Jump to content
aeverett

The North Remembers; The West Forgets: A Theory

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Cersei getting captured and banging on the prison walls shouting “Iam a lion! I am a lion! Hear me roar!” This is satirical.

This is in reference to Cersei though, not all Lannisters. Tywin, for instance, is most certainly a Lion & no one mocks him for that. Because he doesn't walk around screaming that he is a Lion & to listen to him roar (much the same as Robb & the other Starks don't walk around telling people they are wolves) Robb is nicknamed the Young Wolf but if he introduced himself that way or screamed at someone in an attempt to intimidate them it would be silly also. It's not a knock on Lannisters, it's used to show how arrogant & entitled Cersei is. The same methods are used with Viserys & Janos & I'm sure more. 

42 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

The whole story about (I think it’s the hound who tells it) about the Lion that almost killed Tyrek Lannister and how it doesn’t matter that he puts the beast on his sigil.

Again, not mocking Lannisters as a whole. Jaime is said to be one of the best swords in the land prior to losing his sword hand - very much a lion that is not mocked. 

There are stories about stupid Starks too. Things they have done, mistakes they've made. It's the way of the world. There are good, bad, mean, nice, tough, wimpy, people in any group.

45 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Theres this continuous of satire and mockery of this idea that the Lannister’s are lions.

There isn't though. The satire lies in the fact that Cersei has to beat her chest & tell everyone she is a lion. If you have to constantly tell people you are the boss, you aren't leading very well. 

What about the Targ's? They are consistently equated with Dragons & it continues to be taken at face value long after they no longer have dragons. 

47 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Whilst nobody mocks Rob for calling himself the Grey Wolf or the Tullys for equating themselves to fish (which should be an absolute goldmine)

Robb doesn't name himself the Young Wolf. The name is given to him. The Tully's sigil is a fish but they don't walk around pretending they can breathe underwater because of it. They aren't equating themselves with fish. It's just their sigil. 

49 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

It is taken at face value that the Starks are wolves. It’s become even worse once the warg becomes common knowledge since some of the Starks are actually cannibals and have probably done quite a bit of beastiality as well.

Oh ffs. Really?? Ok. That's preposterous but here is my bigger issue with this argument. 

"It's become even worse (the idea that the Starks = wolves being readily accepted)... Once the warg becomes common knowledge..." 

The warg hasn't become common knowledge so from the jump your reasoning is flawed. 

 

So you are saying the Starks are accepted as wolves, taken at face value & not mocked for it to begin with but now this acceptance has increased since being a warg is common knowledge & they are cannibals & practice beastiality. 

Not only has the Starks being wargs not become common knowledge but calling them cannibals etc is stretching things farther than I could throw & even if this were the case it wouldn't make people readily accept them as wolves, it would do the opposite. 

59 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Aemon - Love is the death of duty.

Aemon - Kill the boy Jon Snow and let the man be born.

Jeor - The things we love always destroy us in the end.

Which means George isn’t making a balanced argument. George is saying that following your duty is always good because that’s selfless whereas love is corrupting because it’s inherently selfish. I cite Charlie Chaplins speech because the Nazis were machine men who were entirely convinced they were doing their duty for the betterment of all Germans. To avoid that issue entirely and only depict duty as a positive thing whilst love is the cause of every war is absurd.

George isn't saying that this is right, he has these characters saying it. He then goes on to show Jon - one of his beloved Starks - struggle to kill the boy & eventually come back to doing what he knows in his heart is right. He isn't telling us love is bad & duty is good, he is showing us, through one of the main characters, who George has written to be a "good" person that you need to do what is right regardless of what you are told, regardless of the rules. Not the opposite, which is the basis the Nazi's used to justify their actions. 

1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

The moral of those two chapters is to blame emotion and young hot headed idealists for the worlds problems

Ned isn't young or hot headed so how could that be the moral of that chapter? Again, George is showing us that even a good, honorable, honest, man can succumb to doing something inherently wrong because he is following his duty rather than his heart or what he would know is right if he thought on it. We know what Gared & Will witnessed so we know he doesn't deserve to be beheaded. Yet, here he is, in the very first chapter, being executed by a man that is, by all other accounts a just, good man. You have to think for yourself when reading. George is telling us Ned needs to think for himself also. 

1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

As long as you have sober and cool heads at the helm who take responsibility for their decisions then all will be well with the world. Ned, with a straight face, tells his son that’s its okay to chop an innocent mans head off as long as you do it with dignity and without malice

That isn't exactly what Ned is telling Bran but the point is we know it isn't. We know what just happened to this man. Why do you think George would show us that if not to show that this good, just, fair, honorable, man is making a mistake because he is doing what he is doing his "duty" regardless of what is right? He ends up paying the ultimate price for it. I don't understand how you can gather that the message is to do your duty & all is right with the world when he is literally showing us someone with good intentions, doing their duty, & then all being the exact opposite of right with the world. 

1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Okay, when Robert Baratheon puts on the tourney of the Hand, Ned complains about such extravagance and pomp being a vulgar waste of money. He later goes on to complain about knights being puffed up peacocks who strut around and aren’t like proper northern soldiers. This is George making the point about the corruption of the Andals and the South whilst contrasting it to the puritanical North. So his focus is on this rather than the fact that Ned is a parasite living off the backs of his own peasants. George is shifting the focus, again, away from the system and towards personalities. It’s like a US Southern plantation owner complaining about the opulence and corruption of new money in the Northern states. We would argue that this is a trite point to be making when the real immorality is being sidestepped. This is true of House Stark.

That's your opinion & Ned's - that the puffed up peacocks of the south arent proper puritanical Northern Soldiers. That doesn't mean George is trying to convince us of this. It's just showing the differences between the North & South. 

While Dany lives with the Dothraki they do & say many things in contrast to both the Southern & Northern armies of Westeros. Does that mean George is telling us that the Dothraki have the right of it? That they are the "good guys" & all others are not? No. He is showing us the different cultures. Of course Ned is going to think that about the South, having been raised in the North. The same as the South thinks the Northern folk are odd & hard, cold & bland etc. 

Every single Lord & Lady in this system are living off the backs of the peasants. The only place it's brought to light in the books is when the people of KL are literally starving in the streets. We know this is how a feudal system works & don't need it pointed out in every single instance. It would make for a very boring read. It isn't just the Starks but they are the only ones you think should be pointed out for it? Why? Are they worse than other Lords? It isn't specifically noted that the Freys are parasites living off of their peasants either, does that mean George is trying to deflect? 

Yes the focus is put on personalities & not the system because that's what George wanted to write about, that is what is entertaining to us. Undoubtedly there are some who would find it entertaining to read all about the feudal system but clearly that isn't what George wanted to write. It says nothing of the Starks specifically, only of the series as a whole. 

 

If the real immorality is being sidestepped is true of house Stark, it is true of almost every other house in the series. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 He's a Northist ...

There probably is a meeting place for people who hate direction points on a compass.

Probably up North somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Tywin Lannister really does xxxx gold” Yep, nobody ever makes fun of him.

Jamie is actively despised by most characters in the series. They all call him Kingslayer.

Did Rob have a pet name his enemies used to mock him? Shaggy? Licehead? Wolf fucker? I don’t recall it. But all the Lannister’s do. Dany gets a lot when Tyrion’s wandering Volantis. Stannis I don’t even know where to begin.

Why are the Starks enemies not making constant wolf and fish jokes? If your opponent tries to cloth themselves in romanticism then your first act should be to laugh at it. I mean young wolves eat children and all those floppy slimy Tully’s should be getting rinsed. They aren’t because some of it might actually stick with the reader.

There are not stories about stupid Starks. There’s a handful of violent ancient Starks who are barely referenced in the extra lore or in offhand comments. But when set against a two part novelisation of “why the Targaryens are bad” and the Starks are enjoying three centuries of unbroken peace in the same timeframe. That kind of speaks for itself and renders any discussion mute. You don’t have a full breakdown of the Starks murdering the Children of the Forest and seizing power in the North; because George doesn’t want that to impact our perception of House Stark. Even if that’s actually the case which is left vague and is a question which will probably not be answered.

I think George would probably not have it become common knowledge for the sake of convenience. If it did then people would conveniently look the other way. Even the Starks enemies never make credible criticisms of them and are regularly undermined. That’s my point, characters don’t make fun of the Starks and their allies. You don’t have the same baited satire that’s hurled at the other houses. Going inside another animal and eating people should really give some pause to them. 

I am referring to the prologue chapter where the NW are ambushed by the Others along with the chapter where Ned executes the Deserter. These chapters summarise George’s moral argument about the young hot headed idealist being the problem and the stoic man of duty being the solution.

Because the hero would have a credible counterpoint to make if that were the case. Aemon in particular is depicted as beyond reproach. Also Jon isn’t choosing love. His ADWD arc is him acting in the interests of the NW in its specified role. He is advocating the older duty of the NW over the racist hotheads in the organisation. He only goes out to fight the Bolton’s after an apparent declaration of war. That he’s having his cake and eating it by helping Arya and getting revenge is just convenience. He is choosing duty. When he comes back and kills the mutineers nothing will have actually changed.

”The man who passes the sentence must swing the sword”. Killing a man is fine as long as you own it. Dignity is what matters. Ned didn’t pay the ultimate price for his folly. So far the North has not lost a single man to the Others and it looks like they’ll know long before the wall is breached. 

Because characters like Jamie and Tyrion do criticise their own culture as well. Whilst they have very little to say against the Starks and the North. It’s not just outsider POV looking in. You don’t see this self criticism. George really does hold the southern Andal culture in particular disgust and depicts it as such. You do not see this ridicule of the North. I have worse things to say about the North and the Starks than their enemies. 

I don’t believe George is being nuanced and there’s some hidden meta criticism of the Starks. Realistically their enemies would be pointing this out to them. 

Its not assumed knowledge that feudalism is bad in a fantasy series. People do need to be told otherwise they’ll assume it’s like modern day. When George is making sweeping moral judgements about Rob Stark it really does matter whether he’s running Gondor or Medieval Russia. The former he is a romantic warrior king worthy of sympathy and the latter he’s just another up jumped warlord who uses terror and violence to brutalise his own people. Good riddance. Why am I asked to judge Dany for killing a few hundred slavers when a normal pre modern society would regularly be executing and torturing people on a constant basis with infinitely less reason? It is very material to our perceptions of the characters and omitting that has a huge impact on the context.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

There are not stories about stupid Starks. There’s a handful of violent ancient Starks who are barely referenced in the extra lore or in offhand comments. But when set against a two part novelisation of “why the Targaryens are bad” and the Starks are enjoying three centuries of unbroken peace in the same timeframe. That kind of speaks for itself and renders any discussion mute. You don’t have a full breakdown of the Starks murdering the Children of the Forest and seizing power in the North; because George doesn’t want that to impact our perception of House Stark. Even if that’s actually the case which is left vague and is a question which will probably not be answered.

 

I don't fully agree with your post, though you do make an interesting and well-thought-out case, but one clear example of what you are talking about is the Freefolk lady, Rowan. who seems to revere Ned.

Rowan gave him a hard look. "You have no right to mouth Lord Eddard's words. Not you. Not ever. After what you did—"

The Freefolk should hate the Starks for what they do to them, they should also have more in common with the Ironborn's way of life than they do the Starks. It is weird that they'd be so offended with Theon's actions, given had he not acted the North would be stronger and they may never have got past the Wall.

It is bad world building by GRRM for Rowan to be so defensive about Ned Stark unless she is truly a member of the Freefolk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

I am referring to the prologue chapter where the NW are ambushed by the Others along with the chapter where Ned executes the Deserter. These chapters summarise George’s moral argument about the young hot headed idealist being the problem and the stoic man of duty being the solution.

So, all your hatred comes from the first chapter published nearly a QUARTER of a CENTURY ago? It seems you like to use the beheading of the NW deserter, sentence correctly, by the rightful ruler as some kind of gotcha, but I hate to inform you but most feel that chapter fits perfectly in universe (that is not to stay you have to like or support that kind of governmental system, it's a book).

 I really do not comprehend how someone can be invested in something they have such destain for. Especially when it goes beyond HATING one of the main families but includes the author himself for some kind of conspiracy when he hasn't even finished his story.  

2 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Its not assumed knowledge that feudalism is bad in a fantasy series. People do need to be told

GRRM is under NO such obligation.  

 

2 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Good riddance.

Agreed! :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

“Tywin Lannister really does xxxx gold” Yep, nobody ever makes fun of him.

Jamie is actively despised by most characters in the series. They all call him Kingslayer.

Did Rob have a pet name his enemies used to mock him? Shaggy? Licehead? Wolf fucker? I don’t recall it. But all the Lannister’s do. Dany gets a lot when Tyrion’s wandering Volantis. Stannis I don’t even know where to begin.

Why are the Starks enemies not making constant wolf and fish jokes? If your opponent tries to cloth themselves in romanticism then your first act should be to laugh at it. I mean young wolves eat children and all those floppy slimy Tully’s should be getting rinsed. They aren’t because some of it might actually stick with the reader.

There are not stories about stupid Starks. There’s a handful of violent ancient Starks who are barely referenced in the extra lore or in offhand comments. But when set against a two part novelisation of “why the Targaryens are bad” and the Starks are enjoying three centuries of unbroken peace in the same timeframe. That kind of speaks for itself and renders any discussion mute. You don’t have a full breakdown of the Starks murdering the Children of the Forest and seizing power in the North; because George doesn’t want that to impact our perception of House Stark. Even if that’s actually the case which is left vague and is a question which will probably not be answered.

I think George would probably not have it become common knowledge for the sake of convenience. If it did then people would conveniently look the other way. Even the Starks enemies never make credible criticisms of them and are regularly undermined. That’s my point, characters don’t make fun of the Starks and their allies. You don’t have the same baited satire that’s hurled at the other houses. Going inside another animal and eating people should really give some pause to them. 

I am referring to the prologue chapter where the NW are ambushed by the Others along with the chapter where Ned executes the Deserter. These chapters summarise George’s moral argument about the young hot headed idealist being the problem and the stoic man of duty being the solution.

Because the hero would have a credible counterpoint to make if that were the case. Aemon in particular is depicted as beyond reproach. Also Jon isn’t choosing love. His ADWD arc is him acting in the interests of the NW in its specified role. He is advocating the older duty of the NW over the racist hotheads in the organisation. He only goes out to fight the Bolton’s after an apparent declaration of war. That he’s having his cake and eating it by helping Arya and getting revenge is just convenience. He is choosing duty. When he comes back and kills the mutineers nothing will have actually changed.

”The man who passes the sentence must swing the sword”. Killing a man is fine as long as you own it. Dignity is what matters. Ned didn’t pay the ultimate price for his folly. So far the North has not lost a single man to the Others and it looks like they’ll know long before the wall is breached. 

Because characters like Jamie and Tyrion do criticise their own culture as well. Whilst they have very little to say against the Starks and the North. It’s not just outsider POV looking in. You don’t see this self criticism. George really does hold the southern Andal culture in particular disgust and depicts it as such. You do not see this ridicule of the North. I have worse things to say about the North and the Starks than their enemies. 

I don’t believe George is being nuanced and there’s some hidden meta criticism of the Starks. Realistically their enemies would be pointing this out to them. 

Its not assumed knowledge that feudalism is bad in a fantasy series. People do need to be told otherwise they’ll assume it’s like modern day. When George is making sweeping moral judgements about Rob Stark it really does matter whether he’s running Gondor or Medieval Russia. The former he is a romantic warrior king worthy of sympathy and the latter he’s just another up jumped warlord who uses terror and violence to brutalise his own people. Good riddance. Why am I asked to judge Dany for killing a few hundred slavers when a normal pre modern society would regularly be executing and torturing people on a constant basis with infinitely less reason? It is very material to our perceptions of the characters and omitting that has a huge impact on the context.

 

So, why do ya think, almost no other reader takes what you take from all of this? Do you think it's because you are just smarter than the rest of us combined? Or do you think maybe it's because you have some unreasonable & outlandish bias towards the people that George wrote to be the good guys? 

I'm gonna go with the latter but of course you are welcome to your own opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

I don't fully agree with your post, though you do make an interesting and well-thought-out case, but one clear example of what you are talking about is the Freefolk lady, Rowan. who seems to revere Ned.

Rowan gave him a hard look. "You have no right to mouth Lord Eddard's words. Not you. Not ever. After what you did—"

The Freefolk should hate the Starks for what they do to them, they should also have more in common with the Ironborn's way of life than they do the Starks. It is weird that they'd be so offended with Theon's actions, given had he not acted the North would be stronger and they may never have got past the Wall.

It is bad world building by GRRM for Rowan to be so defensive about Ned Stark unless she is truly a member of the Freefolk.

I think you meant unless she isn't truly a member of the Free folk - which is possible. I've seen it suggested a few times. 

I agree it's a little odd for a wildling woman to revere Ned so but I don't think it's necessarily odd for any of them to look down on what Theon did. They have a code of "honor" also & what Theon did was wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Aemon - Love is the death of duty.

 Jeor - The things we love always destroy us in the end.

I think you are taking certain things at face value, w/o actually giving them much thought. 

For instance, these two likeable, wise old men voice their opinion, but that doesn’t mean what they’re saying is some sort of message Martin is sending. In fact, it’s quite the opposite, and both Jeor and Aemon are wrong in this. Martin is a romantic, and that trait is at the core of everything. The whole oaths and vows thing is bollocks. “Words are wind!”. When all is said and done, what matters is one’s actions, not empty words. Jon deciding to ride out to meet Ramsay is a good example. He is choosing love, and that’s ultimately what “kill the boy” means, too. It’s making the right decision, no matter how hard. 

“Jon flexed the fingers of his sword hand. The Night’s Watch takes no part. He closed his fist and opened it again. What you propose is nothing less than treason. He thought of Robb, with snowflakes melting in his hair. Kill the boy and let the man be born. He thought of Bran, clambering up a tower wall, agile as a monkey. Of Rickon’s breathless laughter. Of Sansa, brushing out Lady’s coat and singing to herself. You know nothing, Jon Snow. He thought of Arya, her hair as tangled as a bird’s nest. I made him a warm cloak from the skins of the six whores who came with him to Winterfell … I want my bride back … I want my bride back … I want my bride back …
“I think we had best change the plan,” Jon Snow said.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

So, why do ya think, almost no other reader takes what you take from all of this? Do you think it's because you are just smarter than the rest of us combined? Or do you think maybe it's because you have some unreasonable & outlandish bias towards the people that George wrote to be the good guys? 

I'm gonna go with the latter but of course you are welcome to your own opinion. 

 

I don’t know, I’ve not met everybody. 

I already mentioned upthread why I got interested in the series and why I am still invested in it. Thats not the primary way in for most people. For most, Id guess, you’re either won over by the Starks or you put the book down. Whereas I was completely sold with Danys storyline along with coming to like Tyrion, Jamie, Stannis and even Theon’s. 

So I got invested in the series but never bought into House Stark. Double standards, hypocrisy, sidestepping some of the immoral things they do, having a endless Lost Cause mentality and this whole Northern powerhouse wolfy wolf nonsense being rammed down my throat. Plus, they’re incredibly boring and George failed to sell why I should care about Bran, Rob and Jon. I mean even George doesn’t seem to like Bran chapters. There were like two in ADWD. Yet everyone’s hyping him as this slow burn power fantasy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

I think you are taking certain things at face value, w/o actually giving them much thought. 

For instance, these two likeable, wise old men voice their opinion, but that doesn’t mean what they’re saying is some sort of message Martin is sending. In fact, it’s quite the opposite, and both Jeor and Aemon are wrong in this. Martin is a romantic, and that trait is at the core of everything. The whole oaths and vows thing is bollocks. “Words are wind!”. When all is said and done, what matters is one’s actions, not empty words. Jon deciding to ride out to meet Ramsay is a good example. He is choosing love, and that’s ultimately what “kill the boy” means, too. It’s making the right decision, no matter how hard. 

“Jon flexed the fingers of his sword hand. The Night’s Watch takes no part. He closed his fist and opened it again. What you propose is nothing less than treason. He thought of Robb, with snowflakes melting in his hair. Kill the boy and let the man be born. He thought of Bran, clambering up a tower wall, agile as a monkey. Of Rickon’s breathless laughter. Of Sansa, brushing out Lady’s coat and singing to herself. You know nothing, Jon Snow. He thought of Arya, her hair as tangled as a bird’s nest. I made him a warm cloak from the skins of the six whores who came with him to Winterfell … I want my bride back … I want my bride back … I want my bride back …
“I think we had best change the plan,” Jon Snow said.”

 

 

Right before the NW stab him and he returns as the Lich King. This whole love thing is going real good for him isn’t it?

Its the weight of support that George gives these notions. It’s not just a statement of belief. It’s a warning.

In Jeors case he is indirectly referring to his own son Jorahs marriage to Lynesse. He loved this woman and that causes the ruin of his house because he makes poor decisions as a result of love. Had Jorah not been in love, perfectly capable Lord in Jeors eyes. As an aside I believe this also foreshadows that Jorahs love for Dany will lead him to his doom; which it arguably already has. But Jeor gives Longclaw to Jon as a warning, a cautionary tale to not repeat Jorahs mistakes. He’s quite literally carrying around a reminder of what choosing love means; failure and disgrace.

Jon then does get involved with a wildling and the result of that Union is that she is killed for having a soft spot for him. So we see this in action. Choosing love means death and failure.

