I really, really hate the argument that "You need to go out and vote, because if you don't, you're disrespecting all those who died for your country." So much so that I'm writing about it unprompted by any type of inciting incident.
How does it disrespect the soldiers? Are we obligated to respect someone's beliefs if they die for it? Do we need to take their values as our own? Did those soldiers actually die to protect the freedom of their country? What if they joined the military for other reasons? What about fighting a war in another country on another continent protects our own form of government? How exactly were they defending my rights or freedoms?
If we have the right to do something, are we obligated to do it? Is the right to vote different from all our other chartered rights and freedoms? Should we be morally obligated to do those too? What's the point of voting for something you're knowingly ignorant or indifferent about? Isn't not casting a vote its own indication of your political preference and/or priority?
I could beat this around all day, but alas, work beckons to me. Perhaps I'll come back to this again when voting time is near.
-Cril
Monday, May 27, 2019
Monday, May 20, 2019
Thrones and Whatnot
So that just happened. It was nice, for a time, to be on the cusp of popular culture with waves of others. Watching an episode the evening it airs, and watching (and understanding) the waves that would ripple out across the internet and casual conversation. Usually I'm on the side of 'make it all available at once so we can binge through as fast as possible', but sticking to a weekly schedule allowed time for suspense to build and the opportunity to savour each turn of events with other viewers. From that personal perspective it was a neat experience.
Now, the story itself... I'm good with how most of it shook out, especially for the Starks.
Sansa got to stand up for herself and her country. She got the respect, authority, and independence she fought the whole series for. She graduated nicely from a girl who had a dime-store idea of what royalty entailed, and eventually grew into a person that could wield true leadership.
Jon finally broke his personal loop of being honourable to a fault. He got to the point where fulfilling his duty to the best of his ability failed to bring himself any satisfaction or peace. They banished him to the Night's Watch (whatever that's for these days), and I'm really glad that he decided to bugger off to the north to lead his own life.
Arya got on a boat in her own Game of Thrones version of 'Go west, young girl'. I wasn't particularly moved by this, but I'm glad that she evolved somewhat from just being a two dimensional badass assassin. Part of me thinks she should have died in King's Landing though, to bring even more personal investment to the death and destruction at the hands of...
Daenerys. Apparently a lot of people were up in arms at her sudden turn towards ruthless dictator, but it didn't bother me. Looking back at past plot points, it made sense and I felt like there was a plausible connection between her actions and established personality to warrant the actions she took. I wouldn't have predicted it if left to my own devices, but the character kinda got under my skin over the last few seasons. It bothered me how entitled she was to the thrown. I'm satisfied with how her arch unfurled.
And then there's everyone else. The Kings Landing Goodtimes Gang all landed on their feet. Too well.
What business does Bran have being King? He's so obviously disconnected from emotion or empathy, and shows no practical interest in being a leader. Why is he on the thrown? Why the hell did everyone vote for him? Tyrion's 'storyteller' speach seemed... weird. What defining choice or action has Bran taken over the last season to indicate he's leadership material? Or, better yet, what choice or action has Bran taken over the last season, period? He allowed himself to sit around and be a lure for the Night King?
Which points to my ultimate conclusion: the wheel has not been broken. The King doesn't care about his responsibilities as leader (like Robert Baratheon before him). Bronn, The Master of Coin, has no qualifications and is fairly openly corrupt. There's potentially another King Beyond the Wall in the making, to some capacity. Sansa is a strong, power-oriented woman that's behind the helm of the largest house, and is mainly just concerned for her corner of the world. Maybe all these parties have fresh new best intentions, but how long does that last? I don't think it'll be long until it all repeats.
That conclusion suddenly made sense to explain a lot of the individual plot points and choices, but it intuitively didn't feel right. Why? Because that was not the tone taken to portray all these new events. Either the show runners wanted to obscure this conclusion somewhat to give people a more 'feel good' ending, or the writing just got sloppy.
A prisoner/traitor to his queen nominates a candidate for king, who once elected names said prisoner to Hand of the King? And everyone's okay with that, while Jon has to be banished to a life on the Wall? Something here is either very lazily put together, or they've hidden the true theme of perpetual corruption under a veneer of A-OK-ness.
