Jump to content

The Carter Presidency And The Game Of Thrones


Mordred

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

http://entertainment.time.com/2011/04/18/grrm-interview-part-2-fantasy-and-history/

 

GRRM: "And a lot of fantasy makes it seem simply: a good man will be a good king. Well, a good man is not always a good king. And a bad man is not always a bad king. You know, it’s much more complicated than that. It’s you know, I look at in my lifetime, I think probably the best man to serve as President in my lifetime was Jimmy Carter. As a human being, the best human being, but he was not a good President. He was not. General goodness did not automatically make flowers bloom."

http://entertainment.time.com/2011/04/18/grrm-interview-part-2-fantasy-and-history/

GRRM: "And a lot of fantasy makes it seem simply: a good man will be a good king. Well, a good man is not always a good king. And a bad man is not always a bad king. You know, it’s much more complicated than that. It’s you know, I look at in my lifetime, I think probably the best man to serve as President in my lifetime was Jimmy Carter. As a human being, the best human being, but he was not a good President. He was not. General goodness did not automatically make flowers bloom."

 

Seems he does not consider Carter to have been an effective President

GRRM: "And then you look at what I think are bad men, like Richard Nixon. Nixon was a bad President too in some ways, but in other ways, he was a very effective President doing things like opening China and things like that."

 

GRRM's not really saying anything controversial here, Carter is not considered to have been a great leader, the readers of Time magazine are, for the most part, not in need of GRRM to qualify that statement. Carter's average approval rating was 45.5%, the third lowest recorded. Carter has been far more effective as a former President than he ever was in the White House.

 

Is there any need for you to react like this? Can't we all be civil?

 

 

Well at least you provided a link which is more than I can say for the original poster. I still do not see what it has to do with ASOIAF.  Until I flapped my trap no one bothered to supply the information that you did.

As to the last line of your post ---- casting aspersions again, are ya?

I copy pasted the first link you provided. I dunna know dude, seems a bit off for martin to speak like that during an interview and the Time logo seemed a bit off.

Unless this ASOIAF story is about US presidents and middle east war I would say that Carter is not represented in martin's saga.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Well at least you provided a link which is more than I can say for the original poster. I still do not see what it has to do with ASOIAF.  Until I flapped my trap no one bothered to supply the information you did.

I thought it was a pretty well known interview, it has gotten to three pages with people being somewhat aware of OP's position before you acted outraged. 

1 minute ago, Clegane'sPup said:

As to the last line of your post ---- casting aspersions again.  

Calling a topic 'shyte' is uncivil, it is needlessly provocative for no real reason. It's almost as if you are looking for an argument. 

You could have asked for links or even stated your puzzlement over the thread lasting so long without the abuse to OP.

1 minute ago, Clegane'sPup said:

I copy pasted the first link you provided. I dunna know dude seems a bit off for martin speak during an interview.

In the last few years GRRM has been bombarded with the same questions again and again, his Time interview, both parts, are a welcome change to that.

1 minute ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Unless this ASOIAF story is about US presidents and middle east war I would say that Carter is not represented in martin's saga.

Sorry, but you are missing his point completely. Carter is an example of someone GRRM considers a good man, in most fantasy fiction Carter, by virtue of being a good man, would have made a good leader. That is not true of real life and GRRM  wanted to reflect that. It is one of the major reasons his series has been so popular, it has attracted both fans of history (both fictitious and real) and fantasy. 

Carter, like Ned, was a good man but being good did not make them a good President/Hand.  That is, loosely, the comparison GRRM was making with Carter

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

I thought it was a pretty well known interview, it has gotten to three pages with people being somewhat aware of OP's position before you acted outraged. 

Calling a topic 'shyte' is uncivil, it is needlessly provocative for no real reason. It's almost as if you are looking for an argument. 

You could have asked for links or even stated your puzzlement over the thread lasting so long without the abuse to OP.

In the last few years GRRM has been bombarded with the same questions again and again, his Time interview, both parts, are a welcome change to that.

Sorry, but you are missing his point completely. Carter is an example of someone GRRM considers a good man, in most fantasy fiction Carter, by virtue of being a good man, would have made a good leader. That is not true of real life and GRRM  wanted to reflect that. It is one of the major reasons his series has been so popular, it has attracted both fans of history (both fictitious and real) and fantasy. 

Carter, like Ned, was a good man but being good did not make them a good President/Hand.  That is, loosely, the comparison GRRM was making with Carter

 

1. I thought it was a pretty well known interview, it has gotten to three pages with people being somewhat aware of OP's position before you acted outraged. 

