The Decency of Ned Stark

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

Hmmm... Well, okay. In order to assemble the minor parts of the chronology you have to piece together bits and pieces strung out through the first couple of novels. As others have noted in the comments on my piece, there is a relatively good possibility that when we go to this level we will encounter minor inconsistencies in the novels (e.g., was Bran six or seven when the story began? Facts from the novels support both interpretations). I do not wish to assert the factual validity of every part of the chronology I gave. And I will probably not argue one way or the other on such minor points. I do not assert that I am a scholar of GRRM. I have read the novels closely. I think they're just about the best fantasy novels ever written, and I don't even make apologies to Tolkien fans when I say this. But in the end I'm just an average Joe who likes to write about things that interest me. Since I find ASoIaF compelling fiction, I love to write about it. As we progress through the GoT season on HBO you will see that I really do write with a broad pen. It will be up to you to decide whether I have done this in a manner that sparks in you new ways of thinking about the story you love.

PM

Well, the main issue I take is that you wrote that Ned was heir to the North, he was not, Brandon was the eldest and the heir, Ned was only heir to the North after Brandon was executed. And this was clearly laid out very early in the first book:

"“Brandon. Yes. Brandon would know what to do. He always did. It was all meant for Brandon. You, Winterfell,

everything. He was born to be a King’s Hand and a father to queens. I never asked for this cup to pass to me.”"

That's why it would make no sense for Aerys to demand Ned's head until after the death of Brandon. I know you think I'm nitpicking, but I'm really not, there are lots of details which really doesn't matter, but the chronology of the rebellion is crucial in understanding the motives of Jon Arryn, Ned and Robert in the rebellion. To rebel against a sitting king is a great undertaking, a decision not lightly made. For Ned, Robert, and Jon, they were all pushed to the edge by Aerys' action.

[emberling]

"GRRM novel purists" is yet another derogatory preemptive term that really just tries to obfuscate the issue by making it sound as if actually seeing quality in what is written is somehow bad.

Wait, purists "see quality in what is written" and others don't? Is that how it works?

So... since GRRM likes the adaptation, and has even said that parts of it he wishes he had included in the books... :uhoh:

[HT Reddy]

Very well-written essay, but to be brutally honest it did feel a bit vacuous - I didn't really pick up what your main point was. Specifically, I'd disagree that the treatment of Jon and Tyrion indicates that loyalty isn't important - Ned couldn't treat Jon equally without being extremely disloyal to his wife, compounding the shame he feels at having a bastard in the first place. Ned has done as much as he can for Jon, balancing his loyalties.

[Pearson Moore]

Well, the main issue I take is that you wrote that Ned was heir to the North, he was not, Brandon was the eldest and the heir, Ned was only heir to the North after Brandon was executed. And this was clearly laid out very early in the first book:

"“Brandon. Yes. Brandon would know what to do. He always did. It was all meant for Brandon. You, Winterfell,

everything. He was born to be a King’s Hand and a father to queens. I never asked for this cup to pass to me.”"

That's why it would make no sense for Aerys to demand Ned's head until after the death of Brandon. I know you think I'm nitpicking, but I'm really not, there are lots of details which really doesn't matter, but the chronology of the rebellion is crucial in understanding the motives of Jon Arryn, Ned and Robert in the rebellion. To rebel against a sitting king is a great undertaking, a decision not lightly made. For Ned, Robert, and Jon, they were all pushed to the edge by Aerys' action.

Scabbard of the Morning,

It's important to get the facts straight, and therefore it's very good that you are with us. You are not nitpicking. You are providing a service that I think is good for all of us. Thanks for contributing!

PM

[The Lord Dragon]

Scabbard of the Morning,

It's important to get the facts straight, and therefore it's very good that you are with us. You are not nitpicking. You are providing a service that I think is good for all of us. Thanks for contributing!

PM

Hi PM, thank you for writing the essay. I appreciate it. I hope you keep writing more.

I must agree with an earlier post that the details about what led to the revolt and the order that they happened in, are critically important. These are very key to understanding the character of Ned and Robert. You questioned (but didn't answer)whether Robert rebelled out of love for Lyanna or whether he had his eye on the throne all along. I don't understand how anyone who has read the books would have any doubts about that.

Robert is clearly in love with Lyanna so much that he is literally insane when it comes to her and the Targaryens, the people who killed her. Till his death, he has an uncontrollable anger to see every Targaryen dead for killing Lyanna. He ruined his marriage to a beautiful young woman who adored him because he called out Lyanna's name in his wedding bed. I don't know of any evidence which could plausibly be argued that Robert's love for Lyanna was not the reason for his rebellion. If I have overlooked something please let me know.

