Sunspots 636

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:


The Arts: Speculative Faith complains about the sex in Game of Thrones. (This is one of the reasons, but not the only one, I've never watched it, and that I long ago stopped reading the books.) Relevant also has an article seriously questioning whether Christians should watch Game of Thrones.

Christianity: An article in Relevant, about purity. It also explains why the Jewish Law existed.



Computing: Wired on how to stop receiving notifications of long, and irrelevant, Gmail threads.

Health: FiveThirtyEight tells us that many of us eat too often.

National Public Radio tells us that many drugs are still effective, long after their given expiration dates.

Scientific American argues that increasing taxes on alcohol would reduce violence, including suicide.

Humor: (sort of) Listverse reports on 10 famous entertainers who were told that they had no talent.

(or Science) A video of a song, about the elements of the periodic table.

Politics: Wired tells us that climate change denial threatens our defense capability.

Wired also reports on the Trump for President in 2020 campaign, which has paid (probably legally) over half a million dollars to Trump properties and businesses.

Politifact has a list of fake news sources. It's not all of them!

Christianity Today reports on a survey studying religious practice and belief against gun ownership.

Relevant reports on an evangelical pastor who has been arrested by ICE, for deportation. His wife and two small children are US citizens. Not exactly a "bad hombre."

Science: Listverse describes 10 recently discovered, but unexpected, phenomena in space.



Image source (public domain)

Sexual slavery in Hollywood

Some recent articles refer to sex in Hollywood (aka the US entertainment industry) productions, and claim that some of this amounts to sexual slavery.

One of these articles, by E. Stephen Burnett, refers mostly to the HBO series "Game of Thrones," which is based on George R. R. Martin's series of novels, collectively called "A Song of Ice and Fire." See here and here for my reaction to the books -- I did not finish the series, for reasons I explain in the posts. My second post discusses and refers to some reaction to Martin's work by Christianity Today and by award-winning author of fantastic literature Elizabeth Moon.

Burnett claims that the HBO series includes pornography. He says that "naked people who act out sexual scenarios in public media in order to get money is porn." He also refers to John Piper, who says, in a post on "Game of Thrones:" "God calls women to adorn themselves in respectable apparel with modesty and self-control (1 Timothy 2:9). When we pursue or receive or embrace nudity in our entertainment, we are implicitly endorsing the sin of the women who sell themselves to this way and are, therefore, uncaring about their souls."

Piper also says that violence on-screen is not real -- no one gets killed. But nudity is real. People really expose their bodies. Further, he says that it is not ever necessary to have nude actresses in order to tell a story.

Piper dealt almost entirely with nakedness in women. There is, of course, also nudity by men on-screen. I don't know the frequency of occurrence of one versus the other.

A Cap Stewart has written two posts, here and here, in which he claims, with some anecdotes to back them up, that women are sometimes coerced into becoming sex objects. He says, with some justification, that some of them are a sort of sex slave.

None of the three authors (all of them wrote about "Game of Thrones," and other things) discussed the pornography film industry. My guess is that there might be some actual full-time sex slavery in that industry, but I have no facts to back that up. None of the authors discussed homosexual sexual activity.

Thanks for reading. Be careful what you watch. Since this post concerns pornography, I expect that it will get more views than most of my blog does, which, in itself, tells us something.

The moral universe of Game of Thrones, as seen by Elizabeth Moon and Christianity Today.

George R. R. Martin is perhaps the best-selling author of fantastic literature of the last 25 years. His most popular work is a series, still incomplete, entitled “A Song of Ice and Fire.” That series is the basis for the popular HBO TV series, “Game of Thrones.” Martin has won several awards for his writing.

I try to deal with important works of fantastic literature in this blog, although I haven’t tried to touch on  vampire literature. Some years ago, I decided not to cover Martin’s work. My reason was that it didn’t affirm anything. Although there were sympathetic characters, their fate was often terrible, and there were some extremely evil characters, who seemed to be unpunished. (I’m sure that the series hasn’t suffered because I’m not following it!)

Two recent articles, not by me, bear on this matter.

The first is an excellent blog post by Elizabeth Moon, who has won awards in fantastic literature herself. Although it doesn’t directly consider Martin's creation, what triggered Moon’s post was a review of Martin’s work. Moon points out that there is a difference between moral complexity and moral ambiguity, and that although, say, Tolkien’s characters experienced moral complexity, what should have been done was clear. (See here for a discussion of Galadriel, for example.) But, says Moon, we are coming to the point where there's a lot of moral ambiguity:

“Moral ambiguity requires that there be no general good and bad–a chaotic, or amoral, universe–a universe in which the concepts of good and evil are absent, immaterial, and have no effect on characters’ motivation.”

As indicated above, I haven’t read all of Martin’s series, but Moon has succinctly put my unease about the series into words.

A recent article in Christianity Today points out the same thing I saw in my earlier post -- nothing is affirmed. (I claim no great wisdom here. It’s easy to get Martin’s world view, or at least that part of it.)

As the article puts it: “For Martin, realistic means his characters are complex, ‘gray,’ and morally ambiguous. There are no heroes in Martin’s books like there are in The Lord of the Rings. There is no echo of Calvin's description of human beings as ‘glorious ruins’ — broken, but still able to bear the Image of God. Martin's image focuses on the ruin, not the glory.”

Thanks for reading. Don’t read George R. R. Martin, or watch the series. Or, if you do, do so carefully.