elisi | On GoT, Doctor Who and character development

Current Mood: thoughtful
Crossposts: https://elisi.livejournal.com/1174320.html

Entry tags:

On GoT, Doctor Who and character development

So, watching fandoms implode from afar is a lot more entertaining (and considerably less scarring) than when personally invested. So, I've been reading a lot about GoT - everything from 'It's only a TV show, get over yourself' to 'I called it back in S1, ha!' to 'Everything is ruined'.

However, it's all been making me think...

This is about Dany, as I'm sure you have realised. ;) Leaving aside the whole racial issue and White Saviour Tropes (because hooo boy, that's a whole 'nother issue), this article puts its finger on the problem with Dany's actions perfectly:

Critic's Notebook: In the End, 'Game of Thrones' Finds a Way to Make Its Woman Problem Worse

Question: 'Let me ask you this: What prompted Dany to burn King's Landing? In the moment, that is. [...] In any event, when Dany rested her dragon on a King's Landing wall and realized that she was victorious and the Iron Throne was (probably) hers, what — right then and there — prompted her to decide to burn the city?'

This is where a lot of people have also pointed out that 'Foreshadowing isn't character development'.

See, what all this reminded me of was... Ten. Except Ten can here be held up as an example of how to do it right. Here is

scarlettgirl writing about Human Nature/Family of Blood, so S3:

Now, to the meat, the gristle in the teeth, the I TOLD YOU SO moment of the show - the Doctor's treatment of The Family. I've said over and over again that this Doctor is much darker, almost unhinged and probably slighty sociopathic than Nine ever could hope to be. We are starting to see the overt manifestation of "no second chances" and my god, is it *delicious*. I get the impression he's trembling on the knife-point of completely losing control and the cracks in his facade are widening. It's starting to pile up - Gallifrey, the loss of his people, his companions, his friends and if he doesn't let it out and *deal* then the meltdown will be of nuclear proportions. There was a line in the BBC7 audio "Phobos" where he kills an empathatic species with an overload of his memories and thoughts. What finally kills isn't what he's done, or what he's afraid of, it's what he's capable of doing. I think a full-out Time Lord metldown would bring down galaxies and that's always lurking just below the surface with this Doctor.

And

flummery's Handlebars was created during S4, before the season even ended.

When we finally got Waters of Mars and the Doctor's complete meltdown, fandom's response was on the whole 'Handlebars was right!' and 'Finally!' If he hadn't lost it, we would have been surprised. The build-up was very well done, and when he finally cracked it was almost cathartic.

And this is where it seems the GoT writers have failed. They had a character who was probably always primed for going off and losing it, but didn't bring the viewers on board in her emotional journey.

Again, look at Ten - the whole of Waters of Mars is constructed to make him lose it, forcing him to walk away from brave, heroic pioneers, unable to save them; it's pressing every single one of his buttons.

What caused Dany to burn King's Landing? Maybe we'll find out in the finale, maybe we won't. Either way, it looks like the show has cause a lot of damage to itself.

Or as the author of the first linked piece put it:

We'd been invited to understand Dany's point of view for all these years, but as the endgame approached in "The Bells," the writing made her less interesting than the purple potato known as Thanos.

(Please note: I have not yet seen Endgame, no spoilers please!) It just seems a waste. Goodness, knows that The Purple Potato (love that moniker) is painfully dull, but he's there to serve a purpose; I don't think anyone's invested in him, or cares about anything other than defeating him.

But then, here's Sady Doyle's piece:

Who Wins, Who Dies: Game of Thrones (2011 - 2019)
No matter what women told themselves, Game of Thrones was never our story.

Anyway, in case the oppressed masses do not rise up and create an anarcho-syndicalist commune (as per Monty Python and the Holy Grail) I hope Sansa becomes queen.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

At work so don't have time to read everything, but I'd argue that the pre-episode set-up for Dany's break was actually better than Ten's, but it's like if they made WoM without the Time Lord Victorious speech itself. Everything else the same, but you had to guess at what was actually going on in his head right at that moment.

Ironically, I think Moff has finally inured me to interpreting bullet-point character development. I'm looking at Jaimie's sudden turn like 'pfffffft, I've fanwanked far worse.' And Dany is fucking Shakespeare, comparatively.

but it's like if they made WoM without the Time Lord Victorious speech itself. Everything else the same, but you had to guess at what was actually going on in his head right at that moment.
*nods* That makes sense, and works with what I've read. Maybe she realised she'd won and just went all:

It just seems a shame they didn't do it properly, i.e. worked WITH the character, rather than pull her away.

I'm looking at Jaimie's sudden turn like 'pfffffft, I've fanwanked far worse.' And Dany is fucking Shakespeare, comparatively.
LOL. Although I never had any problems with Moffat.

