So You're In Love With A Controversial Character...

[ShadowCat Rivers]

... ... ...

1. Accept the bad with the good. Cersei sends people to Qyburn. Tyrion is misogynistic. Stannis burns people. And so on and so forth. Do not minimise the crimes by assigning blame to the victim or arguing cultural relativism. The latter especially is a terrible argument as it not only takes away your character's agency by painting hir as a victim of society but also negates characters who have acted against said norms.
   

... ... ...

Very good post, in general. However, I want to argue about the bolded part. It seems that "cultural relativism" is perceived as something undeniably wrong around here, while it is a concept still debated among scientists. I think this is the right place to state my opinion.

I think it is important to keep in mind that social and political sciences are always affected by the researcher's believes and therefore, any methodological and heuristic device can be used to derive conclusions that are in line with said believes. Accordingly, cultural relativism was developed largely as a responce to ethnocentricism, which can -and has been used to- justify colonialism, but it has also been debated that, if streched, cultural relativism can be used as an apology to neo-colonialism.

(Anyway, for those more interested in human sciences and philosophy, there is always wikipedia for a start: cultural relativism, moral relativism, moral universalism, moral absolutism)

I 'd prefer to use one of the less controversial characters as an examble: Ned Stark (I love the guy).

-Ned Stark is sexist. (no need to argue about it, I think, but we can come back to debate it if needed)

-Ned Stark is a supporter of the idea of preemptive punishement:

In truth, the man was an oathbreaker, a deserter from the Night’s Watch. No man is more dangerous. The deserter knows his life is forfeit if he is taken, so he will not flinch from any crime, no matter how vile. But you mistake me. The question was not why the man had to die, but why I must do it.

So the man has to die for the crimes he might commit? Really, Ned?

-Ned Stark is a feudal lord, and quite comfortable with his "right" to have people serving him as serfs (better than slavery, still very very bad).

-(the list could go on but I think you get the point)

If taken out of context, and viewed by modern day moral standards, Ned can come out as a very "bad" person. Is this perception an accurate description of Ned's character? Absolutely not, IMO. Ned is a really good person, because 1. his main motivation is love, and to do the right thing (as is perceived in his world), 2. he cares for other people's feelings and well being, 3. he complies to the highest moral standards of his world, and 4. due to all the previous, I believe that if Ned lived in our world, he wouldn't be, or do, any of the -by today's standards- bad things listed above.

So, I don't think placing the characters in context takes away their agency. It's merely a tool to understand why they act the way they do, why they feel the way they do. Of course, if such an approach is taken too far, it can lead IMO to as much a misreading of the character as the opposite approach. But I think we all are capable to apply some common sense. (I also believe that sometimes, both approaches are used to play the devil's advocate)

Finally, I believe that putting situations into context does not negate the characters who act against the norm. On the contrary, it places them in a higher position. As in real life, innovating/enlighted ideas are usually supported by a minority in the beginning. They are not automatically adopted by the magority just because they are eventually proven to be good, as in leading to a better and more fair world for more people. (However, if we think that because they don't do so, the magority are less moral or even worse immoral, we are dangerously close to adopt a nihilistic view on humannity).

edited for embarrassing spelling mistakes

[Morienthar]

I actually like Qyburn in a way,I respect what he is trying to accomplish but not the way he goes about it,But in a place without much scientific advancement he is sort of a pioneer.

[Pinkie Baelish]

I have an irrational love for Roose Bolton, and my mancrush on Michael McElhatton and his awesome voice on the show doesn't help this. I can look past his horrific actions because Roose's inability to give a single fuck is far too entertaining for me to dwell on his sins. The same goes for Euron, who I'm surprised to find entertaining, given how one-dimensional he is. I'm a terrible person, I know.

I'd discuss Stannis but thing is he isn't really controversial. People go against him majorly as a response to his unexpectedly large fan base, and because he isn't a bubbly or happy sort of fellow so they think OMG EVIL.

ZUH??? Stannis is right up there with Catelyn, Daenerys and Tyrion as the series' most polarizing characters.

[ab aeterno]

I 'd prefer to use one of the less controversial characters as an examble: Ned Stark (I love the guy).

-Ned Stark is sexist. (no need to argue about it, I think, but we can come back to debate it if needed)

-Ned Stark is a supporter of the idea of preemptive punishement:

So the man has to die for the crimes he might commit? Really, Ned?

-Ned Stark is a feudal lord, and quite comfortable with his "right" to have people serving him as serfs (better than slavery, still very very bad).

-(the list could go on but I think you get the point)

I think it's worth noting here that Ned is explaining why Oathbreaking is illegal more than he is explaining why he is executing him, I would argue. Ned is executing the man because Oathbraking is a crime, rather than taking it upon himself to work out an appropriate punishment for the character.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

I think it's worth noting here that Ned is explaining why Oathbreaking is illegal more than he is explaining why he is executing him, I would argue. Ned is executing the man because Oathbraking is a crime, rather than taking it upon himself to work out an appropriate punishment for the character.

He explains why oathbreaking is a crime deserving the death penalty. The reason he states (and I have no reason to believe that he disagrees with) is based on the concept of preemptive punishement.

ETA: though, to be fair to The Ned, he has a very enlighted view of justice in an other aspect, to differenciate it from revenge.

[ab aeterno]

On the issue of social context:

I put a great deal of emphasis on social context, to the extent that I take a Constructivist stance on most issues, but in terms of the books, cultural relativism is, in my opinion only useful for judging characters relative to other characters in the series. Ned does things that a modern audience would consider wrong, but relative to his culture, he is a paragon of morality to our judgement and to that of his contemporaries. By contrast, Tywin, for example, is seen as particularly brutal by his contemporaries, in his social context, as well as by modern readers. So while I agree that cultural relativism can play a role in our judgement of characters, I would argue that it only has a compelling role in our judgements of them relative to their cultural mean, and constructs a weak argument when defending a character.

The fact that 'everyone does it,' might make a character's decision more understandable, and more sympathetic, but it doesn't absolve them of blame entirely. They may not understand that they are doing wrong, (or something that is not generally accepted as wrong,) and this may in some circumstances absolve them of a portion of the blame, but the reason that social contexts and norms have changed is that some people went against their cultural norms. Those who do not or did not are a part of the wide cultural wrong.

He explains why oathbreaking is a crime deserving the death penalty. The reason he states (and I have no reason to believe that he disagrees with) is based on the concept of preemptive punishement.

He may not disagree with it, but we don't know, because he doesn't comment on that at all. Ned isn't someone who takes a great deal of time considering the implications and the esoteric issues in life. It is more likely that he upholds the law because he believes it is his duty, and also because it is the way things have always been done. Many, if not most, people support the rule of law even if they don't agree with all the laws.

It's also, for what it's worth, not just about preemtive punishment. Oathbraking is also a crime because if it wasn't it would be impossible to field any sort of fighting force, or indeed have any sort of feudal system, as there would be no way to ensure that people upheld their agreements.

[The Dornishman's Wife]

1. Accept the bad with the good. Cersei sends people to Qyburn. Tyrion is misogynistic. Stannis burns people. And so on and so forth. Do not minimise the crimes by assigning blame to the victim or arguing cultural relativism. The latter especially is a terrible argument as it not only takes away your character's agency by painting hir as a victim of society but also negates characters who have acted against said norms.
   

Excellent thread, and excellent points, all of them. The first one addresses an especially annoying fallacy: "I love them, so they must be perfect". There's no shame in loving a flawed character, but it's silly to claim that these flaws don't exist (and in case the flaw constitutes committing immoral actions: not only silly but somewhat disturbing).

I see myself linking a lot to this thread in the future.

[Victarion Chainbreaker]

Victarion may commit violent acts against 'innocent' (by our society's standards) civilians, but he has one redeeming quality that absolves him of all wrongdoing: He's the plot device that will get Dany to Westeros. I would forgive him for way worse atrocities if they resulted in Dany leaving Slavers' Bay behind forever.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

On the issue of social context:

I put a great deal of emphasis on social context, to the extent that I take a Constructivist stance on most issues, but in terms of the books, cultural relativism is, in my opinion only useful for judging characters relative to other characters in the series. Ned does things that a modern audience would consider wrong, but relative to his culture, he is a paragon of morality to our judgement and to that of his contemporaries. By contrast, Tywin, for example, is seen as particularly brutal by his contemporaries, in his social context, as well as by modern readers. So while I agree that cultural relativism can play a role in our judgement of characters, I would argue that it only has a compelling role in our judgements of them relative to their cultural mean, and constructs a weak argument when defending a character.

The fact that 'everyone does it,' might make a character's decision more understandable, and more sympathetic, but it doesn't absolve them of blame entirely. They may not understand that they are doing wrong, (or something that is not generally accepted as wrong,) and this may in some circumstances absolve them of a portion of the blame, but the reason that social contexts and norms have changed is that some people went against their cultural norms. Those who do not or did not are a part of the wide cultural wrong.

We don't really disagree. The difference is that I tend to view those "some people" as heroes rather than blame the rest (unless they go to great lengths to defend the wrong status quo - they usually do it because it favors them).

Also, I tend to dismiss streched criticism on a character, see the examble I used about Ned. I believe that, when Ned (* a character like Ned) does things that a modern audience would consider wrong, it's worthy a critique of their society (*as well as a means to question our own, and our own society's, moral standards), not of the character.

He may not disagree with it, but we don't know, because he doesn't comment on that at all. Ned isn't someone who takes a great deal of time considering the implications and the esoteric issues in life. It is more likely that he upholds the law because he believes it is his duty, and also because it is the way things have always been done. Many, if not most, people support the rule of law even if they don't agree with all the laws.

It's also, for what it's worth, not just about preemtive punishment. Oathbraking is also a crime because if it wasn't it would be impossible to field any sort of fighting force, or indeed have any sort of feudal system, as there would be no way to ensure that people upheld their agreements.

Doesn't this make him a part of the wide cultural wrong, as you explained above? In my view, it kind of does, but I do absolve him of blame. I'd hold a more enlighted character in a higher esteem (in this particular issue), though.

[ab aeterno]

We don't really disagree. The difference is that I tend to view those "some people" as heroes rather than blame the rest (unless they go to great lengths to defend the wrong status quo).

Also, I tend to dismiss streched criticism on a character, see the examble I used about Ned. I believe that, when Ned (* a character like Ned) does things that a modern audience would consider wrong, it's worthy a critique of their society, not of the character.

I agree; I do view those some people as heroes, and I don't blame the rest, so much as I give them no credit for being no better than anybody else.

As for critiques of character versus society, it depends on the actual issue. If there is a contextual or logical reason why they should reasonable know that what they're doing is wrong I would consider it more a critique of the character than if they have no contextual reason to conclude what they are doing is wrong. Where a character lacks a contextual reason to understand why their actions are wrong I tend to view it as making their actions more defensible and removing those actions from my judgements about a character (that is to say that actions such as Ned's in the example above have no bearing, positive or negative, on how I judge them contextually.)

I suppose my overarching point is that I take two levels of judgement about a character; a contextual one and a modern one. I give somewhat less weight to the contextual judgement here than I would in real life because I don't think Martin wanted us to judge characters only against their contexts.

Doesn't this make him a part of the wide cultural wrong, as you explained above? In my view, it kind of does, but I do absolve him of blame. I'd hold a more enlighted character in a higher esteem (in this particular issue), though.

Yes, I agree, and I think he is. I think Ned is relatively much better than many of his contemporaries on may issues; he is near the summit of the culture, but he is still a component of the wider cultural wrong.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

As for critiques of character versus society, it depends on the actual issue. If there is a contextual or logical reason why they should reasonable know that what they're doing is wrong I would consider it more a critique of the character than if they have no contextual reason to conclude what they are doing is wrong. Where a character lacks a contextual reason to understand why their actions are wrong I tend to view it as making their actions more defensible and removing those actions from my judgements about a character (that is to say that actions such as Ned's in the example above have no bearing, positive or negative, on how I judge them contextually.)

:agree:

I suppose my overarching point is that I take two levels of judgement about a character; a contextual one and a modern one. I give somewhat less weight to the contextual judgement here than I would in real life because I don't think Martin wanted us to judge characters only against their contexts.

I try to put myself in their shoes. What would I do if I had to face similar/analogous situations, given that I would be brought up with the same/analogous principles as they have been, with a similar/analogous social background? And doing so, I try to be sincere to myself and to question my own stance in my own context. How do I position myself in the balance of "enlighted minority"/"wider cultural wrong"?

Given that I want to think of myself as a good person, but that I don't consider myself a saint, by no means, I tend to be more sympathetic to the characters, and less judgemental.

[ab aeterno]

I try to put myself in their shoes. What would I do if I had to face similar/analogous situations, given that I would be brought up with the same/analogous principles as they have been, with a similar/analogous social background? And doing so, I try to be sincere to myself and to question my own stance in my own context. How do I position myself in the balance of "enlighted minority"/"wider cultural wrong"?

Given that I want to think of myself as a good person, but that I don't consider myself a saint, by no means, I tend to be more sympathetic to the characters, and less judgemental.

Agreed, I think that's a fair way to look at it.

[Joyful Union]

Mine is Gregor Clegane:

1. Traumatized as a child by the theft of his beloved toy by Sandor

2. Crippled by blinding headaches, yet he managed to fight and find a place in the world despite his disability

3. Tried his best to be an honorable bannerman, serving his liege with absolute loyalty. How can you question the honor of a man who would kill children rather than disobey his lord?

4. Was ultimately betrayed by the family he had served so faithfully for so many years, who allowed him to suffer in horrific pain until his untimely death.

5. Struggled with his immense height for many years, but managed to overcome the anti-giant stigma.

6. What a sense of humor! That inn keep's daughter episode is a master class in black humor. Chiswyk was right to laugh!

7. Rid the world of the scourge of the Red Viper, poisoner and squire-crippler extraordinaire.

I think it's time to look past the horrible and biased depictions of Gregor.

[direwienerdog]

I like Jaime's arc of redemption. He is despicable and self centered in the beginning but after interacting with Brienne sees his flaws. He is now trying do the right things and is succeeding mostly. He keeps his vows to Catlyn at RR BY not raising a sword against the Tullys. He resolves the Blackwoods and Brackens fewd,nonviolent.

He is trying so hard to do the right things,the honorable things, it's hard not to root for him.

I find it hard to root for Stannis. He is a fraud IMO. Unless he makes a huge sacrifice like using Shreen as Nissa Nissa type sacrifice, I don't see him fulfilling Mel AAR prophesy. If he could bend a little with his justice for the sake of justice personality, I might find him worthy. As of now he seems to little a player and to much of a pawn.

Edit:spelling

[butterbumps!]

And you, being a decent human being, are naturally conflicted about this-am I an awful person for rooting for hir? Does this make me a sympathiser of rapists/murderers/crucifiers/child-defenestrators?

lol, was this by any chance inspired by some of the comments in the Tyrion Husband thread?

It is ok to have a shallow reason for liking a character. (Euron fans unite!)

ugh, yea, this pic got to me too.

I have a few of these "problem" characters. Jaime is in my top favorites (above even Cat). Varys can pull out the tongues of the entire continent of Westeros and I'd probably still have a weird affection for the cockless wonder. Roose is an odd one for me-- I like him for some bizarre reason, but I don't root for or sympathize with him so much as I want him to stay alive long enough to prove my Bolton-Others thesis. Cersei and Robert (yea, I kind of like the drunken oaf) are my "guilty pleasure" characters; I'm a bit more repentant about liking those 2.

[ellisg]

Theon for me. He did a lot of bad things but for reasons that I can completely understand given his position. He's probably my favourite character, if not him then Tyrion.

[Darth Visenya]

For me it's Aerys Targaryen, most of the stuff he did was justified, even if slightly extreme although some of it quite funny, he was certainly a better King than the fat oaf that came after him.

[Blede]

I'm a Tywin fan ! I can justify him for almost everything he did (yes, even the Red Wedding, why is it more noble to kill thousands in the battlefield than a dozen at dinner ?). It's only his family management that I find just wrong, it destroys all he fought for.

No, you're not an awful person for being a devoted Cerseian (I am too, I love all the Lannisters, except Joffrey, but he is not a Lannister in the first place).

[The Wolves]

Viserys is a character I love just because he's a Targaryen and I love the Targaryens and also cause I can sympathize with him more than any character besides Catelyn.

And I don't really blame Viserys for how he turned out, I think the world namely external forces caused him to be who we see in AGOT

[E-Ro]

Interesting thread. Mine has gotta be Robert. I'm a baratheon man through and through, and Robert was a badass. He will always be my brah.