Game Of Thrones: How do you feel?

Spolier: if you haven't watched the first 3 episodes of season 5, you can ignore this thread; or, if you're interested in my writing, read on:

About Jon Snows decapitation of a seasoned knights guard, begging for his life and apologizing for his insubordination?

The scene honestly made me sick to my guts. Here he we see this moral - or at least trying to be - character being confronted by the begging of another man. Interestingly, the director had the begging man admitting to the fear he has: of death of course; and of course, the fear of death is an instinctive and innate feeling, systematically denied in a machismo culture; but here, the man, breaking through his defenses and acknowledging before everyone his fears - which he even goes on to say he's been plagued with his entire life.

A moment exists for Jon Snow: can he too acknowledge the truth of the knights position? Can he connect with his own fears - his fear, and no doubt, shame, of being 'a bastard'; and the defense he employs against that shame - the need to be a 'man of honor' - to commit himself to the knights guard totally and thoroughly, even denying an opportunity to rule as king of the North, as Lord Jon Stark.

Alas, no, he cannot. As horrible, and cynical, and upsetting as this scene was, there's a truth to it: in a culture traumatized by life, which valorizes 'honor' as a defense against the shame of admitting fear and vulnerability, allows people to overlook the pleading of another soul - another experiencing subject, terrified by life and how it makes us do things.

Jon Snow could have exercised true free will; disengaged from his habits of thought and recognize the truth in what the other was saying: he's afraid. Too empathize - to know the truth of his experience; as well as your own. Unfortunately, this skill of thought - and the courage it demands to express before others - couldn't make its way in.

Something similar happened with Kaleesi at the end of season 5, episode 2. A slave, absolutely entranced by Kaleesi's power, kills the man who killed one of Kaleesi's soldiers. What was happening here? Psychologically, the slave, knew only one world and one way of understanding how to relate with it.. This being the case - and wanting to deepen his relationship with Kaleesi - he employs a working-model of reality, one he developed under the psychic pain of being a slave - and imagined he would make her happy.

Kaleesi, unfortunately, fails to recognize the relationship between the past and present psychic functioning. Again, there is no 'inter-subjective' meeting. Kaleesi's world is one of democratic idealization. Just before she has the executioner cut the slaves head off, she says "The Law is the law", as if to make a point that not the whims of man, but the law - a concept - is what determines how we settle matters of conflict.

Again, taking the principle too far - setting it 'above' and beyond the ever changing lived world - leads to ignoring the logic of what went wrong, and how, particularly in this important case - she may have inserted compassion, and understanding - in her statecraft.

While I am as titillated by game of thrones as much as anyone else, I am oftentimes bothered by how the show handles issues of moral logic. In T.V shows, and more generally, in entertainment, a person is expected to handle the difference between fantasy and reality; to note, at least unconsciously, that what is happening in the fantasy world, and the implied, psychological structures behind what were seeing in the storyline, is able to be psychologically demarcated from the logic - and psychological sophistication - of how contemporary democratic society works, functions, and can be improved.

How do you feel shows like this affect us? Are there people watching it, who say to themselves or others (in the inevitable identifications that come in watching shows like this) "Good!", after Jon Snow cuts off the head of a begging man? Or "that was right", after Kaleesi cuts off the head of a slave working from a distorted - and understandably so - understanding of Kaleesi's world view?

Probably not, sadly, as to maintain a distinction entails some sort of knowledge of how the world works - theoretically - and to be able to think about it, defend, whilst still enjoying a storyline that utilizes a very different, aberrant, though literal depiction of life before the era of enlightenment.

Human beings can handle such complexity; but it is absolutely wrong - and twisted - to project from your own mind and assume that other minds, not educated like yours, can handle the contradictions as neatly and clearly as you do.

Not trying to derail but I've seen a clip on YouTube and I've heard enough about Game of Thrones to realize it's gratuitous murder porn that's constantly seeking to one-up itself with the shock value of gore and needless killing. I like a bit of on-screen violence when its intention isn't just to shock the audience.

