YouTube video: Hypocrisy Much ? | Game of Thrones and A Song of Ice and Fire double standards

[Aejohn the Conqueroo]

3 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

" "

I've included every single excerpt from the series that would support or demonstrate that claim.

Yeah, exactly. 

[Craving Peaches]

I find Lysa far more sympathetic than Cersei.

[Fencer]

On 1/13/2024 at 8:58 PM, Adaneth said:

Actually, I'm not so sure it's fair to say that she remains static inwards completely either. She obviously becomes worse, and I think in the coming books she will worsen even more. We do have a glimpse of that by the end of the books.

This is actually close to part of why I enjoy Cersei's POV.  In many ways, to me Cersei parallels Melisandre, in that both are attempting to control events and bring themselves to greater power, but so terrifically misinterpret those events and their role in them that their failures reach spectacular heights.  Both view themselves are great powers, but lack the introspection to recognize and remediate their mistakes, but instead dig themselves (and those around them) deeper and deeper into crisis, and in doing so, lose even more of their self-awareness.

[Springwatch]

16 hours ago, Fencer said:

This is actually close to part of why I enjoy Cersei's POV.  In many ways, to me Cersei parallels Melisandre, in that both are attempting to control events and bring themselves to greater power, but so terrifically misinterpret those events and their role in them that their failures reach spectacular heights.  Both view themselves are great powers, but lack the introspection to recognize and remediate their mistakes, but instead dig themselves (and those around them) deeper and deeper into crisis, and in doing so, lose even more of their self-awareness.

Fair enough, but I sincerely hope GRRM is planning something better than a long series of women in power who are stupid and go mad, and ultimately need euthanizing like the rabid bitches they are. Think of all the theories we've heard, and count 'em. Cersei. Dany. Catelyn. Melisandre. Lysa. Even Sansa.

Actually GRRM is more subtle, more grey, than he's given credit for, but he does build the 'stupid' reputation in two ways: first having the character herself think I don't know, that was a mistake, I feel stupid/helpless etc; and/or by surrounding the character with a chorus of (usually) males criticising her every decision. Cersei is mostly clear of the first, but scores big on the second with every male relative saying they would have done it so much better - which is not really proved.

Was it really such a bad idea to raise the Hound to the KG? No, he's a great bodyguard, and loyal. Was the honourable Barristan at all compatible with the Lannister way of doing things? Maybe Jaime as LC could be an improvement. Was using Harrenhal to buy Janos Slynt really such a bad deal? It cost them nothing in the end. Was it a bad idea to suppress Tyrell power in council? Apparently yes when Cersei does it, but Kevan starts to see the point of it when he has to deal with them himself. And so on.

None of which makes me a Cersei fan (no one is), but I do like backup from the text.

[Craving Peaches]

2 hours ago, Springwatch said:

and loyal

Not sure about that given he runs away when the king and capital are under attack.

2 hours ago, Springwatch said:

Was using Harrenhal to buy Janos Slynt really such a bad deal?

They could have done the same thing with a less important seat. I think it makes more sense to save Harrenhal for someone who would need a greater reward.

2 hours ago, Springwatch said:

Was it a bad idea to suppress Tyrell power in council?

I thought it was more the way Cersei went about it, i.e. publicly snubbing Mace, putting incompetent or unreliable people on the Small Council.

[Alester Florent]

Dismissing Barristan was an issue insofar as it damaged Joffrey's credibility and handed a potential propaganda victory to one of his enemies right as Joff was at his most vulnerable. Purging the two most famously honourable men in the kingdom as soon as Robert died sent a terrible message and surely helped Renly's and Stannis's causes in picking up anti-Lannister support. Imagine if Barry had gone to Stannis instead of Dany. And Jaime as LC didn't exactly worked out. 

[Fencer]

4 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

7 hours ago, Springwatch said:

Was it a bad idea to suppress Tyrell power in council?

I thought it was more the way Cersei went about it, i.e. publicly snubbing Mace, putting incompetent or unreliable people on the Small Council.