At a higher level, Jon is the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna whose love rent the realm into civil war and overthrew the dynasty. Choosing love means death and failure again.

It’s in aggregate that these become more than just a few bitter old men’s opinions and some embellishments for dramatic purposes. So I think these amount to a warning. That if Jon were to chose love over duty he would fail. 

I think this is a consistent theme and do not believe that George is going to provide a counterpoint to this view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

Right before the NW stab him and he returns as the Lich King. This whole love thing is going real good for him isn’t it?

Right. I envy you, I wish I had a copy of TWoW myself. 

5 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Its the weight of support that George gives these notions. It’s not just a statement of belief. It’s a warning.

I have no idea what you mean by “weight of support”. 

5 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

In Jeors case he is indirectly referring to his own son Jorahs marriage to Lynesse. He loved this woman and that causes the ruin of his house because he makes poor decisions as a result of love. Had Jorah not been in love, perfectly capable Lord in Jeors eyes. As an aside I believe this also foreshadows that Jorahs love for Dany will lead him to his doom; which it arguably already has.

Let’s say that’s exactly why Jeor says what he says. So what? That’s his opinion, not gospel, and not even a fact. It’s a father’s opinion about the disgrace his son brought upon their house. But see, the problem is not love, the problem is Jorah. He did what he did because that’s who he is, not because of what he felt. And who he is is a creepy stalker arsehole btw. 

5 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

But Jeor gives Longclaw to Jon as a warning, a cautionary tale to not repeat Jorahs mistakes. He’s quite literally carrying around a reminder of what choosing love means; failure and disgrace.

No. He gives Longclaw to Jon because Jon saved his life, and he doesn’t have anyone else to give it to. He grew fond of Jon, and became a father figure to him. 

5 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Jon then does get involved with a wildling and the result of that Union is that she is killed for having a soft spot for him. So we see this in action. Choosing love means death and failure.

Jeez Louise... no, Ygritte didn’t die because she had a soft spot for Jon. She died fighting, because she decided to attack the NW. It’s the type of risk anyone doing what she did is probably well aware of, “if I attack/fight other people it may cost me my life”. 

5 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

At a higher level, Jon is the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna whose love rent the realm into civil war and overthrew the dynasty. Choosing love means death and failure again.

What threw the realm into war and cost the Targaryens the throne was Aerys being his crazy psycho self and not only executing a bunch of people who he had summoned, but also ordering Jon Arryn to send him the heads of his two wards. The truth is, no one knows what would have happened had Aerys not been a cruel and sadistic nutjob. 

5 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

It’s in aggregate that these become more than just a few bitter old men’s opinions and some embellishments for dramatic purposes. So I think these amount to a warning. That if Jon were to chose love over duty he would fail. 

Nope, none of the examples you used make any sense IMO. You are choosing to interpret things a certain way, and that’s your prerogative. But you’re in for a few surprises. 

5 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

I think this is a consistent theme and do not believe that George is going to provide a counterpoint to this view.

As you can probably tell by now, I wholeheartedly disagree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TyrionI991, i realize you are hurting.  not only are you a hater, but you also believe in R+L=J. 
i am so sad for you. 
when you need help, please seek it out.  people might be there for you.

edit - ok, i am not sad for you.  i really don't care.

 

 

Edited by Yaya
i realized i lied

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@aeverett I think that like the Starks, the Lannisters have CotF blood (because of the legends about Lann the Clever, the description of most Lannisters, and symbolism). That is where come from their "diluted ability".

You can read it in detail here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

“Tywin Lannister really does xxxx gold” Yep, nobody ever makes fun of him.

Jamie is actively despised by most characters in the series. They all call him Kingslayer.

Did Rob have a pet name his enemies used to mock him? Shaggy? Licehead? Wolf fucker? I don’t recall it. But all the Lannister’s do. Dany gets a lot when Tyrion’s wandering Volantis. Stannis I don’t even know where to begin.

Why are the Starks enemies not making constant wolf and fish jokes? If your opponent tries to cloth themselves in romanticism then your first act should be to laugh at it. I mean young wolves eat children and all those floppy slimy Tully’s should be getting rinsed. They aren’t because some of it might actually stick with the reader.

