Jump to content
C.T. Phipps

The Ending Was very conventional

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

And having Bran as King wasn't forced?

Why would having non-white leaders automatically be bad storytelling?

Not the point and not the point. I can't believe I even have to tell you this.

Bran wasn't forced in because of his race or gender, so moot point. As I said, what we got isn't good storytelling either.

Did you forget "forced non-white leaders for simply the sake of non-white leaders" and only see "non-white leaders" on purpose?

Edited by Potsk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

 

India, China, and Japan are not multi-racial nations. English speaking countries are.

But English speaking countries are still predominantly white and fantasy literature has been around for over a century, at a time when much of the English speaking countries were far less multi racial than they are now. The writings of Tolkien reflect the world he lived in, which was as much a multi racial nation as modern day Japan is.

Though much of modern day fantasy, including ASOIAF, has a multi cultural cast, so I'm not sure the point being made here.

Quote

I think GOT and other popular works like Harry Potter or LoTR (movies and books) debunks the idea that only white dudes can get into fantasy.

Fantasy literature has existed long before you and I were born and for a long time its main audience was white men. The success of Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and Game of Thrones has changed that, but that is a recent change and not every adaptation of a fantasy series is going to be from a 21st century work.

Quote

 

Have you considered that fantasy typically has white male audiences because of marketing, and not lack of interest?

Of course I have. Most people have. I'm not sure your point here? The past is the past, I'm just stating a fact, in the past, for the majority of the 20th century, fantasy's audience was largely white men. Writers in the 19th and 20th  century have wanted their books to sell, wanted fans of the genre to identify with their characters and have catered to that audience. That is simply how markets operate.

In the last 20 years there has been a change and we've seen that change with more and more female and multi racial fantasy series being produced both for literature and film/tv.

The genre has changed reflecting its larger and more diverse audience, but many of the most popular books that are now being adapted were written before this change or have a setting that does not makes sense set in a more multi cultural world.

Quote

Dany becoming an antagonist changes everything.

Dany was a central protagonist, perhaps the central protagonist for 60 episodes and an antagonist for 2. You are quibbling.

Most of the great characters of modern day tv have become bad, Walter White is probably the greatest tv character of the 21st century, he turns from good to bad. What is your issue with a female doing the same?

Quote

 

Themes do matter, despite what D&D claim. What does it say that both women vying for the top job are villains because of their emotions?

Sansa is not a villain. Arya is not a villain.

And everyone, male and female, have emotions. The more satisfying antagonists and protagonists have emotions.

Plus its a common trope. Darth Vader, perhaps the most famous villain in sci fi/fantasy becomes a villain because he too can't handle his emotions. Its not a gender specific problem.

Quote

 

Women being too emotional for leadership is a nasty stereotype, as is women seeking power being power-hungry, and the show reinforces this stereotype.

Its the Game of Thrones, everyone is pretty much seeking power.

This is such a bullshit argument. Dany, Arya, Sansa, Brieene, Oleena. Margaery, Melisandre, Cat and even Cersei are some of the most beloved and celebrated characters of any gender in modern day fantasy.  And the book goes further. Genna, Arrianne and Asha are awesome in the book and either not adapted well or missing from the show.

On the whole the ratio of awesome female characters to male characters is pretty much 1:1 This is really not the series, in either of its forms, to complain about it being focused on one gender over the other.

 

Quote

It is one of many stories that do so. Having Arya kill the NK doesn't change that, nor does it erase her disparaging of femininity throughout the show.

Guess what, not all women are the same. Some are free to disparage femininity. A character who is a child at the start of the show should be able to do that.

And you do realize she has to, her life is in danger, she literally has to pretend to be a boy to survive. Giving up her identity is central to plot.

Quote

You've just reminded me of how terrible the show has handled his disability. Bran the Broken? FFS. Points for not erasing disabilities all together,

People are disabled. Why do you want the likes of Tyrion and Bran to be erased from fantasy? Should cripples and dwarves not be seen?

Quote

 

which is a problem in fantasy, but it doesn't change that he's still another white dude, and white dudes are a dime a dozen in this genre.

You do realize its a book loosely set in a version of middle ages Europe, right?

Of course white dudes are dime a dozen.

Quote

Sansa isn't his equal at all.

Of course she is. She was calling the shots in Winterfell and she was calling the shots in Kings Landing, telling her uncle to shut up and sit down. When Bran is made King she is the only one to point out the obvious flaw why he's a bad choice, he can't have kids.

She's more than his equal as a character but in statehood they are equals just like the monarchs of France and England in the middle ages were equals.

You have an agenda to push, but Sansa was clearly the most equal member of that not so great council.

Quote

 

She's allowed to be Queen but over there, as some sort of consolation prize so the showrunners can pat themselves on the back for being sooo progressive.

The North is not some consolation prize to the viewer. Its the realm the viewer has identified with from the beginning. She does what Robb Stark and three centuries of Starks before her have not been able to do, regain autonomy.

Again, you are pushing an agenda so you are going to find fault for the sake of finding fault.

Quote

It's clear King of Westeros was the ultimate position. It's a step up from the idea that ONLY men can be put in leadership positions, but getting women into the most powerful roles is still a struggle.

And yet we now have a female ruler of the North and a female Lord Commander of the Kingsguard. And the previous two monarchs of Westeros were Queens.

