255 replies to this topic

[Woman of War]

Quote

I stand by what I said earlier, that one of the wonderful things about redemptive stories in literature is that they, by example, help us to remember that we can choose to be good people

agree. You are of course right. It's the inner conflicts we are invited to watch. But what is redemption? Redemption has to do with actively recognizing that you have failed and then actively trying to put weight on the "good" side of the balance in the hope that your bad deeds will be outweighed.
But the hope out getting things undone is futile, in severe cases this will never happen. Sandor cannot wake up Mycah, no matter what he may do in the future, Tyrion cannot unrape Tysha and say a few excuses if they ever meet, Jaime cannot make Bran walk again.They will have to cope or not to cope with their guilt, it has become a part of their personality.
People can NEVER undo their major failures and crimes. In minor cases, yes, cou can go to your neighbour and say your excuses for having watered his barbecue, ok.
But the truly serious bad things won't go away by doing good deeds. But protagonists, as RL people, can go on and try to make conscious decisions in every choice of life that is presented to them, always deciding for the right thing instead of the bad deed, or for this what we as readers perceive as right. But nothing of that, in no character, will undo what has happened.
And then there is the absurd that comes into play: even Cersei (secretly I am hoping for something like that because she is such an interesting character, but that would be cheesy i know) still can do a truly  important good deed by coincidence or by conscious decision. Would she be be "redeemed" in our eyes by that? Or does there have to be an "arc" behind this? And what about the well intended like Daenerys who started as little girl devoid of any evil and now is seen as personification of a cruel dictator by many (not by me)? What is her moral "arc"? Or the good guys and girls who marry the wrong girl or by accident might drop their pearl into the wrong glass of wine, how would that influence their moral future? Martin's books are not only about conscious decisions and longterm developments that have been hinted at the whole story over but as well about life messing up our plans, the one wrong step.
So, I do not believe in "redemption arcs" that are given to protagonists. Indeed it is the well meaning longterm intentions that are so often shown to fail. There are though the decisions to make at a daily basis, the confrontation of a ruler's or politician's own  decisions with reality they cause, again and again or the decision not to obey an order. Martin certainly gives story arcs to his protagonists but no prefabricated moral arcs, they are not meant to aim "towards the good" or "towards  the bad" but they have the freedom always to rethink themselves, with every decision, we can file no one as turning good or bad and forget about it, we are invited to be constantly aware. And this means that even the bad guys and girls are given the freedom to turn their story until the last moment. If we as readers wish to add up bad or good for a character - this is our decision but it will not influence the character's fate.
Is there any practical relevance in the differences between my arguing and yours, Childofsummer?
I do not think that every further decision of a character is to be seen as part of an arc towards good or bad. I believe every single act has to be evaluated in itself and in retrospect, when all the books are written or when the character is dead, we can try a character evaluation. Not wanting to be a sinner anymore and repenting for your sins, in the eyes of readers or whatever god, does not help very much if you continue to sin. Martin does not give general absolution to his characters by "redemption arcs" but tests them on a daily basis.

Though there may be the same practical solution: stop being ugly to other people, please.

[Lyanna Stark]

Errant Bard, on 28 March 2012 - 02:52 AM, said:

To be fair, Sandor never stopped Joffrey abusing Sansa, or Tyrion for that matters, he just refused to participate, which is fairly the same as what jaime did.

Yes he did. He told a blatant lie to support Sansa at the Dontos debacle. He did it again to shield her from the KG asking questions after she'd been to the Godswood, despite not knowing WTF she had been doing there.

The parallel to Jamie is to highlight that neither of them approved of what was being done, but none of them had the freedom or authority to act on what they considered morally right.

[Errant Bard]

Ah, you're right, I was just thinking of moments of physical violence. But I agree with you anyways, absolute oaths are really problematic. Congrats on 18k posts, by the way.

[Woman of War]

Quote

To be fair, Sandor never stopped Joffrey abusing Sansa, or Tyrion for that matters, he just refused to participate, which is fairly the same as what jaime did.

Agree, and Jaime was a boy of ?sixteen? by then and not twenty seven. But when the characters Sansa and Tyrion were brought into a common storyline later,  Sandor could not support Sansa, he was gone. ( or did I interpret your sentence the wrong way, I am not a native speaker, sorry in that case)

[The Butler of Tarth]

On Sandor's redemption.

The Hound is dead. Sandor is at peace. Why not let him stay at peace? I'd find it most satisfying if he was allowed to live out his days as a monk and we never heard from him again.

