Double Standards: Who, How, and Why

[oba]

I know it's all subjective, but I've been noticing that there are a lot of seeming "double standards" in the way that characters are viewed.

I know I apply double standards myself without usually even realizing it.

So, here's a thread to talk about it. I think it's interesting because it reveals at least as much about all of us as it does about the characters.

Here are some I've observed.

Dany and Rickon (or any of the Stark kids).

I started a whole thread on this one, so I'll just hit the high points. I think the similarities here outweigh the differences. Dany was exiled at an early age through no fault of her own. Yet, Dany's move to reclaim what she perceives as her birthright gets criticized quite a bit. At the same time, a lot of people seem to take it for granted that one of the Starks will come back and reclaim Winterfell and the North.

Tyrion and Ned as "players".

"Ned is a dunce" seems to be the mantra of a lot of posters. At best, one usually gets a "nice guy, but nice guys finish last" verdict on Ned's skill at playing the game of thrones. After all, he warned Cersei, couldn't keep his own daughter from spilling the beans, he trusted Varys and Littlefinger, and he ended up getting charged with treason and imprisoned before ultimately being beheaded.

"Tyrion is a very good player" similarly seems to be a common statement. Hmm. Littlefinger kept Shae around, never seemed able to keep his mouth shut, trusted Varys, didn't do much about Littlefinger even though he knew what had happened to Ned, and he ended up getting convicted of regicide and imprisoned before being freed while awaiting execution. He then got manipulated by Varys into killing his own father.

Littlefinger vs. Everybody else.

No other character seems to get away with as much as LF. Strangely, he seems to do so on this DB, as well. Every other character gets taken to task for the things they do wrong. Even Jaime. (heh-heh) Not Lord Baelish. He gets Lysa to poison Jon Arryn. He frames Tyrion. He betrays Ned. He prevents the Tyrells from marrying Sansa off to Willas. He clearly plays a role in Joffrey's poisoning. He double-crosses Dontos. He shoves his wife out the Moon Door.

Yet, to a lot of posters, it's all just part of his charm.

So, hopefully that gets the ball rolling.

[A Bengali Menace]

How people view Brienne vs. Jaime always bugs me. I suppose it boils down to the fact that one is clever and charming, and the other will never be...

[Donnachaidh]

Well I commented multiple times in the Rickon vs Dany thread so I won't do that here.

As far as Tyrion vs Ned goes, I do say Tyrion is a better player than Ned. Remember he did get out of the Vale in tact, which to me was sheer genius, the way he got Bronn on his side and later on the mountain clans. He also managed to get Oberyn on his side, although Oberyn took some initiative there. I think Tyrion is brilliant enough to get himself out of a tight spot when needed, usually by a stroke of genius. On the other hand he is foolish enough, that his weaknesses seem to constantly be getting him into trouble in the first place.

Ned however is way too naive and that gets him beheaded. I'm not saying Ned was a complete dunce, but he's not too skilled or shrewd enough for the game. Telling Cersei, trusting Littlefinger, not taking Renly up on his offer. All not the signs of a great player. Tyrion makes mistakes, but he's also got some successes to show for himself. Ned's succes at the game are minimal if they are there at all.

Littlefinger vs Everyone else.

Well I for one can't help to at least to admire the sheer brilliance of the man. And making Lysa fly did everyone a favour. But yes the man is also despicable, and I certainly want to see him get his.

[Lightsnake]

Littlefinger is supposed to be a totally despicable character and manages to commit his evil acts with such wittiness and charm and charisma, it's hard not to like him...and also, everything seems to fall just where he wants it.

as for Dany...for starters, she's completely blind to the idea maaaybe daddy wasn't such a great guy, after all the warfare in Westeros for an outside player to come in and sweep it all away would be extremely irritating. Not only that, Dany is hypocritcal, naive and utterly unsuited to ruling Westeros and the Targaryens were pretty much justly deposed. The Starks most certainly were not.

There's my two cents.

[oba]

as for Dany...for starters, she's completely blind to the idea maaaybe daddy wasn't such a great guy

Well, look at the source of her information. She grew up with Viserys telling her those stories. It's not like she had access to a bunch of "true biographies" of Aerys II. When Barristan tells her the truth, she's extremely open to it.

