A Theory About How The Game of Thrones is Anti Patriarchal Heterosexual Monogamy

First off, let me state that I have only read the first two books (long ago) and have seen the first two seasons of the show.  Also, there be spoilers below through book 2/season 2!!

The Song of Ice and Fire/Game of Thrones is a commentary on sexuality and sexual politics in the world and how a heterosexual monogamous male dominated society is bad.  Here are the basic ideas of this theory with more detailed explanations for each below:

- Westeros represents standard patriarchal society where male aggressiveness results in constant conflict and a tearing apart of society (the kingdom).

- The Wall and the Night's Watch  represent gay men with special nods to the Catholic priesthood.  

- Daenerys Targaryen represents feminism and a desire for female dominated society.

The society of Westeros represents common western patriarchal power structure.  Men and women marry into monogamous relationships and have children.  The men pass on their power and holdings to their sons.  Meanwhile, the whole structure of Westeros is crumbling due to male aggressiveness, competition for power, and sexual repression.  Wars have broken out and there is civil and social unrest.  There is backbiting, underhanded dealing, betrayals, and sex outside of normal monogamy.  In fact, there is way more sex shown outside of monogamy than there is ever shown within it.  The entire society is in turmoil because people just want sexual freedom.  At the beginning of the story who is shown as the Westeros ideal?  The Starks.  The word "stark" is defined as  "unpleasantly or sharply clear; impossible to avoid."  They are shown as the unpleasantly or sharply clear model of heterosexual monogamous happiness and what happens to them?  They are killed, crippled, they are torn apart from one another, made into hostages, political slaves, and turned into killers.  And most of them are still children!  George R.R. Martin is showing us that the ideal cannot be maintained. 

George R.R. Martin's Wall Watchers are an analog for gay men joining the Catholic church.  When they join they take the black and have no sex with women.  They are there to fight "Wildlings" who live north of the Wall.  The Wildlings refer to themselves as the "Free Folk" and live life free of the social restrictions imposed by Westeros society.  They engage in behaviors to fulfill their base animalistic desires while the men in black are the line on a sexual frontier and strive to hold back these wild "Free Folk" behind a massive wall.  Instead of exploring that frontier they lock themselves, celibate, behind the wall which visually represents the monolith of god fearing social values who keeps safe the heterosexual monogamy of Westeros.  The Wall is made of ice, which is bitterly cold and refuses the heat of sexual energy.  And who makes up these Wall Watchers?  They are bastards and outlaws.  Outcasts, much like homosexuals were in our society until relatively recent times.  Due to the active hate and distrust for gays, decades ago homosexuals had only one place to go to avoid heterosexual monogamy, which was the Catholic church to become priests dressed in black.  There they stayed to create a community amongst themselves, isolated, celibate, and outside the norm, in a effort to reinforce social and sexual values while not participating in either.  And what is coming next over the Wall?  The White Walkers, a representation of out in the open gays.  They are white (code for semen), they are mindless and cannot be reasoned with (in closed-minded hetero society outwardly gay men are seen as cock hungry beasts unable to control their desires), their appearance is that of openly monstrous abominations,  and they are unstoppable.

Now we get to Daenerys Targaryen.  She represents  a feminist, matriarchal run society, which steps far outside the Westeros (as well as our world) norm.  She is shown to be something special and different from other humans due to her white hair and ability to control dragons, which are creatures outside of normal nature (they are large flying creatures who can breathe fire and whose bones are immune to fire).  The sigil for House Targaryen is "Fire and Blood".  The fire is indicative of the feminist movement of bra burning and the blood is a suggestion of menstruation, a solely female body function.  What journey does Daenerys Targaryen take in this story?  She goes from innocent virgin, to being sold as basically a sexual slave to a man who takes her as his wife where she learns how to be a woman from other women, and then becomes a widow.  After this compressed harrowing journey through the female life cycle it is then she finds her power.  She becomes a queen, gaining a special power thought to be extinct (three dragons), winning the affection of her subjects with love, not through money or power (because she has neither), leads those loving subjects through a desert wasteland where they do not give up hope, and takes them into a city of power-and-wealth wielding men who attempt to confine her, trick her, and betray her and her feminine ideal.  She triumphs over them and sets her sights on Westeros, the land of patriarchal heterosexual monogamy.

George R. R. Martin is telling us that the lack of sexual freedom in a patriarchal heterosexual monogamy structure is destroying the very society it is trying to uphold because humans just want to be free to indulge in their desires.  With the seemingly inevitable waves of things from above the Wall and from beyond the sea he is telling us that that change is coming.  We are meant to pay attention to these fronts so strongly that the series is actually called "A Song of Ice and Fire".