By the way, what the hell happened with the Night King? Seemed like he was barely a bump in the road. He didn't prevent all the rebel forces from marching on and conquering King's Landing. No major characters died. Obviously he didn't even kill enough normal people to prevent a war-ready army from immediately forming, and he wasn't able to make any significant damage to Winterfell to prevent it from being the de-facto seat of power for the North. His only purpose, it seems, was to unite the forces of the north under Daenerys. Gah.
The show is what it is. You can't please everyone, and especially with something of such huge scope and audience. For the most part, I think they did alright.
If nothing else, it was refreshing to see a string of strong female characters who didn't need rescuing and were able to forge their own paths that weren't reliant on marrying and having children.
-Cril
Now, the story itself... I'm good with how most of it shook out, especially for the Starks.
Sansa got to stand up for herself and her country. She got the respect, authority, and independence she fought the whole series for. She graduated nicely from a girl who had a dime-store idea of what royalty entailed, and eventually grew into a person that could wield true leadership.
Jon finally broke his personal loop of being honourable to a fault. He got to the point where fulfilling his duty to the best of his ability failed to bring himself any satisfaction or peace. They banished him to the Night's Watch (whatever that's for these days), and I'm really glad that he decided to bugger off to the north to lead his own life.
Arya got on a boat in her own Game of Thrones version of 'Go west, young girl'. I wasn't particularly moved by this, but I'm glad that she evolved somewhat from just being a two dimensional badass assassin. Part of me thinks she should have died in King's Landing though, to bring even more personal investment to the death and destruction at the hands of...
Daenerys. Apparently a lot of people were up in arms at her sudden turn towards ruthless dictator, but it didn't bother me. Looking back at past plot points, it made sense and I felt like there was a plausible connection between her actions and established personality to warrant the actions she took. I wouldn't have predicted it if left to my own devices, but the character kinda got under my skin over the last few seasons. It bothered me how entitled she was to the thrown. I'm satisfied with how her arch unfurled.
And then there's everyone else. The Kings Landing Goodtimes Gang all landed on their feet. Too well.
What business does Bran have being King? He's so obviously disconnected from emotion or empathy, and shows no practical interest in being a leader. Why is he on the thrown? Why the hell did everyone vote for him? Tyrion's 'storyteller' speach seemed... weird. What defining choice or action has Bran taken over the last season to indicate he's leadership material? Or, better yet, what choice or action has Bran taken over the last season, period? He allowed himself to sit around and be a lure for the Night King?
Which points to my ultimate conclusion: the wheel has not been broken. The King doesn't care about his responsibilities as leader (like Robert Baratheon before him). Bronn, The Master of Coin, has no qualifications and is fairly openly corrupt. There's potentially another King Beyond the Wall in the making, to some capacity. Sansa is a strong, power-oriented woman that's behind the helm of the largest house, and is mainly just concerned for her corner of the world. Maybe all these parties have fresh new best intentions, but how long does that last? I don't think it'll be long until it all repeats.
That conclusion suddenly made sense to explain a lot of the individual plot points and choices, but it intuitively didn't feel right. Why? Because that was not the tone taken to portray all these new events. Either the show runners wanted to obscure this conclusion somewhat to give people a more 'feel good' ending, or the writing just got sloppy.
A prisoner/traitor to his queen nominates a candidate for king, who once elected names said prisoner to Hand of the King? And everyone's okay with that, while Jon has to be banished to a life on the Wall? Something here is either very lazily put together, or they've hidden the true theme of perpetual corruption under a veneer of A-OK-ness.
By the way, what the hell happened with the Night King? Seemed like he was barely a bump in the road. He didn't prevent all the rebel forces from marching on and conquering King's Landing. No major characters died. Obviously he didn't even kill enough normal people to prevent a war-ready army from immediately forming, and he wasn't able to make any significant damage to Winterfell to prevent it from being the de-facto seat of power for the North. His only purpose, it seems, was to unite the forces of the north under Daenerys. Gah.
The show is what it is. You can't please everyone, and especially with something of such huge scope and audience. For the most part, I think they did alright.
If nothing else, it was refreshing to see a string of strong female characters who didn't need rescuing and were able to forge their own paths that weren't reliant on marrying and having children.
-Cril
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)