111 replies to this topic

[Machinist]

why do people even discuss this, these threads get no where.... *yawn*

[James Arryn]

Summerqueen, on 05 April 2012 - 11:19 PM, said:

Martin is a modern author speaking to a modern audience. Yes, I think we are challenged to apply our modern sense of morality so that we can understand the meaning of the fictional work, even if only to question the nature and scope of contemporary morality. If Martin's book series were just some throw-away piece of entertainment, then maybe we wouldn't have to carry the burden of figuring out what the work actually signifies, but I find the series to be anything but disposable.

If that's true, we're either highly selective with what issues we can't get past, or we have differing concepts on modern society.

Like why aren't we bothered every time primogeniture is applied? Feudal governmental process? Death penalty? Etc?

In fact, if you read these pages, what we often see on those issues is people applying the standards of the place/time as given, and therefore things like 'Stannis deserved the throne' are mentioned as commonplace, even though that means supporting a standard we no longer recognize as valid.

But it happens all the time. It's more common than not. When people further arguments like Renly, it is assumed at a base level to be wrong and/or needing a lot more supporting secondary evidence than Stannis' case.

And that is not, I believe, a reflection of modern morality.


And, in reverse, things which are not part of our society, like bread/salt = guest rights...we work up conversational righteous anger over their being breached. I propose that is in the same mind...we've bought in to the idea that these aren't our standards...just that they are standards, and therefore should apply.

So why are we picking and choosing which morals to hold dear, and which to give over to suspension of judgment?

And why do the ones we pick make more sense than the ones we let go?

Edited by James Arryn, 05 April 2012 - 11:39 PM.

[voodooqueen126]

ServantOnIce, on 05 April 2012 - 03:07 PM, said:

That is the issue, remember we all have different moralities based on our upbringing and interpretation of life as we know it.

So are we judging them according to what we know about Westerosi morality, Essos Morality or Summer Islands Morality?  They are all different.

I was so totally going to start a post trying to answer this question. Because I have been thinking about the problem of evil rather a lot lately...
So please board, move slowly, as I have essays and projects to work on, so that I can then have time to contribute to this discussion.
I hope this wonderful website is helpful
http://tvtropes.org/...SevenBasicPlots

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

Summerqueen, on 05 April 2012 - 11:19 PM, said:

Martin is a modern author speaking to a modern audience. Yes, I think we are challenged to apply our modern sense of morality so that we can understand the meaning of the fictional work, even if only to question the nature and scope of contemporary morality. If Martin's book series were just some throw-away piece of entertainment, then maybe we wouldn't have to carry the burden of figuring out what the work actually signifies, but I find the series to be anything but disposable.

So, again, yes, we are meant to ask ourselves who are the "villains"? What does "villain" mean to us as modern (fantasy fiction) readers? What would it mean to people in Westeros (which, BTW, is not medieval Europe—not sure why people are confused about that)? Are "villains" villainous in a literary-trope way, or are they villainous in some other way? (Do readers even find it useful to think of others as villainous anymore? What would the criteria be?) Are we encouraged to excuse what we would consider to be the moral wrongs of these characters? Does understanding of a moral wrong and empathy for those who commit them preclude judgment and condemnation of that wrong, and do we hold the agent accountable?

Remember, we are approaching literature, not history. And that's an important distinction to make. We are not judging real cultures, no real people will be hurt by imposing a modern interpretation onto the story. Literature demands we acknowledge our contemporary critical standpoint and look at the modern cultural product as exactly that. Martin can change the culture at whim. There is a problem with pretending that Westeros culture and time refers to any culture or time in history—history is not a unified voice, but Martin's setting certainly comes from one man. None of this means anything unless we can relate it back to his moment and culture or our own.

For example, every time that we let Tyrion off the hook, we are being hoodwinked by his ability to charm us (Humbert Humbert comes to mind as the unreliable narrator extraordinaire—even pedophiles can justify themselves convincingly, and that's the horror of Lolita). Is he a villain? It's difficult to get a handle on that question. Certainly, his actions are those of a villain from time to time. Just because we are made to pity him and defend his right to live when we see how much wrong has been done to him, should we not question the urge to excuse him in other areas where he is the wrong-doer? His ability to self-justify and make his actions appear either reasonable or righteous is something that should be raising flags all over the place (it's very human and not at all objective). Not applying our own moral codes to his narrative is equivalent to giving ourselves a handicap right off the bat. We refuse to condemn or make judgments, we absolve ourselves of the responsibility. That's not what being an active reader is all about. That's being an accepting and passive reader who just shrugs off the analytical work.

