I could discuss this all day. The fact that I believe history is often more fascinating that fiction does not mean I do not understand its key importance. What was Homer to the classical greeks or Beowulf to the Anglo Saxons? Stories that discussed illustrated virtue and failures.
For me Game of Thrones was the real 1455-1485 Wars of the Roses with zombies, magic and Dragons thrown in, something that Martin also noted. Many of his characters, by his own telling, had real life counterparts. Tywin was Edward I and the Mad King was Henry VI. What Martin was saying was that there are virtues and flaws in all of us.
And sadly, bad guys do win. Lenin Stalin, Mao all died in their beds and Hitler by his own hand. Gandhi, MLK, Rabin and Sadat (and Jesus for that matter) were murdered. But totally get your point, the people in Game of Thrones are especially venal. But so was the War of the Roses. In GOT there are not Elizabeth Tudor type queens, a real life figure who was a better ruler than her sister and a better person than her father. But there are two characters worth noting. I think Jon was a good man and I thought Stannis would have been a just and effective King.
That being said the godfather of fantasy, Tolkein, who in turn mimicked norse fables, certainly understand good and evil. But even his heroes are flawed. Frodo wished he could stay in the Shire, Aragorn questions himself, and Gandalf has to embrace his true nature to assume the power necessary to win. Some might see Sauron, a character who operates more as a device than anything living or breathing, as too narrow. But I was okay with that. I am not a fan of the anti hero, a Tony Soprano or Walter White of who we are supposed to cheer for despite knowing they are evil.
I could discuss this all day. The fact that I believe history is often more fascinating that fiction does not mean I do not understand its key importance. What was Homer to the classical greeks or Beowulf to the Anglo Saxons? Stories that discussed illustrated virtue and failures.
For me Game of Thrones was the real 1455-1485 Wars of the Roses with zombies, magic and Dragons thrown in, something that Martin also noted. Many of his characters, by his own telling, had real life counterparts. Tywin was Edward I and the Mad King was Henry VI. What Martin was saying was that there are virtues and flaws in all of us.
And sadly, bad guys do win. Lenin Stalin, Mao all died in their beds and Hitler by his own hand. Gandhi, MLK, Rabin and Sadat (and Jesus for that matter) were murdered. But totally get your point, the people in Game of Thrones are especially venal. But so was the War of the Roses. In GOT there are not Elizabeth Tudor type queens, a real life figure who was a better ruler than her sister and a better person than her father. But there are two characters worth noting. I think Jon was a good man and I thought Stannis would have been a just and effective King.
That being said the godfather of fantasy, Tolkein, who in turn mimicked norse fables, certainly understand good and evil. But even his heroes are flawed. Frodo wished he could stay in the Shire, Aragorn questions himself, and Gandalf has to embrace his true nature to assume the power necessary to win. Some might see Sauron, a character who operates more as a device than anything living or breathing, as too narrow. But I was okay with that. I am not a fan of the anti hero, a Tony Soprano or Walter White of who we are supposed to cheer for despite knowing they are evil.