Theon rant

[idio]

Theon has done some of the most evil, unjustifiable things in the series.  You can try to explain it away all you like by a sad childhood or the callousness of his culture or whatever you want, but he still did evil things whether he deserve sympathy or not.  People who do such things completely deserve punishment.  

To say such a punishment should be torture, though. . .that's not something I could endorse at all, or take any pleasure in.  

Disagree that he has done some of the "most unjustifiable things in the series." He was an immature, petulant, arrogant a-hole who turned on Robb. But he was not cruel in the sociopathic way of Ramsey, nor of the machiavellian chaotic way of Littlefinger that cast an entire realm into wars that has killed untold, nor of the antisocial paranoid variety of Cersei who has no qualms giving her "friends" to Qyburn to be experimented upon while living, nor of the brutal untempered rageful ways of the Mountain who held his brother's face to a fire until the flesh was melting, nor of...... Need I go on?

Theon: Mega dickhead. Not one of the most evil characters in the series, in my mind, by a longshot.

[RobOsevens]

Theon: Mega dickhead. Not one of the most evil characters in the series, in my mind, by a longshot.

I agree, Idio, nowhere near the worst in the series.

He's basically a spoiled brat outsider trying to prove he belongs somewhere

[INCBlackbird]

Let's not mingle "our world" with "their world." In their world, hostages are completely normal, as would be killing off an entire bloodline. So should Theon be grateful that he did not die for what his father did? Yes, absolutely. Your gun analogy is off. First, I would have had to wrong you in some serious way. Then, rather than you taking vengeance upon me, you decide to let me live and my children. And so that I do not wrong you in the same manner (or worse) again, you agree to raise my one of my children under your protection provided I do not repeat my follies again. 

In their world, the IB were at fault. So father and son -- even if only the father was at fault -- be should grateful that the Starks did nothing more but take a hostage given the practices of their world. In their world, a hostage is only under threat if their kin were out of line. And even then, that might not be so (remember Brynden and Edmure?) In our world, a hostage is only a hostage because their life is generally (though not always) in imminent danger. When someone says "hostage" these days, I think ISIS holding up a blade to a captured reporter's neck, or people being held at gunpoint in some mass shooting or bank robbery. A hostage in their world however enjoys much more than common folk could ever dream of. Even the threat of death is not necessarily guaranteed to come to fruition.

I never said that Theon was responsible for his father's actions. I did, however, write that he should be grateful he got to live, and in high born fashion no less, despite his father's actions given the practices of his world. Now, do I think that a son should be held accountable for his father's actions in the world I live in? No. My arguments are based on the rules of Theon's world.  

Yes, and yet you still do not address the fact that despite his father disdains him, he does nothing to actually threaten Theon's life. As for the death threat that doesn't just go away -- again, you keep thinking hostages from "their world" is the same as hostages from "our world." Edmure was hanging on a noose daily, and yet never actually hanged. Myrcella was sent to be hostage in the same vein as Theon -- to solidify an agreement between two parties, using blood and kin to seal the agreement.

I'm not judging anything here. I simply pointing out the fact that there are MANY outcomes for hostages. In Theon's case, we see two completely polar opposites of such outcomes. And there are many more situations that other characters endure (e.g. Sansa). Let's not pretend that these children have no idea what their disposition could have been -- from stories of wars passed down by their elders, to their own personal experience....So again, should they be grateful that their situation is on the fine-and-dandy side of things and not horrendous and grim? Yes. Should someone who could have been put to death the the laws and practices of their world, only to be allowed to live and take the black be grateful? Yes, unless you don't care much about living. Should Jaime be grateful that he only lost a hand and not his head? I suppose on this one we might to read a bit more, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say yes anyway.

1. On this point, we agree.

2.  These words would not heal the wounds of people who have lost loved ones to ISIS beheadings, or any other horrendous types of losses. It would not surprise me if the families of those victims were to wish harm to those responsible. To suggest that people should never be allowed to feel rage and vengeance and wish ill upon others is to suggest that we show no empathy toward those who have endured major losses. You need to look at it from both sides.

3. The readers, while not from the north, are human. Throughout the ages, humans have always had the desire for immediate justice and vengeance, often times equal in severity to the loss they suffered. Surely you've heard of an eye for an eye. But to be clear, I am not suggesting that this excuses anyone from exacting vengeance in an unlawful manner. It's easy to say we should not wish ill on others and that we should forgive those who wronged us. It's very hard to live up to that, whether real person or fictional character.

I'm not mingling anything, but living in a different world doesn't mean he's not human, and since he is human we can conclude that he would have the same problems, fears and so on that someone from our society would have, actually, he'd have more because the stigma against mean showing fear, sadness and other emotions that are considered "weak" is much bigger than it is in our world. So hostage taking might be normal, but does that make it any less damaging to Theon? Of course not.
Well, in that case your analagy is off as well, since we're talking about Theon it wouldn't be you who's wronged me, it'd be your father. And no you shouldn't be grateful that I don't kill you for what your father has done because you weren't responsible for it. if I had killed you for what your father had done that would be wrong, it was still wrong of me to involve you in the whole thing in the first place...

No, in their world (as well as in our world) Balon is at fault, he gave the order, he holds the power, Theon was 9 years old he had no control over it whatsoever so he couldn't be at fault.
You assume that when I say hostage I think of what hostages are like in our world? I don't, I look at the specific hostage situation that Theon is in from his perspective and I see how damaging that would be (and has been as is made clear in his chapters) just like I look at how damaging Arya's journey has been, how damaging Daenerys childhood has been, how damaging the mad king's actions have been for Jaime and so on...
Hostages in the world of asoiaf are treated well for sure, and they have more comfort than the smallfolk but they still live with a threat of death (whether or not that would necessarily be carried out is irrelevant) i'm talking about the fear that would cause someone, the knowledge that at any point a message could arrive that would mean their death, something they don't have any control over at all. That's a terrible thing to have to live with. And no physical comfort in the world can make that better.

So your argument is that because it's common that a son is punished for his father's sin in the asoiaf world, that makes it morally right? No matter what world anyone lives in or what is common practice, it's always wrong to punish a son for his father's sins, so in whatever universe it would have happened, Theon was wronged and he should not be expected to be grateful to be have been wronged.

So are you saying there was no death threat, because there was, that's a fact? Even if in 99% of the cases the threat wasn't carried out, the threat would still be there and it would still cause the person being threatened to fear it. it's easy to shrugs it off and go "come on man, chances are it doesn't happen what are you scared off?" when it's not YOU. But imagine it's you for a second, put yourself in theon's shoes...

But again you can apply that to anything. Should someone who was only raped once be glad she was only raped once because she could have been raped twice or she could have been raped and killed? no, she was still wronged. It can always be worse, it makes not sense to say that someone who has been wronged should be grateful that they weren't wronged more than they were when they could have been.

