The Stark Women and Gender Roles

Catelyn Stark

For my final blog post, I was having trouble finding the right topic to discuss because I feel I have touched upon some of the greater themes already; but then it hit me that I have hardly talked about the Stark women and their crucial roles within the story. So then, we revisit the discussion on gender roles.

To your left is Catelyn Stark, whom I think I have mentioned before. She is the wife of Eddard Stark who is the Warden of the North and eventually beheaded unjustly. Catelyn's role is one that best fits the ideal wife for those who believe in complimentarianism. Catelyn is a woman who supported her husband Ned in all things. He was the head of the household and she was happy to submit to his will because Ned Stark was a loving and responsible leader. He deeply cared for the welfare of his family and his people. Ned Stark, before having to decide whether to leave his home or serve his king, asked her for her advice. She gave it openly and said that he should stay in the North with his family. Ned listened and appreciated her input, but ultimately decided that it was his duty and honor to serve as the king's Hand (which is like his most trusted counselor). Though Catelyn did not like it, she knew it was her duty to support her husband in all aspects. Furthermore, she stays in the North at his command when he leaves in order to maintain the household. Though submissive, Catelyn is still a rather strong woman. She definitely embodies Colossians 3:18, "wives submit to your husbands as is fitting in the Lord".  Piper and Grudem would certainly approve.

Sansa Stark

Next up we have Sansa Stark, the oldest daughter. She excels in all skills deemed proper for a Lady such as sewing and is admired for her beauty. She is the sad example of a woman who is abused and stripped of any kind of power real or imagined. She is betrothed to Joffrey Lannisters, the evil boy king mentioned a few posts ago and as soon as relations with the Starks go sour, Sansa is immediately taken as a hostage by the Lannisters and is abused physically and mentally by Joffery. She does not speak up against her abuse and remains silent unless spoken to which can embody (when taken out of context) 1 Timothy 2:11. To be fair to Sansa though, she was in an extremely hostile environment in which there really is no other option for her but to submit. Her life was at stake and should she defy the king, she would likely suffer more abuse.

Then we have Arya Stark, the youngest daughter and complete opposite of Sansa. She is terrible at sewing and has no interest in playing with dolls. She enjoys archery and learns how to wield a sword. Her favorite stories aren't the ones where a princess is rescued, but rather of courageous maiden warriors who ride on dragons and save the day. Arya would definitely be considered an egalitarian. Her unwillingness to submit to men often times got her into trouble, but she persisted. Her character most coincides with our discussion on Phoebe and Junia. Though just a child, she exemplified traits of leadership and courage against a patriarchal society.

Though she has never met Daenarys, or even heard of her, my guess is that she'll be eager to follow her example or even serve in her army.

Tyrion and Disabilities

This guy is too cool.

Last week in class we talked rather extensively about disabilities and its implications within the Bible. For me, this was one of the more heated and active discussions in class and really had me wondering about the ethics surrounding this issue.

We watched a few short clips from documentaries and interviews of various people with disabilities and one in particular featured a dwarfed individual who, when born, was believed by the doctors to never have any kind of cognitive faculties or consciousnesses. Although his parents were hesitant, they kept the child and he grew to be a fully functioning intelligent individual. In his interview, he said that something that immediately struck me as Tyrion Lannister. He said that although his body could not do all that other "normal" people could, he still had his mind and that is what he focused on strengthening.

