Proprietary Game of Thrones Post:

[jupiviv]

I didn't realise Game of Thrones started last week! Watched it last night while eating icecream and crying tears of joy.

So once again, and for the last time, it's time for a crossover between the GoT universe and our own. For those who have bafflingly deprived themselves of the pleasure of reading every single one of my posts on this forum, here is what I'm referring to:

Trump is as carefully manufactured as any other politician. He is a heel. In other words, a good baddie. Good baddies are charismatic, intelligent and efficient. They get the job done without pondering about ethics and popularity (the Wall, trade wars, travel ban[?]). They are contrasted with bad baddies (rapefugees, Clintons, SJWs) and bad goodies (establishment politics in general, MSM[?], deep state, cuckservatives and disillusioned liberals who have seen the light).

The bad baddies are usually fewer in number and yet potentially very threatening; their flaws are inhuman and irredeemable and thus their demise is enjoyable. The bad goodies have more human flaws - stubborn, partial, misguided, incompetent etc. They can be sympathised with and are redeemable. The good goodies are even scarcer than the bad baddies and yet boldly await A New Hope (copyright Disney-Lucasfilm). To keep things real they require some faint flaws to adorn their natural goodness.

Returning to the good baddie/s - he always has a humane side (Trump loves his family, is somewhat avuncular even when confronting bitter enemies). He also tends to support both goodie and baddie ideas which the others consider to be incompatible with each other for various reasons (welfare but not for illegal immigrants, protectionism but low taxes). Within this resolution of *needless* delusions lies the good baddie's heart and his worldly ideal, and also the only traces of honesty in the narrative. Too much dishonesty here would ruin immersion. Anyways, the bad baddies and recalcitrant bad goodies are eventually destroyed and the remaining turn into good goodies or baddies.

All this to keep things realistic. Also, I have summarised Game of Thrones and other "brilliant" web/cable TV shows.

In marketing and showbiz, as in law, lying and illusions are literally bread and butter. Many people know this, and expect their money's worth.

It's only the first episode but the expanded moral universe for people who would feel uncomfortable burning witches or loving their enemies aka "moral grey areas" (as presented by the show) has shrunk considerably. Both the good and evil characters are, respectively, becoming more "efficiently" good and evil as described above. I don't know or care if the source material reflects this, but in a story that straddles the febrile border separating nihilism and heroism this was to be expected. There are only three possible outcomes - transcend both (greatness in art), kill all the hope, kill all the pain and doubt.

The result? I was just bored and will only watch it to the end for that very reason. To be fair the show at its best did manage to entertainingly reflect some aspects of late capitalism's performative introspection. "Romance in Dragon flat Major" is the end of "Brazil" in all but (much inferior) mien. The neoliberal/neoreactionary/neofascist serpent consuming itself, its heroes and monsters both old and new slipping back one by one into the mire that spewed them.

Our forebears scooted along forest floors, picking up and eating figs. They ate those figs day after day for hundreds of thousands of years. We are genetically predisposed to do so, and evidence can be seen by looking in a mirror. We have dainty scooting feet, tender grasping hands and little fig-eating mouths. The figs taste delicious to us no matter how many we eat. We lack the equipment or disposition to be predators. We cannot run after prey, bite them and feel orgasmic pleasure as fresh blood streams down our gullets.

Since we aren't lions or wolves we can only fake it. In the place of DNA sequences the males crafted a defective philosophy that misunderstands fundamentals, that proposes a kind of lion-ending lion. The females emulated it and added some stipulations of their own. Hence the tired charade of masculinity and femininity as order and chaos, hardness and softness, reason and passion. Two sides of the same counterfeit currency - a "balance" that itself requires constant (re)balancing.

Our myths made us into hunters two million years ago, but only to a point. Our behavior changed but not our natures. We are still fig-eating monkeys, scurrying around, pretending to be gods but falling far short. To become more godlike we must adopt a new philosophy, jettison our bankrupt culture, and learn something new rather than repeat what we already know to be false.

[Eric Schiedler]

It's only the first episode but the expanded moral universe for people who would feel uncomfortable burning witches or loving their enemies aka "moral grey areas" (as presented by the show) has shrunk considerably. Both the good and evil characters are, respectively, becoming more "efficiently" good and evil as described above. I don't know or care if the source material reflects this, but in a story that straddles the febrile border separating nihilism and heroism this was to be expected. There are only three possible outcomes - transcend both (greatness in art), kill all the hope, kill all the pain and doubt.

The denouement of the series will devolve into farce or self-referencial kitsch and leave the majority of loose threads untied. None among the public, the financiers, nor the artists want the art resolved transcendently.

