# Song of Ice and Fire Question...



## Celtavian (Nov 12, 2003)

I have developed a rather pathological hatred of the Jaime and Cersei Lannister, their Hound, and Prince Joffrey Baratheon (Lannister, he doesn't deserve his father's name). I want to see all these people die. If Joffrey learns some respect, then I might forgive the spoiled brat.

I was hoping that someone who has already read the book can tell me if Jamie and Cersei, the Hound and Prince Joffrey receive their just deserves? I don't need details. I don't want in-depth spoilers. I just want to know that they pay, preferably with their lives in a gruesome manner.

I'm at the point right now where I wish I could jump into the story and kill them myself. I feel a deep sense of loathing for the above characters, and Martin has written them in such a way that they seem worse than a foul monster.


----------



## mmu1 (Nov 12, 2003)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> I have developed a rather pathological hatred of the Jaime and Cersei Lannister, their Hound, and Prince Joffrey Baratheon (Lannister, he doesn't deserve his father's name). I want to see all these people die. If Joffrey learns some respect, then I might forgive the spoiled brat.
> 
> I was hoping that someone who has already read the book can tell me if Jamie and Cersei, the Hound and Prince Joffrey receive their just deserves? I don't need details. I don't want in-depth spoilers. I just want to know that they pay, preferably with their lives in a gruesome manner.
> 
> I'm at the point right now where I wish I could jump into the story and kill them myself. I feel a deep sense of loathing for the above characters, and Martin has written them in such a way that they seem worse than a foul monster.




Well... One of them does, and one suffers something fairly drastic, but that's it so far - and Martin continues to add depth to the characters, so things aren't likely to end as simply as you'd prefer.


----------



## Enforcer (Nov 12, 2003)

This will tell you specifically which character gets "something fairly drastic" and which actually dies:



Spoiler



Joffrey, the little bastard, chokes to death on food. Jaime gets his sword hand chopped off...and he doesn't have a level of Ranger, so Ambidexterity isn't his bag. He's useless as a warrior afterwards. Cersei has yet to be horribly tortured to death, but hopefully it won't be long.


----------



## Sirius_Black (Nov 12, 2003)

If you are still finishing what has been published of this series, save some of that hatred. You're going to need it for a certain family after a traumatic event in the third book.


----------



## jdavis (Nov 12, 2003)

trust me you need to make plenty of room in your heart for hate by the time all is said and done with what has been written so far. One of the people mentioned in your list becomes one of my favorite characters in the story by the end of book 3 and another one of them get one of the more famous ends in the story so far. But rest assured there will be so many more people to hate before it is said and done.


----------



## Celtavian (Nov 12, 2003)

*re*

Thanks for the information. Now I can read knowing that at least a few of those bastards I mentioned will get what they have coming.

More villainous bastards to hate? Ok, I can live with that.


----------



## nikolai (Nov 12, 2003)

Leave the Hound alone! He's the best character in the series. He's done nothing that's wrong, though sadly I suspect he will die before the series is out.

nikolai.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 12, 2003)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> I have developed a rather pathological hatred of the Jaime and Cersei Lannister, their Hound, and Prince Joffrey Baratheon (Lannister, he doesn't deserve his father's name). I want to see all these people die. If Joffrey learns some respect, then I might forgive the spoiled brat.
> 
> I was hoping that someone who has already read the book can tell me if Jamie and Cersei, the Hound and Prince Joffrey receive their just deserves? I don't need details. I don't want in-depth spoilers. I just want to know that they pay, preferably with their lives in a gruesome manner.
> 
> I'm at the point right now where I wish I could jump into the story and kill them myself. I feel a deep sense of loathing for the above characters, and Martin has written them in such a way that they seem worse than a foul monster.




Get used to it. I read about half of the first book and I felt that way about every character in the book but two. This is how Martin writes a "sophisticated" book. He creates a world where I don't give a crap about anyone in it.

That is what I get for reading a book based on the suggestions of a literature major.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 12, 2003)

nikolai said:
			
		

> Leave the Hound alone! He's the best character in the series. He's done nothing that's wrong, though sadly I suspect he will die before the series is out.
> 
> nikolai.





Really? I seem to remember the Hound being involved in the death of a young farmboy who did nothing wrong in the first half of the first book. I could be remembering wrong though.


----------



## nikolai (Nov 12, 2003)

As far as the Hound knew the farmboy has attacked a Royal Prince, so what he did was perfectly legitimate. This isn't the case, but that's not the Hound's fault, the blame lies with Sansa, Ned, Joffrey, Cersei etc.



> Get used to it. I read about half of the first book and I felt that way about every character in the book but two. This is how Martin writes a "sophisticated" book. He creates a world where I don't give a crap about anyone in it.




You seem very upset about it. I think a lot of people have this response, they like Martin's writing and world, but dislike the ambiguity of some of the characters. There are plenty of sympathetic characters in the books, though in some instances the sympathetic side is buried very deep. I don't know how much more you've read, but there are characters who get the chance to do the right thing later on.


----------



## Sirius_Black (Nov 12, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> One of the people mentioned in your list becomes one of my favorite characters in the story by the end of book 3




Which one?


----------



## Storminator (Nov 12, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> Really? I seem to remember the Hound being involved in the death of a young farmboy who did nothing wrong in the first half of the first book. I could be remembering wrong though.




Well, to paraphrase the Hound, "Knights are for killing things, the rest is just bull****."

Just doing his job...

PS


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 12, 2003)

nikolai said:
			
		

> As far as the Hound knew the farmboy has attacked a Royal Prince, so what he did was perfectly legitimate. This isn't the case, but that's not the Hound's fault, the blame lies with Sansa, Ned, Joffrey, Cersei etc.




True and false. He did think the boy attacked a royal. BUT it was being screamed straight to his face by a royal princess that the boy had been fighting ONLY in self defense. The Hound completely knew this and intentionally ignored it.

The Hound may improve with time but at that point he is utter scum. I don't know what was worse. The fact that he commited cold blooded murder or that he was so proud of his victory over a defenseless boy.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 12, 2003)

nikolai said:
			
		

> You seem very upset about it. I think a lot of people have this response, they like Martin's writing and world, but dislike the ambiguity of some of the characters. There are plenty of sympathetic characters in the books, though in some instances the sympathetic side is buried very deep. I don't know how much more you've read, but there are characters who get the chance to do the right thing later on.





There may be one or two who if they saved the world could redeem themselves. Almost all of them though in my opinion are far enough down the scum meter that I couldn't be made to care about them no matter what happens later.

As for the writing itself, I found nothing particularly sophisticated about it. He knows the english language and doesnt forget his punctuation but big deal. The meat of the story is still characters I don't care about.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 12, 2003)

Storminator said:
			
		

> Well, to paraphrase the Hound, "Knights are for killing things, the rest is just bull****."
> 
> Just doing his job...
> 
> PS





Nice excuse he gives since he commits cold blooded murder and knows he did.


----------



## nikolai (Nov 12, 2003)

> True and false. He did think the boy attacked a royal. BUT it was being screamed straight to his face by a royal princess that the boy had been fighting ONLY in self defense. The Hound completely knew this and intentionally ignored it.




I don't think this is true. I may be wrong, but which royal princess screamed it in his face? If you're thinking of Arya, she's not a royal princess. She said her piece in front of court (where her behaviour would have lead people to believe Joffrey was telling the truth) *after* Mycah was killed - not before. And the Hound wasn't there. All he knew was the lies told by Joffrey and Sansa.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 12, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> As for the writing itself, I found nothing particularly sophisticated about it. He knows the english language and doesnt forget his punctuation but big deal. The meat of the story is still characters I don't care about.




yeah, its ok, but not all that. For a while there I got emotionaly invested in the characters, but once that was beaten out of me I pretty much skimmed the rest of the last book and won't be reading any more... Part of it was obviously the red wedding, but the more silly little plot turns and "ooh, ohh, the bad guy is winning, what a smart guy" I got to, the less point there was in continuing. 

I honestly don't care what happens to any of the characters, because the whole story has come to feel very contrived and arbitrary - When I enjoy a story, I can suspend my disbelief and feel that I am finding out what happens to people. But when one too many "I'm so edgy and non traditional" plot twists happens, I become very aware of the writer as just that. Some guy at his keyboard, whose work has ceased to interest me. What will happen to Arya? Nothing. Arya doesn't actually exist, she's a fictional construct whose personality or abilities may change on a dime if the writer feels like it. What will happen to Sanya? Who cares, poor writing has turned her into the most passive first person character ever to waste page space. How will the war end? Stupidly, with a suspension of disbelief breakingly effective betrayal, what a cop out...

And I wouldn't care if so many people weren't addicted to the guy and constantly waiting on his next churned out pages. (and if I hadn't wasted time on the first couple of books that could have been spent on something worthwile...)

Kahuna burger


----------



## jdavis (Nov 12, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> Nice excuse he gives since he commits cold blooded murder and knows he did.



Well since this is a fantasy setting and not a modern setting these things happen, lets face it the vast majority of real knights were probably pompus jerks and most were just cold blooded murderers but they seem to be portrayed in modern times as having all sorts of benevolent and superior traits and ideas. Yea many of these characters are unlikable (especially if you just read half of one book) but that is partly because the book doesn't cater to fantasy book misconceptions as to how people in a middle ages type setting would of really had to live. Of course being as you only read half of the first book you really can't comment on books two or three (or one for that matter as you didn't even finish it). No book is liked by everybody, sorry you didn't like it, now back to the actual topic of the thread.


----------



## jdavis (Nov 12, 2003)

Sirius_Black said:
			
		

> Which one?



 Jaime Lannister, I'm a sucker for a good redemption story


----------



## TiQuinn (Nov 12, 2003)

nikolai said:
			
		

> You seem very upset about it. I think a lot of people have this response, they like Martin's writing and world, but dislike the ambiguity of some of the characters. There are plenty of sympathetic characters in the books, though in some instances the sympathetic side is buried very deep. I don't know how much more you've read, but there are characters who get the chance to do the right thing later on.




