Bashing The Books: The Finale

“Plot Armor” and the “Anyone Can Die” Gimmick



Another frequently overused term in online media discussions is the term "plot armor". As I mentioned at the beginning of this blog series, one of the main aspects of the show is that "anybody can die and nobody's safe." Let's unpack the problems with this gimmick shall we?

1) When too many likeable characters die you risk losing people's investment in the series: While it's true that Martin's novels have succeeded in getting a lot of people invested in his series, it's also true that a lot of people have been turned off by this aspect of the series. For me, the moment where I stopped caring about characters dying happened during the Red Wedding. Robb Stark's death is what hammered home to me the possibility that anybody could die and that death is no longer a shocking occurrence. This leads to the second problem of the show:

2) Death ceases to be shocking: If death is a major staple of the series then it ceases to become shocking or unpredictable anymore. When new characters arrive, the question isn't if they'll die, it's when they'll die. It no longer subverts expectations to kill characters off anymore. This is the expectation. It got to the point where fans of the show would start predicting who would die during the final season. It's one of the major calling cards of the series.



3) It has sustainability issues: In order for the plot to progress there have to be some characters still alive who can drive it. If you kill off a lot of major characters, then new ones have to replace them. What this has meant in the context of the books is that new characters get made up. This is one of the problems of the two most recent books in the Song of Ice and Fire series. New characters get made up on the fly to replace the old ones who've died off. Since these characters are new, there's no investment in them which hurts the reader's ability to care about what happens in the story. 

4) Some characters get killed off pointlessly: Part of the problem with Point # 3 is that some characters get introduced during the beginning of the book only to die off in that same book without having achieved anything of consequence to the story. 

____________________________________________________

Problem # 2: Does George RR Martin Actually Kill Off That Many Characters?



Here's a question for anyone reading this post: Out of all the major point of view characters in the novels, how many have actually stayed dead? Three. Just three. Only three point of view characters die and actually stay dead in the novels. This doesn't include throwaway point of view characters in the prologue and epilogue. The reason why I don't count them is because nobody cares about any of those characters, their deaths have zero impact as far as I'm aware.

Of the three major point of view characters the only one people cared about was Ned Stark, who died at the end of Book 1. That's basically 3 / 31 Point of View Characters who die. For an author with a reputation of ruthlessly killing off characters he sure seems reluctant to kill anybody.

Now to be fair, there are plenty of non Point of View characters that die. Robb Stark and the Red Wedding is the prime example. But here's the thing. There are WAY more characters in the books than there are in the show. Percentage wise the vast majority of the cast is still alive in the books! 



One of the most knowledgeable fans of the series I've encountered explained this:

“If anything, at this point, he hasn't killed off enough characters and as a result, the "cast" is getting a little too sprawling and unwieldy. In general though he doesn't kill off as many major characters as you'd expect. For every Ned and Robb there's a Mance (who in the books isn't actually dead) or a Catelyn (who turns into Lady Stoneheart) or a Davos (who was fake-executed). GRRM plays the "gotcha" card so much with fakeouts and resurrections a lot of us have a rule where we don't believe someone is dead unless we see a body. (The exception: Syrio Forel.)”

(Source: https://www.quora.com/Do-people-who-have-read-%E2%80%9CA-Song-of-Ice-and-Fire%E2%80%9D-really-think-George-R-R-Martin-kills-too-many-characters/answer/Kelsey-L-Hayes)

When one of the more knowledgeable and die-hard fans of the books is saying that Martin frequently plays the "gotcha" card and doesn't actually kill off that many characters then I think it's time to re-examine whether George RR Martin actually deserves the reputation he got.

This is actually something that the show does better than the books. The show actually killed off a higher percentage of its cast than Martin did. The show-runners earned the "kill'em all" reputation. The books on the other hand don't deserve this when you actually apply a little bit of scrutiny to them. So once again, the series fails to live up to its reputation.

Anti-War Messaging Problems


John Barkmeyer posited that the series is "long on plot and short on meaning." The more I thought about this, the more I realized just how right he was. The show never even bothers to attempt to convey the themes of the book. The book however tries to convey some themes, but in my opinion it falls short of that. One of the supposedly biggest themes of the novels are that they're anti-war.

George RR Martin has gone on record stating that his opposition to the Vietnam War had a profound effect on his series:

"I was, like many kids of my generation, a hawk. I accepted that America was the good guys, we had to be there. When I got into college, the more I learned about our involvement in Vietnam, the more it seemed wrong to me. Of course, the draft was happening, and I decided to ask for the conscientious-objector status. I wasn’t a complete pacifist; I couldn’t claim to be that. I was what they called an objector to a particular war. I would have been glad to fight in World War II. But Vietnam was the only war on the menu. So I applied for conscientious-objector status in full belief that I would be rejected, and that I would have a further decision to make: Army, jail or Canada. I don’t know what I would’ve done. Those were desperately hard decisions, and every kid had to make them for himself. To my surprise, they gave me the status. I was later told – I have no way to prove this – that I was granted the status because our conservative draft board felt that anyone who applied for CO status should be granted it, because that would be punishment enough: Then it would be part of their permanent record, and everybody would know that they were a Commie sympathizer, and it would ruin their lives.

