Allow me to take you back to, April 2011, back to the first season of HBO’s Game of
Thrones. The season that introduced us to world of Westeros, and to the Starks of Winterfell.
Although from the very start it was already apparent that Game of Thrones wouldn’t be
your typical PG13 fantasy affair, not much else seemed particularly out of convention,
we had our main protagonist in Ned Stark, our antagonists in the Lannisters, and a murder
mystery plot that would undoubtedly be solved and brought to light by our hero, until this
happened… In the blink of an eye the story was subverted,
famously giving the finger to traditional storytelling in favor of a more subversive,
gritty, and morally ambiguous narrative in which death could seemingly come for any character
at any given time… It’s also one of the reasons why, seven
seasons later, it still feels like it’s impossible to say how exactly the story will
come to an end, and who will ultimately be the one to rule Westeros?
But how true is this sentiment, really? I would argue that for all its apparent subversion,
at its core the narrative has never really strayed all that far from traditional epic
fantasy storytelling to begin with. In a way it’s as if Martin and the showrunners have
always been telling two separate stories. The subversive low fantasy story has dominated
most of the narrative, manifesting itself in the morally grey struggle for the Iron
Throne between countless nuanced and flawed characters. But as this ensemble of characters
has gradually been thinned out as we’re nearing the climax of the story, the subversive
narrative has slowly but surely given room for the larger narrative to rise to the foreground.
This is the archetypal high fantasy narrative in which our main protagonists are clearly
defined and in which the central conflict focuses on an existential moral struggle between
the forces of good and evil. And even though it has only just now come to the forefront,
it’s a narrative that has been at the core of the story since the very beginning, having
been centered around one character in particular, Jon Snow. And it’s exactly when we focus
our lens on his individual journey, that we can retrace just how traditional the larger
narrative has always been, and how it may very well reveal why Jon Snow is destined
to win the Game of Thrones… But before we examine Jon’s journey and
why he’s destined to become the ruler of Westeros, we first have to take a closer look
at the archetype of the King, In their book King, Warrior, Magician, Lover:
Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine, psycho-analyst and mythologist
Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette observe that the archetypal King has two active functions:
he orders and brings stability to the world, and he acts as the central force of generativity,
fertility and blessing in his kingdom. Here we can see the stories of the God of the old
Testament, slaying Leviathan, the serpent in the sea.
And that of the Babylonian god Marduk fighting the forces of chaos in the form of the dragon
Tiamat and her demon army, slaying her, and creating the ordered world from her body.
The King lives according to a divine ordering principle, which he then spreads across his
realm in the form of laws. If he does so effectively his kingdom flourishes and breeds fertility,
but if he fails to do so it declines and returns to a state of conflict and chaos. A new King
will then have to arise to renew the land and to set the cosmos in its proper place.
Here we can see the legend of King Arthur or the Biblical story of the nobody musician
David, who ends up restoring the Kingdom of Israel.
In modern popular culture we see this same pattern of renewal played out in the stories
of Luke Skywalker in Star Wars, Simba in the Lion King and more recently T’Challa in
Black Panther. We’re introduced to a would-be king living or forced into exile, on the edge
of his world, away from his true identity. In the meantime, his realm flounders and is
often thrown into chaos under the reign of a false or tyrannical ruler. He is then tasked
to go through several tribulations in order to rediscover the power of his inner king,
to walk the path of divine order and virtue, to bind the fragmented parts of his realm
together and to overcome the chaotic flood that threatens to wipe it from existence entirely.
And finally, to renew the land and to take his place as the rightful king at the center
of his realm. The story of Aragorn in The Lord of the Rings
is perhaps the most succinct example of this pattern, which also just happens to be the
story most closely related to Game of Thrones, having acted as a huge inspiration for Martin
and serving as the blueprint for how he intends to bring his own story to its logical conclusion…
And it’s when we lay Jon’s journey next to that of Aragorn that it becomes clear just
how closely they’re bound together, revealing the extent to which Jon is following in the
same pattern. For starters, both characters are connected
to a family who once ruled the realm. Aragorn is a direct descendant of Isildur and Jon
is a Targaryen. In both cases one of their ancestors went crazy with a lust for ultimate
power and perished as a direct result of that, effectively ending the line of succession.
