|
All book discussion in this thread is now allowed. |
On May 23 2012 10:05 BroOd wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2012 08:56 sc4k wrote:On May 23 2012 08:41 Mattacate wrote:On May 23 2012 08:36 sc4k wrote:On May 23 2012 07:52 Falling wrote:On May 23 2012 03:28 farvacola wrote:On May 23 2012 01:34 sc4k wrote:
Really enjoyed this last episode. Although didn't like how many times the word cunt was said lol. The sex scene was actually fairly tasteful. The one problem I have with this whole series is the focus that GRR Martin seems to be completely obsessed with the concept of people betraying each other and being terrible to each other. He seems to think that in this sort of world the only way you can survive is horrifically betraying everyone you know and that anyone who tries to be in any way decent and fair will get stabbed in the back and killed before they can say the word 'mercy'.
I think it is far too cynical and unrealistic, many people in history did very well without being complete cocks. So far the only characters who seem to have any morality and at the same time are able to survive are rob stark and tyrion. Almost every other character displays either a psychopathic lack of sympathy or is portrayed as a loveable but trusting fool who is bound to be fucked by an evil person (ie Jon Snow). At least this opinion is based off what I have seen so far. From what I understand of the Dark/Medieval ages (of which the vast majority of fantasy fiction pays homage), selfishness, violence, and betrayal were standard conduct, as practically the entire western world was mired in chaos. Also what we know from the Middle Ages is typically told through the writers of either the Renaissance or else the Enlightenment both of which had a pretty low view of Medieval Europe. For instance the whole "flat earth" notion is a rather modern 'retcon' if you will. I'm sure you'd find equal amounts of mercy and petty vengeance, love and hate, justice and injustice, joy and despair, truth and lies in historical humans as you do now. It's just that modern story telling sees petty vengeance, hate, injustice, despair, and liees as more realistic than mercy, love, justice, joy, and truth. Despite both existing in real life. Thanks, this is basically my point. We have every reason to believe that most people in those times were pretty similar in terms of morality to us nowadays. There are plenty of dickheads but there are also plenty of solid people and a few who stick to their duty. Most psychology tests show that people are generally selfish but not generally cruel or mean without provocation. Of course Joffrey perfectly represents the corruption of a ruling class like some of the roman emperors. But there were also many fair and at least not cock-ish rulers in the middle ages and dark ages. For every caligula and nero there was a marcus aurelius or an Augustus Caesar. George RR Martin seems to have this strangely warped view of history, thinking that the only people who ever survived being rulers in those days were the ones with vast networks of spies and assassins and who stabbed everyone possible in the back. There were plenty of rulers who gained fame and amassed allies by being fair and honest, and managed to avoid being murdered or captured, like what seems to be happening to anyone who shows any sign of mercy or temperance in this show. Sure, not everyone is a dick (for example sir barristan, Ned, Danaerys, Robb) but if the world was ruled by these nice people then... well... he wouldn't have written the books about that period, duh. Nah it's more my point that almost everyone who is NOT a dick is a complete fool who gets killed or outwitted. I guess Rob stark and Tywin Lannister are two exceptions but we'll see how GRRM treats them. I hope that he will show a few evil/ unjust/ unfair people getting what historically often befell people who were unhinged or poor quality people ie being killed rather than just having everyone who is evil triumphing over everyone who is even remotely un-evil! On May 23 2012 08:51 Abysus wrote:
To GRRM the good guy being good and going on this epic quest to save the world and surviving is humdrum. People look out for #1 especially in medieval times, and some people are complete psychopathes that end up with power(joffrey).
Yeah I get this. I think a lot of GRRM fans are somehow assuming I am an idiot with no understanding of his desire to be a deep storyteller who provides a profound reflection of human reality. I am familiar with the fact that not every person in history was a virtuous hero questing selflessly. It's not like GRRM has done ANYTHING even remotely innovative here. Just read Homer's Illiad and watch how many times the 'heroes' show they are motivated by personal desires far more than selfless duty. I just think the story so far is too cynical and therefore suffers from actually being unrealistic... Although yeah I accept that I haven't seen much of the story and perhaps it will change. I don't know why you feel like you need to constantly champion your own intellect here, but regardless, you're operating under a false premise. Namely that "We have every reason to believe that most people in those times were pretty similar in terms of morality to us nowadays." We actually don't. Please don't just take educated guesses and proclaim them truths.
I completely reject this argument. If law enforcement were at the same level of organisation nowadays as it was then, there would be just as many homicides. People have not changed to become less likely to kill you can't seriously believe that.
We have basically been the same for thousands of years. And my simple point is that I don't enjoy the unrealistic predominance of psychopathy that GRRM seems to be aiming at.
|
On May 23 2012 09:06 SiguR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2012 08:56 sc4k wrote:On May 23 2012 08:41 Mattacate wrote:On May 23 2012 08:36 sc4k wrote:On May 23 2012 07:52 Falling wrote:On May 23 2012 03:28 farvacola wrote:On May 23 2012 01:34 sc4k wrote:
Really enjoyed this last episode. Although didn't like how many times the word cunt was said lol. The sex scene was actually fairly tasteful. The one problem I have with this whole series is the focus that GRR Martin seems to be completely obsessed with the concept of people betraying each other and being terrible to each other. He seems to think that in this sort of world the only way you can survive is horrifically betraying everyone you know and that anyone who tries to be in any way decent and fair will get stabbed in the back and killed before they can say the word 'mercy'.
I think it is far too cynical and unrealistic, many people in history did very well without being complete cocks. So far the only characters who seem to have any morality and at the same time are able to survive are rob stark and tyrion. Almost every other character displays either a psychopathic lack of sympathy or is portrayed as a loveable but trusting fool who is bound to be fucked by an evil person (ie Jon Snow). At least this opinion is based off what I have seen so far. From what I understand of the Dark/Medieval ages (of which the vast majority of fantasy fiction pays homage), selfishness, violence, and betrayal were standard conduct, as practically the entire western world was mired in chaos. Also what we know from the Middle Ages is typically told through the writers of either the Renaissance or else the Enlightenment both of which had a pretty low view of Medieval Europe. For instance the whole "flat earth" notion is a rather modern 'retcon' if you will. I'm sure you'd find equal amounts of mercy and petty vengeance, love and hate, justice and injustice, joy and despair, truth and lies in historical humans as you do now. It's just that modern story telling sees petty vengeance, hate, injustice, despair, and liees as more realistic than mercy, love, justice, joy, and truth. Despite both existing in real life. Thanks, this is basically my point. We have every reason to believe that most people in those times were pretty similar in terms of morality to us nowadays. There are plenty of dickheads but there are also plenty of solid people and a few who stick to their duty. Most psychology tests show that people are generally selfish but not generally cruel or mean without provocation. Of course Joffrey perfectly represents the corruption of a ruling class like some of the roman emperors. But there were also many fair and at least not cock-ish rulers in the middle ages and dark ages. For every caligula and nero there was a marcus aurelius or an Augustus Caesar. George RR Martin seems to have this strangely warped view of history, thinking that the only people who ever survived being rulers in those days were the ones with vast networks of spies and assassins and who stabbed everyone possible in the back. There were plenty of rulers who gained fame and amassed allies by being fair and honest, and managed to avoid being murdered or captured, like what seems to be happening to anyone who shows any sign of mercy or temperance in this show. Sure, not everyone is a dick (for example sir barristan, Ned, Danaerys, Robb) but if the world was ruled by these nice people then... well... he wouldn't have written the books about that period, duh. Nah it's more my point that almost everyone who is NOT a dick is a complete fool who gets killed or outwitted. I guess Rob stark and Tywin Lannister are two exceptions but we'll see how GRRM treats them. I hope that he will show a few evil/ unjust/ unfair people getting what historically often befell people who were unhinged or poor quality people ie being killed rather than just having everyone who is evil triumphing over everyone who is even remotely un-evil! I sense a bit of a whoosh. I always felt that one of the major purposes of the series was to examine the descent of morality in a desperate world and how some people opt to maintain honour and die while some cling to life and forsake morality. You seem to totally miss some pretty major points. People like ned start aren't fools getting outwitted. They are choosing to die or risk their life because they place a higher importance on honour and duty than personal well-being. It might not be blatant, but that's at the core of it. If you approach the subject from the perspective that anyone not fighitng to survive at all times is 'stupid', then I suppose they are 'stupid', but I think that's an unfortunate way to look at this incredibly complicated tragedy George RR Martin has created.
to be fair, eddard stark is pretty stupid for a supposedly intelligent man. he's not even that noble if you think about it, as he: probably cheated on his wife at some point, helped slaughter the royal family (guilt by association), helped support a usurper king that was not a good one, executed a runaway slave, basically threatened cercei's children with death, etc. ned stark didn't put honor or any actual duty above his own personal well-being, he just was kind of a dummy that fumbled his way through a pretty obvious conspiracy and then got killed. at best he was a sucker that was too stupid to be very evil.
it's a legitimate criticism to say that the series plays up the depravity and moral grayness for dramatic effect, and often it ends up being unrealistic. moral depravity in desperate times is only one side of the picture, there is also great heroism and moral strength in desperate times. one should show both sides of the equation and in some ways this show has thus far failed to do so. i look forward to seeing where they go with it.
|
Austin10833 Posts
On May 23 2012 10:26 sc4k wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2012 10:05 BroOd wrote:On May 23 2012 08:56 sc4k wrote:On May 23 2012 08:41 Mattacate wrote:On May 23 2012 08:36 sc4k wrote:On May 23 2012 07:52 Falling wrote:On May 23 2012 03:28 farvacola wrote:On May 23 2012 01:34 sc4k wrote:
Really enjoyed this last episode. Although didn't like how many times the word cunt was said lol. The sex scene was actually fairly tasteful. The one problem I have with this whole series is the focus that GRR Martin seems to be completely obsessed with the concept of people betraying each other and being terrible to each other. He seems to think that in this sort of world the only way you can survive is horrifically betraying everyone you know and that anyone who tries to be in any way decent and fair will get stabbed in the back and killed before they can say the word 'mercy'.
I think it is far too cynical and unrealistic, many people in history did very well without being complete cocks. So far the only characters who seem to have any morality and at the same time are able to survive are rob stark and tyrion. Almost every other character displays either a psychopathic lack of sympathy or is portrayed as a loveable but trusting fool who is bound to be fucked by an evil person (ie Jon Snow). At least this opinion is based off what I have seen so far. From what I understand of the Dark/Medieval ages (of which the vast majority of fantasy fiction pays homage), selfishness, violence, and betrayal were standard conduct, as practically the entire western world was mired in chaos. Also what we know from the Middle Ages is typically told through the writers of either the Renaissance or else the Enlightenment both of which had a pretty low view of Medieval Europe. For instance the whole "flat earth" notion is a rather modern 'retcon' if you will. I'm sure you'd find equal amounts of mercy and petty vengeance, love and hate, justice and injustice, joy and despair, truth and lies in historical humans as you do now. It's just that modern story telling sees petty vengeance, hate, injustice, despair, and liees as more realistic than mercy, love, justice, joy, and truth. Despite both existing in real life. Thanks, this is basically my point. We have every reason to believe that most people in those times were pretty similar in terms of morality to us nowadays. There are plenty of dickheads but there are also plenty of solid people and a few who stick to their duty. Most psychology tests show that people are generally selfish but not generally cruel or mean without provocation. Of course Joffrey perfectly represents the corruption of a ruling class like some of the roman emperors. But there were also many fair and at least not cock-ish rulers in the middle ages and dark ages. For every caligula and nero there was a marcus aurelius or an Augustus Caesar. George RR Martin seems to have this strangely warped view of history, thinking that the only people who ever survived being rulers in those days were the ones with vast networks of spies and assassins and who stabbed everyone possible in the back. There were plenty of rulers who gained fame and amassed allies by being fair and honest, and managed to avoid being murdered or captured, like what seems to be happening to anyone who shows any sign of mercy or temperance in this show. Sure, not everyone is a dick (for example sir barristan, Ned, Danaerys, Robb) but if the world was ruled by these nice people then... well... he wouldn't have written the books about that period, duh. Nah it's more my point that almost everyone who is NOT a dick is a complete fool who gets killed or outwitted. I guess Rob stark and Tywin Lannister are two exceptions but we'll see how GRRM treats them. I hope that he will show a few evil/ unjust/ unfair people getting what historically often befell people who were unhinged or poor quality people ie being killed rather than just having everyone who is evil triumphing over everyone who is even remotely un-evil! On May 23 2012 08:51 Abysus wrote:
To GRRM the good guy being good and going on this epic quest to save the world and surviving is humdrum. People look out for #1 especially in medieval times, and some people are complete psychopathes that end up with power(joffrey).
Yeah I get this. I think a lot of GRRM fans are somehow assuming I am an idiot with no understanding of his desire to be a deep storyteller who provides a profound reflection of human reality. I am familiar with the fact that not every person in history was a virtuous hero questing selflessly. It's not like GRRM has done ANYTHING even remotely innovative here. Just read Homer's Illiad and watch how many times the 'heroes' show they are motivated by personal desires far more than selfless duty. I just think the story so far is too cynical and therefore suffers from actually being unrealistic... Although yeah I accept that I haven't seen much of the story and perhaps it will change. I don't know why you feel like you need to constantly champion your own intellect here, but regardless, you're operating under a false premise. Namely that "We have every reason to believe that most people in those times were pretty similar in terms of morality to us nowadays." We actually don't. Please don't just take educated guesses and proclaim them truths. I completely reject this argument. If law enforcement were at the same level of organisation nowadays as it was then, there would be just as many homicides. People have not changed to become less likely to kill you can't seriously believe that. We have basically been the same for thousands of years. And my simple point is that I don't enjoy the unrealistic predominance of psychopathy that GRRM seems to be aiming at.
Well, you're free to believe whatever it is you like, but can I ask where you've drawn these conclusions from? If you're interested in reading more about the perspective that you've out-right rejected above, Émile Durkheim has plenty of work on the rise of modernity and it's influence on the collective conscious. Of course, maybe you're right. Maybe it is just CSI forensics that keeps us all in line nowadays.
|
On May 23 2012 10:45 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2012 09:06 SiguR wrote:On May 23 2012 08:56 sc4k wrote:On May 23 2012 08:41 Mattacate wrote:On May 23 2012 08:36 sc4k wrote:On May 23 2012 07:52 Falling wrote:On May 23 2012 03:28 farvacola wrote:On May 23 2012 01:34 sc4k wrote:
Really enjoyed this last episode. Although didn't like how many times the word cunt was said lol. The sex scene was actually fairly tasteful. The one problem I have with this whole series is the focus that GRR Martin seems to be completely obsessed with the concept of people betraying each other and being terrible to each other. He seems to think that in this sort of world the only way you can survive is horrifically betraying everyone you know and that anyone who tries to be in any way decent and fair will get stabbed in the back and killed before they can say the word 'mercy'.
I think it is far too cynical and unrealistic, many people in history did very well without being complete cocks. So far the only characters who seem to have any morality and at the same time are able to survive are rob stark and tyrion. Almost every other character displays either a psychopathic lack of sympathy or is portrayed as a loveable but trusting fool who is bound to be fucked by an evil person (ie Jon Snow). At least this opinion is based off what I have seen so far. From what I understand of the Dark/Medieval ages (of which the vast majority of fantasy fiction pays homage), selfishness, violence, and betrayal were standard conduct, as practically the entire western world was mired in chaos. Also what we know from the Middle Ages is typically told through the writers of either the Renaissance or else the Enlightenment both of which had a pretty low view of Medieval Europe. For instance the whole "flat earth" notion is a rather modern 'retcon' if you will. I'm sure you'd find equal amounts of mercy and petty vengeance, love and hate, justice and injustice, joy and despair, truth and lies in historical humans as you do now. It's just that modern story telling sees petty vengeance, hate, injustice, despair, and liees as more realistic than mercy, love, justice, joy, and truth. Despite both existing in real life. Thanks, this is basically my point. We have every reason to believe that most people in those times were pretty similar in terms of morality to us nowadays. There are plenty of dickheads but there are also plenty of solid people and a few who stick to their duty. Most psychology tests show that people are generally selfish but not generally cruel or mean without provocation. Of course Joffrey perfectly represents the corruption of a ruling class like some of the roman emperors. But there were also many fair and at least not cock-ish rulers in the middle ages and dark ages. For every caligula and nero there was a marcus aurelius or an Augustus Caesar. George RR Martin seems to have this strangely warped view of history, thinking that the only people who ever survived being rulers in those days were the ones with vast networks of spies and assassins and who stabbed everyone possible in the back. There were plenty of rulers who gained fame and amassed allies by being fair and honest, and managed to avoid being murdered or captured, like what seems to be happening to anyone who shows any sign of mercy or temperance in this show. Sure, not everyone is a dick (for example sir barristan, Ned, Danaerys, Robb) but if the world was ruled by these nice people then... well... he wouldn't have written the books about that period, duh. Nah it's more my point that almost everyone who is NOT a dick is a complete fool who gets killed or outwitted. I guess Rob stark and Tywin Lannister are two exceptions but we'll see how GRRM treats them. I hope that he will show a few evil/ unjust/ unfair people getting what historically often befell people who were unhinged or poor quality people ie being killed rather than just having everyone who is evil triumphing over everyone who is even remotely un-evil! I sense a bit of a whoosh. I always felt that one of the major purposes of the series was to examine the descent of morality in a desperate world and how some people opt to maintain honour and die while some cling to life and forsake morality. You seem to totally miss some pretty major points. People like ned start aren't fools getting outwitted. They are choosing to die or risk their life because they place a higher importance on honour and duty than personal well-being. It might not be blatant, but that's at the core of it. If you approach the subject from the perspective that anyone not fighitng to survive at all times is 'stupid', then I suppose they are 'stupid', but I think that's an unfortunate way to look at this incredibly complicated tragedy George RR Martin has created. to be fair, eddard stark is pretty stupid for a supposedly intelligent man. he's not even that noble if you think about it, as he: probably cheated on his wife at some point, helped slaughter the royal family (guilt by association), helped support a usurper king that was not a good one, executed a runaway slave, basically threatened cercei's children with death, etc. ned stark didn't put honor or any actual duty above his own personal well-being, he just was kind of a dummy that fumbled his way through a pretty obvious conspiracy and then got killed. at best he was a sucker that was too stupid to be very evil. it's a legitimate criticism to say that the series plays up the depravity and moral grayness for dramatic effect, and often it ends up being unrealistic. moral depravity in desperate times is only one side of the picture, there is also great heroism and moral strength in desperate times. one should show both sides of the equation and in some ways this show has thus far failed to do so. i look forward to seeing where they go with it.
