Marrying for Love in Westeros?

[Angel Eyes]

3 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

Probably, the average Westerosi noble would ask "what's the problem with that?"

Marriages about noble families are about favor, money, reward loyalty, make strategical alliances,... That should be the primary concern. If you need someone who loves you, you can look for a paramour.

Except when the marriages go wrong, they go wrong, like succession crisis-causing, continent-wide civil war wrong. Of the marriages that came out of Robert’s Rebellion, Ned Stark’s marriage to Catelyn Tully seems to be the only one that didn’t end in one spouse killing the other and contributed to starting a continent-wide civil war.

[frenin]

2 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

Except when the marriages go wrong, they go wrong, like succession crisis-causing, continent-wide civil war wrong. Of the marriages that came out of Robert’s Rebellion, Ned Stark’s marriage to Catelyn Tully seems to be the only one that didn’t end in one spouse killing the other and contributed to starting a continent-wide civil war.

Are you telling me that dynastic marriages for love can't go wrong?? That seems wishful, on top of my mind i'm thinking irl the mess Edward IV caused and in Westeros you only need to look the state of affairs Egg's kids left and their long lasting effects felt even in the current time. If you want to believe that whatever happened between Rhaegar and Lyanna there was love involved, well there you go.

There is no perfect system.

[chrisdaw]

The point is the privileged (often) don't have the freedom of marrying for love because that was (often) the case in the historic societies Westeros is paralleling. Marriage is duty.

[Angel Eyes]

42 minutes ago, frenin said:

If you want to believe that whatever happened between Rhaegar and Lyanna there was love involved, well there you go.

I’m waiting for the rest of the books to form an opinion, if GRRm finishes the books.

[Angel Eyes]

1 hour ago, frenin said:

Are you telling me that dynastic marriages for love can't go wrong?? That seems wishful, on top of my mind i'm thinking irl the mess Edward IV caused and in Westeros you only need to look the state of affairs Egg's kids left and their long lasting effects felt even in the current time. If you want to believe that whatever happened between Rhaegar and Lyanna there was love involved, well there you go.

There is no perfect system.

Would you rather an unhappy and unwilling wife do what Cersei did, have children with other men and sever the line of succession? Because that’s why the War of Five Kings broke out, because Cersei was unhappy with having Robert as a husband. That’s why Rhaenyra has a bad reputation, because her sons are not believed to be hers.

[frenin]

54 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

Would you rather an unhappy and unwilling wife do what Cersei did, have children with other men and sever the line of succession? Because that’s why the War of Five Kings broke out, because Cersei was unhappy with having Robert as a husband. That’s why Rhaenyra has a bad reputation, because her sons are not believed to be hers.

And Cersei can marry for love... And then become unhappy and snap... Maybe Cersei is a volatile person and Cersei and Robert was a horrible combination??  Love, is the alledged reason of the Robellion, love is the reason why Aerys got anywhere near the Throne and so on. 

[Tyrion1991]

On 4/5/2020 at 5:31 PM, Eternally_His said:

Several threads on the forum got me thinking: why is marrying for love seen as 'taboo' in Westeros? If Martin wanted his work to be realistic, then he should have thrown some couples that married for love here and there. Without love between married couples, they would most likely spend time being 'cold' towards one another and only keeping one another company during public events and while consummating the marriage/nearing children.

All in all, marriage without love is a cold, lonely union. Case in point: Ramsay and Jeyne. She never spent much time with him unless it involved child-bearing in some manner, or unless he forced her to.

 

Jorah and Lynesse.

Rhaegar and Lyanna

He does have instances of marrying for love. But they are pretty much universally depicted as negative. This is based on the assumption that love is a blind and irrational emotion which can only cause ruin if you follow it. This is sharply contrasted to the likes of Ned and Cat. The ideal is clearly that two people selflessly come together without regard for their selfish desires and come to slowly love each-other. 

Jorah and Lynesse is a good example of this. Love at first sight. Fairy tale love story where he wins the tournament and the girl gets her big strong Northern husband. However, money. George uses this to represent reality coming to bite. So the whole thing flounders. This contrast is made even more explicit when Catyln recalls discussing how unhappy Lynesse was at accommodating to the austere North; which won Cats pity because she had flourished. Given that Cat goes on to have a whole brood of Wolves whilst Lynesses marriage falls through and her living out her days in exile as a concubine. Yeah that’s very on the nose.

