Contra "A Song of Ice and Fire" (or also known as "Game of Thrones")

"'In the midst of life we are in death,"' said one; it is more true that in the midst of death we are in life. Life is the only reality; what men call death is but a shadow, a word for that which cannot be, a negation, owing the very idea of itself to that which it would deny. But for life there could be no death. If God were not, there would not even be nothing. Not even nothingness preceded life. Nothingness owes its very idea to existence." ~ George MacDonald (forefather of the fantasy literature). 

After reading the first two volumes of A Song of Ice and Fire (SIF), and after reading summaries of "Game of Thrones" (GoT)  I have come to the conclusion that George R. R. Martin's novel series possesses little originality, no real meaning, and no intrinsic purpose. In Martin's SIF, partly inspired by an illuministic parody of the Middle Ages, I find no plausible rationale that can explain why numerous people are attracted by it. Besides the intellectual interest in popular culture of some, the only reason that I can detect is the continual and immediate excitement and cheap satisfaction offered by the monomaniacal presence of intrigue, betrayal, violence, and sex.

Could it be that Martin wanted to portray humans as ambiguous, divided between good and evil? If he wanted to do that, I believe he failed. I do not see any "battle between good and evil ... weighed within the individual human heart" in Martin's universe. None whatsoever. Rather, I see a monotonous and predictable reappearance of the same patterns (intrigue, betrayal, murder, and war multiplied ad infinitum) where the only difference is the character who implements those reoccurring patterns. Then, sexual perversions are thrown in the middle of such a chaotic eternal circle in order to make GoT's redundant maelstrom of events somewhat more spicy (and, sadly, also because many enjoy detailed accounts of such base things). Finally, a spell and the occasional addition of a fantastic creature feed the flame of those who, in vain, are waiting for a hint of meaning or for a shadow of purpose that goes beyond Martin's monolithically monistic set of themes. 

"...that wonderful sign of the resurrection ... a Phoenix." ~
Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians, 25.
The Phoenix is a general symbol of
the cycle of death and life, decay and renewal.

One of the most common responses I have met against this kind of criticism of Martin's GoT is an ad hominem argument. It goes something like that: I am used to "dualistic" readings, such as Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, where good and evil are clearly separated and distinguishable. In a sense, it is Martin himself who inspired such responses to the criticism towards his monothematic universe. But, as I said, this is simply an ad hominem attack, and also a strawman. Even though Martin charges many of not having understood Tolkien, on this point Martin not only does not understand the English writer, but he also misrepresents him. In fact, it is not difficult to see that nearly all of Tolkien's main characters fight against inner and outside evil in a way that has more literary elegance and is more psychologically realistic than Martin's all-encompassing will of power that inevitably seizes all his characters. Martin's obsession with the themes that dogmatically reign over his GoT is evident from a statement he released in an interview: "Tolkien made the wrong choice when he brought Gandalf back. Screw Gandalf. He had a great death and the characters should have had to go on without him." Apart from the fact that most of the main characters went on without Gandalf for quite a while, Martin does not seem to realise that in Tolkien there is war and death besides life and meaning, differently from GoT's fated stream of unstoppable destruction and misery. Gandalf's resurrection has to do with the fascinating and developed mythology, atmosphere, and stories that Tolkien built around Arda and with which Martin's homogeneous universe cannot and will never be able to compete with from a literary and imaginative point of view.

In this regard, Martin's does not portray his characters in a realistic way, as complicated beings (like us humans) who fight against evil inside and outside of themselves, as he claims. Rather, Martin's characters are constructed in a monochromatic way (with secondary differences in personality and manners), all ultimately slaves of their desires and ambitions, with virtually no hope of redemption or of acquiring a higher purpose which goes beyond their own ultimate material satisfaction. Even GoT's "virtuous" characters (John Snow, Daenerys Targaryen, and similar) are merely passive victims of their circumstances who, as the "evil" characters, are propelled by a mere desire for power, victory, and revenge. Such "good" characters are no different from the "evil" ones, and their occasional moral reasoning is nothing but either an inconsistent and misplaced ethical element in a meaningless world or, which would be more consistent with the nature of that same world, mere weaknesses. In fact, one looks in GoT for a morally exemplary character in vain. 

