Previous Video - George RR Martin on the Inspiration for Casterly Rock: • George RR Martin on th... Full Interview: • Episode 825 | George R... A song of ice and fire/Game of Thrones author george rr martin
A realistic perception of history upsets people? Lol. George's novels are full of powerful women. He's the last guy that should be accused of sexist depictions of women. Anyway, love your works, George! 🤙🏾
@@shadowninja958 You wouldn't think of her in the same way, but Sansa is almost a mirror of Catelyn. To include one and not the other would be unfair to both.
8:15 "five years from now there'll be some other show on television and Game of Thrones will be thought of, 'hopefully' 'fondly', as one of the the great shows in television history" 😭 😭
It would have, if Dublin had been nuked right after the end of Season 6. D and D bailed after the fans became unreasonable. I don't agree with all of their changes, but I understand them wanting to use some surprise outstanding acting by the actors for some minor characters - which led them into temptation to make changes to the story. I'm actually anticipating the final product showing up, and hoping it won't take George too long.
Well maybe she is not very familiar with history. Yeah, there were powerful women back then - a lot of them - but not everyone knows them. In fact, they are very unknown to someone who glances at history. Many times I have encountered people, on and offline, who had no idea who the many women in history I was talking about.
@@ClaireYunFarronXIII Not only did exceptional women exist, regular women had very important roles in society and it was not infrequent that they held places of power.
It did sound like she was trying to trap him in the beginning with the question about powerful women being just fantasy. He side stepped that real fast
@@baddweather6362 I wish he didn't side step it, off the top of my head I can think of quite a few Women in history who were powerful in their own right, and in George's work, he doesn't make them better than men for the sake of gender, they are better because they have the intelligence and the expeirence to do so. Now i'm not saying powerful women aren't rediculed in history, look at Joan of Arc for example. But George has the redicule there too especially with Cersei's character.
Yeah I'm not one to default into that track of mind, but her first question really seemed loaded from her presentation. Martin really beautifully explained his stance though and made her drop pursuing that path any further. I think is the perfect way to fight bias. With measured and reasonable response.
Donnie Dewitt I included a male rape victim in my book with a female as the rapist because I wanted to give representation to a group given no respect or recognition.
She’s asking a question that’s been asked over and over again online since song of fire and ice was adapted. I don’t think his works are sexist either but this is just her asking questions, not accusing him of sexism Edit: also retorting to shitting on appearance is a low blow in my opinion.
@@sonamyangtsho5582 Idk the point of the main comment was nor the following.. she wasn’t accusing him but her job is to expand on her questions and fish out informative answers. Plus that other comments hair joke was just childish too..
@@ka-boom2083 and that is ur opinion. Based on ig your insight into her mind. The context she gives by saying that SA does happen in real life during war is what led me to form my opinion.
@@jacobjorgenson9285 Me? I'm not an author by trade. though George didn't start writing ASOIAF until his 40s and im still in my 20s so who knows maybe I'll do it one of these days I have plenty of time. also i was criticizing the show, not the books.
I swear GRRM has to constantly educate interviewers on medieval history and their societies, like are people so steeped in the present they think history is like some sci fi movie that never happened or exaggerated, this is why the Game of thrones show went to shit and why the Witcher netflix show already is shit and will be shit, NO KNOWLEDGE OR UNDERSTANDING OF HISTORY OR MYTHOLOGY or even an inkling of how our ancestors lived and WHY they lived that way.
@@sonofthewolfguardianofthef1214 Very little of it was similar to the world that Sapkowski created, the magic, politics, characters, themes, societies, institutions, creatures, armies, kingdoms were nothing like they were in the books or video games, i mean they make magic from electric eels and locate people using human entrails in the show, the nilfgaardians are also retards who wear testicle looking armour and are as dumb as stormtroopers, this is just the tip of the ice my friend there is so much more crap.
