Game of Thrones

[Comrade Jacob]

someone should do a Marxist-analysis on this series. I've watched the first 2 episodes and I'm loving it. Can someone who has seen more than 2 episodes give me an analysis? This is just a bit of fun.

[Rafiq]

Here you go: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/04/game-of-thrones-season-five-marxism/

Two things should be established: An explanation for its popularity, which would be long and arduous, but more important, and finally a "Marxist" analysis of the setting. Which is perfectly possible as long as you have a decent sense of humor.

Basically, it seems like Westeros is nearing the end of feudal society. In Essos, you have Braavos, a city of free former slaves which resembles Renessiance Italy: It is spear-heading capitalist mercantilism. The Westerosi empire, which is indebted toward the Iron Bank of Braavos, has absolutely no way to pay back the bank within current productive relations of feudalism. The seemingly last vestige of feudal society untainted by mercantile developments would have been the almost independent North, which in this case mostly resembles the stubborn and tribal-like feudal Scotland with the Ironborn raiders representing the various viking sea raiders and so on. It's a bit schizophrenic and there's no clear allegory. The Lannisters are the Spanish, and the Dornishmen are the Moors of Spain (who were, incidentally, historically actually a more "tolerant" people).

Onward with what's going on in the show: In Westeros, the most progressive monarch is Stannis Baratheon who clearly has the predisposition to end feudalism. Firstly, Stannis establishes a "meritocracy" and is fiercely suspicious of the lords fighting him. He is predisposed to the bourgeois value of equality of all before the law. That's why he adopts the religion of the lord of the light, because allegorically it represents the protestant reformation. In addition, he got loans from the Iron Bank of Braavos, so he will probably favor more mercantile policies if he gains the throne in order to pay them back, which is why he is, in a way, an anti-feudal character. Stannis defies feudal values, and while remaining staunchly a conservative, he's only a conservative in the bourgeois sense: He sees little distinction between lords and the lowborn, has always despised the Faith of the Seven, the religion of westerosi feudalism, and has a strong notion of Justice.

Also, the religion of light has also taken root with the Brotherhood without banners, who represent the proto-Communist peasant rebellion of 1525. Thoros of Myr is a clear ringer for the theologian Thomas Muntzer, and Beric Dondarian, a clear ringer for the renegade of noble birth Florian Geyer who uses his military expertise to aid Muntzer and the peasant rebellion. So it's clear that the lord of light religion is the real protestant reformation in the show, because the excess of the transition to capitalist society is already present. In addition, I should add that red priests attempt to rally up slaves in some of the free cities in order to incite a slave rebellion. So there's that too.

The show directors wanted to portray the Faiths' militant led by the high sparrow as a "communist uprising" but in reality, at least in the books, it's more similar and more closer to resembling the counter-reformation and the council of Trent, restoring old feudal values and so on. The high sparrow in the show is only a man of the people insofar as any Catholic saint was, he's a reactionary. Finally, it looks like Daenerys wants to abolish feudalism by rallying the common people of westeros, but I can't imagine what she would represent historically. This season she's really been something of a sellout trying to compromise with the former masters instead of just annihilating them.

So yeah. There's my stupid take on Game of Thrones in quasi-Marxist terms. All around an excellent show and I highly recommend it to everyone.

[Tim Cornelis]

What would khaleesi be, in a recent episode (SPOILER SOMEWHAT, NOT REALLY) she clearly revealed herself to be anti-noble, anti-aristocrat. She's also anti-slavery. Is she a premature bourgeois revolutionary, which means the material conditions would force her to concede (as she has already partially done).

[RedSonRising]

What would khaleesi be, in a recent episode (SPOILER SOMEWHAT, NOT REALLY) she clearly revealed herself to be anti-noble, anti-aristocrat. She's also anti-slavery. Is she a premature bourgeois revolutionary, which means the material conditions would force her to concede (as she has already partially done).

In a sense, it makes way. She's definitely eliminating the stagnant statuses of feudalistic bondage and giving the aristocracy no quarter (although her plans for marriage indicate such a concession).

One wonders who she would want to rule in her stead. You could easily expect her to want her offspring to rule to reestablish a dynasty, but I would be least surprised of all the rulers for her to renounce strict bloodline monarchical succession.

[The Feral Underclass]

The 8th episode of Season 5 is probably the best episode so far in my view. Better than the last episode of Season 4 and better even than the red wedding episode.

[Antiochus]

What would khaleesi be, in a recent episode (SPOILER SOMEWHAT, NOT REALLY) she clearly revealed herself to be anti-noble, anti-aristocrat. She's also anti-slavery. Is she a premature bourgeois revolutionary, which means the material conditions would force her to concede (as she has already partially done).

She is also insane...

How is she "anti-noble"? Her whole 'legitimacy' rests on the fact that her family brutally conquered Westeros and enslaved the people there. She is a terribly poor ruler. She is too 'conservative' (unlike Stannis; who while morally conservative is clearly open to new ideas if they serve him) for the masses and too 'liberal' for the nobility. She straddles this middle ground and she is simply not politically tact enough to use it.



In a sense, it makes way. She's definitely eliminating the stagnant statuses of feudalistic bondage and giving the aristocracy no quarter (although her plans for marriage indicate such a concession).


No.

