was stannis meant to be likeable

[Thelastactionhero]

No. This is what Martin is saying. That quote that you've been using correlates Stannis' righteousness with knowing about the real threat.

No. That's what that quote by Martin is saying. So, in reality, when using this quote to prove that Stannis is holistically justified, it actually hurts your case, because the author is only attributing "righteousness" to Stannis going to the Wall.

All this stuff you're talking about falls under the "in spite of all this" part of Martin's quote. He's the one who is not signing off on calling this stuff "righteous."

Actually, that is exactly what Martin's saying: 'And it is important that the individual books refer to the civil wars, but the series title reminds us constantly that the real issue lies in the North beyond the Wall. Stannis becomes one of the few characters fully to understand that, which is why in spite of everything he is a righteous man, and not just a version of Henry VII, Tiberius or Louis XI.'

The ironic part of using this quote to defend Stannis holistically is that Martin is implicitly not calling any of the non-Other-related concerns and actions "righteous."

But that's exactly what this quote suggests. You can make an argument for Stannis being righteous about other things prior to this Others business, but that's not what is being said in this quote. This quote actually works against that assessment. If you want to make a "Stannis is righteous" argument in the future, especially about non-Wall related things, I think your case is stronger without this quote.

I think people on both sides of this debate really take it upon themselves to infer waaaay too much from certain parts of this quote in order to justify their ideological positioning on the Stannis issue. George would probably laugh his ass off if he ever stumbled across this thread. I think you're wrong to infer from George's proclamation, (Stannis not being a mere clone of these European tyrants because he comes to understand the true threat the Others pose to humanity), to mean that George fundamentally disagrees with every other action he's taken outside of the Wall, even just up until that point. I also think it's rather misguided for us to think that this quote in anyway proves or rationalizes our conceptions of whether Stannis' noble actions outweigh his atrocities. This is a conclusion we need to reach for ourselves as readers, and appealing to a snippet quote from George R seems in direct opposition to what his artistic project is seeking to teach us in the first place. For me as a reader, A Dance With Dragons, along with the Winds of Winter sample chapter, continues to reveal his virtuous qualities, but whether or not he'll continue in this trend is yet to be determined.

[James Arryn]

...Fundamentally disagrees with every action he's taken outside of the Wall, what? Where did you get that from?

[Ser Creighton]

I assume it's something like despite the descent into darkness turning his mentor into Stannenberg, Davos is uncomfortable and somewhat manipuled, yet still keeps faith in Stannis as the man who taught him justice by separating the molecules of his finger from the isotope of his hand.

Oh your good. Stannenberg, that might just be perfection.

A man thrust into a impossible situation he did not ask for tries to take charge of the situation for what he sees is the right thing to do. He is questionable often lost in the journey and blinded by his own goal. His companion Davos often serving as his only moral compass conciense. Now that I think about it, the Red Priestess could be associated with the Blue Crystal. They over come bad situation after bad situation, make sacrifice after sacrifice and despite what you any could percieve as wrong (sacrifices) they can be incredibly deep and likable characters who have aspects that are easy for anyone to identify with.

Currently he is going after Ramsey Bolton let the wacky Stan hijinx ensue, let the dark humor and dry wit flow, and lets watch poor Davos put to it again as he tries to aid his companion cause you know it's not going to be easy for him. Mel the devil on one shoulder, Davos on the other.

[Ser Creighton]

Yep, I'm a big fan of Breaking Bad. But it seems to me that Stannis gets progressively more likeable and ''better'' as the series goes on, whereas Walt just gets exponentially worse. And with Davos/Jesse, where Stannis values Davos' loyalty/service/honesty, Walt seems to treat Jesse as nothing more than a tool to be used, not a person worth listening to.

I suppose I do see the link in Stan/Walt requiring the trusty assistant to do things they find uncomfortable.

Actually Stannis has become more morally questionable sense the beginning of the books. But even with Walt going all evil he is still enjoyable and likable. I still find myself rooting for the man. Though poor Jesse. Now Stannis is not as bad as Walt obviously but the themes of the characters are similar and besides the story isn't over for either of them yet. The didn't put an M-60 in the trunk for nothing, get em Walt.

[The Drunkard]

You see, this is what frustrates a lot of people when dealing with members of "the club." You're all willfully blind to anything that gets in the way of scoring cheap points.

Come off it. In nearly every post you've made in this thread you've generalised and attacked the posters disagreeing with you rather than focusing solely on their arguments, and yet you speak of scoring cheap points?

Actually Stannis has become more morally questionable sense the beginning of the books. But even with Walt going all evil he is still enjoyable and likable. I still find myself rooting for the man. Though poor Jesse. Now Stannis is not as bad as Walt obviously but the themes of the characters are similar and besides the story isn't over for either of them yet. The didn't put an M-60 in the trunk for nothing, get em Walt.

Fair enough I guess. My view seems to be the opposite of yours, so that'd explain why I didn't get the comparison. :cheers:

[butterbumps!]

I think people on both sides of this debate really take it upon themselves to infer waaaay too much from certain parts of this quote in order to justify their ideological positioning on the Stannis issue. George would probably laugh his ass off if he ever stumbled across this thread. I think you're wrong to infer from George's proclamation, (Stannis not being a mere clone of these European tyrants because he comes to understand the true threat the Others pose to humanity), to mean that George fundamentally disagrees with every other action he's taken outside of the Wall, even just up until that point. I also think it's rather misguided for us to think that this quote in anyway proves or rationalizes our conceptions of whether Stannis' noble actions outweigh his atrocities. This is a conclusion we need to reach for ourselves as readers, and appealing to a snippet quote from George R seems in direct opposition to what his artistic project is seeking to teach us in the first place. For me as a reader, A Dance With Dragons, along with the Winds of Winter sample chapter, continues to reveal his virtuous qualities, but whether or not he'll continue in this trend is yet to be determined.

Look, I'm with you on taking this quote way too far-- I don't think Martin's interviews about character interpretations should be used as evidence for character interpretation because they tend to be so vague and misleading.

The thing is, though, this particular quote only calls going to the Wall "righteous." Martin doesn't speak for or against any of Stannis' non-Wall actions either way, and the "in spite of all this" connotes that he believes the rightness of these things arguable.

My issue here isn't about whether I agree or disagree about Stannis' "righteousness." My issue is about using this quote the way it was being used in this thread (and elsewhere in the past), because it actually does more to hurt the case it was trying to accomplish. So my issue is more about using this as evidence than agreeing with it or not.

...Fundamentally disagrees with every action he's taken outside of the Wall, what? Where did you get that from?

If this was posed at me, I didn't say that.

[aceluby]

Stannis does not view burning the seven or executing men(that he views as traitors) as unrighteous, since he did it in service to his god. He did not execute men trying to defend their religion(Selyse and Mel executed them).

Stannis may have committed bad actions, but he has good intentions.

Stannis is king, they cannot execute people without his leave.

What I find interesting is that a lot of things happen in the Stan camp (in the books, not the forum) that gets put off as 'well I didn't do it' and therefore it's somehow ok. Something bad happens and nobody is truly accountable for the atrocity. It's either Mel, or Selyse, or Stannis didn't really want to do it, or Davos was only doing it because of Stannis, etc... This seems to be a HUGE blind spot for Stannis and his sense of law, justice, and morality.

[James Arryn]

If this was posed at me, I didn't say that.

It wasn't. I didn't get how the other poster took this interpretation of what you said from what you actually said. The cynic in me was yelling strawman, but the post seemed sincere overall, so I just asked the question.

[mormont]

[mod] I think we've had more than enough discussion about what other people, whether individuals or 'camps', supposedly think and why.

This forum is here to discuss the books. It's not here to discuss the readers. There are a thousand different views of any character, held for a million different reasons. Let's not waste our time pontificating about the inner mental lives of other users, OK? [/mod]

[The Drunkard]

Stannis is king, they cannot execute people without his leave.

Guncer Sunglass and Hubbard Rambton's sons were killed while Stannis was fighting at King's Landing. Stannis wasn't present, nor do we have any evidence of him giving the command. When Stannis was present and they were in the dungeons no burnings took place, it was only when Melisandre was left alone with Selyse that it happened.

[A Man Has Said]

Actually Stannis has become more morally questionable sense the beginning of the books. But even with Walt going all evil he is still enjoyable and likable. I still find myself rooting for the man. Though poor Jesse. Now Stannis is not as bad as Walt obviously but the themes of the characters are similar and besides the story isn't over for either of them yet. The didn't put an M-60 in the trunk for nothing, get em Walt.

I actually think that Stannis is most likable when you consider his actions before the book even began. His devotion to the wounded hawk. Totally admirable. His defense of Storm's End. Go, Stan! And most of all for me his defeat of the Iron Fleet. Damn, when you can go up against a culture of naval specialists AT SEA and come out the victor, that is a major accomplishment. Plus, I feckin' hate the Ironborn, so well done.

[Toxspecific]

Tox, here's the issue in a nutshell. You've been using Martin's quote to say that Martin sees (and therefore the reader should also see) that Stannis is "righteous." You even went so far as to claim that the quote meant that Martin believes Stannis has done more good than bad. This is what "holistically justified" means. You have been trying to prove that Stannis falls squarely into a determination of "righteous." As in, Stannis is overwhelmingly righteous.

Unfortunately for the way you've been using this quote to prove that Stannis is "righteous," the quote only proves that Martin feels that one single action by Stannis qualifies as "righteous." I'm not arguing whether Stannis is righteous or not either way (although you did above by trying to bring up Stannis' other goals as also righteous). I'm speaking to the way this quote has been used by you and others in this thread, and instead of building your case for "righteous Stannis," it actually deflates the point you're trying to make.

I already said you were right about it being sort of a vague author's remark. But it did give us something. I'm not going to use it as a total final epic finish to the defence of Stannis. It isn't. Why don't I just paste the link to every thread in which I defend Stannis instead of my long posts then?

You still seem to think I believe Stannis is overwhelmingly righteous. I don't really that. I think he's a pretty good dude but I don't hold him on the same level of, say, Ned in righteousness. And as for you saying usage of the quote deflates my case? It does not, because like you yourself said it can be interpreted a few ways, and I already explained why I think it meant what I meant and that was perfectly in line with my case.

I was wrong to say it should be the end to people discussing any bad Stannis has done, but wait, I didn't say that. I was right to say it should be the end of people thinking that the current Stannis is an evil dude, because it should be.

Wow 6 pages already. And not an end in sight, nothing gets the people going like a stannis thread it seems.

E-ro, why don't you post more often?

[James Arryn]

Guncer Sunglass and Hubbard Rambton's sons were killed while Stannis was fighting at King's Landing. Stannis wasn't present, nor do we have any evidence of him giving the command. When Stannis was present and they were in the dungeons no burnings took place, it was only when Melisandre was left alone with Selyse that it happened.

True.

We have seen, however, how Stannis treats people who commit offences contrary to his will. Whom did he punish for their murders, once he returned?

[The Drunkard]

True.

We have seen, however, how Stannis treats people who commit offences contrary to his will. Whom did he punish for their murders, once he returned?

Agreed (with the point you're making). I dislike how he didn't punish or restrict his queens for what they did, but at the same time, what they did wasn't necessarily against the law. Guncer Sunglass withdrew his support from his king, and the Rampton sons attacked the king's soldiers, both of which are punishable by death.

[Le Dragone]

does anyone know how grrm feels about Stannis?

It's well known he likes Tyrion but with Stannis I can't tell if he's meant to be liked or misliked or if grrm just wants him to be a completely grey character

He wants most characters to be grey, including Stannis. But he probably knows that a lot of people are going to like him because of what he did in the north and what he's about to do.

[Almighty Stannis]

He's obviously meant to be liked. Why else would GRRM write him as the funniest character in the books?

[butterbumps!]

I already said you were right about it being sort of a vague author's remark. But it did give us something. I'm not going to use it as a total final epic finish to the defence of Stannis. It isn't. Why don't I just paste the link to every thread in which I defend Stannis instead of my long posts then?

It doesn't in reality "give" us anything. At best it serves as a reminder that the ice-fire showdown is the bigger picture, rather than the civil war.

You still seem to think I believe Stannis is overwhelmingly righteous. I don't really that. I think he's a pretty good dude but I don't hold him on the same level of, say, Ned in righteousness. And as for you saying usage of the quote deflates my case? It does not, because like you yourself said it can be interpreted a few ways, and I already explained why I think it meant what I meant and that was perfectly in line with my case.

Tox, it deflates your case because it's clearly stating that Martin believes that going to the Wall was the one unequivocally righteous thing Stannis has done. This particular one is pretty straightforward-- it correlates Martin's personal assessment of where Stannis is correct to his showing up to fight Others. Ergo, using this to support any other of Stannis' actions as "righteous" can be quickly shot down.

Maybe I should rephrase this. I'm challenging you on it because I think your use of the quote is shooting you in the foot. I'm not trying to show that Stannis is not righteous; I'm trying to save you the trouble of future arguments where this can be ripped down by posters who will argue that the "in spite of all this" part suggests Martin find all those Non-Wall things unjustifiable in context. This quote is a double-edged sword for your case, and objectively speaking, my view is that it works against defending Stannis on all things. If it were me, I'd forget I ever read that quote.

I was wrong to say it should be the end to people discussing any bad Stannis has done, but wait, I didn't say that. I was right to say it should be the end of people thinking that the current Stannis is an evil dude, because it should be.

c'mon brah. Your first 3 pages of posts were trying to prove Stannis = righteous from this quote (and initially as a "hero" if I'm not mistaken).

[Stanerys Snow]

True.

We have seen, however, how Stannis treats people who commit offences contrary to his will. Whom did he punish for their murders, once he returned?

Was he told the complete truth about their murders once he returned? Was there some form of reprimand for Selyse and Mel? Was he more concerned with his lost on the Blackwater?

Stannis was more than likely told that they were traitors that rebelled against him.

[RenlyIsNotRight]

I think a big part of the reason Stannis isn't a POV character is because GRRM wants to perpetuate in the universe belief that Stannis is dull, humorless, inflexible and all around unlikable. I mean, plenty of the POV characters in the series have done things just as bad if not worse than the worst things Stannis has done - Cersei, Tyrion, Theon, Victarion, arguably Dany and Jaime, hell people even give Bran fucking Stark shit because he warged Hodor a couple times. Because we see the inner motivations of these characters spelled out though, they have factions in the fanbase who defend everything they do. Not that Stannis doesn't as well, but its not as large as it probably would be if he did have a POV.

If Stannis had a POV, unless it revealed that he's actually secretly been plotting to become the next Night's King this entire time, I'm pretty sure most readers who didn't love him already would have an at least somewhat improved opinion of him. And the stans...forget it.

[Toxspecific]

He's obviously meant to be liked. Why else would GRRM write him as the funniest character in the books?

Not everyone finds what he says funny and he doesn't intend it all to be funny. I do, but not everyone has that sense of humour I guess.

For example, in a video on YouTube, Stannis (Stephen Dillane) was narrating the story of the Greyjoy Rebellion and he said something along the lines of 'The Ironborn lacked discipline. I crushed them.' I found it funny and badass, funny because he said it as if he was talking about something he bought from a shop or something xD But again, different senses of humour.