By Eugene R. Schlesinger

Warning: This post includes spoilers for the entirety of Game of Thrones

After nearly a decade of anticipation (23 years for readers of the books), HBO’s phenomenal high fantasy series, Game of Thrones, has reached its conclusion, to the satisfaction of some and the dismay of others. Based on A Song of Ice and Fire George R.R. Martin’s as yet unfinished series of books, the show captured the collective consciousness of a significant portion of the population, becoming consistently the most pirated television show and the reason a good many people have subscribed to HBO.

Many have taken to Twitter to inform the rest of us that they’ve never seen an episode of the show, but its presence has been ubiquitous, and each Sunday has seen social media ablaze with something akin to deadly wildfire (or for any remaining Targaryen loyalists, Dracarys [dragon fire]), as GOT fandom held court to dissect, and, increasingly, criticize the successive episodes of the show’s eighth and final season.


Such criticism is nothing new. As The Simpsons’ character Comic Book Guy has demonstrated, if there is anything that science fiction and fantasy fans love more than the science fiction and fantasy genres, it’s complaining about them. In this instance, the ire seemed to go beyond the typical nerd trope of “the best way to show your love for something is to hate it,” going so far as a petition to have season eight remade with different writers. Fandom had spun out elaborate theories for how the show could or should end, and its consistent judgment was that the showrunners’ decisions had been found wanting.

With what, exactly, have the fans been dissatisfied? Opinions varied, of course, but most of them turned upon the matter of character arcs. Among season eight’s major twists was Daenerys Targaryen’s (Emilia Clarke) descent into tyranny, razing the city she had come to liberate, and killing thousands of innocents as she did so. For most of us, Daenerys was a beacon of hope. Exiled from her homeland, and ostensibly heir to the Iron Throne, she underwent and then triumphed over numerous hardships, emerging stronger each time. Mother of Dragons and Breaker of Chains, she rose to power by inspiring not just fear but love and loyalty.

The burning of King’s Landing revealed that, all along, she has been an elaborate misdirect, designed to win first our sympathy, then our admiration and loyalty, only to become a villain. In retrospect, the signs of brutality were there, but always in circumstances when they could be justified, right up until the end. Yet while her fall was foreshadowed, it struck many as too abrupt, as unearned, as too inconsistent with her character.

Perhaps more infuriating to some was the fate of Jaime and Cersei Lannister, the incestuous twins, who have been at the center of so much attention. While Cersei only grew in cruelty, Jaime, it seemed, was on an arc of redemption. Derided as an oath-breaker and king-slayer, for killing “the Mad King” in the years before the series began, Jaime showed an increasing sense of honor. His king-slaying actually saved the people of King’s Landing. His friendship, and eventual brief romantic entanglement with Brienne of Tarth, served to reveal some of his nobler tendencies and aspirations, culminating in his decision to break ranks with Cersei, in order to keep his word that he would fight with the living against the encroaching army of the dead.

Yet for all this growth, Jaime reverted to old patterns, returning to Cersei (and breaking Brienne’s heart), and perishing with her in the fall of King’s Landing. After long-delayed anticipation that Cersei would receive her just deserts, she and Jaime died anonymously and anti-climactically, crushed by falling rubble. So much for growth or satisfying comeuppance.

This is not to say that no character arcs found satisfying conclusions. Prime examples: Sansa Stark’s rise as Queen of the North, Theon Greyjoy’s redemption after his betrayal of the Starks years earlier, and Ser Jorah Mormont’s giving his life to defend the queen he loved. But in general, the consensus was that the writing fell flat both in character development and the resolution of plot threads.

What did it matter that Jon Snow was not actually Ned Stark’s bastard son, but actually Aegon Targaryen, the true heir to the Iron Throne? Was the Night King and his army of the dead really no more than a red herring? What was Bran doing when he warged out of his body during the Battle of Winterfell? What was the point of Cersei’s pregnancy or the character Euron Greyjoy?

For all this, I suspect our dissatisfaction stems from a failure to grapple with the sort of story this was meant to be. From its outset, A Song of Ice and Fire has sought to subvert our typical expectations. The first book/season follows the honorable Ned Stark, only to have him executed at the hands of his enemies, and when it seemed that his son, Robb, would rise and take his father’s place, he also perished, along with any hopes that main characters would be guaranteed survival. Similarly, in the first book/season, Daenerys is the subject of numerous prophecies. The child with whom she is pregnant will be the “Stallion who Mounts the World,” destined for greatness and conquest. By a capricious turn of events, Daenerys loses the baby and fertility.

In other words, the series has never made any promises to deliver satisfying character arcs or to resolve plot threads. In this way, it is highly realistic. Life does not operate that way. Every character is the central character of her own show, but death comes to us all, and often not at the end of a particularly well-developed arc. Aspects of life that seemed to hold promise and significance wind up going nowhere. Our lives are shot through with contingency, and the series has sought to reflect this. In part, this is what has made it such a compelling series. Our frustration that it maintained this course, rather than giving everyone satisfying conclusions and having all the diverse plot threads converge, gestures toward something profound.

In his famous Five Ways, Thomas Aquinas seeks to demonstrate (not necessarily prove) the existence of God from our experience of the world. The five ways all more or less boil down to some form of Thomas saying, “Everything we observe is like x, but God is beyond all that.” God is not among the immanent causes of the universe, which are themselves all caused. Nor is he even, in a simple way, the first cause. The Cause of all things causes them all in an entirely different manner. Two of these five ways are especially pertinent as we consider Game of Thrones and our sense that something more than pure contingency was needed.

