• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About StepStark

  • Rank
    Council Member

Recent Profile Visitors

2,395 profile views
  1. What an absurd reply. I never said anything like that. Where did you get that idea? If that is what you were referring to, then your post was actually pointless because that goes for every single adaptation ever. When the latest Macbeth movie appeared few years ago, nobody was defending it by saying "Hey but people have been building up that story in their heads for a long time". And anyway, since you mentioned Sansa, the way Sansa is "adapted" in the show is one of the worst adaptations ever, in all genres and all forms. Do whatever you want, I didn't say that you don't have the right to post here whatever you like. But as far as how purposeful something is, I really don't see the point of showing one specific number that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of discussion. Unless you think that ratings actually prove that the show is good, which would be completely ridiculous.
  2. No, what you're saying doesn't make any sense. People didn't have "unrealistic expectations", they had ASOIAF books, which are the source material for the show. People didn't have "what they want to see", but they had what is written in ASOIAF books. For example, people didn't expect truth about Tysha to be revealed to Tyrion by Jaime because that's "what they want to see", but because it's written like that in ASOIAF. It didn't happen on screen, but that is only half of the problem. The other half is that it wasn't replaced by something that compensates for that omission. It wasn't replaced with anything actually and because of that the scene doesn't make sense if you stop and think about it even if you're a show only watcher. Yes, that is the nature of popular and complex literature, it is debated over and over again and people get attached personally to it. But that is precisely why adaptations exist: because adaptation don't start from zero, but they start with the audience someone else (the original author) built for them. And in all those debates people in many cases come to some sort of consensus. And those consensuses are especially strong if they were debated over and over again over a long period of time, as it happens to be the case with most topics about ASOIAF. And any adaptation that not only ignores those consensuses but even goes against them more often than not, is certainly going to be controversial. And if adapters respond to those controversies by saying "Well to us that makes sense because we wanted it to happen and if you have a problem with that you just had unrealistic expectations and you don't know the pressure we had to deal with and you should be grateful to us for the fact that the show even exists", well no shit that people are going to be disappointed by both adaptation and adapters. If numbers are the only important thing, as you obviously think, then honestly why do you even bother posting here and arguing with our "unrealistic expectations"? It's an honest question. Nothing we post here will change the fact that S7 finale had 36% higher ratings than S6 finale, which is what you only care about. So really, what is your motivation to even engage in this debate? This isn't debate about numbers. Nobody here is saying that something's wrong with the show because of numbers, but despite the numbers. But if you post here because you don't think that only numbers matter and that the show deserves to be analyzed and debated, then stop with the numbers game please.
  3. How can we discuss specifics, if you have problem with some basic facts? For example, you say that Tyrion went in Tywin's chamber with intention to kill him, but it wasn't filmed like that. It wasn't like that even in the book, there Tyrion just lost it after he was told about Tysha and couldn't leave KL without having a word with Tywin about that. Once he found Shae there his anger only grew and he eventually shot Tywin. So yes, characters can act irrationally, but there has to be some cause, some catalyst for them to snap. That's what happened on trial: Shae testified and Tyrion snapped. That's different from the books but it's not bad writing, because his snapping is given reason for. But he has no reason to snap after Jaime releases him, and he actually doesn't. He loses it only after he kills Shae. That's how the scene was written, staged and acted. So why did he abandon the escape and went into Tywin's chamber? It's anyone's guess, as it's often the case with bad writing. And take a look at your reply to my comments about wight hunt. Because yes, Jon doesn't have reason to think that Cersei is as insane as Ramsay (though she's not really far from him to be honest), but he is in open rebellion against KL. He is the King in the North, and his predecessor was brutally betrayed and killed precisely for holding that title and effectively rebelling against KL. But he just doesn't think about it, because D&D's plot requires from him not to think about Cerei until episode 5. And please, how can Dany+Tyrion+Varys's strange idea to win the war with minimal casualties be anything other than pure plot convenience? Instead of attacking KL, they're attacking Casterly Rock? Where is the sense in that? And then, on top of everything, Lannisters just abandon CR, as if it was just a burden anyway! So which one is it? Is Casterly Rock the seat of Lannister power as Tyrion thinks, or is it just a relatively unimportant piece of real estate? How come that no army in real history ever did anything like that? And before you say it, no, Russians abandoning Moscow to Napoleon is not even similar. What is the deal with Tyrion's sudden pacifism anyway? It's bizarre, to say the least. They don't have to sack King's Landing, they just have to take it from Lannisters. Stannis wasn't intending to sack King's Landing either, he was trying to capture is. What's wrong with that? How is that not an option in medieval warfare?