I don’t think America has ever quite recovered from Vietnam. The divisions in our society still linger to this day. For my generation it was a deeply disillusioning experience, and it had a definite effect on me. The idealistic kid who graduated high school, a big believer in truth, justice and the American way, all these great values of superheroes of his youth, was certainly less idealistic by the time I got out of college." 

(Source: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/george-r-r-martin-the-rolling-stone-interview-242487/)

Now that Martin brought up his disillusionment I can see where the cynicism came from in his story. It certainly explains Sansa and Jaime's character arcs. 

I find the idea of A Song of Ice and Fire to be anti-war to be a bit dubious. I'm not saying that the story is pro-war. If you were to ask people what the first thing they thought of was when it came to Game of Thrones, or The Song of Ice and Fire series, "anti-war" would most likely not be the thing that they think of.

 Part of the problem is that the story doesn't really do a good enough job making war, or the battles therein, seem horrifying. The books are far more interested in political squabbling and the betrayals that happen than it ever is in examining the consequences of said war. 

Almost every point of view character is nobility. The few that aren't nobles basically hang around them and only do plot relevant stuff around the nobles. We never actually get a point of view character who is

a) An actual commoner 

AND

b) A commoner who isn't hanging around the nobility

As such it rings hollow when the books talk about how "the small-folk always lose when the nobles play their game" because the books fail to get the reader invested in the "small folk". The series doesn't genuinely care about the commoners so why should the reader? Commoners suffering the consequences of war only exist as window dressing to serve a ham-fisted "war sucks" narrative. To be fair, this kind of gets addressed in the later novels when a character named Brienne witnesses the destruction of the Riverlands and we get to see the devastation up close but even then it feels like a case of "too little, too late."

This anti-war message is also undercut by how sympathetic the Starks are. This is a noble family that frequently gets betrayed by their allies. They eventually lose their home and have to get it back. That counts as war, but I doubt that Martin would claim its "unjustified". I mean what's the alternative? That they roll over and accept being ruled by the Freys and the Boltons? What about the war against the Others? You know, the monsters that threaten to annihilate all of Westeros. Is fighting them a bad thing? So yeah, Martin does a great disservice to his anti-war narrative which is why I don't buy it when anybody says that its an anti-war narrative. It's not. It tries to be, but it's not. 

One last point: How many major plot relevant characters die directly in battle? I can't think of any. The only time someone dies is either by their allies betraying them or at a wedding. That's it. No major character actually dies in battle. That's a HUGE missed opportunity for a series that's supposed to be big on the anti-war theme. 

Final Point: Postmodernism and Rampant Cynicism

Whether George RR Martin intended it or not, his story reeks of cynicism. Any character who begins the series as having any type of bright outlook on life immediately gets their worldview crushed. This is basically Sansa Stark's story-line. It's also a major part of  Jaime's arc. 

Here's an interesting take I found from an outspoken critic of Game of Thrones:

"Game of Thrones, true to its postmodern bent, concludes with an overall downer, telling us how there really is nothing good, nothing heroic left in the world. And any attempts to bring it about will result in even bigger disaster, so best not to even bother trying! This kind of dismal worldview, which finds the very concept of heroism/idealism deeply threatening, where resignation and apoliticism wins the day, while betrayal, backstabbing and smart-ass cynicism are what constitutes “realistic”, has became deeply ingrained into modern American pop-culture, fueled by mass media. And it’s not difficult to see from where it originates.

You’ve risked everything you’ve had to fight in an apocalyptic war, defeat literal Army of the Dead and save the world in the process? Well, guess what: you’re even worse! This is the kind of implicit hostility to a character who, in another meta-narrative, would be hailed as a war hero, that came out of a mind which - to help myself with a quote from Epic Rap Battles - “larped his Santa Claus arse through Vietnam.” And Martin is preaching to the choir here; to whole generation(s) of Americans who grew up losing wars in which they never fought, yet also never felt the consequences of those loses. The failures of various Vietnams and Iraqs adventures left a deep-seated sense of mistrust in large segments of collective American psyche, making them view all grand narratives and attempts to fight for, and indeed to achieve anything with cynical suspicion. At the same time, because they’ve never experienced actual horrors of war and human depravity other than through mass media, they can afford the luxury to maintain this belief in a grim, dog-eats-dog, survival-of-the-fittest “reality.”

(Source: https://www.quora.com/What-is-something-you-noticed-in-the-Game-of-Thrones-series-finale-that-you-believe-most-others-have-missed/answer/Luka-Trkanjec)

And as I mentioned before, this is the "zeitgeist" that Game of Thrones speaks to. In the USA we've become distrustful of the narrative that we're the good guys fighting for "freedom" and "justice" around the world. As the quote mentions we've lost wars, but have never lived with the physical consequences of that loss. George RR Martin is right to point out that the Vietnam War disillusioned a lot of American society. 

Politicians frequently promise us all manner of good things, but then fail to live up to those promises. This is a world where distrust of the media is at an all-time high. Words like "bias" and "agenda" are constantly thrown around. In the USA polarization is a big problem. Squabbling, demonization and in-fighting are unfortunate realities of our daily political discourse. 

