Jump to content

Why did George give daenerys everything


manchester_babe

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, Geddus said:

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

I laid that out above.

In Brienne's case one could also add that she was a nonsensical fool's errand in AFfC. Real heroes usually do meaningful and important things - Brienne did not.

30 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

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. 

R'hllor isn't a person. You cannot blame him for anything.

30 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

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.  

Sure, it is just a projection what Roose might intend to do should he defeat Stannis, not what is going to happen in the novels.

30 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

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. 

I don't think anyone in this world sees the human sacrifices of the First Men as 'horrible crimes'. It was part of their religious practices. In fact, nobody talks much about blood sacrifices all that much. Davos doesn't like them, but Davos isn't following the old gods.

30 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

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. 

Ned cared more about the children of his sworn enemy, Cersei Lannister, than he cared about the lives of his friend and king or, by accident or stupidity, about the lives of his daughters and his own life.

That is not heroic, that is moronic. Especially in the way he acted, since there were clearly other ways to try to safeguard Cersei's children than to tell Cersei what he had learned. The correct moral point of view in this world - and any other world - is to care first for the people that are yours to protect, and not put others before your own.

Robb cared more about the honor of a girl that was set up to seduce him and sleep with him than about the honor of his family and his own sworn word.

'Soft' is pretty adequate word to describe that. A truly hard man would do what he has to, and not follow his impulses.

30 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

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.  

That doesn't seem to be likely in this scenario. The Others and wights are not human. They don't care about how humans treat each other (or they), they just want to kill them all.

30 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

That leaves us Jon.  

Jon isn't a Stark. He is a Targaryen prince disguised as a Stark bastard.

30 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

It doesn't mean there are no heroes though.

It depends what one means by 'hero' - at this point there are no classical 'fantasy heroes' in this story. And Ned even fits the colloquial definition of 'hero' as protagonist since he died in the first book. Robb was never a main character, Bran is a cripple with dubious powers and desires, Arya a psychopathic murderer, and Sansa a girl with girlish interests who is already complicit in the poisoning of her own cousin (something that's a severe crime even if she were to prevent his ultimate murder).

These people are very important protagonists of the story, but to call them 'heroes' is, at this point in time, pretty misleading.

30 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

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... 

What about Varamyr? Can't you empathize with him? I can. More so than with Chett who is really disgusting, but Varamyr is an outcast who made something out of himself. That is commendable.

And one can certainly empathize with Cersei if one wants to. 

30 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

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.

Psychopaths are people, too, even those who kill people (and that's not all the people). You see this with Arya. Her murder of Raff is the textbook case of a psychopathic killer - she has no empathy for him and she even expresses joy over the deed (which indicates that she enjoys to kill people she doesn't like). Psychopaths are not 'born evil', they don't even all want to kill people - they are just more capable of doing it because their emotions are processed differently. And while there are genetic predispositions for that kind of thing there is also the influence of various traumas to be considered - many psychopaths are made by their environment, they are not born that way.

This strange line between POVs or characters who have a clear motivation and those who are 'clear villains' we should not empathize with some people seem to see doesn't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

No one was stating that GRRM has a white knight in the story. Although, if my recollection is correct, GRRM did state at some point that Jon comes closest to a traditional hero. Make of that what you will.

What GRRM stated in the past is that villains don’t see themselves as villians, which is quite true, but that doesn’t mean they are not villains. I don’t think he meant to imply that there are no heroes or villains, just that heroes are capable of succumbing to their baser instincts/weakness at some point in their lives just as villains may at times show acts of decency/heroism. 

And as @Julia H. pointed out, not every character with a POV (Cersei being a perfect example) elicits empathy from the reader (not from me at least). In fact, with Cersei’s POV, you come to see how truly vile and ugly she is. She is a narcissist and sociopath who cares little for the suffering of others and at most times is the instigator of this suffering. In her POV, do you see any conflict/doubt/remorse she has regarding her vile acts, unless there is a negative consequence to her person? Her twin otoh, has a conscience and feels guilty over his despicable acts, although granted it took him losing a hand, a heavy dose of Brienne, and the knowledge of Cersei cuckolding him to come to this point.

And I suspect, no POV for characters such as Roose, Ramsay, or Gregor is going to make them any less evil, they may have a past that may somewhat mitigate their actions but that does not make their acts or themselves any less evil. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I laid that out above.

In Brienne's case one could also add that she was a nonsensical fool's errand in AFfC. Real heroes usually do meaningful and important things - Brienne did not.

When did you lay it out? When you said that if we had POVs from certain characters we could find them more sympathetic? That sure doesn't work for Cersei, who becomes straight up irredeemable once we read her thoughts and I really, really doubt it would work for the likes or Ramsay or Gregor either.

As for Brienne, she's not a hero because her story isn't interesting? I thought we were talking morals here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎8‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 4:28 AM, Damon_Tor said:

This. The villain needs to be powerful to be a credible threat.

Everyone's figured out she's the villain, right?

 

I'm sure that when Daenerys finally arrives in Westeros, everyone will think that she is the villain.

But she clearly isn't the villain.

57 minutes ago, Geddus said:

When did you lay it out? When you said that if we had POVs from certain characters we could find them more sympathetic? That sure doesn't work for Cersei, who becomes straight up irredeemable once we read her thoughts and I really, really doubt it would work for the likes or Ramsay or Gregor either.

As for Brienne, she's not a hero because her story isn't interesting? I thought we talking morals here.

What @Lord Varys means is that Brienne is a not the traditional hero. And he is right; she is not. Brienne is an anti-hero because she is failing spectacularly. She doesn't fall within the modern, colloquial definition of anti-hero (think Wolverine or Aladdin) but an anti-hero she is.

Refer to this:

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Analysis/AntiHero?from=Analysis.SlidingScaleOfAntiHeroes

https://thewritepractice.com/anti-heroes/ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Geddus said:

As for Brienne, she's not a hero because her story isn't interesting? I thought we talking morals here.

As did I, even if I'm just following the convo and not actively participating. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

I'm sure that when Daenerys finally arrives in Westeros, everyone will think that she is the villain.

But she clearly isn't the villain.

 

She's the one with the nukes. GRRM doesn't write stories where the guy with the nukes is the good guy. You've got to understand the author if you want to understand the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Damon_Tor said:

She's the one with the nukes. GRRM doesn't write stories where the guy with the nukes is the good guy. You've got to understand the author if you want to understand the story.

The hero of the story isn't the guy who can't control his emotions and betrayed the Night's Watch for his sister.  This is not really a story with set heroes and villains.  Some characters through their actions, intended or unintended, cause more harm than good.  Jon's caused a great deal of harm.

The lady with the nukes is working to bring freedom to the slaves of Essos.  That is a heroic act.  One of the "heroes" (protagonist might be a better word) of GRRM's short stories is a man called Havilland Tuf, who got control of a powerful ship that gave him the power to shape entire worlds.  Having this great power does not make him a bad guy.  So it is not accurate to say "GRRM doesn't write stories where the guy with the nukes is the good guy."  That is not accurate at all.  GRRM is a smart man.  He understands that you need power in order to bring change.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

What @Lord Varys means is that Brienne is a not the traditional hero. And he is right; she is not. Brienne is an anti-hero because she is failing spectacularly. She doesn't fall within the modern, colloquial definition of anti-hero (think Wolverine or Aladdin) but an anti-hero she is.

On that I agree. But morally she's clearly a hero, or if you prefer definitely one of the "good guys" (even tho she isn't a guy... a "good gal"?).

I also agree about Daenerys being seen as the evil warlord once she arrives in Westeros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

The hero of the story isn't the guy who can't control his emotions and betrayed the Night's Watch for his sister.  This is not really a story with set heroes and villains.  Some characters through their actions, intended or unintended, cause more harm than good.  Jon's caused a great deal of harm.

The lady with the nukes is working to bring freedom to the slaves of Essos.  That is a heroic act.  One of the "heroes" (protagonist might be a better word) of GRRM's short stories is a man called Havilland Tuf, who got control of a powerful ship that gave him the power to shape entire worlds.  Having this great power does not make him a bad guy.  So it is not accurate to say "GRRM doesn't write stories where the guy with the nukes is the good guy."  That is not accurate at all.  GRRM is a smart man.  He understands that you need power in order to bring change.  

Jon is a bit more complex than you make him out to be.  There is chaos at the Wall right now (at the end of Dance) and people are going to die for certain.  But Jon is also responsible for getting thousands of Wildlings south of the Wall and is working on getting even more of them south of the Wall if the Hardhome mission is a success.  These people are a challenge in that they have always been considered to be enemies of the south but Jon recognized that their numbers can be put to use helping defend the wall against the Others.  The thousands of Wildlings now south of the Wall won't be turned into Wights and that is a good thing.  Heroic, even.                                                                                          

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

The hero of the story isn't the guy who can't control his emotions and betrayed the Night's Watch for his sister.  This is not really a story with set heroes and villains.  Some characters through their actions, intended or unintended, cause more harm than good.  Jon's caused a great deal of harm.

