Addressing Stark bias: Part 3

[The Marquis de Leech]

A continuation of a couple of epic and interesting threads that unfortunately got a bit side-tracked at various points:

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/116002-addressing-stark-bias/

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/116128-addressing-stark-bias-part-2/

Here's a repost of my most recent thoughts on this issue. We ended up hitting a brick wall of alleged Lannister bias in the last incarnation, which I think became a problem: bona fide attempts at objectivity got sidetracked because people were keen on demonstrating how Lannisters are more villainous. The real issue, however, is people taking the undoubted sympathy we are supposed to have for the Starks as protagonists, and running with it in such a way that it undermines the reasons why anyone supports the Starks at all. It becomes a case of, if Starks do something, that's OK, because they're Starks, whereas if someone else does the same thing, they are either stupid or evil.

--

I don't think you see Lannister bias as such. More generally, you see attempts at drawing a Stark/Lannister moral equivalence, which because it doesn't come across as overtly pro-Stark, gets seen as pro-Lannister.

Being pro-Stark is fine. I get that (notwithstanding the certain political issues I raised earlier) we're generally supposed to cheer for Ned, and his kids. Problem is that where do you actually draw the line? Is it possible to be pro-Stark, and think that the idea of Northern Independence was utterly foolish? I'd suggest that, yes, it is. Is it similarly possible to be pro-Stark and realise that Theon wasn't betraying anyone by capturing Winterfell (that is, Theon's actions were simply a cumulative consequence of what had happened before?). Again, I would argue that, yes, it is. Wanting our protagonists to do well doesn't mean blindly whitewashing everything they do, and it doesn't mean demonising everyone who is working for another team.

Then there's the issue that the Starks are favoured because they are morally superior to the Lannisters. Perhaps they are. Problem is, you can't cite moral superiority on one hand, and then use that as an excuse for advocating Frey genocide or whatever. Either you can argue "oh, it's standard practice in a tough world" OR you can take the moral high ground. But you can't do both. And that's I think why you see the "Stark/Lannister equivalence" posters coming across as more hostile to the Starks than they really are. Because it isn't the Starks who are the problem. It's where blind Starkism ends up that is the problem.

[TheSpymaster]

Theon is a turncloak....in the eyes of starks and the northmen....his action might be justified in the eyes of neutrals......betraying ur king o brother like person...and capturing his seat cannot be justified......

[Game Of Thrones]

How on earth did Modelex's rather trollish OP manage to spawn 80 pages of discussion?

[ShadowCat Rivers]

Here's a repost of my most recent thoughts on this issue. We ended up hitting a brick wall of alleged Lannister bias in the last incarnation, which I think became a problem: bona fide attempts at objectivity got sidetracked because people were keen on demonstrating how Lannisters are more villainous. The real issue, however, is people taking the undoubted sympathy we are supposed to have for the Starks as protagonists, and running with it in such a way that it undermines the reasons why anyone supports the Starks at all. It becomes a case of, if Starks do something, that's OK, because they're Starks, whereas if someone else does the same thing, they are either stupid or evil.

This has nothing to do with specific [insert House or character] bias if the question of bias is discussed in terms of "why do people like ___".

It is related to a certain fan mentality in the way it is comonly displayed in soccer team supporters.

If the question is why you see "more Stark fans" doing this, I'd answer that one needs to examine the percentage, not the absolute numbers. And that leads back to the initial question, why Starks have more fans, which has been done to death.

[The Marquis de Leech]

But we're not dealing with football teams here. We're dealing with literary characters in a series that prides itself on shades of grey. It is immensely frustrating that in nearly every discussion of Theon, you invariably end up with people hating him for betraying the Starks. Not hating him for the various bona fide sins he has committed (the Miller's children, and Kyra), but hating him for no better reason than he "scored a goal" against their team by taking Winterfell.

And this is pretty much unique to the Starks. The closest comparison is people disliking Renly for trying to claim the throne over Stannis, but even then, you can make a sound case that Renly knew he was usurping the throne, and didn't care. People who cheer Manderly's pie antics and gloat over the prospect of Frey children dying are on another level.