*nods* That makes sense, and works with what I've read. Maybe she realised she'd won and just went all:
I think they made a mistake in leaning too much into the idea of madness itself. Like, it works that it's there in her background, but as an explanation for a character motivation, it's basically a non-explanation. I think the crux of it is probably in the idea of is it better to rule through love or fear that comes up throughout the show. Dany is both ready and willing (and even eager) to use fear, which we see over and over and over. But more importantly, I think, is that she expects to be adored. She's used to being met as the great liberator and a big part of her needs that. Something the show has done an excellent job of showing is just how isolated and distrusted she is in Westeros when part of her has always thought that this is her home, this is where she belongs, this is where she will be welcomed and it'll all just fall into place for her. And there's the thread going all the way back to the beginning from her brother that the common people are praying for their return and sewing dragon banners, etc. An idea that Dany acknowledges is wrong and which every person who has ever come to her from Westeros rightly tells her is bullshit. And yet I think a deep part of her wants it to be true, or at least that it's something she can make true just by getting here. But now she's here and the reality is a lot harsher than she ever envisioned. She tells Jon earlier in the episode 'I have no love here. Let it be fear, then.' And I believe D+D say in their commentary somewhere that what sets her off is that she did win, and she realizes she's not happy. She looks at the Red Keep, which is the goal that's driven her her entire life, and she's sacrificed almost everything she loves to get here, and the people have not, in fact, welcomed her with open arms and greeted her as a liberator, and absolutely none of it is what she imagined. So she decides if she can't have love, she still wants an equivalent power, and she's only going to get it through fear. (If she accepts their surrender and takes over, she's just the next ruler in a long line. She never wanted that. She needs to be exceptional.)

I think there's also a 'fuck you' to Tyrion in there. Like, it's totally true that her advisors, with entirely good intentions, have screwed her over again and again since she got to Westeros. And she's done what they've advised her almost every time and it's left her worse and worse off. Such is the nature of tragedy. But 'listen for the bells and that means they surrender and then stand down' was like Tyrion's last great push to try to temper what was going on here. He repeats it over and over. And I think part of her just decided 'I listened to you over and over and it's not gotten me what I wanted and now I'm here and I'm not happy so fuck you, I'm ignoring the bells.'

LOL. Although I never had any problems with Moffat.
It's just that style of writing where you jump from major character beat to major character beat with precious little linking material, forcing the audience to fill in all the gaps and wherefores. It's not something I like in my fiction, and GoT has for the longest time been the exact opposite of that kind of writing. But, like, when I step back and look at the beats there, meh: it's no worse than Moffat. It's no worse than a huge portion of television. It's just disappointing because GoT has always been better.

t's just that style of writing where you jump from major character beat to major character beat with precious little linking material, forcing the audience to fill in all the gaps and wherefores. It's not something I like in my fiction, and GoT has for the longest time been the exact opposite of that kind of writing. But, like, when I step back and look at the beats there, meh: it's no worse than Moffat. It's no worse than a huge portion of television. It's just disappointing because GoT has always been better.

Yes. This. It's not that we didn't see Dany going in that direction eventually, but to go there all of a sudden with no real build up, felt sloppy. And it is a lot like Moffat in the later season of Sherlock and the last couple of seasons of Doctor Who. (Clara arc and much of Capadali, although Sherlock S3 is the best example of this.)

The writer has gotten burned out and starts rushing the story. I saw it with Joss Whedon as well -- although he handed over much of his writing duties to writers who were still invested in the story and not burned out, so it worked better. The problem may well lie in not having enough writers on the team. I remember Rod Sterling ran into this problem with Twilight Zone, he got burned out after writing all the episodes for most of the seasons...

GRR Martin has the same thing happen, he got stuck after book 5. He'd grown tired of his own story, And he'd probably bitten off more than he could chew, as did the adapters. Keep in mind GoT when it started had a thousand characters, by the time it got to book 4, it had twice that many. You needed a rollerdex to keep track. And every character had its own chapter, making book 5, torture to get through.

Try adapting that, worse try doing it after the writer you've been adapting from stops writing his books and only has a rough outline. Not easy. And it doesn't help when the adapters have a different writing style or approach.

Yes. This. It's not that we didn't see Dany going in that direction eventually, but to go there all of a sudden with no real build up, felt sloppy. And it is a lot like Moffat in the later season of Sherlock and the last couple of seasons of Doctor Who.
Personally, I think Dany's turn was extremely well set-up (and I've been rewatching the previous seasons here while the last is airing and, dear god, when you know this is where it's heading it's not even remotely subtle), but I accept that this is one of those things that works for someone or doesn't and there's no arguing with that. The rushed pace is doing none of these characters any favors, though. It's just a bit easier to process with the characters who 1) are going in the direction you want for them and 2) aren't having major swings from one point to another.

I'm basically just here being grateful that my investment in this show is shallow enough to brush off the parts that don't work for me. Moff nearly killed me. I cherish every minute of it, but I need a break from that level of fannish commitment.

The writer has gotten burned out and starts rushing the story . . . GRR Martin has the same thing happen, he got stuck after book 5. He'd grown tired of his own story, And he'd probably bitten off more than he could chew, as did the adapters.
*nodding* I've pretty much been telling myself from the moment I got far enough into the show/books to see what kind of beast they are that there would be no way for anyone to finish this thing in a satisfactory manner, if they can finish it at all. Part of me does want to curse D+D for not taking the extra seasons/episodes HBO offered them because clearly they needed them, but part of me can't blame them in the slightest for just needing this thing done somehow, anyhow. If this show wasn't the cultural juggernaught it is I'd probably have given it up seasons ago, tbh. I've no qualms about dropping shows when I think they're getting off track. But I'm glad I've stuck with this one; this season has delivered far more than I ever anticipated.

Keep in mind GoT when it started had a thousand characters
Is that true?

