Tormund Giantsbane: the Purpose of the Fool

*Warning, a lot of crude language and mental images you don't need ahead*

Tormund Giantsbane is hilarious. He's so funny, it can be hard to see him as anything other than just the comic relief. He does play that role, especially in the rag-tag band that Jon Snow assembles to go north of The Wall in season 7 of Game of the Thrones. But Tormund is more than just the guy with the great jokes, and that stupid story about fucking a bear. Yes, he is that one character who constantly talks about penises that seems to be obligatory for HBO shows (at least since Spartacus, and Gannicus saying the word "cock" in every sentence).  Tormund has more colorful words for the male genitalia, but almost everything that comes out of his mouth has something to do with sex. Not just jokes either, even in his more serious moments he's more often than not talking about sex: either giving advice to Jon Snow, or moaning about how Brienne won't notice him. But he isn't just a nymphomaniac: he doesn't have the nihilistic worldview.  In fact, Tormund is the antidote to the depressing and cynical world he inhabits: and his seeming obsession with sex is part of that. He doesn't talk about sex the way that other men in Game of Thrones talk about sex. Even the "good" characters like Ned Stark talk about sex more often than not as a type of conquest: a way of asserting one's will over someone else.  Most of the female characters talk about sex this way too, and experience it this way.

The negative and positive sides of this are explored in the characters of Sansa Stark and Margaery Tyrell. Sansa is on the receiving end of sex as conquest, not once but twice: strongly shaping her view of sexuality and marriage. She becomes frigid because she has been hurt, closing herself off from others. This even extends to people who can't be sex partners, including her sister Arya. Margaery Tyrell is on the perpetrating end.  She uses sex as conquest to control Thommen Baratheon, getting him to idolize her by objectifying and coddling him. This is a problem ultimately, because when he is confronted with real responsibility he simply can't deal with it.

Even Danaerys was brought up thinking this way about sex, and all on her own discovered a different attitude towards sexuality. This is why the relationship with Daario Naharis is important to her character arc: he shows her the world of affirmative sexuality, completing her recovery from the trauma inflicted by her brother. 

Jon is similarly hung up about his sexuality, because he believes he is a bastard. He is too genuinely kind to want to bring a child into the world who is going to suffer the way he has suffered.  The only way he could express his sexuality was among the wildlings, where if Ygritte had a child by him then s/he would be treated the same as any other. At least, until his death and rebirth.  At this point, his old identity as Eddard Stark's supposed bastard son is stripped away. He is simply Jon: not a bastard, not a brother of the Night's Watch, but a man. A man who can be a King. As the only (at that time known) surviving male in the Stark family, he is named King in the North: a position he could not have held if he were a bastard or a brother of the Watch. But these old positions in society have ceased to have meaning: because Jon has awoken to a broken world. Now Jon can begin to think of sex in a new light: not as a way of exerting control over someone, but as yet another way of helping others. Tormund is there to show him how that is accomplished.

You see, the reason why Tormund makes jokes is because Tormund wants to make people laugh. I know, I know, that sounds extremely obvious but if you think about it that makes him something almost miraculous in the world of GoT.  Tormund, is a nice person.  He just wants to make people smile. He's untouched by the Machiavellian machinations of the other characters. He has a nose for bullshit, and doesn't touch it with a ten foot pole. He doesn't care about his own advancement: he just wants people to be safe and laughing. Of course, this does actually get him advanced: to lead a band of wildlings. The way in which Tormund's way of talking about sex is different from the other characters is highlighted by the way he becomes the leader of that wildling band. Rattleshirt, like most of the men in this world, thinks of sex as conquest. He insinuates that Tormund plays the submissive role in sex with Jon i.e. that Jon has conquered Tormund. But let us contrast this moment with another before we examine Tormund's reaction. Sandor Clegane much later on insinuates that Tormund would submit to him in sex. In that case, Tormund reacts by misdirecting the conversation: he shows no sign of being offended, if anything he almost sounds interested (like I said, mental images you don't need).  In the case of Rattleshirt however, Tormund goes ballistic and kills the guy. Why? because Rattleshirt is insinuating that Jon would enjoy dominating another man. This is an insult to Jon, a man so altruistic he's willing to die repeatedly for others. Tormund knows if he doesn't stand up for Jon, then no one will.

For all that Tormund talks about sex constantly, he doesn't actually do any.  That isn't the point though. While everyone else is talking about death: Tormund is talking about life. Everyone else is unhappy, cynical and depressed: but Tormund is focusing on living, on finding joy in life and bringing that to others. He understands that it is especially now, as the long cold and dark winter full of horrors begins, that people like him are needed most. People kissed by fire, with red hair and sunny spirits. There's an even deeper layer to it as well. Sex is honest, you have to get naked to do it. You can't lie about who or what you are, to someone you're having sex with. Tormund talks about sex to show he's being honest: and to get others to be honest with him. It's a way to cut through the bullshit to find out who someone really is. Tormund understands something crucial that many people in this world don't seem to: flattery isn't complimentary, it's denigrating. Lying to someone about how good they are, or what they are capable of is an insult to that person. It's telling them that you think they are stupid enough to swallow your lie. When people start to deify Jon, Tormund quietly cuts through that: with a dick joke of course. This isn't just because it's Tormund's signature style. It's because joking about his penis reminds everyone that he has one: i.e. that he is a man. In fact it reminds everyone that the best and most wonderful thing about Jon, is that he is a man: not some theoretical divine being who cannot be truly known.

Of course, Tormund understands why people deify Jon. This is a world where men, especially men with power, routinely sacrifice others for their own self-interest. Here is Jon, who has already sacrificed himself for others and is willing to do so again. This is outside their understanding and expectations. But what Tormund is saying, is that Jon can be understood. He has motivations for doing what he does, which any of them could understand and relate to. Understand, relate to, and copy. People love and revere Jon because of his passionate commitment to serving others. But Tormund knows they could go beyond simply obeying his commands, bending the knee, or treating him with reverence. They could try to be more like him. They could try to put aside their selfish concerns, and see the larger picture. See the dangers posed by the oncoming winter and how they could use their resources to help more people than just their immediate family. Tormund isn't just lightening a tense and awkward moment, or saving Jon from embarrassment, he's making a radical statement about human nature. That's one deep dick joke right there.

Kayley: Real Innocence versus Victorian Nonsense.

Firefly was a great show. It got Jossed, a term for shows cut short because they were written by Joss Whedon or because they had similar writing to Joss Whedon's style. Now, there are many Whedonisms which are the primary cause of shows being Jossed: and Firefly is by no means immune to these problems.  However, the one problem it can't be accused of is flat characters. 

Kayley is the ship's engineer, and cute as a button. Props to the casting by the way, for choosing an actress who could look absolutely adorable in a 1940s style Rosie-the-riveter suit. She's also one of the two comic-relief characters: the other one being the ship's wisecracking pilot Wash.  Kayley knows a lot about engines, and a lot about adult stuff. It's evident she grew up around men who fixed stuff and talked about intimate details of their personal lives as they did so. She also has a persistently optimistic outlook on life. So, in what way is she naive? She does not know social conventions or for that matter have any interest in them. She does not care about taboos such as the taboo against discussing sexuality. However, she is never mean. Kayley genuinely cares about people, and understands what it means to respect others. Her frankness can make them uncomfortable, but she is never unkind. She does not understand the reason for taboos, and doesn't like the concept: but she is fundamentally unaware of how completely good-natured she herself is. She believes everyone else is just like her. The rest of the crew think that an angel has come to live with them. In this sense, she is naive: failing to grasp that other people don't think the way you do is in a sense childlike.

However, this is not an example of the "Born Sexy Yesterday" trope because Kayley is not the hero's love interest, and she is actually aware of what sex is (and is also definitely aware that some people find her attractive). What she doesn't understand is society. Her lack of knowledge about society is also mostly purposeful: she views society as ridiculous, and so refuses to respect it's rules. This is demonstrated by the fact that she can, and does, parody different segments of their society. She understands the ways that people act: even if not why they act that way. For Captain Mal in particular, her optimism and unironic blunt kindness is genuinely transformative.

But Joss Whedon does not fall into the trap of assuming that Kayley can only transform Mal if they are in a sexual relationship. It's in fact much more of a father-daughter relationship: with Mal taking the place of the father that Kayley lost when she was young, and Kayley taking the place of the child Mal always wanted but never had. She is the character who is capable of breaking through Mal's nihilism: showing him that his life is meaningful, and that he is a good man. Mal is a mercenary, not by choice but because of his circumstances. He has PTSD and survivor's guilt as well.  His experience is clearly meant to mirror that of a Vietnam or Korean war veteran: A man who knows he did terrible things, wonders why he survived, finds his current employment distasteful, and is disgusted by the ingratitude of those around him.

Of course, this is hardly a new experience (although very often it is treated that way). The same motivations drove Vespasian to a coup against the Emperor Claudius, only to devastatingly discover that there was no way to stop the Roman war machine-Roman society was too dependent on it. Mal has read his history, and doesn't bother with the political coup. He also doesn't run away from his emotional problems by becoming addicted to something. He simply buries them. He pretends like everything is okay, but he's letting his self-loathing and his fear of loss determine his actions.  He is like my Uncle, one of the many many so-called "successful" veterans who came back from Korea unable to tell anyone how broken they were and are. The only way Mal is able to make sense of a society that rejects his efforts on it's behalf is to essentially believe that he is in hell: and if he is in hell, that must mean he is a fundamentally evil person. He is unable to see that he is a good man who has been treated unfairly because he believes all the good men died in the war. It is only through Kayley that Mal can come to see the world for what it actually is, how unfairly he has been treated, and that he has the ability to reject that unfair society completely. But this is only because Mal respects Kayley enough to believe that her fundamentally hopeful attitude towards the world isn't born out of ignorance. It comes from observations about the world that he is blind to.

This transformation in Mal, sets up the events of the movie Serenity where Mal accepts actual fugitives of the government onto his ship even though one of them could potentially kill him and his crew in their sleep. The Tam siblings are not simply marginalized people: in fact they grew up privileged. They are wanted fugitives and criminals, and Mal is eventually willing to not simply transport them but accept them as crewmembers. Mal and his crew have hitherto kept themselves on the gray side of the law: but now Mal is willing to risk a complete break with the society that has oppressed and rejected him and his little family.

Kayley is innocent, or in French "naïve", in the original sense of that word: of not understanding, and therefore not being persuaded by, evil. This is what it means when Christ is described as Innocens, unknowing. He does not feel hatred, bitterness, pride, anger or any desire to hurt those who have hurt him: in short, he has no evil impulses. When he is in the wilderness and being tested by Satan, he demonstrates that he cannot be corrupted and persuaded to choose evil. To be clear here: the Satan of the Bible is not a being of evil, but God's servant. Jesus in fact goes to the wilderness for the express purpose of being tested by Satan: essentially to test the connection between spiritual being and mortal human, to be sure that the plan really will work. The normal word for "to know" in Latin is "scire", which means literally "to see": another word is "sapire" which is similar to English "to figure out".  "Nocere" in Latin means a deeper form of knowing, more like our word "to feel", or the colloquial meaning of "to dig".  It's an emotional form of knowing rather than an intellectual one: a gut feeling about what is or isn't right. If you are innocent in the Christian sense, you don't "dig" evil. It has nothing to do with the Victorian notion of innocence as a lack of sexuality: a notion that we still have in our society today.

Despite Bridge to Terabithia, and the repeated testimony of child psychologists: we refuse to accept that children have sexuality, and understand what it is. They have no interest in grownup sex, but that does not mean they cannot understand the emotions that exist between people who are in romantic and sexual relationships. This leads us to fail our children, by failing to teach them about healthy romantic relationships and healthy sexuality. So, they learn from the media: which tells them all kinds of wrong and harmful things about relationships and sexuality, their own or other people's. Even when parents tell their children where babies come from, they frequently neglect to mention other important aspects of adult relationships. Children understand the concept of romantic love: they conduct romances with each other, or between toys. This is natural and normal. 

That is not to say children aren't innocent: they are. They are innocent in this older sense: of not understanding, and therefore not being persuaded by, evil. If they hurt each other, it is out of ignorance rather than malice. They do not yet understand that others think differently from them, and therefore cannot feel actual hatred. They have no reason to be self-conscious, prideful or bitter because they do not yet know that others judge them. They feel frustration and disappointment, but not anger because they are not yet aware that there are people who would want to hurt them. If they get hurt, they believe it is either a natural consequence of their own actions, or an accident. So they are quick to forgive and move on, but also liable to blame themselves for the psychological problems of adults. Children do not understand abuse, they do not understand that it is possible for someone to gain satisfaction from exploiting and hurting them. That is what innocence really means. It doesn't mean their eyes need to be covered every time a woman's naked breast happens to appear.

Katniss Everdeen-the Harm Caused by "Positive" Objectification.

Katniss Everdeen is hardly the typical hero of a romance story, or a dystopian story. She's too flawed for the former, and too naive for the latter. The heroes of dystopian stories are usually clear-eyed hard-boiled survivors: not unlike the detectives of noir films. Katniss starts the story fundamentally unaware of just how horrific the regime she lives under really is. District 12 of Panem as Katniss knows it, is something of a haven. It's low population makes it less threatening, and the fact that no tribute from 12 has won the hunger games in several decades also contributes to the Capitol's lax attitude. There is a strong community that has formed around the black market, since the police are lazy and corrupt. People are poor, but they are generally happy. After the death of her father, Katniss has taken on his role in the family: hunting illegally and selling her catch at the black market, since she's still considered too young to work in the coal mines which are the official industry of District 12. She keeps her head down, and stays safe in relative anonymity. 

Or, at least, she thinks she's anonymous. But here's the part where her naiveté comes in. Naiveté doesn't mean a lack of factual knowledge: it means a lack of knowledge about the impact you have on people. It means not believing that people notice your actions, and not needing them to. It means in other words, not needing external validation. Katniss knows what she does for other people, and what other people have done for her. She doesn't need someone to tell her that she provides food for her sister and mother and saved their lives after her father died. She knows what her skills are, and what they aren't. She does not need the Hunger Games to know she is a good hunter.  She even talks with her best friend Gale about running away from the District and living in the woods. Katniss is however blind to the impact she has on her community. Her hunting allows other people, like Greasy Sae, to have a livelihood. She isn't just keeping her own family fed, she's keeping other people's families fed too. The meat she brings in, is likely the only meat they ever get. The berries she picks are crucial for their nutrition, as much as they are for her sister Primrose. This is even true for the relatively wealthy: like the Mellarks and the mayor's family. Evidently, fruits and vegetables are luxury products in this dystopian society. She isn't just raising her own family's standard of living: she's raising everyone's. Thus, when Katniss volunteers to be in the Hunger Games to take her sister's place: the whole community is affected. This is why they give the District 12 salute to her as she leaves (which by the way is similar to the real world Girl Scout salute, nice touch Suzanne Collins).  But just because Katniss hasn't noticed the way in which she lifts up those around her, doesn't mean this is lost on everyone else. After all: Katniss is only 16. That level of self-awareness would be odd in someone that age. Haymitch and Peeta Mellark have noticed.

Haymitch is secretly a member of a rebellion against the government of Panem, along with the forgotten District 13.  It is never explicitly stated that Haymitch informs the other conspirators about Katniss: but he's the only one who could have. Haymitch is the previous winning tribute from District 12, with a mysterious past that has caused a drinking problem. He's a (sort of) high-functioning alcoholic, who uses the fact that no one takes him very seriously in order to work for rebellion.  But the rebellion has been dormant until Katniss volunteers for the Hunger Games. The plan is to use the Hunger Games against the Capitol: because they are the only way to communicate with all districts all at once.  Katniss, the rebels have decided, will make a perfect symbol. The mayor's daughter Madge hands Katniss a Mockingjay pin, seemingly as an innocent gift. But it was evidently chosen for the symbolism of the Mockingjay: the product of the Capitol's experimental jabber jays mating with mockingbirds in the wild. The jabber jays played a big party in the previous time that the Districts of Panem rebelled, giving information on the rebels to the Capitol. Mockingjays are an accident that the Capitol never meant to have happen: the result of nature taking it's course in a world that abhors all things natural. It is a good symbol for Katniss, because this is what she represents too: nature intruding upon a world that abhors nature.

So, what's the problem here? Well, the problem is that the rebels didn't tell Katniss they were recruiting her for the rebellion. They also didn't tell her that they were going to use her as a prop. They made her into the Mockingjay, little more than a symbol of rebellion against the Capitol. This is of course something that happens to many real-life revolutionaries. It happened to Lenin in Russia, his body is still preserved like some sort of scientific specimen with a bizarre regimen of chemicals: for use by the state as a prop in it's ceremonies. Even though Russia has become something which Lenin would have despised. It happened to Ché Guevara too. His, admittedly attractive, visage was incongruously taken up as a symbol of resistance to the US government. Oddly enough, mostly by anarchists: which is weird since Ché's job as Fidel Castro's right hand man was as executioner. Also, he hated anarchists. He was pretty much the definition of Lawful Neutral. In Anthropology, this phenomenon is called "positive objectification".  The name sounds nice: but it's not really. "Positive" in this case just means that the objectified person is treated as precious and important. Think of the way a museum would treat a painting. Sure, Katniss gets to break the rules and people take care to be nice to her. She is cared for, looked after etc: but not out of any genuine concern for her welfare. Rather she is coddled because she is the Mockingjay, the precious symbol of the rebellion that can't be lost.

