Grit, Realism, and the Message of Game of Thrones

The Song of Ice and Fire franchise (both books and TV show) has a definite appeal. It creates a rich fantastic pseudo-medieval world. While Martin has claimed it strives for “gritty realism” and rampant misogyny, violence, and sexual assault have been justified by “realism,” it is an inescapable truth that the franchise is not realistic. Both the books and the TV show opens with spirits of winter murdering wildlings, and then members of the night’s watch (as then reanimating the corpses). Dragons were used to conquer and unite Westeros. Summer and winter are much longer and more variable in length than the seasons of Earth, and can go on for years and years. People return from the dead, and yet, misogyny, sexual assault, and gratuitous violence are included for the sake of “realism.” While I disagree that the “grit” of Game of Thrones needs to be so sensationalized to be “realistic,” and have some doubts as to the “realism” in the first place, I believe there is a reason for Game of Throne’s grit.

Martin said that he wants fantasy with more “grit,” as he admits that it is fantasy, an argument for “realism” would hardly apply. However, the work is cynical and explores human depravity, especially as it ascertains to power. People who seek power much sacrifice morality, if they are to be successful, and even then, power is unfulfilling, and perilous to maintain. To me, the fantastic backdrop to a tale of political intrigue, posits that even if you can change everything else, you can’t change human nature, and human nature is far from unambiguously good. In the books at least (having only seen the one episode of the show, I can’t speak for it), most characters have clear motivations that drive them, sometimes to do terrible things. The book narrates from all sides of the conflict, and makes it clear that there isn’t an unambiguously good side, and even good sides that could easily be natural allies fail to make peace or find common ground. People stick to principles even when in the wrong, or abandon them when in the right. I believe it’s a commentary on humanity and is very much applicable to the present. In our modern world-view, violence is thought to be a more accepted method of resolving political disputes in the Middle Ages than today, allowing the dark and violent aspect of humanity George Martin wants to portray to be more easily accessible.

An Argument for the Use of Fantasy in The Two Towers

In Monday night’s discussion there was, for the most part, a general agreement that the Two Towers is a better film and story than some of the other movies we watched in the last few weeks, like First Knight and King Arthur. I’d like to argue that one of the reasons that is the case is the element of fantasy throughout Tolkien’s work, and within Peter Jackson’s portrayal of The Two Towers.

We determined Monday night that The Two Towers, while it is not placed in a real historical setting, contains many medieval elements within the fictional world of Middle Earth. From what I’ve observed throughout this class, medievalisms seem to be most effective in a fantastical setting, where the constraints and biases of history don’t get in the way of the themes that writers and directors try to convey. I thought The Buried Giant, for example, was very successful in creating a commentary on war crimes and memory through using the magical elements of the mist and the dragon that caused it within an Arthurian setting. The magic in this instance made the abstract and difficult concept of the memory of war crimes in a recovering society more tangible and believable than it would be in some real-life situations.

First Knight and King Arthur eliminated the magical elements of the Arthurian legends in an attempt to make the stories more believable and accessible. In my opinion though, the opposite is the case.  By putting the story in an historical setting and trying to incorporate realism, historical anachronisms get in the way of the medieval themes and their purposes. In that sense the medievalisms in The Two Towers are more believable than in First Knight and King Arthur, as the question of historical accuracy is irrelevant within a fictional world.

Magic and fantasy allow for a complex story without the barriers of historical settings. An audience is more likely to consider environmental destruction, for instance, when trees can walk, talk, and fight. The same is true for some of the movie’s more medieval elements, like Anglo-Saxon influences in depictions of camaraderie and loyalty throughout The Two Towers. Pritha Kundu describes in her article “The Anglo-Saxon War Culture and The Lord of the Rings” how Sam and Frodo’s relationship is similar to Wiglaf and Beowulf’s homosocial bond in Beowulf. Kundu mentions how Sam’s willingness to physically carry the ring for Frodo later in The Lord of the Rings proves Sam’s moral heroism. I would also say that the magical element of the ring’s emotional burden on Frodo further shows the less tangible support that Sam offers him–the emotional support and bond of loyalty and friendship. Thus the element of fantasy within The Two Towers and other works containing medievalisms is an effective tool in conveying layers of meaning. To remove fantasy, like in King Arthur and First Knight, also removes an element that makes the works more accessible for its audience.