>GoT is a show for the hopeless, cynical pessimist who thrives on negativity. It’s for those who look at their fellow human with disdain and disgust, always searching for the awful in people to emerge instead of trying to find the good. This, I have been told, is one of the show’s selling points — its ability to cast off the silly, childish goodness of Lord of the Rings and replace it with destructive cynicism. That is categorically absurd.
rantlifestyle.com
>GoT is a show for the hopeless, cynical pessimist who thrives on negativity
It's not though.
It's a show for women about meandering plots that lead nowhere. If you ever heard a woman try to tell a simple story you'll know why this appeals to them.
There several reasons why got sucks, pessimistic aspects of the show/ book is not the best reason
Agreed, I feel repulsed by people that enjoy this show.
It's really telling of what sort of person they are.
>childish goodness of Lord of the Rings and replace it with destructive cynicism
There is literally nothing wrong with this.
Wow nust like real life.
I like when le Hobbit stole the Ring because heroes come in all shapes and sizes,
I'll agree the show relishes in violence and shock value more than the books, but on the whole, it is also a show that celebrates triumphant good and deals heavily in fanservice. The show is more characterized by having horrible things happen so that you cheer when the wrongs and righted and the hero's success feels more earned.
This critique is one sided and it seriously complaining that the show isn't more "silly" and "childish". Waste of my time.
Yes, heroes. What mental gymnastics do you have to go through in order to consider Jon Snow anything but?
>Humanity sucks because people are so cynical
Autism: The Article
>all these edgy faggots in this thread
you are all pic related
>GoT
>Heroes
>Wrongs
>Righted
yes, nobody can be a hero in got because muh nihilism, Got is so all above those simplistic occidental and problematic values anons
>it is also a show that celebrates triumphant good
Does that come later? I've only seen the first two or three seasons and the message I got was that being a good guy is for fucking chumps.
>When Cersei Lannister was raped by her brother Jaime Lannister, fans of the series came to the show’s defense, vehemently denouncing any and all dissenters. They insisted the rape was “necessary” and that it’s “just a TV show” and we should all get over it or change the channel. Essentially, they were defending rape in a show littered with them, because apparently, you can’t have a good sword fighting fantasy without some good old fashioned rape!
Thanks, Patriarchy.
It's about ebb and flow. Being a "bad guy" hasn't exactly worked out for Tywin, Viserys, Joffrey, Ramsay, Roose, Sandor, of Walder Frey has it?
The good guys succeed and they fail. The bad guys succeed and fail. If you want to pretend like there aren't moments of tremendous triumphant by the good guys in the early season then be my guest, but you know that's not true.
>Does that come later
Yes.
>the message I got was that being a good guy is for fucking chumps.
That's just the autism talking.
If you're not a "cynical pessimist" you're unintelligent, and that's really all there is to it. I don't care about the opinions of someone who is too dumb to understand how fucking dumb everyone is. Even Sup Forums, which was once a haven for people of above average intelligence, is now populated by Sup Forums chimpanzees who like reposting memes.
well he is not wrong but i read the books and i dont watch the show
>After reading the books and watching the show, one could surmise that Martin hates humanity, wishes to see its extinction and is possibly a sexist.
Yes, because good ALWAYS triumphs over evil. ALWAYS. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a great big poopypants.
Shows how much the audience changed when years later everyone lost their shit about Ramsay raping Salsa.
...
>well he is not wrong
Yes he is.
what a terrible opinion and an even worse article
Hey I'm a hopeless pessimist and I don't enjoy western fantasy at all.
>something doesn't fit into my narrow world view
>therefore I think it's terrible and only bad people enjoy it
Left wingers, ladies and gentlememes.
>give people a chance
>97% of the time they're subhumans who watched Jersey Shore
>2.99% of the time they're intellectually curious but painfully socially retarded to the point of being insufferable
>.01% of the time someone is actually worth developing a friendship with
>ITT all the triggered edgy fanboys
>I think I'll write a medieval fantasy series...
>What should the main antagonist be...
>Well realistically there is no "antagonist" most people just act in self interest and their conflicts with each other only give the illusion of antagonism
>Maybe I'll just write about that
The show has a lot of glaring faults but the concept and subject matter (of the books) is solid.
>Sup Forums tard doesn't grasp that it's perfectly okay to be "triggered" by objectively wrong nonsense like religion or some retard literally claiming evil can't triumph over good
The word triggered used derogatorily refers to a leftist or rightist SJW screaming about the skin color or gender of someone on their TV screen. Being "triggered" by the 50 IQs found on Sup Forums is healthy and normal. Go get cancer.
