Jump to content

[BOOK SPOILERS] Perverse sense of justice


Mladen

Recommended Posts

From a total stark perspective, he did break his oath to Robb.

From an unbiased, larger perspective, he first accepted Robb as King, who sent him back to his homelands to deliver a not-so-well-thought out proposal to his paramount lord father, trying to get the one house in westeros that hates the Starks as much or even more than the Lannisters to join with them in an alliance against the crown. And it also just happened to be that Balon had declared himself a King aswell, wich sadly made him Theons rightful king both by Land and Blood. And since theon, the starks prior hostage, had been delivered straight to Balons door without thinking it through forst, there was now nothing to stop the ironmen from raiding and pillaging the north. Its a really tragic tale, wich is what makes Theon such an interesting character.

Theon traveled to his home islands on the orders of King Robb, only to find out that his father had also crowned himself King himself. Thats a pretty sticky situation, one of the kings is your best friend while the other one is your father whose lands and titles you are meant to inheirit. Whatever side you choose, you betray the other part and you will most likely have feelings of regret no matter wich side you choose. But the law and thousands of years of tradition leaves little room for this choice anyways since a son should always obey his father, especially if he calls himself a king.

Son should obbey his father, but he should never break his word. I am sorry, but I can`t see plausible reason for me to believe that Theon hadn`t betrayed Robb from any perspective. Ned and Cat wasn`t maybe the kindest people to Theon, but Robb trusted him like ahe would trust a brother. And that`s why Theon is turncloak. Not because he obbeyed his father or did what any son would do, it`s because he totally turned against Robb whom he was friend with, and attacked Winterfell, and in the eyes of everyone, killed and burned 2 boys he shared bread and salt with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you please clarify that you are appealing to the standards of medieval ethics with regard to the orphans.

well i can only speak about my personal opinion, but i think that killing innocent children, regardless if its 2013 or 6000BC or anywhere between, is an evil, repulsive act - perhaps the most repulsive and inhuman thing you can possibly do. i skip past the gory/violent parts of many episode (never managed to see through jofferys whore scene)

BUT, after spending a few years studying history and historical warfare, i can tell you that there have been eras in many parts of the world where these artrocities have been practised without punishment neither from court, church or king. just a few prominent examples: 1200-1500 Great Brittain and most of central europe, 1200-1600 Japan, the early maya and inca civilizations where its somewhat disputed to wich extent and for how long the practice of sacrifising newborns to recieve the gods blessing was practiced, but we know that it happened. Germany 1930-1940... My fathers great uncle died in a camp at 14 years old.

My point is that during different time periods and different parts of the world, these things have happened quite reguarly. Im not saying that i support it in any way, im just pointing out that apparently, people have always been capable of brutal, horrific violence. different eras seem to have had different zeitgeists where it was easy to get away with these horrid acts for as long as you had god/the king/right social class/simple military supremacy on your side. In europe it was particularly common for Nobles, "Pretenders" and even Kings who fell out of popularity to be murdered in the most gruesome ways, and those who did it got away. sometimes with lands and titles, and the people seemed to welcome that the incompetent king finally got what he deserved, or that upstart Noble was cut in 8 pieces in the middle of the battlefield and each part was sent to his main lieutanants and supporters, to show the ursurpers what happens to those who challange the crown. Just like in Game of thrones, people wrote ballads about these violent and horrific happenings. In Feudal Japan there are many reports of Warriors slicing up little children simply for getting in their way or not "showing proper respect for the warrior class". Im sure people were horrified, like i would be, but this was simply a part of life in these periouds, certain factions gained uncontested power and could do whatever they wanted regardless of what anyone thought. Violence ruled the world during this era, and if you where just a simple merchant you did not even want to look a samurai in the eyes, because he might take it as a slight and cut your head off in one swift move.

Again im just using a few examples here and im not defending any of these acts, im just pointing out that they have happened, many times through history, and the most violent/destructive factions have generarlly dictated the rules of society, and when violence rules, it breeds more violence from other factions. if you just browse through some history pages about the royal house of brittain (or pretty much any royal house in europe or aisa) between the dark ages and the reniasennce you will find that its filled with brutal murder, torture, mutilation and decapitation between brothers, cousins, sometimes even mothers having their and sons brutally killed. This is the sort of time period in wich game of thrones takes place, except with fantasy elements. The history of royal house plantagenet and the war that followed their rule between the two most prominant surviving cadet branches, called the "War of the Roses" (wich the first book in the series was heavily inspired by) is filled with murders of innocent children to remove them from the line of succesion, exiled kings getting killed because of their sexual orientation by a burning poker in their anus, Young Princes using contacts at court to arrange their brothers to be locked into towers to starve so that the young one could skip ahead in the line of succesion, prehistoric living sacrifice of both infants and newborn babies aswell as Virgins and young girls. 60000 innocent women being tortured and killed after being accused of being witches spreading the black death...

