38 replies to this topic

[Westeros]

Beginning a new series of features, essayist and writer Pearson Moore has joined with Westeros.org to provide in-depth looks at the series, its characters, and the rich, dramatic themes at the heart of George R.R. Martin’s creation. Moore, perhaps best known for his insightful essays into the TV show Lost, is the author of 63 essays about that show, as well as two thought-provoking novels, including the Amazon bestselling Lost Humanity and Lost Identity.

Our first featured essay from Mr. Moore is “Instinctive Honour: The Decency of Eddard Stark in Game of Thrones”, a detailed look into the central figure of A Game of Thrones.



Visit the Site!

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

Has he read the books or is he just reacting to the TV series?  Because he got some plot details wrong but it could just be the TV show wasn't that clear on some of them.

[RWHamel]

I'm assuming it's the book.

Spoiler

I thought the essay was very good, except Mr. Moore leaves out one important point, and doesn't follow through with another. In order to describe, and understand Eddard Stark one needs to consider these two points.

Starting with the latter first. Eddard Stark broke his “Oath.” That sounds shocking to say it.  The truth is it was just a marriage oath. Clearly other characters in the book, such as King Robert don't feel that this is such a terrible crime. It seems strange though, for a man who clearly values virtue, loyalty, family, he would do this. One wonders whether it eats away at Eddard Stark's soul each time he sentences an oath-breaker to death, and swings the blade.  Does he look into the other man's eyes, and think, “I'm guilty of this. I'm an oath-breaker.”

Of course he could be thinking that oaths are for the small-folk, and depending on circumstance's, and class, oath-breaking can be serious, or trivial. But then why would someone bother to look into the eyes of the accused, and swing the blade, if one's consciousness is full of these rationalizations? It would be far easier to assign the task to another, and avoid the unpleasantness.

“I dishonored myself and I dishonored Catelyn in the sight of gods and men.”

Ned certainly seems sincere when he says this to King Robert while in private. I can see no reason that the statement made by Ned is a lie. So by Ned's own words he convicts himself.  Yet it seems strange that when he thinks on Robert's bastards he doesn't make the connection to his own guilt. It's as though the actions are totally separate, or independent, when they share the same indiscretion.

Then there is the other point. Ned is haunted by the events that took place 14 years ago. This concerns his sister Lyanna, her death, and the promise that he made to her. Could he have made the promise, and then had to break it? It seems like this would explain it. But why is this a secret, if that's the case? These are events that took place so long ago, and you would think by now he would have come to terms with them.

You would think that if Ned would have any regrets it would be about his and his wife's dishonor. Regrets about his bastard son Jon. Unless, somehow, these are connected to Lyanna, and the promise that he made. Could that be the case? Could they be one and the same? We never find out, and that is truly vexing.  

So we are left with the conundrum that is Ned Stark. On the one hand someone who has high ideals. Who some would say is the most honorable man in Westeros, yet he broke his oath.

[fitheach]

This guy wrote that Bran was 6 years when he asked the question “Can a man still be brave if he’s afraid?”...

Has he actually read the novels?

Edited by fitheach, 09 April 2011 - 01:57 AM.

[Horza]

"last Lord of Winterfell"

spoilers much?

[Maltaran]

fitheach, on 09 April 2011 - 01:56 AM, said:

This guy wrote that Bran was 6 years when he asked the question “Can a man still be brave if he’s afraid?”...

Has he actually read the novels?

I don't see the problem here - in the first Bran chapter, it's stated to be "the ninth year of summer and the seventh of Bran's life". Therefore, Bran is 6 - he won't be 7 until the end of his seventh year of life.

[Ran]

It's a tricky one, and I admit one I did not consider I think I've noticed George tends to use that a bit imprecisely. By the end of ASoS, Bran is 9. Have we covered more than 2 full years between that chapter and Bran's last? I don't think we have. ACoK starts almost exactly a year after AGoT, and generally speaking ACoK and ASoS together seem to cover a little less than a year.