The show has zero problem showing women can have powerful roles. And guess what, some struggle just like most of the men in powerful roles struggle. The Game of Thrones is not supposed to be easy.

 

 

Edited by Bernie Mac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/23/2019 at 4:26 AM, Potsk said:

Not the point and not the point. I can't believe I even have to tell you this.

Bran wasn't forced in because of his race or gender, so moot point. As I said, what we got isn't good storytelling either.

Did you forget "forced non-white leaders for simply the sake of non-white leaders" and only see "non-white leaders" on purpose?

You said "forcing a non-white leader into a story just for the sake of having a non-white leader isn't good storytelling". Well, who says a non-white leader has to feel forced? I don't think I misrepresented your argument in anyway.

On 5/23/2019 at 4:32 AM, Bernie Mac said:

But English speaking countries are still predominantly white and fantasy literature has been around for over a century, at a time when much of the English speaking countries were far less multi racial than they are now. The writings of Tolkien reflect the world he lived in, which was as much a multi racial nation as modern day Japan is. 

Though much of modern day fantasy, including ASOIAF, has a multi cultural cast, so I'm not sure the point being made here. 

The point is what I said originally: a disproportionate amount of fantasy features white male protagonists (let's make that WMP for short). Disproportionate, as in over-represented. Some authors are now making a conscious choice to change this statistic, but there's still a ways to go.

I understand that previous works in fantasy, Tolkien in particular, influences how fantasy is written now, but that only explains the lack of diversity in the genre, not why it can't be changed.

On 5/23/2019 at 4:32 AM, Bernie Mac said:

Fantasy literature has existed long before you and I were born and for a long time its main audience was white men. The success of Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and Game of Thrones has changed that, but that is a recent change and not every adaptation of a fantasy series is going to be from a 21st century work.

But it's not always been white men reading fantasy. Post-Tolkien, maybe, but what about the Narnia Chronicles, Lud-in-the-Mist, or any fairytale? Hence, I think the prevalence of WMPs in fantasy is less because publishers want to reflect the readership, and more because (a) it's mostly authored by white dudes, who are more likely to write about characters they relate to, and (b) gender norms mean a male character will be the default protagonist for any story with action/adventure, as all Tolkien inspired works will be. But again, that's just explaining why things are the way it is, not why it must stay that way, especially as the consumers of fantasy are now far more diverse than it was in the 70s and 80s.

On 5/23/2019 at 4:32 AM, Bernie Mac said:

Dany was a central protagonist, perhaps the central protagonist for 60 episodes and an antagonist for 2. You are quibbling. 

Most of the great characters of modern day tv have become bad, Walter White is probably the greatest tv character of the 21st century, he turns from good to bad. What is your issue with a female doing the same?

 

Sansa is not a villain. Arya is not a villain.

And everyone, male and female, have emotions. The more satisfying antagonists and protagonists have emotions.

Plus its a common trope. Darth Vader, perhaps the most famous villain in sci fi/fantasy becomes a villain because he too can't handle his emotions. Its not a gender specific problem.

 

Its the Game of Thrones, everyone is pretty much seeking power. 

I already stated the problem with female characters being evil because of their ambition, and being ineffective leaders due to their emotions. It's an overused trope that reinforces real life stereotypes about women in power. There exists no stereotype about men being unworthy of wielding power, period, because it is the norm for leaders to be men. Thus, one man being a crap leader says nothing about men leading, only that person or that personality. But the only way it can be the same for women is if the narrative applauds other women for having the same "flaws" and letting them succeed in leadership (of course, this would make for very muddled messaging). GOT instead doubles down on it's sexist tropes by having two mad Queens and an emotionless dude being the perfect King.

And even if you don't care about all that, it's just cliche lazy storytelling.

I'm not sure what the amount of time Dany's been a villain, or the popularity of the female characters, has to do with anything.

ETA: note that Walter White and DV were portrayed sympathertically. We got to see their descent through their eyes, and they were central to the overall story by the end. Once Dany "turned", we only saw her through the perspective of other characters, and she was more or less tossed aside after her death.

On 5/23/2019 at 4:32 AM, Bernie Mac said:

Guess what, not all women are the same. Some are free to disparage femininity. A character who is a child at the start of the show should be able to do that. 

And you do realize she has to, her life is in danger, she literally has to pretend to be a boy to survive. Giving up her identity is central to plot. 

Why do you insist on pretending like these characters exist in a vacuum? Like the characters are the way they are because of coincidence, and not because somebody wrote them that way? GRRM's Arya never disparaged femininity or her gender - "the woman is important too!" - and she hated being called a boy. It was a choice of the show's writers to portray Arya as the opposite. It wasn't even to framed as Arya having internalized misogyny, as GRRM did with Cersei. They had our hero spout anti-women sentiments, unchallenged. The show's other more masculine female characters (Yara, Brienne) also insulted women, where their book counterparts always respected them.

On 5/23/2019 at 4:32 AM, Bernie Mac said:

You do realize its a book loosely set in a version of middle ages Europe, right? 

Of course white dudes are dime a dozen.

Because medieval Europe had nothing but white men? Both the books and the show have characters of all backgrounds, as you've already mentioned. GRRM himself mused that he could have made the Targs black but that it hadn't occurred to him at the time. They made a choice to have a WMP be the King at the end.

