Galavant Rewatch 2.1, "A New Season, aka Suck It, Cancellation Bear"

Read the previous entry here!
Read the next entry here!

As the second season of Galavant begins, narrative focus begins to shift meaningfully--but not always admirably.

---

2.1, "A New Season, aka Suck It, Cancellation Bear"

Written by Dan Fogelman, Luan Thomas, Julia Grob, and Joe Piarulli
Directed by John Fortenberry

Synopsis

He's right, though. There are only so many times you can hear the song...
Image taken from the episode, used for commentary.

Galavant and Richard continue to sail along their way, with Galavant trying to explicate and Richard complaining. The pirates conducting them--Peter Pillager and his crew--chastise them for an attempt to return to the dominant musical theme of the first season, offering another as they do so. The other major characters also join the new song, cementing it as the dominant musical strain and explaining current circumstances.

Isabella's situation receives particular attention; she is shown making multiple attempts to escape the pink prison in which she is held. Madalena, Gareth, and Sid (whose repeated silencing is lampshaded) also receive attention amid references to several contemporary-to-the-episode (it aired 3 January 2016, per IMDB) media productions. Galavant, Richard, and the pirates run aground on land familiar to Richard.

Unlike some things in a previous episode, this did not work well.
Image taken from the episode, used for commentary.

In Valencia, Gareth begins to mutter discontentedly about his position in the overthrown court; Madalena remains queen, but his own status is ambiguous. The two sit in judgment over minor matters. Sid also asks about his status, highlighting Gareth's own ambiguity of position.

In Hortencia, Isabella's parents press her about the intended wedding with Harry. She argues against the whole affair, but her arguments are rejected by her parents out of hand. They leave her in holding, and she continues to pine for the absent Galavant.

It does seem hard to top him.
Image taken from the episode, used for commentary.

Galavant and Richard proceed through a tangled wood, and Richard realizes they are in an enchanted forest from which some do not return--only to find that the Enchanted Forest is a bar in the woods. In the event, it is a gay bar, and Galavant is conscripted into working it by a disco-singing queen.

In Valencia, Gareth seeks Sid's help to clarify his own position in the kingdom. And in Hortencia, Isabella confronts Steve about his contentment before seeking aid in escape from Vincenzo and Gwynne. Vincenzo offers to help, covertly.

There is some clear influence.
Image taken from the episode, used for commentary.

Richard helps Galavant serve in the Enchanted Forest; the latter is caught amid an escape attempt, and Galavant rails against Richard. After, Richard encounters a long-lost avuncular figure who asserts that Richard's own father was gay and offers to assist Richard's escape.

Gareth confronts Madalena about his status. She condescendingly accedes to his demand.

Richard retrieves Galavant with some difficulty and effects their escape through the women's restroom. Galavant grudgingly acknowledges Richard's assistance and apologizes; Richard admits his incapacity, and Galavant commends him, encouraging his development.

Discussion

Early on, the episode makes reference to Game of Thrones (and you should read Shiloh's now-complete series on the series!), engaging directly with the ultimately more commercially successful and culturally-influential series. A later mention of "the White Walkers" functions similarly. The engagement, though, reads as a way to note what Galavant is not, which makes it less a re-grounding in current ("gritty," "grim," and "realistic") medievalisms and more a reaffirmation of the satirical--and decidedly medieval in echoing the fabliau, as noted--underpinnings of the series. It was a welcome note, and one that is sounded again in the continuing season as in the previous.

Far less welcome is the episode's treatment of women and gay men. Early in the episode, for example, Isabella is used to make a caricature of feminist discourse; she self-reports as a feminist before acting in such a way as to belie the report. The flattening of her character from earlier episodes continues, therefore, in a way that undermines some of the other work at inclusion the series had done even in her own character, as well as reducing her from a previously strong character to one conforming more neatly to misogynistic, patriarchal expectations of an often misunderstood medieval period and its descendants.