I would say that most of the characters have their turn in the sympathetic chair with the exception of a few.  Whether they actually take the opportunity to do the right thing is not always obvious.  That's why I like Martin's books.    The villains aren't always so villanous, and the heroes aren't always so heroic.  Jaime Lannister went from the #2 character who I wanted to see get eviscerated to one of my favorites.


----------



## Allanon (Nov 12, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> As for the writing itself, I found nothing particularly sophisticated about it. He knows the english language and doesnt forget his punctuation but big deal. The meat of the story is still characters I don't care about.





			
				Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> >Snipped<
> Kahuna burger



 Thank you both for giving you're opinions *again* about how bad this book really is. Besides that noone here asked for them, they aren't at all relevant to the discussion which is taking place here. If the book so deeply disappointed you I would advice you to forget all about it instead of putting more salt in you're own wounds and constantly reply to topics discussing it. Lot's of people like these books and the fact that you don't is by no means justification enough for you to begin trolling every thread opened about it.

   -Allanon


----------



## nikolai (Nov 12, 2003)

I think what Kahuna Burger and DocMoriartty have posted is very interesting.

I really like ASoIaF because of the way it plays with various genre conventions and that it's so unlike the various "watch the good guys win" stories that I think fantasy is littered with. I find it really interesting that there is a sizable contingent of fantasy fans who don't like it. I think the two reasons that have been given:

1) the plot twists are so outside genre conventions that it breaks their suspension of disbelief,

2) they can't find a hero to root for because of (a) there are few clearly good or heroic characters, and (b) the punishment dealt to the "good guys" means it's difficult to get involved with their story.

I just find this interesting, even though they didn't effect my enjoyment of the books.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 12, 2003)

nikolai said:
			
		

> I don't think this is true. I may be wrong, but which royal princess screamed it in his face? If you're thinking of Arya, she's not a royal princess. She said her piece in front of court (where her behaviour would have lead people to believe Joffrey was telling the truth) *after* Mycah was killed - not before. And the Hound wasn't there. All he knew was the lies told by Joffrey and Sansa.




You may be right I read this a while back and I could be remembering it wrong. I do remember how proud the Hound was though of having chased down and butchered a small boy.

I do not remember though anything about the way Arya was acting that would make the court think she was lying. The problem at court was Princess Boy a-hole was of course thought to be perfect and would never lie.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 12, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> Well since this is a fantasy setting and not a modern setting these things happen, lets face it the vast majority of real knights were probably pompus jerks and most were just cold blooded murderers but they seem to be portrayed in modern times as having all sorts of benevolent and superior traits and ideas. Yea many of these characters are unlikable (especially if you just read half of one book) but that is partly because the book doesn't cater to fantasy book misconceptions as to how people in a middle ages type setting would of really had to live. Of course being as you only read half of the first book you really can't comment on books two or three (or one for that matter as you didn't even finish it). No book is liked by everybody, sorry you didn't like it, now back to the actual topic of the thread.





My comment was not aimed at you. I was replying to someone who thought the Hound was "cool".


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 12, 2003)

Allanon said:
			
		

> Thank you both for giving you're opinions *again* about how bad this book really is. Besides that noone here asked for them, they aren't at all relevant to the discussion which is taking place here. If the book so deeply disappointed you I would advice you to forget all about it instead of putting more salt in you're own wounds and constantly reply to topics discussing it. Lot's of people like these books and the fact that you don't is by no means justification enough for you to begin trolling every thread opened about it.
> 
> -Allanon




To put this nicely.

Go suck a lemon.   

I am having a conversation with several people and I do not need your approval to continue posting.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 12, 2003)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> I have developed a rather pathological hatred of the Jaime and Cersei Lannister, their Hound, and Prince Joffrey Baratheon (Lannister, he doesn't deserve his father's name). I want to see all these people die. If Joffrey learns some respect, then I might forgive the spoiled brat.
> 
> I was hoping that someone who has already read the book can tell me if Jamie and Cersei, the Hound and Prince Joffrey receive their just deserves? I don't need details. I don't want in-depth spoilers. I just want to know that they pay, preferably with their lives in a gruesome manner.
> 
> I'm at the point right now where I wish I could jump into the story and kill them myself. I feel a deep sense of loathing for the above characters, and Martin has written them in such a way that they seem worse than a foul monster.





To reply more directly to your comment this thought does come to mind. Martin disdanes normal writing conventions. His books are full of plot twists and there are few real heroes or villians.

I have not read more than the first half of the first book but I can make one prediction and feel confident. Do not read the series expecting things to be wrapped up nicely ever. Do not expect horrible villians to all get their just desserts. Do not expect heroes to win out against evil.

Those would be too obvious for Martin to use. If you read it building a list of people you hate and reading so that you can see them punished I seriously will expect you to be disapointed. Too many of them will get away with it or never truly pay. Martin wouldnt want to be too typical genre now would he.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 12, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> To put this nicely.
> 
> Go suck a lemon.
> 
> I am having a conversation with several people and I really do not care what you think about my opinion.




wow, that was a lot more nicely than I would have dealt with that.   

actually, when someone asks what comes next, talking in general terms about what comes next is perfectly relevant. And if that something is "Martin kicks you in various painful places until you either give up caring or go into cognitive dissonance and say _thank you master may I have another_" the poor guy who hasn't gotten sucked in yet deserves to know... (one good flame deserves another)

No, so far no one who he listed dies in a way that I could consider being punished for their sins... the deaths or 'punishments' that do occur are anticlimactic and don't gve you the cathartic "take that  you bastard" feeling. Its pretty disapointing.   

Kahuna burger


----------



## Enforcer (Nov 12, 2003)

I personally can't understand how a reader doesn't sympathize with (or at least become emotionally invested in) Jon Snow, Danaerys, or Tyrion. If there is a true hero in those books, it's Jon Snow, he's easy to like in my opinion. Seeing Tyrion constantly struggle to find happiness, only to be constantly disappointed makes for a good story as well. And Danaerys is fascinating if only because her chapters give details of cultures that are far different from the pretty standard medieval isle of Westeros...the fact that a teenage girl ends up being a badass conqueror who still tries to rule justly is also pretty good, I think.

No, there aren't any perfect people in the books, but that makes them all seem more human, in my opinion. And yeah, the protagonists get killed off, but that makes things a hell of a lot more realistic than most fantasy series, where the heroes are pretty much invincible--you _know_ they can't lose.

And you're supposed to hate the Hound...only to feel somewhat sorry for him given how he's been treated by his brother and others.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 12, 2003)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> wow, that was a lot more nicely than I would have dealt with that.
> 
> actually, when someone asks what comes next, talking in general terms about what comes next is perfectly relevant. And if that something is "Martin kicks you in various painful places until you either give up caring or go into cognitive dissonance and say _thank you master may I have another_" the poor guy who hasn't gotten sucked in yet deserves to know... (one good flame deserves another)
> 
> ...




LOL, and to think I just went and edited my post to be MORE polite. Must be an off day for me.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 12, 2003)

Enforcer said:
			
		

> I personally can't understand how a reader doesn't sympathize with (or at least become emotionally invested in) Jon Snow, Danaerys, or Tyrion. If there is a true hero in those books, it's Jon Snow, he's easy to like in my opinion. Seeing Tyrion constantly struggle to find happiness, only to be constantly disappointed makes for a good story as well. And Danaerys is fascinating if only because her chapters give details of cultures that are far different from the pretty standard medieval isle of Westeros...the fact that a teenage girl ends up being a badass conqueror who still tries to rule justly is also pretty good, I think.
> 
> No, there aren't any perfect people in the books, but that makes them all seem more human, in my opinion. And yeah, the protagonists get killed off, but that makes things a hell of a lot more realistic than most fantasy series, where the heroes are pretty much invincible--you _know_ they can't lose.
> 
> And you're supposed to hate the Hound...only to feel somewhat sorry for him given how he's been treated by his brother and others.





Yes Jon is a hero. One of out dozens of characters. The dwarf though I have been told does enough bad things to balance his good and thus you never truly like him. As for the girl, she was not that important in the parts that I read so I cannot comment.

Two and a half characters out of dozens though is not much of a trade.


----------



## Alaric_Prympax (Nov 12, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> The dwarf though I have been told does enough bad things to balance his good and thus you never truly like him. As for the girl, she was not that important in the parts that I read so I cannot comment.




Well IMO you were misinformed concerning those two characters.  I would recommend reading on so that you can form you own opinion on them, but since you've made it clear you do not like this story hopefully you'll find something you'll enjoy reading in the future as I'm sure you already have.


----------



## Pants (Nov 12, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> Yes Jon is a hero. One of out dozens of characters. The dwarf though I have been told does enough bad things to balance his good and thus you never truly like him. As for the girl, she was not that important in the parts that I read so I cannot comment.
> 
> Two and a half characters out of dozens though is not much of a trade.



I cannot honsetly remember any truly 'bad' things that Tyrion does in the serious.  Anyone care to tell me what they are?

I would count Bran as a hero as well, along with Eddard (



Spoiler



Even if he didn't last long, but that's part of the point of the story, honor will only get you sh*t in this land  


).  Dany and Jon also qualify.  While Tyrion may not fit the description of 'hero,' I found his perseverence very compelling, especially when he takes up the role of the Hand in A Clash of Kings.

The hound, I agree, seems like a jerk in the beginning, but underneath his hateful exterior, there is... something.  The way he treats Sansa and Arya later on made me empathize with him more.  I actually felt bad when 



Spoiler



Arya left him alone to die in the wilderness.  He probably deserved it, but still...



Jaime, I don't think that he will ever live down those two defining moments in his life, namely killing Aerys and throwing Bran out the window.  He may redeem himself of the first, but the latter he can never do, because of how cruel and selfish the act was.


----------



## Storminator (Nov 12, 2003)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> <SNIP>
> 
> I honestly don't care what happens to any of the characters, because the whole story has come to feel very contrived and arbitrary - When I enjoy a story, I can suspend my disbelief and feel that I am finding out what happens to people. But when one too many "I'm so edgy and non traditional" plot twists happens, I become very aware of the writer as just that. Some guy at his keyboard, whose work has ceased to interest me. What will happen to Arya? Nothing. Arya doesn't actually exist, she's a fictional construct whose personality or abilities may change on a dime if the writer feels like it. What will happen to Sanya? Who cares, poor writing has turned her into the most passive first person character ever to waste page space. How will the war end? Stupidly, with a suspension of disbelief breakingly effective betrayal, what a cop out...
> 
> ...




