Ned Stark= Atticus Finch?

[Seaworth'sShipmate]

I have been doing a re-read, and I am fairly convinced that Ned was based off the character of Atticus Finch in "To Kill a Mockingbird."

 

Both men seem very preoccupied with doing the right thing, even if it is unpopular. Ned took a stand against killing Danaerys and revealing the truth about the twincest. Atticus defended Tom Robinson against a rape charge, even though it was deeply unpopular in his town, and earned him no friends.

 

Both Ned and Atticus have rambunctious, fiery, tomboyish young daughters. Ned has his hands full with Arya, and Atticus has quite a lot on his plate dealing with Scout, ( though it could be that Scout was just transgendered in an era that did not recognize that condition.)

 

Although Atticus is more of a lawyer and a learned man than Ned, I find the paralells between them both striking and fascinating. Thoughts?

[Gneisenau]

Wasn't Atticus a racist that believed blacks should still get a fair trial ?

[Seaworth'sShipmate]

Wasn't Atticus a racist that believed blacks should still get a fair trial ?

 

No, he wasn't a racist. That little fact was revealed in "Go set a Watchman", the rejected first draft of Lee's novel.

 

I don't think you can consider the characters in that book (racist Atticus, grown up scout) to be canon.

[Codename: Nymeria]

As much as I feel I should know better than to respond to one of your threads, on the off chance you are actually asking...no, they aren't that similar.

 

Ned's honor is presented to the reader as naive; he's tossed into a very morally gray scenario with no clear right and wrongs. Atticus' honor, on the other hand, is presented to the reader as unambiguous and principled. Further, Atticus takes on the situation (there's nothing requiring him to defend Tom Robinson, he does it specifically out of principle), while Ned is harangued into the whole "Game of Thrones" thing basically because Robert forced him to. There's no indication that Ned ever had any desire to go clean up KL or anything, whereas Atticus is clearly proactive in following his principles.

 

Plus, there's the whole, "Ned dies" versus "Atticus doesn't" disparity, which I also think sets them apart.

 

I will say, as a practicing lawyer who grew up in the (US) South, the concept of Atticus being a racist doesn't necessarily ring untrue to me, even given the whole uproar over the new book. There were an enormous amount of people who were capable of being institutionally progressive while still being personally racist, and my impression of Atticus through much of "To Kill" is that he thinks of Tom more as a cause than a real person. What that has to do with ASOIAF...I don't really know. 

[Light a wight tonight]

 

 

Although Atticus is more of a lawyer and a learned man than Ned, I find the paralells between them both striking and fascinating. Thoughts?           

 

I find any parallel between them so tenuous as to be undetectable.

[Kaibaman]

I for one am not so sure whether Ned's stance towards killing children was genuinely out of some self guilding principle or rather because it was a byproduct of the PTS he received from seeing the corpses of Rhaegar's children after the Sacking of King's Landing. Also his opposition towards killing Dany had more to do with believing Dany was no threat rather than looking out for her. And he didn't seem completed opposed to the idea as he did tell Robert to kill her himself if he wanted her dead.

[Fire Eater]

Ned and Atticus are the same archetype of the wise, moral father figure. 

 

No, he wasn't a racist. That little fact was revealed in "Go set a Watchman", the rejected first draft of Lee's novel.

 

I don't think you can consider the characters in that book (racist Atticus, grown up scout) to be canon.

Yeah, Harper Lee was in a stroke when that draft was decided to be published. 

 

 

 

I will say, as a practicing lawyer who grew up in the (US) South, the concept of Atticus being a racist doesn't necessarily ring untrue to me, even given the whole uproar over the new book. There were an enormous amount of people who were capable of being institutionally progressive while still being personally racist, and my impression of Atticus through much of "To Kill" is that he thinks of Tom more as a cause than a real person. What that has to do with ASOIAF...I don't really know. 

This is supposed to be the same Atticus who when he was asked if he was a "n----er lover" responded with "I certainly am. I do my best to love everybody," and whose guiding principle is "You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view — until you climb into his skin and walk around in it." The Atticus in the new book is a departure from what we see in To Kill a Mockingbird.

