Greyjoys vs GRRM

[The Marquis de Leech]

Theon is absolutely evil. Reread his first few POVs. He is evil. That's what evil is, far more often than it's something like Ramsay or Gregor.

Eh? Theon's an insecure arsehole, but he certainly isn't evil.

[Cookiesbane]

Hahaha, my opinion is to destroy your enemies asap, why use pistols when you can end the war quickly, haha jk. No I think you are right with Martin, and I would hope that Martin doesn't believe that it is impossible to be evil. That would just be naive. I agree about Joff, which gives merit to Robert's claim that Ned would have raised him better (not sure if that was book Rob or show rob or both). My only qualms about some of the characters is to claim that Gregor is only bad because he likes puppies. I mean Hitler was at the forefront of the German environmentalist campaign, and I believe he had a dog. But at the same time I think it is difficult to reconcile certain things by always falling back on the grey concept. I mean this is literally borderline to 50 shades of grey. Hear me out. If we say Jon isn't perfect because he went against the NW's origins and allowed the wildlings in, is that really the same as Jaime tossing Bran out of the window? Ok bad example? Theon's betrayal to appease his father (son in dire need of love from his own father) verse Walder Frey's execution of Robb, his mother, and his entire entourage (almost all) because of a broken contract? Are they both the same shade of grey, or is there a variation? My problem with the "grey" concept Martin tries to push is that I don't buy that all characters are the same shade of grey, and if not at which point do we start saying this person is further along on the "bad" scale then another? If we say that, how can we reconcile that without being hypocritical?

For example. Ned lied to his wife about Jon to protect Jon and honor his sister. The obvious reaction from most people is that Ned gave up his honor to protect his family. At the same time, the act of a lie caused unnecessary tension between Cat and Jon, and the fact that it was a lie, regardless of intent, suggests that Ned would in fact lie. Obviously most readers will not condemn Ned for that, but it has to be considered as one point that suggests Ned was not purely good. So Ned has the capacity to do things that are not necessarily good, even if for the common good. Compare that to Ramsey's torture of Theon. One could argue that Ramsay is a product of his environment and is prone to various perverse things but he is not evil. Would anyone really argue that Ned and Ramsey are the same? I think not. I think most people would say that Ramsey is more prone to commit to heinous acts than Ned. So do we say alright Ned sits here and Ramsay here on the "grey" chart? AFter awhile we will realize that the people of Westeros are everywhere on the chart. So the person all the way to the left is less likely to commit atrocious acts compared to the person on the right. Can we honestly say that well perhaps Ramsay does worst things, but he is troubled so he is not evil, but he is not as good as Ned. He is slightly worst? That seems like a very bizarre way to classify people, and almost to the point where one goes out of their way to avoid calling people evil because it isn't PC or are slightly naive?

Now I am not referring to you in this respect. The whole idea is troublesome. I buy without a doubt that most people are not good nor evil, but I do not adhere to the idea that people cannot be evil. I think there are evil characters regardless of Martin's view. He wrote the story so he can call his characters whatever he likes, but I think he would be naive if he tried to make the point that all of his characters were "grey" and none of them were on one side or the other. To me that is a very "hippie" world view that wants to ignore the fact that some people are in fact evil. And in a way, that sort of thinking is why we have repeat (as in 4 or 5 times) sex offenders released to society, because after all they are not evil and their stint in prison has reformed them. Oops they slipped.

I agree with what you said. Evil people exist and they do so in various forms. Also, yeah, proportionality is not an attribute that evil can have. You cannot say Ned is 15%, Joffrey is 75% and therefore more evil, or something like.

It's just that GRRM always tries to give a background and a reason for each character that is evil, be it bad upbringing as in Joffrey's case or simple criminal insanity as is the case with Ramsey. But the fact that they are evil doesn't mean that they will not show other emotions as well and maybe some good qualities (which of course doesn't invalidate their evilness). The latter is what makes them good three-dimensional characters and not caricatures as Zed from Power Rangers.

[Snow Dottir]

Genocide refers to the attempted extermination (in whole or in part) of a particular national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.

It's rather hard for individuals (or even non-states) to commit genocide, because they lack the resources to do so. It is theoretically possible though.

I suppose theoretically one person could unleash some sort of biological plague type nastiness...microbial genocide....an evil microbe :):)

[Snow Dottir]

Theon is a douche and not that smart, but I can't call him evil.

So Theon killing two children in order for him to not look bad in front of his men is not an evil act of an evil person?

