(ADWD SPOILERS) Reek Chapters

[Sasha Steelsong]

HA! Yes, it's absolutely amazing that anyone, let alone Rhaegar, ever allowed the KING to do anything! :rolleyes:

Oh, I know many people think Rhaegar is responsible for everything that led up to the Robellion. I've read it here for years. But, you see, I just can't bring myself to blame it on him (or Lyanna for that matter) because I absolutely know that they were not clairvoyants possessing 100% accurate foresight ;) Rhaegar is not any more responsible for other people's actions after he ran away with Lyanna than he is for Gregor's actions after he knighted him.

This. Not to mention how unreliable communication is and how long it can take to get messages places, I cannot blame Rhaegar or Lyanna for being unable to control people who were tens if not hundreds of miles away from them when they made their own decisions to act on what they thought they knew. For those who think he could have controlled his father the king, how on earth was he supposed to do that when he wasn't even in KL but at TOJ?

Additionally even if everyone knew where Rhaegar was, I find it unlikely he would have been able to stop anything once Lyanna was taken. The crossing of the Rubicon came when Aerys murdered Lord Rickon and Brandon and the way they were murdered, even if Rhaegar had been sent a raven as soon as it happened, the damage was done and the problem of Aerys at the head of the realm was exposed. Given Aerys madness if it hadn't been this I firmly believe it would have been something else, or one day Aerys might have just woken up and decided to burn all of KL for the hell of it. Rhaegar and Lyanna do share some of the blame no doubt, but the idea that some have that they should have been able to see the consequences has just never rung true for me.

[Pale_Valkyrie]

HA! Yes, it's absolutely amazing that anyone, let alone Rhaegar, ever allowed the KING to do anything! :rolleyes:

Yeah, it really, really is. Because I'll tell you what, if I were in the throne room wearing a white cloak, watching the king burn a man in his armor while his son strangled himself to death, I would at the very least have thrown down my sword and left, if not openly rebelled and paid the price for it. I would not have stood by and allowed him to do it, without a strong show of dissent.

Rhaegar was well liked and the king was not. If he had stood up and said, "Hey y'all, I'm taking the throne from my dad, cuz that guy ain't right," I think he would have gotten plenty of support. It was within his power, but he didn't do it.

Oh, I know many people think Rhaegar is responsible for everything that led up to the Robellion. I've read it here for years. But, you see, I just can't bring myself to blame it on him (or Lyanna for that matter) because I absolutely know that they were not clairvoyants possessing 100% accurate foresight ;) Rhaegar is not any more responsible for other people's actions after he ran away with Lyanna than he is for Gregor's actions after he knighted him.

I think that Rhaegar is responsible for running away with Lyanna (as is she), and is therefore responsible for the consequences of those actions. Just because they couldn't see what those consequences would be doesn't mean they aren't responsible for them.

Rhaegar, for all intents and purposes, ran away with a woman betrothed to someone else, while he was married to another woman. When the family of kidnapped girl turned up for her, angry (which is 100% predictable) his father, who he knew to be crazy, burned them. I don't think any of this is particularly impossible to forsee, yet instead of simply ASKING Lord Stark to dissolve a betrothal, they elope.

I'm curious to know if people who don't blame Rhaegar/Lyanna for kicking off the rebellion also castigate Sansa for spilling the beans about the boat. People always say Sansa's not a Stark, but she's more like Lyanna and Ned in the "unwise, naive political blunders" than any of the rest of the kids.

EDIT: OMG, I just realized how horribly off-topic I've gone. Sorry everyone! I'll desist!

Also: Theon Greyjoy

[Sivin]

Yeah, it really, really is. Because I'll tell you what, if I were in the throne room wearing a white cloak, watching the king burn a man in his armor while his son strangled himself to death, I would at the very least have thrown down my sword and left, if not openly rebelled and paid the price for it. I would not have stood by and allowed him to do it, without a strong show of dissent.

Rhaegar was well liked and the king was not. If he had stood up and said, "Hey y'all, I'm taking the throne from my dad, cuz that guy ain't right," I think he would have gotten plenty of support. It was within his power, but he didn't do it.

I thought that Aerys was actually very well-loved by most people, and that his madness was something of a secret outside of court.

And that Theon Greyjoy... He did that something, and then something happened, and there were people in his life... :leaving:

[Sasha Steelsong]

Yeah, it really, really is. Because I'll tell you what, if I were in the throne room wearing a white cloak, watching the king burn a man in his armor while his son strangled himself to death, I would at the very least have thrown down my sword and left, if not openly rebelled and paid the price for it. I would not have stood by and allowed him to do it, without a strong show of dissent.

Rhaegar was well liked and the king was not. If he had stood up and said, "Hey y'all, I'm taking the throne from my dad, cuz that guy ain't right," I think he would have gotten plenty of support. It was within his power, but he didn't do it.

And with all due respect you probably would have been fed to the same flames or cut down by one of your former brothers. The whole point is that the king's word is law and a kingsguard can't question it. It is twisted and warped and in no way a healthy way to govern but it is just the way kings and their guards tend to work. In real life there are examples of guards taking the king out for one reason or another but generally it is seen as unacceptable for the guards to judge the king. Which is also why monarchies are so warped to begin with (works fine if the person with the right to rule is good and civic minded, less so when the person is crazy).

I think that Rhaegar is responsible for running away with Lyanna (as is she), and is therefore responsible for the consequences of those actions. Just because they couldn't see what those consequences would be doesn't mean they aren't responsible for them.

Rhaegar, for all intents and purposes, ran away with a woman betrothed to someone else, while he was married to another woman. When the family of kidnapped girl turned up for her, angry (which is 100% predictable) his father, who he knew to be crazy, burned them. I don't think any of this is particularly impossible to forsee, yet instead of simply ASKING Lord Stark to dissolve a betrothal, they elope.

I'm curious to know if people who don't blame Rhaegar/Lyanna for kicking off the rebellion also castigate Sansa for spilling the beans about the boat. People always say Sansa's not a Stark, but she's more like Lyanna and Ned in the "unwise, naive political blunders" than any of the rest of the kids.

Actually that is normally where legal responsibility stops, where the consequences are unforeseeable, perhaps it is my training but as a result I can't assign responsibility to something was not a reasonably foreseeable result. And as Aerys hadn't shown the true level of his insanity yet, I don't think the idea that he would brutally murder a great lord, several lesser lords (because the Starks were not the only ones that died that day), and all their heirs was a foreseeable result. That is what caused the war, not Lyanna's abduction.

ETA: Egads I too have gone totally off topic (honestly forgot this was a Reek thread - my bad) so I'll add, "Though it is possible that Theon's dad would not have rebelled against Aerys the same way he did against Robert, thus he might have stayed on Pyke."

[Pale_Valkyrie]

I thought that Aerys was actually very well-loved by most people, and that his madness was something of a secret outside of court.

Huh, really? Mayhaps there is another reread in my future. I might be letting my terrible knowledge of the man's atrocities skew my perspective on how others saw him.

And that Theon Greyjoy... He did that something, and then something happened, and there were people in his life... :leaving:

Ah, Theon. Truth be told, I think he is the "Everyman" of this book. A human not as we want or hope ourselves to be, but maybe how we are, with capacities for insecurity, violence, self-delusion, as well as endurance, compassion, and love.

Also, really quickly:

And with all due respect you probably would have been fed to the same flames or cut down by one of your former brothers.

I know. It's pretty much a certainty. I'd still do it. I wouldn't be able to live with myself otherwise.

[Prince of the North]

To answer the original question of this thread, I enjoyed the Reek chapters a lot. But not because I am sympathetic to Theon. I enjoyed them partly for the opposite reason, and partly for the great insight it gave us into a very important location in the story.

Nothing that happens to Theon will get me to feel sorry for him, but I can still enjoy good writing and an interesting story, which the Reek chapters definitely provide.

As for Theon's fate - well he is buggered basically - probably literally and figuratively. He can't really play a meaningful role going forward as he can't fight, but unlike Tyrion he cannot even compensate for this with mental prowess. He is too messed up by his torture.

Plus, he is leaking urine and faeces due to whatever was done to him "below".

He will die some bittersweet death where he saves someone of importance, but that's about the best that can be expected from him. He dug his own grave and now it is just a question of how long he hangs around before lying down in it.

Yes, sorry about contributing to the thread drift. So, to try to get it back on topic I wanted to quote the above as it pretty much mirrors my feelings on Theon/Reek. I hope he is able to at least stick it to Ramsey and the Boltons before he bites the dust (which I think he will).

ETA: Just wanted to wrap up by saying that the thread drift is also an interesting discussion and atpthornton basically sums up my thoughts better than I could above :)

[rue721]

I know. It's pretty much a certainty. I'd still do it. I wouldn't be able to live with myself otherwise.