On another note, while I agree with you that discussions have to be made consistent with the movie for the new fans that come along, that doesnt mean that discussions should not also occur that discuss the changes between the books and the tv show. For those of us who have read the books and love it, asking us not to compare the two is unreasonable, unrealistic and kind of evil hearted. I love the books, as does just about everyone on this site and just because the tv show comes along, it is not going to replace the books in our hearts. I am sure we will appreciate the tv show, but expecting us to essentially ignore and forget about the book when we discuss this series that we love so much is impossible for many of us.

Thanks for posting. I am glad to see that you don't expect everyone to agree with you. I certainly don't expect everyone to agree with me and that is part of what makes it fun to be on an internet discussion board.

[Ealasaid]

Hi, the factual errors that I referred were mainly focused on your discussion of the War of the Usurper.

Here is what you wrote

"Ned and Robert Baratheon grew up as brothers, fellow wards of Lord Jon Arryn, Defender of the Vale. Both were heirs to their respective lineages, House Stark and House Baratheon. King Aerys Targaryen must have understood the boys as threats, and he commanded Lord Arryn to turn them over to the Crown. Lord Arryn refused, and instead incited his house to arms, called the banners supporting his line, and led the early revolt against House Targaryen. It was during the revolt that Ned’s older brother, Brandon, was assassinated, and his sister, Lyanna, was abducted and imprisoned.

Lyanna Stark was Ned’s only sister, a fair maid of sixteen when Ned’s best friend, Robert , fell in love and became her betrothed. After the king had her arrested, Lyanna died at her captors’ hands. It was the abduction of Robert Baratheon’s fiancée that enflamed the original revolt and ended with Robert killing the heir to the crown and ascending the Iron Throne to end the rule of the House of Dragons."

I believe that timeline is wrong. The first thing that happened is that Lyanna went missing, and is rumored to have been abducted by the crown prince Rhaegar. Then Brandon Stark went to King's Landing to find his sister and confront Rhaegar, but neither were there instead Brandon and his entourage (one of which was the nephew and heir of Jon Arryn) were arrested by king Aerys. Who then summoned the fathers of those he arrested to King's Landing to face trial. Rickard Stark, the father of Brandon/Ned/Lyanna, goes, as does some of the other fathers and they were all, fathers and sons, executed by Aerys for treason under sham trials.

It was after this that Aerys demands the head of Robert and Ned from Jon Arryn, who refuses and only then did the rebellion start.

Well. I hope Mr. Pearson was just off on his facts.

I cannot imagine that the folks at HBO are going with "Lyanna being arrested by the King" and "dying at the hand of her captors." Or maybe I have been suffering under a delusion for years...

[undertow]

Hey Pearson,

Do you take requests? I know there are several characters that I would be interested in hearing your take on. Sandor Clegane, Cersei, Jaime, and Arya all make for very interesting analysis. There have been plenty of discussions on them, but you will still be guaranteed to get feedback.

[CryFenril]

Oh Pearson, did you have any idea what you were getting into when you came to see us, lol?

Anyone who throws a tidbit of meat into this particular lions' den will find no dearth of willing participants who will quite gleefully take a scalpel to any and all offerings. It's a sign of our rabid dedication to the books, and is meant as a compliment. We want everyone to be as obsessive, detail-oriented, and possessive of the story as we are. The merest suggestion of a slight or inconsistency, even if directed at a character or passage that we loathe, is taken as a gesture of war and we immediately start to rattle our swords.

In other words, this is our way of welcoming you to the fold, and if you don't enjoy picking apart details in 8,000 pages of text - well by golly, you're gonna learn to love it when you spend time with us! Our gang initiations may not include tagging or vandalism or even lewd behavior, but it sure does involve a lot of word-murder.

Any and all intelligent discourse about the books is very much welcome here, of course - as long as you don't mind the folks with the forks and carving knives waiting in the shadows... really, they mean well. After all, you only hurt the ones you love, right?

Your insights, particularly when expressed in such a smooth professional manner, are always welcome here. And if our way of showing affection is to give you massive noogies and hold a flaming match to your fingers occasionally... well, just take it as a gesture of brotherhood and punch us right back. We can take it. We kinda like it.

[Pearson Moore]

Hey Pearson,

Do you take requests? I know there are several characters that I would be interested in hearing your take on. Sandor Clegane, Cersei, Jaime, and Arya all make for very interesting analysis. There have been plenty of discussions on them, but you will still be guaranteed to get feedback.