Ned didn't condone the slaughtering of children of the Targaryen's though and dislikes Jaime for the way in which he killed Aerys. I don't think anyone knew that Robert would be a bad king and it was the law that the run away from the wall should be executed. I don't remember him threatening Cersei's children with death.
|
On May 23 2012 10:45 sc2superfan101 wrote:
to be fair, eddard stark is pretty stupid for a supposedly intelligent man. he's not even that noble if you think about it, as he: probably cheated on his wife at some point Possible, can't comment further, helped slaughter the royal family (guilt by association)Wasn't present, wouldn't have done it. Look at how he tries to get Robert to lay off Daenerys, helped support a usurper king that was not a good oneAs bad as Robert was (which wasn't that bad) he was heads and tails better than the Mad King, which could be easily seen in the extra features on the season one DVD, executed a runaway slaveNight's Watchmen aren't slaves. They either go willingly, or go in place of other punishments (castration, death, etc) by choice, basically threatened cercei's children with deathWarned Cercei that Robert would likely kill her children so she could escape... how is that threatening them?, etc. ned stark didn't put honor or any actual duty above his own personal well-being, he just was kind of a dummy that fumbled his way through a pretty obvious conspiracy and then got killed. at best he was a sucker that was too stupid to be very evil.
|
Austin10833 Posts
On May 23 2012 10:45 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2012 09:06 SiguR wrote:On May 23 2012 08:56 sc4k wrote:On May 23 2012 08:41 Mattacate wrote:On May 23 2012 08:36 sc4k wrote:On May 23 2012 07:52 Falling wrote:On May 23 2012 03:28 farvacola wrote:On May 23 2012 01:34 sc4k wrote:
Really enjoyed this last episode. Although didn't like how many times the word cunt was said lol. The sex scene was actually fairly tasteful. The one problem I have with this whole series is the focus that GRR Martin seems to be completely obsessed with the concept of people betraying each other and being terrible to each other. He seems to think that in this sort of world the only way you can survive is horrifically betraying everyone you know and that anyone who tries to be in any way decent and fair will get stabbed in the back and killed before they can say the word 'mercy'.
I think it is far too cynical and unrealistic, many people in history did very well without being complete cocks. So far the only characters who seem to have any morality and at the same time are able to survive are rob stark and tyrion. Almost every other character displays either a psychopathic lack of sympathy or is portrayed as a loveable but trusting fool who is bound to be fucked by an evil person (ie Jon Snow). At least this opinion is based off what I have seen so far. From what I understand of the Dark/Medieval ages (of which the vast majority of fantasy fiction pays homage), selfishness, violence, and betrayal were standard conduct, as practically the entire western world was mired in chaos. Also what we know from the Middle Ages is typically told through the writers of either the Renaissance or else the Enlightenment both of which had a pretty low view of Medieval Europe. For instance the whole "flat earth" notion is a rather modern 'retcon' if you will. I'm sure you'd find equal amounts of mercy and petty vengeance, love and hate, justice and injustice, joy and despair, truth and lies in historical humans as you do now. It's just that modern story telling sees petty vengeance, hate, injustice, despair, and liees as more realistic than mercy, love, justice, joy, and truth. Despite both existing in real life. Thanks, this is basically my point. We have every reason to believe that most people in those times were pretty similar in terms of morality to us nowadays. There are plenty of dickheads but there are also plenty of solid people and a few who stick to their duty. Most psychology tests show that people are generally selfish but not generally cruel or mean without provocation. Of course Joffrey perfectly represents the corruption of a ruling class like some of the roman emperors. But there were also many fair and at least not cock-ish rulers in the middle ages and dark ages. For every caligula and nero there was a marcus aurelius or an Augustus Caesar. George RR Martin seems to have this strangely warped view of history, thinking that the only people who ever survived being rulers in those days were the ones with vast networks of spies and assassins and who stabbed everyone possible in the back. There were plenty of rulers who gained fame and amassed allies by being fair and honest, and managed to avoid being murdered or captured, like what seems to be happening to anyone who shows any sign of mercy or temperance in this show. Sure, not everyone is a dick (for example sir barristan, Ned, Danaerys, Robb) but if the world was ruled by these nice people then... well... he wouldn't have written the books about that period, duh. Nah it's more my point that almost everyone who is NOT a dick is a complete fool who gets killed or outwitted. I guess Rob stark and Tywin Lannister are two exceptions but we'll see how GRRM treats them. I hope that he will show a few evil/ unjust/ unfair people getting what historically often befell people who were unhinged or poor quality people ie being killed rather than just having everyone who is evil triumphing over everyone who is even remotely un-evil! I sense a bit of a whoosh. I always felt that one of the major purposes of the series was to examine the descent of morality in a desperate world and how some people opt to maintain honour and die while some cling to life and forsake morality. You seem to totally miss some pretty major points. People like ned start aren't fools getting outwitted. They are choosing to die or risk their life because they place a higher importance on honour and duty than personal well-being. It might not be blatant, but that's at the core of it. If you approach the subject from the perspective that anyone not fighitng to survive at all times is 'stupid', then I suppose they are 'stupid', but I think that's an unfortunate way to look at this incredibly complicated tragedy George RR Martin has created. to be fair, eddard stark is pretty stupid for a supposedly intelligent man. he's not even that noble if you think about it, as he: probably cheated on his wife at some point, helped slaughter the royal family (guilt by association), helped support a usurper king that was not a good one, executed a runaway slave, basically threatened cercei's children with death, etc. ned stark didn't put honor or any actual duty above his own personal well-being, he just was kind of a dummy that fumbled his way through a pretty obvious conspiracy and then got killed. at best he was a sucker that was too stupid to be very evil.
1. The show has already labored the point of Ned's bastard, you're not really making a point by stating it. Nobody claims he was a perfect man. Every character that gets the chance throws it in his face.
2. He had nothing to do with that slaughter, don't be ridiculous.
3. He's not noble because he couldn't see Robert's future? What is it you're implying he should have done?
4. He killed a deserter of the Night's Watch, as was the law. His views on slavery are well known (See: Jorah Mormont)
5. He was giving Cersei a chance to save her children, which most men in his position wouldn't have done.
|
On May 23 2012 10:56 MajuGarzett wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2012 10:45 sc2superfan101 wrote:On May 23 2012 09:06 SiguR wrote:On May 23 2012 08:56 sc4k wrote:On May 23 2012 08:41 Mattacate wrote:On May 23 2012 08:36 sc4k wrote:On May 23 2012 07:52 Falling wrote:On May 23 2012 03:28 farvacola wrote:On May 23 2012 01:34 sc4k wrote:
Really enjoyed this last episode. Although didn't like how many times the word cunt was said lol. The sex scene was actually fairly tasteful. The one problem I have with this whole series is the focus that GRR Martin seems to be completely obsessed with the concept of people betraying each other and being terrible to each other. He seems to think that in this sort of world the only way you can survive is horrifically betraying everyone you know and that anyone who tries to be in any way decent and fair will get stabbed in the back and killed before they can say the word 'mercy'.
I think it is far too cynical and unrealistic, many people in history did very well without being complete cocks. So far the only characters who seem to have any morality and at the same time are able to survive are rob stark and tyrion. Almost every other character displays either a psychopathic lack of sympathy or is portrayed as a loveable but trusting fool who is bound to be fucked by an evil person (ie Jon Snow). At least this opinion is based off what I have seen so far. From what I understand of the Dark/Medieval ages (of which the vast majority of fantasy fiction pays homage), selfishness, violence, and betrayal were standard conduct, as practically the entire western world was mired in chaos. Also what we know from the Middle Ages is typically told through the writers of either the Renaissance or else the Enlightenment both of which had a pretty low view of Medieval Europe. For instance the whole "flat earth" notion is a rather modern 'retcon' if you will. I'm sure you'd find equal amounts of mercy and petty vengeance, love and hate, justice and injustice, joy and despair, truth and lies in historical humans as you do now. It's just that modern story telling sees petty vengeance, hate, injustice, despair, and liees as more realistic than mercy, love, justice, joy, and truth. Despite both existing in real life. Thanks, this is basically my point. We have every reason to believe that most people in those times were pretty similar in terms of morality to us nowadays. There are plenty of dickheads but there are also plenty of solid people and a few who stick to their duty. Most psychology tests show that people are generally selfish but not generally cruel or mean without provocation. Of course Joffrey perfectly represents the corruption of a ruling class like some of the roman emperors. But there were also many fair and at least not cock-ish rulers in the middle ages and dark ages. For every caligula and nero there was a marcus aurelius or an Augustus Caesar. George RR Martin seems to have this strangely warped view of history, thinking that the only people who ever survived being rulers in those days were the ones with vast networks of spies and assassins and who stabbed everyone possible in the back. There were plenty of rulers who gained fame and amassed allies by being fair and honest, and managed to avoid being murdered or captured, like what seems to be happening to anyone who shows any sign of mercy or temperance in this show. Sure, not everyone is a dick (for example sir barristan, Ned, Danaerys, Robb) but if the world was ruled by these nice people then... well... he wouldn't have written the books about that period, duh. Nah it's more my point that almost everyone who is NOT a dick is a complete fool who gets killed or outwitted. I guess Rob stark and Tywin Lannister are two exceptions but we'll see how GRRM treats them. I hope that he will show a few evil/ unjust/ unfair people getting what historically often befell people who were unhinged or poor quality people ie being killed rather than just having everyone who is evil triumphing over everyone who is even remotely un-evil! I sense a bit of a whoosh. I always felt that one of the major purposes of the series was to examine the descent of morality in a desperate world and how some people opt to maintain honour and die while some cling to life and forsake morality. You seem to totally miss some pretty major points. People like ned start aren't fools getting outwitted. They are choosing to die or risk their life because they place a higher importance on honour and duty than personal well-being. It might not be blatant, but that's at the core of it. If you approach the subject from the perspective that anyone not fighitng to survive at all times is 'stupid', then I suppose they are 'stupid', but I think that's an unfortunate way to look at this incredibly complicated tragedy George RR Martin has created. to be fair, eddard stark is pretty stupid for a supposedly intelligent man. he's not even that noble if you think about it, as he: probably cheated on his wife at some point, helped slaughter the royal family (guilt by association), helped support a usurper king that was not a good one, executed a runaway slave, basically threatened cercei's children with death, etc. ned stark didn't put honor or any actual duty above his own personal well-being, he just was kind of a dummy that fumbled his way through a pretty obvious conspiracy and then got killed. at best he was a sucker that was too stupid to be very evil. it's a legitimate criticism to say that the series plays up the depravity and moral grayness for dramatic effect, and often it ends up being unrealistic. moral depravity in desperate times is only one side of the picture, there is also great heroism and moral strength in desperate times. one should show both sides of the equation and in some ways this show has thus far failed to do so. i look forward to seeing where they go with it. Ned didn't condone the slaughtering of children of the Targaryen's though and dislikes Jaime for the way in which he killed Aerys. I don't think anyone knew that Robert would be a bad king and it was the law that the run away from the wall should be executed. I don't remember him threatening Cersei's children with death.
he may not have condoned it but he supported the people that did it and i don't remember him ever working to bring them to justice for it. as for Robert, do you really think you turn into a fat lazy drunk lecher in a couple of hours? no, he was always a lazy, drunken lecher and he always would be, he just got fatter as he grew older.
the law? what if it was the law to cut off Jon Snow's head, you think good old neddy would do that? or better yet, what if his king ordered him to kill Sansa? i wonder if "duty" and "law" would mean anything at all to him then, but when it's a slave? well it's suddenly "i must do the deed myself" and "watch this brutal execution, small children, because you have to be tough or something".
as for the Lannister kids, do you really think Robert would hesitate to order the guards to slaughter them and his wife and Jaime for the incest? i doubt he would even care about the murder, it would all be about her porking another man. Ned knows that and he goes to Cercie, who is a nutcase and has already murdered one person, and tells her that he's gonna spill the beans. he may not explicitly threaten Joffrey and Tommen and Myrcella, but he's not too stupid and naive to understand exactly what revealing their secret means to them. he knew the score and he went up against a better foe and he got slapped down because he was foolish. Ned was better at playing the part of an honorable lord, but he was really just a yes-man for the more powerful and corrupt. sure he didn't pull the trigger, never that, that's always left up to someone else, and good old Eddy just walks away with his "honor" unstained and a better public image.
speaking of which, are we supposed to accept that Ned was some kind of great father when his wife is a scheming evil witch, his daughter is a horridly spoiled brat who is a couple of clowns short of a circus, his bastard son always knew that he was the outsider, the red-headed stepchild if you will, his brother is a slave, and the ward who has been under his control and raised by him for over a decade is a complete POS who just took over his castle and attempted to murder his children.
this guy is noble?
edit: oh and the Night's Watch is totally slavery. they go there by choice? castration or become a slave way up in northern Siberia on a death-camp wall? hmm... that sounds somewhat familiar. the common excuse is that they are criminals, to which i respond that we see how Joffrey (good king Robert's kid) deals with people that insult him or even represent people that insult him. am i supposed to believe that every guy on the Night's Watch was actually guilty of rape or that Ned was so stupid as to believe that? hell no. once again, he knows the score but it suits his purpose so he does it and forget the blood that's spilled.
which i mean, if that's what you're into, cool. i think it's kind of a cool idea, but it just gets taken to the extreme sometimes and it gets a bit ridiculous and unrealistic. basically, they try their very hardest to make these characters very shallow and shitty people.
|
Re: All the discussion on Ned Stark
I am of the opinion that Ned Stark is an honourable man. But that's it. He follows his code of honour to the letter; without compassion.
That's all. 
/edit
I should clarify a bit.
Suppose that it was the 'honourable' thing to stone a woman that was raped, Ned Stark would have done it.
|
Austin10833 Posts
You've deliberately twisted every single one of those scenarios to support your poor theory. You can argue that Ned's concept of nobility may be flawed (and whose isn't? it's one of the central themes of the entire story), but I don't think you'll find many people who would agree that he wasn't always trying to do the right thing.
|
On May 23 2012 11:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2012 10:56 MajuGarzett wrote:On May 23 2012 10:45 sc2superfan101 wrote:On May 23 2012 09:06 SiguR wrote:On May 23 2012 08:56 sc4k wrote:On May 23 2012 08:41 Mattacate wrote:On May 23 2012 08:36 sc4k wrote:On May 23 2012 07:52 Falling wrote:On May 23 2012 03:28 farvacola wrote:On May 23 2012 01:34 sc4k wrote:
Really enjoyed this last episode. Although didn't like how many times the word cunt was said lol. The sex scene was actually fairly tasteful. The one problem I have with this whole series is the focus that GRR Martin seems to be completely obsessed with the concept of people betraying each other and being terrible to each other. He seems to think that in this sort of world the only way you can survive is horrifically betraying everyone you know and that anyone who tries to be in any way decent and fair will get stabbed in the back and killed before they can say the word 'mercy'.
