The Dark Fate of the Starks

[Dracul's Daughter]

11 hours ago, Roswell said:

And I will feel badly for you.  May even send you a box of chocolates, minus the nougats.  But not enough to not want to see that happen friend.    

Roswell is antiStark.  

 

I would need some booze too and as @TheLastWolf said : 

On 9/18/2020 at 10:24 AM, TheLastWolf said:

A dream of Spring was originally titled "A TIME FOR WOLVES".You stark haters (no offence, only this time) can't have all of 'em dead!!!

[Rondo]

On 9/16/2020 at 4:32 AM, Pontius Pilate said:

Jon's dying thoughts were revenge and Arya.  He is not coming back a good boy.  His descent into the dark started when he killed Slynt.  He has already fallen that hole.  I don't see him crawling out of that hole, regardless of which powers raise him back from death.  There is really no need to talk about Arya.  Their paths seem to follow the same arc.  Both join organizations yet their rebel nature and love for the Starks kept them from staying within the boundaries of what those groups would allow.  Jon and Arya betrayed their orders.  Bran's story may also follow the same failure.  He will become compromised by love at some point and betray Bloodraven.  I don't think it will be his affection for Meera but his devotion to his family which will lead Bran to make a bad decision at an important moment.  

Jon's downwards path towards the darkness began before that.  He tried to escape his vows early on to fight for the Starks.  I say he never stopped fighting for the Starks.  That has been his problem all along.  

[Rondo]

On 9/22/2020 at 6:42 PM, Eliscat said:

Yea, six skins said something like you could feel or have to wrestle away another inhabitant..just spitballing here :D

 

Check my facts but he also said it was a one way trip with no going back if the human body dies.  

 

[Tyrion1991]

20 hours ago, Roswell said:

I don't think so.  That is not really true.  Sansa's selfish nature betrayed her dad.  Cat's blind love for her son triggered a war which killed thousands of innocents.  All for one boy to have his justice.  Cat was either blind or selfish.  Maybe both.  Robb Stark gave his oath to an ally whose son died in his service and then shits on that man for something so minor as loving another girl.  Jon Snow betrays the Night's Watch and commits an injustice against his own man.  Arya is a bloodthirsty multiple murderer.  Look deeply and the Starks are not all that likable.  

 

George is not being subtle. You’re reading into the text looking for it to be grim dark and morally grey. Assuming nuance and complexity and seeing it everywhere. Oh, the Freys had some passable motivation for the Red Wedding which must mean George wants to cast a shadow over Robs cause. I really don’t buy this. The rest are basically foibles and part of the tragedy of their house.

The Starks are depicted as innocent victims of external aggression. They are given a moral blank cheque by George via Northern nationalism. He goes out of of his way to separate the Starks from any negative consequences (Bolton’s and Karstarks do bad things before backstabbing the Starks) and obscures their involvement. 

Contrast this to the conga line of characters who accuse Dany of being insane to her face. Lecture her on her motivations. Not one character criticises Rob Stark for his one war which implicitly devastated the Riverlands. Yet one village where Dany objects to the whole enterprise is considered to be a big deal? That’s not the writer showing nuance, that’s a double standard. 

Entire chapters and entire novels dedicated towards how her family were bad news for Westeros and evil. How every Targaryen was a repugnant genocidal monster because of their weak blood. Whilst the Starks are depicted as these proud Kings of Winter who have never known defeat and can endure the harshest Winter. You’d never have the Stark equivalent of The Mad King or Maegor. George is not being subtle here. The Starks are given favourable treatment in the story. 

 I recently watched some reviewer of Dune make the point about the main character initially being set up as the hero in book one. But then by book two of the trilogy he’s slowly revealed to be not all he was cracked up to be. Well, we’re on the penultimate book in a monster seven novel series. George would have to have left it extremely late in the day for this dark turn by the Starks. Dany, he’s been saying she’s a monster and insane since the first novel. People didn’t expect it because it’s a stupid and pointless direction to take the character. Thank God there’s no such thing as weak Targaryen incest blood in the real world. A normal person would never make those mistakes. But if that was his intent to subvert the hero trope with the Starks he would have to have left a clear trail. Have a character start doubting the motivations of the Starks. Question why they are doing what they are doing. This has not happened. 