*Spoilers from the book ahead, kind of*

First off, Dany can't have children. She is barren. This is made clear in several episodes and throughout the book, she can't continue her family line. Nevertheless, she emphasizes AGAIN and AGAIN her "family", how is she trying to "end feudalism"? Slaver's bay isn't even a feudal society, it is a slave society like the ones that proceeded feudalism in the real world. Also, there is no indication that she would end feudalism since her entire reign depends on it.


the most progressive monarch is Stannis Baratheon who clearly has the predisposition to end feudalism. Firstly, Stannis establishes a "meritocracy" and is fiercely suspicious of the lords fighting him. He is predisposed to the bourgeois value of equality of all before the law. That's why he adopts the religion of the lord of the light, because allegorically it represents the protestant reformation. In addition, he got loans from the Iron Bank of Braavos, so he will probably favor more mercantile policies if he gains the throne in order to pay them back

While not a monarch, Petyr Baelish is the only "Capitalist" on the show. This is made fairly clear by his meteoric rise through power. There is a description in Storm of Swords from Tyrion's POV that highlights this quite well, I'll just quote from memory:


"He (Baelish) didn't simply let the money sit in a vault [...] he purchased grain when it was cheap in the summer, stored it[...] had bakeries make bread and sell it in the winter [...] he could make money out of thin air while my father (Tywin) could only make it from the gold mines of the Westernlands"


And finally, the Army of the Dead, mindless zombies that kill anyone in sight at the behest of their shadowy and cold masters; clearly a reference to Stalinism :laugh: jk.

[Fakeblock]

Daenerys seems to be caught in a contradiction between her interest in the preservation of the state apparatus and her progressive (though paternalistic) ideals. Will she bring Absolutism to Westeros (she doesn't have a concept of divine right, but she comes close)?

[Antiochus]

Basically, it seems like Westeros is nearing the end of feudal society.

Really? The real end to feudalism in Europe came as a result of the discovery of the Americas and the first true global trade networks. There isn't that possibility in the GoT universe (that we know of).

Its true that Bravos represents a sort of weird mix between the Italian city states and Britain of the 19th century, in its zeal to "end slavery" (not for moral reasons off course, so as to not compete with slave labor).

If united, it seems inevitable that Westeros conquers the Free-Cities and Slaver's bay. The Lannisters to me always represented more of the Plantagenets than anything else, given their obvious symbols but also the fact that they represent a 'new' Feudalism that will sweep away at the anachronistic feudalism of the North/Storm Lords which mimicks an Anglo-Saxon sort of state.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Yeah I think the army of the dead actually represents the only revolutionary force, the sparrows are clearly reactionary populists and the dragon lady is using emancipation as a means to an end imo and is not sincere. I never read any of the books though so I'm missing some character development obviously

[Antiochus]

Yeah I think the army of the dead actually represents the only revolutionary force, the sparrows are clearly reactionary populists and the dragon lady is using emancipation as a means to an end imo and is not sincere. I never read any of the books though so I'm missing some character development obviously

:ohmy: Are you trolling? The Others (the icy men) and the Whights (dead people) are "revolutionary"? How so? They just kill everything that is alive. Their purpose isn't known, nor are their reasons for why they do it. But their method is just extermination. They also have a hierarchy.

Dany is, the character I hate the most in the show. She is clearly just a narcissist and an opportunist. The witch who killed her husband and child called it out correctly. She was perfectly fine and cried with tears of joy at the thought her son and husband would kill millions and conquer the world. She is clearly just an egomaniac, which makes sense given that she loves getting called "Mhysa" by everyone.

Stannis is the only 'genuine' character, in that his actions are congruent with his ideology. In the books Stannis isn't as likeable, but at the same time, Stannis' thoughts become much more clear. For example, Stannis is the only atheist that we know of in Westeros (besides maybe cynical Tyrion) since he says, "I never believed in any gods that let my parents drown before my eyes". Furthermore, Stannis is the only person that seems to have a vague notion of what a 'nation' is. Everyone else just parrots the old feudal nonsense of a nation being a king's personal property and his "children" or whatever. Stannis recognizes that a nation is the totality of the people living there, not merely some abstract plot of land with his name stapled on it. That is why he goes North.

[The Feral Underclass]

This thread and discussion really has no place in the theory forum.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I didn't say they were ideal revolutionaries, but their advance represents the only real change in the mode of production. Fuck you TAT this is important

[Antiochus]

:/

Ok wtf, how are they changing the mode of production? They have none, lol.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Undead society reproduces itself each day through the direct consumption of naturally occurring resources. Thats pretty different from the feudal mode of production occurring elsewhere on that continent.

[DOOM]

I guess GoT general?


What would khaleesi be, in a recent episode (SPOILER SOMEWHAT, NOT REALLY) she clearly revealed herself to be anti-noble, anti-aristocrat. She's also anti-slavery. Is she a premature bourgeois revolutionary, which means the material conditions would force her to concede (as she has already partially done).

I'd really like to know what DD (or GRRM) ment with breaking the wheel. Ending serfdom? Or introducing absolutism to Westeros?
It really depends on what Dany ment when she was talking about the wheel. The whole feudal apparatus or just house-politics?

[Tim Cornelis]

The end of feudalism came due to proto-industrialisation and industrialisation. This means that in some scenarios, societies could never transcend feudalism. Seems weird.

[Rafiq]

Really? The real end to feudalism in Europe came as a result of the discovery of the Americas and the first true global trade networks. There isn't that possibility in the GoT universe (that we know of).


