Opinions on Theon

[Winter's Cold]

34 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Anyone who decides they can judge other human beings and kill those they find wanting clearly has psychopathic tendencies, or sociopathic, or something-ic, whichever definition you want to use (obviously I dislike killer vigilantes).

That's how a lot of the characters in the series behave. After her mother and brother were slaughtered in breach of guest right and the perpetrators were rewarded, Arya understood that she'll need to deliver justice herself instead of relying on the "law".

[sweetsunray]

16 minutes ago, The Sleeper said:

This is one major problem with personality disorders. Everyone appears to have their own definition. More than that it seems to me that they are part of an age long effort to attribute criminality and "abberant" behavior to illness. I detest this because it removes agency, responsibity and social factors and opens the door for preventative treatments and if you're feeling funky things like forced sterilizations. If they have scientific value then they should remain between health care professionals, the patients and their families and out of discussions of legality and morality.

Personally I'm glad of the definition, for very practical purposes: to stay well away from people that manifest actual signs of narcissism, psychopathy. One such person for 2 years in my life was one time too many and too long. I cannot diagnoze, but understanding the factors and knowing how they manifest in practice, recognizing them when they manifest has helped me to step back and break contact, while simultaneously reinstating my trust in people who show no such signs. Don't care if someone scores 15 or 30. When I see signs of callousness and manipulation I'm out. Without trusting the majority of people who show no such signs it would be hard to maintain a social life and have agreeable working relations.

[The Sleeper]

@sweetsunray My problem is with authorities using such definitions. I've met and socialized with people like that. I just call them assholes and simply don't consider it a medical condition.

[INCBlackbird]

28 minutes ago, ravenous reader said:

Firstly, let me underscore that understanding someone using empathy is different to understanding that person intellectually, so I would caution you not to equate them.  For example, a psychopath may have an extremely shallow capacity for empathic identification with another, but may nevertheless have an extremely well-honed intellectual capacity for zeroing in on someone's hidden weaknesses, followed by pressing on those buttons for all they're worth.  Crudely using the metaphor of 'ice and fire,' one might say that true empathy is a 'hot' kind of understanding, in which one would actually feel emotionally for the person under consideration, versus the intellectual type which is a more distant, 'cold' kind of comprehension, in which, however, famously the feeling does not come to pass.  Jon Snow is capable of the former; Littlefinger only of the latter.  Both have a deep understanding of human nature.

I think that when you talk about understanding a person intellectually you are talking about something called cognetive empathy. For clarification of what cognetive empathy is:

Cognitive Empathy

Cognitive empathy, also known as ‘perspective-taking’ is not really what most of us would think of as empathy at all.

Cognitive empathy is basically being able to put yourself into someone else’s place, and see their perspective.

It is a useful skill, particularly in negotiations for example, or for managers. It enables you to put yourself in someone else’s shoes, but without necessarily engaging with their emotions. It does not, however, really fit with the definition of empathy as ‘feeling with’, being a much more rational and logical process.

Effectively, cognitive empathy is ‘empathy by thought’, rather than by feeling

---

It is possible to show cognitive empathy without having any fellow-feeling or sympathy with it. It is fair to say that most of us would understand this fellow-feeling to be a key part of empathy.

Daniel Goleman, author of Emotional Intelligence, notes in his blog that torturers would need to have good cognitive empathy to work out how best to hurt someone, but without having any sympathy towards them.

 http://www.skillsyouneed.com/ips/empathy-types.html#ixzz4LgRGTnxI

am I correct in assuming that this is what you meant or did I understand you wrong?
 

When I talk about empathy I include this as well, it is one of the types of empathy. This is what littlefinger is good at, it's what Ramsay is good at as well. And it also requires putting yourself in other people's shoes, it doesn't doesn't come with the emotional connection that it does with most people. I think that with most people cognetive empathy and emotional empathy (and compassionate empathy for that matter) are linked therefor if you don't want to emotonally empathise with someone because it is distressing (for example because they killed children) you automatically turn off your cognetive empathy as well. Because most people will automatically feel emotional empathy for someone if they feel cognetive empathy. I hope this brings some clarity to the point I'm trying to make.
 

54 minutes ago, ravenous reader said:

It seems you are entreating the reader to extend understanding to Theon's predicament, with reference to all the biopsychosocial history that has gone into making him what he is.

Yes

1 hour ago, ravenous reader said:

In other words, you seem to be implying that every person should have a right to be understood and therefore on a certain level also accepted for whom s/he 'naturally' is,

Yes

1 hour ago, ravenous reader said:

 and moreover tolerated as such by society, considering that from a certain perspective each person can not help who s/he is and/or has become.

In theory yes, I do not blame a psychopath for being a psychopath that is not their fault. However, in practice that is impossible because it is destructive to society.

