(No super-spoilers, but this will talk in vague terms about the latest Game of Thrones episode.)
(You are warned.)
(No, really.)
(WARNING.)
(*flails*)
(THE BRIDGE IS OUT)
(FACEBEES)
(AAAAAAH)
Okay.
The latest Game of Thrones episode has a rather, erm, pivotal rape scene in it. Without getting too specific, a normally very powerful woman is very clearly raped during a moment of weakness. And it’s super-gross, in part because the sex in the books is — reportedly, as I have not read them — consensual. In part also because one of these characters has been undergoing some changes as of late and we have come to like this character quite a bit — and this character is also the rapist.
The super-grossness also extends to the commentary after the fact, which frequently flings past whether rape is appropriate in fiction and storytelling and settles on whether the scene was even rape — or, it discusses the granularity of consent, which is fine for legal battles but a little squicky in talking about what happens on-screen with a major pop culture property. The fact that the ensuing discussion was whether or not the victim’s pleas and no’s were loud enough, frequent enough, convincing enough. (Spoiler warning: they were.) Did she kiss back? Was she secretly giving into it? On a book page, this might actually be something you could get across, as we have access to internal dialogue. On-screen, we are left purely to text, only to visual, and what we’re left with is a character who says “no” up until the end, who struggles (albeit weakly), and whose rapist basically says “I don’t care.”
That’s rape. Despite what anyone will tell you, it’s rape. It’s the rape of a powerful (and somewhat unlikable) woman by a less-powerful (and more likable) dude.
It’s rape on-screen. It’s rape off-screen.
The granularity of “no” does not exist. Game of Thrones may be a world of many grays, but a “no” that never turns to “yes” before the sex begins isn’t beholden to any spectrum.
That part is black and white.
The discussion then must be: well, why is this a problem? Rape exists in fiction. And it has to be allowed to exist in fiction. It’s a rough, tough, terrible topic, but to ignore it is all the more sickening — to sweep it under the rug and not shine a line in that dark space is basically to deny it in reality, as well. One of fiction’s chiefmost strengths is that it allows us to bring up these things and make us feel something about them — it’s addressing them, making us deal with it, and it’s being real about it.
That said, as storytellers, it’s vital to think about what we’re putting out there. There exists a mode of thought that says authors have zero social responsibility, and I’d argue that’s technically true in the same way that nobody anywhere has any social responsibility to anyone. We’re all basically just animals in a zoo, but what makes us human is thinking about the ramifications of our actions. And what makes us smart storytellers and capable authors is thinking about the ramifications of our stories. That doesn’t necessarily mean not putting scary stuff on the page (or on the screen). It just means being mindful of consequence.
And one of those consequences is that some of your audience will have been the victims of rape. This is the case because instances of rape and sexual assault against women in particular are very, very high. It leaves living victims. Victims who have to deal with the trauma off-screen. Putting it on the page or screen means forcing them to revisit that act. That’s not to say that, again, rape is verboten. But it does mean you should very seriously look at how you handle the topic. Are you handling it with maturity? With care? Is there a point other than the gratuitousness of it all? Are you using it as a cheap-and-easy plot point, or as a meaningful moment? Is it a lazy trope, or a crucial moment?
The problem, as I see it, with the rape scene in GoT, is many-fold.
First, it’s done in a world where rape is basically as common as horses. It’s referenced damn near every episode. Women are victims. Men are rapists. It’s practically becoming a thesis of the world. The worst thing done to women is rape. Rape, rape, rape. The show is getting rapey as shit. (More notable perhaps because the books aren’t quite so?) At this point, that’s drifting toward fetishistic and gratuitous — in part because it seems to revel in its statement.
Second, it’s more a trope than it is an actual thing. It’s lazy, cheap, short-shrifted. It’s code meant to again invoke that grayness of the characters — “Oh, look, even the most powerful can be laid low, and even those characters you like are basically pieces of shit.” The rapist-and-victim message, again. Really, we can’t do any better?
Third, it feels out of character and is a change from the book — a change that makes these characters worse and weaker than they have demonstrated in the past (at least, I’d argue).
Fourth, the rape was soft, weak, almost as ineluctable as gravity — the strong woman just sort of gives into it (and here you’ll want to discuss the was she really raped? question again but once more please be aware of the persistent lack of consent given) and makes rape look less like a violent act and more like a fact-of-life. (And it really is a fact-of-life in the GoT world, which is troubling in how it reinforces that “women = victims, men = rapists” vibe.)
The point I’m making is, if you’re going to deal with rape in your fiction, please give it weight and consequence. Do not let it drift toward being a lazy, cheap trope. Exercise every ounce of storytelling wisdom and skill and don’t just let it devolve into some half-ass plot point. It’s not a plot point in anybody’s lives. And last, remember that rape is real. It’s not the domain of fiction. It’s not granular, it’s not a spectrum, it’s not a shruggy hand-wavey sort of maybe-kinda-gee-I-dunno thing. Some of your audience will be victims of rape. Remember that, and think of them.
Catastrophe Jones says:
Thank you.
April 23, 2014 — 9:39 AM
Ben says:
I agree. I’ve read the books and right after I saw that scene, I was thinking in my head “I don’t think that happened in the books…I would’ve remembered something as awful as that.” Especially as Jaime more and more becomes a likable character in the books, this seems like a ridiculous change for the tv show to make.
April 23, 2014 — 9:39 AM
stevefah says:
I think you’re ignoring the fact–and you admit, you haven’t read the books–that Jaime Lannister asked his sister to go back to their former relationship (lovers) in the previous episode and she sneered at him. This really is a character development scene; this scene is meant to be more horrible because their product-of-incest son is lying dead over their heads when he rapes her. I think it’s meant to freeze, if not completely reverse, the goodwill we were developing for Jaime during his captivity and the loss of his sword hand.
I’m not an expert on the “age of chivalry,” but I think rape might have been endemic during those times, too. One of the enduring–and endearing–parts of the legend of Arthur and the Round Table is his attempt to end the age of “might makes right” and to bring about an age of laws.
See the song “Fie on Goodness” in the musical Camelot.
Just my two cents’ worth.
April 23, 2014 — 9:44 AM
David Coventry (@DWCoventry) says:
A few points:
1. The corresponding scene in the books is clearly consensual, and represents the death of the relationship between the two characters involved much more eloquently.
2. The director in an interview claims that this scene is meant to be consensual, which has numerous and awful implications for how he views real sex with real women in the real world.
3. Rape is common in medieval literature (see Chaucer) but if we haven’t developed any more nuance in the thousand years of storytelling that have followed then we really ought to re-evaluate our shit.
April 23, 2014 — 10:42 AM
Domitella says:
I may have been reading the books wrong, and am open to that possibility, but in the books the scene is remarkably similar but it is all told from Jamies POV. She does say ‘no’ ‘not here’ in the books, but Jamie keeps going and it turns out that she was saying no when she meant yes. Problematic, obviously, but easier to deal with in books where you can have extensive time inside people’s heads than on TV.
And while in a book it’s left open to the reader whether they trust Jamie’s perception as it’s all seen from his side, on screen it’s either one or the other. I think they’ve tried to show what happens in the books, but unfortunately not taken into account that on TV it works very differently as we’re seeing it from the ‘outside’.
A bit like that bit in the Bond film where he appears naked in the shower. Works if you know in advance she’ll be into it because you’re the writer, rapey-McExposing-himself to everyone else.
April 23, 2014 — 4:34 PM
Lizard says:
The scene in the book is not consensual. She both says no and hits him and he carries on regardless. Yes, she gives in and is even portrayed to being enjoying it in the end, but she said no and he overrode her will and that is rape.
April 23, 2014 — 9:28 PM
Doreen Queen says:
Sorry, I have to disagree. the scene in the book is NOT clearly consensual. In fact, it IS pretty specifically a scene about rape. But the problem is that it is rape between two individuals who have been intimate before (and might have been after, if this hadn’t occurred). If they hadn’t already been involved sexually, there would be no question that this is rape. But nothing gave him the license to continue after she said no. As a victim, I understand the instinct to submit after your protests have been ignored and muffled. Knowing that the person was stronger than I was and had beaten me to unconsciousness in the past meant that I didn’t protest violently – that doesn’t mean that I wasn’t raped. It just means that after a series of protests and pushing away, I submitted so that I would remain safe.
April 24, 2014 — 4:08 PM
lipstickisses says:
Yep, thanks for summing up how I felt about this in clearer words than my rage-thoughts would allow.
April 23, 2014 — 9:44 AM
Josh Loomis says:
Having read the books, my takeaway is this:
In the books, this scene actually adds to one of the characters involved. In the show, it adds nothing and actually takes away from one of the characters in an inexplicable way.
I may write more to go into more (spoiler-y) detail, but… this was not a good decision, in any way, from any angle.
April 23, 2014 — 9:46 AM
smithster says:
I’ve not read the books, but I would be intrigued to hear more of your thoughts on why you felt it worked there but not here. Was some nuance missed in the way the actors portrayed it? A comment in dialogue left out? An inner monologue lost that needed to be conveyed in some other way?
April 23, 2014 — 9:54 AM
Chris says:
The problem with the book version is that it happens in the rapist’s POV chapter and the “Unreliable Narrator” is in play. It defeats the argument that it was ok in the book.
The events leading up to it were very different, too. I don’t want to drift into spoiler town, but the situation is not only different, but it’s rapist-as-narrator.
He doesn’t seem to realize what he is doing is rape and she is physically responding to his advances (from his point of view) even though she is saying no.
April 23, 2014 — 10:11 AM
Anthony says:
The biggest difference in the books is Jaime is /just/ returned. So he is back, and alive and his kid is dead. For Cersei her brother/lover is not dead as she feared and her kid is dead. It’s more consensual because they both, in their own way, want it and come together for it. It’s only after that they start sniping at each other as Cersei decides Jaime isn’t the “beautiful man” she loved anymore and Jaime starts doubting the foundation of his being after his time with Brienne and now his time apart from her. I’m not sure how far it goes from there as I’ve only read the first 3 books.
The big point is that in the books it is supposed to be disturbing but more for “incest right next to their dead son” as opposed to “rape incest next to their dead son from a character in the middle of a heel-face turn.”
April 23, 2014 — 10:26 AM
Shauna Granger says:
It worked in the books because she kisses him and, in a way, initiates the initial intimacy of the moment. And the only “no” that is said is in the context of, “not here, we might get caught,” which then, very quickly, turns to “yes, hurry!” as though the idea of being caught just heightens everything for her. In the book he lifts her up and takes her after she says “yes.” In the show, he grabs her hair, uses it to pull her to the ground and forces himself on her as she’s saying “no” – those are not the same things at all.
April 23, 2014 — 12:54 PM
Liz Neering says:
Agreed. In the books it read as two deeply grieving people, one of whom had feared the other dead, comforting one another in the deeply disturbed way they knew how.
Also, ‘endemic rape’ in historical times doesn’t excuse its overuse and unnecessary inclusion, especially when we’re all cool with other unrealistic elements like dragons and otherworldly weirwoods and White Walkers.
April 23, 2014 — 9:57 AM
angeliquejamail says:
Very good points, thank you. Reposting this on my Facebook author page and also on my personal FB page where a conversation about this topic has been taking place. https://www.facebook.com/SapphosTorque
April 23, 2014 — 9:48 AM
angeliquejamail says:
P.S. — I won’t get bent out of shape if you remove the link from my last post, in case you don’t want people doing stuff like that here.
April 23, 2014 — 9:49 AM
ardenrr says:
This is the best thing I’ve seen on the topic since it aired. Thank you! I was just very confused by it. To me, it seemed just like you said. Lazy. I understand GRRM’s butterfly effect theory that the timeline had changed so much from the book that things couldn’t really stay the same but it just left me feeling blah afterwards. Lazy, lazy lazy.
April 23, 2014 — 9:49 AM
Matthew MacNish says:
I’ve seen this basic sentiment out and about:
“This show is full of violence and murder and gross black magic, why is rape the thing that upsets viewers so much?”
The reply I usually give is: “Well beheading and penis-removals aren’t that common in real life. Rape is. That’s probably why it’s upsetting.”
April 23, 2014 — 9:50 AM
Julie says:
AMEN.
And TY, Chuck. Really well put!
April 23, 2014 — 12:19 PM
Fuckface9000 says:
Hold on a minute. Murder isn’t common? Are you fucking kidding me?
April 25, 2014 — 4:48 AM
georgiavailerwin says:
HAHAHA, yeah, you’re right:
1 out of every 6 American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed murder in her lifetime (14.8% completed murder; 2.8% attempted murder).1
17.7 million American women have been victims of attempted or completed murder.1
9 of every 10 murder victims were female in 2003.2
“Rape” and “Murder” are TOTALLY INTERCHANGEABLE. Out of every 100 women I know, about 15% have been murdered. Roughly. Give or take a few percentages.
April 27, 2014 — 5:17 AM
punkeroo2 says:
not as common as rape
April 27, 2014 — 12:18 PM
Kristopher says:
What makes this case worse (and I do agree that any inclusion of rape should be well considered and sensitively handled) is that it deviates so much from the book characters (and the tv characters as they have been presented). In the novel, this moment is actually the first time these two characters have seen each other in months, they are both in mourning, and the sex results from their needing of comfort at that moment. It was still disturbing, for multiple reasons including the location of the act, the relationship between the two, etc. But it was clearly consensual.
This change to the male character is going to make it very hard for many viewers (myself included) to see him as “redeemed” later in the story. His character arc is clearly one of gradual understanding and regret and this is an impossible spike on that scale that will impossible to forgive.
April 23, 2014 — 9:51 AM
Norma Parfitt says:
I watched the first episode of series one and haven’t watched any of GoT since. I was totally put off by the amount of macho triumphalist fucking and I’m no mimsy little spinster-lady.
Some of my female descendents are avid fans of the show. I can only assume there’s a generational culture gap going on; they brush aside the violence, sexual and otherwise, and talk of powerful female characters. I just see lots of distasteful porn.
I don’t know anything about the books, the tv series makes me reluctant to track them down.
April 23, 2014 — 9:51 AM
Kay Camden says:
I’m with Norma. And I don’t think it’s a generational culture gap because I’m in my mid-thirties.
I’m no prude to violence in books and movies. If done well, I’m a fan. But I flipped through the books. Saw so much violence against women. So much rape. Women being raped on piles of corpses or something? Some people find this entertaining. Titillating, maybe? Not me. Pass.
Maybe if we lived in a world where violence against women never happened there would be a distance and it wouldn’t get to me. I read and watch movies to escape. Not be reminded how sick our world is.
April 23, 2014 — 11:31 AM
Suzie says:
I’m in my twenties. Read the first book and nearly threw it against a wall it made me so angry (underage rape written to be titillating). I really don’t understand why they are so popular.
April 23, 2014 — 1:34 PM
Kay Camden says:
Sometimes, with books like these, I wonder how much is fiction and world building and how much is just an outlet for the author’s sick fantasies. Not that I know the guy though, so maybe I shouldn’t jump to that. But I often wonder…
But then, characters in my book do the deed when one of them is unconscious and fatally wounded. So I guess that assumption could apply to me, too.
April 23, 2014 — 4:32 PM
thejameswhitman says:
You’ve read Chuck’s books, right?
April 23, 2014 — 4:38 PM
Kay Camden says:
LOL
April 23, 2014 — 4:52 PM
Teresa says:
I agree with Norma and Kay! I am 30 and did not like what I read, so I would like to think it is not a generational thing.
I read half of the first book, skimmed the other half to see if it got any better, then gave up on the whole GoT craze. Setting aside the potential of GoT to be offensive, to me it was an issue of believability.
Dragons, magic, etc., fine — what struck me as unrealistic was a world in which sex is *exclusively* an expression of dominance. I am thankful that this does not ring true based on my experience. The utter lack of loving consensual sex in a world so full of sex is striking.
I wonder how much the author thought about the repercussions for his characters of living with violence? Or was his combination of violence and sex meant to be an interesting background?
To turn violence into an item of scenery is to accept it without comment. If an author/director/lyricist/sidewalk mime does not comment, then it doesn’t need to be there.
April 23, 2014 — 2:14 PM
decayingorbits says:
The books are very well written and are wildly popular — and were popular long before the TV show came out. Like most adaptations, the cinematic version rarely lives up to the written one. I still laugh thinking about all of the people who were outraged that a key character was killed off in the first season — regardless of the fact that it was because they were staying true to the story as written.
April 23, 2014 — 7:57 PM
A Citizen of the World says:
I second ardenrr’s sentiment.
April 23, 2014 — 9:52 AM
Peter Hentges says:
My recollection of the book is dimmed by time, but while the scene in question does play out differently in (my memory of) the book, it still read as rape to me. She very much did not want sex at the time, but did relent under his pressure. That’s still rape, and trying to call it not-rape (which I don’t think you’re doing, Chuck) diminishes its vileness.
For me, this scene marks a change in the relationship between the two characters. They had been a team before and now they are no longer that, they are at odds. So the particular depiction fit that narrative for me, marking a clear distinction. She can no longer rely on him, he is no longer her loyal protector.
April 23, 2014 — 9:53 AM
Allen Sale says:
“Everything you do affects somebody.” It is a lesson my father made sure I knew and understood early. If rape is to be part of the story, it has to make sense. Is the victim destined to be a survivor? Is the act the start of a deconstruction of the character? What is the larger purpose of that ripple you are causing in your pond? Rape is going to have dire consequences in your story. It affects every character even remotely connected to the situation.
At least, that’s my take.
What is troubling is that this is an on film rewrite of a scene in the book that isn’t rape. It is as if the director and producers on the show said, “We do not have enough conflict. We need to spice things up. Remember that scene in the book we kind of liked? We can turn it on its head. Ratings boost assured.”
Good post as usual.
April 23, 2014 — 9:56 AM
Emily Wenstrom says:
Well said. This sums up a lot of what I’ve been feeling since watching the episode … “The point I’m making is, if you’re going to deal with rape in your fiction, please give it weight and consequence.”
And I think to your point here, I’ve been trying to withhold some judgment until I see how the consequences actually pan out between these two characters. And yet, contextually to the GoT world overall, I think the assessment here is valid.
To the point of rape in story, to me, it comes down to this: rape in story as art (where there are the weight and consequences you mention) and rape in story as entertainment (in which it’s something vaguely bad that happens to a character but is not given its due weight, which is more and more what GoT is feeling like).
April 23, 2014 — 9:59 AM
Elizabeth SaFleur says:
I don’t watch Games of Thrones, but I’ve read endless accounts of this scene. Yours is the first that makes any sense to me. Thank you. (I think I love you. No, really.) Very deft handling of a horrible, but-must-talk-about topic. Keep sharing your wisdom, we’ll keep reading.
April 23, 2014 — 10:05 AM
Paula Altenburg says:
It’s not the rape in fiction that bothers me. In a book, the sexual act takes place on paper to a character that doesn’t exist except in the imagination. I love the GoT books. However, I have a serious problem with the series. Those are real people those acts are happening to, and a lot aren’t necessary to the story. In fact, a lot of those acts don’t happen in the book, or are mentioned in passing, not graphically illustrated. So you take a young actor/actress who desperately wants to be a part of the fabulous thing that is GoT, and as a casting director (or whoever), you prey on their desire for success. How is this different than sleeping with the producer to get a part, except that it’s now out there for the entire world to see? Over and over? What psychological damage does this do to the actor/actress? It’s easy to say they can turn down the part, but what if a contract has been signed before the actual scene was written? What pressure is put on that actor to perform?
April 23, 2014 — 10:08 AM
mikes75 says:
The actors actually have a fair degree more power than I think you’re giving them credit for, and as realistic as the depiction is, it’s also highly controlled. In that environment, the actress playing Cersei can be given as much time and space as she needs to be “comfortable” while performing.
The problem here as it differs from a book is that, with a book, the author has total control to express what they intend as they write the scene. Martin can revise and hone to ensure there’s little or no ambiguity. The reader might re-read and parse the text differently, but they’ve still got everything they need to establish meaning. They can slow down, re-read, and process the event thoughtfully.
When you watch it played out; the script, the actor’s choices, director’s choices, music etc… all impact at the same time, and (relatively) quickly. It gets made more quickly because the show is on a much faster timetable than Martin is. He can take years to write the next book, but the next season is due next year. They’re changing a complex story in a more demanding environment with many more moving parts. Broadcasting the message gets harder, particularly if everyone’s not necessarily on the same page. Having read interviews and comments by the director, the actor playing Jaime, and Martin, I’m not certain everyone was on the same page about what this scene was trying to accomplish in the larger story.
Which all wraps back to Chuck’s original point. Depicting something as impactful as rape in fiction requires a great deal of intention and thought. If you’re clear what you intend (as Martin seems to have been), your readers tend to get the message. If you’re lazy or vague (as it seems the show was), the message gets lost and the audience is left angry and confused.
April 23, 2014 — 10:54 AM
Gry Ranfelt says:
Thank you! Thank you thank you thank you THANK YOU!
April 23, 2014 — 10:12 AM
Tom says:
Fuck, yes!
Well-written, Chuck!
April 23, 2014 — 10:17 AM
Lisa T. Bergren says:
Thank you for putting down on e-paper what has been mulling about in my mind. I love GoT, but the gratuitous nudity and orgies and now this…well, it’s an avid lesson on what we don’t need to do in fiction. What carries GoT and makes it so intoxicating are the characters, the setting, the drama, the strength of action, the heart-rending emotion and passion, the epic goals. The rest of it could be hinted at but needn’t be on-screen, either on TV or the page, and the story would STILL sing. It’s a good lesson for those of us who write…a way to identify fat that could be trimmed, apparently only present for the gluttons who continually call for “more!” while wiping ale from their dripping beards.
April 23, 2014 — 10:17 AM
Linda says:
I’ll just say thank you for all the rape survivors out there.
April 23, 2014 — 10:20 AM
Christopher Kubasik (@MakerCK) says:
I’m going to go out on a limb. I haven’t seen the third episode yet this season (my schedule and the GF’s schedule haven’t lined up yet this week), but I’m not surprised that something happened this season to produce this kind of discussion.
In my viewing so far, something is *off* this season… even from the first two episodes. I’d credit it mostly the the deaths of so many of the Starks. I’m left these days with a bunch of yahoos who know they have utter power over other people and who, in their panic about keeping that power, inflict horrors on others to feel better about themselves. If that’s the only note you’ve got available to play, it’s going to get weary soon.
But the storytelling is getting soft as well. It reminds me a bit of what happened in the second season of TWIN PEAKS (you should all watch up until Laura Palmer’s death is solved. It’s really good!). Lynch left, new writers came onboard, and it all became about how “zany” the community of Twin Peaks was. The show utterly left behind the emotional and moral underpinning and concerns that is always is under Lynch’s work no matter how dark the world.
In this case, I’m watching the writers left with one horrible event after another, as if saying to themselves, “Okay, this is Game of Thrones. And this is a show where we show how *horrible* things are, one scene after another — abuse, vengeance, murder, repeat.” From what I understand (haven’t read the books) this is essentially what Martin offers up. So the source material is trapping the writers in this mode. But I’ve also heard that the characters became more nuanced in the TV version from the version in the books. I’m getting the feeling that the show is losing that nuance as “Horribleness” becomes the conceit of the show.
I can see this softening of the writing in the buttons of the first two episodes this season. GoT has always had AMAZING buttons for the episodes. Essentially, structurally, GoT episodes don’t have “episodes.” A given episode doesn’t start something and pay it off… there’s not even a self-contained A plot with some B and C plots that are runners across the season. (Like X-FILES, for example, or the first two seasons of LOST where the flash backs were self-contained stories.) Instead, it’s just one scene after another, carrying forward the narrative that’s already been established.
What marked a GoT episode as an episode was some sort of button to end the episode that had some sort of emotional weight for the characters, some sense of wonder or a reveal that turned things around for the world and the logic.
But what have gotten so far this season (two eps in?). Two acts of killing. Both of them pleasing *me* — the audience member. One a triumphant act of vengeance, which makes me happy because I’m glad the avenger did the dead. In the second, it pleases me because I’ve been into the show waiting for the murdered man to get his just deserts…
But in both cases, what was the weight? In the first, not much. A first kill, she’s rewarded with a horse. There was little weight WITHIN the character’s life (that I could see), no fall out, good or bad from the dead.
In the second, one grieving mother who I already don’t care about is already grieving again. A man I like is accused… But really, was anyone onscreen *responding* in a way that pulled me in? Nope. The grieving mother’s POV was a place I really didn’t care about. (She had already just taken food away from starving children. Her murderous son just died. I don’t care.) The reward was for ME — as a viewer. And the one man being accused of the murder — it’s a fact in the story, but it doesn’t pull me in. (Especially since I know — instinctively — he didn’t do it.)
So, the show is now showing me THINGS to elicit responses from ME. But I really don’t have many characters I’m invested in. (See Above: Too many Starks dead.) I fear the show is going to continue to be a horror show of horrible events showing me how bad people can be. But in now way pull me in to the emotional life of the characters. Because most of the characters don’t have emotional lives I want to be near.
That’s my fear at this point, at least. And everything I’ve read so far only suggests my fears are being born out. A disturbing event is shown onscreen, we have no entry point into why or how we’re supposed to be engaged, there’s no love or life or anything about getting caught up in the characters. Just badness. That’s always been the danger for this show. I think the created team is walking right into that danger.
April 23, 2014 — 10:20 AM
Violetta says:
Masterfully written point. I agree here–something is off this season, and I too felt it in the first two episodes. I don’t think it’s the lack of Starks–there are enough fascinating characters in the GOT world to carry the series (book and TV) basically indefinitely.
It’s a problem of emphasis, and it’s a problem of intent.
In the first two seasons especially, there was no lack of violence, sexual or otherwise. But with a couple of exceptions, it didn’t seem to be lingered on in quite the way the show is lingering on the violence now. Martin has come up with some fantastically crazy shit in these books (Catelyn barehandedly fighting a knife-wielding assasin? Melisandre giving birth to a smoke baby? The wildfire at the Battle of Blackwater?), and in the first couple of seasons, the show treated it all with reverence, beauty and gore alike. Now, it seems the showrunners have lost their awe of the material, or else become drunk on the sensationalism of it. And I perceive them lingering on the gore and the violence, sexual and otherwise, just a bit too long. Not even lingering. Emphasizing. As though violence were a point in itself. It never really is–without a context, it’s meaningless, or worse, pornographic. Without something beautiful and meaningful interlaced with the violent scenes, there’s nothing to deconstruct with the violence, and it becomes shocking only in its crassness.
Which leads to intent. I have been a great fan of the books, and was a fan of the show until this season. I understand there are a myriad of conversations, necessary ones, that this show sparked from the very first episode. But in the beginning seasons of the show, one got the sense that the show was being made out of love for the material. Now it seems to be being made out of love for the feeling of shocking everybody. It’s lost all humility in regards to its source material. It’s full of ego.
I don’t mind the inclusion of scenes that aren’t in the books, or even changed timetables. But to change a timetable, so as to include a scene that’s violently different from the books, so as to portray yet more sexual violence; then to linger on it; then to weasel out of it with a non-explanation that basicaly amounted to “It wasn’t a rape scene, and also, we had to include it, because reasons!” And then to have a sexualized gang rape scenario at Craster’s Keep; then to threaten Meera with rape; then to sexualize Oberon and then linger on his overly-gory mutilation…This show has lost its way, lost its humble respect for the source material, begun to lord itself over its audience, and is ruining its own beautiful, terrible ambivalence in the name of cheap gimmicky sensationalism.
Frankly I think the show itself has been raped. There are forces at work in our media culture that seem to eventually infiltrate, darken, and overturn anything meaningful and popular that goes on too long.
July 3, 2014 — 7:16 AM
Elaine Cunningham says:
Thank you.
April 23, 2014 — 10:21 AM
RSAGARCIA says:
Having not read the books, I wanted to wait and see how it played out in terms of where the show is going, not what the scene meant in the books. Then the producers went and said it’s not rape. Arggh. It most certainly was. If they come at it like it wasn’t in the aftermath, they have made the first misstep since I started watching the show. And boy, is it a biggie.
I sincerely hope they reflect on this crappy decision and realise it was a mistake in every way possible. And thank you, Chuck, for saying what you did. It was exactly what I thought, only put much more eloquently.
April 23, 2014 — 10:23 AM
christie says:
Fifth: The director didn’t believe he was filming a rape. http://www.wired.com/2014/04/game-of-thrones-rape/
No words.
This is one of many reasons I just can’t watch that show.
April 23, 2014 — 10:24 AM
Jim Heskett says:
I’ve heard that David Chase used to sometimes despair that Tony Soprano was often viewed as such a sympathetic character, and would often have him behave despicably to dispel that notion. Perhaps there’s a bit of that here by the GoT writers.
April 23, 2014 — 10:26 AM
RSAGARCIA says:
@ Christopher Kubasik, I thought I was the only one worrying about that. I haven’t read the books, though I’ve read a lot of opinions–for and against–about them. I tried starting the first and put it down because nothing was pulling me in and I found the weight of his prose and worldbuilding too much to carry at that time. But that was years ago, I have the books now to make a second try at reading, and the show really won me over, and I thought, it must not be all about the badness of humanity because look! The show is so nuanced! The characters so real! The emotion so present!
But now I’m beginning to see what you’re talking about. This is the first time since I started watching that the events mean nothing to me, unless they’re making me feel frustrated and bleak. If things play out as you fear, it will be the death of a very fine show. And that will be a pity.
April 23, 2014 — 10:33 AM
Roni Ann Snow says:
In the book she said no as well. It is still rape even though further along she took an active part in the act. It was played differently in the show probably to actually down play what occurred as the book was a bit more graphic.
I was raped, I’m not a victim and I refuse to accept that label. Painting all of us with the same brush, worrying about how it will hurt all of us is disrespectful to me and millions of men and women who have faced life as is after an assault. Why is GoT “rapey” is a nation at war that is an unfortunate consequence of war that most of us have never had to face.
April 23, 2014 — 10:37 AM
James Ritchie says:
The books are pretty good, though a bit draggy for my taste. The books have many scenes and incidents I find pretty distasteful, but not to the point the show takes them, probably because it is all visual. The show is everything that’s wrong with TV, and a pretty decent chunk of what’s wrong with society. I stopped watching the show early on, but watched this episode because of the controversy. It’s frightening that anyone could say that wasn’t rape.
April 23, 2014 — 10:50 AM
joannadacosta2014 says:
I watched the episode last night. I’ve had the misfortune to have been a victim, that said, I saw the scene as far more complex than the conversation that has followed. Jamie is angry at Cersei, he tells her an episode earlier that he murdered people to get home to her, and she tells him it wasn’t enough. Blaming him for his absence. King Joffrey also makes Jamie’s capture seem to be of his own doing. Cersei does say NO. She says not here. Jamie says that he doesn’t care. All the while they are both mourning the twisted result of their union. The whole scene is morbid, and twisted, and everything that I would expect from a climactic Lannister scene. The scene didn’t occur in a vacuum. Jamie and Cersei pushed Bran, a young boy, from the tower to hide their incestuous relationship. I don’t know in what world that I would be surprised, shocked or dismayed at any Lannister behavior.
This GoT world, though it isn’t real, appears to be based on medieval era society. This era is more than some bit of rough and tumble. The murder rate at the time was staggering ten times higher than the current rate. The murder rate in Oxford, UK in the 1340’s was 110 per 100k. The current rate for the UK is around 1.5 per 100k. I imagine in a world where the murder rate is that high, where there is active war going on, that there is a lot of rape happening too. GoT isn’t a show for everyone. High rates of rape, murder, starvation, theft and general awfulness are a fact of life in the GoT world. Last episode, Hound steals the farmer’s silver and tells Arya the farmer and his daughter will be dead by winter. And we know it’s true.
If I felt that I could not see a rape scene, then I would simply watch a program where it wasn’t a probability of happening. I’m not saying that there aren’t other women, or men who have been raped that feel differently. I’m only saying that we are ultimately responsible for our own care, and well being. Art is art, and it is subjective. I don’t like the trend of holding programs, comics and other creative endeavors “accountable” for content. We vote with our wallets and our time.
.
April 23, 2014 — 10:52 AM
Sarah_Madison says:
This. A thousand times. This.
April 23, 2014 — 10:53 AM
Priscilla says:
I’ve read the books not so long ago and I remember that scene. The setting, circumstances, etc, are very similar, but it’s clearly not a rape in the books. While she does resist at first, you can see without a doubt that she also wants it. So when I watched the episode, I didn’t see the scene as a rape for a long time. Only afterwards I got this really uncomfortable feeling that the scene wasn’t expressing what it was supposed to and her ‘no’ should have visibly turned into ‘yes’.
Rape IS a constant in Martin’s books. It doesn’t happen all the time and when it does tends to be more told than showed, but you get the message that it’s a constant threat for women in that world. What makes Martin’s work so powerful is the way he builds an incredibly sexist world with powerful women in it. I felt the rape scene sort of undermined that a bit.
Oh, and let’s not forget that this was completely out-of-character, for both the rapist and the victim. But I still like the rapist character because in my head only the books are canon.
April 23, 2014 — 10:55 AM
tpmcgann says:
In reference to the rape in question (Jaime/Cersei) it seems to me that you are not referencing it in context. Joffery was the product on incest between the two who have had an ongoing sexual relationship throughout. The sex act takes place adjacent to Joffery’s coffin. It is all symbolism including her whimpering “nos.”
April 23, 2014 — 11:06 AM
Dren says:
In context of the book – yes. There is plenty of symbolism in that scene. But there are no “whimpering no’s” from Cersei. They want it and they do it – willingly in front of Joffrey’s coffin. The TV Show added the whimpering no’s to create a rape scene. Bad move. Poor judgement. Period.
April 23, 2014 — 11:29 AM
James Ritchie says:
I don’t think context changes anything. It’s an excuse, a justification, for the rape, and that’s all it is. You do bring up a point that has crossed my mind several times because of this scene, and that point is “Can a husband rape his wife”? Also, “Can a man rape any woman he’s had a long sexual relationship with”?
I think the answer to both questions is, yes, of course he can.
April 23, 2014 — 12:28 PM
Andrea Ragadio says:
Yes, of course he can. Consent is not constant–saying ‘yes’ one time doesn’t mean it’s ‘yes’ indefinitely. You don’t hold the rights to someone’s body just because you’re in a relationship. But if you’re talking about the context of this scene exclusively, I can see where this can be confused for a ‘gray area’ (but it isn’t). We’ve accepted the in-universe rules that killing is ok and rape is common as horses, as Chuck says. And this is where it gets problematic for me. The series frames many crimes that are extremely relevant in society as ‘moral gray areas.’ In a society where women have a 1/6 chance of being sexually assaulted in their lifetime, to frame rape as a gray area in any context actively fuels rape culture. And I think that’s inexcusable.
April 23, 2014 — 5:24 PM
Katherine says:
Thank you. It’s hard having to relive my own experience so often just because someone thinks it makes a decent plot turn, or a reason to make a female character weak and this inconsequential. I don’t watch Game of Thrones, and this is why.
April 23, 2014 — 11:27 AM
thejameswhitman says:
For anyone who hasn’t watched and read the scene in question, The Independent ran them side by side in this article:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/game-of-thrones-rape-scene-george-r-r-martin-says-whole-dynamic-was-different-in-the-book-9274274.html
As others have noted, Martin puts it down to the ‘butterfly effect’ of tweaking the timeline, but the creators have chosen to remove Cersei’s consent from the scene’s dialogue. They have since claimed that they view the sex in this scene as consensual, despite cutting Cersei’s verbal consent.
I can’t imagine what the creators hoped to achieve by removing this crucial dialogue, but it does seem to have generated a lot of media coverage and debate about the show. Coincidence?
April 23, 2014 — 11:50 AM
murgatroid98 says:
I’m one of those who does not watch the series. When I read the first book, I knew I did not care to see the events depicted in living color. I want on to read the next two, but haven’t read the fourth. I simply haven’t been ready for it. I especially don’t like depictions of rape, especially if they are graphic. They leave a sick feeling in my stomach. I do, however, like strong female characters who can kick a potential rapist’s ass.
April 23, 2014 — 11:51 AM
Catherine Hackman says:
I have had this argument with my daughter. I feel people who write/make movies, etc., are socially responsible for what they put out there. Rape is a felony punishable by hard time for a reason. Movies and books shouldn’t glamorize it. Also, men and women need to understand, “No,” means “No,” whether the person saying it is laughing, crying, screaming, or making a statement. Thank you for this post.
April 23, 2014 — 11:52 AM
Beth Turnage says:
That we live in a culture where some people can’t discern the difference between rape and consensual sex says more about as a society than it does about a single television show. Our culture if rife with a thousand little ways in which we strip women of their power (examples: making political issues of birth control and family planning, paying women 70 cents on the dollar for similar work, expecting women to be “nice” at work while their male co-workers pile on the bodies to get ahead, and so many more issues.) We take all these things so much for granted that a huge issue of rape is subverted into the woman “wanted” it or not. “No,” so means “no” in whatever context it is uttered and if you are decent human being you’ll respect that. If you display rape in your art and try to assign shades of gray to it, then you really don’t understand the brutal act that it is, how it devastates another human being, you have no business putting it in your art. IMO.
April 23, 2014 — 12:08 PM
James Ritchie says:
I also get a bit cautious whenever anyone uses the word “art”. It’s too often used to justify doing anything, however evil. “But, it’s art, and you can’t censor art” is the cry. Maybe not, but I can certainly judge it, and just because something may be “art” does not mean it’s good, or right, or moral.
I have nothing at all against rape scenes in books or movies, as long as they treat rape for what it is, a brutal, degrading, horrifying act of violence against whoever is being raped.
I’ve seen murders where I could justify why they were committed, but there is no justification, ever, for rape. Writers, directions, whoever, should take responsibility for the work they create, and even when depicting a society or culture where rape is part of daily life, they should make it plain that rape is not all right.
April 23, 2014 — 12:58 PM
Jack Swanzy says:
Those who haven’t read the books, how can you keep anything straight in the TV adaptation? The scenes are so brief, almost none make an emotional impact. The brutal infighting among all the characters seems so inconsequential when you keep in mind that winter is coming, the White Walkers are on the move and the dragons are getting bigger and Danny is freeing slaves.
April 23, 2014 — 12:18 PM
Tee Morris says:
FUCK YES!!! THANK YOU, CHUCK!!!!!
April 23, 2014 — 12:30 PM
Christopher Kubasik (@MakerCK) says:
@ Jack Swanzy,
I’ve noticed that folks who know source material always believe that if one isn’t steeped in the source material, the dramatized version is impossible to follow. This is almost never the case.
If the dramatic narrative is solid in its craftsmanship, it will play. We don’t have everything that the novel carries, but we have the scenes that *work.* I’d say the first three seasons did have scenes that worked. They did have emotional impact. And I’m always aware of all the other items at the end of your post. The show keeps bringing them in to remind me.
April 23, 2014 — 12:44 PM
Shauna Granger says:
I was so disappointed, but the way they chose to change Dany and Drogo’s first time together let viewers/readers know that this could happen again and again. Dany and Drogo’s first time in the books was sweet and consensual and set you up to love Drogo. In the show? He just takes her, silent and caveman-esque. I don’t know what they’re thinking when they write these scenes and change them. It’s so disappointing and really just adds to the rape-culture epidemic.
April 23, 2014 — 1:06 PM
Christopher Kubasik (@MakerCK) says:
@ Shauna,
As a guy who works in this crazy Hollywood place, my read on your observation is that this town is filled with lots of men who are really insecure and try to feel better about being a man by having them behave in manly ways and fearful of anything that speaks of gentleness or affection. And, in a parallel move, work to weaken and belittle women — to make the men seem stronger in contrast.
I honestly don’t know if Hollywood is unique in this, but I don’t think think it is. I observed years ago that most adults I see are really adolescents doing the best they can to dress up in grown-up clothes so they can feel like adults.
April 23, 2014 — 1:22 PM
James Ritchie says:
Hollywood certainly isn’t unique in this, but as a place that holds center stage in most of our homes, I think they have more responsibility than most. They have the ability to go into tens of millions of homes on a daily basis, and by doing so they influence society. Now, I firmly believable that the only permissible censorship is self-censorship, and more people should practice it.
April 23, 2014 — 1:44 PM
Christopher Kubasik (@MakerCK) says:
What I’m trying to offer is that many people in this town are working from places of personal and emotional fear and insecurity. Their own fears and insecurities seem utterly normal to them. They don’t see anything that needs to be “self-censored” since the things you think they should be looking at with a hard gaze are the fantasies they spin for themselves to feel better about themselves.
[In other news, I finally noticed the Reply button!]
April 23, 2014 — 2:10 PM
James Ritchie says:
I’ve done some screenwriting, but I’ve never lived in Hollywood, never been part of the inside scene, and have no desire to do either. I have experienced some very disturbing people in positions of power, and it’s real power. I often wonder if they’re corrupted by the power, or if being corrupt in the first place helps them gain positions of power?
But there are also a lot of very good people in Hollywood. Too many of these, however, seem to be in positions where their fame and livelihood depend on not making waves that would upset those who do have the power.
April 23, 2014 — 5:22 PM
fantasywritermom says:
Totally agree!
April 23, 2014 — 1:46 PM
Sarrah Jones says:
I laughed! Now before all of you peg me as a twisted bitch/trader to my own sex, please take note of the following: 1) GoT was on Easter day, my fav holiday in which I had consumed copious amounts of alcohol by the name of “Mimosa” by the time I saw the infamous “scene.” 2) I saw it with my brothers and friends who are all artists by trade and rather quick witted so someone always has a word slinger during a rather intense scene that sends us all in tears of cacophonous laughter. 3) Come on folks! The dude was trying to go at it one handed with a monster of a…now don’t hate me for this…an appendage he had to deal with all while at the foot of his son’s death pedestal. Truly, the scene couldn’t be more sick and thereby more ridiculous. Thus, I found it comical followed by a shared, “eeewww” from myself and the company who watched the scene.
I concur with everyone who commented above so really I can’t say anything more except that quite frankly I find it sick that rape has to be an ingredient in the recipe of screen writing for every damn series out there and that as a viewer I have accepted it! I will contend that in GoT, it does seem over the top though somewhat appropriate for the “time period,” however, as a parent, as a woman, it is admittedly to the point where I watch with bated breath hoping we’re not going to see young Sansa endure such horror or her younger, warrior sister, Ayra because it seems the lines have been so blurred even child rape as these characters get ‘older” will not be out of the question. Should that occur then I have a new series to hunt for. Though to stay on topic, I admittedly crave to watch GoT, for the time being for its raw fantasy appeal…perhaps it draws my dark side..who knows? I also just completed the entire 6 seasons of Gossip Girl with my tween during spring break! (Talk about a new kind of horror!) Was it rape? Necessary? Yes, and no and honestly, like my kids and their iPad addiction, I believe I have become that desensitized.
April 23, 2014 — 2:13 PM
HawkZ says:
Agreed, the show has been pretty inclined to move consensual scenes toward rape (the Dany/Drogo change pissed me all the way off on several levels).
I honestly just don’t love the choices GoT the show tends to make with it’s female characters the strong ones like Dany and Cersei are more like to be raped, the more stereotypically feminine ones like Catelyn are less ambitious and complex.
Not that I think adaptations have to stay true to source material — I don’t, at all, (and A Song of Ice and Fire isn’t perfect with gender either) — But I do think it’s worth bringing up the comparison since these types of damaging cliche’s are often naturalized. lt might not be intentional, but in this case the choice to portray woman as a little less human then men is an active one.
April 23, 2014 — 2:19 PM
Laura W. says:
Dany/Drogo is still statutory rape by modern standards…Though in the world, it would have been fine, I guess. I think it’s quite telling that both with the Dany/Drogo scene and the Cersei/Jaime scene, the writers are more comfortable with showing a rape rather than showing a female taking sexual agency and having sexual desire in a taboo relationship. The first one with Dany/Drogo, I could understand. The show already gets enough crap for nudity without having a long sex scene where they take their time until she’s comfortable (and horny) enough to say yes. Still, I’d’ve rather seen that than the Littlefinger brothel scenes. There’s that, and the fact that showing an underage girl having and enjoying consensual sex with an adult man she’d just met goes against a different cultural taboo. There’d also be the problems with fetishizing underage girls and young women in a scene like that. To the modern mind, there’s no way that that scene would NOT have been rape, and they’d have probably gotten an equal amount of crap for portraying it as consensual. God knows GRRM gets crap from readers for portraying a 14-year-old’s sexual awakening with older men. The Cersei/Jaime rape scene, though, was not justified for those reasons or any others…unless the decision came from a deep discomfort with portraying incest sex in a positive or romantic light, so rape was viewed as the “safer” option morally. Like maybe they were so afraid of romanticizing the incest affair that they decided to just try and say “INCEST IS BAD HERE LOOK IT’S A RAPE SCENE JUST IN CASE WE HAVEN’T GOTTEN THAT POINT ACROSS YET” but that might be giving them too much credit…
April 23, 2014 — 3:23 PM
Hawk Z (@HawkZee) says:
Well yeah, to clarify my comment I definitely agree that an isolated, abused 14 year old’s “consent” to an adult twice her age is not exactly meaningful. But:
1. Dany’s older on the show, most of the main characters have been aged up… And the sex in Dany’s arc were a big part of the reason they aged her up.
2. Given the extended bath scene in that episode & her and Drogo’s sex scenes in the rest of the season I really don’t think their motive was that they’re squeamish about her age.
For me changing a scene where a character is clearly saying “yes” to one where she is crying and miserable is an aggressive choice. It’s one that could have been interesting, if they’d offered a complicated follow-through on the implications of the violence in that power dynamic. But except from that first encounter, their “romantic” arc was totally unchanged… Which means that someone thought that a scene where a girl says yes and one where she’s silently crying are interchangeable in terms of character development. WHICH IS GROSS & WEIRD ;).
April 23, 2014 — 5:17 PM
Ashley says:
You are giving them too much credit because the director has said that they weren’t filming a rape scene. They saw it as a consensual sex scene >.< That's what baffles me the most on this one.
April 24, 2014 — 10:57 AM
Laura W. says:
Long comment incoming. Also some spoilers. So I had some thoughts on the scene beforehand since I thought that they had considered carefully the change to a rape scene, and then I have my thoughts after learning that they did not handle this well or think it out at all. But anyway:
A lot of critiques of GoT forget that this show takes place in the context of a brutal civil war of attrition. The books do a good job of showing how rape is used as an act of war against women (and others). It is treated like a fact of WAR (not a fact of life) and rape is used against women in war today and in history just like any other weapon or act of psychological warfare. I do not think the show suggests we are supposed to view rape as a fact of life; we’re supposed to see how horrible war is. The show has minimized this, but the farther into the books you get, the stronger the anti-war message is. GoT takes place in a culture that glorifies violence and rewards aggression, and Jaime’s entire identity is built on his identity as a warrior. He’s just lost what makes him a warrior: his right hand. It’s a symbolic castration. Rape is about power, and the rape is an attempt by him to reassert his power and dominance as a male, and assert power in a relationship where he is normally the victim and Cersei the abuser. And I don’t care how much progress he’s made as a character; he’s just horrible. In the books, she says yes, but he might have gone ahead and raped her anyway. Still, I disagree with the choice to remove her lines where she says yes and that her main objection was “not here.” Mainly though, the fan reaction is that Jaime is too likeable to be a rapist…not outrage over what happened to Cersei or outrage that the scene takes away her sexual agency. That annoys me. I see people expressing fanrage that the likeable anti-hero isn’t likeable anymore and they can’t put him in leather pants, rather than fanrage over Cersei’s situation or how she was victimized.
But this post kind of made me bristle for how you addressed her reaction, saying that normally she’s really powerful. Did you ever consider that Cersei whimpering “no” instead of yelling for help or fighting back more strongly might have been because she was afraid of being caught in the act of incest in the chapel? Like, you know…the same reason she didn’t want to have sex there in the first place? I thought you were rather too harsh on her in your assessment (again forgetting the political context in which this takes place). This scene does not make her out to be nearly as weak as you say. Since she’s done so much to maintain her reputation and destroy the incest rumor, she is in a real bind here. If she calls for help, she’ll be caught in incest and people won’t care if it’s non-consensual. They’ll use it as “proof” that her children are bastards — that even if she didn’t willingly participate in incest, Joffrey, Tommen, and Myrcella are all products of rape by Jaime. That would destroy her family’s claim to the throne, her children’s name and futures, Tommen’s upcoming marriage, Joffrey’s memory, and literally everything she’s worked to build her whole life. She’s stuck. She can’t call for help for herself without risking the entire Lannister family — and knowing them, they would not be sympathetic. So she just has to plead quietly for Jaime to stop, and trust that he will. Sadly, he doesn’t. Her whole power base rests on her being the Queen Mother. If her children are ever bastardized, she loses all her power. You could argue how strong of a person Cersei is, but regardless, she would never have screamed for help in that situation because of all the other factors she has to consider.
If we’re to be honest about rape in fiction, we need to show the possible dynamics in which it can happen. Like, gee, I don’t know, the fact that you CAN be raped by someone with whom you normally have a romantic and loving relationship, or that yes, you might WANT to have sex with that person — but not NOW. Or that your feelings for him might affect how you respond to an attempted rape by him vs. how you’d respond to being jumped by a stranger in a dark alley. Especially if you’ve been socialized to believe, like Cersei, that your whole worth as a woman depends on pleasing a man and that what you want doesn’t matter. Or that maybe Cersei would have been willing to have sex with Jaime under different circumstances, and that she still has feelings for him after that scene — that doesn’t make it less of a rape. Human relationships are complicated and fiction should seek to capture that. Most rapists are not men in dark alleys; they are people who women know.
So that’s what I got out of this scene, but it really bothers me to learn that apparently they had no good reason to make this choice? And I didn’t like that they took Cersei’s mutual lust and consent completely out of the picture…I mean…why? It makes sense in one way, but it wasn’t NEEDED. Even GRRM was uncomfortable with the change and they didn’t consult him? What??? I know the director said he was uncomfortable about filming “forced sex,” but it didn’t HAVE to be forced. Of all the changes from book to show, this is probably the least justifiable.
April 23, 2014 — 3:14 PM
Mark Baron says:
This is the best comment of the lot. I have a lot to say that pretty much mirrors what you’ve written, but I want to acknowledge your contribution here before I get to my lengthy, wordy, and likely anger inducing post. Thank you.
April 30, 2014 — 12:02 PM
Moya says:
Eloquent, accurate and so agree!
April 23, 2014 — 3:27 PM
Matthew Eaton says:
Right, well I’ll look at the “business” side of this while still giving my stamp of: RAPE IS BAD.
Have you seen the contract negotiations with HBO and GRRM? Have you heard the foot dragging, heel digging, and the “stick to the story” reactions from the author?
Here’s the dig: It doesn’t make for good television.
What are you all discussing right now? What is on everyone’s lips? What can’t I not read about for five minutes?
That’s right. Game of Thrones.
Good or ill, when it comes to the visual medium of television, there is only one method used to generate chatter: No press is bad press. If you’re going to talk about the show, good or ill, you’re still playing into the bottom line – talking about the show.
Now, on the business side of it all, HBO must have some huge regrets even before extending the series to a new season because they often leaned toward just stopping and letting the actors move on because they can’t afford it. GRRM is throwing out threats of movies and whatnot.
If you look at it as a black and white, is rape good or bad sort of way, you aren’t looking at it in the business model way. If you want this to stop, stop talking about it. Stop giving it press.
Stop going on your blogs, on your social media accounts, stop talking to your friends about it.
This is the only thing producers will ever understand, much like any other big business that has investors, is once the money starts drying up, they’ll drop it like a hot potato.
April 23, 2014 — 4:35 PM