  4. Again, you're putting word in my mouth. I wasn't talking about what film critics, but about storytelling logic. More than once I said that "one chink in the armor" (as you phrased it) applies only to storytelling logic, but not to dialogue or characterization for example. You're also implying that I said that there are no nuances in bad, which is again not true. I never said anything to that effect. I did say "Story that doesn't have or doesn't follow its own logic cannot be approached in reasonable manner", where by reasonable I meant rational, or better yet intellectually measurable. I think it's pretty obvious from the rest of that post that I wasn't saying that illogical stories can't be analyzed intellectually or artistically, although I did say that, in my opinion, a story can't be really good if the author disregarded the logic of it. For me, that's what separates storytelling from poetry. While aesthetics can be analyzed, they cannot be evaluated as accurately as logic. If you prefer Benioff to Shakespeare (and at this point I'm not sure you don't), I can't "prove" it's wrong. After all, there are people who actually liked "bad pussy" line, and who's to say that they're wrong. It sounds absurd, but it actually isn't. But logic can be "measured" (for lack of better word), because something is or isn't logical. What I said, and stand by it still, is that if the logic is broken on one place, it doesn't really matter if it wasn't broken on ten other places. That is "less true" (see, nuance) for stories that aren't plot driven, but on the other hand, stories that aren't plot driven are usually bad, even if they become overrated because of some other possible quality they possess. Again, if you want to wrote plot-less art, write poetry, especially since it doesn't have to rhyme any more. For something to be storytelling, actual story has to be told, and story must have a plot. So basically that's why I'm putting such an emphasis on logic. That is the one defining thing in storytelling and that is also maybe the only thing in storytelling that can be evaluated strictly objectively. Did I need to explain myself with so many words? Probably yes, because my lame English combined with your anti-holistic approach to replying could've created some confusion. About your approach to the show I can't say that it's wrong, because it's obviously based on your personal joy in watching it. And you're defending it much better than many others. But what is absolutely true is that your approach isn't objective at all. It is "objective" for everyone who shares your general taste and love for GOT, but while there are millions of you it still isn't an objective argument for the quality of the show because of course popularity isn't always the same as quality. Popularity of the books is much more objective if we compare those two, because it wasn't associated with any kind of hype and media buzz as the show's popularity undoubtedly is, but that too doesn't mean the popularity of the books is an objective proof of their quality (because, for example, ASOIAF could've been riding on the wave of LOTR sensation, as some fantasy books definitely did). I'm not saying that you hid behind popularity of the show. In fact you didn't and that's one of the reasons I said that you defend the show much better than many others. But arguments that you are offering usually come down to your personal enjoyment. For example, you say that many scenes in WF could've been written worse. Well, it's true, anything can be even worse, but it doesn't make them good, right? And if your best explanation to some characters actions is that "he acted irrationally because sometimes people are irrational", well, that doesn't sound so good for the storytelling quality of GOT, believe me.
  5. @Pink Fat Rast I just want to add something important: sorry if some of my comments seem rude. It's not my intention, but because of my English. I just went through my posts and some comments really can look like ad hominem attacks. Instead of editing them, here I am saying that I apologize for anything that might've looked like ad hominem attack on you, and that it wasn't intentionally written like that. Yes, we disagree over everything, and our disagreement is fundamental, and neither of us probably won't change the other one's opinion, but that's not a reason to start insulting each other. I appreciate your tone and I hope that you didn't have problems with mine.