There are not stories about stupid Starks. There’s a handful of violent ancient Starks who are barely referenced in the extra lore or in offhand comments. But when set against a two part novelisation of “why the Targaryens are bad” and the Starks are enjoying three centuries of unbroken peace in the same timeframe. That kind of speaks for itself and renders any discussion mute. You don’t have a full breakdown of the Starks murdering the Children of the Forest and seizing power in the North; because George doesn’t want that to impact our perception of House Stark. Even if that’s actually the case which is left vague and is a question which will probably not be answered.

I think George would probably not have it become common knowledge for the sake of convenience. If it did then people would conveniently look the other way. Even the Starks enemies never make credible criticisms of them and are regularly undermined. That’s my point, characters don’t make fun of the Starks and their allies. You don’t have the same baited satire that’s hurled at the other houses. Going inside another animal and eating people should really give some pause to them. 

I am referring to the prologue chapter where the NW are ambushed by the Others along with the chapter where Ned executes the Deserter. These chapters summarise George’s moral argument about the young hot headed idealist being the problem and the stoic man of duty being the solution.

Because the hero would have a credible counterpoint to make if that were the case. Aemon in particular is depicted as beyond reproach. Also Jon isn’t choosing love. His ADWD arc is him acting in the interests of the NW in its specified role. He is advocating the older duty of the NW over the racist hotheads in the organisation. He only goes out to fight the Bolton’s after an apparent declaration of war. That he’s having his cake and eating it by helping Arya and getting revenge is just convenience. He is choosing duty. When he comes back and kills the mutineers nothing will have actually changed.

”The man who passes the sentence must swing the sword”. Killing a man is fine as long as you own it. Dignity is what matters. Ned didn’t pay the ultimate price for his folly. So far the North has not lost a single man to the Others and it looks like they’ll know long before the wall is breached. 

Because characters like Jamie and Tyrion do criticise their own culture as well. Whilst they have very little to say against the Starks and the North. It’s not just outsider POV looking in. You don’t see this self criticism. George really does hold the southern Andal culture in particular disgust and depicts it as such. You do not see this ridicule of the North. I have worse things to say about the North and the Starks than their enemies. 

I don’t believe George is being nuanced and there’s some hidden meta criticism of the Starks. Realistically their enemies would be pointing this out to them. 

Its not assumed knowledge that feudalism is bad in a fantasy series. People do need to be told otherwise they’ll assume it’s like modern day. When George is making sweeping moral judgements about Rob Stark it really does matter whether he’s running Gondor or Medieval Russia. The former he is a romantic warrior king worthy of sympathy and the latter he’s just another up jumped warlord who uses terror and violence to brutalise his own people. Good riddance. Why am I asked to judge Dany for killing a few hundred slavers when a normal pre modern society would regularly be executing and torturing people on a constant basis with infinitely less reason? It is very material to our perceptions of the characters and omitting that has a huge impact on the context.

 

That's an interesting thought, but don't the Baratheons, Arryn or Tully receive the same treatment??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, frenin said:

That's an interesting thought, but don't the Baratheons, Arryn or Tully receive the same treatment??

There’s less opportunity. The Baratheons are overshadowed by Stannis adopting the fiery heart and the critique is also on him personally. Plus the Baratheon being stags is a pun on Robert being cuckolded. That’s the purpose of that symbolism. Also a stag is a lot less pretentious animal to associate yourself with. It’s a claim to being regal and is not the edgelord threat of violence that claiming to be a wolf is. It’s a loud statement that, look at me, look at me, I am this dangerous predator and have this savage nobility. It’s clownish and it shouldn’t be taken seriously by anybody. 

Its why I don’t like the North or Nights Watch. They’re trying to be edgy all the time. It’s incredibly obnoxious. All these slate grey plate clad burly men in wolf cloaks grunting at everything and beating their chests about The Peoples Republic of Yorkshire. There’s a total lack of self awareness whilst in the same chapters George spends endless amounts of time satirising the white knight. Yet the edgelords who dance with wolves are meant to be taken seriously? To me these things aren’t gritty or realistic, they’re just as much tropes as the white knight.

The Arryns aren’t in the story yet so there isn’t going to be bird poo jokes. Maybe when the Vale army goes off we’ll get some of that.

