Jump to content

Please, please can't we all just get along!


Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

I wonder if the Starks will be made to answer for the damages being caused by Nymeria. 

I'm not sure why they would - it's not primarily their fault Nymeria went wild, and now that she is largely wild, it's not their fault that she's going after people.

 

Regarding the Twins, it would be interesting to see if an eventual Stark heir is in position to be able to hold a real, genuine trial; complete with pleas and finger-pointing and the formal convictions of not just the wedding planners, but Tywin, the Boltons, and Sybell Spicer as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/10/2017 at 9:56 PM, Traverys said:

There's nothing the Frey's have that anyone wants... well, Edmure probably wants Riverun back. That's about it. They've always been the trash of the noble houses, and they've pretty much made it so that it will always be the case. Breaking guest right with cold blooded murder means no one would ever trust them to follow through on any agreement they may come to. They have demonstrated they have no honor, or scruples for that matter. So, the only thing they have the North will want is their lifeblood.

The Twins are more valuable than Winterfell and Riverun.  The Starks would foam at the mouth to get their hands on that valuable property.  It is more accurate to say there is nothing the north has that the Freys would value. 

Breaking guest rights is not as bad as breaking oaths.  Just about every oath breaker in the story got their punishment.  It is the biggest sin in the novels. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, 300 H&H Magnum said:

Breaking guest rights is not as bad as breaking oaths.  Just about every oath breaker in the story got their punishment.  It is the biggest sin in the novels. 

Disagree. The entire character arc and saga of Ser Jaime Lannister and his many oaths is an examination of the oathbreaker as a concept - and if, as many suspect he will, Jon Snow survives and is the final hero or even King at the end, he will have been rewarded despite being a pretty serious oathbreaker.

Meanwhile, Guest Right exists for obvious reasons of stability and trust; and is in fact an implied oath that anyone giving shelter automatically grants their guests. It helps prevent a total breakdown of society and order; and violation of that norm for narrow political gain cries out for punishment lest the norms be further eroded and society suffer accordingly. In other words, breaking a vow to one person is a crime against that person, but breaking guest right is a crime against an entire society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, velo-knight said:

Disagree. The entire character arc and saga of Ser Jaime Lannister and his many oaths is an examination of the oathbreaker as a concept - and if, as many suspect he will, Jon Snow survives and is the final hero or even King at the end, he will have been rewarded despite being a pretty serious oathbreaker.

Meanwhile, Guest Right exists for obvious reasons of stability and trust; and is in fact an implied oath that anyone giving shelter automatically grants their guests. It helps prevent a total breakdown of society and order; and violation of that norm for narrow political gain cries out for punishment lest the norms be further eroded and society suffer accordingly. In other words, breaking a vow to one person is a crime against that person, but breaking guest right is a crime against an entire society.

Interesting point. People like to gloss over that Jon Snow stretched and skewed his oath and ultimately got himself killed due to his "noble heart." I don't blame him, and knowing my own bleeding heart, I'd have a hard time telling all those individual people no too. His heart was in the right place... but then it got stabbed a few times because he risked everything for small things. Lord knows why he thinks it's a good idea to read the pink letter out loud to the Night's Watch... publicly announcing the ways he broke his oath in order to serve his allegiance to the (diminished) Northern part of the realm.

But my point is that it doesn't necessarily make him accursed, just vile and not trustworthy (not my opinion, opinion of the many). Kinslaying and breaking guest right result in accursed status, by tradition and folklore. They are aligned with the will of the gods because they contribute to stability. As soon as you permit the slaying of family members or the killing of people you receive into your household it all becomes pandemonium in a feudal society. No room for alliances, no room for rightful succession, no room for peace.

Oaths are such a broad category while the other two are very specific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Traverys said:

<snip>

I mean, I can see some case for reading the letter: it's an incendiary document that did rally men to his side, and in our own times the importance of honor in response to such an outrageous document might not be as obvious. One can even argue that in doing so, Jon was trying to claim that he was not really interfering; but rather taking proactive action against the Watch being interfered with - though sending Mance makes this claim pretty thin.

As a more general point, I wonder if the series won't end up contradicting our beloved Maester Aemon: with love being mankind's salvation. Few things can motivate people to greater sacrifice or courage, and oaths in contradiction to this are pretty much always tested and eventually broken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, no we can't just get along.

