Double Standards: Who, How, and Why

[Stratonice]

My views of Catelyn and of Dany vs Rickon are fully given in their respective threads so I'll skip them here and move straight to:

Arianne vs Sansa

The big difference beween the two of them don't lie in age but in intentions. Sansa's only motive was to be alowed to stay in KL where everything was magical. All she wanted was for the King to convince her father to let her stay there and she wasn't aware that any conflicts existed since Ned refused to explain anything to her. True, he intended to explain everything once they were safly away but Sansa can hardly be blamed for him not doing it sooner.

Arianne intended to start a war. A war Dorne could never win nontheless. And once again the father is partly to blame for not explaining things sooner. Considering how much she resembled and admired her bastard cousins it would have been a good idea for Doran to take a personal interest in her education and make sure it was done properly, regardless of whether she was supposed to become the ruler of Dorne or queen of all the Realm (wich was both the plan at different times) she would need it. This should, however, not be taken to mean that I hate or dislike her because I don't. I acutally like both girls/women but for different reasons.

[oba]

That is indeed a very good point, but then I'm not someone condemning Robb for making errors. I just think it's unfair to lay his mistakes at the feet of other characters. I feel quite sorry for Robb, because he caught that "my mistakes have always the worst possible consequence" syndrom from both his parents.

So if a certain theory is true, does it mean Jon caught the recessive traits with respect to his parents?

[A Time for Wolves]

I just think it's unfair to lay his mistakes at the feet of other characters. I feel quite sorry for Robb, because he caught that "my mistakes have always the worst possible consequence" syndrom from both his parents.

Fair enough, I agree with that. Robb did make mistakes, regardless of the circumstances, and he has to be held responsible for that.

[EHK for Darwin]

And the Stark kids worked so hard to get their direwolves and warging abilities. Wait, I forgot, Robb found them in the snow.

The direwolves aren't an unbalancing force that can single-handedly shatter armies and conquer kingdoms. Neither are any of the warging abilities. And just about every PoV kid character had prophetic foretellings, dreams or visions at one time or another. And to be fair, the direwolves in the snow were the idea that spawned this entire series, so better off to have them.

You mean sort of like the sequence of events which enable Jon to become LC of the Night's Watch?

To be fair I did admit that Jon is most like Dany as far as fantasy archetype-cliches go. But while his LC election was stretching it, I don't think it pushes our suspension of disbelief quite as much as Dany and the unsullied. He is the son (even if a bastard) of the powerful, honorable, and well respected king of the north. His family's ties to the Nightwatch are long-standing and extensive. He would come in there with instant status (and a fair amount of backlash too). His general competence and intelligence would only aid that start. Alot of the old leadership were former nobles, some (Benjen, though while missing, would still have allies there) from his house or at the very least respectful to it. Essentially, it was plausible given the rational foundation that he could rise to this position. It seemed a bit overly convenient, but not quite forced. Dany and the unsullied is an entirely different story, one I've already covered.

And I generally have no problem with an author establishing his favored outcome in a book, as long as it's plausible. By that I mean the outcome is reasonable supported by an established foundation based more or less in reality. And that we're not forced to accept too many implausible propositions to get to that conclusion. I can give a 'mystical accident/destiny' pass on the dragons, but the Unsullied plot was asking us to swallow too much.

And I'll get to yours when I have more time Enguarrard.

[oba]

But while his LC election was stretching it, I don't think it pushes our suspension of disbelief quite as much as Dany and the unsullied.

The Old Bear dies. Benjen's missing. The Halfhand's dead. Donal Noye dies. With the exception of Cotter Pyke and Denys Mallister, so does just about anyone else who could reasonably be expected to take over.

Jon is sent on a suicide mission. Either he tries to kill or does kill Mance Rayder, in which case the wildlings will cut him down, or he negotiates, in which case he'll be deemed a traitor and will get executed. Instead, Stannis' men show up, Jon is (relatively) safe in Mance's tent, and survives to get named LC.

I'm sorry, I had to suspend my disbelief on that one at least as much as I did with Dany and the Unsullied.

He is the son (even if a bastard) of the powerful, honorable, and well respected king of the north. His family's ties to the Nightwatch are long-standing and extensive. He would come in there with instant status (and a fair amount of backlash too). His general competence and intelligence would only aid that start. Alot of the old leadership were former nobles, some (Benjen, though while missing, would still have allies there) from his house or at the very least respectful to it.

So, he trades on his family name and his bond to a perceived-as-mystical creature who's pulled his fat from the fire numerous times scores him quite a few points. How is this any better than Dany?

The direwolves aren't an unbalancing force that can single-handedly shatter armies and conquer kingdoms.

No, they just sniff out paths that forces led by a Stark can take so that a Lannister army ends up getting shattered. Seems pretty "nit-picky" to me, particularly as Dany's dragons have, so far, killed a lot fewer people than have the direwolves.

And to be fair, the direwolves in the snow were the idea that spawned this entire series, so better off to have them.

So if Martin had imagined Dany's dragon-hatching scene first, you'd feel better about them?

[Ser Greguh]

Deus Ex Machina is when an army appear from nowhere from the other side of the world just when you are about kill the enemy boss in the middle of his camp.

While you seem to at least have a vague notion of what a Deus Ex Machina is, this seems to me to be a terrible example as well, not to mention simply a very inaccurate description of what went down. Stannis' army did not appear "from nowhere" and Dragonstone is hardly "the other side of the world". The entire last Davos chapter in aSoS (almost clumsily) telegraphs where Stannis is heading. If you were surprised when Stannis' army showed up, you weren't paying very close attention. For this even to begin to qualify as a Deus Ex Machina, Stannis' army would have literally needed to appear from nowhere, and not just from the POV of the character that's witnessing it.

Or when you warging stepbrother on a quest for finding the fairies, happens to pass by the polar circle when you are surrounded by murderous Eskimos.

Okay, I take back what I said. I feel comfortable in saying you have no idea what a Deus Ex Machina is. "Deus Ex Machina" is not a synonym for "coincidence." Catelyn meeting Tyrion at the inn of the crossroads was a coincidence. Arya meeting the Freyling that she's supposed to marry in Harrenhal is a coincidence. Beric's crew kidnapping Sandor while they already have Arya - after Sandor has shared significant interaction with Arya's sister - was a coincidence. And yes, Bran being right nearby when Jon escaped from the wildlings was a coincidence. None were Deus Ex Machinas. Jon didn't need Bran to escape. GRRM could have effortlessly contrived another way of Jon getting away, without Summer/Bran's help. That he was there added the tension of the near-reunion to an already tense moment.

If the good guy is fighting the bad guy, and the bad guy is about to stab the good guy - when suddenly he's struck by a bolt of lightning! - that's a Deus Ex Machina. If there's a shipwreck and the two heroes are saved because they get taken in by a race of mermaids that have never been mentioned before and are never mentioned again - that's a Deus Ex Machina. It's when an author invents a contrivance because he's written himself into a corner. Not when he makes an attempt at irony or poeticness by writing an ironic or unlikely coincidence.

The example of the Unsullied is a better one, though it still doesn't nearly qualify. Dany needed a way to conquer Astapor (or whichever slaver's bay city it was) and suddenly had an army landed in her lap. However, the Unsullied had been set up from the first Dany chapter in aGoT, and the trade of a dragon for an army of Unsullied seemed quite plausible, given a dragon's immense power, and hence, value. What's so contrived about Dany arriving in a slaver's city, buying a slave army, and turning them on their former masters?

[Enguerrand]

But you see, dragons were extinct before Dany came along. It was at the very least a blatant plot device. Dany suddenly becoming an 'expert' blood magician too. The Valyrians had used dragons, so had the Targaryens - but there were no dragons left.

EHK, was talking about the Targaryens in general.

Dany and her kin were always usurpers and outsiders conquering from afar and using flying, firebreathing Dues Ex Machina's to do it.

