Individuality vs Family in Asoiaf (philosophical/sociological discuassion)

[Sanrast]

I don't know if there is a similar post, but I find it interesting to make this thread if someone wants to share his/her thoughts. To know what I mean, I'll start.

We have seen some characters that rose because of the family name/power. Examples are Robb (became Lord and lead an army because he was firstborn Stark), Jaime/Cersei (rose to power due to Lannister wealth), and Daenerys (she has royal/dragon blood so she could marry a Khal and she could born/raise Dragons through "magic"). 

But for some characters their families have brought them down and had to go against them.

Examples are Samwell Tarly (expelled from his House), Lord Baelish who managed to become important all by himself, and Theon (Greyjoys gave him to Starks).

Tyrion is somewhere in the middle, his family hated him BUT he did take advantage of the wealth and the money of Lannisters.

Share your thoughts if you are interested in this discussion.

[Lucius Lovejoy]

I think it can be argued that all characters in some way relied on the resources of their family, be it through access to money (family money or loans/gifts because of family name), education, titles, armies, warding with other nobles, etc.  Arya, Varys, Illyrio, Littlefinger, Xaro, Danaerys, Davos, the High Sparrow, and Gendry seem to be the most self-reliant or self-made (then again we don't know much about Varys, Illyrio, and Xaro) whereas Robb, Cersei, Joffrey, Margaraey, and Renly seem to be the most beneficiary of their situations, and folks like Melisandre and Robert Baratheon fall somewhere mostly in between.  Still it seems to me that every noble or bastard of a noble owes a lot to their upbringing (even Arya as surely he cunning and resourcefulness is in part due to her education and influences at Winterfell).  I think this point is driven home by what Jeor and Aemon and others tell Jon about himself at the wall.  Do you see a pattern of the more self-reliant people likely having more positive end games than the less self-reliant people?  I might agree with you there looking back at my list, but wouldn't call it a definitive rule.  Interesting stuff, thanks for starting the thread.

[Sanrast]

Thanks for the reply. About the last thing you said (pattern of positive endings of self-reliant people) I feel that George Martin and other authors are kind of obliged to give them these, because people who read the books or watch the tv-show need to identify with them. 

Most people who read the books are probably not "rich as a Lannister" and neither have a "winderfell" to command. Most people may identify more with Baelish who started from zero and became rich after. It give them hope and they may dream that they will achieve that also. Or with Tarly who is fat and afraid to fight, but he will "save the day" with his book knowledge.

[Here's Looking At You, Kid]

3 hours ago, Sanrast said:

I don't know if there is a similar post, but I find it interesting to make this thread if someone wants to share his/her thoughts. To know what I mean, I'll start.

We have seen some characters that rose because of the family name/power. Examples are Robb (became Lord and lead an army because he was firstborn Stark), Jaime/Cersei (rose to power due to Lannister wealth), and Daenerys (she has royal/dragon blood so she could marry a Khal and she could born/raise Dragons through "magic"). 

Well let us see.  Tyrion got away with a lot because he was a Lannister and had more gold than he knew what to do with.  Jon got many breaks and considerations at the wall because he was Ned Stark's bastard.  One-handed Jaime still gets to lead because he's a Lannister backed by the family power.  Stannis is in a position to contest Tommen's rule because he was the brother of Robert Baratheon who usurped the throne. 

Robb - His success is partly due to his natural ability to plan battles.  His high birth simply gave him an opportunity to use his talents. 

Daenerys - She has high intelligence and great courage.  She won Drogo over and got his respect.  She led her Khalasar through a harsh, inhospitable desert to safety, she liberated millions of people.  I say she has a lot more going for her than family name.  She is an amazing young woman.

Jaime - Sure he got a lot of breaks as mentioned above but no one can deny that he was born with a talent for the sword.

But for some characters their families have brought them down and had to go against them.

Examples are Samwell Tarly (expelled from his House), Lord Baelish who managed to become important all by himself, and Theon (Greyjoys gave him to Starks).

Tyrion is somewhere in the middle, his family hated him BUT he did take advantage of the wealth and the money of Lannisters.

Tyrion would have been euthanize if he had not been a Lannister.

Share your thoughts if you are interested in this discussion.

 

[Cridefea]

I think that for the "outsiders" the family is the driving force of every move. They're are in search of power, identity or something they feel to lack. The others are bound to the family because they want to be recognized as a member or they feel to own a debt. For me, they are not so different.

[Lucius Lovejoy]

3 hours ago, Sanrast said:

Thanks for the reply. About the last thing you said (pattern of positive endings of self-reliant people) I feel that George Martin and other authors are kind of obliged to give them these, because people who read the books or watch the tv-show need to identify with them. 

Most people who read the books are probably not "rich as a Lannister" and neither have a "winderfell" to command. Most people may identify more with Baelish who started from zero and became rich after. It give them hope and they may dream that they will achieve that also. Or with Tarly who is fat and afraid to fight, but he will "save the day" with his book knowledge.

Not to mention Sam getting to kill a white walker and stick it to Gilly!  Hahaha.

You are right, it would be a bit unsatisfying as a reader if the self-made people (at least the non-villainous ones) weren't rewarded with positive endings more often than not.  May not be a pattern to look for in the books, just a natural phenomena.

[The Mountain That Flies]

Theon is an interesting case study in this topic. His sense of familial identity is a major source of early conflict for him, and then when he is re-born into pure individualism it's a brutal process that leaves him a pathetic wreck, who only just now is starting to assert a sense of self-ownership of his identity.

Of course, he wouldn't have been in the circumstances he was in at the start of the series had it not been for his biological family, and he was given a chance to rise high through the war efforts of them and his foster family (in reverse order). But these opportunities were at odds with one another, and his inability to reconcile his desire for both directly led to his capture. 

In his time as Reek, he makes no choices for himself save to survive through obedience. It's not even just Ramsay he does this for, as both Roose and Lady Dustin treat like a tool in their machinations. The fact that his chapters go through the most re-naming is a clear indication that his identity has become fluid. Ultimately, while still in enourmas physical and emotional pain, his re-asserting of himself, ironically through saving someone from one of his two (extended) families, brings him some small measure of peace.