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 ?

BAYLOR

There Are Always new Things to Learn.
Joined
Jun 29, 2014
Messages
24,138
Quite frankly. i've never see a series with so many despicable, unlikable , inflexible, greedy , manipulative , and otherwise errantly stupid characters of in may case very dubious morals . They whose actions and decisions brings about the downfall of guilty and innocent alike and in some cases, their own downfalls and demises. What's also interesting is, that even the so called good guys and gals are not really a whole lot better then the the bad guys and gals :)


What are your thoughts on the world of Game of Thrones and its many colorful denizens? Do their flaws make them more true to life and somehow more compelling and interesting ? :)
 
Last edited:
Well, I haven't knowingly watched or read a millisecond of it.
(...though I've really liked several of his SF short stories.)
 
Most of the characters aren't 'nice', but that's kind of the point; nice people don't survive.

There are one or two 'good guys' though. Sandor Clegane and Tyrion Lannister try to be as honourable and as compassionate as their roles allow them to be. Same with the Stark children.

Gendry Baratheon is probably the nicest person in the story.
 
I do not know why it’s so popular.

I didn’t finish the first book nor the first episode. Thoroughly despicable characters; no one to root for or feel any kind of empathy for them.

Screw them all.
 
I do not know why it’s so popular.

I didn’t finish the first book nor the first episode. Thoroughly despicable characters; no one to root for or feel any kind of empathy for them.

Screw them all.

I think we can safely say that if this character were real people none them would candidates for sainthood .;)
 
If you went back to 15th Centuryduring the wars between the houses of York and Lancaster, you would find many similar people.

They don't do things to be nice, they do things to survive and to protect their families.

All of the generous, chilvarous people are dead - probably murdered. Likely betrayed by the people they most trusted.

It's not necessarily a case of what they do, but why they do it. Joffrey kills people because he enjoys it, Cersei out of ambition and/or spite, Eddard out of his perceived sense of duty.
 
I don't know that I'd even call SoIaF/GoT the worst in terms of unpleasant characters. I mean compared to many British sitcoms, like Blackadder or The Thick of It or Drop The Dead Donkey, they're sweetness or light. Or a series like The First Law. Or a comic like Watchmen. Characters like Jon Snow or Tyrion Lannister are far more idealistic than those in those shows.

And the fact there's so many stories that aren't trying to be all about good virtuous people means I almost don't know how to answer the question. Stories like these are popular. It's like explaining why water is wet. If a story is great, if characters are interesting...
 
I don't know that I'd even call SoIaF/GoT the worst in terms of unpleasant characters. I mean compared to many British sitcoms, like Blackadder or The Thick of It or Drop The Dead Donkey, they're sweetness or light. Or a series like The First Law. Or a comic like Watchmen. Characters like Jon Snow or Tyrion Lannister are far more idealistic than those in those shows.

And the fact there's so many stories that aren't trying to be all about good virtuous people means I almost don't know how to answer the question. Stories like these are popular. It's like explaining why water is wet. If a story is great, if characters are interesting...


Yeah, The Sopranos is all about gangsters doing bad things to the public and each other. Breaking Bad is about two drug dealers producing and supplying the public with narcotics and killing other dealers.

Two of the most famous and popular tv shows, and not a 'nice' person in either.
 
People love to see bad behaviour and morals, drama, salacious antics, murder and blood, greedy characters, revenge, arguments and surprises. Along with good writing, acting and scenery, and the odd dragon or supernatural element. Think of all the popular real life shows with nasty participants! Or Netflix overflowing with crime investigation or stories about serial killers. The Game of Thrones is a break from the rules of life.
 
I neither liked The Sopranos or Breaking Bad and never watched them beyond episode 3. I am more of an anti-fan when it comes to series about gangsters, the Mob, serial killers and what have you on series centering around the world of crime.
So I am at least hesitant to compare these with GoT. GoT is a story based on medieval history and centers around people trying to survive in a particular harsh world. That does tend to bring out the dark side of people. I found GoT a great series, not because of the violence or the despicable characters, to be shocked or lust for gory scenes, but because it was brought without any romanticism. Just the brute story in which the (relatively) good guys die in season 1. This unpredictability was one of it attractiveness as a TV-show. The characters were, in all their nasty ways, believable, not caricatures. And the script, based on GGRM's books, was first class. Until it wasn't after season 6 and the whole show collapsed.
 
I neither liked The Sopranos or Breaking Bad and never watched them beyond episode 3. I am more of an anti-fan when it comes to series about gangsters, the Mob, serial killers and what have you on series centering around the world of crime.
So I am at least hesitant to compare these with GoT. GoT is a story based on medieval history and centers around people trying to survive in a particular harsh world. That does tend to bring out the dark side of people. I found GoT a great series, not because of the violence or the despicable characters, to be shocked or lust for gory scenes, but because it was brought without any romanticism. Just the brute story in which the (relatively) good guys die in season 1. This unpredictability was one of it attractiveness as a TV-show. The characters were, in all their nasty ways, believable, not caricatures. And the script, based on GGRM's books, was first class. Until it wasn't after season 6 and the whole show collapsed.
I only mentionef BB and Sopranos as examples of popular shows which were full of bad people.