Since Dany not yet conquered anything with dragons, I assume he must have meant Aegon and co. And in those days dragons were standard Valyrian issue, there is nothing strange or contrived about their use.

Magic,

The trouble with magic is that we have so little to go on. If it works like in D&D and magic is a skill that you can master Dany’s stunt doesn’t work. Yet if look for other magic in Martinworld Jojen is born with the abilty to dream “greenâ€, Thoros of Myr suddenly one day just discover that he can resurrect dead people. Bran’s warging just happens too. Magic seems to be a gift rather then a science. Often released as a result of trauma. Bran conviniently discover warging and prophepcy when he becomes as cripple. We don't know how Bran's abilties or Melisandres shadowbabies works and yet that is never questioned.

Dany obviously draws some kind conclusion by being exposed to blood magic, something that she gets religiously convinced about. And displacing an animals soul with your own sounds more contrived to me then discovering the secret recipe for dragon hatching.

Nope, Dance of Dragons, the Blackfyre Rebellion, War of the Ninepenny Kings, the war btwn the Sword and the Stars and Maegor??

I would not say unparalleled unity and peace.

Four wars in three hundred years? That would be unparalleled in our world. Though in truth I don’t know how many wars were fought when Westeros were divided, but I have gotten the impression that they were a lot more.

[oba]

Four wars in three hundred years? That would be unparalleled in our world. Though in truth I don’t know how many wars were fought when Westeros were divided, but I have gotten the impression that they were a lot more.

I agree with you.

Maester Aemon tells Jon in AGoT that when the 7 kingdoms were still 7 separate kingdoms that "not a generation passed that three or four of them were not at war."

He also says that before the Andals came, Westeros was composed of "a hundred quarrelsome kingdoms. . .".

So, yes, the Targaryen dynasty did appear to represent 300 years of unparalleled peace.

[cybroleach]

Four wars in three hundred years? That would be unparalleled in our world. Though in truth I don’t know how many wars were fought when Westeros were divided, but I have gotten the impression that they were a lot more.

And in the Seven Kingdoms becuase there were MORE than four wars there's also Robert's Rebellion and it clearly mentioned that there were MANY Blackfyre Rebellion's over the ages, and MANY wars with the neibouring Dorne infact the only long standing peace of their reign was likely the 12 years between the Dorne joining the relm and Daemon's war.

[Slinx]

There's a whole shit load of wars we don't know about yet, so I'd hold off the applause. If there was so little war during the past 300 years, then we would've had less armies pre-AGOT. Remember, the initial attempt to conquer Dorne cost 50,000. So I'm sure everyone was real peaceful.

I don't get the trying to put the Starks and Targaryens on the same moral platform. You guys throw out the fact that Aerys was nuts and lost his throne, so Dany has no right to it. Yet seem to gloss over the Aerys part and try to go with the 'popular opinion' that the Targaryens were the greatest thing to happen to Westeros.

You guys obviously get hard-ons each time someone badmouths a Targaryen, and must rush to beat the traffic to defend them.

So I will repeat someone else's question again, because it really needs an answer from the Targ lovers.

What'd the Starks do that puts them on the level of despotism with the Targaryens?

[oba]

And in the Seven Kingdoms becuase there were MORE than four wars there's also Robert's Rebellion and it clearly mentioned that there were MANY Blackfyre Rebellion's over the ages, and MANY wars with the neibouring Dorne infact the only long standing peace of their reign was likely the 12 years between the Dorne joining the relm and Daemon's war.

Again, compare it to Maester Aemon's description of the pre-Targaryen days.

Not a generation without 3 or 4 kingdoms warring against each other.

Pre-Andal "a hundred quarrelsome kingdoms".

There's a whole shit load of wars we don't know about yet, so I'd hold off the applause. If there was so little war during the past 300 years, then we would've had less armies pre-AGOT. Remember, the initial attempt to conquer Dorne cost 50,000. So I'm sure everyone was real peaceful.

