How do you feel about ASOIAF's central messages?

[Armand Gargalen]

57 minutes ago, Ser Tristan Flowers said:

Moderation is key, extremism is bad. 

Anything can be perverted if one takes it to the extreme. Nothing is inherently good or evil, not even violence. 

I would not say violence is evil,  but the point that violence is useless and only leads to more suffering seems a pretty consistent theme in the books.

[rhoynestar]

3 hours ago, Seams said:

Excellent, excellent point. To remind people of the substance:

In a room sit three great men, a king, a priest, and a rich man with his gold. Between them stands a sellsword, a little man of common birth and no great mind. Each of the great ones bids him slay the other two. 'Do it,' says the king, 'for I am your lawful ruler.' 'Do it,' says the priest, 'for I command you in the names of the gods.' 'Do it,' says the rich man, 'and all this gold shall be yours.' So tell me- who lives and who dies?

There is some dialogue in the tv series, apparently, that has Tyrion and Varys returning to the subject later and spelling out an interpretation.

We know the Ser Ilyn Payne, a man with a sword, lost his tongue for saying that Tywin was the power behind Aery's throne. So he and Tywin apparently lost that round. Bronn made a choice to support Tyrion (rich man) against Lysa and Catelyn at the Eyrie. I guess Prince Oberyn took a gamble and lost (or so it seems - it depends on whether he achieved a goal larger than preserving his own life). Where else has a single sellsword or man with a sword made a decision about power that has tipped the balance in one direction or another? Have we seen any instances of a sword obeying the priest? Maybe Lancel renouncing his title and lands?

I always took this story to represent the struggle between traditional political power (hereditary kings and landed aristocrats), religious authority (priests of all stripes), and the power of money(profits from trade, maybe the Iron Bank) -- a struggle underlying all the wars and struggles and changes in ASOIAF/GOT. The sellsword may be just a sellsword, but may also represent the common man/public ("a little man of common birth and no great mind"). The common man chooses money in the end.

This implies sort of the inevitable course of Western history -- the downfall of feudal hierarchies and religious authority, and the rise of a possible middle class (with money/capital). That is, Westeros and maybe the known world of ASOIAF is facing the inevitable tide of modernity that Europe and the Western world experienced. The power of the traditional Church wanes with the Protestant Reformation and Enlightenment. The power of feudal monarchs and landed aristocrats eventually fades as trade and capital grow in prominence. In Westeros, the power of religion and mysticism and magic may fade. The power of kings and lords may also wane and we may see limitations on the power of kings in the end, or at least a change in the feudal hierarchy. (Yes, much of this is conjecture in terms of where ASOIAF is going, but I see this as the inevitable ending based on the line of thought here). 

The theme of Western Civilization and its development and eventual Western modernity has been well expounded in Tolkien, and I see GRRM following in Tolkien's footsteps to some degree, and mirroring many others in fantasy literature (after all Tolkien is the great granddaddy to many). GRRM is not exactly agreeing with Tolkien (Tolkien disliked many aspects of modernity, such a industrialization, which GRRM has yet to touch on I think), and Tolkien certainly has been the subject of some criticism, but certainly there are parallels. In ASOIAF I don't think the rise of the Iron Bank, or the political spymasters as represented by Varys, are just coincidences.

To get back to OP's original question, I think rising western modernity is basically one of the fundamental themes/driving forces behind ASOIAF. Do we like it? I guess modernity has its adherents and detractors. The changes in terms of greater social justice, a more egalitarian society, less absolute power given to monarchs and religious leaders, the downfall of the feudal hierarchy, all should appeal to modern readers.

Other aspects may be a bit more controversial. Tolkien has been critiqued for contrasting Western Civilization with the so-called barbaric East. GRRM does not explicitly contrast the two, but he does focus primarily on Western Civ. I want to state for the record that I am not implying GRRM is racist, or ASOIAF is racist, in the least -- I think he is just following Tolkien's footsteps in using Western European history as his motif and centering his story on Western Civilization and modernity, and given Tolkien's stature and influence on fantasy literature this is more than understandable. I've actually hesitated to talk about this idea much in other contexts because it leads to inevitable "oh are you calling GOT racist" critiques, which are really not so relevant and beyond the point. I certainly don't see GRRM as racist. Rather, the point is that perhaps the fantasy literature genre could use a shift away from Western Civ and broaden into other areas. Eastern Civ has certainly been a subject of the fantasy genre (positive or negative portrayals both), but very few have tackled the idea of modernization in the East. This is also a controversial and long-standing topic of discussion among historians to my knowledge. Also intellectuals in many so-called Eastern countries (China, etc) have in the past extensively grappled with thorny questions of "What is Eastern modernization" and "What type of modernization do we need/should we see in the East," none of which have been resolved satisfactorily. So this is one of the broader implications of ASOIAF's main theme of Western modernity -- we might need other types of fantasy literature in the future.

