Why did George give daenerys everything

[kissdbyfire]

Dunno. The whole shades of grey is a way to say characters are realistic, b/c the majority of people are like that. But it's also realistic to depict a character who is totally evil/nuts/psycho b/c we do get people like that irl. It's more to do w/ the main characters being flawed, and not trying to make a point that absolutely everyone and their dogs are "grey".

[Eli Cross]

On 8/24/2018 at 12:49 AM, Starkz said:

Slavery is already ended in Meereen. There is no reason for her to be taking the children especially when she can’t follow through on her threats. It’s not like she is trying to build herself a home in Meereen. Eventually she will leave and won’t go back regardless of whether slavery resumes there.

The war against the slaving families is not over until the harpy is gone.  I doubt she will leave until the slavers are thoroughly defeated.  

[Eli Cross]

5 hours 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.  

Absolutely true.  A person with good ideas is not going to get much done without the power to make it happen.  Good ideas are not enough.  That is true in business and life in general.  George has to give the heroine something to work with.  

[Eli Cross]

Some of the comments on love are baffling to me.  Love is an emotion, nothing more and nothing less.  How the person experiencing the feelings manage it can determine whether it leads to good or bad.  We only need look at the examples of Cersei, Jaime, Robb, Catelyn, Jon, and Jorah to see where that feeling can lead to.  Cersei loves her children.  There is no doubt on my mind.  Jaime loves Cersei very much.  The problem is how they managed their feelings.  All of the things they did to cover up their love is what led to the War of the 5 Kings.  Do not get me wrong.  I am not saying love leads to bad things.  Love is the motivation but it doesn't force the individual.  A person does not have to act on those feelings.  The mature person with respectable self-discipline will factor how their decisions will affect the people around them and choose accordingly.  Jaime and Cersei are not like that.  They are not victims but instead passionate, selfish people who couldn't give a damn about the welfare of others.  The things they do can create big ripples that affect the lives of many because they are in positions of power.  A powerless illegitimate boy like Gendry can do as he pleases without having to worry about how it affects others because it won't.  A person in power has responsibilities to consider their actions more carefully.  Jorah's love for Lynesse motivated him to commit slavery.  He still had a choice though.  He could have chosen to live simply and let Lynesse leave if she wanted to.  He didn't have to sell those poachers to slavery.  I know a lot of married men who would be tempted to do something illegal like that.  I meant something like cheat on their taxes to buy his family a good lifestyle.  Nobody will force them to do it.  It is only their feelings and their fear of losing the person they love.  Jorah's fear of losing Lynesse is what encouraged him.   He feared to lose her love.  Jon's fear for Arya tempted him to betray the watch.  Catelyn's fear for Sansa is what led to her betrayal of the north.  Robb's desire to be with Jeyne was his main motivation for why he broke a sworn oath to a valued ally.  

[Varysblackfyre321]

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

ychopaths 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.

Raff is both a child murderer and rapist. You will not find most expressing horror at such a man was killed by Arya.

Though the murder of Daeron is dissapointing  imo.

She has no idea why Daeron deserted or why he was even at the wall in the first place(from Daeron's words a lord called the sex between his daughter and Daeron rape-making it so that if Daeron didn't sighn onto to the watch, he'd most certainly be castrated), it's as if all the talk the FM had of people not be so clear as good or evil slid right past her.

She has no right to condemn Daeron to death-they are not in Westeroes and Arya is not a legal authority.

Oh and the insurance salesman.

Sad to see her immediately latching onto to the idea of the man having cheated orphans and widows based on the ambiguous statement of a serial killer.

But she was trying to justify murderering the guy without being the "bad guy" from the beginning. 

To her credit she didn't act until a good excuse was brought up-but she also wasn't interested in actually checking if her assumption was right or she may be misinterpreting things.

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 Robb was never a main character

And, he was willing to sacrifice his sisters for his war-effort, he never really saves anyone, and when his only stated reason for continuing the war(that has killed thousands as it is), is purely one of pride-the lanisters killed his daddy, thus no matter what they have to pay(even at the costs of loads more people suffering including possibly his remaining loved ones). 

He(indivually) is not built as a hero.

Nothing he really does is really heroic(even his younger Sansa I would say displays more heroic traits in ACOK-she risked a sever beatings and possibly from her POV her life to save a drunken knight who was all but a stranger). Hell even the "honoruble acts he does do, put his kingdom in jepordy(a lot of people lives are at risk), when not doing at worst would hurt one individual's honour/pride.