1 hour ago, ravenous reader said:

A flower naturally does flower things; a gazelle does what comes naturally to a gazelle; a lion innocently follows its nature; an avalanche indifferently seeks the ground; a cancer cell feels the natural urge to replicate itself and take over your body; and a psychopath may just naturally not only not care about having an adverse effect on the lives of other people, but on the contrary derive great satisfaction out of harming another -- all of these are 'natural' phenomena which can be understood according to a number of paradigms.  Given their 'nature,' does that mean we as a society should treat all of them the same?  I'm sure if you developed cancer, you would be less eager to extend it your 'empathy,' since we usually tend to reject things which hurt us, even if they are 'natural' and comprehensible. 

I don't think they should nessacarily be treated the same, but they should be empathised with in order to be understood so they can then be judged according to their own "nature".
 

1 hour ago, ravenous reader said:

What you seem to be taking exception to is that society would judge the behavior of certain people as 'unnatural' or 'abnormal' or 'undesirable,' although we live in a world where people -- even those classified as 'antisocial' -- are beholden, whether they like it or not, to a social system of which they are part.  In order for society to function, we naturally seek to curb, punish, and moderate the actions of those who would harm the social fabric, even if harming others is what 'comes naturally' to their innate sense of self-expression.  The collective consciousness of a community, finding consensus in codified laws, decides what will not be tolerated as 'natural' and 'acceptable' within that particular group, even if this means that conflicts might arise between the individual and group over where the 'cut-offs' should be drawn on the spectrum of human diversity between 'normal' and 'abnormal.'  It's not 'perfect justice,' I'll give you that -- but then, what is?
 

Yes and it is easier to punish someone when we don't empathise with them (emotionally and compassionately) so we develeped the tendency to reduce or completey turn off our empathy for someone we feel needs to be punished. I am suggesting that if we want we can rise about that, and moreso that we should also because like I mentioned in a previous post I am against the concept of punishment (in theory) as am I against prejudicing someone and I consider judging someone without understanding them a form of prejudicing.
 

1 hour ago, ravenous reader said:

So, regardless of how sensitively we may appreciate the particularities of the contributing circumstance's, Theon's behavior should obviously be judged, and he needs to be held to account for the harm he's inflicted.  By his society's standards and by our own, he is guilty.  He killed two children, and was responsible for harming multiple other innocents, something which he comes to regret. 

yes he should be judged but in my opinion he cannot be judged without being understood which requires putting yourself in his shoes as best as you can (which GRRM gives us plenty of information to do since we have his pov) I am not argueing that he is not guilty, obviously he is. What I am argueing is that his guilt encompasses his whole person or that his guilt tells us whether or not he is a good or a bad person. The simple fact that he is guilty tells us very little about that. All it really tells us is that he is a person who is capable of killing people (including children) but that is not information that tells us who Theon is, it is but a very very small part of who Theon is, the rest cannot be ignored when judging him otherwise we do not have a full picture and are opperating on an incomplete one, and end up filling in the blanks according to our own biased emotions, those fill ups are most likely wrong.
 

1 hour ago, ravenous reader said:

Moreover, although you've impressed that GRRM likes painting 'grey' characters, avoiding 'black and white' dichotomies, with which I agree (his language deconstructing itself reflects as much); on the other hand, there is nothing 'grey' about the punishments he metes out to his characters.  Jaime extended his hand to Bran in bad faith; later, he loses his hand.  Robert Baratheon focused on his own appetites; he was gored in the stomach by a boar.  Ned failed to use his head when it came to Robert and Cersei; he loses his head.  Sansa failed to stand by her 'wolf' pack; she loses her wolf, and her pack.  Robb violated his promise to wed, thinking he could sweet-talk Walder Frey; he was violated at a wedding by Frey who fed him a lot of sweet-talk, but words are wind...;  Tywin's credo was shaming others ; he was caught with his pants down on the privy by the person he'd most shamed; and Tyrion...well, GRRM lets him get off lightly (one of the reasons I find A+J=T so disappointing is that I don't believe Tyrion should be let off the 'kinslaying' hook that easily!) Note, that GRRM insinuates that Theon is the biological father of the selfsame miller's boys he kills, making him a kinslayer, of whom he says no-one is more 'accursed in the eyes of the gods.'  Was adding that detail to the murder of the children really necessary, unless GRRM didn't on some level intend to express his utter disapproval about Theon's choices, condemning him in the strongest terms?  In the name of being heir to the Iron Islands, Theon killed his own kin, symbolically cutting off the fruit of his loins; then his loins are cut off and he loses his name, essentially disqualifying him from inheriting the Iron Islands.