The lady with the nukes is working to bring freedom to the slaves of Essos.  That is a heroic act.  

And Dany can control her emotions? That’s probably why she gave the go ahead to torture the wineshop owner’s daughters (who are most likely innnocent) in front of their father. 

As to her bringing freedom, tell that to the people of Astapor.

I don’t doubt that GRRM has portrayed Dany with heroic intentions up until now (can’t guarantee that it will be the case in future books) but she has flaws so do the Starks, that does not make them any less heroic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

This is not really a story with set heroes and villains.

Well that's certainly true. Which is why Daenerys' good intentions aren't enough to make her a hero, nor save her from being a villain.

6 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

The lady with the nukes is working to bring freedom to the slaves of Essos.

How's that working out for them? Is slavery worse than war? Because it's clearly not.

6 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

One of the "heroes" (protagonist might be a better word) of GRRM's short stories is a man called Havilland Tuf, who got control of a powerful ship that gave him the power to shape entire worlds.

But not meant to be a nuke analogy. The dragons explicitly are.

7 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

GRRM is a smart man.  He understands that you need power in order to bring change.

He's smart man, but he's also a pacifist, and a radical pacifist at that. He's expressed the opinion that war is almost never justified. He makes a possible exception for stopping a genocide. A possible exception. War to free slaves isn't justified. War to defend your borders isn't justified. War to bring justice to criminals isn't justified. War to reclaim a birthright isn't justified.

10 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

The hero of the story isn't the guy who can't control his emotions and betrayed the Night's Watch for his sister.

And I wouldn't dare argue that he is. After all, he was intending to go to war with the Boltons. War to save your little sister isn't justified either. But he did work to end the war with the Wildlings, so he's got more "hero" points than many other characters can claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

The hero of the story isn't the guy who can't control his emotions and betrayed the Night's Watch for his sister.  This is not really a story with set heroes and villains.  Some characters through their actions, intended or unintended, cause more harm than good.  Jon's caused a great deal of harm.

The lady with the nukes is working to bring freedom to the slaves of Essos.  That is a heroic act.  One of the "heroes" (protagonist might be a better word) of GRRM's short stories is a man called Havilland Tuf, who got control of a powerful ship that gave him the power to shape entire worlds.  Having this great power does not make him a bad guy.  So it is not accurate to say "GRRM doesn't write stories where the guy with the nukes is the good guy."  That is not accurate at all.  GRRM is a smart man.  He understands that you need power in order to bring change.  

Uh, you seemed to have missed the entire moral issue with Tuf. As George says himself, Tuf had the power to solve problems, but he also created them. Each Tuf story is a cautionary tale of be careful what you wish for. He set it in an "ecology" atmosphere because that was trendy at the time. This is not Daenerys' arc.

Daenerys does not parallel Tuf by any means, aside from the fact that she is not a big, bald, vegetarian with cats. No, rather she parallels Cyrain, the Mother in Nightflyers, Damon Julian, Simon Kress, and others like that... and almost word for word in each case.

George has also called the dragons a "nuclear deterrent", and that just because you have nukes doesn't mean you are a good ruler. With two books left to go, and Dany's coin still flipping in the air, readers may want to prepare for some ideas they might not like. Or maybe they do because it is still an interestingly written character.

ADDING: Tuf Voyaging was a series GRRM says was never completed, so you have no idea how Tuf may have gone. He was already re-written once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, teej6 said:

No one was stating that GRRM has a white knight in the story. Although, if my recollection is correct, GRRM did state at some point that Jon comes closest to a traditional hero. Make of that what you will.

During the first three books Jon has a very conventional black-and-white plot. There are some conflicts and uncertainties, but the boy isn't a ruler and doesn't have to make complicated decisions in a complex political setting. In ADwD he becomes a politician, like the others, and thus is pretty far removed from the path of a traditional hero. And I'm pretty sure being killed is going to close that door once and for all - whatever he is going to do now is not going to be even remotely like the things traditional heroes in traditional fantasy novels do. Not in this setting.

2 hours ago, teej6 said:

What GRRM stated in the past is that villains don’t see themselves as villians, which is quite true, but that doesn’t mean they are not villains. I don’t think he meant to imply that there are no heroes or villains, just that heroes are capable of succumbing to their baser instincts/weakness at some point in their lives just as villains may at times show acts of decency/heroism. 

They are not villains in the sense that 'villain' is a simplistic term for a certain time of 'evil literary figure'. I don't think it is very helpful or interesting to categorize literary characters in this fashion if the author is clearly striving for more complexity.

