# Song of Ice and Fire question



## Wippit Guud (Aug 4, 2003)

I guess it's about the books, so not really RPG-related, but there's an RPG coming out based on it. So, after reading all three books, and throwing book 3 across the room at one point (those who have read it know which point), I have a question which has been nagging me...


Who's the "good guys"?


----------



## Soul (Aug 4, 2003)

Throwing it because of the bloody wedding? =)

I guess I'd say, there are no real "good guys". Yet the the starks are the focus of the story, and would seem to be the main characters. I think alot of the idea is to see the characters evolve and their motivations for making certain decisions. Like Jaime for instance, someone in the begining who was clearly painted as an all around bad guy, turns out to be not as bad as you think he is.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Aug 4, 2003)

I guess Sir Barristan Selmy is as close to "good" as you are going to get.

Ned Stark was pretty good.

that's about it.


----------



## astralpwka (Aug 4, 2003)

I couldn't throw my book because it was on an ereader...

I think the book doesn't focus on good and evil as black and whites, except for those with strict honor (i.e. the Starks). The others are too human to say that they're good or evil, merely motivated by personal goals and desires not convinient for others.


----------



## Xeriar (Aug 4, 2003)

Wippit Guud said:
			
		

> *I guess it's about the books, so not really RPG-related, but there's an RPG coming out based on it. So, after reading all three books, and throwing book 3 across the room at one point (those who have read it know which point), I have a question which has been nagging me...
> 
> 
> Who's the "good guys"? *




That's hard to say.  Bran Stark?

Everyone has shades of good and bad - that's why we love it   Though Gregor Clegane and a few others were pure evil...


----------



## KnowTheToe (Aug 4, 2003)

astralpwka said:
			
		

> *I couldn't throw my book because it was on an ereader...
> 
> I think the book doesn't focus on good and evil as black and whites, except for those with strict honor (i.e. the Starks). The others are too human to say that they're good or evil, merely motivated by personal goals and desires not convinient for others.  *





Spoilers

The first time I read the books, I could not remember anything after the Red Wedding.  It was not until I read other people's discussions that I started remembering that the wedding was not the ending of the book.  My favorite line in the book was Kat's description of her own death.  I can't quote it, but it was something along, he pressed the sword to my neck, and it was cold and red.  However it was written, it was powerful.


----------



## DevoutlyApathetic (Aug 4, 2003)

Wippit Guud said:
			
		

> *Who's the "good guys"? *




Jon Snow.

It occured to me reading through the second time that Mr Martin really likes Jon.  It just comes through in the writing quite a bit.

I think he has a soft spot for Tyrion as well, but well I'm really rather scared about what's happening to him.  Only decent person in his family....

Anybody see that conversion in Dragon?  Did they read the same books I did?  Stannis a Paladin?  Tyrion with a 6 charisma?  Right...


----------



## DMScott (Aug 4, 2003)

Good in the alignment sense or in the protagonist sense? In the alignment sense... Ned Stark, the Kingsguard who actually kept their vows (all dead before the start of the first book, of course), and probably Bran, Meera, and... her brother, whatsisname. Hmm, possibly Sansa, she seems to be Lawful Good tending towards Stupid at times. Jury's out on Daenyrys, she might end up good. And that's about it, most people are neutral or evil.

If you mean in the protagonist sense, the good guys are the ones who fight against the Others (assuming the Others really do want to break the Wall and kill all the living, which isn't certain). That's a fair number of characters at different times. The bad guys are the ones who screw around with personal ambitions and priorities rather than seeing to the defense of the land.


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 4, 2003)

I suppose that really depends on what you mean by 'heroes'.  Several characters are backed into corners, and act in ways they might not prefer to.  Other characters behave in a manner matching the 'realpolitik' of the world, which is filled with shades of moral ambiguity.


There are, however, many characters who are both good and heroes.  Bran, Jon Snow, Ser Davos, Ned Stark, and Rickon are all heroes.  Daenrys could be considered heroic, even if her methods are not always so..and certainly many of the knights, such as the runaway knight in disguise with Dany, are virtous in their own right.    Both sisters and Rob Stark are good people, even if they either turn a blind eye to some things, or (in Arya's case) commit violence.  Arya is, IMHO, one of the most heroic, in that she's fighting against so many injustices one could lose count.  Her travelling companions are certainly good people, as was her fencing teacher.  The same applies for the Maesters, to some degree.

If you're looking for a hero with no flaws who makes no concessions to evil, self-interest or mediocrity, then you've come to wrong place.


----------



## KnowTheToe (Aug 4, 2003)

*Re: Re: Song of Ice and Fire question*



			
				DevoutlyApathetic said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Jon Snow.
> 
> ...




Tyrion rocks, he is my favorite character.

But, he is a dynamic character that is not neccessary for the story to progress, which can often lead to death.  Since he is one of the most interesting characters, I hope he does not meet a premature end, but I could see his death as a stepping stone for several other characters.  I still think he will become King.


----------



## Utrecht (Aug 4, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *I suppose that really depends on what you mean by 'heroes'.  Several characters are backed into corners, and act in ways they might not prefer to.  Other characters behave in a manner matching the 'realpolitik' of the world, which is filled with shades of moral ambiguity.*




Also, do not forget that alot of the good vs. bad stuff is heavily laced with Western perceptions.  Thus, people may see Danyreas as neutral - but using a Eastern (or Middle Eastern) perception - she is quite good and quite heroic.

Incidently, that is why I like the books - the only good people are those under 10 years old.  After that - they almost always all go neutral....


----------



## Dinkeldog (Aug 4, 2003)

Just because your question is really about the books and not the RPG, I'm sliding this to the books forum.


----------



## Mercule (Aug 4, 2003)

Hmm...

Most of the Starks are Good or Good/Neutral borderline.

Ned was very much LG.  He was honorable for the sake of righteousness.

Jon Snow seems to be a decent fellow who used to be Neutral, but is becoming more Good as his vision is expanded.  Probably my favorite character.

Arya is basically Good, but she's got enough of a bloodthirsty streak in her that she may not stay there for long.

Rob was probably NG with some CN tendancies.  He tried to do right by his people and family, but despite being clever and good with people was rather short-sighted.

Davos is either LN with LG tendancies or vice versa.  He has few personal aspirations beyond the survival and betterment of his family, but he is willing to go out of his way for others.  Strangely, the more he is pressed to make tough choices, the more he seems to choose "right".

Of course, his loyalty may be misplaced (or not) to Stannis.  Stannis is a little off the deep end of LN.  I figure I'd register as CG, and I can't hardly stand Stannis.  He is worse than the Queen in my eyes and only exceeded by Melisandra and the Mountain.  I'm hoping he meets a rather painful end.


----------



## Rashak Mani (Aug 4, 2003)

Funny that some people think its essential to have "good guys" in order to make sense     Does show that the fantasy genre has its "tendencies" as do people in many situations.

   The need to define "evil" is certainly not a grand one.


----------



## JoeBlank (Aug 4, 2003)

Howcum we always look for good v. evil in fantasy ficyion? Other forms of pop culture do not insist on this distinction. Who are the good guys in Pulp Fiction? Or The Sopranos? 

To me, the thing that makes the series so enjoyable is the fact that all of the character's have realistic motivations. If the books were a storyhour of an RPG, all of the players would deserve roleplaying bonuses. The charcters act consistently within their individual motivations, rather than worrying about the greater good and sacrificing themselves to be heroic.


----------



## KenM (Aug 4, 2003)

I just started the 3rd book. Enjoying it alot. The Imp is my favorite character. He is not strong, or good looking, but boy is he smart and resorceful.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Aug 4, 2003)

I once read somewhere on the Internet -- probably on these very boards -- that the series was originally intended to be basically two trilogies, with the second taking place several years after the first, when the children had grown up some.

Having recently finished Book 3, or what would be the final book of the first trilogy, that makes a lot of sense. The book just felt like the culmination of a story arc. Oh sure, there are still plenty of unresolved conflicts, unanswered questions and unfinished business to carry over to the next books. But with all that happened toward the end of Book 3, it just seemed as if Martin was wrapping up some things -- sort of like a TV series ending one season with a cliff-hanger, to maintain interest for the next season.

I'm also glad to know I wasn't the only one shocked by the red wedding. I can't say I was surprised, but I was shocked. Now, the other wedding reception -- that completely surprised me, although as I was reading the chapter, I did realize what was going to happen before it actually happened. But still, it was a surprise.

Getting back to my original statement, I have since read -- again, probably on these boards -- that Martin now intends to write seven books in all, with the next book bridging the time between the originally planned first and second trilogies. Can anyone confirm this?


----------



## Dagger75 (Aug 5, 2003)

I would say Jon Snow and Bran are a few of the  good guys in the series IMHO.

 Jamie is going from evil to good. I hated this guy in the first book, the third book I actually liked him.  Its like he finally woke up and saw the world for the first time.

 Arya (my favorite character) is going from good to bad. I think she will be one of the main bad evil people roaming Westros.  I bet she leaves a pretty high body count before..(my own prediction) Sansa kills her.

Tyrion- I don't think he is one of the good guys.  He will help the good guys, hell he will help anyone who he thinks he can use to get ahead in the world. He is a very cool character though. 

 Those are my thoughts.  I need to reread the books again.


----------



## Sirius_Black (Aug 5, 2003)

Spoiler warnings

Wippit Guud noted:



> throwing book 3 across the room at one point (those who have read it know which point),




and Soul put forth:



> Throwing it because of the bloody wedding?




That chapter in Book 3 detailing the Red Wedding is without a doubt, one of the most disturbing chapters I have ever read in a book. Wonderfully written.  I wanted to reach out and help hang some of the Freys in the novel's epilogue.

I just finished book 3 last night, having started the series two weeks ago for the first time. Wow!

I believe I recall seeing this series mentioned on these boards several months ago.  The positive comments stuck in my head and after reading some authors mentioning the series and seeing the short story in Dragon #305, I picked up Game of Thrones.

Thank you to everyone who posted their comments about the series in the old thread.  I am so glad someone pointed out this dazzling series of books.  And now I and my family are utterly vexed that we are in another series in which we are waiting on the author to finish his work.  

Am I right that I heard Feast of Crows was intended to come out sometime this year, but now has been pushed back? If so, is this a habit with Mr. Martin?

Xeriar noted:



> Everyone has shades of good and bad - that's why we love it




To quote the wise sage Fonzie, Exactamundo.

Know the Toe commented:



> My favorite line in the book was Kat's description of her own death. I can't quote it, but it was something along, he pressed the sword to my neck, and it was cold and red. However it was written, it was powerful.




And her hair, if I recall she mentioned something as they jerked her head back about, "Not my hair, ned loves my hair." Sad, sad, sad.  

DevoutlyApathetic revealed:



> Anybody see that conversion in Dragon? Did they read the same books I did? Stannis a Paladin? Tyrion with a 6 charisma? Right...




Oh Cyric.   I just ordered this from FRP games last week. Please tell me that there exists some good things in Dragon's attempts to convert this world?

JoeBlank said:



> If the books were a storyhour of an RPG, all of the players would deserve roleplaying bonuses




I can see the fan letter George R.R. Martin receives one day. Congratulations, your characters get roleplaying bonuses, but first are you using edition 3.0 or 3.5?   

Shadowdancer commented:



> I have since read -- again, probably on these boards -- that Martin now intends to write seven books in all, with the next book bridging the time between the originally planned first and second trilogies. Can anyone confirm this?




I'm very curious if someone could point out such a comment and the source.  I thought I heard when I first read about this that it was to be six, but that was some time ago, and my memory isn't, well it never was that great.

I think I need to go online and see what I can find about websites devoted to this series or the author. Anyone know of any good ones?


----------



## Soul (Aug 5, 2003)

Throwing it because of the bloody wedding? =)

I guess I'd say, there are no real "good guys". Yet the the starks are the focus of the story, and would seem to be the main characters. I think alot of the idea is to see the characters evolve and their motivations for making certain decisions. Like Jaime for instance, someone in the begining who was clearly painted as an all around bad guy, turns out to be not as bad as you think he is.


----------



## Celtavian (Aug 5, 2003)

*re*

I just picked up the first book in this series. It has been widely recommended as one of the best fantasy series out there. I hope it lives up to the hype.

I do prefer that good characters are present in my fantasy books, but I don't mind watching characters evolve or act human as well.


----------



## LuYangShih (Aug 5, 2003)

The books are very well written, but after finishing the first two, I simply did not want to read anymore.  I prefer a world where there *are* clearly defined heroes, who fight the good fight, defeat the dragon, rescue the damsel in distress, and at the end of the day nobly triumph over the villians in black, and then ride off into the sunset.  And that goes for fiction of any kind.  If I want to read about the Dark Ages, I will pick up a history book.


----------



## Morbidity (Aug 5, 2003)

Broke one of my long standing rules with this series ... starting to read a series before the author had finished writing it. Now I like everyone else am desperately waiting for the next book to be released.

Everyone else has said it ... but the red wedding was truly disturbing: brilliantly written and a courageous move by the author.

I loved the way the books challenge your preconceptions. You start out with the Starks being so good and the Lannisters being so bad. And then Jaime's basic humanity is revealed more and more, Tyrion becomes the ultimate 'little battler' ... whilst Rob sacrifices honour and good sense for love and Arya's goodness seems to be slowly eroding under the pressure of trying to survive.


----------



## JoeBlank (Aug 5, 2003)

Sirius_Black said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I think I need to go online and see what I can find about websites devoted to this series or the author. Anyone know of any good ones? *




The best I have seen is Westeros.org, and I believe they have a link from there to this message board

The site and boards will answer many of the questions mentioned in this thread. 

The author has a site as well, GeorgeRRMartin.com, where he is posted updates on the progress of A Feast for Crows. I believe he has confirmed the rumor that this book was intended to be a brief intro to the the second trilogy, and instead grew into an entire book detailing the five years between the two trilogies.

Can anyone tell me how much time has passed so far in the series? I would love to see a timeline of events, even before the start of A Game of Thrones.