It's a world that is profoundly cynical of a great many things. This I believe is ultimately what Game of Thrones taps into and why it became the cultural juggernaut of our age. That being said, I reject its message of cynicism and I for one feel ashamed that I ever took an interest in this profoundly disappointing work of crap. I do not buy into our current zeitgeist of cynicism. If anything, now is the time where we need to come together. Now is the time for hope...and for change.

Bashing The Books Part 2

Rape

One of the most controversial aspects of the series is its portrayal of rape. George RR Martin has gotten a lot of criticism on this subject. Naturally, he made a response to this criticism:

“The books reflect a patriarchal society based on the Middle Ages. The Middle Ages were not a time of sexual egalitarianism...

“And then there’s the whole issue of sexual violence, which I’ve been criticized for as well. I’m writing about war, which what almost all epic fantasy is about. But if you’re going to write about war, and you just want to include all the cool battles and heroes killing a lot of orcs and things like that and you don’t portray [sexual violence], then there’s something fundamentally dishonest about that. Rape, unfortunately, is still a part of war today. It’s not a strong testament to the human race, but I don’t think we should pretend it doesn’t exist."

(Source: https://ew.com/article/2015/06/03/george-rr-martin-thrones-violence-women/)



Now let's give Martin some credit where it's due. He's right to point out that rape is an unfortunate reality of war. Depicting rape as a part of war in an effort to show how horrific it is can make a powerful point. Unfortunately this isn't what happens in his books.

For starters somebody actually bothered to count all the instances of rape in the novels. Over the space of 5 books there are 214 acts of rape. That is ridiculously over-the-top. One of the historians I quoted in the previous post had something to say about the way rape is portrayed in the novels:

"In the books, rape is expected in nearly every interaction between men and women, especially if the man has any kind of physical power. For example, Cersei Lannister assures Sansa Stark that if the keep where they’re hiding during the Battle of the Blackwater is breached,

most of my guests are in for a bit of rape, I’d say. And you should never rule out mutilation, torture, and murder in times like these. 

When Brienne and Jaime are captured by the Bloody Mummers, Brienne is constantly threatened with rape (despite her size, strength, and prowess with a sword). Only Jaime’s intercession prevents a sexual assault. And despite rescuing Brienne, Jaime still sees rape as an inevitable aspect of war. In his experience,

Men [. . .] would kill at their lord’s command, rape when their blood was up after battle, and plunder wherever they could, but once the war was done, they would go back to their homes, trade their spears for hoes, wed their neighbor’s daughters, and raise a pack of squalling children." 

"But rape is not just a part of war in Martin’s world. The threat of rape or actual rape happens constantly, even when battle and war are not factors. It’s so expected, in fact, that Sansa is surprised when Tyrion doesn’t rape her on their wedding night; it’s clear that the reader is supposed to admire him for his restraint rather than expecting that a woman would be treated with respect by default."

(Source: https://www.publicmedievalist.com/grimdark-medievalism/)

I think it's worth reiterating that last bit. Tyrion and Sansa get married in Book 2 and Tyrion is treated as a hero for not raping Sansa. That is all kinds of messed up! Since I know that the commonly recited defense is more or less "something something, muh realism," lets consult a medieval historian on whether this is actually "realistic" or not:

“For women in Martin's novels and the HBO show, sexual violence is a constant specter, with rape an everyday threat for many of the female characters. No doubt such violence existed in the Middle Ages, historians say, but women had some protections. Muslim armies rarely raped conquered populations, because rape was an unforgivable crime in Islam, DeVries said. Christian armies had slightly less-stringent religious prohibitions, but women were more protected than commonly depicted in popular culture, he said. The uptick in sexual brutality actually occurred after the Middle Ages, during the Wars of Religion kicked off by the Protestant Reformation, he said. In those conflicts, opposing sides saw each other as heretics and thus felt free to commit brutalities.  

Rape was not accepted as a fact of civilian life, either, though the definition of sexual assault was limited. In early-medieval England, only a previously chaste or virgin women could prosecute a man for rape. In 1285, Edward I's parliament changed the definition of rape to allow for prosecution of men who raped non-virgins, and allowed women to bring suit against attackers themselves instead of through a male relative.”

(Source: https://www.livescience.com/44599-medieval-reality-game-of-thrones.html)

So in other words, neither Martin nor his fanbase get to hide behind the "muh realism" argument. Westeros is far more barbaric about the topic of rape than the actual Middle Ages were. And keep in mind, the actual problems about the way rape was seen in "ye good ole days" isn't even addressed in the story!





There's another problem with how Martin depicts rape in his story. There are three scenes in the books where rape is graphically depicted. The thing here is that these scenes aren't meant to be depicted as rape. When I talked about Jaime and Cersei's sex scene I mentioned how a lot of people viewed that as consensual despite the fact that the book explicitly points out that she's saying no to him. There are two other scenes like that. This leads to a major problem in Martin's novels that got pointed out by the same person who actually counted the number of rapes in the story:

"When rape is told from the perpetrator’s point of view, the reader is left with the question of whether Martin actually intended those scenes to be rape scenes, There’s been a great deal of online argument as to whether Tyrion’s sex with the slave girl actually qualifies as rape. An even more ambiguous scene is Cersei’s sex with Taena Merryweather in A Feast for Crows Chapter 33. Taena says that Cersei is hurting her; however given Cersei’s history and the fact that she just turned Falyse Stokeworth over to Qyburn to be used for medical experiments which will assuredly end in Falyse’s death, Taena is in no position to refuse and must instead play along. Cersei is reenacting Robert’s rape of her, but the reader is left wondering whether it is a rape at all, since Cersei perceives Taena’s enthusiasm as genuine, while it’s entirely possible the fact that she is showing signs of arousal may be due to fear; it is not uncommon for actual rape victims to exhibit physical signs of sexual arousal. Martin’s presentation of the scene is as erotic if not more so than his few unambiguously consensual sex scenes; certainly many readers consider it erotic.