I mostly derive this conclusion from the fact that there is definitely an apocalyptic, world changing kind of aroma to the universe at this point, the mode of production's crises and destruction. nt which - even if it doesn't end feudalism, definitely borrows the feeling of. Obviously there's no clear allegory, and how feudlaism would end in westeros would be different in terms of appearance, but one should also point out that the embryonic forms of capitalist accumulation proceeded the discovery of the Americas and was present not only in renessiance Italy but the Northern germanic states (which is lacking in the show, being more schizophrenic and all). Regarding Dany, this mostly an advent of the show: She said in the last episode that she doesn't want to "stop" the wheel, or the succession of one ruler replacing another, but replace it, and she told Tyrion that she intends on rallying the common people to her side.. Given her "revolutionary" facade in slaver's bay it looks like the show writers are setting her up to be anti-noble, though it's clearly not the case in the books.

Stannis obviously isn't a capitalist, and Petyr Baelish, who traces his lineage to the free cities obviously is, but I think Stannis represents the emergence of capitalist values, politics and morality in some ways, like the idea of indistinguishable and universal civic justice and so on. He also is now bound to the iron Bank, and I don't think Stannis would shy away from favoring more mercantile policies in order to pay them back, even if ti means hurting the aristocracy, of whom for the most part he despises.

I actually think there's something kind of redeeming about the white walkers which makes the show, and the books rather unique: Namely it's the apocalyptic side that tries to exemplify the triviality of westerosi "politics" (i.e. one person replacing another) and highlights the social antagonsims breaking out in westerosi society, basically a signification that mostly anything is possible - that the world can change, and despite Daenerys being a sellout at this point there's something very redeeming about, at least her initial anti-slavery crusade which showed that basically... In that universe, shit is really heating up in a way that it never did before.


Stannis recognizes that a nation is the totality of the people living there, not merely some abstract plot of land with his name stapled on it. That is why he goes North.


Don't you agree then that this gives more credence to the idea that he is bourgeois, in that he represents the embryonic prototype to the nation-state or whatever? I would be more inclined to like Dany if she was more committed to abolishing slavery, I am very suspicious of those who claim her anti-slavery policies were irresponsible. If anything she's not irrational enough - her anti-slavery sentiment seems to derive from some kind of personal sentiment, but at the same time it has spawned a lot of miraculous possibilities among slaves and the red priests who try to rally them for rebellion.

I think that while Stannis is the only progressive (MAYBE besides daenerys) of real world-changing importance, it is the duty of leftists (and I'm completely joking, please don't take me that seriously here) to support the adamantly Communistic brotherhood without banners, who adhere to the same revolutionary religion as Stannis (i.e. protestantism), and are for the common people without the reactionary catholic impulse of the Faith's militant. It is a shame what happens to them, though.

[Antiochus]

I'd really like to know what DD (or GRRM) ment with breaking the wheel. Ending serfdom? Or introducing absolutism to Westeros?
It really depends on what Dany ment when she was talking about the wheel. The whole feudal apparatus or just house-politics?

What I took from "breaking the wheel" is not about ending serfdom. Indeed, Dany might love to keep a huge underclass because she sees herself as a 'godly' figure with dragons and so forth (note: Stannis kinda believes this too, but Stannis is a cynic at heart and its made pretty explicit he doesn't really take "prophecy" seriously unless there is tangible truth behind it).

What I got from it was a sort of Shin Shi Huang Di/Louis XIV/Richelieu type of "fuck the nobles, I am the state" kind of thing, not some proto-capitalist sentiment. Dany very much supports feudalism since she still clings to her 'family', Stannis on the other hand totally repudiated his family in the sense that he is no longer a 'Baratheon' but a sui generis force. Stannis probably can't have kids either at this point, but he makes explicit demands that the war be waged to put his daughter on the throne anyway and for Davos to be her hand.


Don't you agree then that this gives more credence to the idea that he is bourgeois, in that he represents the embryonic prototype to the nation-state or whatever?

Well, indeed. It should be noted that Stannis, while he respected Ned, hated him. They both seem to have had this very distant relationship with each other despite their seemingly "proper" (i.e not cheating on their wives, treating people with dignity, not being extravagant etc..). I think that is representative of their ideological divide, i.e the chivalric Ned and the statesmen Stannis (who is described as a really good administrator and savvy politician).

As far as Baelish, I agree that he is probably a capitalist, but at times I get the feeling he just wants to replace the feudal order with himself at the top. What 'parallel', historically, is there to this? I can only think of a kind of Orangist 'takeover', but off course its so different from the show I can't really make that logically.



Dany if she was more committed to abolishing slavery

Ok, here is the contradiction, I think:

Dany is committed to ending slavery (I guess) but why? I think because she feels like she must because there is no slavery in Westeros (in the same way slavery began to die off in Europe during the high middle ages).

Qarth, for example, is probably just as "capitalist" as Bravos, with a government controlled by the merchant guilds, a pseudo-Republic of sorts. They still embrace slavery though. Therefore, Dany seems to impede progress in Slaver's Bay by not going to the SOURCE of slavery there. It would sort of be like going to 16th century Africa and attempting to "ban" slavery there, its impossible and counterproductive. Qarth and the "Free" Cities are the main revenue for Slaver's Bay, she should then be committed to conquering those, but she isn't, in fact she hasn't given it a thought.

Also, how exactly is Rhollor revolutionary? I mean, it might be for Westeros but it is an old religion that uses slaves as priests and workers. Although they are sexually egalitarian, so meh.

[Rafiq]

As far as Baelish, I agree that he is probably a capitalist, but at times I get the feeling he just wants to replace the feudal order with himself at the top. What 'parallel', historically, is there to this? I can only think of a kind of Orangist 'takeover', but off course its so different from the show I can't really make that logically.

