|
BlueChocolate posted:Ned doesn't care about peasants lives. He never once thinks about how his actions will impact the people living in Westeros, he only cares about his own self image. Did you just read AWOIAF chapter summaries or something because you can't seem to grasp basic characterizations that are plainly spelled out repeatedly in the text.
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 07:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 22:47 |
|
|
Midnight City posted:Did you just read AWOIAF chapter summaries or something because you can't seem to grasp basic characterizations that are plainly spelled out repeatedly in the text. Please list the good deeds Ned has done. (There are none.) For all his talk of honor, he has never done much good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 07:39
|
|
|
BlueChocolate posted:Ned doesn't care about peasants lives. He never once thinks about how his actions will impact the people living in Westeros, he only cares about his own self image. He gives the whole father & children speech about government to Robb in both the books and the TV show as I recall. And he invites a random serf to his table every night or something to feast with him. Ned definitely cares about his serfs. He just cared about honor, duty and justice more than anything. Part of his duty was doing the best he could for his serfs as a good ruler, but part of his duty was also serving the king.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 07:41
|
|
|
BlueChocolate posted:Please list the good deeds Ned has done. (There are none.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 07:42
|
|
|
Ned tries to be a good guy, that alone is way more than most of the characters in GoT do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
Speleothing posted:Or she'll just (re)appear out of nowhere, like she did in book 4. If we assume they took some Winterfell girls to the Dreadfort dungeons when they took Theon, Roose can just pull the noblest-looking one out, and there we have fake-Arya. It doesn't particularly matter who she is beyond that, though they can call her "Jeyne".
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
You can't apply our worlds sense of worth and morality to the world of Westeros. The two are very far apart. In Westeros, only nobles count as people and have any rights. Peasants are only there for their amusement and to do with as they see fit. There's none of this seeing people as people, unless you count Daenarys freeing slaves but even that doesn't really count, she still acts like any other noble and will grant a peasant their request because she feels like it, not because it's just.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
Yureina posted:As a previous poster said, she will likely be put as a guest star and therefore not revealed in the opening credits. Maybe they'll Metal Gear Solid it. We end with a Frey being slowly hoisted into the air, he slowly spins round on the rope to see a shadowy figure lower her hood. Titles fill the screen "MICHELLE FAIRLY......IS......LADY STONEHEART" Roll credits.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 07:51
|
|
|
Lycus posted:If we assume they took some Winterfell girls to the Dreadfort dungeons when they took Theon, Roose can just pull the noblest-looking one out, and there we have fake-Arya. It doesn't particularly matter who she is beyond that, though they can call her "Jeyne". Jeyne was provided by Littlefinger though, wasn't she?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 07:51
|
|
|
mr.capps posted:Ned tries to be a good guy, that alone is way more than most of the characters in GoT do. Bullshit. Ned was more than willing to sacrifice any and all peasantry to maintain his nobler than thou persona. Dude rode in to battle with a blodthirsty jerk with googly eyes for the throne and got thousands of people killed in a rebellion that was ultimately won by a single man. Ned didn't save anybody, he was busy playing the role of conqueror and was ready to let kings landing get sacked to hell to uphold his "noble" prerogative. It was noted sister fucker Jamie Lannister that put down the mad king and saved the lives of the peasantry, permanently destroying any honorable or noble reputation he might ever hold in the process. His reward was to sit around and guard doors while the man married to his sister got drunk and hosed whores. Ned would never risk his noble persona for the good of anyone, Jamie Lannister for all his flaws threw away his entire life's work to save a father he despised and a peasantry he had nothing to do with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 07:55
|
|
|
We know that atleast the lords of the north are deeply in love with the Starks and would do nearly anything for them but I dont think we have any clue how the smallfolk feels about them compared to any other nobel. AFFC hints at the idea that they dont care either way and just hope that they are not drafted into some lovely war which might be the reality. One good quality about the Starks might be that they really care about the fact that winter is coming and ensure that there is alway enough food stocked as to prevent major starvations in the north but thats about it.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 07:56
|
|
|
Plus I think the smallfolk and such in the North don't deal with the same poo poo as they do in King's Landing, so Ned was really adapt to ruling in the North, King's Landing was an entirely different beast.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
No Lem Lemoncloak yet, still disappointed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 08:00
|
|
|
Let me rephrase that whole "the Starks are good people" thing. In the world of Westeros the uh, "current" Starks are good people. That doesn't mean that they don't do bad things, just that they do less bad things, and the bad things they do are generally because they're "the right thing to do" in the context of the story and the world that they live in. Ned chopped off a guy's head because that's what he was supposed to do. He didn't take any pleasure in it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 08:01
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:That is not the important part. People don't assign their sympathies based on perfectly utilitarian calculations. Hardly, but I can't believe that people in this day and age don't see the irony in A Game of Thrones and are actually rooting for the oppressing lords.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
Another reason why people love the Starks is that they send their family member to the Wall not only when they are convicted fellons but also genuinly good people like Benjen, to protect the realms of men.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 08:06
|
|
|
the kawaiiest posted:Let me rephrase that whole "the Starks are good people" thing. Once again not the "Noble" or "good" thing to do, just the authoritarian must comply to all rules thing to do. Benjen regularly made trips to Winterfell and back to the wall, the good thing to do would have been to have held on to the dude, send him back with Benjen and a note that states "Dude freaked, we talked he's cool now let him off light and don't tell anyone he got away with it or next guy gets chopped". Blindly following laws and corporal punishment without context isn't good, its authoritarian and shallow minded.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 08:07
|
|
|
BlueChocolate posted:Hardly, but I can't believe that people in this day and age don't see the irony in A Game of Thrones and are actually rooting for the oppressing lords. Yeah my favorite character in the fantasy political war series "Game of Thrones" is the nameless and powerless masses, remember that awesome episode in which he
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 08:16
|
|
|
Drunk Tomato posted:Yeah my favorite character in the fantasy political war series "Game of Thrones" is the nameless and powerless masses, remember that awesome episode in which he Ate the High Septon?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 08:25
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:Once again not the "Noble" or "good" thing to do, just the authoritarian must comply to all rules thing to do. Benjen regularly made trips to Winterfell and back to the wall, the good thing to do would have been to have held on to the dude, send him back with Benjen and a note that states "Dude freaked, we talked he's cool now let him off light and don't tell anyone he got away with it or next guy gets chopped". Blindly following laws and corporal punishment without context isn't good, its authoritarian and shallow minded. Almost everyone in this story is a bad person or an rear end in a top hat. The Starks are the least bad/rear end in a top hat people in it. Therefore they're "good". Land of the blind, one-eyed man, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 08:25
|
|
|
BlueChocolate posted:Hardly, but I can't believe that people in this day and age don't see the irony in A Game of Thrones and are actually rooting for the oppressing lords. Drunk Tomato posted:Yeah my favorite character in the fantasy political war series "Game of Thrones" is the nameless and powerless masses, remember that awesome episode in which he
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 08:47
|
|
|
BlueChocolate posted:Hardly, but I can't believe that people in this day and age don't see the irony in A Game of Thrones and are actually rooting for the oppressing lords. Really? Are you questioning why people have stronger affections for the characters they get to know and live through than Winterfell Peasant #4? I'm sorry, do you expect the readers to universally rise up for the hopelessly doomed proletariat, or is this the kind of situation where you're the only one smart enough to understand the irony of some sociological commentary or whatever?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 09:01
|
|
|
BlueChocolate posted:Hardly, but I can't believe that people in this day and age don't see the irony in A Game of Thrones and are actually rooting for the oppressing lords. Some people can grasp that, in a show based around medieval political structure and culture, you can't spend the whole time frothing at the mouth because those pesky nobles are oppressing the proletarian masses and expect to enjoy yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 09:08
|
|
|
Dirty_Moses posted:Some people can grasp that, in a show based around medieval political structure and culture, you can't spend the whole time frothing at the mouth because those pesky nobles are oppressing the proletarian masses and expect to enjoy yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 09:12
|
|
|
If you watch Game of Thrones to watch nobles suffer because of some socialist fantasy, more power to you. No kink shaming. In all seriousness, there's an entire faction that springs up that supports the nobility and most of AFFC seems to be about how hard it is for the dirt farmers, so it's not like that isn't a fair point. But I can't help but find the notion that BlueChocolate posted:Hardly, but I can't believe that people in this day and age don't see the irony in A Game of Thrones and are actually rooting for the oppressing lords. people watching a show about nobility interacting amongst themselves and finding certain individuals more sympathetic than others is somehow wrong or stupid to be pretty pretentious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 09:22
|
|
|
Dirty_Moses posted:If you watch Game of Thrones to watch nobles suffer because of some socialist fantasy, more power to you. No kink shaming. In all seriousness, there's an entire faction that springs up that supports the nobility and most of AFFC seems to be about how hard it is for the dirt farmers, so it's not like that isn't a fair point. The story nicely works as deconstruction, and that is very much by design. Robb goes on and on about how his actions lead to terrible death for thousands and thousands, and next thing he does is, wage more war. His wife acts as the voice of female reason right into his face - "why do we have to be mean to each other? Like, all of this hacking each other's limbs off, is that really necessary?" - and his answer isn't actually satisfying. It makes narrative sense and it's interesting and it somehow even makes Robb look like the best of the bunch, but on the other hand, he just said, "why you know, I totally get what you're saying, but now I must leave you to plan more hacking off of limbs". Our moral sense is fairly crappy, and the deeply hard-wired aspect of tribalism that is within us, and that is the cause for so much of the awful poo poo we real-life humans do, but also trivially for all the suffering in Westeros, is at the heart of GoT and the books, is what's being highlighted here. The "expanding circle" of the extent of our compassion, argued by e.g. Steven Pinker to be the main cause for the proportional decline in violence across history, is the opposite of this; in GoT, the circle is very small, because that is how humans seemingly are - tribal. Okay, maybe that's pretentious, I give you that. I mean, I'm not in any way above it or whatever, or claiming this is some novel insight.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 09:36
|
|
|
BlueChocolate posted:Hardly, but I can't believe that people in this day and age don't see the irony in A Game of Thrones and are actually rooting for the oppressing lords. It's a fictional story and I like to think (almost) everyone who partakes in it realizes that. Here is a good example: Like it or not Warhammer 40k is a parody of fascism. It doesn't mean you can't enjoy that fascist element in the context of the fictional story. Nobody actually wants to live in most fictional stories universes if they examine it deep enough.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 09:41
|
|
|
When I read that death in the books it just made me irate at being duped again, but casting a pretty face as Oberyn and hearing him actually yell, 'you raped her, etc.' made it goddamn tragic
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 09:56
|
|
|
BlueChocolate posted:Hardly, but I can't believe that people in this day and age don't see the irony in A Game of Thrones and are actually rooting for the oppressing lords. I agree with you wholeheartedly. That's why I heard Downton Abbey was getting canceled, because people no longer care about the rich assh...oh wait, it's not being canceled because there's *always* been a market, even post-2008, for both modern and period pieces concerning/showcasing nobility or the super-rich/powerful as a form of social escapism. The reason GRRM's books are so big and there are so many loving characters is akin to the same reason Twilight books make the female characters so vague and vapid - it aids in allowing the reader (or in this case, watcher) to identify with a specific person. And it's never any fun to want to be a nobody. It's why no one ever says something like 'a mouse' when they're asked what animal they think they most resemble in temperament/attitude. It's always bears, wolves, tigers, and 'cool' poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 10:04
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:The reason GRRM's books are so big and there are so many loving characters is ... - it aids in allowing the reader (or in this case, watcher) to identify with a specific person.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 10:13
|
|
|
Sure, let me consult the Oracle of Martin.  It's the same thing Rowling did in the Harry Potter books - took the 'shotgun' approach at creating so many different characters to choose from that it's literally impossible not to find one you don't see aspects of yourself in. Think of how many authors have commented about fans saying that they feel as if an author wrote a specific character 'for them.' Of course it's only one potential reason amongst many others.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 10:17