Several rapists in ASOIAF are point of view characters. They are given voice to tell their stories. They usually don’t consider themselves rapists and the scenes are written so that there’s an element of plausible deniability to the rapes. The rape victims are not POV characters; they are not given the agency to tell us their stories, their feelings about the rape, through inner monologue or even through telling their own stories during the narrative." 

(Source: https://tafkarfanfic.tumblr.com/post/119891015455/a-song-of-ice-and-fire-has-a-rape-problem)

George RR Martin does not do a good job depicting rape. In the books graphic rape scenes are depicted in an ambiguous light, and he tries to portray them as 'wild and crazy not-quite-consensual edgy sex'. 

Rape is there almost as a way to give the world of his novels an edgy flavor. It's viewed as such an everyday fact of life that it also detracts from his anti-war message (or at least the anti-war message that he claims his novels have). Rape is no longer viewed as an atrocity of war, it's viewed as being another element of his "DARK AND GRITTY WORLD" where life sucks and then you die.

 The link that I quoted earlier also goes on to say that the only rape victims who receive any justice for their rapes are villains. That's just...yikes. 

And to repeat myself from before, this is not an historically accurate depiction of the way medieval societies viewed rape. 

There's another problem with the over usage of rape and sexual violence in the novels: 

"The problem with Martin's stance is there is more than one type of conflict for women...Focusing so much energy on sexual assault suggests to readers and viewers that women's primary form of struggle, of fear, of pain should be sexual assault... It's important that authors, particularly male authors, know there are other types of conflict for women in stories set during this time that do not involve sexual violence.

More evidence of an historian saying that rape wasn't as common in the Middle Ages as Martin claims it was: http://sciencenordic.com/was-rape-common-middle-ages

 Martin seems to feel readers want him to create an egalitarian society of blissful unity, though — even though, as a fan myself, I'm not sure that's really the issue here. I don't want a utopia, I want conflict. The issue here, really, is that Martin creates iconic female characters, but he does not recognize how he limits them and himself by continuously employing sexual assault as the only way to cause strife in their lives, or to drive home the horrors of war."

(Source: https://www.bustle.com/articles/87891-george-rr-martins-explanation-for-game-of-thrones-violence-against-women-misses-the-point)

_______________________________________________________________

Recap Time

1) Martin's portrayal of rape is not historically accurate. Therefore, the common defense that both he and his fans give of rape being "realistic" does not hold up to scrutiny and does not count as a valid defense of his work.

2) Martin's graphic rape scenes are presented as consensual, edgy sex. There's a disgusting degree of ambiguity present so that his fans can argue that it's not rape. 

3) Rape in the books is considered so commonplace that it detracts from his anti-war message. After all, it's hard to say that war is terrible and that rape is a part of it when it happens in plenty of contexts outside of war.

4) Martin's overuse of rape limits the types of conflicts that both he and his female characters go through. 

Bashing The Books Part 1: "Realism"

 So there's a trend I've noticed when it comes to bashing the show. It's cool to bash the TV series, but the Song of Ice and Fire novels are still held in high esteem. There's an unspoken implication that the books are practically perfect and above criticism. If they do get criticized, it's usually the pacing of the last two novels. However, I have a lot of issues when it comes to the books. There's a lot to criticize so let's jump in.

Part 1 - "Realism"

One of the major selling points of the novels is that it's a more "grounded" and "realistic" series when compared to your average fantasy series. I have multiple problems with this.

First, there are a lot of terms that I believe are heavily overused when people discuss the quality of a story. "Realism" is near the top of that list. I despise that word with a passion. Why? Well, believe it or not my views on the word "realistic" got summed up profoundly in the Martin vs. Tolkien Rap Battle. I can't believe I'm using a freaking rap battle in a serious way, but there's a profound line that needed to be said:

"We all know the world is filled with chance and anarchy

So yes it's true to life for characters to die randomly

But newsflash, the genre's called fantasy!

It's meant to be unrealistic you myopic manatee!"

I'm going to repeat this, because this needs to be said again:

"We all know the world is filled with chance and anarchy

So yes it's true to life for characters to die randomly

But newsflash, the genre's called fantasy!

It's meant to be unrealistic you myopic manatee!"

THE FANTASY GENRE IS NOT MEANT TO BE REALISTIC! One of the most appealing aspects are the fictional worlds we get to create! The make believe, the process of creation, the fact that you're making a new world with its own rules and logic. Those are some of the bedrock elements of the genre. It's supposed to be creative. It's not supposed to be 100 % like real life. You're supposed to be immersed in this engaging world. A lot of people either take this for granted or have forgotten this crucial element. To criticize fantasy for being "unrealistic" is to completely miss the point of the entire genre to begin with.