I'll do some more checking.

Last lord of Winterfell would obviously be wrong, as Ned is not in fact the last Lord of Winterfell. I think maybe 'latest' might be intended.

[A'shaman]

Good essay but a few weird points. The "last lord" could be seen as a spoiler, he didn't make it clear Rhaegar took Lyanna...there were a few little off details. Very good read though. Wished there was some discussion of Lyanna-promise, and more discussion on Ned and Jon, the whole oath-breaking thing.

[TerraPrime]

Good thesis, but I didn't feel that he developed it with any substance. Perhaps he can't, given the spoiler-nature that a more in-depth analysis would entail.

[Ran]

I rather hope Pearson will revisit the topic of Ned Stark in a summing up after the first season airs.

[Maltaran]

Maltaran, on 09 April 2011 - 03:13 AM, said:

I don't see the problem here - in the first Bran chapter, it's stated to be "the ninth year of summer and the seventh of Bran's life". Therefore, Bran is 6 - he won't be 7 until the end of his seventh year of life.

Ran, on 09 April 2011 - 05:59 AM, said:

It's a tricky one, and I admit one I did not consider I think I've noticed George tends to use that a bit imprecisely. By the end of ASoS, Bran is 9.

He actually turns 9 in CoK - I've just passed a Bran chapter in my reread where it's said that his ninth nameday has come and gone. In another chapter in CoK, Sansa is stated to be 12, and there being a three year gap between those two sounds about right. I suspect the GoT quote is meant to mean he's 7 at the time, but probably nearly 8 - therefore it is a year and a bit between the start of GoT and the middle of CoK.

[Datepalm]

The notion of being a 'fixture on websites around the world' is...curious to me. Someone needs to write some kind of post apocalyptic story where the internet splinters and takes on an explicit geographic component. Or something. Also, I think theres room to question Ned's values, or at least their expression. That whole 'true stoic manly man of the harsh and rugged north' thing...

[Mr Lynx]

"For me, Eddard Stark was not a hero character at all. The beauty of it is that you could notice that about him while you read, but you can never actually open the book and point out any "heroic deed" or thought in Eddards head or action."

How so?

Is not the the result of a deed that defines it as heroic or not it's the intention.

[Pearson Moore]

I am grateful for the many kind comments, and even more grateful for the comments that invite dialogue.

There have been questions regarding my approach to HBO's interpretation of GoT.  It is my intention to approach the film as distinct from the novels.  The rationale for this decision is simple:  There are going to be differences--some subtle, some profound--between the beloved books and the television interpretation.  In order to make full sense of the story, I believe we are better served to consider the canonicity of televised material to supersede that of the novels.  Daenerys Targaryen in the HBO version is never going to be 13 years old, for instance.  That's a legally-imposed constraint.  There will be countless practical constraints, to the point that some will consider the television series to have compromised the integrity of the novels.  My feeling is that we must look at the two forms as essentially distinct, or we can only be disappointed.

At the time that I wrote this background essay on Eddard Stark I did not have access to the HBO version of the opening chapters, in which Ned states that Bran is ten years old.  The novel, on the opening page of Chapter One ("Bran") states "It was the ninth year of summer and the seventh of Bran's life," meaning that Bran was six years old.  It could be that GRRM made a mistake here, and intended that Bran was seven years old.  I tend to doubt this, since the accurate description of character ages is something that one learns to do in writing historical and fantasy fiction, and of course the counting of time is terribly important in these genres.  I think it is more likely, as some commentators have already suggested, that there is a bit of discrepancy in timing between the novels.  Writing a novel is a huge, intricate, unbelievably complicated undertaking, as anyone who has attempted it can tell you.  To expect complete harmonisation between volumes of a long series--well, I consider that to be a little too much to ask.  GRRM has written a series that can only be considered an enduring masterpiece; I cut him a little slack on the small points, because the larger picture is simply gorgeous, profound, and well-told.

