Game of Thrones: Peter Dinklage as Tyrion Lannister. Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Laurie Penny on Game of Thrones and the Good Ruler complex

There are many problems with this series, but subtlety isn’t one of them.

I love Game of Thrones, but it’s not subtle. The stupendously popular swords-and-sorcery HBO romp is a glossy smorgasbord of rape, gratuitous sex and ultra-violence. Its major plot points, based on George R. R Martin’s Song of Ice and Fire novels, are so simplistic that they may as well have been scrawled in crayon on the intricate wallpaper of literary-televisual tradition: the goodies are the rough, noble Northerners, the Stark family, none of whom have any discernible character defects, and the baddies are the yellow-haired Southern Lannisters, prosperous, duplicitous, incestuous, murderous and lots of other horrible things ending in ‘ous’, and somewhere in there are ice-zombies and prostitutes and blood-feuds and dragons and prostitutes and eunuchs and prostitutes and pirates and prostitutes and witches and prostitutes and one randy dwarf with daddy issues. The whole thing is about as sophisticated as a sucking chest-wound, of which, incidentally, the series features a fair few.

Game of Thrones is, in short, about as much gory, horny fun as any pop-cultural artefact can be in a post-Fordist, post-crisis spectacle society which has not yet sanctioned hatchet-slashing death-matches between social outcasts and starving circus animals, although David Cameron has not yet revealed the details of his plan to tackle Britain’s housing crisis. No wonder everyone’s watching.

By ‘everyone,’ I mean almost four million people viewing the premiere in America alone, and many millions more watching the show online and in repeats across the English-speaking world. The general awfulness of what passes for reality means we need least an hour every week where everybody gets lost in a crypto-Medieval saga of mythical beasties, heaving bosoms, court intrigue and buckets of blood. Which is probably why so many otherwise discerning liberal viewers choose to give Game of Thrones a free pass on its staggering race and gender problems and enjoy the shit out of it anyway.

As well as being mightily entertaining, Game of Thrones is racist rape-culture Disneyland with Dragons. To say that this series is problematic in its handling of race and gender is a little like saying that Mitt Romney is rich: technically accurate, but an understatement so profound that it obscures more than it reveals. Take, for example, one single sub-plot: a very young princess, a blonde and beautiful thirteen-year-old virgin whose remarkable fairness of complexion is a motif of the series, is sold off as a child-bride by her unscrupulous brother, a man who likes to have sex whilst talking about dragons in the bath.

The unfortunate girl’s new husband is a dark-skinned, savage warlord from the Mystical East who, being a savage, is unable to conceive of any sex that isn’t exclusively rape-based, and as such violently assaults the little princess every night. But it’s all ok because a prostitute slave teaches the thirteen-year-old princess super sexy sex skills, and she proceeds to blow the warlord’s mind so throughly that they fall in love. Later in the series she uses her magical blondness and a bunch of baby dragons to free all the slaves in the Mystical East. If the enormous teetering pile of ugly stereotypes here is not immediately obvious, see me after class and we’ll go through it step by step.

None of which is to say the story isn’t exciting. That’s rather the point. A story doesn’t need to be comfortable, realistic or generous towards the downtrodden in order to be gripping; and a piece of art doesn't have to be perfectly politically correct to be fun, or important. We're allowed to enjoy problematic things, as long as we're honest about their problems. It would be nice, though, if those of us who enjoy this series despite its many, many prostitutes problems could just stop making asinine excuses for it. The worst by far of those excuses is “Game of Thrones is based on the Medieval World, and the Medieval World Was Sexist and Racist.” Well, yes, 14th century Europe wasn’t a lot of fun if you were a woman, but nor did it have, for example, dragons, or magical shape-changing witchy-woo assassins. Westeros does, because Westeros is a fantasy world. If the creator of a fantasy series can dream up an army of self-resurrecting zombie immortals he can damn well dream up equal marriage rights, and if he chooses not to do so then that choice is meaningful, as is our assumption that the default setting for any generically legendary epic must involve really rather a lot of rape.

That, for most of us, tends to be where the discussion around Game of Thrones stops. The whole thing is so obviously screwed up that it’s easier just to accept its problems and be entertained anyway - in comparison to, for example, HBO’S Girls, also airing this season, whose every scene-change and plot twist has been minutely vivisected for cultural relevance by the ready scalpels of internet pop-criticism.

But the most interesting thing of all about Game of Thrones is what you get when you strip away the blood and tits and get to the bare narrative bones under all that greasy meat. I’m talking about the basic story of the whole saga. I’m talking about one of the oldest stories of all, a story with the power to draw millions of us around the flatscreen just as our notional ancestors gathered around the hearths. I’m talking about The Search For The Good Ruler.

The clue is in the title. Game of Thrones is all about kings and queens, all about who gets to be in charge and how they win and retain power, by violence, by force of will or simply by accident. The essential assumption of this story is a familiar one: sovereignty and leadership are inherently good things, common workers need decent kings or queens to make them happy and prosperous, and even if a catalogue of leaders are bad, mad or murderous, if you can just find the right king, the true, wise, noble king who deserves to be on the throne, then everything will be okay. 

Related to this narrative is the Training of the Good King, another extremely old and powerful story. The question of who will be in charge of Westeros when the whole enormous megaplot screeches to an end has still not been resolved in the books or the series, and as this season closes there are several candidates, each with their own individual hurdles on the road to ultimate crowniness. There’s Daenerys Targaryen, Her Aforementioned Blondeness. There’s Robb Stark the boy warrior, who doesn’t quite get enough screen-time to imply narrative or personal longevity, and his brother Bran who, despite being only ten, has been treated to a crash-course in Lordery by virtue of everyone else in the vicinity being either common, a woman or dead. And then there’s Jon Snow, illegitimate son of Eddard Stark (or is he??!?!) and general beefcake, doing his time in the wintry Northlands fighting beasties. All of these people are the Westeros version of the one per cent, and any of them who make it to the end of the series will surely end up with the power of life and death over large numbers of anonymous agrarian workers.

The Search for the Good Ruler is the big story of Game of Thrones. One of the reasons that it’s so compelling is that it’s also the big story of most of the nations in which the show airs, in various different ways. That fundamental notion - that if we are just lucky enough to get the right ruler, the ruler who, by might of right or right of might or by virtue of being the richest bastard or simply because their German great-granny happened to marry into the right family of inbred peasant-butchering Saxons, that if we just find the right one everything will still be ok - that’s still a story that we cling to. The Good Ruler. It’s going to run and run.

So it’s interesting that Game of Thrones is reaching its climax just as the Diamond Jubilee really gets under way in Great Britain. My feed-reader, favourite news websites and Twitter timeline are simultaneously full of babble and gossip about fantasy kings and queens and chatter and nonsense about real-life kings and queens to an extent that excitement about the two rather overlaps. When I try to explain to people in America exactly why it matters that Britain has a queen and not a president, I’m thinking as a republican in the literal sense but also as a person who loves stories, a person who believes that stories are politically important, and as a fan.

The stories we choose to tell about power are important. It doesn’t matter if the Queen actually wields any of the surprisingly significant amount of power she has for anything other than the purchase and maintenance of a large collection of ugly hats*. It matters that the people of Britain are subjects, not citizens, and that the rest of the world - especially the United States, which was supposed to have gotten rather definitively over all this two centuries ago - gets all het up about that. It matters that the big stories we tell each other about power are still about the Good Ruler, still about kings and queens, good lords and loyal subjects, with all the assumptions about hierarchy and inequality that that entails.

The Jubilee weekend would have been slightly more interesting had there been more of a Game of Thrones aesthetic to the whole thing, with feasting and stabbings and half-naked prostitutes gyrating all along the Thames under the bunting and Paul Burrell’s head rotting on a spike in Westminster. Personally, I think we need a different sort of story right now, one that isn’t all pomp and ceremony and ruthless social hierarchy wrapped in gold brocade, a story with, just maybe, no kings or queens at all. But if I have to watch a game of thrones, I’ll take the one with the horny dwarf any day.

 

*Really, fashion press: can we please stop pretending that Elizabeth Windsor is a style icon now? It’s the most godawful forelock-tugging lie I’ve seen put out by an industry that runs on stimulants and self-deception more than any other grimy corridor of the media, and that’s saying something. The Queen is not a style icon. She never has been, and she never will be. It’s just that nobody has been allowed to tell her she looks shocking in candy-coloured box-waisted twin-sets in over sixty years. 

Note: This article was edited at 8.07pm on 4 June.

Laurie Penny is a contributing editor to the New Statesman. She is the author of five books, most recently Unspeakable Things.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Do the Canary and co have the skill and stamina to take on the popular press?

The hyper-partisan digital left has adopted and adapted many of the old tabloids’ tricks.

One of the most depressing themes of the digital age is how often political debate is submerged beneath bile and hate. In the second week of July, the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Anti-Semitism found that MPs and candidates of all parties had faced horrific abuse online and offline during the election. Much of it was misogynist, racist, anti-Semitic and/or homophobic.

Perhaps inevitably, the Daily Mail decided to present the findings as proof of the “scale of left-wing bullying”. The suggestion that abuse is a uniquely left-wing problem was rather undermined during the subsequent Commons debate, in which Labour’s Diane Abbott detailed the horrifying racist and misogynistic abuse she has received in her decades as an MP. “I have had rape threats and been described as ‘a pathetic, useless fat, black piece of shit’,” she told Westminster Hall. The most surprising thing about working for her, her staff had told her, was the daily stream of racist insults on Twitter, Facebook and email.

Hey, haters

I have only experienced significant online abuse once in my career, after reporting on a petition calling for the BBC’s political editor, Laura Kuenssberg, to be sacked over her alleged anti-Labour bias. A barrage of tweets and emails followed, some cordial, some less so. One anonymous Twitter user called me “a smug c***” and, for some reason, provided a detailed account of a gap year I was meant to have gone on.

Why, out of the many hundreds of articles I’d written, did this one attract so much ire? Going by some of the more coherent messages, I think it was mainly down to the suggestion that there might have been an element of misogyny driving the petition. There is a certain irony in how, as a straight white man, it took an article mentioning misogyny to provoke online abuse against me.

It is almost impossible to judge whether left- or right-wingers generate the most vicious abuse online, but it has been proven repeatedly that anyone who is not a straight white man will face more of it.

This makes it arguably a bigger problem for the left than for the right. Labour has built an electoral coalition around presenting itself as diverse, liberal and educated (and if we take Jeremy Corbyn’s appeal for a “kinder, gentler politics” at face value, more civilised). It’s a brand that is especially vulnerable to being undermined by vile people who claim to represent it.

Canary in the mine

One of the reasons why my piece about Kuenssberg attracted so much attention was that pioneer of hyper-partisan left-wing online news, the Canary. It pushed the petition heavily, and when the host site took it down because of the misogyny it was attracting, the Canary editor, Kerry-Anne Mendoza, claimed that it was part of an establishment conspiracy to stamp out dissent.

If that’s the case, the establishment isn’t doing a very good job. The Canary has run at least 17 articles specifically criticising Kuenss­berg since then. This relentless focus on a single individual – who is held to be emblematic of a greater problem – is strikingly reminiscent of the sustained attacks that the tabloids deploy against their enemies. The perceived influence of the new generation of far-left media stars can be measured by the way that the right-wing tabloids now regularly attack them in return.

Earlier this month, the man behind the pro-Corbyn Skwawkbox blog, who has tried to keep his full name private, was the subject of an “exposé” alleging that he ran an IT company selling software to privatised sections of the NHS. The Sun, which followed up the Daily Mail’s initial report, has since issued a clarification stating that the “software is provided for free, and the NHS organisations that use it are not privatised”. At the time of writing, the Mail article was still online without a clarification.

The hyper-partisan digital left has adopted and adapted many of the old tabloids’ tricks to turn itself into a major player in Labour politics. But when it comes to fighting really dirty, will it have either the skill or the stamina?

Sky’s the limit

Rupert Murdoch’s bid for full ownership of Sky seems likely to be referred to the Competitions and Markets Authority. He could have tried to avoid this by offering assurances to the Culture Secretary, Karen Bradley, over the independence of Sky News, but appears to have chosen to dodge a political skirmish and risk it being referred straight to the regulator.

David Bond of the Financial Times reports that Murdoch thinks the Tories are too weak to risk battles that might delay the deal. The tycoon is keen to get things wrapped up as quickly as possible, driven by his promise to Sky shareholders of an extra 10p per share if the takeover is not finished by the end of the year.

A few months ago, opponents of the deal were grimly resigned to its inevitability. Now, the absence of a Conservative majority and Ofcom’s surprisingly robust findings on potential media plurality have given them hope. Murdoch already owns extensive media interests in the UK, and full control of Sky will concentrate his power.

The critics are still cautious rather than optimistic, but the deal is looking much less certain than it was before the election.

Glass ceiling

ITV has hired the EasyJet boss, Carolyn McCall, as its new CEO – which means two of Britain’s broadcasters will be run by women. Like the incoming Channel 4 boss, Alex Mahon, McCall, a former Guardian Media Group chief executive, is respected and liked in the industry. One former colleague described her as “no-nonsense but kind”. The BBC is making its own efforts to get more women into senior roles, but as signals of diversity go, it’s difficult to compete with putting a woman at the top.

Jasper Jackson is the NS digital editor

This article first appeared in the 20 July 2017 issue of the New Statesman, The new world disorder

0800 7318496