And every character had its own chapter, making book 5, torture to get through.
I've never attempted book 5. I can't remember if I actually finished 4. But I well believe you, based on the trajectory: the wait between the chapters of the characters you actually cared about became endless. I'll probably give it another go here after the show ends, but I'm making no assumptions that I'll be successful.

Try adapting that, worse try doing it after the writer you've been adapting from stops writing his books and only has a rough outline. Not easy. And it doesn't help when the adapters have a different writing style or approach.
I read a comment somewhere that was like 'pity D+D, they signed up to adapt GRRM's books, not to finish them for him.' They're not wrong.

Personally, I think Dany's turn was extremely well set-up (and I've been rewatching the previous seasons here while the last is airing and, dear god, when you know this is where it's heading it's not even remotely subtle), but I accept that this is one of those things that works for someone or doesn't and there's no arguing with that. The rushed pace is doing none of these characters any favors, though. It's just a bit easier to process with the characters who 1) are going in the direction you want for them and 2) aren't having major swings from one point to another.

Eh. No. This is the problem with the online arguments over this -- an assumption that the people taking issue with the narrative, are shippers or upset about Dany. That may be true for some people? But not for most of us. Most of us acknowledge that Dany would have gotten there eventually, but not now and not in the way they did it. So no, I strongly and respectfully disagree with your assessment.

Let's talk about Dany for a bit -- do I see her becoming a mad ruler at some point? Sure. But not in the way they did it.
For one thing, you could argue as coffeeandink did in her journal -- that Dany's choices up to that point were rational in that world. They actually were the most rational considering the situation she was in -- and the fact that the writers were all of a sudden playing it otherwise was well insulting to the subversive narrative arc that had been carefully built up to that point. She wasn't paranoid -- people were plotting against her to put an ill-equipped leader on the throne, because he was male and familiar to them and didn't want power so easy for them to manipulate and control. Also, you have a character who imprisoned her dragons when they killed one child. A character who had put women and children first for the most part. Sansa to a degree was doing the same things, and if Sansa had a dragon would most likely have made many of the same choices for the same reasons. This isn't crazy or mad -- it's rational survival tactics in a difficult world.

A lot of how you view this depends on how you think and more importantly how you've been trained to think about cultural content. Not everyone views stories as patterns. Some people focus on one or two characters. Some focus on the spectacle. Some focus on theme or socio-political message. Other's on things they relate to. Other's see it as morality play. It varies. Which is why none of us are watching the same thing. We bring how we think to it. We also, all being human, are incredibly judgemental of how others view it. LOL! (There's a great discussion of this in a podcast on the episode - cast of kings. About how judgemental and condemning the internet fandom is of views that aren't in sync with their own. I include myself in this assessment. Although I don't think you are being that here...just that you don't understand how many of use viewed the episode.)

I was an undergrad lit major who was trained to critique and analyze the narrative structure of stories in television, film, theater and literature. So I see things that a casual viewer probably doesn't. Heck I enjoy analyzing a show or book, particularly ones I love, to see why it works and why it doesn't. And I have the ability to look at any pattern (mathematical or otherwise) and know instantly when it doesn't work. It's how I think.

As a result, I could see how they could have done it and made it work -- the way they did it obviously did not work. While it may have worked for some, the fact that it didn't work universally -- means it did not work. That's the test. I learned that years ago in a creative writing course -- where my professor informed me that if your reader doesn't buy the logistics of your choices -- and this is a majority of the readers -- then it most likely does not work. Now, not everyone will like it that's a given, but if the vast majority have the same issues with it -- the same exact ones, then it did not work.

There are so many problems with that episode, I wrote a very long post pointing them all out, also cast of kings podcast also points them out the same ones, as does beergoodfoamy, shapinglight, coffeeandink, the Washington Post, the New Yoork Times, CNN, Rolling Stone..the list is endless, it has a 44% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes and yes, even the actors have since come forward and voiced these concerns, the same criticisms -- the plot inconsistencies, the character inconsistencies, how the actors felt rushed and had to find a way to put a lot of emotion into a scene that had not been built up to, etc. Not the least of which is the battle at Kings Landing, which is completely and utterly ludicrious if you think about how all the prior battles were fought leading up to it. I mean come on, one dragon takes out everything? After we're shown that when she had two dragons, she suffered major losses. Really?

Although, episode 4 wasn't that bad, episode 5 was so badly executed -- beautifully filmed, but horribly executed. Unless of course you love Michael Bay films -- because it is a great Michael Bay film. Great on spectacle, short of character and with consistency errors that are just sloppy -- so narratively unsatisfying for everyone who was invested in the story. There was a way they could have done it -- without resorting to Michael Bay spectacle. Have her go for Cersei, by setting off the wildfire beneath the city that her advisors had earlier told her about -- and have that destroy everyone. It's more subtle, it's more ambiguous and ultimately achieves the same result -- without having the character suddenly flip. They'd have kept their audience, if they had gone that route. Instead, they've lost 75% of it.

Eh. No. This is the problem with the online arguments over this -- an assumption that the people taking issue with the narrative, are shippers or upset about Dany. That may be true for some people? But not for most of us.
Sorry, let me clarify: I don't mean to confound those two factors, but I was trying to be brief. I think that personal investment is one factor that is making some people react especially negatively to Dany's turn and I think the severity of the swing is another factor that is causing some people to react so negatively. Some people both. Some people neither. For some those two are inextricably linked while others can consider them separately.