“…there is an idea of a Patrick Bateman Petyr Baelish,some kind of abstraction, but there is no real me, only an entity, something illusory, and though I can hide my cold gaze and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable: I simply am not there. It is hard for me to make sense on any given level. Myself is fabricated, an aberration. I am a noncontingent human being. My personality is sketchy and unformed, my heartlessness goes deep and is persistent. My conscience, my pity, my hopes disappeared a long time ago (probably at Harvard Riverrun) if they ever did exist. There are no more barriers to cross. All I have in common with the uncontrollable and the insane, the vicious and the evil, all the mayhem I have caused and my utter indifference toward it, I have now surpassed. I still, though, hold on to one single bleak truth: no one is safe, nothing is redeemed. Yet I am blameless. Each model of human behavior must be assumed to have some validity. Is evil something you are? Or is it something you do? My pain is constant and sharp and I do not hope for a better world for anyone. In fact, I want my pain to be inflicted on others. I want no one to escape. But even after admitting this—and I have countless times, in just about every act I’ve committed—and coming face-to-face with these truths, there is no catharsis. I gain no deeper knowledge about myself, no new understanding can be extracted from my telling. There has been no reason for me to tell you any of this. This confession has meant nothing….”

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

voodooqueen126, on 05 April 2012 - 11:40 PM, said:

I was so totally going to start a post trying to answer this question. Because I have been thinking about the problem of evil rather a lot lately...

you are so adorable.
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=E5j4DIellR4

Personally, I find if you just refuse acknowledge it, it goes away on its own.

Edited by Lord Littlefinger's Lash, 05 April 2012 - 11:59 PM.

[Summerqueen]

James Arryn, on 05 April 2012 - 11:36 PM, said:

If that's true, we're either highly selective with what issues we can't get past, or we have differing concepts on modern society.

Like why aren't we bothered every time primogeniture is applied? Feudal governmental process? Death penalty? Etc?

In fact, if you read these pages, what we often see on those issues is people applying the standards of the place/time as given, and therefore things like 'Stannis deserved the throne' are mentioned as commonplace, even though that means supporting a standard we no longer recognize as valid.

But it happens all the time. It's more common than not. When people further arguments like Renly, it is assumed at a base level to be wrong and/or needing a lot more supporting secondary evidence than Stannis' case.

And that is not, I believe, a reflection of modern morality.


And, in reverse, things which are not part of our society, like bread/salt = guest rights...we work up conversational righteous anger over their being breached. I propose that is in the same mind...we've bought in to the idea that these aren't our standards...just that they are standards, and therefore should apply.

So why are we picking and choosing which morals to hold dear, and which to give over to suspension of judgment?

And why do the ones we pick make more sense than the ones we let go?

I think your questions are very much implicated in our modern morality. Some of the Westerosi concepts are right in line with ideas that we've been born and raised on. Much of the system that goes unquestioned comes from religious ideologies that still have a strong influence on modern societies. We are more familiar with and less ready to condemn, for example, values similar to Judeo-Christian ones. Inheritance of the firstborn, trickery used to get around it, the brother's keeper argument, such values resonate still. The barbaric violence, the horror of crucifixion as a punishment, these are recognizable social evils because of that history of belief. Our ability to accept or promote some injustices and why says everything about us and nothing much about any other culture/time period.

