ASOIAF: Preston Jacobs is 100% WRONG on "Seven Times Never Kill Man".
06 November 2016 [link youtube]
A.S.O.I.A.F. = "A Song of Ice and Fire", i.e., the works of George R.R. Martin (adapted as "Game of Thrones"). This video also involves "The Thousand Worlds Book Club", i.e., the interpretation of other works by the same author (in an overlapping, fictional universe). Preston Jacobs is the name of a well-known interpreter of these books, sometimes (by his own admission) prone to "over-interpretation".
Here's the link if you don't already know him: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXU7XVK_2Wd6tAHYO8g9vAA/videos
Youtube Automatic Transcription
hey guys if you read the title before
you clicked on this video then you know I'm gonna address the question of the interpretation of a particular story written by george RR martin by a particular interpreter a famous commentator on the literature preston jacobs before I get to that I'm gonna say a few words about myself and my interest in a Song of Ice and Fire or slash george RR martin for some of you this is the first time you ever seen my channel for some of you you've been watching my channel steadily and you're sitting there wondering what is this because i don't think i've ever had another video talking about fiction unless you consider rap music fiction in a sense it is um some of its nonfiction I don't want to hazard a guess as to what percentage but look I do roll with a song of ice and fire heavy I've been reading the books for years and I've been planning to come on YouTube and contribute my voice to the debates surrounding the interpretation of the book for years and during the last several months several times I've invited other people to come on my channel to talk about it with me one of the reasons being I actually didn't want to talk about the books in this kind of overly intense staring into the camera format I thought it'd be better to have more casual two or three you know to person conversation or you know three or four people in a roundtable format to take the edge off a bit because um it gets intense my main interest my first university degree is in political science and the themes that interests me most in the books are political philosophy there's a lot of for me really moving really interesting political content in the books um sometimes you meet people who read the books for like the teen romance people who are really interested in who is going to be Sansa Starks next boyfriend I don't thing against those people but I think even if you're of that kind of fan of the book you like the romantic elements I think you have to admit as a work of literature you know the Song of Ice and Fire or the Canon of George Aaron it would have never stood out on the strength of its romantic elements it really stands out on the one hand because of its world building but in the other hand really because of the strength of its political content its political philosophy it's reflections on political themes and I would say those two are linked the world building would be meaningless without the strange sense of political realism that's woven into that world so that's that's the intro my specific topic for this video is the interpretation or misinterpretation of a Georgia or Martin story from the 1970s called and seven times never Killman address by Preston Jacobs this is not a hate video against Preston Jacobs Preston Jacobs is one of these guys who goes way out on a limb and his interpretations sometimes he's right sometimes he's wrong and as he says sometimes he's wrong about half of this stuff um Preston went wailed on a limb not too long ago in interpreting a series of stories by george RR martin in the tough voyaging series as all being a set of philosophical reflections on the philosophy of plato's republic and i remember from the first time he started up with that i disagree with him i just thought he was dead wrong I don't think the author had that in mind and then it's a really funny thing but Preston met the author it's a very rare thing for someone who's a literary critic to meet the author whose work he's commenting on and Preston got tech confirmed for himself that no those stories were not about the philosophy of Plato they were not hope that his Republic at all however for those of you were watching the story and have no idea why a guy like me would be interested in George our Martin already this tells you why you know the material is actually sophisticated enough it is interesting enough to really keep my eyes on the page I feel that Preston totally fundamentally missed the point of this story and in a sense he missed the plot of the story and the fundamental plot twist so if you don't know if you haven't read the story you haven't heard what presidents say about it at the beginning of this story the plot begins the fundamental basis for the plot is that a trader in antiquities he doesn't only trade is a trader generally arrives on a planet and he is trying to make money out of selling the ancient art the traditional religious art of an alien civilization on an alien planet that's the fundamental basis for the plot now obviously doesn't sound exciting but we get comments on the art on the sculptures of these people from different perspectives as the plot goes ahead it's a light motif that they come back to and then at the end the plot twist is revealed through those statutes through the interpretation of the works of art Preston completely misses this what are we told about the works of art they're worthless because they're too human alien art is supposed to be exotic and represent an alien civilization and instead when these works of art were prevented presented to experts no no these are by human beings these represent human religions human gods they're there they've just been made alien in style but this is not actually alien art I realize I'm not quoting the book directly I'm paraphrasing what is revealed in that right but I mean directly you're told they they're so certain that these are human this is human culture human religion human gods and these statues that the other character comes in at the end of the story says it's ridiculous he must have trained these aliens to make an imitation of human art human culture and we know he didn't do that if we're reading the story in the end okay and the second thing that's significant for understanding Georgia style of writing and is significant for a Song of Ice and Fire also is that George very often gives us shall we say very spare very select physical descriptions of characters