Women in fantasy: the illusion of self-empowerment

Dear producers, filmmakers, screenwriters and costume designers,

In honor of this march 8th (which happens to be the International Women’s Day) I would like to ask a little change: stop inflicting on the world the tough-independent-don’t need a man-I dress way too sexy-brooding female hero stereotype. This has especially been relevant in the fantasy universes.

Characters like Xena (Warrior Princess), any female character in the Conan series, Sif (Thor), the new Maleficent or, the newcomer, Katniss Everdeen fit into this description. These are generally one-dimensional characters whose main definition is that they are female and “warriors/fighters”. They are usually dressed with way too little clothing (prompting one to wonder what good is an armor for if it barely covers your modesty) and are angry with the world and reject the male gender (a movie like Barb Wire did take this far too literally for its own good). And they are all terribly blend. They are just an idea of a female role model. They are one-dimensional and paper-thin. The problem is that the general consensus is that this is somehow empowering to women.

I do understand the female fantasy of fighting wars just like men (especially because that’s a role that has been traditionally denied to women), but do we need to do it in a tiny, tiny body armor that will show every inch of skin?

Lady Sif from the Thor movies

Xena: Warrior Princess

A character like Eowyn doesn’t need to do it. She fights, kicks ass and is NOT one-dimensional and, most important, does it with a full armor (thanks for that Peter Jackson). Brienne doesn’t need it. Arya doesn’t need it. But sadly these are just exceptions. Most of female fantasy characters are still either the princess or the sexy kick-ass of the story (and whatever the case they will have to look pretty at all times).

It seems like the idea of “girl power” has somehow been translated to: angry and sexy. So, according to the mass media (movies, literature, comics, TV shows…) if you want to be an independent-empowered woman, you have to look sexy and hate the world. And to me, this is just another way of exploitation (movies attempts to gain success by “exploiting” a current trend or a genre or any element that differs from the norm: Blaxploitation, sexploitation…). 

Apparently the image of self-empowerment in the media is still filtered through a basically male conception of “empowerment”: “yes, she’ll be a super kick-ass character. She’ll slaughter trolls in a miniskirt and stilettos!” (this is basically the thought process of 90% of the producers in the industry).

It’s so shameful that in the year 2015 most of the female characters on screen are so one-dimensional. If they are the protagonists then they never develop a personality of their own, sticking to the angry and sexy, and if they are not protagonist, then they are relegated to being the token girl for the hero.

And this is a generalized problem. It happens in all genres. A director like Christopher Nolan (whom I’ll admit is pretty darn good at directing) is still incapable of writing good female characters. Most of the times they turn out to be just a token for the perfectly well-rounded male protagonist. And so, his movies conform a very masculine universe. This is not bad in and on itself. The problem is that the industry seems dominated by this masculine universe, which gives way to a very frustrating phenomenon: if the movie protagonist is a male, then he’ll be a well-rounded character (or at least they will try) and the movie’s target will be both for men and for women. But it the protagonist is female, then she’ll be poorly written and the movie will be entirely targeted at women (yes, I’m looking at you Mamma mia).

I think that this is the core problem. Somehow, female characters never get as polished and well-rounded as male characters. I’m not sure whether this is because in an industry dominated by men most screenwriters can’t write women well or because they think that it’s not necessary.

What feminism (more like women in general) needs is for movies to give us good female characters: multi-layered, complex and well-rounded characters that are more than an illusion of self-empowerment. What’s really self-empowering is seeing female-characters treated as humans. Female characters, just as the male ones, have distinct personalities, strengths and flaws because they are humans as well.

What female characters demand is equality. Equality of treatment. The right to be as flawed and petty as male characters are allowed (for some reason women in movies are not generally pathetic the just have two set-points: either they are demons or angels)

That is what sets apart a writer like George R.R Martin; he is capable of writing female characters that are psychologically complex, interesting and human: Cersei, Brienne, Sansa…. are all very different women and all are treated as unique human beings, both results of their environment and victims of it at the same time.

Brienne of Tarth. A real female warrior

“It’s about treating men and women the same, I regard men and women as all human - yes there are differences, but many of those differences are created by the culture that we live in, whether it's the medieval culture of Westeros, or 21st century western culture.”
[….]
“All of the characters should be flawed; they should all have good and bad, because that's what I see. Yes, it’s fantasy, but the characters still need to be real.”
--George R.R Martin

Unfortunately, characters like Princess Leia, Eowyn, Cersei or Brienne walk the lonely path of the good fantasy female character (made a little less lonely by Mister Martin).

So, today, in this very special day, I ask you (producers, filmmakers, screenwriters and costume designers) to please reconsider this worrying trend in media. Stop thinking about giving us female role models and start empowering female characters the only way you can: by making real human characters.

A Song of Ice and Fire: Fantasy and History IV

George R. R. Martin doesn’t only take ideas from famous historical figures to shape his own characters. He also “steals” ideas from historical events to shape his plots. And because of this, today I will not be looking into any specific character and its historical influence. Instead, I am going to focus on the main historical events behind the shocking and bloody Red Wedding.

It goes without saying that THERE WILL BE SPOILERS for anyone who still hasn’t read “A Storm of Swords” (and there might be some spoiler for “A Dance with Dragons” too) or seen the third season. Read at your own risk.

The so-called Red Wedding is a shocking and horrifying event within the Game of Thrones universe. It’s the event that marks the end of Robb’s Rebellion; but instead of taking place on a battle (as we would expect) it happens during a wedding, shocking viewers and readers alike.

Robb Stark, the crowned King in the North, needs to win back the Lords of the Crossing after breaking his oath of marrying one of the Frey girl’s and marrying Jeyne Westerling (in the books) or Talisa Stark (in the TV show). And to do so, he offers his uncle; Lord Edmure Tully (the future Lord of Riverrun) to marry one of Walder Frey’s granddaughters. The pact is sealed and so, Robb marches north with his army to the Twins to attend to said wedding. All seems to be going great until the bride and groom are carried away from the main hall for their bedding. Then, a song starts to play. It’s “The Rains of Castamere”, the famous song that immortalizes the destruction of House Reyne by the Lannisters. And then the blood starts running. All the northern men that accompanied Robb are brutally killed. Robb is hit by arrows and stabbed by Roose Bolton whilst one of the Freys slits Catelyn’s throat. 

