Game of Thrones (soundtrack) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
While I am a fan of the fantasy genre, I only recently saw the first few episodes of Game of Thrones. One reason for this is purely practical—I am not willing to add to my already ridiculous cable bill by adding a premium channel, so I waited for it to become available via Netflix. A more substantial reason is that when my friends who watched it spoke of the series, they gushed about the grittiness and enthused over the evil of most of the characters. The plot also struck me as a bit like Desperate Housewives, only with swords and dire wolves. However, the appalling lack of fantasy and sci-fi content on television drove me watch the series. It was pretty much as I had expected, given the extensive descriptions provided by my friends.
Naturally, I am well-aware that aesthetic taste is similar in many ways to one’s taste in food: what one finds too bland, another finds too spicy. I am also mature enough to recognize that what I dislike might be liked (even loved) by others and that there might be merit in such things. Of course, I do not subscribe to an aesthetic subjectivism so I do not accept that aesthetic discussions end after one has expressed one’s like or dislike. As such, I will endeavor to present a rough discussion of fantasy and evil.
To set the stage a bit in regards to my own biases, my love of fantasy was shaped primarily by writers like Tolkien and by games like AD&D. Roughly put, my views have been shaped by heroic fantasy. While such fantasy worlds do contain evil (such as Sauron and Orcus), the evil is of a rather different sort than that of Game of Thrones. In Game of Thrones, the evil of classic fantasy is wedded to (or raped by) perversion, depravity and other such horrors that are seen as making evil “gritty and real.” This is, of course, not limited to this series. The idea of presenting evil characters in this manner is rather common, and occurs in other HBO series (such as True Blood) and fiction.
One problem, as I see it, is that Game of Thrones breaks the rules of the fantasy genre by presenting and seemingly glorying in this sort of evil. This, as I noted above, was one reason I resisted watching the series (and reading the books).
There are two easy and obvious replies to this alleged problem. First, heroic fantasy is but one of the many legitimate sub-genres within the fantasy genre. While the genre does require fantasy elements to be present (one cannot have a fantasy work without at least some minimal elements of magic), it can be argued that there is no moral requirement in regards to a work being a proper fantasy work. Obviously, this series is not heroic fantasy, but it seems sensible to say that it is still quite legitimately fantasy. After all, it does include the seemingly supernatural others/white walkers (unless they are actually non-magical aliens or something) and the technology is at the sword and bow level.
Second, the evil portrayed in the series is obviously taken from the real world. As such, the work does nicely meet Aristotle’s view that the characters and actions should be such that they conform to what is probable. As Aristotle argued, what has occurred is obviously possible. It could even be argued that this series and others that embrace gritty realism are better than the more classic works because they are more realistic. This could form the basis of a counter attack, namely that heroic fantasy is defective because presents the characters (humans, at least) in a way that is improbable (that is, being mostly heroic and good rather than mostly depraved and evil).
One response to this argument is that fantasy works by their very nature need to break with reality. After all, if they were strictly realistic, they would cease to be fantasy. As such, by presenting humans in what is taken to be “gritty and real”, a work is failing to be a work of fantasy and instead is realism, only with a monster or two thrown in to create the appearance of fantasy.
This raises the obvious concern about what sort of realism a fantasy work should include and what it should reject. While traditional fantasy typically rejects much of the reality of evil, it can be argued that this merely defines that sort of sub-genre rather than defining the entire genre. As such, a work can be very realistic in some ways, provided that it contains at least the necessary conditions for being a work of fantasy. In the case of Game of Thrones, it can wallow in evil while also being legitimate fantasy.
While I obviously prefer my fantasy with less evil (or at least with less of the sorts of evil in the series), I must concede that the inclusion of such evil is obviously compatible with the fantasy genre, though obviously not with the traditional heroic fantasy. Interestingly, I have been told that my own preference for classic heroic fantasy shows that I am lacking in maturity and adult sensibilities. That is, it is a defect on my part to not prefer the gritty realism and evil of Game of Thrones to works like The Lord of the Rings. My own self-righteous reply is that I have a preference for good over evil, which brings me to a second point, namely the matter of corruption.
In Book X of the Republic Plato argues that art presents a terrible danger because it appeals to the emotions and encourages people to give in, in harmful ways, to these emotions. For example, someone who watches works filled with lust and violence might become more inclined to yield to lust and violence in real life because of the corrupting power of art. This is, of course, the foundation for most censorship arguments. Lest anyone think I favor censorship, I do not.
While I have known about Plato’s arguments for years, I found them unconvincing until I happened to play Grand Theft Auto III. Unlike the usual violent games I had played, GTA III casts the player as a bad person doing bad things for bad reasons. I am not sure how many police cars I had burning in the street or how many hookers I had killed before I could actually feel the corrupting influence of the game. I dropped the controller, popped out the disk and never played that sort of game again. I did, however, continue to play violent video games.
When thinking about Game of Thrones and similar works in the context of my old GTA III experience, I knew that it was not the violence that bothered me. After all, I enjoy violent video games, I play Pathfinder and I like fantasy novels that are replete with battle. In the case of Game of Thrones (GT), my analysis is roughly the same as that I made of GTA III.
In heroic fantasy, the heroes are trying to save the world by fighting evil. There is, as such, a clear moral purpose, even though violence is the usual means to the moral end. In the case of Game of Thrones, there is considerable focus on characters doing bad things for their own selfish ends, or (in some cases) simply because they are psychotically evil. So, in heroic fantasy, the heroes are acting in the right way towards the right persons for the right reasons. In the “gritty and realistic” works, the characters typically act in the wrong way towards the wrong people for the wrong reasons. As one might gather, I find this overabundance of evil unappealing and I am concerned that exposure to such material can (as Plato argued) have a corrupting influence on people. After all, what people watch and experience shapes their cogitative processes and being exposed to an unrelenting tide of virtual evil would seem to have an impact on people. Interestingly, Katharine Llyod makes a similar argument regarding the corrupting influences of Twilight and Fifty Shades of Gray.
Since I am a proponent of freedom of expression, I always feel rather odd arguing against authors doing as they wish in terms of the ethics they present in their works. However, I have never held that artists are exempt from morality (which, I am sure, would be vigorously argued against by someone like Oscar Wilde). I do, as might be suspected, agree with Aristotle that “things are censured either as impossible, irrational, morally hurtful, contradictory, or contrary to artistic correctness.” But, Game of Thrones is currently the only game in town, so I watch, though I probably should not.
Plato’s point is that audiances cannot distinguish between fiction and reality. That is why they may imitate behaviour of actors. However, since almost everyone does have the ability to distinguish between fiction and reality (something that Plato apparently could not imagine), there is no need to criticize fiction for being morally repugnant.
Chiel,
Plato does consider that people can be fooled by art (in fact, he considers this deception to be a problem as well). But, in the case of the corrupting influence of art, he doesn’t claim that people cannot tell the difference. In fact, he argues that when people are watching a performance they set aside the guard they normally use in “real life” and thus become rather vulnerable to the corrupting influences. In part, the danger presented by art is that people get it is fiction and hence do not consider the corrupting behavior as a threat.
I’m not a gamer, but when I was younger, certain movies which glamorized irrational or
anti-social behavior certain did influence me negatively.
Ditto with rock lyrics.
I believe that art does affect people, both negatively and positively.
This is an interesting article. I am not a big fan of anything that glorifies the aesthetical lifestyles of hedonism–much can be said of the entertainment industry today as well. These things do influence people, mainly children growing up. People with good upbringings can tell apart good actions and bad actions. Following Aristotle and many other philosophers, we do imitate and that is how we learn. If we imitate the bad things, we will think the bad things are norms growing up. Sadly, contra Chiel, most of us actually cannot distinguish fantasy and reality, because we are striving to make reality into our fantasies. Might take a while to understand what I mean. Everyone wants a good life, so we try to imitate what we think is the good life. Outcomes will vary, but we do try to imitate what we think could benefit us.
I think that people can generally get the distinction between fantasy and reality, but I do agree that the influences of what is fantasy can be rather significant (for good or for ill).
When I was 18, I certainly understood the difference between reality and fantasy in abstract terms, but somehow I let myself be carried away by what I saw in the movies.
For example, I recall seeing a typical movie which glorifies “smart” criminals and immediately upon leaving the cinema, I walked into a bookstore and stole a book.
So it’s partially my fault that all those wonderful small bookstores have closed (since lots of people robbed in them) and Amazon dominates the book market.
I have never played any computer games as described here so it can be argued that I do not know what I am talking about. Notwithstanding that, and from what I read, I feel somewhat thankful I have not. This is not to be taken as any adverse comment against those who do choose to play these games, it is purely a personal feeling arising descriptions I have read from time to time.
“So, in heroic fantasy, the heroes are acting in the right way towards the right persons for the right reasons. In the “gritty and realistic” works, the characters typically act in the wrong way towards the wrong people for the wrong reasons. As one might gather, I find this overabundance of evil unappealing and I am concerned that exposure to such material can (as Plato argued) have a corrupting influence on people.”
One might consider exactly the opposite argument, that heroic fantasy is more corrupting than the other, and for just the reasons you give.
That is, in heroic fantasy, violence, bloodshed, murder, and so on are portrayed as good, so long as they are done by “good” actors to “bad” ones. This can be corrupting when translated to the real world, because the real world is rarely so black and white, and one can seldom (if ever) be certain that one is acting for “good”. Gritty fantasy, on the other hand, rightly presents such bad actions as bad actions done by bad actors.
Raping women to show that your story is DARK! GRITTY! RRRAWR! is the stuffing new women in refrigerators, which in turn was the new raping women.
Count me amongst those who are tired of both pointlessly dark and “gritty” fantasy AND heroic fantasy. Come join us over at the New Weird genre. Our villains are things like the inescapable terror at forcing yourself to face the knowledge that the patterns of human history can’t be altered through the use of swords. Suck on THAT, Sauron.
“I find this overabundance of evil unappealing and I am concerned that exposure to such material can (as Plato argued) have a corrupting influence on people. After all, what people watch and experience shapes their cogitative processes and being exposed to an unrelenting tide of virtual evil would seem to have an impact on people.”
I suppose you’d need data to back up this point, but I tend to agree: the relentless depiction of unjustifiable violence might tend to normalize it, even though people know it’s just fantasy. To continue to watch this and perhaps enjoy it implicitly endorses and caters to your worst impulses, it doesn’t just acknowledge their existence (we knew that). So I’d stop watching, and tell your friends to stop – it’s the pornography of suffering.
We are of course free to express this sort of thing in an open society, but have a responsibility not to. A humane, moral culture will repress it’s appetite for witnessing the suffering of others, even in its fantasy life, http://www.naturalism.org/revenge.htm
Tom,
I’m split over not watching. On the one hand, I’m not fond of the gratuitous elements. On the other hand, it is pretty much the only ongoing series in the genre. I suppose I can fast forward through the needless content.
The inescapable terror sounds a lot like the real world.
Greg,
That is a good point. Karl Edward Wagner’s short story “Cold Light” does a good job of presenting a character who truly believes that he is good and righteous, but is actually evil.
That said, in some heroic fantasy, the evil is rather clearly evil-perhaps even metaphysically so. For example, in the AD&D based metaphysics, the moral order is an objective part of reality-evil beings detect as evil and are actually harmed by metaphysical goodness (such as in holy weapons). While certain evil characters can have some scruples (such as lawful evil types), evil is generally rather evil and is typically not willing to engage in a meaningful dialog aimed at rectifying its ways. As such, killing evil creatures (such as demons) is often the only viable solution.
As you note, the real world lacks the clear moral divisions and known metaphysical foundations of good & evil that we find in created fantasy worlds. So, when people think they are good and thus justified in doing whatever it takes to defeat folks they think are evil, then we get people acting in ways that can seem rather evil when looked at from a different perspective than the self-anointed righteous folks.
Don,
Some games are probably best not played.
Mike, as your last paragraph suggests, even the heroic metaphysics, where “the moral order is an objective part of reality”, is potentially corrupting, should that carry over into life. Even if some objective moral order exists, it seems plain that it is not marked in reality in the way it is in AD&D.
Mike,
I have never played any of the modern fantasy games, but I might try once providing it is off-line. I cannot see myself going to the trouble of joining an on-line game for very much time. Perhaps I am mistaken here, and on-line games are the only way to understand and fully appreciate the world of fantasy. How about Star Wars the Old Republic?
One can read all kinds of horror stories and also watch with some enjoyment horror films. One can also read about Nazi atrocities and in this distance of time be not badly affected, but perhaps even intrigued, that human beings can be induced to behave in such a loathsome manner. The difference between reading about or watching, and playing a computer game, is that in the latter one is a participant. It is this participatory element which seems to me to be dangerous. Actually living a part and having the power of life or death, sometimes a grisly death, over another. Actually feeling and enjoying performing acts, which most human beings in their normal conscious lives would abhor. This false set of values, where deep human emotions are concerned can, over a period of time surely creep into a player’s psyche and become a corrupting influence there. I have read of several instances where players after many hours of constant play are for some time after, unable to connect with reality. I cannot recall any scientific work which has been done in this connection, nor can I offhand think of anything similar other than anecdotal accounts of hypnotism, sleepwalking, brain washing, and so on. As I have pointed out I am not a gamer, but notwithstanding, from what I hear, there is substantial cause for concern in this matter.
Greg,
On the one hand, I would say that good and evil are often readily discernible. That is, it seems likely that rape, genocide, murder, feeding kittens into a wood chipper, slavery and so on are bad and fighting these things would be right. Sometimes I think that many of the alleged gray areas are manufactured intentionally so people can either get away with things or feel less bad about not addressing the problems.
On the other hand, there does seem to be a fair amount of moral gray in our reality. Also, people do tend to label their side as “good” and the other as “evil” and use that to warrant rather horrible things. Interestingly, though, the ability to see evil masquerading as good and criticizing it no doubt has some interesting implications.
Dennis,
You can get all the Pathfinder (a variation of D&D) rules for free at http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/. You just need to find other players and/or a GM.
All the online games have their roots in the paper and pencil RPGs of the 1970s/80s (D&D, Traveller, CoC).
Don,
Playing the role of someone who is evil and doing virtual evil does seem like it would have an impact on a person. While there have been studies about the impact of Monopoly on people (they found that people who get ahead tend to become colder and crueler) I’m not familiar with any robust studies regarding playing evil characters in RPGs.
My own experiences have been as follows:
1. When people play evil characters and act evil towards other players, they have uniformly been subject to fatal retaliation. In the games, the characters are roughly equal in power and it is rather unwise to be evil towards someone as strong as you. Evil is best served unto the weak.
2. When people play evil characters and act in evil ways towards the weak, helpless or innocent, they have generally been given a corrective beating by other party members.
3. When people play evil characters, but restrict their evil to the other evil creatures, that usually works out well.
Don if this statement is true: “The difference between reading about or watching, and playing a computer game, is that in the latter one is a participant. It is this participatory element which seems to me to be dangerous.” You can be an actor playing a nazi because it will transform the person in a bad person.
Mike: “One response to this argument is that fantasy works by their very nature need to break with reality. After all, if they were strictly realistic, they would cease to be fantasy. As such, by presenting humans in what is taken to be “gritty and real”, a work is failing to be a work of fantasy and instead is realism, only with a monster or two thrown in to create the appearance of fantasy.”
With than in mind, the sword and the bow is failing to fantasy too. The work of the fantasy writer is drawing a line between “fantasy” and “realism”, and I think is conceptually rich to treat the character with a more “realistic” moral behavior than creating a fantastic psychology.
Anyway, in case of Song of Fire and Ice, something is not viewed or visible in the television series is the metaphysical confrontation of fire against ice. It’s like a cosmic plot that is figured out slowly during the five books but neither it’s completely clean of grey I think.
[Sorry for my rough english]
Re Matias B July 4, 2012 at 10:46 pm
Yes I have been thinking about the position of actors playing parts such as you are suggesting. So far as I know they all escape unscathed. This I think is due to the fact that they are under the authority of a director, even if that be themselves. On film or stage I think actors are in the main surrounded and not far from the world as we deem it to be, normal. Those who are Method actors after the teachings of Stanislavsky may well have a different opinion here.
What nonsense!
You pass off a weak rationalisation of your arbitrary personal taste as philosophical deliberation. That’s it. And it’s rather lame.