including you know magical characters who have very strange appearances or aliens or elves or whatever you're gonna say um so like in Song of Ice and Fire many people read the books and they think they've had a very good description of what the children of the forest looks like they've just their imagination is filled in the blanks but then when they go back on a second reading or they look around in the internet and they put together the physical description the author has given you almost nothing to work with the description there's a very intentional evasion of any physical description of what these characters look like right so in this story George again this is part his style he does this quite intentionally in many different stories in different contexts and throughout the Song of Ice and Fire although not always that's also interesting some of the groups that are not so important to the plot we do get a very full description of Sol it's intentional when he omits these things and it's intentional what he includes the one feature that is very clear it throughout the story Jorge describes their eyes so the Jane Chee however you want to pronounce them these these supposed aliens who made the sculptures who made the artifacts that the protagonist is trying to trade that meaning the story their eyes are golden in color and we get many descriptions of their eyes right and at the end of the story the human colonists who are being in a sense brainwashed by the planet it's a little bit mysterious what's going on they're being brainwashed by the gods of this planet by these religious / technological icons so part of the story their eyes are turning gold there's flecks of gold in the eyes of the the brainwash character right so these are the two pieces of evidence the reader is presented with the gold eyes they're mentioned a hundred times and again the statues that are mission Ephraim and Preston misses both of them utterly he completely misses the point President does correctly notice that the story suggests at the beginning that these aliens presumed aliens they seem to have regrets that in the past they had a more advanced civilization and they all have a less regressive elation the point is when you read the whole story beginning to end your conclusion must be they regressed from being human beings they used to be human they used to have a human civilization and in the description of them in Preston just Ava says well they're ape-like you know their features have changed somewhat from being human beings but we already see that happen with the other human colonists with their eyes turning gold and their whole society is transformed etcetera etcetera now obviously I don't need to spell it out um most of the story is a set of reflections on religious authority I'm well and considerable space is given to the fact that the people who believe in these religions simply don't ask questions and simply don't have answers for questions that seems so obvious and essential to civility there's a lot of material or that I think that Suffolk's mind to interpret that for you on YouTube this story does a good enough job tell them but in terms of what Preston missed there are only two possible interpretations of the statues which again it's not subtle they're there in the beginning of the story they're crucial the end of the story and they're mentioned during either the statues mean that these people used to be human that's I think the clearest interpretation or you interpret it to mean that these people on this planet have repeatedly received human visitors and have repeatedly repelled the human visitors by assimilating their culture by appropriating human religion human idols that this has happened again and again now actually if you read the story that's that's not what is suggesting including the fact that we're told about history of the planet etc so and the other thing is that second interpretation if you think it's wave after wave of human colonists that's given them this culture these these religious icons that doesn't explain the issue of the gold eyes and the fact that the the human religious lead the colonists who's now assimilating into the planet into the pattern of how that planet works that his eyes are turning gold in color so that's it now again not hating on Preston I think this is a really interesting example as with his former attempt to completely reinterpret one of the stories of George Martin in terms of the philosophy of Plato where Preston has gone through the story with a fine-tooth comb and yet he's missed the the central element of the plot he's missed the main plot twist he's missed what the story is all about I'm not gonna come out here and boast that I'm better at this kind of interpretation of Preston Jacobs I do have a background in interpreting and explaining Buddhist philosophy European philosophy and a lot of stuff about politics I come from a very different background I think of a very very different set of thematic concerns when I look at these texts but it is true that in each case in each story or even if you look at a Song of Ice and Fire as a series of short stories in many ways the book it is written it's one enormous book that's written as a series of short stories you learn to appreciate the economy of language George uses but this the colour of the eyes thing it's not verbose right we're just a few words he's putting in there that's crucial to understanding what's going on or why it matters and again I think that's also what George is not considered a great romance novelist it's not great for describing love but you know for me that can be very moving some of the little moments where George turns a key for you politically like that I'll just mention one before I hit stop on this video you know the fact that in his fictional world even the worst political leaders there are some people around who remember them as great leaders or as good kings that's very moving to me in its way even though it's very simple the fact that you know the Mad King himself there is still some peasants who will say hey you know this was a better society this was a better Kingdom when the magic you and you get them again just a few words just a few sentences and you realize the richness and the realism of his manner of painting a political world and that's something I mean again for me that's moving I know for a lot of you might read those passages about politics and it does it may have an intellectual effect you've but not an emotional effect but I've lived in Cambodia where the worst political leaders imaginable the worst disasters imaginable involving the deaths of huge numbers of people you still meet people who will tell you I tell you that from their perspective it wasn't all bad so that's it my first video on George RR Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire on this channel there will be more you have them warned hit me up