>muh Sup Forums
Reddit leftard spotted.
>ASOIAF is a cynical look at humanity. It should be more like Lord of the Rings. That was more accurate.
Oh, you mean that story that was written as an allegory for the mass conflict wherein one group of people decided to round up 12 million other people and shove them screaming into ovens and gas chambers? Yeah, no, humanity is great. All the time. Martin is just a cynic.
>we should all get over it or change the channel.
OUTRAGEOUS
The only people that use "triggered" in an ironic sense are Sup Forums.
You don't have to post on Sup Forums to be Sup Forums, you just have to have to share the anti-feminist, right wing perspective of the people that post there.
OBVIOUSLY YOU DONT UNDERSTAND
I can't be the only one out of all my friends who can't talk about the latest episode of game of thrones. It's such a cultural cornerstone right now that I'm FORCED to watch it even when it otherwise makes me feel very uncomfortable and unentertained.
Is the article satire? Not only is it extraordinarily difficult to be a good person, not only are people punished for being good, but all of human history is filled with atrocity after atrocity. How can someone write something so hilariously ignorant?
>12 million
This is my problem with SJWs and the left wing in general. It's not good enough to just ignore or avoid something they don't like, they've gotta ban it and make sure no one else can see or experience it, because they know how to live your life better than you do.
Triggered alt-right SJW fucking exposed.
Go back to your safe space faggot
thank god..
considering 90% of everything in the media is "good guy" winnnss or main character wins we need some yin for all this yang bruh
>it’s reasonable to assume that this does not reflect positively on society. How could it when the biggest shows on television, GoT, The Walking Dead and recently Breaking Bad, trivialize and glorify violence, death, murder, rape and unlawful, criminal behavior?
Sorry, you just shat on Breaking Bad. Your argument is invalid.
Ah yes, the evil SJWs trying to ban your television shows.
Meanwhile, Republicans want to ban birth rights and religious people from entering the country. But you're right, it's totally comparable.
>How can someone write something so hilariously ignorant?
Erm... Its fantasy for a reason
>muh constant media propaganda is totally the same as just one underground internet board
Considering that real life is 100% bad guys win
I think having 100% of movies/tv have good guys win is the yin and yang, dumbshit
11 million by most counts. 6 million jews, 5 millionish gypsies, gays, soviets, cripples, tards etc.
being an anything hasn't worked out for anybody
it's all schlock
This person sounds like a giant fucking pleb and that OP picture bothers me. They're right that tv GoT just revels in violence, tits and death for the sake of it but that wasn't GRRM's intention. ASoIaF is clearly actually going places and he seems to be going out of his way to make the point that all of this stuff is awful. And
>Lord of the Rings
>silly, childish goodness
fucking plebs. Literacy is wasted on most people
I'm not going to read the article because I don't care but your excerpt sounds exactly like me and I do or did enjoy GOT. I wish I could be a blissful normie with only pretty thoughts in my pretty head. It would sure make life easier.
newsflash: genre fiction is not literature
So they're complaining because the series is cynical? That's a retarded reason to hate the show and books.
Newsflash:
>depiction = endorsement
discussing art with people who hold this opinion is like debating your dog. there may be a few hand signals or facial expressions through which you can convey some of your ideas, but at the end of the day they're lacking one or more of the levels of cognitive abstraction required to comprehend you fully. it's a completely futile endeavour.
>Considering that real life is 100% bad guys win
>says something blatantly untrue
>calls me a dumbshit
kek
Using the term literature to denote quality is an inaccurate use of the term and discredits any sort of point you're trying to make. Literature, by definition, is any written work and if you can't even manage to comprehend this very simple thing, why should I care about what you have to say regarding books?
thats more surely a bad reason to love and praise the show
Literally [pic related]: The Post
literally the look of the GOT "author" when he was young
Newsflash, I don't think so either and nobody asked you, fag. Congratulations on spending 5 minutes on /lit/. Do you plan on posting this in every single thread where somebody mentions something other than the meme trilogy until the whole internet knows how smart you are?
That's when fedoras were in, duh
Oh let me guess, you think the soviets and the americans were the good guys in WWII?
right, and GoT is beneath any written work, keep up
I plan on mentioning it in any thread i come across where people get butthurt over other people calling GoT trash
If you truly believe that, then you haven't read many fantasy novels.