I thought Baelish was more of a Thomas Cromwell (The Henry the 8th Thomas Cromwell), but then again I didn't come to that conclusion myself, I just saw it somewhere. It shouldn't be hard to assume that there are other capitalists in Westeros, and while Baelish might be the most politically powerful, he probably isn't alone in owning several establishments or whatever.


Ok, here is the contradiction, I think:

Dany is committed to ending slavery (I guess) but why? I think because she feels like she must because there is no slavery in Westeros (in the same way slavery began to die off in Europe during the high middle ages).


I initially thought this too but after the last episode it seems like she wants to pose a threat to the powerful across the board - a kind of ideological leap much like how when the French revolution was taken to its logical extent, it started to violate the interests of the bourgeoisie in the short term as well. I also think she had some personal reasons as well behind wanting to abolish it, namely her treatment by Drogo (which was pretty unnecessarily fucked up in the show) and the feeling of being sold or whatever by her brother. In that sense she's pretty revolutionary and her messianic delusions of grandeur are pretty justified, seeing that she managed to hatch dragons or whatever.

She's not too serious about ending slavery in the long term at least in the books because it seems like more of a personal preference for her, i.e. "Not while I live" and all that. She finds it necessary to keep the former masters alive when in reality her only basis of support is with the slaves and - in trying to balance their interests she is going to lose them, with the masters still despising her. It would be much better to kill all of the masters as some have advised. Keep in mind though there's a big disparity between book daenerys, and show daneerys, who the writers intentionally attempt to portray as a revolutionary.

You're completely spot on about Qarth, and that's exactly why I have doubts about just how committed she is to ending the institution of slavery permanently. I think in the books they decide to wage war on her, so something's bound to happen there.


Also, how exactly is Rhollor revolutionary? I mean, it might be for Westeros but it is an old religion that uses slaves as priests and workers. Although they are sexually egalitarian, so meh.


It appears anti-feudal and anti-slavery, for one, in the context of westeros it seems very much like a kind of protestant reformation. Most of all, from the rhetoric in the show, you see how they constantly make references to the idea that "in the eyes of Rhollor, a king and a slave is all the same" and whatever. It is an apocalyptic religion which reduces everyone to serving light and darkness, in perfect synchronicity with the arrival of the white walkers.

One thing I think is also interesting is that they're able to burn nobles alive in the name of the lord of light as though they were like anyone else. Stannis has always been a religious skeptic but I remember him saying that what he's seen, the evidence of Rhollor existing is simply undeniable.

[Antiochus]

But her 'threat' to the nobility is the 1st Emperor/Louis XIV's "threat". It basically consolidates the nobility's power in the hands of the monarchy while keeping the nobility, for all intents and purposes, intact with its privileges and so forth. It could be argued that absolutism in Europe helped the revolutionaries in the end since it gave a new face to the monarchy, i.e people could no longer say "If only the king knew what my duke was doing".



Stannis has always been a religious skeptic but I remember him saying that what he's seen, the evidence of Rhollor existing is simply undeniable.

The reason why I like Stannis (out of all the 'kings/queens', i.e not the really likeable characters) is because in the books for example it is made quite explicit he is at least morally against nobility, he sees no "natural law" regarding the aristocrats. There is a scene in the books, but not film, where a blacksmith he knew is killed and he remarks that the blacksmith was 'worth more than the men whose swords he made' or something along those lines. Again, he isn't some revolutionary or whatever, but clearly through him, you're right, there is the possibility for bourg. power to expand.

I found Dany's acceptance of Khal Drogo as pretty disgusting too, which put me off her. I mean, she was literally raped again and again and just 'accepted' and 'learned to love' him. I mean, I don't really know why I don't like Dany, its just that she still has this air of a petulant girl and narcissist that I can't get over.

Bronn I think is an outright atheist, probably the only one in the show if you don't count Stannis. Tywin is a sort of Eward II type "king". And off course I can't help but like Ned even if he has all the wrong politics and is naive, he was a good father unlike many of the psychotic lords.

[Q]

Moved from /theory to /non-political.

[DOOM]

Sooo apparently

Stannis is really doing it

You don't wanna see it folks
Honestly, you'll regret it
I warned youhttp://i57.tinypic.com/jkx8ci.png

[Antiochus]

Stannis could very well see himself as an apocalyptic figure. But not in the traditional religious sense, rather in the Napoleonic/Lenin (etc...) "man of destiny" sort of sense. He is a man with a purpose and that purpose is more important than his own self. A sort of proto-nationalist feeling.

Stannis won't win, I think. He will probably die or something. Most likely killed by the White Walkers since he is a false prophet (i.e he isn't Azhor Azhai). But his worldview will probably take shape in Westeros after the invasion is defeated, if it is defeated.

[Sasha]

Sooo apparently

Stannis is really doing it

You don't wanna see it folks
Honestly, you'll regret it
I warned youhttp://i57.tinypic.com/jkx8ci.png

havent seen the last episode yet but i have had a feeling ever since the scene in Valeria and Mormont getting infected by greyscale that there will be some role for the stone men in the future (maybe as a counter "expendable" army against the deathwalkers) and i expected stannis his daughter to be instrumental in that...

[Tim Cornelis]

I don't really understand how the religious thing works. The Lord of Light is real, because of the shadow murderer and she had warm cheeks (those on the face) when it was cold. But the God of many faces or whatever it's called is also real because they can really change faces.

Since the Lord of Light is real, I'm rooting for Stannis. But he does seem like a character that will die.