1. haha, good at least something we agree

2. I can understand that people who have suffered losses would feel feelings of vengeance (though I don't condone the act of taking vengeance in most cases) however, were're talking about condoning actual torture. No matter what someone has done to you, even if someone killed my entire family I wouldn't want them to be tortured because no one, no matter what they've done deserves that, it's too horrible to even consider.

3. I have heard from an eye for an eye and I completely object to it. But in general I don't agree that punishment at all helps, I know I have controversial opinions on this that are not all that relevant but whatever to quickly summaries: in theory I think that either a person has empathy and if they do something wrong they'll naturally be punished with guilt, or they don't have empathy and no matter what you do they'll never see the error of their ways, or they don't feel guilt because they've been wronged so much in their own life and by telling them that they're horrible people who deserve all kinds of terrible stuff to happen you're not going to bring out the best in them. In practice I think a form of punishment is necassary to prevent people from breaking the law, because humans are flawed and we can't be trusted to not do the wrong thing when there are no consequences, but I think prisons should be meant to rehabilitate people, not punish them (the punishment would however be a natural consequence of the rehabilitation). But anyway, this is beside the point. My point was that as readers we are not bound to one side, so we should be able to place ourselves in everyone's shoes and make relatively objective judgements, also that as readers we have a lot of information that the northeners don't have.

 

[Sullen]

I agree, Idio, nowhere near the worst in the series.

He's basically a spoiled brat outsider trying to prove he belongs somewhere

Spoiled is not the term I'd use for him to be honest... Out of all the heirs to a paramount Lordship, he's by far the one that has it the worst.

He was an arrogant asshole, but that can be interpreted as a coping mechanism.

[sweetsunray]

Taking Moat Cailin was obviously a strategic move, mate, as was taking Deepwood Motte.

He intended to keep at least part of the North (if not all of it), he needs to pacify it first. I'd say the areas he occupies are completely irrelevant as to his intentions.

Also, while they do think farming is beneath them, I wouldn't say that's why they are poor. The Isles have been described as barren in nature, with no luxurious resources whatsoever, no amount of good-willing Ironmen ready to work the land is going to change that. The lands are already being worked as it is, by their equivalent of smallfolk/slaves, the thralls and their descendants.

Also, while Quellon's reforms were going to further integrate the Isles into the Seven Kingdoms, which was politically a smart move, it would not have made them prosperous. It might have opened up trade a bit more, but as it is, the Ironborn only have iron and fish to sell, and that doesn't take them very far.

Asha and Balon both wanted the same thing out of the War: land. Only Balon was particularly enamoured with the glory and conquest aspects of it while Asha remained more pragmatic and diplomatic in her expectations, she only wanted the Stony Shore and Sea Dragon Point, the latter having lumber, which is the prime resource her people needs if they wish to expand.

Land can be made arable, but that requires a lot of hard work, sure. Or they can import cattle and grazers and use meat as commerce. Half the Vale are mountains, and yet they manage to make the most of the valleys. Iron Islands can put their land to some good commercial use. They just feel it's beneath them to do so.

Of course Moat Caislin and Deepwood Motte are strategic areas... IF you wish to invade and occupy the land. But that's exactly what Asha and Balon explicitly said they had no wish of doing:they called Theon a fool for taking the capital... because they don't have the forces or even the will to occupe the land. Asha even says that they never should go far from the sea. So, what land did they want to take? Beaches? Now those aren't arable grounds. Only economical value they have is as a replacement of ports (but where to), or tourism (and there aren't many of those in the North).

[INCBlackbird]

Land can be made arable, but that requires a lot of hard work, sure. Or they can import cattle and grazers and use meat as commerce. Half the Vale are mountains, and yet they manage to make the most of the valleys. Iron Islands can put their land to some good commercial use. They just feel it's beneath them to do so.

I don''t know much about agriculture but I do know a couple of things about history. The ironborn are based on the vikings and the vikings had the same problem, their land was poor, that is why they developed a culture of raiding in the first place, it's logical that when something like that is necassary to survive, a culture that not only condones it but celebrates it will develop. Which is not to say that there were no other options, Quellon tried to make a positive change but sadly Balon is a conservative asshole, who also tends to be unable to truely see what is best for his people. I agree with you and sullen both to a certain extent. I agree with Sullen that Balon did it for the his people, he did what he believed was right, but what he believed was right was sadly very misguided. However, I think Asha realizes this and I think she'll be responsible for the change Quellon wanted to make (probably with Theon's help)

[Sullen]

Land can be made arable, but that requires a lot of hard work, sure. Or they can import cattle and grazers and use meat as commerce. Half the Vale are mountains, and yet they manage to make the most of the valleys. Iron Islands can put their land to some good commercial use. They just feel it's beneath them to do so.

The valleys of the Vale are said to be especially fertile, that is not the case with the Iron Isles, where barely anything grows. Turning to meat commerce is highly impractical as well, considering the lower food turnout compared to fishing and that the Riverlands and the Reach are stronger agricultural powerhouses who are also closer geographically to anyone who would ever have to buy food.

I highly doubt the Ironborn have been spending the last 300 years doing nothing, the smallfolk tirelessly works, as with everywhere else, they simply get less results because their land is frankly inhabitable and can't sustain their current population. They do feel working the land is beneath them, but they still do it because they can't survive otherwise, that's why they are so bitter and starved for independence/military aggression.

Of course Moat Caislin and Deepwood Motte strategic areas... IF you wish to invade and occupy the land. But that's exactly what Asha and Balon explicitly said they had no wish of doing:they called Theon a fool for taking the capital... because they don't have the forces or even the will to occupe the land. Asha even says that they never should go far from the sea. So, what land did they want to take? Beaches? Now those aren't arable grounds. Only economical value they have is as a replacement of posts (but where to), or tourism (and there aren't many of those in the Nirth).

They chided Theon for taking Winterfell so early, not for taking it at all.

Go back to ACoK, Balon states that Winterfell will eventually fall to them, but in a year or so after their invasion has begun, and the Northmen have been defeated.

What lands will they take? Balon wanted everything, Asha was satisfied with the Stony Shore (which gives them more fishing territory and generally expanding their naval supremacy) and Sea Dragon Point, which expressly has lumber, and is thus more arable than the vast majority of the Isles.

[RobOsevens]

Spoiled is not the term I'd use for him to be honest... Out of all the heirs to a paramount Lordship, he's by far the one that has it the worst.

He was an arrogant asshole, but that can be interpreted as a coping mechanism.

Maybe not spoiled per se, but relative to most people in Westeros he is doing extremely well, he is a young arrogant noble, he sleeps around, he's cocky etc. 

