Keywords

1 Introduction

Eleven years ago, in 2011, the American pay television network Home Box Office (HBO) premiered Game of Thrones, a TV adaption of the award-winning novels A Song of Ice and Fire by George R. R. Martin. Not even David Benioff and D. B. Weiss, the TV series creators of GoT, could have imagined the tremendous success of the series. GoT won the most Emmy awards ever in TV history, became part of modern-day pop-culture and entered into our daily lives.

Also academia discovered this pop-cultural phenomenon as a new and genuine field of research with every discipline having its own “take on what lessons can be drawn from the story” (Carpenter 2019). Hence, no wonder that Political Science and especially its sub-discipline of International Relations ever since have dealt extensively with GoT, because, as the creators of the series explained, “the show is about politics” (Olesker 2020, p. 47).

This inevitably raises the question, what impact does Game of Thrones have on International Relations as a discipline and how can IR contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the dynamics in Westeros (GoT’s main stage of developments)?

Until now, three strands of scholarship have given answers to these questions (Carpenter 2016). The first and most dominant strand emphasizes the pedagogical function of GoT. The TV series as well as the novels help International Relations scholars as teachers to present IR theories in a better and more enjoyable way. The second strand focuses on the interpretative function of the series. Authors in this strand argue that GoT, as a pop-cultural phenomenon, must be understood as a mirror of today’s society and, thus, helps us to better understand the real-world and its dynamics. Finally, authors in third strand seek to understand the explanatory function of GoT, that is, what real-world effects these fantasy stories have on political processes.

All these contributions have taught us much about the nexus of Game of Thrones, IR and world politics. However, they miss one crucial point: Game of Thrones not only helps IR scholars to better teach their profession (pedagogical function), or influences key decision makers in their way of thinking about the real-world and facilitate the framing of transnational issues by advocacy groups (explanatory function). Science-fiction and fantasy series like GoT also have an educational function. They convey key concepts of IR to a broader audience and teach them what causes conflict and war, and how to maintain peace and stability without the need of academics as intermediaries.

Whereas most academics fail in transferring their valuable knowledge to society, George R. R. Martin with his novels A Song of Ice and Fire and especially David Benioff and D. B. Weiss as creators of the TV series Games of Thrones have an unparalleled success in communicating core IR insights to the broader public. Although they are not representative of the closed circle of IR academia, they are more efficient in making central concepts and insights of our profession known to society, than most of us. Hence, these authors have a lasting societal relevance because they comprehensively contribute to a greater political agency of citizens (Senn and Eder 2018, p. 5).

To substantiate this thesis, the article will proceed as follows: first, I will review the state of research on the nexus between GoT, IR and world politics in more detail. Second, I will follow the pedagogical strand of scholarship and retell GoT from an IR perspective. I will then show in a third step that the books and series not only have an impact on elites or can be used by these elites to influence the broader public, but that they also shape the thinking of people without intermediaries (i.e., the educational function). Finally, I will conclude the article by summarizing my argument.

2 State of Research

Research on the nexus of Game of Thrones, International Relations and world politics runs along three strands of scholarship. The first and most dominant strand emphasizes the pedagogical function of GoT. According to this approach, pop-culture in general and GoT in particular serve as mechanisms through which we are able to teach IR theories in a more enjoyable and more effective way (Clapton and Shepherd 2017, p. 5; Boaz 2020, p. 240). The use of metaphors and analogies from fantasy and science-fiction novels and series resonates more to students that are increasingly out of touch with historical developments (Neumann and Nexon 2006; Carpenter 2016, p. 54; Milkoreit 2019, p. 63; Olesker 2020, p. 49). Dyson (2015, p. vii) even argues that IR “has developed a language and analytical approach that is intimidating to newcomers”. Thus, GoT helps us to overcome this hurdle and to reach out to newcomers. Others go even further and argue that the integration of such pop-cultural phenomena into teaching produces “higher grades, retention, and satisfaction among students” (Young et al. 2018, p. 362).

Closely linked to this strand are studies that conceive fantasy and science-fiction as data, because they “offer alternative reality data points that would enrich our notoriously data-poor discipline” (Dyson 2015, p. ix). Because we can only refer to a limited number of conflicts and cases of alliance building in world history, GoT increases the number of cases for theoretical analysis (Clapton and Shepherd 2017, p. 9; Boaz 2020, p. 240). Hence, fiction becomes data that is treated like randomly generated data-points for statistical analysis (although it is not random data!).