Granted, there are better and worse characters in this series, but I'd really say that hero-villain dichotomy is too simplistic a framework to categorize the characters of ASoIaF.

2 hours ago, teej6 said:

And as @Julia H. pointed out, not every character with a POV (Cersei being a perfect example) elicits empathy from the reader (not from me at least). In fact, with Cersei’s POV, you come to see how truly vile and ugly she is. She is a narcissist and sociopath who cares little for the suffering of others and at most times is the instigator of this suffering. In her POV, do you see any conflict/doubt/remorse she has regarding her vile acts, unless there is a negative consequence to her person? Her twin otoh, has a conscience and feels guilty over his despicable acts, although granted it took him losing a hand, a heavy dose of Brienne, and the knowledge of Cersei cuckolding him to come to this point.

If you don't empathize with Cersei during her walk of shame I don't understand how your brain processes emotions. This is a very powerful scene that elicits very strong emotions in all people I've ever talked about this chapter, and pretty much nobody was left unmoved by that. 

Cersei is also full of fear and (in part, justified) paranoia throughout her chapters. She is under a lot of stress, and she has been forced to take so much shit over the years that a lot of her actions are, in my opinion, understandable. And she is not really a sociopath or anything of that sort. She is aware when she is doing something wrong and she does empathize with people - that's why she pushes away the consequences of her actions. She doesn't know what happened to Falyse and her maid and the other people she handed over to Qyburn.

And unlike Jaime, Cersei really does care about her children. She isn't a good mother, but she loves them, and there is no doubt that she would kill and die for them to protect them. She also likes to rule herself, finally, but it is also clear that Tommen and his well-being is the driving force of everything she does in AFfC and ADwD. It is what gives her the strength to survive the walk of shame.

Jaime is even a greater narcissist as Cersei is - he is the male twin, and the perfect one. The one who can do whatever the hell he likes. And that's how he lives. Meeting Brienne and having his weirdo dream rekindled his old fancy of being a great knight (of the Kingsguard) and that's the path he tries to walk now, but this is not something that comes out of the depths of his noble heart. Jaime doesn't know or understand how 'normal people' (even 'normal nobles') live like because he was always so privileged and perfect. He is like a god among men - true gods don't understand how mortals live, even if they would try.

But this isn't a thread about any of that.

2 hours ago, teej6 said:

And I suspect, no POV for characters such as Roose, Ramsay, or Gregor is going to make them any less evil, they may have a past that may somewhat mitigate their actions but that does not make their acts or themselves any less evil. 

But it wouldn't make them into villains in the traditional sense of the word. It would indeed be interesting what exactly drives a man like Ramsay. At this point, we don't know. He seems to be just a very rotten person. But why he is that way we don't know. George would, presumably, give him a reason and an internal motivation.

Very few people complain about the monster that's Victarion Greyjoy - and he is arguably the cruelest POV in the books. Presumably because his chapters make him somewhat entertaining and sympathetic in his utter stupidity.

2 hours ago, Geddus said:

When did you lay it out? When you said that if we had POVs from certain characters we could find them more sympathetic? That sure doesn't work for Cersei, who becomes straight up irredeemable once we read her thoughts and I really, really doubt it would work for the likes or Ramsay or Gregor either.

As for Brienne, she's not a hero because her story isn't interesting? I thought we were talking morals here.

@Jabar of House Titan answered that for me. A hero or heroine in the traditional sense isn't just a good guy trying to do good and meaningful things but he/she actually does such things - and doesn't waste her times catching third-rate criminals or allows second-rate criminals to eat up a good portion of her face. She tries - and she fails. And he she fails even more after she breaks down and betrays Jaime to Catelyn. Perhaps this will all have a pretty good outcome - but if it does it won't be because Brienne did the right thing.

50 minutes ago, teej6 said:

And Dany can control her emotions? That’s probably why she gave the go ahead to torture the wineshop owner’s daughters (who are most likely innnocent) in front of their father. 

As to her bringing freedom, tell that to the people of Astapor.

I don’t doubt that GRRM has portrayed Dany with heroic intentions up until now (can’t guarantee that it will be the case in future books) but she has flaws so do the Starks, that does not make them any less heroic.

If you ask me whether Dany is a great hero in ADwD then you'll get a resounding 'NO!' from me. She is a moron who nearly got herself killed by poison which she could have easily prevented if she had done what it took to actually rule this city of scum. Daario gave her a pretty good picture what was necessary to do this. But she doesn't want to be seen as a butcher - but being a butcher is part of what is necessary to keep those Ghiscari in line.

