Jump to content

Why did George give daenerys everything


manchester_babe

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

In Arya's case this actually seems to be textbook case of real psychopathy. I've read a couple of books on the subject, and it really is that traumas such as Arya suffers can cause you to process emotions in this distant and detached manner Arya does it when she kills. Not to mention that she has the whole obsession with the power over life and death back from Harrenhal. That's what drives her, that's why she went to Braavos.

You really don’t know what you’re talking about. Arya is not a psychopath in any definition of the word. She may have sociopathic tendencies but is definitely not a psychopath. The defining characteristic of a psychopath is that he/she does not have a conscience, you know that little voice in your head that says what you are doing is wrong. They are not concerned with the consequences of their actions. We know from Arya’s POV that she is acutely aware of what is wrong/bad, and most times, she is troubled by the consequences of the actions she perceives as wrong. She knows killing a random person is bad and that is why she tries to justify the killing of the insurance agent to herself. These are not the actions of a psychopath. She kills Dareon because in a convoluted way she thinks it’s right and she is enforcing the laws of the North/NW. The reader may find that disturbing but in her mind she believes she’s doing the right thing. She kills Raff because she’s seen first hand the atrocities the man has committed and hated him for it. She is exacting vengence for Lommy and justice for his crimes. Arya’s kills are not random, she does it out of necessity or she does it because she thinks she’s enforcing justice/killing bad people. Psychopaths do not rationalize their kills or seek a motive to kill. 

Earlier you argued that Cersei is not a sociopath because she knows what’s she is doing is wrong and I stated that sociopaths are able to clearly distinguish between right and wrong unlike psychopaths. Sociopaths do bad things knowing fully well that it is wrong, they just don’t care. They may even feel remorse after the fact, but they quickly dismiss/justify it by blaming others or through excuses. This is exactly what Cersei does. She knows exactly what will happen to Falyse, she just doesn’t care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

I don't understand how anyone who claims to be able to empathize with Cersei (who was a murderer already as a privileged and protected young girl, without suffering any of the traumatic events Arya had been made to suffer) can't see Arya as a child victim of the adults' game and can't understand why she resorts to murder.   

Exactly! I find it terribly baffling. And this coming from the person who said he can’t understand how my brain processes emotions because I can’t empathize with Cersei’s character. What a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

It is part of good ruling to actually have success. People who don't have success are not good rulers. Part of having success is actually being alive to do stuff. It is not that hard. Even if Jon had defeated his would-be assassins and escaped with his life - causing your closest advisers to try to kill you is no good ruling, either.

Not every assassination attempt is a sign of bad rule or incompetence (or rather: only insofar as the person in question has a shitty bodyguard), of course, but if your own government turns against you share a huge chunk of the blame. A good Lord Commander wouldn't be attacked by his Lord Steward. His Lord Steward would be a man he could trust. A man sharing his vision and helping him to implement his policies.

“A successful ruler doesn’t suffer the same fate as Jon. That means he sucked”.

  The attempt by the NW to kill him doesn’t mean that he sucked at ruling.  Your logic concerning this is enormously flawed. Ceaser was a great ruler and had numerous accomplishments, but yet according to you a man such as him “sucked” at ruling since he was killed by his advisers. Jon was attacked because he had disowned his vows and Bowen was likely also trying to stop the Bolton’s from coming after the NW by killing Jon. He wasn’t killed because he sucked at ruling and his death has nothing to do with how he ruled, it has to do with him breaking his oaths and leaving.

 I agree not every assaination attempt is a sign of bad rule though it can easily be attributed to it. This however, is such a case. Soon Jon will be free of his vows and will hopefully restore the North to how it should be in time for Winter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Varamyr seems to claim just his version of the First Night. He is 'a lord of sorts', is he not? And the First Men do like to do this kind of thing - not to mention that what he does is pretty much the same as 'stealing women'. Unlike others, he doesn't keep them and allow them to return to their families.

Ugly.

Quote

She goes there because she wants to learn how to change her face and kill people the way Jaqen did at Harrenhal.

I don't think she knows where she is going at first or what will happen to her there. But even if she does, she only goes to Braavos when all other options she was clining to (in Westeros) have been lost

Quote

No, they offer her again and again whatever life she wants in Braavos. And if she took a privileged life there she would quickly have the coin necessary to go to the Wall if that's what she wanted. But she no longer does - at least not right now - while she is there. She wants to learn at the House of Black and White.

She didn't want to go to the Wall, she wanted to go to Winterfell. But her home is lost as are her family members. And she can't find her family in Braavos.

Quote

And Raff, too, because he is the one actually being murdered there. This is not self-defense or anything of that sort. It is cold-blooded murder and the girl enjoys it very much.

Raff is reaping what he has sown. This is justice as eleven-year-old Arya with her experience understands it.

Quote

Oh, there would be complicated ways to get Raff convicted in Westeros or Braavos, too. 

You say so, but Arya doesn't know about any such possibilities. 

Quote

She actually endangered the lives of her friends with that thing (if not for Nymeria and her pack they would have caught them and killed them all) and she was in no immediate danger at this point, nor was the man she killed in any way, shape, or form.

I mean, do you think I'm justified harming or killing you just because I think your boss might put me in a situation where life might be more dangerous/unpleasant? I don't think so.

You and I are adults. And we are not at war fighting for survival.

Quote

Private people do not do 'preemptive strikes'. That's military speech and while Arya could be seen as a one-girl-army she actually is not.

She is just trying to survive. Her experience is that she will be attacked anyway, which may be a reason why she would resort to a pre-emptive strike. 

Quote

She still understands what murder is, and decided to murder him. It was her call. Children can be murderers, too, and in this series they are, very much, treated as adults.

One of the focus points of this series is how children are victimized in war. Some of them are killed, some of them are orphaned, some of them are nearly sacrificed at the stake, and Arya is a victim, too. Children who become murderers in a more or less normal world, where they live in a protected environment are one thing. Children who become murderers after seeing countless murders and other instances of cruelty and live in constant mortal danger in a world where only the strong and the violent prevail are quite another. 

Perhaps she is the Stark who has already learned to be "tough and hard" as you say Ned should have been. 

Quote

We don't know yet whether Cersei actually pushed Melara into the well. It could be. It might just be she led her die after she had fallen in. In both cases Cersei would be her death. But this actually the only murder Cersei commits with her own hands. People who kill people are at very different places emotionally and mentally than people who tell other people to kill people or such who just sign death warrants.

Yet, this series specifically calls our attention to why it is wrong to "just sign death warrants" and hide behind paid executioners. Sure, killing must be easier when you don't see your victims, it must be easier to forget about your responsibility. But your victims are still dead and you have still caused their deaths, and if you think otherwise, you are deluding yourself. In addition, when you are in a position to give out orders, you are also responsible for those who obey you. 

Cersei can afford the luxury of not killing with her own hands, because she is in a position where she can give the orders. One instance of a perfectly unjustifiable murder with her own hands is not "only". It shows she is mentally, psychologically capable of it, but normally she has the opportunity to make others do her killings for her. And even when she only "signs the death warrants", she targets innocent people, including children, without any problems. 

Quote

Unlike you, I actually do understand why Arya does what she does. But I don't justify it. I don't try to explain it away or make it sound less ugly. People are judged for their deeds, not their intentions or motivations. Both in real life and properly written literature.

You think you understand why she does what she does. But that's your subjective opinion, and your posts reveal that you are not interested in her motivation, not interested in what she was and in how and why she has become what she is now or how she relates to the world through her own age and experience. You have labelled her a psychopath and deny that she is a victim of war suffering the results of countless traumatizing events.

As a matter of fact, intent matters. Absolutely. In real life and in literature as well. 

Quote

But even within the framework of the murders she commits there is a spectrum - the killing of stableboy is self-defense and panic, the Bolton soldier is cruel and premeditated, the stabbing of Gregor's men at the inn are, at times, cruel but okay considering the context. Dareon, the insurance guy, and Raff are on different levels very wrong because murder becomes part of her day-to-day life now. It is a means to solve problems, to entertain herself, and to show the world what she - the girl who holds the power over life and death again in her hands - can do. She is not twisted into an assassin by evil adults, she is there of her own free will. She wants to learn what they have to offer. And she enjoys making use of it, not caring about the limits the Faceless Men actually have given themselves.

Incidentally, she is also seeking justice. She had a sense of justice before the tragedies in her life happened. It is not a mantle a child of her age should take on, but her childhood has been lost forever. It doesn't mean she has become an adult though. She is just a very lonely child who is trying to make sense of a very twisted world around her. She may still succeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/20/2018 at 8:14 PM, manchester_babe said:

Why did Geroge give Dany everything in book 1, inhuman beauty, dragons, her becoming queen in the end. 

He didn't make her Norwegian, did he? Then you could have said she had everything. ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Righteous vengeance plots in fiction are legion, and most don’t end with the primary message that the protagonist is an evil psychopath whose victims should receive sympathy. Nope, they take you along for a thrilling ride as the hero dishing out righteous retribution to evildoers who deserve what’s coming to them.

Arya would be right at home in a Tarrantino movie, in Mel Gibson’s Payback, in a vast number of Westerns, in David Gemmel’s Waylander series, in Denzel’s Man on Fire, heck, the list is MUCH longer than the random examples that just popped into my head.

When Arya kills the entire Frey family we are gonna cheer that Winter Has Come for House Frey, when she kills Cersei or Littlefinger we will rejoice that the lone Wolf may have died but the Pack has had its vengeance.

Sure, Arya will inevitably be damaged to some degree by her journey, but that is the nature of this story. Nothing is gained for free. Everything comes with a price.

In Arya’s case this price will be well worth it for the reader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@teej6

Please do some research on psychopathy before commenting on it. This is not the right place to discuss this.

1 hour ago, teej6 said:

Exactly! I find it terribly baffling. And this coming from the person who said he can’t understand how my brain processes emotions because I can’t empathize with Cersei’s character. What a joke.

This wasn't an insult or anything - I was genuinely baffled that there are people who cannot empathize with Cersei in the situation of the walk. Or even with her as a mother losing a child she loved, etc.

1 hour ago, Starkz said:

“A successful ruler doesn’t suffer the same fate as Jon. That means he sucked”.

  The attempt by the NW to kill him doesn’t mean that he sucked at ruling.  Your logic concerning this is enormously flawed. Ceaser was a great ruler and had numerous accomplishments, but yet according to you a man such as him “sucked” at ruling since he was killed by his advisers. Jon was attacked because he had disowned his vows and Bowen was likely also trying to stop the Bolton’s from coming after the NW by killing Jon. He wasn’t killed because he sucked at ruling and his death has nothing to do with how he ruled, it has to do with him breaking his oaths and leaving.

Caesar was a great general, but actually a poor politician. And whether it is 'great' to make yourself dictator in a city that's an aristocratic republic is also a thing that can be discussed. But not here.

I stand by my assessment of what it means to be a good ruler.

40 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

I don't think she knows where she is going at first or what will happen to her there. But even if she does, she only goes to Braavos when all other options she was clining to (in Westeros) have been lost.

That is true, but go back and read what she says to Jaqen when he changes his face.

40 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

Raff is reaping what he has sown. This is justice as eleven-year-old Arya with her experience understands it.

Just as Arya should be reaping what she has sown, right? The Bolton soldier's family, Dareon's friends and family, the insurance guy's family, and Raff's family (if he has any) should be doing to her what she did to them, yes?

And while Raff is scum, there should be a story how he became what he is, too. One imagines his life was not unlike what Arya lived through in the Riverlands.

40 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

You say so, but Arya doesn't know about any such possibilities. 

So Arya doesn't know anything about the justice system in Braavos, no?

40 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

You and I are adults. And we are not at war fighting for survival.

There is a very limited framework where you can kill out of self-defense in a civilized society. Arya was not is such a situation.

40 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

She is just trying to survive. Her experience is that she will be attacked anyway, which may be a reason why she would resort to a pre-emptive strike. 

I honestly don't what you invent here to defend her. The text is clear. She wanted to leave and she was prepared to kill to do so. That's cold-blooded, premeditated murder, not matter how you spin it. There is no justification for this.

40 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

One of the focus points of this series is how children are victimized in war. Some of them are killed, some of them are orphaned, some of them are nearly sacrificed at the stake, and Arya is a victim, too. Children who become murderers in a more or less normal world, where they live in a protected environment are one thing. Children who become murderers after seeing countless murders and other instances of cruelty and live in constant mortal danger in a world where only the strong and the violent prevail are quite another. 

Actually, no. Serial killers traumatized by war are no different as serial killers traumatized by 'less accepted traumas'. They are all victims of abuse and violence and due to their circumstances, genetic predispositions, etc. become what they are. Hot Pie and Gendry had to take pretty much the same shit as Arya - yet they do not become serial killers. They are abhorred by what Arya does to the Bolton man. They are afraid of her. She is not normal.

40 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

Perhaps she is the Stark who has already learned to be "tough and hard" as you say Ned should have been. 

Ned was a ruler, Arya is a little girl who is not likely to rule anything in her own right during this series. She doesn't have to be tough to fulfill her role in life.

40 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

Yet, this series specifically calls our attention to why it is wrong to "just sign death warrants" and hide behind paid executioners. Sure, killing must be easier when you don't see your victims, it must be easier to forget about your responsibility. But your victims are still dead and you have still caused their deaths, and if you think otherwise, you are deluding yourself. In addition, when you are in a position to give out orders, you are also responsible for those who obey you. 

Sure, but from a proper psychological viewpoint what the Starks do is worse to your mental health and stability than what people with proper headsmen do. If you spend your life killing dozens or hundreds of people with your own hands this kind of thing gets to you.

I don't know what George wanted to tell with this whole Stark approach to justice there - insofar as personal responsibility is concerned this is fine, but there is a darker side to that - and one assumes that many a Stark being groomed by his father really started to like watching Ice cut through human meat...

And there is, of course, a difference between murder and execution in this world. The writ and judgment of a king or ruler is never *murder* as per the rules in this world - murder is when somebody takes the law in his own hands. And the problem when you do the beheading yourself is that you may start to really like that feeling.

Cersei, for instance, doesn't like or relish at violence or murder. She causes the deaths of many people, to be sure, but she doesn't get off on it or personally kills anyone. 

40 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

Cersei can afford the luxury of not killing with her own hands, because she is in a position where she can give the orders. One instance of a perfectly unjustifiable murder with her own hands is not "only". It shows she is mentally, psychologically capable of it, but normally she has the opportunity to make others do her killings for her. And even when she only "signs the death warrants", she targets innocent people, including children, without any problems. 

That is not surprising - because it is actually a lot easier to command or wish something happened, and quite another to watch it happen or do it with your own hands.

40 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

You think you understand why she does what she does. But that's your subjective opinion, and your posts reveal that you are not interested in her motivation, not interested in what she was and in how and why she has become what she is now or how she relates to the world through her own age and experience. You have labelled her a psychopath and deny that she is a victim of war suffering the results of countless traumatizing events.

I do so, because this is *not* an evil label making her some outcast. There are psychopaths in this world who are not murderers. This is a spectrum. Arya might be able to stop what she is doing, but she is *never* going to become the person she once was. She is scarred for life by her experiences, and there is no way to unmake them unless, you know, magic.

40 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

As a matter of fact, intent matters. Absolutely. In real life and in literature as well. 

Not when we discuss whether something is a murder or not a murder. Then we concern ourselves with what a murder is and how a person who is killed has to be killed so that it is a murder.

I don't argue here that Arya should be killed or anything, or be imprisoned for life. I just name the crimes she committed by their proper name: murder. One can argue what should be done to Arya - I think she certainly should pay for her crimes in some way. People do not exist so that other people can learn something about themselves and their places in life.

40 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

Incidentally, she is also seeking justice. She had a sense of justice before the tragedies in her life happened. It is not a mantle a child of her age should take on, but her childhood has been lost forever. It doesn't mean she has become an adult though. She is just a very lonely child who is trying to make sense of a very twisted world around her. She may still succeed.

A sense of justice doesn't have anything to do with whether you are psychopath or not. You can only kill people who you think are a danger to yourself or your family. In fact, that's what most psychopaths who kill do - they are detached from their own emotions and are thus able to commit violent acts more easily than 'normal people'. Psychopaths don't have to have weird sadistic fantasies involving around hurting or killing people (against their will). But those who are psychopaths and have such fantasies very often become serial killers - for obvious reasons.

Arya Stark doesn't have sadistic fantasies but she often resorts to murder and violence to remove obstacles in her path or solve problems. That is a textbook case of psychopathic behavior.