 

7 hours 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.

Easy with personal attacks.Not everyone is a sociopath because they don't share empathy with a particular fictional character. Though  feel some are taking the idea of having empathy for Cersi as absolving of any blame for anything. I and I think many others can empathize with Cersi in being frustrated in being denied the ability to be things because of her gender.

I can empathize with her wanting Rober(her rapist), dead. 

That doesn't mean I see all her actions as totally justified and downplay the atrocitious of all of them. 

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Quote

 

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.

Truth be told we've only been given snippets of Ramsey's childhood-could be he suffered tragedy-we don't know yet.

Given what he do know I see how Ramsey could be a product from his envirement.

It needn't be exceptionally brutal.

But, it looked unhealthy. His guardians  his mother (perhaps the only person whose ever cared for him, and the only person he perhaps cared for), drilled into head this idea of him being a Bolton and Reek, a man who clearly was mentally imbalanced. With this in mind it's possible he(like Theon with the ironborn), overcompensated a tad bit on the cruelty, just to make uber clear he is in fact the real deal-Boltons are cruel, ergo Ramsey will be the cruelest. 

 

[Starkz]

8 hours 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.  

And yet per the words of GRRM Jon is the closest to the traditional hero that you will get. So unless you’re secretly GRRM I’m inclined to believe the author of these books who says he is. Furthmore let’s not nit pick about making decisions with emotions because one thing for sure is that Dany is the queen of that. Crucifications, torturing, burning,.. do I have to go on? 

[Starkz]

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

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. 

So overthrowing the Bolton’s and restoring the Stark name to Winterfell is nothing like what a traditional hero would do? Right. 

Jon “sucks” at ruling despite the fact that he got thousands of Wildlings south, was successfully integrating them into their society, and essentially kick started Stannis campaign and got him thousands of soldiers and stopped the Karstarks and married Alys. But he sucked apparently. Nice to know everyone is apparently reading different books. Apparently sending your friends to command other castles that you trust is what makes him suck at ruling. Great logic. Also let’s give Mel credit for her visions she can’t even correctly interpret herself or effectively/honestly relay.

Jon’s stabbing could of been attributed to many reasons. Marsh and Co could of been scared of the Bolton’s, not believing Jon could beat them and stabbed him in hopes of preserving the Watch. After all, they did it “For the watch”. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

6 hours ago, teej6 said:

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. 

I do not buy he's written to be a victim of his wicked sister. Most of the pain in Jaimie's life falls squarely on him-he was not manipulated into murderering Aerys by Cersi-that was his decision-nor did was the one to pressure Jaimie into having sex at Winterfel.  He never takes really responsibility full for his actions, and I don't really see him having any plans to; he's comfortable being the tragic misunderstood  hero.

He does the right thing sometime. So? He was never purely evil-even before journey with Briene he was kind to his little brother. He could good things on occasion. 

Hell truth be told, his subsequent dismissal of Cersi's plea, really shows how little Jaimie himself has matured imo-his ego was bruised, so leave the queen regent and the king(who he only seemingly continued to serve out of some petty, juvenile act of defiance) to fend for themselves. 

What instances in AFC are you referring to that show any more remorse for his egregious crimes than previously? Does he show any regret over his lusts having cost  a boy his legs and horror that he had violated his society's sacred custom of guest rights? Any regret of having gotten thousands of people killed for his lies? 

[teej6]

31 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I do not buy he's written to be a victim of his wicked sister. Most of the pain in Jaimie's life falls squarely on him-he was manipulated into murderering Aerys by Cersi-that was his decision-nor did was the one to pressure Jaimie into having sex at Winterfel.  He never takes really responsibility full for his actions, and I don't really see him having any plans to; he's comfortable being the tragic misunderstood  hero.

He does the right thing sometime. So? He was never purely evil-even before journey with Briene he was kind to his little brother. He could good things on occasion. 

Hell truth be told, his subsequent dismissal of Cersi's plea, really shows how little Jaimie himself has matured imo-his ego was bruised, so leave the queen regent and the king(who he only seemingly continued to serve out of some petty, juvenile act of defiance) to fend for themselves. 

What instances in AFC are you referring to that show any more remorse for his egregious crimes than previously? Does he show any regret over his lusts having cost  a boy his legs and horror that he had violated his society's sacred custom of guest rights? Any regret of having gotten thousands of people killed for his lies? 

I wasn’t justifying any of Jaime’s actions or stating he is Aemon the Dragonknight or Duncan the Tall. When/where did I claim that he was manipulated into killing Aerys by Cersei? Don’t put words in my mouth. He was manipulated into joining the KG by Cersei or else he may have ended up marrying the other crazy, Lysa Tully. There are other instances in the text of Cersei manipulating Jaime into doing her bidding. For instance, when Jaime tells Ilyn Payne that Cersei asked Jaime to maime/kill Arya (for the Trident incident w/Joffrey) while they were having sex, or Cersei asking Jaime to kill Tyrion while making out right next to the corpse of Joffrey.

And yes, he does feel remorse over the killings of Elia and her children and his inability to protect them from his father, ergo the dream in ASOS. He does feel regret in how he turned out — he wanted to be Arthur Dayne but became the Smiling Knight instead. 

Jaime knows he’s done some terrible things and in his own way is trying to find some redemption, hence his desire to honor his promise to Catelyn Stark. The point I was making before you went all Jaime is evuuul is that I feel he’s a better person than Cersei, which still doesn’t make his actions any less bad. Anyway, Jamie being good or bad is not the subject of this thread.

[El Guapo]

9 hours ago, Starkz said:

So overthrowing the Bolton’s and restoring the Stark name to Winterfell is nothing like what a traditional hero would do? Right. 

Jon “sucks” at ruling despite the fact that he got thousands of Wildlings south, was successfully integrating them into their society, and essentially kick started Stannis campaign and got him thousands of soldiers and stopped the Karstarks and married Alys. But he sucked apparently. Nice to know everyone is apparently reading different books. Apparently sending your friends to command other castles that you trust is what makes him suck at ruling. Great logic. Also let’s give Mel credit for her visions she can’t even correctly interpret herself or effectively/honestly relay.

Jon’s stabbing could of been attributed to many reasons. Marsh and Co could of been scared of the Bolton’s, not believing Jon could beat them and stabbed him in hopes of preserving the Watch. After all, they did it “For the watch”. 

Huh? When did this happen? He let them through the Wall (which was Stannis's idea) but there is no indication whatsoever that they have been successfully integrated into society.

[Lord Varys]

10 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Raff is both a child murderer and rapist. You will not find most expressing horror at such a man was killed by Arya.

One can agree that Raff deserved to be punished (although not being executed since civilized societies no longer execute people) but most definitely not being murdered.

Last time I checked murderers killing murderers in prison are still accused of and condemned for, well, murder.

The idea that reading about an eleven-year-old girl luring a man into a death trap by pretending to be a child prostitute is just not something a normal person reads about and then cheers the girl on. This is a very powerful chapter but it is so because it is a very fucked-up and ugly situation that's been presented there, not because it depicting a situation that is in any way, shape, or form positive.

9 hours ago, Starkz said:

So overthrowing the Bolton’s and restoring the Stark name to Winterfell is nothing like what a traditional hero would do? Right. 

Jon “sucks” at ruling despite the fact that he got thousands of Wildlings south, was successfully integrating them into their society, and essentially kick started Stannis campaign and got him thousands of soldiers and stopped the Karstarks and married Alys. But he sucked apparently. Nice to know everyone is apparently reading different books. Apparently sending your friends to command other castles that you trust is what makes him suck at ruling. Great logic. Also let’s give Mel credit for her visions she can’t even correctly interpret herself or effectively/honestly relay.

Jon’s stabbing could of been attributed to many reasons. Marsh and Co could of been scared of the Bolton’s, not believing Jon could beat them and stabbed him in hopes of preserving the Watch. After all, they did it “For the watch”. 

Man, a successful ruler doesn't suffer the fate Jon suffer. A successful ruler actually rules and succeeds at what he wants to do. Jon did not. That means he sucked, never mind how good his intentions were.

Dany also had good intentions when she took over Meereen. She sucked, too, The slavers broke her down one piece at a time until she was just a little Harpy puppet on a cake, ripe for the slaughter. Drogon saved her, else they would have eaten her alive. Ghost could have saved Jon, too, if the fool hadn't chained him. Not to mention fucking common sense. He knows the seer has prophetic powers, right?

If for you a great statesman is a person murdered by his own advisers you should seriously reassess the way how you judge statesmen.

[kissdbyfire]

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Man, a successful ruler doesn't suffer the fate Jon suffer. A successful ruler actually rules and succeeds at what he wants to do

Like Dany in Slaver's Bay, right? Such a smashing and triumphant success...

[Free Northman Reborn]

9 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

One can agree that Raff deserved to be punished (although not being executed since civilized societies no longer execute people) but most definitely not being murdered.

Last time I checked murderers killing murderers in prison are still accused of and condemned for, well, murder.

The idea that reading about an eleven-year-old girl luring a man into a death trap by pretending to be a child prostitute is just not something a normal person reads about and then cheers the girl on. This is a very powerful chapter but it is so because it is a very fucked-up and ugly situation that's been presented there, not because it depicting a situation that is in any way, shape, or form positive.

Man, a successful ruler doesn't suffer the fate Jon suffer. A successful ruler actually rules and succeeds at what he wants to do. Jon did not. That means he sucked, never mind how good his intentions were.

Dany also had good intentions when she took over Meereen. She sucked, too, The slavers broke her down one piece at a time until she was just a little Harpy puppet on a cake, ripe for the slaughter. Drogon saved her, else they would have eaten her alive. Ghost could have saved Jon, too, if the fool hadn't chained him. Not to mention fucking common sense. He knows the seer has prophetic powers, right?

If for you a great statesman is a person murdered by his own advisers you should seriously reassess the way how you judge statesmen.

I better not highlight your personal bias on this issue, lest my post mysteriously disappears again.

Let me instead counter your argument, by stating the obvious, which is that Jon’s path is quite clearly the classic hero’s journey, with his current “death” the low point before his “enlightenment” and embrace of his destiny. One has to be blind not to see it.

[kissdbyfire]

Also, @Lord Varys, you always argue how this society/universe is ruthless and nothing like our real world. But now, b/c it's convenient, you forget all that and bring up modern real world concepts of murder, and murders happening in prisons and all that. Flip, flop, flip, flop. 

[BlackLightning]

18 hours 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.

 

What @Widowmaker 811 said.

On top of that, regardless of GRRM's writing style, the fact that Daenerys has flying atomic bombs doesn't mean she is the bad guy. That's ludicrous.

That's like saying Cersei is one of the good guys because she is a mother with children to protect.

Speaking of Cersei, I felt a little bit of sympathy (not empathy) for her during her Walk of Shame. Remember Cersei is not only completely guilty of everything they are accusing her of but she also framed and railroaded multiple innocent people (Margaery, Loras and Jalabhar Xho to name a few), played chicken with the lives of thousands of people in the Reach - not to mention all the food and wealth therein - just to prove a point.

It'd be one thing if Cersei's Walk of Shame happened:

• if she just made a series of honest mistake due to inexperience (like Daenerys)
• if she was stuck between a rock and a hard place and had to make a split-second decision (like Catelyn)
• if she was manipulated (like Sansa)
• or if she was just stupid and ignored all of the signs (like Eddard)

No, Cersei's Walk of Shame was her own damn fault because she was a wicked person who got lost in the sauce. That's why I didn't feel too bad for her. She deserved everything she got. Not only that but she turned around and greeted Ser Robert Strong with a supervillain-esque "Oh yes."

Back to Daenerys, she is like Robb and Jon (but especially). Daenerys was given a lot because she is expected to do big things, fight big threats and go to big places before her clock is punched. Period.

She makes a lot of mistakes. But she is one of the good guys. Even though she might end up on the darker end of the anti-hero spectrum (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Analysis/AntiHero?from=Analysis.SlidingScaleOfAntiHeroes) when she becomes Super-Khaleesi, she's still on the side of heroes. In fact, she'll probably end up in the same place as Arya and Sandor.

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 minute ago, kissdbyfire said:

Also, @Lord Varys, you always argue how this society/universe is ruthless and nothing like our real world. But now, b/c it's convenient, you forget all that and bring up modern real world concepts of murder, and murders happening in prisons and all that. Flip, flop, flip, flop. 

Well said

[teej6]

8 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Also, @Lord Varys, you always argue how this society/universe is ruthless and nothing like our real world. But now, b/c it's convenient, you forget all that and bring up modern real world concepts of murder, and murders happening in prisons and all that. Flip, flop, flip, flop. 

Exactly! The double standards are so obvious in LV’s posts. I guess that’s why he likes Dany so much.

[Julia H.]

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

In Dany's case, I thought of Mirri. I don't think he sacrificed Viserys rather than stood by as he was being killed (and I don't think she could have done much to save him in that moment). Killing Drogo may be seen as a sacrifice but it was more like mercy killing in my opinion - Drogo had to go at that point, and Dany finished his sufferings as tenderly and mercifully it was possible. Rhaego is another dubious question. It is implied that deep down somewhere Dany knew that the "horse" she was sacrificing was not really Drogo's horse but Rhaego. It's very psychological and in my opinion a murky situation. Perhaps she "knew" in her subconscious, perhaps she didn't. A mother who has just lost her unborn child may feel unreasonably guilty. Anyway. Killing Mirri was human sacrifice though, and yes, she regarded her as someone who deserved that horrible death by the fire, of which I'm not convinced, but suffice it now to say that Dany firmly believed she had intentionally destroyed Drogo and Rhaego (as Mirri herself was saying in the end). 

Another instance of human sacrifice we have is Alester Florent, burned as a traitor but also as a sacrifice to R'hllor. Then we have "Mance", who turns out to be Rattleshirt (what did Melisandre think R'hllor would say to that?), an enemy of the Seven Kingdoms. 

Yes, the actually happening instances of human sacrifice in the books so far have been people regarded as guilty. I agree that it doesn't generally seem to be a problem with most characters in-world, maybe they consider it only an execution "with a plus" (or a weird kind of execution), but also an execution that would most likely have happened anyway.  (Jon does seem to be against burning people alive, which is why he orders his men to shoot arrows at "Mance", but it's not the sacrifice aspect, it's the painful and cruel nature of the execution that he wants to change.) It is also true that we don't know whether the First Men sacrificed innocent people at all or just criminals and / or captured enemies, that is people who still often get killed in that world (and the First Men at least didn't burn them alive). This is history though. However, the idea of sacrificing king's blood (whatever is regarded as such) does imply the sacrifice of innocent people who simply have the right kind of "blood" according to this or that person - in the current story. This possibility comes up with Edric Storm and Mance's baby son, and even Maester Aemon is regarded as being in danger, and we see that Jon is actively against such an idea. Stannis is not comfortable with it either, yet, he can be persuaded. The "stuff" about killing innocents is a major theme in the books, and it takes a sort of hero (such as we are ever likely to have in these books) to stand up for the innocents, when "normal" people don't care. 

By the way, even Bran wants instinctively to stop the sacrifice when he sees it through the weirwood:

"No," said Bran, "no, don't," but they could not hear him, no more than his father had. 

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

Ned is a hero all right, a hero in the first book, but his hero arc gets subverted before the end (and no, that doesn't make him an anti-hero). Jon's hero arc is much closer to a classic hero arc, and I believe that the stabbing by Marsh and Co is part of that arc. (I agree with Martin that Jon is the closest we have to a hero in these novels.) Ned's story indeed tells us that goodness can be weak when confronted with evil. If AGoT stood alone, that would be the moral of the story. But it's only the first part of the series, and the reader can notice how Ned's legacy (his honour, his values, his approach to life) lives on in his children, in his subjects, sometimes even in his enemies. He is the gold standard even when the Starks seem to have lost everything. Compare Cersei to that: She has never been able to give even her own children anything important, anything that is worth keeping. Despite the defeat, the Starks are difficult to destroy. The Lannisters, on the other hand, are destroyed in their victory. That's a message, too.   

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

This is a rather cynical view of the world. 

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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

Robb has another subverted, or, if you prefer, failed, hero arc. He does things heroes typically do: While very young, he steps into his lord father's shoes, he vows to free him from captivity, later he fights for his own independent kingdom, he wins battles and marries the girl he loves, despite adversities. His intentions are noble, he has a strong sense of honour. Then we are shown how "reality" deals with him. The father is killed due to the whim of a moronic teenage king before Robb gets a chance to free him. Winning battles is not necessarily enough to win a war, and marrying the girl he loves (who is not the noble princess of fairy tales) means conflict with his allies. And he can't even remain honourable on all fronts. 