Turn over Lame Lothar,Black Walder, and Lord Walder to us and we will allow the members of House Frey to travel in peace.  Keep them from us, and we will hang every Frey we can get our hands on.  We are not interested in negotiation.  As a token of our goodwill and dedication, we are sending you the remains of the most recent Freys we found.  Consider youselves warned!  Signed, Brotherhood without Banners

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, 300 H&H Magnum said:

 

Breaking guest rights is not as bad as breaking oaths.  Just about every oath breaker in the story got their punishment.  It is the biggest sin in the novels. 

 

The World of Ice and Fire - The North

Quote

One notable custom that the Northmen hold dearer than any other is guest right, the tradition of hospitality by which a man may offer no harm to a guest beneath his roof, nor a guest to his host. The Andals held to something like it as well, but it looms less large in southron minds. In his text Justice and Injustice in the North: Judgments of Three Stark Lords, Maester Egbert notes that crimes in the North in which guest right was violated were rare but were invariably treated as harshly as the direst of treasons. Only kinslaying is deemed as sinful as the violations of these laws of hospitality.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, velo-knight said:

I mean, I can see some case for reading the letter: it's an incendiary document that did rally men to his side, and in our own times the importance of honor in response to such an outrageous document might not be as obvious. One can even argue that in doing so, Jon was trying to claim that he was not really interfering; but rather taking proactive action against the Watch being interfered with - though sending Mance makes this claim pretty thin.

As a more general point, I wonder if the series won't end up contradicting our beloved Maester Aemon: with love being mankind's salvation. Few things can motivate people to greater sacrifice or courage, and oaths in contradiction to this are pretty much always tested and eventually broken.

This. Love, in all its forms - compassion, sympathy, etc - will most definitely be the "answer" imo. As to oaths, words are wind! It's actions, not words that will matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

This. Love, in all its forms - compassion, sympathy, etc - will most definitely be the "answer" imo. As to oaths, words are wind! It's actions, not words that will matter. 

Love is a good thing and it can be positive.  But when love makes you betray your duties to the many for the sake of helping your little sister, that is an example of how feelings can be destructive.  There is nothing you can say to sweeten Jon's wrongdoings.  Many people do terrible things because of love and it doesn't make it any less wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:

Love is a good thing and it can be positive.  But when love makes you betray your duties to the many for the sake of helping your little sister, that is an example of how feelings can be destructive.  There is nothing you can say to sweeten Jon's wrongdoings.  Many people do terrible things because of love and it doesn't make it any less wrong. 

Only he didn't really betray his duties. One can argue that he betrayed his oath, but Jon had done, and was still doing more for the welfare of the Watch, and that of mankind than most people in Westeros have, and are doing combined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/11/2017 at 11:02 PM, velo-knight said:

I'm not sure why they would - it's not primarily their fault Nymeria went wild, and now that she is largely wild, it's not their fault that she's going after people.

 

Regarding the Twins, it would be interesting to see if an eventual Stark heir is in position to be able to hold a real, genuine trial; complete with pleas and finger-pointing and the formal convictions of not just the wedding planners, but Tywin, the Boltons, and Sybell Spicer as well.

If Jon comes South and performs his own version of the "Hour of the Wolf" I would like to see that happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:

Love is a good thing and it can be positive.  But when love makes you betray your duties to the many for the sake of helping your little sister, that is an example of how feelings can be destructive.  There is nothing you can say to sweeten Jon's wrongdoings.  Many people do terrible things because of love and it doesn't make it any less wrong. 

4 hours ago, Darkstream said:

Only he didn't really betray his duties. One can argue that he betrayed his oath, but Jon had done, and was still doing more for the welfare of the Watch, and that of mankind than most people in Westeros have, and are doing combined.

