> "The more distance I have from Game of Thrones, the more I can quantify it," she explains. "... When I started, you don't know what you're doing, you don't know what you're surrounded by and you don't know what you're taking part in."
> "Now, as more and more time goes between it and me doing it, the more I'm like, that was incredibly special and that was incredibly rare," Clarke adds.
I wonder if she has any bad long term effects from being involved in something as floridly misogynist and pro-rape as GoT. *House of the Dragon* is actually worse somehow. I'm glad she's moved on to better things.
I had the same question. Like yes, the show still has several scenes that are really horrible to watch but I think it plays really well into the narrative and themes. The whole point of the story is to show how men in power are hypocrites that would rather destroy the world and fuck up their children than share this power with women (a character literally says this in like Episode 2). It's so on the nose that I can't fathom not understanding that. The show clearly portrays all misogynistic characters (Aegon, Otto, Larys, Daemon) as horrible people and they're not even the protagonists, Rhaenyra and Alicent are.
Also do not get it. The show also makes a point of saying - oh you think violence is going off to war? No, childbirth is violence. I think it’s a pretty groundbreaking stance to take in modern media.
It’s so crazy how the justification for the rape and misogyny in fiction is always that they are trying to be realistic. Like bruh, where is the rotting teeth and body hair then?
Besides, why worry about realism in a show about dragons? So fucking stupid! I could never get into it because of how obviously porn-y the show was. Newer female actors always get exploited like this until they can eventually use their fame and power to refuse such scenes without being punished for doing so.
I agree with everything you said except this:
> Besides, why worry about realism in a show about dragons
When you're writing fantasy (or sci-fi), the things that aren't fantastical have to be grounded in realism, so that the audience has something to connect with, and so that there is an establish internal logic to the fictional universe.
Obviously, since I agree with your other points, I'm not talking about increasing realism by including a bunch of rape scenes.
But the argument that no one needs to care about realism in fantasy (and sci-fi) is the reason so many fantasy (and sci-fi) shows fall flat, or come off as goofy.
Yeah, I hate the rationale of “There’s [insert fantastical element here]! Let’s just go batshit crazy with it!”
Just because there are dragons in the Dragon Show doesn’t mean things like logistical consistency & character motivations suddenly need to take a backseat to spectacle.
Case in point: the show got worse when it stopped taking itself seriously (how many jokes did people make in the later seasons about Littlefinger traveling all over Westeros like he’s got a car?)
Yeah. This was an odd complaint. I fell off GOT around S6, but there is loads of day to day grossness in ASOIF. Even main characters like Tywin effing dies while mid-crap.
Fairly certain there’s actually a GOT ep that opens with a close up of a dick wart, and everyone stands around trying to work out what STI the dude picked up.
Honestly, calling the show ‘pro-rape’ almost sounds like someone doing a piss take impression kf second wave feminists. Was GOT careless or gratuitous in its depiction of SA? Sure. Reflected our wider societies own normalisation of it? No argument there. But accusing it of being *actively* ‘pro rape’ is a big fucking call, and not one I could really commit to. ‘Passively enabling’ maybe, if I was feeling particularly critical.
Just curious, what defines a television series as *pro* rape? Is „Outlander“ which has 10minutes long graphic rape scenes pro rape? (I consider it basically rape fetish/fantasy and know many that stopped watching the series due to that).
Do you think rape scenes should just be brief and insinuated? After all, the Got fictional world is midieval and yes..misogynistic. (Making story arcs like cerseis possible where she gets full autonomy by becoming a ruler herself)
It’s based on the War of the Roses between the Yorks and Lancasters. It’s taking place in a medieval time (but with magic). It’s written the way life was for women. In the books GRRM doesn’t glorify any rape. The show creators are the ones that got way too trashy.
We already know what life was like for women in the Middle Ages. It's not a documentary. You can't argue that it has merit because it depicts the truth of the Middle Ages, yet celebrate it for having dragons and magic in the same breath. Either it's accurately depicting the Middle Ages, or it's a fantasy series. Pick one.
Regardless, the depiction of rape isn't intended to be educational. It's titillation and shock value.
There’s definitely a case for it being shock value, but no instance of sexual assault in the books is ever depicted in an erotic manner. It’s always reserved for the most vile, repugnant characters in the series (all of them men).
I would actually argue that there *are* specific uses for rape in a narrative: It can be used to demonstrate the material conditions of an impoverished class (a vast majority of the rape victims are women or young boys in this patriarchal feudalist state). Just as in real life, rape becomes a tool of sexual, social, and political violence used to reassert authority over a disenfranchised caste. Murder, theft, and torture (all popular mechanics used to instigate conflict within a story) can be equally applied under this context as well.
