The only thing that I can say in my defense is the characters are interesting, the world is vast, and the story-lines have much to teach us about morality.
Case in point, Tywin Lannister, the patriarch of House Lannister, was an evil man. He did terrible things to innocent people, and he treated his son, Tyrion, like trash. However, his conniving, evil schemes were (mostly) successful. In fact, the Lannister family was the richest, most powerful family in Westeros for most of the show. And both his daughter and his grandson ended up ruling the seven kingdoms at various points in the series.
In contrast, Ned Stark, the patriarch of House Stark, was the most honorable man in Westeros. But his honor set off a chain of events that got most of his family killed. So, which is better? Should we be evil to protect the ones we love? Or should we be honorable even if it causes our family pain? These are the questions that Game of Thrones forces us to ask. And that’s why I’ve been tuning in every Sunday night.
Another question came up recently during episode 5 of season 8. Daenerys Targaryen, first of her name, mother of dragons, and breaker of chains launched an all out assault on King’s Landing. The battle was one-sided with Drogon, her dragon-child, laying waste to the Iron Fleet and the Golden Company with ease.
What little resistance remained after the initial assault was squashed by the ragtag mix of Dothraki, Unsullied, and northerners who’d joined her cause. In the end, the Lannister forces threw down their weapons, and the city’s bells rang to signal the surrender.
This should have been a moment of celebration for everyone who’d been cheering for Daenerys. The good guys won, the battle was over, and now everything was right with the world. Except it wasn’t.
When the camera zoomed in on Dany’s face, she wasn’t smiling. Quite, the opposite, she looked disappointed. It’s at this point that Emilia Clarke, the actress who plays Daenerys, earned her next Emmy nomination because we can see an entire story play out on her face.
Daenerys suffered and sacrificed so much to reach that point. She carried so much pain inside. And when she finally had the chance to let loose, to take her pain out on her enemies. The battle ended. In the next few seconds, we can almost see her counting the ways that she’s been wronged.
- The Starks don’t trust her even though she saved their lives
- Varys, her adviser, tried to poison her
- Her lover-nephew has abandoned her
- Her dragon-children Rhaegal and Viserion were killed before her eyes
- Cersei decapitated Missandei, her BFF, when Daenerys showed mercy and offered her the chance to surrender
And as Daenerys thought about these tragedies and betrayals her look changed from one of disappointment to one of rage. If we’re being honest, each of us has felt this way at least once in our life. We’ve been hurt so badly that someone, anyone needed to pay. Perhaps we had a bad day at work and we responded by screaming at a loved one. Or maybe the lawn mower wouldn’t start, so we threw some tools around in the garage.
My point in saying this isn’t to make anyone feel guilty. We’re all human, and the goal of Buddhist practice is to help us cope with our emotions in a healthy, non-harmful way. But it’s important to note that the only difference between us and Daenerys is she had a dragon to back her up.
So, she urged Drogon back into the air, and viewers spent the next 45 minutes watching Dany and her army burn a city to the ground. Buildings were toppled, civilians were killed, and “Mad Queen Dany” was born.
Needless to say, fans of the Mother of Dragons weren’t happy. Some have even claimed that this was a strange, unexpected turn for the character to take. But that idea doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Case in point, Daenerys gave the following speech way back in season two:
I am not some ordinary woman. My dreams come true… I am not your little princess. I am Daenerys Stormborn of the blood of old Valyria and I will take what is mine. With fire and blood, I will take it.
What’s telling about this speech is that Daenerys gave it when she had no army and her dragons were the size of cats. Her husband, Khal Drogo, had died, most of her Khalasar had abandoned her, and she was living as a refugee in the city of Qarth. But even as a refugee, Daenerys had the heart of a conqueror.
Granted she proved to be nicer than most conquerors in Game of Thrones. As her power grew she always gave people the chance to “bend the knee” before she rained hellfire down upon them. But it was inevitable that someone (Cersei Lannister, Randyll Tarly, the slavers of Meereen, etc.) would call her bluff. And each time someone did, Dany responded just as she promised; with fire and blood.
So, this begs the question, “Where is all this pearl-clutching coming from?” Why are people so surprised that a ruthless killer became an even more ruthless killer when the chips were down? Some might claim that this time was different because innocent people were killed. But that’s a hard pill to swallow.
One would have to be naive to think that every single soldier that was burned-alive in the loot train episode deserved it, that not a single woman or child was killed during the taking of Meereen, and that the Dothraki who routinely use rape as a weapon of war have changed their ways under her leadership.
No, the atrocities may have happened off-screen. But they’ve always been there. And we’ve always found a way to be okay with them.
We did that because the violence was redemptive in nature. She was killing people that we didn’t like, people that we thought deserved to die. Thus, murder changed to justice right before our eyes. And as Dany killed in the name of justice, we cheered every step of the way.
Randyll Tarley is mean to Samwell: BURN HIM!
The Dothraki Khals are misogynists: BURN THEM!
The Lannisters are responsible for the Red Wedding: BURN THEM ALL!
But that justice was a lie and episode 08x05 proved that with 45 minutes of high-definition carnage. With every civilian death it reminded us that revenge is never free and when we attack guilty people, innocent ones suffer as well. That’s the real reason for our outrage. We’re not mad because Dany killed civilians. We’re mad because she killed them in front of us.
She showed us how the sausage is made, and exposed the myth of redemptive violence that says it’s okay to hurt certain people at certain times for a good cause.
But if we’re truly interested in justice, sometime we have to walk away. Sometimes we have to let the guilty go unpunished to save the innocent from suffering. This is something we should think about next time we want to scream DRACARYS!
Next time we want to lash out at someone who hurt us, we should question who else will suffer as a result. We should ask ourselves, “Who will pay the price for my revenge?” We didn’t ask that question when we cheered Daenerys’ quest for power. And now we’re horrified at the result.
Visit my YouTube channel to hear Dharma Talks!
Ummmm ... you put a lot of weight on the term "redemptive" (which, you'll agree, ain't exactly regular conversation). That really threw me.
ReplyDelete1st: it seems that "redemptive violence" is a term of use in literary criticism. Which makes sense to me. That it made no sense to me on face value, as it might occur in social psych or #GroupDynamics.
2nd: I take your point here: "... exposed the myth of redemptive violence that says it’s okay to hurt certain people at certain times for a good cause." Indeed. What I trip on? how does the killing of someone in any way ever "redemptive"? I can't see how that formulation has ever been accepted as valid.
I think the literary view arises here:
"[A]s Dany killed in the name of justice, we cheered every step of the way."
In literary criticism, you can use that term and any other term pret'near any way you want. But on face value? what is "redemptive" about cheering killing that is (arguably) "in the name of justice"? Shows me that civilians have a tragically barbarous view of war and/or peace-making.
So: to be filed under not just #GroupDynamics but also #SocialPathology.
I'll wrap with this:
Our world (c/w psychopaths such as Putin and Kim ... and Trump, the charismatic one) would not be the way it is if my cohort was not so blithe about injustice, of whatever intensity and whatever scale.
Indeed: "the atrocities may have happened off-screen. But they’ve always been there. And we’ve always found a way to be okay with them."
"Violence against one is violence against self, however far away." That was a commonplace thought, oh so long ago ... when those who populate my cohort were not yet yuppie-types, when they were still pseudo-hippies.
p.s. Under both #GroupDynamics #SocialPathology please do look into #ScapeGoating as a very well researched phenomenon ... psychologically ... as more than just an archetypical plot device. I recommend "Depth Psychology and a New Ethic" (1949), written by Erich Neuman in Germany still darkened by World War II and Hitlerism/Nazism.