As the book develops they are not classic villains. That’s kind of a core point of GOT. Smart people get killed, stupid people get killed, just random shit gets you killed and (so far) the author has been willing to sacrifice popular characters.
In all the appreciation of the TV series one point that’s sort of hanging out there for the future is that the author’s last two books in the GOT series have been pretty feeble compared to the initial books. The last one especially has relatively little foward action and MASSIVE padding. It’s pretty obvious to me the author is fairly tired of the narrative, but the fans have been demanding (literally) more books.
The actual written series is kind of mired down at this point unless the author decides to fully get back in the saddle.
I’ll never understand why the readers blame Jamie for Killing Aerys. I get why the Westerosi do, but wasn’t it obviously the only smart and merciful answer? He was planning to burn how many people? Including Jamie himself? He was an evil, insane, vicious creature, barely human, and wielding immense power. Can you honestly say that in those circumstances you would choose to stand back and hope that the incoming force succeeded while you burned to death? Ridiculous! I don’t like Jamie, and I’m sorry to see Brienne smitten by him. But that particular act was, IMO his redeeming moment.
Likewise Roose Bolton. He has the evil tendency that runs in their family, but he drains himself with leeches to keep the evil at bay. He thinks that if his bastard son would do the same, he could be an effective leader. His primary goal is a calm quiet peaceful land. I do think we’ll fidn out that he’s practicing evil in private, and if so he’s lower than fleas feces. But fromt he information we have now, he’s a man leading well and doing what is necessary to stifle his evil urges.
I would argue that Ned’s fatal flaw is mercy. He throws pearls before swine. He couldn’t bring himself to ruin Robert’s last moments by telling him the truth, and he couldn’t just deal with Cersei for fear of Robert harming the children. Those were his two fatal decisions.
Northerners know that if you raise a Direwolf with kindness from birth it will be your best friend.
Southerners know that keeping a rattlesnake comfortable and safe is not going to stop it from biting you.
I don’t think the readers are ever supposed to hate Jamie for killing Aerys, frankly to me that seemed hypocritical from the start. Jamie does throw Bran out of a window very very early in the first book though and it’s hard not to hate him after that. BTW i always assumed the “wolves” the smallfolk were scared off were Karstarks, Boltons and Freys outside the control of Robb.
The wolf is specifically the sigil of House Stark though, not of the Karstarks (white sun) ; Boltons (flayed man) or the Freys (their bloody bridge).
And yes, the Kingslayer moniker is obviously hypocritical since, well, none of the lot would be there if the Mad King hadn’t been got ; but then again I don’t think they continually brand him as such unironically. They don’t really resent him betraying his oath per se, I think the idea is to always remind him that he’ll go down in the Histories as the guy who killed a king… at the 11th hour. Which is the part that really sticks in their craws - in Ned’s at least.
ETA To clarify: because he could have killed the king a long ass time prior.
He leeches to keep the weakness out, not the badness. He rapes for fun, but he’s aware that he needs to keep it hidden. He is disappointed in his bastard not for the torture and rape, but for letting outsiders become aware of it.
I find it interesting that so many people consider Stannis to be one of the possibilities for King. Stannis is increasingly controlled by Melisandre. Would any of us like to see Westeros run by her? Does she ever have anyone’s best interests in mind?
Melisandre has been pretty consistent in her desire to want to save the world from the others. She truly thinks Stannis is the worlds savior and is willing to do anything in her considerable power to help him. Him becoming king was always just a mean to a goal, not the goal itself.
This. GRRM made it a point to make his characters full bodied and well rounded grey people. There is no black and white, this guy is bad and that guy is good. (With a few notable exceptions. I’m certainly not arguing that the Bastard of Bolton has much in the way of good points.) As has been said, by now even Jaime and Cersei have been shown to be realistic people who are motivated to do the (horrible in some cases) things that they do out of love.
To answer the OP directly, I think that the reason the Starks are viewed as the “heroes” is that they are made the main “character”, the main house, through the POV chapters. Ned, Catelyn, Bran, Arya, Sansa and even Jon Snow all get POV chapters in the first book, as opposed to . . . Tyrion. It’s not until Storm of Swords that Jaime gets a POV chapter, and Cersei doesn’t get hers until A Feast for Crows. We’re bred to side with the main characters, and we’re shown the Starks from and insider’s perspective far more often than the Lannisters. That make the Starks seem like “Us” and the Lannisters, “Them.”
I never read the Lannisters as evil. Not pleasant people, but not evil. Tywin was a good if firm Lord and a very capable hand, it’s stated that peace and prosperity characterized his term as hand. The Lannisters are willing tobdo what they deem necessary to win the war and frankly, I would rather have them than the well meaning but cluless Starks in charge.
I get tired of this. I like the series, but there are clearly good guys and bad guys. It’s rarely black and white, but there are very dark shades of grey and very light shades of grey. Martin does a terrific job of not creating caricatures, but I think many of the fans really need to read other fiction beside fantasy if they think this is such a novel way to write characters. And sometimes the TV writing even does it better, like Cersei:
The fanboys really need to stop treating these ideas as groundbreaking. Don’t get me wrong, the depth of character is great, but it’s really not that groundbreaking.
And he did a great job of making some of the “bad guys” empathetic. But the good & bad guys are still pretty clear.
