Jump to content

Evil People


Recommended Posts

I've always wondered whether Martin could pull off a Gregor Clegane POV chapter. Even writing Ramsay would seem easier to me. The Mountain's complaint that Oberyn makes his head hurt during the trial by combat could suggest that he is driven mostly by pain. An author as skilled and experienced as Martin must know the story even of his monsters, and I'm sure there is one to Gregor Clegane. Any villain driven only by the pleasure of doing evil is a bad villain and makes for a poor story. Not that I seriously miss chapters titled "Gregor" in the series, but I do wish we had a few more vague hints that could make this guy an evil character rather than an evil monster.

I still hesitate to put the Mountain very high on that list of "evil people" though, even if he and his men are responsible for some of the atrocities that almost made me physically sick. The curious thing about him is that he seems to be very loyal and obedient, and does what he does at the command of Tywin Lannister. Of course that doesn't justify in any way what he does, but I don't see how he could be far higher up on that list than Tywin.

It also seems to me that the Ironborn should feature more prominently on all the lists above. This is a people to which raping and killing is not just something you do in war, but something you do as often as you can to feel like a man. I would prefer to be drowned by Aeron to being burnt by Mel, but if there is one familiy the Seven Kingdoms would be better of without, it's the Greyjoys (sorry Asha).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Gargarax said:

I still hesitate to put the Mountain very high on that list of "evil people" though, even if he and his men are responsible for some of the atrocities that almost made me physically sick. The curious thing about him is that he seems to be very loyal and obedient, and does what he does at the command of Tywin Lannister. Of course that doesn't justify in any way what he does, but I don't see how he could be far higher up on that list than Tywin.

 

It's a network of reinforcement. Gregor's men are obedient to him out of fear for what he'll do to them. Gregor is obedient to Tywin because Tywin facilitates the contract for Gregor to exist. 

 

Without one or both Gregor is a much more fragile character. Interestingly Khal Drogo is a good example of this. His being a strong, powerful character is simply not enough in a new world of spies and treachery. In a similar way Gregor could not exist without the Lannisters. If it were any other house I suspect Gregor would have been killed off long ago. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are heads I would very definitely not like to wade around in, and Gregor Clegane is one of them. Alongside Ramsay Bolton, Joffrey and probably Qyburn. (The last would be fascinatingly clinical, I suspect, but very alien.)  What they do is repellent enough, without being inside the morass of sadism and viciousness.  Anyway, I imagine the thought processes for some of these people to be very fractured, and of a type not easy to transcribe, even if anyone wanted to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Gargarax said:

It also seems to me that the Ironborn should feature more prominently on all the lists above. This is a people to which raping and killing is not just something you do in war, but something you do as often as you can to feel like a man. I would prefer to be drowned by Aeron to being burnt by Mel, but if there is one familiy the Seven Kingdoms would be better of without, it's the Greyjoys (sorry Asha).

I'd weigh the Ironborn as a cultural and climate influence mostly. Evident in the moral conflicts Theon has post-Winterfell. It's not a coincidence that the Ironborn isles are considered raw, cold and wet places. A harsh world makes for a harsh man kind of theme. Where Theon was raised in comfort, Asha was raised in the raw and wet kind of cold. She's Ironborn through and through. Theon is not. Even though they share blood. 

Morals are most certainly shaped by the world you live in. In a sense you could say morality is shaped by survival. For the Ironborn it's easy to see why they favor pillaging. The Iron Islands are rocky and cover a smaller landmass making farming prohibitive. So pillaging becomes a rite of survival. Thus their morals are different. Again, shaped by circumstance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Helikzhan said:

It's a network of reinforcement. Gregor's men are obedient to him out of fear for what he'll do to them. Gregor is obedient to Tywin because Tywin facilitates the contract for Gregor to exist. 

