"GAME OF THRONES": Revenge Is Not Empowerment
The following article contains massive spoilers from the HBO series, "GAME OF THRONES" (2011-2019). 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 possessed 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 and Daenerys Targaryen in Seasons Six and Seven of "GAME OF THRONES".
In the series' Season Eight episode, (8.05) "The Bells", Benioff and Weiss had Sandor Clegane aka the Hound attempt 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 oldest 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 still find this laughable, when I remember that back in the Season Six finale, (6.10) "The Winds of Winter", Arya had already inflicted revenge against Walder Frey and two of his sons in one of the most gruesome ways possible. She chopped up two of Walder’s sons, baked them into a pie, and served them to the aging landowner before killing him with a knife to the throat. Initially, I had found this rewarding, considering how Walder had helped arrange 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 premiere episode, (7.01) "Dragonstone", Arya topped her acts of vengeance when she killed more members of the Frey family through poison. 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 eventually came 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 by Season Eight. This is laughable to me because I feel that Arya had passed the "point of no return" when she killed 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?
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 was tainted with a touch of 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. 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. 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, Martin) were concerned, the Starks was the only family that really mattered.
Arya was not the only member of the family given 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 or imprisoned for murder, or live with the reputation of being a "queenslayer", as Jaime Lannister had live with the "kingslayer" monniker for such a long time. The Small Council also allowed Sansa Stark's declaration the North being independent of Westeros to stick and herself as the new Queen of the North. 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.
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 barely 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.
Even Daenerys Targaryen failed to escape from this "revenge is empowerment" trope. At least in Season Six. Following her escape from the Meereen gladiator arena with the help of her dragon Drogon in Season Five's (5.09) "The Dance of Dragons", Daenerys found herself delivered by the latter in the middle of her old stomping grounds, the Dothraki Sea, before deciding to take a nap. Instead of waiting for Drogon to wake up, Daenerys had decided to wander around, until she found herself captured by a band of Dothraki horsemen. Not very bright, in my opinion. So, what happened next? The horsemen took her to their leader, Khal Moro, for permission to rape her. Yeah . . . I do not understand this. But when Khal Moro discovered that Daenerys was Khal Drogo's widow, he forced her to join the Dosh Khaleen, a group that composed of the widows of slain khali (leaders) that serve as seers foretelling the future and interpreting omens for the Dothraki. In this capacity they essentially also serve as the leaders of the Dothraki religion. Even powerful Khal leaders and fierce male Dothraki warriors fear disobeying the will of the Dosh Khaleen. Sounds peachy? Right? Well . . .
Once Danerys had joined the Dosh Khaleen, the widows informed her that the Dosh Khaleen have no real authority. They also informed her that this particular group of khals were the ones who had the authority to decide who can join the Dosh Khaleen. Worse, the women had informed her that despite being part of the Dosh Khaleen, Daenerys remained in danger of being raped. I found this contradictory and confusing, considering that the series' narrative had originally stated that as a former khaleesi and widow, Dany became an automatic member. I believe Benioff and Weiss had re-wrote this entire scenario to give Daenerys the opportunity . . . and excuse to "take control" of her life and the Dothraki leadership by burning down the Dosh Khaleen temple with the Khal leaders inside. In doing so, Daenerys killed them and spared her life, convincing the other Dothraki to join her army for the invasion of Westeros. She was also able to get revenge against the Khal leaders for making her a prisoner (I can only assume) and express feminine empowerment. Personally, I have never encountered so much contrived writing for one character in this series - until the showrunners' handling of the series' eight and final season.
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 any 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.