[Zoop]

Since the Lord of Light is real, I'm rooting for Stannis. But he does seem like a character that will die.

Have you seen the latest episode?

I am no longer rooting for Stannis...

[Tim Cornelis]

The Lord of Light wanted that sacrifice. How does one life weigh against fulfilling his fiery prophecy or some shit? The Lord of Light is Love, the Lord of Light is Life. Plus, she had grayscale, even if stopped, she was probably barren, unable to further the royal bloodline or some shit.

This reminds me, I have no idea what the Lord of Light wants, spread his religion through Stannis B.?

[DOOM]

Are the gods in GoT even real? Or does mythopoeia apply?
Clearly, there's magic involved. But to what extent?

[Sasha]

I don't really understand how the religious thing works. The Lord of Light is real, because of the shadow murderer and she had warm cheeks (those on the face) when it was cold. But the God of many faces or whatever it's called is also real because they can really change faces.


i would say that GRRM plays with both the polytheistic and monotheistic traditions but while there are clearly mythical forces with "godlike" powers there is no capital G God, the creator etc, or maybe there is but he is irrelevant.

so in my view there are two different lines in the books that sometimes overlap;

1. an political and theological allegory of human concepts of god; the pagan old gods, the institutional but polythestic religion of the 7, the rise of the monotheistic "crusade/jihadist" lord of light, and the gnostic "all religions are just versions of the not really a god but essentially humanist" many faced god i.e. death, obviously a concept in many fantasy but here GRRM seems almost satirical, it reminds me both of Pratchets Diskworld and Neil Gaimans Sandman.

2. and then there are the real "magic" forces who seem to be tied to the elements and also almost all seem to be able to resurrect the dead in one way or another (which maybe does mean there is more to the many faced god idea);

ice; winter, the white walkers, wights
earth/greenworld/gaia; children of the forrest/green men (very reminiscent of certain comics like swampthing in vertigo/sandman and the greenworld/the heap in Spawn/image)
fire; the lord of light, redpriests, dragons (?)
water; drowned god, deep ones, drowned men
stone; greyscale/stone men

[Tim Cornelis]

The Lord of Light is definitely real, and the one true God. Be loyal to his light and he will reward you. If he wasn't real, how come Carice van Houten (the lord of light woman) had warm cheeks in the blistering snow?

[Rudolf]

Sooo apparently

Stannis is really doing it

You don't wanna see it folks
Honestly, you'll regret it
I warned youhttp://i57.tinypic.com/jkx8ci.png

It was fucking horrible!

[Tim Cornelis]

I don't know why they had to burn that child in particular, but it is not our place to question these matters of faith.

[Sasha]

If he wasn't real, how come Carice van Houten (the lord of light woman) had warm cheeks in the blistering snow?

that explains, you are rooting for the lord of light because of Carice her warm "cheeks"...
http://www.morethings.com/fan/monty_python/nudge-nudge-monty-python-125.jpg

[Tim Cornelis]

Also, dragon ex machina. I thought they were all going to die, but then it took really long and it became kinda obvious a dragon was going to show up.

[Zoop]

I don't know why they had to burn that child in particular, but it is not our place to question these matters of faith.

It's because they needed to get her blood because she's King's Blood. Remember back in season 3 (I think), when she summoned that evil black vagina monster to kill Renly? Well she was able to do that because she got the blood from Gendry via leeches, and burned them, because Gendry was King's Blood as well (a Baratheon).

So I assume now she will give birth to another vagina ghost assassin and that will kill Ramsay.

Now that I think about it, she sacrificed the whole child, as opposed to a tiny amount of blood in the case of Gendry, so she might give birth to a whole army of vagina assassins. Oh god, I wouldn't want to be Stannis' enemy right now.

[Tim Cornelis]

I wouldn't want be that priestess lady right now. Giving birth to a whole army. Ouch.

[Rafiq]

I think they weren't expecting just how popular Stannis was going to be, so they had to make him look like a dick to remind everyone about how "Oh well, Stannis is an extremist so let me show you a really fucked up grotesque thing he'll do that he would never otherwise have to do so you'll be on the same page with us, you know, considering no one is horrified at the sight of setting high nobles and lords on fire".

On one hand, it might give further credence to his essentially anti-feudal character insofar as he places the cause above all else, including family. On the other hand, it takes away from the vital dimension of him as a character, i.e. Stannis's care for Shireen is what largely sustained his ability to be cold and merciless: Now there's nothing, they just made him into an asshole.

That situation itself was never in the books. Ramsay and his "20 good men" never did that. They literally set that whole story up just to have her killed. It was just plainly a bad writing decision period - the show is probably going to be a lot shittier now.

[Antiochus]

I don't think so.

Couple things:
1) There aren't any 'gods' or 'god' per say in ASoIF. There is magic and every person able to wield is can tap into it and proclaim they did it through their god. Sometimes they can perform rituals that make it seem as if their god is "true". However, EVERY single god has been behind different events in the series. For example, R'hollor with the shadows; The "old Gods" with Bran's greensight (the old gods might very well be the Others btw, this is what Melisandre thinks); the Seven saving Davos in Blackwater bay etc...

2) I still prefer Stannis over any monarch. What he did was obviously meant to smear him (he never did anything like this in the books). However, at the same time, Stannis is fullfilling a sort of Jesus-like function. He will probably die, meaning his entire family line will probably die with him and by dying, if he defeats the Boltons, he will have united the North behind one banner and be able to put up some kind of struggle against the WW.

