George R.R. Martin’s fantasy novel Game of Thrones is the first novel in a seven book series titled The Song of Ice and Fire which has been turned into a hit HBO show. This post is confined to the first book and will not address the show’s sleaziness, but those interested in reading about that should check out Douthat’s critique here.
Instead, I’ll focus on this article’s comparison of Martin and Tolkien. Martin has been described as the anti-Tolkien because his work is realistic while Tolkien is idealistic or fantastic. One example of Martin’s apparent hardheadedness is his portrayal of Eddard ‘Ned’ Stark. Ned’s storyline presents the reader with the political problem of dirty hands: the desire to stay out of politics and war in order to remain morally pure.
For two-thirds of the book Ned appears to be the traditional hero who is guided by honor. But by the novel’s end his unwillingness to commit a base action leads to his death and sets up a civil war for the second novel. He is contrasted with the members of the House Lannister and Lord Petyr Baelish, also called Littlefinger, who all commit immoral means to attain their ends.
But is Martin really criticizing Stark for his idealism here? Ned’s son, Rob, is clearly inspired by him and is the white knight by the story’s end. Catelyn, Eddard’s wife, says repeatedly that Ned had taught Rob the art of politics and war well. And House Stark is the family the reader is supposed to root for.
Maybe the better comparison to Ned is Catelyn, not Littlefinger and the Lannisters. Ned and Catelyn share the same set of convictions yet there are several instances in the novel where Catelyn relies upon misdirection and equivocation in order to obtain her goals e.g. the capture of Tyrion Lannister. She is prudent when thinking about what to say (and not say) when counseling her son, arranging a marriage pact with House Frey, and pleading with House Tully and Lords of the Riverlands to avoid civil war.
The same cannot be said of Ned, however noble he might be. His virtues are those of the solider, not statesman. Ned helped Robert Baratheon win the War of the Usurper, but he did not help him rule the Seven Kingdoms afterwards.
Cersei Lannister presents the problem of the Game of Thrones as some sort of Hobbesian Choice. Presented this way, the heroes and villains are indistinguishable from each other. Luckily, Catelyn’s statesmanship shows the rules of the game are not as black and white as Cersei suggests.
December 30th, 2012 | 12:52 am
The term is “Hobson’s choice,” which is a case where the choice is between a thing on offer and nothing. Although “Hobbesian choice” could become a new thing.
December 30th, 2012 | 1:55 am
[...] George R.R. Martin’s fantasy novel Game of Thrones is the first novel in a seven book series titled The Song of Ice and Fire which has been turned into a Source: Postmodern Conservative [...]
December 30th, 2012 | 2:35 am
I think in this case realism is in the eye of the beholder. I wouldn’t call Game of Thrones realistic but modernism dressed up in swords and sorcery.
The main characters appear to exhibit an enlightenment era cynicism in a pre-enlightenment setting which makes for an anachronistic and incoherent world. The Hobbesianism is a little TOO Hobbesian in a world that had yet to experience the conditions that made Hobbes Hobbes. There was no Reformation,no Galileo, nothing to suggest an alternative to the superstitions of their day and yet everyone operates as though there will be no wrath awaiting them in the next life, or whatever equivalent there would be in their world.
Consider as a contrast the example of the wonderful HBO series Rome where even the most desipicable characters were wary of the wrath of the gods catching up with them. Indeed Julius Ceasar forgave the two main characters at one point based on the rationalization that he believed they were protected by the gods and he didn’t want to cross them.
As enjoyable as Game of Thrones is, its realistic the same way that Madman is a ‘realistic portrayal of the 60′s’, in that its idea of realism consists of flattering today’s fashionable notions of what is realistic.
December 30th, 2012 | 3:59 pm
You’re right that GRRM isn’t completely criticizing Ned because the society literally falls apart because of the Machiavellian traits of its inhabitants. I think GRRM takes a hard look at the pros and cons of certain moral and political actions and is realistic about the consequences of both idealism and cynicism.
January 2nd, 2013 | 2:59 pm
To Jason’s claim that “House Stark is the family the reader is supposed to root for” : I had the same sense after finishing the first volume, but things change, and by the end of Dance with Dragons I think it’s fair to ask whether or not GRRM has a consistent vision of where the story is going. The frame of reference is continually shifting, and he seems to want to sympathize with everyone. My guess is that beneath the starkness of his world, there’s actually a sentimentality or tenderness in him which makes a consistent moral or intentional reading of the books problematic. As with all parts of a larger whole, it’s tough to speak too
pseudo: I agree that Jason seems to be using realism and idealism in a different sense than I think we would. But to be fair to him, it is also the sense in which these words are commonly used in public discourse or, for example, in an introduction to IR course. GRRM seems much less likely to advocate the claim that there is a reality which can be spoken about and known by human beings. His views seem to comport with those of the nominalist. And so the fundamental line between Tolkien and GRRM is probably that of Tolkien’s fairly consistent Catholicism, which draws the reader out into a shared reality, rather than taking its point of departure as the frame of reference or viewpoint of individual characters which can never really know the truth about each other.
sff: I want to believe that GRRM is writing with that level of sophistication, but have doubts because of the problems noted above, as well as the significant obstacles that have begun to show up in the later books with plotting and character development. Aria certainly doesn’t make sense anymore, for example, and who really knows what he’s doing with the weird Manichean elements of his meta-theology? He seems to have overpopulated a world and now doesn’t know how to move the story forward. But I’m still holding out hope that he’ll return to the elements of the medieval Romance which predominated in Storm of Swords.
Perhaps more should also be said about why the books are both better and worse than the HBO series, and the prospect that GRRM is learning something, and so having to rethink some things, because of his involvement with the show?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact