The Politics of Game of Thrones: How Its Ending Betrays the Politics of the Left

Season 8 Poster

I realise I'm a bit late to the whole bashing of Game of Thrones Season 8- I actually started writing a review trying to explain why I thought it was so bad after the final episode but I gave up because, since everyone else was doing the same, I couldn't see the point. However, since it all finished I have been mulling the season over in my mind and have been focusing less and less on what I think didn't work about the season narratively speaking, and increasingly on how I think the final season of Game of Thrones totally fails in fulfilling the books and earlier seasons' promise of a nuanced and complex approach to political questions. Furthermore, I see this failure to provide a nuanced, complex or interesting political conclusion as coming chiefly at the expense of the left, with the ending of season 8 instead promoting an ill thought through, ridiculously optimistic and naive right wing "happy" ending. This should annoy both left and right wing fans of the show since Game of Thrones has always been at its best politically when showing the challenges that face everyone in politics, regardless of ideological alignment. In contrast, the ending of the show provides an overly simple conservative conclusion which seems to totally disregard any but the lightest criticisms of a right wing world view whilst not conceding any real political credibility to the left at all.

Before we jump into an analysis of the final season itself, however, I should first explain how I am defining "left" and "right". Obviously Game of Thrones exists in a fantasy quasi-medieval world and thus does not have the same ideological or partisan issues which we might see dividing the left and right in the modern world (e.g. state intervention in the economy). Instead of focusing on narrow issues, therefore, I see the politics of Game of Thrones as viewing left and right wing politics in a much more philosophical sense. On the leftist side, I see Game of Thrones as exploring left wing views on change, reform and revolution. This is most clearly embodied in the character of Danaerys. Dany is, in her views, ahead of her time and more in line with the assumptions of the modern audience than the others who inhabit the quasi-medieval fantasy world of Game of Thrones. She opposes slavery, promotes the liberation of women and talks of "breaking the wheel", which seems to imply the destruction of the oppressive feudal system which dominates the societies of Game of Thrones. What is key to understanding Game of Thrones' politics is that Dany's wider political aims are never questioned by the show: slavery, the oppression of women and the aristocratic feudal system are all seen to be bad things, as they are assumed to be for the typical modern western viewer. Dany's left-wing revolutionary goal of "breaking the wheel" and instituting a more liberated, progressive society is criticised, therefore, not from the perspective that its ultimate aims might be bad, but that it will cost too much to achieve. This is the right wing element of Game of Thrones: an individualist, pragmatic message which emphasises the status quo and stability over change because of fears that Dany's "revolution" will cost too much. This is clearly seen in Dany's problems with the slave owners in Meereen in seasons 4 and 5, in which her idealistic abolition of slavery stirs up so much practical trouble and resistance that we are made to question how worthwhile her reforms really were in the first place.

Emilia Clarke as Danaerys Targaryen

On the one hand, this right wing criticism of left wing revolutionary politics simply fits into a wider moral message in Game of Thrones, which is that idealism is impracticable and will get you killed, vis-a-vis Ned Stark. However, whilst other characters like Ned and Robb Stark, as well as Jon Snow, struggle with the attempt to marry their idealism to practical politics, Dany is the only one with a political programme. For Ned Stark, the conflict between morality and politics is only on a personal level (his desire not to compromise his honour by "playing" the Game of Thrones, despite the fact that this may plunge the Kingdom into civil war). Dany in some ways, therefore, has the opposite problem to Ned Stark in that she is clearly prepared to do "dishonourable" deeds in pursuit of the greater good, for example crucifying the masters in Meereen en mass. The question, therefore, is whether the pursuit of the "common good", Dany's idealistic brave new world, really justifies these dishonourable deeds. In other words, is the viewer willing to sacrifice the lives of thousands of potentially innocent people in order to attain Dany's indisputably more benevolent society?

This is a question which goes to the heart of one of the most difficult political and moral questions that those on both the left and right have to face. For the right, how much suffering can you bear before change is necessary? On the left, how much suffering can you bear in pursuit of that change, especially if you are unsure what that change will be like? Season 8 most clearly brings these questions to a head in the final confrontation between Jon and Dany in the last episode. Jon questions Dany on her decision to burn King's Landing to the ground, killing thousands of innocent civilians. Dany replies that it 'was necessary', arguing that 'small mercies' will get in the way of building 'the new world we need...a good world'. In this exchange, we see the full spectrum of the politics of Game of Thrones. Dany promotes an idealistic, left wing vision of a good, brave new world built on the back of her violent "revolution", whilst Jon questions whether it will be worth the cost and wonders if this new world can truly be a 'good' one. Politically speaking, these are broadly unanswerable questions which every person has to come to an individual decision about where they stand on. Artistically speaking, this makes for an excellent conclusion: the audience is left to decide where their sympathies lie between two deeply likable, well intentioned characters. The political conclusions of the show are left unanswered, allowing the audience to reflect on their own political opinions and make their own decision.

Or that's at least how it should have been. The problem, of course, is that the widely derided undermining of Dany's character in the last season of Game of Thrones also results in an undermining of the political side of the show that she represents. Much has been written about how the writing in the final season was subpar when compared to previous ones. I don't want to focus on this too much since there is so much out there already, but I do want to highlight one key distinction which I think has fundamentally altered the political nature of Game of Thrones. In previous seasons (up to season 5), based on George R.R. Martin's books, the nature of the storytelling in Game of Thrones was broadly sociological rather than personal. The reason why we can sympathise with deeply immoral characters like Cersei, Tywin or the Hound is that these characters were situated clearly within a wider social context. The personal was intimately linked to the social and political: Cersei's understanding of the vulnerability of her own femininity; Tywin's sense of familial obligation; the Hound's nihilism in the face of a corrupt society. To me, one of the chief problems with the final season is that the writers, having left George R.R. Martin's source material behind, increasingly turned from sociological storytelling to the more typical and "Hollywood" form of personal storytelling. In this way, Dany's narrative arc over both seasons 7 and 8 becomes less about her ideals and wider sense of social injustice, and more about her personal relations and development. In season 8, the key turning point in Dany's story comes in episodes 4 and 5, in which she is increasingly driven to madness by a series of personal losses and setbacks (discovering Jon's claim to the throne; the deaths of Rhaegal and Missandei; Varys' betrayal). In the end, when Dany commits an act of brutal slaughter in episode 5, the Bells, when she burns Kings Landing even after the surrender of the Lannister forces, this is given absolutely no socio-political justification and is motivated only by a sense of Dany's personal instability and possible madness.

Kit Harrington as Jon Snow

In and of itself, this personal descent into madness could have worked fine narratively speaking (although I think even then that they left it underdeveloped making it ultimately unsatisfying). However, regardless of whether it makes narrative sense, this story line totally capsizes the political balance of the show. When Dany tries to justify her actions in the season's final episode as 'necessary' in order to build a better world, this simply doesn't ring true. It clearly was not necessary in promoting Dany's ideological vision of "breaking the wheel" to slaughter a load of innocent civilians and just surrendered soldiers, and no such justification was attempted at the time (i.e. in episode 5). For Dany's argument to make sense, the slaughter in Kings Landing would have to be more explicitly justified in ideological terms from the start: we need to have some sense that Dany might be doing the right thing, which she clearly thinks she is, instead of turning her into a one-dimensional "descent into madness" character. On top of this, Jon Snow is so piously portrayed as to make the contrast laughable, with his only action during the battle of King's Landing being to stop one of his own soldiers from raping a woman. When we come to the final confrontation between Jon and Dany in the throne room, therefore, there is no balance between the two sides: as an audience we know that Dany's new world is not justified and we agree with Jon's perception of Dany as a mad, bloodthirsty tyrant. Dany's claim that her actions were 'necessary' to build her 'new world' thus only appear as retrospective justifications. We are not left with an ambiguous political message which allows us to reflect upon the deep problem of the costs of change or the righteousness of idealism, but rather are being sheparded into siding with Jon Snow against Danaerys- with the right against the left.

This right wing conclusion is followed up by the full ending of the show. There is a nod to leftist ideals in Sam's proposals for democracy at the grand council, but this is mostly played for laughs. Instead, what we get is the most bizarrely optimistic, naive conservative ending imaginable, lacking any balance or nuance. This is epitomised most in making Bran king. Bran is the ideal type of conservative ruler. An all seeing, completely wise king who we can trust to rule justly, but who gives absolutely no sign of wanting to shake up the status quo. This is the ideal conservative scenario in that it provides ostensibly just government without actually having to change anything. In reality, something Game of Thrones has always prided itself in having a sense of despite being a fantasy show, this conservative ideal rarely works because the ruling class or monarch cannot maintain justice all the time- a system dependent upon the abilities or sense of justice of a singular individual will always be undermined by that individual's flaws. By imposing Bran as king, however, the show gets around this problem by effectively cancelling out these individual flaws due to Bran's superhuman abilities and wisdom. Instead of the systematic change that Westeros needs, and Dany argues for, these flaws are covered up a fantasy good ruler who can seemingly do no wrong; in other words, Game of Thrones becomes exactly the type of moralistic fantasy it was supposed to critique.