you clicked on this video then you know I'm gonna address the question of the interpretation of a particular story written by george RR martin by a particular interpreter a famous commentator on the literature preston jacobs before I get to that I'm gonna say a few words about myself and my interest in a Song of Ice and Fire or slash george RR martin for some of you this is the first time you ever seen my channel for some of you you've been watching my channel steadily and you're sitting there wondering what is this because i don't think i've ever had another video talking about fiction unless you consider rap music fiction in a sense it is um some of its nonfiction I don't want to hazard a guess as to what percentage but look I do roll with a song of ice and fire heavy I've been reading the books for years and I've been planning to come on YouTube and contribute my voice to the debates surrounding the interpretation of the book for years and during the last several months several times I've invited other people to come on my channel to talk about it with me one of the reasons being I actually didn't want to talk about the books in this kind of overly intense staring into the camera format I thought it'd be better to have more casual two or three you know to person conversation or you know three or four people in a roundtable format to take the edge off a bit because um it gets intense my main interest my first university degree is in political science and the themes that interests me most in the books are political philosophy there's a lot of for me really moving really interesting political content in the books um sometimes you meet people who read the books for like the teen romance people who are really interested in who is going to be Sansa Starks next boyfriend I don't thing against those people but I think even if you're of that kind of fan of the book you like the romantic elements I think you have to admit as a work of literature you know the Song of Ice and Fire or the Canon of George Aaron it would have never stood out on the strength of its romantic elements it really stands out on the one hand because of its world building but in the other hand really because of the strength of its political content its political philosophy it's reflections on political themes and I would say those two are linked the world building would be meaningless without the strange sense of political realism that's woven into that world so that's that's the intro my specific topic for this video is the interpretation or misinterpretation of a Georgia or Martin story from the 1970s called and seven times never Killman address by Preston Jacobs this is not a hate video against Preston Jacobs Preston Jacobs is one of these guys who goes way out on a limb and his interpretations sometimes he's right sometimes he's wrong and as he says sometimes he's wrong about half of this stuff um Preston went wailed on a limb not too long ago in interpreting a series of stories by george RR martin in the tough voyaging series as all being a set of philosophical reflections on the philosophy of plato's republic and i remember from the first time he started up with that i disagree with him i just thought he was dead wrong I don't think the author had that in mind and then it's a really funny thing but Preston met the author it's a very rare thing for someone who's a literary critic to meet the author whose work he's commenting on and Preston got tech confirmed for himself that no those stories were not about the philosophy of Plato they were not hope that his Republic at all however for those of you were watching the story and have no idea why a guy like me would be interested in George our Martin already this tells you why you know the material is actually sophisticated enough it is interesting enough to really keep my eyes on the page I feel that Preston totally fundamentally missed the point of this story and in a sense he missed the plot of the story and the fundamental plot twist so if you don't know if you haven't read the story you haven't heard what presidents say about it at the beginning of this story the plot begins the fundamental basis for the plot is that a trader in antiquities he doesn't only trade is a trader generally arrives on a planet and he is trying to make money out of selling the ancient art the traditional religious art of an alien civilization on an alien planet that's the fundamental basis for the plot now obviously doesn't sound exciting but we get comments on the art on the sculptures of these people from different perspectives as the plot goes ahead it's a light motif that they come back to and then at the end the plot twist is revealed through those statutes through the interpretation of the works of art Preston completely misses this what are we told about the works of art they're worthless because they're too human alien art is supposed to be exotic and represent an alien civilization and instead when these works of art were prevented presented to experts no no these are by human beings these represent human religions human gods they're there they've just been made alien in style but this is not actually alien art I realize I'm not quoting the book directly I'm paraphrasing what is revealed in that right but I mean directly you're told they they're so certain that these are human this is human culture human religion human gods and these statues that the other character comes in at the end of the story says it's ridiculous he must have trained these aliens to make an imitation of human art human culture and we know he didn't do that if we're reading the story in the end okay and the second thing that's significant for understanding Georgia style of writing and is significant for a Song of Ice and Fire also is that George very often gives us shall we say very spare very select physical descriptions of characters including you know magical characters who have very strange appearances or aliens or elves or whatever you're gonna say um so like in Song of Ice and Fire many people read the books and they think they've had a very good description of what the children of the forest looks like they've just their imagination is filled in the blanks but then when they