On 5/23/2019 at 4:32 AM, Bernie Mac said:

Of course she is. She was calling the shots in Winterfell and she was calling the shots in Kings Landing, telling her uncle to shut up and sit down. When Bran is made King she is the only one to point out the obvious flaw why he's a bad choice, he can't have kids. 

She's more than his equal as a character but in statehood they are equals just like the monarchs of France and England in the middle ages were equals. 

You have an agenda to push, but Sansa was clearly the most equal member of that not so great council. 

The North is not some consolation prize to the viewer. Its the realm the viewer has identified with from the beginning. She does what Robb Stark and three centuries of Starks before her have not been able to do, regain autonomy. 

Narratively, they aren't equals. What was the thing the show presented as the ultimate prize? What was everyone fighting for? Westeros. Even in-story, Bran ended up with more power than Sansa. He has the bigger army, the bigger land, more money, and more allies. Her queenship was dependent on Bran agreeing. Hence his nod when she made a claim for independence.

On 5/23/2019 at 4:32 AM, Bernie Mac said:

Again, you are pushing an agenda so you are going to find fault for the sake of finding fault. 

If having a certain position is "pushing an agenda", then I could claim the same of you.

On 5/23/2019 at 4:32 AM, Bernie Mac said:

And yet we now have a female ruler of the North and a female Lord Commander of the Kingsguard. And the previous two monarchs of Westeros were Queens. 

The show has zero problem showing women can have powerful roles. And guess what, some struggle just like most of the men in powerful roles struggle. The Game of Thrones is not supposed to be easy. 

I'm just going to repeat what I said previously: it's clear King of Westeros was the ultimate position. It's a step up from the idea that ONLY men can be put in leadership positions, but getting women into the most powerful roles is still a struggle. Is Brienne or Sansa portrayed as having the most powerful position? No, that's Bran, the person framed as fit to be in the ultimate position of power (and isn't shown struggling at all) as opposed to those crazy Queens.

If just having representation is good enough, Cinderella would be completely unproblematic. I mean, she gets to be Queen at the end, and the evil villain, who just happened to also be a power hungry woman obsessed with youth and beauty which is totes ok because some humans are just like that, was also a powerful Queen. What more do you sJeW feminazis want?

Edited by Hodor the Articulate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

 

The point is what I said originally: a disproportionate amount of fantasy features white male protagonists (let's make that WMP for short). Disproportionate, as in over-represented. Some authors are now making a conscious choice to change this statistic, but there's still a ways to go.

Sure. But the past is the past and pretending that the motives of 19th and 20th century authors was racism kind of misses the point. They lived in societies that were simply not as multi cultural as they are now, and they wrote of analogues of history that were based in times were it was even less so.

I have no problem with adding other races to the Camelot story, but please don't paint authors in the past (or even present) racist for making character of such books predominantly white if they are trying to make it fairly realistic to the time it was set in.

 

Quote

I understand that previous works in fantasy, Tolkien in particular, influences how fantasy is written now, but that only explains the lack of diversity in the genre, not why it can't be changed.

But it has been changed. There is far, far more representation in the 'modern' day fantasy than there was in generations past.

 

Quote

But it's not always been white men reading fantasy.

For large parts it has been predominantly white men, or at least that is how its been portrayed. White geeks who are socially awkward seem to be the most commonly associated audience of fantasy in the 20th century.

Obviously that has changed in the last 20 years, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Game of Thrones and the avalanche of YA novels and movies has changed the association.

Similarly the superhero genre was pretty much the same as the fantasy genre, its customers largely white males, but that has also changed in the last 20 years.

At no point did I claim that it was only white men reading/watching the genre in the western world in the 20th century, but it was the vast majority.

Quote

 

Post-Tolkien, maybe, but what about the Narnia Chronicles, Lud-in-the-Mist, or any fairytale?

What about them?

The Narnia chronicles were children books but adults who continued to read them and obsess over them were predominately white guys. The people who would buy board games, write fantasy fiction and form clubs to talk stuff like that in western society were largely white guys.

Quote

 

Hence, I think the prevalence of WMPs in fantasy is less because publishers want to reflect the readership, and more because (a) it's mostly authored by white dudes, who are more likely to write about characters they relate to, and (b) gender norms mean a male character will be the default protagonist for any story with action/adventure, as all Tolkien inspired works will be. But again, that's just explaining why things are the way it is, not why it must stay that way, especially as the consumers of fantasy are now far more diverse than it was in the 70s and 80s.

Who has claimed they should stay 'that way'?

You are making a stand for something no one is against. No one is claiming there should be less representation in fantasy. You are standing on your soap box and making a point no one disagrees with.

Quote

I already stated the problem with female characters being evil because of their ambition,

Many male characters in the series are seen as evil for their ambition. If you want there to be more representation then complaining about Cersei, following in the foosteps of her father, or Dany, following in the footsteps of her father, seems to be hypocritical.

Not all females are represented as evil for being ambitious. Sansa becomes a Queen and she is not evil. Or when it comes to male characters Stannis' ambition makes him sacrifice his own daughter.

If a male character can do evil due to their ambition then why can't a female character? Why are you against equality?

Quote

 

and being ineffective leaders due to their emotions.