[rs1n]

I'm not mingling anything, but living in a different world doesn't mean he's not human, and since he is human we can conclude that he would have the same problems, fears and so on that someone from our society would have, actually, he'd have more because the stigma against mean showing fear, sadness and other emotions that are considered "weak" is much bigger than it is in our world. So hostage taking might be normal, but does that make it any less damaging to Theon? Of course not.Well, in that case your analagy is off as well, since we're talking about Theon it wouldn't be you who's wronged me, it'd be your father. And no you shouldn't be grateful that I don't kill you for what your father has done because you weren't responsible for it. if I had killed you for what your father had done that would be wrong, it was still wrong of me to involve you in the whole thing in the first place...

No, in their world (as well as in our world) Balon is at fault, he gave the order, he holds the power, Theon was 9 years old he had no control over it whatsoever so he couldn't be at fault.
You assume that when I say hostage I think of what hostages are like in our world? I don't, I look at the specific hostage situation that Theon is in from his perspective and I see how damaging that would be (and has been as is made clear in his chapters) just like I look at how damaging Arya's journey has been, how damaging Daenerys childhood has been, how damaging the mad king's actions have been for Jaime and so on...
Hostages in the world of asoiaf are treated well for sure, and they have more comfort than the smallfolk but they still live with a threat of death (whether or not that would necessarily be carried out is irrelevant) i'm talking about the fear that would cause someone, the knowledge that at any point a message could arrive that would mean their death, something they don't have any control over at all. That's a terrible thing to have to live with. And no physical comfort in the world can make that better.

So your argument is that because it's common that a son is punished for his father's sin in the asoiaf world, that makes it morally right? No matter what world anyone lives in or what is common practice, it's always wrong to punish a son for his father's sins, so in whatever universe it would have happened, Theon was wronged and he should not be expected to be grateful to be have been wronged.

So are you saying there was no death threat, because there was, that's a fact? Even if in 99% of the cases the threat wasn't carried out, the threat would still be there and it would still cause the person being threatened to fear it. it's easy to shrugs it off and go "come on man, chances are it doesn't happen what are you scared off?" when it's not YOU. But imagine it's you for a second, put yourself in theon's shoes...

But again you can apply that to anything. Should someone who was only raped once be glad she was only raped once because she could have been raped twice or she could have been raped and killed? no, she was still wronged. It can always be worse, it makes not sense to say that someone who has been wronged should be grateful that they weren't wronged more than they were when they could have been.

1. haha, good at least something we agree

2. I can understand that people who have suffered losses would feel feelings of vengeance (though I don't condone the act of taking vengeance in most cases) however, were're talking about condoning actual torture. No matter what someone has done to you, even if someone killed my entire family I wouldn't want them to be tortured because no one, no matter what they've done deserves that, it's too horrible to even consider.

3. I have heard from an eye for an eye and I completely object to it. But in general I don't agree that punishment at all helps, I know I have controversial opinions on this that are not all that relevant but whatever to quickly summaries: in theory I think that either a person has empathy and if they do something wrong they'll naturally be punished with guilt, or they don't have empathy and no matter what you do they'll never see the error of their ways, or they don't feel guilt because they've been wronged so much in their own life and by telling them that they're horrible people who deserve all kinds of terrible stuff to happen you're not going to bring out the best in them. In practice I think a form of punishment is necassary to prevent people from breaking the law, because humans are flawed and we can't be trusted to not do the wrong thing when there are no consequences, but I think prisons should be meant to rehabilitate people, not punish them (the punishment would however be a natural consequence of the rehabilitation). But anyway, this is beside the point. My point was that as readers we are not bound to one side, so we should be able to place ourselves in everyone's shoes and make relatively objective judgements, also that as readers we have a lot of information that the northeners don't have.

 

You _are_ mingling worlds. In our world, you and I would both agree that it is completely unfair for a son to have to suffer the consequences of his father's actions. Theon had nothing to do with the rebellion (mostly likely) and it sucks to have be on the receiving end of the judgement stick when you were not the reason that necessitated the judgement. However, insofar as whether Theon should be grateful to have received the lot that he had with the Starks -- yes, he should be grateful. In a world where one CAN (and DOES and SHOULD HAVE) die because of their father's actions -- i.e. where who's fault it was doesn't mean for sh*t -- being allowed to live (unless you are living as Reek; so maybe I mean live comfortably) is the best thing anyone could hope for. How can you not agree with that? 

EDIT: In response to your hypothetical rape situation. If I knew that, for whatever reason, I was going to have <really bad thing> done to me, only to have <something arguably bad> done to me, I would be grateful for the latter. Your hypothetical case differs because Theon has seen what happens to hostages from his own culture (esp. with women) and should be well aware of the price not only he but his entire bloodline normally would have had to pay. Except in the end, he gets off lightly. (Again, whose fault it is is completely irrelevant; see first paragraph).

Should someone who was only raped once be glad she was only raped once because she could have been raped twice or she could have been raped and killed? no, she was still wronged. It can always be worse, it makes not sense to say that someone who has been wronged should be grateful that they weren't wronged more than they were when they could have been.

That is silly. There is a difference between knowing that you will be harmed by a magnitude of 1000 and being grateful that it was only once, and simply being harmed and somehow being grateful for it. If your house burns down, and you escape unharmed, then you would be grateful that you did not die given your house burned down with you initially inside. No one is suggesting that you be grateful your house burned down, even though you managed to live.

You mentioned that he was only 9 so maybe he didn't quite have the capacity for such comprehension. If that were really the case, then by the same reason he likely had no capacity to see death at his door each day. The maturity need to realize that being a hostage meant death at any moment is the same maturity (if not slightly more) need to understand that you've been taken hostage, and not been automatically sentenced to death.

Yes, being a hostage can be damaging. But I would argue that it was not his being a hostage that was the root cause of the damage. Nowhere do we see Theon pining for the old days when he was still with his family due to the ill treatment he got under the Starks (as there were little to none). It was only AFTER being berated by his own birth father as an envoy that he started to have a mental breakdown. His own father was the reason why he went off on his stupid coup of Winterfell. But we already knew his father was a d*ck already. The way I look at it, Theon got the best from the Starks. Whatever issues he had, it was between him and his father. His father could have welcomed him home. Instead, he let his hatred of the Starks boil over into hatred of his own son. And then Theon ended up causing the death of nearly and entire family line who not only spared him when they could have killed him (even if "it wasn't his fault"), but never harmed him. So I'd say Theon was quite ungrateful. Justice or karma or whatever you want to call it finally caught up to him.

If he had the cunning to devise a plan to take Winterfell, then he surely had the mental capacity to realize that the Starks had been very good to him whereas his father was just being a total d*ckhead.

Edit: my point is that Theon knew what he was doing and he was served his world's version of justice/karma; he knew better

Edit 2: It seems to me the real issue here is that you believe that people should not be punished and that there are alternative ways to dealing with people who have erred (however gravely). That's fine. On the other hand, you are seeing a lot of reaction that is very typically human, and reaction that is reflected in the fact that we as a society do actually dole out punishment.