It's one of the reasons Sansa got so much hate as well everybody online kept comparing her to what they would do in her stead .90% of the comments they'd be beheaded in a week that's being generous
@@gazza7693 I've read the books and any that not the short story collection is kinda meh he did all this work to set up these chrachter and clear didn't know what to do for a multiple book narrative arc while it has it moments and good new chrachters I fell like the game writers did alot of the work to make care. I honestly think the TV shows for the opportunity to do a better job with the source material to add more consistent cy and focus .that said while I enjoyed the show it's kinda built on a shitty foundation since Henry cavill doesn't have the range to do geralt so it probably won't
I can understand the criticism of the interviewer, it’s not always a bad thing when they seem to not be very familiar with the material they’re asking about. For me I think what made it jarring was that she ploughed ahead very confidently and self-assuredly which comes off really weird
I’m only three minutes in, and I’m already annoyed. Is she trying to say there has been no powerful women in history and that he exploits women by making them powerful? I love that he writes strong women. Why does that annoy her? What kind of weird femenism is this? I love how Martin writes characters, male and female. He doesn’t fantasy women. As a women myself, I love that here we finaly have someone who makes strong Female characters who’s main focus isn’t to be saved or be loved by a white knight or prince. He writes women as reall people. Why Is She Angry?????
Well, to be fair I don't think that her desliking of the depiction of women was the point she was trying to make.From what I can gather, she wanted to question George about the depiction of rape and sexual assault in the series.That is something a lot of people have questions about , mainly because of decisions taken by the TV series and not so much about the books.When George responded that sexual assault is historicly accurate , she brought up the question about powerful women to show what she believed was a case where Geogre didn't consider historical accuracy in favour of a better story.She is wrong and historicly misinformed but she isn't angry because George writes powerful female characters. She most likely wanted to adress some conserns people have about the depiction of rape in Game Of Thrones.
The interviewer is trying to hit at the strong female characters being fantastic and that's why they stand up against the men in G.O.T. compared to real life women being subservient without actually saying that. But, what about Boudica in England, Queen Maeve in Ireland, Cleopatra in Egypt. Do your research love, before you throw your bias into questions preferably
Feminists dont give two shits about those women, cause those women actually put work in. These bitches want things for free while in a society where there is no more hard work for women to do, they ask for more and act like theyre entitled, theres no need for their hard work, and yet, now they have the power to act like they do anything. Spoiled brats I think you would call them.
@@introgauge I'll say that when I hear the word feminism I hear weakness idk why. Going out of your way to say your strong tells me your weak. Women are naturally equal to men, no need for feminist rally's.
He's actually primarily a sci-fi writer outside of ice and fire. And he values realism and authenticity far more than the actual fantasy elements. That's part of why his stories resonate so well because they are rooted so deeply in reality, even when he adds those fantasy elements.
I never understood why the rape scene in game of thrones was so controversial when the same show had a man forcibly castrated and nobody batted an eye.
Because most people like torture porn more than sexual assault apparently. Personally that shit with Ramsay/Theon was one of the reasons I stopped watching.
Maybe because Dany was innocent at that point so the negative actions taken upon her were more upsetting to witness whereas Theon kinda made his bed so he had to sleep in it, the torture was brutal but he was far from a saint.
Because the men are shown to constantly suffer because of what happened to them, while the women are "empowered" and "become stronger" because they were assaulted?
Why does this guy even humor these people by answering their clearly loaded and agenda driven questions. It's a work of fiction, I have no idea why you would have to justify your fiction. *Fiction* a work of non-real stuff
Oh no, no. A writer must [be able to] justify his/her writing. Yeah it is fiction, but that does not suddenly remove any sort of need for justification. George R. R. Martin is a great writer, I feel. He still needs to answer those questioning his work, which he says is heavy influenced by medieval times. His _A Song of Ice and Fire_ books will be compared to medieval history a lot. The opening questions are poorly researched, especially with regards to power women in history. As a fan of history, I can count on all my family's fingers the powerful women who existed in medieval times. George R. R. Martin has realistic women, especially characters like Asha Greyjoy, Elisa Farmen, Cersei Lannister, Daenerys Targaryen, and many more. I highly doubt you would use this "why would you have to justify your fiction" excuse on fiction you don't like. Stop, that is a poor excuse. But I sort of get what you mean by why George R. R. Martin really does not need to explain this stuff so extensively.
@@ClaireYunFarronXIII Why is Daenerys in your list? As soon as her first dragon dream she stops being a realisitc women in medieval times (a far too young girl married off to powerful patriarch) and becomes a fantasy character that is led by magic, dragons and destiny. This doesn't necessarily make her character worse but she really isn't realistic anymore.
