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

[Sagan Darkside]

Can you refresh my memory?

My memory is not very good, heh. Do you have a page number? I can try to remember to look it up tonight. My gut tells me that Stannis is correct- nobody loves Jamie but his brother. Perhaps his father did... perhaps...

SD

 

[jdavis]

I'm not sure offhand. Did it perhaps involve Tyrion and his bride for a fortnight - I think her name was Tysha?

I think so, but I am not sure, I know there was a lie involved in this and at the end of book three Jamie admitted to the lie to Tyrion, but i do not remember if this was what Jamie was talking about in jail.

 

[RyanL]

I don't know the page number, but it's somewhere in the last third of ACoK. Jaime is the dungeons at Riverrun, and Catelyn goes down to speak with him.

It seems like the answer should be obvious, so it bothers me that I can't figure it out. He might have been referring to Tyrion. Surely Tyrion loves him, but I can't imagine that even Jaime would consider the episode with Tyrion's "bride" to have been a kindness, considering how it ended.

-Ryan

 

[jdavis]

Forgive me for repeating myself- but I don't see him displaying that. I see self-pity and self-loathing. Those are not admirable traits of someone seeking redeem themselves.

Will we see attempts at redemption? Maybe, but I doubt it.

SD

It was some pretty vague things that could of beep interpreted many different ways. THe things that really stood out to me was the way he interacted with Brienne toward the end of the book, that relationship will probably be the key to how Jamie turns out. Obviously he is wrapped in self pitty and loathing by the end of book three, he's a swordsman with no sword hand anymore, and you can say what he did to help Tyrion was just brotherly love or even brotherly guilt but he went well out of his way for Brienne on a couple of occasions when he should of just let it go, she was a enemy.

 

[Mallus]

You are describing cultural relativism, not moral relativism.

Its fair to say that ideas about cultural relativism are an extension of the more general framework suggested by moral relativism

If one views the world through a moral relativists eyes, nobody can be "blamed" for doing evil, because the reason all people do evil is because of their individual perspective of the universe - that in their eyes they were not doing evil because of their family upbringing, the groups they run with, their mental disability, their socio-economic status, etc...

Let me ask you this: Are you absolutely certain that issues like upbringing, socio-economic status, mental health, etc... have no place in the moral calculus? And how do you know this? {which is the crux of my problem with any absolute moral stance}

If it was YOUR kid Jamie killed, you would not seek an excuse for his behavior, but just judge it evil and end the analysis there.

And my reply is... Lets say Sol of Tarsus killed your brother prior to his conversion on the road to Damascus. Would you label him evil? Would you be correct?

People have already mentioned it's not really a question of whether or not specific acts are evil, rather at what point it becomes useful to refer to the whole of a character {or person} as evil. At what point do you dismiss possible redemption?

And now back to the actual topic...
I don't think GRRM has created some moral grey-zone full of semi-and-antiheroes. To my mind all he did was create characters with motivations that were internal to the story. Martin took to time to show why his characters acted {other than the color of their respective hats and robes}, something I've found sorely lacking in fantasy. I may not like everything his heroes do, but I can see why, and that's plenty for me...

 

[jdavis]

I don't think GRRM has created some moral grey-zone full of semi-and-antiheroes. To my mind all he did was create characters with motivations that were internal to the story. Martin took to time to show why his characters acted {other than the color of their respective hats and robes}, something I've found sorely lacking in fantasy. I may not like everything his heroes do, but I can see why, and that's plenty for me...

They are deeper characters than are normally presented, I think that's why there has been problems with people not thinking there were any heroes in the book, they didn't have the white hats on. WHere the gray zone comes in is the fact that even three books in it is hard to tell where some of these characters stand, he still hasn't given enough information on some of them and many of them are changing. Fantasy books have a tendancy to be shallow in character development, there are several notable exceptions but there are just so many of them out there where the characters are cut and dried and laid out in front of you.

 

[Sagan Darkside]

THe things that really stood out to me was the way he interacted with Brienne toward the end of the book, that relationship will probably be the key to how Jamie turns out.

You may be right- I am incapable of argueing against that at the moment. I still need to reread the later books.

My thought at the time was he loathed Brienne, but realized two things: 1) He needed her. 2) A Lannister always pays their debts.

SD

 

[jdavis]

You may be right- I am incapable of argueing against that at the moment. I still need to reread the later books.

My thought at the time was he loathed Brienne, but realized two things: 1) He needed her. 2) A Lannister always pays their debts.

SD

You are right in those two points but he got to the end where it didn't seem like he loathed her all that much anymore, and he did some things that seemed to go beyond "paying a debt". He did feel some kinship with her over her also being labeled a "kingslayer" and that could be the end of it, or it could be a lot more. It was in this that I saw some redemption for Jamie, but it could be just a case of sympathy which he will get over. I still think that he and Cersei will blow up as he is now starting to get the picture that he was being used by her, and she isn't near as interested in him now that he isn't as important a player. In this he could get real evil real quick.

 

[Storminator]

People have already mentioned it's not really a question of whether or not specific acts are evil, rather at what point it becomes useful to refer to the whole of a character {or person} as evil. At what point do you dismiss possible redemption?

<SNIPPED lots of stuf...>

My own feeling here is that when I label someone good or evil, it's a here and now judgement. I don't really care about possible redemption, I care about actual redemption. Jaime, at the end of the third book, hasn't even come close to redeeming himself. He may have started to turn it around (even that's debatable), but he's by no means in the clear.

I would think he hasn't even made it back to that grey area yet.

PS

 

[jdavis]

My own feeling here is that when I label someone good or evil, it's a here and now judgement. I don't really care about possible redemption, I care about actual redemption. Jaime, at the end of the third book, hasn't even come close to redeeming himself. He may have started to turn it around (even that's debatable), but he's by no means in the clear.

I would think he hasn't even made it back to that grey area yet.

PS

I can agree with your assessment but I figure that his story is a long way from over. For whatever the reason he is a very changed character at the end of the third book. There is a path going somewhere here, lets just see where he leads.