I found GoT interesting because it was close to true life - the good guy doesn't have his 'goodness' rewarded, and doing the honourable thing with dishonourable people will usually leave you with a knife in the back.

This is why I like the Hound, as I feel that he epitomises the story. You do the right thing when it's possible to do so. But the rest of the time, you do what you have to to survive.

Sandor knew that if it wasn't him doing Joffrey's bidding, it would be someone else who was meaner and nastier.

Most of the characters were well done, but Ramsay Bolton was way too OTT, as was Euron Greyjoy.
 
I by far preferred the book (Game of Thrones book 1 in the series) to the series. Saying that I only watched the first few episodes. It seemed to me that the descriptive elements and the morally questionable characters were far easier to read about than watch.
 
Both George RR Martin and Terry Pratchett said they'd written their fantasy books, in part, to answer questions about Tolkien-type fantasy that Tolkien did not address: What does the day after the Dark Lord is defeated, and the party to celebrate is over? What would Aragorn's tax policy be? Would Gondor really exterminate all the surviving Orcs, even the baby ones in their cribs?
I think the 'heroic' style of fantasy, where the good guys never have any major vices or moral lapses, and the baddies never have any virtues or redeeming moments, gives you a cleaner, often more fun, story. But literature isn't just pure entertainment, it's got a role in the world of holding up a mirror to society and the world. History delivers a pretty clear message: Even where there were clearly more moral, or more morally acceptable, individuals and factions, it still wasn't nearly that cut-and dried. And if the 'heroic' style, especially where the audience is encouraged to see themselves in the hero / heroine, is a dangerous message if un-tempered by something more realistic: It's the kind of message dictatorships use as propaganda, to justify atrocities, and to get it's followers to go along with them.

It's also just plain unrealistic, hurts suspension of disbelief, and leads to weird notions. Look at all the uproar over the new Lord Of The Rings based TV series showing Orcs as having babies, and caring about them. Like... hang on lads, how exactly did you think you got full grown Orcs? OK, Saruman was breeding the Uruk-hai in pods in the Peter Jackson movies, but that's definitely not in the books, or how most Orcs arrive ' they multiply after the fashion of Elves and Men' is what the Silmarillion, essentially the lore-bible of Tolkien's world, says. That means male and female Orcs, sex, pregnancy and some sort of family of at least stable social units.

Or it's like wire-fu. I lived in a rough neighbourhood in a poor suburb for 10 years. That's not what a fight is like, even when the fighters are quite skilled. A fight is messy, ugly, nasty, cruel. Wire-fu makes it look elegant, cool, desirable. That's a really bad message.

All that said: There's definitely a place for the heroic fantasy, and you don't always want to come home and grapple with notions of 'who's the real villain' before bed. And GRR Martin does, I think, go a bit too far and ASOIAF does very into almost car-crash voyeurism territory. 'Everyone is a monster of some type, and monsters VS monsters is all there is in the world' is also a really, really bad message.
 
Don't forget there is still a good vs evil element in that the people band together to face the Undead. There is a lot of mess around it, but that seems to be key when you boil the story down to saving humanity, such that it is.
 
But literature isn't just pure entertainment, it's got a role in the world of holding up a mirror to society and the world. History delivers a pretty clear message: Even where there were clearly more moral, or more morally acceptable, individuals and factions, it still wasn't nearly that cut-and dried. And if the 'heroic' style, especially where the audience is encouraged to see themselves in the hero / heroine, is a dangerous message if un-tempered by something more realistic: It's the kind of message dictatorships use as propaganda, to justify atrocities, and to get it's followers to go along with them.
I mostly agree with you on your post, but I disagree with literature having some sort of moral obligation to society.
 
It's also just plain unrealistic, hurts suspension of disbelief, and leads to weird notions. Look at all the uproar over the new Lord Of The Rings based TV series showing Orcs as having babies, and caring about them. Like... hang on lads, how exactly did you think you got full grown Orcs? OK, Saruman was breeding the Uruk-hai in pods in the Peter Jackson movies, but that's definitely not in the books, or how most Orcs arrive ' they multiply after the fashion of Elves and Men' is what the Silmarillion, essentially the lore-bible of Tolkien's world, says. That means male and female Orcs, sex, pregnancy and some sort of family of at least stable social units.

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
 
An element of Game of Thrones that many people like is the lack of strong "Good & Evil" among the human characters. Those ideas change over time. Certain characters are revealed to be personally despicable individuals. But that isn't the thrust of the various stories.

For many fans, the entertainment of Game of Thrones is that individual characters have personal motivations and goals and the thrust of much of the conflict is not so much "I'm evil and you're good so lets battle." Instead the bulk of the conflicts are where goals overlap. Conflicting goals generate conflicts. And the resolution of these conflicts vary based on exact personalities and circumstances. And the resolutions are not always what the reader / viewer expects.

It's not for everyone. But this muddy conflict creation and resolution is entertaining for many people.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top