But Jon isn't any better. He sucked even more at ruling in ADwD. He made a promising start but he quickly reverts back to favoritism and tries to do the right thing without considering that he actually has to have the power base to successfully pursue radical new ideas. He emulates both Ned and Robb in their downfalls - send away your true friends and allies and ignore any possible danger to your own person as long as you possibly can, including the warnings the seer and your direwolf give you.

A man who gets into a position where his own men gut him in the open because he did very questionable things both failed at communicating his new policies in a convincing manner as well as protecting his own person to the degree that such an attack could never happen. 

The only difference between Jon and Daenerys there is that Dany luckily got away before they could kill her. Jon did not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

R'hllor isn't a person. You cannot blame him for anything.

That was my point. 

Quote

I don't think anyone in this world sees the human sacrifices of the First Men as 'horrible crimes'. It was part of their religious practices. In fact, nobody talks much about blood sacrifices all that much. Davos doesn't like them, but Davos isn't following the old gods.

I don't think anyone in this world is preoccupied with an ancient First Men religious practice that went out of fashion long ago. But human sacrifice is present in the story through Melisandre (and in a rather more painful way than in the case of the ancient First Men), and it is a moral issue several characters have to face - not from the religious aspect, but it ties into the morality of killing innocents to gain advantages (for example). Melisandre argues for it, Stannis has to face it as a dilemma, Davos lectures him on the morality of it (and Davos is right); neither Davos, nor Jon Snow will allow it to happen when they can prevent it.

The blood magic that Dany uses also involves human sacrifice. She uses it to give birth to the dragons, the WMD of ASOIAF. It is definitely an issue. 

Quote

Ned cared more about the children of his sworn enemy, Cersei Lannister, than he cared about the lives of his friend and king or, by accident or stupidity, about the lives of his daughters and his own life.

The correct moral point of view in this world - and any other world - is to care first for the people that are yours to protect, and not put others before your own.

Or Ned just didn't want to be the one who caused the deaths of innocent children - anyone's children. He apparently didn't see a better solution to protect Cersei's children than warning her - it wasn't a clever move, I agree, but the immorality of killing children is a major theme in the books, and the conclusion is not as simple as you say. Otherwise we would all have to cheer for Jaime Lannister as he clearly cared first for his own kids when he pushed Bran out of the window. Yet, it's not so easy to congratulate him. Not to mention that this wonderful father didn't really care for his own children otherwise, at least not much, while Ned obviously did, very much. It was GRRM who wrote them in that way. So who is the better father, who is the better person? Is it really Jaime? Come on. 

Quote

Robb cared more about the honor of a girl that was set up to seduce him and sleep with him than about the honor of his family and his own sworn word.

Robb didn't know the girl had been set up to seduce him. As he understood it, he had destroyed her honour and took the responsibility for it, instead of looking for some cheap excuse for himself.  

Quote

'Soft' is pretty adequate word to describe that. A truly hard man would do what he has to, and not follow his impulses.

Heroes are people who dare to think of other people before they think of themselves. They don't necessarily do what they have to do, but whatever they consider right. They may die for it, sure enough. Showing your cards to your enemy and telling them you want to save them takes significant moral and physical courage. The soft option would be to avoid the conflict altogether, keep quiet and marry your daughter to the bastard crown prince.  

Owning up to your mistake and trying to rectify it even when it causes difficulties is what a real man does. The soft option for Robb would be to just leave behind Jeyne or to find her some husband later on, when he has time. 

Heroes are not perfect characters but they certainly dare to think and behave in a way most people would not dare to. They are usually generous and caring, and they try to change the world around them for the better. They follow their own moral compass rather than the established rules and are ready to make personal sacrifices for other people or for their principles and goals. Their intentions are usually noble. When they make mistakes, those mistakes tend to be huge and tragic. Granted, it is not necessarily easy to be a hero's family member. 

Of course, just being "a tough and hard man" does not make anyone a hero. 

Quote

That doesn't seem to be likely in this scenario. The Others and wights are not human. They don't care about how humans treat each other (or they), they just want to kill them all.

That's another good reason why humans should care about humans. 

Quote

Jon isn't a Stark. He is a Targaryen prince disguised as a Stark bastard.

He is Stark enough to me.

Quote

It depends what one means by 'hero' 

Sure.

Ned is not the protagonist of the series (as he dies in the first book), but still a hero.

Quote

What about Varamyr? Can't you empathize with him? I can. More so than with Chett who is really disgusting, but Varamyr is an outcast who made something out of himself. That is commendable.

But what? That's the problem.  

Quote

And one can certainly empathize with Cersei if one wants to. 

