Roose 'Dreadfort' Bolton Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Robb Stark. Naive, smug and bland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dofs Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 "Ser Elys Westerling and Lord Crakehall and others of his father's knights burst into the hall in time to see the last of it, so there was no way for Jaime to vanish and let some braggart steal the praise or blame. It would be blame, he knew at once when he saw the way they looked at him..." So, you are wrong! I have quoted from the text twice now, to prove twice now to you that Jaime includes "blame" with it. It is "steal the praise OR blame", and yes that means exactly that Jaime would have let anyone else take the blame for it and possibly death. He wasn't going to frame someone, but if someone else would get blamed he wouldn't have lifted a finger for him... that is what that sentence means. And whom they were going to blame it for when there was no one in the Throne Room? Nobody would be able to tell who killed the king. Jaime points out that at some point someone would want to claim that he killed the king, wanting to get the glory for it. Whatever he would actually get this glory or not, Jaime had no idea, and frankly, it does not even matter. Jaime realizes that it will be blame for him when he is himself already caught in the action. But Jaime is a kingsguard, a blame for him does not mean a blame for another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James of the Blackwater Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 You might be confusing the show for the books if you think Renly tried to get Ned to come to his side, he suggested Ned took over the regency and Joffrey, not that he made Renly king. Renly essentially did the most he could to enforce Robert's actual will. Joffrey is in power under Ned's authority and supervision, not him. Stannis didn't do the same research as Arryn and Ned, else he would have obviously mentioned "Lineages" and the inability of a Baratheon-Lannister coupling to produce blonde-haired offspring. Arryn found out just before he died, and by then, probably didn't have to time to convey his findings to Stannis. Stannis might claim he doesn't want the Iron Throne and that he's all about duty, but he's full of shit. Duty doesn't matter when his ass is on the line, as we saw with how he treated the whole "Robert's children are not his and he might get murdered any day now" scenario, he ran away and withhold vital information from his King, that's high treason right there. Thing is, Stannis wants to be special, it's part of his whole "unnoticed middle child syndrome", which is why he wants to be king, which is why he is so hasty to believe he's the freaking messiah when a foreign witch tells him so, and which is why he was willing to let his two brothers die so he can have the Throne. I don't mind though, it makes him an extremely interesting and developed character (one of the best as far as non-PoV characters are concerned), and explains pretty much all of his actions, including saving the Wall. It does, however, make him a considerably worse person than either of his brothers. I respect everything you said, and perhaps I did get the show and mixed up when Renly came and talked to Ned, but I'm pretty sure Stannis was with Jon Arryn when they we're questioning Robert's bastards, he at least took some initiative to find the truth of Cersei's children, and I do not recall the fact that Stannis was willing to let Robert die, he had no hand in that whatsoever. In fact that was the only time he went against duty was when he chose blood over law when he backed his brother in the rebellion. In the end he had no love for Robert but I don't think he wanted him dead either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsengr Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 I guess I'm not sure if people like this character or not, but Mormont's Raven irritates the bejeezus out of me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James of the Blackwater Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 I guess I'm not sure if people like this character or not, but Mormont's Raven irritates the bejeezus out of me. I hear you, but I doubt Mormont's raven makes a lot of top 10 favorite character lists lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sullen Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 I respect everything you said, and perhaps I did get the show and mixed up when Renly came and talked to Ned, but I'm pretty sure Stannis was with Jon Arryn when they we're questioning Robert's bastards, he at least took some initiative to find the truth of Cersei's children, and I do not recall the fact that Stannis was willing to let Robert die, he had no hand in that whatsoever. In fact that was the only time he went against duty was when he chose blood over law when he backed his brother in the rebellion. In the end he had no love for Robert but I don't think he wanted him dead either. He was with Jon when they were questioning the bastards, yes, but the ultimate (and most solid) proof Jon acquires is the book, and he dies too soon to share what he learned with Stannis, which leaves Stannis with no solid argument as to how to prove Robert's children aren't his. As for letting Robert die, he did so by inaction. He thinks the Lannisters just murdered Jon Arryn because he knew too much (he's semi right), he thinks they are unto him as well (Cersei's PoV proves he's right about that as well), he flees to Dragonstone, and tells Robert... nothing. By fleeing while still being able to divulge what he thinks to anyone (especially Robert), he's putting Cersei's children in extreme danger, which means she needs to get rid of either Robert or Stannis ASAP. And considering Stannis is far away, and Robert is right there, what was going to happen was pretty much obvious. He shirked his duty to his brother and king, and committed treason right there, that is not what a man that is "all about duty" would do. Not only that, but Melisandre must have reached him before Robert died as well, as we hear of her around the middle of AGoT. She must have told Stannis what she saw in him, that he will be King, and for that, Robert needs to die. Stannis is a complex and flawed character, to simplify him as being all about duty is to not do him justice, he's more of a dour middle child with a messiah complex, which is exactly what the Wall need when the wildlings attacked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James of the Blackwater Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 He was with Jon when they were questioning the bastards, yes, but the ultimate (and most solid) proof Jon acquires is the book, and he dies too soon to share what he learned with Stannis, which leaves Stannis with no solid argument as to how to prove Robert's children aren't his. As for letting Robert die, he did so by inaction. He thinks the Lannisters just murdered Jon Arryn because he knew too much (he's semi right), he thinks they are unto him as well (Cersei's PoV proves he's right about that as well), he flees to Dragonstone, and tells Robert... nothing. By fleeing while still being able to divulge what he thinks to anyone (especially Robert), he's putting Cersei's children in extreme danger, which means she needs to get rid of either Robert or Stannis ASAP. And considering Stannis is far away, and Robert is right there, what was going to happen was pretty much obvious. He shirked his duty to his brother and king, and committed treason right there, that is not what a man that is "all about duty" would do. Not only that, but Melisandre must have reached him before Robert died as well, as we hear of her around the middle of AGoT. She must have told Stannis what she saw in him, that he will be King, and for that, Robert needs to die. Stannis is a complex and flawed character, to simplify him as being all about duty is to not do him justice, he's more of a dour middle child with a messiah complex, which is exactly what the Wall need when the wildlings attacked. Trust me I do not think Stannis is a perfect character, in fact I believe has many flaws, and he's not my favorite character, Ser Davos is, really the main arguement I was trying to make in the first place was the fact that Stannis is not evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sullen Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Trust me I do not think Stannis is a perfect character, in fact I believe has many flaws, and he's not my favorite character, Ser Davos is, really the main arguement I was trying to make in the first place was the fact that Stannis is not evil. I wouldn't say he's exactly evil as well, he does have some good in him. He aspires to be just and great for one, he shows a lot of regret for the wrongs he committed, the murder of Renly first and foremost (I will go to my grave thinking of my brother's peach)... He is, however, much more self-serving than most people give him credit for, mostly because he wants to appear just and impartial at every turn while, really, his actions show a completely reality. He's extremely ambitious, to the point where he would let a brother die, kill another, and, if the show is to be believed, burn his own daughter (and nephew) alive if it means becoming King/Westerosi messiah. That, in my eyes, makes him a very dark shade of grey, about on par with Arya and Tyrion as far as I am concerned. As for Davos, great taste, he's one of the few characters in the series you can say very little bad about. (While not being generally boring) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Onion Kniggit Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 I don't get what the problem with the definition is - you kill part of your family, you kill innocent people because of their believes - that should be considered evil no matter in who's book. Seriously, do you even read the books? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sullen Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Seriously, do you even read the books? It's not exactly Stannis burning unbelievers, but considering he was unwilling to punish Selyse or anyone involved in the murder and ritual execution of Guncer Sunglass, I understand why some might have that impression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adaneth Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 I hear you, but I doubt Mormont's raven makes a lot of top 10 favorite character lists lol Who are top 10 favorites? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Onion Kniggit Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 It's not exactly Stannis burning unbelievers, but considering he was unwilling to punish Selyse or anyone involved in the murder and ritual execution of Guncer Sunglass, I understand why some might have that impression. Sunglass was going to ditch his liege lord and king which as we know is punishable by death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James of the Blackwater Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Who are top 10 favorites? Not sure, but I doubt Mormont's raven would be one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sullen Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Sunglass was going to ditch his liege lord and king which as we know is punishable by death. Sunglass told his King he couldn't support him after he committed an act of extreme profanity, and seeing as the Iron Throne is a theocratically-backed monarchy, that might very well be enough to disqualify Stannis as King. Not to mention Sunglass was a total class about it, he simply tells him he cannot support him anymore instead of simply slipping out silently in the dead of night or actively taking up arms against him. Sunglass wasn't Selyse's to execute either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsengr Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 I hear you, but I doubt Mormont's raven makes a lot of top 10 favorite character lists lol Lol, good point. Either way, it totally wrecks the flow of any chapter featuring mormont IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James of the Blackwater Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Lol, good point. Either way, it totally wrecks the flow of any chapter featuring mormont IMO. It's worse in the audiobook because Dotrice makes it sounds like what it's supposed to be, a screeching bird, kind of like nails on a chalkboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rayarts Posted June 30, 2015 Author Share Posted June 30, 2015 So would you consider Tyrion evil? He did have Symon Silver Tongue turned into a bowl of brown in Flea Bottom, and he did murder his father. What about Arya? She murdered a Bolton guard who was just doing his duty to escape Harrenhall, hell maybe that guy was a good dude who just drew guard duty that night, is Arya evil? How about the 163 Great Masters of Mereen Dany crucifued without trial, maybe 30 of them were innocent of any wrong doing and were even against the crucifying of the 163 children, does that make Dany evil? Just making sure that your views are constant with all characters, I believe all of these characters have commited an evil act or two, but I do not believe any of them are evil. Oh, but all of these characters do CERTAINLY have evil aspects! Arya is on her way to become one of the most evil-dangerous creatures in Westeros/Essos, if you ask me. But all of them did their evil deeds either in order to survive and/or for direct vengeance. (Although I consider just crucifiying all the 163 masters without trial more an act of hot blood and stupidity...). None of them did these things "for the greater good". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetsunray Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 And whom they were going to blame it for when there was no one in the Throne Room? Nobody would be able to tell who killed the king. Jaime points out that at some point someone would want to claim that he killed the king, wanting to get the glory for it. Whatever he would actually get this glory or not, Jaime had no idea, and frankly, it does not even matter. Jaime realizes that it will be blame for him when he is himself already caught in the action. But Jaime is a kingsguard, a blame for him does not mean a blame for another. Stop ignoring the text. I already answered those questions for you. Jaime did not who or how. His intentions were: vanish + allow someone else to steal the claim OR the blame (allow someone to take the fall for it). You somehow believe this is some "magnanimous" intention of Jaime? Something like, oh well, if someone else is willing to brag "It was me who slit the king's throat!" he can have the "glory"? You try to shove the "or blame" part either under the rug or as done already twice before claim Jaime has no intention of hving someone take the fall for it. But that sentence and its construction and its timing in the scene and the paragraph clearly says : claim OR blame. You can't have it both ways. If it's his intention for the "claim" part of the sentence then it's also his intention for the "blame" part of the sentence. And I would argue that intentions were exactly what you attempted to discuss. You tried to claim that he had "noble" intentions: "save the people and he didn't even want to do it for glory" (paraphrasiing). Yay! Wow! How Noble! What a gallant hero! NOT...cause if someone who hadn't done it was blamed he had every intention of allowing that person to take the fall for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.