history is full of dark memories. im glad that we live in this modern age, but you kinda have to accept that Game of Thrones takes place in a different time period where the feudal lords with power could do pretty much whatever they wanted, and "making examples" out of enemies was a common principle. Good examples of this in game of thrones is Aerys II, Gregor, Clegane, Joffery, Roose and Ramsay Bolton, Theon after he lost his mind and so on. the only family with a set of moral principles are The Starks, and the Tyrells and other nobles of the reach, save for Randyll Tarly, seem pretty elegant and peaceful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well i can only speak about my personal opinion, but i think that killing innocent children, regardless if its 2013 or 6000BC or anywhere between, is an evil, repulsive act - perhaps the most repulsive and inhuman thing you can possibly do. i skip past the gory/violent parts of many episode (never managed to see through jofferys whore scene)

BUT, after spending a few years studying history and historical warfare, i can tell you that there have been eras in many parts of the world where these artrocities have been practised without punishment neither from court, church or king. just a few prominent examples: 1200-1500 Great Brittain and most of central europe, 1200-1600 Japan, the early maya and inca civilizations where its somewhat disputed to wich extent and for how long the practice of sacrifising newborns to recieve the gods blessing was practiced, but we know that it happened. Germany 1930-1940... My fathers great uncle died in a camp at 14 years old.

First, I have to say I really love your post. It`s quite interesting to read, and most informative. But, this isn`t about killing children. We know of Unsullied and Gregor`s case. We all know the cases where children would end up dead. And, sadly, like you pointed out, there were times in history when killing babies wasn`t such great crime. It wasn`t even called attrocity, as long as it served its purpose.

Theon`s story isn`t just about killing 2 innocent children. It`s more than that. And I understand people who call him turncloak, for I understand the perspective they are watching him from. He was raised in Winterfell, was fed by the food they all ate, he played with them and he was taken care of. Starks were his family. Just as Ned and Robert looked at Jon Arryn as member of their family. Just like Olyvar Frey hadn`t participated in RW. Family isn`t just the people we share blood with, it`s those that we know and feel love for them. And that`s why Theon is turncloak. Not because others see him as one, than because he betrayed people he loved. And he did loved Starks. We at least know that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Son should obbey his father, but he should never break his word. I am sorry, but I can`t see plausible reason for me to believe that Theon hadn`t betrayed Robb from any perspective. Ned and Cat wasn`t maybe the kindest people to Theon, but Robb trusted him like ahe would trust a brother. And that`s why Theon is turncloak. Not because he obbeyed his father or did what any son would do, it`s because he totally turned against Robb whom he was friend with, and attacked Winterfell, and in the eyes of everyone, killed and burned 2 boys he shared bread and salt with.

1. You are right

2. BUT, of course, theon was in a lose-lose scenario. King Robb sent him to Pyke with a (lets be honest, embarasingly bad plan and proposal that he and theon had come up with just to get the plot going, i knew instantly that it was not going to work because apparently everyone knows how much Balon hates the starks except for King Robb Stark. whatever, lets stop talking about robb now) and by this time Theons father had also named himself king of the Iron islands, so it basicly came down to the king who is your best friend and thinks of you as a brother and his most loyal companion, or the king who shares your blood and was one of the two individuals who brought you into the world.

No matter what side he chooses (even if the laws of men says that it is his duty to obey his father and bring glory to his house, but we will look past those tiresome laws and traditions and simply answer your question) he will be a turncloak to one part.

1. Had he sided with Robb, he would have brought great dishonour to his house by robbing his father of his male heir in favor of serving the STARK family wich is not very popular on the iron islands. a big dishonor for the grejoy family to have their only male heir turned into a Stark lackey. This would mean that his value as a hostage would dissapear since he has openly sided with the Starks, so they can stil start their invasion, and it might be even wiser to keep theon in a cell so he wont be able to bring Robb any information. this is of course pure speculation but who knows what would have happened to theon if he just told the old kraken to fuck off, im with the king of the north?

2. Theon sides with Balon because he craves his and the ironmens approval, (as we know) he becomes a prince of the iron islands but nobody gives him the respect a prince from the mainland would recieve. This convinces him further that he has to prove himself by doing something spectacular, taking the heart of the north. we all know how this ends, and its a sad storry for Theon, Rodrick, Luwin, Theons Ironborn soldiers, the orphan farmboys, and pretty much everyone involved.

but my point remains, regardless wich side he picked, he would have been regarded as a turncloak from the other side and turncloak and bloodtraitor by the other. Its pretty hard to say whats worse, betraying your "adoptive brother" and best friend, or betraying your father and family, when both claim to be kings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BUT, of course, theon was in a lose-lose scenario.

Ah, Antigona`s tragic quilt. I like the concept, and I couldn`t agree more. Whatever he had done, he would be dismayed by someone. Poor Theon, he wanted family and love, and now he has none. He is tragic character on so many levels, that`s why I think it wasn`t justice what Ramsay had done to him.

As for `turncloak` term, I understand the reasoning, but for me, Theon betrayed himself. And the day he killed those two boys, he lost himself. In the show, there is a brilliant line. The last words of Rodrick Cassel - `Gods save you, Theon Greyjoy, for now you`re truly lost`. And, that depicts Theon`s storyline from that moment until Reek and his escape from Winterfell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theon`s story isn`t just about killing 2 innocent children. It`s more than that. And I understand people who call him turncloak, for I understand the perspective they are watching him from. He was raised in Winterfell, was fed by the food they all ate, he played with them and he was taken care of. Starks were his family. Just as Ned and Robert looked at Jon Arryn as member of their family. Just like Olyvar Frey hadn`t participated in RW. Family isn`t just the people we share blood with, it`s those that we know and feel love for them. And that`s why Theon is turncloak. Not because others see him as one, than because he betrayed people he loved. And he did loved Starks. We at least know that.

Agree, and this is why his trip to Pyke was such a tragic, bad idea. The Naive Theon thought his father would throw the biggest welcome party the iron islands had ever seen upon his return, but was instead met with scorn because he had forgot his ironborn identity and culture, and Robb never considered to ask someone about why Balon raged a rebellion, why his last son grew up among his family as a hostage, or what Balon thought about the starks in general. Almost every Noble from his fathers generation or older should know about the death of the greyjoy sons at the hands of stark men, and that combined with the fact that his father had to demand Balons last son as a hostage to guarantee that the Iron I would be peaceful should really have been enough information to throw this idea out of the window and keep theon as far away from balon as possible. i sorta blame both for being naive and not digging into the past before acting on their impulse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree, and this is why his trip to Pyke was such a tragic, bad idea. The Naive Theon thought his father would throw the biggest welcome party the iron islands had ever seen upon his return, but was instead met with scorn because he had forgot his ironborn identity and culture, and Robb never considered to ask someone about why Balon raged a rebellion, why his last son grew up among his family as a hostage, or what Balon thought about the starks in general. Almost every Noble from his fathers generation or older should know about the death of the greyjoy sons at the hands of stark men, and that combined with the fact that his father had to demand Balons last son as a hostage to guarantee that the Iron I would be peaceful should really have been enough information to throw this idea out of the window and keep theon as far away from balon as possible. i sorta blame both for being naive and not digging into the past before acting on their impulse.

Well, Ned hadn`t killed Theon`s brothers. Lord Jason Mallister, I think, killed one, and the other was killed by unknown man. So, Balon was exaggerating when he said that wolves killed his sons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the Correction. I just want to point out that its easy to call Theon a "Turncloak" because we saw him getting along well with the starks for most of the series, but remember that particularly in the series there are many scenes (with ros for example) where he talks about his home and his future as lord of pyke. I interpreted this that while he enjoyed being around the Starks, Theon has a slightly arrogant, narcisstic side that has issues with being a lord and a hostage at the same time, because it simply hurts his pride. he also seems to have a naive, completley unrealistic concept of the Iron Islands being a place straight out of the fairytales where only the hardest men in the world live, and that his house, despite its many failed rebellions and poor resources, is one of the most intimidating houses in the seven kingdoms. his ignorant comment from the series when talking about tyrion to ros "We have been lords of the iron islands for 300 years (a very short time compared to Stark, Lannister, and Arryn who trace their line directly from the first men or the age of heroes, thousands of years ago) there is not a family in westeros that can look down on us, not even the lannisters!" kinda shows how ignorant he is, and makes you wonder if he really knows that the ironborn are far past their prime when they controlled huge areas of the mainlands and are now stuck on the iron islands wich are just a bunch of small rocky islands with hardly no valuable resources at all.

