In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Game of Thrones: Someone explain to me what happened with Jaime and Cersei

[Trigger warning for rape]

[Potential spoilers for Game of Thrones S04 E03, as well as for A Storm of Swords]

I mean, I got what was happening — most reasonable people watched that scene and were, like, “I get what’s happening here.” But I just don’t, like… get it. So if you have insight on what’s going on there, jump on in.

So Jaime absolutely raped Cersei in the sept, right next to the dead body of their son/nephew. No reasonable person, and I include the director and actors in that scene when I say that, didn’t watch her struggling and see that not just as rape but as the very stereotype of violent rape.

But my understanding — and I haven’t personally read A Song of Ice and Fire, so I’m only working with what I’ve heard — is that in the corresponding scene in the book, the sex was semi-consensual. (“Dubcon,” I suppose, if you’re a fanfictioner.) Cersei did protest in the beginning — not here, what if people see us, anyone could walk in — but by the time the deed was actually consummated, she was up to hurry, quickly, do me now, yes yes yes. (The Atlantic provides the relevant passage from the book.)

That passage does reinforce the common trope of “she didn’t want it until she wanted it,” and for him to continue kissing and undressing her despite her objections is of course problematic. But if the scene in the book is an example of dubious consent, unfortunately only acknowledged by some as nonconsensual, it’s still a far cry from the struggling and the stop it, stop it, it’s not right, don’t, Jaime, don’t seen on the show. It’s as if Alex Graves, the episode’s director, wanted to make absolutely sure the audience knew Jaime was raping her.

But in Graves’s mind, that final “don’t, Jaime, don’t” was actually a part of consensual sex, saying, “Well, it becomes consensual by the end, because anything for [Cersei and Jaime] ultimately results in a turn-on, especially a power struggle.” Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, the actor who plays Jaime, also said there were “moments where she gives in, and moments where she pushes him away,” making it kind of rape but also kind of not. Reports the Atlantic:

It’s possible that Benioff and Weiss, after spending the better part of two seasons making Jaime more likable, have decided to take his character down a darker path than the one he follows in Martin’s novels. I haven’t seen beyond this episode, so I can’t say off certain. But given the responses by Graves and Coster-Waldau, it seems more likely that everyone involved somehow believed they’d constructed a scene that was more unpleasant than the book’s but still at least moderately ambiguous, rather than the not-at-all ambiguous scene that viewers saw.

This isn’t the first time the showrunners have turned consensual(ish) sex into rape. On the night of Danaerys’s wedding to Khal Drogo, the book has him obtaining explicit consent from her — she’s ultimately the one who moves his hand to her body and says “yes.” Again, it’s not without issue; the idea that a 13-year-old can give informed consent to a nearly 30-year-old man is beyond problematic. Saying, “But it’s fine, because she wants it” doesn’t change the fact that she’s 13. (The show addresses this by aging her up to 16, but, um, still a teenager, folks.) But on the show, we watch Drogo rape her as she cries. In this, there’s no darkening of Drogo’s character or victimizing of Dany’s to advance the plot or change its course. The show continues in parallel with the book; the only difference is that book-Dany comes to love her husband, while show-Dany comes to love her rapist.

Of course, adding rape to make a story darker and more dramatic is a common tactic for writers. (Think of the times a hero’s mother or sister will be raped simply as a tool to spur him to action, or the times a woman is raped as a tool to turn her into a heroine, or the times a rape is used to create sympathy because it’s seen as worse than murder.) And rape and abuses of women are hardly a nonexistent factor in Westeros, in the show and the original books. When she’s fleeing King’s Landing, Arya disguises herself as a boy for safety. During the Battle of Blackwater, Cersei entertains Sansa with predictions of what would be done to her if the castle were to be overrun. To demonstrate his ongoing descent into evilness, the show has Joffrey torturing and murdering several sex workers. Jaime himself rescued Brienne from rape during their return to King’s Landing. But it would appear that such reality wasn’t enough for the showrunners, and they felt the need to add it where it wasn’t originally.

What do you think? Do you think the director really did see the Jaime/Cersei scene as consensual? Or did he, and those higher up than he, just think a rape scene would make the story more exciting, more poignant, more entertaining, more titillating to viewers? Can anyone guess why it was so important that Danaerys be raped on her wedding night? Or is this just yet another verse of, “Hey, you know what we should do to this character? Rape!


99 thoughts on <em>Game of Thrones</em>: Someone explain to me what happened with Jaime and Cersei

  1. The sad thing is that I don’t even think they properly thought about it, and it feels like they’re only responding because people have pointed out that it was clearly a rape.

    There is no way that you can see that scene as consensual…

  2. I actually have the exact opposite reaction. If they’re going to show a 13 year old and a 30 year old having sex, I’d rather have it be crystal clear to everyone watching that it’s rape than have it be faux-consensual. You wrote:

    The show continues in parallel with the book; the only difference is that book-Dany comes to love her husband, while show-Dany comes to love her rapist.

    That’s exactly wrong. She came to love her rapist either way, it’s just that the show is more straightforward about it.

    1. I’ve always hypothesized that the writers were trying to deal with the rather difficult task of portraying an emotional arc in which Dany is married against her will to an older man who goes out of his way to get consent, but who then repeatedly engaged in marital rape until she convinces him there’s another way for their relationship to proceed, and then falls in love with him in a way that is deeply inflected with Stockholm Syndrome.

      Rather than trying to make that switch and switch back work, I think they decided to create something with a smoother narrative arc that proceeds from slavery to something more like equality.

  3. I have to admit that I’m stunned by the level of outrage about that scene. Yes, he raped her. But in Westeros, a phantasy continent, for crying out loud, where we quite officially have a rape and murder culture. And where there are dragons ans slave cities and zombie armies, and people who can see through the eyes of animals.

    If those criticizing this scence didn’t think before that the show is trying to metaphorically address humanity’s problems and thus needed to be measured by this world’s moreal standards, then why now? If they did think so, where was this level of outrage before? Moreover, if so, why is there no outrage about the general level of violence in Westeros, against the racism, the slavery, why only about sexual violence? I don’t really get that.

    1. Why does it matter that it’s a fictional world? We have rape culture in the here and now… Yes there are zombies and dragons, but there is also rape there, just as there is rape here. And what does that have to do with a directorial decision to make a scene that was semi-consensual, but problematic – clearly rape.

      And people have addressed other problems in the show also, and in the books, so I’m not sure why your point – oh they’re just now talking about the rape ONLY… is really valid…

      1. Thank you, Matthew. I just did not have in me to engage with one more iteration of “what’s the big deal about rape.”

      2. Whatever culture we have here and now, if people don’t understand that rape on screen in a phantasy world is not an endorsement of raping people here and now then honestly we have much, much bigger problems than that scene. Giving people proper education which would enable them to see that difference would be #1 on that list, I suppose.

        1. Did you actually read what I wrote? Of course, there are no links with the here and now, where there is rape culture, and the stories which writers compose that also include rape. Texts/tv programmes are just ephemeral things and have no connection with the world in which they are produced at all…

          Can’t you understand that you can still obviously critique the assumptions or ideas conveyed in these fantasy worlds, because those attitudes sometimes reflect the author/director’s ideas about rape and/or consent.

        2. Well, I for one don’t think the author and director are endorsing slave armies, mass crucifictions, giving living babies to zombies (just from the last episode). And even if they were supporting those things, depicting them on screen as part of a phantasy show would not be indicative of their support thereof.

        3. Apparently, there were 5179 people killed on screen in the first three seasons (according to a youtube video, apparently). I don’t think the authors are supporting anything of the sort in *this* world. Do you?

    2. Here we have a completely fictional, fantastical world where dragons live, people see through the eyes of animals, and zombies walk through the snow.

      Why, then, the need to not only include rape in said fantasy world, but to OVERLOAD the world with rape? If you’re creating a fantasy world where anything can happen, why not just make rape a nonexistent thing?

