What is evil?

[MaryaStone]

Zalim, I am definitely no Sansa fan, I find her character boring, and so far not very much has changed that, although her chapters are sometimes truly interesting for their insight into developments and other characters as well as the sheer beauty of descriptions.

But MaryaStone is right: how can the child Sansa be judged evil - there are very good arguments by other posters why this attribute should not apply on a silly child like Sansa and you should consider them in a fair manner.

Where i have to agree: no other character is treated with so many disproportionate emotions as the character Tyrion. It's not the debate of his story development itself that irritates me - his character definitely took a turn to the darker side and has developed some ugly traits. It is the attitude towards precisely this character compared to other characters who are not so easy to judge. Tyrion is drawing personal hatred, no other way to describe it, from posters that is totally inappropriate given the fact that he is a fictional character. This happens to that character far more than to, say, Daeneris, Theon, Jaime or Cersei. Posters discuss him not to reasonably evaluate his character development but with outright revulsion, forgetting his fictionality, without the detachment that would be definitely appropriate given the fact that this is a literature forum about discussing books.

Tyrion is not the hated neighbour who has groped your best friend, not your ugly boss who is ogling your ass! All those transferred emotions are totally out of place here and get in the way of a reasonable debate. And this irrational style is applied, tell me why, so much more towards the character Tyrion than towards my other favorite "greys" like Daeneris, Cersei and Jaime.

Disappointed love? Overidentification with other characters where Tyrion might have stepped on their toes?

I personally think that (over)identification with a character is in no way helpful when discussing literature and every poster should be able to detach him- or herself from too much emotional investment, into the characters, definitely not into the books, for the sake of the debate. They are fictional, remember, you can't invite them home! It's the books as a whole that counts not personal crushes.

And this post is not trying to belittle Tyrion's character development.

Like other people here, I think that Tyrion generates so much passionate criticism because he's one of the most important characters in the series and also a fan favourite.

Being a fan favourite usually has some disadvantages. He attracts everybody's attention more than other characters that aren't so relevant, and he attracts many people's love but also an important number of reader's antipathy. There are people who tend to dislike whatever or whomever the majority likes.It is known :).

I agree with other posters here that Tyrion is Martin's favourite and he's put a lot of himself in this character ( the nerdy intellectual type, witty, smart, an avid reader, a man of thoughts more than a man of action- he's not strong like Jaime, for example-, sympathises with the underdogs,not physically attractive ...). Of course,Tyrion can't be like George in every aspect. He would be a Mary Sue, then (please, Nooo :bawl:).

Martin has made him suffer an awful lot but he's survived such dangerous situations that it's started to show he's one of the main characters, if not the main one ( personally, I think he probably is the most important character) in the story and that he's untouchable for Martin, in the sense that he can't die because an important destiny awaits him. In a series where life seems to be incredibly cheap, this is quite telling. I bet Tyrion will survive until the end of the series.

One of the things that shocked me about ASOF was that Ned died, he seemed to be a main character and he died. I loved Ned but I think his tragic ending was an incredible blow by Martin to show us the novels' world was ruthless, just as much as RL, and even a main character could die.

I made the mistake to believe then that anyone could die in the novels, but now I don't think that's the case. I think we can guess who's going to survive, who the real protagonists in this story are. I bet Tyrion is one of them (I'll have to eat my copy of the last book if I'm wrong, but I doubt it).

I have to admit, that I don't like Tyrion as much as I used to like him because, in a way, he's disappointed me. His descent into Hell, his incursions into the dark side, make me sympathise less with this character. It's too much for me: killing Shae and Tywin, surviving impossible situations... too much. I still like reading his POV chapters but I used to love them. I no longer love them now. When I read them, from time to time, I roll my eyes :rolleyes: and think: 'this is too far fetched'.

This is why I don't like Tyrion so much now, but this doesn't mean that I hate him. I agree that ,as readers, we tend to like some characters because we identify with them for certain reasons (world view, personality, etc.) but this shouldn't affect our capacity to judge their actions. At least, it shouldn't make us too blind to see our favourite characters' negative traits and wrong actions.

Evil actions are evil, no matter who commits them. There'll always be characters we dislike, we don't identify with or we don't sympathise with, but this shouldn't affect the fairness of our judgement. At least, we should try and be fair when judging actions and character.

[voodooqueen126]

you know random thought....

but Sansa and Arya in AGOT are two schools of philosophy.

Sansa is a rationalist, she believes that "all princes/queens are good, Joffrey/Cersei is a prince/Queen, therefore Joffrey/Cersei is good" and right up until Joffrey cuts her father's head off she believes that Joffrey is good.

Despite the empirical evidence to the contrary.

Arya is an empiricist, she observes Joffrey's wicked act with Mycah and Cersei's act with Lady, and rather than ignoring or failing to assimilate this information because it does not fit in with her theoretical framework (that princes and queens are good, therefore Joffrey and Cersei must be good). She begins to dislike them.

[Woman of War]

you know random thought....

but Sansa and Arya in AGOT are two schools of philosophy.

Sansa is a rationalist, she believes that "all princes/queens are good, Joffrey/Cersei is a prince/Queen, therefore Joffrey/Cersei is good" and right up until Joffrey cuts her father's head off she believes that Joffrey is good.

Despite the empirical evidence to the contrary.

Arya is an empiricist, she observes Joffrey's wicked act with Mycah and Cersei's act with Lady, and rather than ignoring or failing to assimilate this information because it does not fit in with her theoretical framework (that princes and queens are good, therefore Joffrey and Cersei must be good). She begins to dislike them.

You are right Sansa and Arya appeal to very differently structured personalities. only I would not describe Sansa's worldview as rationalist, right the contrary. She is conservative in the literal meaning of the word, she likes things as they are and wishes not to question them even if pushed to it.

And yes, of course I can rely to a character like Tyrion because I am a nerd, bookish and a dreamer at the same time, like so many here. And I have never had the fatal illusion about me to be a flawless person - but who is? AND I am sure that Tyrion, given his plot armour described by MaryaStone, will have lots of Chechov's guns in his pockets, so I am not willing to give a final judgement about his character and his purpose in the story before the books are over.

[voodooqueen126]

You are right Sansa and Arya appeal to very differently structured personalities. only I would not describe Sansa's worldview as rationalist, right the contrary. She is conservative in the literal meaning of the word, she likes things as they are and wishes not to question them even if pushed to it.

And yes, of course I can rely to a character like Tyrion because I am a nerd, bookish and a dreamer at the same time, like so many here. And I have never had the fatal illusion about me to be a flawless person - but who is? AND I am sure that Tyrion, given his plot armour described by MaryaStone, will have lots of Chechov's guns in his pockets, so I am not willing to give a final judgement about his character and his purpose in the story before the books are over.

Conservatives are empiricists dear. they observe the world and people are flawed and that certain systems work best, so why constantly change them because you think people will magically become better...

I remember at school my french stream colleagues were constantly coming up with such corkers as "Men Start Wars, Gandhi was a man, therefore Gandhi started wars." Now the empiricist in me now knows that this is actually true (that Gandhi did indeed start wars, if only he had let the british continue on ruling India...) but at the time I found these statements irritating, there was no way to refute, them even though they were patently wrong.

Truly the influence of contintental European philosophy is pernicious.

And Sansa with her underlying assumption that princes and queens are good, fits into that model.

Indeed afterwards when she has had the empirical fact slapped in her face that "princes, queens and lannisters generally, as well as knights are often awful people" later seems to think along the lines of "he is a knight, knights beat me up and abused me, therefore he cannot be trusted".

So in many ways her thought process remains the same (she is still a rationalist who builds up her theory on the basis of a premise, although her current premise is based by an empirical fact, rather literature she read).

In this she is rather like a European: whatever side of politics they sit upon, whether they be the antisemitic fruitcakes of old, or the black armband multiculturalists we know today (who are still more often than not antisemitic, but disguise their prejudices as opposition to Israel), they still think in terms of X is good/bad, Y is an X, therefore Y is bad/good.

Rather than being empirical

[Woman of War]

In this she is rather like a European: whatever side of politics they sit upon, whether they be the antisemitic fruitcakes of old, or the black armband multiculturalists we know today (who are still more often than not antisemitic, but disguise their prejudices as opposition to Israel), they still think in terms of X is good/bad, Y is an X, therefore Y is bad/good.

Hey, I have to speak up for Europe! No, if "we" can be said, we are not the big enemy of brave America! We are not the adversaries of free trade and the pit of sexual permissiveness. ( I wish "we" were....;)) and Us-America is a place of yearning and to admire even for liberal Europeans like me ( well, wait for your next elections........ But the US will survive that too.....) And I have lived in different European countries and have a rather multicultural background, though only European - there is not yet the European identity I would love to see. But of course I would not want the rich cultural diversities to be diminished.

What you describe is the seducing trap of political correctness. As opposed to - what? Non-political correctness? Correctness without politics? I still have to see the difference between POLITICAL correctness and correctness in general. Can something that is not correct be politically correct?

Or social justice: can there be something socially just without being just?

Of course I am aware of the reasons for political correctness, afffirmative action etc.

But this does not free us from thinking twice. A female politician (or a female book character, come to that) is not to be defended at all costs because she is a woman. And I don't want to be in a museum show because they needed their 50% of female artists, I want to be there because I am good! Female artists do not need this nor do female CEO's. I do not want to hear that my only qualification was being a woman. I know the debate and it is very present all over Europe.

No, feminist politics has to start at the bottom, to change the conditions for girls and boys.

How to get back to topic?

Only the future story can tell if Sansa is able to adapt to new situations by recurring to new patters of action and ideologically new ways of thinking, of realizing, maybe the hard way, how 99% of westerosi live. Or if she goes on wanting to dance through life. And if she is able to develop a firm moral identity without stupid dreams in a cruel world or if she is bound to be whoever's pawn and tool. Or if she is going to be established as accomplice to "evil" forces. Only speculation so far.

[The Drunkard]

I've always thought the nobles were evil. Just say your brother is killed, you call your banners, rally your armies, and send them off to die, all to avenge your feelings. Sure, you might get your revenge, but at what cost? And do the nobles ever really care about all those who died beyond 'Oh yeah, pity that.'

[voodooqueen126]

Hey, I have to speak up for Europe! No, if "we" can be said, we are not the big enemy of brave America! We are not the adversaries of free trade and the pit of sexual permissiveness. ( I wish "we" were.... ;)) and Us-America is a place of yearning and to admire even for liberal Europeans like me ( well, wait for your next elections........ But the US will survive that too.....) And I have lived in different European countries and have a rather multicultural background, though only European - there is not yet the European identity I would love to see. But of course I would not want the rich cultural diversities to be diminished.

I am just saying that the european philosophical school, broadly described as rationalist, in opposition to the british empiricists, has produced some awful nonsense: Sartre, Foucault (who questioned the basis of sexual morality, and no doubt his arguments are very good, but the silly man still died of AIDS), Derrida, Neitzchke*, Camus, that man that Hannah Arendt had an affair with but was a nazi sympathiser** and Marx . Actually marx is a pretty good example of what I am talking about: over and over again his followers try and apply his stupid ideas and every time they fail, so even though Marx's ideas seem rational, on an empirical level they fail. everytime. It's like someone went on a subconscious level some idiot went: money is the root of all evil, businessmen and kulaks have money and are therefore evil. where as an empiricist observes that wealthy people tend to reduce poverty (either by employing others or spending money in other people's businesses) and promote culture (by hiring artists to decorate their homes, poets to extoll their virtues and scholars to translate dead latin authors into the vulgar tongue)

antisemites go jews killed jesus/don't fit in with the volk/are mean to the poor palestinians, therefore they are bad, therefore we should kill them. an empiricist is forced to observe that they are hard working, intelligent and moral and should therefore be encouraged...

so even though these two opinions are supposedly on the opposite sides of politics (but not really, since most antisemites these days are socialists) the underlying way of thinking is exactly the same and leads to foolishness at best and mass murder at worst.

** (throws massive tanty over wikipedia's blackout, please any American reading this, do whatever you can to prevent whatever wikipedia is complaining about:

For over a decade, we have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage the free and open Internet. For 24 hours, to raise awareness, we are blacking out Wikipedia. Learn more.

so that wikipedia will be available.

*misspelt but unfortunately wikipedia is blacked out.

What you describe is the seducing trap of political correctness. As opposed to - what? Non-political correctness? Correctness without politics? I still have to see the difference between POLITICAL correctness and correctness in general. Can something that is not correct be politically correct?

Or social justice: can there be something socially just without being just?

Of course I am aware of the reasons for political correctness, afffirmative action etc.

But this does not free us from thinking twice. A female politician (or a female book character, come to that) is not to be defended at all costs because she is a woman. And I don't want to be in a museum show because they needed their 50% of female artists, I want to be there because I am good! Female artists do not need this nor do female CEO's. I do not want to hear that my only qualification was being a woman. I know the debate and it is very present all over Europe.

No, feminist politics has to start at the bottom, to change the conditions for girls and boys.

Simple political correctness holds that all cultures and opinions are equally good and valid. This is, empirically speaking, not true.

I agree with you on the latter point

How to get back to topic?

Only the future story can tell if Sansa is able to adapt to new situations by recurring to new patters of action and ideologically new ways of thinking, of realizing, maybe the hard way, how 99% of westerosi live. Or if she goes on wanting to dance through life. And if she is able to develop a firm moral identity without stupid dreams in a cruel world or if she is bound to be whoever's pawn and tool. Or if she is going to be established as accomplice to "evil" forces. Only speculation so far.

I think the Lannisters beat and abused the idealistic out of her, certainly she is so depressed and unhappy by AFFC that she cannot really be said to be much of a dreamer anymore.

So whilst her previous premise was: knights, queens and princes are good, therefore Joffrey, Cersei and the Kingsguard are good.

It has now changed to Knights are violent and beat up innocent people and Lannisters are all out to abuse, mistreat and use me.

Which is happens to be true on an empirical level, since it is based on Sansa' life experience.

Fortunately her parents instilled in her a firm moral identity, so she is unlikely to marry Aegon and Harry the Heir so that she can burn Casterly Rock to the ground and get Janei Lannister's head smashed up against the wall.

Sansa, being a moral person, just wants to avoid the Lannisters, who are, to the best of her empirical observations, rather evil people.

[Woman of War]

Are you seriously condemning Sartre, Foucault, Derrida, Nietzsche and Marx in one sentence, just like that???

Apart from the centuries between them....and i'd rather judge Hannah Arendt by her texts than by her sex life.

And AIDS is a disease, not the punishment for sinners.

I guess it would take me an essay of 5000 pages to answer like that, so not here.

And I doubt that Sansa has read it all.