Less armies? Greyjoy's rebellion happened 9 years before the start of the series. It's also not like there are standing armies, per se. Robb has to call his banners. Tywin and Edmure had to call theirs. Stafford's army wasn't ready until ACoK.

I don't get the trying to put the Starks and Targaryens on the same moral platform. You guys throw out the fact that Aerys was nuts and lost his throne, so Dany has no right to it. Yet seem to gloss over the Aerys part and try to go with the 'popular opinion' that the Targaryens were the greatest thing to happen to Westeros.

I actually dismiss it as irrelevant. The overthrow of Aerys was the result of a war between warring noble factions. The Great Houses were not unanimous in their opposition to him. There wasn't a Westerosi election that Robert Baratheon won. Aerys II didn't get voted out of office, folks.

Aerys was nuts and lost his throne. Robb was unlucky and lost his. The Gardeners got barbecued on the Field of Fire and lost theirs. Lost is lost.

Once you lose it, it's up to you to convince people you should get it back and then hope that together you can get the job done. If your dad was nuts, that'll make your case harder, but the notion that it somehow bars you completely seems a bit strange. Again, his ouster wasn't put to a vote, neither will your potential restoration. Swords, dragons, etc. will decide the issue.

Similarly, if your old man was the greatest king the world has ever seen, but you don't have the swords to take the throne back, you're s.o.l.

[Slinx]

quote]I actually dismiss it as irrelevant. The overthrow of Aerys was the result of a war between warring noble factions. The Great Houses were not unanimous in their opposition to him. There wasn't a Westerosi election that Robert Baratheon won. Aerys II didn't get voted out of office, folks.[

So another 'popular opinion' defense.

They did vote; the people that fought voted, and the the people that stayed away from the war abstained.

[oba]

So another 'popular opinion' defense.

How so?

[Slinx]

How so?

You choose to disregard the people that rebelled as not counting, ignore the fact that Aerys was nuts and started a war, and concentrate instead on the people that stayed with Aerys because they benefited from it.

[oba]

You choose to disregard the people that rebelled as not counting, ignore the fact that Aerys was nuts and started a war, and concentrate instead on the people that stayed with Aerys because they benefited from it.

No, I'm saying that the whole "popular uprising" notion is (1) not wholly accurate and (2) not relevant.

(1) Not wholly accurate: Aerys II ticked off a handful of powerful families. He then gave the new heads of 2 of those families the choice to either get executed or rebel. They chose the latter. They'd been fostered by the head of a 3rd powerful family. He calls his banners, too. The other families take sides for a whole host of reasons. In the Vale, the Stormlands, and the Riverlands, at least, this "popular support" for the rebellion was achieved by the same means the "benefits only" support for the Targaryen side was. The use of force and/or the threat of the use of force.

Remember: Robert's three battles in one day were against three of his own bannermen! The Corbrays fought at Gulltown against Jon Arryn!

(2) Not relevant: At the end of the day, Aerys II was deposed because his side lost. If you lose on the battlefield (Trident) or dinner table (Stark), a loss is a loss is a loss. If you want to get what you've lost back, you're going to have to go to the lords who control the swords. Doesn't matter if your name is Stark or Targaryen.

[cybroleach]

Again, compare it to Maester Aemon's description of the pre-Targaryen days.

Not a generation without 3 or 4 kingdoms warring against each other.

Pre-Andal "a hundred quarrelsome kingdoms".

I thought Aemon was 100 not 300+

A hundred kingdons means smaller armies and lesser wars since they'd have less resources and would be cautions is commiting forces for fear of another enemy taking a shot at you while your weakened. Your trying to compare 300 filled with wars that we have heard of to how many thousands of years with only few we've heard of What about the great peace that was talked about after the First Men and CotF settled their differences it was said the seven kingdoms were peaceful for thousands of years after, or pre-FM its also said the CotF were peacful people who never warred until the FM started cutting down their trees.