----------



## DanMcS (Aug 5, 2003)

Sirius_Black said:
			
		

> *Oh Cyric.   I just ordered this from FRP games last week. Please tell me that there exists some good things in Dragon's attempts to convert this world?*




Well, the poster map was pretty good, much better than the tiny maps inside the covers of the paperbacks, but still didn't have a scale on it I believe.

The conversions left a lot to be desired.  They weren't "this is how the characters act in the book, and could be statted", they were "this is how the characters would be statted if the book were set in the FR and written by a bad D&D author".  Danaerys as a sorceror, stannis as a paladin, I think Bran was a druid, Gregor Clegane was a fighter 16.


----------



## KnowTheToe (Aug 5, 2003)

KenM said:
			
		

> *I just started the 3rd book. Enjoying it alot. The Imp is my favorite character. He is not strong, or good looking, but boy is he smart and resorceful. *




You should not be reading this thread


----------



## KenM (Aug 5, 2003)

KnowTheToe said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You should not be reading this thread  *




  I know I should not. I'm trusting people not to post spoilers.


----------



## JoeBlank (Aug 6, 2003)

KenM said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I know I should not. I'm trusting people not to post spoilers. *




Stop that. 

Now. 

Virtually everything that happens in these books is unexpected. Any vague reference to events can contain a significant spoiler. Reading the books with the idea that anything can happen is part of the joy. Don't spoil it for yourself.

You should not even be reading this paragraph. Do not read any further.







I said stop it. 





Now.


----------



## Sirius_Black (Aug 6, 2003)

Thanks for the links JoeBlank.  I was able to view them and some other websites and found some incredible artwork as well as scans of the CCG of the series.



> Can anyone tell me how much time has passed so far in the series? I would love to see a timeline of events, even before the start of A Game of Thrones.




I want to say in my Martin hunt of sites, I found some mention that each book is to represent one year.  I didn't buy it when I read it as it just seems to pat an answer.

DanMcs said:



> Well, the poster map was pretty good, much better than the tiny maps inside the covers of the paperbacks, but still didn't have a scale on it I believe.




Well, a map will be enjoyable, definitely hang it up near my treasured shelf of books I love.



> The conversions left a lot to be desired. They weren't "this is how the characters act in the book, and could be statted", they were "this is how the characters would be statted if the book were set in the FR and written by a bad D&D author".




Oh, so like most of WOTC products. Okay, at least I'll be prepared for the badness.


----------



## jdavis (Aug 6, 2003)

My understanding was it was going to be a 6 book series with 3 books with the children young and three with them older. He has decided there was just too much story to tell between the two sets thus the next book is the "bridge" between the two series (making it a 7 book series). I am very excited about how the books are going and am very excited about the character portrayal, if I wanted a book with clearly defined good and evil characters then there is nearly every other fatasy book ever written to choose from, this kind of realism in characters is rare in fantasy books. As far as who is good I'd have to go with Jon Snow for one (look what he has sacrificed in order to try to save the wall and all the people who turned their back on him), Tyrion may end up good before it's all said and done, Ned was good, Davos is good and several minor characters have shown good tendancies. Of course Jamie started out as one of the most wicked people in the book and he may end up good by the end of the story. Characters change and grow through the books.

If you haven't read Martin's "The Hedge Knight" in the short story collection Legends then it is a must read too.  http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t..._sbs_b_3/103-7472235-3031011?v=glance&s=books


----------



## ASH (Aug 7, 2003)

I just want to thank everyone for reminding me just how much I love these books. I have only read them once about 1-2 years ago, and now, I have decided to start them over again. I just finished the last Harry Potter book and was finding myself in need of something to read. So I will be rereading them. I am sure that I will get more out of them the second time. 
My sister-inlaw just picked up the first book and she is going to start it this week. I am looking forward to discussing things from the book with her. 

The thing I really respect Martin for is that he is really apoligetic and truely sorry that it takes so long for him to release his books. He also reads exerpts at conventions and book signings and then lets people paraphrase the small exerpts that he reads to get people excited about his books.
UNlike Jordan, who to get people excited about his books SOLD a mini book (the introduction). Talk about selling out!!!!
 I wish Martin would kill off about a hundred of Jordans characters, and replace his editor. Then maybe the books would not blow so much. But This is not a Jordan bash. But a place to express my love of the Song of Ice and Fire!!


----------



## emergent (Aug 7, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> * As far as who is good I'd have to go with Jon Snow for one (look what he has sacrificed in order to try to save the wall and all the people who turned their back on him), Tyrion may end up good before it's all said and done, Ned was good, Davos is good and several minor characters have shown good tendancies. Of course Jamie started out as one of the most wicked people in the book and he may end up good by the end of the story. Characters change and grow through the books.
> *



*

SPOlLERS BELOW 
Not that I don't agree; in fact, I do.  But it is interesting that even the "most good" of these characters do things that unsettle me a little.  Part of me wanted Jon to find some way to stay with Igritte, just as part of me was mad at Jon for breaking his oath, just as part of me knew he did what he had to do.  Similarly, with Ned, I never really liked him that much.  Sure, he tried to do the right thing, was concerned with duty and honor, and was a good guy, but I never really felt for him that deeply.

It's this moral complexity that makes the series so interesting.  Tyrion is the most complex of them all, although Jamie's progression is very interesting.  Even if he becomes "a good guy", you can still look at his actions in Book 1 and get angry.  Can you ever really (morally) overcome throwing a kid from the roof?

I'll stop my rambling.  This is what you get when you cross a philosopher with a fantasy geek.*


----------



## Shadowdancer (Aug 7, 2003)

emergent said:
			
		

> Even if he becomes "a good guy", you can still look at his actions in Book 1 and get angry.  Can you ever really (morally) overcome throwing a kid from the roof? [/B]




That's not the worst thing he's ever done. He's had sex WITH HIS TWIN SISTER! Many, many times. How can you morally overcome THAT!?!?

It's going to take a redemption of Shawshankian proportions before Jamie becomes a paladin, if that's the road down which he has started to journey.


----------



## KnowTheToe (Aug 8, 2003)

Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> *
> 
> That's not the worst thing he's ever done. He's had sex WITH HIS TWIN SISTER! Many, many times. How can you morally overcome THAT!?!?
> 
> It's going to take a redemption of Shawshankian proportions before Jamie becomes a paladin, if that's the road down which he has started to journey. *




I think Jamie is going to have a long and painful road ahead of him and he will be the right hand, no left hand man of King Imp the first.


OK maybe not, but his future is not going to be easy.


----------



## KenM (Aug 8, 2003)

Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> *
> 
> That's not the worst thing he's ever done. He's had sex WITH HIS TWIN SISTER! Many, many times. How can you morally overcome THAT!?!? *





  Well, they were both willing. IMO thowing a confused little boy that you can easily overpower from a great height, with the intention to kill Him, Jamie said at least once He thought Bran would die, is worse.


----------



## Pants (Aug 8, 2003)

Just because I'm an anal, nitpicking, jerk...

His name is Jaime


----------



## Starman (Aug 8, 2003)

I think one of the greatest things about this series is how Martin makes the reader so passionate about the characters (love or hate). I don't think I've ever read another story where I had very strong feelings either way about most of the characters. Sure, I like some characters and dislike others in other books, but I love/hate most of the Ice and Fire characters including relatively minor ones. Kudos to Martin for making the characters come alive so well.

Starman


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Aug 8, 2003)

LuYangShih said:
			
		

> *The books are very well written, but after finishing the first two, I simply did not want to read anymore.  I prefer a world where there are clearly defined heroes, who fight the good fight, defeat the dragon, rescue the damsel in distress, and at the end of the day nobly triumph over the villians in black, and then ride off into the sunset.  And that goes for fiction of any kind.  If I want to read about the Dark Ages, I will pick up a history book. *




my feelings exactly. These are stories, for dog's sake, they are rated on whether I enjoy readng them, not as some sort of performance art... After the red wedding, I simply skimmed the rest of the book for the plot threads I felt like seeing the continuation of, but with a completely detached air (which for me means almost zero enjoyment). I won't be reading the next until my bf (who is a big fan and put me onto them) has read it first, given me all major spoilers, and I'll still probably skip around to the chapters with good names at the begining...

I only enjoy stories I can become emotionally invested in. When I am punished for that emotional investment, I don't like it. Some people like that style of writing, great have fun with it. But there's nothing terribly "brave" or creative about being the literary equivelent of a killer DM. "Reality" is what we have the news for. Fantasy doesn't stick to certain heroic conventions because the writers CAN'T write about pointless puppy kicking, it sticks to the conventions because they make good fiction. Good = enjoyable, not "edgy" in case I hadn't made that clear...

gggrrrrrr..... Mad at Martin all over again....

PS, one problem is that rather than making stories feel more realistic, pointless main character deaths actually make me far more aware of it as fiction. There's a certain amount you can do to make the reader 'angry' at the antagonist characters, but when you cross a line, I find that there is no way to look at it but "MARTIN decided to kill off these characters, and F*** up the plot." It breaks the willing suspension of disbelief for me, in addition to making me lose interest in the story.

Kahuna burger


----------



## DanMcS (Aug 8, 2003)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> *PS, one problem is that rather than making stories feel more realistic, pointless main character deaths actually make me far more aware of it as fiction. There's a certain amount you can do to make the reader 'angry' at the antagonist characters, but when you cross a line, I find that there is no way to look at it but "MARTIN decided to kill off these characters, and F*** up the plot." It breaks the willing suspension of disbelief for me, in addition to making me lose interest in the story.*




So did you chuck the Dragonlance book across the room after the High Clerist Tower?

When good guys always triumph, and nothing really bad ever happens to them, /that/ marks the book completely as "fiction".  Bad things happen to people.  If anything, this should make it easier to believe the story.  Your reasoning doesn't correllate with your response.


----------



## DanMcS (Aug 8, 2003)

Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> *That's not the worst thing he's ever done. He's had sex WITH HIS TWIN SISTER! Many, many times. How can you morally overcome THAT!?!?*




Why would he have to morally overcome it?  Of his litany of bad deeds, that's so trivial as to fall off the list.  It's not like either one of them was nonconsenting.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Aug 8, 2003)

DanMcS said:
			
		

> *
> 
> So did you chuck the Dragonlance book across the room after the High Clerist Tower?*




1) I wasn't the one who mentioned chucking a book. 

2) I haven't read dragonlance since college, are you talking about the cataclysm? if so, you are confusing the tradgedies of characters vs story. 


> *
> When good guys always triumph, and nothing really bad ever happens to them, /that/ marks the book completely as "fiction".  Bad things happen to people.  If anything, this should make it easier to believe the story.  Your reasoning doesn't correllate with your response. *




I doubt you can honestly see no room for stories that take place between "nothing bad ever happens to them" and major characters dying sudden, pointless, futile deaths. If you are just being argumentative I don't have a use for it, and if you aren't there's not much I can say on our difference in literary taste.

My 'response' to the red wedding was to lose all suspension of disbelief for the story, and thus all interest. I was not angry even for a moment at the Frey's or whoever. I was annoyed at Martin for wasting the time I'd invested already and angry at my bf for recommending the books when I had clearly described how little I liked that exact sort of behavior from another writer. I don't know what reasoning you are drawing from what I wrote, but my comments were a simple statement of fact about how my attitude towards the story changed, not a point for argument. The moment I realized what was happening at the wedding, the entire thing stopped being a story that I could lose myself in and became whatever this guy had chosen to write down on paper. Obviously it didn't strike you that way, but I didn't make the comment to tell anyone else how to think.

kahuna burger


----------



## KnowTheToe (Aug 8, 2003)

Pants said:
			
		

> *Just because I'm an anal, nitpicking, jerk...
> 
> His name is Jaime  *




I knew Jamie was not right, but could not remember what it was. 

 Thanks


----------



## JoeBlank (Aug 8, 2003)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> My 'response' to the red wedding was to lose all suspension of disbelief for the story, and thus all interest. [/B]




I am glad to hear someone say this, and it is the most concrete explanation I have heard for dislike of Martin's work. I can sympathize with your opinion.

That said, I am Martin's love slave, and am in awe of him. The red wedding pushed me very close to the same reaction, but after teetering on the edge I managed to pull back. I did have to reread the next couple of chapters, as my mind was in a fog the first time.

From what I have read, Martin has a fairly detailed outline for the series. I don't think he just decided to jerk the rug out from under our feet, I believe this was in the plans all along. 

Just like in an RPG, when the threat of death and failure is very real, eventual success tastes so much sweeter. 

On Jaime: I agree with those who have said incest is the least of his evil acts. Keep in mind the setting, the Targaryens regularly practiced incest, and this was generally accepted.


----------



## Spatula (Aug 8, 2003)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> *2) I haven't read dragonlance since college, are you talking about the cataclysm? if so, you are confusing the tradgedies of characters vs story. */



He's talking about the death of Sturm in book 2.*



			I doubt you can honestly see no room for stories that take place between "nothing bad ever happens to them" and major characters dying sudden, pointless, futile deaths.
		
Click to expand...


*But the deaths in Song of Ice & Fire aren't pointless.

You say Martin is "F***"ing up the plot by killing characters, which is a silly statement - the plot is what the author defines it to be, not what the reader wants it to be.  And I haven't seen anything in Martin's writing that points to him as a lazy or weak plotter.  Just the opposite, in fact.*



			My 'response' to the red wedding was to lose all suspension of disbelief for the story,
		
Click to expand...


*...because characters died?

If you want unchallenging fiction that conforms to a set pattern of heroes, villians, and good triumphing over evil, the Song of Ice & Fire isn't for you.  Personally I appreciate a story that has an interesting story with interesting characters, and that has the capacity to shock and surprise me.  I personally find that most fantasy fiction that follows your guidelines for "good" fiction lacking in all of the above.  No surprises, boring characters, and trite & cliched stories.

Perhaps it could be said that Martin's work is there to appeal to the jaded fantasy reader.  Or to those that enjoy reading non-fantasy, non-genre fiction, and aren't as attached to the standard fantasy genre conventions.  I fall into both categories, and I love Martin's work with these books.  But of course, tastes vary.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Aug 8, 2003)

Spatula said:
			
		

> *If you want unchallenging fiction... *




Is there really any need to insult someone because they don't agree with you on a single book or author? I've seen the "This writer is good and if you don't like him it means you're not good enough as a reader/veiwer" thing before, and it was bad enough with the Church Of Joe. 

