Does Stannis still have your respect?

[artihcus022]

If he pulled an Aemon for his Egg yeah I would've. But he didn't. Acted all selfish middle child. Pulling the martyr phrases about holding against a siege. I like his humor.

If Egg was anything like Renly, Aemon would never have stepped aside for him.

[Mish Windage]

If Egg was anything like Renly, Aemon would never have stepped aside for him.

If Stannis was anything like Aemon we wouldn't be in this situation either. Isn't the point I'm addressing.

[Draco_Dracul]

I now have as much respect for Show Stannis as much as I do for Book Stannis, none whatsoever. I will give Show Stannis credit, playing your only card that's ever really worked in a desperate situation is more understandable than sitting on your ass for a year while knowing your brother's kids are actually bastards.

[Fragile Bird]

*You mean the brother that ordered his men not to take Stannis alive?

It was a war and a nasty situation. It's not his shining moment. But it's hardly a moral event horizon to kill someone with an army more than willing to kill you.

*EDIT: It was the book he did that. Even the gentler, kinder Renly from the show still raised an army to kill anyone who opposed him.

Killing someone on the battlefield is far more acceptable than using black magic to kill them. Can you imagine living in a world where anyone could kill you by casting a spell? Modern weapons of war under development that I've read about about, particularly a tiny mechanical bug that would hunt you down and kill you with a biological weapon, just make me shiver.

First of all, all these people harping about "would you support Stannis" or "If Stannis does this..." and the like please stop reading ASOIAF.

These books (and the show at least in Seasons 1-3) are about complex characters making complex choices in a complex world with no clear right and wrong. This is a Secondary World where our moral certainties and values, our religious ideas and our 20th-21st Century Middle Class ideas don't really matter at all. The books are a deliberate challenge to our moral sensibilities by evoking a quasi-medieval feudal world where decisions have consequences.

Secondly, human sacrifice is not some religious concept that the books tackle, it is the fundamental theme of the books. That is to say if you want power are you prepared to trample on innocent powerless kids to do it.

Huh? Human sacrifice is not a fundamental theme of the books. The cheapness of human life and the disregard and disdain for the masses is, but not human sacrifice. Who practices human sacrifice in Westeros?

1) Tywin Lannister ordered the deaths of Rhaegar's kids all for the patently selfish desire to curry favor in a rebellion that he did not risk anything at all in politicial, personal and military consequences. Now we don't consider Tywin killing Rhaegar's kids to be human sacrifice but essentially its the same, he killed two children for the sake of his own personal ambition and yet, the funny thing is, you will have the same fans who hate Stannis saying that Tywin was the master of the game, Tywin was brilliant and so on. The show likewise sentimentalizes Tywin excessively.

Whether or not people consider Tywin a master of the game is different from the fact that most readers loathe Tywin for the slaughter of innocents like Rhaeger's children, the wholesale wanton slaughter of the peasantry in the countryside as a casual political tactic, and the slaughter of 10,000 people at the Red Wedding, which he summed up to Tyrion as more efficient "to kill 10 people" at a wedding than thousands at battle, conveniently ignoring how many people he in fact killed. In any event, even he didn't kill any of his own children, which most people consider a level worse than killing the children of strangers.

2) Then Jaime Lannister tried to kill Bran Stark and ended up crippling him. His reason was that it was either Bran, Tommen or Myrcella. Ned Stark was the moral man who could never tolerate killing kids for any power grab and he ended up being killed by the boy-king he had been trying to spare. We forgive Jaime and we think Ned Stark is an idiot but if so what does that mean? That we are okay if people kill children for the right reasons? Likewise Robb Stark executed Rickard Karstark for killing those Lannister hostages even when it cost him his manpower. We call Robb Stark an idiot too.

We must hang out with different book readers. :)

The ones I hang out with hated Jaime for a long, long time, until GRRM gave him a POV, and most have repeatedly said they now understand Jaime, but have never forgiven him for pushing Bran out the window. Ned Stark is seen as a person who was morally right but politically naïve. He could have simply jailed Cersei and the kids, allowing her to be loose was very stupid. Joffrey was psychotic, hard to defend yourself from a psycho.

3) Then Theon Greyjoy murdered two totally innocent miller's boys for absolutely no reason because he was an evil coward. And yet one and a half seasons' worth of torture we are kind of forgiving of Theon for some reason, why?

So tell me, in a show (and the books) which deals with the deaths of children, what does it say about the middle-class hypocrisy that people can't handle Stannis in a situation called the Cold Equation (look it up online, its a science-fiction story), where either way Shireen would die and Melisandre has magical powers and represents the only real choice he has in that.

Since you have read the books you know that Theon of course had reasons to kill the two boys. Again, who the hell has forgiven him? He has garnered sympathy, but I'd say most fans are expecting Stannis in TWOW to kill Theon, with justification.

And it still comes down to the fact that most societies consider filicide, the murder of your own child, the most despicable kind of murder.

[artihcus022]

If Stannis was anything like Aemon we wouldn't be in this situation either. Isn't the point I'm addressing.

Look if you were someone who believed strongly in the law, service to the realm and duty, why would you step aside for a complete moron and imbecile who has had everything in his life handed to him and never did anything for anyone ever? Especially since Renly is going to be a Tyrell puppet much like Robert was a Lannister puppet only without Robert's spiteful anger.

And furthermore Renly illegally claimed the crown. Egg and Aemon were summoned to a Great Council, so by law there was a dispute. And in the books when Catelyn suggested a great council to Renly, the latter dismissed it. So?

Egg was clearly not Renly. He was a young boy who was brave, bold, intelligent and kind. Aemon from his childhood never wanted to be King and as loving as his gesture to Egg was, he certainly did it out of logic and reason too.

Asking Stannis to step aside for someone like Renly is inhuman.

[artihcus022]

Huh? Human sacrifice is not a fundamental theme of the books. The cheapness of human life and the disregard and disdain for the masses is, but not human sacrifice. Who practices human sacrifice in Westeros?

Did you not read the books where the worship of theOld Gods of the North involved human sacrifice? Its extensively discussed in ADWD, in all the Northern chapters. The Bran chapters are entirely about seeing the past, these rituals where people killed before the Heart Tree. Daenerys dragons was the result of the miscarriage and death of her child and her sacrificing Miri Maaz Duur on the Funeral Pyre of Khal Drogo. So yes, Dany also sacrificed a human being for her power, but you know its Miri Maaz Duur. And I like Dany and still do and understand why she does what she does.

Furthermore there are all those quotes, "Why is that when the High Lords play the game of thrones, its the innocent who suffer?" and then Doran says why he's not prepared to go to War unless he is sure Dorne can win because he doesn't want to risk the death of children who he likes seeing play at the Water Gardens. Or that Dany has to deal with the fact that her dragons will inevitably kill children like Hazzea and in the end of ADWD she comes to terms with it. The point is the books don't see heroism with our middle-class lenses. Likewise Cersei kills as many Robert's bastards as she can. It's part of the books, and nobody has clean hands and the ones who do, save maybe the Starks, though only Ned and Robb can claim that -- Lady Stoneheart intends to hang Podrick but I am not sure we can judge Catelyn for that, and Catelyn did kill Jinglebell Frey so there's that, Arya killed that stable-boy, Bran and his friends indulged in cannibalism via Coldhands and Rickon is on an island of Cannibals. As for Sansa she is knowingly part of a conspiracy to slowly poison Sweetrobin, so her hands won't be clean forever either.

Whether or not people consider Tywin a master of the game is different from the fact that most readers loathe Tywin for the slaughter of innocents like Rhaeger's children, the wholesale wanton slaughter of the peasantry in the countryside as a casual political tactic, and the slaughter of 10,000 people at the Red Wedding, which he summed up to Tyrion as more efficient "to kill 10 people" at a wedding than thousands at battle, conveniently ignoring how many people he in fact killed. In any event, even he didn't kill any of his own children, which most people consider a level worse than killing the children of strangers.

And that hypocrisy has no place in ASOIAF. It should have no place in GOT either, but the showrunners don't have the same guts the books do.

And believe me it would have been better for Tywin to kill little Tyrion than do what he did to him with Tysha that is the single most unforgivable action in the entire books and naturally the showrunners removed that, because the idea that the Great Tywin is punished for brutality towards defenseless women rather than any of his more consequential actions probably hit too close to home considering how misogynist they are.