      1. I think the treatment of rape in the books (which, IIRC, is rarely graphic) is meant to illustrate the dangers women face in a society that considers them chattel. I think it would be kind of an odd evasion to depict a war in which incredible suffering is inflicted on noncombatants while ignoring the issue of rape, and I can’t really envision an explanation of the nonexistence of rape in Martin’s world that would fit the societies he’s depicting. (I realize that’s a bit circular.)

        To me, that’s a separate issue from the changes from the books to the show. I think that’s the point that SomeOne is overlooking that has sparked some of the reaction to this scene.

        1. That’s kinda how I feel about it too. It’s a hard, dangerous world where people die left and right over any little thing, the goal is to survive but there’s no rape among torture, murder, infant murder, slavery, war, raiding etc etc? It’s a fantasy world, but it also contains realistic human emotion/ behavior. For my part, the books don’t make Rape seem like a titillating, sexy act. Why HBO insists on it says more about their mentality than the books, though I’m quite pissed that Martin lets it slide. No excuse for that, at all.

        2. Thanks, Anon and Pheeno, for helping me with this. I liked the stories and the characters, but I just couldn’t understand WHY so much rape all the time everywhere. It was exhausting.

  4. Just for additional book context… In the book, that scene is Jaime and Cersei’s reunion – that’s right when he gets back to Kings Landing (as opposed to the show, where he’s been hanging out for a couple weeks, was there for the wedding, etc), so the context and emotional weight/baggage is completely different. Also worth noting, the book scene is from Jaime’s perspective (third person limited perspective), so that colors the events, and we don’t really know what’s going through Cersei’s head.

    The book scene is definitely more “dubcon” than I’d remembered it being (had to go back and re-read it after the episode), but I do think the show’s scene was blatantly out of line. I don’t know whether the show runners/director just failed to show what they thought they were showing (maybe something edifying is lying on the editing room floor?), or whether they felt like they needed to add in some more “darkness” to Jaime’s character to show that he’s not out of his redemption arc, or what.

    I wonder if there’s some ham-handed avoidance of “dubcon” on the grounds that it softens/mitigates the perception of rape to a general audience?

    1. I think the difference to me is that in the book I believe Cersei is objecting more to the location of the sex (they might come in, this is scandal, what if someone finds out,) than to the actual sex itself. Yes he’s overruling her objections physically and should not do so, but I don’t think she’d have complained if he pulled her out of the public area first. It’s still hugely controversial (she said no, not here,) but on the show it was absolutely rape. Period. Full stop.

      Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like the scene in the book either, it’s squicky in the extreme, but it’s absolutely not the same scene. On the other hand the entire relationship is squicky and it looks from the beginning that Cersei might have coerced Jaime when they were kids. It’s a hugely bad dynamic, fraught with power plays and other relationship garbage.

      But the show has clearly chosen to make absolute the rape scenes (Dany, Cersei, etc.) even though there was a distinct emotional difference to them in the book. And yeh to whoever it was that said Dany had a huge case of Stockholm Syndrome.

  5. After the initial public outcry I heard one of the directors excuse the rape by saying that she really wanted it, at least in the end. But that’s even worse than a rape scene in which she resists throughout — not better. If she goes from no to yes it can confuse things in young men’s minds, making real-life rape more likely. And making people more likely to blame victims. Both the scene and the director’s reaction are worrying.

    Plus, I was just starting to like Jamie better because of the humanity that seemed to develop in his relationship with Brienne. So I also find it worrying when someone who is admired and liked commits rape. Seems like this may make it easier to diminish the effects of rape, and leave some viewers siding with the rapist because deep down he is not such a bad guy, right? That’s scary.

  6. But my understanding — and I haven’t personally read A Song of Ice and Fire, so I’m only working with what I’ve heard — is that in the corresponding scene in the book, the sex was semi-consensual

    Then I guess it wasn’t rape-rape.

    I have no interest in anything relating to Game of Thrones ever since Sadie Doyle’s excellent takedown:

    http://tigerbeatdown.com/2011/08/26/enter-ye-myne-mystic-world-of-gayng-raype-what-the-r-stands-for-in-george-r-r-martin/

    That’s all I ever needed to know.

      1. I second this. I am not a big fantasy fan to begin with, but anything anyone ever tells me about this turns me off to ever watching it.

    1. Your call, but that source is miles from honest. That takedown is liberally seasoned with pretty overt lies, inventions, and omissions about things that happen. Not to say there aren’t reasons to critique the series, but this may as well be fanfiction. It’s a game of “hey, how much stuff could I make up or distort so I can shoehorn this show into what I want to talk about?”

    2. I’ve been studiously avoiding it for years. I heard from friends who watch it all manner of fantastical stories about how it must be somehow feminist, because a woman has baby dragons and also nudity without comment, but I’ve been working from the assumption that the nudity is just viewer bait without anything sex-positive or body positive behind it and this show will be no more feminist than the usual Hollywood rape culture action or horror flick where women in spandex suits get viciously attacked and so then they punch people.

      I’d rather be wrong, but evidence continues to support my hypothesis.

      1. That’s not why it’s feminist. It’s feminist because its aim is to make the reader confront and acknowledge the destructive and dehumanizing effects of a misogynist culture, rather than (as many fantasy novel series would) either gloss over them or tacitly endorse them.

        Anyway, here’s Alyssa Rosenberg’s rebuttal to Sady Doyle’s unfair article:

        http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2011/08/29/305723/feminist-media-criticism-george-r-r-martins-a-song-of-ice-and-fire-and-that-sady-doyle-piece/

        1. I think one thing that makes it feminist for me is just the sheer scale and complexity of the female cast, at least in the books.

          We have so many women characters – just the major ones who have had POV chapters, off the top of my head, include Cersei, Sansa, Arya, Catelyn, Dani and Brienne, and non-POV major players include Melissandre, Olenna, Margaery, Lysa, Asha, Osha, Meera, and that’s without me looking up to check the list, so I’m sure there’s more.

          All of the women I listed above have their own backstories, their own motivations (usually shown to be complex once we get a look at things from their POV, such as recent reveals in the books about the source of Cersei’s hatred of Tyrion and paranoia about her children). All of them have some combination of flaws and virtues, of strengths and weaknesses. And most of them have some form of personal character arc. They are all also very distinct characters with unique personalities, and I have to say on balance the female cast is less sexualised in the text than I recall from most fantasy I’ve read – no “female character looks at herself naked in front of a mirror” moments. Even Cersei’s [SPOILER] nude walk of shame is written from her POV, focusing on her emotions, her vulnerability, and of being someone experiencing that – I don’t recall us even getting a description of her nudity beyond the admittedly gross comments by hecklers.[/SPOILER]

          Showing women as being as complex, nuanced and flawed as the men in the book is itself an almost radical act, compared to how a lot of spec-fic literature has historically portrayed women. There is no female character in ASOIAF who can be said to be in any way showing What Women Are in that world. Because there are always two others who have opposite traits.

  7. I think there are two ways to read these two scenes.

    In the best possible reading: the directors and writers were trying to highlight that these interactions, even with the dubiously obtained consent, are still in fact rape. However they just handled it poorly and it ended up coming off as ‘rape for shock value’ instead. I think a better way to have done it is to play the scenes out like they were in the novels, but have a character comment upon the parts that make the interaction non-consensual of it. For instance, Jorah or someone could have said something like, “I’m glad she had a good time, but it’s not like she had much of a choice when it came to consummating the marriage. She was sold to be Drogo’s wife by her brother for an army and we all know how well either of those two men take the word ‘no’.” Or something like that, I am not a fiction writer.

    In one of the worst possible readings: the directors and writers either like punishing women for enjoying sex or think women’s sexuality are best used to shock and titillate.

