6.1 KiB
Are the characters in A Song of Ice and Fire irrational?
-
Author: u/None *
-
URL:
-
Score: 0
-
Created: 2018-05-22T07:44:09
Post:
[removed]
Comments:
u/Oaden [+11] (37 minutes later)
The characters in A song of ice and fire all act according to flawed human interests. one of the strengths of the book is that every characters is a flawed protagonist of their own story.
That doesn't mean ASOIAF is actually irrational. Rational fiction allows characters to act according to emotion, it doesn't require everyone to go full Spock.
u/Silver_Swift [+3] (an hour later)
To add to this: I suspect what bugs you (/u/M_D_Adil_Khan) about the examples you give isn't that the characters do dumb things, but that the story doesn't give you enough of a reason to believe that real people could have made those mistakes.
One of the biggest strengths of HPMOR and, I think, one of the reason this genre came into existence is its ability to have the reader cheering for Harry as he is solving some problem only to be explained in excruciating detail afterwards why that particular solution was a dumb-ass thing to do.
u/None [+1] (45 minutes later)
Yes, but many times, people chose their emotional or idealogical interests over what's logical, often taking choices that have little positive effects but tons of negative consequences.
u/Silver_Swift [+1] (3 hours later)
often taking choices that have little positive effects but tons of negative consequences
People do dumb, shortsighted things all the time. Characters doing dumb stuff does not, by itself, make a story not rational.
u/Nimelennar [+1] (5 hours later)
A lot of the characters' decisions make sense when you know where those decisions are coming from.
For instance, honour makes a lot of sense when you're in a large power imbalance: think of it as an iterated prisoner's dilemma. A Lord gets very little by defecting (acting dishonorably), but doesn't risk much by doing so (see: most of the mad Targaryens). A vassal can get a lot by defecting, but risks getting crushed entirely (see: House Marmont, House Rayne). And if both sides defect, you get full-scale rebellion, and everybody loses (see: Robert's Rebellion, The War of Five Kings). Now, consider that defection in one round raises the risk of the other side defecting in the next round, and it should be clear why people are hesitant to act dishonorably.
Now, take the Starks, who have spent their lives living in that paradigm, and transport them to King's Landing, where betrayal is less risky and more rewarding, and make it clear to everyone that they're never going to defect, and they're going to be thoroughly outclassed by everyone else playing the game of thrones. Which is why Ned didn't want to go in the first place.
In the books, at least, Robb married Jeyne Westerling for honour's sake, which explains that choice as well. They were expecting a reprisal from Walder Frey, but it never occurred to them that it might happen while guests in his home (because the gods wreak terrible vengeance upon those who kill guests).
Dany was in a no-win scenario as soon as she decided to set up in Meereen. Flying away on Drogon might not have been the best choice, but I can't see many better ones.
Tyrion has been in a mutual-hate relationship with his father since the day that he was born and, at the same time, trying to prove that he is worthy to become Lord of Casterly Rock. Every achievement he accomplishes is spit upon, and every finger he has to step upon for those achievements makes him more universally loathed. Small wonder he has become cynical and sarcastic.
Cersei has been living her life waiting for three prophecies to come true: that each of her children will be crowned and die early, tragic deaths; that another queen, younger and more beautiful, will take the throne from her; and that she will die with the hands of the valonqar (little brother) around her throat. Is it any wonder that she's protective of her children, and hostile to Tyrion, Sansa, and Margaery, to the exclusion of all other character traits?
Catelyn's choice was explained pretty clearly: she thought the death of Jaime would also be the death of Sansa and Arya, and the whole camp was spoiling to kill the Kingslayer. She could let him free, or watch him die, and her daughters with him.
Balon... Yeah, he was stupid. One rebellion cost him two sons and a third as hostage; trying again, even in a time of turmoil... Even if it worked, it would only last for as long as it took for the Seven Kingdoms to sort themselves out again and come back to crush them in force. His only real chance was to ally with the North, and that bridge was burnt when Theon came back to him having forgotten what it meant to be Ironborn.
As for negative consequences... Harry himself, in HPMOR, points out that people tend to be optimistic beyond what reality would justify. You can't really blame them for a quintessential human failing.
u/TaltosDreamer [+2] (2 hours later)
It bothers me, not that they make flawed choices, but they seem spectacularly unaware of the potential downsides in their choices. The characters tend to take very little action that might mitigate the side effects.
It is like all the idealism that can be used to create interesting characters, but little to none of the self preservation instinct that keeps such people alive in the real world.
GoT still manages to make interesting characters. It is just tough to maintain suspension of disbelief on some of their more boneheaded decisions.
u/ArisKatsaris [+1] Sidebar Contender (4 hours later)
and if so, would the story be improved if they were all rational?
Obviously, clearly, blatantly not.
Also there's no meaningful binary distinction between a 'rational' and an 'irrational' character in the first place. An individual decision can be called rational or irrational, a character as a whole may not, unless they're an AI or something that make every decision rationally.