Is that because of your hatred of betrayal?

Personally, I would think it would be better to watch the man be burnt alive and spend that time trying to figure out a way to murder the king without being killed for doing so. Why should I die because the king is a cruel madman? Better *he* die.

To bring it back to Theon -- he spends a fair amount of time thinking about the idea that he's a "turncloak," and I think that's why he's torn over the Miller's sons. As in, was that crime as bad as if he'd actually killed Bran and Rickon, or would killing Bran and Ricken have been worse since he should have felt more loyalty towards them?

Personally, I think it's basically the same. I don't see why killing someone you love is better or worse than killing someone who other people love or even somebody who isn't loved at all. But I guess that relies on a belief in the basic equal worth of every person's life, which might have been pretty foreign to these characters.

[Tyroshi Sellsword]

I can respect this as well. Again, I think it comes down to subjectivity. I tend to look at what cultures do for the least of their brothers and sisters--it's just how I am.

Then you must take a very dim view of the staggering majority of cultures in the world, past and present, because almost everywhere, someone is getting screwed over bigtime. Once you acknowledge that on a pragmatic level, you can't really judge a culture by what the worst people in it do. You have to judge by what the majority do, and the overall shape of the culture. The Iron Born don't come out too well in that assessment.

Is it possible we only think this is ALL Pyke ever does because it is all we get the chance to see them do? We came there at the beginning of an invasion plan. Asha, remember, ultimately wanted peace, and Rodrik seemed like the type of person more interested in cultural pursuits than reaving. Is it possible that since we've only "traveled" with their army we're only basing our judgements on the exploits of their army, whereas we get a more balanced view of Westeros?

Maybe, but I keep going back to this: WE DO NOT SOW. Tell me that is not glorifying a parasitic culture, even if it's an exaggeration.

Edit: Oh, my bad. He was mentioned up at post #362.

I mentioned him in #367, in a point about hypocrisy that no one acknowledged.

I am not even going to get into the Rhaegar stuff in this thread.

[Pale_Valkyrie]

Is that because of your hatred of betrayal?

LOL, touche rue721. Though to be honest, if I forsook land and family to protect and defend a king, and he forced me to be an accomplice in such an atrocity, I would consider him to have betrayed me first. Of course, this is the very reason that I wouldn't ever swear absolute obedience to anybody, so I guess the scenario is doomed from the start.

Personally, I would think it would be better to watch the man be burnt alive and spend that time trying to figure out a way to murder the king without being killed for doing so. Why should I die because the king is a cruel madman? Better *he* die.

That is certainly the smart thing to do. History has shown, however, that I lack the appropriate impulse control to make it work, for my part.

To bring it back to Theon -- he spends a fair amount of time thinking about the idea that he's a "turncloak," and I think that's why he's torn over the Miller's sons. As in, was that crime as bad as if he'd actually killed Bran and Rickon, or would killing Bran and Ricken have been worse since he should have felt more loyalty towards them?

Personally, I think it's basically the same. I don't see why killing someone you love is better or worse than killing someone who other people love or even somebody who isn't loved at all. But I guess that relies on a belief in the basic equal worth of every person's life, which might have been pretty foreign to these characters.

I read somewhere, I think it was the Handmaid's Tale, the idea that to kill a person (or an animal), you have to make them an "it" first in your mind and your heart--an object, and thing. Following this, the ability to make something that you love, or that loves you, an "it" takes more effort than a random person that is already of no practical consequence to you--they were, for all intents and purposes, an abstract concept before, and they'll be one after because you never know them. A loved one exists in humanity-3D in your mind, and you have to disregard all of it to kill them. I don't think killing a loved one over a stranger is a worse *crime,* by any means. I do see it as taking more of a concerted effort to be cruel, though.

This, of course, is just one woman's entirely subjective opinion.

Then you must take a very dim view of the staggering majority of cultures in the world, past and present, because almost everywhere, someone is getting screwed over bigtime. Once you acknowledge that on a pragmatic level, you can't really judge a culture by what the worst people in it do. You have to judge by what the majority do, and the overall shape of the culture. The Iron Born don't come out too well in that assessment.

On moral grounds, I do take a very dim view of the staggering majority of cultures. Which is why I don't presume to rank them against each other on moral grounds. Or assign them value on moral grounds. I can value both the ancient Aztecs and WWII area America while disapproving of their mass human sacrifice and nuclear bombings, respectively, and also refuse to rank their morality against each other as a pointless endeavor.