I think it is far too cynical and unrealistic, many people in history did very well without being complete cocks. So far the only characters who seem to have any morality and at the same time are able to survive are rob stark and tyrion. Almost every other character displays either a psychopathic lack of sympathy or is portrayed as a loveable but trusting fool who is bound to be fucked by an evil person (ie Jon Snow). At least this opinion is based off what I have seen so far. From what I understand of the Dark/Medieval ages (of which the vast majority of fantasy fiction pays homage), selfishness, violence, and betrayal were standard conduct, as practically the entire western world was mired in chaos. Also what we know from the Middle Ages is typically told through the writers of either the Renaissance or else the Enlightenment both of which had a pretty low view of Medieval Europe. For instance the whole "flat earth" notion is a rather modern 'retcon' if you will. I'm sure you'd find equal amounts of mercy and petty vengeance, love and hate, justice and injustice, joy and despair, truth and lies in historical humans as you do now. It's just that modern story telling sees petty vengeance, hate, injustice, despair, and liees as more realistic than mercy, love, justice, joy, and truth. Despite both existing in real life. Thanks, this is basically my point. We have every reason to believe that most people in those times were pretty similar in terms of morality to us nowadays. There are plenty of dickheads but there are also plenty of solid people and a few who stick to their duty. Most psychology tests show that people are generally selfish but not generally cruel or mean without provocation. Of course Joffrey perfectly represents the corruption of a ruling class like some of the roman emperors. But there were also many fair and at least not cock-ish rulers in the middle ages and dark ages. For every caligula and nero there was a marcus aurelius or an Augustus Caesar. George RR Martin seems to have this strangely warped view of history, thinking that the only people who ever survived being rulers in those days were the ones with vast networks of spies and assassins and who stabbed everyone possible in the back. There were plenty of rulers who gained fame and amassed allies by being fair and honest, and managed to avoid being murdered or captured, like what seems to be happening to anyone who shows any sign of mercy or temperance in this show. Sure, not everyone is a dick (for example sir barristan, Ned, Danaerys, Robb) but if the world was ruled by these nice people then... well... he wouldn't have written the books about that period, duh. Nah it's more my point that almost everyone who is NOT a dick is a complete fool who gets killed or outwitted. I guess Rob stark and Tywin Lannister are two exceptions but we'll see how GRRM treats them. I hope that he will show a few evil/ unjust/ unfair people getting what historically often befell people who were unhinged or poor quality people ie being killed rather than just having everyone who is evil triumphing over everyone who is even remotely un-evil! I sense a bit of a whoosh. I always felt that one of the major purposes of the series was to examine the descent of morality in a desperate world and how some people opt to maintain honour and die while some cling to life and forsake morality. You seem to totally miss some pretty major points. People like ned start aren't fools getting outwitted. They are choosing to die or risk their life because they place a higher importance on honour and duty than personal well-being. It might not be blatant, but that's at the core of it. If you approach the subject from the perspective that anyone not fighitng to survive at all times is 'stupid', then I suppose they are 'stupid', but I think that's an unfortunate way to look at this incredibly complicated tragedy George RR Martin has created. to be fair, eddard stark is pretty stupid for a supposedly intelligent man. he's not even that noble if you think about it, as he: probably cheated on his wife at some point, helped slaughter the royal family (guilt by association), helped support a usurper king that was not a good one, executed a runaway slave, basically threatened cercei's children with death, etc. ned stark didn't put honor or any actual duty above his own personal well-being, he just was kind of a dummy that fumbled his way through a pretty obvious conspiracy and then got killed. at best he was a sucker that was too stupid to be very evil. it's a legitimate criticism to say that the series plays up the depravity and moral grayness for dramatic effect, and often it ends up being unrealistic. moral depravity in desperate times is only one side of the picture, there is also great heroism and moral strength in desperate times. one should show both sides of the equation and in some ways this show has thus far failed to do so. i look forward to seeing where they go with it. Ned didn't condone the slaughtering of children of the Targaryen's though and dislikes Jaime for the way in which he killed Aerys. I don't think anyone knew that Robert would be a bad king and it was the law that the run away from the wall should be executed. I don't remember him threatening Cersei's children with death. he may not have condoned it but he supported the people that did it and i don't remember him ever working to bring them to justice for it. as for Robert, do you really think you turn into a fat lazy drunk lecher in a couple of hours? no, he was always a lazy, drunken lecher and he always would be, he just got fatter as he grew older. the law? what if it was the law to cut off Jon Snow's head, you think good old neddy would do that? or better yet, what if his king ordered him to kill Sansa? i wonder if "duty" and "law" would mean anything at all to him then, but when it's a slave? well it's suddenly "i must do the deed myself" and "watch this brutal execution, small children, because you have to be tough or something". as for the Lannister kids, do you really think Robert would hesitate to order the guards to slaughter them and his wife and Jaime for the incest? i doubt he would even care about the murder, it would all be about her porking another man. Ned knows that and he goes to Cercie, who is a nutcase and has already murdered one person, and tells her that he's gonna spill the beans. he may not explicitly threaten Joffrey and Tommen and Myrcella, but he's not too stupid and naive to understand exactly what revealing their secret means to them. he knew the score and he went up against a better foe and he got slapped down because he was foolish. Ned was better at playing the part of an honorable lord, but he was really just a yes-man for the more powerful and corrupt. sure he didn't pull the trigger, never that, that's always left up to someone else, and good old Eddy just walks away with his "honor" unstained and a better public image. speaking of which, are we supposed to accept that Ned was some kind of great father when his wife is a scheming evil witch, his daughter is a horridly spoiled brat who is a couple of clowns short of a circus, his bastard son always knew that he was the outsider, the red-headed stepchild if you will, his brother is a slave, and the ward who has been under his control and raised by him for over a decade is a complete POS who just took over his castle and attempted to murder his children. this guy is noble? edit: oh and the Night's Watch is totally slavery. they go there by choice? castration or become a slave way up in northern Siberia on a death-camp wall? hmm... that sounds somewhat familiar. the common excuse is that they are criminals, to which i respond that we see how Joffrey (good king Robert's kid) deals with people that insult him or even represent people that insult him. am i supposed to believe that every guy on the Night's Watch was actually guilty of rape or that Ned was so stupid as to believe that? hell no. once again, he knows the score but it suits his purpose so he does it and forget the blood that's spilled. which i mean, if that's what you're into, cool. i think it's kind of a cool idea, but it just gets taken to the extreme sometimes and it gets a bit ridiculous and unrealistic. basically, they try their very hardest to make these characters very shallow and shitty people.
How would he have brought justice to those who killed the Targaryen children when the king himself supported the murders? As for choosing Robert as king, the only choices were Rob or NEd and Ned didn't want to be king. Also, any king would be better than Aerys.
Its ridiculous to claim someone isn't noble because they won't behead their own child and its stated that Ned does not do the executions himself because he likes gore. Its sensible to acquaint his children with death as war was a part of life for people even as young as Bran in Westeros.
Ned knew that Robert would slay the children and offered Cersei a chance to escape with them. It was much kinder than others would have been.
Jon felt like an outcast because of Catelyn, not because of Ned. Ned could have left Jon somewhere else instead of raising him in Winterfell. Sana may be spoiled but is a kind person. Benjen chose to go to the wall by his own will. Theon is evil out of a desire to be accepted by his father and countrymen.
|
he may not have condoned it but he supported the people that did it and i don't remember him ever working to bring them to justice for it. as for Robert, do you really think you turn into a fat lazy drunk lecher in a couple of hours? no, he was always a lazy, drunken lecher and he always would be, he just got fatter as he grew older.
How is he supposed to bring those people to justice? They were the very people he swore allegiance to.
You have absolutely nothing to back up the claim that Robert was a fat lazy drunkard before. All that's mentioned is that he was a great warrior.
the law? what if it was the law to cut off Jon Snow's head, you think good old neddy would do that? or better yet, what if his king ordered him to kill Sansa? i wonder if "duty" and "law" would mean anything at all to him then, but when it's a slave? well it's suddenly "i must do the deed myself" and "watch this brutal execution, small children, because you have to be tough or something".
You also have nothing to back up your claim that he wouldn't execute his children. You're literally making shit up to support your argument. Not only that, how does that apply to this at all?
as for the Lannister kids, do you really think Robert would hesitate to order the guards to slaughter them and his wife and Jaime for the incest? i doubt he would even care about the murder, it would all be about her porking another man. Ned knows that and he goes to Cercie, who is a nutcase and has already murdered one person, and tells her that he's gonna spill the beans. he may not explicitly threaten Joffrey and Tommen and Myrcella, but he's not too stupid and naive to understand exactly what revealing their secret means to them. he knew the score and he went up against a better foe and he got slapped down because he was foolish. Ned was better at playing the part of an honorable lord, but he was really just a yes-man for the more powerful and corrupt. sure he didn't pull the trigger, never that, that's always left up to someone else, and good old Eddy just walks away with his "honor" unstained and a better public image.
It's the definition of honorable and merciful to warn Cercie so she has time to leave before Ned told Robert.
speaking of which, are we supposed to accept that Ned was some kind of great father when his wife is a scheming evil witch, his daughter is a horridly spoiled brat who is a couple of clowns short of a circus, his bastard son always knew that he was the outsider, the red-headed stepchild if you will, his brother is a slave, and the ward who has been under his control and raised by him for over a decade is a complete POS who just took over his castle and attempted to murder his children.
this guy is noble?
edit: oh and the Night's Watch is totally slavery. they go there by choice? castration or become a slave way up in northern Siberia on a death-camp wall? hmm... that sounds somewhat familiar. the common excuse is that they are criminals, to which i respond that we see how Joffrey (good king Robert's kid) deals with people that insult him or even represent people that insult him. am i supposed to believe that every guy on the Night's Watch was actually guilty of rape or that Ned was so stupid as to believe that? hell no. once again, he knows the score but it suits his purpose so he does it and forget the blood that's spilled.
which i mean, if that's what you're into, cool. i think it's kind of a cool idea, but it just gets taken to the extreme sometimes and it gets a bit ridiculous and unrealistic. basically, they try their very hardest to make these characters very shallow and shitty people.
You're just completely clueless and factually wrong on so many points that my brain hurts.
|
On May 23 2012 11:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:
he may not have condoned it but he supported the people that did it and i don't remember him ever working to bring them to justice for it. as for Robert, do you really think you turn into a fat lazy drunk lecher in a couple of hours? no, he was always a lazy, drunken lecher and he always would be, he just got fatter as he grew older.
the law? what if it was the law to cut off Jon Snow's head, you think good old neddy would do that? or better yet, what if his king ordered him to kill Sansa? i wonder if "duty" and "law" would mean anything at all to him then, but when it's a slave? well it's suddenly "i must do the deed myself" and "watch this brutal execution, small children, because you have to be tough or something".
as for the Lannister kids, do you really think Robert would hesitate to order the guards to slaughter them and his wife and Jaime for the incest? i doubt he would even care about the murder, it would all be about her porking another man. Ned knows that and he goes to Cercie, who is a nutcase and has already murdered one person, and tells her that he's gonna spill the beans. he may not explicitly threaten Joffrey and Tommen and Myrcella, but he's not too stupid and naive to understand exactly what revealing their secret means to them. he knew the score and he went up against a better foe and he got slapped down because he was foolish. Ned was better at playing the part of an honorable lord, but he was really just a yes-man for the more powerful and corrupt. sure he didn't pull the trigger, never that, that's always left up to someone else, and good old Eddy just walks away with his "honor" unstained and a better public image.
speaking of which, are we supposed to accept that Ned was some kind of great father when his wife is a scheming evil witch, his daughter is a horridly spoiled brat who is a couple of clowns short of a circus, his bastard son always knew that he was the outsider, the red-headed stepchild if you will, his brother is a slave, and the ward who has been under his control and raised by him for over a decade is a complete POS who just took over his castle and attempted to murder his children.
this guy is noble?
edit: oh and the Night's Watch is totally slavery. they go there by choice? castration or become a slave way up in northern Siberia on a death-camp wall? hmm... that sounds somewhat familiar. the common excuse is that they are criminals, to which i respond that we see how Joffrey (good king Robert's kid) deals with people that insult him or even represent people that insult him. am i supposed to believe that every guy on the Night's Watch was actually guilty of rape or that Ned was so stupid as to believe that? hell no. once again, he knows the score but it suits his purpose so he does it and forget the blood that's spilled.
which i mean, if that's what you're into, cool. i think it's kind of a cool idea, but it just gets taken to the extreme sometimes and it gets a bit ridiculous and unrealistic. basically, they try their very hardest to make these characters very shallow and shitty people.
He supported Tywin Lannister when exactly? Once again, look at how he reacted to them trying to kill Daenerys to see how he felt about them slaying the children.
What's does being a 'drunken lecher' have to do with being king? He was a terrible husband, sure, but other than the debt what evidence is there that he was a bad king?
Would he behead Jon Snow if he left the Night's Watch, I really don't think I'm alone in thinking that yes, he would have. As for the whole 'slave' argument I disagree. You can accept your normal punishment (imprisonment, castration, death) or you can serve the Realm. It's a choice. As for the likelihood of those people being guilty we found out in season 1 that they aren't. Life isn't fair, ask that dead guy in Texas. Still, you're given the choice of your punishment, simple as that.
Robert wouldn't hesitate to kill the kids, that's exactly why Ned told Cersei to run... this isn't a difficult concept, lol. He didn't want them to die, so he gave her a heads up so she could take the kids and run, because even as Hand of the King he wouldn't be able to protect them. And had Robert not been killed by the boar, the whole story changes with what happens to the Ned and Cersei.
Onto his family. Jon was treated by Ned like his own son, it was Caetlyn who hated him and treated him like a red headed step child. Sansa is an ignorant Lady who acts like just that. Benjin chose to join the Night's Watch iirc. Theon was a hostage for most of his life and chose his blood family over those he lived with. Why is he a bad dad again?
|
Guys guys,if you wanna argue so passionately at least get your facts straight.
Not sure if deserves a spoiler tag or not but just in case.
+ Show Spoiler +Robert(and Eddard ofc) had nothing to do with the Targaryen's slaughter. That was a motion of Tywin Lannister to get on the good side of Robert and even give him his daughter which he did.
Robert was ethically guilty cause he turned a blind eye on this and forgave Tywin while Eddard was absolutely innocent.
The only thing Eddard could do was wage war on the Lannisters and that would bring more harm than good.
|
look, obviously i am taking some things to an extreme that isn't necessarily how they were trying to present it. but i'm not saying anything that isn't in the series and isn't a fact about Ned that we're given. he may not have been able to bring justice to the Lannisters or their lackeys for their war-crimes, but he never even tried. he had more important things to worry about, which ironically happened to include taking care of himself and his own first. i'm just saying that i get confused sometimes when people put Ned up there as the most honorable or dutiful character when he is largely described as honorable and dutiful by people like Littlefinger and Cercei who don't know the first thing about either honor or duty and his actions are consistently questionable at best. most of all is the inherent hypocrisy in how he deals with nearly every situation. cold justice and a reputation for honor on one hand, and utter servility and cowardice in the face of actual trials on the other. it can be an interesting character study to do something like that, but i wonder sometimes if they really captured the essence of that archetype very well.
i think if you asked Ned he would tell you that he rarely does the "right" thing. now some of that is because he is described as somewhat humble (one of his only solidly good attributes), but most of it is because he's usually taking the wrong choice every time. sure he's conflicted about it, but he still does it. the fact is that he is far from the most noble character and could be more accurately described as a pragmatic and isolated person. think about it, when the series starts he is way off in the North, shut off from all the corruption down south. when his best friend and king begs him to take power he refuses. when that same friend begs him to become the Hand he only grudgingly accepts and practically makes the guy force him to do it. once in the city he doesn't use his newfound power to start investigating the atrocities of some of the more powerful lords and ladies in the Westoros. no, he spends his time trying to figure out who Cercei has been sleeping with, and when he finds out she's cheated, he instantly decides to turn her in to his morally bankrupt friend who will almost certainly have her beheaded. and what is her big crime? she killed a guy who was going to spill the beans and have her and her children beheaded. Jon Arryn kind of deserved what he got. now sure she was an accomplice in the (attempted) killing of Bran, but which one of Ned's friends hasn't killed children or threatened to?
how exactly was he planning on protecting Cercei's children from Robert without directly allying himself and his armies against Robert's? Or do we actually believe that Tywin would have sat and watched his only two children (i doubt Tywin truly considers Tyrion a real son or worthy heir) sent to the headsman? Hell no, he would have put all that Lannister gold into raising an army and killing Robert and taking the throne, then probably putting Joffrey on it and denying the rumors of incest. Would Ned have sided with Robert who would be required to kill innocent children, children Robert raised, or would he side with the Lannister's, who are murderers, to protect those innocents? we know what Ned would prefer, he would prefer to slink up to his castle in the North and hide from it all. the only realistic reason to tell Cercei is... i don't know, i can't even think of one. that's where i get confused by the choices of the writers. why does Ned feel that he is in any way protecting Cercei's kids by telling her that he's going to reveal their "circumstances"?
Jon Snow, Robb, Arya and Sansa (i don't consider the younger one's to have any great moral struggle's or stories yet) are the only main characters that show any signs of actual moral strength or real, honest goodness. some of the side characters too. the rest of the main characters are morally bankrupt to the core or are "grey". as of now, and this may change, there doesn't seem to be much movement either, except in the direction of more "greyness". that's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is a possible criticism that should be explored if there isn't some kind of resolution. a constant descent into greyness and/or blackness has to be counterbalanced in a story like this by some actual good and some actual movement toward light.
|
On May 23 2012 11:41 Stratos_speAr wrote:
How is he supposed to bring those people to justice? They were the very people he swore allegiance to.
that's the point.
You have absolutely nothing to back up the claim that Robert was a fat lazy drunkard before. All that's mentioned is that he was a great warrior.
people don't just magically become fat, lazy, drunkards who have almost no scruples whatsoever.
You also have nothing to back up your claim that he wouldn't execute his children. You're literally making shit up to support your argument. Not only that, how does that apply to this at all?
what if Jon Snow takes his oath, having committed no crime, and then decides to break it? would Ned be so quick to behead him with Bran watching? you and i both know what the answer is to that question. but if its some possible criminal, then the head comes off. if you look even slightly below the surface of what we're given the thin veneer of "honor" comes right off and what's underneath is kind of ugly.
It's the definition of honorable and merciful to warn Cercie so she has time to leave before Ned told Robert.
not really. it's more like gloating over a trapped enemy. Ned's actions would have caused a brutal and protracted war, unbelievable famine, years of chaos and almost certainly would have resulted in either the systematic slaughter of every one of Robert's bastards, or the execution of Cercie's children. no other result was possible.
You're just completely clueless and factually wrong on so many points that my brain hurts.
what fact is wrong?
|
+ Show Spoiler +On May 23 2012 12:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:
look, obviously i am taking some things to an extreme that isn't necessarily how they were trying to present it. but i'm not saying anything that isn't in the series and isn't a fact about Ned that we're given. he may not have been able to bring justice to the Lannisters or their lackeys for what their war-crimes, but he never even tried. he had more important things to worry about, which ironically happened to include taking care of himself and his own first. i'm just saying that i get confused sometimes when people put Ned up there as the most honorable or dutiful character when he is largely described as honorable and dutiful by people like Littlefinger and Cercei who don't know the first thing about either honor or duty and his actions are consistently questionable at best. most of all is the inherent hypocrisy in how he deals with nearly every situation. cold justice and a reputation for honor on one hand, and utter servility and cowardice in the face of actual trials on the other. it can be an interesting character study to do something like that, but i wonder sometimes if they really captured the essence of that archetype very well.
i think if you asked Ned he would tell you that he rarely does the "right" thing. now some of that is because he is described as somewhat humble (one of his only solidly good attributes), but most of it is because he's usually taking the wrong choice every time. sure he's conflicted about it, but he still does it. the fact is that he is far from the most noble character and could be more accurately described as a pragmatic and isolated person. think about it, when the series starts he is way off in the North, shut off from all the corruption down south. when his best friend and king begs him to take power he refuses. when that same friend begs him to become the Hand he only grudgingly accepts and practically makes the guy force him to do it. once in the city he doesn't use his newfound power to start investigating the atrocities of some of the more powerful lords and ladies in the Westoros. no, he spends his time trying to figure out who Cercei has been sleeping with, and when he finds out she's cheated, he instantly decides to turn her in to his morally bankrupt friend who will almost certainly have her beheaded. and what is her big crime? she killed a guy who was going to spill the beans and have her and her children beheaded. Jon Arryn kind of deserved what he got. now sure she was an accomplice in killing Bran, but which one of Ned's friends hasn't killed children or threatened to?
how exactly was he planning on protecting Cercei's children from Robert without directly allying himself and his armies against Robert's? Or do we actually believe that Tywin would have sat and watched his only two children (i doubt Tywin truly considers Tyrion a real son or worthy heir) sent to the headsman? Hell no, he would have put all that Lannister gold into raising an army and killing Robert and taking the throne, then probably putting Joffrey on it and denying the rumors of incest. Would Ned have sided with Robert who would be required to kill innocent children, children Robert raised, or would he side with the Lannister's, who are murderers, to protect those innocents? we know what Ned would prefer, he would prefer to slink up to his castle in the North and hide from it all. the only realistic reason to tell Cercei is... i don't know, i can't even think of one. that's where i get confused by the choices of the writers. why does Ned feel that he is in any way protecting Cercei's kids by telling her that he's going to reveal their "circumstances"?
Jon Snow, Robb, Arya and Sansa (i don't consider the younger one's to have any great moral struggle's or stories yet) are the only main characters that show any signs of actual moral strength or real, honest goodness. some of the side characters too. the rest of the main characters are morally bankrupt to the core or are "grey". as of now, and this may change, there doesn't seem to be much movement either, except in the direction of more "greyness". that's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is a possible criticism that should be explored if there isn't some kind of resolution. a constant descent into greyness and/or blackness has to be counterbalanced in a story like this by some actual good and some actual movement toward light.
I think Ned always believes he is doing the right thing and it leads him to make some rather stupid decisions such as giving Cersei a chance to escape. He is compelled to do this by his sense of honour as he does not want children killed but then fails to think about the consequences his actions may have. I don't know how you can claim cowardice when he helped lead a rebellion to depose the king. He didn't want to go south as he wanted to stay with his family and disliked politics. Unlike for other things he does Ned has no duty to be hand of the king and therefore hesitates to leave Winterfell.
|
How can you find him guilty not from his actions but from your own hypothesis, I frankly can't understand,rofl.
Would Ned have sided with Robert who would be required to kill innocent children, children Robert raised, or would he side with the Lannister's, who are murderers, to protect those innocents?
Your whole wall of text makes like zero sense. Pls focus on what has happened.
|
On May 23 2012 12:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:
look, obviously i am taking some things to an extreme that isn't necessarily how they were trying to present it. but i'm not saying anything that isn't in the series and isn't a fact about Ned that we're given. he may not have been able to bring justice to the Lannisters or their lackeys for their war-crimes, but he never even tried. he had more important things to worry about, which ironically happened to include taking care of himself and his own first. i'm just saying that i get confused sometimes when people put Ned up there as the most honorable or dutiful character when he is largely described as honorable and dutiful by people like Littlefinger and Cercei who don't know the first thing about either honor or duty and his actions are consistently questionable at best. most of all is the inherent hypocrisy in how he deals with nearly every situation. cold justice and a reputation for honor on one hand, and utter servility and cowardice in the face of actual trials on the other. it can be an interesting character study to do something like that, but i wonder sometimes if they really captured the essence of that archetype very well.
i think if you asked Ned he would tell you that he rarely does the "right" thing. now some of that is because he is described as somewhat humble (one of his only solidly good attributes), but most of it is because he's usually taking the wrong choice every time. sure he's conflicted about it, but he still does it. the fact is that he is far from the most noble character and could be more accurately described as a pragmatic and isolated person. think about it, when the series starts he is way off in the North, shut off from all the corruption down south. when his best friend and king begs him to take power he refuses. when that same friend begs him to become the Hand he only grudgingly accepts and practically makes the guy force him to do it. once in the city he doesn't use his newfound power to start investigating the atrocities of some of the more powerful lords and ladies in the Westoros. no, he spends his time trying to figure out who Cercei has been sleeping with, and when he finds out she's cheated, he instantly decides to turn her in to his morally bankrupt friend who will almost certainly have her beheaded. and what is her big crime? she killed a guy who was going to spill the beans and have her and her children beheaded. Jon Arryn kind of deserved what he got. now sure she was an accomplice in the (attempted) killing of Bran, but which one of Ned's friends hasn't killed children or threatened to?
how exactly was he planning on protecting Cercei's children from Robert without directly allying himself and his armies against Robert's? Or do we actually believe that Tywin would have sat and watched his only two children (i doubt Tywin truly considers Tyrion a real son or worthy heir) sent to the headsman? Hell no, he would have put all that Lannister gold into raising an army and killing Robert and taking the throne, then probably putting Joffrey on it and denying the rumors of incest. Would Ned have sided with Robert who would be required to kill innocent children, children Robert raised, or would he side with the Lannister's, who are murderers, to protect those innocents? we know what Ned would prefer, he would prefer to slink up to his castle in the North and hide from it all. the only realistic reason to tell Cercei is... i don't know, i can't even think of one. that's where i get confused by the choices of the writers. why does Ned feel that he is in any way protecting Cercei's kids by telling her that he's going to reveal their "circumstances"?
Jon Snow, Robb, Arya and Sansa (i don't consider the younger one's to have any great moral struggle's or stories yet) are the only main characters that show any signs of actual moral strength or real, honest goodness. some of the side characters too. the rest of the main characters are morally bankrupt to the core or are "grey". as of now, and this may change, there doesn't seem to be much movement either, except in the direction of more "greyness". that's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is a possible criticism that should be explored if there isn't some kind of resolution. a constant descent into greyness and/or blackness has to be counterbalanced in a story like this by some actual good and some actual movement toward light.
Did you watch Season 1? He tells Cersei to run as far as she can because Robert will come after her and the children. That's not gloating, that's trying to let her and her children live. As for the whole investigation, it was to see what got Jon Arryn killed and hopefully glean from that who killed him.. it wasn't an attempt to find out who Cersei was fucking.