That's the thing about Cersei.  Because we get insight into her thoughts, we can see that some of her ideas are, at first blush, initially logical, but ultimately deeply flawed because she doesn't have the foresight to think through their second and third order effects.

Other ideas are wholly illogical and clearly driven by her vanity (Kettleblacks, etc.), which she uses to justify her bad decisions both to others and to herself. 

She seems perpetually doomed to failure because (despite her opinion of herself) she doesn't actually know how to plan.  Tywin did.  Tyrion did.  Cersei never actually learned to though.   While she is the one who actually gives us the phrase about playing the Game of Thrones or dying, she herself is nowhere near the player that she thinks she is.

[Springwatch]

4 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Not sure about that given he runs away when the king and capital are under attack.

Much later. And even then - the man terrified of fire fought for the Lannisters all day on Tyrion's hellfire battleground. That's pretty loyal. He fought until he couldn't take any more. 

4 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

They could have done the same thing with a less important seat. I think it makes more sense to save Harrenhal for someone who would need a greater reward.

Can't cost less than nothing. Janos Slynt was only important during Cersei's coup, but at that point his role was absolutely vital - he could literally choose between Ned and Cersei. He had to be secured at any cost. Later of course, Tyrion discarded him with no trouble at all.

4 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

I thought it was more the way Cersei went about it, i.e. publicly snubbing Mace, putting incompetent or unreliable people on the Small Council.

I don't know all the examples, but this sounds like the Hall of Lamps - Kevan says she embrassed Mace but it looks to me that Cersei was in courtesy mode when she refused Garth.  Kevan is so anxious to appease the Tyrells that he ends up with Mace as Hand (which he told Cersei she'd be a fool to do), alongside Tarly and one of the other ones, and Mace angling to get Garth on the Small Council as well.

I'm not saying Cersei's choices were great. But the Lannisters abandoned her, and the Tyrells want to take over.

10 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

Dismissing Barristan was an issue insofar as it damaged Joffrey's credibility and handed a potential propaganda victory to one of his enemies right as Joff was at his most vulnerable. Purging the two most famously honourable men in the kingdom as soon as Robert died sent a terrible message and surely helped Renly's and Stannis's causes in picking up anti-Lannister support. Imagine if Barry had gone to Stannis instead of Dany. And Jaime as LC didn't exactly worked out. 

This is Tywin's opinion regurgitated whole. I'm trying to say maybe we shouldn't take everything said by a Lannister man as the gospel truth.

Barristan is a two edged sword. He does add respectability (hasn't made a huge difference yet, but there's time). But his moral standards put a strain on his loyalty to a king like Joff - when Barristan was dismissed, all his anger and contempt come straight to the surface; and after a little more thought, he realises he's a Targ loyalist. 

No, Jaime was a better choice. Later splits in the Lannister family couldn't be predicted at that time.

[Springwatch]

37 minutes ago, Fencer said:

That's the thing about Cersei.  Because we get insight into her thoughts, we can see that some of her ideas are, at first blush, initially logical, but ultimately deeply flawed because she doesn't have the foresight to think through their second and third order effects.

The men don't either. They said how great it would be to have Tyrell bannermen on the Small Council. Well it happened under Kevan, and it wasn't great.

37 minutes ago, Fencer said:

Other ideas are wholly illogical and clearly driven by her vanity (Kettleblacks, etc.), which she uses to justify her bad decisions both to others and to herself. 

She needed Kettleblacks because Tyrion took away all her guards. She flirted with them because she thought it was the only way to ensure their loyalty - it's sad, but I wouldn't call it vanity, or illogical.

37 minutes ago, Fencer said:

She seems perpetually doomed to failure because (despite her opinion of herself) she doesn't actually know how to plan.  Tywin did.  Tyrion did.  Cersei never actually learned to though.   While she is the one who actually gives us the phrase about playing the Game of Thrones or dying, she herself is nowhere near the player that she thinks she is.

Tywin can't even run his own family. Tyrion ruled like a lunatic as Hand (chief policy - war with Cersei).