In essence, I don't burden myself trying to judge and compare the morals of different cultures.

Maybe, but I keep going back to this: WE DO NOT SOW. Tell me that is not glorifying a parasitic culture, even if it's an exaggeration.

Oh, it's glorification of a predator culture, alright. But those are House Greyjoy's words. It is not clear that every family on Pyke is the same--again, we've only seen the warriors, and even among the warriors you've got Rodrik.

[rue721]

do take a very dim view of the staggering majority of cultures. Which is why I don't presume to rank them against each other on moral grounds. Or assign them value on moral grounds.

I think there's a difference between expecting others to share in your moral judgments and making moral judgments at all. I think it's our duty as thinking human beings to make moral judgments, and the reason is that I think every adult has the duty to consider the good of the group/culture and not just his own pragmatic needs. While I don't expect other cultures to judge *themselves* on the same moral grounds that I judge them, I do think it's my duty to take a moral stance.

For example, I wouldn't expect the Ironborn not to make violent parasitism a way of life just because I think violent parasitism is morally repugnant. However, since I have a moral code and violent parasitism goes contrary to it, I feel totally justified in saying that I find a society that relies on violent parasitism *morally worse* than one that doesn't. And I also would find it totally justifiable to do what I could to keep them from being violent parasites on the land and toward the people I have a duty to care for.

That's why I think Ned's stance of holding Theon hostage to keep the Ironborn from attacking his lands, but not engineering a genocide of the Ironborn, is a morally righteous stance. Further, if the Ironborn had seemed incapable of living in a way that doesn't force violent parasitism onto Ned's land or people, I do think he would have been justified to try and chop the head off that monster and install a new regime -- but it never seemed to get to that point, so that's fairly moot.

Also, I think it's condescending to say, "it's not a moral choice at all -- they *have* to live that way" -- because they don't *have* to. They had choices, such as creating an economy based on earning and money rather than on stealing and rape, but this is what they chose.

In the real world, I think it's totally justifiable for me to say that Nazi Germany was morally inferior to a society that didn't rely on mass slaughter of law-abiding citizens than to a society that doesn't, since mass slaughter of law-abiding citizens is morally repugnant to me, personally. And if all societies rely on mass slaughter of law-abiding citizens, then I think it's still justifiable to rank Nazi Germany morally below a society that lauds it and engages in it less. I also think that when it became clear that Nazi society was incapable of continuing without trying to spread its moral repugnance to other societies, I think those other societies and their allies were perfectly justified to chop the head off that beast and install a new regime.

It is not clear that every family on Pyke is the same--again, we've only seen the warriors

True -- I don't think it's right to judge individuals based on 1. how their society's soldiers act 2. generalities about how their society functions.

I don't think it's right to condemn one person for belonging to a certain family or society. Why? If he's really so bad, he's probably going to do something terrible all by himself anyway :P

I read somewhere, I think it was the Handmaid's Tale, the idea that to kill a person (or an animal), you have to make them an "it" first in your mind and your heart--an object, and thing. Following this, the ability to make something that you love, or that loves you, an "it" takes more effort than a random person that is already of no practical consequence to you--they were, for all intents and purposes, an abstract concept before, and they'll be one after because you never know them. A loved one exists in humanity-3D in your mind, and you have to disregard all of it to kill them. I don't think killing a loved one over a stranger is a worse *crime,* by any means. I do see it as taking more of a concerted effort to be cruel, though.

I agree that it probably takes less mental effort to kill someone you only know as a concept and not as an individual, because it is easier to gloss over what makes them special and what will be gone when they're dead. But, to be honest, I'm sheltered enough to find it hard to imagine being able to kill even someone you only know as a concept of a man, woman or child.

[lady crackhead]

Pardon et moi, but why should anyone care what the general, plural You thinks about blah blah blah morals from your real world blah blah blah?

This is a fantasy novel set in a fantasy world with fantasy people. They dont have your morals. Period. Theyre archetypes. Why arent you examining them as such, instead of contemporary people with your contemporary morals?

If you want to philosophize, take it to a General Chatter thread, s'il vous plait, merci beaucoup, au revoir les enfantes.

Oh, and Theon. Theon Greyjoy. Theon Stigandi Jarlsburg Vajgaard Greyjoy III.