There certainly is a lot of "poetic justice" in asoiaf yes, though I don't really understand how this is relevant to the point I'm trying to make could you explain?
 

1 hour ago, ravenous reader said:

I agree with you that Theon is a character from which most readers would prefer to avert their eyes.  He's painful to look on, and offensive to smell.  It's more fun to get behind kick-ass Arya meting out her version of vigilante 'justice' or glammy Dany eviscerating the slavers for that matter!  Just as there's no stanza dedicated to 'the Stranger' in the 'Song of the Seven,' the omission of which represents 'repression' and 'denial' to use psychological terminology, likewise Theon -- that hooded figure, neither male nor female, half human-half animal (dog/raven) -- represents the Stranger or the Shadow side in all of us, insofar as we are all human and given to various degrees to vanity, frailty and brutality.  I like @sweetsunray's idea of Theon as GRRM's 'Gollum' equivalent, who, despite all his shortcomings, will nevertheless be instrumental in assisting to shift the outcome in a harmonious direction.

I don't really have anything to say to this as I don't disagree, obviously. But just wanted to quote to show that I've read it.
 

1 hour ago, ravenous reader said:

Perhaps you ought to be accusing GRRM of having minimal empathy for Theon -- he certainly has taken pains to put him through the ringer!  Joking aside, from a certain perspective I actually think GRRM has way more empathy for Theon than he does for Theon's victims.

This is basically another reason I love these books so much. GRRM shows understanding also for people who are to put it in your words "painfull to look on, and offensive to smell" people who are not pleasent to empathise with. Jaime is another example of that kind of character. He forces us to understand all kinds of people, including the ones people generally don't want to understand (or at least he tries) It's a unique perspective a lot of authors tend to avoid taking, because it can make people uncomfortable.
 

1 hour ago, ravenous reader said:

@BlueBard suggested something interesting, namely that 

In other words, empathy requires a certain 'suspension of disbelief,' basically an identification, even if temporary, with the other person.  I might argue, therefore, that the amount of time and effort spent turning ones attention towards something or someone implies a corresponding level of 'empathy.'  In contrast to Theon's 'boring' victims, Theon is given his own POV chapters, some of the most richly imagined material in the books, elevating his perspective over that of others who have lost their voice and/or whose psyches do not interest GRRM, using the latter rather as expendable cyvasse pieces in his own game.  Of John Milton, William Blake famously commented:

I reject the notion that identifying with someone requires agreement. I can identify with people yet disagree with them, and I assume that others can do the same.

about the quote, I don't think it's as simple as angels and devils, but I get what you mean. Though I see it more as an admission that human's aren't perfect, that we are very flawed and often selfish. which is again an uncomfortable fact to admit, it's something we tend to be in denial about because that's simply easier. But it is important to admit to it because only when you admit to your own shortcomings can you do something about them. This is exactly why I think self-awareness is so important and why i'm using it to fix my own issues. Mind you that I don't think that those shortcomings that tend to be a part of human nature are a sin that we need to atone for but rather something to overcome without feeling guilt for it. The guilt is what causes the denial.

1 hour ago, ravenous reader said:

Finally, let me say that I do not believe Theon is a psychopath (as far as it's possible to diagnose a fictional character).  Although he's done many heinous things, he nevertheless retains a certain capacity for empathy and remorse.  The more Theon displays these characteristics, for example when he's kneeling at the heart tree expressing as much, the more empathy reciprocally I have for him.  GRRM would like to believe in redemption, for his two 'smiling knight' characters Theon and Jaime.  Both of them on the way to better things, and I predict the Starks and Westeros will be better for it.

I have nothing to say to this but again quoting to show that I read it and agree.

[sweetsunray]

6 minutes ago, The Sleeper said:

@sweetsunray My problem is with authorities using such definitions. I've met and socialized with people like that. I just call them assholes and simply don't consider it a medical condition.

It's not regarded as a medical condition. Disorders and pathologies and temporary crisis are defined in part to describe the extremes from the normal range of a spectrum of characteristics. For example: we all have to influence someone once in a while, and will choose our arguments and show particular behavior to that end. Buth pathological manipulation is different, in that it is pervasive and does not respect boundaries. Diagnosis can indeed clarify things for the diagnozed but also the people around it (who often blame themselves, wondering for years what they did wrong to provoke the other). But I agree that a definition of a pathology should not be abused to excuse nor criminalize people or abuse their human rights.

[INCBlackbird]

50 minutes ago, The Sleeper said:

This is one major problem with personality disorders. Everyone appears to have their own definition. More than that it seems to me that they are part of an age long effort to attribute criminality and "abberant" behavior to illness. I detest this because it removes agency, responsibity and social factors and opens the door for preventative treatments and if you're feeling funky things like forced sterilizations. If they have scientific value then they should remain between health care professionals, the patients and their families and out of discussions of legality and morality.

