Toxic aristocratic values

[Lord Varys]

11 hours ago, Agnessa Schizoid said:

Class values didn't demand that Tywin burn Riverlands, his pride did. They demanded for him to bring the matter to the king. His pride is aristocratic pride, but he clearly takes it to another level. and I've seen this type of "I don't even love my kid and won't spend time raising him properly but I'll push him to succeed and attack viciously anyone who criticizes him, because it's reflection on ME" in modern society as well, with less horrifying results admittedly.

Well, you can also compare Tywin to Robb - he clearly did not bring the issues he had with Tywin to the king, did he? And he certainly could have offered to come to KL and do homage to Joffrey if they were to pardon Ned and Tywin were to move his forces out of the Riverlands.

Tywin certainly has a very wrong strong aristocratic ego - essentially as strong as many of the historical and living Starks, due to him being descended from the Kings of the Rock just as the Starks are descended from the Kings in the North - but to my knowledge nobody ever disagree with Tywin's own assessment in his conversation with Tyrion that he had to go to war over his abduction. Tywin's sense there certainly is shaped by his experiences with his father and how Lord Tytos' being overall simply just a nice man caused his aristocratic vassals - who wanted their overlord to be a stern man rather than a nice man - to trample on his honor and the honor of House Lannister.

11 hours ago, Agnessa Schizoid said:

anyway, I guarantee that Martin doesn't think that there is little practical difference between Tywin and Ned.

He actively draws parallels between Ned and Tywin by both having 'a lord's face' and all that. Tywin needed to be very ruthless to restore the honor and power of House Lannister after the failure that was his father - something many a Stark lord or king following a weakling would have done, too (Brandon Ice-Eyes following Edrick Snowbeard would be one such example). And one can certainly agree that both Lord Rickard (who seems to have been a pretty harsh man) and Lord Eddard would have never suffered shit like the Reynes and Tarbecks pulled in the Westerlands in the North. And what Ned would have done had he grown up living a life like Tywin we'll never know - but I daresay that very few lords would have shown mercy after all the shit the Reynes pulled.

11 hours ago, Agnessa Schizoid said:

One way or another, some (usually priviledged) men will end up making decisions for many, and their choices and personal values will matter very much. I don't think Martin even shows us history in marxist view of it, it all goes down to personal decisions rather than movement of masses, his biggest attempt to show this would be Little Sparrows, in my opinion - societal movement based on new realities of the world, otherwise we're back to the fate of the world resting on decisions of Dany or Jon Snow, for example, so Ned's decision to save him (just one person) ends up being vitally important, rather than irrelevant subnote in story about inevitable movement of history which any single human can do little to change. I just don't see in him much interest in analyzing history in this way. We hear very little about middle class, clergy only now starts raising its head in any relevant way, we don't know much about economy, or even smaller matters of governing (who represents the Crown in the North?), etc, from that point of view world building is very sparse. It's almost as if GRRM is more interested in moral dilemmas of his powerful aristocratic protagonists. 

Oh, the problem with the values of the nobility has little to do with there other classes being absent. If their values were different they would be, collectively, better rulers of their people (or shepherds of their sheep) than they are in their obsession with personal honor and pride.

This is why there is a considerable difference between the Martell code of governance as followed by Doran Martell and that of many other noblemen who don't give shit about the losses their subjects suffer in pointless wars they are not going to win. And this is certainly an instance where he makes it clear that the personal values/rules of certain rulers are better in principle than those of others.

This kind of thing has nothing to do with 'the heart being in conflict of itself'. Those are philosophical differences.

Ned saving Jon Snow is no particular conflict - Ned is ashamed that he lied to do it, but there is no indication that he was ever turned between killing the boy and saving and taking him in. In fact, the whole thing would be a much better plot if Jon actually weren't Lyanna's son and Ned's nephew but rather incest-born Targaryen or a prince with a mother who wasn't a Stark - because that would have been just the decent thing to do, whereas saving your own nephew from (likely) death and/or caring for him in place of his late parents is essentially what any nobleman in Ned's position should have done.

11 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Not "almost as if", but "is". George has reiterated time and time again that he writes about the heart in conflict, and this has been true for almost any of the stories he wrote, whether it is "horror" or "sci-fi" or "fantasy". He calls the setting "furniture". What captivates a reader in his opinion isn't the furniture, but the moral dilemmas protagonists face.

This would be a too simplifying view on ASoIaF. This world is too large and too detailed and too complex to just be furniture. We do not just get people having issues with themselves or their lovers (which is what most of George's early stories were about) but much broader topics. And with the complexity of the world come different world views, different concepts of what it means to be a knight or a lord or a king. ASoIaF is a tidbit more complex than 'Night Shift' or 'This Tower of Ashes'.

But even in the early stories things like 'Slide Show' or '... For a Single Yesterday' depict philosophical differences just as much as personal conflicts. The whiny astronaut has personal issues and they make up the bulk of the story, but in the end he and the doctor have a conversation about what their different spheres of interest contribute to the grander picture of humanity; something that has nothing to do with the astronaut being pissed but differences in philosophy. And while Keith's heart is very much in conflict with itself, he himself represents the past, whereas Winters and the new singer represent the future - the message of the story as such clearly is that clinging to the past the way Keith did gets you killed and that to move on it may be necessary to let go of old things even if it is uncomfortable (as it seems the narrator is at the very end.