  6. Again, you're speaking of percentages. But saying that I'm the one with "mathematical approach"? LOL! You obviously don't know what logic means in storytelling. FYI, it's there since Ancient Greeks. To create a dramatic work of art, you must have a plot. If the plot isn't logical then you have a very big problem. Maybe not for minor characters, but for main ones? I don't see how a protagonist can be even remotely interesting if he's not layered and deep. Maybe not in a short story or novella, but in a book or a TV show I really don't see it. Care to give some examples of good characters that aren't deep and layered? Look like you don't even know what internal logic actually means. I even mentioned it specifically, but you obviously missed it. Maybe you were too busy replying to my comments to actually read them. Okay, once again: a story must have it's own logic, which can be unique (different from our reality), or borrowed (from our reality). Either way, it mustn't be broken, or if it is, then the break has to be addressed and treated with seriousness (because maybe the break in logic was the main point of the story). But to quote Aristotle: if the author wants it that way, horses in his story can have eight legs, but then they all must have eight legs. After all, that's why dragons in GOT have only two legs and not four. GRRM fought for that, because biologically you can't have four legs AND wings. He was angry at Tywin for wanting to kill him, but then when he's unexpectedly set free - he's abandoning his escape to confront that same Tywin who (in Tyrion's mind) is orchestrating his execution? That sounds logical to you? "Now that I'm finally on my way to escape the death sentence Tywin was setting for me, I'm gonna go to his chamber to have a few words with him and then... then... then I'm gonna..." WHAT EXACTLY? Was he expecting that Tywin is just gonna let him go? LOL! Or are you going to say that he didn't think it through and just reacted emotionally? Because that's the most convenient excuse for literally anything, but this is Tyrion, probably the most reasonable person in the entire story (until D&D overtook the story in later seasons) and someone who wouldn't risk his life, especially now that he's miraculously escaping death once again, to pursue... what exactly? An apology from Tywin? LOL! With a "small" difference that in S1 those who were asking the Crown for help weren't engaged in an all-out war with the Crown. And the Crown wasn't a well-known psychopath known as Cersei, Maybe you're not aware of how many stupidities there are in the entire plot. I'll try to cover just the big ones. First, in previous season Jon was desperate to remove Ramsay because you can't fight WW with Ramsay behind your back, but now all of a sudden he wants to reason with Cersei, who, as Sansa keeps reminding him (although nobody should remind him because he'd have to know it), is as psychotic as Ramsay. His reason is that "we have no time", but no timeline of the WW invasion was ever established, not even remotely, by anyone in the show. Second, for some reason Dany wants to win the throne without killing anyone. Actually, it's even worse: she doesn't mind killing a bunch of people (as you do in a war), but Tyrion and Varys are somehow able to persuade her to fight a bloodless war, even though all of their bloodless (the term is not to be taken literally) plans eventually fail, both in Meereen and in Westeros. Third, after Dany destroyed large part of their army Lannisters are in a desperate position to the point that Jaime wants to sue for peace and Cersei has no sane alternative (even though she doesn't want to sue for peace) - but Dany, Tyrion, Varys, Jon and Davos don't realize any of that and still think that they need to somehow convince Cersei to stop fighting? That was all before the plan itself. And about the plan, it's been debated to death and even you admit that it's full of plotholes so no need to go there, I hope. So how are those percentages of yours holding up? Is it still in the 80s? Listen, what you're doing this entire discussion is just trying to prove that there's no reason to dismiss everything about the show. But nobody said there is. I certainly didn't say it, you just misinterpreted what I said, and that is that the logic mustn't be broken. It's just common sense. If I wrote pure nonsense in the first sentence of my post, you probably wouldn't even read the rest. Same thing with storytelling: if a show makes a logical failure in the first episode, it's hard to take it seriously later on, even if you enjoy the spectacle. I'm not even sure what's there to enjoy in GOT even if one doesn't mind logical failures. You say individual scenes in WF were good, but I don't know what's so good about them, unless "not being awful and ridiculous and unwatchable" somehow qualifies for "good" now. In one of those scenes Sansa finds Arya's bag full of faces, but the bag remains unexplained to both Sansa and viewers. That's sloppy at best. None of the scenes is remarkably good, even if they're not atrocious. This story is (supposed to be) both plot-driven and character-driven. And yet D&D make constant leaps in logic which damage the plot, and constant inconsistencies with characters' psychology which ruin the characters. I really am struggling to see what is so good about this show.
