Violence against women in the series. Thoughts (Show spoilers) MOD NOTE post #1

snausages

Naux wrote: »

Check out post #7 ................gets across my point better than I can methinks!!

The Mustard wrote: »

Completely agree OP. The human rights abuses in Westeros are absolutely appalling. There should be trade sanctions, if not outright UN intervention.

So because it's fiction, it's not worthy of analysis. Alrighty so

username123

snausages wrote: »

Sorry, I meant the book. I haven't seen the film either, I heard it was too sanitised actually.

I think they should show some rape because it is an important and unavoidable aspect of the world. But they do not need to show half as much as they're showing. I'm kind of tired of explaining that tbh. The stuff that they're currently showing is unrelenting and extremely graphic when it doesn't need to be.

But thats your subjective opinion, I think its fine.

I dont even think its that graphic.

snausages

username123 wrote: »

But thats your subjective opinion, I think its fine.

I dont even think its that graphic.

Fair enough, it's clear that both of us are firmly entrenched in our own views that were not going to change each other's minds. But can you at least see the point I'm making?

drumswan

snausages wrote: »

The stuff that they're currently showing is unrelenting and extremely graphic when it doesn't need to be.

Its not graphic, its clearly all simulation?!? Its not as if they are showing penetration

username123

snausages wrote: »

Fair enough, it's clear that both of us are firmly entrenched in our own views that were not going to change each other's minds. But can you at least see the point I'm making?

Of course, but it came across to me as though you were stating it as objective fact, when it is really just subjective opinion.

I mean, they dont NEED to show anything, they could just have George there reading the books and letting our imaginations run riot - but somehow I cant imagine that making such good tv.

They are bringing a fictional universe to life, warts and all. Some of those warts are ugly. But I dont think its excessively warty or indeed I dont even know how it is possible to judge that, its purely a personal preference type of thing.

snausages

username123 wrote: »

Of course, but it came across to me as though you were stating it as objective fact, when it is really just subjective opinion.

I actually made a deliberate point in most of my posts to include expressions like 'I think' and 'my view is...' and 'I feel that' etc. So I think you're being unfair.

snausages

drumswan wrote: »

Its not graphic, its clearly all simulation?!? Its not as if they are showing penetration

It's vivid and looks very realistic.

I hate being a pedant but here you go

graph·ic [graf-ik] Show IPA
adjective Also, graph·i·cal.
1.
giving a clear and effective picture; vivid: a graphic account of an earthquake.
2.
pertaining to the use of diagrams, graphs, mathematical curves, or the like; diagrammatic.
3.
of, pertaining to, or expressed by writing: graphic symbols.
4.
written, inscribed, or drawn.
5.
depicted in a realistic or vivid manner: graphic sex and violence.

Naux

username123 wrote: »

They are bringing a fictional universe to life, warts and all. Some of those warts are ugly. But I dont think its excessively warty or indeed I dont even know how it is possible to judge that, its purely a personal preference type of thing.

+1

Pat Mustard

username123 wrote: »

So is it not better then, that we are shown, because our imaginations will conjure up much worse than we are shown - a fact used extensively in the best horror movies.

I think that both imagined and graphic violence have their places.

On the one hand, there is extreme violence that can make your hair stand on end. HBO's Rome has this in spades, especially with the ultra-violent Titus Pullo. There is one particularly visceral scene where

he beats a slave to death

.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHswN9_lkKw

On the other end of the graphic scale, there is violence that is not shown. For some reason, the youtube embedding is not working for me, but it's a scene at the end of the 2004 Dawn of the Dead remake, where a gunshot is heard off-screen, to signify a violent death (the second off-screen gunshot in that film).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QapFQlsF36I

username123

snausages wrote: »

I actually made a deliberate point in most of my posts to include expressions like 'I think' and 'my view is...' and 'I feel that' etc. So I think you're being unfair.

Ok - sure. Forget my last post - here is the rewritten version.

Of course, but thats not objective fact, its just subjective opinion.

I mean, they dont NEED to show anything, they could just have George there reading the books and letting our imaginations run riot - but somehow I cant imagine that making such good tv.

They are bringing a fictional universe to life, warts and all. Some of those warts are ugly. But I dont think its excessively warty or indeed I dont even know how it is possible to judge that, its purely a personal preference type of thing.