She might be the character who is doing the most “rug pulling” from under us. She seems to be written as evil (mostly). But the further the series goes, the clearer it seems that her main goal is to defeat the the threat from the north, a threat that, so far, is pretty clearly unequivocally evil. If GRRM really wants to pull the rug out from under us, make the zombies sympathetic.
I’d love to see this, but I think it’s unlikely - given the recent outbreaks of zombie-ism in Florida and Maryland, I don’t think the public is in any mood to empathize with the flesh-eating monsters.
I quite like this, and I think it’s exactly right. Well put.
I don’t think Cersei is better written in the TV series - most of her dialogue is the same, isn’t it ?
Rather, when we watch the show we are impartial third person observers, we can take in the emotions, tones of voice, body languages, facial expressions etc… of every character impartially. Describing all of this nonverbal communication in written form is naturally very difficult in and of itself ; but harder still for GRRM because he writes successively from POV characters, what they see, what they notice, what they understand, what they think (and the way they think it). Not impartial at all - they’re all unreliable narrators, these POVs.
He mitigates this by switching viewpoints and giving “brain time” to multiple, opposite sides and giving each of them an individual voice - the only problem is that he doesn’t give equal representation. Like **tadnoornamental **says, there are no Cersei chapters for… well, for all of the story that’s been on TV so far. it’s a long way into the books that we have a POV chapter from Cersei. But by then, it’s a little too late for us not to have already picked “our side”.
Maybe if there had been as many Cersei chapters as Sansa chapters, and they’d been less dreadfully boring ;), the notion that “all sides are equally worthy, and equally unworthy, it’s all shades of grey and they’re all just as terrible as each other” would have been more marked.
Really, what’s this got to do with whether or not the Lannisters are villains? We have some excellent example of Lannister behavior that points to them being rather dastardly. Jaimie attempts to murder a little boy, Cersei is so paranoid that she attempts to destroy multiple people including her daughter-in-law, Tywin colludes with the Frey’s to give us the Red Wedding, has his son’s wife gang raped to teach him a lesson (nobody could love a freak like you) and to top it all off he was a hypocrite who denounced his son for whoring it up but ending up in bed with one of his son’s whores.
Granted these aren’t one dimensional characters. Cersei resents how being a woman limits her political options and she is genuinely afraid for her children. Jaimie tried to murder Bran to protect Cersei from her husband’s wrath. Tywin and Cersei both hate Tyrion because they blame him for his mother’s death. A little depth doesn’t absolve them of their villain status though.
Boy, I thought I had a primitive setup–just got a thin-screen HD-capable TV set in time for Season 2 of GoT! And it’s not one of those really big screens, either.
But all this talk of black, white & shades of gray makes me feel much better. At least I had color TV for Season 1…
I agree with the OP. The Starks would drown in political bullshit if they had the Iron Throne. They’d mean well, but that doesn’t help you when you aren’t willing to use those nasty wolf teeth in morally ambiguous situations.
The Lannisters know money management, military management and political management. Joffrey and Cersei are the anomalies. I’ve only read wiki stuff about Tommen, but the articles indicate that if he had the chance to be guided by Tywin or Tyrion he could be a decent ruler.
There are very few good guy and very few bad guys in the series
The Starks (generaly) have honor simply for honor’s sake, and it got both Robb and Ned killed. They never say they are doing anything because it is “Good”, but simply because “Honor demands it”
The Lannisters - they are paying the price for Tywin’s pride. Actually the whole realm is. Go back to the tourney at Harrenhall in the year of the False Spring. That was when Tywin left his role as Aerys Hand, and it set all sorts of things in motion…(most of which is playing out now in tragic fashion) and why did Tywin leave??? Because Aerys made a joke at his expense, and then spurned Cersei as a match for Rheygar.
The true heroes of the story are the people suffering for the common man of the seven kingdoms.
Tyrion - trying his best to rule wisely, even when it gets his nose cut off, and accussed of murder. He knew who poisined the wine at the wedding, but he knew if he revealed it, it would break the alliance between the Lannisters and the Tyrells. He knew the realm needs that alliance.
The Stark kids - Branknows he needs to learn about magic however much pain it is bringing in the short term. Same with Arya in the house of Black and White, and Sansa in the Vale. They are learning to do the right things later.
But the most heroic character so far???
VARYS!
Eveythign he has done has been for the realm. Kings and queens may come and go, he is in it simply to see the realm survive.
I think the issue is villain. Very often heroes are the ones who will follow morals above success; they are not the most effective ones but the most moral. Would the Lannisters be effective leaders? yes, they would keep the people absolutely terrified to break the law. They would ruthlessly crush all opposition. That is because they have the will to do what others will not. While this would make them effective leaders it would not make them heroic leaders. They would be tyrants. The Starks are stuck from the king Arthur mold: might does not make right. To the Lannisters Might makes right; I am powerful so do what I say. The hero is seldom the one who prefers to be feared than loved. We see in the way the Starks treat their Bannermen they strive to be fair, kind, and prefer to be loved than feared. Lannisters will do anything to strike fear into other before they become a threat. They want their name feared. Now if you consider tyrannizing the weak heroic that would be different. But I feel this all comes down to this one question: are they being effective or being good? The Lannisters are not good but they are very effective. The heroes are usually reactive and bound by laws and morality; the villain is usually proactive and strive to be effective. just my spin on this…