Most studies in this pedagogical strand conceive Westeros as a typical realist world (Muno 2019, p. 135; Boaz 2020, p. 251), where due to the lack of a monopoly of violence (Larsson and Lundström 2020, p. 120) and the dynamics of Realpolitik (Dyson 2015, p. 30) zero-sum thinking dominates (Drezner 2011). However, GoT is not only a realist theory’s paradise of power politics and survival. It also prominently features core liberal ideas such as rule-based behavior, the role of trust and the benefit of cooperation, all issues mainly embodied and brought forward by the main characters from the House of Stark (Saideman 2013; Dyson 2015, p. 23; Boaz 2020, p. 251).

Not only Realism and Liberalism feature prominently in GoT. Also constructivist issues like the role of norms (Carpenter 2012; Dyson 2015, p. 79; Olesker 2020, pp. 47, 57), identities (Dyson 2015, p. 69; Olesker 2020, p. 47), the social construction of power (Drezner 2011; Carpenter 2012; Dyson 2015, p. 32; Olesker 2020, p. 53) or the role of strategic narratives in foreign policy formulation (Carpenter 2019) are themes that IR scholars have detected in GoT and used for pedagogical purposes.

Besides referring to GoT to teach students the most prominent theoretical IR schools, the series also have become a means of conveying the basic concepts of humanitarian intervention and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) (Dyson 2015, p. 82; Boaz 2020, p. 251). Daenerys Targaryen and her politics of freeing enslaved people, unleashing the power of her dragons on her enemies and by doing so, fighting for “the greater good”, seems to be the perfect example to illustrate these concepts and their possible pitfalls. Furthermore, some authors argue that the story line of the white walkers and their “promise” of an eternal winter serves as an ideal analogy for discussing collective goods problems (Olesker 2020, p. 50–51) like climate change (Carpenter 2012; Olesker 2020, p. 251).

To sum up the scholarship in this strand, the GoT universe provides IR scholars in their role as teachers a variety of themes that serve a pedagogical purpose, facilitating the transfer of knowledge in a much more comprehensible and more enjoyable way than wars and alliance building dynamics of the 19th century can do.

A second strand of scholarship focuses on the interpretative dimension of fantasy and science-fiction. According to this strand, GoT is like a mirror of today’s society. It reveals a view of the real-world that often may not be comprehensible at first sight. Hence, it helps us to better understand contemporary phenomena and dynamics, and makes it easier to estimate their consequences by referring to alternative worlds (Carpenter 2016, p. 55; Clapton and Shepherd 2017, p. 9; Milkoreit 2019, p. 63; Olesker 2020, p. 49). It is therefore not surprising that authors in this strand link GoT to sociocritical analyses of sexism and racism (Askey 2018) or gender roles and norms (Carpenter 2012; Boaz 2020, p. 247; DiGioia 2020).

Authors in the third and final strand of scholarship primarily focus on the explanatory function of fantasy and science-fiction. They argue that series and novels like GoT have a causal or constitutive effect and that they have a real-world impact at the end of the day (Neumann and Nexon 2006; Carpenter 2016, p. 5; Olesker 2020, p. 49). Pop-culture in general has the potential to become a driver of change (Grayson et al. 2009, p. 160 f.) and hence political actors and activists can instrumentalize the story for political mobilization (Milkoreit 2019).

The insights, that fantasy and science-fiction can make a difference and that GoT does have real-world effects, are important results that considerably extend our knowledge on the GoT, International Relations and world politics nexus. Nevertheless, these studies miss one important, yet crucial aspect: Game of Thrones not only serves as a vehicle for political activists or politicians to rally support for their political concerns. As I will argue on the following pages, GoT also has the potential to educate the broader public on three key issues of International Relations, that is (1) the need for order as a prerequisite for peace and stability, (2) the centrality of decision-makers and political leadership in world politics, and (3) the complexity of political processes that are never issues of black and white, but more resemble the many shades of gray.

To substantiate these arguments, I will first join the pedagogical strand and retell Game of Thrones from an IR perspective along these three topics. I will then argue why GoT also has an educational function in the sense that it teaches people these IR lessons without the need of IR scholars/teachers as intermediaries, and why its creators—Martin as well as Benioff and Weiss—therefore succeed in having lasting societal relevance by contributing to a greater political agency of citizens (Senn and Eder 2018, p. 5).

