Atrocities in the Series

[SeanF]

It is very easy for me to condemn Tywin Lannister for sacking King’s Landing and setting the Riverlands ablaze; Ser Gregor Clegane for murdering Tully smallfolk and raping and murdering Elia; Ramsay Bolton for his “amusements”, and the Bloody Mummers for their atrocities. Thus far, the evil characters are easily identified.

But, George Martin doesn’t let us off that easily. One of the disturbing (but realistic) aspects of the series is the willingness of sympathetic characters to carry out acts that most of us would regard as atrocities. Robb Stark is very sympathetic, yet he burns and pillages the Westerlands, and men under his command hang women for sleeping with Lannister soldiers. Tyrion has no qualms about handing over suspects to “Joffrey’s justice” without troubling to investigate whether the charges against them are well-founded, and arms clansmen to raid the Vale. Daenerys conducts mass executions at Astapor and Mereen. Jaime offers to deliver Ser Edmure’s baby son by trebuchet. The Brotherhood without Banners hang every Frey and Lannister they can get their hands on.

As for the use of torture, this seems to be routine in both continents. The worst characters actively enjoy it, but a lot of sympathetic characters seem to have few qualms about authorising it. Daenerys, Stannis, Tyrion, Qhorin Halfhand, Lord Manderly, Jaime, Mance Rayder, are all familiar with the use of torture, either as a means of investigation, or as a form of punishment. Even someone as kind as Catelyn Stark is delighted to receive a piece of Theon’s flayed skin from Roose Bolton.

How do other readers react to such acts from sympathetic characters? Give them a pass, because of the times they live in and the pressures they face? Condemn them? But then, is it really fair to expect them to behave any differently?

[Corvo Attano]

It depends on Whether the ends justify the means. Its like Adrian in Watchmen - he killed millions in order to save billions, but Rorschach still called him a criminal, even though he saved the world -but Rorschach himself was a hero, even though he routinely killed and mutilated people for tiny offences such as shoplifting or graffiti spraying. Its a blurry line between necessary and just out of spite, and most characters can be on both sides of the line, although some of them tend towards one end of the spectrum.

[butterbumps!]

How do other readers react to such acts from sympathetic characters? Give them a pass, because of the times they live in and the pressures they face? Condemn them? But then, is it really fair to expect them to behave any differently?

Aren't these the things that make them "grey," though? Condemning or absolving them for these things is silly-- I mean, each character is a sum of all their actions and behavior, so condemning them wholesale or excusing the bad somewhat misses the point on both ends. Most you mentioned (excluding Tywin, Gregor and Ramsay) have also done their share of morally upright things, so the bad they do is just another layer to the richness of their characters.

These characters shouldn't get "a pass" when they do bad things though. I mean to say, it's wrong to pretend that the bad things they do are excusable because they do it. It's not that the crimes they commit are less wrong because they are doing it; the issue is really that we tend to forgive them for doing these things based on a number of factors including reader sympathy, their rationale, whether they do these things under duress, etc. For example, Cat's killing Jinglebell is morally wrong, but it is a major atrocity I forgive.

I tend to think that all of the enormities we see are supposed to be recognized as morally wrong and not try to excuse them. That said, the interesting part is how we react to it from a sympathy/ forgiveness standpoint. I think that's what usually gets muddled in these sorts of debates-- personal sympathy sometimes overrides the ability or desire to recognize the moral wrongness in some of the characters' actions. Is that kind of what you mean?

[Lummel]

...How do other readers react to such acts from sympathetic characters? Give them a pass, because of the times they live in and the pressures they face? Condemn them? But then, is it really fair to expect them to behave any differently?

As you say GRRM doesn't let us off easily. My general approach is to recognise that GRRM is telling us something about the character though those incidents. This is the reality he is showing us, obviously there is a context, but that is no justification.

[WhiteWalder]

Having the sympathetic characters commit atrocities is essential to having morally gray characters. The gray characters is what makes the series so good.

[The Sleeper]

It is very easy for me to condemn Tywin Lannister for sacking King’s Landing and setting the Riverlands ablaze; Ser Gregor Clegane for murdering Tully smallfolk and raping and murdering Elia; Ramsay Bolton for his “amusements”, and the Bloody Mummers for their atrocities. Thus far, the evil characters are easily identified.