Lord Littlefinger, on 05 April 2012 - 11:40 PM, said:

“…there is an idea of a Patrick Bateman Petyr Baelish,some kind of abstraction, but there is no real me, only an entity, something illusory, and though I can hide my cold gaze and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable: I simply am not there. It is hard for me to make sense on any given level. Myself is fabricated, an aberration. I am a noncontingent human being. My personality is sketchy and unformed, my heartlessness goes deep and is persistent. My conscience, my pity, my hopes disappeared a long time ago (probably at Harvard Riverrun) if they ever did exist. There are no more barriers to cross. All I have in common with the uncontrollable and the insane, the vicious and the evil, all the mayhem I have caused and my utter indifference toward it, I have now surpassed. I still, though, hold on to one single bleak truth: no one is safe, nothing is redeemed. Yet I am blameless. Each model of human behavior must be assumed to have some validity. Is evil something you are? Or is it something you do? My pain is constant and sharp and I do not hope for a better world for anyone. In fact, I want my pain to be inflicted on others. I want no one to escape. But even after admitting this—and I have countless times, in just about every act I’ve committed—and coming face-to-face with these truths, there is no catharsis. I gain no deeper knowledge about myself, no new understanding can be extracted from my telling. There has been no reason for me to tell you any of this. This confession has meant nothing….”

Interesting interpretion by interior monologue.

Edited by Summerqueen, 06 April 2012 - 12:17 AM.

[SerBarristan]

Clarkrock7, on 05 April 2012 - 08:55 PM, said:

Easy tiger!  By this rationale, every character is 'absolutely unforgivable' when you apply your modern morality.  Nearly everyone subscribes to gender roles in general.  You mention Arya and Brienne, what's interesting about them is that they aren't feminists pushing for or even espousing a belief in different gender roles, all they do is refuse themselves to do what is expected of them. They don't say 'this is wrong, girls shouldn't be made to act this way.'  they are perfectly accepting of everyone else continuing on as before, only that they won't abide by those same conventions.  The actual only example in westeros would be in dorne where gender roles are truly different and one could argue much closer to a modern day view.  There is no feminist movement afoot in Westeros that supports your analogy to the civil rights movement that your relatives lived through.

To clarify, what I meant is that IF we submit to the relativist argument, we're the unforgivable ones, not the historical players (or in this case, book characters). I think you're inadvertently taking my words out of context when you parrot them in your post.

I don't like the "meh, that's just how it was back then" argument for several reasons. There's something intellectually lazy about it... It basically ignores the fact that there were people opposed to these injustices/atrocities, namely, the victims, but also a small conscientious minority. The argument says these people don't matter. Also, it's a really convenient tool for the powerful to gloss over historical injustices, avoid taking responsibility for said injustices, and continue to screw traditionally marginalized groups.

Also, I think morality has a lot to do with empathy and minimizing human suffering. So, if we look at slavery, how do we differentiate between the suffering of a slave in ancient Egypt and a sex slave today? All things being equal, their suffering is the same and equally abhorrent. When relativists take up this example, they might say "well, slavery was commonplace in ancient times, so we should judge the slavers accordingly."* But that doesn't make sense to me. The harm inflicted on the slaves is the same (probably worse then, actually) and the suffering the same. If morality has anything to do with empathy, the relativist approach doesn't fly (unless you think people in the past didn't feel pain). I admit I haven't fleshed out this particular idea, but hopefully someone else can chime in re: empathy.

*To be fair, a relativist might preface his argument above with: "Now, that shit was really awful, and I think it's totally bad but..." To paraphrase ol' Benjen, nothing a person says before the word "but" really matters.

Back to Arya, Brienne and Westeros. My point is not to draw 1:1 parallel between them and the Civil Rights Movement. I'm just using them because they're really recognizable examples of characters who unapologetically buck Westeros' screwed gender norms. And my broader point is that there are always such people in history opposed to unjust systems (because they're either the direct victims or morally enlightened/courageous/whatever). I don't think Arya and Brienne need to organize feminist rallies for me to characterize them in this way, because they're still part of the struggle, even if it's just on their own individual terms. (And I guess I'm mostly talking about Brienne, since Arya's just a kid. I'm kind of looking into a crystal ball with her. One where her dad doesn't get killed and she doesn't become a badass assassin...)

Back to your point about the Civil Rights Movement and it being a bad analogy, I agree, it's not the ideal comparison for a several reasons. And yeah, in a way, I feel like we should be especially scornful of those who lived during the Civil Rights Movement and still held racist ideas because their warped ideas were challenged (and defeated) in a very public and organized way... That reaction seems to feed the relativist view... But my question then is: Where's the bright line? At what point does the opposition to the injustice constitute the "tipping point" when those who cling to the "old" way become legitimate targets of moral scrutiny? I don't think the bright line exists... But I'm interested if someone wants to take a stab.

