A ‘Game’ of high stakes and emotions
Chris Barton’s take on “Game of Thrones” [“‘Thrones’ Struggles to the Finish,” May 11] is much more rational than Meredith Blake’s romantic contribution to “Who wins the Iron Throne?” [April 14]. Cersei wins the Iron Throne? Give me a break.
To understand the logic underlying “Game of Thrones” it would help to read J.R.R. Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings” — all four of the books, as well as “The Silmarillion” (the story of the creation of the universe and Middle-earth). George R.R. Martin was inspired by those works while writing “A Song of Ice and Fire.” Barton is on the right track in identifying power as the real enemy. Jon Snow [now Aegon Targaryen], like Aragorn, knows this instinctually and wants no part of it. Daenerys, like Boromir, thinks the bearer can use the ring’s power to do good. The last thing Aragorn wanted was to be a king, because he didn’t have an ego, but fate has a way of forcing us into our designated roles (whether we like it or not). Now use that logic to predict what happens in the last episode of “Game of Thrones.”
I think that Chris Barton’s column on “Game of Thrones” is troubled by several weaknesses.
Sure, I can understand that there’s a certain anticlimactic letdown in the White Walkers’ sudden demise, but that says to me that the writers have always had another ending to the tale they were telling than what Chris Barton thought it had been. Has he never heard of “The Red Herring?”
Episode 5 left me feeling disappointed, unsatisfied; was I alone?