Ned Stark is seen as a person who was morally right but politically naïve. He could have simply jailed Cersei and the kids, allowing her to be loose was very stupid.

Ned Stark isn't politically naive as you are. Any move against Cersei and her kids before Robert arrived meant that those kids would be incest babies and dead to rights. He knew that. Most of the soldiers are Lannister men in the city, his own men he dispatched to send the kids back home and if he told Robert, Cersei and the kids would be dead. That is the point of the books. The idea that Littlefinger proposed, let Sansa marry Joffrey and blackmail Cersei is an even dumber idea than that. Cersei and Tywin would never be blackmailed because they know Ned Stark would never follow on the threat of actually outing them (especially after marrying Sansa to him). Ned had the law on his side but he didn't want the children to suffer for it, and he ended up getting killed by that boy-king he tried to save. That is the irony of that world.

Joffrey was psychotic, hard to defend yourself from a psycho.

In the books he's 13 years old as GRRM pointed out, its okay for the sassy lady and LF to kill kids right? I mean its only Joffrey after all.

As they say in French, "hypocrite lecteur".

Since you have read the books you know that Theon of course had reasons to kill the two boys. Again, who the hell has forgiven him? He has garnered sympathy, but I'd say most fans are expecting Stannis in TWOW to kill Theon, with justification.

Well in the books those miller's boys were the kids of one of his mistresses, who he seduced or extorted sexual favors from as a Lord. Its strongly implied that those kids were his bastards, so yes Theon could have killed his own kids and for what, so that he doesn't look like a coward and failure to Winterfell and his fellow Ironborn? The showrunners decided not to go there.

And it still comes down to the fact that most societies consider filicide, the murder of your own child, the most despicable kind of murder.

Well the point is ASOIAF uses fantasy to challenge all our moral values and easy judgments. GRRM himself said that he wanted people to ask if they were in Jaime's position, when its your kids and someone else's kids, what would you do? Ned Stark himself ruminated on that, "If it came to that, the life of some child I did not know, against Robb and Sansa and Arya and Bran and Rickon, what would I do? Even more so, what would Catelyn do, if it were Jon’s life, against the children of her body?" He did not know. He prayed he never would.

So please don't think that judging Stannis in a specific situation with no real one-to-one comparison to the real world gives you any right to be high or mighty.

[Borodin]

Stannis is as a character far too confusing to even ponder whether I respect him or not.

Respect what exactly? His devotion to the Red God which he doesn't have as evidenced by his obssession with wordly politics. His devotion to worldly politics which he doesn't have as evidenced by the fact that he kinslayed his only heir. A steadfast commitment to principle that he doesn't exhibit? An internal struggle with conflicting demands that he doesn't exhibit?

The character isn't even cardboard. He's like a garbled bit of origami that someone was going to make into a swan but changed their mind half way through but then abandoned the project altogether.

[Fragile Bird]

*snip*

There is so much in this response that I utterly disagree with I will not try to respond, I would be derailing my own thread again. Suffice it to say we have very different opinions. :)

[artihcus022]

There is so much in this response that I utterly disagree with I will not try to respond, I would be derailing my own thread again. Suffice it to say we have very different opinions. :)

Suffice to say you don't want to respond to logic, reasoning and actual background and subtext from the books. Not a problem, I can understand completely.

[ekrolo2]

Stannis and his whole cast (minus Davos) never managed to capture my interest much tbh. In-fact, him finally going full gonzo and doing the unthinkable is the first time I can say his story-line has me invested. If only for the fact to see how royally he will fail once Davos after taking enough of this bs after so much time.

[dbunting]

Never respected Stannis, not in the books or the show. I like the idea of Stannis, someone who tries to do what is right and just. But to me he is also a coward. He knew his brothers kids were not his and he never had the balls to tell him. He preaches to Davos about right is right, even cuts off his fingers for past crime, yet he knows the Queen is committing adultery, and does nothing. He ran off to Dragonstone until Robert died, then wanted to come back and assert claims.

[Borodin]

I want to either like or dislike Stannis, but in order for me to do that he has to make sense.

[A_Cornered_Wolf]

Killing someone on the battlefield is far more acceptable than using black magic to kill them. Can you imagine living in a world where anyone could kill you by casting a spell? Modern weapons of war under development that I've read about about, particularly a tiny mechanical bug that would hunt you down and kill you with a biological weapon, just make me shiver.

