest that in Game of Thrones the distinction wasn't made very well. But that's really just a matter of interpretation, I guess, and I can't say your interpretation of the story is more wrong than mine (in fact I haven't watched the first season for a while, so I could simply be forgetting some important scenes).

The key point is that I'm not saying that she was raped and then she became a stronger woman, so therefore the rape caused that.

 

[Mise]

I dunno really. I can't remember much about The Lion King, but I'd say that agency is related to causation in a fairly narrow sense, and a necessary element isn't necessarily a catalyst; having a head is a necessary element of losing it, but it's not the cause of beheading. Simba's journey started off with the murder of his father, but the actual cause of his character development seems to be something else which happens to come afterwards; if the murder hadn't happened, neither would've that character development, but that doesn't make the murder the cause. In the same way that I certainly think it would be possible for a story to follow something akin to your interpretation of Daenerys' development. I'm not saying that a silver lining always glorifies the crime, just that it can, and that I'm not sure it's unreasonable to suggest that in Game of Thrones the distinction wasn't made very well. But that's really just a matter of interpretation, I guess, and I can't say your interpretation of the story is more wrong than mine (in fact I haven't watched the first season for a while, so I could simply be forgetting some important scenes).

The key point is that I'm not saying that she was raped and then she became a stronger woman, so therefore the rape caused that.

I feel like I understand the words but not the point. Is there another way you can put it? You think that Daenerys being raped was not merely necessary for her character development, but also that it caused it? Is "caused" different to "catalysed"? And how does agency fit in? Do you think that an event that speeds up personal growth robs the person of agency? I can't believe that a human being isn't the sole or even primary source of agency in any case.

You may not be saying that she was raped, then she became strong, therefore rape caused that -- but that's what you're accusing the story of saying. The story is simply a chain of events: Daenerys is raped, and then she becomes a stronger woman. If you think it's not logical to conclude that the rape caused that, then how can you say that the story is trying to make that same implication? Why should the burden be on the story to make it clear that it is not implying that, when such an implication would be illogical, distasteful, misogynistic, and unrealistic?

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I think it is more about rape and women being associated in a context other than one which is so extremely horribly that it beats you into the face. For the fear that this casualizes rape on a perhaps merely sub-conscious level for some and in the end means or is part of meaning more rape.
Is that a valid point? Uh man, I don't think I can answer that. I also think there is a better way to deal with rape awareness than TV shows unless they actually glorify rape or something. I mean have rape victims visit school en mess. That would matter.
This seems proxy war of the hardly relevant kind in comparison.

Here my opinion about the whole rape thing:
First off, the guy is called Drogo, and I think the sex is about as consensual as can be expected in most medievalesque political and arranged marriages. The bride's consent is just assumed by the husband and society in general. That doesn't make it OK by modern standards, but it is what it is. I don't think it casualizes or glorifies anything. It merely depicts a by our standards outdated and barbaric society in all the nasty details.
There were only two other alternatives to the scene:
a) That the sex is entirely consensual and she enthusiastically throws herself at her new husband, which would have been ridiculous, arguably sexist, and even more creepy considering she's only 13 in the books.
b) That the wedding night is just skipped and there are no sex scenes between her and Drogo. That would be a real cop out and leave the impression that the writer(s) apparently thought it's really no big deal for a young girl to be deflowered by a barbarian warlord she doesn't know, who doesn't speak her language, and who practically just bought her from her brother.

Imho a and b would have been far worse than what we got.

 

[metatron]

There were only two other alternatives to the scene:
a) That the sex is entirely consensual and she enthusiastically throws herself at her new husband, which would have been ridiculous, arguably sexist, and even more creepy considering she's only 13 in the books..

Well, there's the book text. Not sure if it qualifies as "enthusiatically", but... yeah... i'm sure you can see my point.

 

[Mise]

Here my opinion about the whole rape thing:
First off, the guy is called Drogo, and I think the sex is about as consensual as can be expected in most medievalesque political and arranged marriages. The bride's consent is just assumed by the husband and society in general. That doesn't make it OK by modern standards, but it is what it is. I don't think it casualizes or glorifies anything. It merely depicts a by our standards outdated and barbaric society in all the nasty details.
There were only two other alternatives to the scene:
a) That the sex is entirely consensual and she enthusiastically throws herself at her new husband, which would have been ridiculous, arguably sexist, and even more creepy considering she's only 13 in the books.
b) That the wedding night is just skipped and there are no sex scenes between her and Drogo. That would be a real cop out and leave the impression that the writer(s) apparently thought it's really no big deal for a young girl to be deflowered by a barbarian warlord she doesn't know, who doesn't speak her language, and who practically just bought her from her brother.

Imho a and b would have been far worse than what we got.

That's a good point actually. What if the rape scene wasn't depicted, but we know that she was raped in the sense that she didn't want to marry Carl and in any case couldn't have consented at her age?

Also, does it matter that it is rape, and not, say, her puppy dying, that catalysed her growth as a character? If there was a story in which a character's development was caused -- explicitly caused, as in, the writer literally said "this caused her character to develop" -- by the death of a girl's puppy, would people accuse the story of glorifying animal cruelty?

There are countless formative experiences in my life that caused me to grow as a man. Some of those experiences were overwhelmingly negative, with a silver lining of personal growth. If someone were to jot them down, without noting explicitly that I (and not the experience) was the sole agent of change, would that person be glorifying those negative experiences?