Not all people who have personality disorders are criminals, i have several friends who suffer from borderline personality disorder they are not criminals, it does however make their life difficult. it comes with depression that often leads to thoughts of suicide, they are addicted to extreme emotions because they feel a certain kind of emptiness that constantly needs to be filled (this is basically just me repeating their words, I don't have this obsession I only understand it from their perspective) The point is not to use it as an excuse for behavior, the point of the diagnosis is so that they can understand themselves better, others can understand them better and they can get the right therapy so they can learn how to deal with their condition and for it not to end in suicide.

[Rippounet]

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

I did not say they were mutually exclusive. But an executioner is not by definition a psychopath.

Ah. I only just realize that I don't even know whether we mean the same thing by "executioner."

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

The feedback he got from victims, survivors and targets over time has convinced him otherwise. I met him at a reading But if you mean that the PCL-R test was constructed for research purposes rather than forensic criminal justice diagnostics, you're correct.

Actually, I was clumsily attempting to refer to his 1996 article: "Psychopathy: A Clinical Construct Whose Time Has Come."

(I knew it was some sort of quote but google reminded me where I had it from)

I'm -obviously- not familiar with his recent work.

2 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

She is a grey character, and darkening, but she ain't no psychopath, nor is she a monster. On principal I agree with you about vigilante killers, at least in a society that has an imperfect, but working justice system. But when those who are supposed to uphold justice let loose mass murderers on innocent people and does nothing to hold them accountable, I do feel that principle is worthless. If politicians in my country become dictatorial and send death squadrons to burn houses, drag people onto the street and shoot them randomly, rape women and children, and torture them for their hidden belongings, I don't think I will think ill of vigilantes putting either those politicians as well as those men of the death squadrons on a death list. I will not be too hasty either to befriend them.

Not a monster? I beg to differ. The Mercy chapter gave me a chill or two (great writing from the man BTW). I'm quite certain I'm right to believe that Martin is sending Arya down a very dark road, and that there are many blatant clues about this in the text. But there have been threads about this in the past, I do not wish to repeat such debates tonight.
As for psychopath... The term is an unperfect fit, I'm well aware of that, but it's the one I use for lack of a better word. I believe the text implies that Arya is starting to enjoy killing, so I think the term makes my conclusions clear to most people. If you have a better term to describe a child serial killer vigilante who is starting to take pride and pleasure in her murders, I'll be glad to use it.

And no, in my view I am not merely talking of instrumental or cold-blooded violence, because I believe it was -very- wrong to kill Dareon. The man was a prick, for sure, but we don't know that he deserved to die. Arya made the call and half-boasted about it. She crossed a line there, and I think the Mercy chapter only underlined the fact once more. I could be wrong and Martin only giving a certain type of readers what they want but... The text is strong with this one.

As for the last part... To fight or oppose a government you can form a citizens' militia or a citizens' assembly rather than rely on individual vigilantes. 'tis what I'd do, I like to believe...

1 hour ago, The Sleeper said:

You mean then anyone who has claimed judicial authority over the centuries and and sentenced people to death? Any lord in ASoIaF qualifies.

Yes and no. They still operate within the rule of law, as we see in the books. Lysa having to set Tyrion free is the best example of this.
Most importantly, it is a duty for the lords, we do not know that they take pleasure in it, and Ned certainly didn't. And as much as I despise feudalism, the lords derive their judicial authority from the crown, it is not one they "claim."

1 hour ago, Winter's Cold said:

That's how a lot of the characters in the series behave. After her mother and brother were slaughtered in breach of guest right and the perpetrators were rewarded, Arya understood that she'll need to deliver justice herself instead of relying on the "law".

"Need to" ? She's a little girl in a brutal world. She didn't "need to" do anything. She chose revenge, and she chose the FM. She didn't need to, she didn't have to. But she did. And she will be paying a price for it, mark my words.

And a great quote on this subject that I'm sure most of you already know:

'Deserves [death]! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.'
 

[The Sleeper]

58 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

It's not regarded as a medical condition. Disorders and pathologies and temporary crisis are defined in part to describe the extremes from the normal range of a spectrum of characteristics. For example: we all have to influence someone once in a while, and will choose our arguments and show particular behavior to that end. Buth pathological manipulation is different, in that it is pervasive and does not respect boundaries. Diagnosis can indeed clarify things for the diagnozed but also the people around it (who often blame themselves, wondering for years what they did wrong to provoke the other). But I agree that a definition of a pathology should not be abused to excuse nor criminalize people or abuse their human rights.

