3141

Nor do I buy the argument that Tywin is somehow the “best” outcome for the realm simply because there is this completely unpredictable external threat that might, were people aware of it, justify his actions. Would Aerys have been a good ruler if it turned out that, contrary to reason, his craziness had some positive benefit (maybe roasting people in fire is a magical way to stop the others). Of course not. Just as with any historical analysis you have to judge actions within their appropriate context. Stability under Lannister rule isn’t really a great outcome for Westeros unless you factor unknowable information into the c

3142

Nor do I buy the argument that Tywin is somehow the “best” outcome for the realm simply because there is this completely unpredictable external threat that might, were people aware of it, justify his actions. Would Aerys have been a good ruler if it turned out that, contrary to reason, his craziness had some positive benefit (maybe roasting people in fire is a magical way to stop the others). Of course not. Just as with any historical analysis you have to judge actions within their appropriate context. Stability under Lannister rule isn’t really a great outcome for Westeros unless you factor unknowable information into the context. Even knowing that Dany is coming, it’s unclear that a strong Westeros under Tywin is a good thing – at that point you probably want Dany to win. Arguably a weak/divided Westeros could be best: Dany sweeps in and takes control with few losses and then helps her long lost nephew Jon take care of those pesky others.

3143

I actually think stability for Westeros is an objectively good thing in the context of the leadership situation and the levels to which the war has gotten. It matters to you, as a reader, whether your favorite characters are doing well. It matters not one bit to the realm if the guy at the top is a lion or a stag or a dragon so long as they aren’t terrible leaders, a point Martin has returned to again and again in the later books as he seeks to integrate the plight of the common man in what is very much a narrative focused on nobility. Remember, Aerys is not dethroned for mismanaging the realm but for personal vendettas among the lords; for all his madness, it was the personal feuding that fueled the revolts, at least a large part of which are rooted in the very uncertain circumstances surrounding the “kidnapping” of Stark’s sister and the object of Robert’s unrequited love by Rhaegar. By all accounts, Rhaegar was everything one could hope for in a successor, so it’s not like the realm was in long term peril from Targaryen rule.

Again, I’m not referring so much to the supernatural component of winter coming but the generalized hardship that looms with the seasonal change, of which everyone is aware. I don’t care if Dany wins or not, to be honest, I’m simply looking at the amount of suffering per book thus far that was mostly avoidable if a little compromise had been on the table early on. My choice would be a Lannister anchored realm, with a quick Renly victory about on par in terms of balancing suffering to leadership outcomes. Obviously I’m speaking in historical terms but within the 4 books so far; the latter has no further play left in it, and the former is almost a non-issue since the huge external factors should be rolling in shortly.

In contrast to the way you frame your argument, I’m perfectly willing to concede that there are different reads on the subject. I offered the explanation of Machiavelli because you were plainly getting the wrong meaning from what you’d thought I’d said, not because I am attempting to “handwave” anything. Naturally, it was foolish of me to expect that you’d take that as anything but an insult. If you want to reject a historical reading of the book, that’s your business, but I think you’re giving short shrift to the caliber of the narrative by dismissing whole reams of carefully nuanced events in one of the principal story arcs because you want to see the Lannisters as the only miraculous beneficiaries of extraordinary good luck.

3144

It doesn’t hold up to your scrutiny with your bias, but it works just fine for me with mine. I was squarely a Stark partisan on my initial reading of the books, but the HBO series and a re-reading changed that.

I understand where you are coming from and why this read seems attractive but IMO it tries way too hard to wrap things up neatly into a nice metaphor. My read of Martin is simply that he is portraying politics in a more realistic fashion where lots of shit goes wrong and making the “right” choice (defined as morally right or amorally right) often isn’t nearly enough. Things are far more chaotic and arbitrary than this read of Tywin makes them out to be. What makes Martin so good is that anytime you think you can peg a character as a certain stereotype (e.g. Machiavellian) you’re probably wrong.

In contrast, I just think your reading makes the series suit your prejudices just as mine does for me, and the two things don’t need to be in conflict. Among other things, you freely conflate personal honor with a broader sense of right and wrong, and I think that’s fundamentally problematic and rooted in reading ASoIaF as if it were a traditional fantasy novel with a little more grit. It’s not, not at its best, and it’s at its best thus far with the events rotating around Lannisters.

3145

Considering Aerys was on the verge of burning King’s Landing to the ground I’m not sure the common folk would have been better off continuing under the rule of the Mad King.

3146

That’s of course taking it as a given that Robert’s Rebellion was a fait accompli, which would not make sense since I am talking about the origins of that revolution. Duskendalemay well have been the turning point of his reign and mean that he was headed for disaster no matter what as a result of his rift with Tywin, but the fact remains that thereasons the Usurper came for him had very little to do with him being a poor steward of the realm and everything to do with personal squabbles over his imaginary damsel in distress and the perceived martyrdom of Starks when they committed outright treason over said imaginary distress. In fact, if Aerys would have had the presence of mind to obey protocol and actually follow through the trial by combat, that might well have been the end of the story right there. That’s my point within the constraints of what I was arguing, not a broad defense of Aerys generally.