Undertow,

Thank you for your comments! I certainly do take requests. The Hound, the Queen, the Kingslayer and the tomboy would all make excellent subjects for an essay, I agree. I don't know if I'll be able to get to all of them in the first season. As you will see whenever my later essays are released, I'm most captivated so far by the children. In fact, I've already begun work on Bran's essay, and the next one on the list is Daenerys. She's not a child in the HBO take on the story, but she is still mentally a child, I think, in her innocent obedience to her overbearing brother, as in the books. Because of what happens at the end of the first volume and beyond, I don't expect to see many more differences in Daenerys' character between the novels and the television version, so her transformation ought to be quite powerful. But as you will see in essays to come, I am not interested in Daenerys because of her growing power. I've discerned in the novels some other themes that I believe far more interesting, and I will be teasing these out over the coming season. We're going to have some fun!

PM

[Pearson Moore]

Oh Pearson, did you have any idea what you were getting into when you came to see us, lol?

Anyone who throws a tidbit of meat into this particular lions' den will find no dearth of willing participants who will quite gleefully take a scalpel to any and all offerings. It's a sign of our rabid dedication to the books, and is meant as a compliment. We want everyone to be as obsessive, detail-oriented, and possessive of the story as we are. The merest suggestion of a slight or inconsistency, even if directed at a character or passage that we loathe, is taken as a gesture of war and we immediately start to rattle our swords.

In other words, this is our way of welcoming you to the fold, and if you don't enjoy picking apart details in 8,000 pages of text - well by golly, you're gonna learn to love it when you spend time with us! Our gang initiations may not include tagging or vandalism or even lewd behavior, but it sure does involve a lot of word-murder.

Any and all intelligent discourse about the books is very much welcome here, of course - as long as you don't mind the folks with the forks and carving knives waiting in the shadows... really, they mean well. After all, you only hurt the ones you love, right?

Your insights, particularly when expressed in such a smooth professional manner, are always welcome here. And if our way of showing affection is to give you massive noogies and hold a flaming match to your fingers occasionally... well, just take it as a gesture of brotherhood and punch us right back. We can take it. We kinda like it.

CryFenril,

Thank you for your kind welcome to the forum.

Defence of canon is important, especially in a story as intricate and immense as ASoIaF. Everyone here is doing a terrific job of this, and I consider Westeros.org a solid resource for me in my work. But as you will realise in reading my essays, my work is not aimed at maintenance of canon. And I don't do recaps. My aim is to stimulate thought about the television series. You won't read in my essays long comparisons between the novels and the episodes, because that would detract from my primary intention, which is to get people thinking about what they've seen. So, Bran is ten years old, and that's that. There are four important houses, and that's that. Hundreds of thousands have read the novels, tens of thousands are interested enough to patronise and contribute to websites and wikis like Westeros, and a few thousand are hardcore, dedicated, deeply knowledgeable connoisseurs of ASoIaF.

All that's going to change in the next few weeks. Suddenly, 6 million people will be looking for information on the story. Most of them will never crack open AGoT, especially when they see the things 674 pages long! But they will be looking for dependable information, half a million will start in on the novels, and several hundred thousand will seek out more depth. They'll come here, they'll read up on the characters, study the artwork, read essays like mine. Almost everything these newcomers know about the story will start with the television series. If you want a real-life appreciation for the place these newcomers are starting from, watch this: http://winter-is-coming.net/2011/04/otaku-assembles-for-thrones/ The guy gets some of the facts mixed up, but he'll figure it out in the next few episodes. This is where most people will be. They're in the midst of busy lives and they're not going to drop everything to become as deeply involved in the story as we are. These are the people I write for.

I'm not preaching to the choir, not writing for überfans. The really casual viewers are not my audience, either. I don't write the kind of low-denominator, almost mindless stuff you'll see in typical guides to television shows. I'm writing to the busy but motivated and intelligent viewers. They don't have time to get into the novels, but they like to go a little deeper into the story. That's what I give them. That's what they loved about my LOST essays, what they're loving now about my LOST books. I'm writing for about a half million people who are motivated to learn more. I don't hold their hands as I walk through an episode. They're not going to understand everything I write, because I assume a complete recall of everything that occurred in the episode. That's not going to happen in most cases, but that's okay, because again, they'll pick it up as they go along.

The significance of the essays to Westeros.org, which ought to grow to three or four times its current size over the next year, is probably something akin to a greeter at the door. The visitors destined to become active participants are not here to see CryFenril or Pearson Moore. They've come to learn about and eventually add to our collective understanding of Tyrion and Littlefinger and Jon Snow. I'm just welcoming them, giving them something to think about while the portcullis is raised and they're permitted entry to a most wondrous place.