[If you guys don't know '... For a Single Yesterday' just follow the link above and read it - it it is worth it.]

Thus I don't find it convincing to reduce ASoIaF to just the heart in conflict. There is more to it than just that. And I definitely think aristocratic values - and the problems coming with those - are part of that. Especially in the later books, but essentially as early as Sandor's ramblings about what knights truly are, since the first Dunk & Egg story (which greatly focus on things like that rather than personal issues).

7 hours ago, Agnessa Schizoid said:

And do we really need to be taught that feudalism isn't all that great? Most people, if anything, demonize middle ages overmuch rather that idealize it. 

Not in fantasy literature, though. Especially not fantasy literature up to the 1990s - when ASoIaF was actually born. George actually demonizes the middle ages more in his stories considering his Westeros is far too cynical a place than the real middle ages ever were. The smallfolk are essentially literal sheep and the ruling class are essentially all Macchiavellian cynics who are mostly agnostic or atheists.

3 hours ago, 300 H&H Magnum said:

The situation was much, much worse before the arrival of the Targaryens.  Argillac, Harren, and the "great" houses were constantly in conflict.  The commoners had little break from warfare.  A strong, central ruler helped calm Westeros to allow for longer periods between conflicts.  The social values have yet to catch up but the authority of the iron throne gave rise to progressive ideas such as prohibiting the lord's right to the first night. 

That is certainly true - central rule in the world of Westeros is definitely preferrable to seven or more independent kingdoms - but the Iron Throne did not do away with feudalism or aristocratic values. There are hints that Aegon V wanted to do something like that with his reforms, but he clearly seems to have been the only one - the best hint there is how Egg judges the conflict between Rohanne and Eustace in TSS (as a meaningless, silly conflict that is best done away with for good - and something he likely desperately tried to after he became king).

2 hours ago, Nevets said:

I expect that if GRRM were interested in showing that the aristocracy were "shitty people" and bad for the smallfolk. we would get more of the story of the smallfolk.

It would be better if we had that - and they do show up more in later books, especially from AFfC onwards with the sparrows, the High Sparrow, Rolly Duckfield, etc. - but how bad the arbitrary rule of the lords is can be seen easily enough back with the blood bath that's Arya's story in ACoK and ASoS. We see how good people devolve into barbarism (with the Brotherhood) and how the smallfolk are brutalized and butchered by men in service of either side.

Robb being more sympathetic in direct conversation than Tywin didn't stop the Bloody Mummers from fighting for House Stark - and butchering innocent people in their name.

2 hours ago, Nevets said:

But all of the characters of any real substance are nobility, and they have a great range of characterizations.  The Starks are, as far as I can tell, pretty decent. 

I'd say that's mostly because most of them are children - Ned and Cat certainly pretty good people, and Ned truly is a great father and a person of great compassion and personal integrity. How well the children will turn out is a different question. Bran is basically just a child - he could be any child that doesn't have severe psychological issues - Sansa is pretty much on the fast track to become a proper aristocratic lady, with all the not-so-pleasant baggage that that entails. And Arya ends up at a pretty dark place. As by ADwD she definitely is no longer 'decent'. I'd say the time you no longer can use that adjective to describe her is the moment she murders that poor guardsman at Harrenhal.

2 hours ago, Nevets said:

Others, like the Lannisters, not so much.  Sam and Brienne for example, are nobles, and are among the nicest, most decent people you could hope to meet. Others, like the Boltons, are singularly nasty.  It is worth noting, however, that the Boltons are also disdained for their behavior. 

Domeric Bolton was a really nice guy, too. Just as Kevan and Tommen and Myrcella are great Lannisters. And one assumes Gerion was a great guy, too, Genna is pretty nice, too.

As I tried to laid out above - showing sympathy for houses rather than individuals is pretty much wrong. George really tries to show that to people by giving us great guys from 'shitty houses' in the history pieces.

I'd not be surprised if we were to get a number of rather cruel and evil Starks in that Dunk & Egg story taking place at Winterfell.

2 hours ago, Nevets said:

And contrary to what some posters have suggested, if the nobility regularly mistreat their peasants (murder, rape, etc.), we don't see it, or even much mention of it, at least during normal times.  Wartime being an exception. which it is in any setting.

Sandor did murder Mycah, did he not? Roose did rape Ramsay's mother and murdered her husband? Tyrion had Bronn murder Symeon Silver-Tongue, Tywin 'dealt' with his father's last mistress and Tysha is a rather unpleasant manner, Rohanne Webber and Eustace Osgrey nearly start a private war, a royal prince can torture a puppeteer for the 'crime' of conducting a play he doesn't like, a Queen Regent can use the City Watch to murder several children, etc.

2 hours ago, Nevets said:

I also tend to agree with @sweetsunray that his primary interest is in the internal conflict of the heart, and that the feudal setting is primarily of interest as the framework for that conflict. 

See above. We get too many different philosphies about what it means to be a nobleman/ruler for that to be accurate. Sure, George focuses more on personal conflicts and issues coming from personal relations than philosophical differences, but the latter are there, too.

And it is quite clear that justification for Robb's war are very much based on bad/toxic aristocratic values - Ned, while also subject to some of those, is still a much better ruler. He essentially sacrificed his personal honor to save his daughter(s) whereas Robb essentially sacrificed his sister Sansa to retain his standing with his bannermen.