Now a bit on Tyrion Lannister. He is part of the prestigious Lannister family known for their riches, their looks, and their connection to royalty. His sister Cersei is the queen regent of the Seven Kingdoms and his brother (twin to Cersei) is the captain of the King's Guard and is known to be one of the greatest swordsman in all of the land. Their father, Lord Tywin Lannister, is extremely respected among all--and then there's Tyrion. He was born a dwarf. His birth also resulted in his mother's death who was loved by all, but especially loved by his father. Thus when he was born, he was considered monstrous and mangled. His father wanted nothing to do with him, but the last request of his beloved wife was to care for Tyrion, and so he did. He grew up knowing that he would never be a fearless knight or swordsman like his older brother, so instead he sharpened his wit. He consumed all books that came his way and learned of the histories behind the legends. Tyrion learned that the only way that he could survive in this harsh world would be to outsmart everyone else--and so he did. His lightning-quick wit and genuinely good intentions are what make him one of my personal favorite characters. Yes he desires power, but only to right the wrongs his family (particularly his nephew Joffrey) have created. Tyrion is a complex and refreshing character. He has been wronged by society and by his own family in some of the most severe ways, yet he continually hopes to better his world. I  am making him seem like some soft, sweet character--I know--but he definitely is not. He can be vulgar, his wit is acidic, and he often gives in to his more debase temptations--but that is what makes him such a great character. He is real and multi-dimensional. There are aspects of him that are far from positive, but in his core he is ultimately good and later proves to be an essential element in the development of the story.

Which leads me into our discussion on disabilities. There were several issues brought up in class and one of them was related to whether or not parents have the responsibility to terminate their pregnancy because their child has some kind of disability. The argument here is that their quality of life would be so poor that it would be irresponsible and cruel to allow them to live. Of course then the counter argument was how can we presume to know the quality of life that child may have? We then also asked if individuals with disabilities were also created in the image of God and what exactly makes us human. (Pretty tough stuff!) There were several other pressing issues mentioned which made for a fascinating discussion, but I think for the purpose of this post, I will stick with what I have mentioned above. Tyrion was considered a monster and nearly left for dead upon his birth and his father Tywin thought that he would never amount to anything, but was utterly wrong. The importance Tyrion has and the events he helped shape would not have happened if it wasn't for him. In a similar way, I think of the man mentioned earlier in this post who was believed to never have any rational thoughts or cognition in his life, but grew up to be a highly intelligent individual who touched other people's lives is a testament to the fact that we can not always know what kind of quality of life an individual may have. To assume so would also assume some kind of prophetic vision. I remember in that same video clip was a woman and her daughter with down-syndrome. At some point the mother says that she is blessed to have her daughter in her life and out of nowhere, her daughter says that she is blessed to just be in this world. It was beautiful and further the argument that we should not be the judges of one's quality of life.

We debated on whether or not people with severe disabilities were created in the image of God, and I think the answer is, yes. A classmate mentioned that she believed we all were created after the image of God, but that image was skewed after the fall and that disabilities may be a consequence of that. That may be, but that does not exclude them from the "coveted" list of who is a human being. Rather, it is just another manifestation of humanity as a whole. Furthermore when looked at in light of the New Testament, it seems that we are taught to love one another regardless of race, gender, disease or disability. Jesus himself dined with the outcasts of society. He loved them and so as Christians, is it not our duty to love our neighbor, even if that neighbor is someone whom we consider the outcast? Tyrion, through the love and mercy of his mother survived and grew up to be a character of great importance, without him the Seven Kingdoms would literally be in ruins. In a similar way, the people we saw in the video clips were individuals who have truly touched the lives of others and helped shape them in various ways. It is in those relationships that I think we find the ever elusive image of God.

Obeying Authority: King Joffery

Joffery Baratheon. Extreme dislike for this guy. Ugh.

I can't entirely remember when we last talked about authority and the Bible in class. I don't think it was explicitly discussed, but rather mentioned in either our gender roles or just war discussions. Regardless, I think it is a topic that deserves to be looked at in the realm of Game of Thrones.  

As per usual, I'll first start off this discussion with a brief biography of the character in question. Joffery Baratheon, son to the late King Robert Baratheon is heir to the throne of the Seven Kingdoms. He has only just reached his teen years in the book (although in the show he is about seventeen) and is maybe a shade or two away from being a complete sociopath. Growing up as a pampered prince, he didn't need to answer to anyone but the queen (who was generally happy to let him have his way). He learned to revel in the power he had over others and expected total obedience simply because it was his birth right. Take that sadistic teenager and place him on the throne and you have the perfect recipe for an utterly horrible tyrant. Once on the throne, he orders several people dead simply for his enjoyment. Oh, and did I mention he is also a complete coward? For a series that generally has excellent depth with its characters, Joffery is one of the few that's a little two dimensional. None the less, George R.R. Martin did an excellent job making a character that was so easy to hate. Regardless of his heinous crimes, he too still has a band of extremely loyal followers because, well, he is the king by birthright and by the will of the gods; thus, all his subjects are sworn to serve him. But when is it acceptable, if ever, to overthrow an unjust king?