A viking culture in a fantasy book that also contains the freaks from the east. Yes, it makes sense. Because it's a fantasy world inside a fantasy book. Their culture is every bit as legitimate as any other one in that world. If i recall correctly, the Iron Isle tried to make a go of it without reaving & they starved. That's what set Balon to reave in the first place, looking after his people. To do that, they looked back to the Old Way & tried to bring it back, as a desperate measure. Reaving & raping doesnt go on round the clock or they would either have nothing left to take or more likely all be dead. It's done to keep them alive & with food in their stomachs. But shit, if they were good decent folk, they stop fucking for a day & not have so many kids so they can afford to get a boat ride to..the mainland? To ...?? I know ! They can all move to Winterfell! Ned would never turn them away.

The Old Way might be done with with the rise of Asha or Theon, because Martin likes to poke at religion while telling a tale that is steeped in Christian morality, including the hypocrisy. Just ignore the fact that in this book the both Theon & Cersei are punished sexually for their punishing sexuality. None of the Starks fuck. Robb did a few times with a stereotypical blushingly maiden. Jon got to for a small window of time too, with stereotypical wild maid & a veritable shitton of guilt to go with it. Sansa's turning into an old maid with a case of medorthophobia & Arya thinks boys are icky & just wants to kill people, damnit. Ned made Cat's loins hurt & her thought bubble was, Gee, I hope this dutiful fucking that ive done a thousands times already with this guy at least gives me a baby. Fucking = Baby. Because that is the Stark way.

I want to high-five you for this, Krakenhead.

Tentacles UP!

[Sivin]

In the real world, I think it's totally justifiable for me to say that Nazi Germany was morally inferior to a society that didn't rely on mass slaughter of law-abiding citizens than to a society that doesn't, since mass slaughter of law-abiding citizens is morally repugnant to me, personally. And if all societies rely on mass slaughter of law-abiding citizens, then I think it's still justifiable to rank Nazi Germany morally below a society that lauds it and engages in it less. I also think that when it became clear that Nazi society was incapable of continuing without trying to spread its moral repugnance to other societies, I think those other societies and their allies were perfectly justified to chop the head off that beast and install a new regime.

I don't mean to come across as an uber-dick here, but you do realize that you can't exactly say that about Nazi Germany as a society and expect it to support your opinion. The antisemitism in Germany was no worse than in America or literally the rest of the world, the difference was that the psycho's that were able to take power (because the people were starving) were outliers and super fucked up in the head. The German people of the 30's and 40's (and a society is defined by it's people) were more scared out of their fucking minds than they were relishing the thought of "rely on mass slaughter of law-abiding citizens".

Also, Theon wasn't taken away from Pyke because the Ironborn were reaving, he was taken away because Balon had tried to rebel. I don't think the "reaving and plundering" was even a factor. Because all they did during Balon's rebellion as far as offensive moves was burn the ships at Lannisport. Which is a legitimate act of war.

So to say that Theon was taken away to stop the Ironborn from raping and plundering is actually an invalid argument, because Balon and company never actually did that outside of what you guys have deemed as acceptable during war. When they took the North, I don't remember any evidence of women getting carted away to the Iron Islands, so you're judging a society on the acts of its ancestors (I don't think there has been any actual reaving since the pre-Targaryen years), and if you want to judge societies for the acts of their ancestors, then you need to know that Ned Stark himself said that he wouldn't want to meet any of the early Starks.

And I keep seeing "WE DO NOT SOW" (Best motto in the series by the way), those words are (once again) just leftovers from their ancestors, and don't actually mean anything. If you want to look at them in a literal context in light of what's happening right now, you could read them as "We fish and mine for iron".

[iamthedave]

Yes, sorry about contributing to the thread drift. So, to try to get it back on topic I wanted to quote the above as it pretty much mirrors my feelings on Theon/Reek. I hope he is able to at least stick it to Ramsey and the Boltons before he bites the dust (which I think he will).

Hardly a bold prediction. You could say that for 70% of the cast by drawing names out of a hat and be a sure bet for half right.

I actually don't think Theon's going to be wrapped up too much with the Bolton saga. He's clearly - as in its telegraphed from 200 000 miles away - going to be crucial in the resolution of the Iron Isles storyline. I'd guess that whatever did befall Stannis (I don't think he's dead yet, but I reckon he probably got his ass handed to him nonetheless), it provided room for Asha to make a getaway with Theon, and there'll be some travelloging of them trying to get back to the Isles for Kingsmoot MK II and/or rehabilitating him mentally a little more. Martin is fond of travellogging, after all. The only other angle I can see is Asha and Theon accompanying Jeyne to the wall, but I really don't think that'll happen. After a long plotline of Theon reestablishing his identity, a return to Pyke seems the next step.