Aragorn starts his journey as a Ranger of the North, an outcast going by the fake name
of Stryder, working in the shadows and on the edge of the world, defending the realm
from the chaos of the outside. Jon Snow on his turn is identified as a bastard, a nobody
who based on that reality decides to join the Night’s Watch, another band of rangers
consisting of outcasts tasked with defending the realm from the chaotic forces that roam
north of the wall, another symbol for the edge of the world.
Both characters are effectively in symbolic exile, one choosing not to take on his true
identity, the other unaware of his actual heritage, starting their journeys as far removed
from their destinies as possible. But as their journeys progress they gradually
move into alignment with their inner king, both in their generative actions towards others,
as well as in their selfless courage and taking on of increasing responsibility…
But in order to mature mentally, they also need to let part of who they are go, something
needs to die in order for a renewal to take place…
They must then set out to bind even the most fragmented parts of their broken realms into
cohesion. Not for power or for personal gain, but for the survival of the good in their
worlds, because it is their personal moral obligation and duty to do so, because they
are the only ones with the power to save their realms from annihilation…
The next and final step is for the exiled king to face and defeat the forces of chaos
in a final struggle, and to proclaim his renewed kingdom at the center of his realm. What remains
for Jon to do is to discover and own his real identity, to take on final responsibility
as the king of his realm. Only then is there a possibility that Westeros can be saved from
the army of the dead. But of course, one could just as well argue
that this same pattern is also found in the journey of Deanarys Targaryan. Just like Jon
and Arargon, Dany starts her journey in exile at the edge of the world, as far away from
her identity as possible. But as her confidence gradually increases
we can see her go through multiple cycles of death and rebirth, showcasing how she’s
gradually coming into alignment with her inner Queen.
Like Jon, her arc focuses heavily on the gaining of power and responsibility, freeing those
who are suffering under tyranny and binding those willing to fight under her cause.
So why is Dany still not the right candidate to fulfill the King’s journey?
As stated in Moore’s and Gillette’s book, the king is the force that stabilizes and
centers, the force that brings calm, that honors and promotes. In Daenarys this centeredness
is already disturbed by the mere fact that she is a product of inappropriate union, born
out of incest, the very thing that was likely at the cause for the Targaryan downfall to
begin with. Perhaps as a direct consequence of this we
also see the gradual development of a growing sense of grandiosity in her being, as depicted
in the ever-increasing list of titles she takes on… In contrast to the humble and
selfless Jon, who takes on the role of King because it’s what he needs to do to save
the realm, Dany fully identifies with her role as Queen and is showing signs of its
archetypal shadow side, the tyrant... The tyrant is often self-absorbed, fears competition
and is out of alignment with his center. He is sensitive towards criticism, hiding a deeply
rooted sense of rage...
If Jon kills out of necessity only, Dany seems to revel in the agony of her enemies…
And if the centered King primarily blesses, promotes and forgives his people in order
to lift them up and bind them together, the tyrant seeks to forcefully integrate them
under his rule and for his personal gain… Unlike Deanarys, it is Jon who has more consistently
followed along the King’s journey. But whether he will actually wear a crown on his head
when all is said and done is still to be seen. But if not literally, it seems nonetheless
logical, if not inevitable that he’ll be the main catalyst in the defeat of the White
Walkers and the source of renewal for his kingdom. It is Jon who will at the very least
be the symbolic king because he is on the proper path, his journey has brought him to
the final point of alignment with his true identity, the force that will give him the
power to overcome the coming flood and the wisdom to trust and promote others to help
him revitalize the world. He is the one and perhaps only character who could bring some
semblance of meaning and hope to a confused world and a story dominated by meaningless
pain and suffering. He embodies that primal force that erupts from within the darkness
with a sense of divine calm, clarity and warmth. He is the realm’s dream of a spring in the
cold winds
of winter…