When I rather guiltily read the books on which the TV series
When I rather guiltily read the books on which the TV series 'Game Of Thrones' is based, I was struck by one thing. The whole point of this saga is that ruthlessness pays, that evil generally wins, that justice is non-existent, and utter cynicism the only wisdom. It is the Middle Ages without the saving grace of Christianity.
Peter Hitchens, with the somber tone of one who has witnessed the ebb and flow of human history, reflects on the world of “Game of Thrones”: “The whole point of this saga is that ruthlessness pays, that evil generally wins, that justice is non-existent, and utter cynicism the only wisdom. It is the Middle Ages without the saving grace of Christianity.” With these words, Hitchens captures the dark essence of the story, where ruthlessness reigns supreme, and the forces of evil seem to prevail over justice and honor. In the world of Westeros, there is no divine grace to balance the scales of power—only the cold, indifferent winds of cynicism and survival.
The meaning of this quote delves deep into the heart of human nature and the world’s harsh realities. Hitchens argues that the narrative of Game of Thrones, like much of history itself, teaches that power is often seized not by virtue but by ruthlessness. In such a world, justice is a fleeting illusion, and evil does not always meet its end with defeat. Instead, it thrives, suggesting a grim truth: might, not right, is often the force that shapes the course of events. This dark, cynical view of reality mirrors the history of many kingdoms and empires where power, not morality, determined the fate of men.
History, too, has seen the rise of ruthless rulers whose evil ways have brought them power. Consider the reign of Genghis Khan, whose empire spanned continents. His methods were brutal—massacres of entire populations, a policy of terror that left vast swathes of the world in fear. Yet, his ruthlessness brought him a kingdom that endured for centuries. In the ancient world, as in Westeros, evil often wins not because it is just, but because it is unyielding and relentless. Genghis Khan’s empire, built on ruthlessness, continues to serve as a reminder that history is often shaped by the most cynical of rulers.
Yet, Hitchens’ quote also contrasts the Middle Ages—a time known for its wars and brutal rulers—with the influence of Christianity. Christianity, with its message of mercy, forgiveness, and justice, offered a saving grace that tempered the violence of the age. In its teachings, there was a glimmer of hope that righteousness could prevail, that justice, even in a broken world, could be restored. The medieval period, though marked by ruthlessness, also saw the rise of the Church as a force for morality and compassion, a counterbalance to the violence and cynicism that ran rampant.
In Game of Thrones, however, such redemption is absent. The lack of a higher moral authority leaves the world of Westeros in a state of perpetual conflict, where ruthlessness is rewarded, and the honorable are often cast aside. The characters that seek justice, like Ned Stark, find themselves betrayed by the very system they seek to uphold. This world, without the saving grace of Christianity, is an unforgiving one, where evil is rewarded, and cynicism is the only viable form of wisdom.
Therefore, let the seeker of wisdom understand this: the ruthlessness of the world, though often prevailing in human history, is not the final truth. Even in times of darkness, the light of justice and virtue can shine. Hitchens’ words remind us that while evil may often seem to win, it is not the only wisdom. True wisdom lies in the ability to recognize that righteousness can endure, even in the face of overwhelming odds. Christianity and other moral frameworks have served as beacons of hope throughout history, showing that justice, though often delayed, can prevail.
QKNg Quoc Khang
Reading this, I’m curious about the broader cultural implications. Does the celebration of cunning over justice in fiction reflect contemporary anxieties or desires, such as disillusionment with political and social systems? Could Hitchens be suggesting that the appeal of such stories lies in their brutal honesty about human nature? I’d like to examine whether this kind of narrative can coexist with stories that champion virtue and fairness, or if it inherently promotes a more cynical worldview.
NPNguyen Nam Phong
This critique makes me question the balance between historical realism and moral messaging. Does portraying the Middle Ages without religious or moral structures risk presenting a skewed vision of history, or is it a deliberate artistic choice to highlight the harshness of human behavior? I’d like to explore whether Hitchens sees the absence of Christian morality as central to the narrative’s cynicism, and if so, what that implies about the role of faith in literature.
NNguyenkhacthang
I find myself wondering whether the popularity of such narratives indicates a societal fascination with power and ambition. Are readers attracted to the idea that cunning and ruthlessness triumph, or is it the complexity of characters and plot that captivates? I’d like to hear perspectives on whether consuming morally ambiguous or bleak fiction can shape our worldview, or if it simply functions as entertainment without ethical consequences.
GDGirl Dead
This statement raises questions about the importance of hope and ethical frameworks in literature. How does the absence of 'saving grace' affect a reader’s engagement with the story? Could the depiction of constant ruthlessness desensitize audiences to cruelty, or is it a tool to provoke deeper thought about power and justice? I’d like to consider how much the moral lens through which we read a story influences our interpretation and emotional response.
TQTran Quyen
I’m struck by the idea that the saga portrays a world where evil generally prevails. Does this pessimistic outlook risk normalizing unethical behavior, or does it serve as a cautionary tale? I’d like to explore whether Hitchens sees this as a critique of contemporary society, or merely as a reflection of historical realities in the Middle Ages. Can fiction devoid of moral redemption still offer meaningful lessons about right and wrong?