Without one or both Gregor is a much more fragile character. Interestingly Khal Drogo is a good example of this. His being a strong, powerful character is simply not enough in a new world of spies and treachery. In a similar way Gregor could not exist without the Lannisters. If it were any other house I suspect Gregor would have been killed off long ago. 

I'm sure that's true, I can't think of any other house that keeps a monster as Clegane in its arsenal. However, that's one of the reasons why I would classify Tywin among the evil characters.

12 minutes ago, SeaWitch said:

There are heads I would very definitely not like to wade around in, and Gregor Clegane is one of them. Alongside Ramsay Bolton, Joffrey and probably Qyburn. (The last would be fascinatingly clinical, I suspect, but very alien.)  What they do is repellent enough, without being inside the morass of sadism and viciousness.  Anyway, I imagine the thought processes for some of these people to be very fractured, and of a type not easy to transcribe, even if anyone wanted to.

I would certainly not "enjoy" a Gregor chapter, but if Martin asked me what non-POV character he should write a POV about, I would definitely be tempted to choose him. There must be more in that big head of his than white noise.

4 minutes ago, Helikzhan said:

I'd weigh the Ironborn as a cultural and climate influence mostly. Evident in the moral conflicts Theon has post-Winterfell. It's not a coincidence that the Ironborn isles are considered raw, cold and wet places. A harsh world makes for a harsh man kind of theme. Where Theon was raised in comfort, Asha was raised in the raw and wet kind of cold. She's Ironborn through and through. Theon is not. Even though they share blood. 

Morals are most certainly shaped by the world you live in. In a sense you could say morality is shaped by survival. For the Ironborn it's easy to see why they favor pillaging. The Iron Islands are rocky and cover a smaller landmass making farming prohibitive. So pillaging becomes a rite of survival. Thus their morals are different. Again, shaped by circumstance. 

I know what you mean, but that explains the raving more than the violence and the rape culture. The wildlings live in a much harsher place still, and seem to me a deal less savage (well, some of them ;) ). And you could make a similar argument for the masters of Astapor - training Unsullied makes perfect sense from an economic point of view and is also part of their culture. Still, nobody rushes to their defense, and with good reason. It's not that I don't see the appeal in the IB as characters, but I wonder why anyone would call Mance Rayder evil and not waste a thought on Victarion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

8 minutes ago, Gargarax said:

The ice river clans are the only ones that are mentioned as being cannibals. The Thenns are not cannibals:

Ah, ok. I'm vaguely recalling the chapters spent on them. 

 

9 minutes ago, Gargarax said:

The problem is that there are wildlings and wildlings, and that they are as different as the houses in Westeros. There are definitely savages among them, but others that seem more progressive. When I wrote they were more "cultured" than the Ironborn, I had in mind that they are not as misogynistic for example; they don't have the IB's toxic patriarcal system - or at least, again, not all of them. They also don't sacrifice people to gods. But yes, I'd rather grow up on Harlaw that with the Thenns.

I don't know how you come to the conclusion that they aren't patriarchal. Sure, some of the tribes may be ruled by women but my impression from the reading was that they were no less patriarchal than the Ironborn. Wondering how you got the impression they weren't. 

 

11 minutes ago, Gargarax said:

know what you mean about the Dothraki, although the only time it is mentioned that the Dothraki Sea is fertile, the context is that there is a lot of grass for the horses, and fertility for grass does not mean that you could grow grain. Could it also be that conquest has always been so easy and profitable for the Dothraki that changing their lifestyle would have seemed absurd? Why get a job if your neighbour slips his packcheck under the door every time you go knocking? ;) 

 

It could be something not explained very well about the Dothraki sea. Even if all they ate was horse meat and mare milk. I don't know. Maybe that's all that would be required but even the vikings in the real world farmed crops. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Helikzhan said:

I don't know how you come to the conclusion that they aren't patriarchal. Sure, some of the tribes may be ruled by women but my impression from the reading was that they were no less patriarchal than the Ironborn. Wondering how you got the impression they weren't. 

