How is it That Games of Thrones Is As Popular As It is With Its Cast Of Less Than Heroic Characters that Populate The Seven Kingdoms and Beyond ?

[Toby Frost]

Fevre Dream is a very good horror novel by him as well, about vampires in antebellum America.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I mostly agree with you on your post, but I disagree with literature having some sort of moral obligation to society.

I'm sure that StillLearning was suggesting that there was an obligation - which there clearly isn't - but that contemporary literatute can help to define the era in which it was written.

Who are the best remembered Greeks? Not the generals or the rulers, but the writers.

 

[KGeo777]

I had no interest in GoT because I heard it described as being like the Sopranos.
I have no interest in rewatching the Sopranos at all. The soap opera format was one reason but
it was ultimately a demoralizing experience and I question the value when I think back on it. Every character in the show--with perhaps the exception of the two psychiatrists, were presented as having extreme flaws and negative personalities. If there were any good characters they were sacrificed or ruined.

I, Claudius was based on history but they did have some good characters here and there--and Claudius was presented as a sympathetic person.
I wonder if there is anything in GoT to match the scene where Claudius comforts Livia?

But the wider question is--would something more positive and uplifting be popular if it was given the money and promotion?
We don't know because they don't try very hard for that.

Maybe what is revealing is that a lot of older tv shows are popular still--and how many of those have the kind of pervasively negative content as GoT?
Or compare Shakespeare to GoT--is the content of violence and cruelty in Shakespeare just as prevalent or is it more limited?

Ultimately a show like GoT reflects the personalities of the creators more than the audience.

One thing that also harms a show like that is the nudity requirement. There are good performers who do not want to do nudity--and so they get passed over for those who are willing.
That's one thing that made me shut off ROME the series.
I did not find the cast very interesting, with or without clothes.

Charisma is usually conveyed in the face, not the body.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I had no interest in GoT because I heard it described as being like the Sopranos.
I have no interest in rewatching the Sopranos at all. The soap opera format was one reason but
it was ultimately a demoralizing experience and I question the value when I think back on it. Every character in the show--with perhaps the exception of the two psychiatrists, were presented as having extreme flaws and negative personalities. If there were any good characters they were sacrificed or ruined.

I, Claudius was based on history but they did have some good characters here and there--and Claudius was presented as a sympathetic person.
I wonder if there is anything in GoT to match the scene where Claudius comforts Livia?

But the wider question is--would something more positive and uplifting be popular if it was given the money and promotion?
We don't know because they don't try very hard for that.

Maybe what is revealing is that a lot of older tv shows are popular still--and how many of those have the kind of pervasively negative content as GoT?
Or compare Shakespeare to GoT--is the content of violence and cruelty in Shakespeare just as prevalent or is it more limited?

Ultimately a show like GoT reflects the personalities of the creators more than the audience.

One thing that also harms a show like that is the nudity requirement. There are good performers who do not want to do nudity--and so they get passed over for those who are willing.
That's one thing that made me shut off ROME the series.
I did not find the cast very interesting, with or without clothes.

Charisma is usually conveyed in the face, not the body.

This was also my opinion of The Sopranos: it was utterly depressing. Yes it had (at times) a captivating storyline, it was ultimately a downward spiral throughout the run of the show. People doing bad things to each other for money, power or revenge. Even the lighter hearted moments - aren't.

I actually went back and rewatched the series some time after, and I ended up feelung just as depressed.

I also found the rebooted series of BSG - as brilliant as it is - is a series of unpleasant characters (on both sides) doing unpleasant things to each other.

I, Claudius was also full of unpleasant characters but (as you mention) at least the protagonist was sympathetic (but in reality probably wasn't). Having said that Claudius is a coward, and allows both his wife and his child to be murdered because he wouldn't stand up for them.

To be fair, I thought that Rome was a great series with some genuine humour and a gripping storyline. Yes, there is sex, nudity and graphic violence but they aren't gratuitous and at least serve a purpose. Spartacus on the other hand (especially after the first series) was sex and violence with the slimmest excuse of a storyline.