[Universal Sword Donor]

On 1/10/2020 at 5:57 PM, kissdbyfire said:

I agree to an extent. I think there is a criticism, but not simply to do w/ a feudal society. To me it’s much broader, and it’s a criticism of human societies in general, where the ruling classes don’t give two fucks about anyone but themselves. 

Right. Like the worst toxic aristocratic value is actual execution of and the called for execution of the great lords and nobles by Aerys.

Everything else is just boys being boys.

[Lord Varys]

16 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Right. Like the worst toxic aristocratic value is actual execution of and the called for execution of the great lords and nobles by Aerys.

Everything else is just boys being boys.

That isn't an aristocratic value, that's the act of a mad tyrant.

Aerys II - and Maegor and others of that bent before him - didn't have to do what they did, they wanted to do that because of deeply seated personal urges (sadism) or severe mental issues like extreme paranoia.

The the aristocratic values do twist around the sane people into doing shitty and stupid and evil things - just look how such things essentially ruined Robb and got him killed.

[Universal Sword Donor]

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That isn't an aristocratic value, that's the act of a mad tyrant.

Aerys II - and Maegor and others of that bent before him - didn't have to do what they did, they wanted to do that because of deeply seated personal urges (sadism) or severe mental issues like extreme paranoia.

The the aristocratic values do twist around the sane people into doing shitty and stupid and evil things - just look how such things essentially ruined Robb and got him killed.

Now now. those were just boys being boys. I had just said that too!

[SeanF]

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, you can also compare Tywin to Robb - he clearly did not bring the issues he had with Tywin to the king, did he? And he certainly could have offered to come to KL and do homage to Joffrey if they were to pardon Ned and Tywin were to move his forces out of the Riverlands.

Tywin certainly has a very wrong strong aristocratic ego - essentially as strong as many of the historical and living Starks, due to him being descended from the Kings of the Rock just as the Starks are descended from the Kings in the North - but to my knowledge nobody ever disagree with Tywin's own assessment in his conversation with Tyrion that he had to go to war over his abduction. Tywin's sense there certainly is shaped by his experiences with his father and how Lord Tytos' being overall simply just a nice man caused his aristocratic vassals - who wanted their overlord to be a stern man rather than a nice man - to trample on his honor and the honor of House Lannister.

He actively draws parallels between Ned and Tywin by both having 'a lord's face' and all that. Tywin needed to be very ruthless to restore the honor and power of House Lannister after the failure that was his father - something many a Stark lord or king following a weakling would have done, too (Brandon Ice-Eyes following Edrick Snowbeard would be one such example). And one can certainly agree that both Lord Rickard (who seems to have been a pretty harsh man) and Lord Eddard would have never suffered shit like the Reynes and Tarbecks pulled in the Westerlands in the North. And what Ned would have done had he grown up living a life like Tywin we'll never know - but I daresay that very few lords would have shown mercy after all the shit the Reynes pulled.

Oh, the problem with the values of the nobility has little to do with there other classes being absent. If their values were different they would be, collectively, better rulers of their people (or shepherds of their sheep) than they are in their obsession with personal honor and pride.

This is why there is a considerable difference between the Martell code of governance as followed by Doran Martell and that of many other noblemen who don't give shit about the losses their subjects suffer in pointless wars they are not going to win. And this is certainly an instance where he makes it clear that the personal values/rules of certain rulers are better in principle than those of others.

This kind of thing has nothing to do with 'the heart being in conflict of itself'. Those are philosophical differences.

Ned saving Jon Snow is no particular conflict - Ned is ashamed that he lied to do it, but there is no indication that he was ever turned between killing the boy and saving and taking him in. In fact, the whole thing would be a much better plot if Jon actually weren't Lyanna's son and Ned's nephew but rather incest-born Targaryen or a prince with a mother who wasn't a Stark - because that would have been just the decent thing to do, whereas saving your own nephew from (likely) death and/or caring for him in place of his late parents is essentially what any nobleman in Ned's position should have done.

This would be a too simplifying view on ASoIaF. This world is too large and too detailed and too complex to just be furniture. We do not just get people having issues with themselves or their lovers (which is what most of George's early stories were about) but much broader topics. And with the complexity of the world come different world views, different concepts of what it means to be a knight or a lord or a king. ASoIaF is a tidbit more complex than 'Night Shift' or 'This Tower of Ashes'.

But even in the early stories things like 'Slide Show' or '... For a Single Yesterday' depict philosophical differences just as much as personal conflicts. The whiny astronaut has personal issues and they make up the bulk of the story, but in the end he and the doctor have a conversation about what their different spheres of interest contribute to the grander picture of humanity; something that has nothing to do with the astronaut being pissed but differences in philosophy. And while Keith's heart is very much in conflict with itself, he himself represents the past, whereas Winters and the new singer represent the future - the message of the story as such clearly is that clinging to the past the way Keith did gets you killed and that to move on it may be necessary to let go of old things even if it is uncomfortable (as it seems the narrator is at the very end.

[If you guys don't know '... For a Single Yesterday' just follow the link above and read it - it it is worth it.]