 

 

[Darth Sidious]

On 9/22/2020 at 6:14 PM, Bowen 747 said:

Jon was the first to die.  Winds of Winter will see him becoming something else.  Either a Lady Stoneheart like creature woken by the Others or a wolf.  Bran's body may die but his mind is part of that Weirwood tree.  His brother and sister will be trapped as a wight (Jon) and Arya as Nymeria. 

It may be a bit early for Jon to become a wolf.  He will get wighted by the Others.  He might even use them to fight the Boltons in the mistaken belief that he is rescuing his sister.  Thereby causing death and destruction.

[Kierria]

Rickon and Bran are almost a sure thing to survive to the end of the story.  The other three will most likely not make it to the end.  Not in human, wolf or any kind of wight.  The moral of the story is to put aside revenge and work together instead.  The white walkers and the weather are the existential threats to life.  The stakes are very high.  The people are justified in hating each other and wanting revenge.  It is people who cannot put revenge aside who are getting in the way of cooperation.  It doesn't matter if they are entitled to revenge.  Which is questionable because that should be handled through the laws.  Those who can put aside getting even and move on will be the ones who can work together for the common good.  Revenge minded people like Arya and Jon are only going to do more harm.  It is people like Ellaria Sand who can let go of hate who will survive.  Rickon is too young to know of hate.  Bran has a chance if he listens to Brynden Rivers. 

[TheLastWolf]

2 hours ago, Kierria said:

Rickon is too young to know of hate. 

Say that to Amaya Bajarrat

I still stand by my opinion(s) on this touchy subject. If I were Thomson and Thompson (with a p, p for bagels ) from Herge's Tintin, I would say " To be precise, My opinion stands by me"

 

 

[Rosetta Stone]

Rickon's fate will depend on how he is raised by Osha as well as the plans Wayman has for him.  His life will be in danger if he lets himself become a Manderly pawn.  Best if he can somehow cross over to Essos and await the Spring.  I do not think Jon Snow will recover from that stabbing.  He will be brought back by the Others as a wight.  His secret sauce to avoid becoming their ice robot is Ghost.  His mind will have refuge in the wolf as his body goes into a very slow decay.  Coldhands lived as a wight for a long time.  I think Jon will too.  Arya will get her second chance in her wolf.  She has murdered too many in her insane pursuit of justice.  I think she too will bite the dust.  Sansa is the hardest to predict.  Her destiny is tied to Petyr's.

And Bran.  What can I say about Bran.  His soul will come to the point where it no longer needs his body.  Said to be the most powerful seer of his time.  Bran will be the link between his brothers and sisters.  He will be the one to gather the direwolves into one pack.  Some of you believe it is Jon who will become the alpha of the direwolves.  I believe that will be Bran.  Direwolf Jon will remain aloof as he was in life.  As Ghost was and is. 

[James Fenimore Cooper XXII]

On 9/14/2020 at 10:45 PM, Allardyce said:

Above is a quote from A Clash of Kings, a Jon point of view chapter.

It seems to me that the Starks are meant to become a pack again.  But take careful note, sister instead of sisters.  I believe the Starks will come together again as direwolves after their human deaths.  They will each feel incomplete until they become a pack again.  Why sister instead of the plural form?  Because Sansa will not become a part of this pack.  She lost her direwolf, and her soul.  The part of Sansa which joined her to the wolves is gone. 

The tree was Bran.  Jon is no stranger to the smell of dead people.  But there was something upsetting about this.  This is not the smell of leftover dinner here.  No, it means something sinister and evil.  And Bran loves it.  I think Bran will go dark and become one of the villains in the story.  Many people will die because of Bran. 

