Category Archives: television

The Rig, Lovecraft, The Kraken Wakes, and Our “collective failure of imagination”

Iain Glen as Captain Magnus MacMillan

.

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD

The Rig is a new British series on Amazon Prime that I watched for two reasons: one, it stars Iain Glen; two, the trailer teased it as a Lovecraftian horror set on an oil rig in which something from the deeps makes its presence known in increasingly disturbing and threatening ways.

.

So OBVIOUSLY this was something I needed to watch, both from personal interest and, as someone who has now taught three classes on H.P. Lovecraft and weird fiction, from professional obligation. And it was … good. It was obviously done on a budget and there were moments of didacticism that made it feel more like a Canadian than a British show,1 as well as some clunky writing just more generally, but it was interesting and definitely worth watching. What makes it worth posting about is that it embodies a number of themes and tropes that are representative of the ongoing evolution of the New Weird, which are what I want to talk about here.

The setup is quite simple: the crew of an oil rig off the Scottish coast, the Kinloch Bravo, are looking forward to heading home as their rotation ends. A crisis on another platform diverts the helicopters, however, so everybody has to sit tight for however long that takes to be resolved. But then a tremor shakes the rig and a thick, spooky fog rolls in, and all communication from internet to the radio goes down. Tempers, already frayed from the helicopters’ diversion, erode further. A crewmember named Baz goes aloft in an attempt to fix the radio transmission; he falls and is badly injured. His injuries, however, which should have killed him, start to heal on their own. At the end of the first episode he staggers out to where the crew is assembled on the helicopter deck to warn “It’s coming!” Meanwhile, just before his appearance, it is noticed that the fog is composed partly of ash.

And that’s the first episode. One of the things I quite liked about The Rig is that it settles in for a slow burn over its six episodes. Though punctuated here and there by moments of shock or surprise, it’s mostly about two things: the personalities of the crew and their (often fraught) relationships, and the gradual figuring-out of just what is going on. And if both of these components tend toward overstatement and occasional hamfisted exposition, the story is nevertheless compelling. In short, the drilling of the undersea oil fields has released or awakened an ancient life form, bacterial in nature, which lives in the ash that falls out of the mist. When a human is infected by way of a cut or simple excessive exposure to the falling ash, the organism takes up residence and makes the host more amenable to it by fixing injuries and expelling impurities. For Baz, this means he heals quickly; it also means the gold fillings in his teeth fall out, as they’re treated by the organism as foreign objects. So, on the balance, not bad for Baz—but another crewmember doesn’t fare so well, as his history of addiction and many tattoos make the process fatal for him. (The scene in which he is about to get into the shower and suddenly finds all the ink in his skin running is a great uncanny moment).

What’s most interesting in The Rig, and what makes it worth discussing in some detail, is that the “invader” isn’t necessarily monstrous and isn’t overtly malevolent. The agony Baz experiences, we come to understand, isn’t torture or assault but the entity trying to communicate. The ultimate climactic crisis isn’t about whether our heroes can defeat and/or destroy the invading force, it’s whether they should. The problem posed isn’t how to repel an invader, but how two intelligent species can communicate and whether they can coexist. In later episodes, Mark Addy shows up as a company man named Coake2 who has an explicitly instrumentalist and zero-sum response to such questions: as seen in the trailer, he spits “Nature isn’t a balance, it’s a war!” Later, he informs one of the crew that “[the corporation] Pictor’s business is resource management! We find them, we use them up, we move on! And that includes human resources.” He boils it down: “We’re useful or not. We have value or not. They’re coming for me because I have value. Anyone who doesn’t gets left behind.” He delivers this rant as, against the explicit orders of the rig’s captain Magnus MacMillan (Glen), he prepares to put into action a plan to destroy the entity.

This confrontation, coming as it does in the final episode, clarifies lines of conflict that had been usefully muddled and uncertain to this point. Kinloch Bravo is under threat, but that threat has been ambiguous. As the nature of the entity becomes clearer, the nature of the danger it poses becomes less so. If there is a consistent bogeyman throughout, it’s the company itself, a faceless corporate entity regarded with a sort of low-grade antipathy by everyone. Rumours that the platform is set to be decommissioned—rumours later confirmed—circulate, with people’s anxiety about future employment in tension with the understanding of the pernicious impact of their industry on the environment. As one character observes, a long life of gainful employment is meaningless if, in the end, the sky is on fire.

The ambivalence of the crew (or some of them, anyway) to their industry squares with their ambivalence to their company: Coake’s rant is in some senses merely an explicit confirmation of the more diffuse sense pervading the crew of their expendability—that they, like the oil they drill, are resources to be extracted. The character of Hutton (Owen Teale) anticipates Croake’s sentiments with an embittered speech in the final episode: “I used to think we were the steel, holding it all together,” he tells Magnus, “even if the rest of the world didn’t see it. But now I know we’re the well. Because every trip, every person that gets chewed up, every chopper that goes down, it just takes a bit more, and a bit more … till it hollows you out.”

Hence, the emergence of the entity—the “Ancestor,” as Rose (Emily Hampshire) comes to call it—is threatening not because it offers destruction, but because it represents an alternative way of thinking and being. It is a collective organism; the humans it “infects” can communicate with it, after a fashion, and with each other. Its threat to the lives of the rig workers and people more generally is commensurate with the threat it perceives from them. It is not itself malevolent or casually destructive.

Its ancient provenance and apparent immortality—Rose establishes that it measures time on a geological scale—as well as its capacity to infect people, puts it very firmly in the Lovecraftian tradition of cosmic horror. However, the wrinkle that it potentially poses no existential threat is a significant departure from the standard conventions of the genre. To be certain, there is a definite Lovecraft vibe in The Rig in the frequent refrains about how we know less about the ocean depths than the surface of the moon, or in Alwynn’s pithy observation (featured in the trailer above) that “If we keep punching holes in the earth, eventually it’s going to punch back.” The implicit sentiment that the madcap drive for oil exploration in the name of profits will take us into dangerous territory is not dissimilar from Lovecraft’s opening paragraph of “The Call of Cthulhu”:

We live on a placid island of ignorance in midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.

“Cosmic horror” of the Lovecraftian variety is built around existential dread arising from the realization of humanity’s insignificance in the face of the infinitude of vast, cosmic entities. The “old gods” like Cthulhu and Dagon that populate Lovecraft’s stories find echoes in the “Ancestor” of The Rig, but the way in which it infects certain crewmembers is more in line with “The Shadow Over Innsmouth,” Lovecraft’s story in which he grafts his Cthulhu mythos onto an allegory of his horror of miscegenation. (For those unfamiliar with Lovecraft, an important bit of context is that he was terribly racist). The story’s narrator is touring historically interesting towns in Massachusetts. As part of his itinerary, he arrives in Innsmouth—a run-down old fishing community with some interesting architecture, an odd historical relationship to the reef just off its shores, and people who have a vaguely fish-like aspect about them. TL;DR: having long ago made a Faustian deal with the Old God who inhabits the reef, the people of the town have become fish-human hybrids. The narrator discovers that he is descended from Innsmouth stock and will inevitably be thus transformed.

I cite “The Shadow Over Innsmouth” because it set a standard in weird fiction rooted in the horror of this revolting otherness, usually framed in slimy cephalopodic terms: the tentacle-faced god Cthulhu being the apotheosis.

He seems nice.

.

What is so fascinating in weird fiction is less the lugubrious racism of Lovecraft than the ways in which his idiom has been adapted and transformed by such contemporary authors as China Miéville, Jeff Vandermeer, Charlie Jane Anders, and Annalee Newitz (among many others). One key shift in the “new weird” is the quasi-erasure of Lovecraft’s instinctive antipathy to the uncanny Other. What surfaces instead (so to speak) is a more complex interrogation of that otherness and the consideration that (a) it isn’t necessarily evil or destructive; (b) it might offer alternative modes of thinking and being; and (c) perhaps it is the next stage of evolution. The Rig’s principal literary allusion is thus not Lovecraft, but an author whose apocalyptic imagination was somewhat more nuanced.

About five minutes into the first episode (four minutes and thirty seconds, to be exact) we see the character Alwynn (Mark Bonnar)3—the calm sage wisdom archetype—reading John Wyndham’s novel The Kraken Wakes.

Mark Bonnar as Alwynn and his not at all significant choice of reading.

.

Wyndham’s novel, published in 1953, is about an invasion by an alien species that can only live under conditions of enormous pressure, and so arrive as a series of mysterious fireballs that land in the deepest parts of the ocean. At first the fireballs are thought to be just some weird cosmic phenomenon, but then it slowly becomes apparent that the Earth’s deeps have been colonized by an intelligent species. For the reader’s benefit, Wyndham provides one of the more obvious voice-of-the-author characters you’re likely to encounter, an outspoken scientist named Alistair Bocker who is more clear-eyed and prescient than anyone else about the newcomers and the threat they pose, though he is dismissed by most for the better part of the novel as a crank. The narrator and his wife, however, a pair of journalists, befriend Bocker and so have a front row seat to his outlandish theories, which are, of course, all correct and the actual reality of what’s going on.

The Kraken Wakes has had something of a revival in literary study because it squares nicely with recent waves of climate fiction (cli-fi) and ecocritical literary theory. The third phase of the aliens’ war against the landlubbers—after phase one, in which shipping is sunk, and phase two, which involved “sea-tanks” coming ashore and assaulting coastal towns and cities—is the melting of the polar ice caps to raise the sea levels. This last attack precipitates the collapse of civil society, as scarcity takes hold and nations fall into civil strife and factional warfare. Hence, one can see how it resonates now, seventy years after its publication.4

The Rig, for all of its less subtle tendencies, is a thoughtful contribution to the growing body of creative works thinking through the crisis of the Anthropocene, which is among its other aspects a philosophical and imaginative crisis. Alwynn only offers comment on The Kraken Wakes twice; when first asked what it’s about, he replies cryptically, “A collective failure of imagination.” The rising sea levels that drive humanity away from the coasts and topple governments are the culmination of this failure: while Wyndham’s Dr. Bocker does eventually opine about the impossibility of co-existence with another intelligent species, he makes clear that the instinctively aggressive response to the submerged interlopers will end badly. His calls to attempt contact are ignored, dismissed, or simply laughed off as naïve. When the first of a series of nuclear weapons is dropped into the deeps, he effectively throws up his hands in disgusted resignation.

That this dynamic is reiterated in The Rig—replete with the allusions to Wyndham—makes for an interesting thematic turn in the contemporary context. The series is by no means a straightforward climate change allegory but is sympathetic to the people whose livelihoods depend on the fossil fuel industry. That these people are, as Hutton makes clear in his speech, as much an extractive resource as the oil itself puts the emphasis on the inhumanity of the industry and the collective failure to imagine alternative economies, alternative ways of being. The Rig makes an interesting, if unlikely, companion piece to Kate Beaton’s recent graphic memoir Ducks: Two Years in the Oil Sands, which chronicles her time working in the oil patch as a means of paying her student loans off. The book’s consonance with The Rig is precisely in this depiction of people as objects of extraction.

.

The conflict at the heart of The Rig is not between collective and individuated intelligences, but between a collective intelligence and one desperately invested in seeing itself as individuated. The latter state is given to the sort of zero-sum thinking proffered by Coake: you either have value or not, and those without value can be justifiably excised from the equation. Though never stated explicitly (one of the series’ rare moments of such restraint), the collective intelligence of the “Ancestor” is the principal threat to the corporation—itself an ironically amorphous entity, but which is reliant on its workers and consumers believing themselves locked in a zero-sum individualistic society for which there is no alternative. Environmental movements have always advocated seeing ourselves as parts of a collective entity, as survival as a species is never down to any single one of its creatures. Such thinking is anathema to capitalism, which has done its best to convince people that, in Margaret Thatcher’s words, “There is no alternative.” It has indeed become a commonplace observation that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.

The second and final time Alwynn comments on The Kraken Wakes is in response to a crewmate’s question, “How’s it working out?” To which he responds, “Not good for us.”

NOTES

1. Weirdly enough, the more earnest didacticism that I always associate with CBC dramas is mostly provided by a Canadian actor. Emily Hampshire plays Rose, a company representative on the platform who seems to operate outside the usual chain of command. At first she appears as though she’ll be one of the bad guys, as she’s a company mouthpiece. But she chooses her side quite emphatically, which is at least partially based on her erstwhile desire to be a paleontologist; this educational background makes her the person best able to grasp what the “Ancestor” is, but also makes her the source of most of the show’s lecture moments when she provides lessons in geology.

Hampshire most indelibly played Stevie Budd on Schitt$ Creek, which also makes her a weirdly uncanny presence in this dramatic and vaguely apocalyptic setting.

2. Three thoughts. One, The Rig gives us a troika of Game of Thrones alumni: Iain Glen aka Ser Jorah Mornont as Magnus, captain of the rig; Owen Teale, who played Ser Aliser Thorne, Jon Snow’s principal antagonist at the Wall—here as the malcontent Hutton, he’s playing essentially the same character, albeit with a redemptive moment at the end; and of course King Robert Baratheon himself, Mark Addy. Thought the second: Mark Addy has a peculiar, almost nasal quality of voice, that is extremely endearing when he plays a good bloke as he does in The Full Monty, but which is extremely sinister and grating as the nasty Coake. Three: though we see his name spelled “Coake,” it’s a homonym for “Koch” and I wondered if the series is deliberately referencing the fossil-fuel billionaire Charles Koch and his late brother David.

3. Mark Bonnar’s Alwynn is the other lecturer-type in the show. He is also so much like an elder version of David Tennant that my partner and I started referring to him as Grandpa Tenth.

4. I’m delighted that John Wyndham is having a revival. I read The Chrysalids in grade nine English and proceeded to tear through his other work—discovering as I did that The Chrysalids is not close to his best. The Kraken Wakes was the one I wanted to read but it was out of print for years; it was only on finding a copy in a used bookstore that I was able to read it, and it immediately became my favourite. Several years ago in a second-year SF class I taught Day of the Triffids and was struck by its prescience—not the kind of prescience that has made Kraken Wakes a cli-fi staple, but a kind of genre prescience, given that the basic structure, narratively and thematically, anticipates zombie apocalypse.

1 Comment

Filed under television, Uncategorized, what I'm watching

2022 TV Roundup

I watch a lot of television. Once upon a time that might have been an embarrassing admission for an English professor to make—or any kind of professor, really, if your understanding of academic types is that we’re supposed to concern ourselves with purely intellectual matters, and your understanding of television is that it’s the pure antithesis of the Life Of The Mind.

That attitude has always reeked of snobbery, even before television gave us shows like The Wire and Breaking Bad. There have always been green shoots in the cultural wasteland of network television, but cultural wastelands can themselves be of academic interest. Since the rise of “prestige TV”—a terrible designation for a variety of reasons, but it seems to have stuck—and the fracturing of the televisual landscape from network to cable to streaming, there’s been an embarrassment of riches. Television that ranges from simply really good to actual narrative and visual art is pretty much de rigeur, and it’s a  great deal of fun to argue what falls where on that spectrum.

So I thought I’d close out 2022 with an extremely personal and subjective rundown of what I enjoyed over the year. Listed here are just the shows that initially aired in 2022; not shown or discussed are shows from previous years I only now got around to watching because they only just now appeared on one of the streaming services I subscribe to (we watched a lot of Bob’s Burgers and What We Do in the Shadows, for example, but nothing of these from 2022). I’m also only talking about shows of which I watched an entire season, which seems only fair. I lost interest in, for example, She-Hulk and Outer Range after one or two episodes, but it’s entirely possible they got better as they went.

So we all understand the pool of options here, the seasons of television I saw in their entirety in 2022 are:

Andor
Bad Sisters
Better Call Saul, S6 (first half)
Derry Girls, S3
The Dropout
The Expanse, S6
Gaslit
House of the Dragon
Kids in the Hall (reboot)
The Lord of the Rings: Rings of Power
Obi-Wan Kenobi
Our Flag Means Death
Reacher
SAS: Rogue Heroes
The Sandman
Severance
Slow Horses, S1 & S2
Star Trek: Lower Decks, S3
Star Trek: Strange New Worlds
Stranger Things, S4
We Own This City
Wednesday
Yellowjackets

MY FAVOURITE SHOW: Andor

I didn’t think Star Wars could surprise me anymore, and the downward trajectory described by The Mandalorian (really good), The Book of Boba Fett (meh), and Obi-Wan Kenobi (see below) didn’t fill me with hope when I saw the trailer for Andor. But … holy crap. There’s a temptation to say it’s nothing like Star Wars, except that aesthetically and texturally it’s the most Star Wars thing I think I’ve ever seen. And it give substance to all the other iterations: here is the inner workings of the polyglot galaxy, seen from the lower classes, the workers, the functionaries, the mid-level bureaucrats; in the depiction of the Empire’s intelligence officers and its carceral system we see the banality of evil. The fascistic aesthetic George Lucas gave the Imperials was largely that—aesthetic, and the evil was the Dark Lord variety. In Andor we see how all that is sustained, and, perhaps more importantly, we see how resistance is fomented and sustained.

A very determined Diego Luna as Cassian Andor, reluctant rebel.

.

RUNNERS-UP: Bad Sisters, Our Flag Means Death, Severance

MY FAVOURITE PERFORMANCES

Milly Alcock as young Rhaenyra Tagaryen in House of the Dragon

There were a number of really strong performances on this show, especially Paddy Consadine as the weak, ineffectual, and ailing King Viserys—but it was Alcock as the young Rhaenyra that was most impressive. If the character was to be effective, the younger version needed to stick the performance deep; Alcock was wonderfully subtle in the role, portraying an adolescent with enough gravitas to hold her own against Matt Smith’s gleeful (Daemonic?) sociopathy and convince the audience that, yes, she was a worthy heir to the Iron Throne.

Gwendoline Christie as Lucifer Morningstar in The Sandman AND as Principal Larissa Weems in Wednesday

Like most devotees of the divine Ms. Christie, I first encountered her in the role of Brienne of Tarth in Game of Thrones and was smitten. Her casting as Lucifer in The Sandman was a master stroke, one of the few substantive deviations from Gaiman’s original comic (in which Lucifer was basically a diabolical David Bowie); Christie imbued the Prince of Hell with a cold and menacing hauteur that made it clear they were one of the few entities Dream should fear. She brought a similar icy precision to Weems in Wednesday, but managed at the same time to communicate the banked fires of anger at old wounds inflicted by Morticia that always left it in question whether she was ally or antagonist.

Gwendoline Christie in The Sandman (left) and Wednesday.

.

Rhys Darby and Taika Waititi as Stede Bonnet and Edward “Blackbeard” Teach in Our Flag Means Death.

I mean … you can’t have one without the other on this show. And they’re both so good. The entire emotional armature of this series is based on these two seemingly antithetical characters coming together in friendship and then in love; for all the madcap absurdity of the show’s premise, it’s their relationship that makes OFMD more than just a comic confection.

Anson Mount as Captain Christopher Pike in Star Trek: Strange New Worlds

I have more to say about ST: SNW below, but suffice to say Anson Mount as Pike holds his own with every other Starfleet captain who has yet graced the screen. He was what made Discovery watchable for a time, so I was delighted when the powers that be saw the wisdom in doing yet another Star Trek with Mount in the captain’s chair.

Gary Oldman as Jackson Lamb in Slow Horses

Oldman is so very obviously having a ball in this role that he’d be worth watching even if the show wasn’t as excellent as it is. Jackson Lamb is a crapulescent, drunk, filthy, and frighteningly competent cold warrior spending his waning years in Brexit-era Britain’s MI5 lording it over a collection of misfits and losers who, rather than be fired, are exiled to “Slough House.” There they are tormented by the profane Lamb, while somehow falling ass-backwards into actual intelligence work. 

Gary Oldman as Jackson Lamb, looking more groomed and hygienic than is this character’s normal wont.

.

Jenna Ortega as Wednesday Addams in Wednesday

It’s a daunting task for anyone to take on a role that has been so indelibly defined by another actor, as Wednesday Addams was by Christina Ricci. But Ortega’s performance is at once so consonant with what we expect of the character, while also being entirely her own, that she is truly astonishing to watch. The only comparable example I can think of—an actor owning an iconic role while being profoundly respectful of the work done by its principal precursor—is Mads Mikkelsen stepping into Anthony Hopkins’ shoes to play Hannibal Lecter. And that is about the highest compliment I can pay, not least because young Ms. Addams as portrayed by Ortega seems like she might be a match for Dr. Lecter. I mean, if Nevermore Academy ever needs a psychology teacher—or a head chef—that would be a crossover for the ages.

Stellan Skarsgard as Luthen Rael in Andor.

He was amazing all the way through as the rebel spymaster, but really, it was this speech that articulated the ethical complexity of Andor and in so doing put him over the top.

.

Runners-Up: Britt Lower as Helly in Severance; Connor Swindells as Arthur Stirling in SAS: Rogue Heroes; Chistina Ricci as Misty in Yellowjackets; Siobhán McSweeney as Sister Michael in Derry Girls; Kirby Howell-Baptiste as Death in The Sandman; Amanda Seyfreid as Elizabeth Holmes in The Dropout

FAVOURITE ENSEMBLE: Yellowjackets

Tough category! Severance is a competitive choice here—none of its individual actors make the list of my favourite performances because they’re all so good, but are all so good in concert. Stranger Things suggests itself, as does Bad Sisters (somewhat more persuasively). Derry Girls is probably my sentimental favourite here, not least because its third season was its last. But just in terms of group dynamics, especially in the way it balanced the older versions of the characters against the younger, Yellowjackets takes the ribbon. (See below for more).

.

BIGGEST RELIEF: Kids in the Hall AND The Sandman

This one is a tie between Kids in the Hall and The Sandman because they accomplished the same thing: they didn’t suck.  The Kids are older, greyer, paunchier, but they’ve still got game—perhaps not now the strength they were in old days when they were (and remain) the best sketch show ever made, but they’re still weird, irreverent, and hilarious. It was a relief that, whatever self-reflexive gestures they make to now being an Amazon property, this isn’t just a late-career grab for cash and/or relevance.

I read Neil Gaiman’s comic The Sandman obsessively when it first came out in the late 80s-early 90s. It was, indeed, the only comic that ever captured my attention. It was smart, it was literary, and the hero looked like Robert Smith of The Cure, all elements that appealed to my pretentious and broody late teen self. In the thirty years since there have been countless rumours about filmic adaptations, all of which mercifully came to naught. Three decades was worth the wait.

BIGGEST DISAPPOINTMENT: Obi-Wan Kenobi

No contest. Not even close. Second place is so far back I can’t see it. This show was terribly, bafflingly bad. The best thing can be said about it is that it was so bad it made me wait to watch Andor for several weeks, and then I could binge the first several episodes. It was as if the showrunners felt the need to be faithful to Lucas’ clunky writing and awkward direction on display in the prequels. What a criminal waste of Ewan McGregor’s talents. It made me hate a show that had Kumail Nanjiani in it, and I didn’t think that was possible.

MOST HEARTBREAKING CHARACTER DEATH: Eddie Munson, Stranger Things

Oh Eddie, we hardly knew ye.

FILLING THAT LOST-SHAPED HOLE: Yellowjackets

I mean, obviously. Plane crash in a remote location? Check. Gradually vanishing hopes of rescue? Check. Flash forwards to troubled lives back in civilization? Check. Character who thrives as a castaway? Check. Weird/uncanny/possibly supernatural stuff going on? Check, check, and check. And Yellowjackets has a lot of elements Lost didn’t: (1) cannibalism, or at least the strong suggestion of cannibalism; (2) a kickass 90s soundtrack; (3) a sense that the writers have a plan; (4) a preponderance of girls and women in the main roles; (5) a nuanced queer dimension to the story.

MOST FABULOUS OUTFITS: Chrisjen Avasarala, The Expanse

Yes, Wednesday Addams made a late-in-the-game play for this category—especially with her dress at the dance—but the foul-mouthed diplomat-turned-politico Chrisjen Avasarala, played with magnificent relish by the beautiful Shohreh Aghdashloo, was always clad in dresses that must have been a costumer’s dream to create.

.

GUILTIEST PLEASURE: Reacher

I will confess I’ve always found the Tom Cruise movie Jack Reacher eminently watchable, though it is intensely hated by fans of the Lee Child novels. The Jack Reacher of the fiction is tall and muscled like an ox, while Cruise is manifestly not. Hence, the series is a corrective: featuring a title character played by someone who is six-foot-massive with Schwartzeneggerian musculature (‘fists like Christmas hams” is the line always quoted from the novels) matched with an intellect so perceptive and shrewd it puts to shame the grey matter of such girly-men as Holmes and Poirot. The show’s narrative framework is simple and satisfying: Reacher uses his superior intellect to identify the bad guys, then employs his Christmas-ham fists to beat the almighty shit out of them. Rinse and repeat until they’re all dead or unconscious, mystery solved, catch the first bus out of town. Season two awaits.

JOKE DENSITY: Derry Girls

Really, this was no contest. The closest second place is Our Flag Means Death, which does feature some sustained laugh-out-loud sequences. There is also the scene in Bad Sisters in which the sisters look on in shock and horror as their loathed brother-in-law, having been roofied for reasons I won’t spoil, falls pantsless into the marina harbour. But nothing can really match the asphyxiation-level laughter evoked by Derry Girls. And if you’re skeptical, I give you a brilliant cameo from an Irish actor with a particular set of skills.

.

BEST SMOULDER: Arondir and Bronwyn in The Rings of Power

Peter Jackson gave us an object lesson in how not to do inter-legendarium romance in The Hobbit with Kili the dwarf (Aidan Turner) and Tauriel the elf (Evangeline Lily). Rings of Power does it right: wood-elf Arondir (Ismael Cruz Cordova) harbours a love for the human healer Bronwyn (Nazanin Bondiadi), who obviously reciprocates his feelings—but because of the tensions existing between the humans of her village—on probation for their earlier generations having served Sauron—and the elves (who act, essentially, as their probation officers), elf-human love is frowned upon by both camps. Also, there’s the fact that Arondir is so repressed and straitlaced that he might as well be a Vulcan (got the ears for it, anyway). But it’s because they play it in such a restrained way—and also because both of them are, as Derek Zoolander would say, really really ridiculously good looking—that I kept waiting for the air between them to ignite when they looked at each other.

I mean, come on. Seriously.

.

.

BEST ADAPTATION: Slow Horses

In terms of pure fidelity to the text, Slow Horses is basically a beat-by-beat realization of the novel on which it’s based. I know this because after having watched the first season I picked up the novel Slow Horses and read it … and it’s a testament to Mick Heron’s writing that, even though that fidelity meant there were no surprises, I still tore through it in a few days. I then went out and got the second novel in the series, and then the third, and so on until I’d read all eight extant Slough House novels over the course of the summer. I should add that this show is the best adaptation even with The Expanse as a contender.

BEST COMFORT FOOD: Star Trek: Strange New Worlds

This is another competitive category, with Derry Girls and Star Trek: Lower Decks putting in strong showings. But Strange New Worlds was very much like a return to form: Star Trek as it used to be done, and an object lesson in the principle that you can do a smart TV show engaging with substantive topics (trauma, identity, bigotry, and all the usual ethical quandaries Star Trek loves to get into) without making things both literally and figuratively dark. After Discovery and Picard, it’s nice seeing a starship bridge that doesn’t look like it’s lit for a séance.

MOST DISCONCERTING CASTING: various characters, We Own This City

To be fair, the casting in We Own This City is only going to weird out people who obsessively watched The Wire, but then I have to imagine that would account for a large portion of its viewership. I’ve always delighted in Wire-spotting on other shows, such as when Ellis Carver (Seth Gilliam) shows up on The Walking Dead or Tommy Carcetti (Aiden Gillen) continues his political turn to the dark side on Game of Thrones, but it feels like a head fake when a Wire actor shows up in the almost identical context of We Own This City playing a dramatically difference character. To be fair, the only really jarring example is that of Jamie Hector, who played the terrifying and coldly sociopathic drug boss Marlo Stanfield on The Wire; he shows up in We Own This City as Sean Suiter, a thoughtful, conscientious homicide cop troubled by his past experience with the corrupt Gun Trace Task Force. I think my favourite moment in this vein, however, is when Suiter is helped by a young Black patrol cop who looked vaguely familiar. My partner and I, recognizing him at the same moment, burst out in unison, “Holy shit, that’s Dukie!” (fans of The Wire will get me).

Jermaine Crawford, nee Dukie, and Jamie Hector, nee Marlo, in We Own This City.

.

SADLY SAYING GOODBYE: Derry Girls and The Expanse

Two of my favourite shows had their series finales this past year, and they really couldn’t be more different. Derry Girls is a hilarious but heartfelt show about five high school friends (four of them girls, one an honourary girl) living typical adolescent lives in the atypical setting of Derry, Northern Ireland in the final years of sectarian strife. The show ended its third and final season with the ratifying of the Easter Sunday Accords in 1998, a momentous event coinciding with the girls graduating. In contrast, The Expanse is quite possibly one of the best science fiction series ever, and I don’t make that claim lightly. This was a show that started strong in its first season, and just got better on all fronts with each successive season: better writing, better visual effects, and just better in terms of how the characters became family, both among themselves and with the audience.

Leave a comment

Filed under television, what I'm watching

Some Thoughts on The Rings of Power, or, Shall We Compare Mythologies?

Having watched the first three episodes of The Rings of Power, I can, with relief and delight, say that I love it so far. It has its problems, which I may or may not talk about in future posts, but the end of episode three left me wishing I could binge the whole season in a day. Always a good sign. Whether it rises to the level of Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings films remains to be seen, but it has that potential.1

So, I won’t be talking about the episodes in detail. Nor do I particularly want to talk about the entirely predictable furor that has become commonplace when something like The Rings of Power is released—namely, the howls of protest that arise from the revanchist precincts of a given fan community when the new product is perceived to have been tailored for “woke” political sensitivities. That particular drumbeat has been pounding since the release of the first Rings trailer revealed that the series would feature elves, dwarves, hobbits, and, yes, humans who were not white—something perceived by the usual suspects as a rank betrayal of the source material in the name of political correctness.2

I don’t want to talk about that backlash … but given what I am talking about, I can’t ignore it entirely. Not that it should be ignored, mind you—but there have been enough good pieces dealing with it that I would just be repeating other people’s principal points.

For the moment what I want to try and do is articulate some thoughts on fantasy and mythology, and the perennial compulsion to adapt, refine, revisit, revise, and expand upon stories that are profoundly meaningful to us one way or another. These thoughts are at the front of my mind for two reasons, the first being the recent embarrassment of riches on television of stories meaningful to me: The Rings of Power’s illumination of earlier histories of Middle-earth; House of the Dragon’s return to Westeros; and just a few weeks ago, Netflix’s release of Neil Gaiman’s The Sandman, the only comic book I’ve ever read obsessively.

From left: Tom Sturridge as Morpheus in The Sandman; Morfydd Clark as Galadriel in The Rings of Power; and Milly Alcock as Rhaenyra Targaryen in House of the Dragon. I believe I said something in a previous post about the divine right of cheekbones?

The second reason is that this fall I’m teaching a first-year English course called “Imagined Places.” My variation on its theme is modern and contemporary rewritings of Greek myths.3 As part of my preparation I’ve been rereading The Iliad and The Odyssey, which started as an exercise in refreshing my memory of their finer points and has become a joyful reunion with texts I first read in high school, and then again in an intro to classics course I took in my first year of university.

Few works in the history of western literature have inspired quite as much imitation and revision. Keep that in mind as we go, because it’s something I’m going to circle back around to.

My entry point to this discussion is a recent New York Times column by Tolkien scholar Michael Drout, titled “Please Don’t Make a Tolkien Cinematic Universe.” I’ll get into the particulars as I go, but the gist of his argument is that the subtle complexities of Tolkien’s moral universe are beyond the scope of contemporary film and television; unfortunately, the franchise model of cinema that has come to dominate the current entertainment market likely sees Tolkien as a wealth of source material to be exploited. Should Amazon (or, presumably, any other corporate media entity) turn Tolkien’s legendarium into something akin to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, it will inevitably miss, mangle, or pervert the moral vision at the heart of Tolkien’s work.

To be clear, that last sentence is my extrapolation from Drout’s argument—he does not himself say as much in so many words, but it is an accurate summary of his concern. “Is it fair to the legacies of writers like Tolkien,” Drout asks, “to build franchises from their works without their knowledge or permission?” There were attempts to adapt The Lord of the Rings to film while Tolkien was still alive; initial, wary interest on Tolkien’s part turned fairly quickly into antipathy to the whole idea as he rejected one spec script after another, finally declaring that his work was unsuited for film. His biographer recounts a time Tolkien attended a staged version of The Hobbit, at which he frowned every time the play departed from the novel. “So it is hard to believe,” Drout concludes, “that he would have approved of a team of writers building almost entirely new stories with little direct basis in his works.”

Here of course Drout means The Rings of Power, which is drawn from the appendices of The Lord of the Rings.4 It is true that the series is taking a big swing, building out a multi-season story arc from some short summaries and chronologies of the Second Age. Such a sketchy basis, Drout suggests, is a poor foundation on which to build—but then, from what he says, it’s a reasonably good chance Tolkien would similarly have disapproved of Peter Jackson’s films (whose absence from his discussion is an odd omission to which I’ll return). Tolkien’s imagined approval or disapproval is at least somewhat beside the point, however; it is strange to suggest that adaptations and retellings of a given author’s work are somehow “unfair” to their legacy, considering that entire cottage industries thrive on adapting authors like Shakespeare and Jane Austen. Possibly Austen might have liked Clueless, but would probably have looked askance at Pride and Prejudice with Zombies. Does a spectral Shakespeare burn with anger at all the distortions of Hamlet, from Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead to The Lion King?

Or is fifty years not long enough? (Tolkien died in 1973). Must we wait for copyright to expire?

I pose these questions with my tongue only partly in my cheek: I’m trying to read Drout’s concerns generously but can’t help but find them a little disingenuous. Especially considering—as I mentioned above—that he elides any mention of Peter Jackson’s films, except to acknowledge that they exist. This omission is passing strange if for no other reason than that we already have a Tolkien cinematic universe, helpfully spanning the extremes of good and bad—with The Lord of the Rings films displaying both profound respect for their source material and moments of brilliant filmmaking, while The Hobbit films are a hot mess of poor directorial impulse control.

A few of the lowlights from The Hobbit–though I must confess I have always liked Tharanduil’s battle moose.

There have also been a handful of animated adaptations, most notably Ralph Bakshi’s somewhat trippy 1978 Lord of the Rings that blended traditional animation with rotoscoping.4

The animated 1977 film of The Hobbit and Ralph Bakshi’s 1978 The Lord of the Rings.

There is also a Lord of the Rings stage musical—of which I was somehow unaware until one of my students in my Tolkien class last year sent me a YouTube link, destroying my blissful ignorance.

And while we’re at it, there have also been a significant number of video games set in Middle-earth, perhaps most notably Lord of the Rings Online, an MMORPG in the mold of World of Warcraft, whose fidelity to the geography, story, and lore of Tolkien’s work would probably impress even Michael Drout.

A still from Lord of the Rings Online. Not sure what’s happening here, but it looks heroic.

And though Drout’s quibble is with the prospect of a Tolkien cinematic universe, there is also the inescapable fact that there has always been the Tolkien expanded universe. Created initially of course by the man himself with his “mythology”—into which The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings were folded—it was then enlarged with The Silmarillion and the further eighteen volumes edited by his son Christopher that provided readers with world-building akin to that of the mad encyclopedists of Jorge Luis Borges’ storyTlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius.”

Given this already-existing critical mass of material, it makes me wonder why Drout draws the line at The Rings of Power; why choose this moment to stand athwart the expanding Tolkien universe to yell stop?

The uncharitable reading would be to suggest that this is of a piece with the more overtly revanchist backlash, just more delicately articulated; the more generous reading is to take him at his word and presume that he’s concerned that Amazon will take Tolkien down the same road as Marvel comics have gone, or—and this was a pretty widely shared worry, though now mostly allayed—that The Rings of Power showrunners would feel compelled to create a Game of Thrones clone. Drout, indeed, alludes to both these apprehensions while asserting that “the groupthink produced by the contemporary ecosystems of writers’ rooms, Twitter threads and focus groups” of the “Hollywood of 2022” is innately out of step with Tolkien’s unique sensibility:

The writing that this dynamic is particularly good at producing—witty banter, arch references to contemporary issues, graphic and often sexualized violence, self-righteousness—is poorly suited to Middle-earth, a world with a multilayered history that eschews tidy morality plays and blockbuster gore.6

Citing the fact that the quest of The Lord of the Rings is not the attainment of power but its destruction, and that in bearing the Ring Frodo is too wounded, physically and psychically, to return to his life as it was before, Drout asks, “Can a company as intent upon domination as Amazon really understand this perspective—and adapt that morality to the screen?” While I’m not unsympathetic to anyone taking issue with Amazon as a cultural and societal blight, I find this line of argument bewilderingly obtuse—as if Jeff Bezos were the one writing, casting, costuming, and doing art direction.7

Ultimately, however, my interest in Drout’s argument is that its inconsistencies speak to a broader, more significant issue with Tolkien’s mythology—or rather, with Tolkien as mythology. In the end, whether or not Amazon does a good job with The Rings of Power, or whether they do attempt to build out an expanded cinematic universe on par with Marvel, really matters very little for a fairly simple reason: that Tolkien in fact succeeded in realizing his lifelong goal. He created an enduring mythology.

I will come to that in a moment. But first, for the sake of argument, let’s take some of the protests over The Rings of Power casting of nonwhite actors on their merits. One strain of the “I’m not racist, but—” arguments is that Tolkien’s world is explicitly modeled on Northern European geography, cultures, and ethnicities, and so introducing obviously non-European-looking characters disrupts Tolkien’s design and intent. A refinement on this line of thinking says “OK, sure, introduce Black elves, but make it clear how it serves the story!” In other words, offer an explanation of how there came to be Black elves (and hobbits, and dwarves, and humans).

To be fair, I’ve seen such concerns offered with all appearance of sincerity and earnestness,8 and there are, if one has the patience for it, substantive counter-arguments, some of which are based in Tolkien’s own lore. One example that has gone viral is from none other than Neil Gaiman:

There is also the fact that medieval Europe wasn’t quite as monolithically white as is often assumed or depicted, given the vestiges of the multi-ethnic Roman legions left behind after the western empire imploded; there was also, more significantly, brisk trade that brought people from Moorish Spain, North Africa, and the Middle East into regular contact with Europeans of all shades.9

But again, this is all at least partly beside the point I want to make. To be generous, I’ll say that the idea that the casting choices in The Rings of Power are somehow transgressive resides in a vague understanding of the original story as sacrosanct, or that there is an “authentic” Tolkienian vision to which it behooves all adaptors to hew. Leaving aside the simple fact that “authenticity” in this context is always going to be illusory and chimerical, is it really even desirable? Are we obliged to honour every boundary, real and imagined, that an author places on interpretations of their work?

Fortunately such a myopic approach is not practical or feasible. Neither the creative arts nor literary criticism have anything like the legal doctrine of originalism, something of which Tolkien was well aware. He might have gotten stroppy over prospective filmic adaptations or a staged version of The Hobbit, but his lifelong project was to shape a mythology—something he was at his most candid and open about in a long letter to the publisher Milton Waldman. Tolkien was at the time (the letter is undated but most likely written late 1951) shopping around The Lord of the Rings; he was having some difficulty finding a publisher because he was still insisting that LotR should be published in a single volume with the prehistory that would eventually become The Silmarillion. Given the already-epic length of LotR, publishers were understandably reluctant at including the dense mythology. But Tolkien had not yet reconciled himself to jettisoning the narratives of Middle-earth’s First and Second Ages, and he attempted to persuade Waldman by explaining the import of the project to him. “I do not remember a time when I was not building it,” he says. “I have been at it since I could write.” His aim, he says, was not merely to make up stories, but to build a mythology that could supplement what he saw as a lack in his native country:

I was from early days grieved by the poverty of my own beloved country: it had no stories of its own (bound up with its tongue and soil), not of the quality that I sought, and found … in legends of other lands. There was Greek, and Celtic, and Romance, and Germanic, Scandinavian, and Finnish (which greatly affected me); but nothing English, save impoverished chap-book stuff. Of course there was and is all the Arthurian world, but powerful as it is, it is imperfectly naturalized, associated with the soil of Britain but not with English; and does not replace what I felt to be missing.

He goes on to explain that his own mythopoeic project was precisely an attempt to replace what he felt to be missing:

I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic, to the level of romantic fairy-story—the larger founded on the lesser in contact with the earth, the lesser drawing splendour from the vast backcloths—which I could dedicate simply to: to England: to my country.

Not exactly a humble ambition, something he self-deprecatingly acknowledges as he pleads “Do not laugh!” and adds at the end “Absurd.” But one is put in mind of John Milton’s determination to write an epic poem in English that would be the equal—or the superior—of Homer and Virgil,10 or James Joyce, whose own grandiose ambition was voiced by his alter ego Stephen Dedalus at the end of A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man when he says, absurdly, “I go to encounter for the millionth time the reality of experience and to forge in the smithy of my soul the uncreated conscience of my race.”

But like Milton and Joyce11, Tolkien succeeded in his seemingly hubristic ambition—he did create a mythology that has taken on its own life as it captured people’s imaginations, albeit not perhaps as he thought it might. His vision, it turns out, was too modest: Middle-earth has transcended England and become the world’s mythology. And like all such mythologies, it is futile to try and contain it.

This is where we come back around to my first-year English class: as I said, we’re looking at modern and contemporary poetry and fiction that reimagines and revisits classic Greek myth, often in ways that give voice to those figures who are ancillary to the main action, or disposable in the name of advancing the plot. The modernist poet Hilda Doolittle (H.D.) writes “Eurydice,” in which the title character excoriates her husband Orpheus for consigning her to Hades—again!—when he couldn’t help but look back at the last moment (you had one job!). Or Canadian poet Don McKay’s reimagining of Icarus as an unapologetic adrenaline junky aiming to get that fall from on high just right.

And then there’s the story of Briseis: The Iliad, long considered the origin point of Western literature, begins when the great warrior Achilles and High King Agamemnon quarrel over Briseis, a Trojan woman who is Achilles’ spoil of war, whom Agamemnon takes from him. In a fit of pique, Achilles retires to his tent to sulk and withholds the forces he commands, allowing the Trojans to turn the tide and bring the fight all the way back to the Greek ships, forcing Agamemnon to swallow his pride and send Briseis back to Achilles. In her novel The Silence of the Girls, Pat Barker retells the events of The Iliad from Briseis’ point of view. This shift of perspective makes explicit the brutality of the war and the way it envelops non-combatants in its implacable, bloody logic: the trauma visited on ordinary people, the slaughter of innocents, the enslavement and rape of the women taken captive. Barker’s novel is harrowing, brilliant, and faithful to The Iliad; it would also, I am certain, be considered a “woke” attempt to tear down the edifice of classic Greek literature if read by those who view a Black elf as a profound betrayal of Tolkien’s legacy.

A thought I’ve had a lot lately is what low esteem Tolkien purists have for Tolkien’s work, given that they seem to believe the slightest deviation from what they perceive as the original or authentic vision is somehow mortally damaging to Tolkien’s legacy. The opposite is the case: Tolkien’s peculiar genius lies in the very capaciousness of his vision. It contains multitudes. Not even Amazon can dent it. And that, of course, is the nature of mythology: if the ancient Romans had had Twitter, there would have been endless arguments in the Greek myth fan community over the Latinizing of the gods’ names; Ovid would have been excoriated for the liberties he took, Virgil for being an Augustan propagandist; and legions of toga-clad hipsters would sniff into their wine (locally sourced, of course) that Hesiod was the only truly authentic mythographer.

But none of the Roman emendations and transformations of the Greek myths had a deleterious effect on Homer, any more than do contemporary novels by Pat Barker or Madeline Miller. And no more than The Rings of Power, Ralph Bakshi’s The Lord of the Rings, or even Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit have had on Tolkien’s mythos.

Indeed, in his letter to Milton Waldman, Tolkien is quite clear about how he wants his mythology to be picked up, adapted, and transformed by others: “I would draw some of the great tales in fullness, and leave many only placed in the scheme, and sketched. The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama.” And so it has transpired. Whether Tolkien would have liked any of the scholarship, cinema and television, fan fiction, video games, and indeed the whole raft of imitative works that came to comprise the genre of fantasy as we now know it is irrelevant. Such is the risk you take when you create something transcendent.

NOTES

1. I suppose we should appreciate that Jackson established a spectrum of quality against which all future Tolkien adaptations can be measured, with the Lord of the Rings films establishing the high-water mark and The Hobbit films as the nadir.

