2961

Actually, no. With the Tully family stripped of their lands and power, the lordship of the Riverlands reverts to the seat of Harrenhal, which it was originally before King Harren’s downfall.

Though he has yet to actually visit Harrenhal since it was bestowed to him, that makes Littlefinger the legal Lord of the Riverlands. A nice trick, since he’s now also Lord of the Vale. Not bad for a boy from the Fingers, eh?

2962

No, I have it right. What he’s saying is, “you play by rules that don’t apply in my world.” Which is precisely the mistake every Stark older than Arya does. They know how things really work outside Winterfell but wittingly ignore that information.

We can profess justice, but justice isn’t reality, which is pretty much the opposite of what you said by saying you thought they got what they deserved. Unless you are defining deserved circularly as a means of undermining the notion of justice or morality, saying they “deserved” it is beyond harsh, it’s inaccurate. If you are defining deserved circularly as broader point, then that wasn’t clear to me from your original post.

I admitted my original post was hyperbolic. I also just gave my definition of deserved, so I’ll clarify things the way I see them: The Starks decided to throw down in a game of thrones. To win a game you play by the rules or you make up rules for yourself that are less constraining than those your opponents are bound by (or you refuse to play if that’s an option). If you make up rules that are more constraining than those your opponents are bound by, like the Starks did, then when you inevitably lose you deserve the loss and you deserve negative consequences.

Just to clear the air a bit, I’m not saying Sansa specifically asked to be beaten and therefore deserves it. I’m saying she made selfish and misguided choices and deserved consequences. The consequences suck and feel badly for her, but when you look at who she’s dealing with you know there’s going to be some pretty severe backlash for fucking up.

Let’s take the guy that tried to poison Dany for example. He got dragged from a horse until he died. It’s grim, gruesome, cruel and unusual by modern standards, but within the context of Dothraki society, his crimes met their deserved punishment. He may not even have known what to expect if he got caught, except death and a rather painful one. Contrast that with Sansa, Rob, Cat, or Ned. Any of them might have expected death or even in Sansa case eventually cruelty, but the actually particulars of the negative consequences were extreme even by the standards their society espouses.

I now see your larger point, which is that the Stark’s didn’t deserve the severity of the punishments they received. I can get on board with that, but still, when you look at who they were dealing with it’s not a big stretch to assume the punishment will greatly outsize the crime. I’m not excusing the behavior of the Lannisters or the Freys, but I did suss from the book that the Starks were well aware of how crazy, cruel, and power hungry those two houses were, and that if they fought with them milk and cookies would not be served if they lost. Again, I think they all deserved bad consequences for knowingly getting in way over their heads, but I agree with you that those consequences were incredibly extreme.

Last I checked, Sansa didn’t ask Joffery to have her beaten. It’s not just semantics* and how we judge characters in a story (even if fantasy), is reflective of our own personal outlooks. Yes, that’s the case. It being a fantasy book doesn’t change that. That you think that what happened to them, somehow is a fitting punishment for their pride, is pretty astonishing.

I judge characters in a story by the context of the story. If it’s a history book I apply our standards of reality to them. If it’s a fantasy book, then they’re playing with a completely different set of rules and I view their actions through that lens. I mean, I hate thieves in the real world, but thanks to context they were a pretty lovable bunch in The Lies of Locke Lamora.

By the standards Martin set, and the way he portrayed the Lannisters and the Freys, I do feel the Starks by and large got what they deserved because they were fully aware who they were dealing with and what was at stake.

*And I tried to agree with you, btw, by couching it in terms of responsibility and what happened to them was in part a consequence of their actions. When you continue to assert deserved has a proper meaning in your original post, that’s when it’s reasonable to assume that on some level you actually find their punishments fitting given the context, which like I said is pretty astonishing.

I know for a fact that I don’t judge people’s actions the same way in the real world as I do in a fantasy novel that is ruled by a completely different reality than ours. If you don’t believe that, fine, but you don’t know me at all.