Another massive problem I have with the term "realistic" is that the people who love to throw that word around tend to have a very dark, cynical, and depressing view of the world. The idea of characters being noble, virtuous, or idealized in any way is considered too "unrealistic" for some people. That's sad. That's really, really, sad. Another "realistic" notion for some people is the idea that good people get screwed over all the time and that being a bad people always get away with their crimes. It's true that life isn't fair. It's true that sometimes these things happen. Life isn't always sunshine and rainbows, but it's not all doom and gloom either.

There's a term for the type of sub genre that Game of Thrones and George RR Martin's novels have popularized: Grimdark Fantasy. These novels are grimdark and edgy as all heck. There's a lot to be said about the grimdark sub genre. I recently came across an article that I think sums up one of the major pitfalls of "grimdark" literature:

"Fans of Grimdark acclaim it as realistic and gritty, saying they’re tired of over-idealized heroes and noble intentions.

But the Grimdark genre is no more “realistic” than the Hallmark Channel.

Both Grimdark and Hallmark Christmas movies take one aspect of human nature—be it cruelty or pancreas-killing levels of sweetness—and blow it way out of proportion.

I agree that heroes should have flaws. There is still a huge difference between trying to do the right thing despite your flaws and letting your flaws define you.

The Grimdark genre wallows in the worst of humanity...

I’ve heard Grimdark called “gritty,” “pragmatic,” or, most humorously to me, “realistic.”

If your reality is devoid of nobility, honesty, and character, you’re in desperate need of a life change."

(Source: https://www.elisabethwheatley.com/2019/03/18/game-of-thrones-is-not-realistic/)

Now to be fair, I do love stories that have dark moments in them. Fire Emblem 4 and Final Fantasy 6 are some of my favorite video games of all time and their stories have major plot twists where the villain actually gets to win! And I love those aspects of the games! But there's a difference between having dark moments and just being dark all around. Both Holy War and Final Fantasy 6 still have a hopeful tone to them. Those stories still believe in goodness and heroism. Those stories manage to balance out the dark moments. This is something that Game of Thrones and the books don't have.

# 2 - Is The Story Actually That Good of A Reflection of The Middle Ages?

Going along with the "realism" bit, people often heap praise on Game of Thrones for being a "historically grounded" medieval fantasy series. I remember raising an eyebrow when people said this and I remember wondering to myself: "Is Game of Thrones actually a good representation of the Middle Ages?" The people who normally tout this line are not historians so I decided to do a little bit of digging and it turns out that plenty of medieval historians have actually pointed out numerous ways in which the books aren't realistic.

George RR Martin has gone on record stating why he chose to make the world of Westeros as dark and brutal as he did:

"I wanted my books to be strongly grounded in history and to show what medieval society was like, and I was also reacting to a lot of fantasy fiction. Most stories depict what I call the ‘Disneyland Middle Ages’—there are princes and princesses and knights in shining armor, but they didn’t want to show what those societies meant and how they functioned."

This point of his has been countered by an actual historian:

“But Martin perhaps goes too far the other way, counteracting a rosy vision of the past with one covered in mud. In the books, any knight foolish enough to be a true believer in chivalry is doomed.” 

“But Martin’s darker view of the past isn’t more real. Just because something is edgy doesn’t mean it’s true; as many of the articles here at The Public Medievalist have shown, there was a lot more to the Middle Ages than war, violence, whiteness, and sexism.

What does it say about modern readers and viewers that we’re ready to buy in to such a dark vision of the medieval past? Perhaps our fascination with barbaric medievalism lets us offload our own social problems onto a time period so far behind us that it’s practically alien. We can feel superior to those dirty, backwards medieval people. And we can feel safe in our own modern mythology of progress and decency, quietly ignoring any similarities George R. R. Martin’s world has with our own."

(Source: https://www.publicmedievalist.com/grimdark-medievalism/ )

Now what are some other criticisms that actual medieval historians have made about the "realism" in A Song of Ice and Fire?

“But life probably wasn't quite as horrific as portrayed in the war-torn world of Westeros, at least not most of the time. Back then, commoners worked hard, but they were "just people," Pyrdum said.

"We have lots of records of peasants having fun — getting really drunk, celebrations, parades," he said.”

“In fact, had Joffrey come to the throne as a child king in medieval England, his uncles would have no reason to win the throne through combat, Ashdown-Hill said; rather, they would have held the power in their nephew's stead. In France, on the other hand, it was standard for the Queen Mother to hold power for her minor children on the throne, which Joffrey's mother Cersei tries to do in "Game of Thrones," with varying degrees of success.

The pervasiveness of a major religion in all aspects of life is what "Game of Thrones" and most fantasy epics leave out of their Middle Age-style worlds, he said.

"The thing that always strikes me is, these people don't seem to be that interested in religion," Pyrdum said of fantasy authors. "When I see a fantasy work, they seem to be modern people stuck with medieval technology … It's hard to separate the medieval world from the presence of the church.”