Those who know me from my LOST work understand that I truly enjoy friendly debate.  I have responded to over a thousand LOST comments at Dark UFO and SL-Lost, as well as hundreds of emails from my readers.  The HBO version of ASoIaF looks to be the best thing to have appeared on television in a long time.  I'm looking forward to it.  Most of all, I'm looking forward to engaging with all of you!

All the best,

Pearson Moore

[Pearson Moore]

Ran, on 09 April 2011 - 02:39 PM, said:

I rather hope Pearson will revisit the topic of Ned Stark in a summing up after the first season airs.

Ran--
You can count on it!

PM

[Pearson Moore]

Ran, on 09 April 2011 - 05:59 AM, said:

It's a tricky one, and I admit one I did not consider I think I've noticed George tends to use that a bit imprecisely. By the end of ASoS, Bran is 9. Have we covered more than 2 full years between that chapter and Bran's last? I don't think we have. ACoK starts almost exactly a year after AGoT, and generally speaking ACoK and ASoS together seem to cover a little less than a year.

I'll do some more checking.

Last lord of Winterfell would obviously be wrong, as Ned is not in fact the last Lord of Winterfell. I think maybe 'latest' might be intended.

Ran,

Excellent points here.  You could certainly interpret "last Lord of Winterfell" to mean "latest," but I think we could probably also say, at least in the context of the first two novels, that he is also the "last Lord," in that the one who follows him (I don't know what the spoiler policy is here, so I'm not sayin' who follows Ned!) bears an entirely different title than Lord.  Of course, in that sense you might interpret the words as being a spoiler, but knowing that there is continuity at Winterfell is also a spoiler, yes?  In the end, I'm going to try to avoid blatant spoilers in my essays, and I hope you will remind me if I make an error.  But I probably won't be trying too hard to parse every word.  I write with a big, fat pen--broad stokes only--and I hardly ever sweat the details.  I don't write recaps.  I write essays that I hope will stimulate thought and discussion.  GRRM wrote the books, HBO created the film; your job and mine is to think, discuss, comment, enjoy.  Thanks again for the comments.  And thanks for helping me to enjoy!

PM

[Pearson Moore]

The Scabbard Of the Morning, on 08 April 2011 - 07:06 PM, said:

Has he read the books or is he just reacting to the TV series?  Because he got some plot details wrong but it could just be the TV show wasn't that clear on some of them.

Thank you for your kind comments.  I based "Instinctive Honour:  The Decency of Eddard Stark in Game of Thrones" on the first novel.  I have seen only the first 14 minutes of the first episode, but I wrote the essay several months ago from my recollections of a couple of years ago when I first read the novels.  I may well have confused minor plot details.  I am always grateful when readers point out my errors, because this helps me write better essays.  You should know, though, that my intention is to stimulate thought and discussion.  If you've read my LOST essays, you know that I write things I know to be incorrect, or inflammatory, and then I correct the statements throughout the essay.  I throw curve balls, ice balls, even boiling cauldrons of oil sometimes--all with the intention of stimulating discussion.  I WANT you to be thinking, "That's not right!" or "How can he say that about my favourite character!"  If my words sometimes upset you, know that you are certainly not alone, that in all likelihood there are thousands like you who feel exactly the same way.  But if you read the entire essay, you will invariably find that I have returned you to well-worn ground.  The hope, of course, is that in forcing ourselves to deviate strongly from accepted ways of thinking, we will arrive at deeper understanding of the underlying truth.

PM

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

Pearson Moore, on 09 April 2011 - 09:24 PM, said:

Thank you for your kind comments.  I based "Instinctive Honour:  The Decency of Eddard Stark in Game of Thrones" on the first novel.  I have seen only the first 14 minutes of the first episode, but I wrote the essay several months ago from my recollections of a couple of years ago when I first read the novels.  I may well have confused minor plot details.  I am always grateful when readers point out my errors, because this helps me write better essays.  You should know, though, that my intention is to stimulate thought and discussion.  If you've read my LOST essays, you know that I write things I know to be incorrect, or inflammatory, and then I correct the statements throughout the essay.  I throw curve balls, ice balls, even boiling cauldrons of oil sometimes--all with the intention of stimulating discussion.  I WANT you to be thinking, "That's not right!" or "How can he say that about my favourite character!"  If my words sometimes upset you, know that you are certainly not alone, that in all likelihood there are thousands like you who feel exactly the same way.  But if you read the entire essay, you will invariably find that I have returned you to well-worn ground.  The hope, of course, is that in forcing ourselves to deviate strongly from accepted ways of thinking, we will arrive at deeper understanding of the underlying truth.

PM

Hi, the factual errors that I referred were mainly focused on your discussion of the War of the Usurper.

Here is what you wrote

"Ned and Robert Baratheon grew up as brothers, fellow wards of Lord Jon Arryn, Defender of the Vale.  Both were heirs to their respective lineages, House Stark and House Baratheon.  King Aerys Targaryen must have understood the boys as threats, and he commanded Lord Arryn to turn them over to the Crown.  Lord Arryn refused, and instead incited his house to arms, called the banners supporting his line, and led the early revolt against House Targaryen.  It was during the revolt that Ned’s older brother, Brandon, was assassinated, and his sister, Lyanna, was abducted and imprisoned.

Lyanna Stark was Ned’s only sister, a fair maid of sixteen when Ned’s best friend, Robert , fell in love and became her betrothed.  After the king had her arrested, Lyanna died at her captors’ hands.  It was the abduction of Robert Baratheon’s fiancée that enflamed the original revolt and ended with Robert killing the heir to the crown and ascending the Iron Throne to end the rule of the House of Dragons."

I believe that timeline is wrong. The first thing that happened is that Lyanna went missing, and is rumored to have been abducted by the crown prince Rhaegar.  Then Brandon Stark went to King's Landing to find his sister and confront Rhaegar, but neither were there instead Brandon and his entourage (one of which was the nephew and heir of Jon Arryn) were arrested by king Aerys.  Who then summoned the fathers of those he arrested to King's Landing to face trial.  Rickard Stark, the father of Brandon/Ned/Lyanna, goes, as does some of the other fathers and they were all, fathers and sons,  executed by Aerys for treason under sham trials.

It was after this that Aerys demands the head of Robert and Ned from Jon Arryn, who refuses and only then did the rebellion start.

[Pearson Moore]

The Scabbard Of the Morning, on 10 April 2011 - 01:06 AM, said:

Hi, the factual errors that I referred were mainly focused on your discussion of the War of the Usurper.

Here is what you wrote

"Ned and Robert Baratheon grew up as brothers, fellow wards of Lord Jon Arryn, Defender of the Vale.  Both were heirs to their respective lineages, House Stark and House Baratheon.  King Aerys Targaryen must have understood the boys as threats, and he commanded Lord Arryn to turn them over to the Crown.  Lord Arryn refused, and instead incited his house to arms, called the banners supporting his line, and led the early revolt against House Targaryen.  It was during the revolt that Ned’s older brother, Brandon, was assassinated, and his sister, Lyanna, was abducted and imprisoned.

Lyanna Stark was Ned’s only sister, a fair maid of sixteen when Ned’s best friend, Robert , fell in love and became her betrothed.  After the king had her arrested, Lyanna died at her captors’ hands.  It was the abduction of Robert Baratheon’s fiancée that enflamed the original revolt and ended with Robert killing the heir to the crown and ascending the Iron Throne to end the rule of the House of Dragons."

I believe that timeline is wrong. The first thing that happened is that Lyanna went missing, and is rumored to have been abducted by the crown prince Rhaegar.  Then Brandon Stark went to King's Landing to find his sister and confront Rhaegar, but neither were there instead Brandon and his entourage (one of which was the nephew and heir of Jon Arryn) were arrested by king Aerys.  Who then summoned the fathers of those he arrested to King's Landing to face trial.  Rickard Stark, the father of Brandon/Ned/Lyanna, goes, as does some of the other fathers and they were all, fathers and sons,  executed by Aerys for treason under sham trials.