Who was an ineffective leader? Certainly not Dany, nor Cersei in the show (obviously not the books) or Sansa.

Though once again there seems to be a double standard. Robb loses everything because of love, his emotions were his downfall.

Quote

 

It's an overused trope that reinforces real life stereotypes about women in power.

It is the Game of Thones, it is a story about ambition. 99% of the characters in the show are ambitious.

Ambition and Emotion are not evil characteristics. You are projecting here.

1 hour ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

 

But the only way it can be the same for women is if the narrative applauds other women for having the same "flaws" and letting them succeed in leadership (of course, this would make for very muddled messaging). GOT instead doubles down on it's sexist tropes by having two mad Queens and an emotionless dude being the perfect King.

Who is the perfect King? We've not seen Bran rule, we've not seen how his reign turns out a month after he is king, never mind its entire term. The show lasted 8 seasons, Bran is king for less than 5 minutes.

And lets be real, Bran is the king in name, the show had Tyrion, the single most emotional character of the series, end up ruling the realm.

Its not sexist, you are projecting. Dany, for the vast majority of the show, is one of two central characters, one of the two main heroes.

Quote

And even if you don't care about all that, it's just cliche lazy storytelling.

Is it? Go on then, share with me all the other stories that focus on a Dany character as the hero for the vast majority of the story only to make her the villain in the last chapter.

If its that cliché I'd love to hear the many examples you'll be able to list.

Quote

I'm not sure what the amount of time Dany's been a villain, or the popularity of the female characters, has to do with anything.#

#

Of course you are not, you are only focussed on finding fault. 

Quote

ETA: note that Walter White and DV were portrayed sympathertically. We got to see their descent through their eyes, and they were central to the overall story by the end. Once Dany "turned", we only saw her through the perspective of other characters, and she was more or less tossed aside after her death.

No, we saw Walter White through the eyes of his wife and son who thought of him as a monster, a man who ruined their lives, through the eyes of sister in law, who hated him for being responsible for the murder of Hank and the destruction of her family, through the eyes of his former girlfriend and college friend who were terrified of what he became, of Jessie who once admired him but realized that he was a manipulative monster who would do whatever he wanted to win.

That last season showed Walter for what he was.

 

Quote

Why do you insist on pretending like these characters exist in a vacuum?

Why does an author have to cater to everything that has came before?

An author should focus on the character and the plot of its own story, it should not be trying to appease people who find fault in the past of other stories.

Every story should exist in a vacuum.

Quote

 

 

Because medieval Europe had nothing but white men?

Did I say it did?

But yeah, the people in power were predominantly white men.

There are far more women in power in Westeros in the timeline of this series than in any period in the middle ages of Europe.

 

Quote

 

Both the books and the show have characters of all backgrounds, as you've already mentioned. GRRM himself mused that he could have made the Targs black but that it hadn't occurred to him at the time. They made a choice to have a WMP be the King at the end.

They had a guy in a wheel chair become king. Is that not diverse? Or is ableism not as important as sexism and racism?

 

Quote

Narratively, they aren't equals.

No, they are not. Bran co rules with his Hand and Small council. Sansa does it all by herself, she does not have to consult with others to act.

Sansa is the one calling the shots at the Great Council meeting. Had she wanted to she could have became Queen of Westeros, they way she bullied her uncle into submission, had the respect of the Vale lords and control of the North she could have ended up with anything she wanted and she did.

Bran, as Sansa pointed out, can't have kids, he's a puppet king who will have no legacy. Sansa and her heirs will rule the North and the North, in the show, was what the viewer identified with.

 

Quote

 

What was the thing the show presented as the ultimate prize? What was everyone fighting for?

Not everyone was fighting for Westeros. Robb was not, Jon was not, Sansa was not, Arya was not. They were fighting for their home, justice and preservation, not Westeros.

When people watch Braveheart they are rooting for Scotland to become independent, not to become Kings of England (and I guess conquer Rome in Braveheart II). The show was hugely focused on Northern independence (much more so than the books), Sansa got the prize that the heroes of the show had been fighting for.

Quote

 

Westeros. Even in-story, Bran ended up with more power than Sansa. He has the bigger army, the bigger land, more money, and more allies. Her queenship was dependent on Bran agreeing. Hence his nod when she made a claim for independence.

Sansa hated kings Landing. Ending up in Kings Landing having to play the Game of Thrones for the rest of her life is not a victory.

 

Quote

If having a certain position is "pushing an agenda", then I could claim the same of you.

What agenda do you think I'm pushing?

Quote

I'm just going to repeat what I said previously: it's clear King of Westeros was the ultimate position.

Not for every character. Certainly not Sansa and Arya, I'd argue not Jon either or Bran. Or the likes of Jaime, Robb, Cat and Ned. The series starts with Robert being absolutely miserable being the King of Westeros, while the Starks are hugely happy in Winterfell. Going to Kings Landing destroyed their family

 

Quote

 

It's a step up from the idea that ONLY men can be put in leadership positions, but getting women into the most powerful roles is still a struggle.

Cersei, with no claim to the Throne, made herself Queen despite huge opposition. Clearly not much of a struggle.

Quote

 

Is Brienne or Sansa portrayed as having the most powerful position? No, that's Bran, the person framed as fit to be in the ultimate position of power (and isn't shown struggling at all) as opposed to those crazy Queens.

