Addam of Hull Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 The people she kills at Harrenhal are unambiguously evil. We see what they do for most of ACOK. What about the insurance salesman she kills in ADWD? Was he evil? Did he deserve to die? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stannis Eats No Peaches Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 This is to such an extent that we actually know Tyrion is a good guy I like this part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Selig Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 The people who flay skins and who were plotting to kill Rob with the Freys (which Arya overheard)? I think she can be excused for assuming he is an enemy. And yes, the Boltons are portrayed like the SS. Even in ACOK we get descriptions of "grey eyed" Roose Bolton and him acting like some vampire lord. We're not meant to be affected by them being killed anymore than the Freys. They aren't even portrayed as people. The guard wasn't a Bolton, he just worked for Roose. There's no evidence he had committed any atrocities (he may as well have, but we don't know and neither did Arya, she murdered him because he was in the way) and Arya had no idea that the Boltons were planning to betray Robb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaarioKnowsBest Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 I wasn't around before HBO but I would guess Sean Bean had something to do with the Starks popularity, he made that role his bich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
total1402 Posted November 18, 2013 Author Share Posted November 18, 2013 What about the insurance salesman she kills in ADWD? Was he evil? Did he deserve to die? Did he break the law? Plus, Arya at this point is in a bad place and being manipulated by the Faceless Men. Thus there is diminished agency on her part. Plus, he was probably portrayed as weedy and miserly. In other words not human or worthy of sympathy. Its like when you portray goblin as comically stupid; it makes killing them okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
total1402 Posted November 18, 2013 Author Share Posted November 18, 2013 The guard wasn't a Bolton, he just worked for Roose. There's no evidence he had committed any atrocities (he may as well have, but we don't know and neither did Arya, she murdered him because he was in the way) and Arya had no idea that the Boltons were planning to betray Robb. Then hes a faceless footsoldier who is merely an extension of the characters evil. Like how killing Haradrim in LOTR is okay because they are extensions of Saurons evil. Plus hes part of the same group who go on to do the Red Wedding which fully vindicates Arya killing him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilly Snow Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 So you're saying that everyone has to be rapists and murderers for the story to be realistic? :worried: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMysteriousOne Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 Did he break the law? Plus, Arya at this point is in a bad place and being manipulated by the Faceless Men. Thus there is diminished agency on her part. Plus, he was probably portrayed as weedy and miserly. In other words not human or worthy of sympathy. Its like when you portray goblin as comically stupid; it makes killing them okay. This post is brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dios_achilleus Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 Stannis sins are washed away in ASOS. He helps Jon and offers to make him Lord of Winterfell to put a sin of Eddard in Winterfell. I'm so pleased you made this typo. Yes, a sin of Eddard is exactly how Cat views Jon! An unintended pun, perhaps, but still a good one. Kudos to you. And, again, this underlines how the Starks are not morally pure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lointain Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 I wish Robb had been a bloodthirsty warmonger. Don't worry, he was. He started a war to rescue, and later avenge his father, don't given much tought about the thousands that would die, so he can achieve his vengeance and a crown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Selig Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 Then hes a faceless footsoldier who is merely an extension of the characters evil. Like how killing Haradrim in LOTR is okay because they are extensions of Saurons evil. Plus hes part of the same group who go on to do the Red Wedding which fully vindicates Arya killing him. So because this guy may have participated in the RW if he had remained alive, that justifies Arya murdering him? Wow. Did he break the law? Plus, Arya at this point is in a bad place and being manipulated by the Faceless Men. Thus there is diminished agency on her part. Plus, he was probably portrayed as weedy and miserly. In other words not human or worthy of sympathy. Its like when you portray goblin as comically stupid; it makes killing them okay. Don't forget the villain beard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 Stannis sins are washed away in ASOS. He helps Jon and offers to make him Lord of Winterfell to put a sin of Eddard in Winterfell. So...what you're saying is the Starks aren't morally pure? Glad we solved this problem for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
total1402 Posted November 18, 2013 Author Share Posted November 18, 2013 So you're saying that everyone has to be rapists and murderers for the story to be realistic? :worried: An example of a grey conflict would be WW1. Both parties believed they were in the right and that the other was the aggressor. In truth they all had alliances and were responsible for starting the conflict. All of them were Imperialist nations based around the subjugation of others and democracy had little and less to do with what they did outside their own nations. Despite this the soldiers acted with everything from heroism to barbarity under appalling conditions. So no. But GRRM makes the Starks morally pure and to an unbelievable extent compared to other lesser characters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stannis Eats No Peaches Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 I actually think that Brienne remains the most morally pure character, with Davos a close contender. Davos has his faults though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilusmagnus Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 Who said the Starks were moral?Arya's quest for vengeance and her killing anyone who bothers her, Sansa's lie about the Kingsroad incident, UnCat hanging any Lannister ally, including 10-years-old Podrick, Robb beheading Rickard Karstark out of a feeling of ineptitude... All of that seems moral to you?Only Bran and Rickon are clean, and they're both under 10. (They are by the way the only full-white characters of the whole series)Seriously, the Starks may be the most honourable House, there's no way they are moral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
total1402 Posted November 18, 2013 Author Share Posted November 18, 2013 So because this guy may have participated in the RW if he had remained alive, that justifies Arya murdering him? Wow. Don't forget the villain beard. Writing characters like that dehumanizes them. Look at Lord Walder Frey, he is a perverse, gnarled and mean spirited creature who is physically stunted and relies on low cunning to survive. He has no redeeming qualities. This is a truly monstrous depiction and would make killing him no different than gandalf getting that goblin king in the Hobbit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sleeper Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 The brilliance of this thread is that there are people who like the Starks, that bash on them, while the one who doesn't like them defends their actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Daenerys Stormborn Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 Can I ask why the Starks being morally pure means the story is not grey? I’m not sure what a story has to be, in order to be grey. I doubt greyness is defined by who readers root for though. This is how the OP defined ‘greyness.’ I am sure GrrM has said he roots for Tyrion. Tyrion is a very grey character, verging on black. Do you mean the story does not have moral ambiguity? How can the story not have moral ambiguity? Is it that no character does both good and bad things? So they don’t possess shades of grey created by their moral decisions? But there are some very morally ambiguous characters, like Dany and Stannis. Some of the Starks are like this too. Arya and Bran are examples. Or do you mean the Starks always get handed choices that could be moral choices but that have a very clear answer, so there’s no moral choice, and so no ambiguity and no greyness? Such as Ned’s decision to tell Cersei about the incest, or Robb’s choice to go to war, or Jon’s decision to spare the old man at Queenscrown, or march on WF at the end of DwD? I think some of those could be seen as ambiguous. There is no doubt a good person was making those choices, but it is not impossible for readers to question whether the choice was for the best. I’ve seen many readers do this anyway. Maybe you could be clearer what you mean? I’m also sure GrrM did not mean for us to take Tyrion’s relationship with Jon and Bran as the final say on his moral qualities or character. The same with Dany’s comments on Ned. In the early stages of GoT he crafted a lot of sympathy with a certain set of characters by giving them relatable traits and relating them to each other. Arya>Jon>Tyrion all come across sympathetic while Catelyn crosses Jon and Tyrion so this is a cue for some readers to dislike her. The author didn’t want to simplify all his character work into those relationships, or the impressions they give though. I think you are being very reductive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
total1402 Posted November 18, 2013 Author Share Posted November 18, 2013 Who said the Starks were moral? Arya's quest for vengeance and her killing anyone who bothers her, Sansa's lie about the Kingsroad incident, UnCat hanging any Lannister ally, including 10-years-old Podrick, Robb beheading Rickard Karstark out of a feeling of ineptitude... All of that seems moral to you? Only Bran and Rickon are clean, and they're both under 10. (They are by the way the only full-white characters of the whole series) Seriously, the Starks may be the most honourable House, there's no way they are moral. A little girls lie under pressure is not a villainous act. Uncat is not Cat. Rob executes a man who murders hostages and defies him as King. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
complexphoenix Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 No, they are not whiter than white. Ned has been known to lie. Robb's warring causes a lot of harm to a lot of people. Sansa lies, and not always for good reasons. Arya kills people, not always people who deserve it. Bran wargs into humans. Jon has made a lot of morally ambiguous moves regarding his vows. Rickon is still too young to be judged on moral grounds, but may grow up to be a savage cannibal. The Starks are a far lighter shade of grey than any other family in the series, but no one is white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.