2. One thing I will say on this point is that two of the things giving the anti-woke crowd the nativist vapours are my favourite parts of the show: namely, the young, impetuous, warrior version of Galadriel played by Morfydd Clark, and the EOC (elf of colour) Arondir, played by Ismael Cruz Cordova. Cordova is veritably mesmerizing as Arondir, playing the character with a tightly controlled mien that just barely hints at a tumult beneath; when in the third episode he breaks out the Legolas-like balletic combat, I don’t think his expression changes. Not that I would want to typecast him, but he’s all set to play a Vulcan should he want to stick with the SF/F thing.

Meanwhile, the complaints about Galadriel are as predictable as they are exhausting, starting with whinges about making a female character the show’s main focus and filter. Beyond that, (some) people can’t seem to reconcile Clark’s smouldering rage and badass combat skills with the cool reserve with which Cate Blanchett endowed the character … never considering, presumably, that that degree of imperturbable self-control is something one earns.

Also, it’s probably mere coincidence that the first thing Galadriel does in the first episode is kill a troll. I’m sure that wasn’t something the writers did in anticipation of the backlash the character would inevitably face.

3. We’re starting with Rick Riordan’s YA novel Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief; then Pat Barker’s The Silence of the Girls, which is a retelling of The Iliad from the perspective of Briseis, the Trojan woman over whom Achilles and Agamemnon quarrel; Circe by Madeline Miller, which tells the story of the titular witch who plays a small but significant role in The Odyssey; and The Just City by Jo Walton, a novel in which the goddess Athene creates Plato’s Republic out of curiosity, to see if it would actually work. We’ll also be doing a bunch of poetry (Yeats’ “Leda and the Swan,” for example, and William Carlos Williams’ “Landscape with the Fall of Icarus”), as well as reading the relevant myths as recounted in Edith Hamilton’s Mythology (I would have actually preferred to use Stephen Fry’s book Mythos, which is an arch and elegant compendium, but it is too expensive and too long to justify including it, especially when my students would only be reading a fraction of it. I’ve been listening to it on audiobook off and on all summer—read, of course, by Fry himself—and it is a delight).

4. For legal reasons I haven’t entirely parsed, Amazon has the rights to The Lord of the Rings—and its appendices—but not The Silmarillion.

5. The Bakshi LotR was just the first half—that is, all of Fellowship and parts of The Two Towers. He’d planned the film to take place in two parts, but the second film never got made … for reasons that become clear when you watch the first.

6. If current film and television was in fact limited to these possibilities—which seem to be delineated here as Marvel’s archness, Game of Thrones’ sex and violence, and the self-righteousness of a vaguely imagined wokeness—he might just have a point. But I don’t have to reach back fifteen years to The Wire and The Sopranos and the rest of prestige television’s first glut of great work to refute Drout’s characterization. In just the past two or three years, Severance, Better Call Saul, Our Flag Means Death, The Mandalorian, The Plot Against America, Succession, The Good Place, Sex Education, Slow Horses, Yellowjackets, and countless other series have shown the depth and breadth of the subtlety and sophistication that is out there.

7. I’ve written previously on this blog about the contradictions inherent in Bezos’ avowed love of Star Trek, given that Gene Roddenberry’s utopian vision of the future was utopian in part because it imagined a future in which a billionaire class was unthinkable … but this isn’t really what Drout’s on about.

8. Though, really, any time you feel compelled to preface a statement with “I’m not racist, but …” there’s about a 100% chance you’re about to say something racist.

9. Also, not for nothing, but it’s not as if The Rings of Power is doing for the Tolkien expanded universe what Black Panther did for the MCU, in which Martin Freeman and Andy Serkis were the sole Tolkien white guys (get it?). The “diversity” of The Rings of Power, in the end, is a handful of dark faces in a large cast that is otherwise still overwhelmingly white. The fact that so many people are reacting as if the showrunners had put a sign saying “Caucasians need not apply” on the audition room door is perhaps the most telling point.

10. Interestingly, Milton had about as much regard in the end for Arthurian legend as Tolkien did—which is to say moderate regard, but like Tolkien he found it wanting. In the early days of considering what the subject for his epic would be, Milton considered King Arthur, but discarded the idea as too parochial.

11. The rumbling you hear is Harold Bloom spinning in his grave at me mentioning Tolkien in the same sentence as Milton and Joyce.

1 Comment

Filed under Return to Middle-Earth, television, what I'm watching

Some Further Quick Thoughts on House of the Dragon (episode two)

I’ve received a number of questions from people asking whether I plan to post on a weekly basis about House of the Dragon. Thanks to those who’ve reached out: it is gratifying to know the Game of Thrones posts I did with Nikki over nine (egad!) years were enjoyed. I’m afraid my answer has to be an unsatisfying maybe. I’ll certainly have stuff to say, which may or not make it to my blog, but what I definitely won’t be doing is posting long, detailed blow-by-blow recaps/reviews—not with Nikki, and not by myself. We did that for Game of Thrones eight seasons, and I think it’s safe to say we both hit our saturation point.

And there’s also the fact that one of the reasons we were able to sustain that output—by the end, our posts were averaging over ten thousand words, which even between two people is a lot of text to produce in a couple of days—is because GoT was a genuine cultural phenomenon. It’s not that I wouldn’t be amenable to the idea of doing that sort of thing again, but not with a property like HotD, whose Westrosi territory we’ve mapped pretty thoroughly.

But having written as much as I did—one half of seventy-three 8-12K word posts is a hefty chunk of text—there’s a certain amount of muscle memory there that would be hard to ignore, even if I wanted to. Two episodes has got my mind flexing in some familiar ways, though less with the granular details of the show than with the broader issues it raises that reflect back on GoT, having to do with fantasy and genre and world-building. Also, given that Rings of Power powers up this week, there’s some interesting possibilities arising in the serendipitous juxtaposition of HBO’s ongoing televisual adaptation of George R.R. Martin’s latter-day fantasy and Amazon’s attempt to build upon Peter Jackson’s success in bringing Middle-earth to the screen.

I also watched Wheel of Time, also on Amazon, this past winter. And while I didn’t have anything to say about it at the time—honestly, I was underwhelmed—revisiting it might make for some useful points of comparison.

I commented in my previous post that I was more worried about Rings of Power, because that show has set itself a much more difficult task. The two shows are superficially similar insofar as they’re both prequel-ish narratives adapted from the histories preceding the stories that made people interested in those histories to start with. But beyond that point of comparison, there really is, well, no comparison.

For the moment I’m going to keep my powder dry on The Silmarillion and Tolkien’s legendarium more broadly until I’ve seen the first episode of Rings. Suffice to say that adapting Tolkien’s mythology is not the same kind of task as adapting The Lord of the Rings.

By contrast, HotD is entirely the same kind of task as adapting A Song of Ice and Fire, and is made easier by the fact that all of the heavy lifting—which is to say, its principal world-building, its aesthetic, its general narrative sensibility—was well established by the eight seasons of GoT. Perhaps more significantly, there is much less at stake in HotD: whatever dragon-borne sexytime shenanigans these Targaryens get up to, we know that they’ll still be around for Robert Baratheon to usurp in two centuries or so. We even know, should we wish to consult Fire and Blood, GRRM’s “history” of the Targaryen dynasty, who wins and who loses and how these conflicts either resolve or don’t resolve themselves.

To be clear, when I say there isn’t much at stake, I mean artistically and narratively. HBO has the pots of money it’s investing at stake, so if people’s appetite for GRRM’s particular brand of venality and violence, of incest and intrigue proves to have been exhausted by GoT’s ignominious exit, well, that’s going to result in a fresh batch of firings. But for those of us tuning in, we’re going to be propelled less by where we’re going than how we get there—by which I mean how the episode-to-episode drama unfolds, and how much we invest emotionally in the characters.

The good news, based on episode two, is that they’re off to a good start. The awkwardness of the writing in the first episode was largely smoothed out, and we’re starting to get a better sense of the main players and their motivations. The casting is proving its quality: there are no discordant notes. The MVPs for this episode are Milly Alcock as the young and precocious Rhaenyra and Eve Best as the jaded but shrewd Rhaenys, the Queen that Never Was.

(Something that comes with adapting fantasy is the realization that names as written on the page don’t always do well when spoken out loud. GRRM is usually pretty user-friendly with his Jons and Roberts and Neds, but occasionally we stumble over the jaw-crackers—as Samwise Gamgee might call them—more typical of the genre).

Prince Cheeky McCheekbones and his Precious.

The conversation between the elder and younger Rhaenladies is a good indication of how this series will play out, and a reminder that GoT, for all its spectacle, was at its best when its antagonists fenced with words as well as swords. Rheanyra surprising the meeting on the bridge at Dragonstone and calling her uncle’s bluff was also a close contender for the episode’s high point.

But where GoT was about a multi-front civil war taking place against the looming threat of the Night King’s malevolent return, HotD is about the internecine conflict of a single dynastic family, whose end—as observed above—is foreordained by history. This much is made clear by the opening credits, which retain the theme music of the original and the general aesthetic sensibility, but which unfold within the contained and claustrophobic walls of a castle we assume is the Red Keep.

The unifying symbol of the GoT credits was the armillary sphere containing the sun, soaring above the vastness of Westeros and Essos. From this celestial perspective we were shown the key points of geography relevant to the given episode. By contrast, the armillary sphere is replaced at the start of the HotD credits with the House Targaryen sigil, which connects to all the other nodes within the castle walls with criss-crossing streams of blood—which itself has the triple meaning of referencing familiar bloodlines, one half of the Targaryen motto (which makes me wonder if future credits will feature fire?), and presumably the rivers of blood that will flow once the fighting begins in earnest.

[CORRECTION: The first image we see in the sequence is not the Targaryen sigil, but a sort of bas-relief of dragons flying around a stronghold that, based on King Viserys’ hobby-model (what kings do instead of model trains, presumably), is meant to be old Valyria. This almost certainly means that the stone walls and corridors through which the blood flows are probably those of the model and not, as I’d blithely assumed, the Red Keep. Not that this really changes my interpretation: it’s still contained within the confines of the Targaryen dynasty, except more explicitly, and with the added sense of being yoked to a mythologized history. Still, more food for thought there.]

By way of conclusion, few quick thoughts in no particular order:

  • The CGI ain’t great. It’s generally OK, but there are those telltale moments when it looks more like a middling video game than a high-budget series. I have to imagine HBO is hedging a bit, which is fair enough: it took GoT a few seasons to establish itself. Before that, they either avoided expensive, large-scale sequences by, say, knocking out Tyrion just before a battle, or limiting themselves to one or two big spectacles a season. It’s fortunate the show proved its worth by the time the dragons got big.
  • The scene in which King Viserys walks and talks with his possible grade-school bride is one of the squickier sequences I’ve seen in any show, but all credit to Paddy Consadine for exuding profound discomfort throughout.
  • I’m in equal measures intrigued and concerned with the character Mysaria, Daemon Targaryen’s prostitute-turned-paramour. Her scene following the bridge confrontation, in which she takes Daemon to task for using her as a provocation was powerful, and it makes me hope the writers paid attention to the criticism leveled at GoT’s cavalier use of sexual violence and disposable female characters. And I am concerned, well, because perhaps this will end up being just more of the same.
  • If Daemon and Rhaenyra are any indication, the Targaryens ruled by divine right of cheekbones; two hundred years hence, Cersei Lannister attempts to follow suit.

Leave a comment

Filed under Game of Thrones, television, what I'm watching

A Quick Post on House of the Dragon

Milly Alcock as Princess Rhaenyra Targaryen in front of an Iron Throne with … way more iron than the last time we saw it.

I was asked recently which TV series I was most excited about: House of the Dragon, HBO’s prequel to Game of Thrones; or Rings of Power, Amazon’s prequel-ish adaptation of elements of Tolkien’s The Silmarillion (which I hesitate to call a “prequel” to The Lord of the Rings for reasons that aren’t entirely germane here but which I’ll likely articulate once the series starts).

I wasn’t sure how to answer that question. I suppose that, all other considerations aside, I’m more looking forward to Rings of Power … but that anticipation is tempered by the awareness that the line between amazing and terrible is a trickier one to negotiate with that source material. It was broadly thought that The Lord of the Rings was unfilmable until Peter Jackson proved everyone wrong on that front, but that presumption had more to do with the prior limitations of special effects technology than with storytelling. The principal reason LotR was so good—and why The Hobbit shanked so badly—is because Jackson treated the source material of the former with profound respect. The story of LotR needs little tinkering, as evidenced by how often the films take dialogue verbatim from the novels. The Silmarillion, by contrast, is written as, and unfolds like, mythology, which will necessitate some significant tinkering. Finding that happy medium between rendering it naturalistic and hewing to the spirit of Tolkien’s story will be a difficult needle to thread.

Which is why I’m more confident that House of the Dragon will hit its marks, given that it was always meant to be entirely consonant with its predecessor. I have not however been particularly looking forward to it, for what I assume are obvious reasons. Like most people who loved GoT, the final season left a sour taste in my mouth and the ending felt like a betrayal—not so much a betrayal of the characters, as many people felt, but a betrayal by the showrunners of the show itself. After seven seasons of often superb, unhurried, nuanced storytelling and world-building, showrunners D.B. Weiss and David Benioff—now without the scaffolding of the great bearded glacier George R.R. Martin to shore up their own writing faults—raced to a slapdash finish in a truncated final season that effectively upended everything that had come before and slapped the goodwill of fans in the face.

Which isn’t to say I won’t watch HotD, but I don’t feel inclined to write lengthy recaps/commentaries like Nikki and I did for GoT.

That being said, I watched the first episode last night, so here are my thoughts in no particular order. Mild spoilers ahead.

  • The first episode was … OK. I was more or less on board by the end, which is a good sign—it means, possibly, that the awkwardness of the writing was more to do with this being a pilot setting up the characters and contexts, and will find its rhythm as we go. Fingers crossed.
  • I can tell it’s going to take a few episodes to adjust to Matt Smith playing the villain. He’s still so indelibly the Eleventh Doctor for me, though I suspect it will be a lot like watching David Tennant play Kilgrave in Jessica Jones. Smith as Daemon Targaryen has similar energy, which is the whole manic alien-among-humans thing being repurposed as gleeful psychopathy.
  • As trepidatious as I was going in, that theme music … man, it’s good to hear it again.
  • Not to repeat myself, but I do hope the writing finds its groove. Too many awkward moments of dialogue to really overlook … however much Benioff and Weiss floundered with the plotting after they overshot GRRM’s runway, even by the end the moment-to-moment of GoT never felt inauthentic.
  • The juxtaposition of the bloody birthing scene and the jousting was a little … obvious. C’mon, man. We get it.
  • Something Stephanie pointed out right at the outset: do clothing styles not change in Westeros? This is almost two centuries before GoT, you’d think there’d be some differences.
  • I can’t quibble with the casting. Once I’ve worked through my Doctor Who issues, Matt Smith looks to be great. Paddy Considine (King Viserys) has been great in everything I’ve seen him in. Rhys Ifans (Hand of the King Otto Hightower) is also always a solid bet. I had to do an IMDb search to figure out where I’d seen Eve Best (Princess Rhaenys, aka the Queen That Never Was); it was Nurse Jackie, a series I can’t recommend enough, and she was amazing in it, as she looks to be here. Though I really, really hope she gets to do more. And I really like Milly Alcock as Princess Rhaenyra: the ambitious and precocious teenage girl who wants more than the life normally allotted a woman is a role we last saw done superbly by Maesie Williams as Arya Stark; Alcock so far isn’t overplaying it, and I appreciate the subtlety she brings, especially considering we can expect it to be contrasted by Matt Smith’s gleeful scenery-chewing as her principal antagonist.
Matt Smith as Daemon Targaryen, bringing some serious creepy uncle vibes to the role.

So I guess we’ll see. Not a bad start, but with the way GoT left things, the series has its work cut out convincing fans they’re willing to be hurt all over again.

One thing I’ve found interesting: there have been more than a few (by which I mean two or three that I’ve seen) think pieces wondering whether HotD will fill the vacuum left by GoT as a show that gives people a common point of contact—as whatever these days passes for water-cooler conversation, or in the more highbrow terminology, a “monoculture.” As Alyssa Rosenberg writes in the Washington Post, “It’s not just that Game of Thrones left behind unfinished conversations. Rather, the show seemed to mark the end of mass, sustained cultural debate period.”

However much GoT was a hugely popular show, I feel this overstates things … or possibly evinces a critic’s nostalgia for entertainment properties that captured more than the niche attention that has increasingly been the norm since television fractured into a wider cable universe, and which itself then gave ground to streaming services and their infinitude of offerings. It’s odd to consider that the ratings for the GoT finale, its most-watched episode at just shy of 14 million viewers, was the same as your average episode of Seinfeld in the 1990s. When I was a TA in the first years of my PhD, I could cite The Simpsons in my classes by way of explaining things and be confident that all my students were familiar with my references.

It’s been a long time since there’s been that kind of touchstone—GoT was the closest thing we’ve had, and I somehow doubt HotD will capture the same lightning in a bottle. But I suppose we shall see.

1 Comment

Filed under Game of Thrones, television, what I'm watching

Lovecraft Country, “Sundown”

lovecraft country

As I started to say in my previous post, Lovecraft Country, among other things—perhaps above other things—isn’t just an extended engagement with the fraught legacy of H.P. Lovecraft, but deploys that legacy as an extended metaphor for the even more fraught legacy of race in America. And though I refer here to the novel by Matt Ruff, the first episode of HBO’s adaptation, “Sundown,” is very much on the same page.

Atticus Freeman (Jonathan Majors) is a young Black man from the South Side of Chicago; a veteran of the Korean War; a son whose relationship to his father Montrose (Michael K. Williams) is fraught to the point of estrangement; and a lover of pulp science fiction and fantasy. The opening sequence of “Sundown” is at once a flashback to his time in Korea, and a dream  wrought by Edgar Rice Burroughs and other pulp authors, starting with visceral black-and-white hand-to-hand combat with North Korean soldiers, and moving into a technicolour attack by flying saucers, alien tripods á là H.G. Welles, and Lovecraftian, batlike monsters. The Cthulhu-esque tentacular beast confronting Atticus is suddenly split down the middle in a spume of green slime by none other than Jackie Robinson.

And then Atticus wakes up, on a bus taking him north, Edgar Rice Burroughs’ novel A Princess of Mars resting on his chest.

Atticus—or “Tic,” as others call him—comprises the central conceit of Lovecraft Country: a young Black man who knows as well as anybody the brutal realities of Jim Crow America; who served as a combat soldier in Korea, but doesn’t accrue any respect or gratitude for that from whites; but who is an enthusiastic reader of pulp fiction, in spite of the fact that those stories not only have little to say about him, but what they do have to say is racist and demeaning. Even the older Black woman with whom he ends up walking down a country road after their bus blows out doesn’t have much use for his choice of reading—pointing out to him that John Carter, the hero of Burroughs’ Mars novels, was a Confederate officer, and thus doesn’t deserve Atticus’ sympathies. Later, after Atticus makes it home to Chicago, he tells his uncle George (Courtney B. Vance) that his father Montrose had tried to cure him of his pulp addiction by making him memorize a certain piece of doggerel by H.P. Lovecraft. (I won’t cite the vile title of the poem or quote it—typing “Lovecraft on the creation” into Google will take you to it if you’re that curious—but the most euphemistic way to summarize it is to say it suggests the gods saw a gap in creation between man and beast, and filled that gap by creating Black people). When the woman he met on the bus points out that John Carter doesn’t get to be an “ex-Confederate,” because “he fought for slavery. You don’t get to put an ‘ex’ in front of that,” Atticus replies that, “Stories are like people. Loving them doesn’t make them perfect. You just try and cherish them, and overlook their flaws.”

Screen Shot 2020-08-21 at 10.08.26 PM

Coming as it does in the first minutes of the first episode, this assertion initially felt like a lame, mealy-mouthed defense, and Atticus doesn’t really speak the line with much conviction—it feels as though, more than anything, he’s trying to convince himself. “The flaws are still there,” the woman points out. “Yeah, they are,” Atticus concedes. On reflection, however—and on re-watching the episode—it strikes me that Atticus’ words, here at the outset, articulate a key theme of the series. For one thing, it becomes obvious that he’s talking as much about his father as about his beloved pulp stories—over the course of “Sundown,” we learn that his father Montrose is an abusive alcoholic who was himself abused by his father, but also that he loved Atticus deeply, even if he couldn’t express it—and that his loathing of Atticus’ pulp fiction addiction was of a piece with his rage at Atticus’ enlistment. Why give yourself over to these people who hate you? Why read fiction that extols whiteness and vilifies blackness? Why fight for a nation that makes you a second-class citizen?

While Atticus is an admirably nuanced and well-realized character in the novel—and Jonathan Majors’ performance so far promises to be extraordinary—he is also Lovecraft Country’s central conceit; that is to say, his love of fiction that doesn’t love him back, but which nevertheless resonates with him, is a poignant metaphor for the contradictions of the American Experiment. “In the beginning was not only the word,” wrote Ralph Ellison, author of Invisible Man, “but its contradiction.” That contradiction is baked into the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,” wrote Thomas Jefferson, slave-owner. Black scholars and thinkers, from Frederick Douglass to Ellison to Toni Morrison, have long pointed out this contradiction between the promise of America and its practice, and demanded that the promise be fulfilled.

[It was at this moment in the drafting of this post that I abandoned the laptop and worked longhand, as I usually do when trying to work through ideas that aren’t easily gelling; I filled a few pages of a legal pad with several attempts to speak to the larger issues concerning race that have been brought to the fore in the past few months, and how Lovecraft Country bears on them. I have chosen discretion over valour, however, because (1) I want to get this post done in a relatively timely manner, and am loath to articulate thoughts on such topics not fully baked; and (2) I don’t want this post to be Tolstoy-length. Suffice to say, TL;DR: the timing of Lovecraft Country airing now is serendipitous, not least because we just saw the historic nomination of Kamala Harris as the VP candidate.]

Screen Shot 2020-08-21 at 10.11.56 PM

Aunjanue Ellis as Hippolyta and Courtney B. Vance as George Freeman.