Ther same point holds, I simply dont feel you are presenting a compelling argument as to why they shouldnt show rape etc, or why they shouldnt show so much of it, as your argument rests on your own subjective opinion. (which is fine btw, but it doesnt compel me, who has a different subjective interpretation).

snausages

Well you yourself posted that you can't apply an objective appraisal to subjective opinion (or words to that effect), a point I'd agree with. It's not as if there's a way to measure how much sexual violence is acceptable and where the threshold exists. However, I really think they've went past it at this point.

username123

snausages wrote: »

Well you yourself posted that you can't apply an objective appraisal to subjective opinion (or words to that effect), a point I'd agree with. It's not as if there's a way to measure how much sexual violence is acceptable and where the threshold exists. However, I really think they've went past it at this point.

Exactly. Im sure there are plenty of other people who feel that way too, just not me.

Ive seen some depictions of violence that made me turn off tv but I think Ive become largely desensitised through random internet usage - things that used to shock me wouldnt even cause a second glance now. Not sure if thats a good or bad thing!

Sleepy

If the point your making is that you'd like the show more if the sexual violence wasn't as unrelenting, I can certainly see it.

Is it just the sexual violence though, or is it all of the violence? Because I have to admit, it's the unrelenting nature of ASOIAF that I love. From the moment

Ned has his head hacked off

I was utterly hooked.

What annoys me is when people who don't like such depictions start filling the internet (and worse, the media) with articles that it represents misogyny in our society or "proof that the rape culture exists" blah blah whinge moan...

Pat Mustard

Sleepy wrote: »

Is it just the sexual violence though, or is it all of the violence? Because I have to admit, it's the unrelenting nature of ASOIAF that I love. From the moment

Ned has his head hacked off

I was utterly hooked.

Good point. It would be a fairly blinkered approach to isolate the sexual violence.

George Martin is selling sensationalism. It's ShockHorror stuff every step of the way, with all sorts of treachery and shenanigans. It's not just violence, but violence is essential to his stories.

This is not a criticism btw. I'm definitely a fan.

snausages

Sleepy wrote: »

If the point your making is that you'd like the show more if the sexual violence wasn't as unrelenting, I can certainly see it.

Is it just the sexual violence though, or is it all of the violence? Because I have to admit, it's the unrelenting nature of ASOIAF that I love. From the moment

Ned has his head hacked off

I was utterly hooked.

What annoys me is when people who don't like such depictions start filling the internet (and worse, the media) with articles that it represents misogyny in our society or "proof that the rape culture exists" blah blah whinge moan...

While I don't dispute that gender privilege is a real thing, I think the context it gets thrown into a lot of the time these days, in online discussions especially, does more to shut out intelligent and insightful debate about these issues than encourage it.

snausages

My point being, I don't think being a straight white male should be used against people to make them feel that they,ve nothing worth saying

Naydy

Sleepy wrote: »

If the point your making is that you'd like the show more if the sexual violence wasn't as unrelenting, I can certainly see it.

Is it just the sexual violence though, or is it all of the violence? Because I have to admit, it's the unrelenting nature of ASOIAF that I love. From the moment

Ned has his head hacked off

I was utterly hooked.

What annoys me is when people who don't like such depictions start filling the internet (and worse, the media) with articles that it represents misogyny in our society or "proof that the rape culture exists" blah blah whinge moan...

If the scene with Ned getting his head cut off had been needless graphic I probably wouldn't have liked it either. It was a really emotive scene without needing to resort to that. I'd argue that showing too much would have ruined what they did manage to do in that scene, which was show the horror of what happened reflected in his daughters' grief.

I've counted one person who didn't like the scene who mentioned rape culture. I don't think it's fair to dismiss our views as having an ulterior motive for some anti-men, ultra-feminist agenda. I certainly don't think the shows writers are rape apologists or that people who have no problem with these scenes are misogynistic or something ridiculous like that, I just don't like what they are doing with these scenes. In particular the Jaime/Cersei scene

calex71

the incest seems to be flying under the radar in this discussion, not that its related at all to the OP just figured it would get mentioned more seeing as the discussion has turned to the sensationalism. To me that was actually worse than the graphic stuff in how matter of fact they present it in the show, it comes across as 2 people as opposed to what it really is .... brother and sister at it.