An evil action certainly. Theon, even after letting his total-dick flag fly....still seems more pathetic to me than evil. Every single thing he endeavors to do turns out ridiculously wrong. He comes of as mega prideful then super weak. reek rhymes with weak. Evil? I'd say he's been too stupid to be really evil. Doing all the wrong things for the wrong reasons... if he were to be playing dumb this whole time and feeling remorse about what he's done maybe he'll shank ramsay finally....

There's a question.... Would reek killing Ramsay redeem him? I don't think so.

Now Ramsay on the other hand, what a beautifully (mostly) evil bastard he is!!

[Snow Dottir]

Oh why thank you. :cheers: Welcome.

I agree there has to be something more to the Others, but if we take their current actions, actually appearances in the show, and legends about them without context that the author claims to not like black/white dichotomy, they would be only pure evil. time will tell.

I think because of the fact that all we really have are legends,ect as you've said and because they SEEM to be the embodiment of evil that is why they won't be. I realize I could be completely wrong and they could eventually have to be wiped out by the "good guys" but I really hope not. I just think that would be way too simple and predictable.

We have seen they are intelligent. Intelligent enough to have a civilization of sorts...and magic to command thralls/ create others.

There is a reason they are back. Could easily be the balance was gone (i.e. no dragons until the hatchlings) as you say, time will tell.

I just really hope it's told the right way! (<~~ sarcasm)

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

Strange title but bare with me...

GRRM has specifically stated that there is nothing pure good or pure evil in his asoiaf.

Has he? How interesting. The thing is: you can argue about nothing being ever completely evil, in truth or in fiction, but if any work of literature could serve as a counter-example, as a proof that yep, there most certainly is, it would be "A Song of Ice and Fire". GRRM in his series has created some darkest, least ambiguous, uncompromising evil characters ever. Gregor, Ramsay, the Good Masters of Astapor, to think of only few. Sauron, Palpatine, Alex and his droogs from "A Clockwork Orange", Big Brother, Mister Hyde, even Satan himself appear more nuanced and controversial.

[Drogon'sWrath]

Agree with everything you said except Theon being unintelligent. His plan to capture Winterfell showed a lot of intelligence, granted his overall strategy didn't.

I'll grant that his plan to take Winterfell had a certain craftiness to it. Maybe shortsightedness is a better word to describe him. He went into Winterfell with twenty-something men and took it by night, but he had no long term plan to keep it, and even when he realized he was getting no reinforcements, he still didn't give up.

[Snow Dottir]

I beg to differ on that point. Rorge and Biter at Saltpans are the epitome of pure evil. No morally ''grey'' person would rape a twelve-year-old girl then cut her nose and nipples off. What about Biter chewing a woman breasts off? That sounds like the work of an purely evil person to me.

http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Saltpans

Yes it does. they are vile... and we need them.

If everyone ran around singing kumbaya and being always polite we'd be bored to tears. I think people are taking the "no purely good or evil" thing a bit too literal. We know what he meant. I could argue that we don't know what made them (rorge and biter) so evil but that doesn't really matter...we still need them.

They and others like them set the bar for cruelty and "evil" that we can then compare others too. So say you're a huge Stannis fan (not saying you are)) You could say "Stannis burns people at the stake because he's buying what melisandre is selling but he's still not as bad as_______"

That being said there ARE degrees of Good and Evil. Absolutely. It's natural and you simply can't have one side without the other. Without being hippy-dippy I can safely say they EXIST because of, not in spite of each other.

[Drogon'sWrath]

Perhaps, but if one glass is 95% full and the other 50%, are we going to say they are alike because neither is 100% full? Same size glass by the way.

Of course not. Some people are more evil or more good than others. And there are some people close enough to wholly evil or wholly good to make no real difference. But on the same token, no one is born evil and I would venture to say that even the worst people in human history must have had some good in them at some point in their lives, even if they did devolve into a person who has no real good in them to speak of. And I think that's part of the point Martin makes. Everyone has good and evil in them, whether the amounts of one or the other be great or inconsequential.

[Snow Dottir]

Of course not. Some people are more evil or more good than others. And there are some people close enough to wholly evil or wholly good to make no real difference. But on the same token, no one is born evil and I would venture to say that even the worst people in human history must have had some good in them at some point in their lives, even if they did devolve into a person who has no real good in them to speak of. And I think that's part of the point Martin makes. Everyone has good and evil in them, whether the amounts of one or the other be great or inconsequential.