Seems more like to me that Manderly will be dealing with the Boltons, perhaps along with Jon/The Wildlings.

Plus, Theon already HAS 'stuck it' to Ramsay by stealing Jeyne away. Right there he undid all the Boltons' planning.

[Tyroshi Sellsword]

I don't mean to come across as an uber-dick here, but you do realize that you can't exactly say that about Nazi Germany as a society and expect it to support your opinion. The antisemitism in Germany was no worse than in America or literally the rest of the world, the difference was that the psycho's that were able to take power (because the people were starving) were outliers and super fucked up in the head. The German people of the 30's and 40's (and a society is defined by it's people) were more scared out of their fucking minds than they were relishing the thought of "rely on mass slaughter of law-abiding citizens".

I don't think this is an historically justified interpretation of what happened in Nazi Germany AT ALL, but suffice it to say that I agree with rue.

Also, Theon wasn't taken away from Pyke because the Ironborn were reaving, he was taken away because Balon had tried to rebel. I don't think the "reaving and plundering" was even a factor. Because all they did during Balon's rebellion as far as offensive moves was burn the ships at Lannisport. Which is a legitimate act of war.

This is not true either. Balon Greyjoy WAS reaving. In fact, in Chapter 1 of AFFC, it says he spent the summer of his fifteenth year reaving, and by 17 he had two saltwives and his own boat. They were not at war when Balon was 15. Balon was just doing what the iron born do when they aren't fishing or mining. Theon was taken away to quell the rebellion, it's true, but my point still stands: the iron born, even in the contemporary age, had no problem with raping, reaving, or taking thralls. If you live in a society where the strong take the weak and make slaves of them as a matter of honor, you can't really bitch when someone stronger than you takes you. Can you? I mean, I guess you can, but don't expect a lot of sympathy.

When they took the North, I don't remember any evidence of women getting carted away to the Iron Islands, so you're judging a society on the acts of its ancestors (I don't think there has been any actual reaving since the pre-Targaryen years), and if you want to judge societies for the acts of their ancestors, then you need to know that Ned Stark himself said that he wouldn't want to meet any of the early Starks.

They have thralls. Where do you think they came from? From the reaving that was being done all along. I'm sorry, this is right out of the book.

And I keep seeing "WE DO NOT SOW" (Best motto in the series by the way), those words are (once again) just leftovers from their ancestors, and don't actually mean anything. If you want to look at them in a literal context in light of what's happening right now, you could read them as "We fish and mine for iron".

And we reave when we get the chance.

[lady crackhead]

Too funny. All the selfrighteous moral outrage & indignation over the Greyjoys, Ironmen & Vikings in general is because if youre choosing Team Stark as your only point of reference when you read the books, you become just as narrowminded & stiff as their characters have become.

Again, it's a fantasy novel. But the Ironmen are is based on vikings, who are proud ancestors of a lot of people, mostly unbeknownst to them ;p

link^

[Tyroshi Sellsword]

It's not any more self-righteous or indignant than the defenses of the Greyjoys. It's an intellectual argument, not an emotional one. There is no reason to call people narrow-minded or stiff. It's just a conversation. I am not dissing on the Vikings: I'm criticizing the Iron Born in a fantasy novel. Let's not talk too much about real-world cultures, as it's a digression and a much more complicated discussion than this thread can contain.

Your assumption that anyone is "choosing Team Stark" is not fair. I have plenty of criticisms for the Starks, and in a thread about them, I'd be happy to discuss them. I think, though, in a convo about Stark v. Greyjoy, I feel I have to argue for Stark. Preferring the Starks to the Greyjoys is just a matter of taste, not personal virtue or open-mindedness. It does not say anything about the character of the reader who makes that choice. I don't think less of any of the Greyjoy supporters, though I disagree with their POV. I wish this conversation could remain respectful and not get into judging posters or assigning qualities to them. You're not going to shame or insult anyone into agreeing with you.

[Clash]

Pardon et moi, but why should anyone care what the general, plural You thinks about blah blah blah morals from your real world blah blah blah?

Pardonnez moi :blushing:

[lady crackhead]

Pardonnez moi :blushing:

Forgive you? For what?

[Tyroshi Sellsword]

I just reread the first Theon chapter from A Clash of Kings... ugh, he was insufferable.

[lady crackhead]

99.9 %, Asha has never raped anyone..

I wouldnt back that stat, if i were you.