Quote

Isn't this exactly the same as saying that every single human being who believed that the world was flat was an absolute fool to think so, because it turns out it aint?  That the second one person said, 'hey wait a second, i'm not so sure' that absent immediate adoption of that viewpoint, they should be viewed in hindsight as morons?

Well you're kinda hinting at my "bright line" question, so I'm hoping you'll try and tackle it. But to answer your question, no, it's not the same. For one thing, I'm not calling these people stupid. I'm saying some of their behavior is immoral.

Quote

Look at how every single character accepts a class structure of lords and monarchs with absolute power over the common man.  Isn't this 'absolutely unforgivable' when looked at through a 21st century prism where individual rights are promoted and protected?  Dany, your champion of feminist might, is an interesting character in this instance, as she may not be forcing anyone to follow or be subservient to her, but were the society different, the people would not be doing so. It is a society of kings or queens and their subjects, what the little people know how to do is to follow so that is what they do.

Well, every character with a couple exceptions are either lords/ladies or somehow players in the game of thrones where their position and fortunes are based on supporting said feudal system... So i'm not sure they're the best sample. In fact, I imagine there are many "smallfolk" who've mused how nice it'd be not to have lords and ladies. And if someone out there is more bookish than I, perhaps they can find the parts of the series that I found vaguely populist and anti-feudal b/c I'm pretty sure they're there. One example: Septon Meribald. I don't think he's pro-feudal system.. The feudal system sucks.

And hold your horses, cowboy! When did I mention Dany as a my champion of feminist might? Think you might be getting ahead of yourself trying to peg me into a particular category of poster? Heh. I just brought up the feminist stuff because I think the whole "Ned beheaded a NW deserter" to be a boring point that gets no where, but that's just my opinion. While I definitely consider myself a feminist guy, that's not the primary prism I look at ASOIF through by any means.

Quote

Every one of them that does so is accepting the same social structure that we in the modern day find reprehensible

Yes, but here is where I'd say just about everyone in Westeros must accept that social structure to avoid a headman's axe. Rebelling gets you death. And that's where we get into a sort of relativisty argument that I have a tough time not accepting... As I think someone else said in this thread (and if not, I'll say it), moral codes are meaningless unless they can inform our decisions in the real world. And basically, I don't think you can reject the feudal system in Westeros and coexist with the powers that be. You'd have to leave or something. I have a hard time condemning people to death to avoid "immoral" behavior. Might there be situations where death is the only moral option? Maybe I don't know.

Quote

"Why?  Why should someone be punished for doing something totally acceptable at the time he did it?  I live in the middle ages, i dump my chamber pot in the street, just like everybody else does, I contribute to the spread of disease in doing so, because society is too stupid (read: haven't figured out yet) that this is a bad idea.  I am an immoral asshole according to your 21st century view."

This is kind of like the earth is flat thing. Which by the way, the ancients figured out wasn't true. The earth is flat myth is itself kind of a myth. But anyway, there's a difference between the "immorality" of creating unsanitary living conditions and, say, genocide. Also, the ancients figured out that sanitation was a good idea too. Pattern here is that Middle Ages europe sucked ass.

I guess fundamentally, I think accept some basic axioms like human life is valuable, there's such a thing as dignity.. fairness etc. I don't buy this idea that you need special knowledge to appreciate those things, but who knows? For sanitation, I need to grasp germs. Kinda complicated. Is morality complicated? Maybe... It'd be nice to have a time machine and find out.

Edited by SerBarristan, 06 April 2012 - 12:31 AM.

[James Arryn]

Summerqueen, on 06 April 2012 - 12:07 AM, said:

I think your questions are very much implicated in our modern morality. Some of the Westerosi concepts are right in line with ideas that we've been born and raised on. Much of the system that goes unquestioned comes from religious ideologies that still have a strong influence on modern societies. We are more familiar with and less ready to condemn, for example, values similar to Judeo-Christian ones. Inheritance of the firstborn, trickery used to get around it, the brother's keeper argument, such values resonate still. The barbaric violence, the horror of crucifixion as a punishment, these are recognizable social evils. Our ability to accept or promote some injustices and why says everything about us and nothing much about any other culture/time period.

I agree entirely (if you are saying what I think you are saying.) That was my point re: coincidence earlier. Not a reflection of is'isms, but we/now'isms. Just seems like is'isms.

Although it's possible that you and I mean your last line here equally as strongly in opposite directions. To me it is a reflection of the impermanent nature of our holdings. You might mean the opposite...that current sentiments are validations of eternal truths.

I hope not, but am unsure.

[James Arryn]

Ser Bar-

I've seen a lot of research that suggests slaves in many periods thought no worse of their plights than lower class peoples in others. In fact there are countless examples of people selling themselves into slavery. It was a truth for the vast majority of human existence. People who were slaves would have a lot more of a moral problem over other things we now hold to be true...religious, social, etc. than the fact of their slavery.

I also take issue with the idea that historical perspective/moral relativism excuses present injustice. It's a tool/means, no more inherently wrong than any other perspective, and almost certainly one which has been used to perpetuate less evil than a belief in absolutes.

Edited by James Arryn, 06 April 2012 - 12:22 AM.

[Summerqueen]

James Arryn, on 06 April 2012 - 12:15 AM, said:

I agree entirely (if you are saying what I think you are saying.) That was my point re: coincidence earlier. Not a reflection of is'isms, but we/now'isms. Just seems like is'isms.

Although it's possible that you and I mean your last line here equally as strongly in opposite directions. To me it is a reflection of the impermanent nature of our holdings. You might mean the opposite...that current sentiments are validations of eternal truths.

I hope not, but am unsure.

I'm not sure I get you here either. XD
But I think our holdings have been built on a pretty obvious scaffold and that those holdings are being continually repaired, renovated, and reevaluated for the next generation to add to or rebuild. They are not relative structures per se. Relativism is analogous to moral timidity in my book, and it is the enemy of social responsibility and accountability. I absolutely believe we are responsible for the way we treat each other, and those who don't want to play nice should be benched. I think you can say "live and let live" and still make a stand regarding what you think is right or wrong. The way to dessiminate those beliefs is to refuse, inform, or convince, though, not to ignore, impose, or coerce.

[James Arryn]

Summerqueen, on 06 April 2012 - 12:31 AM, said:

I'm not sure I get you here either. XD
But I think our holdings have been built on a pretty obvious scaffold and that those holdings are being continually repaired, renovated, and reevaluated for the next generation to add to or rebuild. They are not relative structures per se. Relativism is analogous to moral timidity in my book, and it is the enemy of social responsibility and accountability. I absolutely believe we are responsible for the way we treat each other, and those who don't want to play nice should be benched. I think you can say "live and let live" and still make a stand regarding what you think is right or wrong. The way to dessiminate those beliefs is to refuse, inform, or convince, though, not to ignore, impose, or coerce.

Hmmm....well, to give you some insight into my way of thinking, I wrote/taught a course on how the implementation of utopian ideals has been one of the most destructive patterns in (relatively) recent human history.

10 men unsure of what's right will tend to do less wrong than 1 man sure he's right.

Imo.

I cite, for example, Hitler. Stalin. Mao. Caesar. Urban II.

Etc.

Edit: I do agree that in an ideal world subject to editorializing, strong convictions would be the backbone of a righteous society. Or at least could be. However history tells me that in reality your relationship with the consequences of those convictions will have a lot to do with whether or not you benefit from them.

For one further example of what I mean, and here I bow to Mark Twain, the greatest obstacle to the anti-slavery movement throughout history was the sense that some things just are right or wrong.

Most anti-slavery activists in history had to overcome the sense that they were guilty of moral equivalence.

There are even Bible passages which clearly uphold slave owner property rights...not that that's an example of current moral centrism, but certainly you know for many and for long it was.

Edited by James Arryn, 06 April 2012 - 12:41 AM.

