Why did George give daenerys everything

[Hugorfonics]

8 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

By the way, is there a tax system in the Seven Kingdoms? Do the various regions pay tax to the king? If they do, that's another way of acknowledging the king - or not.  

Yep.

Orton Merryweather laughed. "Lord Baelish is a most amusing man, but one does not fight a war with witticisms. I doubt there will be bloodshed. And does it matter who is regent for little Lord Robert, so long as the Vale remits its taxes?"

9 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

But there was a war involved, only not between the Starks and the Boltons, and rules were broken, too (Red Wedding), and despite the support of the IT, the Boltons have to hide behind blatant lies and deception (Winterfell was destroyed and the Stark kids were killed by Theon Turncloak, the Red Wedding "just happened" when Robb Stark turned into a wolf, Jeyne Poole is Ary Stark etc.) to try to consolidate their power and to make themselves (grudgingly) accepted by the Northern families. 

Powers an illusion. The man has Winterfell and claims to have a Stark. Theyre the real skinchangers. We can argue about right of blood or right of conquest, but right of possession is really the only rule

[Julia H.]

Just now, Hugorfonics said:

Yep.

Orton Merryweather laughed. "Lord Baelish is a most amusing man, but one does not fight a war with witticisms. I doubt there will be bloodshed. And does it matter who is regent for little Lord Robert, so long as the Vale remits its taxes?"

Thanks for the quote! So now... did Dorne pay the tax to Robert? Did the Iron Islands?  

Just now, Hugorfonics said:

Powers an illusion. The man has Winterfell and claims to have a Stark. Theyre the real skinchangers. We can argue about right of blood or right of conquest, but right of possession is really the only rule

As long as it lasts... 

[Hugorfonics]

6 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

Thanks for the quote! So now... did Dorne pay the tax to Robert? Did the Iron Islands?  

As long as it lasts... 

Np. No idea, but ima guess yes.

Lol. What Westeros needs is some type of noblemans insurance

[Lord Varys]

44 minutes ago, Starkz said:

Robert wasn’t a good king, but he still was king and at least his rule was peaceful. Aerys certainly was brought down by popular uprising the majority of the 7K wanted him off the Throne. Dorne was fighting for Elia and Rheager, not Aerys. All of those things I stated before where she was born and where’s she lived and her army are not things that I’m saying mean that she can’t have the throne, but rather obstacles to her gathering support, or do you believe her bringing over a bunch of eunuchs and rapers and pillagers aren’t going to cause some problems for her? The Targaryen dynasty ended when Robert became king and she now has to reclaim the throne for House Targaryen, simple as that. Their claims were taken from them and they accepted that when they left Westeros into exile. In regards to the example he provided its hardly a ridiculous example. It shows Dany mindset that when you leave your “house” you’re abandoning your claim to it which can be easily transcended to some people’s view of the Targaryens leaving Westeros. The Starks too have to reclaim Winterfell and the North, but as I said before it doesn’t look like they’re.

This has all nothing to do with claims, and the Targaryen claims also have nothing to do with Daenerys as such - the one who might successfully push the Targaryen claim right now is the dragonless Prince Aegon (who may not even be a Targaryen). If people now rally to him they will do so because of his looks and because of his name, and what that name represents - the glorious royal past of Westeros.

I really don't care or talk about right now about the potential success of Dany's campaign in Westeros (although I definitely can see her acquiring an army large enough to eradicate all opposition in Westeros - if she were to get all the Dothraki the war-torn Seven Kingdoms couldn't last a fortnight against her, even if all of Westeros stood against her - which they won't).

House Targaryen didn't *end* when Robert became, and not only because there were members of that house still alive (Aemon, Bloodraven, Rhaella, Viserys III, Daenerys, possibly Aegon, Jon Snow, etc.) but also because House Baratheon is a cadet branch of House Targaryen at least twice over. Their founder is a Targaryen bastard and Robert's grandmother was a Targaryen princess.

Aerys II was betrayed and murdered, he didn't lost his throne due to popular vote or something like that. Rhaegar lost a battle, but even there did not stand 4 against 3 'kingdoms'. The Riverlands were cut in half and Rhaegar had actually more troops than Robert at the Trident. Battles decide wars, not how many men you have.

34 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

I've always had the impression that Balon and the Iron Islands were somehow overlooked by Robert and his advisors, and that's how he managed to avoid the vow of loyalty - but then they did reach an agreement and he did take a vow eventually. I would understand why Dorne would be left alone, so perhaps Dorne wasn't properly conquered. Yet, the Lords Paramount of the North, the Riverlands, the Westerlands, the Stormlands and the Vale must have done Robert homage, and he obviously had the Crownlands, too. I don't think it's realistic to gather every single member of the nobility (not to mention the rest of the people) to give homage to the king personally (even Aegon couldn't be given homage and a vow of loyalty by every single Westerosi person), but as long as the king has the loyalty of the Lords Paramount and the Lords Paramount have the loyalty of their vassals, it should be all right - otherwise Jon Arryn must have thought of the problem and arranged for further homage.