3 Life in Westeros: “nasty, brutish and short”

The underlying cause for the events, that keep readers and viewers of Game of Thrones thrilled, is basically a clash of cultures (Dyson 2015, p. 73) over the Iron Throne between the Houses Stark and Lannister, both representing two dominant schools of IR theory—Liberalism and Realism. As Dyson (2015, p. 69) notes, this clash is primarily shaped by the origins and identities of these dynasties, an argument that is central to constructivist approaches in IR (see, for example, Katzenstein 1996).

On the one side, House Stark, descendants of the First Men (the indigenous people of Westeros), have a close relationship to ecological issues and historical traditions. As Wardens of the North, they feel responsible for bridging the preferences of diverse actors from all parts of Westeros, they think in longer time-horizons (also expressed in one of their main leitmotifs “The North Remembers!”) and hence uphold values such as loyalty and trust (Dyson 2015, p. 70), the core liberal ingredients for long-term cooperation.

On the other side, House Lannister, descendants of the Andals, the conqueror of Westeros that marginalized the First Men, represent the new and wealthy establishment. The family history is characterized by a tremendous economic and financial rise, making the house the most wealthy of all Westerosi dynasties. The Lannisters have learned that only overwhelming material power (i.e., financial resources coupled with military capabilities) guarantees their dominant position. Tywin Lannister, head of House Lannister and the main architect of its rise, summarizes this mindset in the quote “[a] lion doesn’t concern himself with the opinion of sheep” (Benioff and Weiss 2011), referencing Thucydides’ famous quote in the Melian Dialogue: “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”.

These two dynasties, representatives of opposing organizing principles in world politics, are on course of coalition in a fragile political order, held together on the one side by King Robert I Baratheon, the seventeenth ruler of the Seven Kingdoms, and on the other side by the memories of the vicious rule of Aerys Targaryen, the Mad King. King Robert I is the guarantor of a moderate form of world government, a loose form of federalism. The seven kingdoms have a maximum of sovereignty in domestic and international affairs, but are still subject to the Iron Throne and its order. This order builds upon an alliance system that is primarily based on kinship and friendship (Larsson and Lundström 2020, p. 120). King Robert is married to Cersei of House Lannister; named Jon Arryn, the head of House Arryn, to his Hand (a position similar to a prime minister); and conceives Eddard Stark, the head of House Stark, as his closest friend. Hence, Robert Baratheon succeeds in uniting the most powerful houses of the Realm for the sake of a stable and peaceful Kingdom.

This short period of calm suddenly collapses with the deaths (and as we will discover later, the murders) of Jon Arryn and King Robert I soon after. A struggle erupts over the question of succession. House Lannister claims the throne for Joffrey, apparent son of King Robert and Queen Cersei. House Baratheon, in contrast, rightfully questions the legitimacy of King Robert’s paternity of his children, but is split over the question whether Robert’s younger brothers Stannis or Renly are the legitimate heirs to the throne. Eddard Stark, recently appointed to the King’s Hand by Robert I after the death of John Arryn, seeks to mediate between the houses but does not grasp for power for himself. This apparently noble gesture will cost him his head at the end of season one and an unflattering characterization by Drezner (2011) as a “moron of first class”. By now, the Realm has transformed from a moderate form of world government to an anarchic system, characterized by a lack of a centralized monopoly of power (a classic feature of an anarchic system). However, an anarchic system as such does not necessarily lead to chaos and a bellum omnium contra omnes, as long as some basic rules shape the behavior of actors in the system (Bull 2002). But these organizing principles cease to exist with the deaths of King Robert I and Eddard Stark.

This brings me to the first lesson GoT teaches its audience: without some basic form of order in the system that shapes the expectations of its actors, peace and stability will be threatened by rising and/or unsatisfied powers, and conflict will erupt. Westeros now turns into a classical realist Hobbesian world, with no ordering principles, where human nature is not constrained by rules and norms. It is this human nature, “[t]he root of all evil” (Waltz 2001, p. 3), and its “the lust for power” (Morgenthau 1974, p. 9) that transforms Westeros “into an arena of evil where individuals have no choice but to partake selfishness even if they otherwise seek to comport with the moral obligation to be unselfish toward others” (Tellis 2006, p. 609). Jorah Mormont, one of the closest and most loyal followers and advisers of Daenerys Targaryen, sums this situation best with the quote, “[t]here’s a beast in every man and it stirs when you put a sword in his hand” (Benioff and Weiss 2013c).

