You'd think that people would have figured out what you're saying here by now, I mean we've had almost 4 complete seasons hammering home this message and yet many people still don't seem to get it.
I'd be annoyed if it wasn't so funny, I love reading through all the threads full of people claiming the show has gone too far every single time we get one of these events (Oberyn VS Mountain, Red Wedding, Ned's execution, etc).
Removing good and evil isn't really what Game of Thrones is all about. It has heroes, but it's willing to give them flaws, often quite serious character flaws, something that you don't see often enough in fiction. As for the villains, what it really does to set itself apart is that it doesn't externalize them (White Walkers notwithstanding). I believe George R. R. Martin himself said that what sets 'A Song of Ice and Fire' apart from other fantasy series is that the villains aren't evil Sauron-type figures who only exist as an malevolent force outside the plot. You can see that with the Lannisters, who aren't simply a collective villainous faction. Cersei is evil, Tyrion is good, Twyin is pragmatic and Jaime is maturing and developing into a more honorable figure than he first appeared to be.
Please don't misunderstand me. I never said (or at least I never meant to say) that there weren't any unambiguous characters. My problem is that people are complaining when the "good guys" lose even when they have clearly done something stupid and have simply suffered the consequences.
As for Cersei, I wouldn't call her outright evil. She does truly love her children and her cruel actions are mostly the result of her being paranoid. Add to that the fact that she thinks she's way smarter than she actually is. In her mind she is basically:
while really her political skills are barely better than Hodors.
Kingjackl said:
Take the fight between Oberyn and the Mountain. Yes, Oberyn may have been an arrogant prick, but he was also fighting to avenge a loved one who suffered a horrible fate, which is about as righteous a goal as you can get in revenge stories.
The thing is, he could have won! He had the Mountain on the back, he only needed to quickly finish him off. But nooo, he needed Gregor to confess and to defame the Lannisters. Which is very much the result of his character. George Martin simply shows us that arrogance and obsession with revenge can be pretty terrible for your health.
Removing good and evil isn't really what Game of Thrones is all about. It has heroes, but it's willing to give them flaws, often quite serious character flaws, something that you don't see often enough in fiction. As for the villains, what it really does to set itself apart is that it doesn't externalize them (White Walkers notwithstanding). I believe George R. R. Martin himself said that what sets 'A Song of Ice and Fire' apart from other fantasy series is that the villains aren't evil Sauron-type figures who only exist as an malevolent force outside the plot. You can see that with the Lannisters, who aren't simply a collective villainous faction. Cersei is evil, Tyrion is good, Twyin is pragmatic and Jaime is maturing and developing into a more honorable figure than he first appeared to be.
Please don't misunderstand me. I never said (or at least I never meant to say) that there weren't any unambiguous characters. My problem is that people are complaining when the "good guys" lose even when they have clearly done something stupid and have simply suffered the consequences.
As for Cersei, I wouldn't call her outright evil. She does truly love her children and her cruel actions are mostly the result of her being paranoid. Add to that the fact that she thinks she's way smarter than she actually is. In her mind she is basically:
while really her political skills are barely better than Hodors.
Kingjackl said:
Take the fight between Oberyn and the Mountain. Yes, Oberyn may have been an arrogant prick, but he was also fighting to avenge a loved one who suffered a horrible fate, which is about as righteous a goal as you can get in revenge stories.
The thing is, he could have won! He had the Mountain on the back, he only needed to quickly finish him off. But nooo, he needed Gregor to confess and to defame the Lannisters. Which is very much the result of his character. George Martin simply shows us that arrogance and obsession with revenge can be pretty terrible for your health.
I get where you're coming from, but I'm simply arguing that being the good guy and being an utterly flawed human being are not mutually exclusive. Even in a series as grim as this one, there are characters that we are meant to sympathize with and favour their side of the story. If nothing else, the fact that Oberyn was also fighting for Tyrion, the one character that everybody loves, is only going to raise his status in the eyes of the audience. What's smart about the series isn't that there are no true heroes and villains, it's that the heroes have human motivations and don't get special treatment or plot armour just because the audience likes them. The fact that so many of them die because of it is just showcasing Martin's delightfully nihilistic writing.