Aline, I think the issue here is I (and, it seems, Darkstream) don't accept the Nights Watch's definition of duty. If you force someone to make a choice between love and a vow they swore, they will break the vow - but that's not a failing of love, it's a failing of the vows, because if it was really well thought-out they would be structured so that love complements and reinforces them, not forces an impossible choice. What's more, I think the Farya case is doubly circular, because not only do most Jon critics accept the fatally compromised NW orthodoxy, but because it's quite unclear how much leeway the Watch and especially the LC have in dealing with the Lords of Westeros. Presumably they have some authority, or any petty lord or king could extort them with impunity unless another lord came to their rescue (a politically untenable situation). What's more, criticism in defense of this supposedly pure ideal of duty is rarely consistently applied: I've never seen much outrage at Yoren saving Arya Stark, either - and Yoren's ultimate death should remind us that, impartial or no, the men of the Watch are feudal soldiers in a culture that deeply values martial honor.

Even accepting that the FArya case was an error in judgment within the framework of flawed vows, I think the twinning of love and duty is more more thematically central  to ASoIaF than their separation. The Watch, the paragon of spartan, monastic, apolitical duty is wholly inadequate to the challenge of saving Westeros from the White Walkers, which is completely clear right from the beginning (and is a clear theme in the prologue, as well). Meanwhile, the birth of the dragons who may well help save the day was a moment of instinct, intuition, and passion; I argue that Daenaerys didn't act out of an abstract duty to an ideal, but out of love. Jon Snow's parentage secret is the product of love and duty working in concert: Ned keeps the secret all those years from everyone out of love for his dead sister. Duty derives from love, and only fails if placed in conflict with it.

3 hours ago, Lord Wraith said:

If Jon comes South and performs his own version of the "Hour of the Wolf" I would like to see that happen.

Definitely. Also, while the book is more or less closed on Tywin Lannister's reputation - all that really remains is for his regime to complete it's final downfall (and possible unsuccessful restoration if a Queen Myrcella push is made) and his likely replacement by his hated son Tyrion, it would be satisfying to see various minor Freys, in an attempt to save themselves, expose the full extent of treachery and rot that eventually destroyed the Young Wolf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not the failure of the vows.  The vows make sense.  It is the failure of Jon himself, velo-knight.  Yes, other men have failed to uphold their vows to the watch and paid for it with their lives, take Gared as the example.  But there are men who have not.  Jon does not get an excuse here.  It is only right that Jon should pay with his life too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/11/2017 at 11:02 PM, velo-knight said:

Regarding the Twins, it would be interesting to see if an eventual Stark heir is in position to be able to hold a real, genuine trial; complete with pleas and finger-pointing and the formal convictions of not just the wedding planners, but Tywin, the Boltons, and Sybell Spicer as well.

Those wedding planners were exorbitant in their floral pricing... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, velo-knight said:

.

Definitely. Also, while the book is more or less closed on Tywin Lannister's reputation

In what way?

8 hours ago, velo-knight said:

 

- all that really remains is for his regime to complete it's final downfall (and possible unsuccessful restoration if a Queen Myrcella push is made) and his likely replacement by his hated son Tyrion, it would be satisfying to see various minor Freys, in an attempt to save themselves, expose the full extent of treachery and rot that eventually destroyed the Young Wolf.

What does this have to do with Tywin? The Frey's act is looked down upon because they broke guest rights, killing 50-100 in the process, while turning on an army that was their allies. Tywin was neither the host or the guest in that situation. Benefiting from it, or even encouraging it, is not a crime.  It is just like Robert benefiting from Jaime Lannister's act of Kingslaying. 

The realm is already aware that the Crown benefited from the Red Wedding, and are aware that the Crown rewarded them with Riverrun. What more do you think will be revealed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Milady de Winterfell said:

Those wedding planners were exorbitant in their floral pricing... 

Yeah, it's an arm and a leg. Next they'll be asking for a firstborn son!

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

In what way?

He literally died on the pot, his corpse stank for days, and pretty much all of his achievements are unraveling because he inspired only fear.

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

What does this have to do with Tywin? The Frey's act is looked down upon because they broke guest rights, killing 50-100 in the process, while turning on an army that was their allies. Tywin was neither the host or the guest in that situation. Benefiting from it, or even encouraging it, is not a crime.  It is just like Robert benefiting from Jaime Lannister's act of Kingslaying. 

The realm is already aware that the Crown benefited from the Red Wedding, and are aware that the Crown rewarded them with Riverrun. What more do you think will be revealed?