That may be the case - but it is still odd and shows that Robert didn't exactly go through the legal motions to ensure that his throne was as secure as it could have been.

But again - Robert didn't conquer anything. He just rebelled and pushed out his cousins and stole their property. Robert and his allies fought against a tyrannical king (and Robert also against his shitty cousin the Crown Prince, a man he wanted to punish for some personal offense) - they did not, in the beginning, fight for the throne, and they all knew that to ensure Robert peaceful reign afterwards they had to kill all the members of the royal family who were not Baratheons - which they failed to do.

There is no scenario imaginable where Robert takes the Iron Throne and allows any Targaryens to remain in the Realm as private citizens because everybody knows he has no right to it - if this was truly a conquest like Aegon's, or William the Conqueror's or any form of true medieval conquest - during the War or the Roses, the Anarchy or the Dance of the Dragons the people involved in the fighting didn't conquer England or the Seven Kingdoms - there was just a civil war about the control of the throne. Such things are not right of conquest - that is two monarchs/nations/heads of state, etc. fighting against each other and then keeping their gains or even taking possession of an entire country. But as long as the parties involved don't agree that 'the war is over' and a conquest actually took place, then this thing didn't *really* happen - or at least there is legal space to later justify to challenge the new regime/situation.

And the Targaryens simply never gave up their claim to the Iron Throne. If they did, we could say, yeah, Aerys II's descendant no longer have a claim to the Iron Throne. But that's not something one side can decide arbitrarily. 

Quote

By the way, is there a tax system in the Seven Kingdoms? Do the various regions pay tax to the king? If they do, that's another way of acknowledging the king - or not.  

Sure, but apparently that's not the same as really swearing a vow to a king. And the dynastic question is also to be considered there. Jon Umber's justification to proclaim Robb king is that Robert's brothers and children are not Targaryens - to them they bowed, they were their rightful rulers, but not some Baratheons.

Quote

But there was a war involved, only not between the Starks and the Boltons, and rules were broken, too (Red Wedding), and despite the support of the IT, the Boltons have to hide behind blatant lies and deception (Winterfell was destroyed and the Stark kids were killed by Theon Turncloak, the Red Wedding "just happened" when Robb Stark turned into a wolf, Jeyne Poole is Ary Stark etc.) to try to consolidate their power and to make themselves (grudgingly) accepted by the Northern families. 

The Boltons just take the easy route - if they openly told the truth they would look much worse, but there is no indication that they have to tell those lies to have success.

Quote

How did this agreement happen and what did it include? I can't recall it. 

They all gave up their crowns to Aegon the Conqueror and received their new lordships from his hands. The way Gyldayn portrays that is classical medieval symbolism - the supplicant/defeated foe comes in the presence of the king, humbles himself in front of him, gives up the things he has agreed to give up, and receives his new lands, titles, holdings from the open hands of his monarch.

That's how those things go. Ronnel (and his mother), Torrhen, Loren, and all the other lords did accept that Aegon the Conqueror as their king. They accepted that they had been conquered. They did not go into exile. They bent the knee. 

And that means they no longer had claims to a crown and a throne to leave to their heirs. Torrhen's and Loren's heir had no right to take up a crown again because their fathers had given them up. Just as you or I don't have the right to the property of our parents if those parents sell that property before they die.

[BRANDON GREYSTARK]

Because it is her story .

[Julia H.]

37 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

<snip>

 

I understand conquest in a broader sense, but I see how Aegon's conquest is different from Robert's. The Targaryens did not accept Robert as their king, that's true. But their vassals did, and a king is hardly a king any more when his vassals turn their backs on him and support someone else. Such stories happened even in the time of Aegon I: King Harren did not give up his crown to him, but his vassals joined the conqueror, and that was how the Tully family became the lords of the Riverlands after Harren's death, yet, no one doubts that Aegon conquered the Riverlands and the Iron Islands, too. Not all the stories are as clean-cut as some. 

Quote

The Boltons just take the easy route - if they openly told the truth they would look much worse, but there is no indication that they have to tell those lies to have success.

Roose thinks so though.  

The elder Bolton sighed. "Again? Surely you misspeak. You never slew Lord Eddard's sons, those two sweet boys we loved so well. That was Theon Turncloak's work, remember? How many of our grudging friends do you imagine we'd retain if the truth were known? Only Lady Barbrey, whom you would turn into a pair of boots … inferior boots. Human skin is not as tough as cowhide and will not wear as well. By the king's decree you are now a Bolton. Try and act like one. Tales are told of you, Ramsay. I hear them everywhere. People fear you."

"Good."

"You are mistaken. It is not good. No tales were ever told of me. Do you think I would be sitting here if it were otherwise? Your amusements are your own, I will not chide you on that count, but you must be more discreet."

[Tai Pan]

I think what Roose Bolton meant in that exchange was how he managed to keep a lid on his illegal activities of the past.  Like taking the lord's right to the first night.  Taking liberties with his small folk like that was outlawed by the ruling kings and Rickard Stark would have no choice but to punish him.  Otherwise they all risked the wrath of the king.

[Lord Varys]

27 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

I understand conquest in a broader sense, but I see how Aegon's conquest is different from Robert's. The Targaryens did not accept Robert as their king, that's true. But their vassals did, and a king is hardly a king any more when his vassals turn their backs on him and support someone else. Such stories happened even in the time of Aegon I: King Harren did not give up his crown to him, but his vassals joined the conqueror, and that was how the Tully family became the lords of the Riverlands after Harren's death, yet, no one doubts that Aegon conquered the Riverlands and the Iron Islands, too. Not all the stories are as clean-cut as some. 

Sure, I never said Robert isn't a king. I said that he himself know Viserys III has the better claim, and I said that the Realm at large also know this, even his friends know this. They will stand with Robert, but they also do know that the Targaryens have the better claim.

The comparison to the Hoare example would only work if a son of Harren's (it also works with the Gardeners) had escaped the carnage - with Harren not yielding and not bending the knee to Aegon the claim of such a son to Harrenhal, the Riverlands, and the Iron Islands would be stronger than Aegon's.

Granted, since the Hoares were never all that popular, this is not so likely to actually happen, but if people were discussing claims and the like such a Hoare could make a very good case - a surviving Gardener could make an even better case.

27 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

Roose thinks so though.  

The elder Bolton sighed. "Again? Surely you misspeak. You never slew Lord Eddard's sons, those two sweet boys we loved so well. That was Theon Turncloak's work, remember? How many of our grudging friends do you imagine we'd retain if the truth were known? Only Lady Barbrey, whom you would turn into a pair of boots … inferior boots. Human skin is not as tough as cowhide and will not wear as well. By the king's decree you are now a Bolton. Try and act like one. Tales are told of you, Ramsay. I hear them everywhere. People fear you."

"Good."

"You are mistaken. It is not good. No tales were ever told of me. Do you think I would be sitting here if it were otherwise? Your amusements are your own, I will not chide you on that count, but you must be more discreet."

If the truth were out, they would have to act more ruthlessly, and continue the path started the Twins. Eradicate all the Stark loyalists in the North piece by piece. It could be done, but it would be awful business.

And it is not that all the men Roose marched home in the North don't know what transpired at the Twins. Most (or even all) of them would be complicit in the Red Wedding, helping Roose and the Freys to slay Robb and his people. We don't know if any of them talked, of course, but I think the chances are very low that thousands of people just hold their tongues indefinitely.

And the true issue is the Red Wedding, not what Ramsay and Theon did at Winterfell. Roose could pretend to have had no knowledge of this - after all, he was in the south - but the Red Wedding is what really turns the North against the Boltons and the Freys.

[Julia H.]

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If the truth were out, they would have to act more ruthlessly, and continue the path started the Twins. Eradicate all the Stark loyalists in the North piece by piece. It could be done, but it would be awful business.

And it is not that all the men Roose marched home in the North don't know what transpired at the Twins. Most (or even all) of them would be complicit in the Red Wedding, helping Roose and the Freys to slay Robb and his people. We don't know if any of them talked, of course, but I think the chances are very low that thousands of people just hold their tongues indefinitely.

And the true issue is the Red Wedding, not what Ramsay and Theon did at Winterfell. Roose could pretend to have had no knowledge of this - after all, he was in the south - but the Red Wedding is what really turns the North against the Boltons and the Freys.

The Red Wedding is the bigger issue, and they lie about it, too. But the burning of Winterfell and killing the Stark children must also be an issue, otherwise Roose wouldn't be so keen on blaming everything on Theon; and that crime is something they can actually hope to keep secret, as they haven't left any witnesses alive and free - except that they don't know about Wex.

Robett Glover took up the tale. "We may never know all that happened at Winterfell, when Ser Rodrik Cassel tried to take the castle back from Theon Greyjoy's ironmen. The Bastard of Bolton claims that Greyjoy murdered Ser Rodrik during a parley. Wex says no. Until he learns more letters we will never know half the truth … but he came to us knowing yes and no, and those can go a long way once you find the right questions." 

I find it likely that should the truth about Winterfell came to light, Roose would be willing to sacrifice Ramsay, claiming that he himself had been deceived as well. (Especially, if he had another son by that time.)