[Lyanna Stark]

Errant Bard, on 28 March 2012 - 03:03 AM, said:

Ah, you're right, I was just thinking of moments of physical violence. But I agree with you anyways, absolute oaths are really problematic. Congrats on 18k posts, by the way.

He does say "enough" to Joffrey and whichever KG it is that is beating Sansa that time they strip her (Boros Blount or Meryn Trant I believe), but before this can go any further and we see what the repercussions of that will be, Tyrion appears and dismantles the whole debacle. If Tyrion hadn't appeared, this could have played out very differently.

It's also interesting to note that Sandor is the person who complains the most about lies and people being liars, but he tells two pretty smooth lies for Sansa without batting an eyelid.

Regarding the physical violence, he can't really do anything about that since it would go against Joffrey's wishes and he is there to serve Joffrey (and Cersei). Unless he wouldn't mind losing his job and possibly be thrown in the dungeons, or even lose his head, which would not help him, nor Sansa. That said, he does eventually offer Sansa an escape from Kings Landing, which is interesting since it really is a case of "trying to do the right thing" since his only plan is "remove Sansa from KL and bad Joffrey" and doesn't really include anything else apart from a vague notion of going north. Legging it with the King's future wife may not be regicide, but it's still a really dangerous and probably also suicidal thing to do. Not to mention that they'd be extremely conspicuous almost everywhere. In essence, he's trying to give Sansa something he can't at this point, just because he feels he is morally obliged to.



And thank you very much  

Edited by Lyanna Stark, 28 March 2012 - 04:54 AM.

[brashcandy]

Lyanna Stark, on 28 March 2012 - 04:02 AM, said:

  Not to mention that they'd be extremely conspicuous almost everywhere. In essence, he's trying to give Sansa something he can't at this point, just because he feels he is morally obliged to.

I'd argue that it went beyond mere moral obligation, but definitely agree with your whole post above. Plus, let's not forget the very vital advice he gave her in AGOT about giving Joff what he wants, and then when he stepped between them after noticing that Sansa was about to kill Joff that day on the battlements.

[Lyanna Stark]

brashcandy, on 28 March 2012 - 09:06 AM, said:

I'd argue that it went beyond mere moral obligation, but definitely agree with your whole post above. Plus, let's not forget the very vital advice he gave her in AGOT about giving Joff what he wants, and then when he stepped between them after noticing that Sansa was about to kill Joff that day on the battlements.

This is true.

I'd hazard a guess that he had three reasons for offering to take her out of Kings Landing:

The first is that he sees himself in Sansa as he was when he was young and tormented by Gregor. Nobody stood up for him then or told him wtf to do, but he can offer Sansa that support.

Secondly, it's about fairness and justice (rather tied into the first). Sansa does not deserve her treatment and he got fed up with standing by and watch what he clearly thought was morally wrong.

Thirdly, he's developing a crush on the little bird, very much like in one of those extremely embarrassing songs he proclaims to dislike so much


Of course, he then fails completely at the "execution" part of these, from threatening the object at knifepoint to just about everything else, probably in part because he's been avoiding anything like the above feelings for so long he has no idea how to handle them. It's pretty obvious the only feeling he's comfortable with is anger, which in itself is a defense mechanism to cover up "weaker" feelings.

Edited by Lyanna Stark, 28 March 2012 - 09:34 AM.

[childofsummer]

@WOW:  I honestly had no intention of being ugly, so if I came across that way, I apologize.  

I do think there is a difference in our arguments, though, because this is a carefully constructed story, rather than a random collection of events or the relative chaos that is real life.  GRRM has plans for each character and plans for how he wants to shape his story.  Because he has those plans, characters do progress on arcs, and those arcs are defined by the choices they make about the people they become.  

I agree completely that nobody and no character can erase the past.  What they can change is how they behave in the future.  Rapists can choose not to rape (Elder Brother) anymore, which does not heal the women they've hurt before, but ensures that they won't assault others.  That's really important to the women the reformed rapist meets in the future.  So I don't think GRRM's intent is to absolve characters of past sins via a redemption arc; instead, I think he uses that progression to make a statement about agency and responsibility.  After all, if none of the characters ever grew or changed or forgave, it'd be like a zombie flick... oh, wait.    (insert campaign for eliminating the "un-s")

[BringerOfSnow]

The Hound will not die until he fights and destroys unGregor (perhaps Sandor will live throughout the entire series). Unfortunately he did not have the honor of killing Gregor the first time around, since Oberyn beat him to it.

It's quite obvious based on how Martin has written his character. His deep seeded hatred for Gregor portrayed early in the series, how he desperately seeks revenge for Gregor burning his face, how he refuses to become a knight and say the vows (because his brother is one, and if Gregor can be a knight then the bureaucrats are all corrupt -- which he already knows and understands).

