More Impressions on Game of Thrones

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

Because he requires proof of threat before resorting to violence upon innocents? Martin may as well have put "Ned is speaking to modern sensibilities" in neon flashing lights over his head there.

Modern sensibilities in an decidedly unmodern world is the definition of "unwise".

As I said, I'm talking about the narrative's greater stance, not the rules of the society. I can understand why people within this society make the choices they do, taking into account how their environment's value system shapes their choices, but that doesn't mean that Martin is not indicting the greater society. I'm honestly surprised anyone can read ASOIAF and not see how Martin ultimately deconstructs the violent martial society of knights and badassery, and the fact that people depend so much, so readily, on might.

Martin also invests a whole lot of time in pointing out constantly that Robb is in for deep shit once he takes that crown. Just because he gives his characters reason for making their choices, it doesn't mean he's siding with them. Honestly, who would mess with House Stark if they went home after Ned's death? Who is going to come up to that frozen waste land and make a claim for it just because they didn't avenge Ned? Or are you saying there'd be infighting from the bannermen? The funny thing is the only one who is proven traitorous is Roose Bolton, and he was only less inclined to remain loyal once Robb declared for himself. See what Martin did there?

Your deconstruction is about a interesting to me and tell me about as much as the characters as medical doctor showing me an X-Ray of Catelyn. I seriously doubt that GRRM set out to write a deconstruction novel of medieval fantasy, because if he did I would have no interest in reading it. I simply take him at his word that he had a few scenes in his head, created some interesting characters and just began writing to see where the story would go. The story is the story, not an hidden attempt at deconstruction. The fact that it shows the brutality of the world is simply realistic portrayal.

Robb's choice versus Catelyn choice isn't "medieval sensibilities" versus "modern sensibilities", it was the choice that every person has when faced against an enemy, surrender or fight. Surrender has its downside, and its upside, fighting has its downside, and its upside.

And in that particular scene, all the lords around Robb saw was the upside (partially because they had an ace in the hole), and Catelyn correctly perceives that there was a downside too that they were mostly ignoring. But that doesn't mean her perspective is more "wise", because she, like you, fails to see the potential downside of what she wanted. Which is the fall of House Stark, and possibly Tully as well Bolton certainly would have immediately began plotting against him. Recruiting banner lords who have lost men, land, small folk etc, in the war, by telling them that Robb Stark will not protect them but he, Bolton, will.

The Riverland lords, knowing that next time Tywin send his harassments, they won't be defended, will decide that it would be easier to just pledge loyalty to the Rock rather than the Riverrun. Since Tywin will defend them but Riverrun won't. There will be a massive desertion to follow.

[Lady Blackfish]

The riverlords will trust Tywin to defend them, though it was Tywin's attacks that the riverlords resented in the first place? Bolton would have betrayed Robb for keeping peace with Tywin, when in the books Martin shows that Bolton betrayed Robb for fighting Tywin?

I seriously doubt that GRRM set out to write a deconstruction novel of medieval fantasy, because if he did I would have no interest in reading it.

Well there we come to the crux of it, I suppose. I don't see how ASOIAF is anything else but a deconstruction of (pseudo)medeival fantasy, so I suppose we have little more to discuss based on such a lack of common ground. I've read so many other fans agreeing about the deconstruction that I can say at the very least it's an interpretation of the novels that goes far beyond me as an individual. I wonder what HBO's stance will be.

And I'm not sure what you're trying to say about modern sensibilities. Obviously the characters themselves don't know that they're appealing to modern tastes, they're only fictional characters. That doesn't negate the ability of a story to appeal to modern tastes.

[Ran]

There's definitely a deconstructive aspect to the series, in my opinion, so yeah, LB isn't alone in this. Doesn't mean we must be right, but it's definitely not out of left field to read the novel as participating in some deconstruction.

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

I am not saying it's out of left field, but I certainly do think the "deconstruction" interpretation is popular because that the the method of literary criticism that has been predominantly taught in literary criticism academia.

But when you're holding a hammer everything looks like a nail, and in this case I just don't find the evidence that this was the intent of the author to be persuasive.