3147

I suppose the question ends up being how many noblemen can you boil alive before you unbalance a realm?

I’m not sure ‘personal squabbles’ is the best way to put it when the King demands you to come before him so you can be executed. If we were looking at a repeat of Duskendale, Aerys wouldn’t have rested until the North was in tatters and the Vale torn apart. I’m not sure that’s very useful for stability.

3148

I’m absolutely sure personal squabbles is an accurate way to describe Brandon Stark calling out the crown prince because his sister was kidnapped/ran away with Rhaegar, along with Robert’s soon-to-be psychotic resentment as a spurned suitor (which may well be a product of a legitimate delusion). That is still the prime cause of the revolt, as opposed to a genuine political, economic, or social disagreement wrought by poor governance on a large scale. That’s what I mean when I say it was a coup born of personal vendettas.

3149

I disagree with your interpretations.

3150

If you enjoyed the metal or the violin version of the GoT theme, here’s some more that you might appreciate.

3151

Fine. Clearly the discussion has run its course for the moment.

3152

Brienne is cast: http://hbowatch.com/gwendoline-christie-cast-in-game-of-thrones-s2/

I like the choice:

She’s 6’3".

3153

Whoo!

She got mentioned awhile ago and I’ve been thinking she had the look down perfectly since HBO obviously won’t be going the hardcore GRRM route of how ugly she’s described to be in the books (cause she’s very attractive). Being 6’3" she’ll easily accomplish all that really needs to be done, taller than Jaime, about the same size as Sandor and smaller than Gregor.

Can’t wait until they cast Stannis, Dontos, and Davos.

3154

I’m looking forward to the casting of Dolorous Ed. What is Steven Wright up to nowadays?

3155

I don’t think you’re really reading what I’m saying LK. I don’t mean that as an insult, I just think we’re talking past each other.

Naturally, it was foolish of me to expect that you’d take that as anything but an insult.

I haven’t taken anything you’ve written as an insult.

Among other things, you freely conflate personal honor with a broader sense of right and wrong, and I think that’s fundamentally problematic and rooted in reading ASoIaF as if it were a traditional fantasy novel with a little more grit.

Where have I done anything of the sort?

In prior posts, a few pages back, I talked about how honor is actually, objectively, valuable to some characters even though it is also something that frequently trips characters up. I have never “conflated honor with moral right” and those are just words you’re putting in my mouth.

In fact I’m not even a Stark fanboy. I’m simply not a Lannister fanboy. I think the books are at their best when contrasting the strengths and weaknesses of both families. In this case I think you’re ignoring significant weaknesses of the Lannisters.

My points restated:

  1. The Lannisters being in power has more to do with luck than skill (irregardless of Stark “luck”) and, in at least one case, depended on deus ex machina – a God literally swept down and cleared up a sticky plot point that meant doom for the Lannisters.

  2. Stability is only good for the realm only if you consider the very short term. A consistent theme of the Lannisters is that they’re good at accumulating power but terrible at using it. This is one area where the juxtaposition with “honorable” characters us important: the honorable characters tend to be far better leaders and wielders of power once they have it. Objectively so.

  3. You’re conflating success with the correct/better strategy. I don’t think this is valid. I think a common theme of the books is that the best strategy often loses simply because the world is too complex for anyone to handle all external factors. Who wins is not an indicator of who is morally right (what you seem to think I’m saying) but it is also not an indicator of who was strategically “right”. It really just indicates the path that GRRM wants to take us down.

A good counter-example is Dany. She’s rather far down the “honor” side of the honor/ruthlessness continuum and she often does things that would be seen as fatal mistakes if committed by Starks. There’s not a lot of difference in characterization: GRRM simply goes a lot easier on her handing her three dragon’s and some rather easy outs when the shit hits the fan. Jon is similar.

3156

I think that LK has the right of it, at least insofar as Starks having the truly horrible habit of prioritizing “honor” over actually accomplishing their goals. Upon rereading, Eddard especially becomes a much less sympathetic character.

I think the prime example is his refusal to accept Renly’s offer to seize the children as Robert is dying. At this point, Eddard has told Cercei that he knows about the kids, and her response was not to flee but to threaten him (“When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die.”). And it should have been clear that Cercei at least probably had something to do with Robert’s death (Varis hinted as much). This is not a person to go up against without a well-established power base.

Leaving Littlefinger to deal with Slynt was also a mistake. If Eddard had talked to Slynt personally, he might have been able to suss out the captain’s true intentions. Littlefinger, on the other hand, is a practiced liar, so Eddard has no way to gauge his true loyalties.

The other obvious example is Robb and Jeyne.

Both are examples of the Starks refusing to do something that they find personally distasteful, though relatively harmless in the grand scheme of things, and totally hamstringing themselves (in an obvious and foreseeable way) because of it.