[Lord Littlefinger's Lash]

James Arryn, on 06 April 2012 - 12:36 AM, said:

Hmmm....well, to give you some insight into my way of thinking, I wrote/taught a course on how the implementation of utopian ideals has been one of the most destructive patterns in (relatively) recent human history.

10 men unsure of what's right will tend to do less wrong than 1 man sure he's right.

Imo.

I cite, for example, Hitler. Stalin. Mao. Caesar. Urban II.

Etc.

Edit: I do agree that in an ideal world subject to editorializing, strong convictions would be the backbone of a righteous society. Or at least could be. However history tells me that in reality your relationship with the consequences of those convictions will have a lot to do with whether or not you benefit from them.

For one further example of what I mean, and here I bow to Mark Twain, the greatest obstacle to the anti-slavery movement throughout history was the sense that some things just are right or wrong.

Most anti-slavery activists in history had to overcome the sense that they were guilty of moral equivalence.

There are even Bible passages which clearly uphold slave owner property rights...not that that's an example of current moral centrism, but certainly you know for many and for long it was.

Don't forget Ned and Stannis.

[LuisDantas]

Regarding the OP:

Sure, there are moral and immoral characters, and because they live in societies that are themselves corrupt to some degree, their morality will and must clash with the values of their cultures, therefore making the existence of grey morality a certainty.

Morality is ultimately the result of a determined effort to change circunstances in order to facilitate the ultimate common good.  It is directed by a mental understanding of the likely results of one's actions and by their moral values, which may be self-developed but are mostly inherited from nurture.

So slavery is by definition immoral (its consequences are always detrimental to society and to individuals as well), yet moral people may well be found in slaver societies, although their morality will be challenged by their exposure and degree of participation in slavering activities.

By contrast, war and killing are actually less universally immoral than slavery, because there are circunstances (mosly demographical ones related to famine and overpopulation) that make war necessary.  Killing is likewise justified in cases of euthanasia and self-defense.  Medieval war was considerably more moral than contemporary war, because the weaponry was so much more balanced and the participation in the risks so much more direct and less affected by wealth.

So no, beheading deserters and traitors isn't really immoral given the circunstances.  Of course, the moral people of feudal societies such as Westeros will unavoidably push it towards less warlike ways and more responsibility about population levels and political inequality.  But until they are succesful, the reality of their culture limits their options and makes such killings the most moral option available to them.  One of the greater tragedies of human people is that we breed our own troubles so easily and have such poor grasp of their causes and reach.  In medieval times, it meant that warfare was the social transformation tool of choice.

[James Arryn]

Lord Littlefinger, on 06 April 2012 - 12:43 AM, said:

Don't forget Ned and Stannis.

That's a point.

But I'm a romantic when it comes to reading.

[Ball Drogo]

Not going to lie, I love this thread topic because it is just one example of the lasting impacts of these books.  Regarding morality, I suppose I consider myself more relativist than absolutist.  That being said, I don't believe that there is any possible way to judge any action in Westeros and being "moral" or "immoral".  

For starters, not only do we have our own values, upbringings, and experiences that shape our perceptions of the events in the novel, but we also need to consider the religions, motives, and values of the characters as well.  I don't think that we can argue that Ned beheading the deserter of the NW as immoral because how is he supposed to think otherwise?  Not only is it law, but the tradition and foundation of the Stark relationship with the Night Watch.  This can go on to evaluate practically all activity throughout the series (excluding Gregor Clegane, I don't think anyone can defend his morality). Our unique interpretations of ASOIAF and the sharing of these views is the best part of the experience.

[Summerqueen]

James Arryn, on 06 April 2012 - 12:36 AM, said:

Hmmm....well, to give you some insight into my way of thinking, I wrote/taught a course on how the implementation of utopian ideals has been one of the most destructive patterns in (relatively) recent human history.

10 men unsure of what's right will tend to do less wrong than 1 man sure he's right.

Imo.

I cite, for example, Hitler. Stalin. Mao. Caesar. Urban II.

Etc.

I haven't really studied these leaders enough to really address the premise. Ideology can certainly be used as a tool to control the masses, no disputes there. But has relativism improved any nation who espoused it?

