Jump to content

The Marquis de Leech

Members
  • Content count

    14,161
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About The Marquis de Leech

  • Rank
    Blood-sucking Aristocrat
  • Birthday 12/15/1982

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Dunedin, New Zealand

Recent Profile Visitors

19,356 profile views
  1. The Marquis de Leech

    Slavoj Zizek on the ending

    Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek has written a piece in the Independent, criticising the ending for its treatment of women and social progress: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/game-thrones-season-8-finale-bran-daenerys-cersei-jon-snow-zizek-revolution-a8923371.html?fbclid=IwAR2mYK7eHEShZdRGkGFJ65gaW2wiEQkcRjBdxkJld8NcJ3ilzX1PrFc8GZY While I am hardly a fan of this season I disagree a fair bit with his conclusion. My reply: Every man and his dragon clearly wants to have their twenty-cents’ worth on Game of Thrones at the moment. Celebrated Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek has written a piece in the Independent, which criticises the implicit conservatism of the ending. It’s this piece that I thought I would comment on today. I have a soft spot for Žižek generally. He marches to the beat of his own drum – ideological non-conformists are all-too rare these days. He may go off on his own little weird tangents, and pinning down his exact position is often like fighting a cloud, but he’s never a dull commentator, even when you disagree with him. And, well, I disagree with him today, because I think he simultaneously gives Game of Thrones too much and too little credit – at least in this particular article. You never entirely know with Žižek, who, as ever, delights in provocation. There is an almost naive assumption here that ferocious debate must imply high stakes. It’s a profoundly mistaken assumption, of course – the debate over Game of Thrones is ferocious, not because the stakes are high, but because lots of people have become emotionally invested in the outcome. If anything, this episode is a sign of a curious disconnect in modern society between emotional attachment and what has actual meaning – many of us care far more about the fate of these fictional people than real people. There is even a meme going around at the moment, comparing Daenerys on Drogon to US foreign policy, which makes light of this. (On the other hand, the fact that so many people care so deeply about the story is arguably a success of the story, not a failure on the part of the audience). Except that the showrunners were not under pressure to quickly end the series. HBO offered them a full ten episodes, but they decided to wrap it up in six. It was a problem of their own making. And Daenerys turn most certainly was badly handled character development. If I were being facetious, I would suggest that Stephen King is an interesting authority to cite on the subject of endings. I also thoroughly disagree that the objections are rooted in hostility to narrative closure – if this is the case, why have there been so many calls for The Simpsons to be put out of its misery? Problem is, the ordering of these struggles undermines the core theme of both book and series: human politics is not important. Daenerys believes she acts on behalf of the underprivileged, yes. It’s why her destruction of King’s Landing made so little sense. But there is a distinction between belief and reality, and really what Daenerys (post-madness) offers is a return to the absolutist tyranny of the early Targaryen years, dressed up as a plea for freedom. Why should we be forced to take propaganda – even sincerely believed propaganda – at its word? It is also mistaken to see the Starks as necessarily representatives of traditional good nobility. After all, Jon explicitly rejects the throne, then rejects a hierarchical structure altogether (our last sight of Jon is him running off with the Wildings). Arya has never fitted within the traditional framework, and she too runs away for a different life. Bran is a weird inhuman being divorced from mortal realms, full stop. Even Sansa, the most conventional of the four, has more regionalist ambitions – to pull the North out from beneath the heel of the wider realm in the name of self-determination. What we therefore see is not so much a dispute between Tradition and Bonapartism, but rather a dispute between a Dark Messiah (complete with that image of Luciferian wings) and her sceptics. Rather than representing a coherent view of what the social order should be, the Starks are more certain of what they are against than what they are for. This reminds me of the old arguments that posit Tolkien’s Sauron as progressive. He isn’t – and neither is the Mad Queen of Game of Thrones. Certainly, Sauron believed that he was necessary to bring order to Middle-earth, just as Daenerys believes that she is necessary to bring liberation to Westeros and beyond. It’s just that, again, belief is rather different from reality. This is not a binary choice: to be a sceptic of a “new order” (especially one involving thousands of people being burned to a crisp) is not to be an advocate for the old. Hell, Samwell Tarly proposes actual democracy, and no-one would accuse him of being a Daenerys fan. Now Žižek is giving the writers too much credit. Game of Thrones engaging with Wagnerian criticisms of women? No. It is not that sophisticated. Not least because the truly monstrous representative of overweening ambition in the work is not Daenerys (who, after all, inherits familial entitlement from her brother) but rather Petyr Baelish, the decidedly male Littlefinger. I agree that the scene in question is weak, but one can rationalise it as being less about the sexual satisfaction, and more about the idea that Daenerys wants (and is denied) acceptance – the People love Jon, but not her. I would also point out that the root cause of the War of the Five Kings is a battle over whose squirt of semen created Joffrey – one can reduce a fair bit in this story to the embarrassing and the vulgar. Gender is less relevant here than the fact that (in-story) thousands of ordinary people were cooked alive. The most relevant analogies to Daenerys’ action are not female ones, but the rampages of the (male) Genghis Khan and Timur the Lame. The objections to the scene would be just as fierce if Daenerys were male. If it were a matter of fearing a strong political woman, why has Sansa Stark not been set up as a similar monster? Ditto Yara/Asha Greyjoy? Brienne and Arya are ultimate subversions of Westerosi gender roles, yet both get what passes for a happy ending. Again – too much credit and too little credit. On one hand, Daenerys was corrupted because the writers wanted a cool scene (or because it was part of the intended ending and they couldn’t be bothered laying the groundwork), not because they were displaying the biases of the patriarchy. On the other hand, more charitably, Daenerys’ corruption was because she was complete master of a Weapon of Mass Destruction. She did, after all, have absolute power at that moment. The fact that Daenerys is a woman is irrelevant – Lord Acton’s famous dictum is not gender specific! I am not sure of the point Žižek makes about Arya. She is never in power, but rather a stone-cold killer, who nevertheless avoids the fate of Sandor Clegane. Well, no. Sansa as ruler of Winterfell is explicitly treated as a competent, pragmatic figure – far more so than any of her other siblings. She operates as a lord among lords, yes, but that is a comment on class, not gender-relations. Honestly, if Daenerys were successful, I wonder if Žižek would be lamenting Daenerys as “the type of woman beloved by today’s capitalism.” Again, Žižek is treating scepticism of Daenerys’ Revolution as an endorsement of the old system. It isn’t – Jon himself rejects the system altogether, and runs off to live with anarchists. It’s an understanding that Revolutions are complicated beasts that very rarely go as intended. The implication being that she would put an end to old injustices and create entirely new ones. Does Žižek imagine that a place with Westeros’ level of development, with feudalist economic relations, and limited literacy, would support a modern, democratic, political system? Surely not. The best shot Westeros ever had at delivering Power to the People was the High Sparrow and his merry bunch of religious fanatics… which would have created its own problems. I would also point out that, between the beginning and end of the series, there has been a shift in power. Recall that the series began with political power in the hands of highly patriarchal Houses – Baratheon, Arryn, Stark, and Lannister. Warlords all. By the end… we have a cripple on the throne (who may well have engineered events to get power, but I digress). We have a dwarf as his chief minister. We have a woman running his Kingsguard. We have an overweight nerd with democratic sympathies as Grand Maester. And we have two working class plebs (Bronn and Davos) operating as the rest of the Small Council. All told, we’ve come a fair way from a world run by Robert Baratheon, Jon Arryn, Ned Stark, and Tywin Lannister. Daenerys was the most Nordic in appearance of the lot – to the point where the image of setting her up as the great liberator of the brown-skinned masses had more than a whiff of White (Wo-)Man’s Burden. Do other peoples really need a Great White Conqueror atop a Weapon of Mass Destruction to free them? Some of us can remember back fifteen years or so, to when certain (white) people were enthusiastically talking about bringing freedom to the Middle-East. I, for one, can also remember the consequences thereof. It is not back to normal. It’s not utopia either… but it is certainly not normal. Honestly. I wonder how serious Žižek is being here.
  2. The Marquis de Leech

