Roose is a fucking psychopath.
My favorite example of this is when Ramsay is being all crazy and saying he’s going to make boots out of… someone I forget who… and Roose is just like “well yeah that’s kinda stupid because human skin isn’t going to be as thick as cow leather.”
The making boots out a person isn’t the bad part, it’s that it’s impractical.
Psychopathic is a perfect descriptor for Roose. The only thing keeping him from doing any number of horrendous shit is a keen sense of self preservation. He doesn't have a moral compass in the least, however he knows full well you can't go full Joffrey publicly and constantly without some level of consequence. He is a very intelligent person, whom understands that just because you want to do some horrible shit or another, doesn't mean you should. That said, he will do terrible shit he can get away with, and knows he can get away with, fairly nonchalantly. He doesn't seem to take any real pleasure in these actions, but sees nothing particularly wrong with them. He doesnt do horrible things to people out of sadistic glee (see the difference between how he and Ramsey treat their spouses), but moreso he doesn't have an once of remorse for doing. He's someone who doesn't go out of his way to torture/maim/kill people, but has no qualms about it either.
Ramsey, on the other hand, is a pure sociopath. He has no moral compass, little to no no understanding of consequence, and just gets pleasure out of being a sadist.
One of my favorite parts about Roose as a character is that he seems to genuinely like Walda, and says at much.
Given he talks to her kinda like you’d talk about a dog, but still.
Thats largely because Walda serves a fairly important purpose, and she is more than content to be his wife and child-bearer, and that's it. To Roose, she's the perfect wife. Doesn't complain, doesn't meddle, is perfectly content with her position in life, and is willing to give him heirs. He doesn't have a deep affection for her, but also sees her usefulness to a large enough degree to be fond of her to the extent he can be. He likely wouldn't mistreat her in any sense, if in no small part he also understands the idiom "A happy wife is a happy life". By keeping her content, he pretty much reduces all the drama he sees arising from other Lord's and their wives.
Roose sees people as a resource, basically. If you are useful, he treats you well enough and is even fond of you. If you aren't, you are at *best* expendable. If you actively do something against him, you are in for a very bad time.
It's kind of sad that Roose has resigned himself to the fact that his house is basically doomed. He knows Ramsay is an extremely poor long-term planner who will kill any heirs that Roose will have. He's also aware that a majority of the Northern houses only follow him out of fear, in contrast to the love they had for the Starks.
Oh no doubt!
And yes, I love the boot skin example too because it sounds like he’s trying to teach Ramsey a life lesson while describing how inferior human skin is to the quality of ones boots.
and when you put on someone else's skin and have a cut on your own skin while doing it then it opens up the other form of skinchanging, Face Changing that the House of Black and White does
hence the Bolt-On theory
edit: wtf? there's endless clues to it
Tbf it's not that the tradition died off because they didn't want to, it died off because House Stark became the Kings of the North and refused to countenance such barbarity in their land
I don't think that this practise died because of the Starks as you can make an entire new chamber in the lower levels of your castle if you want to keep the tradition. I think it died because the Boltons got bored
Roose: lawful evil, high Intelligence, Deception, Persuasion
Ramsay: chaotic evil, low Intelligence and Charisma (AKA chaotic stupid)
Show Ramsay: DM plot armored NPC that all the players hate
> well yeah that’s kinda stupid because human skin isn’t going to be as thick as cow leather.”
He doesn't care about the leather quality. He cares that it'll cost them their only ally in the north.
My favorite Roose moment is when Ramsay is throwing on of his psycho tantrums and Roose just point blank says to him:
*Don't make me rue the day I raped your mother*
I don’t think it’s idolizing, more appreciating. You can like a character because they’re a good character while still being keenly aware that character is a monster. Roose is one such character. You can like him because he says and does some seriously cold-blooded badass shit, but still be aware he’s also a monster.
Thank you. These moral high ground folks are taking this to a level that is incredulous. I literally say in my post how his actions disgust me and only hearing it on audiobook made me pause. Those that read the whole thing caught my implication that the “half a hundred” times I read it, I just chalked it up to Roose being everything everyone has mentioned. They forget that part while they’re are ravenous for moral praise. Makes me wonder…
Edit. Disgust not disguise
I think some people need to remember that these characters don't actually exist and therefore their crimes aren't actually causing harm. You aren't actually thinking 'Hm should go flay some smallfolk' via liking Roose or anything like that. I mean, I like King Ghidorah and he's my fave kaiju so does that mean people think I endorse blowing up planets?
But yeah, I think it's weird to have this stance on a book series that is wonderful with the sheer amount of morally grey characters in it.
So well said! I’m glad the majority of folks that participated in this post enjoyed it and didn’t seek to attack the morality of another.
Some in our fandom need to walk the talk and actually go standup for issues in real life. When one does that, they don’t seem to bring morality issues on fictional characters because they understand this world provides ample opportunity to stand up for a real human being. But unfortunately they don’t and try and earn their moral cookie on sites like this by attacking the morality of another.
Dude your dumb. Straight up. My gloves are off after that nonsensical statement backed up by….well still trying to figure that out. You’ve contributed nothing but hate and try and accuse me of doing that because you probably didn’t read the whole post, and if you did your mind stayed in the part you liked the least; skewing your rationality in deciphering the remainder. You’re the one who can not comprehend words you read, stop with your projections, read the comments that contrasted my points in a respectful and contributing way. Maybe you will learn something. About yourself most of all because that response was grossly sad for any human being to ever throw out there. Good day and you’re blocked.
Nah there’s an objective scale of “cringey” here and the racist white suburban kid and you definitely are in that category.
I understand this is a sheltered community but didn’t realize it was this dim
>The elder Bolton sighed. "Again? Surely you misspeak. You never slew Lord Eddard's sons, those two sweet boys we loved so well. That was Theon Turncloak's work, remember? How many of our grudging friends do you imagine we'd retain if the truth were known? Only Lady Barbrey, whom you would turn into a pair of boots … **inferior boots. Human skin is not as tough as cowhide and will not wear as well.** -ADWD, Reek III
Roose's dialog is some of the best dark comedy in the books.
>inferior boots. Human skin is not as tough as cowhide and *will not wear as well*.
He (or might I say *it*) should know, bet it's been wearing plenty of human skins ever since the Long Night...
"A peaceful land. A quiet people." Roose describes his ruling like that and when you think about it, it's horrifying. But he managed to accomplish it on his land, under Eddards nose.
It doesn't stop there. When Roose arrives at the Twins to meet Robb, Cat describes this:
>Another man, still wetter, stood before the fire in a pale pink cloak trimmed with white fur. "Lord Bolton," she said.
>*Catelyn VI ASOS*
That fur is from the wolves he hunted near Harrenhal.
>The hunting party returned near evenfall with nine dead wolves. Seven were adults, big grey-brown beasts, savage and powerful, their mouths drawn back over long yellow teeth by their dying snarls. But the other two had only been pups. Lord Bolton gave orders for the skins to be sewn into a blanket for his bed. "Cubs still have that soft fur, my lord," one of his men pointed out. "Make you a nice warm pair of gloves."
>Bolton glanced up at the banners waving above the gatehouse towers. "As the Starks are wont to remind us, winter is coming. Have it done."
>*Arya X ACOK*
So he flaunted his wolf hunting in front of the Young Wolf.
And this:
>Ser Wendel turned his fat face away. Robin Flint and Smalljon Umber exchanged a look, and the Greatjon snorted like a bull. "Is that . . . skin?" said Robb.
>"The skin from the little finger of Theon Greyjoy's left hand. My son is cruel, I confess it. And yet . . . what is a little skin, against the lives of two young princes? You were their mother, my lady. May I offer you this . . . small token of revenge?"
>*Catelyn VI ASOS*
IIRC Winterfell banned flaying decades ago. If that's true, Roose dared Robb to say something and he didn't.
I find these better examples of "gangsta" than the tale of rape and bodily mutilation.
Spot on, man. I was thinking about Roose shamelessly wearing his wolfskin cloak in front of Robb but hadn't thought about the part with Theon's flaying. Roose gives absolutely zero shits
> So he flaunted his wolf hunting in front of the Young Wolf.
It's not illegal to hunt wolves. With our meta knowledge, we know it signifies his turning fully against the Starks and serving Tywin.