[sweetsunray]

The valleys of the Vale are said to be especially fertile, that is not the case with the Iron Isles, where barely anything grows. Turning to meat commerce is highly impractical as well, considering the lower food turnout compared to fishing and that the Riverlands and the Reach are stronger agricultural powerhouses who are also closer geographically to anyone who would ever have to buy food.

I highly doubt the Ironborn have been spending the last 300 years doing nothing, the smallfolk tirelessly works, as with everywhere else, they simply get less results because their land is frankly inhabitable and can't sustain their current population. They do feel working the land is beneath them, but they still do it because they can't survive otherwise, that's why they are so bitter and starved for independence/military aggression.

They chided Theon for taking Winterfell so early, not for taking it at all.

Go back to ACoK, Balon states that Winterfell will eventually fall to them, but in a year or so after their invasion has begun, and the Northmen have been defeated.

What lands will they take? Balon wanted everything, Asha was satisfied with the Stony Shore (which gives them more fishing territory and generally expanding their naval supremacy) and Sea Dragon Point, which expressly has lumber, and is thus more arable than the vast majority of the Isles.

Nothing grows there, because they never worked to make their land arable at all. They just stole food from somewhere else. People said the desert around the Meidterranean isn't arable either. Yet the hard work at Kibutzes turned that around.

Their lands aren't inhabitable. They don't live on rock alone, or the arctic. Lol, lower food turnout compared to fishing? Tell that to all those cattle owners in the US. 

They feel working or even learning to work the land is beneath them, and that thralls must do it and that they are entitled to stealing and enslaving. The issue is that they've had issues getting their thralls restocked, because they were kicked out by any of the lands that had enough of being used as thrall source.

[INCBlackbird]

You _are_ mingling worlds. In our world, you and I would both agree that it is completely unfair for a son to have to suffer the consequences of his father's actions. Theon had nothing to do with the rebellion (mostly likely) and it sucks to have be on the receiving end of the judgement stick when you were not the reason that necessitated the judgement. However, insofar as whether Theon should be grateful to have received the lot that he had with the Starks -- yes, he should be grateful. In a world where one CAN (and DOES and SHOULD HAVE) die because of their father's actions -- i.e. where who's fault it was doesn't mean for sh*t -- being allowed to live (unless you are living as Reek; so maybe I mean live comfortably) is the best thing anyone could hope for. How can you not agree with that? 

EDIT: In response to your hypothetical rape situation. If I knew that, for whatever reason, I was going to have <really bad thing> done to me, only to have <something arguably bad> done to me, I would be grateful for the latter. Your hypothetical case differs because Theon has seen what happens to hostages from his own culture (esp. with women) and should be well aware of the price not only he but his entire bloodline normally would have had to pay. Except in the end, he gets off lightly. (Again, whose fault it is is completely irrelevant; see first paragraph)

You mentioned that he was only 9 so maybe he didn't quite have the capacity for such comprehension. If that were really the case, then by the same reason he likely had no capacity to see death at his door each day. The maturity need to realize that being a hostage meant death at any moment is the same maturity (if not slightly more) need to understand that you've been taken hostage, and not been automatically sentenced to death.

Yes, being a hostage can be damaging. But I would argue that it was not his being a hostage that was the root cause of the damage. Nowhere do we see Theon pining for the old days when he was still with his family due to the ill treatment he got under the Starks (as there were little to none). It was only AFTER being berated by his own birth father as an envoy that he started to have a mental breakdown. His own father was the reason why he went off on his stupid coup of Winterfell. But we already knew his father was a d*ck already. The way I look at it, Theon got the best from the Starks. Whatever issues he had, it was between him and his father. His father could have welcomed him home. Instead, he let his hatred of the Starks boil over into hatred of his own son. And then Theon ended up causing the death of nearly and entire family line who not only spared him when they could have killed him (even if "it wasn't his fault"), but never harmed him. So I'd say Theon was quite ungrateful. Justice or karma or whatever you want to call it finally caught up to him.

If he had the cunning to devise a plan to take Winterfell, then he surely had the mental capacity to realize that the Starks had been very good to him whereas his father was just being a total d*ckhead.

Edit: my point is that Theon knew what he was doing and he was served his world's version of justice/karma; he knew better

Edit 2: It seems to me the real issue here is that you believe that people should not be punished and that there are alternative ways to dealing with people who have erred (however gravely). That's fine. On the other hand, you are seeing a lot of reaction that is very typically human, and reaction that is reflected in the fact that we as a society do actually dole out punishment.

I don't agree because it's immoral, under any circemstances in any world. Just because it's common practice doesn't make it moral. it doesn't mean that Theon should be grateful for being wronged, because he was wronged, no matter what world someone lives in, even worlds where it's "normal" to punish the son for the father's actions, it's still stays wrong to do that. I look at this this way: people should be judged according to their culture, but cultural aspects can still be immoral. take the slavers for example: when I judge the slavers I think that slavery is inherently immoral, but when I judge them as people I know it's normal for their culture so I don't judge them as harshly as I would someone in our society doing similar things as them. The slaves however, have still been wronged and they have no reason to be grateful to a master who was nicer to them then they could have been because being kept as a slave is immoral to begin with. Same goes for Theon. I don't blame Ned for taking Theon as a hostage because it's part of his culture to do that but Theon has still been wronged, he has still suffered from what was done to him and he had done nothing to deserve that suffering = he has been wronged. So he doesn't owe Ned for not harming him when he could have.

You would be greatful to the person who raped you, because he didn't do worse when he could have? I don't understand what makes this different from Theon's case, we also know what is done to rape victims, we know there's cases where it's super violent, where there's additional torture, even killing. So when you get raped and your rapist says to you "be grateful, I could have killed you but I let you live" should you be grateful to him?

There is a huge difference between having the comprehension that war is complex and not think in black and white when it comes to them vs us. Most adults can't even do that, even in our world, and the comprehension of death, any 9 year old knows what death is and what it means and would be scared of it if they knew it might happen to them (not to mention that Theon has actually seen the fighting... he's soon people die, hell... his own brothers have died)

Theon's issues root both from his childhood with he Greyjoys and his time with the Starks, i've analysed his chapters in detail in my reread and I even wrote a book on Theon (litarly, it's like 300 pages or so and available on amazon) it's difficult to describe everything in short but let me try to summaries:
From his childhood with he Greyjoys he learned that he was weak and inadequate, that his brothers (his abusers) were better than him, that he had to be more like them in order to gain acceptance. He learned two things in essence: to admire his abusers and more importantly that HE was the problem, that HE had to change, which is the root of his identity crisis. So even as a young child he's already dealing with a low self esteem.
Then he's sent to Winterfell where he sees a family, very different from his own, where parents love their children unconditionally, he wants to belong to this family but it's difficult because he gets what he perceives as mixed messages from Ned (I'm not gonna go into detail on this but if you want to I can clarify it), he takes what he learned at Pyke to heart and tries to change himself in order to be the person who he believes others want him to be, but in order to keep a fake identity standing he has to sustain it with a whole bunch of defense mechanism: denial is a big one, reaction formation (he smiles to hide emotions that he deems unaccaptable to have like fear, sadness, shame) is another, projection, splitting, you can find it all in his chapters on several occasions. Romanticizing also (I forgot what the official term for it is), you mention that he doesn't think back to his childhood in order to cope, that is true, he does the oppesite, he thinks of the future and romanticizes it. He has trouble with feeling not manly enough so he has a lot of sex to tell himself "look, how macho I am" in addition to also using the sex as a form of escapism and feeling in control, in a positon of power. He also desplays an outragous amount of unhelpful thinking patterns like thinking in black and white, cathastrophising, mindreading and so on (they're all listed in my reread)
The reason he breaks down when he goes home is simple: It's when his defense mechanisms can't hold up anymore. While in Winterfell, it didn't matter that he convinced himself that his father DID love him and covered himself in krakens to show everyone how accepted he was as a Greyjoy (because if others believe it, it's easier to believe it yourself as well, that's how the human mind works) Because there was no one there to prove him wrong. Theon's taught himself to ignore/romanticize reality instead of deal with it and that works as long as you, yourself have no control over the situation anyone, but when you do, it crumbles.
So Theon goes home convinced that he'll be greeted with open arms because as a comfort he's convinced himself that that's how it's going to go, and because it's a coping mechanism he's exaggerated it to the point where he's expectations are so high that he's bound to be dissapointed (of course with Theon's family he's EXTRA dissapointed). combine that with Theon's tendency to think in black and white (it's all or nothing) and cathastrophing (if his father doesn't accept him all is lost) Theon is distressed to say the least, he needs for something to change RIGHT AWAY because Theon is unable to rationalize, he doesn't deal with reality, he deals with emotions. He doesn't try to fix problems, he tries to feel better (somehow thinking that if he does the problem will dissapear, which it obviously doesn't) and he doesn't know how to deal with that in a correct way, he's always dealt with it by ignoring/romanticizing reality so as a response Theon Romanticizes even more, his expectations for another future event (if I take Winterfell everything will be awesome, dad will be so proud, I can feel like a competent human being again and I'll be a good lord so the people of winterfell will love me like they loved Ned stark) this future is even more unrealistic and unachievable than the previous so it's bound to go wrong again, and wrong in a more disasterous way than the first. And so it goes on and on until Theon's worked himself into a trap that he can't for the life of him get out of.
 

The thing is that Theon did think the Starks had been good to him, and he probably does think that he should be grateful to them, but that doesn't mean that I have to. Victims of abuse also often feel like it was their responsibility. Theon didn't actually take Winterfell out of revenge or anything, he took it because he wanted to please his father, because he wanted to go back to the time where he wasn't so destressed and because he always wanted to belong in Winterfell and if Pyke won't have him he'll give the other place another try. Theon taking Winterfell had absolutly nothing to do with revenge, Theon in general isn't a vengeful person.

I would say that Theon knew what he was doing but he also lacked an outragious ammount of self control and there's the issues mentioned above. he knew what he was doing but he's one of the most incompetent people in those books, he certainly wasn't "in control" of himself or the situation.

It might be typical but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

[The scourge of westeros]

Absolutely right, the point is, if theon is a turn cloak he should have been tried as one and executed... Not played around with, tortured, and used as a tool in the most inhuman way possible. End of story

before being turned into reek theon actually valued his life, now they have effectively taken death away as a punishment, making it now a relief to him. 

[INCBlackbird]

So my friend asked me to post this:
Okay hi sorry I’m not on the forum and I’ll just leave this here but incblackbird showed me this post and I just had to answer.
 

 

You _are_ mingling worlds. In our world, you and I would both agree that it is completely unfair for a son to have to suffer the consequences of his father's actions.

Okay sorry but the problem when discussing Theon’s captivity isn’t mingling worlds, it’s that among the reasons why Theon exists as a character there’s also showing the readers that the hostage system is bad and fucks people up, and the people it fucks up are the ones without responsibilities. We already all agree that it’s unfair that he has to suffer for his father’s actions because of a law, but the problem isn’t just the law, is that this guy as a somewhat realistic character is supposed to have feelings, so he suffers in-narrative, and that’s the reason that when the series start he’s a walking Freudian textbook. And now that stated that.

 

 Theon had nothing to do with the rebellion (mostly likely) and it sucks to have be on the receiving end of the judgement stick when you were not the reason that necessitated the judgement.

Well, considering that he was nine when it ended and that according to his own sister he didn’t even fit within the culture because he was too supposedly soft in comparison to his brothers/to the standard his dad expected I’m fairly sure that going to war wasn’t his idea so idk what’s the *most likely* there for, but here we’re not just talking it sucks, we’re talking you might get killed for something you had no responsibility in, never mind that he’s nine. Like. Honestly, that would be hard to grasp for an adult/someone who actually fully understands the situation, do you expect a kid to have reasonable reactions to it?

 

However, insofar as whether Theon should be grateful to have received the lot that he had with the Starks -- yes, he should be grateful.

The lot, as in, that they weren’t outright jerks and that one of them was friends with him? Okay so, he’s nine, he gets forcefully shipped off someplace he doesn’t know where everyone outright dislikes him because he’s directly related to the guy who started the rebellion (and therefore is the reason a bunch of northerners died), and never mind that the shipping itself went so well that his mother pretty much went half-mad when he left so I don’t even want to imagine how it was for him, everyone at most is nice but they’re all detached. And he knows that it’s because if his dad fucks up he dies and no one wants to get attached to someone their lord might want to kill. So they don’t treat him like Cinderella and they are basically decent to him and that’s it - except for Robb, but that’s another problem. And according to you he should be grateful to them? Let’s be real, he ended up developing Stockholm syndrome also because even if they were mostly cold to him, the Starks looked to him still like a better option than his real family which speaks for the depths of ‘how can you fuck up your kid in really bad ways’ we have going on here, but sure that’s what he should do? Like, actually if you wanna look at it a certain way he still subconsciously thinks they’re better than his real relatives even if there’s one of them who really cares about him, do some maths here. Gratefulness is totally not in the cards here. And like, I’m fairly sure that if you asked the only person named Stark he was friends with Robb wouldn’t think that the guy should have been grateful because Robb went farther than being a decent human being and actually bothered to get to know him.

 

 In a world where one CAN (and DOES and SHOULD HAVE) die because of their father's actions -- i.e. where who's fault it was doesn't mean for sh*t -- being allowed to live (unless you are living as Reek; so maybe I mean live comfortably) is the best thing anyone could hope for.