How anyone gets into that show is beyond me.

originally posted by: Answer
Not trying to derail but I've seen a clip on YouTube and I've heard enough about Game of Thrones to realize it's gratuitous murder porn that's constantly seeking to one-up itself with the shock value of gore and needless killing. I like a bit of on-screen violence when its intention isn't just to shock the audience.

How anyone gets into that show is beyond me.

Wow. That is the most obtuse post I've seen all day: "Not trying to derail but... I saw a YouTube clip of this stupid Lord of the Rings movie and it was enough for me to realize it's gratuitous murder porn that's constantly seeking to one-up itself with the shock value of gore and needless killing."

You do know it is based on a best-selling book series, right?
George R.R. Martin's book series "A Song of Ice and Fire.

Seen all since day one but not streaming the new ones so only saw the latest the other night on sky Atlantic

This Season looks good and I'm looking forward to watching the episodes weekly

How on earth could the chap above say its murder porn?

A few YouTube clips of the gore or sex parts doesn't make the show,there is a story in there with many plots and it's the dialog and fantastic filming that keep the audience hooked from opening credits till the end

Havnt read the books but I'm hoping the hound made an amazing recovery from his life threatening wounds

It's the only show I watch on TV now

originally posted by: wasaka

originally posted by: Answer
Not trying to derail but I've seen a clip on YouTube and I've heard enough about Game of Thrones to realize it's gratuitous murder porn that's constantly seeking to one-up itself with the shock value of gore and needless killing. I like a bit of on-screen violence when its intention isn't just to shock the audience.

How anyone gets into that show is beyond me.

Wow. That is the most obtuse post I've seen all day: "Not trying to derail but... I saw a YouTube clip of this stupid Lord of the Rings movie and it was enough for me to realize it's gratuitous murder porn that's constantly seeking to one-up itself with the shock value of gore and needless killing."

You do know it is based on a best-selling book series, right?
George R.R. Martin's book series "A Song of Ice and Fire.

I know exactly what it's based on and I stand by what I typed.

Just because it's a show based on a book doesn't make it any more legitimate.

Hi, I'm a fan of Game of Thrones too, but long before the show started. My friend introduced me to the book series and I got hooked. I think it was the realism that the author tried to employ; like not holding back any punches when it came to how cruel men can really be and often are the the realm of politics.
As to Jon Snow cutting the head of Janos Slynt; I've always found Janos a disgusting and deplorable excuse of a human being so I was relieved to see him go. I think the writers did a good job at portraying Jon as cold-hear-ed but Just and Honorable, like his father was.
Now when it comes to the Kaleesi on the other hand, I think what she did was illogical and an attempted show at power. I do think she considered doing the right thing, but in the end she must have decided it would make her look weak and went with the very totalitarian option. However, right before that scene, Jorah sort of for shadowed that she is starting to show similar traits to her father the Mad King.

Hi, I'm a fan of Game of Thrones too, but long before the show started. My friend introduced me to the book series and I got hooked. I think it was the realism that the author tried to employ; like not holding back any punches when it came to how cruel men can really be and often are the the realm of politics.
As to Jon Snow cutting the head of Janos Slynt; I've always found Janos a disgusting and deplorable excuse of a human being so I was relieved to see him go. I think the writers did a good job at portraying Jon as cold-hear-ed but Just and Honorable, like his father was.
Now when it comes to the Kaleesi on the other hand, I think what she did was illogical and an attempted show at power. I do think she considered doing the right thing, but in the end she must have decided it would make her look weak and went with the very totalitarian option. However, right before that scene, Jorah sort of for shadowed that she is starting to show similar traits to her father the Mad King.

originally posted by: wasaka

originally posted by: Answer
Not trying to derail but I've seen a clip on YouTube and I've heard enough about Game of Thrones to realize it's gratuitous murder porn that's constantly seeking to one-up itself with the shock value of gore and needless killing. I like a bit of on-screen violence when its intention isn't just to shock the audience.