Thus I don't find it convincing to reduce ASoIaF to just the heart in conflict. There is more to it than just that. And I definitely think aristocratic values - and the problems coming with those - are part of that. Especially in the later books, but essentially as early as Sandor's ramblings about what knights truly are, since the first Dunk & Egg story (which greatly focus on things like that rather than personal issues).

Not in fantasy literature, though. Especially not fantasy literature up to the 1990s - when ASoIaF was actually born. George actually demonizes the middle ages more in his stories considering his Westeros is far too cynical a place than the real middle ages ever were. The smallfolk are essentially literal sheep and the ruling class are essentially all Macchiavellian cynics who are mostly agnostic or atheists.

That is certainly true - central rule in the world of Westeros is definitely preferrable to seven or more independent kingdoms - but the Iron Throne did not do away with feudalism or aristocratic values. There are hints that Aegon V wanted to do something like that with his reforms, but he clearly seems to have been the only one - the best hint there is how Egg judges the conflict between Rohanne and Eustace in TSS (as a meaningless, silly conflict that is best done away with for good - and something he likely desperately tried to after he became king).

It would be better if we had that - and they do show up more in later books, especially from AFfC onwards with the sparrows, the High Sparrow, Rolly Duckfield, etc. - but how bad the arbitrary rule of the lords is can be seen easily enough back with the blood bath that's Arya's story in ACoK and ASoS. We see how good people devolve into barbarism (with the Brotherhood) and how the smallfolk are brutalized and butchered by men in service of either side.

Robb being more sympathetic in direct conversation than Tywin didn't stop the Bloody Mummers from fighting for House Stark - and butchering innocent people in their name.

I'd say that's mostly because most of them are children - Ned and Cat certainly pretty good people, and Ned truly is a great father and a person of great compassion and personal integrity. How well the children will turn out is a different question. Bran is basically just a child - he could be any child that doesn't have severe psychological issues - Sansa is pretty much on the fast track to become a proper aristocratic lady, with all the not-so-pleasant baggage that that entails. And Arya ends up at a pretty dark place. As by ADwD she definitely is no longer 'decent'. I'd say the time you no longer can use that adjective to describe her is the moment she murders that poor guardsman at Harrenhal.

Domeric Bolton was a really nice guy, too. Just as Kevan and Tommen and Myrcella are great Lannisters. And one assumes Gerion was a great guy, too, Genna is pretty nice, too.

As I tried to laid out above - showing sympathy for houses rather than individuals is pretty much wrong. George really tries to show that to people by giving us great guys from 'shitty houses' in the history pieces.

I'd not be surprised if we were to get a number of rather cruel and evil Starks in that Dunk & Egg story taking place at Winterfell.

Sandor did murder Mycah, did he not? Roose did rape Ramsay's mother and murdered her husband? Tyrion had Bronn murder Symeon Silver-Tongue, Tywin 'dealt' with his father's last mistress and Tysha is a rather unpleasant manner, Rohanne Webber and Eustace Osgrey nearly start a private war, a royal prince can torture a puppeteer for the 'crime' of conducting a play he doesn't like, a Queen Regent can use the City Watch to murder several children, etc.

See above. We get too many different philosphies about what it means to be a nobleman/ruler for that to be accurate. Sure, George focuses more on personal conflicts and issues coming from personal relations than philosophical differences, but the latter are there, too.

And it is quite clear that justification for Robb's war are very much based on bad/toxic aristocratic values - Ned, while also subject to some of those, is still a much better ruler. He essentially sacrificed his personal honor to save his daughter(s) whereas Robb essentially sacrificed his sister Sansa to retain his standing with his bannermen.

I went to a really great lecture by Dr. Sophie Therese Ambler, on "Simon de Montfort and the Death of Chivalry".  Her argument was that after about 1270 or so, warfare became far more ruthless in Western Europe than it had been for about 200 years prior to that.  Edward I and Philip the Fair and their successors really ratcheted up the level of horror that was inflicted on civilians (even nobles were far less likely to be taken for ransom than in the earlier period).  So, I think Martin is showing us that more ruthless kind of warfare (guerre mortelle).  Tywin and Kevan explicitly ordered murder, rape and arson in the Riverlands.  Robb never gave an explicit order to that effect, but his soldiers acted in much the same way, in the West, and towards suspected collaborators in the Riverlands.  From the fourteenth century to the Peace of Westphalia, Tywin and Kevan would have been the norm. 

 I agree that would have been  unusual in stories prior to the 1990's, set in a medieval world (although Conan Doyle's The White Company was surprisingly explicit for a book written in 1890).  Authors did tend to pull their punches.

I think where Martin does make it worse than actual medieval societies is the absence of much in the way of charity towards the poor.  There's no equivalent of the Knights Hospitaller, describing themselves as "the serfs of the poor";  nor is there any sign of self-government at town or city council level, which gave a voice to at least some of the Commons.

For a royal or aristocratic figure in this world to express any concerns for the Smallfolk is an eccentricity. 

 

[sweetsunray]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

I agree that would have been  unusual in stories prior to the 1990's, set in a medieval world (although Conan Doyle's The White Company was surprisingly explicit for a book written in 1890).  Authors did tend to pull their punches.

