A Game of Thrones reviewed

First of all, this brandnew TV series is an adaptation of a book cycle called A Song of Ice and Fire by writer George R. R. Martin who also co-produces the TV series. He just finished book Number 5, of a total of 7. In the TV adaptation, you'll be able to watch Book 1 called A Game of Thrones as Season 1, Book 2 as Season 2 will be aired in 2012 and so on (or until it's cancelled). Season 2 is already in the making, the TV heads decided this shortly after the pilot had aired. Imagine this. All the fantasy buffs must have been watching HBO that night with 2,22 million viewers for the pilot. And the number even climbed up to 3,04 million towards the end of Season 1. That's massive for pay TV. And the bockworm fantasy genre. Even HBO's flagship True Blood didn't have a much better rating in the beginning. Yay!

So, why would you watch it when you're not already a fan of the book series and/or are not all that into the kind of fantasy that demands you read up to 700 pages per novel? First of all, it's a rather atypical fantasy story. At least the first book gets by without it being too flamboyant. There are no wizards, there is no defined magical force in Martin's realm. No broomsticks.

The only magic (I can't say if it's even mentioned in the TV series) is that the seasons change irregularly and these changes are initiated by some unknown powerful force beyond the realm; in the beginning of  Season 1 the inhabitants of Westeros are up for a long and brutal winter. The onset of winter and the seasonal changes may or may not have something to do with the unknown northern part of the continent. There is a wall that separates the two parts of the world, and beyond that wall, there are said to be undead, magical creatures roaming around, but they don't really play a major part in the first book. The fantasy elements are rather thinned out, especially for the adaptation, and A Game of Thrones is first of all, a medieval epos about different Houses competing for the pole position as King.

George R.R. Martin has an obvious soft spot for the misfits of his universe, you'll notice that right after reading the first few pages rsp. seeing the first few scenes. The dialogue lines of Tyrion Lannister are by far the best, he is brother to reigning Queen Cersei and burdened by being an imp, but much smarter and wittier than all his siblings put together. He immediately gets some sympathy points for being brutally honest towards fellow in misery Jon Snow, who isn't physically disabled, but handicapped by birth rank. He is the bastard son of Eddard Stark and as such, not even allowed to carry his father's surname.

There are many other characters who are less memorable than those two and be prepared, you may have some initial difficulty to tell them apart or know who is actually related to whom and who conspires with whom to do what. After a little while though, it becomes rather self-explanatory, so don't go looking for family trees if you don't immediately remember all the connections. It's all about them, wanting the position of absolute power, being the reigning force over the seven kingdoms of Westeros, epitomized by the iron throne.

In spite of all the intrigue, the story is more character-driven than one might think. The politics-portion is not that dominant, and besides that, how complex can a political system be when it's a monarchy - no offense! But for this story it basically means that there is one monarch to rule them all, and the story is mostly about the empowerment of certain parties; what's finally done with it is only at the margines of the epilogue. It can get a little monotone at times, but the characters are diverse and multi-layered enough, so that you'll soon begin to care deeply for them, with Eddard Stark leading the way, played by the amazing Sean Bean, or Tyrion Lannister (Peter Dinklage) and even the current king who indulges all too much, Robert Baratheon (Mark Addy) is a likeable figure.

The sceneries and scenarios all over all (visually) stunning and a pleasure to watch, the intrigues are played out in brutal ways (like in the book), prepare to see some rolling heads, and a lot of bleeding going on, dear goodness, much bleeding. It splutters, it flows, it detonates out of people's necks. Yes, it's HBO, I get it, but is this bloodbath really necessary? And speaking of brutality, prepare to be surprised, because Martin uses his characters like pieces in a game of chess. He is one of those writers who isn't all too much in love with his creation, which, in theory, is a good quality for a writer. But as they die like flies, it becomes abundantly clear, that in the kingdom of Westeros, there's only one true ruler and his name is George R. R. Martin and he does as he pleases. Prepare to be shocked. And engaged.

But don't get too attached to them, because that is where he'll get you and I promise there is at least one shocking moment which will make you say out loud: "No way he just did that to this character!" And you'll hate him a little at first, but after a while, you'll want to know how the story continues. I did.

The complete first season will soon be out on DVD and Blu-ray.

People, Cat Persons and Mental Disease

First of all, you simply must watch this video to understand what brought up this topic. And because it's entertaining! The person in the vid, (Debbie) talks about her interests (the plan is to find a date) and when it comes to her love for cats, she suddenly bursts into tears. And this is the remix of her odd ramblings... enjoy!

I saw it yesterday, and even though the whole setup of her speech may be fake (the Youtubers seem to think so) the underlaying sentiment sure isn't and I am convinced that there are many people out there, the so-called cat enthusiasts, who are able to partially relate. Let's just say thinking about cats made this Debbie-person very emotional and the thought of not being able to hug every cat on the planet even made her cry. You might think that maybe she's a little crazy!

I have two cats myself, and according to this standard I must be crazy as well, because last week I told someone in all seriousness that I think that my cats have very lovely noses. I don't remember how the topic came up and unlike Debbie, I wasn't overcome by tears when I said it, but I really do think that felines in general have that aesthetic quality about them.

Now, as I watched the video and Debbie started talking about whiskers, ears and noses, my heart started beating a bit faster. Exactly how crazy am I? And then I started getting really angry! Yes, deflect!

How come having cats in general, especially for women of a certain age, most of the times unmarried (whew), childless hags (oh dear), oftentimes loners (oh deary dear) is associated with some sort of mental disease? This notion seems to be big enough, even the Simpsons picked up the stereotype of the crazy cat lady... but why only cats?