Okay, sorry, badly phrased. I meant they are not quite as patriarcal, since women can become leaders (with the IB, Asha seems to be an exception) and women seem to have more freedom and opportunities than women in Westeros - they aren't used as means to forge alliances by their fathers, for example. But of course, it's still a patriarcal system. My point was that wildling culture is less hierarchial, which could be seen as progressive. We don't have any indication that wildling leaders would have the toxic patriarcal mindset of Victarion. But then we don't really have their POVs (except for Varamir, who is an exception).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gargarax said:

Okay, sorry, badly phrased. I meant they are not quite as patriarcal, since women can become leaders (with the IB, Asha seems to be an exception) and women seem to have more freedom and opportunities than women in Westeros - they aren't used as means to forge alliances by their fathers, for example. But of course, it's still a patriarcal system. My point was that wildling culture is less hierarchial, which could be seen as progressive. We don't have any indication that wildling leaders would have the toxic patriarcal mindset of Victarion. But then we don't really have their POVs (except for Varamir, who is an exception).

 

Ah yes. The Wildlings give me the same impression on heirarchy. It's a meritocracy where the strongest and most capable lead. Whereas the Ironborn is a monarchy of sorts. A loose monarchy though as another house may rise above Greyjoy easier than say, Bolton over Stark. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Gargarax said:

 When I wrote they were more "cultured" than the Ironborn, I had in mind that they are not as misogynistic for example; they don't have the IB's toxic patriarcal system - or at least, again, not all of them.

I agree with you that the wildlings are less hierarchic and misogynistic than the IB, but more cultured is the wrong term. On the contrary they are less cultured and closer to nature. Sometimes that's better. While our culture today moves in the direction of equality and human rights, culture is also what brought humanity patriarchy and slavery for example in the first place.

Quote

Whereas the Ironborn is a monarchy of sorts. A loose monarchy though as another house may rise above Greyjoy easier than say, Bolton over Stark.

Maybe a teeny bit easier, but I think you are overstating it. We witnessed the first kingsmoot in 4000 years! These are very special times we are reading in. It took Balon seeming to have no surviving sons and his oldest brother being a complete maniac, who is despised by his entire family. Otherwise the Ib monarchy would be pretty solid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In real-world history we tend to look upon evil people with a more favorable light the further in the past you go.  People today generally still see Hitler as pure evil, however most history today describes Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great as great people.  Now if you were alive during the reigns of Genghis Khan or Alexander the great, and not on their sides, there's a good chance you look at them the same we we look at Hitler today.

In the present tense of ASOIAF I see Littlefinger as being one of the most 'evil' characters.  Now in future ASOIAF tense maybe he is seen as a great liberator who brought democracy to Westeros.  

Good or evil.... it's an age old question, and part of the reason it works so great in a literary sense is because there is no real answer to the question, only different perspectives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Littlefinger- Creating wars for a no good reason, ruining people for sport, destroying families, no remorse whatsoever. 

The Mountain- Would do whatever Tywin Lannister tells him to do. Burn, rape, kill. Being the henchman of more powerful people from him though, does not make him less evil.

Geoffrey "Baratheon"- A young psycho that would have just turned into a bigger one when he gets older. And he created enough damage for his short time ruling and living.

Ramsay Bolton- sacked/burned Winterfell to the ground, a rapist, hunted people like animals, tortured Theon to submission, etc.

These are pure evil characters, with close to none qualities. People capable of evil deeds but still calculating- well, that would be a very long list. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/7/2017 at 1:41 PM, Gargarax said:

I've always wondered whether Martin could pull off a Gregor Clegane POV chapter. Even writing Ramsay would seem easier to me. The Mountain's complaint that Oberyn makes his head hurt during the trial by combat could suggest that he is driven mostly by pain. An author as skilled and experienced as Martin must know the story even of his monsters, and I'm sure there is one to Gregor Clegane. Any villain driven only by the pleasure of doing evil is a bad villain and makes for a poor story. Not that I seriously miss chapters titled "Gregor" in the series, but I do wish we had a few more vague hints that could make this guy an evil character rather than an evil monster.

