What fantasy book have you read that gave you the same 'feel' LotR?

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

In that case, do not speak for pther people liking/disliking other characters.

I can speak for the other people I have discussed this with.

Is there evidence to that in GOT+etc?

Yes, because it's up to the reader to decide what is good or bad. Roose Bolton murdering peasants and then raping their wives puts him in the bad category.

Really?

And if you meant that they are without good, I disagree. Except for Ramsey. That guy is the only one that strikes me as pure evil

Cersei, Gregor, Roose, The Goat, the Bloody murmers etc. As for being pure evil, I never said such a thing. I don't think such a thing exist, but when you do enough bad actions, I believe you can be placed on the evil side.

Sauron has more good in him that a lot of those I listed.

The thing is, every character has his own good, his own ethical code. For some it is some abstract belief (eg: Ned). For others its what benefits their survival. Yet others don't even think in terms of what's good and what's not, but what is realistic and if it's worth doing it (eg: Baelish). This is the beauty of ASOIAF, that it allows for all these moral codes to coexist. You have Jack London's law of club and fang, but you also have Tolkien's gentler perspective, and many others besides.

Every character in every story acts according to their own code. It's very simplistic to think that anyone sets out to be evil. That being said when you keep doing evil actions you are going to be judged as bad.

Does the average person really do that? You may think so from a 21st century perspective, but to be honest, I think that Martin's idea of peasants caring about 1) their lives and 2) their crops/lands/livelihoods/etc is more realistic than peasants really caring who their lord is - so long as that lord treats them ok. In this sense, Martin is more realistic than Tolkien. As for the aristocracy, there are all kinds. Some that are loyal to their lords (that are present in both authors' works) and some that are loyal to themselves (ditto). The difference is that there are less of the latter in LOTR+others, and much more in GOT+others.

This is Martin's greatest failing. He is a pseudo historian and has actually not delved very deeply into what people thought at the time. People have not changed in the last 1000 years. Don't you care about who rules your country? Don't you care about if the laws are just? It's true that primary concerns maybe about self interest, but greater issues matter too. For a medieval audience the two were linked.

Loyalty to the Lord was incredibly important. You only need to read accounts of how people gladly died for their liege Lord. You get those out to further their own interest, but to think this applied to the majority is like thinking that the millions that volunteered to fight in the First World War were not patriotic.

Personally, there are very few I would call absolute villains, and even fewer are cartoon villains.

Because of the whole perspective thing, you get to see the goodness in many initially bad characters, and even if they don't have so much of it, you get to see and understand their thoughts and feelings and their philosophy. If you see it through ther lens, maybe it's not that bad after all, or bad from an abstract objective "good" but not from the "good" of reality.

Being completely evil is something that probably does not exist. When half the villains are worse than Sauron then there is not much good in them. Seeing why someone acts does not excuse their actions. Ramsey raping women or Cersei murdering innocent babies to massage her ego does not get better, because we see her point of view.

Agreed.

Yep.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

This is Martin's greatest failing. He is a pseudo historian and has actually not delved very deeply into what people thought at the time. People have not changed in the last 1000 years. Don't you care about who rules your country? Don't you care about if the laws are just? It's true that primary concerns maybe about self interest, but greater issues matter too. For a medieval audience the two were linked.

Loyalty to the Lord was incredibly important. You only need to read accounts of how people gladly died for their liege Lord. You get those out to further their own interest, but to think this applied to the majority is like thinking that the millions that volunteered to fight in the First World War were not patriotic.

I would suggest your historical viewpoint is a tad naive, particularly in regards to the medieval mind. Peasant uprisings against their "liege lords" were savage and pervasive across the European continent: the rebellions of Wat Tyler and Jack Cade in England, the Jacquerie in France, the Ciompi in Florence, and any number of workers' rebellions in Flanders and Burgundy. Violence and oppression was the the rule against the serfs in the Middle Ages, hence the rise of cities with thousands of workers fleeing manorial farms to escape their masters, who met this flight with repressive work laws and insuffereable taxation on everything from the hearth to salt to the heriot at death.