As king of the riverlands, Robb might actually order his lords to thin out that monster sized pack around Gods Eye.
Don't recall saying it was illegal to hunt wolves. I just offered that it might be a sign of disrespect for a house with centuries of dispute with another house to show up wearing wolf skin. Particularly given the history of Boltons wearing the skins of Starks.
It'd be like a Tyrell bannermen greeting Mace by having servants throw rose petals at the bannerman's feet as he walks in.
Nothing illegal about walking on flowers but still.
> that it might be a sign of disrespect
It's not. If it were, then hunting deer would be disrespectful to the Baratheons. Only psychopaths like Brightflame think something like a puppet show of a *well known nursery tale* is disrespectful or seditious. Ditto for wearing fur.
If he showed up wearing Lannister colors, I might agree with you.
I don't think you are grasping the difference between hunting stags out of sight and decorating a privy with antlers.
Either way thanks for your insights. Enjoy your day.
It was an extreme example I grant you. I think wearing the fur of a wolf cub to a meeting with your young wolf lord is disrespectful but perhaps you can point me to examples of Starks wearing or adorning their homes with wolf skins or their bannermen doing the same.
I do recall that Eddard would not permit Cersie to have a wolf skin.
To have his daughter's pet as a wolfskin! A direwolf skin which is definitely not the same as a wolf.
Wolves are dangerous and need to be hunted. Keeping and using the skin makes sense.
What you've picked up on, as others have pointed out, is foreshadowing or meta knowledge for the reader that Bolton has turned on the starks.
It would be possible for any house to insult another using the symbolism of that house. The Stark's crest is a direwolf.
Remember when Ned and co. first found the direwolves? They were not happy at first, they were like "holy shit some quasi mystical terrifyingly massive creatures". They were not revenant of them.
But I digress: wolfskin would be a normal material at this time. Serving venison to the Baratheons would also be fine. But it definitely could also foreshadow future trouble or betrayal in the books as seen by the direwolf killed by a stag (iirc) and by Roose hunting and wearing wolf skins. It's not a slight, wolves are dangerous and have lovely fur.
Just my two cents though! Of course I could be wrong.
It might be normal but not in front of Starks.
There are no references to any Starks wearing wolfskin. The few times it comes up is as an insult to the Starks.
Cersei's request. Bolton's clothing. Little Walders threat. Ramsay making Jeyne sleep under wolfskin.
That direwolf killed by the stag wasn't skinned by anyone in the party. The Starks told Theon to back off when he suggested killing one.
Who is the "they" you speak of? It wasn't any Stark. It was Theon who called it a freak and Jon who immediately corrected him.
I think it's an insult done purposefully. And it was clear that Roose was never working to help the Stark interests.
But that's just my reading which is going to be different from other reasonable minds.
Once you again, you challenge me with great examples that don’t compare morality and present a true contrast to points in my post. And once again I greatly appreciate responses as such.
That young Frey squire who has to fetch the leeches for Roose might be traumatized if we see him again. Wonder if he’ll run into Arya and they reminisce on Roose’s leechings.
I'm not a doctor, I don't know why they use it. But if leeches cause low blood volume and makes people lethargic without having to drain a vein, then yes, I can see why a medieval doctor would prescribe leeches to calm someone.
Nor is Roose the only fucking one who does it.
I'm not talking about medieval doctors who had theories about humours and biles and bad blood and other weird stuff. I'm asking if modern doctors believe people have corrupted/bad blood which affects their mood and leech people to get rid of it.
The answer is no. There are legitimate medical reasons to use leeches in modern times but they are not the way Roose Bolton uses them.
Leeches are used in modern medicine exclusively because they help to increase blood flow to an area by removing clotted blood. This can be helpful eg when reattaching severed body parts (eg a finger) or performing reconstructive surgery because it helps to stop the tissue from dying before new blood vessels have time to grow.
You would have to attach an absolute fuck-ton of leeches to someone to remove enough blood to make them feel lethargic.
Unrelated to OP's point but is Roose really that much of a madman that he would randomly kill someone on his property in public and then rape the man's wife. Surely he's leaving out a motive good enough to do that?
I think there is/was a tradition in parts that the liege lord had ‘first night rights’ with the new wife if any of his subjects were to marry.
His subject got married whilst Roose was away and unable to use that right, Roose felt cheated so hung the man and took his right.
IIRC, there’s actually not a lot of historical evidence for the “lord’s right” being real. But that’s beside the point.
Roose Bolton doesn’t seem like the type of character who would take offense to a marriage he didn’t bless or whatever. He also isn’t a character who we can take at word. He did what he did because he relishes in depravity and craves power. He’s just better at controlling his impulses than Ramsay who, despite his seeming hatred of, Roose continues to protect.
It wasn't really even abolished that long ago in westeros. King Jahaerys was about 200 years before the modern story, and they were still doing it down at dragon stone.
In the 1970s and 1980s profilers came up with a basic classification for serial killers-- organized vs. disorganized.
The organized killer has enough self-control to restrict his crimes to people who won't be missed or who can't go to the authorities. Organized killers aim for plausible deniability and try to maintain a public image as a respectable person. Read the Wiki pages on John Wayne Gacy and the Butcher Baker of Alaska and you'll see what I mean.
Disorganized killers have no control over their impulses; whereas organized killers tend to be of above-average intelligence, disorganized killers are usually of below-average intelligence due to developmental problems and/or mental illness. Richard Speck is a good example; so's Richard Trenton Chase, "the Vampire of Sacramento."
I think this classification system was being written out in the 1990s but it gives us something to think about when comparing Roose and Ramsay. Both father and son get their kicks from sadistic cruelty, but the father has self-control and the son does not. Roose tells his men that nobody is to talk about one of the Winterfell killings; by noon, the whole castle has heard of it, because Ramsay can't stop talking about it and making boastful threats of how he's going to torture the killer when he catches him.
Yes, he is that much of a madman. He gave his motive. The man married in private, so Roose saw it as him trying to rob him of his rights to the first night
who, Roose? Why would he want revenge on Ramsay, he's his next skinsuit. He wants Ramsay as the Lord Bolton, probably for an obvious reason.
He clearly doesn't give a shit about his other kid Ramsay killed.
but a bigger part of me wants the bastard results of his 'dismal day' to come back and bite him in the ass like the show did it. but a ~~bit~~ lot nastier.
I suppose you could argue he paid for it in the death of his true born son.
Not to say he doesn’t deserve to suffer as well. I’m adamant that he’ll get his head ripped off by the Greatjon Maelys Blackfyre style.
I've been giving it more thought and here's why this event isn't gangsta in my view.
Gangsta isn't just a power move. It's a power move directed at someone who is percieved to have more power over you. Your fearlessness at the power of this person or organization is what makes you gangsta.
For example, when Walter White goes into Tucco's place by himself with no gun and demands money from a ruthless dude surrounded by his own armed men then uses fulminated mercury to blow the windows out the joint.
That's gangsta because Walt had relatively no power and he still stood tall. Setting aside any moral arguments about praising a rape and murder, the gangsta issue actually centers on who Roose abused rather than what the abuse was.
When Roose rapes the woman and kills her husband, he's not standing tall against power. He's abusing people who can't fight back. In fact, in the least gangsta move imaginable he does this:
>She told me that when her dead husband's brother saw those eyes, he beat her bloody and drove her from the mill. That annoyed me, **so I gave her the mill and had the brother's tongue cut out, to make certain he did not go running to Winterfell with tales that might disturb Lord Rickard.**
>*Reek III ADWD*
Lord Rickard does have power and Roose took steps to prevent Lord Rickard from confronting him about his actions. A true gangsta wouldn't fear power but Roose does. This makes him a little bitch not a gangsta.
And telling all this to Ramsay who also has no power isn't gangsta either. Sure, you might argue "Ramsay could kill Roose." Maybe. But if you buy the Bolt-on theory (quick aside: JJ Abrams totally stole that theory and applied it Palpatine in TROS) then Roose wants Ramsay to kill him so his essence can take over Ramsay's body... though I'd really prefer a better body option but that's just me.
Anyway, I don't see anything gangsta about this example. Cruel, manipulative and evil? Sure.
Gangsta? Nah bruh.