Tad Williams was one of late 80's authors who wrote far more grim lords and knights. Sure, the new king was possessed by the dead fairy sorcerer Ineluki, but plenty of his commanders or allies can be likened to Tywin, Lorch, Roose Bolton with a mix of Ramsay, etc... : Fengbald, Skali (Bolton type of role and a plague to a region he invades), Benigaris and Aspitis (patricide to switch sides for all to see on a battlefield, intent on forcing marriages, etc). 

To Lord Varys,

No, it's still not a criticism to feudal society, but it is admittedly by himself a response to some of the fantasy produced after Tolkien that romanticises those societies overly much, and in which only sorcerers may turn out to be evil, aside from the dead wanting to be resurrected, the barbarians and the monsters.

[SeanF]

2 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Tad Williams was one of late 80's authors who wrote far more grim lords and knights. Sure, the new king was possessed by the dead fairy sorcerer Ineluki, but plenty of his commanders or allies can be likened to Tywin, Lorch, Roose Bolton with a mix of Ramsay, etc... : Fengbald, Skali (Bolton type of role and a plague to a region he invades), Benigaris and Aspitis (patricide to switch sides for all to see on a battlefield, intent on forcing marriages, etc). 

Yes, I think that's right, although he did pull his punches still, to a considerable degree. 

There's actually nothing wrong with reticence.  You can write honestly about war without having to drench the book with gore, (eg in the Black Company series, terrible atrocities take place, but they aren't described in great detail) but if one is going to write honestly about war, one has to acknowledge that civilians will get killed, and even people you sympathise with will commit dark deeds. 

[sweetsunray]

3 minutes ago, SeanF said:

and even people you sympathise with will commit dark deeds. 

Cadrach

Of course, Tad Williams at the time was quite dark in comparison to anything else out there, and paved the way for George's take on fantasy. And now he has written in answer to George's take, set a few decades later, and he's not holding his punches anymore.

[John Suburbs]

On 1/10/2020 at 6:35 PM, Lord Varys said:

If we look at the books we realize (at least if we are perceptive) that the aristocratic values of the noble houses of Westeros are essentially harmful to themselves but especially the people they presume to rule. The best illustration for this can be seen in TSS, where two noble people nearly start a war that would have killed dozens or scores of people over something that was just a triviality - not to mention that the voice of the commoner harmed by Ser Bennis of the Brown Shield never actually mattered to his liege, Lady Rohanne Webber.

We have other such examples in the main series - Robb's rather pointless war to free/avenge his father (which eventually devolves into a doomed secession attempt), Rickard Karstark's obsession to avenge sons who died in a battle they rushed into, Robb's rushed marriage to Jeyne Westerling, Stannis' insistence that he must be king, Balon Greyjoy's desire for conquest, Viserys III's and Dany's determination to win back what their father lost, etc.

Reading things almost exclusively from the point of born nobility, we essentially get very few instances where this kind of thing is seen or presented as a problem (Dunk & Egg and Aegon V's attempted reforms aside). But I'd maintain that the author really does want us to see this kind of thing as the real problem of this society - that is the reason, I'd argue, why there is a group of supernatural ice demons in the far north, secretly watching how the Westerosi rip themselves to pieces, being unable or unwilling to even recognize the real threat much less to unite and face the enemies of mankind together.

That is clearly the ultimate irony of the story, something we cannot really enjoy in full at this point because we have not yet reached the point where anyone in the books has realized how much the protagonists have fucked themselves.

Does anybody agree with that view? And if so, do you think George is actually deliberately trying to portray feudalism and the noble class as shitty people over all? And if so, to what degree he succeeds at that?

The only noble rulers taking into account the interests of their subjects in their wars (to a point) are the Martells, since Daeron II's sister Daenerys taught them this in the Water Gardens. Other alternatives to feudal are briefly discussed in the triarchy rule of Volantis (three elected kings who ruled jointly), in Stannis' eventual realization to win the throne by saving/serving his people, rather than the other way around, in Dany's desire to free slaves in a corner of the world she has literally nothing to do with, and (possibly) by Varys' desire to create a king who would rule for the common people because he lived among them.

Aside from that, most other smart rulers or lords take their own petty interests first (which are shaped and defined by their aristocratic values), and the common good come later, if they consider that at all.

Even the seemingly nice trait of the Starks to eat with a different retainer/servant each day didn't seem to have the purpose to better the lives of the smallfolk (of Winterfell) as such, but to instill a deeper sense of loyalty in them by allowing them to get to know and bond with their masters, rather than actually overcoming boundaries. It is an approach George took from Frank Herbert's Dune where the Atreides do exactly the same kind of thing (and for the same purpose).

But then - would you agree that those aristocratic values are supposed to be seen as problematic? Or would you say they should be seen as 'the normal setting of this world' and 'the proper way for a nobleman or knight to conduct himself'?

I don't know if you need to be all that perceptive to pick up on this. It's basically the meaning of the phrase "Game of Thrones":

"The common people pray for rain, healthy children and a summer that never ends. It is no matter to them if the high lords play their game of thrones, as long as they are left in peace. They never are."

"That was the way of war. The smallfolk were slaughtered while the highborn were held for ransom."

"It is being common-born that is dangerous, when the great lords play their game of thrones."

This is a game to the wealthy, but death to the poor. Kind of like our own world, wouldn't you say?

