Rethinking Stannis

[Tagot]

The more I think about it, the more sense it makes that Davos is actually dead. Davos needed White Harbor to side with Stannis through any means necessary. The only way Lord Manderly would consider an alliance is if his son was returned. Faking Davos' death is risky, so it seems very possible the Onion Knight would volunteer by his own accord. From the perspective of the narrative this could accomplish two things.

1.) Lead to Stannis' implosion, because he lacks an opposing voice to keep Melisandre in check.

2.) Allow for another character to replace Davos' reasoned nature (Asha, Theon, or someone we don't know about yet).

I suppose that I can see Asha... but considering Theon's current state (still being flayed I think), do you really think that he'd make a reasonable advisor?

If Dany takes two husbands can either/both/neither be called king? if R+L=J and Dany marries Jon AND Stannis?...

Stannis is an almost irritatingly moral man. What are the odds that he'll enter a polygamous marriage with a 15-year-old girl?

[Kingslayer]

And for the record, the reason Stannis lacked support in his War of the Five Kings was because he was Lord of Dragonstone.

No, he lacked support because he was one of the most hated men in Westeros. Yes, the stormlords were sworn to Renly; but had Stannis been less of an asshole, many would have gone over to the elder Baratheon. Renly himself would likely have supported him. Further, if Stannis weren't a vengeful shitheel, the Tyrells wouldn't have reacted to his ascendancy with such fear and loathing.

But, of course, that's Stannis as a completely different person. He is who he is... and thankfully, he'll never sit the Iron Throne.

[sh_wulff]

if Stannis weren't a vengeful shitheel, the Tyrells wouldn't have reacted to his ascendancy with such fear and loathing

but Stannis is one of the most feared rebel kings (cf Tywin & Tyrion prior to battle of blackwater)

[BastardSword]

As I said up top, I'm not a real Stan fan, and not because he lacks mercy. In my personal experience, the meting out of justice, even when harsh, is less likely to lead to untoward or even evil results than mercy, which can be swayed by emotion. Justice and mercy are often spoken of as if they were opposites, or as if justice is always unreasonably harsh. Er, they call it JUSTICE because it's JUST. Stan making Davos a Lord but taking his fingers seems to me to be a wise act: Davos was rewarded for the good things he did, but the bad ones weren't simply shrugged off, and he had a reminder of that past everpresent in his shortened digits in case he was inclined to backslide. Davos himself considered it a fair ruling.

Mercy on the other hand is often motivated by feeling sorry for someone, which in turn is aroused because they put on a good show of penitence. Perhaps it's my Catholic upbringing, but I always believed that true penitence involves humble acceptance of your PENANCE. Again in my experience the people who want you to forgive them and not attach any consequences to what they did are virtually guaranteed to turn around and do it again.

What bothers me about Stan is simply his vulnerability to Mel. Good men are not suckers for sorcerers. Deep down Stan knows he can't do by himself what he wants to do--and he DOES want to do it, doesn't he? He's no Maester Aemon, who knew he had a claim but renounced it; he can call it 'duty' but it's duty to be a KING, not to scrub out the privies every week. It's definitely got perks over being stuck on foggy old Dragonstone with a bitchy wife, ugly daughter and annoying Fool.

So Stan's willing to shake hands with the Devil to get what he wants. And we all know that pacts like that always...ALWAYS...blow up in the face of the person making the pact. Mel's got her claws into Stan because of that fundamental weakness of his.

Stan is not a moral man. He's a MORALISTIC man, and there's a difference, which I think is one of GRRM's points. Moralizers are terribly concerned with rules, especially with everyone else following them, but when there's something in it for them, they're happy to fudge--burn somebody, make a shadowbaby--because unlike truly moral people they believe the end justifies the means.

As I said above, I'm willing to agree with Artanaro re: Davos' demise:

"Lead to Stannis' implosion, because he lacks an opposing voice to keep Melisandre in check."

I just really liked Davos, in fact I was plumping for him as PwwP since he was (re)born from smoke and salt (out of Blackwater Bay). He's one of the most sensible, pragmatic, level-headed people in the entire series. My heart ached for him when he lost his sons. My hope was that he would wise up and realize Stan didn't deserve his loyalty, as painful as that would be to realize his sons died for a man who was not worthy of that sacrifice.