This is all part of a love vs duty theme. George is glorifying the idea of being in a relationship for duty and undermining the idea of being together for love. You know, because there have been loads of wars started because of love and none because of “duty”. I honestly think this is an absurd contention by the author.

I don’t think he gives much credence to the potential positives of being in a loving relationship. There isn’t for example a single “power couple” in Westeros despite that being a staple in a lot of fantasy series. The Wheel of Time is a good example of this with a large portion of the characters paired up. Perhaps he considers this an assumption of the reader that he needs to challenge; constantly. But I think he’s off the mark. There should be a lot more violent and dysfunctional unions as a result of arranged marriages. There should be a lot more problems as a result of this. Even when there is, like with Rob and Cersei, he places way more emphasis on the evil of her pursuing her own desire with Jamie. I mean what better way to say love is blind and a social evil than incest? This is not a balanced or nuanced depiction.

Why there’s this constant tragedy porn with every character who loves another coming to ruin and disaster is beyond me. Is Sansa not getting who Joffrey is a realistic depiction of love being blind or just silly? He leans far too heavily on people being idiots and bad judges of character. Of course loves blind if you can’t see in the first place.

I think it’s important to note that he is not just talking about lust vs love. A lot of readers I think are subconsciously assuming that’s what’s being discussed. It’s the only way of rationalising how absurd the love vs duty thing actually is. But he’s pretty clear that he’s referring to love. Yes he throws shades at placing value on physical appearance and personal enjoyment. This is a man who made twincest a thing. But I think the focus is very much that 

 

 

[frenin]

2 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

Jorah and Lynesse.

Rhaegar and Lyanna

He does have instances of marrying for love. But they are pretty much universally depicted as negative. This is based on the assumption that love is a blind and irrational emotion which can only cause ruin if you follow it. This is sharply contrasted to the likes of Ned and Cat. The ideal is clearly that two people selflessly come together without regard for their selfish desires and come to slowly love each-other. 

 Jorah and Lynesse is a good example of this. Love at first sight. Fairy tale love story where he wins the tournament and the girl gets her big strong Northern husband. However, money. George uses this to represent reality coming to bite. So the whole thing flounders. This contrast is made even more explicit when Catyln recalls discussing how unhappy Lynesse was at accommodating to the austere North; which won Cats pity because she had flourished. Given that Cat goes on to have a whole brood of Wolves whilst Lynesses marriage falls through and her living out her days in exile as a concubine. Yeah that’s very on the nose.

 This is all part of a love vs duty theme. George is glorifying the idea of being in a relationship for duty and undermining the idea of being together for love. You know, because there have been loads of wars started because of love and none because of “duty”. I honestly think this is an absurd contention by the author.

 I don’t think he gives much credence to the potential positives of being in a loving relationship. There isn’t for example a single “power couple” in Westeros despite that being a staple in a lot of fantasy series. The Wheel of Time is a good example of this with a large portion of the characters paired up. Perhaps he considers this an assumption of the reader that he needs to challenge; constantly. But I think he’s off the mark. There should be a lot more violent and dysfunctional unions as a result of arranged marriages. There should be a lot more problems as a result of this. Even when there is, like with Rob and Cersei, he places way more emphasis on the evil of her pursuing her own desire with Jamie. I mean what better way to say love is blind and a social evil than incest? This is not a balanced or nuanced depiction.

Why there’s this constant tragedy porn with every character who loves another coming to ruin and disaster is beyond me. Is Sansa not getting who Joffrey is a realistic depiction of love being blind or just silly? He leans far too heavily on people being idiots and bad judges of character. Of course loves blind if you can’t see in the first place.

I think it’s important to note that he is not just talking about lust vs love. A lot of readers I think are subconsciously assuming that’s what’s being discussed. It’s the only way of rationalising how absurd the love vs duty thing actually is. But he’s pretty clear that he’s referring to love. Yes he throws shades at placing value on physical appearance and personal enjoyment. This is a man who made twincest a thing. But I think the focus is very much that 

Picking two examples to make an argument is kinda ludicrous...  There are love matches that work perfectly fine. Egg and Betha Blackwood, Jaeharys and Alysanne, Baelon and Alyssa, Tywin and Joanna...  

