Jump to content

What would be your red line for the Stark characters?


Tyrion1991

Recommended Posts

What would be the behaviour or action that would meet the threshold where you would dislike the character? A red line where, if they did that, it would be too far and they would be irredeemable?

For example, some people say that this moment was the way Dany behaved regarding Mirri Maz Duur. That sort of thing. After that, there was no possibility of rooting for her as a character.

My list would be:

Bran - Id say he’s already crossed that line when he warged Hodor like a piece of meat. He can tell himself whatever junk he wants, Bran is a freak and a monster. I don’t think George himself thought this would be a red line for many people. So I am guessing it’s going to get a lot worse with this guy.

Arya - If Arya, upon learning her warg joy rides where she’s enjoying hunting and eating innocent peasants; does not cut it out immediately. It’s sick and twisted but right now she has the excuse of ignorance. If she continues with it then, well, she’s a monster. Even if George is playing down how bad this actually is.

Sansa - If she helps kill Sweetrobin. Being annoying is a shallow and pathetic reason to murder somebody. A cousin and a small child to boot. It would be self serving, ignorant and again, she could dress that up as her putting the boy out of his misery and  all the usual lip service humility that people buy into; but it would be her lying to herself. 

Jon - If he returns and leads a wildling host south. Without any regard for the pillage, sacking, rape, desolation and ruin this would certainly bring upon the North he ostensibly cares about. I firmly expect George to hand wave these issues or go out of his way to depict those who oppose the Starks as evil snarky people who have brought this just wrath upon themselves. Like sweet robin, make them annoying and dirty people who deserve to die at the hands of virtuous Starks. However, this would be the moment where I’d think that he’s just another Warlord who’s going to trample anyone to get what he wants. If his Mirri doesn’t show up to ruin his life that’d be very hypocritical of George.

Rickon - If he turns out to have become a feral cannibal who enjoys eating human flesh. That’s, just not an okay thing to do.

 

I think even if they did all of the above, a lot of people would still carry on backing these characters to the end. People seem to really buy into the Starks as these humble, stoic, undemanding, folk who’ve been wronged and supposedly have compassion for their fellow humans. I think the novels are repeatedly telling you to admire these traits so it’s not surprising. I just don’t see how you can still claim to be those things if you’re hunting peasants for fun or mind controlling them like beasts. Considering George keeps saying words are wind he sure seems to want us to take these Starks at their word and not interrogate anything they do. Just because you don’t lie and don’t like wearing jewels doesn’t make you a good person.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would be your red line for the Stark characters?

Many of us here already do not like Jon, Arya, and Sansa.  So that threshold for them has been passed for me.  I was never drawn to Jon and Arya.  I never liked them.  I never rooted for them.  Sansa was annoying from the start.  My dislike for them grew as the story progressed.  

Rickon, I suppose if he were to resist the unification of Westeros under Targaryen rule.  Same for Bran. 

I support another family, House Targaryen, under the rule of Queen Daenerys.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Quoth the raven, said:

What would be your red line for the Stark characters?

Many of us here already do not like Jon, Arya, and Sansa.  So that threshold for them has been passed for me.  I was never drawn to Jon and Arya.  I never liked them.  I never rooted for them.  Sansa was annoying from the start.  My dislike for them grew as the story progressed.  

Rickon, I suppose if he were to resist the unification of Westeros under Targaryen rule.  Same for Bran. 

I support another family, House Targaryen, under the rule of Queen Daenerys.  

 

Thats not a common view. For most people the Starks are the story. Hence why there are so many theories that involve them. 

I might not like the Starks, indeed after the show I despise them, but that’s clearly not George’s intent. I think he wants us to like them the same way he thought Darkstar would be a cool character. Which is why he based them in Norse mythology, plays on the whole stoicism, virtue, humility when set against the corruption of the city. I mean he starts the story by giving them all puppies and having an idealised family. Again, he’s not a subtle man. He knows his target audience and what they buy into.