I just dislike how the show is trying to go out of its way to make people like Dany. They are trying to make her into this messiah that is "above" slavery, but she also learns that slavers are people too, lawl. This off course sits very well with most of the audience, "Banksters are bad [...] but to hurt them is a crime!".

Anyway, the Melisandre won't birth another army. The snows will melt and it will allow Stannis to engage the Boltons. I really hope the Boltons get fucked up; sadistic assholes.

Point is, Stannis isn't the guy you root for because you think he will win or because he is a really cool and likeable guy. You root for Stannis because he is the only person who can think past his own ambition and because (magic aside) he is the only one that can save the country. In this way, he is a Majorian like figure, he will probably go far in defeating the 'enemies of the realm', but he will die.

[ChangeAndChance]

I think at this point Dany has seen the error of her ways. It definitely would have been the better idea to kill all the former slaveowners after her taking of the city. Class collaboration is literally impossible in a slavery-fueled culture like Meereen's. Even by eliminating a third of the city's population, she could have secured her position as some kind of matriarcal figure for the oppressed. Now she's fucked.

[Rudolf]

It's because they needed to get her blood because she's King's Blood. Remember back in season 3 (I think), when she summoned that evil black vagina monster to kill Renly? Well she was able to do that because she got the blood from Gendry via leeches, and burned them, because Gendry was King's Blood as well (a Baratheon).

The shadow-stannis as i'm calling the thing she gave birth to was because Stannis fucked her. Gendry's blood from those leeches came after Renly's death, was after the Siege of the blackwater and was supposedly to do with joffrey and Rob dying. you're right about her being a sacrifice due to having 'king's blood'.


Btw this whole kings blood thing is kinda weird. It seems to be based on whoever calls themselves king as opposed to being related to... Sure, Gendry is Robert's son and Stannis is Robert's brother and rightful hier but it's not like the Baratheon's have ruled Westeros for long, he usurped the throne. If Robert had king's blood so does Tommon despite not being a Baratheon because he is king. Would it mean Rob Stark had kings blood for being "King in the north" and even Mance Rayder?

[Antiochus]

Robert became king by 'right of Conquest', the same as the Targaryens. This was actually a thing in Medieval history. Therefore anyone related to him by blood had 'king's blood'. So yes, anyone who effectively became a king in his/her own right, has 'king's blood'. That includes Robb Stark since he became a de facto king in the North.

Mance Rayder too would be a king, in this regard. Basically anyone can be king so long as they either:

1) Have an ancestor that was king
2) Become a king through their own right, via conquest, power struggles or dynastic succession.

Off course, thinking that the leeches killed Robb Stark/Joffrey is silly lol. If that was the case, why couldn't Melissandre just kill Twyin? Its just a mythical subtext added to the plot. There is blood magic, but it isn't easy to do and it is risky for both the user and the victim.

[Rafiq]

I thought it was because Targaryen blood runs through house Baratheon...

[Os Cangaceiros]

Game of Thrones to me is just a great anti-hero show. Pretty much all the characters are pricks in their own way. My favorite character in the show is probably Tywin Lannister, who's like the dour British schoolmaster of the show, always dressing everyone down in amusing fashion.

My least favorite character was that woman who John "the bahstahd of Winterfell!" Snow banged in the cave. Man she was annoying. "You know nothing John Snow"

[Zoop]

Pretty much all the characters are pricks in their own way.

Apart from Hodor of course. Gotta love that big guy :wub:

[Antiochus]

Not really. In the books Melissandre tries to sacrifice Mance Rayder for example. The Baratheon/Targaryen relationship is highly tenuous and used only as an excuse for 'usurping' the throne, its made quite clear that right of conquest and legitimacy through power is what is important. The Targs were minor families in Valyria anyway, there is nothing 'special' about them, apart from their conquest off course.

[Antiochus]

You guys have predictions for the season finale? Hopes?

[Zoop]

You guys have predictions for the season finale? Hopes?

1EWFpo37qAU

Well, judging by the promo it looks like Stannis is going to attack Winterfell. It'll be interesting to see what happens with Sansa. I don't think she'll die, but if Stannis captures Winterfell, he'll surely take her under his wing, seen as though she's a Stark.
The only big thing I can see happening is during this battle. It doesn't seem like anything major could really happen during the finale except during Stannis' attack.

[lutraphile]

I think I'm off team-Stannis now. Though he's still much better than the Boltons. He truly does believe he is acting for the greater good I think, but he's an increasingly terrifying fanatic.

The cynic in me has a very strong preference for who ends as king: Baelish. He manipulates everyone so well it would be a shame to see him lose. As for characters I actually like, Danerys is the only one who has any real chance of winning the iron throne, though I hope the Starks somehow get back the north (King Varys is my real preference, but does not seem very likely)

[Cliff Paul]

I decided to finally watch Game of Thrones since it apparently has the Rafiq seal of approval. Overall I think I'd give it a 7/10.

I think the common criticism that too many main characters die in GoT is entirely valid. When you watch a show like Star Trek, there is hardly any suspense. "Captain the shields are down, we can't take any more hits..." blah blah blah. No one actually expects the enterprise will actually explode and everyone will die. George R.R. Martin said that he wants to keep readers on their feet - characters can't always just redirect the quantum phase shield plasma something and make everything fine. But in practice, I've found that Martin has swung too far in the other direction - I now expect every character I like to die and am pretty much numb to their deaths.