Similarly, the depiction of the gay men in the Enchanted Forest rings of stereotypes of flamboyance and hypersexuality, both of which have been used repeatedly and across decades to justify violence against gay men. That Richard is assumed to be gay because of his mannerisms and sexual inexperience with women does not help, either. And while it is the case that such examples as Chaucer's Pardoner might be taken as antecedents, and while it is the case that a camp aesthetic is decidedly present in many gay communities, that the depictions presented are a seeming first recourse does not argue in the episode's favor.

I had hoped to see better.

Galavant Rewatch 1.8, "It's All in the Executions"

Read the previous entry here!
Read the next entry here!

As the first season of the show ends, power shifts and a redemption arc begins.

---

1.8, "It's All in the Executions"

Written by Dan Fogelman, Kristin Newman, Jeremy Hall, Luan Thomas, and Joe Piarulli
Directed by Chris Koch

Synopsis

The episode opens with Galavant and company imprisoned in advance of Richard's duel. Galavant admits to incapacity, and Sid prompts him to kiss Isabella. Galavant demurs, then stumbles into an idea to get himself out of the cell where he is captive.

It would appear to have worked.
Image taken from the episode, used for commentary.

Galavant tried to make common cause with Richard. The attempt makes some progress, to which Gareth takes exception. Gareth is increasingly annoyed by Richard and departs, leaving Galavant to take him on a drunken excursion.

It also seems to have worked.
Image taken from the episode, used for commentary.

The two confer about Madalena. Richard waxes introspective in his drunkenness, and Galavant sympathizes. The latter urges Richard to assassinate Kingsley. Richard agrees--but drinks himself silly. An ironic song proclaiming their sinister intent ensues, and their drinking continues until they actually make the attempt.

This would seem not to have worked.
Image taken from the episode, used for commentary.

Richard and Galavant, drunk, are recaptured. Kingsley attempts to entice Gareth to his side, with mixed success. Richard and Gareth confer again, and Gareth wrestles with his own conscience, somewhat ineptly. Richard sings himself to sleep, and his song echoes across the castle, spurring amity and troubling Gareth further.

The next day, Galavant wakes with an appropriate headache and to the chastisement of his companions. Gareth enters, moving to retrieve Richard and Galavant. Galavant and Gareth fight, and Gareth wins, dragging Galavant away. He deposits the two with pirates, sending Galavant to protect Richard and Richard away to protect him. Gareth and Galavant part amid mutual threats and seemingly grudging respect.

Such grudge. Much respect. Wow.
Image taken from the episode, used for commentary.

Gareth returns to the castle and is ordered to execute the prisoners. He opts to release them, instead, save for Sid. Madalena kills Kingsley when he goes to kill Gareth, and Gareth ascends to sit at her side. The two evidently make quite the pair.

This seems to work, indeed.
Image taken from the episode, used for commentary.

The released prisoners make their way to Harry's principality--where Isabella is imprisoned in a a saccharine cell. And, as Galavant and Richard are taken to a waiting ship, the season ends.

Discussion

The anachronism at work in the series is particularly evident in the present episode. At one point, Richard makes reference to being "a modern, thirteenth-century man," situating the series in time. There are enough correspondences to observed history to assert that the series takes place in an Earth-like world that is supposed to have the same general historical arcs as Earth, albeit bowdlerized to some extent by being a production of a Disney property. While the specifics can be argued (and doubtlessly are in some parts of the Internet; what isn't?), the audience is clearly called to look at Galavant as emerging from what is known and understood of "real" medieval history. The appearance of various technologies and character tropes emerging from other times has been noted in other write-ups of the series, and need no reiteration here; it is enough to have the reinforcement of the anachronism by a specific time-reference at present.

What is interesting about the time-reference, though, is that it situates the series amid the consolidation both of courtly love as a formalized concept and of romance as a literary genre in prose. Both are things with which the present episode concerns itself--along with the rest of the series. What may seem an off-hand reference to some nebulously medieval time, and what may well have been intended as such (though intent is not a reliable issue, in any event), functions as a clever pinning-down for the series. In the event, it helps to solidify what is an often fluid medievalism in the series, doing so without calling attention to itself except from those nerdier watchers who might already be looking for such things (as might be expected of someone who will blog about television shows for their medieval over- and undertones).