:agree: O.k. this is what I've been saying but you just said it a whole lot better...

That said I just wanna cuddle with that little white walker baby....how freakin' cute was that? "such a Jolly little fellow" :laugh:

[Drogon'sWrath]

:agree: O.k. this is what I've been saying but you just said it a whole lot better...

That said I just wanna cuddle with that little white walker baby....how freakin' cute was that? "such a Jolly little fellow" :laugh:

Ah yes, the White Walker baby. Hopefully this means that we'll find out their real motive soon. Oh, and I see you're new here. Welcome to the forums. :cheers:

[BastardlyRock]

As someone may have already pointed out, the Iron Islands aren't entirely different from some of our real world island counterparts. By and large, many island nations take to (oftentimes violent) expansionism as a result of their limited, and in the case of the Iron Islands inhospitable, land for growing crops to support their population. Over time, it's easy to see how the Greyjoys integrated this fact into their culture, giving birth to their words and shedding light on their actions. Not justifying them, mind you, but shedding some light on them.

[Snow Dottir]

Ah yes, the White Walker baby. Hopefully this means that we'll find out their real motive soon. Oh, and I see you're new here. Welcome to the forums. :cheers:

I'm more excited about this than anything! I need more white walkers for real.

Thanks for the welcome ! :cheers:

I've lurked for a few months or so...so many theories abound, it's unlikely I'll think of anything that hasn't been theorized and dissected already. Poor GRRM. I like these discussions for sure, gets all this out of my system so my poor family doesn't have to hear it ALL DAY! :):)

[JonisHenryTudor]

While not being argumentative I have to disagree.

He never said there were no evil people, just no purely evil people... I agree totally and love that about his writing.

I also can't think of a single instance of one person committing genocide...I would think genocide is a sort of "group" actvity?

Yes I know, I was responding to another poster who assumed Martin tied that into the real world. I was simply saying that if Martin believes that, he is, in fact, delusional. True genocide is a group activity, but usually there is a head, or leader people stand behind.

[JonisHenryTudor]

I agree with what you said. Evil people exist and they do so in various forms. Also, yeah, proportionality is not an attribute that evil can have. You cannot say Ned is 15%, Joffrey is 75% and therefore more evil, or something like.

It's just that GRRM always tries to give a background and a reason for each character that is evil, be it bad upbringing as in Joffrey's case or simple criminal insanity as is the case with Ramsey. But the fact that they are evil doesn't mean that they will not show other emotions as well and maybe some good qualities (which of course doesn't invalidate their evilness). The latter is what makes them good three-dimensional characters and not caricatures as Zed from Power Rangers.

I certainly agree, and I have argued on several occasions that there are several heroes and villains in Martin's story. Who fits this description is a matter of our own perspective. There are character traits that each of us see as admirable, and others less so. That I think is what Martin succeeds at.

I would actually be curious (maybe this already has been the case) how Martin would react or what he would say to his fans stating that one character is evil, heinous, or not. Is he steadfast in his approach that none of these characters are one way or another, or has he taken this approach so that his fans can ultimately make the decision? I think that would be an interesting discussion with Martin.

[JonisHenryTudor]

Of course not. Some people are more evil or more good than others. And there are some people close enough to wholly evil or wholly good to make no real difference. But on the same token, no one is born evil and I would venture to say that even the worst people in human history must have had some good in them at some point in their lives, even if they did devolve into a person who has no real good in them to speak of. And I think that's part of the point Martin makes. Everyone has good and evil in them, whether the amounts of one or the other be great or inconsequential.

Yes of course. I don't think Hitler (keep using that example) came out the womb planning the Holocaust, but in the end he is what he is. Unless you prescribe to what I will say below....

Although social scientists/psychologists might argue a little differently. Sociopaths have an innate ability to move through life lacking any form of sympathy or empathy for others. This isn't something developed, rather a trait they were born with. Some of those people move through life normally and never harm anyone, they just could careless about other's pain. This isn't exactly perfect, but it is not destructive. Others, however, endure traumatic things that takes their lack of empathy, etc to another level. Almost all serial killers have some sort of childhood event(s) that set them off, but they also would have been labelled as a sociopath at a young age but at that time the information wasn't available. That doesn't mean that all sociopaths turn to mass murders or serial killers.

Ramsay, I think, is a sociopath. I don't think pink roses, tea, and and a large stuffy chair is going to help that man. The same with Gregor and other characters, even Joff. Cersei, on the other hand, could be reformed.