The quote above has a literal meaning.  The Starks, in the form of direwolves, will come back to the ruins of Winterfell after their human deaths. 

I see dark paths and dark endings for Jon, Arya, and Bran. 

 

That passage is the foreshadowing of Bran Stark becoming corrupted by his considerable abilities.  He lost his legs and much of life's pleasures are no longer available to him.  He will fall easily into despair.  It won't be long after that and he will turn to the darkness.

[Skahaz mo Kandaq]

On 9/18/2020 at 4:24 AM, TheLastWolf said:

A stubborn, angry, mourning in grief, little boy with a wild, nearly rabid direwolf from which the boy imbibes wild qualities has little hope, I would think. I think Rickon has the least optimistic outcome. Living with wildling cannibals in Skaagos for so long (of his childhood life) ain't gonna improve his temperament.

http://www.asoiaf-theories.com/rickon-stark-theory-skagos/

  Reveal hidden contents

As noted above, the short theory posits that if Rickon is ever to rise to a prominent leadership position, he would be a “terrible and possibly cruel ruler.”

  Reveal hidden contents

So anyway, I'll give you another stark who is more liable to be a psycho now. 

You guessed right. It's Rickon. He was already half mad with his aptly named wild Direwolf Shaggydog due to sorrow, grief, stubbornness, refusal to accept loss mean, among a hundred other reasons. His actions in AGoT and ACOK are proof enough. Especially the crypt and God's wood incidents.

Now he is unlikely to have become more friendly with Osha and the Wildlings for so long a time. The Wildlings are also not normal ones, cannibal Skagosi. There u go, you have a potential stark psycho. Hate him,

 

What a surprise!

A dream of Spring was originally titled "A TIME FOR WOLVES" You stark haters (no offence, only this time) can't have all of 'em dead.

 

Rickon's future will depend on his handlers.  He will be old enough to soon have his own agency but their influence could swing him towards the light or the dark.  His chances are better because the older kids like Arya and Jon have already done really bad things. 

[James West]

@Tyrion1991  George did not go out of his way to make the Starks awesome.  He created polarizing characters.  Gray people.  Just like every single main character.  Jon, Arya, Sansa, and Catelyn are very awful people.  Jon, Robb,  and Catelyn are partially responsible for the mess that Westeros is in right now.  Jon, Arya, Sansa, and Robb are shitheads.

George did not go out of his way to demonize the Targaryen.  That is not what he is trying to do.  Never has been.  I'm not attacking you Tyrion1991.  I just disagree with your opinions.  The Targaryens are the "first family", the main family, in the story.  All of the backstories are almost all about the Targaryens.  From the Dunk-Egg tales, the Rogue Prince, the Dance of the Dragons, Fire and Blood, World of Ice and Fire.  The evidence is there that they are the most important family in the story.  It is your own desperate spin to paint them as the villains.  

[SeanF]

On 9/26/2020 at 10:26 PM, Tyrion1991 said:

 

George is not being subtle. You’re reading into the text looking for it to be grim dark and morally grey. Assuming nuance and complexity and seeing it everywhere. Oh, the Freys had some passable motivation for the Red Wedding which must mean George wants to cast a shadow over Robs cause. I really don’t buy this. The rest are basically foibles and part of the tragedy of their house.

The Starks are depicted as innocent victims of external aggression. They are given a moral blank cheque by George via Northern nationalism. He goes out of of his way to separate the Starks from any negative consequences (Bolton’s and Karstarks do bad things before backstabbing the Starks) and obscures their involvement. 

Contrast this to the conga line of characters who accuse Dany of being insane to her face. Lecture her on her motivations. Not one character criticises Rob Stark for his one war which implicitly devastated the Riverlands. Yet one village where Dany objects to the whole enterprise is considered to be a big deal? That’s not the writer showing nuance, that’s a double standard. 

Entire chapters and entire novels dedicated towards how her family were bad news for Westeros and evil. How every Targaryen was a repugnant genocidal monster because of their weak blood. Whilst the Starks are depicted as these proud Kings of Winter who have never known defeat and can endure the harshest Winter. You’d never have the Stark equivalent of The Mad King or Maegor. George is not being subtle here. The Starks are given favourable treatment in the story. 