2963

This is probably the best place to post this. So I’m into LEGO, and I’ve been working my way through creating the cast of ASoIaF. I thought people might like to see what I’ve come up with.

Here’s a happy bunch.

I’ve got a bunch more on Flickr.

2964

That is awesome and needs a retail release.

2965

I expect the first round of retail would look something like this:

Winterfell - $120
Featuring Ned, Catelyn, and Bran Stark, Hodor, and Maester Luwin.

The Tourney of the Hand - $60
Featuring King Robert, Queen Cersei, Sansa, Sandor Clegane, and Loras Tyrell

The Sept of Baelor - $40
Featuring King Joffrey, Ned Stark, Ilyn Payne, and Arya Stark

The Crazy Hut - $35
Featuring Daenerys, Khal Drogo, and Mirri Maz Duur

The Sack of King’s Landing - $10
Featuring Gregor Clegane and Elia Martell

2966

Hehe, I don’t think you’re being psychopathic, but I do think you’re getting the wrong end of the stick, so to speak. To me, a huge part of GRRM’s point is that justice is rare and precious, and most of the time people don’t get what they deserve (in either the positive or negative sense). IOW, justice is an ideal that (in GRRM’s view) is rarely realized.

i.e. if people got what they deserved, then Ned would be ruling the kingdom - the people would have gotten a just ruler, and Ned’s honour would have won him the day.

If people got what they deserved, then Gregor Clegane et al would have been arraigned pdq for their evil acts.

On those rare occasions when people do get what they deserve, it’s only after an epic, nightmarish struggle (on the positive side) or after a long, free run of evil (on the negative side).

If you’re saying the Starks got the logical results from their actions in that world, that’s true, but it’s not the same thing as justice (dessert) - that would require, as Mordrak says, that the people meting out the desserts were themselves acting justly.

2967

Ned didn’t deserve the throne. You guys are rooting for the same fairy tale justice that led to all the Stark’s problems. You’re saying there’s this one ideal that never changes, regardless of the context and circumstances. Yet within the context of the game, which the Starks willingly participated in, justice works much differently than you’re describing. By its rules the weak deserve to die or otherwise be rendered irrelevant.

Ned played the game by trying to change the rules, making them more restrictive. He failed miserably, just as the greatest boxer on earth playing by boxing rules would get his ass kicked by a fully armed ninja assassin who wasn’t.

I guess it goes back to that Wire quote. Like you, I wish it was one way. I wish the game didn’t exist, and that Westeros operated under the Stark justice system, and that Ned was king. I was really rooting for him. But it’s the other way, and a different justice system applies, and people who knowingly participate in that system end up getting what they deserve within that context one way or another. This doesn’t mean I think it’s awesome and shout “justice is served!” every time Sansa gets beaten. I feel terrible for her, and despise Joffrey for what he does, but understand that within the structure of the game and from the viewpoint of its players, that really is justice. Heck, it would practically count as just punishment within the context of Stark justice, considering she committed the cardinal sin of turning her back on her family for personal gain.

2968

Is GRRM really a moral relativist? He’s often described as that, but I don’t think he actually is.

I think he holds to the same ideal of justice as most people do, he’s just describing in detail how, that, and why it so very seldom seems to be realized (in his fantasy world, and by extension in our real world).

The mechanisms that drive things in GRRM’s fantasy books are not properly called “justice”, or alternative forms of “justice” - they’re greed, envy, stupidity, lust, fear, machiavellian rationality, cowardice, etc., etc. That’s precisely the point: the few characters who are largely driven by a sense of justice (the Starks, Brienne, etc.) don’t have a very good time of it, because those other driving forces are stronger.

But they’re not alternative kinds of “justice”, that kind of moral relativism would just make a nonsense of the books. There are definitely good guys and bad guys in GRRM’s books, it’s just that the good guys don’t have as easy a time of it as in most fantasy, and the bad guys usually are able to indulge their evil for a long, long time.