SPOILERS AHEAD

I really enjoyed watching the show at first. Lady's death at the beginning was terribly sad and really set the atmosphere for the story. Ned stark's death was not really that shocking - and seeing a story that was willing to kill off a well liked, major character in such an unflattering way was kind of refreshing. But even early on GoT taste for death started to grow sour. Robb and Talisa's/whoever the girl in the book is deaths were incredibly shocking, but they were also quite disappointing. Robb's character was fairly interesting, and his abrupt death killed off one of the most interesting arcs in the story. I think the real turning point for me however was Ygritte's death. Although it was executed incredibly well in both the book and the show, it basically dulled a good portion of my interest in the story. Seeing my favorite character, underdeveloped, and killed off in such a senseless manner was shocking - but it was mostly just disappointing. At that point I realized it was pointless to invest anything into the characters in the story, since the vast majority of them will meet quick and untimely deaths. Mance Rayder, Prince Oberyn, Renly, etc. are all interesting characters whose deaths leave you wanting/wondering what could have been in the story.

All in all, it's a pretty good story and the lore is pretty interesting (although I'm not sure if I like the zombie white walkers), but a lot of the time you are left wondering what could have been while watching it.

[Invader Zim]

Damn, Stannis is one cold hearted bastard.

[Cliff Paul]

Daenerys' character confuses me. Originally her goal was to rule Westeros and then seemingly out of nowhere she decides that freeing slaves in now her (arguably) biggest goal.

Also the events in Mereen are ridiculous. Whenever the city is shown, slaves and former masters are generally shown in equal portions. Am I supposed to believe that every master owned only 1 slave? And the Sons of Harpy are just absurd. I could see former slave masters carrying out assassinations but how am I supposed to believe that the average slave master is capable of going one on one with the fucking unsullied?

[Zoop]

I'm looking forward to Arya taking on Ser Meryn Trant in the next episode, and hopefully brutally murdering him. Just when you thought you couldn't hate him even more.

[Sewer Socialist]

I decided to finally watch Game of Thrones since it apparently has the Rafiq seal of approval. Overall I think I'd give it a 7/10.

I think the common criticism that too many main characters die in GoT is entirely valid. When you watch a show like Star Trek, there is hardly any suspense. "Captain the shields are down, we can't take any more hits..." blah blah blah. No one actually expects the enterprise will actually explode and everyone will die. George R.R. Martin said that he wants to keep readers on their feet - characters can't always just redirect the quantum phase shield plasma something and make everything fine. But in practice, I've found that Martin has swung too far in the other direction - I now expect every character I like to die and am pretty much numb to their deaths.

I wonder what a Star Trek series on HBO would be like.


Originally her goal was to rule Westeros and then seemingly out of nowhere she decides that freeing slaves in now her (arguably) biggest goal.

I think it's just a means to an end for her - it was the only way she could take the city.


Also the events in Mereen are ridiculous. Whenever the city is shown, slaves and former masters are generally shown in equal portions. Am I supposed to believe that every master owned only 1 slave? And the Sons of Harpy are just absurd. I could see former slave masters carrying out assassinations but how am I supposed to believe that the average slave master is capable of going one on one with the fucking unsullied?

It could just be reactionary free workers who have sided with the slave-owners for some reason. They don't really explain that side very much as far as I can remember.

[Comrade Jacob]

Watching s1, ep 5 and this dude just beheaded his horse because he lost the joist. My jaw dropped

[Antiochus]

FIY the first season is a build up season. It isn't that good (compared to the others).

[Cliff Paul]

It could just be reactionary free workers who have sided with the slave-owners for some reason. They don't really explain that side very much as far as I can remember.

Well idk about the books but in the show they are all shown wearing slave master garments so I doubt it. Even still the average slave or free worker should not be able to fight the unsullied in the first place.

[Sewer Socialist]

Yeah. Definitely not one on one like they depict.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I decided to finally watch Game of Thrones since it apparently has the Rafiq seal of approval. Overall I think I'd give it a 7/10.

I think the common criticism that too many main characters die in GoT is entirely valid. When you watch a show like Star Trek, there is hardly any suspense. "Captain the shields are down, we can't take any more hits..." blah blah blah. No one actually expects the enterprise will actually explode and everyone will die. George R.R. Martin said that he wants to keep readers on their feet - characters can't always just redirect the quantum phase shield plasma something and make everything fine. But in practice, I've found that Martin has swung too far in the other direction - I now expect every character I like to die and am pretty much numb to their deaths.

I don't watch the series, for personal reasons (it's a long and dull story), but I've read a lot by Martin, and I think he has a real problem with making people care about his characters. It's not necessarily the fact that they will die, but most of them are grossly unlikeable characters from the onset. E.g. no one dies in the Stone City - well, no one human dies during the period covered by the novella - but I really found it difficult to care about characters I found pathetic and annoying. In fact it's not rare for me to pick up a Martin book (like the Dying of the Light, which is basically a book about me after my first breakup, eugh) and reach the middle hoping everyone will catch the plague and die or be eaten by Hrangans. My experience with A Song of Ice and Fire has been similar, although to be honest I sort of gave up on reading the books.

[Cliff Paul]

So I think it's safe to say that I've lost all interest in the series after that episode.

[DOOM]

Kek. Don't worry, Jon will live.

[PhoenixAsh]

I like the show. I never really watched it beyond the first season because it sucks but I really like the show.

It very heavily upsets my Facebook friends.

[Cliff Paul]

Kek. Don't worry, Jon will live.

Will he? In the book probably but they might actually kill him off in the show. Nevertheless, my problem with the show is that the HBO writers are taking more and more liberties with the source material and are proving themselves not up to the challenge. I haven't actually read the books but I've noticed that most of the scenes in the show that I found the most ridiculous were not included in the books...