Ice and Fire is not "challenging." Its just a story. Fast paced writing, engaging characters, I think I blew through the last halves of the first two books staying up late nights to finish the last few hundred pages before I went to sleep. Picked up on everything, discussed it with my martin-worshipping bf. Nice world, well put together convergence of events, yadda yadda. I didn't laugh, I didn't cry, it wasn't better than CATS*. It was standard low magic "gritty" fantasy, until he got too hung up on the "and then things go terribly wrong" kick and lost my interest. 

I want fiction that I enjoy. As does most everyone. You enjoy Ice and Fire, I did for a while but won't be pursueing it further. I wish I'd realised what kind of author Martin was before I read two and a half books, but I am very greatful I didn't have the agonized waiting before being disapointed... 

*on the advice of legal consul I will note that I may have laughed a couple of times during the books and have not in fact seen CATS.

Kahuna burger


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Aug 8, 2003)

JoeBlank said:
			
		

> *That said, I am Martin's love slave, and am in awe of him. The red wedding pushed me very close to the same reaction, but after teetering on the edge I managed to pull back. I did have to reread the next couple of chapters, as my mind was in a fog the first time.
> *




Heh... The fact that I read all three books at a wack without the anticipation and fan bonding in between probably makes it easier for me to "give up" on him. That and I had had a fairly recent very similar expereince with another author who I kept at it with, buying the last book in the series after having the others loaned to me and I was... well, punished for my tenacity.  

That and there's so much else to do, read, write, watch, play... I don't feel the need to force myself through something which I should be enjoying.  

kahuna burger


----------



## Spatula (Aug 8, 2003)

Kahuna Burger, it was not my intention to insult you.  LuYangShih wrote:







> I prefer a world where there are clearly defined heroes, who fight the good fight, defeat the dragon, rescue the damsel in distress, and at the end of the day nobly triumph over the villians in black, and then ride off into the sunset. And that goes for fiction of any kind.



And you replied with, "my feelings exactly."  A story that meets your expectations exactly, even if it does so in an entertaining fashion is... not a challenge.  I don't mean challenging as in reading (for example) James Joyce.  I mean challenging in terms of what the reader thinks a story (fantasy or otherwise) "should" be.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Aug 8, 2003)

Spatula said:
			
		

> *I don't mean challenging as in reading (for example) James Joyce.  I mean challenging in terms of what the reader thinks a story (fantasy or otherwise) "should" be. *




well, there's levels of challange to assumptions thats all well and good, and then theres a level where I simply feel I've been sold a false bill of goods. 

Here's a weird but maybe helpful analogy. If I go out to a sushi bar and all the sushi is wrapped in shredded cucumber isntead of rice because its the atkin's sushi bar, that would certainly challenge some asumptions about what I was going to be eating. At the same time, it would be an interesting challenge, and a acceptable switch. In the same way, when  barely pubescent girl is sold to a barbarian for an alliance, and he turns out to be a more considerate first lover than she would have gotten in a royal marriage, thats a nice challange to assumptions and worth reading.  Sushi doesn't have to be about a specific ingredient, novels don't have to play to all archetypes.

Now, if I went to a sushi resturant and was served sushi rolls made entirely out of playdoh and beads because this resturant wanted to challenge my assumptions of what dinner is by presenting a lovely image without nutritional substance, I'd get my money back and be righteuously tweaked off. In the same way, my assumption that a novel will be about a group of characters overcoming challanges rather than, say, being killed in a meaningless, pathetic way by some random guy with no really good reason to do it... thats not open for enjoyable "challange".   Dinner is about food, novels are about vicarious enjoyment of others' stories.

IMHO YMMV AFAIC etc, etc....

Kahuna burger


----------



## Mallus (Aug 8, 2003)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> *...and all the sushi is wrapped in shredded cucumber isntead of rice*



Not to nitpick, but wouldn't you be eating sashimi wrapped in cucumber? I thought the vinegared sushi rice was what made it sushi 

As you say, to each his own, but I really don't think its fair to liken Martin to eating Play-Doh... I mean, despite the all the dead once-central characters, there's plenty of good, wholesome, old-fashioned novel-meat in those books. Now the novels of Samuel Beckett {I thinking of the trilogy that begins with "Malone Dies"} are pure grey Play-Doh, flavored with a hint of alkalai... Or Pynchon's "Gravity's Rainbow", that's kinda like a banquet, various fast-food lunches, garbage, wire, bits of jagged glass,  a used V2 rocket, and a bunch of used things I can't mention here all mixed up ...

I just find it really weird that people would called Martin "edgy", or describe "Ice and Fire" like its some kind of experimental novel. Its so far from that. It's very conventionally structured. The only deviation from the "norm" is the high body count of {sympathetic?} POV characters.  I think it remembles nothing so much as an actual historical account of Europe during the time of the Medicis or the Borgias. The vilest of Martin's characters have nothing on certain Popes.

Which is no reason to like them, I suppose. Its always a fine line between giving an audience exactly what it expects --and I'm not suggesting there's any shame in that. I'm a proud reader of unchallenging books, like the Belgariad-- and challenging their expectations.

Practically every author in every genre has to walk that line. Well, unless they want to make it into the classroom of 300 level college English courses...

Hey, where's that damn weekend whistle-thing? I'm still at work...


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 9, 2003)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> My 'response' to the red wedding was to lose all suspension of disbelief for the story, and thus all interest. I was not angry even for a moment at the Frey's or whoever. I was annoyed at Martin for wasting the time I'd invested already and angry at my bf for recommending the books when I had clearly described how little I liked that exact sort of behavior from another writer. I don't know what reasoning you are drawing from what I wrote, but my comments were a simple statement of fact about how my attitude towards the story changed, not a point for argument. The moment I realized what was happening at the wedding, the entire thing stopped being a story that I could lose myself in and became whatever this guy had chosen to write down on paper. Obviously it didn't strike you that way, but I didn't make the comment to tell anyone else how to think.
> 
> kahuna burger [/B]




A tangent: I always liked Battletech novels, but Stackpole's "good guy/badguy" writing got tiresome. But the real interest killer was a character called Katherine Steiner-Davion. No matter what occured, she got away with it. No matter how STUPID the plot's she hatched, she kept winning.

I wasn't rooting for a villains defeat. I was hoping the plotline went away as tedious and irritating.

So, back to Martin:
I read the first book, then bought the other two (a couple months ago) so read them all at once.

After a while, I really just skipped over most of the stuff in the Catelyn chapters. They didn't endear the character to me, they irritated me on a level of "why do thse stupid things keep happening in her chapters".

It didn't help that they chose to raise her.

The Frey's betrayel just didn't feel like good plot to me. It was just blah.

I REALLY wanted the wolf to survive. The Red Wedding could have been better had we later heard the Frey's were afraid of leaving because a great wolf was stalking them.

I liked Arya. She's the only character I liked. (by the end)

A lot of the stuff in the novels started to feel like filler. I don't really want to read the next novel, since I'd much rather have Arya's training and Dany's ruling told in flashback. I fear it will be tedious.

Overall, I liked the books, and they served their purpose. They were entertainment during reading. I'm just not sure I'll bother with the rest.

(least of all because I hate waiting years between books.)


----------



## Shadowdancer (Aug 9, 2003)

DanMcS said:
			
		

> *Why would he have to morally overcome it?  Of his litany of bad deeds, that's so trivial as to fall off the list.  It's not like either one of them was nonconsenting. *




Incest is now trivial? Please.  

Jokes about the residents of certain predominately rural Southern states aside, there is no culture on earth in which the taboo against incest does not remain inviolate. This taboo is supported by religious, societal and biological imperatives.

Even in Martin's fictional world, incest is a strong taboo. That's why Stannis can use the allegation against the Lannisters. That's why Jaime and Cersei work so hard to keep their relationship a secret from everyone. That's even why Jaime was willing to kill Bran -- he knew their crime of incest was at least as morally wrong as murder is, if not more so.

Jaime has to morally overcome it because (according to my Webster's New World Dictionary) moral implies conformity with the generally accepted standards of goodness or rightness in conduct or character, sometimes specifically in sexual conduct. His sexual conduct does not conform to the generally accepted standards of goodness or rightness, in this world or in Martin's.

Now, I'm no prude. I enjoy Martin's "Song of Ice and Fire" books very much, and I think they are very well written -- probably the best fantasy series I've ever read. I've also been a defender and supporter of the upcoming Book of Erotic Fantasy since it was first announced, and have already preordered a copy. I've long been a fan of various erotic and fetish stories and publications, many of which have incorrectly been labeled pornography and many of which deal with sexual taboos that violate our social mores.

But even I'm not so blase I cannot recognize that Jaime and Cersei's incest is not only wrong, it is one of the greatest sins and crimes they can commit -- about as far from being trivial as you can get.


----------



## Spatula (Aug 9, 2003)

Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> *Even in Martin's fictional world, incest is a strong taboo. That's why Stannis can use the allegation against the Lannisters. That's why Jaime and Cersei work so hard to keep their relationship a secret from everyone. That's even why Jaime was willing to kill Bran -- he knew their crime of incest was at least as morally wrong as murder is, if not more so *



Ah, actually Jaime and Cersei need to hide their relationship because their children's claim to the throne is contingent upon the realm believing that Jaime is not the father (or at least not being confronted with proof to the contrary).  And the Targaryens practiced incest and it was not considered taboo or a sin for them.


----------



## ssampier (Aug 9, 2003)

The Red Wedding was a truly shocking moment for me. I put the book down and I said (to myself), "This SUCKS!" Three days later I pick it up again and I finished reading book three. Wow. George R.R. Martin can write. No other book has held my attention and interest this far; he has turned the fantasy genre on its head.

SPOILERS....


.


.

.

.


Now what of Rob's wife, Jeyne? I only read book three once, but I remember they pointing out that she stayed behind several times. Also, there was an interesting conversation between Jeyne and Cat about Rob and she ... practicing... every night. What would be the significance of her having child?

Second, any predictions what Lord Frey's comeuppance will be?!


----------



## Alaric_Prympax (Aug 9, 2003)

ssampier said:
			
		

> *Now what of Rob's wife, Jeyne? I only read book three once, but I remember they pointing out that she stayed behind several times. Also, there was an interesting conversation between Jeyne and Cat about Rob and she ... practicing... every night. What would be the significance of her having child?
> *




Possible Spoilers for those who have not yet read _A Storm of Swords_...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. 
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Their child would be the heir to Winterfell and the title King in the the North.  This would have put Tywin's attempt to have Tyrion rule the north as Sansa's husband and the father of their children to ruin.  But of course the events at the end of the book ruined those plans anyway.  Robb's child would also be a rallying point for those Northern Lords who will not serve Greyjoys, Lannisters, Boltons, or any other non-Stark.


Concerning the Targaryens and their incest... it seems that the Targaryens were above the law and what was taboo for some was not for them.  Incest was looked down upon in Westeros but the Targaryens could do what they wanted to.  Wether this was because they were the ruling family or because they were descended from Valyria is not really hinted at though I think it is the latter because brother-sister relations was a "Valyrian custom" and was done "To preserve the blood royal and keep it pure".


----------



## DanMcS (Aug 9, 2003)

Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> *Jokes about the residents of certain predominately rural Southern states aside, there is no culture on earth in which the taboo against incest does not remain inviolate. This taboo is supported by religious, societal and biological imperatives.*




Ancient egypt.  The pharoahs and their wives were sometimes siblings, to keep the bloodline pure.  All of European nobility from the middle ages on is laced with marriages to cousins of varying degree, because there are only so many high nobles to marry and you end up being related to them all after a while.  During the War of the Roses, the english royal family tree doesn't branch, it actually condenses as they marry their cousins to get a stronger claim to the throne.  Ancient Greek myth has the gods marrying their sisters, a practice the greeks wouldn't have enshrined in myth if it were totally abhorent.



> *Even in Martin's fictional world, incest is a strong taboo. That's why Stannis can use the allegation against the Lannisters. That's why Jaime and Cersei work so hard to keep their relationship a secret from everyone. That's even why Jaime was willing to kill Bran -- he knew their crime of incest was at least as morally wrong as murder is, if not more so.*




No it's not.  The targaryens married sibling to sibling because they considered themselves so high above the other nobles- had to keep the bloodline pure.  This was common practice for their whole dynasty, what, 400 years or more?  I'm fuzzy on the timeline there.  Anyway, it's a weak taboo at best, and not the main thrust of the charges against Cersei.

The allegation works against the Lannisters not because the children are born of incest, but because they aren't Robert Baratheon's.  Without that, the Lannisters have no legal claim to the throne, and would lose most of their support, and Stannis would be the rightful king.


----------



## Alaric_Prympax (Aug 9, 2003)

Just as the War of the Roses inspired GRRM for part of ASoIaF and that Robert Baratheon = Edward IV; the Targaryens _might_ have been inspired by the Ptolemies of Egypt.  Though AFAIK GRRM has not stated that Ptolemies = Targaryens; he has said that about Robert and Edward York.


----------



## Spatula (Aug 9, 2003)

ssampier said:
			
		

> *ow what of Rob's wife, Jeyne? I only read book three once, but I remember they pointing out that she stayed behind several times.*



I believe her & her family are pardoned, it's one of the acts we see the king sign in Jaime's last chapter.  Also see the Freys being given Riverrun and the Tully lands, in exchange for wedding.


----------



## KenM (Aug 9, 2003)

I'm about 100 pages into Storm of Swords. How far in does this Red Wedding I keep hearing about happen? (NO SPOILERS just give me a page estimate please.)


----------



## Pants (Aug 9, 2003)

KnowTheToe said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I knew Jamie was not right, but could not remember what it was.
> 
> Thanks *



No problem


----------



## Sirius_Black (Aug 9, 2003)

KenM said:
			
		

> *I'm about 100 pages into Storm of Swords. How far in does this Red Wedding I keep hearing about happen? (NO SPOILERS just give me a page estimate please.) *




I'd say as you near page 700, is when you are about to read about that disturbing event.