That's interesting, as I've had the opposite reaction to the exact same text.

I keep thinking "wow, Martin didn't come up with some lame plot twist to get his characters out of trouble." The fact that the protagonists foes can actually defeat them, despite the fact that they are the protagonists, reinforces my suspension of disbelief. 

I don't see anything in the tale as arbitrary, but rather the logical consequence of previous actions, even if the "good guys" take it in the teeth. For example, I thought the Red Wedding made perfect sense. 

PS


----------



## TiQuinn (Nov 12, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> To reply more directly to your comment this thought does come to mind. Martin disdanes normal writing conventions. His books are full of plot twists and there are few real heroes or villians.
> 
> I have not read more than the first half of the first book but I can make one prediction and feel confident. Do not read the series expecting things to be wrapped up nicely ever. Do not expect horrible villians to all get their just desserts. Do not expect heroes to win out against evil.
> 
> Those would be too obvious for Martin to use. If you read it building a list of people you hate and reading so that you can see them punished I seriously will expect you to be disapointed. Too many of them will get away with it or never truly pay. Martin wouldnt want to be too typical genre now would he.




Personally, I think it's what elevates Martin's books over the typical dime a dozen fantasy.


----------



## jdavis (Nov 12, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> My comment was not aimed at you. I was replying to someone who thought the Hound was "cool".



Well you haven't read 5/6th of the story (of which he is a major part of) either. I got nothing against you or Kahuna's thoughts on the books, it's fine not to like them, but maybe you should start your own thread to discuss the weaknesses in the story intead of trolling for a fight by insulting people who like the books here. Gee if there was a thread on the storyline of ET and I just popped in to say "I hate that stinking movie, I didn't even finish watching it" wouldn't that be considered a little rude? I mean you have only read 1/6th of the written work and you are here telling people who have read the whole 3 books they are wrong about anything? I'm sure a thread on the weakpoints of this series would get a lot of hits and would generate lots of responses and that's where your post should be, this was a thread talking about certain characters futures later in the series (which you haven't read). 

Yes I'm a little touchy here I get tired of the irrelevant, "oh that series sucks" post not to mention the vieled insults to people who actually enjoy the books.


----------



## Mercule (Nov 13, 2003)

Enforcer said:
			
		

> I personally can't understand how a reader doesn't sympathize with (or at least become emotionally invested in) Jon Snow, Danaerys, or Tyrion. If there is a true hero in those books, it's Jon Snow, he's easy to like in my opinion. Seeing Tyrion constantly struggle to find happiness, only to be constantly disappointed makes for a good story as well. And Danaerys is fascinating if only because her chapters give details of cultures that are far different from the pretty standard medieval isle of Westeros...the fact that a teenage girl ends up being a badass conqueror who still tries to rule justly is also pretty good, I think.



I'll agree with you whole-heartedly on Jon and Tyrion.  Jon is easily my favorite character in the books and I think an entire novel or three that featured just him would suck me in.

Dany, on the other hand, bores me to tears.  Her "journey" thus far has taken her from pathetic to uninteresting.  Her actual plot line could be condensed by half at no loss.  The cultures she interacts with are interesting to a point, but seem to jar against the rest of the tale.  If she were given her own novel or three, I think it could be justifiably compared to some of the "filler" books in the Wheel of Time series.  The only reason I don't skip over her chapters entirely is because I'm sure she will have some significant role to play later -- of course, I'd probably care about her more if she wasn't introduced until then.

I'm terribly afraid that the whole thing will wrap with Dany showing up and successfully reclaiming her crown, possibly to be wed to Jon Snow.  I'm truly hoping that things do not turn out that way.  If she were a real person, I think I'd probably like and respect her, because she seems to want to do the right thing and be a decent person.  As a narritive entity, I have more desire to see Cersei Lannister or that mummified satyr Frey come out on top.  My only hope is that, despite all the chapters in the first book devoted to Ned, he is, apparently, not that important of a character after all.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 13, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> Yes I'm a little touchy here I get tired of the irrelevant, "oh that series sucks" post not to mention the vieled insults to people who actually enjoy the books.




well, frankly, I've taken enough not-so-veiled slams for *not* liking the books, the annoyance tends to creep out, I suppose.    When you've gotten burned on a time and mental investment, you tend to want to present the opposing veiwpoint to the folks that are telling others "Its great, keep reading it." I wish someone had told me what kind of writer Martin really was before I read the books, so yeah, I'll let people know that he's not the writer for everyone when the subject comes up. 

(btw, the last time I complained about some nasty slamming not even on topic for this forum, I was roundly ridiculed. I suggest if you want to protect the topics you care about that you push for community standards, not try to silence people only when you like the topic being dissed.)

Kahuna burger


----------



## theburningman (Nov 13, 2003)

Dang, man, I've always thought that Tyrion was one of the best conceived, sympathetic and believable characters in literature.  He's no goody-two-shoes, sure, but when the sht comes down, he's always managed to remain on the side of the angels (is that enough cliches for one sentence?). I hope that I could someday even come _close_ to creating his like.


----------



## takyris (Nov 13, 2003)

Well, KB, allow me to be perfectly in character, as based on our last demi-argument in this forum:  You go.

I personally love the series, but it is what it is.  The quickest way to ruin a series for me is to have somebody get my back up by telling me that it's writing on a whole new level, exploring new philosophies, and that if I don't like it, it's only because my brain can't handle anything more complex than popcorn with the training wheels still on.  (Uh, yes, I am annoyed at Matrix people, why do you ask?  And that's just based on my opinions of the first movie, since I voted with my dollars against the other two.)

I wouldn't consider this thread a "Please, only say nice things about Martin" zone.  KB's comments are free and justifiable and excellent for purposes of the topic, in my opinion.

As I said: I love this series.  I love the fact that he's forcing everyone to grow or die, that he's making people into ambiguous forces over time -- Jaime gets much more sympathetic, as does the Hound, while Catelyn has some hard-hearted aspects to her that put her in the less-than-perfect arena.  That said, if every series were like this one, I think I'd be exhausted, and not in a good way.  It reads as though he's taking the conventions of fantasy and trying to apply an adult-level realism to it -- which means that good people sometimes die, bad people sometimes get to snicker, but eventually, goodness appears to be a good thing and evilness appears to come back and bite you in the butt.

Some people really like this.  Some people really don't.  They're both justified.  This is why it's called literature and not mathematics.  I would argue that it's competently written, and that he's doing a good job of (over the course of the first three books) making his characters three-dimensional, and I would state factually that I like it.  But really, that's about all I can say.  I don't know that it's doing new things with the mythology of fantasy.  I see him trying to put a human face on a lot of stereotypes of fantasy -- the spoiled princess, the tomboy, the unathletic little kid, the unloved bastard kid, and so forth.  But I can also see people saying, "Okay, and why is that good?"

There's a really obnoxious thread in the SFFNET Tangent forum right now wherein a bunch of literary critics who are much better at being literary critics than they are at writing are bombasting the idea that fiction can only be "great" if it is challenging -- if it attacks the status quo.  Frankly, I think that that's garbage, and that saying that challenging stuff is great and unchallenging stuff is, therefore, not-great, is idiotic.  Some people read to have their minds challenged.  This is a legitimate and good reason to read, but it doesn't make you a better person than the guy who grabs something to escape from his currently unhappy, unfair, unGOOD life into a world where morality is simpler and has much more direct and satisfying paybacks for all involved.

So, KB -- fire away.  You'll have to deal with people telling you that you only feel that way because you haven't read the other two books, but that argument didn't convince me to keep reading Jordan, and it shouldn't convince you to keep reading Martin unless you've got a lot of free time over the next few weeks.  I personally think that if you didn't like the first book, you're not going to like the next ones any better.  There's the satisfaction of watching some people I dislike get thrown out windows and watching some people finally grow up and gain some power of their own fate, but there are also some wrenchingly unfortunate, unfair, nasty things that happen to people I had started to care about in a graphic kind of cross between Chaucer and the "Virtuous Heroine in Peril" books of the 17th-18th centuries.


----------



## jdavis (Nov 13, 2003)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> well, frankly, I've taken enough not-so-veiled slams for *not* liking the books, the annoyance tends to creep out, I suppose.  When you've gotten burned on a time and mental investment, you tend to want to present the opposing veiwpoint to the folks that are telling others "Its great, keep reading it." I wish someone had told me what kind of writer Martin really was before I read the books, so yeah, I'll let people know that he's not the writer for everyone when the subject comes up.
> 
> (btw, the last time I complained about some nasty slamming not even on topic for this forum, I was roundly ridiculed. I suggest if you want to protect the topics you care about that you push for community standards, not try to silence people only when you like the topic being dissed.)
> 
> Kahuna burger



You see I don't want to silence the topic it's a very good topic for discussion, in it's own thread. I was actually wanting to post on the topic here but I have gotten pushed way off base and the whole thread is ruined for me because of this stuff. I have absolutely no problem with your position or what you are saying or how you feel on the series. Heck it was only DocMoriartty's first post that bugged me, he has went back to topic discussing characters (although I'll still hit him with the old, but you haven't even read half the series ).

As far as warning somebody off the books, if you got through the first one and liked it then chances are you will keep liking it, but who am I to say yes or no, if you don't like it then stop reading it, that only makes sense, there is only one way to know for sure and that's for somebody to read it themselves and make up their own mind. People have to make up their own minds on whether they like any book or not.

Start a thread, call it "Martin is overated", if you start it they will come. If you want to warn people off then start a thread to warn them off. I was sort of wanting to talk about evil and it's consequences in "A song of Fire in Ice" in this thread since that seems to be the actual topic at hand. Of course you might not get 'slammed' as much for not liking the story if you didn't show up in the middle of a thread where people who love the stories were talking about how much they loved it and announcing that it bugs you that they all like the story so much. I wouldn't go to a Pro Baseball game and start yelling on a microphone about how much I hated baseball and baseball fans, that's sort of asking for it.


