Game of Thrones Didn't Know What It Wanted To Say About Power, Choice, Or Agency

The series finale had a plan about where it’s characters would end up, but not what it meant.

Image Credit- HBO

• Tristan Young @talltristan

Daenerys Targaryen and Cersei Lannister had competing, even antithetical views about the iron throne. For one, it was a symbol of power and corruption that desperately needed reforming. The means of capturing it were secondary as long as it could be purposed towards altruism and liberty. For the other, what was done with that power didn’t really matter as long as it was in service of maintaining it. Sadly, both of these view points had a logical conclusion that ended in slaughter. Then there was Jon Snow, a man with an aversion- a pathological repulsion, even- to the iron throne. Of all of his roles and environments in Game of Thrones, from a humble servant of The Night’s Watch to the King in the North, what he identified the most with was the free folk beyond the wall. Their desire for freedom and autonomy had no place for dynastic monarchies. Lastly was Tyrion- the progressive. Pragmatic, calculating, but as the show went on, less and less in his own interest but in service of a greater good. He believed power didn’t have to corrupt absolutely, given the right person, until Daenerys broke his heart one last time.

The series finale didn’t care much for engaging in these world views, either from an omnipresent perspective meant to provide a macro or meta commentary about their world and ours, or from a personalized arc. Along the duration of the series, these character’s choices and narrative journeys had set world the of Westeros on a path with an unpredictable destination, save for the certainty of massive paradigm shifts. When a Dragon Queen storms the capitol and genocides a population, surely the conclusion of such actions and the collective decisions of all characters left to deal with the consequences can’t be a return to normalcy. Instead, the wheel kept turning.

Much of the debate surrounding the final season of GoT- that is before the discussion shifted to what exactly were Benioff and Weiss were thinking with these truncated seasons- is who would end up the iron throne. While I had my own opinions about how that was a myopic perspective on the show (hey I was at least kinda sorta right?), no one believed it would be Bran. The show’s capricious disregard for what was supposed to be an integral player in the fate of Westeros ostensibly relegated him to a bit character by the end, not the ruler of however many kingdoms were left in the fold. Opprobrium towards Bran’s flippantly arrogant accession is certainly warranted, but the fact that there was even a king to be chosen at all is a betrayal of the show’s message and its most interesting- if divisive- character, Danny. It’s bad enough that Emilia Clarke as Danny gave by far the best performance of anyone this season, only to be written out less than half way through the last episode, to be replaced by the dullest character on the show. The circumstances of how it happened are even more infuriating.

Say what you will about the finale- as with the entirety of the last two season, everything with Drogon was absolutely phenomenal. His final action was the most satisfying, and earned moment, the show had rendered in some time. I can not think of a more perfect and palpable metaphor for the need for ossified and toxic monarchies ending than Drogon torching the iron throne into the molten trash that it always was. Except, for maybe him doing it at the behest of Danny after realizing the error of her ways, but that option went out the window in ‘The Bells’. Nevertheless, the point was made. Perhaps it’s fitting and even appropriate that rather than a specific character, all of whom had been compromised multiple times due to a tenuous grasp on morality, arguing for this, the showed made its point through means that were wholly incorruptible and purifying; Drogon’s fire.

The show had given itself a chance to tear down the old, and build something new. The birth of a new era; a dream of spring- democratic representation. The show ejects the notion with callous mockery instead. If Danny had to be a fundamentally tragic, and ultimately doomed character, it would have been a lot more fulfilling if the error of her ways informed those that survived her fury that the notions of destiny and entitled fealty are not a great idea. Instead they give no serious consideration to changing the political structure of Westeros. They laugh it off with pretentious disdain. Their idea of progress is replacing birth right with an oligarchy-esque decision made by the richest and most powerful people in Westeros. The fate of a continent cemented in a choice made by the 1%. The tone deafness of such a decision by Benioff and Weiss is astounding.

Never mind the fact that Tyrion of all people pushes the cast in such a direction, at the reluctant acceptance of Grey Worm no less. The notion of Tyrion or Jon Snow still being alive, their fate to be considered by anyone other than the Unsullied or Dothraki is beyond ludicrous. Once Danny went full on Mad Queen, Grey Worm was all too happy to follow suit. Pushed to an emotional edge he had a little experience dealing with due to the traumatic death of Messandie, as soon Danny started napalming King’s Landing, he did the same from the ground. He was similarly emotionally unstable. Under no circumstances would he, upon apprehending Jon Snow for the murder of his queen, think it prudent to hold off on his own brand of justice and let the likes of the Lords of the Vale and Dorne have a say in what happens. The show had specifically altered his character to scoff at such suggestions. You can dislike his heel turn all you want, but that’s what happened. His choice to abstain from murdering Jon and Tyrion was just incoherent.

So too was the idea that this grand plan to name Bran the king (Sansa was right there, c’mon guys!) came from Tyrion. No character had consistently said how bad Tryion had become about making decisions than Tyrion. He says so right at the beginning of his pretty speech about memories. Yet, despite Grey Worm insisting- correctly- that Tyrion should not have a say in such matters, he gets his monologue on and everyone listens to him. The basis of Bran’s merits, him being the self proclaimed memory of the world, would make for an excellent grand maester I presume. In no way is that adequate qualification for king, as made evident by Bran himself just a few moments later with his seeming complete disinterest in the job- much like his disinterest in everything.

That of course wasn’t the only questionable decision this counsel of rich and powerful made. The final injustice this show forces us to endure is the exile of Jon Snow to the Night’s Watch. This is asinine on a surface level as there is no need for the Watch now that the Night King is dusted, there is peace with the free folk, and there is still a gaping hole along the east side of the wall. But off he goes. What’s truly egregious about such a moment is it completely strips Jon Snow of his agency. His is a character that has been defined by making difficult decisions. Some of them were dumb! Refer to charging after Rickon, telling Cersei he had pledged himself to Danny, or revealing his true parentage to Sansa. However, he also made the risky, but just move to ally with the free folk, and it was his unrelenting focus that united the north against the army of the dead.

Jon Snow shaped the future of Westeros far more than most; for him to be exiled by this lot was frustrating and deflating. I actually don’t mind his final moments of wandering off with the free folk, but it should have been on his own terms. After all he had been through, it would have been more narratively satisfying for him to choose the shape of the next chapter of his life. Instead we see him in his crow outfit, his hair reminiscent of the first couple of seasons. He looks less like the hardened and world weary commander we had come to know and more like the boy he left behind. It’s regressive.

It’s all so regressive. Jon reverting back to right where he started. Sansa replacing her ceremonial amour for luxurious drapery is evocative of her in the first few seasons; naïve, and at the mercy of others. Tyrion ends up back at small council meetings, discussing small matters, with small jokes. A city has been recently nuked and one of the shows final moments is casual bickering about the bureaucracies of government as if nothing had really happened. Just one administration replacing another. I realize the show was trying to communicate in the forms of circular and poetic symmetry, but it comes off as merely shrinking back into its prologue, not reaching a conclusion. Even in death, Danny’s actions could have changed the world. Her goal, long before it had been corrupted Targaryen madness or questionable writing, could have been fulfilled in a meaningful way. Instead the powerful stay powerful, the choices that should have defined Westeros didn’t really matter, and the people are no closer to a world where they truly have a chance. On and on it goes, unbroken.