What comes off as less favorable in the episode, however, is its depictions of the principal female characters. Isabella seems to have lost some of her depth of characterization, being infatuated with Galavant despite his bad behavior and continued unwarranted cockiness. Madalena becomes more stereotypically lustful and sinister than she had been in previous episodes. Both cases seem to be flattenings of characters who, like many of their medieval antecedents but unfortunately few of their medievalist ones, were as fully realized as any others in the series, and more than most. It seems as if the show simply cannot allow itself to do well all around--which is a shame.

Guest Post: Chrissie Perella's "Marvels, Monsters, or (Wo)Men?"

A member of the Tales after Tolkien Society since 2016, Chrissie Perella is the Archivist at the Historical Medical Library of The College of Physicians of Philadelphia. She is interested in Old English literature, particularly charms, magic, and medicine; the "monstrous" in medieval and post-medieval sources; and manuscript waste bindings. You can read some of her work on waste bindings here. The Society is pleased to present her "Marvels, Monsters, or (Wo)Men?" below--and to encourage further submissions. Please email them to talesaftertolkien@gmail.com with the subject line "Guest Post Submission."

Editorial adjustments to the text are minimal.

---

“…The same author affirms that while he sailed in the Red Sea, he saw a monster in the hands of certain Indian merchants, which in the bigness and shape of his limbs was not unlike a tiger, yet had the face of a man, but a very flat nose: besides, his fore feet were like a man’s hands, but the hind like the feet of a tiger; he had no tail, he was of a dun color: to conclude, in head, ears, neck, and face it resembled a man…: for the other parts they were like a tiger; they called it Thanacth.”

- Ambroise Paré, The workes of that famous chirurgion Ambrose Parey translated out of the Latine and compared with the French by Tho. Johnson…, London, 1634.

“This is no fairytale.  The stories are real.  What they wrote about really happened.  You are one of the last Grimms.”

- Marie Kessler, “Pilot” (season 1, episode 1), Grimm, 28 October 2011.

𝔚hat is it about monsters that have fascinated us for centuries?  From The Odyssey and Beowulf to Dracula and It, stories featuring the monstrous have always captured our imaginations.  We are drawn to them, and yet at the same time fear them.  In our modern times, so-called ‘monster-of-the-week’ TV shows seem to air on every channel or streaming service.  In similar fashion, the images in prodigy books attracted the general public five hundred years ago.  By comparing the two, we can get a glimpse of what monsters embody for us.

NBC aired the last episode of Grimm in March of 2017, just as the exhibit I co-curated, Imperfecta, opened.  Grimm was a monster-of-the-week TV program that aired on NBC from 2011 to 2017.  The show’s main character, Nick Burkhardt, is a homicide detective in the Portland, Oregon, police department, and also a “Grimm.”  Grimms are descended from the Brothers Grimm (of fairy-tale fame), and have the ability to see the dual natures of “Wesen” (Ger., noun, “nature”), human-like creatures who can “woge” (Ger., verb, “wave;” used in the show as “shift”) into animal-like beings with animal-like traits.[i]  Nick does not discover he is a Grimm until his last-known living kin, Aunt Marie, is dying.  She leaves him a trailer full of diaries dating back to the beginning of the Grimm line, which detail the appearances, traits, and methods of killing all sorts of Wesen.  Traditionally, Grimms were hunters of Wesen, although Nick takes a different approach.  Each week, armed (literally) with a plethora of specialized Wesen-killing weaponry and the diaries, Nick must balance his heritage as a Grimm with his job as a homicide detective and navigate the sometimes morally grey areas of modern society.

Imperfecta opened March 9, 2017.  Since I work in a historical medical library, the exhibit is focused on shifting perceptions over the past 500 years about abnormal human development.  It examines physical anomalies and their causes from early beliefs in divine influence and supernatural causes to later scientific and medical facts.   Imperfecta encourages visitors to question what it means to be ‘monstrous’.[ii]  The exhibit starts off by introducing the subject of “teratology” (scientific study of physiological abnormalities and abnormal formations) using some of the prodigy books in our collection, which illustrate the co-existence of supernatural and natural influences on physical anomalies, and ends with late 19^th-century clinical studies on abnormal births.  Supplementing our books are several fetal specimens showcasing fatal birth defects.

