Game of Thrones -it's just like the real world. (And not only because of a universal coffee cup presence .) As debates about electability, policy, and vision the early days of the 2020 presidential campaigns, the same themes ported to Westeros on Sunday night, as central
Those conversations fretted about Daenerys's "Mad Queen" tendencies and analyzed Jon's ambitions; What are the two Targaryens will rule if (when) Cersei is defeated?
The two sides were, for the most part, remarkably sophomoric, even when expressed by Westeros's ostensible intelligentsia. In a pair of crucial tete-a-tetes between Tyrion and Varys, for instance, the former case for Dany boil's down to: People who know her like her. The latter's case for Jon, meanwhile, boils down to: People who know him like him, plus he has a penis. Neither advisor points to the potential rulers might enact once in power or why their rule might benefit citizens of Westeros. They discuss, instead, authority to rule in and of themselves.
In the world of the show, perhaps, this brand of politicking makes some sense. Power is power, Thrones famously taught us, and Westeros is not a democracy in which candidate for the crown to convince the common people to support their cause. Aegon the Conqueror won the continent because he had dragons; Robert Baratheon took the Iron Throne because he was a; Cersei Lannister wrestled control after killing her opponents, essentially, in one wildfire-aided coup.
Yet from a storytelling perspective, two broad problems exist with this kind of portrayal. First, narratively, articulation of a ruling vision is imperative to allow viewers to fully invest. The Jon Vs. Daenery's friction has been built in the season and seems to be dominated by the endgame, but viewers need to understand the repercussion that would result from the impending transfer of power. Second, George R.R. Martin's broader story is rooted in nuanced questions about power-how it functions, who wields it, who wields it best and why. Yet with just two remaining episodes of Game of Thrones these questions might well go unanswered before the series concludes. If so, showrunners David Benioff and D.B. White might miss the story's message.
As viewers, Jon or Daenerys to take the throne. Jonas, the cautious leader with a secret past, maturing on the geographical outskirts of the story; Daenerys, the orphaned refugee, doing the same.
But now that the throne is actually in their grasp, what would their victory look like for Westeros? What, for instance, does Daenerys want, beyond a restoration of Targaryen's rule and the Iron Throne she believes to be birthright? As you broadened her base in Essos, Daenerys's chief policy goal was the eradication of slavery, but Westeros is already free of practice. (Jorah, remember what exiled before the timeline of the show because he was caught selling poachers into slavery.) Her quotes last episode offer only generic messaging. She tells the war council, "In all Seven Kingdoms, men want to live without fear and cruelty under their rightful queen," and she later said, "I'm here to free the world from tyrants. That is my destiny. "
A vast chasm exists between" tyrant "and successful ruler, though. Robert was not a tyrant, but hey what is not a good king. For Daenerys, it's a thing to voice a desire to end cruelty and fear; These are some of the negative outcomes, and they have not been put into practice. However, what are the answers to these questions? Those advisors, for their part, do not seem to know, either. Daenerys's strength is, "What does it mean?" What, again, does this vague assertion actually mean?
Her famed "break the wheel" declaration offers little insight. It sounds compelling, certainly, and it's popular enough among viewers to appear on mugs and search for purchase online. But it's not clear what Daenerys means by which or how it intends to translate that proclamation into reality. "Lannister, Targaryen, Baratheon, Stark, Tyrell," she tells Tyrion in Meereen, "they're all just spokes on a wheel. She concludes with determination: "I'm not going to stop the wheel. I'm going to break the wheel. "
The" break the wheel "idea, when crushed with a reference to" those on the ground ", seems more democratic than Westeros's custom. As Dany follows up in Season 7, "All I want to destroy is the wheel that has rolled over to the benefit of no one but the Cersei Lannisters of the world." of Conclusion: Daenerys does not seek a new kind of power to better the lives of everyone in Westeros. member so's either, given, given's ['s196's196's196's196Season196Season196Season196Season196Season196Season196Season196Season196Season196Season196Season196Season196Season196Season196SeasonSeasonSeasonSeasonSeasonSeason7Season7Season7Season7Season7Season7Season7Season7SeasonSeason7WesterosliketheNight'sWatchelectionsandIronIslandsaboutititseems-thechildofquasi-democraticstructuresinsomeplacesinWesterosshedoesnotentertainhissuggestiontothinkaboutthefuturekingsmoots
Jon, meanwhile, does not even want the throne, what he's rightly notes might make him a better leader because he's not lusting after power for power's sake. But this means that he is going to paint a vision of the future.
Beyond Throne's 'internal world, this is the way to go about it.' Rolling Stone A Song of Ice and Fire 's treatment of power was "maybe my answer to [J.R.R.] Tolkien, who, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with. "
Lord of the Rings had a very medieval philosophy: that if the king was a good man, the land would prosper. We look at real history and it's not that simple. Tolkien can say that Aragorn became king and reigned for a hundred years, and he was wise and good. But Tolkien does not ask the question: What Aragorn's tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine? And what about all these orcs? By the end of the story, Sauron has gone but they're not in the mountains. Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little baby orcs, in their little orc cradles?
Martin's story begins in a post-revolutionary period when Robert Baratheon has already answered some of those philosophical questions. Robert was a formidable warrior, but the land did not prosper under his rule. His monetary policies thrust the crown into great debt; Targaryen's Little Targaryen in their Little Targaryen cradles.
Thrones Thrones tale, however; it's the status quo with which the story begins. The far more interesting questions, it would seem, should arise with the next ruler; That's when the theory would receive the truest test that would have watched that king (or queen!) develop for eight seasons before gaining control.
Thrones has toyed with this idea in previous seasons. Narratively, Daenerys's Meereenese mission existed to teach her (and the audience) in Jester's Theory of Conflict, in Westeros, Joffrey's assassination in Season 4. As Tommen stands over his dead brother's body, Tywin asks the young king-to-be what traits is most necessary for a good king. Tommen first guiness holiness (then a fun bit of foreshadowing for his ill-fated alliance with the High Sparrow), then justice, then strength, but Tywin negates all these ideas with examples of past kings who failed to possess these qualities. Finally, Tommen stumbles upon the answer to his grandfather's deems right: wisdom.
Is this the story's ultimate message about ruling, though? If so, make Tyrion king. (Or do not, as Sansa rightly notes in the Season 8 premiere, recent choices have sullied his reputation on that front.) But that does not seem to be the ultimate message, because Tywin is not a fully reliable narrator. Instead, he uses this educational exercise to try to make his way to the right place (Tywin himself), and of course, Tywin himself is no stranger to poor ruler: He was the hand and best King Joffrey.
What qualities and goals do you define a good sovereign in Thrones then? We have not seen one yet, as all of Aerys, Robert, Joffrey, Tommen, and Cersei exhibited numerous flaws. The ruling riddle should continue to fascinate, in a show suffused with nuance, but that complexity has been streamlined as the show approaches its final. Daughter's rewarded Gendry with a new, legitimized family name and a lordship in the Stormlands. It's a bad sign that the moment handled so sloppily. The script strangely mangled Gendry's pre-Baratheon last name, calling him "Rivers" when Crownland's bastards receive the surname "Waters" (and when Gendry specifically does not have a pre-Baratheon surname anyway), and the scene's inclusion implicitly acknowledging that Storm's End, one of the continent's most important strategic castles, having been unoccupied for several seasons with no apparent care from the rest of the kingdom. (Later, too, the episode offhandedly mentions a "new prince of Dorne"
The Last Time I mentioned Martin's relationship with Tolkien's work, which is concerned with GRRM's heterodox views of villains. Tolkien, in the hands of many Tolkien successors, he has said. "We do not need any more Dark Lords, we do not need any more," Here are the good guys, they're in white, there are the bad guys, they're in black. And so, they're really ugly, the bad guys. '"
Yet, that said," The Bad Guys "did not prevent the show from being dealt with by the Army of the Dead , In both that case and the case of endgame governance, the show seems to be simplifying a complicated, driving force behind the story.
Perhaps that assessment is premature. Maybe Sansa ends up on the Iron Throne and helps answer these broader questions, as she has displayed the most dexterity with understanding a ruler's role in caring for her subjects. And he looks like a caring and compassionate ruler compared to other contenders (even granting that to a rather low bar to clear). So you understand the disconnect between qualities as a person and qualities as a ruler. Daine's loves Jon, Sansa, unmoved, responds, "That does not mean she'll be a good queen." This line nearly matches another quote. Martin gave in that Rolling Stone About the same topic:
Thinking about Thrones on a week-to-week basis can flummox some analytical instincts , Complaints about a leak of shocking deaths in one episode seagulls more ahead of a dragon this is out of nowhere the following week, and the same might result with complains about the treatment of power. But as Season 8 has progressed, these questions have grown more and more pressing every week-especially now the great northern threat has been extinguished. They now suffocate the story, as well as the actual effects that the room is in every corner of the continent.
"The common people pray for rain, health, and a summer that never ends," Jorah tells Daenerys in Season 1. "They do not care what games the high lords play." This notion could absolve Dany and the other royals from having to even care about tax policies; a ruler's choices will not help or hurt a commoner's health or crop yield. About the importance of the titular game of thrones. But when Tyrion offers a similar thought, Episode Varys, "What is the realm? A vast continent of home to millions of people, most of whom do not care for the Iron Throne, "the Master of Whisperers retorts that rulers do matter, their choices do affect do "life-or-death consequences" for their people.
"Millions of people," Varys responds, "many of whom want the wrong person sitting on that throne. We do not know their names, but they're just as real as you and I. They deserve to live. They deserve food for their children. clearly, the script means to impress upon viewers.
If only the rest of the show were so devoted to exploring those concerns; if only the very person expressing them had anything to offer about policy specifics beyond saying the realm should choose a ruler who fits his idea of worthiness. At this point, the hope is less about which of Jon or Daenery's (or Sansa, or anyone else) power, but rather that the show makes clear why that person matters.
Disclosure: HBO is an initial investor in The Ringer.