"Game of Thrones," HBO's fantasy series based on author George R.R. Martin's still-unfinished "A Song of Ice and Fire" saga, is not like those shows. It is about swords and sigils and dragons and frozen baby-crazed zombies and it is decidedly uninterested in transcending these trappings or ironically critiquing them. As such it represents a strange convergence of hierarchies, a work from a genre (fantasy) not traditionally associated with prestige in a form (television) newly associated with prestige on a network (HBO) most iconically associated with that transition. "Game of Thrones" is a terrifically fun and immensely popular show, but can a work so flagrantly inauthentic actually be important television?
.....The answer is yes, and precisely for its unreality, its joyful hostility toward anything like allegory, commentary or social relevance. Much like "Star Wars" and "Hogwarts" and other great Neverlands, "Game of Thrones" doesn't hold a mirror to anything. It is aggressively false, a work of far-fetched imagination so intricate and finely realized it becomes compelling on its own terms, disorienting and dazzling us in the ways that only the best storytelling can. This is a show in which we cheer on an adolescent girl's precocious transformation into a serial murderer; this is a show in which a character's desire to release people from slavery is convincingly rendered as a conundrum. The most recent episode ended with yet another shocking death, a character we're coming to hate killing a character we'd come to pity, to save the life of a character we've come to love. How are we even supposed to feel? Other than, yet again, thrilled.
.....I had nothing to do the other day, and was getting so bored, I thought of moving to Las Vegas. Anyway instead of moving to Vegas I looked to see if there was anything good to watch on HBO. And there was; at least I think so, and the critic from our newspaper also thinks so, as you can gather from the article in our newspaper. This is the fourth season for this show, and if you have HBO, I suggest that you start with the first season if you can get it on your TV. Oh, and by the way, don't let the children watch it! Unless they enjoy naked women, and rough language.
.....And to change the subject, I cannot believe that a few idiotic Congressmen are using the release of Sgt. Bowe from five years as a POW as another desperate way to get at President Obama. They claim that they are "furious" about the exchange because of the release of five terrorists. It seems that they would prefer to leave Bowe to die over there. The men in our military always believe that we don't leave anyone behind. The Israelis did not flinch when they released 1000 "terrorists" from prison to exchange for one Israeli soldier. Why would anyone want to vote for a guy who would object to an exchange of five terrorists for one American?
I agree. And in OUR tradition, redeeming a captive, at no matter what price, is a mitzvah - a holy act. Israel was forced to give up 1,000 miscreants in return for Gilad Shalit, but he was worth it. (And as I keep pointing out to Palestinian-sympathizers over here - use your eyes! Did they see the 1,000 on TV when they were released? Fit, healthy, well-fed men. But Shalit was observably pale, thin, traumatized. Tells you all you need to know!)
ReplyDeleteI wonder how "furious" they would have been if it had been their son or daughter being held captive?.....oh wait I forgot, they don't believe in having their 1% kids serve in the military, that what it is easier for them to feign outrage. Of course now the right wingers are trying to "prove" that Sgt Bergdahl deserted, and that his father is an Islamic sympathizer. The fact that we released 5 guys to get 1 American back is a non issue. "leave no man behind" has always been a motto of our military.
ReplyDeleteMaybe if we ACTUALLY talked to our "enemies" as opposed to always ignoring them, we might avoid some of the conflicts that we get ourselves into.
Thanks for the comment, Jon, but I have no desire to "talk to our enemies; I prefer killing them. And I have experience in that regard. But, of course, who else prefers that road? Talk or Kill--a fork in the road, and as Yogi Berra once said "If there's a fork in the road, take it."
DeleteDear Baron, I have carefully considered what you have said about "Game of Thrones," and I've taken it on board, but I still have concerns about the genre of fantasy fiction, because a lot of our youngsters and young adults take it far too seriously. It seems to hold in their lives the place that decent religion and other sensible ethical and aesthetic systems ought to be holding. It's another product of consumerism, and must accordingly be treated with suspicion. Regrettably, however, Aesthetics is the most intractable problem in Philosophy, and it has proved difficult for philosophers to get a coherent theory of it together. However, the upside of this is that ANYONE can have a go! So - to hell with the philosophers! Like Game of Thrones, Aesthetics is a game the WHOLE FAMILY can play!!
ReplyDeleteBtw, why Las Vegas? Wouldn't having a flutter come more expensive than doing it with your fave Native Americans? Cuzzin Ruth
I used to have fun with whomever; but I've stopped smoking cold turkey and the same with fluttering.
Delete"Leave no man behind" is honorable policy. However, I'm afraid in the Bowe's case, it's a different matter. What if the man *chooses* to be left behind? If it's true that Bowe deserted his post (during an ongoing conflict), that is an executable offense. In addition, his actions directly resulted in the deaths of 6 servicemen who were part of the massive effort to find and save him. Is he not responsible for those deaths by his desertion? Colleagues from his own platoon have nothing but anger and disgust toward him. The fact that we returned 5 of the highest ranking Taliban commanders in custody is just an added insult. Perhaps an argument could be made for releasing them to obtain our soldier, but not in the case when that soldier decided he no longer wanted to be a U.S. soldier. Of course, we might find out more in the coming months what the actual story is, but if these are the facts, I would object to the exchange.
ReplyDeleteDear Baron, forget smoking turkey - look for the smoking gnu (anag.)
ReplyDeleteJon - "Jaw-jaw" is better than "war-war," but only if your enemies are as reasonable as you. Often they're the sort you have to kill because otherwise THEY'll kill YOU. As we say here in England: "String 'em up - it''s the only language they understand!" Cuzzin Ruth
I'm a bit puzzled by the allegations against Bowe, Joel. Some say that they have been made in order to discredit Pres. Obama: and bearing in in mind all the rubbish that has been thrown at him, it's worth waiting to see exactly what can be established and what can't.
ReplyDeleteFor example, the "birthers" nagged for so long that he produced his birth certificate to satisfy them. Then they said, "Fancy an American president having to produce his birth certificate!" If that isn't chutzpah, I don't know what is.
But yes, if Bowe deserted, then the exchange is objectionable. However, the timing of the events is important. Captivity can produce strange changes in a man's mind, particularly if he is under duress. It's really worth a "wait and see" approach here. Cuz Ruth
If the President of the United States is called "Commander in Chief" of our armed forces, it seems to me that he ought to have the right to determine the fate even of one American soldier and five so-called terrorists. Why should he have to consult with a bundle of rich civilians who never carried a gun into combat? JR presents us with a bunch of "what ifs". No one has yet come forth with proven reasons about Bowe's capture. I can't believe that even if he is guilty of desertion, that some Americans would leave him there to rot in Taliban hands. He still would deserve to be tried for any offense of his here in the United States under our laws, and not the Taliban's. And if two or five or ten of our soldiers met their death searching for Bowe, well they risked their lives knowingly in order not to leave any soldier behind, no matter what his faults may have been. It's time for some "furious" civilians to take some risks as well as our men in uniform take every day in regard to the release of terrorists. If they've never been in a war, then if they wish to leave Bowe behind, then they don't know what they're talking about.
DeleteBaron: "I can't believe that even if he is guilty of desertion, that some Americans would leave him there to rot in Taliban hands." I don't know why this is so hard to believe -- it seems that the entire point of this blog entry is precisely because there are *many* who are holding that exact position. And the reason why even the C-in-C needs to "consult" with "bundle of rich civilians who never carried a gun into combat" (and I'm not disputing the description) is because that's the law. Maybe it's a bad law, but we'll need the rich civilians to change it.
ReplyDeleteRuth: I agree that much of the uproar is just more of the anti-Obama bluster than it is true outrage. However, if some of the negative claims about his capture turn out to be true, then the anti-Obamians might actually have a point this time. If you blindly throw enough muck at a wall, some of it might eventually stick. If it turns out that all stories about him are false, you certainly will not hear any apologies from the muck-throwers.
If Sgt. Bergdahl deserted and caused the deaths of soldiers in his unit, though he loses his soul, he doesn’t lose his American citizenship. Not agreeing to the exchange and abandoning this American to his captors is an act of revenge—not of justice. And what President has not broken some law during eight years of leadership? Kennedy did, Nixon did, Clinton did; even Lincoln did. If Bergdahl is guilty of an “executable” crime, then bring him home where his parents, at least, can see him, and prosecute him under American law. That, to me, is justice, not retribution.
DeleteWheee! A debate! Don't you just love it!
DeleteMm, Baron - I think you've got me there: I've never fought in a war. My dad did (he was at El-Alamein, a battle that lasted a fortnight) and it would be great if I could take his advice on the matter. But he died nearly nine years ago, and I'm still upset about it! Nor has my husband ever fought in a war, as we have an all-professional army. As for my sons, Sam, my elder son, is a medic, and traditionally they aren't conscripted [drafted] but volunteer for field hospitals. Sam has always said that if his country needed him, he would go and do his bit. As for my younger son, Manny, the Army can have him, and welcome. He could be put to good use as a bouncing bomb. (Baron - members of your family who've met him will enjoy this remark.)
ReplyDeleteJoel - what say you to your dad's last comment?
Cuz Ruth
Ruth, you are just trying to encourage conflict. ;-) Anyway, the excuse "it's ok to break a law because others have," is not acceptable. Also, not agreeing to an exchange is *not* an act of revenge; it is often excellent policy. Just today, a Taliban commander stated that the exchange "has made it more appealing for fighters to capture American soldiers and other high-value targets." So, not only have we redeemed a (possible) deserter, not only have we released 5 top enemy leaders, not only were 6 soldiers killed searching for him, now we have to contend with many more troublesome exchanges in the future. What's to stop a terrorist cell in Europe from grabbing a U.S. soldier off the street in the UK and offering to exchange him for some Gitmo prisoners? It hadn't been done before, because the U.S. has a "no negotiating with terrorists" law; now that law is a joke.
ReplyDeleteOne more thing: It is a well known public relations trick by terrorists to reverse the view of who is victim and who is the perpetrator. If Bowe had been killed by the Taliban because the U.S. refused to deal, he was killed *by the Taliban*, not by the U.S. Government! Let's not forget who the bad guys are here.
Oops, sorry, this last comment was sent before Joel's last one got published. So, Joel - no need to reply! But it did occur to me that if Sgt Bergdahl did desert, then he DEFINITELY needs to be brought home to face justice. Think what the effect on many soldiers would be if it were known that deserting would be the easy option. As Voltaire put it, there's the "pour encourager les autres" factor. ("Candide.")
ReplyDeleteA lot is now appearing in the UK press about Bergdahl. Whatever he has or hasn't done, his history prior to his admission to the army indicates that he was a crazy mixed-up kid. Maybe he should never have been accepted into the army, or at least not sent where he was sent. I hope that this is taken into consideration when any possible case against him is assessed. Cuzzin Ruth
JR, ask your sister if there were a deal to an exchange of her husband-- alive-- for the release of ten Hezbollah terrorists immediately, without time enough for President Bush to give Congress 30 days notice--or Rich would die, what would you do if you had the power? Break the law, or not?
ReplyDeleteThere are "what if" scenarios for anything if we invent circumstances, so that's an irrelevant question. And to compare Col. Higgins' situation to Bowe's (given what we've heard about this case) is a bit insulting to the former. To the question at hand, from my understanding of geopolitics and Taliban mentality (and I have a lot of understanding of these issues), I find it hard to believe that Bowe would "die" within 30 days if a deal hadn't been struck. There is no evidence provided thus far that Bowe's physical condition was terminal or that the Taliban threatened to kill him. Why would the Taliban allow its only hostage to die as a reaction to not getting exactly what it wants? They are crazy, but they are not stupid.
ReplyDeleteI have no more to add to this debate, save only to say how high-level and absorbing it has been. Cuz Ruth
ReplyDeleteThis debate is too hard for me to enter into, so this will be my first and last comment.
ReplyDeleteI am quite conflicted. However, I must agree with Joel on most points. I do believe it's true that Bergdahl was a deserter; I do believe it's true that 6 servicemen died looking for him; I do believe it's true that the released terrorists will strike again; and I do believe it's true that this trade will encourage terrorists to snatch more Americans.
I also would like not to have Col Higgins compared in any way to Bergdahl.