Skip to content →

“A Game of Thrones”

The Game 

“When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die.” – Cersei Lannister, A Game of Thrones

While the book series that I’ve been talking about is called A Song of Ice and Fire, it’s far more well known by its TV Show, Game of Thrones. Additionally, the first book in the series is called A Game of Thrones. These two facts raise the question: What is the game of thrones?

First, let me explain what it’s not: it is not a happy game of soccer or monopoly. Wars are fought, villages are ravaged, thousands upon thousands of people die. This leads us to only one conclusion: calling this epic a ‘game’ is an understatement, with literary significance that I want to analyze.

Using the word ‘game’ instead of something more appropriate for the series (like war or conflict) almost trivializes the matters at hand. What in reality is a conflict for control of the Seven Kingdoms is portrayed as a harmless contest with considerably lower stakes, all by the use of one word. This masterful use of diction by George R. R. Martin helps him convey something important about many of the characters: they themselves view this conflict as a game, not something more significant. Since the story largely focuses on members of the aristocracy, they can play the game, but they’re also far removed from the more harmful effects of the game (they aren’t dying, for the most part, they aren’t losing their homes).

The quote above, spoken by the Queen Cersei Lannister, helps convey the elitism. Sure, she notes that the game is a high stakes one (like Russian Roulette), but it also neglects to take into account all of the people affected after one decides to play the game. It doesn’t mention the thousands of people who will starve and die whether someone wins or loses the game. It only focuses on the individual and that individual’s lust for power. In turn, this quote helps establish another theme that’s established at the start of the book: deterioration.

The Deterioration of the Seven Kingdoms

Another theme that Martin makes sure to establish early and often is how far the Seven Kingdoms have fallen, essentially. For one, this is seen by aristocrats treating the control for the Seven Kingdoms as a game. Beforehand, the Kingdoms were ruled by the Targaryen Dynasty. While they weren’t perfect, they also didn’t have constant wars for control of the Iron Throne. They didn’t treat the throne as a game, and the peasants were better off because of this.

Finally, additional clues are given to the deterioration of the kingdoms. Here are a few that seem important:

  • The Night’s Watch (or the Watchers on the Wall); long ago, this organization was viewed in high esteem as the protectors of the kingdom, preventing whatever lurked North of the wall from invading the kingdom. However, in the present day, criminals and a few brave but foolish volunteers man the walls, not men of high society, indicating the Night’s Watch’s fall from grace.
  • The Kingsguard; this is an organization comprised of seven knights with the sole purpose of guarding the king from harm. In the old times, this honor was reserved for knights of the greatest skill, determination, and honor. Now however, appointments to the kingsguard are rather political, highlighting a deterioration of what was supposed to be one of the greatest meritocracies in the kingdoms.
  • Common rules of politeness (like guests’ right); stories are told of the value of treating people with respect, especially if they’re a guest. Then… things happen (avoiding a MAJOR spoiler) which suggests that these old customs are being overruled for greed.

Published in Passion

3 Comments

  1. Miran

    Hi Matt! The ideas that are conveyed by a “Game of Thrones” can undoubtedly be applied to real life situations. It is often easy for powerful leaders to sit from their position of power and make decisions regarding conflict with other countries, but they are not the ones who are risking their lives. This sort of idea was especially prevalent during the Cold War, where political leaders were more concerned with carrying out their personal agendas without taking into consideration the lives at stake. From what I have gathered after reading your first blog posts about the series, there is a lot of connection to real world issues. This becomes even more clear when taking into consideration when the book was written in 1996, a few years after the conclusion of the Cold War.

  2. Asha Spencer

    Hi Matt,
    I like that you decided to analyze the meaning behind the “game of thrones”. It brings up the name of the TV show, which many people are more familiar with than the books. The idea that the aristocracy can view a fight for the throne as a game at the expense of ordinary people is terrible, but also sadly very realistic to our world.
    Also, the way you wrote this reminds me of our civic artifact speeches- it seems like you are analyzing the commonplaces of the game of thrones. I’m not sure if this was your intention, but it’s an interesting connection to what we’re doing in class!

  3. jjp6563

    Hi Matt,
    I really like how you have linked your ideas here. Often political leaders see their subjects as a game they can manipulate and fail to see the actual magnitude of what they consider a game, in this sense they are the puppet masters. I like how you have decided to explore the name of the first book (which is something very familiar to all as a result of the infamous show) instead of giving any spoilers as promised. I look forward to seeing what you come up with next, perhaps an analysis of the name of the next book?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to toolbar