Fantasy Book Club discussion
This topic is about
A Game of Thrones
2010 Group Read Discussions
>
02/10 A Game of Thrones - Targaryen vs. others
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Julie
(new)
-
added it
Feb 12, 2010 12:50PM
Do you think Viserys' obsession with getting the throne back is justified? Do you think they deserve to rule Westeros again?
reply
|
flag
An interesting question. As the book gets started, it's easy to think of the Starks and Baratheons as the "good" guys and the Targaryens as villains. Viserys adds to that, as he is an evil little punk. But through Dany, we see another side of things.From the perspective of the Targaryen family, they were unjustly usurped by criminals. To the Starks and allies, they were deposing a mad king. So really it depends on what side of the argument you're on.
From the beginning of the book it seemed like they were the enemy family, but towards the end I'm not sure. I haven't read any of the rest of the books yet so I don't have any idea whose side they may be on.
It's been about a year and a half since I read this series (for the second time), so some of the details may be fuzzy. I may also drop some later-book spoilers, so be forewarned (I'll make it clear when I'm about to do so). The Targaryens frequently married brother to sister through the years, and the inbreeding led to some madness running in the family, the last king of the line, Aerys II, being a prime example, and Viserys being, if not actually mad, at least a terrible king if he ever got the throne. At the same time, we have reason to believe that Rhaegar was a pretty decent guy, and Daenerys is quite likable as well.
The rebellion that Stark and Baratheon led was the result of Rhaegar apparently raping Ned's sister, Lyanna, who Robert loved (Aerys also murdered Ned's brother and, well, lots of people). Spoiler alert: though it hasn't been confirmed definitively, there's very good reason to believe that Rhaegar, despite being married, was in love with Lyanna, who also loved him. Good chance they even had a child together.
So anyway: Aerys = bad king. Deserved to be overthrown--that is, assuming you believe that it's ever "right" to overthrow a king. Rhaegar might have been a good king... and Robert's a pretty crappy king, even if he was basically a good guy (a good guy to go drinking and hunting with, anyway).
What it suggests to me is that maybe there isn't any "right" in this context. Martin is writing a complex world shaded in grays where, ultimately, the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. That's feudalism, to some extent, much as people have tried to either justify it (in our world's terms, "divine right of kings") or moderate its excesses (ideas of chivalry that Sansa believes in and some follow, the duties of a king or lord to those beneath him. Ned Stark is, to a large extent, a great example of the best feudalism has to offer. He tries to rule fairly, he tries to raise his children to be good people and good rulers in their own time, he's fair in the administration of justice, and he looks to the long-term interests of his demesne and the kingdom. But he's also politically naive and a bit too straight-forward to succeed outside of his own domain. Aerys was an example of the worst feudalism has to offer: a king who wantonly murdered any of his subjects as he chose and used his power to gratify his own desires. The Lannisters are largely in the same mold minus the madness... they'll at least try to put on a good show of civility and fairness.
Aerys shows the way that, if the excesses of feudalism get out of hand, the system tends to break down--he's given good cause for his overthrow, but once Robert has usurped the throne, legitimacy becomes a dicey proposition and the scheming and jockeying for position gets out of control.
So to the original question, it seems like everyone who can make *any* claim to the throne has a "right" to try to enforce their claim, but Viserys would be another terrible, terrible king.
Very nicely said, John. It just goes to show that this story is about more than simple concepts as "good" and "evil", but it's about a particular human society. This is the element that gives Martin's series such a degree of "realism" that you see in many reviews.
Elise wrote: "From the beginning of the book it seemed like they were the enemy family, but towards the end I'm not sure. I haven't read any of the rest of the books yet so I don't have any idea whose side they ..."I agree with John on almost every point. In fact it's so close to what I wanted to say that I have to thank John for saving me the time. I hope you'll accept my friend request so we can share opinions, reviews, and reading suggestions. That being said, I have a couple of points:
1. Viserys had no right to the throne.
From the religious angle, even if the Seven Gods did decree House Targaryen the right to rule in the past, they repealed that decision by giving Robert Baratheon and Ned Stark the cause and strength to overthrow them.
From the purely human angle, he was stupid, cruel, arrogant and mad. The perfect successor to Aerys II, a king that almost destroyed Westeros. His sister Daenerys is almost the exact opposite; intelligent, just, humble and wise. Had Rhaegar held the throne she would have been his perfect successor, a sentiment voiced by Ser Jorah several times.
2. "that is, assuming you believe that it's ever 'right' to overthrow a king."
Martin brings up a lot of questions about the right to rule. It reminds me of T.H. White sometimes, and his argument against the "might makes right" belief. Martin even brings up that Ned Stark was a better candidate for Usurper King than Robert, but Robert had the better claim.
It seems that if Viserys has no rightful claim, the Usurper has died and his heirs are illegitimate there is no perfect king to step forward. I think the Hand of the King should be made regent and the nobles should hold a summit or tourney to decide the successor like they did in Arthurian England. But no, it's business as usual, diplomacy on the edge of a sword...
**Spoiler Alert**
From here on I'm talking about books 2 & 3, so read at your own peril.
The right to rule comes up more prominently in the next book with Robert's brothers Stannis and Renly contending for the throne. Since Joffrey is illegitimate they believe they have the better claim. But Robert accepted Joffrey as a son, so shouldn't his claim be valid? In the end, none of that matters, it comes down to which Baratheon had the most swords. So might makes right, again.
As for Viserys, he had no might. It was his obsession with his right to rule led to his "golden crown." You can rule by inspiring fear in all your people only if you have the strength.
Daenerys learns that the surest way to gather support is by inspiring love, trust and awe in the weak. Only then can you use those tools to inspire fear in your enemies. Surely her army of freed slave soldiers helped, but her followers follow HER, not her army. That leads me to root for her as Queen. I think she would do a better job than any of the knights in Westeros. If she gets it I hope Tyrion betrays his family and becomes Hand again. I think they'd get it done right.
I've gone on too long once again...
ooops! I replied to Elise's comment accidentally! I meant to reply to John's, if that wasn't obvious.
Another nice post, Matt.I will say this on the religious angle. What you said works, but here's the thing about religious angles. They can explain or rationalize just about anything.
To be devil's advocate, I'd say the Seven Gods were showing their disapproval of the Targaryens being usurped by allowing the mayhem that is occuring now in the story.
Yeah, as we all know religion can be interpreted many different ways and USED in not so nice ways too. As I read I thought that Westeros was shifting into chaos because it needed to fight "The Others". The way it was going, people didn't believe in the old ways anymore and had shifted away from the Wildwoods. Even the Starks had become complacent and not believing in Old Nan's stories. Now that things are descending into chaos people need something to hold onto and believe in even more so it opens up the possibility or helps the characters reach out to something needed. The are open to believing in the old ways, kind of where Bran's character is going. It all was hunky dory why would they need to believe in something past it's time (in their minds)?
Re: the religious sanction of kings--the gods themselves--like all god, I suppose--are notoriously tight-lipped about who they actually favor (leaving aside their priests, who as we see can be influenced by worldly concerns). Do they favor Robert and Ned? Or does the fact that (spoiler) both are dead by the end of book 1 indicate the gods' disfavor? Especially given that Robert hasn't left a legitimate heir of his own blood and (again, a spoiler alert, this time for future books) Ned's family is well on its way to being dispossessed? More likely, it seems to me, is that the gods have little to say on the matter. Which, it seems to me, the later books only corroborate.
(Except of course, that we do have a sense, don't we, that in the end Daenerys will regain the throne? Should that happen, does it reinforce some sense of a divine right, even if the royal family tree sometimes needs to be watered with the blood of tyrants?)