|
|
|
I'd rather argue GRRM is an obsessive Otaku world builder who's also interested in (and talented at) complex social relations. The Dostoyevskian dimensions of Martin's ensemble are to most readers I would think rather confusing than supportive for self insertion. I don't think it's at all naive to assume something else is behind this great mess we're in than a calculated ploy at mega sales. If there was this degree of competence behind the piece, we wouldn't be fearing for the worst (the Robert Jordan scenario) any second. Also: everyone in Westeros is a huge idiot, psychopath, dead, 13, or a 13 year old dead psychopath. Lastly I don't see that much intent behind Twilight's vague Bella either fwiw - the woman wrote that thing to insert herself, so she had to keep it blank, for herself, not for intended readers, but more important I believe is that 1. she didn't give Bella much character because Bella is not the star of the show, 2. she did clearly characterize her in the aspects the target audience actually can identify with. Which of course is a fairly low common denominator.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 10:39
|
|
|
I just want to say I also am a moral person who refuses to like anyone in the fictional setting of Game of Thrones because I have a superior sense of social awareness. But seriously speaking, what the hell are we expecting the Starks to do? They are part of their own culture and just as much in the Plato's cave about 21st century ideals as Bob the Peasant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 11:02
|
|
|
Dirty_Moses posted:If you watch Game of Thrones to watch nobles suffer because of some socialist fantasy, more power to you. No kink shaming. In all seriousness, there's an entire faction that springs up that supports the nobility and most of AFFC seems to be about how hard it is for the dirt farmers, so it's not like that isn't a fair point. Not wrong but I find it hilarious that people would cheer for characters who would otherwise be considered "bad guys" IRL. BlueChocolate fucked around with this message at 11:06 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 11:03
|
|
|
BlueChocolate posted:Not wrong but I find it hilarious that people would cheer for characters who would otherwise be considered "bad guys" IRL. Even IRL.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 11:07
|
|
|
I seethe with class hatred every second I watch GoT.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 11:17
|
|
|
Lord Tywin posted:They just need Ray Stevenson as Victarion as well and I will actually look forward to Mereen, Victarions just being such a loving weird idiot is so much fun and Stevenson would be absolutely perfect.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 11:19
|
|
|
Bad thread. Bad thread! Regarding next week's credits, I imagine they have enough wits about them to leave Stannis, Davos etc out of the credits. Even if they don't, though, there's no reason for watchers not to think that they'll just have their own scene at some point. By the time they realise that it's all Wall, most will have forgotten the credits. Maybe that's just me though. I'm the sort of idiot that wouldn't bat an eye if Sean Bean was in the credits.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 11:22
|
|
|
BlueChocolate posted:I just don't get the Stark love at all. They're like a bunch of rich nobles who did nothing to deserve what they have and Robb and Ned were both incompetent leaders who got executed by their enemies fair and square. Not to mention, they also both killed innocent men and yet people still worship them. Game of thrones fandom is a bunch of peasant minded people. This sort of reductionist, contrarian bullshit makes me groan every time. Within the context of their world, the Starks are shown time and again to actually care in some ways about the people they rule. You can perfectly separate the ethically questionable, pseudo-Medieval world that GRRM created from your enjoyment of the story or your identification with protagonists. At the very least, you might argue that GRRM is willing to show how hosed over the underclass really is, something that most other fantasy authors never bother with. Also, neither Ned nor Robb were incompetent. Getting yourself killed does not necessarily mean you're incompetent. You can be a perfectly competent person in several fields and gently caress up in a few others. Sometimes characters have bad luck.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 11:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 22:47 |
|
|
Aurubin posted:What's fun about this is that Ned and his family are good people trying to do the right thing. The Starks themselves have a long history of ruthlessness mentioned in snippets. Brandon Stark was an rear end in a top hat and probably would of been a ruthless ruler. Hell that's why he ends up dead, by hotheadedly swaggering into the Red Keep and calling for Rhaegar to come out and die. Ned was the diligent second brother, much like Kevan Lannister. In GRRM's world it seems being a second son gives you a more measured outlook on the world.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 12:50
|
|