The "moral" of Game of Thrones
June 11, 2015 at 4:40 pm
(This post was last modified: June 11, 2015 at 4:44 pm by Aroura.)
Yes, just what we need, another Game of Thrones thread, right?
I've seen, on other forums I lurk but don't post in, people posit the point of A Song of Fir and Ice, aka Game of Thrones. Some say it's about human sacrifice, others say it's about the little guys getting trampled on by those in power, and other theories.
What I think the entire series is about, what the POINT GRRM is trying to make, is that morals are subjective.
To the characters, the Red wedding was horrifying, of course. But why, specifically, was it morally objectionable to other noble families? Because we all know that a coup where you murder all of your rivals, including their children, can be looked upon with favor (Baratheon and Lannister teaming up to murder Targaryen adults and babies alike).
The Red wedding caused other houses to look upon the Frey's and the Bolton's with distaste and lost honor (and no longer to be trusted) because they had accepted the Starks into their home with the bread and salt deal. In this world, borrowed from a real medieval tradition, the Frey's had given the Starks a promise of protection as if they were family, while under their roof. So it wasn't stabbing a pregnant woman or beheading your rival and sewing his wolf's head onto his body that other people in that universe found objectionable, it was that they did it while under this protection.
The same goes with a lot of things. What was morally wrong with Stanis killing Renly? If they had met on the field of combat and Stannis had slit Renly's throat there, even Brienne would have only mourned. By using blood magic to assassinate him, his moral became more questionable.
And yet Dany uses blood magic to bring her dragons to life, burning the witch (a holocaust survivor, really), who had caused the death of her husband (one of the holocaust perpetrators), and yet the people of this world ascribe her no negative moral points for this act.
Jamie killed the king he was sworn to protect. The fact that this king was a sociopathic, murdering monster who desperately needed killing is lost on almost ALL the characters on the story, and the only relevant fact to them is that Jamie broke an oath and killed the king he'd sworn to protect. For this he is considered of the lowest moral character by most of the inhabitants of Westeros. Yes we, the shows viewers, with our more modern sensibility, find him a sympathetic character for this act.
Tyrion killed his father, and even though he had a slew of good reasons to do so, is now a kinslayer and also considered of the lowest moral character by inhabitants of the story universe. Again though, the readers sympathize.
Jamie and his sister are having an incestuous relationship. Even in this universe, where gods are real and have real power, that act is condemned now but was accepted 100 years ago in royalty.
So again, I think the biggest point of the stories is that morals are subjective. What we find morally repulsive, the next person may find justified.
Almost every character is shades of grey. Why do some readers/watchers hate Cersie while others find her a sympathetic character? The debates these stories spark are important, and I think that is why they are so great and so relevant today.
Anyway....Just some thoughts.
What do you think the point is, or is there one, or do you care?
I've seen, on other forums I lurk but don't post in, people posit the point of A Song of Fir and Ice, aka Game of Thrones. Some say it's about human sacrifice, others say it's about the little guys getting trampled on by those in power, and other theories.
What I think the entire series is about, what the POINT GRRM is trying to make, is that morals are subjective.
To the characters, the Red wedding was horrifying, of course. But why, specifically, was it morally objectionable to other noble families? Because we all know that a coup where you murder all of your rivals, including their children, can be looked upon with favor (Baratheon and Lannister teaming up to murder Targaryen adults and babies alike).
The Red wedding caused other houses to look upon the Frey's and the Bolton's with distaste and lost honor (and no longer to be trusted) because they had accepted the Starks into their home with the bread and salt deal. In this world, borrowed from a real medieval tradition, the Frey's had given the Starks a promise of protection as if they were family, while under their roof. So it wasn't stabbing a pregnant woman or beheading your rival and sewing his wolf's head onto his body that other people in that universe found objectionable, it was that they did it while under this protection.
The same goes with a lot of things. What was morally wrong with Stanis killing Renly? If they had met on the field of combat and Stannis had slit Renly's throat there, even Brienne would have only mourned. By using blood magic to assassinate him, his moral became more questionable.
And yet Dany uses blood magic to bring her dragons to life, burning the witch (a holocaust survivor, really), who had caused the death of her husband (one of the holocaust perpetrators), and yet the people of this world ascribe her no negative moral points for this act.
Jamie killed the king he was sworn to protect. The fact that this king was a sociopathic, murdering monster who desperately needed killing is lost on almost ALL the characters on the story, and the only relevant fact to them is that Jamie broke an oath and killed the king he'd sworn to protect. For this he is considered of the lowest moral character by most of the inhabitants of Westeros. Yes we, the shows viewers, with our more modern sensibility, find him a sympathetic character for this act.
Tyrion killed his father, and even though he had a slew of good reasons to do so, is now a kinslayer and also considered of the lowest moral character by inhabitants of the story universe. Again though, the readers sympathize.
Jamie and his sister are having an incestuous relationship. Even in this universe, where gods are real and have real power, that act is condemned now but was accepted 100 years ago in royalty.
So again, I think the biggest point of the stories is that morals are subjective. What we find morally repulsive, the next person may find justified.
Almost every character is shades of grey. Why do some readers/watchers hate Cersie while others find her a sympathetic character? The debates these stories spark are important, and I think that is why they are so great and so relevant today.
Anyway....Just some thoughts.
What do you think the point is, or is there one, or do you care?
“Eternity is a terrible thought. I mean, where's it going to end?”
― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead
― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead
