Jump to content

Baratheons are quite unsympathetic really


Valens

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Laughing Storm Reborn said:

Did i tell anyone to like him? nope, i just agree with the author...

I particulary don´t hate any character, but i'm damn sure not a priest here trying to preach my gospel... you can hate them fine, it's good for discussions on this forum

I've never heard him take an anti-Targaryen standpoint, it doesn't matter to her critics, as it shouldn't. The audience is not obligated to feel the same as the author..

George puts a positive spin on almost every character, here's a quote about Dothrakis. Regardless of this I still find their culture to be repulsive:

Quote

People complain that the Dothraki are this one-dimensional barbarian society.

I haven’t had a Dothraki viewpoint character though. 

I guess it’s too late to introduce one now.

I could introduce a Dothraki viewpoint character, but I already have like sixteen viewpoint characters. I could kill some of my viewpoint characters, to get down to the seven or eight I started with, or some numerical equivalent. The Dothraki are partially based on the Huns and the Mongols, some extent the steppe tribes like the Alvars and Magyars. I put in a few elements of the Amerindian plains tribes and those peoples, and then I threw in some purely fantasy elements. It’s fantasy. 

Are they barbaric? Yeah, but the Mongols were, too. Genghis Khan — I just saw an interesting movie about Ghengis Khan, recently. I’ve read books about Genghis Khan, and he’s one of history’s more fascinating, charismatic characters. The Mongols became very sophisticated at certain points, but they were certainly not sophisticated when they started out, and even at the height of their sophistication they were fond of doing things like giant piles of heads. “Surrender your city to me, or we will come in and kill all the men, rape all the women and make a giant pile of heads.” They did that a few times, and other cities said, “Surrender is good. We’ll surrender. We’ll pay the taxes. No pile of heads, please.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Laughing Storm Reborn said:

The author of the books and creator of the character considers him a good guy with careless generosity

Has GRRM said that himself, or do you mean that line from Tyrion's POV where he refers to him as a man of careless generosity? If the former, fair enough, though I don't think that means we necessary have to agree with him. I'd be surprised though, GRRM usually doesn't say "X character is good, Y character is bad".

If you're referring to Tyrion's thoughts in his POV in ASOS, well, 1) That's Tyrion's opinion, not GRRM's, 2) He doesn't say he's a good guy, just carelessly generous. Tyrion's musing over Joffery potentially arming the assassin that went after Bran with Robert's dagger. Tyrion reckons that if Joff had asked Rob for the dagger, Rob would have said "yeah whatever, fuck off I’m busy”. Or something along those lines. Being carelessly generous doesn’t necessarily mean you’re a “good guy”, it just means you don’t mind giving stuff away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, RenlyIsNotRight said:

. But if we limit our scope to the series proper, there's only really been one Targaryen whose been "obsessed with knowledge", that being Rhaegar.

Let´s not forget the good Maester Aemon!!  Jaehaerys was probably pretty inclined that way, as well as Alysanne for that matter.  Oh and Aerys I of course!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Has GRRM said that himself, or do you mean that line from Tyrion's POV where he refers to him as a man of careless generosity? If the former, fair enough, though I don't think that means we necessary have to agree with him. I'd be surprised though, GRRM usually doesn't say "X character is good, Y character is bad".

If you're referring to Tyrion's thoughts in his POV in ASOS, well, 1) That's Tyrion's opinion, not GRRM's, 2) He doesn't say he's a good guy, just carelessly generous. Tyrion's musing over Joffery potentially arming the assassin that went after Bran with Robert's dagger. Tyrion reckons that if Joff had asked Rob for the dagger, Rob would have said "yeah whatever, fuck off I’m busy”. Or something along those lines. Being carelessly generous doesn’t necessarily mean you’re a “good guy”, it just means you don’t mind giving stuff away.

STTB, the careless generosity is from the ssm discussing the giving of storm'end and dragonstone to his brothers instead of joff and tommen "another instance of his great, but careless generosity" you can look it up it's easy to find

The good guy comment is from the baratheon featurette on youtube

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Laughing Storm Reborn said:

STTB, the careless generosity is from the ssm discussing the giving of storm'end and dragonstone to his brothers instead of joff and tommen "another instance of his great, but careless generosity" you can look it up it's easy to find

The good guy comment is from the baratheon featurette on youtube

 

Quote

The Targaryens have heavily interbred, like the Ptolemys of Egypt. As any horse or dog breeder can tell you, interbreeding accentuates both flaws and virtues, and pushes a lineage toward the extremes. Also, there's sometimes a fine line between madness and greatness. Daeron I, the boy king who led a war of conquest, and even the saintly Baelor I could also be considered "mad," if seen in a different light. ((And I must confess, I love grey characters, and those who can be interperted in many different ways. Both as a reader and a writer, I want complexity and subtlety in my fiction))

 

Proof that George wants you (the reader) to form your own interpretation of grey characters like Robert..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, OuttaOldtown said:

Sure I can, it's all opinion, all accounts suggest Ned felt as I do. This was the beginning of the rift between the two. I never said he was involved, I said the actions afterwards was where he is held accountable. Argue for the drunken halfwit all you'd like..

We saw how well punishing loyal bannerman worked out for Robb and the Karstarks!!  No better way to solidify your power base than by alienating the people that helped you get there!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Khal BlackfyreO said:

We saw how well punishing loyal bannerman worked out for Robb and the Karstarks!!  No better way to solidify your power base than by alienating the people that helped you get there!!

He, as king, had the power to execute the Mountain and his men who participated in the murders and rape, I see no negative consequences. As for the Tywin & the Lannisters, we see how well tightening the alliance with them worked out for Robert. Robb was in the midst of a war and needed to keep his alliance intact, entirely different circumstance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, OuttaOldtown said:

Tell me another way to eradicate slavery? Waiting for that generation of young slavers to decide its wrong? Keep dreaming, kill every last one of them, burn their cities to the ground. The only mistake Dany made was leaving any alive and staying there..

You would have done marvellously in the French Revolution, Bolshevik Revolution, or Spanish Civil war, just take your pick really...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Khal BlackfyreO said:

You would have done marvellously in the French Revolution, Bolshevik Revolution, or Spanish Civil war, just take your pick really...

I'm playing the results just as you are..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, OuttaOldtown said:

He, as king, had the power to execute the Mountain and his men who participated in the murders and rape, I see no negative consequences. As for the Tywin & the Lannisters, we see how well tightening the alliance with them worked out for Robert. Robb was in the midst of a war and needed to keep his alliance intact, entirely different circumstance. 

He probably should have had them executed, but post-act he realized they had actually done him a service, that he would have been loathe to order himself.  Tywin wouldn´t have been bothered that much by it, and he had disassociated himself from the act regardless of what happened.  But the Lannisters are an extremely powerful ally to have on your side and chastizing them or their bannerman could have been taken poorly.  Robert situation was NOT that different from Robb's, in hindsight we see the war as won already but at that time there were still a lot of enemy troops in the field and the throne was far from secured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Khal BlackfyreO said:

He probably should have had them executed, but post-act he realized they had actually done him a service, that he would have been loathe to order himself.  Tywin wouldn´t have been bothered that much by it, and he had disassociated himself from the act regardless of what happened.  But the Lannisters are an extremely powerful ally to have on your side and chastizing them or their bannerman could have been taken poorly.  Robert situation was NOT that different from Robb's, in hindsight we see the war as won already but at that time there were still a lot of enemy troops in the field and the throne was far from secured.

