Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[silverspawn]

two pages is really ridiculously long wow

[silverspawn]

You could increase the page margins yes thank you I already did

[silverspawn]

The decline of GoT is somewhat regrettable. As the show separated from the books, it became vastly less good. It just shows how unbelievably fucking hard it is to write something like that.

I didn't really appreciate this until I got at a point in my webnovel where more characters joined the scene. It's 1% as complex as GoT, but it became significantly harder very quickly. You can just nod along the first two seasons of GoT without ever being super impressed because every one thing seems reasonable, but constructing that is so hard

Anyway he exited the process and the remaining writers couldn't do it, understandably so. I don't think they handled it poorly given the difficulty of the project. E.g., what Littlefinger did clearly stopped making sense, but they gracefully got around having to admit that by having him die at a convenient point in time, and the scene where he does die is really good. Given the countless other examples of writer utterly trashing the former qualities of their own product, I would even say GoT did well. At the very least I'd say they only got one of the super important things wrong. really important things they didn't get wrong include:

* War is fucking horrible chaotic mess (the most important theme in GoT imo)
* Destiny is bullshit/you have to use intelligent judgment
* Magic and other supernatural stuff is mysterious

I also have more respect for the ending than I think a lot of people do

But despite all of that, it was still one of the greatest works of fiction ever created and it went downhill. And then there is the one super important thing they did get wrong, which is that the story should remain unpredictable and plausible. Characters received obvious plot armor and the show clearly receded into the familiar parallel universe where concepts like catharsis and fairness play an integral role in determining outcomes, the same universe that most stories take place in.

I think one of the worst scenes in the show is when Theon tries to persuade his fellow tribe members to go and rescue his sister but they refuse. He gets into a fist fight with some other guy who is clearly stronger and gets beaten up. But because he now has the forces of justified holy conviction behind him, he bounces back and kills the guy, then goes on to successfully rescue his sister.

This is utter bullshit. What should have happened here was that he gets into the same fist fight, refuses to give up, and the other beats him to death. That would have been the kind of genuinely shocking event that was integral to the appeal of early GoT.

Other examples include the people who die in the Great War. Every single death there felt like a part of the plan. None was shocking. What they should have done is let Tyrion die. Or John Snow. Or both.

[silverspawn]

And also, do not take the easy way on every character whose death feels cathartic. The fact that Jorah Mormont, the I-come-back-from-the-dead guy, and Theon all die is bullshit. That's just another kind of cowardly writing. If you have a character that has no obvious thing left to do, like Theon after he redeemed himself, don't get rid of him. This is a feature, not a bug; it means you've escaped predictable writing. Now you're truly free.

The one predictable death I have no problem with is Melisandre because she did out of choice. In her case, and only in her case, there is an in-universe reason why she died when she had no more part to play. She's arguably the one amazing character who made it until late in the show and never got worse.

[silverspawn]

I'm also disappointed that no important character ever gets killed by a nameless soldier during war. Another missed opportunity, and this criticism may even extend to the books.

[silverspawn]

In fact I'm hereby awarding the Theon scene as worst scene in all of games of thrones. Which begs the question what the best scene. Joffrey's death comes to mind. Killing the arch villain of the entire show out of nowhere in the second episode of the season ... that's the stuff

Although I think the red wedding is probably the single greatest scene of the show That had to have been the moment where everyone felt like they were watching something real, something that didn't take place in the alternate universe of story writing, something that wasn't fair, something that wasn't predictable.

This also creates a nice dualism between both scenes because the Theon scene is where that very same spark was obviously and irreversibly lost

[silverspawn]

Some will say that unpredictability is only one of many great features of GoT

Which is fair but I feel like it's the natural progression of the story that complexity decreases over time. More and more pieces leave the chess board. Fewer and fewer real actors remain. and the actors that do remain have increasingly transparent sets of goals. Varys is only a great character because in the end, we can see that he was a consistent utilitarian all along.

So losing the complexity appeal from the first season seems natural, and I can only assume something like that will happen in the books as well if they ever get that far. Unpredictability/plausibility/not-taking-place-in-a-universe-where-mental-concepts-determine-outcomes was one of the things that could have been left, which made losing that all the more of a big deal.

