The moral universe of Game of Thrones, as seen by Elizabeth Moon and Christianity Today.

George R. R. Martin is perhaps the best-selling author of fantastic literature of the last 25 years. His most popular work is a series, still incomplete, entitled “A Song of Ice and Fire.” That series is the basis for the popular HBO TV series, “Game of Thrones.” Martin has won several awards for his writing.

I try to deal with important works of fantastic literature in this blog, although I haven’t tried to touch on  vampire literature. Some years ago, I decided not to cover Martin’s work. My reason was that it didn’t affirm anything. Although there were sympathetic characters, their fate was often terrible, and there were some extremely evil characters, who seemed to be unpunished. (I’m sure that the series hasn’t suffered because I’m not following it!)

Two recent articles, not by me, bear on this matter.

The first is an excellent blog post by Elizabeth Moon, who has won awards in fantastic literature herself. Although it doesn’t directly consider Martin's creation, what triggered Moon’s post was a review of Martin’s work. Moon points out that there is a difference between moral complexity and moral ambiguity, and that although, say, Tolkien’s characters experienced moral complexity, what should have been done was clear. (See here for a discussion of Galadriel, for example.) But, says Moon, we are coming to the point where there's a lot of moral ambiguity:

“Moral ambiguity requires that there be no general good and bad–a chaotic, or amoral, universe–a universe in which the concepts of good and evil are absent, immaterial, and have no effect on characters’ motivation.”

As indicated above, I haven’t read all of Martin’s series, but Moon has succinctly put my unease about the series into words.

A recent article in Christianity Today points out the same thing I saw in my earlier post -- nothing is affirmed. (I claim no great wisdom here. It’s easy to get Martin’s world view, or at least that part of it.)

As the article puts it: “For Martin, realistic means his characters are complex, ‘gray,’ and morally ambiguous. There are no heroes in Martin’s books like there are in The Lord of the Rings. There is no echo of Calvin's description of human beings as ‘glorious ruins’ — broken, but still able to bear the Image of God. Martin's image focuses on the ruin, not the glory.”

Thanks for reading. Don’t read George R. R. Martin, or watch the series. Or, if you do, do so carefully.

The Morality of Richard Dawkins

I have read In Defence of the Soul, by Keith Ward. He argues that a completely materialistic view of life makes no sense, and points out that some of those who have argued for such a view are inconsistent:
When the destroyers of the soul have done their work, they usually turn back from the moral consequences of their theories, and end with a rather lame and totally unconvincing attempt to reinstate a modified version of traditional morality. We have seen this in Jacques Monod, in Erich Fromm and Karl Marx in slightly different ways. A particularly clear example can be found on the last page of Richard Dawkins' very entertaining book, The Selfish Gene. Having argued for 214 pages that human life is totally governed by the genes, 'unconscious, blind, replicators', he now says, in the last sentence or two, 'It is possible that yet another unique quality of man is a capacity for genuine disinterested, true altruism. I hope so, but I am not going to argue the case one way or another . . .' This is suitably tentative, but his last sentence reads: 'We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.'* The questions this raises are obvious. How can rational, responsible, altruistic, purposive, conscious conduct be accounted for on such a materialist theory? Why should he hope that altruism is possible, unless he really does have a basic sense of moral obligation? And isn't it odd to see morality as a rebellion against our true natures, instead of as a fulfilment of their potentialities? Keith Ward, In Defence of the Soul. Oxford, UK: Oneworld Publications, 1998. p. 161.
*cites Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (Oxford University Press, 1976) p. 215.

Thanks for reading.

George MacDonald on the universality of moral law

"There is in your house a door, one step through which carries me into a world very much another than this."
"A better?"
"Not throughout; but so much another that most of its physical, and many of its mental laws are different from those of this world. As for moral laws, they must everywhere be fundamentally the same." Lilith (public domain, 1895) Chapter VIII. Adam, also known as the Raven, speaking to Mr. Vane.

Thanks for reading. Read MacDonald.

Cazaril, from Bujold's The Curse of Chalion, on a proper royal court

"Does this court . . ." Betriz frowned, clearly trying to frame unfamiliar thoughts, "Does this court have a center?"
Cazaril vented a wary sigh. "A well-conducted court always has someone in moral authority. . . . (Lois McMaster Bujold, The Curse of Chalion, New York: HarperCollins, 2001, page 137.)

By "court," here, Cazaril means the people around the ruler, not a court with a judge.

Thanks for reading.

*   *   *   *   *

I have gotten several spam comments on this post, so I'm no longer allowing comments on it.

Christopher Paolini, author of Eragon, is an agnostic

In a previous post, I considered the moral fabric of the young adult fantastic novel, Eragon, by Christopher Paolini. (I also provided a couple of links to documents about the concept of a world view, or worldview.) The movie version of this book comes out this month. In this post, I consider Paolini's moral fabric, or at least that of his characters, as shown in the sequel, Eldest: Inheritance, Book Two. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005) The bottom line is that Paolini appears to be an agnostic, and/or a naturalist. Here's a key passage:

"Master, it struck me last night that either you nor the hundreds of elven scrolls I've read have mentioned your religion. What do elves believe?"
A long sigh was Oromis's first answer. Then: "We believe that the world behaves according to certain inviolable rules and that, by persistent effort, we can discover those rules and use them to predict events when circumstances repeat."
Eragon blinked. That did not tell him what he wanted to know. "But who, or what, do you worship?"
"Nothing."
"You worship the concept of nothing?"
"No, Eragon. We do not worship at all."
The thought was so alien, it took Eragon several moments to grasp what Oromis meant. The villagers of Carvahall lacked a single overriding doctrine, but they did share a collection of superstitions and rituals, most of which concerned warding off bad luck. During the course of his training, it had dawned upon Eragon that many of the phenomena that the villagers attributed to supernatural sources were in fact natural processes, such as when he learned in his meditations that maggots hatched from fly eggs instead of spontaneously arising from the dirt, as he had thought before. (p. 540-541)

Oromis is Eragon's teacher, a wise elf. Eragon discovers that, not only do the elves not worship, but that his own people are apparently confused or misled about their own beliefs. (As indicated in the previous post, dwarves do have a religion, although outsiders can see problems with it.) I am not certain that Oromis is speaking for Paolini, but he seems to be.

