[Book Spoilers] Robb Stark Redemption Arc

[Lord Over]

Third Reed's ability to build a strong concise logical argument without losing temper is an orgasmic treat for the eyes.

[Slingingstones]

Robb made a political mistake. It did not warrant loss of life by murder, especially after the law of hospitality (bread & salt) was extended and most certainly the RW was far more evil than his marriage. Morally speaking, the end does not justify the means. As many bastards that are kicking around in ASOIAF, it would have been a simple task for any Septon to unmake Robb and Talisa's vows to keep Walder Frey happy; but, where would our story be then.

[SerMixalot]

oh yeah, gee always pick on the old horny guy! its always HIS fault.

Look at the facts

1. He lived up to his end of the agreement

2. He expected his blood to be queen and possibly a future king.

3. He said "Mayhaps"

not his fault if Robb etal werent paying attention

[Mulled Wino]

I agree completely-even the hymen part :P . Robb wasnt a POV but he was the most important Stark for two books. I could easily relate to him-who wouldnt wanna be a King and be popular and love by his subjects? I wish he didnt marry Jeyne because of what happened but i can understand it

What Part of marrying Jeyne do you understand?

[dtones520]

For acting in a selfish & irresponsible way to his station, people and vow? Instead of tying his house to his bannerman, he marries...no one. Instead of placing his realm as King of the North as his priority, he places personal desire first. Instead of holding to his word, he intentionally and with forethought goes and breaks his vow to his bannerman.

How is that any different than book Robb? Sure, the reason for marriage is slightly different, but the rest is all the same. In the book Robb marries a girl from an enemy house with very few soldiers to add to his cause. He places his personal desire for "honor" first. Instead of holding his word he intentionally and with very little forethought goes and breaks his vow to his bannerman.

So, everything that comes from Robb marrying Jeyne happens with Talisa. The only difference is that Robb marries Talisa because he fell in love with her. He married Jeyne because he popped her cherry and felt ba about it. He was a king, all he had to do was say to the Westerlings was "sorry, she spread her legs"

So what if he was grieving for his, thought to be, dead brothers. In the show Robb knows Winterfell was lost, he knows Theon betrayed him and has heard nothing of Bran and Rickons condition. You can make a pretty stupid decision with that going on.

[Frey Pie]

What Part of marrying Jeyne do you understand?

Have you ever made a mistake in your life and wanted to make up for it? Thats what i can understand. I also think that putting the whole honour thing aside Robb and Jeyne did fall for eachother. Also relatable. Sure it was the stupid thing to do but many people have made bad mistakes and shouldnt be villified for it

[Areo Speedwagon]

I'd say it's more a contextualisation. To Robb, marrying Jeyne is what constitutes "honour". We can debate how honourable it was, but in the context of a feudal medieval setting, [...] Robb is many good things, but he is never going to question or shine a new light upon medieval gender relations, short of treating his wife with respect.

Okay, just as I suspected, common ground. I agree with you on the contextualization, that's good term. And for the most part I agree with the vast majority of this paragraph. I think the only thing we can judge him on, regardless of time period, is putting his love life (regardless of who & how) above his troops, his cause. But since we both have already agreed this is selfish, there's no use in belaboring the point.

As to him never shining a light on medieval gender relations, as it stands, you're right. Had he not put himself over his cause and troops and the RW never happened, I think TVRobb may have become one of those great men you spoke of that advances a cause. TVRobb certainly loves his mother. A lot. They've really made a point of how close they are in the show. And Catelyn is honest, headstrong, bold, and confident. Many things they have shown Talisa to be (so far). I always took his relationship with Talisa to be slightly Oedipal in that regard, he basically married his mom. So, who knows, between his admiration for his mother and his love of his wife, maybe he would have advanced the role of women. But we'll never know.

My beef lay with this notion of your friends that we can somehow absolve Robb of criminal negligence as a means of prolonged criticism because "he's just human".

We can't. And even if we could, being "just human" wouldn't satisfy the requirement. That's what the middle two paragraphs of my previous post were about.