If the President finds out the Vice President is going to attempt a coup and already has the support of 80 percent of the military, is it wrong for him to order the CIA to assassinate the VP? Does that fact the CIA uses poison to do it make it more wrong? Should he attempt to fight the 80 percent with the 20 percent that is loyal and civilian police? How many will die needlessly if he does?

[pettes]

I have never respected Stannis in the books or the show

[Hos the Hostage]

Do Stannis still have my respect?

Yes(Although considerably reduced than previously).

He did what he thought was necessary. The scene in episode 4 was to show how much he loved his daughter. Events in episode 9 do not contradict it. Stannis choosing to keep baby-Shireen alive did not disrupt the well-being of his army or his men. In ep 9, he believed she needed to die for him to succeed. And Stannis believes his victory is the only thing that will save the realm from Lannisters, Boltons, and above all, white-walkers.

The fact he survived the siege of Storm's End for one year with meager supplies does not contradict it either. He was inside a Castle, defending it, and he was expecting Robert's allies to come to rescue any time. In the march to Winterfell, he had to move one, and the conditions are more dangerous to himself and his entire army. If some miracle did not happen, they would all be swallowed by the storm, Shireen included. He chose to lose his daughter and save his men. Stannis believes himself Azor Ahai and thinks he needs to sacrifice a loved one for victory, for the throne, and for the realm.

It would have been a heroic sacrifice, if only it made sense with all things considered.

I remember feeling respect and pity towards the Lord Ryswell who sent his own son back to the wall to be punished for desertion. He did love his son, but turned them away for honor and duty. His son was buried alive in the wall. It was a death nearly as horrible as Shireen's, with ice in place of fire.

Stannis is still a better man than Tywin and Ramsay. He is a good man, only misguided by faith and pride. D&D say he chose ambition over love, but I think it was not ambition, but simply Stannis being Stannis by choosing what he thought was 'needed 'than what he wanted to do.

The problem is, it was not really needed. Burning his own daughter, his only heir, for expected weather-change? That is too risky. We see Davos advising to back down. We know from the books they stayed nineteen days in the crofter's village. And book!Stannis said 'there will be no burnings'. But he did not have Melisandre whispering in his ear, or Selyse to go along with that. They should have made it look absolutely necessary, like Jon deserting the Night's Watch.

[Aerys Blackfyre]

ALWAYS

[artihcus022]

Do Stannis still have my respect?

Yes(Although considerably reduced than previously).

He did what he thought was necessary. The scene in episode 4 was to show how much he loved his daughter. Events in episode 9 do not contradict it.

The fact he survived the siege of Storm's End for one year with meager supplies does not contradict it either. He was inside a Castle, defending it, and he was expecting Robert's allies to come to rescue any time. In the march to Winterfell, he had to move one, and the conditions are more dangerous to himself and his entire army. If some miracle did not happen, they would all be swallowed by the storm, Shireen included. He chose to lose his daughter and save his men. Stannis believes himself Azor Ahai and thinks he needs to sacrifice a loved one for victory, for the throne, and for the realm.

It would have been a heroic sacrifice, if only it made sense with all things considered.

I remember feeling respect and pity towards the Lord Ryswell who sent his own son back to the wall to be punished for desertion. He did love his son, but turned them away for honor and duty. His son was buried alive in the wall. It was a death nearly as horrible as Shireen's, with ice in place of fire.

Stannis is still a better man than Tywin and Ramsay. He is a good man, only misguided by faith and pride. D&D say he chose ambition over love, but I think it was not ambition, but simply Stannis being Stannis by choosing what he thought was 'needed 'than what he wanted to do.

The problem is, it was not really needed. Burning his own daughter, his only heir, for expected weather-change? That is too risky. We see Davos advising to back down. We know from the books they stayed nineteen days in the crofter's village. And book!Stannis said 'there will be no burnings'. But he did not have Melisandre whispering in his ear, or Selyse to go along with that. They should have made it look absolutely necessary, like Jon deserting the Night's Watch.

Well the showrunners have been consistently underselling Stannis since his introduction. I am not saying that as necessarily a Stannis fan, I mean even in the books, he's not a guy you really like, he's not charismatic but you are supposed to respect and admire him like how Jon Snow (who never likes Stannis either but becomes his Number 1 Fan anyway).

My main concern is even with all the moral ambiguity and the like, they percieve Stannis, in videos and in the depiction, and intend fans to percieve him to be, really evil or something. I think that is terrible misreading of the books, poor television and betrayal of author's vision and sentiments. They have a facile anti-religious look, I mean GRRM is an atheist himself but at least he tries to put across the other side well, and they want scenes that they have shot and wrote to be seen in a context apart from the show. They want people to see the Sparrows and Stannis as religious fanatic/Taliban and the like. That analogy defeats the purpose of the books which is to use fantasy to be applicable on multiple levels. Melisandre can't be compared to the Taliban and others because, I repeat, she has actual magical powers that have affected outcomes and turned the tide. The closest you can compare Melisandre would be say, a biological or nuclear option. But even then the magical element makes it apart from something we percieve in our lives. I mean sacrificing your daughter is the realm of myth, Agamemnon did it in the Iliad and you have many stories in other cultures and religions where its done. Unless you actually try and take apart middle-class conceptions and morality, and see things from an other viewpoint, then the show is doing the books a disservice.

[Hos the Hostage]

Well the showrunners have been consistently underselling Stannis since his introduction. I am not saying that as necessarily a Stannis fan, I mean even in the books, he's not a guy you really like, he's not charismatic but you are supposed to respect and admire him like how Jon Snow (who never likes Stannis either but becomes his Number 1 Fan anyway).

My main concern is even with all the moral ambiguity and the like, they percieve Stannis, in videos and in the depiction, and intend fans to percieve him to be, really evil or something. I think that is terrible misreading of the books, poor television and betrayal of author's vision and sentiments. They have a facile anti-religious look, I mean GRRM is an atheist himself but at least he tries to put across the other side well, and they want scenes that they have shot and wrote to be seen in a context apart from the show. They want people to see the Sparrows and Stannis as religious fanatic/Taliban and the like. That analogy defeats the purpose of the books which is to use fantasy to be applicable on multiple levels. Melisandre can't be compared to the Taliban and others because, I repeat, she has actual magical powers that have affected outcomes and turned the tide. The closest you can compare Melisandre would be say, a biological or nuclear option. But even then the magical element makes it apart from something we percieve in our lives. I mean sacrificing your daughter is the realm of myth, Agamemnon did it in the Iliad and you have many stories in other cultures and religions where its done. Unless you actually try and take apart middle-class conceptions and morality, and see things from an other viewpoint, then the show is doing the books a disservice.

I know people who were direct victims of religious extremists, so I hated Melisandre and the High Sparrow when reading the books. Somehow I don't hate the High Sparrow in the show(maybe because he's played by Jonathon Pryce/Gov. Swann), but hate show Melisandre even more. I don't question her powers, because there is magic in their world, but I hate that she burnt infidels and burnt weirwoods. And that leeches killing kings thing was totally fraudulent. Similarly the sparrows trying to help the poor men and common folk is a good thing, but unlike Meribald and Elder brother who are nice men, the High Sparrow is a hypocrite who hopes Tommen is Robert's true heir because the alternative, Stannis, is a threat to the Faith of the Seven.

That said, I agree with you that the show has been drawing too much parallels with the real world, trying to convey some messages. iirc, Martin said the books are not meant to be compared with issues of the real-world. They are stories, and that is that. The books are influenced by medieval Europe, and we can see several elements in ASOIAF from different real world myths. But so far, there is nothing in the books that say 'this is right' and 'this is wrong'. Its left to the readers to make their own impression about the messages if any. But in the show, especially this season, we see:

Loras-gay stereotype-good guy-imprisoned by religious fanatics. If Loras was taking Margaery's place as the Tyrell in danger, it would have made sense, but they arrested Marg after all, and Loras was but a means to that end(storywise). It looks like Margaery has been made a victim of the faith's homophobia

Meryn Trant-homphobe says "that boy-fucker Renly" - is shown to be a peadophile in the next few minutes. They could have shown 'previously in GoT' with Trant watching as Syrio battles four men, or Trant beating up Sansa, to show why Trant deserved to die. Making him a paedophile made us want him die as soon as possible, but that was unnecessary, in my opinion. True, Raff the Sweetling must have been a paedophile if he wanted to rape Mercy the little girl, but that made the story move forward, but here there are several ways for Arya to kill Trant and that brothel scene was not necessary, and a brothel scene with a little girl being raped was even less necessary.