Oromis continues ". . . I cannot prove that gods do not exist. Nor can I prove that the world and everything in it was not created by an entity or entities in the distant past. But I can tell you that in the millennia we elves have studied nature, we have never witnessed an instance where the rules that govern the world have been broken. That is, we have never seen a miracle. Many events have defied our ability to explain, but we are convinced that we failed [new page] because we are still woefully ignorant about the universe and not because a deity altered the workings of nature." (p. 542-3) This seems a classic agnostic statement.

Eragon's dragon tells him that dragons don't believe in any gods, either, and claims that believing in such makes you vulnerable, because it means you are deceived. (p. 544)

There is a definite sense of right and wrong in the books. Oromis says ". . . power without moral direction is the most dangerous force in the world. . . ." p. 273.

When Eragon suggests that the Urgals, another race of beings, don't deserve any moral consideration, Oromis tells him, in no uncertain terms, that they do. (p. 375)

Eragon, himself, is shocked when Oromis allows him to unwittingly kill ants, a baby mouse, and some small plants, in a demonstration of what happens when you carelessly take magical energy from other living things. Oromis tells Eragon that the demonstration was necessary, so that Eragon would not do anything like that again, except at great need. (p. 540)

Where does this sense of right and wrong come from? Where do the "rules that govern the world" come from? Paolini doesn't say. His world view, and/or that of his elves, doesn't seem to be well developed.

Does this apparent agnostic world view mean that Christians, or others who are not agnostic, should not see the movie, or read the books? I wouldn't say so. (For a link to a more extensive discussion of this sort of question, see this post.) There are probably redeeming features in the film. I certainly hope so. I expect to see loyalty, heroism, and unselfishness portrayed as good qualities. I hope that the artistry is good. I hope that it measures up reasonably well against Philippians 4:8: Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. (ESV)

Thanks for reading.

Christopher Paolini's moral fabric: Eragon

Christopher Paolini recently turned 23 years of age. He is the author of Eragon and Eldest, two big, and pretty good, books of fantasy. Eragon: Inheritance, Book One (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003) will soon be released as a movie.

I wouldn't say that Paolini has written ground-breaking fantasy, but few people have -- it's well-crafted, and a good read. In a lot of ways, he reads like a cross between J. R. R. Tolkien and Ursula K. Le Guin -- the elves are human-like, but immortal, and mostly hidden from humans, and have their own language, an old, magical language; there are dwarves, living underground, and unfriendly to other races; magic has rules, and must be taught; great care must be exercised in performing magic. There are some original elements -- dragons can't speak aloud, for example, and there are at least two intelligent species that are unique to Paolini's books. Religion, and worship, are described. Tolkien didn't do that.

I don't have any idea how the plot of the movie corresponds with that of the book, and, even if I did, I wouldn't give away any details. I prefer to consider the moral fabric of Paolini's books.

Every author has a world view. Here's an apparently secular take on what a world view is. Here's a definitely Christian take on the same topic (using worldview, not world view). The two are similar. They both say that a world view answers such questions as where the universe came from, what (if anything) is the difference between right and wrong, and what happens to humans when they die. It is also true that many people don't have a consistent world view -- they haven't carefully worked out answers to these questions. I don't know what Paolini's world view is, but I have gotten some hints from reading his books. This post presents some of what I learned about Paolini from Eragon. It is also true, of course, that an author's characters may have a different world view than the author, herself. Eragon is fiction, after all.

There is a definite sense of right and wrong. The Empire is evil, and Eragon's step-father is good.

Some of the characters question how bad things can be allowed to happen and challenge whatever gods may exist, because they have happened. (p. 91, 131)

". . . This magic -- for it is magic -- has rules like the rest of the world. If you break the rules, the penalty is death, without exception. Your deeds are limited by your strength, the words you know, and your imagination." (p. 139) Brom, Eragon's first teacher, also makes clear, and Eragon experiences at various points, that magic is not practiced without a cost -- at least some temporary tiredness, at most, death. It takes one's strength to use magic.

There are evil spirits in the world, that can possess humans, using them for their own ends. (p. 144, 437)

". . . Keep in mind that many people have died for their beliefs; it's actually quite common. The real courage is in living and suffering for what you believe." (p. 197) Brom speaking.

At least some religions are evil. On p. 247-8, one such, requiring human sacrifice, and spending too many resources on trivial matters, is described.

In the chapter "A Clash of Wills" (pp. 347 - 353) Eragon is very upset at Murtagh, who decapitates a slaver during a battle, while he is lying on the ground, seriously injured. Eragon thinks that the man should have had a chance, even though slavery is monstrous.

Eldest is more explicit on what I take to be Paolini's world view. I posted on that book here.

Thanks for reading!