By: Lewis Slawsky

There are many reasons that G.R.R. Martin’s fantasy epic, A Song of Ice and Fire, has been such a tremendous popular and critical success. Here is just one reason, but a major one – A Song of Ice and Fire is an eminently political piece of literature.

Discussion is Coming! Over the next few months, we are going to examine the political insights of A Song of Ice and Fire through a series of character studies. Join us! Why character by character? Find details, and all the articles in the series here.

The beating heart of the story is the seemingly endless number of political moves made by various parties as they seek power. This is the action that gives its name to the first book in the series, A Game of Thrones.

Now, A Song of Ice and Fire is not political in the sense of partisanship or ideology, although these things can indeed be found among the panoply of groups and individuals within the context of the books. This fact alone makes it a valuable work of literature, in these days of big party politics and entrenched partisan commitments. But A Song of Ice and Fire is political in the broader sense of politics – the series is concerned with how human beings choose to live together or how they are compelled to do so. It is concerned with questions of power: who rules, in what manner, on what basis, and what the effects of power are on both the rulers and the ruled.

A Question of First Importance

There is a point in the first book of Plato’s Republic, when Socrates has been speaking to Thrasymachus about justice and its relation to who rules, at which Socrates remarks that the question is one of the first importance, for, “it is not just any question, but about the way one should live” (Republic, Book I, 352d). Something similar could be said (with all due modesty) about Martin’s epic tale. Despite the fact that it is a work of fantasy, which takes place in a world of the author’s invention and in which there are active magical forces and strange creatures the likes of which do not inhabit our own world, the politics of it all are very human, and the politics are central to both the thought and the action.

The comparison with Plato is worthwhile for another reason. G.R.R. Martin is much concerned with power, and he does frequently seem like a hard-headed realist, a curiosity in the world of fantasy literature. When things like honor and justice arise in Martin’s books, it is often to frustrate our attachments to them. Honorable men meet bad ends in A Song of Ice and Fire, and justice is fleeting, if it is possible at all.

This might suggest that Martin is indeed a realist, to be distinguished from a so-called idealist like Plato, who speaks of honor and justice continually. But things are not so simple in either case. It should almost go without saying that justice is problematic for Plato, who spends an entire great dialogue, the Republic, discussing the subject without ever arriving at a final definition for it. And although G.R.R. Martin is interested in power, he seldom uses that language in his books. The characters in A Song of Ice and Fire pursue particular manifestations of power, not power itself. The inhabitants of Westeros and the lands beyond it want things like honor and justice, as they want husbands, wives, food, peace, safety, prosperity, and glory in battle. These and other things are what drive them, rather than some abstract force.

In this last regard, Martin, if he is a realist, does come to light as a student of Machiavelli, who despite being the originator of what we now call “power politics”, was also careful, in books like The Prince, not to replace the appearances, the things that human beings actually understand themselves to desire and pursue, with a broad category like “power”. The difference between Plato and Machiavelli lies not so much in one being more or less realistic, and the other being more or less idealistic, for both philosophers present human action as driven by particular aims and ends, and both problematize the nature of those ends and indicate that they are extremely difficult to attain. The real difference between them is to be found in what they regard as the highest goals to which mankind (or particular individuals) might aspire. For Machiavelli, it may be that there is nothing higher for human beings to achieve than a kind of political mastery, whereas for Plato, philosophy exceeds the bounds of the merely political. To which camp G.R.R. Martin belongs then is an open question, and to some extent must remain so until his epic tale reaches its conclusion. But important insights into the matter can nonetheless be achieved in the meantime, by paying close attention to the story that he tells and the characters that dwell within it.

The nature of G.R.R. Martin’s work thus invites us to learn something from it about political things, or at least to try. G.R.R. Martin himself might not be seeking to lead the reader to a comprehensive understanding of politics in particular and man in general, as Plato appears to have done with his dialogues or Machiavelli with his treatises. But Martin still has plenty to teach. What can the author of A Song of Ice and Fire tell us about ourselves? What insights can he furnish us with regarding our own nature, political animals that we are?

A Series of Character Studies

Our inquiry into the political theory of G.R.R. Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire will be divided into a series of discussions, each one focusing on a single character. We think this method fits the spirit of the books, and will help focus discussion. Read more about this.

First Up: Varys

The first character in our series is Lord Varys, The Spider and Master of Whisperers. A man of tremendous political wisdom, he has some of the most explicit insights into politics in the series.

Varys – A MACHIAVELLIAN BEAST

Varys – A Eunuch

Varys – HIS RIDDLE

Varys – Defender of the Realm

Other Articles in the Series

Discussion is Coming!

The main hub for the series. All articles in the series will be indexed here.

The Argument and the Action

Why we think a character by character approach is appropriate. Read here.

(Image: Symbols of the Seven Noble Houses by twipzdeeauxilia, distributed under a CC BY-SA 2.0 licence. Via Flickr.)

POLITICAL ANIMAL IS AN OPEN FORUM FOR SMART AND ACCESSIBLE DISCUSSIONS OF ALL THINGS POLITICAL. WHEREVER YOUR BELIEFS LIE ON THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM, THERE IS A PLACE FOR YOU HERE. OUR COMMITMENT IS TO QUALITY, NOT PARTY, AND WE INVITE ALL POLITICAL ANIMALS TO SEIZE THEIR VOICE WITH US.

THINK. DISCUSS. DEFEND. FREELY.