Game Of Thrones: Analysis of ADWD
Jan. 9th, 2014 09:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shipperxFollowed a link today to a rather interesting analysis of Game of Thrones "A Dance with Dragons."
Having been around fandoms longer than I care to think about, I've long since learned to look at 'theories' with great skepticism. It's long been my experience that fans overthink things and that inevitably brings disappointment with the way that things actually go down. I mean, I love looking at the big picture and the metaphors. It often gives you a better view of things and makes certain parts of stories click for you. Reading this analysis of "A Dance with Dragons" make me appreciate some parts of it more than I did when reading it. While I'm skeptical of theories, I found some of this guy's analysis persuasive.
And before the cut, I will say that what I'm going to say is only the most mildly spoilery. Basically, 99.5% of the people will be totally unsurprised thatDany, Tyrion, and Jon Snow are alive long enough to have major character arcs in Book V. Everything else could be said about exactly where the TV Show is now and is more a discussion of the series as a whole. No specific events in ADWD (Or A Feast for Crows, or even the second half of A Storm of Swords {that is stuff that'll happen in Season 4) will be revealed. It's basically discussion of characters, long standing prophecy in the novels, and recurring themes throughout the series.
Anyway...
Reading this guy's analysis of Dany's arc in ADWD was helpful. I mean, I knew that there was an arc, but I was completely in the bandwagon with the folks who generally found her plot to be more of a slow slog than I wanted. And, to be perfectly honest, her last chapter left me with head-scratching WTF?It was a bit like my brain blinked out, refusing to track it because I kept getting distracted by the WTH. This guy has a convincing "huh" explanation. To the point that, it sort of reminds me of Season 6 Buffy the Vampire Slayer." It's more interesting investigating the intention and ambition of Season 6 than what actually happened because I think that the writer's overreached. The execution wasn't as good as it would have needed to have been to have actually pulled everything off, but there's a ton of THERE there. It remains why Season 6, for all of it flaws, is interesting to explore in a ton of fannish ways. This ADWD analysis seems to point to something similar to me. Reading his analysis, He convinced me of -- if not all his theories -- the ambition.
From the beginning of Game of Thrones, my feeling is that GRRM is dissecting a range of leaders and various ways to lead. There are an array of people seeking and wielding power, and many of the primary protagonists get some opportunity to rule (there are also a host of characters who have to work without power bases). I've always been far more convinced of this type of analysis of GOT than the one you often see that he's all about subverting tropes. I don't actually think that Martin is specifically setting out to subvert tropes. I mean, he does, but it isn't for the sake of simply subverting them. I think he's exploring power and deconstructing different forms of it and this sort of deconstruction inevitably leads to at least some subversion of tropes because any analysis needs to look at the trope from more sides than just the superficial one. Subversion is the result rather than the motivating purpose of it.
So you've got your Ned Starks, your Tywin Lannisters, etc. and so on. We know their strengths and their weaknesses. And we see what happens when they steer the boat.
I'm also convinced of the blogger's claim that the overall arc of the series as a whole is strongly anti-war. It's rather lost, of course, in all of the brutal violence. It's a bit like the conundrum presented to the producers of The Hunger Games movies. How do you make a movie about sensationalizing violence when you're making a movie... sensationalizing violence? It's a tightrope that's easy to fall from. Similarly, how do you make an anti-war series that is in fact brutally cruel and violent war, war, and more war. Still, as overbearingly awful as the unending violence of it is... I think we're supposed to see it as overbearing, awful, unending, and unendurable. That's... sort of the point. As far back as Book I/Season I there's a line about the "people" want a harvest and safety, they don't actually CARE about the noble's 'game of thrones' they just suffer because of it.
So you have a series that investigates not only leadership, but war. Sometimes wars are waged for hubris. Sometimes for vengeance. And, sometimes, you can sympathize in why a 'good man' goes to war. But... war is terrible. Even a good man can lead to unendurable consequences. Ned Stark: a good man, but bejeebus, look at the fall-out from his shot at rule.
Okay, so back to A Dance with Dragons. There is the repeated line in the series that "The Dragon has Three Heads" with lots of speculation about who those 'dragons' are. And while the blogger never proposes the theory, reading what he does say convinces me that in the end, those three "dragons" are going to be Dany, Tyrion, and Jon Snow. I'm NOT basing that speculation on any evidence in the text. I'm not basing it on the oft repeated theory that Jon is the son of Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark. I'm not defending any 'lame twist' making Tyrion a secret Targ. I'm not looking for the prosaic plot bits.
I'm looking at it thematically.
Dragons' only practical use is war. They are war (and the Others in the North are consequences of war. The more the realm of man deteriorates, the more the army of death approaches). And, it's the Houses of Westeros that wage the wars on which the series is based (and they will destroyed by them or will make the peace). Targaryens, Lannisters, and Starks are the epicenter. Yes, there are also the Baratheons, the Tyrells, the Greyjoys, the Martells, etc. But the epicenter of this shit storm of war-- the three heads of the dragons -- are the Targs, the Lannisters, and the Starks. So, yeah, Dany, Tyrion, and Jon (whatever their antecedents) are three heads of the dragon. Whatever the climax of this story is meant to be, they will be crucial catalysts, for good or ill.
The blogger's analysis of ADWD convinces me that it's very likely to be ill. For one or two at least. Maybe not straight to the very end. Maybe there will be a reversal... or maybe not. This I do not know. They could make peace in the end. Or maybe they make it all come down in tragedy (which would fit Dany's vision in the House of the Undying in the show. In the show she finds the great hall, with the iron throne, in ruin. The ceiling is burned through (dragon fire) and is being snowed upon. So the fall of Westeros, is possible). Maybe others will have to make peace. Or maybe it will be the fall of the realm of men (Children of the Forest, rejoice). I'm not positing what the end will look like. But I am somewhat convinced to a degree by the argument the blogger had about aspects of Dany, Tyrion, and Jon.
His thought was that Dany has been internally at war with her own two sides. The Targaryen conqueror, bringer of fire and blood and also her Mherysa(sp) aka Mother/savior side. Long before ADWD, and before I read this analysis, I thought that the series had clearly shown that Dany's strength is as conqueror. Cities tremble before her and fall in her wake. Her time actually ruling is...well... she has a way to go there. So, can she? Does she really want to? I personally have been convinced for a while that for good or ill, it will be her role as conqueror that'll be pivotal. It could be in service of driving back the Others (dragons could be useful there) but reading this guy made me now seriously consider whether it will be in service of bringing yet more war to an already war-torn Westoros, the fatal last straw that destroyed the empire, allowing the final entrance of the army ofOthers death. Dany's Achille's heel is her taste for 'fire and blood'
(And I may have to text my niece that she may have been right after all. Since politics is quite forbidden for holiday discussions because it can get ugly. And none of us actually disagrees religiously (we're all about equally heretical). The spirited debates around our holiday dining tables was dominated quite heavily by GOT. Heh. It was practically like fandom. We all have our theories. Someone was constantly yelling "Spoilers!" and the book readers were rolling their eyes and giggling behind their hands. Book Readers: My younger nephew, my sister, myself. Show Only (Up to date): My older nephew. Show Only: (Up to Season 2) my niece. Show Only (season 1): My brother-in-law. My mom... actually has seen all the seasons, but I have the strong impression that it's all a haze of incomprehensible violence in her opinion. Anyway, my niece was firmly convinced that Dany will eventually go Targ crazy and become eeeeeeeeeeevil. My sis and myself argued that Dany will end up saving Westeros from the Others. But... I can't say that I'm as convinced of this theory today as I was when I made it at the Christmas dinner table. I think there may be a not insubstantial risk of Dany unleashing the dragons of war in a way that could doom Westeros once and far all.
If GRRM actually is anti-war, then she's going to have to turn AWAY from her Achilles heel for "fire and blood" to overcome all obstacles. CAN Dany make peace?