I think there should be mockery of the Tullys. Let’s associate ourselves with a phalic, slimy and smelly animal. That should be the butt of every joke. It’s isnt because George doesn’t want his audience to mock the good Andals. Good meaning they don’t mind their country being annexed by a foreign power that’s going to drain their lands dry.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

There’s less opportunity. The Baratheons are overshadowed by Stannis adopting the fiery heart and the critique is also on him personally. Plus the Baratheon being stags is a pun on Robert being cuckolded. That’s the purpose of that symbolism. Also a stag is a lot less pretentious animal to associate yourself with. It’s a claim to being regal and is not the edgelord threat of violence that claiming to be a wolf is. It’s a loud statement that, look at me, look at me, I am this dangerous predator and have this savage nobility. It’s clownish and it shouldn’t be taken seriously by anybody. 

 

The Stags are proud majestic animals that rarely get along,  are very stubborn and fight constantly among them. It fits perfectly the Baratheons, i mean a stag and a wolf are just as dangerous, that's why we see a stag killed by also killing the mother of the direwolves puppies.

 

1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 Its why I don’t like the North or Nights Watch. They’re trying to be edgy all the time. It’s incredibly obnoxious. All these slate grey plate clad burly men in wolf cloaks grunting at everything and beating their chests about The Peoples Republic of Yorkshire. There’s a total lack of self awareness whilst in the same chapters George spends endless amounts of time satirising the white knight. Yet the edgelords who dance with wolves are meant to be taken seriously? To me these things aren’t gritty or realistic, they’re just as much tropes as the white knight.

 

They are taken just as seriously,  the south has summer knights, the North has summer boys,  both mean the exact same.

 

 

1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 The Arryns aren’t in the story yet so there isn’t going to be bird poo jokes. Maybe when the Vale army goes off we’ll get some of that.

 

They are tho, they've been in the story for a while and its leader is a sicky dying kid.

 

 

1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 I think there should be mockery of the Tullys. Let’s associate ourselves with a phalic, slimy and smelly animal. That should be the butt of every joke. It’s isnt because George doesn’t want his audience to mock the good Andals. Good meaning they don’t mind their country being annexed by a foreign power that’s going to drain their lands dry.

 

Why the Tullys are the good andals??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, frenin said:

The Stags are proud majestic animals that rarely get along,  are very stubborn and fight constantly among them. It fits perfectly the Baratheons, i mean a stag and a wolf are just as dangerous, that's why we see a stag killed by also killing the mother of the direwolves puppies.

 

They are taken just as seriously,  the south has summer knights, the North has summer boys,  both mean the exact same.

 

 

They are tho, they've been in the story for a while and its leader is a sicky dying kid.

 

 

Why the Tullys are the good andals??

 

Wolves eat people, Stags do not. Wanting to associate yourself with an animal that is considered vermin and hunted down by your own peasants is not a good thing. Whereas stag genuinely is the noble creature of the forest. People who want to associate themselves with Wolves is because they admire the violent and threatening aspects of the creature. It’s just as sinister as valuing a flayed man. It says we’re the killers in the night who are coming for you. 

They aren’t taken seriously at all. You have multiple characters including Ned, Tyrion, Cat, Sandor, Ser Loras and the Mountains  intended to satirise or critique the notion of Andal warrior culture. No such criticism happens of the Northern way of war or its endless pretensions. Puritanism is pretentious.

House Arryns army hasn’t left the Vale and it’s on the margins. We barely see them between Tyrion’s trial and Sansa being taken there. Later, maybe George will have them join the ranks of the good Andals who like kissing Northern boots.

Because the Tully’s submit to Stark overlordship. They then allow him to quarter 20,000 barbarians in the river lands and hold the nation hostage. Which is all done so this mafia family can keep their lands and titles. To George a good Andal is one who recognises how Northmen are morally superior Uber men and submit to them. That’s the only qualifier George uses and he plays down any negative aspects of them selling out like this. The Frey’s could easily have accused the Tully’s of selling out and allowing a godless foreign army to bleed the Riverlands dry (Rob has to pay and feed his army from a impoverished country). They don’t because George didn’t want them to have valid believable reasons for killing Rob. It’s not a tragedy if Rob is just another warlord and the Northerners guilty of war crimes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Wolves eat people, Stags do not. Wanting to associate yourself with an animal that is considered vermin and hunted down by your own peasants is not a good thing. Whereas stag genuinely is the noble creature of the forest. People who want to associate themselves with Wolves is because they admire the violent and threatening aspects of the creature. It’s just as sinister as valuing a flayed man

And that’s so much worse than saying, “I am the blood of the dragon”. Since dragons are like cute little creatures, and totally vegetarian. 

Talk about being hypocritical. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×