Littlefinger is another such case - he also doesn't have any sadistic fantasies but he processes his own emotions in a way that allows him to be perfectly calm when he kills somebody. Be honest to yourself: Arya would be exactly as capable as Littlefinger when it comes to playing a charade of the type Littlefinger played when he murdered Lysa. The whole Mercy thing as well as the Dareon episode proves that. Even the Bolton soldier thing is pretty close to that.

And, by the way - where is the justice in killing Weese? Everybody is always forgetting about Weese. Yes, the men abused Arya and other people in his service. But does this mean the man deserved to die? And in the cruel way he did die? There was no justice to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Righteous vengeance plots in fiction are legion, and most don’t end with the primary message that the protagonist is an evil psychopath whose victims should receive sympathy. Nope, they take you along for a thrilling ride as the hero dishing out righteous retribution to evildoers who deserve what’s coming to them.

Arya would be right at home in a Tarrantino movie, in Mel Gibson’s Payback, in a vast number of Westerns, in David Gemmel’s Waylander series, in Denzel’s Man on Fire, heck, the list is MUCH longer than the random examples that just popped into my head.

When Arya kills the entire Frey family we are gonna cheer that Winter Has Come for House Frey, when she kills Cersei or Littlefinger we will rejoice that the lone Wolf may have died but the Pack has had its vengeance.

Sure, Arya will inevitably be damaged to some degree by her journey, but that is the nature of this story. Nothing is gained for free. Everything comes with a price.

In Arya’s case this price will be well worth it for the reader.

You can't speak for this reader.  I want Arya to fail in her mission and die in the process of trying to cross people off her Hit List.  She is a murderer who covers up what she does and call it justice.  There was no justice in the killing of Dareon and the insurance underwriter.  Those were murders.  The insurance underwriter was murder for personal gain.  She wanted to learn the trade of killing and murdered the old man to please her teacher.  That is messed up.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

@teej6

 

And, by the way - where is the justice in killing Weese? Everybody is always forgetting about Weese. Yes, the men abused Arya and other people in his service. But does this mean the man deserved to die? And in the cruel way he did die? There was no justice to that.

As someone famously once said: Deserve’s got nothing to do with it.”

Did the whorehouse owner, Skinny, deserve to die in Unforgiven? His crime was that he happened to be the owner of the saloon that was “decorated with William Munney’s friend, Ned.”

Did “them two cowboys who cut up the whore” deserve to die? You can see Munney takes no joy from killing them, but  it is part of the progression of the story. And Munney is still portrayed as the protagonist, albeit a rather dark, tragic antihero, by the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lord Varys I don’t claim to be an expert on the nature of sociopaths or psychopaths, but just a simple search will give you a basic understanding of the two conditions and your definition and understanding is utterly wrong. Here’s a quote from webMD:

"A key difference between a psychopath and a sociopath is whether he has a conscience. A psychopath doesn't have a conscience. If he lies to you so he can steal your money, he won't feel any moral qualms, though he may pretend to. A sociopath typically has a conscience, but it's weak. He may know that taking your money is wrong, and he might feel some guilt or remorse, but that won't stop his behavior. Both lack empathy, but a psychopath has less regard for others." 

The above definitions of these conditions is in complete contrast to what you were stating and how you were interpreting these conditions. I can quote more such definitions if you'd like. Perhaps it's you that needs to do your research before claiming knowledge of something.  

You call Arya a psychopath, but her character is shown to clearly have a conscience in her POV chapters, she can distinguish between right and wrong, she feels remorse, and she can empathize with random strangers -- all traits noticeably absent in psychopaths.

As for the comparison between Arya and Cersei, one has to be blind or truly subjective to see Cersei's character as less of a sociopath than Arya's. Arya is still moved by the misfortunes of others even after all the trauma she has suffered as is evident from her interaction with Sam.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For Arya, it is quite simply a very stark categorization of people as either good or bad. Based on criteria that don’t necessarily align to that of society. Essentially, a judgment of character, rather than the magnitude of someone’s transgressions. It is further influenced by her intrinsic pack mentality, dividing people into “us and them”

And in this simple system, Weese, Dareon, Raff and others fell in the “bad” category.

Arya is basically a human manifestation of karma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 

This wasn't an insult or anything - I was genuinely baffled that there are people who cannot empathize with Cersei in the situation of the walk. Or even with her as a mother losing a child she loved, etc.

You are confusing empathy with sympathy. Empathy is not something you can feel for everyone as you need to put yourself in the person's shoes to be able to do that. On the other hand, you can sympathize with most anyone. It isn't easy to feel empathy for a person whose character does not conform with your values or morals. For instance, I can feel sympathy for a mass murderer who is about to be executed but I feel no empathy for him. Similarly, I definitely can feel sympathy for Cersei's plight during her walk of shame, but I do not feel empathy for her since I can't understand/justify any of her vile actions (as there is no justification), and as I feel she brought the ugly situation upon herself by her own misdeeds. 

Again, I am baffled by your so called empathy for Cersei, while judging Arya through a different lens. Double standards? Well, I'll leave it at that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

For Arya, it is quite simply a very stark categorization of people as either good or bad. Based on criteria that don’t necessarily align to that of society. Essentially, a judgment of character, rather than the magnitude of someone’s transgressions. It is further influenced by her intrinsic pack mentality, dividing people into “us and them”

And in this simple system, Weese, Dareon, Raff and others fell in the “bad” category.

Arya is basically a human manifestation of karma.

Arya is the human manifestation of the corruption of justice.  That "us and them mentality" that you speak of is the same internal rot that pushed Jon to unjustly execute Janos Slynt.  It is not too far from the internal drive that made Jaime push Bran from that tower window.  There is nothing positive about it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lord Varys Ceaser was both a great leader and politician... when he took over as dictator Rome was in ruin and starving, he brought them back from the brink. Regardless we’ll have to agree to disagree as I believe there’s a bit more to being considered a good ruler/bad ruler besides people trying to kill you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, 867-5309 said:

Arya is the human manifestation of the corruption of justice.  That "us and them mentality" that you speak of is the same internal rot that pushed Jon to unjustly execute Janos Slynt.  It is not too far from the internal drive that made Jaime push Bran from that tower window.  There is nothing positive about it.  

It is intrinsic to human beings. Yes, yes, the appeal to nature fallacy and all that. But it nevertheless characterises how humans survived for probably 90% of the span of our species existence. In a setting as perilous and brutal as Westeros is it any surprise that such a mentality would be prevalent? And in a family that emphasizes wolf pack mentality even more so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Starkz said:

@Lord Varys Ceaser was both a great leader and politician... when he took over as dictator Rome was in ruin and starving, he brought them back from the brink. Regardless we’ll have to agree to disagree as I believe there’s a bit more to being considered a good ruler/bad ruler besides people trying to kill you.

Yeah by LV’s standards, Abraham Lincoln, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and JFK were all bad leaders.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

More accurate to say by LV’s standards in this particular thread. Those standards may be quite different in the next thread, depending on what is required to win the argument.

Lol.Couldn’t agree more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

It is intrinsic to human beings. Yes, yes, the appeal to nature fallacy and all that. But it nevertheless characterises how humans survived for probably 90% of the span of our species existence. In a setting as perilous and brutal as Westeros is it any surprise that such a mentality would be prevalent? And in a family that emphasizes wolf pack mentality even more so.

I don't think you're supposed to uncritically enjoy it though. At least not in this series. GRRM frames vengeance negatively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

I don't think you're supposed to uncritically enjoy it though. At least not in this series. GRRM frames vengeance negatively.

Does he though?

There is little question that Dareon is portrayed extremely negatively as he whores it up in comfort after abandoning Sam and Gilly in their hour of desperate need, with a hungry crying baby and a dying Maester Aemon.

That juxtaposition demands poetic justice from the reader’s point of view and Arya steps in as the hand of universal cause and effect to deliver that karmic justice.  

The same applies to the revolting depiction of Raff and the Tickler, in the leadup to their just desserts at Arya’s hand.

It seems to me he set these scenes up pretty well to show that harsh, but fair, justice does sometimes get delivered even in Westeros.

While I am on record that the whole Janos Slynt execution leaves me greatly underwhelmed, there seems little doubt that Martin intended that too to be a depiction of karmic justice being delivered to Slynt for his betrayal of Eddard.

There are many more examples, but these are the few that seem quite apt at this point in time.

In short, I don’t think Martin displays a blanket negative portrayal of vengeance at all.

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...