[Good Guy Garlan]

Yeah, the similarities are there, as they are between Scout and Arya too.

I once read a paper that argue that Atticus lost the trial for being way too honorable and showing more Southern chivalry than he should have for not asking all the pointed questions to that one woman who was raped by her father, even though the audience would've been thoroughly scandalized. That reminded me of Ned losing for refusing to play a little dirty.

Anyway, GSAW is filthy fanfiction, filty I say! Or at the very least an inconsistent early draft.

[Codename: Nymeria]

This is supposed to be the same Atticus who was asked if he was a "n----er lover" responded with "I certainly am. I do my best to love everybody," and whose guiding principle is "You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view — until you climb into his skin and walk around in it." The Atticus in the new book is a departure from what we see in To Kill a Mockingbird.

 

 

I once read a paper that argue that Atticus lost the trial for being way too honorable and showing more Southern chivalry than he should have for not asking all the pointed questions to that one woman who was raped by her father, even though the audience would've been thoroughly scandalized. That reminded me of Ned losing for refusing to play a little dirty.

 

Have not read GSAW, nor do I really have any desire to (I'm waiting for the third installment that I read about in the Onion, called, "My Excellent Caretaker Deserves My Entire Fortune"). That said, GGG's point plays in to the one I was trying to make; my impression of Atticus was that he was defending Tom out of a sense of right, but he wasn't really willing to upend certain aspects of Southern Chivalry, even to obtain justice for an innocent man. He doesn't push Mayella on the stand, presumably out of sense of "decency", despite how key her testimony is. I don't really recall him having any meaningful conversations with Tom. He stops the lynch mob, but it feels like it's more out of a sense of ensuring that the law of the land prevails than any particular effort to save Tom's life. I mean, I think both readings are certainly there, and by no means do I think TKAM's Atticus is anywhere near the flat-out bigot that (the reviews indicate, at least) of GSAW portrays him as, but the character is replete with the idea that even though a person should have to walk in another's shoes, Atticus knows he'll never really have to. Which I think is a slightly more realistic portrayal. 

[Good Guy Garlan]

Have not read GSAW, nor do I really have any desire to (I'm waiting for the third installment that I read about in the Onion, called, "My Excellent Caretaker Deserves My Entire Fortune"). That said, GGG's point plays in to the one I was trying to make; my impression of Atticus was that he was defending Tom out of a sense of right, but he wasn't really willing to upend certain aspects of Southern Chivalry, even to obtain justice for an innocent man. He doesn't push Mayella on the stand, presumably out of sense of "decency", despite how key her testimony is. I don't really recall him having any meaningful conversations with Tom. He stops the lynch mob, but it feels like it's more out of a sense of ensuring that the law of the land prevails than any particular effort to save Tom's life. I mean, I think both readings are certainly there, and by no means do I think TKAM's Atticus is anywhere near the flat-out bigot that (the reviews indicate, at least) of GSAW portrays him as, but the character is replete with the idea that even though a person should have to walk in another's shoes, Atticus knows he'll never really have to. Which I think is a slightly more realistic portrayal.

Yeah, I agree. That's an interpretation that I often see people gravitate towards, especially if - like me - they find Atticus a bit too much of a saintly goody two shoes.

That said, as much as I would've liked Atticus to have a bit of dirty fingertips if not hands, making him a weird bigot is like going from zero to 60 in under a minute.

[Isobel Harper]

Ned and Atticus are the same archetype of the wise, moral father figure. 
Yeah, Harper Lee was in a stroke when that draft was decided to be published. 
 
This is supposed to be the same Atticus who when he was asked if he was a "n----er lover" responded with "I certainly am. I do my best to love everybody," and whose guiding principle is "You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view until you climb into his skin and walk around in it." The Atticus in the new book is a departure from what we see in To Kill a Mockingbird.

This and Ned's "long, noble face" - I've pictured Ned Stark as Gregory Peck since my first read of AGoT.

ETA: If I ever have a son, I'm naming him Atticus.