Parallels between Nietzsche and ASoIaF

[Nucky Thompson]

I know that similarities can be found between many works of literature, and those are often random or sometimes even the author could subconsciously include them to the book. In any case, I think that it's worth further investigating.

Several days ago, while I was reading Nietzsche's 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra', I noticed that there are a lot of similar themes with ASoIaF. There were mentions of a long twilight, of those in tombs being resurrected and of a Nightswatchman. What seemed like the deepest parallel, though, was the resemblance of Nietzsche's overman with his striving for overcoming oneself and complete disregard for those around him, to the Ironborn and how they let the children of thralls become equal with the other Ironborn after they have evolved according to Ironborn policies. There was an eerie resemblance of "What is dead may never die, but rises again, harder and stronger" in Nietzsche's "Only where there are tombs, there are resurrections".

What do you think? Someone who is more knowledgable about Nietzsche can weigh in here (I am only halfway through the Zarathustra book). Could there be some tropes that Martin borrowed from Nietzsche? If so, what implications could be made about the events to come in the series? It seems to me that his metaphor about the long twilight being caused by man's denial of his overman future may be somehow useful when determining the meaning of the Long Night in ASoIaF.

[PrimeRhaegar]

Some times i feel the series is a dedication to Nihilism.

[Nucky Thompson]

I must add that the parallels are clearly there, since I encountered a passage where winter was referred to as a person, an entity, which happened to symbolize height of spirit. Another similarity, although a less conclusive one, was a reference to wearing stilts and its meaning. I know that with enough determination similarities are easy to find, but this book isn't too lenghty, so that many parallels are unlikely to be a mere coincidence.

PS: There was another reference to the nightswatchmen, who were said to be able to blow horns and awake old things which were asleep for a long time.

[Wolf in Hallowed Places]

Interesting. I was expecting this thread to deal with Nietzschean themes rather than actual metaphors from the text. I think it's almost certainly coincedence - such metaphors aren't particuarly obtuse to come up with - but it enriches one's reading of the series to have these things in mind.

Unfortunately I have neither my ASOIAF nor my Nietzsche books to hand, or I would mull this over in more depth!

[Nucky Thompson]

It actually does seem to contain both, but I pointed out the most obvious metaphors which seem to be somewhat related. I could have used the more more philosophical aspects, but I wasn't sure that such a discourse would be met with enough interest on the message board. At any rate, Nietzsche's philosophy involves a defence of the so-called 'aristocratic masters', so his ideas are clearly applicable to the world of ASoIaF. I don't mean to say that the entire series is an illustration of Nietzsche's views, but there seem to be certain evidence for his influence. While the metaphors are, indeed, common, they seem to be somewhat often for a short book such as the Zarathustra one. At any rate, Nietzsche's view on solitude and escaping the poisonous flies seems rather reminiscent of Eddard's expirience at the capitol, and the parallels are even clearer when we consider that Zarathustra 'fled to his cave', and compare it with what Bran (or even Lady Stoneheart) have been up to. There is also the moment where Nietzsche accuses the wise men for attempting to seize power behind the veil of knowledge, so the theory about a maester conspiracy is not without a basis there, too.

What seems likely to me, is that the Starks of ASoIaF perhaps seem to be Nietzsche's overman in development and the incoming invasion of the Others will be less of the horrendous zombie appocalypse and more of the Nietzsche's justified conflict, cleansing the realm and allowing the process of self-overcoming he so adamantly defends. His views of 'every people having its own language of good and evil' and being worthy only when valuing, seems to reminisce of Eddard's views on honour, or perhaps of the overall environment of conflict in the series. For what it's worth, I'll throw in another metaphor, and suggest that Zarathustra's views on not heating your room in winter as to remain 'self-overcoming', may mean that the Starks are, indeed, the protagonists in GRRM's story, however much he may deny it.