In this context, and for the time being, House Stark is doomed to fail. Its liberal orientation, focusing on long-term cooperation and mutual trust, does not fit into this world. The Starks fail to establish a new order that would benefit their orientation because they totally misunderstand the motives of other actors in the system to uphold existing alliances or to enter new ones. House Stark has to pay a high price for the failure to understand that Westerosi politics has fundamentally changed. The episode of the Red Wedding—the slaughtering of key figures of House Stark and its allies by the House of Frey and the House of Bolton—illustrates this miscalculation brilliantly.

The starting point for this tragedy is the attempt of Catelyn Stark (the widow of Eddard Stark and mother to Robert (Robb Stark), the King of the North) to strengthen the Northern alliance system by marrying Robert Stark to one of Walder Frey’s daughters. Robb refuses to enter this marriage and instead secretly marries Talisa, a battlefield medic. House Frey perceives this refusal as an insult, that further nourishes its discontent with the current status quo as a minor house in the Realm. As Lebow (2006) argues, such perceived humiliations of human beings directly affect their drive for spirit (i.e., one of the essential drives for human action), diminish their drive for reason and foster the drive for appetite (the urge for power) and finally result in “anger and resistance” (Lebow 2006, p. 436).

At first glance, the Freys pretend to be satisfied with the offer of Edmure Tully, Robb’s uncle, to marry one of Walder Frey’s daughters instead. However, the Starks have to discover that this wedding is only a pretense to bring key figures of House Stark and its allies to the Twins, where they walk right into a trap and get murdered by the Freys and the Boltons, former close allies and vassals of the Starks. This underlines the argument of Schweller (1994) that powers, dissatisfied with the current status quo, do not balance against rising powers (in this case House Lannister) but bandwagon with them. They are like jackals that follow lions, hoping to receive the leave from the table, as soon as the sheep are slaughtered.

And both, Freys and Boltons, massively profit from their bandwagoning behavior. Tywin Lannister appoints Walder Frey to Lord of Riverrun and the Freys become the main vassals in the Riverlands. The Boltons, on the other hand, rise to the Wardens of the North and become the new Lords of Winterfell. This underlines the fact that the Starks and their vision of long-term cooperation, trust and loyalty, are outdated to the current situation. The Lannisters, on the other side, and especially Tywin Lannister, prevail in this struggle and temporarily rise to unrivaled power. Tywin symbolizes the role model of a realist actor that does not need loyal friends but that pursues its interests viciously and allies with other powers as it suits him. Cersei Lannister represents a similar character and lets viewers know, “[w]hen you play the game of thrones, you win or you die” (Benioff and Weiss 2011). She thinks in zero-sum categories and strives, similar to offensive realists (Mearsheimer 2003), for the absolute dominance of her House in the Realm.

The fact that both, Tywin and Cersei, will finally lose this game and die (Tywin at the end of season four and Cersei in the final season during the Battle of King’s Landing) underlines that (material) power alone cannot guarantee success in the long term. Power, as Morgenthau (2006, p. 12) argues, must always be accompanied by prudence and moral. However, many characters, especially those from House Lannister, lack moral (Kovács 2020). House Lannister misses the fact that “the gains that power achieves without justice cannot endure” (Carpenter 2012). Power always requires a “social purpose” (Drezner 2011). They do not utilize their hegemonic power to create a new order that cements their status quo and thereby reduces the incentives for other actors to balance against their dominant position, like liberal institutionalism would advise (Ikenberry 2001). Instead, with their focus on power as an end in itself and not as a means for establishing order, they lay the foundation for the counter-alliance comprising the Houses Targaryen, Stark, Arryn, Martell, Highgarden, and even members of House Lannister, and the Dothraki and Unsullied armies, that leads to the final demise of House Lannister.

This brings me to the second lesson that Game of Thrones teaches us: the importance of decisionmakers for world politics or to put it in another way, “It’s the individual, stupid!” Following the argument of Byman and Pollack (2001), individuals and their personal characteristics play a decisive role in world politics, the more fluid circumstance are. Crucial events in world history can always be traced back to individual decision-makers and their actions. This insight is obviously applicable to Game of Thrones too (Drezner 2013; Saideman 2013). Petyr Baelish (Littlefinger), the Master of the Coin, confirms this observation nicely with the quote: “Chaos isn’t a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some, are given a chance to climb. They refuse, they cling to the Realm or the gods or love. Illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is” (Benioff and Weiss 2013a). The missing order and the uncertainty of developments in Westeros favor those characters that are skillful leaders, and allows them to break out of structures and norms, usually constraining their agency. But leaders are not born as leaders, they become one. Hence, it is not surprising that GoT not only gives voice to the subaltern (Larsson and Lundström 2020, p. 123), but allows characters such as eunuchs, orphans, “bastards”, “imps” and women to rise and become powerful.

This rise of atypical leaders is closely linked to another theme in GoT, that is the social construction of power. Varys, the Master of Whisperers, summarizes this concept in the following quote: “Power resides where men believe it resides; it’s a trick, a shadow on the wall, and a very small man can cast a very large shadow” (Benioff and Weiss 2013b). Power, to endure, needs to be socially founded (Carpenter 2012) and carried by the people, an actor seeks to govern. The rise of Daenerys Targaryen from a banned and hunted former princess to the beloved liberator of enslaved cities and conqueror of Westeros, is one of the many examples in GoT, how individual traits and skills can transform outsiders to successful leaders. Missandei, a former slave and then advisor to the new queen, puts this in simple terms: “All of us who came with her from Essos, we believe in her. She’s not our queen because she’s the daughter of some king we never knew. She’s the queen we chose” (Benioff and Weiss 2017).

The case of Daenerys Targaryen also shows that individuals not only can make it to the top and become respected leaders. They are also responsible for their own downfall. At the climax of her power, and clearly marked by various cruel and immoral decisions during this journey, Daenerys has lost touch with her subjects, not listening to her trusted advisors and unchecked by any institutional constraints. Hence, her death by the hands of Jon Snow is inevitable.

The secret hero of this epos, however, comes definitely from House Lannister–Tyrion the “imp”. Carpenter (2019) even conceives him as a game changer, because it is him, who convinces Jon Snow in the final season to take responsibility, to murder the tyrant Daenerys, and to seize power and claim the Iron Throne for himself. Tyrion is depicted as the most skillful political actor in GoT. He “understands power, its uses, and its complexities, in a way that few others in Martin’s epic do. He recognizes that brute force is a limited tool, and knowledge and intelligence are often more useful than the sword” (Dyson 2015, p. 32). Furthermore, it is him who realizes the power of language in politics. As Carpenter (2019) argues, Tyrion’s overall language and arguments “draw… on a deeper critical constructivism that emphasizes the productive power of political narrative.” GoT thereby demonstrates that winning the battle in the discursive political arena is often more important than being in command of sheer material power. And again, it is the skills of individuals and their willingness to utilize these skills that changes world politics.

The third and final lesson for readers and viewers of GoT, is the fact that world politics is complex and, as representatives of foreign policy analysis would argue, multifactorial (Hudson 2005). Every development has more than one cause, and there is no such thing as unambiguous good or evil. For example Jamie Lannister, depicted in the first season as the disloyal kingslayer, the incestuous lover of his own sister and as a ruthless executor, turns at the end of the story to an almost admirable noble knight, fighting for the greater good on the side of the winners. Or Daenerys Targaryen, worshiped and beloved from the beginning but finally rejected as a mad tyrant. Game of Thrones forces us to empathize with the characters that are not depicted in simple black and white, but in the many shades of gray. Sewer (2011) points to this when he compares GoT to The Lord of the Rings:

Tolkien’s monsters are literally monsters—his orcs, uruk-hai, and ringwraiths lack genuine free will, let alone the potential for individual moral redemption. Most of Martin’s monsters are people—and just when you’ve decided to hate them, he writes a chapter from their perspective, forcing you to consider their point of view.

GoT reminds us that we should not succumb to the temptation of and content ourselves with simple and mono-causal explanations. In the analysis of world politics we should seek to empathize with all sides, and we should not take sides prematurely.

As I have argued in this section, Game of Thrones teaches its consumers a variety of key insights of International Relations research without clearly naming these concepts. Hence, it is not surprising, that several authors attribute this epos a pedagogical as well as explanatory function. In the following section, I will demonstrate that we must also praise GoT for its educational function.