----------



## Celtavian (Nov 13, 2003)

*re*



			
				DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> Really? I seem to remember the Hound being involved in the death of a young farmboy who did nothing wrong in the first half of the first book. I could be remembering wrong though.




That is why I hate him. He is a servant to masters I despise and has no conscience or honor. Killing a farmboy. It disgusts me.

About the only complaint I have so far about the first book is one scene that seems a little unnecessary. The one where Daenrys  marries the Dothraki and they go off together. The scene was a bit too graphic and the imagery conjured by the words would tittilate a pedophile. The scene didn't add much to the story and seemed gratuitous.

Other than that, Martin has a real way with words. I hope the book is satisfying. If it is just one long character study with no end, I think I will be a little disappointed. Though I guess that is how you keep people coming back for more.


----------



## Sirius_Black (Nov 13, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> Jaime Lannister, I'm a sucker for a good redemption story




Ditto. I really want to read more about Jaime and am also pulled in quite easy by someone trying "real hard to be the shepherd."  If I may steal a great line from another character who was trying to redeem himself in a great film.


----------



## Sirius_Black (Nov 13, 2003)

nikolai said:
			
		

> 1) the plot twists are so outside genre conventions that it breaks their suspension of disbelief,




What standard conventions found in the fantasy genre does Martin's series break?


----------



## Sirius_Black (Nov 13, 2003)

Storminator said:
			
		

> I don't see anything in the tale as arbitrary, but rather the logical consequence of previous actions, even if the "good guys" take it in the teeth. For example, I thought the Red Wedding made perfect sense.
> PS




Well said. The RW is incredibly hard to read for even this cold hearted SOG and from what I recall reading, hard for the writer to put down on paper. Yet, it was powerful and did make sense within the story.  Horrible, but it made sense.


----------



## Eosin the Red (Nov 13, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> I wouldn't go to a Pro Baseball game and start yelling on a microphone about how much I hated baseball and baseball fans, that's sort of asking for it.




I love this line. Fantastic.

Some people find more enjoyment in hating something than they do in liking something. They can get riled up over things and find some strange purpose in tearing down what other folks like. I never understood the crusader like mentality but it is easily observable.

Personally, Tyrion is one of my favorites because he wants such simple stuff but fate denies him the merciful exile with his whores. 

I like the Hound for another reason, he is the soldier who never thinks. He shoots where told and kills what he is told to kill. Nothing personal in it, it is just his job and he won't accept any glorification of that job.

I never did like Catelyn but Arya......I am gonna love reading book 5 when she returns from her "training."


I tend to be fan boyish....sue me. I still like Star Wars.


----------



## stevelabny (Nov 13, 2003)

this thread got long and brutal pretty quickly.
Allow me to jump in and make it longer and even more brutal.
As previously stated, I read these boosk for the first time in July/August
and am currently in the middle of my first re-read.
thats how much i loved them

is this groundbreaking literature? hardly
is it different that most of the fantasy books "we" grew up on? yes.
almost every fantasy book I read growing up was a clone of the Belgariad. 
That was my yardstick because that was my favorite series.
You could see the same characters/story/plot devices in almost EVERY series.
Were my reading selections probably extremely limited ? yes.
Does that change anything? no.

So many people my age (30) LOVE the original star wars trilogy because it was NEW to us. the epic-fantasy tale of orphan boy with special powers meets old man, sneaky guy, beautiful princess, big hairy strong guy, and comic relief supporting characters, learns his true power, finds out the bad guy is his dad ("what an insanely ORIGINAL idea," i thought when i was 7)  and saves the universe. Sure we all realize now that there was NOTHING original about the story but try convincing 7-year old me. What made Empire Strikes Back such a great movie? The bad guys won, there was no happy ending. Another thing I had never seen before. I loved it. And even  today, it BARELY happens.

Song of Ice and Fire is different than what "we're" used to, and thats why we like it.  I've read "different" or "edgy" just for the sake of being edgy and this ISN'T it. I really wish the nay-sayers can point out the particular edgy for edgys sake scenes, or the suspension of disbelief plot twists because everything reads pretty reactionary to me. Something happens, which causes something else to happen. Thats it. The Merovingian would love it.

When I look at A Song of Ice and Fire, I don't see a bunch of evil characters who are "getting away unscathed" 
First off, the WHOLE POINT of these books is to show that there is TWO SIDES to every story. THAT is  your moral lesson. What looks like evil from the Stark side . doesnt look evil from the Lannister side.  Please note how everyone hated Jaime until he got his own POV...then he became the hero seeking redemption that many are rooting for. He hasnt changed since page one of Game of Thrones, you're just getting to see him from HIS point of view. I can't wait till Cersei gets her POV so everyone can decide she's not so bad too. 
And secondly, THE SERIES ISNT OVER, by series end, many of the bad guys will either be redeemed or dead. I think. 

Jaime 



Spoiler



throws a boy from a roof, but get a POV and becomes redeemable.


Arya 



Spoiler



kills people in cold blood (or gives the commands too) and is one of the "heroes"


Jon Snow who is universally acclaimed as the ONLY REAL HERO in these books,  



Spoiler



abandons the woman he loves for his "duty" and indirectly causes her death, but is considered a hero because he is a POV character. Personally, I think he's MORE of a scum because he thinks he's so honorable and will betray those he loves for "duty" then someone who would do the reverse. You know nothing, Jon Snow and I really hope your death is messy.


Tyrion 



Spoiler



had done NOTHING wrong at all up until the very end of book 3, and people still act defensive when suggesting they like him , because his last name is Lannister so he must be evil. (like all orcs and goblins? sigh)



IT amazes me how people are always so drawn directly to the POV characters, like being inside their heads makes them better people or something.

As for Sandor killing a farmboy and being proud of it...
1> you saw his smugness FROM NED'S POV... Ned is an overly pompous  "honorable" man who always pre-judged people by their last name and often  cut off his hand to spite his face. Basically, Ned is an idiot, and his opinion is worthless (see Mormont, Jorah) Don't pretend Ned is "good" either, the series STARTS with him beheading a defenseless man for a crime that we know ISN'T true. (or at least, not without a VERY good reason) 
2> Sandor has a problem with knights and lords and all the political nonsense. He is the player in this game who DOESNT WANT TO PLAY THE GAME BY THE RULES. In his view, when you play the game of thrones, you win, you die, or you bide your time playing by the bogus rules until you can flip over the table and play a different game by your own rules. Every puppet-master and manipulator in this series plays by the rules. Every knight follows orders. Every pawn whimpers miserably as they are forced to play the game. Sandor is the wild card. 
3>  Should he kill the boy who the prince he defends says attacked him? Should he listen to the young girl who swears its not true?  He's seen the hypocrisy that is the high-born of Westeros rationalizing their actions and calling it morality. He has come to the ultimate truth that if morality is nothing but rationalizing your actions, then his actions dont matter. Sandor's first rule is "Life is cruel" and he probably thinks he's done the kid a favor.
4> Most importantly, we still dont know what really happened. Idiot Ned assumes that Sandor ran down the defensless boy, and Sandor says nothing to change his mind, but since we never saw the scene, we cant really say.

My long and tedious thought porcess summed up:  Compared to what the rest of the world is doing, this guy is a saint. He's possibly guilty of the death of ONE innocent under orders. Otherwise his record is clean. He doesnt have any stupid "principles" This is the hero youre looking for.

I read comic books, I love the idea of a HERO. But, I must admit, I do prefer when my heroes are grounded in the real world instead of being perfect.
(Also know as Marvel rules, DC drools) 
 Does A Song of Ice and Fire have too many gray characters? Maybe, but this a "real world" story. 

I don't know about you but I don't know any innocent real world heroes in my life. Every single person I know has lied, cheated and stolen. Usually rationalized as "white lies", "everyone cheats on their taxes" and "downloading off the internet isnt stealing because the big companies are ripping us off" but sometimes in other less "harmless" ways.
In the modern world, the average person has become civilized enough to not kill other people (depending on which side of the abortion debate you take, but we're NOT getting into that) but the average person is nowhere near a hero.
I've never known a fireman personally, but every cop I've ever known personally makes me wonder if they really give these psychopaths a mental health test before giving them a gun. NOT heroes in my book.
I've seem some people give to a charity when theyre guilty, or take care of stray kittens if theyre cute, but I know NO heroes.
If its good enough for my real life, its good enough for my books.
The "fun, escapist entertainment" part? ALL THE COOL, WITTY DIALOGUE.
George RR Martin writes the best trash-talk, and I want to play fantasy-sports with him. 

Ok I'm off to bed, can't wait to see the responses tomorrow


----------



## Celtavian (Nov 13, 2003)

stevelabny,

A hero doesn't mean perfect. It's not bad to have a few literary ideals like Sir Galahad, Captain America, or Superman, but they certainly aren't the average hero.

I currently find Martin interesting because of the way he writes. His characters aren't particularly new if you read alot nor is his plot. That doesn't matter, because almost everything has been done anyhow and has been for years. I find the story entertaining and that is what keeps me reading.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 13, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> As far as warning somebody off the books, if you got through the first one and liked it then chances are you will keep liking it, but who am I to say yes or no, if you don't like it then stop reading it, that only makes sense, there is only one way to know for sure and that's for somebody to read it themselves and make up their own mind. People have to make up their own minds on whether they like any book or not.




you have me confused with someone else. I've read all three books so far, with the exception of only skimming the last third or so of the last one. Your first statement did not work for me...

And if I went to a forum generally devoted to all sports with known argumentative people and expected to be able to talk about baseball without any naysayers piping up, I would be... unrealistic, shall we say. A thread about ice and fire is a thread about ice and fire, I don't need to start one only for my own opinion....

Kahuna burger


----------



## JoeBlank (Nov 13, 2003)

I've resisted doing this, but I am finally giving in and defending KB and DocM. Personally, SoIaF is one of my favorite works of literature. Consider me a Martin Fanboy.