PM

[King Ned Stark]

POSSIBLE SPOILERS

Mr. Moore

Hello, and thank you for the insightful look into the complexity that is Eddard Stark. While I somewhat agree with other posts that a very few of your talking points are factually debatable, in the end I think they are just that, debatable. Having said that, though, I feel the essay was meant more to be an analysis of Ned Stark than a precise synopsis of GoT. In that regard, I think your look into Ned was nearly spot on. I have been reading and rereading ASoIaF for nearly fifteen years, and awaiting each new book with great antipation. Having said that, I have been visiting these forums during the long waiting periods to see the viewpoints of other readers; their theories, beliefs, and opinions of past novels in the series.

During my initial visits to this forum I found something that I had not expected to find. I found that many (more than I would have believed) were somewhat disrectful of Ned's character. While most are unwavering on his loyalty, honor, courage, and kindness -his decency, as you say- some if not many questioned if not outright ridiculed his intelligence and naivete, which I found incorrect. Ned was thrown into an unfamiliar situation with plots already in progress and alliances already formed, none of which included him, and not enough of his own loyal men to ensure victory. In virtually every instance I felt personally that Ned's hand was either forced or he made the right decision. For example, he could not risk war over Lady nor Mycah, he knew Pycelle was bought and paid for, that Littlefinger had his own motives, Varys was a creature who knew too much and did too little, the Lannisters as a whole were evil schemers up to no good, and that his friend Robert would rather turn a blind eye rather than act.

I feel people do not see the true accuracy of his actions and decisions. He sent Catelyn from KL with instructions to man Moat Cailin, fortify WH, and for a close eye to be kept on Theon. His investigation into Arryn's death was hindered by liars and backstabbers, and the fact that there was a lack of witnesses to interrogate, and yet in short order he puzzled out the mystery. Wherein, I believe, lies the linchpin.

Cersei remarks of how close Stark was to winning (if memory serves correctly) if it hadn't been for Sansa, which speaks volumes of Ned's ability, even with all odds and players against him. Speaking of the linchpin, though, I think it was Robert himself. Had it not been Robert on the throne, then with very strong suspicion of the attempt on his son's life, then quite possibly Ned flees KL with his family, and either declares war or allows the Lannisters to, and lets the chips fall where they may. Remember he told his wife the Lannister's would never invade the north without the support of the entire realm, and Ned, in my estimation, was the finest tactician we have read about.

But being that it was Robert, a friend closer than any brother, again, only complicated things for Ned. Stark, in my opinion, had them at every turn, until he learned the truth. To tell one's best friend that his children are not actually his with the knowledge that those kids would be executed weighed too heavily upon Ned's conscious. Remember he quarreled with Robert over the assassination of Dany's unborn child, the murder of Rhaegar's children, and told Renly he would not dishonor Robert's final hours by dragging frightened children from their beds. "Why did we put an end the Targaryen's, if not to put an end to the murder of children". Ned's "soft spot" for children allowed him no other option. In the end, I believe, it was Ned's mercy that ended him. He told Renly, and again I agree, that mercy is never a weakness.

While many believe Littlefinger or the Lannisters outwitted or were more intelligent than Ned, I think that is a fallacy, and as an aside, I think Ned's wisdom far outweighed theirs.

Littlefinger/Lannisters may have won, but winning by treachery is not winning at all.

I think people confuse one issue with the other, for the stories sake Martin had to get rid of Ned, he was too smart and powerful to not do so, and besides, what makes the best hero, a tragedy. And Ned's story was quite tragic. I thought it bitterly ironic that Joffrey, the boy that Ned would not have drug from his bed screaming is the the boy that ordered him executed. When one believes as Ned does, hindsight matters not at all.

I believe that some readers lack the knowledge that their understanding of Eddard Stark is a by-product of our society, I can not think of one time that the word honor, regarding a situation, was brought up in conversation except when talking of Martin's novels. I have seen treachery in every aspect of life, where selfishness wins out over selflessness. I have been reading books for nearly twenty years, and no fictional character has ever changed my outlook on life save Ned Stark. Sometimes, I think, it's better to lose than sink to the level of others.

Anyway, I apologize for the lengthy post, but I would be interested and appreciative of any opinions you have Mr. Moore. Thanks all.

[Pearson Moore]

POSSIBLE SPOILERS

Mr. Moore

Hello, and thank you for the insightful look into the complexity that is Eddard Stark. While I somewhat agree with other posts that a very few of your talking points are factually debatable, in the end I think they are just that, debatable. Having said that, though, I feel the essay was meant more to be an analysis of Ned Stark than a precise synopsis of GoT. In that regard, I think your look into Ned was nearly spot on...