Not only that, Dany is hypocritcal, naive and utterly unsuited to ruling Westeros

She's smart, resourceful, and is actually taking the time to learn to rule before coming to Westeros. That seems pretty suitable to me. Moreso than a boy being trained by a 3-eyed crow, a boy being raised by a wildling woman, a child assassin, and, well, Sansa.

and the Targaryens were pretty much justly deposed. The Starks most certainly were not.

Well, the common folk didn't take a vote in either instance. It's the game of thrones. The Targaryens lost. The Starks lost.

[Maester Yobjascz]

Dany and Rickon (or any of the Stark kids)

Well, it's possible that people just like the Starks better because we're introduced to them first. The way we're introduced is also important. We meet the Starks as a happy family (going to a beheading, but as a family), full of promise and portents. They find the wolves and we know that these people are something special. Then we meet Dany; she's a scared girl bullied by a viscious brother and sold to strange warlord. Not the most endearing circumstances; pitiful yes, but endearing not so much.

I think this might lead people to be a bit more favorable to the Starks. They're also more easily identified with at the start, and in a position people would like to be in (nice family vs. sold into marriage). Take this and magnify it as only an anonymous internet forum can do, and you get Targ-hate and Stark-love.

Tyrion and Ned as "players"

True, both parties here made mistakes. Tyrion managed to survive his through luck, mostly... Eddard didn't. I think their failures are a wash. What makes the difference are the ignored positives. Eddard didn't accomplish much once out of his own territory. He did some sleuthing, and tried to be just, but accomplished very little. Made no allies, hurt no enemies, accomplished no goals. On the other hand, Tyrion managed to escape the Vale, gain Bronn as an ally (fickle and temporary though he is), not only survived the High Road, but managed to win over the Mountain Clans on the way, got himself appointed as Hand to the King, began clearing out corruption far more effectively than Eddard ever did, took control over the Gold Cloaks, identified enemies, made political connections with his family (remember, he's the one who sent Littlefinger to deal with the Tyrells, and who arranged for Myrcella to be with the Martells), and began the slow process of trying to extricate Cersei from her death grip on Kings Landing.

Neither of these two were perfect, but Tyrion came a lot closer than Ned.

Littlefinger vs. Everybody else

Well, first off, that's not entirely true. There are lots of folks here who would like to reserve a special level of hell for dear Lord Baelish. Beyond that, I think Littlefinger holds a special appeal for most of us. Look back on that thread of ASOIAF as High School. Where everyone is a jock swirling the freshmen, or a gorgeous cheerleader looking down on the social misfits, Baelish is the uber-nerd done good. He's not strong, he's not athletic, nor courageous or heroic. But he is smart. Very smart. And he's got near-absolute control over all those others, using his brains alone. For those of us who couldn't beat up to the bully in high school, or couldn't get past the cheerleader's cold shoulder, Baelish is doing what we'd like to have done. We might not approve of his methods, but we kind of cheer him on anyway...

[A Time for Wolves]

How people view Brienne vs. Jaime always bugs me. I suppose it boils down to the fact that one is clever and charming, and the other will never be...

Do you mean double standards while judging Brienne and Jaime? I don't think it's because Brienne's slow and ugly and Jaime's smart and handsome, but because, even after we get Jaime's version of the "king slaying", his mistakes are still worse than Brienne's. Brienne technicall betrayed Renly by fleeing into the enemy Stark camp, but she had played no role in Renly's death and was about to get executed for it. She fulfilled her duty to Catelyn Stark to the best of her abilities - she delivered Jaime (if minus one hand) to King's Landing and since there was no Sansa or Arya to be found there, she did the next best thing and went in search of them...although this time it was sort of at Jaime's command. Then she's found by Stoneheart and sentenced to be hanged.