I don't want to argue over Cersei's every action and inaction, but I don't think we have to accept uncritically everything said by a Lannister male.

Edited January 18 by Springwatch
Added: 'or illogical'

[Alester Florent]

11 hours ago, Springwatch said:

This is Tywin's opinion regurgitated whole. I'm trying to say maybe we shouldn't take everything said by a Lannister man as the gospel truth.

Barristan is a two edged sword. He does add respectability (hasn't made a huge difference yet, but there's time). But his moral standards put a strain on his loyalty to a king like Joff - when Barristan was dismissed, all his anger and contempt come straight to the surface; and after a little more thought, he realises he's a Targ loyalist. 

No, Jaime was a better choice. Later splits in the Lannister family couldn't be predicted at that time.

Just because Tywin is one of the world's biggest bastards doesn't mean he's wrong about everything, either.

Jaime is a good Lord Commander when he finally returns to King's Landing. But there are two critical points there: firstly, that's Jaime Mk2 (in fact, Mk3), post-maiming, post-Brienne. Secondly, that's when he returns to King's Landing. He's not in KL when first appointed and there's no way of knowing when he'll be back.

Joffrey's Kingsguard is a disaster, and that is surely in part down to having no effective commander. Three of them abandon their posts at critical moments, leaving their charge in danger (Mandon Moore abandons Sansa at the bread riots, Boros Blount Tommen on the road, and Sandor Joffrey at the Blackwater). And also during the Blackwater, Mandon Moore attempts to assassinate the city's commander, which surely would have been a disaster (and something Jaime would have been furious about) had Tywin not largely coincidentally arrived to save the day.

Barristan has over his career shown loyalty to whichever monarch he's sworn to at the time no matter what he thought of them, and would surely have done the same for Joff. If he stood by and watched Rickard Stark burn, he's not going to rebel against Joffrey. But even if they think he's incompatible with their regime, they should at least wait until Jaime is back in King's Landing before sacking Barristan, so that there's someone to manage the Kingsguard effectively in the interim. Joff's Kingsguard would surely not have disintegrated the way it did had Barristan still been in charge and on the spot. The way they handled it was not just a problem symbolically, it was practical incompetence too.

Edited January 19 by Alester Florent

[Springwatch]

3 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

Just because Tywin is one of the world's biggest bastards doesn't mean he's wrong about everything, either.

Fair. But Tywin is a monster hypocrite for getting all preachy about honour. Face it, honour is out of reach for the Lannisters - having Barristan by their side is not going to make people forget the treacherous Sack of KL, the murder/rape of Elia and her children, the unprovoked attacks on the smallfolk of the Riverlands by the Mountain and the Mummers etc.

Renly's supporters don't need honour either, seeing as they're usurping four heirs to the throne.

Stannis has honour and the true claim, but it does him no good.

3 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

Jaime is a good Lord Commander when he finally returns to King's Landing. But there are two critical points there: firstly, that's Jaime Mk2 (in fact, Mk3), post-maiming, post-Brienne. Secondly, that's when he returns to King's Landing. He's not in KL when first appointed and there's no way of knowing when he'll be back.

Family loyalty is absolutely key here. The truth about the twincest is out - if Barristan starts to listen and believe, he'll change loyalties in an instant. Because Joffrey is no true king.

3 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

Joffrey's Kingsguard is a disaster, and that is surely in part down to having no effective commander. Three of them abandon their posts at critical moments, leaving their charge in danger (Mandon Moore abandons Sansa at the bread riots, Boros Blount Tommen on the road, and Sandor Joffrey at the Blackwater). And also during the Blackwater, Mandon Moore attempts to assassinate the city's commander, which surely would have been a disaster (and something Jaime would have been furious about) had Tywin not largely coincidentally arrived to save the day.

Barristan didn't train them very well, did he? Anyway, the KG members were very poor quality, and caught between Tyrion and Cersei's quarrels besides. I don't think either Jaime or Barristan could have done much.

