Judging ASOIAF people with modern morals

[Tiki]

Thing is that, as readers, we're expected not to think in medieval terms. I mean, we look at Tolstoy, Cervantes or Shakespeare and their characters far differently than the people of the time they wrote their pieces. I mean, the world is evolving, and our look at art has to evolve too. It's natural thing. Can you imagine that for 28 centuries no one ever looked at Illiad from new perspective. What you argue here is basically against the natural evolution of literature as art...

Evidence for this claim?

[Dr. Pepper]

Evidence for this claim?

Because the series was written by a modern author for a modern audience. Pretty self-explanatory.

Westeros isn't medieval Europe. It's a fictional world that might have some similarities with our own real world history. However, this isn't nonfiction. None of this stuff happened in real life.

Just wanted to make sure everyone is clear about that.

[Tiki]

Because the series was written by a modern author for a modern audience. Pretty self-explanatory.

Westeros isn't medieval Europe. It's a fictional world that might have some similarities with our own real world history. However, this isn't nonfiction. None of this stuff happened in real life.

Just wanted to make sure everyone is clear about that.

So? Just because a modern author wrote a book for a modern audience doesn't mean it's intended to be read in a modern context. If I went and wrote a book intended to be read in a medieval context, I'd still be a modern author writing a book for a modern audience.

Explain to me why Ned is a good person when he didn't do all the following:

1. Ned should have put a democratic system into the North with a Prime Minister.

2. Ned should have allowed free speech in the North.

3. Ned shouldn't have talked about getting Arya married when she didn't want to.

4. Ned shouldn't have chopped someone's head off for abandoning his duty.

5. Ned should have given the aforementioned person a right to a free trial with a defense attorney.

6. Ned shouldn't have taken Theon hostage.

He was a scumbag, according to you. I don't think he is one at all, but if we take your morals, then he certainly is a worthless criminal degenerate.

[Miodrag]

It's a fictional world that might have some similarities with our own real world history.

'Some similarities' may be an understatement. GRRM went great lengths to study Medieval times and later depict a world that closely resembles Medieval Euro-Asia. He probably didn't do all that for nothing.

[Mladen]

Evidence for this claim?

Because the series was written by a modern author for a modern audience. Pretty self-explanatory.

So? Just because a modern author wrote a book for a modern audience doesn't mean it's intended to be read in a modern context. If I went and wrote a book intended to be read in a medieval context, I'd still be a modern author writing a book for a modern audience.

Well, one thing is clear... You really don't get it... As Homer hasn't written Illiad for those that fought in Trojan War, GRRM hasn't written ASOIAF for medieval people. Do you know why? Because they are all dead. The point is that modern readership is his audience, and the pieces of art, no matter what they are talking about, are meant for audience in that particular epoch. Following your logic we can't understand Star trek, or we should wait another 2 centuries to watch it in right context... Art is created for the era in which it is incepted. Because not people from 23rd century, or those in medieval ages will read this. We will, and we are.

[WildBlood]

HAHA! a big bug bear for me on this board is the way folk get high n mighty about morality.

I don't judge any characters by my own moral standards and to do so would spoil the story tremendously.

I read each persons actions in relation to the fictional pseudo medieval setting they are placed in and suspend my own liberal modern thinking for the purposes of the story.

:agree:

[Tiki]

Well, one thing is clear... You really don't get it... As Homer hasn't written Illiad for those that fought in Trojan War, GRRM hasn't written ASOIAF for medieval people. Do you know why? Because they are all dead. The point is that modern readership is his audience, and the pieces of art, no matter what they are talking about, are meant for audience in that particular epoch. Following your logic we can't understand Star trek, or we should wait another 2 centuries to watch it in right context... Art is created for the era in which it is incepted. Because not people from 23rd century, or those in medieval ages will read this. We will, and we are.

You're acting like a modern audience can't consider a medieval context. Not everyone has to read a book in a modern context. People can think and consider the morality in the ASOIAF world for themselves.

Also, we can watch Star Trek and consider the morals going on in Star Trek and judge characters based on that.

[Mladen]

You're acting like a modern audience can't consider a medieval context. Not everyone has to read a book in a modern context. People can think and consider the morality in the ASOIAF world for themselves.

Also, we can watch Star Trek and consider the morals going on in Star Trek and judge characters based on that.

We can understand the context of the certain era. And we all do get that. But, at the end, moral standings and philosophy of the series is meant for modern readers. There is a context and there is a story, but moral of entire series surpasses the era and connects us with them. What you fail to see is the fact that one of author's greatest talent - analysis of human psychology. And that's what at the end matters. People will do good and bad in no matter what era you place them. And that's far more important as the moral than looking at certain events and judging them accordingly. In any way you like.

[Tiki]

We can understand the context of the certain era. And we all do get that. But, at the end, moral standings and philosophy of the series is meant for modern readers. There is a context and there is a story, but moral of entire series surpasses the era and connects us with them. What you fail to see is the fact that one of author's greatest talent - analysis of human psychology. And that's what at the end matters. People will do good and bad in no matter what era you place them. And that's far more important as the moral than looking at certain events and judging them accordingly. In any way you like.