[oba]

Your trying to compare 300 filled with wars that we have heard of to how many thousands of years with only few we've heard of

It's been thousands of years. Aemon seems to indicate that (based on his studies not his personal experience ) there were wars in every generation between three and four kingdoms before Aegon's Conquest.

What about the great peace that was talked about after the First Men and CotF settled their differences it was said the seven kingdoms were peaceful for thousands of years after, or pre-FM its also said the CotF were peacful people who never warred until the FM started cutting down their trees.

What about it? Again, if a member of the CotF shows up on an elk urging people for a return to the "good old days" he'll also need to get enough martial support to oust those who are currently in power. Just like the Stark kids. Just like Dany.

[Slinx]

No, I'm saying that the whole "popular uprising" notion is (1) not wholly accurate and (2) not relevant.

(1) Not wholly accurate: Aerys II ticked off a handful of powerful families. He then gave the new heads of 2 of those families the choice to either get executed or rebel. They chose the latter. They'd been fostered by the head of a 3rd powerful family. He calls his banners, too. The other families take sides for a whole host of reasons. In the Vale, the Stormlands, and the Riverlands, at least, this "popular support" for the rebellion was achieved by the same means the "benefits only" support for the Targaryen side was. The use of force and/or the threat of the use of force.

Remember: Robert's three battles in one day were against three of his own bannermen! The Corbrays fought at Gulltown against Jon Arryn!

The uprising grew to become four of the greater houses rising for the rebels and yet only two of the greater houses rose for Aerys. So in the case of the people who were forced to fight, the uprising was popular.

This was a civil war, so yes, people would fight for Aerys even if he was wrong. (Look at his Kingsguard for the great morals).

(2) Not relevant: At the end of the day, Aerys II was deposed because his side lost. If you lose on the battlefield (Trident) or dinner table (Stark), a loss is a loss is a loss. If you want to get what you've lost back, you're going to have to go to the lords who control the swords. Doesn't matter if your name is Stark or Targaryen.

If it was simply that, then why are you trying to argue that the Targaryens were the greatest thing to happen to Westeros and should be put back on the throne because of the previous generations. You can't argue the moral clarity of one side and ignore the other.

What'd the Starks do that puts them on the level of despotism with the Targaryens?

Just answer this question.

[Enguerrand]

While you seem to at least have a vague notion of what a Deus Ex Machina is, this seems to me to be a terrible example as well, not to mention simply a very inaccurate description of what went down. Stannis' army did not appear "from nowhere" and Dragonstone is hardly "the other side of the world". The entire last Davos chapter in aSoS (almost clumsily) telegraphs where Stannis is heading. If you were surprised when Stannis' army showed up, you weren't paying very close attention.

Perhaps, that is what I use to say about people who didn’t get the Red Wedding, yet several people claims surprise despite a forshadowing so thick that I thought Martin was pulling my leg.

But all we get before this is Davos rather casual concern about situation at the wall. As lord Florent said: Stannis haven’t got enough swords to protect his own lands how could he spare anything for the Nightwatch?

So Stannis abandon his powerbase and somehow his bannermen are content to sacrifice their fiefs. He moves everything into a hostile far North where he really can’t offer the people anything. Where everyone knows that he is weaker and the Lannister-Bolton axis. Who are going to feed, cloth and pay his men? So far from the centre of power he should only get marginalized and more easily contained. It seems like Goodkindian fantasy strategy to me.

Stannis might get respect for his stand at the wall, but unless he have the force to back up his challenge for the throne it wont matter a whit.

Okay, I take back what I said. I feel comfortable in saying you have no idea what a Deus Ex Machina is. "Deus Ex Machina" is not a synonym for "coincidence." Catelyn meeting Tyrion at the inn of the crossroads was a coincidence. Arya meeting the Freyling that she's supposed to marry in Harrenhal is a coincidence. Beric's crew kidnapping Sandor while they already have Arya - after Sandor has shared significant interaction with Arya's sister - was a coincidence.

