Judging ASOIAF people with modern morals

[WildBlood]

I don't think anyone here expressed any problems with reading about morally grey characters as such -- it's just that some people can't stand that the moral greyness is acknowledged, analyzed or talked about, which is why they try to push dogmas like "you can't talk about morality" or this new variation of "if you talk about morality, you have to forget who you are, who the author is or who the intended audience is". It doesn't appear as if these people enjoy the books any less though, even though I feel they might miss half of the layers of the story if they have to regress a few hundred years to talk about the books.

I understand this, but if I have problems with fictional characters, I will constantly sit and analyze, "why the hell would he do that..." etc... In my opinion, it really keeps you from getting lost in a story.

[FuriousGeorge]

I don't think anyone here expressed any problems with reading about morally grey characters as such -- it's just that some people can't stand that the moral greyness is acknowledged, analyzed or talked about, which is why they try to push dogmas like "you can't talk about morality" or this new variation of "if you talk about morality, you have to forget who you are, who the author is or who the intended audience is". It doesn't appear like these people enjoy the books any less though, even though I feel they might miss half of the layers of the story if they have to regress a few hundred years to talk about the books.

Hahahaha i love it. Recognising that there is a different moral code at work in Westeros and suggesting it is unfair to hold characters to a standard that does not exist in their world means you 'have regressed a few hundred years' and that you miss 'half the layers of the story'...........how do you not realise that is actually you that simplifies an infinitely complex story by trying to impose your own moral standard? Especially when you obviously realise that if you unerringly apply that standard to characters you love and hate then everyone becomes evil.

[E-Ro]

Hahahaha i love it. Recognising that there is a different moral code at work in Westeros and suggesting it is unfair to hold characters to a standard that does not exist in their world means you 'have regressed a few hundred years' and that you miss 'half the layers of the story'...........how do you not realise that is actually you that simplifies an infinitely complex story by trying to impose your own moral standard? Especially when you obviously realise that if you unerringly apply that standard to characters you love and hate then everyone becomes evil.

Yes, most of the characters we read about are complete and utter assholes, but there are different levels of it. Example, Stannis has burned a few criminals, burning is bad. Now look at ramsay, he flays people for fun, both acts are bad. But I think we all know which one is worse.

[Frozentree]

I don't think anyone here expressed any problems with reading about morally grey characters as such -- it's just that some people can't stand that the moral greyness is acknowledged, analyzed or talked about, which is why they try to push dogmas like "you can't talk about morality" or this new variation of "if you talk about morality, you have to forget who you are, who the author is or who the intended audience is".

It doesn't appear as if these people enjoy the books any less though, even though I do feel that they might miss half of the layers of the story if they have to regress a few hundred years to talk about the books.

There are 3 kinds of people:

1. The ones with the "right" view

2. The ones who can't see grey

3. The ones who see only the grey

2 and 3 are both missing a lot. Forgetting who you are is wrong, but focusing on your PoV only is just as bad

[Jon's Queen Consort]

There are 3 kinds of people:

1. The ones with the "right" view

2. The ones who can't see grey

3. The ones who see only the grey

2 and 3 are both missing a lot. Forgetting who you are is wrong, but focusing on your PoV only is just as bad

I agree with you but what I cannot understand is how people decide what is "right" and what is "wrong"

[Onna Lewyys]

If people don't like morally grey characters, they are reading the wrong series.

[FuriousGeorge]

Yes, most of the characters we read about are complete and utter assholes, but there are different levels of it. Example, Stannis has burned a few criminals, burning is bad. Now look at ramsay, he flays people for fun, both acts are bad. But I think we all know which one is worse.

Well no actually I don't think it is clear which is worse personally. We obviously disagree on how good Stannis would be for Westeros but if you take the view of him as someone who is just out to secure power for himself (even though he says he does not want power he acts quite a lot like a man that does) then why is killing people for fun objectively worse than killing people as a sacrifice to attain power?

And this is missing the point anyway. We are clearly meant to think well of characters whose actions would be morally condemned by the vast majority of people in the 21st century - therefore, even if we want to, we struggle to judge them by our moral standards.

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

Tiki logic, when you find yourself in a hole, just keep on digging.

[Mladen]

The quantity of ridiculnesness on this thread is off the roof. E-Ro, Nissa, don't bother. I have given up when I have seen that discussion is pointless.

I think you're a troll, because I'm personally offended that you're actually defending Middle Eastern morals as modern. I'm just going to ignore you from now on.

Problem with Middle Eastern morals is that they are not specific only for them. You can have Middle East in centre of New York, or Paris, or anywhere around the world. One-sided POV in which Western countries are known for civil libreties and Eastern as breaker of civil rights, is so wrong. After economic crisis, the world shifted quite a lot. And we have radicalism growing like weed everywhere around the world.

I live in Turkey, so I'm very familiar with Middle Eastern morals and such. But Turkey is still head and shoulders above the rest of the Middle Eastern countries, for sure. I am very afraid that we'll revert back to medieval morals.

As for Turkey, the recent events showed us how evolved Turkish society really is. But, what else could you expect from country which can't deal with its own history, and feel need to rewrite it through the TV show. As someone who comes from part of the world that was under 'democratic and peaceful' leaders medieval Sultans were as the latest propaganda shows us, for entire 5 centuries, I can assure you, that from my POV, you haven't changed a lot.

What you want to say, quite inefficiently, is that we should be medieval audience to understand the rules. Unfortunately for you, we don't have to. Everything that has happened in ASOIAF, also happens in our world. From killing, to raping, stealing, men of power doing everything to seize the power, and so on. As modern readers we're quite capable to understand everything in ASOIAF and to judge accordingly. Look at the world nowadays... 'Modern' rules of power aren't at all different from 'medieval' ones. At the end, we are all human beings, and that's what the point is. Not the time and place of ASOIAF, but the fact there are people willing enough to do everything for power. And GRRM's message is quite clear. And it surpasses the medievalism...