Mandon was arguably correct to protect Joff not Sansa; similarly Boros to accept new commands from the Hand over who's escorting Tommen;  Sandor didn't abandon Joffrey, he broke down and had to flee 'justice'; the assassination attempt is still a mystery.

 

[Springwatch]

On the question of love, I wonder if this is the problem?

Quote

Love is patient. Love is kind. Love does not envy. Love does not boast and is not puffed up,

It is not rude. It is not selfish. It is not provoked to anger. It thinks no evil:

It does not rejoice in injustice but rejoices in the truth.

It bears all things: It believes all things. It hopes all things. It endures all things

It's a very powerful and famous piece of writing, with I believe great influence on Western ideas of love, true love that is. It's also a bit saintly, because it was written by a saint.

It's also completely and utterly not Cersei, couldn't be less in fact. But. I'm certain George is not limiting himself to the saintly when he writes about love in the books - there's also love that hurts: mad passions (Jaime & Cersei), obsessions (Lysa), love that might drive you lose your property and your principles (Jorah), love that might drive you to murder (Jaime again, but Ned has dark suspicions of everybody I think). But it's all love as far as the themes of the books go, and there are quotes to show it:

1. The things I do for love.
2. Love is the bane of honour.
3. Love is poison.

 

[Adaneth]

On 1/17/2024 at 9:47 PM, Fencer said:

This is actually close to part of why I enjoy Cersei's POV.  In many ways, to me Cersei parallels Melisandre, in that both are attempting to control events and bring themselves to greater power, but so terrifically misinterpret those events and their role in them that their failures reach spectacular heights.  Both view themselves are great powers, but lack the introspection to recognize and remediate their mistakes, but instead dig themselves (and those around them) deeper and deeper into crisis, and in doing so, lose even more of their self-awareness.

Indeed, there are similarities. However, Mel isn't aiming to bring herself to great power and her motivations aren't selfish. It is true that she is trying to control events and thinks she knows what she is doing (wrongly so.) But she is also religious and it is driven by her faith (for good or bad) and her visions ( which are not a lie) rather than emotions and impulses. Although, one might say that she is also driven by fear (of the apocalypse) and a sense of urgency. But I do need to read more of her POV in order to judge Mel.

Usually, I do cut her some slack for not getting things right or half right (depending how you see them) because she is trying to read and decipher signs and visions. Not an easy task. Her problem is that she is a fanatic also and like all good fanatics she has a narrow view, and she's dead set on it. At least for now.

By the way, I actually don't completely blame Cersei for being paranoid about the whole Valonqar prophecy either. 

However, despite what Mel says to other people and the self-confidence she projects, we do see in her POV that she does question herself - which is why her POV is one of my favorites by the way. Maybe there isn't enough self-reflection at the moment, but we can see some doubts creeping in. Mel might be changing too. Or, with the threat getting closer and bigger she might double down. I don't know. I find it very difficult to predict Mel. But I can't wait to read more.

Edited February 6 by Adaneth
phrasing

[SeanF]

On 1/18/2024 at 3:24 PM, Springwatch said:

Fair enough, but I sincerely hope GRRM is planning something better than a long series of women in power who are stupid and go mad, and ultimately need euthanizing like the rabid bitches they are. Think of all the theories we've heard, and count 'em. Cersei. Dany. Catelyn. Melisandre. Lysa. Even Sansa.

Actually GRRM is more subtle, more grey, than he's given credit for, but he does build the 'stupid' reputation in two ways: first having the character herself think I don't know, that was a mistake, I feel stupid/helpless etc; and/or by surrounding the character with a chorus of (usually) males criticising her every decision. Cersei is mostly clear of the first, but scores big on the second with every male relative saying they would have done it so much better - which is not really proved.

Was it really such a bad idea to raise the Hound to the KG? No, he's a great bodyguard, and loyal. Was the honourable Barristan at all compatible with the Lannister way of doing things? Maybe Jaime as LC could be an improvement. Was using Harrenhal to buy Janos Slynt really such a bad deal? It cost them nothing in the end. Was it a bad idea to suppress Tyrell power in council? Apparently yes when Cersei does it, but Kevan starts to see the point of it when he has to deal with them himself. And so on.