>LoTR
>allegory
stop it
STOP IT
They're all down there with it
Now you're boasting about a lack of discernment as though it were some sort of virtue. Your opinion is no longer of any value to me.
Woah, easy there fella. Sounds like somebody has to get reacquainted with the genius of Tolkien : ^ )
right because genre fiction is discerning literature ok pal
Writing off an entire genre is the equivalent of a fourteen year old on facebook ranting about how all classical music is the same.
I don't like reality shows, but I could still watch and judge them on their own merits, because I am not an idiot. If all I could manage to do is dismiss the entire format and declare that all reality shows are the exact same level of garbage without any variation in quality, then I would be demonstrating a lack of critical thinking, and a general laziness when it comes to discussing things.
I doubt everyone here looks like a neckbeard
My friends, let me gauge /got/
>Who are you most like?
>Who do you look most like?
Game of Thrones is trash, but the books are a lesser form of trash by far. The show is magnitudes worse.
name a single worthwhile genre fiction book I defy you.
I write it all off because it's all junk
The prose is an affront
>name a single worthwhile genre fiction book I defy you.
A Song of Ice and Fire
>I write it all off because it's all junk
Well, like I said. Your opinion is worthless so this information is meaningless to me. You've thoroughly discredited anything you have to say on the matter.
>The prose is an affront
The prose is not the strong suit of the series, but it's effective at delivering the strengths of the series; namely the worldbuilding, the interconnected plots, the mysteries, the character development, far more than the poetic, purple prose you find in most lauded fantasy novels. GRRM isn't going to spend ten paragraphs describing the etchings on a Hobbit's doorknob, because he actually has things for his character to do in-between elfsongs.
>the show relishes in violence and shock value more than the books
Yeah, that's wrong. The books are violent as fuck.
The right wing parties in my country are a tad archaic, but don't assume every country's conservative parties are as completely insane as American Republicans.
The books are violent, but it doesn't relish in it. It's all there to highlight the horrors of war.
That describes me entirely and I think the show is shit. It's normie trash.
Jamie Lannister as a character refutes this, as he proves himself to have a noble soul and the urge to be righteous despite his outward cynicism.
rollingstone.com
>Ruling is hard. This was maybe my answer to Tolkien, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with. Lord of the Rings had a very medieval philosophy: that if the king was a good man, the land would prosper. We look at real history and it’s not that simple. Tolkien can say that Aragorn became king and reigned for a hundred years, and he was wise and good. But Tolkien doesn’t ask the question: What was Aragorn’s tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine? And what about all these orcs? By the end of the war, Sauron is gone but all of the orcs aren’t gone – they’re in the mountains. Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little baby orcs, in their little orc cradles?
>The war that Tolkien wrote about was a war for the fate of civilization and the future of humanity, and that’s become the template. I’m not sure that it’s a good template, though. The Tolkien model led generations of fantasy writers to produce these endless series of dark lords and their evil minions who are all very ugly and wear black clothes. But the vast majority of wars throughout history are not like that.
>'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.
how could one man be so based?
>/lit/fags shit on ASOIAF for not being Joyce/Fitzgerald/Hemingway level writing
For fuck's sake, you retards. That's like comparing modern bands with Zeppelin, The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Hendrix. It's like comparing a modern movie to Citizen Kane or whatever the elitist fuckholes on Sup Forums worship. Go ahead and dislike the books, but don't turn around with a copy of Ulysses and go THIS IS WHAT REAL WRITING IS. We fucking know, you dick pinchers.
>>The war that Tolkien wrote about was a war for the fate of civilization and the future of humanity, and that’s become the template. I’m not sure that it’s a good template, though. The Tolkien model led generations of fantasy writers to produce these endless series of dark lords and their evil minions who are all very ugly and wear black clothes. But the vast majority of wars throughout history are not like that.
>muh fat edgy relativist
Tolkien was way more highly educated PLUS he had to fight a fucking world war, I think he knew what he was writing about...
>le books ah always bettuh den duh movies
>IF ONLY PEOPLE STAYED DOCILE AND TURNED OFF THEIR BRAINS, MAYBE BERNIE WOULD HAVE WON, REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE, WE ALMOST MADE IT, REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
At the risk of sounding "edgy" people are tired of bubbly faggotry.