What any of this has to do with the thought processes of soldiers in WWI is anybody's guess.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I would suggest your historical viewpoint is a tad naive, particularly in regards to the medieval mind. Peasant uprisings against their "liege lords" were savage and pervasive across the European continent: the rebellions of Wat Tyler and Jack Cade in England, the Jacquerie in France, the Ciompi in Florence, and any number of workers' rebellions in Flanders and Burgundy. Violence and oppression was the the rule against the serfs in the Middle Ages, hence the rise of cities with thousands of workers fleeing manorial farms to escape their masters, who met this flight with repressive work laws and insuffereable taxation on everything from the hearth to salt to the heriot at death.

What any of this has to do with the thought processes of soldiers in WWI is anybody's guess.

Peasants rising against oppressive conditions is hardly proof that they did not care or have any loyalty to their Lords. It just shows that they used force and violence when pushed too far. This has nothing to do with peasants wanting to have the rightful rulers in charge or being loyal. I never claimed the peasants were happy to be oppressed. The discussion was about their feelings of loyalty and allegiance to the king or the Lord.



You mention the Tyler revolt, but from the accounts we have, even after they stormed the Tower of London, they showed a great deal of reverence to the king. Richard II was not even a good or popular king, but he stopped the people rioting and they did not kill him when they had him at this mercy.

The comment about World War I is very relevant, because nationalism as it is today was a fairly modern concept which grew in the late 18th century. For a long time the King was the nation. The feelings people had today for their country was similar to what they had towards their leaders.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Peasants rising against oppressive conditions is hardly proof that they did not care or have any loyalty to their Lords. It just shows that they used force and violence when pushed too far. This has nothing to do with peasants wanting to have the rightful rulers in charge or being loyal. I never claimed the peasants were happy to be oppressed. The discussion was about their feelings of loyalty and allegiance to the king or the Lord.

You are projecting a feeling on a whole population that simply was not there. It is a myth. There was continual revolt against the Count of Flanders by the weavers of Ghent, who followed their purse strings and supported the King of England and his endless supply of wool. France itself had no unity under a French King until the English had so exploited and ravaged France in the 14th century that the peasants chose despotism over having their villages burned and their daughters raped. In any case, Henry V's early death had more to do with France's consolidation, and it was more a wily centralization of huge duchies (Brittany and Burgundy were two) by the French monarchy than any sense of "patriotism". Also, the Swiss booted out the emperor and sundry lords quite early on and Bohemia was often a class battleground.

Of course, there was constant revolt among the Irish, Scots and Welsh, who never took kindly to the "liege lords" that were forced on them.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

You mention the Tyler revolt, but from the accounts we have, even after they stormed the Tower of London, they showed a great deal of reverence to the king. Richard II was not even a good or popular king, but he stopped the people rioting and they did not kill him when they had him at this mercy.

And yet it seemed they learned their lesson and did nothing when Henry IV had Richard II strangled a few years later.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

The comment about World War I is very relevant, because nationalism as it is today was a fairly modern concept which grew in the late 18th century. For a long time the King was the nation. The feelings people had today for their country was similar to what they had towards their leaders.

I would suggest the French decapitated that idea in 1789. And a small band of Russian extremists exploded that myth altogether during WWI.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

You are projecting a feeling on a whole population that simply was not there. It is a myth. There was continual revolt against the Count of Flanders by the weavers of Ghent, who followed their purse strings and supported the King of England and his endless supply of wool. France itself had no unity under a French King until the English had so exploited and ravaged France in the 14th century that the peasants chose despotism over having their villages burned and their daughters raped. In any case, Henry V's early death had more to do with France's consolidation, and it was more a wily centralization of huge duchies (Brittany and Burgundy were two) by the French monarchy than any sense of "patriotism". Also, the Swiss booted out the emperor and sundry lords quite early on and Bohemia was often a class battleground.

Of course, there was constant revolt among the Irish, Scots and Welsh, who never took kindly to the "liege lords" that were forced on them.

The nobility fought over many things and often had conflicting loyalties. People were loyal to their Lords and fought under them. Where did I ever say the middle ages had a sense of "patriotism"? I have actually said the opposite. Whilst there was a national identity for certain countries, England being the most notable, there was very little patriotism or nationalism. The loyalty we have today was more often given to individual families.

The defeat of England in France had more to do with the trouble raising taxes and the death of Henry V than any growth of nationalism.