 I recently watched some reviewer of Dune make the point about the main character initially being set up as the hero in book one. But then by book two of the trilogy he’s slowly revealed to be not all he was cracked up to be. Well, we’re on the penultimate book in a monster seven novel series. George would have to have left it extremely late in the day for this dark turn by the Starks. Dany, he’s been saying she’s a monster and insane since the first novel. People didn’t expect it because it’s a stupid and pointless direction to take the character. Thank God there’s no such thing as weak Targaryen incest blood in the real world. A normal person would never make those mistakes. But if that was his intent to subvert the hero trope with the Starks he would have to have left a clear trail. Have a character start doubting the motivations of the Starks. Question why they are doing what they are doing. This has not happened. 

 

 

I'm reading a different tale.  Time and again, we get characters reacting to the atrocities committed by the Northmen during the War of the Five Kings (of course, they are not the only ones who commit atrocities).  Arya herself is very disturbed to learn that her grandfather put a village to the sword.  The BWB (a mostly sympathetic group) take the view there's no difference between Northern soldiers and Lannisters. The rape of Pretty Pia and the hanging of women "who lay with lions" are presented as disgusting.  We can contrast Edmure saying "they're my people" with Catelyn describing them as "useless mouths."  The Starks are not portrayed as paragons of virtue, however much sympathy we may have with their plight.

The people who call out Daenerys are either mostly obvious shitheads, like Xaro Xhoan Doxas, or the Customs officer at Selhorys, and other slavers,  or misinformed, like Princess Arianne.  There is only one who is at all sympathetic, Mirri Maz Duur.

Aegon and his sisters are generally admired as good rulers by people in the story.  Some of the Smallfolk even have good words for Aerys II. The spin-off books portray a lot of the Targaryens sympathetically.

Martin has not written a tale in which the Starks are Gryffindor and the Targaryens are Slytherin. 

[Texas Hold Em]

On 9/14/2020 at 10:45 PM, Allardyce said:

Don't be afraid, I like it in the dark.  No one can see you, but you can see them.

That is very creepy.  Arya still takes the top prize for creepiness.  Jon might pass her when he comes back an angry wight.

[Tyrion1991]

11 hours ago, SeanF said:

I'm reading a different tale.  Time and again, we get characters reacting to the atrocities committed by the Northmen during the War of the Five Kings (of course, they are not the only ones who commit atrocities).  Arya herself is very disturbed to learn that her grandfather put a village to the sword.  The BWB (a mostly sympathetic group) take the view there's no difference between Northern soldiers and Lannisters. The rape of Pretty Pia and the hanging of women "who lay with lions" are presented as disgusting.  We can contrast Edmure saying "they're my people" with Catelyn describing them as "useless mouths."  The Starks are not portrayed as paragons of virtue, however much sympathy we may have with their plight.

The people who call out Daenerys are either mostly obvious shitheads, like Xaro Xhoan Doxas, or the Customs officer at Selhorys, and other slavers,  or misinformed, like Princess Arianne.  There is only one who is at all sympathetic, Mirri Maz Duur.

Aegon and his sisters are generally admired as good rulers by people in the story.  Some of the Smallfolk even have good words for Aerys II. The spin-off books portray a lot of the Targaryens sympathetically.

Martin has not written a tale in which the Starks are Gryffindor and the Targaryens are Slytherin. 

 

Northmen does not mean Starks. It’s left unclear how involved Rob is in issuing commands and his responsibility is left unaddressed. I never saw a Riverland peasant call Rob Stark out for bringing ruin on them. Plus, it’s mostly Bolton’s, Freys and Karstarks who turn out to be villains all along; essentially exonerating Rob. 

Her grandfather who she never knew, not father. By making it a character who is a non entity about which we know next to nothing beyond the Mad King killed him it makes this revelation toothless. Also it’s sanitised by not going into the same lurid detail George goes to when he’s counting how many entrails fell out of the crucified slavers in Meereen. 

The BWB opinion means little since they are depicted as worshipping the evil demonic religion. This signals the reader to question their bias with regard to it and clouds such an assertion about atrocities committed by Aryas family.

Presented as a group of rogue soldiers not acting under a higher authority. You don’t have the insinuation made that this is a direct consequence of Rob Starks war. He is in the wrong for pursuing this war out of his families pride. Plus, given that Rob executes Karstark for killing prisoners that’s done to signal to the reader that this is being done behind his back. At best we re talking incompetence here. 

Cat has an opinion that Edmure is being naive. That’s a criticism of Edmure, not Cat. George is actually giving Cats pragmatism a fair hearing.

Finally we’re talking about a non POV character in Rob Stark. Which means every Stark character has the defence that they’re an innocent flower in all of this. 

The difference with Dany is that we’re not talking inference and innuendo. We’re talking entire chapters that amount to a critique of her character. We’re not having to pick apart bits and pieces. You’re being told by the writer to question what this character is doing at every turn. 

Doxos is given a weighty chapter in which he manages to wrong foot Dany and leave the character speechless. That’s done to show that Dany is ignorant and blundered into the mess of Mereen. It doesn’t really matter if he’s a slimy dude and his arguments self serving. By having the character so wrong footed it’s being done to sow doubt in the readers mind. 

Considering Dany isn’t even on the same continent as most of the characters it’s perplexing that there has been so much of it. Arriane is actually one of the first Westerosi POV to hold an opinion on Dany   and it turns out to be highly negative. Davos and Sam were just indifferent for the most part but then she’s a very distant character about which they know next to nothing.

Plus it’s not just other characters criticising Dany. You have her criticising herself. Other characters in Westeros like Jamie, Ned and Robert going on about how bad the Targaryens are. Having full accounts of how high the bodies were outside of Mereens gates and all the violence resulting from Danys conquests. There just isn’t a comparison to be made here. Rob and the Stark characters are never so strongly or harshly criticised for what they are doing. I am not seeing this deep meta criticism of House Stark.  

You mean that little segment in Danys first book where George decides to set up this martyr to talk truth to power? This is the subtlety of a bulldozer. 

George having the Smallfolk hold positive views of the Targaryens is just him showing how fickle the mob is. It’s a grass is always greener attitude. The fact that they think the Mad King has his good points is more to do with how bad things are. They also quite liked Robert. So I think George isn’t making the point that the smallfolk like the Targaryens. He’s saying how ignorant they are.

The spin off books have a handful of passable Targaryens that are set against a gaggle of cravens, madmen and megalomaniacs. Set against a family that has never had any of its House go insane, or drink magic juice to try and turn into a Direwolf, or went on ill advised trips to Valyria that got them killed. You would never have a Stark character, or ancestor, depicted as a fool or weak. One house is being shown to be strong and the other flawed and weak.

Thats kind of unfair on Harry Potter. The lines are much more sharply drawn between the Starks and Targaryens.

 

[Tyrion1991]

12 hours ago, James West said:

@Tyrion1991  George did not go out of his way to make the Starks awesome.  He created polarizing characters.  Gray people.  Just like every single main character.  Jon, Arya, Sansa, and Catelyn are very awful people.  Jon, Robb,  and Catelyn are partially responsible for the mess that Westeros is in right now.  Jon, Arya, Sansa, and Robb are shitheads.

George did not go out of his way to demonize the Targaryen.  That is not what he is trying to do.  Never has been.  I'm not attacking you Tyrion1991.  I just disagree with your opinions.  The Targaryens are the "first family", the main family, in the story.  All of the backstories are almost all about the Targaryens.  From the Dunk-Egg tales, the Rogue Prince, the Dance of the Dragons, Fire and Blood, World of Ice and Fire.  The evidence is there that they are the most important family in the story.  It is your own desperate spin to paint them as the villains.  

