why all the littlefinger hate?

[bbstark]

I do care. And Petyr is so black that Planck's law apply to him.

:lmao:

and when is this ridiculous thread goin to get shut down already??

S to the D... Shut it DOWN!

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

I just realized I didn't do this before.

I apologize to any Littlefinger fans who were not trying to justify or whitewash Littlefinger forcing Jeyne into sex slavery for grouping you in with those who were.

[A Man Has Said]

I just realized I didn't do this before.

I apologize to any Littlefinger fans who were not trying to justify or whitewash Littlefinger forcing Jeyne into sex slavery for grouping you in with those who were.

:laugh:

[Jon Mark Selmy]

R.I.P George Carlin. I still love and miss you.

And so do I... so do I.

We should bring back the like function for this kind of post.

Lots of people just can't seem to see the difference between 'hating a character' and 'hating the person'. Littlefinger could and probably should be hated for all his crimes as a person, but that doesn't mean people who hate him can't enjoy reading about him. Joffrey for example was despised by almost everyone but I'm sure there's a lot of people (including myself) who like reading his scenes because he's just so goddamn pathetic it becomes hilarious.

Well, thank you. And yes, I pretty much like to read about Pedofinger and think he is a great character and an awful, ireedemable villain at the same time. So was Joffrey. And so is Ramsay.

While i'm fully aware of the sarcasm the post is quite wrong. People who like Petyr like him for his skill and ability. Ramsey is yet to show any of them - he did not rise himself with his skill - he was raised by Roose who is smart and capable(and unlike Ramsey has fans), he is not a great warrior - Rosse comments that he is in fact a terrible one, he has no commanding presence - Roose has it, while Ramsey is treated like a dog, he is not even that great a "hunter" as even with hounds and horses still sometimes the "prey" escapes. While i understand the point you wanted to make you comment implies that Littlefinger is not smart, adaptable and inteligent which is simply not true.

Oh, is it "wrong"? I don't think so. Your interpretation is, though. I wasn't trying to imply that Ramsay is as competent as Littlefinger - he isn't (though he definitely is charismatic and a daunting presence... otherwise he wouldn't have that many followers so depraved as him... also, he was, in a way, raised by himself... he killed his half-brother with that in mind and it worked out). I was commenting on their morality and how easy it is to praise any character and sugarcode any flaw you want.

[Sansouci]

Well the hate is obvious, despite what GRRM has been showing us about Westeros, the average reader is still invested in conventional ideas about Good and Evil. So by that metric, LF is a horrible person. However, I think he is a major player his ability to wrought major change/damamge without leaving a single fingerprint is impressive. Whatever his goals are he seems to be on track to achieve them. In the end I think Sansa will become an able student and overwhelm the teacher.

[The Meeraculous Third Reed]

This thread isn't about Jon, Stannis, Tyrion, Manderly, or anyone else. If you want to discuss the morality of their actions, start a thread about it.

That's an attempt to avoid what I was saying though, and you know it. My point was that readers of the series rationalise (not justify, well sometimes they do) decisions that are barbaric and wrong because of the context in which they are placed. If I am discussing the Stark line of succession, then I don't feel it necessary to point out that it's ridiculous that Bran and Rickon were closer to the seat than Sansa, but I will argue that Bran (before the will comes out) is the legitimate heir to WF ahead of Sansa because it's true. Not because it's right, but because it's true. I assume it is a given that readers think that such patriarchal notions are not fair. Likewise when I discuss the practicalities of a Middle-Ages brothel-owner moving a girl into a Middle-Age brothel, I do not see the need to express that I do not think Middle-Age brothels, or sex-slavery were morally justifiable. Unless I do justify it. Which I haven't. I just don't expect people to act in a way complete alien to them and the context in which they are operating, for no logical purpose.

I've read through post after post of your presenting LF as someone in an either/or situation WRT to Jeyne: a life of prostitution or death. None of that is supported by the text as Cersei's instructions to LF was to get Jeyne out of the city. Otherwise, Cersei didn't care at all, she just wanted Jeyne separated from Sansa. You've somehow gone from that to this either/or in an attempt to explain away his options. It's repugnant. LF could have had her mucking stables, working in a kitchen, sweeping floors, becoming a silent septa, or any other option. Yet, the man chose to give her over to a brothel where she was obviously tortured and trained. This death or life of prostitution argument paints LF as a man who saved Jeyne's life when there is absolutely nothing in the text to support this position.

Yet your options are not viable. All of those scenarios mean that the Great One is putting her in a position whereby she will interact with others in a non-regulated manner potentially outside of direct Lannister (or Lannister affiliated) control or, in the case of the septas, give up control of her entirely. This is unnecessary risk and makes no sense.

And as to defending on moral level or ends justify the means, well sometimes, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck.....

Find me a quote where I morally justify his actions and I'll apologise. Not where you think it implies I do, but a quote where I actually say close to what he did was morally right. Because otherwise your attempt to occupy the moral high-ground is built upon nothing.

Yes you have. When you say his only two options were prostitution or death, you're defending forcing Jeyne into sexual slavery as a valid option. When it's morally grotesque. I'd also say, he has lots of other options besides that, he owns a lot of businesses where he could put her to work in a way that is not related to sex. If he had to put her to work in one of his brothels he could have made her a scullery maid, or a washer woman or scrubbing floors, there's lots of things required to make a high end brothel work besides just sex.

Oh, ok. So slavery's a viable option, as long as it's not sexual? I could imply that from your post. Of course, I don't actually think that you believe that, but it's pretty much the same logic you're using.