[Lord Varys]

10 hours ago, SeanF said:

I went to a really great lecture by Dr. Sophie Therese Ambler, on "Simon de Montfort and the Death of Chivalry".  Her argument was that after about 1270 or so, warfare became far more ruthless in Western Europe than it had been for about 200 years prior to that.  Edward I and Philip the Fair and their successors really ratcheted up the level of horror that was inflicted on civilians (even nobles were far less likely to be taken for ransom than in the earlier period).  So, I think Martin is showing us that more ruthless kind of warfare (guerre mortelle).

I know too little about the warfare in the middle ages to comment on that. I'd be surprised, though, if George wanted to depict a world where nobles were not taken for ransom - because that usually happens during the main series).

10 hours ago, SeanF said:

Tywin and Kevan explicitly ordered murder, rape and arson in the Riverlands.  Robb never gave an explicit order to that effect, but his soldiers acted in much the same way, in the West, and towards suspected collaborators in the Riverlands.  From the fourteenth century to the Peace of Westphalia, Tywin and Kevan would have been the norm.

To be sure, we do not know what kind of commands the Young Wolf gave in the Westerlands. It makes sense that he would not have his troops brutalize his own smallfolk (the Riverlanders he came down to protect) but what Robb's troops did in the West we don't know at this point. We have no detailed reports about the war there, no POVs have been there during the war, no POVs have talked to people who fought there about the fights there, etc.

I tend to thing Robb never gave as explicitly cruel commands as Tywin at the end of AGoT, but how the whole foraging business goes is, in the end, the matter of the serjeants and men-at-arms who do it, not the business of the kings and generals.

Things done in the Thirty Years' War are basically armies of sellswords running amok, feeding themselves off the lands they occupy, and fueling the war they fight in to make more money. That is a rather late development, something that came with early modern times. In George's world we would have this kind of thing more in Essos, especially in the Disputed Lands (where the free companies could also have aspect of Wallenstein's troops and not only from the Italian city states free companies from the late mid-late middle ages they are derived from). Westeros is, after all, a pretty peaceful place, with most of the regional unrest (outlaws and robber knights and such) being a testament to the fact that neither lords nor kings do have the military power to truly enforce peace throughout the entire Realm.

10 hours ago, SeanF said:

I think where Martin does make it worse than actual medieval societies is the absence of much in the way of charity towards the poor.  There's no equivalent of the Knights Hospitaller, describing themselves as "the serfs of the poor";  nor is there any sign of self-government at town or city council level, which gave a voice to at least some of the Commons.

That, and in the general cynical outlook of the people. Essentially nobody believes in their gods, nobody wants or cares about being a good ruler for the people (which certainly some medieval rulers tried to be), and the only truly 'noble' (i.e. idealistic/good) guys are the people who get killed. Trying to do the best for the common good even within the feudal society they live in (which would still mostly mean nearly everything for the nobility, the rest for the rabble) is actually something that can get you killed.

George's cynical world view is more the kind of thing you find in modern capitalist societies - back in the reall middle ages charities was something you had to do, it was expected, part of the societal framework.

7 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Tad Williams was one of late 80's authors who wrote far more grim lords and knights. Sure, the new king was possessed by the dead fairy sorcerer Ineluki, but plenty of his commanders or allies can be likened to Tywin, Lorch, Roose Bolton with a mix of Ramsay, etc... : Fengbald, Skali (Bolton type of role and a plague to a region he invades), Benigaris and Aspitis (patricide to switch sides for all to see on a battlefield, intent on forcing marriages, etc). 

This is hardly a surprise considering George borrowed rather heavily from Osten Ard. But in general the book doesn't really focus much on villains, and what they do is comparatively minor. And while I find the original trilogy boring as hell (never could read it through, had to go with the audiobook version) Williams did one crucial thing right - he gave his commoners and agenda and did not create two completely different races of people. There are instances in George's Westerosi stories - TSS, for instance - where the smallfolk are hardly better than animals or chattel, whereas in Osten Ard princesses and kitchen boys to have things in common and can connect more easily.

Williams also succeeds at giving the common people voices - at times too many, considering that he often describes where uninformed people speculate what the informed people discuss behind closed doors - something George really fails at.

7 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

To Lord Varys,

No, it's still not a criticism to feudal society, but it is admittedly by himself a response to some of the fantasy produced after Tolkien that romanticises those societies overly much, and in which only sorcerers may turn out to be evil, aside from the dead wanting to be resurrected, the barbarians and the monsters.

Westeros as depicted is very much a criticism of feudalism (of the type George imagines therein). In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the only way to properly interpret the political content therein is to read it as a manifest against feudalism (of any kind).

8 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Of course, Tad Williams at the time was quite dark in comparison to anything else out there, and paved the way for George's take on fantasy. And now he has written in answer to George's take, set a few decades later, and he's not holding his punches anymore.

The new books are still pretty nice. Very little ASoIaF-like ugliness happens there.

6 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

I don't know if you need to be all that perceptive to pick up on this. It's basically the meaning of the phrase "Game of Thrones":

"The common people pray for rain, healthy children and a summer that never ends. It is no matter to them if the high lords play their game of thrones, as long as they are left in peace. They never are."

"That was the way of war. The smallfolk were slaughtered while the highborn were held for ransom."

"It is being common-born that is dangerous, when the great lords play their game of thrones."