None of which makes me a Cersei fan (no one is), but I do like backup from the text.

Apart from Nymeria, who's a legendary figure, it's hard to point to any woman in the series who's portrayed as a good leader.  Visenya had a lot of ability, but then she pushed forward Maegor for the throne.  Tyanna was a monster;  Rhaena, a psycho lesbian;  Rhaenyra was an incompetent tyrant;  Lysa is mad;  Cersei is Cersei;  Arianne is a femme fatale who launches a coup that goes badly wrong;  Dany, if the books follow the show, is going to get put down by Jon, like Old Yeller;  and Sansa, again if books follow the show, will be a treacherous schemer.

[StarkTullies]

20 hours ago, SeanF said:

Apart from Nymeria, who's a legendary figure, it's hard to point to any woman in the series who's portrayed as a good leader.  Visenya had a lot of ability, but then she pushed forward Maegor for the throne.  Tyanna was a monster;  Rhaena, a psycho lesbian;  Rhaenyra was an incompetent tyrant;  Lysa is mad;  Cersei is Cersei;  Arianne is a femme fatale who launches a coup that goes badly wrong;  Dany, if the books follow the show, is going to get put down by Jon, like Old Yeller;  and Sansa, again if books follow the show, will be a treacherous schemer.

I sort of agree that there aren't a surplus of great female rulers in the story... but are there many good male rulers either?  No.  Maybe the lesson- in Westeros at least- is that rulers are bad in general.

Most of the queens of Westeros were consorts to the king with no real power, but of the relatively few who had some sort of real power, I definitely think that Queen Alysanne was the best Targaryen ruler of Westeros, by far. 

No matter what I think of Dany as a character or what I expect her future in Westeros will be, I can still say that she is a better khaleesi than any of the khals we've seen, and we can assume that she is a better ruler than most if not all previous rulers of Meereen (though we know little about Meereen's history).

Greyjoys aren't noted for their excellent ruling abilities, but if Asha ever ends up ruling the Iron Islands (which I think is a dim possibility), she will likely be the best ruler the Iron Islands ever had.

Cersei is an evil, incompetent blubbering fool (back to the topic of this thread!), but so is her son Joffrey and I expect he would have only gotten worse if he reached adulthood.  Her father Tywin may be more competent but he is diabolically evil, and Tyrion is on the path to be nearly as bad.  Seems to be a Lannister thing rather than a woman thing.

Arianne is not a role model, but if she sits on the Iron Throne for a brief moment (and I think she will), I think she will be more powerful and a better ruler than her presumed husband Aegon, and she will be above average in regard to competence and benevolence compared to her peers (which I admit, isn't a high bar).

Since you brought up Lysa as ruling regents or heads of great houses, obviously she is unhinged and a bad ruler.  Her sister Catelyn only had the role regent of Winterfell for a brief moment before she left, but she would have been a good one.  I think there were several ruling women during the Dance of the Dragons (NOT including Rhaenyra) who were far better than their male counterparts.

I'm not going to discuss the show here, but I don't think the show is an accurate blueprint of Dany or Sansa's futures.  But in regard to "treacherous schemer", I think that is what the showrunners actually intended to portray as being a "great ruler", and I think George Martin disagrees what it means to be a great ruler (as do I).

And again, there aren't many role model male rulers to point to.  I'm a big fan of Robb Stark who I think was as best as you expect for a wartime ruler in this world and I think he would have been a great peacetime ruler, and Aegon V and Dareon II seemed like good kings, but there were more bad Targaryen kings than good ones.  And there are far more male rulers to choose from, so I don't think the moral of the story is that men make better rulers than women.

[Springwatch]

On 2/1/2024 at 3:59 AM, StarkTullies said:

I sort of agree that there aren't a surplus of great female rulers in the story... but are there many good male rulers either?  No.  Maybe the lesson- in Westeros at least- is that rulers are bad in general.

