EPTHowever I have realised that I am definitely making this judgment too quickly. I'm hopeful that in future series we shall be seeing certain things that show at least some virtues being rewarded rather than uniformly punished as a weakness.
[TV] HBO Game of Thrones - Page 509
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
All book discussion in this thread is now allowed. | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
However I have realised that I am definitely making this judgment too quickly. I'm hopeful that in future series we shall be seeing certain things that show at least some virtues being rewarded rather than uniformly punished as a weakness. | ||
|
Odoakar
Croatia1837 Posts
| ||
|
Fzero
United States1503 Posts
The characters are not meant to fit into a lawful good, chaotic evil, etc etc portrayal. Martin has specifically mentioned several times that he tries to write the majority of his characters by imagining how they would behave given their circumstances, ie: empathy. He's not trying to fit them in like chess pieces to make the plot work. I think most people would agree that the reason they love his writing is because his characterizations are so accurate to how human beings behave. Good people do bad things all the time, and vice versa. I think the more that you put yourself into the world that Martin has created, the more you'll see that. There isn't a shining knight of virtue battling the forces of evil. I won't go into the later plot because we've been asked to avoid that, but I can speak to the fact that I believe this will be an ultimately tragic story. | ||
|
RolleMcKnolle
Germany1054 Posts
Especially in our modern world it's the people who do whatever it takes that are getting rewarded, and the difference between GRRM and other fantasy is that he doesn't try to hide it and tell people that it's all gonna get good. He's shoving in our face that the bad thing in our world aren't just some evil evil guys, no it's us and a system that rewards being an asshole. and that: On May 24 2012 02:25 Fzero wrote: + Show Spoiler + I believe that if you listen to some of GRRM's interviews about the series, you'll be able to better understand his motivations when writing characters. We still don't know (yes, even book readers) the ultimate arc of the story. However, we can rightly debate whether or not certain characters (and/or their character traits) lead them to be successful in this world. The characters are not meant to fit into a lawful good, chaotic evil, etc etc portrayal. Martin has specifically mentioned several times that he tries to write the majority of his characters by imagining how they would behave given their circumstances, ie: empathy. He's not trying to fit them in like chess pieces to make the plot work. I think most people would agree that the reason they love his writing is because his characterizations are so accurate to how human beings behave. Good people do bad things all the time, and vice versa. I think the more that you put yourself into the world that Martin has created, the more you'll see that. There isn't a shining knight of virtue battling the forces of evil. I won't go into the later plot because we've been asked to avoid that, but I can speak to the fact that I believe this will be an ultimately tragic story. | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
On May 24 2012 02:26 RolleMcKnolle wrote: I actually don't understand how anyone can think virtue is rewarded in our world. Surely there were people who did good things and held their conscience up. He's shoving in our face that the bad thing in our world aren't just some evil evil guys, no it's us and a system that rewards being an asshole. But I'm not necessarily saying classical virtue, I'm just saying NOT being a complete dickhead. Ned Stark wasn't a dickhead but he wasn't exactly a saint. For example I consider Tywin to actually be pretty fair. At least he doesn't seem to be a rampant paedophile, a serial killer or a complete moron who lets his populace starve for want of more money. THere are plenty of examples in history where people who are needlessly cruel or mercilessly ambitious end up getting killed or betrayed (Nero, Caligula), and plenty of examples of leaders who were actually pretty fair and not complete bastards who ended up both being really good leaders and also not being taken advantage of, with the added bonus of the people not hating their guts. For example Augustus Caesar who did great things and died old, of an illness, or Alexander the Great who died in battle but generally was a pretty respected and not, apparently, a completely merciless serial killer. In English history there are a few leaders who don't seem to have been hell bent on watching the world burn and murdering everyone they could, for example Richard III, Richard I, Henry VII, arguably William I...etc. My history knowledge is quite patchy though. I just think it is over-simplifying the issue, to think that the only way to survive in such times is to be a completely unprincipled tyrant. I do accept that GRRM has created a world which is fairly unique, in that so many families are warring openly for 'ownership' of the country, so it might not be too helpful to try to compare it to every historical example available. Politically it's sort of a combination of Japanese feudal history and late Roman history. I guess there was a lot of betraying, a lot of political feuding and a lot of unprincipled merciless violence in those periods. I am not a historian so maybe I should avoid being too certain on these issues. On May 24 2012 02:25 Fzero wrote: The characters are not meant to fit into a lawful good, chaotic evil, etc etc portrayal. Martin has specifically mentioned several times that he tries to write the majority of his characters by imagining how they would behave given their circumstances, ie: empathy. He's not trying to fit them in like chess pieces to make the plot work. I think most people would agree that the reason they love his writing is because his characterizations are so accurate to how human beings behave. I appreciate this completely, and this is of course what any writer should do. However, I find myself several times second-guessing how accurate as to how human beings behave he actually is. | ||