How anyone gets into that show is beyond me.

Wow. That is the most obtuse post I've seen all day: "Not trying to derail but... I saw a YouTube clip of this stupid Lord of the Rings movie and it was enough for me to realize it's gratuitous murder porn that's constantly seeking to one-up itself with the shock value of gore and needless killing."

You do know it is based on a best-selling book series, right?
George R.R. Martin's book series "A Song of Ice and Fire.

Honestly, his point stands.

I like the books quite a bit because they don't have to show me the gory details. My mind will show me what it wants if it wants. I don't have to be shown it in graphic detail. Yes, the books are bloody and violent, but there is a difference between reading it and choosing what my mind will and will not envision and having to watch it.

I have no desire to see the Red Wedding on film, but I've read the scene in print several times.

It's just acting lads! With special effects to supply the gore

Red wedding was shocking I remember watching that episode with the other half and we both were like (wtf)

Right away in episode one there was an ethical decision with a young man deserting his regiment for obvious reasons being caught then decapitated

Live by the sword you die by the sword, and the executioner that day met the same fate later on

I

Not a fan. Quite possibly, as early on discussion in conspiracy circles arose, that it comes off as conditioning for a dystopian future.

GOT is gory yes, and disgusting at times, but it's like a home view into the life of those running our planet. Know Your Enemy! And it's so much better than all the rest of the crap they call entertainment. We live in a world that is messed up but most of us aren't so stupid we'd agree this type of behaviour is 'Ok'. That would be like saying ban Alcohol because it creates scenarios much like parts of this series. The truth is painful, but it can't affect you unless you believe it can affect you. And it's 'An Adult Show' just in case there are some doorknobs who think it's ok to watch in front of children.

I feel more than a little disappointed that so many people here at ATS, who should know better, have allowed themselves to become emotionally involved with a damn TV show.

It's frankly disturbing that, surrounded by the evidence of what pop culture really is, people are still gaga over the whole thing.

It's all propaganda and programming. And we should know better.

I have not watched this program. However I do enjoy reading Astrocyte's writing so here I am.

The gratuitous violence in some TV drama seems to be on the increase. Week after week, month after month, it seems that many of these programs are engaging in a one-upmanship dance of carnage and depravity. Having not seen GOT I cannot speak to it specifically, however from what Astrocyte and others have mentioned, this program appears to fit in with this general trend.

Many of these programs present the possible psychological dilemma of holding another s life in ones hands. For a very long time this dilemma has been addressed in countless movies and TV shows. In the past it seemed to me that the post enlightenment response won out. The life was spared and the protagonist was considered to be of a higher moral character than the antagonist who's life was spared.

When I watch some of these programs, I can feel the emotional angst rising in me as we linger over the finger at the trigger as the action pauses to accentuate the suspenseful moment. When the trigger is not pulled, sometimes I cheer that the protagonist has risen to a higher standard. Yet sometimes when that trigger IS pulled a visceral triumph of revenge arises from my more ancestral heritage and I feel vindicated.

I am sensing a change in the resolution of this dramatic dilemma. More and more the protagonist is fulfilling his/her need for revenge.

Astrocyte finishes with

Human beings can handle such complexity; but it is absolutely wrong - and twisted - to project from your own mind and assume that other minds, not educated like yours, can handle the contradictions as neatly and clearly as you do.

I have to wonder at ALL of the violence on TV. Now some of us might be of the more educated that can handle the contradictions that Astrocyte alludes to. That of projecting mid-evil morality into modern moral standards. It is one thing to use something like this as an historical study, but as a modern example of morality it is not really viable except in a fantastical manner. And it may be that there many who cannot tell the difference.

And then again I may just be speaking from my own overly sensitive post enlightenment liberal persuasion.