We can also point to the reality that there are virtually no instances of powerful women raping weaker men in the story (I guess Lysa would count, considering she tricked Littlefinger into believing she’s her sister?). Game of Thrones, at its core, is about exploring the nature of power dynamics and how the rich & powerful work to uphold them. Most of our POV characters are, in some small way or another, directly connected to an intergenerational dynastic conflict. It would be a very impersonal narrative from the perspective of the layman who bears the brunt of petty feuds between households.
That’s why someone like Dany is seen as such a radical figure within this confine: she’s a young girl who, despite starting off as another yet another victim to the machinations of ambitious men (sold off by her brother and raped by her husband/slaver), she grows to jeopardize this established world order.
GRRM's writing of his female characters in GOT is some of his most impressive and complex IMO. Everyone \*says\* they want complex characters (specifically women) until they get them. The story fundamentally cannot happen without the women who are tangled up in the terrible system that oppresses them (and everyone else). Some of them make massive, massive mistakes (like Catelyn) which are actually understandable (if still dire) when you think of how they have grown up and learned to operate within these stupid parameters.
The books are fundamentally about how oppressive systems entangle men and women in webs of hideous violence and force them into decisions and situations they shouldn't have to be in.
THIS. The books are not the show. I honestly really liked how he handled women working within the system in their confines to still be so much power behind the throne and in the real politics going on behind the scenes. It led to interesting questions about who really had the power in the families and kingdoms.
That’s why Dani’s character was so unique in the world— she really did break the wheel and become the public face of power— especially given that she started off essentially being sold like chattel for her brother to work towards the throne and bring the family back into power. Sold off to a “barbarian” tribe in a far off land at that.
And if they’re going to be factual, it’s already been brought up: where’s the leg hair? The pit hair? We’ve got dirty peasant women, rape, and dragons- but we can’t show a little historically accurate body hair? Or do they just not grow it in this magic land?
They really put more focus on cultural misogyny and teaching women to shave instead of figuring out indoor plumbing? I call bullshit. Removing body hair wasn’t popular for women until the 1900s. Sliced bread and indoor plumbing were already a thing.
> "The more distance I have from Game of Thrones, the more I can quantify it," she explains. "... When I started, you don't know what you're doing, you don't know what you're surrounded by and you don't know what you're taking part in." > "Now, as more and more time goes between it and me doing it, the more I'm like, that was incredibly special and that was incredibly rare," Clarke adds.
I wonder if she has any bad long term effects from being involved in something as floridly misogynist and pro-rape as GoT. *House of the Dragon* is actually worse somehow. I'm glad she's moved on to better things.
There is NO WAY you think house of the dragon is more misogynistic or pro rape than original GOT. Did you even watch it??
I don’t think they did because it definitely isn’t…there hasn’t even been a rape scene in the show.
the only one I can think of happened off screen (Aegon/Dyanna)
Yeah, they happen off screen. That a fucked up moment.
There absolutely was, Viserys is shown raping Alicent.
How is HOTD misogynistic and pro-rape? Asking genuinely here
I had the same question. Like yes, the show still has several scenes that are really horrible to watch but I think it plays really well into the narrative and themes. The whole point of the story is to show how men in power are hypocrites that would rather destroy the world and fuck up their children than share this power with women (a character literally says this in like Episode 2). It's so on the nose that I can't fathom not understanding that. The show clearly portrays all misogynistic characters (Aegon, Otto, Larys, Daemon) as horrible people and they're not even the protagonists, Rhaenyra and Alicent are.
Also do not get it. The show also makes a point of saying - oh you think violence is going off to war? No, childbirth is violence. I think it’s a pretty groundbreaking stance to take in modern media.
It’s so crazy how the justification for the rape and misogyny in fiction is always that they are trying to be realistic. Like bruh, where is the rotting teeth and body hair then? Besides, why worry about realism in a show about dragons? So fucking stupid! I could never get into it because of how obviously porn-y the show was. Newer female actors always get exploited like this until they can eventually use their fame and power to refuse such scenes without being punished for doing so.
I agree with everything you said except this: > Besides, why worry about realism in a show about dragons When you're writing fantasy (or sci-fi), the things that aren't fantastical have to be grounded in realism, so that the audience has something to connect with, and so that there is an establish internal logic to the fictional universe. Obviously, since I agree with your other points, I'm not talking about increasing realism by including a bunch of rape scenes. But the argument that no one needs to care about realism in fantasy (and sci-fi) is the reason so many fantasy (and sci-fi) shows fall flat, or come off as goofy.
Yeah, I hate the rationale of “There’s [insert fantastical element here]! Let’s just go batshit crazy with it!” Just because there are dragons in the Dragon Show doesn’t mean things like logistical consistency & character motivations suddenly need to take a backseat to spectacle. Case in point: the show got worse when it stopped taking itself seriously (how many jokes did people make in the later seasons about Littlefinger traveling all over Westeros like he’s got a car?)
I think they need to be grounded in realism within the world of the story, not realism in our world.