|
Maginor
Norway505 Posts
| ||
|
Critter
United States196 Posts
| ||
|
MaxwellE
England229 Posts
On May 24 2012 01:49 sc4k wrote: RIght so I'm not going to engage in this petty argument any more, about whether or not Ned is quote unquote a 'good guy'. But my point was that history has shown that generally, unprincipled cads and evil bastards get assassinated more than, if not just as much as, people who are merciful or fair. GRRM so far has made it seem that the only way to survive in such a world as a leader is to betray as many people as you can and be sociopathic at all times without any mercy. However I have realised that I am definitely making this judgment too quickly. I'm hopeful that in future series we shall be seeing certain things that show at least some virtues being rewarded rather than uniformly punished as a weakness. Robb Stark is doing really well for being a good guy. Jon got rewarded for being merciful, even though that was also the reason he was in a situation to recieve mercy in the first place. Tyrion is actually a fairly decent person. Brann got rewarded since the starks were nice to the wildling prisoner so she helped them escape. Arya was rewarded for saving the prisoners(who threatened to kill her before) . The mad king got killed, so did Daenery's brother and Drogo( he was a pretty evil dude if you look at his and his tribe's actions). Fairly sure Theon is going to get punished soon enough(hope so at least). And about Ned's death- 99% of the time in the GoT universe he would have survived and given mercy. He was only killed because Joffrey is a cunt. E: Joffrey is universally hated as well for being needlessly cruel and incompetent. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On May 24 2012 01:39 CanucksJC wrote: I can't believe people have to explain to him how Ned is supposed to be portrayed as an 'honorable' man in the series i never argued that he is supposed to be portrayed as an "honorable" man. i'm saying that the portrayal either has some holes in it (Ned doesn't act very honorably), or he was supposed to have been portrayed as much less honorable than most people tend to think. i'm kind of surprised though how unwilling anyone is to even try to look at the character more than surface deep though, especially considering the fact that this series is supposed to be about questionable motives and multi-layered characters. You can't argue that, out of men in his generation (Robert, Eddard, Renly, Stannis, Balon, Jaime, Tywin, etc) he is not one of the better guys. i really don't see how "he hasn't personally committed any atrocities, or is better than a lot of the crappy people in his generation" means that he is automatically a noble character. that would be like saying this one character is a "good guy" because he chose not to rape some chick. well, that would mean he's not as bad as the rapist, but that doesn't mean he's good... | ||
|
crms
United States11933 Posts
On May 24 2012 07:50 MaxwellE wrote: Robb Stark is doing really well for being a good guy. Jon got rewarded for being merciful, even though that was also the reason he was in a situation to recieve mercy in the first place. Tyrion is actually a fairly decent person. Brann got rewarded since the starks were nice to the wildling prisoner so she helped them escape. Arya was rewarded for saving the prisoners(who threatened to kill her before) . The mad king got killed, so did Daenery's brother and Drogo( he was a pretty evil dude if you look at his and his tribe's actions). Fairly sure Theon is going to get punished soon enough(hope so at least). And about Ned's death- 99% of the time in the GoT universe he would have survived and given mercy. He was only killed because Joffrey is a cunt. E: Joffrey is universally hated as well for being needlessly cruel and incompetent. Nice post. GRRM's world may be dark but there are a lot of subtle factors that make it quite realistic. Also, as he points out almost nobody but King Joffrey deviants believe Ned should have been killed. Hell even Cersei thinks/knows it was stupid. You can't crticize the entire world philosophy on the actions of one spoiled, evil little boy. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
As of now, in this tv show. She is the last Targaryan except that blind guy in the Night's Watch and he cant inherit anything because thats how the Night's watch rolls. Now Denerys says she her dragons will be her only children. Ergo even if she somehow manages to win the seven kingdoms she will sit around and be a good queen and totally not let petty stuff bring her down and it will be magical. And then she will die. And the Targaryan line will die. So there will be just 3 dragons who may or may not eat all humans because they look delicious and that is ti. What is the point of her going to Westeros again? | ||
|
Skilledblob
Germany3392 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22487 Posts