* And in the show they also kill Talisa and their unborn child. Which makes the event even more bloody.

So, where could have Martin got the idea for something as gruesome and gory as this. If it came only from his imagination, well, then he really is as psychopathic as we all feared. But the truth is that this event is heavily inspired by two gruesome events in Scottish history; the Black Dinner and the Massacre of Glencoe.

Let’s start by talking a bit about the Black Dinner. It is an infamous event in medieval Scottish history, and it took place in 1440. In the early fifteen century, the Douglas Clan became very powerful landlords in the Scottish Lowlands. Such was their power that they were seen as a threat to the stability of Scotland, especially by one of their rival clans; Clan Crichton. They thought that the Douglas’ Clan was just too strong and they were threatening to upset the  country’s delicate balance.

Before continuing, let me point out that the growing number of rival clans within medieval Scotland was the cause of the ever frail balance of power. Just as it happens in the North within the Game of Thrones universe. Martin states that is really difficult to unite all families of the North within a common cause and that there is always strife between them despite their similarities. This, in my opinion makes it obvious that the North is clearly inspired by medieval Scotland, the same way that King’s Landing is inspired by the old city old Constantinople.

But let’s go on with the issue at hand. In the year 1440, William, the chief of Clan Douglas was a man of only six-and-ten (only two years older than Robb Stark) and he had barely been involved in any serious politics. Nevertheless, for some, the Douglas’ Clan still represented a serious threat. Why? Because the Scottish king; James II was still a boy of ten years old, and was considered that someone as powerful as William Douglas could easily influence the King and take control of him and the council.

Because of this, Clan Crichton, with the help of Alexander Livingston of Callendar and other names lost to history,  made plans to break the power of Clan Douglas.

Sir William Crichton, castellan of Edinburgh Castle, invited William Douglas to a feast at the court of the young king. The Douglas’ Clan chief, presented himself to court accompanied by his younger brother, David and his advisor.

A banquet was held in  the Great Hall of Edinburgh Castle, and it is reported that the young king was charmed by the Douglas’ brothers. Once the feast was coming to an end, a black bull’s head was brought into the hall by the servants. For that was an ancient Scottish symbol of death. Without any more warning, the brothers were seized and dragged out of the castle, where they were given a mock trial and were sentenced for high treason. Both were quickly beheaded.

Little had they know when they had entered the Hall. Obviously the presence of the King had made them feel safe. And of course, the laws of hospitality. In medieval society, the tradition of hospitality was sacred, and therefore, any guest was under the protection of their hosts.

The resemblance here with the Red Wedding is quite obvious. Both victims were put at ease by the safety that the laws of hospitality guaranteed them (since they are also sacred in Westeros, and it is specifically told that any men that breaks it is forever accursed), and their deaths were signaled by something symbolic; the bull head’s and the “Rains of Castamere”.

The death of the Douglas’ brothers, extinguished the main male line of the Douglas Chiefs. Because of this, their lands and titles fell into the hands of James the Gross, lord of Avondale (William’s great-uncle). He sought no revenge for the murders, which might indicate that he had been a conspirator along with Crichton. 

Just like in Game of Thrones. The Red Wedding leaves the northern rebellion without a King, and the Starks without an heir, which helps Roose Bolton (who had conspired with the Freys) land the charge of Warden of the North.

The other major event in the history of Scotland that may be behind the conception of the Red Wedding is the Massacre of Glencoe. This is slightly different, for this time it’s the guests who kill the hosts, but still, there are similarities.

In 1688, William, Prince of Orange accepted the invitation to take the English throne. The Scottish Parlament wasn’t happy and requested the return of James VII of Scotland (named II of England) who had been exiled to France. The response of James II wasn’t the one they expected: he persuaded them to accept William as their King. Disregarding it, John Graham led a force of Scottish Highlanders in a Jacobite Uprising to bring back James II, which failed.

On August 1691, King William offered all Highland clans a pardon for their part in the Jacobite Uprising. But they had to take an oath of allegiance before the 1st of January 1692 in front of a magistrate. The clans asked permission to James II to take the oath. The King’s answer, who was in France, came back in mid-December, a few weeks before the deadline. This, and the bad weather, caused Alisdair Maclain, 12th Chief of Glencoe to arrive late to taking the oath. But, as it was due to the weather, Sir Colin Campbell, sheriff of Argyll was forced to accept the oath as valid. But the failure to meet the deadline was enough of a pretense for the Campbell Clan to pursue their revenge against the perceived slights of the Maclain Clan.

And so, in the late January of 1692, they sent two companies of the Earl of Argyll under the command of Capitain Robert Campbell to Glencoe to quarter their troops. For two weeks, the soldiers were hosted by Alexander MacDonald (who was the son of Alisdair Maclain), Alisdair Maclain, and other members of the Clan.

On the morning of February 13, 1692, Capitan Campbell and his men were ordered to massacre the families who had sheltered them. And so, the bloodshed began. Alisdair Maclain was killed in his bed by Campbell’s soldiers. His sons and wife escaped, but 38 men of the clan were murdered in their homes or as they tried to flee.

And so, we can see the similarity between the Campbell Clan and the Freys, both of whom are capable of committing atrocious crimes to avenge what they perceive as slights to themselves.

But probably the biggest similarity between the two bloody events is the aftermath. In the case of the Massacre of Glencoe; it is actually remembered to this day, and all Glencoe inns and pubs bear signs that read: NO CAMPBELLS ALLOWED. This may only be for the tourist’s sake. But for hundreds of years, sings like that actually existed in Glencoe and weren’t for the tourists.

And perhaps, that is from where Martin took the Northmen’s motto: “The North Remembers”. Because after the Young Wolf’s murder, his Bannermen did surrender to King Joffrey, but they did not forget the Freys. Such is proven right in the chapter of “A Dance with Dragons” where Ser Davos sails to White Harbor to bring Lord Manderly to King Stannis’ side.