Contrast this to Dany:

- She’s not humble 

- She’s hot blooded 

- She wants power and her birthright

George repeatedly tells us that these are bad things. Even the opening chapter has an arrogant noble in the Nights Watch get everyone killed because he’s hot blooded. I’d disagree and think these are inoffensive traits; but not to the author. To him these are the source of all human folly. The fact he gave those traits to Dany and then frames them so negatively means it not surprising Dany is such a divisive character. Readers are being led to think this way by the author. Whereas he tells you the Starks are everything good in the world. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, the Starks are already in a very gray area. If the book didn't present them as the protagonists and told the story from another point of view, I don't think they'd be so popular. 

Arya is in a very dangerous place with as comfortable as she's getting around violence. While she hasn't lost her ability to show empathy towards other people, she's on a very dark and disturbing path right now.

Bran is on a very slippery slope morally with warging into Hodor the way he is. It's understandable being he's a crippled boy who just wants to walk, but that's a line that shouldn't be crossed taking someone's mind and free will away from them.

Sansa's follies are probably the most irritating on a personal level, but forgivable from a human standpoint given she was young and didn't know better with her infatuation with Joffrey and informing on her family to Cersei. Though it remains to be seen how deep Littlefinger's claws are dug into her and if he brings out the worst in her.

Jon's a decent guy who tries to do the right thing. Though he suffers from the same brand of blind stubbornness that was Robb's downfall. He's probably the most on the most stable ground morally of all of the Starks(assuming he lives). I don't consider him violating his NW vows to be a big deal. It's a band of criminal conscripts that he joined under false pretenses and the sooner Jon breaks with them the better as far as I'm concerned. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's actually a really interesting question.  Didn't I loathe Jamie Lannister once?  Didn't I find Robert amusing once?  Didn't I shake my head and wonder what the point of Lysa Arryn was once?  And those horrors manning the Wall.  ASOIAF does a good job changing my mind.   I felt so horrible for Theon on 1st read, after I was glad he was suffering at first.  Like many, I thought a lot of the non POV characters dull.  With that metamorphosis in mind I doubt there is anything GRRM can write for these characters that I would hate or turn away from.  He's got great power in the light he chooses to illuminate characters or histories or plots.  While I dread any character ending up with any other character romantically, I have no doubt Martin would end up making me like it or see the purpose in it.  Then there is this place, our book club, where I can read endless ideas and impressions.  My experience hasn't been of a single isolated reader, but a part of a community that really appreciates this tale.  I would read someone say how stupid it was for Jon and Arya to marry and think I i agree, but see exactly how it served their stories.   Please, George, don't make me read that.   There are hitches that could arise in any story.  There have been a hundred possible outcomes discussed here and elsewhere.  I think some of us have become grey readers, that is maybe stowing or checking some expectation outside of the actual words.  Of course I want to know how all the characters and plots end and I don't expect to like all of it, but I do expect it will all make sense.  It's not like we haven't all read the Red Wedding.  We remain enchanted.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

What would be the behaviour or action that would meet the threshold where you would dislike the character?

You sure have spent a lot of energy on your hatred of an imaginary family over the years! You do know GRRM wrote the story around them, right? 

Clearly you are calling the kettle black with your support of Tyrion (and the Lannisters). 

7 hours ago, Lord Lannister said:

If the book didn't present them as the protagonists and told the story from another point of view, I don't think they'd be so popular

Thank you for your reason Lord Lannister. 

1991 is a hate monger whom you cannot reason with. Every character has their place in GRRMs story. Enjoy it 1991 or don't, but know many see thru your irrational interpretation of GRRMs story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say this to @the Other Wolf  The story is not built around the Starks.  Yes, they collectively have the most chapters but that only means the story is partly seen through their perspective.  Not that they are right or they are the absolute protagonists.  They are neither of those.  They are the protagonist in their own eyes. Not so to Barbrey Dustin and other people. 