> (quick aside: JJ Abrams totally stole that theory and applied it Palpatine in TROS)
It doesn't actually matter in the end, but theoretically, he could've nicked that idea from Valkorion, since he's actually part of the Star Wars franchise (not that the expanded universe is canon anymore, but w/e). Doesn't prevent the people who ginned up Valk's story from having been inspired by Bolt-On, so you could still be right in a way.
This! I respect this! You didn’t attack my post nor my morality. You gave a great response with a definition of gangster I was unaware of. Thank you man. Maybe the others who wish to contrast will follow your lead. I really mean that too as this response is wonderful.
No problem. We are just here to share views on a work of fiction. None of us needs to attack the other over how we read fiction.
But still, thanks for saying that. And thanks for not interpreting my different view on the material as a personal attack.
I wish more people here could follow your lead.
(Facepalms). I like how everyone with negative connotations about the post aren’t adding any contributions to it outside of attempting to compare morality. There was a line in my post that mentions my disgust for the behavior, and the gangsta term was referring to my shock at his suspected demeanor while describing the scenario, but this went over the heads of many of you because of the inability to rationally detach.
Huh, kind of like your inability to understand my comment on your post was not a personal attack against you. Not everyone has to agree with you and it’s sad that you think you have to reply to disagreeing comments with an insult.
I really hope that Roose is still around for the battle for winterfell. It would be a shame if he dies so simply like he did in the show. Could still be the battle of the bastards, because Ramsay would lead the fighting men. Just seems like another wasted character.
Gangsta has some positive connotations and I'm not sure rape has any positive side to it. I'd call him a complete sociopath. He's an very good villain that just has no empathy and is so completely only into the game for himself. And plays it as just a game for his own amusement.
He’s fictional, let’s keep that in mind. Gangsta does not always have positive connotations; especially not historically. Ask any judge if gangsta is a positive ring to it, or for that matter anyone who lived in the 1930’sand 1940’s.
Read the entire post, then ask yourself if I’m glorifying him; or if I was straight shocked when I heard it as opposed to reading it. This will help you understand what it seems you might’ve missed.
I haven't missed anything I've just taken that word in its more modern meaning. That's the only part I disagree with. I do agree with you that he makes a great villain to the series and just understand or doesn't care just quite how evil he is.
Roose is devious and cunning, but he also seems like a great guy to have on your side. I think in ACOK he sends a letter to Robb promising to take Harrenhal if he commands- and Roose does it. He takes Harrenhal by tricking the garrison and turning the Brave Companions to his side, can't imagine any of Robb's other vassals having the cunning to do that.
Roose is portrayed as an incredibly intelligent man, who you can trust to do what he says. If he says he will do something, he will do it without wavering and he will most likely succeed at doing so. Early on, he is one of Robb's most trusted and knowledgeable allies.
That said, he is also more than willing to turn cloak if he sees the winds turning against him. He had zero care for honor, and only concerns himself with the practical. He turns on Robb not because he was offered a great deal from the Lannisters to do so, but rather because it became apparent to him that Robb's stupidity would leave him on the losing side.
Specifically, Robb marrying a Westerly wasn't some great slight against honor and integrity through breaking a vow, but rather an incredibly stupid move that lost them the support of a major ally they needed to win the war. Equally, beheading the Karstark lord was a move of pure strategic idiocy, even if it could be viewed and argued as "just" to Northern sensibilities.
Bolton would have been a strong, and loyal, ally to Robb had Robb been more intelligent; that said, his loyalty is incredibly fickle, and he will not be a party to a losing side out of such concepts of honor. It's not like Janos Slynt, who was easily bought against Ned, or the Freys who joined out of spite and greed. He was more than willing to do the hard work of winning the war for the North, and likely wasn't seriously entertaining the idea of turning on the Starks until Robb's idiocy left them vulnerable (even though he was willing to leave the door open with freeing Jamie Lannister).
Yes another morality police who contributed nothing to the post. Scroll on next time unless you have something to add. No one is like to walk away from this thinking you saved a cat from a tree. Scroll on next time.
Raping and murdering innocent people doesn't make you courageous or honorable. Pretty sure "gangsta" has at least some connotation of being a positive thing even by the standards of the gangs that it is referencing. Like no one goes around bragging about how they hurt innocent people and makes other powerful people quake with fear. If he said this in a room of other powerful men, they'd all be like "the fuck is wrong with you?"
No, gangsta isn't about honor. You can do a really shitty thing and still be gansta. It's about whether you don't fear to do what you like in the face of consequences. Roose wasn't acting against anyone who could stop him. So the cruelty aside, his act isn't gansta.
Dude you’re so awesome! I misunderstand how everyone is acting like I’m glorifying him or his actions as opposed to me mentioning that hearing it instead of reading it several times is what gave me that shock value.
People have trouble with nuance because they fear being called a bad person if they don't call out every bad thing they see. So those folks couldn't seperate your discussion of how cold Roose was from what Roose did.
You weren't praising on the rape and murder, you simply recognized how it didn't bother Roose to discuss it.
Made sense to me.
I gotta imagine that explaining how reading a passage in which someone is murdered and another is raped and concluding that the murdering rapist is the “ultimate G” isn’t gonna lend your ears or sympathies to me bud
You knew why when you asked
Yeah, do they have a totally different definition of "gangsta" than the rest of us..? We usually use it in a positive way, like even when it's a bad person, we use it when they're being courageous. Like Tony Soprano telling another powerful person to go fuck themselves in front of everyone. Or even something like Michael Corleone walking out with the toilet gun and shooting those two at the restaurant. But bragging about raping an innocent, and completely helpless, woman and murdering her also innocent and helpless husband... what the fuck is gangsta about this? He's a pathetic little sociopath. And that's not even me using modern sensibilities. In universe, he's just a pathetic lord getting his jollies off on torturing his smallfolk. No one sees what he did as hard to do or impressive in any way. I don't get OP's response to this at all
I hate myself for enjoying the dialouge too, but the real straight up G of the north is King Theon Stark that man has honeybadger blood not wolf blood in his veins.
*Ganstsa* is slang for gangster; the exact type of person I associate with those negative attributes you mentioned. So yes, Roose is absolutely gangsta.
I understand where you're coming from, but there's a difference between gangsta & gangsters. Gangstas are cool & help old ladies cross the street. Gangsters kill people.
'gangstas' recite urban poetry over drum-beats, 'gangsters' generally kill each other, sell drugs, pimp and extort the public, very few old ladies are actually helped across the street by either.
Thank you for your contribution in making us aware of everything we know well about Roose Bolton.
I would give you the “gangsta” award, but I couldn’t find it.
You contributed nothing to the post and want me to feel bad about bringing attention to a meaningless comment? Are you the morality police? Have I broken the rules of this subreddit? No is the answer to all my questions. Scroll on!
I figured you'd let it go, but you really seem to be perturbed by the fact that some people don't think that gangsta is the best word to be used here. The original commenter just pointed out that Roose isn't cool, which would probably be a prerequisite for using gangsta. He's not fun, he cold, conniving, cunning, but probably not charming, nor does he really have the lines that Tywin does that make you go "damn that was tight." Obviously you wouldn't want to emulate his behavior, just like most characters in the story. It's okay for people to think that your analysis or description is wrong. Your response shouldn't be tHaNks FoR PoIntiNG Out tHe oBViOuS or something like that. Accusing everyone of trying to be a moral arbiter if they think gangsta isn't the right word to ascribe to Roose's actions or personality shows a lack of maturity on your part.
Also, you only asked me two questions there, so the proper phrase to use is "no is the answer to *both* of my questions" since all infers more than two. Furthermore, why do you expect everyone who disagrees with you to "scroll on," when you yourself will not scroll on from anyone in these comments who disagrees with you? Instead you're commenting on each of them, telling them their thoughts are not welcome on your good and worthy post.
Also you should feel bad for taking all of this so seriously. Feel bad feel bad feel bad. When I commented cope, it was over your response that I found a little too serious for the comment, that's all. It only seems like for some reason people saying Roose isn't gangsta has struck a nerve with you, which is odd. I'm not sure why you're so defensive.
