Of empathy, and good intentions gone sour

[airiefairie]

I'm sure the Game of Thrones fans have already watched the latest episode of the hit show on HBO. The show has gone into quite some controversy lately, what with all the gore displayed on screen, and the violence against women, and a number of other controversial issues. But last weekend's installment of the epic story provided yet another piece of

Comments

[mahnmut]

If this is the straw that broke the camel's back with some viewers, then they haven't been paying attention to what's been happening on Game of Thrones since episode 1 of season 1. I'm not buying all this outrage. The author is not displaying all that cruelty in order to somehow promote it or advocate it. He's doing it exactly to lay it bare as a sort of mirror to society. Perhaps that's the reason for these extreme reactions: because people have felt that they're somehow capable of, if not personally committing all those atrocities themselves, at least abetting them either with actions or inactions that are motivated by presumably good intentions.

Daenerys is in a similar situation, by the way. As much as she wants to believe that she's helping alleviate people's lives, the world is a much more complicated place than that - and she ends up harming the people she cares about more often than not, even though she desperately wants not to.

[airiefairie]

Which brings the next question. Does "breaking the wheel" of oppression lead to a sustainable societal change if it is done forcefully, and via an external factor like Daenerys the conqueror? She wants to eradicate slavery, but she is prepared to enforce this change through violently oppressing the slavers and imposing her worldview on an alien society, without that society necessarily being prepared or willing to accept that change. Which is the reason for the fierce backlash against her, even from the previous slaves whom she meant to protect.

[htpcl]

As much as we may like to hope otherwise, long-lasting change happens gradually, often taking beyond a generation's lifespan to become ripe, blossom, and then hold.

That is not to say that it doesn't take charismatic visionary figures to trigger and accelerate that process.

[htpcl]

Tyrion said it best. It's all about the mindless, unnecessary "Kuh, kuh, kuh, smash the beetles!" We do it just because we can.

That's part of human-ness, too. The darker part. Any 7-year old kid who's shooting with his sling at pigeons can attest to that.

[abomvubuso]

I don't know if empathy is the enemy of good policy (define "good" policy?), but what pseudo-meister Qyburn told Cersei is very correct: "Faith is the death of reason". Stannis' actions regarding his daughter are those of a pragmatist-turned-fanatic driven by his desperation-induced newly-found faith in messianic destiny. It's mesmerizing how the writers had been grooming that character for nearly a season and a half, making him likeable, just in order to prepare him for this one decision when he has practically ruined all his credibility in a heartbeat. And that's also done with "good" intentions, I'm sure. He seems to genuinely believe that he's saving people's lives and the whole world by burning his own daughter to a crisp.

[sandwichwarrior]

It's worth noting that Stannis lives in a world where Blood Magick is an actual verifiable force, so believing in it doesn't make him even half as crazy or fanatical as everybody seems to be assuming.

[dexeron]

Some scientists argue that it is a relic of our primate heritage. There is actually an upper limit of how many people we are physiologically capable of maintaining stable social relationships with; for humans, this appears to be approximately 150 people. The ugly downside of this bit of biology is that, unless we really train ourselves to see differently, we have a hard time seeing anyone beyond that small group as even fully human. To most of us, anyone outside that groups is just an extra in a play, a non-player character; even if we have been raised to treat everyone we meet with respect, we still don't really take the time to think about the triumphs and tragedies happening to the other six billion people out there

[nairiporter]

I love this comment and I love this discussion. And I love Game of Thrones... most of the time.

[ddstory]

Yes, good discussion.

[garote]

"empathy is the only good policy"?

Evolution is smarter than you (humankind) are. The world is shot through with people who will eagerly exploit empathy for material profit. Hostage takers, rich people astroturfing for laws that only benefit them, psychopaths whose only deterrent from murder is the threat of jail time, et cetera.

Policy clearly must account for them ... or become victimized by them.

[garote]

I suspect this argument gives Game Of Thrones too much credit. As far as I can tell, the moral issues conjured by the series are no more complicated than a couple weeks' worth of soap opera programming from the 80's. But the show's setting is fashionable, to a crowd that was adolescent when the Lord Of The Rings films were a big deal. Now they're adults, so they get more of the same, but with the boobies and violence cranked up to 11

[mahnmut]

While Lord of The Rings is classic and I obsessively loved it, it's too unambiguous for the tastes of the modern public, which is soaked in information. There's the good guys, all beautiful and white and fair and noble, and they're fighting the Dark Lord whose minions are black and stupid and evil. We already know who wins in the end, even before we've turned page #2.

I'd like to think the fantasy genre has grown up beyond the fairy-tale stage.

[garote]

Is it "growing up beyond"? Or is it a return to form?

Old fairy-tales are full of blood, murder, and suffering, and often only end because the protagonists simply can't take any more. Also, Tolkien's work has been surrounded by 60+ years of allegorical interpretation. Is the genre a mere set dressing, or does it encompass all this history and development as well?

[mahnmut]

Return to which form? At which point in the history of the genre has it been so explicit and degtailed in terms of depiction of violence, and so focused on crafting complex characters and narratives that are ambiguous to unbearable levels, as opposed to clear-cut in black-and-white strokes?

There *is* suffering in old fairy tales, except it's depicted in a stylized, more symbolic way, leaving a lot to the imagination of the reader. Now we've got it all into our face, as if we're some kind of imbeciles who can't figure out what's what. I realize that in a way this defeats my point about the genre becoming more mature - but maybe it's the audience that has changed, and with it, its expectations.

As for allegory, GRRM has been ganking stuff from all across the historical and geographical board in order to create his world and the characters and stories that inhabit it. Nearly everyone in the genre does that, including Tolkien.