  7. No man, you misunderstood everything. In fact, I specifically said that different sides of writing should be evaluated differently, but that logic is one of the writing sides that can be approached rationally, because something is logical or isn't logical. And because logic of any story is very important and extremely fragile, if it's broken it can very hardly (if at all) be fixed back. As for D&D, they never even tried to fix it back. That doesn't mean that illogical story can't have good dialogue or interesting characters or something. In theory, it can. But I doubt very much that that happens often. Authors who can't even keep the logic of their story straight, almost always aren't capable of inventing layered characters or writing deep dialogue. And that's especially true for stories that are based on illogical premise. It's one thing when the logic of a story breaks in the final act. Sadly that's often the case with modern shows and movies, and that's bad too, but not nearly as bad as starting a story from illogical place. For example, Tyrion abandoning his escape from dungeon for no reason didn't make sense, because Tysha was left out, but up to that point his storyline in that season wasn't illogical. What happened in WF in season seven is much worse, because the logic was broken at the very beginning (or thereabout), because only a moron would even try to pit Arya and Sansa against each other, and especially in such a ridiculous way. Just like the entire wight hunt is ridiculous from the very start, and it'd therefore be ruined even if episode 6 didn't have all those plot holes. That's my whole point. No math in it, just evaluation of how big a break in logic is and where does it occur in the story's timline. You on the other hand are constantly using numbers. Doesn't that tells you something? That's evidently not true. Where did you get that idea? Strawman, much? But anyway, what is so good about those scenes with Sansa or Arya? How did that storyline earn 8 out of 10 on your scale? This theoretical back and fort with you can last to no end, so let's get to the specifics. Because on specific examples you'll see how irrelevant your "method" is.
  8. Where did you get that idea? You're seriously confusing TV criticism with algebra. Context is what matters. I'd say that it's the most important thing in any storytelling, but in a series it's especially important because context is what connects parts of the story together. If something works in isolation, it doesn't mean it will work in the context. Anything can work in isolation. Any ridiculous idea can work in isolation. Could Arya killing Sansa work in isolation? It might. Arya is killing people big time in the show and she's not the most forgiving character ever, so why not, right? Even the scene itself could've been written competently. But in the context it'd be terrible. The truth is that by disregarding context you're just desperately trying to defend D&D's writing talent, but you're actually just displaying your fanboyism. And okay, it's your right to be their fanboy, but there's nothing useful in that "approach" of yours. Almost anything can be defended that way because you're effectively abandoning even the idea of a criteria. Because hey, even 2/10 is better than 1/10, and also 1/10 is better than 0/10, and also 0/10 is better than 0/30. There's no end to that. If that's useful, I guess somebody would've used it by now in serious analysis, but call me uninformed but I've never heard of such a method. Trying to find something good at all costs is equally ridiculous as trying to find something bad at all costs.
  9. But we're not talking about logical arguments here, aren't we? We're talking about television show, which is not really the same thing I'm sure you'll agree. If the catalyst for an entire storyline is absurd and illogical, then the rest of the story is inevitably illogical too. Certain points may seem logical in isolation, but in context even they are absurd and illogical. In your example, perhaps Arya's confrontation with Sansa as depicted in the show might be realistic in terms of their personalities - but under entirely different circumstances and for entirely different reasons. But since the confrontation in the show happened only because both Arya and Sansa reacted in the most moronic way - until they inexplicably came to their senses when the plot needed them to - then it's inevitably illogical too. You cannot say that Arya was written logically in that confrontation (if she actually was at all), when for the confrontation to even happen she needed to act completely out of character and absurdly as she did. If you insist on shades and degrees, well I don't know, maybe you are right in a way that it'd be even worse if not even a single line of dialogue was logical or sane. And in that sense, GOT really could be worse. I don't think anything useful can come from that line of thinking, but if that's your consolation, okay then.
  10. What the hell are you even talking about? Logic can actually be proved wrong (or right), but dialogue simply can't. You cannot evaluate dialogue the same way you evaluate the logic of a story. That's just common sense. You specifically said: That implies that you don't actually understand the need to apply different standards to different sides of a single story. Once again for the record: logic of a story can be broken and if it is then it's practically impossible to fix it later on, but dialogue can't be "broken" and even the worst, cheesiest dialogue ever can follow logic or characters' personalities. So "chink in the armor" standard (which is not glorious in itself, but I guess it can look that way if you completely forgot about it and other posters have to remind you of it) doesn't apply to the specific piece of dialogue you mentioned. Just a suggestion: maybe instead of desperately trying to nitpick my posts you should try to understand them. Again, I don't think any of this is nuclear physics, so it shouldn't be hard to understand. But you have to try. What makes you think that I missed that implication? LOL! And I know that you didn't call anything "rock-solid". Not everything I say is a repetition of your words. Relax man, seriously. You're not on trial here. Not even the show is. No need to "defend" it so apprehensively. I'm afraid it is. As even your post clearly suggests, there are numerous ways for Sansa to explain herself and refute Arya's accusations. Which means that Littlefinger's plan needs all this to be successful: 1) Arya mustn't think about any of the excuses Sansa maybe had to write the letter while she was imprisoned by Lannisters, and 2) Sansa mustn't say any of the numerous legitimate excuses for the letter. In any other scenario, Littlefinger's plan not only fails but terribly backfires. Now that is terrible writing. Just compare that to book Littlefinger who never puts himself in a situation from which he can't talk his way out. No matter how big a gamble he takes, even if it fails he's always just one good excuse away from safety. But here, in the show, he's actually powerless once his plan fails, because he has no excuse for introducing the letter as something Sansa wanted him to hide. But then again, he also painted himself in the corner in season 4 when he totally depended on Sansa's testimony which he couldn't influence in any way at all. So D&D are incapable of writing a logical, coherent and intelligent Littlefinger even when all they have to do is adapt him from the page. So it "isn't quite clear", right? Like, really, what is the reason for all that absurdity in Littlefinger's actions in the show? Is it writers' obvious incompetence, or is it maybe that they couldn't find a peach, or maybe storms forced them to change the shooting schedule, or maybe they didn't want the story to crumble down under the weight of too much info? What a mystery! (For the record, I was ironic, it's not mystery at all.) To quote a famous philosopher: I have no problem with people using excuses to quit on me.
  11. I was actually repeating the phrase you used. It flew over your head, it seems. Pity. I hope you are familiar with the concept of different standards for different competitions. Well, that's it. What applies to logic, doesn't necessarily applies to dialogue. You said it first. Aesthetics, remember? What do you think? No, I'm not one of those people that go catatonic in front of your rock-solid argument. Because it's not rock-solid, actually. It actually proves once again how stupid was Littlefinger's ploy. Because yes, Sansa was a prisoner when she wrote that letter. In the matter of that letter she was as powerful as Arya was able to prevent Ned's execution. THAT IS PRECISELY WHY MAKING AN ENTIRE PLOTLINE AROUND THAT LETTER IS MORONIC! THE ENTIRE PREMISE OF SANSA'S SUPPOSED "GUILT" EMBODIED BY THAT LETTER IS DISMISSED WITH JUST ONE UNDENIABLY TRUE SENTENCE. WHY WOULD ANYONE EXPECT THAT THAT LETTER CAN CAUSE SOME SORT OF FEUD BETWEEN SANSA AND ARYA? I used capital letters in case you want to laugh harder, because you seem to love to laugh at other people's posts. I don't need excuse to quit on you. This is internet. Don't overthink what we're doing here. That said, I do need a reason to continue this discussion with you. And it's hard to find those reasons if your posts are unnecessarily long to the point they're unreadable. That's all I was saying. Relax.
  12. Or you can compare the show to its actual source material. Is it allowed even? Am I going to be accused of "not realizing that books can't be translated to screen word-for-word"? But yes, the books are aesthetically way superior to the show. Just compare the dialogue (well, you can't compare anything else, because the show doesn't have narration). I actually never understood why they didn't use more of the dialogue from the books. They probably thought that they can do better, which means that 1) they aren't able to recognize great dialogue when they see it, and 2) they have no idea how incompetent they are as writers. Only... it wasn't? The execution of those dialogue scenes wasn't good enough. And if some viewers don't care about plot, logic and characterization, then sure, they could enjoy that storyline. But I'm not really one of them. Maybe I forgot something, maybe there was some dialogue scene that was good enough. Maybe you can refresh my memory. Just please stop with miles-long replies. It's not that you couldn't say what you're saying with fewer words. At least, I hope you don't want me to quit this conversation because of how unreadable your replies are.
  13. I have no idea what RLM is, but I know how to recognize when someone doesn't have a reasonable answer to offer and starts directing discussion into something else. That's what you're doing here. What kind of cop-out are you talking about? I can bring up as many examples as you like. "Altered Carbon" was released few days ago, and its writing is aesthetically superb to the writing of GOT in every way. "Breaking Bad" is also easily better written aesthetically than GOT. Classics like "Sopranos" and "Wire" are obviously better written in every sense. "True Detective is another example. Even its second season, which was a ridiculous mess because the other sides of writing (logic most of all) completely failed, but aesthetically it was way better than GOT. And the first season of TD was simply brilliant in every way. "Mad Men" is one more example, and even "Boardwalk Empire" was aesthetically superb to GOT. I'm not talking about all the shows that are better written than GOT, because that would take too much time. I'm just talking about shows that are way above GOT's league. I don't know why are you even pursuing this line of discussion, since GOT is a show with lines like "What you need is a bad pussy". Are you sure you want to defend the aesthetic writing of that show? All that would help that one scene, but not the rest of that storyline. If you'd want to correct the entire storyline, you'd have to rewrite every scene in it the same way you'd rewrite the final trial scene. And that actually is absurd storyline, by definition. If a storyline where every scene has to rewritten isn't absurd, then what is?
  14. I'd say that we could all benefit from less political correctness in evaluating art. Rape certainly doesn't have to be part of the art. Many horrible crimes from the history didn't find their way to art. Nothing is really necessary when it comes to art. But if rape happens to be part of some particular work of art, then it has to be evaluated in the same way other bits and points of that same work are evaluated. I agree that GOT didn't deal with rape responsibly, but GOT is the kind of show that doesn't deal with anything responsibly. Worse things than rape happen to characters in GOT and I can't remember any of those things that was dealt with responsibly. Responsibly doesn't necessarily means with grace, because sometimes very ungraceful depiction of some crime can be the main purpose (like "Irreversible" movie, for example). If I remember right, Clair's rape was revealed in her TV interview in the first season. How it was reacted to in-universe was the main point of it, as I remember. It showed that the audience felt sympathy toward this woman, even though she really isn't someone who deserves sympathy. She is someone who'd use even rape to make people sympathize with her, and it's clearly depicted as immoral. That's something entirely different from what you mentioned as some sort of frequent trope. I'm not watching "Scandal", but from your description it also sounds more similar to "House of Cards" than GOT. So even if there is a trope of using rape in background stories for female characters (though two examples hardly make trope), Sansa rape is obviously something very different from that.
  15. I don't think it's possible to write a good story if it isn't logical. It doesn't have to follow real life logic, but it has to have its own logic and follow it, or break it at some point but then that becomes the focus just like any logic break necessarily would. Story that doesn't have or doesn't follow its own logic cannot be approached in reasonable manner. If authors don't have to follow logic, then nothing's wrong. Stories like that maybe can be enjoyed by some viewers, but so is porn. The argument that the logic is uneven is absurd. It doesn't work like that. Logic is solid if it isn't broken, but once it's broken it doesn't matter if it wasn't broken everywhere. You really need only one break for the logic to fail. And in GOT there are much more than one break, for sure. Much more. And about aesthetics, that really depends on subjective taste. Because maybe you didn't watch movies or shows with higher aesthetics and you think GOT is aesthetically great. But I watched movies and shows that are much more competently written in terms of aesthetics, and compared to them GOT is pure rubbish. But okay, as I said it's subjective, which is why aesthetics can't really be argued on internet. But logic can, and that is why logical side of writing is so important. Because if they aren't even able to preserve the logic of the story that is already written for them (in the books), then it doesn't seem likely that their writing is aesthetically good, even if you happen to like it. The only complete or correct "version" would be to change everything. Because in that storyline nothing makes any sense at all. But none of the other storylines is better actually. Is there a storyline in season 7 that makes sense? I don't think there is. So that one is far from being the only one that is absurd. But it definitely is absurd to the max. Why would Littlefinger even try to pit Arya and Sansa against each other? He was established in previous season as someone who wants Iron Throne for himself, and for that goal he actually needs The North and Starks as strong as possible, because they along with the Vale are his only allies. Why would he even try to weaken The North by triggering bloodshed between two sisters? And fine, let's say he wanted to do that for some reason, but then isn't he more competent than that? How is it possible that someone who was capable of causing real war between Lannisters and Starks can't cause the same thing between two girls? And I could go on and on but you get the point. It was disaster of a sotryline, and not only because of logical failures but also because of Benioff and Weiss's "aesthetics".