About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Tuesday, March 18, 2014 - 8:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

This thread was started at Jules's suggestion to discuss the characters and themes of Game of Thrones. Please feel free to jump in with your own take on the show, the Song of Ice and Fire novels, the characters, and the themes, in particular from an Objectivist perspective.

 

When people ask me what Game of Thrones is about, I tell them it's largely an examination of power: how power is obtained; how it is held; who deserves it; who has power, who doesn't, and why; and the different types of power.

 

Robert Baratheon holds the power of might and force of personality.

 

Peter Baelish holds the power of manipulation and resourcefulness.

 

Ned Stark holds the power of principled action and loyalty.

 

Tywin Lannister holds the power of wealth.

 

Varys holds the power of information.

 

And Daenerys Targaryen holds the power of birthright, transformation, hope... and dragons.

 

The setting of the series is one in which magical beings and forces are said to have existed ages ago, but it has been absent from the world for millenia, now only the stuff of tales and reimaginings. However, there are indications - beyond full human comprehension - that magic is again returning to the world, or maybe it never left but was slumbering beneath the surface.

 

I often feel as if the United States is represented in this world. The magic of the American Experiment is going out and no one is quite sure whether it will ever return again.



Post 1

Tuesday, March 18, 2014 - 8:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

From an Objectivist point of view I found the author has set up a very malevolent universe framework for this world, despite this and as a long standing fan of the genre (yes I had read Tolkien's Lord of the rings when I was 10). I found the novels pretty riveting.  Nothing EVER happens as you would expect and yet he has woven a very impressively seamless tapestry of power struggles that would make Machiavelli blush.  (I am at work will post more on my next break). 



Post 2

Tuesday, March 18, 2014 - 11:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I've only seen 1 episode.  But it was compelling.  I forgot the name of the series, so I just nicknamed it "Tits and Dragons" 



Post 3

Wednesday, March 19, 2014 - 5:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I wouldn't say it's a malevolent universe. A lot of the characters get their just deserts (hi, Greg). It just isn't categorically true, and it doesn't happen on a neat timeframe. This is why many reviewers praise the "realism" of the series, despite the fantastical setting - we recognize that element of arbitrariness in all of our lives. There is, however, a contrast between GoT and series like House of Cards (see other thread), which not only present a malevolent internal universe, they delight in it and fetishize it. Martin doesn't present his world as any moral ideal, as the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged share an idealized vision of how things should be. GoT characters are flawed and complex, just like any real human being. Just like the world in which we live, if you work hard and deal honestly in Westeros, you might be successful, or somebody could rob you, or you might get cancer and die. One element GoT shares with Objectivism is its view of nearly unlimited human potential, but how we are our own worst enemies and too often squander our possibilities through our own destructive infighting and powerlust.



Post 4

Wednesday, March 19, 2014 - 7:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

One thing I really like is how the characters evolve.  Take Jamie Lannister the kingslayer.  Very easy to dislike him until he gets captured and later on in the series after he loses his hand and has spent time with Brianne as her captive.  The mutual respect they gain for one another over time is a nice subplot. She is a GRREAT character.  After he finally opens up to her and explains about why hey betrayed the kingdom and killed Mad King Aeris.

" He ordered the maesters to place wildfire in every conceivable nook and cranny within the city with orders that if the walls were breached they were to ignite it all.  You did not expect me to just sit there and allow him to burn half a million men, women and children did you?? So I killed him and all of the maesters."  First time I saw him almost break down crying.  The guy is an excellent actor.



Post 5

Wednesday, March 19, 2014 - 7:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Yes, and the use of symbolism is both subtle and believable. Jaime turns from a dishonorable character ("the kingslayer") to an honorable one only after his hand is cut off (the hand that slayed King Aerys). Before that point, his sword hand was his identity, but with it gone, he is now free - and required - to choose a new identity for himself. This also introduces the themes of Westerosian moral laws (you don't kill a king ever, you don't kill a guest ever, you don't kill your family ever, you don't break an oath ever) in the face of practical considerations and moral ambiguity. So Jaime did a dishonorable thing for a good reason - but he still has to pay for the dishonor - but he can be redeemed. Lots of depth and food for thought in these themes.



Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.