An Examination of Revenge and Vengeance in A Song of Ice and Fire

[Fetch me a block]

tried to be a better person? Seriously? In Tyrion II AGOT he tells Jon that he fantasises about watching his sister burn to death and genuinely seems surprised when Jon denies having similar thoughts.

Now having killed Tywin, he had to be dissuaded in Tyrion I ADWD from a plot that would lead to the death of his niece and in Tyrion VII imagines having his sister made into a shit shovelling slave and later confesses his desire to rape his own sister. In other words the man is getting angrier, his casual thought in Tyrion VI ADWD is to identify with the Dothraki, a desire for revenge has driven out any ability to savour or enjoy life from him all together.

Okay, I exaggerated, fair enough, but he really wasn't happy before either, otherwise he wouldn't have killed his father.

[Hangover of the Morning]

Yes, I agree. I think this thread is not-so-subtley trying to paint vengeance as a bad thing, when I don't think this is really a fair analysis in ASOIAF where revenge is more often than not the closest thing to justice. Would you not rather have slightly disproportionate or unfair justice than no justice at all?

You seem to mistake vengeance for justice. Nobody claims that those who committed murders and other atrocities should escape punishment and live happily ever after. As Milady of York really nicely summed it up, thinking that to "make the villain suffer the way you did" would make you feel any better is just an illusion that people believe until they are actually allowed to do so. Killing your Nemesis could (in the setting of Westeros) be considered justice but to make him suffer (e.g. kill someone he loves) is lowering yourself to the same level and it will certainly not make you ache any less. The more empathetic you are the harder it becomes to act on your revenge.

Someone mentioned earlier the nice distinction between Robert and Ned. Robert lost Lyanna and the hatred of Targaryens consumed him, Ned arguably suffered even more, yet he was able to forgive and live a full life.

Besides, in the case of wanting to punish everyone involved in the RW, there is bound to be some collateral damage and innocent lives lost. How would you feel if you accidentally avenged yourself on the wrong person? Besides even villains have children who will suffer as a consequence. Monte Cristo is a great read on that topic.

[Arkantos]

The good thing about vengeance is that if you get yourself a reputation for it, people will be less likely to cross you.

Then again, they might just be more thorough in crossing you.

[Lykos]

<snip>SPOILERS FROM OTHELLO<snip>

You better reread that as well.

realizing Desdemona's innocence, stabs Iago but not fatally, saying that he would rather have Iago live the rest of his life in pain. For his part, Iago refuses to explain his motives, vowing to remain silent from that moment on. Lodovico, a Venetian nobleman, apprehends both Iago and Othello for the murders, but (after giving a powerful speech about how he wants to be remembered and feeling remorse for killing his faithful wife) Othello commits suicide with a dagger he had hidden before he can be arrested. Lodovico then declares Graziano as Othello's heir and orders Montano to have Iago severely punished and executed for his actions.

wikipepdia

Shakespeare also shows the negative effects of revenge in Hamlet.

[Cas Stark]

His father also refused to acknowledge him as his heir, had his guards gang-rape his wife at an early age, and this cruelness and distance is a lot worse than you make it seem.

Arya started her killing career at earlier than 10. I wouldn't call her crazy.

Cersei pushed her best friend down a well.

There is no comparing that action to Arya Stark having had to kill in self defense to stay alive after being taken captive during a war and used as slave labor. Come on.

Tyrion saw fit to still take his father's money for years after Tysha, he saw fit to take ALL of the benefits of being a Lannister of Casterly Rock for years after Tysha, he became Hand in his stead and worked to keep his putrid family in power, and so, its not believable that he murdered his father years later because of that event. He murdered his father because even while he held a crossbow on him he still refused to give him any respect...that is why he murdered him...because he was dissed one too many times.

[ab aeterno]

So... you think with revenge people are tempted to take it too far? Perhaps, but Robert wanted to kill every Targaryen before he killed Rhaegar as well.

So if Robert wanted to kill them before and after, what exactly did his vengeance achieve? He seems to be just as angry. Killing the Targaryens never brought Lyanna back to him, it just made him compromise his values, if we take Ned's perspective.

[Fetch me a block]

You seem to mistake vengeance for justice. Nobody claims that those who committed murders and other atrocities should escape punishment and live happily ever after. As Milady of York really nicely summed it up, thinking that to "make the villain suffer the way you did" would make you feel any better is just an illusion that people believe until they are actually allowed to do so. Killing your Nemesis could (in the setting of Westeros) be considered justice but to make him suffer (e.g. kill someone he loves) is lowering yourself to the same level and it will certainly not make you ache any less. The more empathetic you are the harder it becomes to act on your revenge.

Someone mentioned earlier the nice distinction between Robert and Ned. Robert lost Lyanna and the hatred of Targaryens consumed him, Ned arguably suffered even more, yet he was able to forgive and live a full life.

Besides, in the case of wanting to punish everyone involved in the RW, there is bound to be some collateral damage and innocent lives lost. How would you feel if you accidentally avenged yourself on the wrong person? Besides even villains have children who will suffer as a consequence. Monte Cristo is a great read on that topic.

I believe in revenge to a point, but for me revenge truly is the closest thing to justice in this situation. How are bad people going to be judged and defeated if no one apart from their victims are willing to judge them? How?

I never said anything about killing the sons of the men who partook in the Red Wedding. Whether or not someone would do that depends on whether they believe in correcting a wrong done to them or doing the same thing to the villain as the villain did to them.

[Fetch me a block]

Cersei pushed her best friend down a well.

There is no comparing that action to Arya Stark having had to kill in self defense to stay alive after being taken captive during a war and used as slave labor. Come on.

Tyrion saw fit to still take his father's money for years after Tysha, he saw fit to take ALL of the benefits of being a Lannister of Casterly Rock for years after Tysha, he became Hand in his stead and worked to keep his putrid family in power, and so, its not believable that he murdered his father years later because of that event. He murdered his father because even while he held a crossbow on him he still refused to give him any respect...that is why he murdered him...because he was dissed one too many times.

That's what I was getting at

[Fetch me a block]

So if Robert wanted to kill them before and after, what exactly did his vengeance achieve? He seems to be just as angry. Killing the Targaryens never brought Lyanna back to him, it just made him compromise his values, if we take Ned's perspective.

I'm saying revenge doesn't necessarily lead from one thing to another. Robert never thought, as far as we know 'I'll just kill Rhaegar and leave the rest be', then after Rhaegar, thought "no, they all must die." As far as we know, he wanted to kill every Targaryen.

[Fetch me a block]

Cersei pushed her best friend down a well.

There is no comparing that action to Arya Stark having had to kill in self defense to stay alive after being taken captive during a war and used as slave labor. Come on.

Tyrion saw fit to still take his father's money for years after Tysha, he saw fit to take ALL of the benefits of being a Lannister of Casterly Rock for years after Tysha, he became Hand in his stead and worked to keep his putrid family in power, and so, its not believable that he murdered his father years later because of that event. He murdered his father because even while he held a crossbow on him he still refused to give him any respect...that is why he murdered him...because he was dissed one too many times.

Isn't there? If revenge as unanimously negative as seems to be the consensus on here, isn't there a case for saying that killing is unanimously negative? Not that I do take this view, but they are both killers

[Cas Stark]

That's what I was getting at

And that is not vengeance, but murderous rage. It may be understandable, predicatable, but I refuse to say it was justifiable. Just because Tywin Lannister is a ruthless prick in the series doesn't mean his own son gets to kill him, especially since given the circumstances, he zinged the crossbow at him in a moment of petulant rage, when his father straight up told him basically you don't have the guts to do it. Of course finding out the truth about Tysha and that his father doesn't care--but he wouldn't would he, since it was his lesson all along--makes it an emotionally raw moment. But, killing your father, no. Not acceptable. Especially when you are someone like Tyrion Lannister who could have high tailed it out of Westeros with a Lannister bankroll and set himself up in Braavos or Pentos, where they value brains more than birth or looks.