Then all sides can throw up their hands and say, "See, it is nihilism anyway!" or "See, I am justified in my self-indulgence due to this 'proof' of the facts."

Disclaimer:
I played the original board game over a decade ago and read a graphic novel of the first book. Finding the literary themes sloppy and derivative, I did not watch the series, yet I understand that you watch for the unfolding of the "meta-spectacle."

Eric Schiedler

[jupiviv]

What was I saying again? Ah yes, episode reviews.

Episode 2 - huh?

Episode 3 - when laymen can point out problems in your cinematography, i.e. "I can't see anything", maybe show business isn't for you?

In true white neo/liberal style, they sent all the minorities to attack first. Also why abandon a defensive position and send a significant portion of your army to charge at a superior enemy under cover of a failed artillery attack.

*points at ultra genius man Robert E. Lee*

Episode 4 - Er...

Episode 5 - HOLY FUCKING SHIT THIS IS THE BEST THING EVER! I'm not even joking. Dragongirl went from like 4 to 9999 on the spoiled rich insane faildaughter scale in ~8 secs. It isn't the "good guys are the real evil guys" plot twist that delights me. It's the fact that all the nonsense analogies to irl politics, the neoliberal strong independent technocratess tropes, the vicarious LARPing of impotent performative politics via a stupid fantasy show, just went up in beautiful CGI smoke. People have actually named their daughters after this character! I hereby retract everything bad I've said about GoT. It is a peerless work of art in our time. Emilia Clarke *is* late capitalist/industrial entropy, and I want to protect her.

Episode 6 - Shouldn't exist. Thus spake Jupithustra.

[David Quinn]

It is the sort of show that allows people to project whatever they want onto it.

I saw this most recent episode as a cautionary tale against trusting wannabe tyrants. For years, the dragon queen had been showing unmistakable signs that she was a tyrant at heart with a strong vindictive streak. Her advisers and supporters chose to downplay these signs. They thought they could temper her worst instincts. They thought they could control her. By the time they realized their mistake, it was too late.

But yes, it was amusing to see the show turn on all those parents who had named their daughters Khaleesi. That was gold.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

So the show like the queen imploded under the speed of events and demands? Somehow they had to rush it towards the ending, such a modern thing. They can't keep the cast of course for many years producing episodes with the earlier reasonably slow pacing and intrigue of the first seasons I suppose. All in all they promised a multiple of what could be delivered in terms of plot and pacing.

As for projecting on the show, the idea of Fire against Ice always seemed the more imaginary and powerful element. Caught between the two abysses of insanity and criminality. While contained insanity shows itself as ultimately more powerful and resourceful by having elements of unpredictability and individuals plotting in the shadow, without the cold counterpart of "evil" (misplaced childhood & ice-cold reason & force) this unchecked insanity always ends with uncontrollable fire. One could argue it's still better than zombie rule...

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Did anyone manage to see the visual linkage to Hiroshima & Nagasaki? Complete destruction of a city to force ultimate surrender in a war more or less already won. There's growing consensus that the nuclear option was at the time not needed and was decided upon because that's simply what war can do to people in power. As Daenerys often enough wondered, as she had three weapons of mass destruction, why not fly them straight to the Red Keep? Compare that with Trump who is rumored to have asked a few times: "if we have them, why can't we use them?" Perhaps Trump real historical counterpart is Harry S. Truman then, being both notorious bulls in china shops. The Truman Show Man pt 2?

[Avolith]

I saw this most recent episode as a cautionary tale against trusting wannabe tyrants. For years, the dragon queen had been showing unmistakable signs that she was a tyrant at heart with a strong vindictive streak. Her advisers and supporters chose to downplay these signs. They thought they could temper her worst instincts. They thought they could control her. By the time they realized their mistake, it was too late.

Yes,

But yes, it was amusing to see the show turn on all those parents who had named their daughters Khaleesi. That was gold.

Am I seeing signs of a vindictive streak!? :D

[David Quinn]

Perhaps. Nietzsche did say, astutely, that laughter was essentially a form of malice.

[Avolith]

Perhaps. Nietzsche did say, astutely, that laughter was essentially a form of malice.

Are you referring to my smiley or your own post?

This is what I found on nietzsche and laughter https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/769828 ... own-to-you

[David Quinn]

Perhaps. Nietzsche did say, astutely, that laughter was essentially a form of malice.

Are you referring to my smiley or your own post?

Both.

:D

The quote I was thinking of goes something like, "Laughter is malice without a bad conscience". But I can't remember where it came from and google can't find it, so I am not sure what is going on there. Maybe I was deceived by fake news.