[E-Ro]

Well no actually I don't think it is clear which is worse personally. We obviously disagree on how good Stannis would be for Westeros but if you take the view of him as someone who is just out to secure power for himself (even though he says he does not want power he acts quite a lot like a man that does) then why is killing people for fun objectively worse than killing people as a sacrifice to attain power?

You don't know which one is worse? Ok, then brah, there really isn't any reason to continue this discussion, since i think you are just being purposefully obtuse now. Also twisting facts, Stannis burns for a variety of reasons "power" is among them, but it is not the only factor in his decision, whats more, he struggles with it.

And this is missing the point anyway. We are clearly meant to think well of characters whose actions would be morally condemned by the vast majority of people in the 21st century - therefore, even if we want to, we struggle to judge them by our moral standards.

Yes, we are, but we aren't supposed to give everyone a free pass on morally bad(by our standards) acts because "oh they don't know any better, so its ok for them"

[Tiki]

Problem with Middle Eastern morals is that they are not specific only for them. You can have Middle East in centre of New York, or Paris, or anywhere around the world. One-sided POV in which Western countries are known for civil libreties and Eastern as breaker of civil rights, is so wrong. After economic crisis, the world shifted quite a lot. And we have radicalism growing like weed everywhere around the world.

Agreed, but morals that come from a 1500 year old book aren't modern.

[James Sucellus]

Western morals are largely built on, and have spread through, the principles found in the Bible. I don't see how this is even debatable.

[FuriousGeorge]

You don't know which one is worse? Ok, then brah, there really isn't any reason to continue this discussion, since i think you are just being purposefully obtuse now. Also twisting facts, Stannis burns for a variety of reasons "power" is among them, but it is not the only factor in his decision, whats more, he struggles with it.

Yes, we are, but we aren't supposed to give everyone a free pass on morally bad(by our standards) acts because "oh they don't know any better, so its ok for them"

Ok then explain to me why killing to attain power is a more moral endeavor, or more morally acceptable, than killing for fun?

[FuriousGeorge]

Yes, we are, but we aren't supposed to give everyone a free pass on morally bad(by our standards) acts because "oh they don't know any better, so its ok for them"

And yeah I agree with you on that count at least.

[Tiki]

Western morals are largely built on, and have spread through, the principles found in the Bible. I don't see how this is even debatable.

Built on, yes. Developed over the years.

Sharia law is straight from the Quran.

[RhaenysBee]

Well, just name one character from ASOIAF who doesn't belong to jail or psychiatry by modern standards... o.O

Yeah, there are levels of how 'evil' somebody is, but modern morals are strict about many things Westeros doesn't give a shit about. And it's the same the other way around... I'm pretty sure many ASOIAF characters would be horrified to see our modern world and claim theirs is far better...

[Miodrag]

Yes, most of the characters we read about are complete and utter assholes, but there are different levels of it.

Not sure about that. Many ASOIAF characters would do just fine in our world. You know, upstanding citizens. They'd follow different rules - our, modern rules - and they'd have an entirely different set of problems - not unlike the one we have, most likely - but they'd manage through it. Tywin would be an asshole executive who not so much as blinks while firing thousand of his employees, but I'm sure he'd be 'respected' and his ass would be as kissed as it is in Westeros. And Ned, for comparison, would be someone who'd rather lose a fortune, than cheat on the market.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing with you, nor with 'FuriousGeorge'. I just don't know why is it so hard to make peace with both sets of moral standards - medieval/ASOIAF and our own - by trying to put yourself in the shoes of the characters, or vice-versa.

[Tommens Cat]

My morals tell me that each person is entitled to judge characters (or any human for that matter) however they wish. Does anyone here believe they know more about life than anyone else?

I've seen some things that stop me from judging anything the same way anyone else would. And everyone else has experienced things that alter their scope of judgment. There really is no standard for morals. Sure someone could believe something just because a lot of other people do, but that doesn't make it true.

We all see the world differently and therefore will not reach a consensus on this topic.

[E-Ro]

Ok then explain to me why killing to attain power is a more moral endeavor, or more morally acceptable, than killing for fun?

The killing to attain power is so that he can save the realm. Its not as if he just wants power for the sake of it.

"I never asked for this crown. Gold is cold & heavy on the head but so long as I am the king, I have a duty … If I must sacrifice one child to the flames to save a million from the dark … Sacrifice … is never easy, Davos. Or it is no true sacrifice.

”He is one baseborn boy, against all the boys of westeros, and all the girls as well. Against all the children that might ever be born in all the kingdoms of the world.”

“Edric—“ He started. “—Is one boy! He may be the best boy that ever drew breath and it would not matter. My duty is to the realm.” His hand swept across the painted table. “How many bys live in westeros? How many girls? How many men, how many women? The darkness will devour them all she says. The night that never ends. She talks of prophecies… a hero reborn in the sea, living dragons hatched from dead stone… She speaks of signs and swears they point to me. I never asked for this, no more then I asked to be king. Yet dare I disregard her?”

Ramsay tortures and does horrible horrible things for the fun of it, there is no reason. He is just a sicko

[Summerqueen]

I love how people pop in and say things like "you can't possibly be enjoying the books if you consider morality." Um, thanks for telling people what they can and can't enjoy? Many people enjoy reading as a thought-provoking exercise. Many people enjoy engaging actively, and critically (analytically) with texts!