This is a game to the wealthy, but death to the poor. Kind of like our own world, wouldn't you say?

Good to dig up those quotes.

But this goes only for the cynical guys. Ned, I'd argue, never actually wanted (or never actually did) play the game of thrones. He just wanted to do the right thing, not to satisfy any political ambitions or amass more power than he already had. He didn't even want to be Hand.

The issue with those aristocratic values is that those even twist good people like Robb into doing thing that are stupid/against his best interests and the best interest of his own subject and the people of the Seven Kingdoms.

Is that kind of thing intentional - did George have Robb fail because he wanted to be the kind of king he wanted to be? A noble warrior-king like the Young Dragon. Or let's take Loras Tyrell - what is the meaning of Loras allowing himself to be goaded into taking Dragonstone by storm?

I'd say in both case we can say that the author is having fun an the expense of the values the characters espouse or try to live up to. There is a personal shortcoming there - a stupidity, naiveté, etc. - but they are also espousing problematic values, follow problematic role models, etc.

And if one looks at George the man one does wonder whether a significant portion of his heart does not beat for his Macchiavellian villains and manipulators. He never was one of his own shining heroes and idealists and knights - he was the guy who was dumped/never taken by the women he loved, the one who may have very well fantasized about getting his Jenny the Ruark/Littlefinger way rather than the Dirk way, he is the poor guy who (eventually, late in his life) rose high because of what he could do, not because how he was born. The Tyrions and Littlefingers of his works are closer to him than the Jons and Robbs and (gods forbid) the Jaimes.

In that sense - the smart and cynical approach to politics (or the problems of life) seems to be one George would prefer to stupid ideals that could easily get you killed. Even more so when those smart cynics are also romantics (which we can say both Littlefinger and Tyrion are, for instance).

On a more abstract level we can, perhaps, also say that the only knight who is worth anything is the kind of knight Dunk is. A truly selfless knight. All the other knights are flawed to various degrees.

[SeanF]

@Lord Varys there may be something in that final section.  Martin said "the people I admire most are the dreamers, those who tried to make the world a better place", but OTOH he holds a sneaking regard for Richard Nixon, and Tyrion is his favourite character.  He also said he identified with Dany's desire to win back the Iron Throne because his own family lost their fortune, and fell on hard times.

[Darth Sidious]

The Game of Thrones is played with lives being the currency at the table.  The nobles play and the commons pay is not completely true though.  Nobles pay too, as they should. It's their game.  But the values of the aristocracy is driven by their need to maintain authority.  Picture the scene of the hanging dead men in the second D&E tale.  Roose Bolton's reaction to Arya speaking out of turn.  Robb's response to Cersei's letter.  Stannis Baratheon burning his own men for simply avoiding starvation.  Which he placed them in, by the way.  Those were loyal men who fought for him and marched for him.  They had no choice but to eat the dead.  To burn them for the "crime" is one of the prominent examples of the toxic value the O/P wrote about.  Those values are the antagonists to justice and compassion.  

[Lord Varys]

7 hours ago, SeanF said:

@Lord Varys there may be something in that final section.  Martin said "the people I admire most are the dreamers, those who tried to make the world a better place", but OTOH he holds a sneaking regard for Richard Nixon, and Tyrion is his favourite character.  He also said he identified with Dany's desire to win back the Iron Throne because his own family lost their fortune, and fell on hard times.

In the end he definitely sympathizes most with the dreamers, which can easily be drawn from the fact that he had so many of them, especially in his early work. A lot of his protagonists either dream of things they want (to get back) or how they want to change things.

And Dany is perhaps the only character who fits in the dreamer category in ASoIaF (I don't recall any character but her who really tries to change society, aside from Egg as an adult, who likely is going to fit also in that category) - she is trying to free world from slavery, and slavery is something she has an issue with since AGoT.

But unlike many of the earlier stories ASoIaF has much more focus on cynical politics and stuff and a static world where societal change (unlike George's SF stories or those set in the real world) is pretty unlikely to happen (Westeros is as stable and static a society as Middle-earth).

4 hours ago, Dothraki Khal said:

The Game of Thrones is played with lives being the currency at the table.  The nobles play and the commons pay is not completely true though.  Nobles pay too, as they should. It's their game.  But the values of the aristocracy is driven by their need to maintain authority.  Picture the scene of the hanging dead men in the second D&E tale.  Roose Bolton's reaction to Arya speaking out of turn.  Robb's response to Cersei's letter.  Stannis Baratheon burning his own men for simply avoiding starvation.  Which he placed them in, by the way.  Those were loyal men who fought for him and marched for him.  They had no choice but to eat the dead.  To burn them for the "crime" is one of the prominent examples of the toxic value the O/P wrote about.  Those values are the antagonists to justice and compassion.  

The nobility doesn't even remotely pay as much as the commoners do, especially not collectively. Some houses being extinguished once in a while has no effect on the society as a whole.

Stannis' reaction to secret cannibalism definitely is about ensuring discipline, but I'd not fault him for that. There may come a point when you do have to resort to cannibalism to survive, even as an army (and I expect many people in the Northmen to become routine cannibalists in TWoW and ADoS) but that moment had not come yet - at least in Stannis' opinion. And since he lived through the siege of Storm's End (which likely was more dire) without resorting to cannibalism I'm not sure his decision was wrong there. The impression I get is that the guilty guys could have survived by eating what the others ate, but preferred to get more or a different kind of meat.