  8. The more overt rape of Daenerys on the wedding night in the show was rather disappointing after reading the book chapter. Not that the scene in the book isn’t problematic, but most of her emotion at the end of the chapter came across to me as relief – we’re in her head for the whole wedding, and she’s got this mounting sense of dread about how absolutely horrible her wedding night is going to be when it’s time for them to have sex. But then Khal Drogo turns out to be surprisingly gentle (then).

    The show, however, made the scene as awful as Daenerys would be dreading it to be.

    As for the Jaime scene, the directors and showrunners don’t seem to be on the same page. I think Benioff straight-up said in a commentary somewhere that it was rape, but everyone else then has said it turned consensual. So either Graves really screwed up the execution on that one, or he went rogue a bit.

    When I first saw the scene, I thought it was just a very ham-handed way to remind us that Jaime’s not really a good person even if he’s gotten better, and to get Cersei emotionally screwed up so she’s more like the increasingly paranoid and alcoholic Cersei from A Feast for Crows. But now I don’t know.

    @tinfoil hattie

    I have no interest in anything relating to Game of Thrones ever since Sadie Doyle’s excellent takedown:

    I’m sorry to hear that. Saying I have a very strong disagreement over her interpretation of the characters and themes in that post would be putting it mildly. They’re not going to be for everyone, but I think it’s worth reading at least the first book to try it out – and I’d recommend you read it with Steve Atewell’s commentary over at Race to the Iron Throne if you want some interesting context to go with it.

    1. Hey! Glad you like the site.

      So…yeah, this scene was terrible. I talk about this quite a bit in the podcast and should have a piece coming out on Sunday on Esquire.com about it, but it seems like a massive botch on the parts of the director and the showrunner/writers in ways that point to both sloppy craftsmanship and real problems with their understanding of consent.

      As for the Sadie Doyle piece – look, there are plenty of good critiques that can be made of George R.R Martin’s work on gender and race. But this isn’t one of them, and the consistency of 180-degrees-off characterization of Martin’s writing really calls into question the extent to which Doyle actually paid attention to the text or engaged with it in good faith.

  9. I have no clue, other than hbo has the same ” rape made sexy” mentality as just about every other hollywood company has. This scene was way off from the books , and that’s the only explanation that makes sense. Rough sex is conflated with rape, and is sexified for tv. Because only men could be interested in this type of sci fi, and only men are important enough to cater to and entertain.

  10. Ok nerds… if you’re here as a Game of Thrones fan whose feelings are a little hurt because people don’t like your toys, this post is for you.

    a) you have to realize that the popular reaction to the show is TO THE SHOW. Since the characters are fictional and the things didn’t really happen, for people who saw this scene (or even just heard about it), the emotional impact is the same whether or not it’s true to the book. (How could you be impacted if you didn’t see it or read it? This show’s getting a ton of press – imagine if you’re a victim of sexual assault who hears that the hot new TV show features a scene of brother on sister rape? What do you think that feels like… and do you think that person’s going to go do research on the internet to find out why it “wasn’t really that bad?”)

    b) attempts to EXPLAIN why the show got it wrong and “it’s not that bad” in the books, or comments of “you really should give it a chance” won’t work at best, and are compounding the injury at their worst. Because what you’re really saying is that the feelings of the person lodging the complaint about the entertainment in question are less important that whatever value you are getting out of it… and if that person could just shelve their feelings and choose to see it like you, then they’d have a better time. (Even if you don’t agree that defending entertainment from a privileged position that a member of an oppressed group has identified as problematic, can you at least see how that person could see it that way?)

    My point is just that if you hear a complaint about Game of Thrones, don’t give in to the knee jerk response to defend it. You’re not doing anyone any favors. What’s the outcome if the person actually agrees with you anyway? That a TV show with a huge budget based on an IP owned by an incredibly wealthy and successful man gets one more fan? That your conscience will be allowed to remain clear regarding your choice of entertainment media? A pretty basic cost/benefit analysis shows you that the conversation’s not worth it, even if you still think you’re right.

    As a much more secondary point, SUPPOSE that even with all its issues, there are some cool things about A Song of Ice and Fire… that there are some interesting plot elements, that there are some good characters, and that there is some reasonably deep worldbuilding SOME parts of which are not inherently offensive. And suppose that the show Game of Thrones has some talented actors and some cool cinematography. So what’s a well-meaning nerd to do? Does feminism mean we can’t have anything fun?

    Many have pointed out that there does exist some quality fantasy writing, that’s not as problematic as Game of Thrones, that we could be reading instead. (Any lists of such media we can link to here?)

    Perhaps more controversially, Anita Sarkeesian says at the beginning of each one of her “tropes vs. women in video games” series that (and I paraphrase) just because a piece of entertainment is problematic doesn’t mean that it doesn’t contain any value at all apart from its problems, and it doesn’t necessarily make you a bad person to consume that media, as long as you don’t ignore or try to justify those problematic parts, and that pointing them out and criticizing them only serves to strengthen the medium/genre in question and help bring us all better, richer stories… but I’ll leave it to others to say what we SHOULD be doing (and whether they think I got any of that wrong) and for my part just stick to exhorting fellow nerds: don’t fall into the trap of defending George R. R. Martin. He really doesn’t need anybody’s help. If somebody doesn’t like your toys, LISTEN to what that person is telling you and at the very least don’t insist on talking about it in front of them.

    1. The show got it so wrong that it’s crazy. What the show did was screw up what was in the book certainly. But interacting with the show only (or even with the show + book), which can make it far worse, as let’s face it if you were expecting “No, not here,” and got “NO, NO, NO, NO.” That’s possibly even worse. It’s a terrible scene, the Dany scene was an awful scene, and it’s wrong and squicky and triggering and awful. Now that I think of it though it might even be worse if you do read the books. This just really cripples your expectations of how they have made it to TV. Ick.

  11. George R R Martin has created some of my favorite female characters in a book series. I love that his females are complicated, they’re not flat, faceless creatures. I love the power struggle in the novels between Cersei and Margaery, I love how much I hated Catelyn Stark and just wished she’d stop being such a mom. I like reading Arya’s story arc and seeing Daenerys grow up. There are huge race/gender problems in novels. There are horrible things that happen to all the characters but for the most part in the novels there’s a point to the horror.

    My least favorite part of the HBO series is how they’ve flattened all the female characters. They replaced Catelyn with Robb as a main character, they whitewashed over Sansa’s struggle to survive surrounded by people who want her dead. The one surprisingly good female character they added was Ros and then they turned around and destroyed her. In this episode there was so many terrible things happening, things that if HBO wanted to gut punch us they could have played up. Terrible things that while terrible had a plot point. Jaime raping Cersei was terrible, there was no reason for it other than HBO being HBO. It was out of character for both characters and unless HBO is completely jumping the shark with Jaime’s story line it won’t fit with anything. It was rape for rape’s sake. They’ve already gutted and sexed up characters that needed neither things. They took a story, that while problematic at points was, in my opinion, good and took most of what was good and replaced it with tits.

    Another super aggravating thing about this episode was George RR Martin’s response. He basically hand waved all the criticism away because the show creators did it and had a different timeline in their story.

  12. Honestly, there’s so much rape in GoT that I’m pretty much inured to it by now. What bothered me most about the scene (and about the show and books in general) was the underlying sentiment that Cersei must be punished. She’s consistently presented as a corrupting influence on Jaime (who, it’s suggested, would otherwise be good and noble). Ask a fan why Jaime pushed Bran out the window, and they’ll always say it was *because he loved Cersei* not because *he* didn’t want to get caught. His more despicable actions (defenestrating Bran, trying to kill Ned) always involve covering up for him and Cersei while his nobler actions happen when she’s far away. His dialogue in That Scene implies that he’s internalized that framework, and it’s creepy and wrong.