----------



## jdavis (Aug 9, 2003)

This is what I get for not checking the boards for a few days....

Martin's writing style: well I like it but I can understand where not everyone would. The events and storylines that people said turned them off to the story (Red Wedding) got me even more interested. (SPOILERS):_Other shockers, Bran being tossed off a tower, Ned's Execution, Joffrey's wedding, Jaime loosing his hand, Renly's Murder, a half dozen or so bad things that happen to Jon Snow, Jon Snow turning down Winterfell for the Wall, Most of what Daenerys does, burning of Winterfell, Lady Lysa's murder,_ well I could go on and on and any one of those was as bad or worse than the Red Wedding, his stories are full of these type of things, the Red Wedding fit in perfect with the rest of the book and it was great to see really bad things can happen to the good guys too (although I hate Catelyn but I'll get to that later).

Jaime and Cersei: Ned Stark's whole part of the first book was about him looking into Robert's children and what the secret that Jon Arryn knew was (the one that got them both killed). Stannis is actually the rightful king (even though nobody likes him), the secret of Jaime fathering the children is what is being protected, not that incest isn't bad but this is about who is actually in line for Kingship, the Lannisters only claim is through Cersei's children, a little public humilation is nothing compared to loosing the throne. Heck I even think Jamie stated he wished it was out in the open, the Targaryens traditionally practiced incest, it was part of their heritage from when the first came to Westros, the incest would of been accepted (well it would of been scorned behind their backs and they would be laughing stocks but as long as they held the throne it would be accepted). The problem is that the charge of incest would make people question if Cersei's children were actually King Robert's children (it was repeatedly stated they didn't look like Robert at all). If they are not Roberts then they are not in line for the throne, if they are not in line for the throne then all support for the Lannisters dries up in a instant. Yes the rumors are already out there (Stannis knows and Bran knows) but it is not generally known. The loss of power is what Cersei fears, she cares nothing at all for morality or if it's a sin, and Jaime actually loves her he thinks they are meant to be together, he would like nothing better than it to be in the open, he keeps it secret because he does what she tells him to do, morals have nothing to do with it (yet at least).

Catelyn: why do people get worked up over what happened to her? She was annoying and the Red Wedding was the best thing in the series containing her. Robb, well Robb was a gonner from the start, he and Rikkon were the non-POV Stark children. THe Red Wedding sets Aria up wonderfully and she was infinatly more interesting than Robb or Catelyn. I loved the Red Wedding, it was one of the most suprising events I have ever read in a book, I never got upset or threw the book or lost interest or anything that was a great scene. The effects of the Red Wedding will drive the storylines of half the characters of the books, nobody died that hurt the storyline (Spoiler: _Nobody died that actually hurt the storyline, well those who are not there will understand by the end of the book_ ). It also gives the readers a family to truly hate now that the Lannisters seem to be running thin.

The suspense of the way he writes is what keeps me interested, I actually pay attention and care because I know that the hero might not come out on top, heck they might die, poorly. The unexpected may be around every page it keeps me interested. It is still fantasy and I don't see it as more realistic or anything it's just more edge of your seat and unexpected.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 10, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> *This is what I get for not checking the boards for a few days....
> 
> Martin's writing style: well I like it but I can understand where not everyone would. The events and storylines that people said turned them off to the story (Red Wedding) got me even more interested. (SPOILERS):Other shockers, Bran being tossed off a tower, Ned's Execution, Joffrey's wedding, Jaime loosing his hand, Renly's Murder, a half dozen or so bad things that happen to Jon Snow, Jon Snow turning down Winterfell for the Wall, Most of what Daenerys does, burning of Winterfell, Lady Lysa's murder, well I could go on and on and any one of those was as bad or worse than the Red Wedding, his stories are full of these type of things, the Red Wedding fit in perfect with the rest of the book and it was great to see really bad things can happen to the good guys too (although I hate Catelyn but I'll get to that later).
> *




The Jon Snow plot was decent, I think I like him somewhat. Bran is almost interesting.

It's just that too much of their chapters are tedious. Arya's stuff with Clengan was nice, because there was something there.

As I mentioned, I didn't like Catalyn, but I also felt every chapter she was in, was just not well written. (not even just her actions.) If Frey is that powerful and central to control of the continent, he should have declared himself king or something. It's again, just tedious for me.

Dany's stuff also seems so-so to me. I can understand that traveling is tedious, but we shouldn't have to read about it! 
I did like the Kingsguard fella, but that's about it.

Also, I got tired of Tyrion's interactions with his father, because he was clueless all of a sudden. Sure he's afraid of his father, but the way he acted just didn't seem to make sense.

Jaime was better after they went into more detail with him. He could turn out well.

And, I didn't like Littlefinger at all either. He seems just boring. Hopefully he's a servant of Darkness or Winter or whatever, and gets a personality.


Oh, the the guy with the flayed man symbol (the bastard) I didn't like him much either, and find the whole "hide Bran and Rickon" thread disappointing.

Eh, I dunno. It just seems it had so much potential, and just turned on me at some point.


----------



## ssampier (Aug 11, 2003)

*Future Possibilities (Speculation)*

SPOILERS

.

.

.


Ah I see. I should have known it all amounts to claim. Of course since Winterfell is currently in the hands of Theon Greyjoy (or _was_) we will wait for the impact of another heir.

BTW, what happened to Rikkon? And what will become of Arya since she is now bound for Braavos?

Since our "good lady" Lysa is dead and the dwarf escaped, I can assume they will have a man-hunt for both the dwarf and Sansa.

Who are they going to blame for Lord Tywin's death I wonder?! Cersei "cheating" will probably will be wide open since it repeatedly noted that Jaime had not lain with another woman besides Cersei; not even the pretty, freckled girl at Harrenhal. My prediction: Cersei dies (possibly at the hand of Jaime).


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 11, 2003)

I think part of some folks dissatisfaction with "Song of Ice and Fire", like Kahuna Burger, is one of expectation (though I couldn't claim to speak for her, or know her mind).  If you enter into the series with the expectation of certain tropes being present, such as eventual noble hero appearing, or even a flawed central character stepping to the fore...you will be disappointed.

It is an ensemble cast, with NO central character, other than Westeros itself.  It has more in common with, say, "E/R" than it does with "the Green Knight".  Many facets of the books serve that end.  Several times we are fed characters who seem like they will fill that role, and then they are shuffled off-stage by events.  Ned and Robb Stark both appear to be central characters...or at least focal point characters, who will drive the story.  The Red Wedding was upsetting not just for it's events, but for the knowledge that there is no certainty, no handy pattern to follow, and no character who will eventually rise from the others to become the one to follow.  It tells us that, overall, the land of Westeros is bleak, harsh and unforgiving.  That can be a very unpleasant thing to read, and is, in many ways, the exact antithesis of what some readers came looking for.

If I can use KB as an example, here:



> *Originally posted by Kahuna Burger*
> _novels are about vicarious enjoyment of others' stories_
> ---------------------------
> _Fantasy doesn't stick to certain heroic conventions because the writers CAN'T write about pointless puppy kicking, it sticks to the conventions because they make good fiction. _
> ...




The last quote, I think, illustrates what I'm trying to say.  Some folks are coming to the series, hoping for one thing, and getting another.  That doesn't make the series bad, it doesn't mean the reader has poor taste or can't appreciate the work...just that they don't like it.  Readers like KB are looking to warp themselves up in a story and be swept away...something that one could 'Song' doesn't do.  It doesn't take me to a place I'd want to go, but I place I (personally) enjoy seeing.  It is not an idealized or romanticized version of the middle ages...it's fairly spot on in many points.  In all it's unpleasant ugliness, at points.

I know many folks who don't like Eddings work on exactly the opposite grounds.  And AFAIC, those folks are no more or less correct in their assertions.  There is no single work that everyone can point to and say that everyone likes.  Which is a good thing, most likely.


----------



## Farganger (Aug 11, 2003)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> *
> 
> As I mentioned, I didn't like Catalyn, but I also felt every chapter she was in, was just not well written. (not even just her actions.) If Frey is that powerful and central to control of the continent, he should have declared himself king or something. It's again, just tedious for me.
> 
> ...




I felt the same - particularly about the Dany chapters.

Overall, Martin's writing is very good, but the Dany chapters seemed badly constructed and stylistically out of place.  In particular . . .

SPOILER
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . . the eunuch warriors and the absolutely incredible stupidity of the supposedly crafty mercantile race that trained and purveyed them were to my mind the low points in the books to date.  A lot of clumsy exposition so you'd know the eunuchs would give their entire loyalty to their "owner", yet the merchant-trainers were somehow entirely oblivious to how that wonderful selling-point of their product could be easily turned against them.

A true "Doh!" moment and (happily) uncharacteristic of the author.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Aug 11, 2003)

I read a statement about Kurt Vonnegut today that reminded me of this thread.



> Kurt Vonnegut once offered a trenchant piece of advice for fiction writers:
> 
> Do not be afraid to have your characters do terrible things. You see, the protective nature of a writer wants readers to like the creatures that have sprung from his or her imagination. Even the bad ones.
> 
> Vonnegut says, if they’re bad people, let them be bad.




I think Martin has taken this advice to heart.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 12, 2003)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> *I think part of some folks dissatisfaction with "Song of Ice and Fire", like Kahuna Burger, is one of expectation (though I couldn't claim to speak for her, or know her mind).  If you enter into the series with the expectation of certain tropes being present, such as eventual noble hero appearing, or even a flawed central character stepping to the fore...you will be disappointed. *




What killed my expectactions:
Sex: every chapter in the latter two books managed to fit sex in. Rape, consensual, whatever. In the chapters centered around Arya, the eight year old, there's still sex in nearly every chapter. It was to me, excessive and ruined the feel of the Story of Westeros.

Stupidity: the whole "mothers love" notion is so-so, but really the idea that she'd ever see her daughters in exchange for Jaime.. There's more too, just inherently stupid things in the books that jar me from the setting and my suspension of disbelief.

Length: I bought the books because they were 700+ pages, I enjoyed it. By the end, I felt they were being padded. I fear the next novel will be worse. You can say "the good guys don't always win in this story", and I'll agree, but if you say "reading about tedious pointless journeying is character building" I'll have to disagree.

Logic: Robert's heirs are the proper kings, because Robert overthrew the proper kings! Uh, right. (they did provide a hint of a trace of a possilbe lineage, but I'm sure such can be given for almost any lineage of the setting)
The only defense of our city will respond only to their current owner, and we'll happily sell them because we have no other defense!

There's other complaints, but really I mostly enjoyed the books. 1 left me really wanting to read 2 and 2 left me barely able to wait until 3.

But 3 makes me afraid that 4 will be horrible,
I like Arya, I don't want to read about her training.
Dany, likewise, her activities until the next important phase are unimportant.

Ah well.


----------



## KenM (Aug 12, 2003)

I'm 150 pages into Storm of Swords. As for all the extra stuff with Dany, I think Martin has a reason for this.  The only thing i'm starting to get tired of is Bran dreaming he is an animal almost EVERY time you read about Him.


----------



## Dagger75 (Aug 12, 2003)

> I like Arya, I don't want to read about her training.




 Really, I actually hope he gets into that.  


 To each his own I guess.


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 12, 2003)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> *What killed my expectactions:
> Sex: every chapter in the latter two books managed to fit sex in. Rape, consensual, whatever. In the chapters centered around Arya, the eight year old, there's still sex in nearly every chapter. It was to me, excessive and ruined the feel of the Story of Westeros.*




Well, all I say to that is that while you may not like it, I don't necessarily see it as bad, per se.  People have sex.  A lot.  And in a culture where a woman's most powerful asset is the ability to provide a male heir, you're going to have it as part of the story.  Part of Sansa's whole arc is to show up how she's been raised on chivalric notions, and how she discovers (to her regret) that most of them are fabrications or gloss over the truth.



> *Logic: Robert's heirs are the proper kings, because Robert overthrew the proper kings! Uh, right. (they did provide a hint of a trace of a possilbe lineage, but I'm sure such can be given for almost any lineage of the setting)*




True enough on the face of it, but we're talking politics, here.  Take a good look at many of the wars fought throughout the middle-ages to the present day...lineage was a tool to promote legitimacy, but it could be (and was) circumvented easily enough.  A lot of such elements in "Song" are there because Martin took them from history.  Take a look at the first English Civil War between King Stephen and Queen Maude (Cadfeal, anyone?) and then the War of the Roses.  You'll find a lot of analogs to the series.

None of which matters a whit towards your enjoyment of the series or anyone's interpetation of the merit of its inclusion in the story, of course....I just wanted to point out that many of these elements weren't non-sensical...any more than 3 day feasts were (which are also historically accurate).



> *I like Arya, I don't want to read about her training.
> Dany, likewise, her activities until the next important phase are unimportant.*




I'm pretty sure this was the problem GRRM has run into.  His original plan called for a 5-year gap between books three and four, and most likely accounted for Bran, Sansa, Rickon and Arya all growing into very different adults.  However, he found it unsatisfying, as I think I would, to wave a magic wand and have the characters just change.  To accomadate that would require large chunks of 'here's what happened' exposition, which I think would make the next book tedious.

I only wish Jordan would show as much consideration for his story...but then, I think Jordan has found himself outmatched by his own premise...and that's a topic for another thread.


----------



## LuYangShih (Aug 18, 2003)

Well, again, my point of view on the subject is that if I want realism, or an accurate portrayal of the Dark Ages, I will pick up a history book.  I do not see the reason to read a work of fiction because it is "realistic".  It is sickening enough reading about the depravity humanity lowered itself to during the actual Dark Ages, and I do not need or desire to read a book where the same behavior is modeled in a fantasy world.  I read fiction for fun, and it is not fun to read A Song Of Ice And Fire.  I have yet to hear anyone else say it is, either.  Sure, I hear people say, It's realistic, it's deep, I enjoyed seeing the world", but yet, no one just says, it was fun.  Because it isn't.


