ShadowCat Rivers

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About ShadowCat Rivers

  • Rank
    sleeping beauty

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Under the sea

Recent Profile Visitors

2,643 profile views
  1. Then I don't see why you started this discussion with me. It is evedent that our philosopical views are fundamentally different.
  2. Label him as you like. I have no problem with that. I disagree, as I said, with retroactively reviewing his actions and painting them in a bad light, as well as examining them through a lense that does not correspond to the context of the story. No, I am not going to giving you exambles, you have to respect that I am not getting into the main issue. No, it is not sufficient. It is sufficient only for one to know that they are hurting others, it is not sufficient for us to judge them. "It's OK" is never enough of a reasoning people are given to justify cruelty. Are they told that this cruelty is necessary for some 'greater good'? Do they genuinely believe that? What sort of interaction do they have with the rest of their world, and does this interaction informs them that they should, perhaps, reexamine their beliefs? We could go on for long with such questions that constitute, guess what, context. In their ansence, I am perfectly entitled to speak of (true) vacuum.
  3. This examble seems to be coming from a philosophical school I totally disagree with - monistic idealism. The very core of the examble requires existence in vacuum. I am sorry, but having been here for some years now means that, inevitably, I've had this debate about Tyrion's actions, all of them and each one individually, for more than a couple of rounds. So, it's not very exciting for me anymore. You will excuse me for not wishing to engage in the heart of the discussion - I just meant to give my two cents in the side-discussion about the importance of context. For what is worth, this post below expresses nicely, more or less, my overall view on Tyrion's character:
  4. For some actions he indeed is, for some others he's just acting within his context. Which is not nice, but that's where those characters exist. Tyrion is not a saint, as some like to see him, but neither is he the evil that the recent trend wants him to be read as. Tyrion, in the chapters between his trial and his time in the Rhoyne, is in a very dark place and I don't mind at all people pointing this out. What I absolutely disagree with though, is retroactively painting all that he ever did in a bad light. All people (the vast magority, anyway) are capable for both good and bad (“There is a savage beast in every man...” is one of the best quotes in this series). What we have in his story is the descend of a person who starts his path having good intentions and great talents but also great weaknesses and illusions, and likely in the future we will have his resurgence: not perhaps into being "a good person" but into being "his own person". The view that 'bad people were always bad and always will be bad' is IMO nonsensical wrt real people but in any case, it does not make a good ground for a story I'd care to read. Also, I hope you're not suggesting that "good persons" don't experience feelings such as hate, greed, jealousy, envy. How they choose to act on those is what separates 'good' from 'bad'. And, what restraints a person (from within) from crossing the line (which, we need to keep in mind, is moving depending on context) when acting on such motives can be lost or found along the path. The 'Tyrion who still had hope' was different from the 'Tyrion who has lost it all', for examble. Characters can evolve in both good or bad ways. Of course it is realistic to have more virtuous characters in the setting. But there are well founded reasons why Jon Snow, eg, came up a more virtuous character. Having a character with Tyrion's backstory and trajectory and expecting that person to be vanilla, that would be unrealistic.
  5. And what would inform the morals -and the decisions driven by them or in breaking with them- of those characters, if not the context that the story has them operate in? In order to be credible in the minimum, that is. In the sense of being realistic both in the wider context (society, politics etc) as well as their own microcosm. Tyrion would be the worst character ever if he was portrayed to be the poster boy of the good dwarf - the sort of disabled person who only cares for others and takes insults with a genuine smile coming straight from his good, and not bitter at all, heart. You know, how the priviledged people want the unprivilledged to be like. Of course, Tyrion is not Penny; there are areas in which he *is* privilledged and he acts accordingly. And that's realistic and what makes him a great character.
  6. And, as always, the catch is where the line is drawn in regards to when, and how much, cruelty is accepted by a society as "justified" and when, and how much, compassion is perhaps deemed harmful to the "greater good" of the society. That's still here and relevant, what really changes is the boundary. From my part, I sure prefer to live in my contemporary world's ethical norm instead, say, 100 years ago or in some particular countries even in these times- not too long ago nor too far away, really. You see, I am a woman.
  7. I was thinking of the European world, I should have clarified that. I have only superficial knowledge about those two exambles, what was actually the idea about bastards and the laws of inheritance there? In the classical chinese world, is it not that the first son from the first wife inherits all?
  8. Yes it does, though here is not the place to discuss it. The point is that, were I born in the time it was written, I would likely believe it A-OK too, because that would be the prevalent set of ideas I'd have been raised with. Nothing exists in vaccum.
  9. Actually, I think that a Targaryen victory at this point would reinforce Aerys's position in regards to Rhaegar for many reasons, the least of those being the fact that he was holding Rhaegar's family as hostages. Mainly it's that after a successful put down of a rebellion, a second one will not find enough ground to step on. Plus, the idea that the status quo is invincible -which would inevitably be re-established in the minds of lords (and smallfolk)- would thin out the support that Rhaegar might have hoped to get. IMO it's not unlikely at all that Rhaegar would be the next one to face Aerys's champion.
  10. I suppose that, if it echoes real history in this aspect, it must have happened along with the practice of private property on land, patriarchy and inheritance. Progression to feudal system would enforce it even more.
  11. If you actually read those texts you'll be shocked at what they suggest as the morally right thing. For examble, the Bible allows for marital rape. There are many more issues if you care to research. I don't claim to be smarter than anyone :-)
  12. Hurray, finally someone pointing out the self-evident... I am really baffled why anyone would read this 'come out and die' situation differently, except perhaps for "meta" reasons that pertain to fandom preferences.
  13. In short, you wish he was the Benevolent Cripple character who takes insults with a smile and turns the other cheek (and does all these things sincerely). Nah, I don't think I'd care to read anything about such a character.
  14. I belive that "Come out and die" is a drunken Jaime's TL;DR line for a sequence of events that ended up with Brandon demanding a single combat against Rhaegar, propably in a not very courteous way (not that it would matter with the mad king). The line also happens, IMO, to convey well what actually happened provided that one uses their common sense and imagination (to fill in the huge narrative gaps). The thing is that this line has been used very liberally in order to villify Brandon and "prove", well, anything actually. I have ended up not caring though, without new material to discuss it's not too unexpected that there would be "revisionist" readings of the story, for the sole purpose to have something different to think about...
  15. No. It's that Littlefinger does not have the means to hold the castle and, mainly, the Riverlands which his nominal position would demand him to do had he assumed his duties as the overlord and what's more, he does not believe that it's worth the trouble.