[Avolith]

Perhaps. Nietzsche did say, astutely, that laughter was essentially a form of malice.

Are you referring to my smiley or your own post?

Both.

:D

The quote I was thinking of goes something like, "Laughter is malice without a bad conscience". But I can't remember where it came from and google can't find it, so I am not sure what is going on there. Maybe I was deceived by fake news.

So you're faced with the minor imperfection of not being able to find the source of your quote and you turn it into a sneer at the 'trump camp', also in the context of this exchange about laughter. It's to me a sign of, at the least, a preoccupation and maybe even an ego defense.

Imagine how it would actually warrant genuine positive laughter if a trump supporter admitted a mistake by saying, self deprecatingly, "Maybe I was mislead by fake news!"

Anyways, though there's probably more to it I see your point about laughter

[David Quinn]

Perhaps. Nietzsche did say, astutely, that laughter was essentially a form of malice.

Are you referring to my smiley or your own post?

Both.

:D

The quote I was thinking of goes something like, "Laughter is malice without a bad conscience". But I can't remember where it came from and google can't find it, so I am not sure what is going on there. Maybe I was deceived by fake news.

So you're faced with the minor imperfection of not being able to find the source of your quote and you turn it into a sneer at the 'trump camp', also in the context of this exchange about laughter. It's to me a sign of, at the least, a preoccupation and maybe even an ego defense.

Imagine how it would actually warrant genuine positive laughter if a trump supporter admitted a mistake by saying, self deprecatingly, "Maybe I was mislead by fake news!"

Anyways, though there's probably more to it I see your point about laughter

I was actually commenting on the possibility that I might have been mistaken in my belief that Nietzsche was the source of that quote, that I might have arrived at such a belief through a shaky second-hand source. I have never been one for rigorous scholarship, so I am always vulnerable to such a possibility. But you're right, using such a politically charged term probably wasn't the best idea. Point taken.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

That made me as curious creature look for what the original fuel to the quotation might have been. It sounds Nietzschean enough.

Best candidate:

There is a rollicking kindness that looks like malice.

From: Beyond Good and Evil, section 184 (1886)

But the price for the sickest laughing malice goes to Rumi:

The dark thought, the shame, the malice, meet them at the door laughing, and invite them in.

[jupiviv]

Bag End... shit. I'm still only in Bag End.

Just watched the much awaited, magnetic-pole-reversing series finale and... I really really liked it! This is more or less the ending I envisioned since I started watching "the dragon show" in 2016 via all the political-themed whatsapp/twitter memes. It made too much sense so I thought it wouldn't happen. Certainly the rest of the show doesn't make sense, being that it is a high production-value soap opera pretending to be deep and insightful commentary on whatever. I thought the Dragongirl Defense Forces will triumph and the lesson will be something something it's tough to be a strong independent woman and also she means well amirite.

Anyway, now for the real hot take: the last two episodes (NOT the rest of the show) are a fantasy version of Heart of Darkness/Apocalypse now. Kurtz ends up a naked personification of the greed, cruelty & hubris implicit in the capitalist/industrialist project. He amplifies its premise to its logical conclusion, discarding anything superfluous to it as he progresses, while sneering at worried superiors who wandered too close.

Dragongirl is like a disney princess Mr./Col. Kurtz, which isn't that far from US foreign policy apologetics. However, I think she is intended to be the fantasy trope of the all-conquering Chosen One/demigod taken to its logical conclusion. She is desire infused with the power to soar above necessity, magnificent until you're on its path.

Dragongirl's multiclass halfling boytoy/assassin is also multiclass Charlie Sheen/Dennis Hopper from the film (can't remember the book characters' names). Sheen is just a guy on a job no one else wants to do, be done or acknowledged as necessary, but which must be done anyway. Dennis Hopper is Kurtz's self-appointed chronicler, unable to admire the madness on its own terms and descending into his own insipid version of it due to prolonged contact. It's simple dialectics, man. Not exactly a coherent combination

I don't know which part of this rant is my tired brain refusing to become sleepy or germane to what actually happens. Even the assassination of Dragongirl, which could have been so much more interesting (especially with Apocalypse now references), featured cringy dialogue and a pointless excursus on the nature of ethics.

In any case, there was certainly an abruptly introduced intelligent message which was nevertheless out of tune with everything else around it. The show went from fanservice significant looks and zombies to Dresden imagery in 2 episodes! We can all safely assume that is Martin's contribution and has nothing to do with the galaxy brains responsible for everything else.

It has to be said, though, if my interpretation is relevant at all then Moorcock did the same thing waaaay better (and earlier) with the Elric trilogy.

The End.