(Source: https://www.livescience.com/44599-medieval-reality-game-of-thrones.html)

"One’s first instinct is to describe it as featuring a “medieval” level of technology since you have knights in armor, castles, no guns or cannons, and no printing press. But in other respects Westeroi technology is much more advanced than the technology of medieval Europe. This is particularly true in the life sciences. Their “moon tea” appears to be a highly effective abortifacient or perhaps some kind of equivalent to our so-called “morning after pill.” They also appear to understand a fair amount about the problem of infected wounds and how to treat them. This science is less advanced than post-WWII antibiotics but seems to be at-or-beyond 19th century medical science. There’s also indication that thanks to the exigencies of extra-long winters they’ve figured out how to treat scurvy properly." (Source: https://slate.com/business/2012/08/technology-in-a-game-of-thrones-and-the-song-of-fire-and-ice.html)

What would you like fans of Game of Thrones to know about the real Middle Ages?

It was more racially, ethnically and culturally diverse than Westeros. 

Looking beyond Game of Thrones, what do you think are the biggest misconceptions people have about that era?

I have to laugh a little because the “era” is the span of about one thousand years and contained just as many cultures! I think our view of the middle ages tends to be a bit narrow: “medieval” is often a synonym for “barbaric,” so the assumption is that the “dark ages” was a widespread time period of moral bankruptcy, intellectual regression and perpetual violence. In reality, people were establishing universities and trade routes while also making important cultural advancements. The Islamic world (to use that term loosely) was responsible for progressing mathematics and medicine, while Asian cultures saw an outpouring of poetry and philosophy. Even Vikings – the archetype for Western medieval warrior culture – were advancing trade, founding new settlements and peacefully connecting with non-European cultures. While violence and political intrigue did happen, those things often overshadow all the good things that humans accomplished.

(Source: https://www.clydefitchreport.com/2017/08/game-of-thrones-medieval/)

“While it’s true that women in the Middle Ages could not vote or run for public office, there are many scholars (myself included) that see the position of women actually worsen after the Middle Ages. As medieval scholar Joan Kelly-Gadol argues, women did not have a Renaissance; only men did. During the Middle Ages, women could be found in positions of power”

“By and large, there were far more good female rulers during the Middle Ages than Dany-esque tyrants or sept-destroying Cerseis. Beyond just good female rulers, the Middle Ages was not nearly as sexist or misogynistic as Game Of Thrones would lead us to believe. Medieval women had a lot more power and freedom than the women in Westeros.”

The popular understanding of Medieval times comes from the Victorians

"The Victorians dictate much of our understanding of the Middle Ages. Much of the sex, violence, and misogyny that many believe to be part of the “real” Middle Ages actually has much more to do with the sexual repression, violent colonialism, and sexism of the Victorian period. During the Victorian era, women could not own land, plead their case in court, seal their names in business deals, or go on Crusade. During the Middle Ages, women could do all those things. Queen Victoria ruled England, but she was no Eleanor of Aquitaine. In an 1870 letter Queen Victoria wrote, “Were women to ‘unsex’ themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen, and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection.”

(Source: https://www.avclub.com/the-middle-ages-weren-t-as-sexist-as-game-of-thrones-wo-1834980838)

 “The largest issue at play is the disconcerting idea that “if it feels realistic, then it must be factual”. And because Game of Thrones, on the whole, tends to validate people’s beliefs in a more brutal, loveless and unforgiving past, it only perpetuates the illusion that the medieval world was as bleak as we like to imagine it as.”

“And if the current times are overwhelmingly terrible, societies tend to look back for either reassurance that times were better, or with a mentality of “at least it wasn’t as bad as then”.

“The modern world seems dark and full of terrors; and while it’d be a little too optimistic to say this is completely false, it is not completely true either. When modern writers hyper-focus on pessimistic modern ideas and become cynical about all things, it reflects in our understandings of greatly more complex histories. The greatest victim in this is that of the “barbaric, ruthless, unforgiving” middle ages. And so long as people continue to believe that this is the case, we will forever be living under the shadow of cynicism and hopelessness.

Good people and all those wonderful things exist now just as they did back then. There’s no need to paint exclusively with the colour black: introduce some complex, bright tones to your pallet and explore how rich the world truly is.”

(Source: https://station85blog.wordpress.com/2018/11/15/a-game-of-grimdark-the-effects-of-game-of-thrones-on-fantasy-writers-and-medieval-history/)

Now you might be thinking to yourself: "Wait a second, you just got done saying that fantasy wasn't supposed to be realistic. Now you're criticizing the books for not being realistic enough. Aren't you contradicting yourself?"

________________________________________________Conclusion: Here's another major reason why I'm criticizing the "realism" of the books: One of the main selling points of the story as a whole is that it's "realistic" and "grounded" in medieval history. This is also a line of logic that fans of the series use whenever people criticize certain aspects of the story, like it's overuse of rape for example.

My point in criticizing the "realism" of the series is to point out that one of the most important selling points of the entire series doesn't actually hold up to scrutiny. Both the show and the books parade their "realism" around for all to see and they're not as realistic as they're thought to be.

A Song of Ice and Fire isn't as realistic as its fans would like to have you believe. It just feels realistic to many people. And the reason why it feels realistic to many people is because the novels reinforce people's misconceptions about the Middle Ages being a brutal and barbaric time. That's why people into it. It reinforces their misconceptions. It also reinforces the dark, cynical beliefs most people have. It reinforces the cynicism of a post 911 world.