Yes but that's not the point. The point is you're not meant to understand fully Robb's notion of honour because Robb's notion of honour isn't the same notion of honour as yours and mine. We can't understand it because it's not fully understandable to us. That's why the characters do shit in the books that we find strange. Because they're not us. We can find much sympathy in ASOIAF, and we can see broad strokes of empathy (I imagine Catelyn is an empathetic character for some modern mothers, not being either a parent or a woman I couldn't say for sure), but to try and consider major actions as something we can relate to directly is to somewhat miss the point of the novels IMO.

Which is precisely why I think the shift to a straight love story was the wiser move in adapting the story to the screen. As I said, and I take from that paragraph you would agree, we're 600 years removed from that notion of honor, it isn't, as you say, "fully understandable." You made my point better than I could.

I still take issue with you not thinking we're meant to relate. I think, on some level, we're meant to relate with every character any author writes. Finding that humanity is what makes characters worth taking an interest in, and it's the mark of a great author, which Martin certainly is. But this is a debate for literature as a whole and I don't want to deviate too much. I can't relate to Robb leading a host to war. I can't relate to Theon sneaking behind enemy lines and taking a castle. But I can relate to wanting to prove yourself to a disapproving father. I can relate to being in way over my head. Granted no one's life was at stake, but that's what makes it great for me. I know what I felt, and I shudder when I imagine the stakes being raised to the level they are in this story.

I understand that escapism is the one of the primary functions of fantasy, and that not being able to relate to a bastard who willingly joins a militarized penal colony (of sorts) and ends up turning double agent with the enemy he swore to fight because a greater threat of ice demons (of sorts) looms imminent, is, admittedly, kind of the point. As I said above, we've all felt lonely or ignored or slighted or jubilant. Great writers use that and put it into a context we would otherwise be unable to relate to.

I would also contest this notion that Book Robb, [...] with Show Robb, who ignores the war effort in order to spend time with this woman, continues actively seeking her out as he becomes more aware of his attraction to her, and who then takes a significant time to choose to both nob her and then to seek and dismiss advice to the contrary.

I suppose that's fair. I never really thought of the Jeyne situation that way. Even though, for reasons stated, that moral dilemma is slightly obfuscated to us. As I was reading your synopsis I thought of Antony and Cleopatra. The set up at least, wherein that Antony ignores his militaristic duties (at first) for the love of Cleopatra, who I think is a too-similar-to-be-coincidentally-apt-surrogate to Talisa, a foreign, highborn beauty. But after that, I think it's stretching to find similarities, other than Octavian could be Roose in that once allies become enemies, but, that's a very liberal comparison. I truly hope they don't turn Talisa into Cleopatra, I think that would betray a lot of what they set up in her character in season 2, but that's way off topic. My point is that I don't think Robb ignoring his militaristic duties and placing his attention in a woman is that modern of a love story, Antony and Cleopatra was written in about 1606. If we ignore her motivation and focus on the story as a whole, Samson and Delilah is a story about a great soldier who is brought down by the misplaced love and misplaced loyalty he puts in a duplicitous woman. As Strider said above Paris sacrificed Troy for Helen.

[Mulled Wino]

Have you ever made a mistake in your life and wanted to make up for it?

i don't buy that its any different, I guess I just don't empathize. I know exactly zero people who have fallen in love with their nurses.

Thats what i can understand. I also think that putting the whole honour thing aside Robb and Jeyne did fall for eachother. Also relatable. Sure it was the stupid thing to do but many people have made bad mistakes and shouldnt be villified for it

Robb and Talisa fell for each other too....and yes Robb should be villified for it when it affects the entire realm, especially the north. he should be held to a much higher standard because he was a king.

[Frey Pie]

i don't buy that its any different, I guess I just don't empathize. I know exactly zero people who have fallen in love with their nurses.

Robb and Talisa fell for each other too....and yes Robb should be villified for it when it affects the entire realm, especially the north. he should be held to a much higher standard because he was a king.