    But, it’s not just Jaime. Within the narrative, it’s frequently implied that Cersei is to blame for Joffrey’s sadism. She must have done something wrong–in having a child through incest, in being too overprotective, in constantly taking his side and covering up his sins. Thus, we get scenes like the one that immediately preceded That Scene–where her father takes Tommen away from her. Her silence throughout that scene is agonizing. GoT is full of characters who are either Good and constantly being shat on by the world or Evil and forever getting away with it, but Cersei always comes across as a character being karmicly punished for every transgression. It’s as if we’re supposed to root for her to suffer, and I’m not okay with that.

    I never really bought the Noble Jaime story lines because they require you to absolve him of responsibility for the things he’s done by laying the blame on Cersei instead. The scene was poorly thought out and poorly executed, but the place it comes from bothers me even more.

    1. Honestly, there’s so much rape in GoT that I’m pretty much inured to it by now.

      How awesome for you! Inured to rape!

      1. How awesome for you! Inured to rape!

        Inured to the fictional representations of rape featured on a specific show. Don’t be an asshole.

  13. And a quick note Re: Dany and Drogo. It’s not really fair to say that she only fell in love with her rapist *in the show.* Even if you can accept their wedding night as consensual, the marital rape that occurs on subsequent nights is consistent between the book and the show.

    (Major trigger warning)

    The show portrays this with a graphic scene where she’s staring at her dragon eggs while being raped with tears rolling down her face. The book is even more explicit, telling readers that it happened every night, that he was rough with her, that she wondered if she was going to die from pain and exhaustion. Like some others, I would sooner have that first scene be explicitly non-con. Otherwise, it’s as though we’re expected to give Drogo points for waiting one night to rape a frightened girl and just . . . no. Drogo gets no points. If anything, it’s *worse* that he proves he knows what consent is and how to get it but then just chooses to disregard it on subsequent nights.

  14. I hate this show. And the book(s). I feel like yelling “I TOLD YOU SO!!” at the top of my lungs at everyone around me who are just now saying “Gee, maybe this is kinda gross!”

    Rewind a few years, I’m getting a degree in medieval history, and everyone loves GoT.

    Tried to read the first book. They feel like the worst fakey-medieval fanboy crap plus a hefty side of prurient underage boobs, the battle geekery medieval fantasy and enough lurid descriptions to be a cheesy period romance novel. The entire thing could be illustrated with overdrawn fantasy-blacklight posters and wolf-howling-moon tshirt images. People in my classes talked about it a lot, and one of the worst dates I’ve ever been on was a dude trying to convince me to give it another shot. It ended up being the most circular conversation I’ve ever had:

    Him: “Just give it another 5K pages! It’s so gritty and realistic! Blah blah based on War of the Roses! Because Lannister sounds like Lancaster and the Wars of the Roses involved gratuitous violence against civilians!”

    [ED. NOTE: The WoR’s probably did not involve mass civilian deaths! There’s not really any mention of village destruction or any of that, although contemporary chroniclers did note how good they were at decimating their own noble numbers.]

    Me: “Sorry, but werewolves. And zombies. So not realistic. But even besides that, I think there’s something really conservative about modern people creating this bizarre world with these really troubling dynamics all over the place. Like, you want to fantasize the Middle Ages, so you’re gonna toss out all the religion but keep the institutionalized pedophilia? Sorry, that’s weird.”

    Him: “God, don’t read so deeply into it! It’s just fantasy!”

    Me: “That’s my point.”

    Him: “But it’s so realistic!”

    And around, and around. He could not possibly imagine that what was harmless escapism for his medievalist tendencies was nauseating to mine.

    George RR Martin is a weird fucking dude and I wish he’d move his masturbatory historical fantasies to someone else’s time period. He’d fit in quite nicely with the scary Roman Empire fanboys.

    1. There’s religion all over the place in those books. I can’t go into detail without spoiling it for people, but a major religion in their world is on the rise and turning into the Inquisition.

    2. I don’t think it’s overly pedantic of me to suggest that if you’re going to critique a series, being able to accurately state whether there are werewolves in it or not is a good first step.

      hint: there aren’t.

      Not that this undoes everything you said, but I’m not sure how seriously anyone would be obligated to take a critique of the hobbit that complained about all the vampires.

      1. oh, I’m so sorry, obviously it’s direwolves. Clearly, since I mixed up two mythical creatures I don’t know my way around literary criticism.

        Seriously, if that was the only thing about my comment that you want to engage, thanks for playing.

        [hint: it was fucking pedantic.]

        1. “not that this undoes everything you said…but I’m definitely going to take it as a reason to not listen to anything else you said!”

          Do you guys even hear yourselves sometimes?

        2. The rest is basically a long winded way of saying “I have very strong beliefs about a piece of writing I haven’t read.” There isn’t much of a conversation there, regardless of whether the person saying it shoehorns in an appeal to authority by mentioning they went to school for medieval literature.

          There are lots of things I haven’t read, or only read a little bit of, and stopped because they weren’t my cup of tea. And I don’t pretend to have fully informed opinions about those besides “not for me, thanks.”

        3. I dunno, you mixed up my degree in history for one in literature, so I’m no longer interested in any of the valid things you may have said!

        4. So what’s your take on The God of Light, The Old Gods of the Forest, The Faith of the Seven, The Great Stallion, The Drowned God, The God of Death, and The Great Shepherd and how they represent the differing religions within Westeros and Essos? 2 of them, IMO, represent Christianity while the others are pagan. Though one could be Islamic, but there’s enough of a mishmash that they aren’t really mirrors of real life religions. The Faith of the Seven now seem to be occupying the position of morality police with Cersei and Margaery, specifically, and charges of sexual promiscuity and abortion.

  15. I actually wrote a piece about this for HBOWatch, because all the articles talking about how the scene in the book was consensual, but they were “horrified” by the rape in the show, was really alarming to me. Rape between partners can be more nuanced than stranger rapes — so for Cersei to “give in” in the book doesn’t in any way negate the fact that Jaime was going to have her whether or not she ultimately started participating. I broke down the text, compared it to the book, and explained that thought process a lot more here: http://hbowatch.com/rape-in-the-great-sept-of-baelor-an-analysis/

  16. If all the rape is meant to make things so gritty and realistic, why is there no rape — none at all — in a prisonesque closed environment of all-male sex offenders prohibited from having sex with women, ones who haze new recruits no less. Really? Castle Black has never had a single sexual assault? I guess it’s not as tempting to write/show those scenes when men are the victims.

    1. Out of curiosity — although I’m not suggesting that prison rape has anything to do with being gay — are there any gay men in that universe (or men who have sex with men, if one insists on calling the use of “gay” in that context an anachronism)? (I’m not asking about lesbians, because it never surprises me when a world imagined by straight men contains lesbians, or at least those straight men’s idea of lesbians!)

      I have always loved historical fiction, including fiction set in medieval Europe (especially when it actually acknowledges the presence of Jews!), but the fantasy versions — other than Arthurian and similar legends which themselves originate in the “real” medieval world, and other than Tolkien, which I fell in love with in childhood (although I now find it virtually unreadable, other than The Hobbit) — usually just succeed in annoying me. Medieval European trappings seem rather empty to me when they are devoid of the Christian world-view that lay at the core of that world — and are also devoid of the “other,” both within (the Jews) and without (the Muslim world).

      In case it isn’t clear, I’ve never read or watched “Game of Thrones,” and never had any intention of doing so even before I heard about all the rape.

      1. And yes Donna, there are gay characters as well as bi sexual characters. King Renly was gay, his lover was a respected Knight. The Prince of Dorn is bi sexual ( I forget his name offhand). Renlys sexuality was a badly kept secret, while the Prince of Dorn doesn’t give one rats ass what people think and isnt looked down upon by his people. He’s a dangerous man, but not a villian.

        1. Yeah, I was just thinking, Varys’s past is very suggestive of this too. But the rape of women is just so overwhelming, and if it’s about denying the reader a romanticised view of the past, then why allow the Night’s Watch to remain this ridiculous bros-for-bros fantasy? It emphasises so many times that like half to a majority membership is of “rapers”… it’s absurd to think the institution wouldn’t be rife with sexual assault, it’s the perfect recipe for horrific male on male violence.