Problems with the Show

Once upon a time it seemed like Game of Thrones was untouchable. It was arguably the most popular show on TV. When people spoke of "The Golden Age of Television" Game of Thrones would be listed as one of those shows. Nowadays people say that it sucks. Somewhere along the line Game of Thrones fell from grace. The interesting question is...why? Why is Game of Thrones now considered an awful series? Well, let's find out. 



# 1 - The "Teleportation" Problem
One major problem with the latter seasons of the show is that they play fast and loose with travel times and distances. One character shows up in a spot in one episode and then is somehow able to travel halfway across their continent in the same episode with no explanation given to explain how they arrived there so fast.

 Nobody in Game of Thrones has access to fast travel. The closest we get are dragons and even they have limitations. The earlier seasons of the show do a much better job at establishing how long it takes to get from Point A to Point B. The usual argument given in defense of this is to say that there are different timelines occurring between all the events in the series. The problem with this explanation is that the show gives absolutely zero indication that this is even happening. 

In short: The show chucks internal consistency out the window in their attempt to race toward the finish line. Since there's no attempt explain how this works it comes across as extremely lazy writing. 



# 2 - Dumbed Down Characters
Another major problem with the show is that the characterization is awful. For those of you who have been keeping up with what I've written in the past, you'll know that I personally don't like most of the cast. That being said, the show manages to dumb down the cast which destroys any remotely compelling character traits about them. The easiest way to think of this is to take the IQ of any given character and divide it by 20. That's how stupid most of the cast becomes. For example...

• Tyrion: As I've mentioned before, Tyrion becomes really stupid from Season 5 onward. Every major decision he makes either backfires or gets massively screwed up in ways that are really easy to see coming. No plan ever works out for him. It's really disappointing for a character whose primary trait is his shrewd nature and political savvy to be reduced to a complete idiot. It stretches our suspension of disbelief for why Dany still keeps him around as an advisor when he doesn't seem to be capable of making a plan that actually works. It also doesn't help that his dialogue went from being witty and clever to just making unfunny dick jokes over and over again. 

• Littlefinger and Varys: Somebody else did a better job of explaining where the show went wrong with these two:

"Vary and Littlefinger suffer just as badly as Tyrion. Where as the first four seasons establish the two characters as two of the masterminds behind the scenes, the puppet masters pulling strings, playing games within games, wheels within wheels, tricking and manipulating this character or that, and constantly thwarting each other along the way... Post season 4, and their motivations are both inexplicable. 

What does Varys do in seasons 5–8? Nothing of ANY importance. He does not factor into ONE SINGLE important plot development post season 5. He doesn't utilize his skills as a spymaster/whisperer, or disguise. He doesn’t advice, nor manipulate, nor coerce. he just….exists, looking mopey.

And of course, that brings us to Littlefinger.... He would never stick around Winterfell with an omniscient boy who showed signs he was onto him. He would not set up such a clumsy, and easily seen through (though it very nearly worked, thanks to the bad writing of Arya and Sansa) plan to pit sisters against one another to seize power from Jon, and, when his life was at stake, he’d mount SOME sort of coherent argument, ESPECIALLY as every charge laid against him was deniable or explainable.

Instead of (like Varys with Daenerys) avoiding executing by mounting even the most basic self defense, he just plays dumb, begs to be taken to the Eyrie, and then falls to his knees hoping Sansa will spare him due to his (legitimate) assistance to her. Littlefinger is many things, but he is no coward. He dueled Brandon Stark for Catelyn Tully’s favor! He makes the ballsiest political moves in the series. And, in the final season, when he wasn’t just leering sinisterly from the shadows, he was reduced to a whimpering, weeping shell of a formerly machiavellian character.

(Source: https://www.quora.com/Why-have-we-not-heard-one-intelligent-sentence-coming-out-of-the-mouth-of-characters-like-Tyrion-Baelish-or-Varys-after-Season-5-onwards-Wasnt-their-intelligent-and-intriguing-conversations-what-made-Game-of-Thrones/answer/Trey-Brannon-1)

Both of these characters were Emperor Palpatine levels of cunning and were political masterminds who were ultimately reduced to simpering idiots that played a very insignificant role in the grand scheme of the show's plot. 

These three aren't the only examples of how the characters got collectively dumber for the sake of the plot, but they're pretty good representations of what happened later on. 

# 3 - "Subverted Expectations"


One of the biggest memes in the Game of Thrones fandom is how the show in the latter seasons prioritize shock value over logic and coherence. The show-runners are clearly more interested in major, shocking plot twists than they are in telling a good story. This became the bread and butter of the later seasons and it ruined the show. For example:

• One of the major villains of the show was the Night King. He was set up to be this major, "final boss" type of villain. He dies in one episode from Arya jumping out of nowhere and shanking him with a dagger. The show did not properly build this up. That entire battle makes the entire build-up from the past 7 seasons utterly worthless. 

• Daenerys Targaryen massacres an entire city long after that city surrendered. This shocked a lot of the fans who saw the show, but it was clumsily handled, not properly built up, and didn't make sense coming from the show's version of the character.

