...explains entire American society?

Interesting, but not very insightful. Her comments would make no sense to someone who hasn't read the series, and are entirely redundant if you have.

Except for her analysis of Renly as "the perfect stereotype of an overconnected, underprepared European" ... which seems to me completely wrong.

I wonder if other Song of Ice and Fire readers feel the same way?

Sure the series has it's politics and that's the main draw for fans rather than the typical sword and dragon fantasy, but if you haven't read the series it really doesn't make any sense. It's certainly a stretch to compare a fantasy world of a kingdom ruled by an illegitmate king to the modern real world. I mean really comparing the U.S./Mexican border to wall in the north.

Certainly there are some security issues along the border area, but there is a legitimate government across the border, normal people are living out there everyday lives and there isn't some pending invasion of a mass horde drug cartel members that are going to wipe out civilization as we know it. I think the trend with using Harry potter and fantasy novels to talk about government and international relations issues are best left to a blog and not a legitimate magazine

Good article, but I feel like the author was reaching at some points, and the article suffered for it. Although this is FP magazine, not everything needs to be related to a 21st century issue. I think the IR and Political Theory in ASoIaF can stand on it's own, with out being used as sort of shoe-horned analogies.

The Wall vs. the US-Mexican border is one perfect example of this, as McGannonma mentions.

There is much that ASoIaF brings to the table in terms of political discussions; from where does political authority come? What makes an authority legitimate.

Lord Renly Baratheon discusses this in the first book. I don't have it on me, but it is when he is trying to convince Eddard Stark to support his claim for the throne. Eddard says that Stannis is the rightful king, as the next eldest brother, to which Renly scoffs. The realm won't have Stannis. Renly, in the tradition of the classical realist school of IR, argues that might makes right, and whoever can take the throne is worthy of it.

A similar theme is brought up by Varys in a discussion with Tyrion Lannister. Varys poses a riddle:

"In a room sit three great men, a king, a priest, and a rich man with his gold. Between them stands a sellsword, a little man of common birth and no great mind. Each of the great ones bids him slay the other two. 'Do it,' says the king, 'for I am your lawful ruler.' 'Do it,' says the priest, 'for I command you in the names of the gods.' 'Do it,' says the rich man, 'and all this gold shall be yours.' So tell me- who lives and who dies?"

Tyrion's reply is, basically, that it depends on the sellsword. Thus, this riddle, like Renly, argues that authority legitimizes itself by being in power. Bloodlines and religion and money don't matter, what matters is who is holding the sword, to Varys.

Though there are mentions of soft-power in the series, and I think Rosenberg got that right. Petyr 'Littlefinger' Baelish epitomizes soft power in the series, and it is he who says that, “A harp is as dangerous as a sword, in the right hands.”

All in all, an interesting idea for an article, but I think Rosenberg does herself, and Martin, a disservice by attempting to remake the series into a bunch of allegories. It isn't, and doesn't pretend to be, anything like that.

A Dance of Dragon is much like American Politics...much ado about nothing! Huge expectations and piss poor results are what this latest book delivered on and that is what American politics has done over the last 30 years. It funny that the one bright spot was those few years where in the Clinton Administration, the US was able to dig itself out of debt, and actually deliver on the promise of the American Dream. Maybe we need a return of an imperial savior!

I would love to comment on the article, but since I haven't read the fifth book yet and since there are supposed to be spoilers inside, I'll come back at a later time. But just briefly, the books are a fantastic read - also because the stuff that goes on can be so much related to modern politics and geo-politics.

Actually, what struck me about the fantasy works was how different that world is from our own. Westeros is modeled on feudal England (Ivanhoe being the inspiration for the series, the icewall is Hadrian's wall), and the most important thing for people and their rulers in whom their parents were. This is why when a province or kingdom is conquered in the series the whole family gets slaughtered, and why we get such agonizing from those whom are born bastards. It's a fascinating place, but one from which, thankfully, we have evolved.

And, in answer to the question you pose as to what will unify the country -- it will be someone with the proper birth, someone with the blood of the dragon.

A pretty interesting article... "A Dance with Dragons" is among the top searches on the web these days and a lot of people are writing endless reviews about it. You managed to make a few points, but the similarities are hard to define. Especially when comparing fantasy with real life. And those people who haven't read the series would probably feel "lost" reading this article. This story would have been better for a blog, however I had fun reading it. Like you said, the game of thrones is far from over...

Especially when comparing fantasy with real life. And those people who haven't read the series would probably feel "lost" reading this article. This story would have been better for a blog, however I had fun reading it. Seo paslaugos Especially when comparing fantasy with real life. And those people who haven't read the series would probably feel "lost" reading this article. This story would have been better for a blog, however I had fun reading it.

I did not like the book much. Characters were flat and they did not seem medieval enough. Their motivations were 21 century American motivations projected onto a pseudo-medieval world. On the other hand, we in the States also have rather one-dimensional images of other countries and cultures. And tend to think that people share our American motivations…

So yes, decent work of fantasy and no, not a good guide on contemporary or medieval politics. Reading any serious work on history will reveal a lot more of the medieval state of mind. It was fundamentally different from our own. Try "Distant Mirror" by Anne Freemantle…

Am I the only person to identify the irony of an article advocating a fictional medeival fantasy book to better understand American politics?
Personally I find many of these books very one dimensional, and prefer reading fiction on the future, rather than a fantasy past.
Hence reading Iain M Banks and Alastair Reynolds is far more illuminating on modern realpolitiks.

I like the way FP lightens the tone with photo essays and cultural references (eg the Harry Potter piece) and I generally sing FP's praises for doing so.

However the thing about Harry Potter is that just about everyone has seen the film or read the book or otherwise knows the plot. Whilst with the photo essays the excellent portrait photography tells its own story even if it is a subject you do not know about. Alas Games of Thrones is not so popular and if you have not read the book you cannot fully understand the article.

However having said that I now intend to buy one of Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire novels as they sound pretty good.

Today the myth about the communist paradise, the myth about the communist horn of plenty, the myth about the classless society, the myth about the abolition of the state and its dying away in communist societies, in one word, all the tales of primitive Marxist abstract communism must be forgotten. We cannot be Marxists any more.The communist movement must take off its child's shoes once and forever. A radically new and positive communist program-me based on the principles of uncompromising political pragmatism must be created. Now! It is time for a new scientific communist teaching able to supersede Marxism, to replace, to negate, to refute everything that is dead in gianna michaelsand, at the same time, to preserve everything that is eternally alive and living in his teaching. There is no doubt whatsoever about it: Marxism has not said its last word yet. What is good in it is being developed and will always be developed.