And also, yes, if Jon broke his oath I fully believe Ned would behead him if he was the one to find him. Jon took the oath willingly, just like every other member of the Watch. He'd be devestated by it, but he'd do it.
|
On May 23 2012 12:18 Steveling wrote:
Your whole wall of text makes like zero sense. Pls focus on what has happened.
take the one hypothetical out of it then:
*Ned supports a rebellion which results in the slaughter of innocent children.
*we are given no indication that he ever attempted to bring the people responsible to justice, and in fact are given every indication that no attempt to do so was ever made.
*he allows his wife to treat his bastard son like crap.
*he executes a man for "breaking an oath". yet he himself has broken many oaths, and knows many oath breakers that he is not executing.
*he does everything in his power to keep the king from putting him into a position where he can address the corruption that is running rampant through the kingdom, but i guess he gets points for finally accepting it.
*once given power, he spends zero time attempting to bring any of the myriad of corrupt people to justice. i suppose we could say that he is doing that by investigating Jon Arryn's death, but at what point does he try to push Robert to arrest the people responsible for the atrocities of the rebellion? or try to get justice for the young boy killed by the Hound on the way to the castle? can't he chew bubblegum and walk at the same time? assign a special investigator to the Jon Arryn case and start pushing for some legislative and executive reform, which was his actual duty to the realm, and he failed utterly.
*as soon as he finds out Cercei is getting boned by Jaime he decides that he has to tell Robert, which will almost certainly cause a war and result in a lot of dead kids and even more atrocities.
now, none of those things speaks very highly of this guy or his sense of right and wrong. if we examine the character in any kind of deep way he slowly reveals himself to be more and more the traditional yes-man and less the honorable lord who wants to do his duty. now, i'm not trying to talk crap on the story or even the character, i'm just explaining why i can't even fathom how people see this guy as honorable at all.
On May 23 2012 12:22 Critter wrote:And also, yes, if Jon broke his oath I fully believe Ned would behead him if he was the one to find him. Jon took the oath willingly, just like every other member of the Watch. He'd be devestated by it, but he'd do it.
that speaks volumes about the character though, that this could even be considered by him as a legitimate course of action.
|
On May 23 2012 12:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:
look, obviously i am taking some things to an extreme that isn't necessarily how they were trying to present it. but i'm not saying anything that isn't in the series and isn't a fact about Ned that we're given. he may not have been able to bring justice to the Lannisters or their lackeys for their war-crimes, but he never even tried. he had more important things to worry about, which ironically happened to include taking care of himself and his own first. i'm just saying that i get confused sometimes when people put Ned up there as the most honorable or dutiful character when he is largely described as honorable and dutiful by people like Littlefinger and Cercei who don't know the first thing about either honor or duty and his actions are consistently questionable at best. most of all is the inherent hypocrisy in how he deals with nearly every situation. cold justice and a reputation for honor on one hand, and utter servility and cowardice in the face of actual trials on the other. it can be an interesting character study to do something like that, but i wonder sometimes if they really captured the essence of that archetype very well.
First of all, lets keep in mind that Littlefinger and Cersei aren't the only ones who perpetuate Ned Stark's reputation as an honest and compassionate leader. Stannis recognizes Ned as an honorable leader, and I think Stannis's record is above reproach in that regard. The only remotely questionable thing Stannis has done is turn a blind eye to the doings of Melisandre, but tbh even that little bit of reliance on questionable means bothers him so much he doesn't take her to conquer Kings Landing, instead electing to take his own chances without the Red God's champion. Barristan also recognizes Ned as an honest guy, judging by his interactions with Ned in season 1 while on the King's Road. Barristan is also above reproach, having served the Mad King up to the moment the new king was crowned and leaving peacefully once he was no longer wanted by the new king. And, of course, Robert trusts only Ned, but I'm not sure how much that means to you since you believe that Robert is completely morally bankrupt, which is debatable, considering the regrets he voices on his death bed.
How can you say that Ned is defined by "utter servility and cowardice" when he is the only person on the council who openly opposes Robert on issues which go against his principles of mercy?
i think if you asked Ned he would tell you that he rarely does the "right" thing. now some of that is because he is described as somewhat humble (one of his only solidly good attributes), but most of it is because he's usually taking the wrong choice every time. sure he's conflicted about it, but he still does it. the fact is that he is far from the most noble character and could be more accurately described as a pragmatic and isolated person. think about it, when the series starts he is way off in the North, shut off from all the corruption down south. when his best friend and king begs him to take power he refuses. when that same friend begs him to become the Hand he only grudgingly accepts and practically makes the guy force him to do it. once in the city he doesn't use his newfound power to start investigating the atrocities of some of the more powerful lords and ladies in the Westoros. no, he spends his time trying to figure out who Cercei has been sleeping with, and when he finds out she's cheated, he instantly decides to turn her in to his morally bankrupt friend who will almost certainly have her beheaded. and what is her big crime? she killed a guy who was going to spill the beans and have her and her children beheaded. Jon Arryn kind of deserved what he got. now sure she was an accomplice in the (attempted) killing of Bran, but which one of Ned's friends hasn't killed children or threatened to?
You seem to forget that he already had a host of reasons to suspect Cersei's, and the entire house of Lannister's, loyalty to the crown. It wasn't idle curiosity that led him to start investigating the Lannisters, one of the richest houses in the seven kingdoms with a tendency to swap sides frequently.
how exactly was he planning on protecting Cercei's children from Robert without directly allying himself and his armies against Robert's? Or do we actually believe that Tywin would have sat and watched his only two children (i doubt Tywin truly considers Tyrion a real son or worthy heir) sent to the headsman? Hell no, he would have put all that Lannister gold into raising an army and killing Robert and taking the throne, then probably putting Joffrey on it and denying the rumors of incest. Would Ned have sided with Robert who would be required to kill innocent children, children Robert raised, or would he side with the Lannister's, who are murderers, to protect those innocents? we know what Ned would prefer, he would prefer to slink up to his castle in the North and hide from it all. the only realistic reason to tell Cercei is... i don't know, i can't even think of one. that's where i get confused by the choices of the writers. why does Ned feel that he is in any way protecting Cercei's kids by telling her that he's going to reveal their "circumstances"?
Ned's plan was to give her a chance to get her children out of harm's way, not to take them into his own protection. He doesn't trust Robert's mercy, so he tries to give the queen an out, which she doesn't take. Basically Ned had Cersei at his mercy, with offers from Renly and Littlefinger to help him seize power. The caveat was he would a) shed blood during his best friend's final hours, causing Robert a great deal of bitterness and anguish when he finds out the kids aren't his b) Robert would likely order the kids killed, so there would be no question of succession. Ned is a bleeding heart, not an idiot.
I think you overestimate Tywin. Part of the reason the Lannisters currently have a chance is because Baratheon is divided against itself and the North has declared for a new King. Even then, Tywin is losing against the northmen and Stannis's fleet is bearing down on King's landing. Imagine if all these armies had been allied against Tywin from the beginning. Tywin is smarter than letting his entire house get dragged down because the queen decided to fuck around behind the king's back.
Jon Snow, Robb, Arya and Sansa (i don't consider the younger one's to have any great moral struggle's or stories yet) are the only main characters that show any signs of actual moral strength or real, honest goodness. some of the side characters too. the rest of the main characters are morally bankrupt to the core or are "grey". as of now, and this may change, there doesn't seem to be much movement either, except in the direction of more "greyness". that's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is a possible criticism that should be explored if there isn't some kind of resolution. a constant descent into greyness and/or blackness has to be counterbalanced in a story like this by some actual good and some actual movement toward light.
Really, you think Bran hasn't hard to make some hard choices already or shown some of his character? We've already seen how he deals with his subjects in court, not to mention his reluctance to put others in danger to aid his escape.
You say all the main characters are morally bankrupt or "grey". The only other thing they could be is fucking saints, which tbh is completely unrealistic. No one in GoT is completely evil(maybe Joffrey, but he's mostly just crazy or a psychopath) and no one is flawless. Ned has his skeletons in the closet, in particular when it comes to Jon and his bastardness.
The cool thing GoT does is it humanizes every character and makes you empathize with them. Even Theon, this past episode, had some moments when it was really easy to feel sorry for him. Cersei has had some moments in the past 2 seasons where you can see why she acts the way that she does, and not just because she's a bitch. Tywin's interactions with Arya has served to humanize the previously distant character of Tywin. In fact, the only character which I feel the writers have been avoiding humanizing is Joffrey. They seem fine portraying him just as a psychopathic tyrant for now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