3157

Awesome. =) Also acceptable would be Richard Lewis.

3158

I assumed that accounted for the way you characterize what I say as false or a product of poor judgment rather than simply arising from a different interpretation.

Where have I done anything of the sort?

In prior posts, a few pages back, I talked about how honor is actually, objectively, valuable to some characters even though it is also something that frequently trips characters up. I have never “conflated honor with moral right” and those are just words you’re putting in my mouth.

Which you now go on to qualify further

  1. Stability is only good for the realm only if you consider the very short term. A consistent theme of the Lannisters is that they’re good at accumulating power but terrible at using it. This is one area where the juxtaposition with “honorable” characters us important: the honorable characters tend to be far better leaders and wielders of power once they have it. Objectively so.

I would love to meet these good and honorable leaders, because I’m not sure they exist and hold any significant sway in Westeros proper. Dany may become one, Jaime’s showing hints as far as he goes, and it’s possible that Stannis might come out the other side of whatever the hell is going on with him to be something of the sort, but I haven’t seen many examples of it. In my case, I think an obsession with chivalric honor (Stark) is every bit as important a character defect as being power-hungry or deceptive minus as many practical advantages in strategy, and it just comes off differently because we’ve been trained to perceive it positively in fiction. In any case, if good and honorable did exist, it would be as a result of resolving a tension between the two inclination, not because good arises naturally out of chivalric honor. Chivalric honor is nice for the aristocrats, but in terms of the good of the realm it’s a messy proposition.

That’s what I mean by conflating the two. I think honor is good insofar as it’s used to establish a common diplomatic language and negotiate compromises rather resort to violence. An example of that would be the consistent use of guest privilege for opening talks, or prisoner exchanges (as disgusting as the “kill all his men, spare the lordling” approach is in the overall picture). A counterexample of honor being misused to justify being a fucking idiot would be virtually everything else Starks do as leaders, going back to Brandon picking a fight with the crown prince.

  1. You’re conflating success with the correct/better strategy. I don’t think this is valid. I think a common theme of the books is that the best strategy often loses simply because the world is too complex for anyone to handle all external factors. Who wins is not an indicator of who is morally right (what you seem to think I’m saying) but it is also not an indicator of who was strategically “right”. It really just indicates the path that GRRM wants to take us down.

Ok, well, we have to draw the line of meta-analysis at some point, and this is mine. If you want to arbitrarily separate “path GRRM wants us to go down” from “strategically correct because the strategy ultimately succeeded”, that’s fine. I think at that point you render most discussions of causes and effects moot, so I have to wonder why you’d even contest the issue initially. If you can’t work within the fundamental conceit of the fictional world having its own rules, especially when it is explicitly analogized as a game in the title, I’m not sure there’s anything more to discuss within the logic of the story.

A good counter-example is Dany. She’s rather far down the “honor” side of the honor/ruthlessness continuum and she often does things that would be seen as fatal mistakes if committed by Starks. There’s not a lot of difference in characterization: GRRM simply goes a lot easier on her handing her three dragon’s and some rather easy outs when the shit hits the fan. Jon is similar.

Well, if you want to talk meta, Dany and Jon are both the weakest parts of the narrative for precisely that reason, almost as if they were part of a separate traditional fantasy work which he kept plugging away at because they are vital to his overall arc even if the Westeros politics thing became his most significant context. I think there’s some hope for Jon as Lord Commander viewed through other character’s eyes, but I’m not convinced Dany will ever stop being the representative of Ye Olde Fantasie Warriore Princess. My hope is that Martin has more in store in the collision he’s dropped hints at between the Maester culture and the old ways, but I’m not sure it will ever balance the books’ initial misdeeds on her behalf. I’m not sure Kung Fu: The White Cloaked legend is going to do much to help, either, but he’s certainly garnered fan support.

You seem to want to include Lannisters in that consequence-free environment of pure fantasy, and I think that it simply takes longer for the other shoe to drop for them because they are more strategically proficient or in Cersei’s case starting from a stronger position when they begin fucking up (although I’m pretty sure Joffrey being murdered and Jaime’s hand count for a lot more than you are letting on). Again, because of the narrative flow we instinctively don’t view these acts (in terms of tone) as negative consequences that they couldn’t really plan for, they’re just comeuppance for the “bad” guys or an opportunity to redeem Jaimie or put the less douchey Tommen on the throne. One of the first real Lannister mistakes (other than marginalizing Tyrion) is Cersei rearming the church, and it sure seems like she’s about to reap that whirlwind.

3159

Oh, God! Thank you!

Readers seem to love her and I’ve always thought she was the weakest part of the story. In fact, Dany seems to come from an entirely different set of books.

3160

I’ve always thought though that near the end of SoS a change in personality was foreshadowed. She’s already been slightly more erractic, and I see no reason why Martin isn’t heading towards an increasingly more insane Dany. She may make Mad King Aerys look pleasant.