But KB and DocM are not just bashing the series, they are making reasoned arguments for their positions and, perhaps most importantly, their answers are highly on-topic to the questions posed by Cetavian, the thread-starter:



			
				Celtavian said:
			
		

> I was hoping that someone who has already read the book can tell me if Jamie and Cersei, the Hound and Prince Joffrey receive their just deserves? I don't need details. I don't want in-depth spoilers. I just want to know that they pay, preferably with their lives in a gruesome manner.
> 
> I'm at the point right now where I wish I could jump into the story and kill them myself. I feel a deep sense of loathing for the above characters, and Martin has written them in such a way that they seem worse than a foul monster.



From this, I get that Celtavian is still hoping that the series will give in to convention, that the "bad guys" will "get what they deserve". He is very emotionally invested in this hope, which shows how much he is enjoying the series. 

But KB and DocM are just trying to warn him that, at least from what we have seen so far, he is not going to get what he wants from Martin. It sounds like KB in particular was in a similar situation, from the standpoint that she was emotionally invested in liking some of the good characters. And she was very disappointed to see their fates. She has even said that she wishes someone had warned her before she devoted so much time and energy to the series.

So there you go, Celtavian. The answers to your question is, for the most part: No. From what we have seen so far in the series, the "bad guys" often win, and the "good guys" often lose. And in Martin's world, to lose is usually to die, horribly. For this, and other, valid reasons, some people do not like the series. However, some of us continue to enjoy it, and yearn for more.

But I am afraid that if you decide to continue reading for the purpose of witnessing the powers of good winning all, and living happily ever after, and the powers of evil ending up dead and/or suffering, then you are making a mistake. Read the series because you like it, hate the characters you want to hate and love the ones you want to love. But don't become too emotionally invested in the fates of either, or it may ruin you enjoyment of an excellent work.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 13, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> Well you haven't read 5/6th of the story (of which he is a major part of) either. I got nothing against you or Kahuna's thoughts on the books, it's fine not to like them, but maybe you should start your own thread to discuss the weaknesses in the story intead of trolling for a fight by insulting people who like the books here. Gee if there was a thread on the storyline of ET and I just popped in to say "I hate that stinking movie, I didn't even finish watching it" wouldn't that be considered a little rude? I mean you have only read 1/6th of the written work and you are here telling people who have read the whole 3 books they are wrong about anything? I'm sure a thread on the weakpoints of this series would get a lot of hits and would generate lots of responses and that's where your post should be, this was a thread talking about certain characters futures later in the series (which you haven't read).
> 
> Yes I'm a little touchy here I get tired of the irrelevant, "oh that series sucks" post not to mention the vieled insults to people who actually enjoy the books.




Insult people who like the story? I merely pointed out that the "cool" character he liked was a murderer who enjoyed the fact that he ran down a poor defenseless peasant boy.

So I guess not only are you touchy you are also too stupid to understand simple english if you thought my simple statement of fact was an insult.

BTW, here is your lemon, start sucking.


----------



## CrusaderX (Nov 13, 2003)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> I don't know about you but I don't know any innocent real world heroes in my life.




Heroes aren't heroic because they don't fall or fail.  Heroes are heroic because they don't give up the good fight _despite_ the fact that they fall or fail.

I just wanted to add that to the discussion before this thread gets locked because of rudeness.


----------



## TiQuinn (Nov 13, 2003)

Well, I don't know about the everyone else, but there are times that the series is frustrating for me.  In a good way.  In the way that, I get angry when the heroes can't see past their own pride or blind loyalty.  Sometimes it's like reading a tragedy where the protagonists cause their own downfall, which typically could've been avoided with just a bit more common sense.  But then they wouldn't be the characters they are.  Ned Stark is driven by loyalty to his friend, and his sense of honor and respect for the law.  Nevermind that his sense of honor and respect for the law often fly in the face of true justice.  This is part of what defines that character.  If the characters acted the way I necessarily wanted them to, this story would've been over by now.

As for comeuppance, I also get hopeful that characters like Cersei, Joffrey, and the like get what they deserve.  Sometimes they do.  Bear in mind that there are still 3 more books in the series, so we don't know how this is all going to play out.  I don't expect a squeaky clean ending, nor do I expect a "And all was ruin" ending either.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 13, 2003)

TiQuinn said:
			
		

> Personally, I think it's what elevates Martin's books over the typical dime a dozen fantasy.






All I see is someone striving to be different merely for the sake of being different. It reminds me of REM fans in the early 90's. REM was cool until they made it big and the mainstream public started to buy their CD's. All of a sudden REM was no longer cool and the cool crowd had to move on.

Being different just to be different is what teenagers do to shock their parents. It is not what interests me in literature when I feel it is very obvious while reading.


----------



## Henry (Nov 13, 2003)

Doc, that was uncalled for; it's not cool to go around calling people stupid.

By the same token, any further personal insults against one another need to cease, please. Discussion is cool; name-calling because someone doesn't like the same things as you, and making judgements about them for it, is NOT cool.

Thanks, everyone.


----------



## TiQuinn (Nov 13, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> All I see is someone striving to be different merely for the sake of being different. It reminds me of REM fans in the early 90's. REM was cool until they made it big and the mainstream public started to buy their CD's. All of a sudden REM was no longer cool and the cool crowd had to move on.
> 
> Being different just to be different is what teenagers do to shock their parents. It is not what interests me in literature when I feel it is very obvious while reading.




Hmmm, that's where I guess I don't agree.  I don't see the books as striving to be different.  In fact, I would say they aren't different.  Anti-heroes, characters cast in shades of gray, a dark, gritty setting.  I've seen all of these things before.  His writing style, consisting of cliffhanger endings for each chapter, is nothing new.  I think Martin does all of these things very, very well though, and that's the key.  I can't guess which direction he's going to take the story at any given time, which is something I welcome.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 13, 2003)

Henry said:
			
		

> Doc, that was uncalled for; it's not cool to go around calling people stupid.
> 
> By the same token, any further personal insults against one another need to cease, please. Discussion is cool; name-calling because someone doesn't like the same things as you, and making judgements about them for it, is NOT cool.
> 
> Thanks, everyone.




He said I insulted someone when I did no such thing. So I made sure he was not being a liar by making sure I did insult him. 

Just trying to make sure the number of accusations and crimes were actually balanced.


----------



## Celtavian (Nov 13, 2003)

*re*

I don't get the feeling Martin is trying to be different for the sake of it either. He is telling a tale in a very interesting manner going from character to character showing how the events in each character's life tie together to form a greater story. I find the narrative very entertaining.


----------



## Nighthawk (Nov 13, 2003)

I like the series myself, but I find as years have passed that I no longer have the strong interest in to read any novels that will be released later. I just finished reading them for the second time (the three books) and while it was a mellow enjoyment, I came to the conclusion that if the future books are relased as the past ones have been, I might seriously consider passing on them. The series is excellent but very, very busy and quite cluttered. My memory is not up to the task of keeping all that information in my head.    

With regards to the characters, my favorite is Ser Davos Seaworth. My least favorite is the Father of the Freys (my own outlook on a very twisted individual). Of the main characters, so to speak, none truly stand out as likable, and most strike me as people I want to avoid encountering if I want to live a long life.


----------



## ASH (Nov 13, 2003)

WOW..First off  I will not tell anyone I think their opinion is stupid, but I find it hard to take a person's opinion on something that they may not know about, and reading half of the first book just does not seem enough to base a decent understanding of the books. Doc, Its enough to know that you dont like it and perhaps why you did not, but there is such a difference in characters from that point to the end of book three that you may not have an educated opinion. Dont take that wrong, Its not ment to insult!
 You dont like it, thats evident!  

I understand KB's point of view. You have read most of the books. Its like that stupid movie CITY OF ANGEL'S. Spoiler if you have not seen it. You watch the whole movie. Get attatched to the girl, he fall's, they are together once, then she gets hit by a car and dies!!! That was 2 hrs Ill never get back!!  

Now be warned if you have not read all three books thier is spoilers in the rest of this post........................................................................................
.  
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.I loved the books for the alot of the same reasons KB hated them. I dont think that the main characters (Bran, Jon, Dany) will die, and these are the people I have the majority of attachement too.   My theory, The books are about Jon. "A song of ice and fire...?"  I am a beliver of the Reagher(SP?) and Lyanna theory, that being that they are his real parents. If that is true Jon is the true king, he is older than Dany. 

Jon is an annoying character non the less. I hope that some where down the road he can change his DUTY complex.
  I reallly like Ayra, she is not good, but is not truely evil either. I love the dialog between her and the hound. The hound is not a good person, he is, by most accounts evil. I still like him a great deal, and may even call him "cool"! 
 Dany is boring.  I have not gotten much of anything from her dialoge so far, but I will hang in there!!  A few turns I love, they killed Jofferey, Jamie became a cool character, Daddy Lanister is dead(way to go Tyrion!) 

There is such a mystery to the plot of what is really going on. How are some things happening...? That is really what keeps me reading!  I need to know how Catelyn is still "alive"? What in the heck is going on with Bran? What will happen to Arya now, and who was the guy who killed the three men for her?  When will Dany and her Dragons finally get to Westros? 

I just can not wait for the next books!!!!


----------



## Storminator (Nov 13, 2003)

Hey ASH!

We have these nifty spoiler tags now...



Spoiler



So anything you type in between them is blacked out...



So use 'em! 

PS


----------



## jdavis (Nov 13, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> He said I insulted someone when I did no such thing. So I made sure he was not being a liar by making sure I did insult him.
> 
> Just trying to make sure the number of accusations and crimes were actually balanced.



 eh? heck it's not worth the trouble anymore.

(KB I did understand you read all the books and didn't like it in the end, my point there was that people sort of need to make their own decisions on whether they like it or not (there's 4 more books comming in this series best to stop now if your not happy), sorry if I was confusing I won't bother anymore, I've had enough, the thread is ruined for me anyway so have at it.)


----------



## Sirius_Black (Nov 14, 2003)

ASH said:
			
		

> Now be warned if you have not read all three books thier is spoilers in the rest of this post........................................................................................
> .
> .
> .
> ...




Actually, Jon would be the son of the Prince than and Dany is still the son of the last Targ King. Thus, Dany still would have I think the claim over her nephew. But, since the Targs married each other, I have a feeling she'd want Jon to join her....on many levels.