I'm reserving judgement on Jaime. I see his murder of Aerys in a different light now, but I can't really bring myself to forgive the way he tried to kill Bran. And the scene in King's Landing when he has Jory Cassel and the other northmen killed is horrible, even though it sort of deliberately puts him in a negative light. Cat had just kidnapped his brother, and Jaime's a pretty ruthless person, and that's the way he thought he should react to defend his house's honor. But when you see it from Ned Stark's POV, you tend to hate Jaime with a vengeance. Or at least, I did. I already hated him for trying to kill Bran, being such an arrogant prick, and sleeping with his sister. Jaime, whatever he's trying to become now, is a malicious, ruthless, immoral and arrogant person - quite the opposite of Brienne. He's changing, it's true, but it's still too early to forgive him. Once again, it has nothing to do with how each one looks or how clever/dim they are, just their values and their deeds. I don't think I have double standards where Jaime and Brienne are concerned.

[oba]

Here are a few more for consumption:

Sansa vs. Arianne: Both act behind their father's backs with decidedly negative consequences. Is it just the age difference that has us cutting Sansa more slack?

Catelyn vs. Rickard Karstark: One's a you-know-what. The other's a grieving father who deserves his vengeance. Discuss.

[Ser Condi]

I really liked Tyrion and Jaime when I read the books for the first time. But when I came to this board I started to get annoyed by them because some people seem to think that these two can be forgiven for every vile deed that they commit just because they are witty and funny.

[oba]

I really liked Tyrion and Jaime when I read the books for the first time. But when I came to this board I started to get annoyed by them because some people seem to think that these two can be forgiven for every vile deed that they commit just because they are witty and funny.

I completely agree.

Jaime, in particular, went from saint to sinner, it seemed, largely on the basis of a few one-liners.

If we find out that Aerys II was Westeros' version of Henny Youngman, I suppose we'll laugh off his atrocities, as well.

[A Time for Wolves]

Here are a few more for consumption:

Sansa vs. Arianne: Both act behind their father's backs with decidedly negative consequences. Is it just the age difference that has us cutting Sansa more slack?

Edit: First of all, age difference like Arianne's and Sansa's makes a big difference. Besides that...

Not just the age difference, it's also because Sansa eventually starts to learn from her mistakes. At thirteen, I think Sansa's starting to be a little more savvy than Arianne is, and I think Sansa has more to her than just a beautiful body. After the horror of her father's death and Joffrey's abuse, she stops making rash decisions and starts evaluating her situation and assessing the people around her quite intelligently. The only time she lapses is when she's coaxed by Lady Olenna and Margaery to spill the dirt on Joffrey, which could have gone disastrously wrong for her if Olenna wanted it to.

It's been ages since I read AFFC, so I don't remember too many specifics about Arianne. She's extremely ambitious, and she thinks she's being cunning by rebelling against the Iron Throne and showing her dad that she means to be Dorne's heir. She misunderstood those letters to Quentyn and jumped to conclusions, which leads me to believe that she's just a bit paranoid and quite insecure.

Arianne tries to plunge the realm into a war that could not be won. She plans this with a group of friends who have no tactical or political skills. She invites Darkstar into the group of conspirators and makes no effort to keep him under closer supervision, despite the fact tat he is obviously something of a loose cannon. Had she simply confronted her father about the letter the whole mess would have been averted. She may have feared to do it out of what he might do, but there were numerous ways she could have protected herself. She could have got the Sand Snakes on her side and asked them to find out the truth for her, she could have tried to talk to Quentyn, she could have tried to rally support from the masses...but start a war with the Iron Throne? That wasn't a terribly smart idea, IMO.

When you take all this into consideration, age and experience are valid factors to take into account. Arianne grew up close to the Sand Snakes, for God's sake. That should teach you something. Sansa was an eleven year old girl from Winterfell. Whatever else the Starks may be, they are a little too straightforward (most of them, anyway) to be good players in the game of thrones, and besides that, they have actively stayed out of the politics of southern courts for fifteen years. Sansa did not grow up surrounded by people who could teach her court intrigue or how to play a subtle game. Granted, Oberyn is no such teacher, but Tyene, Lady Nym and Prince Doran seem quite adequate.

[North_King]

Here are a few more for consumption:

Sansa vs. Arianne: Both act behind their father's backs with decidedly negative consequences. Is it just the age difference that has us cutting Sansa more slack?