Curating the exhibit forced me to think about what makes one monstrous, and watching Grimm every week made me think about the ways the use of the word “monster” has (or has not) changed in the past 500 years or so.  Of course, many of the stories and Wesen we encounter in Grimm are inspired by Grimm’s fairy tales, which were collected over a period of years and can cite medieval, classical, and earlier origins.  This illustrates that there is something to be said about our long-standing fascination with monsters, and how even old stories still captivate us today.

The Wesen in Grimm reminded me of the creatures I encountered in the chapter entitled “Des monstres” (“On monsters”) in a 1614 copy of Les oeuvres d’Ambroise Paré (The works of Ambroise Paré).  While not medieval, “Des monstres” echoes, and adds to, the travel literature and natural histories concerning monstrous races popular during the medieval era.  During the later Middle Ages and the Early Modern period – no doubt partially due to the invention of the printing press – texts known as prodigy or wonder books became popular.

The line between prodigy books and wonder books is fluid, and I use the terms interchangeably here.  Prodigy books generally described monsters’ raisons d’être as omens of some impending doom, often wrought upon the community as signs of God’s displeasure.  Wonder literature generally took a more light-hearted view of monsters and presented them as marvels of nature.

Just like the books Nick discovers in Aunt Marie’s trailer, wonder books such as “Des monstres” catalogued strange creatures: fantastic beasts, humans and animals with non-normative bodies, or some unholy combination of the two.  Often, the tales of these monsters were allegedly eye-witness accounts.

However, unlike Aunt Marie’s books, prodigy books sought to explain the origins of the monsters or simply acknowledge their existence.  These books did not provide a ‘how-to’ for killing monsters.  Prodigy books regaled the reader with tales of cities incurring the wrath of God (Ravenna, 1512); women desiring pomegranates or strawberries while pregnant (the cause of birthmarks); speaking sea monsters appearing prior to the death of popes; and women holding frogs in their hands (to cure a fever, obviously) when they conceived.

The monsters in prodigy books are threats to humanity only in the sense that they act as portents for some inevitable catastrophe, which was likely caused by some moral deviance of humankind (if you subscribed to contemporary Christian beliefs, that is) in the first place.  But Grimm’s monsters are different: they do not have supernatural origins; they are not portents of doom.  They are too much like ‘us’ and yet not; they are primal and uncontrollable and yet not; they are our plumbers, shopkeepers, neighbors, friends; they are our thieves in the night, murderers, and deepest desires and fears come to life.    

Wesen’s true forms – their animalistic forms – can be seen by non-Grimms only when the Wesen woge.  Unlike Paré’s monsters, the bodies of Grimm’s Wesen generally remain somewhat human in form when they woge; it is the face which changes and becomes animalistic.  The monsters in wonder books (those that are part human, anyway) tend to have human heads and animal bodies.  Which makes us more uncomfortable?  The body of an animal with the face of a human, or the body of a human with the face of an animal?  Does the level of uneasiness depend on the situation, the context, or on societal norms, customs, and beliefs?

In some cases, the Wesen in Grimm are only monstrous because of their physical features, not because of their actions or seeming lack of morality.  It is their differences in appearances, their ‘Otherness,’ which humans fear.  However, when woged, Wesen will do what is natural to that form, such as a Blutbad (Ger., noun, “bloodbath”; in the show, wolf-like Wesen) chasing down a Bauerschwein (Ger., noun, “farmer pig”; in the show, pig-like Wesen).  Nick’s friend Monroe, a Blutbad, tries to suppress these urges; he removes himself in situations where he may lose control; even in human form, he does not eat meat.  Do these instincts make Wesen monstrous?  Do we think wolves are monstrous for doing what comes naturally to them?  Or is it because Wesen look like ‘us’ much of the time that we expect them to act like ‘us’ all the time?