No, its Tyrion. Bran got wheeled in and wheeled out. Bran's agency is no more, he's now a ceremonial figure in a land with far fewer weirwood trees.

If you were to actually analyse their characters and their progression Bran's seems the most pointless of all. There is no happy ending were he regains his humanity like Arya does, or reunites with Meera and redevelops feelings for her.  He does not get to be a knight or adventurer like he wanted to do. He's stuck in Kings Landing as King, when all he ever dreamed about being was a knight going on adventures in service to the King.

 

Quote

If just having representation is good enough, Cinderella would be completely unproblematic. I mean, she gets to be Queen at the end, and the evil villain, who just happened to also be a power hungry woman obsessed with youth and beauty which is totes ok because some humans are just like that, was also a powerful Queen. What more do you sJeW feminazis want?

eh?

Edited by Bernie Mac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I don't think GRRM is writing from the issue of political correctness, but one thing I do think he gets is intersectional feminism. A character who is an imperialist who claims to be liberating people isn't feminist in the least. A man can embody more feminist ideals than a woman in that case.

The North as "xenophobic" doesn't make sense, when they're the ones who were under threat of being conquered. The North and Dorne are similar, they both represent third world countries dominated by colonial powers. Maybe no one wants a Targaryen to rule them - not because they're foreigners - but because they're dead set on taking people's sovereignty away?

Edited by Rose of Red Lake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I don't think GRRM is writing from the issue of political correctness, but one thing I do think he gets is intersectional feminism. A character who is an imperialist who claims to be liberating people isn't feminist in the least. A man can embody more feminist ideals than a woman in that case. 

The North as "xenophobic" doesn't make sense, when they're the ones who were under threat of being conquered. The North and Dorne are similar, they both represent third world countries dominated by colonial powers. Maybe no one wants a Targaryen to rule them - not because they're foreigners - but because they're dead set on taking people's sovereignty away?

First of all, imperialism is the expansion of one nation's power over another's. That doesn't describe anything that happens in the series, not even in Meereen. I wish people would stop misusing this term.

The North and Dorne are both part of Westeros, and have been for three centuries. They are not third world countries, nor are they under threat of colonialism lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

I have no problem with adding other races to the Camelot story, but please don't paint authors in the past (or even present) racist for making character of such books predominantly white if they are trying to make it fairly realistic to the time it was set in. 

I haven't called anyone racist, so you can stop being so defensive.

21 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

But it has been changed. There is far, far more representation in the 'modern' day fantasy than there was in generations past.

I bolded the word disproportionate and even clarified what I meant by it. I'm not going to go around in circles arguing this. Improved does not mean fixed.

21 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

What about them?

They're works of fantasy that have widespread appeal, invalidating the idea that fantasy was only, or even largely, consumed by white men. But I don't care to continue this topic any further. It's not got any relevance to the thread, and neither of us have any statistics to back any of this up, only stereotypes and anecdotal evidence.

21 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Who has claimed they should stay 'that way'? 

Don't put words in my mouth. I added that historical homogeneity in protagonists shouldn't have any bearing on modern fiction to try to bring the conversation back on topic, because you kept (and still keep) talking about why (you think) things were the way they were, which was completely irrelevant. Again you're getting defensive because you think I'm making accusations.

21 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Many male characters in the series are seen as evil for their ambition. Who was an ineffective leader? Certainly not Dany, nor Cersei in the show (obviously not the books) or Sansa.

It doesn't matter how the men are portrayed because there are no existing stereotypes about men being overemotional or wrongly ambitious like there is for women. I don't know how many other ways I can explain this. I can't tell if you're ignoring parts of what I'm writing, or if you genuinely don't understand what I mean. Please read the whole paragraph before replying, because I don't want to have to keep repeating myself.

21 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Who was an ineffective leader?

Both Cersei and Dany turned out to be mad queens. You can't be trying to argue they were presented as good queens?

21 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Who is the perfect King?

Bran, apparently. The show ends on a positive note, with Bran as King. There is implied peace. Thus, Bran is the 'good King' to oppose the former 'bad Kings/Queens' - Robert, Joffrey, Cersei, Dany.

21 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Is it? Go on then, share with me all the other stories that focus on a Dany character as the hero for the vast majority of the story only to make her the villain in the last chapter. 

If its that cliché I'd love to hear the many examples you'll be able to list. 

:rolleyes: I was talking about female villains being power hungry, hysterical, and/or vain. See: the God Save Us from the Queen! trope if you want examples.

I still don't know why you're on about Dany's history as a protagonist. The show had bad writing - so what?

21 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

No, we saw Walter White through the eyes of his wife and son who thought of him as a monster

The whole show was about Walter. He was the lead protagonist. If we didn't get to see his transformation from his perspective, you wouldn't be able to understand why he did what he did, because the other characters sure didn't. He was portrayed sympathetically right to the end. Dany, other hand, was dehumanized as soon as she turned. How did she feel as she roasted peasants? We can only make assumptions because the camera only showed us other people's reactions to her actions. She was a mere plot device for the rest of the show.

21 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Why does an author have to cater to everything that has came before?

An author should focus on the character and the plot of its own story, it should not be trying to appease people who find fault in the past of other stories. 

Every story should exist in a vacuum.

