Good vs. Evil- Anya Slepyan

Some spoilers ahead, maybe? 

I adore both Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones. They are by far my two favorite nerdy series, which makes sense because of the significant genre overlap. In addition to Sean Bean and his graphic, early deaths, both share a magical Medeival-ish setting, epic battles, gorgeous cinematography, incredible scores, and overall awesomeness.

However, there are significant differences between the two. One of the most obvious is the two series’ treatment of the themes of good and evil. Lord of the Rings falls in line with sagas such as Harry Potter and Star Wars, in that good and evil are treated as two opposite forces, constantly battling. Sauron and his minions epitomize evil; their returning to full power would mean the destruction of all that was good in Middle Earth. Frodo, Aragorn, Gandalf, and the rest of the Fellowship represent good; they struggle against Sauron’s forces in order to save Middle Earth from total desolation, and restore the Age of Man. In this way, Tolkien’s take on good and evil seems extremely simplistic. Only in a couple of places within the series do there seem to be any gray areas. One such gray area is the struggle between Smeagol/Gollum’s personalities, another is Faramir’s corruption by the power of the ring. However, these situations remain exceptions in Tolkien’s starkly divided Middle Earth.

            In contrast, Martin’s Seven Kingdoms in Game of Thrones are completely covered in grey. The line between good and evil isn’t blurred so much as smudged and stretched beyond recognition. Almost every character in the series (or at least those that live long enough to make important decisions) represents at least some mix of good and evil. The reader can never be sure of a character’s true nature—a man consistently described as tough but just burns his innocent daughter at the stake, while an incestuous child-murderer gradually grows to be the moral compass of King’s Landing. Even the most despicable characters have at least some redeeming qualities, and no character makes the best decisions at every turn. This is because Martin puts his characters in impossible situations, where the complex context and inevitable consequences make any choice far from simple.

            Although both series are a far cry from the real world, I believe that Game of Thrones is more realistic in at least one respect: when it comes to good and evil, our world is 197 million square miles of gray area. While there are some actions that can be considered absolute evils (genocide, prejudice, eating the “bagels” that come in plastic packaging in the grocery store), most other choices have at least some elements of both good and evil. Similarly, an action that might be considered an absolute good can be shaded a form of gray depending on the intentions, execution, and consequences of the action.  

            As cool as it would be to be able to proclaim oneself a loyal member of either the light or dark side, the truth is that human nature requires all to be double-agents.