Aerys is the maddest ruler to be sure, but it's the prominence that hits and hurts for me. Aerys is a 'history' character, he's not a point of view, we don't spend a lot of time with him - the pull on our emotions is just not there. The same is true for all the other Fire and Blood characters - to me anyway - e.g. Alysanne may be a good queen, but her history doesn't have the life and force of a major character in Asoiaf. We don't spend enough time with her either - so due to availability error alone, Alysanne can't and doesn't balance out Cersei. 

To compare like with like - Ned and Robb are major characters and 'good' rulers. Tragic, of course, but doing their damnedest to rule wisely and well, with very humane instincts, and totally sane. There's no female equivalent - on the female side, Dany has already vengefully burnt Mirri alive, and ordered a mass crucifixion, and Catelyn, Lysa and Cersei are strongly linked to mental instability.

Arianne I actually like, she's got potential, but it's spelt out hard that she's a dreamer and not much of a thinker. She's not as big a character as the early POV's, so I'd compare her to Doran, Jon Arryn, Edmure and similar -and they all look more like rulers than her. 

I've got a hopeful feeling GRRM has got some clever scheme behind all this - there's a sort of consistency to Jaime's statement that all mothers are mad (Dany, Cersei, Lysa, Catelyn), but Arianne is not a mother and not mad. Not quite a ruler yet either.

What I want is the fantasy side of things to come out as the cause of this weird imbalance - magic, not psychiatric illness - and I'm pretty confident it will, but this is a wretched time to stop writing the books. 

[SeanF]

3 hours ago, Springwatch said:

Aerys is the maddest ruler to be sure, but it's the prominence that hits and hurts for me. Aerys is a 'history' character, he's not a point of view, we don't spend a lot of time with him - the pull on our emotions is just not there. The same is true for all the other Fire and Blood characters - to me anyway - e.g. Alysanne may be a good queen, but her history doesn't have the life and force of a major character in Asoiaf. We don't spend enough time with her either - so due to availability error alone, Alysanne can't and doesn't balance out Cersei. 

To compare like with like - Ned and Robb are major characters and 'good' rulers. Tragic, of course, but doing their damnedest to rule wisely and well, with very humane instincts, and totally sane. There's no female equivalent - on the female side, Dany has already vengefully burnt Mirri alive, and ordered a mass crucifixion, and Catelyn, Lysa and Cersei are strongly linked to mental instability.

Arianne I actually like, she's got potential, but it's spelt out hard that she's a dreamer and not much of a thinker. She's not as big a character as the early POV's, so I'd compare her to Doran, Jon Arryn, Edmure and similar -and they all look more like rulers than her. 

I've got a hopeful feeling GRRM has got some clever scheme behind all this - there's a sort of consistency to Jaime's statement that all mothers are mad (Dany, Cersei, Lysa, Catelyn), but Arianne is not a mother and not mad. Not quite a ruler yet either.

What I want is the fantasy side of things to come out as the cause of this weird imbalance - magic, not psychiatric illness - and I'm pretty confident it will, but this is a wretched time to stop writing the books. 

Oddly, mothers seem to take it amiss when their children are murdered or threatened.  Rhaenyra's another example.  An in-universe prejudice (mothers lash out irrationally) is at risk of being treated as an ethical truth.

I have to say that, in my eyes, the crucifixion of a group of human traffickers seems easier to justify, in ethical terms, than say, hanging young women who slept with Lannister soldiers (and who almost certainly would have had no choice in the matter).  The guilt of the former is vastly greater than the guilt of the latter.

Edited February 2 by SeanF

[Springwatch]

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

Oddly, mothers seem to take it amiss when their children are murdered or threatened.  Rhaenyra's another example.  An in-universe prejudice (mothers lash out irrationally) is at risk of being treated as an ethical truth.