It's meant for modern readers, but you say nothing about how modern readers are supposed to consider the work of fiction. Just because it's meant for modern readers doesn't mean it's supposed to be read in a modern context. I certainly don't expect my readers of my works of fiction to do the same, even if I write for a modern audience.

[SeanF]

So? Just because a modern author wrote a book for a modern audience doesn't mean it's intended to be read in a modern context. If I went and wrote a book intended to be read in a medieval context, I'd still be a modern author writing a book for a modern audience.

Explain to me why Ned is a good person when he didn't do all the following:

1. Ned should have put a democratic system into the North with a Prime Minister.

2. Ned should have allowed free speech in the North.

3. Ned shouldn't have talked about getting Arya married when she didn't want to.

4. Ned shouldn't have chopped someone's head off for abandoning his duty.

5. Ned should have given the aforementioned person a right to a free trial with a defense attorney.

6. Ned shouldn't have taken Theon hostage.

He was a scumbag, according to you. I don't think he is one at all, but if we take your morals, then he certainly is a worthless criminal degenerate.

Ned did what he had to do, and could do in no other way, given the circumstances in which he found himself. Rather like our military commanders in WWII.

[Tiki]

Ned did what he had to do, and could do in no other way, given the circumstances in which he found himself. Rather like our military commanders in WWII.

Agreed. He was a good person, but according to our morals he would be scum.

[Queen Daenerys]

I think the issue is not modern vs "medieval" moral, but rather do we judge the characters like we would judge a person in real life. In fiction, (with a medieval setting or not) I'm usually far more tolerant, given the context. I'm against death penalty but I don't have a problem with Ned executing criminals, but I wouldn't have accepted Tyrion bedding Sansa even if by Westerosi standards it would have been considered normal and even encouraged. I'm judging characters with my moral, but trying to understand the context in wich he did what he did, with his historical and cultural background, like I would do while living in a country with a very different culture.

[SeanF]

Agreed. He was a good person, but according to our morals he would be scum.

That's simply a feature of our living in much more peaceful and prosperous societies than Ned does. I certainly wouldn't say that would be a fair way of describing, say, an African military commander who acts in the same way that Ned did, notwithstanding he's doing it in the year 2013. Nor would I condemn, for example, General Chuikov for executing deserters at the Battle of Stalingrad. He had to weigh up the risk of injustice to people accused of desertion, against the danger of his army disintegrating and the war being lost.

[Andersson]

Ned did what he had to do, and could do in no other way, given the circumstances in which he found himself. Rather like our military commanders in WWII.

Why would a fair trial for the "deserter" be impossible? Maester Luwin could e.g. have acted as defense attorney. While he could have found two other lords to act as judges. Than even if he would have sentenced the person to execution he could have waited a month with the sentence and given the person time to present new evidence. It would be far from perfect. But it would at the very least be a big improvement.

[SeanF]

Ned questioned him at length, and established that he was indeed, a deserter from the Night's Watch. He didn't just kill him out of hand. The lawful penalty for desertion from the Night's Watch is death. The only future for such a deserter is to live as an outlaw, which makes him a danger to innocent people. I honestly don't think that giving him a formal trial would have produced any other outcome.

[David Selig]

Isn't the penalty for deserting in a combat situation pretty severe right now even in the Western world? I am sure there are plenty of countries in the world where this is still a capital offence,

[Tiki]

Ned questioned him at length, and established that he was indeed, a deserter from the Night's Watch. He didn't just kill him out of hand. The lawful penalty for desertion from the Night's Watch is death. The only future for such a deserter is to live as an outlaw, which makes him a danger to innocent people. I honestly don't think that giving him a formal trial would have produced any other outcome.

Even if it's against the law to run away from the Night's Watch, questioning him isn't the same as a fair trial. No one in a modern nation nowadays gets executed right after questioning. No one.

[Morienthar]

Why would a fair trial for the "deserter" be impossible? Maester Luwin could e.g. have acted as defense attorney. While he could have found two other lords to act as judges. Than even if he would have sentenced the person to execution he could have waited a month with the sentence and given the person time to present new evidence. It would be far from perfect. But it would at the very least be a big improvement.

That man was doomed from the beginning,Even with time like say a month as you put it,There was no real way to produce evidence about the existence of the Others.

[SeanF]

Even if it's against the law to run away from the Night's Watch, questioning him isn't the same as a fair trial. No one in a modern nation nowadays gets executed right after questioning. No one.

No one in peacetime, perhaps. In wartime, plenty of commanders would act in the same way as Ned (and probably be much more perfunctory about establishing guilt).

[David Selig]

That man was doomed from the beginning,Even with time like say a month as you put it,There was no real way to produce evidence about the existence of the Others.

Even if he had evidence about the Others, it only makes his desertion worse.