Debunking the myth there are no "heroes" in "A Song of Ice & Fire"

[Dr. NRG]

I'd be interested to hear of any other characters I might have missed.

Brienne of Tarth is pretty paladiny, if that's a word.


As for "It is pretty easy draw a line on most characters on the book." Okay, why don't you start with Arya Stark and the Hound, Sandor Clegane? Simplistic moralistic charicatures like the majority of fantasy characters? I would argue not. How about "drawing a line" on Jaime Lannister? I'll even make it really simple. Tell me what alignment they'd each be in AD&D terms.

NRG

 

[Justinian]

I've been rereading the series in preparation for A Feast of Crows, and it struck me how Jaime is an illustration of the dangers of talent.

*SPOILERS AHEAD*
He had incredible potential as a knight, to the point where Ser Arthur Dayne himself, IIRC, knighted him for heroism in battle. Even though it was arranged by Cersei, there is no evidence that his promotion to the Kingsguard was considered nepotism, and that he was worth the honor.

Yet he had a fatal flaw throughout his life, and that was his sister. (Although it could be argued that his flaw was narcissism.)

I think the loss of his hand, by drawing a clear line between his perfect past and his maimed future, forced him to change his views of himself. From being naturally skilled to having to work at it, from being beautiful to being disfigured, he was placed in a different caste.

Whether this will change him to a "good" figure remains to be seen.

Jaime Lannister in Book 1? In my opinion, Chaotic Neutral. He is strongly affected by Cersei, however, who I would class as Neutral Evil. This makes his character shift from time to time.

Jaime Lannister in Book 3? I think we are seeing him move towards Lawful Neutral, where I believe his newfound devotion to the Kingsguard, and what it should be, will become the guiding force of his life.

The illustration of LN, to me, is his rescue of Tyrion. He did it not on a whim, like the old Jaime, but because of a newly perceived debt. That connotes Lawful behavior in my mind.

 

[jdavis]

Re: Re: Debunking the myth there are no "heroes" in "A Song of Ice & Fire"

I'd be interested to hear of any other characters I might have missed.

Brienne of Tarth is pretty paladiny, if that's a word.


As for "It is pretty easy draw a line on most characters on the book." Okay, why don't you start with Arya Stark and the Hound, Sandor Clegane? Simplistic moralistic charicatures like the majority of fantasy characters? I would argue not. How about "drawing a line" on Jaime Lannister? I'll even make it really simple. Tell me what alignment they'd each be in AD&D terms.

NRG

I'd be hard pressed to put a alignment on the Hound from chapter to chapter, he changes so may times in the story that Chaotic Neutral would be the only thing that would fit but he has swung as far as Lawful Evil to Chaotic Good. Chaotic Neutral would be as close as you could get. Arya would probably be chaotic good but then again that would only be a vague description. Stannis is a good example of a character that is so deep and changing that you could never fit him into a alignment class (although he would be lawful, he runs the gauntlet between good, neutral or evil) He would consider himself Lawful Good but many of the other characters would see him as Lawful Evil. At the end of book 3 he probably would be Lawful Neutral swing towards good (slowly) but that is just a guess. Jon Snow- Lawful Good but with Chaotic tendancies. Tyrian-......I have no freaking clue, you want to say good but he is a multiple times over murderer, even if many of them had it comming. Jamie would be Lawful-Chaotic-Neutral-Evil with good tendancies toward the end of book 3. Cersei is definatly Chaotic Evil or Neutral Evil, Tywin is Lawful Evil. Dany...I haven't the slightest clue. All the Starks would generally be good of some sort. All this is pretty generalized They just don't fit into alignments very well.

These characters have a depth that is rare in Fantasy books. There is no embodiment of evil, there is no lead hero, as I have already said there is no white hat coyboys and black hat cowboys. They are people making their way through a chaotic world.

 

[Eben]

The way Martin takes on the Hero-theme from modern fantasy is what sets him appart. A hero is not made by his deeds, but by perception. (SPOILER WARNING)

Take Jaime: hailed as the greatest knight in Westeros, until we see him changing and acting more like the archetypical hero.
Take Tyrions rule in Kings landing. He tries to bring justice to the people and is despised.

And finally: the most interesting character in this series: Rhaegar Targaryen. Hated by nearly everybody in Westeros it seems, but as the series progresses, ...

 

[Sagan Darkside]

Re: Re: Debunking the myth there are no "heroes" in "A Song of Ice & Fire"

Okay, why don't you start with Arya Stark and the Hound, Sandor Clegane?

Good for the former. Evil for the latter.

How about "drawing a line" on Jaime Lannister?

Evil- and I have to wonder about anyone who thinks otherwise. Just because one can see into his sick demented head, does not make the creep sympathetic.

Simplistic moralistic charicatures like the majority of fantasy characters? I would argue not.

I already said it once, but since this thread is so long I guess I can not expect someone to read every post- I don't see it as a choice between having good/evil characters versus having complex characters.

Shakespeare's works was filled with characters that proved that true. Life is filled with examples of good/evil people who are complex in their behavior/motives.

That complexity does not make it difficult to draw a line on which side of the good/evil line they sit.

Granted- it may take to the end of their story/life to make that judgement, but since pov characters are so intimate to the readers.. I think matters are pretty clear in this case.

I'll even make it really simple. Tell me what alignment they'd each be in AD&D terms.

And that would make it "really simple" how?

I don't live my life by the AD&D alignment philosophy.

SD

 

[Dr. NRG]

Re: Re: Re: Debunking the myth there are no "heroes" in "A Song of Ice & Fire&quo

Good for the former. Evil for the latter.