Then there is Tyrion. Way back in Book 1/Season 1 you would think he could be a potential path for peace. He wasn't particularly blood thirsty. In fact, as the blogger pointed out, when Tyrion actually gained power as Hand in Book II, someone asked him what he would bring to King's Landing and he says "justice." Justice. And, unlike Ned, he brought a lot of practicality. And the blogger pointed out how 'practicality' began to trump 'justice'. And looking at Tyrion's arc as a whole up to ADWD, that "justice" thing sort of leaps out. Yeah...erm...I'm thinking by ADWD, "practicality" has gotten the upper hand. And, I am also convinced by the blogger's point about, despite all of Tyrion's issues with his father (hoo-boy the issues), issues that form Tyrion's Achilles heel (Tyrion is NEVER going to get the approval from Tywin that he wanted. He will NEVER get that respect. And, well, we have Tysha as an example of how Tywin is never going to be a path to cure Tyrion's inner man-child's longing to be loved)... anyway, despite all of Tyrion's issues with Tywin, I think it is arguable that Tyrion has learned from Tywin that, practically speaking, you do not do things half-done. Practically speaking, tactically speaking, it does make tactical sense to leave no Reynes in Castamere. So if Tyrion's mind were to turn toward... hm... a different embittered KIND of "justice".... well if military might (which is what Dany possesses with dragons) leads to war, political shrewdness/practicality can also easily bring itself into war. And, as the Reynes and Mad King learned, practical shrewdness in war can leave scorched earth. Like Dany's greatest strength is also her greatest weakness, the same is true for Tyrion.
And that leaves Jon Snow. A "good man". A gosh-darn-it, true blue out and out hero. The kind that rushes into danger, who saves the girl, who doesn't leave a man behind. He's a GOOD GUY! He is! ... But I think back to Ned Stark, another 'good man' and...well... here Westeros is, in a bloody war that came because Ned's 'honor' wasn't always...er...practical.
Jon has and does make choices. He does so for good reasons, at least morally defensible ones. But a 'good many' can find moral justification for going to war. And even a moral war is, in fact, war. At what point is the fall-out worse than the injustice being avenged. Think of Jon's brother Rob. Did we cheer when became "King of the North"? Maybe with a bit of "oh shit..." foreboding. But, darnit, you can understand why the North went to war. But, looking at "The North" now... would Robb have been better served making a peace with the loathesome Lannisters? Would his family have been better off? Would his SUBJECTS have been better off?
Good men can and do go to war all the time. But...how many times can we honestly say what was 'won' was worth the price that's exacted?
And then there is magic and prophecy. We have Melisendre. Stannis is (reportedly) a "good man" who is being directed by the flattery of featuring in a prophecy. Is Jon, like Angel from AtS, at all susceptible to the allure of being the very most special snowflake HERO of them all if that were presented to him? (It hasn't been...yet. But what if it were?) Is being the guy who saves the North, his family, his friends enough of a lure to get him to go to war, distracting him when it could be the very most fatal of distractions? Is it even a 'distraction' at this point because, well, if you've read ADWD and know his story there, well... either it is what it is, or convincing him of 'magic' won't be all that tough of a sell.
So, yeah, I think there could easily be a fairly good metaphorical case for these particular protagonists being the "dragons" (metaphorical) three heads, and what choices they ultimately make being pivot points for either reconciliation or tragedy. No idea which.
I don't know whether the end game is "rocks fall, everyone dies" or "and the 'three dragons' make a peace" or "the three protagonists -- unwillingly -- become what turns out to be the villain and it's the SECONDARY characters who will be the ones who have to bring about peace (in which case, Jaime Lannister, Sansa Stark, Theon and/or Asha Greyjoy, the Martells, or the Tyrells will have to broker a peace). I don't know.
And as a digression, the analysis this guy had of Dany, Tyrion and Jon made me look at Arya's story differently. Maybe Arya's story really shouldn't turn the way that I wished it would. Maybe her story isn't as dark as I feared? Either that or it's darker. Arya's story has had her assuming so many identities. Arya, Arry 'the boy'... etc. Time and again she has to let go of "Arya Stark" and become someone else. I had been rooting for the day that she could reclaim her identity, but Arya wants not justice but VENGEANCE (and who the hell could blame her?) But if the theory of peace being the only way to avert the Army of Death, vengeance is something to let go of, even if it means letting go of Arya Stark (which makes it interesting for several reasons that Sandor Clegane is her travelling companion this season.)
Anyway, here is a link to the first of his essays on the character arcs of A Dance with Dragons.
Having been around fandoms longer than I care to think about, I've long since learned to look at 'theories' with great skepticism. It's long been my experience that fans overthink things and that inevitably brings disappointment with the way that things actually go down. I mean, I love looking at the big picture and the metaphors. It often gives you a better view of things and makes certain parts of stories click for you. Reading this analysis of "A Dance with Dragons" make me appreciate some parts of it more than I did when reading it. While I'm skeptical of theories, I found some of this guy's analysis persuasive.
And before the cut, I will say that what I'm going to say is only the most mildly spoilery. Basically, 99.5% of the people will be totally unsurprised that
Anyway...
Reading this guy's analysis of Dany's arc in ADWD was helpful. I mean, I knew that there was an arc, but I was completely in the bandwagon with the folks who generally found her plot to be more of a slow slog than I wanted. And, to be perfectly honest, her last chapter left me with head-scratching WTF?It was a bit like my brain blinked out, refusing to track it because I kept getting distracted by the WTH. This guy has a convincing "huh" explanation. To the point that, it sort of reminds me of Season 6 Buffy the Vampire Slayer." It's more interesting investigating the intention and ambition of Season 6 than what actually happened because I think that the writer's overreached. The execution wasn't as good as it would have needed to have been to have actually pulled everything off, but there's a ton of THERE there. It remains why Season 6, for all of it flaws, is interesting to explore in a ton of fannish ways. This ADWD analysis seems to point to something similar to me. Reading his analysis, He convinced me of -- if not all his theories -- the ambition.
From the beginning of Game of Thrones, my feeling is that GRRM is dissecting a range of leaders and various ways to lead. There are an array of people seeking and wielding power, and many of the primary protagonists get some opportunity to rule (there are also a host of characters who have to work without power bases). I've always been far more convinced of this type of analysis of GOT than the one you often see that he's all about subverting tropes. I don't actually think that Martin is specifically setting out to subvert tropes. I mean, he does, but it isn't for the sake of simply subverting them. I think he's exploring power and deconstructing different forms of it and this sort of deconstruction inevitably leads to at least some subversion of tropes because any analysis needs to look at the trope from more sides than just the superficial one. Subversion is the result rather than the motivating purpose of it.
So you've got your Ned Starks, your Tywin Lannisters, etc. and so on. We know their strengths and their weaknesses. And we see what happens when they steer the boat.
I'm also convinced of the blogger's claim that the overall arc of the series as a whole is strongly anti-war. It's rather lost, of course, in all of the brutal violence. It's a bit like the conundrum presented to the producers of The Hunger Games movies. How do you make a movie about sensationalizing violence when you're making a movie... sensationalizing violence? It's a tightrope that's easy to fall from. Similarly, how do you make an anti-war series that is in fact brutally cruel and violent war, war, and more war. Still, as overbearingly awful as the unending violence of it is... I think we're supposed to see it as overbearing, awful, unending, and unendurable. That's... sort of the point. As far back as Book I/Season I there's a line about the "people" want a harvest and safety, they don't actually CARE about the noble's 'game of thrones' they just suffer because of it.
So you have a series that investigates not only leadership, but war. Sometimes wars are waged for hubris. Sometimes for vengeance. And, sometimes, you can sympathize in why a 'good man' goes to war. But... war is terrible. Even a good man can lead to unendurable consequences. Ned Stark: a good man, but bejeebus, look at the fall-out from his shot at rule.
Okay, so back to A Dance with Dragons. There is the repeated line in the series that "The Dragon has Three Heads" with lots of speculation about who those 'dragons' are. And while the blogger never proposes the theory, reading what he does say convinces me that in the end, those three "dragons" are going to be Dany, Tyrion, and Jon Snow. I'm NOT basing that speculation on any evidence in the text. I'm not basing it on the oft repeated theory that Jon is the son of Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark. I'm not defending any 'lame twist' making Tyrion a secret Targ. I'm not looking for the prosaic plot bits.
