People are scratching their heads over the twist ending of Game of Thrones. Jon choosing duty over love, wasn't a huge surprise (if a little trite imo). Neither was Queen Sansa. We all saw that coming a hundred miles away. But then we get [spoiler alert!!!!] King Bran? what?
True, he is perhaps the ultimate representation of all the people who were marginalized under the previous system. But, Bran is also already ridiculously powerful. Not only can he see the entire past, he has probably influenced it. His abilities as a warg mean he can be anywhere at a moment's notice. His abilities as a greenseer mean that he knows everything that happens. There's no possibility of a misunderstanding like what caused Robert's Rebellion, not with Bran around. This much, Tyrion knows when he chooses Bran. What he doesn't know, is that he has made the best possible choice. Bran is functionally immortal (he can prevent himself from dying by warging, and if he hooks himself up to the weirwood network he will definitely be immortal). He is all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful, and immortal. Sound familiar?
Bran may once have been a boy pushed from a tower: but he has become much more than that. He left that behind when he took the weirwood paste, and began to train as a greenseer. Bran is not chosen because he represents the marginalized, nor is he chosen because he 'has the best story'. Bran is chosen because he is not a man. The gods of Westeros are just as mysterious and about as physical as the gods that people believe in in the real world. Except, for Bran. He has gone beyond humanity: he knows things that no human could know, and he has done things which no human could do. He is indeed the ultimate cheat. He has transcended humanity and become a god.
This move is a recognition of the inherent problem in monarchy: and a solution to it that follows logically from that recognition. The inherent problem with monarchy is the problem of succession. Not simply the problem of multiple claimants to the throne, since that can be dealt with just by clearly codifying the rules of succession. Rather, the problem is that succession needs to take place at all. A monarch who earns their title through whatever means obviously deserves it in the eyes of the common people. Otherwise, they wouldn't give him or her the title. But the very power which is the just reward for the deeds of the founding monarch, will almost guarantee that his or her successor is not worthy. At the very least, this person will have to look for a way to prove him or herself. Most likely, they will be completely blinded by their privilege and emotionally immature. The best solution is therefore a monarch who will live forever, who will never need a successor. That necessarily means, it cannot be a human. The squabbling nobles of Westeros need some authority to rule over them: otherwise they will simply fight to annihilation. Bran is perfectly capable of keeping the peace among them: indeed is probably even more capable than any of the previous kings of doing this. He can intervene directly, at a moment's notice: no matter what the situation is. He does not need a court, so court intrigue cannot happen. He can be everywhere at once, know everything that is happening, and act on it.
He is ideal in another way as well: he has no agenda of his own. The very trait that the author of our article complains about, is exactly what makes Bran the perfect choice. He is indeed a boring character. But that is perhaps what makes this the most daring subversion of all in terms of literature. Yet, it isn't so much a subversion of a fantasy trope as it is a subversion of expectations. The original fantasy story after all ends with a man who has no personal agenda being crowned King. And in the case of Aragorn, that is indeed the reason why he is worthy. All of Aragorn's actions until this point have been at the behest of Elrond: who was essentially blackmailing him by withholding the privilege of marrying Arwen. Aragorn effectively has no agency even in the moment when he refuses the Ring. This too is a consequence of Elrond's emotional blackmail, and indeed is probably the reason why Elrond resorts to this. If he takes the Ring, Elrond will keep Arwen from him. Elrond can't afford to have Aragorn do what Isildur did: so he makes the hard choice to blackmail his adoptive son.
But wait, you say, Aragorn is an interesting character. True. Much of that has to do with perspective. We see him through the eyes of Frodo, his companion. The Game of Thrones TV show however uses a 3rd Person Omniscient perspective. Which, if you think about it, can only be the perspective of one person: Bran himself. It's a good twist, because if you actually thought about it: you would have seen it coming. This can only be Bran's story, because he is the only person who could know about all of the events which take place in it. Of course it's going to end with Bran on top. He does kind of meander through the story, relating to us all the things which other people did but which had only an indirect impact on him. Yet, each action taken by any of the characters in the story pushed Bran further and further towards the center.
Bran is ideal for this position because he cares solely about the long-term welfare of the realm. Although Varys is the one who was always saying "I serve the Realm": it is Bran who has been doing that. Varys was self-evidently serving the Targaryens, probably because he is a Targaryen (see an interesting thing about castration is that it stops you from going bald: so why does Varys shave his head? obvious answer: his hair is white, it would give him away as a Targaryen). How has Bran been serving the Realm? largely by giving people important information. Yes, he has served mostly as a plot reveal device. That makes him a counterpoint to Varys, the ultimate keeper of secrets. Bran has been notably free with information, unlike Brynden Rivers aka the previous Three-Eyed Raven: who was probably in league with Varys this whole time (as he is also a Targaryen, albeit a bastard one).
Do I think that this is also how GRRM is going to end the series? actually, yes. Bran's full name is Brandon Stark: a name with an enormous amount of in-universe historical weight behind it. GRRM goes out of his way to build up the legend that surrounds this name in the very first chapter of the book. A name like this must obey Chekov's famous rule: "if there is a gun shown in the first act, it must have gone off before the third act is finished". Here the "gun" is a name, but the same principles apply. Even moreso, because the name isn't only significant inside the fictional world. It's incredibly significant in the real world as well. In the Mabinogion, there is High-King Bran the Blessed of "The Isle of the Mighty" (a translation of "Prydain": the old Welsh name for Britain). This figure is further identified with the Fisher King of the Arthurian legends.
Two significant things identify Bran of ASOIAF with this figure from Celtic legends: his handicap, and his powers. Bran the Blessed gets shot in the foot, and the Fisher King is wounded in the leg. Our Bran similarly suffers from nonfunctional legs. In this era, "leg" and "foot" were often euphemisms for another part of the male anatomy that lies adjacent: and our Bran also has this problem (medical realism in fantasy ftw!) Bran the Blessed is the original owner of a magic cauldron capable of resurrecting the dead, and the Fisher King owns the Holy Grail. Our Bran may or may not have the power to resurrect the dead (some people speculate that he played a role in Jon's resurrection, although neither the books nor the show confirms this): but he certainly knows the secrets of life and death. Like most figures in the Mabinogion: Bran the Blessed was originally an ancestor-deity, demoted to the status of hero by Christian missionaries.
Furthermore, our Bran does indeed fit the archetype of the Fisher King: a King whose health is intimately tied to that of the land and vice versa. Bran is quite literally connected to the land through magic, just as the Arthurian Fisher King is. While this was a common trope in Celtic mythology generally, it became particularly associated with the Fisher King in the Middle Ages. And, like Bran the Blessed in the Mabinogion, our Bran is a guardian of the land: calling on it's strength to combat those who would conquer it and destroy it. His status as a cripple, also both foreshadows and reflects the brokenness of Westeros itself. Like Bran, Westeros will always be a broken land: after the ravages of Aegon's conquest, the Long Night, Robert's Rebellion and finally Danaerys' Conquest. After so much war on such a grand scale, the land cannot go back to being the same as it always was: just as Sansa cannot go back to being a "Little Bird". But it will live again.
The Westerosi legends about Brandon Stark, or Bran the Builder, are similarly larger-than-life. If Bran the Builder was indeed real, and did indeed do the things he is credited with doing, then he wasn't a normal human. Supposedly he built the Wall, and Winterfell. The first task alone would take well more than a human lifetime, and the second likely would as well: especially given the technology they have. A complex of buildings the size of Winterfell with it's extensive fortifications could take up to a century to build, easily. Granted that ice is easier to work with than stone, but building the Wall would still have been the work of at least a century given the size of the thing. Even assuming crews of thousands working on the castle and the Wall at the same time, this is still a feat of several human lifetimes, and making that assumption would be ludicrous. There's no way the Starks had enough manpower, even factoring in Giants, to do that given the available technology. But, that's not to say that Bran the Builder didn't do this. It is instead to say that Bran the Builder never truly died.
Basically, anyone with a good knowledge of fairy tales should have seen this ending coming a hundred miles away. But that is exactly why it is a good twist. It isn't what we expect, yet after it has been revealed: it's obvious. Of course, how many people are even passingly familiar with Celtic mythology? not many. That is probably exactly why George R. R. Martin chose it. Just like Tolkien before him: he's taking little-known tales and weaving them into his narrative. Given that Martin chose to style himself after Tolkien, it's not unreasonable to think he may have the same intentions. It is also not unreasonable to say that Martin is less trying to tear down fantasy as he is trying to tackle the problematic misunderstandings or misuses of fantasy tropes that have occurred in the half-century between Tolkien and the present day. Indeed, just from the map of Westeros: we can see that Martin's project is explicitly the same as Tolkien's.
Tolkien's goal was, according to himself, to construct a coherent mythology for England. The Mabinogion and Celtic legends are necessarily a part of that: and Tolkien did use them. He also used a wide variety of other Germanic sources, as well as the Bible. In a way though, he failed spectacularly. He did indeed succeed in creating mythology, but not specifically for England. It's a mythology that ends up being applicable to anyone of European or Semitic heritage: rather than English people specifically. Martin however lifts plots directly from English history, and situates his narrative in a facsimile of England. In it's beginning A Song of Ice and Fire even seems like alternate history rather than fantasy. One can even go so far as to say how a situation like the one that we see at the beginning of Game of Thrones would occur: if Charlemagne's daughter Clothilde had married Emperor Constantine of the Eastern Roman Empire, and the Holy Roman Empire had never been established. That's how we would end up with a place name like "Westeros" as well as spellings for names like "Margaery" and "Aeron" for familiar names Margery and Aaron: if there had been more Greek influence from the Byzantines as languages like Frankish and Anglo-Saxon were first being recorded. As the story goes on Martin leave history behind and turns more towards mythology: but the narrative always straddles that line.
Thus, this ending works especially well: because it brings us back to something that is recognizable to the England of the present day. The form of government that Westeros ends up with is precisely that which the actual country of England has. Parliamentary democracy is an English invention, perhaps the single greatest invention to ever come out of England (which is saying a lot because a fair few number of cool things have been invented in England). But, there is a unique twist to England's government. England is one of the few countries in the world which actually has a state religion. This often goes unrecognized, because they don't force everyone to follow said religion: but nevertheless, it is true. The monarch is the head of the church, and the monarch is also the source of legitimacy for the English government. Thus, the source of the English government's legitimacy is ultimately God. In electing Bran as King, this is also precisely what the Westerosi have set up. In some ways in fact, it's even better: since no faith or institution to spread that faith among the people is required. Why is this a great thing? it offers Westeros the one thing it needs more badly than anything else: stability.
The common people of Westeros suffer when the lords fight, no matter how just the cause might be. What they need more than anything else, is peace and stability. That is what a King offers the common people of Westeros: he keeps the lords from fighting amongst themselves, while his dynasty lasts. Bran offers the guarantee that there will never be a civil war in Westeros again. Furthermore, in the event of an invasion: Bran does not need to call upon the strength of the peasantry to fight it off. He can weaponize the land itself. Under Bran's protection, Westeros can go about it's business safe from both internal and external threats.
This may sound like an apology for monarchy. But it's actually not. It's actually the opposite. It is a recognition of the fact that an ideal monarch is inhuman. Bran does not feel the human emotions and desires which drive most of us. He himself says at one point "I don't want much of anything now". Like most everything Bran says, that's a massively loaded statement. Even his most admirable trait, his ability to forgive those who wronged him, is also a sign of his inhumanity. His limitless capacity to forgive others mirrors that of God in the New Testament. A normal person, like Sansa, doesn't forgive people her abusers: she sics his dogs on him. Bran openly empathizes with Jamie Lannister by saying "the things we do for love": the very statement that Jamie made right before pushing him from the tower, but now changed to include himself. It could not get more godlike than that: and Nikolaj Coster-Waldau's double-take was spot on, in case you missed the meaning. Bran isn't referencing anything in his story here: he hasn't personally done terrible things for love of someone (the worst thing he's done was warg into Hodor, which wasn't nice but is hardly comparable to what Jamie did). Jamie does terrible things for the people he loves, but nobody else at that table does: being willing to set aside his morals to please others is Jamie's unique flaw. But Bran says "we", speaking as if he and Jamie are not different individuals. This demonstrates his inhuman universal consciousness: i.e. that he thinks like a god, not a human. When Jon greets him by saying "you're a man now!"; Bran replies "almost". He isn't saying that he's almost grown up (he's what, eighteen at this point? older than Jon was when he took his vows with the Night's Watch anyhow): he's saying that he is human on the outside, but not on the inside.
Theon was never an excellent fighter, and was an even worse strategist: until the Battle of Winterfell that is. Here, he fights to defend Bran: employing a strategy Sun Tzu would have been proud of, and with superhuman skill. He's shooting with about 90% accuracy, in a snowstorm, in the dark, with a flaming arrow: a feat that should not be possible. Since we have Arya shooting at about 60% accuracy (much more realistic, given that they have to use unaerodynamic arrows) in the same episode we can't chalk this up to the directors not knowing how bows work. This is clearly a tool of characterization. This change in him can only have one cause: religious zealotry. Especially since the show was kind enough to include a comparison character in the same episode (Berric Dondarrian), there really can be no argument here. Theon and Berric both show a total disregard for their personal safety as they fight (there's a reason R'hollor has had to bring Berric back 19 times), and fight at full strength with injuries that should incapacitate them. This goes well beyond the zeal someone would display for a lover or family member. Again, the show was kind enough to offer a comparison in the form of Jorah Mormont. He visibly fails as he takes more and more blows to protect Danaerys, to the point where she is actually half-carrying him and all he can do is let her use his body as a shield. Berric however, is throwing wights in a frenzy until the moment when Sandor pulls him into the safe room, at which point he dies. Theon, after hours of nonstop pitched battle, charges full-tilt at the Night King with barely a pause for breath. The reason for Theon's zeal? Bran forgave him for his ill-fated attempt at capturing Winterfell. Theon's zeal too demonstrates Bran's inhumanity, i.e. his divinity.
Bran's unique capabilities make him ideally suited to leading Westeros into it's new order. By definition, he cannot do as previous leaders have done. He is incapable of the swaggering grandiosity that Robert used to drum up popularity among the common folk: nor can be play the Game of Thrones like Cersei did. But he does not need to. The Game of Thrones is over. Bran does not need a Hand to enforce his will for his only desire is to protect life. Bran does not need a Spider to bring him whispers, for he is the literal and figurative spider who knows all secrets. The Westerosi call their Kings "your grace", but Bran can be truly gracious to them in a way no one else could: as he was to Theon and to Jaime. He is not a King to love like Jon, nor a King to fear like Aerys. He is a King you can forget even exists, but who is always with you. You cannot serve him or betray him: for there is no separation between you and him. To serve him is to serve yourself: to betray him would be to betray yourself. Yet, he knows you as a being separate from himself, more deeply than you know yourself: and knowing you perfectly, he loves you. He will remember you perfectly, and so through him you will have eternal life. Those who were at the Dragonpit did not know this consciously about Bran: but deep down they did know. They chose him unanimously, without discussion, on the suggestion of a prisoner whom none of them had any reason to trust. As Bran himself knew they would before he came to that meeting.
What can we learn? After all, we do not have kings. Or do we? More often than we think, people try to set themselves up as Kings: often because that is how we choose to see them. We crave the stability which an absolute ruler can bring. But, we should remember that no human can truly handle absolute power. It is not that power corrupts: rather it is that power magnifies all things. Yes, you can do a lot of good if you have power. Your flaws are also magnified and cause a lot of evil. Very often, when we see passionately loving people like Jon, we want to give them absolute power. But, that impulse is a mistake. They are not more capable of being a good ruler just because they are good people. Only a god can have absolute power, because only a god truly has the capacity to wield it responsibly.
No comments:
Post a Comment