[Tyrion1991]

2 hours ago, frenin said:

Picking two examples to make an argument is kinda ludicrous...  There are love matches that work perfectly fine. Egg and Betha Blackwood, Jaeharys and Alysanne, Baelon and Alyssa, Tywin and Joanna...  

 

Not sure who number three is, but those are mostly outside the scope of the core novels and extended lore. Plus you then have to account for all the EU lore where this isn’t the case and which reinforces this theme of “love makes you do stupid things”. I d say these are only in the extended lore because George was obliged to add some variety and they are presented as exceptions. Jahaerys and Alysanne is certainly depicted as exceptional amongst the unmitigated train wreck of the Targaryen Dynasty. 

Tywin and Joanna is a funny one because her death is implied to have made Tywin so grim. Which is the other side of the critique. People get too emotionally involved and if one goes then they are left broken. 

The only real example of an inoffensive loving relationship in the Ice and Fire novels is Sam and Gilly. That’s basically a concession because if he had everybody be an edgelord it would be difficult to take seriously. So he has to say that, okay, two ordinary people fumbling around and coming together to protect a child is probably harmless. So far, he hasn’t finished the story; so that’s still up in the air. 

I mean consider that George has some of the most powerful, smart and influential individuals in the series be single:

- Tywin

- Varys

- Littlefinger (whose obvious downfall is his obsession with Sansa)

- Doran

- Olenna Tyrell

These have been some of the main movers and shakers of the series. Why have that be the case unless you’re trying to make a point on love being a weakness? 

Not only that but have the endless romanticism of the Nights Watch with its vows to swear off girls. Along with characters like the Old Bear and Aemon pretty directly saying that love is a bad thing and brings nothing but ruin upon wider society. Things which are left uncriticised by Jon Snow and are presented as words of wisdom he’d be wise to follow. If you’re not playing the game you shouldn’t be making the rules.

Love and unrequited love is also routinely used as a root cause of war. Essentially the entire current struggle is because Littlefinger got humiliated by Brandon and he wants revenge on the Starks for taking “his woman”. Whilst the previous war was caused by two love birds not writing a note. Yes it’s dramatic. But it’s also absurd. 

 

[frenin]

33 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Not sure who number three is, but those are mostly outside the scope of the core novels and extended lore. Plus you then have to account for all the EU lore where this isn’t the case and which reinforces this theme of “love makes you do stupid things”. I d say these are only in the extended lore because George was obliged to add some variety and they are presented as exceptions. Jahaerys and Alysanne is certainly depicted as exceptional amongst the unmitigated train wreck of the Targaryen Dynasty. 

I'm not sure why, those people's decisions had long lasting effects on the novellas. There are a lot of cases when it is or isn't the same,  we don't need Martin to say to us that love make you do stupid things. But as @Angel Eyes like to remind, the lack of love is just as dangerous.

 

36 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 Tywin and Joanna is a funny one because her death is implied to have made Tywin so grim. Which is the other side of the critique. People get too emotionally involved and if one goes then they are left broken. 

Like Cat??

 

 

39 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

I mean consider that George has some of the most powerful, smart and influential individuals in the series be single:

- Tywin

- Varys

- Littlefinger (whose obvious downfall is his obsession with Sansa)

- Doran

- Olenna Tyrell

These have been some of the main movers and shakers of the series. Why have that be the case unless you’re trying to make a point on love being a weakness? 

In such case they should've never fallen in love. And bar the Varys incognita, they all love and love is their prinicipal motor.

 

 

40 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Not only that but have the endless romanticism of the Nights Watch with its vows to swear off girls. Along with characters like the Old Bear and Aemon pretty directly saying that love is a bad thing and brings nothing but ruin upon wider society. Things which are left uncriticised by Jon Snow and are presented as words of wisdom he’d be wise to follow. If you’re not playing the game you shouldn’t be making the rules.

They are not saying that love is a bad thing, they are saying that ties are a burden in some stances being the Wall one of them. You know  the lone wolf is dangerous because it has no one to lose. 

 

 

43 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 Love and unrequited love is also routinely used as a root cause of war. Essentially the entire current struggle is because Littlefinger got humiliated by Brandon and he wants revenge on the Starks for taking “his woman”. Whilst the previous war was caused by two love birds not writing a note. Yes it’s dramatic. But it’s also absurd. 

Doubt that LF gives a shit about this. But yes, you're right in the rest.

[Tyrion1991]

15 minutes ago, frenin said:

I'm not sure why, those people's decisions had long lasting effects on the novellas. There are a lot of cases when it is or isn't the same,  we don't need Martin to say to us that love make you do stupid things. But as @Angel Eyes like to remind, the lack of love is just as dangerous.

 

Like Cat??

 

 

In such case they should've never fallen in love. And bar the Varys incognita, they all love and love is their prinicipal motor.

 

 

They are not saying that love is a bad thing, they are saying that ties are a burden in some stances being the Wall one of them. You know  the lone wolf is dangerous because it has no one to lose. 

 

 

Doubt that LF gives a shit about this. But yes, you're right in the rest.

 

That’s an appropriate position but it’s not what’s being advocated in the novels. You have this endless bombardment of cynicism and absurd situations from which are made broad sweeping conclusions. I can’t think of a clear set of characters where a character choosing to cut themselves and be isolated; refusing love, is depicted as a mistake. This point is not being made in the books thus far.

The case is also made with Cat. Her love for her family is routinely depicted as creating problems and ill advised decisions. That’s done to advocate “reason” over emotion. When really you should be considering the circumstances and the problems of not acting from that position. 

Love in the sense of family honour and responsibility which George equates with duty. My point is that by creating so many examples of these idealised single individuals, holding all the power, whilst all the couples are dysfunctional messes is a nice implicit point being made by the author. Why isn’t there a Justinian/Theodora analogue in the series? 

You’re adding a qualifier that isn’t present in the text. The Old Bear says love always destroys you in the end. That’s not ambivalent or nuanced. Love is the death of duty. That’s very violent and clear cut language. These are sharp lines that both characters are drawing. How is a not a bad thing if it’s “the death” and “destroys you”? It’s good in the sense that it is a vice and an addiction. That’s what they are saying here. The Old Bear is very general and not even speaking about the Nights Watch. Plus when you add all the battery of other problems which love causes the author is clearly insinuating that it would be good if the rest of the world ran by a similar model. 

There is total silence from Jon to what is a sick and sinister world view. Sam does knock the idea. But even then the criticism comes across as just wanting to get laid. There’s no consideration that enforcing this would destroy the men’s moral and massively encourage desertion. It makes manning the wall and peopling the Gift impossible. You lose the additional labour that wives and young children can provide in a pre modern society and army. It is complete madness and crippled the Nights Watch as institution. This is all for done because MAYBE somebody might be able to leverage those emotional bonds for some unspoken and unspecified reason. But it might happen so we have to be absolute that this is enforced. It’s dumb.

You think having love be the cause of every war whilst saying people shouldn’t follow their hearts over “duty” is reasonable? How many war in the real world are caused by love? Apart from the Trojan War I am kind of drawing a blank here...

 

[Angel Eyes]

15 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

That’s an appropriate position but it’s not what’s being advocated in the novels. You have this endless bombardment of cynicism and absurd situations from which are made broad sweeping conclusions. I can’t think of a clear set of characters where a character choosing to cut themselves and be isolated; refusing love, is depicted as a mistake. This point is not being made in the books thus far.

The case is also made with Cat. Her love for her family is routinely depicted as creating problems and ill advised decisions. That’s done to advocate “reason” over emotion. When really you should be considering the circumstances and the problems of not acting from that position. 

Love in the sense of family honour and responsibility which George equates with duty. My point is that by creating so many examples of these idealised single individuals, holding all the power, whilst all the couples are dysfunctional messes is a nice implicit point being made by the author. Why isn’t there a Justinian/Theodora analogue in the series? 

You’re adding a qualifier that isn’t present in the text. The Old Bear says love always destroys you in the end. That’s not ambivalent or nuanced. Love is the death of duty. That’s very violent and clear cut language. These are sharp lines that both characters are drawing. How is a not a bad thing if it’s “the death” and “destroys you”? It’s good in the sense that it is a vice and an addiction. That’s what they are saying here. The Old Bear is very general and not even speaking about the Nights Watch. Plus when you add all the battery of other problems which love causes the author is clearly insinuating that it would be good if the rest of the world ran by a similar model. 

There is total silence from Jon to what is a sick and sinister world view. Sam does knock the idea. But even then the criticism comes across as just wanting to get laid. There’s no consideration that enforcing this would destroy the men’s moral and massively encourage desertion. It makes manning the wall and peopling the Gift impossible. You lose the additional labour that wives and young children can provide in a pre modern society and army. It is complete madness and crippled the Nights Watch as institution. This is all for done because MAYBE somebody might be able to leverage those emotional bonds for some unspoken and unspecified reason. But it might happen so we have to be absolute that this is enforced. It’s dumb.

You think having love be the cause of every war whilst saying people shouldn’t follow their hearts over “duty” is reasonable? How many war in the real world are caused by love? Apart from the Trojan War I am kind of drawing a blank here...

 

Well, we’ve had a war break out over lack of love. Isabella of France raised an army and deposed her husband Edward II because they didn’t like each other.

[Jaak]

On 4/6/2020 at 10:51 PM, The Bard of Banefort said:

Marrying for love seems to be more common in second or third marriages (Alyssa and Rogar Baratheon, Rohanne Webber and her Lannister husband, Eleana and Michael Manwoody). It would appear that after someone has fulfilled their marital "duty" at least once, there's less resistance to marrying someone of your own choosing.

It´s not just a matter of "fulfilling marital duty", it´s also a matter of being more independent. A lot of people simply no longer have parents alive to arrange their marriage by the age, and can enter into love marriages - happy or failed.

And in their teens/early twenties, many nobles still have parents in control directing their marriages.

[frenin]

On 4/9/2020 at 6:44 PM, Tyrion1991 said:

That’s an appropriate position but it’s not what’s being advocated in the novels. You have this endless bombardment of cynicism and absurd situations from which are made broad sweeping conclusions. I can’t think of a clear set of characters where a character choosing to cut themselves and be isolated; refusing love, is depicted as a mistake. This point is not being made in the books thus far.

Tywin is the best example so far, the love is is the death of duty is only said in the wall.

 

 

On 4/9/2020 at 6:44 PM, Tyrion1991 said:

 The case is also made with Cat. Her love for her family is routinely depicted as creating problems and ill advised decisions. That’s done to advocate “reason” over emotion. When really you should be considering the circumstances and the problems of not acting from that position. 

Is it now??

 

"I should have traded the Kingslayer for Sansa when you first urged it," Robb said as they walked the gallery. "If I'd offered to wed her to the Knight of Flowers, the Tyrells might be ours instead of Joffrey's. I should have thought of that."
"Your mind was on your battles, and rightly so. Even a king cannot think of everything."

 

Love per se is not routinely depicted as creating problems, especially no more than spite, hatred, greed or envy.

 

On 4/9/2020 at 6:44 PM, Tyrion1991 said:

 Love in the sense of family honour and responsibility which George equates with duty. My point is that by creating so many examples of these idealised single individuals, holding all the power, whilst all the couples are dysfunctional messes is a nice implicit point being made by the author. Why isn’t there a Justinian/Theodora analogue in the series? 

But not all the couple are dysfunctional messes, i've given you the examples, you have decided to ignore them.

 

 

 

On 4/9/2020 at 6:44 PM, Tyrion1991 said:

 You’re adding a qualifier that isn’t present in the text. The Old Bear says love always destroys you in the end. That’s not ambivalent or nuanced. Love is the death of duty. That’s very violent and clear cut language. These are sharp lines that both characters are drawing. How is a not a bad thing if it’s “the death” and “destroys you”? It’s good in the sense that it is a vice and an addiction. That’s what they are saying here. The Old Bear is very general and not even speaking about the Nights Watch. Plus when you add all the battery of other problems which love causes the author is clearly insinuating that it would be good if the rest of the world ran by a similar model. 

The Old Bear is talking from his experience. That's why he also mentions Jorah.

Love is the death of duty... Very much so, in the watch it isthe death of duty.

 

"At evenfall, as the sun sets and we face the gathering night, you shall take your vows. From that moment, you will be a Sworn Brother of the Night's Watch. Your crimes will be washed away, your debts forgiven. So too you must wash away your former loyalties, put aside your grudges, forget old wrongs and old loves alike. Here you begin anew.
"A man of the Night's Watch lives his life for the realm. Not for a king, nor a lord, nor the honor of this house or that house, neither for gold nor glory nor a woman's love, but for the realm, and all the people in it. A man of the Night's Watch takes no wife and fathers no sons. Our wife is duty. Our mistress is honor. And you are the only sons we shall ever know.

 

The men who formed the Night's Watch knew that only their courage shielded the realm from the darkness to the north. They knew they must have no divided loyalties to weaken their resolve. So they vowed they would have no wives nor children.

 

You're twisting words whose meaning are clear as water. If every member of the Watch behaved like Jon any moment their loved ones were in danger, the Watch would fall.

 

On 4/9/2020 at 6:44 PM, Tyrion1991 said:

 There is total silence from Jon to what is a sick and sinister world view. Sam does knock the idea. But even then the criticism comes across as just wanting to get laid. There’s no consideration that enforcing this would destroy the men’s moral and massively encourage desertion. It makes manning the wall and peopling the Gift impossible. You lose the additional labour that wives and young children can provide in a pre modern society and army. It is complete madness and crippled the Nights Watch as institution. This is all for done because MAYBE somebody might be able to leverage those emotional bonds for some unspoken and unspecified reason. But it might happen so we have to be absolute that this is enforced. It’s dumb.

Sam and Jon are children still, with zero experience and they are receiving knowledge from their elders, ofc they are not going to talk, how would they refute what they are being told?? Jon however does not like one bit the love part. Ifnot you get things like the Warriors's uprising.

Enforcing that would not destroy the men's morals, nor the Gift is for the Watch to people.

 

 

 

 

[Tyrion1991]

3 hours ago, frenin said:

Tywin is the best example so far, the love is is the death of duty is only said in the wall.

 

 

Is it now??

 

"I should have traded the Kingslayer for Sansa when you first urged it," Robb said as they walked the gallery. "If I'd offered to wed her to the Knight of Flowers, the Tyrells might be ours instead of Joffrey's. I should have thought of that."
"Your mind was on your battles, and rightly so. Even a king cannot think of everything."

 

Love per se is not routinely depicted as creating problems, especially no more than spite, hatred, greed or envy.

 

But not all the couple are dysfunctional messes, i've given you the examples, you have decided to ignore them.

 

 

 

The Old Bear is talking from his experience. That's why he also mentions Jorah.

Love is the death of duty... Very much so, in the watch it isthe death of duty.

 

"At evenfall, as the sun sets and we face the gathering night, you shall take your vows. From that moment, you will be a Sworn Brother of the Night's Watch. Your crimes will be washed away, your debts forgiven. So too you must wash away your former loyalties, put aside your grudges, forget old wrongs and old loves alike. Here you begin anew.
"A man of the Night's Watch lives his life for the realm. Not for a king, nor a lord, nor the honor of this house or that house, neither for gold nor glory nor a woman's love, but for the realm, and all the people in it. A man of the Night's Watch takes no wife and fathers no sons. Our wife is duty. Our mistress is honor. And you are the only sons we shall ever know.

 

The men who formed the Night's Watch knew that only their courage shielded the realm from the darkness to the north. They knew they must have no divided loyalties to weaken their resolve. So they vowed they would have no wives nor children.

 

You're twisting words whose meaning are clear as water. If every member of the Watch behaved like Jon any moment their loved ones were in danger, the Watch would fall.

 

Sam and Jon are children still, with zero experience and they are receiving knowledge from their elders, ofc they are not going to talk, how would they refute what they are being told?? Jon however does not like one bit the love part. Ifnot you get things like the Warriors's uprising.

Enforcing that would not destroy the men's morals, nor the Gift is for the Watch to people.

 

 

 

 

 

An indirect example since his backstory occurs before the story begins. 

Theyre talking about a political marriage. That’s going from the angle that Rob should have listened to the wise elder. To free Jamie and make him promise to keep his word was only ever going to go one way. This isn’t “Oh if you had acted with the heart then it would have worked”.

Its the cause of both the major wars in the series. 

Jorah isn’t a member of the Nights Watch. So he is making a general point regarding society and not just saying this applies to that institution.

People desert the Nights Watch because it’s a gulag and they aren’t achieving anything by manning it. They had one job and when people don’t listen to them it doesn’t matter. If the concern is the Others taking their children then they shouldn’t be near the wall. Besides that there isn’t a legitimate reason to not have families. Jon doesn’t have a child yet he still has other loyalties. So nothing is being achieved.

He goes against it when a woman is thrown in front of him. That’s not the same as having an actual opinion against it. I am sure he gets worried about breaking the Gulags rules. So he thinks he’s doing a bad thing but getting away with it. He’s an idiot.