I'm looking at it thematically.
Dragons' only practical use is war. They are war (and the Others in the North are consequences of war. The more the realm of man deteriorates, the more the army of death approaches). And, it's the Houses of Westeros that wage the wars on which the series is based (and they will destroyed by them or will make the peace). Targaryens, Lannisters, and Starks are the epicenter. Yes, there are also the Baratheons, the Tyrells, the Greyjoys, the Martells, etc. But the epicenter of this shit storm of war-- the three heads of the dragons -- are the Targs, the Lannisters, and the Starks. So, yeah, Dany, Tyrion, and Jon (whatever their antecedents) are three heads of the dragon. Whatever the climax of this story is meant to be, they will be crucial catalysts, for good or ill.
The blogger's analysis of ADWD convinces me that it's very likely to be ill. For one or two at least. Maybe not straight to the very end. Maybe there will be a reversal... or maybe not. This I do not know. They could make peace in the end. Or maybe they make it all come down in tragedy (which would fit Dany's vision in the House of the Undying in the show. In the show she finds the great hall, with the iron throne, in ruin. The ceiling is burned through (dragon fire) and is being snowed upon. So the fall of Westeros, is possible). Maybe others will have to make peace. Or maybe it will be the fall of the realm of men (Children of the Forest, rejoice). I'm not positing what the end will look like. But I am somewhat convinced to a degree by the argument the blogger had about aspects of Dany, Tyrion, and Jon.
His thought was that Dany has been internally at war with her own two sides. The Targaryen conqueror, bringer of fire and blood and also her Mherysa(sp) aka Mother/savior side. Long before ADWD, and before I read this analysis, I thought that the series had clearly shown that Dany's strength is as conqueror. Cities tremble before her and fall in her wake. Her time actually ruling is...well... she has a way to go there. So, can she? Does she really want to? I personally have been convinced for a while that for good or ill, it will be her role as conqueror that'll be pivotal. It could be in service of driving back the Others (dragons could be useful there) but reading this guy made me now seriously consider whether it will be in service of bringing yet more war to an already war-torn Westoros, the fatal last straw that destroyed the empire, allowing the final entrance of the army of
(And I may have to text my niece that she may have been right after all. Since politics is quite forbidden for holiday discussions because it can get ugly. And none of us actually disagrees religiously (we're all about equally heretical). The spirited debates around our holiday dining tables was dominated quite heavily by GOT. Heh. It was practically like fandom. We all have our theories. Someone was constantly yelling "Spoilers!" and the book readers were rolling their eyes and giggling behind their hands. Book Readers: My younger nephew, my sister, myself. Show Only (Up to date): My older nephew. Show Only: (Up to Season 2) my niece. Show Only (season 1): My brother-in-law. My mom... actually has seen all the seasons, but I have the strong impression that it's all a haze of incomprehensible violence in her opinion. Anyway, my niece was firmly convinced that Dany will eventually go Targ crazy and become eeeeeeeeeeevil. My sis and myself argued that Dany will end up saving Westeros from the Others. But... I can't say that I'm as convinced of this theory today as I was when I made it at the Christmas dinner table. I think there may be a not insubstantial risk of Dany unleashing the dragons of war in a way that could doom Westeros once and far all.
If GRRM actually is anti-war, then she's going to have to turn AWAY from her Achilles heel for "fire and blood" to overcome all obstacles. CAN Dany make peace?
Then there is Tyrion. Way back in Book 1/Season 1 you would think he could be a potential path for peace. He wasn't particularly blood thirsty. In fact, as the blogger pointed out, when Tyrion actually gained power as Hand in Book II, someone asked him what he would bring to King's Landing and he says "justice." Justice. And, unlike Ned, he brought a lot of practicality. And the blogger pointed out how 'practicality' began to trump 'justice'. And looking at Tyrion's arc as a whole up to ADWD, that "justice" thing sort of leaps out. Yeah...erm...I'm thinking by ADWD, "practicality" has gotten the upper hand. And, I am also convinced by the blogger's point about, despite all of Tyrion's issues with his father (hoo-boy the issues), issues that form Tyrion's Achilles heel (Tyrion is NEVER going to get the approval from Tywin that he wanted. He will NEVER get that respect. And, well, we have Tysha as an example of how Tywin is never going to be a path to cure Tyrion's inner man-child's longing to be loved)... anyway, despite all of Tyrion's issues with Tywin, I think it is arguable that Tyrion has learned from Tywin that, practically speaking, you do not do things half-done. Practically speaking, tactically speaking, it does make tactical sense to leave no Reynes in Castamere. So if Tyrion's mind were to turn toward... hm... a different embittered KIND of "justice".... well if military might (which is what Dany possesses with dragons) leads to war, political shrewdness/practicality can also easily bring itself into war. And, as the Reynes and Mad King learned, practical shrewdness in war can leave scorched earth. Like Dany's greatest strength is also her greatest weakness, the same is true for Tyrion.
And that leaves Jon Snow. A "good man". A gosh-darn-it, true blue out and out hero. The kind that rushes into danger, who saves the girl, who doesn't leave a man behind. He's a GOOD GUY! He is! ... But I think back to Ned Stark, another 'good man' and...well... here Westeros is, in a bloody war that came because Ned's 'honor' wasn't always...er...practical.
Jon has and does make choices. He does so for good reasons, at least morally defensible ones. But a 'good many' can find moral justification for going to war. And even a moral war is, in fact, war. At what point is the fall-out worse than the injustice being avenged. Think of Jon's brother Rob. Did we cheer when became "King of the North"? Maybe with a bit of "oh shit..." foreboding. But, darnit, you can understand why the North went to war. But, looking at "The North" now... would Robb have been better served making a peace with the loathesome Lannisters? Would his family have been better off? Would his SUBJECTS have been better off?
Good men can and do go to war all the time. But...how many times can we honestly say what was 'won' was worth the price that's exacted?
And then there is magic and prophecy. We have Melisendre. Stannis is (reportedly) a "good man" who is being directed by the flattery of featuring in a prophecy. Is Jon, like Angel from AtS, at all susceptible to the allure of being the very most special snowflake HERO of them all if that were presented to him? (It hasn't been...yet. But what if it were?) Is being the guy who saves the North, his family, his friends enough of a lure to get him to go to war, distracting him when it could be the very most fatal of distractions? Is it even a 'distraction' at this point because, well, if you've read ADWD and know his story there, well... either it is what it is, or convincing him of 'magic' won't be all that tough of a sell.
So, yeah, I think there could easily be a fairly good metaphorical case for these particular protagonists being the "dragons" (metaphorical) three heads, and what choices they ultimately make being pivot points for either reconciliation or tragedy. No idea which.
I don't know whether the end game is "rocks fall, everyone dies" or "and the 'three dragons' make a peace" or "the three protagonists -- unwillingly -- become what turns out to be the villain and it's the SECONDARY characters who will be the ones who have to bring about peace (in which case, Jaime Lannister, Sansa Stark, Theon and/or Asha Greyjoy, the Martells, or the Tyrells will have to broker a peace). I don't know.
And as a digression, the analysis this guy had of Dany, Tyrion and Jon made me look at Arya's story differently. Maybe Arya's story really shouldn't turn the way that I wished it would. Maybe her story isn't as dark as I feared? Either that or it's darker. Arya's story has had her assuming so many identities. Arya, Arry 'the boy'... etc. Time and again she has to let go of "Arya Stark" and become someone else. I had been rooting for the day that she could reclaim her identity, but Arya wants not justice but VENGEANCE (and who the hell could blame her?) But if the theory of peace being the only way to avert the Army of Death, vengeance is something to let go of, even if it means letting go of Arya Stark (which makes it interesting for several reasons that Sandor Clegane is her travelling companion this season.)
Anyway, here is a link to the first of his essays on the character arcs of A Dance with Dragons.