[Sasha]

Will he? In the book probably but they might actually kill him off in the show. Nevertheless, my problem with the show is that the HBO writers are taking more and more liberties with the source material and are proving themselves not up to the challenge. I haven't actually read the books but I've noticed that most of the scenes in the show that I found the most ridiculous were not included in the books...


havent seen the last episode yet but the last book basically ended with the death of john snow, but i think it's pretty obvious this is one of those GRRM characters that wont stay dead, it will probably though release him from his "marriage" to the watch. While the show and to lesser extend the books do tend to kill off characters before their full potential is used i think its clear that john snow's story is still developing.

in my view GRRM works with "generations" where the old guard needs to be killed off before the next can come to real prominence, i dont think john will make it all the way to the end (but neither will daenarys let alone stannis imo) but i think he wont be killed off for real until daenarys lands in westeros

[Zoop]

Don't worry, Snow won't die. He'll be resurrected by Melisandre most likely. The son of Lyanna Stark and Rhaegar Targaryen is far too important for the storyline ;)

[PhoenixAsh]

The series uses marketing gimmicks adding shock value just because they want to be edgy and controversial.

The books (which I did read) themselves were slightly better though the main plot of the story is illogical with characters acting against their best interests and are emotion driven to lead us into a series of coincidences based on sheer stupidity of those involved which are the outcome of completely uncharacteristic errors of judgement which these characters, based on their previous histories, would never likely have made.

The story relies heavily on a huge willingness of the reader to emerge in the suspension of disbelieve when events become ever more unlikely.

[Cliff Paul]

GoT is the perfect 'syndicated' television show. A bunch of shitty unlikable characters doing shitty unlikable things.

[khad]

The series uses marketing gimmicks adding shock value just because they want to be edgy and controversial.

The books (which I did read) themselves were slightly better though the main plot of the story is illogical with characters acting against their best interests and are emotion driven to lead us into a series of coincidences based on sheer stupidity of those involved which are the outcome of completely uncharacteristic errors of judgement which these characters, based on their previous histories, would never likely have made.

The story relies heavily on a huge willingness of the reader to emerge in the suspension of disbelieve when events become ever more unlikely.
I think the #1 plot device the author of the books and the writers of the tv show employ is giving villains invincible plot armor and using what is essentially deus ex machina to manipulate the emotions of the audience by thwarting their expectations.

Littlefinger spends decades of his life plotting to take over the North, but the heir to the Boltons, Ramsay, whose number one hobby is flaying people in public? Nope, never heard of him. Then, an entire army is brought to its knees in a raid by 20 men with torches, that no one ever saw coming. This is the middle ages; it's not like they're carrying zippos and molotovs. And then half the army flees in the night with all the horses and supplies without anyone noticing either.

A sense of inevitability is traditionally one of the core elements of a good plot, and that's why surprises and twists can have the impact that they do - when they are used judiciously in the proper contexts. Unfortunately, the constant overdeployment of twists and implausible coincidences to the exclusion of actual development and pacing has desensitized me to this bullshit. There hasn't been a single character I sympathized with since season 1, and at this point I'm just watching for the gore.

Most hateable characters: Top 5
1) Littlefinger - "I've been betraying everyone since season 1, but everyone still trusts me due to the power of magic amnesia!"
2) Daenerys - "I just spent this past season being a poor stand-in for Obama in Iraq. I'm just trying to stop people from being killed (even though I'm totally killing them). Why does everyone hate me?"
3) Tyrion - "Badass gang rape (http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Tysha) makes for a badass pickup line. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGtIgaWapoc&t=4m20s) Read it and more in my book of quotes (http://www.amazon.com/The-Wit-Wisdom-Tyrion-Lannister/dp/0345539125) before The Winds of Winter."
4) Ramsay - "Lemme kill dem fools with this backflipping hatchet attack - while wearing nothing but this invincible plot armor codpiece."
5) Jon Snow Arya - "Cuz Boko Haram's (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-31815810), like, totally cool, man."

P.S. The fans of this show are the best. And in case you didn't catch that, that was sarcasm.

+217 upvoted post on GoT reddit

[–]NoRealContribution (http://www.reddit.com/user/NoRealContribution) 217 points 9 hours ago*
My new favorite idea for opening scene of S6.
Close up of Ghost's face, panting, camera zooms back revealing that Ghost is actually having sex, fucking something furiously, panning back more, it reveals it's a human he's fucking up the arse, panning back more, it's Olly, being wolf raped by Ghost. Ghost finishes, howls, Olly tries to run, but Ghost rips out his throat and spits out the bloody throat pieces onto the ground.
They didn't like the rape scene in S5, wait till they get a load of this....
Edit: Even better; then cuts to Bran, eyes white, big fucking grin on this face. And he says "Fuck Olly, you little *****!"
Edit2: Cut back to Ghost, he hikes his leg and pisses on Olly's corpse...

[bcbm]

i think this season suffered from pacing a lot because theyre trying to slog through most of the mess of feast of crows and dance with dragons where basically nothing happens for ten thousand pages. i found the books enjoyable because i liked world building but it seems clear theyre very slowly shifting around some characters while everyone else is just kind of in limbo, which would make for very boring tv. i appreciate they tried to spice it up a little with more action-based subplots, but most of these fell pretty flat, especially dorne. i think season six will be better, but also more book readers will be upset about things being spoiled (saw this a lot on fb, wtf did they think was going to happen this has been the plan since day one)