Systemic Problems

[Parwan]

Systemic Problems

Part I: Stasis

If one is confronted by a deep systemic problem, it will do no good to look at it as a series of single-point failures. In the seven kingdoms, we have more than just a deep problem; we have a near-total systemic breakdown. It's not good enough to say that Dany is a bitch, Stannis is a hypocrite, Eddard was too dumb to live, etc. Some of these things may be true. Seven hells, all of them may be true (or half true, or 80% true, or…). That's not the main deal. When so many leaders perform so poorly, it's not just because there are an unusually large number of inferior people at the top. The main problem must be more general.

I decided to start this thread after participating in "Authority in ASOIAF?" The current thread is also related to comments I made in "Dany Changes" and "Barristan the Barometer." In the authority thread, there was some discussion of the Magna Carta. I pointed out that Martin's novels are often said to be based on the War of the Roses, which took place a few hundred years after the charter was signed. There is no such document in the seven kingdoms, thus they appear to be quite backward, even for a medieval society.

In another post in the authority thread, SeanF had this to say:

Medieval theories about Kingship were contractual. The King's subjects had a duty to obey him and follow him to war. The King had a duty to protect his subjects from their enemies and govern justly. Many theorists took the view that a tyrannical, or incompetent, King could be deposed by the great men of the realm, which is what happened to Edward II and Richard II.

My thoughts on SeanF's post are as follows:

It seems that there is no such theoretical structure in the seven kingdoms. It appears that not only is there no true example of the planned-out-and-executed removal of an unjust ruler, there is not even any body of thought saying that such a removal might be justified. Robert's Rebellion is not an example. First of all, it was not based on any new theory of government. Secondly, it was more of a defensive reaction than an uprising against a tyrant.

One can read a fantasy in many ways of course. I tend to look on ASoIaF as a story about a society that is in stasis, is almost frozen. Millennia have passed with no worthwhile moral or intellectual development. This is not an historical novel, a tale of a medieval state that existed somewhere "back then" and will perhaps evolve into a more modern form. This is a place where no thinking of importance has been done for about 8,000 years (perhaps only 4,000 years, the exact number is not a big deal). The Wall, the NW, the crypts of Winterfell, vows which are essentially promises of slavish devotion to the leader--all these things bespeak a society that has not changed over a period of time longer than the one which separates us from the Code of Hammurabi. I'm not expecting anybody to storm the Bastille. But, by all the gods, these people haven't even come up with the Magna Carta. It's not that there is absolutely no character in the story who has worthwhile thoughts on these matters. A few do. They are not people very near to the top, though some have a bit of power and some are important characters in the story.

If there is much interest in this topic, I'll have more to say about the matters introduced here.

[Mladen]

You do realize you are mixing Westeros and Essos?

[The Sleeper]

I don't think the time intervals are meant to be taken as realistic time periods during which a plausible evolution of society might have occured. It is part of the fantastical exaggeration along with the size of the lands. As far as I know no feudal state ever approximated the size of the seven kingdoms. If we leave Westeros, other societies appear to be put together from real life equivalents of various places and various time periods, while the wildlings appear to be remnants of prehistory.

I don't see a problem though. After all Charlemagne divided his kingdom upon his death, while in China there was a well establish beaurocracy. I don't see historical progression as necessarliy linear.

[Parwan]

You do realize you are mixing Westeros and Essos?

I don't see this as a problem of any significance. About the only reference to Essos in my analysis is the mention of Dany. If someone says that criticism of her relates to her actions in Slavers' Bay, I answer, "So What?" Even if I grant this as somehow damaging to my thesis (I don't), the harm is not great. I still maintain that most of the points, e.g. slavish devotion to the leader, are valid. For example, trying to say that Barristan is bad because he didn't work against Aerys and that Jaime is partly good because he killed Aerys, misses an important point. Trying to debate these things on a basis of good guys vs. bad guys ultimately won't get us far. The vows themselves suck.

I don't think the time intervals are meant to be taken as realistic time periods during which a plausible evolution of society might have occured. It is part of the fantastical exaggeration along with the size of the lands. As far as I know no feudal state ever approximated the size of the seven kingdoms. If we leave Westeros, other societies appear to be put together from real life equivalents of various places and various time periods, while the wildlings appear to be remnants of prehistory.

I don't see a problem though. After all Charlemagne divided his kingdom upon his death, while in China there was a well establish beaurocracy. I don't see historical progression as necessarliy linear.