It works both ways as well. I don't think Cersei's love for her children negates the fact that she's an evil *****. Evil is as evil does and Cersei's done some pretty horrible things, often driven by her love for her children. That said, most of it comes from her paranoia, her stupidity or her mind-boggling pettiness. The best villains are the ones that have a reason for doing the things they do, and that you can understand where they're coming from even if you don't support it. Truth be told, I don't think Cersei is deep enough as a character for that. Nevertheless, when she, or Ramsay, or Joffrey, or the Mountain, or any of the other despicable people in Westeros pull off a success, I don't think the audience can be blamed for saying that the bad guys won. They can be blamed if they pike out and throw a hissy fit over it like with the Red Wedding, but then they're just missing out on the rest of the fun.
I think part of the issue is that many seem to view the momentary or even season to season (or book to book) rises and falls as the entirety of the narrative. I don't have any more direct knowledge of how it all ends than anyone else does but I have read the books to where they are currently stalled and I feel that, viewed as a whole, there definitely is a feeling that the "good guys" are getting the good and the "bad guys" are getting the bad. The series hasn't even come close to ending yet so I feel it's a little premature to paint things as if the "bad guys" have won.
Does anyone else have a slight problem with people making the series into some kind of good vs evil thing?
I really noticed this after the last episode, with people complaining how once again the "bad guys" have won.
For me the best thing about The Song of Ice and Fire (and by extension the show) is that it's simply about people with their own characters, goals and motivations. People who, just like in reality, suffer as a result of their own actions (as well as misfortune).
Like the fight between Oberyn and The Mountain. Oberyn doesn't die because he was somehow too cool or too good. He dies because he went in with a cocky and arrogant attitude, drank before the fight, tried to get a confession instead of killing his opponent and let his guard down around one of the strongest and most brutal fighters in Westeros. His death was certainly gruesome and gut-wrenching, but it really didn't just come out of the blue.
Same goes for Ned and Robb Stark. They didn't die because they were somehow too noble for that world, but because they made downright suicidal decisions (although I guess they did come as a result of them being too honorable).
But I think that the best example is Tywin. I've often seen him being called "evil", but I don't really view him as such. I would rather say that he's simply amoral - he does unethical things not because he enjoys to, but because it's what he deems as necessary. He wins, because he knows how to play the game of thrones. BUT
that doesn't mean that he doesn't make mistakes. While he's excellent at political games and intrigues, he is an absolutely terrible parent, forming abusive and pathological relations with his children. A fact that comes back at him and puts a crossobow belt in his guts.
Anyway, what do you guys think? By the way, English isn't my first language, so I welcome any corrections regarding my grammar, spelling or punctuation ^^
my problem is that the people who do this the most are the fans. Just look at the comments Martin and his fans make. "Eddard stark died because he was too commited to his honor." "Rob died because he allowed his sense of justice to cloud his decisions." "Rhaegar fought nobly. Rhaegar fought honorably. Rhaegar died." I love a story with grey morality. I just can't stand how people say that these characters died BECAUSE of their honor or love. As if these things are human faults that weaken us. His fans really seem to revel in his nihilism. As I've said before, though, this intellectually dishonest. He's attempted to deconstruct the idea of the noble knight, but the problem is that he's gone too far the other way. I haven't seen such a warped world view since Ayn Rand left Eddie to die in the dessert.
It really gets my goat when people say the bad guys win in GoT, partially because the series isn't over yet so there isn't a true winner, partially because I dont believe that there are any simply good or bad people (except maybe the Mountain?), but also because being "bad" doesnt give you any more protection than being good.
In another thread I noted that, of all the "bad guys" introduced in the first season, only one is:
1.Still Alive
2. Not made good or at least sympathetic
3. Not suffering a massive personal tragedy
Tywin Lannister.
All the other "villains" are either new arrivals or fail one of the above criteria, mostly the first one (I even had a detailed list of the ways in which the "bad guys" met gruesome ends).
So saying that the bad guys always win is woefully innaccurate.
Just look at the comments Martin and his fans make. "Eddard stark died because he was too commited to his honor." "Rob died because he allowed his sense of justice to cloud his decisions." "Rhaegar fought nobly. Rhaegar fought honorably. Rhaegar died." I love a story with grey morality. I just can't stand how people say that these characters died BECAUSE of their honor or love. As if these things are human faults that weaken us. His fans really seem to revel in his nihilism. As I've said before, though, this intellectually dishonest. He's attempted to deconstruct the idea of the noble knight, but the problem is that he's gone too far the other way. I haven't seen such a warped world view since Ayn Rand left Eddie to die in the dessert.
But that's just how the world of politics works. You don't get very far by being noble and righteous (although it certainly helps if you pretend to be), our own history has seen plenty of backstabbing and atrocities. The Red Wedding was based on real events (the Black Dinner and Glencoe Massacre). Not to mention that in 1918 the bolsheviks have murdered the Romanov family, including the children (just throwing examples out there). The whole "bad guys win by doing evil things" isn't anything new and in fact G.R.R. himself has said: "No matter how much I make up, there?s stuff in history that?s just as bad, or worse."
And I'd just like to add, that just because George Martin depicts it doesn't mean he condones it.
Just look at the comments Martin and his fans make. "Eddard stark died because he was too commited to his honor." "Rob died because he allowed his sense of justice to cloud his decisions." "Rhaegar fought nobly. Rhaegar fought honorably. Rhaegar died." I love a story with grey morality. I just can't stand how people say that these characters died BECAUSE of their honor or love. As if these things are human faults that weaken us. His fans really seem to revel in his nihilism. As I've said before, though, this intellectually dishonest. He's attempted to deconstruct the idea of the noble knight, but the problem is that he's gone too far the other way. I haven't seen such a warped world view since Ayn Rand left Eddie to die in the dessert.
But that's just how the world of politics works. You don't get very far by being noble and righteous (although it certainly helps if you pretend to be), our own history has seen plenty of backstabbing and atrocities. The Red Wedding was based on real events (the Black Dinner and Glencoe Massacre). Not to mention that in 1918 the bolsheviks have murdered the Romanov family, including the children (just throwing examples out there). The whole "bad guys win by doing evil things" isn't anything new and in fact G.R.R. himself has said: "No matter how much I make up, there?s stuff in history that?s just as bad, or worse."
And I'd just like to add, that just because George Martin depicts it doesn't mean he condones it.
You're not necessarily wrong. History is filled with horrible events. My only point is that, while the middle ages, and other time periods, were bad, I feel like Martin is somewhat disingenuous. They were bad at times, but they were rarely as bad as portrays them in his novels. The horrible times in history were typically the rarer moments, which is why they stand out more. I don't really disagree with you in principle, I just don't like it when fans connect weakness with virtue. You can be a good person and still be a brilliant politician. The two aren't mutually exclusive, and I feel like the fans make this mistake then the non fans.
I think there are a few people in GRRM's books who pretty much fill the good/bad thing pretty well. Especially bad guys - the Mountain, the Bastard, some of the Nightswatchmen and Greyjoys... Starks also are usually goodies. Yeah, they die like flies, but they die tragic deaths, like many heroes in many stories do. Sometimes I think GoT fans have never seen a protagonist die before with how shock they always react, it's a bit funny.
What I liked about the books (haven't seen the show) is that it would sometimes allude to the fact that going from where you stand, good and bad can be pretty different things. For example, while Tywin might be ruthless with the nobles and the Mad King even more so, the Mad King's reign was still remembered with fondness by many smallfolk. What do they care what the Mad King is doing in his castle that they'll never enter to people so high above their birth that they wouldn't dare look at them in the streets? Tywin as the Hand ruled the lands well for the majority of people living in Westeros. Hell, he might make a pretty decent king. Which doesn't change the fact that he is a terrible father and a ruthless murderer.
Dany spoiler...
And with Dany, yes, of course freeing the slaves is a good thing to do, but from what I remember she pretty much tore down the whole economy of the place without giving any thought to what she would replace it with, to the point that some people wanted to sell themselves back into slavery. I liked that because that seemed like a problem a ruler might actually have to face after such a drastic change.
You're not necessarily wrong. History is filled with horrible events. My only point is that, while the middle ages, and other time periods, were bad, I feel like Martin is somewhat disingenuous. They were bad at times, but they were rarely as bad as portrays them in his novels. The horrible times in history were typically the rarer moments, which is why they stand out more. I don't really disagree with you in principle, I just don't like it when fans connect weakness with virtue. You can be a good person and still be a brilliant politician. The two aren't mutually exclusive, and I feel like the fans make this mistake then the non fans.