So if I draw a picture of a smirking man with a large hooked nose, rubbing his hands together, and maybe surrounded by bags of money, that'd be okay, right?

At the very least, admit that we shouldn't be encouraging cliched writing.

21 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

There are far more women in power in Westeros in the timeline of this series than in any period in the middle ages of Europe. 

(I don't feel like starting another debate, so let's assume you're right here). That's just the point. The story is whatever they want it to be. Everything that happened was the conscious choice of the writers.

21 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

They had a guy in a wheel chair become king. Is that not diverse? Or is ableism not as important as sexism and racism?

Fantasy has an ableism problem in that it erases disabilities altogether. Paraplegics not getting into positions of power has never been an issue, not in the same way it is for women. Hence why no one is celebrating "Bran the Broken" but are instead criticizing the show's handling of the character.

21 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

No, they are not. Bran co rules with his Hand and Small council. Sansa does it all by herself, she does not have to consult with others to act.

Sansa is the one calling the shots at the Great Council meeting. Had she wanted to she could have became Queen of Westeros, they way she bullied her uncle into submission, had the respect of the Vale lords and control of the North she could have ended up with anything she wanted and she did.

But she didn't and nobody suggested her. There wasn't a hint that she was up for the role. The show made it very clear who the person of ultimate power was: Bran. He's the King of Westeros.

Again, the Iron Throne was the prize through all 8 seasons. The North's independence was meaningless unless the crown agreed to it (whether by force or other means). The final episode was even called "The Iron Throne".

21 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

What agenda do you think I'm pushing?

The opposite to whatever it is you think I'm pushing.

21 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Cersei, with no claim to the Throne, made herself Queen despite huge opposition. Clearly not much of a struggle.

She was a bad queen and a villain and then she died. Or did you watch a different ending where Cersei ended up as the righteous ruler of the 7K?

21 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

No, its Tyrion. Bran got wheeled in and wheeled out. Bran's agency is no more, he's now a ceremonial figure in a land with far fewer weirwood trees. 

If you were to actually analyse their characters and their progression Bran's seems the most pointless of all. There is no happy ending were he regains his humanity like Arya does, or reunites with Meera and redevelops feelings for her.  He does not get to be a knight or adventurer like he wanted to do. He's stuck in Kings Landing as King, when all he ever dreamed about being was a knight going on adventures in service to the King. 

The episode doesn't support this interpretation at all. Show me a single scene where Bran looked miserable as King. Show me the scene where the council did whatever the fuck they wanted, not caring if Bran agreed to it or not. The bolded is very obviously not true, as he's off to look for a dragon - adventures abound!

Edited by Hodor the Articulate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

First of all, imperialism is the expansion of one nation's power over another's. That doesn't describe anything that happens in the series, not even in Meereen. I wish people would stop misusing this term.

Dany wants two thrones on two different continents, I dont know what else you'd call that.

5 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

The North and Dorne are both part of Westeros, and have been for three centuries. They are not third world countries, nor are they under threat of colonialism lol.

I am saying they "represent" the third world because they the poor regions of Westeros and they have little natural resources. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

I haven't called anyone racist, so you can stop being so defensive.

I'm not being defensive.

Quote

I bolded the word disproportionate and even clarified what I meant by it. I'm not going to go around in circles arguing this. Improved does not mean fixed.

What is the proportionate number?

Please let people know what authors writing about fantasy in the 19th century and the 20th century should have done?

Give numbers otherwise it sounds like you are bitching for the sake of bitching,

Quote

They're works of fantasy that have widespread appeal, invalidating the idea that fantasy was only, or even largely, consumed by white men.

First of all not once have I said 'only'. I have no idea why you keep on trying to frame it like I did say that, well no, that's a lie I know exactly why you are.

In western society, the English speaking world they were largely consumed by white men just like in the 20th century the super hero genre was largely white men.

It is excellent that YA novels like Harry Potter and Twilight have changed the demography in the 21st century, but the 20th century the majority of the consumers were white men.

 

Quote

 

But I don't care to continue this topic any further. It's not got any relevance to the thread, and neither of us have any statistics to back any of this up, only stereotypes and anecdotal evidence.

Why would you not want to continue the topic any further? It's central to your complaints.

If the majority of readers of fantasy fiction in the 20th century were single white men then that is going to have an impact on both

  • which novels became more successful
  • who authors catered for

Just look at the 21st century YA primary audience, it is largely female and its reflected in which books have became more successful and who the authors are catering for.

It is just how capitalism works, understanding who the audience are is just as important to success as being a good writer.

Terry Pratchett is a great example of this, he has always understood who the market was that is why he began to change focus as the years went on and the growth of the YA market he started to focus on the Tiffany Aching character to appeal to this new fanbase of fantasy readers.

Publishers and authors in the 20th century are not stupid, they would do market research to see who the audience was, what they thought they wanted to read and what they actually read (the two are not always the same). They don't leave this to chance, they are not some kind of illuminati all banding together to stop representation. If there is money to be made they'd take it.

Quote

Don't put words in my mouth. I added that historical homogeneity in protagonists shouldn't have any bearing on modern fiction to try to bring the conversation back on topic,

But such books have already been written. Shows and films are constantly adapting works from the 20th century and before.

