Winter is coming.

That’s what we’ve heard for two seasons of “Game of Thrones” (2011). This doesn’t only mean the weather, it alludes to hardship and darkness, and it looks as though it’s finally arrived in season three.

The critically acclaimed show returned last Sunday and has drawn comparisons to other fantasy sagas, like the “Lord of the Rings” (2001).

Though the two are similar in many regards — aside from a medieval world with dragons, dark magic and the Sean Bean connection — “Game of Thrones” has intriguing twists and a complicated plot that is more relevant to contemporary society.

“Lord of the Rings” earned every Academy Award it received, but its plot is a simple bipartisan conflict. The divisions are crystal clear: free people vs. Sauron, good vs. evil. Characters pick a side with Saruman being the only traitor – and he’s not even relevant after the second movie.

The greatness of “Lord of the Rings” lies in the good guys’ struggle to destroy evil on Middle Earth, and Peter Jackson’s storytelling is brilliant. But nobody’s rooting for the orcs. It’s easy for the audience to pick the good side, and I doubt anyone expected Frodo to fail and evil to triumph.

“Game of Thrones” is infinitely more complex, and this intricacy makes the show phenomenal.

After King Robert Baratheon dies, havoc ensues as the most powerful families of Westeros compete for the throne. Honor and life are mutually exclusive. Loyalties are skewed and allegiances shift along with the balance of power.

Overall, the Starks are the good family and the Lannisters are evil. But even though they fight each other, their ambitions vary: The Lannisters seek to rule the seven kingdoms while the Starks desire independence for theirs. These diverging interests contrast with the parallel goals in “Lord of the Rings,” in which one side is trying to ascertain the ring and the other to destroy it.

Furthermore, in each family, certain characters make it impossible to root for one side entirely. Tyrion Lannister, for instance, serves his evil family, but attempts to bring some decency to his cruel nephew’s regime. This is like a reasonable orc trying to convince Sauron to use diplomacy.

Essentially, no (living) character and no group is entirely good or evil, a detail which sets “Game of Thrones” apart from “Lord of the Rings.”

Not only does the show keep you guessing, but it’s actually relevant to current social issues.

Stanis and Renly Baratheon vied for the throne in season two. The former, a great military leader, is the older brother and arguably the rightful successor. But he commands no loyalty. The latter is widely supported and loved by his people. But he cannot justifiably jump his older brother in the line of succession. Whether a leader should be chosen based on lineage or merit is at the heart of the Sunni-Shi’a strife within Islam.

Additionally, in season two, Renly had a queen, but secretly loved her brother. This incorporates the issue of society accepting homosexuality.

Jaime Lannister’s story provides yet another moral issue: Are you required to uphold promises, even if you know in your heart that doing so betrays what you know is right?

Other themes include feminism, embodied by Lady Brienne, while the struggle for identity, parental acceptance and a sense of belonging are represented by Jon Snow and Theon Greyjoy.

“Lord of the Rings” is an allegory for resisting industrialization in England, as the industrialized orcs who destroy the countryside are defeated by the quaint, agrarian society. This doesn’t resonate quite as effectively in today’s world. “Game of Thrones” is a fantasy, yet its motifs apply to real people and further enhance the show’s quality.

Winter is coming in “Game of Thrones,” and what’s going to happen next is about as clear as the sky in the middle of a snowstorm – and that’s what makes it great.

James O’Hare is a senior history and political science major. His column appears weekly. He loves cheeseburgers. He can be reached at [email protected].

Published on April 2, 2013 at 2:10 am