https://ind.pn/2M3qYIj
Game of Thrones tapped into fears of revolution and political women – and lef
t us no better off than before
So justice prevailed – but what kind of justice?
The last season of the Game of Thrones has prompted public outcry and culminat
ed in a petition (signed by almost 1 million outraged viewers) to disqualify t
he entire season and re-shoot a new one. The ferocity of the debate is in itse
lf a proof that the ideological stakes must be high.
The dissatisfaction turned on a couple of points: bad scenario (under the pres
sure to quickly end the series, the complexity of the narrative was simplified
), bad psychology (Daenerys’ turn to “Mad Queen” was not justified by her c
haracter development), etc.
One of the few intelligent voices in the debate was that of the author Stephen
King who noted that dissatisfaction was not generated by the bad ending but t
he fact of the ending itself. In our epoch of series which in principle could
go on indefinitely, the idea of narrative closure becomes intolerable.
It is true that, in the series’ swift denouement, a strange logic takes over,
a logic that does not violate credible psychology but rather the narrative pr
esuppositions of a TV series. In the last season, it is simply the preparation
for a battle, mourning and destruction after the battle, and of the battler i
tself in all its meaninglessness – much more realistic for me than the usual
gothic melodramatic plots.
Season eight stages three consecutive struggles. The first one is between huma
nity and its inhuman “Others” (the Night Army from the North led by the Nigh
t King); between the two main groups of humans (the evil Lannisters and the co
alition against them led by Daenerys and Starks); and the inner conflict betwe
en Daenerys and the Starks.
This is why the battles in season eight follow a logical path from an external
opposition to the inner split: the defeat of the inhuman Night Army, the defe
at of Lannisters and the destruction of King’s Landing; the last struggle bet
ween the Starks and Daenerys – ultimately between traditional “good” nobili
ty (Starks) faithfully protecting their subjects from bad tyrants, and Daenery
s as a new type of a strong leader, a kind of progressive bonapartist acting o
n behalf of the underprivileged.
The stakes in the final conflict are thus: should the revolt against tyranny b
e just a fight for the return of the old kinder version of the same hierarchic
al order, or should it develop into the search for a new order that is needed?
The finale combines the rejection of a radical change with an old anti-feminis
t motif at work in Wagner. For Wagner, there is nothing more disgusting than a
woman who intervenes in political life, driven by the desire for power. In co
ntrast to male ambition, a woman wants power in order to promote her own narro
w family interests or, even worse, her personal caprice, incapable as she is o
f perceiving the universal dimension of state politics.
The same femininity which, within the close circle of family life, is the powe
r of protective love, turns into obscene frenzy when displayed at the level of
public and state affairs. Recall the lowest point in the dialogue of Game of
Thrones when Daenerys tells Jon that if he cannot love her as a queen then fea
r should reign – the embarrassing, vulgar motif of a sexually unsatisfied wom
an who explodes into destructive fury.
But – let’s bite our sour apple now – what about Daenerys’ murderous outbu
rsts? Can the ruthless killing of the thousands of ordinary people in King’s
Landing really be justified as a necessary step to universal freedom? At this
point, we should remember that the scenario was written by two men.
Daenerys as the Mad Queen is strictly a male fantasy, so the critics were righ
t when they pointed out that her descent into madness was psychologically not
justified. The view of Daenerys with mad-furious expression flying on a dragon
and burning houses and people expresses patriarchal ideology with its fear of
a strong political woman.
The final destiny of the leading women in Game of Thrones fits these coordinat
es. Even if the good Daenerys wins and destroys the bad Cersei, power corrupts
her. Arya (who saved them all by single-handedly killing the Night King) also
disappears, sailing to the West of the West (as if to colonise America).
The one who remains (as the queen of the autonomous kingdom of the North) is S
ansa, a type of women beloved by today’s capitalism: she combines feminine so
ftness and understanding with a good dose of intrigue, and thus fully fits the
new power relations. This marginalisation of women is a key moment of the gen
eral liberal-conservative lesson of the finale: revolutions have to go wrong,
they bring new tyranny, or, as Jon put it to Daenerys:
“The people who follow you know that you made something impossible happen. Ma
ybe that helps them believe that you can make other impossible things happen:
build a world that’s different from the shit one they’ve always known. But i
f you use dragons to melt castles and burn cities, you’re no different.”
Consequently, Jon kills out of love (saving the cursed woman from herself, as
the old male-chauvinist formula says) the only social agent in the series who
really fought for something new, for a new world that would put an end to old
injustices.
So justice prevailed – but what kind of justice? The new king is Bran: crippl
ed, all-knowing, who wants nothing – with the evocation of the insipid wisdom
that the best rulers are those who do not want power. A dismissive laughter t
hat ensues when one of the new elite proposes a more democratic selection of t
he king tells it all.
And one cannot help but note that those faithful to Daenerys to the end are mo
re diverse – her military commander is black – while the new rulers are clea
rly white Nordic. The radical queen who wanted more freedom for everyone irres
pective of their social standing and race is eliminated, things are brought ba
ck to normal.
齐泽克的批评集中于两点：
自由保守主义——这群人总是认为想要用革命推翻暴君必然只会产生暴君，但显然GOT推翻
丹妮莉丝之后选出了一个，全知、无权力欲的跛子，还是个白人，而这正符合现代人所要
的，而当丹妮莉丝的军队里显然更多元自由，好比有黑人指挥官时，这状况一旦被推翻，
所有事情又回到了原来的状态。但难道革命只有这条路吗？革命不是为了寻找一个时代的
新秩序吗？
厌女的——我们不能忽略写这个剧本的是两个男性，而显然他们透露出一种对于显露政治
欲望女人的厌恶，丹妮莉丝的观点充满了疯狂歇斯底里，驾驭龙和焚烧房屋和人民，表达
了父权意识形态，害怕强大的政治女性。丹妮莉丝在掌权之后，毫无剧情内的发展理由（
说书里面有的这显然不是什么好借口）就发狂，甚至最后由囧来拯救疯掉的女王——就好
像那些老式沙文主义的寓言里面的结局，一刀了结夜王的艾利亚也不可以到政治中心，她
必须要离开，所以她选择远行，不然就会危害到男性在政治中的地位。
结语：D&D出来受死吧。