I still hesitate to put the Mountain very high on that list of "evil people" though, even if he and his men are responsible for some of the atrocities that almost made me physically sick. The curious thing about him is that he seems to be very loyal and obedient, and does what he does at the command of Tywin Lannister. Of course that doesn't justify in any way what he does, but I don't see how he could be far higher up on that list than Tywin.

It also seems to me that the Ironborn should feature more prominently on all the lists above. This is a people to which raping and killing is not just something you do in war, but something you do as often as you can to feel like a man. I would prefer to be drowned by Aeron to being burnt by Mel, but if there is one familiy the Seven Kingdoms would be better of without, it's the Greyjoys (sorry Asha).

It's his methods and his disproportionate reactions to small things.

My brother took my toy? Shove his face in a fire. Stallion reacts to a mare in heat during a tilt? Kill it. Man is snoring and keeping me awake? Kill him. Innkeeper is prattling on about his daughter? Throw her on the table and rape her in front of him; then let all your men have a turn.

Sure, having headaches could make one very irritable, but it doesn't drive you to commit depraved acts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Traverys said:

It's his methods and his disproportionate reactions to small things.

My brother took my toy? Shove his face in a fire. Stallion reacts to a mare in heat during a tilt? Kill it. Man is snoring and keeping me awake? Kill him. Innkeeper is prattling on about his daughter? Throw her on the table and rape her in front of him; then let all your men have a turn.

Sure, having headaches could make one very irritable, but it doesn't drive you to commit depraved acts.

I didn't mean to explain all what he does with his headaches, although killing the snoring man could have something to do with it. He is beyond any doubt a horrible person and one of the books more despicable bad guys. I just see him more as a tool than a major villain, because he is kept alive by Tywin to be a monster to others. And I wish we knew the reasons for his depravity, because a character that is evil for evil's sake bores me.

The toy story has always seemed a bit odd to me: There's a boy who still feels possessive of his toys, but at the same time will already commit sytematic violence that doesn't seem just a rash reaction but more the punishment of a sadistic adult. Not the best back story, I thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Traverys said:

It's his methods and his disproportionate reactions to small things.

My brother took my toy? Shove his face in a fire. Stallion reacts to a mare in heat during a tilt? Kill it. Man is snoring and keeping me awake? Kill him. Innkeeper is prattling on about his daughter? Throw her on the table and rape her in front of him; then let all your men have a turn.

Sure, having headaches could make one very irritable, but it doesn't drive you to commit depraved acts.

You're reasoning with a functioning brain (no perpetual headaches requiring painkillers). 

Gregor at the very least has perpetual migraines due to his giganticism. With some speculation that there is more going on in his head like a tumor or swelling. 

On top of that his conditioning since childhood to deal with headaches has been to smash people to death. So why would a young Gregor already violent be less violent an adult? It makes little sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Helikzhan said:

You're reasoning with a functioning brain (no perpetual headaches requiring painkillers). 

Gregor at the very least has perpetual migraines due to his giganticism. With some speculation that there is more going on in his head like a tumor or swelling. 

On top of that his conditioning since childhood to deal with headaches has been to smash people to death. So why would a young Gregor already violent be less violent an adult? It makes little sense. 


Conditioning is based on a consistent system of reward and punishment. You're suggesting either his headaches go away when he commits violence or he gets headaches for not committing violence. Otherwise, something else had to reward or punish him into committing depraved acts. I'm sure Tywin gives him plenty of rewards for doing his dirty work for him, but clearly he was already capable of committing these acts well before Robert's Rebellion.