“Sundown” does an admirable job of establishing the world of the story and introducing its main characters: in addition to Atticus as his uncle George, there’s George’s wife Hippolyta, and their daughter Diana, who has her own genre obsession—she draws comics featuring heroic characters. George and Hippolyta publish The Safe Negro Travel Guide, which lists towns, restaurants, and hotels that are Black-friendly. And if that publication sounds familiar, well, that’s because it’s based on the historical Green Book, which, as it happens, had its own movie not long ago. Writing for NPR, Glen Weldon lists the similarities and differences between the movie and the series:

Here is a list of things that the HBO series Lovecraft Country, premiering Sunday, August 16th, has in common with the 2018 film Green Book:

  1. Setting: Jim Crow-era America
  2. Acting: Subtle, nuanced performances (Viggo Mortensen’s dese-and-dose Green Book gangster notwithstanding).
  3. Subject: Story features a road trip involving a travel guidebook written to inform Black people where they can safely eat and stay. (Green Book: Entire film; Lovecraft Country: Opening episodes only.)

And here is a brief, incomplete list of the things that Lovecraft Country prominently features that Green Book emphatically does not:

1. A story centered on the lives of Black characters.
2. Black characters with agency, absent any White Savior narrative.
3. Shoggoths.

The second list is key: though Matt Ruff, author of Lovecraft Country, is white, he scrupulously avoids injecting white characters into the story to act as saviours. Indeed, Atticus’ name is a wry nod to the longtime liberal custom of telling nominally anti-racist stories in which victimized Black characters are saved through the intervention of a virtuous white protagonist—the veritable archetype for this character being Atticus Finch of Harper Lee’s To Kill A Mockingbird, immortalized in Gregory Peck’s performance in the film adaptation. Green Book was only one of the most recent examples of this tendency, mercifully eschewed by Lovecraft Country.

But to get back to the characters: we also meet Atticus’ childhood friend Letitia (Jurnee Smollett), who ends up hitting the road with Atticus and George as they go looking for Atticus’ missing father. And we also briefly encounter Letitia’s older sister Ruby (Wunmi Mosaku), who doesn’t figure much into this episode, but, assuming the series remains faithful to the novel, will have a more significant role later.

We do not, unfortunately, meet Atticus’ father Montrose, but I’m fairly sure he’ll show up in episode two (Omar comin’!).

At issue in this episode, and in the series more generally, is Atticus’ genealogy: he has returned home from Florida, where he’s been living since his discharge from the army, because of a letter from his father. Montrose wrote to say he’d discovered something about Atticus’ late mother’s ancestry, which was somehow related to a Massachusetts town called Ardham. Atticus, with understandable perplexity, initially reads as “Arkham” until George corrects him. One way or another, however, as Atticus observes, their search is going to take them deep into “Lovecraft country”—both literally, in terms of the New England countryside in which Lovecraft set much of his fiction; and figuratively, insofar as they encounter the virulent, violent racism of a sheriff who informs them that Devon County—in which Ardham is supposedly located—is a “sundown country,” meaning that unless they can remove themselves beyond its borders by sundown, the sheriff will hang them.

Sundown towns were distressingly common, and were actually quite prevalent throughout the northern states. The consequences might not be as extreme as lynching—though that was not unheard of—but would certainly be violent. Hence the need for a motorists’ guide that would inform Black travelers about which such towns to avoid (one criticism leveled at Green Book is that it elides the fact that the north was actually worse for sundown towns, and that New Jersey—tacitly depicted in the film as friendly territory—was particularly inhospitable, and that Viggo Mortensen’s character, the driver hired to chauffeur Mahershala Ali for his concert tour, only starts to consult the titular green book once they enter the south).

Sundown thus obtains a dual sense of dread—the real-world, historical threat it posed Blacks in such locales, as well as the horror-story fear of the dark that comes with night. For it is when Atticus, Letitia, and George have made their way into Devon County that these two threats intersect. While stopped in the middle of a forest as they vainly search for a road that will take them to Ardham, they find themselves confronted by Sheriff Eustace Hunt, who informs them of Devon County’s unwritten sundown law. Though they manage to cross the county line with seconds to spare, they are then stopped by more police. Sheriff Eustace, it seemed, called ahead. They are taken into the forest, forced to lie prone on their bellies, and accused of a string of burglaries while the cops hold shotguns to their heads. And then …

Well, then is when “Lovecraft country” becomes actually Lovecraftian, as they are all attacked by the aforementioned Shoggoths. Shoggoths, for those unfamiliar with Lovecraft’s fiction, are monstrous, amoebic blobs, dotted with many eyes. Or, as described in At the Mountains of Madness:

It was a terrible, indescribable thing vaster than any subway train—a shapeless congeries of protoplasmic bubbles, faintly self-luminous, and with myriads of temporary eyes forming and un-forming as pustules of greenish light all over the tunnel-filling front that bore down upon us, crushing the frantic penguins and slithering over the glistening floor that it and its kind had swept so evilly free of all litter.

The shoggoths of Lovecraft Country aren’t quite so blob-like as they are huge, hound-like beasts with round mouths forested with teeth, and quivering slimy skin with the consistency and complexion of dead fish. They do, however, have many eyes.

shoggoth

True to its pulp roots, Lovecraft Country doesn’t aim for subtlety in its metaphors—though to be fair, neither does much of the horror genre. Monsters are always representations of the most prevalent fears and anxieties in the cultural imaginary at a given moment. And people are often the worst monsters, even when there are actual monsters present to offer comparison. Lovecraft Country is about the monstrosity of racism, so when Sheriff Eustace, having been bitten by a Shoggoth, starts to transform into one, the point hits home quite plainly.

The presence of Shoggoths—or, perhaps more accurately, the suggested analogy between their beasts and the malevolent blobs of Lovecraft’s imagining—might also be read as a subtle dig at Lovecraft. In At the Mountains of Madness, the Miskatonic University exploratory team of scientists finds in Antarctica an ancient city of “cyclopean” proportions (one of Lovecraft’s favourite adjectives, meaning enormous). The city had been built by the Old Ones, ancient god-like alien creatures (like Cthulhu) who predated human existence on Earth. The shoggoths were created as a slave race to serve them, but ultimately rose up against their masters and destroyed them. Though the series is mostly faithful to the novel, some of the names have been changed: Atticus’ surname in the series is Freeman (with all of the significance that obtains), but in the novel it’s Turner—an allusion to Nat Turner, a slave who led a rebellion in Virginia in 1831. Also, when looking for news of his father, Atticus goes to the bar that was his habitual haunt—which is named Denmark Vesey’s Bar. Denmark Vesey was a free Black man who was executed in 1822 on the charge of planning a slave rebellion.

It takes “Sundown” some time before the supernatural elements intrude—we’re four-fifths of the way in when the Shoggoths appear—but the narrative and thematic build makes it worth the wait. Perhaps the most poignant sequence is a montage of our three heroes driving from the Midwest to Massachusetts—a montage scored not to music, but by a speech delivered by writer James Baldwin in 1965 at Cambridge University. The speech was Baldwin’s rebuttal to William F. Buckley in a debate over the proposition “The American Dream is at the expense of the American Negro.” It is worth watching in its entirety, or else reading the transcript.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Baldwin won the debate resoundingly.

As we hear Baldwin’s eloquent and mellifluous words, we see images of Atticus, Letitia, and George at various points in their road trip, and we see images of a segregated America. At key moments, the mise-en-scène precisely echoes photographs by Gordon Parks, a Black photographer who, among other subjects, chronicled segregation in Jim Crow America.

gordon parks

On the left: Gordon Parks’ photography. On the right: stills from Lovecraft Country.

One of the most infuriating moments comes when, as they’re paused at a gas station, a skinny white boy mocks Atticus—who is eating a banana—by making monkey noises. Atticus looks threatening for a moment, but Letitia holds him back. Atticus settles for throwing the banana peel in the asshole’s face, which only evokes more laughter from him and his friends—secure in their societally sanctioned safety, in spite of the fact that the impressively muscled, combat veteran Atticus could likely snap the boy in two with no great effort.

As they pull away from the station, we see a billboard advertising Aunt Jemima across the street.

aunt jemima

I think I’ll end this post here, not because I’ve run out of things to say, but because I could go on and on. The ending of the episode sets us up for the next one, so I’ll talk about that some time next week.

Suffice to say, there’s a lot going on here.

Leave a comment

Filed under television, what I'm watching

Isolated Thoughts: Pandemic Viewing, Guilty Pleasure Edition—The Last Ship

Sometimes post-apocalyptic narratives begin with a slightly gimmicky hook, that tends to follow a formula: what if the end of the world came when [person/people] were [doing something] in [unique location]. Perhaps my favourite example of this is the BBC zombie apocalypse mini-series Dead Set, in which the survivors of the undead pandemic are the contestants on Big Brother—sealed in their closed set, they are initially oblivious to the carnage happening beyond their walls.

Now, I might have more to say about Dead Set in a future post, as I consider it one of the finest examples of the zombie genre, and it is an extremely smart and trenchant critique of celebrity culture. But that is not what I want to talk about today. Today I want to talk about a television series that is perhaps the most flagrantly jingoistic apologia for the American military I have ever seen, the most emotionally manipulative paean to honour and duty since A Few Good Men, and the most overt recruitment ad for the Navy since Top Gun: the series The Last Ship.

last-shipReader, I loved it. And I am very conflicted about that fact, given that it genuinely is little more than five seasons worth of U.S. Navy propaganda. Hence the designation “guilty pleasure” in my title, in spite of the fact that I have long believed one should not ever feel guilty about the reading and viewing in which you take pleasure.

(Unless it’s Twilight. Because seriously, fuck that shit).

To plug in the variables in my above formula, The Last Ship’s premise is that the end of the world in the form of a virulent strain of flu comes when the sailors and soldiers on the missile destroyer U.S.S. Nathan James are on a four-month radio-silence mission in the Arctic. Unbeknownst to the captain and crew, the scientists whom they’ve been transporting have been tasked with finding the “primordial strain” of a virus that is tearing through the Middle East. The mission the ship is on is little more than a cover for the scientists’ work. The captain and crew have no idea, because radio silence, that the United States has, in the four months since they put to sea, been savaged by the illness. They only realize that something is hinky when they’re attacked by Russians intent on kidnapping the lead doctor and taking her samples. What follows is a battle sequence that fetishizes the kind of high-tech violence a top-of-the-line missile destroyer can unleash, and which sets the tone for the way the series will unfold.

You get the idea.

To be clear, the Russian attack, and the subsequent revelation of the doctors’ true mission and the truth about the global pandemic unfolds in the first fifteen minutes of the first episode. Whatever the series’ flaws, economy in storytelling is not one of them, except for the requisite sequence that seems to happen in every episode when throbbing, sad music plays over a montage of (a) sailors mourning the death of a comrade, (b) the captain looking tormented by the difficult choices he has had to make, (c) stoic sailors and soldiers carrying on in their duties in spite of the difficulty/pain/trauma, or (d) quite often, all of the above. The captain is played by Eric Dane (aka McSteamy from Grey’s Anatomy), and his second-in-command by Adam Baldwin (aka Jayne from Firefly, aka Mr. Gamergate, aka another reason I’m conflicted about the series), and they are all about honour, naval tradition, and square-jawed stoicism in the face of adversity.

dane-baldwin

What’s interesting about The Last Ship in the broader context of pandemic/post-apocalyptic narratives is that it’s something of an outlier: the more common tendency is to depict societal institutions failing and collapsing when confronted with catastrophe. The brilliant pilot episode of The Walking Dead memorably depicts military barricades littered with corpses, and tanks and armoured vehicles sitting forlorn and empty, having proved useless in the face of the onslaught of the undead. World War Z shares in a very slight degree with The Last Ship a faith in military ingenuity, but that only happens after the U.S. Army fails spectacularly to stem the zombie tide, and is only efficacious when it learns to reinvent itself. The Last Ship, by contrast, presents the Navy as it is as the bulwark against chaos, not only in its aforementioned fetishization of advanced weaponry, but in its valorization of longstanding naval tradition. The very stubborn refusal to change or compromise is explicitly framed as a virtue, which, indeed, is in keeping with naval tradition more generally (in the U.S. military, the Navy tends to be the most conservative branch, resistant to change; by contrast, the Marines, who rely on the Navy for their budget and equipment, tend to be the most improvisational, as they traditionally have always had to do more with less).

Over its five seasons, The Last Ship indulges in increasingly more ludicrous plot arcs, but in its early stages comprises some pretty decent, taut storytelling (aside from the aforementioned portentous montages), and speaks to some of the issues I’ve raised in recent posts about narratives dealing with the aftermath of catastrophe and the rebuilding of society. The idea of America persists (because of course it does) in The Last Ship, but is at various points tenuous—the Nathan James returns home with a vaccine and a cure for the virus (because of course it does), but also has to contend with the breakdown of governance and the difficulty of re-establishing a republic after the descent into Hobbesian chaos. The series features the kind of regional fracturing I mentioned in my last post, with regional governors being initially amenable to a central government and the swearing-in of a president (á là Designated Survivor, the sole surviving member of the presidential line of succession is the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development), only to later become more obstreperous and unwilling to accept presidential authority, culminating in a conspiracy to (successfully) assassinate the president, and (unsuccessfully) eliminate the federal government and wall off the regional authorities from one another.

And what is the glue that finally holds the battered nation together? Duty and honour, as our naval heroes remind their army comrades—who have come under the command of the conspirators—what their oath to the Constitution entails.

I may have rolled my eyes a little at that part. But I was also enthusiastically eating my (figurative) popcorn.

Leave a comment

Filed under Isolated Thoughts, television, what I'm watching

Isolated Thoughts: The Exquisite Agony of Watching The Plot Against America

Warning: This post contains spoilers for The Plot Against America, both the novel and the mini-series.

The-Plot-Against-America-2000x1125

One of the most affecting scenes in HBO’s mini-series The Plot Against America, adapted by David Simon (The Wire, Treme) from the novel by Philip Roth, is also one of the most painful to watch. It comes at the end of the second episode, as the Levins, a Jewish family in the Weeqhahic neighbourhood of Newark, New Jersey, sit around the radio listening to the general election returns of 1940. Having successfully gained the Republican nomination, Charles Lindbergh—hero aviator, isolationist, avowed anti-Semite, and Nazi sympathizer—is, against all expectations, defeating the incumbent Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

It is an agonizing moment of narrative inevitability. We know Lindbergh will win, of course, as that is the basic premise of the story. But as the crackling voice on the radio calls states for Lindbergh, we see the incredulity on the face of father Herman Levin (Morgan Spector) and his wife Bess (Zoe Kazan). Up until this point, the impossibility of a Lindbergh victory has been a point of faith for Herman. Bess had her doubts, but took comfort in Herman’s certainty. Now, as the reality of a Lindbergh presidency sinks in, incredulity turns to fear.

It is a beautifully crafted bit of televisual art, and utterly painful to watch on three levels. First is the level of story, as we empathize with the fear and confusion of the Levins. Second is the level of history, as the moment punctures the safety and comfort of a certain idea of America and introduces into the Levin’s living room the dread and threat we normally associate with such households in 1930s Europe. And third is on the level of memory: it is impossible to watch this scene, as is by design, without remembering the same sense of incredulity and despair that came with watching Donald Trump eke out a victory in a handful of key states.

David Simon had first been approached about adapting Plot in 2013, but was preoccupied with other projects. After November 2016, however, a story about a barnstorming celebrity with racist views and sympathy for dictators winning an unlikely presidential election suddenly had new and frighteningly immediate relevance.

 

The Prophetic Plot

I first read Philip Roth’s novel The Plot Against America when it first came out in 2004. I was at that point on something of a year-long Philip Roth reading binge, having neglected his fiction prior to then, but realizing that if I meant to fashion myself as an academic specializing in 20th Century American literature, especially postwar fiction, then not having read any Roth comprised a significant lacuna in my reading (for those less familiar with Roth and his prolific output, I just counted: I have read eighteen Roth novels, which means I have left eleven works in his corpus unread).

plot against americaPlot is an alternative history imagining a United States in which Charles Lindbergh runs for the Republican presidential nomination in 1940, and proceeds, against all odds and expectations, to defeat Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the general election. Lindbergh does so by exploiting his celebrity, which was at the time considerable; his campaign essentially comprises him flying from city to city and town to town in his iconic airplane, landing to cheering crowds who are often (at first) simply excited to see the national hero as opposed to being enthusiastic about his message. Lindbergh then delivers a short, rousing stump speech before climbing back in the cockpit and flying to his next campaign stop. He adopts the isolationist rhetoric of the day—“America First”—of which he was historically an enthusiastic proponent, and frames the electoral choice in stark terms of a vote for Lindbergh or a vote for war. Following his surprising victory, Lindbergh reverses all of FDR’s policies giving aid and support to Great Britain, and establishes America’s neutrality in no uncertain terms—all while making his admiration for Hitler and the Third Reich obvious, with a surprise diplomatic visit to Germany and hosting Nazi Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop at a state dinner. And unsurprisingly, Lindbergh’s friendliness with the Nazis gives license for American racism and anti-Semitism to flourish.

When Plot first came out, it was at the height—or, if you like, the nadir—of George W. Bush’s tenure as president, little more than a month before his reelection. Common wisdom at the time was that the novel allegorized the Bush Administration’s divisive politics, the post-9/11 rollback of civil liberties, and the ramped-up racism against Muslims. Roth himself always denied in interviews that there was anything in his novel specifically attacking Bush et al, and many reviewers and critics assumed her was just being coy.

Personally, I was never sure. Plot always felt to me like Roth being Roth, offering a thought experiment not meant as allegory so much as broader historical critique. You could see Rumsfeld and Cheney in the novel’s pages if you squinted hard enough, but it was never a perfect fit.

And then twelve years later when Trump was elected, everybody realized: The Plot Against America wasn’t a political allegory. It was a goddammed prophecy.

 

American Inevitability

I’ve taught The Plot Against America three times now. The first time was seven or eight years ago, and I was frustrated that my students seemed more or less indifferent to the novel. Nobody much wanted to engage with it, or had much to say in class discussion, and the energy in the room when we covered it was pretty flat. It was disappointing, as it always is when you teach a text you love and your students aren’t on board; but I chalked it up to the general lack of historical knowledge that has inevitably led to at least one rant in every class I teach to read more history!

Then after Trump was elected, I made the attempt two more times, thinking that of course the relevance of the novel to the present moment would inspire a more energized reaction among my students. But no—the same flat response. A colleague of mine has also attempted to teach Plot in his first-year classes, and has experienced a similar lack of interest.

My sense has always been that my students’ lack of deeper familiarity with the history in which the novel is steeped dilutes their interest in the obvious parallels to Trump and the present moment. But the more I’ve thought about it, the more I wonder if the real issue is not a failure to educate recent generations about World War Two, but rather the overwhelming success of the American mythology machine. By which I mean: in the American popular imagination, as it has been primarily conditioned by Hollywood, the United States was always already the defiant enemy of Nazis and fascism. The ambivalence—and indeed, outright hostility—that a large proportion of U.S. had in the late 1930s to getting involved in another European war, while not lost to history, has been effectively erased by very nearly every single representation of World War Two to emerge from the American culture industry; so too has the fact that there was a not-insignificant number of Americans actively sympathetic to the Third Reich who advocated for an alliance with Hitler. In February of 1939, the German American Bund—an explicitly pro-Nazi organization founded in 1936—held a rally at Madison Square Gardens in New York City attended by 22,000 people. It was an event destined to go down the postwar memory hole (of everybody but historians), but it was resurrected in a seven-minute 2017 documentary titled A Night at the Garden. The film short is comprised entirely of archival footage from the event.

Notably, the HBO adaptation of The Plot Against America used an almost identical backdrop in Madison Square Gardens for the scene in which Rabbi Lionel Bengelsdorf—played with sublime, arrogant obliviousness by John Turturro—endorses Lindbergh for president.

Plot-MSG

All that’s missing from Plot’s set design is the swastikas that were present in the historical rally (and by “missing,” I mean deliberately omitted for obvious reasons).

Night at the Garden

I’ll come back to this scene in Plot momentarily. Otherwise, the point I’m trying to make is that the lack of enthusiasm for the novel when I have taught it (always allowing for the fact that a given number of students will always dislike some of the assigned reading, no matter how genuinely awesome it is) almost certainly has something to do with this particular lacuna in the popular imagination of WWII. A good friend of mine once observed that Stephen Spielberg realized early in his career that Nazis make the best villains—something that I laughed at in the moment, but which stuck with me afterward. Why do Nazis make the best villains? Because the storyteller has to expend no effort to explain why they’re villains. They are, to use Northrop Frye’s repurposed geometry, overdetermined. But the corollary of that in American popular culture has always been that they are thus the necessary antithesis of Americanness, and ergo that the United States was only ever the emphatic and unequivocal enemy of the Third Reich.

In spite of the fact that Roth’s novel, with its evocation of the isolationist sentiments and de rigueur anti-Semitism of the 1930s, works hard to disrupt the prevailing popular mythology, The Plot Against America nevertheless very weirdly reinscribes certain elements of that mythology. Not in terms of content, but narrative: for all of the virtuosity of the novel, the ending always felt to me like a bit of deus ex machina. To wit: in 1942, as things in the U.S. start to devolve toward more overt fascism, Lindbergh’s plane is lost on a return flight from Kentucky to D.C. Chaos momentarily ensues, and the newly elevated Vice President Burton Wheeler—historically, someone with even greater authoritarian tendencies than Lindbergh—seizes control of the government. But when the bereaved First Lady makes an impassioned plea on the radio for Congress to remove Wheeler, instate the next person in the line of succession, and legislate a special general election for November, 1942, order is restored. Roosevelt regains the presidency; when he reverses Lindbergh’s policy of neutrality, Japan attacks Pearl Harbor … and the history we know reasserts itself, albeit a year or so later. TL;DR, the Allies are victorious and the 20th century proceeds in familiar fashion.

While I’ve always been ambivalent about the tidy way Roth ties up what was otherwise a shattering alternative history, I also cannot deny how comforting it was to get the train back on the tracks after such a dislocating narrative experience—but then again, that comfort highlights the broader problem. That problem being that, ultimately, the novel presents an American flirtation with fascism as an historical aberration, a blip on destiny’s timeline: one emerges from the novel with the sense of American democracy’s historical inevitability intact. On reflection, this sense of inevitability perhaps gives the lie to the early interpretations of Plot as a trenchant critique of the Bush Administration, given that the neoconservative ethos informing Bush et al—and which led directly to the war in Iraq—was rooted in precisely this sensibility, the conviction that American-style, market-driven liberal democracy was the logical end-point of cultural and societal evolution, and that all it would take to bring it to the troubled Middle East was depose a dictator and say “you’re a democracy now!” to the grateful locals.

Well, we saw how that went.

To be fair to Roth, at the time when Plot was published, even as it was becoming evident that the Iraq War was turning into a quagmire, the sense of American inevitability was still difficult to escape—and indeed, four years later it would underwrite much of the rhetoric employed by Barack Obama’s bid for the presidency. I should clarify here that this formulation of “American inevitability” is more or less synonymous with the concept of American Exceptionalism, given that the latter tends to be constituted within a sense of destiny—codified over a century and a half ago in the Monroe Doctrine as “Manifest Destiny,” and after the collapse of the Soviet Union by Francis Fukuyama as “the end of history” in his book of that name—not “end” as in apocalypse, but culmination. The neoconservative ethos cited above found its intellectual armature in Fukuyama’s political philosophy, which in The End of History was the perfect distillation of post-Cold War American triumphalism that characterized the U.S. as, in Bill Clinton’s phrasing, “the one indispensable nation.”

I have, these past three years, read more than one think-piece arguing that our current mess is at least partially due to the complacency of those post-Cold War years, when liberal democracy was considered so inevitable that little attention was paid to the growing illiberal tendencies of nations like Russia or Brazil. It is difficult not to see some of that complacency at work in the fact that even as historically astute a novel as The Plot Against America ultimately hews to a tacit assumption of American inevitability.

As David Simon has said in interviews about his adaptation, however, that assumption is one that is more or less impossible to make in the present moment.

 

Killing Snakes

(Just as an aside, I think I might have to do a separate post that would just be a review of Plot. Given that this post has turned into more of a political-historical consideration of the novel and the series, I’m giving short shrift to the adaptation’s virtuosity. It is a genuinely brilliant piece of televisual art, possibly the best work David Simon has done since The Wire. The evocation of 1940s New Jersey is gorgeously rendered, the writing is subtle and nuanced, and the performances are bravura—Winona Ryder continues her career’s impressive second act, portraying the shallow and needy Aunt Evelyn, older sister to Bess Levin; John Turturro is at his smarmy best as the arrogant Rabbi Lionel Bengelsdorf, who becomes a useful idiot for the Lindbergh campaign and then administration; Morgan Spector is heartbreaking as Herman, who watches all his bedrock beliefs about America exposed as illusory. But the heart of the series is Zoe Kazan as Bess, who does more with her facial expressions alone than most actors could do with a monologue. But hopefully I’ll have more to say about all that in a future post).

If a sense of American inevitability was still pervasive in 2004, and was perhaps somewhat bolstered by the Obama presidency’s unabashed embrace of American Exceptionalism (most perfectly distilled in Obama’s repeated assertion that “in no other country is my story possible”), Trump’s election and the years since have disabused us of the notion. David Simon has never been guilty of the starry-eyed vision of the U.S. informing, say, The West Wing or Hamilton. Indeed, in all of his television work, starting with Homicide: Life on the Street, through The Wire, Generation Kill, Treme, Show Me A Hero, and, most recently, The Deuce, has always been about depicting the dark side of the American Dream: the parallel and intersecting interests of the drug trade with licit American life in The Wire, for example, or the evolution of pornography into an economic juggernaut in the 1970s in The Deuce.

The consistent theme in his work has been how apathy and going along to get along corrupt institutions and leave them vulnerable to motivated and unscrupulous greed and graft. Which is not, as he says in practically every interview with him I’ve seen or read, an excuse to give up. The title of his blog, The Audacity of Despair, really kind of says it all: it’s an ironic nod to Obama’s soaring rhetoric, but not as cynical as it might seem at first glance. It contains a challenge to fight on:

[W]e were trying to figure out what the slogan was for the show, the tagline. We were struggling with it. Some things were too dead-on for the political moment, and some things weren’t on enough, and I came up with something my father said at every Passover Seder of my memory. If you opened his copy of the Haggadah, he would have it written in. And he said it: “Freedom can never be completely won, but it can be lost.” Then he would explain that, and in the explanation, I came to understand citizenship. What he would say is, self-governance is really hard. Churchill, no great liberal, nonetheless said that democracy was the worst form of government until you considered all the alternatives. It’s never perfect, it’s never perfected. There’s always someone who’s not being delivered the same promise of freedom as everyone else. There are some freedoms that get betrayed and have to be rescued. The work is never done. We will never get to the point of being able to dust off our hands and say, “Well, there it is, we finished our republic.”

Every day, you’ve gotta get up and kill snakes. Every fucking day. The day you think you’re done and you stop, or you assume that the freedoms there on the page are going to exist regardless of who’s in office, that’s the day you begin to lose it. The only way to self-govern is to say, “This is unwieldy, this is complicated, this requires perseverance, and tomorrow’s going to be the same as today.” It can often seem impossible. But what’s certain is that if you don’t do the work, you’ll lose it.

The enemy of democratic freedom, in other words—or, one of the big ones, at any rate—is complacency. In this respect, The Plot Against America is an almost uncannily perfect vehicle for Simon’s sensibility, as it offers source material specifically about how easily democracy as an institution can be corrupted by pre-existing prejudices and hatreds that need only official permission to transform from systemic to overt. In the first episode, the Levins drive to an upscale neighbourhood to look at houses—Herman has been offered a promotion that will necessitate moving. But Bess is nervous about leaving their majority-Jewish neighbourhood, and sees the suspicious glances from prospective neighbours to which Herman is oblivious. But the culminating moment, which convinces Herman to turn down the promotion and stay put, comes as they drive past a German-style beer garden where members of the Bund carouse and glare at the Jewish family as they drive past.

It is a moment that is at once eerily reminiscent of the faux-idyllic scene in Cabaret in which a Hitler Youth member sings “The Future Belongs to Me,” but also anticipates the fear and threat of the moment in the final episode when Herman watches a hooded Klansman pass in front of his car.

plot-kkk

The seeds, in other words, of fascistic anti-Semitism are firmly planted at the outset; but what brings the more moderate swath of the population, who might not want Jews moving into their neighbourhood but would be horrified to be accused of anti-Semitism, to vote for an avowed anti-Semite? Lindbergh’s celebrity is one factor, as is his promise to avoid war. But more effective is to flatter those people’s sensibilities, which is why one of the most interesting (and repulsive and infuriating) characters is Rabbi Lionel Bengelsdorf. Bengelsdorf, in an oily admixture of self-importance, opportunism, and oblivious arrogance, becomes an enthusiastic apologist for Lindbergh. In a crucial moment shortly before the general election, he endorses Lindbergh at the aforementioned rally that visually echoes A Night at the Garden:

It is worth dwelling on Alvin’s words in this scene, as it is one of the points in Plot that most obviously resonates with the present moment:

HERMAN: Does any of you think one single Jew is going to go out and vote for this anti-Semite because of that stupid lying speech? What does he think he’s doing?
ALVIN: Koshering Lindbergh!
HERMAN: Koshering what?
ALVIN: They didn’t get him up there to talk to Jews! They didn’t buy him off for that. He’s up there talking to the goyim! He’s givin’ all the good Christian folks of this country their personal rabbi’s permission to vote for Lindy, and not to think themselves Nazis, or anti-Semites.

It was a source of some genuine bafflement to a handful of pundits when, at the most recent State of the Union, Donald Trump highlighted a handful of African-Americans. It has become a standard bit of political theatre at the SOTU for the president to point to specific guests in the audiences as exemplars of American virtue; that he would pack his deck with African-Americans seemed to some a transparent, but futile, bid for Black votes (especially futile considering the juxtaposition with giving Rush Limbaugh the Presidential Medal of Freedom). But as some more astute observers pointed out, it had nothing to do with courting Black voters. It was rather a gesture aimed at white suburban voters, especially white women, who find Trump’s blatant racism distasteful but will vote for him if provided with a fig leaf. They need an excuse to vote for him, a subtlety almost certainly lost on Trump but not on his enablers.

What Philip Roth’s alternative history articulates is that hatred and authoritarian populism are easily roused with the right permission structure. What the novel papers over in its too-easy return to familiar history is that Pandora’s Box is not so easily closed: those forces unleashed by Lindbergh won’t be contained, any more than those to which Trump has given oxygen. My principal misgiving about Joe Biden’s candidacy from the start was not about his age or proclivity for gaffes, but that he campaigned on the premise that Trump is an aberration, and Biden’s election would return everything to normal.

There is no more prelapsarian “normal,” something Roth’s novel misses. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, David Simon had misgivings about the ending of The Plot Against America, which he tentatively brought to Philip Roth:

I’ll be honest, I didn’t have the courage to walk in and go, “This is what I’m going to do.” I pointed out where I thought we might have some problems with the ending and I asked him if he had any ideas. He went to that portion of the book, reread that page and a half two or three times. He kept going back and forth, and I was sitting across the coffee table from him, this great man of literature. The TV hack and the great man of literature. He’s rereading his work and he’s frowning and I’m waiting. It felt like an hour and a half, but it was probably about four minutes, and he closed the book and said, “It’s your problem now.”

Simon says he took this as tacit permission to change things. Unfortunately, that was the last time he was able to speak with Roth: the author died not too long after that meeting.

For the most part, the adaptation stays very true to the original. The major structural change is that the series has multiple perspectives, whereas the novel is a first-person narrative told from the perspective of a nine-year-old Philip Roth (for those unfamiliar with Roth’s fiction, deploying a quasi-fictional version of himself as the main character and narrator is something he has done in multiple novels; I can’t fault Simon for changing the family name to Levin, given that he’s already taken on the task of adapting the work of one of America’s preeminent novelists—depicting a nine-year-old Philip Roth would be a bridge too far for me, too). Because of this, the series can directly depict narrative sequences that, in the novel, come to us secondhand from Philip.

The most significant change Simon made, however, comes at the end. History as we know it does not reassert itself—instead, we end on election night, with Roosevelt’s election in question. The now-familiar image of Herman Levin sitting beside the radio is preceded by a montage scored to Frank Sinatra’s 1945 “The House I Live In (That’s America to Me),” a song specifically commissioned in 1945 to combat ant-Semitism:

What is America to me
A name, a map, or a flag I see
A certain word, democracy
What is America to me
The house I live in
A plot of earth, the street
The grocer and the butcher
Or the people that I meet
The children in the playground
The faces that I see
All races and religions
That’s America to me

While Sinatra croons, we end the series with images of people being denied at the polls, of ballots being stolen and burned, and, in one case, a voting machine being carted away. “What’s wrong with it?” someone calls, and is curtly told, “It’s broken.” The voters featured in the sequence are predominantly African-American, or blue-collar Italian or Jewish, those most likely to vote for FDR. It’s an ending that works, much more than the original would have, in this present moment. The genius of Roth’s novel is to dredge up a history that the United States goes out of its way to forget, i.e. the profound ambivalence to getting involved in what many dismissed as “a Jewish war,” and tease out of that an entirely plausible alternative; its failure is to reassure the reader that this alternative would be easily quashed, suggesting the inevitability of the American 20th century as discussed above. Where Simon’s adaptation ends is with the reminder that the fascist sympathies excited by Lindbergh would not go gently into that good night, any more than Trump-inspired nativists will disappear if he’s voted out in November.

Leave a comment

Filed under Isolated Thoughts, television, Trump, what I'm watching

The Sense of an Ending

WARNING: this post contains spoilers for, well, everything.

 

When I was eleven years old, my parents allowed me to stay up late and watch the series finale of M*A*S*H. I loved M*A*S*H, and still do—it was, I think, the first bit of television (aside perhaps from The Muppet Show) that was more than just mere entertainment for me … I was deeply invested in those characters and their situations, and when it came to an end I was gutted by the fact that there would never again be new episodes. Hence my parents’ willingness to let me stay up late for once.

The series finale of M*A*S*H, which ran for a feature-length two hours, remains the single-most-watched episode of television ever, pulling in over 120 million viewers. I have never again watched it, and only vaguely remember a few key plot points—Hawkeye has a nervous breakdown, Charles teaches North Korean prisoners to play Mozart, Klinger ends up staying behind to help his new Korean bride find her parents. That, and of course the iconic final shot of the word “GOODBYE” spelled out in rocks for Hawkeye as he choppers away.

Endings are tricky things. When done well, they bring everything that has preceded into sharp relief, or deliver a satisfying sense of closure. I tell my students that the period is the most significant bit of punctuation, because it defines the sentence. Without a period, a sentence simply runs on and on and adds more and more possibly extraneous information, or digresses into the eddies of subjunctive clauses, twisting about its length like the confused coils of a snake, which can of course be virtuosic in the hands of a talented writer, but if the sentence, like a story writ small, cannot be brought to a satisfactory conclusion, then, well …

There are two endings in fiction that have devastated me. The first was when I finished The Lord of the Rings, the novel that first taught me that literature can have affect, can change you on the molecular level. In the final chapter, Frodo and Sam, along with Merry and Pippin, ride to the harbour of the Grey Havens; Sam does not know that Frodo means to leave Middle-Earth forever. Along the way they meet up with Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, and Bilbo. Frodo and Bilbo depart with the others across the sea to the Undying Lands. Frodo cannot stay—he has been too deeply hurt by his time as Ring-Bearer. In spite of his grief at losing his best friend, Sam watches him go and returns home to Bag End and his wife and baby daughter.

At last they rode over the downs and took the East Road, and then Merry and Pippin rode on to Buckland; and already they were singing again as they went. But Sam turned to Bywater, and so came back up the Hill, as day was ending once more. And he went on, and there was yellow light, and fire within; and the evening meal was ready, and he was expected. As Rose drew him in, and set him in his chair, and put little Elanor in his lap.

He drew a deep breath. “Well, I’m back,” he said.

It is a simple enough ending, but that is where its power lies—in the sense of return, of homecoming, a narrative depiction of what T.S. Eliot expressed lyrically in “Little Gidding”: “the end of all our exploring / Will be to arrive where we started / And know the place for the first time.” There is also, however, a profound sense of loss: though Sam is now entering the next, fulsome stage of his life, the world of Middle-Earth has ended—the magic has literally gone out of the world with the destruction of the Ring and the departure of the elves, all of which for Sam is encapsulated in the loss of his beloved Frodo.

The sense of loss I felt at the end of The Lord of the Rings functioned on several levels, not the least of which was the inchoate recognition that I could never again read the novel for the first time. It was, like Sam’s farewell to Frodo, like saying goodbye to a good friend.

The other ending that devastated me was that of One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel García Márquez. While the end of LotR was all about departing a world that had held me in greater thrall than any I’ve ever read, Solitude was about getting hit with the hammer of narrative virtuosity. A defining text of magical realism, the novel is a multi-generational, sprawling tale about the (fictional) isolated Columbian village of Macondo. Early in the story, an elderly Gypsy man writes out in coded language the very story of Solitude; the text is indecipherable until decades later when a younger scion of the central family cracks the code and realizes that the Gypsy had essentially foretold his family’s story down to the last detail. He reads the final lines of the story just as a hurricane strikes the village, and reads of his own death at the conclusion just as the storm kills him:

Before reaching the final line, however, he had already understood that he would never leave that room, for it was foreseen that the city of mirrors (or mirages) would be wiped out by the wind and exiled from the memory of men at the precise moment when Aureliano Babilonia would finish deciphering the parchments, and that everything written on them was unrepeatable since time immemorial and forever more, because races condemned to one hundred years of solitude did not have a second opportunity on earth.

The convergence of that moment left me quite literally breathless—I had to put the book aside and inhale deeply to deal with its emotional impact.

Novels are one thing, as are films, as they tend to be self-contained narratives. Television is quite another thing, unfolding as it does episodically and often over multiple seasons. The shift from episodic to serial TV changes this dynamic, but not entirely: the length of a series’ run still tends to be determined by its popularity, and even the most rigorously serial series—I’m thinking especially of The Wire, in which the credits at the end of individual episodes often caught me by surprise—tend to have season-long narrative arcs. And one way or another, television tends to have a cumulative effect: even when we’re considering classic syndicated TV (in which self-contained episodes don’t require you to have seen anything previous), there is still a great emotional weight when it comes to the conclusion of a series. Theoretically, episodic TV shouldn’t need a definitive finale: there is really no need to put a bow on a sitcom or a procedural when each episode follows a wash-rinse-repeat formula. In these cases—excluding, of course, series that find themselves cancelled unexpectedly—making a big deal of the finale is largely about fan service. It was unthinkable to end M*A*S*H mid-stream, just as it was unthinkable to end Friends or Seinfeld or Cheers without giving longtime viewers something approaching the closure of an emotional goodbye.

But what makes a “good” series finale? In case it wasn’t blindingly obvious, I’m writing this post apropos of the conclusion of Game of Thrones, and the social media backlash that has accompanied not just the finale, but the entire final season. As I made clear in the previous two posts I wrote with Nikki, I have some fairly serious complaints about the way the series was brought to an end, but they are complaints that fall well short of shitting on the entire show retroactively or demanding that HBO entirely redo season eight with “competent writers” (good luck with that, people). That being said, I think that GoT does fall into the category of Very Good Shows That Ended Badly. It is not asymptomatic of HBO, which has tended at times to rush or condense series for budgetary reasons; most notably, Deadwood and Rome had each planned to run one season longer than they were allowed, with the predictable effect that the conclusions the showrunners had planned were arrived at with somewhat less narrative subtlety than was really needed. We see this most egregiously with Rome, whose first season, I will always maintain, is about as perfect a season of television as has ever been made. It was never intended to be a series to run indefinitely: the creators planned a modest three seasons, but HBO stepped in and told them that would be too expensive for too few viewers, and made them end it in two. Hence, they had to cover way too much historical ground: presumably in the original plan, season two would have ended with the defeat of Brutus and Cassius at the Battle of Philippi, and given season three breathing space to explore the fraught story of Antony, Cleopatra, and the rise of Augustus.

As has been made clear, however, Game of Thrones’ hasty ending was not a budgetary imperative but the active choice of showrunners Benioff & Weiss. HBO was willing to let them take as much time as they wanted—unsurprising, considering that the show is the most profitable property ever for the network, even with the huge budgets it demanded—but they opted for brevity. This choice makes me an awfully lot less sympathetic to the last two seasons’ flaws. Serenity might not be the greatest film ever made, but one can see in it the nascent virtuosity of a final season of Firefly, had certain executives at Fox not been ginormous douchenozzles; similarly, the final few episodes of GoT feel more like plot sketches than fully realized story, but one can see the shape of a subtle and nuanced conclusion, if only it had had the space to fill.

I suppose it should go without saying that none of this would really be noteworthy were it not for the fact of the series’ massive popularity. Had GoT only boasted viewership numbers on par with, say, The Wire—which topped out at about two or three million—not only would it have been an extremely different series, it probably would not have survived eight seasons. As it was (the final episode drew over nineteen million viewers), its popularity fed its budget, giving us vastly more lavish set pieces and special effects than anything we saw in season one (if you recall, there were no large-scale battles then: we only saw the aftermath of the Battle of Whispering Wood, where Robb Stark captured Jaime Lannister; and the climactic battle between the Starks and the Lannisters resorted to the expedient of having Tyrion knocked cold before the battle started, waking up to hear how it had gone). Lacking the viewership it developed, it might well have gone the way of Firefly—a short-lived and cruelly decapitated piece of well-made TV loudly lamented by fans crying for the blood of the studio execs who wielded the axe.

But its popularity also fed its fans’ expectations, and at the time I’m writing this, the Change.org petition to have the entire eighth season re-done has surpassed one million signatures.

In some ways, the unevenness of series finales is simply reflective of the unevenness of television itself. Episode to episode, season to season, the necessarily collaborative nature of the medium and the necessarily sprawling nature of the storytelling lends itself to a significant ebb and flow of quality and focus. The revolving doors of writers’ rooms, the switching up of showrunners, pressures brought to bear by ratings and studio interference, the departures and arrivals of key characters and actors—all of these considerations and more mean that it becomes difficult to look at a television series in its entirety as a cohesive, finished text. (By way of example, a question for passionate fans of Lost: if you could go back and change ONE THING, would you “fix” the finale or excise the protracted Nikki and Paolo storylines?)

The rise of the televisual auteur á là Joss Whedon, Amy Sherman-Palladino, Aaron Sorkin, Shonda Rimes, David Simon, or Benioff & Weiss has meant that there is more television out there now with more coherence in terms of vision and over-arching narrative, but the flip side of that is when the auteur departs a given show, especially when the departure is acrimonious: fans of Gilmore Girls, The West Wing and Community will all attest to, if not necessarily a decline in quality, then certainly a change in the basic character of these shows when Sherman-Palladino, Sorkin, and Dan Harmon were respectively given the boot. The situation with Game of Thrones was a bit different, as it was (the consensus seems to be) the point at which the series definitively outstripped the extant source material than things started to go pear-shaped—perhaps revealing that the showrunners were very good at adapting rich and complex narrative to a more abbreviated format (mostly—I think most of us would agree that the Dorne subplot was something of a failure), but not so good at building out from a thumbnail sketch to a nuanced and textured story.

I suppose the TL;DR of all that is that almost all television, but especially longer-running series, has peaks and valleys, good episodes and bad, stronger and weaker seasons, and that how a series ends is a function of that inconsistency. Game of Thrones always had its work cut out for it, as it is a story that necessitates an end in a way that almost all the other flagship dramas on HBO have not. Deadwood ends with the passing of a lawless order and the establishment of a corrupt legal order; Six Feet Under ends with one stage of Claire’s life ending and a new one beginning; The Wire ends with a recognition that nothing really ever changes; and so on. Which is why I think the series finale of The Sopranos—which evoked Lost-level howls of complaint—was particularly brilliant. Cut to black. Wait? What happens? Was Tony about to get whacked in the diner? Analyses of that final scene have been written with Talmudic intensity, trying to come to a definitive answer, but I think the point was that it doesn’t matter. The cycle continues one way or another, a point made more lyrically by the montage at the end of The Wire, which shows change at the personal level for some characters, but none at all on the societal level.

In the end, there’s a certain truism in that, ultimately, series finales are about fan service. I was thinking about this after watching Avengers: Endgame. I would imagine that, to someone who has been an indifferent and sporadic viewer of the MCU, that film would seem needlessly protracted; speaking for myself, as a fan who has seen all of the preceding films, I felt quite definitely served, to the point where I really could not care less about the glaring time-travel inconsistencies. We do expect a certain emotional punch at the end of things, which was probably why the one part of the Game of Thrones finale I haven’t read or heard many complaints about was the final montage of the Stark children: Sansa being crowned, Arya the Explorya heading west on a direwolf-prowed ship, Jon returning north and being reunited with Ghost. Those few minutes, at least, felt something like closure accompanied by a swelling soundtrack.

