433 replies to this topic

[Apple Martini]

Lord Roivas, on 29 January 2013 - 06:31 PM, said:

You seem to be missing the point. Cruelty requires more than doing something wrong or bad. The "greater good" was perhaps not the best example, but I understood the point.

Melisandre probably would have burned a child but there were motives involved and that course of action may have benefitted mankind regardless of her opinion on the doing the "greater good". If Melisandre's so called "greater good" was her teaching people not to mess with her by burning one of their own, then that's not exactly the greater good.

Now if Melisandre took some level of pleasure or burned people at will then yes she would be cruel. If she decided to burn at random or decided to burn someone's child out of spite, then that would be cruel. Melisandre simply does these things when it's beneficial to her cause, she's not doing it maliciously. Does that excuse her actions or mean she isn't bad? Absolutely not, but she is not cruel.

At some point though, you have to draw the line when it comes to a motive excusing a despicable act. And not everyone draws the "greater good" distinction in the same way that others do. Melisandre's "greater good" is someone else's "batshit crazy over a diety that doesn't really exist."

ETA: And there is no way in hell that Jon sent Gilly away with Mance's baby believing that Gilly's real son would be burned. The point was to send the "royal" baby away and, in all likelihood, own up to that fact if Stannis and/or Mel got it into their heads to hurt Gilly's son. The idea that Jon chose one child over another or actually thought Gilly's baby would be burned or would have allowed Gilly's baby to be burned is so out of left field it's almost not even worth addressing. He might have laid it on thick for Gilly to get her to, you know, give up the baby, but absolutely nothing suggests that Jon would have allowed either child to be burned.

Edited by Apple Martini, 29 January 2013 - 08:02 PM.

[TheButcherCrow]

Apple Martini, on 29 January 2013 - 07:32 PM, said:

At some point though, you have to draw the line when it comes to a motive excusing a despicable act. And not everyone draws the "greater good" distinction in the same way that others do. Melisandre's "greater good" is someone else's "batshit crazy over a diety that doesn't really exist."

ETA: And there is no way in hell that Jon sent Gilly away with Mance's baby believing that Gilly's real son would be burned. The point was to send the "royal" baby away and, in all likelihood, own up to that fact if Stannis and/or Mel got it into their heads to hurt Gilly's son. The idea that Jon chose one child over another or actually thought Gilly's baby would be burned or would have allowed Gilly's baby to be burned is so out of left field it's almost not even worth addressing. He might have laid it on thick for Gilly to get her to, you know, give up the baby, but absolutely nothing suggests that Jon would have allowed either child to be burned.

Spot on. Jon never would have allowed that kid to be burned, although he has put in a position to be burned if he, say get stabbed by all his men, oh wait... I think you could agrue, any actions Mel takes she thinks are for a greater good. Whether you agree with that, well that's another matter. There are many characters doing what they think is right in these books & to be fair, it leads a LOT of them down some pretty dark-ass paths, child murder being a not terribly uncommon crime (I'm thinking specifically of Micah, and that was done simply at the command of a prince) not quite so noble as doing a horrible thing out of devotion to your god in hopes of saving the world.

Quote

DISCLAIMER
I should pause here and point out I realise that what I just described in our world  would be considered very much a justification or at the very least, an apologist explanation of, religious extremism. We must remember we are not talking about our world, we are talking about a world where there is pretty much conclusive evidence that a god/some gods/really powerful supernatural beings & magic all exist.

Edited by TheButcherCrow, 29 January 2013 - 08:25 PM.

[Lady of Long Lake]

Scipio Africanus, on 29 January 2013 - 08:36 AM, said:

...and does Emilia Clarke stand around with her mouth open all the time?

Times like these I'm glad I don't follow the show.

Sorta. I've seen the actress in interviews and she's the most captivating person I think I've ever seen. Her face is so full of life and she's a joy to look at and listen to! But put that white Targaryen wig on her and she looks like she's had a lobotomy in some of the scenes:( Her face doesn't look thoughtful or pensive - it's totally BLANK and devoid of life! I wish more of Emilia's sparkle showed through in her character.

[GillyTarly]

Mel's shadow child killed Renly. How is that good?

[Curt Maester]

I pretty much was indifferent to Jon, and slightly found him lame (his shameful lust with the wilding girl helped) until he sent for a log. Also his interactions with Stannis warmed him up to me and found great pleasure in his sly humour. In a DWD he showed character, leadership.. I guess all I wanted for him was to become a man, not a brooding spoilt teen.

[GillyTarly]

Curt Maester, on 29 January 2013 - 10:29 PM, said:

I pretty much was indifferent to Jon, and slightly found him lame (his shameful lust with the wilding girl helped) until he sent for a log. Also his interactions with Stannis warmed him up to me and found great pleasure in his sly humour. In a DWD he showed character, leadership.. I guess all I wanted for him was to become a man, not a brooding spoilt teen.

Shhh...it's a bromance. He replaced Robb and Sam for Stannis. He (Stannis) will teach him any things about leadership.

[Freebird6699]

GillyTarly, on 27 January 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

True, Jon has a good heart and intentions.

Oh God, that is a scary thing to say.  You know what happens to good people in this series!
I like Jon, if for no other reason than he is in a physically terrible place and making the best of it.  He went willingly to the Wall, not really knowing what it was all about and has kept his oath to stay. And he feels remorse for Ygritte. I think that is why people think he is whiny.  He try's so hard to think through the issues and his honor.  Maybe he is a cliche, I am rooting for him anyway!

[Stannis ftw]

Errant Bard, on 29 January 2013 - 05:04 PM, said:

You're diminishing the numbers and quality risked on this operation. If it fails, which it has all chances to, the Wall becomes manned by administrators and builders, and to succeed, there will be not "a few" sent, but a sizeable enough force to manage the wildlings refugees AND defend them, after at least reaching them. You sent only a handful, you may as well sent noone and spare yourself the political turbulences, you send a lot and you strip the Wall bare for a result most probably negative.

Not to mention, by the time the rescue team gets there, if dead things are already in the water and wildlings mowed down on land when Cotter Pyke sent the message, by the time they walk to Hardhome they'll get slaughtered by their ex-comrades. It's suicide no matter how you look at it. The Fist, the current rangers all disappearing, the Cotter Pyke message, it all points that going blindly North of the wall, no matter how noble the sentiment, will get you slaughtered... And of course us as readers also have the Bran PoV and the various prologues to reinforce how doomed it is.

Exactly this. Jon if anybody should know at this point the importance of keeping the defences of the Wall up. That should be his first priority. It seems huge risk, surely less than 50% chance of succeeding, with profound consequences for the whole Westeros if they fail. Selyse was right in this :-)

[den]

I love jon and kit! For me, he is the best character!

[GillyTarly]

Kit makes me warm and fuzzy somewhere I'm not mention on here.

[chrisdaw]

This thread makes clear there is a lack of Jon hate and abundance of eager Jon love.

[Roza Ahai]

GillyTarly, on 29 January 2013 - 10:21 PM, said:

Mel's shadow child killed Renly. How is that good?

It could be explained as follows: Dark magic weapon has been used to kill Renly. Mel killed AAR's enemy like ninja.

[GillyTarly]

Roza Ahai, on 30 January 2013 - 12:03 AM, said:

It could be explained as follows: Dark magic weapon has been used to kill Renly. Mel killed AAR's enemy like ninja.

It shows you don't mess with Mel. She might shadow you to death.

[PatrickStormborn]

Just think of it this way: would Melisandre ever harm someone just to cause harm? No, she wouldn't. She's not particularly cruel. She's not motivated by cruelty or malice.