You make a fair point though, regarding the fact that she could possibly have done these things within the brothels. Though these scenarios (where she would, one imagines, move through the entirety of the brothel) still provide the potential for Jeyne to have a degree of freedom whereby she could interact with multiple people, which is not what you want a prisoner of war (which is what she is) to do. Also, while not wishing to underestimate the distinction between the two, I hardly think you'd have been much (if any) more receptive to my argument if I'd said her options were death, prostitution or just plain old slavery in a brothel. You'd think no more of him as a person, you'd think no better of my argument. It's an alternative so slight it changes next to nothing.

Admittedly a part of that is my fault for not being entirely clear (in the sense that I should have leaned more towards saying "his brothels" than "prostitution", even if one assumes that eventually had she not been called up to be "Arya" Jeyne would have been led into prostitution eventually), but we're talking trifles here (compared to the alternatives I've debated at length), and none of this links me to having defended his taking Jeyne into the world of prostitution on a moral level.

Some posters here seem to be conflating any discussion or debate about any of Littlefinger's actions with accepting and justifying his reprehensible actions. Discussing whether there was any sense in Littlefinger going behind the Lannisters backs and secretly trying to ransom Jeyne Poole to the Starks is not the same as defending his putting her in a brothel for God's sake!

That is not what we are discussing. We are discussing whether LF should have ransomed Jeyne to the Starks. We are discussing if it was feasible for LF to do so. If it was worth the risk to ransom her, whether the Starks would have accepted paying large amounts of money, whether LF would have got into trouble with the Lannisters if they had found that LF had gone behind their back and ransomed off Jeyne, whether he is the type of person who would have smuggled her out at risk to himself, whether she was worth smuggling out etc. etc.

Was it right for LF to put Jeyne in a brothel? NO. I think we can all agree on that. I think Third Reed agrees with that. Let's move on from accusations of being rape apologists and defending sexual slavery.

Yeah, I am done with this discussion.

Thank you.

[Arya Daenerys Stark]

I love Littlefinger as a character. I don't think there is anyone else quite like him. While everyone is stumbling about and killing each other, being delusional about their power, littlefinger actually knows what he's doing-and he knows what everyone else is doing too.

And the greatest part is, he's rising to power so fast and yet, nobody is paying him any attention. He's the one behind a lot of things that go on in Westeros, and he is completely unharmed (i hope it stays that way). He doesn't let his emotions get in his way and he is very intelligent and has a lot of foresight.

Littlefinger is one of my favourite characters and I hope he is alive at the end of the book.

[Lady Blackmont]

He's a high functioning sociopath, what more is there to it?

[BlackFyre > BlackFire]

pretty much what's been said. he's out for himself and doesn't give a damn what happens to anyone around him. he wants power for power's sake and doesn't care who he hurts along the way to get it. someone who would make terrible spouse/friend/boss/co-worker/neighbor/whatever = bad guy.

OP said he's like the american dream. i'd correct that by saying he's the twisted version of the american dream that unfortunately too many people in this country are like. step on anyone and everyone to get what you want.

but he is a pretty awesome character for a book series to have. I have a sinking feeling that he's going to become even more powerful than he already is very soon and it's not gonna be pretty.

[EatCrow]

Because Jeyne Pool

[Lady Beefheart]

I like that you compared him to The American Dream, and today is such an apt day for this.

Littlefinger perfectly embodies the American Dream. It isn't his diligence that has won him his wealth, nor is it his work ethic, nor his contribution to the world around him. All of that stuff finds you begging by the wayside. What got Littlefinger ahead was being a manipulative, lying, scheming, backstabbing, cowardly little shit-stirrer. And that's what the American Dream is. There's a reason CEO's are the number one profession for antisocial personality disorder. We just paint all over that statistic in red, white, and blue, and call it the American fucking Dream, but that's it. That's all the American Dream is. The sociopaths win and everyone else makes money for them in hopes of getting crumbs from their tables.

P.S. I am experiencing the effects of an absurd cocktail of benzodiazepines and muscle relaxers at the moment, so if this seems like crazy lunatic ranting, it probably is.

[voodooqueen126]

Not only because he's a smug, self serving bastard, but because many of his "fans" are the most obnoxious and overly vocal fanbase in ASOIAF...

they have inspired me to create a character in my own work of fiction, who is like Petyr, in that he claims to love a woman then ruins her life.

[Lord Freypie]

Liking a character doesn't mean they have to be moral paragons and everything they do is right. Nor is it wrong to enjoy amoral monsters. If someone wants to think LF is awesome because of his skill in the game or whatever reason, that is all they need. They don't need to morally justify the character. Trying to leads them arguing ridiculous things to justify/whitewash him when there is no reason to.

/thread .

[John Doe]

He's a bit of an spineless creeper, but apart from that he's okay.

[LordPathera]

He's a great character.

But that doesn't change how he incited a continent-spanning war that weakened the realm and killed thousands of people for his own personal ambitions. And he's not even done after becoming a Lord-Paramount (equivalent to a king) of the Riverlands and Lord-Protector of the Vale.

[BRANDON GREYSTARK]

He betrayed Ned and he is perving on a 12 year old girl .

[HexMachina]

He's a bit of an spineless creeper, but apart from that he's okay.

Nope, he's more than a spineless creeper, he is a monster

[BalerionTheCat]

He is maybe the first evil, murderous character that I really like in any book. And I will be a bit sad when he will die. He started from very little, making use and burying lords that were shitting on him every day. He is someway a hero, utterly selfish. I like him, he is so smart.

[Renee Sansa]

Edit: Also i fail to understands the pedophile accusations - he is not atracted to children, he is interested in Sansa because she reminds him of Cat - it does not matter if she is 14 or 30 it will be the same to him, pedophiles and intrested in the childish appearence.

Finally, someone said it! I never understood those accusations as well :agree:

[Tolsimir]

Uhm...because he is creepy and evil?

I think the better question would be why someone would like him.