How Can Anyone Like Samwell Tarly?

[apovsic]

The fact is 99% of the population of Westeros would have switched places with him in a second as his childhood was pampered in comparison.

The fact is that 86,7% facts on the internet are made up on the spot.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

The fact is that 86,7% facts on the internet are made up on the spot.

Sure.

But pretty much every member of the smallfolk who grew up in poverty would have been glad to switch places with Sam.

Pretty sure some of the young noble squires, like 12 year old Edric Dayne, have suffered more bruises, slept in chain mail and been covered in their own blood as well that of other men would wonder WTF Sam was bitching about. None of them got 'several years of sweet peace with his music and his books'.

The nobility get far better lives than the smallfolk, but there are some expectations that come along with that. Sadly the girls have to marry whoever their Head of House decides and the boys have to be combat ready. If some are not willing to do that then fair enough, but they shouldn't expect their families to carry on supporting them indefinitely for the rest of their lives.

[apovsic]

Ah the old good somebody got it worse argument. I hope you stick to it in your own life (ups, it's modern time, totally different from ASOIAF world).

As for your squire got it worst, I don't really remember any squire that was chained to the wall for 3 days or dressed as a girl. But i'm pretty sure you'll find plenty of quotes from the books as apparently everybody got worse than lazy Sam.

[LordStoneheart]

Of course we should have to.

We really don't. As far as I know, the author never has claimed to support the notion that medievalism is a blank check for characters to do whatever atrocious deeds they want and be immune to criticism. The defense of a character should not solely rely on "in Westeros, it's different." Sure, some context about the world helps, but it does not immediately throw out the debate. This is why the case of Daenerys & Drogo is so controversial. Many are content with the idea that "back then" it was perfectly fine to sell a thirteen year old girl into marriage. Others think differently, and good luck telling them their opinion is wrong. Because that kind of stuff still happens today. In the 21st century. With Randyll, it's clear enough that his treatment of Samwell is unjustified. A Lord being disappointed in his heir and wanting improvement? Sure. There's a basis we can work with that isn't too "modern." But as others have pointed out, the example of Willas shows that Samwell's treatment was not in line with the "morals" of the time. And with Robert Arryn. He was a sickly child his whole life. Do we hear stories about Jon Arryn bathing him in blood, chaining him to the Wall, or caning him? Randyll's abuse is not typical for his time.

[Amris]

To me Sam is not boring. Although I admit I took a while to get used to him.

He has developed though IMO - and especially now with the Citadel plotline I can't wait to find out what happens next in his POV.

I have come to see him as a version of Gandalf - GRRM's very twisted, downgraded version of the role - but Gandalf nonetheless. In that Sam has the job of researching through vaults of old lore for vital knowledge, much like Gandalf did in the vaults of Minas Tirith when he had to find out what kind of ring he was dealing with.

Maybe (probably) I'm completely wrong with the Gandalf connection. But this picture makes Sam much easier to endure for me and gives his role quite a purpose.

[Syphon the Sanitator]

Somebody smack the OP for this thread.

[Red Typer of Dorne]

It baffles me how popular the 'It was ok at the time' and the 'Everyone did it' opinions are. The way you react to what you read is entirely down to you, the conditions and norms of Westeros are justifications for the way you think now, today, based on your knowledge and morality. I find this truely worrying.

[SweetPea]

It baffles me how popular the 'It was ok at the time' and the 'Everyone did it' opinions are. The way you react to what you read is entirely down to you, the conditions and norms of Westeros are justifications for the way you think now, today, based on your knowledge and morality. I find this truely worrying.

It baffles me how many people can't separate a book from reality. Many of you seem to assume that everyone who thinks Randyll was justified in trying to toughen Sam up (but not the way he did it), is crazy and should not be allowed to have kids in real life. I find that truly worrying.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Ah the old good somebody got it worse argument. I hope you stick to it in your own life (ups, it's modern time, totally different from ASOIAF world).

Pretty much. Living in this century in the western world I am well aware how much better I have it than the majority of the world and the generations before me.

As for your squire got it worst, I don't really remember any squire that was chained to the wall for 3 days or dressed as a girl. But i'm pretty sure you'll find plenty of quotes from the books as apparently everybody got worse than lazy Sam.

What is wrong with being dressed as a girl? When I was 10 I had to dress up in a pink frock for a school play. It was no big deal. Besides, you are clearly missing the point from that tale. Sam was supposed to say no, to stand up for himself. Instead he goes along with it, hardly what you want from the future ruler and protector of the people of Horn Hill.

[William_Tell]

It baffles me how popular the 'It was ok at the time' and the 'Everyone did it' opinions are. The way you react to what you read is entirely down to you, the conditions and norms of Westeros are justifications for the way you think now, today, based on your knowledge and morality. I find this truely worrying.

This.

Plus (but that it's just me) I would argue that claiming that there was a complete lack of empathy or basic human sensibility in parental education during the actual medieval times is just as wrong as projecting our own sensibility on that period.

Obviously Westeros is different but from what I've read Randyll's brutalty is much rarer than people here make it out to be.

[Red Typer of Dorne]

It baffles me how many people can't separate a book from reality. Many of you seem to assume that everyone who thinks Randyll was justified in trying to toughen Sam up (but not the way he did it), is crazy and should not be allowed to have kids in real life. I find that truly worrying.

Are you saying what you think ISN'T based on what you believe? You can try to justify it by saying 'that's what happens in Westeros' and 'Westeros isn't real' but what you are arguing on this thread is 'WHAT HAPPENED TO SAM WAS OK/JUSTIFIED because that's what happened in Westeros and Westeros isn't real' That people can believe the bolded, even in a fictional character is scary. Doubly so when you consider the same people defend Randyl who is also a fictional character showing that in fact they have no problem defending a fictional character, they have just chosen a child abusing adult rather than the helpless child.

[SweetPea]

Are you saying what you think ISN'T based on what you believe? You can try to justify it by saying 'that's what happens in Westeros' and 'Westeros isn't real' but what you are arguing on this thread is 'WHAT HAPPENED TO SAM WAS OK/JUSTIFIED because that's what happened in Westeros and Westeros isn't real' That people can believe the bolded, even in a fictional character is scary. Doubly so when you consider the same people defend Randyl who is also a fictional character showing that in fact they have no problem defending a fictional character, they have just chosen a child abusing adult rather than the helpless child.

Well, it seems like reading comprehension isn't one of your strong suits. So let me clarify. I haven't said a single fucking time that what happened to Sam is ok or jusitfied. I'm only arguing that I can sympathize with Randyll trying to toughen up Sam. Doesn't mean I agree with the methods he used. I can sympathize with him being disappointed and wanting a better heir. But I do NOT think what he did was right, or justified. God, how many times do I have to say that before you understand the difference??

As for the difference between real life and Westeros. It seems weird, that people on this forum (and anywhere else on the internet) say things like 'I hope Ramsay dies a painful and bloody death' and noone seems to care. It seems normal. However, I'm pretty sure most of those people would be outraged and go campaigning for basic human rights, if the political leaders today were considering bringing back death penalty. So how did that happen? Why do people feel that Ramsay's torturous death would be justified, despite it being very wrong by our modern standards? Maybe, just maybe, because real life and books are NOT the same?

[Ser Brandon Badwater]

https://youtu.be/_Gbtm-93oqE

Randyll shoulld have named him Sue

[thelittledragonthatcould]

This.

Plus (but that it's just me) I would argue that claiming that there was a complete lack of empathy or basic human sensibility in parental education during the actual medieval times is just as wrong as projecting our own sensibility on that period.

Who has said that?

The relationship would be different just as how fathers (men and women in general) acted.

Here is a write up on John Marshall and his son William. http://www.ultimatehistoryproject.com/medieval-childhood-the-life-of-william-marshal.html

Like most children of knightly and noble families, William probably spent most of his early childhood in his mother’s care. This was both because women were the primary caregivers for children in general and because John was off at war. Royal children would have seen their parents even less than William and his siblings saw theirs: royal life involved much more traveling than children could handle, so children were mostly left with nannies and wet-nurses. A family of the Marshals’ station would probably have servants to help, but the children spent a lot of time with their mother.

[Direwight]

There's a certainly a difference saying that in-universe, it's not too bad to try to toughen up a soft heir a bit, and saying that in-universe, it's not too bad to do it the way Randyll did.

Trying to toughen up a soft heir a bit is like Ned executing a deserter. We don't condone (well, some might), but it's understandable and as long as it's done without unnecessary cruelty, fine, we can see it as sort of justified in-universe, or at least as not such a terrible moral misjudgement. But when you toughen up the soft heir by physical and psychological torment or execute the deserter by flaying them alive, it takes some leaps of logic to keep seeing it as justified even in-universe.

Of course when you judge fictional characters, you do it partly from an in-universe POV and partly from your own POV, that's unavoidable. One can't say that something a fictional character does is fine because circumstances, without also saying that they personally would be fine with it and/or might do it themselves if only they happened to be in the same circumstances. That is what people consider worrying, and I don't think that sounds entirely hyperbolic, even if the finer points are certainly debatable.

[Red Typer of Dorne]

Well, it seems like reading comprehension isn't one of your strong suits. So let me clarify. I haven't said a single fucking time that what happened to Sam is ok or jusitfied. I'm only arguing that I can sympathize with Randyll trying to toughen up Sam. Doesn't mean I agree with the methods he used. I can sympathize with him being disappointed and wanting a better heir. But I do NOT think what he did was right, or justified. God, how many times do I have to say that before you understand the difference??

As for the difference between real life and Westeros. It seems weird, that people on this forum (and anywhere else on the internet) say things like 'I hope Ramsay dies a painful and bloody death' and noone seems to care. It seems normal. However, I'm pretty sure most of those people would be outraged and go campaigning for basic human rights, if the political leaders today were considering bringing back death penalty. So how did that happen? Why do people feel that Ramsay's torturous death would be justified, despite it being very wrong by our modern standards? Maybe, just maybe, because real life and books are NOT the same?

I would appreciate it if you could refrain from personal insults, I hope you're above that, But I did misread your reply to my post I apologize somehow I missed the bracketed bit. The post you replied to was addressing the number of posts with a 'It wasn't that bad' or a 'Sam deserved it because he didn't try' theme. When I see a 'What happened to Sam wasn't so bad compared to Craters kids' for example The subject of the statement is Sams abuse, the poster is implying that they are ok with Sames abuse, they then offer the fact Crasters kids have it worse as justification for it.

As for the second part of your post I kind of agree, I have never called for death or torture of a character, though I confess I want the Boltons to lose (and being aware this means death, I suppose I'm guilty of it). Though I would point out there's a difference between a murderer/torturer/rapist and an innocent child. Even in real life certain crimes illicit a response calling for harm against the perpetrator.

[Daendrew]

I just realized why this thread is even worse than I originally thought.

This is how people talk about female characters like Sansa and Catelyn every fucking day.

It is only shocking and only gets all this attention when we do the same for a man. But it is not just any man, but one who is emasculated by others.

Yet after all this, by the end of the series he will have sacrifice his own life to saves those others from the Others.

*ring ring* Shame! Shame!

*ring ring* Shame! Shame!

*ring ring* Shame! Shame!

Brace yourself... A Samwell The Brave appreciation thread is coming. I have something special in mind. After that post I will follow up with another post to show how he could be by far the biggest hero of the series.

[William_Tell]

Who has said that?

The relationship would be different just as how fathers (men and women in general) acted.

Here is a write up on John Marshall and his son William. http://www.ultimatehistoryproject.com/medieval-childhood-the-life-of-william-marshal.html

Well. I may have misunderstood some posts or I didn't explain myself very well, if so, I apologize. The text you linked makes some very good points.

But what I was trying to say is that Randyll's behaviour would have been stigmatized even in a medieval setting.

True, this kind of abuse happened, it probably happened far more often then in modern first world countries, but we have no reason to believe that a father chaining is son for days or threatening him with death would not have encountered deploration among his peers.

An example: in his Vita Prima, an agiographic telling of the life of Francis of Assisi, Tommaso of Celano has Pietro di Bernardone, Francis's father, chain his son and segregate him in a sort of family dungeon, when Francis doesn't back away from undertaking religious life. The episode is probaly legendary but what I want to point out is that the XIII century writer clearly wants his readers to identify the father as the villain of the story, and he does so through the portrayal of an abusive behaviour that would be considered extreme and cruel by his contemporaries.

[Adaneth]

I don't dislike Sam but up to know I find his character quite boring. I do hope that his story will be much more interesting in Citadel, and I think it will.

[Winter's Knight]

It's cute how people arguing for Randyll are accusing others of applying "21st century Westetern principles" to Westeros.

I grew up in Saudi Arabia, my family believed in corporeal punishment and I'm here to tell you that Randyll sure ad hell isn't normal.