I will ask, though, which relativistic leaders have done material good in the world? I'm actually racking my brains to come up with one leader, strong or otherwise, who thought that moral judgments should not be made because right and wrong were too uncertain. I can't think of one, but I study lit, not history, so I'm not informed on the subject. It seems to me that conviction is one of the primary attributes of any sort of leader, good or bad. Even Madison's isolationism (which at least gestures toward you-do-what-you-do-and-we'll-do-what-we-do) was formed out of a conviction regarding what America should be and what its place in the world was, and could probably not be called relativistic political philosophy.

Regardless, we're straying from the topic at hand.

Back on topic, I will say that, in any case, there are actual villains in Martin's story. A number of characters cause trouble for our protagonists. Many commit harmful and violent acts that become important on a plot level. That's the definition of a villain. That type of action serves the literary requisite for the term. Villains don't just go around twirling their Evil mustaches and do capital E evil for the sake of not doing capital G good. That's simply bad writing (oh, look, I made a value judgment! *points* Sure, I could say that sort of writing is not technically proficient, intellectually insulting, boring, or plain embarrassing to read, but implying a negative value of the writing surely gets the point across). I think that we often pretend that words like "bad" and "evil" are only used in the most rigid and archaic senses of those words when our everyday use tells quite a different story.

Every complex villain will have identifiable and relatable reasons for his actions. Often, a villain is a villain by virtue of his actions simply manifesting out of purportion to his motivation. We see that with Lord Frey. His profound malevolence is not created in a vacuum. He has a sympathize-able reason for his perfidy, but it's not in purportion to his actions. Roose Bolton, on the other hand, is a villain because his motives are harmful in and of themselves. He isn't seeking vengeance or justice or cashing in an IOU. He may be more interesting than Frey, but he's also more clearly a villain for villainous motivations—greed and a thirst for power in this case.

[James Arryn]

Summerqueen, on 06 April 2012 - 01:43 AM, said:

I haven't really studied these leaders enough to really address the premise. Ideology can certainly be used as a tool to control the masses, no disputes there. But has relativism improved any nation who espoused it?

I will ask, though, which relativistic leaders have done material good in the world? I'm actually racking my brains to come up with one leader, strong or otherwise, who thought that moral judgments should not be made because right and wrong were too uncertain. I can't think of one, but I study lit, not history, so I'm not informed on the subject. It seems to me that conviction is one of the primary attributes of any sort of leader, good or bad. Even Madison's isolationism (which at least gestures toward you-do-what-you-do-and-we'll-do-what-we-do) was formed out of a conviction regarding what America should be and what its place in the world was, and could probably not be called relativistic political philosophy.

Regardless, we're straying from the topic at hand.

I won't even bother to think of examples, because in general I am quite willing to concede the point. I feel that convictions and leaders would be best served by imitating medical ethics: primum non nocere. (Edit...this sounded condescending and wasn't meant to. I did not mean to imply that examples of leaders doing great things on the alter of relativism are as readily available as those with conviction..I doubt they are. More that it was beside my point.)

I think there have been wonderful leaders who have done great things. I think they are more than offset by the contrary, though. Which is odd, because I am not in any way a fan of the social school of historical study. I am wholeheartedly anachronistic: I am moved by heroic leaders and  actions and movements. I think the most interesting life ever lead (that I know of) was Sir Richard Burton (not the actor) closely followed by Leonardo. I am extremely romantic in the classical sense, but even my enthusiasm for heroes hasn't been able to blind me to the damage leaders with conviction have wrought on humankind.

Edit: One point, the very nature of moral equivalence lends itself to not being 'espoused' by states. For one thing, unlike espousing specific causes, it garners you no established body of support.

And for another, it tends to undermine the concepts which propel leaders of states to be in a position to espouse anything on its behalf.

And lastly, it is less conducive to concepts like patriotism or other such ideals than the alternative, making espousing it somewhat counter-productive from a government's perspective.

Wait, I lied. Lastly; it makes for much less sexy slogans.

