HBO
Show Hide image

Will the new season of Game of Thrones finally belong to the women?

Season seven offers our first opportunity to see how genuine female power functions in an excessively violent patriarchal society. (Spoilers for seasons one to six.)

If you’ve even had a fleeting encounter with television giant Game of Thrones, then you’ll know the programme isn’t often celebrated for its treatment of women characters. Whether they’re topless background extras or powerful queens in lead roles, the show has often and fairly been called out for constant and at times deeply problematic portrayal of violence against women. We’ve seen sex workers murdered in the most gruesome of ways (Ros, Shae), queens violently abused by their husbands and brothers (from Cersei to Daenerys) and children leered upon and used like pawns by men in positions of power (be it Arya or Sansa).

We’ve watched as women are raped, humiliated, married off, burned alive, poisoned, raped, stabbed in their pregnant stomachs, eaten alive by dogs, thrown from great heights, raped, intimidated, beaten, strangled and raped again.

But something shifted in season six. In the final two episodes of the season, the show’s most notably abused women were given moments of violent, intoxicating, revenge. After jumping from frying pan to fire to frying pan again, Arya Stark started storming through her kill list at the end of season six, with one of the most delicious revenge kills the show has ever seen: despatching Walder Frey, the architect of the infamous Red Wedding bloodbath that killed her brother and mother. After being beaten, starved and publically humiliated by the Church, Cersei Lannister blew it up – killing all her enemies at once, though her last living child died as a result. And after being passed around different men like a pawn and brutally raped, Sansa Stark was given what was, for me, the most satisfying scene of the entire show so far – condemning her rapist husband to be eaten alive by his own dogs, after defeating his army in battle.

It saw a wave of articles declaring that women were now on top. Time ran a piece headlined, “Game of Thrones’ Women Are Finally Taking Over”, while Vanity Fair went for Game of Thrones: How Women Went from Victims to Conquerors and Vice chose Game of Thrones Is Suddenly All About Powerful Women Getting Their Way.

But while bloody revenge is gratifying from a viewer’s perspective, it doesn’t necessarily translate into security, power or happiness for these characters. Arya still isn’t out of the woods, Cersei’s throne is unstable, and Sansa’s victories are seen as her brother’s. It might be more immediately exciting, but a triumphant smile and a shower of blood only last a few seconds.

It’s the slower-burn plotlines that seem more promising. While these three women have seen their enemies murdered before their eyes, Ellaria Sand took over as the ruler of Dorne, Olenna became the most powerful Tyrell, Yara Greyjoy led a fleet of ships to Essos, and, as a result, Daenerys finally mobilized her troops.

The cogs are turning, but we’re yet to see quite what any of these characters would actually look like at the top of a wheel of fortune. Those who have gained power are yet to exercise it. Season seven offers our first opportunity to see how genuine female power functions in an excessively violent patriarchal society. Will the alliance between Daenerys, Olenna, Ellaria and Yara succeed? How will Cersei rule successfully when she is so unpopular, and so many of her allies are dead and buried?

Clearly, the female leads of Game of Thrones are more instrumental than ever. The first trailer for the seventh season focuses in on Daenerys, Cersei and Jon Snow as the pivotal characters of the upcoming season, each taking a seat on their prospective thrones. But there’s also much to suggest that Sansa is as important as Jon going forward: the most recent trailer begins focusing in on her as she walks through the snow, while Littlefinger tells her to “fight every battle, everywhere”, and ends with her narration that when winter comes, “the lone wolf dies, but the pack survives”. Fan theories abound that Sansa will be the last Stark standing.

But as women gain more and more power in the collapsing seven kingdoms, a war over the Iron Throne increasingly seems like self-indulgent squabbling in the face of the oncoming White Walkers, which could spell the end of the Game of Thrones world as we know it. Cersei, Daenerys and Ellaria, and, increasingly, Sansa seem more interested in personal power than the approaching winter. It remains to be seen whether a female-dominated Westeros will be more open to warnings from Jon Snow than self-important patriarchal governments and families past. However satisfying it is to see Westeros’ women have revenge on their enemies closer to home, now they have a bigger battle to fight.

Anna Leszkiewicz is a pop culture writer at the New Statesman.

Show Hide image

The Last Wolf: Robert Winder's book examines the elusive concept of Englishness

If English national character is so hard to pin down, could this mean there is no such thing any more?

Is there anything more tiresome than debating the essence of “Englishness” – or any other national identity, come to that? Millions of words must have been spilt on this fruitless quest over the past century, generating gigatonnes of wind that could have been usefully harvested for energy. Each time, no “essence” is to be found, and everyone goes back to the beginning and starts again.

That’s how it used to be, anyway. More recently, in the wake of the Brexit vote and the divisions it has laid bare, the debate about who “we” are has become fraught and urgent. England, and Britain more widely, is hardly alone in its soul-searching. Arguments about belonging, culture, nationhood and identity are flooding across the Western world – and beyond – because people are increasingly unsure about who or where they are. The sweeping changes unleashed by hypercapitalism, technological change and unprecedented levels of migration are making rootlessness the norm, and the more people feel rootless the more they want to know where they belong and where they come from.

British politicians often respond to this by attempting to formulate some notion of our collective “values”. Here’s who we are, all 65 million of us, they say, and then proceed to read out a list of uniquely “British” things that only “British” people do, like valuing democracy, being tolerant with each other and standing in queues politely. These attempts at top-down unity are always failures, largely because, with the possible exception of the queuing, all the “values” asserted are pretty much universal. There’s nothing uniquely “British” about valuing the rule of law or freedom of speech (regularly clamping down on freedom of speech is a more reliably British virtue, if history is anything to go by). The failure of anyone to produce a list of “values” that are uniquely British – or English, or Welsh, or Scottish – suggests that they don’t exist. The island is just too teeming, diverse and disconnected now for much to be held in common at all.

So what, if anything, might define that elusive “Englishness”, the subject of Robert Winder’s new book? Cultural quirks, perhaps? I can confidently assert that the English know how to make a good cup of strong tea better than anyone else on earth (with the possible exception of the Irish), and we’re also world champions at dog shows, proper beer and indie guitar bands. But I’m not sure that these are things I would encourage my children to die patriotically in a trench for.

Winder offers a better answer, and it’s one that anyone brave or suicidal enough to pitch in to the contemporary European identity debate should consider. It offers a path through the horrible, thorny maze of arguments about race, ethnicity, migration and the like, towards something that, potentially, could unite people rather than divide them. What makes and forms a “people”, says Winder, in England as elsewhere, is the one thing they all share: the place itself. If there is an “Englishness” it is formed from the nature, literally, of England:

If we really wanted to search for the national identity, I thought, the real place to look was in the natural heritage of hills, valleys, rivers, stones and mists – the raw materials that had, over time, moulded the way we were. Landscape and history – the past and the elemental backdrop – were the only things we could truly claim as our own. Just as some plants thrive in sand and others in clay, so a national character is fed by nutrients it cannot alter.

Early on in the book, Winder quotes the novelist Lawrence Durrell, who makes the same case more provocatively:

I believe you could exterminate the French at a blow and resettle the land with Tartars, and within two generations discover… that the national characteristics were back at norm – the relentless metaphysical curiosity, the tenderness for good living and passionate individualism.

Durrell goes on to suggest that “a Cypriot who settled in London would in time become English, simply because human customs owe just as much to the local environment as to trees and flowers”. I’m in a position to test this hypothesis, because my grandmother was a Cypriot who settled in London. Did she become English? Well, she wore English clothes, lived in a bungalow, cooked roast dinners, won endless rosettes in endless dog shows and had her English friends call her Doris, because they had trouble pronouncing Demetra. On the other hand, she never lost her accent, her language or her connections to her homeland, and until the end of her life she made a mean baklava. I don’t know what any of that means, other than that labels can get confusing pretty quickly.

And that is Winder’s point: forget the labels, look at the land below your feet. That’s where your “identity” comes from. Take the last wolf in England, which gives the book its title. Allegedly killed in the 1290s by a Shropshire knight named Peter Corbet (the king had tasked this “mighty hunter” and other nobles with ridding the land of predators), the wolf’s end freed up the English to transform their landscape – in a way not available to many other European countries, whose wolf populations were too large and interlinked to kill off – into “the biggest sheep farm in the world”. This turned England, in the Middle Ages, into a wealthy wool economy. It was an agricultural revolution, shaping everything from land ownership to diet to class structures to the architecture of the Cotswolds, and it happened not just because the landscape was now wolfless, but because “the country was made for grass”.

The same soil and climate that made growing grass so easy did the same for wheat – which, mainly in the form of bread, has been the staple of the English diet from the rise of agriculture to the present day, when we eat more wheat than ever. Add in the later discovery of coal, which was found in rich seams across the country, and which gave rise to the Industrial Revolution and the British Empire, and Winder suggests, only slightly playfully, that the English national character can be summed up by way of an algebraic equation: e = cw4: “Englishness equals coal x wool, wheat and wet weather.”

The book’s central case – that “natural history might be a branch of political science” – is a necessary corrective to a public debate in which we are increasingly instructed to believe that virtually every aspect of our character is a “social construct”. Winder wants us to understand that much of it is actually a natural construct, which means in turn that our development is not entirely under our control. It’s not a message that many people want to hear in an age of selfies and consumer choice: “Just as each vineyard (or terroir) produces its own unique wine, so human beings are conditioned by their local landscape. We move around more now, so the lines are blurred, but the underlying skeleton of English culture – the bare bones of the national psyche – may have changed less than we think.”

I couldn’t help, as I read, wanting more detail on this “underlying skeleton”. Where are the folk songs, the rhymes and ballads? Where is the mythology? Where are the grainy details of the lives of the people who, throughout English history, were probably shaped by the landscape most of all, and who shaped it in turn – the peasantry? There are glimpses of all this, but there is also too much school-textbooky history of inventors and their inventions, of revolutions and wars. A book like this ought to start at the bottom – in the mud, in the mulch on the forest floor. I wanted an earthier, messier story.

Despite this, there is plenty to chew on here. The question that remained when it was over though, for this reviewer at least, was: is any of it true any more? It may once have been the case that human customs were formed by places, but is it now?

When people in England, or anywhere in the modern world, have more connection, via their handheld screens, with the mill race of global consumer “culture” than they do with the landscape around them, and when only a handful of us work on or really know that landscape, what chance does it have of forming the basis of our cultural life?

If English national character is so hard to pin down, could the reason simply be that there is no such thing any more; that the English, like other denizens of techno-post-modernity, are shaped not by their natural environment, but by the artificial one that is rising to enclose them like a silicon cocoon? When the heavy metals in your smartphone are mined in Indonesia, not Cornwall, what equation defines you – and do you even care? 

Paul Kingsnorth’s books include “Confessions of a Recovering Environmentalist ” (Faber & Faber)

The Last Wolf: the Hidden Springs of Englishness
Robert Winder
Little, Brown, 480pp, £20

This article first appeared in the 10 August 2017 issue of the New Statesman, France’s new Napoleon