[Darkbringer]

OK, lets be clear, first of all Nietzche T despise Ned Stark. Nietzsche's primary concern was of the potential of the individual to overcome the mendacious false morality that dominated Euro-Christian society in particular, and most societies in general. So Ned's devotion to 'honour' and the 'realm' are the antithesis of the Nietzschean ideal. The fact that Ned lost his head may lend strength to your general argument, however. Another of Nietzsche's main arguments was on hardship and suffering. He believed that the way people faced and dealt with suffering, physical, mental, and spiritual, defined their ability to grow and perceive new realities. Now there is plenty of suffering to go around in ASOIAF, and we can definitely see the way that some characters are growing through dealing with suffering. Some people call Nietzsche a Nihilist, but that he is not. He talks of an fierce and energetic godlessness, of " seizing the abyss with talons of steel". He also liked to play with peoples assumptions of good and evil, which GRRM is very good at. But other ideas like the Eternal Return I don't really see.

[Melisandros Megas]

Let's not forget Stannithustra, the true prophet of the Lord of Light.

[Nucky Thompson]

OK, lets be clear, first of all Nietzche T despise Ned Stark. Nietzsche's primary concern was of the potential of the individual to overcome the mendacious false morality that dominated Euro-Christian society in particular, and most societies in general. So Ned's devotion to 'honour' and the 'realm' are the antithesis of the Nietzschean ideal. The fact that Ned lost his head may lend strength to your general argument, however. Another of Nietzsche's main arguments was on hardship and suffering. He believed that the way people faced and dealt with suffering, physical, mental, and spiritual, defined their ability to grow and perceive new realities. Now there is plenty of suffering to go around in ASOIAF, and we can definitely see the way that some characters are growing through dealing with suffering. Some people call Nietzsche a Nihilist, but that he is not. He talks of an fierce and energetic godlessness, of " seizing the abyss with talons of steel". He also liked to play with peoples assumptions of good and evil, which GRRM is very good at. But other ideas like the Eternal Return I don't really see.

Well, I'm in no way an authority on the subject, but Eddard was surely a valuer. Having experienced a slight decrease in height, however, we may imply that his valuation was deemed incorrect. At any rate, methinks that Nietzsche would despise Walder Frey more than Eddard, despite not supporting the false morality, since he declined to make a valuation and to put skin in the game at all costs. However, your idea about the Euro-Christian society makes me think that its equivalent in the story may be the Faith of the Seven and all those apocalyptic things that will befall it, may have something to do with it. If we look at the Others as somehow related to the Starks and being a sort of vengeance on the South, then it can make some sense in this line of thinking. Who would be seen as entirely Nietzschean, then? Besides Balon an the Ironborn in general, perhaps Roose Bolton would qualify?

[Wolf in Hallowed Places]

Nucky Thompson - Now we're talking...

I agree with you that Ned is not the anti-Nietzschean that Darkbringer suggests he is.

Nietzsche's primary concern was of the potential of the individual to overcome the mendacious false morality that dominated Euro-Christian society in particular, and most societies in general. So Ned's devotion to 'honour' and the 'realm' are the antithesis of the Nietzschean ideal.

I don't think Ned's honour and loyalty are analogous to Nietzsche's vision of Christianity. Nietzsche railed against the deluded egalitarianism of Christianity, the 'turn the other cheek' mentality, the ignorance and denial of nature and the vitality and reality of power. I don't think he inherently objected to adherence to value systems in general, just to unfaithful (to nature, to the reality of power) ones like Christianity. I don't think Ned's values conform to this idea of Christianity - he is no egalitarian, he values justice over equality, he believes in justice by the sword.

OTOH, Certainly he is more 'Christian' than many other characters in the series. Additionally, his preaching of justice from an arguably unjustified position as a hereditary noble could be seen as typical of the 'mendacious' (as DB put it) mentality of Nietzsche's vision of Christianity. His foolish encounter with Cersei pre-imprisonment was certainly a denial of the will to power, as an appeal to abstract morality without the cold, hard reality of power to back it up.

Perhaps Ned's 'Christian-ness' is curbed only by the necessities and realities of the world he lives in (which is certainly more 'Nietzschean' than our own, Western, present), and his position within it, ie. an aristocrat. Were he around in our Western present, informed by its 'Last Man' realities, he would be more the 'anti-Nietzschean' that DB suggests he is.

