SB on Episodes 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, & 2.10

SB on Game of Thrones: Blog Entry Number Six

Mythological World

            This week’s set of episodes (2.7, 2.8, 2.9, and 2.10) not only demonstrated the importance of storytelling within the Game of Thrones universe, but also communicated that it is important for viewers to understand the Game of Thrones universe as a mythological world.  For example, consider the scene in episode 2.9 when Cersei attempted to poison Tommen while telling a story about “a bear and her cub.”  Even though this interaction was interrupted (with the news of the outcome of the invasion) before Tommen could drink the poison, this was a crucial scene in the second season of Game of Thrones that made a clear reference to folk legends.

I believe that this scene communicated that storytelling is of high value in the Game of Thrones universe (for purposes of escapism, deception, and more).  Further, the fact that this crucial scene was actually its own version of the “bear and her cub” folk legend added an additional layer of presentation, and served as a reminder to viewers that it is important to understand the Game of Thrones universe as a world of mythology.

            As mentioned in my previous blogs and comments, rather than trying to place Game of Thrones within a specific geographical or historical context, I have a better understanding of the Game of Thrones universe when I accept its ambiguity and perceive it as an entirely fictional world.  Like how Peter Berresford Ellis described the world of Celtic mythology, I understand the setting of Game of Thrones as a universe on a plane of existence that transcends time and space. 

Yes, I believe there is great value in identifying the actual historical/political events and geographical places that inspired George R. R. Martin’s Game of Thrones universe because this can increase the public’s interest in world history, political science, science, art, and other fields.  I am happy to learn that this show has led many viewers to new interests in subjects like this.  I am only claiming that the specific content of the show (like specific characters, events, and places) is best understood as mythology (rather than history) because many characters (and places) in the show tend to embody a wide variety of ideas (from history, philosophy, mythology, and more), rather than specific singular figures (and locations).

Even though Game of Thrones is quite progressive, this show is keeping the traditions of mythology alive and can be understood as the modern mythology of our time.  Just like how W. B. Yeats described the function of Irish fairy and folk tales, Game of Thrones utilizes fantasy elements to communicate lessons about life and to encourage philosophical contemplation.  Further, like T. A. Leederman’s description of the commonalities between warging, greenseeing, and reading, Game of Thrones allows viewers to transcend time and space not for the purposes of changing events, but for the purposes of learning, understanding new perspectives, and building character.

Luck

Even though the article “The Moral Luck of Tyrion Lannister” by Christopher Robichaud was read with last week’s set of episodes (2.4, 2.5, and 2.6), this article contained analyses of a few scenes that were in this week’s set of episodes.  For example, recall the scene in the ninth episode of the second season where the invading ships were set on fire.  In sum, Robichaud held that these scenes were demonstrations of the idea that the outcomes of human actions may rely on luck, and claimed that if morality depends on luck, then people aren’t completely responsible for their actions.

Like Kant, I’d like to believe that some morally praiseworthy and blameworthy actions might be within our control (Robichaud).  For instance, in the tenth episode of the second season, Tyrion had the opportunity to leave with Shae and live a peaceful life.  However, Tyrion chose to stay, in order to deal with the problems.  It might have been in Tyrion’s self-interest to go and live a peaceful life.  I probably would have decided to leave, if I were in Tyrion’s shoes.  However, Tyrion decided to stay and this was a morally praiseworthy action.  Also, I am glad Tyrion did not leave because Tyrion is still a favorite character and I want him to remain in the show for as long as possible.

Works Cited

Ellis, Peter Berresford. Celtic Myths and Legends. Philadelphia, PA:  Running Press Book             Publishers, 2002. Print.

Leederman, T. A. “A Thousand Westerosi Plateaus:  Wargs, Wolves, and Ways of Being.”            Mastering the Game of Thrones: Essays on George R.R. Martin’s A Song of Ice and             Fire. Eds. Jes Battis and Susan Johnston. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2015. 189-203.            Print.

Robichaud, Christopher. “The Moral Luck of Tyrion Lannister.” Game of Thrones                            and Philosophy: Logic Cuts Deeper Than Swords. Eds. William Irwin and Henry                     Jacoby. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2012. 183-193. Print.

Yeats, W. B. Irish Fairy and Folk Tales. New York, NY: Barnes & Noble, Inc., 1993. Print.