A "Liege Lord" forced on you is not the same as a Lord you believe has been put there. Even back then you needed good PR to invent a reason why you had taken over land. What do you think the Bayeux tapestry was?

And yet it seemed they learned their lesson and did nothing when Henry IV had Richard II strangled a few years later.

A very different situation entirely. A war between two cousins, both the grandsons of a beloved king causes a lot of conflict. Especially when the reigning king is incompetent.

The Magna Carter is but one example of the king being defeated and not being replaced.

I would suggest the French decapitated that idea in 1789. And a small band of Russian extremists exploded that myth altogether during WWI.

This was not during the middle ages and a lot of things had changed. The growth of nationalism (not national identity), the questioning of religion, the growth of the middle classes, urbanisation and the belief in democracy.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

The nobility fought over many things and often had conflicting loyalties. People were loyal to their Lords and fought under them.

A genereralization that does not hold up under scrutiny. The "people" were no more loyal than the ever-shifting nobility. One look at post-Black Death Europe and peasants fleeing manor holdings en masse seeking higher wages and freedom from the rigid tenancy of their feudal overlords would show that. To which "people" and "which "lords" are you referring to, and what time period and place? You hold an idealization that is about as true as saying "all U.S. citizens are and have been loyal to the federal government."

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Where did I ever say the middle ages had a sense of "patriotism"? I have actually said the opposite. Whilst there was a national identity for certain countries, England being the most notable, there was very little patriotism or nationalism. The loyalty we have today was more often given to individual families.

Again, to whom are you referring? Your ever-shifting argument is as confused as it is confusing.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

The defeat of England in France had more to do with the trouble raising taxes and the death of Henry V than any growth of nationalism.

Yes, that was part of my argument. What is yours, exactly?

Originally Posted by cellurdur

A "Liege Lord" forced on you is not the same as a Lord you believe has been put there. Even back then you needed good PR to invent a reason why you had taken over land. What do you think the Bayeux tapestry was?

When, in particular, did peasants think a lord was not forced on them? I am sure the nobility would stress their belief in a god-given right to rule, but I'm not sure their tenants would be on board.

And the Bayeux Tapestry was a wondeful bit of propaganda by Norman adherents of William the Bastard (probably his half-brother Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, but nothing is certain). That it resided in Normandy and not in England leaves some question as to its power as a piece of propaganda, since those subjugated probably never saw it.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

A very different situation entirely. A war between two cousins, both the grandsons of a beloved king causes a lot of conflict. Especially when the reigning king is incompetent.

Edward III and his unpopular mistress were largely ignored the last 20 or so years of his life. Edward did not die beloved.

Originally Posted by cellurdur

The Magna Carter is but one example of the king being defeated and not being replaced.

The "Magna Carter" is a hip hop album. I believe you mean the "Magna Carta".

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

A genereralization that does not hold up under scrutiny. The "people" were no more loyal than the ever-shifting nobility. One look at post-Black Death Europe and peasants fleeing manor holdings en masse seeking higher wages and freedom from the rigid tenancy of their feudal overlords would show that. To which "people" and "which "lords" are you referring to, and what time period and place? You hold an idealization that is about as true as saying "all U.S. citizens are and have been loyal to the federal government."

Yes it's a generalisation, but it would be accurate to say that the majority of citizens have been loyal to the Federal government.

Again, to whom are you referring? Your ever-shifting argument is as confused as it is confusing.

No you brought in words like patriotism, which I actually said did not exist. Instead of nations people were loyal to Houses. This is precisely why bad monarchs were replaced with other members of the family. Just think about the logic today. Can you imagine a situation where the people of Libya fight to remove Khadafi and then place his son in charge? A bad leader would be overthrown, but loyalty to the family remained.

Yes, that was part of my argument. What is yours, exactly?

No I brought up the taxes. You seemed to think that I had mentioned nationalism, even though I had said nationalism as we know really took off in the 18th century.

When, in particular, did peasants think a lord was not forced on them? I am sure the nobility would stress their belief in a god-given right to rule, but I'm not sure their tenants would be on board.

Peasants probably thought their Lords were not forced after long periods of subjugation, decrees from religious figures and brutal suppression. After a few hundred years of a House in charge, in begins to be the norm. People were on board a lot more than you think and that is why it worked.