Snow's beheading of Janos harkened back to the first episode with Ned beheading the man who deserted the Nights Watch. That man had a better reason, in my opinion, for his action, he saw a Whitewalker. Janos' pride is what got him in trouble with refusing an order from the Lord Commander.

Maybe it's the Cartoons people should be worried about. Can you say ultra covert.

a reply to: Answer

There is much more to it than the violence. And I for one applaud realistic action. Saving Private Ryan is my favorite war movie cause its as realistic as it gets. No huge firery explosions from grenades or crap like that. That is how I view GOT....when someone's leg is cut off you see exactly what you would really expect. It is not pretty.

Anyway I hate T.V, and rarely enjoy movies any more but with that Game of Thrones is amazing. Worth giving it a shot.


And to the OP:

I think that scene was specifically made to take us back to Ned Stark. Jon can no longer just be an observer...he has to make tough decisions now. Besides that guy was the one hiding when the battle was going on...Jon offered him a new position and the ability to remain in the group...just working on another outpost. That guy should have just accepted. However with that he looked over at Stannis...which made me think two things....Is he foreshadowing what will happen to Stannis...like will Jon kill Stannis or is Jon maybe evil and looking for Stannis' approval. But I know what you mean...I was like wtf Jon! He wasn't able to execute anyone in the whole show in the situations he came across before.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Ah, but you see, these days the idea that someone might be morally good or take the high road and spare someone's life isn't considered to be "art" or complex. You should read some of the game forums I've shadowed and participated in.

This goes away from GoT, but when Mass Effect 3 was released and the community exploded over how all of the endings were basically dictated by the antagonist on its terms and more or less demanded you to sacrifice the life of the protagonist and generally accept some kind of moral compromise in order to "win" the game, we were told the ending was "art" and the biggest detraction of our upset was that we didn't understand how to enjoy morally complex endings and wanted a "Disneyfied" ending.

But personally, I prefer not to have to commit implied genocide no matter which ending I choose and have it called "art" and moral complexity and have it dictated to me by my enemy.

This is the trend though.

The good guys are no longer allowed to be good and have clear cut victories. They have to be shown to completely flawed and just as bad in their own way as the bad guys they take down. GoT excels at doing this, so people like it.

a reply to: Answer

You have no idea what you're talking about. The scene had so much meaning and depth. It allude to his father Ned doing the duty himself and showing that he swings the sword(first episode). Its shows that Jon Snow is a leader and will not let insubordination stop him. Also when Stannis looks on and sees Jon Snow cut his head off its SUCH GOOD STORY TELLING. Stannis realizes he has to have Jon Snow to take the north but Jon will not leave the knights watch due to his honor. A bastard son is more like Ned Stark then any other of his kin.

I like the books quite a bit because they don't have to show me the gory details. My mind will show me what it wants if it wants. I don't have to be shown it in graphic detail. Yes, the books are bloody and violent, but there is a difference between reading it and choosing what my mind will and will not envision and having to watch it.

I have no desire to see the Red Wedding on film, but I've read the scene in print several times.

I have read all the books and I agree that reading allows my mind to envision the scene. Personally I found the red wedding in my own mind when reading the book far more tragic, gory, horrifying and frightening than the filmed for TV version, which I thought glossed over the betrayals and horror to speed things up.

Similarly I found the torture and breaking of Theon Greyjoy more horrific and moving in print than on film.

LOL, hopefully not because my mind is so disturbed, but because the writing is so fluent and descriptive. Also, the books are far more detailed and the characters have more time to develop and you get to know them so much better than the characters in the TV series, so you (I mean I) invest more emotion into their stories and feel more when their stories have an unhappy ending.

I was absolutely hooked on the books and couldn't put them down till I had finished the last page, and am similarly hooked on the filmed version. But I do think that the filmed version is nowhere near as rich and detailed as the books, except in the portrayal of nudity and sex. But to those who say this is porn I say grow up and get over yourselves. Yes, so you get to see some dangly bits. Big deal. I've seen them before, haven't you?