To me that seems deliberate by HBO, you can emphasise the rape all you like just don't remind people a brother and sister are at it . I know in ep 3 it wasn't close to that and that they were less subtle but for the most part it has been that way.

Paddy Cow

snausages wrote: »

Per a suggestion in the *not read the books thread*, I thought I'd set this up because every episode thread every week is getting derailed by this.

Now, I'm no social justice campaigner or Tumblr white knight, but I really feel some of the violent sex scenes with women in this show are excessive and detract more than they add to the series. Last night in particular had one of the worst scenes I've seen on TV and I don't consider myself a sensitive pansy usually. From what I've heard from others the books don't even go as far as the show does. At this stage it doesn't really feel like these scenes still hold a purpose, or at least the point they're trying to make has become a bit obscure. Life in Westeros is **** for women, but do they need to reinforce that fact every single week?

That's just how I feel anyway. It's not enough to prevent me from tuning in every week but it dampens my enthusiasm for the series in general.

As a book reader, I can assure you that rape is far more prevalent and graphic in the books than is depicted in the show. When Arya is at Harrenhal, women who were seen as collaborators were put in the stocks and anyone who fancied a go could have at them and there was pretty much always someone who wanted a go. Imagine if they had put that in the show? A ten year old girl witnessing rape every time she had to cross the yard to get something for her Lord? There would be outrage.

There is another scene (only in the books) where some Lord is overthrown and the rebels decide to host a banquet. The Lord is strapped into a chair with something shoved into his mouth so he can't speak and his wife and daughters are made to serve the rebels. As the night goes on, the rebels start raping his family one by one (his youngest daughter is only 12) and it made for very uncomfortable reading. As bad as it was to read, I couldn't imagine watching that.

Ramsay in the show is a sadist but even what he does to Theon is nothing compared to what he does in the books. Last week when he set his dogs on that terrified girl was not what he would've really done. Normally he sets a girl loose and if she gives him an interesting chase, he will show her "mercy" and simply rape her before killing her. If she is "weak" and stops running too early for his liking, he will rape her and then flay her alive.

We have seen all manners of depravity on this show:

A child pushed from a window to what the person thought was certain death
Beheadings
Someone having their tongue ripped out
Cruel domestic violence
A baby ripped from it's mother's arms and killed in front of her eyes
Bastard children drowned
Men being killed in battle
A father engaging in incest
Babies left in the show to die or worse
Slavery
Young boys being castrated and trained to be killers from about age 4
Children being nailed to crosses
Innocent villagers slaughtered
Cannibalism
Men being nailed to crosses while screaming in agony

The list could go on.

It's ironic that people were complaining about how the take over of Mereen happened without a huge battle, in which people (mainly men) would've died in violent circumstances and this is somehow "cheating" the viewer and wasn't realistic. We have become desensitised to violence to men and just see it as part of the story but sexual violence against women still evokes a strong reaction and makes us uncomfortable.

I think a few posters have hit the nail on the head when they say that the rape scene hit home because rape is the one crime that still happens today. We know that babies aren't going to be murdered or sacrificed, men won't have their tongue/penis cut off and we don't have to worry about being sold into a life of slavery but women still do get raped in modern society. We can watch all the terrible sh!tty things people do to each other in Westeros with a sort of detached fascination, safe in the knowledge that it's only a fantasy world and while we wonder how we would react in those circumstances, we know that it's not going to happen to us or our loved ones.

As someone said, the Craster scene took them out of the fantasy because it was real. Honestly OP, while I understand the rape scenes make you uncomfortable, I don't think the writers are shoe horning them in just for gratuitous purposes. Compared to the books, I think they have toned down those type of scenes. The Craster scene is made up but they left plenty out.

Just as an aside, another scene which really got to people this week was Hodor being picked on by the mutineers. It wasn't the most depraved thing we've seen (Brienne being thrown into the bear pit is arguably worse) but bullying is something people of today can relate to and it's another example of how real the show became for some.

Pat Mustard

To me, the Jaime/Cersei scene just seemed completely implausible.