I started writing before I saw Chris or Julie's post, but I substantially in agreement with what Julie's saying. That prologue should remind us that--even though the focus is on the clash of kings--there's far more at stake and perhaps there *is* real evil in the world, in the form of this malevolence that animates corpses. They ignore this to their mutual peril. 
Matt wrote: "...**Spoiler Alert**
From here on I'm talking about books 2 & 3, so read at your own peril..."
Don't want to re-post your spoiler, but just want to comment on the last portion of your final full paragraph. I hope she does. And that would be so cool (so cool!) if he did.
Chris, I hadn't thought of it that way. Maybe The Seven are exacting a sort of vengeance. Then again maybe the old gods are instead. What with The North, their last real center of power, spitting out abominations. Or maybe they are all dying off and the Others are no longer held back by their powers. At first I assumed that "A Song of Ice and Fire" referred to a struggle between the Starks in the North and the Targaryens with their dragons. *spoiler* But now I keep wondering if it isn't in reference to a struggle between the Others flooding south and the followers of R'hllor the God of Light. If that becomes obvious in the fourth book, dont tell me!!
But I wonder what gods, if any, are really in control? Maybe none of them. Or are they contending for the soul of Westeros using human pawns?
I cannot see Martin giving much to the religious aspect of his story due to the fact he seems very critical of religion in his other works. There always seems to be a religious undertone to his stories but for the most part they simply push agendas, defy logic, and re-enforce a character's agenda/bad logic. Therefore, as far as divine right to the throne, I doubt Martin is writing the story with that in his mind, simply he is saying the Seven exist and The Lord of Light exists but only so much as the characters believe in them, not to the sense they will intervene.
(Except of course, that we do have a sense, don't we, that in the end Daenerys will regain the throne? Should that happen, does it reinforce some sense of a divine right, even if the royal family tree sometimes needs to be watered with the blood of tyrants?)John asked the question above regarding Daenerys ruling in the end and Nicola thinks that it is an open question still about who will rule in the end. But I have another question:
Does Daenerys really want to restore the Targaryens to the crown or does she have another motivation?
Julie wrote: ...Does Daenerys really want to restore the Targaryens to the crown or does she have another motivation? As of the end of the first book, I think she is simply following in the direction her brother had lead her from the beginning - the importance of restoring the Targaryens to the throne (and after his demise, she is the only one to do so). She is quite young, and was pretty brutalized by Viserys, so I don't think she spent a whole lot of time discovering who she truly is and what she truly wants. Nor has she had an opportunity to really to discern fact from fiction, if she so choses to. Pretending I have not read the books to follow and have not already formed some opinions on her path, Daenerys may grow into a different direction of thinking as she matures and experiences life free of her brother and as the "mother" of the only dragons in existence. Or, maybe she will remain true to the idea of restoring the crone to the Targaryens line for the reasons she grew up believing.
I think it is quite up-in-the-air (as far as the direction Martin will take it) at this time in the story.
Daenerys seems to be good candidate for rule:1) She shoes concern for her people and has not truly shown much tendency for madness.
2) Spoiler Alert: Daenerys taking the throne would probably end most of the machinations for the control of the kingdom and help bring it together. A strong king, even when not so concerned with people, stops so many wars/power plays etc. that its good enought(sort of like peter in Ender's Game)
(Except of course, that we do have a sense, don't we, that in the end Daenerys will regain the throne? Should that happen, does it reinforce some sense of a divine right, even if the royal family tree sometimes needs to be watered with the blood of tyrants?)
SPoiler Alert :: GRRM originally planned for 3 books , seperated(in story timeline) by a few years. Daenerys does not show much willingness to go to Westeros in book 4, and Book 5's prologue shows her settling. So she probably will come to Westeros in book 6/7, help John (because she is The Prince Who Was Promised) , but since GRRM has a tendency to not give good guys good endings, her becoming king seems to be in doubt.
