Lyanna<3Rhaegar Posted December 29, 2019 Share Posted December 29, 2019 2 hours ago, kissdbyfire said: Word. And yesterday’s word du jour was “stoic”; today it’s “Uber”. I don’t get the generalisations, nor why these are being applied only to the Starks/the north. No, I don't either. I've seen some pretty 'uber' Stark hate before but never quite to this level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion1991 Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 4 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: This isn't real life or a medieval feudal society. Yes, it is based on it but this is George's world. George considers the personalities because that's the book he wanted to write. Not showing Robb's men devastating the countryside is hardly the biggest "bend" in reality in this series so it seems a little odd for you to take issue with this & not the fact that people come back to life, warg into animals & other humans, have dragons, do magic etc. I don't see why this adds or removes anything to the morality of the war, especially if every single army is going to take its toll on a countryside. To repeatedly state & detail the fact that the army is using resources as it moves would not only be redundant but is obvious. He doesn't go into detail about any army using up the resources of the land & laying waste, although irl that's what happens. The only times it is mentioned is when it's to the extreme - the Dothraki or Tywin specifically giving orders to rape & pillage. It isn't unrealistic to say Robb had control of his men either. Just like anything else there are good & bad leaders. Tywin has control of his men too, hell even Tyrion has some level of control over the clansmen - that in & of itself is totally unrealistic but it makes for a good story. Yet you don't complain about that, presumably because Tyrion & Tywin are not Starks. Ned, Robb, & Catelyn are dead. Jon is potentially dead. An upjumped, murderous, sadistic, bastard holds WF & has presumably beaten the only person with an army that was willing to help. How much weaker do the Starks have to be before you think they are depicted as such? Sure, he had the option to make what ever story he wanted. Thankfully for the rest of us he made the story he wanted & not the story you did. Seriously, this series is HUGE. It has a massive fan base. In order for that to be one of two things have to be true. Either the story you are portraying is not what was written or the rest of us & George disagree that the story you wanted would have been better. I think a little of both. While you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, at some point you will have to accept that it is a rare opinion. Generally speaking, most people that have read the series enjoy it the way it is & of the ones that don't I have never seen anyone take the stance on it that you do. If you want something more realistic read some fiction. Or continue to read this & be unhappy about it because it's not going to change & I don't think you are going to persuade many people to see things your way. I have never seen the biggest Stark fan give them the credit you do. Have ya read this forum?? The criticism of the Starks is everywhere. Clearly the author has presented things that are morally questionable because they are questioned all the time, albeit not in the form or the way you seem to see fit. We don't have Cat thinking "God, these people are morons" for several reasons. 1. She is married to the North so she is part of them. Her husband & children are Northerners. 2. Because they aren't morons. "Does the North not realize this war is unwinnable?" No, because it wasn't unwinnable. Again, you picked an odd person for your theoretical criticism of the North. "What are we even fighting for" Every single man in that army & Catelyn know exactly what they are fighting for so why in the world would they pose this question? The characters are different. There are different people, fighting different wars, for different reasons, with different personalities. How boring would it be if every single character had their own Mirri? Their own Bowen? Their own Karstark? Their own Walder Frey? If George doesn't intend to pose any question marks over the Starks he clearly didn't do a very good job of it. There isn't a Stark, minus maybe Bran & Rickon, that aren't ridiculed & questioned to the death. Cat started a war, Ned lied & got executed, Robb betrayed his ally & got killed, Jon broke his vows & got stabbed, Sansa betrayed her family, Arya is on her way to being a serial killer, psychopath. These are just the things said in a nut shell. Where do you suppose people get all of this from if not from the series? Do you really think George wrote all of this thinking everyone would see them as perfect, "Uber men"? If so it seems he has only succeeded in convincing you. That all being said the Starks are written to be the good guys. They certainly aren't the only good guys but they are one. I, personally, think the series would be lacking if it was full of bad guys. There is plenty of grey area around almost every character. Cersei is a heinous bitch but we still feel some sympathy for her. Even Gregor & Victarion have people sympathize & empathize with them. The only truly bad character that I can think of is Ramsay. There are no "white" characters & the Starks aren't even the closest we get to white. Brienne maybe or Samwell would be the closest IMO. What Tywin and the Dothraki do is the standard practice. That was the reality. Having a fantastical world where “the good man” can snap his fingers and magically feed his men and impart 19th century values into them isn’t. It’s silly and you’re hugely down just how violent this society was. Edward the Third devastated France during the 100 years war. In the Thirty Years War they depopulated Germany just from the armies scouting the land bear. To say otherwise is to imply that war can be civilised. Most of the damage caused in war is by the attrition, famine and devastation of the land. Very few people died in battles. Most people died of disease, exposure and starvation. Plastering that over sanitises the nature of war. It is a huge piece of context for any moral discussion on the subject. The draft title for Dream of Spring was A Time for Wolves. This is them passing under the shadow. Every setback they have is just setup for that comeback. You have heard of sarcasm and back handed comments right? It’s not good that the Starks are gonna have their power fantasy trip and be so Wolfy wolf face that make