[Biter the Gallant]

Being pro-Stark is fine. I get that (notwithstanding the certain political issues I raised earlier) we're generally supposed to cheer for Ned, and his kids. Problem is that where do you actually draw the line? Is it possible to be pro-Stark, and think that the idea of Northern Independence was utterly foolish? I'd suggest that, yes, it is.

I do not consider myself being really pro-Stark, but I do not think that the idea of an independent North was that foolish in itself. Both the dragons, and the Targaryen dynasty (which as a political institution cemented the kingdoms together) were gone. The new Baratheon dynasty's legitimacy was weak after Robert's death, and its members were just about starting a war for the throne.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

But we're not dealing with football teams here. We're dealing with literary characters in a series that prides itself on shades of grey.

...

And this is pretty much unique to the Starks.

...

It doesn't matter. People read the way they like and react to it the way they like. Since there exist opposing "teams", there is the certainty that there will exist people who will take sides blindly.

I disagree, it is evident in all subfandoms, but I don't really want to get into it.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

What I find annoying about Stark bias is that everyone who does not support them is labeled Stupid.

Balon would rather take on the weakly defended North than the West. Stupid!

Renly does not ally himself with Robb and attack Kings Landing quicker. Stupid!

Lyssa keeps the Vale at home, thus making them one of the strongest and healthier realms. Stupid!

Edmure doesn't understand Robbs vague command that has no time frame. Stupid!

Even Stark men are criticized as Cassel is left to defend the North that has been stripped of its defenses. Stupid!

Newsflash! Other characters and Houses have their own interests that does not involve going out of their way to help the Starks.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Don't get me started on the Edmure bashing. That was Robb's own damn fault for not informing Edmure of his intentions (Edmure followed orders - he held the bloody fortress).

[Game Of Thrones]

Don't get me started on the Edmure bashing. That was Robb's own damn fault for not informing Edmure of his intentions (Edmure followed orders - he held the bloody fortress).

Pretty sure Robb and BF had no actual strategy in the West.

[Ser Lucious Left-Foot]

I do not consider myself being really pro-Stark, but I do not think that the idea of an independent North was that foolish in itself. Both the dragons, and the Targaryen dynasty (which as a political institution cemented the kingdoms together) were gone. The new Baratheon dynasty's legitimacy was weak after Robert's death, and its members were just about starting a war for the throne.

Plus, at least since Robert was on the Throne, the IT didn't really concerned himself with the North, so it pretty much governed itself already. They are a different civilization, they have different gods.

One might say that the North still owed fealty to the IT as a clear example of that was that Ned helped Robert tame the first rebellion of Balon Greyjoyt, but that was as much in Ned's interest than Robert's to put an end to it.

If the war and realm was lost, it is not because it was "silly" or "stupid" to proclame independance, but because Robb had made some questionable choices and Starks are not good diplomats.

[The Drunkard]

Balon would rather take on the weakly defended North than the West. Stupid!

Renly does not ally himself with Robb and attack Kings Landing quicker. Stupid!

The second one especially is quite annoying when Cat's "knights of Summer" comments get dragged in. She isn't smarter than the combined military knowledge of Renly's eighty thousand strong army. She's only correct if Robb's priorities are the same as Renly's priorities, which they obviously aren't.

[Jon Snow Bengal]

Theon was at a crossroads, it was either to identify as a Stark and be the brother Rob needed or to be the son of the King of the Iron Islands and take his rightful place as King in time. He was torn in two directions and had to choose. Damn he's paying for it now and i wonder if he will ever redeem himself... it will be interesting.

Does anyone feel sorry for Theon? I do, but i have a soft womans heart ;)

I often wonder if he has a natural child out there who is the heir of the iron islands. Remember when he was sent over to speak with his father? Remember the girl on the boat who wanted to be his salt wife? She might turn up in a latter book, marry Theon (if he escapes) and live happily ever after.

[Jon Snow Bengal]

Re: Stark bias

I remember reading the first books and hating Jaime Lannister but now that we have his point of view, all of his earlier actions seem completely rational and defensible. I guess it is a matter of whose point of view you get to see and GRRM is in control of that so it is he is mostly in control of our bias.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Pretty sure Robb and BF had no actual strategy in the West.