EDITED to add: I keep forgetting to say, given that Robb before he died told Manderly to start building him a fleet, what I HOPE is going on is he did so, Davos convinced him to put him in charge of it, and they faked Davos' death just to get the fat son back before they unveil said fleet. I know that's pretty crackpot :/

[Kingslayer]

but Stannis is one of the most feared rebel kings (cf Tywin & Tyrion prior to battle of blackwater)

They were concerned because they didn't know what he was doing, or how strong he really was.

[Dondarrion]

Stannis is a unyielding and just man. They're qualities to admire, but a tendency to break before bending doesn't necessarily make a good leader. More importantly, he essentially sold his soul to the devil with his participation in Renly's death. Yes, Melisandre was the driving force, but Stannis was the instrument. He knows what he did, perhaps not consciously, but instinctively; somehow, he knows.

So, what's his role from here on out?

Well, I agree w/ BS (I just love saying that ) that he's a great character. Stannis someone MEANT to be on the Wall. He is the immovable object. As I said, he will break before he bends, and that is what you want on that wall. This is where he'll find his place in the world. Perhaps it's where he'll die, a hero willing to fight the most important fight.

He'll never be king, nor would he make a good one. As BS noted, Stannis does not need to be a king. But a defender of the people? Yes, that would fit Stannis. That would fit him well.

I don't think Stannis is toast at all for this series. He's in the midst of quite a journey, and I'm stunned to find that I want to follow it to the end. I can't help but like him, for the same reasons that Davos can't help but stand with him. He sees the man that Stannis should be: A flawed man who could be great but for those flaws.

Stannis may well die in this series, but if so, my guess is he should die an unappreciated hero in the last stand against the Others. He is not meant to rule. He is meant to sacrifice.

Now, what to do about Melisandre...

--D

[BastardSword]

Yup, just call me....

As for Mel, if she doesn't meet a JUST and fitting end--fricasseed by the fire of one of Dany's dragons--I will be desolee.

Alternatively, I wouldn't mind seeing Stan execute her.

I do think Stan's shown the capacity to learn from his mistakes, it remains to be seen if he can wise up to the fact that he's gotten in bed with an evil sorceress and renounce her.

As Prospero said, "This rough magic I here abjure...."

EDITED to give the complete quote, which Google brought up when my feeble memory wouldn't....

PROSPERO:

....to the dread rattling thunder

Have I given fire and rifted Jove's stout oak

With his own bolt; the strong-based promontory

Have I made shake and by the spurs pluck'd up

The pine and cedar: graves at my command

Have waked their sleepers, oped, and let 'em forth

By my so potent art. But this rough magic

I here abjure, and, when I have required

Some heavenly music, which even now I do,

To work mine end upon their senses that

This airy charm is for, I'll break my staff,

Bury it certain fathoms in the earth,

And deeper than did ever plummet sound

I'll drown my book.

[R'holler]

'I actually don't think Stannis is fit to rule. He lacks one of the key qualities in a ruler of a war torn kingdom: mercy. I believe it was Littlefinger in aGoT who told Ned that he would be a fool to support Stannis, because half the major noble houses would unite against him because they knew he wouldn't pardon them for the part they played in the war to overthrow Aerys Targaryen. That was half of the kingdom. Pretty much everyone opposed Stannis in the war of the 5 kings. No one will want him on the throne now.'

Verysmall monster, I don't agree with this. I believe that he quite shrewdly pardoned Renly's supporters after Renly died. He didn't like having to do it and even feels contempt towards them but he is smart enough to realize that he needs them.

As for attacking the island, it was not his idea and I don't think he agreed with it, but he had to pretend that he might consider it and not dismiss it out of hand because he does not have a strong following. I think that is why he wanted Davos' opinion because he knew that Davos would think it a crackpot idea and point out the discrepencies. In that way he could show that he wieghed all sides of the arguement and chose the most prudent path. Don't forget that all the 'Queen's men' are fanatics and he has to handle them carefully.

[ironmaid]

BS, you said it beautifully, managed to pinpoint the most reasonable view about Stannis that I heard so far.

On one point though I would like to offer a slightly different reading:

Moralizers are terribly concerned with rules, especially with everyone else following them, but when there's something in it for them, they're happy to fudge--burn somebody, make a shadowbaby--because unlike truly moral people they believe the end justifies the means.

Well, my experience and understanding is that moralizers, having a strong need to feel they are doing the right thing, tend to slip into believing they are the right thing. It is a short step from there to viewing themselves as having the right to be above the rules.

Our Stan fills in this role pretty well.

On Davos, I share your affection towards him, however somehow I do not think he will weather all the storm laid before him even if not dead already

[cybroleach]

What bothers me about Stan is simply his vulnerability to Mel. Good men are not suckers for sorcerers. Deep down Stan knows he can't do by himself what he wants to do--and he DOES want to do it, doesn't he? He's no Maester Aemon, who knew he had a claim but renounced it; he can call it 'duty' but it's duty to be a KING, not to scrub out the privies every week. It's definitely got perks over being stuck on foggy old Dragonstone with a bitchy wife, ugly daughter and annoying Fool.

Did you mean it's not a duty to be King?

Because yes is as much a duty as any Pres or Priminister while its a glamous job with lots of money you still are suposed to serve the people.

No he doesn't want it but he felt it was the only way to gain enough support to fight the Others.

Because it's as he told Jon his duty was to be KING so he could SAVE his people from the Other God, then Davos made him realize he needed to save the People from the Other God to be King.

Also Aemon had forsaken his house to be a maester so he had no claim were he to become King he'd be named an oath braker he didn't simply turn it down it's not remotely the same thing also he had no pressing evil to defeat.

So Stan's willing to shake hands with the Devil to get what he wants. And we all know that pacts like that always...ALWAYS...blow up in the face of the person making the pact. Mel's got her claws into Stan because of that fundamental weakness of his.

Stan is not a moral man. He's a MORALISTIC man, and there's a difference, which I think is one of GRRM's points. Moralizers are terribly concerned with rules, especially with everyone else following them, but when there's something in it for them, they're happy to fudge--burn somebody, make a shadowbaby--because unlike truly moral people they believe the end justifies the means.

Morality is a personal frame of reference.

You have an intesting point of view being for a catholic upbringing. The bible considers it quite moral for god to wipe out all life on earth excluding one family to repopulate the earth with more honest people. The bible considers it moral for a Jesus to give his life to save all of earth's sins. I forget the exact man but the spirt tells him to attack an invading army at night using scare tactics to kill nearly all of the army without losing any of his men. King Aberiham must kill his son for God. The pope saw it very moral to try and slaughter any race who got between catholisim and the holy land.

Seems to me with catholic morality the end justifing the means is a very acceptable concept.

Sounds to me like your just a Seven lover dising Mel for serving R'hollor.

So you lable her as sorcerous and devil rather than a messenger and priestess.

Also Mel's powers come from her God who is quite comparable to yours:

both fight a Devil.

both use sacrifice.

both send visions to their devote followers.

both don't like other gods to be honored.

both punish the unfaitful.

both are behind all 'good' things yet take no part in tragidies.

(not really trying to turn this into a theomatical debate though)

EDITED to add: I keep forgetting to say, given that Robb before he died told Manderly to start building him a fleet, what I HOPE is going on is he did so, Davos convinced him to put him in charge of it, and they faked Davos' death just to get the fat son back before they unveil said fleet. I know that's pretty crackpot :/

I'm pretty sure it was Bran he approched and was turned down as maester Luwin cautioned against it due to the expences and its inability to be of use in the current war.

[BastardSword]

"Morality is a personal frame of reference."

Er, well, no it isn't. Morality is adherence to a set of principles outside oneself, which are not then diddled with when they become onerous. Kant for example said that sin consisted in making an exception of yourself in principles you expect others to follow.

Stan holds people to a very high standard, but he considers anything he needs to do to win the kingship is OK.

No, I'm not going to try to defend the Biblical God because I agree with you; theodicy is a tough sell. Jung, for example, in "Answer to Job", posited that God is not in fact moral, because as God he can't be held to a set of principles. Unfortunately that reduces God to justifying his actions with 'might makes right', or 'I can do whatever I want because I made this Universe, if you don't like it go make your own Universe' which is actually a pretty fair summary of his 'answer to Job' when the poor guy asked why if he'd always been a good man God let Satan screw with him.

[Lord Mord]

I agree with you, Bastard Sword. What good is any morality, if you can't justify it beyond to say, "This is what I believe"?

Stannis is hypocritical, but what's worse, as regards the kingship issue, so is all kinging. "My da slaughtered lots of other people and made life miserable for lots, and that's why I'm king -- but it'd be wrong for any of you lot to start slaughtering people or making life miserable. So don't, or so help me, I'll kill you."

Being king is not a duty. Given that monarchy is morally reprehensible, the actual moral duty incumbent on Stannis or any Iron Throne heir is abdication. Insofar as someone else may try to lay on him the burden that, "Someone has to be king!" his best response would be to ask, "Why?" but given that most people making that statement would probably have a mental meltdown when faced with that question, it might be better for him to say, "Then let it be someone else."

[felice]

"Morality is a personal frame of reference."

Er, well, no it isn't. Morality is adherence to a set of principles outside oneself, which are not then diddled with when they become onerous. Kant for example said that sin consisted in making an exception of yourself in principles you expect others to follow.

I don't see why the principles have to be outside oneself. It's perfectly possible to diddle an onerous principle you've come up with all by yourself, and acknowledge that what you're doing is wrong by your own standards. Kant's statement argues in favour of a personal frame of reference - "principles you expect others to follow", which means it's not sin if your personal frame of reference says others are also allowed to do it.

[BastardSword]

ironmaid, earlier I was in a hurry and didn't see your post! Or I would have said thank you for getting what I was trying to say.

Yes, moralizers are very concerned with their image, unfortunately less so with their actual behavior. At their worst, they are what Martin Buber described as people who want to be THOUGHT good rather than BE good--they want affirmation independent of the findings (which would be that they are NOT good people).

What the Kant quote means is simply that once you have adopted a moral standard you can't then make an exception when it's inconvenient for you to follow it. "Stealing is wrong, and if you rip off a pack of gum from a convenience store you will be arrested, but I, a corporate executive, can divert millions with the stroke of a pen because it isn't REALLY stealing, it's 'creative accounting.'" Uh huh. Or, "My followers must remain celibate, but it's OK for me to diddle this here altar boy because I am just trying to mentor him." Yipper.

I would argue that immorality is so rampant in our times that the genuinely moral man/woman is not only rare but at a severe disadvantage in terms of succeeding in our society. And as we've seen with Ned, in GRRM-World it's not exactly an advantage to try to live up to your principles either.

Most probably it isn't possible to rule a nation and be a truly moral person. Buddha recognized with his concept of 'right livelihood' that some jobs/professions simply are not compatible with a life that follows the Eightfold Path.

For example:

" The Buddha teaches his disciples to avoid any occupation or job that causes harm and suffering to other living beings or any kind of work that leads to one's own inner deterioration. Instead the disciple should earn a living in an honest, harmless and peaceful way.

Buddha mentions five specific occupations that one should avoid:

(a) Dealing in flesh, eg. as a butcher.

( Dealing in poisons.

© Dealing in weapons and arms.

(d) Dealing in slave trade and prostitution.

(e) Dealing in intoxicants or liquors and drugs.

The Buddha also says that his followers should avoid deceitfulness, hypocrisy, high pressure salesmanship, and trickery, or any kind of dishonest way of acquiring means of support."

Heh heh, that kinda "rules" out being a ruler, or any kind of politician, don't it

[Lord Mord]

I don't see why the principles have to be outside oneself. It's perfectly possible to diddle an onerous principle you've come up with all by yourself, and acknowledge that what you're doing is wrong by your own standards. Kant's statement argues in favour of a personal frame of reference - "principles you expect others to follow", which means it's not sin if your personal frame of reference says others are also allowed to do it.

Felice,

You do bring up a critical facet, one I don't think should be ignored.

You mention that principles don't have to be outside oneself, and in fact I would argue not only is that point, taken alone, correct, but moreover principles must always come from within. Moral principles are inherently individualistic, inasmuch as they can only be adopted by individuals, and require individual frame of reference.

The point I think is important is that given moral principles rely on individual frame of reference, this is not license to adopt principles on the grounds of a whim.

"Well, you know, I kind of feel like this here is wrong, so I don't think it's a good thing for a person to do." On that kind of basis alone, one need never be in the wrong, even when one embezzles one's employees' pension fund, so long as one felt it was right. Morality is impossible, because there is no one standard, there's just a bunch of dingos doing whatever feels good.

[Ealasaid]

Tried to post this earlier, right under Grumpy's first post, but got booted offline before it 'took'...

Grumpy, I'm inclined to agree that Stannis's "Well I don't want it but it's my duty because I have the strongest claim" stance may evaporate when someone shows up and says "Hiya! I got a better one, you can go home now."

For one thing, Dany's a grrrl, Stan could dig his heels in on that; he could also claim the Targs lost the throne fair 'n' square to the Barratheons and no do-overs will be granted.

The bottom line is, the description in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" of the King as "the one who 'asn't got shit on him" is as good as any, likewise the line about accepting swords from watery tarts being no basis for a

government. All blather about divine right, laws of succession, etc. aside, the King (or Queen) is the one who can get and hold the throne, convince enough people he's got the right to sit on it.

From what I've seen Dany actually seems to get this better than Stan--he's in kind of a permanent sulk because everybody in Westeros didn't just go "Yup, he's

got the better claim, all hail King Stan" and go back to business as usual....ignoring the fact that he never actually PROVED Cersei's kids aren't Brother Bob's. Again, he thinks sending a raven with that claim is good enough. Dany realizes that claim or no claim, the 'usurper's dogs' are going to be trying to eat her lunch.

I kind of hope Stan survives so we see them collide face to face.

"Hi, I'm King Stannis, of Dragonstone." "Hi, I'm Queen Danaerys, I've got 3 dragons, and if you're not totally stoned you'll get the hell out of my way."

My favorite bit - well one of several favorite bits - from MP&tHG.

Stannis is a mite too Prince Charles for me.

And as many have pointed out, Dany just the last offspring of a usurper with a bigger gun (dragons).

Having the Children of the Forest rise up and drive everyone into the sea isn't bad.

And maybe Arya and Gendry could pull it off.

SInce we know Jon Snow - and just about everbody else - is destined to be forever unhappy.

[ironmaid]

ironmaid, earlier I was in a hurry and didn't see your post! Or I would have said thank you for getting what I was trying to say.

Always a pleasure to share an understanding

When dealing with morals I take the view that first and foremost moral systems are formed in order to rein in the members of a society. In and of itself that is probably a necessity when we take into consideration the human condition. However, and that is a crucial and difficult point, I also view moral systems as inhibitors of human possible breakthrough. In a nutshell, as long as humans rely on morals they do not in fact give themselves the real possibility to rise above certain imperatives. To shortly elaborate, it is as if ‘all right’ to feel an urge to strike someone in a feat of violence but we (sometimes!) refrain from it because our moral system taught us it isn’t.

I would much better have a human race who evolves (especially emotionally) to a degree that it no longer need to feel rage, or act violently.

You make an excellent reference to the Buddha, well, let us not forget that the Buddha reached (according to the story) a state of enlightenment and his dharma is perceived as aiming towards that state. However, in following those tenets that are considered the Buddha’s dharma, most people do not attempt to breakthrough from the confines of the human condition. Thus, in most cases – dead end, ensconced within a system of morals.

My take on that: Do not seek to follow the tracks of grand men, instead, search what they searched.

I for one prefer to treat these issues through the concept of integrity.

Living in the world (as differentiated from taking a form of secluded life) requires to partake in the game of life and withstand conflicts of all kinds, including forging an integrity that allows one to question urges and patterns of responses that are commonly taken as human nature and shrugged off without being seriously tackled and opened for change.

But that is a long discussion that probably doesn’t fit in this thread

Back to our man Stannis, it seems to me that his rigid set of mind puts him comfortably in the camp of moralizers (as you pointed out) and as such less susceptible to higher forms of integrity that is a must for anyone attempting to win in the game.

For the game (of thrones and of life as we know it) is a highly dynamic, chaotic event that calls for malleability and mastership of one’s mind, emotional responses, mental clarity and the ability to walk between the drops without being corrupted.

In a way I see Stannis as one of the most tragic characters in ASOIAF. He is doomed by his own very set of qualities/traits, and is more probable to break before accommodating a change that may have allowed him a more cheerful fate.

I would though like to see him leaving with a serious bang !

[BastardSword]

Lord Caspen wrote:

"there's just a bunch of dingos doing whatever feels good."

Hmm, couldn't come up with a better description of American society in 2006 .

Love your little couplet, ironmaid!

EDITED to say: I've been thinking quite a bit lately, due to a personal situation I'm involved in, about character and fate and how they are intertwined. Sometimes a given person's survival, if not literal then as a functional human being, depends on their being able to change before circumstances deal them a final blow. It's interesting that for some people a crisis blasts them out of their habitual way of responding, enabling them to come up with a solution; other people freeze into the equivalent of shouting louder at someone who doesn't speak your language, and do themselves in. ASOIAF is rife with characters like that. Brienne, for example, I suspect is going to have to come to terms with the fact that her old paradigm isn't going to work in the new situation she's in, and either resolve it by creative, innovative thinking, or make a huge mess by persevering like the 'stubborn wench' she can be. GRRM is really good at showing how sometimes what seems like a virtue can, in a certain set of circumstances, be a flaw (think Ned's honor) and the opposite--I think both Arya and Sansa's stories show how their weak points--Arya's rebelliousness, Sansa's submissiveness--enable them to survive the situation they're tossed into. Arya would have lasted 15 seconds in King's Landing with her form of resistance; Sansa not even that with her 'go along to get along' had she been the one on the lam. But as their circumstances change, those very adaptive strategies may lead them further from any kind of salvation.

[Diva]

Personally, I cannot understand people who run with the "Targaryens are the true rulers of Westeros" opinions. I fail to see how just because one conquest was a few hndered years ago, that a more recent conquest is invalidated and wrong.

With that out of the way, I always see Stannis as wanting the throne solely for duty's sake. Were he to see Dany's claim as being superior, which personally, I disagree with, I think he would actually step aside. However, as long as he believes his is the better claim, I suspect he will contine to fight... no matter how hopeless his position.

definitely agree with first point, and until Dany realises that herself I don't have a lot of time for her.

with the second, I pretty much agree too. Perhaps he is too brittle, but of all the would-be claimants (including the one with the dragons) he appears to be the only one who is genuinely concerned for the plight of the people. Dany is starting to learn that lesson, but up until the end of SoS she is still mainly concerned with what is her due.

While Stannis does display this to some extent, he also - as others have pointed out - promoted people on merit rather than birth. He is prepared to be contradicted if he thinks the speaker is making sense. I also found Maester Cressen's insight into Stannis very valuable, upon rereading ACoK. Up until that point (throughout AGoT) Stannis does not make an appearance, so all we get is the views of other people. then we get a pretty sympathetic view, and eventually the Davos PoV. What a fantastic way to introduce Stannis.

However I think it is not just a matter of duty, he also thinks that he has been chosen to defeat the Others, thanks to Mel's propaganda. why he has chosen to believe Mel? that is a different question. I still don't get what Selyse gets out of the worshipping the Red God, and she was the one who pushed it on Stannis.

I think, unfortunately, Stannis might not live until the end. He has Renly's death to atone for. But I hope he does because the North really needs him right now.

[thick]

I don't know how to do the spoiler thing and there is a reference to the sample ADWD chapters. Sorry

I think that if ppl think that the Kingslayer is "redeeming" himself, the same ppl should see that Stannis is becoming positively evil.

Maester Cressen says it best in the aCoK prologue when he's told to put on Patchface's helm "you were never cruel" (or something like that)

To filch another Cressen thought, being Stannis is "just beyond wisdom"

To be wise, you need to consider multiple perspectives no? Renly's death, Storm End's castellan's death. I think Mel saw the deaths of Joff, Balon, and Rob in her flames and used that to get better standing with Stannis but I love how when he's throwing those leeches into the fire he pauses at Robb's. You can literally hear the gears grinding there but he ends up chucking it into the flames.

As for the argument about being just with Davos.

Well, if the sample chapters are to be believed he's made Rattleshirt a Lord

He's a kinslayer once (Renly), he's probably would be a kinslayer again if he had Edric Storm, and now he's beyond the point of wisdom.