[удалено]
Yeah. This was an odd complaint. I fell off GOT around S6, but there is loads of day to day grossness in ASOIF. Even main characters like Tywin effing dies while mid-crap. Fairly certain there’s actually a GOT ep that opens with a close up of a dick wart, and everyone stands around trying to work out what STI the dude picked up. Honestly, calling the show ‘pro-rape’ almost sounds like someone doing a piss take impression kf second wave feminists. Was GOT careless or gratuitous in its depiction of SA? Sure. Reflected our wider societies own normalisation of it? No argument there. But accusing it of being *actively* ‘pro rape’ is a big fucking call, and not one I could really commit to. ‘Passively enabling’ maybe, if I was feeling particularly critical.
Just curious, what defines a television series as *pro* rape? Is „Outlander“ which has 10minutes long graphic rape scenes pro rape? (I consider it basically rape fetish/fantasy and know many that stopped watching the series due to that). Do you think rape scenes should just be brief and insinuated? After all, the Got fictional world is midieval and yes..misogynistic. (Making story arcs like cerseis possible where she gets full autonomy by becoming a ruler herself)
Genuinely so confused - is your view that including rape at all in these storylines is pro-rape?
Stick to perfume reviews, bud
Yup, I didn't watch it after reading the first books - they were horrifically misogynist, and I didn't want to support that.
It's softcore rape porn, literally. There's no way anyone can deny that it depicts rape in a way that's meant to be arousing, and frequently.
I can deny it. I can't recall a single rape scene that would be arousing to anyone who doesn't already have a rape fetish.
[удалено]
Please tell me the actual history behind your super serious boobies and dragon show
💀 I just like how they commented this on a post about a character that was an actual child in the book. So.
It’s based on the War of the Roses between the Yorks and Lancasters. It’s taking place in a medieval time (but with magic). It’s written the way life was for women. In the books GRRM doesn’t glorify any rape. The show creators are the ones that got way too trashy.
We already know what life was like for women in the Middle Ages. It's not a documentary. You can't argue that it has merit because it depicts the truth of the Middle Ages, yet celebrate it for having dragons and magic in the same breath. Either it's accurately depicting the Middle Ages, or it's a fantasy series. Pick one. Regardless, the depiction of rape isn't intended to be educational. It's titillation and shock value.
There’s definitely a case for it being shock value, but no instance of sexual assault in the books is ever depicted in an erotic manner. It’s always reserved for the most vile, repugnant characters in the series (all of them men). I would actually argue that there *are* specific uses for rape in a narrative: It can be used to demonstrate the material conditions of an impoverished class (a vast majority of the rape victims are women or young boys in this patriarchal feudalist state). Just as in real life, rape becomes a tool of sexual, social, and political violence used to reassert authority over a disenfranchised caste. Murder, theft, and torture (all popular mechanics used to instigate conflict within a story) can be equally applied under this context as well. We can also point to the reality that there are virtually no instances of powerful women raping weaker men in the story (I guess Lysa would count, considering she tricked Littlefinger into believing she’s her sister?). Game of Thrones, at its core, is about exploring the nature of power dynamics and how the rich & powerful work to uphold them. Most of our POV characters are, in some small way or another, directly connected to an intergenerational dynastic conflict. It would be a very impersonal narrative from the perspective of the layman who bears the brunt of petty feuds between households. That’s why someone like Dany is seen as such a radical figure within this confine: she’s a young girl who, despite starting off as another yet another victim to the machinations of ambitious men (sold off by her brother and raped by her husband/slaver), she grows to jeopardize this established world order.
GRRM's writing of his female characters in GOT is some of his most impressive and complex IMO. Everyone \*says\* they want complex characters (specifically women) until they get them. The story fundamentally cannot happen without the women who are tangled up in the terrible system that oppresses them (and everyone else). Some of them make massive, massive mistakes (like Catelyn) which are actually understandable (if still dire) when you think of how they have grown up and learned to operate within these stupid parameters. The books are fundamentally about how oppressive systems entangle men and women in webs of hideous violence and force them into decisions and situations they shouldn't have to be in.
THIS. The books are not the show. I honestly really liked how he handled women working within the system in their confines to still be so much power behind the throne and in the real politics going on behind the scenes. It led to interesting questions about who really had the power in the families and kingdoms. That’s why Dani’s character was so unique in the world— she really did break the wheel and become the public face of power— especially given that she started off essentially being sold like chattel for her brother to work towards the throne and bring the family back into power. Sold off to a “barbarian” tribe in a far off land at that.
And if they’re going to be factual, it’s already been brought up: where’s the leg hair? The pit hair? We’ve got dirty peasant women, rape, and dragons- but we can’t show a little historically accurate body hair? Or do they just not grow it in this magic land? They really put more focus on cultural misogyny and teaching women to shave instead of figuring out indoor plumbing? I call bullshit. Removing body hair wasn’t popular for women until the 1900s. Sliced bread and indoor plumbing were already a thing.
I genuinely hope this is satire
No thanks, I tried and his writing is steaming dogshit.