I think this is the core problem. The Starks, or anyone else that's initially presented favorably, are not heroes and that's much of the point of the whole series. It plays with your expectations and assumptions. Characters that you think are utter scum at the beginning slowly grow over time to where you're suddenly realizing that you're rooting for them.
This is why I find the Song of Ice and Fire series interesting, there's plenty of pure escapist, ba dum tish, fantasy out there. And I have and will continue to enjoy those as well, but it's nice to have a contrast to that.
But the thing is that the Starks haven't really done anything morally wrong, although their soldiers certainly have, and yet they are constantly being punished. The Starks have the King over as their guest and Brann is pushed out of a tower, Ned agrees to help his friend lead the Kingdom and he gets killed, Robb tries to avenge his father and him and his mother and his wife and his newborn baby and even his fucking pet wolf all get murdered. I understand that these happened because of something the Starks did wrong, Ned was too honorable and Robb married Talisa and beheaded Carstark guy, but it gets a bit annoying after a while, seeing the same group of people get shit on over and over again.
For me I did like the episode but I'm not sure if the Red Wedding actually helped the plot at all or if Martin was just trying to shock the audience and show off how "nobody is safe". I guess we'll just have to wait and see, or I guess just read the books but I think thats cheating.
It's not just the Starks who experience loss. Think of how Tyrion and Jaime Lannister have suffered throughout their journey. In fact, it won't be long until the Lannisters tear each other apart as well.
And the Red Wedding does help the plot because now the Freys and the Boltons are going to be on everyone's hit list now, and the events that occur next are caused as a result of the Red Wedding. For example, Roose Bolton will become Warden of the North for his part in the Red Wedding while Wyman Manderly (who hasn't been introduced yet, formerly one of Robb's bannermen before the wedding) covertly works against him and the Freys. Stannis and Jon Snow in particular will play a greater role in the near future, as well.
While I understand the folks that want to stop, what drew me to the books is that they are unpredictable. Too often I am watching movies or reading books that you know exactly how it will turn out. Here, it has you guessing. I like my fiction to have basic good and evil archetypes; however, sometimes I like something different. Further, with GoT, the good guys don't always win, but in the long run the bad guys get what's coming to them with interest. Kind of like life. Because of last weeks episode, I now consider it one of the best shows ever. I put it with Twilight Zone, Cheers, Seinfeld, and Deadwood (not not ranked). Fabulous television.
Ned Stark was morally abhorrent and just plain stupid if you ask me, he pretty much got what was coming to him. He lead the realm into a giant multi-way war, killing god knows how many thousands (most of which probably don't even give a damn about the iron throne), all in the name of his own precious honor.
Hm. Not sure about this one. Aerys II went completely crazy-paranoid, started executing mostly-innocent people without trial in cruel ways, and showed every sign of getting worse. He managed to unite three of the great noble houses - Baratheon, Stark and Tully - against him. Even the Lannisters fought against him in the end. Ned was the leader of the Baratheon army's vanguard, not the rebellion overall.
Regardless of anything else Ned has done throughout his life, everyone in the series (with the exception of the surviving Targaryens, Viserys and Daenerys) seems to agree that deposing the Mad King was one of those things that had to be done.
The War of The Usurper I can kind of get behind (from what information I have about it, anyway), but I was really still talking about him directly causing The Clash of Kings, and doing it in the most harmful way possible. Even in the earlier war though, the Starks were being idiots and getting themselves (and others) killed. Ned's brother got himself, his companions, and their fathers all executed by going straight to the mad king and threatening to kill his son. It's a wonder the Starks lasted as long as they did, considering they all seem so eager to die.
Also if Robb still had Jamie hostage there's no way they would have pulled that shit with his life at risk. So basically Catelyn Stark got Robb killed. Also she should have gone straight after Walder instead of his dumb wife; she's a terrible judge of character.
Okay, those of you who watch the series and know the book probably know what this is all about as it concerns the events of the most recent GOT episode, "The rains of Castamere".
I gave up when they decided that cgi was a replacement for good acting, and intentionally destroying lore from the original ip for zero reason was a viable strategy for storytelling.
A lot of the people I see saying they love Game of Thrones because of how edgy and grim-dark it is are the same people I often see complaining about how much they dislike modern games, super-hero films, etc because those things are edgy and grim-dark.
Yeah. I don't get it.
Anyway, on topic.
If the violence, nudity, and overly dark nature of the story don't interest you, OP, then by all means "give up" on the series.