 

Actually, no. I mean, as far as I recall it’s not written anywhere that if someone fucks up then all of their family must die - that’s the Tywin Lannister way of looking at things. And if they had decided to go there anyway they’d also have killed Balon first and foremost. It’s not written anywhere that someone SHOULD DIE because their father committed treason or rebelled or whatever have you. Is it common? Sure. But it doesn’t have to happen. According to this logic Sansa should have been kissing Joffrey’s feet because he didn’t have her killed and hey, what if he ordered the Kingsguard to beat her? After all he still didn’t order for her head to fall, right? How nice of him. She also should have been entirely grateful to Cersei and company for having been so nice and forced her to marry someone she didn’t ask for, because hey, totally beats dying! So basically since Ned made a few grave judgment mistakes and got himself arrested because he had to be honorable and Sansa has to pay the consequences she has to be thankful to every Lannister in existence that she kept her head on her shoulders? Because that’s exactly how that logic goes. And if you tell me that the Starks treated Theon well in comparison to how the Lannisters treated Sansa - okay, sure, but above you’re saying that someone should be grateful just for being allowed to live *comfortably* since they COULD die for their father’s actions and the contrary of comfortably is stated as living as Reek, and Sansa certainly wasn’t living as Reek. She even had an handmaiden! And Tyrion was objectively more straight/honest/nicer to her than someone with less scruples might have been. That still doesn’t mean that Sansa should have been grateful to anyone whose surname was Lannister. Same as Theon didn’t owe anything to anyone named Stark least of all gratefulness, if we don’t count his personal relationship with Robb, but that was between them, you can’t treat him as Theon vs what he should feel for the entire family.

Also, you’re talking as if just Balon having rebelled once means that this guy deserved to die. The terms were that if Balon fucked up again, Theon was gonna lose his head. If Ned had actually killed him when Balon hadn’t in fact fucked up, he would have been breaching the terms and he’d have done a fairly dishonorable thing, and while Ned Stark had some faults, he certainly wasn’t dishonorable and he certainly didn’t kill people just because he felt like it or because it made political sense but there wasn’t some kind of contract like that underneath (see that time he argued not to kill Daenerys for once).

 

How can you not agree with that? 

Therefore I can’t agree with that because if Ned hadn’t allowed Theon to live post-taking him as a hostage he would have fucked up majorly and because that’s not in the terms even. The terms are that Theon lives as long as Balon doesn’t fuck up, so Ned actually has an obligation to keep him alive if Balon doesn’t fuck up. And as Balon did not fuck up while Ned was alive, Theon not dying because of that was just how the entire thing was supposed to go in the first place, so gratefulness has zero place in this discussion, because it all works based on a pact/contract/whatever and all parts had been respecting it. Sorry but if I get hired by a company and get paid a salary for working for them eight hours and I get that exact amount they owe me every month I’m not thankful to them because they paid me money, it’s the exact same concept.

And again, we’re talking about a nine-year old. If you assume that people at that age have developed the capacity to be fully understanding of that kind of situation and that all of them have enough emotional depth to actually get past being resentful for their entire situation, you’re highly overestimating nine-year olds. (And if then they become teenagers and their best friend is four years younger so they obviously can’t vent at them as they’d vent to a peer… yeah, sure, they totally grow up rational. I don’t think so.)

 

 

 

[rs1n]

I don't agree because it's immoral, under any circemstances in any world. Just because it's common practice doesn't make it moral. it doesn't mean that Theon should be grateful for being wronged, because he was wronged, no matter what world someone lives in, even worlds where it's "normal" to punish the son for the father's actions, it's still stays wrong to do that. I look at this this way: people should be judged according to their culture, but cultural aspects can still be immoral. take the slavers for example: when I judge the slavers I think that slavery is inherently immoral, but when I judge them as people I know it's normal for their culture so I don't judge them as harshly as I would someone in our society doing similar things as them. The slaves however, have still been wronged and they have no reason to be grateful to a master who was nicer to them then they could have been because being kept as a slave is immoral to begin with. Same goes for Theon. I don't blame Ned for taking Theon as a hostage because it's part of his culture to do that but Theon has still been wronged, he has still suffered from what was done to him and he had done nothing to deserve that suffering = he has been wronged. So he doesn't owe Ned for not harming him when he could have.

You suggest that punishment is immoral. And yet Theon has, in a sense, punished the Starks for something his own family should be guilty for. We both can at least agree that Theon has suffered. However, I would argue that Theon's suffering was the result of his own birth family (siblings and father). He owes the Starks in the sense that they had no obligation to be nice to him, and they chose to. Have you considered what his life might have been like living with his birth family instead? You said it yourself -- his father treated him poorly, and his brothers no better. And that was before he was Ned's ward. He did not suffer anything under the Starks except for the occasional reminder that he wasn't a Stark by name. His real suffering came AFTER he decided to act stupidly -- stupidity as a result of his poor treatment from his birth family, not the Starks. How can you say he owes Ned nothing when his entire life was essentially spared by Ned?

You would be greatful to the person who raped you, because he didn't do worse when he could have? I don't understand what makes this different from Theon's case, we also know what is done to rape victims, we know there's cases where it's super violent, where there's additional torture, even killing. So when you get raped and your rapist says to you "be grateful, I could have killed you but I let you live" should you be grateful to him?

No, I would not be grateful to ANYONE who raped me. How can you can compare Theon's case to this? Theon was treated kindly. In your rape example, the rape has already occurred even when the perpetrator had no reason to inflict any harm, let alone rape. In Theon's case, he was taken a hostage. No harm came to him. And yet harm could have come. And, there was wrong doing on his father's part. That it was his father's fault is irrelevant, though. No harm came to Theon. These two scenarios are completely different. The closest you're going to get is someone NOT raping me when they certainly could have (because in some deranged world that was within their right -- here I'm referring to Ned killing the ironborn for their treason). Then, the would-be perpetrator turns around and raises me like nobility. The choice of rape, of course, leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth. No one would want to be thought of as an apologist for rapists. But if you had used... I don't know... flogging instead, then I think a lot of people would take issue with the fact that we pre-labeled the would-be perpetrator as serial flogger when in fact he was the complete opposite. In fact, the would be serial flogger is actually a benefactor of sorts. 

The rest of your post seems to further support my argument that Theon's mentality was the result of his original family.

[A Ghost of Someone]

I truly do not feel one smidgeon of sympathy for Theon. None whatsoever and when the jumped with Jeyne, it was the Spearwives who were the real heroes of that ninja operation. Mance too but the spearwives were taking all the risks. Bless them.

[rs1n]

Well, considering that he was nine when it ended and that according to his own sister he didn’t even fit within the culture because he was too supposedly soft in comparison to his brothers/to the standard his dad expected I’m fairly sure that going to war wasn’t his idea so idk what’s the *most likely* there for, but here we’re not just talking it sucks, we’re talking you might get killed for something you had no responsibility in, never mind that he’s nine. Like. Honestly, that would be hard to grasp for an adult/someone who actually fully understands the situation, do you expect a kid to have reasonable reactions to it?

 The "most likely" was simply because I have no idea whether he simply sat out or if he participated (whether order by good ol' dad or of his own volition in order to please dad) in some menial fashion. Let's just agree that Theon likely had absolutely no involvement. No, he very likely would not have understood why one could die for something someone else did. But that notion would not have been foreign to him. He is ironborn. Grown men around him boast about their pillaging and conquest. The ironborn also take hostages. The awareness makes a big difference. Sure, he might not have realized it until after the rebellion was quelled. But I don't buy for one minute that he would be completely ignorant of his own culture with respect to "what happens when you lose."

The lot, as in, that they weren’t outright jerks and that one of them was friends with him? Okay so, he’s nine, he gets forcefully shipped off someplace he doesn’t know where everyone outright dislikes him because he’s directly related to the guy who started the rebellion (and therefore is the reason a bunch of northerners died), and never mind that the shipping itself went so well that his mother pretty much went half-mad when he left so I don’t even want to imagine how it was for him, everyone at most is nice but they’re all detached. And he knows that it’s because if his dad fucks up he dies and no one wants to get attached to someone their lord might want to kill. So they don’t treat him like Cinderella and they are basically decent to him and that’s it - except for Robb, but that’s another problem. And according to you he should be grateful to them? Let’s be real, he ended up developing Stockholm syndrome also because even if they were mostly cold to him, the Starks looked to him still like a better option than his real family which speaks for the depths of ‘how can you fuck up your kid in really bad ways’ we have going on here, but sure that’s what he should do? Like, actually if you wanna look at it a certain way he still subconsciously thinks they’re better than his real relatives even if there’s one of them who really cares about him, do some maths here. Gratefulness is totally not in the cards here. And like, I’m fairly sure that if you asked the only person named Stark he was friends with Robb wouldn’t think that the guy should have been grateful because Robb went farther than being a decent human being and actually bothered to get to know him.

Let's separate two timelines. Before becoming a hostage, and after becoming a hostage. Before becoming a hostage, and based on his own culture, he would have become aware that shit will happen to him and/or his family because they were on the losing side. A rebellion is treason, and treason means death. He might not understand the full gravity of the situation, but he has definite knowledge of what ironborns do to the people they defeat. So he should have at least be fearful upon seeing his people on the losing side. On the flip side, by becoming a hostage, he is also aware that the worst shit that can happen to him is that is shipped off somewhere foreign, AND that -- if both sides hold their end of the bargain -- he won't die for the reason you already spelled out. So at this point, the Greyjoys have something to be grateful for. Now, I will grant you that Theon is too young at this point, so he's scare sh*tless and so "gratefulness" would never have entered his mind yet. However, as he matures, one would expect him to realize this (which he only partly does -- he still thinks that the smallfolk in Winterfell should have supported him when Bran and Ricken ran away). As for those who care about him -- the only person to TRULY care about him (from what I recall) are his mother (and what mother wouldn't) and his sister. The rest treat him worse than the Starks ever did. (It would appear we agree here). So, now, how would this be the Starks' fault that Theon had this inferiority complex?

Actually, no. I mean, as far as I recall it’s not written anywhere that if someone fucks up then all of their family must die - that’s the Tywin Lannister way of looking at things. And if they had decided to go there anyway they’d also have killed Balon first and foremost. It’s not written anywhere that someone SHOULD DIE because their father committed treason or rebelled or whatever have you. Is it common? Sure. But it doesn’t have to happen. According to this logic Sansa should have been kissing Joffrey’s feet because he didn’t have her killed and hey, what if he ordered the Kingsguard to beat her? After all he still didn’t order for her head to fall, right? How nice of him. She also should have been entirely grateful to Cersei and company for having been so nice and forced her to marry someone she didn’t ask for, because hey, totally beats dying! So basically since Ned made a few grave judgment mistakes and got himself arrested because he had to be honorable and Sansa has to pay the consequences she has to be thankful to every Lannister in existence that she kept her head on her shoulders? Because that’s exactly how that logic goes. And if you tell me that the Starks treated Theon well in comparison to how the Lannisters treated Sansa - okay, sure, but above you’re saying that someone should be grateful just for being allowed to live *comfortably* since they COULD die for their father’s actions and the contrary of comfortably is stated as living as Reek, and Sansa certainly wasn’t living as Reek. She even had an handmaiden! And Tyrion was objectively more straight/honest/nicer to her than someone with less scruples might have been. That still doesn’t mean that Sansa should have been grateful to anyone whose surname was Lannister. Same as Theon didn’t owe anything to anyone named Stark least of all gratefulness, if we don’t count his personal relationship with Robb, but that was between them, you can’t treat him as Theon vs what he should feel for the entire family.

Also, you’re talking as if just Balon having rebelled once means that this guy deserved to die. The terms were that if Balon fucked up again, Theon was gonna lose his head. If Ned had actually killed him when Balon hadn’t in fact fucked up, he would have been breaching the terms and he’d have done a fairly dishonorable thing, and while Ned Stark had some faults, he certainly wasn’t dishonorable and he certainly didn’t kill people just because he felt like it or because it made political sense but there wasn’t some kind of contract like that underneath (see that time he argued not to kill Daenerys for once).

They didn't "just fuck up." What they did was treasonous. Death is very much so the common result. As for the rest of your examples, please read what I wrote in the previous post about the rape example. You cannot compare an instance of being harmed vs. more harmed with Theon's case of could-have-been-killed and yet treated nicely. So none of your examples are valid points. If hypothetically Joffrey, being known to be vile, had turned out to extremely nice and protective of Sansa rather than killing her outright because her father was a "traitor" then you would actually have a case of Sansa being in a similar situation as Theon. Even then, the Starks were nothing like Joffrey. And in this hypothetical case, people might actually think of Joffrey in a different like. Most readers (in my opinion) don't have any issue with how, for example, Tyrion treats Sansa. (And yes, I don't think it is far-fetched to suggest Sansa be grateful that Tyrion treated her kindly despite himself and his family.) The reality is that Joffrey hurt Sansa, and could have done far worse -- so no, Sansa should not be grateful in any way. That would be silly. However, Theon was never harmed, nor did he truly face death (from his vantage point, Ned already chose not to kill him, and despite his father's disdain, he probably still thought Balon would not do anything to harm him -- why else agree to hostages?).

As for the whole Ned not killing Theon and the Dany reference -- all the more reason that in the end, Theon should have been grateful. It seems to be we're arguing the same thing -- that Ned specifically chose not to dole out beheadings for treason and went the hostage route because he was betting on not ever having to kill anyone -- neither Balon nor Theon. Theon, having never been harmed by the Starks should be grateful that not only did he get to live, but the people who could have killed him chose to raise him like nobility.