I can feel sorry for her when she is humiliated in the streets of KL, but that's only because of her suffering, and I don't need her POV to understand that. However, I can't find any redeeming characteristics in her when I read her POV, I can't find anything that could be a reasonable excuse for some of the evil things she does. 

Quote

Psychopaths are people, too, even those who kill people (and that's not all the people). You see this with Arya. Her murder of Raff is the textbook case of a psychopathic killer - she has no empathy for him and she even expresses joy over the deed (which indicates that she enjoys to kill people she doesn't like). Psychopaths are not 'born evil', they don't even all want to kill people - they are just more capable of doing it because their emotions are processed differently. And while there are genetic predispositions for that kind of thing there is also the influence of various traumas to be considered - many psychopaths are made by their environment, they are not born that way.

Just to clarify: We are talking about the Raff, the cruel and sadistic guy who drove his spear through the wounded and yielding Lommy Greenhands' throat and chuckled to himself right in front of Arya, the guy who raped a peasant girl and killed her brother just for fun and committed countless further atrocities, right?

For Arya to kill him may well be a way of processing the original trauma of being exposed to the cruelty of such people both as a witness and a potential victim, an act of liberation, a way of feeling empowered and safe again, a way of putting a wrong right in her mind, of making the world a better and safer place.   

Quote

This strange line between POVs or characters who have a clear motivation and those who are 'clear villains' we should not empathize with some people seem to see doesn't exist.

Lack of a clear motivation is not a problem for me. I can see Vargo Hoat's motivation: He wants mostly money and other material advantages and doesn't mind having a bit of fun while working hard. Ramsay wants to gratify all his base instincts without restrictions, and he wants to climb the social ladder as well. If you can empathize with Ramsay the hunter and the other evil, twisted characters, for whom the author has not shown a single redeeming chracteristic (and he wouldn't need to give them a POV to do it), that's fine. But I wonder why it is that your ability to empathize with a character like Jon Snow, whose motivations and intentions are noble, just never comes through in your posts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, teej6 said:

And as @Julia H. pointed out, not every character with a POV (Cersei being a perfect example) elicits empathy from the reader (not from me at least). In fact, with Cersei’s POV, you come to see how truly vile and ugly she is. She is a narcissist and sociopath who cares little for the suffering of others and at most times is the instigator of this suffering. In her POV, do you see any conflict/doubt/remorse she has regarding her vile acts, unless there is a negative consequence to her person? Her twin otoh, has a conscience and feels guilty over his despicable acts, although granted it took him losing a hand, a heavy dose of Brienne, and the knowledge of Cersei cuckolding him to come to this point.

 

Jaimie and Cersi are both narchissts. And Jamie himself often frames his most wretched acts as being purely necessary, and puts himself as the victim(ex. Him whining that he was horny in response to Cersi reminding him he put them in the very vulnerable position of being caught at WF by Bran). 

Truth be told, him only starting to really turn against Cersi because she had sex with other guys instead of any of the bad things she's done I find not to be a commendable act.

He doesn't even  feel guilty even that thousands have died from Cersi, and his deception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

If you don't empathize with Cersei during her walk of shame I don't understand how your brain processes emotions. This is a very powerful scene that elicits very strong emotions in all people I've ever talked about this chapter, and pretty much nobody was left unmoved by that. 

Cersei is also full of fear and (in part, justified) paranoia throughout her chapters. She is under a lot of stress, and she has been forced to take so much shit over the years that a lot of her actions are, in my opinion, understandable. And she is not really a sociopath or anything of that sort. She is aware when she is doing something wrong and she does empathize with people - that's why she pushes away the consequences of her actions. She doesn't know what happened to Falyse and her maid and the other people she handed over to Qyburn.

Nope, I don’t feel any empathy for Cersei during her walk of shame and you can wonder all you want as to how my brain processes emotions, but I still say Cersei is not the victim, she’s the one who does the victimizing. This does not mean I’m not disgusted by the punishment itself. I would not want something like that inflicted on anyone, even a person as vile as Cersei but that still does not change the fact that she is a horrible and vile character. 

Cersei is not a victim, she plays the victim when it suits her.  None of her actions are “understandable” as you say or can be justified. Her POV, only reiterates this for me. And give me a break, she sure as hell knows that Qyburn is upto no good with his experiments and Falyse is a goner. The fact that she chooses to ignore it does not make her ignorant of the outcome itself.

And FYI, sociopaths are aware of their actions — they are aware that they are hurting others or doing something that is morally wrong, they just don’t care. They have a consience but it seldom affects them as it does normal people. And Cersei does not empathize with anyone. She knows very well that what she is doing is wrong but she doesn’t care, which makes her a sociopath. The love she has for her children is just an extension of the love she feels for herself. This is the same with her love for Jaime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Jaimie and Cersi are both narchissts. And Jamie himself often frames his most wretched acts as being purely necessary, and puts himself as the victim(ex. Him whining that he was horny in response to Cersi reminding him he put them in the very vulnerable position of being caught at WF by Bran). 

Truth be told, him only starting to really turn against Cersi because she had sex with other guys instead of any of the bad things she's done I find not to be a commendable act.

He doesn't even  feel guilty even that thousands have died from Cersi, and his deception.

I’m not a big fan of Jamie either and I think his pride gets the better of him most times. I agree with you that he plays the victim card and conveniently blames others (like Ned) for his current predicament. He also broke up with Cersei only after finding out about her indiscretions. But you have to realize that his identity is intertwined with that of Cersei’s and I feel he too is written as a victim of Cersei’s manipulation. And, from ASOS onwards, he does begin to feel some sense of remorse for some of his past acts and does attempt to do the right thing (at times). It doesn’t matter if he’s doing this out of a sense of wanting to regain his honor, the fact that he has come to this realization makes all the difference between him and Cersei. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

A hero or heroine in the traditional sense isn't just a good guy trying to do good and meaningful things but he/she actually does such things - and doesn't waste her times catching third-rate criminals or allows second-rate criminals to eat up a good portion of her face. She tries - and she fails. And he she fails even more after she breaks down and betrays Jaime to Catelyn. Perhaps this will all have a pretty good outcome - but if it does it won't be because Brienne did the right thing.

Yeah, who cares that she started a fight she knew she couldn't win because she wanted to protect innocent people, that's not heroic at all. Not allowing Biter to eat their face, that's the mark of a real hero.

Also, the right thing to do would have been to allow Lady Stoneheart to kill an innocent boy in order not to lure into a trap the likes of Jaime Lannister? Seriously?

As for Cersei: I assure you that my brain processes emotions just fine, nonetheless I don't empathize with her at all. Maybe it's because the whole situation is her own fault, all because she tried to frame Margaery into the exact same punishment that's been inflicted unto herself.

And no, she doesn't love her children. Or even if she does, she loves power way more. By the way, by reading your post it seems like you're talking about the HBO's version of Cersei, not GRRM's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

I don't think anyone in this world is preoccupied with an ancient First Men religious practice that went out of fashion long ago. But human sacrifice is present in the story through Melisandre (and in a rather more painful way than in the case of the ancient First Men), and it is a moral issue several characters have to face - not from the religious aspect, but it ties into the morality of killing innocents to gain advantages (for example). Melisandre argues for it, Stannis has to face it as a dilemma, Davos lectures him on the morality of it (and Davos is right); neither Davos, nor Jon Snow will allow it to happen when they can prevent it.

We have stuff about killing innocent sacrifices, yes, not so much about making sacrifices out of guilty people. We don't yet know who the guy was the First Men at Winterfell sacrificed - could have been a criminal/captive, could have been an innocent, could have been one of their own chosen by lot, or somebody else. We don't know.

If we read Dany's arc in AGoT as her sacrificing Viserys, Rhaego, and Drogo rather than the irrelevant (and guilty) sorceress who just provided 'the glue' for the spell then other heroes in the story might have to sacrifice their innocents, too, Bran and Jon foremost among them.

57 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

Or Ned just didn't want to be the one who caused the deaths of innocent children - anyone's children. He apparently didn't see a better solution to protect Cersei's children than warning her - it wasn't a clever move, I agree, but the immorality of killing children is a major theme in the books, and the conclusion is not as simple as you say. Otherwise we would all have to cheer for Jaime Lannister as he clearly cared first for his own kids when he pushed Bran out of the window. Yet, it's not so easy to congratulate him. Not to mention that this wonderful father didn't really care for his own children otherwise, at least not much, while Ned obviously did, very much. It was GRRM who wrote them in that way. So who is the better father, who is the better person? Is it really Jaime? Come on. 

Such a flawed person - both in his methods and, in part, in his motivation - is still not a 'hero' in my book. He is a pretty good guy who has his heart at the right place but is actually too soft for this world.

57 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

Robb didn't know the girl had been set up to seduce him. As he understood it, he had destroyed her honour and took the responsibility for it, instead of looking for some cheap excuse for himself.  

But they were not equals. He was king and a scion of a great house, and the Westerlings were little more than impoverished beggars. He should not have been confused by 'Jeyne's honor' since being the mistress of a king would actually be a pretty good career step for her. Treating Jeyne the way he would want a man treat his own sisters, perhaps, is him being soft.