SB on Episodes 2.4, 2.5, & 2.6

SB on Game of Thrones: Blog Entry Number Five

Violence and Torture

While viewing Game of Thrones episodes 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6, I noticed a great increase in the amount of violence and torture in the show.  For example, consider the scene in the fourth episode of the second season where Joffrey interacted with his two “bedroom entertainers.”  Joffrey instructed one woman to severely beat the other woman and, even though the ending of this interaction was not shown on screen, it was implied that this interaction ended with the death of (at least) one of the women.  After this scene, I viewed Joffrey as a completely different kind of character.  Yes, I gathered that Joffrey was always an evil brat who abused his power.  However, the fact that Joffrey chose to sexually torture these women (over any alternative) made this character seem even more evil and brutal to me. 

No matter how this scene is viewed, these women were objectified and this is not okay.  However, if Joffrey chose any alternative (over torturing these women), then Joffrey would have seemed a lot more human to me.  Further, even when considering the capacities of the most perverted minds in the Game of Thrones universe, I believe Joffrey’s torturing and killing of these characters was probably the worst possible thing that could have been done to these characters.  There was a great deal of graphic violence in this set of episodes (such as the beheading at the beginning of the sixth episode of the second season), but the scene with Joffrey and his entertainers was particularly disturbing.

One general observation that I made about the violence in this set of episodes was that a great amount of the violence was extremely shocking and happened very suddenly.  For example, recall the scene of Renly’s death in the fifth episode of the second season:  the murder happened very quickly and I did not notice any kind of technique (like slow-motion or close-up) that was used to emphasize the drama of this scene.  Even though I heard spoilers and I knew that Renly’s death was coming, I was still shocked and did not expect Renly’s death to happen when it did because it happened so quickly and so early in the episode.

Game of Thrones and Politics

In my first blogs, I agreed with Littman that Game of Thrones, when considered as a thought experiment of the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, indicates that it is preferable to have any ruler than to have a state of civil war or anarchy.  I understand this argument but, after viewing this set of episodes, I must say that my perspectives have changed.

I still agree with Hobbes that order is preferable to disorder and I still believe that, in the Game of Thrones universe (and in any other universe), it would be ideal to have a ruler.  However, I do not think that it is preferable to have any ruler than to have no ruler.  I maintain that it is preferable to have no ruler than to have an unjust and ruthless ruler like Joffrey. 

Recall the scene in the sixth episode of the second season when Joffrey ordered that a whole crowd of people be executed because one member of that crowd threw fecal matter at Joffrey.  This uprising scene was my favorite scene in this set of episodes.  This scene demonstrated that, in some contexts, anarchy may be an acceptable policy.  The crowd revolting against this ruthless leader was an act of anarchy that prevented (or at least decreased the severity of) a mass execution.

I respect the political perspectives of my professor and classmates, I know that not everyone believes in the principles of anarchy, and I understand that some people would hold that that, regardless of Joffrey’s ruthlessness, it would be preferable to have Joffrey as a king than to have no king, at all.  However, I am willing to bet that very few viewers would disagree with me when I say that Joffrey (at least temporarily) deserved to wear this crown of fecal matter.  

Works Cited

Littman, Greg.  “Maester Hobbes Goes to King’s Landing.”  Game of Thrones and                           Philosophy: Logic Cuts Deeper Than Swords. Eds. William Irwin and Henry Jacoby.               Hoboken, NJ:  & Sons, Inc., 2012. 5-18. Print.

SB on Episodes 2.1, 2.2, & 2.3

SB on Game of Thrones: Blog Entry Number Four

Power

            In the first three episodes of the second season of Game of Thrones, there were depictions of various kinds of power.  Consider the first episode of season two when Cersei smacked Joffrey in the face.  Even though this was an act of physical assault on the king, this was also an act of a mother hitting her child.  Joffrey is a very ruthless character who treats his musicians terribly and gains pleasure from viewing the pain of others.   However, when Joffrey got smacked in the face by Cersei, he did nothing.  This was very interesting:  even though Joffrey did threaten his mother and told her to never hit him again, I thought that he would have a much more intense reaction than this.  When considering future episodes, I look forward to seeing what happens between Joffrey and Cersei.

Humor

To return to the discussion of comedy and humor in Game of Thrones that was introduced in my previous blog, there was a particular scene in this set of episodes where the use of humor led to the revelation of a major element of a specific character’s history.  In the second episode of the second season, Tyrion made a joke and Cersei, who was not amused, replied by reminding Tyrion of his “first big joke.”  Cersei was referring to how Tyrion’s mother died while giving birth to Tyrion.

Even though this “joke” that Cersei was referring to was no joke, Tyrion’s use of humor was what caused Cersei to reveal this major element of Tyrion’s character.  If Tyrion hadn’t made that joke, then Cersei might not have revealed this fact.  Even though Cersei said this to hurt Tyrion’s feelings, this was the first time that viewers were provided with this information.  This was another instance where the use of humor led to a serious development in Game of Thrones. 

Evil

            One philosophical question that was investigated in Game of Thrones was the problem of evil.  Schoone concluded that the logical problem of evil only applies to gods that are considered to be omnipotent, omniscient, and all good, the characters in the Game of Thrones universe do not seem to perceive their gods in this way, and this is why the problem of evil in the Game of Thrones universe does not cause many characters to abandon their beliefs in god(s) (p. 164). It was interesting that Jaime was the character who explicitly phrased the question of the problem of evil (with the statement “why is the world so full of injustice?”) because Jaime is, arguably, one of the most evil characters in the show. 

            Just diving into season two, it is too early for me to make any conclusions.  However, I will declare that it seems unfair that Jaime was the character who asked the question of the problem of evil.  Viewers might (perhaps even unconsciously) make an ad hominem fallacy and arrive at the simple conclusion that Jaime doesn’t believe in god because he’s an evil character.  The problem of evil is a fascinating philosophical problem that was investigated in Game of Thrones. I hope that this scene provided viewers with an understanding of the problem of evil, rather than with a negative depiction of atheists (Jaime).

Fantasy/Conclusion

One other observation that I made while watching this set of episodes was that there seemed to be a great increase in the amount of magic and fantasy elements in the show.  Even though I have some ideas, I am really excited to see how these fantasy elements of the show come into full development.  In particular, I want to see Daenerys’s dragons grow up.  In conclusion, this blog contained a discussion of the depictions of power, the use of humor, the problem of evil, and the presence of fantasy elements in the first three episodes of the second season of Game of Thrones.

Works Cited

Schoone, Jaron Daniël. “’Why is the World So Full of Injustice?’: Gods and the Problem of         Evil.”  Game of Thrones and Philosophy: Logic Cuts Deeper Than Swords. Eds. William       Irwin and Henry Jacoby. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2012. 154-166. Print.

SB on Episodes 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, & 1.10

SB on Game of Thrones: Blog Entry Number Three

After viewing episodes 7-10 and completing the first season of Game of Thrones, I definitely feel much more familiar with the characters, setting, plot, and problems of the series.  Two aspects of the show that really resonated with me this week and will be discussed here are the show’s comic relief and the show’s connections to mythology.

            In all honesty, I was not expecting the show to be this funny.  It is understood that this show is an epic fantasy, however, certain characters made me laugh so hard that I felt like I was watching a comedy.  Samwell Tarly, who “always wanted to be a wizard,” was one character who frequently made jokes and witty comments that would bring light to darker situations. 

Even though comic relief is present in many shows and films, Game of Thrones was unique because this show would contain jokes during particularly heavy scenes and, in some cases, the use of humor would be crucial to the advancement of the plot. For example, consider the scene in episode 8 where Tyrion and Bronn first encountered the hostile tribe and Tyrion made a joke about how he would like to die.  Rather than serving as mere comic relief, Tyrion’s joke was what initially decreased the tribe’s hostility and granted Tyrion his survival.  I will be sure to look for other instances where the use of humor was vital to the advancement of a scene in other episodes of Game of Thrones.

After viewing the first season in its entirety and referring to my collections of mythology, I have noticed some specific connections between Game of Thrones and mythology/folk legends.  Referring back to episode 2 when Lady the direwolf was wrongfully executed, this is very similar to the tale of “Gellert” from Celtic mythology (Ellis 363).  Gellert was a hound who was executed because he was found covered in blood in a child’s room.  After Gellert was executed, it was discovered that the blood on Gellert was not the child’s blood but the blood of a wolf that Gellert killed while protecting the child, who was safe and hiding in the corner of the room the whole time (Ellis 363-371).  While this did occur in episode 2 and not in episodes 7-10, the reader did not make this connection between this scene and the legend of “Gellert” until reflecting upon the first season in its entirety.