So you would put Robb in among the villains of the series?

Well one of the many things people have a problem with in the T/R romance is that Robb doesnt even know his bros are dead. This is one of the main things that makes J/R more relatable. The mans hurting and is vulnerable. When i was his age would i have made a different choice? Probably. But my world probably wouldnt be crumbling around me and i wouldnt have been brought up by Ned Stark and have Jon Snow as a brother

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Robb and Talisa fell for each other too....

The actress playing talisa has said that there is a "twist" involving her character. I'm really, really interested in finding out what that is.

[Liammarksmiff]

Even if Robb did love Jeyne/Talisa and couldn't stand the idea of marrying someone other than her, why couldn't he just wait until after the war was over to marry her?

[SerMixalot]

The actress playing talisa has said that there is a "twist" involving her character. I'm really, really interested in finding out what that is.

would she be aware of twists from next season? are the scripts even written yet?

[The Meeraculous Third Reed]

Third Reed's ability to build a strong concise logical argument without losing temper is an orgasmic treat for the eyes.

Thank you very much. I promise as well that this is not a duplicate account :P

Snip.

Fair enough. I think we're as close to agreeing if we'll ever be. I'm sure Robb would have ruled justly, but I don't personally think he would have gone about setting Dornish like laws of succession and so forth.

We can't. And even if we could, being "just human" wouldn't satisfy the requirement. That's what the middle two paragraphs of my previous post were about.

KK. I was simply contesting the notion that people you know do not consider it worthwhile to criticise Robb for being a selfish idiot because he's human, and that are significantly different scenarios which can result in the same result yet still emote different degrees of sympathy.

Which is precisely why I think the shift to a straight love story was the wiser move in adapting the story to the screen. As I said, and I take from that paragraph you would agree, we're 600 years removed from that notion of honor, it isn't, as you say, "fully understandable." You made my point better than I could.

Yeah but one can literally apply this to thousands and thousands of pages of ASOIAF. Different worlds are not fully understandable, and therein lies much of the interest. If we start to remove ourselves from medieval notions of law and honour, shall we next consider it intelligent of the writers to make Sansa Robb's heir? Will there be no need for a Kingsmoot because everybody just accepts Asha should rule?

The epistemic distance for lack of a better world between us and ASOIAF is what makes of what we read so shocking and vivid.

I still take issue with you not thinking we're meant to relate. I think, on some level, we're meant to relate with every character any author writes. Finding that humanity is what makes characters worth taking an interest in, and it's the mark of a great author, which Martin certainly is. But this is a debate for literature as a whole and I don't want to deviate too much. I can't relate to Robb leading a host to war. I can't relate to Theon sneaking behind enemy lines and taking a castle. But I can relate to wanting to prove yourself to a disapproving father. I can relate to being in way over my head. Granted no one's life was at stake, but that's what makes it great for me. I know what I felt, and I shudder when I imagine the stakes being raised to the level they are in this story.

Goes back to the epistemic distance I was talking about. I did also note that we can find broad strokes of empathy, but for the most part we should not look at the minutiae and say "oh wow I can really relate". Especially when it comes to relationships in ASOIAF, because we are dealing with a betrothal, honour and choice system so diametrically different from ours.

Robb affected by having the weight of the world on his shoulders- we can relate (to a degree. I doubt any of us have ever held thousands of lives in our hands)

Robb having to cope with being a 16 year old in a wartorn society leading thousands of men into battle in the name of his recently deceased father whilst his sisters are captives thousands of miles away- we cannot relate.

Hence why I've tempered my argument somewhat and have said we can find broad strokes of empathy.

Robb having an emotional crisis regarding a partner and falling for someone he shouldn't- We can relate.

Robb having to contend with having his bride chosen for him, adhering to a medieval code of what constitutes moral behaviour and what doesn't, understanding the importance of a woman's virginity not just to her but to her house, having to play politics within a highly tribal marriage and political system- We can't and shouldn't relate.