I am reluctant to comment on the science of it and I can't even say that it entirely contradicts my experiences. The problem is the potential for abuse and the actual abuse. While the individuals I mentioned were ... unpleasant to deal with, they were neither criminal nor evil. Years after any association I found that most had not fared well in their lives. Perhapsa there is a pathology. But if it involves behaviors that most people engage in at one point or another, where does one draw the line? The first abuse is the that any terms that refer to these pathologies have come to mean irredeemable monster, which I suspect is very far from the truth for moat such individuals. The other problem ia that there have been consistent attempts, through various so called research to link these disorders with criminality, though as far as I know the first time these disorders were defined it had norhing to do with criminal behavior but rather individuals who were unable to function on their own in a social despite being seemingly inteligent and sociable.

[Rippounet]

What with all the commotion over my calling Arya a p-word, I almost forgot to conclude our discussion, OP.

3 hours ago, INCBlackbird said:

The point I'm trying to make is not that he killed children because he has an identity crisis but that his identity crisis is what got him into that situation in winterfell, it was what made him so desparate to belong somewhere so afraid of abandonment also because he defines himself through what society thinks of him and his search for a home is directly linked to his inability to find himself. His unique situation in combination with his unique issues is what lead him to do several horrible things (which is the case with every person who commits a crime) and I think that it is important to understand those issues and that situation in order to make a judgement, because otherwise you're judging without the full knowledge needed to make an accurate judgement. (which again is the case with every single crime commited, that's why we have trials and while they often go on for days).I don't condone his actions either but I think that if you hate Theon because you misunderstand him, or you misunderstand Theon because you hate him you're missing out.

Oh, I don't think I can truly hate fictional characters.
Well, ok, maybe I hate Umbridge, but come on, that b**** is worse than evil...

Anyway, I understand what you're saying (to me at least). As for judgment... I'll repeat what I said before: Martin already judged Theon and meted out his punishment through Ramsay. As a reader, I'm now curious to see what the author has in store for him...

[INCBlackbird]

18 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

What with all the commotion over my calling Arya a p-word, I almost forgot to conclude our discussion, OP.

Oh, I don't think I can truly hate fictional characters.
Well, ok, maybe I hate Umbridge, but come on, that b**** is worse than evil...

Anyway, I understand what you're saying (to me at least). As for judgment... I'll repeat what I said before: Martin already judged Theon and meted out his punishment through Ramsay. As a reader, I'm now curious to see what the author has in store for him...

I don't think that by including the torture Martin was saying that this is an appropriate punishment. I mentioned in a previous post that Pia was also tortured/raped for a year and she did nothing to deserve it. I believe that Martin is trying to be realistic in his story in the sense that bad things happen to good and bad people alike. and good things happen to good and bad people alike. i'm not completely disregarding the idea that there was an element of punishing Theon from Martin's point of view but I think that if it's there, it's certainly secondary in Theon's arc. I explained it in detail to someone else earlier in this thread so i'm just going to qoute myself to explain.

On 12-9-2016 at 6:49 PM, INCBlackbird said:

This I can explain, I appologise for the long post that will probably follow, I'll try to keep it as short as I can.

 

So the first thing that is important to note is that Theon's arc is an identity arc. In his ADWD chapters that's very clear with the whole "I need to remember my name" thing going on, but his identity arc started long before that. There's a lot of things to be said about Theon and his relationship to the Starks, to women, to his family... but the common thread the links everything together is his identity crisis.

 

our sense of identity is influenced by how the people arround us see us (and treat us based on that of course), Theon started off being a "faulty" Greyjoy (according to his father and brothers, therefore he learned he had to change in order to be accepted, he learned that something was wrong with him) and then he became a political hostage, which means his personality didn't matter, only his name mattered, more specifically his last name. His value in life was reduced to being a tool, and Theon starts defining himself that same way, he values himself through his name and his gender, the two things that make him more valuable then others in the society he lives in. His name becomes a symbol of his identity. That is to say, he starts doing things backwards when it comes to identity. It's not that his name is the "title" (couldn't think of a better word) for his personality and everything that comes with being himself. But rather he bases who he is on his name. He decides that he is a Greyjoy and therefore he must be what Greyjoys are supposed to be like, he decides that he is a man therefore he must be what mean are supposed to be like. He creates his own personality based on those things and forces it upon himself. And that's where a lot of his problems come from because to force yourself to be something you're not means you're constantly struggling with yourself. it's a constant internal battle and it requires a lot of denial and overcompensation (notice macho behavior & acting like what he thinks is a stereotypical Greyjoy) on Theon's part.