What sometimes looks a bit like moral relativism is the fact that his good characters set into train unforeseen consequences that are bad, and sometimes the bad guys do the same in the opposite sense (do bad things that lead to good things). And sometimes an action has mixed good and bad consequences, even if predominantly good (e.g. freeing the slaves, which is good, but has some side consequences that are bad). And sometimes good guys come to blows both believing what they are doing is good (the essence of tragedy in the classical sense). This is what makes his fantasy richer than the normal, twee stuff.

But in all this, there’s never any doubt as to what types of things are properly called “good”, and what types of things are properly called “bad” - the idea of justice itself, the definition of good or just acts (for GRRM as for most of us) is not relative, it’s absolute (or relatively absolute - relative to our nature as human beings, what’s “good for human flourishing”, in a broad sense :) ).

2969

Edit: Fuck, I don’t want to drag this out much further so I’ll just leave this summary.

If you can get on board with that, then I don’t see you continue to be so apologetic for what happens to them by continuing to define it as justice (hence deserved) by conflating different viewpoints. Your whole, “What did they expect? Milk and cookies?” routine is a strawman.

2970

Thanks!

I recalled Jaime dressing down the Frey lordling with a statement about ‘You only get Riverrun.’

So, back to my original point - the two lords who conspired to bring down the King in the North got:

Bolton - The entirety of the North to swear fealty to him and Arya Stark to cement the deal for the future.

Frey - Gets one of his sons appointed lord of Riverrun, which has lost all of the Riverlands as subjects. Emnity and scorn of the Realm.

Frey got screwed for what he provided.

2971

There’s definitely some irrational judgment of the Starks going on. Sure neither Ned nor Robb are perfect but they’re demises are tragedies, not just desserts. Both are bad asses 90%+ of the the time that slip up at just the wrong times.

Ned, for example, gets dragged into a world that has been going rotten for 20 years. He’s not terribly prepared for that but it’s hardly his fault. When he was last in the south his brand of honor was exactly what Westeros needed. And it’s pretty clear that GRRM supports this interpretation: the Stag kills the dire wolf after all.

Robb is fucking awesome except for 15m of being a horny 16 year old and there’s no real sense on which he deserves his fate.

It’s natural I suppose to hold Ned and Robb to higher standards than other characters. They look like the heroes of the story. But characters fuck up all the time. Westeros is just a very brutal place, particularly to the Starks. Does Tywin deserve to get shot by Tyrion? Probably. But not because he played the game poorly.

2972

Some fixing required.

2973

I don’t care at all about author intent.

The mechanisms that drive things in GRRM’s fantasy books are not properly called “justice”, or alternative forms of “justice” - they’re greed, envy, stupidity, lust, fear, machiavellian rationality, cowardice, etc., etc. That’s precisely the point: the few characters who are largely driven by a sense of justice (the Starks, Brienne, etc.) don’t have a very good time of it, because those other driving forces are stronger.

But they’re not alternative kinds of “justice”, that kind of moral relativism would just make a nonsense of the books. There are definitely good guys and bad guys in GRRM’s books, it’s just that the good guys don’t have as easy a time of it as in most fantasy, and the bad guys usually are able to indulge their evil for a long, long time.

What sometimes looks a bit like moral relativism is the fact that his good characters set into train unforeseen consequences that are bad, and sometimes the bad guys do the same in the opposite sense (do bad things that lead to good things). And sometimes an action has mixed good and bad consequences, even if predominantly good (e.g. freeing the slaves, which is good, but has some side consequences that are bad). And sometimes good guys come to blows both believing what they are doing is good (the essence of tragedy in the classical sense). This is what makes his fantasy richer than the normal, twee stuff.

