Game of Thrones Season 3 (Spoilers)

[Darth Quorthon]

I think it is a testament to how well done the show is that the red wedding has provoked such a strong reaction. I also think it's funny how all I keep hearing about is the red wedding even though the plot got advanced on a lot of other fronts in episode 9.

On a lighter note:


Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[Crown]

Oh, and the reaction by GRRM: Link

Aaaaaand now he has for real;



Oh, and Ron Swanson is a fan;

[Crown]

Good as place as any to post this;

[Vympel]

To all the people I've seen around saying that the good guys in Westeros always lose, or that there are no good guys, or that its all about pragmatism, this article is great:

I have a long-brewing theory that Martin is the world’s most cynical romantic. I’ve never yet read a Martin novel or story that ended in utter despair for any character who hadn’t thoroughly earned it—and I’ve read him extensively, from his 1977 debut novel, Dying Of The Light, to his many short-story collections and the entire Song Of Ice And Fire series. His work has always embraced bleakness, loneliness, and hardship, with tough-minded people muddling through traumas that perpetually threaten to break them. His protagonists rarely get exactly what they want; often, they can consider themselves lucky if they become wise enough to realize they wanted the wrong thing. His characters often make hard, ugly choices to survive, but those choices make them stronger and fiercer, and more capable of protecting themselves from the hatefulness of the predatory worlds they live in.

Martin’s cynical side can be overpowering: Characters who start his stories with naïve faith in honor, loyalty, or love—especially their own one-sided, demanding love, as opposed to a mutual bond—are commonly punished for their beliefs. But his romantic side holds just as steady, with the most steadfast and worthy characters prevailing. As I put it in that Gateways, “For a man whose writing is so often ruthless and uncompromising, he has a hell of a sentimental streak when it comes to questions of injustice, honor, nobility, personal dignity against long odds, and wrongs that need to be righted at any cost.”

I’ve said this over and over when writing about Martin’s work. What he does better than any author I’ve ever encountered—what defines his writing for me—is his masterful skill at exploiting the tension between the desire for justice and the availability of that justice. But that doesn’t mean there is no justice, just that it’s always hard-won and thoroughly earned. Robb and Catelyn’s grotesque ends complicate the search for justice considerably, and move it far into the future. But it doesn’t make the quest impossible. It just means it’ll be that much sweeter and that much more satisfying when it finally arrives.

[fgalkin]

Hell, Robb and Catelyn getting killed IS Justice, so...

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Rogue 9]

Hell, Robb and Catelyn getting killed IS Justice, so...

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

I'm having a hard time thinking of any sense of justice that would encompass their betrayal and brutal murder by their host.

[Gaidin]

Hell, Robb and Catelyn getting killed IS Justice, so...

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

I'm having a hard time thinking of any sense of justice that would encompass their betrayal and brutal murder by their host.

I think the point for Robb and Catelyn is that they're essentially abandoning their posts in the North for Southern politics when there's more important things to deal with in the North, and I think by this point in the story the Night's Watch has alerted the Kingdom to at least the wights. That's their justice. What the Frey's get later is another issue altogether.

[fgalkin]

Hell, Robb and Catelyn getting killed IS Justice, so...

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

I'm having a hard time thinking of any sense of justice that would encompass their betrayal and brutal murder by their host.

The fact that he placed himself outside honor and guest right betrayed his oath of alliance for a piece of ass?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Crown]

Hell, Robb and Catelyn getting killed IS Justice, so...

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

I'm having a hard time thinking of any sense of justice that would encompass their betrayal and brutal murder by their host.

Leave him alone! I too blame the victims of crime for the crime committed against them, don't you?

/sarcasm

[The Yosemite Bear]

Sympathy for the Devil?

yes, and making refrence to mideaval European conflict, and things that have lasted a hundred plus years.

[Scrib]

Hell, Robb and Catelyn getting killed IS Justice, so...

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

I'm having a hard time thinking of any sense of justice that would encompass their betrayal and brutal murder by their host.