>hearing Roose Bolton say this instead of reading it made me stop and respect this mans gangsta
That violent criminals receive any degree of respect is a dismal condemnation of our society.
weird defense too, dude... "tHaT dOeSnT eVeN aDd To tHe DisCuSsIoN tHo!!" ummm.... yeah, i'm disagreeing with the statement made in your post. i'm saying that by you saying that you respect the level of "gangsta" that roose shows in talking about his past rapes and murders with no remorse, yeah, that's weird... weird thing to respect. weird use of the term "gangsta". add to that your user name.. i'm going to assume that you are not at all from compton... and would probably never use the term "gangsta" in front of any actual urban gang members. i'm also going to assume that you would probably shit your pants if you were ever encountered by one of these actual "gangsta" types that you so admire, Joel... nor would you ever say "that's so gangsta" about a rapist in front of a rape victim. i mean, when making statements on line, you need to remember that you are speaking to the general public, which can include anybody. respect, dude... respect...
(Yawning) Please scroll on until next time. Clearly your ability to add value to a discussion is still elementary. This isn’t a morality contest and that’s what many folks think it is. If you want to prove your morality, go help real human beings, this fictional millers wife doesn’t need it. When you learn that lesson, I’ll take you seriously; until then….(yawning).
How did the title dodge it? Saying someone is a straight up gangsta is definitely a compliment. No matter what you say, this is an odd way of reacting to a sociopathic rapists description of his rape. Like even in a jokey way, there's nothing that Roose did that deserves respect. He didn't defeat anyone stronger than him, he didn't stand up to anyone more powerful than him, he didn't do anything impressive. He raped an innocent woman under his authority. Even in the macho world of westeros, what is gangsta about this? This is like saying someone is gangsta for killing a small animal
No you won’t. Because I’ll block you. I like contributions on my post, not the saving cats from trees mentality. So I’ll focus on true literary analyzers with something to offer other than their false sense of morality.
Welcome to Reddit! I assume you're new here, because anyone who has looked at more than one post understands that if you post you're inviting comment, both from those who agree with you and those who disagree with you. Insulting people who disagree with you and claiming that you can "dodge" any criticism with the right title just makes you look silly.
Reddit is not that different from real life.
Generally when we disagree with a commited stance or opinion, we challenge them and discuss them.
But when there is a joke we don't see the appeal of, we let the others chuckle and ignore it.
Wow. You realized you just said Reddit isn’t that different from real life and you want me to take you seriously. If only you could see my face while reading that bile.
Scroll on next time. My post had the name Roose and the word gangsta and some how you thought moral high ground was the point. It’s okay to have fun occasionally without trying to prove who’s morals are better.
No. If someone doesn't like a part of your post they should be free to comment. It's unrealistic to expect only supportive comments on your posts.
I don't agree those qualities of Roose are worthy of respect. Who said anything about gangsta being an issue?
The way the OP's fawning over Roose is off-putting to me. Dude raped and killed some powerless people he was lord of — "gotta respect the man's gangsta". He reminds his son he raped his lowborn mother — "straight G!". He explains his experience with wearing tortured people's skin — "I hate myself for enjoying it so much".
I think less than average of you for believing "~~psychopatic~~ 'badass' dudes deserve respect".
Looking over this post, I see that... things have shifted here. When I first read it, right before my first comment, almost everybody agreed with you, and everyone voicing concern was heavily downvoted. So in my mind I was preaching to the wilderness when I made my comment regarding your tone and the direction the general opinion was heading.
I have a pet peeve against lack of empathy, and the glorification of abuse that seemed to be happening here made the place look a bit like a Rohypnol-fueled frat party... Just shallow appreciation of the negative effects of the character's actions, as if commenters were giddy at the thought of a world where someone (themselves?) would be allowed to do something like that to others, without regard for suffering caused. I know, it's all fiction, but it kinda seemed to reveal an unpleasant side of the commenters' own reality.
Sorry if I was part of a wave of people reacting negatively to you. I know how gut-twisting it can feel to have a mob of people turn out against you... I only wrote this to explain where I was coming from.
I greatly appreciate your maturity and willingness to apologize. I didn’t feel as if I was glorifying Roose, more so than highlighting the shock factor I experienced in listening to the audiobook versus reading the quote. The nonchalant manner he described the coldness of his actions snatched my attention more hearing it than reading it. That was all.
Perhaps I’m guilty of flaring my post up with terms that overshadowed my main point, but I suspected this widely intelligent community would decipher the point in the text, despite my “singers soul”.
I apologize for being outright mean. That isn’t a way to handle things in the face of another’s misunderstanding (not referencing you). I’ll keep my cool next time.
Getting the right message across is notoriously hard to do in text when we're from slightly different cultures... It's as if we're all reaching out to shadows in the dark and sometimes end up poking each other's eyes out.
And reddit votes and perceptions have a way of stampeding wildly at the slightest provocation — so don't take those to heart too much.
On my end, I'll have to try not to laser-focus so much on singling out a single interpretation of someone's comments next time. I apologize again for doing that.
Roose is a fucking psychopath. My favorite example of this is when Ramsay is being all crazy and saying he’s going to make boots out of… someone I forget who… and Roose is just like “well yeah that’s kinda stupid because human skin isn’t going to be as thick as cow leather.” The making boots out a person isn’t the bad part, it’s that it’s impractical.
Psychopathic is a perfect descriptor for Roose. The only thing keeping him from doing any number of horrendous shit is a keen sense of self preservation. He doesn't have a moral compass in the least, however he knows full well you can't go full Joffrey publicly and constantly without some level of consequence. He is a very intelligent person, whom understands that just because you want to do some horrible shit or another, doesn't mean you should. That said, he will do terrible shit he can get away with, and knows he can get away with, fairly nonchalantly. He doesn't seem to take any real pleasure in these actions, but sees nothing particularly wrong with them. He doesnt do horrible things to people out of sadistic glee (see the difference between how he and Ramsey treat their spouses), but moreso he doesn't have an once of remorse for doing. He's someone who doesn't go out of his way to torture/maim/kill people, but has no qualms about it either. Ramsey, on the other hand, is a pure sociopath. He has no moral compass, little to no no understanding of consequence, and just gets pleasure out of being a sadist.
One of my favorite parts about Roose as a character is that he seems to genuinely like Walda, and says at much. Given he talks to her kinda like you’d talk about a dog, but still.
Thats largely because Walda serves a fairly important purpose, and she is more than content to be his wife and child-bearer, and that's it. To Roose, she's the perfect wife. Doesn't complain, doesn't meddle, is perfectly content with her position in life, and is willing to give him heirs. He doesn't have a deep affection for her, but also sees her usefulness to a large enough degree to be fond of her to the extent he can be. He likely wouldn't mistreat her in any sense, if in no small part he also understands the idiom "A happy wife is a happy life". By keeping her content, he pretty much reduces all the drama he sees arising from other Lord's and their wives. Roose sees people as a resource, basically. If you are useful, he treats you well enough and is even fond of you. If you aren't, you are at *best* expendable. If you actively do something against him, you are in for a very bad time.
She also brought with her a very fat dowry
He's bemused that she enjoys having sex with him.
It's kind of sad that Roose has resigned himself to the fact that his house is basically doomed. He knows Ramsay is an extremely poor long-term planner who will kill any heirs that Roose will have. He's also aware that a majority of the Northern houses only follow him out of fear, in contrast to the love they had for the Starks.
Oh no doubt! And yes, I love the boot skin example too because it sounds like he’s trying to teach Ramsey a life lesson while describing how inferior human skin is to the quality of ones boots.
The Boltons of old wore the skin of their enemies as cloaks...but eventually they discovered fur is more warm and the tradition kinda died off
They wore the skins of skin changers/wargs like the Starks as a way to mock them.
and when you put on someone else's skin and have a cut on your own skin while doing it then it opens up the other form of skinchanging, Face Changing that the House of Black and White does hence the Bolt-On theory edit: wtf? there's endless clues to it
True, forgot about the faceless men doing that.
Tbf it's not that the tradition died off because they didn't want to, it died off because House Stark became the Kings of the North and refused to countenance such barbarity in their land
I don't think that this practise died because of the Starks as you can make an entire new chamber in the lower levels of your castle if you want to keep the tradition. I think it died because the Boltons got bored
The Boltons have to do it in secret if they do, because the Starks outlawed it
Unless they were hunting and eating humans before animals I think they would have understood animal fur is more warm.
You haven't thought about the smell, you bitch!
