Why I don't watch Game of Thrones

I'm a big fan of fantasy. I've read the books. So why don't I watch HBO's series Game of Thrones? You'd think I'd be all over it. And while I admit there's the temptation, there are also several reasons why I don't.
First of all, there's the practical reason. I don't have HBO. I don't even have cable (unless you count Netflix). There's just not enough of a compelling reason for me to get cable, let alone HBO. Now, I know, I could buy the seasons after they come out on DVD, but I don't really want to spend my money on that, either. And while I've read that it is only of the most illegally downloaded shows out there, well, getting an illegal copy is just that, illegal.
Now, that's a pretty weak excuse, if I really wanted to watch it. But there are other more important reasons why I don't want to. The content is one of those reasons. While I've been desensitized to on screen violence, from what I've heard, this show takes it to a whole 'nother level. And in a way, it's hard to relate. Unless you're two years old, you probably don't use violence to get your way (and if you do, you should be behind bars). Even our wars don't rely much on outright violence. Instead, many targets are killed by use of drones, snipers, or bombs. Still real, but not up close and personal like a good ol' sword fight. So the violence on the show isn't as relatable as it could be if they just toned it down a bit.
More importantly, in regards to content, though, is the sex. Take a look at the parent advisory section on IMDb.com and you'll see a list in the sex section that makes you think this is a porno, not a drama. And while the violence might not affect people that much (just like in video games, where 99.9% of people that play violent video games don't go out and shoot anyone), the sex portrayed actually can affect you, in subtle ways. Based on the books, the sex in the show doesn't seem to involve loving intimacy between husband and wife, but it's more along the lines of men hiring a prostitute, incest, or violent sexual assault against women. When the best you can hope for is consensual sex between two unmarried people, you know you've got a warped sense of values. There's enough media trying to warp our perceptions on sex. I don't need to add porn disguised as a story to that. At least in the books, it didn't go over all the dirty details, usually, but there's a difference between written word and seeing it on video. And even reading it got too much at times.
Which brings me to the next point, possibly the most important. Like I said, I've read the books. I thought the first book was great, and Ned's death shocked me. I kept expecting him to come out and say it had all been a trick, that someone else died in his place. But no such luck. As memorable as that was, though, when I read the second book, I didn't know who to root for. Ned had seemed like the only really good person. I went to Dany and Jon Snow. Tyrion had his funny moments, but was a bit too cynical for me. But with most of them gone in the fourth book, and without much to do in the fifth book, I stopped cheering for them. And that is one of the weaknesses of George R. R. Martin's story: if anyone can die unexpectedly, then sooner or later, I'm going to protect myself by severing my attachment to the characters. If anyone can die unexpectedly, then it begs to wonder, why are we even reading their story, aside from the shock value? Sure, some people can die, like in the real world, but if I'm expecting the entire cast to die sooner or later, then what's the point?
So while all the political maneuvering interests me, I think I'll stick to more family friendly media, especially since I'm now a father. Or better yet, write my own books, dealing with similar themes, but only hinting at the terrible details, instead of showing them in full splendor.
Martin's books might possibly have left more of an impression that way. 

