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. 

Orcs

Ever since Lord of the Rings, the orcs have been picked on (considering they pretty much first appeared in those books, they've been picked on forever). Normally, they are a race of misshapen, or at least ugly, large humaniods that are stronger than they are smart. Often, they are evil, and make up the armies of the enemy, an almost limitless host that dares the good guys to defy the odds.
When talking of orcs, often they're more of a conglomeration of creatures of legend. Goblins, trolls, ogres, and others can often fit into the category 'orc'. Usually, they are big, ugly, and mean. Oftentimes they are green or brown, but they can pretty much be any color or size. The term is so general it can mean anything, really.
Lately, they've been given a little slack. Tolkien first created them as parallels to the Nazis. We don't live in a world of Nazi Germany anymore, though, so there are no clear enemies like there were then. There's no country we can point to and say, "They're evil." Some of the communist countries might have challenged, but since the collapse of the USSR, they're not so much a threat. Islamic extremists have caused us problems, but most are quick to point out that they don't represent the overall Muslim population. So, like I was saying, without any clear enemy, our need to symbolize a race of evil in fantasy has diminished. Some dark lords still use orcs or other similar races for recruitment, while others just use good old humans. The orcs are becoming more like the Na'vi in Avatar: noble savages.
In Warcraft 3 and World of Warcraft, for example, (Real time strategy and massive online role playing video games, respectively), the objective of defeating the evil orcs changed to defeating evil demons and undead. It does make them more dimensional than the evil creatures they were before, because let's face it. No culture or nation is completely evil. Even Nazi Germany had good people, they were just unable or unwilling to act out against the evil leaders put in place by Hitler, as well as not realizing at the time how he was slowly changing the nation into a monster (a dire warning for us: if any president starts radically changing the country, it probably isn't for the better).
Just like the real world, most think orc points of view should be represented in fantasy, instead of blindly pointing to them as evil monsters. It gives the world more complexity and points to more modern views: no culture is pure evil or pure good. There can be more depth to the orc race, and there are many possibilities for them to play roles they couldn't before. It is interesting that the orcs can be explored beyond their evil origins, and there is material to be used, but it gives us the question: if they are no longer just the bad guys, but are as dynamic in morality as humans, is there really any need to have them? Why not just have humans take their place?
So the future of the orc maybe isn't as bright as they thought after their change of heart. They will at least be around for two more Hobbit movies in their evil form. after that, who knows? The noble savage idea is already getting a little old itself. Were indians and africans really all that closer to mother earth? Would they have abstained from ripping her apart if they had the means? Who knows? But maybe the new role of the orc will be mother nature's champions. It wouldn't be a huge leap.
After all, they've already gone green.

Reblogged from http://sageeyesblog.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/orcs/