The point I was trying to make is that I think the late-stage downturn in the writing has screwed over most of these characters pretty equally across the board, but that we're seeing internet explosions over some of them and just grumblings over others, and I think personal investment and major swings in character arcs are the two things that determine which characters are going to see the biggest explosions. As a counter-example: what the fuck has Tyrion been doing for the last two seasons? Why is he now the dumbest person in all of Westeros (excepting, perhaps, Jon Snow)? I have no idea, but he sure has been doing it consistently for two years. If Tyrion exits the show in this state, it'll be as fundamental an undermining of his character as happened with Dany here, but it's been a slow, slow death devoid of major swerves. So no explosions. He's also long been a beloved character, it's true (he's certainly a personal favorite for me), but I don't think I've ever seen an article about people naming their babies Tyrion. And then there's Arya: the show's done way less, I'd argue, to set up her sudden swerve from her eight-season path of vengeance and being a serial killer than it did to set up Dany's turn, but I'm not seeing a lot of complaints about it. Well, some minor confusion and grumbling, but no explosions.

And to be clear, I've no judgements for the people who are taking this deeply personally. If this were my show and my character, I'd call out sick for a week.

For one thing, you could argue as coffeeandink did in her journal -- that Dany's choices up to that point were rational in that world. They actually were the most rational considering the situation she was in -- and the fact that the writers were all of a sudden playing it otherwise was well insulting to the subversive narrative arc that had been carefully built up to that point.
I agree and disagree? Yes, I think a lot of her choices are perfectly in line with what is reasonable and necessary in the world she lives in, where violence is seemingly the only thing that gets results. Every leader on this show has summarily executed people who betray them. Nearly everybody acknowledges that if the people who are against you don't fear the repercussions of acting out, they will. Setting Dany's actions in this sense against those of other characters and finding Dany at fault is disingenuous. But in other ways I think Dany's narrative has never made sense, beyond the first season/book, which was lovely, and watching it crumble like a house of cards has been a relief: city after city rallies to her side because she, what?, came along and said 'hey, maybe try attacking the people who oppress you! Come with me and be free (as long as you give me your undying devotion)!' No. And who needs to destabilize a whole subcontinent before they finally realize, oh, I guess I should have had a plan about what happens next beyond moving on to my next target? Did she have some noble intentions in there as well? Yes, I think she honestly tried to do right by all the slaves. And nobody's crying tears over the slavers getting what was coming to them. But just as fundamentally Dany chewed up one continent to stage the take-over of another. Dario had the right of it: she's a conquerer, not a ruler. I've found the show's focus on celebrating her showy victories over the realistic consequences of her steamrolling of Essos to be hard to swallow, but I mostly swallowed it because I'm used to side-eyeing protagonists and stories telling me I'm wrong, as this one seemed to be. I, too, was taken by surprise by this turn.

She wasn't paranoid -- people were plotting against her to put an ill-equipped leader on the throne, because he was male and familiar to them and didn't want power so easy for them to manipulate and control.
I think a great deal of the tragedy in this story is that she did make many of the right moves, in the moment. She was often right about what was going on. And a great deal of the contributing factors to the crisis she was in were other people's faults. But that's how this show works.

Sansa to a degree was doing the same things, and if Sansa had a dragon would most likely have made many of the same choices for the same reasons. This isn't crazy or mad -- it's rational survival tactics in a difficult world.
You're right; I think Sansa is just the same. The difference is Sansa only had a couple angry dogs, and she had people she loves to stop her and for whom she needs to consider the consequences of her actions. Dany has the medieval equivalent of a nuclear bomb and, now, nobody. I don't think Dany is morally inferior to the other characters on this show; but she's in a position to do far more damage than any of them, and that matters.

There's a great discussion of this in a podcast on the episode - cast of kings. About how judgemental and condemning the internet fandom is of views that aren't in sync with their own. I include myself in this assessment. Although I don't think you are being that here...just that you don't understand how many of use viewed the episode.
Amusingly, I was listening to that podcast maybe an hour before I saw you post about it, so that made me smile. It was a good discussion, and surprising to hear on a podcast, I'll admit. But . . . it's kinda Surviving Fandom with your Sanity Intact 101?

I've no doubt that the people thinking through Dany's character arc in the way you are are numerous and that you have many reasonable arguments. I just don't particularly care? Mostly because I wrote off the plotting on this show wholesale last season and resolved I'd ignore it and just take whatever I can out of this one. I've no doubt the flaws are there, but picking them over isn't giving me any joy and for reasons that escape me this is one show I don't feel the need to rhetorically strip-mine in order to reconcile myself to it.

The people who are taking this personally, though, I confess they do interest me, in large part because of the measure of validation I felt from the show in my counter-reaction. But I like to provoke myself with fiction. I like to watch things that anger me (and exhilarate me), find the pain points, poke at them, and understand why they're there. And I'm not out to provoke anybody else, but if they're going to put their responses out there on the internet, I want to watch and try to understand why. (I'm equal-opportunity about this. I adored River Song, and I read so much hate about her. I found it fascinating.) I'm here to be objective about the subjectivity of what we're watching. And I want to experience both sides of that dichotomy as acutely as possible. I look for shows that spike emotions in that way and let me grapple with it. GoT hasn't much been one of those shows for me . . . until maybe now? But anyway, that's one of my favorite interpretive lenses. It's not meant as a judgement against 'over-investment' or a denial that more dispassionate forms of criticism exist.