 

Quote

 

because you kept (and still keep) talking about why (you think) things were the way they were, which was completely irrelevant. Again you're getting defensive because you think I'm making accusations.

But you are. You might not realize this, but your whole spiel is very accusatory. Maybe its not intentional, but that is certainly how it reads.

Both Game of  Thrones and ASOIAF have been pretty equal when it comes to gender characters, there have and are Queens in Westeros yet your big complaint is a boy in a wheel chair becoming King for 5 minutes.

It reads that your less concerned about the plot of the story and female empowerment and that female empowerment can only be achieved if the final monarch of Westeros is a woman. ignoring the fact that Sansa, Brienne, Cersei and Dany all achieved titles and positons of power that no other female has done in the history of Westeros.

Quote

It doesn't matter how the men are portrayed because there are no existing stereotypes about men being overemotional or wrongly ambitious like there is for women.

Dude, you are not doing your argument any favours.

Darth Vader, the most famous villain in the genre, becomes a villain because he can not handle his emotions. If you are truly interested in equality you'd accept the same for a woman.

Dany's two episode dissent into darkness is pretty much the same as Anakin's. The difference is that George Lucas spent more time on building up to Anakin's switch than D&B did, but that is not a problem of gender.

Quote

 

I don't know how many other ways I can explain this. I can't tell if you're ignoring parts of what I'm writing, or if you genuinely don't understand what I mean. Please read the whole paragraph before replying, because I don't want to have to keep repeating myself.

Have you considered it is the message that you are writing rather than others misunderstanding?

Quote

Both Cersei and Dany turned out to be mad queens. You can't be trying to argue they were presented as good queens?

Dany was a good queen for much of her Queenhood. She stopped slavery in Essos, her dragons and her army were instrumental in saving Westeros. Overall she was far more good than she was bad. But in this genre the likes of Vader, Magneto and Saruman going from the light to the dark is a pretty well established trope.

No one is arguing that Cersei was good. She was not, she was the central villain of the entire show. Is that not pretty ground breaking?  The central villain of a long running epic to be a woman?

Quote

Bran, apparently. The show ends on a positive note, with Bran as King. There is implied peace.

For the three weeks he's been king. That's it.

If you want to interpret  that the world of Westeros is now a fairly tale with no further conflict that is on you, not D&B or GRRM. Plenty of other fans are predicting the changes that would come from this, the world is open.

We have no idea how long there will be peace, how successful his reign will be. Please don't confuse your own assumptions of the 'future' for the authors.

Quote

 

Thus, Bran is the 'good King' to oppose the former 'bad Kings/Queens' - Robert, Joffrey, Cersei, Dany.

Dany was a good queen who turned bad Robert was a good man who turned into a mediocre king.

We have no idea what kind of king Bran will be. Do you not see what you are doing? You are imagining that Bran will be a good king and are now blaming the writers for it. They've done no such thing, you are creating problems that are not there.

And I guess this is were I'm done on this debate, its become clear that you are just going to invent things to be outraged about.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

They subverted us by having us expect an unconventional ending then ended conventionally - bravo D&D, bravo.

What would have been an unconventional ending? 

- Dany and Jon having a kid. 

- Jon turning "dark"

- Jon choosing his actual parentage instead of staying a fake "Stark".

Basically it ended with the meanie queen getting killed by our selfless protagonist after rejecting his real parentage and then him continuing to adventure in exile. This is hardly a new script.

Edited by Techmaester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Techmaester said:

...

Basically it ended with the meanie queen getting killed by our selfless protagonist after rejecting his real parentage and then him continuing to adventure in exile. This is hardly a new script.

Yeah, bittersweet hogwash. The whole thing was more like inferior grade baloney and stale bread.

I watched one video where it was pointed out that Greyworm would have called together that sorry group only to Red Wedding the whole bunch. Obviously, that scene was not going to be written and produced by the HBO GoT people. A rather amusing thought nevertheless.

A very slightly more likely presentation: Several armed Dothraki fellows appear from the sidelines. They express displeasure at not being invited to the discussion, and at all the credit-grabbing being undertaken by the Northerners. They announce that they and the Unsullied are now in control. Lord Royce rises and announces his support for the warriors. He points out that, not only were he and the other Vale lords and knights unhappy with northern credit-grabbing concerning the Battle of Winterfell, they also would like to point out that they saved Sansa and Jon’s precious skin. The falcon banner guys weren’t the ones who sided with the Boltons and thus gave tacit support to that little event at the Twins. Furthermore, Royce announces that he has discovered the true parentage of Sweet Bastard. The momma’s boy has no claim to rule the Vale. The Starks can have him if they want him. Otherwise, he can go The Fingers.

Then some distant cousins of Bobby B step forth. They question the ability of a non-queen to legitimize a bastard. They also point out that they are the ones who have been taking care of Storms End while being ignored by the supposed rulers. Finally, the Prince of Dorne steps into the company of his fellows. He says that the Dothraki and the Unsullied have agreed to turn Tyrion over to him and the Baratheons. They will question him on matters like his knowledge of Cersei and Jaime’s sexual activities, the nature of legitimate succession in the realm, and the use of wildfire.

Again, not a scene that was going to be presented on TV, but far superior to that collection of fan service and happy feel-goodism that we had dumped on us at the end of GoT.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/29/2019 at 9:20 AM, Techmaester said:

They subverted us by having us expect an unconventional ending then ended conventionally - bravo D&D, bravo.