While periods of true horror are just a part of human history, periods of time like the war of the Roses which this particular series draws inspiration off of were indeed that bad, and in some cases even worse, the sheer loss of life standing at roughly over 100,000 dead people over what amounted to a challenge to the throne of England by the nobility, and the nobility offing each other in a way very similar to Martin's books. While his writing has supernatural elements, the more mundane elements are pulled pretty much right out of a very small period of time in European history where this kind of shit did happen, with a little flavor thrown in from other periods of European history, Martin's portrayal is bleak, but it is hardly disingenuous.
As for people calling out virtue as weakness, I think that might be you reading too far into many fans interpretations (although I'm sure some do mistakenly think virtue itself is a weakness). What people are talking about when they mention the more "honorable" characters being taken advantage of, is that the more amoral characters tend to use the other character's honorable actions against them. Characters like the Starks don't automatically win just because they did the right (or at least less evil) thing, the more amoral characters are willing to prey on the other characters honor and nobility in order to gain the advantage.
Which is pretty much what happened in the war of the roses, the more honorable nobility were backstabbed, ousted, ex-communicated, or outright killed because the more morally challenged nobility were willing to turn the rules of conduct that the other nobles abide by against them. That doesn't make virtue itself wrong, but it does make their honor and adherence to personal morality a target that can be manipulated, and thus a weakness. Virtue can be a weakness to a person's emotions or physical safety without making the notion of virtue itself weak, those characters still did what they thought was right, but much like in reality, doing what's right doesn't automatically protect you from the machinations of other people.
You're not necessarily wrong. History is filled with horrible events. My only point is that, while the middle ages, and other time periods, were bad, I feel like Martin is somewhat disingenuous. They were bad at times, but they were rarely as bad as portrays them in his novels. The horrible times in history were typically the rarer moments, which is why they stand out more. I don't really disagree with you in principle, I just don't like it when fans connect weakness with virtue. You can be a good person and still be a brilliant politician. The two aren't mutually exclusive, and I feel like the fans make this mistake then the non fans.
But in the history of Westeros this is one of those bad times. I mean, we're talking about an all-out civil war and these are especially nasty affairs. Sure, G. M. could've chosen a more peaceful time, but then the series would've been called "A Song of Pride and Prejudice".
I get where you're coming from, but let's not forget that the series is aimed at mature readers, who understand that the characters are not role models by any stretch of the imagination.
It doesn't matter how many shades of grey you introduce, people will always seek out "good guys" and "bad guys," and they will rationalise their choices.
To be fair, there are clearly characters you are meant to sympathise with and characters you are meant to hate. You are meant to sympathise with Tyrion, who despite whoring and drinking most of his life, has to my knowledge not done anything actually 'bad' so far. Closest is the hellfire at King's Landing and that was directed at Stannis because we don't particularly like Stannis anyway, preserving Tyrion's character in the eyes of the fans. We are meant to hate Joffrey, who has shown to be constantly narcissistic, psychopathic and wantonly cruel at every turn, and with very few exceptions we do. But now we've largely gotten the good/evil dichotomy out of the way and are left with a bunch of flawed characters trying to follow their principles or accomplish their goals in proximity to each other, and I suppose some people haven't taken the transition well.
Anyway, I'm glad of the moral ambiguity with most characters and while I can certainly say who I'd put where, the fact that those judgements differ between fans is a testament to how well the characters are done. At the very least, many of them have backstories that justify their actions, whether you still think they're assholes afterwards or not.
Tywin I don't see as good or evil. He's trying to further his family's legacy and he's very certain in how he does it. He does what he has to to accomplish his goal, honourable or not. Although he's a dick to Tyrion for no good reason, not exactly sure why he continues to do so after having placed all his eggs in a handless basket. Cersei has been explained to me but I still don't sympathise, she's petty and vindictive.
Wow, that was great! Couldn't have said it better myself. And yeah, I would've never guessed you weren't a native speaker
When it comes to Tywin
people seem to begrudge him for the Red Wedding, but he pretty much summed it up himself: "Explain to me why it is more noble to kill ten thousand men in battle than a dozen at dinner." While that's not entirely accurate (seeing as many of the Stark bannermen were also killed) Tywins ruthless scheme may have saved quite a few lives and allowed the realm to start recovering earlier.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