----------



## Sirius_Black (Aug 18, 2003)

LuYangShih said:
			
		

> * I read fiction for fun, and it is not fun to read A Song Of Ice And Fire.  I have yet to hear anyone else say it is, either.  Sure, I hear people say, It's realistic, it's deep, I enjoyed seeing the world", but yet, no one just says, it was fun.  Because it isn't. *




Well, here you go then....I think the series is fun.  By that I mean, I enjoy reading the series. 

Why?

I enjoy Martin's work because of some of the harsh elements within the books.  I like the fact that a character I had viewed as (insert word here that the moderators would have a fit over) is now acting, from the preview chapters of "Feast of Crows" I've seen mentioned, with more honor than I ever could have envisioned.

I know my tastes differ from others as evidenced on this thread.  However, that's what I love about books.  There exists somewhere out there, works they will find fun.  For myself, I find this series fun.


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 18, 2003)

LuYangShih said:
			
		

> *Well, again, my point of view on the subject is that if I want realism, or an accurate portrayal of the Dark Ages, I will pick up a history book.  I do not see the reason to read a work of fiction because it is "realistic".  It is sickening enough reading about the depravity humanity lowered itself to during the actual Dark Ages, and I do not need or desire to read a book where the same behavior is modeled in a fantasy world.  I read fiction for fun, and it is not fun to read A Song Of Ice And Fire.  I have yet to hear anyone else say it is, either.  Sure, I hear people say, It's realistic, it's deep, I enjoyed seeing the world", but yet, no one just says, it was fun.  Because it isn't. *




Well, that's something of a subjective statement.  My fun isn't your fun.  Watching the elder Clegane get his was fun, for me.  None of which matters one jot into your enjoyment, of course.

And I'm not trying to tell you that 'realism=good', or that you should like it because of that.  Not liking 'Song' is just as valid as liking it.  My point is simply that some of claimed one element or another was distracting or incorrect (such as questions of lineage, incest, tolerance of misanthropes within the feudal system, sexual issues), and as often as not, these elements are based on GRRM's reading of history and fictionalizing it.  

I enjoy the Belgariad for some things, Song for others, and the Taltos series for others still.  Song provides me a different kind of enjoyment than, say, the Riftwar Saga, and a different level of immersion.  It will appeal to different folks for different reasons, but it will never be accused of being a 'ripping yarn'.  I have Harry Potter for that.


----------



## jdavis (Aug 18, 2003)

LuYangShih said:
			
		

> *Well, again, my point of view on the subject is that if I want realism, or an accurate portrayal of the Dark Ages, I will pick up a history book.  I do not see the reason to read a work of fiction because it is "realistic".  It is sickening enough reading about the depravity humanity lowered itself to during the actual Dark Ages, and I do not need or desire to read a book where the same behavior is modeled in a fantasy world.  I read fiction for fun, and it is not fun to read A Song Of Ice And Fire.  I have yet to hear anyone else say it is, either.  Sure, I hear people say, It's realistic, it's deep, I enjoyed seeing the world", but yet, no one just says, it was fun.  Because it isn't. *



Well it is fun to read for me, I read for entertainment, of course books about the Dark Ages are fun for me to read to because I read for entertainment, reading post is fun for me to read because I read for entertainment, do you assume that all the millions of people out there reading Martin's books are not enjoying them? Yes they might not be happy slapstick kind of fun but they are for entertainment and if it wasn't entertaining then it would not be as popular as it is. As far as realism goes, well I don't remember there being a 200 foot tall giant Ice wall in the Dark ages, I don't remember people being emphatically attached to giant wolves in the dark ages, Dragons? no they are not real, magic....no, giants...no, how about evil elves who steal souls.....no those were not realistic themes from dark age history. If you are talking about royal incest that was a fact in places that have royalty long past the dark ages and into the 17th and 18th century, marrying cousin's to increase your claim to the throne was accepted practice, of course that doesn't make a history book out of Martin's writing, People killing each other.... gee isn't that a big part of all fantasy novels? Most novels have villians who do evil things. 

I accept your arguement that you do not like this type of book, got no problem there but saying that nobody thinks the book is fun is pushing it, and saying it is a accurate depiction of the Dark Ages is also pushing it. I'd call it closer to a dark romance type of thing, sort of like the movie Excalibur, which had incest and murder and betrayal in it to but was very obviously a fantasy work. Martin doesn't write about peasants living in squaler he writes about brave knights and evil queens and all the types of stuff that have been making up fantasy and romance novels for hundreds of years, he is just telling a darker story than what most of the recent fantasy books have told.


----------



## ssampier (Aug 19, 2003)

*Martin is Fun*



			
				jdavis said:
			
		

> *..snip... Martin doesn't write about peasants living in squaler he writes about brave knights and evil queens and all the types of stuff that have been making up fantasy and romance novels for hundreds of years, he is just telling a darker story than what most of the recent fantasy books have told. *
> Emphasis Mine




And that's _exactly_ why I enjoy the series. It is not a tired story about a (relunctant) young boy with extraordinary powers. To George R.R. Martin detractors, your opinion is just as valid as mine. However, please avoid the trolls in this thread. I personally would like to discuss the characters and situations, rather the "Top 10 ways George R.R. Martin cannot write his way out of a paper bag".

Now that our focus is clear


----------



## jdavis (Aug 19, 2003)

I never really got the beating this series got for being overly dark and gritty or too realistic for fantasy. It's not that dark or overly bloody or overly filled with sex, it seems to have a lot in common with the King Arthur legends. Yes people die, that's a part of the fact that a war is going on, yes the good guys lost the war in the south but they actually won at the wall, it's not like everything is lost or the story ended on a bad note it's only half finsihed. Arthur was betrayed by his best friend and his wife, was seduced by his sister and eventually killed by his son born of incest who was burning and pillaging the land, nobody goes on about how dark and depressing the Arthur legend was, in the end it worked out for the best for the land, we are nowhere near the end of Martin's tale but I bet it will not end with evil overunning the kingdom and everybody being turned into zombies, it will work out in the end, 4 books from now. It's sort of like putting down King Arthur when he is dying and the knights can't find the Holy Grail and saying "man that's just too dark and depressing, the good guys are dying" and never finishing the story, or putting down Lord of the Rings in the middle of the battle at Minas Tirth and assuming that they lost because good guys were dying. 

The only major character who has died (Well besides the one who talking about requires a spoiler label) was Ned and his death is one of the main things that propelled the story forward. Yes lots of minor characters have died but there was a war going on. Nobody assumed the Empire won and decided to skip Return of the Jedi, stories like this are normally dark towards the middle, having the outlook grim and there being only a sliver of hope remaining is part on lots of stories, why does this series of unfinished books take such a pounding because bad things happened in the middle of it?


----------



## Shadowdancer (Aug 19, 2003)

I read the series for fun.

That's also the reason I stopped reading Robert Jordan's "Wheel" novels at volume 6 -- they were no longer fun to read.


----------



## LuYangShih (Aug 19, 2003)

Alright, I will admit that other people did and shall enjoy George R.R. Martins books.  I should not have spoken for others.  The bottom line, I suppose, is what Wippit Guud said when he started this topic.  Who are the good guys?  I want to have people to cheer for, and everyone in the books that was mostly noble/good has either been killed or been completely changed as the story progressed.


----------



## jdavis (Aug 20, 2003)

LuYangShih said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The bottom line, I suppose, is what Wicht said when he started this topic.  Who are the good guys?  I want to have people to cheer for, and everyone in the books that was mostly noble/good has either been killed or been completely changed as the story progressed. *




I'd still say Jon Snow. Everything he has done has been for a noble reason, he was trying to protect the wall. He is one of the few characters who is growing positively in the story. Bran would still be considered a good guy at this point it remains to be seen how he turns out in later books but he definitely is a good person so far. A good case could be made for Davos too athough his loyalty to Stannis has lead him into some bad stuff. Other than that there is not much for major characters (although there are several minor characters who are good and some who could be considered noble even).


----------



## Olive (Aug 20, 2003)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> *Logic: Robert's heirs are the proper kings, because Robert overthrew the proper kings! Uh, right. (they did provide a hint of a trace of a possilbe lineage, but I'm sure such can be given for almost any lineage of the setting)*




They deal with this in the books of course, when Renly discuses the fact.

As WizarDru said above, that's what history was like! You don't think that the House of Windsor was always the Royal familly of the UK do you?


----------



## Sirius_Black (Aug 20, 2003)

LuYangShih said:
			
		

> *Alright,  The bottom line, I suppose, is what Wippit Guud said when he started this topic.  Who are the good guys?  I want to have people to cheer for, and everyone in the books that was mostly noble/good has either been killed or been completely changed as the story progressed. *




To add on to JDavis' list:  Arya Stark, Brienne of Tarth, and that's just off the top of my head.

Moreover, for myself, I can find characters to cheer for that aren't good.  Specificially I mean Jaime Lannister.  I mentioned him in my last post and I am really cheering for him to take advantage of this turning point he seems to be at and to change his life and character.  He definitely seems to be moving away from the monster in Game of Thrones and is on some path of change based upon some of the sample chapters from Feast of Crows that apparently have been read at various conventions. 

I can cheer for that.


----------



## RyanL (Aug 20, 2003)

Once again, I agree with jdavis.  I think Jon Snow is a "good guy", and is emerging as the closest thing this story has to a protagonist.  If certain theories regarding Jon are true, then he really _is_ the Song of Ice and Fire.

-Ryan


----------



## Rune (Aug 20, 2003)

I think _A Song of Ice and Fire_ is fun because it reminds me of Shakespeare.

Seriously.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 20, 2003)

Olive said:
			
		

> *
> 
> They deal with this in the books of course, when Renly discuses the fact.
> 
> As WizarDru said above, that's what history was like! You don't think that the House of Windsor was always the Royal familly of the UK do you? *




I said they mentioned something about Robert being distantly related. But at the same time, I'm sure that justification could be found for all of them. They didn't "disprove" why no one else could make the claim, they just seemed to accept that Robert had the claim.

And truthfully, in such matters, do you think most of the nobles cared? Certainly none of the peasants did.


----------



## Olive (Aug 20, 2003)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> *And truthfully, in such matters, do you think most of the nobles cared? Certainly none of the peasants did. *




Of course they did! this is the basis of feudalism we're talking about here. As stupid as it may seem to us today, these sorts of things were hugely important in a feudal society. After all, if you believe that there is a correct claim, that might make up your mind about who you fight for. In the books, it certainly had bearing on who fought against Robert for Aerys, despite Aerys being demonstrably insane.


----------



## ssampier (Aug 21, 2003)

*the dwarf!*

Who do I cheer for? Tyrion, the dwarf. Sure he's on the "bad" side, but he is mocked and ridiculed by his own family. It with pleasure I can say that he is "winning" so far. Granted he is not a good guy by any stretch of the imagination. But he has a certain quality that just makes you want to root for him.

Now the good guy in the books?! Ned, certifiably Lawful Stupid. Good at heart, but at little more wise, Jon Snow.

Of course there is a part of me that wants Dany to win. Even though she's on the (other) "bad" side, she does have a heroine streak that lets the reader (me anyway), "It would be neat for Dany to waste Westeros with her three dragons."

SPOILERS
.

.

.

.

.

Speaking of Tyrion, does it actually say at the end of the Storm of Swords that Tywin died or is there a chance he's still alive?


----------



## Olive (Aug 21, 2003)

*Re: the dwarf!*



			
				ssampier said:
			
		

> *Who do I cheer for? Tyrion, the dwarf. Sure he's on the "bad" side, but he is mocked and ridiculed by his own family. It with pleasure I can say that he is "winning" so far. Granted he is not a good guy by any stretch of the imagination. But he has a certain quality that just makes you want to root for him.*




He's not far off being a good guy for most of it. He's kind to people, trys to limit the worst excesses of his family, recognises the evil in Joffery etc. He's kind to Jon Snow, and looks out for the smallfolk, even when they hate him.

And he doesn't even lust for blood like Ayra does half the time.

My goodies: Bran, Jon, Davos, Tyrion, Robb, Ned.

Next level: Arya, Catelyn, Sansa, Danerys, perhaps Varys, other Tullys etc. The good Black Watch people.

Neutral: Robert, Renly, Jaime (later on)

Evil: All the other Lannisters, Stannis, Littlefinger... pretty much every one else.


----------



## jdavis (Aug 21, 2003)

Olive said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Of course they did! this is the basis of feudalism we're talking about here. As stupid as it may seem to us today, these sorts of things were hugely important in a feudal society. After all, if you believe that there is a correct claim, that might make up your mind about who you fight for. In the books, it certainly had bearing on who fought against Robert for Aerys, despite Aerys being demonstrably insane. *



Robert had the best claim of those who were on his side in the war. Of course they didn't go to war because he had a good claim to the throne, they went to war because the king was executing members of their families and was insane. Robert not only had a good claim to the throne after it was over but he was also a charismatic hero of the revolution, he was well loved by the people. Of course the thing is after he takes the throne it doesn't matter anymore how strong anyone elses claim is, he started a new line of kings, once in place it's his heirs who will be king, that's how it works, his children were his heirs, the problem being that children of Jaime and Cersie are not his children and therefore are not his heirs. They would have no hold or claim to the throne and would carry little public support as they are not tied to King Robert Baratheon in any way shape or form, they are just a embarasing Lannister family secret exposed. 

As far as the logic here goes well it is pretty obvious, Robert was king his heirs are his children then his brothers, his is the New Dynasty started by him, very few people even suspect that a Targaryen heir survived, when he became king all claims of kingship now come through relation to him, the old line is though to be dead. Robb never claimed kingship of everything just kingship of the North (which was historically a independant kingdom), Stannis and Renly pressed their claims to the throne because they knew Roberts children were not really his (even though they failed to prove it to the general public), nobody else pressed a claim to the throne because the throne now belongs to house Baratheon.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 22, 2003)

*Re: Re: the dwarf!*



			
				Olive said:
			
		

> *
> 
> He's not far off being a good guy for most of it. He's kind to people, trys to limit the worst excesses of his family, recognises the evil in Joffery etc. He's kind to Jon Snow, and looks out for the smallfolk, even when they hate him. *




I liked Tyrion well enough, until the later chapters with his father. He seemed to lose all his wit. Even what he possessed when he previously dealt with his father. I can understand the battle and blah blah, but as with the Robert Is King stuff, it's not appealing to me as a reader to have the character so blah.