Forgive me for being a dim wit. I do not appreciate your description of me being outraged.  That is totally uncalled for. But you like it.

2. Calling a topic 'shyte' is uncivil, it is needlessly provocative for no real reason. It's almost as if you are looking for an argument. 

Nope, I would say you be the one looking for an argument.

3. You could have asked for links or even stated your puzzlement over the thread lasting so long without the abuse to OP.

I did ask for links and you provided one sketchy as it may be.

4. In the last few years GRRM has been bombarded with the same questions again and again, his Time interview, both parts, are a welcome change to that.

Okay

5. Sorry, but you are missing his point completely. Carter is an example of someone GRRM considers a good man, in most fantasy fiction Carter, by virtue of being a good man, would have made a good leader. That is not true of real life and GRRM  wanted to reflect that. It is one of the major reasons his series has been so popular, it has attracted both fans of history (both fictitious and real) and fantasy. 

Okay you are of the opinion that martin thinks that carter is an example of a good man, Cool. A good man does not necessarily make a good leader. Cool.

6. Carter, like Ned, was a good man but being good did not make them a good President/Hand.  That is, loosely, the comparison GRRM was making with Carter

Hells bells man, any one who has read the saga know Eddard was ill prepared to be the Hand of the King.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Clegane'sPup said:

 

Forgive me for being a dim wit. I do not appreciate your description of me being outraged.  That is totally uncalled for. But you like it.

Your original post seemed outraged, you called one question 'sleazy and slimy', referred to the topic as 'shyte' and asked why the the thread had been allowed to remain. To an outsider reading your post it comes of like you are outraged. 

Perhaps that was not your intention and people who know you better would not make the same conclusion, but the majority of us are strangers and your post came of a little hostile. Sorry if pointing this out offends you. 

1 minute ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Nope, I would say you be the one looking for an argument.

How so? I've gone out of my way to provide the links and answer the questions you have asked. Where is the argument?

1 minute ago, Clegane'sPup said:

 

I did ask for links and you provided one sketchy as it may be.

How was it sketchy? 

sketchy

/ˈskɛtʃi/

adjective

1.

not thorough or detailed.

"the information they had was sketchy"

synonyms:incomplete, inadequate, limited, patchy, scrappy, bitty, fragmentary, rudimentary;More

2.

INFORMAL•NORTH AMERICAN

dishonest or disreputable

 

http://entertainment.time.com/2011/04/18/grrm-interview-part-2-fantasy-and-history/

 

That is the link to GRRM talking about Carter, what is sketchy about it?

1 minute ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Okay you are of the opinion that martin thinks that carter is an example of a good man, Cool. A good man does not necessarily make a good leader. Cool.

That is Martin's opinion, not mine. I provided the link and quote. 

 

1 minute ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Hells bells man, any one who has read the saga know Eddard was ill prepared to be the Hand of the King.

Exactly. You were asking what Carter had to do with the series and now you know. Why are you acting so agitated over someone answering the questions you asked?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Your original post seemed outraged, you called one question 'sleazy and slimy', referred to the topic as 'shyte' and asked why the the thread had been allowed to remain. To an outsider reading your post it comes of like you are outraged. 

Perhaps that was not your intention and people who know you better would not make the same conclusion, but the majority of us are strangers and your post came of a little hostile. Sorry if pointing this out offends you. 

How so? I've gone out of my way to provide the links and answer the questions you have asked. Where is the argument?

How was it sketchy? 

sketchy

/ˈskɛtʃi/

adjective

1.

not thorough or detailed.

"the information they had was sketchy"

synonyms:incomplete, inadequate, limited, patchy, scrappy, bitty, fragmentary, rudimentary;More

2.

INFORMAL•NORTH AMERICAN

dishonest or disreputable

 

http://entertainment.time.com/2011/04/18/grrm-interview-part-2-fantasy-and-history/

 

That is the link to GRRM talking about Carter, what is sketchy about it?

That is Martin's opinion, not mine. I provided the link and quote. 

 

Exactly. You were asking what Carter had to do with the series and now you know. Why are you acting so agitated over someone answering the questions you asked?

You Bernie are quite comical. Project much? :love:  Night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Let us break down this BS that has nothing to do with martin's ASOIAF.

 

1. Our favorite author has expressed on more than one interview that he believes Jimmy Carter was truly a good man.

Where is the link?

2. However, he has also said of Carter that he was not a good president.

Where is the link?

3. What does the author consider a failure of the Carter presidency?

If you had provided the link perhaps it may have gave the answer.

4. Was it the failed hostage rescue mission?  

That is a sleazy slimy statement.

5. Pls. Admins, do not delete this post.  It has real politics but I believe the answer will shed some light on our author's ideas.

Actually I am curious why this thread stayed as long as it did. BECAUSE your shyte questions shed no, nada, zilch, zero light on martin's ideas as it relates to ASOIAF.

If you don't like it, don't respond.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

I thought it was a pretty well known interview, it has gotten to three pages with people being somewhat aware of OP's position before you acted outraged. 

It is a well-known interview.  Clegane's Pup is not as well-informed as he thinks he is.  Obviously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/11/2018 at 3:06 PM, Bernie Mac said:

The other popular assumption is that the Northern lords place honour that highly on their (Maslow's) hierarchy of needs. Honour is pointless if all it does is get them embroiled in unwinnable wars and neglects them preparing for winter or being able to defend their own homes. 

A leader being able to keep them safe, prosperous and victorious in war all trump him being honourable, I imagine Ned's deserved popularity in the North comes from those factors than his 'honour'. 

Agreed. Robb’s Stark need to threaten Greatjon and even having to have Greywind take some of the man’s fingers in order to pacify the man perfectly shows “for honor” isn’t a good enough reason all the the time for all Northman to do x.   I mean Ned Stark’s life was on the line and all Greatjon seemed to care about is how he and his house can best win glory in battle. 

Hell, the Red wedding(to which I recognize you’ve mentioned in other threads) was mostly a matter of northmen slaughtering northmen.  

Clearly, the north isn’t more infatuated with their perception of honor than anyone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are Northmen in the North who really love the Starks. Those would be the clansmen, the Manderlys, the Cerwyns perhaps, and possibly also the Tallharts and Glovers. But the others act and behave as powerful lords in their own right. If you want their allegiance you have to convince them that you are a worthy leader. Being a Stark isn't enough as the Greatjon and others show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Agreed. Robb’s Stark need to threaten Greatjon and even having to have Greywind take some of the man’s fingers in order to pacify the man perfectly shows “for honor” isn’t a good enough reason all the the time for all Northman to do x.   I mean Ned Stark’s life was on the line and all Greatjon seemed to care about is how he and his house can best win glory in battle. 

Hell, the Red wedding(to which I recognize you’ve mentioned in other threads) was mostly a matter of northmen slaughtering northmen.  

Clearly, the north isn’t more infatuated with their perception of honor than anyone. 

Barbrey Dustin sent the minimum number of men she could.  And only because she feared the Starks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There are Northmen in the North who really love the Starks. Those would be the clansmen, the Manderlys, the Cerwyns perhaps, and possibly also the Tallharts and Glovers. But the others act and behave as powerful lords in their own right. If you want their allegiance you have to convince them that you are a worthy leader. Being a Stark isn't enough as the Greatjon and others show.

Fear cuts deeper than a sword.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/12/2018 at 10:11 AM, Mordred said:

If you don't like it, don't respond.  

This is one of the slippery slopes that happen in internet conversations.

Freedom to discuss.

Until disagreement.

Your opening post said:

Quote

Pls. Admins, do not delete this post.  It has real politics but I believe the answer will shed some light on our author's ideas. 

I get it that people like to try to and enjoy trying to debate what they think an author of a book "means."

On 11/12/2018 at 10:12 AM, Mordred said:

It is a well-known interview.  Clegane's Pup is not as well-informed as he thinks he is.  Obviously.

If indeed it was a well know interview I would suggest that you with your quest for discussion should have included in your opening remarks a link to the interview.

You darling, are correct. I am not as informed as I dunna think I am.

I'll use the information @Bernie Macsupplied.

GRRM: "And a lot of fantasy makes it seem simply: a good man will be a good king. Well, a good man is not always a good king. And a bad man is not always a bad king. You know, it’s much more complicated than that. It’s you know, I look at in my lifetime, I think probably the best man to serve as President in my lifetime was Jimmy Carter. As a human being, the best human being, but he was not a good President. He was not. General goodness did not automatically make flowers bloom."

I am asking, sincerely, How does that apply to martin's story?

Does it mean Eddard was a good man and Eddard would be a bad king? Does it mean Eddard was ill prepared for his duty of being the Hand of the King?  Does it mean Robert was a good man or a bad man thereby making Robert a good king or a bad king?