The passage I want to analyze in conjunction with this particular part of Game of Thrones is Romans 13:1-5 in which Paul says, "let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience".

There is a similar doctrine in the world of Game of Thrones. The authority of the land is believed to be placed upon the throne by the gods thus making their rule absolute. To go against the king is to go against the gods themselves. What we see in the Bible is that it is important to listen to the authorities and follow them for they essentially seem to know whats good for society better than the common man. However, is it still God's will for us to follow authority that subverts individual prosperity and peace? No. I don't think that is the case in either Game of Thrones or the bible. Although we do not find any evidence towards this view point in this particular passage, we can see it throughout the entirety of Bible through the message of Jesus. He teaches peace, and treating all with love and dignity. A ruler that is not in conjunction with these teachings and one who, in Joffery's case, seems to wholly enjoy hurting others is not fit to rule. Furthermore, a king who orders his subject to go against the will of God is not one who will not be in power for very long. The Bible has had its fair share of tyrant kings, and each came to some kind of untimely doom. The same can then be applied to Joffery. Though there are several gods in the Seven Kingdoms, from what I have read, none seem to be in favor of injustice. A king or queen is meant to rule for the betterment of his or her people, not to fulfill their own selfish desires. Thus, when the people of the Seven Kingdoms realized what a terrible leader Joffery was, many of them decided to rebel and wage war on him and his tyranny. Like Jeroboam I, and Ahab, Joffery too eventually meets his end. 

Danaerys and Gender Roles

It's been some time since we discussed gender roles found within the Bible in class, but the conversation we had has stuck with me and immediately had me thinking of Danaerys once again.

As mentioned in the previous post, she was sold to Khal Drogo by her brother for an army. The beginning of her relationship with the Khal was one that you might expect--she was a young woman sold to a hard warrior who did not speak her language. She was afraid and alienated. However, through a series of events in which Daenarys shows her true strength, she gains the respect of her husband as well as the entirety of the Khalasar (the clan/tribe). In an extremely patriarchal society, this was practically unheard of. In being the Khaleesi (queen of the tribe), she was automatically given higher status than the women in the group, but not the men. The warriors of the Khalasar follow physical strength and power and one's prowess as a warrior, and since women were primarily caregivers, they fell much lower on the hierarchical scale. Danaerys however, was granted a great amount of power because the Khal loved and respected her. Although given a status of near equality to men, it was still given to her by the Khal and thus, after the rather tragic death of Drogo, many of the warriors in the Khalasar decide to leave--until Danaerys proves her strength. At the funeral pyre built to send Drogo into a Dothraki version of heaven, Danaerys proves that she has a strength like no other. With three petrified dragon eggs in her arms, she walks unafraid into the fire. Many watch in horror, expecting screams of agony but hear none. As the fire dies down, Danaerys rises from the ashes completely unharmed with three newly hatched dragon eggs draped across her body. It is here that she gains her first unfailingly loyal subjects because she displayed such great strength and bravery.