For your convenience dictionary.com

deus ex ma·chi·na

1. (in ancient Greek and Roman drama) a god introduced into a play to resolve the entanglements of the plot.

2. any artificial or improbable device resolving the difficulties of a plot.

If we go by the second definition, What are the chances that Summer would be just at the place where Jon was about to get killed, that Bran has warging capability, that Bran was warging at that very moment, that Bran was going to see the green men, that they passed the same section of the humungous wall, and that Bran-Summers intervention was enough to get Jon of the hook against two hundred wildlings? It's funny that you should mention lightning as an example of DEA since that also came to Jons aid in the same scene.

Really it’s laughable.

I can’t see how Jon’s great escape is anything but the archetypical Deus Ex and it happens over and over again. Last time is commanding officer offered to let Jon kill him to make his great escape look good.

I agree tha Catelyn and Tyrion’s meeting is a believable coincidence, there are only so many inns they can rest in. Martin could have set up the meeting in many other ways, it doesn’t hinge on split second timing for the characters to simply survive. I trust you with your superior attention can spot the difference.

What's so contrived about Dany arriving in a slaver's city, buying a slave army, and turning them on their former masters?

That the wise masters doesn't plan for that eventuality? At the very least they should have transfered the command outside the city walls.

[oba]

The uprising grew to become four of the greater houses rising for the rebels and yet only two of the greater houses rose for Aerys. So in the case of the people who were forced to fight, the uprising was popular.

The fourth House didn't fully commit until after the double marriage: Ned-Cat; Jon-Lysa. This is the same sort of "benefit" you dismissed when it came to Targaryen support.

This was a civil war, so yes, people would fight for Aerys even if he was wrong. (Look at his Kingsguard for the great morals).

Most of the people actually doing the fighting didn't care.

"I fought for Prince Rhaegar, though he never knew my name. I could not tell you why, save that the lord I served served a lord who served a lord who had decided to support the dragon rather than the stag. Had he decided elsewise, I might have been on the other side of the river." AFfC

Do you think Aerys' mental problems or his treatment of some highborn hostages was really weighing heavily on Elder Brother's mind back in the day? No, his number got called. It happened to get called by someone who chose the dragon over the stag.

If it was simply that, then why are you trying to argue that the Targaryens were the greatest thing to happen to Westeros and should be put back on the throne because of the previous generations. You can't argue the moral clarity of one side and ignore the other.

Just answer this question.

I'm providing a counter-point to the notion that the moral clarity of a succeeding generation is the ultimate "deciding factor". I'm also arguing against the notion that moral clarity was even the definitive cause of the rebellion, much less the reason it garnered the support it did.

According to Cat, the "whole realm knew" Aerys was mad. It just took his acting out his madness on the wrong people to set things in motion. The difference between some Darklyns and Hollards vs. some Starks and Arryns. Thus are kingdoms lost.

According to Brienne, Robert did all he did for love.

Jaime says it was a matter of pride and a pretty face.

Robert says it was to put an end to Targaryens. Though his "claim" is superior to Ned's and Jon's because of his Targaryen blood.

Ned says it was to put an end to the murder of children (Strictly speaking, none of the hostages executed were "children" and a whole lot of children probably died as a result of the rebellion).

We seem to be talking past each other on the "What did the Starks do to rival the Targaryens in terms of despotism."

In the previous generation, absolutely nothing.

Guess what, Aegon V and Jaehaerys II sound like pretty decent chaps, too. 2 out of 3 ain't bad, so why focus on the 1 who was?

Historically, with respect to the Starks, who knows?

I suspect that the Starks, over 8,000 years, didn't amass and hold onto power through a democratic process. The Boltons certainly didn't bend the knee willingly. The Stark in Winterfell conquered the Marsh, killed the Marsh King, and took his daughter as his bride.

Theon Stark, the Hungry Wolf, doesn't sound like a particularly benevolent monarch, unless I'm to assume that he was the aggrieved party in each and every one of those wars he fought.

So, because these guys were bad eggs, I think these Starks should be kept as far away from power as possible.