That the Crown, and specifically Tywin Lannister, was aware of and gave his blessing to the massacre beforehand, not merely rewarded it after the fact. That changes him from rewarding an ugly betrayal to his favor (understandable, even if detested) to being complicit in the breaking of guest right itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Take Me 2 Your Leader said:

It's not the failure of the vows.  The vows make sense.  It is the failure of Jon himself, velo-knight.  Yes, other men have failed to uphold their vows to the watch and paid for it with their lives, take Gared as the example.  But there are men who have not.  Jon does not get an excuse here.  It is only right that Jon should pay with his life too.

Gared should not have died either. That first scene tells us a lot, but one of the most important bits is that there's a chance for the truth to come out about the Walkers much sooner, and focus on punishing a man who broke the vows kills that chance!

The vows do not make sense, any more than vows of chastity or nonpartisanship ever do; because the former requires contradicting human nature and the latter is inherently impossible. It's worth noting that in real life such vows prove intensely problematic and always have. 

You can condemn Jon all you like, it doesn't change the fact that the Night's Watch we see was already a broken organization - and their current vows are what defines them as such. Maybe if their vows did were not always for life, they'd have more and better soldiers; maybe if their chastity vows were optional, they wouldn't have such a chronically underpopulated Gift; maybe if they had more political authority, they would be taken seriously when trying to warn the Seven Kingdoms of the greatest threat they've ever faced. If you want to build a strong and durable organization, you will structure it so that love and human frailties work to advance it, not against it.

Thematically, we see in Jaime Lannister's arc the complicated relationship between vows and reality; about what a vow means to one's self versus to others. When we get to Jon, though, discourse suddenly changes, and vows are discussed more like the joy that is contract law. The fact that Jon, as both a man of the Watch and especially as Lord Commander in an exceptional time, might believe he is acting in the best interest of the realms of men against the White Walkers - the ultimate purpose of the Watch - while meddling with Ramsay is never acknowledged, even though one of the most important characters in the series has been shown to stay true to his most important vows with the very act - Kingslaying - that made him an infamous oathbreaker. Given that Jon is A.) heavily foreshadowed as one of if not the eventual savior; B.) that he's conducted the most vigorous and ambitious plan to strengthen the Watch in generations by making peace with the Wildlings and taking a loan to invest in winter-time agricultural capacity; I think the vows that forced him to "shirk" his duty have cost the Watch dearly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, velo-knight said:

 

He literally died on the pot, his corpse stank for days, and pretty much all of his achievements are unraveling

How does dying on the toilet wipe out the previous 60 years of his life? Is he no longer the youngest Hand in the History of Westeros? One of the longest serving Hands in the history of Westeros? Is he no longer the victor of the Battle of Blackwater?

He made his daughter Queen and two Grandson's kings. Whatever happens in the future, that still happened. Henry I's reputation did not take a nosedive because his daughter lost the Crown.

Tywin outlived both his father and (likely) his grandfather. He seems to have been the most influential person from the Westerlands in the last three hundred years. All of this is not simply erased due to how he died. 

10 minutes ago, velo-knight said:

because he inspired only fear.

Well first of all that does not seem to be true. We have Pycelle, Kevan, Genna and the solemn looking Lords of the Westerlands who lead his funeral pyre back home to show this is not true. 

His twenty year Handship to Aerys was a time of peace and prosperity, he brought peace and stability to the Westerlands. To say he only inspired fear seems to be ignoring a lot and only taking the viewpoint from his enemies. Robert in the first book states what an honour it is for Ned's nephew to be warded with Tywin Lannister.

Secondly I don't really see what this has to do with his reputation. Is Ghengis Khan's reputation damaged because of the fear he inspired?

 

10 minutes ago, velo-knight said:

That the Crown, and specifically Tywin Lannister, was aware of and gave his blessing to the massacre beforehand, not merely rewarded it after the fact. That changes him from rewarding an ugly betrayal to his favor (understandable, even if detested) to being complicit in the breaking of guest right itself.

How can he be complicit? He was neither the host or the guest. You are trying to stretch. 

 

Besides, the people of Westeros already think he knew about it. Unless the Frey's claim that Tywin forced them to do it what new information can any of the Frey's give. And how exactly do you think this 'new' information will be relayed to the general populace of Westeros?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...