was stannis meant to be likeable

[Toxspecific]

No: my point is that the phrase 'in spite of everything' carries a meaning that cannot simply be brushed aside. GRRM was very clear on exactly why he was using the descriptor of 'righteous': it was for a specific reason. To insist that he meant it to apply in general is simply to twist language.

There is no other way to look at such an extremely simple quote. He called Stannis righteous. There's no other perspective here, no other way of interpreting this. I'm having a hard time believing you're actually even saying what you are saying. In spite of everything, Stannis is a righteous man. It means Stannis has his flaws but he is an overall righteous man. That is what it means, there is no way twist the meaning of this sentence around.

Seriously.

[Sansa_Stark]

Only because he went to The North though

[Tenzinkendrick]

Yeah, im pretty sure he wanted stannis to be liked.

I guess sacrificing children and burning people alive are the works of a true saint.

[Tenzinkendrick]

There is no other way to look at such an extremely simple quote. He called Stannis righteous. There's no other perspective here, no other way of interpreting this. I'm having a hard time believing you're actually even saying what you are saying. In spite of everything, Stannis is a righteous man. It means Stannis has his flaws but he is an overall righteous man. That is what it means, there is no way twist the meaning of this sentence around.

Seriously.

Stannis is evil, though, and he is the saddest, most depressing type of evil. Can I tell you why? He condemns himself by his own principles. As Varys said, the most frightening thing is a truly just man. He justifies everything as being honorable. He thinks he is sacrificing his own good for the realm, but it is the complete opposite. And just when his principles could make a difference, he throws them out the window (Remember Gendry/Edric Storm anyone?).

[Sansa_Stark]

He left Robert to die

[mormont]

There is no other way to look at such an extremely simple quote. He called Stannis righteous. There's no other perspective here, no other way of interpreting this. I'm having a hard time believing you're actually even saying what you are saying. In spite of everything, Stannis is a righteous man. It means Stannis has his flaws but he is an overall righteous man. That is what it means, there is no way twist the meaning of this sentence around.

Seriously.

Yes, that is what it means, which is exactly what I've been saying (and what you've been arguing against, in claiming that the qualification was irrelevant).

What it does not mean, for example, is that Stannis is likeable: that Stannis' killing of Renly was justified: that any other action of Stannis', with the exception of his decision to go North, is justified: or that GRRM thinks that, if Stannis had not gone North, he would still have been a 'righteous man'. What it does mean is that at least some of Stannis' actions were such that in the eyes of the author he required a form of redemption, a redemption that was only acquired by his recognition of the threat beyond the Wall.

Like I say, the meaning is pretty clear.

[direwienerdog]

Grey character, definitely. I don't think he's meant to be a character the audience wholely supports or wholely despises, he's meant to be one that divides people. Between traitors and king's men.

Stannis isn't the only character that divides reader's support. Most of the characters are written by GRRM to bring forth the emotions of his readers. There are many discussions of characters on this board that devolve into the merits of characters.

As you see there are a few who love Stannis and others not so much. But we get this way about most of GRRM grey toned books. IMHO it's what makes the story so great.

[The Drunkard]

Stannis isn't the only character that divides reader's support. Most of the characters are written by GRRM to bring forth the emotions of his readers. There are many discussions of characters on this board that devolve into the merits of characters.

As you see there are a few who love Stannis and others not so much. But we get this way about most of GRRM grey toned books. IMHO it's what makes the story so great.

Indeed, but I would argue Stannis is one of the more extreme characters when it comes to reader divisions. In this very thread you have one guy calling Stannis evil and some others saying he's great.

I guess sacrificing children and burning people alive are the works of a true saint.

Good on you.

[Gannicus]

Let's put it this way: Jaime - likable personality, unlikable actions(pre-ASOS). Stannis - unlikable personality, likable actions(ASOS -)

I think this is a pretty accurate statement.

Despite fighting for the right side time and again, he is written as an asshole.

Case in point...

I guess sacrificing children and burning people alive are the works of a true saint.

Dany has burned more people alive than Stannis and threatened to kill more children than him. Most fans away from this site consider Dany an out and out hero.

This is not meant to be a flame against Dany, I don't have a problem with her actions in those cases.

Stannis is evil, though, and he is the saddest, most depressing type of evil. Can I tell you why? He condemns himself by his own principles. As Varys said, the most frightening thing is a truly just man. He justifies everything as being honorable.

I don't think that means what you think it means. He doesn't justify anything with honor. He mocked Ned and his honor. Stannis justifies everything he does because he believes it's his duty and ultimately can save the realm.

He thinks he is sacrificing his own good for the realm, but it is the complete opposite.

How is it the opposite when he decides to go north with a few thousand men to protect the realm?

And just when his principles could make a difference, he throws them out the window (Remember Gendry/Edric Storm anyone?).

How do you mean his principles could make a difference?

Stannis has always been commited to duty and the precieved good of the realm. Mel had him convinced that burning Edric could save thousands of lives. He was clearly agonizing over the decision and it was something he never wanted to do.

When Davos smuggled Edric out, Stannis responded by thanking him.

[Blueberry Stark]

Let's put it this way: Jaime - likable personality, unlikable actions(pre-ASOS). Stannis - unlikable personality, likable actions(ASOS -)

I agree. He's a probably a better person than Jaime, for instance, but he lacks Jaime's charm. Yet, he does have some of the funnier lines in the books, and Davos is his Hand. Overall, I like Stannis a lot, especially after he goes North.

