Game of Thrones betrayed revolution and women

This writing was taken from The Independent. Subtitles:

The latest Game of Throns season. The Games of the Fronts have sparked a public protest that reached the point with a petition [ signed by over 1 million disgruntled viewers] demanding that this whole season be removed and a new one be shot. The harshness of the debate itself provides evidence that even ideological issues should be heated.

Incompatibility turned into a series of points: the bad scenario [in the pressure of the series to be completed hastily, the complexity of the narrative was simplified], the bad psychology [Daenery's doing in the Queens taken], and so forth.

From the few intelligent voices in the debate was the one of writer Stephen King who observed that discontent was not the last cause of the series, but because of the last in itself. In our era of series that can basically go to infinite lengths, the very idea of ending a narrative becomes unletterable.

It is true that in the quick end of the TV series, common logic comes to the fore, logic that does not violate creditary psychology but rather the Narrative expectations of a television series. In the last season, it's just preparing for battle, the vault and the destruction after the battle, and the struggle in itself despite its unintelligence far more realistic to me than the common Gothic melodrama fables.

The eighth season scans three successive problems. The first is the one between the human and the nonhumans seen as the other [Night's weapon from the North, led by the King of Night]; between the two major groups of people [the devilish senators and the coalition against them that is led by Daennerys and Starks]; and then in the internal conflict between Daennerys and Starks.

This is why battles in the eighth season follow a logical path from an external opposition to an internal rift: the defeat of the nonhuman Night's Armys [don't confuse it with Nato], the defeat of the Lannisters and the destruction of the King's Front; the last problem between Starks and Daenerys between the traditional noble goods [Starks] who faithfully protect their people from the evil tyrants, and Daenerys as a young leader of the strong, kind of a progressive boy who acts in the name of having no privilege.

The issues in the final conflict are these: should revolt against tyranny be a struggle to restore the best old version of the same hierarchical order, or should it be further developed in search of a new order?

The finals combine to reject radical change with an old anti-femining motive in Wagner's work. For Wagner, there is nothing more devastating than a woman who intervenes in political life, driven by a desire for power. In contrast with men's ambitions, women want power in order to promote their close family interests or, worse still, their personal whims, unable to perceive the universal dimension of state politics.

The same femininity that, within the narrow circles of family life, is simply the love of protein, when it appears in public space, and in state affairs translates into dark fury. Remember the dialogue in Game of Thrones when Daeners tells Jon that if he can't love her as queen then fear will reign as the shameful and vulgar motive of the woman's sexual discontent that explodes in a very destructive fury afterwards.

But what about the murderous Daenerlys explosion? Can the ruthless murder of thousands of innocent citizens be justified as a necessary step toward universal freedom? At this point, we must remember that the script was written by two men.

Daeneries like the “Queen of Taken” is assicultary male fantasy, so critics were right to say that her slip into folly was psychologically unwarranted. Daeneries' view with a mad, angry face flying into a dragon and burning houses and people expressing patriarchal ideology with fears changing in it by a strong woman in politics.

The fate of the ruling woman in Game of Thrones agrees with these coordinates. Even if the good Daenerys won and destroyed Cerse, power would corrupt him. Arya [who saved everyone by killing the King of Night] also disappears, with plans to sail west [as if he wanted to colonize America].

What remains [as the queen of an autonomous North Kingdom] is Sansa, a beloved woman from today's capitalism: she combines femininity and understanding with a good dose of intrigue, and thus completely meets with new power relations. This marginalisation of women is a key moment in the general liberal-conservative lessons of the final: revolutions must go wrong, they bring new tyranny, or, as Joni told Daeneries:

The people who follow you know you've done something impossible. This may help them to believe that you can do other impossible things; to build a world that is different from the shit they have always known. But if you use dragons to burn castles and destroy cities, you're not the same as other tyrants. ”

As a result, Jon kills her out of love [protecting a woman cursed by herself, as the old male-sovinist formula says] the only social agent in the television series that really fought for something new, for a new world that would end old injustices.

So justice prevailed, but what kind of justice? The new king is Bran: disabled, all-knowing, who doesn't want anything by opening empty knowledge that says the best rulers are those who don't love power. A big laugh erupts when a member of the new elite proposes a more democratic choice of the king tells it all.

And no one can say that those who remained faithful to Daeneries until the end were no longer dievers the commander of her army was black while the new rulers were white Nordics. The radical queen who wanted more freedom for everyone regardless of social status and race is eliminated, and things are restored to normal. /Periscope