It is known.

[childofsummer]

@Bringer: But EB has said that the Hound is dead.  It seems like that means that Sandor has chosen to let go of the anger and desire for revenge that defined him for so long, thus burying the Hound and leaving only Sandor to figure out what he wants to be.  Sandor, free of the conflict between wanting to kill his brother and knowing that kinslaying is wrong, wouldn't seem to be the right person to kill UnGregor, IMO.  

Somewhat off topic, I wonder if obsidian works against the un-s, or if the zombies Qyburn creates are the same as the fire-reanimated ones?

[BringerOfSnow]

childofsummer, on 28 March 2012 - 11:55 AM, said:

@Bringer: But EB has said that the Hound is dead.  It seems like that means that Sandor has chosen to let go of the anger and desire for revenge that defined him for so long, thus burying the Hound and leaving only Sandor to figure out what he wants to be.  Sandor, free of the conflict between wanting to kill his brother and knowing that kinslaying is wrong, wouldn't seem to be the right person to kill UnGregor, IMO.  

Somewhat off topic, I wonder if obsidian works against the un-s, or if the zombies Qyburn creates are the same as the fire-reanimated ones?

"The Hound" may be dead, but Sandor lives on. His anger and sword are all that he has. For his entire life he has waited for the chance to kill Gregor. It would have occurred in the tournament, when he came to the aid of Loras, but alas, he was stopped. He may be redeemed though, you're correct. We have no idea and we're merely speculating.

As for kinslaying, I think it's no worse than kingslaying or incest. The "gods" do not look unfavorably upon these events happening. It is man who misinterprets a god's will and desire, thus giving them false inspiration to rule one way or another, and influence other men to come to their cause and triumph over "evil". In the even of Sandor being a "kinslayer", Gregor is already dead, so therefore he's not actually slaying kin.

As for using obsidian against the un-s, I hope not, but we have no reason to believe it doesn't work. Beric doesn't "die" from wounds made from steel. Coincidentally, no valyrian steel has been used against a wight, Other, or unDude yet. If we believe all un-s are alike (unCat = wight = unGregor) and the same magic is universal throughout all faiths, then perhaps "dragonsteel" and obsidian can be used to destroy the un-s.

[Lord Godric]

The Butler of Tarth, on 28 March 2012 - 03:48 AM, said:

On Sandor's redemption.

The Hound is dead. Sandor is at peace. Why not let him stay at peace? I'd find it most satisfying if he was allowed to live out his days as a monk and we never heard from him again.

I agree. I never liked the Hound and was baffled at the level of Hound-love when I first joined the forums, but I think leaving Sandor at peace living on the Quiet Isle is a good ending for him.  Why bring him back to kill and slaughter more?

[Independent George]

BringerOfSnow, on 28 March 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

The Hound will not die until he fights and destroys unGregor (perhaps Sandor will live throughout the entire series). Unfortunately he did not have the honor of killing Gregor the first time around, since Oberyn beat him to it.

It's quite obvious based on how Martin has written his character. His deep seeded hatred for Gregor portrayed early in the series, how he desperately seeks revenge for Gregor burning his face, how he refuses to become a knight and say the vows (because his brother is one, and if Gregor can be a knight then the bureaucrats are all corrupt -- which he already knows and understands).

I think you've got it backwards - the Hound cannot die unless he renounces his hatred of Gregor and spends the rest of his life bringing peace to those he encounters, instead of death and pain. The Hound is a broken man; that deep seeded hatred of Gregor prevents him from being anything other than a killer. He will never be healed as long as he persists in that direction.

[Maroucia]

BringerOfSnow, on 28 March 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

The Hound will not die until he fights and destroys unGregor (perhaps Sandor will live throughout the entire series). Unfortunately he did not have the honor of killing Gregor the first time around, since Oberyn beat him to it.

It's quite obvious based on how Martin has written his character. His deep seeded hatred for Gregor portrayed early in the series, how he desperately seeks revenge for Gregor burning his face, how he refuses to become a knight and say the vows (because his brother is one, and if Gregor can be a knight then the bureaucrats are all corrupt -- which he already knows and understands).

It is known.

In the world of ASOIAF, obvious=not going to happen.
Of course, we never know, there could be some exceptions, but it's unlikely that it’s going to happen that way. If Sandor ever ends up fighting with unGregor, I don’t see it being fuelled only by hatred and vengeance, but it could be to protect someone, or by obligation.

