Game of Thrones: from sociological to psychological storytelling

My notes on Tufekci, Z (2019) The Real Reason Fans Hate the Last Season of Game of Thrones. Scientific American: Observations. May 2019.

This fascinating piece reflects on Game of Thrones as “sociological and institutional storytelling in a medium dominated by the psychological and the individual”, driven by characters who “evolve in response to the broader institutional settings, incentives and norms that surround them”. That is until the final season which has provoked so much ire amongst fans. When the show ran ahead of its source material, the new show runners turned towards a psychological mode of storytelling which radically changed the character of the show.

This is a problem because so much of what made the show gripping, argues Tufekci, rested in the sociological character of its storytelling. Major characters were regularly killed yet the story could proceed because its poetics was not dependent upon them. This breaks from the dominant approach in which “a single charismatic and/or powerful individual, along with his or her internal dynamics” is what drives the narrative. This differs from sociological storytelling:

“the characters have personal stories and agency, of course, but those are also greatly shaped by institutions and events around them. The incentives for characters’ behavior come noticeably from these external forces, too, and even strongly influence their inner life. People then fit their internal narrative to align with their incentives, justifying and rationalizing their behavior along the way.”

We tend to seek personalised explanations for the behaviour of those around us, described by social psychologists as the fundamental attribution error. In contrast we are often capable of contextual explanations for our own behaviour, recognising how it has been shaped by forces external to us. If I understand Tufekci’s argument correctly, sociological storytelling can lift us outside of the everyday in this sense, offering a new vantage point for making sense of the world. This is what game of thrones did:

“That tension between internal stories and desires, psychology and external pressures, institutions, norms and events was exactly what Game of Thrones showed us for many of its characters, creating rich tapestries of psychology but also behavior that was neither saintly nor fully evil at any one point. It was something more than that: you could understand why even the characters undertaking evil acts were doing what they did, how their good intentions got subverted, and how incentives structured behavior. The complexity made it much richer than a simplistic morality tale, where unadulterated good fights with evil.”

She observes that this permits identification with any character, as opposed to merely the ‘good’ ones. It encourages the sociological imagination by letting us imagine how we might make similar choices under those circumstances. The Wire is another example of sociological storytelling in this sense, with the star of each series being a particular institution within the city. The sociological genre helps us understand social change, while the psychological undermines that understanding by reducing it to the unpredictable actions of capricious individuals driven by internal dynamics which are always somewhat opaque to us. She draws a fascinating comparison to how digital elites are written about to explain digital change:

“There are a significant number of stories, books, narratives and journalistic accounts that focus on the personalities of key players such as Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg, Jack Dorsey and Jeff Bezos. Of course, their personalities matter, but only in the context of business models, technological advances, the political environment, (lack of) meaningful regulation, the existing economic and political forces that fuel wealth inequality and lack of accountability for powerful actors, geopolitical dynamics, societal characteristics and more.”

4 thoughts on “Game of Thrones: from sociological to psychological storytelling

  1. Lol. I’m not even going to “like“ this post. Because I thought the whole things was fabulous. Beginning to end. And I put my two-cents in a post a couple weeks ago, And it didn’t need a book.

    I realize that you are doing an analysis from the social standpoint, so that’s cool.

    But one should realize that even the first season did not stick with the books. The original made for television series was already not adhering to the storyline of the books from the beginning. So the idea that somehow as the seasons went on it got away from the actual story that Martin Wrote is not really correct. I’m about 3/4 through the second book and I am already amazed how different this story i i’m about 3/4 through the second book and for sure it stayed somewhat close to the books, but I’m also amazed how much it didn’t. And so there’s even the social narrative component that developed as more people started liking the series about 3-4 years into it.

    Yeah I think that person in your blog post analysis is somewhat correct: people start watching the show and they start to demand that the writers of the show adhere to the audiences, as a single person thinking that there is this common audience, idea of how the plot should go.

    As I put in my post, the whole idea of entertainment is that it does not follow real psychological manifestations of human beings; I would argue that the great novels of our time and the great shows of our time did not exhibit a real psychologically Sound human being; rather they put in front of us a totally fictional idea of what a human being is, and that is why they are so great.

    This phenomenon of Game of Thrones as people started disliking the way the writers made the show in the last couple seasons shows the problem with our modern idea of what is good: The real human being is confusing it self with the object of its entertainment. And over intellectualization of a piece of entertainment by the people that see themselves as intelligent who really are not that intelligent, Frank to say.

    What this really shows is that the very idea of education and intelligence is losing Ground. Not against some held up standard of what those mean. But that is for another comment. 🤘🏾

  2. I think you kind of missed her point! Would recommend reading the original article as it speaks directly to your concern

  3. Well that’s good 👌🏿. I’ll take your word for it. I suddenly became slammed between work and school. I’m thinking I’m gonna give up and be homeless camper and live off Spanging and throwing signs in the side of the road this is so ridiculous 😝. I think I’ve heard of more than a few very intelligent , even a tenured professor once, who just say fuck this stupid shit. And go homeless. And jobless.

    God that would be great. 🥑

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

About Mark