The third way is an argument from necessity. The universe is shot through with contingency. Strictly speaking, everything is contingent. God, however, is necessary, the only necessary reality. Our intuition that there must be something more than contingency finds its resolution in the infinite being of God. Similarly, the fifth way is an argument from directedness. The universe appears to be directed toward some end, which Aquinas identifies as God. Our apprehension that everything that rises must converge, our dissatisfaction when significant components of life wind up going nowhere, is an echo of Thomas’s recognition that all things find their end in God.

This brings us back to Game of Thrones. Martin has created a vision of a medieval world in which the Incarnation never occurred, and in which, accordingly, sanctifying grace does not operate. The deities of Game of Thrones are either non-existent, non-interventionist, or evil. By crafting a world without God, Martin has crafted a world where all we are left with really is contingency, and where there is no guiding purpose. Seen in this light, the dissatisfying conclusion of Game of Thrones may well be the triumph of its artistic vision.


About The Author

Eugene R. Schlesinger, Ph.D., is lecturer in the Department of Religious Studies at Santa Clara University and the editor of Covenant.

Related Posts

5 Responses

  1. Jimmy Renslow

    As the Dragon Queen was carried off I thought: “but we had hoped….” (road to Emmaus). I don’t have enough thoughts to write a blog post on the matter so I appreciated reading yours.

  2. Daniel W. Muth

    Thank you for a thoughtful piece. Personally, I thought the series ending was excellent and appropriate to the modern moment inasmuch as it seemed to confront Americans with two important concepts, neither of which they deal with well. The first is tragedy. Daenerys seems to these eyes to meet any reasonable definition of a tragic heroine – a good and powerful woman undone by her weakness. Whatever else they represent, the dragons were primarily her alter egos. She’s horrified when they kill an innocent – dragons are not made for peaceful times – so she locks them away. But this can’t last. The violence they embody is too central to her ambitions – her tragic flaw. Tirion’s little speech to Jon lays it out in blunt terms. Indeed one could well critique the lack of subtlety.

    And there’s the fact that every single character that actively seeks the iron throne dies violently. The chief gripe about both Daenarys’ and Cersei’s is the lack of spectacle. The latter is with the last of her family – the only thing she ever really loved – and so gets rather a good death. Of course, she’s gotten her desserts multiple times over as her children died, one by one. Meanwhile the former goes out in Shakespearean fashion – just minus the “I die,” speech. Tirion already gave us that.

    Which leads us to the second, and probably greater issue confronted: desire. Jaime’s “character arc” (kind of a silly term, but I suppose proper to those who, a la Daenarys, see themselves as being on “the right side of history”), is not that of Christian redemption – nor even like unto Rick’s rediscovery of patriotism in Casablanca – but is rather Dostoevskian (think Marmeladov from Crime and Punishment, for instance). He sees the world of honor that Brienne represents, is drawn to it, tastes of it – and, sated, decides what he wants: Cersei. The soap opera set are rightly mad because he was supposed by this time to have learned to want the right things. And doesn’t. Dostoevsky wouldn’t have been surprised. Brienne honors him anyway: “He died defending his queen,” she writes of him.

    Christianity encourages expression of and investment in desire inasmuch as God is its proper fulfillment. The stakes are high – as Game of Thrones rightly depicts – but if the reward is eternal bliss through the power of Christ and can be had merely for the asking, the potential downside is certainly mitigated. But of course – and I’m honored by your citing my article – if this isn’t an option, then there’s really only downside. And so Drogon morphs from alter ego to Greek chorus and melts down the iron throne. And the Man Who Should (as opposed to Would) be King? The man with no desire for anything, Bran the Broken, First of his Name.

    In the end, Martin – or more properly, Martin, Weiss and Benioff – are the moralists we always thought they weren’t. The iron throne was the Ring after all, only we get a Buddhist ending rather than a pagan one. I’ve long thought Buddhism was the only respectable form of atheism and am glad to see the show’s makers seemingly agree. According to the show, desire brings war, death and the Wheel-That-Needs-Breaking. We mortals can’t completely avoid it, though if we keep our ambitions small enough it will do less damage, but a king must be without it.

    It’s not a bad ending – and certainly not a hollow one. But of course, the Gospel has something different to say. – DWM

    • Eugene Schlesinger

      Thank you for these pointed, and learned remarks. I love the analysis of Jaime and the image of Drogon as Greek chorus especially.
      I think that, in broad strokes, I agree with you regarding these themes. I wasn’t writing a review so I didn’t include this, but I thought this was an A– season in outcomes and a C– season in execution. The decision to tell the story in fewer episodes, while initially promising, has turned out to be a poor one, I think. They just needed more time to actually tell the story.
      That is, perhaps, why the character decisions felt so shallow to many viewers. The writing needed to sell them wasn’t in place.
      At the same time, I think a lot of our dissatisfaction stems from our intuition that all plot elements need to *go* somewhere, and that loose threads make for bad storytelling. But the weaving of all threads together is precisely something that GRRM has decided wouldn’t be giving us.

      • Daniel W. Muth

        I’m with you there. Even in the time allotted, we could have gotten more on Jaime’s motivations, and more importantly, perhaps some private expressions of grief and guilt by Daenarys that she could not bring herself to express to Jon – hence bringing about the same denouement, yet with much greater poignancy. It could have been a much more classic tragedy. And a more plausible one. Perhaps Mr. Martin will remedy via the last book. Thanks again – DWM

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.