[silverspawn]

woo I did it. My motivation letter is now 2 pages long. I just talked in more detail about my awesome paper.

[faust]

I've got to join the GoT talk!

The one predictable death I have no problem with is Melisandre because she did out of choice. In her case, and only in her case, there is an in-universe reason why she died when she had no more part to play. She's arguably the one amazing character who made it until late in the show and never got worse.

I personally find it a bit frustrating that there is never any point where she really faces the fact that she was wrong and that her being wrong caused thousands of deaths. But she's not a major character, so it's not such a big deal. I would have liked her to actually do something in between resurrecting Jon Snow and showing up for the fight at Winterfell, like recruiting an army of R'hollor followers from Volantis.

I'm also disappointed that no important character ever gets killed by a nameless soldier during war. Another missed opportunity, and this criticism may even extend to the books.

Although I think the red wedding is probably the single greatest scene of the show That had to have been the moment where everyone felt like they were watching something real, something that didn't take place in the alternate universe of story writing, something that wasn't fair, something that wasn't predictable.

I'm not sure that it's fair to criticize stories for taking place in an alternate universe of storytelling. Telling stories is always about relating the exceptional. I might tell you about that time I found a 50 dollar bill in a pair of pants that I bought; I won't tell you about the other hundreds of times where that didn't happen. If you relate a story about some characters then it is expected from a reader that there is a reason why that story should be told. It could have been part of the story that Robb Stark catches tuberculosis and dies while campaigning; that would have been realistic, it's not fair and not predictable. But it doesn't make it a good story.

The reason the Red Wedding works (in my opinion) is because you can see it coming, theoretically. That is, if you look back at the text after it happened, you realize that you should have seen it coming. It makes sense within the plot and character arcs involved. It would have been worse if, say, there was no prior history of Robb refusing the marriage, and the Lannisters just happened to get the Freys on their side via some other means that isn't revealed until after the betrayal happens.

But maybe this depends on taste also. There is a certain divide, for instance, within the role-playing community. There are people who would like for the experience to feel very real, to the point where the player characters might randomly catch deadly diseases or stumble and break their neck if they have bad rolls. There are others who are mainly after a "good story" (I imagine that simulationists would also say that they want a good story); if a character finds themselves in a deadly situation, that should be due to their bad or heroic decisions that lead them to this point. Of course many fall somewhere in the middle.

[silverspawn]

alright I think I am done

deadline is in ~3.5 hours

[silverspawn]

The motivational letter ended up being almost entirely non-edgy.

The most jokey/unusual part of the application is probably listing "Not Doing Things Poorly" as an interest at the very end of my CV

[silverspawn]

When I reupload an entire document to replace one term with a slightly better one, that's probably a sign that I can submit

[silverspawn]

ok I clicked submit whelp

[silverspawn]

whelp whelp

[silverspawn]

I personally find it a bit frustrating that there is never any point where she really faces the fact that she was wrong and that her being wrong caused thousands of deaths. But she's not a major character, so it's not such a big deal.

I thought she did face them. Up until Stannis' defeat, she's radiating arrogance and confidence. Afterward, she's visibly discouraged. It's subtle but the implication always felt clear to me. Tbh I thought it was done really well

And The onion knight calls her out on what she's done, too, and she doesn't deny it, she just says she didn't lie but was wrong

[silverspawn]

I'm not sure that it's fair to criticize stories for taking place in an alternate universe of storytelling. Telling stories is always about relating the exceptional. I might tell you about that time I found a 50 dollar bill in a pair of pants that I bought; I won't tell you about the other hundreds of times where that didn't happen. If you relate a story about some characters then it is expected from a reader that there is a reason why that story should be told. It could have been part of the story that Robb Stark catches tuberculosis and dies while campaigning; that would have been realistic, it's not fair and not predictable. But it doesn't make it a good story.

I distinctly remember that there was a discussion about this on fds at some point (but idk who else was in it)

I want to differentiate coincidences at the start or setup of a story with coincidences that happen later. The first kind is what you can excuse with (we're showing this because it's extraordinary"). But once your character has been a part of the story for seven seasons, you don't have that excuse anymore.