And Robb is most definitely not a hero in this story. Not even a very important protagonist.

57 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

Owning up to your mistake and trying to rectify it even when it causes difficulties is what a real man does. The soft option for Robb would be to just leave behind Jeyne or to find her some husband later on, when he has time.

There is nothing heroic or morally commendable in putting the well-being of a single person (who, as much as Robb himself, was the victim of the machinations of her mother) before his own honor and the honor and well-being of his house and family and subjects. But that's what Robb did. This was a foolish act, not an act he is to be commended for.

57 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

Heroes are not perfect characters but they certainly dare to think and behave in a way most people would not dare to. They are usually generous and caring, and they try to change the world around them for the better. They follow their own moral compass rather than the established rules and are ready to make personal sacrifices for other people or for their principles and goals. Their intentions are usually noble. When they make mistakes, those mistakes tend to be huge and tragic. Granted, it is not necessarily easy to be a hero's family member. 

Well, that really hinges on the definition of 'hero' - which can be very broad. Your definition smells of a conventionally and modern type of hero, the one who features in fantasy novels a lot - historically that's not necessarily what's meant by hero. 

57 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

Of course, just being "a tough and hard man" does not make anyone a hero.

I expect the Last Hero to have been more like those hard Kings of Winter, and less like Ned and Robb.

57 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

I can feel sorry for her when she is humiliated in the streets of KL, but that's only because of her suffering, and I don't need her POV to understand that. However, I can't find any redeeming characteristics in her when I read her POV, I can't find anything that could be a reasonable excuse for some of the evil things she does.

I understand why she wants to destroy Margaery. I understand why she loathes the Tyrells. I definitely understand why she always hated Tyrion (who she believes is the valonqar). And one definitely understands why she makes such rash and stupid decisions - she is under constant pressure and her mind is cracking. George is going to great lengths to show how nightmares, fear, and paranoia grind her down. It is already evident in her first chapter when she gets obsessed with that moth caught in the lamp - it is a completely irrelevant detail underlining how unwell and driven she is.

57 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

Just to clarify: We are talking about the Raff, the cruel and sadistic guy who drove his spear through the wounded and yielding Lommy Greenhands' throat and chuckled to himself right in front of Arya, the guy who raped a peasant girl and killed her brother just for fun and committed countless further atrocities, right?

That is irrelevant. Raff is the victim of Mercy, not the other way around. Whatever the man did, he didn't deserve to be murdered by a girl pretending to be a whore in a moment when he was completely defenseless. Even within the world Martin has created that is utterly disgusting and abominable behavior, especially within the framework of honor code the Starks usually follow. Ned didn't lure Gared into a trap to gut him, nor did he steal his boots. 

57 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

Lack of a clear motivation is not a problem for me. I can see Vargo Hoat's motivation: He wants mostly money and other material advantages and doesn't mind having a bit of fun while working hard. Ramsay wants to gratify all his base instincts without restrictions, and he wants to climb the social ladder as well. If you can empathize with Ramsay the hunter and the other evil, twisted characters, for whom the author has not shown a single redeeming chracteristic (and he wouldn't need to give them a POV to do it), that's fine. But I wonder why it is that your ability to empathize with a character like Jon Snow, whose motivations and intentions are noble, just never comes through in your posts. 

Honestly, I don't really see what drives Ramsay. He is very close to a guy who was 'born evil', considering that we have no hint what drives him to his cruel actions or where his sadistic desires come from. There are no hints of traumas and the like in his past. Gregor at least has the excuse of his headaches indicating some form of mental illness. Many of their men - as well as the Bloody Mummers - would just be men who grew more and more savage while living the life of a sellsword in war-torn regions - like Arya. Constant violence turns people into monsters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lord Varys said:

Honestly, I don't really see what drives Ramsay. He is very close to a guy who was 'born evil', considering that we have no hint what drives him to his cruel actions or where his sadistic desires come from. There are no hints of traumas and the like in his past. Gregor at least has the excuse of his headaches indicating some form of mental illness. Many of their men - as well as the Bloody Mummers - would just be men who grew more and more savage while living the life of a sellsword in war-torn regions - like Arya. Constant violence turns people into monsters.

I think this is part of why people are so tempted to put Ramsay somewhere in the mythic plot of the story: He just doesn't make sense conventionally, especially for a writer like Martin who seems to pride himself on shades of grey. But if we can say "well maybe he's a latent telepath being manipulated by Bloodraven" then we can accept that his drives are ineffable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...