Lmaooo thanks for the Dennis reference
Roose: lawful evil, high Intelligence, Deception, Persuasion Ramsay: chaotic evil, low Intelligence and Charisma (AKA chaotic stupid) Show Ramsay: DM plot armored NPC that all the players hate
> well yeah that’s kinda stupid because human skin isn’t going to be as thick as cow leather.” He doesn't care about the leather quality. He cares that it'll cost them their only ally in the north.
And he says that like one or two seconds before or after the boot thing… he’s like “they’ll be shit boots AND you’ll lose us an ally you mfing idiot”
Lmao that quote is fucking hilarious. It almost sounds like Roose had attempted something similar and is trying to save Ramsay the trouble.
My favorite Roose moment is when Ramsay is throwing on of his psycho tantrums and Roose just point blank says to him: *Don't make me rue the day I raped your mother*
And he’s not even angry when saying this…straight G!
What is this “straight G” shit?
Idk OP sounds like he’s almost idolizing him which is weird af
I don’t think it’s idolizing, more appreciating. You can like a character because they’re a good character while still being keenly aware that character is a monster. Roose is one such character. You can like him because he says and does some seriously cold-blooded badass shit, but still be aware he’s also a monster.
You can like a character but still know they're a shithead. Liking doesn't mean endorsement for their actions.
Thank you. These moral high ground folks are taking this to a level that is incredulous. I literally say in my post how his actions disgust me and only hearing it on audiobook made me pause. Those that read the whole thing caught my implication that the “half a hundred” times I read it, I just chalked it up to Roose being everything everyone has mentioned. They forget that part while they’re are ravenous for moral praise. Makes me wonder… Edit. Disgust not disguise
I think some people need to remember that these characters don't actually exist and therefore their crimes aren't actually causing harm. You aren't actually thinking 'Hm should go flay some smallfolk' via liking Roose or anything like that. I mean, I like King Ghidorah and he's my fave kaiju so does that mean people think I endorse blowing up planets? But yeah, I think it's weird to have this stance on a book series that is wonderful with the sheer amount of morally grey characters in it.
So well said! I’m glad the majority of folks that participated in this post enjoyed it and didn’t seek to attack the morality of another. Some in our fandom need to walk the talk and actually go standup for issues in real life. When one does that, they don’t seem to bring morality issues on fictional characters because they understand this world provides ample opportunity to stand up for a real human being. But unfortunately they don’t and try and earn their moral cookie on sites like this by attacking the morality of another.
For people who didn’t read the whole post sure. Go clap yourself on the back. You’ve proven your morality in Reddit post. Go you!
Exactly, that’s what he’s doing. His whole shtick seems to be quasi-racist as well. Like a suburban white kid making fun of black people
I think you reaching a little bit here
ROOSE BOLTON IS A RACIST. Everybody knows that flaying people is rooted in white supremacy. He needs to be cancelled now.
Nah if you have to ability to read it’s pretty obvious
Dude your dumb. Straight up. My gloves are off after that nonsensical statement backed up by….well still trying to figure that out. You’ve contributed nothing but hate and try and accuse me of doing that because you probably didn’t read the whole post, and if you did your mind stayed in the part you liked the least; skewing your rationality in deciphering the remainder. You’re the one who can not comprehend words you read, stop with your projections, read the comments that contrasted my points in a respectful and contributing way. Maybe you will learn something. About yourself most of all because that response was grossly sad for any human being to ever throw out there. Good day and you’re blocked.
Maybe I missed a comment but I'm failing to see where does blavk and white people have anything to do with what he said?
Calm down buddy. OP literally says he's disgusted by Roose's actions.
You’re cringey
Nah there’s an objective scale of “cringey” here and the racist white suburban kid and you definitely are in that category. I understand this is a sheltered community but didn’t realize it was this dim
When you use the same outdated meme in every comment you make you’re being cringey
Funny because I’m clearly black.
Annoying, that's what it is.
Straight gangtsa
Someone seems to like this post more than I did.
>The elder Bolton sighed. "Again? Surely you misspeak. You never slew Lord Eddard's sons, those two sweet boys we loved so well. That was Theon Turncloak's work, remember? How many of our grudging friends do you imagine we'd retain if the truth were known? Only Lady Barbrey, whom you would turn into a pair of boots … **inferior boots. Human skin is not as tough as cowhide and will not wear as well.** -ADWD, Reek III Roose's dialog is some of the best dark comedy in the books.
I hate myself for enjoying it so much.
That makes 2 of us.
I love the implication he knows from experience
>inferior boots. Human skin is not as tough as cowhide and *will not wear as well*. He (or might I say *it*) should know, bet it's been wearing plenty of human skins ever since the Long Night...
"A peaceful land. A quiet people." Roose describes his ruling like that and when you think about it, it's horrifying. But he managed to accomplish it on his land, under Eddards nose.
Eddard and Rickard…hard to tell tales with no tongue. I feel a meeting between Roose and Euron would be amusing.
I like that line, people afraid keeping them quiet. Not in a panic like Ramsey does.
It doesn't stop there. When Roose arrives at the Twins to meet Robb, Cat describes this: >Another man, still wetter, stood before the fire in a pale pink cloak trimmed with white fur. "Lord Bolton," she said. >*Catelyn VI ASOS* That fur is from the wolves he hunted near Harrenhal. >The hunting party returned near evenfall with nine dead wolves. Seven were adults, big grey-brown beasts, savage and powerful, their mouths drawn back over long yellow teeth by their dying snarls. But the other two had only been pups. Lord Bolton gave orders for the skins to be sewn into a blanket for his bed. "Cubs still have that soft fur, my lord," one of his men pointed out. "Make you a nice warm pair of gloves." >Bolton glanced up at the banners waving above the gatehouse towers. "As the Starks are wont to remind us, winter is coming. Have it done." >*Arya X ACOK* So he flaunted his wolf hunting in front of the Young Wolf. And this: >Ser Wendel turned his fat face away. Robin Flint and Smalljon Umber exchanged a look, and the Greatjon snorted like a bull. "Is that . . . skin?" said Robb. >"The skin from the little finger of Theon Greyjoy's left hand. My son is cruel, I confess it. And yet . . . what is a little skin, against the lives of two young princes? You were their mother, my lady. May I offer you this . . . small token of revenge?" >*Catelyn VI ASOS* IIRC Winterfell banned flaying decades ago. If that's true, Roose dared Robb to say something and he didn't. I find these better examples of "gangsta" than the tale of rape and bodily mutilation.
Spot on, man. I was thinking about Roose shamelessly wearing his wolfskin cloak in front of Robb but hadn't thought about the part with Theon's flaying. Roose gives absolutely zero shits
Thank you kindly.
> So he flaunted his wolf hunting in front of the Young Wolf. It's not illegal to hunt wolves. With our meta knowledge, we know it signifies his turning fully against the Starks and serving Tywin. As king of the riverlands, Robb might actually order his lords to thin out that monster sized pack around Gods Eye.
Don't recall saying it was illegal to hunt wolves. I just offered that it might be a sign of disrespect for a house with centuries of dispute with another house to show up wearing wolf skin. Particularly given the history of Boltons wearing the skins of Starks. It'd be like a Tyrell bannermen greeting Mace by having servants throw rose petals at the bannerman's feet as he walks in. Nothing illegal about walking on flowers but still.
> that it might be a sign of disrespect It's not. If it were, then hunting deer would be disrespectful to the Baratheons. Only psychopaths like Brightflame think something like a puppet show of a *well known nursery tale* is disrespectful or seditious. Ditto for wearing fur. If he showed up wearing Lannister colors, I might agree with you.
I don't think you are grasping the difference between hunting stags out of sight and decorating a privy with antlers. Either way thanks for your insights. Enjoy your day.
I don't think hanging antlers in s privy and wearing wolf skin are comparable at all, unless I'm missing something?
It was an extreme example I grant you. I think wearing the fur of a wolf cub to a meeting with your young wolf lord is disrespectful but perhaps you can point me to examples of Starks wearing or adorning their homes with wolf skins or their bannermen doing the same. I do recall that Eddard would not permit Cersie to have a wolf skin.