Agree it's also preference. Although I think it's obvious that, on the margin, writers go way too far in the direction of plot armor. E.g., I don't buy that if in the worst scene of GoT, Theon had instead been beaten to death by a nobody, this would feel less exciting. Pretty sure it would feel more exciting.

[silverspawn]

But it doesn't make it a good story.

but is that really true?

This seems very close to what happens to Khal Drogo in season 1, which is universally beloved to this day.

[silverspawn]

A funny thing is that I'm not entirely sure anymore whether I should even do a PhD

Maybe I should instead try to do all I can to help QRI if there is a way to do that

[silverspawn]

But maybe this depends on taste also. There is a certain divide, for instance, within the role-playing community. There are good people who have the inherently virtuous preference for the experience to feel very real, to the point where the player characters might randomly catch deadly diseases or stumble and break their neck if they have bad rolls, as is the case in the real world. There are others who are the bad people who are mainly after a bad story which they call a "good story" because they're stupid; if a character finds themselves in a deadly situation, that should be due to their bad or heroic decisions that lead them to this point even though that's extremely unrealistic. Of course many fall somewhere in the middle.

Yeah that's interesting

[silverspawn]

Eliezer Yudkowsky may be the smartest person in the world but he's wrong about consciousness and he's wrong about morality and that's way more important than I thought a few years ago. And while he deserves infinite credit for essentially founding AI alignment, one of the side-effects is that the field skews toward moral relativism and a conception of consciousness that doesn't even seem coherent

this seems like what's actually the most important thing to try and change, on the margin

and doing a phd wouldn't do anything to change that except I guess give me more credibility when I try to push into the other direction which may be enough?

[silverspawn]

but one of the things I've realized over the past couple of years is that the best way to do a thing is usually to try to do that, not to approach it indirectly. The way to do AI alignment was just to do AI alignment. The way to do acedemic research was just to do academic research. The way to argue for moral realism is probably just to argue for moral realism except that's so impossibly hard to talk to people about this

[silverspawn]

Consciousness isn't something that  arises when algorithms compute complex social games.  Consciousness is when some algorithm computes complex  physical games. (under a  purely physical theory of  consciousness such as EY's).

yeah this totally makes sense except it actually doesn't make any sense at all whatsoever

this is the issue; I don't know how to talk to people if they confidently believe things that aren't even coherent

[silverspawn]

And this is from the one place on the internet with more than 10 users where people are overwhelmingly smart, thoughtful, polite, and even admit mistakes regularly. I'm repeatedly astonished at just how high the general quality of discussion is. (This is why I keep my rants in this thread where I feel no pressure to meet the super high standards of discussion.) As long as it's about any topic except this one

[silverspawn]

Though fds proper is pretty great too!

[faust]

Agree it's also preference. Although I think it's obvious that, on the margin, writers go way too far in the direction of plot armor. E.g., I don't buy that if in the worst scene of GoT, Theon had instead been beaten to death by a nobody, this would feel less exciting. Pretty sure it would feel more exciting.

It's also an issue of internal consistency. GoT has made it clear early on that people will be killed off in difficult situations. That makes it all the harder to excuse plot armor later on. If you're watching a show like Dr Who, then plot armor takes you out of the immersion way less because that's kind of what you signed up for.

But it doesn't make it a good story.

but is that really true?

This seems very close to what happens to Khal Drogo in season 1, which is universally beloved to this day.

I don't think that's comparable. Khal Drogo dies of an intentionally self-inflicted wound. He obtains it after trying to change the Dothraki's ways and being challenged for it. The way he deals with the challenge can be seen as reverting back to the old Dothraki ways, and ultimately he cannot escape them.

There is also an implication that he was from the beginning poisoned by the witch, as Daenerys convinces Drogo to accept medicine from her, and she later makes sure the child doesn't live. Furthermore, Khal Drogo's death serves a purpose for Daenerys' character arc. Among other things, it teaches her that you cannot peacefully change things for the better, a lesson repeated again later that ultimately leads to her "fire and blood" approach.