As a result, I could see how they could have done it and made it work -- the way they did it obviously did not work. While it may have worked for some, the fact that it didn't work universally -- means it did not work. That's the test. I learned that years ago in a creative writing course -- where my professor informed me that if your reader doesn't buy the logistics of your choices -- and this is a majority of the readers -- then it most likely does not work.
Lol. I'm not saying there's not some sense to that, but if I'd accepted popular consensus as the determinant of narrative worthiness, I'd have given up on fiction at ten years old.

Not the least of which is the battle at Kings Landing, which is completely and utterly ludicrious if you think about how all the prior battles were fought leading up to it. I mean come on, one dragon takes out everything? After we're shown that when she had two dragons, she suffered major losses. Really?
Oh, it is hot garbage.

episode 5 was so badly executed -- beautifully filmed, but horribly executed. Unless of course you love Michael Bay films -- because it is a great Michael Bay film.
If that's true, I've been doing a huge disservice to Michael Bay films (see my comment over there *gestures* about spectacle vs. tone and atmosphere). I think the terror of this episode and the way it was rendered was a whole story in itself.

But more importantly, I think, is that she expects to be adored. She's used to being met as the great liberator and a big part of her needs that.
I don't think people have been talking about this aspect much? Well, usually it's framed in how problematic it looks for the beautiful white girl to be worshipped by all the brown people... But yeah, that (and expecting/wanting to be loved) could certainly be a huge factor. From what I remember of the books though, she could be ruthless, but always in response to an injustice (like all the crucified children). Not in an end in itself.

He repeats it over and over. And I think part of her just decided 'I listened to you over and over and it's not gotten me what I wanted and now I'm here and I'm not happy so fuck you, I'm ignoring the bells.'

It's no worse than a huge portion of television. It's just disappointing because GoT has always been better.
Again with the genre change. Doing it in the middle/end of a show is terrible, since your viewers will be very unhappy.

I don't think people have been talking about this aspect much? Well, usually it's framed in how problematic it looks for the beautiful white girl to be worshipped by all the brown people... But yeah, that (and expecting/wanting to be loved) could certainly be a huge factor.
Nor have I, but I've admittedly not read around that much.

From what I remember of the books though, she could be ruthless, but always in response to an injustice (like all the crucified children). Not in an end in itself.
Well, I think the issue is that any time her power is challenged, her first instinct is to reach for fear as an intimidation tactic. Is this often in line with the expected (and even necessary) behavior of rulers in her world? Yes. Were the people she was aiming it against also frequently despicable people? Yes. But she's 1) terribly consistent in going for violence first 2) not been shown to be particularly attentive to the innocents who suffer as a part of her righteousness except sometimes when she's chastened in retrospect and 3) entirely inflexible in making any concessions about the scope of her powers. As Sam asks Jon: "You gave up your crown for the good of your people, would she do the same?" *bitter laugh* Not in a million years. (Footnote: Jon should not rule either. But Sam is 1000% right.)

Oh god Dany has Airpods in, she can't hear the bells
Hahahahah. That's one of the better uses of that meme, I've gotta say.

Again with the genre change. Doing it in the middle/end of a show is terrible, since your viewers will be very unhappy.
I feel quite badly for the actors who are having to make it work. But most of them are absolutely killing it, so maybe adversity does lead to greatness.

Nor have I, but I've admittedly not read around that much.
I wonder if there'll be some nice & chewy meta when the show is over? Do people do meta? I've never so much as looked at the fandom, so...

As Sam asks Jon: "You gave up your crown for the good of your people, would she do the same?" *bitter laugh* Not in a million years.
I like Sam.

Hahahahah. That's one of the better uses of that meme, I've gotta say.
I think I meant to include it in the main post, forgot, and figured I could throw it at you. ;)

I feel quite badly for the actors who are having to make it work. But most of them are absolutely killing it, so maybe adversity does lead to greatness.
Well done them! And Dany's actor especially (I forget her name) has been through a HELL of a lot. (Like, personally, not counting the show.)

I started reading the analyses you linked to and then stopped. This show's treatment of women doesn't bother me, and I'm not here to make myself angry about this show. Lalalalalla. I'm sure the internet has it more than covered.

Something that has been interesting me in the analyses I've been reading is that there's so much rage focused on the writing, and a lot of assertions that they have sacrificed plotting for 'spectacle' and a lot of bemoaning the fact that basically everybody involved in the making of this show outside the writing room is hitting it out of the park every story this season . . . pity the writing is ruining it. And I don't think it really stacks up like that for me? The writing has inarguably moved away from the solidity and hyper-realism of its earlier seasons, and I'm not going to argue that it's gotten better. But I'm not sure that the show taken as a whole has gotten worse. It's just moved into functioning in the realm of poetry, opera or similar. They've not sacrificed plot logic for spectacle; they've done it for atmosphere, for tone, for the sublime (in the old-fashioned beautiful and terrible sense of the word). The sheer aesthetic and emotional impact of so much of what they've put on screen this season is the best stuff they've ever done. So many of the character scenes are the best stuff they've ever done. And for me, at least, it's working. The crushing sense of tragedy and terror in this last episode was exquisite. It's not what I was expecting out of the ending of this show, but it's beautiful. The plot doesn't make sense in opera either. If refusing to think about the inconsistent strengths and tactics of dragons vs. giant crossbows is what it takes to enjoy this season, I will do it happily. I love to think about the writing of tv shows, but the writing is, indeed, only a part of the show. And the writing here, for all its flaws, has made a lot of room for every other creative contributor to the show to bring it up to a whole new level.

It's just moved into functioning in the realm of poetry, opera or similar. They've not sacrificed plot logic for spectacle; they've done it for atmosphere, for tone, for the sublime (in the old-fashioned beautiful and terrible sense of the word).

I don't watch the show, so I've no right to an opinion...but what you say makes sense.

The sublime is not something one often gets on television. It's worth a lot.

I will fully admit that I am willfully ignoring some of the dumbest plotting I've ever seen. But I can't bring myself to be terribly apologetic about it because if you step back a bit, fuzz your eyes, and just let it wash over you . . . wow.

Actually, she even uses language like Ten: "I gave them a choice." Her thing is "they can live in my new world or die in the old one." And she allows for no shades of grey between them. She might as well be saying "no second chances."

Her thing is "they can live in my new world or die in the old one."
Ouch. Well, that certainly adds a very valid perspective. And makes it a lot more interesting? Like, that sort of arc is one that I can get behind, someone who believes they are always doing the Right Thing until they can't see themselves clearly at all.

I found myself nodding along with much of this. Truth of the matter is? I did see Dany going this direction, but they didn't execute it well. It was rushed. Ten on the other hand was built up to better. That said...there are differences in regards to what the stories are about...

Also, as selenak stated long ago, this is basically a coming of age story -- with the protagonists being a bunch of VERY young children. Jon is 16 in the books when it begins, Ayra 10, Bran 6, Sansa 14, and Rob 18. Dany is about 15. Making the books somewhat disturbing. The actors were actually a tad older.

And it's a misogynistic, chauvinistic, male world based heavily on the medieval era of Britain -- around the time of the War of the Roses. Actually a lot of the story is a recreation of the War of the Roses, with zombies and dragons.

A major theme of the books is how people without any power handle it. We have Tyrion - the dwarf who has no power, Varys the enouch with no power, the bastards/illegitmate sons with no power, and of course women who have no power -- and the dead. And how deadly each of these people without any power become.

GRR Martin much like Whedon was obsessed with how the powerless or seemingly powerless desire and handle the lack of power.

Cersei -- who has no power and lives in fear under Robert Barratheon, finds a way to take it back. But she never feels she has it -- and is always afraid of losing it. And in a way she never truly has it -- the men around her do.

Sansa -- similarily never feels she has power -- it's Jon's or LittleFinger's or Ramsy's. She feels she can maybe manipulate Jon -- but not quite.

Dany wields power through her dragons, but loses all but one. And she loses the only female friend at her side. She has fear, but not power -- the power can be pulled from her grasp.

Tyrion never has had any power, so he wheedles and connives, and plots, hoping to obtain a little. But always at risk and always in fear.

Ayra -- becomes an assassin to have power, but in the end has none and is at the mercy of both zombies and dragons, using her wits.

It's really a story about people with no power trying to obtain it, and find a way to survive. That's why the kids are the protagonists.

While Doctor Who in stark contrast is a story about a man who has too much power and needs to figure out how not to abuse it.

Game of Thrones up to the episode 3 does what I stated above rather well, but it sort of went off-kilter after that in its mad rush to the finish line, because the writers got tired of telling their story. A mistake many writers make including Moffat (and most notably in the Sherlock series, as well as in the final seasons of Doctor Who.) It happens. Television writers get burned out. Painful to watch, but there it is.

Edited 2019-05-17 01:16 (UTC)

My point was more in how they built up to a big climax, and if it felt earned. The worlds and situations are miles apart, but one did a good job of showing its lead slowly buckling under loss after loss, and the other... apparently didn't.

Yes, I agree. RT Davies much like Whedon was very good at conveying emotional character arcs. It should be noted that neither writer is really a plotter, but a pantser. They focus more on character driven stories, and emotional arcs.
Whedon used to state -- "you have to earn a character's death or every beat"-- if it isn't earned, it won't work.
And RT Davies was similar in his writing style -- he felt you needed to earn each moment and show it. Moffat's weakness is sort of the same as D+D's which is too much focus on twisty plots and surprising an audience, and not enough on earning them and character development. I loved Moffat's twisty plots, but he often lost his characters and the audience along the way. Sherlock S3 is a great example.

But RT Davies knew how to build character and build emotion.

GRR Martin is similar to RT Davies -- in that he was an expert at building character, he also meandered. (See Book 4 which is just painful, took me a year to read it, and book 5, oh god. I honestly don't know how I got through them.)

D+D were doing really well up until about S8. And I actually had little issue with episodes 1-3 of this season. It doesn't go off the rails really until episodes 4 and 5. That's when the editing and writing errors start to really appear. They might have been there previously, but it's too dark to tell in 1-3.

I don't envy the writers. OTOH they're entitled white guys, who haven't had a woman writing for the show since S3, so... *shrug* >:)

Well considering their last pitch for an HBO series was the AU Civil War series -- in which the Confederacy won, eh. No.
I don't feel sorry for them. It got ditched pretty quickly though -- when the public response to the news was - "hell no, we won't watch that, you idiots! Are you nuts?"

Now, they've been announced as taking over the Star Wars series from JJ Abrahms, which is getting all sorts of flack because of last week's episode.

The last two episodes had a lot of easy to fix editing and cinemagraphic errors and narrative continuity errors in them along side jarring and unearned character actions...which pissed off two sets of viewers at the same time. It's hilarous, and fascinating how people have responded. (If you get a chance listen to the podcast of the episode on cast of kings, just the first half, where they discuss how internet fandom treat cultural items as their personal property.

Yes, I agree. RT Davies much like Whedon was very good at conveying emotional character arcs. It should be noted that neither writer is really a plotter, but a pantser. They focus more on character driven stories, and emotional arcs.
I hereby recommend The Writers Tale. (Apologies if I have already done so, or if you have already read it. I just love it and think it's probably the best thing ever written on writing.) In places it chronicles literal panic as deadlines appear and THERE IS NO STORY. And it's funny, because he knows when stuff doesn't work, and yet he often just has to make do and patch over uneven plot holes or character stuff because there is no other way, and it's way too late to go back and re-do stuff. Also, the insights into how TV is created and the million and one details that the audience are not aware of is fascinating. In short: Writing is a funny thing.

GRR Martin is similar to RT Davies -- in that he was an expert at building character, he also meandered. (See Book 4 which is just painful, took me a year to read it, and book 5, oh god. I honestly don't know how I got through them.)
Like I said above, I have only read the first three. I started book 4 and just stalled. That was... 5 years ago, I think. And nothing I've seen anyone say has compelled me to continue reading. ;)

Well considering their last pitch for an HBO series was the AU Civil War series -- in which the Confederacy won, eh. No.
Yeah, I saw. Yikes. And I hope they have their Star Wars taken off them now. (That part's not even personal, just tired of straight white men.)

If you get a chance listen to the podcast of the episode on cast of kings, just the first half, where they discuss how internet fandom treat cultural items as their personal property.
I'll see if I get there. Sounds fun, certainly. :)

Well, apparently, I'm the only one who found what the podcast stated about internet fandom fascinating -- a lot of folks I rec'd it to, sort of pooh-poohed it. It was rec'd to me by a fandom friend on FB. And the fans on FB seemed to be more appreciative.

Shrugs. Mileage it varies.

Thank you for the rec on "The Writer's Tale" -- is this a book? Because no I haven't read it and would like to. I found books about the television writing process fascinating. Back in the day, I read all of Joss Whedon's interviews with a film publication on how he wrote for television and film. Then checked out the Writer's Room -- where various writers from various television series discussed what it was like to run a television show and write for one, and the whole process. I love that stuff. I find it comforting, because it reminds me why I don't write for television or the screen. One of my co-workers is a frustrated screenwriter and published play-write. We every once and a while commiserate.

I read William Goldman (writer of the Princess Bride and Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid) memoirs about screen-writing.
Along with Stephen King's book On Writing. Would love to read RT Davies. There's also this little film put out by Judd Apatow entitled the TV Set, about the creation of television sitcom, and the commentary goes into depth about the process of writing a television series.

I started book 4 and just stalled. That was... 5 years ago, I think. And nothing I've seen anyone say has compelled me to continue reading. ;)

Yeah, I wouldn't recommend it. For one thing Dance of Dragons ends on a bloody cliff-hanger. And Martin is NEVER going to provide a sequel. What we see in the television series is what we'll get.

Also, they are hard books to get through. Took me a year for both, I think. I no longer have the patience for reading books like that -- if it doesn't grab me in the first 100 pages, I tend to give up. LOL!

The series? The first three seasons were really good, then it went off book and ...the cracks started to show. Granted, it was satisfying in a way, because the plot moved a bit faster -- and we didn't have to wait forever for characters to meet, only for them to pass one another or never make it. But it also killed off people who were still alive in the books, and let people live who were dead in the books and got screwy with a few fan favorite character arcs - resulting in a lot of die-hard book fans jumping ship. The book fandom is probably why Martin eventually abandoned LJ.Also that the writers chose not to do Lady Stoneheart -- who was critical in the books. Lady Stonehart kills the people responsible for the Red Wedding, not Ayra.

Thank you for the rec on "The Writer's Tale" -- is this a book? Because no I haven't read it and would like to.
Cool! Yes, it is a book. As in, it's a collection of emails between Russel T Davies and Benjamin Cook (journalist writing for Doctor Who magazine) stretching over several years. Link here. (Not familiar with 'Book Depository', but figure it's got to be better than amazon...) Highly recommended. I have added dozens of bookmarks to mine so I can find relevant passages/quotes.

I love that stuff. I find it comforting, because it reminds me why I don't write for television or the screen. One of my co-workers is a frustrated screenwriter and published play-write. We every once and a while commiserate.
Well, this one should be right up your street!

Yeah, I wouldn't recommend it. For one thing Dance of Dragons ends on a bloody cliff-hanger. And Martin is NEVER going to provide a sequel. What we see in the television series is what we'll get.
Well, he's said that the show ends more or less how the books do, so... We'll see how it goes.

