Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Knightly Ideal
Some time ago, in a discussion about books on a different forum, I mentioned that one thing I didn’t care for in George R. R. Martin’s works was the denigration of the concept of knighthood. For this comment, I got a severe dressing down from all his fans. His books were well researched; his portrayal of knights is far more accurate than the idealized images we see in Romanticism. (Also included were, if I recall, a few comments about my poor character based on my criticisms of great fantasy literature. It wasn’t made on Ricochet, you see.) However, I remain undaunted. For the most part, it’s not the portrayal of actual knights that caused me to be troubled, but rather the view of knights as expressed in the “more worldly” of Martin’s characters: a view that the ideal of knighthood is a lustrous fiction with no basis in reality. Martin presents the ideal of chivalry as false and even deadly. Holding fast to honor can get one killed and make one an object of ridicule. Having no honor can certainly be deadly as well, but there appears to be no merit in restraining oneself. If either path leads to the same destination, why take the difficult one?
Here we find postmodern progressive nihilism. The perfect is the enemy of the good. If we cannot meet an impossible standard, we should abandon that standard — even if we have no alternative save dissipation. Those who try and fail short are examples of the ideal’s failure.
I look to another great author of fantasy fiction, however: Gene Wolfe. I like how he explores this concept in his work, The Wizard Knight. In the first part, The Knight, the protagonist meets Sir Ravd. Sir Ravd is an honorable knight. It is in witnessing Sir Ravd’s deeds and integrity that the protagonist becomes inspired to take up arms and become a knight as well. The knight instructs our hero,”It is honor, Able. A knight is a man who lives honorably and dies honorably, because he cares more for his honor than for his life.”
Wolfe does not harbor illusions, however. In Able’s journey, he meets several individuals who fail to achieve that level of honor. This does not dissuade him, however, and he clings to the ideal in spite of the poor examples that follow Sir Ravd’s. For Wolfe, the ideal of chivalry can be just as deadly, but one’s sacrifice serves as an example to others — a banner to hold up as inspiration. One’s loss is felt with just as much pain, but it also calls out to others to take up the same ideals.
This, to me, is the sticking point. The failure of men to meet the ideals of chivalry do not mean the ideal concept of a knight is invalid. It is a given that men will fail to meet a standard. It is a mistake to always attribute the failure of individuals to the failure of the standard.
The ideal of a chivalric knight is compelling. He is a man (and, in some cases, a woman) of arms who wields strength to serve justice and defends those weaker than himself. He he seeks honor above his own desires — and is thus accorded it. When we discourage such ideals, I believe we lose something. The bar is impossibly high, yes, but should we seek that standard we will do well indeed. Constantly readjusting that standard — or worse, removing it altogether — leaves us unwilling to discipline our hearts and minds, accepting where we are as good enough and failing to seek a higher purpose.
Should I ever have boys of my own (or girls who are of similar mind) I would encourage them to look to the idealized knights for inspiration without hesitation. A man of honor and righteousness can be a beacon to others. I would rather others speak of how they (and maybe even I) sought honor and goodness for its own sake and not for their own glory. I would hope they would inspire by their deeds.
Published in General
That would be my criticism of all of the pseudo-medieval Tolkien wanna-bes like Martin, Eddings, Jordan, etc.
Was it this guy? That guy seems really dumb.
It was actually a full moot court with a Supreme Court Justices and D.C. Circuit judges presiding. It’s worth a watch.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?292554-1/judgment-agincourt
Watching it. It is, indeed, pretty good.
How many dragons did Medieval knights actually slay per say? Can you really point to even one? The fact is all the examples of good knights are all fictional. We talk about the ideals of chivalry, but what strikes me about them is that it wasn’t personal honor that has made the world a safer gentler place, but rather the creations of impersonal institutions and laws.
How early do you start the medieval period? St. George is pushing it, but he’s not so far off. St. Leonard of Noblac, though, died in 559, so he’s fairly squarely in the early middle ages, although admittedly some time before the full development of concepts of knightly chivalry.
In Gaudy Night, Dorothy L. Sayers has Lord Peter Wimsey saying “a desire to have all the fun is nine-tenths of the law of chivalry.”
(apologies, this is probably going to be spread over several posts)
I’m usually the one raking Martin over the coals for the literary inadequacies of a SOIAF, but in this discussion I feel the need to rise to his defense. Martin’s depiction is of chivalry is not nihilistic (nor is it a depiction of Europe without Christianity, but that’s another topic).
What Martin regularly does is depict a society that glorifies the “trappings” of chivalry, while ignoring the substance of what makes chivalry important. Sansa, Martin’s favorite beatstick for depicting why trying live ones life by the standards of fairy tale princesses is a bad idea, regularly puts her faith in knights who look the part to rescue her, and is betrayed, while she spurns others who actually embody the chivalric ideal based on their appearance. Sandor Clegane regularly attacks knights and the idea of chivalry, while at the same time actually being a pretty good example of what a knight is supposed to be; for which he gets no credit, for a number of reasons not least because he made charisma his dump stat. (continued)
C S Lewis on the necessity of chivalry.
All that is a fairly standard attack on hypocrisy. If Martin has any particular subversive theme, it’s that placing honor before the welfare of others is wrong. Both Ned Stark and his son fall, not because they were honorable men, but because they placed their personal honor above the lives of other people. Quickly turning over the throne to Renly would have stopped the war in a moment, but no…he must give it to the “right” heir, who incidently is the worst possible candidate to rule in the noble families. Robb, in order to save one girls “honor” (as if being a king’s concubine was really any kind of a disgrace), throws away an alliance that would have won him the war, and saved thousands. In both cases, their honor is merely selfishness.
Robert Jordan, in his greatly superior Wheel of Time has a character described as “he will do the right thing, no matter who it hurts”. That’s Ned and Robb to a tee.
St. Leonard? The patron St. of Prisoners? Really. Other than being a noble in the court of Clovis I I don’t see any proof there that he was a knight or much of a warrior. He was highly popular in the 11th century, but I don’t think it had anything to do with knighthood. Heck St. Joan of Arc might be more of a knight than either George or Leonard, though I don’t think she was knighted.
Nothing new here, they used to do this in the Middle Ages and, frankly, put on a better show: In early 897, Pope Stephen VII — or VI, depending how you count — had the body of his predecessor, Formosus, exhumed and put on trial for gaining his office under false pretenses. As you might guess, this had less to do with canon law than Italian politics which were apparently as weird then as they are now. Formosus was represented by counsel but it’s unclear how competent or enthusiastic this was. The accused was found guilty and all his acts and ordinations declared invalid. The cadaver was stripped of the papal vestments in which it had been buried, divested of the three fingers of the right hand used in blessing and then reburied…then re-exhumed and chucked in the Tiber … then fished from the river and re-reburied.
Now that’s how you do a moot court.
I think that “knight” is presumptively applicable to any noble medieval warrior; it is applied, for instance, to King Arthur’s men of similar title to St. Leonard, and presumably similar arms. What is your argument against the title?
I do love the distinctively Ricochet fact that the chief objection to the historicity of Saints Leonard and George being knights who killed dragons may be over whether they were knights.
I don’t think Martin is denigrating the concept of knighthood. I think he is highlighting the chasm between the concept and reality. The songs and stories told to children are about the virtues of “True Knights”. Multiple characters are knights who exhibit the virtues of knighthood; including Ned Stark, Barristan the Bold, and Brienne of Tarth. There are others who abuse their position and still others for whom it is an irrelevant concept. Also, there are those who are not knights, but who exhibit the character and virtues attributed to knights.
I think that one of his main themes is that power corrupts (and …) So, if you are a knight, it takes extraordinary character to hold to your principles in dangerous times when most others do not. Especially when the most powerful do not.
For me much of the power of the books is the huge range of responses by characters to this issue. Everyone is struggling to survive in a world where events are largely out of their control. Some show great character, some show base character and many move along this spectrum in either direction.
btw the books offer vastly more character nuance than the series.
