Here's my take: Ser Criston was a wreck; he was clearly going to lash out somehow. I think the show played fair in setting that up. But why did that "somehow" turn out to be "beating Joffrey to death"? There were other folks at the banquet who were much more central to Ser Criston's pain. That's not to say that Joffrey was completely implausible as a target - he did unknowing poke at a sore spot - just that nothing about the situation made him feel inevitable. Which means the fact that he was the victim versus someone else was a conspicuous choice on the part of the writers. Which means I think that choice should be grappled with. Was this an according to Hoyle example of "bury your gays"? I don't know, but I think it's fair to observe that they took a gay character who could have an interesting role in the narrative going forward and made him disposable.
Tangentially, I also think it was a questionable choice to have the guard stand around doing nothing while one of their own beats a guy to death at a party thrown by the king, but I think that's more an issue of how GoT trades in violence in general than anything specific to Joffrey's sexuality.
I am but one queer, but this instance of the trope didn't particularly bother me. I agree with just about everything Myles said. This show never dangled the prospect of genuine happiness before snatching it away. I know it's not to everyone's taste, but there's no question that using a fantasy setting to explore real world problems is just what this franchise is about at this point. They told us the stakes of being gay in Westeros pretty much straight away and explored what it meant in this instance, even if it isn't the primary narrative of the show. I understand why people reflexively flinch at this stuff, but it feels like a case where surface knowledge of the trope itself is actually hurting some people's understanding of how to contextualise this storyline.
Apologies, off point and NOT germane to this discussion AT ALL, plus old news, but my general irritation and annoyance runneth over, so any port will do -
1. After Episode 1, I do not watch HOD (simply no one to root for, eck).
2. I am soooo tired, just heartily sick, of all of the series - especially leading network series (with rare exceptions? not a big consumer) - that will now show queer female main characters in a relationship, plenty of kissing (because men like watching attractive women get it on), but never, ever, EVER show queer men, either in or out of a relationship. If there is the rare queer male featured role, any relationship only shows platonic on-screen kissing, if that. (FWIW, I am a cisgender female and haphazard viewer, so likely clueless, please forgive.) That is all.
Thank you for your thoughtful analysis as always. Overall, I very much agree with this piece, especially the notion that instead of "being homophobic in its violence" the show was "clumsily engaging with queerness within its violence."
That said, I slightly disagree with the statement that Joffrey "dies not because his own queerness is uncovered, but rather because he became embroiled in the affairs of the powerful, where he was subject to the violent outburst of a knight of the Kingsguard gripped with guilt and shame over his own brush with royalty."
Like a lot of this show, maybe I'm just wrong in interrupting a moment that's left up to interpretation. But I actually viewed Criston's attack on Joffrey as directly related the latter's admittance of his sexuality. Yes Criston is "gripped with guilt and shame" but it's not a random act of violence; it's killing somehow who might bring shame/scandal/ruin to the woman he loves. You could also maybe make the argument he's protecting his own secret, though if he's about to commit suicide and he already had told the queen, that's not the strongest argument. Either way, it definitely feels like if Joffrey hadn't mentioned his queerness, Criston would not have murdered him. That's not to victim blame, but the queerness is little more central to his death than perhaps that sentence I quoted implies. Just my two cents.
Here's my take: Ser Criston was a wreck; he was clearly going to lash out somehow. I think the show played fair in setting that up. But why did that "somehow" turn out to be "beating Joffrey to death"? There were other folks at the banquet who were much more central to Ser Criston's pain. That's not to say that Joffrey was completely implausible as a target - he did unknowing poke at a sore spot - just that nothing about the situation made him feel inevitable. Which means the fact that he was the victim versus someone else was a conspicuous choice on the part of the writers. Which means I think that choice should be grappled with. Was this an according to Hoyle example of "bury your gays"? I don't know, but I think it's fair to observe that they took a gay character who could have an interesting role in the narrative going forward and made him disposable.
Tangentially, I also think it was a questionable choice to have the guard stand around doing nothing while one of their own beats a guy to death at a party thrown by the king, but I think that's more an issue of how GoT trades in violence in general than anything specific to Joffrey's sexuality.
I am but one queer, but this instance of the trope didn't particularly bother me. I agree with just about everything Myles said. This show never dangled the prospect of genuine happiness before snatching it away. I know it's not to everyone's taste, but there's no question that using a fantasy setting to explore real world problems is just what this franchise is about at this point. They told us the stakes of being gay in Westeros pretty much straight away and explored what it meant in this instance, even if it isn't the primary narrative of the show. I understand why people reflexively flinch at this stuff, but it feels like a case where surface knowledge of the trope itself is actually hurting some people's understanding of how to contextualise this storyline.
Apologies, off point and NOT germane to this discussion AT ALL, plus old news, but my general irritation and annoyance runneth over, so any port will do -
1. After Episode 1, I do not watch HOD (simply no one to root for, eck).
2. I am soooo tired, just heartily sick, of all of the series - especially leading network series (with rare exceptions? not a big consumer) - that will now show queer female main characters in a relationship, plenty of kissing (because men like watching attractive women get it on), but never, ever, EVER show queer men, either in or out of a relationship. If there is the rare queer male featured role, any relationship only shows platonic on-screen kissing, if that. (FWIW, I am a cisgender female and haphazard viewer, so likely clueless, please forgive.) That is all.
Thank you for your thoughtful analysis as always. Overall, I very much agree with this piece, especially the notion that instead of "being homophobic in its violence" the show was "clumsily engaging with queerness within its violence."
That said, I slightly disagree with the statement that Joffrey "dies not because his own queerness is uncovered, but rather because he became embroiled in the affairs of the powerful, where he was subject to the violent outburst of a knight of the Kingsguard gripped with guilt and shame over his own brush with royalty."
Like a lot of this show, maybe I'm just wrong in interrupting a moment that's left up to interpretation. But I actually viewed Criston's attack on Joffrey as directly related the latter's admittance of his sexuality. Yes Criston is "gripped with guilt and shame" but it's not a random act of violence; it's killing somehow who might bring shame/scandal/ruin to the woman he loves. You could also maybe make the argument he's protecting his own secret, though if he's about to commit suicide and he already had told the queen, that's not the strongest argument. Either way, it definitely feels like if Joffrey hadn't mentioned his queerness, Criston would not have murdered him. That's not to victim blame, but the queerness is little more central to his death than perhaps that sentence I quoted implies. Just my two cents.