However, if a bad turn of events has actually elicited a real emotional response from you, then perhaps you should stay with it. Something about it clearly compelled you to go along with the narrative until this point.
dagens24 said:
Have fun dealing with real life trauma when you can't even deal with fictional trauma.
Wow. What a nice response you've provided. Very well thought out.
It certainly doesn't make you seem incredibly rude and condescending. Not at all...
But I guess you're right. I mean, it's not like people use story telling (in the form of tv shows, films, games, novels, etc) as a means of escapism. As a way to get away from, if only momentarily, the usual dark drama of real life.
Nope. Everyone wants their fiction to be ultra-real, grim-dark, gritty, and filled with gratuitous violence and sex. Anything else is just "wrong" or "childish", right?
You mean the son that just kidnapped and (most likely) raped his wife? I hardly see anything stupid or "morally abhorrent" in demanding justice be brought out against a rapist. Plus, he wasn't threatening to murder him as far as the can be seen, he was demanding a duel of honor. The difference is that it's set out beforehand, the "victim" had to agree to it, and either party could yield (at least if we're going by medieval standards) and surrender. The Mad King's response was to kidnap his father, burn him alive, and have the elder stark brother strangled to death. Saying it's the stark's fault is like claiming the victim is responsible for the murder, justice pretty much demanded the king be deposed.
Nothing morally abhorrent about that part, just pure stupidity. The rebellion itself makes perfect sense, but instead of doing anything like that Brandon Stark and some of his friends go straight to the red keep and ask that Rheagar "come out and die". Brandon Stark just delivered himself to the mad king, and he even gave him the perfect excuse to have him arrested and executed for treason. Suicidal would be the word I'd use to describe that.
Secondly, the Clash of Kings was pretty much inevitable, Ned had the choice between allowing the Lannisters to take the throne, which would be blatantly going against the law (for reasons that are spoilered) or supporting the "rightful king". The only act of stupidity he had was failing to predict Little Finger's actions, and even then we can't blame someone for not having psychic powers. Hell, his confession was intended to avoid the Clash of Kings, it was Jofferey's actions that lead to it occurring.
Ned Stark isn't the sole reason the Clash of Kings happened, of course, but there were plenty of ways he could have avoided it, or at least put himself in a better position to deal with it. He could have allowed the Lannisters to have the throne, and just walked away, but no, that would break the law (not that he particularly cared about the succession laws when he installed Robert Baratheon, mind). He could have sided with Renly, the popular claimant to the throne, who suggested they seize the royal children before Cersei retaliated, but no, that would have been "dishonorable". Instead, one of his few supporters in King's Landing runs off to gather his forces for the now inevitable war.
He could even have taken the throne for himself, by going with Petyr Baelish's plan. Perhaps he'd have been able to do some good for a change as regent. He wouldn't have been betrayed if he'd given Baelish an actual reason to support him, but instead he told Baelish he intended to give the throne away to the most unpopular claimant of them all, Stannis Baratheon. Ned knew Baelish well enough to understand that he's a self-serving man, he didn't have to be psychic to realise he was going to side with the person giving him a better deal.
The Clash of Kings stemmed mainly from Ned's supposed coup and, more importantly, his execution by Jofferey. Ned confessed, hoping to be sent to the Night's Watch, that way the North wouldn't have a Causus Belli (cause for war) to attack the south. Without any cause for war, the honor-bound Starks would not fight, and any lord that did take up arms would be essentially committing a crime and would be hard-pressed for allies. It would be political/military suicide to take up arms. When Jofferey killed Ned Stark, who had confessed his "crimes", he was murdering not only a popular political figure, but one who should, by tradition, have been sent to the Night's Watch. It would be the equivalent of if the President somehow vetoed a verdict and got a man previously sent to prison for four years executed. A HIGHLY unpopular move.
With Jofferey destroying popular support for himself in a single swing of the sword, Stannis could declare war. He already believed beforehand that Jofferey was not a Baratheon, and his blatant disregard for tradition and honor could earn Stannis a claim to the throne, not only by seniority, but by the fact the current ruler is too mentally unstable for the position. Stannis' claim to the throne, eventually lead to his more popular brother (once again, using Ned Stark's "illegal" execution as a causus belli) gathering his allies and attempting to seize the throne for himself.
In the end, the war was because of Jofferey's plain idiotic move. Without Ned's death, there would be no rightful cause for war at least right then. Stannis may make a dash for the throne, but he would have even less allies; simply because breaking a treaty or law is the same in westeros as it is here: political and military suicide.