          DonnaL: No Jews in Game of Thrones 🙁 Just pagans, Catholics, and weird cariactures of I think Muslims (anti-idolatry “freaky” religion from “the East”…)

        2. There is male on male violence in the watch, when the ones who mutiny have a go at everyone. But thats killing and torturing, since they have that guys daughters there for sexual violence. I think theres less issues within the watch because just about every rule breaking results in beheading. By men who are seasoned fighters, and those from ” better” families are the only ones who get promoted up.

        3. Plus they emotionally torture Sam, and when caught its made pretty clear that if Sam died, his bullies would follow. I think the very real consequence of death is used as a deterrent( in Martins mind it works while in reality it usually doesn’t) because there is no prison, there is no escape for those who break the big rules. Fuck up and you die. Thats it. So Martin, at least, seems to believe this is effective. He falls into that trap of – capital punishment by just men is always just and capital punishment by evil men is murder. Which isn’t true, but a lot of people do think this way and Martin appears to be one of them.

    2. Theon and the 2 women who set him up before he had his peen cut off,that whole scene was sexual assault and sexual violence.

    3. Yonah – that’s a really interesting point and one that hadn’t occurred to me. Thanks for bringing it up.

    4. But they all go to Mole’s town and buy a prostitute!! /sarcasm

      Point taken!

      Yeah, there’s like one instance of male on male rape in all 5 books. *rolls eyes*

    5. Castle Black has a more-or-less dedicated brothel in mole town, as Athenia points out. Not that, realistically speaking, that would mean there was no male on male rape in the watch, but it does make it distinct from a prison. Our entire view of the watch is largely shaped by the experiences of one guy who has several layers of status-based protection (Tyrion’s intercession, being close to the lord commander, many of his likely assailants being afraid of him). There is nothing cannon saying that it doesn’t happen, or even suggesting that.

      Snow sees the watch as this romantic fantasy order. In reality, it’s basically just a gulag where the trash of the kingdom (and the odd deluded teenage bastard or disgraced lord) go to freeze to death out of everyone’s sight. Hence frequent snark about “the brave men of the night’s watch.” The threat they’re supposed to be guarding against is basically mythical, so they mostly just kill the ethnic minority on the other side of the wall.

      There are a few instances of male-on-male rape in the later books. The storyline involving the maester trapped on a ship with the Iron Islanders comes to mind. Of course there’s everything that happens to Theon. There’s also Cerci raping Lancel and sexually abusing Tyrion as a baby (according to the Red Viper, anyway).

  17. For me, I’m surprised (not surprised?) how so many feminists are upset that this scene “ruins” Jaime’s “redemption” arc. It “ruins” his love for Brienne.

    I feel like this is all that HS crap all over again.

    Jaime is not a nice dude in the books. While you thought you were watching a cute buddy road comedy, all book Jaime wanted to do was to go home and bang Cersei and when she said no, he threw a tantrum.

    And when he could no longer bang Cersei’s evil snatch, he decided to become “good” cuz Cersei’s snatch made him do bad, bad things. People say the TV show is misogynistic, but I dunno, the whole concept of blaming sexy women for the bad things dudes do is pretty misogynistic. I wouldn’t look to the book as some holy feminist bible.

    1. I agree. There are a few really well written female characters. But that doesn’t make it feminist, it just means Martin can write complicated female characters as well as complicated male characters. Jaime isn’t a good person, but he’s also not bad 100% of the time. The Hound isn’t a good guy, but he also has moments where he does the right thing. Ned Stark was a generally good guy, but he beheads a young man for running away from the Watch. The kid just saw zombies slaughter a bunch of people, running away was pretty reasonable when you’re suddenly confronted with evil supernatural shit. Cersei is an awful, vindictive woman. But she was also raised by an emotionally abusive father who used her to increase his position, her husband raped her frequently and she’s responded to this hard world by being hard too, just like the men in her life. She isn’t allowed to pick up a sword and settle things, so she utilizes the tools at her disposal as a woman. Littlefinger is disgusting and horrible, but even he had a moment or 2 of being decent. So far, I can only think of a handful of characters that are only 100% good or 100% bad. Everyone else operates in shades of grey depending on the situation at hand. So I don’t understand the disappointment over Jaime. Or the idea that managing to write human beings automatically equals feminist.

      1. Totally. Peopl seem to forget that Cersei started to bang Jaime not out of love, but out of survival because getting knocked up was her only way to ensure her and her family’s power. People like to talk about how GoT is so historical–have they forgotten about what happened to Anne Boelyn?

  18. I am totally lost as to what the problem is here. There are several competing (and contradictory) theories. None of them work.

    1. The showrunners did not follow the books to the letter. This should not be a problem for people who are not fans of the books. And it is such a general complaint amongst all shows/movies, that it can’t even be taken seriously anymore. The Lord of the Rings is totally different in the books. That’s ok. It is a different piece of art.

    2. The show is generally too violent and “rapey.” There are gruesome depeictions of torture, murder, mass laughter, forced prostitution, rape, and attempted rape. But given the number of rapes and attempted rapes (Dany, the prostitutes who have to deal with Joffrey, Dothraki captives), why is this one different? The show has been violent and rapey for four seasons. Men fair no better than women, as men are often separated from their heads (and other parts, just ask Theon).

    3. It’s not “historically accurate.” As to the hsitorically accurate argument, umm, there are flying dragons and invincible people with blue eyes rising from the dead. A claimant to the throne is stabbed by a shadow born by a red priestess and the claimant’s brother. The pregnancy took 12 hours. There are historical references to medeival and even Roman history (much like Star Trek), but no one has ever claimed it was meant to be historically accurate.

    And I am not sure it isn’t historically accurate. Given the violent/dark era that is represents and the astonishing numbers of female characters (a Simpson’s like universe here), I am surprised there are not more traditional rape scenes. The sheer number of woman around men who lack morals indicates the number we have seen should be higher.

    4. It is not necessary to the story. Clearly, some level non-consent was called for by the books. But, who knows what is “necessary” to advance where the show is going other than the showrunners. Maybe they need to change the course of Cersei and Jaime’s characters. I don’t know where they are going. But it is way to early to judge.

    To the people criticizing this scene, I have to ask, is it ever acceptable to put a rape scene on television? Because it makes a lot of sense to me where it is.

    1. The problem is that after starting the show as a villain… Right now Jaime is/was looking for redemption. We were supposed to root for him now.

      The characters aren’t 100% good guy/girl, 100% bad. Jaime is supposed to be mostly good now, according to the books.

      As a fan of the book, it would bother me to see a change in the character but that’s not why I believe most people are making a fuss. It’s because the show writers/directors/producers don’t seem to realize the tremendous change they made. So, it seems to me, they may still portray him as nice guy. Nice guy rapist, what a message it would send.

      1. [Minor spoilers for episode 4]

        The latest ep make this particularly egregious, since the basic Jaime/Cersei plotline in the episode is contrasting Jaime’s moralness against Cersei’s vengefulness. It’s some serious moral whiplash.

        The use of rape in the mutineers scene towards the end is also horrible. Like, director person, we have just seen a character drinking out of the skull of the person he betrayed and murdered, it is already extremely obvious how evil he is meant to be, you don’t need to add in background rape to underscore it even further.

    2. An author can absolutely include a depiction of rape in a novel. Such depictions can and do criticize rape culture or cultivate empathy (and there by undermine rape culture). They can also just be bad shit that happens in life.

      What they shouldn’t do is eroticize or normalize rape. What they shouldn’t do is support rape culture (victims are either sluts who deserve it because they’re evil or innocent children who are just so darn tempting). What they shouldn’t do is only view women through the lens of sexual and physical violence perpetrated by men.