I agree that Roose's participation in the Red Wedding is not a well-guarded secret. Manderly, for example, apparently knows how his son died. Nor can Roose realistically hope that the Northerners do not and will not suspect anything. But for the moment, he is very eager to keep up appearances. I don't think it's because he is reluctant to continue the killings for any reasons of conscience. He simply doesn't feel strong enough and safe enough without having the firm support of the North. (I don't think he has any illusions about the Lannisters or to what extent he can count on them.) He wants to build up a strong power base of his own, which at the moment he doesn't have. (Lady Dustin suspects that Roose wants to be King of the North.) His authority at the moment is based on the shadow on the wall that is King Tommen's power.

[Darth Sidious]

On 8/25/2018 at 8:25 PM, The First Bloodrider said:

The implications are severe.  If the Baratheons are the rightful rulers by the right of conquest it is logical to conclude that the Boltons are the rightful lords of the north because of the same reason.  Nobody ever said you had to win fair and square.  I don't doubt for a second that the Starks used an unfair advantage during their fight for supremacy in the north.  

Talk about failure!  The Starks failed the north because they went south to start a war and left the north exposed to the Ironborn.  That is failure.  If failure is an excuse to be relieved of power then surely the Starks deserved to lose theirs more than the Targaryens.  

Oh you better believe the ramifications are severe.  This affects one of the hotly debated topics on this website in recent years, Mance Rayder's violation of guest rights.  

[Julia H.]

On 8/26/2018 at 9:53 AM, dmfn said:

I read about Old Gods and human sacrifice.

Just curious: Do you really hold the Starks of the current story responsible for human sacrifice? Because they are the heroes of the novels, not the Starks of old. The current Starks most definitely do not practise human sacrifice, and one of them has done his best to save other people from being sacrificed. Holding them responsible for something their ancestors did perhaps thousands of years ago would be like blaming Dany for the Valyrian practice of slavery.  

On 8/26/2018 at 9:53 AM, dmfn said:

I read about faceless men and indiscriminate murder.

I suppose you are speaking of Arya here, but don't forget that she is a child who has been through horrible, traumatic experiences and has been "taught" - by the adults she met (soldiers, murderers, rapists etc.) and by the events she experienced - that in this world killing is normal and you either kill or get killed. It is not her fault, and at the moment she is still a child, robbed of her childhood too soon. She used to be a compassionate little kid, who grieved for the butcher's boy (and probably for others who were killed), saved Jaqen et al from certain death in a moment when a lot of people would have thought only of themselves and of their friends, and who had a keen sense of justice / injustice. She was transformed by war and by the people who eventually took her in and provided her with a sense of relative security. 

[dmfn]

2 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Just curious: Do you really hold the Starks of the current story responsible for human sacrifice? Because they are the heroes of the novels, not the Starks of old. The current Starks most definitely do not practise human sacrifice, and one of them has done his best to save other people from being sacrificed. Holding them responsible for something their ancestors did perhaps thousands of years ago would be like blaming Dany for the Valyrian practice of slavery.  

I suppose you are speaking of Arya here, but don't forget that she is a child who has been through horrible, traumatic experiences and has been "taught" - by the adults she met (soldiers, murderers, rapists etc.) and by the events she experienced - that in this world killing is normal and you either kill or get killed. It is not her fault, and at the moment she is still a child, robbed of her childhood too soon. She used to be a compassionate little kid, who grieved for the butcher's boy (and probably for others who were killed), saved Jaqen et al from certain death in a moment when a lot of people would have thought only of themselves and of their friends, and who had a keen sense of justice / injustice. She was transformed by war and by the people who eventually took her in and provided her with a sense of relative security. 

Eddard cleaning the blood off of Ice in the pool beneath the heart tree is him feeding blood to the Old Gods, and we don't fully understand the implications of that. I don't know if Ned knows or not.

Jon saving wildlings from becoming zobies isn't exactly selfless, but I didn't say anything about him anyway.

Arya has moved beyond survival killing. She is training to be a contract killer, and murdered a Night's Watch deserter like it was her job. Not to mention her revenge motives. A lot of kids have rough childhoods and don't turn into murderers.

If you aren't open to the possibility of, or unable to see the potential for, the Starks being something other than 'the heroes' of the story I'm not going to try to convince you.

[Julia H.]

1 minute ago, dmfn said:

Eddard cleaning the blood off of Ice in the pool beneath the heart tree is him feeding blood to the Old Gods, and we don't fully understand the implications of that. I don't know if Ned knows or not.

That does not mean Eddard is guilty of human sacrifice in any sense of the word.

1 minute ago, dmfn said:

Jon saving wildlings from becoming zobies isn't exactly selfless, but I didn't say anything about him anyway.

I meant Jon saving Mance's son and Maester Aemon from Melisandre's fire. She is the one who practises human sacrifice in the current story, and Jon, just like Davos, tries to stop her. As for selfless or not, it is no way in his personal interest to save an orphan wildling baby from the fire, yet, that's exactly what he does. 

I regard Jon as one of the Starks, and when we say the Starks are the heroes of the books, I include him.  In addition, we know he was brought up by the Starks and Eddard is his role model, so when he is appalled by the idea of human sacrifice, it is hard to imagine that Eddard somehow may have taught him that sacrificing humans to a god was OK.

1 minute ago, dmfn said:

Arya has moved beyond survival killing. She is training to be a contract killer, and murdered a Night's Watch deserter like it was her job. Not to mention her revenge motives. A lot of kids have rough childhoods and don't turn into murderers.

"Rough" does not adequately describe what she went through. A lot of kids simply die in similar circumstances. I agree that she has moved beyond survival killing, and she has also learned that she cannot trust and cannot expect justice from the world, so she has to take justice (as she understands it) into her own hands. That's not how she should live, but she is still a child and a victim of the adults' game. Being killed is not the only way to become a victim. 

1 minute ago, dmfn said:

If you aren't open to the possibility of, or unable to see the potential for, the Starks being something other than 'the heroes' of the story I'm not going to try to convince you.

Ah... fine.

The Starks are the heroes of the story. How could any character in any story be the hero and not be the hero at the same time?

I'm not arguing that the Starks are perfect as people. Heroes don't have to be faultless, what is more, they make their own mistakes in most stories. What I'm arguing against is specific points you listed, because I find it unjust to blame anyone for what their ancestors did and to blame a child victim (who is still a child) for what war and the cruelty of adults did to her psyche, especially when we have been shown by the author that the child had started out as a perfectly normal and caring human being. 

[Lord Varys]

19 hours ago, Julia H. said:

The Red Wedding is the bigger issue, and they lie about it, too. But the burning of Winterfell and killing the Stark children must also be an issue, otherwise Roose wouldn't be so keen on blaming everything on Theon; and that crime is something they can actually hope to keep secret, as they haven't left any witnesses alive and free - except that they don't know about Wex.

Sure, but that is the official story they started to spread even before Robb was dead. It was the story they would have gone by even if there hadn't been a Red Wedding. Roose only made the call to go through with that after he sent Jaime back to KL.

19 hours ago, Julia H. said:

I find it likely that should the truth about Winterfell came to light, Roose would be willing to sacrifice Ramsay, claiming that he himself had been deceived as well. (Especially, if he had another son by that time.)

Not only then. If Robb had returned with Roose and had suspected Ramsay had been involved or been behind Winterfell, Roose would have literally presented Robb with Ramsay's dirty hide.

19 hours ago, Julia H. said:

I agree that Roose's participation in the Red Wedding is not a well-guarded secret. Manderly, for example, apparently knows how his son died. Nor can Roose realistically hope that the Northerners do not and will not suspect anything. But for the moment, he is very eager to keep up appearances. I don't think it's because he is reluctant to continue the killings for any reasons of conscience. He simply doesn't feel strong enough and safe enough without having the firm support of the North. (I don't think he has any illusions about the Lannisters or to what extent he can count on them.) He wants to build up a strong power base of his own, which at the moment he doesn't have. (Lady Dustin suspects that Roose wants to be King of the North.) His authority at the moment is based on the shadow on the wall that is King Tommen's power.

The whole story is sham to help the defeated Northmen and Riverlanders to accept their new place in the new status quo. They have been defeated and they have bent the knee and many have family members that are hostages. By turning a blind eye to what everybody knows actually happened and believing the lies the Freys spread they can, sort of, keep face and actually submit to the new rule. After all, they all do know that they committed a very grievous crime by breaking guest right.

That is Manderly's own explanation for the whole thing - he makes it clear that he doesn't think that the Freys truly believe they should or would the nonsense they spread.

What Roose plans to do to all the fools who followed his call to Winterfell if push came to shove is not clear. I for one don't discount the possibility that he is willing and prepared to put everybody down who is not clearly in his camp. He has the strength of numbers and he knows how a slaughtering like the Red Wedding is set up. The Manderlys are completely at his mercy, considering that they are only 300 men. The same would go for Hother's Umbers and whatever few men the other Northern houses brought.

He wants to deal with Stannis first, but the logical next step after that is done is to force the real submission of White Harbor, starting by putting down the fat man who is already in his power.

Roose is the only man in the North left with a sizable army, and once Stannis is broken his enemies in the North would be completely helpless and ripe to be destroyed by both the Boltons and winter.

3 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Just curious: Do you really hold the Starks of the current story responsible for human sacrifice? Because they are the heroes of the novels, not the Starks of old.

The heroes in those stories are not traditional heroes who actually shine and sparkle. They do questionable things, too. This story wouldn't be fun if just the Starks of the past were practicing blood sacrifices. Bran is going to be served and worshiped this way, too, that is why we even learn that the Starks of old did that. I mean, what's the point of people in the past we don't know sacrificing people to the trees if that's not going to be a practice our gang is going to revive?

We learned that the Starks of old were harsh and cruel men because our Starks have to become like them to survive. The soft people like Ned and Robb are fit for the block in this world. They are killed. If you want to prevail - against your mortal and your supernatural enemies - you have to become as hard and ruthless as them.

And never mind what George says informally, Arya is not 'hero' in any real sense of the world. And neither are Sansa or Rickon. Even Bran has crossed a pretty big line when he reduced Hodor into his human puppet. A proper hero would never even think about that, much less actually do it.

[dmfn]

28 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

That does not mean Eddard is guilty of human sacrifice in any sense of the word.

I meant Jon saving Mance's son and Maester Aemon from Melisandre's fire. She is the one who practises human sacrifice in the current story, and Jon, just like Davos, tries to stop her. As for selfless or not, it is no way in his personal interest to save an orphan wildling baby from the fire, yet, that's exactly what he does. 

I regard Jon as one of the Starks, and when we say the Starks are the heroes of the books, I include him.  In addition, we know he was brought up by the Starks and Eddard is his role model, so when he is appalled by the idea of human sacrifice, it is hard to imagine that Eddard somehow may have taught him that sacrificing humans to a god was OK.

"Rough" does not adequately describe what she went through. A lot of kids simply die in similar circumstances. I agree that she has moved beyond survival killing, and she has also learned that she cannot trust and cannot expect justice from the world, so she has to take justice (as she understands it) into her own hands. That's not how she should live, but she is still a child and a victim of the adults' game. Being killed is not the only way to become a victim. 

Ah... fine.

The Starks are the heroes of the story. How could any character in any story be the hero and not be the hero at the same time?

I'm not arguing that the Starks are perfect as people. Heroes don't have to be faultless, what is more, they make their own mistakes in most stories. What I'm arguing against is specific points you listed, because I find it unjust to blame anyone for what their ancestors did and to blame a child victim (who is still a child) for what war and the cruelty of adults did to her psyche, especially when we have been shown by the author that the child had started out as a perfectly normal and caring human being. 

a blood sacrifice to a tree from a dead human is in some way a human sacrifice

childhood trama doesn't excuse murder

jon swapped one baby for another 

bran...whats he eating people? Fucking with time? Who knows?

rickon...who cares

Starks are protagonists, not heroes

The literary device 'anti-hero' is often used for characters the writer wants his audience to care about regardless of their actions. Read: The Illiad, The Catcher in the Rye, Lolita, anything by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, anything by Hunter S. Thompson, and many many other writers throughout human history. This is exactly how a hero can not be a hero and still be the hero.

 

[Julia H.]

2 hours ago, dmfn said:

a blood sacrifice to a tree from a dead human is in some way a human sacrifice

First, we don't know if Ned was really "feeding blood to the gods". All we are told is that he was cleaning his sword.

Secondly, even ritually giving the blood that is on his sword for a reason different from human sacrifice, is not human sacrifice. It may be a more civilised custom that replaced a more ancient custom (human sacrifice), which has been abandoned, in order to appease the Old Gods for not sacrificing humans to them any more. The two acts - actually sacrificing people, as Melisandre does, and giving the gods a ritual replacement for human sacrifice (which would be people killed in order to please the gods) - are very different from a moral viewpoint.

Thirdly, it is also possible that Ned is simply following a ritual custom without realizing or thinking of its origin. We have Ned's POV and he never thinks of human sacrifice in any way. The author has Jon confront the practice of human sacrifice and does not make him recall how it was something normal according to the Stark values He is just appalled by it without any mixed feelings.

Quote

childhood trama doesn't excuse murder

Yet, even in our society children, i.e. people under a certain age, are not held legally and morally responsible for their actions.

Quote

jon swapped one baby for another 

Yes, and Davos put a youngster on a ship. Just for fun.

Quote

bran...whats he eating people? Fucking with time? Who knows?

I guess only GRRM does. We'll see where he will go with Bran.

Quote

rickon...who cares

He's a child and currently out of the story.

Quote

Starks are protagonists, not heroes

The literary device 'anti-hero' is often used for characters the writer wants his audience to care about regardless of their actions. Read: The Illiad, The Catcher in the Rye, Lolita, anything by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, anything by Hunter S. Thompson, and many many other writers throughout human history. This is exactly how a hero can not be a hero and still be the hero.

 

I know what an anti-hero is. But when we mean an anti-hero we should say an anti-hero. The two terms are not interchangeable. It was explained somewhere upthread how Martin implied that the Starks are the heroes of the story. Where does he imply that he really meant 'anti-heroes'? 

Anyway, I wouldn't classify the Starks as anti-heroes. (Though truth be told, I wouldn't classify every single one of them as a hero either, I would rather say the heroes of the story are among them if I wanted to be precise.) If you want an anti-hero in the story, the best example would be Tyrion. Heroes don't have to be perfect human beings and they can certainly make mistakes. 

Yet, if you want to say that the Starks are "just protagonists" (not anti-heroes), so be it. To some extent, I can accept this. But I still maintain that, as per the story, they (the present-day Starks) are not guilty of human sacrifice, and their hero status (or lack of it) is independent of what their ancestors did or did not do. I also maintain my opinion about Arya as stated above. 

 

[Lord Varys]

George has not a single 'white knight' super hero in his story. Not a single one. Even the great guys in his world follow the ridiculous, ugly rules of the society they live in - Ned and Robb execute people with there own hands, some of which are not actually that bad (Gared, for instance). Davos - one of the most positive characters in the series - has a criminal past. Perhaps Brienne is closest to a 'real hero' but one could make a case that she got dirty when she agreed to lure Jaime into a trap by lying to him.

And on the other side, every character who gets a POV also gets some human traits one can empathize with. Even the likes of Victarion and Chett. If Ramsay, Roose, Gregor, or any of the Bloody Mummers got POVs we could, most likely empathize with them, too. One can also empathize and sympathize with many of the 'villains' who don't have POVs.

This story doesn't have clear villains or heroes, and it makes no sense to read the series in a way that implies they have.

The author may sympathize with certain sides - or rather, he may know that certain factions and sides are going to win/survive in the end, and he characterizes his figures accordingly - but he strives to make his characters all 'real people', and real people aren't clichéd literary heroes or villains.

[dmfn]

13 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

First, we don't know if Ned was really "feeding blood to the gods". All we are told is that he was cleaning his sword.

Secondly, even ritually giving the blood that is on his sword for a reason different from human sacrifice, is not human sacrifice. It may be a more civilised custom that replaced a more ancient custom (human sacrifice), which has been abandoned, in order to appease the Old Gods for not sacrificing humans to them any more. The two acts - actually sacrificing people, as Melisandre does, and giving the gods a ritual replacement for human sacrifice (which would be people killed in order to please the goods) - are very different from a moral viewpoint.

Thirdly, it is also possible that Ned is simply following a ritual custom without realizing or thinking of its origin. We have Ned's POV and he never thinks of human sacrifice in any way. The author has Jon confront the practice of human sacrifice and does not make him recall how it was something normal according to the Stark values He is just appalled by it without any mixed feelings.

Yet, even in our society children, i.e. people under a certain age, are not held legally and morally responsible for their actions.

Yes, and Davos put a youngster on a ship. Just for fun.

I guess only GRRM does. We'll see where he will go with Bran.

He's a child and currently out of the story.

I know what an anti-hero is. But when we mean an anti-hero we should say an anti-hero. The two terms are not interchangable. It was explained somewhere upthread how Martin implied that the Starks are the heroes of the story. Where does he imply that he really meant 'anti-heroes'? 

Anyway, I wouldn't classify the Starks as anti-heroes. (Though truth be told, I wouldn't classify every single one of them as a hero either, I would rather say the heroes of the story are among them if I wanted to be precise.) If you want an anti-hero in the story, the best example would be Tyrion. Heroes don't have to be perfect human beings and they can certainly make mistakes. 

Yet, if you want to say that the Starks are "just protagonists" (not anti-heroes), so be it. To some extent, I can accept this. But I still maintain that, as per the story, they (the present-day Starks) are not guilty of human sacrifice and their hero status (or lack of it) is independent of what their ancestors did or did not do. I also maintain my opinion about Arya as stated above. 

 

I knew I couldn't change your mind

I like the Starks, don't get me wrong. I just think there are some skeletons in their closets. The Old Gods are highly suspect. 

We'll just have to keep our fingers crossed for good luck

[Geddus]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

This story doesn't have clear villains or heroes, and it makes no sense to read the series in a way that implies they have.

How can Ramsay, Gregor, Vargo Hoath, Cersei be something other than a villain? How can Brienne not be seen as a hero?

[Julia H.]

1 hour ago, dmfn said:

I knew I couldn't change your mind

I like the Starks, don't get me wrong. I just think there are some skeletons in their closets. The Old Gods are highly suspect. 

We'll just have to keep our fingers crossed for good luck

I think even the current Starks think that the old Kings of Winter were terrible and frightening (or something similar). As for the Old Gods, I wouldn't blame them for anything, just as I don't blame R'hllor for anything Melisandre does. 

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Not only then. If Robb had returned with Roose and had suspected Ramsay had been involved or been behind Winterfell, Roose would have literally presented Robb with Ramsay's dirty hide.

The whole story is sham to help the defeated Northmen and Riverlanders to accept their new place in the new status quo. They have been defeated and they have bent the knee and many have family members that are hostages. By turning a blind eye to what everybody knows actually happened and believing the lies the Freys spread they can, sort of, keep face and actually submit to the new rule. After all, they all do know that they committed a very grievous crime by breaking guest right.