But, George Martin doesn’t let us off that easily. One of the disturbing (but realistic) aspects of the series is the willingness of sympathetic characters to carry out acts that most of us would regard as atrocities. Robb Stark is very sympathetic, yet he burns and pillages the Westerlands, and men under his command hang women for sleeping with Lannister soldiers. Tyrion has no qualms about handing over suspects to “Joffrey’s justice” without troubling to investigate whether the charges against them are well-founded, and arms clansmen to raid the Vale. Daenerys conducts mass executions at Astapor and Mereen. Jaime offers to deliver Ser Edmure’s baby son by trebuchet. The Brotherhood without Banners hang every Frey and Lannister they can get their hands on.

As for the use of torture, this seems to be routine in both continents. The worst characters actively enjoy it, but a lot of sympathetic characters seem to have few qualms about authorising it. Daenerys, Stannis, Tyrion, Qhorin Halfhand, Lord Manderly, Jaime, Mance Rayder, are all familiar with the use of torture, either as a means of investigation, or as a form of punishment. Even someone as kind as Catelyn Stark is delighted to receive a piece of Theon’s flayed skin from Roose Bolton.

How do other readers react to such acts from sympathetic characters? Give them a pass, because of the times they live in and the pressures they face? Condemn them? But then, is it really fair to expect them to behave any differently?

The thing to remember is that there is no moral condemantion for death and torure in that setting. As there is no moral condemantion of war. Revenge is not seperate from justice and is often considered a moral obligation. Condemnation comes when thes things are done in excess and mostly when they are enacted on the undeserving and for dishonorable reasons. Attitudes of course vary and most of the "sympathetic" characters exhibit a distaste for them, but generally view them as parts of life and necessary evils. On the other hand when enacted on the deserving they are considered righteous.

In that respect Dany valueing peace as a goal in itself is a very enlightened attitude.

For me condemnation or forgiveness does not enter into it. It is the world they live in and they don't know any better.

[Olligarchy]

I take it as a means of immersing myself in the world better. It helps Westeros seem that much more real since we can relate to the atrocities due to similar ones having happened in our own history.

Plus it's a nice change from the typical high fantasy.

[mrunderhill]

Wars always produce atrocities and if you lose them you may be punished, but the winners never are. Nothing has changed now from what it was a thousand years ago. Is there any difference between the actions of Robb, Tywin etc and the indiscriminate bombing of civilians in World War II. Making even a small stand against such atrocities in times of war actually requires great courage.

[Mikkel]

Plus it's a nice change from the typical high fantasy.

This. Even Robert or Ned's men probably committed some horrible things during Robert's Rebellion - though I don't think they were encouraged to, any military campaign brings horror to the (largely innocent) populace it's unleashed on.

[SeanF]

Wars always produce atrocities and if you lose them you may be punished, but the winners never are. Nothing has changed now from what it was a thousand years ago. Is there any difference between the actions of Robb, Tywin etc and the indiscriminate bombing of civilians in World War II. Making even a small stand against such atrocities in times of war actually requires great courage.

It's easy to forget how fortunate we are in most Western countries, not to have engaged in a major war for 60 years. If we did, I'm pretty sure that plenty of us would carry out acts which, here and now, we'd condemn. Curtis Le May once remarked that if the Allies had lost WWII, he'd be top of the list to be tried for war crimes.

[SeanF]

I tend to think that all of the enormities we see are supposed to be recognized as morally wrong and not try to excuse them. That said, the interesting part is how we react to it from a sympathy/ forgiveness standpoint. I think that's what usually gets muddled in these sorts of debates-- personal sympathy sometimes overrides the ability or desire to recognize the moral wrongness in some of the characters' actions. Is that kind of what you mean?

It's one of the things I have in mind. On first reading the books, I find myself endlessly making excuses for characters that I liked.

[mrunderhill]

It's easy to forget how fortunate we are in most Western countries, not to have engaged in a major war for 60 years. If we did, I'm pretty sure that plenty of us would carry out acts which, here and now, we'd condemn.

Yes war is a terrible thing and brings out the worst in people. I am very grateful we have had no real attacks on Britian for nearly 70 years.

[Roadside Rose]

I think GRRM provides us with a very practical look at war. People often think that the side they are on are not capable of committing atrocities. But that is not true. I think in the ASOIAF, we sympathize with some characters because they seem less corrupt than some others. The Starks with their sense of honor or of executing a man with their own hands. Dany who tries to make certain that children are not harmed in her battles. Stannis with his sense of justice. I think some quality such as that which makes a character look less evil than the rest (or the likes of Ramsay, Gregor Clegane...) are why we sympathize with them.

[SeanF]

I take it as a means of immersing myself in the world better. It helps Westeros seem that much more real since we can relate to the atrocities due to similar ones having happened in our own history.

Plus it's a nice change from the typical high fantasy.

For anyone who wants to read more about such things in real life, I'd recommend By Sword and Fire, by Sean McGlynn. Reading it suggests that, if anything, George Martin pulled his punches. WRT high fantasy, I'm sure that as a young teenager, I'd have been completely shocked if the defenders of Helms Deep had massacred their prisoners, but now I'm pretty certain that's what they would have done.

[SeanF]

This. Even Robert or Ned's men probably committed some horrible things during Robert's Rebellion - though I don't think they were encouraged to, any military campaign brings horror to the (largely innocent) populace it's unleashed on.

Ned's men were, at the very least, present for much of the Sack of King's Landing, and it's hard to believe they didn't participate, even if Ned tried to prevent them.

[Mikkel]

Ned's men were, at the very least, present for much of the Sack of King's Landing, and it's hard to believe they didn't participate, even if Ned tried to prevent them.

Indeed, the Northmen are no better (or worse) than any other body of soldiers when it comes to looting, the only difference - if any - is in the attitude of their commanders.

I also believe that the captains and sergeants play more of a role than the generals here, though of course good generals will have influenced their officers somewhat.

[mrunderhill]

For anyone who wants to read more about such things in real life, I'd recommend By Sword and Fire, by Sean McGlynn. Reading it suggests that, if anything, George Martin pulled his punches. WRT high fantasy, I'm sure that as a young teenager, I'd have been completely shocked if the defenders of Helms Deep had massacred their prisoners, but now I'm pretty certain that's what they would have done.

Tolkien was a soldier in World War I, his son was a soldier in World War II, he knew very well what war was like. He even once commented how he feared that in the war they all became 'orcs'. He states that in reality the West would have claimed the ring and used it to defeat Sauron. However, Aragorn and Numenor were once special. With Aragorn in charge even for a little while he can hold his men and his allies to the standards other men cannot.

[SeanF]

Indeed, the Northmen are no better (or worse) than any other body of soldiers when it comes to looting, the only difference - if any - is in the attitude of their commanders.

I also believe that the captains and sergeants play more of a role than the generals here, though of course good generals will have influenced their officers somewhat.

Some generals will deliberately order a city to be put to the sack. Others will take the view there's not much they can do about it., and just let it run its course. Others will try to prevent it, although, as the Duke of Wellington found at Badajoz, even the toughest general can't restrain men who've taken a city by storm.

[mrunderhill]

Indeed, the Northmen are no better (or worse) than any other body of soldiers when it comes to looting, the only difference - if any - is in the attitude of their commanders.

I would say the Northern commanders are actually generally worse. Manderly feeding human flesh to his enemies, the Boltons, the Karstarks murdering children and from what we hear of the Umbars they are not much worse than the Boltons. Ned and Robb are not the North.

[Olligarchy]

For anyone who wants to read more about such things in real life, I'd recommend By Sword and Fire, by Sean McGlynn. Reading it suggests that, if anything, George Martin pulled his punches. WRT high fantasy, I'm sure that as a young teenager, I'd have been completely shocked if the defenders of Helms Deep had massacred their prisoners, but now I'm pretty certain that's what they would have done.

I've actually read it! And I agree that GRR sometimes does pull his punches, but at least it's better than 99% of the drivel that is published these days. A lot better.