I personally think to read the tale in that fashion is to miss the story in the story, which in the end is about the people and their circumstances and the struggles of the human condition, not some class bases or gender studies based critique of the medieval social structure. GRRM has repeated said that when it comes to writing, he's a gardener, not an architect. I find that analogy appropriate, it says to him the story he writes is an organic living thing, not a machine that can be dissected into its parts and analyzed.

But I think we're getting way afield from the intent of this thread. We can maybe continue it elsewhere and stop cluttering up this thread.

[Ran]

Err.... Forgot that the conversation had moved on. ;)

Someone up-thread asked about Alfie in the godswood scene:

Purely normal Alfie hair, near as I could tell. Fairly blond. Basically what we saw from the original pilot's beheading scene, and what he had when he was at the first Belfast moot which took place during the pilot filming.

[The Imp's Advocate]

I think we might be misusing the word "deconstruction" here. It's a literary theory based around the idea that language is unstable and cannot adequately convey meaning, but it's frequently misused to mean "analysis" or "subversion."

asoiaf DOES subvert common fantasy tropes, but I don't think any novel could possibly be "deconstructive." It's a philosophy you apply to tear down meaning in texts.

[Ran]

I'm not sure I agree. Deconstructive reading surely implies that deconstructive writing is also possible, and there's a few novels that are often enough referred to as deconstructive in their origins. I think deconstruction is being used not so much in the sense of subversion, as the process of close examination of contradiction. If one were to say ... The Blade Itself subverts the wise old wizard, I think that's fair enough. And if one were to say, Coetzee's Foe is a deconstructivist approach at interrogating concepts of narrative to bare essential contradictions in our understanding of fiction and its meaning, well, that's certainly something one can discuss.

It's certainly true there can't be a novel that's entirely deconstructive -- but a novel can be written by someone who has attempted to deconstruct some essential cultural or literary work and their writing is informed by this.

I suppose it's fair to say that GRRM may not be applying Derridda's brand of deconstruction -- for one thing, who understood it besides Derrida? ;) -- but I think that some of the oppositions in the text are deliberately-enough placed that they not only invite deconstruction, they reveal that the author has been thinking of these things in a deconstructive fashion.

[Padraig]

Robb didn't completely stop listening to Catelyn when he became king. She got him to offer some sort of peace to the Lannisters and she got him to let her go to Renly.

I simply claimed that Catelyn's story can easily appeal to modern television sentiments. Do you really have such a major objection to that?

I don't think I ever particularly objected to that idea. I merely objected to some of your interpretations of events in the book.

As for de-construction. I agree that GRRM raises some questions regarding how characters act in such a setting. I'm not sure he is saying that they should act in a different manner though. If he did, then they the setting would be effectively changed (not really medieval anymore) and it would no longer be what he is trying to deconstruct. Anyhow, i'm not saying that the narrative approves of vengeance. I'm saying that the society in that book does. That Robb was right to seek it (although he would call it justice) and that he would have suffered if he hadn't. Now, as it happens, he may have suffered more because of the path he did take but that was partly bad luck. I wouldn't say that GRRM was trying to effectively punish Robb because he refused to accept peace at the end of aGoT. Otherwise, every family needs to be punished. (OTOH, part of the deconstruction is that everyone leading family is effectively punished. Still though, I don't expect us to reach a stage at the end of this series where everyone swears off violence).

The Karstarks are an obvious example of action and gratification. I'm not sure who is a great example of wisdom and forebearance. Asha actually isn't bad but surrounded by Ironborn doesn't help her. I thought she gave a realistic picture of where the Ironborn were but Euron's offer was always going to appeal more to them. Catelyn's offer was just too idealistic IMO. Davos does well too but he was quite happy to kill Mel when he thought she led Stannis to disaster.

Anyhow, i'd fear mainly for the Riverlands if there was peace with the Lannisters.

[The Imp's Advocate]

Deconstructive reading surely implies that deconstructive writing is also possible

Hahaha, exactly the kind of duality deconstructionists use in their "analysis". Something you're hiding from me, Ran? :laugh:

Anyway, certainly some books open themselves to deconstruction more than others. But I don't think it's something that can be present in a text. You can impose a deconstructionist viewpoint on a book, but it's inherently nihilistic. Having never read Foe, I can't say whether Coetzee had a point to make, but I'm guessing he did, about literary structure or language itself. A deconstructionist would run around trying to prove how his undefinable (in language) messages about contradiction contradict themselves.