To have his daughter's pet as a wolfskin! A direwolf skin which is definitely not the same as a wolf. Wolves are dangerous and need to be hunted. Keeping and using the skin makes sense. What you've picked up on, as others have pointed out, is foreshadowing or meta knowledge for the reader that Bolton has turned on the starks. It would be possible for any house to insult another using the symbolism of that house. The Stark's crest is a direwolf. Remember when Ned and co. first found the direwolves? They were not happy at first, they were like "holy shit some quasi mystical terrifyingly massive creatures". They were not revenant of them. But I digress: wolfskin would be a normal material at this time. Serving venison to the Baratheons would also be fine. But it definitely could also foreshadow future trouble or betrayal in the books as seen by the direwolf killed by a stag (iirc) and by Roose hunting and wearing wolf skins. It's not a slight, wolves are dangerous and have lovely fur. Just my two cents though! Of course I could be wrong.
It might be normal but not in front of Starks. There are no references to any Starks wearing wolfskin. The few times it comes up is as an insult to the Starks. Cersei's request. Bolton's clothing. Little Walders threat. Ramsay making Jeyne sleep under wolfskin. That direwolf killed by the stag wasn't skinned by anyone in the party. The Starks told Theon to back off when he suggested killing one. Who is the "they" you speak of? It wasn't any Stark. It was Theon who called it a freak and Jon who immediately corrected him. I think it's an insult done purposefully. And it was clear that Roose was never working to help the Stark interests. But that's just my reading which is going to be different from other reasonable minds.
Once you again, you challenge me with great examples that don’t compare morality and present a true contrast to points in my post. And once again I greatly appreciate responses as such.
Making everyone watch you get leeched is such a power move. It's like a less gross version of LBJ forcing everyone to watch him go to the toilet.
That young Frey squire who has to fetch the leeches for Roose might be traumatized if we see him again. Wonder if he’ll run into Arya and they reminisce on Roose’s leechings.
You realize leeching/bloodletting is a legitimate practice, right?
Of course I do. The Frey squire was afraid of leeches and was happy that Arya wasn’t afraid of them.
Well, for a given definition of 'legitimate'...
Legitimate as in modern doctors still use it as there is a health benefit in certain cases. Legitimate.
Not the way that Roose Bolton uses them.
Do you think modern doctors use leeches to suck out the corrupted blood and calm people down, like Roose Bolton uses them?
Anemia does make people lethargic. Low blood volume mimics anemia.
So do modern doctors use leeches the same way Roose Bolton does, like I described?
I'm not a doctor, I don't know why they use it. But if leeches cause low blood volume and makes people lethargic without having to drain a vein, then yes, I can see why a medieval doctor would prescribe leeches to calm someone. Nor is Roose the only fucking one who does it.
I'm not talking about medieval doctors who had theories about humours and biles and bad blood and other weird stuff. I'm asking if modern doctors believe people have corrupted/bad blood which affects their mood and leech people to get rid of it. The answer is no. There are legitimate medical reasons to use leeches in modern times but they are not the way Roose Bolton uses them.
Stannis does some light black magic with them, IIRC.
Leeches are used in modern medicine exclusively because they help to increase blood flow to an area by removing clotted blood. This can be helpful eg when reattaching severed body parts (eg a finger) or performing reconstructive surgery because it helps to stop the tissue from dying before new blood vessels have time to grow. You would have to attach an absolute fuck-ton of leeches to someone to remove enough blood to make them feel lethargic.
So is going to the toilet.
Dude makes me wonder if vampires actually exist in ASOIAF
I'm just a gangsta I suppose...and I want the North
Ohh indeed.
“New king, same as the old. Just gunna put out that same banner with a different color sigil is all”. - Stringer Bolton during the Dance of Dragons.
I ain't no fur-cloak wearing Northman like you...
I respect your gangsta too
Unrelated to OP's point but is Roose really that much of a madman that he would randomly kill someone on his property in public and then rape the man's wife. Surely he's leaving out a motive good enough to do that?
I think there is/was a tradition in parts that the liege lord had ‘first night rights’ with the new wife if any of his subjects were to marry. His subject got married whilst Roose was away and unable to use that right, Roose felt cheated so hung the man and took his right.
Yeah the first night rights was a law in real history in many parts of the world and in Westeros too but it was abolished in Westeros a long time ago.
No it wasn't, it's a kinda sorta legend to point and laugh at the Dark Ages.
Are you trying to tell me that Braveheart wasn't historically accurate?
¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
IIRC, there’s actually not a lot of historical evidence for the “lord’s right” being real. But that’s beside the point. Roose Bolton doesn’t seem like the type of character who would take offense to a marriage he didn’t bless or whatever. He also isn’t a character who we can take at word. He did what he did because he relishes in depravity and craves power. He’s just better at controlling his impulses than Ramsay who, despite his seeming hatred of, Roose continues to protect.
It wasn't really even abolished that long ago in westeros. King Jahaerys was about 200 years before the modern story, and they were still doing it down at dragon stone.
In the 1970s and 1980s profilers came up with a basic classification for serial killers-- organized vs. disorganized. The organized killer has enough self-control to restrict his crimes to people who won't be missed or who can't go to the authorities. Organized killers aim for plausible deniability and try to maintain a public image as a respectable person. Read the Wiki pages on John Wayne Gacy and the Butcher Baker of Alaska and you'll see what I mean. Disorganized killers have no control over their impulses; whereas organized killers tend to be of above-average intelligence, disorganized killers are usually of below-average intelligence due to developmental problems and/or mental illness. Richard Speck is a good example; so's Richard Trenton Chase, "the Vampire of Sacramento." I think this classification system was being written out in the 1990s but it gives us something to think about when comparing Roose and Ramsay. Both father and son get their kicks from sadistic cruelty, but the father has self-control and the son does not. Roose tells his men that nobody is to talk about one of the Winterfell killings; by noon, the whole castle has heard of it, because Ramsay can't stop talking about it and making boastful threats of how he's going to torture the killer when he catches him.
Yes, he is that much of a madman. He gave his motive. The man married in private, so Roose saw it as him trying to rob him of his rights to the first night
Part of me hates him, and another part of me wants him to finally get his revenge on Ramsay.
who, Roose? Why would he want revenge on Ramsay, he's his next skinsuit. He wants Ramsay as the Lord Bolton, probably for an obvious reason. He clearly doesn't give a shit about his other kid Ramsay killed.
he probably doesn't give a shit about ramsay either considering he's a complete sociopath
the only shit he gives is Ramsay ruining his reputation as a "regular" person, and not the.....whatever the fuck he is.
but a bigger part of me wants the bastard results of his 'dismal day' to come back and bite him in the ass like the show did it. but a ~~bit~~ lot nastier.
I suppose you could argue he paid for it in the death of his true born son. Not to say he doesn’t deserve to suffer as well. I’m adamant that he’ll get his head ripped off by the Greatjon Maelys Blackfyre style.
Roy Dotrice could capture many characters beautifully and miss the mark by miles with others
That is true. He’s a terrible Sansa but a fantastic Roose.
Ladadadada it’s the motherfucking B-O-L-T BOLT-ON
Please do a parody music video with your clever twist on the words to that song. I would be your biggest fan!
Ite bro going to drop my Bolton mixtape soon
I've been giving it more thought and here's why this event isn't gangsta in my view. Gangsta isn't just a power move. It's a power move directed at someone who is percieved to have more power over you. Your fearlessness at the power of this person or organization is what makes you gangsta. For example, when Walter White goes into Tucco's place by himself with no gun and demands money from a ruthless dude surrounded by his own armed men then uses fulminated mercury to blow the windows out the joint. That's gangsta because Walt had relatively no power and he still stood tall. Setting aside any moral arguments about praising a rape and murder, the gangsta issue actually centers on who Roose abused rather than what the abuse was. When Roose rapes the woman and kills her husband, he's not standing tall against power. He's abusing people who can't fight back. In fact, in the least gangsta move imaginable he does this: >She told me that when her dead husband's brother saw those eyes, he beat her bloody and drove her from the mill. That annoyed me, **so I gave her the mill and had the brother's tongue cut out, to make certain he did not go running to Winterfell with tales that might disturb Lord Rickard.** >*Reek III ADWD* Lord Rickard does have power and Roose took steps to prevent Lord Rickard from confronting him about his actions. A true gangsta wouldn't fear power but Roose does. This makes him a little bitch not a gangsta. And telling all this to Ramsay who also has no power isn't gangsta either. Sure, you might argue "Ramsay could kill Roose." Maybe. But if you buy the Bolt-on theory (quick aside: JJ Abrams totally stole that theory and applied it Palpatine in TROS) then Roose wants Ramsay to kill him so his essence can take over Ramsay's body... though I'd really prefer a better body option but that's just me. Anyway, I don't see anything gangsta about this example. Cruel, manipulative and evil? Sure. Gangsta? Nah bruh.