You're right about Joffrey being an idiot, and doing plenty of stupid things which caused the war, but that doesn't change Ned's earlier stupidity or his part in the blame at all. He put his own sense of honor above what was best for himself, his family, and the entire kingdom, and they all suffered for his selfish choices.
Wow. What a nice response you've provided. Very well thought out.
It certainly doesn't make you seem incredibly rude and condescending. Not at all...
But I guess you're right. I mean, it's not like people use story telling (in the form of tv shows, films, games, novels, etc) as a means of escapism. As a way to get away from, if only momentarily, the usual dark drama of real life.
Nope. Everyone wants their fiction to be ultra-real, grim-dark, gritty, and filled with gratuitous violence and sex. Anything else is just "wrong" or "childish", right?
This episode has been my favourite by a mile as I now, finally GET the world it exists in.
So many works of fiction create new and exciting worlds that work to the same morality that we live by but Westeros has it's own morality that only two characters completely get (Cersei and Little Finger) and two others are learning it fast (Arya and Daenerys). The morality of pragmatism; to do whatever is required to fulfil ones goals.
It's an intriguing feeling to have to question your own morality but that is what GoT does; what happened to Rob and co. albeit devious and cowardly, was justified because of Robs hypocrisy at claiming the moral high ground while simultaneously going back on a vow made to the gods.
We all know the saying about the "game of thrones"; unfortunately for Rob, like his father he lost the game never even knowing he was playing.
I think this was one of the best episodes of any series to be on television ever. I'm hoping they can top it when another festivity results in lots of important people getting killed.
Game of Thrones embraces the idea of consequence and does away with plot armour. The "heroes" or "protagonists" of GoT make stupid mistakes that can bite them in the ass in the future. When they do bite them in the ass they suffer for it, often in a very permanent way. This isn't some episode of Thundercats where you know Liono will yell "Thundercats", use his magic sword to resolve every plot device unscathed. No, Rob Stark and his mother get stabbed to death. Joffery gets to be a total ****. Everyone's favorite dwarf gets no respect despite being the most deserving of it... or maybe not, maybe the dwarf gets to ride a dragon and slay all his foes, maybe that little shit of a king gets raped by a pack of howler monkeys and maybe Lady Stark recovers from her wound.
In the Game of Thrones it's fuck or be fucked, but don't fuck too much or someone else will find a reason to fuck you for being such a fucking fucker.
I don't get it either. Although I guess it's the highest compliment to his work that people can become so invested in the characters that they can't bear to go on after a massacre. Personally, it'd make me want to continue more than anything.
And I'm also really not sure why people are still shocked by what Martin will do to his characters. From the very first book with the death of Ned Stark he was making it clear what this series was all about and that no one was safe. Anyone expecting happy endings after that was fooling themselves. And anyone not expecting some of the casual brutality that permeates the world of Westeros to never affect main characters really wasn't paying attention.
There are no heroes in Game of Thrones. (Except for Daenerys because she's the best.) Only several factions vying for the same goal.
That plot thread met its end because it 1) wasn't going anywhere and 2) will serve to heighten tensions and emotional drives in other characters. It was for the betterment of the narrative that it turned out the way it did.
So many works of fiction create new and exciting worlds that work to the same morality that we live by but Westeros has it's own morality that only two characters completely get (Cersei and Little Finger) and two others are learning it fast (Arya and Daenerys). The morality of pragmatism; to do whatever is required to fulfil ones goals.
You're not wrong. pragmatism is everything in the GOT universe, it's why guys like Tywin (who is basically pragmatism incarnate) climb so high. Arya's learning it, but Dany, not so much. She had her army, and the city she was seizing offered her free money and ships just to leave them alone. The pragmatic choice was to take their offer, since it was the quickest route to her goal (I.E. westeros) with the smallest sacrifice of manpower. The fact that she's so hellbent on her abolition crusade shows that she's rather committed to traditional morality. to the point that she lacks focus, and becomes a bit boring to follow, for me.
I kind of understand. GRRM warns not to get too attached to characters, but it's the characters that move the story, and there are some good ones. Never much cared for the Starks, too straightforward. I like more nuanced and complex characters. Still, the red wedding was a stomach ache. if the starks were what you were reading the story for, and Sansa or Arya aren't enough to keep you going, it's understandable you'd want to stop.
Me, I know Tyrion and Jaime are both doomed, but until they die, I'll be here watching/reading.
See, I feel like I'm lucky, because I never particularly liked that group of characters. I'm far more invested in others, so when it happened I was just like "oh, well, more screen time for others I guess".
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