For a start,

a brother and sister are riding each other

. Let's kind of run with that for a while and see where that goes.

So he loves his sister.

Like really loves his sister, in every possible sense of the word.

And then he rapes her. What? What?!! What is he doing? How does that possibly add up at all? It just made no sense to me, whatsoever.

I have to say that the scene kind of annoyed me. I thought that Jaime was evolving as a character and I was just starting to like him, and then he does this. The appalling aspect of it aside, it was frankly ridiculous. I completely realise that George Martin is quite happy to piss off his fans in this way or to paint characters as being ambiguous, but I just found the scene incredible.

Witcher

The Mustard wrote: »

To me, the Jaime/Cersei scene just seemed completely implausible.

For a start,

a brother and sister are riding each other

. Let's kind of run with that for a while and see where that goes.

So he loves his sister.

Like really loves his sister, in every possible sense of the word.

And then he rapes her. What? What?!! What is he doing? How does that possibly add up at all? It just made no sense to me, whatsoever.

I have to say that the scene kind of annoyed me. I thought that Jaime was evolving as a character and I was just starting to like him, and then he does this. The appalling aspect of it aside, it was frankly ridiculous. I completely realise that George Martin is quite happy to piss off his fans in this way, but I just found it incredible.

Directors didn't shoot it as a rape, just came across that way.

Lena Headey even gave an interview saying that wasn't how it was meant.

Pat Mustard

Blay wrote: »

Directors didn't shoot it as a rape, just came across that way.

Lena Headey even gave an interview saying that wasn't how it was meant.

Looked totally

rapey

to me, dude.

Witcher

The Mustard wrote: »

Looked totally

rapey

to me, dude.

Well I'm going to go with the opinions of the actors who actually shot the scene.

Pat Mustard

Blay wrote: »

Well I'm going to go with the opinions of the actors who actually shot the scene.

Hard to argue with that. But how did you think that it looked? It did not look like consent to me.

Witcher

The Mustard wrote: »

Hard to argue with that. But how did you think that it looked? It did not look like consent to me.

Well it wasn't very clearly directed but you have to factor in that the guy has one hand so if she really wanted to stop him she probably could have.

They were obviously shooting it with Cersei being reluctant rather than non consenting so they didn't have her really struggling against him.

DM addict

I would agree that it did not look consensual.

But, going from book knowledge, I understand Cersei's primary objection to be "not here" as opposed to "no sex". Also someone, somewhere on the internet, made the very good point that sex is a power play for Cersei - she doesn't want to lose control of the situation, and Jamie is tired of being used and abused by her, and pushes the point home (no pun intended).

Let's face it, even twincestous relationships have a line. Clearly screwing in a sept next to your dead son is where the line is for her.

Was that clear enough from what we saw onscreen? No. It came across as twincest rape with a fetching dead-child-in-a-church backdrop. Which is just. . . I have no words for the wrongness.

I am surprised that no one in the production team got the rapey vibe. I think, shot somewhat differently, it would come across as just twincest in a church with a dead child - less rapey, and I guess better?

It is a really tough scene though. I would like to point out that I do not believe that "continuing to sex someone until the give up" counts as consent - I am very much of the opinion that "No" means "No", and that the "she meant later, not no" excuse is not ok in the real world. But, as you may have gathered, the whole screwing your sister next to your dead child also doesn't sit well with me. And thankfully, Westeros is NOT the real world.

Pat Mustard

Blay wrote: »

Well it wasn't very clearly directed but you have to factor in that the guy has one hand so if she really wanted to stop him she probably could have.

They were obviously shooting it with Cersei being reluctant rather than non consenting so they didn't have her really struggling against him.

I haven't read all of the books so I will have to concede the point to you, but I have to say,

it didn't look like reluctance to me, it looked like downright refusal on Cersei's part.

I looked for the 'no means yes' aspect and I didn't see it. At all. What I am saying is that judging by what I saw, it looked like a rape scene in the HBO series, as opposed to what may be in the books. I find it odd that the actors do not allude to the scene being at least ambiguous, if it is not a rape scene

Is it possible that the Game of Thrones people are screwing with our heads?

Pat Mustard

DM addict wrote: »

I would agree that it did not look consensual.

But, going from book knowledge, I understand Cersei's primary objection to be "not here" as opposed to "no sex". Also someone, somewhere on the internet, made the very good point that sex is a power play for Cersei - she doesn't want to lose control of the situation, and Jamie is tired of being used and abused by her, and pushes the point home (no pun intended).

Let's face it, even twincestous relationships have a line. Clearly screwing in a sept next to your dead son is where the line is for her.

Was that clear enough from what we saw onscreen? No. It came across as twincest rape with a fetching dead-child-in-a-church backdrop. Which is just. . . I have no words for the wrongness.

I am surprised that no one in the production team got the rapey vibe. I think, shot somewhat differently, it would come across as just twincest in a church with a dead child - less rapey, and I guess better?

It is a really tough scene though. I would like to point out that I do not believe that "continuing to sex someone until the give up" counts as consent - I am very much of the opinion that "No" means "No", and that the "she meant later, not no" excuse is not ok in the real world. But, as you may have gathered, the whole screwing your sister next to your dead child also doesn't sit well with me. And thankfully, Westeros is NOT the real world.

One word.

Wow.

DM addict

The Mustard wrote: »

One word.

Wow.

I'm unsure if that's a good wow or not.

Pat Mustard

DM addict wrote: »

I'm unsure if that's a good wow or not.

It's all good. That was a really insightful post. I was extremely impressed.

DM addict

Well now I'm blushing

Pat Mustard

DM addict wrote: »

Well now I'm blushing

Don't get me wrong. I still think that you're a complete sicko.

I'm joking! I'm joking! Please don't ban me! I like this guy! Honestly.

snausages

One thing I would say about the books is that they are (obviously) much much longer than the TV show, so statistically they're going to have more scenes involving violence or rape. The show, in my view, should be a condensation of the most important events. So in that view then a literal adaptation of the source might actually be far worse. But even then I wouldn't agree that that's sufficient justification to include those scenes.

Fair play if they removed the rape from the Ramsay Snow scene, because I think that would have been a bit too much. It was a harrowing enough scene as is.

Another thing that does bother me I admit is the thing mentioned by Calex. The apparent normalisation of the Cersei/Jaime romance. I understand in the context of Westeros that it's vile and a taboo, hence the war of the five kings. But it's difficult sometimes to detect how we, the audience, are supposed to feel about it. Should we be disgusted by or invested in their relationship? That I honestly don't know.

username123

snausages wrote: »

Another thing that does bother me I admit is the thing mentioned by Calex. The apparent normalisation of the Cersei/Jaime romance. I understand in the context of Westeros that it's vile and a taboo, hence the war of the five kings. But it's difficult sometimes to detect how we, the audience, are supposed to feel about it. Should we be disgusted by or invested in their relationship? That I honestly don't know.

The Targaryens married sibling to sibling for generations so I wouldnt say its taboo in Westeros. Although perhaps you only get away with it by legitimising it through marriage.

snausages

username123 wrote: »

The Targaryens married sibling to sibling for generations so I wouldnt say its taboo in Westeros. Although perhaps you only get away with it by legitimising it through marriage.

You're right, the thing that's the problem is Joffrey's legitimacy, not necessarily the incest. Although at the same time the current 'era' of Westeros seems a bit more enlightened than everything pre-Mad King Ares or however you spell it.

But I'm just confused sometimes whether we're meant to care about Jaime and Cersei or just be all 'ew, yuck :eek: '

Mickeroo

snausages wrote: »

But I'm just confused sometimes whether we're meant to care about Jaime and Cersei or just be all 'ew, yuck :eek: '

And that is why this series is so brilliant, making you care about a character as as flawed as Jaimie Lannister to the point of not even being able to outright condemn incest

snausages

Well personally I'm not really on his side when it comes to the incest, I'm just wondering if I should be.

Amirani

I don't think the incest is a big deal really?

username123

snausages wrote: »

Well personally I'm not really on his side when it comes to the incest, I'm just wondering if I should be.

I kind of feel sorry for him. Leaving the questionable rape scene alone for a moment, they have been in a consensual relationship since they were very young and while Cersei has had sexual relations with other men since (both consensual and non consensual - King Robert), Jaime hasnt at all - so he is naive.

snausages

Diego Simeone wrote: »

I don't think the incest is a big deal really?