Also, they are hard books to get through. Took me a year for both, I think. I no longer have the patience for reading books like that -- if it doesn't grab me in the first 100 pages, I tend to give up. LOL!
I have persevered through various tomes, out of sheer stubbornness, so maybe one day. But today is not that day!!

The book fandom is probably why Martin eventually abandoned LJ.
Fandoms are why most creators abandon such spaces, I think. >:) (Notable exceptions: Jane Espensons Wordpress, which was delightful, and that she stopped using when she ran out of stuff to say.) (I think it was a Wordpress. It's a long time ago.)

Also that the writers chose not to do Lady Stoneheart -- who was critical in the books. Lady Stonehart kills the people responsible for the Red Wedding, not Ayra.
Well, I can see why they went for Arya instead. Twas a hell of a scene. (May have watched a bit of Arya...)

Espenson's was Blogger. Word Press sort of replaced Blogger. But Gaiman and Espenson started on Blogger.

Eh...after this Sunday's episode, it hit me in the face this morning how insanely racist the Song of Ice and Fire series is. So, maybe...read something else?

Espenson's was Blogger. Word Press sort of replaced Blogger. But Gaiman and Espenson started on Blogger.
Yeah, that detail had entirely slipped my mind!

Eh...after this Sunday's episode, it hit me in the face this morning how insanely racist the Song of Ice and Fire series is. So, maybe...read something else?
Well, it sort of wears it on its sleeve (Pretty White Lady Saves All The Brown People!), but even so, don't worry. I do not have the appetite for something that stodgy right now. (Have just finished Utopia which was delightful and incredibly insightful. 500 years and nothing's changed!)

Based on what I've seen, I think the show runners were ready to be done. It wasn't HBO that said they had to finish it up; they decided to do two shortened season. Some folks have pointed out that the signs were there all along, and I think that is probably the case, because people were predicting the Mad Queen two+ seasons ago. (Although I think they were book readers, and I suspect that makes a huge difference.)

I understand why people are pissed, but...well, I've had series that didn't really finish strong because I was done. As a creator, I get it. It's not really fair to the fans, but...I get it.

Based on what I've seen, I think the show runners were ready to be done. It wasn't HBO that said they had to finish it up; they decided to do two shortened season.
Yeah I heard that too. It's certainly understandable, but it might have been wiser to take a hiatus? IDK, these things are ridiculously complicated, and it must have been a truly ridiculous amount of work.

Some folks have pointed out that the signs were there all along, and I think that is probably the case, because people were predicting the Mad Queen two+ seasons ago. (Although I think they were book readers, and I suspect that makes a huge difference.)
My friend Promethia has been rewatching the whole thing, and apparently if you know where it's going, it's rather obvious.

I understand why people are pissed, but...well, I've had series that didn't really finish strong because I was done. As a creator, I get it. It's not really fair to the fans, but...I get it.
Yeah, same here. And no matter what they did, people would be angry, because there is no way to please everyone, especially not with something that huge.

Yeah, if they created this dilemma and shocking event, then left out the build up/journey bits...they've blown it for sure.

Lots of long discussions on the Dreamwidth side if you want a deeper take. But yeah, people are very cross. And it mostly seems to be down to rushing. :(

This is where a lot of people have also pointed out that 'Foreshadowing isn't character development'.

Indeed. Foreshadowing is like showing you a point on the map. Character development is how you actually GET there. Plopping someone down there with no preparation is not the same.

If he hadn't lost it, we would have been surprised. The build-up was very well done, and when he finally cracked it was almost cathartic.

Indeed, it just went on for so very, very long. ;)\

No matter what women told themselves, Game of Thrones was never our story.

As one of my Tumblr friends put it: "Why would we expect a show that’s absolutely gloried in the objectification of women’s bodies to be respectful to female characters? Guy who write like this don’t get or respect women as anything other than titillation." (link)

in case the oppressed masses do not rise up and create an anarcho-syndicalist commune (as per Monty Python and the Holy Grail) I hope Sansa becomes queen

That would be interesting because Sansa has never been interested in the Iron Throne or reigning over all, and I say that as someone who hasn't read the books or seen the show. She's only ever been interested in holding Winterfell and keeping the North free.

Indeed. Foreshadowing is like showing you a point on the map. Character development is how you actually GET there. Plopping someone down there with no preparation is not the same.
Apparently they just rushed it (presumably from being exhausted at having done nothing else for YEARS). Which is a shame. Also, it was generally seen as impossible to recreate on screen, so... maybe it would always end in tears?

Indeed, it just went on for so very, very long. ;)\
*snerk* SO RONERY!

As one of my Tumblr friends put it: "Why would we expect a show that’s absolutely gloried in the objectification of women’s bodies to be respectful to female characters? Guy who write like this don’t get or respect women as anything other than titillation."
Yeah there was a Tumblr post (possibly linked in one of the essays?) that listed all the Dead Women/mothers and the way they were treated. (Unlike dead Fathers who we often were told a lot about.) So yeah, not a surprise really.

That would be interesting because Sansa has never been interested in the Iron Throne or reigning over all, and I say that as someone who hasn't read the books or seen the show. She's only ever been interested in holding Winterfell and keeping the North free.
And the Iron Throne is probably a slag heap now anyway. I just like Sansa. Give Gendry the South then. ;)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

On GoT, Doctor Who and character development

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject