I have been feeling incredibly strange about not posting to this blog for the past week or two. Game of Thrones, season six has ended but I have been programmed over the last several months to create a weekly blog with smart insight or general observations about the show. As a result, over the last several days I have been attempting to envision how I might still utilize this platform as I impatiently wait for the seventh season of the show to begin, because not blogging every week has been...weird.


I have decided that I want to return to the books and do something of a "Book Club" post every week or two until the show returns. My life is a bit crazy and classes will begin again before I know it, but I would like to commit to reading a few chapters per week (or bi-weekly) and write about them. Perhaps I will write a bit about adaptation, changes between the book and show, perhaps a bit about the convoluted albeit genius political plot that Martin weaves into the books. Who knows! There are so many things that can be said and I think that this will be a great way to continue the conversation about the Game of Thrones universe.


Because I want this to be an experience in which my readers can follow along, whether it be their first time or 10th time through the series, I will read a set number of chapters each week (sometimes bi-weekly but I will warn readers when this will happen). I will start with book one (A Game of Thrones) and continue through the books in sequence until the HBO series returns. Although I will likely only make it through a book or two before this happens, I am hoping that this will allow me to continue this tradition after season 7 comes to a close.

So here is the plan for next week: I will read the first four chapters of A Game of Thrones and post it next week. I am also hoping to end each post with a couple of discussion questions which I am hoping my readers will engage with in the comments section of the blog.

So let's do this! A Game of Book-clubs is officially a GO!


----------------------------------------------------------

I am particularly fond of the Game of Thrones episodes in which we are treated to parody pieces of theater that depict recent Westrosi history. This episode is particularly interesting in that it serves as a twisted source of information for Arya Stark.




This street theater performance is clearly a narrative device to shock Arya's system, to remind her of her old values, the person she once was, and from where she comes. However, Arya has been decidedly absent from being "in the know" regarding political activities and scandals for the past several years. Past the experience of re-living her father's decapitation via parodic performance, the following information she receives from the play is essentially new to her (e.g. Sansa and Tyrion).


Although Arya seems to be incredibly understanding of the "fun" of the parody at the beginning of the scene, the falsehoods begin to affect her as they clearly cause dissonance when portraying her father as less of an honorable man and more of an idiot. Although historical plays are often both exaggerations of events and means of flattery towards those in power - in this case, the Lannisters, we as audience members of the show must understand how this skewed portrayal of events might affect Arya. Arya is often beholden to her reactions to events and this scene seems to suggest that she has not completely allowed herself to see the scenario with complexity. She clearly understands the falsehood of the beginning of the play but has no frame of reference for the rest. As a result she may take more truth from the scene than she should.

So the question becomes, how will this all play out? If Arya, as I suggest above, views the play as containing more truth than is warranted, there is a possibility that she now has a considerable bone to pick with Tyrion. Arya is obviously not predisposed toward erring on the side of trust - nor does history indicate that she should - when it comes to the Lannisters. However, in a bit of dramatic irony, we the audience know just how kind Tyrion was to Sansa, a truth that Arya will be unlikely to seek out on her own. Arya may end up with an unwarranted sense of anger towards Tyrion. We also know that Arya's anger tends to result in death (or at least the promise of it). Will Tyrion be a name that Arya secretly adds to her list?


I have been under the impression for some time that Arya's time in Bravvos will come to an end at some point. Either she will be released by Jaqen H'gar or she will go MIA upon completing her training so that she can pursue her own interests. If this comes to be, Tyrion is not really all that far from her as they are both currently in Essos. Geography suggests a showdown between these characters is definitely possible.

Here's to hoping that Arya's seemingly negative reaction to the play will not result in the death of the only likable Lannister and that we as viewers learn a lesson not to take historical plays (or other pieces of historical extertainment) at face value. Even Shakespeare was known to elaborate a bit when it came to portraying certain historical figures in ways that would appease the powers that be. Clearly truths and lies can comfortably co-exist and if we do not do our due diligence to seek truth from several angles, someone may suffer the consequences.
_________________________________________________________________________________
ADVERTISEMENT

I suppose everyone should have realized from the moment that Cersei told Sansa never to love because it makes you weak, that this show would be less than kind to anyone who loves. I mean, I am not a Cersei fan per se, but Lena Headey, as Queen Mother, has a knack for dropping some seriously uncomfortable truth bombs. I think that Amy Winehouse expressed it best, for in the Game of Thrones universe, "love is a losing game."

Here is a cover of the song by Sam Smith (because as much as I love Amy Winehouse, I am a sucker for piano covers...)


Although the episodes that we watched this week (S4.E9-S5-E2) are not the first to deliver devastating character losses, I felt that these episodes and their corresponding losses were particularly horrible to have to watch. There are really no love stories that have ended well thus far, and I have a feeling that this trend of loss will continue in the realm of Game of Thrones romance plots even beyond the source material provided by Martin.


Instead of this post being theory-heavy or attempting to thread together some interestingly convoluted argument, I want to spend a bit of time reflecting on the romantic tragedies that scarred me, yet again, while watching the show this week.


First we have the tragic pairing of Shae and Tyrion. Although Tyrion let her go in the last season (Season 4) to protect her, Shae's strong will and stubbornness felt betrayed by his actions. Clearly, Tyrion was acting out of love in an effort to protect her from his father, but Shae's anger lead her to seek revenge in the form of testifying lying at Tyrion's murder trial and making him sound guilty for Joffrey's demise. Of course this all came to a head in the last episode of season 4 when Tyrion discovers that Shae has been bedding his father. Although I felt zero remorse for Shae as Tyrion strangled her, I could not help but feel devastated for Tyrion. Tyron is broken and Dinklage does such a great job of pulling of this moment in a  raw and believable manner.


In a similarly tragic...almost Romeo and Juliet-like, love story, Jon and Ygritte are finally reunited amidst the battle in which their clashing clans are currently enmeshed.  Ygritte is finally ready to put Jon to death (her single preoccupation in the episodes that came before), but is stopped short by little Olly. The way in which this is shot is particularly beautiful. The slow motion is a bit unccharacteristic for Game of Thrones, but nonetheless, the effect really pulls the viewer into the emotionally tragedy that has befallen Jon Snow.

Through season 4, episodes 5-8, I could not help but pay particular attention to Arya and Sansa and the very different ways in which they are learning to "play the game." In these episodes we continue to see the Stark girls' tales unfold as they are molded/mentored by their male travel companions, each of whom have vastly different techniques to maneuver through the twisted political landscape that exists within Westeros. What I find most interesting about this is that the methods each of the Stark women are being taught could be construed as either primarily masculine or primarily feminine and both Arya and Sansa are with a male figure that is able to teach them the method that aligns most fully with their respective gendered leanings. As a result of the time that Arya spends with the Hound and Sansa spends with Littlefinger, each will pick up valuable tools that will allow them to play to their own gender-oriented strengths and, potentially, survive the game of thrones.


Successful masculinity in Westeros is largely understood through the expression of physical prowess and the successful bettering of another in battle. Arya has often been portrayed as more masculine in the show (regardless of her biological sex). She is physical, rough, short-tempered, and interested in battle. Her pairing with The Hound over the course of the last several episodes is really introducing her to what it means to survive as a warrior in the hostile climate of Westeros. The Hound is teaching Arya to use her battle-wits to actively take charge of her situation. Methods of survival, as taught by Hound:


In a nutshell, Sandor Clegane is teaching Arya not only to use her sword for revenge, but also to choose her battles and movements wisely so that she might use her instincts to survive the tumultuous social climate that infests her world.

Of course, we saw The Hound with Sansa in earlier seasons, but he was merely a figure that repeatedly saved her. The Hounds strengths (battle instincts and physical prowess) were not compatible with Sansa's talents. However, in Sansa's time with Littlefinger, she begins to learn how to use her own abilities to her advantage.


Now before I get too into the relationship between Sansa and Littlefinger, I want to clarify the gendered nature of their relationship. Whereas Arya and The Hound are active and direct in their exercising of power and manipulating their circumstances (traits associated with masculinity), Littlefinger (and later Sansa) are not as assertive and thus their passive aggression is more feminine.

Sansa and Littlefinger use social subterfuge, misdirection, and dishonesty to achieve their ends, essentially leaving others to perform the more active (i.e. dirty) work that is involved in their scheming. For example, Baelish is involved in the plot to poison Joffrey but does not actually drop the poison himself. The Hound himself even tells Arya that poison is a weapon of women in episode 4.8.

Littlefinger also lies to Lysa Arryn regarding his feelings for her so that she will poison her own husband and frame the Lannisters for the deed.


Although I would be remiss to suggest that Littlefinger intentionally leads Sansa to understand his methods and passes on his methodology to her, Sansa's time around him seems to resonate with her and finally allows her to fully understand the way that she will will be able to survive the political game in which she has found herself enmeshed. Although we have not seen much subterfuge from her yet, when Sansa reveals her true identity to the council at the Vale but still protects Baelish, it seems clear that she is going against Littlefinger's will. He would rather her identity remain secret but she understands that this gives him leverage (not her), so she seems to flip the script on Baelish and use storytelling and manipulation to her own advantage. The end of this episode clearly suggests that Sansa finally understands her strength and is finally and officially "in the game."

_________________________________________________________________________________
ADVERTISEMENT

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

Several weeks ago I blogged about masculinities and Hegemonic order in Westeros. I would like to take up a bit of space in my corner of the interweb and continue to talk about gender and how gendered paradigms operate in George R. R. Martin's universe. This week our class watched Season 3, Episodes 4-6 and I could not help but take notes on the incessant fainting of Jaime Lannister. These "faintings" are revealed to the viewer starting in the opening minutes of 4.4 with other instances of the same to appear through the following episodes. Through looking at these particular scenes and examining how they play into the overarching plot between Jaime Lannister and Brienne of Tarth, I am hoping to demonstrate the degree of fluidity/flexibility between their dynamic gendered roles. There is a certain ebb and flow in their relationship that suggests that strength, emotion, heroism, or vulnerability (just to name a few) are not traits that inherently or  solely exist within any specific sex but, rather, all of these traits are possible within either sex in Martin's universe.

The representation of these traits within both sexes is very Butleresque* and these subversive acts seem to align with Butler's theories on gender performativity**. Butler states in Gender Trouble that "gender is the repeated stylization of the body, a set of repeated acts within a highly rigid regulatory frame that congeal over time to produce the appearance of substance, of a natural sort of being" (Butler 43). The "masculine" acts of both Brienne and Jaime seem to align with this structure. We only understand Jaime and Brienne's acts to be masculine (or feminine) because of the way in which society has ensured our understanding of these acts to be masculine (belonging to men) or feminine (belonging to women), but Brienne and Jaime subvert these ideas.


In the opening scene of episode four (which takes place in the day(s) following Jaime's loss of his hand), we are introduced to a weaker Jaime. He is noticeably unsteady on his horse and eventually falls to the ground as Brienne of Tarth begs the Bolton bannermen to assist him.

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.