Thats why i find Theon such a well written, almost shakespearian character. he started of as a handsome, ambitious and loyal man who wanted to help his adoptive brother, but ended up having to sacrifise his loved ones for a chance for glory under his bitter, condemning and half-mad father, with his strong ambition to prove himself to his native people ultimately costing him more than he ever imagined, including parts of his soul and identety, and ultimately he was turned into mutilated freak living amonst rats who could barely even remember his name, with both body and soul destroyed beyond repair. Altough i do still wish for his death, it is now maybe more out of sympathy and mercy than hate and lust for revenge. Either way there is no salvation for "Prince Greyjoy"

he is a good portrayal of the tragic naive opportunist who is proud to the point of ignorance and who seeks to be in control but always end up being manipulated by worse and worse people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well i can only speak about my personal opinion, but i think that killing innocent children, regardless if its 2013 or 6000BC or anywhere between, is an evil, repulsive act

Just to clarify: I never meant to intimate that you would actually think otherwise. I apologise if that is how it sounded.

As to your piece. Excellent post. If there was a kudos button, I would be hitting it.

With regards to the list of areas and times when brutality occurred, you can add the Roman Empire during the medieval period and the lead up to it (yeah, that bit that is quite falsely labelled the Byzantine Empire by the German 'Holy Roman Empire' revisionists). Rather than outright execution, it was almost standard practice for facial mutilation of pretenders and those expelled from the throne. Gelding was rarer but not unheard of. England and France had their policy of holding high born prisoners for ransom, but the rest of the civilised world was less accommodating.

When the Vikings and Northmen unleashed across Europe, North Africa, the Russias and to the gates of Constantinople itself, they discovered this wonderful system of government invented by Emperor Diocletian already in place called feudalism. This meant they owned all the peasants in the lands they settled. The wealth they earned allowed them to set up two very powerful kingdoms, England and southern Italy. But it also entrenched the practice of abuse of the peasants. Simple to do. They were property with no legal rights. Especially difficult for the peasants because they were Gauls and Anglo-Saxons being ruled by the Germanic Franks and the Norse.

Which leads me to this:

history is full of dark memories. im glad that we live in this modern age, but you kinda have to accept that Game of Thrones takes place in a different time period where the feudal lords with power could do pretty much whatever they wanted, and "making examples" out of enemies was a common principle. Good examples of this in game of thrones is Aerys II, Gregor, Clegane, Joffery, Roose and Ramsay Bolton, Theon after he lost his mind and so on. the only family with a set of moral principles are The Starks, and the Tyrells and other nobles of the reach, save for Randyll Tarly, seem pretty elegant and peaceful.

I do accept that the milieu of a 'Medieval' world is what we are dealing with in Game of Thrones and that we have to accept an alien ethical code compared to what we are fortunate to live under in many places of the world today. Part of that acceptance is to recognise that there is a different ethical code operating with regard to the treatment of the lower classes in general and the orphans in particular.

But once you make that justification, then you also must accept the totality of the Medieval ethical milieu that this fantasy series operates in. Under this same regime, and as you have stated in historical cases, brutality and torture of high-born persons is accepted practice. There was no Geneva Convention for the treatment of POWs. Torture for the purposes of interrogation was absolutely standard practice under the system and Theon's treatment thus far is perfectly justified in this world. You can't appeal to Medieval ethics in the case of the orphans, then deny it in the case of Theon's initial violent interrogation as represented in the show.

Everything from here on in is not justified though. And that is the art of GRRMs work. It makes people wonder where the line was that they crossed before they realise they might have gone too far with support the maltreatment of Theon. I do not support the treatment he has had so far - he should have got the chop - but it is justified within this world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything from here on in is not justified though. And that is the art of GRRMs work. It makes people wonder where the line was that they crossed before they realise they might have gone too far with support the maltreatment of Theon. I do not support the treatment he has had so far - he should have got the chop - but it is justified within this world.

i strongly agree, mainly because Ramsay is the last person in the world who should be given the authority to punish him. Robb Demanded Theon to be brought before him, and altough i find the reek storyline interesting because its just twisted and definitely crossed the line so far in the series, a final confrontation between robb and theon before the RW could have been satisfying. there are a lot of emotions at stake there, Robb who feels betrayed by his best friend and want to extract vengeance, while Theon realize during his final moments that the starks probably loved and understood him better than his own mad father who only cared about restoring the "old ways of the ironborn" wich deep down never suited Theon. Its not until Robb raises his sword over theons neck that he finally realizes that he had everything he wished for right here, and that he was brought up as a Stark of Winterfell and not a Greyjoy, but that it is long too late to turn back and undo what he has done. Perhaps he would accept the sword piercing through his neck, knowing that Robb is swinging it, allowing him to finally repent for his sins in front of the man he betrayed and hurt the most. Maybe there is nothing closer to true justice in a world like this...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poor Theon, naive Theon... Lilly Allen's brother is cute all right, but come on guys... Did or didn't him betrayed Robb??? On the boat, f*ucking the captains' daughter he was already turning his cloak... Guy is a piece of shit that happen to still be alive, probably to serve as some Gollum-type in the plot.

lets just say that Theon should never had been sent off to pyke. it was a stupid, uneducated and rushed idea, and both Theon and Robb are equaly guilty. there where so many things they could have done to avoid all this:

1. Robb could have listened to his mother who knows a fair bit about Balon Greyjoy

2. He could have asked his bannermen who served under Eddard about the Greyjoy Rebellion

3. Look up the word "Hostage" in a dictionary and learn that if youre given the defeated rebells son

to ensure that a rival lord will cease to raid and harass you, it might not be a very good idea to send that hostage back to his father

4. Dig around and try to find out a little bit more about what Balon Greyjoy thinks about the Starks, if it turns out that he lost two sons

to northernmen and had to send his last living heir to winterfell, chances are that he probably doesnt like house stark very much

5. Being born the heir to a paramount lord himself, Robb probably learnt early on that it is the duty of a son to obey lord his father in whatever he is doing, and help bring glory to your house

.

then simply add togheter the facts that Balon hates the starks, sending your hostage Theon to pyke would not only cost you your easy safety from their coastal raids but also put Theon in a position where he has to obey his father, who wants every stark dead because he blames the north for the death of two of his sons...

yeah maybe that idea wasnt that good after all...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

then simply add togheter the facts that Balon hates the starks, sending your hostage Theon to pyke would not only cost you your easy safety from their coastal raids but also put Theon in a position where he has to obey his father, who wants every stark dead because he blames the north for the death of two of his sons...

yeah maybe that idea wasnt that good after all...

Ok, you obviously LOVE Theon character, and it's your right of course... To me, this "had to obey his father" line of thought is just messed up. As I was saying, in the boat, going to Pyke all he could think about was glory and (his own) greatness in this war. His sister prank on the horse is only possible because she perceives and plays with his big, big ego. He disobeys his father, going to Winterfell because of this, because he is a shity, proud, egocentric young man who thinks he is able to do anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theon is simply a pathetic loser, which makes his character great. Theon wasn't even following Balon's orders, he wasn't supposed to sack Winterfell, but go to the Stony Shore.

It is completely unfair what is being done to him, but he put himself in that position in the first place.

Theon actually did quite the right thing, at least originally. His father gave him negligible orders, because Ironmen are supposed to prove their mettle in battle, not rely on their birth.

Had he taken Winterfell and carried the Stark boys back as hostages, he would've won glory, a place in the IB high command, and likely a chance to inherit the trone. His only real mistake was trying to hold the castle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theon actually did quite the right thing, at least originally. His father gave him negligible orders, because Ironmen are supposed to prove their mettle in battle, not rely on their birth.

Had he taken Winterfell and carried the Stark boys back as hostages, he would've won glory, a place in the IB high command, and likely a chance to inherit the trone. His only real mistake was trying to hold the castle.

Completely agree, and that's part of his tragic psychology ... the only reason he tries to stay and hold the castle is b/c he still sees Winterfell as his home (even if he doesn't realize it at that point) ... he's trying to be a Stark, and failing miserably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, you obviously LOVE Theon character, and it's your right of course... To me, this "had to obey his father" line of thought is just messed up. As I was saying, in the boat, going to Pyke all he could think about was glory and (his own) greatness in this war. His sister prank on the horse is only possible because she perceives and plays with his big, big ego. He disobeys his father, going to Winterfell because of this, because he is a shity, proud, egocentric young man who thinks he is able to do anything.

i dont love theon. im just pointing out how stupid robb was and that according to feudal law, a son must always obey his noble father. to "do things their own way" is how the ironborn proves themselves in raids and it had nothing to do with disobeying his father. he was actually really succesful in taking winterfell and Balon would not have objected, the problem is that he tried to keep it instead of taking the stark boys back to pyke as hostages, as others have pointed out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theon actually did quite the right thing, at least originally. His father gave him negligible orders, because Ironmen are supposed to prove their mettle in battle, not rely on their birth.

Had he taken Winterfell and carried the Stark boys back as hostages, he would've won glory, a place in the IB high command, and likely a chance to inherit the trone. His only real mistake was trying to hold the castle.

Interesting idea. I just feel I should point out that taking two young boys (one of them crippled) from Winterfell to the shore with most of the North on your tail - or busy burning the ships you arrived on - might not have been the easiest thing in the world. In the show, of course, he could've gone with Asha Yara, but even so it would've meant a lot of people chasing them. Unless he killed everyone in Winterfell...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...