:eek:

brooke 2

Paddy Cow wrote: »

As a book reader, I can assure you that rape is far more prevalent and graphic in the books than is depicted in the show. When Arya is at Harrenhal, women who were seen as collaborators were put in the stocks and anyone who fancied a go could have at them and there was pretty much always someone who wanted a go. Imagine if they had put that in the show? A ten year old girl witnessing rape every time she had to cross the yard to get something for her Lord? There would be outrage.

There is another scene (only in the books) where some Lord is overthrown and the rebels decide to host a banquet. The Lord is strapped into a chair with something shoved into his mouth so he can't speak and his wife and daughters are made to serve the rebels. As the night goes on, the rebels start raping his family one by one (his youngest daughter is only 12) and it made for very uncomfortable reading. As bad as it was to read, I couldn't imagine watching that.

Ramsay in the show is a sadist but even what he does to Theon is nothing compared to what he does in the books. Last week when he set his dogs on that terrified girl was not what he would've really done. Normally he sets a girl loose and if she gives him an interesting chase, he will show her "mercy" and simply rape her before killing her. If she is "weak" and stops running too early for his liking, he will rape her and then flay her alive.

We have seen all manners of depravity on this show:

A child pushed from a window to what the person thought was certain death
Beheadings
Someone having their tongue ripped out
Cruel domestic violence
A baby ripped from it's mother's arms and killed in front of her eyes
Bastard children drowned
Men being killed in battle
A father engaging in incest
Babies left in the show to die or worse
Slavery
Young boys being castrated and trained to be killers from about age 4
Children being nailed to crosses
Innocent villagers slaughtered
Cannibalism
Men being nailed to crosses while screaming in agony

The list could go on.

It's ironic that people were complaining about how the take over of Mereen happened without a huge battle, in which people (mainly men) would've died in violent circumstances and this is somehow "cheating" the viewer and wasn't realistic. We have become desensitised to violence to men and just see it as part of the story but sexual violence against women still evokes a strong reaction and makes us uncomfortable.

I think a few posters have hit the nail on the head when they say that the rape scene hit home because rape is the one crime that still happens today. We know that babies aren't going to be murdered or sacrificed, men won't have their tongue/penis cut off and we don't have to worry about being sold into a life of slavery but women still do get raped in modern society. We can watch all the terrible sh!tty things people do to each other in Westeros with a sort of detached fascination, safe in the knowledge that it's only a fantasy world and while we wonder how we would react in those circumstances, we know that it's not going to happen to us or our loved ones.

As someone said, the Craster scene took them out of the fantasy because it was real. Honestly OP, while I understand the rape scenes make you uncomfortable, I don't think the writers are shoe horning them in just for gratuitous purposes. Compared to the books, I think they have toned down those type of scenes. The Craster scene is made up but they left plenty out.

Just as an aside, another scene which really got to people this week was Hodor being picked on by the mutineers. It wasn't the most depraved thing we've seen (Brienne being thrown into the bear pit is arguably worse) but bullying is something people of today can relate to and it's another example of how real the show became for some.

Jaysus!!! What kind of depraved minds can produce this crap??!!!
(Meaning GoT author!)

Boggles the mind that something like GoT is so popular.

On second thoughts..........not!!!!

snausages

^^ Get your flame-shield up. Or pray to the lord of light to protect you. Or something.

Sleepy

snausages wrote: »

But I'm just confused sometimes whether we're meant to care about Jaime and Cersei or just be all 'ew, yuck :eek: '

If it helps, a good insight to GRRM's writing would be the frequency with which he quotes William Faulkner's line:

The only thing worth writing about is the human heart in conflict with itself

The theme is explored everywhere in the show and nowhere more than with Jaime Lannister:

His conflicting vows: as a Kingsguard he's sworn to protect the king and as a Knight he's sworn to protect the innocent so what happens when he's faced with his King ordering mass murder?

His incestuous relationship with Cersei, he's loved her literally his entire life (in the books it's referenced that their incest began as very small children) yet the older she gets, the more vile a person she becomes: at what point will her bile make him stop loving her? I quite liked the new line in the show: "Why have the gods made me love such a hateful woman?".

We see the same with Jon whose instincts to be the hero are continuously put up against his instinct to do the right thing, part of him wanting to ride to fight at Robb's side yet part of him knowing he's honour-bound to take no part in "the wars of men"...

Even firm fan favourites like Arya, the Hound and Danaerys have their moments when they're not exactly walking the most righteous of paths... it's part of the whole "there is no black and white, everyone's got both good and evil in them" theme...

snausages

I can't remember if Faulkner wrote about incest. Like, I think it might have been a thing in one of his books, but I might be misremembering.

Amirani

snausages wrote: »

:eek:

Why is it? It's consensual?

Pat Mustard

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Why is it? It's consensual?

It's pretty sick, to be fair. :pac:

Lady Spangles

Although there is a lot of violence towards women, you have to take into account its Medieval setting. With this series based heavily on the Wars of the Roses (an era I majored in at University back in the day), it's a brutally accurate depiction of what happened in the aftermath of major battles (with all that chivalric crap stripped away). Women were raped by marauding soldiers; shops, homes and even churches were looted and innocent people killed in the rampage. It happened during the Wars of the Roses; Agincourt, Crecy and all the other major, romanticised battles in that era.

However, it is counterbalanced. There are remarkably strong female characters: Dany, Cersei (who may be disliked, but is undeniably powerful in her own right), Yara Greyjoy, Arya, Catelyn, Mormont's sisters and nieces (omitted from the show). There are others and, I strongly suspect, that Sansa will start to grow stronger soon.

Beside that, there is horrendous acts of violence against the men too. In the show especially, Theon is brutalised by Ramsay Bolton. It is his sister, Yara/Asha who is rallying the Iron Born to go rescue him. It is all finely balanced out, so it's not as if it is all just violence against women. I do wish the show's writers would stop glorying in the rape, though. It is dragging down an otherwise amazing adaptation.

DM addict

Sleepy wrote: »

If it helps, a good insight to GRRM's writing would be the frequency with which he quotes William Faulkner's line:


The theme is explored everywhere in the show and nowhere more than with Jaime Lannister:

His conflicting vows: as a Kingsguard he's sworn to protect the king and as a Knight he's sworn to protect the innocent so what happens when he's faced with his King ordering mass murder?

His incestuous relationship with Cersei, he's loved her literally his entire life (in the books it's referenced that their incest began as very small children) yet the older she gets, the more vile a person she becomes: at what point will her bile make him stop loving her? I quite liked the new line in the show: "Why have the gods made me love such a hateful woman?".

We see the same with Jon whose instincts to be the hero are continuously put up against his instinct to do the right thing, part of him wanting to ride to fight at Robb's side yet part of him knowing he's honour-bound to take no part in "the wars of men"...

Even firm fan favourites like Arya, the Hound and Danaerys have their moments when they're not exactly walking the most righteous of paths... it's part of the whole "there is no black and white, everyone's got both good and evil in them" theme...

This!

One of the things I love about the series is how Jamie is a sympathetic character, despite the incest and attempted child killing we see so early on. He is conflicted, he's struggling with his demons, his feelings towards Cersei and so on. It makes him one of the most interesting characters.

On the incest point- it does seem to be slightly more acceptable in Westeros. . . But it's not clear. Obviously Ned Stark was not a fan, but he's a pretty straightforward guy.

Amirani

The Mustard wrote: »

It's pretty sick, to be fair. :pac:

Yeah it is, but I don't see why anyone would have a problem with it.

Naydy

Most people are innately repulsed by the idea of incest. And shur, Jaime/Cersei resulted in Joffrey, isn't that reason enough!

With regards to how it is viewed by Westoros society I got the impression that it may have been considered very wrong there too for a couple of reasons

-It's referred to as disgusting by many characters including Tywin and Joffrey.
-Tyrion and Cersei discussing the Targaryens showed people had an awareness of insanity caused by their inbreeding
-Littlefinger subtly threatened Cersei with the dangers of people knowing of brother/sister relations. She not so subtly set her guard on him.
-There was a great scene where Tywin was referring to Loras' relationships with men as "unnatural" and Oleanna completely drops all pretense by saying that men having discrete relations with one another was one thing, but that brother and sister together would be a very, very difficult stain to wash out.