I get your point but we're both playing the results which really proves executing and pardoning both can yield bad results, marrying Cersei was rewarding them and merged the two houses. Two ways of looking at that, you make the Lannisters stronger but you also align them, it didn't work out as he and Jon Arryn anticipated, that's for certain. I think you bring up a valid point that pardoning them was partially due to that they did him a service, this is why I fully understand Arianne negative view of him, which I believe is a reflection of her father's and uncle's view..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To sum up: Robert WAS a usurper. Did he have reason to throw Aerys off? Hell yeah. But did he have the right to rule? No, not really...unless you count that his grandmother was a Targaryen, but how much value does that hold? As we already said, women Targaryens who never were close to ruling, it doesn't give you a strong case for throne inheritence if you descend from them. I think Robert should have pissed off and let Rhaegar handle with his crazy father instead. In the end, the whole rebellion just proved pointless because Jamie killed Aerys anyway and it cost Westeros the lives of many fine knights, first and foremost Arthur Dayne. We have to look at it from this perspective as well. NO rebellion or war was JUST GOOD, bear that in mind. It cannot be, despite the cause. The cause was a good one but in the end, had not that big boar been so pissed at Rhaegar, maybe some sort of agreement could have been reached, once Aerys was out of the way. It was also a way for him to get the throne and he knew it, Robert. For Ned it was all about avenging his family and also saving himself from falling in Mad King's clutches as well. For Jon Arryn it was about fighting a mad and cruel tyrant and protecting his foster sons. But for Robert, his motives are more selfish and less noble than that. It was all about "me, my vengeance, my bride, my right to rule!" NOBODY can argue that Rhaegar was much more noble and would have made a MUCH better king.  If they do, they are idiots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Valens said:

To sum up: Robert WAS a usurper.

About that. To quote a perfect analysis from an older thread;

From Dictionary.com:

Usurpation 

noun

1. an act of usurping; wrongful or illegal encroachment, infringement, or seizure.

2. illegal seizure and occupation of a throne.

Conquer

verb (used with object)

1. to acquire by force of arms; win in war: to conquer a foreign land.

2. to overcome by force; subdue: to conquer an enemy.

3. to gain, win, or obtain by effort, personal appeal, etc.: conquer the hearts of his audience.

4. to gain a victory over; surmount; master; overcome: to conquer disease and poverty; to conquer one's fear.

Aegon I laid claim to all of Westeros when he had zero claim to any of it, and took over the land on top of a dragon. He retroactively claimed right of conquest. Usurper and conqueror. He had taken the 7 kingdoms from 7 rightful kings, and said that now he is top dog.

Robery I, after Aerys II broke the feudal contract with him and gave him every right to wage war against an unjust king (crown prince took his soon to be wife, the king murders lords and sends for Robert's head though he has done nothing wrong...), deposed the ruling monarchy and then took the throne by right of conquest, after having been chosen by the bulk of the realm (the rebel regions of the North, Vale, Iron Isles, Westerlands, Stormlands) to be king. Conqueror, not usurper, he took nothing illegally. Joffrey was an usurper because he was not of Robert's blood yet was claimed to be so.

Aegon usurped 7 kingdoms and was called king on on the Iron Throne, ruler of the realm with the unimaginative name of... the 7 kingdoms. Robert conquered said realm and did not bother to change the title. That does not make the first a conqueror and the latter an usurper. Robert at least had the support of all but 2 regions in the end. More than Aegon could ever say about the legality of his actions.

 

 

Now can we drop this stupid argument already? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

About that. To quote a perfect analysis from an older thread;

 

I actually agree with this, I disagree with the whole premise of usurpation when won by war as Robert did. I've disliked him from the first introduction when he arrived to Winterfell and have hated Stannis from the moment he was properly introduced in the prologue if Clash. My reasons are 100% personal, I just don't like them. Just as many don't like Dany, Tyrion, Arya, Sansa, Ned...ect, I have however noticed a trend that die-hard Baratheon fans kick, scream & poop in their pants whenever I express my opinion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎7‎/‎24‎/‎2016 at 2:18 PM, Valens said:

Orys must be the best Baratheon of all. He showed compassion for the house he defeated, Durrandon and even adopted their sigil and married the Storm King Arrec's daughter. However, other Baratheons don't exactly score high on the humanity scale, do they? Borros Baratheon let Aemond kill Lucerys and sent Lucerys away because he wouldn't marry any of his daughters. A good host would have sent one away and made the other stay, knowing they are mortal enemies. He also fought for the Blacks, which is a sin in itself. Lyonel Baratheon aka the Laughing Storm also rebelled against the throne because Duncan Targaryen wouldn't marry his daughter. Seems like they take the rebuking of their daughters badly, don't they? :P Robert, as we known, was full of flaws and his brothers weren't that much better. Their father seems to have been more sympathetic. All in all, the common traits of the Baratheons are: they are hotheaded, too proud and too hateful of their enemies. 

Stannis was not hotheaded. He was cool and measured. A hard man, but one who was fair and just. He would probably have been a very good king. Certainly a hell of a lot better than Robert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, OuttaOldtown said:

I actually agree with this, I disagree with the whole premise of usurpation when won by war as Robert did. I've disliked him from the first introduction when he arrived to Winterfell and have hated Stannis from the moment he was properly introduced in the prologue if Clash. My reasons are 100% personal, I just don't like them. Just as many don't like Dany, Tyrion, Arya, Sansa, Ned...ect, I have however noticed a trend that die-hard Baratheon fans kick, scream & poop in their pants whenever I express my opinion. 

Once Viserys was dead Robert was the rightful king. He was the next male in line for the throne. As things currently stand, Tommen is the legitimate king by birth, irrespective of what all else happened before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, I'm sure the fanatical red priestess whispering in his ear wouldn't be an issues for the overwhelming number of followers of the Faith in Westeros, I'm being sarcastic. It's always easy to say the guy who lost would've been better when you have absolutely no way of proving it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, tugela said:

Once Viserys was dead Robert was the rightful king. He was the next male in line for the throne. As things currently stand, Tommen is the legitimate king by birth, irrespective of what all else happened before.

I think he was rightful before Vis died, he won the throne, he was king..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Valens said:

To sum up: Robert WAS a usurper. Did he have reason to throw Aerys off? Hell yeah. But did he have the right to rule? No, not really...unless you count that his grandmother was a Targaryen, but how much value does that hold? As we already said, women Targaryens who never were close to ruling, it doesn't give you a strong case for throne inheritence if you descend from them. I think Robert should have pissed off and let Rhaegar handle with his crazy father instead. In the end, the whole rebellion just proved pointless because Jamie killed Aerys anyway and it cost Westeros the lives of many fine knights, first and foremost Arthur Dayne. We have to look at it from this perspective as well. NO rebellion or war was JUST GOOD, bear that in mind. It cannot be, despite the cause. The cause was a good one but in the end, had not that big boar been so pissed at Rhaegar, maybe some sort of agreement could have been reached, once Aerys was out of the way. It was also a way for him to get the throne and he knew it, Robert. For Ned it was all about avenging his family and also saving himself from falling in Mad King's clutches as well. For Jon Arryn it was about fighting a mad and cruel tyrant and protecting his foster sons. But for Robert, his motives are more selfish and less noble than that. It was all about "me, my vengeance, my bride, my right to rule!" NOBODY can argue that Rhaegar was much more noble and would have made a MUCH better king.  If they do, they are idiots.

After Aerys, the line of succession was Rhaegar, then Aegon, then Viserys, then Robert. Rhaegar died before Aerys, and Aegon died at the same time as Aerys. That meant that after the war Viserys should have been king, and Robert would have been his heir (unless Viserys subsequently had sons, which he did not). Viserys was too young to rule when Aerys died, and would have needed a Regent. Robert would have been the regent, so he would have ruled for a period anyway, no matter what. Jon was illegitimate, so did not count in the line of succession. Likewise the female Targaryens did not count, unless they produced male children.

In any event, once the rebellion had been triggered by Aerys demanding Robert and Ned's heads, there was no backing out, and whoever won was going to be king. Aerys losing would have meant an end to his particular line on the throne no matter what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...