As for when Dany and her dragons hit the mainland, so to speak.....rumors abound that it will be in Book 5: Dance with Dragons or is it Dance of the Dragons. One of those two.


----------



## ASH (Nov 14, 2003)

> Actually, Jon would be the son of the Prince than and Dany is still the son of the last Targ King. Thus, Dany still would have I think the claim over her nephew...




Nope, I disagree,   

When King Arey's died it passed to his elest son Reghar, then when Reghar died it passes to his son's, but all his kids were belived to be dead, killed by the mountain. This is how it works in the books.

For instance 



Spoiler



Robert died and  if Jofferey would have been his rightful son he would have been the rightful king, not Stannis or Renly. The only claim they had was that Robert had no blood children,


 Thus they had a claim. This was a big part of the books. I mean if Eddard had not found out 



Spoiler



about the incest and blew the whistle Stannis, and Renly would have never thought they had a claim to the thrown.


 It would have made A Clash Of Kings  awefully boring.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 14, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> eh? heck it's not worth the trouble anymore.




Do I have to quote it for you to understand?


----------



## Pants (Nov 14, 2003)

To be fair Doc, since you have only read 1/2 of the first book and you're slamming the whole series isn't going to get many to take your opinions seriously.


----------



## takyris (Nov 14, 2003)

And to be fair, Doc's still being fairly abrasive after a warning from the moderator.

Guys, it's a book.  It's not a religion.  It's not a life-changing political decision.  It's entertainment.  Really.

The original poster wanted to know if the things that were frustrating him would end.  I think that, by and large, the conversation appears to have said, "Some of those things will get solved, but others are going to stick around and continue to bug you."  Some people commented that those things really bugged them, too, and other people commented that they actually like those things.  That's all fine.  It's good discussion.  As a writer, I love seeing discussions like these.  They make me think about why I write and what people like to read, versus what I like to write.

However, turning the discussion into personal attacks on people who either like or dislike the series is not really going to get us anywhere.  Unless you get your jollies off of trolling, I don't see how that really benefits you.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 14, 2003)

Pants said:
			
		

> To be fair Doc, since you have only read 1/2 of the first book and you're slamming the whole series isn't going to get many to take your opinions seriously.





Why? My statements have been confirmed by many people here who have read more of the book. In addition it is fairly obvious from all the comments made by people who have read the whole series that Martin does not alter his storytelling style. 

So any opinion formed over the style of writing of the first half of the first book would be valid for the entire series. Now if someone says that Martin heavily changed his style 10 pages after I threw the book away then I see your point. No one has said that though.


----------



## Pants (Nov 14, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> Why?



Because _you haven't personally read it all_.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 14, 2003)

Pants said:
			
		

> Because _you haven't personally read it all_.






LOL, thats it?


I have never been in space yet I can debate the lunar landings and our attempts to explore the Solar system.

I have never been in a NASCAR racecar but I can tell you they are dangerous.

I have never studied Islam yet I can tell you that militant followers of the religion are perverting the true meaning of the religion and quite dangerous.

Shall I go on? Or are you just going to clip out one word from ym replies and try to make snide smarta$$ comments because you know my point was much more valid than yours?


----------



## ASH (Nov 14, 2003)

You have not read the books.  The idea that you could even try to make an educated post of a book you have barely read is silly, and states that you were just trying to make a problem!  

Thus from this point I will be ignoring your trollish posts on this thread, and suggest that everyone else does the same thing so we can continue to have a nice discussion.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 14, 2003)

ASH said:
			
		

> I second that last post!
> 
> You have not read the books.  The idea that you could even try to make an educated post of a book you have barely read is silly, and states that you were just trying to make a problem!
> 
> Thus from this point I will be ignoring your trollish posts on this thread, and suggest that everyone else does the same thing so we can continue to have a nice discussion.




Back to that again. If someone does not agree with you then they MUST be a troll.

Well......

Here is your lemon.


----------



## ssampier (Nov 14, 2003)

ASH said:
			
		

> Jon is an annoying character non the less. I hope that some where down the road he can change his DUTY complex.
> I reallly like Ayra, she is not good, but is not truely evil either. I love the dialog between her and the hound. The hound is not a good person, he is, by most accounts evil. I still like him a great deal, and may even call him "cool"!
> Dany is boring.  I have not gotten much of anything from her dialoge so far, but I will hang in there!!  A few turns I love, they killed Jofferey, Jamie became a cool character, Daddy Lanister is dead(way to go Tyrion!)
> 
> ...




I can't wait for the new books either. Frankly I'm waiting for the "giant" of Lannister to show his stuff. That comment by Shae given to Tyrion is foreshadowing great things to come. 



Spoiler



Tyrion is on the run for adegely killing Joffrey and killing his father.


 What greatness, I'm not positive. I think it would be neat for Tyrion to become king or at least the lord of Casterly Rock.



Spoiler



Jaime's "new found" honor and duty is perplexing. Granted he did lose his hand; the only thing he was "good" at, so to speak.


 Jon is interesting. He has the "miniature Ned" syndrome, which hopefully won't harm him--*cough* 



Spoiler



kill him like Ned


*cough*.

As for the other brothers, Rickon I never particularly liked, mostly due to his age. Hopefully if he is included, he would have matured more. Bran I like, 



Spoiler



but the wolf connection is a little creepy. I'm assuming it's a psychic connection to his wolf. I wonder why the other brothers haven't discovered this ability.


----------



## ASH (Nov 14, 2003)

Fine Your not a troll. 
Your just a dude bashing about a book that you have barely read in a thread that is not focused on bashing that book. Thanks for your opinion. My opinion is that your wrong.    

Now, [QUOTE From ash] from this point I will be ignoring your trollish posts on this thread, and suggest that everyone else does the same thing so we can continue to have a nice discussion.[/QUOTE]

*Anyway*, I am really looking forward to the next book. Does anyone know what the baisc plot developments will be?


----------



## Pants (Nov 14, 2003)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> LOL, thats it?



Yep, pretty much.



> I have never been in space yet I can debate the lunar landings and our attempts to explore the Solar system.



Sure you can, but I'm going to take the opinions of an actual astronaut over those of someone on the internet.
Say aSoIaF sucks all you want, but  your opinions are, IMO, worth less than a grain of salt and I'm going to listen to somebody who has actually read what they are bashing.



> I have never been in a NASCAR racecar but I can tell you they are dangerous.



So, who would you listen to more, a fan on the sidelines or the NASCAR driver?  The fan on the sidelines might be able to say 'That's dangerous,' however the driver would go into greater depth of WHY it is, HOW it is, and other information that the fan is not privy to.



> I have never studied Islam yet I can tell you that militant followers of the religion are perverting the true meaning of the religion and quite dangerous.



Yes, but what can you tell me about the religious beliefs, and practices of Islam.  How about the history?  You're giving me a basic opinion of a very basic situation.  Now, let's say that you get into a debate with an Islamic person who grew up in the Middle East and has read the Quran.  He will know more about the situation than you probably would, because he has experienced it firsthand and he knows the tenents of the faith, whereas all you know is what you get from the news.



> Shall I go on? Or are you just going to clip out one word from ym replies and try to make snide smarta$$ comments because you know my point was much more valid than yours?



Go on all you want.  You're point is no more valid than anyone elses and arrogance will get you nowhere 'friend.'


----------



## Pants (Nov 14, 2003)

ASH said:
			
		

> *Anyway*, I am really looking forward to the next book. Does anyone know what the baisc plot developments will be?



Some characters will be going through a 'learning stage' or, as Martin puts it, 'training.'  Those characters will get less actual stage time in the book. The book is also supposed to take place over 5 years of time, or so I last heard.


----------



## ASH (Nov 14, 2003)

One book over  5years..That sounds great. I am really anxious to see what some of thease characters will be like when they come back, Arya Specifically.


----------



## KnowTheToe (Nov 15, 2003)

The problem I have with this series and with the growing trend of mega series is the amount of time it takes for them to get written.  I bought the first book after the second book was written.  I assumed it would be a trilogy, boy was I wrong.  With 2-3 years inbetween books, we could wait nine years for the ending.  I can't imagine caring about this for nine more years.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 15, 2003)

ASH said:
			
		

> Fine Your not a troll.
> Your just a dude bashing about a book that you have barely read in a thread that is not focused on bashing that book. Thanks for your opinion. My opinion is that your wrong.
> 
> Now, [QUOTE From ash] from this point I will be ignoring your trollish posts on this thread, and suggest that everyone else does the same thing so we can continue to have a nice discussion.




*Anyway*, I am really looking forward to the next book. Does anyone know what the baisc plot developments will be?[/QUOTE]

Obviously you cannot wrap your brain around the specific topic that this thread was created about. This thread was not started for you fanboys to masturbate philosphical about Martin. It was about a very specific question about character types and writing style. 

Basically the person who started this thread asked if everyone he thinks should be punished will get punished and if there were going to be any characters in the reader could truly like. I answered that question infinately better than you wanking fanboys who arrived and started TROLLING with your insults aimed at anyone who didnt like the book.

Here is your lemon.


----------



## Celtavian (Nov 15, 2003)

*re*

Damn Doc Moriartty,

You sound like you've been sucking more lemons than anyone else. 

Thanks for interjecting your opinion, but a man who has read half the first book doesn't seem able to make a definitive statement about what happens to characters later in the book. You don't like Martin, and I have to say that definitely sours me to any of your opinions.

Personally, I completely understand loving certain literature. I love _Lord of the Rings_ and enjoy discussing it at any opportunity. I can understand fans of _A Song of Ice and Fire_ wanting to discuss a series they enjoy.


----------



## Squire James (Nov 15, 2003)

My take on reading the 3 "Ice and Fire" books so far:

1.  Good guys get killed.  They may be killed immediately, or Martin may decide to stretch it out for a book or two.  There appear to be a couple of exceptions, but my guess is that Martin has something grisly in mind for his next "Surprise!  I'm killing off a main character!" book.

2.  Bad guys sometimes get killed (normally by a Worse guy), but they usually get away with what they do with little consequence.  Unless, of course, they become Good guys, in which case see #1.