@@parsus7797 lots of character had prophetic dreams or visions in asoiaf, that doesn't instantly make them completely unrealistic. Though i do get your sentiment.
@@RedbadofFrisia But Dany seems to be magically affected by the dreams - healing wounds, can ride all day, has comfortable sex with Khal Drogo and of course later things like temporary fire immunity, birth of dragons (even thought the eggs were supposed to be dead) and prophetic dreams. I am not saying that the character is unrealistic in her actions and thoughts but doesn't go through realistic but fantastic struggles. For example: Khal Drogo dies and his khalasar and specifically most of his blood riders reject Dany as their leader because she is a women (and is responsible for Drogo's death) and split the khalasar leaving Dany with a couple blood riders that are only there because they want to follow him in death after his funeral. We have a realistic struggle (related to her sex at least) - Dany is rejected because she is a women and is sure to die if the remaining Khalasar and the blood riders vanish. Here comes the fantastical part of the character - she decides to burn herself with Drogo and the eggs - survives, dragons are born and the blood riders seeing the miracle and the dragons immiediatly plegde alliegance to her. She has overcome her struggle through the fantastic part of her character. Things like that happen multiple times throughout her story arc (Dragons!) . That's why I objected to her being in that list of realistic women of asoiaf or Got, she isn't realistic but fantastic. That doesn't mean her character is badly written or boring ect..
As a student of history, I just LOVE how people see women in historical fiction or real one. Strong women couldn't have been powerful or strong that nonsense!! Meanwhile, somewhere in heaven, Elisabet the she-wolf, Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I, Olga of Kiev, Jadwiga etc. "HELLO WE EXISTED" I love how George represent different women from multiple backgrounds and how they play the game of power. Let all remember that history has been written for King and Warriors by men the notion of a woman will be omitted may it be mother/spouse/daughter to create a bigger legend. So lady at 2:30 - 2:40 sit back down and go read a bloody history book.
Theodora of the Byzantine Empire? Eleanor of Aquitaine? Elizabeth I? Victoria? Has she never heard of any of these rulers? These extremely powerful and revered rulers?
Honestly in my opinion including themes like rape in a story is ok just as long as you do it right and not try to sexualize or use it for shock value, I don't think that woman gave much attention to the characters individual stories. News flash lady war treated most of everyone badly.
“War has treated women very badly” War treats everyone very badly, the 13 year old kid who died on the frontlines defending his home had it just as hard as the women at those times
Everything he says is so true and he understands history. I spent years studying history, I rarely met too many people who understand these times. I not only studied world and american history. I studied art history, in depthly and you actually find some interesting stories or facts written in art work, because art was metaphorical, it was political, and it was literal, much like the bible or other ancient and medieval writing. Art wasn't designed to be a pretty picture like it is today, it was a symbol of power, status, political, social issues, cultures, and belief systems that they followed. Like for example Ancient history , art was flat, they told bits about their world based on these works, you could tell someones status based on the size a figure was, you could tell what was important based on the symbols they used, based on the religion they had, and politically and socially the issues they were facing. I also believe that most myths made in history was based off of real events in history that were told with symbolism, metaphors, political, cultural, and religious aspects, and literal. Such as the Helen of Troy, even though it is considered to be a legend, many historians believe it may have been real to an extent.
Well Troy is confirmed to exist, so the Trojan wars are basically confirmed. Helen of Troy going to be hard to prove outside of the story the Greeks passed down about it.
No, the logic is that fantasy takes liberties with the middle ages all the time. Including Martin. And magic is the very least of it. He doesn't have any spunky princesses talking back to arrogant lords. But he has plenty of spunky lower lords and mercenaries and everyone else talking back to nobility. Talk about something that would NEVER happen in the middle ages. Virtually every line that comes out of Bronn or Baelish or Tyrion's mouth is completely unrealistic. His books are not by any half-intelligent standard "historically accurate". Relative to Conan the Barbarian or Snow White, they may be more "gritty". But that does NOT make them accurate. Yet somehow, when it comes to rape, George (and many other male writers, fantasy and otherwise) seem to have to ensure that there is "realism" around rape. REAL RAPE - WE MUST HAVE IT! Of course, it's not even about realism, per se, but CHOOSING TO FOCUS on certain kinds of things and not on others. Neither George nor B&B had to focus on rape - but they WANTED to. They CHOSE to. And the reasons they chose to are not even very mysterious. It's because those depictions help SELL THEIR WORK. Because people are titillated by it. People (mostly men, and even some few women) LIKE seeing rape on screen. It gets them off. It makes them watch.
Not every question asked by a reporter is believed by them or even necessarily intended to push the narrative behind the question. Reporters ask questions to give the other person an opportunity to answer it on the record. Reporters asking these questions, which are usually derived from professional critics vying for attention by bashing a big name, gives Martin an opportunity to explain or refute the premise.
I believe sexism accusation on grrm is so stupid because he even made women warriors and important people while in reality they were nearly not involved in most politics or wars
How deeply ignorant of history is this interviewer. Theres lots of powerful women throughout history. I'm not saying they didn't suffer sexism or were diminished but to pretended powerful women didn't existed or couldn't have existed is a disservice to all women.
I guess what she meant by "Add fantasy to women" is that how he as a writer he kind of "Sexualizes" and "objectify" them by making them females magical creatures and not human beings, and that is how he sees women, if you read Lolita you'll notice Humbart Humbart calls Dollorys Lolita not by her real name, he sees little girls as Nymphets and not children, and making women only by being witches and dragon queen is the same, how medieval people saw women through their own scope rather than what they really are, at least that is what I get from her criticism, but I completely disagree. G RR Martin delivered us one of the most memorable wholesome female characters ever. He added fantasy elements to all characters not just women. He gave us their own streams of conciseness, emotions and experiences and choices just like the real world that tries ti define them even if it is a fictional one.
@fo exipni Dany isn't immune to fire in the books. She gets burned and loses her hair like twice, because it got all burned off. Bald Dany was dropped from the show, you can imagine why. She has dragons because she figured out how to hatch them, bring them into existence and has a connection to them through blood. The dragons are attached because she hatched them and she was legit breastfeeding them when the fire died out. She didn't live because she was fire proof, she lived because she rewoke the old magic of dragons. Of course the blood isn't needed because there have been a few non dragonlord blood riders before. If someone else hatched the dragons, they would have dragons, it just happened to be Dany because she was given the gift of 3 eggs, has the old blood (might not be important in the grand scheme of things but dragons are important to Dany because of her families past.) And was in the right place at the right time. Someone else could've took her place very easily. She has a very small resistant to heat in like a bath but isn't fireproof at all. Drogon burnt her from the chaos of the pit when she first rode him. "TARGARYENS ARE NOT IMMUNE TO FIRE! The birth of Dany's dragons was unique, magical, wonderous, a miracle." - A quote from George. And his answer to "Could she do it again?" "Probably not." Dany's relationship with the dragons is very different in the books too. While they care for her somewhat. They're dragons. Drogon breathes fire at her and tries to bite her. So she whips him into submission. The Drogon of the show would never do that. He was pissed when she first rode him. He roared and tried to throw her off. *I'm talking about books because that's what George is 95% of his time, always talking about.
@fo exipni That makes sense. I see George = Books. *Unless he specifically is there to promote the show, but most of the times, he's not. D&D = show. The show was clearly going to make her be immune to fire for no reason at all, other than to look cool really. I mean, they put in that scene where she picks up the eggs and isn't burnt which isn't in books. I think D&D wanted a simple answer to why Dany survived the fire. Where as George feels it enough explanation to say "It was a once miracle that will never be repeated again." I think D&D wanted to edge up Dany being 'other' because of her heritage, because in the show she looks like a normal, regular human woman. Where in the books, she looks other because of silver hair and purple eyes. They lost that edge when they decided on how to physically portray the character with no contacts or cgi etc. so had to give her a new one to make her 'other'. The Targaryens look very different from the other people in ASOIAF where as the show has them looking a lot like everyone else. Sometimes her hair looks like normal blonde hair. Where as the books, it's very silver/white. While George was part of the show in earlier seasons, a lot of decisions were out of his hands, I don't think it was up to him about the style of the Dany character so I don't think it's an appropriate question to ask him rather than D&D. He can't explain why she's fireproof because he never wrote that she was. He doesn't have the answer because he didn't write it. It's more appropriate question for D&D.
@fo exipni Yeah. I also heard that full on silver clashed with her clothes, didn't look pretty on camera, made her look old etc. I'm just sad that she looks like the average inhabitant of ASOIAF. I wish the show got a bigger budget from the start. Perhaps then, they could've done cgi or tried many brands of contacts to see if any could be used. And we wouldn't be stuck with that lame ass Iron Throne. Emilia is a wonderful actress but she looks nothing like Dany the way she is described. Which is okay, she's just not my headcannon and not what I imagine Dany to look like. She needs somewhat, other, alien beauty type feature. Almost like she doesn't look human. That's what the Targaryens look like in my head. Plus, I would've liked the actress to have a very youthful face or be a few years younger than Emilia, or was 18 when filming started. That's what makes Dany so terrifying. She's so young and has all this power. It is a very poweful image that completely changes when an obvious 20 something woman is playing the part.
@fo exipni Yes. She was 20. But she looks her age. She always looked somewhat mid 20s to me. Some people look older than their age, other people look younger. I was assumed to be 15 when I was 26 for example. I just really like the image of such a young girl with a considerate amount of power and is a force to be reckoned with. That idea is terrifying for a lot of people who rather woman stay in the kitchen. And yeah, I know they couldn't do it full book justice, but with a larger budget for season 1 would've made them build something better than what we got. There is a middle somewhere. By the time they got the budget, it would've been stupid to change the appearance of the throne from season 1. I would've atleast doubled it. The throne in books probably has at least 3000 blades in it, where as the show has bearly 400. I would've aimed for 1000/1500ish. I know the songs say the throne had 1000 but all the descriptions and the size of it must mean there are more than 1000. 1000 is quite a nice number to put in songs considering most of the population would be amazed at the idea of a thousand swords.
@fo exipni Yeah. That's why I said someone who looks very youthful or someone who was 18 at the time of filming season 1. Age can be deceptive. It would've added even more contrast to the Cersei and Dany battle too. But according to GOT wiki, Dany is apparently 23 in season 8...Emilia is beautiful but does not look 23. That's news to me that was supposed to 23 in season 8. Wow. I'm surprised. Jon is also 23 in season 8 and doesn't look it either.
When George mentions forgetting peoples names minutes after meeting them... I'm exactly the same yet i can recall most names from all the fantasy books ive ever read (majority of Feist, Eddings and Jordans books to name but a few), But lord knows eho my neighbours names even are and ive lived here now 2 years 🤷♂️🤣
So much hate for the interviewer in the comments... Why? Not the best interview in the world but I see nothing (or let's say very little) wrong with her questions. She does not attack him, she doesn't even ask particularly tricky or difficult questions (and if she did it would be perfectly fine, that's what interviewers are for), yet so many people attack her and defend GRRM. He doesn't need you defending him.
When he talks about religion playing a huge role and how it should be reflected in fantasy...hoo boy. Thats actually a pretty solid quote and ideal. Good job George. I agree.
These comments are embarrassing regarding people accusing her of being malicious in her questioning. In the VERY BEGINNING of the interview she immediately validates his writing for its historical accuracy. I don't know why you people are so hellbent making this woman look bad when she just wanted his thoughts on the subject. She's a fucking interviewer. It's her job. She honestly seems like a fan of the books.
whutt? what was the question really? the women like his characters could not have existed? influental women? warior women as an exception? egoistic highborn ladies like Catelyn and Sansa? does the interviewer know nothing about history?