Danaerys's story is one of struggle and triumph. In the face of an extremely patriarchal society, Danaerys is able to rise above it all and eventually gain thousands of loyal followers. She was a woman and a leader, much like Junia and Phoebe were in the Bible. Our discussion on those two women was particularly interesting for me. When looking at the context through the lens of an egalitarian, it seems as though Junia and Phoebe were prominent women who had achieved leadership roles due to their personal merits. In Rom 16:7, Junia is named by Paul as an apostle of Jesus--a disciple of high rank, if you will. The very possibility of a woman holding such a high position in a society that, many have come to believe, did not allow women in leadership roles is astounding and can be likened directly to Danaerys's own journey. Both attained their level of leadership by displaying some kind of admirable virtue. For Danaerys, it was her bravery and the strength of her blood, for Junia--her faith and witnessing the resurrection of Christ. We also discussed Phoebe and the praise Paul had for her. From this perspective, Phoebe was a deacon of the church, a leader. She was also conceivably a benefactor who had greatly helped Paul's mission. Again, here is more evidence that a woman could have a place of power and though I am not sure exactly how she gained such a position, I am sure it had to happen through some kind of merit given that the society of that day was largely patriarchal and lines of succession passed to the eldest male. There was evidence of other women in prominent roles such as a prophetess, teachers, patrons, and fellow workers with Paul. Thus, like Phoebe, Junia, and the other known female leaders, Danaerys was able to rise above the patriarchal society that ruled and prove that she was capable of true leadership. 

Just War

In class on Monday we talked about the Christian perspective on just war. We specifically touched upon the view points of Yoder, Augustine and Neihbur and their ideas of violence with Yoder being the pacifist and condemning all war and Neihbur being the realist. For this post; however, we will focus on Augustine who is one of the greatest known proponents for just war.

In class we briefly discussed how Augustine's basis for his argument was founded on love. It was a somewhat difficult concept for me to understand; however, when we look at it through a parental sort of view, it makes a little more sense. A parent may use coercive means on a child in order to better them (think withholding a positive reinforcement in order to get a child to eat his/her vegetables). In the same way according to Augustine, war is at times necessary in order to bring about a greater good.

This is an ever present theme in the entirety of Game of Thrones and the A Song of Ice and Fire series. In fact, the series' underlying theme centers around several factions and individuals waging war against one another for the sake of their own "just" causes. One fights because he believes he is the rightful heir, another fights for the injustice done to his father, another fights because he believes that he is the only legitimate family member left of the previous king, and then there is Danaerys Targaryan.

Danaerys Targaryan is the last remaining heir of the royal Targaryan bloodline. They were the previous rulers of the Seven Kingdoms years past before they were brutally uprooted and nearly entirely wiped out.  The Targaryan house had ruled the Seven Kingdoms for centuries and were known to have the blood of the dragon run through their veins, meaning fire could not harm them. They were also dragon riders and tamers and their rein lasted so long because of this incredibly ability. This noble line, through generations of inbreeding, eventually lost their magical blood, and with that, their ability to tame dragons. Thus, the fall of the Targaryans ended with the Mad King Aerys II, Danaerys' father. She was just a child when the throne was taken and was forced to flee across the sea in order to escape death. She left with her older brother Viserys (who had seemingly gotten a fair share of madness from his father) and lived upon the hospitality of past allies. Her brother eventually dies a rather gruesome and (in a not so Christian opinion) deserved death making her the last of the Targaryan bloodline.

In the beginning, Danaerys had no real thoughts of taking back the kingdom. That was her brother's dream. All she wanted was to go home and after Viserys sold her to Khal Drogo (the warrior in the previous post), her only focus was on surviving*. Yet after he dies, and through various events Danaerys begins to understand that the blood of the dragon--believed to be lost--resides within her and that she alone has the power to bring dragons back from extinction and with them, bring peace and order back to the Seven Kingdoms. It is here that I believe Augustine and Danaerys draw parallels. To understand this, we should look to her nature.

Later known as the Mother of Dragons, Danaearys Targaryan is a young woman of compassion and strength. Her yearning for the throne does not stem from a need for glory, but rather out of love. She hears of the suffering of the people in the Seven Kingdoms and knows that diplomacy would never work; thus, she embarks on a long and bitter journey back home. She creates an army out of people who love her and believe in her cause. Those that follow her are treated with equality and respect, even if they don't believe they deserve it. Thus like Augustine believes, Danaerys sees that her only option to bring about justice is to wage war against the current king of the Seven Kingdoms. It is out of love and hope for long lasting peace that she vows to bring down the current king in a fury of, "fire and blood". She strives for the betterment of all and is willing to do so regardless of the danger and the inevitable bloodshed that lies ahead.