"All the time—such is the tragi-comedy of our situation—we continue to clamor for those very qualities we are rendering impossible. You can hardly open a periodical without coming across the statement that what our civilization needs is more “drive”, or dynamism, or self-sacrifice, or “creativity”. In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful." ~ C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man, Chapter 1.

Take two far-from-being-Christian imaginary characters such as Hulk and Robert E. Howard's Conan the Barbarian. They are usually considered as uncomplicated figures and because of their only apparent simple desires (to "smash" and to conquer, respectively). However, even they possess interesting personalities accurately devised by their respective creators (for Conan, see A Witch Shall Be Born, among many examples; for Hulk, see Planet Hulk and World War Hulk). In my opinion, all this is missing from Martin's GoT where, at the end of the day, all characters tiresomely end up being and doing what any justified and coherent ethics would call evil. That GoT's gained Martin the arguable title of "American Tolkien," in spite of the existence of Robert E. Howard, Poul Anderson, and several others, is entirely beyond my understanding.

Another example among many. I have recently read a fantasy novel: Gli Eredi della Luce (Light's Heirs), by Mariangela Cerrino, an Italian lady. The novel talks about cataclysmic changes of an imaginary Earth populated by humans, Mu (humanoids with great telepathic powers), and Inan (sort of magicians). The society is cruel, cold, and violent, and the culture is ruled by casts and strict traditions, to the point of reminding me of the world of GoT. There are many tragic events: wars, violence, and murders. They are not described but only mentioned (differently from GoT's excessive and often gross graphic style), but they are there nonetheless. However, I did not put the book down. I pressed on. Meaning, sense, and purpose appeared, elements which are different and higher than the immediate earthly and selfish desires of this or that character. These goals, even though far from being informed by a Christian ethics, are at least more realistic and sophisticated than Martin's obsessively omnipresent desire to conquer, rule, and win that he fatalistically inject in the mind of virtually all his characters.

I am perfectly aware that also the Scriptures contain many tragic and violent events. But the Scriptures' historical records have a place in the history of the redemption of God's people. They are subservient to the end for which God created everything, that is, to show forth his glory. The highest example is the cross of Christ, the Son of God in the flesh gruesomely tortured and murdered (with very little details about this, because we do not need them). The evil of evils, however, gained the salvation of the people of God and their entrance to the bright future of the new heavens and the new Earth. Differently, GoT's evils are evils for evil's sake, as an end to themselves or, in the best case, as a means to fulfil the ambitions of such and such mentally unstable and/or morally twisted character. No, it is not that I am being prudish and religiously legalistic. The problem is GoT itself and its insufferable literary, psychologic, and philosophical monism that renders GoT little more than a repetitive soap opera of murders, betrayals, and wars with several sprinkles of sex and dragons to help to keep the interest high. 

From a philosophical point of view, it could be that the ethic practised by GoT's characters is an imaginary portrayal of the consistent practical outcomes of moral relativism. If this is true, the question is whether Martin intended to construct his universe with this philosophical intention or not. I understand that many people who read Martin embrace the world-view that underlies Martin's GoT: a meaningless world ruled by impersonal forces where there is no evil nor good. This is why, for them, my criticism would be of little value, since we do not share the same ethical and philosophical perspective. Nevertheless, the fact that millions of people like GoT, and that is considered a masterpiece by a large portion of the critics, is very telling about the condition of our popular (and also academic) culture.

But the Christian does not share nor approve GoT's self-contradictory philosophy of death despair. Or, at least, he should not. The Christian, according to his Christian liberty, is free to have hobbies and practices that do not compromise his faith and that do not damage the heart. Watching a football match, playing tennis, reading something, collecting items, and so on, are lawful activities as long as they are done orderly, discerningly, and coram deo (before God). The Christian can find interesting and instructive themes even in the literature that does not necessarily embrace Christian philosophy and ethics, by discerningly applying Augustine's principle of "spoiling the Egyptians." However, GoT's omnipresent, desensitizing, detailedly described, and tediously reoccurring exaltations of dishonesty, murder, depravity, and death as a lifestyle, these do not belong to this category. In my opinion, that so many professing Christians read/watch GoT with enjoyment and positive appraisal (even to the point of defending it) should inspire some serious and honest thinking.

