115
The monkeys paw curls a finger: They read another book, but not a good one (hexbear.net)
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by Dort_Owl@hexbear.net to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net
31 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I honestly think Game of Thrones fucked up the media landscape just as much as Harry Potter, hear me out.

It started the trend of nihilistic defeatism and capitalist realism being presented as mature and adult. "The world is shitty, it can only every be shitty and trying to change things for the better is childish and leads to worse things than just accepting that you live in a shitty world."

I swear you can pin the decline of hopeful stories and happy endings in adult media to this shitty book/show that thinks it's deeper than it is. You can't have anything now without it trying to pull off a "totally deep bittersweet ending" in an attempt to be mature and subvert expectations.

Although, media literacy is so bad that this author thinks Trump is just like Daernerys Targaryan, who was about one of the only characters who wasn't a sex offender, so maybe libs haven't internalized GOTs shitty ideology too much

all 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] FlakesBongler@hexbear.net 52 points 1 week ago

15 Yoga Poses To Show The Night King We Mean Business

[-] PKMKII@hexbear.net 39 points 1 week ago

The GoT political metaphors seemed to die down after everyone hated the last season. Speaking of which, if this slop is basing the comparison on the TV version of Daernerys then this is doubly crap because it was blatantly obvious the TV writers had “adjusted”/left out enough parts of the books that they couldn’t write a coherent ending that matched up with where the books are headed.

Regardless, either version is a piss-poor comparison to Trump. Although there is something funny about the implication there that the Democrats are the Lannisters.

[-] KobaCumTribute@hexbear.net 48 points 1 week ago

Daenerys's ending is also 100% from the showrunners themselves. They came up with it during the shooting for season 3 which coincidentally happens to be while they were still malding over her actress renegotiating her contract so they couldn't force her to do nude scenes anymore.

GRRM is a fucking lib, but if there's one thing he's actually good on it's that slavers are ontologically evil and anything you do against them is justified. The "house words" of the Targaryens also show up verbatim in an earlier book he wrote as part of a quote where a character says as much, saying that "fire and blood" is a justified response to slavery. And even in ASoIaF itself, the "wait, I really shouldn't have been collaborating with and trying to reform these slavers, I should have dealt with them ruthlessly from the very beginning" development she has after escaping an assassination attempt and reclaiming Drogon is framed as a positive character growth moment.

[-] FlakesBongler@hexbear.net 31 points 1 week ago

Democrats are the Lannisters

A bunch of incestuous nobles who plunge the kingdom into turmoil because their debts to a foreign power are coming due?

[-] SerialExperimentsGay@hexbear.net 16 points 1 week ago

Although there is something funny about the implication there that the Democrats are the Lannisters.

I'm not buying that. A Lannister always pays his debts, but Biden still owes every Amerikan $1600.

[-] Kefla@hexbear.net 34 points 1 week ago

Daernerys Targaryan, who was about one of the only characters who wasn't a sex offender

She owned a sex slave and more than once used her as such

There are a couple characters in the story that aren't sex offenders but Dany isn't one of them

[-] Dort_Owl@hexbear.net 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

God damn it, Game of Thrones. OK I admit I'm not exactly clued up on the story but that's only because I couldn't stand watching the show for any period of time

I'm starting the think George R.R. Martin just wrote a series of non-consent kink and passed it off as fantasy epic

[-] Kefla@hexbear.net 21 points 1 week ago

That is how a lot of especially Daenerys's story came across to me. It becomes even clearer when you hear him talk about her in interviews.

There's a lot to love about ASOIAF, but there's a lot of gross one-handed writing as well. I definitely understand people who can't overlook all that to see the good parts.

[-] InexplicableLunchFiend@hexbear.net 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I'm quite certain she never owned a sex slave. Are you referring to when she was with Khal Drogo in book one? Because she had very limited power and was effectively a slave herself and used what leverage she eventually gained to stop sex slavery, so much so that the khal's officers were malding and mutinies were happening which eventually led to Drogo's death

[-] Kefla@hexbear.net 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I'm quite certain she never owned a sex slave.

https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Doreah

Edit: actually, though this one was the one who was raised as a sex slave, it looks like irri was the one she actually used as a sex slave. Same deal, they were all kind of interchangeable anyway

[-] 30_to_50_Feral_PAWGs@hexbear.net 27 points 1 week ago

Trump is really more of a Walder Frey anyway

[-] asdasd201@lemmygrad.ml 23 points 1 week ago

George RR Martin is an unapologetic bougie defender. I was amused by his works when I was younger, but after reading them again, I conclude he has zero idea about the real medieval power struggles.

The "seizing the power by 4D chess" stuff has begun with the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie; in feudalism, people thought being cunning and strong was a bigger virtue instead.

I still think his way of using the words is very good, btw.

[-] into_highest_invite@lemmygrad.ml 14 points 1 week ago

is 4d chess not cunning? i guess i just don't get the difference

[-] asdasd201@lemmygrad.ml 14 points 1 week ago

I guess I worded it poorly. By 4D chess I meant building your way to power with mind games, connections, conspiracy spread across years. It was seen as a weakness and shunned upon.

Being cunning in ancient sense is similar to being street smart. Like dealing with the spontaneous situations and striking your opponent's blind spots. The ancient mythologies and medieval tales are full of this stuff.

[-] PKMKII@hexbear.net 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The irony is that a lot of the events in the books have historical analogies. The problem is that Martin picked the most salacious, disruptive events in medieval history. So ASOIAF avoids the Tolkienesque “forces of pure good vs the evil orc horde” presentation of medieval history, but instead ends up with a version where every week decades are happening.