*She actually thrives and falls in love with the Khal and he with her. It was a rather surprisingly sweet and refreshing love story. 

Khal Drogo the Conqueror

Today we will be looking into the justification of murder and conquest found within the Bible and Game of Thrones. In the Old Testament, one of the areas that I have struggled with was the narrative of King David. Sure, we all know the David and Goliath story, but it's really what comes after that has  me grasping for some edge of understanding. In class we have discussed reading the Bible with charity--and I'm really going to try.

The picture you see here is HBO's adaptation of the character Khal Drogo, the leader of the largest Dothraki Khalasaar (something like a tribal group) across the Narrow sea. His band is a group of warriors, known for their courage, ferocity and unmatched skill on horseback. They wear their hairs in long braids to symbolize their strength and prowess. When a Dothraki warrior loses in battle, he is shamed by cutting off his braid--Khal Drogo has never lost. He has gained his respect the only way the Dothraki people can and that is by defeating every challenge that has confronted him. His Khalasaar is one of the largest (boasting nearly 100,000 warriors) because he has conquered and laid waist to countless villages that were in his way. He pillages, rapes, takes slaves, and utterly destroys those that are different from him; yet, in Game of Thrones he is a protagonist and something akin to a hero. Though his role is more of a secondary one, his story helps shape the life of an extremely important character within the entire narrative--Daenarys Targaryen, his young wife who is later to be known as the Mother of Dragons (more on her in the next post).

So there we have it. A conqueror, murderer and hero all in one--revered by his people and feared by everyone else. Immediately when I was trying to decide which character to delve into next for this blog, Khal Drogo and King David immediately popped into mind. In Book 1 of Chronicles, the story of David defeating the Ammonites was particularly...impressive. It is written that David himself, "killed seven thousand of their charioteers and forty thousand of their foot soldiers. He also killed Shophach the commander of the army" 1 Chron 19:18. A total of 47,000 soldiers were supposedly killed by David, 47,000. Now that is someone I think Khal Drogo would even fear. David's braid would probably rival Rapunzel's. I understand that this is probably a complete exaggeration, or rather a testament to David's army, not him (but with God backing you up, who knows?)--so I'm going to try to read this with charity. Was this a senseless killing? Was David simply trying to conquer those in his way like Khal Drogo would? No. All of this happened after David sent messengers to this Pagan king after his father died, as comfort and condolences and they were sent back to him in a shameful state. So he retaliated and a war ensued in which several tens of thousands died. Now I ask myself, what does this say about retaliation? Are we then allowed to retaliate when we are shamed by someone who is different from us? Again, I employ the idea of charitable reading. When looking at the entire metanarrative, maybe what this is trying to teach us is to accept the kindnesses given to us, even if it's from those that we may not agree with. Or maybe that if God's on your side...nah I won't even finish this thought because it's dangerous and I don't think that's where this story was trying to go.

**P.S. I guess I'm still struggling with this passage.**

Ned Stark's Honor

In retrospect, I probably should have made this post my first. When I was beginning to think about how I would organize this blog, it occurred to me that going by chapter would be a bit difficult in that each chapter tends to jump around from one character to the next. Thus, I'll focus on individual characters and their individual journeys throughout the books entirety.

I suppose an alternative title for this post could have been "Like Father, Like Son", because today we discuss Eddard Stark's  (Ned), the father of Jon Snow,his five legitimate children, Lord of Winterfell and warden of the North. He rules over his subjects with a stern, but fair justice and is known to be a man of great honor.Like his son Jon, he is called to serve his country; although, his calling is to become the next Hand of the King (which is the second most powerful figure in the Seven Kingdoms) and it comes directly from the King of the Seven Kingdoms himself--Robert Baratheon. To most, this is an honor that many would kill for (in a very literal sense);yet, for Ned, it is likened to a death sentence.

Kings Landing, the capitol of the Seven Kingdoms lies within the Southern lands where the winter is mild and the people have become complacent and corrupt. In the South, honor means little and the lust for power rests within the hearts of nearly all regardless of title or class. It is here that the previous Hand of the King died of a mysterious illness which later is revealed through Ned's investigations to be something of a far more sinister nature.