I think this might be why proleptic endings, i.e. those that project into the future to show you the fates of beloved characters, tend to be the most successful. I asked the question on Facebook of people’s favourite series finales, and by far the most common answer was that of Six Feet Under: as Claire drives east to her new life, we have a montage to Sia’s haunting song “Breathe Me” of the deaths of all of the series’ main characters. What makes this work so well is that it is entirely in step with the series key theme: at the start of every episode we see someone die, who will then end up at the Fischer family funeral home, along with a title card with their name and the years they lived.

Another favourite was the final episode of Parks and Recreation, which similarly looked into the future to show us where and how everyone would end up. And more recently, the series finale of Veep ended twenty-four years in the future, with everyone attending Selina Meyer’s funeral. After seven seasons, Veep has the distinction of being one of the more consistent television series, in both tone and quality, ever made … but the fact that coverage of the Meyer funeral was pre-empted by the death of Tom Hanks at 88 seems like a sly acknowledgement of the fact that the conclusion of Veep was almost certainly going to be overshadowed a week later by the conclusion of Game of Thrones.

Leave a comment

Filed under Game of Thrones, television

Game of Thrones, Episode 8.06: The Iron Throne

Welcome, friends, for the final time to the great Chris & Nikki Game of Thrones co-blog. After eight seasons of reviewing and recapping and discussion, we’re finally turning the last page on what has been a genuine television phenomenon.

It is fair to say that this entire final season has pissed a lot of people off; I can’t say that I’m at all satisfied with how the showrunners brought about the conclusion, but neither am I about to sign the petition demanding a do-over. Would the series have benefitted from even just a few more episodes? Absolutely. Do I think Benioff and Weiss proved not up to the task of realizing GRRM’s vision? Pretty much, yeah. A lot has been written in the last few days about how the show suffered from not having the wealth of source material once it outstripped the extant novels … but then again, GRRM’s glacial pace is, I think, indicative of intractable narrative problems of his own devising. Benioff and Weiss erred badly in rushing this story to its conclusion, and perhaps their own writing talents were less than satisfactory, but they nevertheless managed to finish a series with massive numbers of moving parts without the same detailed map they’d had for five or six seasons.

Good ending? Bad ending? In the words of Marge Simpson: It’s an ending. That’s enough. And I’ll say something here I often tell my students: art and literature, whether a beloved television series or a Booker-nominated novel or an obscurantist poem–or any other myriad examples of creative imagination expressing itself in the world–is in part about conversation. It’s not just about how it speaks to us as individuals, but about how we share our thoughts and reactions. Game of Thrones has been by turns brilliant, infuriating, flawed, and problematic from any number of perspectives … but it never failed to get us talking, and those moments and places where it was flawed produced some of the most fruitful discussion and criticism.

Thank you all for letting Nikki and I contribute our thoughts and insights to that great converation, and for all the comments and reactions you’ve shared with us. It has been quite the ride.

gameofthrones_teaser02_screencap10

Christopher: Well, here we are at the end of all things … and I just want to start by saying, Nikki, how much of a joy it has been writing these reviews with you for the past eight years, and how much I will miss it. For those just tuning in to these co-blogs, Nikki (who, when she’s not protecting Gotham, is a mild-mannered freelance editor named Jen) and I have known each other for twenty-three years, having met during our MA at the University of Toronto in a class called “Victorian Fiction and the Politics of Gender.” We bonded during a conversation that, as conversations often did in the 90s, became a lengthy series of Simpsons quotes. This would not have been remarkable in and of itself were it not for the fact that most of our grad student peers took hipster pride in ignoring popular culture. Meeting someone who was not only willing to admit to watching television, but was positively enthusiastic about it, was not at all unlike finding your long-lost twin with the other half of the amulet you’ve worn all your life.

And if that sounds like an exaggeration? Really not.

But of course, there’s more to friendship than just a shared love of The Simpsons. We’re lucky to have people in our lives with whom time and distance don’t matter, and when you see one of those people in person after months or years, it’s as if your conversation picks up where it left off. I’ll miss writing these GoT reviews in part because I’m going to miss GoT, but really, I’ll be missing the back-and-forth with a dear friend whom I don’t see nearly often enough. (Seriously, Nik—time for that family vacation to Newfoundland).

End of sentimentality. On with the review.

I have, unsurprisingly, been thinking over the last few days a lot about final seasons and final episodes. Which ones worked, which didn’t? Which series stuck the landing? Which ones managed to piss off a critical mass of fans? Even just a glimpse at social media in the hours following the GoT finale makes it obvious that the most vocal fans hate the way the series ended, but that is hardly surprising, considering that those same voices have been declaring this final season an irredeemable dumpster fire for several weeks now (and I just hasten to point out that “the most vocal fans” on social media does not necessarily translate to “the majority of people” more generally).

I suspect Nikki will have a lot to say on this topic, as she is one of the few stalwart defenders of the series finale of Lost—an episode, it doesn’t hurt mentioning, that was slagged by none other than GRRM.

Payback’s a bitch.

Ending a TV series is a fraught affair at the best of times—the “best of times” meaning that you’re bringing the plane in for a landing when there is still a critical mass of love for the show. (I suppose, then, when you end a TV series at the worst of times, nobody really cares). But that also means there will inevitably be upset people.

Given that I devoted a lot of words in our last post complaining that Benioff & Weiss did not give this season enough episodes to breathe and properly develop character arcs and narratives, I won’t rehash that here. That being said: my first thought on watching this, the last new episode we’ll ever watch of GoT, was that it followed pretty closely on the last one. The previous episode might have needed an awful lot more in the way of lead-up to be properly comprehensible, but the first part of this episode made total sense so long as you don’t question the last one.

Which is to say: Daenerys is now the Mad Queen and has gone the way of her predecessors, and thus everything that follows her sack of King’s Landing makes sense in the context of that fact.

Are we all on board with that? At least provisionally? Good. Then, if you’re seated comfortably, we’ll begin.

Oh, wait—one last thing: a professor at UWO, whom I TA’d for in my first year there and who has become a good friend was interviewed on CBC the other day. John Leonard is a brilliant Milton scholar and also a Colbert-level Tolkien nerd, and has for several years been teaching a course on A Song of Ice and Fire. His thoughts on Game of Thrones coming to an end are unsurprisingly insightful.

But now, on to the episode.

Let me start by saying I completely whiffed on everything I’d suggested in the first episode, re: the new credits. OK, so no new dragons, no clutch of eggs beneath Winterfell. Given that we end the series with a single dragon who decamps for parts unknown, the promise of the many dragons on the third armillary sphere band now seems like the deepest crimson of red herrings.

On the other hand, I totally called two key points, though neither quite unfolded the way I expected: Drogon melting the Iron Throne to slag, and Jon Snow returning to the North to be reunited with Ghost.

Screen Shot 2019-05-21 at 10.55.23 AM.png

The episode begins with Tyrion (re)entering the city, registering anew what Daenerys visited on it. We see the burned corpses and the devastated city, and Tyrion’s distraught expression as he registers the destruction that he, despite all his best efforts, helped create. Behind him walk Jon Snow and Davos. The three pause around the incinerated corpse of the little girl still clutching her toy horse, whom we saw in the previous episode, and who—as someone Arya attemped to help—functions as the metonym for the thousands killed by Daenerys’ rage. “I’ll find you later,” Tyrion tells Jon and Davos, and when Jon tells him it isn’t safe and offers to send men with him, Tyrion insists, “I’m going alone.”

Where he is going isn’t clear at first, and my initial assumption was that he was going to confront Daenerys—and that Jon’s warning and offer of a bodyguard was a recognition of their erstwhile queen’s state of mind. But no—he’s going into the bowels of the Red Keep, presumably to see if Jaime and Cersei made good their escape (and possibly to escape himself?). I’m being charitable in that reading: what is communicated is that he has somehow intuited that that is where they met their end, and he finds their remarkably intact corpses under what seems like a rather shallow amount of rubble. (As Tyrion entered the space of their demise, my girlfriend muttered, “What, is he going to see a golden hand sticking out of the rocks?”, and moments later—a golden hand sticking out of the rocks. Not the subtlest or most believable moment in the episode, however well Peter Dinklage played Tyrion’s grief).

cersei-jaime

Meanwhile, Grey Worm’s execution of surviving Lannister soldiers is interrupted by Jon Snow. “It’s over,” he says. “These men are prisoners.” To which Killy McGhee says, “It is not over until all of the Queen’s enemies are defeated.” Davos, ever the voice of reason in a crazy world, demands “How much more defeated do you want them to be? They’re on their knees!” But of course Grey Worm is implacable. Daenerys has commanded him to kill all who followed Cersei, and he’s going to carry out her orders. “These are free men,” he points out, and therefore their choice to follow Cersei makes them culpable—a callback to Daenerys’ riposte to Tyrion that the people of Meereen rose up against their tyrants, while the people of King’s Landing willingly submitted to Cersei’s rule. When Jon holds Grey Worm back, there’s a brief standoff between the Unsullied and the Northerners; Davos tells Jon that they should speak with the Queen, which is more or less the equivalent of saying “we’re telling Mom!”, but it’s hardly as if the matter has been tabled—as soon as Jon and Davos walk on, Grey Worm proceeds to start slitting throats.

After Tyrion uncovers the weirdly peaceful-looking bodies of his siblings, we shift to Jon and Arya arriving (separately) at Daenerys’ triumphant address to her troops, which looks and feels uncomfortably Triumph of the Will-ish.

What did you think of the finale, Nikki?

Screen Shot 2019-05-21 at 10.58.48 AM.png

Way to be subtle there, Daenerys.

Nikki: Triumph of the Will indeed, my friend, right down to that Targaryen banner (seriously, did someone bring that with them to the battle?!) in the Nazi colours. Why have I never noticed that before?

I will similarly become sentimental about the end of this show, and what a joy it’s been working with you on it, but since I have the pleasure of going last, I’ll save my blubbering until then. What I do want to say at the outset, if y’all will indulge me for a moment, is to pause for a moment to mention something that has happened in the real world we live in. I’ve been involved in fandom for many years now, as long as Chris and I have been friends and I first got an internet connection when we were doing our MA together. And among the very first fandoms with which I connected was Xena: Warrior Princess. I was writing my first book about it, and reached out to fans on various mailing lists and listservs (remember those?) and among the many amazing fans who got back to me, one in particular stood out. Over time, Kim and I became very close friends, emailing each other several times a day, and the first time we met was to share a hotel room at a Pasadena Xena convention where we saw Lucy and Reneé. (Probably not the smartest move on either of our parts, but this was before people were aware of catfishing on the interwebs and, luckily, it worked out.) She travelled from Arizona to Toronto to see me, and we continued to keep in touch for many years, and then, like most friendships, the emails were further and further apart. Just over a week ago I saw something I wanted to tell her about, but since I hadn’t spoken to her in a couple of years, I did a quick google search to make sure she was at the same place.

And that’s when I found her obituary, from 2018.

I managed to contact her workplace and someone there contacted me back (she had no real family to speak of), and generously explained what had happened. I’ve been heartbroken for a week to know that the world no longer contains Kim, one of the kindest and most generous people I’ve ever met. She was someone I met through fandom. And, like Chris expressed above, we fans are a very specific kind of people; we find our tribes and stick to them. Kim was such an important part of my tribe, and I miss her so much. This final blog post is dedicated to you, my friend. Love you.

Anyway, back to the story. My overview on the finale: the moment it was finished, my husband turned to me and said, “Thoughts?” and I thought for a few moments and simply replied, “Satisfied.” And I am. I remain committed to loving last week’s episode, and thought the writers made all the right decisions. I also remain convinced of what you pointed out, Chris, that the timing is what’s working against them this season, that it should have been drawn out over a longer period. But for that, we can probably blame HBO: no TV writer is offered 10 full episodes and says no, so I’m assuming it was the network stupidly putting a severe limit on a final season of their most successful show ever. As John Oliver said two weeks ago, “In two weeks this network is fuuuuuucked.” (Note how many ads ran right before the episode basically begging subscribers not to leave and showing all the great shows coming up…)

All week long, my mind has been racing back and forth over various storylines from the past eight years, thinking of plot points I hadn’t thought of in a long time, considering the number of times we joked about who we want to win the game of thrones. I think it was pretty evident by this final season that no derrière was ever going to occupy the Iron Throne again (to be honest, I just assumed it had been destroyed last week, and even this week when we got that iconic moment in the throne room I was shouting, “Hurry up and sit because it’s the only chance you’ll get!!”) We said we’d love to see Tyrion ultimately in charge, or Sansa, or Arya, or Jon and/or Daenerys. And in the end… a bunch of them are indeed in charge. Not in the ways we’d considered, but I’m actually pretty happy with the way things ended up. But more on all of those points later as we hit them. Let’s get back to where you left off.

(Our readers are now thinking good LORD this is going to be the longest blog post ever…)

I stand by my assertion that the end of Jaime and Cersei was a deeply affecting and poignant one. I know a lot of people this week have been complaining about it, saying Cersei deserved to be tortured or worse. Maybe they’ve never been a parent, but I don’t think there’s anything you could do to Cersei that would be worse than holding her child in her arms while he chokes to death… only to have another one poisoned because of something she had done, and the third one commit suicide just to escape the world she’d created. She’s made so many errors, and lost all of her children along the way. And Tyrion wasn’t blowing smoke when he said she was a devoted mother: she truly loved those children. Cersei tortured and killed, and she’s been tortured back… it’s over. I thought Dinklage’s performance when he finds their bodies was beautiful, I agree with you 100%, Chris. Just as Daenerys was (until Jon’s revelation) the scion of House Targaryen, so too is he the last of House Lannister.

Screen Shot 2019-05-21 at 10.59.22 AM.png

As Daenerys prepares to give her Hitlerian speech to the troops, I was amazed at just how many Unsullied and Dothraki were still there. I thought most of them had been wiped out at the Battle of Winterfell, and I’m certain she set more than a few of them on fire last week as necessary casualties, yet it looks like there are more now than were at the beginning of Winterfell. Which was a little odd.

Daenerys says something in thanks to everyone who aided her:

To the Dothraki: “Blood of my blood. You kept all your promises to me. You killed my enemies in their iron suits. You tore down their stone houses. You gave me the Seven Kingdoms!” Drogon roars.

To Grey Worm: “You have walked beside me since the Plaza of Pride. You are the bravest of men, the most loyal of soldiers. I name you commander of all my forces, the Queen’s Master of War!”

To the Unsullied: “All of you were torn from your mothers’ arms and raised as slaves. Now… you are liberators! You have freed the people of King’s Landing from the grip of a tyrant! But the war is not over. We will not lay down our spears until we have liberated all the people of the world! From Winterfell to Dorne, from Lannisport to Qarth, from the Summer Isles to the Jade Sea. Women, men and children have suffered too long beneath the wheel. Will you break the wheel with me?”
It’s a powerful speech, and if you listen to it and imagine yourself one of the people she’s addressing, you’d follow her to the ends of the Earth. She liberated everyone in front of her, and they’ve followed her this entire way. They’ve seen her at her very best, and they saw King’s Landing as a place of rot. If some innocents got killed along the way… oh well; it’s a sacrifice for the greater good. Having a queen who would take the throne and liberate all of Westeros is more important than a few measly lives.

Her idea isn’t a new one. And historically, it’s not always seen as a bad one. Do you think the British troops in WWII made sure not a single German civilian died in the war? That the American troops in Vietnam made sure there wasn’t a single innocent casualty? Last week as Drogon was immolating most of King’s Landing, I said to my husband, “It’s like napalm.” And guess what? Napalm was invented—and dropped—by the Americans, the “good guys,” during the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and as far back as WWII. They did it in an effort to quash Communism, and killed untold numbers of innocent people along the way.

Oh well; it’s a sacrifice for the greater good. And it’s OK that the Americans did it, because, you know, freedom and all that. But Daenerys? First of all, she’s a woman, and secondly, she speaks some foreign tongue. Better do away with her then.

I actually love how the writers frame this, because in the end, I don’t think anyone is suggesting that what ultimately happens to her was the right thing; it’s all about perception. Arya and Jon saw people being burned alive in the streets in a single day in a horrific act; Daenerys and the Unsullied and the Dothraki have seen people live their entire lives in chains, and have liberated them. When she says, “You have freed the people of King’s Landing from the grip of a tyrant,” we’re supposed to think, “Um, look in a mirror!” She talks about liberating people across Westeros, and says, “From Winterfell to Dorne,” and a dark cloud goes over the faces of Jon and Tyrion. They read that as, “Because that tyrant Sansa Stark is keeping people under her thumb” when the Unsullied see it as, we were just there, and there are a lot of people being treated badly in Winterfell; did you see the way they treated those servant girls? Of course, Dany very much could have meant, we’ll unseat that tyrant Sansa Stark. We’ll never know.

Screen Shot 2019-05-21 at 11.00.55 AM.png

Side note: throughout this scene, I kept thinking, Tyrion and Jon don’t actually speak Valyrian; we saw how badly Tyrion bungled it last week trying to see Jaime, and there’s no way Jon is fluent in anything beyond his own language, nor has he been given the opportunity to become so, since even the wildlings speak the Common Tongue. So… how do they understand a word of what she’s saying here?

But anyway, this is a very complicated scene because of the way one speech is interpreted by various people. And the reason it works so well and makes us so angry is because it mirrors what’s happening in the world today. Fans have wondered why Game of Thrones has changed so much. But it’s always been a kind of reflection of our own world, and the world has changed very much from 2011 to now. Could you imagine your 2011 self being suddenly zipped to 2019? You’d be reeling from how different the world is politically and ideologically. And watch Dany’s speech, as the woman speaking for the people. She says something that the progressives behind her don’t like, and their faces are nothing but scorn. But the people in front of her hear every word differently and are willing to overlook the bad things she’s done. Nah, that doesn’t look like a certain rally that we see regularly done by a certain politician who doesn’t seem to get that he’s already won an election and can stop campaigning now. Many people actually love him, and they’re not all morons, despite what you might think. They’re people who are desperate, who feel like their leaders have never helped them no matter how many times they’ve appealed to them. They didn’t get what they’ve been promised, so they vote in someone who looks like a monster to some people; a savior to others.

As Dany makes her speech, the camera zooms in on Tyrion, who slowly walks forward. My heart stopped; I was so worried he was going to do something stupid in front of too many witnesses. She looks at him with scorn. “You freed your brother; you committed treason,” she says.

“I freed my brother,” he concedes. “And you slaughtered a city.” And with that he rips the Hand of the Queen brooch off and tosses it down the stairs. Dany’s face is a bundle of emotions. Deep down, she knows what she did, but she has to remain stone-faced… “Greater good, greater good, greater good” she must be saying to herself. Jon watches Tyrion escorted away as prisoner, and then realizes she’s watching him. He says nothing, and neither does she.

As she walks away, Jon turns to see Arya suddenly standing beside him, creepily appearing out of nowhere, as Arya brilliantly does. Arya immediately refers to her as “your queen,” and he says, “She’s everybody’s queen now.”

“Try telling that to Sansa,” says Arya. And with that, she turns the screw a little deeper into Jon. Torn always between the family he loves and his loyalty to his queen, he knows that one is in serious danger from the other. But as Arya says next, Sansa’s not the only one in danger; Dany knows that Jon has doubts, and she won’t abide a threat to her regency. “I know a killer when I see one,” Arya says.

Screen Shot 2019-05-21 at 11.07.27 AM.png

Jon goes to see the imprisoned Tyrion, who immediately asks for wine (a Lannister through and through). Tyrion has been sitting and thinking about how he’d betrayed Varys and watched him burn, and that Varys must be thinking, “TOLD YOU SO” from wherever he is. (Interesting side note if you don’t follow me on Facebook: my friend Mary pointed out an awesome tidbit from Reddit that had gone right over my head, but last week when Varys was talking to kitchen girl Martha about how Dany wasn’t eating, and he said we’ll try again later, it seemed like such a throwaway scene; except what many of us missed is that he was actually trying to poison Daenerys, and she wasn’t taking the bait. When he removed his rings, that was likely a payment to Martha, who would collect it later. BRILLIANT.)

Tyrion asks Jon if there’s any life after death, and Jon says there wasn’t in his experience. Tyrion is thankful for the oblivion that awaits him, and says he asked for this fate: he’d strangled his lover, killed his father, betrayed his queen… and he’d do that last one again. He is where he is as a result of a series of choices; the people of King’s Landing weren’t so lucky. Jon reassures him that the war is over now. Tyrion says, “OH REALLY?!” and reminds him of the war speech (that, again, I don’t think either of them fully understood, but perhaps they were going on body language alone, which was pretty telling). Tyrion gives that flip side perspective I was talking about earlier, saying she “liberated” the people of Slaver’s Bay and King’s Landing, and will go on doing so until she can rule over everyone that’s left. Jon reminds him that TYRION was the one counseling her, until today.

I LOVE the back and forth that happens next, which pretty much mirrors the fandom battles I’ve seen all week: Jon is the apologist, explaining exactly why Dany did what she did: she saw her best friend beheaded; her child had been shot out of the sky. She’s not her father, and shouldn’t have to bear the banner of her House just because her last name is Targaryen, no more than Tyrion should have to apologize for the sins of Tywin Lannister. Tyrion counters: my father and Cersei killed a metric shit-tonne of people in their lifetimes, and still didn’t come close to what Dany did in a single day; the city burned for her grief, and they didn’t deserve it.

“It’s easy to judge when you’re standing far from the battlefield!” says Jon. But Tyrion says, “Would you have done it?” knowing the answer to that question, just like he and Varys knew the answer to that question two episodes ago. Jon says he knows nothing, but Tyrion doesn’t accept it. “Does it matter what I’d do?” asks Jon.

Screen Shot 2019-05-21 at 11.08.27 AM.png

“It matters more than anything,” says Tyrion. Tyrion reminds Jon, as if he’d read my words in the blog last week, of all the people she’s burned in the name of them being evil, but once they were killed no one could argue they were anything else. They “stood between her and Paradise,” and she killed them, Tyrion says. Jon is devastated. He knows the truth, but he loves Daenerys. And Tyrion concedes that. “I know you love her… I love her too. Not as… successfully as you [ha!]…” but he believes her. And he says love is more powerful than reason.

“Love is the death of duty,” says Jon, such a brilliant little parable that even Tyrion asks if he came up with that one himself. No, Maester Aemon said it. “Sometimes,” Tyrion says, “duty is the death of love.” He says Jon’s entire life he’s tried to protect people. He’s never been the sword; he’s been the shield. Who’s the biggest threat to the people now? Shouldn’t he be doing his civic duty?

jon-brooding

Tyrion knows what he’s asking, and he apologizes for it, but just as Arya had said earlier, Jon is a threat to the Iron Throne, and she won’t leave him alive. “That’s her decision,” says good ol’ Jon, “she IS the queen.” And Tyrion stands there, wondering if he’d been speaking gibberish this whole time. So he tries one more thing:

“And your sisters… do you see them bending the knee?”