Quote

Back on topic, I will say that, in any case, there are actual villains in Martin's story. A number of characters cause trouble for our protagonists. Many commit harmful and violent acts that become important on a plot level. That's the definition of a villain. That type of action serves the literary requisite for the term. Villains don't just go around twirling their Evil mustaches and do capital E evil for the sake of not doing capital G good. That's simply bad writing (oh, look, I made a value judgment! *points* Sure, I could say that sort of writing is not technically proficient, intellectually insulting, boring, or plain embarrassing to read, but implying a negative value of the writing surely gets the point across). I think that we often pretend that words like "bad" and "evil" are only used in the most rigid and archaic senses of those words when our everyday use tells quite a different story.

Every complex villain will have identifiable and relatable reasons for his actions. Often, a villain is a villain by virtue of his actions simply manifesting out of purportion to his motivation. We see that with Lord Frey. His profound malevolence is not created in a vacuum. He has a sympathize-able reason for his perfidy, but it's not in purportion to his actions. Roose Bolton, on the other hand, is a villain because his motives are harmful in and of themselves. He isn't seeking vengeance or justice or cashing in an IOU. He may be more interesting than Frey, but he's also more clearly a villain for villainous motivations—greed and a thirst for power in this case.

I think villain-hood in GRRM vacillates wildly, and usually in correlation to my sympathies for a particular character or cause.

Edited by James Arryn, 06 April 2012 - 02:36 AM.

[voodooqueen126]

Summerqueen, on 06 April 2012 - 01:43 AM, said:

I haven't really studied these leaders enough to really address the premise. Ideology can certainly be used as a tool to control the masses, no disputes there. But has relativism improved any nation who espoused it?

I will ask, though, which relativistic leaders have done material good in the world? I'm actually racking my brains to come up with one leader, strong or otherwise, who thought that moral judgments should not be made because right and wrong were too uncertain. I can't think of one, but I study lit, not history, so I'm not informed on the subject. It seems to me that conviction is one of the primary attributes of any sort of leader, good or bad. Even Madison's isolationism (which at least gestures toward you-do-what-you-do-and-we'll-do-what-we-do) was formed out of a conviction regarding what America should be and what its place in the world was, and could probably not be called relativistic political philosophy.

Regardless, we're straying from the topic at hand.

Back on topic, I will say that, in any case, there are actual villains in Martin's story. A number of characters cause trouble for our protagonists. Many commit harmful and violent acts that become important on a plot level. That's the definition of a villain. That type of action serves the literary requisite for the term. Villains don't just go around twirling their Evil mustaches and do capital E evil for the sake of not doing capital G good. That's simply bad writing (oh, look, I made a value judgment! *points* Sure, I could say that sort of writing is not technically proficient, intellectually insulting, boring, or plain embarrassing to read, but implying a negative value of the writing surely gets the point across). I think that we often pretend that words like "bad" and "evil" are only used in the most rigid and archaic senses of those words when our everyday use tells quite a different story.

Every complex villain will have identifiable and relatable reasons for his actions. Often, a villain is a villain by virtue of his actions simply manifesting out of purportion to his motivation. We see that with Lord Frey. His profound malevolence is not created in a vacuum. He has a sympathize-able reason for his perfidy, but it's not in purportion to his actions. Roose Bolton, on the other hand, is a villain because his motives are harmful in and of themselves. He isn't seeking vengeance or justice or cashing in an IOU. He may be more interesting than Frey, but he's also more clearly a villain for villainous motivations—greed and a thirst for power in this case.

Their certainly are villains, and whilst GRRM says their are no real life heroes, he has certainly created literary heroes...
Interestingly, Walder Frey is one of the few villains who doesn't have especially villainous motives.

[Fragile Bird]

James Arryn, on 06 April 2012 - 12:36 AM, said:

Hmmm....well, to give you some insight into my way of thinking, I wrote/taught a course on how the implementation of utopian ideals has been one of the most destructive patterns in (relatively) recent human history.

10 men unsure of what's right will tend to do less wrong than 1 man sure he's right.

Imo.

I cite, for example, Hitler. Stalin. Mao. Caesar. Urban II.

Etc.

Not to quibble, but I don't find any of the men on your list utopian idealists.

[LuisDantas]

Lord Littlefinger, on 06 April 2012 - 12:43 AM, said:

Don't forget Ned and Stannis.

What of them?