Game of Thrones season six and the fate of THAT character

Well, now I’ve finally caught up… it’s time to talk about Game of Thrones! Warning, this review will contain spoilers for season five of the television show, as well as book five in A Song of Ice and Fire, so if you haven’t gotten there yet, don’t read on! There will also be a section with spoilers for the first two episodes of season six, but I’ll flag it before we get there.

The debate over Jon Snow’s fate has raged for months now, as anyone who has been in contact with social media over the past few months knows. Furious arguments have been made for both sides, with Kit Harrington’s haircut and presence on set being used as supposed proof of his still being alive. Generally, I fell into the “dead is dead” camp, to echo D.B. Weiss’ words in the wake of the tragic onscreen death, despite the fact that I am certain he is alive in the books..

I came to this conclusion after a lot of thought, expending far more mental energy than one ought to expend on a fictional character in a fictional world. I knew the death was coming, yet my initial reaction was certainly one of heartbroken denial (why, Ollie, why???); however, I came to revise that prediction after a little bit of back and forth. While Kit Harrington’s presence on set and his refusal to cut a haircut he purportedly hates are certainly compelling evidence, I simply couldn’t bring myself to believe he was still alive.

Fuck you, Ollie.

 Perhaps this was just the pessimist in me. But with the actor and the show runners insisting so fervently to the contrary, how could the character be alive? With all the anticipation of the season, no manner of bringing Jon back to life could possibly live up to the hype. Furthermore, the show is beginning to branch out farther and farther on its own. This season consists entirely of new material that did not originate with George R.R. Martin’s novels. Showrunners David Benieoff and D.B. Weiss have big shoes to fill on this front. Given the relative certainty of Jon’s return, in one form or another, in the novels, killing him permanently on-screen seemed like the best way to boldly distinguish their adaptation as a unique entity.

I was open to the possibility of my being wrong, but expecting to be proved right. As far as I could tell, this was the smartest direction for the show to take.

Sunday night, we found out the truth…

SPOILERS AHEAD. STOP NOW IF YOU DON’T WANT TO READ THEM!!!!!

Seriously, stop reading.

Now.

Look, I’ll even leave you a massive gap in the page.

What happens from now on is your own doing.

Apparently I was wrong, and I’m not sure how I feel about it. Certainly, I leapt for joy like everyone else as Kit Harrington took that frantic gasp and became more than just an on-set cadaver. Yet I had very good reasons for believing he would remain dead, and thought it would be the best thing, artistically, for the show, despite the pain.

I let out an exclamation of joy, just like everyone else.
But was this really a good idea?

To the credit of the writers, they seeded the idea of resurrection as far back as season three with Thoros of Myr’s resurrection of Beric Dondarrion. That Melisandre witnesses this, not to mention continued references to her otherworldly powers, mean that the eventual manner of Jon’s resurrection is not out of place in the show.

My worry is that just because they can do something does not mean they should. On some levels, this decision feels like a bit of a cop out. As I said, Jon’s death would have been an effective way for the show to distinguish itself from the books moving forwards. I think they might have missed an excellent opportunity, and I can’t help but wonder if, perhaps, they simply capitulated to common demand. The show’s writers had an opportunity to include the ultimate red herring while enforcing the brutality of their world.

That said, I do think the manner in which the resurrection was handled was pretty good. I can’t wait to see where they go with Jon, how the process changes him. How will he wrestle back control of the Night’s Watch and fight off the impending march of the White Walkers? People have often complained that Jon is not an interesting character, too close to the archetypal fantasy hero. While I have to agree with this, I have never thought it a bad thing. It is grounding for the viewer to have a character who is intrinsically good in a world with so much ambiguity. Jon’s coming of age story is relatable, and he provides someone we can constantly root for even as Tyrion, Arya, and Daenerys dabble in shades of grey.

Also he has great hair.

Basically, the writer inside me says the showrunners made a mistake while the fanboy inside me is crying tears of joy.

As for the rest of the season, I’m interested to see where Melisandre goes from here. What effects do all these events have on her? If Arya’s storyline stays true to the books, it’s sure to be a fun one. Where will Sansa go from here? Whose head will Robert Strong crush next? Can the writers salvage the Dornish clusterfuck they’ve set in motion?

I’m excited to see where this season goes. Do I think that reviving Jon Snow was the best decision? No. Do I think the writers can pull it off? I hope so. I’ll be sure to share some more of my thoughts as the season progresses, so stay tuned!

As always, thanks for reading J

Toppling Televisions and Falling Furniture: More Dangerous than Refugees

In the years since 9/11, Americans have been statistically as likely to be crushed to death by falling furniture as they are to be killed in terrorist attacks, yet we do not see constant news coverage on the subject of toppling televisions and falling furniture. There is a paranoia surrounding the threat of terrorism that other far more pressing issues do not receive.

Consider the horrendous attacks on Paris in November of last year. A total of 130 people were killed, sparking fear and paranoia, specifically involving the flood of refugees from the Middle-East and North Africa. However, a Eurostat study suggests that nearly three times as many people die of cancer each day. While cancer certainly garners more public attention than falling televisions, it fails to rouse the same extreme level of paranoia as terrorism.

This stems, largely, from media coverage. Terrorist attacks are large scale events, specifically engineered to garner attention and inspire fear (hence the name). In the age of the internet and twenty-four hour news services, media outlets play right into the hands of the attackers, stoking the fires of fear with constant replays of panicked crowds, plumes of smoke, and, ironically, public officials urging people to remain calm.

For news organizations in the 21^st century, terrorism has become a commodity, paid for in the public’s fear. ISIS, the so called Islamic State, has dominated the news for the past two years, with the recent wave of refugees from the Middle-East and North Africa comprising the latest act in the ongoing saga. The common fear originating from this coverage is that extremists are hiding among the refugees flooding across the European continent, waiting to obliterate us freedom-loving westerners. In Canada, people oppose providing asylum to refugees out of the belief that there is no way to screen these terrorists from the actual refugees.

This fear is understandable, given the media’s constant juxtaposition of images of war-torn Iraq and Syria with images of refugee camps in southern Europe. Without any other context, it is natural that the general population is afraid.

However, upon examination, this fear is rather absurd. Not only is Canada, of all places, hardly a major target for Jihadist extremism, the actual likelihood of any “terrorist” making it through the entrance process is negligible. The refugees being settled in Canada are not the young men that groups like ISIS tend to radicalize. The people being settled in Canada are families, women and children who are, arguably, the most innocent in the conflict. In addition, these individuals are forced to go through rigorous screening processes by the Canadian government and the United Nations camps from which they are being selected.

But what about Europe?

Certainly, Europe’s geographic location allows for easier access from the Middle-East, while the EU’s porous nature allows for easier travel within the continent. But the likelihood of terrorists entering the continent with the flow of refugees remains low to the point where it is practically nonexistent. Consider the fact that the suspects in the two major terror attacks to have occurred in Europe over the past year – first Paris, then Brussels – were exclusively born-and-raised Europeans. Are critics of resettlement efforts arguing that legitimate migrants and refugees should be left in horrific conditions because of Europe’s inability to contain the radicalization of its own citizens?

Many would argue that such conclusions are harsh and unfair. Those same people often argue that the west should not devote its attention to outside aid until internal problems (such as poverty) have been dealt with. Simply put, many opponents of resettlement argue that the refugee crisis is “not their problem.”

Unfortunately, this is blatantly untrue. For centuries, the west has meddled in the affairs of other countries and regions. Though the United States is arguably the greatest perpetrator of this meddling in the modern era, they have simply inherited a role previously held by imperial Europe. The rise of the Islamic State and other radical groups – and the resulting refugee crisis – can be traced directly to US-led mission to topple the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. To be sure, the west cannot be blamed entirely for the turbulence in the region; many of its causes are deep rooted and ancient, resulting from a centuries of division. But for westerners to entirely wash their hands of blame is immature and dangerous.

Over the past year, the west has become increasingly closed to measures that might help resolve the increasingly dire refugee crisis. The fear created by attacks such as those in Paris and Brussels only serves to heighten this reluctance to act. Indeed, this fear results in mistreatment and closed mindedness towards those who are in genuine need of help.

