OT: All Things Game of Thrones III (The End!?)

[Embiid]

I watched about half of it, was pretty good. Apparently the "official" was supposed to be 120,000 wights to 18,000 combined Northern/Dany forces.

It seemed more like half a million wights.....or more. Jorah alone killed about 100k protecting his queen....

 

[Beef Invictus]

Martin's story is not sexist. I think the show added a ton of incredibly misogynistic elements.

Sand Snakes had moments that made me go "what are we doing here."

 

[deadhead]

It is a "medieval fantasy," last time I checked, Medieval Europe was full of brothels, rape of civilians was a norm in warfare, and rape of lower class women by higher class men was pretty much de facto legal.

I'm always amused by people using 21st century values to judge historical behavior, but appalled when historians do so - having perused practically all the major historical journals, I can say the quality of scholarship took a deep dive after 2000 when PC started to rule parts of academia.

It's like the concept that slavery was some unique "sin" of America, when in the late 18th century it was universal, where do you think Europeans obtained their slaves - from Africans who sold them, and Arabs who were often middle men and bought slaves for their own use. The Ottomans enslaved millions of white Europeans, Europeans enslaved Muslims - and it's not like Asians were any better.

It is racist to single out white European behavior as if they should be held to a higher standard, i.e. they are morally superior to the rest of the human race thus should behave better. All of history is full of rape, pillage, murder, etc. - it is all too human to engage in such behavior, from the Mayans and Aztecs, to Hindus and Arabs, to Zulus and Chinese. White Europeans were simply more successful at being brutes the last couple centuries due to their technological edge. And the greatest brutalities were done in the name of "progress," Hitler, Lenin/Stalin and Mao following their twisted ideologies.

 

[Beef Invictus]

It is a "medieval fantasy," last time I checked, Medieval Europe was full of brothels, rape of civilians was a norm in warfare, and rape of lower class women by higher class men was pretty much de facto legal.

I'm always amused by people using 21st century values to judge historical behavior, but appalled when historians do so - having perused practically all the major historical journals, I can say the quality of scholarship took a deep dive after 2000 when PC started to rule parts of academia.

It's like the concept that slavery was some unique "sin" of America, when in the late 18th century it was universal, where do you think Europeans obtained their slaves - from Africans who sold them, and Arabs who were often middle men and bought slaves for their own use. The Ottomans enslaved millions of white Europeans, Europeans enslaved Muslims - and it's not like Asians were any better.

It is racist to single out white European behavior as if they should be held to a higher standard, i.e. they are morally superior to the rest of the human race thus should behave better. All of history is full of rape, pillage, murder, etc. - it is all too human to engage in such behavior, from the Mayans and Aztecs, to Hindus and Arabs, to Zulus and Chinese. White Europeans were simply more successful at being brutes the last couple centuries due to their technological edge. And the greatest brutalities were done in the name of "progress," Hitler, Lenin/Stalin and Mao following their twisted ideologies.

lol if you think historians have suddenly started judging actions out of contemporary context based upon "PC Culture" then you're reading the wrong "journals." In the last several decades historians in general have only gotten better and better at understanding contemporary context while ignoring the modern lens. The exact opposite is true.

You are sounding like a Peterson acolyte. That guy does nothing but spread a gospel of whiny butt hurt about fields he barely has a basic understanding of.

 

[Flyotes]

That would be my take. I don't believe him, either.

 

[Beef Invictus]

That would be my take. I don't believe him, either.

Yeah.

Civil War history is a great example of historians getting better and better at learning/understanding the mindsets and thinking of the times, and that's been a challenge because it required hacking through a century of Lost Cause propaganda; Civil War history practically had to start from scratch going back to all the primary sources to repair that damage. It has nothing to do with "PC culture," and everything to do with understanding an exceptionally broad and complex topic that had actually been dumbed down miserably by what can only be described as Southern PC Culture...the closest thing to PC Culture we've seen in American history is the Lost Cause narrative that existed to make southerners feel better and avoid hard truths.

Eastern Roman history (Or Byzantines, if you must) is another example, at least in the English language. Norwich provided a deep three-part history that, especially in companionship with his Venetian history, works from the eastern cultural perspective as a means of explaining actions and understanding their society. Byzantine culture, society, and spirituality were quite distinct from the rest of Europe. In 1999 Haldon published an incredibly dense and thorough book that dives deeply into Byzantine history as viewed and justified by the Byzantines themselves. And in 2009 Luttwak built upon that foundation to describe the empire's grand military and diplomatic strategy as rooted in their unique culture. That isn't a deep dive in quality, it's the exact opposite.

Those trends, largely occurring in the timeframe that DH lambasts, runs entirely contrary to his claim. The modern lens is thoroughly discarded. The traditional Western European lens is discarded. Only the Byzantine lens remains. There isn't any "PC" nonsense or influence. "Scholarship took a deep dive." What a pile of shit.

 

[Beef Invictus]

We know that greenseers can have visions of the future, or possible futures, but I imagine what allows Bran to influence events is that with access to all human history, he can study trends and see patterns in how things play out and use those lessons.

 

[deadhead]

Those trends, largely occurring in the timeframe that DH lambasts, runs entirely contrary to his claim. The modern lens is thoroughly discarded. The traditional Western European lens is discarded. Only the Byzantine lens remains. There isn't any "PC" nonsense or influence. "Scholarship took a deep dive." What a pile of ****.

I said "journals," the best history has always been in books.
I've gone through 50 or more years of numerous journals as background for an economic history of the US, which I plan to start in a few years.
I look at everything, from JAH to Social Forces. I'm interested in integrating economic, political, legal and social history.

The best work was done from 1970-2000, when the new scholars challenged the status quo, but were forced to do good work because they were a minority in the profession. Now you get this bad social history full of "isms", that is more about polemics than people. To me, the best social history focused on how people actually lived, not on "hegemony", "capitalism", "patriarchy", etc., which pervades too much of today's writing. When I pick up a history and the first twenty pages of a book, or the first few pages of an article is full of this sort of BS jargon, "delete." I want historians who do good research and write well. And few historians can write good economic history (which requires knowing some economics, no, Marx and Ricardo don't qualify unless you're doing a history of economic thought) while economic historians are mostly applied econometricians these days (though I have great admiration for Jeremy Atack).

And yes, I've had reviewers criticize my writing for not "taking a stand," as if agreeing with their opinions on issues was more important that the actual quality of the work. I respect my readers, strive for objectivity (yes, it's impossible to achieve, but not impossible to attempt) and try to avoid shoving my views down their throat. The very choice of which facts to leave in creates bias, but if you're honest with yourself, you know when you're "cooking the books."

Maybe I'm more aware of this b/c I've worked as a lawyer for stretches, where you start with a desired conclusion and cherry pick the facts to support your argument - so when I write for myself I try to catch myself from pushing my prejudices.

 

[Beef Invictus]

I said "journals," the best history has always been in books.
I've gone through 50 or more years of numerous journals as background for an economic history of the US, which I plan to start in a few years.
I look at everything, from JAH to Social Forces. I'm interested in integrating economic, political, legal and social history.

The best work was done from 1970-2000, when the new scholars challenged the status quo, but were forced to do good work because they were a minority in the profession. Now you get this bad social history full of "isms", that is more about polemics than people. To me, the best social history focused on how people actually lived, not on "hegemony", "capitalism", "patriarchy", etc., which pervades too much of today's writing. When I pick up a history and the first twenty pages of a book, or the first few pages of an article is full of this sort of BS jargon, "delete." I want historians who do good research and write well. And few historians can write good economic history (which requires knowing some economics, no, Marx and Ricardo don't qualify unless you're doing a history of economic thought) while economic historians are mostly applied econometricians these days (though I have great admiration for Jeremy Atack).

And yes, I've had reviewers criticize my writing for not "taking a stand," as if agreeing with their opinions on issues was more important that the actual quality of the work. I respect my readers, strive for objectivity (yes, it's impossible to achieve, but not impossible to attempt) and try to avoid shoving my views down their throat. The very choice of which facts to leave in creates bias, but if you're honest with yourself, you know when you're "cooking the books."

Maybe I'm more aware of this b/c I've worked as a lawyer for stretches, where you start with a desired conclusion and cherry pick the facts to support your argument - so when I write for myself I try to catch myself from pushing my prejudices.

Yeah, I look through journals too and that's largely how I immediately know your claim about PC Culture causing a deep dive in history scholarship is a heaping pile of garbage. It's false. Especially this notion that over the last 50 years things have gotten worse; that's just utterly laughable. What do you object to, the loss of Lost Cause historians justifying secession, pushing a falsified stats' rights narrative, justifying Jim Crow, and defending sharecropping?

Hint: If that is your conclusion on the state of the field, then you should do yourself a favor and stay out.

 

[Oskar Man]

Clean your room

 

[Jack Straw]

Came for the GoT talk, stayed for the “Trends in Modern Historical Thinking” debate.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Came for the GoT talk, stayed for the “Trends in Modern Historical Thinking” debate.

Hey there's a post speculating how Bran influences events in there too

 

[Jack Straw]

Hey there's a post speculating how Bran influences events in there too

Saw that. Not convinced. I mean, the Doctor has access to the entire history (past and future) of the entire universe and he still can’t get rid of those stupid little robot/cyborgs that have bathroom plungers for noses.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Saw that. Not convinced. I mean, the Doctor has access to the entire history (past and future) of the entire universe and he still can’t get rid of those stupid little robot/cyborgs that have bathroom plungers for noses.

That's because they're fundamental to the universe. They're the janitors, basically. Like those things in the Citadel in Mass Effect.

 

[Chinatown88]

Oh man those faces at the final table read.

 

[baudib1]

It is a "medieval fantasy," last time I checked, Medieval Europe was full of brothels, rape of civilians was a norm in warfare, and rape of lower class women by higher class men was pretty much de facto legal.

I'm always amused by people using 21st century values to judge historical behavior, but appalled when historians do so - having perused practically all the major historical journals, I can say the quality of scholarship took a deep dive after 2000 when PC started to rule parts of academia.

It's like the concept that slavery was some unique "sin" of America, when in the late 18th century it was universal, where do you think Europeans obtained their slaves - from Africans who sold them, and Arabs who were often middle men and bought slaves for their own use. The Ottomans enslaved millions of white Europeans, Europeans enslaved Muslims - and it's not like Asians were any better.

It is racist to single out white European behavior as if they should be held to a higher standard, i.e. they are morally superior to the rest of the human race thus should behave better. All of history is full of rape, pillage, murder, etc. - it is all too human to engage in such behavior, from the Mayans and Aztecs, to Hindus and Arabs, to Zulus and Chinese. White Europeans were simply more successful at being brutes the last couple centuries due to their technological edge. And the greatest brutalities were done in the name of "progress," Hitler, Lenin/Stalin and Mao following their twisted ideologies.

What does that have to do with anything? That's like saying there's tons of misogyny and violent crimes and rapes in the drug world, so "Breaking Bad" sucks because it should have tons of rape scenes. Or that future civilizations will probably be misogynistic and have lots of rapes, so we really need more rape scenes in "Star Trek."

Are there tons of stories of noblemen raping their sisters next to the body of their dead son?

It also doesn't counter what I said, which is undeniably true.

 

[baudib1]

when I write for myself I try to catch myself from pushing my prejudices.

amazing

 

[Beef Invictus]

What does that have to do with anything? That's like saying there's tons of misogyny and violent crimes and rapes in the drug world, so "Breaking Bad" sucks because it should have tons of rape scenes. Or that future civilizations will probably be misogynistic and have lots of rapes, so we really need more rape scenes in "Star Trek."

Are there tons of stories of noblemen raping their sisters next to the body of their dead son?

It also doesn't counter what I said, which is undeniably true.

With 8 centuries of Hapsburg dynastic breeding there is a non-zero chance of this happening at some point

 

[baudib1]

We know that greenseers can have visions of the future, or possible futures, but I imagine what allows Bran to influence events is that with access to all human history, he can study trends and see patterns in how things play out and use those lessons.

This is again very Leto II.

There's a lot of theories and fanfic regarding Bran and his alignment with the Night King, before and after "The Long Night." I'm not in line with thinking that Bran is actually evil,especially since black-and-white characters are very rare in GRRM's works, but I don't think we should be comfortable with the notion of an omniscient monarch who can see the future.