 Thoughts?  Comments?  Do it!

Book Review: Sharp Teeth

Written by Toby Barlow

My Rating:  Loved it.  Fantastic experience.  Absorb now!

Initial thoughts:  I had heard this book was good one a long time ago and just never picked it up until recently.  The summary I heard was that this was a story written in the epic poem style about lycanthropes, and that the lycanthropes were not wolves, but dogs.  Most people wouldn't let a wolf into their home, but don't think twice about letting in a dog.  That thought freaks me out.

Nutshell:  Basically, the story follows a number of characters in the Los Angeles area, including a newly employed dog catcher, a couple of pack leaders, and a lawyer.  The stories eventually intertwine into a fantastic showdown.

What I dig:  Given that this was Toby Barlow's first book I was extremely impressed.  The characters had distinct voices to me.  The reader jumps among the various characters and gets the pieces to the puzzle that eventually comes together at the end.  I found myself rooting for a number of the characters, including those that I would consider the bad guys.  The epic poem style was a breeze to read and got to the heart of matters quickly.

What I don't dig:  I felt the pace was very quick in this book, maybe a little too quick because I thought the character development was a little lacking.  You do get into the character's heads and see their motivations, but it just felt like it was extremely rushed.  This is a minor quibble for such a fantastic book.  I guess I just wanted to spend more time in this world?  If you are the type who prefers an author get straight to the point and not meander, then this story will be set at a pace to your liking.

Final thoughts:  After I finished it I was in a state of excitement.  It was a great, quick read.  I eagerly await another book from Toby Barlow, since this was his first and currently only book.

Any comments are appreciated! 

Review: Zero Dark Thirty

Director: Kathryn Bigelow

My Rating:  It was a good, solid experience.  I'd recommend it as a matinee.

Initial thoughts:  I knew this was a Kathryn Bigelow movie and I am a fan of her work (my favorite of her films being Strange Days).  Of course I also knew this was the story of how Osama Bin Laden finally got got and I was excited to see it.

Nutshell:  This is the story of the hunt for Osama Bin Laden.  It basically follows the CIA tactics and trail they used to locate him and then follows the military operation to get him.

What I dig:  The story had a lot of information on how the CIA was getting their intelligence, which I found fascinating for the most part.  The action sequence at the end was solid, but since I think it was trying to stick to reality it wasn't as exciting as some other military operation films.  The characters of Joel Edgerton and Chris Pratt brought some much needed levity and warmth to the film towards the end.

What I don't dig:  While I did like how it was illustrated how the CIA got their intelligence I did feel those parts were a bit long and there were a lot of them.  The middle with all of this information was kind of getting tedious and it probably could have used a good editor.  I also feel this movie was kind of light on character development, but I can also understand that the main character (Maya) was obsessed with finding Bin Laden and maybe she just didn't actually have a life outside of the CIA.

Final thoughts:  If you are interested in military and intelligence procedural type films then I would recommend it.  If that isn't your thing, and/or you don't have interest in seeing how the manhunt for Bin Laden played out then skip it.

Any comments are appreciated! 

Rant: my problem with Ruby Sparks

So, I have been having this thought run through my head about this movie I recently saw called "Ruby Sparks".  Oh, and there is profanity in here.  Yay!

For those who have not seen the movie, it concerns a writer who, after a big initial success, is in the midst of a 10 year writer's block with fears of a sophomore slump. He then has a dream about a woman and begins to write about her on his typewriter (yes, a professional author in his 20s is using a typewriter, already straying too close to knocking that suspension of disbelief right out of me). Anyway, this writer, played by Paul Dano, writes about this woman and realizes she has come to life. He figures out that whatever he writes about her becomes real. Throughout the story he learns lessons about his selfishness, what loves is, etc. and by the end all is wrapped up.

That is all well and good, but I find this premise difficult to deal with. To elaborate, I find that Paul Dano's character is incredibly unimaginative when given, essentially, an enormously powerful genie (or d'jinni if you prefer). All he has to do is write what he wants this woman to do, and she does it. Holy shit, am I the only one that finds this magical ability amazing?





First off, I would have to change her name from Ruby to something more fitting, so Jeannie it is. Now, I wouldn't go full on Barbara Eden with her, but I would at least drop that clue to see which of my friends would pick up on it when I started to reveal what this magic creature is capable of.

Then, I would get the altruistic stuff out of the way since caring for humanity is considered noble and all that. Paul Dano's character was way too caught up on pussy since he never realized that he could make Ruby do something like, "Ruby creates a clean, earth friendly, low cost, near limitless energy source that can be delivered to the entire world and writes down in detail how this can be accomplished so that even an author with little imagination can transmit this idea to the people in a clear, concise way." Or maybe he could go, "Ruby finds the cures for all the diseases plaguing mankind and writes them down in a book. Ruby pays special attention to curing STDs and STIs, because, obviously, those diseases are the shittiest ones to get since all you were doing was having some fun and it came back to haunt you, which is bullshit." Or maybe, "Ruby writes some poem or song that changes the hearts and minds of the world under the pseudonym 'Wyld Stallyns' and stops all wars, greed, and general dickishness forever. She makes waterslides available to everybody over the entire planet and gives them free passes for life." Still too big in scope? Okay, "Ruby writes a bill to her congressman to allow marijuana to become legal on a federal level and it passes. Ruby can now smoke all she likes because she's awesome and so is weed." If the passages seem to be childish or poorly written, just keep in mind that I am trying to write in the Paul Dano character's voice, and it has nothing to do with my own inability to be mature and/or make sense.

Then, I would totally go the selfish route and rock out, "Ruby brings Paul Dano's character a giant stack of legal cash that is untraceable and will never be missed. Ruby doesn't explain how she gets it, only that it be used for whatever purpose Paul Dano's character decides and a new one will be delivered every week with no strings attached. Zero strings. Including none of the fucked up, creepy genie/Monkey's Paw strings that always go poorly for the person receiving said giant stack of cash." Shit, yeah. Next? "Ruby is totally cool with me hanging out with my friends and doesn't give me shit about it." That about sum that one up, even if that one a little too close to reality? Moving on, "Ruby is really, really good at sex. She doesn't fulfill the Paul Dano character's every desire every time, because that would get boring, and some uncertainty must exist for the experience to still be interesting and exciting, but she is really fantastic otherwise. And she has great boobs."

C'mon, Paul Dano, you totally could have expanded your mind and created something amazing and changed the world. Instead you just acted all weird and creepy (read: like Paul Dano), making it hard for the audience to see you in a likeable way.

I dunno, this was just something I had on my mind.

Spoiler Review: The Words on DVD

My Rating:  Not really enjoyable overall.  Check it out only if you are in need of a distraction and don't  care how unfulfilled it may leave you.

Initial thoughts:  From the trailer I had seen it looked like The Words would be about a man's journey through feeling unsatisfied with his life and choosing to steal someone else's work and deal with the consequences.  Only not so much, after all.

Nutshell: The movies opens with Dennis Quaid telling a story about Rory Jansen (Bradley Cooper) who is a guy who is trying to write a novel and get published but gets continually rejected.  He is dealing with this difficulty while in a relationship with Dora (Zoe Saldana).  They get married in Paris and Dora buys him an old briefcase which has an old manuscript inside.  Rory reads it, steals it, gets published, and becomes successful from it.  An old man (Jeremy Irons) comes around to confront Rory to tell him about how he knows he stole the story and tells the story about how the story was written. 

Basically, this movie is a story about a guy who tells a story about a guy who tells a story about a guy who writes a story and loses the story.  This is like Inception where you substitute the dreams with stories, only not nearly as entertaining or thought provoking.

What I dig:  Not much.  The acting was okay, but nothing really excited me.  Their casting choices were pretty good.

What I don't dig:  Just about everything relating to the plot.  They set up the moral quandary of Rory stealing the work and claiming it as his own.  Basically, they start off making their lead character unlikeable because he is kind of a selfish guy who gets money from his dad to pay for a chance to become a writer.  At the start of the film Rory has been doing this for 2 years, it seems, on top of having his parents pay for his college years before this.  Basically, Rory comes off as a moocher but finally gets a job.  He keeps trying and keeps failing.  Instead of coming to terms with his inability to write compelling fiction who switches tack to write in some other field that he may be good at he comes across a manuscript that is good and steals it.  I don't understand what we are supposed to like about this guy.  So, given that they have set up an unlikeable character do they make him turn a corner and just become a full on villain?  No, they make him a wishy washy guy who, after finally being confronted by an old man who wrote the story, decides then to fess up.  And by the time he tells his wife this she gets angry but doesn't really seem to do anything about it.  If one is going to go to the extent of becoming a criminal I can only feel like the characters should have owned it, gone full criminal, looked at the situation pragmatically and dealt with the conflicts that popped up from there.  I think this would have been way more compelling rather than Rory confronting the old man again and just listening to his story and opting to accept the "punishment" of continuing to claim the story as his own with no consequence other than the knowledge that he stole a story, got rich, got famous, and continued with a successful writing career even if his further attempts were not as a good as the first book.  So, his punishment is a sophomore-and-beyond slump and dealing with having told his wife and publisher a lie, which they both seem to accept with no real issue. 

Oh, and all of this is told by Dennis Quaid in a book with the subtext that he is the writer who had difficulty with his wife while currently drinking wine with the gorgeous Olivia Wilde who obviously wants to have sex with him.  Big moral dilemmas there, guys. 

All I can feel like is if I missed the true moral of the story and didn't understand it, then it is because the story was poorly constructed and the moral was poorly delivered.

Final thoughts:  Only watch it if you feel the need to be apathetic about a story that doesn't bother to reach for any real emotion, conflict, or morality.

Feel differently or agree?  Hey, any comments are appreciated. 

Review: Django Unchained

Writer and Director: Quentin Tarantino

My Rating:  Loved it.  Another solid movie from Tarantino in a genre he hasn't touched before.  If you like Tarantino then definitely see it in the theater.

Initial thoughts:  From the trailer I thought this was going to be a solid western with some unconventional parts, which it was.  I was not disappointed.

Nutshell:  In 1858 a German-born bounty hunter, Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz), is on the trail of the outlaw Brittle brothers.  A slave, Django (Jamie Foxx), can identify the outlaws and the two team up.  Dr. King Schultz teaches Django his trade, frees him, and eventually they go in search of Django's wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington) to buy her freedom.

What I dig:  This movie was a gorgeous, stylish western.  The action was great, the characters of Django and Dr. King Schultz, especially, are fantastic, along with great performances from Leonardo DiCaprio and Samuel L. Jackson.  There was even a great cameo from Franco Nero, the original Django.  I also loved Walton Goggins, of Justified fame, in this.  Tarantino mixes his violence and humor superbly.  I was immersed instantly and loved the ride the whole way. 

What I don't dig:  It was long at 2 hours 45 minutes.  Some stuff should have been cut out and trimmed up and left as special features for the DVD, especially a good chunk of the Calvin Candie parts, despite the superb performance from DiCaprio.  Kerri Washington didn't have much to do in this.  Some of the music didn't fit with the genre, but I realize that is Tarantino's scoring style, so no big shock there.  To me these are minor quibbles for what is a good, solid movie.

There has been some scuttlebutt about how some people have a problem with how many times the word "nigger" is used in this film, but I didn't have a problem with it.  A notable work of fiction from the time period, The  Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, used the word twice as much as this movie, so that just shows me that it is reasonable to believe that people in the South used the word as much as Tarantino's script illustrates. 

Final thoughts:  If you like westerns or Tarantino movies then go see this.  If you are not into violence or Tarantino then avoid it.

Any comments are appreciated! 

Rant: the Star Wars themed Nighthawks painting

     First off, I'm not sure who painted this.  I got it from a facebook post and initially thought it was pretty cool.  Then, I looked deeper.  

     Looking closer at this picture, this is a bad situation. Yoda is fucked. You've got two Sith Lords, a Storm Trooper with this boss right next to him, and a mercenary who doesn't give a fuck about fighting Jedi. They already took out R2 and 3PO, leaving them deader than fried chicken, frozen, and soon to be covered in snow.

     So you might be thinking, "What about Chewie? He's there, it is all good." The hell it is. He has a fucking paper hat on! And his hands are full with a tray of steaming mugs. He is like a busboy from Pulp Fiction, some wetback gettin' paid a dollar fifty a hour, is he gonna really give a fuck they're stealin' from the owner or if Sith Lords are going to take over the joint?

     "But he's Chewie!" Yeah, so what? He's a space sasquatch with a shiny bandolier that holds nothing. What is he going to do? Dump the steaming mugs on them? On guys in armor whom the steaming mugs will not affect? "But he can get Darth Maul!" Yeah, and, statistically, he will also get Yoda. He's a space sasquatch, do you think he has any good coordination? Fuck no. He's no Bigfoot android from the Six Million Dollar Man, he's a bumbling, growling moron who probably gets more hair into those mugs than liquid.

     This is how Yoda dies, man, at 11:00 at night in a greasy spoon on Coruscant with a fucking Santa hat on while Chewie just gives his shitty, disingenuous sympathetic growl and cleans up the mess in hopes of getting a few coins for a tip because he's saving up to buy some other bullshit bandolier type decoration that serves no purpose other than to make him/her feel good.

     Buying pretty things isn't going to make you feel better, Chewie, and isn't going to make you pretty on the inside. You've got to tell them to take this job and shove it, quit, and take charge of your life, because otherwise, you are literally serving the Empire here. Do it, Chewie, I believe in you.


Comment if you'd like, or leave Chewie and Yoda to their fates if you are heartless.