And the Bayeux Tapestry was a wondeful bit of propaganda by Norman adherents of William the Bastard (probably his half-brother Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, but nothing is certain). That it resided in Normandy and not in England leaves some question as to its power as a piece of propaganda, since those subjugated probably never saw it.

In the case of William the Conqueror he went to great pains to appease the people. He gave several reasons why he had been promised the throne. Only declared himself king after the Witan ratified it, was anointed by English clergy, had the blessing of the pope and married into the English royal family. These are the actions of a man, who wants to establish legitimacy. In the end that was not even enough and he decided to brutally crush the peasants in the North.


As for the Bayeux Tapestry, we don't know where it displayed originally. It's widely agreed that it was made in England and would not surprise me if it was displayed there for some time before being sent to France.

Edward III and his unpopular mistress were largely ignored the last 20 or so years of his life. Edward did not die beloved.

Edward III was not ruling towards the end of his life and a lot of tragedies like the Black Death had befallen , but he was still beloved and remained so. A lot like with King Richard I, it is a fairly modern phenomenon in criticising the two. Both of them remained wildly popular and Edward III was thought as the best king since King Arthur.

The "Magna Carter" is a hip hop album. I believe you mean the "Magna Carta".

Yes mistake, but the point still stands. A very, very bad king was defeated and on his knees. Not only was he a bad king, but he had proven time and time again to be dishonest and untrustworthy. Yet the barons still let him remain king. Can you think of any modern setting where a country removes their leader to put one of their relatives in charge?

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Yes, because it's up to the reader to decide what is good or bad. Roose Bolton murdering peasants and then raping their wives puts him in the bad category.

I disagree. I think that the foundation of what is good is laid out by the author. The reader may agree or disagree with the author and discuss characters' actions as good or bad, but the author still holds the steering wheel when it comes to judging good and bad. By bringing a bit of sympathy he can turn a villain into a tragic hero.

That is why Sauron is evil, period. This is the foundation laid out by Tolkien. But Martin lays out a whole different foundation.

Every character in every story acts according to their own code. It's very simplistic to think that anyone sets out to be evil. That being said when you keep doing evil actions you are going to be judged as bad.

Once again, according to judgement dealt out based on some objective Platonic good. The only problem is - in Martin's world, it doesn't seem to exist much except in naive minds.

Don't you care about who rules your country?

To be honest, no, not really. Especially in the modern political setup. So long as it doesn't affect me in a negative way I don't really care who my country of residence elects as the Prime Minister. To be even more honest, I don't really see much difference between all these parties when it comes to action. But I am quite cynical about politics, so let me not delve there deeper and go off on yet another tangent.

Don't you care about if the laws are just?

Justice is another concept that we tend to take as absolute, but is not that clear-cut in GOT. I always thought that it was unjust to do the King's justice on that crazed man of the Night's Watch at the very beginning of the series. He was telling the truth, and it was real madness born of real fear of real events that caused him to flee from the wall. He didn't intentionally break his vow. And is it just not to be given a second chance in his circumstances?

It's true that primary concerns maybe about self interest, but greater issues matter too. For a medieval audience the two were linked.

I'm not a historian, but I often wonder about how much were the lower classes even aware of the greater issues?

Loyalty to the Lord was incredibly important. You only need to read accounts of how people gladly died for their liege Lord. You get those out to further their own interest, but to think this applied to the majority is like thinking that the millions that volunteered to fight in the First World War were not patriotic.

My main questions would be, why did they die for their liege lord? What made them so unselfishly loyal? I would imagine that in addition to whatever feelings they had for the lord, there is the knowledge of the carnage and rape to follow if in a war their side was overwhelmed.

The WW1 is from the patriotic era, which encouraged widespread ideals which were not present to such great extent before and are still not present in nature. Feelings of unity of a people peaked when the said people were threatened by a common foe. Gratitude to a country I just don't see existing beyond gratitude to the soil of your farm/village.

Being completely evil is something that probably does not exist. When half the villains are worse than Sauron then there is not much good in them. Seeing why someone acts does not excuse their actions. Ramsey raping women or Cersei murdering innocent babies to massage her ego does not get better, because we see her point of view.