    3. And I am not sure it isn’t historically accurate. Given the violent/dark era that is represents and the astonishing numbers of female characters (a Simpson’s like universe here), I am surprised there are not more traditional rape scenes.

      Hi. I work on the Middle Ages. In fact, I work on Anglo Saxon England and Iceland /Scandinavia (read: Vikings), the most stereotypically brutally brutal Dark Ages stuff there is.

      No, Game of Thrones and its depiction of rape and violence are not remotely “historically accurate,” at least as I understand it. For some reason, people have this idea that the Dark Ages was all about running around and constantly raping and killing everyone. Not really.

      1. I have since moved on to other areas, but I did study pre-renaissance continental Europe (really what is now Germany, Italy, and France) governmental structures.

        When looking at the roles of women in those societies, a few things became clear to me:

        1. They were thought of as chattel or possessions of men (particularly in lower classes). At common law and tradition, it was impossible for a man to rape his wife. The reason? He owned her. If you don’t see that in the Dothaki scenes, you are missing something. Even Jaime clearly thinks of Cersei as his wife, genetics aside.

        2. There was no reporting violence against women. This was not something a local church or crown official would concern himself with. Even if she did, the “trial” system could be ummm, bizarre to say the least. A man accused of rape could demand a trial by combat. If he won against the women’s champion, the woman was burned at the stake as a perjurer. Read The Last Duel for an awesome “true crime” version of this.

        3. Women were keenly aware of the restrictions on their freedom that resulted from their situation. They rarely ventured out alone. Highwaymen were a real threat.

        4. The prevailing religion of the area had a huge influence on domestic relations. If your particular bishop believed that the wife must be subject to the husband, any complaints would fall on deaf ears.

        But I stand by my first point on “historical accuracy.” There are flying dragons and people who can “see” as animals.

        1. Game of Thrones is supposed to be based on the Wars of the Roses, which took place in England, not Continental Europe, and the economic and social position of women was not the same.

        2. I have to agree with Miranda on this point. Undoubtedly women were treated badly, but it’s misleading to overstate the brutality as if women had no recourse at all.

          1. It is true that women tended to have less rights in many places in Europe during the medieval period. They couldn’t prosecute their husbands for rape. However, you’re too absolute about them being chattel, downplaying the legal powers that women did have. In late medieval England (as good an analogue as any) women as well as men could sue to enforce or dissolve a marriage contract. Spoken consent and witnesses were necessary to uphold a marriage contract. Before the fifteenth century, women had access to membership in many guilds, and many women (especially religious ones) had access to avenues for authorship. Women had more power than you let on, though they were not treated equally.

          2. There were clear laws against ravishment (raptus – think rape and/or abduction) that treated the woman’s demonstrated nonconsent as central evidence. Most trials were not settled by combat. In England after the Norman Conquest (when trial by combat was introduced) women were among the plaintiffs that could reject a trial by combat for a trial by jury. That some still chose trial by combat shows it to be an option that some women still desired, one they must have believed to be part of their justice system, as strange as it is to us.

          3. Men rarely ventured out alone either. People traveled in groups or (if an aristocrat or a wealthy merchant) with an armed guard. Women’s movements were somewhat hindered by the need of protection, it is true, but they also had vocal lives within communities. They were part of many guilds, and regularly employed in many kinds of work, including brewing beer.

          4. That depends on the time and the place, i.e. was it a time where clerical law had a lot of reach? In England, what you’re alleging would have been correct from about the 12th to the 15th century, but not before and after. Even then, access to other options was possible. More generally, it is a point of possible juridical favoritism, which could enable making women unequal.

          Medieval society was not a friendly place to live. At the same time, I worry that both Martin and yourself unnecessarily stigmatize medieval society by making it appear that women had no options at all, by flattening its many ingenious solutions and unexpected freedoms for women into one brutal thousand years. Women were often hurt, but particular cases like that depicted in The Last Duel only tell part of the story. Just as we shouldn’t take the agency away from groups whose rights we support, we do a disservice by taking all agency away from medieval women.

        3. Not that I doubt either of you, but I’d like to see some links to support these arguments. I’ve always been curious about myths versus facts about medieval times, and claims about the medieval era diverge all over the damn place.

        4. Just a point- GoT isn’t based on War of The Roses. There’s some inspiration, but it’s not based on it. The Red Wedding, for example, was inspired by the Black Dinner which pre dated War of The Roses. There’s also some Romance of The Three Kingdoms in there. Also- women today have recourse after rape too. On paper. Fat lot of good it does in reality.

        5. Men rarely ventured out alone either. People traveled in groups or (if an aristocrat or a wealthy merchant) with an armed guard.

          Exactly. Women who had the financial means — and men who weren’t armed to the teeth — traveled all the time, albeit in groups and/or with hired guards. Think pilgrimages. Think inns. Think the Canterbury Tales. Think the Wife of Bath. And the same was true in much of continental Europe as well.

          One problem I see with John’s argument that there shouldn’t be a concern with historical accuracy because “[t]here are flying dragons and people who can ‘see” as animals,” is that it proves too much: if historical accuracy can be sacrificed for the purpose of allowing dragons, then — even if John were correct that medieval Europe were all about running around and constantly raping and killing everyone, and women had no recourse against abusive husbands — why couldn’t that aspect of historical accuracy be sacrificed as well, in favor of a medieval world where domestic violence was condemned by the powers-that-be, and women had the right of divorce? >

        6. Echo Zen:

          That’s fair. There are lots of good works on how rape was thought about in the medieval period. For instance, Catherine Batt wrote one called “Malory and Rape” that compared legal definitions of rape with rape in the late medieval romance Le Morte Darthur. More recently, Caroline Dunn came out with an amazing book – Stolen Women in Medieval England – which can be previewed in Google Books. Her approach is especially good, because she recognizes the many complications of prosecuting rape, adultery, and abduction (which were often combined in law of the time), while also respecting how women gained agency in the more repressive avenues of those legal systems.

          Women working in guilds is pretty general knowledge. They didn’t have full participation in all guilds, and those rights gradually eroded, but they were a presence, as Wikipedia and the encyclopedia Women and Gender in Medieval Europe acknowledge.. Women especially participated in brewing – lots of work has been done, with one early piece by Judith M. Bennett called “The Village Ale-Wife: Women and Brewing in Fourteenth Century England.” ( http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~judithb/documents/JMBvillagealewife.pdf ). As Bennett argues, the brewing work was well-suited for women because it could adjust easily to the needs of childcare and the community.

          As for the legal history point, that’s more general, but the book A Constitutional and Legal History of Medieval England by Bryce Lyon is a fair overview of the point I made about the shifting relations between church and secular law.

          More generally, here are a few places I go to first when I see someone make a questionable claim that I want to think about:
          Luminarium – http://www.luminarium.org/medlit/medresource.htm – Old but good resource – go down to Medieval Women especially.
          Feminae – http://inpress.lib.uiowa.edu/feminae/Default.aspx – bibliography of articles on medieval women. If I want to find a particular article, I usually go here.
          Internet Medieval Sourcebook – http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook1v.asp – collection of good internet sources on women. Lots of primary sources.

          I post all this because, like the material of any period, any one simplistic message about the medieval period (women were brutally kept submissive; women were empowered by rules of courtly love) will be contradicted by something else. I dislike our own period’s tendency to bracket off earlier periods as somehow simpler or simply brutal, which gets rid of all the interesting wrinkles and means by which women helped themselves. The appeal to medieval injustices tends to exoticize practices that are postmedieval as well – the idea that a husband can’t commit rape with a wife continued legally in the US until the 20th century, and is still upheld today in some places. A medieval king, priest, knight, or master could be very brutal, but not all were, and medieval people don’t have a monopoly on the behaviors characterized as injustice.

          That incidentally influences what I think about A Song of Ice and Fire. I think any critical response cannot simply absolve the sexual violence depicted by saying that it’s trying to represent medieval culture. Besides being inaccurate about medieval culture, that response denies the forms of sexual violence that are part of our cultures. We medievalize it, but we still own it. I think it’s better to read the books and watch the show being critically engaged with what it’s showing us and what it implies about both its fictional society and our own.

        7. [Part 2]

          Why do domestic violence and rape have to be made so prevalent as to be effectively fetishized?

          Is the idea I suggest of presenting a medieval world where domestic violence was condemned by the powers-that-be, and women had the right of divorce, so ludicrous as to be impossible? More ludicrous than dragons? I don’t think so. Besides — and maybe it was only possible because of their minority, outsider status — that was exactly the case in Ashkenaz (that is, for Jews in medieval France and Germany) in the 12th and 13th centuries, and for Jews in Egypt somewhat earlier, as revealed in the thousands of ketubas and court records found in the Cairo Genizah. (The situation varied in Sepharad and other parts of the medieval Jewish world, depending on the time period.)

          With respect to Ashkenaz, as my own direct ancestor, R. Meir b. Baruch of Rothenburg (Maharam, c.1215–1293) wrote, and as followed in other responsa concerning actual cases:

          “A Jew must honor his wife more than he honors himself. If one strikes one’s wife, one should be punished more severely than for striking another person. For one is enjoined to honor one’s wife but is not enjoined to honor the other person. … If he persists in striking her, he should be excommunicated, lashed, and suffer the severest punishments, even to the extent of amputating his arm. If his wife is willing to accept a divorce, he must divorce her and pay her the ketubbah” (Even ha-Ezer #297). He says that a woman who is hit by her husband is entitled to an immediate divorce and to receive the money owed her in her marriage settlement.

          [From the Jewish Women’s Encyclopedia.) How well this decree worked in practice, nobody knows (although, as I said, there are actual examples where men were punished and/or women were able to get divorces for domestic violence.) I don’t think amputation was actually applied — after all, despite all the capital punishment decrees in Leviticus, I’m not ware of any evidence that capital punishment was ever actually applied in any real case, even when the Jewish community in a particular country had the power to impose it, at least as far back as the Talmudic period.

          I only mention all this to suggest that a medieval world where women had no rights or recourse (even in theory) is not the only possible medieval world that can be imagined.

        8. Oh look, a dude who does not specialize in my area and is not a Medievalist feels the need to explain my field to me. Thanks, bro. Don’t know how my research could have progressed without you.

          As others have pointed out, your understanding of the legal and lived experiences of women in the Medieval West (whatever _THAT_ means) in cartoonish and shallow. I was just reading an article the other week that was looking at the court records of domestic violence trials in Medieval France and Germany–something you claim couldn’t have happened at all, since apparently a woman couldn’t even “report” domestic violence!!

          Yawn. Another day, another mansplainer.

        9. I’ve always been curious about myths versus facts about medieval times, and claims about the medieval era diverge all over the damn place.

          If you can get to a subscription article database or an academic library, just look there. I wouldn’t trust popular-interest articles/books on Medieval Europe, because there’s such a high incentive for non-specialists to write about it and start bullshitting.

          I would also caution that the Medieval Period was not a homogenous, stagnant one. The status of women was dynamic across time and very much tied into conflicts within the Church, between church and secular authorities, and other social factors. Furthermore, you will find immense geographical variation as well. The situation of women in Saga Age Iceland was certainly not the same situation as that of noblewoman in late Medieval Italy, which was certainly not the same as the situation for peasant women in post-Conquest England. Asking questions like, “What was the situation of women in Medieval Europe?” will get you nothing but gross generalities. The topic is so controversial and convoluted that it is best to pick a time and place and dig that way. (It’s controversial and convoluted not necessarily because it involves women, but just because all research into Medieval history, literature, law etc. is a fucking shitshow.)

          What I _can_ promise you is that John’s picture is a caricature, no matter which way you look at it. Women were not slaves (well, women weren’t slaves because they were women, though there were female slaves), and although I have no doubt the DV rate was high, it wasn’t like you could go around raping and beating, even your wife, with total impunity. This is Medieval Europe, remember? There are huge swathes of societies that are still solving a lot of problems not through the in-place legal systems but by getting their relatives to go beat their enemies up…

    4. John, take a look at this classic essay from Tansy Rayner Roberts (fantasy author with a PhD in Classics) – Historically Authentic Sexism in Fantasy. Let’s Unpack That.

      Just because women’s history wasn’t written down by male historians doesn’t mean that women weren’t participating at every level of every society throughout history even when the laws and customs were stacked against public recognition for their participation – women will have always had opinions about the constraints placed upon them by their cultures and discreet ways to influence the decisions made by the titular authorities in those cultures.

      There is also the pragmatics of the ruling class with respect to building and maintaining one’s nation over generations; a functional breeding population of each social rank – nobles, merchants/artisans and peasants – is essential to keep the ranks of the armies (soldiers and officers both) replenished, the rivers of commerce running to generate tax revenue in order to supply the armies, and the farmers secure and prosperous enough to keep the nation (and the armies) fed. Without a background level of safety for women and children of all ranks enforced by the king’s law, there will not be enough new soldiers or merchants or artisans or farmers to carry on these essential social functions, and there would soon be no nation for the king’s heirs to inherit. There is plenty of historical evidence that the mediaeval and Renaissance rulers all understood this extremely well.

  19. The books and the show have problematic elements? The whole series is about displaying the most vicious and debauched human behaviors justified as honor and glory and people are only cluing in now? How much violence and perversion do you have to watch to not feel sick fives minutes into the show?

    There are other shows (like criminal minds) where again, people are interesting but the torture and violence is so extreme I won’t watch it.

    Let’s face it people, most folks are watching the show for its tits and torture, not for the interesting women characters.

    1. Yup. People should try taking a break from all violent media, including news, for a week or even a month and then jump full-tilt into the normal level of violence-is-fun media. It’s called desensitization.

    2. Wait, haven’t you heard? Pop culture is, like, totally as valid as anything else people might immerse themselves in. Your average American is totally doing it right. To suggest otherwise would be horribly classist and elitist.

      1. I like a lot of pop culture. And I hate a lot of it. Just like every other kind of culture. What’s so uniquely awful about pop culture?

  20. Do you think the director really did see the Jaime/Cersei scene as consensual?

    The director is trying to reclassify a controversial scene consensual-ish (that’s the real damage here not the show itself) – he knows full well it was not, he should have just stated it for what it clearly was.

    Or did he, and those higher up than he, just think a rape scene would make the story more exciting, more poignant, more entertaining, more titillating to viewers?

    I think they are portraying everyone resident on Westeross as exceptionally evil in one way or another. Adding one more rape scene to a story full of rape, baby murder, child killing, wanton stabbing/slicing/gutting of everyone, cannibalism (why waste all the bodies piling up), human trafficking etc. does not make anything more titillating. We are supposed to be disgusted by the conduct of all the people there – humans in their most monstrous form. The worse they act the more we should hate them all.

    Can anyone guess why it was so important that Danaerys be raped on her wedding night? Or is this just yet another verse of, “Hey, you know what we should do to this character? Rape!“

    Consummated arranged marriages of child brides are already rape. Adding a physical force element may have been done so no one would think they were advocating for “consensual” sex between a 13 year old and an adult, i.e. child abuse. They don’t have the time and space to address a subject like that (just showing the sex scene w/o the effects and aftermath on a manipulated 13 year old wouldn’t cut it, nor could you put that on even HBO in a fantasy series of all places). So they made her a marriage aged adult by Westeross terms (and ancient Earth terms) – not a good solution – they should have just gone with 18 and tossed the whole child marriage issue.

    If I had to cheer for a group in this series it would be the zombie army & dragons coming to finish off those miserable characters. A lot of the criticism is coming from readers of the books who apparently found something redeeming in these characters and are upset about how the series remakes them as even worse humans. The book character is not the same as the series one. The series characters deserve to become zombie fodder.

    1. This. Never have I watched a show where i heartily wished every character dead, even the currently “nice” ones. The way the show goes, it”s a given that the somewhat nice people will turn around and do something completely vicious the moment a good opportunity to advance in power or get vengance comes up.

      There’s also a large helping of the “earlier societies were so savage and we are so past all that”, theme throughout.

  21. I think those who have simply avoided the books & show likely made the right call.

    For one thing, no matter how much Martin claims otherwise, I can’t shake the impression that he rather likes the violence and depravity he writes about. Ooh, gritty realism. Sure, ok, I get it. I like that to an extent. But at some point holy shit, enough. You’ve made your point that life in a patriarchical feudal society is shitty. Quit beating us over the head with it.

    Same thing with his love of subverting reader expectations. Ned Stark. Ok, gotcha, don’t expect “good guys” are gonna win. Not your standard formulaic fantasy story. Red Wedding. Right, ok, I get it. Moving Jamie from pure baddie towards more complicated: interesting, ok. Nudging Tyrion in the other direction: with you, ok, none of these people are exactly what they originally seem. But he keeps doing it, over and over, to the point where his supposed unpredictability is now pretty predictable. Also, the outcome of making everyone morally ambiguous is that now nearly every character kinda sucks. There’s practically no one left for me to root for. A few characters, tops. Mostly, the books are full of people on a spectrum running from “bad” to “horrifically evil.” I think there are maybe 4 characters left (possibly 3, depending on how you interpret a particular scene) by the end of book 5 that I actually give a shit about.

    His books have declined in quality (particularly with #4 and #5), and he’s pretty clearly lost any sense of plot control. He keeps adding characters (granted, with the number he kills off, some of this may be necessary) to the point where the story really bogs down. Chapter after chapter wherein hardly anything actually happens. It reminds me of Robert Jordan.

    1. I’ve already been hearing grumbling that the show is beginning to feel like Wheel of Time. Martin has so complicated everything that he has to call the couple that runs westeros.org to get characters and events straight. And it takes him so damn long to write that I think we’re going to be stuck with a bunch of side stories and off book stories so they can fill time until the next book. Before the end, I’m sure the show writers will completely take over and very few things will follow the book. If altering the Jaime/ Cercei dynamic is any indication, HBO will take the story and use sex and rape as filler. They did it with True Blood.

    2. Robert Jordan is a way better writer than Martin. I mean, I tended to skip over Perrin and Faile Chapters, but most of the rest were good even if Jordan couldn’t quite pull off the characterization he was going for with Rand. He also got books freaking done in less than 5 years. Also way less gratuitous grittiness. ASOIAF reminds me way more of Warhammer 40k but taking itself too seriously(granted later WH40K lost some of the humor). Basically, “in the grim darkness of the deep past there are only rapists and giant shitlords.” vs WH40K’s “in the grim darkness of the far future there is only war.”

      1. The wheel of time bored me. Not sure why but they never were able to hold my attention. My husband loves them but can’t get into the GoT books. I skipped over all the Jon Snow and Bran parts in the GoT books though, they just draaaaagged for me. At this point, I don’t think even Martin knows the ending and frankly, I don’t have any faith he will finish the books.

        1. The Wheel of Time bored me too. The writing was great, but I really don’t need to be with the characters in their journey in literally every step of the way.

        2. The ones by Sanderson are a lot better. I think he is just less ponderous than Jordan was. He also had multiple other awesome series to his credit.

          The main thing I disliked, and I don’t know which one of them this was, was the ending was basically the plot of the Avatar arc of Charmed. Although I imagine its a common theme based on some sort of Christian thing.

    3. But he keeps doing it, over and over, to the point where his supposed unpredictability is now pretty predictable.

      Yep, this! After ASOS, I accurately predicted one death on the sole reason the dude seemed rather a good fellow.

      1. Thats become a common Thing lately. The Walking Dead killed off so many main characters that now not killing them is the surprise, and thats not even a surprise anymore, it just feels like a pause before they kill off main characters for ratings. By the end of the first GoT book, I understood that becoming attached to any character was a bad idea. So now I just root for The Hound. Supposedly, he’s not actually dead. I enjoy the Hound/ Arya pairing, its the only time Arya doesn’t annoy the hell out of me.

  22. I keep hearing that this is somehow based on the War of the Roses. It is not. Other than (1) Martin clearly used the War of the Roses to derive house names and (2) it is a war over succession to a throne, there are few paralells. Some interesting stories that overlap, but that is about it.

    The Starks and Lannister’s are not related. There is no “infant king” who was subject to mental collapse. Richard of York actually kept his head after a failed march on London (Ned Stark, not so much). There is no feeble king being found lying around after battles.

    1. Sorry – can we have a giraffe here? I’m failing to understand how the historical accuracy and whether one’s misconception of what war or specific time period Game of Thrones references matters even remotely for the issue raised in the post which is (as I understand it): rape culture in media.

      Let me be clear: it doesn’t matter, not even a little bit, what period GOT is about. It doesn’t matter if there are or are not werewolves. Having a current director say “it’s cool – it’s not rape because this rape victim totally wanted it in the end” is not okay regardless of whether this was during The War of the Roses or if fucking dragons were watching. DOESN’T MATTER.

      1. Sorry, PA, I feel like this one is partially my fault because I mentioned the WoR’s.

        Good thing people have their priorities straight, though, right? Allow entire centuries of the history of women to be flattened to “they all get raped and it sucked to be them” and that’s just how history works, but mis-characterize Martin’s inspiration and suddenly the but-but-ACCURACY!!!! people come out of the woodwork.

      2. There is a common “but sexism is historically accurate!!1!11!” flag that gets flown whenever portrayals of brutally grim oppression of women in fantasy are criticised as sexist, which is what some of these posts have been responding to (and which was exemplifed by John) but I agree it’s probably taken up enough of the thread by now.

  23. The most recent spillover thread seems to be closed and if so how can I talk about Jewish law/Medieval communities with DonnaL? I have a hunch that it might be less directly related to Game of Thrones than is thread-appropriate… although it comes up often as an excellent foil when people talk nonsense about “realistic” ways people were treated “in the past.” (Many communities are just as excellent foils, but I’m not as literate in them…)

    1. Sorry if I made any terrible errors — I’m hardly an expert — I have read a few books that deal extensively with Jewish women and Jewish family life in medieval Europe and elsewhere, including the relevant parts of Shlomo Goitein’s five-volume “A Mediterranean Society: The Jewish Communities of the Arab World as Portrayed in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza.” (Which is one of the more fascinating books I’ve ever read.) One thing I am pretty sure of is that just as in the Christian world, the situation with respect to women’s rights and available recourse varied greatly in different countries and in different centuries.

      1. Well I hope those rights and recourses were held up better than they are now, and that reporting rape wasn’t so god awful that most didn’t out of shame or understanding the law on paper didn’t translate well to real life. Unless it was a complete 180 from today, I see no reason to assume rape wasn’t just as prevalent then as it is today. And that stranger rape was probably less common, just like today. Who worries about highway men when rapists live under the same roof, or right next door?

        1. No argument from me.

          Especially considering that Jewish women really didn’t have much (or any) recourse against rapists outside the community — that is, Gentiles. Which, believe it or not, was not unknown considering the relative power of the respective communities. And the Jewish authorities (to the extent there was any amount of self-government) had no jurisdiction over non-Jews.

          What I was talking about was more in terms of rights and recourse within the community, such as divorce and the grounds for it. I’ve read about more than one ruling condemning marital rape, as with domestic violence in general. As I said, I don’t know how often women were actually able to seek and obtain recourse, but it did happen, in real cases. Especially when women remained close to their birth families after marriage and were able to call upon them for help in dealing with their husbands. Having your parents on your side can sometimes go a long way towards surmounting any theoretical notion that your husband has complete power over you, especially if there was a ketuba (marriage contract) establishing your rights.

Comments are currently closed.