I feel like these are all purposefully inserted in the script to send a message to the viewers and to make the show's events relate to those of the real world. I am an atheist, and I have no problems with LGBT but I think the story is better shown the way the author intended. The only thing that I think the author wanted to be comparable to real life is how human beings are complex and unpredictable.

[artihcus022]

I know people who were direct victims of religious extremists, so I hated Melisandre and the High Sparrow when reading the books. Somehow I don't hate the High Sparrow in the show(maybe because he's played by Jonathon Pryce/Gov. Swann), but hate show Melisandre even more. I don't question her powers, because there is magic in their world, but I hate that she burnt infidels and burnt weirwoods. And that leeches killing kings thing was totally fraudulent. Similarly the sparrows trying to help the poor men and common folk is a good thing, but unlike Meribald and Elder brother who are nice men, the High Sparrow is a hypocrite who hopes Tommen is Robert's true heir because the alternative, Stannis, is a threat to the Faith of the Seven.

That said, I agree with you that the show has been drawing too much parallels with the real world, trying to convey some messages. iirc, Martin said the books are not meant to be compared with issues of the real-world. They are stories, and that is that. The books are influenced by medieval Europe, and we can see several elements in ASOIAF from different real world myths. But so far, there is nothing in the books that say 'this is right' and 'this is wrong'. Its left to the readers to make their own impression about the messages if any. But in the show, especially this season, we see:

Loras-gay stereotype-good guy-imprisoned by religious fanatics. If Loras was taking Margaery's place as the Tyrell in danger, it would have made sense, but they arrested Marg after all, and Loras was but a means to that end(storywise). It looks like Margaery has been made a victim of the faith's homophobia

Meryn Trant-homphobe says "that boy-fucker Renly" - is shown to be a peadophile in the next few minutes. They could have shown 'previously in GoT' with Trant watching as Syrio battles four men, or Trant beating up Sansa, to show why Trant deserved to die. Making him a paedophile made us want him die as soon as possible, but that was unnecessary, in my opinion. True, Raff the Sweetling must have been a paedophile if he wanted to rape Mercy the little girl, but that made the story move forward, but here there are several ways for Arya to kill Trant and that brothel scene was not necessary, and a brothel scene with a little girl being raped was even less necessary.

I feel like these are all purposefully inserted in the script to send a message to the viewers and to make the show's events relate to those of the real world. I am an atheist, and I have no problems with LGBT but I think the story is better shown the way the author intended. The only thing that I think the author wanted to be comparable to real life is how human beings are complex and unpredictable.

The problem is you are going to show outright bad guys making anti-gay slurs and that implies that all the right-thinking Westerosi lords and commoners are tolerant of outsiders (gays, dwarfs, disabled) and commoners. That's not true of life and history. Many great artists and people who are otherwise decent(or lets say, should know better) have proven to be intolerant and the like in some aspects or the other.

I mean Ned Stark is still a patriarchal chauvinist. He ultimately sees Arya and Sansa as daughters to be married off to secure good alliances. In the show, you have that line where Ned tells Arya that when she grows up she'll be married off too, and she says that's not me. So the point is you can be a patriarchal chauvinist and a loving father and a decent person but its not there universally in the show and I think this is the nature of TV, its easy to fall back on lazy tricks and lose sight of what you are supposed to do in a medium as indefinite and unfixed as that.

Like in the books, you had Hoster Tully who is essentially Good-Guy-Tywin, he treats his kids like pawns, gives anybody who talks back to him the silent treatment and he will burn down villages if people don't respect his authority but at the end of the day, this guy really did love his family in a way Tywin did not. There are many other examples. That complexity, more than the other petty changes, is what's really missing. Like they don't really show the Ironborn as this paradoxical, confused culture that it is, its simultaneously more primitive and meritocratic than mainland westeros.

[protar]

I can't really say whether Stannis still has my respect because at this point, the show is so inconsistent that my suspension of disbelief is broken. Obviously what Satannis did was irredeemable, but it's also so illogical and nonsensical a development that I cannot treat is as an action by a fictional character. I cannot divorce it from the stupidity of the writers.