*Obviously this is an off-the-cuff and highly disorganized rendition of some of the ideas I had swimming in my head recently. Please take into account. 

[The Marquis de Leech]

I've got to disagree on the modernity front. Westeros isn't undergoing any form of technological change, and indeed has been stuck in a sort of prolonged medieval stasis. Any sort of constitutional monarchy will be along the lines of the Magna Carta, not the French Revolution: the structural problems that brought down Charles I or Louis XVI simply aren't present here.

Nor do I think the middle class is really expanding. Without innovation or commercial expansion (no colonies or New World), there's no ability for them to get a meaningful foothold against the aristocrats. Remember that even Littlefinger, for all his self-made man nonsense, is really just a low-level aristocrat with a talent for monetary manipulation.

[rhoynestar]

59 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

I've got to disagree on the modernity front. Westeros isn't undergoing any form of technological change, and indeed has been stuck in a sort of prolonged medieval stasis. 

No, I would agree that part is absent and sort of left in abeyance by GRRM. It is not essential to his story of political change, although it was actually quite important in Western history.

59 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Any sort of constitutional monarchy will be along the lines of the Magna Carta, not the French Revolution: the structural problems that brought down Charles I or Louis XVI simply aren't present here.

Certainly not implying that we'll be so advanced along Western history in GOT that we'll get to the revolutions you describe, nor modern constitutional monarchies. Will edit to make that point clear.

Perhaps any political advancement I see here is better described as similar to Magna Carta, very broadly supposed rule of law, restrictions on monarchical power, etc. If it even happens, GRRM will also not likely follow Magna Carta word for word or the actual 12thC charter -- more the supposed spirit or modern legend built on the idea that Magna Carta was the foundation for Parliament and legal rights. (Will edit my original post to clarify this).

59 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Nor do I think the middle class is really expanding. Without innovation or commercial expansion (no colonies or New World), there's no ability for them to get a meaningful foothold against the aristocrats. Remember that even Littlefinger, for all his self-made man nonsense, is really just a low-level aristocrat with a talent for monetary manipulation.

The actual thrust of GRRM's story, I think, that is reminiscent of Western historical development, lies in increased limitations on absolute power and authority of kings and religion(Church) that mirrors what happened in Western Europe. I do not argue that he follows Western historical development event by event or in its exact progression. For example as you mention European colonialism and its impact on Western European history is important to modernization, but it is completely absent here. Nor does he make this a story about middle class revolution -- for all that the story emphasizes a man with gold, GRRM certainly, as you point out, gives us few middle class representatives to deal with (LF does embody some of their values but I don't even know if he'll survive the story, much less become a rep of any new social class. His being a minor aristocrat, however, is relevant since the lower rungs of the fuedal aristocracy overlapped with middle class). Instead he is almost positing a story of change and gradual middle class advancement in society without really showing a middle class pushing for change inside Westeros -- at best we may see it come some individuals, and from the Iron Bank. He actually shows more of the peasant class, without clear indication as of yet as to the role they will play in the future -- for all we know per the story above, he may be positing peasant-middle class alliances. Yet the overall theme of limitation on traditional powers of king and church is strongly reminiscent of Western historical change. 

Thanks for the comments though -- good points. I certainly don't advocate for a blow-by-blow mirroring of events in (broadly) Western history in ASOIAF nor a complete reflection of our understanding of modern history. Fantasy literature obviously takes extreme licenses in borrowing from historical events and themes, and while the overall theme may be identifiable often details and key components are missing. Tolkien certainly gives no point-by-point mirroring of Western Civilization, but the overall themes have been identified in the literature. Like other works ASOIAF is a reflection of the author's understanding of and rendition of history and historical change, and open to interpretation as such.

[OuttaOldtown]

I don't know, with two books remaining this quote came to mind:

"Trying to understand is like straining through muddy water. Have the patience to wait! Be still and allow the mud to settle."