4 George R. R. Martin, David Benioff and D. B. Weiss as the Great Educators?

Having in mind the three rules I outlined in the section before, I will now show that Game of Thrones not only has a pedagogical and an explanatory function (besides the interpretative function), in the sense that teachers or activists exploit these stories for conveying lessons to students and influencing citizens in a certain direction. GoT also exhibits an educational function that affects people without the recourse to intermediaries.

Research on science-fiction and fantasy has shown that we are able to observe something like a “scifi-literacy effect” (Young and Carpenter 2018, p. 562), which means that these genres influence their consumers in real-world. Stories like GoT condition the way ordinary human beings (Furman and Musgrave 2017; Olesker 2020, p. 49) and political decision-makers (Grayson et al. 2009, p. 117) think. By doing so, these stories have a constitutive effect on the behavior of these individuals. As experimental studies (Young and Carpenter 2018) as well as surveys after certain episodes of GoT have demonstrated (Carpenter 2019), we can scientifically measure these effects. As Carpenter (2019) underlines, American public opinion not only turned massively against Daenerys Targaryen and boosted the reputation of Jon Snow after the former’s brutal seizure of King’s landing in the final season. It also exhibited the preferences of the American public for just wars and the protection of civilians in conflicts.

Again, this shaping of people’s thinking happens without the doings of third parties. As Boaz (2020, p. 241) argues, “[w]riters… can often offer their audiences inroads to truths inaccessible in other public realms.” Fantasy and science fiction “expose people to nontraditional ways of imagining” (Askey 2018, p. 65) and thereby shape their conceptions of real-world. Kidd and Castano (2013, p. 377) add that the polyphonic composition of these stories “prompts readers [and viewers, FE] to enter a vibrant discourse with the author and her character”. Thus, consumers of GoT are forced to engage with a variety of opinions and perspectives.

George R. R. Martin as the author of the A Song of Ice and Fire novels and David Benioff and D. B. Weiss as creators of the Game of Thrones series thereby achieve something, political scientists and International Relations scholars in general often fail to do. They convey core themes of world politics to an audience without needing academia to translate these concepts to them. Furthermore, they not only shape the way individuals think but also have an effect on their actions along these lessons I have presented in the section before. In sum, we can conceive Martin, Benioff and Weiss as “great educators” (Rusk and Scotland 1979) because they have a lasting impact on society, and hence are more successful in teaching international relations to a broader audience as the average IR scholar ever will be.

5 Conclusion

In this article I asked what impact Game of Thrones has on International Relations as a discipline and how IR can contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the dynamics in Westeros? Besides its interpretative and explanatory function, GoT primarily serves two purposes: a pedagogical and an educational. Concerning the former, GoT allows scholars of IR to teach their subject in a more enjoyable and effective way to students, that are increasingly unaware of more traditional IR examples such as 19th century wars and coalition dynamics. Following this line of reasoning, GoT resembles a classical clash of cultures between two opposing ordering principles in international affairs, that is Realism (embodied by the House of Lannister) and Liberalism (embodied by the House of Stark). Teachers of IR can refer to the story to underline three central insights of the discipline: (1) the need for order as a prerequisite for peace and stability, (2) the centrality of decision-makers and political leadership in world politics, and (3) the complexity of political processes that are never issues of black and white, but more resemble the many shades of gray.

Concerning the educational function, I argued that both the GoT books as well as the series have an additional and until now overlooked purpose: these stories are able to convey the core insights mentioned before to a broader audience without the need of academics as intermediaries. Therefore, I conceive George R.R. Martin as well as David Benioff and D. B. Weiss as great educators because they have a lasting impact on society with their stories. They teach people how to successfully behave in international affairs, what causes conflicts and wars, and what guarantees peace and stability over the long run. Hence, they are more successful in conveying key insights to a broader audience than traditional scholars are.

From an academic’s perspective, it is worth considering to integrate Game of Thrones or similar science fiction novels into teaching. Moreover, these stories should inspire how we seek to convey key insights of our profession to a broader audience that is somehow immune to our over-professionalized language and abstract concepts. Overall, GoT underlines that fact that there exists a close nexus between International Relations and pop-cultural phenomena, and that we should exploit this nexus more seriously for teaching and third mission.