At any rate, Nietzsche's philosophy involves a defence of the so-called 'aristocratic masters', so his ideas are clearly applicable to the world of ASoIaF.

Indeed. However, I don't think your average Westerosi lord is what N had in mind when he valorised the aristocratic ideal. By and large, they are a petty, dishonest, small-minded lot, more an oligarchy of Last Men than the true Overman aristocracy (in the sense of, 'rule by the 'most excellent''). Arguably this applies more to Southern than Northern Lords - the Tyrell's spring to mind as an example of this kind of 'nobility'.

Additionally, their ideal of chivalry has parallels with N's 'mendacious' Christianity - they pay lip-service to this value, applying selectively and hypocritically, valuing their own material privilege and petty narcissism over a truly transcendent, just, and faithful value.

So who then is the true Nietzschean of the series? I agree that the Ironborn are contenders. I would put forward Tywin Lannister as well. One of the most illuminating insights into his character and values, I find, is Pycelle's eulogy to him in aFfC, in which he praises him as a man who was willing and able to do 'whatever was necessary', giving the example of his dealing of an outbreak of plague in Oldtown by sealing it up from the outside and letting the outbreak run its course. This strikes me as a Nietzschean embracing of nature and power - not to be confused with the sociopathic, tyrannical abuse of nature and power for sadistic, self-serving, self-gratifying, Last Man ends (cf. Joffrey, Ramsay, et al.).

As I said, I regret that I don't have my books to hand - I think that N is very much subject to personal, idiosyncratic interpretations, and without close reference to the texts, one's own projected image can take over. I hope I have not fallen into that trap here.

It is very easy to create straw-man visions of N, as many have done over the years.

I also feel an exploration of the Westerosi concept of the 'true knight' (eg. Arthur Dayne) in relation to Kierkegaard's 'Knight of Faith' is in order...some other time, perhaps.

[Mithras]

I think Nietzsche would despise Jaime above else by far.

[Nucky Thompson]

Yeah, it is certainly funny to think who would Nietzsche despise the most - while Jaime will be high on his list, I think Hot Pie would be a serious contender, as well... :D

As for Eddard's actions - clearly his talk with Cersei instructing her to flee with her children is an example of "turn the other cheek" mentality, however otherwise divorced from the Christian dogma Eddard's motivation might be. That's as anti-Machiavellian, as possible - and apparently a course of action that isn't tolerated on Planetos. It is interesting that Eddard adheres to such norms by his actions and against his best interests, while the Tyrells, for example, pay lip service to the idea, but at the same time poison the king. While Tywin indeed fits the bill to a big extent, I think that his reaction to the Mad King refusing to Rhaegar marrying Cersei, wasn't very much in the spirit of the overman.

Regarding the 'Last Man' parallel, while I understand that this was Nietzsche's worst nightmare (he wouldn't have called it that, but you get my point), I don't think that he clearly understood its full implications when he criticized the prospect of it. While he wasn't happy with the 'transformation of mankind into cattle', he didn't fully realize that even in such a world of cattle, those with his preferred mentality would still come out on top: either as a CEO, or a successful entrepreneur, his valuer would still have a role to play. He might have had an idealistic view of the previous world, but even there the big majority of people, being serfs, didn't make the difference they were supposed to - neither for themselves, nor for his 'aristocratic masters', despite not being plagued by egalitarianism. And I think that's (part of) the reason why GRRM's 'A Song of Ice and Fire' is so interesting to people nowadays - despite the supposed end of history, deep in our subconscious, we still view the world in terms that would qualify the feudal reality better. And it is refreshing to see for once a (fantasy) world where events take place in a much more straightforward and less hypocritical way, despite the fact that in essence they are actually very similar to what happens everyday in the real world.