On May 24 2012 08:25 Sub40APM wrote: So since that original question about Denyeris was deleted because of apparently spoiler answer Ill still re ask it. As of now, in this tv show. She is the last Targaryan except that blind guy in the Night's Watch and he cant inherit anything because thats how the Night's watch rolls. Now Denerys says she her dragons will be her only children. Ergo even if she somehow manages to win the seven kingdoms she will sit around and be a good queen and totally not let petty stuff bring her down and it will be magical. And then she will die. And the Targaryan line will die. So there will be just 3 dragons who may or may not eat all humans because they look delicious and that is ti. What is the point of her going to Westeros again? Where does it say she wont get kids again? The dragons are her "children" and she isnt looking for a man because welll she has other things on her mind. Plenty of time for kids when shes on the throne of Westeros. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8272 Posts
On May 24 2012 08:25 Sub40APM wrote: So since that original question about Denyeris was deleted because of apparently spoiler answer Ill still re ask it. As of now, in this tv show. She is the last Targaryan except that blind guy in the Night's Watch and he cant inherit anything because thats how the Night's watch rolls. Now Denerys says she her dragons will be her only children. Ergo even if she somehow manages to win the seven kingdoms she will sit around and be a good queen and totally not let petty stuff bring her down and it will be magical. And then she will die. And the Targaryan line will die. So there will be just 3 dragons who may or may not eat all humans because they look delicious and that is ti. What is the point of her going to Westeros again? Good question. I don't think even she has thought that far. Remember she's suppose to be quite young. On May 24 2012 08:30 Gorsameth wrote: Where does it say she wont get kids again? The dragons are her "children" and she isnt looking for a man because welll she has other things on her mind. Plenty of time for kids when shes on the throne of Westeros. Pretty sure she said it herself in the last episode. I might be mistaken. | ||
|
Critter
United States196 Posts
| ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
On May 24 2012 08:30 Gorsameth wrote: Where does it say she wont get kids again? The dragons are her "children" and she isnt looking for a man because welll she has other things on her mind. Plenty of time for kids when shes on the throne of Westeros. Part of Mirri Maz Duur's prophecy was that the sun would rise in the west and set in the east before she could bear children again. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On May 24 2012 08:25 Sub40APM wrote: So since that original question about Denyeris was deleted because of apparently spoiler answer Ill still re ask it. As of now, in this tv show. She is the last Targaryan except that blind guy in the Night's Watch and he cant inherit anything because thats how the Night's watch rolls. Now Denerys says she her dragons will be her only children. Ergo even if she somehow manages to win the seven kingdoms she will sit around and be a good queen and totally not let petty stuff bring her down and it will be magical. And then she will die. And the Targaryan line will die. So there will be just 3 dragons who may or may not eat all humans because they look delicious and that is ti. What is the point of her going to Westeros again? she could marry someone and adopt their kid as an heir, or even just stay unmarried and adopt someone as an heir. that sort of thing was sometimes done in those times i think; but that would probably cause it's own problems. i think we're supposed to wonder about that and think maybe her getting her birthright isn't some kind of salvation but could spell doom for Westoros later on. i don't know what the rules are for dragons and who they will follow or let control them or whatever, but i assume that it would be a potential problem for anyone she marries or adopts if she does go down that path. or maybe some other kind of magic will come up and "solve" the curse of what's-her-face. i dont like that theory as much, but i suppose it's possible (though it seems unlikely given how GRRM feels about magic and it's role in a story). | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
On May 24 2012 08:00 crms wrote: Nice post. GRRM's world may be dark but there are a lot of subtle factors that make it quite realistic. Also, as he points out almost nobody but King Joffrey deviants believe Ned should have been killed. Hell even Cersei thinks/knows it was stupid. You can't crticize the entire world philosophy on the actions of one spoiled, evil little boy. Fair enough, I guess I had an overly pessimistic interpretation of the affairs, when you (Maxwell) put it that way it is quite persuasive  | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
| ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6303 Posts
On May 24 2012 08:59 sc2superfan101 wrote: she could marry someone and adopt their kid as an heir, or even just stay unmarried and adopt someone as an heir. that sort of thing was sometimes done in those times i think; but that would probably cause it's own problems. i think we're supposed to wonder about that and think maybe her getting her birthright isn't some kind of salvation but could spell doom for Westoros later on. i don't know what the rules are for dragons and who they will follow or let control them or whatever, but i assume that it would be a potential problem for anyone she marries or adopts if she does go down that path. or maybe some other kind of magic will come up and "solve" the curse of what's-her-face. i dont like that theory as much, but i suppose it's possible (though it seems unlikely given how GRRM feels about magic and it's role in a story). Adoptian was pretty normal in the roman days just look at Caesar and Augustus and the 5 adoptive emperors called that for a reason. They were all chosen on merit too and the roman empire prospered under them. Dany not getting children might be a good thing instead of the good old targaryen coin flip between genius and mad. | ||
| ||