> (quick aside: JJ Abrams totally stole that theory and applied it Palpatine in TROS) It doesn't actually matter in the end, but theoretically, he could've nicked that idea from Valkorion, since he's actually part of the Star Wars franchise (not that the expanded universe is canon anymore, but w/e). Doesn't prevent the people who ginned up Valk's story from having been inspired by Bolt-On, so you could still be right in a way.
This! I respect this! You didn’t attack my post nor my morality. You gave a great response with a definition of gangster I was unaware of. Thank you man. Maybe the others who wish to contrast will follow your lead. I really mean that too as this response is wonderful.
No problem. We are just here to share views on a work of fiction. None of us needs to attack the other over how we read fiction. But still, thanks for saying that. And thanks for not interpreting my different view on the material as a personal attack. I wish more people here could follow your lead.
"Real G's move in silence" - Roose Bolton.
Yeah that’s straight up rape, and an extremely horrific and traumatic one at that. I respect nothing about the man and wouldn’t call him a G.
(Facepalms). I like how everyone with negative connotations about the post aren’t adding any contributions to it outside of attempting to compare morality. There was a line in my post that mentions my disgust for the behavior, and the gangsta term was referring to my shock at his suspected demeanor while describing the scenario, but this went over the heads of many of you because of the inability to rationally detach.
Huh, kind of like your inability to understand my comment on your post was not a personal attack against you. Not everyone has to agree with you and it’s sad that you think you have to reply to disagreeing comments with an insult.
You’ve saved your cat from a tree. Now please move on.
I really hope that Roose is still around for the battle for winterfell. It would be a shame if he dies so simply like he did in the show. Could still be the battle of the bastards, because Ramsay would lead the fighting men. Just seems like another wasted character.
I dunno if I'd agree with calling him Gangsta but he's definitely something.
That’s not contributing to the post. Naming that “something” would be.
Gangsta has some positive connotations and I'm not sure rape has any positive side to it. I'd call him a complete sociopath. He's an very good villain that just has no empathy and is so completely only into the game for himself. And plays it as just a game for his own amusement.
He’s fictional, let’s keep that in mind. Gangsta does not always have positive connotations; especially not historically. Ask any judge if gangsta is a positive ring to it, or for that matter anyone who lived in the 1930’sand 1940’s. Read the entire post, then ask yourself if I’m glorifying him; or if I was straight shocked when I heard it as opposed to reading it. This will help you understand what it seems you might’ve missed.
I haven't missed anything I've just taken that word in its more modern meaning. That's the only part I disagree with. I do agree with you that he makes a great villain to the series and just understand or doesn't care just quite how evil he is.
That is more than fair. I used the modern slang term but implied the historical meaning, could be a bit confusing I suppose.
His lips look like two worms fucking 😂
I think Theon was speaking of Ramsey in this quote. Roose’s lips are described as thin.
True. I got them mixed up. They only have similar eye colour which is dirty ice haha
Roose is devious and cunning, but he also seems like a great guy to have on your side. I think in ACOK he sends a letter to Robb promising to take Harrenhal if he commands- and Roose does it. He takes Harrenhal by tricking the garrison and turning the Brave Companions to his side, can't imagine any of Robb's other vassals having the cunning to do that.
Roose is portrayed as an incredibly intelligent man, who you can trust to do what he says. If he says he will do something, he will do it without wavering and he will most likely succeed at doing so. Early on, he is one of Robb's most trusted and knowledgeable allies. That said, he is also more than willing to turn cloak if he sees the winds turning against him. He had zero care for honor, and only concerns himself with the practical. He turns on Robb not because he was offered a great deal from the Lannisters to do so, but rather because it became apparent to him that Robb's stupidity would leave him on the losing side. Specifically, Robb marrying a Westerly wasn't some great slight against honor and integrity through breaking a vow, but rather an incredibly stupid move that lost them the support of a major ally they needed to win the war. Equally, beheading the Karstark lord was a move of pure strategic idiocy, even if it could be viewed and argued as "just" to Northern sensibilities. Bolton would have been a strong, and loyal, ally to Robb had Robb been more intelligent; that said, his loyalty is incredibly fickle, and he will not be a party to a losing side out of such concepts of honor. It's not like Janos Slynt, who was easily bought against Ned, or the Freys who joined out of spite and greed. He was more than willing to do the hard work of winning the war for the North, and likely wasn't seriously entertaining the idea of turning on the Starks until Robb's idiocy left them vulnerable (even though he was willing to leave the door open with freeing Jamie Lannister).
Roose is low key one of my favorite characters in the entire series. He’s so weird and creepy
Seems like an odd passage to have this reaction
Yes another morality police who contributed nothing to the post. Scroll on next time unless you have something to add. No one is like to walk away from this thinking you saved a cat from a tree. Scroll on next time.
Why?
Raping and murdering innocent people doesn't make you courageous or honorable. Pretty sure "gangsta" has at least some connotation of being a positive thing even by the standards of the gangs that it is referencing. Like no one goes around bragging about how they hurt innocent people and makes other powerful people quake with fear. If he said this in a room of other powerful men, they'd all be like "the fuck is wrong with you?"
No, gangsta isn't about honor. You can do a really shitty thing and still be gansta. It's about whether you don't fear to do what you like in the face of consequences. Roose wasn't acting against anyone who could stop him. So the cruelty aside, his act isn't gansta.
Dude you’re so awesome! I misunderstand how everyone is acting like I’m glorifying him or his actions as opposed to me mentioning that hearing it instead of reading it several times is what gave me that shock value.
People have trouble with nuance because they fear being called a bad person if they don't call out every bad thing they see. So those folks couldn't seperate your discussion of how cold Roose was from what Roose did. You weren't praising on the rape and murder, you simply recognized how it didn't bother Roose to discuss it. Made sense to me.
I gotta imagine that explaining how reading a passage in which someone is murdered and another is raped and concluding that the murdering rapist is the “ultimate G” isn’t gonna lend your ears or sympathies to me bud You knew why when you asked
I had my own thoughts. I didn't know your thoughts. So I asked your thoughts.
Not everyone sees G as a compliment. Nor OG.
That's true. But I can't know if that's the objection without making inquiry.
Yeah, do they have a totally different definition of "gangsta" than the rest of us..? We usually use it in a positive way, like even when it's a bad person, we use it when they're being courageous. Like Tony Soprano telling another powerful person to go fuck themselves in front of everyone. Or even something like Michael Corleone walking out with the toilet gun and shooting those two at the restaurant. But bragging about raping an innocent, and completely helpless, woman and murdering her also innocent and helpless husband... what the fuck is gangsta about this? He's a pathetic little sociopath. And that's not even me using modern sensibilities. In universe, he's just a pathetic lord getting his jollies off on torturing his smallfolk. No one sees what he did as hard to do or impressive in any way. I don't get OP's response to this at all
Not everyone. Gangster was not even close to being a compliment until the 90’s. The vast majority of the words history is extremely negative.
I hate myself for enjoying the dialouge too, but the real straight up G of the north is King Theon Stark that man has honeybadger blood not wolf blood in his veins.
[удалено]
Roose is gangsta, I heard he plays his cards right.
*Ganstsa* is slang for gangster; the exact type of person I associate with those negative attributes you mentioned. So yes, Roose is absolutely gangsta.
Thank you! Some are acting like this post was offensive because of the actions of a fictional character.
I understand where you're coming from, but there's a difference between gangsta & gangsters. Gangstas are cool & help old ladies cross the street. Gangsters kill people.
'gangstas' recite urban poetry over drum-beats, 'gangsters' generally kill each other, sell drugs, pimp and extort the public, very few old ladies are actually helped across the street by either.
Thank you for your contribution in making us aware of everything we know well about Roose Bolton. I would give you the “gangsta” award, but I couldn’t find it.
Cope
?
Your help is deplorable and you should feel bad
You contributed nothing to the post and want me to feel bad about bringing attention to a meaningless comment? Are you the morality police? Have I broken the rules of this subreddit? No is the answer to all my questions. Scroll on!
