Kevan Lannister was NOT a "good man."

[The Wolves]

Of course Keven Lannister is not a good man. He is a horrible man that carried out evil against others because the head of his house said so. 
 

He deserved to die a more horrible death or be put on trial for him and his houses crimes. I’m glad he’s dead though he deserved it. When he was talking about him having a wife and children as he lay dying I rolled my eyes because I didn’t care. 

[Nathan Stark]

10 hours ago, Aldarion said:

And that is the main problem I have with the series. This whole "power goes bad" thing simply doesn't work in a medieval monarchy, much less a medieval feudal monarchy. And insistence of having basically modern people and issues in a medieval setting is one of reasons why people today have so many stupid ideas about what Middle Ages were like (for example, that monarchy is inherently tyrannical and so on).

Honestly, Tolkien did this whole "corrupting influence of power" thing far better than Martin did, and without basically massacring the historic political systems in the process.

Then we have fundamentally different views on these books. I do not read ASOIAF as historical fiction with magic, but it seems to me that you do. I do not care that much about whether these books could work in real life historical societies. It's fantasy. The story is engaging, smart, funny and action packed, and the characters are interesting, flesh and blood people. The same is all true for LoTR, of course, but it seems silly to even complain how those books have societies that just wouldn't work in reality. If I can accept fantastical cities filled with millions of immortal elves, I can accept GRRM's slightly more grounded, but still very fantastical setting. And the message these books try to present within Martin's fantasy backdrop does not make the story less interesting for me.

[Nathan Stark]

Here are my thoughts on the whole "modern vs. midieval standards" debate. I agree it's fair not to expect the characters in ASIOAF to reflect modern, liberal democratic values, and with maybe one or two exceptions in these books, I think George keeps his characters grounded within their own fictional societies. However, these books portray execution, sexual violence and other abuses directed towards women, campaigns that border on ethnic cleansing, chauvanistic expectations of men that end up harming men, in addition to cynical and corrupt politics that does nothing for ordinary people other than make their lives difficult.

All of the things I listed that these books portray were part of real world history, and continue to be a part of our world today, even in our much vaunted "liberal democracies." The US state of Alabama recently agreed to stop using lethal injection as a method of execution after they botched three executions in a row. As recently as 1977, France was still using the guillotine as a method of execution. Violence against women, or even just casual misogyny, is still very prevelant. Men and boys still often behave in ways that directly threaten their own wellbeing out of a misplaced desire to "prove their masculinity." 

I think it is safe to say that "modern standards" of behavior are hardly any better than what is depicted in ASOIAF. We moderns have access to more and better information than midieval era people had, yet we still treat each other and ourselves as horribly as people did 1,000 years ago. By the same token, the actual middle ages had some of the finest architecture and the most moving art, timeless literature and tales of courage, valor and honor. People are people, and human nature doesn't change as much as we might like to think. Maybe instead of holding George's characters to some nonexistent "modern" standard to determine their goodness, we should judge them by their actions as people?

[Alden Rothack]

7 hours ago, SeanF said:

Even if monarchy is prone to tyranny, it’s better to serve one tyrant than to have to serve multiple tyrants, when aristocrats vie with each other for power.

they do that anyway, it just doesn't matter because they can't reach the high level

[Alden Rothack]

8 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Precisely. ASoIaF is basically a modern society overlaid with a bunch of misconceptions that today's people have about the medieval society.

Basically yes, theres enough there to show that like the worldbuilding in general Martin meant to be reasonably accurate but missed his mark (sometimes by seven hundred feet and sometimes by one hundred leagues)

his depiction of southron religiosity is one of the cases where he misses it by one hundred leagues, the execution of Ned Stark for example should have had a reaction similiar to the Freys breaking guest right (the show only events even more so)

[Aldarion]

5 hours ago, Nathan Stark said:

Then we have fundamentally different views on these books. I do not read ASOIAF as historical fiction with magic, but it seems to me that you do. I do not care that much about whether these books could work in real life historical societies. It's fantasy. The story is engaging, smart, funny and action packed, and the characters are interesting, flesh and blood people. The same is all true for LoTR, of course, but it seems silly to even complain how those books have societies that just wouldn't work in reality. If I can accept fantastical cities filled with millions of immortal elves, I can accept GRRM's slightly more grounded, but still very fantastical setting. And the message these books try to present within Martin's fantasy backdrop does not make the story less interesting for me.

Both LotR and ASoIaF are historical fiction with magic, if you look at their origins. Both are, after all, heavily based on real-life history, although with likewise major elements of mythology. But Tolkien handles things a bit differently from Martin:

https://fantasyview.wordpress.com/2021/09/19/what-made-tolkiens-work-so-iconic/

https://fantasyview.wordpress.com/2021/05/16/tolkiens-ideal-of-monarchy/

Essentially, to me, Lord of the Rings reads as being more fantastical, while also being more realistic and coherent than A Song of Ice and Fire.

And sure, work doesn't need to be realistic. I read ASoIaF for characters - analyzing (and complaining about) realism is just something I do for fun. Far greater problem is that Martin needs to learn how to let up on descriptions of food... and other things. If I am reading about a battle, I don't care how fancy Tywin Lannister's cape is. And sure, Tolkien tends to describe things in detail as well, but somehow his descriptions never felt clunky to me in the way that Martin's do. I am not sure why, but that is how it is.

1 hour ago, Alden Rothack said:

Basically yes, theres enough there to show that like the worldbuilding in general Martin meant to be reasonably accurate but missed his mark (sometimes by seven hundred feet and sometimes by one hundred leagues)

his depiction of southron religiosity is one of the cases where he misses it by one hundred leagues, the execution of Ned Stark for example should have had a reaction similiar to the Freys breaking guest right (the show only events even more so)

Agreed.

[Alden Rothack]

18 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Both LotR and ASoIaF are historical fiction with magic, if you look at their origins. Both are, after all, heavily based on real-life history, although with likewise major elements of mythology. But Tolkien handles things a bit differently from Martin:

https://fantasyview.wordpress.com/2021/09/19/what-made-tolkiens-work-so-iconic/

https://fantasyview.wordpress.com/2021/05/16/tolkiens-ideal-of-monarchy/

Essentially, to me, Lord of the Rings reads as being more fantastical, while also being more realistic and coherent than A Song of Ice and Fire.

And sure, work doesn't need to be realistic. I read ASoIaF for characters - analyzing (and complaining about) realism is just something I do for fun. Far greater problem is that Martin needs to learn how to let up on descriptions of food... and other things. If I am reading about a battle, I don't care how fancy Tywin Lannister's cape is. And sure, Tolkien tends to describe things in detail as well, but somehow his descriptions never felt clunky to me in the way that Martin's do. I am not sure why, but that is how it is.

 

It doesn't need to be but it works a lot better if is and saves time and effort in explaining why it is not

Martin deserves the credit for trying his best even if he misses a lot because so many do not bother

[Aldarion]

37 minutes ago, Alden Rothack said:

It doesn't need to be but it works a lot better if is and saves time and effort in explaining why it is not

Martin deserves the credit for trying his best even if he misses a lot because so many do not bother

Agreed - he certainly does. And yes, it is easier to immerse into the world that is realistic. But thing that worries me is that so many people today confuse cynicism with realism, and that can create a false impression of what Middle Ages really were like.

To give a specific example from ASoIaF: Roose and Ramsay Bolton are both inspired heavily by Vlad the Impaler. But both of them are far more shallow and far more despicable than the real person. Yes, Vlad the Impaler was a cruel man, but his cruelty was well targeted against the Turks and the boyars: common people, in fact, had very little to fear from his rule and even adored him to an extent. This is different from Roose, who does not give a crap about the commoners, and Ramsay, whose violence is completely random.

Granted, Ramsay also seems to be based on Gilles de Rais, who genuinely was a psychopath who basically murdered babies for shit and giggles. But this actually reinforces my point: Vlad the Impaler and Gilles de Rais were two completely different individuals who lived in completely different areas (Wallachia and France), different times (1428 - 1476 vs 1405 - 1440), and whose crimes were also different (Vlad Drakul's crimes were basically a strategy to protect himself and his people; most excesses such as the legend of him burning down his own city may have been invented in the court of Matthias Corvinus, who was Vlad's political opponent. Gilles de Rais' crimes will have been a product of psychopathy, if he had truly carried them out, which is also in significant doubt). But Westeros had been at peace, so neither Roose nor Ramsay have justifications for their crimes.

[Alden Rothack]

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

Agreed - he certainly does. And yes, it is easier to immerse into the world that is realistic. But thing that worries me is that so many people today confuse cynicism with realism, and that can create a false impression of what Middle Ages really were like.

To give a specific example from ASoIaF: Roose and Ramsay Bolton are both inspired heavily by Vlad the Impaler. But both of them are far more shallow and far more despicable than the real person. Yes, Vlad the Impaler was a cruel man, but his cruelty was well targeted against the Turks and the boyars: common people, in fact, had very little to fear from his rule and even adored him to an extent. This is different from Roose, who does not give a crap about the commoners, and Ramsay, whose violence is completely random.

Granted, Ramsay also seems to be based on Gilles de Rais, who genuinely was a psychopath who basically murdered babies for shit and giggles. But this actually reinforces my point: Vlad the Impaler and Gilles de Rais were two completely different individuals who lived in completely different areas (Wallachia and France), different times (1428 - 1476 vs 1405 - 1440), and whose crimes were also different (Vlad Drakul's crimes were basically a strategy to protect himself and his people; most excesses such as the legend of him burning down his own city may have been invented in the court of Matthias Corvinus, who was Vlad's political opponent. Gilles de Rais' crimes will have been a product of psychopathy, if he had truly carried them out, which is also in significant doubt). But Westeros had been at peace, so neither Roose nor Ramsay have justifications for their crimes.

Really, I never got that comparison, I would compare Vlad the Impaler to either Theon Stark for a similiar situation or Stannis for increasingly brutal measures in service of a worthy cause, Roose wasn't pushed into any of it hes just a evil shit.

Gilles de Rais like Elizabeth Bathory was probably framed by people who rightly feared de Rais wanted revenge for their sins against France and in particular the betrayl of Joan of Arc, Elizabeth Bathory was almost certainly framed by her nephew because he got to be ruler of Wallachia after she was sent into exile

Even if Gilles de Rais did kill a bunch of children which is unlikely, he did it after a war and at least one close personal friend being burned alive in the name of politics, a psychopath like Ramsey cares about nobody and nothing other than his short term needs, he kills on impulse even if its actually counterproductive to his and his families goals such as the Hornwood situation which should have resulted in Roose and Ramseys executions.

[SeanF]

10 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Agreed - he certainly does. And yes, it is easier to immerse into the world that is realistic. But thing that worries me is that so many people today confuse cynicism with realism, and that can create a false impression of what Middle Ages really were like.

To give a specific example from ASoIaF: Roose and Ramsay Bolton are both inspired heavily by Vlad the Impaler. But both of them are far more shallow and far more despicable than the real person. Yes, Vlad the Impaler was a cruel man, but his cruelty was well targeted against the Turks and the boyars: common people, in fact, had very little to fear from his rule and even adored him to an extent. This is different from Roose, who does not give a crap about the commoners, and Ramsay, whose violence is completely random.

Granted, Ramsay also seems to be based on Gilles de Rais, who genuinely was a psychopath who basically murdered babies for shit and giggles. But this actually reinforces my point: Vlad the Impaler and Gilles de Rais were two completely different individuals who lived in completely different areas (Wallachia and France), different times (1428 - 1476 vs 1405 - 1440), and whose crimes were also different (Vlad Drakul's crimes were basically a strategy to protect himself and his people; most excesses such as the legend of him burning down his own city may have been invented in the court of Matthias Corvinus, who was Vlad's political opponent. Gilles de Rais' crimes will have been a product of psychopathy, if he had truly carried them out, which is also in significant doubt). But Westeros had been at peace, so neither Roose nor Ramsay have justifications for their crimes.

Any successful political or military leader is cruel, on occasion.

Vlad the Impaler’s cruelty was the right sort of cruelty, the Boltons’ the wrong sort.

[Alden Rothack]

22 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Any successful political or military leader is cruel, on occasion.

Vlad the Impaler’s cruelty was the right sort of cruelty, the Boltons’ the wrong sort.

Yup