And that is the heart of the matter: We are simultaneously drawn to, and repulsed by, monsters because they represent the dark, deep-down, uninhibited parts of ourselves that we try to hide or ignore; because we see our true selves mirrored in them – just as Wesen can see their true selves mirrored in a Grimm’s eyes.

In a way, our monster-of-the-week TV programs are a 21st-century version of wonder books.  Through the monstrous, we are given free rein to examine the darker side of society and ourselves, using them as a ‘safe’ way to reveal our deepest fears and desires, to question contemporary prejudices and injustices, to make political or religious statements, to consider solutions to societal problems.  In the end, we are all a little bit monstrous.

Selected bibliography / Further reading

Asma, Stephen T.  On Monsters: An Unnatural History of Our Worst Fears.  Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Brown, Nathan Robert.  The Mythlogy of Grimm: The Fairy Tale and Folklore Roots of the Popular TV Show.  New York: The Berkeley Publishing Group, 2014.

Dahn, Tristan, and Sara Ray.  “Further Into Imperfecta.” The College of Physicians of Philadelphia Digital Library.  8 September 2017.

Datson, Lorraine and Park, Katharine.  Wonders and the Order of Nature, 1150 – 1750.  New York: Zone Books, 1998.

“Grimm Wiki.”  FANDOM powered by Wikia.  1 July 2018.  Accessed 18 May 2019. 

Wilson, Dudley.  Signs and Portents: Monstrous Births from the Middle Ages to the Enlightenment.  New York: Routledge, 1993.

Digitized prodigy books

Liceti, Fortunio.  De Monstrorvm Natvra, Cavssis, Et Differentiis Libri Dvo: Multis Illuftrium Autorum Locis Difficillimus Explanatis.  2nd ed.  Patavii: Apud Paulum Frambottum, 1634.

Lykosthenes, Konrad, Hans Rudolf Manuel, and David Kandel.  Prodigiorvm Ac Ostentorvm Chronicon: Quae Praeter Naturae Ordinem, Motum, Et Operationem, Et In Svperioribus & His Inferioribus Mundi Regionibus, Ab Exordio Mundi Usque Ad Haec Nostra Tempora, Acciderunt .... Basileae: Per Henricvm Petri, 1557.

Paré, Ambroise, Antonio Hernández Morejón, Barthelémy Macé, and Real Colegio de Cirugía de San Carlos (Madrid).  Les Oeuvres.  7e ed. rev. et augm. A Paris: Chez Barthelémy Macé, 1614. [In the original French]

Paré, Ambroise.  The Workes of That Famous Chirurgion Ambrose Parey.  London: printed by R. Cotes and Willi Du-gard, and are to be sold by John Clarke ..., 1649. [Translated into English]

Rüff, Jakob.  De conceptu, et generatione hominis: de matrice et eius partibus, nec non de conditione infantis in vtero, & grauidarum cura & officio : de partu & parturientium, infantiumqúe cura omnifaria ... de sterilitatis causis diuersis, & de praecipuis matricis aegritudinibus, omniumque horum curis varijs, libri sex. New York: Editions Medicina Rara, 1972. [Modern reprint; the original was published in 1554]

Schenck, Johann Georg.  Monstrorum Historia Memorabilis, Monstrosa Humanorum Partuum Miracula, Stupendis Conformationum Formulis Ab Vtero Materno Enata, Viuis Exemplis, Obseruationibus, & Picturis, Referens: Accessit Analogicum Argumentum De Monstris Brutis : Supplementi Loco Ad Obseruationes Medicas Schenckianas Edita.  Francofurti: ex Officina typographica Matthiae Beckeri, impensis viduae Theodori de Bry, & duorum eius filiorum, 1609.

---

[i] For the purposes of this essay, I only look at your ‘run-of-the-mill,’ everyday sort of animalistic Wesen – not extremist groups like Black Claw or the more ‘supernatural’ Wesen like Hexenbiests and Zauberbiests.