Lemman Russ blush. It’s mocking them. Mild criticism and almost all inference. Mostly technical discussions on Rob Starks abilities as a strategist or commander. Plus it’s biased. You aren’t going to have threads on why the Stark’s are amazing because you’d just be repeating what’s presented in the text. George isn’t presenting some hidden critique of House Stark. Characters like Cat. People keep telling me there is criticism of House Stark but I’ve yet to see an actual quote of a credible character making a legitimate criticism. Do tell, how was the War winnable exactly? How are there no idiots among the Northern ranks? Seems quite odd for such a poor country with low manpower. Never mind that amongst an entire army you should have a range of ability. Unless now you’re admitting they are given special treatment. When are they ever ridiculed or questioned? I don’t think we’re meant to take Craster seriously. Again, where is the criticism if not point for point in the form of a Mirri? Arya is passing under shadow. She’s gonna remember who she is, get Needle and get out of being a FM. I think that George is playing to his audiences preconceptions about what a hardy warrior society would look like. He knows people like wolves so he builds a whole mythology around them and taps into aspects of Saxon and Nordic culture. You get the same thing with Space Wolves from 40k and in itself that’s usually inoffensive. So of course he’s trying to sell that the Starks and the North are cool. The issue is that he sets them up as being the solution. These cold blooded stoic, raven haired and incorruptible Germanic warriors who are going to sweep away the weak, effeminate, corrupt and decadent south. It’s when he starts making that narrative that it becomes sinister and has fascist overtones. If the story ends with the Starks victorious and imposing themselves into the South that will be the bottom line. I completely disagree. The story isn’t remotely morally grey. If you study history it changes your perspective on what morally grey is. Was it right for the allies to bomb German cities? Was it right to use a naval blockade in WW1? Is there hypocrisy in opposing the Kaisars imperialism when you own 2/5 of the world? George doesn’t come remotely close to creating challenging morally grey situations. To me morally grey can only means both sides are on a level, where neither side is better or worse than the other. Anything else is just trying to work peoples suspension of disbelief and be edgy. George so exaggerated how bad Lannister’s, Freys and Bolton’s are that it doesn’t matter if a Stark does something a tad off or a Frey does something kinda neat. It’s still very black and white at its core. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyanna<3Rhaegar Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 27 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said: What Tywin and the Dothraki do is the standard practice. That was the reality It is not the reality in Westeros. 27 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said: Having a fantastical world where “the good man” can snap his fingers and magically feed his men and impart 19th century values into them isn’t. This doesn't happen. 27 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said: It’s silly and you’re hugely down just how violent this society was Idk what this sentence means. 27 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said: Edward the Third devastated France during the 100 years war. In the Thirty Years War they depopulated Germany just from the armies scouting the land bear. To say otherwise is to imply that war can be civilised What bearing does this have on a fictional war in a fictional realm? 27 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said: Most of the damage caused in war is by the attrition, famine and devastation of the land. Very few people died in battles. Most people died of disease, exposure and starvation. Plastering that over sanitises the nature of war. It is a huge piece of context for any moral discussion on the subject These things aren't shown with any army in the series, not just Robb's. 27 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said: The draft title for Dream of Spring was A Time for Wolves. This is them passing under the shadow. Every setback they have is just setup for that comeback I hope so, I really would like to see the wolves get their revenge. 27 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said: You have heard of sarcasm and back handed comments right? Sure. 27 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said: It’s not good that the Starks are gonna have their power fantasy trip and be so Wolfy wolf face that make Lemman Russ blush. It’s mocking them Not good to whom? I'm confused now. Are the Starks being mocked or is there no criticism of them whatsoever? 27 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said: Characters like Cat. People keep telling me there is criticism of House Stark but I’ve yet to see an actual quote of a credible character making a legitimate criticism Well, probably because any instance of Stark criticism that is brought up you either say isn't criticism or that the character isn't credible. 27 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said: Do tell, how was the War winnable exactly? Any number of things could have happened that allowed Robb's campaign to be successful. 27 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said: How are there no idiots among the Northern ranks? This isn't what I said. 28 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said: Seems quite odd for such a poor country with low manpower. What seems odd? For there to be no idiots? Again, I didn't say that. I said the northerns in general are not morons. Any more than any other kingdom is. I don't know what bearing being a poor country with low manpower would have on their collective intelligence though. 30 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said: Never mind that amongst an entire army you should have a range of ability. Unless now you’re admitting they are given special treatment There is most certainly a range of abilities among any group, the North included. So? 31 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said: Mild criticism and almost all inference. Mostly technical discussions on Rob Starks abilities as a strategist or commander. Gotcha. So basically any criticism towards the Starks is not actual criticism but you would like someone to show you criticism of the Starks? As to the bolded, not even close. You do read the forums right? 