Robb is a figure of empathy because he's human and faces dilemmas. Drastically changing Robb's character, motives and circumstances in order to create something which, instance for instance, creates a scenario which is interchangeable between modern and "GOT" setting does not create real empathy because it's entirely forced. IMO.

I suppose that's fair. I never really thought of the Jeyne situation that way. Even though, for reasons stated, that moral dilemma is slightly obfuscated to us. As I was reading your synopsis I thought of Antony and Cleopatra. The set up at least, wherein that Antony ignores his militaristic duties (at first) for the love of Cleopatra, who I think is a too-similar-to-be-coincidentally-apt-surrogate to Talisa, a foreign, highborn beauty. But after that, I think it's stretching to find similarities, other than Octavian could be Roose in that once allies become enemies, but, that's a very liberal comparison. I truly hope they don't turn Talisa into Cleopatra, I think that would betray a lot of what they set up in her character in season 2, but that's way off topic. My point is that I don't think Robb ignoring his militaristic duties and placing his attention in a woman is that modern of a love story, Antony and Cleopatra was written in about 1606. If we ignore her motivation and focus on the story as a whole, Samson and Delilah is a story about a great soldier who is brought down by the misplaced love and misplaced loyalty he puts in a duplicitous woman. As Strider said above Paris sacrificed Troy for Helen.

One huge difference between these women and Talisa. The vast majority of the accounts we have of them are negative. Helen caused a ten year war and never comes across sympathetically (at least in The Iliad (can't remember her apperance in the Odyssey off the top of my head) and many greek tragedies). Cleopatra is almost exclusively portrayed negatively, as some sort of she-witch seductress. Likewise Delilah. We're not talking about love affairs so much as intoxication (for lack of a better word) by mysterious, immoral women which leaves their "targets" (again for lack of a better word) beyond help. I think we'd agree that this is not what the writers are doing (or trying to do) with Talisa. Instead we have this awfully contrived cliche of "Boy meets girl. Girl's sassiness piques interest of boy " etc, which could be in place in almost any modern rom-com.

I agree that to turn Talisa into a Cleopatra like spy figure would be pretty silly. They should have just kept her as Jeyne.

[Areo Speedwagon]

[...] but I don't personally think he would have gone about setting Dornish like laws of succession and so forth.

True, he certainly would not have gone that far. But is there no middle ground between between treating women as utilitarian, only useful insofar as their womb is fertile and instituting a fully matriarchal society? I intentionally made a false dichotomy out of your point, but, I think that essence was there. Maybe he would have included Talisa or Catelyn in the strategy tent? That seemed an old boys club. But perhaps that's Arya, Brienne, and in her own way and depending on what happens, Sansa's "job" to change the minds of men that women can have valuable opinions on war? I would have included Asha in that list, but she seems to have already done so to an extent.

Yeah but one can literally apply this to thousands and thousands of pages of ASOIAF. Different worlds are not fully understandable, and therein lies much of the interest. If we start to remove ourselves from medieval notions of law and honour, shall we next consider it intelligent of the writers to make Sansa Robb's heir? Will there be no need for a Kingsmoot because everybody just accepts Asha should rule?

Sansa being made to Robb's heir would be unintelligible given the story. But I would say for different reasons. As we've established over the course of this dialogue, we already are removed from medieval notions of law and honour, so our further removal should have no bearing on the story itself. You're right in saying those scenarios would be unintelligible. But I believe the source of why that would ring so terribly false is because having those events come to pass would remove the characters themselves from the medieval notions of law and honour, not the reader. I think our involvement is very much secondary to the characters as they're the ones living the story.

The epistemic distance for lack of a better world between us and ASOIAF is what makes of what we read so shocking and vivid.

[...]

Goes back to the epistemic distance I was talking about. I did also note that we can find broad strokes of empathy, but for the most part we should not look at the minutiae and say "oh wow I can really relate". Especially when it comes to relationships in ASOIAF, because we are dealing with a betrothal, honour and choice system so diametrically different from ours.

