So, you are watching the Reader’s Digest Condensed version, eh?
Stranger
What’s worse? A GoT spoiler in a spoiler-free thread or political postering in a Cafe Society thread? I guess we shall see!
Stranger - I wish I had.
Off-topic political commentary is discouraged in Cafe Society, thanks.
If you want to talk politics, go to GD. This is off-topic in a Cafe Society thread.
twickster, Cafe Society moderator
The books add so much more to the story that I think you’re doing yourself a disservice if you like the TV show by not reading the books.
I watched the first season of the show before I got into the books- there’s a LOT more under the surface and going on elsewhere that never makes it into the show. It’s almost as if the show is a gorgeously done Cliff’s Notes for the books.
What makes them so compelling? On one hand, it’s a fantasy setting with a lot of the soap-operatic elements that people like- deceit, intrigue, etc… along with a lot of the action-movie stuff people like- sex, violence, grand scale stuff.
On the other hand, there isn’t any actual magic going on in the vast majority of the show, and the little bit that is present is inexplicable, malevolent and implacable.
Plus, there’s the fun of trying to figure out how GRRM is going to tie everything together, or if he even plans on tying it all together.
It’s really more Lovecraftian-type horror than fantasy magic save for the dragons and the Warlocks of Qarth.
Stranger
Ooohhh… double mod slam!
Well to be fair, although BrokenBriton’s comment did bring a political element into the thread, it’s a VERY nice analogy for the filmed version of GoT, which has been short on huge epic battles for budget reasons, even though the storyline makes it very clear that such battles are happening.
thanks … yay House Putin!
#notveryserious
HBO’s site has lots of information for those wanting help with the complications–but wishing to avoid spoilers from the books.
However, I will state that the books don’t go into great detail about every battle that’s happened in that war-torn world. If the show gave us those details, it would just be lots of CGI pretend-soldiers.
My favorite thing: So many performances that are more excellent than they need to be…
I find the show (and books) fascinating in how it explores many different approaches to gaining and holding power, with all of them vying simultaneously for superiority. What wins? Who drifts from one ethos to another?
Honor (Starks)
Blood ties (many)
Armies (Stannis)
Royal fiat (Joffrey, Cersei)
Information control (Varys, Littlefinger)
Treachery (Lannisters, Greyjoys)
Chivalric code (Mormont, Barristan, Brienne)
Money (Lannisters)
Geography (The Arryns)
Destiny (Dany)
Tradition (Black cloaks)
Interesting. I never looked at it this way. Not only are these their approaches but also quite often their motivations.
I think the Starks are kind of unique in that they have a sort of service-based concept of being Lords of the North, and it’s formed through millenia of ruling and building relationships with their vassals.
The Lannisters aren’t particularly grasping; they’re rich because Casterly Rock and the nearby areas have productive gold mines. Tywin is more concerned with the family’s position and reputation than anything else, and uses their money to that end.
Stannis is most concerned with justice and legality- above all else.
Joffrey’s a dumb-ass kid who doesn’t really do much beyond give his grandfather headaches. Same thing for Cersei really.
The Greyjoys aren’t necessarily treacherous by nature; they developed from a totally different tradition from the North or the rest of Westeros. They worship a different god, and hold other traditions more dear. Their culture is kind of viking-esque and values martial prowess and personal achievement over feudal allegiances or Westerosi notions of honor.
The Arryns are a hard one to put a label on; we don’t really have any to examine. Lysa Arryn is really a Tully, and little Robert Arryn isn’t really playing the game just yet.
Daenerys Targaryen is interesting; she seems to be motivated by a more benevolent reason than most of her contemporaries- to protect her subjects and better their lives.
The Night’s Watch isn’t really playing the game either; they’re bound by thousands of years of tradition and practice, but their biggest problem is that they’re lacking in recruits, so they and their capabilities are much reduced when compared to those of old. They’re an interesting parallel to the Catholic priesthood in our universe- much the same thing is happening there. I wonder if GRRM is making a point, or if it’s just a convenient mechanism to tell a story with.
Actually, George R. R. Martin himself claims that a lot of the dynastic squabbling and backstabbing was cribbed from French History. In his foreword to the re-released The Iron Duke by Maurice Druon he talks about his interest in Druon’s series, and calls it “The Original Game of Thrones”
I was under the impression that the largest influence is the War of the Roses: Lancaster=Lannister and York=Stark.
Yeah he says that explicitly somewhere or other. Plus, the parallels between Westeros and England/Scotland are all there.
He also says, I think, “The Wall” was inspired by Hadrian’s Wall.
Don’t forget the Freys, who are big on blood ties, geography, and more.
But not so big on hospitality.
Does anyone else say George “RR” Martin like Mork from Ork? Just me? Okay.
StG