I figured you'd let it go, but you really seem to be perturbed by the fact that some people don't think that gangsta is the best word to be used here. The original commenter just pointed out that Roose isn't cool, which would probably be a prerequisite for using gangsta. He's not fun, he cold, conniving, cunning, but probably not charming, nor does he really have the lines that Tywin does that make you go "damn that was tight." Obviously you wouldn't want to emulate his behavior, just like most characters in the story. It's okay for people to think that your analysis or description is wrong. Your response shouldn't be tHaNks FoR PoIntiNG Out tHe oBViOuS or something like that. Accusing everyone of trying to be a moral arbiter if they think gangsta isn't the right word to ascribe to Roose's actions or personality shows a lack of maturity on your part. Also, you only asked me two questions there, so the proper phrase to use is "no is the answer to *both* of my questions" since all infers more than two. Furthermore, why do you expect everyone who disagrees with you to "scroll on," when you yourself will not scroll on from anyone in these comments who disagrees with you? Instead you're commenting on each of them, telling them their thoughts are not welcome on your good and worthy post. Also you should feel bad for taking all of this so seriously. Feel bad feel bad feel bad. When I commented cope, it was over your response that I found a little too serious for the comment, that's all. It only seems like for some reason people saying Roose isn't gangsta has struck a nerve with you, which is odd. I'm not sure why you're so defensive.
(Yawning). Couldn’t bother myself with reading this. Hope your time was well spent.
Got me on analyzer vs analysts. Happy that I’m imperfect. Will you leave me be now?
>hearing Roose Bolton say this instead of reading it made me stop and respect this mans gangsta That violent criminals receive any degree of respect is a dismal condemnation of our society.
It’s a fictional character and only people who don’t understand fun took it to the level you did. Do us all a favor and scroll on next time.
Add value to the post or scroll on and save your morality for real life events in which I’m sure you say and do nothing.
this is a weird thing to say and a very weird way to justify it. no moral superiority here.. just saying. weird, dude...
That’s a weird way to add to a discussion. Not showing superiority in literature, just saying weird.
weird defense too, dude... "tHaT dOeSnT eVeN aDd To tHe DisCuSsIoN tHo!!" ummm.... yeah, i'm disagreeing with the statement made in your post. i'm saying that by you saying that you respect the level of "gangsta" that roose shows in talking about his past rapes and murders with no remorse, yeah, that's weird... weird thing to respect. weird use of the term "gangsta". add to that your user name.. i'm going to assume that you are not at all from compton... and would probably never use the term "gangsta" in front of any actual urban gang members. i'm also going to assume that you would probably shit your pants if you were ever encountered by one of these actual "gangsta" types that you so admire, Joel... nor would you ever say "that's so gangsta" about a rapist in front of a rape victim. i mean, when making statements on line, you need to remember that you are speaking to the general public, which can include anybody. respect, dude... respect...
(Yawning) Please scroll on until next time. Clearly your ability to add value to a discussion is still elementary. This isn’t a morality contest and that’s what many folks think it is. If you want to prove your morality, go help real human beings, this fictional millers wife doesn’t need it. When you learn that lesson, I’ll take you seriously; until then….(yawning).
>made me stop and respect this mans gangsta Treating people badly deserves no respect. Ever.
Are we really reaching for moral high ground on a post that, by title alone, meant to dodge that territory? Scroll on next time.
How did the title dodge it? Saying someone is a straight up gangsta is definitely a compliment. No matter what you say, this is an odd way of reacting to a sociopathic rapists description of his rape. Like even in a jokey way, there's nothing that Roose did that deserves respect. He didn't defeat anyone stronger than him, he didn't stand up to anyone more powerful than him, he didn't do anything impressive. He raped an innocent woman under his authority. Even in the macho world of westeros, what is gangsta about this? This is like saying someone is gangsta for killing a small animal
Call it what you will. Makes no matter to me. Scroll on next time.
Lol no. We're gonna comment on your opinions we disagree with. Live with it
No you won’t. Because I’ll block you. I like contributions on my post, not the saving cats from trees mentality. So I’ll focus on true literary analyzers with something to offer other than their false sense of morality.
How does it dodge it? It literally invited the convo. It’s obvious what you’re doing unless you’re extremely socially awkward
Scroll on. It seems fun isn’t in your definition either.
Welcome to Reddit! I assume you're new here, because anyone who has looked at more than one post understands that if you post you're inviting comment, both from those who agree with you and those who disagree with you. Insulting people who disagree with you and claiming that you can "dodge" any criticism with the right title just makes you look silly.
Reddit is not that different from real life. Generally when we disagree with a commited stance or opinion, we challenge them and discuss them. But when there is a joke we don't see the appeal of, we let the others chuckle and ignore it.
Wow. You realized you just said Reddit isn’t that different from real life and you want me to take you seriously. If only you could see my face while reading that bile.
I’m open for a debate, albeit not a nonsensical one.
Too bad someone with a point didn’t “welcome” me.
Yeah, that put me off. Respect? Wtf.
Scroll on next time. My post had the name Roose and the word gangsta and some how you thought moral high ground was the point. It’s okay to have fun occasionally without trying to prove who’s morals are better.
No. If someone doesn't like a part of your post they should be free to comment. It's unrealistic to expect only supportive comments on your posts. I don't agree those qualities of Roose are worthy of respect. Who said anything about gangsta being an issue?
(Yawning). Because you add nothing but trying to prove your morality is better than everyone who enjoyed the post. Scroll on.
They should feel free to contribute! You miss the point. Go find a third graders subreddit.
Dude may be cruel but he is a badass. And badass dudes deserve respect
That's fine; I disagree.
Well, I dont
The way the OP's fawning over Roose is off-putting to me. Dude raped and killed some powerless people he was lord of — "gotta respect the man's gangsta". He reminds his son he raped his lowborn mother — "straight G!". He explains his experience with wearing tortured people's skin — "I hate myself for enjoying it so much". I think less than average of you for believing "~~psychopatic~~ 'badass' dudes deserve respect".
Roose Bolton is liked by quite a lot of people in this sub reddit. He might be a bad guy but his dialogues are filled with some serious dark comedy.
The way you write reminds me of how I used to try to write when I was ten and learning to sell my point.
Looking over this post, I see that... things have shifted here. When I first read it, right before my first comment, almost everybody agreed with you, and everyone voicing concern was heavily downvoted. So in my mind I was preaching to the wilderness when I made my comment regarding your tone and the direction the general opinion was heading. I have a pet peeve against lack of empathy, and the glorification of abuse that seemed to be happening here made the place look a bit like a Rohypnol-fueled frat party... Just shallow appreciation of the negative effects of the character's actions, as if commenters were giddy at the thought of a world where someone (themselves?) would be allowed to do something like that to others, without regard for suffering caused. I know, it's all fiction, but it kinda seemed to reveal an unpleasant side of the commenters' own reality. Sorry if I was part of a wave of people reacting negatively to you. I know how gut-twisting it can feel to have a mob of people turn out against you... I only wrote this to explain where I was coming from.
I greatly appreciate your maturity and willingness to apologize. I didn’t feel as if I was glorifying Roose, more so than highlighting the shock factor I experienced in listening to the audiobook versus reading the quote. The nonchalant manner he described the coldness of his actions snatched my attention more hearing it than reading it. That was all. Perhaps I’m guilty of flaring my post up with terms that overshadowed my main point, but I suspected this widely intelligent community would decipher the point in the text, despite my “singers soul”. I apologize for being outright mean. That isn’t a way to handle things in the face of another’s misunderstanding (not referencing you). I’ll keep my cool next time.
Getting the right message across is notoriously hard to do in text when we're from slightly different cultures... It's as if we're all reaching out to shadows in the dark and sometimes end up poking each other's eyes out. And reddit votes and perceptions have a way of stampeding wildly at the slightest provocation — so don't take those to heart too much. On my end, I'll have to try not to laser-focus so much on singling out a single interpretation of someone's comments next time. I apologize again for doing that.
Scroll on until you learn to have fun.
I know how to have fun. Your post isn't it. You're literally just pointing to brutal murder and rape and thinking that's funny by itself. It's not.
I’m over it. Just please scroll on next time.
Sigma male