 

Ramsay's function is ironically to fix Theon's identity issues. A good way to look at it is in layers. There's the real Theon who's hidden behind the layer of fake Theon, that identity he created for himself. That fake Theon layer is held up by the things he uses to support it (his name and his gender) Ramsay removes his defense (his fingers represent his physical defense because he's an archer and his teeth represent his psychological defense because it's his most common defense mechanism that he uses when the real Theon is threatening to show his face) when those are gone he takes both his name and metaphorically his gender. Ramsay essentially destroyed fake Theon at this point. Then he forces the Reek identity onto Theon, and he accepts it because it's the only way to defend himself from Ramsay (giving him what he wants). Reek is more than a name, just like Theon Greyjoy represented Theon's fake identity once, Reek represents the identity Ramsay gave him. But of course he does not want to be Reek, in fact he repels it so much that he has to constantly remind himself to be Reek. "My name is Reek, it rhymes with freak" The rhyming isn't just about remembering his name, it's about remembering to be the identity that Ramsay forced on him.

 

The moment he's away from Ramsay though, even if he's still a Bolton captive, he starts to slowly remove the Reek identity, only going back to it when Ramsay is there or he thinks about him. By the time he escapes Winterfell he is Theon, the real one for pretty much the first time in his life (or since he was a child I guess) Ironically Theon’s fake identity protected him from Ramsay, it made it so Ramsay couldn’t touch the real him and at the same time by killing the fake Theon, the real one emerged. I absolutely love the irony in that. now, of course all of  that is put very theoretically, the reality is a lot more messy and just because Theon is now rid of that fake identity doesn’t mean he’s emotionally stable now, Ramsay most certainly created a whole lot of new issues for him to deal with but it’s his identity arc coming pretty  much full circle (though I think there might be third part about how he now truly finds himself while metaphorically getting rid of Ramsay. The healing part if you will)

 

That said there are also a lot of links between Theon’s acok arc and his adwd arc. While being reek he resolves a lot of issues. For example, he often thinks of what he did and how guilty he feels, he metaphorically, through the chapters relives his acok arc in order to deal with those issues from a state of mind that is not so emotionally clouded (or at least differently emotionally clouded) than in acok. In the Prince of Winterfell he deals with the question of who he is, wanting a home and basically the things that lead him to do what he did in Clash, and his guilt over it, furthermore he thinks about his gender issues. In the Turncloak he build further on that wanting a home and for the first time admits that he loved the Starks because he wanted to be one of them. In A ghost in Winterfell he deals with his identity directly and in “Theon” he finally deals with his feelings of guilt about what happened to Robb and is able to remember what he meant to him.

 

 

[The Sleeper]

18 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Yes and no. They still operate within the rule of law, as we see in the books. Lysa having to set Tyrion free is the best example of this.
Most importantly, it is a duty for the lords, we do not know that they take pleasure in it, and Ned certainly didn't. And as much as I despise feudalism, the lords derive their judicial authority from the crown, it is not one they "claim."
 

You mean the crown that Robert won with his warhammer fifteen years prior to the start of the series? Or the one Aegon made when he invaded his neighbors with dragons? Or aren't there many who aspire to those seats? After all this is what makes a lord, the right to pass judgement.  As for what they think of their duties, we have many examples of justice as conducted by Westerosi, like Tarly having a whore washing her genitals with lye and Tywin had a man hanged for stealing a ham. If you also recall Tyrion was also released to another death sentence, having to cros the mountain road with another individual. The rule of law in Westeros is tradition founded in blood, the ability to keep their seat by the sword and the rest they just make up as they go along.

And yes Dareon's life was forfeit. It would have been Ned's duty to chop his head off with his big-ass sword. Just like he did the other deserter's at the start of the story.

[sweetsunray]

14 minutes ago, The Sleeper said:

I am reluctant to comment on the science of it and I can't even say that it entirely contradicts my experiences. The problem is the potential for abuse and the actual abuse. While the individuals I mentioned were ... unpleasant to deal with, they were neither criminal nor evil. Years after any association I found that most had not fared well in their lives. Perhapsa there is a pathology. But if it involves behaviors that most people engage in at one point or another, where does one draw the line? The first abuse is the that any terms that refer to these pathologies have come to mean irredeemable monster, which I suspect is very far from the truth for moat such individuals. The other problem ia that there have been consistent attempts, through various so called research to link these disorders with criminality, though as far as I know the first time these disorders were defined it had norhing to do with criminal behavior but rather individuals who were unable to function on their own in a social despite being seemingly inteligent and sociable.

Actually psychopathy has always been formulated in history to indeed identify people who persist and repeat criminal behavior. The first attempt at defining such minds was "morally insane". That said, a great many indeed either never get caught for their fraudulent behavior, and some of that fraudulent behavior is not criminal, but simply disloyal.   

For psychpathy plenty of research has been done, which includes studies of brain scans, neurological responses and hormonal studies. Just an example: if I were to lay 3 piles of cards on the table, and tell you that if you reach a certain total of points you will be rewarded, and I have prepared one pile with lots of point cards and another with very few such cards or even punish cards, it takes a normal individual on average 10 draws of cards from all 3 piles to consciously know which pile is the most advantageous. If I also measure your life signs (pulse, skin response) then it shows that you are at least subconsciouly aware (that is your body shows signs of awareness, but you are not cognitively convinced yet) after 5-6 draws. Psychopaths and narcissists actually keep drawing from the wrong pile.

Where does one draw the line? At a certain percentile of choice. Research and studies can reveal what 95% or even more of the population will show as behavior or response, etc.(whatever you wish to put in a defintion). The PCL-R test was designed to research the 1% at the extreme end. Anyone who scores 30/40 belongs to that 1%. The 0-4 score is what 50% of the population hav. Meaning that another 49% would have a score from 5-29. That 1% on the extreme end is by definition an extreme. Most diagnostic defintions are meant to define the extreme.

[The Sleeper]

@sweetsunray I was refferring to personality disorders in general. I believe, I may be wrong, that attempts to link criminal behavior to mental pathologies predate the concept of personality disorders.

[sweetsunray]

18 minutes ago, The Sleeper said:

@sweetsunray I was refferring to personality disorders in general. I believe, I may be wrong, that attempts to link criminal behavior to mental pathologies predate the concept of personality disorders.

Narcissism and borderliner is not defined to link with criminal behavior, and most indeed do not engage in any criminal behavior. They are disorders that describe behavior that is mostly emotional harmful to people who have personal relations with them (family, partners). And they are also believed to be disorders that can benefit or improve through therapy. Only histrionic personality disorder and ASPD and psychopathy are linked to criminal behavior, with histrionic of someone who behaves sexually inappropriate and may clash with social norms of what is proper sexual behavior in public (such as nudity). Solely psychopathy is the personality disorder defined to explain persistent anti-social criminal behavior and inter and intra states that prompt such behavior. ASPD is wider in that it only defines behavior. 

If you're thinking of schizophrenia and psychosis, those are not personality disorders.

[The Sleeper]

@sweetsunray Thank you for your contribution. You have given me a lot to think about.

[BlueBard]

17 hours ago, INCBlackbird said:

 

Never mind

[Rippounet]

13 hours ago, The Sleeper said:

You mean the crown that Robert won with his warhammer fifteen years prior to the start of the series? Or the one Aegon made when he invaded his neighbors with dragons? Or aren't there many who aspire to those seats?

Yes, so what?

In real life, the Romans progressively imposed their legal system on the vanquished tribes of Gaul, and the Normans organized the English legal system after William won the Batlle of Hastings in 1066. The Napoleonic code was the first modern legal code adopted throughout Europe. Etc...

So what?

13 hours ago, The Sleeper said:

As for what they think of their duties, we have many examples of justice as conducted by Westerosi, like Tarly having a whore washing her genitals with lye and Tywin had a man hanged for stealing a ham. If you also recall Tyrion was also released to another death sentence, having to cros the mountain road with another individual. The rule of law in Westeros is tradition founded in blood, the ability to keep their seat by the sword and the rest they just make up as they go along.

And until 1965, it was a capital offense to let your pet mate with a pet of the royal house (a corgi, presumably) in Britain. And until 2012, it was legal in York to shoot Scotsmen with a bow (except on sundays).

The rule of law in Britain is obviously non-existent and we need caped vigilantes rather than Parliament for justice in Britain...

Baaaaatman, where art thou?

Jokes aside now, an unperfect rule of law is no excuse for anyone to start killing people who they believe "deserve it."
I reject the idea that the characters must be judged by anything else than our own modern standards, because the story unfolds within the prism of our modern standards (it shows time and again throughout the books).
But even if you want to do that, Arya is the daughter of Ned... Probably the best lord when it came to justice.

13 hours ago, The Sleeper said:

And yes Dareon's life was forfeit. It would have been Ned's duty to chop his head off with his big-ass sword. Just like he did the other deserter's at the start of the story.

So if you ever come across a researched adulteress in Saudi Arabia, you'll stone her to death yourself or condone anyone who does, uh? After all, her life is forfeit isn't it?

And yes, people who argue that Arya had the "right" to kill Dareon are that ridiculous (to me at least). It's all right to enjoy seeing pricks get killed in fiction I guess... But actively condoning or justifying it is bad, and you should feel bad about it.

More importantly, Dareon was such a terrible criminal in the first place...

Quote

"Lord Rowan of Goldengrove found him in bed with his daughter. The girl was two years older, and Dareon swears she helped him through her window, but under her father's eye she named it rape, so here he is.
A Game of Thrones, Jon IV

[sweetsunray]

Arya had no legal right of power nor jurisdiction, nor was assigned by her "employers", and imho honest opinion nobody has a right to kill anybody, not even capital punishment. And I'm very proud to be one of the few countries that does not punish people from trying to escape prison, insofar the wish to be free is recognized by our law as being non-criminal. People only get additional time for the crimes and damage they do when trying to escape prison. If they manage to escape without damaging property, stealing cars, taking hostages, killing anyone etc, then they did nothing wrong. Police still should try to catch them again though.

Dareon showed his true colors in Braavos, and sheds his story of how he's this poor innocent who ended up being sent to the NW as a victim of the system in another light. He paints a pretty picture of himself, but I wouldn't believe a word he says or said.

All that said, I'd say that Arya was rewarded for her murder of Dareon by George, rather than punished for it. She got an accelerated training mission in the experience of being blind, which incidentally prompted her to skinchange cats, learn and pass info about Hardhome and how slavers thought of it as free-pickings area to fetch more, learn how to defend herself in the pitch dark. The sole sacrifice she actually had to make was not be Cat of the Canals for a few months. 

[Land's End]

16 hours ago, INCBlackbird said:

I reject the notion that identifying with someone requires agreement. I can identify with people yet disagree with them, and I assume that others can do the same.

Yes! I identify with myself (lol) yet I sometimes do stuff I disagree with. I even do stuff while being aware that it's wrong. So it's even more plausible to judge another person's actions as wrong but to be able to emphasize with them nonetheless. The ability to withstand the inconsistency between our moral judgment and our actions is very important.

Sure, a child murderer has to be punished, not matter what his intentions were. However, in front of a court the intentions still matter for the sentence. A child murderer who acted out of paranoia will get a different sentence than a child murderer who was of compos mentis during the act and who would do so again (Tywin).

INCBlackbid Did you read Dostoevsky? For him, remorse and motive are more important than the action itself. During the 1870s he commented on several cases of child abuse. The most famous are the Kronenberg case and the Kornilova case. Kronenberg was a father who tortured his seven year old daughter. Kornilova pushed her four year old step-daughter out of a window. While Dostoevsky judged Kronenberg harshly he was fascinated with Kornilova, visited her in prison and intervened on her behalf because, contrary to Kronenberg, she went to the police immediatly after the crime and admitted everything. Kronenberg on the other hand thought his crime was justified and a matter of disciplination, not torture. This made a world's difference for Dostoevsyky.

I personally don't agree with Dostoevsky's concept of justice but it's very interesting.

Regarding the psychopath discussion: I thought psychopaths are born while sociopaths are made through circumstances. I also thought that both diagnoses are sort of outdated. But I would never diagnose fictional characters anyway, so...

Also, I think the majority of the users currently discussing Theon don't disagree as much as they think. The bottomline for everyone seems to be that Theon's acts were horrible and can't be excused but he isn’t a character like Ramsay who just enjoys violence. On the first page some users claimed Theon is equal to the Mountain, I think that's why INCBlackbird is so defensive.

[Rippounet]

10 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Dareon showed his true colors in Braavos, and sheds his story of how he's this poor innocent who ended up being sent to the NW as a victim of the system in another light. He paints a pretty picture of himself, but I wouldn't believe a word he says or said.

But the quote I gave isn't from him, it's from Jon.
The thing about Dareon is that he originally is a victim. We have every reason to believe that the daughter of his lord was willing. First, because raping her would have been crazy and he's not, second because he wasn't executed on the spot (which makes it unlikely the girl was hurt in any way), and third because he doesn't rape anyone else (so the author doesn't give us reason to hink he's actually a rapist).
So we have reason to believe that he did get sent to the Wall for no reason other than sleeping with a girl above his station.
Then, he acts like a prick with Sam and Maester Aemon. But who could blame him? He suddenly finds again a freedom that he'd unjustly lost in the first place (and a nice life in Braavos too). What he can be blamed for is abandoning Maester Aemon to his fate (not helping Sam and all) and feeling no compassion for a kind old man. In his defense though, he's right to think he doesn't owe the NW anything. It's just that by not showing compassion he acts like a prick.

But one shouldn't die because they are a prick. And we both agree Arya had no right to judge him and even less to kill him.

10 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

All that said, I'd say that Arya was rewarded for her murder of Dareon by George, rather than punished for it. She got an accelerated training mission in the experience of being blind, which incidentally prompted her to skinchange cats, learn and pass info about Hardhome and how slavers thought of it as free-pickings area to fetch more, learn how to defend herself in the pitch dark. The sole sacrifice she actually had to make was not be Cat of the Canals for a few months. 

 This is true, but we have yet to see the end of her story... I'm not sure being trained by the FM is a good thing for little girls...