[Lummel]

Okay, I exaggerated, fair enough, but he really wasn't happy before either, otherwise he wouldn't have killed his father.

Oh, no doubt about that! But revenge hasn't helped him as a person either. The argument of the series is that revenge threatens to drag society as a whole into a downwards cycle of bloodshed. Particularly monstrous acts of violence can pause the slaying, like the slaughter of the Targaryens or the Red Wedding, but only until the next generation can gather itself to strike back.

The answer to the cycles of destruction is the path of a Davos or an Elder Brother or a Septon Meribald. Maybe Prince Doran also offers an alternative, in that at least so far he has considered the potential victims on his own side if he takes revenge.

[Cas Stark]

Oh, no doubt about that! But revenge hasn't helped him as a person either. The argument of the series is that revenge threatens to drag society as a whole into a downwards cycle of bloodshed. Particularly monstrous acts of violence can pause the slaying, like the slaughter of the Targaryens or the Red Wedding, but only until the next generation can gather itself to strike back.

The answer to the cycles of destruction is the path of a Davos or an Elder Brother or a Septon Meribald. Maybe Prince Doran also offers an alternative, in that at least so far he has considered the potential victims on his own side if he takes revenge.

Or, alternatively, you just need to make sure you wipe everyone out Reynes of Castamere style, so there is no one left to take their own vengeance.

[Lykos]

Yes everyone is a good plan, if we think like that we should give the next species a chance.

[ARYa_Nym]

Or, alternatively, you just need to make sure you wipe everyone out Reynes of Castamere style, so there is no one left to take their own vengeance.

It would make a FM who wanted vengeance far more dangerous but we know it's against their policy.

The FM know how to make a death look like it's natural.

[Cas Stark]

Yes everyone is a good plan, if we think like that we should give the next species a chance.

LOL. History is full of such examples. See Punic Wars, Carthage, for one.

[Lykos]

Cas Stark, ah you mean just one enemy and let the others learn their lessons from that incident and finish you off when you´re vulnerable. Just as the Vandals, who settled in Carthago after the Phoenicians were done, did with the Romans.

ETA: And being forced to let Hannibal run around Italy and harry the land surely was great fun and very productive, well done.

[Fetch me a block]

Oh, no doubt about that! But revenge hasn't helped him as a person either. The argument of the series is that revenge threatens to drag society as a whole into a downwards cycle of bloodshed. Particularly monstrous acts of violence can pause the slaying, like the slaughter of the Targaryens or the Red Wedding, but only until the next generation can gather itself to strike back.

The answer to the cycles of destruction is the path of a Davos or an Elder Brother or a Septon Meribald. Maybe Prince Doran also offers an alternative, in that at least so far he has considered the potential victims on his own side if he takes revenge.

I'm not saying revenge has definitely made his life better, but that wasn't the point. It is too make someone else feel worse. Of course that may be done to make you feel better. For someone like Tyrion Lannister or UnCat, who have nothing to lose, revenge is a good idea.

I also think Doran's theory of revenge is clever on paper, but so far it has won him nothing.

[Sailor's Wife]

The Hound will be critical in this whole argument. Arya curiously quit praying for the Hound's death prior to their parting ways. One could make an argument the Hound had already "died" from his old life--he is changed but lives on, IMO. Whatever GRRM hopes to convey about vengeance, the Hound's experience on both sides of consuming vengeance and forgiveness might exert influence over the minds and thinking of other characters. The divergence of Jaime's and Tyrion's stories are also interesting here.

[ARYa_Nym]

Arya briefly took him off then put him back on. She left him to die but he was saved. An argument has been said that the "Hound" died but Sandor lives.

Personally I don't see him surviving but we'll see.