Catelyn vs. Rickard Karstark: One's a you-know-what. The other's a grieving father who deserves his vengeance. Discuss.

Sansa vs. Arianne: Actually, both of them get a massive amount of criticism.

Catelyn vs. Rickard Karstark: There's a difference between freeing someone in the hopes that two others would be freed and killing two unarmed squires in vengeance for death in battle.

[A Time for Wolves]

Catelyn vs. Rickard Karstark: There's a difference between freeing someone in the hopes that two others would be freed and killing two unarmed squires in vengeance for death in battle.

Lord Eddard's Bones! He killed two squires? I have to somehow force myself to re-read the first three books. I've forgotten all the details of everything.

[oba]

Catelyn vs. Rickard Karstark: There's a difference between freeing someone in the hopes that two others would be freed and killing two unarmed squires in vengeance for death in battle.

Well, I'm far from objective when it comes to Catelyn. To me, she gets blasted unfairly on these boards more than any other character.

Karstark's actions were, IMO, appalling. His battle-aged sons died in combat. He then has his men murder two unarmed squires (in the bathtub, IIRC) simply because they're cousins of the man who killed his sons in a fair fight.

He then tries to use every excuse in the book to avoid paying the penalty for his crime. "A father has a right to vengeance". "How can you kill me after you didn't really punish your mother for what she did?" "You'll be a kinslayer if you do it".

That dog won't hunt, Lord Rickard. :mad:

[Lightsnake]

Well, look at the source of her information. She grew up with Viserys telling her those stories. It's not like she had access to a bunch of "true biographies" of Aerys II. When Barristan tells her the truth, she's extremely open to it.

She's smart, resourceful, and is actually taking the time to learn to rule before coming to Westeros. That seems pretty suitable to me. Moreso than a boy being trained by a 3-eyed crow, a boy being raised by a wildling woman, a child assassin, and, well, Sansa.

Well, the common folk didn't take a vote in either instance. It's the game of thrones. The Targaryens lost. The Starks lost.

She has Barristan for one. She also pretty much tells him she doesn't want to hear the truth when he starts painting a picture of what Aerys really was. She pretty much asks. "Do I really wanna hear this?"

she closes her eyes and ears completely. And resourceful and smart? She acts like a spoiled little brat when Barristan reveals himself..."Omg you served the Usurper, you lied to me!" She also has absolutely NO CLUE how to rule, as evidenced by the *Cough* bangup job she's doing in the teasers...

And last I checked, the Starks weren't cooking men alive in their armor, slaughtering two hundred men on technicalities, having people horribly tortured for small slights or planning to turn a massive city to ashes.

[A Time for Wolves]

Well, I'm far from objective when it comes to Catelyn. To me, she gets blasted unfairly on these boards more than any other character.

That's my stance on Sansa, who actually gets more hate than anyone else. Forget the fact that, although a brat, she was an eleven-year old girl who made mistakes out of naivete rather than malice. But excuse her grown-up mother for her mistakes, by all means, just because she "was a good mother and wife". I don't see half as much Cat hate as there is Sansa hate, and while they are different people, I see too many similarities too ignore the double standards here.

[Grant Dempsey]

How about Petyr Baelish vs. Eddard Stark?

As much as some may really like Littlefinger, many more, of course, lay the blame for the War of the Five Kings mostly at his feet and often consider him one of the most evil characters in the novels because of it. However, a lot of people tend to completely overlook Ned's own willingness to allow the realm to slip into a war, to satisfy his own sense of justice and duty. Some may say, "At least he had a good and altruistic motive," but -- remember -- it was not exactly to "rid of the realm of the evil Lannisters" either. He was not doing it to prevent the tyrannical Joffrey from sitting the Iron Throne, as he had no great knowledge of the boy's malicious personality, and he was not doing it because he really thought Stannis Baratheon would make a great king, as I recall he wasn't too fond of the man anyway. He was doing it because of the law and because it was important to him on principle to follow it once he uncovered the truth, and only when his own daughter was threatened did he truly change his mind.

Should Ned's acceptance of war as a very possible and likely result of his actions (not to mention a period of tension even thereafter because of Stannis Baratheon's unpopularity and reputation for holding grudges) as "regretable, but unavoidable" really be thereby excused and still considered selfless strictly because it wasn't himself whose head he wanted to place a crown on, if Littlefinger is to receive blame in full for his actions?

[oba]

She has Barristan for one. She also pretty much tells him she doesn't want to hear the truth when he starts painting a picture of what Aerys really was. She pretty much asks. "Do I really wanna hear this?"

Not really. She's the one who asks Barristan to start telling her the truth.

ASoS, USPB, p. 992.

"'Was my father truly mad?' she blurted out. Why do I ask that? 'Viserys said this talk of madness was a plot of the Usurper's. . .'"

[barristan tells her that he feels Aerys II always had a little bit of madness in him, but that his lapses began growing more frequent. Here's how the convo ends. Barristan has already told her that Aerys was, in fact, mad. Perceptive old gent that he is, he seems about to fill her in on some pretty grisly details.]

"Dany stopped him. 'Do I want to hear this now?'

Ser Barristan considered a moment. 'Perhaps not. Not now.'

'Not now,' she agreed. 'One day. One day you must tell me all. The good and the bad.'"

She acts like a spoiled little brat when Barristan reveals himself..."Omg you served the Usurper, you lied to me!"

Again, Dany hasn't been reading the series. All she's heard is what Viserys had to tell her. Do you think he painted a very nice picture of Ser Barristan? Is she supposed to throw him a party? You also seem to be ignoring the fact that she ended up accepting him into her service and listening to what he had to say. Does her saying a few harsh things cancel that out?

And last I checked, the Starks weren't cooking men alive in their armor, slaughtering two hundred men on technicalities, having people horribly tortured for small slights or planning to turn a massive city to ashes.

Again, the concept of "justly deposed" seems a bit lame here. In both instances there's going to be a lot of blood shed, little of it done by the ones who actually have a grievance or who stand to benefit.

He was not doing it to prevent the tyrannical Joffrey from sitting the Iron Throne, as he had no great knowledge of the boy's malicious personality, and he was not doing it because he really thought Stannis Baratheon would make a great king, as I recall he wasn't too fond of the man anyway. He was doing it because of the law and because it was important to him on principle to follow it once he uncovered the truth, and only when his own daughter was threatened did he truly change his mind.

That's a great point.

To me, one of the most poignant moments in the first book, was when Varys points out to Ned how many innocents suffer when the high lords decide to play their game of thrones. That point only hits home with Ned when the potential peril of an innocent he knows and loves, Sansa,

is brought to his attention.

Should Ned's acceptance of war as a very possible and likely result of his actions (not to mention a period of tension even thereafter because of Stannis Baratheon's unpopularity and reputation for holding grudges) as "regretable, but unavoidable" really be thereby excused and still considered selfless strictly because it wasn't himself whose head he wanted to place a crown on, if Littlefinger is to receive blame in full for his actions?

Again, a lot of food for thought there. Seen in that light, a lot of actions can be viewed very, very differently.

[Slinx]

I'd like to throw in the Doran Martell versus Eddard Stark one.

Do nothing Martell is claimed to be great when all he did is show that one plan failed and then crap his pants and say 'Fire and Blood'.

Eddard is referred as being a dunce when he refuses to play the game and then as an even bigger idiot when his attempt fails because he didn't forsee betrayal.

And to go along with that: the Varys versus Eddard.

Varys critisizes Ned for something he wasn't even involved in yet, when we got proof that he intends for the Targs to come back.

[Slinx]

Again, Dany hasn't been reading the series. All she's heard is what Viserys had to tell her. Do you think he painted a very nice picture of Ser Barristan? Is she supposed to throw him a party? You also seem to be ignoring the fact that she ended up accepting him into her service and listening to what he had to say. Does her saying a few harsh things cancel that out?

I don't think Barristan or any other Kingsguard is qualified to pass much of an opinion on Aerys. For Jamie to be told not to judge Aerys for raping his wife shows that ignoring the King's sins is a passed down event. They can't reflect too badly on the king's actions because it shows how low their character is to serve such a man.

Maybe a few of the Kingsguard were inherited from Aery's father, but most seemed younger than 40, and had that info passed down to them from high.