![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Game Of Thrones: Analysis of ADWD
Jan. 9th, 2014 09:49 pmFollowed a link today to a rather interesting analysis of Game of Thrones "A Dance with Dragons."
Having been around fandoms longer than I care to think about, I've long since learned to look at 'theories' with great skepticism. It's long been my experience that fans overthink things and that inevitably brings disappointment with the way that things actually go down. I mean, I love looking at the big picture and the metaphors. It often gives you a better view of things and makes certain parts of stories click for you. Reading this analysis of "A Dance with Dragons" make me appreciate some parts of it more than I did when reading it. While I'm skeptical of theories, I found some of this guy's analysis persuasive.
And before the cut, I will say that what I'm going to say is only the most mildly spoilery. Basically, 99.5% of the people will be totally unsurprised thatDany, Tyrion, and Jon Snow are alive long enough to have major character arcs in Book V. Everything else could be said about exactly where the TV Show is now and is more a discussion of the series as a whole. No specific events in ADWD (Or A Feast for Crows, or even the second half of A Storm of Swords {that is stuff that'll happen in Season 4) will be revealed. It's basically discussion of characters, long standing prophecy in the novels, and recurring themes throughout the series.
Anyway...
( Read more... )It was a bit like my brain blinked out, refusing to track it because I kept getting distracted by the WTH. This guy has a convincing "huh" explanation. To the point that, it sort of reminds me of Season 6 Buffy the Vampire Slayer." It's more interesting investigating the intention and ambition of Season 6 than what actually happened because I think that the writer's overreached. The execution wasn't as good as it would have needed to have been to have actually pulled everything off, but there's a ton of THERE there. It remains why Season 6, for all of it flaws, is interesting to explore in a ton of fannish ways. This ADWD analysis seems to point to something similar to me. Reading his analysis, He convinced me of -- if not all his theories -- the ambition.
From the beginning of Game of Thrones, my feeling is that GRRM is dissecting a range of leaders and various ways to lead. There are an array of people seeking and wielding power, and many of the primary protagonists get some opportunity to rule (there are also a host of characters who have to work without power bases). I've always been far more convinced of this type of analysis of GOT than the one you often see that he's all about subverting tropes. I don't actually think that Martin is specifically setting out to subvert tropes. I mean, he does, but it isn't for the sake of simply subverting them. I think he's exploring power and deconstructing different forms of it and this sort of deconstruction inevitably leads to at least some subversion of tropes because any analysis needs to look at the trope from more sides than just the superficial one. Subversion is the result rather than the motivating purpose of it.
So you've got your Ned Starks, your Tywin Lannisters, etc. and so on. We know their strengths and their weaknesses. And we see what happens when they steer the boat.
I'm also convinced of the blogger's claim that the overall arc of the series as a whole is strongly anti-war. It's rather lost, of course, in all of the brutal violence. It's a bit like the conundrum presented to the producers of The Hunger Games movies. How do you make a movie about sensationalizing violence when you're making a movie... sensationalizing violence? It's a tightrope that's easy to fall from. Similarly, how do you make an anti-war series that is in fact brutally cruel and violent war, war, and more war. Still, as overbearingly awful as the unending violence of it is... I think we're supposed to see it as overbearing, awful, unending, and unendurable. That's... sort of the point. As far back as Book I/Season I there's a line about the "people" want a harvest and safety, they don't actually CARE about the noble's 'game of thrones' they just suffer because of it.
So you have a series that investigates not only leadership, but war. Sometimes wars are waged for hubris. Sometimes for vengeance. And, sometimes, you can sympathize in why a 'good man' goes to war. But... war is terrible. Even a good man can lead to unendurable consequences. Ned Stark: a good man, but bejeebus, look at the fall-out from his shot at rule.
Okay, so back to A Dance with Dragons. ( Read more... )
Anyway, here is a link to the first of his essays on the character arcs of A Dance with Dragons.
Having been around fandoms longer than I care to think about, I've long since learned to look at 'theories' with great skepticism. It's long been my experience that fans overthink things and that inevitably brings disappointment with the way that things actually go down. I mean, I love looking at the big picture and the metaphors. It often gives you a better view of things and makes certain parts of stories click for you. Reading this analysis of "A Dance with Dragons" make me appreciate some parts of it more than I did when reading it. While I'm skeptical of theories, I found some of this guy's analysis persuasive.
And before the cut, I will say that what I'm going to say is only the most mildly spoilery. Basically, 99.5% of the people will be totally unsurprised that
Anyway...
( Read more... )It was a bit like my brain blinked out, refusing to track it because I kept getting distracted by the WTH. This guy has a convincing "huh" explanation. To the point that, it sort of reminds me of Season 6 Buffy the Vampire Slayer." It's more interesting investigating the intention and ambition of Season 6 than what actually happened because I think that the writer's overreached. The execution wasn't as good as it would have needed to have been to have actually pulled everything off, but there's a ton of THERE there. It remains why Season 6, for all of it flaws, is interesting to explore in a ton of fannish ways. This ADWD analysis seems to point to something similar to me. Reading his analysis, He convinced me of -- if not all his theories -- the ambition.
From the beginning of Game of Thrones, my feeling is that GRRM is dissecting a range of leaders and various ways to lead. There are an array of people seeking and wielding power, and many of the primary protagonists get some opportunity to rule (there are also a host of characters who have to work without power bases). I've always been far more convinced of this type of analysis of GOT than the one you often see that he's all about subverting tropes. I don't actually think that Martin is specifically setting out to subvert tropes. I mean, he does, but it isn't for the sake of simply subverting them. I think he's exploring power and deconstructing different forms of it and this sort of deconstruction inevitably leads to at least some subversion of tropes because any analysis needs to look at the trope from more sides than just the superficial one. Subversion is the result rather than the motivating purpose of it.
So you've got your Ned Starks, your Tywin Lannisters, etc. and so on. We know their strengths and their weaknesses. And we see what happens when they steer the boat.
I'm also convinced of the blogger's claim that the overall arc of the series as a whole is strongly anti-war. It's rather lost, of course, in all of the brutal violence. It's a bit like the conundrum presented to the producers of The Hunger Games movies. How do you make a movie about sensationalizing violence when you're making a movie... sensationalizing violence? It's a tightrope that's easy to fall from. Similarly, how do you make an anti-war series that is in fact brutally cruel and violent war, war, and more war. Still, as overbearingly awful as the unending violence of it is... I think we're supposed to see it as overbearing, awful, unending, and unendurable. That's... sort of the point. As far back as Book I/Season I there's a line about the "people" want a harvest and safety, they don't actually CARE about the noble's 'game of thrones' they just suffer because of it.
So you have a series that investigates not only leadership, but war. Sometimes wars are waged for hubris. Sometimes for vengeance. And, sometimes, you can sympathize in why a 'good man' goes to war. But... war is terrible. Even a good man can lead to unendurable consequences. Ned Stark: a good man, but bejeebus, look at the fall-out from his shot at rule.
Okay, so back to A Dance with Dragons. ( Read more... )
Anyway, here is a link to the first of his essays on the character arcs of A Dance with Dragons.