This is where the honorable Lord Stark must travel. He had a choice. Though the King would have been unhappy, Ned could have refused and been allowed to live out the rest of his life in the comfort of his cold, yet honest home of Winterfell; however, it is his honor that calls him to the dangers of the South. It is his duty that calls him to leave his home, his wife, his children (aside from his two daughters who go in hopes of finding suitable marriage partners) and his safety. Again, we see this idea of an individual sacrificing a great deal for his country. Like the disciples of Jesus, Ned left his family and his home in order to serve the many, knowing full well that he walked into treacherous territory.

In the end, this journey ultimately takes his life, yet what is most tragic about his death is that there were moments in which, had he forsaken his honor, he would have lived and perhaps would have been able to bring about true justice. It brings into question the concept of honor. In the Bible, honor seems to mean something close to, "to hold one in great esteem". For example, the well known, "honor thy father and mother" is easily understood--but what does honor mean in Game of Thrones and what does it mean today? For Ned Stark, honor encompassed a great deal of virtues which include truthfulness, trustworthiness and responsibility. These are all things we value today--yet do they make us honorable? I feel as if it does, but it's not a term that's tossed around as much today.

John Snow, a Disciple of the Realm

The Game of Thrones TV series has recently become a worldly phenomena. The gritty nature of the HBO exclusive, with its gore and intriguing plot lines has garnered the attention of millions. Though I love the show and was pleasantly surprised at how true to the book the first season was, I was personally brought into the world of Game of Thrones by the book series, which is called A Song of Ice and Fire (Game of Thrones is incidentally, just the first book within the series). I have always been a lover of fiction, particularly when any kind of fantasy was involved, and Game of Thrones happened to be my first real move away from young adult fantasy into a more mature genre. Needless to say, I was blown away (and possibly spoiled) by the heavy amount of political intrigue and the sheer number of complex and dynamic characters. For this post though, I'll focus on just one of the characters, and his journey throughout the first book.

John Snow is the bastard son of Eddard Stark, the Lord of Winterfell and warden of the North. John is a stout young man with a good heart and kind intentions, and one who gets along well with his five half-siblings (who are all Eddard Stark's legitimate children). He is treated equally among his brothers and sisters, but still always feels out of place, especially when in the presence of Catelyn Stark, Eddard's wife. Knowing that his inheritance will likely be nothing more than what he makes for himself, John chooses a life that is low in prestige, but high in honor--he becomes a member of the Night's Watch.

The Night's Watch is an organization of men who are sworn to protect the realm (the Seven Kingdoms). They have no allegiances to any Lord or King, have sworn off having a family or any relations with women, and have given up any claims to an inheritance. Their lives are spent on the Wall, a massive wall of ice seven hundred feet high and several miles long that was created to keep barbarians (known as Wildlings) and any other creatures out of the Seven Kingdoms. It is a place far to the north, where winter is the only season and monsters long since forgotten and left to myth are beginning to rise again. It is not a place many choose to go willingly. In fact, criminals who have committed crimes ranging from petty thievery to rape and murder are given the choice of death or the Wall, and a good amount of them choose death.

But this is where John decides to go, willingly and only at the age of fifteen. For him and many others, it is a place of great suffering, but also of redemption. It is here that I realized that John Snow's journey was not terribly different from the disciples of Jesus. In class a few days ago, I remember we talked about how to follow Jesus was to follow a path of suffering. They left behind everything--their family, their jobs, their homes--for one cause, to follow Jesus in order to spread God's word and better the world. In the same way, John Snow left everything behind knowing that he was leaving for a life filled with suffering and unknown terror for the sole purpose of protecting the Seven Kingdoms and making it a better place. Furthermore, the Wall was a place of redemption, and in some ways even forgiveness. The criminals, (or sinners), having chosen the Wall over death, are pardoned for their past transgressions and given the opportunity to regain their honor. When we look at the story of Jesus, the same thing can be said about those who choose to follow in his path. The sinners are redeemed and in a sense their honor is restored.