You come up with really great terms, and 'epistemic distance' is fantastic. I'm definitely going to have to absorb that into my lexicon. To be honest, though, if anyone asks, I'll probably leave out how I read it debating someone on a forum dedicated to a series of fantasy novels.

To your point, though, I will agree if I'm allowed a slight word replacement, which you're more than welcome to say isn't appropriate. What you're calling minutiae, I'm more comfortable calling context. I think in the sentence you wrote, the replacement works linguistically and syntactically. And, viewed through this lens, I think I finally understand what you meant in your original response that kicked off this whole exchange. If you were saying that we're not meant to relate to the minutiae (context) of this, or any, fantasy story, I 100% agree. Though I do find myself salivating at his descriptions of feasts, he certainly has a knack for writing about food.

I compartmentalize things. And that's what I guess I've done for minutiae/context and emotional content. So, I'm now ready to say you're right (oh, it hurts!) with your original post as long as I can have this caveat. I still strongly believe that we are supposed to relate to every character on an emotional level, every character we wish to succeed anyway. Relating/empathizing with Cersei, Ramsay, Walder is impossible, but it's supposed to be, we don't want good things to happen to them (at least I don't). On the contrary, we actively root for them die horrible deaths. That's the power of being able to relate to a character on an emotional level. It casts the die so to speak. We cannot relate to what happens to characters in ASOIAF, and I can understand now what you meant by saying we're not supposed to. But I think we can and are supposed to relate to how they deal with what happens to them, how they work it out.

I think it goes to what Joseph Campbell found in "The Hero With a Thousand Faces." That regardless of where the myth came from, who tells it, or what happens, different cultures thousands of miles apart, completely unaware of each others' existence came up with remarkably similar tales. The archetypes are all the same. The hero, the mentor, woman as mother, woman as temptress, the trickster, the herald, the threshold guardians, the shapeshifter, etc. These archetypes are in our bones, in our DNA, they go deeper than our psyche. We've (hopefully) all had a mentor, yes, but none of us have had that mentor be a magical assassin who gives us a coin so we can cross an ocean and become a magical assassin too. Arya as hero, Jaqen as both Mentor and shapeshifter. Martin is simply continuing a tradition that goes back to Grimm's Fairy Tales, Beowulf, The Iliad, The Epic of Gilgamesh. These stories have endured, and I believe Martin's will endure, because these characters (the big ones) follow archetypes so ingrained in us we dream them. Because we share the same DNA, the same origins, we respond in kind to similar things. The origin of the hero tale itself is a fantastic exaggeration of the hunter who brings back food for the tribe, allowing them to survive. To say we're not meant to relate to that, I believe, is to say we're not meant to relate to our origins as human beings.

And Joseph Campbell also found that ancient myths were more than just stories to be told. They were actually metaphorical maps of the territory one had to travel to become a human being. The concept of "paying the iron price" really hit me. As ridiculous as sounds, It is now one of the principle I live my life by. I don't use it in regards to what jewelry I can wear (i don't even wear a watch), but on how I act. If I want a night of intoxication, I have to earn it, I have to pay the iron price for it. If I want to eat meat, I pay the iron price for it (sometimes, I do take the literal meaning there). It has taught me in a more visceral way than I had previously thought or known that all things have intrinsic value and that value needs to be honored before you can consume it.

One huge difference between these women and Talisa. The vast majority of the accounts we have of them are negative.

Gah! I was going back and forth about citing those examples because I knew you were going to bring that up. So, in a sense, well done, you certainly didn't disappoint.

Boy meets girl. Girl's sassiness piques interest of boy

I certainly can't argue that isn't what happened, because, you're right, it pretty much is. I guess I just saw her sassiness as a projection of his mother. In that case, his attraction to her made a lot of sense to me. Maybe that's rationalization or I invented that so as to not see the contrived nature of the relationship. Regardless, that's how I choose to view his attraction, and my interpretation allows me to enjoy those scenes instead of get annoyed by them. So I'm going to count it as a win.