Since a good man is not always a good king and a bad man is not always a bad king, who is what? Boils down to interpretation of history.

Was Joffrey, the boy king, a good King or bad King? Or was Joffrey a pawn?

Is Stormborn a good Queen or a bad Queen? Is Dany a good ruler or a bad ruler?

You wanna talk real world politics I would suggest trying the general chatter forum.

 

ps. who was president of the usa when the russians left afganistan and the usa moved in. care to venture which year that happened.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Clegane'sPup said:

How does that apply to martin's story?

Does it mean Eddard was a good man and Eddard would be a bad king?

Ah ha! Glad for the link, and glad you clarified that bit - the most disturbing aspect of this whole topic for me was the thought that GRRM somehow thought Robert Baratheon was like Jimmy Carter.  The guy knows his characters really well, so if he thought so, I'd been grossly misreading the character somehow.

Well, truth is, he didn't. All we know is that he was discussing the machinations of two rulers with the journalist, who wanted to keep the article spoiler free. As Robert died in the first book, and Ned not only died but was never a ruler (or only once, when he founded the BwB by accident) it is unlikely that GRRM was comparing either of them to Jimmy Carter.

My guess is that he was talking about Stannis and Daenerys, as there is no way that Cersei or Euron could be mistaken for well intentioned good people. (Mance and the tattered prince are deposed, we don't really know enough about the character and machinations of the rulers of the free cities to make any except perhaps Illyrio or Xaro, both of whom takes pains not to identify as a ruler, but more as an influential committee member. And while they are more morally ambiguous than Cersei and Euron, they don't seem to be blocked or frustrated, or idealistic enough to qualify for the good person/bad ruler thing. And Jon is dead. Although an unJon Lord Commander might be what they were talking of, or Sam as Lord Commander)

I can see how Daenarys is Carter-like, in that she is diligent, well intentioned, but getting played by her advisors and her king, who want her to be impotent, queen of slaves, to play the Harpy. The enemy is not just camped outside her walls, it is within her administration, stuffing up every thing she tries to set right (eg. the opening of Daznak's pit - as Tyrion found out, there was a slave market trading within site of her gates, and slaves were being taken in to the pit to be eaten alive by lions, while she is being sold bullshit about free men and women, paid and fighting for glory, with the dead pit animals being fed to the poor freedmen as a healthful stew.) The difficult thing is to see what she can do about it (other than burn them all, like her putative father did.) But, hello! Tyrion is at hand (pun intended) and he knows exactly what things are like on the ground.

Stannis reminds me a little of Jimmy Carter - they were both naval commanders, so there is that. But the thing I'm thinking about seems to be the tooth-grinding piety. Although the Red God is Selyse's religion, rather than his...Carter was less equivocal in his belief. But Carter must have felt like grinding his teeth when Jerry Fawell and the Moral Majority started up in '79, representing Reagan as God's chosen one, and himself as the one demanding abortions for everyone.  I don't think Carter really made his Christianity a front and centre issue when he came into office - it was mostly in reaction to the Moral Majority that he started spouting his brittle professions of piety,  and they stole his Southern voters anyway. It must have hurt - he genuinely believed in God, but recognised the secular nature and tradition of government. Reagan was not exactly a devout man, but he would ride roughshod over the secular tradition if it got him votes, and as it happened, it did. So he ended up president and Jimmy ended up being burnt in effigy as Satan, no less. I imagine there might have been some tooth-grinding on the way there.

Oh yes, and Stannis is characterised as the perpetual dark horse, underdog and loser with stuff like Proudwing, and his 'mine by rights' shtick.  That is a bit like Carter too.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Walda said:

 

Well, truth is, he didn't. All we know is that he was discussing the machinations of two rulers with the journalist, who wanted to keep the article spoiler free.

If he wanted to keep the article spoiler free he'd not be comparing a character not featured in the first book. Plus the interview happened a week before season 2 was aired, the majority of the people reading would have no idea who Stannis was. 

It's clear Ned was the Carter like 'good man' GRRM was referring to. 

2 hours ago, Walda said:

 

As Robert died in the first book, and Ned not only died but was never a ruler (or only once, when he founded the BwB by accident) it is unlikely that GRRM was comparing either of them to Jimmy Carter.

Ned was the Hand, it is the equivalent of the Presidency, a position that Ned was clearly underqualified for. Ned and Carter being good men in GRRM's eyes did not mean they would be good leaders. 

 

2 hours ago, Walda said:

My guess is that he was talking about Stannis and Daenerys, as there is no way that Cersei or Euron could be mistaken for well intentioned good people.

It is an interview mostly about the TV show. Context is pretty important here. Ned, the protagonist of the first season was betrayed and killed. The single biggest talking point of 2010/11 in the world of TV was the death of Ned, it popularized reaction videos. 

Ned was the good man who failed when appointed the premier politician of Westeros. 

2 hours ago, Walda said:

(Mance and the tattered prince are deposed, we don't really know enough about the character and machinations of the rulers of the free cities to make any except perhaps Illyrio or Xaro, both of whom takes pains not to identify as a ruler, but more as an influential committee member. And while they are more morally ambiguous than Cersei and Euron, they don't seem to be blocked or frustrated, or idealistic enough to qualify for the good person/bad ruler thing. And Jon is dead. Although an unJon Lord Commander might be what they were talking of, or Sam as Lord Commander)

This interview came out before ADWD. The majority of people reading Time at that point are going to be unfamiliar with most of the characters you just mentioned. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

the interview happened a week before season 2 was aired

Ah, should have checked the date as well - didn't realise the discussion was about the show.  Still good to know it wasn't King Robert he was talking about. Although it seems to me that neither Ned's or Robert's identity would need to be concealed for fear of season two spoilers. Stannis, Daenarys, Robb, Renly, Balon and Joffrey were our season two rulers.

1 minute ago, Bernie Mac said:

Ned was the Hand, it is the equivalent of the Presidency

No, the hand is the equivalent of the vice-president. The office of president was intended to replace the King as head of state. While it was used as a title in the English commonwealth (and in many other places where elected officials head an organisation), the USA was the first nation to use the title to designate an individual  head of state (in the English commonwealth, John Bradshaw was the head of the council, and the council was the head of state).

11 hours ago, Clegane'sPup said:

ps. who was president of the usa when the russians left afganistan and the usa moved in. care to venture which year that happened.

George H.W. Bush was president when the last Soviet troops departed in February 1989. But Gorbachev started a withdrawal strategy in 1987, and he appointed a Soviet sponsored local communist government under Najibullah, and they were in power nominally for about 10 years but in reality, until the collapse of the soviets - the Afghan government collapsed the quarter after the funds and arms stopped coming in from the Soviets.  The Mujadhadeen and the Pakistani forces (by then awash with US funds and armaments) took over.  So if you regarded Najibullah's administration as an extension of Soviet power, the withdrawal would be either 26th December 1991 when the Soviet Union was officially dissolved, or 15th April 1992 when Najibullah's government collapsed, replaced with the divisive and not well supported government/civil war of US-sponsored Gulbuddin Hekmatyar "The butcher of Kabul' who was known for flaying his enemies and betraying his allies. The Taliban brought stable government (to Kabul at least) September 1996.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Walda said:

No, the hand is the equivalent of the vice-president. The office of president was intended to replace the King as head of state. While it was used as a title in the English commonwealth (and in many other places where elected officials head an organisation), the USA was the first nation to use the title to designate an individual  head of state (in the English commonwealth, John Bradshaw was the head of the council, and the council was the head of state).

I got Chief of Staff. In terms of responsibilities and their primary function Vice-presidents are meant to succeed the president in case the president dies or is unable to continue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/13/2018 at 8:15 AM, Lord Varys said:

There are Northmen in the North who really love the Starks. Those would be the clansmen, the Manderlys, the Cerwyns perhaps, and possibly also the Tallharts and Glovers. But the others act and behave as powerful lords in their own right. If you want their allegiance you have to convince them that you are a worthy leader. Being a Stark isn't enough as the Greatjon and others show.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.  Manderly does seem to have deep love for the Starks, but he still definitely behaves as a powerful lord in his own right.  And while the Glovers aren't technically lords, both brothers seem pretty high up in the command structure.

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I got Chief of Staff. In terms of responsibilities and their primary function Vice-presidents are meant to succeed the president in case the president dies or is unable to continue. 

Yes, in terms of the Imperial Presidency model the CoS would be the equivalent of the Hand.  Dubya didn't really abide by this - Andy Card was more of a "train runs on time" type of guy than having a real influence on policy - but other than that from Reagan to Obama (trying to analyze the Trump admin is just a shitshow) the CoS was usually the second most powerful person in the country. 

That being said, I agree that if you read the article it seems clear Martin is alluding to Ned when he talks about Carter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...