The Curse of Game of Thrones
Why Comparing "The Wheel of Time" to "Game of Thrones" is wrong-headed, and why it could doom other fantasy series.
Once it became clear that Game of Thrones was going to be a success for HBO, it became a certainty that other networks and studios would want their own version of the same, with other studios and streamers eagerly seeking out popular fantasy series that they could adapt. In short order, it began to seem as if a golden age of fantasy television was dawning, with major properties like The Witcher, Shadow and Bone, The Wheel of Time, and numerous others getting optioned.
Unfortunately, Game of Thrones has proven to be a bit of a double-edged sword when it comes to the slate of fantasy series that have been released in its wake. Obviously, it’s understandable that critics would want to compare any new fantasy series to HBO’s titan, considering the fact that the latter almost single-handedly managed to bring fantasy back into the mainstream to a degree not seen since Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings at the beginning of the century. However, the inevitable comparisons between any new fantasy series and its HBO counterpart often obscure more than they reveal.
Take, for example, the nauseatingly numerous comparisons that emerged in the wake of the release of The Wheel of Time, comparing Amazon’s new series to its predecessor. “Could the ‘Wheel of Time’ be the next ‘Game of Thrones’?” asked The New York Post. USA Today wondered the same thing. Of course, it didn’t help that Amazon's Jeff Bezos was pretty explicit about what he wanted, which was, of course, his own version of Game of Thrones.
As anyone who has read both series knows, those comparisons were flawed at the root, in large part because The Wheel of Time and A Song of Ice and Fire (the title of the series upon which Game of Thrones is based), take radically different approaches to the genre of fantasy itself. Wheel is largely a celebration of the high fantasy style made most successful by Tolkien and his many imitators, though with the notable addition of larger, more substantial roles for women. A Song of Ice and Fire, meanwhile, aims to subvert the conventions of the genre, replacing high fantasy’s signature optimism and moral clarity with a world in which there are no true heroes and in which there may be no salvation of the world at all.
In many ways, the screen adaptations of the two series have carried on their source material’s engagement with the conventions of the genre. From its very first episode, The Wheel of Time is high fantasy incarnate, both narratively and aesthetically. Narratively, it focuses on the traditional chosen one, the Dragon, whose fate it is to either defeat the Dark One or to defeat him. Aesthetically, it is a much cleaner, brighter, and optimistic place to spend an hour, largely lacking the gritty, grimy aesthetic that was one of Thrones’ most notable attributes. For many, in fact, the fact that the series jettisoned so many of the trappings of grimdark fantasy was a fundamental part of its appeal; one can only watch so many gritty, dimly-lit battle scenes, after all.
The differences between the two go beyond that, however. While Game of Thrones largely throws up its hands when it comes to the question of goodness, The Wheel of Time wants us to firmly believe in the young people from the Two Rivers. Yes, they confront many terrible things–including the butchering of many of their fellow townspeople by the malignant servants of the Dark One–but neither they nor we are led to believe that the good guys are just as bad or morally compromised as the villains. In fact, we’re led to cheer for them, even as we also have to watch the tremendous sacrifices they make in the fight against the ultimate evil.
When, therefore, critics attempt to fit The Wheel of Time into the Game of Thrones mold, they betray a fundamental (and perhaps deliberate) misreading of the genre. All fantasy stories, after all, have a different approach and manner of engagement with the trappings, and so it makes sense that Wheel would be far less cynical than its HBO counterpart. However, if we’ve learned anything from the last decade of television, it’s that cynicism sells (though this might be changing, as the success of series like Abbott Elementary, Schitt’s Creek, and Ted Lasso make clear). Thus, it seems to me that the critical apathy toward The Wheel of Time might stem just as much from critics’ lack of appreciation for what it’s doing as it does from the series’ own failings.
Some of this can also be attributed, no doubt, to the fact that television critics are, well, critics of television, and so they tend to evaluate series, regardless of genre, based on the medium. There are, to be sure, television critics who also happen to be fantasy fans, but by and large they tend to judge TV series as, well, TV. What made Game of Thrones such a surprising success was that, in the words of Kelly West, it’s fantasy for people who don’t like fantasy. (Anecdotal evidence would seem to bear this out. A good friend of mine is not a fan of fantasy, but she was a devout fan of Thrones). When, therefore, they see a new fantasy show appear in their medium, their natural impulse is to judge it accordingly and to hold it up to the standard established by Thrones’ success, no matter how much such a comparison misunderstands the difference between the two series in question.
It will no doubt be several years yet before the cycle of fantasy series reaches its peak, given that The Wheel of Time has already been renewed a second (and potentially a third) season, Amazon is set to premiere The Rings of Power in September, The Witcher has already been renewed for a third season (and a prequel spinoff is set to premiere later this year), and HBO has its own Game of Thrones prequel also airing this year.