View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sat Apr 27, 2024 10:19 pm



This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Episode 227: The Dragon Demands 
Author Message
house micro-woody lord

Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2018 6:58 pm
Posts: 19
Bina007 wrote:
Valyrian Neil wrote:
Here's a link of the guest tweeting at Brian Cogman 50 times in one day.

http://boiledleather.com/post/164430570 ... on-demands


Bloody hell - at what point is that tirade harassment? That's just not a normal rational proportionate reaction. I'm actually pretty disappointed, having seen that, that Amin gave him airtime on a podcast that has sought to be, and still typically is, a nice corner of the internet with pleasant debate and witty insider jokes. A mis-step indeed.


Oh. I talked about that in the podcast itself. Didn't you listen to that part?

I wanted to head it off so I explained it in the podcast: basically, Cogman was responding to someone who complained about the Sansa rape on Twitter by....bitterly berating them that "What? You think bad things don't happen to people?" (holy christ he actually said that...)

I responded by half-sarcastically replying to his Tweets with direct quotes from his DVD commentary in which he defends the Sansa rape with "but we wanted to show off these performances and these faces!"

Moreover, and I'm really annoyed at Boiled Leather for this.....Sean quoted the whole thing out of context to show only MY Tweets, and not what Cogman was replying: insulting juvenile stuff like announcing "by the way I muted all my critics months ago!" --- you don't just "mute" all your rape critics. So at that point I was more posting stuff for the dozen or so other people in the conversation, given that Cogman just proclaimed he wasn't even listening to me.

Sean put a spin on it by quoting it all out of context.


(sigh) I'm explaining all this now, I explained it in the podcast. But like Sean you've already reached a conclusion based on how he inaccurately spun the entire event.

I do intend to make a YouTube video directly addressing this (explaining what I just did now), instead of hiding from it.

I've lost faith in Sean of Boiled Leather, given that he's one of the people who *praised* the Sansa rape as a great adaptation decision. I am truly at a loss for how he turned into such a show apologist.

In short, you linked to a Twitter incident in which Cogman tried to defend the Sansa rape as "what, you don't think bad things happen to people?", and I responded by Tweet-storming "these performances, these faces!" - quoting him - over and over again. I am not ashamed of this.

I do....regret, it, only in the sense that I didn't want him to leave Twitter. What idiot does that? He could have just blocked my account. And ultimately, had he not quit Twitter, I'd have more self-incriminating quotes he made to use against him; so I denied myself a source of "ammo" right there. But how was I supposed to know he'd do that? (Given that he just said "haha I muted you months ago"). Child.

Defending rape scenes that they admit in their own Blu-ray commentary were awards-baiting...is where I draw the line. When someone doesn't deserve politeness anymore. And damn it, I was polite through Season 5. Look how they rewarded us. We are well past "pleasant decorum" at this point....and well into "first against the wall when the revolution comes" territory.

On the one hand, I'm facing show apologists in a state of denial, who can't mentally accept that D&D could do anything "wrong", much less that they did it for shallow reasons like awards baiting. On the other hand...I sympathize that large numbers of book readers quit the show over time, but they have to acknowledge that means they're in no position to judge "D&D must be professional writers". I know some people who stopped watching in *Season 2*, who seem surprised by my level of righteous fury and outrage and things that happened in Season 5...only to then admit they never actually saw Season 5.

(shrug)

I didn't think this many people would agree with me or come to the same conclusions based on the same evidence when I started doing this one year ago. But the more people who see these DVD clips and documentaries I make based on them....well, a year ago I had "zero" people agreeing with me. If 100 watch these clips and 99 still think D&D are "professional writers", but ONE realizes what I actually happening...net gain. Fortunately I'm seeing a better response than that.

...Benioff staggered in drunk to his own San Diego Comic Con panel...and you expect me to respond with politeness and good humor?

By my fury, they will know that action has consequence...


Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:27 pm
Profile
house blackwoody
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 1:04 am
Posts: 621
Location: Boston, MA
If you think that those of us watching and enjoying the show are all show apologists, you CLEARLY have never listened to either A Podcast of Ice and Fire or Vassals of Kingsgrave!

Look, even if I hadn't read your 50+ tweets in one day, even if I hadn't heard your vitriol in your videos, even if I hadn't listened to any of the podcast, just from what you've written here in this thread, I'd see you as someone to get a restraining order against. I really don't mean that as a personal attack or insult. I'm saying what I'm hearing in your words and in your voice.

Seriously, dude, you have major anger issues that border on violent (especially in some of the imagery you have used.)
Yes, you step WAY over the line in your personal attacks on Benioff.
And frankly, your attempts to destroy their careers is tremendously disturbing. (Not to mention tremendously naive!) There are so many real problems in the world, and you're devoting your passion to trying to destroy the careers of people who did something you didn't like. Seriously?
"By my fury, they will know that action has consequence..." would be comical if it wasn't so disturbing.

But you also show a complete disrespect for everyone around you and their right to have a different opinion than you. That's clear literally two minutes into the podcast when you literally proclaim your opinions and conclusions as fact and dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as wrong. You take small quotes out of context and extrapolate convoluted conspiracy theories around them, and expect everyone to agree with them. You don't seem to understand that reasonable people can actually disagree with you. You barely let the hosts speak in their own podcast! It makes conversation impossible, because it's not conversation. It's us talking, and you continually telling us we're wrong and why we're wrong, and insulting us. Pro tip: That's not going to go down well in ANY situation. Nor is attacking some of the most respected people in this community.

But this is a community, and you've violated pretty much all of the social norms here with your behavior.
YES, WE EXPECT YOU TO RESPOND WITH POLITENESS AND GOOD HUMOR HERE.
And frankly, you'd be better served by doing so everywhere.

You feel that your extreme rage is warranted. It's not. As Bina points out so well, it's ridiculous to get THIS aggressively angry over a TV show and decisions that people behind that TV show have made. There is no "righteous fury and outrage" over a TV show. If you can't see that, then that's part of the problem. IT'S A FREAKING TV SHOW. They didn't attack your family!

You see, we don't need to see the other aspects of that legendary tweetstorm to know that it's inappropriate and scary. There is literally NO context in which what you did there is NOT inappropriate and scary. None. There's literally nothing that Cogman could have said that would have made your response there appropriate. And I thank Sean for calling you out on it. The more you defend it, the less rational you sound. Trust me on this: there is nothing you can say in a further video on that tweetstorm that is going to make us "understand" your point of view here. We reached our conclusion based on YOUR words, not how Sean "spun" it. Stop blaming others for what YOU have done. It's raw, irrational rage. You're always going to be judged based on it, and not because of Sean. You let your anger and rage get the better of you, and you've admitted that you've done it here. Raw, irrational rage may be great to read about in ASoIaF, but not in the real world, when it's directed at real people. It's disturbing as all hell. Especially when we see it directed at people we care about.

Seriously, and completely sincerely, get help. Before your "fury" gets you into trouble. Before you do yourself (not to mention anyone else) damage that you can't get out of. I say that out of real concern. Lots of us struggle with anger issues and/or depression. You seem like a smart and decent fellow. But one who's gone very far down a very dark path. Take some lessons here from George, before it's too late. Please.


Wed Mar 21, 2018 3:33 am
Profile
house stark
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 7:03 pm
Posts: 1718
Location: Cleveland, Oh
The Dragon Demands wrote:
In short, you linked to a Twitter incident in which Cogman tried to defend the Sansa rape as "what, you don't think bad things happen to people?", and I responded by Tweet-storming "these performances, these faces!" - quoting him - over and over again. I am not ashamed of this.


Um, you probably should be.

If anyone does 2 minutes of researching into your behavior on social media, one would see 1000's of relentless messages about the supposed crimes committed by the show runners.

Do yourself a favor and let it go.