Due to a recent agreement, the EU now holds the power to deport illegal migrants from Greece back over the border to Turkey in exchange for the resettlement of refugees residing in Turkey. In short, one refugee will be settled in Europe for every one that is kicked.

Aside from the fact that this deal unashamedly uses human lives as bartering chips, it simply does not offer Europe a realistic solution to the problem. Indeed, it fails to even function as it is supposed to. Just days after its implementation, there were reports that the deal had resulted in the wrongful deportation of several refugees seeking asylum in Greece. The quick failure of the deal would be comedic if the situation were not so dire.

The United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) has called Syria the “most dangerous place to be a child;” the current situation in the Middle-East has resulted in the “biggest refugee and migration crisis since the Second World War.” The issue cannot be ignored. It is selfishness of the highest order that people in the west – both in North America and Europe – can argue for inaction. It is not melodramatic to suggest that this is “the world’s” problem, as it were; the west, including Canada, must take responsibility for the situation by acknowledging our role in the solution.

The fear of terrorist attacks continues to be a major holdback for many western citizens. This fear is misplaced, particularly given the homegrown nature of most terrorist cells. The statistical risk of terrorism is smaller than countless activities we do every day, while the horror faced by those seeking refuge is an everyday reality.

The Internal Monologue of a Frustrated Lifeguard

You. Yes, you, with the bottled blonde hair and the fake breasts. I’m sure that your new husband has something profoundly interesting to say, though you do seem paying more attention to his bare pecs than his words, and I understand that parenting 24 hours a day is hard. You’re seizing the time with your new meat while little Timmy is distracted by Frisbees and water guns, taking what moments of respite you can. I respect that, and I wish you whatever rest you can get.

However, I feel the need to inform you that little Timmy is, in fact, drowning.

Now, please don’t look at me like that. I know you’re trying to teach him independence. “That’s how they did it in my day,” you’re thinking. Difficulty what growing up is all about. Challenge builds character. Toss him in the deep end, let him figure the rest out, and he’ll be all the better for it.

Unfortunately, I can’t let that happen. While I’m all for challenging kids in their learning, there are limits. You see, at no point as he is learning to swim should little Timmy be thrashing about in the water like a seizure victim, screaming bloody murder like a death metal rocker. This behaviour does not mean he is learning to swim. Rather, it means he is drowning.

I see your expression has not changed. Very well. If the threat of your child dying in his sleep due to residual inhaled water in the lungs, perhaps I can appeal to your pragmatic side. You see, we are reaching a point where I am legally and ethically obliged to intervene. Not only do I wish to avoid the hassle of laundering my shirt, I imagine neither you nor I have any desire to spend time completing the paperwork involved with these sort of incidents. Your time, and mine, is valuable, best served on more useful activities. Please, don’t waste it.

Still the look of disgruntled disdain. I’m impressed at your ability to sneer so well with your head that far up your own ass. Can you not see the terror on little Timmy’s face?

No?

Fine, we’ll do it your way.

I suppose I could do with a swim.

Macbeth

Last night, I went to the Calgary Shakespeare Company's production of Macbeth at the Vertigo Theatre with my mother. It was fantastic! Opening night, and the acting was polished and well performed. The theatre is small and intimate, with everyone seated only feet from the actors, and the directing was superb. Haysam Kadri is superb as Macbeth, and there are many standout scenes. He really captures the madness of the character. I haven't seen Macbeth live before, but I imagine it will be hard to follow after this.

This is the second production I've seen by the Calgary Shakespeare Company, after I saw Othello a year and a half ago. Macbeth was, if possible, even more impressive. If you're looking for an entertaining way to spend an evening over the next few weeks, tickets are available for shows right through to April 16th. But buy them quickly, because they're selling fast. I promise you won't regret it!

My Problem with Spider-Man joining the Marvel Cinematic Universe

Fair warning, this is one for the nerds (if you hadn’t already gotten that from the title).

When Disney gained the distribution rights to the Spider-Man character last year, I was quite torn about the web-slinger’s impending introduction to the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). Simply put, I am not excited.