go back on a second reading or they look around in the internet and they put together the physical description the author has given you almost nothing to work with the description there's a very intentional evasion of any physical description of what these characters look like right so in this story George again this is part his style he does this quite intentionally in many different stories in different contexts and throughout the Song of Ice and Fire although not always that's also interesting some of the groups that are not so important to the plot we do get a very full description of Sol it's intentional when he omits these things and it's intentional what he includes the one feature that is very clear it throughout the story Jorge describes their eyes so the Jane Chee however you want to pronounce them these these supposed aliens who made the sculptures who made the artifacts that the protagonist is trying to trade that meaning the story their eyes are golden in color and we get many descriptions of their eyes right and at the end of the story the human colonists who are being in a sense brainwashed by the planet it's a little bit mysterious what's going on they're being brainwashed by the gods of this planet by these religious / technological icons so part of the story their eyes are turning gold there's flecks of gold in the eyes of the the brainwash character right so these are the two pieces of evidence the reader is presented with the gold eyes they're mentioned a hundred times and again the statues that are mission Ephraim and Preston misses both of them utterly he completely misses the point President does correctly notice that the story suggests at the beginning that these aliens presumed aliens they seem to have regrets that in the past they had a more advanced civilization and they all have a less regressive elation the point is when you read the whole story beginning to end your conclusion must be they regressed from being human beings they used to be human they used to have a human civilization and in the description of them in Preston just Ava says well they're ape-like you know their features have changed somewhat from being human beings but we already see that happen with the other human colonists with their eyes turning gold and their whole society is transformed etcetera etcetera now obviously I don't need to spell it out um most of the story is a set of reflections on religious authority I'm well and considerable space is given to the fact that the people who believe in these religions simply don't ask questions and simply don't have answers for questions that seems so obvious and essential to civility there's a lot of material or that I think that Suffolk's mind to interpret that for you on YouTube this story does a good enough job tell them but in terms of what Preston missed there are only two possible interpretations of the statues which again it's not subtle they're there in the beginning of the story they're crucial the end of the story and they're mentioned during either the statues mean that these people used to be human that's I think the clearest interpretation or you interpret it to mean that these people on this planet have repeatedly received human visitors and have repeatedly repelled the human visitors by assimilating their culture by appropriating human religion human idols that this has happened again and again now actually if you read the story that's that's not what is suggesting including the fact that we're told about history of the planet etc so and the other thing is that second interpretation if you think it's wave after wave of human colonists that's given them this culture these these religious icons that doesn't explain the issue of the gold eyes and the fact that the the human religious lead the colonists who's now assimilating into the planet into the pattern of how that planet works that his eyes are turning gold in color so that's it now again not hating on Preston I think this is a really interesting example as with his former attempt to completely reinterpret one of the stories of George Martin in terms of the philosophy of Plato where Preston has gone through the story with a fine-tooth comb and yet he's missed the the central element of the plot he's missed the main plot twist he's missed what the story is all about I'm not gonna come out here and boast that I'm better at this kind of interpretation of Preston Jacobs I do have a background in interpreting and explaining Buddhist philosophy European philosophy and a lot of stuff about politics I come from a very different background I think of a very very different set of thematic concerns when I look at these texts but it is true that in each case in each story or even if you look at a Song of Ice and Fire as a series of short stories in many ways the book it is written it's one enormous book that's written as a series of short stories you learn to appreciate the economy of language George uses but this the colour of the eyes thing it's not verbose right we're just a few words he's putting in there that's crucial to understanding what's going on or why it matters and again I think that's also what George is not considered a great romance novelist it's not great for describing love but you know for me that can be very moving some of the little moments where George turns a key for you politically like that I'll just mention one before I hit stop on this video you know the fact that in his fictional world even the worst political leaders there are some people around who remember them as great leaders or as good kings that's very moving to me in its way even though it's very simple the fact that you know the Mad King himself there is still some peasants who will say hey you know this was a better society this was a better Kingdom when the magic you and you get them again just a few words just a few sentences and you realize the richness and the realism of his manner of painting a political world and that's something I mean again for me that's moving I know for a lot of you might read those passages about politics and it does it may have an intellectual effect you've but not an emotional effect but I've lived in Cambodia where the worst political leaders imaginable the worst disasters imaginable involving the deaths of huge numbers of people you still meet people who will tell you I tell you that from their perspective it wasn't all bad so that's it my first video on George RR Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire on this channel there will be more you have them warned hit me up