Hodor is "perfect". Maybe not intellectually, but as a human being of Westeros he is caring, loyal, friendly, and lacks the capacity for evil. I honestly do not think Hodor has that ability. If we considered who Hodor was, I think we can see him as the closest thing to a perfect human being. BUT our modern, and pre-modern, perceptions of intellectual and physical power "reduces" Hodor to a grey character. The argument would be that "Hodor cannot think like a normal person or take responsibility for his life as most can (although not sure how true this is), therefore he is not perfect" Funny how society parallels perfection with intellectual and physical attributes, but gives little credence to the core of a person.

[JonisHenryTudor]

The iron islanders are raised with their beliefs. They are different to the rest of westeross. Calling them evil isnt fair. Some iron born are not without honor. Cotter Pyke at is commander of eastwatch and the NW fleet, he is loyal and brave. Wex Pyke isnt exactly a bad guy and The Reader, whats bad about him? The iron born as a whole are raised to act the way they do. Calling them evil is like saying the dothraki are evil or the viking and mongols of reality.

I don't think the IB are evil. In fact, I don't really get that. Not bright at times, perhaps. Theon's move, I think, was less evil and more or less a child trying to desperately win his father's affection. They are just rough island people who grew up in a rough environment. The Mongols....oh how they are so often misunderstood.

Now if this was about them being an annoying lot, well that is a different story. :fencing:

[TheCasualObserver]

I don't really see how people can say that evil doesn't exist in GRRM's world - Ramsay Snow and Gregor Clegane are both prime examples of men - even well off men who lived comfortable lives (comparatively speaking: Gregor was born into a new made knightly house and Ramsay's mother owned a mill, making them both far better off than most regular people in Weseros) and yet still indulge their basest, most evil impulses with obvious delight. We are meant to hate these characters and GRRM make no bones about it.

The Greyjoys and Ironborn in general have always seemed anachronistic to me - Westeros exists in a period of permanent high middle aged development, a time in European history when the vikings the Ironborn are based on had long since ceased to raid as they did in the preceding centuries. A central, united state has existed in Westeros for three hundred years - you would think that a raiding culture would long since have died out.

I see it as GRRM's finger on the scales to push his plot forwards: Balon's craziness serves as a way of screwing over the Starks even when attakcing them didn't make sense, Euron's ambition and Victarion's stupidity (hopefully) help Dany get back to Westeros and Asha is along for the ride to watch events unfold in the North and bear witness to her brother's gruesome character arc.

All of which is perhaps why they appear more villainous than other, more morally grey noble houses and cultures.

[Snow Dottir]

I don't really see how people can say that evil doesn't exist in GRRM's world -

I agree with your post, I dont see how anyone could expect this world to have no evil. Grrm never said that.

He does some random interview and gets asked somthing (cant remember for sure) about the relative Good or Evil in regards to some character, he says somthing like "No-one is purely good or evil" O.k., I can relate to what he's saying, he wants to not have his characters pigeonholed into good guys vs. bad guys. The world, and especially a great work of fantasy, can't be that way.

Now people take every little thing he says way too literal...I understand. We all can't wait for the books so we hang on his words like gospel.

When someone like Ramsay or Walder frey or some random raper or pillager takes an unsuspecting person to terror town, people are all "What???? "Thats totally evil !!! He SAID no one was totally evil !!!! Mutiny!!!! "

tis not THAT deeeeeeep.

A world without evil does not exist. Not in reality, certainly not in good fantasy.

Do I like some of the more evil players??? YES! love em' cant get enough evil !!!! :dunno:

As far as the Ironborn go I've stated my opinion, I like them alot. I don't see them as "Evil" at all, they are what they are (see previous post about culture, isolation, survival ect...)

They are not poofs, they dont sit around in stuffy velvets and sip on the finest vintages, ect... I want to see the Kingsmoot play out, they honor strength and fearlessness. They do not fear death "What is dead may never die" Awesome. I LOVE the severe clannishness and tribal aspect of the Iron Islands.

We have people who have survived and dare I say thrived on "shit stained rocks" for generations. Realizing they must take what they need because no one is gonna give you anything. They are doing their thing and doing it right. Those ships diddnt just appear, they havent ended up extinct which in this world is always a very real possibility, so, theres that.

Do I expect everyone to perceive things the way I do? No.

Did GRRM say there is no evil in his novels. No. No. No.

[TalalOfDorne]

While they can be darker than the other houses, I don't think they are completely evil (Except maybe Euron).