Naturally, I agree that there is much fantastical in the story. The point is, "what do we make of all this?" I think it's valid to read ASoIaF as a tale of a society that is in stasis. Said stasis can be quite fantastical and still have meaning. Most of the threads I've read approach the matter very differently--this character is good, that character is bad. so and so should wind up on the throne, this or that man (or woman) is AA...I'm suggesting a different approach. For one thing, most of the characters can be viewed as products of their environment. For another, we can evaluate a person in part on the basis of whether he (or she) has some worthwhile thoughts on "how do we change things?" This is quite different from evaluating them on the basis on whose rear end they are trying to put on that ugly iron chair.

I don't demand linear progression. I'm not sure there is any kind of progression in Westeros. I would say that most, if not all, "leadership decisions" border on criminal negligence. You have a large number of people running around proclaiming something along the lines of "I am the only True Big Cheese." Meanwhile, most of the cows are dead or dying, not only cheese but most food has probably not been properly stored, and a large percentage of the population is almost certainly going to freeze or starve in the coming winter.

[Mladen]

I don't see this as a problem of any significance. About the only reference to Essos in my analysis is the mention of Dany. If someone says that criticism of her relates to her actions in Slavers' Bay, I answer, "So What?" Even if I grant this as somehow damaging to my thesis (I don't), the harm is not great. I still maintain that most of the points, e.g. slavish devotion to the leader, are valid. For example, trying to say that Barristan is bad because he didn't work against Aerys and that Jaime is partly good because he killed Aerys, misses an important point. Trying to debate these things on a basis of good guys vs. bad guys ultimately won't get us far. The vows themselves suck.

Perhaps you don`t. But, then mixing two continents, two nations, two cultures and talking about one social breakdown is for me, logically wrong. That would be like talking about progress of USA and Libya combined, not separating them , then just uniting them in some weird mix. You tend to mention MAgna Carta as reference to Westeros,, without even realizing that there are great significance between Westeros and Essos - slaves. Westeros is feudal society and as such, there is hierarchy, that starts with the King at the top, and the commoners on the bottom. But, the freedom isn`t something that is denied to anyone in

Westeros. They are Free people, able to make choices and to suffer the coinsequences.

As for vows, for some they actually mean something. We, doctors take a vow, and I don`t find it absurd or suck. I find them as agreement I made with my future patients that their well-being shall be my first priority. I am sorry, but entire thesis that vows are just shackels of slavery is for me impostrous. Some people can hold their vows, some can`t. That`s what is so great about our nature. We all differ.

[The Sleeper]

The unification of Westeros is a recent (so to speak) development. The events described in this story very much describe the breaking down of this society. It has moved form a lot of small wars that were "business as usual" in that type of society and pretty much jusitfied its existence to a total war where it's very survival is threatened. The point of the contradiction between Barristan and Jamie is precisely that: the vows are nonsense.

It is also why new fronts are being created along religious, national and social lines instead of the traditional poionts of conflict.

As for vows, for some they actually mean something. We, doctors take a vow, and I don`t find it absurd or suck. I find them as agreement I made with my future patients that their well-being shall be my first priority. I am sorry, but entire thesis that vows are just shackels of slavery is for me impostrous. Some people can hold their vows, some can`t. That`s what is so great about our nature. We all differ.

There is a difference between taking a vow to uphold a principle and and a vow to obey an individual. The vows in question are made to an individual that is supposed to embody the principle and by virtue of birth no less, which is bound to lead to dead ends and obsurdity.

[WinterKing]

Perhaps you don`t. But, then mixing two continents, two nations, two cultures and talking about one social breakdown is for me, logically wrong. That would be like talking about progress of USA and Libya combined, not separating them , then just uniting them in some weird mix. You tend to mention MAgna Carta as reference to Westeros,, without even realizing that there are great significance between Westeros and Essos - slaves. Westeros is feudal society and as such, there is hierarchy, that starts with the King at the top, and the commoners on the bottom. But, the freedom isn`t something that is denied to anyone in

Westeros. They are Free people, able to make choices and to suffer the coinsequences.

As for vows, for some they actually mean something. We, doctors take a vow, and I don`t find it absurd or suck. I find them as agreement I made with my future patients that their well-being shall be my first priority. I am sorry, but entire thesis that vows are just shackels of slavery is for me impostrous. Some people can hold their vows, some can`t. That`s what is so great about our nature. We all differ.

This.In Westeros there is a kind of servitude, what is VERY different from slavery.The thing that most appears slavery in Westeros are the thralls of the Iron Islands.

See what happened to Jorah when he sold some peasants.

[Mladen]

There is a difference between taking a vow to uphold a principle and and a vow to obey an individual. The vows in question are made to an individual that is supposed to embody the principle and by virtue of birth no less, which is bound to lead to dead ends and obsurdity.