[-] novibe@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 week ago

Which is really sad because I feel one of the main themes of ASOIF is that good deeds don’t get rewarded, but it still matters to be good. In a world where evil is rewarded, being good is even MORE important.

[-] SevenSkalls@hexbear.net 7 points 1 week ago

That's an interesting idea. How do you see that theme expressed?

[-] KoboldKomrade@hexbear.net 7 points 1 week ago

Most of the "good" characters aren't exactly in the game for power and wealth. They're fighting for their values or for their long term survival. Most of their values are "good" virtues like truth, justice, order. Once the magic zombies come about, many of them are also fighting to take care of the existential threat instead of carving up their own kingdom out of the rotting corpse of the old empire.

There are also "good" characters that are more selfish, but still effect change in a mostly positive way. I guess you'd say they're "realists". Littlefinger and the bald eunuch (its been 10 years since I've read them and I gotta get back to work) come to mind. Both probably are still a "bad" people, but do good things because it advances them/their vision and as a bonus, is good.

People bring up Dany and Ned a lot, but Robb Stark is also a good example. Young idealist, he upsets the traditional structure by breaking an engagement with a lord's daughter. Specifically he does this to "preserve the honor" of a lower born (still noble) lady he sleeps with. He gets rewarded with being murdered by the lord for the slight.

Robb is also implied to be winning overall. His people and army adore him, he is winning battles, the south is getting worse, etc. A old lord who only cares about his line destroys probably the best hope for many people because of a personal slight.

Probably my biggest gripe is that people like Robb and Ned and Dany are appreciated and respected in universe by people with and without power. Like, at some point, it would have been interesting to see blowback for every "good" character eating shit. But I thing GRRM isn't interested in no name peasants torching a Lord's house because he royally fucks everything up. He's interested in a named knight doing it and then getting shot to death while shitting.

[-] SevenSkalls@hexbear.net 3 points 1 week ago

I can see how good is not rewarded and evil is, but I guess I just don't see how that shows that good is important in this world.

[-] novibe@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 week ago

Mostly in the Starks and Danny’s arcs, but it’s everywhere tbh. One example: Ned dying for his morals, for trying to do good instead of acting in self-service. And his death causing the whole world to move. He had no rewards for his goodness, but the world still needed it to move and have a chance to change for the better.

[-] SevenSkalls@hexbear.net 3 points 1 week ago

Good example. I definitely saw how good is not rewarded and evil is rewarded, but I didn't really see how they represented good still being important in that world, except to some small individuals where acts of kindness are very important to them on a personal level.

[-] novibe@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago

But you have to see how those small acts cascade into actually giving a fighting chance for change, in the world and in individual people.

[-] Sickday@kbin.earth 17 points 1 week ago

it's because so many people watched the show and didn't even bother with the books. Not like it mattered much because they probs would've taken the wrong message(s) from those too. Also didn't help that GRRM really did not seem to care how people interpreted his series as long as he got that bag.

heads up though, you can expect a similar interpretation from all the new Dune fans. can't wait to see the slop comparisons of Paul to Donny's youngest son or Donny himself

[-] Nacarbac@hexbear.net 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I felt a distinct shift in fantasy fiction around when GoT got popular. It got grimdark and hopeless in a way that earlier grim fantasy like The Chronicles of The Black Company, for example, never were.

Joe Abercrombie and such, a skilled writer to be fair, whose books mainly concern damaged people doing evil things, as dupes of evil people, and then dying pathetic deaths.

The winds seem to have shifted somewhat away from that though, especially in science fiction. If Fantasy represents our passive understanding of our history, then it being riddled with nihilistic dog-eat-dog Great Man stories is understandable. Science fiction, even when it's as bleak as Blindsight, inherently has the prophetic potential to announce a break with all that.

Except that guy, whatshisname, the dude who tried to do the "Culture but with capitalism". Bleh. Asher? Oh, and Richard Morgan, what a fucking disappointment he turned out to be. Though they were a bit before this new wave of hopeful science fiction.

[-] MaoTheLawn@hexbear.net 13 points 1 week ago

I blame Hannah Arendt

[-] Athena5898@hexbear.net 10 points 1 week ago

That has been a complaint for me with Thrones since the start. Like its fine to have bad shit happen but you're just a doomer nihilist if you think that is mature way of thinking. Great job doing the job of the oppressors for them

[-] Ilixtze@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I never was a fan of game of thrones but absorbed most of the tv shows by watching them with friends, who were huge fans.

The books repelled me because i consistently got this vibe from George RR Martin that he was aroused by the excesses of monarchies and the abuses and wars and status signifiers of kings. He seems skilled in humanizing his monarch characters by grounding the conflicts in ordinary affairs and some of his characters are underdogs, but in summary the success of his characters always seems to entail becoming a great man of power or being involved with a man of power. I imagine this is normal in fantasy; Ultimate glory involves becoming a king. Maybe it's just the fact that George RR Martin's kings are always portrayed as corrupt and immoral.

The plot twist in that latest hedge knight series made me groan because i saw it coming a mile away and It's just too obvious at this point. The last few episodes of the series made me loose any interest in watching future seasons and House of the dragon has become so loopy with it's war intrigues that characters that seem very human at first get bogged down by these unending speeches of family and shifting loyalties.

It doesn't help that the format Of American prestige tv lately is to make things as long winded as possible. Stretch out a series with side characters and b plots until the narrative looses all steam.

this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2026
115 points (100.0% liked)

Chapotraphouse

14344 readers
434 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
LENINSGHOSTFACEKILLA@hexbear.net
corgiwithalaptop@hexbear.net
a_little_red_rat@hexbear.net
thelastaxolotl@hexbear.net
CoolerOpposide@hexbear.net
Thordros@hexbear.net
JustSo@hexbear.net