9 hours ago, Gargarax said:

I didn't mean to explain all what he does with his headaches, although killing the snoring man could have something to do with it. He is beyond any doubt a horrible person and one of the books more despicable bad guys. I just see him more as a tool than a major villain, because he is kept alive by Tywin to be a monster to others. And I wish we knew the reasons for his depravity, because a character that is evil for evil's sake bores me.

The toy story has always seemed a bit odd to me: There's a boy who still feels possessive of his toys, but at the same time will already commit sytematic violence that doesn't seem just a rash reaction but more the punishment of a sadistic adult. Not the best back story, I thought.

I think I get what you're saying: he's more of a caricature than a person, as far as fiction goes. The story about the toy is more about Sandor Clegane than Gregor himself, in the end. Tywin at least claims he had no idea what he had in his hands when he first used Gregor during Robert's Rebellion.

Quote

“Then why did the Mountain kill her?”

“Because I did not tell him to spare her. I doubt I mentioned her at all. I had more pressing concerns. Ned Stark’s van was rushing south from the Trident, and I feared it might come to swords between us. And it was in Aerys to murder Jaime, with no more cause than spite. That was the thing I feared most. That, and what Jaime himself might do.” He closed a fist. “Nor did I yet grasp what I had in Gregor Clegane, only that he was huge and terrible in battle. The rape . . . even you will not accuse me of giving that command, I would hope."

Of course, I personally believe Tywin lied about not wanting Elia dead, so he could very well be lying about that as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Traverys said:

Conditioning is based on a consistent system of reward and punishment. You're suggesting either his headaches go away when he commits violence or he gets headaches for not committing violence. Otherwise, something else had to reward or punish him into committing depraved acts. I'm sure Tywin gives him plenty of rewards for doing his dirty work for him, but clearly he was already capable of committing these acts well before Robert's Rebellion.

Endorphin is released during violence and sex. Endorphin dulls the symptoms associated to headaches. 

 

Not that this would be the only reward but it's an clear frontrunner. Couple that with the Lannister's blessing (money, fortunes, namesake, victims, etc) and it becomes pretty clear why Gregor is who he is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Traverys said:

I think I get what you're saying: he's more of a caricature than a person, as far as fiction goes. The story about the toy is more about Sandor Clegane than Gregor himself, in the end. Tywin at least claims he had no idea what he had in his hands when he first used Gregor during Robert's Rebellion.

The death of Elia and her child(ren) at Ser Gregors hands seems almost insignificant to me when compared to the deaths of thousands of people in the Riverlands, hundreds of children among them. And Tywin sent Ser Gregor to do exactly that. Even if Tywin had made Gregor swear to spare the royal family back in Robert's Rebellion (which he definitely didn't do), he wouldn't be the tiniest bit less cruel and evil in my eyes. He is glad to have such an obedient monster at his disposal.

I also hesitate to reduce the Mountain's bad temper to the headaches, although they definitely played their part. Being evil because of a health condition doesn't seem like a big step ahead in terms of characterisation.

I've really come to appreciate the ASOS Prologue: Chett is an awful person; a bad guy with practically no redeeming feature. Still, while reading the chapter there are moments when you can understand him, even pity him a tiny little bit, while being repelled by him at the same time. (Just as in "Paradise Lost", you pity Satan, you're sorry for him, but that doesn't change the fact that he's the bad guy). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/6/2017 at 10:00 AM, Tianzi said:

And yes, Renly was evil, evil twice, cause he betrayed not only Stannis, but also Joff (as he didn't believe that Cersei's kids were bastards) and went on war not for any justice/goal for the kingdom's wellness, but out of vanity and greed.

Not quite.

Renly tried to usurp the crown out of self-preservation, crowning himself was the only way to save his skin once the plan remove Lannister influence by replacing Cersei failed and after Eddard stubbornly refused his help to install him as regent.

Joffrey and Lannisters were coming for him, and the only way he could get the Tyrells on his side was by offering them something, in this case, to make Marge a queen. He did very much get enamoured with the idea of being King though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...