Jon pauses, looks stricken. He says they’ll be loyal. “Why do you think Sansa told me the truth?!” Tyrion pleads. Jon says they don’t get to choose, and Tyrion says, “No, but YOU DO. And you have to choose now.”

And Jon leaves to go see his queen.

Screen Shot 2019-05-21 at 11.09.24 AM.png

Christopher: Before I continue with the recap, I need to correct you on a specific point: Benioff & Weiss were not forced to bring GoT to a quicker conclusion than they would have liked. HBO was happy to let them do two ten-episode seasons for seven and eight, but they made the choice to condense them. I bring this up because I’d also assumed that the studio execs were repeating what they’d done to Deadwood and Rome (and the ghost of Firefly haunts us all), but no—the choice was artistic rather than fiduciary, so I’m not overly sympathetic to B&W’s blunders.

As Jon walks purposefully to see Daenerys, we have what is, on rewatch, the most comical part of the episode: the pile of snow shifts and moves and Drogon emerges. Presumably the attack on King’s Landing really took it out of him, enough that he fell asleep long enough to become covered in snow. But the erstwhile Targaryen scion’s approach is enough to wake him (or perhaps he’s just standing guard) and he turns to regard Jon quite closely.

This moment is very interestingly shot: we do not get a close-up, as we have in the past, of Jon facing the dragon from just a few feet away. Instead, the moment unfolds from a distance. Drogon stares at Jon for long enough to make it anxious, but then curls up again in his snowdrift.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it now: dragons are just giant cats.

Jon enters the Red Keep, and in a transition that is both symbolic and quite nicely done, disappears into darkness as Daenerys emerges from it—him descending into the dire task he must perform, her seeing for the first time the light at the end of her long tunnel. She emerges into what remains of the throne room, which isn’t quite as she saw it in her vision. There is more roof and walls missing, for one thing. But sitting (miraculously) intact is the Iron Throne itself, and Daenerys walks slowly toward it as Lord of the Rings-esque music plays. The music is a nice touch, as it evokes precisely the kind of generic clichés we expect from traditional fantasy—the Chosen One approaching the throne of destiny, etc. One imagines that that is the narrative unspooling in Daenerys’ mind as she regards the object of all her labours. She approaches the throne; she touches it; but, crucially, she does not sit in it. Either sensing or hearing him, she turns to see Jon Snow standing in the entrance. And in that moment, just briefly, the Music of Destiny switches to a few notes of the GoT theme. I missed that on my first viewing; whatever else one might complain about the final season, the scoring of this show has never been anything less than top drawer.

dany-throne

Daenerys regards Jon, then turns back to the throne, and tells a little story. “When I was a girl, my brother told me it was made with a thousand swords of Aegon’s fallen enemies.” This, indeed, is the story of the Iron Throne as told in the novels: the swords of defeated enemies, forged into a throne by dragon fire. (Devotees of the novels like myself cringed the first time we saw the series’ version of the Iron Throne: it was too perfect, utterly unlike the mass of misshapen steel and iron described in the novels, with points and edges protruding so that an unwary monarch might cut him or herself; Aerys the Mad King was described in his later days as always having scabs on his hands and arms from these hazards, and in a key scene King Joffrey cuts himself while in the midst of a tantrum while sitting on the throne). Daenerys continues, with childlike wonder, to remember what it was like to try and imagine what a thousand swords might look like. And now I’m here is the obvious end-point of her narration, but Jon doesn’t let her get there. “I saw them executing Lannister prisoners in the street,” he practically spits at her. “They said they were acting on your orders.” “It was necessary,” Daenerys responds, obviously a little irked to be distracted from her reminiscence, but Jon is having none of it. “Have you been down there?” he demands, outraged. “Have you seen children—little children!—burned!” Daenerys’ response—that it was Cersei’s fault for using them as human shields—is of course weak tea. She is similarly unsympathetic to Jon’s plea that she forgive Tyrion, reminding Jon that he, too, has been ruthless with people who betrayed him.

I kind of wanted Jon, in this moment, to give her an itemized list of the people he has executed. Did he behead Janos Slynt so as to make an example and cement his authority as Lord Commander? Well, yes, but the man was a treacherous cock napkin. He killed Mance Rayder as an act of mercy. And the others he executed? THEY MURDERED HIM. Nothing really in the realm of “I let my beloved brother escape and he ended up dying anyway.” Duty is the death of love, indeed.

He pleads with her to forgive everyone, and in this moment we see how, had he been able to see past the incest ickiness and marry her, he might just have been an ameliorating element in her reign. But, having burned an entire city to the ground, Daenerys is at her Macbeth moment: “I am in blood / Stepped in so far that, should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o’er.”

Her initial response to Jon is one of the most interesting lines from the episode, and indeed from the entire season: “We can’t hide behind small mercies.” It evokes what she said in the previous episode, about how Cersei saw mercy as weakness, but Daenerys’ rule will be all about mercy—for future generations. The “greater mercy” becomes synonymous here with “the greater good.” Jon doesn’t see or accept the distinction. “The world we need won’t be built by men loyal to the world we have,” says Daenerys. “The world we need,” Jon counters, “is a world of mercy. It has to be.”

dany-jon

This episode, and the season leading up to it, will be justifiably pilloried for lacking nuance and subtlety, but this moment is an exception … alas that we don’t get a more sustained argument on these points. Because both Daenerys and Jon are right. Daenerys’ Nuremberg speech was chilling in the way it spelled out precisely the kind of utopian vision that can only be realized through blood, and which quickly becomes the opposite of what it intended. But she’s not wrong here when she says that change cannot be effected by people invested in the status quo. At the same time, Jon articulates one of the most basic principles of any just society, which is that “cruelty is the worst thing we do.” Small mercies in his perspective are not qualitatively different from large mercies, and that foregoing small mercies and small-g good in the name of the Greater Good is ultimately self-defeating.

Daenerys promises that the new world order will be one of mercy. “It’s not easy,” she says, “to see something that’s never been before.” This line made me think of our long-standing fascination with post-apocalyptic narratives: from The Road to The Walking Dead, one of the key points of these stories’ appeal is our inability to think outside of our current system, making the prospect of burning it all to the ground appealing (which I’d also argue is one of the biggest factors in Trump’s election, but that’s a WHOLE nother blog post); that Daenerys quite literally burned everything to the ground is a key element here, as is what follows on this argument between her and Jon.

Jon Snow may know nothing, but he’s not a complete idiot. He’s loyal and honourable to a fault, but also recognizes megalomaniacal delusion when he sees it. When Daenerys promises him that her new world order will be good, he asks her how she can be sure. “Because I know what is good,” she says.

Yeah. A shiver ran down my spine when I heard that too, dude. All that was missing was her adding “Believe me!”

“What about everyone else?” he asks desperately, still hoping for a lifeboat. “What about the other people who think they know what’s good?” And, reading from the tyrant’s handbook, Daenerys replied, “They don’t get to choose.”

Well, that tears it. Daenerys implores Jon to help her build this world and break the wheel with her, and he says, “You are my Queen, now and always,” but “always” in this instance means “for at least the next twenty seconds.” They kiss passionately, but are interrupted by the inimitable schhhkk sound of a blade being slid home … at which point we have our answer to the question of who would be the one to kill Daenerys. Jon of course weeps over her body, and in the background we hear Drogon’s perturbations as whatever psychic link he had with Daenerys is cut. I want to say that the true grief in this scene belongs to the dragon: Jon might have loved Daenerys, but it is the moment when Drogon nudges her inert form—and makes little mournful sounds—that made me cry a little.

Screen Shot 2019-05-21 at 11.12.18 AM.png

Drogon then rears up over Jon and screeches his grief and rage more loudly, and for a few moments we wonder if this is the end of Jon Snow, too—will he be immolated, in spite of his Targaryen blood, for the murder of Drogon’s mother?

For a moment it looks like it, as Drogon opens his maw wide and we see the tell-tale signs of fire at the back of his throat … but instead he lets loose not on Jon, but on the Iron Throne itself, melting it down to molten metal.

As I mentioned earlier, I called this moment, though not in this particular way: I’ve been saying all season that an appropriate and satisfactory end to the question of “Who sits on the Iron Throne?” would be (á là the Faceless Men) “no one,” and that the best way to accomplish that would be having Drogon burn that damned thing to slag. But I’d always imagined Daenerys being the architect of that choice … unlikely, but a more radical way to conclude a fantasy narrative (or perhaps not that radical, as it would be of a piece with Frodo tossing the Ring into Mount Doom—the destruction of power). Instead, it is the dragon that makes that choice, which is … well, interesting. One of the funniest things I’ve read about this episode suggested that Drogon is either extremely intelligent or just kind of dumb—either he recognized that the Iron Throne was the object of his mother’s desire that corrupted her and perverted her good nature, or he saw the dagger sticking out of her chest and thought “DIE, YOU CHAIR OF KNIVES!”

Screen Shot 2019-05-21 at 11.12.39 AM.png

 

Whatever his motives, he tenderly picks up Daenerys and flies off, leaving Jon Snow looking more bewildered than usual.

Fade to black. And then we’re back to Tyrion, lying in his cell.

Screen Shot 2019-05-21 at 11.13.52 AM.png

Nikki: I’m with you that Drogon is the true sympathetic character in this scene, and he made me well up, too (made worse when my husband quietly said, “He’s… sad.”) And it didn’t surprise me that he intuited that the throne was the cause of all of this, that, as I said last week, they could have stayed across the sea and have been perfectly happy, three dragons and their mum, but she wanted that damn throne. After all, as you and I have insisted from the beginning, the dragons are very, very large cats with wings. And anyone who thinks a cat doesn’t walk into a room, immediately intuit the situation, and show its utter disdain or delight based on a number of complicated machinations in their brains… doesn’t own a cat.

One question I have about the section you covered: You mentioned that Drogon is covered in snow and rises up out of his snowbank, but do you think that might be ash? After all, just earlier that same day the sun was shining and it was hot out, based on the clothing the people of King’s Landing were wearing, and I don’t think winter came that suddenly to King’s Landing… (especially since we’ll see three weeks later it’s hot again). But I wondered if it was supposed to be an indication of just how much stuff Dany burned, that there was that much ash still floating around, enough to entirely cover Drogon.

But now our queen is dead, and I’m in mourning along with Drogon. I adored Daenerys, right from the beginning, and had pledged my loyalty to her House, and despite everything, I miss her already, and I’m gutted to see the end of her. She could have been so amazing for Westeros before things went wrong. And as my husband said, he thinks if a man had made those decisions or said the things she did leading up to the penultimate episode, they would have listened, but he thinks in the end, Varys didn’t want a woman on the throne.

I will admit… during the scene where Jon shivved Daenerys, I was convinced it was Arya wearing his face, thinking there’s no way Jon could actually do this. But it was Jon. I keep thinking we’re going to get a callback to the Faceless Men, but there’s a reason we don’t: Arya doesn’t think of herself as no one anymore.

But oh my god, what a beautiful corpse Dany made. :::tears::: I cried a lot as we saw Drogon flying over the sea, Daenerys clutched carefully in his left claw. She was born in the middle of a great storm, and now she returns, disappearing into a stormy sky. It was so beautiful and sad and I can’t believe her story is over.

arena-tyrion.png

And then the screen goes black. And then it opens on Tyrion, who looks like Tom Hanks in Cast Away and I was like wait, what? What’s happening? (I guess if you’re going to do this in six episodes—and wow, thank you for clarifying that bit about it being B&W’s choice, which makes it even more aggravating—you have to skip over some finer details to move this story along.) It’s a few weeks later, and Grey Worm shows up and lets Tyrion out of his cage, and takes him to a council meeting at the Dragonpit—ironically an area built by the Targaryens as a place to keep their dragons, and famously the place where all of this bloodshed could have ended if only Cersei and Daenerys had managed to hash out a deal last season.

Sitting there are the most powerful people in Westeros, all united in one council. I wasn’t 100% sure who everyone was there, and perhaps Chris can chime in on his pass to fill in the blanks, but here are the ones I knew:

The first three were Samwell Tarly (obvs), someone I didn’t recognize, but who might be associated with Highgarden? His outfit was a little flowery. Beside him is Frank Edmure Tully, that dipshit brother of Catelyn’s who, unfortunately, is the Head of House Tully, I presume, and whose sentences are always cut off when he’s trying to do something noble (see below). I poke fun, but I was THRILLED to see Tobias Menzies appear one last time on the show!

Next, House Stark is super-represented in Arya, Bran, and Sansa.

arena - starks.png

Next, we have Brienne, who doesn’t seem to be representing a House, per se, but is definitely one of the most powerful people in Westeros (to which I say… YAY YOU!); Ser Davos Seaworth, who isn’t exactly from a great House either but having served as such an important advisor, I’m glad he’s seen as being a VIP; Gendry Baratheon; and some other dude I couldn’t place, perhaps from a House loyal to House Baratheon, which, until Daenerys recently legitimized Gendry, had been an extinct House.

Next is another person I don’t know, but I will presume he’s from the North given his fur collar; Yara Greyjoy, looking fierce; and another unknown whom I think we can safely presume is the Prince of Dorne, given the golden robes and the fact he looks exactly like the other Dornish princes.

Finally, as I exclaimed on Facebook… ROBIN ARRYN looking shockingly good-looking after an entire run on Game of Thrones looking vaguely inbred, here to represent the Vale as the head of House Arryn; Yohn Royce, whom we all remember as the advisor to Robin, given that Robin was… vaguely inbred; and another man I can’t place but who looks sort of familiar: I’m assuming he’s a Northman and we’ve seen him at Council meetings at Winterfell? Or maybe he’s just Kenny Rogers, not sure.

And of course, we have Tyrion, last of the House Lannister, and Grey Worm, leader of what’s left of Daenerys’s followers.

ANYWAY… suffice to say, these are some important folks. But before anyone can talk about Tyrion, Sansa wants to know one thing: “Where’s Jon?” He was supposed to have been brought out along with Tyrion, presumably to represent House Targaryen, although it’s not clear who actually all knows that fact (or if they want anyone knowing that). Grey Worm explains that King’s Landing is now the city of the Unsullied, and they decide what happens to Jon. Yara Greyjoy speaks up and says the Ironborn do not give up their loyalties lightly: they’d pledged fealty to Daenerys Stormborn and Jon Snow killed her; he should die. Arya tells her to say one more word and she’ll cut her throat. It’s an interesting back-and-forth, given that Yara let her brother go to defend the Starks and die with them at Winterfell, but the Starks don’t know that about her. All they know is Jon Snow did what he did to save his sisters.

Thankfully, Ser Davos is the reasonable one (natch) who stands up and says let’s stop all this talk of slitting throats, and he thanks the Unsullied for fighting with them in the North against the Dead, and for sacrificing so many of their men in that battle. He suggests the Unsullied go to the Reach and start their own House. He calls for an end to war. Grey Worm argues that they don’t want payment; they want justice. Jon Snow took the life of the woman who liberated them.

Tyrion cuts in and says it’s not for him to decide. Grey Worm shouts at him, but Tyrion keeps going. He says it’s up to the queen or king to decide. Kenny Rogers says they don’t have one, and Tyrion says, “You’re the most powerful people in Westeros, so choose one!” Grey Worm tells them to go ahead. Everyone sits silent, and looks at one another, or faces the floor, and of course, the absolute most qualified one stands: Edmure Tully.

It’s an extremely funny moment, as he stands and begins to speak with such gravitas about his experience in two wars (where he spent one as a POW, but he doesn’t mention that) and his experience in statecraft (which is negligible at best) and at this important juncture—

arena - edmure.png

“Uncle… please sit,” says Sansa, cutting him off mid-sentence. Edmure looks at her with surprise, and, rejected, turns to sit, banging his sword against a pole. It’s a fantastic moment, and Menzies is SO good in this scene. (You can actually see Maisie Williams looking like she’s trying not to laugh once he’s sat down.) Yohn says they have to choose someone.

And that’s when Sam stands up. He explains that whoever is king or queen will rule over everyone, so shouldn’t the decision be up to… everyone? And for a moment, I thought oh my god please don’t make this a cheesy moment where they break the wheel by embracing democracy and changing everything in one fell swoop—

But the supporters of the Vale all begin laughing, and Edmure asks if they should give the dogs a vote too. If you listen closely, you’ll hear, “cough Trump cough gerrymandering cough electoral college” and the laughter continues. Whew. They want to move forward, but not THAT far forward.

arena - tyrion - 2.png

Grey Worm asks if Tyrion wants the job, and he says no, of course not. He steps forward and asks, “What unites people? Armies? Gold? Flags?” No. “Stories. There’s nothing in the world more powerful than a good story. Nothing can stop it. No enemy can defeat it, and who has a better story, than Bran the Broken? The boy who fell from a high tower and lived. He knew he would never walk again, so he learned to fly. He crossed beyond the Wall, a crippled boy, and became the Three-Eyed Raven. He’s our memory, the keeper of all our stories. The wars, weddings, births, massacres, famines. Our triumphs, our defeats. Our past. Who better to lead us into the future?” He’s right. Think of how many people in your Facebook or Twitter feeds whose politics are the opposite of yours, but who watch all the same shows, read all the same books.
Sansa looks shocked. She points out that Bran’s not interested and he can’t father children. Tyrion says that’s what makes him the perfect choice. They all know what the children of kings can do, and “his will never torment us.”

He turns to Grey Worm. “That is the wheel our queen wanted to break. From now on, rulers will not be born, they will be chosen. On this spot by the lords and ladies of Westeros, to serve the realm.” He approaches Bran and says he knows he doesn’t want it, nor does he care about power, but if they choose him, will he wear the crown? The camera pans in, and Bran says in that infamous monotone, “Why do you think I came all this way?”

I will admit, it’s only on thinking about it later, he seems like the perfect choice: someone who doesn’t want war, who isn’t power-hungry, who barely speaks, who knows everything that has ever happened in Westeros and why, and what’s to come so he can avoid the bad and focus toward the good. But, in the moment, I went, “BRAN?!” Ahem. Yes, Bran. And with that, we get a Stark on the throne. Not Robb, not Sansa, not Jon Snow… but Bran. And everyone else sitting there agrees. Except, of course, his sisters, who are like, “Mom always loved you best and now this godDAMmit.”

Sansa turns to her brother and tells him she loves him, and will support him, and he’ll be a great king. But the people of the North have seen too much to ever bend the knee to anyone ever again. “The North will remain an independent kingdom, as it was for thousands of years.” Bran quietly nods, in complete agreement as a Northman himself.

“All hail Bran the Broken, First of His Name, King of the Andals and the First Men, Lord of the Six Kingdoms, and Protector of the Realm.” To which Bran says, “Um, thanks, but… could we discuss this whole Broken nickname?”

He immediately tells Tyrion he wants him as his Hand. Tyrion very quickly turns it down, saying his counsel was terrible when he was Hand. Bran refuses Tyrion’s rejection, Grey Worm disagrees and refuses to hand over his prisoner, and Bran reassures him Tyrion will spend the rest of his life trying to redeem himself. Nope, says Grey Worm, not good enough.

And so, in a scene I swear was filmed last—note how Kit Harington’s hair is about six inches shorter in this scene than it is in the very next one—Tyrion goes to give Jon Snow the bad news.

jon - cell.png

Christopher: I will confess that I am ambivalent about how all this falls out. On one hand, we’re witnessing incremental progress: kings or queens whose rule is established not by patrilineal descent and divine right, but by being chosen by the representatives of the kingdom’s power brokers. A number of reviews I’ve read have suggested that Westeros is inching toward parliamentary democracy, but really, it’s more of an extreme version of the electoral college, with the executive’s term limit being his or her lifespan. And keeping the title of king or queen is not just a misnomer, but misleading. I wasn’t expecting the kind of pure democracy Sam proposes, but perhaps something more along the lines of pre-imperial Rome would have been workable.

Also, Tyrion’s rationale for Bran as, essentially, the “keeper of the stories,” only works for Bran’s reign … unless, at some point in the near future, Bran trains a new Three Eyed Raven to take his place, at which point the principle of the monarch selected by the newly struck electoral college falls apart.

(Also, I’m with you on being delighted to see the return as Tobias Menzies as Edmure, though for me he’ll always be Brutus from Rome).

There is also the rather sticky question of why the North gets to be its own kingdom, while the other six don’t seem to be particularly concerned about submitting to the rule of King Bran. When Yara first pledged her loyalty to Daenerys, she hedged—would the Iron Islands be forced to bend the knee, or could they be their own fiefdom? As I’ve mentioned previously, Daenerys was far more elastic on that question than she ever was with Jon or Sansa, but then that was back when she was still in Essos and needed a fleet of ships to bring her home. Yara’s loyalty to Daenerys in this scene is quite staunch, but one wonders whether the notoriously independent people of the Iron Islands would be quiescent about surrendering their sovereignty when the North refuses to do so. The same goes for Dorne, which in the novels is characterized as almost as reluctant as the Iron Islands to suffer the rule of a king or queen not of their own.

(Again, questions that could have been answered with world enough and time).

When Tyrion gives Jon the “bad news” that he has to go back to the Wall, Jon asks the question that I think most people watching had: “There’s still a Night’s Watch?” Because … well, seriously. Why is there still a Night’s Watch? The ancient enemy that first prompted Brandon the Builder to raise the Wall is no more, and the lesser enemy that had become the Night’s Watch’s primary foe (i.e. the wildlings) are now something resembling allies. So why in the name of the old gods and the new do we still have a Night’s Watch? “The world will always need a home for bastards and broken men,” says Tyrion. Seriously? So this is basically now a make-work project? Will we at least be changing the terms of reference for the men in black? Perhaps they can be something like the Peace Corps now? “I am the shield that guards the realms of men” doesn’t have quite the same resonance when there isn’t really anything to guard AGAINST.