[ii] Many medical terms used in the past are words that we find insensitive or cruel today. Up until the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the term ‘monster’ was used as a medical term to describe abnormal births (think conjoined twins, people with Roberts syndrome or hydrocephaly) and other physical anomalies.  This is the manner in which we use the term ‘monster’ in the exhibit Imperfecta. In this essay, I use the term ‘monster’ in a more familiar sense: fantastic, often frightening beasts that aren’t human.

Game of Thrones Watch: 8.6 "The Iron Throne"

Hooray for 300 posts!
 
Read the previous entry in the series here.

---

8.6 “The Iron Throne”

Written by David Benioff & D.B. Weiss

Directed by David Benioff & D.B. Weiss

This episode could have been two episodes. It probably should have been two episodes, because the sudden and dramatic tone-shift halfway through was jarring. Also, I would have liked a bit more time between “Dany’s dead” and “welp, let’s find a new ruler.” That whole thing needed some time to breathe.

So let’s look at this in its halves because the first half was as infuriating as all the Dany stuff has been this season and the second half had its issues but at least resonated emotionally.

The Daenerys storyline feels like the writers set a trap for us and for the character. (Either that, or they believed their own hype right up until they decided to do Mad Queen Dany.) From the beginning, we’ve been supposed to cheer for Dany. She was the good guy. She was overthrowing slavers. She was liberating people—for real, not whatever “liberation” she was talking about in her rousing speech to the Dothraki and Unsullied. The narrative told us these were good things, that she was overthrowing bad, entrenched systems that needed to be overthrown.

For the most part, the narrative was right. Slavery is bad and should be ended. If a society can’t survive without slavery, it shouldn’t survive.

This speech by Tyrion, casting Dany's killings of the slavers of Slaver's Bay as foreshadowing, feels like D&D wants us to view those actions as evil. Speaking as the descendant of actual, real world enslaved people? Nah.

And... this is why #NoConfederate, ever. #GameOfThrones

— Ebony Elizabeth (@Ebonyteach) May 20, 2019

The narrative even asked us to cheer when Dany did things that are now used to show her burgeoning madness—crucifying the Great Masters. Feeding one to her dragons. Burning the Dothraki khals. She was constantly and consistently rewarded for these actions, sometimes in disturbing ways (the entire Dothraki nation falling to their knees and then unquestioningly following her everywhere, anyone?). The writers spent six seasons showing us that Dany was the good guy, if occasionally a little overzealous.

And then we get Tyrion explaining how no, actually, killing a bunch of slavers was somehow her “first they came for the socialists” moment. Which is insulting to the audience, insulting to the character, and insulting to survivors of the Holocaust, because for those who only know “First They Came…” through memes, it’s a condemnation of all those who stood by and let the Nazis get to the point where they were slaughtering millions.

Ok, I lied. Fuck this. The point of the "first they came" speech regarding the Holocaust is that THEY WERE ALWAYS COMING TO KILL MILLIONS. Anything else was a guise. The Nazis did not undergo a tragic downfall like Daenerys. This is a truly evil comparison. #GameofThrones https://t.co/CLqGMaN8cK

— Emmett Booth 🌹 (@PoorQuentyn) May 20, 2019

Put that alongside the Nuremberg quality of Dany’s speech to her army (in a scary foreign language, no less), and the sudden Nazi imagery is just awful and offensive. Especially since the show also bolsters the “white supremacist” arguments of the people (like Cersei and the Tarlys) who were worried about the “foreign horde” coming in and destroying everything—because they did.

And then they essentially held the city hostage by refusing to obey the commands of the (very white except for that one Dornish guy—who even was that?) lords and ladies of Westeros.

So, yes. Trap. Because we were supposed to root for Dany. The writers set us up to believe she was doing the right thing. They hammered so hard how their show was so feminist because of all the powerful women doing badass things like ending slavery and feeding their enemies to dogs and wearing other people’s faces. Women On Top! as Entertainment Weekly put it. (Which has its own set of issues that I don't have room to get into here.)

And then they yank the rug out from under us, and instead of a woman winning Westeros and sitting on the Iron Throne—you know, a good one, not Cersei, who was also bad and evil, dontcha know—it turns out that she was evil all along. And the only logical conclusion is that she goes mad (whatever that even means) and burns a city to the ground and decides to set herself up as Queen of the World—which means she has to die, at the hand of the man she loves, no less, because that’s what women get in these stories.

So Drogon destroys the Iron Throne in a fit of grief? Or something? I mean, destroying it is obviously what needed to happen because it was clearly the One Ring and had to be thrown into the fires of Mordor, but (and I can’t believe I’m saying this) Drogon’s reasoning/motivation isn’t clear here. Carrying off Dany’s body makes some kind of sense, but since when does a dragon have the cognitive capacity to understand symbolism?

That’s where this episode should have ended. If they weren’t in such a damn hurry, it’s thematically and emotionally a great place for it to stop, and then move the second half to its own episode.

Can we feed the writers to a dragon???

— ZR/Zabé Ellor (@ZREllor) May 20, 2019

Because now we pick up all the pieces and figure out which white man gets to replace Daenerys. And I gotta tell you guys, I am not sold on Bran as king. Not only because, again, the narrative didn’t set it up so it made sense, but because of the reasoning we’re presented with and the way he’s treated and the optics of it.

So, first, Tyrion gets to be the one to propose making Bran king because of course he is. Tyrion can do no wrong. Even when Tyrion messes up, the narrative exonerates him because he was doing his best and just loved his family (unlike a certain dragon queen I could mention). So much of this would be so much more interesting if they’d kept even half of Tyrion’s characterization from the book (ex: see Jeff’s take on the utter failure to adapt Tyrion here.)

Then, his reasoning is that people love a good story, and who has a better story than Bran? May I propose just about everyone in this series? Reminder: Bran was Sir Not Appearing in This Picture in season five, and nobody seemed to care.

Then there’s the whole issue of calling him Bran the Broken, as if his disability is all there is to him. There are so many other monikers they could have used, and I cringed so hard every time they used this one.

Finally, let me point out that they overthrew a fiery, emotional, passionate woman (read: “crazy, irrational, uncontrollable, unpredictable”) for a cold, emotionless, all-seeing, all-knowing man, and if that doesn’t say just everything, I don’t know what does.

Are you excited for God Emperor of Westeros?

— David M. Perry (@Lollardfish) May 20, 2019

Then the writers (and actors and Ramin Djawadi, gods bless all of them) went straight for the Feels with the end game for each character. Brienne finishes Jaime’s story in the White Book. Sansa becomes Queen in the North. Arya hares off into uncharted territory. Grey Worm sets off for Naath. And Jon joins the Night’s Watch again (why do we even still have that?) and sets off to resettle the Free Folk north of the Wall.

I would like to point out that the two characters in this show who murdered their girlfriends are shown as justified in doing so and end up right back where they started—Tyrion as Hand of the King and Jon in the Night’s Watch. Other than their own feelings, there are no real, serious consequences for these actions.

This show, you guys. It has been one hell of a ride, and the last half of that ride was on fire and not in a good way. After the first four-ish seasons, it utterly failed as an adaptation, and then the last three utterly failed as any kind of good or compelling story. If this ending is where Martin’s going to end up (I have some Doubts and also some Questions), he’s got his work cut out for him getting us there (which is probably why The Winds of Winter is taking so long).

I, for one, am perfectly happy to put this entire show behind me, wrap up the few obligations I still have left now that it’s over, and go read/watch something actually good.

And now our watch is ended.

Deaths:

Daenerys Targaryen

Kalamazoo 2019 Report

𝔗he Tales after Tolkien Society continued its work at the 2019 International Congress on Medieval Studies on the campus of Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, Michigan, in the form of a business meeting and two paper panels. Notes about each appear below.

The Meeting

Per §5.1 of the Society Constitution, an Annual General Meeting of the Tales after Tolkien Society was held during the 2019 Congress. It was called to order at 5:38pm local time in Fetzer 2030. Geoffrey B. Elliott, Society President, presided; Rachel Cooper, Society Secretary, recorded minutes. (The meeting report derives from the minutes.) Also present, by signature, was Carrie Pagels.

Formal agenda items to be considered were 1) elections to the office of Vice-President (USA) and Social Media Officer and 2) panels to be proposed for the 2020 Congress. Added to the agenda during proceedings were responses to the boycott of the Congress by a number of medievalists of color and a call to reach out to other organizations and independent and contingent scholars.

Regarding elections:

• For the office of Vice-President (USA), there was one nominee: incumbent Luke Shelton. Shelton was acclaimed to the position; the Society extends its congratulations to him.
• For the office of Social Media Officer, there were two nominees: incumbent Luke Shelton and Society Secretary Rachel Cooper. A voice vote elected Cooper to the position; the Society extends its congratulations to her and thanks Shelton for his service in the position.

Regarding panel proposals:

• Proposed initially by the Society President were two panels, one following up on the Afterlives of Medieval Religion panel presented at the 2019 Congress, and one looking into medievalism in non-traditional-to-the-Congress media. After discussion, other proposals were accepted.
• Proposed by Carrie Pagels were two panels, ultimately accepted for submission to the 2020 Congress:
• Deadscapes: Wastelands, Necropoli, and Other Tolkien-Inspired Places of Death, Decay, and Corruption--a paper session examining depictions of what comes in the wake of war and death in works in the Tolkienian tradition; Carrie Pagels has offered to preside over the session.
• Legacies of Tolkien's Whiteness in Contemporary Medievalisms--a roundtable session examining the continuing effects of Tolkien's depictions of race in medievalist works; Society Secretary Rachel Cooper has offered to preside over the session.
• The Society President will draft and submit the required forms to the Congress for consideration. Fuller CFPs are forthcoming.

Regarding a response to the boycott:

• The Tales after Tolkien Society affirms its desire to be an inclusive and accommodating organization, with membership open to all; we welcome and encourage participation from those traditionally underrepresented and underserved by traditional academic and institutional structures, including but not limited to women, scholars of color, LGBTQIA+ scholars, scholars with disabilities, and persons excluded from tenure-track positions and protections. The Society additionally repudiates, in the strongest terms, discrimination based on those qualities, whatever its source.

Regarding outreach:

• Discussion of the need for additional support for contingent and independent scholars occurred. Some motion to coordinate with other organizations, such as the Game Culture Society and the Lone Medievalist Collective, was made. Mention was also made of the need to do more to make materials available through such organizations to scholars working without more traditional institutional support.

The meeting was adjourned at 6:12pm local time.

The Panels

Two panels were on offer, both meeting on Sunday morning in Fetzer 2016. The first, The Legacy of Tolkien's Medievalism in Contemporary Works, occurred during the 8:30 session. There were two papers, Benjamin C. Parker's "Caines Cynne in Azeroth: Tolkien's Medievalism in the Warcraft Series" and Rachel Cooper's "Diluting Divinity: Connecting Genesis to Diablo by way of Numenor"; the Society President presided. Benjamin C. Parker is a doctoral candidate and graduate assistant at Northern Illinois University specializing in the study of the Inklings and of nineteenth- and twentieth-century utopian and dystopian literature. Rachel Cooper is, as noted above, the Society Secretary and Social Media Officer.

The second, Afterlives of Medieval Religion in Contemporary Works, took place during the 10:30 session. There were two papers, Brett Roscoe's "The Postsecular Afterlife of Saint Winifred in Eiils Peters' A Morbid Taste for Bones" and Geoffrey B. Elliott's "Manifestations of Medieval Religion in Robin Hobb's Elderlings Corpus"; Society Secretary and Social Media Officer Rachel Cooper presided. Brett Roscoe is Assistant Professor of English at The King’s University in Edmonton, Alberta (Canada). His primary research interests are in Old Norse-Icelandic and Old English wisdom literature and cognitive approaches to literature, but he is also interested in intersections of literature and theology, especially in the works of the Inklings. Geoffrey B. Elliott is, as noted above, the Society President.

Owing to the timing of the panels, attendance was limited, but audience members were engaged with the works presented. It is hoped that future panels will receive similar engagement--and that they will be at times when more may attend!