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

[Mise]

I don't think there were many openly gay/bisexual Princes in medieval Europe (who were also great warriors); I don't think there were many overpowering female warriors, and I don't think there were many princesses leading a mighty army in a slave-liberating crusade.

So let me turn the question back: do you think Martin added those and other elements to make it more appealing to modern sensibilities or do you actually think it is all an attempt to be more realistic?

Or do you think he just added those elements for the hell of it? Because it kinda looks like that, given how hodge-podge the whole thing is.

Some maybe for the hell of it; and they do work well. Others were transparently to suit modern sensibilities.

EDIT: I guess I should elaborate. I don't understand where the criticism is coming from. GRRM chose to include a smattering of female and gay characters who were marginally more empowered than one would expect to find in medieval Europe, as well as a host of female and gay characters that were more realistically portrayed than in the majority of other stories in the fantasy genre. He also chose to include dragons. Is the criticism (from Crezth, BvBPL, et al) that this implies that GRRM personally believes that dragons are more believable than a fully empowered woman with genuine agency? Is the criticism (from Luiz, et al) that GRRM added those marginally more empowered characters in order to appeal to modern audiences? What is happening here?

EDIT2: We can replace GRRM with HBO if the criticism is directed solely at the TV adaptation.

 

[classical_hero]

That gif is perfect for CFC.

 

[luiz]

Btw, speaking of 'modern sensibilities' or PC etc, is there any Black actor in the series, or character in the books?

I recall some 'oriental' and middle-eastern ones, but in the scenes i have watched on yt there seems to be no african actor.

Not making this note as a critique or anything (if the work is supposed to be in fantasy northern medieval 'europe'/'england', it makes sense to not have all races around).

There's a black pirate in the series, and many people from that Eastern continent appear black as well. Not sure if they are like that in the books or if it's a show addition.

 

[luiz]

EDIT: I guess I should elaborate. I don't understand where the criticism is coming from. GRRM chose to include a smattering of female and gay characters who were marginally more empowered than one would expect to find in medieval Europe, as well as a host of female and gay characters that were more realistically portrayed than in the majority of other stories in the fantasy genre. He also chose to include dragons. Is the criticism (from Crezth, BvBPL, et al) that this implies that GRRM personally believes that dragons are more believable than a fully empowered woman with genuine agency? Is the criticism (from Luiz, et al) that GRRM added those marginally more empowered characters in order to appeal to modern audiences? What is happening here?

EDIT2: We can replace GRRM with HBO if the criticism is directed solely at the TV adaptation.

I'm not criticizing. I already said (twice) I didn't mean "PC" or "modern sensibilities" in a derogatory way.

My original comment on this regard was in reply to someone who thought GoT was misogynistic. I said that behind that façade of violence and rape it is actually a PC show, with values that appeal to a modern and young audience. I stand by that statement.

 

[Mise]

I see, my mistake then! I agree with that statement.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't think there were many openly gay/bisexual Princes in medieval Europe (who were also great warriors)

There aren't any in Game of Thrones, either. There are only a handful of gay characters, of which only one is identified as a great warrior, and while it's presented as an open secret among the upper aristocracy, it's not public knowledge. Which, for the most part, this seems to be consistent with Medieval attitudes, which seem to have treated homosexuality as a sort of embarrassing kink rather than an abhorrence. (A lot of historians think Richard I of England was probably bisexual, for example, but contemporary sources seem to be more concerned with his infidelity than his gender-preferences.) Again, it's less GoT presenting a PC version of Medieval Europe, and more it failing to present a Victorian one.

 

[luiz]

There aren't any in Game of Thrones, either. There are only a handful of gay characters, of which only one is identified as a great warrior, and while it's presented as an open secret among the upper aristocracy, it's not public knowledge. Which, for the most part, this seems to be consistent with Medieval attitudes, which seem to have treated homosexuality as a sort of embarrassing kink rather than an abhorrence. (A lot of historians think Richard I of England was probably bisexual, for example, but contemporary sources seem to be more concerned with his infidelity than his gender-preferences.) Again, it's less GoT presenting a PC version of Medieval Europe, and more it failing to present a Victorian one.

In the last few episodes there was this Prince Olberyn (sp?) character who is openly bisexual (and proud of it) and also a great warrior. That's definitely not something you'd see in medieval Europe.