The Russians raped every woman in sight during WW2. America, Germany, England and every other country targeted civilian buildings during bombing raids, to decrease morale. No fucking shit Tolkien was more educated and experienced than GRRM - but explain how this makes what he said any less true?
Isn't that a bit autistic? Tolkien's influences were primarily northern European myths and legends, with The Hobbit/The Lord of the Rings being outgrowths of that.
Not at all, I can think of several movies that are better than the books. A lot of Stephen King novels, Silence of the Lambs, Jaws/Jurassic Park, Fight Club, LOTR. Game of Thrones is just a poor adaption.
No, what's autistic is you thinking GRRM doesn't already know that. He's a huge Tolkien fan. Him saying that Lord of the Rings isn't realistic or grounded, isn't the same as him saying it should be.
>Him saying that Lord of the Rings isn't realistic or grounded, isn't the same as him saying it should be.
>>The war that Tolkien wrote about was a war for the fate of civilization and the future of humanity, and that’s become the template. I’m not sure that it’s a good template, though. The Tolkien model led generations of fantasy writers to produce these endless series of dark lords and their evil minions who are all very ugly and wear black clothes. But the vast majority of wars throughout history are not like that.
The entire story is about the righteous people of Middle Earth facing and overcoming the temptation of moral corruption within themselves, each having their virtue tested with the seduction of power and greed.
The thematic core of Lord of the Rings and the symbolic meaning of the One Ring can be understood more extensively in the context of the myth of the Ring of Gyges, the tale of a shepherd who discovers a magical ring that gives him the power of invisibility which he uses to usurp the throne of his king, which is described in a dialogue in Plato's Republic.
The myth is presented in Plato's Republic as a sort of thought exercise that proposes the question of whether a man when removed from all potential consequences of his actions could remain truly virtuous and moral, or if morality is only a social construct that exists due to the consequences society levies upon the immoral.
The Lord of the Rings, especially the story of Frodo and Sam, is in a way an answer to this question, asserting whole heartedly that morality and virtue do in fact truly exist within people and this virtue can overcome the darkness of moral corruption
He's critisizing people using Tolkien's formula instead of expanding on it. He's not passing judgement on LOTR at all, he's simply saying that it shouldn't be the foundation from which all fantasy should derive from. Listen, if you're committed to being such a goddamn retard, stop replying to me.
>Suppose now that there were two such magic rings, and the just put on one of them and the unjust the other; no man can be imagined to be of such an iron nature that he would stand fast in justice. No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, or kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a god among men.
>Then the actions of the just would be as the actions of the unjust; they would both come at last to the same point. And this we may truly affirm to be a great proof that a man is just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any good to him individually, but of necessity, for wherever any one thinks that he can safely be unjust, there he is unjust.
>For all men believe in their hearts that injustice is far more profitable to the individual than justice, and he who argues as I have been supposing, will say that they are right. If you could imagine any one obtaining this power of becoming invisible, and never doing any wrong or touching what was another's, he would be thought by the lookers-on to be a most wretched idiot, although they would praise him to one another's faces, and keep up appearances with one another from a fear that they too might suffer injustice.
Tolkien may have been more educated and he may have experienced real war, but that has absolutely no bearing on how realistic the war in his novels are. If GRRM said that Tolkien was intellectually incapable of writing a realistic story detailing the horrors of war, you would have a point; but that's not what he's saying.
The issue is that Tolkien actually put in the work to create a fully realized world built from mythical themes and archetypes, weaving his own mythohistoric chronicle of his countries prehistory in the style of King Arthur and Camelot, Theseus and Attica, and King David and Israel.
Tolkien laid the foundation and hand crafted the structures upon it. Later writers took too many shortcuts, building off of the foundation of someone else to create worlds that weren't fully realized.
>King David and Israel.
>mythohistoric
I believe the ancient nation of Israel truly did exist, and I consider myself a son of the spiritual nation of Israel. I don't see the issue with the label "mythohistoric".
Arthur and Theseus were real Kings as well user.
The united Kingdom of Israel under King David was said to have only existed for a very short time in history, some 60 years, before it was divided by civil war and eventually scattered by the Assyrians and the Babylonians.
Myth and history are one in the same when you're looking at the world of 1000 BC
It's neither. It's just a badly written piece of shit show that appeals to retards
holy shit thank you for that
literally no difference between a commie rally and a GOT fans assembly... disgusting edgy sheepsters
What is this webm supposed to prove?
Osha was a heroic character killed by a villain.
Dany is killing a room full of violent men threatening to rape her.