33 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said: When are they ever ridiculed or questioned? I don’t think we’re meant to take Craster seriously Ok why don't you tell me what character is meant to be taken seriously & what criticism is acceptable & if I can find that great, if not we will just agree that the form of criticism you're willing to accept as criticism doesn't exist. 34 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said: Again, where is the criticism if not point for point in the form of a Mirri? Robb is criticized by Tywin, Jaime, the Freys & Karstark just off of the top of my head. I'm willing to bet those don't count though. 36 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said: Arya is passing under shadow. She’s gonna remember who she is, get Needle and get out of being a FM I'm glad to hear it, she is one of my favorites. 36 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said: think that George is playing to his audiences preconceptions about what a hardy warrior society would look like. He knows people like wolves so he builds a whole mythology around them and taps into aspects of Saxon and Nordic culture "He knows people like wolves"?! You're joking right?! Oh boy. I don't even know what to say to that. I mean, sure, you know everyone loves wolves. They are smart & cuddly & not at all dangerous. Why wouldn't they? They would most definitely outshine the Lion (who is literally known as the King of the Jungle) in a popularity contest, it's no wonder George picked this UBER animal to represent these UBER men. 40 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said: So of course he’s trying to sell that the Starks and the North are cool. The issue is that he sets them up as being the solution. These cold blooded stoic, raven haired and incorruptible Germanic warriors who are going to sweep away the weak, effeminate, corrupt and decadent south. Wow, you really love them don't you? Where do you come up with this crap? Most of them are dead so they won't be sweeping anything away. 42 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said: It’s when he starts making that narrative that it becomes sinister and has fascist overtones. If the story ends with the Starks victorious and imposing themselves into the South that will be the bottom line. im sorry. I'm trying. I really am. 43 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said: completely disagree. The story isn’t remotely morally grey. If you study history it changes your perspective on what morally grey is. Was it right for the allies to bomb German cities? Was it right to use a naval blockade in WW1? Is there hypocrisy in opposing the Kaisars imperialism when you own 2/5 of the world? Well, this isn't real life. (I feel like I've said this before?) I don't study history but I assure you I am quite capable of deciding if something is morally grey. Thanks for the info though. 45 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said: George doesn’t come remotely close to creating challenging morally grey situations. To me morally grey can only means both sides are on a level, where neither side is better or worse than the other. Anything else is just trying to work peoples suspension of disbelief and be edgy. George so exaggerated how bad Lannister’s, Freys and Bolton’s are that it doesn’t matter if a Stark does something a tad off or a Frey does something kinda neat. It’s still very black and white at its core No, that would be making them just the same. It may not matter to you if a Stark doesn't something off or a Frey does something neat but most of the rest of us are able to see & evaluate those things. Is it not a very morally grey area that Ned beheads the deserter? That he brings his 8 year old son to watch? Is it not a morally grey area that Robb betrays his allies? Is it not a morally grey area that Jaime pushes Bran out of the window in an effort to conceal what could cost him his life & the life of his children & sister? Is it not morally grey that Arya is killing people? Is it not morally grey that Sansa betrayed her own family to the enemy? I expect Bran to become pretty grey as well. Jon is the most morally grey of them all. He is left in a position to either give up on his family & not help them or foreswear his vows & help his family. If these things are not morally grey in your eyes then they must be down right black because they certainly aren't white. If they are black in your opinion that disproves your own point that the Starks can do no wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisdaw Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 That somewhere back down the line Lannister ancestors skin changed lions I think is perfectly plausible, same as for pretty much all animal/house connections. I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility that Cersei and/or Jaime will yet second life a lion. Would need someone to bring a lion to Westeros first, or there be a revelation that they're still there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Mac Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 12 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said: It is not the reality in Westeros. When Robb went West to pay the Lannisters 'back in kind' for what they did in the Riverlands what do you think was going on there? How do you think the Ironborn treat people they are attacking? What do you think of the rape camp the Northerners set up at Harrenhal? Or the Northmen raping and pillaging in the Riverlands? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyanna<3Rhaegar Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 7 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said: When Robb went West to pay the Lannisters 'back in kind' for what they did in the Riverlands what do you think was going on there? How do you think the Ironborn treat people they are attacking? What do you think of the rape camp the Northerners set up at Harrenhal? Or the Northmen raping and pillaging in the Riverlands? I think maybe you are misunderstanding the argument. The poster keeps saying that basically these things are shown & talked about for everyone except the Northmen. I have maintained the Northmen are no different than the rest & that it is only in extreme circumstances that it is detailed to the degree that Gregor's rampage is. The things you stated actually go towards my argument & against the other posters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.