[INCBlackbird]

You suggest that punishment is immoral. And yet Theon has, in a sense, punished the Starks for something his own family should be guilty for. We both can at least agree that Theon has suffered. However, I would argue that Theon's suffering was the result of his own birth family (siblings and father). He owes the Starks in the sense that they had no obligation to be nice to him, and they chose to. Have you considered what his life might have been like living with his birth family instead? You said it yourself -- his father treated him poorly, and his brothers no better. And that was before he was Ned's ward. He did not suffer anything under the Starks except for the occasional reminder that he wasn't a Stark by name. His real suffering came AFTER he decided to act stupidly -- stupidity as a result of his poor treatment from his birth family, not the Starks. How can you say he owes Ned nothing when his entire life was essentially spared by Ned?

How has Theon punished the Starks? Theon's suffering was the result of both his birth family and  the messed up system. And again we're back to "they had no obligation to be nice to him but they were" I have to go back to my previous question: if a child is kidnapped but their captors are nice to them when they had no obligation to be so, should said child be grateful that they chose to be nice to them? No matter how "nice" the Starks were to Theon he was still suffering for something that wasn't his fault, no one should be expected to be grateful for that.
I have considered that yes and there's two possible scenarios : 1. the rebellion doesn't happen and his brothers live which means the abuse continues = Theon grows up to be a an insecure mess. 2. Theon's brothers die and Balon focusses his attention on his last surviving son = Theon grows up int a slightly less insecure mess. It's also important to remember that while he had bad influences like his brothers and his dad on the iron islands he also had a lot of positive influences: for one, it was his home, he was accepted there but more importantly there was his mother who genuinely loved him, there was Dagmer who encouraged him and praised him, there was Asha, he mentions "friends" in Clash as well, in Winterfell he had exactly 1 person = Robb, and a friend who also happens to be younger than you isn't exactly a good replacement for parents/people who have to teach you how to live.
versus the winterfel scenario: Theon grows up to a be an insecure mess, with a severe identity crisis, sustained by defense mechanism, threathened by unhelpful thinking patterns, who has grown up without parental love and isn't accepted by either society which means he tries harder and fails harder because specific insecureties about that. Need I go on? I mean... I wrote an entire thing about it in my previous post.
So living under threat of death for 10 years is not suffering to you? growing up without any parental love is not suffering to you? I'm not sure if you're aware of the importance of that in a child's development?
Let's make one thing clear: Theon suffered throughout all his life, in different degrees for sure but he suffered. he went from being abused by his brothers to being a hostage to being Ramsay's pet.
How exactly was Theon "spared" by Ned? Ned used him as a tool rather than a person. He took Theon to Winterfell because he was useful to him, not because he wanted to "save" him.
 

No, I would not be grateful to ANYONE who raped me. How can you can compare Theon's case to this? Theon was treated kindly. In your rape example, the rape has already occurred even when the perpetrator had no reason to inflict any harm, let alone rape. In Theon's case, he was taken a hostage. No harm came to him. And yet harm could have come. And, there was wrong doing on his father's part. That it was his father's fault is irrelevant, though. No harm came to Theon. These two scenarios are completely different. The closest you're going to get is someone NOT raping me when they certainly could have (because in some deranged world that was within their right -- here I'm referring to Ned killing the ironborn for their treason). Then, the would-be perpetrator turns around and raises me with like nobility. The choice of rape, of course, leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth. No one would want to be thought of as an apologist for rapists. But if you had used... I don't know... flogging instead, then I think a lot of people would take issue with the fact that we pre-labeled the would-be perpetrator as serial flogger when in fact he was the complete opposite. In fact, the would be serial flogger is actually a benefactor of sorts. 

The rest of your post seems to further support my argument that Theon's mentality was the result of his original family.

i'm not comparing, it's an analogy. In Theon's case being taken hostage IS the harm, you yourself agreed that he suffered from it so how is that not being harmed? it's about that idea that someone should be grateful for only being harmed a little when they could have been harmed worse, it makes no sense... I've been trying to illustrate that every which way but apparently it doesn't come through.

No it's not, but whatever, believe what you want to believe I guess.

[Lord Lannister]

I never got why people, both in the books and the fans, expected Theon to remain loyal to the Starks. They made it abundantly clear at every opportunity he wasn't one of them. Ever after he saved Bran's life and fought on Robb's behalf he was constantly reminded that he was a hostage under pain of death. It was clear that Theon always wanted to belong to a family, but he was neither Greyjoy nor Stark in the end. He was literally caught between two worlds and cultures, belonging to neither.

What was he supposed to do when Balon rejected Robb's offer? Go back to Robb to say "My father's about to attack, here's my head"? That's assuming he even made it out of Pyke alive, which I doubt. He sent Damphair to keep an eye on him even during his little raid, so little was his father's trust in him. If he was ever going to belong he had to demonstrate that he was ironborn to the core and do something extraordinary. This literally backed him into a corner, which led to his downfall.

Theon did some terrible things during his brief tenure as Prince of Winterfell. There's no denying that. But to advocate his mutilation and torture as something he "deserved" is beyond all reason. If you think torture is justifiable under any circumstances, I can't help you. The Stark loyalists consider him a traitor, but he really wasn't. He just wasn't strong enough to figure out what he wanted and to act upon it and instead tried to live up to two sets of very conflicting expectations of who he should be as defined by Balon and the Starks.

I think the amount of Theon hatred among the fanbase can be attributed to his crimes being against the Starks. He sacks their castle and burns those boys so he's human scum and deserves what he gets. Yet Wyman Manderly slaughters three Freys, butchers them and gleefully serves their remains to other people and so many think him a badass and the Freys as deserving what they got. What's the difference? One was for the Starks and the other against them.

[rs1n]

i'm not comparing, it's an analogy. In Theon's case being taken hostage IS the harm, you yourself agreed that he suffered from it so how is that not being harmed? it's about that idea that someone should be grateful for only being harmed a little when they could have been harmed worse, it makes no sense... I've been trying to illustrate that every which way but apparently it doesn't come through.

No it's not, but whatever, believe what you want to believe I guess.

Ned choosing to take him hostage rather than killing him _was_ the path of not harming him. If you want to insist that him being a hostage caused harm, and need someone to blame, then the blame rests on his d*ckhead father. The Starks had nothing to do with his mental issues other than to act as a stark contrast to a dysfunctional family.

 

Edit: I find it hard to believe that the Starks had it out for Theon and plotted to make his life a misery by doing everything except to stop short of calling him an actual Stark.

[sweetsunray]

Ned choosing to take him hostage rather than killing him _was_ the path of not harming him. If you want to insist that him being a hostage caused harm, and need someone to blame, then the blame rests on his d*ckhead father. The Starks had nothing to do with his mental issues other than to act as a stark contrast to a dysfunctional family.

I see what you did here