_________________
Oh, I think he'll fit. Unbuttered.

Fantasy Football: A Njoku Needs A Name


Wed Mar 21, 2018 7:55 am
Profile
★wardens of the woody★

Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2012 10:49 am
Posts: 4647
DavidHHH wrote the post I wasn't energised or articulate enough to write.

The Dragon Demands continued use of violent or threatening imagery and language is not something I and I think the VOK community would condone. Even alluding to a show runner in the cast as behaving like a serial killer is a deeply serious and disturbing charge. We have worked very hard to make this a respectful community in which words and their meanings really do matter. We don't always get it right but we really do try!

I'm very disappointed that APOIAF didn't do some due diligence and allowed this character into our airspace and community.

Amin - care to respond?


Wed Mar 21, 2018 8:57 am
Profile
house micro-woody lord

Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2018 6:58 pm
Posts: 19
I'm not seeing a specific, articulated defense of what Benioff and Weiss did. Just an ossified defense of "decorum".

Quote:
You see, we don't need to see the other aspects of that legendary tweetstorm to know that it's inappropriate and scary. There is literally NO context in which what you did there is NOT inappropriate and scary. None. There's literally nothing that Cogman could have said that would have made your response there appropriate.

Bryan Cogman DVD commentary for the Sansa rape in episode 5.6:

Quote:
"I think it's important to talk about because of the response that this storyline got. It's sort of 'damned if you do, damned if you don't.' If you don't talk about it, people think you're ashamed of it; if you do talk about it, everything you say is taken out of context. Basically, when we decided to combine Sansa’s storyline with the storyline of another character in the books, it was done with the idea that it would be hugely Dramatically Satisfying to have Sansa back in her occupied childhood home and having to navigate this Gothic horror story she’s found herself in and, of course, to be reunited with Theon – and to set her on her path to reclaiming her family home and becoming a major player in the big overall story. That said, when we decided that we were going to do that we were faced with the question: If she’s marrying Ramsay, what happens on the wedding night? And we made the decision not to shy away from it, from what realistically would happen on that wedding night with these two characters, and the reality of the situation, and the reality of this particular world. And it was not an easy decision to make, it was a very difficult scene for me to write. I've known Sophie since she was a kid, and I love her, I love Sansa. And every effort was made to do the scene as respectfully as possible.

You could of course argue with the adaptation choice, there's a larger argument about sexual assault being used in entertainment at all, I'm not going to wade into that argument here, I will say though that the accusation that our motives were "oh they just threw in a rape for shock value", I personally don't think that the scene as shot, and as written, and as acted by our wonderful actors supports that argument, nor do I think the aftermath of the scene supports that argument, not only in this episode but also in future episodes.

The main thing I would say is that the story is not over. This is a long ongoing story, Sansa has journey ahead of her, and what happens to her in that room is a huge part of that journey, and one that we've thought through.

So I guess, of course, it's an upsetting scene, it's a horrifying scene, it's meant to be. I guess where I took issue was some of the criticism was the idea that the people criticizing were in our heads, as to our motives, and our motives were about telling a Powerful story. That's really all I have to say.

Comments on Twitter are taken out of context to say I'm a victim blamer. But my comment was that she is brave. That this is an incredibly brave thing that she is doing...Sansa is a survivor, she is surviving as the only way she can as a woman in the position that she is in this society. And yes it would have been hugely satisfying for her to have a shiv up her sleeve and to gut Ramsay, but that's not Sansa, we can't all be Arya, and in fact most people aren't Arya. Most people in that situation, they have to play a longer game. She goes in thinking she can, she goes in without the right information about Ramsay, she gets a sense that Ramsay is dangerous, and then when it turns out to be even worse than she thought, she's not broken by the attack, she immediately sets to getting the hell out of there, and planning her next move from there.

I think it was the attack on our motives behind it that upset me. Because I love these characters. I've spent the better part of the last decade with these characters, and I love these actors I love – I'm getting emotional talking about it – I love Sophie, I love Alfie, I love [Maisie] and it's very personal to me and it's not an easy thing to put a character that I love through a scene like this.

It seemed to us that this was what had to happen at this stage in the story for her - and look at her! She's just so incredible! She's just absolutely incredible in this scene, when she says "I take this man", I mean that's the bravest thing she can do.

And Alfie's wonderful in this sequence too. Another argument – I shouldn't say I take issue with it, I get why this criticism was leveled at us – is idea that we took Sansa's story away from her and made it all about Theon. I don't personally don’t believe that’s the case ---- I think they're both Players in this story, and they, I think the subplot, you know they both have huge parts in it, I don't consider this her being shoehorned into Theon's redemption journey. Certainly Theon's redemption journey is an element of the subplot. But if you really watch this scene it's played from Sansa's viewpoint, for the most part. The main reason we cut away at the end, frankly, is that this was Sophie's first scene of this nature, and we didn't feel it was necessary, didn't want to show the attack. And so we cut to Theon to hear the attack. I understand why many people reacted to that, [thinking] we were making this scene about Theon and not Sansa. I’m sorry that it was viewed that way by a lot of people. All I can say is it's certainly not my intention when I wrote it or when we were producing it. It's a very delicate thing.

Jeremy and David and Dan, all of us, this was very carefully planned out. It was a very hard day on set, but also I will say, as a writer and a producer, an exhilarating day, because the work being done that day, I think, is some of the best work being done on the show, in terms the way it's shot, and in terms of the camera moves, and the lighting, and the set dressing - and most of all, these performances, these faces. It's just such a Strong scene. I mean Alfie and Sophie are just, they're just extraordinary.

And if you ask why we wanted to bring Sansa into this world, it didn't have to do with this scene, it had to do with the idea of her coming back to reclaim her family home, and encountering this broken character who betrayed her family, and the fireworks of these actors, two of our finest actors in the cast playing off each other. That was why we made the decision to put Sansa in Winterfell.

And we could have stayed on her face for the entirety of the attack, that would have been a perfectly valid choice, but for me it was about being respectful to Sophie. ----And you know what's crazy? That was a take, that wasn't even Alfie's closeup, Alfie had already done his closeup, he was done, and then Jeremy saw what he was doing, it was in a wider shot that he wasn't even going to use, and he saw what he was doing, then Jeremy just said "go in go in" and that's was the take they used."



Is Bryan Cogman articulating a defense of this in story terms? Or is he admitting "we randomly put Sansa into another character's rape storyline because we wanted Sophie Turner to win an Emmy award for her 'strong' crying performance in it?"

Can you spin that any other way?

Or are you going to fall back on trying to defend that this was an "artistic" choice? And that on general principle, we can't criticize their "artistic" choices?

This wasn't an artistic choice. My one central point is "going through all their interviews, I realized these men were unqualified for this position, incompetent, faked their way into it, and coasted along on our tolerance - they must be removed".

I will not...legitimize, what they did. Why do you?

What I'm confused about is.....do you doubt my conclusions from this evidence? Reasonable men could defer on that - after all, it's too crazy to believe unless it already happened. But it did.

I can understand the show fanatics who insist "no, there was a story reason for this"...when they admit there wasn't in their own commentary tracks.

I'm...genuinely confused, by some sort of mentality that "We acknowledge this is bad, but refuse to take any action against Benioff and Weiss over it". Gaining what?

Quote:
Raw, irrational rage


Rage? Yes. Raw? Yes. But "irrational"? Sometimes rage is the logical response. When it would be ethically wrong not to respond with anger & contempt. It is criminal to teach someone not to respond when they are the constant victim of abusive behavior.


Wed Mar 21, 2018 10:57 am
Profile
house micro-woody☹
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 5:25 pm
Posts: 4
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
I've been a fan of this podcast for a long long time and I think I may have never actually posted anything on the forums. However, I really feel like I need to say something here.

Halfway through the episode I was already feeling like I'd stumbled into a completely different podcast from the one I've known and loved throughout all these years.

I am a fan of the show and have watched every season. I do think it has some problems, especially in the later seasons, so I'll grant that some of the guest's criticisms are indeed interesting from an objective point of view - like the choice to focus more on actor performances than on good character development, for example. I can tell that the guest is an intelligent person who has obviously thought this through.

That being said, I found the frantic rage aimed at the creators of the show to be completely disproportionate. To address what you believe to be failures of the show as some sort of evil attack on the fans, making personal and very offensive claims about the character and personal life of the writers (while harrassing them online), dedicating so much time and energy of your life to something you clearly hate and despise, is extremely off-putting and frankly a bit scary. The fact that someone who hates a TV show so much would spend hours on end building a Wiki, microanalyzing every single interview the creators have done, and producing hour long videos for youtube about it is baffling to me. If this was about politics or war, this would be a very passionate individual. Being about a TV show, it is simply disturbing.

I love the harsh critisicm of the show that is often made by the APOIAF hosts, even when I strongly disagree with it. Not only because it's interesting to listen to people you disagree with, but - and mostly - because it is funny! This podcast has a sense of humour, it is fun to listen to. This episode could not have been farther from that.


Wed Mar 21, 2018 11:40 am
Profile
★wardens of the woody★

Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2012 10:49 am
Posts: 4647
The Dragon Demands wrote:
I'm not seeing a specific, articulated defense of what Benioff and Weiss did. Just an ossified defense of "decorum".


You are completely correct. And it speaks to why I asked if you'd listened to the podcast before you were on it. Decorum, as old-fashioned as that mind sound, really does matter to us here. We love well-informed arguments and have a bunch of fun, but underlying that is a respect for people with differing views and perspectives.


Wed Mar 21, 2018 12:44 pm
Profile
brotherhood without banners
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 10:17 am
Posts: 4052
I had become aware of The Dragon Demands, partly because I try to keep up-to-date with Sean T. Collins' thoughts about the show and its detractors and partly because I visit sites like Watchers on the Wall to get news about the show. I agree with Sean's assessment. It's how much effort and vitriol goes into focusing on D&D and the people working with them and disparaging them as people whilst using violent rhetoric and imagery in 50-post threads that is disturbing. If I remember right, The Dragon Demands also got into similar conversations in commentary sections on Watchers on the Wall. Here are some examples that date back to 2016 (spoilers for the HBO show obviously):
Spoiler: show
http://watchersonthewall.com/hbo-scouting-sweden-possible-game-thrones-location/

http://watchersonthewall.com/excised-di ... w-emotion/


DavidHHH has put the heart of the issue quite nicely in his very eloquent response: this kind of vitriol and the ways in which it is expressed are not how we wish to conduct our discussions here because we try to keep the discourse respectful and civil and even though we may disagree about the quality of the show, we acknowledge that it's just that: a tv show. The hosts barely got to talk on the podcast this time, which to me made it feel like this was not the kind of podcast that I am used to. I am very disappointed that not more care was taken to look up who this guy was and how he has expressed his opinions and interacted with people on social media websites before he got to be on an APOIAF podcast.

Rhaenyra has an army? Lol, no because she's a fictional character. Benioff and Weiss, Brian Cogman, George RR Martin and everyone else who worked on the show and has seen it are real human beings. That's the big difference. Your conception of art, art criticism and quality tv writing does not outweigh the needs, reputation and lives of real people.

_________________
The night is dark and full of terrors.


Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:20 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2010 12:16 am
Posts: 4503
Location: Starfall, Quebec
Bina007 wrote:
The Dragon Demands wrote:
I'm not seeing a specific, articulated defense of what Benioff and Weiss did. Just an ossified defense of "decorum".


You are completely correct. And it speaks to why I asked if you'd listened to the podcast before you were on it. Decorum, as old-fashioned as that mind sound, really does matter to us here. We love well-informed arguments and have a bunch of fun, but underlying that is a respect for people with differing views and perspectives.


Yes. Dragon Demands if you are going to post on these forums, like any other user here you must be aware of the particular community we have here. Most people know each other better than the average forum or community on the internet. Many have known each other for years and/or have met in person. The emphasis is placed on respect for others and knowing that there a diversity of views on the TV show in particular.

There are probably listeners and forumers who agree with your analysis, but you are not going to help Rhaenyra's cause by getting involved in disputes with others on this forum. You have already had 2 hours to talk on the podcast to make your case and I am sure that people who would support your cause have already checked out your further arguments and videos.

In regard to why I had Dragon Demands on the podcast episode. I favour free speech and thought it would be interesting to hear from Dragon Demands after seeing his particularly passionate Stannis video. Unlike the forum discussions here, people can easily skip an episode of the podcast if they disagree with it. Furthermore, I think Dragon Demand had some new and interesting points to be made coming from his extensive views of the blue rays, even if I, Kyle, or others may disagree with some arguments or his dragon like rage.

So no, I don't currently regret giving him "airtime" on the podcast. Now if he gets embroiled in disputes on this forum and/or disrespectfully treats forumers after reading my post here today, then I would regret it since the episode would have been linked to subsequent events on the forum that wouldn't have happened otherwise.

_________________
Lord of Kingsgrave, Justice of the Supreme Court of Westeros, and Hand of the Queen
Founder of Bastards of Kingsgrave and Vassals of Kingsgrave


Wed Mar 21, 2018 6:36 pm
Profile WWW
★wardens of the woody★

Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2012 10:49 am
Posts: 4647
Thanks for responding Amin! I also value free speech and agree that some of the insights are very cool and thought provoking. It’s a shame the tone detracts from that. As for the podcast I only listened to part of it because of show spoilers but at the point he started comparing the show runners to serial killers I felt you might’ve intervened. It was already getting slanderous. But it felt like you and Kyle were partly understandably focusing more on summarising what was being lost to bad audio to do so live. I guess whether some of that stuff should’ve passed the edit is a layer of opinion.


Wed Mar 21, 2018 7:28 pm
Profile
house blackwoody lord
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2016 12:47 pm
Posts: 829
Location: Aberdeenshire scotland
Quote:
I'm not seeing a specific, articulated defense of what Benioff and Weiss did

for them to be personally responsible for the show in its entirety they would have to:

have known the show would continue as long as it has. (They didn't they originally planned to stop at the red wedding.)

have known george wouldn't have finished winds of winter when they started.

have full control of the cast and crew and all decisions involved.

not have any one above them to dictate what they can and can't do.

Not be affected by the actions of others.

not have any constraints such as time and or money.

It is much logical to blame God, Fate, Fortune, Luck or one’s neighbour. If your into astrology you may prefer to blame a Star.

and secondly the quality of a show is subjective and going by the awards they get are subjectively good.

and in terms of adaptation they doing better than the median. there's the one where they replaced a ukranian football team with an American and a brit just so they could have the Allies beat the nazis. good morning Vietnam where they replied a die hard republican with a reveloutioary liberal, brave heart in which they basically changed all of history. technically turning William Wallace into a time travelling pedophile. and these were real people not fictional. would a like more adaptations that match the quality of Zulu and Waterloo. yes but do I expect all to match that level of accuracy no. even some of the best known and celebrated directors and producers fail in their adaptations for example Nolan with Dunkirk.

They have done a lot better with fictional characters than others have done with real people who are still alive at the point of of release and went through traumatic events.

_________________
"My life it should be the focus of all my energies and professional skills, but the truth is that I don’t really give a shit.”
"Farewell hope and with hope farewell fear. Farewell remorse: allgood to me is lost" - my thoughts after brexit.
"we can dae it, we will dae it, we simply huv to dae it - fur the weans! "
My core values:
Reading.
Riting.
Rithmetic.
Purging society of degenerates.


Thu Mar 22, 2018 6:38 am
Profile
brotherhood without banners
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 10:17 am
Posts: 4052
Engaging in a crusade to ruin people over how they adapted a fictional story is disturbing in a number of ways and it is not the same as having something interesting to say about the supposedly bad quality of the show (people can judge that for themselves) and people should know better than to engage or enable this.

It's not hard to feed your own anger and say and imply mean stuff about somebody at all. And all it ever amounts to is a lot of anger and nasty, bad faith mindreading...all over a fictional story. Permit me to laugh heartily at this silly crusade that is a giant waste of time and effort.

If I were to ask Martin to explain every "horrible" writing choice he made in AFFC and ADWD that does not resemble in my opinion what he says he had in mind when he wrote them, I'd be here next month and not be finished. I don't do that though. Because it's just a bunch of books, fiction. Ultimately, if I wanted to find other stuff to read there are other writers out there whose works I might enjoy. I don't know Martin. Whenever he gives interviews he seems like a decent guy. I can read and interpret the story and come up with themes that I find interesting in them without having read a single thing he has said in interviews. I don't go around fishing for 10 year-old interview snippets and hold them against the final product (or God forbid the author) because, yeah, I'm sure in hindsight things turn out differently than writers imagine and I am sure in Martin's mind AFFC and ADWD are great books and he tries to get one thing across to me and it might not resonate with me at all for various reasons. I personally might not think that they are great books...and them being of lesser quality in my eyes is not a crime against Literature because I am aware that other people disagree with me on this and that's fine. I move on from my disappointment and read something else. I certainly don't feel like making thousands of hours of disparaging youtube videos about Martin and how I am chosen to defend Literature in general against him just because I might think that for instance his prose is not that great imo when loads of other people tell me they think it is good and that he's the greatest modern fantasy writer. They might have a different outlook on it and these 2 books work for them for various reasons.

The only reason that this kind of discussion about D&D is happening at all online is because apparently a) some people don't know how to engage with art as something one judges subjectively, b) it is news to some people that the creation of a tv show has different needs, constraints and demands than writing a series of books and c) aside from the HBO show, we haven't really had much of anything to discuss about the series in terms of the main story because the 6th book has not come out in 7 years.

_________________
The night is dark and full of terrors.


Thu Mar 22, 2018 7:48 am
Profile
house stark
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 7:03 pm
Posts: 1718
Location: Cleveland, Oh
It's not about free speech as much as it's giving a known online harasser a spot on the longest running ASOIAF podcast.

_________________
Oh, I think he'll fit. Unbuttered.

Fantasy Football: A Njoku Needs A Name


Thu Mar 22, 2018 8:51 am
Profile
brotherhood without banners
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 10:17 am
Posts: 4052
Valyrian Neil wrote:
It's not about free speech as much as it's giving a known online harasser a spot on the longest running ASOIAF podcast.

Agreed.

_________________
The night is dark and full of terrors.


Thu Mar 22, 2018 9:24 am
Profile
★wardens of the woody★

Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2012 10:49 am
Posts: 4647
Beric175 wrote:
Valyrian Neil wrote:
It's not about free speech as much as it's giving a known online harasser a spot on the longest running ASOIAF podcast.

Agreed.


Agreed. I feel this was a misstep.


Thu Mar 22, 2018 10:39 am
Profile
♜ vassals of kingsgrave curator ♖
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 5:50 pm
Posts: 4778
Location: Long Island
OK. I'm finally caught up with this. As for APOIAF, I'm always glad and usually excited to have a new person on, especially someone who has devoted so much time to the fandom and is obviously so passionate about the books and show as TDD is. I was with you at the beginning of your valid criticisms in regards to what D&D have done in going off-page from the books to do their own thing.

But then...

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but if you think that you're going to start some kind of A Game of Thrones revolution I think there are bigger hills to die on. Those of us who continued to watch the show all found our own ways to deal with the differences and either accept it and keep watching, or to stop watching.

But what I took away from this episode was that you are trying to drive people to watch your videos and to wrap their heads around your Grand Benioff Conspiracy Theory. I'm always up for crazy theories about the world but this sounds like it should be on Game of Thrones Coast to Coast Radio, not A Podcast of Ice and Fire. Yes we have creaking doors and feathered hats, but this was...something else. I don't blame the hosts, as they obviously didn't know what was going to happen until they were in it. Maybe they should have thought more before putting it out? That's their decision.

Likening the writers to serial killers, if only in their thinking is quite a stretch and distasteful. Also comparing the adaptation of a fantasy book series to the same importance as gay rights and political revolution is a bit much.

That being said I have not read every previous post here and will try to, but just wanted to get my initial response down since I just finished the episode.

_________________
"Abraham Lincoln once said that if you are a racist I will attack you with the North." - Michael Scott

House Words: "I'm in as long as I don't have to edit."


Thu Mar 22, 2018 3:51 pm
Profile
♜ vassals of kingsgrave curator ♖
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 7:12 pm
Posts: 2438
Location: Nashville, TN
claudiusthefool wrote:
I'm always glad and usually excited to have a new person on, especially someone who has devoted so much time to the fandom and is obviously so passionate about the books and show as TDD is. I was with you at the beginning of your valid criticisms in regards to what D&D have done in going off-page from the books to do their own thing.

But then...




Pretty much this. Just bizarre. At first I thought about checking out some his videos but by the end of the episode I was over it. Way too far.

_________________
Image

-Adam

Skype: drownedsnow

"You know what? My dad has gout. He's not stupid". -Bina


Thu Mar 22, 2018 6:33 pm
Profile
house blackwoody
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 1:04 am
Posts: 621
Location: Boston, MA
Look, I'm not sure there's really any point in engaging with you. You've shown again and again in every single forum you've posted on in recent years that you have absolutely no respect for what anyone else says. You don't listen to what we say. You don't try to understand where we're coming from. You scroll through looking for areas you can debate and attack. You lack empathy. You can't even understand our points of view, because you very clearly don't consider them valid.

Hell, you clearly didn't even listen to ANYTHING I wrote earlier. Instead, you found one single word that you could debate: "irrational", referring to your rage, and then went on to mansplain to us exactly why your irrational rage isn't so.

It's important to state this again, very clearly: Unless we're talking about real crimes that truly hurt real people, rage is NEVER, EVER, EVER the rational response. Harassing people and trying to destroy their careers because you didn't like some decisions they made on a TV show is scary, abusive, anti-social and borderline criminal. You call yourself the "victim of abusive behavior". No, you're the PERPETRATOR of abusive behavior.

That's why you remind me of nearly every other conspiracy theorist on in the internet. You believe that you've made some shocking discoveries that no one else understands. As such, you feel that only your point of view is valid. You state it so vehemently that you call your opinions "facts".

But they're not. They're opinions. Even when they're well-researched opinions. Anyone can take a few quotes out of context and believe that we know what is happening in someone else's head. (Isn't that precisely what you accused Sean of?) But that doesn't make our opinions and theories facts. Facts are indisputable. Opinions and theories are subjective. And that makes having a conversation with you largely pointless, until and unless you decide to actually listen to what other people have to say.

But instead, you decide for us what we believe. You call us "show apologists". You claim that we "can't mentally accept that D&D could do anything 'wrong'". None of us have said any such thing. But it's easier for you to try to decide for us what we think and what we mean. Because your claims of what we think are easier to argue about than what we ACTUALLY think. And you denigrate both what you are claiming are our opinions and our actual opinions.

It's abusive. Pure and simple. And it's disrespectful. And as I said, it makes real conversation impossible. Because real conversation is people listening to each other and taking in what they have to say, then incorporating that into our own understanding of what we're talking about. It's not saying something, then attacking anyone who disagrees with and explaining why they are wrong.

I disagree, sometimes vehemently, with many things that many people say in these podcasts and forums. But I respect the people and their right to say and believe them. And often they make me rethink my positions, or at least alter them somewhat. But at the very least, understand where they're coming from.

You should try it some time.
It's generally how you make friends.
And to be honest, it sounds like you could use some.

(To be clear, I'm saying that sincerely, not as some sort of attack or insult.)


Fri Mar 23, 2018 1:36 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.   [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.