On top of the superhuman powers of Bran the Broken, we are also presented with a hilariously politically misguided scene of the small council. The scene, which is comedic and light in tone, suggests to the audience that whilst there might be some petty squabbling between council members, this new regime headed by Tyrion is serious about ruling well. The seemingly unnoticed irony of this is that the new master of coin, in other words the controller of Westeros' entire financial and economic system, is Bronn, a man who, for all his personal charms, has swindled, lied, blackmailed and cheated his way to the top. The fact that this kind of individual corruption might be systemic in an aristocratic system is completely disregarded, however, and all is made to seem as if things can only get better. On top of this, Samwell Tarly, again a man of significant personal likeability, is also on the small council, despite his total lack of political experience and retained almost childlike naivety, a trait endearing on a personal level but damaging politically. Below the surface of the scene's lighthearted tone, therefore, lies the actual realisation that this new small council is deeply problematic, and is unlikely to really fix the systemic problems facing Westeros.

The point that I am trying to make is that the ending leaves us with an optimistic but deeply false conservative conclusion. Bran acts as a sort of "deus ex machina" figure as king, resolving all the fundamental tensions and flaws that monarchy presents, whilst we are meant to feel hopeful about the new small council, despite the fact that the immorality and inexperience of its members suggests that it may be little better than previous regimes. Most crucial and unforgivable, however, is the fact that the ills that Dany identified with society are entirely ignored: we are given no sense that the current system is anything other than just and benevolent. All we are shown are happy, self-satisfied aristocrats getting on with their jobs, with no sense of how the rest of society might be effected. In other words, the failure of Dany's revolution means nothing.

Overall, I actually think the conservative conclusion to the show is a fitting one. Game of Thrones has always been a deeply pessimistic show and the idea that Dany could effectively implement a political revolution in a feudal country like Westeros seems pretty implausible. What I strongly object to, therefore, is the optimism of this conservative conclusion, which undermines the delicate balance between left and right that the show had previously created and seems to betray Game of Thrones' own realistic, pessimistic sense of itself. It would not take all that many changes to create this ending: giving Dany a proper ideological and sympathetic justification to commit a war atrocity in King's Landing rather than being driven by personal madness; showing that, despite Bran's benevolent rule, significant problems in Westeros still exist for the majority of people; and giving us a much darker picture of the small council, with Tyrion trying to balance Bronn's self-serving corruption with Sam's political naivety. This would give us a much more balanced political picture, truer to Game of Thrones' roots: an ending in which Dany's revolution, for all its admirable idealism, becomes polluted by the slaughter that it necessarily incurs, but the failure of which leaves Westeros where it was at the beginning, still plagued by the same problems.

David Benioff and D.B Weiss, the showrunners
of Game of Thrones

Why didn't this ending happen? Partly, as I already mentioned, I think it was the move from sociological to personal storytelling, which the majority of mainstream storytellers find most natural. This is most clearly seen in the character of Jon Snow who more obviously came to embody the character of the reluctant hero as the series went on, at the expense of our sympathies with Dany and her political project. I also think that a general desire to please the fans got in the way: the overly optimistic conclusion in socio-political terms makes for a more comforting "happy ending", especially with regards to the small council scene which ignored the worrying political weaknesses of the new regime in favour of having a scene of lighthearted banter between some of the shows most popular characters. However, most crucially I think the showrunners, David Benioff and Dan Weiss, gave the show an optimistic right wing conclusion because they were scared of the political implications of treating Dany, and her left-wing project, fairly. To some degree, I sympathise with them: it takes some guts to try and get the audience to sympathise with or at least understand a character who kills thousands of innocents. But surely this is what Game of Thrones has always been about- teaching us that the "right" choices are not always obvious and often come with unbearable consequences. In making Dany's character arc about her madness, rather than about her admirable desire for change, the showrunners seemed to disregard the very questions that made the show so politically interesting in the first place: what is the right thing to do, and how far should you go in pursuit of it?