Look at all the materials released and the family who has the most pages dedicated to them are the Targaryens.  Imagine that, a family with only one member getting all of the attention.  D&E tales, WoIaF, Rogue Prince.  This series is mostly about the Targaryens.  What other family is given this much history and backstory?  Only the Targaryens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

What would be the behaviour or action that would meet the threshold where you would dislike the character? A red line where, if they did that, it would be too far and they would be irredeemable?

Bran and Arya are already awful, because of warging Hodor and all the killing. 

Sansa had one some things I don't like, and likely would do more, but she's being manipulated and has close to no idea what she's doing, pretty easy to redeem.

Jon sotry doesn't seem to point at him doing anything so bad, so there's nothing to say, oc if he murders an innocent, rapes someone, tortures someone, etc I wouldn't like him, butthat's just for anyone.

Even so, given Jaime, I find it hard to think of characters as iredeemable. Tyrion is a massive asshole right now, but he seems to be in the same emotional place Jaime was in AGOT (succcessfully saved everyone in KL and got nothing but hate), so he might be redeemed. Short of characters like Ramsay, everyone can be redeemed.

 

Quote

I firmly expect George to hand wave these issues or go out of his way to depict those who oppose the Starks as evil snarky people who have brought this just wrath upon themselves. Like sweet robin, make them annoying and dirty people who deserve to die at the hands of virtuous Starks. 

Have you been reading this books?

 

Quote

Rickon - If he turns out to have become a feral cannibal who enjoys eating human flesh. That’s, just not an okay thing to do.

Take a like dude, you made me laugh out loud.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The red line is difficult for me and I agree with the position of Tyrion1991. The first thing that comes to mind is of course Jamie. He’s an entitled, arrogant, prick and laughs off trying to kill a child. A definite red line. Next the charming prick starts to crawl back the other way over said line. You can see the path most of these characters are walking. Most are still juveniles. Some of them have expressed a moral line while others haven’t even thought about their actions effect on people. Actions without thought of effect on people cannot be seen in a POV. Some readers will be just as ignorant or blind as the characters themselves. So if the characters don’t realize the horror and pain they are inflicting, should we withhold judgment until they do?
    Self defense and self preservation hard to judge...( never agreed with ASoIaF being a morally grey story. There’s a literal line with black versus white. :D )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Quoth the raven, said:

Rickon, I suppose if he were to resist the unification of Westeros under Targaryen rule.  Same for Bran. 

I like the idea of unity as much as everyone (and I think we should start making something like it for our planet) and never could see why the Northern independence was framed as a good thing in the books, but then I thought about another thing, TSK is not an alliance of seven kingdoms governing themselves, it was a conquest a colonization, so unity should be preseverd, but it being under Targaryan rule would not be it, it would be just colonization and that's... bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

Bran and Arya are already awful, because of warging Hodor and all the killing. 

Sansa had one some things I don't like, and likely would do more, but she's being manipulated and has close to no idea what she's doing, pretty easy to redeem.

Jon sotry doesn't seem to point at him doing anything so bad, so there's nothing to say, oc if he murders an innocent, rapes someone, tortures someone, etc I wouldn't like him, butthat's just for anyone.

Even so, given Jaime, I find it hard to think of characters as iredeemable. Tyrion is a massive asshole right now, but he seems to be in the same emotional place Jaime was in AGOT (succcessfully saved everyone in KL and got nothing but hate), so he might be redeemed. Short of characters like Ramsay, everyone can be redeemed.

 

Have you been reading this books?

 

Take a like dude, you made me laugh out loud.

 

 

 

Not for a few years. I’ll probably reread them once Winds is announced. If, Winds is announced. 