The Nights Watch is a joke. They’re wasting time enforcing ridiculous rules instead of doing their actual job. It’s an ideological rule that has no tangible benefit and a vast amount of problems. Only a Northerner could come up with it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[frenin]

2 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

An indirect example since his backstory occurs before the story begins. 

A very direct  example since Joanna's death has massive consequences in the story. You're just ignoring everything that contradicts your point.

 

2 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Theyre talking about a political marriage. That’s going from the angle that Rob should have listened to the wise elder. To free Jamie and make him promise to keep his word was only ever going to go one way. This isn’t “Oh if you had acted with the heart then it would have worked”.

Its the cause of both the major wars in the series. 

And why didn't listen Robb to his mother if not for political  reasons?? His mother was talking from the heart in that instance too. As you say, it  has upsides and downsides. 

The Robellion started for kidnapping and murder, not love. The Wot5k, for Robert's and Ned's deaths. Not love.

 

2 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Jorah isn’t a member of the Nights Watch. So he is making a general point regarding society and not just saying this applies to that institution.

I was talking about Aemon. 

But sure the Old Bear is giving his pov heavily biased by his son's idiocy.

 

 

2 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

People desert the Nights Watch because it’s a gulag and they aren’t achieving anything by manning it. They had one job and when people don’t listen to them it doesn’t matter. If the concern is the Others taking their children then they shouldn’t be near the wall. Besides that there isn’t a legitimate reason to not have families. Jon doesn’t have a child yet he still has other loyalties. So nothing is being achieved.

I don't understand your point, the whole reason why the Wall does not allow families  is because the more loyalties the worst to stay put. Is difficult enough abandoning past  loyalties, having children makes it the worse. There is a very legitimate reason to not have families, Aemon outright says it, we see that struggle in Jon and we see how he gives in and gives in... Until he falls.  

 

2 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

He goes against it when a woman is thrown in front of him. That’s not the same as having an actual opinion against it. I am sure he gets worried about breaking the Gulags rules. So he thinks he’s doing a bad thing but getting away with it. He’s an idiot.

I don't know what you're talking about.

 

 

2 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

The Nights Watch is a joke. They’re wasting time enforcing ridiculous rules instead of doing their actual job. It’s an ideological rule that has no tangible benefit and a vast amount of problems. Only a Northerner could come up with it.

You're being ludicrous, the Watch has survived 8000 years by following said rules, they simply would've crumbled had they not followed them.

[Tyrion1991]

21 minutes ago, frenin said:

A very direct  example since Joanna's death has massive consequences in the story. You're just ignoring everything that contradicts your point.

 

And why didn't listen Robb to his mother if not for political  reasons?? His mother was talking from the heart in that instance too. As you say, it  has upsides and downsides. 

The Robellion started for kidnapping and murder, not love. The Wot5k, for Robert's and Ned's deaths. Not love.

 

I was talking about Aemon. 

But sure the Old Bear is giving his pov heavily biased by his son's idiocy.

 

 

I don't understand your point, the whole reason why the Wall does not allow families  is because the more loyalties the worst to stay put. Is difficult enough abandoning past  loyalties, having children makes it the worse. There is a very legitimate reason to not have families, Aemon outright says it, we see that struggle in Jon and we see how he gives in and gives in... Until he falls.  

 

I don't know what you're talking about.

 

 

You're being ludicrous, the Watch has survived 8000 years by following said rules, they simply would've crumbled had they not followed them.

 

An inference on a non POV characters back story. 

He spends a lot of time talking about the downsides. 

Youre saying Rhaegar eloping with Lynanna and Cersei being with Jamie/ Peter wanting revenge for being spurned aren’t root causes? The deaths are portrayed as a consequence of these things. 

If he wanted to blast Jorah he could talk about the specifics. Deciding to go with slavery to pay the bills. Instead he really is blaming having chosen a union for love. This is like saying Walter White is a bad man because he has a family rather than what he actually does. 

Because it’s ridiculous. Why do you think no military institution does this? It either has nothing to do with real world problems or would be impossible to enforce. It’s a fake and contrived “conflict” that Jon has to make some sort of vow at odds with him wanting to go back to the Starks. The only reason the NW has these dumb rules that no other faction in Westeros or the real world has is to give him an excuse to be all sad and create forced pity. Why would anyone volunteer for such an idiot assignment without asking about it? He is the worst character in the entire series.

He’s a trash character and i don’t get why you like him. Is that clear enough?

Yeah 8000 years fighting Neolithic civilisation without steel weapons whilst their main enemy kills them like flies. Good job guys. Good job. They are an utter joke. Their failure will thankfully lead to death of all those idiot Northerners who can’t be bothered to defend their own border.

 

 

[Angel Eyes]

1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

Because it’s ridiculous. Why do you think no military institution does this? It either has nothing to do with real world problems or would be impossible to enforce. It’s a fake and contrived “conflict” that Jon has to make some sort of vow at odds with him wanting to go back to the Starks. The only reason the NW has these dumb rules that no other faction in Westeros or the real world has is to give him an excuse to be all sad and create forced pity. Why would anyone volunteer for such an idiot assignment without asking about it? He is the worst character in the entire series.

 

 

 

Well, Jon’s got a lot of competition for worst character in the entire series. Joffrey “Baratheon” and Ramsay Bolton for starters. At least Jon doesn’t try to force a girl to have sex with dogs.

Also, there’s a number of characters who volunteered for the Night’s Watch; Lord Commander Jeor Mormont himself abdicated his title of Lord of Bear Island to his son Jorah, Maester Aemon joined the Night’s Watch to prevent himself from being a tool to use against his brother Aegon V, Benjen Stark joined near the end or almost immediately after Robert’s Rebellion ended (and Ned allowed him despite House Stark’s fate being on tenterhooks), and Waymar Royce joined the Night’s Watch of his own free will because he wasn’t going to gain anything as a third son. 

[frenin]

3 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

An inference on a non POV characters back story. 

Who has a massive impact in the world he lives in and in his pov character children...

 

3 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 He spends a lot of time talking about the downsides. 

By people who has been fucked by it, it's rather normal than Jorah has a negative vision of it.

 

3 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 Youre saying Rhaegar eloping with Lynanna and Cersei being with Jamie/ Peter wanting revenge for being spurned aren’t root causes? The deaths are portrayed as a consequence of these things. 

Rhaegar&Lyanna ""yes"". Jaime and Cersei not however, those two are obsessed with each other. Peter is not doing what he is doing for revenge so...

 

3 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 If he wanted to blast Jorah he could talk about the specifics. Deciding to go with slavery to pay the bills. Instead he really is blaming having chosen a union for love. This is like saying Walter White is a bad man because he has a family rather than what he actually does. 

He talked about the specifics, he outright says that Jorah sold poachers, he just remarks that he did what he did to satisfy his wife.

 

 

3 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 Because it’s ridiculous. Why do you think no military institution does this? It either has nothing to do with real world problems or would be impossible to enforce. It’s a fake and contrived “conflict” that Jon has to make some sort of vow at odds with him wanting to go back to the Starks. The only reason the NW has these dumb rules that no other faction in Westeros or the real world has is to give him an excuse to be all sad and create forced pity. Why would anyone volunteer for such an idiot assignment without asking about it? He is the worst character in the entire series.

No military institution has the characteristics of the Watch or its relevance, those who made those oaths wanted the watch to survive as long as possible for its task.

I don't understand your rant here but no, Jon is not the worst character in the entire series, not even close and i'm particularly very indifferent towards him.

 

 

3 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 He’s a trash character and i don’t get why you like him. Is that clear enough?

Who Jon?? If that so, I've answered above.

 

3 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 Yeah 8000 years fighting Neolithic civilisation without steel weapons whilst their main enemy kills them like flies. Good job guys. Good job. They are an utter joke. Their failure will thankfully lead to death of all those idiot Northerners who can’t be bothered to defend their own border.

The others have just reappeared. The rest is just rant.

 

 

2 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

Well, Jon’s got a lot of competition for worst character in the entire series. Joffrey “Baratheon” and Ramsay Bolton for starters. At least Jon doesn’t try to force a girl to have sex with dogs.

I don't know how Ramsay and Joffy are bad characters, in the sense of propely developed, disgusting?? Sure but bad??

[Angel Eyes]

23 minutes ago, frenin said:

 

I don't know how Ramsay and Joffy are bad characters, in the sense of propely developed, disgusting?? Sure but bad??

For despicableness and being well-written. They’re pretty one-dimensional: people who love hurting others to their detriment. I find that characters like them (plus The Mountain) are anomalies in ASOIAF; for GRRM’s emphasis on moral ambiguity on the part of his characters, all three of them are as far down one side of the morality spectrum as you can get