Is To Kill A Mockingbird racist, because the phony trial and conviction of an innocent black man directly caused (in a narrow sense) Scout's developing a strong moral compass and sense of justice?

 

[Camikaze]

I feel like I understand the words but not the point. Is there another way you can put it? You think that Daenerys being raped was not merely necessary for her character development, but also that it caused it? Is "caused" different to "catalysed"? And how does agency fit in? Do you think that an event that speeds up personal growth robs the person of agency? I can't believe that a human being isn't the sole or even primary source of agency in any case.

You may not be saying that she was raped, then she became strong, therefore rape caused that -- but that's what you're accusing the story of saying. The story is simply a chain of events: Daenerys is raped, and then she becomes a stronger woman. If you think it's not logical to conclude that the rape caused that, then how can you say that the story is trying to make that same implication? Why should the burden be on the story to make it clear that it is not implying that, when such an implication would be illogical, distasteful, misogynistic, and unrealistic?

I'm confusing myself a little too. I agreed with most of your earlier post here, just disagreed that the show successfully made clear the distinction. I think the onus is on the show a bit to make sure it portrays the character's strengthening as a product of her own agency, rather than a product of the rape, which in the most perverse sense, could be shown to be making a woman out of her, or slapping her into shape. The former still involves rape as an obviously important event for the character, but their development is clearly independent of it, and of their own doing. Maybe you're right that a human being must be the source of agency, so perhaps it's not so much the rape being shown as the cause, as the rapist (or raper, as the show seems to like saying). Did the show portray the husband as having moulded her character through his domination? Thinking about it, probably not, given it surprised him when the sex became consensual, but hopefully you can see how the show could very well have done so (and may have done so, depending on interpretation). This would be different from The Lion King, in which Simba isn't shaped by Scar, and his character development is clearly independent of the murder, even though it's a necessary step in the story that gets him to the starting point of that development.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Well, there's the book text. Not sure if it qualifies as "enthusiatically", but... yeah... i'm sure you can see my point.

Actually I'm not sure. I think it was less rapey, but still not something that she actually wanted.
I am slightly ashamed to confess that I haven't read AGoT in over five years. I've re-read the whole series when ADwD came out, except for the first book which I lent to somebody and never got back.

 

[Mise]

I'm confusing myself a little too. I agreed with most of your earlier post here, just disagreed that the show successfully made clear the distinction. I think the onus is on the show a bit to make sure it portrays the character's strengthening as a product of her own agency, rather than a product of the rape, which in the most perverse sense, could be shown to be making a woman out of her, or slapping her into shape. The former still involves rape as an obviously important event for the character, but their development is clearly independent of it, and of their own doing. Maybe you're right that a human being must be the source of agency, so perhaps it's not so much the rape being shown as the cause, as the rapist (or raper, as the show seems to like saying). Did the show portray the husband as having moulded her character through his domination? Thinking about it, probably not, given it surprised him when the sex became consensual, but hopefully you can see how the show could very well have done so (and may have done so, depending on interpretation). This would be different from The Lion King, in which Simba isn't shaped by Scar, and his character development is clearly independent of the murder, even though it's a necessary step in the story that gets him to the starting point of that development.

I see. I think you're right about the distinction w.r.t. the source of agency falling not on event vs person, but rapist vs victim. I think it's right to criticise a depiction where the rapist is depicted as a positive agent of change in the victim, but I suppose that's obvious! If we take corporal punishment as a more contentious example: If person A beats person B into becoming more disciplined, and A is portrayed as the positive agent of change, then even if B values the discipline in later life, you would still say that the story is glorifying violence* by casting A as a positive agent of change. OTOH, if A is portrayed as a wicked stepmother or something, then the story is glorifying the resilience or strength of B the face of adversity instead, and vilifying the violence rather than glorifying it.


*-(You might, of course, think that such glorification of violence is not bad, if you believe that corporal punishment is effective and morally permissible.)

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I don't think it casualizes

The mere fact that what started with rape ended in deep love is a form of casualization IMO. To stress: It is not about myself finding this disturbing or about this being unrealistic or about this in itself carrying a bad message. It is just the fact that this puts rape into a context where it is the start of a on the long run normal or casual and loving relationship. It is about associations. Not reason.
To also stress: I personally am not troubled by this association. Life is complex, duh. And I don't get my morals out of a dame fantasy TV show, duh. I am just trying to shed some light on why someone may find this troublesome. Which I think is because of associations and the assumption that such associations shape people's attitudes (because it is assumed that people are total dumb-beats I guess).

 

[metatron]

Actually I'm not sure. I think it was less rapey, but still not something that she actually wanted.
I am slightly ashamed to confess that I haven't read AGoT in over five years.

I haven't read it at all. Merely looked it up because controversy.

That's a good point actually. What if the rape scene wasn't depicted, but we know that she was raped in the sense that she didn't want to marry Carl and in any case couldn't have consented at her age?

Spoiler :

That adds up to what? 2.5 billion?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

"Couldn't have consented" is a very bad way to phrase this IMO. I mean of ocurse you can consent at an age of 13. You shouldn't be able to perhaps because you can not be expected to be able to properly judge it compared to when you are older, but surely you still can judge it anyway and consent to it.