As for the average Westerosi lord, I think that most of them fall under a category defined by Hegel and then referred to by Fukuyama (where I read about it): once the aristocratic masters forced the slaves into submission by fighting them and winning, they were not real masters anymore, since they had nobody to fight to prove it; all the while the slaves toiling in service of their masters, began having aristocratic traits themselves (by mastering even lower things such as the fields and whatever they were occupied with). In this regard, the North with its constant conflicts with the Ironborn, the Wildlings, rebellious Boltons, even the weather and whatnot is in a much better shape from this point of view, than Renly's 'knights of summer', so detached from reality, that they are 'playing at war'.

[Darkbringer]

Nucky Thompson - Now we're talking...

I agree with you that Ned is not the anti-Nietzschean that Darkbringer suggests he is.

I don't think Ned's honour and loyalty are analogous to Nietzsche's vision of Christianity. Nietzsche railed against the deluded egalitarianism of Christianity, the 'turn the other cheek' mentality, the ignorance and denial of nature and the vitality and reality of power. I don't think he inherently objected to adherence to value systems in general, just to unfaithful (to nature, to the reality of power) ones like Christianity. I don't think Ned's values conform to this idea of Christianity - he is no egalitarian, he values justice over equality, he believes in justice by the sword.

OTOH, Certainly he is more 'Christian' than many other characters in the series. Additionally, his preaching of justice from an arguably unjustified position as a hereditary noble could be seen as typical of the 'mendacious' (as DB put it) mentality of Nietzsche's vision of Christianity. His foolish encounter with Cersei pre-imprisonment was certainly a denial of the will to power, as an appeal to abstract morality without the cold, hard reality of power to back it up.

Perhaps Ned's 'Christian-ness' is curbed only by the necessities and realities of the world he lives in (which is certainly more 'Nietzschean' than our own, Western, present), and his position within it, ie. an aristocrat. Were he around in our Western present, informed by its 'Last Man' realities, he would be more the 'anti-Nietzschean' that DB suggests he is.

Indeed. However, I don't think your average Westerosi lord is what N had in mind when he valorised the aristocratic ideal. By and large, they are a petty, dishonest, small-minded lot, more an oligarchy of Last Men than the true Overman aristocracy (in the sense of, 'rule by the 'most excellent''). Arguably this applies more to Southern than Northern Lords - the Tyrell's spring to mind as an example of this kind of 'nobility'.

Additionally, their ideal of chivalry has parallels with N's 'mendacious' Christianity - they pay lip-service to this value, applying selectively and hypocritically, valuing their own material privilege and petty narcissism over a truly transcendent, just, and faithful value.

So who then is the true Nietzschean of the series? I agree that the Ironborn are contenders. I would put forward Tywin Lannister as well. One of the most illuminating insights into his character and values, I find, is Pycelle's eulogy to him in aFfC, in which he praises him as a man who was willing and able to do 'whatever was necessary', giving the example of his dealing of an outbreak of plague in Oldtown by sealing it up from the outside and letting the outbreak run its course. This strikes me as a Nietzschean embracing of nature and power - not to be confused with the sociopathic, tyrannical abuse of nature and power for sadistic, self-serving, self-gratifying, Last Man ends (cf. Joffrey, Ramsay, et al.).

As I said, I regret that I don't have my books to hand - I think that N is very much subject to personal, idiosyncratic interpretations, and without close reference to the texts, one's own projected image can take over. I hope I have not fallen into that trap here.

It is very easy to create straw-man visions of N, as many have done over the years.

I also feel an exploration of the Westerosi concept of the 'true knight' (eg. Arthur Dayne) in relation to Kierkegaard's 'Knight of Faith' is in order...some other time, perhaps.

Agree with the idea that people often project a conception onto N that isnt there. It doesn't help that he writes in such a florid (and at times unhinged) prose. But he was railing against a very strong form of social. control, and his extremities were, I think, somewhat justified. Sorry , but I just cant cut Ned any slack in this context. Robert (Jon really) goes off to war, Ned follows. Goes off to war again, Ned follows again. Sister makes him promise, he promises. Puts his whole family in mortal peril to satisfy his abstract code of honour. Ned is revealed as a slave to other peoples actions and desires, and to an abstract code of honour (which I believe comes more from Jon Arryn than the north). When Nietzche talked about the masters and slaves, you have to remember that he was still holding that apart from the 'superman'. the superman was the ideal, but if this was not attained, he opined that it was better to be a master than a slave. The Superman was not just a Master, but an individual who had pierced through the illusory relationship altogether, and preferably had set their goals independent of society's demands and pressures.