Tell that to doctors who heal rapists, war criminals etc. For us, every patient embodies the principle. Vow is a vow no matter of its content or absurdity. And as long as you honor it, the vow means something. If not to anyone, then to you.

[Dagon Greyjoy]

The thing that most appears slavery in Westeros are the thralls of the Iron Islands.

The children of thralls are freemen: The children of serfs are still serfs. How is being a thrall more akin to slavery than being a serf?

See what happened to Jorah when he sold some peasants.

Because Ned was Lord Paramount. Other Lords Paramount wouldn't have given a fuck.

[The Sleeper]

Tell that to doctors who heal rapists, war criminals etc. For us, every patient embodies the principle. Vow is a vow no matter of its content or absurdity. And as long as you honor it, the vow means something. If not to anyone, then to you.

I think you misunderstood me. I was talking about the vows of knights to protect the weak etc and to obey their lords who are in turn supposed to uphold these ideals. The absurdity occurs because this is a power structure that perpetuates itself and when people are treated farily and not ignored, it is by accident or as long as it doesn't interfere with the lord's interests.

[WinterKing]

The children of thralls are freemen: The children of serfs are still serfs. How is being a thrall more akin to slavery than being a serf?

Because Ned was Lord Paramount. Other Lords Paramount wouldn't have given a fuck.

I agree with you, I forgot to add that even this is very different from Slavery.

[Mitbert Strangejoy]

Westeros and the ASOIAF world in general have been stunted by magic. Imagine what would happen to technological and social progress in this world if every several thousand years people acquired superpowers that rendered technology obsolete, and those same superpowers allowed backwaters (Valyrian sheep herders, for instance) to shatter established civilizations (Ghis, the Rhoynish civilization). Imagine that men didn't and couldn't fully understand those powers, and the rules of the game suddenly and dramatically shifted without explanation (the Doom). It would be like the laws of physics shifting from millennium to millennium. Scientific progress would be nearly meaningless.

If the Citadel is truly trying to suppress magic, perhaps they're the faction everyone should be supporting.

[A Man Has Said]

I think you misunderstood me. I was talking about the vows of knights to protect the weak etc and to obey their lords who are in turn supposed to uphold these ideals. The absurdity occurs because this is a power structure that perpetuates itself and when people are treated farily and not ignored, it is by accident or as long as it doesn't interfere with the lord's interests.

I don't think that your concept of a knight's vows are necessarily as they have been depicted in ASOIAF*. I would imagine that they're straight up oaths of fealty and obedience, as they were in the real world during Europe's feudal period. The chivalrous aspect that Sansa and wide-eyed children hear about in songs and stories is just prettified fiction. Sandor Clegane, who has had quite a bit of dealings with many knights, has a much more jaded and I think realistic impression of things. There are of course exceptions like Loras Tyrell (at least to all appearances) but most of them are just a tiny step up from sellswords.

* - the only actual depiction that I can think of is when Brienne pledged her sword to Catelyn, and I didn't get the impression that it was typical. For one thing it was reciprocal, with Catelyn also pledging to never ask Brienne to do anything that would bring her dishonour, etc.

Can you imagine Tywin Lannister or Roose Bolton taking such a pledge? They would never give a subordinate any reason to believe that they were owed something in return for their service, beyond whatever monetary support was attached to their position.

[Starfell]

I don't think that your concept of a knight's vows are necessarily as they have been depicted in ASOIAF*. I would imagine that they're straight up oaths of fealty and obedience, as they were in the real world during Europe's feudal period. The chivalrous aspect that Sansa and wide-eyed children hear about in songs and stories is just prettified fiction. Sandor Clegane, who has had quite a bit of dealings with many knights, has a much more jaded and I think realistic impression of things.

I don'tthink it's fiction, simply that most knights treat the parts about protectingf the weak etc as a mere formality rather than binding. I always got the impression that this was the main reason why Sandor treats them with contempt: because they're disingenuous

[TomWillcox]

Medieval theories about Kingship were contractual. The King's subjects had a duty to obey him and follow him to war. The King had a duty to protect his subjects from their enemies and govern justly. Many theorists took the view that a tyrannical, or incompetent, King could be deposed by the great men of the realm, which is what happened to Edward II and Richard II.

I think there is a direct legal contract in the Iron Throne monarchy. The King is proclaimed 'Protector of the Realm'. This means his legal role is to, well, protect the realm. Therefore when a monarch such as Aerys stops protecting the realm and instead throws it into turmoil by murdering lots of important people, then one can claim legal grounds for deposing said ruler.

