What’s in “Game of Thrones” for the ladies?

As someone who obsessively checks Winter is Coming and Westeros.org for all news related this Sunday’s premiere of HBO’s “Game of Thrones”, I’ve seen some fans react strongly to negative reviews. Long-time fans of the books have gone out of their way to discredit those who pan the show. At first, I was amused by this trend. It’s literally not possible to make a TV show everyone will like.

But today’s New York Times review of the series by Ginia Bellafante isn’t just a bad review–it’s insulting.

The true perversion, though, is the sense you get that all of this illicitness has been tossed in as a little something for the ladies, out of a justifiable fear, perhaps, that no woman alive would watch otherwise. While I do not doubt that there are women in the world who read books like Mr. Martin’s, I can honestly say that I have never met a single woman who has stood up in indignation at her book club and refused to read the latest from Lorrie Moore unless everyone agreed to “The Hobbit” first. “Game of Thrones” is boy fiction patronizingly turned out to reach the population’s other half.

What? Each time I read this paragraph, my brain dies a little. It doesn’t make much sense. First of all, I know tons of women who read George R. R. Martin’s books; I’m a member of a community of 400 people who discuss the books regularly and nearly all of them are chicks.

Secondly, the sex scenes “tossed in as a little something for the ladies” are all in book. Way to jump to conclusions and fail to research your piece. (PS. That group of ASOIAF fans I mentioned above? They complain about how few sex scenes there are for the ladies.)

Thirdly, I might actually join a book club if it read “The Hobbit” instead of “Eat, Pray, Love.” I bet all the readers of this site and others like The Mary Sue would agree with me.

But, wait! There’s more in the review that baffles me. The author says,

Keeping track of the principals alone feels as though it requires the focused memory of someone who can play bridge at a Warren Buffett level of adeptness.

This is something I addressed in my Game of Thrones cheat sheet. Yes, there are a lot of characters, but it’s not difficult to keep them all straight once you learn their character traits. It’s just not that hard once you’re invested in the universe. I wrote that entire post from memory of the books, without having seen the first episode of the series. And I’m a girl and I’ve never played bridge with Warren Buffett. Or played bridge period.

Then the author goes on to suggest that HBO is pandering (how can the show require MENSA-member viewers and be too stupid/silly for HBO?) by offering shows like “Game of Thrones” and “True Blood” instead of “The Sopranos” (which, I might add, was on simultaneously with the highly ridiculous “Sex and the City”):

When the network ventures away from its instincts for real-world sociology, as it has with the vampire saga “True Blood,” things start to feel cheap, and we feel as though we have been placed in the hands of cheaters. “Game of Thrones” serves up a lot of confusion in the name of no larger or really relevant idea beyond sketchily fleshed-out notions that war is ugly, families are insidious and power is hot.

And if I may defend “True Blood” as well, Alan Ball has taken the campy vampire concept and added themes about being an outsider in “regular” society, religion and homosexuality. I think those things are part of “real world” sociology. And I also think the theme of George R. R. Martin’s books–the relativity of “honor” and “chivalry” are real world.

Also, if the Times insists on bringing global warming into the fictional long winters in Westeros, then one could argue that the show’s message is: “Politicians, quit your pointless squabbling; there is a real threat on the horizon.” How’s that for real?

Related posts:

1. Game of Thrones Episode 1: “Winter is Coming” (Spoilers)
2. Game of Thrones April 17!
3. The “Game of Thrones” Fangirl Cheat Sheet
4. Blog Game Time!