@fo exipni Forgave Jaime for what exactly? Also what makes you think I consider Tyrion a good person? Yes, sure, Sansa is still developing, but Catelyn, Cersei and Littlefinger being her mentors, she doesn't reallg have much of a chance, not even with what little is in her of Ned (whom she betrayed). Catelyn and Sansa drew Ned into the black cells with their impulsive and selfish and power hungry and delusional behaviour. Joffrey just pulled the metaphorical trigger
fo exipni Except sneaking out for the first time in life and spilling his plans about fleeing KL to Cersei. She wanted to be the queen more than she loved and trusted and respected him
@fo exipni If the show is your reference that really has nothing to do with my comment, this was about actual writing work George. I was sticking to what happened with Sansa really in the books, but show Sansa is even worse, esoecially after the show has ended we know she is iredeemable. Just the betrayal of oath given in front of a weirwood and then the arrogance to use the weirwood tree as a symbol on her dress is a terrible act on its own
fo exipni wow is that how you treat your promises too? her revealing that secret had a good outcome? what was she trying to achieve with it exactly that is so good? at that point Dany did nothing to give reason to anyone to not want her as their queen, she was a literal war hero
fo exipni so separatism is more important than survival of the humanity? Jon was not just her brother he was also her king. And hence Daenerys became her queen. What Sansa did was treason against her king and her family. But the writing is now stupid so characters like Sansa do not suffers any consequences (as she should when she sent people in certain death and not tell them abou t the knights of the Vale so that she could pretend to be a hero) Sansa's main motivation is that she wants to be queen, at least we agree on that
The last thing he says is quite funny to me as I was taking a psychology class a few months ago and our teacher talked about how we seem to be able to remember informations about 150 people (their names, social status and so on). I've asked her if she thought characters in fiction like GoT take up some of that space in our heads, and she said yeah them and celebrities, probably. So now I'm pretty sure about 80% of that space in Martin's head is just full of GoT Characters lmao
This woman is just absolutely ignorant to both what he wrote and history. There IS rampant sexism and dismissive Ed’s towards woman in Westeros... how about in Briennes character arch (the show FUCKED it up and ruined it) where she is literally dismissed as a “night”... where Randall Tarly basically after rescuing her has her set up to be sent back to Tarth- how she’s been engaged 3 times and had to sabotage the marriages to prevent them. People who only watched the show have NO IDEA about the teal ASOIAF...
The weirdest aspect of the critique of sexual violence against women in HBO's GoT is that it rarely comes with a critique of all the other horrific violence depicted in the series. This show depicts a whole army of castrated men, people being flayed alive, a holocaust against a city, and countless people being stabbed, having their throats slit, or having their heads crushed in. Yet, female characters getting raped, typically off screen, is what sets the critics off? Weird, if you ask me.
Well.. we're currently surrounded by slogans like "believe women", "protect women", "equality for women", "women are not objects", "girls just want to live their lives without fear” etc. etc. etc. Regardless of what some people might try and claim, I think feminism is pretty obviously an "-ism" founded on the belief that women have it worse, have always been second class citizens, deserve protection and are systemically oppressed (it's right there in the name). I am NOT arguing for/against _anything_ here, just saying that most of American audiences are very accustomed to recognising misogyny, but less likely to recognise misandry and non-gender specific issues. Also, there's probably a component of Americans having no problem with violence in media, but loose their shit when it's a sex thing (violent or not).
I hate questions that are more interested in an agenda and interested in creating some headline for some article. Every question she asked was geared to some basic simple answer that would create clickbait if he hadn't answered thoughtfully.
Going to be honest. That interviewer just wanted him to make powerful feminists for the sake of feminists. She kept on pushing the idea that women in this show are all too smart or scheming. He was obviously trying to push away that. Having Daenerys and Cersei where there for the story not for feminists.
No, she was asking questions about criticisms and questions others were making, and when he thought she was talking about one thing she directed him towards what she meant, and he answered it as best as he could(I think successfully by mention of both the exceptions and the class structure) and they moved on.
It's kind of charming that he thinks his 15 minutes are going to end... like "NYPD Blue" LOL! George, most of your audience has no idea that NYPD Blue is. Game of Thrones is going to be with us for quite some time. Game of Thrones was there at the zenith of the Golden Age of Television. 20, 30 years from now, people will still have The Sopranos, Breaking Bad, and Game of Thrones on their must-watch list.
I thinks she believes sexism exists in everything and "its becomes your(her) way of life..." alternately I may not think, she may not believe and there may not be a way of life...but presumptive arrogance may raped with the casual truth of history.
Realistically very few women were killed as witches in the medieval period. It's not until the 15th-16th century (Renaissance period) where that started to kick off
“By creating female characters who couldn’t have existed- warriors, manipulative priestesses, the queen-“ *Facepalm* Well, I sure hope most people don’t believe that.
"There has been criticism of the sexual violence in the books." Yeah, there's been criticism of sexual violence in real life too, it's almost as if it's a bad thing that we don't like. What do these people suppose the purpose of literature is? To occupy them when social media sites are down?