But I certainly do agree that executing or burning people alive for this thing may have been pretty harsh (although we unfortunately have no clue how the Westerosi usually deal with cannibals, so there are many unknowns in this issue).

[SeanF]

14 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 

The nobility doesn't even remotely pay as much as the commoners do, especially not collectively. Some houses being extinguished once in a while has no effect on the society as a whole.

Stannis' reaction to secret cannibalism definitely is about ensuring discipline, but I'd not fault him for that. There may come a point when you do have to resort to cannibalism to survive, even as an army (and I expect many people in the Northmen to become routine cannibalists in TWoW and ADoS) but that moment had not come yet - at least in Stannis' opinion. And since he lived through the siege of Storm's End (which likely was more dire) without resorting to cannibalism I'm not sure his decision was wrong there. The impression I get is that the guilty guys could have survived by eating what the others ate, but preferred to get more or a different kind of meat.

But I certainly do agree that executing or burning people alive for this thing may have been pretty harsh (although we unfortunately have no clue how the Westerosi usually deal with cannibals, so there are many unknowns in this issue).

Stannis' punishment is very harsh, but there would be no surer way of causing an army to disintegrate, than have soldiers fear they would be eaten.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

30 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Stannis' punishment is very harsh, but there would be no surer way of causing an army to disintegrate, than have soldiers fear they would be eaten.

But they weren't eating live people right? They didn't kill anyone to be able to eat them did they? I don't remember them doing that but to me that would make it a different story. If they are eating their already dead I don't understand why they need to be punished at all OR why that would cause the army to disintegrate any faster than starving to death would. I know it's not an ideal situation but I would think there would be an agreement of sorts among them, permission given to use their body for food if they should succumb to the elements. I know in real life situations this has often been the case. 

[SeanF]

4 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

But they weren't eating live people right? They didn't kill anyone to be able to eat them did they? I don't remember them doing that but to me that would make it a different story. If they are eating their already dead I don't understand why they need to be punished at all OR why that would cause the army to disintegrate any faster than starving to death would. I know it's not an ideal situation but I would think there would be an agreement of sorts among them, permission given to use their body for food if they should succumb to the elements. I know in real life situations this has often been the case. 

Soldiers who were weak or injured, would be worried that starving men would hasten them on their way.  And, many people would hate the very thought of being eaten after death.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

40 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Soldiers who were weak or injured, would be worried that starving men would hasten them on their way.  And, many people would hate the very thought of being eaten after death.

Yeah, I suppose I understand that. I personally think if I'm gone, I'm gone - do what you will but I know not everyone thinks that way. I would just have a hard time punishing people for eating when they are literally starving to death. 

[Hugorfonics]

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That, and in the general cynical outlook of the people. Essentially nobody believes in their gods, nobody wants or cares about being a good ruler for the people (which certainly some medieval rulers tried to be), and the only truly 'noble' (i.e. idealistic/good) guys are the people who get killed. Trying to do the best for the common good even within the feudal society they live in (which would still mostly mean nearly everything for the nobility, the rest for the rabble) is actually something that can get you killed.

When The Prince of Winterfell demanded reasonable obedience from his subjects he was answered with insults and rebellion

 

Edmure cares about the people ("my people"). When Tywin attempted to cross the RL with steel and fire Edmure stopped him. Later when Edmures people were threatened into annihilation he relinquished his title and surrendered his claim. 

Edmure is regarded as having the weakness of a soft head, responsible for losing the war, twice. To excuse his soft head we look upon his soft heart, though I wonder if this "softness" is truly a weakness. I also wonder if Frey and Genna are "soft" enough to curb whatever drama Theon had to go through.

 

This outlook that the game of thrones is strictly detrimental to the smallfolk is certainly not without merit in the story and the history of Westeros, but its awfully pessimistic.

 

Stark went to war for personal reasons, the North bled and continues to. In replace of their woflish overlords have come raiders looking for slaves, and now rapists looking for flays. Stark is the only one able to replace tyranny and those who rule to intentionally cause harm, if we buy into Wymans believable theory. Stark fucked up the North, now Stark must heal it.

 

In the Riverlands there are no Greyjoys or Boltons, but there is a peoples army that glorifies the goodness of knights and seeks to protect all of the RL inhabitants, from the lowborn to the high. If I were Genna id be looking for a way to soften my heart, its not that I think the smallfolk believe Lannister and Frey to be bad (although...) but I think theyd believe Edmure to be better.

 

P.s 

Eating humans is gross. Not what you want to be known for. Burning the guilty is extreme, but thats another issue entirely

[kissdbyfire]

2 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Eating humans is gross. Not what you want to be known for. Burning the guilty is extreme, but thats another issue entirely

As gross as any other type of dead tissue, like pork or beef. Dead tissue is dead tissue. And dying is worse. I’m a vegetarian and I would eat human flesh if the alternative was death. I would also have no issue whatsoever being eaten, by all means, bbq me away.

 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

As gross as any other type of dead tissue, like pork or beef. Dead tissue is dead tissue. And dying is worse. I’m a vegetarian and I would eat human flesh if the alternative was death. I would also have no issue whatsoever being eaten, by all means, bbq me away.

 

I agree!