But in all this, there’s never any doubt as to what types of things are properly called “good”, and what types of things are properly called “bad” - the idea of justice itself, the definition of good or just acts (for GRRM as for most of us) is not relative, it’s absolute (or relatively absolute - relative to our nature as human beings, what’s “good for human flourishing”, in a broad sense :) ).

“Relatively absolute?” WTF?

I don’t know how else to put this. For me, there’s one moral code the Starks (and most of us, including me) live under, and there’s another moral code that people playing the game in the book live under. In the former it’s about what’s best for the people as a whole. In the latter it’s about what’s best for yourself as an individual/family. Both systems exist in separate bubbles of moral absolutism, even though the moral codes within each system are diametrically opposed.

Ned, Cat, Robb, and Sansa decided to play the game. When they made that decision, their moral code no longer applied. They were living in a different moral universe where their code was their kryptonite. If this new moral universe was imposed on them against their will then I would agree that they didn’t get what they deserved. I feel the same way about peasants in the book, for example, that get screwed over by folks like Gregor Clegane when they have absolutely no say in the matter. Since the Starks willingly entered that world and (by and large) knew what the new rules were and what was at stake, I don’t have the same level of sympathy for them that I do for those peasants. They made a choice, they acted stupidly, they lost, and as far as I’m concerned they deserve what they got in the moral universe they chose to participate in.

2974

It’s easy to get, it’s just kind of eh, philosophically unnecessary and unedifying. (And I say that as a Berlin-style pluralist, if not a moral relativist) YMMV.

2975

It’s not even moral relativism.

2976

No, the people playing the game aren’t following another moral system, they’re just ignoring the moral system that clearly is understood to be moral in that world (just the same as in ours), and putting their personal success, family fortune, the satisfaction of their own wants, etc., etc. above that moral code.

That’s the whole point of the little glimpses of qualms that people have. Haven’t you noticed that the inner dialogue of the baddies is full of little moments where they think “hang on a minute”? Even the worst of them (to whose thoughts we have access) has an inkling of what’s properly called “right”, “just”, “good”, “moral” - but they override or ignore it.

What one might say (on your side of the argument) is this: codes that involve care for kin and close friends are like a nascent form of morality. That’s how human beings started having social habits that developed into morality. And everyone understands that villains can have that kind of affection. (Even Hitler loved his dogs, there’s “honour among thieves”, etc., etc.) But such codes are not yet morality, or alternative systems of morality. The point of morality is that it be universal, that the “circle of affections” embrace all beings who are capable of the reciprocity upon which a moral code depends.

IOW, the Lannisters, in putting the fortune of the Lannisters first, are following something that’s a bit like a moral code, but because it lacks the universalism, it’s not a moral code, and doesn’t supersede morality - even in the world of the “game”. The game itself is wicked, and understood by nearly everyone to be so, and a source of suffering for everybody. But of course the Lannisters, and all the other baddies ignore that.

What they are not doing is calling evil good, or saying “it’s good because I say it is”, or anything like that. They are saying (in response to their qualms) “what I’m doing is bad but I don’t care because I want X”.

Later note: what GRRM seems to be really against is the fantasy idea that good will somehow magically always win over bad - that idea, and the cliches that accompany it, is the idea that reigns in fantasy fiction, and that’s the genre tradition the series is breaking away from.

2977

Yay they did a good job with the dragons!

2978

Yep, they were all right. I’m not exactly disappointed she didn’t emerge suckling 'em, 'cause that would’ve been a pretty weird visual.

2979

I thought she was at first, with the way she was cradling the one.

2980

Wife called the hatching 10 minutes before it happened. She loved the ending. Pulled her back from the cliff edge of Ned’s death to solidly back on the fan side of things.

Liked the Jon segments and especially Mormont and the ride out the tunnel.

Jaime and Catelyn paid off again.

Arya and Yoren were top notch as well.

The Pycelle scene was useless except to show that girls breasts again. Varys and Littlefinger were great.

Psycho Joffrey hopefully put to rest the apologists!

Next Spring is too far away :(