"The Evangelium has not abrogated legends; it has hallowed them, especially the 'happy ending.' The Christian has still to work, with mind as well as body, to suffer, hope, and die; but he may now perceive that all his bents and faculties have a purpose, which can be redeemed. So great is the bounty with which he has been treated that he may now, perhaps, fairly dare to guess that in Fantasy he may actually assist in the effoliation and multiple enrichment of creation." ~ J. R. R. Tolkien, On Fairy Stories. 

© 

(Some) Church Fathers on Divine Simplicity

What follows is a collection of quotations from some Church Fathers on the topic of divine simplicity, with no commentary (thanks to Daniel Vecchio for listing many of them). I thought that it might be useful to have them listed on a webpage. I may add more quotations with time as I find them. 

"He is a simple, uncompounded Being, without diverse members, and altogether like, and equal to himself, since He is wholly understanding, and wholly spirit, and wholly thought, and wholly intelligence, and wholly reason, and wholly hearing, and wholly seeing, and wholly light, and the whole source of all that is good— even as the religious and pious are wont to speak concerning God." ~ Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.13.3.

"For God, who compounded all things to give them being, is not compound, nor of similar nature to the things made by Him through the Word. Far be the thought. For He is simple essence, in which quality is not, nor, as James says, 'any variableness or shadow of turning' (James 1:17). Accordingly, if it is shown that it is not from virtue (for in God there is no quality, neither is there in the Son), then He must be proper to God's essence. And this you will certainly admit if mental apprehension is not utterly destroyed in you. But what is that which is proper to and identical with the essence of God, and an Offspring from it by nature, if not by this very fact coessential with Him that begot it? For this is the distinctive relation of a Son to a Father, and he who denies this, does not hold that the Word is Son in nature and in truth." ~ Athanasius, Ad Afros Epistola Synodica, 8. 

"God, however, has no body, but simple essence: no parts, but an all-embracing whole: nothing quickened, but everything living. God is therefore all life, and all one, not compounded of parts, but perfect in His simplicity, and, as the Father, must be Father to His begotten in all that He Himself is, for the perfect birth of the Son makes Him perfect Father in all that He has. So, if He is proper Father to the Son, the Son must possess all the properties of the Father. Yet how can this be, if the Son has not the quality of prescience, if there is anything from His Author, which is wanting in His birth? To say that there is one of God's properties which He has not, is almost equivalent to saying that He has none of them. And what is proper to God, if not the knowledge of the future, a vision, which embraces the invisible and unborn world, and has within its scope that which is not yet, but is to be?" ~ Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 9.61.

"Do you worship what you know or what you do not know? If I answer, I worship what I know, they immediately reply, What is the essence of the object of worship? Then, if I confess that I am ignorant of the essence, they turn on me again and say, So you worship you know not what. I answer that the word to know has many meanings. We say that we know the greatness of God, His power, His wisdom, His goodness, His providence over us, and the justness of His judgment; but not His very essence. The question is, therefore, only put for the sake of dispute. For he who denies that he knows the essence does not confess himself to be ignorant of God, because our idea of God is gathered from all the attributes which I have enumerated. But God, he says, is simple, and whatever attribute of Him you have reckoned as knowable is of His essence. But the absurdities involved in this sophism are innumerable. When all these high attributes have been enumerated, are they all names of one essence? And is there the same mutual force in His awfulness and His loving-kindness, His justice and His creative power, His providence and His foreknowledge, and His bestowal of rewards and punishments, His majesty and His providence? In mentioning any one of these do we declare His essence? If they say, yes, let them not ask if we know the essence of God, but let them enquire of us whether we know God to be awful, or just, or merciful. These we confess that we know. If they say that essence is something distinct, let them not put us in the wrong on the score of simplicity. For they confess themselves that there is a distinction between the essence and each one of the attributes enumerated. The operations are various, and the essence simple, but we say that we know our God from His operations, but do not undertake to approach near to His essence. His operations come down to us, but His essence remains beyond our reach." ~ Basil of Caesarea, Letter, 234.

"Let them tell me in what sense Paul says, 'Now we know in part' (1 Cor. 13) do we know His essence in part, as knowing parts of His essence? No. This is absurd; for God is without parts. But do we know the whole essence?" ~ Basil of Caesarea, Letter, 235.

"The Divine Nature, then, is boundless and hard to understand, and all that we can comprehend of Him is His boundlessness; even though one may conceive that because He is of a simple Nature He is therefore either wholly incomprehensible or perfectly comprehensible. For let us farther enquire what is implied by is of a simple Nature? For it is quite certain that this simplicity is not itself its nature, just as composition is not by itself the essence of compound beings." ~ Gregory Nazianzen, Oration, 45.

"For our statement does not hereby violate the simplicity of the Godhead, since community and specific difference are not essence, so that the conjunction of these should render the subject composite. But on the one side the essence by itself remains whatever it is in nature, being what it is, while, on the other, every one possessed of reason would say that these — community and specific difference — were among the accompanying conceptions and attributes: since even in us men there may be discerned some community with the Divine Nature, but Divinity is not the more on that account humanity, or humanity Divinity. For while we believe that God is good, we also find this character predicated of men in Scripture. But the special signification in each case establishes a distinction in the community arising from the use of the homonymous term. For He Who is the fountain of goodness is named from it; but he who has some share of goodness also partakes in the name, and God is not for this reason composite, that He shares with men the title of good. From these considerations it must obviously be allowed that the idea of community is one thing, and that of essence another, and we are not on that account any the more to maintain composition or multiplicity of parts in that simple Nature which has nothing to do with quantity, because some of the attributes we contemplate in It are either regarded as special, or have a sort of common significance." ~ Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, 12.5.

"'God,' so far as the human mind can form an idea, is the name of that nature or substance which is above all things. 'Father' is a word expressive of a secret and ineffable mystery. When you hear the word 'God,' you must understand thereby a substance without beginning, without end, simple, uncompounded, invisible, incorporeal, ineffable, inappreciable, which has in it nothing which has been either added or created" ~ Rufinus, Commentary on the Apostles' Creed, 4.

"But far be it from being so, since in truth in the Godhead is absolutely simple essence, and therefore to be is there the same as to be wise. But if to be is there the same as to be wise, then the Father is not wise by that wisdom which He begot; otherwise He did not beget it, but it begot Him. For what else do we say when we say, that to Him to be is the same as to be wise, unless that He is by that whereby He is wise? Wherefore, that which is the cause to Him of being wise, is itself also the cause to Him that He is; and accordingly, if the wisdom which He begot is the cause to Him of being wise, it is also the cause to Him that He is; and this cannot be the case, except either by begetting or by creating Him. But no one ever said in any sense that wisdom is either the begetter or the creator of the Father; for what could be more senseless? Therefore both the Father Himself is wisdom, and the Son is in such way called the wisdom of the Father, as He is called the light of the Father; that is, that in the same manner as light from light, and yet both one light, so we are to understand wisdom of wisdom, and yet both one wisdom; and therefore also one essence, since, in God, to be, is the same as to be wise. For what to be wise is to wisdom, and to be able is to power, and to be eternal is to eternity, and to be just to justice, and to be great to greatness, that being itself is to essence. And since in the Divine simplicity, to be wise is nothing else than to be, therefore wisdom there is the same as essence." ~ Augustine, On the Trinity, 7.1.2.

"When, therefore, it is said of the Holy Spirit, 'For He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak,' so much the more is a simple nature, which is simple [uncompounded] in the truest sense, to be either understood or believed, which in its extent and sublimity far surpasses the nature of our minds. For there is mutability in our mind, which comes by learning to the perception of what it was previously ignorant of, and loses by unlearning what it formerly knew; and is deceived by what has a similarity to truth, so as to approve of the false in place of the true, and is hindered by its own obscurity as by a kind of darkness from arriving at the truth. And so that substance is not in the truest sense simple, to which being is not identical with knowing; for it can exist without the possession of knowledge. But it cannot be so with that divine substance, for it is what it has. And on this account it has not knowledge in any such way as that the knowledge whereby it knows should be to it one thing, and the essence whereby it exists another; but both are one. Nor ought that to be called both, which is simply one." ~ Augustine, Tractate on the Gospel of John, 99.

©

Last edited: 12/04/2021