    New Zealand

    Woohoo. We have permission to imprison him next year!
  3. The Marquis de Leech

    Boarders Writing a Novel Part 15

    People do these things differently. Personally, I think Karl Marx of all people is actually quite useful here. Start with the economic foundations of the world - how are things produced? What social classes arise from that? - then think about how this impacts the attitudes, culture, and political structure of the society based on that foundation.
  4. The Marquis de Leech

    Rothfuss XV: Move along, nothing to see here

    Fixed. Sorry about that.
  5. The Marquis de Leech

    Edmure Should Have Got It

    "Hold Riverrun, and guard the rear." Which he did. Your notion of "direct order" seems to involve adding stuff that wasn't there, then blaming the junior commander for not being a mind-reader.
  6. The Marquis de Leech

    Edmure Should Have Got It

    Good thing Robb didn't give any such order.
  7. The Marquis de Leech

    Edmure Should Have Got It

    And while we're at it, Robb has a seriously bad habit of blaming others for his own mistakes. Him yelling at Theon for saving Bran's life was appalling.
  8. The Marquis de Leech

    Edmure Should Have Got It

    Holding Riverrun means holding Riverrun. Which Edmure did. Honestly, he should have pointed at the banners and said "do those look like Lannister lions to you?" Having a chain of command doesn't obligate Edmure to be a mind-reader.
  9. The Marquis de Leech

    Edmure Should Have Got It

    Because Bran is a great fighter? If all the council cared about was fighting, they ought to have given the crown to Brienne.
  10. The Marquis de Leech

    Edmure Should Have Got It

    He said "hold Riverrun." Edmure held Riverrun.
  11. The Marquis de Leech

    Edmure Should Have Got It

    Edmure held the castle.. and won the skirmish. It was Robb's own fault for not being specific. Oh, and Edmure agreed to take a Frey wife to cover up Robb's subsequent and fatal screw-up.
  12. The Marquis de Leech

    Edmure Should Have Got It

    So... the evidence for Edmure's incompetence thus far: Screwing up a plan that Robb didn't tell him about (Robb asked him to hold Riverrun. He did that. Robb did not say to let Tywin pass). Oh, and bonus points for Edmure winning the actual skirmish in question. Not shooting a flaming arrow into his father's boat. Because shooting an arrow is relevant to Kingship how? Being "owned by his niece in public." Of course. He's a punching bag for bad writing - and, again, Sansa had no business treating him like that.
  13. The Marquis de Leech

    Happy Metric Day!

    You mean we're taking the French out of the metric system? Shameful.
  14. The Marquis de Leech

    Loose ends

    Not exactly an important plot point, but I find it hilarious that Sweetrobin Arryn is still ruling the Vale.
×