The way I see this can perhaps be described with reference to fairy tales (and other stories) where the real hero is preceded by his two older brothers (replaced here by two older family members). The older brothers usually set out with the same purpose (which can be paralleled here by all Starks having their main duty in the North), but they get distracted, they choose the wrong way or are lured in the wrong direction. It is implied that going South is a mistake both for Ned and Robb: Ned has a sinister premonition about accepting Robert's offer (his place is in Winterfell), while Robb is specifically warned through Osha and Bran that he is going the wrong way. In this sense, Jon starts out in the right direction: He goes North. In some tales, the older brothers get close to the goal but make a mistake and fail. They usually end up captured or killed (though the youngest boy usually manages to save them). In all versions, the youngest boy becomes the real hero, and "the third time pays for all", as Bilbo used to say. I think this is what we see with Ned, Robb and Jon. The Starks are the heroes in the story, but not in the sense of each one being a separate hero, they have the qualities and quests of heroes, they try and fail, but one of them will succeed.  

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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. 

If you knew how few fantasy novels I've read... and how many classical novels. So far I don't think the typical fantasy hero is very different from the heroes of myths and tales, except that he has a more detailed background and personality. You can discover the classic archetypes in ASOIAF as well, but the writer serves them with a good deal of realism. Basically, he has these classic hero types and puts them in a fairly realistic environment, where they have to cope with "real life" problems and obstacles. The villains have also become more realistic, but we can still discover their mythical backgrounds and characteristics. That's one of the things that makes ASOIAF so fascinating for me. 

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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

Perhaps.

[Julia H.]

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

The fact is that I believe every "evil" (call it what you want) person (in real life as well) must be the product of either some horrible accident of nature (born with serious mental disorders) or his / her upbringing or other circumstances. I don't think people just "choose" to be evil, or when they do, then already something is wrong. What Ramsay does simply precludes a normal personality. There is something fundamentally wrong with Cersei as well.

Yet, I also believe that for most people the choice of becoming a better person is somehow given. Cersei may not have an easy life, but she has better opportunities than most other women in her world. She does not try to become a better person, not even when everything goes wrong around her, not even when she sees how she destroys people around her. For all his faults, Jaime faces his own "evilness" and tries to do something about it. He takes a small step at a time, and I think it is psychologically believable. Major changes don't happen overnight. I think we have Cersei's POV to see her narcissism and cruelty better. There is a reason for it, there is always a reason, but without a single redeeming quality, I find it hard to empathize with her. 

Sure, when she is defeated and humiliated and suffers, I feel sorry for her, but that's because I don't think this should happen to anyone. But I don't "understand" why she wants to destroy Margaery - I know her reason, but it's not a reason that I can accept. Yes, she loathes Tyrion because she believes him to be the valonqar, but we find out that even before she spent years with this fear on her mind, she had killed a friend of hers for no justifiable reason at all. It is never indicated that there was a time when she was caring and "good". Her supposed "love" for her children is perhaps the most selfish and narcissistic characteristic she has. True love is not like that. I could go on, but I won't. She never shows remorse or any willingness to put the good of another person (anyone) before her smallest interest. 

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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. 

I completely disagree with the bolded. Arya is a victim of Raff and others' cruelty. There is a reason why she included him in her list: It is that Raff had a more than average traumatizing effect on her. 

Can you really demand that a child who lost her family due to war and went through what Arya went through and who had to fight for survival at an age when she should have been playing should still be able to follow the honour code of the family she lost? You accuse Ned and Robb of being too naive for their own good, now here's a Stark who has learnt the ways of the world. The world into which she was thrown alone does not respect the Stark code of honour. The Starks do not kill women or children, they do not rape anyone and they treat the men of the Night's Watch with respect. Arya saw the opposite of these values during her journey in the Riverlands and she learn the lesson.  

What is more, at the moment she is still a child and she is still being exploited by adults - even if she has her own agenda as well.

You can really empathize with Cersei and understand her motivation to do evil to people who never hurt her even though she has lived her whole life in a privileged situation but you can't empathize with Arya and understand why she wants to kill Raff, how it is an act of liberation for her (though it probably only lasts a moment), how it is proof that her "prayer" has been answered at last, that she does not have to be a victim forever?  

16 hours ago, 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.

Sadistic instincts most likely. He needs power to freely dedicate himself to what he enjoys, and we all know what it is.