[Woman of War]

Oh now I have to say sorry, Childofsummer , I never meant that you have been unkind!
This was only a poor attempt of saying that the basic rules of human behaviour actually are quite simple - if they weren't so complicated. And this is a really interesting debate.

[Woman of War]

Quote

the Hound cannot die unless he renounces his hatred of Gregor and spends the rest of his life bringing peace to those he encounters, instead of death and pain. The Hound is a broken man; that deep seeded hatred of Gregor prevents him from being anything other than a killer. He will never be healed as long as he persists in that direction.

agree.
This does not mean that Sandor would have to stay physically on the Quiet Isle but mentally.
And I am having a hidden thought here: what the story seriously misses are imo figures who express the needs of the common people. I do not want to style Sandor into Westerosi Nelson Mandela or Karl Liebknecht, he is neither intellectual nor eloquent enough, but forsaking all violence and personal private wishes - and knowing about what he is giving up - he could be someone who stands for people like those he had murdered before. And I am not saying this for redemption reasons but because I think this would truly enrich the story.

[Queen of Winter]

Maroucia, on 28 March 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:

If Sandor ever ends up fighting with unGregor, I don’t see it being fuelled only by hatred and vengeance, but it could be to protect someone, or by obligation.

I agree Maroucia. I think there is going to have to be a "purpose" behind going after Gregor, after spending some time on the QI.

[Lyanna Stark]

Lord Godric, on 28 March 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:

I agree. I never liked the Hound and was baffled at the level of Hound-love when I first joined the forums, but I think leaving Sandor at peace living on the Quiet Isle is a good ending for him.  Why bring him back to kill and slaughter more?

What horrible things does he do that makes you dislike him? Apart from killing Mycah, he doesn't really do anything awful, which, compared to the other characters of the series is pretty mild. He is set up to look awful to start with, since he was ordered to kill Mycah and he's rude and makes cruel jokes in the first part of AGOT.

As for the rest, he doesn't do anything that Garlan Tyrell, Robb Stark, Stannis Baratheon, Jon Snow or a multitude of other characters don't do: kill people in battle. He's just more honest and blunt about it, and you know, not pretty or polite.

In fact, he does a lot of things that counter what he actually says (telling Sansa there are no knights to save her, yet he goes and fishes her out of the mob in Kings Landing; claiming to Arya he doesn't care if she dies or not, yet he saves her at the Red Wedding all the same).

I think the amount of interest and sympathy for his character is because he's clearly in conflict with himself. He's been forced into the whole strong arms and swords rule the world, and if you haven't got any of these, GTFO. But that doesn't mean he_actaully_likes_it_that_way. He's clearly put on the spot by the end of AGOT early ACOK when he has to stand by while Joffrey has Sansa beaten, and despite all his rudeness, threats, coarse language and what have you, he ends up being more helpful to her than he really has the authority to be, i.e. he acts completely selflessly since he really has nothing to gain by protecting and helping Sansa. In fact, if found out, he's likely to lose his employment and possibly even his head.

Why does this man, set up to be a coldhearted brute, act selflessly? And he doesn't do it once, but over and over again, especially with Sansa. Even when he later claims that he couldn't care less for Arya, or that he only has her along for the ransom, he ends up not treating her as a captive for long, he feeds her, arms her and let the people think she is his daughter, despite there not being anything in it for him anymore.

Woman of War, on 28 March 2012 - 02:58 PM, said:

agree.
This does not mean that Sandor would have to stay physically on the Quiet Isle but mentally.
And I am having a hidden thought here: what the story seriously misses are imo figures who express the needs of the common people. I do not want to style Sandor into Westerosi Nelson Mandela or Karl Liebknecht, he is neither intellectual nor eloquent enough, but forsaking all violence and personal private wishes - and knowing about what he is giving up - he could be someone who stands for people like those he had murdered before. And I am not saying this for redemption reasons but because I think this would truly enrich the story.

The BWB help the common people. You could also argue that the Sparrows are a movement created by the need of the common people, so they sure have voices now, which they hardly had before.

Edited by Lyanna Stark, 29 March 2012 - 02:08 AM.

[Lummel]

Independent George, on 28 March 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

I think you've got it backwards - the Hound cannot die unless he renounces his hatred of Gregor and spends the rest of his life bringing peace to those he encounters, instead of death and pain. The Hound is a broken man; that deep seeded hatred of Gregor prevents him from being anything other than a killer. He will never be healed as long as he persists in that direction.

I agree.  Becoming a healer and a Septon who helps the poor and the weak would be redemption.  Killing Gregorstein would be merely fulfilment of his long held fantasy - one that has twisted his life and filled him with anger.