I have really enjoyed this back and forth. I've found myself at work clicking the refresh button when I get a spare moment. And you honestly helped me to understand why people think that storyline is shit and changed my mind of those that think so. It's clear you're an intelligent individual and I consider myself lucky to have an intelligent, and as others have said, calm, individual pick up the mantle of their cause. It's something that is all too rare in the anonymity of the internet. Thank you.

[victim]

would she be aware of twists from next season? are the scripts even written yet?

From what I gather, some of the actors are told the basic outline of their story and the part they will play in the series after they get the role. In order for Oona to play the role to the best of her ability, she should be aware of any future twists about her character specifically, especially if they are large ones. Hypothetically, if there is a twist and Talisa turns out to be Jeyne (or anyone other than who she says she is for that matter) it would be extremely detrimental for the actress to not know this well in advance as she may play the character the completely wrong way.

Edit: The scripts themselves are not essential, D&D can provide her with some kind of outline because I'm sure they know where they're going with each character.

[Currawong]

I don't understand why love is such an incomprehensible reason to marry someone and break a vow, but a moment of weakness when one is injured and most likely doped up on milk of the poppy is? In season 1 when Maester Aemon gave Jon the speech where he says "What is honor, compared to a woman's love? What is duty against the feel of new born son in your arms? Or a brother' smile?" Were you rolling your eyes calling 'bullshit' on it?

I mean, yeah, fuck the producers for wanting to have a sexual relationship in season two that isn't rape, prostitution, or manipulative.

Exactly.

Whether Robb had sex and then married another woman out of grief/ etc as in the book, or out of love as in the TV show, really doesn't matter in the slightest - the guts of the issue is that he broke his oath to the Freys. Pure and simple. And the RW shows that 'why' you broke your oath is quite unimportant - it is the fact of breaking your oath that counts in the eyes of most people. Especially someone like Walder Frey who already has a chip on his shoulder.

Just ask Jaime Lannister about having a good reason for breaking an oath !

Non-book readers will still be completely shocked and appalled by the RW, because I don't think they anticipate such a brutal consequence for oath-breaking. And even if they thought that there would be some sort of revenge against Robb himself (like Ned Stark) I doubt that anyone just watching the TV series could anticipate that the Freys intend to take out Catelyn and half the Starks faihful as well.

I don't believe there is any necessity to 'redeem' Robb. He is a hormonal young man, in love / lust for the first time, and is trying to grow up and be a king in the most difficult of circumstances. He is at the age where he does not want to listen to sensible parental advice from Cat (sound familiar to parents of teenagers?!!) especially where that parent has herself done something stupid, and he is therefore determined to live or die by his own mistakes. Alas, in this case he will die. There's nothing TO redeem, other than a very sad case of youthful stupidity from an otherwise fine young man.

[jugdesh258]

I think the thread overstates Robs importance to begin with....perhaps at the fault of TV plot. I think he is often used incorrectly an example in threads regarding GRRM's inclination off killing off main characters.

He never was in my mind. He appeared from the start to be the expendable stark. The dude on star trek in the red shirt that beems down and is not scotty. Doomed from the start no matter what he did. He is like the only stark without a POV in the novels. There are plently of other starks to inherit the legacy of winterfell. We don't yet know if it will be Rickon from far off Skaggos or Sansa, or anyone for that matter

Talisa thing was dumb. Why not be Jayne since it would not matter. EP10 hindsight makes me think that they made the change to say she was from far off volantis just to fit Cat's dialog describing her as an exotic temptation instead of a fatso frey. I don't think she will die simply since we don't know yet in the books if Rob did have an heir

I think there will be a Lady Stonehart. Characters are everthing in this story. GRRM takes them through rollercoaster .....some transition from evil to good or reverse, etc. Her heart is turning black.....the transistion was missed on TV in leaving out the scene for Cat and Brienne at the table when only Cat knows Bran and Rickon are dead.

