S1E8: The Eye of the World v2

[Weird_Old_Lady]

9 minutes ago, VooDooNut said:

By definition this makes sense. Though now you've got me imagining the rogue sadomasochistic feminist who takes pleasure in making sure no one, not even themselves, is allowed the pleasures of human experience. But that's not very realistic...unless...

 

Exactly. And how is she being portrayed? 

[JeffTheWoodlandElf]

1 minute ago, Weird_Old_Lady said:

Exactly. And how is she being portrayed? 

Pretty accurately to the books. Which is what most of us want in the first place. Just give us book-accurate characterizations. That's all we want. 

[VooDooNut]

2 minutes ago, Weird_Old_Lady said:

Exactly. And how is she being portrayed? 

Wow. I did not start posting on this thread today thinking I'd actually find a reason to sympathize with Liandrin but here we are. I'm really looking forward to seeing how these characters develop from here.

[ArrylT]

6 minutes ago, notpropaganda73 said:

 

You see what you want to see, frankly. 

 

Absolutely, we all see what we want to see.    To be honest, I've tried each episode to find examples of this "men look completely weak or useless" narrative and I rarely if ever find it.   Simply nothing pop out at me as like wow they did men wrong here.  

 

Sure we can focus on Abell Cauthon -  but honestly he has so little screen time and zero backstory (when you exclude the books).   If someone wants to assume he is been weak his entire life that is their choice.  To me he is simply a flawed person who seems to have marital problems and not sure how to handle his relationship with his son.   I've seen lots of these men in books before.    The only decision, if I wanted to be on team Abell/Natti Cauthon, that I would disagree with is their not going out to look for their children.  And that is on both of them.  Both characters are portrayed as flawed so that is balanced to me.   It is not like Abell is being "bullied & domineered" (hello a certain Wit Congar in Book 1).   

 

However I am not sure how this choice could be handled (based on the current parameters of the time allotted in Ep1)  without changing how it made Mat look protective of his sisters, unless they went off as a group - and I have no disagreement if it was argued this did not work from a visual storytelling perspective.  Plus, while I doubt they will focus much, if at all, on either of the Cauthon parents, in future seasons, this could make for a potential - and as mentioned before - redemption arc, as they have hit rock bottom and look to each other and say this is what our marital problems have brought us to.  

 

But getting back on track to me so far from the "good side" if I am looking at how I feel from a gender stand point about their representation.   

 

Rand - amazing male role model

Lan - strong male role model

Stepin - strong male undone by mental health issues caused by bond/past history

Perrin - strong male role model reflecting on his actions

Thom - strong male role model

Mat - until the taint of the dagger gets too strong is a solid male role model  

Logain - decent male role model

King of Ghealdon - decent male role model

Agelmar - decent male role model 

Bran - decent male role model

Raen - decent male role model

other male warders* - decent male role models

Uno & other men in Fal Dara - decent to good male role models

Master Hightower - foolish but decent male role model (ie I respect he wants to find his family but think his choice was foolish - but I choose not to look at one action and determine a characters life representation based off of that).

 

Even Bornhald comes across as a solid role model (treats people of different ideologies he may even suspect are darkfriends with cordiality & respect).   Only Valda (who atm is more of a classic bully) & Padan Fain comes off as perhaps bad  role models - as they should.  It is pretty hard to make a villain look like a villain if we portray them as strong role models.  Although Padan does look like a badass in some ways so maybe I am mistaken.  He at least, like Ishamael, is someone I can consider a strong male character even if not a good role model.

 

However if others choose not to see these characters as solid male characters or good role models that is certainly their choice.   I have no worries or concerns about how men are being portrayed in the show based off of Season 1.  

 

I will certainly agree that others see each character** differently but I think this narrative about how badly the men are portrayed is one of subjective opinion and not factually based at all.   Most of the "facts" provided have been, for me, subjective and emotional.  I feel that the show has done a good job of showing good male role models in a world which is much less patriarchal in nature and partially matriarchal and partially neutral / balanced (in terms of power dynamic).

 

And I can certainly respect, even if it does not bother me, anyone who is disappointed by the change or removal of roles/screen time for some of the minor characters. IE no representation of Bran as Mayor.  But from a tv show only perspective, it is very insignificant to my enjoyment of the show.  I shrugged it off just as much as I did the way the barkeep in E1 S1 The Witcher was shown (I'd say he was shown in a weaker & more flawed light than Bran).

 

If the show fails it is not because of its portrayal of gender roles - but rather - like others have said - because the viewership has crashed, and we'll have to wait until S2 to see but right now it looks quite promising long term.  

 

* - Lan in Episode 4 said that the Warders were proud to serve, and not one of them at the campfire disagreed (to my knowledge).  These are strong men comfortable with their roles & not at all feeling domineered or weak.

 

** - ie there are people here who feel Perrin/etc is being portrayed differently from the books and I respect that even if I do not quite agree.

[Weird_Old_Lady]

Just now, JeffTheWoodlandElf said:

Pretty accurately to the books. Which is what most of us want in the first place. Just give us book-accurate characterizations. That's all we want. 

Not me. I'm really happy we get THIS STORY from this perspective. It makes the characters decisions much more realistic. 

[ArrylT]

2 hours ago, Jaysen Gore said:

Did Matt steal from Edmond's Fielders in the book?

 

 

Yes.

 

Was it known in Book 1?   Not sure.   But there is at least 1 book documented case of Mat stealing.  But to summarize from TSR Ch 7

 

"Soon after turning thirteen, Mat talked Rand into stealing a jar of apple brandy. Nynaeve found them asleep at Bran al'Vere's table. Their heads were hurting so badly that they didn't even feel the switches she gave them"

 

[JeffTheWoodlandElf]

2 minutes ago, Weird_Old_Lady said:

Not me. I'm really happy we get THIS STORY from this perspective. It makes the characters decisions much more realistic. 

WoT characters do act realistically in the context of their own world. They act in line with their own personalities and motivations, even if those aren't exactly what we, in our world, would call "realistic." If WoT characters were reading a story about you they would probably also complain that you don't act realistically. 

[Jaysen Gore]

Just now, ArrylT said:

 

Yes.

 

Was it known in Book 1?   Not sure.   But there is at least 1 book documented case of Mat stealing.  But to summarize from TSR Ch 7

 

"Soon after turning thirteen, Mat talked Rand into stealing a jar of apple brandy. Nynaeve found them asleep at Bran al'Vere's table. Their heads were hurting so badly that they didn't even feel the switches she gave them"

 

I was sure someone would bring up the pies, but you found the brandy. good show.

[VooDooNut]

1 minute ago, JeffTheWoodlandElf said:

WoT characters do act realistically in the context of their own world. They act in line with their own personalities and motivations, even if those aren't exactly what we, in our world, would call "realistic." If WoT characters were reading a story about you they would probably also complain that you don't act realistically. 

Right, but the TV show is an adaptation of those books. Books written for a 90s audience. In a 90s reality. This adaptation has been made for a modern audience with modern expectations of verisimilitude.

[Guest Testeria]

29 minutes ago, Weird_Old_Lady said:

Chivalry is made by men and for men. It was mostly to keep women in control. I'm glad it's dead because it was obviously failing.

 

Yes, I will gladly take having to open my own doors in exchange for bodily autonomy and freedom to fully participate in society. What the heck. Wouldn't you? Why or why not?

 

"Chivarly" allowed my mother to safely walk through the neighborhood where men were often beaten and robbed. So it actually expanded her autonomy and freedom to participate. Same with my sister when she was living in Syria. Maybe USA was different in that regard.

 

But is this forum the best place to discuss this kind of things? Because I'm not sure we are anywhere near Tar Valon anymore ?

[Guest Testeria]

11 minutes ago, VooDooNut said:

Right, but the TV show is an adaptation of those books. Books written for a 90s audience. In a 90s reality. This adaptation has been made for a modern audience with modern expectations of verisimilitude.

 

Sure but this means it will age very quickly. I like the words You use ?

[VooDooNut]

I struggled with the concept of chivalry a lot when I was a kid. It confused me for a long time because it's partly where my ideas of romanticism/expressions of love came from.

 

But in an equal society concepts like chivalry would naturally go extinct because there would (ideally) be no need for such a thing. To see that reflected in the show is good, I believe.

 

(I agree this part of the convo seems to be leaning away from the topic. ?)

[VooDooNut]

5 minutes ago, Testeria said:

 

Sure but this means it will age very quickly. I like the words You use ?

Good point! It probably will age in comparison to works created 20 years from now. That will be an interesting thing to see.

 

mmmmmm verisimilitude. such a fun word.

[Weird_Old_Lady]

3 minutes ago, Testeria said:

 

"Chivarly" allowed my mother to safely walk through the neighborhood where men were often beaten and robbed. So it actually expanded her autonomy and freedom to participate. Same with my sister when she was living in Syria. Maybe USA was different in that regard.

 

But is this forum the best place to discuss this kind of things? Because I'm not sure we are anywhere near Tar Valon anymore ?

I am really sorry that the cultures you knew did not give the women in your life the complete autonomy that they deserve as human beings. I am glad that they were helped and that there were those there who wanted to and did help them. 

 

It may just be a slightly different nuance to the definition because of cultures.

 

But I will still rather have to defend myself physically against an army of trollocs then let someone else get to have any say about where, what, who and how I do with this body I live in. I would rather die than be in their safe little cage. I deserve the freedom just as much as anyone else. So do you and so does your family. 

 

Right? 

 

Making a cage safe does not make it less a cage 

[Raal Gurniss]

1 hour ago, VooDooNut said:

I agree with your top point. Less gatekeeping for sexuality/sexual/human expression in any medium is generally a good thing.

Using foresight, that would be rife with all sorts of issues surely?

 

Who sets the limit?

Wouldn’t that limit then be considered gatekeeping.

Wouldn’t removal of all such limits just mean a full ban on sexuality/sexual/human expression in all mediums? Which in itself would be gatekeeping which when challenged would result in resumption of former gatekeeping? 
 

I mean all hypothetical of course but I am sure you can see the problems.

 

I don’t mind about flexibility in such things…I like to see non conformity in many things, but I also like originality!

 

Taking an existing thing and changing it for the sake of challenging peoples views is something I frown upon, on the other hand creating something new that challenges peoples existing views is a wonderful thing!

 

Such a subtle thing  can make an enormous difference.
 

 

[JeffTheWoodlandElf]

27 minutes ago, VooDooNut said:

Right, but the TV show is an adaptation of those books. Books written for a 90s audience. In a 90s reality. This adaptation has been made for a modern audience with modern expectations of verisimilitude.

Yeah because modern audiences never watch period pieces where the characters operate in societies with values and standards alien to our own. Give me a break. 

 

Forget period pieces, freaking Stranger Things is set in the 80's and the characters act like they're from that 80's and that didn't seem to break anyone's "modern expectations of verisimilitude." 

[7th age]

1 hour ago, Ralph said:

I still want to hear from each of the many participants on this forum who are seeing an "agenda" - 

 

Were you concerned about this potential before the show started, due to Rafe's comments about being a feminist and updating certain parts of the gender divide in WOT? 

 

I have asked this several times and not received any response, and I still suspect there is confirmation bias going on over here. 

 

I haven't seen a single change I believe was motivated by trying to downgrade the men. Every change has its reason, which may or may not be justified, but I believe only someone looking for it would see this as an agenda

Concerned no, not until ep.7/8 and i still am only to a point.

I was aware of this debate prior to the show starting though, which might be relevant if thinking about  co.bias. I certainly am not concerned because of my politics, voted for a party one step to the left of bernie led  by two feminist women just a few month back, im about as lefty as you can get ?

 

My Concern now stems mostly from their unwillingness to go into BL culture, thats a thing i dont like.

 

There are other things that I am on case by case good/neutral/bad on though where I can see the influence, especially in the aggregate. I can again only refer to my post at the end of p.1, dont really like referring back, but im not gonna write 2 pages again ?.

 

 

[VooDooNut]

7 minutes ago, Raal Gurniss said:

Using foresight, that would be rife with all sorts of issues surely?

 

Who sets the limit?

Wouldn’t that limit then be considered gatekeeping.

Wouldn’t removal of all such limits just mean a full ban on sexuality/sexual/human expression in all mediums? Which in itself would be gatekeeping which when challenged would result in resumption of former gatekeeping? 
 

I mean all hypothetical of course but I am sure you can see the problems.

 

I don’t mind about flexibility in such things…I like to see non conformity in many things, but I also like originality!

 

Taking an existing thing and changing it for the sake of challenging peoples views is something I frown upon, on the other hand creating something new that challenges peoples existing views is a wonderful thing!

 

Such a subtle thing  can make an enormous difference.
 

 

 

*Gestures to the entire history of human story-telling*

 

Each story has it's own limits and its own message, but hopefully the general direction, when taken as an aggregate, points towards equal representation. 

 

WOT is simply another stepping stone along the way.

[Guest Testeria]

Just now, VooDooNut said:

Good point! It probably will age in comparison to works created 20 years from now. That will be an interesting thing to see.

 

When You present culture that is different than that of the readers, You need to explain things, how it works. When You present culture that is same or similar, You explain nothing and things get old quickly.

 

For example when Egwene have sex with Rand out of wedlock I do not know if this is just because newyorkers behave like that and it is obvious for the watcher/writer - or if this is part of the world. So I do not know if it is legal, risky (pregnant anyone?) strange, normal... if that was presented as in the books, writers would have to give us a little hint what is happening and that hint would work for next generations too. Now if morals in US shifts again people would be as clueless as me (coming from non US society).

 

Just now, VooDooNut said:

mmmmmm verisimilitude. such a fun word.

 

I love when I can use my extensive philosophy training from time to time ?

 

 

5 minutes ago, Weird_Old_Lady said:

Making a cage safe does not make it less a cage 

 

I literary have no idea what cage You are talking about. If not being assaulted, beaten or raped is kind of cage - I'm for cages for everyone.

 

 

[Raal Gurniss]

2 minutes ago, VooDooNut said:

 

*Gestures to the entire history of human story-telling*

 

Each story has it's own limits and its own message, but hopefully the general direction, when taken as an aggregate, points towards equal representation. 

 

WOT is simply another stepping stone along the way.

I mostly agree…

 

Doesn’t change any of what I said though…Many stories have plagiarised prior stories and became the dominant version….Many newer versions also failed badly.

[VooDooNut]

I guess we'll just have to see how it all shakes out. Let's circle back to this in a few hundred years, yeah?

[Guest Testeria]

17 minutes ago, JeffTheWoodlandElf said:

Forget period pieces, freaking Stranger Things is set in the 80's and the characters act like they're from that 80's and that didn't seem to break anyone's "modern expectations of verisimilitude." 

 

I actually have friends that were disgusted by the show, at least until a lesbian joined the squad ?

 

[7th age]

1 hour ago, Weird_Old_Lady said:

Chivalry is made by men and for men. It was mostly to keep women in control. I'm glad it's dead because it was obviously failing.

 

Are you sure we are from the same reality? 

 

Yes, I will gladly take having to open my own doors in exchange for bodily autonomy and freedom to fully participate in society. What the heck. Wouldn't you? Why or why not?

 

 

Since this is where they lost me a bit. While I totaly, 100% stand beside you on any real world implications.

This is a fantasy world. So why does it have to be changed. Why cant it be there as is and then we have a debatte about it in comparison to reality? The most misogynicst fantasy world Im aware of is the Handmaids Tale and as far as Im aware that sparked a lot of positive debate. Not saying thats something I ever expected of them, but they really had(and have) an opportunity here to do something similarly impactful.

The most likely answer to my own question is I fear, they dont trust their audience to understand the complexity(as is the case with most hollywood prod.).

 

[Raal Gurniss]

7 minutes ago, VooDooNut said:

I guess we'll just have to see how it all shakes out. Let's circle back to this in a few hundred years, yeah?

….With reference to one of our previous conversations, that would be pointless as nothing could be done about any of it.

[VooDooNut]

This is true. Though...I'd still enjoy the conversation.

 

I doubt I'd have much else to do anyway, being 200+ years old.

 

And dead.