• At the end of Season 7 Arya and Sansa Stark go at each others throats because Littlefinger's turning them against each other. The show never bothers to explain why he's trying to turn the sisters against each other. It's actually really counterproductive for him to do that since he just helped the Starks get their homeland back. 

            If anything, he should be trying to help unify the North. Then it turned out that Arya and Sansa were faking him out. The problem here is that in the scene where the fake-out happens there's nobody around to watch or spy on them. So there's no reason at all for Arya and Sansa to be fighting. The Arya-Sansa bickering comes across as forced and contrived as a result.

• At the end of Season 5 Sansa Stark gets pawned off by Littlefinger to Ramsay Bolton. The show never explains why Littlefinger chose to make this arrangement. Ramsay rapes Sansa during their wedding night. This did absolutely nothing for Sansa's character arc. In fact it actually made Sansa regress as a character. 

So to sum that portion up: Game of Thrones started throwing narrative logic out the window in favor of big, shocking plot twists. The problem is that these plot twists don't make sense and they actually make the story worse off as a result. 

# 4 - Pointless Crap 

There's a lot of pointless stuff that happens in the later seasons of Game of Thrones. I won't try to list them all because there's too many, but here are a few examples:

• Bran: What exact purpose did Bran Stark serve in the story? He was built up to have magic powers that let him see the past and the future. He was built up to have some important role against the Battle against the White Walkers. He didn't do anything against the White Walkers. There was lots of build up but no pay off.

• Jon Snow's Parentage: One of the big reveals in the show is that Jon Snow is actually the rightful heir to the Iron Throne. Nothing gets done with it. Nobody makes a claim on Jon Snow's behalf for the Iron Throne, Jon doesn't sit on the Iron Throne and Daenerys still lets Jon fight for her even though he's got a better claim to the Throne that she wants. What purpose did this reveal serve again?

• Jaime Lannister's Story Arc: The show built up a redemption arc for Jaime Lannister but then threw it in the trash. In the end Jaime still goes back to his sister long after he already knew that she was toxic trash. Having Jaime still be in love with Cersei means that his character goes nowhere and does nothing of value. 

            In Season 8 Jaime has a pointless sex scene with Brienne before leaving to King's Landing. Why this sex scene happened, we'll never know. All he does in King's Landing is try to help Cersei escape. He fails and they both die. 

• Cersei Lannister: Cersei in the final season was essentially a final boss from a video game. She stood around, did nothing and waited to be defeated by Daenerys. 

• Brienne: If Brienne died around the mid way point of Season 6 nothing would have changed. 

Like I said, I could keep going but you get the point. The later seasons of Game of Thrones did not know what to do with some of its characters and it failed to provide meaningful closure to a good chunk of the cast. 

# 5 - Tactical Stupidity

As you'd expect of a medieval fantasy series, Game of Thrones has a lot of battle scenes, especially toward the latter end of the show. While they're pretty to look at, they don't make much sense from a tactical standpoint.

Nobody takes advantage of castles anymore. Instead, all the major characters will send their armies outside the castle so that we can have big battle scenes. 

During the major battle at the end of Season 6 Jon Snow races headlong into an enemy cavalry despite the fact that his army is significantly behind him. They only save his butt in the nick of time. 

In Season 7 Cersei's army is somehow able to sneak up on an enemy castle and take it with zero resistance. How her army managed to sneak up on a major castle that should be well defended is never explained by the show.

In Seasons 7 & 8 Cersei's navy is capable of teleporting across major sections of the continent and can even sneak up on Daenerys's dragons, even though these dragons can fly and should be able to see a freaking navy coming a mile away. One of these ships somehow manages to kill one of her dragons. 

After Daenerys loses her dragon in one episode she's somehow able to solo Cersei's entire fleet and wipe out King's Landing with one dragon, which is something she never came close to accomplishing back when she had three dragons. 

In Season 5 Ramsay Bolton and "20 good men" are somehow able to sneak into Stannis's camp and raid his supplies without ever being noticed. Once again, the show never explains. It makes even less sense when you take into consideration that Stannis is supposed to be an accomplished military commander while Ramsay has little to no experience at all. Later on, Ramsay somehow destroys Stannis's army without an explanation ever being given. 

When the good guys fight the White Walkers in Season 8 they know that anybody who dies turns into a White Walker. So what do they do? They blindly send their cavalry to charge headlong into the White Walker army where said cavalry proceeds to get wiped out. Great, now the White Walkers have an entire cavalry on their side. Great job guys! 

So let's recap. Why did the show fall from grace?

1) It threw out all sense of narrative cohesion out the window. Characters can now travel at lightning speeds because the plot demanded it.

2) The show made most of its cast complete idiots. Part of the appeal of the show came from seeing all these shrewd Machiavellian players outmaneuver each other on the chess board. Once Season 5 came around all these cunning players suddenly became stupid. Nobody likes watching a show where supposedly intelligent people are actual idiots.

3) The later seasons prioritized shock value over logic. Many of the twists the show created ended up hurting the show. The twists made no logical sense and in one case regressed a character's arc.

4) It added pointless crap and a significant portion of the characters had nothing to do and failed to contribute to the plot in any meaningful way. 

5) The battles in the show stopped making sense which broke everyone's immersion to the story. When I feel like I'm a better tactician than the supposed military geniuses and commanders on the show, you know you've got a problem.