Lady Blackmont Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 Definately a hate thread.I don't make threads about how evil Theon is, or Cersei, or Robert, or Tyrion. Doing so is against the spirit of the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INCBlackbird Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 Definately a hate thread. I don't make threads about how evil Theon is, or Cersei, or Robert, or Tyrion. Doing so is against the spirit of the forum. they didn't say he's evil they said he's a "stupid, incompetent moralizer" and then they explain why they think so. I might not agree with everything they say about him but everyone has the right to critique a charater don't they? it happens to all the other characters constantly why is it not allowed to happen to this one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INCBlackbird Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 which proves that this thread was considered as a hate thread by the majority of Forum members in this thread. The only thing it proves is that people can't stand it when Ned is criticized. Do you think it'd be the same if it were about any character but Ned? I don't think so, I see other characters criticized all the time some I agree with some I don't but that's personal and everyone has the right to have another opinion than you do that doesn't make them a "troll". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithras Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 The only thing it proves is that people can't stand it when Ned is criticized. "Eddard Stark stupid, incompetent, hypocritical moralizer." does not look like criticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INCBlackbird Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 "Eddard Stark stupid, incompetent, hypocritical moralizer." does not look like criticism. how is it not criticism. I don't like hate either, I deal with it daily on tumblr in the Theon tag but if someone would post an entire analysis on why Theon is a "stupid, incompetent; hypocritical moralizer" or something else that applies to him and they can support it, I wouldn't call that hate, I call it criticism. there's a difference. just imagine a thread like this about Dany, Stannis, Jon, Arya, Sansa, Catelyn... would you have the same response? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Blackmont Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 He taking a single character and pointing out all of the imagined flaws. Saying: "Sansa is naive" or "Joffrey is a moron" and presenting evidence is very different from the outlook of this thread.Clearly the "critisism" is coming from a place of hate, so I don't see how his arguments can be objective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordStoneheart Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 He taking a single character and pointing out all of the imagined flaws. Saying: "Sansa is naive" or "Joffrey is a moron" and presenting evidence is very different from the outlook of this thread.Clearly the "critisism" is coming from a place of hate, so I don't see how his arguments can be objective.Exactly. This thread exists solely to vilify Ned. It's not good analysis. It's not constructive criticism. It's solely an attack thread and the hate could not be more obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INCBlackbird Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 He taking a single character and pointing out all of the imagined flaws. Saying: "Sansa is naive" or "Joffrey is a moron" and presenting evidence is very different from the outlook of this thread. Clearly the "critisism" is coming from a place of hate, so I don't see how his arguments can be objective. so you're only allowed to criticize a character when you like that character? in that case the criticism won't exactly be free of bias either. a person will always be a bit biased but we can strive to be as objective as possible whether we like the character or not. edit: I don't believe this is objective, but then barely any posts/threads on this forum are objective, we're all human beings after all. I for one try to be as objective as possible but I'm sure you two wouldn't believe I am objective would you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordStoneheart Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 so you're only allowed to criticize a character when you like that character?That is not at all what Blackmont said or what she was implying. Her point was very clear. Not sure how you twisted it into that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INCBlackbird Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 That is not at all what Blackmont said or what she was implying. Her point was very clear. Not sure how you twisted it into that. what was the point then? she said it wasn't objective, I say, criticism is almost never objective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearQueen87 Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 The biggest issue I have here is that this thread was presented as an analysis on Eddard Stark but instead it's really just a list of Ned's flaws without trying to delve into the character himself to understand why Eddard has those flaws. "Ned Stark cannot play the game of thrones." Ok...true. He's not very good at it in King's Landing; and the OP provided a list of evidence. But then they stopped there. They didn't try to explain why Ned is not exactly an all star at playing the game of thrones, be it from a cultural or political perspective, or any other perspective. They just said that he was bad--in fact, very bad, without any redeeming qualities like, for instance, he might not be a good Hand but he's a very good Northern Lord and then explaining the reasons for those difference (again, taking a cultural, social, political, whatever perspective)--and left it at "Ned is bad. Bad bad Ned. Ned love is overrated" It's not analysis. It's straight up (wholly negative) criticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Blackmont Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 what was the point then? she said it wasn't objective, I say, criticism is almost never objective.I say it isn't proper criticism.I hate Ned/Sansa/Jon because:They sucked at X, morons.They smell funny, idiots.They tried to enforce X on other people, hypocrites.Thus, Ned/Sansa/Jon are moronic, ineffectual, and hypocritical.I'm not requesting that the OP be completely objective, but listing flaws without considering other aspects or including less vilifying material is clearly as far from a fair examination as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugorfonics Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 The biggest issue I have here is that this thread was presented as an analysis on Eddard Stark but instead it's really just a list of Ned's flaws without trying to delve into the character himself to understand why Eddard has those flaws. "Ned Stark cannot play the game of thrones." Ok...true. He's not very good at it in King's Landing; and the OP provided a list of evidence. But then they stopped there. They didn't try to explain why Ned is not exactly an all star at playing the game of thrones, be it from a cultural or political perspective, or any other perspective. They just said that he was bad--in fact, very bad, without any redeeming qualities like, for instance, he might not be a good Hand but he's a very good Northern Lord and then explaining the reasons for those difference (again, taking a cultural, social, political, whatever perspective)--and left it at "Ned is bad. Bad bad Ned. Ned love is overrated" It's not analysis. It's straight up (wholly negative) criticism. I don't see why hate threads are off limits, as long as it's not like bigotry hate. Some characters are bad for westeros, that's why there's mad war. The op is just 1 post, it's not written in gold. The reason for other posts is to agree and disagree, and also evaluate. Some other poster (don't remember) said something along the lines of Ned confusing honor with morality, I'm not sure if that's why he's foolish, but it's interesting. Ned was a second son, but so am I so I don't think that's a very good reason. His love of Robert certainly lead to his downfall, perhaps also his disdain from working with others. Being raised by Jon, watching his sister die. There are a lot of things that affected Ned. The trouble with analyzing Ned is he's so damn mysterious. We don't know of his relationship with Ashara, Brandon, Jon I do see your point of a post being overwhelming with hate if it's not whitewashed but a thread about Vargo or Yezzan would also be overwhelming (not that I'm comparing the three) and that's a shame because Vargo is interesting and I don't know much about Yezzan. In my point of view, Ned was a comparable hand to lord, nor do I see him as a very nice man. But these books stir up different points of view, many see Dany and Tyrion cruel, I disagree but it makes good conversation. As long as the thread is respectful to people and their views and is about the book (the op has quotes) I think this thread should rock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INCBlackbird Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 The biggest issue I have here is that this thread was presented as an analysis on Eddard Stark but instead it's really just a list of Ned's flaws without trying to delve into the character himself to understand why Eddard has those flaws. "Ned Stark cannot play the game of thrones." Ok...true. He's not very good at it in King's Landing; and the OP provided a list of evidence. But then they stopped there. They didn't try to explain why Ned is not exactly an all star at playing the game of thrones, be it from a cultural or political perspective, or any other perspective. They just said that he was bad--in fact, very bad, without any redeeming qualities like, for instance, he might not be a good Hand but he's a very good Northern Lord and then explaining the reasons for those difference (again, taking a cultural, social, political, whatever perspective)--and left it at "Ned is bad. Bad bad Ned. Ned love is overrated" It's not analysis. It's straight up (wholly negative) criticism. It would have been interesting if they analysed it yes, but then can't people in the discussion do that instead of just saying it should be locked? I really don't understand why there's always such a problem with Ned's flaws being acknowledged, I think this thread only has negative criticism because there's tons of positive criticism on Ned already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearQueen87 Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 As long as the thread is respectful to people and their views and is about the book (the op has quotes) I think this thread should rock It would have been interesting if they analysed it yes, but then can't people in the discussion do that instead of just saying it should be locked? I really don't understand why there's always such a problem with Ned's flaws being acknowledged, I think this thread only has negative criticism because there's tons of positive criticism on Ned already. Well, I'm not one of the people calling for the thread to be closed. My whole point is that it's a bad analysis because it's just not an analysis. There's nothing wrong with pointing out Ned's flaws but it adds nothing to the conversation as a whole if all you're doing is pointing out that Ned can't play the game of thrones (something most readers recognize) without taking a stance as to why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INCBlackbird Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Well, I'm not one of the people calling for the thread to be closed. My whole point is that it's a bad analysis because it's just not an analysis. There's nothing wrong with pointing out Ned's flaws but it adds nothing to the conversation as a whole if all you're doing is pointing out that Ned can't play the game of thrones (something most readers recognize) without taking a stance as to why. I know you're not, i believe you're one of the few people who actually took the time to reply to the analysis if I remember correctly. I don't fully agree with that tbh. I do think it'd have been better if this person had pointed out positive things about the character as well, make it less biased, also because that way people will respect it more. But do think it adds something to the conversation, the analysis can be about how ned shows himself to be a bad player and why. personally I don't really care about whether or not he was a good player though, and there's definitly things in the op that I disagree with, there's also things in your reply that I agree with and things I disagree with but that doesn't make it a bad analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.