Dog enthusiasts don't seem to have any kind of stigma, except to be considered outdoorsy, nature-loving people. That's not bad! Cat owners on the other hand are considered excentric, socially awkward people, who are supposed to gradually lose every interest in hygiene! Why do cat-persons get all the bad stuff?!

I thought it may have something to do with the fact that dogs have always been more compatible (in terms of social habits) with the human kind, whereas cats don't have those kinds of comparable hierarchic structures. So therefore, people are considered strange when forming bonds with creatures outside their social custom range.

But the general notion about cat lovers not being able to see the difference between a cat and a fellow human being, that is a really diabolic insinuation. And a perfect example for speciesism! Yes, look it up! Just because we love them, and we want them... in a basket... on a rainbow...not crazy!!

Whet Your Pitchforks: Atheism 102

I guess everybody is a bit religious. It doesn't necessarily mean you have to believe in a god to have some sort of yearning for meaningfulness. Sometimes having strong feelings towards "the Good" and "the Bad" are enough to fulfill the necessary requirement, assuming that there is a right and a wrong way of living your life. Let me tell you why I think it's enough to qualify as religiousness.

Question.
Universally speaking: Do you think it would be good or bad if our planet would just seize to exist from one day to the next? You may answer (and so did I, at first): it's bad, because we wouldn't exist. In your mind (and mine), existence is rather good than bad.

But what about a universal standard, not just yours or mine. Would it be good for the universe if the Earth continued to exist? Not necessarily, but we really wouldn't know. And most importantly, we cannot decide on that. (I know, I slightly depart from my earlier statement that universal consequences may matter, but hey, I changed my mind!).

So, back to the topic. The only moral measurement we can safely apply is our own. Our standard.
Planet Earth being there is good for us humans, because we like what it implies (living!).

But that's not what this post is about. If what is good for you is the only thing that matters to you, then congrats, you are much more advanced (or retarded, I cannot decide) than me.
As a human, you sometimes try to think beyond the point of personal needs.
And you may even sometimes think about life in general.
Yes, we like living. Yes we are sad, when someone dies.
But we are talking about a universal standard, for why it may be good or bad to live, in a much larger scale.

So, that is what always happens to me when I try to think big. I get in serious trouble, morals-wise. And then I completely lose it, because it is so hard to hold on to that thought. Marbles, gone.

Imagine our little planet just wasn't there anymore and every living thing on it was perished. It wouldn't be bad for the beings who aren't there to feel bad about it anymore. They don't have to suffer the consequences because they don't exist. So, for whom is it bad if that really happened? We are out of the picture. Other planets, the solar system? There may be consequences, good and/or bad ones, but we cannot be sure.

I would not like (as a living thing) not to live anymore, that's all I can safely assume at this point and that is the only statement I am willing to commit to. I don't apply a further universal judgement, because I don't believe it makes any kind of sense.

This implies: Good and Bad are mere definitions without further (cosmic) consequence.
There isn't much to be said against judging other people by your own standards of Good and Bad, but be aware, that the only judgement that we as a community agree on is defined by law. This is the one that counts.

I am not saying, because we agreed on it, that it is good. But it's our societal take on what we think is reasonable in case something goes wrong. And yet, it is just an arrangement we make (nationwide) to ensure that living together as a society goes as smoothly as possible. It's wrong by our German standard to murder another human being. I didn't say kill, because in some cases, that's permitted, and that's where the trouble starts. Other country's legal systems even disagree on the murder-part.

So what I wanted to say was, when there is no common earthly standard not to kill, why would we even try to make assumptions about a universal one?

With having said that, there really is no need to pass any kind of assumed divine judgement on your average murderer. He won't go to hell. That was your idea.
He will go to jail. That was our idea!

As long as you keep your thoughts about who will and will not go to hell to yourself, it's fine with me. But don't preach it as if it was a common denominator. It is not. I don't agree! Religious people, be aware it is your and your belief alone, and we may even be able to happily co-exist!

Me, Worrying Part II

First of all, my husband is alright. It turned out to be some kind of gastric infection, not the big C, or the little one (ulcer). He has to drink tea, not coke and eat soup, not chips and he will live to be a hundred. I feel very relieved.

As I wrote the reply to John's comment to Part I earlier, I thought a bit more about the whole concept of being worried and what it all boils down to, with me, not being worried about my husband dying within short time anymore.

My worries are pretty much like the little red warning light flashing in my car. I don't always know what it means. It sometimes lights up when I drive faster than the tiny car thingy can handle, but I couldn't put my finger on the exact moment it will appear.

It oftentimes feels like a seemingly mundane worry is a serious one in disguise. I was seriously worried about poor hubby, so let's not take that as an example. The flashing light in my car, that's a different story. Brave little Peugeot might never break down, even with the red light being there, flashing from time to time. Then again, it might break down without some kind of prior announcement.
After all, it's a warning light, not an omen.

That should be the lesson. I might not be warned before something horrible happens. But still, the light keeps on flashing in my mind. In case my car breaks down tomorrow, I will have to deal with that horrible guilt. Because then I'll tell myself that I knew that something was up and I told me so, several times! It's the guilt I know I'll be feeling for not doing it regardless. And that is the most dreadful thing there is. Guilt. I try to avoid it as much as I can.

In the end it doesn't really matter if the car breaks down or not. It might even be some kind of rewarding experience if it did, and not the nightmare I imagine it to be. So I will have to force myself to ignore the light. That's my new motto. Ignore the light. There will be other ones that cannot be ignored, but until then, I'll live a little. And enjoy velocity.