Game of Thrones

Incest is a fundamental taboo in society. We recognise this for many reasons.

Yet for some odd reason it has begun to rear its ugly head within television, and it does not seem to be demonised as much as one would expect. The perfect example of this is the relationship between the siblings, Jamie and Cirsei Lannister, in 'Game of Thrones.' This is ridiculed within the narrative and by other characters, yet it is shown in somewhat graphic detail in the first episode. They are both very attractive actors and the act, without context is an attractive bit of television soft-porn. How are we meant to interpret this? There are a myriad of other inferences by other characters, often used to symbolise the unhealthiness or negative representation of a character, yet this seems largely undermined by the treatment then of the characters within the narrative as redeemable heroes (somewhat). A recent episode of 'Rick and Morty', already known for its dark humour, but on the pulse cultural reflection, a "Morty" made a wish that "incest porn was more mainstream" – it was a line used to punctuate the scene with humour before one of the "Morty's" leapt to his death. However, this is still an open discussion of incest in a somewhat positive manner.

Obviously, this is a highly contentious discussion and one that needs to be handled carefully. However, akin to the inclusion of "rape fantasies" in much of paranormal romance, it is a concerning trend that should be discussed.

Analyze and discuss what greater meaning there is in Game of Thrones, an overarching message that Martin is trying to send to his readers (and viewers I guess) beyond the amazing fantasy, political intrigue, and gut-wrenching battles and deaths that has enraptured most of the fan base.

Game of Thrones has seen incredible, groundbreaking success, such it has developed a devout following. The success is due to multiple factors. Two of which are duration and quality. The fact that GOT is indeed a television show instead of a film, allows characters to truly develop and grow. Films generally have a time limit of three hours to develop any characters. Films on the other hand, have quality that tv shows usually do not. Game of Thrones is able to connect these two aspects, tv show length for development and film like quality. Fans are able to become much more invested than other movies or shows. In the future, we can hope that other TV shows look to invest in the higher quality, and produce great shows like GOT.

Do shows like Game of Thrones deserve criticism for their depiction of sexual violence, or is their portrayal justified, given the setting of Westeros as a brutal world were violence is the common place?

There's an interesting debate to be had here about the responsibilities of show writers/directors toward how they handle sensitive topics and staying true to the fictional world they operate within.

Whether it is Ned Stark's everlasting nobility or Joffrey Baratheon's undying wickedness, a static character in Game of Thrones always seems to perish. Analyze this idea and why this may be the case. Compare unchanging characters to dynamic ones and analyze why changes in character lead to success.

With popular book series titles making their way into television, authors seem to be forced to make a switch between writing long-form prose and writing with the television audience in mind. Does the narrative change, for better or for worse, when an author is acutely aware that the next book will be formatted for episodes rather than novels? George R.R. Martin's celebrated Game of Thrones series is a prime example of how an author feels the pressure of a viewing audience baring down as opposed to writing novels at a leisurely pace. What effect does this have on the story, characters and plot when an author is pressed to satisfy an episodic format at a mainstream pace?

The HBO success "Game of Thrones" brings on screen a wide variety of characters with clear mental issues. From Joffrey's violent nature, which lacks any form of remorse, to Ramsay's damaged personality or Jamie and Cersei's incestuous relationship (also Sansa Stark, Jon Snow and Theon Greyjoy can be interesting examples). It would be fascinating to use psychoanalytical concepts, taken from Freud, Jung or Klein, in order to offer a reading of these characters and their backstories and objectives.

"It is the right of the strong to take from the weak." (Martin, 758)

The sociopolitical structure of the Dothraki people is governed by the strong, with tribal communities gravitating around warriors who have proven their greatness in battle. This is seen most evidently when Khal Drogo's khalasar is disbanded as soon as his strength begins to falter, prompting several of his strongest subordinates to name themselves new Khals to form new khalasars with whoever will follow. This ideology is the reason why none of the Dothraki had any respect for Viserys, who had no true strength of his own, but felt entitled to the Iron Throne by being a descendant of the old dynasty. Though the Targaryen reign was ushered in by the brute strength of Aegon the Conqueror and his dragons (a method of asserting one's right to rule much in line with this Dothraki system), the establishment of a monarchy after the victory changed the game (of thrones).
Discuss the differences between these two methods of governance. Which one might prove to be more effective for selecting leaders (both in Westeros and in the real world)? How does the Dothraki reverence for individuals with power reflect the Nietzschean view of the ubermensch? How might it mirror the real-life rises to power of autocratic leaders from Julius Caesar, to Napoleon Bonaparte, to Fidel Castro? In what ways might this need to respect the ruler illustrate a sort of precursor to our modern democracy?

There is a variety of female characters within Game of Thrones, between the fierce, capable Arya, the strong noble Brienne, and the manipulative conspiring Cersei. There is a range of female characters, unlike I have seen in one show before. Examine some of these characters, and provide examples of how some of these roles help or hinder the complexities of women, and their roles on television.

The quest for the Iron Throne is what has brought Westeros into its current mess. What needs to be done in order to bring unity back into Westeros, politically? What about the current governmental structure isn't working? Does there need to be a shift in how Westeros is governed? How did it all work before? Based on how the TV show is going, what type of government is needed and what kind of leader? And who best fits that mold? I always thought it might be better if Westeros was divided and governed by their respective divisions. Ex: The North would be a sovereign nation and governed by the head house of the North, and so on. But would this sort of system work? Could it work, and how so?