Props to him for not (outwardly at least!) being as irritated as me at the interviewer repeatedly trying to insist that interesting/powerful women are a fantasy invention. She reeeeeally wanted him to act like he'd created something unheard of and I don't understand why.
Strong women have always existed, Cleopatra VII, Joan of Arc, Elizabeth I, Florence Nightingale, etc. Of course, some history is recorded in accordance to what men believed was right or correct but strong women have always existed. Not every single woman was a meek dormouse
I never understood how people thought cersie or briann were pure fiction.... Sure it was mostly men, but still plenty of women throughout history who were warriors, powerful queens, assassin's, fighters and so on.... People are very odd sometimes.
I hate it when people critise medevils fiction from 21st century Western perspective. Everyone knows rape is wrong and war is hideous, but that's what happens in those days. It is fiction, when someone write about slavery doesn't mean he is encouraging slavery.
Female characters female characters blah blah blah...please let him write his own story...I fear due to the current sjw cancer he might tone down his story ideas and give us some watered down writing...sad
I do agree that the violence against women should be shown in the books but for the show no. Dani's grape scene was not something that was needed because it wasnt in the books.
Your right, people did believe in Dragons, many even believed they were real. There is tons of legends of dragons all over the world. Some believe they were indeed real, such as the Livithian in the bible. Known as a creature with nashing teeth, tightly plaited armor, breathed coils of smoke from its nostrils, and could breath fire from its mouth.
Random comment just to say one of my favorite moments in all of the books is when the hound saves loras from the mountain and the line ‘for the first time the hound had the love on the commons’. It’s so wholesome
I don't understand how a strong female grounded into her role in society is considered "unrealistic". Look at Boudica, Cleopatra, Ippatia, Gorgo, Maria of Magdala, Agrippina, Catherine the Great, Jeanne D'Arc, Marie Curie just to name a few random examples. I'm usually drawn out of stories that want to implement fantasy elements and yet build their world like 21st century Manhattan, with people of all ethnicities living together and women having the same power as men (these are things that we fought for, so they could not be there from the beginning) unless a sound explanation is given, but one thing is to have that, the other is to think that women were weak and powerless until the 1950s.
Feminism has been so dismissive of women having power in the past, the largest empire in history at the height of its power was rules by a lady. The rest of the time just because kings were mostly the figure head they all had queens and 50% of the time she was smarter so she was probably calling the shots. Most kings end up killed by their enemies anyway, it's a lot safer to work from the shadows
My great grandmother denounced her titles in Hungary after the rebellion not even 50years ago. She left here to Australia when my Pa was 4years old. She had to wait in line once for a whole day just for a loaf of bread, and men would ride into her village and take the women to r*pe them often. My pa though, being a cheeky child, grew fond of the guards and they of him, he came home with a loaf of coffee loaf once and, when the horseriders came, the guards would grab my grannie and hide her under their big cloak until the riders were gone, to protect her from harm.
That the time of stuff they so called anti sjw folk messed not that there werent any stronge just that women faced different and systematically 2nd class roles in term of majority or standrad
I’m surprised he didn’t mention the boys people love to only say women or say younger guys are safe but that’s almost rarely true and George has showed that in his books actually
"In 5 years there will be another popular TV show, and GoT will be remembered fondly" - now people hate GoT after the finale, but everybody still watches the prequel
"LIMIT CHARACTER DEV WITH WOMEN TO BE HISTORICALLY ACCURATE" omfg please!!! there were queens in the middle ages! there were always powerful, badass women!!! gtfo
I think the most powerful, strongest, most inteligent woman in the entire series was Lady Olenna and she was totally historically accurate and in no way impossible in the real world. Melisandre, Cersei, Arya, Daenerys - non of them were even close to Olenna
anti disney, medieval people mindset absolute chad literally why all fantasy medieval fantasy SUCK you know what examples rings of amazon, witcher etc also i think "destiny wheel something with 12 books" is good (by some critics i dont see it)
When will people accept that rape is a reality of the world that will never go away? Women cry about rape these days don’t understand how much luckier and safer they are compared to women of the earlier days of humanity.
Imposing 21st century 'progressive' mores upon medieval-based fantasy is a ridiculous exercise. They did that with the Witcher and it's in the process of imploding.
The black plague, they thought they were cursed so the priests made Raven masks to keep away death and protect them from the plague. Imagine wearing one of those during covid?
