But there is one matter that is rather strange. That is, George RR Martin’s depiction of chivalric honor. In A Game of Thrones, there are three main characters that push honor to the forefront of their believes: Catelyn Stark, Eddard Stark and Sansa Stark. However, the last two seem to have a more idealized view of this, with Sansa actually displaying it as a highly idealized part of her childish dreams and naivety.

While Catelyn has a more liberal view of honor, Eddard has a more strict vision that is tied to … well … nothing. In fact, whenever he displays his honor, it is justified by the laws of the Kingdoms and the established order. Sometimes he sees the injustice but he never takes it upon himself to declare that something is wrong, instead he leaves the responsibility on the shoulders of men that are obviously incapable (Robert or Stannis Baratheon), simply because it is the custom of the land. While people like Varys, Littlefinger or even Renly have a more pragmatic approach, Eddard binds himself to what he calls honor, but is it really that?

A similar case we can see in two other instances, the movie Kingdom of Heaven and in the book, Lord of the Rings.  In Kingdom of Heaven, the protagonist refuses to marry the king’s daughter simply because this would lead to the death of another man. By saving himself, his soul and his honor, he practically condemns  tens of thousands of people to death by forcing a war and displacing hundreds of thousands. Eventually, he realizes that honor means to do his duty as a knight and save the people and protect the helpless. He does so by yielding, conquering his pride and seeing the justice of the end result.

In the fantasy novels of Lord of the Rings, the king of Rohan and Aragorn have different opinions but following the same honorable goal: the duty of leadership to care for all the people who depend on that leadership. The author acknowledges this by avoiding the disaster.

But in A Game of Thrones, Eddard blindly follows the law, even though he sees war and death at the horizon. It is hard to empathize with his death when one realizes he was about to condemn hundreds of thousands of people across the Seven Kingdoms to death, to protect his honor.

On the other hand, was Littlefinger an opportunist? Sure, but he was one who thrived on scheming, not one necessarily hungry for power. He needed peace and people around him, he needed people to be safe in order to manipulate them, not aware and on guard due to war. Therefore he chose the truly treacherous Lannisters simply because that would’ve avoided a war of attrition between equals, after Eddard refused his insurance. Sure, in the end his calculations proved wrong.

Was Varys a coward? In a way, but what good would it do to speak out on the things he knew? Like in the famous Romanian contest “you know and what good does that do for you?”, what could he have done with the knowledge? Take it to King Robert? The same king who raised three children who weren’t his. Who was so blind, inept and thoroughly incapable. Who spent his time with whores and hating a couple of children hiding on another continent.

Lastly, Renly was the actual sensible one. He saw the danger and beckoned Eddard to do nothing else but enforce the King’s own will. I was surprised to learn that in the end Eddard himself was surprised that Renly ran after Eddard refused to enforce the will. What exactly did Eddard think, that Renly would stick around to applaud Cersei instead of going to reinforce his troops?

I can’t say I see the honor Eddard spoke of. As it proved to be the case in the end, it wasn’t a matter of backstabbing, killing, betraying or scheming against anyone. It was simply a matter of following his friend’s (and King at the same time) will and dying wish. It wasn’t like he would deprive the inept Jeoffrey of the throne, just prevent him from letting his mother rule in his stead. Like Renly put it, use the time to educate Jeoffrey into a real leader.

In the end, Eddard chose his principles and twisted sense of honor, letting everyone else die. In my opinion, his honor as a lord of the North should’ve been related to his duty, his kingdom, family and duty to the united Seven Kingdom and all the people who looked on him for leadership, but he chose himself over them.

What would you choose from the list? I have noticed Iain M Banks, with 5 books in the list. This is one author I never touched, much to my shame. He’s not the only one I skipped, but the sheer number of books considered is quite overwhelming.

Childhood’s End is an obvious choice that if adapted today by a skilled director it would make an amazing experience. Zelazny’s The Chronicles of Amber is a damn amazing book also. Anne McCaffrey’s legendary world of Pern is present with its best book: Dragonriders of Pern. Of course, Ender’s Game is one of my childhood’s favorites and I would love to see a miniseries. Asimov’s Foundation is there, predictably, as another tough cookie to touch. But then again if the Dune miniseries came out a decent movie, why wouldn’t the first part of the Foundation?

Gibson’s Neuromancer is there, as is Zelazny’s Lord of Light. Of course, Niven is here with his Ringworld and Protector. Philip K Dick couldn’t be missed (with The Man in the High Castle, definitely worth it).

But someone out there deserves a harsh poking. Sure, maybe the highlights fall on this Banks fellow, but is he a cosmic deity or something that the gets 5 books in the list and Ursula K Le Guin doesn’t even get her Dispossed?