The fact that he placed himself outside honor and guest right betrayed his oath of alliance for a piece of ass?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

He didn't place himself out of guest right though. Guest right is universally seen as applying to guests regardless of quarrel, especially after they've eaten bread and salt.

He definitely betrayed his alliance (after using it to achieve his tactical goals) and if you were so inclined for some odd reason you could claim that Frey was within his rights to take revenge.

Was he within his rights to kill guests at his table? Depends on how you feel about guestright really.

[Vympel]

The fact that he placed himself outside honor and guest right betrayed his oath of alliance for a piece of ass?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

??? Robb breaking his oath to marry one of Frey's daughters doesn't place him outside of guest right at all. There's nothing in the books to indicate that guest right somehow doesn't apply if you break your oath.

Was he within his rights to kill guests at his table? Depends on how you feel about guestright really.

There's no question he wasn't within his rights, as far as the laws of Westeros are concerned.

[Scrib]

Was he within his rights to kill guests at his table? Depends on how you feel about guestright really.

There's no question he wasn't within his rights, as far as the laws of Westeros are concerned.

Like you I had ceded that he wasn't free of the obligations of guest right. I wasn't talking about the Westerosi perspective here which is why I considered the feelings of the viewer.

Replace "within his rights as seen by Westerosi" with "justified or excusable from our perspective". But then, how much of it can be our perspective when we're advocating killing people who break marriage alliances? I'm torn on this.

[Crazedwraith]

The fact that he placed himself outside honor and guest right betrayed his oath of alliance for a piece of ass?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

??? Robb breaking his oath to marry one of Frey's daughters doesn't place him outside of guest right at all. There's nothing in the books to indicate that guest right somehow doesn't apply if you break your oath.

Indeed. Quite the opposite, in fact. Consider one of Bran's stories about the Nightfort, the rat king, who invited an enemy and his sons to the nightfort, then on the night murdered the sons and served them in a pie to his enemy (who praised the taste and asked for more)

The old God's turned him into a rat, not for taking revenge on his enemy and serving him his sons in a pie, because a man has a right to revenge but violating guest rgiht.

[Ralin]

I wouldn't say that Robb deserved it, but he did serve the Freys a pretty hefty insult and betrayal, after they'd risked and in many cases lost their lives for him. I don't think this justifies what he did, but it does stop me from seeing Lord Frey as a completely villainous figure, Westerosi concepts of guest right not withstanding.

[gigabytelord]

I'm not going to argue whether or not Rob deserved to be brutally murdered in such a fashion, because I believe that one deserves that, but, and that's a big but, I can see why Lord Frey would be so angry.
Spoiler

By not marrying Frey's daughter, Robb ripped away his chance to be married into the house of a king. Think of it this way. A Frey marrying a stark would be no different from a Tyrell marrying a Baratheon. The marriage serves no other purpose than to give the other house a higher standing and a blood link to the throne.

By breaking his vow, Robb effectively destroyed Walder's, and by extension house Frey's, chance of one day ruling the north and doing so without more bloodshed. And so Walder did what he thought best. Whether it was the right thing or not is irrelevant.

[Gaidin]

I wouldn't say that Robb deserved it, but he did serve the Freys a pretty hefty insult and betrayal, after they'd risked and in many cases lost their lives for him. I don't think this justifies what he did, but it does stop me from seeing Lord Frey as a completely villainous figure, Westerosi concepts of guest right not withstanding.

Exactly what kind of figure does it take to do that at a wedding?

[Ralin]

Exactly what kind of figure does it take to do that at a wedding?

A really pissed off one.

Maybe it's better to say that I find his motives understandable. And that I don't doubt a lot of other lords would have done the same if it weren't for the super sacred ingrained reverence for guest right.

[Gaidin]

Exactly what kind of figure does it take to do that at a wedding?

A really pissed off one.

Maybe it's better to say that I find his motives understandable. And that I don't doubt a lot of other lords would have done the same if it weren't for the super sacred ingrained reverence for guest right.