Another specific scene that shared a commonality with mythological tales was the scene in episode 9 when Daenerys resorted to black magic and traded a life for Drogo’s life.  When Daenerys realized the careful wording of the trade of “life for life,” she understood that Drogo would be in a vegetative state, rather than the way he was.  These cunning tricks of wording were used frequently by mischievous characters in the mythology of many cultures.  One similar folk legend was “The Monkey’s Paw,” where a man wished for his recently deceased son to come back to life (Jacobs 63-74).  As wished, the son does return, however, (similar to Drogo’s return) the son is in the form of a mindless zombie-like creature (Jacobs 63-74).  In episode 9 of Game of Thrones and in “The Monkey’s Paw,” the characters that were wished back to life ended up being killed by the character who wished them back (Jacobs 74).  I found it really interesting that the first season of Game of Thrones shared so many commonalities with mythology and folk legends.

In general, I would like to dedicate a moment to state that I have a much higher level of respect for Game of Thrones, after viewing the first season in its entirety.  There are many things I like about the show:  not only are the comic relief and connections to mythology enjoyable, but the broader philosophical, historical, social, and personal ideas that I explored in my previous blogs are other aspects of the show that are worthy of contemplation and discussion.  Now that I have completed the first season and am situated with the series, I am ready to head into the second season with a strong desire to see where these explorations lead.

Works Cited

Ellis, Peter Berresford. Celtic Myths and Legends. Philadelphia, PA:  Running Press Book               Publishers, 2002. Print.

Jacobs, W. W. “The Monkey’s Paw.” Demons: Encounters with the Devil, His Minions, Fallen          Angels, and the Possessed. Ed. John Skipp. New York, NY: Black Dog &                                Leventhal Publishers 2011. 63-74. Print.

SB on Episodes 1.4, 1.5, & 1.6

Episodes four, five, and six of Game of Thrones offered many opportunities for philosophical reflection.  In my first blog, I mentioned how Greg Littman addressed the main question of the series Game of Thrones (the question of who the ruler of the seven kingdoms of Westeros should be) and utilized the Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes to provide an answer:  it was concluded that Hobbes would hold that it is in everyone’s self-interest to have any ruler (even if a ruler obtained his or her position of power unlawfully) than to have a state of civil war or anarchy.  This statement seems to hold more weight after viewing the first six episodes, than after only viewing the first three because the main problems that were introduced in the first three episodes have gotten a lot worse and many new catastrophes are in development.

When I was first introduced to this “social contract theory” of Thomas Hobbes, I understood the theory and appreciated the significance of the Leviathan, but had a hard time believing and accepting this theory.  Perhaps, it is not in everyone’s self-interest to have a ruthless leader. In some cases, a state of anarchy may provide a solution by creating a greater sense of equality.  However, if we (like Littman) consider Game of Thrones as a thought experiment of this social contract theory, then we have more reason to accept Hobbes’s view. 

Consider the first episodes:  yes, the seven kingdoms did have some flaws and many characters deceived and/or used other characters.  However, this was a functioning world where citizens could live their lives without a great deal of violence or intrusion.  After only three more episodes, however, this central question of who should rule the seven kingdoms became more apparent and rather than resulting in a utopian society, this question created more problems and more violence. 

While a part of me would like to maintain hope in the idea that anarchy and challenges to the abuse of power can, ultimately, improve a society, Game of Thrones (when considered as an illustration of the philosophy of Hobbes) seems to indicate otherwise.  Of course, it is important to consider the historical context (namely, medieval England) of this theory and that this theory may not apply to contemporary societies.

Moving away from theories about societies and towards an analysis of an individual character, I will now take a moment to discuss Tyrion Lannister.  In “Lord Eddard Stark, Queen Cersei Lannister: Moral Judgments from Different Perspectives,” Lord Eddard Stark was identified as the model of a virtuous character in Game of Thrones (Anglberger & Hieke, 87-89).  Since Tyrion Lannister was not discussed in this article, I would like to make a brief case that Tyrion could be considered as a virtuous character who makes sound ethical judgments.

I have only viewed the first six episodes and I cannot say this with any authority, but it could be argued that Tyrion Lannister embodied the ideas of compassion and honesty.  Even though he seemed really sharp-witted and, perhaps, even proud, Tyrion was definitely one of the wisest and most honest characters on the show.  Consider the end of his trial right before he was set free:  rather than leaving with his purse of gold, he gave this money to the prison guard, as promised.  Tyrion was a man of his word, even to people who were not very nice to him.