                                     

I don’t claim to be a superhero expert. I’m only loosely familiar with the comic books, and much of my Spider-Man knowledge is based off of the old cartoons. That being said, Spider-Man holds a special place in my heart, as he does with many people, young and old. Seeing the latest trailer for Captain America: Civil War and noting the sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach, I began to think more closely about why exactly I love the character so much.

Spider-Man is, arguably, Marvel Comics’ most successful creation. Since his introduction in 1962, he has entered popular consciousness more than any superhero except for perhaps DC’s Batman and Superman. He’s appeared in countless television shows and cartoons, three separate movie franchises, and innumerable action figures. There’s a Spider-Man ride at the Universal Studios theme park, and the character has appeared as a balloon in the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade. Eminem once stated that he was one of his favourite superheroes.

But why is Spider-Man so popular? His powers, while incredibly cool, are not terribly original (strength and agility, flight-like abilities, projectile “weapons”); his costume is striking, yet objectively no more notable than any other colourful comic book heroes such as Iron Man or Wolverine.

Spider-Man’s success comes from the man behind the mask. Peter Parker is the quintessential high school nerd, bullied and lonely, an archetypal character who is incredibly relatable for so many readers. Whereas most other super hero alter-egos (Tony Stark, Bruce Wayne, etc.) are confident – often famous or affluent – adults, Peter is a high school student struggling with all the normal challenges of adolescent life. Spider-Man was one of the first comic books to feature a teenager as the lead hero, which helped it to resonate with the primarily young adult audience. He dealt with real life issues – bullies, relationships, grades – in addition to his crime fighting escapades. Young people could see their own imperfections and insecurities reflected in a lead character who rises above them to become a hero.

In addition to his relatability, Peter’s motivations for becoming Spider-Man are simple yet compelling. When he first acquires his powers, he is largely concerned with using them to make money through wrestling. His reaction is immature, yet it reflects the innocently self-centered knee jerk response many adolescents might have when given the opportunity for quick cash. Likewise, when Peter ignores a fleeing burglar because it wasn’t “his problem,” the seemingly harmless selfishness resonates with the readership. Only when this burglar goes on to murder his Uncle Ben does Peter begin to mature into his abilities, realizing he could have (and should have) stopped the criminal and prevented the senseless death of his uncle. Like so many people as they grow up, Peter comes to realize that his choices have consequences. In this case, his choice not to act resulted in the death of the man he loved most. The effect that the tragic preventability of Ben’s death has on Peter is echoed in the signature line: “with great power, comes great responsibility.” If you can help others in any way, you should. This moral message has been a big part Spider-Man’s popularity, helping him to appeal to so many people for so long.

Which brings me back to my feelings about his joining the MCU. The franchise began in 2008 with the release of Iron Man, and most of the films are currently distributed by Disney. Up until recently, the studio was unable to include Spider-Man in the franchise as Sony held tight to the distribution rights for their own Amazing Spider-Man series. However, a deal made between the two companies last year has given Disney the ability to include the character in their films, hence his appearance in Civil War.

Introducing Spider-Man to an already well established (and quickly wearing out) franchise is a mistake, as it does not give the writers enough to room to flesh out the character’s backstory. Civil War has an ensemble cast that includes almost every major character to have appeared in the franchise up until now. It is simply impossible that Spider-Man will be given a fitting introduction when he is dwarfed by those around him. By throwing him in as an excess character simply because they can, Disney and Sony are sacrificing any chance of properly introducing his backstory and motivations. Consequently, they are sacrificing the richness of the character.

In general, reception to this latest trailer seems to have been strong. People like the decisions that have been made. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll take all the Spider-Man I can get. But if there is going to be yet another incarnation of the character, I’d like to see it done right. I wasn’t a fan of Sony’s Amazing Spider-Man movies. As much as I love Andrew Garfield, I don’t think he was right for the role, and the films couldn’t seem to establish what sort of tone they were going for. Yet they at least attempted to include the moral backbone that makes the character so compelling.

A solo Spider-Man film in the MCU is slated for a 2017 release, but the damage will be done by then. The way the character is being introduced represents a blatant money-grab on the part of the studios. Everything about the marketing represents an attempt to get as many people through the box office as possible. I think this is a tragedy, as it compromises the rich appeal of the character.

As always, thanks for reading! Also, I've added an email bar to the side of my website, so if you would like to follow my posts, feel free to add your email address!

On Writer’s Block, Fear, and Insecurity

I’ve been struggling over the past few weeks to come up with the topic of my next blog post. I have a lot of ideas, yet I’ve found difficulty in getting those ideas to coalesce on the page. Whenever I start to write my thoughts down, I find my mind wandering and I’m unable to pin down the issue that previously seemed so clear in my mind. To compound this, I’m constantly distracted by school. With so many papers and readings occupying my mental energy, the temptation to watch Netflix or read trashy thriller novels is sometimes too much. This isn’t to say I’m not doing any writing at all; I’m simply not doing any productive creative writing.

So, today, when I sat down and found myself struggling to find a post topic for the third time this week, I realized I had my topic right in hand: writer’s block.

In many instances, writer’s block is simply a fancy way of saying procrastination – God knows how many times I’ve played Star Wars: Battlefront during times set aside for writing – but this sort of procrastination often originates with fear: fear of failure, fear that your ideas won’t amount to anything worthwhile. It’s disheartening to have a clear image in your head, only to find it unintelligible and poorly composed when put upon the page. Continuing to put time seems almost pointless when the spark of inspiration continually fails to form a tangible product.

I know this is something that any of my writer friends (not to mention artists, photographers, and any other “creators”) can relate to. It’s something we all go through, to varying degrees at one point or another. I’ve gone through many such periods. There have been weeks when I’ve consistently written two or three thousand words a day, only to have that followed by weeks or months of little or no writing at all. This is the nature of creativity. It’s a cycle, wherein the creative juices flow with ease or grind to a painful halt. Rarely is there a middle ground.

Insecurity is perhaps one of the biggest problems that writers contend with.  Often, it is the root cause of writer’s block. What if nobody ever reads your work? Or, worse still, what if people do read your work, only to decide they don’t like it? I think that this constant fear of inadequacy is what stops many writers in their tracks. I often find myself feeling that I am unworthy of the stories I try to tell. Surely there is someone who could do a better job writing my ideas, is there not? Are any of these ideas even original? What will people think?

As a writer, allowing yourself to consciously worry about these things is poisonous. Insecurity grows insidiously, and often starts with questions such as these. You have to simply write without worrying about the consequences. A professor I had last year perfectly summed up the approach I strive for in my writing: “Don’t ever worry about what your reader will think, because nine out of ten things you write will never be seen by anyone but you.” This really struck a chord with me, and thinking about it helps me to write for myself. As much as we would all like to be the next Stephen King or Margaret Atwood, most of us aren’t ever going to get a wide readership. Acknowledging this fact can be strangely comforting.

I’ve found that the key to overcoming writer’s block is to embrace the struggle. Use those fears to fuel new stories and new writing. Write about the insecurity you feel. Let it be a driving force.

During the times I’m not being as creatively productive, I attempt to keep my mind active. I read or reread my favourite books, I listen to a lot of music, and I ponder issues that are important to me. Even if these things do not directly inspire any writing, I’ll often find the ideas and emotions diffuse into later pieces, once the creative wheel has started rolling again. Even as I am not writing, I attempt to stockpile creativity for when I eventually get the ball rolling again.

I don’t claim to be an expert on this topic. There are many reasons for writer’s block and many different strategies for dealing with it. These are just some ideas I’ve come up with after some introspection and discussion with others. I think most of these ideas can apply across the board into all areas of creativity, and I encourage everyone to explore their creative side wherever and whenever they can. Who knows: you might even surprise yourself, just like I did with this blog post!

As always, thanks for reading!

Writing

I've added some new pieces of short fiction to the "Writing" section of this website. For anyone hasn't looked, this is the section where I post my creative writing. The pieces are arranged (mostly) in chronological order, and there are some that aren't too bad (if I do say so myself!). I welcome any and all feedback, and I'd really love it if you guys took a look, as I've worked really hard on them all!