Anyway, I'm getting off track. I suppose what I objected to was the casual use of deconstruction as a synonym for "subvert". If GRRM has a point to make about honor, duty, family, and our preconceived notions of fantasy novels, he isn't really deconstructing anything. Playing with our expectations and dealing with important issues is not the same as deconstruction, it's just telling a resonant and interesting story. While it is by all means an intelligent and entertaining series, you do it a disservice to suggest it's deconstructionist :P

[The Anti-Targ]

It would be nice if they played Cat's opposition to Ned becoming hand as he being more perceptive, both about her husband's shortcomings as a political animal and hence unsuitability as a Hand in the current political climate in KL (or any political climate in KL for that matter). And seeing that ultimately there is something rotten with Bob's rule that Ned won't be able to overcome and that the Starks are more likely to suffer than benefit.

Personally I like a female character that has superior foresight and perception of the realities and takes a long term view about what's best for the family. I'll take that over a woman who is seeking power to advance the family. That's been done before anyway. It also fits better with the Tully words of Family, Duty, Honour. If you play the short term game then you're actually cheapening those words considerably. If she tells Ned that if he takes the Hand-ship then things will turn to shit for the Starks, well by the end of season 1 she'll look like the smartest and wisest person in Westereos. Same applies to a Sansa betrothal to Joff.

If they play her as a weepy, wet blanket wife, that will be shit.

[Padraig]

It would be nice if they played Cat's opposition to Ned becoming hand as he being more perceptive, both about her husband's shortcomings as a political animal and hence unsuitability as a Hand in the current political climate in KL

That could work. With Jon's death, it was always going to be a difficult task.

It also fits better with the Tully words of Family, Duty, Honour. If you play the short term game then you're actually cheapening those words considerably.

Not sure about this though. The family's prestige would only grow if Ned became Hand and Sansa wedding the heir to the crown. Although, if she thought Ned would fail, then that would put a different spin on things. Although, Ned still had a duty to the throne.

They could be trying to contrast the Catelyn from pre-assassination attempt on Bran and the Cat afterwards (more dynamic and decision making).

[Lady Blackfish]

Robb didn't completely stop listening to Catelyn when he became king. She got him to offer some sort of peace to the Lannisters and she got him to let her go to Renly.

She actually said Robb's terms were way too high, but he found the idea of lesser terms too hard to stomach (basically the thought galled him). She didn't want to go to Renly, Robb forced her, threatening to send Greatjon Umber otherwise. She looks back with begrudging fondness on his age-appropriately cunning ploy, basically admitting that he tricked her.

I merely objected to some of your interpretations of events in the book.

I really don't mean to come off as particularly argumentative here, perhaps I'm simply not explaining myself well. It's easily believable that I was probably sloppy with my wording (I never did study Derrida myself). Hopefully we won't be talking past each other one more time; I'll try again. If you want to say that Cat's plan was too idealistic, that may be so, I don't agree but it's not particularly important in this conversation (at least not the point I was initially trying to make that started this whole thing). Even if Cat is too idealistic, she's really in the same pot as Ned, then, too good for the dirty game, and that's sellable to a TV audience. I myself think that Cat would have had an easier time had she not been a mother, a woman, and a proponent of "weak womanly" peace, so to me that qualifies easily enough as a feminist tragedy, but I'm rather sorry I brought the word up if that's causing any issue. What I was really interested in discussing was the appeal of the arc, it's there, they can find it and sell it. And if they were to, as I personally hope they do, as I think it's part of the canon and aspect that makes it stand out from other pseudo-historical epics, then I think it'd be in their best interest to build up Cat's political aspects before push comes to shove, so she doesn't come off as unqualified to express an opinion. They have season one to lay that groundwork, otherwise as Catelyn loses her clout it's not going to register as a loss, and there's lesser movement in the personal arc.

I'm not sure he is saying that they should act in a different manner though. If he did, then they the setting would be effectively changed (not really medieval anymore) and it would no longer be what he is trying to deconstruct.

I don't see how that's true. The setting would effectively change if the characters acted differently. But acting differently is not the same thing as Martin saying the characters should act differently. Martin can say that a character would act this way, but should act another way. It's not difficult at all. The things that actually happen are not always what an author condones or thinks ought happen. "If we all change, we can make a better world" says the sole voice of reason, standing on the brink of history, as no one listens, and the rest is all she wrote, etc. And of course, there's also the fact that history is fluid and societies do eventually change as individuals within them change. We've seen Dany put paid to a society of slavers, for example. Between the is/ought issue and the fluidity of history, surely there's enough space to make Cat's pleas for peace, her ponderings about the meaninglessness of shiny hats, her lamentation that the land has bled enough, etc, resonant with a modern audience.

If they are trying to sharpen the divide between Catelyn before and after the assassination attempt, then I would prefer it would be regarding her action just before the assassination attempt, while she was still grieving due to his fall. I don't really want her to come off as a sedate and un-dynamic person before Bran's fall, because then it'd be like the only thing that gets her going is protecting her children. That's not an unworthy goal at all, but it was nice knowing that her ambit included less traditionally mother bear type things. It also made her more realistic to have aspects of her personality that concerned relative luxuries like the higher stages of power, and differentiated her from Ned. That actually made her more interesting to me on first read, she was a bit of her own person undefined by her husband's ethos, but it seems to have made her unlikeable to many others :dunno:

They could have had Cat object to Robert's offer on political grounds rather than emotional ones, that would have addressed the point Anti-Targ made. I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to foresee that things would turn to shit at that point in time, but be that as it may, if HBO wanted to wash Cat's hands free of that blood so to speak, they could have had her point out political reasons for refusing (the Lannisters are shady, look they've tried to kill Jon Arryn, this is a trap, etc). In any case, the way they've played it is the way they've played it, I just hope the impression of the character will shift after we get past the first two episodes.

[Padraig]

She actually said Robb's terms were way too high, but he found the idea of lesser terms too hard to stomach (basically the thought galled him). She didn't want to go to Renly, Robb forced her, threatening to send Greatjon Umber otherwise.

It was still her plan to send somebody to Renly and to send terms to the Lannisters (Robb would have been happy enough to not even make an offer).

Honestly, I don't expect most of the audience to support Cat's peace plea. I expect that it will actually want the Lannisters to be punished. I thought the King of the North scene was great (whatever that says about me). At the same time, because her plea was rejected, I did sympathise with her. I could understand where she was coming from. OTOH, if the plea had been accepted, I would rage at the injustice (because the Lannisters would be getting away with their crimes).

I don't mind the term feminist tragedy. Certainly that world is not a great time for women. Although i'm not sure would anyone have convinced those people to make peace. At the same time, you are right that there is an arc around Cat's story. And it would be nice if her story was more than a mother's story. As you say, some important foundation work is done in those early chapters in aGoT. So we probably don't disagree about the overall point. Just some of the points around it.

Martin can say that a character would act this way, but should act another way.

The problem with this is that its very one-sided. You are right that all the corruption, venality and vengeance is far from condoned. But given its existence, can the Starks refuse to take part in that world? Ned tried to behave honourably and was killed as a reward. So the only thing the Starks could have done (and avoided their fall) was to refuse Robert's offer and stay safe in the North. As safe as rejecting the king makes you anyhow...

Or Robb could have tried to make some sort of peace with the Lannisters. But at best, it was always going to be an tension filled peace.

War is such a major part of that existence that even though GRRM doesn't condone it, I don't think he offers a way out for those families. Maybe at the end of this war there will be a "never again" attitude like at the end of WW1. (Irony intended about WW1). I do think that the Starks will win out in the end but only because the corrupt end up feeding on themselves.

Even Dany showed no forebearance when she got rid of slavers (temporarily). (As in, the amount of people that died). How that arc ends will be very interesting. She is trying to right a wrong but she may have to keep going to extreme lengths to do it.

I don't really want her to come off as a sedate and un-dynamic person before Bran's fall, because then it'd be like the only thing that gets her going is protecting her children.

That's true. Unfortunately, i'm wondering is that what they are going to do though. Its a simpler comparison to make (post and pre assassination).

I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to foresee that things would turn to shit at that point in time, but be that as it may, if HBO wanted to wash Cat's hands free of that blood so to speak, they could have had her point out political reasons for refusing (the Lannisters are shady, look they've tried to kill Jon Arryn, this is a trap, etc).

