This week in the Game of Thrones re-watch project, I watched season 2, episodes 4-6. In episode 4, there is an interesting meeting that takes place between the surviving Baratheon brothers in which they each provide clues relating to their respective thoughts on political governance. Considering that here in the U.S. we are currently in the midst of an battle for the white house that is incredibly polarized, I thought it might be interesting to look at the largely disparate views of Stannis and Renly (and perhaps provide a few comparisons to the current U.S. political climate).


Who is next in line for the Iron Throne?


When Stannis and Renly have their cliff-side meeting, each appears to be placing himself within a greater non-diegetic political context. We have Stannis who favors a more traditional climate by which primogeniture dictates his succession. Renly on the other hand is banking on his own popularity among the masses as an indicator that he would be a much more effective and loved leader of the seven kingdoms.

Renly's claim to the throne breaks with the Westrosi tradition that favors a distinct line of procession and hints at a move toward a more democratic process by which the people have a voice in who will ascend to a ruling position. He believes that he is the right man for the job because he is beloved by his people. Renly even makes a point of stating, "No one wants [Stannis] for their king" and even elaborates further, (referring to his men) "the men holding those bolts of cloth will make me king" ("Garden of Bones"). Clearly Renly's second statement is largely a reference to these men's effort in a war against Stannis, but by using it as a follow up to his claim that Stannis is not a king that the people would want, he is also utlizing his comment to elevate the importance of the will of the people. We realize by the next episode that the will of the people will not be honored, but this does demonstrate the starkly different political ideas that exits between Stannis and Renly.


Of course, it would seem that the laws of primogeniture  should, in some ways invalidate Renley's claim to the iron throne anyway. After all, he is the youngest of the Baratheon brothers and in a paradigm that follows the rules of primogeniture, one's birth order is highly consequential to the process of making determinations such as the next in line to be king. However, the Baratheon's have already proven that, strictly speaking, being lucky enough to fall in line by virtue of birth is not the only means of attaining the throne.



King Robert's "ascension" to the throne, for example, was a clear deviation from the more accepted paradigm in that he usurped the Mad King, Aerys Targeryen, after organizing a rebellion. Of course, the fact that Robert had no birth right to the throne, only gaining it by force, and that Joffrey's occupation is (rightly) being questioned because he is suspected of being the bastard result of an incestuous relationship between Cersei and Jamie Lannister, means that the process of gaining the throne and who has actual succession rights is clearly very nebulous at the moment (thus the intriguing nature of the show).




A clashing of Politics

In addition to the difference in both Stannis and Renly's positions concerning ascension to the throne, these two characters seem to be nodding at a more modern clash in politics concerning religion and personal freedoms.



Stannis has begun following The Lord of Light and this piece of the story becomes one of the highlights in his attempt to gain the iron throne. In fact, Mellisandre (whose nickname I can finally reveal as "The Vagina Monster Mama") is a large influence on Stannis and the way that he operates, a circumstance that would likely continue if he were to gain the throne. Stannis has even gone so far as to change his traditional Baratheon sigil to include the "fiery heart of the lord of the light." In the video clip above, Renly points out the glaring difference between their banners even though they are technically members from the same house. Stannis, from a modern perspective can be viewed as resembling (to a degree) certain members of the far right whose strict religious views seem to dictate (at least some of) their political positions.

Renly on the other hand is a more progressive figure who eschews the prescribed roles of his gender. Although he is not openly gay, this fact really does not appear to be much of a secret among the court. Because of Renly's character traits being set up in direct opposition to Stannis, Renly's character can be interpreted as a figure of the progressive left. Of course, in a story-world that is far removed from the modern era, Renly's progressive agenda barely stands a chance against the vitriolic right of center ways of Westeros and, thus, Renly is literally killed by Stannis' religion.

This blog is a part of a larger project associated with scholarsofthethrone.com. Visit our site for more information.

Choosing what to write about this week was a particularly daunting task. So much happens in the first three episodes of season two. New characters are introduced, old characters continue to act in sketchy manners, plots thicken, etc.



After viewing these episodes twice, I felt overwhelmed when attempting to find some common thread upon which to build this week's blog. There is SO MUCH going on! It was not until stepping away from GoT to enjoy the mid-season premier of another of my television obsessions, The Walking Dead, that I was able to see a natural talking point regarding the first three episodes of season two. It all comes down to children. In times of extreme discord, children are highlighted as being particularly under threat while simultaneously highlighting their ability to cause threats to others.

Children, from a more general perspective (outside of the GoT narrative world) are more often held up as pillars of innocence and, as individuals that represent the future of the world, are often viewed as entities in need of protection. This paradigm seems, to a degree, to be turned on its head in Westeros (and in other narratives that center on destabilization). Here I would like to take a look at the way children are being used in the narrative world of Game of Thrones.

Kids can be so cruel:

Okay, so not ALL children in Westeros lack innocence. Tommen, for example seems to have some redeeming qualities... However, if you have been following along on this re-watch project, we have now seen the degree to which "Joffrey the Terrible" is willing to bend to demonstrate his absolute cruelty. Obviously Joffrey beheaded Ned last season, but his cruelty was particularly pronounced in these first episodes of season two. For example, Joffrey is quite literally out to up his body count; holding death matches atop his castle and wineboarding Ser Dontos purely for his own amusement. He also commands his army to hunt down the illegitimate children of Robert Baratheon to have them killed. Although reprehensible, I, on some levels, can understand Joffrey's stand on Ned Stark and even his murder of Robert's bastard children. Ned and Robert's bastard children posed a real threat to his position on the throne. His roof-top battles and the wine boarding of Ser Dontos, on the other hand, were nothing more than Joffrey exercising power just for the sake of exercising power.



Children who threaten the order of all things:

Children, in the realm of Westeros are viewed as particularly important pawns in determining the outcome of the unrest in Westeros. Laws of primogeniture* rule the land and this has very particular implications regarding the way in which children are able to carry influence over the state of Westeros. Therefore, now that the validity of Joffrey's claim to the throne is being called into question, male children (even those who are illegitimate) of Robert Baratheon are suddenly a threat to Joffrey's position. Even Robert Baratheon's Brothers understand the value of children, which is why both Margaery Tyrell and Melisandre are so intent on extending the Baratheon line through Renly and Stannis respectively. If it is found that Robert has no heirs and one of Robert's brothers usurp Joffrey, they will eventually need an heir to ensure the throne remains in Baratheon hands.



Children as pawns:

Children are being used as leverage quite a bit already this season. We have Craster, who is sacrificing his male children to the White Walkers in exchange for safety. Of course, for Craster, this just means he has less competition for the attention of the ladies within the incestuous family structure he has created.

This blog is a part of a larger project associated with scholarsofthethrone.com. Visit our site for more information.

Ned, Cersei, and Foucault

This week the Scholars of the Throne took on the last for episodes of Game of Thrones, Season 1 (7-10). Upon re-watching these episodes, I could not help but think about all the ways that Ned Stark could have approached "the game" differently, potentially leading to a different set of results (i.e. keeping his head and protecting his family).



In exploring ideas about Ned, I could not help but think about Michel Foucault. Foucault had really interesting thoughts on power and I think his ideas shed a lot of light on the power dynamics at play in GoT. Foucault believes that "power is not something that is acquired, seized, or shared, something that one holds on to or allows to slip away; power is exercised from innumerable points, in the interplay of non egalitarian and mobile relations" (Foucault 94). Many of the characters in GoT participate in some form of this complex power dynamic. The potential  to exercise power is everywhere and exists with everyone in this series. For some characters this exercising of power is physical in nature  (e.g. The Mountain, Bronn, etc.) but for many, power is exercised via mental maneuvering (quite literally playing politics) and these particular power plays are largely dependent upon what certain characters know, when they know it, and how (and when) they use that knowledge.



It is here that I would, again like to return to Foucault, who understood that knowledge and power are interrelated. Those who have or gain knowledge gain the potential to exert power over those who lack knowledge. Similarly, divulging knowledge (or confessing) one's knowledge can negatively affect one's ability to exercise power. I would also contend that choosing when to divulge knowledge can also be seen as an exercising of power but choosing to divulge at the wrong time can shift power out of one's favor.


For Ned Stark, I am of the opinion that his fate becomes (mostly) sealed in the moment that he confesses to Cersei that he "know[s] the truth Jon Arryn died for" ("You Win or You Die"). Ned confesses this revelation to Cersei as a means of honoring his own integrity. Ned wants to allow Cersei a chance to escape the kingdom before he reveals her indiscretions to King Robert, a revelation that would undoubtedly cause Robert to condemn her (and possibly her progeny) to death. However, Ned unwittingly gives Cersei the upper hand by revealing his knowledge of her children's paternal origins. Although Ned has given her the chance to escape, she seems to disregard his advice and stays put because she understands that this move has shifted the power dynamic in her favor. Although the passing of time in the television series (and even the novels) is not entirely straight-forward, the novel indicates that there has been some amount of time between Ned's meeting with Cersei and Robert's return from his hunting trip, stating Cersei "had lingered too long already" after being warned of Ned's information and his intention to reveal it to Robert (Martin 423).

Of course, it is heavily implied, and in the book made quite explicit, that Robert was never meant to survive the hunting trip, but had Ned chose to stay quiet about his revelation regarding Cersei's children until Robert's return or at least acted on Robert's behalf and had Cersei (and the children) held under suspicion of her crime, he may have been able to use this knowledge to more adequately exercise power over the situation. The fact that Ned revealed his hand too early and to Cersei, no less, ultimately undermined his ability to exercise power. Instead, by virtue of revealing knowledge to Cersei, Ned unwittingly allowed her to arrange her own exercising of power over Ned and the court by seating Joffrey on the throne immediately following Robert's death and arranging to have Lannister forces on hand to seize the castle (and Ned) before he can exert any further power over the kingdom. I cannot help but think that Cersei's swift action was made with all the more urgency as a result of feeling threatened by Ned's possible reveal of her indiscretion PRIOR to Joffrey's ascent to the throne.



Ned's mistakes regarding timing continue after Robert returns from his hunting trip. Ned, who again attempts to live honorably and with compassion, spares Robert in his last moments of the upsetting news regarding his wife and "children." It is hard not to wonder how things would have turned out differently had Ned made the choice to throw compassion to the wind and reveal the truth to Robert (preferably in the company of additional witnesses who might have ensured that Robert's punitive requests were seen through). Because Ned has no allies who know the truth and no direct orders specifically regarding Cersei's indiscretion, Ned's accusations after Robert's death appear to be nothing more than political posturing by another player in the "Game of Thrones",



Knowledge/Power Cont.

Even moving beyond this instance of Ned and Cersei, one can see that there are many other characters that are able to exercise power as a result of knowledge. Petyr "Littlefinger" Baelish and Lord Varys are two individuals that seem to understand the implications of this Foucauldian paradigm of knowledge and power. These two characters even have several individuals throughout the kingdom working for them as spies, who are able to feed them information which they are later able to use in power plays. In fact, it is implied that these characters knew the truth of Joffrey's origins long before Ned. The difference, of course, is that these two understood the value of the information they had and were wise enough to keep it to themselves. Well....at least until the it would have served them to reveal it to their own ends. Clearly, neither of these characters is afflicted with the morality that drives Ned to unwisely surrender the means (i.e. information) by which he might otherwise be able to exercise power.



Summing it up...

Clearly Cersei was telling the truth when she said "when you play the game of thrones you win or you die" ("You Win or You Die"). One really has to have a mind for the game, which Ned's morality clearly prevented him from having. So...unfortunately for poor Ned...well... he died.





References

Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality: An Introduction, Volume 1. Trans. Robert Hurley. New York: Pantheon, 1978. Print.

Martin, George R.R. A Game of Thrones. New York: Bantam, 2013. Print.

"You Win or You Die." Game of Thrones: Season 1. Writ. David Benioff and D.B. Weiss. Dir. Daniel Monacan. HBO, 2011. Xfinity OnDemand. 6 February 2016.
_________________________________________________________________________________
ADVERTISEMENT

This blog is a part of a larger project associated with scholarsofthethrone.com. Visit our site for more information.


Let's talk about men, masculinity, and the hegemonic order....And then a few sentences on TV Penis.

Let's Get Started

This week in the Game of Thrones re-watch project, I watched Season 1, Episodes 4-6 and these episodes are ripe with androcentric posturing. However, this is good for us, because we can begin to talk about how masculinity is defined within the narrative world of GoT and what kinds of masculinity are valued (or not).

First, it is important to note that there is more than one kind of masculinity. And further, these episodes start demonstrating that not all men/masculinities are equally valued within the social order, which creates a way for us, the viewers, to understand how these men/masculinities are hierarchized in the GoT world and how even these expectations can be fluid. Before moving into examples of how these episodes demonstrate this concept, I would like to point out that masculinity studies have set a precedence for this line of thought. For anyone interested in reading more about this subject, I recommend R.W. Connell's book Masculinities or her article (written with James W. Messerschmidt) "Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept."

I found that each of the three episodes I watched this week contained a common thread of physical competition that included an intervention of one male character to assist another. It is through this common thread that I would like to further explore this idea of masculinity and the way in which this show delivers  messages to the audience regarding this world's construction of a hierarchy of masculinities and exceptions to the "rules" of this paradigm.

A Recap

Episode 1.4

Samwell Tarly (Nickname Reveal: SamSam) is not of the hegemonic masculine variety. He is large, uncoordinated, and self-identifies as a coward. His position on the masculine hierarchy is relatively low, which prompts Jon Snow to step in and protect him from his fellow Night's Watchmen when these men take advantage of Sam's vulnerability during battle practice.

What we learn from the Night's Watch's failure to embrace Samwell is that they do not value his physicality, stunted weapons ability, or meek nature and he is thus positioned as a subordinated male. Jon Snow, who is closer to the hegemonic ideal (at least closer than Sam), steps in to protect him and even threatens the other members with retaliation if they do not cut Sam a break. Jon belongs to a more dominant masculinity than many of the men present because of his abilities and personal connections, so his message resonates and allows SamSam a reprieve from the bullying from other members. However, this action causes Jon to receive a reprimand from Alliser Thorn, who does not feel Jon's interference will do Sam any real favors.



Episode 1.5

This episode features a jousting tournament, an ultimate show of medieval masculine prowess. The main event in which I am interested is the tournament between Ser Loras Tyrell and Ser Gregor Clegane.