[The Meeraculous Third Reed]

True, he certainly would not have gone that far. But is there no middle ground between between treating women as utilitarian, only useful insofar as their womb is fertile and instituting a fully matriarchal society? I intentionally made a false dichotomy out of your point, but, I think that essence was there. Maybe he would have included Talisa or Catelyn in the strategy tent? That seemed an old boys club. But perhaps that's Arya, Brienne, and in her own way and depending on what happens, Sansa's "job" to change the minds of men that women can have valuable opinions on war? I would have included Asha in that list, but she seems to have already done so to an extent.

I think it's a part of ASOIAF that is generally understated. With all the characters (minus Talisa because she's not in the books) mentioned above, with perhaps the exception of Asha who I think is portrayed perhaps a little too positively for what she is (and I say that as someone who likes her), I think that several women in the books could compete with the men on their own terms. Again though it is surprising that it's Littlefinger who (in his own completely power driven way) sees the wisdom of women more clearly than most.

Sansa being made to Robb's heir would be unintelligible given the story. But I would say for different reasons. As we've established over the course of this dialogue, we already are removed from medieval notions of law and honour, so our further removal should have no bearing on the story itself. You're right in saying those scenarios would be unintelligible. But I believe the source of why that would ring so terribly false is because having those events come to pass would remove the characters themselves from the medieval notions of law and honour, not the reader. I think our involvement is very much secondary to the characters as they're the ones living the story.

I see your point, and I think we've reached something of an impasse. However, I shall say that Robb/Sansa succession story is relevant precisely because Robb's succession is called into question. If Robb takes a "modern" approach to love, who is to say he shouldn't do so to the line of succession (though Sansa is captive at that point)?

You come up with really great terms, and 'epistemic distance' is fantastic. I'm definitely going to have to absorb that into my lexicon. To be honest, though, if anyone asks, I'll probably leave out how I read it debating someone on a forum dedicated to a series of fantasy novels.

I'd probably do the same :).

To your point, though, I will agree if I'm allowed a slight word replacement, which you're more than welcome to say isn't appropriate. What you're calling minutiae, I'm more comfortable calling context. I think in the sentence you wrote, the replacement works linguistically and syntactically. And, viewed through this lens, I think I finally understand what you meant in your original response that kicked off this whole exchange. If you were saying that we're not meant to relate to the minutiae (context) of this, or any, fantasy story, I 100% agree. Though I do find myself salivating at his descriptions of feasts, he certainly has a knack for writing about food.

I compartmentalize things. And that's what I guess I've done for minutiae/context and emotional content. So, I'm now ready to say you're right (oh, it hurts!) with your original post as long as I can have this caveat. I still strongly believe that we are supposed to relate to every character on an emotional level, every character we wish to succeed anyway. Relating/empathizing with Cersei, Ramsay, Walder is impossible, but it's supposed to be, we don't want good things to happen to them (at least I don't). On the contrary, we actively root for them die horrible deaths. That's the power of being able to relate to a character on an emotional level. It casts the die so to speak. We cannot relate to what happens to characters in ASOIAF, and I can understand now what you meant by saying we're not supposed to. But I think we can and are supposed to relate to how they deal with what happens to them, how they work it out.

Caveat accepted. I have tempered my view somewhat to argue that these characters are roundly empathetic in the most basic way.

The reason I choose minutiae as opposed to context is because IMO, it means something slightly different. It's quite hard to explain, but I'll give it a try.

Context- The issues surrounding the decision. Contexts by definition can be either broad or minute. It doesn't deal IMO with the events as such as the issues around them.

Minutiae- To me the implication of this word is pretty accurate, namely that we're talking about a mass of minimal things that end up creating one large thing. Minutiae IMO are both the specific issues and actions surrounding an event. It's just a preference thing though.