I mean going into the series people kept telling me “morally grey story”, “I didn’t know who to root for” and “nobodies safe”. I just think that’s incredibly exaggerated. There’s still a very clear cut divide and even if the Starks did go off the rails; their opposition are so bad that I just don’t see any moral ambivalence. Even when there is, George frames it in such a way to distance the Starks from the crime of sanitise it to be palpable.

I also just find it weird how Dany is slammed for so many things she might do by the readers when the Starks get a pass on everything. It’s just hypocritical. Either you hold them to the same standard or you don’t. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

I mean going into the series people kept telling me “morally grey story”, “I didn’t know who to root for” and “nobodies safe”. I just think that’s incredibly exaggerated. There’s still a very clear cut divide and even if the Starks did go off the rails; their opposition are so bad that I just don’t see any moral ambivalence. Even when there is, George frames it in such a way to distance the Starks from the crime of sanitise it to be palpable.

Given how the story's main message is "war bad" and how there are many sides for everything I doubt GRRM would make war glorious and frame people being killed by war as villains.

 

Quote

I also just find it weird how Dany is slammed for so many things she might do by the readers when the Starks get a pass on everything. It’s just hypocritical. Either you hold them to the same standard or you don’t. 

With this I agree wholeheartedly. People often claim Dany got everything handed to her, but Jon's case is much much worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

Not for a few years. I’ll probably reread them once Winds is announced. If, Winds is announced. 

I mean going into the series people kept telling me “morally grey story”, “I didn’t know who to root for” and “nobodies safe”. I just think that’s incredibly exaggerated. There’s still a very clear cut divide and even if the Starks did go off the rails; their opposition are so bad that I just don’t see any moral ambivalence. Even when there is, George frames it in such a way to distance the Starks from the crime of sanitise it to be palpable.

I also just find it weird how Dany is slammed for so many things she might do by the readers when the Starks get a pass on everything. It’s just hypocritical. Either you hold them to the same standard or you don’t. 

 

 

 

 

Well the Starks are idiots so that's something to root against for them. Look at Ned and Catelyn's decision to trust Littlefinger. I mean, what person with common sense would trust a man who lusted after my wife and would inevitably use the situation to bump me off?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

Given how the story's main message is "war bad" and how there are many sides for everything I doubt GRRM would make war glorious and frame people being killed by war as villains.

 

With this I agree wholeheartedly. People often claim Dany got everything handed to her, but Jon's case is much much worse.

 

I never really felt that. To me, a morally grey story is one where the writer is depicting a conflict in which one side isn’t held up as morally superior. So the Starks are good because they’re these virtuous, humble, warrior lords set against the corrupt and decadent Lannister’s. There depth perhaps but only one side has twins banging each other. You can only have so much nuance when you’re contrasting them that sharply. 

To be fair. None of the Stark POV are leading and directing this war. Rob wasn’t a POV and his involvement in atrocities committed by his army is left too vague. No Mirri for him. The theory goes that once they do get power; that George will have to make the Starks do morally iffy things. Then you’ll have a grey story. But that’ll be very late in the day and we don’t have that right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

At least Jon grew up with a mostly loving family. Dany had nobody except Viserys.

Exactly! And Dany did got the dragons as a gift, but all of the rest is a result of her actions! Jon got named LC because he was Benjen's nephew and Ned's son.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tyrion1991 said:

I never really felt that. To me, a morally grey story is one where the writer is depicting a conflict in which one side isn’t held up as morally superior. So the Starks are good because they’re these virtuous, humble, warrior lords set against the corrupt and decadent Lannister’s. There depth perhaps but only one side has twins banging each other. You can only have so much nuance when you’re contrasting them that sharply. 

But that's not the story, we have good people in the Lannister side as well as bad people in the Stark side, never has GRRM framed an entire side as completely evil. And he only portrays war as necessary when it's really fucking necessary. The Starks are mostly good and the Lannisters are mostly bad, yet once we get in their heads we start to empathize with them. And a big part of the books is portraying soldiers in general as evil (not the men, but the soldier).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...