|
|
Post by somethingimpromptu on Mar 18, 2016 22:31:06 GMT
Who else here is reading ASOIAF? I'm almost done with A Dance With Dragons. This series is literally the best fiction I've ever read (even though I'm not into fantasy).
What I'm interested in is this; ASOIAF is a very historically oriented text with very intricate lore. It deals with transitions from slavery to feudalism, the question of the relationship between feudal lords and the common people, and I'm curious about whether democracy will emerge later in the story. Daenarys Targaryan says she wants to "break the wheel" of feudalism, which, to me, means putting power in the hands of the common people. However, I don't get the sense that that's what she means when she says it-- after all, her quest has been to claim her birthright as the rightful queen. If she "breaks the wheel" by asserting Targaryan authority permanently, then that's basically a step backwards, away from democracy. But maybe she will come to her senses and realize that she can't "break the wheel" and remain a queen. Many elements of the story also take on dialectical forms (fire and ice, freedom and tyranny, just and unjust, etc.-- even honor and duty seem to have an almost dialectical relation in these books).
So, does anyone have any dialectical/historical materialist analysis of the story, or any element of these books? And, should democracy arise in Westeros, do you think that it will be capitalist democracy or true anarchist democracy?
|
|
Giga
LSA Member
Posts: 98 
|
Post by Giga on Mar 21, 2016 11:29:31 GMT
I don't personally think that Daeynaris's reign would entirely usher in an end to feudalism, simply due to the fact that she believes she is the "rightful heir". Perhaps a few democratic reforms would be instituted but I doubt anything more radical than constitutional monarchy and a parliament would be ushered in with her. Which I suppose is the natural progression of things. But who knows. Not like Martin seems to be in any rush to get The Winds of Winter out anytime soon, so anything could happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by somethingimpromptu on Mar 28, 2016 18:13:37 GMT
I don't personally think that Daeynaris's reign would entirely usher in an end to feudalism, simply due to the fact that she believes she is the "rightful heir". Perhaps a few democratic reforms would be instituted but I doubt anything more radical than constitutional monarchy and a parliament would be ushered in with her. Which I suppose is the natural progression of things. But who knows. Not like Martin seems to be in any rush to get The Winds of Winter out anytime soon, so anything could happen. I absolutely agree at this point. She seems to have it in her head that "breaking the wheel" means preventing anyone but a Targaryan from ruling in the future. I find her coexistence of her two motives-- the desire to liberate people from slavery, and this extreme, exceptionally top-down idea about feudal monarchism-- to be extremely ironic, and I think it'll be fascinating to see her struggle to reconcile the two over the next two books. I can see it going one of two ways. One possibility is that realizing the inconsistency of feudalism and freedom will be her character arc, and that she will realize that totalitarian Targaryan rule is hardly any better than slavery. If she has already eliminated the dominance of other noble houses in Westeros (probably using her dragons) by the time she realizes this, then it may be possible for her to kind of reshape society, for better or worse, according to whatever ideals she embraces in its place. However, I find this second possibility more probable. And let me just say right here-- possible SPOILER ALERT for both the books and the show. What I'm about to say is based on a very detailed prediction about how the series will end (someone else's theory), so if you don't want to hear an in-depth educated guess about where it's going, don't read this part. Basically, in this theory (originally formulated by James Johnson on a YouTube channel called James of Thrones), the ASOIAF series is taking after the central theme of Paradise Lost-- the diametric choice that Lucifer is faced with in Paradise Lost: free will and the suffering that comes with it (part of which is death), versus eternal life in a kind of utopia without conflict, but with no free will. His theory (summarized) is that the Night's King (the Great Other, who we've seen in Game of Thrones as the horned leader of the White Walkers, but who we've only heard of as an ancient legend in the books) is controlling all of the Others (the same way that the Others control the Wights), and that his goal is to assimilate as much of humanity as he can into the Others. He says that the Others represent the anti-free will side, and that the Night's King probably sees it as a kindness to assimilate humans, because within this kind of collective consciousness of the Others, there is no war, no genocide, no murder, no poverty, no disease-- no conflict or suffering of any kind. They may very well live forever, or for a very long time, and even if their bodies die, they may have a little collective consciousness (a common theme in GRRM's writings), similar to the collective consciousness of the Weirwoods and the Children of the Forest. But there's also no freedom, as the entire collectivity is essentially under his domination. This is juxtaposed against humanity, represented by Jon Snow (in his prediction), who is willing to accept the existence of war, crime, disease, old age, etc.-- all the suffering of life-- in order to defend the free will of humanity (which explains why he is so closely associated with the Wildlings/Free Folk, probably the most anarchistic/democratic society we've seen in this world). This is relevant as follows (and again, HUGE spoilers if this is correct, but it's just speculation). What Daenarys is fighting for (at least as of the 5th book) is, as you said-- basically a benevolent dictatorship. Her unchallenged feudal queenship, which she believes will create a better world. We tend to assume she's the dialectical opposite to the Others, because we associate her with fire, where they are ice. However, her goal is almost identical to that of the Night's King/Others. She wants to force others to submit to her, to give up their free will in order to free them from suffering, in as much as it would be possible for her to do so. So James Johnson theorizes that, in fact, Daenarys may go over to the Others' side. The Night's King might come to her and tell her that he can give her exactly what she wants-- he can help her LITERALLY unify all of humanity under their rule, and end all human suffering, and all conflict, and "break the wheel" in exactly the way that she intends to right now. It makes sense to me, and remember, Dany did have a dream about having sex with Hizdahr in which she says that he looks and feels like ice (and his hair is shaped into horns, which the Night's King has, at least on the show. In Meereen, she has already married a ruler of a foreign culture for political reasons once, and she thought frequently about how it was her duty to her people, regardless of the fact that she didn't love him; that could be foreshadowing of a much more extreme political marriage. I think this theory is kind of brilliant and makes a lot of sense, and that it may be correct. He goes into WAY more detail, and I'm sure he's wrong about much of the minutia, but I don't doubt that this is the central theme, or that the story might go this direction. At least as far as the Night's King becoming a central figure, I would be shocked if he doesn't. If you're curious (and don't mind fan theories and a ton of potential spoilers), the videos are linked below. Night's King and Paradise LostWhy Choose the Night's King? |
|