I think it goes to what Joseph Campbell found in "The Hero With a Thousand Faces." That regardless of where the myth came from, who tells it, or what happens, different cultures thousands of miles apart, completely unaware of each others' existence came up with remarkably similar tales. The archetypes are all the same. The hero, the mentor, woman as mother, woman as temptress, the trickster, the herald, the threshold guardians, the shapeshifter, etc. These archetypes are in our bones, in our DNA, they go deeper than our psyche. We've (hopefully) all had a mentor, yes, but none of us have had that mentor be a magical assassin who gives us a coin so we can cross an ocean and become a magical assassin too. Arya as hero, Jaqen as both Mentor and shapeshifter. Martin is simply continuing a tradition that goes back to Grimm's Fairy Tales, Beowulf, The Iliad, The Epic of Gilgamesh. These stories have endured, and I believe Martin's will endure, because these characters (the big ones) follow archetypes so ingrained in us we dream them. Because we share the same DNA, the same origins, we respond in kind to similar things. The origin of the hero tale itself is a fantastic exaggeration of the hunter who brings back food for the tribe, allowing them to survive. To say we're not meant to relate to that, I believe, is to say we're not meant to relate to our origins as human beings.

And Joseph Campbell also found that ancient myths were more than just stories to be told. They were actually metaphorical maps of the territory one had to travel to become a human being. The concept of "paying the iron price" really hit me. As ridiculous as sounds, It is now one of the principle I live my life by. I don't use it in regards to what jewelry I can wear (i don't even wear a watch), but on how I act. If I want a night of intoxication, I have to earn it, I have to pay the iron price for it. If I want to eat meat, I pay the iron price for it (sometimes, I do take the literal meaning there). It has taught me in a more visceral way than I had previously thought or known that all things have intrinsic value and that value needs to be honored before you can consume it.

I agree with a lot of that.

Gah! I was going back and forth about citing those examples because I knew you were going to bring that up. So, in a sense, well done, you certainly didn't disappoint.

:P.

I certainly can't argue that isn't what happened, because, you're right, it pretty much is. I guess I just saw her sassiness as a projection of his mother. In that case, his attraction to her made a lot of sense to me. Maybe that's rationalization or I invented that so as to not see the contrived nature of the relationship. Regardless, that's how I choose to view his attraction, and my interpretation allows me to enjoy those scenes instead of get annoyed by them. So I'm going to count it as a win.

I have really enjoyed this back and forth. I've found myself at work clicking the refresh button when I get a spare moment. And you honestly helped me to understand why people think that storyline is shit and changed my mind of those that think so. It's clear you're an intelligent individual and I consider myself lucky to have an intelligent, and as others have said, calm, individual pick up the mantle of their cause. It's something that is all too rare in the anonymity of the internet. Thank you.

No worries, thanks to you also, not least because you've never used the "it's just a tv show argument".

[Mulled Wino]

So you would put Robb in among the villains of the series?

Well one of the many things people have a problem with in the T/R romance is that Robb doesnt even know his bros are dead. This is one of the main things that makes J/R more relatable. The mans hurting and is vulnerable. When i was his age would i have made a different choice? Probably. But my world probably wouldnt be crumbling around me and i wouldnt have been brought up by Ned Stark and have Jon Snow as a brother

He's just rash and dumb. Absolutely zero reason to just marry her then and there, or at all when you are responsible for thousands and thousands of lives for her honor. I knew the second that I read it, he was set up and dead.

Robb gave up and undermined everything his family worked towards, and turned his back on his people. I dont relate to his choice in either instance or empathize with him.

[Frey Pie]

He's just rash and dumb. Absolutely zero reason to just marry her then and there, or at all when you are responsible for thousands and thousands of lives for her honor. I knew the second that I read it, he was set up and dead.

Robb gave up and undermined everything his family worked towards, and turned his back on his people. I dont relate to his choice in either instance or empathize with him.

Wer gunna have to agree to disagree then! Or at least i will anyway!! I will say Ned left a legacy of honour and i do believe that Robb was attempting to follow that legacy and his own heart. Obviously the wrong choice though

I notice nobody has commented on my idea that Robb command a battle at the fords kinda battle and so look heroic one last time before his fall from grace?

COYBIG!!! :fencing: :cheers: