A Consistent Standard to Judge Characters' Morality and Reasonableness By

[Many-Faced Votary]

Your double post serves as a useful indicator for how long the forums were down.

[kissdbyfire]

2 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

No, and why would you come to that conclusion when no mention at all is made of Arya? And why do you think it is an overly-generous standard?

My money is a guilty conscience. 

[Craving Peaches]

2 minutes ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

Your double post serves as a useful indicator for how long the forums were down.

Ah, so it wasn't just me.

[Alester Florent]

2 hours ago, Willam Stark said:

The thing is, some people won't like the standard of others because it may go against their own standard, which will turn the topic into a political mess and take us away from a good discussion. You might be okay with it, but it's not the case for everyone sadly, we should stick to standard in-universe.

It's not about anyone imposing a standard - any of these standards - on others. It's about each person applying their own standard consistently, rather than picking and choosing which standard applies to which character depending on how much they like them.

To take an extreme example: Ned is terrible because he executes people and executing people for any crime is against the UDHR and therefore evil (#5) but Tywin believes everything he does is justified so he is A-OK (#1). The fair thing to do would be to hold them both to the same standard. (Of course by either standard #1 or #5 the majority of characters in ASoIaF come out pretty much the same, hence why applying one of the middle ones consistently is more useful).

And while I think we're allowed to like some characters more than others, I do think we ought to recognise ourselves when we're giving a character an easy ride for that reason. For instance, I probably go easier on Jaime for this reason. I think the fanbase in general goes easier on Tyrion for this reason.

I think there is also a potential trap of this "consistent standard" approach (albeit I agree in general), because an implication of some topics discussing a character is that if you can demonstrate that one character is morally better than another you can somehow "disprove" someone else's affection for them. That's just not how people work. Some people we just like more than others despite both being equally flawed people, whether because they're funny, well-written, cool, or whatever. It's helpful to be self-aware on this but I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with it. If we accept that, and that other people won't necessarily share our opinions, then these discussions can become a lot more amicable.

[Hugorfonics]

8 hours ago, Curled Finger said:

In truth we cannot truly understand what a person even 50 years ago held true or moral or commonplace.  Remember, segregation was still in full swing then.  Do you really understand what that felt like on either side?I dunno, Peaches.  I was over in the TWOW subforum writing a long bit about Jamie yesterday and thinking about our reasons for the things we think.   Given your clinical ideas above which look great on paper and idealistically it would be a wonderful world if our minds could work that way.  We are mental and emotional creatures.  Part of our literary experience is to be moved to feel and learn through character and story.  In truth we cannot truly understand what a person even 50 years ago held true or moral or commonplace.  Remember, segregation was still in full swing then.  Do you really understand what that felt like on either side?  How can we really understand the bedding ceremony for a 12 year old girl as a woman grown or a 14 year old boy carrying a spike off to war as a man grown of say 500 years previous?  These are minute things compared to colonization and expansionism of any period.

60 years ago, no? Lol. It's insanely close to our time. The easiest approach imo is to say fuck em all, the bus drivers, the senators, the kid who doesn't want to share the water fountain. 

Its kinda hard to even think about the fact that like 75% of the us presidents were hard core white supremacists, and like who wants to say fuck George Washington? And you know there's the argument that the kid at the water fountain doesn't know anything short of the sign saying Whites Only, is ignorance really deserving of judgement?

But then we can look at like pres John Quincy Adams, son of a founding father. He was practicality a progressive so we can see not everyone in history thought like George Washington, and white supremacy although the law, was always in political question.

Jim Crow wasn't federalized until Wilson took over. (And he only became pres because Teddy split the republican vote) Wilson also beat the Kaiser and created the league of nations, does one excuse the other? With hindsight we can see the Kaiser left the seat vacant for the nazis, America didn't join the league and Jim crow federalized was just so horrible the answer is definitely easier, but should we be allowed to use hindsight?)

I was actually just looking at presidents funerals because idk why lol, and I just loved this quote 

Quote

The New York Herald wrote in their publication after Grant's death that “he had his faults, who has not? We cannot see them because the brilliancy of his deeds shines in our eyes.”

I think that's a bit dramatic imo (especially with Wilson and Washington... And grant lol) but the premise is kinda the same, fuck em but acknowledge the greatness too.

Or just leave the judgment for the gates? (although it is hard, we are emotional and issues like white supremacy or war in Europe haven't actually gone away)

9 hours ago, Curled Finger said:

Back to Jamie.  This is a long topic, some 9 pages or so long.  Haters, lovers and interesting takes.  I am one of those people who simply love the unraveling of this character.  He was written to make me loathe him for 2 books then the hammer falls and he is dissembled, taken out of his comfort zones and humbled.  This is a beautiful thing to read over the course of ASOS.  For the next 2 books I get to witness Jamie try to redeem himself to himself.  I don't have to have killed a bad king or saved a city or lost my hand to understand or sympathize with any of this.  The writing is sufficient and the character is perfectly flawed.  That is my take because that is how my mind works when the writing is that good.  It's still funny and a little sad to read the posts who are stuck still hating Jamie.  It's like all the words after ACOK were wasted.  

Empathy is powerful. Definitely. So in fiction I have no problem pearly gating them myself, because it's all in my mind and not hitting on any outer issues. And like Wilson's racism may be too much for me it's also hard to get past this dude who bangs his sister. You know he cracks jokes, does some pretty cool stuff every now and then but I just can't back him cuz it's so weird.

Now granted I think the whole feudal lot is weird. Neds honor, Davos' necklace but I can kinda excuse it in their world but still not some stuff. Idk, it's tricky for sure.

It's also kinda scary to empathize with Jaime, because we're really humanizing the kingslayer, which kinda calls into question whether I should be rationalizing and humanizing Wilson as well. Isnt that bad? Like what's the line?

Boltons flay, the sigil they fly is a flayed man and Roose taught Ramsay, like the water fountain kid, a flayed man holds no secrets. Rams is just trying to make it in this crazy world, what's the harm in humanizing him? 

10 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

• Subjective/Objective Real World - Judge a character by the morality of an average 'reasonable man' from our world with their characteristics in their circumstances.
• Objective Real World (purely objective from a real life perspective) - Judge a character by the morality of a 'reasonable man' from our world.

One of those. Depending on the situation 

[Curled Finger]

2 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

60 years ago, no? Lol. It's insanely close to our time. The easiest approach imo is to say fuck em all, the bus drivers, the senators, the kid who doesn't want to share the water fountain. 

Its kinda hard to even think about the fact that like 75% of the us presidents were hard core white supremacists, and like who wants to say fuck George Washington? And you know there's the argument that the kid at the water fountain doesn't know anything short of the sign saying Whites Only, is ignorance really deserving of judgement?

But then we can look at like pres John Quincy Adams, son of a founding father. He was practicality a progressive so we can see not everyone in history thought like George Washington, and white supremacy although the law, was always in political question.

Jim Crow wasn't federalized until Wilson took over. (And he only became pres because Teddy split the republican vote) Wilson also beat the Kaiser and created the league of nations, does one excuse the other? With hindsight we can see the Kaiser left the seat vacant for the nazis, America didn't join the league and Jim crow federalized was just so horrible the answer is definitely easier, but should we be allowed to use hindsight?)

I was actually just looking at presidents funerals because idk why lol, and I just loved this quote 

I think that's a bit dramatic imo (especially with Wilson and Washington... And grant lol) but the premise is kinda the same, fuck em but acknowledge the greatness too.

Or just leave the judgment for the gates? (although it is hard, we are emotional and issues like white supremacy or war in Europe haven't actually gone away)

Empathy is powerful. Definitely. So in fiction I have no problem pearly gating them myself, because it's all in my mind and not hitting on any outer issues. And like Wilson's racism may be too much for me it's also hard to get past this dude who bangs his sister. You know he cracks jokes, does some pretty cool stuff every now and then but I just can't back him cuz it's so weird.

Now granted I think the whole feudal lot is weird. Neds honor, Davos' necklace but I can kinda excuse it in their world but still not some stuff. Idk, it's tricky for sure.

It's also kinda scary to empathize with Jaime, because we're really humanizing the kingslayer, which kinda calls into question whether I should be rationalizing and humanizing Wilson as well. Isnt that bad? Like what's the line?

Boltons flay, the sigil they fly is a flayed man and Roose taught Ramsay, like the water fountain kid, a flayed man holds no secrets. Rams is just trying to make it in this crazy world, what's the harm in humanizing him? 

One of those. Depending on the situation 

I grew up in the South.  Perhaps segregation left more slowly there.  I remember being bussed an awful long way to school as part of an integration program while still having separate drinking fountains in parks.  US history may not have been a great example as our social norms don't seem to resonate with many of our European friends.  Nonetheless, ours has been a slow and excruciating social experiment that I hope one day becomes a well blended and integrated culture.  'Nuff said on that. 

All that about Jamie isn't to glorify him.  I could have written the same for Sansa or Theon.  We get much the same for them from Martin.  These wonderful character journeys wherein they are broken down and transformed in these horrible ways.  There is plenty to dislike about Jamie and I have nearly become desensitized to the incest thing.  It has become comical to me at this point, absurd even.  But I love the unfolding of his becoming a better person, discovering that he can, that there is choice and his trying to live up to the choice to make change.  It is no different than Theon remembering his name of Sansa forgetting hers.  I cannot empathize with Jamie, but I am beginning to sympathize.  For that I can give this character a chance to make throwing a little boy out of a window right somehow.  Somehow.  

Kingslayer?  Sure, it fits.  I think it's the best thing Jamie ever did where Ramsay has done nothing good.  It's not the same.  Breaking an impossible oath to save a city from certain destruction is not the same as a wanton sadist.  The worst thing I've seen from Jamie was tossing a little boy from a window.  That was plenty bad.  I can't measure that act against the things Ramsay has done, but I can tell you that Ramsay has done many more things and delights in the harm and fear he imposes on others.  Jamie threated to trebuchet Edmure's baby over the moat or something close to that.  It was a threat.  Ramsay would have just done it for fun.  

Maybe I'm wrong.  It wouldn't be the first time.  My yardstick is motivation.  Jamie, Theon and Sansa are basically decent characters who have done stupid awful things and are capable of redemption.  Ramsay isn't.  If Martin ever gives me something human or decent on Ramsay I will rethink the character.  

[Hugorfonics]

33 minutes ago, Curled Finger said:

I grew up in the South.  Perhaps segregation left more slowly there.  I remember being bussed an awful long way to school as part of an integration program while still having separate drinking fountains in parks.  US history may not have been a great example as our social norms don't seem to resonate with many of our European friends.  Nonetheless, ours has been a slow and excruciating social experiment that I hope one day becomes a well blended and integrated culture.  'Nuff said on that. 

I believe we will. We are historically making progress. And bet.

33 minutes ago, Curled Finger said:

All that about Jamie isn't to glorify him.  I could have written the same for Sansa or Theon.  We get much the same for them from Martin.  These wonderful character journeys wherein they are broken down and transformed in these horrible ways.  There is plenty to dislike about Jamie and I have nearly become desensitized to the incest thing.  It has become comical to me at this point, absurd even.  But I love the unfolding of his becoming a better person, discovering that he can, that there is choice and his trying to live up to the choice to make change.  It is no different than Theon remembering his name of Sansa forgetting hers.  I cannot empathize with Jamie, but I am beginning to sympathize.  For that I can give this character a chance to make throwing a little boy out of a window right somehow.  Somehow.  

Kingslayer?  Sure, it fits.  I think it's the best thing Jamie ever did where Ramsay has done nothing good.  It's not the same.  Breaking an impossible oath to save a city from certain destruction is not the same as a wanton sadist.  The worst thing I've seen from Jamie was tossing a little boy from a window.  That was plenty bad.  I can't measure that act against the things Ramsay has done, but I can tell you that Ramsay has done many more things and delights in the harm and fear he imposes on others.  Jamie threated to trebuchet Edmure's baby over the moat or something close to that.  It was a threat.  Ramsay would have just done it for fun.  

Maybe I'm wrong.  It wouldn't be the first time.  My yardstick is motivation.  Jamie, Theon and Sansa are basically decent characters who have done stupid awful things and are capable of redemption.  Ramsay isn't.  If Martin ever gives me something human or decent on Ramsay I will rethink the character.  

All that about Ramsay wasn't meant to praise him lol. I was just saying that it's hard to not impose our own values on a fictional foreign culture even if it's cornerstone stuff. (Not trying to directly compare) Like Ned takes his kid to watch him decapitate some guy, Tywin thinks honor is everything, Balon pays iron price etc. It's all pretty insane.

(Nah I can totally empathize with Jaime, for love! Its nice. He's a family guy, it gets a little convoluted when he went after Arya but whatever. 

I agree that it's kinda silly, and they don't really do it in our face except that once and it was perverse as possible which kinda added to it's silliness. It's just, idk... I didn't have an easy time with those Targaryen books either

And I just like the name kingslayer lol, of course he did the only thing logical, let alone moral.)

 

Like if we judge these characters by our standards they will obviously fall short and if we judge them by theirs they'll probably fall short too lol. So, idk, fuck em all I guess? Or just leave with a heavy dose of ambivalence?

Like Cerseis just as silly but also defeated her rapist and stuff but also would stack the hall high with dwarf and children heads till she gets Tyrions, so like, ambivalence till we decide not to? Idk, I guess I change my answer but idk to what. 

(And I would love a Ramsay redemption, but that's definitely not happening lol. Like, how can it? How can Theon? Tyrion? To a lesser degree Jaime and Sansa etc, but that's another topic lol)

[Nevets]

I tend to do something of a hybrid.  It depends on the issue.  I'm also willing to let stuff slide if it's OK now but not in-world.

On issues like children's activities and status, status and role of women, overall governance (feudalism, etc.), capital punishment and such I go with the flow.  I mean, Jon is recruiting wildlings as young as 12 to man the Wall.  Do that today and you might get yourself a free trip to The Hague.

I don't know if Tywin's treatment of Tysha would be Ok in-world but I'm happy to condemn him for it.  And for some reason I analyze Arya's actions mostly through a modern lens.

I'm not sure how consistent I am, but I think I try to be fair.