What would have been an unconventional ending? 

- Dany and Jon having a kid. 

- Jon turning "dark"

- Jon choosing his actual parentage instead of staying a fake "Stark".

Basically it ended with the meanie queen getting killed by our selfless protagonist after rejecting his real parentage and then him continuing to adventure in exile. This is hardly a new script.

I call bullshit. His real parentage is that he is the son of Lyanna Stark of Winterfell and raised there by her own Stark brother at her explicit behest as his own flesh and blood. Which he was, through and through — he's just as real of a Stark as any of them. Jon knows who he really is, flaming Targ royalists to the contrary, and that's a Stark. It's in his blood, in his mind, in his heart, and in his soul. It's who he is, his identity. This nonsense is exactly why he had to leave to live with the free folk: the dumb, destructive royalists would never leave poor Jon alone. Bloodraven, guardian of the realm, isn't having any of it. Enough with the damn dragon civil wars already, he says, whether red or black: they've destroyed the realm too many times over. Jon is safe now, and happy and free.

Edited by CrypticWeirwood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was conventional. Because culturally, we've seen it before. It is not a novel concept. The execution makes it worthwhile.

But still controversy abounds because, again, Mr. Martin keeps pulling the Kansas City Shuffle on us. You care about the characters and their feelings, he pulls the supernatural out of his hat and you go 'oh, so it really is Lotr), but then the human factor pulls you in again,  you discuss politics, morality, the morality of politics and war and human advancement through this parabole.

And still, the endgame is quite simple. Human conflict leads to war if cooler heads won’t prevail. The more powerful the weapons, the more humanity should work to avoid war, to avoid suffering. The mere existence of weapons of mass destruction is an abomination. A danger that no 'just a little' mentality can justify.

At the end of the day? Add the existence of effective WMD's (all the more powerful as the dragons grow and magic gains traction in the world?) in a world without a notion of universally representative ellections? It's horror. You can only threaten their use so many times before some final moment or provocation tips you off that precipice, and you're a monster, or you keep threatening, and seen as weak, which in a medieval setting will then force your hand. Catch 22.

I suppose in the books it'll be worse. Can Victarion take away one of her dragons? Can Aegon, even as a suspected Blackfyre, be a dragonrider? Multiple powers geared to war with access to monstruous weapons. Do you see them sitting down to parlay even a Cold War?

And that's just the dragons, what about the other world ending conflict?

No, Bloodraven willing, magic gets jetisoned out to the far reaches of the world. And even with conflict remaining, we are human and so are people in our beloved 'verse? It'll be a cynic's job to figure it out at a more manageable level, with multiple intervenients.

Hells, we might even get a tax policy out of the whole thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The worst aspect about this ending is that the writers confirmed that Jon is neither living with the wildlings nor is he at Castle Black but rather isolates himself by ranging in the Far North. A very painful ending for him :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Kaapstad said:

The worst aspect about this ending is that the writers confirmed that Jon is neither living with the wildlings nor is he at Castle Black but rather isolates himself by ranging in the Far North. A very painful ending for him :(

Could you please give us a link to the writers saying all that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

Could you please give us a link to the writers saying all that?

Skip to 10:52

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Kaapstad said:

Skip to 10:52

Oh, I see. Thank you.

That video’s narrator appears to be referencing what S8E1’s writer Dave Hill told Entertainment Weekly in their 2019-05-23 article about how in the initial scripts for Season Eight, that Jorah would live to join Jon in taking the black just like his father Jeor had told Same he hoped would happen, but that they ended up not doing that because it required too many contortions throughout the rest of the short season's plot to credibly get Jorah way up there for the closing scene at the very, very end.

Quote

“For a long time we wanted Ser Jorah to be there at The Wall in the end,” writer Dave Hill says. “The three coming out of the tunnel would be Jon and Jorah and Tormund. But the amount to logic we’d have to bend to get Jorah up to The Wall and get him to leave Dany’s side right before [the events in the finale] … there’s no way to do that blithely. And Jorah should have the noble death he craves defending the woman he loves”

However, your video’s narrator seems to draw on more than just that EW source alone. He gives clear plot changes in each of the ensuing episodes that would allow for that alternate ending. What he says about Jon at the end must derive from that other source, not from the EW article I’ve linked to.

I cannot help but wonder what that source was. Might you know? I looked around a little bit for it but came up empty-handed.

Thanks.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kaapstad said:

The worst aspect about this ending is that the writers confirmed that Jon is neither living with the wildlings nor is he at Castle Black but rather isolates himself by ranging in the Far North. A very painful ending for him :(

It'd be a very bittersweet ending for the character, if indeed he is instrumental to halting both ice and fire, through being of ice and fire, that the world he saved is no longer the world he remembered and is no longer the world for him.

Hm, sounds familiar...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kaapstad said:

The worst aspect about this ending is that the writers confirmed that Jon is neither living with the wildlings nor is he at Castle Black but rather isolates himself by ranging in the Far North. A very painful ending for him :(

It'd be a very bittersweet ending for the character, if indeed he is instrumental to halting both ice and fire, through being of ice and fire, that the world he saved is no longer the world he remembered and is no longer the world for him.

Hm, sounds familiar...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×