Look, we can go back and forth all day on motive and it would no doubt be interesting. But regardless of if the motive is there, what the hell kind of person does that at a wedding. Violating guestright is one thing. Violating guestright is a classic scene in books like these. This sort of turned the knob up to eleven.

[The Cooler King]

Anyone who has bothered to follow the series knows that there are still "good guys" and starks. Hell, Jamie Lannister seems to be making a "face-turn" to borrow a pro-wrestling term, and I suspect he'll give people something to root for moving forward.

What they don't seem to grasp is that Westeros is the main character of GoT.

Good point. David Simon often says something similar about The Wire, that Baltimore itself is the main character. That, and there's the fact that the story was strong enough to survive the loss of even major characters. I think the same thing applies to GoT; there's enough going on with enough characters that even major ones (Ned, Robb, Catelyn, and others to come) can come and go, and the story moves forward regardless.

[Scrib]

Exactly what kind of figure does it take to do that at a wedding?

A really pissed off one.

Maybe it's better to say that I find his motives understandable. And that I don't doubt a lot of other lords would have done the same if it weren't for the super sacred ingrained reverence for guest right.

Look, we can go back and forth all day on motive and it would no doubt be interesting. But regardless of if the motive is there, what the hell kind of person does that at a wedding. Violating guestright is one thing. Violating guestright is a classic scene in books like these. This sort of turned the knob up to eleven.

A somewhat practical and angry noble not bound to a very specific rule? These people have all shown that they can be assholes to some degree or the other. I like how a wedding is a sacred event not to be sullied, and not just because of guest right. Please.

[Gaidin]

A somewhat practical and angry noble not bound to a very specific rule? These people have all shown that they can be assholes to some degree or the other. I like how a wedding is a sacred event not to be sullied, and not just because of guest right. Please.

All you've got going for you is that he's not doing it for no reason. Why is him being really pissed off suddenly an excuse when it's not been a good enough one for many other characters through out fictional history.

[The Yosemite Bear]

BTW of query what would the folks in Westeroes think of Dracula's dealing with the traitor nobles when he took the throne back from his brother?, he invited all the families that had supported his brother and the Turks, and gave them poisoned food. than had the ones that tried to flee impaled.

[Scrib]

A somewhat practical and angry noble not bound to a very specific rule? These people have all shown that they can be assholes to some degree or the other. I like how a wedding is a sacred event not to be sullied, and not just because of guest right. Please.

All you've got going for you is that he's not doing it for no reason. Why is him being really pissed off suddenly an excuse when it's not been a good enough one for many other characters through out fictional history.

Fictional history in Westeros? Not sure why I would get into a vague discussion about fiction in general.

And speaking of things you have going for you, your appeal to disgust is amusing is what I'm saying. Why should I give a shit that he killed people at a wedding (!!)in particular? Dat holy bedding right?Would duplicity be acceptable elsewhere.

Why does Frey get to do this? Because that's where he can. His alliance was broken and he cannot strike at Robb directly nor can he just eat it. So in order to ingratiate himself the other faction he comes up with this; a plan that might actually work.

BTW of query what would the folks in Westeroes think of Dracula's dealing with the traitor nobles when he took the throne back from his brother?, he invited all the families that had supported his brother and the Turks, and gave them poisoned food. than had the ones that tried to flee impaled.

There are like four posts above explaining just how they would feel: disgusted. Mostly because he invited them and then killed them. If he had hunted them down and murdered them instead of the customary peace they might have been happier, though how happy any noble in Westeros is with any lord exterminating his enemies completely is an unclear thing. Tywin has gotten away with it with little in the way of negative consequences it seems (he even got a job because of it).

[Gaidin]

And speaking of things you have going for you, your appeal to disgust is amusing is what I'm saying. Why should I give a shit that he killed people at a wedding (!!)in particular? Dat holy bedding right?Would duplicity be acceptable elsewhere.

So you're saying I should be going 'yup, totally normal' when the guy arranges a massacre, whatever the circumstances?

Uh, right. Check your sanity at the entrance?