Children, their vulnerability and protection, get so much emphasis, I think it's a developing theme that can't be understood at this time, so I'm not going to try. Some children meet excessively brutal attacks (e.g Rhaenys and Aegon). Some get excessively noble protection (e.g. Edric Storm). I'd say Ned is swayed by this theme the most - says (for no good reason), "Robert, I ask you, what did we rise against Aerys Targaryen for, if not to put an end to the murder of children?". Well, many reasons, none of them involving the murder of children. And then of course he risks and loses everything to protect Cersei's children. I wouldn't say he appears mad though, just his fine morals overpowered his judgement.

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

I have to say that, in my eyes, the crucifixion of a group of human traffickers seems easier to justify, in ethical terms, than say, hanging young women who slept with Lannister soldiers (and who almost certainly would have had no choice in the matter).  The guilt of the former is vastly greater than the guilt of the latter.

Yes, and there's a whole other discussion to be had on who is the most evil, or who caused most suffering. It's just the point that's bugging me is, why are so many major female characters presented as mad? And why so much prominence? Someone hanged those women, but the guilty person has zero prominence, we don't know or care who did the deed. Also hanging isn't necessarily sadistic, but crucifixion is, and we're inside Dany's head when she feels the horror of it and tries to justify it to herself.

Quote

She had them nailed to wooden posts around the plaza, each man pointing at the next. The anger was fierce and hot inside her when she gave the command; it made her feel like an avenging dragon. But later, when she passed the men dying on the posts, when she heard their moans and smelled their bowels and blood...

Dany put the glass aside, frowning. It was just. It was. I did it for the children.

Now that's what I call prominence.

[SeanF]

25 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

Children, their vulnerability and protection, get so much emphasis, I think it's a developing theme that can't be understood at this time, so I'm not going to try. Some children meet excessively brutal attacks (e.g Rhaenys and Aegon). Some get excessively noble protection (e.g. Edric Storm). I'd say Ned is swayed by this theme the most - says (for no good reason), "Robert, I ask you, what did we rise against Aerys Targaryen for, if not to put an end to the murder of children?". Well, many reasons, none of them involving the murder of children. And then of course he risks and loses everything to protect Cersei's children. I wouldn't say he appears mad though, just his fine morals overpowered his judgement.

Yes, and there's a whole other discussion to be had on who is the most evil, or who caused most suffering. It's just the point that's bugging me is, why are so many major female characters presented as mad? And why so much prominence? Someone hanged those women, but the guilty person has zero prominence, we don't know or care who did the deed. Also hanging isn't necessarily sadistic, but crucifixion is, and we're inside Dany's head when she feels the horror of it and tries to justify it to herself.

Now that's what I call prominence.

The masters are elite, and the hanged women are random peasants, bluntly.  Hanging is actually unlikely to have been a swift death, in a world where the short drop is used.  The women probably spent a long time choking, and pissing themselves.  The reason I raised this is because it was one of the “good guys”, Ser Marq Piper, who carried out the hangings.

But, almost every POV character views noble deaths far more keenly than deaths among the smallfolk.  That includes Dany, despite her sympathies for the smallfolk.  Nobody apart from Arya is much bothered about the murder of Mycah, for example.

I do think we are meant to critique the view that elite lives count for more, but some readers do not.  There’s very clearly a section of the fandom who get more upset by the sufferings of masters than the sufferings of slaves.

 

Edited February 2 by SeanF

[Springwatch]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Hanging is actually unlikely to have been a swift death, in a world where the short drop is used.  The women probably spent a long time choking, and pissing themselves.  

Maybe. Maybe not. There are ways of making it quick - it depends on the executioner. Certainly Jon considered hanging for Janos and he's no sadist.

ETA Sadism is the key point for me here because I consider it a mental illness, or close to it.

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

 The reason I raised this is because it was one of the “good guys”, Ser Marq Piper, who carried out the hangings.

Good or bad, I don't care, I'm just looking for balance between the male and female characters.

Anyway, as I read it, it could be Piper's men, or Bracken's, or Bolton's, but probably not Dondarrion's. I'd still call this close to zero prominence for the person who hanged those women. 

Edited February 2 by Springwatch