- Lao Tzu

[Clegane'sPup]

4 hours ago, Seams said:

Excellent, excellent point. To remind people of the substance:

In a room sit three great men, a king, a priest, and a rich man with his gold. Between them stands a sellsword, a little man of common birth and no great mind. Each of the great ones bids him slay the other two. 'Do it,' says the king, 'for I am your lawful ruler.' 'Do it,' says the priest, 'for I command you in the names of the gods.' 'Do it,' says the rich man, 'and all this gold shall be yours.' So tell me- who lives and who dies?

There is some dialogue in the tv series, apparently, that has Tyrion and Varys returning to the subject later and spelling out an interpretation.

To get the full context about the riddle Varys gave Tyrion look in CoK Tyrion I. To get the context of Varys reply to Tyrion look in CoK Tyrion II. I'll put it in a spoiler tag

Spoiler

“Oh, I think not,” Varys said, swirling the wine in his cup. “Power is a curious thing, my lord. Perchance you have considered the riddle I posed you that day in the inn?”

“It has crossed my mind a time or two,” Tyrion admitted. “The king, the priest, the rich man—who lives and who dies? Who will the swordsman obey? It’s a riddle without an answer, or rather, too many answers. All depends on the man with the sword.”

“And yet he is no one,” Varys said. “He has neither crown nor gold nor favor of the gods, only a piece of pointed steel.”

“That piece of steel is the power of life and death.”

“Just so… yet if it is the swordsmen who rule us in truth, why do we pretend our kings hold the power? Why should a strong man with a sword ever obey a child king like Joffrey, or a wine-sodden oaf like his father?”

“Because these child kings and drunken oafs can call other strong men, with other swords.”

“Then these other swordsmen have the true power. Or do they?” Varys smiled.Whence came their swords? Why do they obey?” Varys smiled.

“Some say knowledge is power. Some tell us that all power comes from the gods. Others say it derives from law.

Yet that day on the steps of Baelor’s Sept, our godly High Septon and the lawful Queen Regent and your ever-so-knowledgeable servant were as powerless as any cobbler or cooper in the crowd.

Who truly killed Eddard Stark, do you think? Joffrey, who gave the command? Ser Ilyn Payne, who swung the sword? Or… another?”

Tyrion cocked his head sideways. “Did you mean to answer your damned riddle, or only to make my head ache worse?”

Varys smiled. “Here, then. Power resides where men believe it resides. No more and no less.”

“So power is a mummer’s trick?”

“A shadow on the wall,” Varys murmured, “yet shadows can kill. And ofttimes a very small man can cast a very large shadow.”

Tyrion smiled. “Lord Varys, I am growing strangely fond of you. I may kill you yet, but I think I’d feel sad about it.”

“I will take that as high praise.”

 

[rhoynestar]

26 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

To get the full context about the riddle Varys gave Tyrion look in CoK Tyrion I. To get the context of Varys reply to Tyrion look in CoK Tyrion II. I'll put it in a spoiler tag

Thanks, this was needed. He does speak of the sellsword as more of a swordsman here -- I would still argue the modernity/western civ thesis as posited for an overarching theme of ASOIAF, but possibly the sellsword in the quote itself represents the armies, or real sellsword troops, that either the king, religion or moneyed persons can use to create change. 

Aside, Varys in this quote, as I read it,seems to be indicating that a change in people's ideas about who should hold power, and how s/he should wield it, is crucial to maintaining power.Which creates a parallel to historical political change and modernity on its own, interestingly. Of course a more cynical and modern reading would posit manipulation and a spin campaign; a more in-context reading would probably just see it as a means of persuading Tyrion to join Varys. 

[Clegane'sPup]

22 minutes ago, rhoynestar said:

Thanks, this was needed.

You're welcome. From what I have read on the boards Lord Leech doesn't dick around like some others.. So, y'all sally forth.

[rhoynestar]

4 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

You're welcome. From what I have read on the boards Lord Leech doesn't dick around like some others.. So, y'all sally forth.

Good idea.

For the sake of future discussion, the show may be clouding my view of where ASOIAF is headed because it focuses on Dany emphasizing some sort of new political ideas. The central thrust of GRRM may be much more Tolkien -- the waning of mysticism and magic as the rise of modernity, rather than political change.