IamMe90 Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 Hi all, sorry if this topic has been done before, but during my 3rd read through of the series, as I was reading Jon XI, I was puzzled by this famous bit of Stannis dialogue: "Lord Seaworth is a man of humble birth, but he reminded me of my duty, when all I could think of was my rights. I had the cart before the horse, Davos said. I was trying to win the throne to save the kingdom, when I should have been trying to save the kingdom to win the throne.” Stannis pointed north. “There is where I’ll find the foe that I was born to fight.” This kind of bothers me. I think what GRRM is trying to convey is that the war for dawn is more important than the war for the throne, and Stannis, up until that point, had had his priorities wrong. But doesn't the way that the quote is constructed suggest the opposite? Let's examine the former part of the bolded line. "I was trying to win the throne to save the kingdom." It seems to me that this pretty straightforwardly suggests that saving the kingdom is the ultimate goal, and winning the throne is a means to that goal. The latter part of the line then, suggests the converse: he should be saving the kingdom as a means to win the throne. Did GRRM just flub when he wrote this and get it backwards? Or is he intentionally portraying Stannis as realizing that the throne is more important than the realm? Or am I just completely misreading the way this dialogue is constructed? Appreciate any thoughts about this. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tucu Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 Stannis originally thought that by winning the throne (taking Kings Landing) he would be saving his kingdom. Davos made him realize that the way to win and deserve the throne was to save the kingdom (from the wildlings and Others). Basically he went from entitlement to duty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minstral Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 The process of dealing effectively with external threats during internal conflict can make a person very popular and powerful. In civil strife/wars security of certain regions are almost assured to deteriorate, so restoring said security to the region is likely to win you its support. Take the actions of the Yorkist general Richard Neville (nicknamed the Kingmaker) during the War of the Roses. He helped suppress pirate raids on the coasts of Kent (and another province I'm forgetting) which made him very popular in those areas. The support helped him politically even when he later turned his back on the Yorkist cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Doe Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 Before that realization, he wanted to take the throne to assume his role as protector of the realm. Now he realized that he has to defend the realm before conquering it. Before he knew he was king, now he knows that as king he needs to act like one to get support and legitimisation. It's a very enlightened view really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinotaurWarrior Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 I'm think your criticism is valid and relevant to Stannis's character. When he says he's saving the Kingdom to win his throne, that is in a way saying that he's only fighting for his rights and because of his duties. It's not really about other people, their lives their hopes their dreams their fears, it's about him. You can imagine that if the dangers were the same, but his personal circumstances were different (e.g. he was lord of storm's end) he might stay home on some excuse about his duty being to his people and his people alone. But he's not. He's "king" and he's fighting for mankind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Drunkard Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 I understand what you mean, but in the context of the entire quote (and story direction) the bolded part isn't a comment on what he considers more important. Rather, it's just a comment on the order in which he should be doing things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runaway Penguin Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 Entitlement vs. Achievement. In his first view, the moment he gets the throne solidly, the Kingdoms are saved. The kingdomsneed him on his rightful throne to be saved. New view: He has to save kingdoms to deserve the throne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sambo Shaw Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 Don't over think it. Stannis believed the crown was rightfully his. And he knew there were many threats, internal and external, to the safety of the kingdom. I think all this statement means is quite literal. He originally thought he should focus his efforts on winning the throne, which would put him in position to save Westeros. However, he now understands that he must first save the kingdom from its immediate external threat and THEN he will win the throne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cridefea Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 if you want to be a king you must have a kingdom, not a throne. I think this was the meaning of the sentence. The legitimate heir to the throne don't claim his right but fight for his kingdom safety first. There's no king if there is no more kingdom. Don't know if I've been clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curled Finger Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 I have to agree with those above who believe Stannis had an epiphany regarding his duty. Stannis is a hard man. He never appeared to be entitled to me for all his moaning and griping about having to do the King duty. I won't ever believe this is something he actually wants and I'm certain that even if he was the lord of Storm's End he would behave in precisely the same manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Doe Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 14 hours ago, MinotaurWarrior said: It's not really about other people, their lives their hopes their dreams their fears, it's about him. I disagree, he was considering to kill Edric because of other people first, not because of himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinotaurWarrior Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 9 hours ago, John Doe said: I disagree, he was considering to kill Edric because of other people first, not because of himself. He was considering doing it because he felt it was his duty. It's not a selfish perspective, but it is self-centered. If Stannis weren't the proclaimed King AAR and someone said, "hey, could you kill this kid to save the world?" I think he'd say "saving the world isn't my job, saving this kid is." Remember how positively he thinks of Ser Cortnay Penrose. Stannis doesn't intrinsically want to save the world or protect the realm or anything like that - he consistently states that all of this has been thrust upon him. Contrast this to someone like Mel, who woke up one day and decided she needed to sail halfway around the world to help save it, or Dany who keeps getting sidetracked trying to implement reforms largely unnecessary to her position.This isn't to say that Mel or Dany are better, but their motivations come from different places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Doe Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 4 hours ago, MinotaurWarrior said: He was considering doing it because he felt it was his duty. It's not a selfish perspective, but it is self-centered. If Stannis weren't the proclaimed King AAR and someone said, "hey, could you kill this kid to save the world?" I think he'd say "saving the world isn't my job, saving this kid is." Remember how positively he thinks of Ser Cortnay Penrose. Stannis doesn't intrinsically want to save the world or protect the realm or anything like that - he consistently states that all of this has been thrust upon him. Contrast this to someone like Mel, who woke up one day and decided she needed to sail halfway around the world to help save it, or Dany who keeps getting sidetracked trying to implement reforms largely unnecessary to her position.This isn't to say that Mel or Dany are better, but their motivations come from different places. Gottcha. I think we can agree on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruhail Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 He realised simply being the king and acting like the king werent the same and that you have to show that you onow and will protect the realm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estermonty python Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 On 8/28/2016 at 3:39 AM, Minstral said: The process of dealing effectively with external threats during internal conflict can make a person very popular and powerful. In civil strife/wars security of certain regions are almost assured to deteriorate, so restoring said security to the region is likely to win you its support. Take the actions of the Yorkist general Richard Neville (nicknamed the Kingmaker) during the War of the Roses. He helped suppress pirate raids on the coasts of Kent (and another province I'm forgetting) which made him very popular in those areas. The support helped him politically even when he later turned his back on the Yorkist cause. See also: Every US military commander who became President. George Washington, Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Ulysses S. Grant, and Dwight Eisenhower, to name a few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.