It was after this that Aerys demands the head of Robert and Ned from Jon Arryn, who refuses and only then did the rebellion start.

Hmmm... Well, okay.  In order to assemble the minor parts of the chronology you have to piece together bits and pieces strung out through the first couple of novels.  As others have noted in the comments on my piece, there is a relatively good possibility that when we go to this level we will encounter minor inconsistencies in the novels (e.g., was Bran six or seven when the story began?  Facts from the novels support both interpretations).  I do not wish to assert the factual validity of every part of the chronology I gave.  And I will probably not argue one way or the other on such minor points.  I do not assert that I am a scholar of GRRM.  I have read the novels closely.  I think they're just about the best fantasy novels ever written, and I don't even make apologies to Tolkien fans when I say this.  But in the end I'm just an average Joe who likes to write about things that interest me.  Since I find ASoIaF compelling fiction, I love to write about it.  As we progress through the GoT season on HBO you will see that I really do write with a broad pen.  It will be up to you to decide whether I have done this in a manner that sparks in you new ways of thinking about the story you love.

PM

[Pearson Moore]

hiver, on 09 April 2011 - 09:43 PM, said:

Hello and welcome. I have to add that i never read anything from you before so i hope you wont take that "i was expecting another mainstream hack piece" too seriously. It was a general statement about the industry and everything, not you personally.




I take issue with this kind of approach because it seems too relative to properly apply it to any specific example.

I see this logic quite often here and when discussing other adaptations of literature to movie format.
And it seems like its invoking non-critical thinking as a preferred option of conduct.

While it points out very directly, that the problem isnt in whats changed or added in itself but simply that the people are bothered when someone criticizes what they like (or want to like) - so it comes out as "you will only get disappointed if you think like that"... You get accused of "nitpicking" or just intentionally being obtuse and lectured on how the mediums are different, and so on.

Which is all understandable from the purely human/emotional side of things but isnt really conductive to discussions and dialogue.

Its as if it is required to agree that any change, whatever it may be, is automatically great or unavoidable and appropriate just to be able to join the discussion.


For me, it is much more important precisely what the change is - rather then it being a change at all.

Hiver,

Thank you for your kind response.

An essay may have one or more of several different objectives.  My primary objective is to stimulate thought about the artistic material under discussion.  I am far less interested in analyses of adherence to canon.  This does not mean that such things are not important.  I feel that such discussions have enormous value, and I engage in them myself--I just prefer not to do so in my essays.  You see, if I go off into a long defence of some deviation of film from novel, or if I condemn the film as straying from the novel, I am really going off topic.  The topic at hand to the millions who will watch GoT is what they saw on the screen.  When they talk with their buddies at work the next day it's not going to matter to them that you and I know there is a big difference in the third scene between what we saw happening at Winterfell and what we read in the ninth chapter of A Game of Thrones.  Now, the difference is important, and it should be discussed.  But I'm not likely to discuss it in the essay.  I doubt that the intention at Westeros.org is to maintain a site only for GRRM novel purists.  I may be wrong about that.  Nevertheless, the intention of my essays is to make GoT accessible to everyone, regardless of whether they've read the novels.  In providing the analysis of episodes, my essays will almost certainly cause some who would not otherwise read to go out and purchase the novels or read them on their Kindles.  This is happening right now in the LOST community, where my essays and "LOST Humanity" have already caused a few people to see the coherence in LOST.  The nicest emails in the world are from people who used to believe they had "wasted six years of my life" watching LOST, who thank me for showing them what LOST was all about.  Well, I didn't bring people to that point by arguing over canon.  I brought them there by giving them the tools to think about LOST in their own way.  That will be my aim in essays about GoT, too.

PM