[Prince of the North]

I don'tthink it's fiction, simply that most knights treat the parts about protectingf the weak etc as a mere formality rather than binding. I always got the impression that this was the main reason why Sandor treats them with contempt: because they're disingenuous

Agreed. And we do see at least one instance of conflicting oaths in the series: Jaime describing his having to decide just which of his oaths to uphold to Brienne - the one to his King or the one to protect the innocent? So, it seems knights do sometimes think about and uphold their oaths to the common people.

[Shane the Llama]

I don't see this as a problem of any significance. About the only reference to Essos in my analysis is the mention of Dany. If someone says that criticism of her relates to her actions in Slavers' Bay, I answer, "So What?" Even if I grant this as somehow damaging to my thesis (I don't), the harm is not great. I still maintain that most of the points, e.g. slavish devotion to the leader, are valid. For example, trying to say that Barristan is bad because he didn't work against Aerys and that Jaime is partly good because he killed Aerys, misses an important point. Trying to debate these things on a basis of good guys vs. bad guys ultimately won't get us far. The vows themselves suck.

Naturally, I agree that there is much fantastical in the story. The point is, "what do we make of all this?" I think it's valid to read ASoIaF as a tale of a society that is in stasis. Said stasis can be quite fantastical and still have meaning. Most of the threads I've read approach the matter very differently--this character is good, that character is bad. so and so should wind up on the throne, this or that man (or woman) is AA...I'm suggesting a different approach. For one thing, most of the characters can be viewed as products of their environment. For another, we can evaluate a person in part on the basis of whether he (or she) has some worthwhile thoughts on "how do we change things?" This is quite different from evaluating them on the basis on whose rear end they are trying to put on that ugly iron chair.

I don't demand linear progression. I'm not sure there is any kind of progression in Westeros. I would say that most, if not all, "leadership decisions" border on criminal negligence. You have a large number of people running around proclaiming something along the lines of "I am the only True Big Cheese." Meanwhile, most of the cows are dead or dying, not only cheese but most food has probably not been properly stored, and a large percentage of the population is almost certainly going to freeze or starve in the coming winter.

I think that your perspective on the series is interesting, but it seems as if you are distorting the books in order to fit them to your thesis. Also, I don't see how one could possibly interpret "most, if not all" leadership decisions in the series as criminally negligent. A large portion of them certainly are, but the same could be said of even modern societies, and in both cases this type of abusive decision making is not the norm.

This is more of a historical criticism than a literary one, but I would like to point out that a lack of a Magna Carta-esque document is not indicative of any level of backwardness. The Magna Carta was, as I'm sure you are aware, a document specific to a single medieval realm. Based on this fact, would you propose that every medieval kingdom other than England was backwards? Besides the obvious flaw in this logic, it is also important to note that Westeros possesses several characteristics which no real kingdom ever did. One of the most fantastical of these is dragons. In these books, dragons were essentially war-ending superweapons which were controlled only by the royal dynasty. In such a context, how can you expect that any typical noble family could force a monarch to cede portions of their power?

[Mladen]

I think you misunderstood me. I was talking about the vows of knights to protect the weak etc and to obey their lords who are in turn supposed to uphold these ideals. The absurdity occurs because this is a power structure that perpetuates itself and when people are treated farily and not ignored, it is by accident or as long as it doesn't interfere with the lord's interests.

I know what you thought and where were you heading. And I am comparig that to the doctors that save life of a murderer who is most likely to kill again. and just like we can`t be held reponisble for the criminal`s action, knights can`t be responsible for the crimes of their Kings and lords. They were bound by honor and vows. And I do understand it.

[A Man Has Said]

I think there is a direct legal contract in the Iron Throne monarchy. The King is proclaimed 'Protector of the Realm'. This means his legal role is to, well, protect the realm. Therefore when a monarch such as Aerys stops protecting the realm and instead throws it into turmoil by murdering lots of important people, then one can claim legal grounds for deposing said ruler.

I think that's in the preamble to the American Declaration of Independence, isn't it? :)

[A Man Has Said]

Agreed. And we do see at least one instance of conflicting oaths in the series: Jaime describing his having to decide just which of his oaths to uphold to Brienne - the one to his King or the one to protect the innocent? So, it seems knights do sometimes think about and uphold their oaths to the common people.

Right. I'd forgotten about that obvious example. D'oh.

Starfell made a good point about

"most knights treat the parts about protecting the weak etc as a mere formality rather than binding."

The reason that they treat it as a mere formality is that it isn't enforced, whereas their fealty to the liege lord or king would be - by the liege lord or king, of course.