___________________


So killing the psychopathic Aerys Targaeryen and NOT taking the throne afterwards was the act of an evil man?

Making a deal with what's arguably a demon to kill your enemies is the act of a good person? Slitting the throat of an unsuspecting guardsman is the act of a good person?

Evil- and I have to wonder about anyone who thinks otherwise. Just because one can see into his sick demented head, does not make the creep sympathetic.

Evil and unsympathetic are two radically different traits. Ever read the Elric of Melnibone series?

I already said it once, but since this thread is so long I guess I can not expect someone to read every post- I don't see it as a choice between having good/evil characters versus having complex characters.

I am responding directly to that post and disagreeing. Perhaps you didn't read my post?

Shakespeare's works was filled with characters that proved that true. Life is filled with examples of good/evil people who are complex in their behavior/motives.

...and that is exactly why Shakespeare is considered a pre-imminent literary genius, and the vast bulk of writers that portray simplistic one-trick-pony characters, in terms of moral behavior, are not.

That complexity does not make it difficult to draw a line on which side of the good/evil line they sit.

Perhaps if you believe in moral absolutism, that's true. I like to maintain the possibility that my own moral judgment may happen to be biased, or even be proven to be incorrect. If you believe that there is, somewhere out there, one correct moral standard against which everything else can be judged, you may naturally disagree.

And that would make it "really simple" how?

By providing us a previously-outlined and presumably shared moral context into which to place the characters; by not asking you to define good and evil, law and chaos; by allowing us to use shortcuts in the conversation rather than reinventing the field of ethics from the ground up.

I don't live my life by the AD&D alignment philosophy.

I don't believe anyone was talking about your life, my life, or the life of any real person. We were talking about placing fictional characters into a simplified moral matrix. I have no interest in how you live your life, but I am interested in the books, their characters, and issues of moral ambiguity.

NRG

 

[Mistwell]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Debunking the myth there are no "heroes" in "A Song of Ice & Fire

If you believe that there is, somewhere out there, one correct moral standard against which everything else can be judged, you may naturally disagree.

Most of the planet believes this to be the case. I happen to believe most people who claim to be relativists actually are not. Otherwise you would have a lot more murder, a lot more rape, a lot more crime in general. Because if those things are not immoral on an absolutist level, then (other than the threat of being caught) what would stop you from engaging in those acts?

 

[Dr. NRG]

I agree with you to an extent, Mistwell.

On the other hand, societies with looser laws and law enforcement often tend to have more behavior that many would term immoral. It's very, very difficult to analyze people's motives accurately, and I would contend that the "not wanting to get caught" aspect of people's motivation is a large factor in determining their behavior.

One example is the prevalence of theft via file sharing. It's arguably no more morally right than shoplifting CDs from a store, but a whole lot more people engage in it. Why?

I don't want to hijack the thread, and really was responding pretty directly to SD, but I do find this topic of interest as well.

To bring it back around to GRRM, Stannis thinks SPOILERS...



that he's doing the "right" thing by sacrificing a child to what he believes is a deity. Can he be judged external to the context of his actions, or is that judgment relative to his situation? Is the action he takes (or more precisely authorizes) universally wrong? Is it universally evil? I believe King Stannis (both of this thread, and of the book) would argue not. Then again, Stannis (of the book) may not be quite as lawful as he appears to be. He did support the usurper Robert Baratheon over the legally correct heir - Viserys Targaryen...

NRG

 

[King_Stannis]

To bring it back around to GRRM, Stannis thinks SPOILERS...



that he's doing the "right" thing by sacrificing a child to what he believes is a deity. Can he be judged external to the context of his actions, or is that judgment relative to his situation? Is the action he takes (or more precisely authorizes) universally wrong? Is it universally evil? I believe King Stannis (both of this thread, and of the book) would argue not. Then again, Stannis (of the book) may not be quite as lawful as he appears to be. He did support the usurper Robert Baratheon over the legally correct heir - Viserys Targaryen...

NRG

I think you have to judge what Stannis contemplates with Edric Storm based on the situation. Here is a guy being told by someone who has not really been wrong in any of her visions that he must assume the throne of Westeros to battle the Other. This boys blood will make him strong enough to do that. Yet despite this, he tries to come up with a compromise (the leeches) that will satisfy R'hollar's overall plan and yet spare the boy. To me, that's the mark of a just man, if not a good man. He's trying to do the most good in the big picture while not sacraficing his honor - and the boy.

Great point about going against Aerys Targaryen. In fact, I was reading that passage last night in book 3. Stannis was talking of loyalty after Axell Florent suggested raiding one of the former lords who was loyal to Stannis and then bent knee to Joff after the attack on King's landing. Davos brought up that this lord really had no choice, he either had to bend knee or die. When Stannis balked at that, Davos threw the fact that he (Stannis) had disobeyed his vows to the Targaryans. Though Axell Florent screamed that Davos was a traitor for even mentioning that fact, Stannis seemed to appreciate the similarity. I think he said that that was the toughest choice he ever had to make - between blood and vows.

I think he chose blood because it was, in his opinion, the just way. Aerys was a madman who had to go for the good of the many.

 

[Olive]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Debunking the myth there are no "heroes" in "A Song of Ice &

Most of the planet believes this to be the case. I happen to believe most people who claim to be relativists actually are not. Otherwise you would have a lot more murder, a lot more rape, a lot more crime in general. Because if those things are not immoral on an absolutist level, then (other than the threat of being caught) what would stop you from engaging in those acts?

because you regard them as personally immoral?