Just another opinion of course.


----------



## Sirius_Black (Aug 22, 2003)

*Re: the dwarf!*



			
				ssampier said:
			
		

> *SPOILERS
> .
> 
> .
> ...




Deader than a door nail according to everything I've heard from people who got to hear sample chapters read at conventions.  Moreover, in the preview chapter of Feast of Crows in the paperback version I have, the setting is Tywin's funeral.

Truth be told, Tyrion is another person I find myself cheering for.  He treated Sansa very well given their situation.  Additionally, he killed Tywin and slapped the you know what out of Joffrey on more than one occasion.  The latter action alone should pardon him for any crime.


----------



## KenM (Aug 22, 2003)

I like Tyrion as well. He has honor, and is very smart and resourceful.


----------



## ssampier (Aug 25, 2003)

Good point. Tyrion is a "good" guy, even if he is a Lannister. 

Spoiler
.

.

.

.

.

Ah sweet. Without Tywin, the male heir would be Jaime. Since Jaime is in kingsguard, does that mean Tyrion becomes the new lord of Casterly Rock?


----------



## Pants (Aug 25, 2003)

ssampier said:
			
		

> *Good point. Tyrion is a "good" guy, even if he is a Lannister.
> 
> Spoiler
> .
> ...



Tyrion has no claim since he has been convicted of killing Joff.  That whole patricide thing doesn't help matters either.


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 25, 2003)

ssampier said:
			
		

> *Good point. Tyrion is a "good" guy, even if he is a Lannister.  *




Technically, I think Tyrion is a protagonist, not necessarily a 'hero'.  Which, I think, is a major point of the series, in that no one is the perfect legendary hero.

This is, in fact, one of the biggest differences between Jordan and Martin, to me.  In 'Wheel of Time', everyone complains how the legends and stories glorify the truth, ignore the ugly side of things and make everything sound like a grand adventure...but for the most part, the unpleasant part of the tales aren't really that unpleasant.  In Jordan's story, the characters are dense, somewhat confused and have to deal with trivial details...but they are inside legends, and making them.    In "Song of Ice and Fire", the stories are radically different from reality, which is far more unpleasant.  Being a commoner in Jordan's world relegates you to the position of someone who is earthy and generally worships/adores the nobility.  Being a commoner in Martin's world means trying to stay out of the notice of a noble, and just trying to eke out a living without being caught up in a maelstrom of politics, war and fear.


----------



## ssampier (Aug 26, 2003)

That was a very well thought out response. I would agree that Tyrion is _a _ protagonist, not _the_ protagonist. I think Jon Snow has some contention to that title.

My "good" comment was in the context of the simplicity of the fantasy genre. He still has his "streaks"; his association with whores, for example. He treats them well, though.

Spoiler....

.

.

.

Point noted. Who would the next heir of Casterly Rock be? One of the Freys I assume (with adequate lineage, of course)?


----------



## Pants (Aug 26, 2003)

ssampier said:
			
		

> *
> Spoiler....
> 
> .
> ...



Cersei will probably try to squirm her way into power.  With Tywin dead and no one left urging her to get married, she'll probably try and take it.

Or maybe Kevan Lannister or maybe Cersei's other son (Robert is it?).


----------



## ssampier (Aug 26, 2003)

Well that would certainy make sense since Tommenon (sp?) was "officially" the King. I suppose Lady Cersei could be the Lady of Casterly Rock, but would the nobles recognize her? Hmmm, I smell a(nother) war brewing...

Gee, where's Dany with her dragons when you need her?


----------



## Pants (Aug 26, 2003)

Tommen!  That's his name


----------



## Berandor (Aug 27, 2003)

All I can say  is should GRRM pass away before he completes the seventh book, I will stage a bloody funeral...


----------



## stevelabny (Aug 28, 2003)

so, i caught onto this series supposedly being the best thing since sliced bread sometime around june when i got the fifth harry potter book.
i peeked at one thread , saw people talking about throwing the books across rooms, and telling those who havent read the books to run away from any and all spoilers...

i just finished the first three books... 
WOW. that was some good stuff.
there is no way to comment on this series without giving SOMETHING away. even reviews I've read since give the first death away like its a gimme.  Ugh. Im glad i didnt know.

But I really need to question why so many people are claiming Jon Snow is a good guy?

SPOILER SPACE HERE ( im gonna spoil stuff...be warned...go away)
*
*
*
*
*
ok... Jon isnt a good guy. He's almost as much of a schmuck as Catelyn is. Could he be any more clueless?   to sum it up in simple terms "You know nothing, Jon Snow"

He never questions the WHY of anything. He never questions his father about why he's is treated like dirt by Catelyn or pushed aside when every lordly things arise at Winterfell. He just accepts it and blames himself when he gets bitter.
Mindless soldiering at the wall seemed like his best bet as soldiering always is for those who dont like to think for themselves.
But when he joins with the wildlings... all he can see is his duty to the Wall and never to himself.  He can clearly see that the wildlings are no different that the people of the Seven Kingdoms. They've cast aside the stupid laws they have no need for but and have some strange customs but are not the immoral savages theyre painted as.  Ygritte's position alone should have told Jon all he needed to know. She  has freedoms that not only would a lowborn girl not have, but a highborn girl would not have either. And though Jon thinks "stealing wives" is a horrible idea, Ygritte gladly points out thats it better than being given away because at least you know your husband is strong and capable. But he pushes it away because its different from the way he was raised. 

Jon had a wife, a potential group of allies and friends who wouldve been more loyal and trustworthy than most in the seven kingdoms and he refused to get close to them and learn more.  IF he would have tried, he wouldve found that Mance is not only a cool guy, but he wasnt readying an atack, but running. He wouldve realized that more of the wildlings were just as civilized in their own way and friendly, loving, caring, and all those other sappy things as Ygritte.  (Yes I'm aware that Mance could be lying about the running from the others, and wanting to go through the wall peacefully bit. But since his men were mostly NOT an army, I'm gonna believe him)

Instead he betrays them and runs back to the Wall. The Wall that he owes nothing to except a few words. The seven kingdoms that would just as soon forget he exists, even in his own father's home. to the wall, that almost winds up being run by such a noble gentleman as Janos Slynt. (proving that even the wall and the watch arent half as noble as they pretend to be)

He wonders (way too late) if maybe he SHOULD claim Winterfell, but before he can even decide, he is the lucky winner of the LORD COMMANDER sweepstakes. Now he gets to sit atop the cold wall, waiting to die in the first wave of Others, while some of his own men try to stab him in the back. lovely.

And all this in service of a "king" who thinks hes doing the right thing, but is following around an obvious fraud. Her behind the scenes maneuvers have killed thousands of Stannis' men, leaving Westeros open to attack from the east due to the extreme lack of a fleet off the eastern coast, and now left her in position to "light the way" for the others to find Westeros. ( Apparently the others, although harmed by fire, need to follow the warmth to their victims. At least, thats how its always come across to me) 

Basically, I just can't forigve this "good-guy" Jon Snow for leaving Ygritte behind to die. She was one of the only characters with no ulterior motive. She was who she said she was. She was his. And now shes dead. 

Jamie might be cold-hearted to those he should care about but doesnt (like his sons) and downright cruel to those he doesn't know (like Bran) BUT he had always at least tried to do right by those he cares about (like Cersei, Tyrion, and Brienne). This alone makes him more noble than Jon could ever hope to be. 

If Jon doesnt care about himself, why should i???

steve
i needed that ramble...feel free to  yell at me and make me dissect another character


----------



## Starman (Aug 28, 2003)

Warning: There may be spoilers ahead.






Wow, that's a pretty harsh assessment of Jon. He gave his word that he would give his life to the Wall. He struggled with that before when he found out that Ned was dead and that Robb had called the banners and marched to war. His friends persuaded him that he belonged to the Night's Watch and so he did not desert. I think we will see Jon become more and more like Eddard, upholding law and honor and such above other things. He gave his life to the Wall before he met Ygritte, therefore honor and duty required him to go back. 

Had he stayed with Ygritte it would have a) haunted him for the rest of his life and b) (most likely) resulted in dire consequences for the Seven Kingdoms. Although it is foolish to make predictions about character's fates, I think it is safe to say that Jon will play a major part in defeating the Others.

Starman


----------



## EricNoah (Aug 28, 2003)

I just saw at Amazon.com that the new release date is June 2004??  If so, wah!!, If not ... well, in the immortal words of Phil Hartman, "It's not so much funny 'ha-ha' as funny 'boo-hoo that sucks'!"


----------



## stevelabny (Aug 28, 2003)

more spoilers....
*
*
*

[Had he stayed with Ygritte it would have a) haunted him for the rest of his life and b) (most likely) resulted in dire consequences for the Seven Kingdoms. Although it is foolish to make predictions about character's fates, I think it is safe to say that Jon will play a major part in defeating the Others.
Starman[/QUOTE]

Well, I was purposely harsh. Just because the whole point of writing the series through the eyes of multiple POV characters is so that you can see everything from one side, the other side, and the neutral side.
I am AMAZED at how many posts I've read in other places where people HATE  Jaime until he becomes a POV, and then all of a sudden they feel for him. But yet they continue to bash the other non-POV characters.

Every character has done misddeeds. and almost every one of those can rationalize them.  I dont know why so many people can only relate to POV characters. I much prefer most of the non-povs.

But back to Jon...  he swore his words to the wall. how is that any different that his promises/responsibilties to Ygritte. for the record, he also swore words to Mance...so his word is worthless anyway. 

I also stand by my statement that neither the Wall or the Seven Kingdoms are "noble causes" worth keeping your word to. Especially not compared to the free folk and a lover.

I don't accept these concepts of honor and duty that people thinks he has. The most basic forms of honor and duty are to yourself, your family, then your people or relgion or race or whatever.

And I'd rather be living happily with Ygritte until the great battle comes and worrying about be haunted by breaking my word to the wall. 
Then be on the wall, and haunted by Ygritte.

And if the popular theories hold, what will he he do after he sleeps with Dany and finds out shes his aunt? Not that I necessarily subscribe to either of those theories


----------



## Olive (Aug 28, 2003)

Steve,

pretty much none of that means he isn't good. In fact some people would argue that's exactly WHY he is good. And lawful.


----------



## Olive (Aug 28, 2003)

stevelabny said:
			
		

> I don't accept these concepts of honor and duty that people thinks he has. The most basic forms of honor and duty are to yourself, your family, then your people or relgion or race or whatever.




Maybe not, but that just means you have pretty different concepts of good than are commonly accepted in the books.


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 28, 2003)

I don't think spoiler notices are really necessary, this far down in the thread, where casual mentions to major 3rd book events have been made.  However, if you gotten this far without hitting any, skip this post.

Jon Snow is about as a good a character as his 'father'.  To isolate Jon's choices to the moment is to ignore one of the key driving factors of the series: tradition and social convention are important.  And to characters in 'Song', much like actual people of our medieval period, define themselves by their family, their relationships and their place in society.

Jon Snow is a _bastard_.  Think about that for a moment, in the context of the stories culture.  Illegitimate sons are immediately recognized as a product of an unsanctioned union just by their names, and the more powerful the noble, the greater the embarassment.  Their fates are often not pleasant.  Consider the three biggest bastards in the series, namely: Jon Snow, Gendry and the bastard of the Flayed Man's house.  View how each is regarded.  Some bastards are abandoned to the elements (and considering how we never even see female 'illegitimates', this may be even more common for baby girls...brrr).

Jon Snow has been raised by Eddard Stark with the understanding that he is lucky, LUCKY, to have been treated so well.  His wife sees Jon Snow as a constant reminder of an infidelity that he insists on fluanting in her face.  That we now suspect that this is a complete fabrication is irrelevant.  Snow was raised by Stark as a law-abiding man with little regard for himself and no expectation of greater things in life.  Gendry's fate is even quite favorable, as the king watches after him when he can, until things go sour.  The bastard of the Flayed Man's house is considered to be half-mad, evil and bloodthirsty...and that's seen as much as his blood being 'dirty' as anything else.  Luckily for him,  his father appears to consider that as an asset. 

So it is that when Jon goes to the Wall, he swears the oath.  His father demands it of him, and his father is an honorable man.  Make no mistake, Jon loves Ned Stark, regardless of his heritage or even treatment, at times.  He honors his oath because he was raised that way, wants to honor his father's name, believes that it is his place in society and still associates himself as a Stark, even if he knows he can never truly be one (_or so we think_).

Is he happy with Ygritte and among the wildmen?  Yes, after a fashion.  But he wasn't raised with their ways, and their culture is radically different in some ways.  Like the Iron Men, the wildlings value strength over other things, and it's no more of a democracy than Westeros...the only difference is that power is much more mercurial.  Mance isn't a bad person, from what we see, but he doesn't much care about people getting hurt, and if the folk south of the wall get looted, killed or raped, it doesn't bother him much.  He recognizes talented individuals and leaders around him, it's true, but his meritocratic ways are balanced on a knife edge.  Jon is more aware than the average noble about the plight of the people, and realizes that for the most part, the wildlings represent total chaos.  They are bringing violence and pillaging southwards, and they aren't looking to join the system, just smash it down.  And Jon Snow was raised to believe that the system is what works and that his duty is to defend it.

Had Jon robotically followed the path he has without doubt, fear or regret...then he'd be somewhat hard to accept.  But as it is, he has faced hard truths and done what was asked of him, even when it was more difficult and potentially costly than anything he'd ever done before.  He has sacrificed his own personal happiness for the greater good, and always sought to protect those around him.

Jon Snow is *THE* hero of the series, IMHO.  No other character except possibly Bran can lay claim to making as many good, hard choices and staying true to his path.


----------



## Sirius_Black (Aug 28, 2003)

stevelabny posted:



> so, i caught onto this series supposedly being the best thing since sliced bread sometime around june when i got the fifth harry potter book




It is wonderful isn't it.    I can't recall the last time a series has excited me so much and frustrated me so much with having to wait until the next book.



> there is no way to comment on this series without giving SOMETHING away. even reviews I've read since give the first death away like its a gimme. Ugh. Im glad i didnt know




I've very glad I avoided, save for one instance, spoilers on this book.  I really hope when the next book comes out there are no instances of people putting spoilers in the titles of threads.  Laugh, but I've seen it happen on some boards.



> But I really need to question why so many people are claiming Jon Snow is a good guy?




Is there a good guy in Martin's series?    Seriously, I do think Jon Snow is a good, young man and I think some of your comments about him were harsh.

Spoilers Folks, turn back now or I'll reveal how the Matrix series ends..






> He's almost as much of a schmuck as Catelyn is. Could he be any more clueless?




First off, he's 15, 16 maybe now.  Give him some credit there for keeping his head about him while others are losing theirs.....literally sometimes.  I know grown adults that freaked and paniked when facing situations not nearly as horrifying as the ones Jon has faced.  For the most part, I think he's done very well and is not that clueless, but learning and growing.  

I also see you've joined the "I hate Catelyn fan club."    I'll reiterate what I've said about Jon briefly for her.  Consider what she has gone through and seen in front of her very eyes......I think she held up well.  As for the last part of "A Storm of Swords" ...well....she is still holding up, somewhat.   



> He never questions his father about why he's is treated like dirt by Catelyn or pushed aside when every lordly things arise at Winterfell.




He's a bastard.  I don't see how he could question Catelyn's attitude or not being seated at the table when the King/Queen came to visit.  Many noble ladies like Catelyn would see Jon as nothing but an insult.  Moreover, Ned's own refusal to divulge the circumstances surrounding his birth had to only add fuel to Catelyn's fire.  I still don't think it excuses her reaction to Jon when he wanted to say goodbye to Bran.  But, again, Catelyn was a grieving mother and Jon stood his ground and would not leave until he said goodbye.

Of course, Ned's refusal to talk about Jon's origins opens up another door on the fact I don't think he's Ned's bastard, but I digress....



> But when he joins with the wildlings... all he can see is his duty to the Wall and never to himself. He can clearly see that the wildlings are no different that the people of the Seven Kingdoms. They've cast aside the stupid laws they have no need for but and have some strange customs but are not the immoral savages theyre painted as.




He has sworn himself to the Nightwatch.  Jon took orders from a superior to kill said superior and infiltrate this group that was threatening the Kingdom.  What as a soldier was he to do? 

I understand the comments you make about the Wildlings.  They are not the total savages many view them as.  However, they are not the romanticized notion that you seem to be getting at.  They would have brought nothing but chaos and anarchy to the rest of the lands.



> IF he would have tried, he wouldve found that Mance is not only a cool guy, but he wasnt readying an atack, but running. He wouldve realized that more of the wildlings were just as civilized in their own way and friendly, loving, caring, and all those other sappy things as Ygritte




Yes, there were many good people in the Wildlings.  That doesn't mean they should have been allowed to just roam South.  It seems your anger towards Jon comes from the fact you wish he had stayed with the Wildlings and forgotten his oath to the Nightwatch? If he had done so, other readers would be screaming at him and calling him a traitor. 



> Instead he betrays them and runs back to the Wall. The Wall that he owes nothing to except a few words.




A person's word is still their word.  Especially in a setting like Westeros, a man or leader's word is very big.  If you want to look for proof of that, do I have to bring up what caused the events of the Red Wedding?



> The seven kingdoms that would just as soon forget he exists, even in his own father's home. to the wall, that almost winds up being run by such a noble gentleman as Janos Slynt. (proving that even the wall and the watch arent half as noble as they pretend to be)




Yes, many have forgotten Jon Snow.  But, I think one didn't.  I think Robb, with one of his last actions (don't recall the page number) before he got to the aforementioned Wedding, named Jon his heir.  If that's the case, we are in for some interesting times when that comes to light.  And it definitely can since, as the last chapter of "A Storm of Swords" reveals, not all of Robb's men were killed.

You are dead on criticizing, IMHO, the Nightwatch for nearly electing Janos Slynt. They like other organizations, can make horrible mistakes.



> He wonders (way too late) if maybe he SHOULD claim Winterfell, but before he can even decide, he is the lucky winner of the LORD COMMANDER sweepstakes. Now he gets to sit atop the cold wall, waiting to die in the first wave of Others, while some of his own men try to stab him in the back. lovely.




He thinks he's doing the right think by staying there.  Give me a person who believes that any day over someone who knows they are doing things for ulterior motives or is uncertain.



> And all this in service of a "king" who thinks hes doing the right thing, but is following around an obvious fraud.




Ah, Melisandre.  I have gone back and forth on what her motives are.  When she did what she did with Renly, I was so ready to paint her into the Fray corner as I call it now.  However, there is something there.  She honestly seems to believe she's doing the right thing in how she's been advising and helping Stannis.  

I used to think no matter what that Renly's assassination was just horribly wrong and unfair for a King like Stannis to do.  Then I read on another board some people who met George R.R. Martin and brought up Renly's murder and how they disliked it.  To paraphrase his response

"So if you had the chance to kill Hitler with one fell swoop or act, you wouldn't?"

Now, I don't think Renly was Hitler.  But, if Stannis and Melisandre think that by killing him they can save thousands of lives, well......frightening what actions humans will take if they think they are doing it for the greater good.



> Basically, I just can't forigve this "good-guy" Jon Snow for leaving Ygritte behind to die.




Nor do I think he will ever forgive himself.  One of the most touching images I have obtained is a "You know Nothing Jon Snow" drawing right as Ygritte dies. It's sad, but what else was he to do? Take her with him? Impossible. Stay? Wasn't going to happen. So, what was he to do?



> Jamie might be cold-hearted to those he should care about but doesnt (like his sons) and downright cruel to those he doesn't know (like Bran)




Jaime doesn't feel fatherly towards his children with Cersei because he's never been allowed to be a father.  Jeoffrey was to Jaime exactly what Jaime summed it up very explicitly and too graphic for this board. I'm glad Martin did not show this romantic notion of a father watching from the distance and still loving his son.  Now, from the preview chapter I've read and heard about, Jaime does appear to be trying to be somewhat more of a paternal figure to Tommen.  However, it will remain to be seen how far he's allowed to carry any such actions.



> i needed that ramble...feel free to yell at me and make me dissect another character




Please ramble again any time.  I know I disagreed with you on a great deal that you posted.  But, I love to see people passionate about books that they enjoyed.  You definitely showed that and thank you for your post.

Additionally, for those who like Jon Snow     I have come across some new images of him at a Song of Fire and Ice Board.  The drawings show Jon with Arya, I think right after he gives Needle to her and Jon with Mormont (spelling).  If anyone wants the link to the images, just let me know.  The works are very well done IMHO.


----------



## Sirius_Black (Aug 28, 2003)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> I just saw at Amazon.com that the new release date is June 2004??  If so, wah!!, If not ... well, in the immortal words of Phil Hartman, "It's not so much funny 'ha-ha' as funny 'boo-hoo that sucks'!"




To paraphrase what Martin has said I think on his own board and other message boards, "I have no idea where they get their release dates."

Martin has stated he will post on his official site the moment's he's done with the book.  From then, it's four months until it's released into the UK and six months for the US.

Now somebody with an understanding of the publishing world help me make sense of that? Because, it happens with Raymond Feist's works too.  And no one from the UK chiming in with we need the extra two months because we are such poor editors in the US.  I know we read and write gooder English here.


----------



## Sirius_Black (Aug 28, 2003)

stevelabny stated:



> I am AMAZED at how many posts I've read in other places where people HATE Jaime until he becomes a POV, and then all of a sudden they feel for him. But yet they continue to bash the other non-POV characters.




What's the old saying? Don't judge a person until you walk a mile in his/her shoes?  Is that an old proverb? Or did I just paraphrase a bible saying? Trust me, I've heard of it someplace and it definitely seems to apply in Martin's series.

I'm really curious to see if people start feeling towards a new POV we will see in Feast of Crows the same ambigious feelings that some readers now feel towards Jaime.



> Every character has done misddeeds. and almost every one of those can rationalize them. I dont know why so many people can only relate to POV characters. I much prefer most of the non-povs.




I can honestly relate/understand almost every character's actions be they POV or none.  The only action I just had extreme problems with was the action of a family at the Red Wedding.  I understood it, but it just went against some of my own moral codes on how far to take things.



> And if the popular theories hold, what will he he do after he sleeps with Dany and finds out shes his aunt? Not that I necessarily subscribe to either of those theories




Then he, Dany, Cersei and Jaime can all go on Jerry Springer.    Seriously, you definitely seem to have heard some of the theories behind Jon's parentage...I'm curious..what is your take on his origins?


----------



## stevelabny (Aug 28, 2003)

You are now in the Spoiler Zone, I hijacked this thread after finishing the series so far.  My apologies. But you really should went out and bought the books by now. Yes, I mean you.

WizardDru / Sirius Black...   your posts almost convinced me that this all stems from my own peronal problems with most forms of authority , especially the bigger and nonsencial red-tape and overly regulated types of leadership. almost.  

of course, i never felt the need to take jon down a peg until i reaad everyone calling him a hero, so this probably tells you something else too. I guess I'm just saying that if I had a choice of which character to befriend and trust with my life, it wouldnn't be Jon, cuz he'd leave me to die the next time duty came up. (it would be Arya, cuz nobody expects her to be a cold-blooded killer) 



			
				Sirius_Black said:
			
		

> curious..what is your take on his origins?




as I was reading the books, it never dawned on me that Jon wasn't Ned's and I kept looking (and failing) to find clues pointing to his mother.  When Lysa and Littlefinger were talking about their pregnancy, I wondered if it was anyway possible that Jon was the result of that (leading to the book 7 "i am your father" moment between "hero" Jon and chief-dung-stirrer Littlefinger) but quickly decided I've watched too many soap operas. 
When I read the Lyanna-Rhaegar theory a few hours after finishing ASOS I have to admit... its the most likely I think we're gonna find. Holy Ned retains his honor, Catelyn looks like an even bigger idiot, Valiant Rhaegar gets an heir, Jon gets the blood of Ice and Fire , Dany gets a relative, and the Stark kids get another reason to turn on him if they feel like it. 

I'm a bit annoyed I didnt see it myself, but I think where I had problem keeping track of soooo many characters (with the same name even) was not in the present timeline, but with the stories of the history. It was hard to keep them straight, especially in the first two books. These books almost beg me to go back and re-read them right now, but I'll wait a bit. Maybe reread the Belgariad and see if it holds up at all. 

I caught on to the Renly-Loras thing after spendng the first two books saying "of course every one thinks the pretty boys are gay, doesnt mean they are".  Heh.  Almost reverse psychologied my way out of that one. 
I really l ike my Melisandre "lighting the way" theory.  (but only cuz i havent seen it elsewhere) But either way, I dont think she's really a good priestess of a good god trying to save the world. Not no way, not no how.
I really hope that the other new POV is Asha (not Osha). This chick rocked on toast. Would love to see her do what Cersei can't and climb onto the throne in Pyke.
Would also really dig a Loras POV but that ain't bloody likely to happen with so many POVs in King's Landing already.
Sandor vs Jaqen (sp?) is the fight that I'd pay to see. These two are clearly the "Boba Fetts" of this universe.
And while I'm at it... how much like a big-screen epic do these books read? From the birth of the dragons scene at the end of book one, to the battle of Blackwater Bay, and the Red Wedding...WOW.  And it never comes across as pandering to the big screen (as the climax to Order of the Phoenix did) 
Am I the only one who wants all the words to "The Bear and the Maiden Fair"?
Is anyone else wondering how dense Dany is that she counted Jorah's betrayal as TWO? 
and one last thing,
HODOR


----------



## Olive (Aug 29, 2003)

Sirius_Black said:
			
		

> Now somebody with an understanding of the publishing world help me make sense of that? Because, it happens with Raymond Feist's works too.  And no one from the UK chiming in with we need the extra two months because we are such poor editors in the US.  I know we read and write gooder English here.




He will ahve signed deals with different publishers, a UK one and a US one. The UK publisher is first, and therefore gets to release the book first. Or soemthink along those lines. It's business.


----------



## ssampier (Aug 29, 2003)

*Jon Snow Parentage*

I like the Rhaegar and Lyanna. It would explain Lyanna words ringing in Ned's ears during book 1, "Promise me Ned." My only problem is why doesn't Jon look different from the other men? I would assume that the Targaryen (sp?) traits would be recessive.

I think these books would be great on screen, however, much would be lost (the perpectives mostly). I would definately pay just to see Dany's dragons toast the town and capture the Unsullied.


----------



## Sirius_Black (Aug 29, 2003)

stevelabny stated:



> WizardDru / Sirius Black... your posts almost convinced me that this all stems from my own peronal problems with most forms of authority , especially the bigger and nonsencial red-tape and overly regulated types of leadership. almost




Don't even get me started on red-tape and bureaucracy....I can sum up how insane it can be with a quote from one of my fave television shows.

Clerk:  You need to initial here, here, and here sir and place your signature here.

Commander:  Why am I signing here instead of initialing?

Clerk:  It's so we can get a stamp so you don't have to initial anymore. 

 



> it wouldnn't be Jon, cuz he'd leave me to die the next time duty came up. (it would be Arya, cuz nobody expects her to be a cold-blooded killer)




Does the heart warm a bit to Jon knowning how strongly Arya feels towards him?  I agree no one would think her a killer, but it was hinted at in the start of "Game of Thrones" with a comment from Jon that's looking like it might be one of Martin's prophetic moments.  I think it went something along the lines of Jon teasing Arya by stating:

"They will find you come spring frozen dead with your needle still in your hand."

Or something close to that.....of course that can hint at many possibilities.  I would love to see Arya trained by, whatever group that is she's headed off to, and come back to pick off Freys one at a time.  In fact, I'd pay money to see that filmed so it could be shown every Christmas right after "It's a Wonderful Life."