 

[BvBPL]

Link to video.

 

[Zack]

In the last few episodes there was this Prince Olberyn (sp?) character who is openly bisexual (and proud of it) and also a great warrior. That's definitely not something you'd see in medieval Europe.

Dorne is not modeled after medieval Europe.

 

[Traitorfish]

In the last few episodes there was this Prince Olberyn (sp?) character who is openly bisexual (and proud of it) and also a great warrior. That's definitely not something you'd see in medieval Europe.

I haven't seen the fourth season yet, but from what I can Google-gather, this guy's open bisexuality is presented as a "foreign" trait which the rest of the cast appear uncomfortable with.

 

[ParkCungHee]

So maybe it is good at Victorian reconstruction, after all.

 

[luiz]

Dorne is not modeled after medieval Europe.

I haven't seen the fourth season yet, but from what I can Google-gather, this guy's open bisexuality is presented as a "foreign" trait which the rest of the cast appear uncomfortable with.

Cool, but so where is it modeled after? Arabia? I don't think there were many openly bisexual Arabian Princes either...

Or maybe, as TF once noted, it was not all about realism and he did include several elements as an appeal to more modern tastes / sensibilities...

 

[Traitorfish]

So maybe it is good at Victorian reconstruction, after all.

Certainly so far as Forn Parts are concerned. For all its self-awareness about Generic Medieval Fantasy World, it's depressingly oblivious about its clichéd presentation the Mysterious East.

Cool, but so where is it modeled after? Arabia? I don't think there were many openly bisexual Arabian Princes either...

Depends on the where, the when and the how. There's enough in the way of available precedents that it doesn't tax the imagination to breaking point.

 

[Zack]

Cool, but so where is it modeled after? Arabia? I don't think there were many openly bisexual Arabian Princes either...

Or maybe, as TF once noted, it was not all about realism and he did include several elements as an appeal to more modern tastes / sensibilities...

Does it matter? Westeros is not medieval Europe. It's not even on the planet earth. There are dragons and blood magic, I don't see why you're focusing on a bisexual prince as being unrealistic.

 

[BvBPL]

Does it matter? Westeros is not medieval Europe. It's not even on the planet earth. There are dragons and blood magic....

This is exactly why I discount people's argument that the presence of sexual violence on the show is some how acceptable because "that's what it was like in the old days."

 

[Zack]

This is exactly why I discount people's argument that the presence of sexual violence on the show is some how acceptable because "that's what it was like in the old days."

That's different. Fantasy and sci-fi can still be used to illustrate problems in the "real" world. And besides, Westeros is still based on medieval Europe; my point was that it doesn't mean it has to be exactly the same.

 

[Camikaze]

BvBPL, I think that to demonstrate that the show is misogynistic, you would have to prove that it is attempting to titillate the audience or glorify sexual violence, rather than merely depicting a character who is misogynistic.

I don't think the show has ever been accused of not attempting to titillate, and I think it's fair to say that sometimes it aims for that through fairly misogynistic representations of the show's 'reality'. Some brothel scenes, for instance, could simply be seen as an attempt to show the operation of Littlefinger's business, but the objectification that is shown appears to be at least partially for the audience's benefit.

 

[Hygro]

I'm not criticizing. I already said (twice) I didn't mean "PC" or "modern sensibilities" in a derogatory way.

My original comment on this regard was in reply to someone who thought GoT was misogynistic. I said that behind that façade of violence and rape it is actually a PC show, with values that appeal to a modern and young audience. I stand by that statement.

Also probably because it appealed to the author who seems to enjoy writing it. But I do agree it is quite a PC show.

 

[BvBPL]

That's different. Fantasy and sci-fi can still be used to illustrate problems in the "real" world. And besides, Westeros is still based on medieval Europe; my point was that it doesn't mean it has to be exactly the same.

You don't get to have it both ways.

 

[Mise]

I don't think the show has ever been accused of not attempting to titillate, and I think it's fair to say that sometimes it aims for that through fairly misogynistic representations of the show's 'reality'. Some brothel scenes, for instance, could simply be seen as an attempt to show the operation of Littlefinger's business, but the objectification that is shown appears to be at least partially for the audience's benefit.

I agree that a number of scenes cross the line into straight up misogyny. I wouldn't characterise the show as a whole as misogynistic though.