For me, it changes everything. If you are told "this guy is evil", he will be evil. But if you are told "this guy did evil deeds because of [insert a personal reason]", he does evil deeds but is not evil in my eyes. The best Tolkien analogy I can think of is my favourite villain hero from his works that has been the cause of several debates: Turin. Does he do much good? Well, what he does is mostly just what an average person would do. Some splashes of going beyond that. Quite a lot of bad deeds and bad choices. Many people conclude that while he has some merits, he's a bad person. I prefer to say that while he has some unpleasant qualities, they should not be judged as black and white, since he's not a bad person really. He has the right idea, he just goes about it the wrong way. The reader knows what he does not and can view things objectively. He can't. So give him some slack! Would you do much better if you were in his place with his history and without your objective reader's knowledge? --- so similarly to my defence of Turin, I would defend many half-villains of GOT. The thing about that book is that in its setting, there is no GOOD, so it is hard to judge anyone by it without bringing them into a different context.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I would suggest the French decapitated that idea in 1789. And a small band of Russian extremists exploded that myth altogether during WWI.

Well said.

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I disagree. I think that the foundation of what is good is laid out by the author. The reader may agree or disagree with the author and discuss characters' actions as good or bad, but the author still holds the steering wheel when it comes to judging good and bad. By bringing a bit of sympathy he can turn a villain into a tragic hero.

I am not sure this is true. No matter how much an author tries he cannot create morality completely contrary to that of the time. A hero, who goes forward raping and murdering is never going to be considered good.

That is why Sauron is evil, period. This is the foundation laid out by Tolkien. But Martin lays out a whole different foundation.

I disagree here. Sauron is evil, because of his actions. Tolkien may lay out the his beliefs as to why a character is evil, but it's up to us decide.

Once again, according to judgement dealt out based on some objective Platonic good. The only problem is - in Martin's world, it doesn't seem to exist much except in naive minds.

There are many different arguments for where good arises from. Whether it is universal truth, a fleeting culture of the time of the adherence to human progress; it is something that exist outside the literature. In Martin's world it does exist and he even lambast characters like Gregor and Ramsey.

To be honest, no, not really. Especially in the modern political setup. So long as it doesn't affect me in a negative way I don't really care who my country of residence elects as the Prime Minister. To be even more honest, I don't really see much difference between all these parties when it comes to action. But I am quite cynical about politics, so let me not delve there deeper and go off on yet another tangent.

I am very cynical when it comes to politics, but the question is not about a new legitimate Prime Minister being elected. It's about someone rigging the elections. If such an even was to be made public there would be an outcry. Humans have not changed and when you want to rule, you need to give the people a reason. These days it's the idea that you were democratically elected in the past it was inheritance.

Justice is another concept that we tend to take as absolute, but is not that clear-cut in GOT. I always thought that it was unjust to do the King's justice on that crazed man of the Night's Watch at the very beginning of the series. He was telling the truth, and it was real madness born of real fear of real events that caused him to flee from the wall. He didn't intentionally break his vow. And is it just not to be given a second chance in his circumstances?

I don't take justice as absolute and I don't think many people take it as a given. There are a lot of grey areas about what is just and that is why so many countries have different laws. One country may have the death penalty for murder and another not. If justice is an absolute, we are not evolved yet to see through the mist.

Turgon's execution of Eol would be considered unjust by some or the way Denethor planned to deal with the Southrons. Conflicting views about what is just is not something found in just ASOIAF.

I'm not a historian, but I often wonder about how much were the lower classes even aware of the greater issues?

Harder to say, because they were illiterate and history was written by the elite. Still there are surviving court documents of peasants going to trials. In tough times the most important factor is survival. However, when things went wrong they would often blame things on an unjust king. When things began to fall apart from the Franks many people considered it a divine punishment from God, because of the sexual immorality in Charlemagne's court.

Macbeth set slightly after this period is another example of the break down of kingship resulting in nature collapsing.

My main questions would be, why did they die for their liege lord? What made them so unselfishly loyal? I would imagine that in addition to whatever feelings they had for the lord, there is the knowledge of the carnage and rape to follow if in a war their side was overwhelmed.

The WW1 is from the patriotic era, which encouraged widespread ideals which were not present to such great extent before and are still not present in nature. Feelings of unity of a people peaked when the said people were threatened by a common foe. Gratitude to a country I just don't see existing beyond gratitude to the soil of your farm/village.

People had loyalty to the country, because humans have always wanted to attach themselves to something greater. Back then it may have been as simple your village, but the Lord was the personification of your area. When a family had ruled over your village for hundreds of years, your personal identity became tied to them.

For me, it changes everything. If you are told "this guy is evil", he will be evil. But if you are told "this guy did evil deeds because of [insert a personal reason]", he does evil deeds but is not evil in my eyes. The best Tolkien analogy I can think of is my favourite villain hero from his works that has been the cause of several debates: Turin. Does he do much good? Well, what he does is mostly just what an average person would do. Some splashes of going beyond that. Quite a lot of bad deeds and bad choices. Many people conclude that while he has some merits, he's a bad person. I prefer to say that while he has some unpleasant qualities, they should not be judged as black and white, since he's not a bad person really. He has the right idea, he just goes about it the wrong way. The reader knows what he does not and can view things objectively. He can't. So give him some slack! Would you do much better if you were in his place with his history and without your objective reader's knowledge? --- so similarly to my defence of Turin, I would defend many half-villains of GOT. The thing about that book is that in its setting, there is no GOOD, so it is hard to judge anyone by it without bringing them into a different context.

It's funny you mention Turin, because your opinion of him is very different from the authors. Previously you had said that your viewpoint is dependent on what the author sets out as good. Here you think that Turin was a bad person. Tolkien on the other considers him as one of the greatest heroes of all time.

Elrond one of the wisest and greatest loremasters ranks him with all the great heroes.

"I will say that your choice is righ; and though all the mighty elf-friends of old, Hador, and Hurin, and Turin, and Beren himself were assembled together, your seat should be among them."

Your opinion of Turin is different from that of Tolkien's. My opinion of Turin also differs from yours. Though he has his flaws I ultimately consider him good and a hero.

In ASOIAF there is good. There are just few good characters, which is what causes the disconnect for me. To use a real world example, reading Mein Kampf does not lessen my disgust and abhorrence to Hitler.

Even in the context of ASOIAF: Ramsey chasing women like dogs and then raping them, Roose murdering a husband and then raping the wife, Cersei ordering babies and their mothers to be killed, Jorah selling people into slavery, Aerys planning to burn down an entire city etc, these are all terrible actions.

Tolkien better than Martin knew truly what war was and what it could do to people. In a brutal world many people lose their head, but in Martin's world far too many of the characters cross the line too often for me.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

I It's funny you mention Turin, because your opinion of him is very different from the authors. Previously you had said that your viewpoint is dependent on what the author sets out as good. Here you think that Turin was a bad person. Tolkien on the other considers him as one of the greatest heroes of all time.

Elrond one of the wisest and greatest loremasters ranks him with all the great heroes.

"I will say that your choice is righ; and though all the mighty elf-friends of old, Hador, and Hurin, and Turin, and Beren himself were assembled together, your seat should be among them."

Your opinion of Turin is different from that of Tolkien's. My opinion of Turin also differs from yours. Though he has his flaws I ultimately consider him good and a hero.

Wait, what? That's the exact opposite of what I'm saying and ever said about Turin. He's my favourite tragic hero in the legendarium. Let's begin with his own life. No one can deny that he's done bad deeds and caused a ton of problems through his flawed character. Many people (NOTE: many people, NOT me) see this as a defining factor. I think that his deeds are at least partially justified from his perspective and his intention outweighs the failure. As for what Tolkien's premise of Turin in COH, he presents both sides of the argument, which makes everything so conflicting and complex. Yes, Turin is a great hero and person, but yes he is SO flawed and makes such bad choices, even those he could have avoided had he been a better person. History seems to have accepted him for what he tried to do and praised him for his great effort, forgiving him for his faults. That doesn't mean they weren't there -- as others would say. I say, yes, they were there, but they ARE outweighed once you know his thought process. Elrond's opinion isn't all of Turin that's presented to us.

I am not going to argue about ASOIAF because what's the point, we won't convince each other either way, so I'm willing to agree to disagree. But I'll defend Turin and my thoughts on him if even if it means taking it into a whole different argument.