Jump to content

Your Opinions 3: Is GRRM a "bad writer?"


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

but one strange thing is that there is no abolition movement before Dany.

We don't know the history of all of Essos across all of time, so I don't think that's something we can say. There's no abolition movement now within the areas that we see at the time we see them, but who knows what's going on elsewhere and at other points? 

And I think you can't really discount Braavos as explicitly anti-slavery, just because it was founded in the distant past by former slaves.

Abolitionism is a relatively modern thing. The ancient and even medieval world largely did not have explicitly anti-slavery or abolitionist ideas. You might come across a heterodox sect here and there that espoused the idea, but not to the degree that they actually acted against slavery. Mostly it was in the realm of philosophers and theologians where you saw the idea, and again, they didn't exactly create a movement.

Edited by Ran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does someone knows whether Jaime actually commanded something prior the war of the 5 kings? Jaime and Cat were all Jaime is a great Commander and so charismatic that he makes people want to die for him... but he's never mentioned in any campaign outside of the Kingswood Brotherhood and in there he sounds like he had Podrick Payne's role not Robb's or Daeron I.

Overall it seems weird that these men are so hyped when most of them lived in relative peace. But it sounds like they went through the Hundred Years War.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, frenin said:

Does someone knows whether Jaime actually commanded something prior the war of the 5 kings? Jaime and Cat were all Jaime is a great Commander and so charismatic that he makes people want to die for him... but he's never mentioned in any campaign outside of the Kingswood Brotherhood and in there he sounds like he had Podrick Payne's role not Robb's or Daeron I.

Overall it seems weird that these men are so hyped when most of them lived in relative peace. But it sounds like they went through the Hundred Years War.

Probably during the Greyjoy Rebellion.

31 minutes ago, Ran said:

We don't know the history of all of Essos across all of time, so I don't think that's something we can say. There's no abolition movement now within the areas that we see at the time we see them, but who knows what's going on elsewhere and at other points? 

And I think you can't really discount Braavos as explicitly anti-slavery, just because it was founded in the distant past by former slaves.

Abolitionism is a relatively modern thing. The ancient and even medieval world largely did not have explicitly anti-slavery or abolitionist ideas. You might come across a heterodox sect here and there that espoused the idea, but not to the degree that they actually acted against slavery. Mostly it was in the realm of philosophers and theologians where you saw the idea, and again, they didn't exactly create a movement.

The kingdoms of Westeros weren’t practicing slavery before Aegon’s invasion (with the exception of the Ironborn), which seems odd when you consider how harsh they were in other ways. So there must have been something that led them to that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Probably during the Greyjoy Rebellion.

The kingdoms of Westeros weren’t practicing slavery before Aegon’s invasion (with the exception of the Ironborn), which seems odd when you consider how harsh they were in other ways. So there must have been something that led them to that point.

Yes, that was the Andal faith that you mentioned, and we don't know the origins or anything like that. It's unclear that that was a "movement", for that matter -- could have just been a religious tenet that developed without any real pressure. We don't really know. Could be as simple as, "Other folks take their own as slaves, but the faithful who follow the Seven can never be slaves" morphing into "No slaves".

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Probably during the Greyjoy Rebellion

Thing is, no one even by accident has ever put the words Jaime and Greyjoy rebellion in the same sentence, not even by mistake, not even Jaime, who spends his time remembering about the good ol times when he was Arthur's sidekick or remembering the Golden Tooth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ran said:

We don't know the history of all of Essos across all of time, so I don't think that's something we can say. There's no abolition movement now within the areas that we see at the time we see them, but who knows what's going on elsewhere and at other points? 

And I think you can't really discount Braavos as explicitly anti-slavery, just because it was founded in the distant past by former slaves.

Abolitionism is a relatively modern thing. The ancient and even medieval world largely did not have explicitly anti-slavery or abolitionist ideas. You might come across a heterodox sect here and there that espoused the idea, but not to the degree that they actually acted against slavery. Mostly it was in the realm of philosophers and theologians where you saw the idea, and again, they didn't exactly create a movement.

Slave revolts, however, are as old as slavery.  No one wants to be a slave, even if they have not worked out a philosophical objection to it.   But quite possibly, as you say, there have been such revolts in the past, bloodily suppressed. 

Slave soldiers certainly ought to have seized power, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, frenin said:

Thing is, no one even by accident has ever put the words Jaime and Greyjoy rebellion in the same sentence, not even by mistake, not even Jaime, who spends his time remembering about the good ol times when he was Arthur's sidekick or remembering the Golden Tooth.

I think there’s probably a widespread assumption that a great warrior will be a great commander.  Both Rhaegar and Jaime disprove that belief.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Ran said:

And I think you can't really discount Braavos as explicitly anti-slavery, just because it was founded in the distant past by former slaves.

Abolitionism is a relatively modern thing. The ancient and even medieval world largely did not have explicitly anti-slavery or abolitionist ideas.

Idk, they have no slaves there and a condition of their peace with Braavos was slavery would be outlawed, that sounds pretty anti slavery.

It's my understanding that William the conqueror outlawed slavery in Angelo Saxon England, he wouldn't do that for no reason.

But for sure, England later and specifically it's colonies had slavery. And yea even in Abraham Lincolns first campaign the term abolitionist was considered a radical and a term that's sure to upset the political spectrum, which is why he astutely never mentioned it. (Outright abolition, he did campaign on curbing all future slave states)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that being a commander might be a similar situation to being a coach. The best coaches usually aren’t the best players, and the best commanders probably aren’t the best warriors. Robb and Stannis were/are both military prodigies, but neither are noted for being particularly exceptional fighters. Victarion is the better fighter, but Euron was the brains behind defeating the Lannisters during the Greyjoy Rebellion. Someone like Hound is a great warrior, but he’s a lone wolf (no pun intended) who’s better as a sworn shield than a leader—I think Blackwater was the only formal battle he fought in. With Jaime, on the other hand (again, no pun intended), his failures seem to be due to his rashness, which he’s slowly learning to shed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I think that being a commander might be a similar situation to being a coach. The best coaches usually aren’t the best players, and the best commanders probably aren’t the best warriors. Robb and Stannis were/are both military prodigies, but neither are noted for being particularly exceptional fighters. Victarion is the better fighter, but Euron was the brains behind defeating the Lannisters during the Greyjoy Rebellion. Someone like Hound is a great warrior, but he’s a lone wolf (no pun intended) who’s better as a sworn shield than a leader—I think Blackwater was the only formal battle he fought in. With Jaime, on the other hand (again, no pun intended), his failures seem to be due to his rashness, which he’s slowly learning to shed.

I agree.  Fighting skill and the ability to plan and give orders are different skill sets.  No doubt the general view is that victory goes to the boldest warriors, when in most cases, it goes to the side that ensures its men are fed, supplied, and paid on time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Idk, they have no slaves there and a condition of their peace with Braavos was slavery would be outlawed, that sounds pretty anti slavery.

Right, as I was saying.

That said, Braavos acts in a relatively limited way to express its views -- it frees wildling slaves that end up in its waters, for example, but it's not like they crusade against or go to war over it. The most notable thing it's done is force Pentos to sign a treaty "outlawing" slavery there as a result of a conflict between them, but that conflict almost certainly was not predicated on slavery but other things. And, as we see in Illyrio's manse, that has no real practical force by this point in time.

Edited by Ran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Idk, they have no slaves there and a condition of their peace with Braavos was slavery would be outlawed, that sounds pretty anti slavery.

It's my understanding that William the conqueror outlawed slavery in Angelo Saxon England, he wouldn't do that for no reason.

But for sure, England later and specifically it's colonies had slavery. And yea even in Abraham Lincolns first campaign the term abolitionist was considered a radical and a term that's sure to upset the political spectrum, which is why he astutely never mentioned it. (Outright abolition, he did campaign on curbing all future slave states)

 

The Church preached that it was a sin for Christians to enslave other Christians, so it was largely outlawed domestically in Europe by 1150. However, pagans coukd still be enslaved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

To be fair, he was the biggest case of conflict of interest ever.

Even Jamie’s so called redemption is a bit of a grey area and I find it interesting that it almost never gets brought up, that part of the reason why he killed the mad king, was to save his own ass. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, sifth said:

Even Jamie’s so called redemption is a bit of a grey area and I find it interesting that it almost never gets brought up, that part of the reason why he killed the mad king, was to save his own ass. 

He could have just left though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, sifth said:

Even Jamie’s so called redemption is a bit of a grey area and I find it interesting that it almost never gets brought up, that part of the reason why he killed the mad king, was to save his own ass. 

and his father's . so let's talk about Jaimie's character and his creator a bit:)

I've seen some posters say Jaimie's villainy in book 1 is not consistent with "good" Jaimie on his redemption road of the later books . from what I've seen, this opinion is usually goes to explain this inconsistency with George's first outline of the books in which Jaimie was the guy who kills everyone to rest his ass on the throne.  I think we should give George a lot more credit than that . I don't know when  George had the first idea for song of Ice and Fire but he published his first book three years after that outline . during which time he had enough time to change his characters and storylines . Daenerys's story is proof of that. 

back to Jaimie, I read his young version as naive , in love and with a good heart . but not specifically a great person. even in his youth he's got selfishness . in the case of killing Aerys , of course that was not a sheer act of goodness of the realm . of course he was saving his own ass and his father's. but then again who wouldn't ? the point is , although he might not have thought about saving the realm and poor people of Kings Landing like a prayer at the moment but he did slay the man he'd started seeing as a monster.  however , that is not to say Jaimie is on a redemption arc. someone who doesn't admit to harms he's done to others cannot makeup for them to find redemption. I still see Jaimie as a character with identity crisis . that could put him on a redemption road , though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Jaime had chosen to kill his father instead of Aerys, wouldn’t that have made him a worse person, not a better one? And if he was worried about saving his own skin, he could have just fled King’s Landing. There was no one there to stop him.

Once he killed the pyromancers, Jaime technically didn’t need to kill Aerys. Him doing so was likely to fulfill his own sense of justice for a man he saw  brutally torture so many innocent people, including his own wife. Jaime clearly despised his king by that point. At the same time, if Jaime had held Aerys captive and handed him over to Robert/Tywin, who’s to say he wouldn’t have met a much worse fate than a quick death?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

He could have just left though.

He didn't have time to actually leave the City. King's Landing is huge and he was in one extreme.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...