Game of Thrones: The Execution of Eddard Stark (WARNING SPOILERS)

In the first series of Game of Thrones (2011) a beloved character is created in Eddard (Ned) Stark, who is Lord of Winterfell and later in the series becomes Hand of the King, a prestigious yet life threatening role.

 At the end of the first series Ned Stark is executed for treason, to the people of Kings Landing they believe this to be a justified killing, as Ned himself admits to treason in the hope of having a lesser sentence, a plot that fails as the new King who is seen as evil and somewhat mad, decides that he will not listen to the advice of women, nor the voice of the people in the North, he does what he wants (not what he thinks is best) and orders the execution, without hesitation.

When considering whether or not the killing is justified, in the audience's opinion it is not, the audience are not lead to love the new king, they see him as a spoilt teenager who has extremely sadistic tendencies, where as Ned is a loyal and loving family man, who is shown to not be perfect but will take responsibility for his actions and at times responsibility for the actions of others. But this violent act is one that tests my personal boundaries, not for the graphic nature of his death, more the fact that I did not want his character to be killed off from the series. Throughout the series I agreed with all of his decisions and I was rooting for him, wanting him to be successful in his aims, and I also wanted him to be able to return to Winterfell and be reunited with is family.

It pushes my boundaries, as many times when a brutal killing takes place,  there is just violence and this act has no impact on the narrative or the story, however in the death of Ned Stark the death does have an impact on the narrative, it is not there to add more gore (in the same respect gore is needed to illustrate the hideousness of execution) but to spark fury in the hearts of those who live in the North, as Ned Stark's death causes the people of the north lead by his son Rob Stark to rebel against the Capital.

In television when an unjustified act occurs I believe that it instills audiences to have a gut reaction, they then cheer for the rebellion in search of justice for their fallen "friend" but then as the rebellion continues it becomes more a search for revenge and the need to control those around them, and then it creates the next question, as to whether or not the killings that occur then are justified. A thousand mens lives in payment for the one life lost, does not seem fair. And then to link it back, is it enough to allow an unjustified killing to go unpunished in order to maintain order and save the lives of innocent people, or is it more important to prove a gruesome point in order to obtain revenge.