 

The Starks are the first family. A large chunk of the POV are Starks and most have some connection to the initial meeting at Winterfell. Dany is the outsider character. 

Being stupid enough to trust Littlefinger and Cersei is a character flaw; not proof that these are morally grey characters. 

Partially, as opposed to Dany who is depicted as entirely responsible. That question mark is non existent with the character. 

Thats your opinion that the Starks are bad. It’s not the authors intent to write them as dislikable. 

Hes a satirist and it’s easier to write that material with a crazy incest family rather than the stoic, duty-bound and humble Starks. A history of the Starks would just be a catalogue of a series of clones carved from ice that are destined to invariably conquer the North or sit in Winterfell brooding. He writes about the Targaryens so much because he wants to criticise them and what they represent. It’s not so he can stress their importance to the narrative. He doesn’t write about the Starks so much in the external books because there’s nothing to criticise or comment on. 

[TheLastWolf]

14 hours ago, SeanF said:

Martin has not written a tale in which the Starks are Gryffindor and the Targaryens are Slytherin

Slytherin isn't bad necessarily, nor is Gryffindor good necessarily. We have had good witches and wizards from Slytherin and bad ones from Gryffindor. 

[SeanF]

9 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

Northmen does not mean Starks. It’s left unclear how involved Rob is in issuing commands and his responsibility is left unaddressed. I never saw a Riverland peasant call Rob Stark out for bringing ruin on them. Plus, it’s mostly Bolton’s, Freys and Karstarks who turn out to be villains all along; essentially exonerating Rob. 

Her grandfather who she never knew, not father. By making it a character who is a non entity about which we know next to nothing beyond the Mad King killed him it makes this revelation toothless. Also it’s sanitised by not going into the same lurid detail George goes to when he’s counting how many entrails fell out of the crucified slavers in Meereen. 

The BWB opinion means little since they are depicted as worshipping the evil demonic religion. This signals the reader to question their bias with regard to it and clouds such an assertion about atrocities committed by Aryas family.

Presented as a group of rogue soldiers not acting under a higher authority. You don’t have the insinuation made that this is a direct consequence of Rob Starks war. He is in the wrong for pursuing this war out of his families pride. Plus, given that Rob executes Karstark for killing prisoners that’s done to signal to the reader that this is being done behind his back. At best we re talking incompetence here. 

Cat has an opinion that Edmure is being naive. That’s a criticism of Edmure, not Cat. George is actually giving Cats pragmatism a fair hearing.

Finally we’re talking about a non POV character in Rob Stark. Which means every Stark character has the defence that they’re an innocent flower in all of this. 

The difference with Dany is that we’re not talking inference and innuendo. We’re talking entire chapters that amount to a critique of her character. We’re not having to pick apart bits and pieces. You’re being told by the writer to question what this character is doing at every turn. 

Doxos is given a weighty chapter in which he manages to wrong foot Dany and leave the character speechless. That’s done to show that Dany is ignorant and blundered into the mess of Mereen. It doesn’t really matter if he’s a slimy dude and his arguments self serving. By having the character so wrong footed it’s being done to sow doubt in the readers mind. 

Considering Dany isn’t even on the same continent as most of the characters it’s perplexing that there has been so much of it. Arriane is actually one of the first Westerosi POV to hold an opinion on Dany   and it turns out to be highly negative. Davos and Sam were just indifferent for the most part but then she’s a very distant character about which they know next to nothing.

Plus it’s not just other characters criticising Dany. You have her criticising herself. Other characters in Westeros like Jamie, Ned and Robert going on about how bad the Targaryens are. Having full accounts of how high the bodies were outside of Mereens gates and all the violence resulting from Danys conquests. There just isn’t a comparison to be made here. Rob and the Stark characters are never so strongly or harshly criticised for what they are doing. I am not seeing this deep meta criticism of House Stark.  

You mean that little segment in Danys first book where George decides to set up this martyr to talk truth to power? This is the subtlety of a bulldozer. 