"absolute power corrupts absolutely" blah blah

It's one thing for an omniscient wizard sitting in a tree north of the wall playing the game with no direct human contact for decades. (Even then, there are people who question the morality of Bloodraven.) It's another to take that guy and put him on the throne.

 

[baudib1]

With 8 centuries of Hapsburg dynastic breeding there is a non-zero chance of this happening at some point

Oh true, but that's besides the point as you know.
I'm not exactly a "book" guy who argues that everything in the books is better, because clearly the show has done a lot of incredible things that aren't written by GRRM (for instance, Varys and Littlefinger don't have deep conversations in the books).

But they've added a lot of terrible stuff.

 

[Beef Invictus]

This is again very Leto II.

There's a lot of theories and fanfic regarding Bran and his alignment with the Night King, before and after "The Long Night." I'm not in line with thinking that Bran is actually evil,especially since black-and-white characters are very rare in GRRM's works, but I don't think we should be comfortable with the notion of an omniscient monarch who can see the future.

"absolute power corrupts absolutely" blah blah

It's one thing for an omniscient wizard sitting in a tree north of the wall playing the game with no direct human contact for decades. Even then, there are people who question the morality of Bloodraven. It's another to take that guy and put him on the throne.

Good point.

A lot of fan comparison points for GOT/ASOIAF, and possible inspirations, focuses on medieval fantasy. Looking at Dune isn't the worst idea though and we should probably be doing that more.

The Spicers Guild wouldn't be too far off from the old Weirnet system in a lot of ways, I bet.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Oh true, but that's besides the point as you know.
I'm not exactly a "book" guy who argues that everything in the books is better, because clearly the show has done a lot of incredible things that aren't written by GRRM (for instance, Varys and Littlefinger don't have deep conversations in the books).

But they've added a lot of terrible stuff.

I just love taking any dig I can at the Hapsburgs


Those Varys/Littlefinger conversations are some of my favorite moments in the show actually. Especially on rewatch with knowledge of how things unfold.

 

[baudib1]

BTW I was rewatching some of season 3, it's pretty sick how good those episodes were.

When Cersei meets Margaery, she compliments her and says she must be a god singer. She then tells her the story about "Rains of Castamere," as a pointed reminder about what happens when the second-most powerful house tries to take on the Lannisters.

Having that two-minute conversation, which serves as exposition for the viewer and a threat to Margaery, plays beautifully with Catelyn's horrifying realization of what's happening when the musicians start playing "Rains of Castamere" at the Red Wedding.

Also, Ygritte is pure fire.

 

[baudib1]

Good point.

A lot of fan comparison points for GOT/ASOIAF, and possible inspirations, focuses on medieval fantasy. Looking at Dune isn't the worst idea though and we should probably be doing that more.

The Spicers Guild wouldn't be too far off from the old Weirnet system in a lot of ways, I bet.

Obviously a lot of ASOIAF is inspired by LOTR, particularly in the way that GRRM wrote it by thinking of LOTR and asking all the questions that went unasked. i.e. his famous "What was Aragorn's tax policy?"

But there's no doubt that there are Dune references as well. Daenerys is fugitive noble, born to rule and an agent of destiny/prophecies. That's obviously a Muad'dib template (as is Luke Skywalker), and I really think the show should have taken her further down the path of embracing a religious/goddess status.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Obviously a lot of ASOIAF is inspired by LOTR, particularly in the way that GRRM wrote it by thinking of LOTR and asking all the questions that went unasked. i.e. his famous "What was Aragorn's tax policy?"

But there's no doubt that there are Dune references as well. Daenerys is fugitive noble, born to rule and an agent of destiny/prophecies. That's obviously a Muad'dib template (as is Luke Skywalker), and I really think the show should have taken her further down the path of embracing a religious/goddess status.

The book has the foundation of a religious cult of personality/worship being laid down.

And in my constant Robespierre comparisons, I pointed out that just about the only aspect of the dude that Dany is missing in her fall is setting herself up as a weird center of a new religious cult. I'd be kind of surprised if that doesn't happen in the book. It strikes me as a very convenient way to show that someone is becoming mentally untethered from the world while being a natural evolution for her, what with the way she's treated by hordes of people and the fairly miraculous things she's done.