Perhaps the Night’s Watch functions in this way just as a means of saving Jon: the Unsullied want him dead, his family want him freed, but this is a useful compromise, even if the actuality of “taking the black” isn’t really a thing any more (you’ll talk about this in your final pass, Nikki, but my own sense of that last scene when Jon rides north of the Wall with Tormund and the wildlings was that he wasn’t going to return—he was heading north to live as he did for a time with Ygritte). It hasn’t escaped many commentators that Tyrion’s observation “No one is very happy” could easily apply to fans of the show.

jon - stairs.png

“Was it right—what I did?” Jon asks. “It doesn’t feel right.” Tyrion gives what, in my professional opinion, is a very professorial answer: “Ask me again in ten years.” Which is to say: in this moment, I have no idea. Let’s let time and the consensus of history have its say, and I’ll get back to you. Tyrion places a comforting hand on Jon’s shoulder, and turns silently to go. “I don’t expect we’ll ever see each other again,” Jon rasps at Tyrion’s back. Tyrion pauses, and replies, “I wouldn’t be so sure. A few years as Hand of the King would make anyone want to piss of the edge of the world.” I rather loved this line, as it’s a callback to the first season: Jon, frustrated by his status as a bastard and inspired by his Uncle Benjen, decides to join the Night’s Watch; Tyrion, in Winterfell with the king’s retinue, doesn’t return with them but heads north to see the Wall and “piss off the edge of the world.” He ends up in the group traveling with Jon.

From there, we follow Jon’s sprung-from-prison steps down to the docks, where he suffers Grey Worm’s hateful gaze, glaring down at him from the poop deck of a ship—we learn through some brief exposition—bound for Naath. Missandei might be dead, but the dream still lives: having turned down the offer of lands and titles in Westeros, the Unsullied are making like trees and getting the fuck out of the continent. It’s uncertain whether their arrival will be welcomed by the peaceful inhabitants of Missandei’s home island, but presumably future slave-catchers will have to negotiate with the business end of a shit-ton of spears.

jon - ships.png

Jon carries on to where he meets up with his siblings. Sansa is apologetic about the deal that was struck. “Can you forgive me?” she asks, and for a long moment it seems … maybe not? But then he says, “The North is free, thanks to you.” “But they lost their King,” Sansa replies, albeit with the slightly smug tones of someone who no longer has to kowtow to whom she’d once understood as her bastard brother. Jon observes something we’ve all known for a few seasons now: that Sansa is the best the North could ever ask for. They embrace. When Jon tells Arya she’s welcome to visit him at Castle Black, we learn her plan: to sail west beyond what has been mapped.

Not sure what I think of Arya’s ending … I suppose it makes a certain amount of sense, as eight seasons’ worth of learning to fight and kill has rendered her unfit for any role besides hired assassin—which, of course, being a basically decent person and having rejected her membership in the Faceless Men besides, is not really a career option. So … she now means, like Tennyson’s Ulysses, “To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths / Of all the western stars, until I die”? Or is it meant more as an evocation of the end of The Lord of the Rings, in which Frodo, too marred by his experiences as the ring-bearer, departs for the west across the sea? I suppose it’s a sentimentally symbolic choice, which means it’s entirely out of step with the sensibility of GoT.

jon - family.png

And then, he kneels before the new King. “Your Grace,” he says. “I’m sorry I wasn’t there when you needed me.” “You were exactly where you were supposed to be,” Bran replies, in that cryptic monotone that, I’m predicting, is going to drive his royal subjects a wee bit batshit in the coming years. Jon then walks down the pier to where his tender awaits, and his siblings watch him go … the remaining trueborn children of Ned Stark watching their erstwhile bastard half-brother, actually their trueborn cousin, take his “punishment” and head north.

(I just want to ask: are we supposed to believe that Jon is genuinely aggrieved that he has to go to the Wall? He doesn’t seem happy, but it made me think of Ricky Gervais’ bit of stand-up about the Book of Genesis, when God’s punishment for the serpent is that he has to crawl on his belly for all eternity. “But … Oh, no. Wait. Yeah. You got me. Crawl on my belly? Is this how I do it? I wish I could fly, like normal”).

brienne - text.png

From that scene we cut to what is my favourite moment of the episode (though it goes without saying, it would have been infinitely more affecting if we’d had time to see Brienne and Jaime’s relationship properly disintegrate). Brienne—now the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard—sits with the book in in which the Knights of the Kingsguard’s exploits are chronicled, and she turns to the entry for Jaime Lannister. We’ve been here before, back when Jaime was the Lord Commander; his paltry entry was given more weight in the novels, but also played in the series. Now, Brienne looks at the scant text, which reads:

Squired for Barristan Selmy against the Kingswood Outlaws. Knighted and named to the Kingsguard in his sixteenth year for valour in the field. At the Sack of King’s Landing murdered his King Aerys the Second at the foot of the Iron Throne: pardoned by King Robert Baratheon.

And then in a different hand, Jaime’s own: “Thereafter known as the Kingslayer: After the murder of King Joffrey by Tyrion Lannister, served under King Tommen I.”

Brienne, being Brienne, reads this laconic entry, and starts to write—as is one of the duties of the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard, to faithfully record the exploits of his or her fellows. She fills the rest of the page, and turns the leaf over. (And just for the record, Brienne’s penmanship is ON POINT). She details everything Jaime did, from his capture at the Whispering Wood to his oath to Catelyn Stark to the bit of misdirection that sent the Unsullied to Casterly Rock while he took Highgarden.

And his last deed—which could not have been easy for Brienne to write—was “Died protecting his Queen.”

brienne - writing.png

After she finishes writing, she has a moment in which it seems tears might come, but they don’t quite, and she closes the ponderous tome. It’s our last real Brienne moment, and can I just reiterate now and for all time just how much I love Gwendolyn Christie? She has been SO GOOD in this role.

And then we shift to the true downslope of the denouement, with Tyrion as Hand of the King essentially re-enacting a scene from several seasons ago as he fussily shifts chairs around the Small Council table. But I will hand off the final commentary on this episode to you, Nikki … bring us home.

My watch is ended.

council - ASOIAF.png

Nikki: Now I’m gonna cry. (Hold it together, Nik, hold it together.) I too loved Brienne’s moment, it was so quiet and lovely, and like you, I commented aloud that clearly, at some point in her childhood, her father must have given her calligraphy lessons in order to try to make her more “womanly.” I also wondered if she’d write something like, “Slept with another knight after the Battle of Winterfell, but then fucked off to King’s Landing to screw his sister, whom he’d been shagging all along.” But no, our Brienne rose above it (she’s better than I am) and I felt like this was the ending her character deserved.

But now onto the Small Council meeting. As Chris said, I loved Tyrion shifting the chairs, and then muttering grumpily when everyone comes in and bangs them around. And to be honest, it’s been so long since we’ve seen a proper Small Council meeting, it was like we were back in an early episode, and it made my heart swell.

And then Ser Davos enters. I love that he gets his due for all the honest counsel he’s given over the years; who would have thought Ser Davos would outlast Stannis, the Red Woman, Varys, and Daenerys. He’s a man with reason and love, and I’m happy he’s here. He’s the Master of Ships, which is a perfect position for him.

But he’s with Bronn. Now, I understand for many, this is going to be a shrewd decision on Tyrion’s part: making him the Master of Coin makes sense on the one hand, because no one can negotiate a bargain better than Bronn. Keep your enemies close, and all that. But it’s freakin’ BRONN. Of all the other people in the series who have been reasonable, good people, HE is the one who gets a seat on the Small Council? A guy who, if he went to Braavos to secure a loan for Tyrion, and they said, “For double what he’s paying you, we’ll pay you to put a knife through Ser Brienne,” he’d do it. Only if Tyrion didn’t offer him double that to NOT put the knife through her. He’s a backstabbing blackmailer, and while he’s been great for one-liners, he’s about as trustworthy as Joffrey running the King’s Landing daycare.

council - brienne & bronn.png

Sam Tarly is there, in the white Grand Maester’s robes, a position that he’s clearly gotten through taking some quick online Coursera courses and some string-pulling on Tyrion’s part. The Grand Maester is seen as the most senior of all the Maesters throughout the kingdom, and Sam isn’t exactly… senior. However, I don’t think it would be a stretch to think that possibly, all the Maesters in the kingdom have been wiped out, and that Sam, having studied the texts of the Citadel, would know more than they do. Besides, Bran is a walking Citadel library, with all of the books in his head, more or less, so they don’t need a senior member.

But here’s why Sam as Grand Maester works for me: I think this is yet another example of breaking the wheel. Why should the most important Maester position in the kingdom go to the eldest? Pycelle was an old fart who didn’t care about the laws as much as currying favour with the Lannisters. Why not make it a meritocracy? Not the eldest Maester, but the most qualified, the best one for the job. Tyrion’s known Sam long enough to know he has no designs on power, and is wise (he found Jon’s true heritage, as well as figured out how to cure greyscale). I think he’s perfect.

He hands Tyrion a massive book: A Song of Ice and Fire. How… meta. (My favourite bit here is where Sam says, “I helped him with the title,” and then looks at the others, beaming with excitement, darting his head from one face to the other, while they just stare back. Oh Samwell, how I adore you.)

I don’t know how much time is supposed to have passed, but I think it’s safe to say… quite a bit? The Red Keep is looking like it’s been mostly fixed, the floor of the map room is still broken but cleaned up, the place is livable again. (Of course, some of this could have happened while Tyrion and Jon were still locked up.) There’s been time for Tyrion to assemble a Small Council, and for Samwell to rise to the position of Grand Maester. But even then, I would say it’s only been a few months? I say all of this because I’m trying to figure out how Maester Ebrose found the time to write that entire MASSIVE tome in a matter of months when we’ve been waiting approximately 143 years for GRRM to write volume 6 of HIS version of events. (For those keeping track, Archmaester Ebrose was at the Citadel, and was played by Jim Broadbent last season.)

council - tyrion.png

But let’s look past the quickness of writing by hand 1,500 giant pages in perfect calligraphy (cough). Tyrion immediately begins flipping through the book with the same concern anyone has who finds out a friend of theirs has written a memoir: what do they say about me in it? (I will admit to always flipping to an index of a pop culture academic book to find my name, and it’s often there, but mostly so the academics can disagree with something I wrote in my books. I also had an acquaintance write a memoir and found my name in the index, and what he wrote was neither good nor bad, it just was. Which was disappointing; we kind of hated each other, and I wanted it to be horrible, which would have been far more interesting. But the rest of the memoir was shite, too, so what can ya do. HA.) Like me, Tyrion wonders if he’ll be criticized. Or maybe he’ll be kind? Tyrion begins flipping pages. “I… I don’t believe you’re mentioned,” stutters Sam.

HAHAHA! Frankly, this revelation made this whole meta silliness worth it, mostly because it’s a perfect representation of the history books: Tyrion was behind the scenes at every turn, and is arguably THE star of Game of Thrones in a story with about 65 other people vying for that position. But throughout history, it’s not the kings and queens making decisions, changing the course of every day: it’s their advisors, the people in backrooms, the people in the kitchens, the people hiding in alleyways. Their names don’t end up in the history books, but they were the catalysts for so many things along the way. Queen Cersei and King Joffrey will be all over the pages of Grand Maester Ebrose’s book, but it’s Tyrion who was doing the real backroom deals, making the decisions. It was Littlefinger and Varys who were changing the course of history. It was Olenna Tyrell who was ordering the deaths of people who got in her way. They won’t be listed in the book, either, or, at best, they’ll be footnotes. The beautiful thing about Game of Thrones is that it showed the people who play the game aren’t necessarily the ones who want that throne. I loved this little tidbit.

And, side note, when the episode was over, I immediately went over to my first Game of Thrones book and flipped it open to see if Tyrion was actually, in fact, the first perspective chapter of the entire series… but it wasn’t. It was Bran. Of course. (The answer was there the whole time, Dorothy!) And then it flips to perspectives of various Starks before the first non-Stark entry: Tyrion.

Bran enters, wheeled in by Brienne. He begins speaking in that monotone that yes, I agree with you, Chris, will drive the citizens of Westeros (and mostly this poor, wretched, Small Council) completely batty in the coming years. Could you imagine him doing the King’s Speech? “Hello. It is Christmas. Snow is falling. Falling like ash. Ash upon the fields. Fields of the dead. I have seen the dead.”

Meanwhile, people across Westeros are wondering why the hell Samwell Tarly invented the bloody wireless radio so they have to listen to this shit every year.

Anyway, he immediately notes that they’re missing a Master of Whisperers, a Master of Laws, and a Master of War. Tyrion reassures him he’ll be looking at suitable candidates for all those positions, and it made me wonder who they would be? I suppose even after a wheel has been broken, you’ll still need a Master of Whisperers because people continue to conspire. The other two are necessities, although frankly, Bran could do all three: he can see everyone at all times (ew) and would know who’s conspiring. He knows all the laws of the past, present, and future, and he already knows what wars have happened, what ones are coming, and what would be the best strategies for each.

Seriously, how are they going to deal with this guy in every—

Oh wait, he’s leaving Small Council to go warg into Drogon and figure out where he is. You can just see the “Toto, I don’t think we’re in Kansas anymore” looks on everyone’s faces. (Note that “Ser Podrick” comes out of the shadows to wheel Bran away—he’s a knight!) I guess one good thing about Bran is, he doesn’t need an Iron Throne because he’s got a cool chair of his own.

Before I forget, though, I just wanted to call back to one character I don’t think has gotten her due: Meera Reed. Remember her? Along with Osha and Meera’s brother Jojen, they’re the ones who accompanied Bran through a large part of his story and him becoming the Three-Eyed Raven, and for, like, three seasons she dragged that sled with Bran on it. I’m thinking he owes a lot of his survival to her. I hope he sends her a Christmas ham on the day of his next speech.

As Bran leaves, Tyrion ham-fistedly bids his king adieu with the proper honorifics, ending with “Long may he reign” and the others, scattered, say it with various levels of conviction. “That will improve,” Tyrion says sheepishly as Bran is wheeled out of the room. Ha!

Now Tyrion reveals that Bronn is Master of Coin (look at Ser Davos’s unconvinced face when he does), and asks if the Crown’s debt has been paid. In full, he says. After all—say it with me—a Lannister always pays his debts. And Tyrion begins conducting business. After listing all of Bronn’s titles, he asks about securing more money for the kingdom to rebuild. Then Tyrion tells Ser Davos that they’ll need to rebuild the ships as well. Davos says he can do that, once the “Master of Coin and Lord of Lofty Titles” secures the money. Bronn snarkily responds that first he has to ensure they’re not wasting coin, “or soon there won’t be no more coin.” “Any more,” corrects Davos. “Oh you’re Master of Grammar now too?” Bronn says.

At which point I sat up and said, “OMG there’s a Master of Grammar?? I COULD TOTALLY BE ON SMALL COUNCIL.”

“Grand Maester!” shouts Tyrion to try to move away from the little toddler boys fighting at the head of the table. He asks about water purification, and Sam begins to speak before Bronn cuts him off, and instead wants to discuss reconstructing the far more important brothels of King’s Landing. (Seriously, someone shoot this guy with a crossbow NOW.) Sam doesn’t agree with this, and Brienne says the ships should take precedence, as the camera slowly pans out of the room, showing us that the Small Council is a new world… and much of the same one it’s always been.

And then Tyrion says, “I once brought a jackass and a honeycomb into a brothel…” I laughed out loud. This is an onrunning joke and a callback to previous seasons, and it’s the third time Tyrion has begun to tell this joke but WE HAVE NEVER GOTTEN THE PUNCHLINE. In season one, standing before the horrid Lysa Arryn, Tyrion is asked to confess his sins, and he begins telling one lewd story after another, nearly every one involving his penis. When he gets to, “I once brought a jackass and a honeycomb into a brothel…” Lysa shouts for silence.

Again in season six, he’s sitting with Missandei and Grey Worm, and they’re drinking wine and laughing. Grey Worm is looking at Missandei with so much love (sniff) and she’s giggling and begging Tyrion for jokes. “I once walked into a brothel with a honeycomb and a jackass,” he begins. “The Madame says—” and then they’re interrupted. Since then, fans have tried to come up with the ending of that joke, and a fan on Reddit came up with a BRILLIANT one that I wish the writers had incorporated into this episode:

Tyrion walks into a brothel with a honeycomb and a jackass.
Madame: What can we do for you?
Tyrion: I need a woman to lay with, for mine has left me.
Madame: Whatever for? And what’s with the honeycomb and the mule?
Tyrion: My woman found a genie in a bottle, and he granted her three wishes. The first was for a house fit for a queen, so he gave her this damn honeycomb. The second wish was that she have the nicest ass in all the land, so he gave her this damn donkey…
Madame: And what about the third wish?
Tyrion: Well… she asked the genie to make my cock hang down past my knee.
Madame: Well that one’s not so bad eh?
Tyrion: Not so bad!? I used to be six foot three!

Seriously, how Tyrion is that joke?! I’m convinced that’s where he was going with it.

And… our watch ends at the Night’s Watch and Castle Black. We see Jon Snow approach the gates, like he did in season one, for a life of celibacy and isolation, for… what, exactly? I’m with you, Chris, to me, this was the least satisfying bit of the entire finale. Tormund stands on a parapet looking down at Jon as he enters the grounds through the gate, and like you I was like, what, exactly, do they do at the Night’s Watch now?? The wilding is RIGHT THERE inside the grounds. And seriously, the only reason Jon is there is because Grey Worm has demanded it. And as you pointed out, Chris, he’s fucked off with the rest of the soldiers, so why didn’t Jon just go North to Winterfell and be done with it? Is it because Sansa could feel threatened by his presence? She knows as we all do that Jon has zero designs on the throne, so I have no idea why he did the good thing and continued to the Wall. Other than the fact he’s Jon Snow and has always done exactly what he’s been told.

end - jon .png

But at least I was going to get the reunion with Ghost. And then… the screen went black. OH COME O—

Oh, it’s not done yet. The next scene opens on the hilt of Jon’s sword, and that little direwolf head that always looks a wee bit comical to me in a war scene. And from this point, as the staggering music of Ramin Djawadi—the true MVP of the entire series, who has NEVER let us down—plays, we get a montage of where everyone has ended up. Sansa is suited up with an utterly stunning new dress that has the red leaves of the weirwood tree on it; Jon walks up the steps of Castle Black; Arya rolls up her maps and her telescope and walks onto the deck of her ship.

(And I know this is a deadly serious and beautiful montage, but I started singing, “Arya Arya Arya the Explarya!” and my husband joined in. I do hope her cartographer is a flamboyantly gay man who sings, “Here’s the map, here’s the map, here’s the map, here’s the map, HERE’S THE MAP!” while First Mate Boots looks on.)

ANYWAY BACK TO SERIOUSNESS NIKKI. Arya is the commander of her ship and watches the action around her, as Sansa walks majestically down an aisle flanked by northerners (you deserve this, Sansa), and Jon walks through the grounds, flanked by wildlings to see… YES it’s Ghost, minus one ear and looking a little scuffed around the face but it’s Ghost oh yes WHOSAGOODBOY and Jon FINALLY crouches down and gives him the big pet he’s deserved for eight years, and the one we all wanted a few episodes ago. I’m so happy to see this reunion.

end - arya smile.png

Back to Arya’s ship, now revealing a massive Stark direwolf head on the prow (OMG tears) and Arya looking calm, happy, and in control for the first time all season. The gorgeous, small crown is placed on Sansa’s head and she sits on her throne, to shouts of “Queen of the North!” by the Northmen who crown her. This is such a sublime moment, because it takes us all the way back to the first time we saw Sansa, sitting in a window and sewing with the ladies. Her obsession with Joffrey wasn’t so much that she was smitten with him, but smitten with the idea of one day being queen, being led around on the arm of the King of the Seven Kingdoms, with people bowing down to her because she was married to the king. This youthful fantasy soon turns into an absolute nightmare for her, and she’s tossed around from one man to another and mistreated again and again until she decides to own herself, own her fate, and show others who Sansa Stark really is. And now men are bowing down before her NOT because her husband is the ruler, but because SHE is. What an incredible journey Sansa’s has been.

end - sansa.png

Arya has been someone who’s roamed around Westeros, has seen and met so many people, all with one reason for moving forward: to kill the people on her list. But now there’s no list, there’s no vengeance; only peace. And it’s left her content—her brother is on one throne, her sister on another, and at the moment there’s no danger of anything happening to them. So she can go back to her wandering ways, but since she’s been along every road in Westeros, she’s now branching out to discover America, apparently, since she’s going west of the very British-seeming Westeros. If Drogon is flying east and she’s moving west, perhaps they’ll somehow meet in the middle. (Unless GRRM is a Flat-Earther, in which case they’ll just fall off the edges when they get there.)

And we end with Jon Snow. The man who would be king, who’s been the main character of the story all along. Who couldn’t die because he was integral to the ending. He ultimately broke the wheel, has devoted his life to peace and protection, has never done a single bad thing… and now he’s exiled to the Wall. But in the time he spent up North, he met Ygritte, and as you say, Chris, that was where he actually felt like he was at home, among the wildlings. I’m with you. The way he looks back at the closing gate indicates to me that he’s not returning. Jon Snow will go and live up in the far north among his people, and he’ll probably never see his family again. But he has his new family, the people he managed to bring into the fold for the first time in the history of Westeros.

end - jon & ghost 2.png

And as the Game of Thrones theme song rises up, we see him, and Tormund, and Ghost, and the free folk on foot, as they disappear into the trees of the North. And I don’t think it’s an accident that as they first set off, the camera is filming from the ground, where we see a green spring plant sprouting up from the snow.

Summer is coming, and with it a new hope for the future of Westeros.

And… that is it. The end of easily the most spectacular-looking TV series of all time, a sweeping epic that was so far-reaching it often required multiple viewings, books, guides, and Christopher and I recapping along the way.

And now that my watch, too, has come to an end, I wanted to send out a huge thank-you to Christopher Lockett, my Brother of the Night’s Watch, my fellow knight, my associate Keeper of the Book, who has studied at the Citadel far longer than I have, who shares my passion for the humour of Lord Homer and Lady Marge, who has joined me week after week for eight years to bring his knowledge of the books and his knowledge of pop culture to all of us, enriching our experience of watching this show.

end - wall.png

And I’d really like to thank all of you, who somehow make it to the end of these posts every single week (my husband constantly says, “NO ONE reads all the way to the end, you know that, right? We live in an age of soundbytes and your posts are too… wordy” and I just have to show him the comments to prove otherwise). You read, you comment, you offer corrections and more insight to what we said here, and when we were late, you would send notes saying, “Where’s that post?” which was so flattering. It wouldn’t have been worth missing work two days a week for the duration of the seasons and massaging sore fingers without knowing all of you were reading what we said.

I feel like I now need to go and rewatch the whole series in light of the ending, and probably will. Until the next great TV show comes along, I say to you:

The day is bright and full of hope.

2 Comments

Filed under Game of Thrones, television