Yup. Its almost a surprise they didn't do that. Would make things a lot simpler. Here is Lysa's letter after all...why would the Starks face that kind of trouble. (While Ned would feel more obligated to find the murderer of his foster father). Simple conflict.

[Jon Westerland]

If this is the wrong place I aplogize.

I don't like some of the visual style. It doesn't look like the pagaentry the books. I expected pavilions, and courts and the general colorfulness that characterized the book. The color hiding the grey inside. Unfortunatly, the world looks very dark and drab, with

While the style is good for the Starks and the north, it isn't good for the south in summer in my opinion and leaves out some of the books most interesting atmospheres.

[Lady Blackfish]

The problem with this is that its very one-sided (...)

It's not really a problem w.r.t. my point because my point is essentially at that moment, Cat speaks to modern sensibilities. That's really it (and all this started from my comment, so I'm assuming everything else is a fallout from that). I'm not sure what the rest of this chatter is about? Martin gives us a world dominated by corruption and when you are part of that world it's hard to stay clean from that corruption. That doesn't mean the audience can't at the very least have mixed feelings about participation in it.

Though really, I think Martin pulled us into emotionally wanting what the bannermen and Robb wanted in that king in the north scene scene, vengeance for Ned, by making us love Ned so much, and then he proved us wrong for that emotionalism, because it's still emotionalism. By the time we get to Asha's scene at the kingsmoot, we see that we've seen this scene before, and we wanted it then, but now we're wiser, etc. Bran's attempted murderer has still not been caught, that's very unjust, yet so many readers want Jaime to go free and find Cat's pursuit of him harsh and unsympathetic. Sometimes justice becomes a white whale. I boggle that people can't side with Cat at the very least in retrospect, given the way they say "Oh Ned should've never left Winterfell" without being able to know at that time that things would turn out badly.

But I suppose further discussion won't get us very far. Personally I very much hope that HBO realizes that Martin plays some traditional epic manly macho themes with a slightly iconoclastic bent, I for one would not care for this series as much without that and think it could give this series a unique flavor. We'll just have to wait and see where HBO takes it.

[Padraig]

It's not really a problem w.r.t. my point because my point is essentially at that moment, Cat speaks to modern sensibilities.

Ok. Fair enough. It is interesting that Cat speaks more towards modern sensibilities in some ways, yet that does her no favours with some readers. OTOH, modern sensibilities (no more than historic sensibilities) would always desire justice for murder, so even in that way GRRM leaves us with no simple choice.

The Asha comparison doesn't really work for me because as you said, we haven't as much invested in them. Certainly not in Euron or Victarion. But it would be interesting if Jaime does encounter Bran at some stage. Like how Sandor was tried for Mycah's murder.

I personally don't think Robb or Ned did much wrong. They died because their enemies were more corrupt and desperate. Similarly Catelyn. But then, I've probably romanticised their tragic ends.

Anyhow yes, we'll see what HBO does. Hopefully they can do some clever things.

While the style is good for the Starks and the north, it isn't good for the south in summer in my opinion and leaves out some of the books most interesting atmospheres.

Interestingly, if they had gone for a more northern European look for KL, it would probably have been even grimmer. Although, once we see the tourney in full flow, we could see some nice colour. :)

[Ran]

Jon,

Perfectly appropriate place to comment. :) I admit, the fan in me will always wish they had gone full-tilt in the direction of colorful pageantry that GRRM describes in the novels, but... it's an interpretation, and I guess they wanted to interpret things a certain way.

[HawkZ]

So I apologize if this is a de-rail from the substantially more interesting convo and analysis up-thread, but do we know if all the footage in the 15 min. screener was from actual episodes? Like, I'm wondering if the scene where Alfie is blond was maybe some kind of test shoot w/ Michelle Fairley? I know that doesn't actually make much sense, but it seems somewhat less implausible to me than them doing all the work on Theon's hair in post... kinda sorta.

Not that I honestly care what color Theon's hair is, but this particular mystery is driving me insane! :laugh:

[Ran]

It looked pretty complete to me, and everyone was in costume and all. I'm really not sure what to make of it.

[HawkZ]

So odd. Well, I guess as with many things, we'll just have to wait and see. Though if anyone does come across an explanation, I'm kind of dying to hear it. :)