GOT

GOT

by Deleted user -
Number of replies: 1

I think Ned's death is meant to signify the death of chivalry/honor. For the rest of the series, each main character makes a morally grey or outright bad choice. Martin is telling the audience that such a heroic and honorable character cannot and will not exist in this world. Such steady chivalry and honor are hard to come by in a fight for power and it doesn't survive the fight when it is found. 

I love this show and I have loved analyzing it from this new perspective. The intense ties to my family really interested me this time around. Theon's obsession with his homeland, Jon wanting to leave the wall for his family, the Lannisters caring about Tyrion's death, etc. In the other Medieval stories we have read, a person's family does not feel as important. Lineage is mentioned to prove that someone is worthy or the rightful heir to a throne, but there isn't the same intense obsession/loyalty. It is regularly mentioned that Gawain is Arthur's cousin, but it is more of a fact than something that is used to aggressively bond them. I often forget that Gawain is related to him. The only time it truly seemed important was in Gawain and the Green Knight and even then it was not on the Game of Thrones level of importance. Everyone in Arthur's court seems to care more about that allegiance than that of their family. There is no talk of personal family crests and mottos. In this way, Arthur's court reminds me of the Night's Watch, once you join that is your family.

In reply to Deleted user

Re: GOT

by Jessica Hines -
I really like this frame and am--fascinated--by your comment about family. It's not something I've thought about much in terms of comparison, but you're right that there's a major difference. There's been a lot of theorizing on the state of family in the Middle Ages, largely because it seems different than what we're used to seeing. One critic even famously, and wrongly, claimed that childhood didn't exist in the Middle Ages--children were simply regarded as tiny adults that their parents only had moderate affection for. Others have suggested (perhaps more believably) that the high infant mortality rate impacted how people talked about families and children. I'm more inclined to think that we're just not reading the texts that focus on family, which raises questions than about the role of the family in chivalric discourse...