[Ramsay B.]

He's rigid as hell but has some of the best lines in the books and anyone that GRRM has go to help the North/Wall, no matter what the reasons, is meant to be somewhat likeable IMO.

[SkaggCannibal]

Stannis is evil, though, and he is the saddest, most depressing type of evil. Can I tell you why? He condemns himself by his own principles. As Varys said, the most frightening thing is a truly just man. He justifies everything as being honorable. He thinks he is sacrificing his own good for the realm, but it is the complete opposite. And just when his principles could make a difference, he throws them out the window (Remember Gendry/Edric Storm anyone?).

The most depressing type of evil? I don't know I would get sooner depressed from Ramsay-kind of evil than Stannis-kind. You're wrong at several points. A truly just man is frightening, but it's debatable if that's a bad thing. Fear keeps men in check, when they know they are getting gelded for raping, for example. He doesn't justify everything by being honorable, he justifies it by the law (Renly is a traitor, punishment by law is death). You're saying he's sacrificing the realm for his own good, how is that? By saving the realm at the wall? By putting the law above all else? And I don't know what principles you're talking about, but what did he exactle throw out the window? If you say honor, that could be, but he always kept it lawful. And Edric never burned so that's not an argument.

I see you mention Gendry in your argument, which makes me believe you based some of your crazy thoughts on the show. You need to know that the show depicts Stannis way different and not in a better light. It's not the true image GRRM intended and not how Stannis would react in those situations. Just so you know.

[Toxspecific]

I guess sacrificing children and burning people alive are the works of a true saint.

Easily the worst post in this thread.

Burning alive *criminals, and him considering burning Edric was indeed a wrong thing, but he was never completely confirmed in his intentions. And @Mormont, I'm not going to discuss something so painfully simple in such length. I refuse to believe there is any other meaning to what GRRM said when he called Stannis righteous (this should really end the 'Stannis is evil' debate but I guess people believe what they want to).

[aceluby]

Well this turned into a ridiculous thread (surprise, surprise). To state that people who don't like Stannis is because they don't properly analyze the character and think that the story is only about a few main characters is pompous and presumptuous. Threads that end up Stan Fans vs anti-Stans never has 'proper analysis' and boils down to the same crap of pointing out flaws on one side and justifying them on the other. Butterbumps is the only one who has done actual proper analysis of the character which actually explores the depths of his character and actually has interesting discussion. Threads like these are circle jerks.

[Toxspecific]

Well this turned into a ridiculous thread (surprise, surprise). To state that people who don't like Stannis is because they don't properly analyze the character and think that the story is only about a few main characters is pompous and presumptuous. Threads that end up Stan Fans vs anti-Stans never has 'proper analysis' and boils down to the same crap of pointing out flaws on one side and justifying them on the other. Butterbumps is the only one who has done actual proper analysis of the character which actually explores the depths of his character and actually has interesting discussion. Threads like these are circle jerks.

We don't generalize when we say people don't analyze Stannis. I don't even mean that once you study him you're bound to like him. People get so offended when you declare something about them which is very true.

My view that lots of forumers here who don't like Stannis, barely study the character at all, takes root from a number of factors, sutch as he existence of nonsensical threads such as 'Will Stannis bend the knee to *insert name here*?' This shows a complete lack of understanding, of the people advocating the possibility of him bending the knee, of one of the most important assets of Stannis; he does not bend. If many people don't know this, then heck saying they didn't study him properly is an understatement!

And then you have all the people popping up in Stannis Quotes threads going 'wow I didn't know he ever said that'. So to say some people don't analyze him, is justified. But not all, never meant to generalize, and never meant to imply that once you study him you're bound to like him.

[James Arryn]

*spends most of his time grumbling about how he's been wronged.

* often isolates himself.

*burns people he finds guilty of crimes or disloyalty.

*sees treason almost everywhere he looks

*cold relationship with wife, but lusts after other women.

Am I describing Aerys?

[aceluby]

But not all, never meant to generalize, and never meant to imply that once you study him you're bound to like him.

Stannis was meant to be likeable for people who didn't judge from first impressions, who read and analyzed his character properly and who reconciled to the fact that the series isn't just about a few main characters.

If you don't mean to generalize and don't mean to say once you study him you're bound to like him, then stop generalizing and don't say he's 'meant' to be likeable if you 'read and analyze his character properly'. Stannis is an interesting character, don't get me wrong, but the whole hero worship and justifying his terrible actions that even HE won't admit wrong doing for is completely missing out on some of the more interesting parts of his character.

[The Imperator]

He's meant to be incredibly unlikable yet is one of the most beloved characters by the ASOIAF fanbase.

A testament to his charisma.

I actually think that Stannis was neither meant to be liked or disliked. GRRM probably wanted that to be left up to the readers.

[The Imperator]

*spends most of his time grumbling about how he's been wronged.

* often isolates himself.

*burns people he finds guilty of crimes or disloyalty.

*sees treason almost everywhere he looks

*cold relationship with wife, but lusts after other women.

Am I describing Aerys?

Yup. It's a good thing Stannis isn't like him.

[The Drunkard]

Am I describing Aerys?

Are you? Because those pieces of information stripped of context are close to meaningless.