 

[KGeo777]

To be fair, I thought that Rome was a great series with some genuine humour and a gripping storyline. Yes, there is sex, nudity and graphic violence but they aren't gratuitous and at least serve a purpose. Spartacus on the other hand (especially after the first series) was sex and violence with the slimmest excuse of a storyline.

I found the cast kind of boring though.

The Sopranos had better casting (and the nudity was limited to the strip club). It was the violence that stood out.
I felt like the show let you eavesdrop on the lives of people you wouldn't want to be around for real.
But it was advertised under the slogan that "tv had grown up" which is pretty arrogant and hyperbolic.
All they really did was bring cinematic production values inspired by Martin Scorsese mafia films to cable tv in a series format.

 

[The Big Peat]

I've got to say, it always intrigues me how people see SoIaF as radically different to LotR and other such works in terms of its framing of good vs evil and virtuous protagonists and what not. To me, Jon Snow vs the Night King has a ton in common with Frodo vs Sauron or Rand vs the Dark One and so on. House Stark vs House Lannister is heavily framed in terms of good vs evil and while Martin questions that, it ultimately comes down to House Stark do keep trying to do the right thing and to create and help and so on and that House Lannister, Tyrion (whose paternity is questioned) aside, don't. Oh, Jaime tries to do the right thing, and sometimes does, but he can't escape being what House Lannister made him. Is Jaime's confusion as to what the right thing to do is that different from Boromir or Denethor?

Yeah, the casualties in House Stark reframe things a lot about the triumph of good compared to some of those books. Only some and even in the most idealistic of books, it's very clear that bad things often happen to people trying to do good things.

Personally I think the extent to which SoIaF is seen as this huge departure is a triumph of how people tend to slant how they view something in the light of this or that memorable feature. Martin takes a far more abrasive tone, a few stunning scenes, and voila, suddenly everything was very different.

But the wider question is--would something more positive and uplifting be popular if it was given the money and promotion?
We don't know because they don't try very hard for that.

Brooklyn 99 and The Good Place both spring to mind. Not to mention the LotR movies and Harry Potter. Etc.etc.

 

[KGeo777]

Brooklyn 99 and The Good Place both spring to mind. Not to mention the LotR movies and Harry Potter. Etc.etc.

I was thinking specifically of something like GoT--in that it involves a Medieval kingdom and drama--but more positive or stable.
Knights of the Round Table situation.
Not a comedy, nothing with elves or little people, but a serious drama that happens to be focus on more functional characters and plots.

It could be very boring but I think it depends on the approach.

When Raiders of the Lost Ark came out--they did clones--like Tales of the Gold Monkey and Bring 'Em Back Alive.


When Magnum PI came out and was a hit, then they tried others like Matt Houston and who knows what else

Copycat mentality. I am not aware of that these days--and certainly not with shows where they have to spend a few million per episode.

 

[The Big Peat]

I was thinking specifically of something like GoT--in that it involves a Medieval kingdom and drama--but more positive or stable.
Knights of the Round Table situation.
Not a comedy, nothing with elves or little people, but a serious drama that happens to be focus on more functional characters and plots.

It could be very boring but I think it depends on the approach.

When Raiders of the Lost Ark came out--they did clones--like Tales of the Gold Monkey and Bring 'Em Back Alive.


When Magnum PI came out and was a hit, then they tried others like Matt Houston and who knows what else

Copycat mentality. I am not aware of that these days--and certainly not with shows where they have to spend a few million per episode.

Oh, with you.

I think by and large for this sort of show, they're not doing crap that isn't an adaptation because as you say, it costs a lot so they want assurance they're getting their money back. There are a few shows that got greenlit as a result though (with GoT in itself probably only getting its go due to the popularity of the Harry Potter and LotR movies) - Wheel of Time, the new Middle Earth show, Shadow & Bone, that ghastly Discworld adaptation that shall be consigned to the wastebin of history. I suspect there'll be a few more before it's done.

I have by and large watched none of those so I can't really comment but in every case, the source material generally lends itself to positivity. It's not like the TV companies are only picking the darker fantasy shows to adapt.

 

[KGeo777]

I have by and large watched none of those so I can't really comment but in every case, the source material generally lends itself to positivity. It's not like the TV companies are only picking the darker fantasy shows to adapt.

The main thing seems to me to be that they are taking films like Goodfellas or Gladiator or a zombie movie and then making a weekly series about the ideas-(Sopranos-Rome-Walking Dead)-with the same lack of restrictions on sex and violence found in cinema. And in order to emphasize this lack of restriction, they have to remind you of it each episode. Thus you end up with darker emphasis and since it is not a single movie-but something weekly---one may find it a little too depressing for regular consumption.
Not sure that explains such a focus on negative main character situations (Breaking Bad etc) but maybe another way of looking at it--is how many stars did these shows create?
In the case of the Sopranos I am not aware that James Gandolfini was able to distinguish himself from the show afterwards.
What I took issue with is the idea that the tv format was good for writers who had worked in film since they were taking ideas and stretching them into a dozen or more episodes a year rather than concentrating on a single work.

 

[Judderman]

Shows for positivity tend to be game shows or talent and singing shows. Or cookery. Other than comedies.
For writers a big series must be equivalent work to more than one film. And more desirable than working on Coronation Street. But in Game Of Thrones the difference is most of the writing for the best seasons was written by one brilliant author. He knows how to write drama in more than just building up to battles.

 

[Judderman]

Though we seem to be mainly talking about the tv series in the book discussion thread.
Still in the book world people often enjoy drama and surprise, with good writing. The element of negative characters is perhaps part of growing up.

 

[Dave]

This thread does seem to be about a lot of different things, but just on the question of 'less than heroic characters' 'ultimately redeeming themselves,' then no, I don't think all characters in books, TV or any other medium necessarily must redeem themselves to be popular. If you take TV shows like Breaking Bad, Better Call Saul or Ozark, where characters murder, work for drug cartels, and do very questionable things, they never do redeem themselves. What you see instead is their journey, and how they have convinced themselves that they had to do what they did. They are not bad people, but people who did bad things. Ultimately, fate catches up with them. They are three dimensional characters rather than cardboard cut outs. The characters in Game of Thrones are no different. I find that characterisation in modern SFF is much better than it was older books, and that is possibly why SFF has become more popular (but that is another question.)

 

[StilLearning]

Tolkien changed his mind about orcs a few time:
Author J.R.R. Tolkien had all kinds of ideas for the Orcs' origin, but he couldn't make up his mind. Over the years, he changed their backstory multiple times because he kept running into continuity issues. The earliest idea came in The Book of Lost Tales (1917-1920), which stated that Melkor (Morgoth) created the Orcs out of "the subterranean heats and slime. Their hearts were of granite and their bodies deformed." In 1937, Tolkien slightly revised his story in the Quenta Silmarillion so that Morgoth still created the Orcs, but he did so after the Elves awoke at Cuiviénen. The difference in timing meant that Morgoth created the Orcs in direct mockery of the Children of Ilúvatar.

A few years later, Tolkien wrote the Annals of Aman (1950). That work was the first time Morgoth didn't directly create the Orcs because, as one of the Valar, he couldn't actually instigate life. So, he captured Elves from the East and corrupted them into Orcs. That was an improvement to the story because it demeaned Morgoth's power. However, it also created a new problem. Elves were immortal and went to the Halls of Mandos when they died. Yet, there has never been any mention of Orcs being supreme enough to be immortal. So, when he revised the Annals, Tolkien wrote in the margins, "Alter this. Orcs are not Elvish."

Tolkien developed a whole new idea in a 1959 essay found in Myths Transformed book (compiled by his son, Christopher Tolkien). The new theory stated that Orcs were soulless animals that Morgoth corrupted and then taught to do his bidding like evil pets. Around that same time, Tolkien wrote Quendi and Eldar (1959-1960). In an appendix, he moved the awakening of the race of Men from the beginning of the First Age to even before the Great March of the Elves. He did that in an effort to accommodate Morgoth, having taken them captive and corrupting them, much like he did with the Elves in the 1950 version of the Orcs' origin.

Because of all the changes in the legendarium, there isn't a definitive answer as to where the Orcs came from. However, Morgoth corrupting the Elves is the most popular theory among fans. After all, it was what Saruman told his Uruk-hai chief. However, the origin of the Elves will remain a hotly debated topic because -- much like Tom Bombadil's origin and age -- there isn't a definitive answer.

Adapted from

Are Lord of the Rings' Orcs Corrupted Elves, or Something Else?

The origin of The Lord of the Rings' Orcs is a hotly debated topic among J.R.R. Tolkien fans. Here's a look at where they came from.

www.cbr.com

That's fair, and undeniably true - I just went with what seems to have been the idea Tolkien came back to often, that made it into the Silmarillion, which seems to be the closest thing 'official lore' for LOTR, and which seems most consistent with the rest of the legendarium. But, yes, it was never fully nailed down, and Tolkien re-did the entire mythology, including the shape of the world of Arda, post Silmarillion, though he never finished it.

 

[Toby Frost]

Slightly rambling post ahoy...

First up, I think Martin sometimes gets it right and sometimes wrong. At points he does veer off into torture-porn and the like. He clearly has problems with finishing things, and there are better prose stylists out there. Also, while both exist in reality, a shrewd, ruthless villain like Tywin Lannister is perhaps more interesting than a merely disgusting villain like Joffrey or the willy-chopping man whose name I forget. There's also a whole moral point about the redemption of evil characters, who often dodge justice by dying romantically (see Darth Vader), but that's probably for another time.

Back when ASOIAF was written, big fantasy novels were still coming out of a sub-Tolkienesque time where often the good guys were on one side, the baddies on the other, and they had a big battle to see whether good or evil won, often without swearing and graphic violence, and with plot armour for the good guys. (That is a crude generalisation, but the point stands.) Martin is riffing off Tolkien (who in turn is riffing off sagas and myth) but also off history, which is often more nuanced than heroic fiction (I wouldn't want to know Orde Wingate, Douglas Bader or General Patton, but they were definitely on the side of good). I'm not making some dumb "nice guys finish last" point, but saying that the lives of real people are messy and strange, and probably all the more so when they wield great power and make hard decisions. Martin's characters might not be very good, but they're interesting.

There is also the fact that many people enjoy reading about things that they wouldn't do or condone in real life. A private eye might break into someone's house on a hunch, but that doesn't mean that readers approve of breaking and entering. Stephen King once said that reading horror was like opening a trapdoor and throwing meat to the creatures down in the dark, but that doesn't mean that you want the creatures to get loose. I think violence in stories when done well does more than just indulging the worst impulses of the reader: a genuinely good piece of art like Clive Barker's Books of Blood would be worse and less artful without the violence. That said, there's nothing wrong with not wanting to read it.

 

[StilLearning]

I mostly agree with you on your post, but I disagree with literature having some sort of moral obligation to society.

A non-compulsory role, not an obligation... though valuing honest debate compels me to say: I think it misses being an obligation only on a technicality: An obligation is something that's hard, or impossible, to avoid. While an individual writer might strive to write a piece deliberately disconnected from their place and time, I think that even for such an individual it's an open question if they can ever truly succeed. And literature as a bulk thing cannot, to be honest, expect to escape from reflecting the time, place, and circumstances of its creation. I'd even extend that to art generally - not in the form of any intention to censor any type of art, but just as alogically inevitable result of it being created in whichever place and time it is created.

What I should be clear I don't mean is the writer being constrained to write certain topics and styles, or avoid others, at the point of putting pen to page or sending manuscript to publisher (there is an argument to be made for who certain topics are published and marketed to being constrained out of a sense of social responsibility, I think).