You are so dead on stevelabny about these books needing to be reread.  I'm deciding when to do it myself.  I think one can reread them just looking for prophecies or hints of prophecies like the statement mentioned above.



> I caught on to the Renly-Loras thing




That makes one of us. <Shrug> I just never saw it til someone mentioned it on a thread.  But you are talking to someone who thought the Village People were just colorful guys who liked to dress up when they sang.  Of course I was 9 when I saw them and thought that. Rainbow Guard. <sigh> God, I can be dense about some things.   



> I really hope that the other new POV is Asha (not Osha). This chick rocked on toast




I'll take Asha.  My money is on Brienne though.  From all indications, it appears it will be another lady.


----------



## Sirius_Black (Aug 29, 2003)

Olive said:
			
		

> He will ahve signed deals with different publishers, a UK one and a US one. The UK publisher is first, and therefore gets to release the book first. Or soemthink along those lines. It's business.




Okay that makes sense.  Thank you.  I wonder why some authors let UK publisher release the book first? Regardless, it just means Amazon UK will be getting my order.  Yes, I am that impatient.


----------



## ASH (Aug 29, 2003)

Hello Everyone, 
Let me just state a few things. 
As far as re-reading goes, I just restarted the first book. Re-Reading it has helped me notice things that I had not the first time.  I figure I will read slowly, hoping the next book will come out not too long after I have re-read all 3. 
These are the best books I have read in a long time. If you have not read them you really should. 

The Good debate
 Jon Snow is the definition of good.  Jon has the honor and duty of a DnD Paladin. The whole reason he got involved with the wildlings is because of the order by his commander. His whole association with Yigrette was to not raise any suspision. Yes he may have developed feelings for her but his first obligation was to the wall, if he would have done anything other than what he did he would have proven his honor and duty to be worthless. Lets not forget that Jon, regaurdless of who the real parents may be, was raised by Eddard, the man who left Bran, his own son, in a coma, and crippled at Winterfell because of duty.  
Alot of the characters have good and evil tendancys.  I really can not tell which side is good or evil. The others are evil. What about Dany and her dragons, I dont think they are evil. 
Then you have Melisandre.....I  dont know if her and her religion are good or not.  It sounds evil because of what happend with Renly.  But, Renly was not what I would call good.


----------



## jdavis (Aug 30, 2003)

Well lets see here. I guess we have thrown the spoiler tag to the wind. 

Caitlin Stark: reminds me of my step mother too much for me to think of her as a good character. I know she gets a lot of flack and I don't like her either but she would have to be considered a good character, well I don't know what to consider her now that she is dead but still hanging around (yea she's supposed to be brought back to life but bloated corpses with slit throats don't return to meaningful normal lives, she's some kind of freaky thing with no purpose but revenge now).

Jon Snow: Well all the things that were mentioned with the wildlings that he turned his back on is what makes me think of him as the most heroic person in the book, he sacrificed everything for his honor and to do what was right. Lets face it if the wall came down then it's all over, the only reason Manse was heading south was to escape the Others, he was desperate enough to destroy the wall to escape them, he wasn't invading he was fleeing. There was no living happy with the wildlings, there was no getting a house with a girl, it was a choice of keeping the wall intact to save the world or selfishly being the reason that everyone in the Kingdom would die. Yes it wasn't a happy thing for him at all but he did what was right, to do any action but save the wall doomed everybody on the continent to death from the Others. Yes nobody knows what they are or what is going on but as readers we have seen what they can do (and so had Jon Snow). any action but keeping the wall intact and closed to the North would be letting this evil cross to the south.

Wildlings: The wildling system was different than the kingdom system but any system where rule is that the strong take what they want from the weak and can rape and kill as they will is not a working system at all. No they were not complete savages but they were not Robin Hood types either, they took from the poor and the weak and they killed anyone who got in their way, lets not inflate them to being ok people. A lot of people romanticize pirates and I'm sure there were pirates who were real likable guys, but they were still murders and rapist and outlaws with no concern for anybody but themselves.

Rhaegar and Lyanna: should we put odds on just who really is Jon Snow's parents? What makes the Rhaegar and Lyanna theory good is that it fits with Ned keeping his mouth shut (naming him a Targaryen would be a death sentence for Jon Snow). 

Jamie: Oh lets not mince words he is a "grade A" jerk. Why his POV story is getting attention and is one of the most interesting is that he realizes what kind of person he really is and is starting to see himself in a different light.

Melisandre: outright evil, or religious fanatic? does it really matter, she does evil things (by the truckload), that's good enough for me.

Renly: Well sometimes you just got to murder your younger brother who is trying to steal your rightful throne, eh it happens.

New POV: Brienne or Asha (I'd go with Asha as Brienne will probably stay attached to Jamie's POV, and there is no POV character on Pyke.)

Release Date: Good grief it's not even worth thinking about right now, any date that isn't right now is just way to far away.

Casterly Rock's heir: Kevan Lannister or one of his sons (controlled by Cersei) would be my best guess.


----------



## Sirius_Black (Aug 30, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> New POV: Brienne or Asha (I'd go with Asha as Brienne will probably stay attached to Jamie's POV, and there is no POV character on Pyke.)




I thought Brienne parted from Jamie at the conclusion of "Storm of Swords," so she could go look for Sansa?


----------



## jdavis (Aug 30, 2003)

Yea she did but I figure she will end up back around Jamie eventually.


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 31, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> A lot of people romanticize pirates and I'm sure there were pirates who were real likable guys, but they were still murders and rapist and outlaws with no concern for anybody but themselves.




Well, having just spent some time reading up about Pirates, I can tell you that they were both more and less than the common romantic image.  It depends on the nation, location and year in question.  Pirates were very egalitarian...their leader was chosen as the most capable, similar to Mance, who isn't necessarily the strongest, overall.  Further, once they had set out on a journey, a contract was signed that all crew members abided by.  There were exceptions, but as often as not, they were followed.

Pirates of the 17th century were vicious killers as often as not, while Pirates of the 18th century rarely hurt anyone.  Neither group tended to destroy their targets with cannon shot, since the ships were often the most valuable part of the endeavour, hence the reason they were called 'prizes'.

That doesn't even include the fact that many so-called pirates were, in fact, privateers (ala Sir Francis Drake) who were politically motivated and intended to hamper ships of foreign nations and international commerce.


Which is probably more than you wanted to know.


----------



## Olive (Sep 1, 2003)

Sirius_Black said:
			
		

> I'll take Asha.  My money is on Brienne though.  From all indications, it appears it will be another lady.




I'm at work so I can't check, but the preview from Dragon was an Asha POV wasn't it? Or am I mad?


----------



## Wombat (Sep 1, 2003)

In many ways I think Martin's major angle is to make most of the characters and families as objectionable as possible so that he appears to be a "different author".

In then end, I have gotten bored with his attempts.

But then again, since he is more or less ripping off the to's and fro's of the Wars of the Roses (and then adding in some apologetic magic), I suppose it is appropriate for all involved to be nasty, self-involved, and generally unlikeable.

Then he can bring in his not-quite-Tudors at the end who will re-write all of history and be none too loveable themselves...

I gave up reading after the second book; I'd be as likely to be dragged back to these books as to the _Thomas Covenant_ novels.

**sigh**

I love what passes for literature sometimes...


----------



## Sirius_Black (Sep 1, 2003)

Olive said:
			
		

> I'm at work so I can't check, but the preview from Dragon was an Asha POV wasn't it? Or am I mad?




I'm curious if that's not part of the extended prologue that has been written and rewritten.  You definitely do see Asha's POV in the preview.  But, you also see her uncle who loves to hold people under water.  In fact, more of the Dragon preview seemed to show his POV than Asha's.  Regardless, it should be interesting.  I like Asha.


----------



## Rhialto (Sep 2, 2003)

Wombat said:
			
		

> In many ways I think Martin's major angle is to make most of the characters and families as objectionable as possible so that he appears to be a "different author".
> 
> In then end, I have gotten bored with his attempts.
> 
> ...





You see, my problem with this is that you're: 

a) saying that if you find something unpleasant, it can't be any good.  (I don't find the _Marat/Sade_ very pleasant.  But I'm the first to admit that it _is_ very good.)

b) blatantly insulting the taste, (and indeed making other insinuations) about the people who DO like the books.

c) pulling out the "ripping off history" factor which is one of the biggest straw men I've ever seen--authors take their cues from history all the time, and saying that Martin is just "ripping off" the War of the Roses is ignoring the fact that--well, the War of the Roses, and The Song of Ice and Fire only resemble each other in the most general of ways...


----------



## WizarDru (Sep 2, 2003)

Wombat said:
			
		

> In many ways I think Martin's major angle is to make most of the characters and families as objectionable as possible so that he appears to be a "different author".
> 
> In then end, I have gotten bored with his attempts.




Well, I beg to differ, but that's a matter of taste.  You feel that he's merely including certain elements merely to tittlate or offend, and thus be considered 'edgy' (if I understand you correctly).  Your welcome to your own opinion, but I think you haven't read much of Martin's work in the past, if you think that's the case.  You can see many of the same inter-personal relationships in his prior work, including the Wild Cards stories he wrote, many over 15 years old at this point.  

I certainly don't find everyone involved to be utterly unlikeable, as you do.  In point of fact, I find many folks who I do like.  This thread is, in fact, dedicated to folks discussing the heroes of the story.  I find many of Martin's characters like many folks I know...real, but flawed.



> I love what passes for literature sometimes...




According to the New American Dictionary, literarture is defined as "_Imaginative or creative writing, especially of recognized artistic value."  _You may not enjoy it, and that's a valid opinion to hold...but that doesn't mean that it isn't literature.  Perhaps you are using the term differently.  I don't particularly rate "_The Devil wears Prada" _or _"The Russia House_" as *Great Literature*, either, which is what I'm guessing you mean.  To each his own.


----------



## RyanL (Sep 2, 2003)

As much as I like Brienne, I'll be disappointed if she's the new POV.  I just don't see her as having things in her head that I'm dying to know.

I was really hoping for Howland Reed or Barristan Selmy, since they're both characters that almost certainly have some interesting secrets bouncing around in their noggins.

-Ryan


----------



## KnowTheToe (Sep 2, 2003)

RyanL said:
			
		

> As much as I like Brienne, I'll be disappointed if she's the new POV.  I just don't see her as having things in her head that I'm dying to know.
> 
> I was really hoping for Howland Reed or Barristan Selmy, since they're both characters that almost certainly have some interesting secrets bouncing around in their noggins.
> 
> -Ryan




I agree whole heartedly, especially with the no Brienne POV.  She has played her part, which was to bring/start change within Jaime and to bring that change to the readers attention. I would hope she stays as a support character.


----------



## jdavis (Sep 2, 2003)

Wombat said:
			
		

> In many ways I think Martin's major angle is to make most of the characters and families as objectionable as possible so that he appears to be a "different author".
> 
> In then end, I have gotten bored with his attempts.
> 
> ...



Heh? so what does this have to do wtih the topic? Oh it sounds like you are trying to be all cool and knowledgeable and that's fine but how is he trying to be a different author and from whom is he trying to be different? I am not sure I get your logic there, he's trying to write books the way he writes them, is he trying to be different from himself? Is he trying to be different from other authors? Is he trying to be different from "the War of the Roses"? Was he supposed to be the same as all the other authors out there? Was he just supposed to copy Tolkien like the vast majority of fantasy authors do? I'm just not sure what your point was supposed to be? Different than who?

You know I just love what passes for literature sometimes too........


----------



## jdavis (Sep 2, 2003)

KnowTheToe said:
			
		

> I agree whole heartedly, especially with the no Brienne POV. She has played her part, which was to bring/start change within Jaime and to bring that change to the readers attention. I would hope she stays as a support character.



I would like it to be Asha as there is no POV from the Iron Islands yet there is obviously stuff going on there. I like Brienne as a character but she is just a support character for other more important characters (first Caitlyn and now Jamie)I don't see a need for her to be any more than that, lets face it she's just not that interesting in and of herself, she can move on to be a support character for Sansa (And I would bet eventually she will end up back as part of Jamie's POV).


----------



## RyanL (Sep 3, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> I would like it to be Asha as there is no POV from the Iron Islands yet there is obviously stuff going on there. I like Brienne as a character but she is just a support character for other more important characters (first Caitlyn and now Jamie)I don't see a need for her to be any more than that, lets face it she's just not that interesting in and of herself, she can move on to be a support character for Sansa (And I would bet eventually she will end up back as part of Jamie's POV).




Well, ask and you shall receive.  According to the interview that's linked in the other thread, there will be several new POV characters and it looks like one of them might be Asha.

-Ryan


----------



## Olive (Sep 3, 2003)

RyanL said:
			
		

> Well, ask and you shall receive.  According to the interview that's linked in the other thread, there will be several new POV characters and it looks like one of them might be Asha.
> 
> -Ryan




The other thread? Care to link? Or better yet, link the interview here?


----------



## RyanL (Sep 3, 2003)

Olive said:
			
		

> The other thread? Care to link? Or better yet, link the interview here?




I just can't get away with being lazy, can I?  

Here's the thread:
http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=62577

And here's the interview:
http://www.gamepro.com/entertainment/books_comics/books/features/30602.shtml

Credit to Krug for posting it.

-Ryan


----------



## tetsujin28 (Sep 6, 2003)

Wippit Guud said:
			
		

> I guess it's about the books, so not really RPG-related, but there's an RPG coming out based on it. So, after reading all three books, and throwing book 3 across the room at one point (those who have read it know which point), I have a question which has been nagging me...
> 
> 
> Who's the "good guys"?



No one. And it's never going to end. And any characters you are interested in will be killed off.


----------



## Rhialto (Sep 6, 2003)

Farganger said:
			
		

> A lot of clumsy exposition so you'd know the eunuchs would give their entire loyalty to their "owner", yet the merchant-trainers were somehow entirely oblivious to how that wonderful selling-point of their product could be easily turned against them.
> 
> A true "Doh!" moment and (happily) uncharacteristic of the author.




Ahhh, but most people who are buying the Unsullied are going to want to buy _more_ Unsullied, and so they aren't going be killing the goose that lays the pointy-helmeted eggs.


----------

