"GAME OF THRONES": Revenge Is Not Empowerment
The following article contains massive spoilers for HBO's "GAME OF THRONES". If you have not seen the entire series, I suggest you refrain from reading this article:
"GAME OF THRONES": REVENGE IS NOT EMPOWERMENT
David Benioff and D.B. Weiss, the showrunners of "GAME OF THRONES", seemed to have this attitude that seeking revenge is some form of empowerment for women. And this attitude really made me wonder about them. Or perhaps they were only willing to utilize this questionable theory in regard to the Stark family in "GAME OF THRONES".
In the series' Season Eight episode, (8.05) "The Bells", Benioff and Weiss had Sandor Clegane aka the Hound try to stop Arya Stark from going after Queen Cersei Lannister. While the Red Keep, residency of Westeros' sovereigns, was in flames; Clegane did this to prevent Arya from indulging in her desire for revenge against the Lannister queen over the past deaths of her parents and brother. Honestly? I found this laughable.
Did Benioff and Weiss really try to convince television audiences that a revenge seeking Arya would have been a step too far for her by Season Eight? I find this laughable, when I look back at the Season Six finale, (6.10) "The Winds of Winter", when Arya had already inflicted revenge against Walder Frey and two of his sons in one of the most gruesome ways possible. She murdered two of Walder’s sons, chopped them up and baked them into a pie, before served the latter to the aging landowner. Then disguised as a member of the Frey family, Arya murdered Frey by slitting his throat. Initially, I had found this scene rewarding, considering how Walder had arranged the deaths of Catelyn and Robb Stark back in late Season Three. But when I re-watched Walder's death again, I found it brutal, sick and very disturbing. Then in the Season Seven episode, (7.01) "Dragonstone", Arya topped her acts of vengeance when she poisoned more members of the Frey family. What made this worse is that the series' two show runners and especially the media had labeled Arya a "badass" for her acts of murder.
I had eventually come to the conclusion that Benioff and Weiss were trying to portray Arya as this innocent, yet traumatized young girl who was on the verge of being driven to her worst impulses in the Season Eight finale. I found this laughable, because I felt Arya had passed the "point of no return" when she murdered the Freys. The two show runners ended the series with Arya leaving Westeros to explore unknown lands in the west. What was the message here? She had finally given up her murderous desires and impulses to do something more laudable? Seriously? Arya had discovered more than the taste of blood by this point. Even worse, she had never expressed any sign of remorse for her past violent acts.
In series finale, Yara Greyjoy had demanded that the new sovereign's Small Council allow Jon Snow aka Aegon Targaryen to legally suffer the consequences for his murder of Daenerys Targaryen. I suspect that Yara’s demand had been tainted with a slight desire for vengeance, since Daenerys had previously promised independence to the Iron Islands for her assistance. But Yara had never considered exacting revenge with her own hands. She wanted Jon to pay the price . . . legally. Being banished to Wall did not suffice in her eyes. It certainly did not in mine. After all, Westeros had no real jurisdiction over the Wall or north of that region for years. And what did Arya do after Yara had expressed her demand? Threaten the Ironborn leader’s life. Apparently, the Hound’s lesson had fallen on deaf ears. I suspect that no journey will ever wipe away Arya’s murderous tendencies or her past crimes. That little exchange between her and Yara only told me that she had not learned a damn thing. Certainly not by the end of the series. Why did Benioff and Weiss try to push this message that she had? Because she was a Stark?
Honestly, I believe that might be the correct answer. Arya was a Stark. Her past crimes had been whitewashed by the show runners, due to her role as a member of the Northern family and as one of the series' protagonists. Benioff and Weiss wanted to give Arya a pass, just as they had given the other members of her family a pass, because they had suffered a great deal of loss during the recent wars. They were not the only characters that suffered, but as far as Benioff and Weiss (and I suspect, author George R.R. Martin) were concerned, the Starks was the only family that really mattered.
Arya was not the only member of the family to receive a pass - moral or otherwise - by the writers. Instead of facing the consequences of his murder of Daenerys Targaryen, Jon Snow (who is a Stark on his mother’s side) was banished to the Wall by Westeros’ Small Council, a political group that no longer had any authority to do so. Westeros' Northern realm had seceded from the country in late Season One . . . and never rejoined (except under Roose and Ramsay Bolton's leadership between late Season Three and late Season Six). The Wall fell under the North's sovereignty. Instead of remaining with the now useless Night Watchers, Jon went further north and happily joined the Freefolk aka Wildlings, where he would not have to be executed, imprisoned for murder, or live with the reputation of being a "queenslayer", as Jaime Lannister had lived with the "kingslayer" monniker for such a long time. The Small Council also allowed Sansa Stark's declaration of the North's continuing independence from Westeros and herself as the new Queen of the North to stick. Neither the Small Council, led by Sansa’s first husband, Tyrion Lannister and her brother King Brandon Stark, the new sovereign of Westeros, bothered to prevent or argue against this. Like the Lannisters before them, the Starks proved to be just as culpable of nepotism.
Then again, I should not have been surprised, considering how Benioff and Weiss had ended Sansa Stark’s own story arc. They also painted Sansa’s revenge against her second husband, Ramsay "Snow" Bolton for rape as "female empowerment". In other words, the show runners gave Sansa's gruesome murder of Ramsay a moral pass. She was a heroine (a Stark heroine at that) who had suffered a lot and he was a villain. Yet, the manner in which he was killed reeked of murder, cruelty, and revenge. Ramsay and his father Roose had allowed the Northern realm to suffer a great deal when Roose became Warden of the North (something the series had failed to depict), following his murder of Robb Stark (under the Lannisters' direction) back in late Season Three. Sansa and Jon could have easily had Ramsay executed for treason, following his defeat at the Battle of the Bastards. Instead, Sansa, in a fit of vengeance and cruelty, lowered herself to her husband’s level and allowed him to be eaten alive by his dogs.
Some fans of George R.R. Martin have pointed out that facing the consequences of one’s actions might be the theme of his literary saga. Yet, I have noticed that after Season Five, Benioff and Weiss were only willing to allow characters who were not members of the Stark family to face the consequences of their actions . . . Daenerys Targaryen being the last example. But the show runners had allowed good fortune to shower upon the remaining members of the Stark family without them paying any real consequences for their actions.
I find this attitude of Benioff and Weiss very hypocritical. And I especially took umbrage at the idea that Arya and Sansa Stark enacting revenge upon those who had wronged them or their family via violent murder should be regarded as "female empowerment". I find this concept to be disgusting, hypocritical and very offensive.