Katniss does not like this. Most people don't.  People can be taught to like it by society, but it is not something that people naturally like. It is not a proper way to treat human beings. This is the treatment that most women in the western world have been subjected to since the Victorian Era. It should be noted that this is only one type of misogyny and the Victorian Era in the western world was not the only time or place where it was prevalent. Other societies have other types of misogyny, and other time periods had other pernicious ideas about women. Positive objectification is why men were pressured to open doors, pull back chairs and the like for women in the past: as if the women were creatures too delicate to do such work. 1950s advertising also contains a lot of positive objectification. This is different from a man opening doors or pulling back chairs for his girlfriend out of genuine respect.  It's not about what he's doing, but about why he's doing it. Positive objectification can even take the form of false worship: think of the racist or anti-semitic clergyman. This person claims that they worship a divine being: but actually they are objectifying the divine. They are using the authority that comes from being a clergyman to advance their own secular agenda: an agenda with it's roots in personal or class-based problems rather than any scripture or church doctrine. The name of the divine being, as well as scriptures and church doctrines are objects: tools to be used for a purpose. A true believer doesn't advance an agenda that benefits them personally. In fact they may even work against the interests of their race, class or other identity group. They take a receptive stance: changing their behavior based on what they learn from the scripture rather than trying to make the scripture fit their beliefs. Of course, it isn't just religious people who do this: plenty of scientists have done it as well.

For example, Margaret Mead. In her book on the society of a particular pacific island, she concluded that it was a sexually liberal society where young boys and girls often had intimate relationships before marriage. Except...wait a minute: where are the bastard children? where are the rushed marriages? do they have some form of birth control unknown to the west? no, of course not. The girls flirted with the boys as a way of annoying their guardians: their fathers and brothers. Just like prep school girls at a dance, they act more daringly because they know that if the boys show too much interest their guardians will flip out. What did Mead do? she objectified the people she was writing about in order to advance an agenda she had held long before she went to these islands or even became an anthropologist. She wanted western society to loosen the hell up, so she wrote about a society that was looser even though no such society actually existed. The thing is: the society being detailed in an ethnography is supposed to be the Subject. That is, they are supposed to be treated with genuine respect. The ethnographer is supposed to be like a ghost-writer: it is the people being studied who should be making all the important decisions about the book, including what goes into it.

This brings me to why objectification is bad: it isn't just a question of respect or even of morality. People who objectify other people do so because they have some kind of agenda. Agendas do not have to be conscious: for example Barack Obama's water stunt in Flint, Michigan. Was he consciously intending to insult the people of this city? probably not. But he was probably annoyed about having to come there, and really wanted the bad press to stop at any cost. Even the cost of insulting people who were already being victimized by a racist state system, and doing nothing to put a stop to that system. Again, he likely didn't do this on purpose. This is not a case of objectification, at least so far as anyone knows. But it is an example of someone advancing an agenda despite not realizing he had one to advance.

Most misogynist individuals fall into this category as well: advancing an agenda that supports men at the expense of women without thinking that that's what they are doing. Most people who objectify women do not think that is what they are doing. Just as, in the Hunger Games, President Coin does not think of herself as objectifying Katniss and is confused by her anger. This is quite a clever move on the part of the author: President Coin is female, and so is Katniss. There's no question about what is going on, because gender is not a factor in the relationship. It's also not a romantic relationship: so there's no question about how wrong the treatment is. For some reason, people often excuse this behavior in the context of romance when they would otherwise condemn it. President Coin is not wrong, the rebellion does need a symbol: but a live Mockingjay taught a rebellious song would have done the job. There have been many revolutions that had no single leader, no person to rally around. But they all had something to rally around: and a song is a very common rallying point. A live mascot is more interesting than a static object, but it need not be a person. Think of how the World Wildlife Fund has rallied people behind the giant panda. 

If you are waiting for a singular leader of today's resistance to emerge, you will likely wait in vain. But that does not make the movement weak: in fact it makes it strong. If the South African apartheid government had killed Nelson Mandela: the movement he led would have fallen apart. Of course, if he killed himself it would have galvanized the movement: so, since they were unwilling to execute him, they had to keep him alive. A movement which has a singular figurehead like this, is fundamentally weak because the leader's fate will affect the movement. A decentralized movement on the other hand, is strong because the fate of a single member has no effect whatsoever on the whole. There are of course natural leaders and followers: but the deaths of these leaders will not have the consequence of stopping or weakening the movement. Movements need symbols, but it is in no way necessary to objectify a person in order to get one.