That is Manderly's own explanation for the whole thing - he makes it clear that he doesn't think that the Freys truly believe they should or would the nonsense they spread.

What Roose plans to do to all the fools who followed his call to Winterfell if push came to shove is not clear. I for one don't discount the possibility that he is willing and prepared to put everybody down who is not clearly in his camp. He has the strength of numbers and he knows how a slaughtering like the Red Wedding is set up. The Manderlys are completely at his mercy, considering that they are only 300 men. The same would go for Hother's Umbers and whatever few men the other Northern houses brought.

He wants to deal with Stannis first, but the logical next step after that is done is to force the real submission of White Harbor, starting by putting down the fat man who is already in his power.

Roose is the only man in the North left with a sizable army, and once Stannis is broken his enemies in the North would be completely helpless and ripe to be destroyed by both the Boltons and winter.

There is no evil that I would put past  Roose Bolton. I also agree that there must be others besides Manderly who see through the mummer's farce. They may be saving face but they may also be biding their time. Or both. Bolton at least does not dare to openly brag about the Red Wedding. For the moment at least. He also thinks that having "Arya Stark" in his family helps him. The mummer's farce, as it is, can go two ways though. Bolton very probably has the strongest single army now among the Northmen, but I doubt that everything will go his way. Not always anyway.  

Quote

The heroes in those stories are not traditional heroes who actually shine and sparkle. They do questionable things, too. This story wouldn't be fun if just the Starks of the past were practicing blood sacrifices. Bran is going to be served and worshiped this way, too, that is why we even learn that the Starks of old did that. I mean, what's the point of people in the past we don't know sacrificing people to the trees if that's not going to be a practice our gang is going to revive?

I wouldn't make such a prediction, but we'll see. Until we do, I will regard all the current Starks as innocent of any horrible crimes that they have not committed. Should one of them make or accept human sacrifice at some point, that still will not mean that it is something that the Starks of the current story generally do, as a group, and it certainly will not make Ned or Robb somehow guilty in retrospect. 

Quote

We learned that the Starks of old were harsh and cruel men because our Starks have to become like them to survive. The soft people like Ned and Robb are fit for the block in this world. They are killed. If you want to prevail - against your mortal and your supernatural enemies - you have to become as hard and ruthless as them.

I wouldn't call Ned or Robb soft. Ned followed his principles and did what he considered thet right thing to do from a moral viewpoint, and died as a result. He was brave and never selfish. I also think Robb did what he regarded as the right thing to do and his intentions were noble. He made a tragic mistake or maybe several tragic mistakes and died for it, like so many heroes before him. 

We'll see what it takes to prevail, but I think the sort of humanity that, for example, Ned had will have to be preserved by whoever turns out to be the "real hero" (or the survivor if you prefer that), otherwise the "realms of men" will have no hope - even if some "hard and ruthless" individuals survive.  

If all the conflicts of the heart (love duty, honour and so on) boiled down to simple "you must be hard and ruthless to survive", it would be a most unsatisfying conclusion. Besides, this point was pretty much brought home in the very first book. There would be no need to write further books.

Quote

And never mind what George says informally, Arya is not 'hero' in any real sense of the world. And neither are Sansa or Rickon. Even Bran has crossed a pretty big line when he reduced Hodor into his human puppet. A proper hero would never even think about that, much less actually do it.

That leaves us Jon.  

I'm fine with that. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

George has not a single 'white knight' super hero in his story. Not a single one. 

And I can't recall anyone ever arguing that there is one. 

It doesn't mean there are no heroes though.

Quote

And on the other side, every character who gets a POV also gets some human traits one can empathize with. Even the likes of Victarion and Chett. If Ramsay, Roose, Gregor, or any of the Bloody Mummers got POVs we could, most likely empathize with them, too. One can also empathize and sympathize with many of the 'villains' who don't have POVs.

I'm not sure about the bolded at all. When I started reading Cersei's POV, I almost expected something similar to what had happened when I had started to read Jaime's POV. But nothing happened. I still find her as horrible a person - maybe worse - as before. There is also Varamyr... 

There are novels that are told from the POV of a psychotic killer. I don't like reading them precisely because I can't empathize with the protagonist. 

More importantly, I don't believe that we, the readers, are meant to empathize with every single character. The POV structure in these novels is great and it gave me food for thought as much as to anyone else. But I think the line can be drawn at the likes of Roose and Ramsay, who are worse than Cersei. Otherwise GRRM should really, really give them their POV's, just to make the point that we can come to like anyone whose feelings and motivations we find out. If GRRM wanted to make this point, then giving a POV to Cersei would not be enough, he would have to give a POV to one of those you mentioned and manage to make us empathize with that character. But these characters simply don't have the human heart that can be in conflict with itself because such a conflict requires a conscience.