3.  Like Jordan, Martin really wants this series to be as long as possible.  He needs to constantly bring in new characters in his stories to replace the people he kills off.  If he were still working only with characters introduced in the first book, Book 4 would be about 5-6 guys standing around in separate graveyards with nothing to say.  Actually, he hasn't done the "Jordan crime" yet, but Martin has yet to show signs that he won't.

4.  Littlefinger is a fink.


----------



## ASH (Nov 15, 2003)

Doc, please stop! I am sick of the arrogant tone I am getting from you. Fine, I am stupid, Fine I have no real opinion and am unjustified in any that I have. Get over it dude.

Oh, and your the only one I disagreed with; Kahuna Burger did not like the books and I was neither a troll or insultive to him, and in fact understood the reasons why he disliked them.

 I am sorry if you feel I insulted you, I respect peoples opinions, I disagree with yours. 

I know, I am failing at ignoring you!


----------



## KnowTheToe (Nov 15, 2003)

Squire James said:
			
		

> My take on reading the 3 "Ice and Fire" books so far:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





This is my worry.  I really enjoyed the first 3 books of Jordans.

4.  yes he is.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Nov 15, 2003)

Here's a good rule for whether or not you should post to a thread.  If you're going to add nothing positive to the development of a thread, then don't post.

In light of that, I expect that any discussion of Doc's posts, and, I suspect, any further input by Doc, should cease here.


----------



## Alaric_Prympax (Nov 15, 2003)

Squire James said:
			
		

> 3.  Like Jordan, Martin really wants this series to be as long as possible.  He needs to constantly bring in new characters in his stories to replace the people he kills off.  If he were still working only with characters introduced in the first book, Book 4 would be about 5-6 guys standing around in separate graveyards with nothing to say.  Actually, he hasn't done the "Jordan crime" yet, but Martin has yet to show signs that he won't.
> 
> 4.  Littlefinger is a fink.




Concerning #3- Martin has publicly stated that he does not wish ASoIaF become another WoT (a series that will never end).  He wants the series to be no more then 6 books and even has titles for them.  But...

He was planning in a 5 year gap in the story between _A Storm of Swords_ (ASOS) and _A Dance with Dragons_ (ADWD).  The 5 years were going to be covered in flashbacks but as he was writing it wasn't working out for him plus he discovered that he had one more story to tell so he scrapped what he had and started a book name _A Feast for Crows_ (AFFC).  This is why it is taking so long for it to come out.  It seems that he worked on a book for over a year and then started over.  The other titles in the series were to be _A Time for Woves_ and _The Winds of Winter_ though I don't remember the order they were supposed to be.

The next tenative date for AFFC is April, 2004 (this is on my computer at work-the same that had Aug 2003 and April 2003  )  but I seriously doubt it.  My prediction is August, 2004.   See his website for his "Progress" Report near the bottom of the first page to see how much more he has to work on it, then the editorial process... rewrites... ect (hopefully a lot of this has been done on what he's completed so far).  I think that he'll finish it by the end of the year and what hasn't been edited will be over Jan, Feb, & March and published in Britain in March or April and here in the US in August just to give you my thought process. 

I'm really looking forward to this book and I'm hoping that I'm wrong and it will be out sooner then I think. 
*hopes and prays it will in fact be out before Aug, 2004*

Here's the link to his website: www.GeorgeRRMartin.com

I also think that the series will be 7 books since he has the same story to tell and had to add some to it (thus AFFC).  I don't see how he can keep it 6 books.  Furthermore 7 is a significant number in the series and would be fitting IMO.

Concerning #4:  House Baelish's words should be "Be a Player, Not a Pawn" and he will get what is "rightfully" his.      And I'm looking forward to that too.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Nov 15, 2003)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> Here's a good rule for whether or not you should post to a thread.  If you're going to add nothing positive to the development of a thread, then don't post.
> 
> In light of that, I expect that any discussion of Doc's posts, and, I suspect, any further input by Doc, should cease here.





So we are back to only fanboy wanking. Gee I tought you had more backbone then that Dink. Yeah right.

At no point was this thread supposed to be a gushing of only the positive aspects of the book. That is what the fanboys have made it. Unlike the fanboys I have no problem with the opinions of others. They like the books I do not. I stated my reason why and I was attacked for them by the fanboys. I thought this was a discussion forum not your grandmothers dinner table where the "if you have nothing nice to say then dont say anything at all" applies.

With this in mind maybe we should do some more thread Gestapo actions. All threads where someone says something negative about 3.5 should be stopped, they might upset 3.5 fanboys. All reviews that do not give a 5 should be removed, they might upset that products fanboys.

Why not just be to the point Dink. Just post it at the top of ENWorld. If your not going to gush about a product then you cannot post about it.

The really pathetic part is this all started because someone thought the Hound was a cool character and I merely pointed out that he murdered a small defenseless serf boy. I didn't even tell them that I found it sad that he liked a cold blooded murderer. I just pointed out a fact that the author of that post must have forgotten when he stated the Hound had pretty much not done anything wrong in the books.

But please do not let me interrupt. Go on with your wanking.


----------



## takyris (Nov 15, 2003)

Aaaaaaaand ignoring DocM.

Okay, at this point, my situation, timewise, is that I'm okay with whenever the next book comes out, but he'd better get the one *after* that cranked out right quick.  The book he's currently working on allegedly took so long because of the change in the nature of the book -- and yeah, I can see that, I can empathize, if your five-years-pass bit went from backstory at the beginning of book four to a full book 3.5.  But now that that's taken care of (or rather, once it's taken care of), I really hope that he can get back on a good tight schedule.

My feelings on the Hound were roughly similar to what others have expressed.  I hated him and wanted him to die painfully -- and then I saw that he did have some kind of sense of honor, which made me even more disgusted with him -- I'd almost prefer somebody who kills little boys for his own enjoyment to someone who will unhesitatingly do it when ordered by a superior, if only because as a reader, it's easier for me to totally write off the former.



Spoiler



Watching him break down completely at the end of the third book shows a growth by his character -- he begins to show remorse, he hates himself, and he's utterly breaking down as his primary allegiance -- to the King and commander -- no longer exists, and he has to face the things he did.  That was fascinating, and might well make him redeemable.  The fact is, he *was* ordered to do what he did, and he seemed to believe that what he was doing was right at the time, even if it was cruel.  Having to actually face what he is was a nice pathetic gruesome little ending for him, with Arya even refusing to kill him.

I did like that.  I'm tired of reading nothing but books where the bad guy redeems himself by dying in some sacrificial way.  It's too easy.  It's fine in some situations, but really, people don't always have the easy option of just dying instead of committing to change and accepting the consequences of their actions.  I'm really looking forward to seeing what the Hound becomes -- if he latches onto somebody else as a new master, if he becomes some sort of grim vigilante to try and make up for his past, or if he just wanders around trying to fend for himself and kill anyone who crosses his path.  It's an interesting possibility.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Nov 16, 2003)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> Here's a good rule for whether or not you should post to a thread.  If you're going to add nothing positive to the development of a thread, then don't post.
> 
> In light of that, I expect that any discussion of Doc's posts, and, I suspect, any further input by Doc, should cease here.




It sounds like a theoretical good rule, but certainly no one ever told hong... or half the denzins of enworld.    And in light of that being completely outside the actual expectations of this forum, I'd say its pretty damn tacky for you to put on your semi mod hat in a rude effort to shut down one side of a fairly tame argument. 

Let me be clear - I've been insulted FAR worse than doc's comments with little to no provocation (unless you count having a different opinion) on many an occasion, in threads frequented by mods and never had this little guideline even alluded to. So I'm gonna say the same thing to you that I did to someone earlier, and I don't give a damn if you're a mod. If you want to effect the tone of this board, do it evenly. If you want to enforce one set of standards on topics or posters you like and another on the second class posters and topics you don't care about, I'm gonna have to borrow some of doc's lemons.

Kahuna burger


----------



## Pants (Nov 16, 2003)

Alaric_Prympax said:
			
		

> Concerning #3- Martin has publicly stated that he does not wish ASoIaF become another WoT (a series that will never end).  He wants the series to be no more then 6 books and even has titles for them.  But...
> 
> He was planning in a 5 year gap in the story between _A Storm of Swords_ (ASOS) and _A Dance with Dragons_ (ADWD).  The 5 years were going to be covered in flashbacks but as he was writing it wasn't working out for him plus he discovered that he had one more story to tell so he scrapped what he had and started a book name _A Feast for Crows_ (AFFC).  This is why it is taking so long for it to come out.  It seems that he worked on a book for over a year and then started over.  The other titles in the series were to be _A Time for Woves_ and _The Winds of Winter_ though I don't remember the order they were supposed to be.



I'm hoping that Martin doesn't fall into the Jordan hole as well, however the more and more that I read about his extensive rewrites of aFfC, I just can't help but getting more and more worried.  
During my recent reread of A Clash of Kings I noticed that on the front cover that A Storm of Swords was originally supposed to be A Dance with Dragons.  A Feast for Crows was also supposed to be a Dance with Dragons.  I just hope that aDwD doesn't get pushed back AGAIN.


----------



## takyris (Nov 16, 2003)

That's a minor peeve of mine -- the trend in fantasy toward the series.  Editors are actually telling authors to make things longer, into more books, because not only will it bring in more money, but it will generate more sales for each book.  The average fantasy reader, by voting-with-dollar statistics, *wants* enormous endless epics instead of standalone books.  So really, we have nobody to blame but ourselves when authors get pushed into these kinds of decisions.


----------



## Mercule (Nov 16, 2003)

takyris said:
			
		

> That's a minor peeve of mine -- the trend in fantasy toward the series. Editors are actually telling authors to make things longer, into more books, because not only will it bring in more money, but it will generate more sales for each book. The average fantasy reader, by voting-with-dollar statistics, *wants* enormous endless epics instead of standalone books. So really, we have nobody to blame but ourselves when authors get pushed into these kinds of decisions.



Guilty.  I do much prefer a three-five book series than a single stand-alone novel.  Four really seems to be optimal for what entertains me and keeps me interested.