Their strategy was linking up with Theon, Balon and the Ionrborn and attacking the Rock and Lannisport.

By now Robb is at the Golden Tooth," Theon said. "Once it falls, he'll be through the hills in a day. Lord Tywin's host is at Harrenhal, cut off from the west. The Kingslayer is a captive at Riverrun. Only Ser Stafford Lannister and the raw green levies he's been gathering remain to oppose Robb in the west. Ser Stafford will put himself between Robb's army and Lannisport, which means the city will be undefended when we descend on it by sea. If the gods are with us, even Casterly Rock itself may fall before the Lannisters so much as realize that we are upon them."

Lord Balon grunted. "Casterly Rock has never fallen."

That is the pan when Robb and Theon had left. Of course Edmure is going to think the plan has changed knowing that the Ironborn are not supporting Robb in the West.

[Lord Reaver]

Does anyone feel sorry for Theon? I do, but i have a soft womans heart ;)

I often wonder if he has a natural child out there who is the heir of the iron islands. Remember when he was sent over to speak with his father? Remember the girl on the boat who wanted to be his salt wife? She might turn up in a latter book, marry Theon (if he escapes) and live happily ever after.

Feel sorry for implies a bit more patronizing than I'm comfortable with. There is a thread on sympathy for Theon, however. So, the answer would be "yes".

Natural children aren't heirs to anything in Westeros, unless legitimized.

And I seriously doubt the captain's daughter will ever see Theon again. GRRM doesn't strike me as the author who writes the sort of stuff you seem to want, I'm afraid.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

This thread will never go anywhere interesting or constructive. Want to argue that Theon has no legitimate bonds of affections with the Starks and should feel no compunction against fighting them? That could be an interesting thread with clear parameters of discussion. Want to argue that Ned is flawed for wanting the kid with the right genetics on the throne? Interesting with clear parameters of discussion. Want to argue that Frey mass murder is bad? Not so interesting, but clear.

Instead, this thread takes on all of these issues- and more!- at once, while railing tautologically against imagined posters- "positions x,y, and z are bad and biased and held by lots of biased people who are biased because they hold the bad and biased positions x,y, and z." It's no more than foot stomping about how unfair all these people are, whoever they are. If you were to actually pose the above questions, and the several other questions of Stark morality that have been brought up, to actual specific posters I suspect you'd find that positions of actual people, instead of the mythical Stark supporter, vary across the specific points of discussion. But it's much easier to just argue against the biased, hypocritical, incorrigible, and, above all, imagined, mythical Stark supporter.

[SeanF]

Don't get me started on the Edmure bashing. That was Robb's own damn fault for not informing Edmure of his intentions (Edmure followed orders - he held the bloody fortress).

Can you imagine Napoleon, or Caesar, or any other great commander tolerating one of their generals failing to strike a blow at the enemy, simply because they had no explicit orders to that effect? Ser Edmure held Riverrun, and did what any enterprising subordinate commander should do - he inflicted a defeat on the enemy when the chance arose. I agree entirely that if Robb didn't want him to do so, he should have made his orders absolutely clear.

Ser Edmure is really too nice, and let's himself get treated like a doormat, by Robb, Catelyn, and Brynden.

[The Marquis de Leech]

. But it's much easier to just argue against the biased, hypocritical, incorrigible, and, above all, imagined, mythical Stark supporter.

So mythical that they posted the first reply to the thread. I think you'll find that this thread (and its predecessors) are simply pointing out a unifying trend. Yes, there have always been separate threads on Theon, the Freys, and Edmure. People approaching each of those issues from the perspective of "Starks Good, Everyone Else Bad or Stupid" are simply a fact of forum life. Doesn't mean we can't point out the inherent problems of such an approach.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Ser Edmure is really too nice, and let's himself get treated like a doormat, by Robb, Catelyn, and Brynden.

Especially Brynded. Robb is desperate and I can understand why he has done this, he has the fate of a nation to worry about. Cat has always seen her little brother as somewhat foolish, its easy for her to think he messed up.

But Brynden is a hypocrite. He is someone who point blank refused to marry, damaging his relationship with his brother and weakening the Tully family(more members means strength). Its is like the ultimate fuck you to his dead brother, him refusing to marry but making his nephew do it.