Lord Manderly tells Davos about the Red Wedding and complains about the Freys that he is forced to feast: “My son Wendel came to the the Twins a guest. He ate Lord Walder's bread and salt, and hung his sword upon the wall to feast with friends. And they murdered him. Murdered, I say, and may the Freys choke upon their fables. I drink with Jared, jape with Symond, promise Rhaegar the hand of my own beloved granddaughter ... but never think that means I have forgotten. The north remembers, Lord Davos. The north remembers, and the mummer’s farce is almost done. My son is home.” And true to his words, he has all the Freys that accompanied his son to White Harbor killed on the way to Winterfell to attend the Lord Ramsay’s Wedding.

And so, perhaps the North will remember just as Glencoe, after 300 years, still remembers.

A Song of Ice and Fire: Fantasy and History III

After a very long break (for which I am completely ashamed) I return to this blog to continue my series of post dedicated to the universe of “A song of Ice and Fire” by George R. R. Martin. This time I will be focussing on Margery Tyrell, the “sweet” and beautiful new Queen. And I will be comparing him to another “sweet” and beautiful new Queen; Anne Boleyn.

Margery Tyrell as portrayed in the HBO show

Portrait of Anne Boleyn

Before starting, I want to let one think clear: THERE WILL BE SPOILERS, in a really extensive way. The “problem” with Margery, is that a great part of her character development happens in “A feast for crows” and “A dance with dragons” (the last two published books), and it’s a bit difficult talking about her without making any mention to what happens in those books. So if you haven’t read those books and don’t want to be spoiled, please do not read this post. Go read the books, and then come back (or wait until the TV show covers that, whatever you like).

With that said, let’s start by talking about Anne Boleyn.

Anne Boleyn was the daughter of Thomas Boleyn, a well respected diplomat and favorite of Henry VII of England who would later become Earl of Wiltshire and Earl of Ormond. Anne and her siblings (Mary and George) grew up at Hever Castle in Kent. At the time of her birth, the Boleyn Family was considered one of the most respected within the English Aristocracy.

She became Queen of England in 1533 and reign until 1536 as the second wife of King Henry VIII of England. She was also named Marquess of Pembroke. Her marriage to Henry made her a key figure in the political and religious upheaval that was the start of the English Reformation. 

She grew up and received her education far away from the Tudor court; in the Netherlands and later France. She didn’t return to England until she was 20 years old (her age is not certain though) in order to marry James Butler, Earl of Ormond. The marriage wasn’t carried out in the end, but she secured a post at court as maid of honor to Henry VIII’s wife; Catherine of Aragon.

In 1526, the King began his pursuit of Anne. But, against all odds, she refused to become his mistress. After months of Anne’s denial, Henry’s wish to annul his marriage to Queen Catherine so he would be free to marry Anne grew stronger than ever. When the Pope refused to agree to the annulment, Henry decided to break the power of the Catholic Church in England by naming himself Head of the Church of England.

Soon after, Henry divorced Catherine and declared their marriage null and void. He married Anne on 25th January 1533. She was crowned Queen on the 1st of June of that same year.

A few months later, she gave birth to the future Queen Elizabeth, whose gender was a huge disappointment for Henry. Three miscarriages followed, and by March 1536, the King was courting another lady: Jane Seymour.

As time went on, Henry convinced himself that Anne would never give him a male heir and wished to get rid of her, so he had her investigated her for high treason and she was arrested and sent to the Tower of London on May the 2nd of 1536. 

There, she was tried before a jury. The charges laid against her were: adultery, incest, and witchcraft. She was found guilty on  the 15th of May. She was beheaded four days later.

Natalie Portman playing Anne in "The other Boleyn girl"

So, why exactly do I see any resemblance with Margery Tyrell? Well, it surely isn’t as obvious as it was in Tywin’s case. But I do believe there exists certain similarities.

Both Margery and Anne grew up and received their respective educations far away from the court they would later rule over. Margery grew up in Highgarden, the seat of her Lord Father; Mace Tyrell. And just as the Boleyn family, the Tyrell’s are one of the richest families in Westeros (only second to the Lannisters).

Anne Boleyn was secretly betrothed to Henry Percy, but said betrothal was broken and they never actually married. The case with Margery is not exactly like that, but there are some similarities. Margery actually married the rebel “False King” Renly Baratheon before marrying the King. But both her family and herself claim that the marriage was never consumed, so technically they were never really married.

Anne was considered to be brilliant, charming, elegant and graceful. Just like Margery. And she loved to flirt. Just like Margery. And Anne was also a devout Christian (although a revolutionary one). Just like Margery. In the book, especially in “A feast for crows”; we are told that Margery Tyrell goes very often to pray at the Sept of Baelor and she actually is depicted as a rather devout character.

The main difference between this two, in terms of personality is that Anne was really opinionated, really passionate and had a very sharp tongue an a terrible temper. But is that really a difference? Margery always comes off as meek and ladylike and very calm. But that (in my opinion) is just a façade. In the fourth book, there’s a scene that actually proves that. It’s when Cersei visits her at the Sept of Baelor after she’s been arrested for adultery. If you can recall, she screams and curses and calls Cersei a lying bitch (I don’t recall the exact words, but it was something like that) and reveals a much less “nice” side of her “perfect” persona, proving my point that she really is as passionate as Anne, but disguises it better.

Some actually describe Anne as “the perfect courtier”. Is there anything that would describe Margery better? That caused both women to have plenty of admirers and suitors at court.

And Margery, just as Anne, made a King set aside another woman in order to become Queen. Henry VIII divorced Catherine of Aragon, so he could make Anne his Queen. And King Joffrey broke the betrothal to Sansa Stark to marry Margery.

The idea of annulment, in Henry’s case, had been considered some time earlier by his desire to secure the Tudor line by conceiving a male heir. In Joffrey’s case, he had also been looking for an excuse to set aside the Stark girl. But in both cases, Anne and Margery played major roles in the breaking of these vows.

And besides all that, both women were special enough to be able to manipulate their respective kings. Henry VIII is known as much for his tendencies to behead wives as for his hot temper and his stubbornness. And Joffrey, being the vicious mad boy king he is, is as crazy as he is uncontrollable. But somehow, both Anne and Margery found a way to control these forces of nature, even if it was just for a little while.

But perhaps, the clearest similarity between these women lies within their downfall. 

In Anne’s case, it all started with the arrest of a Flemish musician in Anne’s service. He initially denied being the Queen’s lover, but later confessed (probably under torture). And because of this other nobles were arrested: Henry Norris, Sir Francis Weston, William Brereton, Sir Thomas Wyatt, Sir Richard Page and the Queen’s own brother: George Boleyn. They all claimed being innocent of the charges. The Queen herself defended her own innocence all the way through to her execution. But still, she was charged of adultery and incest, which being a Queen were crimes that were considered treason to the Crown. Most historians consider this charges to be nothing but a scheme to replace her as Queen.

Margery’s case is really similar (only that we don’t know how it ends because George R. R. Martin hasn’t written it yet). Cersei, feeling supplanted by this young Queen, plots to have her arrested. First she tortures the Blue Bard, a singer that often accompanies Margery and her cousins, in order to get him to confess having bedded Margery. And then she sends Osney Kettleblack to the High Septon to confess having been seduced by Margery. In the end, she stands accused of having had sexual encounters with: Osney Kettleblack, Jalabhar Xho, Bayard Norcross, Ser Tallad the Tall, Hugh Clifton, Hamish the Harper, Lambert Turnberry, Mark Mullendor and the Blue Bard. Cersei also wants to accuse Loras Tyrell (the Queen’s brother) but ends up deciding that it is unnecessary and completely unbelievable (Loras is a known gay). And so, Margery is arrested and imprisoned by the Faith at the Sept of Baelor where she is questioned day and night. At the end of the last published book, Margery is awaiting trial by the judges of the Faith.

But perhaps, the clearest similarities do not lie as much in the deeds of Anne Boleyn’s life, but in the perception the everyone else had of her.

Anne Boleyn can be seen as either a victim or a harpy; and has been depicted as both many a times. She is the woman who caused the break between England and the Catholic Church . And yet, some view her as a fervent Protestant reformer who ushered in the Reformation to England and paved the way for her daughter, Queen Elizabeth. And others consider her a very ambitious woman and an opportunist who slept her way to the top and set aside the much beloved Catherine of Aragon.

The same goes for Margery; the line between being her father’s pawn to reach power and being herself an ambitious and cunning woman who hungers for power is really blurred.

All in all, they both were women who rose to the top and made quite a lot of enemies on their way, whom ended causing their downfall.

* One really unimportant but funny fact: HBO cast as Margery Tyrell the actress Natalie Dormer, who had previously played Anne Boleyn in the The Tudors.

A Song of Ice and Fire: Fantasy and History II

Let’s continue within the rich universe of “A song of Ice and Fire” by George R. R. Martin. This time, our focus will be on Tywin Lannister, the stern patriarch of House Lannister and Lord of Casterly Rock.

And to what historical figure will I compare him? Well, with none other than the stern and dreadful Edward I, King of England.

Tywin Lannister as portrayed in the HBO series

Painting of Edward I, King of England

So, without further ado, let’s see who Edward Longshanks  was.

Edward I was King of England from 1272 to 1307. He was the first son of Henry III and was also known as Edward Longshanks and Hammer of the Scots. He was a very tall man for his time, hence the nickname “Longshanks”. He was known to be temperamental and a very intimidating man (his height surely helped). He instilled fear in his contemporaries. Despite this, he embodied the medieval idea of kingship: as a soldier, an administrator and a man of faith.

He was involved early in the political intrigues of his father’s reign, which included an outright rebellion by the English Barons which he swiftly crushed.

He then became a crusader and left England to fight in the Holy Land. He returned to England after his father’s death to be crowned as King of England.

During his reign he overtook a great reformation of the royal administration and common law. Although he is much more well known for his military action.

After suppressing a minor rebellion in Wales in 1276, Edward Longshanks responded to a second rebellion with a full-scale war of conquest in 1282 that resulted in a very bloody but successful campaign which ended in England ruling over Wales. The king built a series of castles all over the country and settled them with Englishmen to keep control over the region.

Next, he directed his attention towards the north: towards Scotland. After being invited to arbitrate a succession dispute, Edward claimed feudal domain over the kingdom of Scotland. The war that followed resulted in victory for the Scots, but the blow delivered by the English was great and left behind a bloody trail.

At his death in 1307, he left to his son, the future Edward II, an ongoing war with Scotland and a great deal of financial and political problems to solve.

So, long story short, Edward I was a king who ruled with an iron hand and allowed no mercy to those who dared defy him. That sounds sort of familiar, doesn’t it? Edward dealt with his enemies more or less the same way that Tywin does: with a swift and violent response.

The way Edward dealt with the Welsh rebellion is sort of the same way that Tywin dealt with the Reyne’s of Castamere. And the way he crushed William Wallace’s rebellion is sort of similar to how he crushed Robb Stark’s rebellion.

But that is not the only similarity. Edward’s father; Henry III was a pretty weak man, especially in comparison to his son, and almost destroyed the English Crown with his weak way of dealing with the feudal rebellions. Just like Tywin’s father; Tytos Lannister, who was known to be a pretty meek lion who, in Tywin’s eyes, almost destroyed all by himself the Lannister name.

Tytos, in his weakness, allowed the sworn houses to Casterly Rock to rebel very frequently against their liege Lord only to gain more power for themselves. And because of this, Tytos, and House Lannister started to be perceived as weak by his own vassals, causing the very famous events that lead to the creation of the song known as “The rains of Castamere”.

Both Tywin and Edward were in a profound disagreement with their father’s politics in regards to their own nobles. And both took action, setting aside the words and parchment that their fathers had used. 

Between the years 1264 and 1267, Edward I, tired of his father’s weakness, engaged the royal army in a civil war with his own barons known as the Second Barons’ War.  In it, the baronial forces led by Simon de Montfort fought against Henry I’s loyalist, led by Edward I, who at the time was still a prince. In the battle of Evesham, Edward defeated Montfort on the field and captured him. Then, Edward commanded that Montfort was to be killed and mutilated on the field itself. And so, Montfort met a gruesome end at the hands of young Edward.

Tywin, did something very similar in the Reyne rebellion. The Reyne’s, one of the richest families in Westeros, decided that they should have more power than the Lannisters, and rose in rebellion. Tywin, resentful of his father’s soft hand, asked Tytos to command himself the campaign against the rebellion. His father, who still was Lord of Casterly Rock, agreed. And so, Tywin fought and defeated the Reyne’s. The consequences were terrible. He slaughtered every man, woman and child who carried the name Reyne and burned their stronghold to the ground. These events helped regain the power of the name Lannister and their reputation. Now, and thanks to Tywin, all families knew what happened to those who questioned the might of Casterly Rock.

After Edward ascended into the throne, his main concern was restoring order and re-establishing the royal authority after the disastrous reign of his father. One of his main goals was to reestablish the lands and rights that the crown had lost during Henry III’s reign. And so, both men, when they finally stepped in their father’s shoes, they set themselves into the mission of restoring their family names and rights.

But these two very powerful men weren’t only alike in the political and military aspects of their lives. Both men were married to “the loves of their lives”. In 1254, Edward married to Eleanor of Castille, the half-sister of King Alfonso X of Castille, in order to settle an alliance between the two countries. Though it was an arranged marriage, both came to love each other very much and became a vital part of each other’s life. Edward was a very devoted husband and was absolutely faithful to her throughout their married life, a real rarity among monarchs of the time. Her death in the year 1290 affected the monarch deeply. He displayed his grief by erecting 12 crosses in his wife’s memory, one at each place where her funeral cortège stopped in its procession.

Tywin was married to a cousin of his: Joanna Lannister, It was an extremely happy marriage. It was said that while Tywin ruled Westeros as the Hand of the King, he was ruled by his wife at home. Joanna died while giving birth to their third son: Tyrion. A deep grieve struck Tywin after her death and it is said that he has not smiled since then.

Edward and Eleanor had at least fourteen children, perhaps as many as sixteen. Of these, five daughters survived into adulthood, but only one boy did: Edward, who would succeed his father as Edward II. Joanna gave Tywin three children: the twins Jaime and Cersei, and the dwarf Tyrion.

Another aspect in which they look similar is in their great disappointment in their children.

Edward I was very concerned with what he perceived as his son’s failure to live up to the expectations of an heir to the crown, and actually exiled his son’s favourite (and provably lover): Piers Gaveston. The future Edward II was a weak, capricious, and vacillating man who undid most of his father’s efforts in keeping Scotland united by the English Crown. He was (most probably) homosexual and made no effort to hide it, which really irritated his father. And ended up being deposed of his throne by his French wife (see the previous article I made about the similarities between Cersei and this woman; Isabella of France).

Tywnin was also pretty disappointed in his offspring: Jaime became a knight of the Kingsguard without his consent or knowledge, loosing his rights as heir to Tywin and the possibilities to marry and have children to keep the Lannister name alive. Cerscei, with her poor political schemes and her incapability to keep her son in line was another deep source of disappointment. But the biggest one to Tywin was his third son: the Imp. Tywin thinks that his son shames the name of Lannister because of his condition as a dwarf and his frequent trips to the whorehouse.

Last but not least, Edward I fought to squash the Scottish rebels and won. Much like Tywin fought the Stark rebellion and won. Both, the Scotsman and the Stark are Northmen, and both Edward and Tywin are south men and much richer than their adversaries. Both leaders went on these campaigns trying to crush their enemies, whose main goal was to detach themselves from the crown, claiming themselves independent.

And what’s more, both these rebel leaders; William Wallace and Robb Stark were betrayed to Edward I and Tywin by their own Bannermen. In Wallace’s case, it was Sir John de Menteith who turned him over. And in Stark’s case, it was the old Lord Walder Frey of the Crossing. Both Wallace and Stark meet with a grim end for opposing the crown.

Physically, both these men were quite impressive. Edward I, at 6 feet 2 inches was said to tower over most of his contemporaries, fact which earned him the name “longshancks”. Tywin is also described as physically impressive, although his height is never specifically addressed.

Edward I was considered by his contemporaries as an able, even ideal king. But he was not loved by his subjects, he was feared and respected in shares alike. Much like Tywin, who is considered a very capable person with great capacities for ruling. It is said that when Robert Baratheon was barely 6, he was taken to King’s Landing with his brother Stannis to an audience with the king. Both children were very much impressed by the King, by its regalness and persona. Years later, their father told them that the man whom they had so admired was not the king Aerys, but his Hand, Tywin. This anecdote reaffirms this vision of Tywin as someone regal and fit for ruling. As for his reputation, Tywin, like Edward, is feared and respected alike.

All of these facts serve as proof, so to speak, of Martin’s source of inspiration for his world and inhabitants. And so, I leave you until my next post!

The Races of middle Earth. Racism in Tolkien's work?

Last year’s Christmas blockbuster “The Hobbit, an unexpected journey” awakened a very old front of controversy in relation to Tolkien’s work. The ever present question of racism in his texts.

There has been a lot of ink spent on discussing this. Some defend that there is a very clear racist component in Tolkien’s work due to his conception of higher men (numenorians) or the rivalry between elves and dwarves. Others claim that this charge is completely invented and an insult to the magnificent body of work this Oxford teacher created.

But this will not be an exposition of what this or that people think. What I intend to do is expose my humble point of view acquired from years devoted to this book and its lore.

I do understand that some aspects of Middle Earth can be read as racist, but I don’t think that this was Tolkien’s intention. And these are not empty words of a fan girl. Allow me to explain why.

If you take a deep look at the books that conform the lore of Middle Earth (The Lord of the rings, The Hobbit, The Silmarillion, etc.) you will actually appreciate a very clever attempt on Tolkien’s part to encase within each race of Middle Earth a human virtue and a human flaw. By doing so, he intended to represent different aspects of the human nature within each race.

And so, Hobbits represent humility, but at the same time, they stand for compliance. Dwarves, stand for perseverance, and also represent greed. The beautiful elves embody wisdom, but also pride and arrogance. And men stand for courage, and represent ambition.

As you see, none of Middle Earth’s races is flawless. And the most interesting thing about this aspect is that each race’s flaw is the logical consequence of its virtue.

For instance, little and humble hobbits are virtuous in their humility. But the logical consequence of their lifestyle (simple and humble) is compliance. Leading such a simple life they grow lazy and uncompromising. Why should they try to be something more if like that they are already fine? This is, basically, a mirror to the reader. Most people are like that. Tolkien was only trying to reflect something that he saw every day. The simple people are often very humble and humility is their greatest virtue. But they are also compliant. They never aim for anything grander, or anything that will change their routine.

Men, on the other hand, have the great virtue of courage. They are the opposite to hobbits, they are always trying to achieve something bigger, to better themselves. And to do that, it takes a lot of courage. The logical downside is ambition. The race of men, is ambitious. They don’t long for riches, like dwarves; they desire power above all. The story of Numenor, as told in the Silmarillion is the very proof of this, as is the story of Boromir and the later madness of Denethor’s.

The same goes for the controversial dwarves. These are creatures that love working and they persevere until they get what they want. They will stop at nothing in their work, which happens to be mining. They are resistant and never complain in the face of hard work. When presented like that, their flaw could be only greed. They are constant and persevere to the extreme, which leads to their greed for riches. Their hard work in mining leads them to the need for more riches.

And there is the great controversy. With that description, everybody thinks that Tolkien was referring to the jews. First of all, I highly doubt it. But even if it was like that, would it matter? There is not a single line in any of Tolkien’s books that say that “dwarves are bad”. Dwarves do bad things, but so do all the other races (except the hobbits, and that’s sort of their sin). Elves also stray from the righteous path. And we all know men do.

This conception of the elves as the perfect race couldn’t be more wrong. It is true that elves are the first race to be created, but just as angels in Judeo-Christianity, they are not perfect. Elves are beautiful by definition; tall and fair. And most of all: elves are wise. But they have a reason to be. Elves are also immortal, and therefore, they have centuries to learn. Elves are not born wise. But they have the time to acquire said wisdom. And what is the logical flaw that comes from wisdom? Arrogance and pride. Elves are both. They know themselves wise, and therefore arrogance can not be far away.

And so, after years of thinking, I’ve come to a conclusion. This racist issue is always raised by people who have only read “The lord of the rings”, or, in most cases, only have seen the movies. And because of it, only have seen the mistakes of dwarves, mainly because all of the mistakes made by elves are narrated in “The Silmarillion”. And because of this, they think that Tolkien presents the elves as the perfect race, whilst dwarves are just a bunch of greedy people.

Well, in “The Silmarillion” there are plenty of arrogant elves that make mistakes, and pay dearly for them. The thing is, by the Third Age (when the war of the ring happens), the elves that have survived until then, are already aware of what happens to those who perish to their own arrogance, and try to avoid it.

But the main reason why I say that I don’t think that dwarves and elves are the literary transposition of nazis and jews stands on one single thing. Elves don’t consider dwarves to be a lesser race. Their hate comes as the result of a long life series of strifes, one of the main being the fact that dwarves killed the elf king in Doriath. But truly, if I had to look for a similarity for the strife between these two, I would never go for the nazis-jews hate, but more like the love-hate relationship between England and France. They’ve been at each other’s throats during centuries, but one has never been better than the other. Each race gave as good as they got.

There is nothing more I can say about it, and whomever wants to keep believing Tolkien was pronazi will keep believing it. But for all there is, I really think that this was not his intend. And I quite like what he did with the races. The idea to have the virtue of each race be the cause of their fault is really smart and I thing that works perfectly.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

A Song of Ice and Fire: Fantasy and History I

“A song of Ice and Fire” by George R. R. Martin is probably one of the best written pieces of fantasy of all time. And the great thing about it is that is not a copy of “The Lord of The Rings”.

The thing is that such was the influence and importance of Tolkien’s work in the fantasy landscape that ever since, almost every fantasy book that has come out has been trying too hard to be Lord of the Rings. And the result of that is a huge line of Tolkien’s rip offs that lack both the quality and imagination of the original. Therefore, a work like “A song of Ice and Fire” feels fresh and it’s really welcomed. The great thing about Martin’s work is that it creates its own world and dynamics and it takes from its own influences.

Whilst Lord of the Rings took a lot from the Nordic Mythology, A song of Ice and fire takes from European medieval history. And that is very noticeable.

There’s a great deal of things that could be said about this series of books, but I will keep this focused on the resemblances between real life history and the events and characters of this book. 

As there are thousands of these resemblances, I’ll devote one post to each of these. And the first post of this series will be dedicated to the resemblance between the figure of Isabella of France and Cersei Lannister.

First off, let’s briefly explain who Isabella was.

Isabella of France (1295- 1385) was the Queen consort of England as the wife of Edward II of England. She was the daughter of Philip IV of France and Joan I of Navarre. She was notable at the time for her beauty, diplomatic skills and intelligence. And has often been described as the She-wolf of France.

She was sent off to marry far away from home at the age of 12. Her husband, Edward the II, was notorious for the patronage he lavished on his favorite: Piers Gaveston, who was also his lover. This started a period of political turmoil that ended with an extended fight between the king and some of his nobles. The nobles would end up executing Gaveston, forcing the king into revenge. After his lover’s death, he turned to a new favorite, Hug Despenser the younger. His association which him resulted in the Despenser War and a period of internal repression across England.

Isabella, tired of her husband and Despenser, travelled to France under the guise of a diplomatic mission, where she began an affair with Roger Mortimer. Once there, he called for her son, and heir to the throne, to sign the peace treaty with the French. With her son by her side, she set sail towards England with a small army and took over Edward’s crown. She deposed him and became regent on behalf of her son: Edward III. A few years later, her husband died under strange circumstances, and it’s often believed that it was arranged by her.

Isabella landing in England with her son, the future Edward III in 1326

Seated as Queen next to her lover, Isabella led a lavish existence and ruled no better than her husband had.

When her son was seventeen, he deposed Mortimer and executed him, taking all power away from Isabella. She was exiled in an English castle until the end of her life whilst her son ruled.

She soon became a popular figure in plays and literature, usually portrayed as beautiful but cruel and often manipulative.

As you see, there is clearly some resemblance there.

Both were woman that were sold off to marry a rich and powerful king. Both Robert Baratheon and Edward II were handsome men, tall and fair. And both Isabella and Cersei found out during their wedding night’s that in their marriages there were three people, not two. In Isabella’s case was a real third person: Pierce Gaveston, her husband’s lover. And in Cersei’s case, was Lyanna Stark, Robert’s death fiancee. 

Another common aspect is that they both were regarded as very beautiful. At the time Isabella married, Geoffrey of Paris described her as “the beauty of beauties in the kingdom if not in all Europe”. And in Cersei’s case, it is often said that she is the most beautiful woman in Westeros.

And although far more far fetched there is even a small resemblance between the Isabella’s husband and Cersei’s. When the nobles executed Gaveston, the king, Edward II, went on a grieving rage and swore revenge. Which he actually got. Just as King Robert’s rage when he hear of the kidnapping and murder of his beloved Lyanna, which also ended in a bloody revenge.

Isabella was a fiercely protective mother, just like Cersei. Isabella took over her husband’s crown because he confiscated her lands and removed her children from her custody to be looked over at the Despenser’s household. Cersei is also a fiercely protective mother. And you could provable say that the only thing she truly cares are her children. Cersei actually takes the final step against her husband when Ned Stark threatens her and says he’ll tell her husband that the kids are the spawn of incest (which would mean death to them).

Both women actually though that they could be better rulers that their own husbands and decided to take over and rule themselves. Both planned the murder of their husbands so they could reign as regents for their sons. And in both cases, their sons ended up pushing them away from power. 

But, obviously, there are also differences between this strong willed women: for instance, Isabella’s son (Edward III) was not a psychopath and ended up being a pretty good king (at least for Middle Ages standards). Joffrey, instead, is basically crazy and a pretty bad king.

Isabella was a perfect match to her male contemporaries. Cersei, on the other hand, may not be as good as she thinks she is as a schemer. Her brother, Tyrion, is a thousand times better than her at the game of politics.

And Robert Baratheon had very little in common with Edward II. The latter was a soft man with no passion for hunting nor the usual kingly activities, whilst Robert was, first and foremost, a warrior. Robert also was a womanizer, instead, Edward was homosexual (or bisexual at least).

But whatever their differences are, Isabella and Cersei were raised to be no more than a pawn in a bigger game, but decided that they wanted to have a say at the game of thrones.

Cersei Lannister played by Lena Heady

Isabella of France played by Sophie Marceau in the
highly historically inaccurate "Braveheart"

In the next chapter of the “fantasy and history” series. I will compare Tywin Lannister to Edward I (the father of Isabella’s husband), also known as Hammer of the Scotts and Edward Longshanks. He ruled England with a hand of iron and destroyed the rebellion lead by William Wallace. Tywin, instead, squashed the rebellion lead by House Reyne of Castarmere in a very similar way.

But I’ll leave that to next year !

Happy New Year to all!!!

The Desolation of Smaug

“The Hobbit or There and Back Again” is a fantasy novel and a children’s book written by J. R. R. Tolkien that was first published on 21st September 1937 to a wide critical acclaim. The book follows the quest of Bilbo Baggins to recover the Misty Mountain and win a share of the treasure  guarded by the dragon Smaug. It’s told in the form of an episodic quest and each chapter introduces an specific creature of this mythical world that is Middle Earth.

Sixty four years later, in 2001, the spectacular screen adaptation of the Lord of the Rings hit the silver screen. It was a success beyond anyone’s imagination. So it was only a matter of time before they brought to the screen the original work that preceded the Lord of the Rings.

And so, last year, “The Hobbit: An unexpected journey” hit the theaters. It was a big let down. And so, I didn’t particularly look forward to this year’s “The desolation of Smaug”. But, being a Tolkien fan, I had to see it. 

I must recognize that it didn’t disappoint me as much as I though it would. It’s entertaining and action packed, and a lot of people will enjoy the hell out of it. But still, there are a lot of things that don’t sit well with me. With that said, I will proceed to comment on the film itself. Please, keep in mind that this is my opinion, just that. And let yourself be warned: spoilers lie ahead.

There’s one first thing I want to get out of the way. This is not a book versus film list. I am aware that in any adaptation, changes need to be done. Although, to be sincere, it will require a big effort. I will focus, mainly on the movie itself and what things work for me or don’t within the adaptation.

Another thing I’d like to get out of the way is the CGI business. I hate the visual effects of this movie (except for Smaug). I don’t like the use they make of the CGI. I think that the Dol Guldur sequence looks particularly bad. You can tell it’s computer generated by a mile. it feels like a video game. That’s not what I want when I go to see a movie. I want to see a movie, not a video game. Besides, am I the only one who things that the orcs in the original trilogy (that were practical effects) looked better than this ones? I hate seeing a close up of an orc and being able to tell that he doesn’t exist, that its just a computer generated image.

With that said, let’s move on. I think that this movie is definitely more entertaining than its predecessor. But, in my opinion, it’s still too long. I think it drags a little at the last 40 minutes. I could start blaming this on this aspect or that aspect of the film, but in the end I thing the problem is much more profound than that. The book is really short, and the story is very straight forward. At the most it could have been split into two movies. Three is really pushing it. While you are watching the movie, you can actually feel the filmmakers struggling to fill those two hours and forty minutes. And that does not help the final product at all.

Another problem very related with the length is reflected in the tone. This was a story intended to be a light hearted children’s story. By making three movies out of it, you are trying to give an epicness to it, that just isn’t there. The stakes are not high enough. This solemnity worked on Lord of the Rings because the very fate of Middle Earth was at stake. Here, there’s just a mountain in stake. It’s not comparable. It is true that the movie has its goofy moments, which work really well, because it is the original tone. But the solemn moments don’t quite fit in.

In relation to that, I want to talk about the Dol Guldur story arc. Even when I watched “An unexpected Journey” I thought that it was a brilliant idea to incorporate this part of the story, even though originally it wasn’t in the book. It was taken from one of the appendices and I though it worked nicely. I still think it, because it ties with the rest of the Trilogy really nicely. But I don’t think that the best way to do it is the way they are doing it. In the source material, it worked because it was more subtle. Gandalf did discover that the Nine had been awakened, and he did go to Dol Guldur to sniff around this necromancer thing. But he never found out it was Sauron. He did suspect that it was a foul thing, and talked to Galadriel about it. But he never discovered the truth. That’s why, in the beginning of the Fellowship, he was surprised when Sauron finally revealed itself. So it’s only understandable that I don’t really like the reveal of Sauron in this movie. It wouldn’t bother me so much if the revelation was only to the audience (after all, that would be the only way for a non-Tolkien reader to link the necromancer to Sauron), but it reveals itself to Gandalf, and it doesn’t make any sense. 

Then there’s the “eye” thing. I know this is really nitpicking, but if Sauron could take already the form of the eye, it would mean that he has recovered all his power, and that would mean that the war could already start. This sounds really stupid, but think about it: if Sauron has all his power back, why wait 60 years before striking upon Middle Earth? Just saying. In the source material, Sauron isn’t able to take the form of the eye until Frodo inherits the ring, and that’s when the ring awakens. It’s a tiny detail, but it would have given a certain level of coherence with the trilogy that now it doesn’t have.

With that said, I will turn my attention to the dwarves. I must face that they were better this time; I mean, there wasn’t any of them fighting orcs with a slingshot. Still, I can’t find it in myself to like this interpretation of Thorin. I know they needed a leader figure, but did they really had to repeat the Aragorn story arc? The whole thing about becoming the King they were born to be doesn’t really fit Thorin in my opinion. He has other problems and inner demons to create his inner conflict. But I understand this is very subjective. 

The other thing that really bothers me is the use they make of Balin (the oldest of the dwarves). Throughout the movie he is reduced to an expository device. It seems that his only function is to explain things to the audience. Every word that comes out of his mouth is exposition. That is something that really bothers me.

Then, there’s the Mirkwood passage. This is my favorite part of the book, so it’s hard for me to see certain things. I’ll agree that the spiders are really good. I enjoyed the hell out of their sequence. The same goes for Thranduil. I love his character and what they did with him. They did change things from the book, but they kept his spirit. He was enjoyable in his prickiness and was everything I expected him to be and more. I also loved the barrel sequence. It was fun, dynamic, entertaining. And even though at times it felt like they were pushing it, it was still enjoyable.

I can not say the same about Tauriel. She is too much for me. I can take a lot of changes from the source material. I could take a new invented character. But I can't stand what they did with her character. I though the love triangle was horrible. I know a lot of people liked her. But it killed me. The whole love attraction between her and Killi was something that made me want to tear my eyes out every time it appeared. I think it wasn’t necessary, and that it undermines the importance and humanity of the later friendship between Legolas and Gimli. With this backstory, that relationship is read as Legolas trying to emulate his beloved Tauriel. Without it, it felt more human, because the friendship was born out of true respect and understanding of each other. So I really thing they messed up with it.

Then, of course, there’s the issue of Legolas’ inclusion in the movie. I like that, I can’t deny it. But I must recognize that, in this movie, Orlando Bloom does his worst. He has the worst acting moments in his career during the length of this film. And that sort of rubs me the wrong way. Besides that, I have another major issue with his character. In the books, and the original trilogy, Legolas was defined by an acute sense of humor and a recurrent use of irony. But somehow, this is lost in this movie. Legolas is one of the younger elves. He is fun loving. But somehow, in The Hobbit, he never smiles. So, you are telling me, that someone who was able to crack jokes before the battle of the Hornburg can’t even smile now? Why do this in a movie where the tone is overall more light and goofy? I really didn’t like that.

The issue of Legolas leads me to another thing I didn’t like. Following the source material line by line doesn’t really make a good adaptation. Maintaining it’s spirit and logic does. It’s important to be faithful to the logic established in the source material. That’s why I hated when, in Lake town, Legolas fought with the orcs barehanded. In the books, and even in the Lord of the Rings movies, it’s established that elves never fight like humans, they wouldn’t use their hands. They have weapons for a reason. This is a silly detail, but it shows a huge discordance with the logic that has been already established. And that bothers me.

Let’s move to the Lake-town. Here, the audience is introduced to Bard the Bowman. In the book, he only appears when the dragon has already burned Lake-town, and his background is explained later. In the movie, they chose to introduce him earlier and give said background before. On one hand, I like it, because it doesn’t seem like he pops out of nowhere. On the other hand, it turns everything very predictable (anyone can tell me that he doesn’t know that Bard is going to shoot the black arrow and kill Smaug?). So, I can’t decide which option would have been better.

And before I start talking about Smaug. I want to say something. I loved Martin Freeman as Bilbo. He is great. He has a huge sense of humor and an incredible timing, but at the same time, he has a huge capacity for emoting in the dramatic moments. So, I have nothing bad to say about him.

Said that, let’s dive into the halls of Erebor. I thought that Smaug was incredible. The animation was amazing. It looked great. And Benedict Cumberbatch as Smaug’s voice was top notch. He nailed it. A lot of times, monsters are horribly voiced in movies. They sound too ridiculous. This is not the case. I loved the first scene with Smaug and Bilbo. It’s like a battle of wits almost. That was really enjoyable. What I really didn’t enjoy was the whole sequence with the molten gold. In the books, the dwarves never go into the mountain while Smaug is still inside, but I do understand the dramatic need to have Thorin face Smaug (which never happens in the book, if I recall correctly). What I don’t understand is the need to create a stupid plan to kill the dragon. The gold scene is really silly and far too long. A plan like this makes the characters seem really stupid: why would a boiling liquid (molten gold) kill a dragon? Dragons aren’t affected by fire nor heat. Maybe it is because I’ve read and seen a lot of fantasy, but that is common knowledge. So please writers, do some research before you do something like that.

So, all in all, I think The Hobbit adaptation, if done in two movies and not three, could have been a much better movie. But, being what it is, The desolation of Smaug is entertaining enough and can make you have a good time at the movies, even though it still has a lot of problems that, for me, are very difficult to go through, but for most of people will be unnoticeable.