Martin's work is good, but it doesn't really draw me in enough to keep me hungry for a long series.  The only reason I've made it through what he's written so far has nothing to do with it being a series.  It's more that I've read his work and can expect to be entertained by another of his books.

Jordan had me _hungry_ after the first three books.  It's only been the last couple where I've realized that I've gorged myself to the point of vomitting.

I guess when you get right down to it, I want a story that has good enough characters and plot that I want more than a little of them.  Then I want enough of them, but I want them to go before they overstay their welcome.

So far, the best series in terms of this, IMHO, is Dave Duncan's _A Handful of Men_.  Maybe not for everyone's taste, but I definitely enjoyed it.

About the only character I've seen yet that I could stand an almost endless story about is Karl Cullinane, and Rosenberg had the good sense to kill him off, messily, before I changed my mind.


----------



## takyris (Nov 16, 2003)

Mercule, if you don't mind me asking, why is that?  I'm asking as a writer, and as devil's advocate.  I'm not saying that I don't like my trilogies as much as the next guy, but why to the exclusion of standalones?  And why to the nine-book extreme?

Random counterpoints -- and again, nothing against you, nothing against what you like, this is mostly just me playing devil's advocate:

1) You ever notice how movies tend to do a better job with their characters than series do?  It's because movies have two hours or so to make their point, and they have to have a character start out some way, go through changes, and then finish up in another way.    The classic example would be the jaded, cynical cop who, by saving some naive person repeatedly from evil goons, gradually has his faith in humanity restored, to the point where he becomes noble, or at least idealistic, at the end.

Very few series sustain that kind of character development, for the simple reason that once you do that, you have to either a) stay with a now-fixed and non-changing character for the rest of the (now dull) series, b) get rid of the character and go through constant rotation, or c) whack the character with some outside circumstance that messes them up again ("ER" syndrome).  Instead, TV series usually have the person continue to remain as they are for a long long time, or they do the "fake change" in which the cynical and jaded cop shows his humanity at the end of Every Single Episode, and we're supposed to be surprised each time.

The epic series is a bit like that TV series, in my personal and utterly subjective opinion.  Very few epic series have characters that really change.  I mean, Eddings didn't, Feist didn't, Jordan (in my opinion) hasn't.  Jordan *says* that he has, but really, everyone is pretty much the people they were in book one, only harder and more jaded and more prone to glaring.  Martin seems to be trying to change people, but I'd submit that he's got a bit of ER syndrome going on -- somebody overcomes their fear of trusting others, and then their new friend gets killed, and then they have to overcome a *new* fear, and so forth.

There are a ton of exceptions to this rule -- it is by no means a cover-all.  But in a single standalone book, or even a determinedly short trilogy, you get closure.  You get people changing and making those changes, and it's relatively short, and then it's done, and the changes that the characters made can be symbolic and powerful in their memory, as opposed to the somewhat muddled progression we often get in the many-book series.  (Exceptions exist, I agree.  Heck, there were some great character arcs in Babylon 5 and Buffy.)

2. The time factor.  Unless you only start reading series once they're finished, you inevitably catch up, and then you have the situation where that series you started reading as a 14-year-old is now one you're reading as a 25-year-old, and really, it's only good because of nostalgia.  I'm *not* gonna go read _The Belgariad_ again.  I like my fond memories of those books just fine, and I don't want to see Eddings' horrible fear of just using the word "said" laid bare, or the cardboard characters, or the "one hero who is best at everything" syndrome.  I wanna remember it as being good.  That's a lot easier to do once the series is done.  Feist, when I tried to reread his old stuff, was a sloppy writer who was knee-deep in cliches.  He got much better as the years went on, but I don't read long series in order to see the *writer* improve. 

3. Sloppiness.  I know that, again, voting with our dollars, most of us would rather go to a few movies than get a yearlong subscription to a short-fiction magazine (and as a writer who submits a lot of short fiction, that bums me out, 'cause I've only got a handful of markets left as a result).  But short fiction shows me some important stuff.  It shows me that there are different types of stories, and that they work at different lengths.  If you have to tell a story in 5,000 words, it can't be a sweeping epic, unless you are a master craftsman who can get the most out of every word and gloss the heck out of the details.  5,000 word stories have to be short and to the point -- this character wants this, this is the problem he has is in getting that, and here is what happens as a result.  100,000 word stories (say, mystery-novel length) have to be relatively short.  You can have a conspiracy, but you can't have a chapter devoted entirely to character.  Every scene needs to be there for more than one reason.  At 450,000 words -- the length of three 150,000 fantasy novels (each of which would be about middling length by Fat Fantasy standards), you're getting into situations where you can do one of two things: You can tell an enormous epic saga, fleshing out every detail of your world, working on a huge number of levels, assembling and doing justice to a huge number of complex characters -- or you can take that 150,000 word story and pad it with more cardboard characters and a lot of little mini-bosses that your heroes can systematically hack through on their way to the big boss.

Eddings, in my remembered-through-rose-tinted-lenses opinion, did pretty well with the first series, and padded the heck out of the second.  I didn't care, even though I recognized it at the time, because I liked the characters.  Jordan is padding.  Martin is, I think, on the brink.  If the next novel rocks, all is forgiven.  If the next novel plods, then I'll be worried.  A lot of the epic series that I start but don't continue with ("Rhapsody" is the most recent example) look like they've got a 150,000 word story that they're gonna tell in 450,000 words -- or perhaps both of those figures should be multiplied by three or four.

4. One area in which TV series beat movies hands-down is in the procedurals, the Law&Order or CSI-type shows where the characters are pretty much constant, and it's all about seeing a similar story with new and different plot twists each week.  Mystery novels do really well at this kind of thing, but I haven't seen a "procedural" fantasy series, where the characters take out a different bad guy in each book, and the characters are all developed and pretty much stay the same, but in a good way.  If anybody has examples that they feel illustrate evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see/read 'em.  There are times when I don't want an epic sweeping plot, but I'd love to read Yet Another Novel where the king's trusted secret team goes out to thwart Yet Another plot against him.  I'd say that *good* Media Fiction approaches this level -- Peter David does a good job of recognizing the limitations of his genre (I'm writing about established characters that I can't change) and going with it as far as he can.

Anyway -- no offense intended.  I obviously read these a fair amount, too.  But I also try to read the standalones, and I don't find one arbitrarily better than the other, and I'd be interested in having a discussion about why people don't want to read a book that is meant to be self-contained.


----------



## Pants (Nov 16, 2003)

takyris said:
			
		

> 4. One area in which TV series beat movies hands-down is in the procedurals, the Law&Order or CSI-type shows where the characters are pretty much constant, and it's all about seeing a similar story with new and different plot twists each week.  Mystery novels do really well at this kind of thing, but I haven't seen a "procedural" fantasy series, where the characters take out a different bad guy in each book, and the characters are all developed and pretty much stay the same, but in a good way.  If anybody has examples that they feel illustrate evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see/read 'em.  There are times when I don't want an epic sweeping plot, but I'd love to read Yet Another Novel where the king's trusted secret team goes out to thwart Yet Another plot against him.  I'd say that *good* Media Fiction approaches this level -- Peter David does a good job of recognizing the limitations of his genre (I'm writing about established characters that I can't change) and going with it as far as he can.



Wouldn't that sort of Fantasy series describe the old Conan novels?


----------



## takyris (Nov 17, 2003)

Ooooh.  Excellent point, Mister Bifurcation.  Conan is pretty much the *ideal* of a procedural, as are a number of the old S&S "kill spider-demon, boink princess, loot the altar" mainstays.  Heck, I'd lump Fafhrd & the Gray Mouser in with him, too.  Good point.


----------



## Mercule (Nov 17, 2003)

takyris said:
			
		

> Mercule, if you don't mind me asking, why is that? I'm asking as a writer, and as devil's advocate. I'm not saying that I don't like my trilogies as much as the next guy, but why to the exclusion of standalones? And why to the nine-book extreme?



Not to the exclusion of standalones, just in preferrence of them.  Also, I think Jordan's nine+ book ordeal is a bit long -- if it wasn't clear before, let it be so now.

I think my reasons are these:

1) After 350 or so pages in the standard novel, assuming the novel really is quite good, I don't feel like I've gotten to spend enough time with the characters.  I want more.  This isn't a hard-and-fast rule.  It only applies to really good stories/characters.  As an example, I was plenty happy to be done with Zane (IIRC) after _On a Pale Horse_.  Lestat was fine after _Queen of the Damned_ (although I never finished _Interview_ because Louis is such a schmuck).

On the other hand, I felt like I was just getting to know Rand after _Eye of the World_, Karl after _The Sleeping Dragon_, etc.  I wanted to see more of them.  And seeing more of them was a great experience -- one that was preferable to the others, not only because it was longer, but because the quality was better per page.  I don't want 15,000 pages of drek.  I'm not sure I want 15,000 pages of anything.  I just want characters that are interesting enough that I feel drawn to "meet them more than once".

2) I am an extremely fast reader.  I've slowed a bit in recent years (savoring more), but I used to read at about a page a minute.  That means that it didn't take me much longer to read _Fellowship of the Ring_ than it did to watch the extended DVD (especially since I went into a skim mode with Bombadil -- ick).

Maybe that means I have a lower comprehension than others (although experience tells me I'm about average -- now), and I don't get as much out of the novels.  Maybe not.  Regardless, I suspect that there is some relationship between how long it takes me and how long I want it to be.


----------



## Pants (Nov 17, 2003)

takyris said:
			
		

> Ooooh.  Excellent point, Mister Bifurcation.  Conan is pretty much the *ideal* of a procedural, as are a number of the old S&S "kill spider-demon, boink princess, loot the altar" mainstays.  Heck, I'd lump Fafhrd & the Gray Mouser in with him, too.  Good point.



Glad I could help.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 5, 2003)

Mercule said:
			
		

> About the only character I've seen yet that I could stand an almost endless story about is Karl Cullinane, and Rosenberg had the good sense to kill him off, messily, before I changed my mind.




Miles Vorkosigan and Honor Harrington are two characters whose endless stories I haven't gotten sick of yet 

-Hyp.


----------