George having the Smallfolk hold positive views of the Targaryens is just him showing how fickle the mob is. It’s a grass is always greener attitude. The fact that they think the Mad King has his good points is more to do with how bad things are. They also quite liked Robert. So I think George isn’t making the point that the smallfolk like the Targaryens. He’s saying how ignorant they are.

The spin off books have a handful of passable Targaryens that are set against a gaggle of cravens, madmen and megalomaniacs. Set against a family that has never had any of its House go insane, or drink magic juice to try and turn into a Direwolf, or went on ill advised trips to Valyria that got them killed. You would never have a Stark character, or ancestor, depicted as a fool or weak. One house is being shown to be strong and the other flawed and weak.

Thats kind of unfair on Harry Potter. The lines are much more sharply drawn between the Starks and Targaryens.

 

Robb holds command responsibility for the actions of his deputies.  None of them is punished for injuring civilians.   The atrocities they commit are done quite openly, not in secret.  It's easy to think of this violence as "the norm" but one ought not.  I don't think the author would lay stress on the horrors inflicted by the flower of chivalry, unless he had a point to make.  I think most readers would find it easier to justify the treatment of the slave masters than they would the treatment of Pretty Pia or women "who lay with lions."

Nor do I think one can conclude other than that Robb's attempt to carve out an independent kingdom was a complete disaster;  for himself, his family, his soldiers, and for thousands of civilians.  "The King in the North" is a fist-pumping moment, but completely undercut by subsequent actions.  Catelyn's opposition to the whole enterprise proved to be entirely vindicated. She critiques the whole enterprise, throughout. Robb's army is one of the five dwarfs that Daenerys sees mauling the woman in the House of the Undying.

Daenerys' self-criticism is a point in her favour, not against her.  Her opponents in Slavers Bay are portrayed less sympathetically than orcs.  Martin has not written an apologia for slavery. Xaro is not his literary alter ego.

Edit:  For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not writing this to bash Robb Stark, who is sympathetic, but to refute the view that Martin is whitewashing him.

[SeanF]

8 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

The Starks are the first family. A large chunk of the POV are Starks and most have some connection to the initial meeting at Winterfell. Dany is the outsider character. 

Being stupid enough to trust Littlefinger and Cersei is a character flaw; not proof that these are morally grey characters. 

Partially, as opposed to Dany who is depicted as entirely responsible. That question mark is non existent with the character. 

Thats your opinion that the Starks are bad. It’s not the authors intent to write them as dislikable. 

Hes a satirist and it’s easier to write that material with a crazy incest family rather than the stoic, duty-bound and humble Starks. A history of the Starks would just be a catalogue of a series of clones carved from ice that are destined to invariably conquer the North or sit in Winterfell brooding. He writes about the Targaryens so much because he wants to criticise them and what they represent. It’s not so he can stress their importance to the narrative. He doesn’t write about the Starks so much in the external books because there’s nothing to criticise or comment on. 

What you're doing is assuming that every Stark was like Ned.  They were not.  There were some horrible Starks throughout history.

Martin writes extensively about the Targaryens because he is very fond of (most of) them.  He even gave Jaehaerys I his own birthday.

[TheLastWolf]

5 hours ago, SeanF said:

There were some horrible Starks throughout history.

Not since AGoT. And no lists about Jon, Arya, Sansa, Bran, Rickon, Robb, Ned, Cat and all the North being worse than kind Ramsey and poor Walder Frey from Stark haters please. We all know you guys love Dany so much. No need to prove it by bashing Starks for the millionth time. 

[SeanF]

4 minutes ago, TheLastWolf said:

Not since AGoT. And no lists about Jon, Arya, Sansa, Bran, Rickon, Robb, Ned, Cat and all the North being worse than kind Ramsey and poor Walder Frey from Stark haters please. We all know you guys love Dany so much. No need to prove it by bashing Starks for the millionth time. 

You're confusing me with some other poster. I shall feel nothing but delight when Ramsay and Walder Frey get what is coming to them.