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.

Memory Loss & Morality: The Buried Giant

This week in class we discussed the myriad themes in the novel The Buried Giant by Kazuo Ishiguro, and the questions that arose from those themes. Among other things, we discussed morality, trauma, and motives. Tying these themes together was a question regarding the ethicality of King Arthur’s decision to have Merlin cast a memory loss spell over the English and Saxon people. 

//giphy.com/embed/1GA7jxC6Kzza0

This spell, which caused both parties to forget their differences and history of conflict, was effective in securing peace but had other negative consequences. This was very interesting to me, as well as to the class, and our interest in the matter was reflected by the significant amount of time we spent discussing our varying opinions on Arthur’s actions. 

While thinking about this and trying to formulate my own opinion, I was initially unable to reach a conclusion. After continued consideration, however, I found it necessary to engage in the debate using a different approach. Instead of considering Arthur’s actions at face value as purely moral or immoral, I realized that it was necessary to think about his decision in terms of underlying motivations. While he ostensibly directed Merlin to cast the spell in order to affect peace between the two warring parties, I began to wonder if Arthur did so simply in order to mask his own guilt in the situation. He was the one responsible for the war between Saxons and Britons, as his orders directly led to the gratuitously brutal attack on the Saxon village, which in turn precipitated retaliation and the subsequent war that followed. By all appearances, Arthur is the one at fault for the whole situation. 

(Is King Arthur, shown above, as brave and noble as we have been led to believe?)

Did he simply want Merlin to cast a memory loss spell in order to hide his own culpability? In this case, the spell would surely be considered immoral and unethical. Or, on the other hand, were his intentions, as we might expect of King Arthur, nobler? What are your opinions are on this matter? What do you think was the true motivation behind Arthur’s decision to order Merlin to cast his spell? Depending on your opinion, was doing so an ethical thing to do? If so, why? If not, why?