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. 

©