i saw an article about house of the dragon earlier that described it as nihilistic and i think ânihilismâ has become one of those words the fandom uses so much itâs basically turned into a bumper sticker.
something sad happens. nihilism.
a good person dies. nihilism.
characters make terrible decisions and then have to live with the consequences. somehow, also nihilism.
iâve just never read grrm that way.
if asoiaf were actually nihilistic, thereâd be no point in characters like ned, davos, brienne, sam, or dunk existing ( just to name a few) in the first place. they arenât there to prove that goodness is pointless. theyâre there to ask whether goodness is still worth choosing when it comes with a cost. and that people do!
thatâs fundamentally a very different question!
ned dies because of the sort of man he is, but the books spend the next several thousand pages showing that his choices mattered. not because they saved him, but because they shaped the people he left behind.
the same goes for davos. for brienne. for dunk. none of them are rewarded in the way fantasy usually rewards its heroes or good guys. sometimes, actually, pretty much always, theyâre punished for trying to do the right thing.
but grrm never implores us to think they were fools.
if anything, he infers and the opposite.
iâve always thought the point of asoiaf is that goodness isnât easy. it isnât safe. it isnât guaranteed to change the world. but it still matters.
i donât think thatâs nihilism.i think thatâs hope and goodness refusing to take the easy route it often does in other fantasy stories.
it just underlines that the house of the dragon reporters and writers really donât get it, at least thatâs what i think.