And agree with Tywin, spot on. I don't know if I can get onside with the IB, although they are independent, and follow their own code, there is a certain element of mindlessness which doesn't quite gel.

[Darkbringer]

BTW, thanks for the thread, its fun to have something more interesting to discuss than faceless men and secret Targaryans

[Lord Voldemort's Toes]

Well the whole series could be read as a paean to master morality.

[Alty732]

I think Nietzsche would despise Jaime above else by far.

What makes you say that?

[Thelastactionhero]

OK, lets be clear, first of all Nietzche T despise Ned Stark. Nietzsche's primary concern was of the potential of the individual to overcome the mendacious false morality that dominated Euro-Christian society in particular, and most societies in general. So Ned's devotion to 'honour' and the 'realm' are the antithesis of the Nietzschean ideal. The fact that Ned lost his head may lend strength to your general argument, however. Another of Nietzsche's main arguments was on hardship and suffering. He believed that the way people faced and dealt with suffering, physical, mental, and spiritual, defined their ability to grow and perceive new realities. Now there is plenty of suffering to go around in ASOIAF, and we can definitely see the way that some characters are growing through dealing with suffering. Some people call Nietzsche a Nihilist, but that he is not. He talks of an fierce and energetic godlessness, of " seizing the abyss with talons of steel". He also liked to play with peoples assumptions of good and evil, which GRRM is very good at. But other ideas like the Eternal Return I don't really see.

I hate to be a dick, but you really need to reassess your understanding of nihilism if you actually feel that Nietzsche is wrongly associated with it. It helps, I think, to distinguish between passive nihilism (which I assume is what you're referring to), and active nihilism. The former refers to a state of hopelessness and passivity wrought from the realization that there are no absolute values, and thus that there is no inherent meaning to the universe or mankind. The latter, on the other hand, utilizes this revelation in order to create a negatively charged philosophical space of action and creation. Through "seizing the abyss with talons of steel," as you stated, one is able to cultivate meaning to the best of one's ability within the sphere of one's own personal contingencies.

In regards to the topic itself, I think the OP has made some interesting correlations, though I highly doubt that Martin purposely borrowed any of the specific images mentioned from Nietzsche's text. It is far more likely that the similarities you point out are a result of where Martin's work resides in our contemporary epoch of Post-Modernist fiction. Nietzsche anticipates many dimensions of Post-Modernism, specifically in the Genealogy of Morals. Martin's usage of limited third person narration is, I think, a partial reflection of this philosophical paradigm, by which I mean that A Song of Ice and Fire lacks a principle or absolute perspective that governs over the work. Rather, the novels are comprised of a multitude of different personal narratives striving to assert dominance over one another in a matrix of power relations that is not unlike the model set forth by Foucault in "the Order of Things", who was a particularly important student of Nietzsche's work.

[Darkbringer]

I hate to be a dick, but you really need to reassess your understanding of nihilism if you actually feel that Nietzsche is wrongly associated with it. It helps, I think, to distinguish between passive nihilism (which I assume is what you're referring to), and active nihilism. The former refers to a state of hopelessness and passivity wrought from the realization that there are no absolute values, and thus that there is no inherent meaning to the universe or mankind. The latter, on the other hand, utilizes this revelation in order to create a negatively charged philosophical space of action and creation. Through "seizing the abyss with talons of steel," as you stated, one is able to cultivate meaning to the best of one's ability within the sphere of one's own personal contingencies.

In regards to the topic itself, I think the OP has made some interesting correlations, though I highly doubt that Martin purposely borrowed any of the specific images mentioned from Nietzsche's text. It is far more likely that the similarities you point out are a result of where Martin's work resides in our contemporary epoch of Post-Modernist fiction. Nietzsche anticipates many dimensions of Post-Modernism, specifically in the Genealogy of Morals. Martin's usage of limited third person narration is, I think, a partial reflection of this philosophical paradigm, by which I mean that A Song of Ice and Fire lacks a principle or absolute perspective that governs over the work. Rather, the novels are comprised of a multitude of different personal narratives striving to assert dominance over one another in a matrix of power relations that is not unlike the model set forth by Foucault in "the Order of Things", who was a particularly important student of Nietzsche's work.

This active/passive nihilsm business is not a proper philosophical distinction, but an emotional disposition. I wouldn't come down so hard on the side of Nietzche being a nihilist, myself. Considering that Nietzche wrote long diatribes bemoaning the rise of nihilism, I think the truth is a little more subtle, and open to semantic distortion. You showed proper caution in saying "associated with", yet this jarred with the rest of your assertion. Negatively charged philosophical space? Definition please. Nitzche invented enough florid phrases without creating more . I assert that Nietzche is not truly a nihilist, because firstly he claimed to be in a separate domain. Secondly, he believes in too many transcendent concepts and too many subjectivist realities, to be a believer in the Void.

[Darkbringer]

I hate to be a dick, but you really need to reassess your understanding of nihilism if you actually feel that Nietzsche is wrongly associated with it. It helps, I think, to distinguish between passive nihilism (which I assume is what you're referring to),

And if you don't want to be a dick, try not to be so condescending. Having read all of Nietzche, Schopenhauer and Kant, I think I have a reasonable footing to mount an argument, if you disagree, say so by all means. The containment of philosophy within a circle of jargon is one of the true tragedies of our age, it may just be a personal preference but I agree with Einstein that all worthwhile ideas can be expressed using plain language.

[NOT A TARG I SWEAR]

They both tell a human story in a fantasy world.

[Nucky Thompson]

I don't think that GRRM purposefully sat down to borrow Nietzsche's ideas and metaphors, but they seem to have a real influence on his work, so we could probably use that to try and make general predictions about some of the events to come in the next two books. And the multiple narrators do very much remind me of the "every people has its own language of good and evil and views the other peoples as wicked" [paraphrasing] view.

Although I'm not proficient in the precise terminology about the subject, I would disagree with the view that Nietzsche was a nihilist, or was one in the sense that is projected above. He was sure to demolish certain metaphysical constructs, but that by no means makes him a nihilist in the true sense of the word, since he created other such constructs in their place. This argument reminds me of Hume's "is-ought problem" problem when used to discredit another philosophical hypotheses (Ayn Rand's Objectivism, for example). Such an attempt is bound to fail, since while it superficially questions the basis of (for example) the Objectivist view that life is the basic standard, it actively uses the same standard (i.e. the one who criticizes is actually alive while doing so), thus discrediting its entire position. I believe that such a thing is called the 'paradox of nihilism', since rejection of meaning is actually a sort of meaning. And conversely, despite all the seemingly senseless violence and destruction occuring in Martin's world, there is a moral in the story, its end will be meaningful in a way, despite him claiming that it will be a giant pile of corpses.

While Eddard did not often have a difference of opinion with the other high-ranking nobles, I don't entirely think that he was a slave to their will. One might argue that this flow of events resulted from his goals and Robert's goal aligning and both of them having the same purpose in mind. We must note, however, that despite Eddard's displeasure with Gregor Clegane's and Amory Lorch's actions, he didn't rebel against the new Baratheon regime - that may be seen as not 'masterly' enough, same as when he displaced Jaime from the Iron Throne but didn't sit on it himself, given the chance. This, however, may mean that Eddard had a different set of 'masterly' values, that were more subtle and didn't involve projecting power in the physical and political sense of the word - and this may have been rooted in the loyalty of his Northern bannermen who knew their place without the need of theatrics such as Tywin's Castamere operation. The critique, then, must be aimed at Eddard's moral code, which, surprisingly, seems more and more Christian to me: the entire deal with not sitting the Iron Throne himself is reminiscent with the "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him." doctrine.