While Eddard Stark was a virtuous character and Jon Snow was another caring character who stood up for others, I still believe Tyrion is my favorite character because he was compassionate and sincere, but he was also very experienced, intelligent, and consistent. While the purpose of this course is not pure enjoyment, I must admit that Tyrion is one character who makes the show a pleasure to view. 

In this blog entry, I returned to the discussion of Hobbes’s Leviathan that was introduced in my previous blog entry, and I also offered an analysis of the character Tyrion Lannister.  In conclusion, the more I view the show Game of Thrones, the more I appreciate it for its commentary on human nature.

References

Anglberger, Albert F. F. & Hieke, Alexander. “Lord Eddard Stark, Queen Cersei Lannister:     Moral Judgments from Different Perspectives.”  Game of Thrones and Philosophy: Logic Cuts Deeper Than Swords. Eds. William Irwin and Henry Jacoby. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2012. 87-98. Print.

Littman, Greg.  “Maester Hobbes Goes to King’s Landing.”  Game of Thrones and Philosophy: Logic Cuts Deeper Than Swords. Eds. William Irwin and Henry Jacoby. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2012. 5-18. Print.

SB on Episodes 1.1, 1.2, & 1.3

            Until this week, I had never seen an episode of the popular television show Game of Thrones.  After viewing the first three episodes, I am able to make a more proper assessment of the show.  In this first blog entry, my initial reactions to the content of the show (including the characters, setting, and plot) will be explicated, and this will be followed by a discussion of a few connections that I made between the show and other works of literature.  This blog entry will conclude with a general assessment of the show.

         Even from this early point of viewing the series, I can definitely understand what all of the noise is about:  the show was very appealing with its complex character development and thought-provoking plot that took place in a world of fantasy and escape.  Even though this show is a work of fiction, the characters and events had qualities that could create a sense of identification with the audience. Further, this show contained two elements that are widely considered to be crucial ingredients of a recipe for television success:  sex and violence.  Based on these observations, my first reaction toGame of Thrones was that I could definitely understand why the show is so popular.

           Another reaction to the general content of the show that is worthy of mention was a slight sense of confusion.  Based on a few articles and conversations with other viewers of Game of Thrones, this sense of confusion is not unusual.  In these first few episodes, many characters, settings, and conflicts were introduced and there was a lot of information to grasp for someone who was viewing the show for the first time.  However, there are websites (including “Winter is Coming”) and other resources that are designed to help viewers catch up with the story and learn the characters. 

          So far, my initial reactions to the show’s content have been discussed.  Now, some connections between Game of Thrones and other literature will be explained.  I have never read George R. R. Martin’s Game of Thrones book series, but I have read some Celtic myths and legends.  After viewing only three episodes, I cannot exactly draw any conclusions. However, I can say that certain sequences of scenes from these first three episodes would fit perfectly into a collection of Celtic mythology.  It is understood that the fictional world in Game of Thrones would not only be considered Celtic because there are various kinds of cultures represented in the show. However, I hold that Game of Thrones (in the first three episodes, at least), with its themes of betrayal, nobility, and glory and its scenes of kings, queens, castles, and green hills, reminded me of the classic works of Celtic mythology.

            While the connection between Game of Thrones and mythology may seem obvious, a less obvious connection between Game of Thrones and a work of literature was also made.  Greg Littman studied Game of Thrones through a more philosophical lens and applied the Leviathan of Thomas Hobbes.  Littman stated that Hobbes would hold that it is preferable to have any ruler (even if that ruler obtained the position of power unlawfully) than a state of civil war or anarchy because it is in everyone’s self-interest to live in a functioning society.  I found the fact that Littman utilized Game of Thrones as an illustration (or a “thought experiment”) of the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes to be fascinating. 

In this first blog entry, I stated my initial reactions to the show (that I was slightly confused by the complexity of the show but that I understood why the show is so popular) and made some connections between Game of Thrones and other works of literature (philosophy and Celtic mythology).  In addition to being a very entertaining television show,Game of Thrones seems like it can inspire viewers to learn new things about history, philosophy, the mythology of cultures, and other topics. In conclusion, it is too early to make a definitive assessment of the series, but I can safely declare that I found the show to be entertaining and thought-provoking.

References

Littman, Greg.  “Maester Hobbes Goes to King’s Landing.”  Game of Thrones and Philosophy: Logic Cuts Deeper Than Swords. Eds. William Irwin and Henry Jacoby. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2012. 5-18. Print.

Selcke, Dan. Winter is Coming: The Game of Thrones News Source. FanSided Network.    November 2008. Web. 23 January 2016.