Mythic versus everyday hero

What's the difference between Hercules and Frodo? While one is super strong, embodying everything the Greeks idealized, the other is short, a little fat, neither strong nor particularly smart. Both are equally fictitious. Hercules killed his wife and went crazy but became a god, Frodo nearly gave in to temptation and got his fingers bitten off and then lived a quiet life. So who do we like better? The demigod, or the hobbit? The mythical hero or the everyday one? Although there is more action with the mythical hero and there is more room for creativity, we relate better to the everyday hero, because, let's face it, we don't have superpowers. Many wish we did, but if we can do something important without them, then we feel we have accomplished something. That's the reason superheroes have to have supervillains: if Superman only faced off against street thugs, it would get boring really fast (which is why I never felt Lex Luther was a great archnemesis to Superman: he didn't have any superpowers of his own, and didn't feel much like a threat).
So with Lord of the Rings, there are superheroes (Aragorn, Gandalf) and supervillains (Sauron, the Nazgul), but the real heroes are Frodo and Sam, who navigate through deadly Mordor with nothing but their wits and, more importantly, their perseverance. Getting a protagonist too powerful makes the story boring (which is why the Greeks threw in the tragedy of Hercules killing everyone and being hated by Hera, so there is something he doesn't have control over). Even in video games, where getting stronger over the course of a game is a staple of most genres, the last boss should be stronger than the player and has to be represent the greatest challenge. Basically, the greater the odds, the more interesting the story becomes. But there should be a balance, or it won't be very believable. If Frodo suddenly fought off all nine Nazgul before facing Sauron himself, all with Sting, his credibility as the everyday hero would be shot. Likewise, if he always escaped Sauron's notice through a series of incredibly lucky circumstances and plopped the ring into Mt Doom without breaking a sweat except from the heat of the volcano, readers will feel cheated, and his challenge would be lessened because it was so easy (I once saw a youtube video saying that he should have just jumped on one of the eagles and flown over to Mt Doom and dropped the ring in. Easy, but there would have been no story worth telling, now would there?) Each trial should be tailored to the hero, something he could believably overcome but the outcome would be in doubt, that he might not be able to overcome.The less luck, the less Deus ex Machina, the more doubt as to the outcome, the better.
But we don't just read about ordinary heroes. There is room for the Hercules, the Bruce Willis, the Luke Skywalker, and other powerful heroes. Oftentimes, they start out as normal, maybe having gone to the gym or taken martial arts beforehand, but still ordinary. But then they get thrown into a situation and their powers increase through training or they find some innate talent they didn't know they had (Harry Potter's magic, Luke's Force). We see them progress (although often in snippets where we know they are training but don't see the details. In movies, accompanied by an upbeat, encouraging soundtrack), know that they're not perfect, but they grow into their power. Even still, they should be the underdog. It's all relative, and we relate to relativity.
So is it better to write about heroes of mythic proportions, or to write about everyday heroes who are made by their reaction to a situation? It depends on what the story calls for, what could be believable, but they must always be human. In olden days, in serious works, there was usually the tragic flaw, often hubris or pride, that in the end caught up with the tragic hero and sealed his doom. Not everything ended happily ever after, but many stories were better for it (I prefer Shakespeare's tragedies to his comedies). The audience might put themselves in place of an everyday hero easier than a mythic one, but might get bored faster with him as well.  So looking at the audience, the type of story, and how realistic it should guide an author what to choose. Oftentimes, it is someone in between. And as long as it is entertaining and doesn't strain credibility within the story, whatever is chosen is all right.

Reblogged from  http://sageeyesblog.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=1460&action=edit

Magic Costs

In my last post, I talked a little about magic. One of the things mentioned is that magic needs to have limits. One way to limit magic is making it cost something. You basically need to make an economy for the magic. So I compiled a list of costs that might be involved to use magic. It is by no means exhaustive, and if you have any other ideas, please comment.
The following are ideas that can be used as 'magic currency' and put a limit on the power of a magic user:
Mana, mp, mental energy
Physical energy (makes you tired)
Blood
Water
Rare ingredients (eye of newt, etc)
Sacrifice person, animal, body part, etc
Heat
Ingested metal (Mistborn series)
Color (Warbreaker)
Concentration
Memorization
Time
Strength
Age
Hunger
Electricity (technology)
Ammo (like guns)
Losing a sense (like sight)
Available only under certain circumstances (midsummer's eve, after liking this blog, etc)
Complex rite performed or symbol made
Making calculations
Dancing or singing
Using a special artifact (sword, wand, etc)
Faithfulness to a god or demon
Powerful emotions
Cards, dice, or luck
Lifeforce of an animal or person
Adherence to a strict code
Horoscopes
Having a likeness connected to an object or person (voodoo)
Literal money
Using a special language
And the list could go on and on. Any other costs you can think of, please comment. The more creative, the better. Magic doesn't always have to be portrayed as some old man reciting from a dusty tome.

Reblogged from http://sageeyesblog.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/magic-costs/

Magic

Magic and fantasy go hand in hand. Most fantasy stories have some sort of magic in them. Without it, the story would be nothing more than one in a medieval or similar setting. But what is magic? Basically, anything that causes the fantasy world to act differently than how we experience it here in reality. Here, we don't have people shooting lightning bolts from their hands, or summoning meteors, or animating brooms to clean up after you. Maybe in the future we can invent technology that lets us do that, but that would have to follow the laws of physics and would have a rational explanation. Magic doesn't have a rational explanation. Nor should it, in a way, but more on that later.
In some ways, magic can be a lot like superpowers. The main difference between fantasy and superhero genres are, besides the setting, the flexibility. Superheroes have set powers, and usually can't change them. Their powers are fairly limited, in comparison to magic. Even Superman, with all his might, has a set list of powers, mainly: flight, speed, strength, x-ray and laser vision, and super hearing. He doesn't, as far as I know, transform enemies into sheep and grow vines as a net to save Lois Lane from falling from the building for the fiftieth time, nor will he ever be able to. Magic, on the other hand, while different for each story, often lets its practioners learn from a wide variety of abilities. Sometimes spells are classed from the four elements, earth, water, fire, air, or from good and bad, or can be more spiritual. There are many ways of manifesting magic.
Often, who can use magic is a topic of great importance in fantasy. Usually, only certain people can. Sometimes, humans can't use it at all, only other races or creatures. Lord of the Rings is pretty much like this. The hobbits have no access to magic except through magical items. Really, only Gandalf has magic in the fellowship of the ring. Other books, only those born with magic can use it. Harry Potter is an example of this. Muggles will never learn magic, although sometimes they have children who can (Hermione). Others have everyone able to learn magic, to varying degrees. Not seen as often in books, in video games it is a little more common, especially RPGs and MMORPGs. In these, you usually choose a class which decides how much, if any, magic you can learn. Each fantasy world should be tailored to make sense with the system set up. Societies would usually revolve around magic users and their place within, whether as rulers, citizens, or outcasts.
Now, obviously magic needs a limit. If everyone has godlike powers, then it becomes meaningless. Even if only one person has such great power, it becomes meaningless. If the hero has power to wish the bad guys out of existence, then there is no story. If the bad guy can destroy the world with barely a thought, then there is no way to stop him. Usually, the antagonist of a story is more powerful than the heroes, to make him more of a challenge, but even he has limits. He might be sealed up in a prison or can only achieve his goals by sacrificing a princess of pure heart (and there aren't very many of those walking around). But there has to be limits, or the story is immediately boring and pointless. So often magic is developed into a system. There may be limits to how much you can handle (Wheel of Time), or how much you can use before becoming exhausted. There may be special ingredients needed to complete a spell, or difficult memorizations. Video games usually use MP (magic points) that are used up after each spell. Some might require great sacrifices. Others through music. There are many ways to set up systems of magic, and they can be precise systems where you know what makes something happen or they can be more fluid and less known what is powering them. Brandon Sanderson is a master of creating stories with well defined systems, and part of the fun of reading his books is figuring out how each system works. You can find out more on what he says on his blog.
It has been said that any technology advanced enough that people don't know how it works is like magic. If we take TV to a primitive people who has never been exposed to it, they might think it magic. This principle is especially true in science fiction, but many authors want to use it in fantasy as well. I personally don't like that so much, because if it can be fully explained, it ceases to be magic and starts to be science (or psuedoscience). Magic is all about wonder, about some power that can be accessed, but isn't fully understood, least of all by the audience. Fantasy, no matter how mature, should bring us back to childhood, where everything was magical: animals could think and speak in their own languages, brightly colored characters talked to you through the TV, monsters waited for you under your bed, Santa Claus gave you gifts and watched your every move, dragons flew through the clouds, stars winked at you and granted wishes, and mommy and daddy were superheroes.
So relive the magic and embrace your inner child. Because life would be too boring if we took it seriously.

Reblogged from http://sageeyesblog.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/magic/