During my initial visits to this forum I found something that I had not expected to find. I found that many (more than I would have believed) were somewhat disrectful of Ned's character. While most are unwavering on his loyalty, honor, courage, and kindness -his decency, as you say- some if not many questioned if not outright ridiculed his intelligence and naivete, which I found incorrect...I feel people do not see the true accuracy of his actions and decisions...Wherein, I believe, lies the linchpin.

While many believe Littlefinger or the Lannisters outwitted or were more intelligent than Ned, I think that is a fallacy, and as an aside, I think Ned's wisdom far outweighed theirs...Littlefinger/Lannisters may have won, but winning by treachery is not winning at all...I believe that some readers lack the knowledge that their understanding of Eddard Stark is a by-product of our society...

Anyway, I apologize for the lengthy post, but I would be interested and appreciative of any opinions you have Mr. Moore. Thanks all.

King Ned Stark,

Wow! What an analysis! Yes, absolutely. On every single point you make, I agree. As I noted in my last essay (http://winterfellkeep.com/SIF103.aspx), “Oh, the Starks,” Littlefinger says when Ned releases him. “Quick tempers, slow minds.” But it is not wits Ned Stark lacks. I have not yet given the final word on Ned Stark, but when I do, it will be offered in most glowing terms. He was, of course, GRRM's model for everyone. Littlefinger, with everyone else, is an unreliable narrator of the story. He is merely giving his perspective, as is everyone else. The closest thing to a reliable narrator is probably Tyrion, but even he is blind to a number of important aspects of the story.

GRRM does not engage in hand-holding. This is certainly one of the most powerful characteristics of the novels, and it is coming out well in the television series, as I note in my analysis of the television series' thesis (http://winterfellkeep.com/Volume101.aspx). What it means is that we are required to think independently, and never to assume outcomes indicate the worth of characters, whether they triumph or fall.

Ned Stark pieced together one of the most challenging mysteries in the Seven Kingdoms. It was his work, and the work of Jon Arryn before him, that forced the Lannisters' hand to take the throne, probably much earlier than they otherwise would have. In my next set of subscription essays (http://winterfellkeep.com/Volume102.aspx) I am going to explain a nine-step sequence relating to Jon Snow and Ned Stark. The fact is, in my opinion, Ned was on his way to achieving something great. He was thwarted, as you say, by the enormous forces of treachery arrayed against him. But he remains a hero. Is Obi Wan Kenobi any less a hero because he fell to Darth Vader? Is John Locke any less a hero because he fell to Benjamin Linus?

As several characters note, the Tears of Lys are to be considered beneath even a criminal, because to kill in such a way is dishonourable. In the world of GRRM, honour has a distinct and respected place, and is not something to lightly dismiss, even in a game of thrones. It is, after all, a song of ice and fire, and the game of thrones is only part of it. That is to say, the political intrigues are only one facet of the novels. The greater story, I believe, is contained in the attitudes that influential characters bring to events. I stand with you in believing that ASoIaF holds up several characters, and Ned Stark in particular, as worthy examples of lives well lived.

Thank you for contributing this thorough and thoughtful analysis.

PM

[kingpigeonjr]

I study the presence of pigeons in movies and I have an theory about the relationship between Eddard Stark and these animals. I think that he turns into a pigeon after dying. The analysis can be seen in:

http://pigeonmoviedb.blogspot.com/2012/01/game-of-thrones-is-daddy-pigeon-now.html

[kephv]

I study the presence of pigeons in movies and I have an theory about the relationship between Eddard Stark and these animals. I think that he turns into a pigeon after dying. The analysis can be seen in:

http://pigeonmoviedb...pigeon-now.html

I think this makes sense. Now he can fly around disrupting the lines of communication while simultaneously shitting on the heads of his enemies. Brilliant.

[The Bastard of Bolton]

I don't even...

[The GRRumbler]

Necrotrollingcrackpot!!!

Wow

[Ladywhiskers]

Well. I hope Mr. Pearson was just off on his facts.

I cannot imagine that the folks at HBO are going with "Lyanna being arrested by the King" and "dying at the hand of her captors." Or maybe I have been suffering under a delusion for years...

It is the story Robert believes, though.

[DaBillmann]

God, I misread this as "The DECADANCY of Ned Stark". Must be time for new glasses.

[The Bastard of Bolton]

I must apologize for being thrown off by the pigeon culture.

I find it interesting to have a good essay developed by a person who was a virgin to the books and had a fresh perspective.

It be much more interesting if it it had follow-up essays from after reading book 1 and then again after reading the series.