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

[Sagan Darkside]

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

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

Lets see if the forum can handle this attempt of a reply...

1) A lack of personal ambition is not relevant to the evil nature of a person.

2) As I have said, Good/Evil people are complex- not every individual action betrays who they are philoshically. One act could, but it always needs to be taken into the context of the situation.

I will say that any "lines I draw" at the moment are done with a slight hesitation to wait until the final book is read, but I hold no such reservation when it comes to Jamie.

Evil and unsympathetic are two radically different traits.

They're are different, but not radically different. I hold no sympathy for evil people- they deserve whatever suffering their behavior has brought upon them. Nor do I understand those that do hold sympathy for evil people.

Note- that is not an invitiation for a discussion of why people might give such sympathy. This is not the proper place for such a discussion.

...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.

Err.. and? My point was that one did not have to decide between labelling someone as Good/Evil versus labelling them as complex. I apologize for this matter becoming so complicated.

Perhaps if you believe in moral absolutism, that's true.

I do believe in moral absolutism.

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.

We can look at the general forum to see the huge disagreements on the nature of d&d alignments. Even trying to make such a label could started a dreaded alignment debate.

However, you do make a good point. But...

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.

.. my views on morality don't easily fit into the context of the d&d alignments. I also think something can be loss in such a forced translation. I am better able to serve a discussion on the book using my own moral standards.

For example- I don't completely agree with King Stannis's interpretation of the character Stannis, but I enjoy/respect his thoughts on the matter. While he may be able to shoehorn his views into the d&d model, I think it would not serve his opinion. (Though, it is ironic, the d&d context does fit my view of that character.)

Have a good evening
SD

 

[jdavis]

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.

AH HA, so in this is Martin closer to Shakespeare than to the other thousands of fantasy writers past and present? EDIT . The point is that Martin's characters have a depth that most Fantasy Book Characters do not. Just how deep was Aragorn or Gandalf, was there any question that Frodo was going to be the hero? Was there any question that Sauron was evil? How many fantasy books out there have characters that are as hard to put a label on as Stannis or Jamie, I mean we really don't know if they will turn out to be hero's or villians by the end of the book, for that matter Tryion the dwarf is about the most evil, self centered Hero I have ever read about, but he definatly is trying to be on the good side. Very few of the characters in this book would ever be considered role models. Most fantasy books have characters that you can tell from page one who will be the good guys and the bad guys. EDIT , it's comparing this book to other fantasy books and comparing the depth of these characters to the depth of other characters from other fantasy books. It's all about people not thinking there are heroes in this book because they are not used to seeing these types of heroes in most fantasy books. EDIT If these characters were in the real world 99% of them would be in prison for murder.

EDITED:removed my big mouth from post, sorry I'm a ass.

 

[Sagan Darkside]

The point is that Martin's characters have a depth that most FANTASY BOOK CHARACTERS do not.

Yes, that is a point you seem to be obsessed in pounding into the ground.

I don't know why- I have yet to agree/disagree with it.

I kept saying (before I just gave up talking to you)- A character can be good/evil and complex.

You keep saying- other fantasy books aren't like that.

Congratulations. We both won by ignoring what the other person was trying to say.

I am going back to giving up - you can keep AH HA'ng if you please.

SD

 

[jdavis]

Yes, that is a point you seem to be obsessed in pounding into the ground.

I don't know why- I have yet to agree/disagree with it.

I kept saying (before I just gave up talking to you)- A character can be good/evil and complex.

You keep saying- other fantasy books aren't like that.

Congratulations. We both won by ignoring what the other person was trying to say.

I am going back to giving up - you can keep AH HA'ng if you please.

SD

my apologies for bringing anger into the thread, it wasn't my intention, it just seems that it was getting out of hand.

 

[LostSoul]

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

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?

!?! There is a reply to this, but it's a political one so I'm going to leave it aside. I'll just say that this statement confounds me and that there are other reasons for "behaving" other than wanting to conform to the absolute morality or fear of getting caught.

 

[jdavis]

A character can be good/evil and complex.

Yes they can but they can also be neither good nor evil and be real complex, or they can be so complex you can't tell. Just because a character is good, does that make him a hero? I would apologise again for getting uppity with the capitalization bit but since you arn't paying attention to me.......... I felt you were saying that they had to be good or evil regardless of how complex they were, and I also felt you were. I brought up the Shakespeare thing because it's pretty rare that anybody compares a sci if/fantasy novel to Shakespeare. Most of the fantasy books I read were pretty cut and dry on who was good and who was bad, even if the characters were complex, most were not all that complex. These characters are hard to catagorize and that is rare in the genre.

 

[Sagan Darkside]

Yes they can but they can also be neither good nor evil and be real complex, or they can be so complex you can't tell.

Agreed and agreed.

I felt you were saying that they had to be good or evil regardless of how complex they were, and I also felt you were.

I apologize for not being clear on the matter. Your argument was apparently suggesting they could not be both- I was responding to that. I did not mean to imply anything other then what I said.

These characters are hard to catagorize and that is rare in the genre.

I would say some are hard to catagorize at this point in the story, but I think most are quiet easy.

But, at least we found some common ground.

King Stannis- I apologize for destroying your thread.

SD

 

[jdavis]

I was afraid of this thread going the way of the alignment threads in general, I overeacted, I wasn't trying to single you out, actually you were not the problem I was looking at at all.

Several of these characters are in so much flux as the story goes it's hard to keep up with if you are supposed to be liking them or hating them. Some are cut and dried (Jon Snow) and some are questionable (The Hound/Arya) and some are just way out in left field (Tyrion). I am sure the longer the book goes the clearer they will get, and I figure some of these characters will move towards the center of the story (Stannis, Davos, Jon Snow are all at the same place now; Tyrion, Arya and Dany are all going to be on the same continent, you know they will end up running across one another). I am very interested to see if the others are the main evil or just a side story (I got a feeling they will be big in later books, and the war in the south will be the sideshow, but that's just a feeling). The only other big villians I see right now are Cersei (no doubt if she is good or evil) and the Frey family (who I'm sure will start dropping like flies). I'm sure some of the lesser bad guys will move into full evil villian mode (well Jamie looks to be movieng the other way but there are several others).Too many times have I pegged a character as evil in these books and turned out that they may not be (half the people in Kings Landing).

 

[Sagan Darkside]

I am very interested to see if the others are the main evil or just a side story (I got a feeling they will be big in later books, and the war in the south will be the sideshow, but that's just a feeling).

I think your feeling is correct. It will be interesting to see how they are going to be able to repel the Others after they have all but wiped each other out.

My theory is the book is centering around magic coming back into the world: The Others, Dany & the dragons, Bran and other events.

GRRM has crafted an excellent set of books that have a lot of threads going through it. So many that I am not sure if a thread is dangling because I have not made a connection or because he just has not gotten back to it.

For example: Arya stumbles upon a conversation while climbing around one of the towers- the nature of the conversation was pretty ominous, but those speaking were never identified.

What I think it comes down to is I need to take notes next time I read the book.

I would agree Tyrion is probably the hardest character to peg. Even though he is a pov character- trying to understand his motivation is difficult at best.

It would not suprise me if he met up with Dany. That would work out well since she is not very tactful. heh. She could use the political edge.

Sansa is my other choice for a hard to peg character. Not because of what has happened to her, but how she ends up in the end is a mystery. I could see her being a major villian/hero/side note. She has the Stark strength, but has finally stopped hiding behind the shadows of her little girl dreams to find it.

Back onto heroes- iirc, one of Dany's visions is about three people riding the dragons. I suspect these will be the three big heroes of the series.

Who will the riders be? Dany is an obvious choice. Jon is another good bet (I also have a side theory that he and Dany are related and will end up married- GRRM hammers the knowledge that the Targaeryen's often married blood.) The third rider is up in the air, but considering his physical limitations- Tyrion may be a good choice.

SD

 

[King_Stannis]

King Stannis- I apologize for destroying your thread.

SD

BAh! No need for apologies - I was enjoying the back and forth between you guys. It livens this place up a bit