Communicating effectively is always a work in progress, and it’s always worthwhile to work at refining a line of reasoning until a maximum number of those reading can follow its implications. Still, it’s important to acknowledge the reality that not every individual is capable of understanding even the most obvious and most straighforward points.
Who makes up the “us” for which you issue instructions? How was your arrangement (that you are the speaker and giver of directives) established? Your answer might well shed light on questions under discussion in this thread.
Responding more politely than your response deserves, your initial claim was: “All these faux-medieval worlds are mainly about the Common People getting all swoony about the character-we-identify-with…oooooo, Noble Blood! It’s so important!”.
Given that that seems to apply just as well to many of Shakespeare’s plays and a wide variety of the so-called greatest works of Western Literature, I’m wondering if you can expand on that point, and in particular how it applies particularly to GoT (or to fantasy in general)?
Furthermore, a somewhat obvious way to read what you’re saying is that you think GoT is in some way a defense of or apology for a system of governance in which power passes via birthright, when in fact I think that it’s exactly the opposite. A repeated theme is how totally screwed the kingdom was when someone was on the throne just because their parent was (see the Mad King and Joffrey), and for that matter, how screwed the kingdom was when someone was on the throne purely by might of conquest (Robert Baratheon).
I believe that a pleasure in identifying with those at the top is present in a great deal of the fiction produced by humans over the centuries (including that of Shakespeare). The degree to which this type of fiction is regarded as “literature” has to do with many elements, but one of them would surely be the inclusion of a certain complexity of mind when considering hierarchy and the place we may crave in it.
This isn’t a line of reasoning that can be fully laid out in posts on a message board; it requires a slow build of example on example, with (ideally) well-sourced corroborative material interspersed. When my book is published, I’ll be happy to send you a free e-copy.
But to provide a quick fantasy-TV-reference that illustrates something of what I’m saying: Buffy the Vampire Slayer provided something similar to what I’m claiming that GoT provides: a pleasurable chance to identify with characters who wield great power. But what BtVS had that GoT doesn’t–so far, and in my own opinion, of course–is an intermittent attempt to examine, break down, and subvert that tendency to identify-with-power. I’m thinking of episodes such as “The Zeppo” and “Normal Again.”
Other fantasy series were known to poke fun at themselves (particularly the Sam Raimi Hercules and Xena shows); but that’s not the same thing as actually challenging the psychological underpinnings of our attraction to identifying with power/top of the hierarchy, as I’d argue was achieved more than once during the run of Joss Whedon’s show.
A fair observation (the underlined). But do you see in GoT any argument or advocacy in favor of government by something other than absolute-power rulers?
All I’m seeing so far (and as mentioned, I’m just watching the show, not reading the books) is that there are Good Kings (and/or Queens) and Bad ones, and we should be rooting for the success of a Good one.
Well! Hrrmphh, maybe if you were a professional barbarian instead of some mere amateur you could appreciate this sort of show:dubious:
All kidding aside, I think the weight of having to see this show has been lifted from my chest. I was mulling it over over with my SO last week, I was like “I think I have to watch this now, if I don’t I could be missing out on something really good blah blah blah.” You’re description was good enough to tip the scales in favor of “this will end up being several hours of my life that I will never get back” So I can sleep well knowing I’m not missing anything.
I think GoT is making the following points:
-power is an illusion. The king has power because everyone believes the king has power
-whoever is king by birth isn’t necessarily a good king (Joffrey, the Mad King)
-whoever conquers the throne isn’t necessarily a good king (Robert)
-someone who is all full of ethics and is really nice isn’t necessarily good at king-ish activities (Ned, who was hand of the king for a while let’s not forget, and Robb)
-someone who is slavishly devoted to a strict moral code isn’t necessarily a good king (Stannis)
-someone who seems to be a decent guy, and throws really good parties, isn’t necessarily a good king (Renly)
The closest we have to a “good” monarch so far is pretty clearly Danaerys, and it’s still to early to see how her story turns out, where it goes, etc. And she’s clearly fooling herself if she thinks that the people of Westeros are eager for her dynasty to return. (Arguably the other closest thing to a good king is Mance Rayder, who we have not see be evil or capricious or sadistic, and who seems to be actively taking actions to lead his people to safety… but I don’t think he gets enough screen time to really be symbolic of anything.)
One thing we have not seen is a democratic society to contrast to all the monarchies. So there’s no direct in-world comparison of monarchy vs other systems of government (although there some varieties of governmental systems, for instance the oligarchical council that rules Qarth). But I can’t view GoT as anything other than a condemnation of absolute/inherited monarchy, when we view it from our world.
I dunno… I think that what you’re talking about applies more to something like Harry Potter, where I think that as the reader you are very much invited to dream about receiving a letter from an owl inviting them to go to Hogwart’s, because YOU ARE SPECIAL, and you’ll learn all about the secret society and all the awesome things you can do, yada yada yada. That’s also true of a lot of fantasy fiction which have a “poor stable boy is The Chosen One” narrative. But I just don’t see that in GoT. What member of a noble family would you want to be? A Stark? You’re almost all dead. A Lannister? You’re a monster. A Targaryen? You’re insane, or got gold dumped on you, or else got sold as a child bride to a barbarian who didn’t speak your language and then raped you a lot (granted Danaerys is probably the closest to what you’re talking about, in that she is now effectively a queen, has super family blood that makes her special, and has dragons).
Very little in GoT makes you go “aww, yeah, it would be awesome if I were in that story”. I mean, if you do happen to currently be a slave, then you might wish Dany and the unsullied would show up and free you. But aside from that, GoT is FAR less escapist than stereotypical fantasy fiction.
(I guess another more traditional “chosen one” type arc is Bran’s, and his life is obviously pretty fucking miserable, what with not being able to talk, all his family being dead except for his little brother who he had to send away, being starving and cold and miserable, etc.)
Society for Creative Anachronism. The original Renfarriers. Used to dress up in fancy medieval costumes and have cons and so forth. May still do so, I dunno.
I think there’s something to this. It’s certainly a huge part of the appeal of Downton Abbey. I think there is a little part of lots of people — even people who think themselves otherwise very egalitarian — who enjoy the thought of a more rigidly hierarchical world in which everyone knows his/her place, even if that place is not necessarily elevated.
But Downton Abbey is fairly clearly a very pleasant place to live, at least if you’re one of the Crawleys. It’s costume porn. King’s Landing is very clearly NOT a pleasant place to live, EVEN IF you are one of the nobles or royals.
I think that a criticism of Downton Abbey as glorifying aristocracy is not necessarily a comprehensive criticism, but it’s at least on target. I think a similar criticism of Game of Thrones misses entirely, because not only is Game of Thrones not pro-aristocracy, I’d argue that it in fact is actively anti-aristocracy.
TBH, one of the main concepts I take away from GoT is “I am glad that I live in a time and place where we are at least theoretically governed by rule of law and not of man”.
IMO, you make some great points about what the author is trying to say about the King.
My conclusion is the only form of government that succeeds for very long is one that is based on a democratically elected ruling body.
As far as China and Russia are concerned, I’d have to say the jury is still out on them.
I just cannot imagine that any autocratic system of government based on a dictator or a single party legislature can succeed over the long run. There is just too much chance of abuse of power.