Amy: I will grant that the series aren’t complete, that we have yet to see what virtues if any will win – or if virtue triumphs at all. I suspect that if virtue does triumph, it will only rise as sullied virtue. There’s also a chance the series will never be complete in which case these sorts of arguments will continue ad infinitum
Sal and Dad of Four – Good points and worth considering. I will note that Stannis is the favorite of my good friend who loves that character precisely for his adherence to the code, though not for causing the sorcerous death of his own brother of course. Spoiler here: Brianne could be a good example, save last I read she followed her oath into being hung at the command of very person she swore to for the crime of breaking that oath. Sorry, but I can’t accept Brianne as an argument. Mind you I haven’t read book five so maybe she escaped death after all (which would almost be a first in these books.)
Děkuji vám, Madam.
C.U Douglas
I do not see Stannis as an example of chivalry precisely because of his “the end justifies the means” posture. He regularly indulges in non-chivalrous acts rationalized by his “I am the true King” focus. If Ned and Robb Stark lose focus on the larger picture because they are too concerned with their personal honor, Stannis sacrifices virtue because of his focus on personal resentments and glory.
I view Brienne following her oath into death as the height of chivalry. She failed at her oath. She did not break it. Also, the reason she was captured was due to defending the weak -vs- running to safety. There is more, but it would be a spoiler.
Quick addendum
Davos Seaworth is another great example of a knight (former smuggler) who sacrifices to remain true to his oaths., He is a great contrast to Stannis.
Well that is what I was saying I am not sure St. Leonard was a fighter. Certainly what he is known for isn’t fighting. Also I feel that the title knight describes a certain kind of warrior, one that didn’t really exist functionally in 500BC. Medieval documents and stories produced in the mid and high Middle Ages did have a tendency to depict people in the past with Medieval titles when they in fact did not have such things. So I claim that neither St. George or St. Leonard were in fact knights despite their popular portrayals in mid and high medieval fan fictions/histories/art.
This is exactly it. One cannot read the Davos POV chapters without a certain disgust that such a good man is bound to such a monster. It’s similar to the stories of the 47 Ronin. What has the shogun done to deserve such loyalty?
We who read fantasy lit have been trained to look at people who abide by rigid codes and who maintain their honor in the face of all comers as the heroes, the good guys. And there’s a good reason for that; because in general those guys are good and true. But there’s a good contrary argument, that honor before compassion is hollow, and SOIAF makes it well.
Something to keep in mind about Stannis. You notice that his famous rigid personal code never requires him to make a sacrifice? Davos Seaworth has to lose his fingertips, to uphold Stannis’ honor. Renly has to die, for opposing Stannis’ claim to the kingship. Various individuals, including babies, have to be sacrificed to a hateful foreign God, to make Stannis’ way easier.
Of course Stannis is a rigid upholder of the law. The law says he’s supposed to be the top guy and anything he does to put himself there is, by definition, within the law.
Oops, and now the perspective I got was ruined. I’m back on my original point. ;)
But if you’re looking for chivalry in the books, Stannis isn’t the guy to look at. He’s a villain, or at least a force of nature. He’s definitely there to illustrate how things we consider good can be perverted.
But there are examples of chivalry in SOIAF, just not where one would expect to find them (actually…finding more nobility in Tyrion Lannister and Sandor Clegane types than in characters one would expect to find them, is such a common subversion as to be cliche, but there you go). Good doesn’t necessarily win just because it’s good, but there are plenty of instances where evil doesn’t triumph just because it’s evil either.
I think it does describe King Arthur’s followers (earlier than st. Leonard), and Charlemagne’s Paladins (not much later), but I concede the argument on the point of fighting. I’d read “defeated”, but other accounts suggest “defeated through prayer”, which is not really the CS Lewis/ George R R Martin sort of manliness being discussed. There’s quite a lot of late classical dragon slayers, but they seem to die out before the middle ages hit.
It’s just another example of man hunting another one of nature’s creatures to extinction.
Myself, I am a fan of the Loerner & Lowe musical Camelot
And of Richard Burton’s voice. Top that George RR Martin!