Everything is not "grey" in aSoIaF

[King Ned Stark]

Completely accepting "greyness" of the characters within aSoIaF is something I have always had trouble with. It seems that every character (whether major or minor/major, with the only exceptions being Gregor and LF) are given a free pass on this, everyone is "grey", with reasons for what they have done or what they are doing, and no one is truly evil. This, to me, can only be the product of Martin's presumed brilliance as a writer or the complete decline in morality within our society.

It seems to me that Ned's actions are questioned/criticized even more so than many others: Tywin, Jaime, and Sandor. Is it better to answer a question with intelligence rather than morality? Is honor a lost concept in our society? Does the end justify the means?

It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that being cool, a badass, and a "celebrity" factor plays heavily into the popularity of the characters, and not who choses right over wrong. It's quite possible that Martin is choosing to redeem Sandor and Jaime, but I'm not buying it.

Jaime can "wax poetic" all he wants, but he committed treasons against two kings, one by sleeping with his own sister. Had Stark guardsman killed to "chastened" Ned. And he THREW a young boy out of a tower window.

Sandor rode down a child, threatened and nearly raped another child, and was complicit in the massacre of the Stark men, beating down doors with an axe/hammer, and slaying innconent men and women.

Are these good and decent guys, who would risk their own lives for the sake of children they don't know, or just "cool" guys that deserve a pass?

They are only the two most obvious amongst the characters. The outcome is not morally superior to the decision.

[Kittyhat]

Completely accepting "greyness" of the characters within aSoIaF is something I have always had trouble with. It seems that every character (whether major or minor/major, with the only exceptions being Gregor and LF) are given a free pass on this, everyone is "grey", with reasons for what they have done or what they are doing, and no one is truly evil. This, to me, can only be the product of Martin's presumed brilliance as a writer or the complete decline in morality within our society.

It seems to me that Ned's actions are questioned/criticized even more so than many others: Tywin, Jaime, and Sandor. Is it better to answer a question with intelligence rather than morality? Is honor a lost concept in our society? Does the end justify the means?

It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that being cool, a badass, and a "celebrity" factor plays heavily into the popularity of the characters, and not who choses right over wrong. It's quite possible that Martin is choosing to redeem Sandor and Jaime, but I'm not buying it.

Jaime can "wax poetic" all he wants, but he committed treasons against two kings, one by sleeping with his own sister. Had Stark guardsman killed to "chastened" Ned. And he THREW a young boy out of a tower window.

Sandor rode down a child, threatened and nearly raped another child, and was complicit in the massacre of the Stark men, beating down doors with an axe/hammer, and slaying innconent men and women.

Are these good and decent guys, who would risk their own lives for the sake of children they don't know, or just "cool" guys that deserve a pass?

They are only the two most obvious amongst the characters. The outcome is not morally superior to the decision.

:agree:

I want to say more, but it's almost hard to do so. You voiced my own feelings on this topic perfectly, which is also why I continue to reject Jaime's "redemption" (to the dismay of the friend who first got me into this series; she's got the hots for him and I think thought I would too) ... among other things.

I think it's kind of trendy lately to insist that everything is always grey, which ... don't get me wrong; I'm aware that people and the world are both complex things. But simply dismissing questions of morality with a "shades of grey" handwave is every bit as simplistic as taking a purely "black and white" view of the world.

[King Ned Stark]

Ah, Kittyhat, and here I thought I'd be alone in arguing Martin's "greyness" and todays morality. My own brother, cousin, and best friend (whom I recently lent the books to) all disgree with me, to my dismay. So, thank you. At least someone understands.

[Galen M]

well, maybe it's not so much that everyone is gray, but rather Martin has created a world where heroes are tragically flawed and most (if not all) villains have redeeming qualities. I think that is just the natural result of Martin's writing style. I can't remember reading a series where the characters are as well developed as they are in ASOIAF, and Martin does it brilliantly.

[Raventhal]

That's how things are in real life. Do you think bad people are always bad or don't have some friends or family or joke or have fun?

To me Jaime while he betrayed the Mad king had little choice. If he knowing let Kings Landing burn and everyone burned while he protected the king til the last, would he be looked at much better?

The Cerci thing was just sick and he did betray the king.

The main thing about redemption is not whether or not a bad person can do it. Everyone can. It doesn't mean it will put your life right. There are redeemed killers in jail but doesn't mean their getting out because of past acts.

I don't think all of the characters can be considered gray or even most of them. There are flawed character but there are those who are good most times and those who will do wrong most times and then the bulk who are those who will making the best of what their given like and are mostly normal like most people. Sometimes there are at conflict and living their lives through the lens of life they were born.

[Datepalm]

The main thing about redemption is not whether or not a bad person can do it. Everyone can. It doesn't mean it will put your life right. There are redeemed killers in jail but doesn't mean their getting out because of past acts.

Thats really interesting. I think it seems like in fantasy novels the redemption arc is less an inner, personal process than one of changing reader sympathies. That is, the good ones usually are too (I love a good, angsty redemption arc, really,) but its sometimes more about showing the character in a different light or revealing justification for past actions that essentially wipe them out, or even just skipping over all that and showing how cool and fun and kind the character can be and we kind of forget about past misdeeds. So far, the most interesting thing about Jaime for me is his self loathing in AFFC, not his wittiness in ASOS.

[The Sand Snake]

I think that most of the characters are shades of grey that I agree without their "badassness(Jaime, the Hound) we defiently wouldnt like them as much. But I agree that everyone, no matter what they do thats wrong, probably has friend and jokes around and feels pain about some things.

If we heard about someone doing this we would see them in black and white, knowing they've done horrible things. But when we see the character whos done unspeakable acts from their own eyes, we see that people like them, that they have friends, and so on. Makes it harder to paint someone in blck and white. Thats why I think so many people that read the series see people in shades of grey.

[Tall Tyrion Lannister!]

I do think there are definite good guys and bad guys in the story, like Gregor being a dude who has no redeeming qualities and maybe a guy like Ned and a girl like Brienne being good. but a lot of the characters have shades of grey. Most of them have or two things you can are good about them if they are predominately evil, or one or two things that maybe arn't so great about them. Like Catelyn may be a predominately good person but she hated Jon for no other reason than him being a Bastard. And Cersei may be a bitch but she also has a lot of love for her kids.

[Bronn is God]

Well, are objectively morally superior characters meant to be more liked than those who are more or less amoral?

[Raiki]

...Objectively morally superior...

Define please. While trying not to fall into the philosophical trap of complete moral/ethical subjectivity (You don't eat your dead? How barbaric!), I will still argue to my death ( to my death, I say!) against the concept of "Objectively morally superior".

:fencing:

~R~

[Nnorb]

If I'm reading it right, the OP is puzzled as to why the innocent, honest, virtuous characters are continually shat upon (In the books and the forums) by the scheming, murderous badasses.

To which the answer is simple: People find some personality traits more attractive than nobility. That's just the way the brain is wired. A brilliant liar will always be more impressive than an honest idiot.

[Hirgon]

It seems to me that Ned's actions are questioned/criticized even more so than many others: Tywin, Jaime, and Sandor.

Those who hold themselves to a high standard and manage to live up to that standard without being hypocrites (*cough*Stannis*cough*) are likewise held to an even higher standard by the outside observer. When a good person messes up, everyone judges; when a bad person messes up, everyone expects it.

[Lordi Nietos]

Jaime can "wax poetic" all he wants, but he committed treasons against two kings, one by sleeping with his own sister. Had Stark guardsman killed to "chastened" Ned. And he THREW a young boy out of a tower window.

Treason in itself doesn't make a man evil, Jaimes treason no. 1. against Aerys was very much justified.

I agree some characters are all black (and I don't mean the Nightwatch). However that list doesn't include Sandor or Jaime. Some of them are of them are: ser Gregor, Vargo Hoat, Dr. Q, Tywin and Joffrey.

[wolfeyoung]

I have no problem with the redemption of characters, like Jaime or the Hound, so long as they show a true change in their attitudes. IE, Jaime realizing it was wrong to sleep with his sister, the Kings wife. And the Hound understanding that he was wrong in the evil he help bring into the world. However, I don't feel these characters will ever regret the wrongs they committed. And in that, I'm with you. I haven't a large interest in their supposed redemption.

I do have one small grip with Martin and his "grey" characters, as others have pointed out. Those closest to being the "good guys" seem to lose to the those that are only out for themselves. This is not realistic. Whether you love helping others, or are out simply for yourself, is not a determining factor for success. But in Martin's world, that seems the case. There is no reason that an honorable person cannot achieve as much or more that one that is less honorable. And the reverse is true too.

There should be "good" "grey" and "evil" characters, but the success shouldn't be determined by their moral attitude, but by skill, desire and such. And there is no reason to believe that "good" people, as it seems in Martin's world, should lack the skills to succeed. And the converse is true as well. I hate when 5 "good guys" can beat 200+ "evil" orcs, AND take not a single wound as well. But I don't want to see the reverse either.

But, I'm not being fair to Martin in my assumption. All I have to do is look at the two main characters of the book, Jon and Dany and realize that they are the "good guys" and so far they are successful (yes, there have been issues, but overall, they are gaining and not losing) and I have little reason to believe that they are going to lose out those character of lesser morals.

[Raventhal]

I have no problem with the redemption of characters, like Jaime or the Hound, so long as they show a true change in their attitudes. IE, Jaime realizing it was wrong to sleep with his sister, the Kings wife. And the Hound understanding that he was wrong in the evil he help bring into the world. However, I don't feel these characters will ever regret the wrongs they committed. And in that, I'm with you. I haven't a large interest in their supposed redemption.

I do have one small grip with Martin and his "grey" characters, as others have pointed out. Those closest to being the "good guys" seem to lose to the those that are only out for themselves. This is not realistic. Whether you love helping others, or are out simply for yourself, is not a determining factor for success. But in Martin's world, that seems the case. There is no reason that an honorable person cannot achieve as much or more that one that is less honorable. And the reverse is true too.

There should be "good" "grey" and "evil" characters, but the success shouldn't be determined by their moral attitude, but by skill, desire and such. And there is no reason to believe that "good" people, as it seems in Martin's world, should lack the skills to succeed. And the converse is true as well. I hate when 5 "good guys" can beat 200+ "evil" orcs, AND take not a single wound as well. But I don't want to see the reverse either.

But, I'm not being fair to Martin in my assumption. All I have to do is look at the two main characters of the book, Jon and Dany and realize that they are the "good guys" and so far they are successful (yes, there have been issues, but overall, they are gaining and not losing) and I have little reason to believe that they are going to lose out those character of lesser morals.

Most of the good guys lose because they do something self serving. Ned = Duty and Honor over family. Cat = Revenge. Robb = Lust. But the Lannisters who "won" are now down and out. And in the book most people lost good or bad.

[David Selig]

I do have one small grip with Martin and his "grey" characters, as others have pointed out. Those closest to being the "good guys" seem to lose to the those that are only out for themselves. This is not realistic. Whether you love helping others, or are out simply for yourself, is not a determining factor for success. But in Martin's world, that seems the case. There is no reason that an honorable person cannot achieve as much or more that one that is less honorable. And the reverse is true too.

It's not about morality, it's about competence. The main reason Ned lost his life was because he was incompetent in court politics, not because he was too honorable IMO. That's one of the things I like about ASOIF - there's very little of the typical fantasy trope of the good guys winning due to sheer luck and plot armour despite being way less competent than their opponents and committing dumb mistakes time after time.

It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that being cool, a badass, and a "celebrity" factor plays heavily into the popularity of the characters, and not who choses right over wrong.

Of course it does. It's a popularity contest among fictional characters, not a court of law. Is Jaime a much worse person than Ned and guilty of some terrible crimes? Sure. Would I much rather read about Jaime than about Ned? Most definitely, because his personality is much more fascinating to me.

[11th Heaven]

This is an interesting topic. I do think most characters are various shades of grey - there are very few voldemort/sauron type characters (evil for the sake of being evil) nor are there many Frodo/Harry potter lookalikes (characters of pure, white goodness). One could argue that Bran fits this mould, but I don't think his character has developed to the same point that many others have.

The reference to Sandor caught my eye. I think he's a relatively interesting, somewhat sympathetic character, but still a "bad" person. I don't understand how people think that his past or his sworn service to Joffrey or whatever can justify what he does and has done (riding down Mycah etc.) - maybe his past can explain these things, but can in no way excuse his actions. Nonetheless, he's still a grey character to me, albeit of a dark shade, because he doesn't fit into the type listed above of total, world destroying evil for the sake of being evil.

I find Davos to be a good example from the opposite side. He is one of the most honorable, "good" men in the series, but what is focused on is his struggle to maintain his ideals in the political world, and how he doubts himself and cannot always be sure of the right thing to do. This lends his character an element of greyness.

Overall, I think all characters are grey because the world of ASOIAF is grey - what is right and wrong is not set in stone, and this is reflected in the characters thoughts and actions.

[Noroldis]

King Ned Stark:

It seems to me that Ned's actions are questioned/criticized even more so than many others: Tywin, Jaime, and Sandor. Is it better to answer a question with intelligence rather than morality? Is honor a lost concept in our society? Does the end justify the means?

For Tywin and Jaime at least, the end most certainly did justify the means. However, I point out that while choosing ruthless pragmatism over honor and morality may be useful and effective in Westeros, it doesn't mean the characters that do so will enjoy long-term success and happiness, no more than being honorable and morally upstading will. After seeing many of his lifelong ambitions and goals thwarted (sometimes by his own children), Tywin died at his son's hands. Jaime is widely despised as the Kingslayer, he's lost his sword hand and his father, and he's estranged from the two people he was closest to, Cersei and Tyrion. Sandor was a bitterly unhappy man, and has apparently been lamed from the wounds he took when fighting Polliver and the Tickler.

They may be popular and considered cool and badass by readers, but if you asked them whether they're happy and satisfied with their lives, IMO the most important measure of human existence, I doubt they'd answer yes.

Lord Nietos:

I agree some characters are all black (and I don't mean the Nightwatch). However that list doesn't include Sandor or Jaime. Some of them are of them are: ser Gregor, Vargo Hoat, Dr. Q, Tywin and Joffrey.

So you view Tywin as being on the same moral level as the likes of Joffrey and Gregor? I disagree. Tywin certainly did a lot of ruthless things that led to a lot of suffering and deaths, but IMO there was always a rational reason behind his actions. Except maybe when it came to Tyrion, Tywin was always cold-bloodedly pragmatic. He wasn't cruel for cruelty's sake like Joffrey, Gregor and Vargo Hoat. We can see the difference between Joffrey and Tywin in ASoS, when Tywin tells Joffrey that once one's enemies have been defeated and gone to their knees, one must help them back up to their feet. Joffrey, meanwhile, just wanted the river lords in question dead. Oh, and he also wanted Robb's head and force Sansa to kiss it as his wedding feast.

[JJtheCrow]

I don't understand why everything and everyone has to have a label. Good, bad, black, white, or grey. How about interesting. Martin's characters are just plain interesting. Fandom depends on whom you consider to be the most interesting characters. Just about every character has some reasoning behind their actions. The action itself may be good or bad but it's the reason for the action that is so interesting, hence the "greyness" people refer to. Jaime has commited some horrible acts, but allowing us to see him evolve and to see the reasoning behind some of his actions makes it much more interesting and forces us to sympathize with him or others to a certain extent. The characters we have no sympathy for were really given no back story or reasoning (like Vargo or the Mountain) therefore we label them as bad or black.

[Lummel]

Completely accepting "greyness" of the characters within aSoIaF is something I have always had trouble with. It seems that every character (whether major or minor/major, with the only exceptions being Gregor and LF) are given a free pass on this, everyone is "grey", with reasons for what they have done or what they are doing, and no one is truly evil. This, to me, can only be the product of Martin's presumed brilliance as a writer or the complete decline in morality within our society.

It seems to me that Ned's actions are questioned/criticized even more so than many others: Tywin, Jaime, and Sandor. Is it better to answer a question with intelligence rather than morality? Is honor a lost concept in our society? Does the end justify the means?

There's a difference between what GRRM intends and how we read the book. I see ASOIAF as exploring the emboldened questions above. The issue of what honour is (apart from being a horse of course) and how it is to be best understood and best acted upon is raised again and again.

There are repeated conflicts of honour: Is it honourable to swear yourself in service to a mad king (is it honourable to surrender your right to make independent moral decisions is a question you could put to all the Kingsguard)? Is it honourable to kill him? Is it honourable to break your word? How can you conduct yourself honourably if your word is broken through circumstances beyond your control etc

So far I think GRRM is agnostic about whether the end justifies the means, but it seems clear that in GRRM world you live and die with the consequences of your decisions. That leads me to view GRRM's take on morality as being far more austere than in many a fantasy novel - your honour can isolate you from the people you love and you get to watch the dishonourable profit (at least in the short term) and you see the conflict between a commonly accepted (in westeros) sense of honour and a stricter sense of personal integrity for example: Gregor is an honourable knight - he is sworn to Tywin and carries out his orders, he does not rebel, he is true to his lord while at the same time Gregor is a monster, a murder and a rapist possibly a patricide too.